Left To The Dogs

Iraq's Minorities Threatened With Genocide

(Yazidi struggle to escape the advancing ISIS threat)

Circling like vultures, ever ready to pick at the bones of their fallen victims, the dogs of the Islamic State gather for yet another massacre. Their mouths foam with the disease that has infected the countless generations of hedonistic barbarians that came before them. This plague manifested itself with the colonialists that once spilled blood in these same fields. This disease is the same illness that once sent Europe into the dark days of the 1940s. It is the same hunger that drove on the Khmer Rouge as they turned rice patties into the killing fields. ISIS is the manifestation of the disease that has doggedly nipped at the heels of humanity for all of our existence. Its the disease that now threatens to put the final nails in Iraq's coffin.

Blood still drips from the veins of the crucified, the beheaded, and from the lifeless bodies of those left in ditches after mass executions. The mantra for this new caliphate is written in their blood, the ink of the barbarians that exploited their deaths, a medium that speaks to the indifference of the onlooking world. It is in their deaths that the foundations of Isis's terror has been laid. With every fallen victim comes a new mountain of propaganda in this depraved push for religious dominance. It is a sacrifice, a burnt offering to Isis's own insanity, that feeds the wicked intentions of Islam's radical fringe factions.

Tonight the Yazidi people are the scapegoats that are to be offered up so as to feed the lust of those who claim to fight for All-h. Their women and girls are to be used for sexual deviancy. Their men and boys to be drained of their blood as their bodies return to the sun scorched soil. Their voices to be forgotten as they, in their darkest hours, offers up one final scream in hopes that a deaf world might finally hear.

Never Meant To Be Lambs

(Yazidi Temple At The Highest Peak of Sinjar Mountains)

No community has ever faced genocide with the timidness of a lamb. Once the butcher's knife makes it's first appearance the would be victims always find ways to defy the fate they've been slated. Their voices become raised. The muscles become rigid and the heels dig in for the fight ahead. It is not in the nature of man to take that last breath in peace. There has never been a victim of genocide ready to die for the sinful lust of another. The Yazidi are no exception to this rule.

When ISIS came to Sinjar the Yazidi community already knew what was awaiting them. Due to their religious beliefs the Islamist radicals had already plotted to kill the "devil worshipers" in mass. The black flag that ISIS uses was an unadulterated symbol of their intentions toward the Yazidi minority. No quarter would be given, no mercy would be shown, and no peace could ever be obtained from the clutched fists of the barbarians that comprise Isis's forces.

But what makes the Yazidi such a vulnerable target in Isis's genocide of "non-believers"?

Much like Muslims, Jews, and Christians; the Yazidi are monotheists. They believe in one god who created all life here on earth. Yet the connection with Islam almost ends at that point alone. For it is in the Yazidi religion, Yazdanism, that the belief in one god diverges into other beliefs that Islam does not share. It's these differences that place Islamic fundamentalists at odds with the "pagan" beliefs of the Yazidi.

In Yazdanism the creator god entrusted the world to a Heptad of Seven Holy Beings who were to care for all of creation. These "angels", or heft sirr (the Seven Mysteries), are all to "bow to Adam (man)". Yet the head of the heft sirr, or archangels, does not bow to mankind. Instead, Tawûsê Melek, who was said to be created from the creator god's own illumination, refuses to bow to mankind. This makes Tawûsê Melek a special part of Yazdanism and is revered by the Yazidi faith.

Islam and Christianity have long equated the worship of these "angels" as demon worship. And it is in the worship of Tawûsê Melek that the Abrahamic faiths have created their worst offense to Yazdanism. For it is in the story of Tawûsê Melek that fundamentalists (Muslims and Christians alike) have concocted the belief that this lead angel is their demon Shaitan (Satan). Yet it is in the story of Tawûsê Melek that it becomes most evident that Yazdanism is a distinct and separate religion from Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. For it is in his story that Yazdanism's many other influences becomes more evident (including Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, and several eastern religions).

However, due to the complexity of any given faith, we will not delve too deeply into the story itself but rather look at how it has been exploited to target the Yazidi minority.

Westerners have long romanticized the Yazidi in as much the same way as they have with any other Eastern religious minority. Their faith is not explained in Western media when it so callously equates it to Islam. The religious practices aren't valued for their unique contributions to world community but are rather slighted by upholding old myths of devil worship. Their culture as a whole isn't recognized for it's depth and beauty but rather is looked at with a passing glance.

The Muslim world has long targeted the Yazidi community with pogroms and social injustices of all sorts. Imams and religious leaders within Islam have accused the Yazidi of serving Shaitan (Satan) due to their incredible lack of understanding when talking about Yazdanism. The methods of worship and prayer that are hallmarks of Yazdanism are considered pagan by Islamic fundamentalists. Throughout the centuries the Yazidi have been rounded up and killed in smaller versions of their current holocaust. Their children are targeted with forced conversions to Islam. Their women used as sexual objects, so easily discarded after they've outlived their purpose. And the Yazidi men have often been massacred by Arab neighbors. All of this because the fundamentalists could not look beyond the strangling hold their own faith places upon the overall conscience of an already ethnocentric society.

Both East and West have failed to recognize the value of a richly diverse society, a society to which the Yazidi culture and beliefs could so greatly contribute. While not all Muslims demonize the Yazidi and their beliefs, and not all Westerners dehumanize them by marginalizing their culture, the damage inflicted by those who do is already visible. In a community, like that found in Iraq's northern regions, the lack of tolerance for differing beliefs and practices is intolerable. It permits a situation in which only the largest faiths and ethnic groups are capable of surviving while minorities are forced to struggle to eek out an existence.

Now the Yazidi prepare to fight back. Now they have no other option but to stand up and defiantly look death in the eye. All because the world, as a whole, has long ignored their screams for help.

From The Hearts of Men

The Yazidi believe that all evil in this world arises not from a "great Satan" or demonic presence of any form. It is in their religion that the true nature of evil is best explained. For it is in the Yazidi faith that evil is said to be the product of man's heart, and man's heart alone. The Islamic State is proving this to be true. The apathy of the world community is proving this to be the only source of evil in this dark and dreary world.

When Saddam tried to exterminate the Yazidi the world generalized their plight by bunching them in with the Kurdish population of Iraq. When pogroms have occurred and the Yazidi were targeted by their Arab neighbors the colonial powers wrote it off as a "ancient rivalry" of sorts. Just as with the Roma in the Porajamos, the world denied the magnitude of Saddam's crimes by denying the targeting of the Yazidi for their faith and ethnicity. Just as with the Bosnian Genocide, the world devalued the lives of the Yazidi by cheapening their plight with excuses for the aggression of the Arabs. In every genocide the Yazidi have faced there has always been an apathetic world ready to look the other way. In every struggle to survive the Yazidi have found themselves begging for help from an increasingly deaf world.

Today we watch as the most powerful nation on the planet offers only tokens of support for their plight as it refuses to commit to the promise of "never again". Cheap air strikes are all the world's most technologically advanced military will give as it's governing body refuses to do all it can to stop the genocide of the Yazidi. So as the dead and soon to be dead drift from this earth we monitor their demise with drones overhead. And as the children of the Yazidi face slavery and sexual abuse at the hands of ISIS heathens we bomb random artillery pieces and abandoned checkpoints. This is the extent of morality in our modern age. We promise the same intervention the allies inadvertently offered the Jews, and yet when the time to commit arises... we are impotent, so to speak.

