If anyone has sources in Turkey, or knowledge of current dynamics in Turkey, or insight we would really like to hear from you.
The intents, inclinations, sympathies and motivations of Recep Erdogan are brutally obvious. What’s lesser known is how far the underpinning of Turkish politics is willing to allow his ideology to advance. After all, Erdogan is one man – leading one party – and there are opposition forces within Turkey which could, if pressured, become a danger to him.

Our current working theory, given known players, ideology and research into actual behaviors, is this:
The ISIS trade for the 49 Turkish hostages was made without payment. So what would the Quid-pro-quo involve?
Given all of the sympathies and tendencies two things are obvious. Erdogan is essentially more adverse to Bashir Assad then he is to ISIS, and ISIS is politically savvy – far more so than al-Qaeda was, and more in line with the political expertise of The Brotherhood (founded in 1928).
Given that, would the quid pro quo involve an acceptance of, and unwillingness to stop (per se’), the ISIS driven exodus of Kurdish refugees upon the nation of Turkey? If so, how far -and how many refugees- would Turkey allow ISIS to drive into the border region, before Turkey would view the inbound masses as a risk to the societal constructs and domestic objectives of Erdogan? (more…)

Just like the fictional Unaccompanied Alien Children ruse the White House created to sell a comprehensive immigration reform strategy, so too is the Khorosan group a purely fictional political construct designed to avoid ideological embarrassment.     
Andrew McCarthy exposes the same fraud we have continued to share. In a recent column for NRO McCarthy explains how the White House had come up with the “Khorosan” al-Qaeda group as nothing more than a political ploy to avoid being ridiculed for their inept and detached prior espousals. After the McCarthy article we’ll show you the timeframe when the Denis McDonough ruse was designed:
Andrew McCarthy – We’re being had. Again.
For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees. Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name.
Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability. Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade.
Hence, Obama gives us the Khorosan Group.
The who? (more…)

The U.K Parliament has voted to join the U.S. led coalition to eliminate NI-ISIS, but only in Iraq. The attacking of ISIS behind the sovereign territorial lines of the Syrian state was not a part of the U.K referendum request put forth by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Unlike President Obama – David Cameron understands the problematic approach of attacking an entity within Syria -without the approval of the Syrian government- as illegal. Indeed, by all international definitions, the incursions into Syria are both illegal and unauthorized.

…”I do believe there is a strong case for us to do more in Syria but I did not want to bring a motion to the house today which there wasnt consensus for”…  (David Cameron 9/26/14)

It is impossible to remain lawfully consistent against unauthorized Russian incursions into Ukraine, and simultaneously carryout the same activity into Syria. There is no structural context in U.S. or International Law which would permit such activity. Yet, Obama does it anyway.  [Prediction – Syria will be Libya 2.0]

UK Via Fox News – British lawmakers voted Friday to join the U.S.-led coalition and launch airstrikes on Islamic State group militants as early as this weekend in northern Iraq, but the motion did not endorse airstrikes in Syria. (more…)

Having recently given safe haven to the leadership of Muslim Brotherhood terrorists exiled from Qatar, Turkey’s President Erdogan delivered a speech at the United Nations in defense of the Sunni extremists ISIS and The Brotherhood – while simultaneously attacking Egypt and Fattah El-Sisi.

Let there be no doubt the NATO member Turkey is not only willing to stand on the sidelines, but is, in actuality, supporting the Sunni extremists with direct support (financial and military).  Erdogan is also supporting with non-action, such as refusing to allow coalition forces to use NATO bases in Turkey.   The reasoning is not complex Erdogan is supporting his ideological ally ISIS against his arch nemesis, Syria’s Bashir Assad.
To deflect attention away from his actual support of ISIS Erdogan chooses another target for his attack.
Defending his friend, jailed and former Egyptian President – Muslim Brotherhood leader – Mohammed Morsi, President Erdogan removed the sheep’s cloak, yet most of the western media avoid peering into the dark eyes of the wolf laying underneath.
Perhaps the media avoid because it is too brutal a reality to admit, or perhaps because Western media suffers from a severe case of willful blindness, you will find few news outlets actually getting to the heart of the reasoning for Turkey’s unwillingness to support the removal of The Islamic State of Iraq and Syrian, ISIS.
Erdogan supports the overall ISIS objective. President Erdogan hates Bashir Assad beyond all else; and the Sunni ISIS methods, while concerning, are, in his mind, effective. (more…)

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron does an effective job describing the danger of “extremism“, not just “violent extremism“, all extremism. (Cameron Speech Here)
However, anyone interested in actually following, researching and analyzing international action against radical Islamist extremism, must also note that Egypt’s President Fatah El-Sisi is about two years ahead in confronting the extremist ideology.

