(Video) U.S. and U.K. Supported Syrian Terrorists Bind And Shoot 7 Of Assad’s Soldiers

Stripped, bound and shot in the head: Horrifying fate of Assad’s soldiers executed on camera by Syrian rebels

  • Video smuggled out of Syria by former rebel horrified by brutality of attack
  • Abdul Samad Issa reads passage and says ‘we will take revenge’
  • Issa, known as ‘the uncle’, fires first bullet at prisoner’s head
  • Bodies are dumped in a well while one gunman smiles at camera

By Tara Brady

PUBLISHED: 20:02, 5 September 2013

Video footage has emerged which shows the moment seven of President Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian soldiers are executed on camera by rebels fighting to overthrow the regime.

The soldiers are stripped, bound and pushed to the ground where a number of rebels stand over them pointing guns at their bodies. Some bear vicious injuries on their backs and arms.

Just before they are killed, the ring-leader Abdul Samad Issa – known as ‘The Uncle’, recites a poem before he fires the first bullet.

Horrific: The soldiers are stripped, bound and pushed to the ground where a number of rebels stand over them pointing guns at their bodies before they are shot

Horrific: The soldiers are stripped, bound and pushed to the ground where a number of rebels stand over them pointing guns at their bodies before they are shot

‘For fifty years, they are companions to corruption’, he says. ‘We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.’

The horrific scene filmed in April was documented in a video smuggled out of Syria only a few days ago by a former rebel who says he had become horrified by the brutality of the tactics his one-time comrades are using. He gave the footage to The New York Times.

It has emerged as G20 leaders meet in Russia to debate the dire situation in the war-torn country and will add fuel to the view that the rest of the world cannot actively support rebels who are carrying out atrocities equally as brutal as the troops deployed by President Assad.

Issa is known as ‘the uncle’ because two of his deputies are his nephews.

His former aide, who had the copy of the footage, said the captured soldiers’ allegedly had videos of them raping Syrian civilians and looting which led to the execution.

Issa requested the execution be filmed so he could show it to donors to help secure more funding.

At the end of the footage, the bodies of the soldiers are dumped in a well while one of the gunmen
looks into the camera and smiles.

Brutal: The bodies of the soldiers are dumped in a well after they are shot dead by the rebels

Brutal: The bodies of the soldiers are dumped in a well after they are shot dead by the rebels

It is believed Issa has the support of around 300 fighters willing to carry out the executions of
captured soldiers.

The 37-year-old, a trader and livestock herder before the war, formed the group at the start of the uprising using his own money to buy weapons and pay for his own soldiers’ expenses.

His father was opposed to President Hafez al-Assad, the father of Syria’s current president, but in 1982, he disappeared.

Issa believes he was killed during a 27-day government crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood which sparked his hatred of the government.

The video has emerged as G20 leaders meet in Russia to debate the situation in Syria

The video has emerged as G20 leaders meet in Russia to debate the situation in Syria

Last year, it is believed he was running a training camp in Turkey and gathering weapons, according to the New York Times.

The footage will no doubt cause problems for the U.S. which is considering attacking Syrian forces
over its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of the issue of radicalised rebels which he said made up 15 to 20 per cent of the opposition.

Most of the concerns are centred around two groups which are known to have ties with Al Qaeda –
the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Earlier this year, another sickening video showed a rebel leader eating the heart of a captured soldier.

Earlier this year another sickening video showed a rebel leader eating the heart of a captured soldier

Earlier this year another sickening video showed a rebel leader eating the heart of a captured soldier

The clip seems to show a man, believed to be the well-known founder of Homs’ Farouq Brigade Abu Sakkar, standing over the uniformed corpse in a ditch while ranting against President Bashar al Assad.

Using a knife, the man hacked open the torso and removed two organs before holding them up to the camera and declaring: ‘I swear to God we will eat your hearts and your livers, you soldiers of Bashar the dog.’

He then raised one to his mouth and took a bite.

(Video) Muslim ‘Modesty’ in Pakistan puts a brothel right next to the local Mosque

This report comes from Pakistan TV by journalist Ayesha Nasir.

The paradox of Nargis is the paradox of Islamic Pakistan’s Lahore. Nargis prays to Allah, but commits a ‘sin’ every night as a prostitute in order to survive and feed her children. Incidentally, the brothel is also right next to the local mosque… guess you take your business where the clients are!

Putin Puts Obama in Hot Seat: ‘What Will You Do If Rebels Are Ones Using Chemical Weapons?’

By on September 4, 2013

Russian President Vladimir Putin has a strange way of speaking straightforwardly, without all the artificial and “morally superior” airs one expects from Western politicians.

Putin to Obama: What will you do if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction?

Earlier, for example, he wondered why Western leaders were supporting cannibals in Syria:

You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years.

Putin was referring to the notorious video of a jihadi leader biting into the organs of a Syrian soldier while screaming Islamic slogans.

Now, the straightforward Russian has asked another equally important and straightforward question — the sort of question so full of common sense that most Western politicians never expect to hear a fellow politician asking (and, as usual, one the Western media have failed to report on, though Arabic media is abuzz with it).

In a videotaped interview published today concerning U.S. attempts to go to war in Syria, not only did Putin criticize Secretary of State John Kerry’s  dissembling concerning the nature of the Syrian opposition, but he also said:

There is another question: if it turns out that the armed rebels are the ones who used weapons of mass destruction, what will the United States do with the armed rebels?  And what will it do with those sponsoring the rebels? Will they stop supplying them with arms? Will they start fighting against them?

Indeed.  Considering that invading Syria is almost entirely being rationalized in the context of Assad violating the human rights of others, what will the U.S. — Obama, Kerry, McCain, et. al. — do if it turns out that the al-Qaeda led rebels are, in fact, the ones using such weapons, as significant evidence already indicates?

Probably what they are doing now: continue misleading Americans and go to war anyway, since — and once again — this has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

Update: RT posted the video and translation of Putin’s questions regarding what the U.S. would do if it turns out the rebels used chemical weapons (here, around the four-minute mark).