It was once said, and often repeated, that the only thing that evil needs to succeed is the silence of good men. The Yazidi believe that evil arises from the hearts of all mankind. But they also believe that the good in this world also is a product of the human heart. Thus a war, of sorts, can be depicted as raging within the human spirit. A desire to create, a desire to save, and a desire to protect are all found within the heart of man. Yet the desire to destroy, to devour, and to prey upon others can also be found within the same heart; at times, simultaneously.

The salvation of modern man is the ability of mankind to overcome the evil we so often create. If mankind is truly "good" inside, if there is a hope for a better world still yet to come, then there is a way to conquer the evil tendencies of man. The first, and far from the least of which, is the apathy that so often paralyzes us in this struggle.

If communities like that of the Yazidi people are to survive in this ever shrinking world then we must surrender ourselves to empathy rather than apathy. We must adhere their afflictions to our own sense of survival and thus make their struggle our own. By denying the value of their culture, by giving into the notion that someone else will "save" them... we lose something of ourselves. In remaining silent we hand over the sword to their executioner. By no lifting a finger to stop their demise we join the ranks of the barbarians that slaughter them.

A world that believes in equality, tolerance, understanding, and the value of diversity can not bare the blight of groups like ISIS. No matter what your religion is, no matter where in the world you are, the struggle to stop the spread of genocide and hate is one that you can not turn away from. Either you are willing to fight against racism, religious violence, ethnic hatred, and bigotry or you are a contributor to it. You don't get to remain silent.

Scream Bloody Murder

Many of you won't have the option to get out there and do the physical work required to stop genocide. There probably won't be rallies and protests in support of the Yazidis. And when it comes to the political legwork many of us are intimidated by the actions required to just get the ear of our government long enough to scream for the Yazidis. But there is still the work of raising awareness. And this is a job that all of us should be doing without hesitation. It is a job that each of use are supposed to be doing for all victims of genocide, regardless of who they are and/or who the murderers are. 

In the notes below you will find countless links that are easily shared on twitter, facebook, tumblr, pintrest, and all other social media sites. These articles should be read and used in conversations so that you can help bring awareness of the Yazidis' plight. But they are just a start. You should, and will need to, continue to read more about the Yazidi people and the genocides they have endured. The more familiar you become with the people and their struggle the more convincingly you can share their story. 

In addition to being an online presence for the Yazidi community, you should also be sharing their story in your daily life as well. Each of us have countless conversations daily. Chances are you will spend some time today talking about anything and nothing at all with people from many different walks of life. These are all opportunities to raise awareness. With some tact and patience, you can usually grab the attention of at least one person who is willing to listen. And that one person is a chance to keep the information flowing. That one person is a chance to stir the heart of your fellow man and create the opportunity for positive change... to touch the "good" within their heart. 

As long as you have breath in your lungs...

You should be screaming.

So while you are talking about Gaza, Sudan, North Korea, or the Rohingya... don't forget the Yazidi. While you are talking about television shows, music, politics, sports, or simply making small talk... don't forget the Yazidi. If and when the opportunity arises... scream for them. 





Source Documents
(note: not all are listed)

The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/10/pope-francis-iraq-isis-islamic-state-religious-minorities-violence
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/yazidis-tormented-fears-for-women-girls-kidnapped-sinjar-isis-slaves
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-air-strikes-iraq-isis-minimal-impact-pentagon
-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/13/france-arms-kurds-isis-iraq-military

Times
https://time.com/3099014/isis-iraq-kurdistan-yazidi/

Rudaw
http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/100820145
-
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/110820144

The Daily Star (Lebanon)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Aug-13/267050-us-troops-sent-to-iraq-to-help-trapped-yezidis.ashx#axzz3AIyfSCv5

London Evening Standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/uk-military-commanders-urge-david-cameron-to-commit-to-intervention-in-iraq-9665224.html

The Straights Times
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/middle-east/story/un-monitors-demand-urgent-action-stop-iraq-yezidi-genocide-20140812

The Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11029765/Iraq-crisis-the-last-stand-of-the-Yazidis-against-Islamic-State.html
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11027161/Iraq-crisis-My-night-on-the-mountain-of-hell-with-dying-Yazidi-refugees.html

The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-crisis-un-warns-yazidis-refugees-trapped-on-mount-sinjar-are-facing-imminent-genocide-from-is-militants-9665003.html

VOX
http://www.vox.com/iraq-crisis/2014/8/9/5983785/yazidi-americans-to-obama-a-genocide-is-happening-on-your-watch

Al-Arabia
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/alarabiya-studies/2014/08/11/What-you-did-not-know-about-Iraq-s-Yazidi-minority-.html

We Are All To Blame For Syria

Written by Nanice

The Arab League. The damned Arab League. Where oh where are you? And Jordan and Turkey and Saudi and Qatar and everyone else in the region that should step up. That should have stepped up. Where are you? Why are you waiting for the United States to handle Arab affairs? (In all fairness Jordan and Turkey are bursting at the seams with the refugee crisis.) So why didn't the United States or the European Union get involved earlier as opposed to now? Way before well over 100,000 people have died and now over 3-4 million people are in dire need of humanitarian aid? 

Obama and Cameron condemned atrocities, but sat on their hands and waited. The Arab League condemned atrocities as well, but just sat on their hands. Nowhere to be found. As usual. As always. I can't be disappointed because I am always disappointed. Now chemical weapons have been used so now "we care." The world "cares." The EU "cares." Saudi "cares." France "cares." Israel "cares." The United States "cares." Obama "cares." And so on.

The day Bashar Al- Assad started killing children is when the world, The EU, the Arab League, the US, Obama, Cameron, etc., etc., should have "really cared." They didn't then. They don't now. 

Obama wants to save face and make Americans think he's doing the right thing by going to Congress. What happens if they say no? No to intervention? Will he over ride them anyway? What is his motive NOW vs. 2 years ago? And why does the US get tell the other Arab countries what to do? 

I'm not for US involvement, but I'll be damned if it happens in my name and makes the situation worse. I won't blame the US or EU fully. I will blame the Arab League, KSA, Qatar, Jordan, Turkey, Russia, China and Iran. I will blame everyone but not the US wholly. Why? Because the US does nothing that doesn't protect or benefit Israel. You know this. You should know this. If you don't, you know now.

And all you "Hands off Syria" people, what is your solution? "Hands off!" "Hands off!" Then what? What happens next? No plan huh? No. No plan. Just keep hands off Syria so things stay the same. All I can say now is, SORRY. Sorry children of Syria because all we can say is "Hands Off Syria!" And we can say we need intervention now, and those are short term, easy out solutions that make us feel better. But we do not project. We cannot think. We have nothing else in place for your future. We have no long term solution for you. So you will continue to die and for that I'm so very sorry.

And all you who urge me to call Congress to vote yes or no on strikes? I've been calling Congress. I've called them to ask what their plan is either way. I've called Congress to ask them what their long term goals are for Syria should they vote yes. I've called Congress to ask them what they will do if Assad is weakened and opposition takes over? What Congress will do if Assad strikes back? Or what they will do if he lashes out even harsher on his own people. I've called Congress to ask what if there are more civilian casualties? I've called Congress to say, if you decide not to strike what are your plans now because we've dug our heels in too deep?! What is the next step? What are the next 10 steps? Surely they have a plan? Surely they've thought this out! Surely we all have, haven't we?

