Turkey’s Wars By Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen

Turkish air and ground forces are attacking northern Syria. The target is not ISIS – the presumed threat to Turkish interests – but rather Kurdish forces that have borne the brunt of anti-ISIS ground fighting and are key to the battle for Mosul in Iraq.

Since the July aborted coup in Ankara, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been making internal war against what it calls the “Gülenist threat,” followers of Turkish cleric Fetullah Gülen, who Erdoğan believes engineered the coup. Tens of thousands of Turks have been arrested, dismissed from their jobs, and otherwise harassed. Turkey has also been conducting an external war – either overtly or by proxy – to control sensitive areas of Iraq and Syria and short-circuit any possibility of Kurdish independence or large-scale autonomy emerging from the wreckage of wars in both those countries.

After shelling Kurdish positions just north of Aleppo, the Turkish Air Force bombed headquarters, ammunition dumps, and shelters. Turkish sources claimed 200 dead; Kurdish sources said 10 people were killed. They were PKK, said the Turks – members of the Peoples Workers Party, which has carried out operations inside Turkey for decades. The People’s Protection Units (YPG), however, said in a statement that the airstrikes targeted fighters from the YPG-affiliated Jaish al-Thuwar (Revolutionary Front), which was advancing against ISIS in the city of Ifrin.

Turkey makes little distinction among Kurdish groups. The U.S. takes a different tack, agreeing that the PKK is a terrorist organization but arming and training the YPG and finding it the most effective force on the ground fighting ISIS. A U.S. official says the particular Kurds targeted this time were not among those we have trained, so there were no Americans in the area of Turkish fire. This time. But the possibility of direct U.S.-Turkish confrontation is rising daily.

There has been little mention of Turkey’s wars in the American press, aided by the fact that militias, rebel armies, terrorist groups, and sub-state actors sound like alphabet soup: FSA, PKK, PYD, YPG, JAN, ISIS, AQI, and more fight in Syria and Iraq. Even when they have names, Americans are likely to find themselves confused. How does Jaish al-Thuwar relate to the Khalid ibn al-Walid Brigade, or the Free Syrian Army or the Authenticity and Development Group, the Sun Battalion, the Al-Qousi Brigade, or the Truthful Promise Brigade?

Confusion is serving Turkey well.

A Non-Politically Correct Bookshelf ****

Please indulge me while I “toot” my horn. Over the years I have produced a dozen or so novels that touch on current events and even anticipate them. They are about Islam, cultural and political corruption, and frauds perpetrated on the citizens and the country by our self-appointed elite. Here are synopses of their plots. They are all available as printed books, on Kindle, and also as Audible versions.

I begin with the earliest series I had finished, self-published on Amazon, because no mainstream publisher would touch it. It stars Merritt Fury, an American entrepreneur and maverick capitalist who invariably runs afoul of the political and financial establishments in America and abroad. The first title, Whisper the Guns, is set in Hong Kong. But the most relevantly violent one is the second title, We Three Kings, in which Fury is targeted for death by a Saudi sheik with the approving nod of our State Department. Sound familiar? The sheik gets his comeuppance by story’s end, with Fury holding the sheik’s feet and other body parts to the fire. I boldly adopted the Saudi royal emblem for the cover. No outrage from the Riyadh medievalists yet.

Another series, published by Perfect Crime Books in Baltimore, Maryland features a detective hero, Chess Hanrahan, who specializes in solving moral paradoxes. In Presence of Mind Hanrahan encounters and engages in a contest of wits with two denizens of the State Department, who subscribe to the policy of “cognitive dissonance,” in order to put across a disastrous “peace” treaty with the Soviet Union. Wishing hard enough for a preferred result will make it so. Hanrahan jolts the celebrated denizens back to reality in the worst possible ways. In With Distinction, he investigates a murder in the philosophy department of a Midwest university (based on Michigan State University), and uncovers a snake pit of plots to grant illiteracy and ignorance the highest academic honors, and to rid the department of a reason-oriented philosophy professor. Sound familiar?

The Hanrahan and Fury novels were composed and finished in the mid-1980s. Their plots were extrapolations of the political and cultural conditions of the time. I had no sense then that things would grow much worse. Political correctness in speech and written forms was not yet a ubiquitous term of derogation of enforced conformity – although Marxists and feminists were hard at work to impose PC, often successfully – while such concepts as “safe places,” “white privilege,” and “trigger warnings” would have caused even the leftist professors in academia to guffaw in laughter.