U.S. Sect of State John Kerry confirm that Saudi’s offered to foot the bill, pushing the U.S. to attack Syria

A Fox News anchor disrupted a live debate to protest against the war in Syria. He held up his hand, apparently smeared with blood, and warned the viewing American public that “we should be very careful before we shed any more blood – ours or theirs”.

Israel’s struggles deja-vu. Saudi racist war-strategy is to force Shia Muslims out of the Middle East by framing the international community to turn against Syria, who defend themselves against Sunni extremist:
Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.

Read more:

Where the votes stand on Syria
11 questions Congress faces on Syria
Poll: Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike



Ron Paul’s Syria Petition: Sign Up to Tell Obama to Stay Out!

Tens of thousands of people have signed Ron Paul’s Petition to Stay Out of Syria! Sign the petition today: RonPaulChannel.com/SOS.
The new Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed yesterday exactly what we suspected and made clear when the Syria conflict caught fire in the press: Arab countries offered to pay for the entire invasion That’s right. Arabs lie and provide false intelligence reports about “Assad’s chemical weapons” and encourage the West to do their dirty work, their genocide of the Shia people, and Arabs will foot the bill.

More from Ron Paul here:


To learn more about the petition see this link:



Ron Paul’s previous comments about Obama’s Arab-funded warmongering madness,

UK Transgender Muslim convert in row with Swindon mosque over ban

Lucy said: “At first at the mosque they didn’t ask any questions about my gender. But after a while they asked what my boob size was and whether I had periods.


Swindon Advertiser,  Thursday 5th September 2013 |  By Elizabeth Mackley

Lucy Vallender at home in Swindon

Lucy Vallender at home in Swindon

A TRANSEXUAL ex-soldier who converted to Islam after claiming she had a sex change has hit out at Swindon mosque elders she claimed banned her over her gender.

Lucy Vallender, 28, of Manor Road, Swindon, says she had the operation in 2010.

In September last year she converted to Islam, became the second wife of a man she met online and started attending the Broad Street mosque.

She has now spoken out against the mosque after claiming that they asked her inappropriate questions and told her to pray with the men. She also claims the police have not helped her to address the issues of discrimination.

Lucy said: “At first at the mosque they didn’t ask any questions about my gender. But after a while they asked what my boob size was and whether I had periods.

“They said I was swearing and abusive, but I wasn’t. They also said they didn’t want me to pray with the women because I was looking at them. They said I had to pray with the men. It was demoralising. I said I was a woman, and then I left.”

The mosque has denied they ever asked Lucy, whose Islamic name is Layla, inappropriate questions. They have also said she was never banned from attending the mosque.


A spokesman from the mosque said: “Layla joined our Islamic (Tajweed) ladies class at the end of last year as she wanted to learn Arabic.

“She did not know any Arabic when she joined our school but over the months made brilliant progress. She participated in class and was welcomed by all the women until her departure in June this year. We had no idea of gender reassignment.

“Layla did not declare her change on the school submission form, we only learned of this when she wanted to get married. Unfortunately she was not happy to submit her document such as passport or birth certificate required as per the process for the Islamic marriage (Nikah).

“Apparently, Layla also had the same issue with other administrations, nevertheless we offered to help but she found the request offensive.

“She took a very aggressive approach towards her teacher with intimidating SMS and personal harassment after classes. We understood she had a similar issue with other institutes and previous employers. We had outlined the zero tolerance policy for abuse towards the volunteers and a formal consultation was conducted.

“Needless to say that Layla had accepted her conduct and apologised to the volunteer teacher and had stated that she is moving to London for marriage and would most likely not return to the classes.

“Layla was not banned from the mosque or asked to join the men for prayers, we respect the rights of women and wouldn’t even consider such an action. On the contrary we had wished Layla all the success in her marriage and new beginnings with her move to London.

“We appreciate Layla’s article detailing her struggles and challenges in life complicated with both the gender change and then conversion to Islam. It must have been tough for her to share this experience publicly and we admire her courage.”

When asked whether she had sent aggressive messages to her teacher, Lucy said she had only asked about why the mosque was asking about her breast cup size and whether she had periods.

She also said that a birth certificate or passport was not necessary for Islamic marriage, and the mosque was only requiring them to establish whether she was male or female.

Lucy has said she does have paperwork to prove she is now a woman, but was unable to show this to the Adver at the time of going to print.

A spokesman for Wiltshire Police said: “We can confirm that we have been looking into the welfare of this individual following concerns raised by a partner agency.

“The woman involved has been offered full support by Wiltshire Police throughout this process.

“At no stage has she been told that she will be arrested if she attends her local mosque.

“It would be inappropriate to comment any further.”

In 2011 Lucy, who is a keen gardener and can often be found growing red basil in her plot near her flat, moved into Swindon and started rekindling an interest in religion she has had since she was at school.

She considered Buddhism and Judaism before deciding to become Muslim. “I went to Oxford for the day and then I saw the stall,” she said, “That’s when I decided I wanted to be a Muslim.”

Seven months later, Lucy started attending classes at the mosque on Broad Street.

“There are a lot of transsexual Muslims but they haven’t come forward. I was just looking for something different. Islam is just so lovely and peaceful.

“I was searching for a direction and a point to life. I love it. It’s lovely and peaceful.”

Lucy started attending lessons at the mosque to start learning more about her new religion and the Qur’an.

Although Lucy no longer attends the mosque, she continues to be a practising Muslim and prays at home.

The mosque have said Lucy has not be banned and is welcome to contact them to discuss her return at any time.


By the time Lucy was 10 she already knew she wanted to be a woman.

Born a boy called Laurens, Lucy, who grew up with her family in Cirencester, had a difficult childhood living inside the wrong body.

“It’s quite hard,” she said.

“You don’t know who you are. You’re somewhere and your mind’s somewhere else and you’re in the wrong body.

“I knew at a young age that I was in the wrong body.”

In 1998 when she was about 13, Lucy, who has special needs including dyslexia and attended a special school, came out to her parents and told them she wanted to have a sex change.

