Game changing article in The Atlantic by Graeme Wood - ISIS goal to bring an end of the world

There are a few articles in annals of history where the world as we know it is moved by the impact. "What ISIS Really Wants" is among the most persuasive aritlces I've read about the completely deranged and dangerous ISIS (Islamic State) terror movement. 

An article by Graeme Wood in the March 2015 edition of The Atlantic is a "game changer" because it's the first time I've read the secular media explaining how the evil ISIS mission is really a religious terrorist ideology, focused on a relentless quest to bring about the end of the world.  

This isn't a movie plot.  It's really happening and the world must urgently respond to eradicate the ISIS followers and believers, regardless of who are in harms way, as a result.

ISIS followers are evil and they must be eradicated because:

1.  The ISIS Islamic men terrorize women and rape them.
2.  ISIS combatants recruit children to fight with them.
3.  ISIS believers are infected with doom and they're determined to inflict their nihilistic beliefs on the world.
4.  ISIS will return civilization to living like they're back in the 7th century....that's before Medieval and Middle Ages.
5.  ISIS demands total obedience to Ammans who they deem are worthy of adulation;
6.  No "free will" allowed, or risk public execution.
7.  ISIS will inflict ethnic cleansing on Christians the likes of which the Roman Emperor Nero couldn't duplicate.
8.  ISIS believes in stoning people to death as a punishment.
9.  Islamic State is very Islamic. It attracts psychopaths and adventure seekers.
10.  ISIS believes the mission of their zeal is to bring an end to the world.

In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries, such as France and Canada, to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” 

To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

Finally, the secular media writer Wood explains to the world the evil ISIS vision. 

Moreover, he explains why ISIS's heinous ambitions can destroy civilization as we know it.

There's no alternative for human beings to do except to destroy ISIS, regardless of the collateral damage.   

Russian President Putin just can't control his Napoleonic aggression - NATO alert! Putin must be stopped, but when and how?

It's impossible to know when Russia's President Putin will eventually tip the patience of Western allies. Nevertheless, he's determined to stir up trouble until he gets his territorial way, regardless of the international consequences. Now, Putin is provoking Ukrainian unrest by setting up bullies to create violence inside the Ukraine, just to prove his antics can make a lot of trouble.

Portrait- Russian President Putin as painted by former President George W. Bush

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the US is warning Putin again about the fiscal sanctions Russia will incur if the aggression against the Ukraine and other potential targets continues.

“If Russia moves into Eastern Ukraine, either overtly or covertly, this would be a very serious escalation,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said, adding that the U.S. is “prepared to impose further sanctions on sectors of the Russian economy should the situation escalate.”
One thing is economically apparent. Putin's can't afford his Napoleonic ambitions in the Crimea or the Ukraine or anywhere else. His nation's ruble currency is useless outside his Russian borders. In my opinion, those braggarts and bullies that Putin is sending into the Ukraine to break windows for television viewing could easily be paid to defect by giving them each a handful of US dollars.  

Yet, President Putin is convinced he must create trouble or risk becoming irrelevant. 

It seems to me, the diplomats Secretary of State John Kerry and the Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov understand the seriously flawed international ramifications of Putin's spoiled behavior. It's a dangerous situation for the world to have a president in Russia, ie Putin, who simply can't mind his own business. 

Russia certainly has plenty of internal economic, infrastructure and ethnic problems. Nevertheless, Putin is a Cold Warrior rather than a diplomat or a national leader. He's certainly not interested in improving Russia's domestic stability, unless he can lock dissident people up and throw away the key. Rather, Putin seems to be at his worst when he has an enemy. He's incapable of summoning the statesmanship necessary to command a world leadership position, unless he gets his own way.  

Therefore, President Putin's cold war ambitions must be stopped.

Senator John McCain is an advocate for providing military support to the Ukraine so the people can be better armed to prevent more Russian agression.

Although this quick action shoot from the hip might provide some interim relief for the Ukraine, the long term risk of such military actions can't be foreseen.

Therefore, think about the preponderance of evidence in favor of patience as a tactic that might work to implode Putin's ambitions.  