The Mosul Offensive’s Many Unknowns By:Srdja Trifkovic |

The much-heralded offensive against ISIS in Mosul by the Iraqi army, Kurdish Peshmerga and Shiite militias may succeed in capturing Iraq’s second largest city. It is unlikely to result in the destruction of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity, however. It is even less likely to lead to the establishment of stable and permanent government control over Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, which has Mosul at its northern tip.

The importance of Mosul is clear. It is a major population center of over two million (before the war) and the pivot that intersects the east-west line of communication from the Syrian border to the north-south axis that leads to Baghdad, 250 miles to the south. The first question, which has not been adequately considered in mainstream media reports, concerns the battle readiness of government forces. In June 2014 the Iraqi army collapsed and fled without a fight when ISIS attacked Mosul, although it was vastly superior to the attackers in numbers and equipment. The high command in Baghdad was unable to maintain any semblance of command and control, even though the U.S. had spent some 20 billion dollars on arming, training and equipping it in preceding years. Its mostly Shiite soldiers were uninterested in fighting for Sunni-majority areas which they did not regard as their own. It was unable to develop any sense of loyalty or common purpose among its non-Shia recruits, who deserted en masse.

It is unclear what if anything has changed over the past two years and four months to shift the balance. The personnel, equipment, training and doctrine are still largely the same. Early signs were not encouraging. On the first day of the current offensive it took the Iraqi army six hours of fierce combat to push back a platoon-sized IS unit from Ibrahim Khalil, a village 20 miles south of Mosul. The jihadists came back and retook the village during the night: “No reinforcements showed up so when they attacked we had to retreat from the five villages we captured on Tuesday. We ended up right back where we started,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Mohammed Hadi. “We took back three today but we can’t advance further towards Mosul until the others arrive.” This episode bodes ill for the future of a complex operation which requires precise planning and coordination. Subsequent army claims of battlefield successes, such as the taking of the city of Bartella on October 21, may reflect the unwillingness of ISIS to give battle in open plains south of the city where its fighters would be at an obvious disadvantage.

1,000 Clinton-Petraeus emails missing from records sent to State, FBI files show By Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne

Roughly 1,000 emails between Hillary Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus were thought to be missing from the 30,000 emails provided by Clinton’s team to the State Department in December 2014, according to the newly released FBI investigative files.

Additional documents obtained through a federal lawsuit by Judicial Watch show Clinton had directed Petraeus to send her emails at her personal address, which was used for all government work during her tenure as secretary of state.

In a heavily redacted FBI interview summary from Aug. 17, 2015, a State Department employee from the Office of Information and Programs and Services (IPS), which handles Freedom of Information Act requests, discussed how Petraeus’ records apparently were not among the work-related emails provided by the former secretary’s team.

“CENTCOM records shows approximately 1,000 work-related emails between Clinton’s personal email and General David PETRAEUS, former Commander of CENTCOM and former Director of the CIA,” said the employee, whose name is redacted, according to the summary. “Most of those 1,000 emails were not believed to be included in the 30,000 emails that IPS was reviewing. Out of the 30,000 emails, IPS only had a few emails from or related to PETRAEUS as well as a few related to Leon PANETTA, former Secretary of Defense.”

The same employee reported on a January 2015 status briefing about the emails given by State Department senior official Patrick Kennedy who is now at the center of “quid pro quo” allegations – that he offered to help the FBI get more slots for agencies overseas in exchange for downgrading an email to unclassified. The FBI and State now emphasize the deal never happened.

“KENNEDY and [redacted] were each provided with two binders full of email examples of documents [redacted] believed were possibly classified. [Redacted] returned her binders to [redacted] but KENNEDY decided to keep his binders following the brief. [Redacted] was not aware of anyone in IPS or at STATE who received the rules or parameters the CLINTON team and/or WILLIAMS & Connolly used to segregate Clinton’s personal and office work emails.”

As previously reported by Fox News, there are still two missing “bankers boxes” of emails that cannot be accounted for by Hillary Clinton’s legal team Williams & Connolly.

Pentagon Officials Furious After Clinton Announces US Response Time for Nuclear Launch During Debate

Following Wednesday’s presidential debate Pentagon officials found themselves completely dumbfounded as to why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would feel it appropriate to announce U.S. Special Access Program intel on national television.