I can't be mad and place all blame on countries who I expect to act. I can't be mad at them at all. Not entirely. Countries are run by people, who although have power, they are people just like you and me. They might have the best of intentions, they might have the worst of intentions, but either way there has been no overwhelming flood of public pressure on a world-wide scale to these people in power until now. 

Why? 

Because chemical weapons have been used and now the threat of foreign intervention is real. Very real. So real it now has an affect on us? Now we, you and me, those of us who call ourselves "activists", those who wanted to help but didn't know how, all of us, we, you and me, are frantically trying to help Syrians and ourselves (let's not joke) by either pressuring these powers to intervene or to keep their hands off. Where were we, you and me, and activists and global citizens; those who wanted to help but didn't know how or when? Where were we when the Houla massacre took place? Where were we when it happened in Daraa? When it happened in Hama? In Aleppo? When the refugees reached into the tens of thousands? Then hundreds of thousands? When it reached 1 million? When there was a mass exodus of refugees to Iraq? Iraq for crying out loud! Where were we? We, and you and me, we are to blame. All of us. All of us are to blame because we waited too long. We waited for it to come to this. I am to blame because I sat in the comfort of my own home listening to the screams and cries of Syrians. Men and women and elders and children, all begging for help. I sat in the comfort of my own home while children were butchered, mothers & daughters were raped, while their fathers and husbands were being tortured. I am to blame while I stayed up all night looking through the awful videos and decided to wait.

A Legacy Of Failure

How The World Left Syria To Burn

This post contains opinions that do not reflect the opinions of all of Alder's Ledge's contributors and writers. They are personal in nature and may be considered offensive to some. We suggest that you read this post with an open mind and consider it polite debate rather than an argument or fact.

We watched in Bosnia as the aggressors were rewarded by UN apathy as the blue hats dragged their feet. The tin star blue hats watched as the Serbs sat up their artillery and began to shell civilians. We were so close to the fight that we could watch the snipers pull their bloody triggers. So damn close that we could watch as another mother took her last breath as she fell in sniper alley. Yet we did nothing to stop the sniper in the first place. Instead we made certain that the Bosnian civilians were disarmed and unable to fight back. Thus making the slaughter possible.

The notion of peace through talking died in Bosnia. Over and over the Bosnians watched as their politicians pleaded with the Serbs to end the war. Over and over again they watched as the Serbs took their brothers and fathers off to die in camps the UN knew about from day one. Peace never came to Bosnia through talking to the tyrant. Instead all the Bosnians got from the fight was a legacy of broken promises and failure.

In Syria the peaceful protests were met with aggression unparalleled by modern fascists. Yet the world turned their eyes away as they hoped their beloved "Arab Spring" would pan out elsewhere. Nobody wanted to imagine that a little resistance to the "change" Obama claimed to inspire would end up like it has today. We didn't want to believe that 100,000 lives (and counting) would be lost to the arrogance of a tyrannical regime.

Had we decided to respond then maybe things might have worked out differently. Just perhaps if the world had decided to intervene then maybe more Syrians would be alive today.

When Libya went to hell the world responded by siding with a group of rebels that we deemed to be the lesser of two evils. We didn't have a bloody clue who we were arming or who were helping to kick Gaddafi out of office. But we took our chance to finish off the old persistent pain in Northern Africa. The thorn in the West's paw was finally removed.

Of course there were anti-war isolationists who wanted to defend their position of zero tolerance for war at all (and any) cost. And the one thing they got in the whole mess that was Libya was that UN/US never put "boots on the ground". Even when the rebels began to slaughter black African civilians as they "liberated" Libya from Gaddafi, we never put a blue hat on the ground. Even as the rebels began committing summary executions in retaliation for the times they suffered defeats at Gaddafi's hands, we never put a single boot on Libyan soil. We maintained our support in the air above while ignoring the atrocities happening below.

If the US does in fact decide to send in a few rockets or jets they will most definitely be committing themselves to a longer war than that of Libya. They won't have the option to keep their precious boots off the bloody soil below. What lay ahead for Syria if America gets involved isn't just war... it will be hell on Earth.

Where We Failed

From the very start in Syria's "civil war" we should have noted who the aggressors were and exactly what war crimes they were committing. At that moment it would had been clear to realize that Assad's regime was willingly attacking it's own people. And from that moment the international community should have begun to act. 

But we didn't...

In March of 2011 the first chance we had at breaking Assad's grip on Syria slipped away. With the initial abuses by Syria's security forces the world should had began applying heavy economic pressure upon Syria. The most direct method would had been to freeze the accounts of Syrian leaders and those actively supporting the regime from the outside. Cutting the regime off from it's supply of money would had gained the attention of even the most hardline supporters of the Assad government. 

Yet we didn't...

From the start Assad has been purchasing the weapons he needed to "restore order" from the Russians. Countless reports have shown that Russian arms companies have been the lifeblood for the struggling Syrian leader. Had these companies faced the economic muscle of the outside world they would have found it hard to justify two years of losses while supporting Assad. But since the pressure was never applied upon the arms companies those would be losses have been translated into massive profits. 

Had Russia faced history making sanctions for it's support of Assad's barbarism the world would had been forced to take notice. If either Western Europe or the United States had found their courage and stood up to Putin the world at large would have had to stop and look. What would have looked like the Cold War erupting after a short intermission would have gotten even Assad's attention as he continued to slaughter his own. 

But again, we didn't...

As the fighting grew and refugees began to pour over the border into Turkey the world had the opportunity to document the war from the outside. Had information been extracted from the refugees methodically and published for all the world to see the war in Syria would have been recorded as starting in early 2011. Instead the "internal struggle" in Syria was routinely sidelined as the world media refused to take the matter seriously and label it for what it was. 

In June of 2011 when Assad laid siege to Jisr al-Shughour and 10,000 refugees almost immediately fled to Turkey the world had another chance. Their stories told the world of a military that was readily placing heavy artillery fire squarely upon civilian homes that had no discernible military significance. They were amongst the first ones to testify that Assad's air force was readily strafing city streets and dropping bombs on public buildings. These were the first ones to tell the world that what was happening behind the curtain wasn't war... this was systematic slaughter.

So where was the world? One word... Weiner.

While the United States and the rest of the West should had been pushing for immediate economic and political retaliation against Assad and his regime, we were focused on congressmen who couldn't keep it in their pants. While we should have been focusing on stopping the flow of conventional weapons into the country we were too focused on trivial sideshows. So while the US was talking about wieners, Assad was purchasing weapons from companies like Rosoboronexport.

Rosoboronexport isn't talked about however since the company has partners all across the world. Making lucrative deals with India, Italy, Malaysia, Brazil, China, France, Kazakhstan, and Peru (just to name a few) the company shows no sign of pulling back. And why should they? The world has shown absolutely no outrage while companies like Rosoboronexport supply the weapons for genocidal regimes across the globe.

As long as companies like this one produce "conventional weapons" for embattled regimes the world has no real say in the matter. If the country buying the weapons feels like using them to kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens... well that is just up to the country now isn't it?