Thinking about the junk Russian ruble, the cost of paying to keep the evil Syrian President Assad in power, and now the cost of assuming the Crimea as part of the Russian nation, will obviously implode the Russian economy. Maybe President Putin doesn't realize this, but he's not allowed to live forever. Consequently, patience and economic sanctions will undoubtedly bring down Putin's Napoleonic ambitions.

Of course, the problem is, how much danger will the spoiled Putin stir up before his nation experiences an implosion? Therein is the risk. Yet, there doesn't appear to be any alternative, except to wait.

Lobbying Against Genocide - Nobody

Let's face it, Syrian diplomacy between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov worked, at least for the time being, because Russia and President Putin didn't want to deal with the outcome of a US weapons attack on Syria, post the chemical massacre of civilians on August 21, 2013. This massacre occurred for no reason, except, because Assad's government wanted to do it.  Subsequently, the US Congress didn't have any gumption to follow up on enforcement of a ban on chemical weapons, as ratified in the Geneva Protocol, because, frankly, there are simply no lobbyists in Washington DC who are paid enough to petition against genocide.  Nevertheless, the evidence for retaliation is there. Moreover, there's also a case to be made for a US national security risk, because, if Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, then there's absolutely no restraint, whatsoever, against using the same deadly gas to kill American military or other opposition forces.  

Even Syrian President Assad doesn't seem to have much steam in opposing what the world is calling his government's Sarin attack on innocent civilians in a "chemical massacre" aka genocide. Nevertheless, many nations, notably Great Britain, appear to be reluctant to retaliate against this henious crime. Athough President Obama made a valiant effort to demonstrate anger and retaliation against Assad's genocide and to uphold the world ban on the use of chemical weapons as established in the Geneva Protocol, these threats were abandoned to make way for diplomacy to work out what could be a better solution than an overt attack, meaning the removal of Assad's Weapons of Mass Destruction. But, will Assad really remove those weapons? Ahhhh, well, it all looks good in print and in photo-ops, but enforcement is still an ambiguous science, to say the least.  It seems to me, Assad won't take well to being told what to do by Russian President Putin or anybody else.  If he doesn't do what he's told, however, he is likely to loose his job.  Of course, he's probably already been "fired" by Putin, anyway, because the egocentric Russian leaders is thriving on the limelight he's soaking up in taking a central role to help resolve the Syrian chemical weapons crisis.  Assad is, at this point, a puppet and his Russian controlled strings could be snipped off at any time.  

As a matter of fact, a descriptive people's cartoon is in the normally censured Syrian media showing President Putin putting a heart defibrillator on Assad's chest.  No explanation needed.

Let's face it, Assad is a terribly unpopular and incompetent Syrian president. He's dealing with a horrible civil war while over 2 million of his citizens are living in refugee camps in surrounding countries.  Now, he's gone and massacred over 1,000 civilians with Sarin poison gas, besides! There's no way President Assad can be a legitimate leader of Syria after being at the center of the catastrophic incidents he's been unable to control.  

Nevertheless, the Syrian opposition sees the US-Russian tentative agreement, sans Assad's involvement (it appears) to be a setback to forcing a regime change. Well, that's probably true, but, on the other hand, another Syrian president will probably be hand picked by Putin, anyway.

Meanwhile, over 1,000 civilians were murdered while they slept because President Assad killed them with Sarin gas. Our US Congress was unable to rise to the occasion to retaliate in support of those dead people because, frankly, no lobbyists were evidently hanging around their Washington DC offices or in their staff meetings to protect Syrians from genocide.  

It seems to me, the National Rifle Association's Wayne Lapierre could do a little to redeem himself as a quasi anarchist if he put some of his high paid time protecting Second Amendment rights for Americans, into defending civilians against genocide.  

But, the tragedy that doesn't end is the lack of sincerity in compassion for those civilians gassed by Sarin gas in a chemical massacre. They will undoubtedly melt into the litany of genocides listed on the website genocides in history. 

Nobody, apparently, are lobbyists against genocide.

Syria - President Obama Found the Best Balance

President Obama got the diplomatic/force fulcrum balance right.  

Indeed, Obama may eventually get an A for handling the Syrian chemical weapons crises.  It's too soon to tell and, certainly, the President won't have a good report card from suffering Syrians, who are desperately waiting for US intervention against their oppressive President Assad. But, history will give President Obama an A for the diplomacy of restraint, while he stood up for those killed in genocide. Although Syrian Rebels craved a US military response, the best outcome is the destruction of all chemical weapons.