She said: “As the years went by I realised I wanted to have the operation.

“My family were sad. They were sad because it meant they wouldn’t have grandchildren and they couldn’t get their heads round it. It was hard enough to get my head around it let alone everybody else.

“They were upset. It’s a taboo. It’s all like, you grow up, and you have a kid and everything.
“You have to fight your sexuality.”

Much of her family, who live in Cirencester, are still at odds with the news, and her older brother, Soren, hasn’t spoken to her for seven years, but Lucy’s mother and step-father have now come to accept the change.

“My mum has accepted it and my step dad was brilliant,” she said, “You should just be what you want to be. That’s what he said.”

“My brother doesn’t talk to me and the rest of the family. Some people agree but some people don’t.”

Lucy’s favourite subject at school was history, and now she hopes she can also make history by speaking out against prejudice.

“History was my favourite subject. It’s amazing about how a lot of things in the past affect a lot of things now. History shapes the future.”

After completing her GCSEs at school, Lucy had a number of different jobs, including working in a Tesco cafe.

She then started working as a kitchen porter at RAF South Cerney, and decided she wanted to join the Territorial Army to make her more macho.

According to the MoD, Lucy joined the Territorial Army with the Wiltshire Royal Rifles in 2004, where she trained until 2006.

Lucy said: “I joined because I wanted to make myself more masculine. I hoped it would change me.

“I was there for a year and a half. I was just in a male environment and it wasn’t fair on the men because I was attracted to them.”

In 2007 Lucy took the plunge and went to see her GP about wanting to change her gender.

She finally found the courage and told the female doctor that she wanted to be a woman, and was surprised with how accepting she was.

She then started the long process towards changing her gender, with regular sessions with a psychologist and hormone treatment to stop her facial hair and encourage breasts to grow.

“There were good days and bad days when I started taking their medication,” she said.

“Sometimes I would be quite moody.”

She also started wearing women’s clothes, many of which she bought from high street store, New Look.

She said: “It’s expensive but it’s good. Sometimes I still shop there. I get my trousers there.”

She said she had the sex change operation at a hospital in London under the NHS.

“It was great when it was done. I was relieved. I was really happy. I felt liberated. I felt more like myself.”

While she was undergoing the treatment she continued to work at RAF South Cerney as a kitchen porter, but nobody would accept her as she was and the staff treated her differently to everybody else.

She said: “I had to use a separate toilet to everybody else. They had a separate toilet at the back and nobody else used it.”

Lucy, who is now unemployed, stopped working for the camp last year but would not discuss the circumstances of her departure.

The MOD were unable to confirm or deny whether she had been employed by the camp.

Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet

By Richard A. Gabriel

Richard A. Gabriel, a military historian and adjunct professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, has authored forty-one books. His latest is Muhammad: Islam’s First Great General (Oklahoma University Press, 2007).

Originally published by MHQ magazine.


The long shadow of Muhammad stretches across centuries of strife to the present. Today an estimated 1.4 billion Muslims around the globe follow his teachings—the word of God as revealed to Muhammad and set down in the Koran—making Islam the world’s second-largest religion behind Christianity. But despite Muhammad’s remarkable accomplishments, there is no modern account of his life that examines his role as Islam’s first great general and the leader of a successful insurgency. Had Muhammad not succeeded as a commander, however, Islam might have been relegated to a geographic backwater—and the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian empires by Arab armies might never have occurred.

The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.

Muhammad’s intelligence service eventually rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, especially when it came to political information. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that “all war is cunning,” reminding modern analysts of Sun Tzu’s dictum, “all war is deception.” In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clause­witz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used non­mili­tary methods (alliance building, politi­cal assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.

Muhammad’s belief in Islam and his own role as the “Messenger of God” revolutionized Arabian warfare and resulted in the creation of the ancient world’s first army motivated by a coherent system of ideological belief. The ideology of holy war (jihad) and martyrdom (shahada) for the faith was transmitted to the West during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Spain and France, where it changed traditional Christian pacifistic thinking on war, brought into being a coterie of Christian warrior saints, and provided the Catho­lic Church with its ideological justification for the Crusades. Ideology—whether religious or secular—has remained a primary component of military ventures ever since.

Muhammad forged the military instrument of the Arab conquests that began within two years of his death by bringing into being a completely new kind of army not seen before in Arabia. He introduced no fewer than eight major military reforms that transformed the armies and conduct of war in Arabia. Just as Philip of Macedon transformed the armies of Greece so his successor, Alexander, could employ them as instruments of conquest and empire, Muhammad transformed the armies of Arabia so his successors could use them to defeat the armies of Persia and Byzantium and establish the heartland of the empire of Islam.

Muhammad was first and foremost a revolutionary, a fiery religious guerrilla leader who created and led the first genuine national insurgency in antiquity that is comprehensible in modern terms, a fact not lost on the jihadis of the present day, who often cite the Koran and Muhammad’s use of violence as justification for their own insurgencies. Unlike conventional generals, Muhammad did not seek the defeat of a foreign enemy or invader; rather, he sought to replace the existing Arabian social order with a new one based upon a radically different ideological worldview. To achieve his revolutionary goals Muhammad utilized all the means recognized by modern analysts as characteristic of a successful insurgency in today’s world.

Although Muhammad began his struggle for a new order with a small guerrilla cadre capable of undertaking only limited hit-and-run raids, by the time he was ready to attack Mecca a decade later that small guerrilla force had grown into a large conventional army with integrated cavalry and infantry units capable of conducting large-scale combat operations. It was the first truly national military force in Arab history, and it was this conventional military instrument that Muhammad’s successors used to forge a great empire.

Muhammad’s rise to power was a textbook example of a successful insurgency, in all likelihood the first such example in antiquity. The West has been accustomed to thinking of the Arab conquests that followed Muhammad in purely conventional military terms. But the armies that achieved those conquests did not exist in Arabia before Muhammad. It was Muhammad’s successful unconventional guerrilla operations, his successful insurgency, that brought those armies into existence. The later Arab conquests, as regards both strategic concept and the new armies as in­struments of military method, were the consequences of Muhammad’s prior military success as the leader of an insurgency.