According to sources within the Department of Defense speaking under anonymity, Clinton likely violated at least two Dept. of Defense SAP protocols during the debate by announcing on live television the United States Government’s response time for a nuclear launch.

In case you missed it:
Hillary Divulges Nuclear Intelligence from True Pundit on Vimeo.

“But here’s the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There’s about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so.” –Hillary Clinton

To the dismay of intelligence officials, the fact that this top secret information is now publicly known not only proves that Clinton is “unfit to be commander-in-chief,” but it also poses a direct threat to national security.

One high ranking intelligence official explained that any time frame calculated pertaining to a US nuclear launch “would have merely been an educated hypothesis, absent leaked documents and there have been no such breaches” prior to Clinton’s admission Wednesday.

Red Alert! Protestant Couple “Security Threat” to Turkey! by Burak Bekdil

The Islamophobia that Erdogan never ceases to claim exists in the Western world may or may not be a real social malady, but non-Muslimphobia in Turkey is increasingly a contagious malady.

“Traitors! We’ll bomb your church!” — The words of Mehmet Ali Eren, suspected al-Qaeda member, as he attacked Protestant Pastor Andrew Craig Brunson in Izmir, Turkey.

Erdogan should explain why he persistently demands more and more tolerance for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, including the building of mosques in every capital, while his government can deport Pastor Brunson and his wife on the spurious grounds that they pose a security threat to his country. The police explained that they were being expelled on grounds of posing a security threat because they had carried out “missionary activity and received money from sources abroad.”

Over the past several years Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has pressured Greece to construct a mosque in Athens. He has criticized the country which boasts the only European capital without a mosque. He does not hide his passion for mosques worldwide.

In 2015 Erdogan proposed the construction of a mosque in secular, Communist-ruled Cuba. Also in 2015, he went to Moscow for the inauguration of the biggest mosque in the Russian capital.

Earlier this year Erdogan pleasantly announced his presence at the opening of the biggest mosque in Amsterdam. The mosque is called “Hagia Sophia,” named after a Greek Orthodox Christian basilica built in 537 AD in Constantinople, reflecting the typical Muslim extremist obsession with “conquest.” Recently Erdogan has also been eyeing Iraq.

As recently as April, Erdogan attended the opening ceremony of a culture center and mosque in Maryland, United States. The complex, the only one in the United States to feature two minarets, was constructed in the style of 16th century Ottoman architecture, with a central dome, half domes and cupolas, echoing Istanbul’s Suleymaniye Mosque. At the ceremony, Erdogan said: “Unfortunately, we are going through a rough time all around the world. Intolerance towards Muslims is on the rise not only here in the United States but also around the globe.” Intolerance toward Muslims?

Russian Warships Sail Through English Channel Display of naval might comes as EU leaders renew calls on Russia to stop attacks on Aleppo By Nicholas Winning

LONDON—A fleet of Russian warships, including the country’s sole aircraft carrier, sailed through the English Channel on Friday in a very public display of naval might after European leaders again called on Moscow to stop its attacks on Aleppo, Syria.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense said two Royal navy ships, the frigate HMS Richmond and destroyer HMS Duncan, were escorting the Russian ships as they sailed in international waters down the U.K.’s eastern seaboard. The Russian ships, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and nuclear powered Kirov Class battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy, are thought to be heading for the Mediterranean Sea.

European Union leaders at a two-day summit in Brussels held off on threatening Russia with sanctions for supporting the Assad regime’s siege of Aleppo following objections from Italy. Instead, EU leaders said all options remained on the table if the bombing continues.

Jens Stoltenberg, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary-general, said Thursday he was concerned about the deployment of a Russian aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean possibly taking part in strikes on Aleppo. Mr. Stoltenberg said the alliance’s navies would monitor the Russian ships as they travel to the Mediterranean.

U.K. Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said Thursday at a defense conference in London that the Russian deployment was, “clearly designed to test the alliance,” adding that the ships would be “marked every step of the way” by British and NATO ships.

U.S. Troops in Iraq Don Gas Masks as Islamic State Sets Fire to Industrial Waste Noxious smoke from burning sulfur at an industrial area affects U.S. base By Ben Kesling and Gordon Lubold

Islamic State militants set fire to sulfur stocks outside an industrial plant south of Mosul earlier this week, the U.S. military confirmed Saturday, creating a plume of noxious smoke that has drifted over nearby towns and a U.S. military base, forcing some troops to put on gas masks as a precaution.