And that is where the next major failure came when dealing with Syria's barbaric leadership.

The Ultimate "Red Line"

Since the very start of the League of Nations following World War One the world community has battled the question of state sovereignty. In the most simplistic analogy the question can be compared to an apartment building. When one neighbor hears their neighbor beating his wife there is supposedly a question of how and when to intervene. The United Nations (the modern League of Nations) is supposed to act like the cop in this scenario. Yet what if the cop never goes to even check about the supposed domestic violence?

In the world community this has been one of the major problems with the United Nations. In times of blatant abuses committed across the globe the UN has neglected all such incidents unless they cross a border. As long as the beating (killing) is contained to the apartment (country) the UN appears far to willing to ignore the scenario all together. And in many cases the abuses have been tolerated even when the blood starts to pour over national borders.

In Bosnia the genocide was tolerated by simply applying the term "ethnic cleansing". In Rwanda the genocide was tolerated due to the deaths of 11 Dutch blue hats. And in Cambodia the world was happy to ignore genocide since it was just a poor country killing it's own. Containment of the crime seemed preferable to stopping it all together in every case.

This trend however didn't start with the 20th century. One of the main reasons for the United States not signing the Genocide Convention was the fear that our own sins committed against the First Nation would be rehashed. After all, many of those crimes were committed on lands we technically didn't own at the time. And if we could be accused of the crime than why should we go punishing others for the same offense?

At the end of World War Two the United States managed to kill it's conscience by pushing forward the Nuremberg Trials. While we watched Nazis commit suicide rather than face the music over crimes the US had committed in its past, Washington claimed the moral high ground. The hypocrisy of the fact that Washington was (and still is) committing a slow cultural and ethnic genocide of the Native American community wasn't up for question. We were after all punishing a genocide that had spread across borders, seas, and continents.

So why do we hesitate to punish acts of genocide when they occur within the confines of a nation's borders?

Syria's Alawite controlled government has long kept it's boot on the throat of Syria's religious majority. By offering protection through a bolstered military the Assad regime pretended to be protecting the national interest of self-defense. Offering planes, tanks, and germs to guard against the ever lingering "Jewish threat", Assad built up the arsenal he knew he would eventually need to maintain control. All the weapons, all the lies, were just to maintain power.

To the outside world this lie of legitimate interests in protecting Syria's desire for self-determination
of it's own fate seemed almost heroic. Here they had a minority leader placing the rights of all Syria ahead of his own self interest. The flimsy facade was varnished over by the platitudes of weary Western nations. Nobody wanted a repeat of the Yom Kippur War after all.

So while Syria built up it's chemical weapon stocks the West ignored the abusive regime. From as early as 1968 the government of Syria was publicly showing interests in the obtaining and use of a weapon the rest of the world had banned. Syria's increase of interests in the unconventional weapons was ignored in the 80s as the regime began to bolster it's military with chemicals and scuds.

It never occurred to the world to tell Syria no. After all, they hadn't shown any intention to use them across any border (except Israel's). And as long as the weapons were being contained to their own country, why should the world act?

When Iraq and Iran began using chemical weapons in their little recreation of WW1 the world turned a blind eye. However all the while the West and East were supplying the very chemicals that Iraq and Iran needed to keep the blood flowing. Washington didn't even blink when Iraq launched it's al-Anfal campaign against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq. And why should they? That was still technically within Iraq's borders right? And they hadn't complained when the same weapons were used on Iranians...

With Syria the question of national sovereignty was still the issue. The West needed to attempt to chip away at the shell Syria had built around itself. Questioning a state's sensitive attachment to it's ego (national sovereignty) wasn't exactly the way to warm Assad's government up to the "great Satan". And complaining about weapons that Israel is still believed to have wasn't going to help either.

Had the world used sanctions perhaps there would have been a way to work around the egotistical posturing that was taking place between Syria and the West. By limiting the influx of weapons into Syria in both the 20th and 21st century the world could have weakened a regime that we all knew was a danger to sustainable peace. And yet it is in this aspect of applying sanctions and embargoes that the liberal minded war opposing majority gets lost.

Crossing The Line Of State Sovereignty 

(Peacefully)

When applying sanctions with the intent of crippling a regime and forcing unrest with the long term goal of peace you generally lose the fringe elements on both ends. The idea of causing internal crisis with no clear idea of what comes out on the other side is generally considered interfering rather than intervening. And in cases such as Iran, the United States has proven just how piss poor that strategy works.

In the case of Syria the ideal way to force Assad to either change or leave would had been to reward surrounding states for cooperating with us while forcing Syria into further isolation. It isn't a perfect strategy, but it is far more preferable to the options we are left with today.

In this method the world should not have leaned upon the United States and the UN should have stood up and questioned Syria's state sovereignty. The continued abuse of Syria's own people when seeking a change in their own right to self governance should had been our first response as a world community. In 2008 the world should had spent more time forcing Assad to meet the standards of the international community rather than accept his brutal methods of governance. This would have of course continued the international isolation of Syria from the West. Yet it would have kept the Syrian government in a position where it had no bargaining chips to play.

However the opportunity to political and economic muscle was passed up as France bent over instead.

At that point the world should have begun to stand up to Assad's main cheerleaders in Moscow and Beijing. By implementing roadblocks between the flow of oil, weapons, cash, and chemicals between Assad's main backers the world could have drastically shortened the crisis that we are watching today. This method would have been of course portrayed as the West interfering and playing political brinksmanship with Putin and Assad. Yet the flow of weapons would have at very least been interrupted.

Just as JFK had done with Cuba, the United Nations should have said screw the rules and enforced any measures possible to stop the influx of helicopters and ammunition. Unlike Russia in the 1900's however, Putin would had been more than willing to see just how bold the West really is. And that is where the entire plan goes to hell.

Without the will to play chicken with dictators like Putin the world community can only expect more bloodshed like that in Syria. If the world is not willing to accept some destabilization of countries like Syria in an effort to end the imperialistic aspirations of countries like Russia then the cycle of purges will continue.

Syria should have been pushed to the brink while the world community prepared to bust in the door with the first misstep Assad took. Isolation, deprivation, and the promise of relief being kept just out of reach are all three methods that (while risking war) have the chance of ending in peace.

Of course history doesn't show us this. And for most that have read this far this post is just a bit too far to accept. But all you really have to do is ask yourself if you want to see another Syria? Another Bosnia? Or another Cambodia?

(close enough to watch it all come tumbling down)

The Alternative

Had the UN prepared themselves to shoot anyone from either side that dared cross the line in Bosnia the genocide may have never happened. However the Serbs had seen how blue hats responded to even the slightest hint of violence. It was for this reason that the Serbian guerrillas exercised extreme violence in the face of blue hat observers. The utter lack of fear of reprisal or accountability was blatantly obvious.

The main fear on the part of the UN was getting themselves involved in a shooting match. The idea of having multiple nations in one area where the bodies are bound to start piling up seemed way to far out in right field. Yet it was in their obvious fear of using their guns that the UN showed their lack of commitment to ending the killing.

The one thing history has shown us in Bosnia, and all other such cases, is that no army of savages has ever been stopped by asking them politely.