This aspect of Muhammad’s military life as a guerrilla insurgent is likely to strike the reader as curious. But if the means and methods used by modern military analysts to characterize insurgency warfare are employed as categories of analysis, it is clear that Muhammad’s campaign to spread Islam throughout Arabia fulfilled all of the criteria. One requirement for an insurgency is a determined leader whose followers regard him as special in some way and worthy of their following him. In Muhammad’s case his own charismatic personality was enhanced by his deeply held belief that he was God’s Messenger, and that to follow Muhammad was to obey the dictates of God himself.

Insurgencies also require a messianic ideology, one that espouses a coherent creed or plan to replace the existing social, political, and economic order with a new order that is better, more just, or ordained by history or even by God himself. Mu­hammad used the new religious creed of Islam to challenge basic traditional Arab social institutions and values as oppressive and unholy and worthy of replacement. To this end he created the ummah, or community of believers, God’s community on earth, to serve as a messianic replacement for the clans and tribes that were the basis of traditional Arab society. One of Mu­hammad’s most important achievements was the establishment of new social institutions that greatly altered and in some cases completely replaced those of the old Arab social order.

Successful insurgencies also require a disciplined cadre of true believers to do the work of organizing and recruiting new members. Muhammad’s revolutionary cadre consisted of the small group of original converts he attracted in Mecca and took with him to Medina. These were the muhajirun, or emigrants. The first converts among the clans of Medina, the ansar, or helpers, also filled the ranks of the cadre. Within this revolutionary cadre was an inner circle of talented men, some of them later converts. Some, like Abdullah Ibn Ubay and Khalid al-Walid, were experienced field commanders and provided a much-needed source of military expertise. Muhammad’s inner circle advised him and saw to it that his directives were carried out. These advisers held key positions during the Prophet’s lifetime and fought among themselves for power after his death.

Once Muhammad had created his cadre of revolutionaries, he established a base from which to conduct military operations against his adversaries. These operations initially took the form of ambushes and raids aimed at isolating Mecca, the enemy’s main city, and other trading towns that opposed him. Only one in six Arabs lived in a city or town at this time; the others resided in the desert, living as pastoral nomads. Muhammad chose Medina as his base of operations because of its strategic location. Medina was close to the main caravan route from Mecca to Syria that constituted the economic lifeline of Mecca and other oases and towns dependent upon the caravan trade for their economic survival. Medina was also sufficiently distant from Mecca to permit Muhammad a relatively free hand in his efforts to convert the bedouin clans living along the caravan route. Muhammad understood that conversions and political alliances with the bedouins, not military engagements with the Meccans, were the keys to success.

Insurgencies require an armed force and the manpower to sustain them. It was from the original small cadre of guerrillas that the larger conventional army could be grown that would ultimately permit the insurgency to engage its enemies in set-piece battles when the time and political conditions were right. Muhammad may have been the first commander in history to understand and implement the doctrine later espoused by General Vo Nguyen Giap of North Vietnam as “people’s war, people’s army.” Muhammad established the belief among his followers that God had commandeered all Muslims’ purposes and property for His efforts and that all Muslims had a responsibility to fight for the faith. Everyone—men, women, and even children—had an obligation for military service in defense of the faith and the ummah that was the community of God’s chosen people on earth. It is essential to understand that the attraction of the Islamic ideology more than anything else produced the manpower that permitted Muhammad’s small revolutionary cadre to evolve into a conventional armed force capable of large-scale engagements.

The rapid growth of Muhammad’s insurgent army is evident from the following figures. At the Battle of Badr (624 ce), Muhammad could only put 314 men in the field. Two years later at Second Badr, 1,500 Muslims took the field. By the 628 battle at Kheibar, the Muslim army had grown to 2,000 combatants. When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630) he did so with 10,000 men. And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later the army numbered 12,000 men. Some sources record that Muhammad’s expedition to Tabuk later the same year was composed of 30,000 men and 10,000 cavalry, but this is probably an exaggeration. What is evident from the figures, however, is that his insurgency grew very quickly in terms of its ability to recruit military manpower.

Like all insurgent armies, Muhammad’s forces initially acquired weapons by stripping them from prisoners and enemy dead. Weapons, helmets, and armor were expensive items in relatively impoverished Arabia, and the early Muslim converts, drawn mostly from among the poor, orphaned, widowed, and otherwise socially marginal, could ill afford them. At the Battle of Badr, the first major engagement with an enemy army, the dead were stripped of their swords and other military equipment, setting a precedent that be­came common. Muhammad also established the practice of requiring prisoners to provide weapons and equipment instead of money to purchase their freedom. One prisoner taken at Badr, an arms merchant, was forced to provide the insurgents with a thousand spears to obtain his freedom. Muhammad eventually had enough weapons, helmets, shields, and armor to supply an army of 10,000 for his march on Mecca.

Muhammad’s ability to obtain sufficient weapons and equipment had an important political advantage. Many of the insurgency’s converts came from the poorest elements of the bedouin clans, people too impoverished to afford weapons and armor. By supplying these converts with expensive military equipment, Muhammad immediately raised their status within the clan and guaranteed their loyalty to him, if not always to the creed of Islam. In negotiations with bedouin chiefs he made them gifts of expensive weaponry. Horses and camels were equally important military assets, for without them raids and the conduct of operations over great distances were not possible. Muhammad obtained his animals in much the same manner as he did his weapons and with equal success. At Badr the insurgents had only two horses. Six years later at Hunayn Muhammad’s cavalry squadrons numbered 800 horse and cavalrymen.