Militants set the residue alight at the Mishraq industrial plant as a tactical measure to slow Iraqi military advances in the offensive to recapture Mosul, adding to oil-well fires started weeks ago and still burning in Qayara. The combination is now affecting the nearby U.S. base as shifting winds blow the smoke toward the troops.

“Daesh ignited toxic sulfur residue stored at al-Mishraq (south of Mosul) in an attempt to disrupt the ISF advance,” Col. John Dorrian, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, said in a statement, using another name for Islamic State. He added that the military is now assessing the risk to U.S. troops because of the multiple fires.

It is unclear whether officers or senior troops ordered soldiers to put on the masks or if the troops chose to do so themselves as a precaution.

MY SAY: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER EXPLAINS WHY HE LOATHES CLINTON BUT JUST CAN’ VOTE FOR TRUMP….OH PULEEZ!

My Vote, Explained Because she’s a dishonest, soulless, big-state progressive By Charles Krauthammer http://www.nationalreview.com/node/441305/print

“Blah, blah, blah….. I didn’t need the Wiki files to oppose Hillary Clinton. As a conservative, I have long disagreed with her worldview and the policies that flow from it. As for character, I have watched her long enough to find her deeply flawed, to the point of unfitness. But for those heretofore unpersuaded, the recent disclosures should close the case.

A case so strong that, against any of a dozen possible GOP candidates, voting for her opponent would be a no-brainer. Against Donald Trump, however, it’s a dilemma. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. But, as I’ve explained in these columns, I could never vote for Donald Trump.”

Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn….not voting for Trump IS VOTING FOR HILLARY…..RSK

Hillary Clinton’s Dishonesty Was on Display in Final Debate On guns, abortion, and the budget By David Harsanyi

The third and mercifully final presidential debate also turned out to be the most conventional. Fox News’s Chris Wallace did a solid job pressing the candidates on issues in Las Vegas, giving them space to spar but not enough space to get out of control.

Of course, not even a strong moderator will deter candidates from misleading, lying, and prevaricating all night. And since we know Trump’s performance will be comprehensively fact-checked by the entire media, let’s talk about three of Clinton’s biggest whoppers.

First, was there anything more ridiculous in the debate than Clinton’s answer on guns? When pressed by Wallace to explain her opposition to the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, Clinton went through a checklist of platitudes before saying, “You mentioned the Heller decision, and what I was saying that you reference, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was protect toddlers from guns.”

Clinton brought up “toddlers” a few more times because little children are mostly adorable and no one wants to see them shot. The thing is, the Heller case revolved around Richard Heller, a then-66-year-old police officer in Washington, D.C., who was allowed to carry a gun in a federal office building to protect politicians and strangers but not in his home to protect himself, his family, or his property. Also of note, the Heller decision had nothing to do with toddlers or saving toddlers’ lives or toddler gun safety or toddlers shooting at one another. As my colleague Sean Davis has pointed out, the word “toddler” doesn’t appear anywhere in either the majority or dissenting opinions in the case.

After she was done fearmongering, Clinton went on to say: “There’s no doubt that I respect the Second Amendment, that I also believe there’s an individual right to bear arms.”

No, she does not. Heller ended the “total ban on handguns” in Washington, D.C. — which was the Supreme Court’s description of the gun-control laws in the district. It codified the Second Amendment as an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Clinton admits she supports an effective ban on all handguns (for the toddlers), which is what instigated Heller. What application of the decision does she oppose, if not the individual’s right to own a gun?

Let’s move on to the only constitutional “right” Clinton believes shouldn’t have any constraints: abortion. Last night, Clinton reiterated her support for legal abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire pregnancy. Although Clinton is free to hold this position, she’s not free to make stuff up.

For starters, the idea that Clinton — the woman who, in 2008, argued that President Obama’s health-care plans were too modest — wants to keep government out of health-care decisions is worthy of 8,000 Pinocchios. And while one hopes that those who are anti-abortion remain sensitive to the heartbreaking, painful decisions women make, Clinton’s insinuation that most late-term abortions are to save the life of the mother is not backed up by evidence. Dr. LeRoy Carhart, nationally known for performing late-term abortions, was taped admitting that he often performs elective late-term abortions at 26 weeks “or more.” Dr. Martin Haskell, the pioneer of partial-birth abortion, was once taped acknowledging that 80 percent of partial-birth abortions are “purely elective.”