Kosovo showed the world what brutal aerial bombardment could do to the moral of a ground bound foe. The world watched as jets and rockets filled the air and the Serbian aggressors began their retreat. Digging in, the hardliners waited for their number to be called.

Had the UN ordered ground units into the area to mop up the resistance the Serbs across the map would had taken notice. The will to fight would had been crippled. The desire to die for a cause they had no possibility to achieve would had died right there and then.

No man wants to die so that another man can be oppressed by his blood. We either fight for freedom or we fight because that is the lie they have fed us. For the Serbs the fight for soil would had been far less appealing had they known that the world would not tolerate their genocidal efforts.

But all that requires a world where we are willing to question the morality of imposing ideals of national sovereignty over the ideal of basic human rights. It requires a world where the division between West and East is ignored and abandoned. It requires a world that simply ask what we would do to stop the crime rather than how we are expected to handle it.

Overly Simplistic?

For me the moral obligation to refrain from inflicting pain upon another person has always been thrown out when faced with things I know to be wrong. When faced with watching somebody who is outnumbered and outgunned I have always thrown my hat in on the losing side. Not because I wanted to fight, but because I wanted to end the fight. And once it was over I have always saught to resolve the conflict with words rather than fists.

Those who have read this blog for any length of time know that I (the main author) was a punk growing up. All those years of running around with spikes and chains didn't teach me much, but they did show me that sometimes fighting is preferable to the guilt of not doing so when you should.

Is this view of Syria overly simplistic?

Hell yes.

Is it realistic?

Well that we may never know.

Want to reply to the author of this post? 

Contact him on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Source Documents:
(Not All Sources Listed)

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/04/09/cold-blood-0

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17344858

WW4 Report
http://ww4report.com/node/12589

Africa News Network
http://www.ann7.com/article/2566-2708201327082013all-we-are-left-with-is-god-ghouta-survivor-says.html#.Uij9fLypYXy

International Business Times
http://www.ibtimes.com/syria-chemical-weapons-program-helped-western-companies-selling-precursor-nerve-agents-1395301

NTI
http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/syria_chemical.pdf?_=1316466790

Are You Not Entertained?

The Thin Line Between Entertainment and War
(Screamer Post)

 Are you not entertained Mr.Obama?

Is this not what you wanted Mr Putin?

War does not take from one more or less than it takes from another. All those who are subjected to it's wrath are forever changed. Those who see it's face and walk away with their lives will forever bare it's wounds. It is a crime that makes no distinction between combatant and civilian. It only seeks it's pound of flesh, it's ounce of blood. Once invited... once provoked, war takes us further than we could have ever dreamed possible. Where we give an inch, war tends to take a mile. For the innocent civilians in Syria this has been a war that refuses to end. It was invited through the excesses of a few and yet claims far too many. The wounds it has left may never truly heal. 

The West has sat on the sidelines of this war. Like so many cases that came before it, we told ourselves it was acceptable for a barbaric regime to kill it's own people in any way it saw fit. Then, with the images of children being killed playing on our screens, we made a bloody line in the sand. Our leaders, in all their so called wisdom, decided to play a game of chicken with the enemy of all free peoples. We told a sadist that there was a form of torment that we would not tolerate. We expected that our entertainment with his downfall would continue, that Assad would refrain from provoking us. 

Assad showed that he was far more than capable of crossing that line. 

Bombing bread lines, using cluster munitions, utilizing chemical weapons, and firing SCUD missiles upon his own citizens; Assad showed the West where his line in the sand was. It is a thin line between his own ego and total war. It is a line that he is happy to dance around while the West remains shocked by the brazen arrogance of Syria's tyrant. All the while Putin and China try their best to drag Assad well past the point of no return. 

For three long years we have dictated to the rebels in Syria what we wanted of them. We criticized them for allowing extremists into their ranks while refusing to answer their pleas for intervention. We told them to avoid acts of barbarism that parroted Assad's own abuses while refusing to ship them weapons with which to defend themselves. We told them to avoid shooting prisoners of war while refusing to provide them supplies with which to keep the captured Shabiha alive. For three long years President Obama has used the Syrian resistance as pawns in his games with Russia. 

When was the last time we seriously attempted to bring the war to an end? When was the last time we honestly asked the Syrian people what they actually want? Why can't America and Russia back down and allow the Syrian people the right to self-determination that we all claim for ourselves? 

If we were to strip the radical mercenaries from both sides of the battle lines, if we were to send the Hezbollah thugs back home, if we were to make the Iranians leave the front lines; what would Syria have to say about it's own fate? 

If Putin was to back down from his support of a tyrant he is attempting to make into a puppet, if Obama was to honestly back away from his supposed support of the rebels; what would the civilians in Damascus want the world to hear about this war? 

(Female rebels prepared to fight alongside their male comrades)

Would we hear stories of families being forced to surrender their sons and daughters to a fight they didn't want in the first place? Or would we hear tales of entire communities sending all able-bodied men, women, and youth off to the front? Would we see families torn between loyalist dedication to Assad and open rebellion against the dictator? Or would we see the battle lines drawn strictly between communities and religious factions?

War has a way of fogging the reality that rest just beneath the surface. It creates a barrier between what is real and what we want it to be. Once the line between the two is erased we are left with a brutal realization of where we failed to act and where we overreached. Syria has not broken that barrier in the eyes of Western onlookers. It remains shrouded by the haze that war brings with it.

For the time being we are not able to see the complete picture of what is happening on the ground in Syria. Yet we find ourselves fixated by the carnage that peeks out from beneath the fog. For some it is heart wrenching. For others it is a perverted form of entertainment as they cheer one side or the other.

In the politics of the West verse East Syria is a form of perverse entertainment. Even though it threatens to force us over the thin line between entertainment and proxy war, Syria remains a chess game for politicians who act like dictators in their own right. While the people of Syria face one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time our world leaders use their suffering to gain political capital.

(Syrian Refugees Fleeing For Turkey)

When this is all over will we be able to look the victims in their eyes? Will we be able to tell ourselves that we did our part in protecting the vulnerable? Will we be able to say before the world that we took a stand against this hedonistic slaughter? Or will the world have to hang it's head and apologize in the same way we did after Rwanda... after Bosnia... after Cambodia... after the Armenia?

As for our leaders, for those who hold the power to call off the dogs of war, are you not satisfied? Have these past three years not been entertaining Washington? Moscow? London? Beijing? Tehran? Have the people of Syria not suffered enough for your selfish desires? Or have they not paid enough in blood to satisfy the divide between the West and East?







Want to learn more about this topic and others covered by Alder's Ledge?

Follow us on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Or follow us on Facebook: Alder's Ledge

View The World Through American Eyes

Clinton's Failure To Become Obama's Inspiration
(part of The Darkness Visible series)

(Close Enough To Watch The Massacre Unfold)

In 1995 the UN pretended to do what it had promised after the Holocaust. It pretended to uphold the promise of "Never Again" while the Bosnian Muslims were being slaughtered by Serbian nationalists. By putting "boots on the ground" and fighter jets in the sky above the UN pacified it's conscience. However, much like in Rwanda the year before, the UN soldiers were constantly ordered to stand down and retreat if fired upon. They were rarely armed and when they were the ammunition was considered more valuable then the Bosnian civilians they had been sent to protect. 