An insurgency must be able to sustain the popular base that supports the fighting elements. To accomplish this, Muhammad changed the ancient customs regarding the sharing of booty taken in raids. The chief of an Arab clan or tribe traditionally took one-fourth of the booty for himself. Muhammad decreed that he receive only one-fifth, and even this the chief took not for himself but in the name of the ummah. Under the old ways individuals kept whatever booty they had captured. Muhammad required that all booty be turned in to a common pool where it was shared equally among all combatants who had participated in the raid. Most important, Muhammad established that the first claimants on the booty that had been taken in the name of the ummah were the poor and the widows and orphans of the soldiers killed in battle. He also used the promise of a larger share of booty to strike alliances with bedouin clans, some of whom remained both loyal and pagan to the end, fighting for loot rather than for Islam.

The leader of an insurgency must take great care to guard his authority from challenges, including those that come from within the movement itself. Muhammad had many enemies, and he was always on guard against an attempt upon his life. Like other leaders, Muhammad surrounded himself with a loyal group of followers who acted as his bodyguard and carried out his orders without question. For this purpose he created the suffah, a small cadre of loyal followers who lived in the mosque next to Muhammad’s house. Recruited from among the most pious, enthusiastic, and fanatical followers, they came from impoverished backgrounds. The suffah members spent much of their time studying Islam. They were devoted to Muhammad and served not only as his life guard but also as a secret police that could be called upon at a moment’s notice to carry out whatever task Muhammad set for them, including assassination and terror.

No insurgency can survive without an effective intelligence apparatus. As early as when Muhammad left Mecca in 622, he left behind a trusted agent, his uncle Abbas, who continued to send him reports on the situation there. Abbas served as an agent-in-place for more than a decade, until Mecca itself fell to Muhammad.

In the beginning Muhammad’s operations suffered from a lack of tactical intelligence. His followers were mostly townspeople with no experience in desert travel. On some of the early operations Muhammad had to hire bedouin guides. As the insurgency grew, however, his intelligence service became more organized and sophisticated, using agents-in-place, commercial spies, debriefing of prisoners, combat patrols, and reconnaissance in force as methods of intelligence collection.

Muhammad himself seems to have possessed a detailed knowledge of clan loyalties and politics within the insurgency’s area of operations and used this knowledge to good effect when negotiating alliances with the bedouins. He often conducted advance reconnaissance of the battlefields upon which he fought. In most cases his intelligence service provided him with sufficient information as to the enemy’s location and intentions in advance of any military engagement. We have no knowledge of exactly how the intelligence service was organized or where it was located. That it was part of the suffah, however, seems a reasonable guess.

Insurgencies succeed or fail to the degree that they are able to win the allegiance of great numbers of uncommitted citizens to support the insurgency’s goals. Muhammad understood the role of propaganda and went to great lengths to make his message public and widely known. In a largely illiterate Arab society, the poet served as the major conveyor of political propaganda. Muhammad hired the best poets money could buy to sing his praises and denigrate his opponents. He issued proclamations regarding the revelations he received as the Messenger of God, and remained in public view to keep the vision of the new order and the promise of a heavenly paradise constantly before the public. He also sent missionaries to other clans and tribes to instruct the “pagans” in the new faith, sometimes teaching those groups to read and write in the process. Muhammad understood that the conflict was between the existing social order with its manifest injustices and his vision of the future, and he surpassed his adversaries in spreading his vision to win the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Arab population.

Terrorism seems to be an indispensable element of a successful insurgency, and it was no less so in Muhammad’s case. He used terrorism in two basic ways: First, he ensured discipline among his followers by making public examples of traitors and backsliders. In Muhammad’s day the penalty for apostasy in Islam was death. He also ordered some of his political enemies assassinated, including poets and singers who had publicly ridiculed him. When his armies marched into Mecca, for example, Muhammad’s suffah set about hunting down a list of old enemies marked for execution. Second, Muhammad used terrorism to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies on a large scale. In the case of the Jewish tribes of Medina, Muhammad seems to have ordered the death of the entire Beni Qaynuqa tribe and the selling of their women and children into slavery, though he was later talked out of it by the chief of one of his allies. On another occasion, again against a Jewish tribe of Medina, he ordered all the tribe’s adult males, some nine hundred, beheaded in the city square, the women and children sold into slavery, and their property distributed among his Muslim followers. Shortly after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad declared “war to the knife” against all those who remained idolaters, instructing his followers to kill any pagans they encountered on the spot. His ruthlessness and brutality served to strengthen his hand with opponents and allies alike.

Muhammad’s use of terrorism does not detract from Islam as a religion any more than the history of the Israelite military campaign to conquer Canaan detracts from Judaism. Over time the violent origins of religions are forgotten and only the faith itself remains, so the founders of the creeds come to be remembered as untouched by the violence of the historical record. In Muhammad’s case the result has been to deemphasize the military aspects of his life and his considerable military accomplishments as Islam’s first great general and the inventor of the theory and practice of insurgency.

Muhammad also managed to bring about a revolution in the way Arabs fought wars, transforming their armies into instruments capable of large-scale combat operations that could achieve strategic objectives instead of only small-scale clan, tribal, or personal objectives. In so doing he created both the means and historical circumstances that transformed the fragmented Arab clans into a national military entity conscious of its own unique identity. As a result, the greatest commanders of the early Arab conquests were developed by Muhammad himself.

Had he not brought about a military revolution in Arab warfare, it is possible that Islam might not have survived in Arabia. Within a year of Muhammad’s death many of the clans that had sworn allegiance to Islam recanted, resulting in the War of the Apostates, or Riddah. The brilliance of Muhammad’s generals and the superior fighting skills of his new army made it possible for Islam to defeat the apostates and force them back into the religious fold. Commanding the Arab armies, those same generals carried out the Arab conquests of Persia and Byzantium. The old Arab way of war would have had no chance of success against the armies of either of those empires.

Muhammad transformed the social composition of Arab armies from a collection of clans, tribes, and blood kin loyal only to themselves into a national army loyal to a national social entity, the ummah. The ummah was not a nation or a state in the modern sense, but a body of religious believers under the unified command and governance of Muhammad. The ummah transcended the clans and tribes and permitted Muhammad to forge a common identity, national in scope, among the Arabs for the first time. It was leadership of this national entity that Muhammad claimed, not of any clan or tribe. Loyalty to the ummah permitted the national army to unify the two traditional combat arms of infantry and cavalry into a genuine combined arms force. Bedouins and town dwellers had historically viewed one another with suspicion. Arab infantry had traditionally been drawn from the people living in the towns, settlements, and oases of Arabia. Arab cavalry was traditionally drawn from bedouin clans, whose nomadic warriors excelled at speedy raids, surprise attacks, and elusive retreats, skills honed to a fine edge over generations of raiding.