Almost everything both Obama and Cameron have stated in the past month can be viewed curiously against their unwillingness to hold such public views while El-Sisi was pushing back against extremism, and doing something about it.

~ At the root of all extremism lies the fertilizer of hatred ~

Hatred is an outcome of evil manifested.   Readers and visitors to the Treehouse community know full well we have watched Egypt intently. We continue to share that no international leader has done more to confront ALL the tentacles of radicalism than Fattah El-Sisi.
Yet he has also been the recipient of marginalization – at best, from both Obama and Cameron; and significant western political admonishment.   Through the past two years Sisi has consistently carried out a challenging mission to provide secular stability not only to Egypt, but as a direct consequence, also to the entire region. (more…)

I would like to thank the only other website/blog -I have found- wise enough to connect the dots, and brave enough to talk about them.
Before doing so I must share a daily prayer we have repeated for two years:

Father please afford Your strength and protection; guide our naked journey; sharpen our insight; strengthen our influence; accept our willingness; be confident in our faith; afford us the ability of unguarded vision; and deliver us to the highest place where we may look over the horizon.
Guide us there to see, and remove our fear and nervousness so that we may accept and bear witness – Amen.

From a position of faith we have traced all the connections we can find, and we are now beginning to notice we are not alone.
There are others who have followed their own journey, from separate directions, and are destined to arrive at the same overlook.

SEE HERE

Should Top Brass Contradict the Commander-in-chief in Public?  (Part 1)

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron does an effective job  describing the danger of “extremism“, not just “violent extremism“, all extremism.  (Cameron Speech Here)
However, anyone interested in actually following, researching and analyzing international action, against radical Islamist extremism, must also note that Egypt’s President Fatah El-Sisi is about two years ahead in confronting the extremist ideology.

Almost everything both Obama and Cameron have stated in the past month can be viewed curiously against their unwillingness to hold such public views while El-Sisi was pushing back against extremism, and doing something about it.
Readers and visitors to the Treehouse community know full well we have watched Egypt intently.  We continue to share that no international leader has done more to confront ALL the tentacles of radicalism than El-Sisi.
Yet he has also been the recipient of marginalization – at best, and admonishment – at worst, as he has carries out a challenging mission to provide secular stability not only to Egypt, but also to the entire region.
When David Cameron says “all extremism” must be confronted, he need to look no further than Egypt to see it confronted not only on the streets but also in politics, in the media, and within the places of worship where hatred is the tenet that fuels the congregation.
Both Cameron and Obama correctly identify and define extremism yet fail to acknowledge the root.   Extremism stems from a culture of hatred, that culture exists because the West will not confront it.   El-Sisi confronts the culture of hatred head-on.
El-Sisi is by no means perfect, nor is Egypt as a whole; however, the intellectual and cultural center of the Middle-East is once again rising like a Phoenix thanks -in no small part- to the grit and policy of one principled man. A man thoroughly committed to the stability of his nation, and to the broader, predominantly Muslim, nations surrounding it.
(more…)

One of the inconvenient truths liberals and progressive-minded Obama supporters seem to be overlooking is the 2001 and 2002 Authorization’s for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), that President Obama is now using to justify his 2014 attacks inside Syria, was a direct result of President George W Bush going to congress and asking for authorization (ie. a vote) prior to launching attacks on terror entities.
Despite the anxiety it produces for Democrats the fact remains. George W Bush never went to war, or used the military as an offensive weapon, without consulting with congress and seeking approval. Regardless of opinion, no amount of spin can remove this obvious fact.
When Obama uses the military for his versions of “the war on terror” he does not consult with congress.
President Obama used the U.N. to authorize his military campaign in Libya, and never did consult congress even after the legally required 30 day timeline of the War Powers Act. And for Syria, well, President Obama is relying on the Bush AUMF’s without further consult.
For this reason we find ourselves in agreement with the New York Times.

Wrong Turn on Syria: No Convincing Plan – President Obama has put America at the center of a widening war by expanding into Syria airstrikes against the Islamic State, the Sunni extremist group known as ISIS and ISIL. He has done this without allowing the public debate that needs to take place before this nation enters another costly and potentially lengthy conflict in the Middle East. (more…)

In President Obama’s notification to congress you might note his reference to the 2002 AUMF Public Law #107-40 (underlined).

However, has anyone in the media noted that only two months ago, July 25th 2014, he requested that law to be repealed, citing “the 2002 Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any government activities”.?
(more…)