America watched the carnage unfold every night on the nightly news. We watched as Bosnian civilians ran through city street zig-zagging so as to avoid the snipers' bullets. With every week we watched as Serbian artillery fired upon villages and cities so as to keep the siege grinding away. Our reporters brought us stories of death camps much like that of Auschwitz being erected by Serbian militias. News came through of rape camps being used all across occupied areas of Bosnia. For us Bosnia was viewed through American eyes and lost upon callous hearts. 

Bosnia wasn't considered part of Europe. And even when it was, we considered it the European Union's problem; not ours. We had sent boys into Somalia after some war lord not long before Yugoslavia imploded. We had watched American GIs being dragged through a third world country's streets by cheering crowds. Bosnia was viewed through this prism. What came out the others side was simply impalpable to American voters. We just had no stomach for another war... another police action in some foreign hell hole. 

Today Syria is viewed through American eyes. All the things we have ever heard about Syria, all the lies and distortions we have ever considered even remotely true, we place upon the shoulders' of Syria's innocent victims. We don't view Syria as a country breaking apart at the seams. We don't see the children being used as pawns only to be slaughtered at the hands of barbaric heathens. We don't see the bravery of Syrian youth who take up arms to defend their families, their homes, themselves. We just don't have a stomach for another war in the Middle East... another failed invasion of some country in which we don't believe we belong. 

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya... America has had it's fill of losing wars. We have had far too many American boys come home in body bags. The ones who have come home from the "sandbox" have no desire to be sent back. The boys who lost their friends, their brothers, their comrades over there don't want to see the next generation of GIs sent off to die for blood lust and oil again. That is how far too many see Syria. It is through these American eyes that Syria is viewed. 

Most of this is due to rather horrible leadership in America's government. We aren't led by men who know what it means to win a war. We are led by men who seek out profit and fame at the cost of other peoples' suffering. When the polls that dictate their follies point away from what is right they never turn back toward the truth. Their ears are deaf to honest suggestion. Their eyes blind to the pain their leadership has caused both here at home and abroad. Their souls lost to greed and lust. For this reason when we are presented with a good fight, a reason to sacrifice, we as a nation turn away. 

For Obama this is a repeat of Clinton's failures. By listening to a man that sacrificed 800,000 Tutsi lives to news polls and narcissism, Obama fails to see where history will judge him. After all, America doesn't write the history books anymore. The failures that Obama is racking up when dealing with genocide won't be erased like those of American presidents who killed off the Native Americans. Syria and Myanmar won't be so easily forgotten. 

In April of 1994 the Clinton administration was questioned daily following the sudden eruption of genocide in Rwanda. Every news reporter in those White House briefings wanted to ask the same question. On their lips rested the damning words that would haunt the Clinton presidency for the rest of time. 

"Is this Genocide?"

From the start of the killings in Rwanda the Clinton administration began sending out orders to it's staff and it's contacts in the media that all read rather bluntly "Don't use the word 'genocide' when talking about Rwanda". The immediate fear the Clinton White House had about the word genocide was that the legal ramifications of such a charge could possibly drag the United States back into Africa. Somalia was far to fresh for the fragile Clinton presidency to be starting up another war in another African country (especially one most American's couldn't even point to on a map). Even worse was the fact that Clinton didn't exactly know where Rwanda was either. 

Next came Bosnia. 

It was almost as though Clinton couldn't catch a break. Everywhere the man turned the world was going up in flames. And yet this was a man who wanted to tackle social issues, not be dragged into issues abroad. So once again the Clinton administration sent out orders for their staff to avoid all conversation about the subject. Bill didn't want to discuss the massacres, he didn't want to talk about the Serbian aggression, he just simply didn't want to discuss anything that could drag his presidency back overseas. 

But the media did something that they haven't done since. Honest, aggressive, journalist took to the combat zone to bring home images of what hell was like. Children being shot in the street while their mothers' cried from behind soldiers' arms proved to be a bit too much for America and the EU to ignore. With images of snipers picking off women and children playing on televisions across the country, Clinton decided to go to war. 

Obama played the cowboy when American jets were sent over Libya to enforce a no-fly-zone. He promised a worried American public that there would be "no boots on the ground". It was in Libya that the Obama White House found some relief from Afghan follies. Yet the engagement was still unpopular amongst Americans. The fact that America has been at war in the Middle East for over a decade just couldn't be erased with one "victory" in Libya. 

With his one victory under his belt, Obama seems to have no desire to lose that ace in the hole. It is his own version of a "get out of jail" free card. The fact that he didn't even play it after the right wing cried fowl after the Benghazi attack should prove just how attached Obama is to his own ego. And yet when Democrats demand that Obama play his card with Syria... Obama slips Libya back under the table. 

Syria is a bloody mess. It has been ravaged for years by a stalemate that has proven to be one of the largest human rights catastrophes of our era. Jets strafe civilian neighborhoods over and over before dropping their deadly cargo on innocent souls. Helicopters fire rockets on civilians that try to dig their neighbors and family out of the rubble of their former homes. Shabiha mobs team up with mercenary soldiers from Hamas and Iran to commit massacres upon Assad's orders. If this isn't genocide, it is at the very least a long list of horrific war crimes. 

So why the decision to avoid intervention? Why the hesitation? Are we not committed to the freedom and liberty we claim to enjoy ourselves? 

Obama isn't up for reelection. This is his last term he will ever be able to hold as an American president. The fact that he appears weak can no longer be tied to his fear of reelection. 

It can however be tied to the fact that Russia and China have warned the West of the price they would pay for intervening in Syria's crisis. Russian arms wait on loading docks to be sent off and deployed in Syria at a moments notice. Putin constantly brings up his country's history of trading with Syria as though we should keep it in mind. And the Russian czar isn't afraid to point out that those Syrian helicopters and jets are Russian made. 

Obama on the other hand has taken his sweet time in sending weapons to the opposition in Syria. Constant promises of weapons and funds have been put forward by Obama over the past two years. He has even played around with the no-fly-zone option from time to time. Yet the same obstacle comes up every time Obama makes a move toward intervention... Putin. 

Spinelessness and cowardice are two things that Russia's dictators have never respected. And yet these are exactly what Obama has shown when dealing with Syria. Instead of standing up and fighting for what is right, Obama has knelt down and licked the boots of a KGB thug. While Syrian civilians are subjected to barbarism our leader practices appeasement.

All the while Obama has taken a page from Clinton's book. By looking at the uniformity with which the media and White House have operated when talking about Syria one can only guess the same orders went out as went out under Clinton. Only this time we aren't supposed to see the footage of Syrian children being killed. We aren't supposed to see nightly displays of what hell is like. We are supposed to view this through Russian eyes.

Want to learn more about this topic and others covered on Alder's Ledge?