These two different types of combatants possessed only limited experience in fighting alongside one another. Bound by clan loyalties and living in settlements, Arab infantry was steadfast and cohesive and could usually be relied upon to hold its ground, especially in the defense. Arab cavalry, on the other hand, was unreliable in a battle against infantry, often breaking off the fight to keep their precious mounts from being hurt or make off with whatever booty they had seized. Bedouin cavalry was, however, proficient at reconnaissance, surprise attack, protecting the flanks, and pursuing ill-disciplined infantry. Muhammad was the first Arab commander to successfully join both combat arms into a national army and use them in concert in battle. Thanks to the larger religious community of believers, the ummah, he could combine the two primary elements of traditional Arab society, town dwellers and bedouin tribes, into a single Arab national identity. That change was actually preceded by a shift in the social composition of Arab society.

Before Muhammad, Arab military contingents fought under the command of clan or tribal leaders, sometimes assembled in coalition with other clans or tribes. While the authority of these clan chiefs was recognized by their own clan, every chief considered himself the equal of any other, so there was no overall commander whose authority could compel the obedience or tactical direction of the army as a whole. Clan warriors fought for their own interests, often only for loot, and did not feel obligated to pursue the larger objectives of the army as a whole. They often failed to report to the battlefield, arrived late, or simply left the fight once they had captured sufficient loot. Warriors and horses were precious, and clan leaders resisted any higher tactical direction that might place their men and animals in danger. As a result, Arab battles were often little more than brief, disorganized brawls that seldom produced a decisive outcome.

To correct these deficiencies Muhammad established a unified command for his armies centered on himself. Within the ummah there was no distinction between the citizen and the soldier. All members of the community had an obligation to defend the clan and participate in its battles. The community of believers was truly a nation in arms, and all believers followed the commands of Muhammad, God’s Messenger. As commander in chief Muhammad established the principle of unified command by appointing a single commander with overall authority to carry out military operations. Sometimes he also appointed a second-in-command. Muhammad often personally commanded his troops in the field. He also appointed all the other commanders, who operated under his authority. As Muslims, all members of the army were equally bound by the same laws, and all clan members and their chiefs were subject to the same discipline and punishments. When operating with clans whose members were not Muslims, Muhammad always extracted an honor oath from their chiefs to obey his orders during the battle.

The establishment of a unified military command gave Muhammad’s armies greater reliability in planning and in battle. Unified command also permitted a greater degree of coordination among the various combat elements of the army and the use of more sophisticated tactical designs that could be implemented with more certainty, thereby greatly increasing the army’s offensive power.

Traditional Arab warfare emphasized the courageous performance of individual warriors in battle, not the clan’s ability to fight as a unit. The Arab warrior fought for his own honor and social prestige within the kin group, not for the clan per se. One consequence was that Arab armies and the clan units within them did not usually reflect a high degree of combat unit cohesion, the ability of the group to remain intact and fight together under the stress of battle.

Muhammad’s armies, by contrast, were highly cohesive, holding together even when they fought outnumbered or were overrun. The ummah served as a higher locus of the soldier’s loyalty that transcended the clan. Many of Muhammad’s early converts had left their families and clans to follow the Prophet. There were many instances where members of the same clan or even families fought on opposite sides during his early battles. Religion turned out to be a greater source of unit cohesion than blood and clan ties, the obligations of faith replacing and overriding those of tradition and even family. His soldiers cared for each other as brothers, which under the precepts of Islam they were, and quickly gained a reputation for their discipline and ferocity in battle.

Muhammad’s armies demonstrated a higher degree of military motivation than traditional Arab armies. Being a good warrior had always been at the center of Arab values, but Muhammad enhanced the warrior’s status. His soldiers were always guaranteed a share in the booty. It became a common saying among Muslims that “the soldier is not only the noblest and most pleasing profession in the sight of Allah, but also the most profitable.” Muhammad’s soldiers were usually paid better than Persian or Byzantine soldiers.

But better pay was only a small part of the new Islamic warriors’ motivation. One of Muhammad’s most important innovations was convincing his troops that they were doing God’s work on earth. There were of course soldiers of other faiths who fought on religious grounds. But no army before Muhammad’s ever placed religion at the center of military motivation and defined the soldier primarily as an instrument of God’s will on earth. The soldiers of Islam came to see themselves as fighting under God’s instructions. The result, still evident in Islamic societies today, was a soldier who enjoyed much higher social status and respect than soldiers in Western armies.

A central element to an Islamic soldier’s motivation in Muhammad’s day was the idea that death was not something to be feared but rather embraced. Muhammad’s pronouncement that those killed in battle would be welcomed immediately into a paradise of pleasure and eternal life was a powerful inducement to perform well in combat. To die fighting in defense of the faith was to fulfill God’s will and become a martyr. Life itself was subordinate to the needs of the faith. Muslim soldiers killed in battle were accorded the highest respect on the Arab scale of values. While those who died in battle had formerly been celebrated as examples of courage and selflessness, before Muhammad it was never suggested that death was to be welcomed or required to be a good soldier. Muhammad’s teachings changed the traditional Arab view of military sacrifice and produced a far more dedicated soldier than Arab armies had ever witnessed before.

Arab warfare prior to Muhammad’s reforms involved clans and tribes fighting for honor or loot. No commander aimed at the enslavement or extermination of the enemy, nor the occupation of his lands. Arab warfare had been tactical warfare, nothing more. There was no sense of strategic war in which long-term, grand strategic objectives were sought and toward which the tactical application of force was directed. Muhammad was the first to introduce to the Arabs the notion of war for strategic goals. His ultimate goal, the transformation of Arab society through the spread of a new religion, was strategic in concept. Muhammad’s application of force and violence, whether unconventional or conventional, was always directed at this strategic goal. Although he began as the founder of an insurgency, he was always Clausewitzian in his view that the use of force was a tactical means to the achievement of larger strategic objectives. Had Muhammad not introduced this new way of thinking to Arab warfare, the use of later Arab armies to forge a world empire would not only have been impossible, it would have been unthinkable.

Once war was harnessed to strategic objectives, it became possible to expand its application to introduce tactical dimensions that were completely new to Arab warfare. Muhammad attacked tribes, towns, and garrisons before they could form hostile coalitions; he isolated his enemies by severing their economic lifelines and disrupting their lines of communication; he was a master at political negotiation, forming alliances with pagan tribes when it served his interests; and he laid siege to cities and towns. He also introduced the new dimension of psychological warfare, employing terror and massacre as means to weaken the will of his enemies. Various texts also mention Muhammad’s use of catapults (manjaniq) and movable covered cars (dabbabah) in siege warfare. Most likely these siege devices were acquired in Yemen, where Persian garrisons had been located on and off over the centuries. Muhammad seems to have been the first Arab commander to use them in the north. Where once Arab warfare had been a completely tactical affair, Muhammad’s introduction of strategic war permitted the use of tactics in the proper manner, as a means to greater strategic ends. War, after all, is never an end in itself. It is, as Clausewitz reminds us, always a method, never a goal.

As an orphan, Muhammad had lacked even the most rudimentary military training typically provided by an Arab father. To compensate for this deficiency, he surrounded himself with experienced warriors and constantly sought their advice. In fact, he frequently appointed the best warriors of his former enemies to positions of command once they converted to Islam. He sought good officers wherever he found them, appointing young men to carry out small-scale raids to give them combat experience, and sometimes selecting an officer from a town to command a bedouin raid, to broaden his experience with cavalry. He always chose his military commanders on the basis of their proven experience and ability, never for their asceti­cism or religious devotion. He was the first to institutionalize military excellence in the development of a professional Arab officer corps. From that corps of trained and experienced field commanders came the generals who commanded the armies of the Arab conquests.

We have little information on how Muhammad trained his soldiers, but it is almost certain he did so. There are clear references to training in swimming, running, and wrestling. The early soldiers of Islam had left their clan and family loyalties behind to join the ummah. Converts had to be socialized to a new basis of military loyalty—the faith—and new military units created with soldiers from many clans. References in various texts suggest that Muhammad trained these units in rank and drill, sometimes personally formed them up and addressed them before a battle, and deployed them to fight in disciplined units, not as individuals as was the common practice. These disciplined units could then be trained to carry out a wider array of tactical designs than had previously been possible. Muhammad’s use of cavalry and archers in concert with his infantry was one result. While Arab fathers continued to train their sons in warfare long after Muhammad’s death, the armies of the Arab conquests and later those of the Arab empire instituted formal military training for recruits.

Muhammad had been an organizer of caravans for twenty-five years before he began his insurgency, and he showed the caravaner’s concern for logistics and planning. His expertise in those areas permitted him to project force and conduct military operations over long distances across inhospitable terrain. During that time he made several trips to the north along the spice road, for example, and gained a repu­tation for honesty and as an excellent administrator and organizer. Such expeditions required extensive attention to detail and knowledge of routes, rates ofMuhammad had been an organizer of caravans for twenty-five years before he began his insurgency, and he showed the caravaner’s concern for logistics and planning. His expertise in those areas permitted him to project force and conduct military operations over long distances across inhospitable terrain. During that time he made several trips to the north along the spice road, for example, and gained a repu?tation for honesty and as an excellent administrator and organizer. Such expeditions required extensive attention to detail and knowledge of routes, rates of march, distances between stops, water and feeding of animals, location of wells, weather, places of ambush, etc.?knowledge that served him well as a military commander. In 630 he led an army of twenty to thirty thousand men (sources disagree on the exact numbers) on a 250-mile march across the desert from Medina to Tabuk lasting eighteen to twenty days during the hottest season of the year. By traditional Arab standards, that trek was nothing short of astounding.

Muhammad’s transformation of Arab warfare was preceded by a revolution in the way Arabs thought about war, what might be called the moral basis of war. The old chivalric code that limited bloodletting was abandoned and replaced with an ethos less conducive to restraint, the blood feud. Extending that ethos beyond the ties of kin and blood to include members of the new community of Muslim believers inevitably made Arab warfare more encompassing and bloody than it had ever been.

Within two hundred years after the Muslim conquests of Byzantium and Persia, Muhammad’s reform influence on the conventional Arab armies had disappeared, displaced by the more powerful influence of Byzantine, Persian, and Turkic military practices. Muhammad’s military legacy is most clearly evident in the modern methodology of insurgency and in the powerful idea of jihad. In the years following his death, Islamic scholars developed an account of the Islamic law of war. This body of law, essentially complete by 850, ultimately rests on two foundations: the example and teaching of Muham ‘mad and the word of God as expressed in the Koran. At the heart of the Islamic law of war is the concept of jihad, meaning ?to endeavor, to strive, to struggle,’ but in the West commonly understood to mean ‘holy war.’

According to classical Sunni doctrine, jihad can refer generically to any worthy endeavor, but in Islamic law it means primarily armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates. The central element of the doctrine of jihad is that the Islamic community (ummah) as a whole, under the leadership of the caliph (successor to Muhammad), has the duty to expand Islamic rule until the whole world is governed by Islamic law. Expansionist jihad is thus a collective duty of all Muslims. Land occupied by Muslims is known as the dar al-Islam, while all other territory is known as the dar al-harb, ‘the land of war.’ Islamic law posits the inalienability of Islamic territory. If infidels attack the dar al-Islam, it becomes the duty of all Muslims to resist and of all other Muslims to assist them. Thus jihad can be defensive as well as offensive.