Follow us on Twitter: @alders_ledge

Or on Facebook: Alder's Ledge

Source Documents 

(note: not all sources listed)

My San Antonio 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Obama-leads-from-behind-Bill-Clinton-4607824.php

The Sydney Morning Herald 

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bill-schools-barry-on-syria-20130618-2ofy6.html

Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/18/russia_wins_on_syria_at_g8_summit_while_stephen_harper_scores_on_tax_walkom.html

BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22960062

Alder's Ledge

http://aldersledge.blogspot.no/2012/04/is-syria-new-bosnia.html

The Death Of The Individual Is A Tragedy

The Deaths of Thousands Are A Statistic
~ Joseph Stalin 
(part of The Darkness Visible series and Screamers series)

Almost a year ago the pogroms of the Rohingya in the Arakan began in earnest. After months of Nazi style propaganda being pumped into the region the murmur of hatred erupted into violence. We were told that the "ethnic violence" went both ways. We were told that the Rohingya started the ethnic clashes and therefore could not be considered the victims. This all came from countries that had just previously lifted their sanctions upon Myanmar and were suddenly interested in doing business with the second most reclusive country on the planet. Of course, with Burma opening up the country did jump up in the rankings leaving North Korea alone once again.

Yet with all the talk about how horrible (code in the West for inconvenient) the slaughtering of Rohingya men, women, and children; the supposedly civilized world did nothing to stop the bloodshed. European leaders welcomed Suu Kyi and Thein Sein to endless events and even awarded the two architects of death with the Nobel Peace Prize. When Thein Sein's military establishes concentration camps and converts Rohingya neighborhoods into ghettos... automatically nominated for a Peace Prize. When Suu Kyi tells the West that the Rohingya "question" can only be answered by Burma and that her country will decided who gets citizenship or not... pat on the back and oh yeah, Peace Prize.

Then there is Obama. The great supporter of democracy. The anointed leader of a failed agenda to get the world to love America once again. And yet all he can afford the Rohingya is a short speech and some hollow promises about America's support for equality and justice. But to be fair, this was another Nobel Peace Prize winner who did nothing to earn it. So it only makes sense that Obama, like Suu Kyi, shouldn't have to denounce the murderers and admit that Myanmar is committing genocide.

On April 22nd, 2013 Human Rights Watch once again released a report in which they spell out just how the government of Myanmar is committing "crimes against humanity" and "ethnic cleansing". Once again the human rights organization spells out the long list of sins the leaders of Burma have committed and just where and when these crimes were committed. The report is aptly named "All You Can Do Is Pray" (link: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2013/04/22/all-you-can-do-pray-0 )

Time and time again Alder's Ledge has recorded events from the Arakan without much help from our usual supporters. We have reported on the attempts by the Burmese government to force Rohingya out of Burma by driving them into the sea or over the border and into Bangladesh. This was then followed by reports of Burmese officials helping Buddhists "Burmese" to immigrate from Bangladesh and take over the suddenly unoccupied Rohingya neighborhoods and villages. Yet with the striking similarities to past and other present cases of ethnic cleansing the world remains silent.

For the past year Alder's Ledge has made it a top priority to highlight the plight of the Rohingya people. Now we are asking our old followers and our new ones to join with us and help spread the news about the Rohingya genocide. This is a simple act that helps break the silence surrounding the genocide and raises awareness of it. We here at Alder's Ledge call it "screaming".

All you have to do to take part is to share these articles here and the reports we share such as this one by Human Rights Watch. By posting the links on your Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, or even Instagram you allow these articles a wider audience than they would otherwise receive. Reports like this one from Human Rights Watch are only usually given blips in news reports and short articles by media around the web. Your sharing them allows this important topic to be seen by people who might never hear about it otherwise.

Help Alder's Ledge bring some form of recognition to the plight of Rohingya people. Let us not fall into the mindset illustrated by Joseph Stalin. May we never believe for even a moment that the death of one person is somehow more of a tragedy than the deaths of thousand of innocent people.

Scream.

More Lies From The Tablecloth

Obama's Ghost Prisons

(Obama Signing The Order To Close CIA Secret Prisons)

In 2009 Barack Obama became the first president in American history to openly curtail the liberties the CIA had taken with human rights around the world. In a historic signing, Obama sat alone as his pen put into law the limits to which the CIA could go in detaining of foreign nationals. This move was supposed to end the existence of secret prisons that the CIA was running in countries around the world. 

For European governments this was a call for celebration as they were now being promised that the CIA would stop using their countries to transport terrorist into custody. For Eastern European nations this meant that their airports would finally cease to be the last destination for countless terrorist coming from the Middle East. But all this was a hoax. All those "atta-boys" and pats on the back were for nothing.


 

When Libya fell to the rebels it became clear that CIA prisons were still in operation. And when those same rebels attacked the United States Embassy earlier this year... it was obvious that at least one was still in operation within Libya itself. The order Barack Obama had given was nothing but a rouse. This demand to end the rendition of terrorists in ghost prisons was a hollow command... the law had no teeth at all. 

So once again the world is watching as the "humanitarian" Barack Obama takes to the air in a campaign for "basic human rights". We are meant to ignore that this is the man who flew off to Egypt months after the rebellion so as to claim victory for a fight he had nothing to do with. This the man who claimed that his mere election to office had ushered in a new wave of "hope" around the world. This is the man who now rushes off to Burma so that he can talk about human rights while the Rohingya die at the hands of his hosts.

All this and we are to forget that this is also the man who has sat on the fence when dealing with Syria. We are meant to ignore Obama's waffling during the "Arab Spring" when the Green Revolution started in Iran. We are supposed to forget that Obama signed an order to end illegal prisons around the world only to be caught running one in Libya. 

When it comes to human rights issues... we are meant to forget everything we have learned about Barack Obama. 

Suu Kyi Dismisses Rohingya As Illegal

"There Will Never Be An End To The Problem."
(Part of The Darkness Visible series)

(Suu Kyi)

In recent remarks Suu Kyi, the European Union's favorite Nobel Prize winner, made it rather clear to the world why it is that she does not support the Rohingya within her country. Speaking to her supporters, Suu Kyi told fellow Buddhist that the Rohingya Muslims within her country were "illegal aliens". She went on to point out that from her perspective "there will never be an end to the problem" with the Rohingya as long as the border with Bangladesh is left open. To further her less than friendly stance Suu Kyi pointed out that Myanmar needed to get tough on citizenship laws and make it clear what these laws said and to whom citizenship could be given. 

For months now human rights groups have wondered how this "humanitarian" would respond to the massacres of Rohingya within her "democratic" country. Now it is painfully obvious that the woman the world paraded around is in reality no different than the system from which she came. Suu Kyi has continued to say nothing about the attacks on Kaman Muslims along the border with Thailand. Now she has taken the party line when dealing with the Rohingya Muslims in the Arakan region of Burma. 

Bangladesh's government did respond sharply to the sudden outburst from Suu Kyi. Yet the constant insistence on the part of Dhaka that the Rohingya have lived in Myanmar for centuries falls on deaf ears. It is obvious that Suu Kyi does not care that waves of Rohingya have been crossing the border in just the opposite direction as she claims. Since the founding of Bangladesh in 1971 there has been countless migrations of Rohingya Muslims into Bangladesh from Myanmar. They are going in the opposite direction of what Suu Kyi claims quite simply because of the turmoil they face within Burma. 

With the backing of Burma's "humanitarian" wing several local officials took to cleansing their villages and towns of all Myanmar's Muslims. In Kyauk Pyu local officials today attacked and drove out Kaman Muslims as Burmese military stood by and watched. Border patrols were then seen attacking and beating Rohingya boat people as they landed in Sittwe. All of this occurring as Burmese government officials claim they have gained control of the Western Rakhine region. 

It is clear to now that the Burmese government will be hiding these sorts of attacks from President Obama when he visits. Instead of allowing the outside world see these atrocities, leaders like Suu Kyi will be displaying their country's progress and potential for trade agreements. Every effort to engage in ethnic cleansing will for a short time be hidden as Barack Obama gives his hollow speeches.

And in the end people like Suu Kyi will sadly remain in control of Myanmar. Their genocidal campaigns of ethnic cleansing will continue. And the question of citizenship for the Rohingya remains answered by those in power. 

According to Suu Kyi and her fellow Burmese, the Rohingya are not human as long as they remain in Myanmar. As long as even one stays within Burma's borders, all Rohingya will remain "illegal".

Will Obama Visit Rohingya Ghettos?

Or Will Barack Skip The Death Camps?
(Part of The Darkness Visible series)

As the date of Barack Obama's visit to Myanmar draws near the lives of thousands of Rohingya continue to hang in the balance. In ghettos, imprisoned in concentration camps, and if lucky... in refugee camps; the Rohingya are struggling to survive this latest round of ethnic cleansing. They have little to no access to food in all three camps. They have hardly any access to clean water. And medical aid is limited due to the Myanmar government's intentional denial of relief workers and aid to the Rohingya.

In the 1990's the United States remained silent as a similar situation played out in Bosnia. The White House under another Democrat president sat silent on the sidelines as Serbian forces rounded up Muslims and sent them off to European death camps. The President said nothing as Bosnia's Muslims were denied food and water as their cities were laid siege to. The media in the United States tried to cover up the level of the atrocities within Bosnia so that their doll in the White House would not have to dirty his hands to stop the killing.

Today we watch as the United States remains silent as the Myanmar does the same thing. The White House under a so called "humanitarian" Democrat says nothing as Burmese police and military round up Rohingya for death camps. The President says nothing as Myanmar's Muslims are denied food and water as their homes are torched and their villages wiped off the map. The media remains loyal to the president as they willingly leave out news of the atrocities and word their reports so as to avoid the word genocide.... a word they know could force Obama's hand.

In Bosnia the United States betrayed our commitment to uphold the basic human rights that we claim to believe in so dearly. Some have speculated that Clinton simply did not want to commit troops to a foreign war because of political posturing. There is also the likely possibility that Clinton did not want to directly face off with the fourth largest standing army in Europe. This would have ultimately led to the deaths of several American soldiers. This would have lost credibility withing Washington for the Clinton administration. But more importantly, for Clinton, this would have made a Democrat president be seen as "war mongering" in an area of the world few Americans even cared about.

Today in Myanmar we are betraying those same principles. And it is more than likely that many of the same reasons Clinton had in Bosnia can be carried over and applied to the Obama administration. It is likely that Obama does not want to be seen as a "war hawk" and fighting a fight not our own.

But there is the problem with the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. Here is a president who was willing to fight the rebels' fight in Libya. Here is a president who claims that the political civil war in Libya was a "genocide" (note Obama did nothing to stop the rebels in Libya from killing black Africans on the basis of their race). And on the flip-side here is a president who has done absolutely nothing to stop the actual genocide in Syria (Assad targets his victims on the basis of the differing religious sects within Islam). This is the president who did absolutely nothing to stop the genocide withing Bahrain (where the minority sect of Islam call their opposition "cockroaches" as they target their victims). This is the president that has watched the Uzbeks were targeted in a spat of ethnic cleansing in 2010. And this is the president who has refused to uphold his promise to recognize the Armenian genocide.

So even in his actions abroad, in which Obama has committed acts of war for political gain, the president appears weak when approaching the issue of human rights. When Obama lent troops to help track down the Lord's Resistance Army in the Congo he gave explicit limitations on the ability of the United States Troops to cross borders in pursuit. This meant that the LRA, a guerrilla army that readily crosses borders to evade capture, could simply dodge our troops without fear of being caught by the technologically advanced American troops. When the political gain was capitalized upon back home... Obama pulled the troops and abandoned the Congo.

In the Sudan Obama has used the excuse of "national sovereignty" to keep his cult of personality untainted by the genocide in Darfur and the Blue Nile. Not once has a member of Obama's administration visited the refugee camps in the genocide stricken Sudan. Instead Obama decided to lift sanctions on South Sudan as they too commit war crimes and employ child soldiers to continue the war with Sudan.

So will Obama be visiting the Rohingya ghettos? Will our president bother to ask about the concentration camps?

It is hard to imagine that Obama's interest in Myanmar has little more to do with anything but the economic boost he wants to gain from patting Thein Sein on the back. This is the only motive Obama has in releasing the might of American economic muscle loose on Burma. And in doing this the Obama White House will be funding this era's Nazi regime. Our tax dollars, our commerce, our food and exports... all will be readily available to a government that is currently using these to keep up it's wholesale slaughter of the Rohingya people.

Join Alder's Ledge and many more like us in telling President Barack Obama that no amount of economic gain is worth this. Tell Obama that we will not stand silently by as his White House help fund genocide.

You can do this by engaging the President's twitter account. After all, this is the first President to make his staff readily accessible 24 hours a day (if you take him at his word). Or you write you representative in Congress and tell them the same thing. This will help put pressure on both Congress and the White House. This will help get the Rohingya peoples' voice heard... all you have to do is exercise your rights to help gain theirs'.

Will Obama Help Those In Need

Or Is This A Chance To See Barack's Political Greed
(Part of The Darkness Visible series)

(Rohingya Girl in Rakhine, Myanmar) 

A key note in the opposition to Barack Obama here in the United States is a part of his background where the President can be linked to outrageous people and their off center remarks. One of those remarks helps to polarize citizens in the United States. It helps drive a wedge between races. It goes something like this...

... "The white man's greed fuels a world in need."

As with most politicians, Obama has attempted to separate himself from these volatile remarks. Yet throughout his presidency Barack as exercised a tremendous amount of "political greed" when trying to get what he wants. In California this meant promising the Armenian community that he would be the first president to recognize the Armenian Genocide. A promise Obama never intends to keep. 

Now we watch as Barack Obama makes history by not only visiting Myanmar but also lifting most of the sanctions imposed upon the totalitarian regime. The White House claims that these sanctions were lifted in response to Burma's "transformational" steps toward democracy. Yet Burma still refuses to extend the promise of democracy to more than half of its citizens... for the Rohingya this is accomplished by the fact that Myanmar does not grant them citizenship. 

For Obama the motivation for the exploitation of Myanmar is obvious. The president has found himself in a "gold rush" scenario in which America is facing off with China and Europe. The natural wealth of Burma is up for grabs. And in a move to open their pool of investors, the Junta have simply put forth a mirage of "change" to draw the West in. 

(The Rohingya Obama's White House Neglects) 

Once again we will have to wait and see if Obama will step up and do the right thing. We did not see him do it in Libya when he bombed Gaddafi but ignored the slaughter of black Africans by Arabs. We have not seen him do it in Syria while the genocide of the Syrian people goes unchecked for nearly two years. And we did not see Obama do the right thing back in July when the first round of "ethnic cleansing" began against the Rohingya in Myanmar. 

So if past behavior is any indicator then we had very well hope and pray that Obama's political lust does not override the humanitarian he claims to be. Far to many lives lay in the balance. And no amount of natural resources are worth this horrific crime.