In the waging of jihad, all adult males, except for slaves and monks, are considered legitimate military targets and no distinction is made between military and civilians. Women and children may not be targeted directly, unless they act as combatants by supporting the enemy in some manner. The enemy may be attacked without regard for indiscriminate damage, and it is permissible to kill women in night raids when Muslim fighters cannot easily distinguish them from men.

Islamic law prohibits mutilation of the dead and torture of captives, although the definition of torture is problematic, since Muhammad himself imposed punishments that would easily qualify as torture today. Following Mu’hammad’s own practice, a jihadi may execute, enslave, ransom, or release enemy captives. Although captured women and children were not supposed to be killed, they could be enslaved, and Muslim men could have sexual relations with female slaves acquired by jihad (any marriage was deemed annulled by their capture).

Shiites, some ten to fifteen percent of Muslims, subscribe to a somewhat different doctrine of jihad, believing that it can only be waged under the command of the rightful leader of the Muslim community, whom they call imam. Shiites believe that the last imam went into hiding in 874 and that the collective duty to wage expansionist jihad is suspended until his return in the apocalyptic future. But Shiite scholars do affirm a duty to wage defensive jihad against infidel invaders.

Classical Islamic law is less tolerant of non-Muslims. Apostates from Islam, pagans, atheists, agnostics, and ‘pseudo-scriptuaries,’ that is, members of cults that have appeared since Muhammad’s day; for example, Sikhs, Bahais, Mormons, and Qadianis, are only offered the option of conversion to Islam or death.

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Sunni Islamic modernists began to modify the classical law of war. The Indian Muslim thinker Sayyid Ahmad Khan argued that jihad was obligatory for Muslims only when they were prevented from exercising their faith, thus restricting jihad to defensive purposes. Mahmud Shaltut, an Egyptian scholar, likewise argued only for defensive jihad.

Conservative Sunnis, such as the Wahhabis of Arabia, and modern militant jihadis in Iraq and Pakistan still adhere to the traditional doctrine. It is among these militant conservative Muslims that the military legacy of Muhammad is most alive today.


Richard A. Gabriel, a military historian and adjunct professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, has authored forty-one books. His latest is Muhammad: Islam’s First Great General (Oklahoma University Press, 2007).

(Video) Muslim beats his wife because she joined him in singing

This is how sick these Muslim male animals are:
A Muslim man start singing, and when his wife decides to join in he starts punching her, kicks her in the face, stomps her head with his foot and hits her with a glass bottle – all in front of their little daughter – while a laughing bystander captures it all on their cell phone to be replayed for future amusement.
To quote the Buddhists in Burma/Myanmar who face muslims aggression and brutality on a daily basis: “These people [muslims] are not normal human beings. They are satanic.”

Al-Qaeda in Syria eagerly awaits America to come to its rescue – and promise to kill Syrian Christians

Saudi’s with a lot of oil money, too little to do, and too much Shia racism are behind the militant invasion into Syria. The loudest voices for an intervention into Syria comes from Sunni’s. Let’s not forget that Sunni Muslims were responsible for 70% of all terrorism around the world in 2011. That wahhabi mentality and culture kill more people than any other conflict existing anywhere. And it kills more Muslims than anything else in the world. The hate ideology of the Sunni’s is churned out in mosque after mosque across the entire Middle East, indoctrinating children as small as 3 to hate other people.

But now that same hate, funded by Saudi and Qatari oil money, is coming back to bite the hand that fed it.

A 2012 U.S. government report has found that around 3,500 “extremist” clerics in Saudi Arabia were “dismissed” since 2003, al-Hayat newspaper reported on Sunday. Dismissed meaning they have disappeared and are believed to have been jailed or executed. These imam’s tend to be Muslim Brotherhood supporters; the mother ship of all terror organizations. Stirring up insurgencies in Arabia, kept quiet by the media,

While the Arab world is in knots over their leaders being ‘puppets’ in the hands of America, when it comes to middle eastern conflicts it’s completely the opposite: Obama is being fed Sunni propaganda against Shia Muslims. Saudi’s Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February.

Appointed by the Saudi king, his uncle, last year as the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Agency, Prince Bandar has reportedly for months been focused exclusively on garnering international support, including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad.

While a trip earlier this month to the Kremlin to try to cajole President Vladimir Putin into withdrawing his support for President Assad reportedly failed, Prince Bandar automatically has greater leverage in Western capitals, not least because of friendships forged during his time in Washington. His most recent travels, rarely advertised, have taken him to both London and Paris for discussions with senior officials.

As ambassador, Prince Bandar left an imprint that still has not quite faded. His voice was one of the loudest urging the United States to invade Iraq in 2003. In the 1980s, Prince Bandar became mired in the Iran-Contra scandal in Nicaragua.

We have no business in Saudi’s genocide of other people. Obama’s persistence to listen to the warmongering Saudi’s is a crime of the worse degree.


Remember the petrified little toddler living in the Deir ez-Zor Governate in eastern Syria, bordering Iraq? She was tied up by members of the U.S.-supported “Free Syrian Army” — which is dominated by foreign, Sunni jihadis — and made to watch as her mother and father were killed for being Shia. Here is how the Obama administration is using your tax dollars — mockingly in the name of “freedom.”



Al-Qaeda Vows to Slaughter Christians After U.S. ‘Liberates’ Syria

By on September 4, 2013

While U.S. leaders continue pushing for war against the Syrian government, today “Al-Qaeda-linked rebels,” reports AP, “launched an assault on a regime-held Christian mountain village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus, on Wednesday…  In the attack on the village of Maaloula, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel and nearby caves and shelled the community below, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.”

Arabic news agency Al Hadath gives more information concerning this latest terror attack on Syria’s Christians, specifically how the al-Qaeda linked rebels “terrorized the Christians, threatening to be avenged on them after the triumph of the revolution.”

Thus al-Qaeda terrorists eagerly await U.S. assistance against the Syrian government, so they can subjugate if not slaughter Syria’s Christians, secularists, and non-Muslims — even as the Obama administration tries to justify war on Syria by absurdly evoking the “human rights” of Syrians on the one hand, and lying about al-Qaeda’s presence in Syria on the other.