Great leadership requires confidence in times of crises, coupled with the ability to engage in risk taking.  President Obama displayed both characteristics when he decided to hold Syria's President Bashar al Assad accountable for the genocide of over one thousand civilians on August 21, 2013, as a result of his government attacking them with Sarin gas, while they slept.  Assad deserved an attack by American cruise missiles to retaliate on behalf of the dead innocents.   In fact, Assad still deserves to experience the terror or an attack. Nevertheless, sometimes, calculated restraint is a stronger weapon than force, especially if use of military intervention is still, meaningfully, an alternative.

Along the timetable of this crisis, President Obama walked a precariously difficult decision making path, with very little, if any, political safety net. Nevertheless, he pushed the world to the brink of expecting a US attack on Syria, to hold Assad accountable for using deadly chemical weapons to kill civilians in a "chemical massacre". 

Meanwhile, Obama was accused of being too aggressive on the left, and not forceful enough from the right, while the American people screeched "stop!", to our Congress, who didn't have paid lobbyists to intervene on behalf of the dead Syrian civilians.  Frankly, Americans are, justifiably, just plain sick and tired of getting involved in more wars, when our national security isn't threatened, in spite of proof that innocent people were slaughtered somewhere else.  

At any point in the Syrian crisis, the situation could have catastrophically fallen apart. Then, unexpectedly,  Russian President Vladimir Putin leaped at an opportunity to appear like a peacemaking visionary, a political savior, to avert a deteriorating crisis. This scenario was a "made for Putin" epic opportunity.  Putin made a surprise offer to broker a deal with Assad, for the purpose of destroying the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.  (A question in my mind is if Putin ever consulted Assad before he made the diplomatic rescue attempt.) At this point, a "destroy the chemical weapons" deal is nearly accomplished, because of Secretary of State Kerry's diplomatic expertise, well demonstrated in the mix of the drama.

So, the world waits to see if Obama's balance of force, mixed with the diplomacy of our unlikely ally in Russian President Putin, can succeed.  It's not unlike walking across the Grand Canyon on a tight rope.  It's been successfully done, albeit with enormous risk.  

At this point, President Obama's leadership and Secretary of State Kerry's quick negotiating under pressure are diplomatic successes. They get A's.

But, the outcome is still unknown, like walking only half way across the Grand Canyon on a tight rope.

Aerial risk walker Nek Wallenda had confidence he could cross the Grand Canyon on a tight rope, in a death defying act of courage, Nevertheless, with all his confidence, Willenda didn't know, with 100 percent certainty, whether or not he could really do it, without falling. Anything could have happened including the remote risk of the rope breaking or a sudden gust of wind sweeping him into the abyss.  But, Wallenda was successful. He had confidence. He knew he could do it and he did do it. 

President Obama had the confidence he needed to put his trust in diplomacy, rather than force, to prevent President Assad from using chemical weapons against anybody else, including American military forces.  The world also knows, as a result of the US-Russian diplomacy, how the world's biggest super powers won't tolerate chemical weapons, period!

There's no way the Russians and President Putin could have pressured Syrian President Assad to agree to a ban on chemical weapons, without US President Obama's pressure. Anyone who believes President Putin and President Assad would agree to destroy the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal without the US threat of force is, frankly, delusional.  

Nevertheless, my sympathies continue to be with Syrian civilians who were put to death in their sleep by Sarin poison gas, because of Assad's ambition to remain in power.  My support for a targeted military intervention against Assad continues, because he deserves to be held accountable for his evil genocide of civilians.  Unfortunately, however, I also believe Syria and the world will be better served if Assad destroys his chemical weapons arsenal.  It's the most desirable and humane outcome, if it is achieved.
Clearly, Assad would never have considered admitting his country even had chemical weapons, without the tragic chemical massacred martyrs. They deserve retribution and Assad must be held accountable.  Assad's tight rope toward power and control was cut when he supported the decision to kill civilians with Sarin gas.  

President Obama found the right diplomatic groove to avert an international crises, even in the face of a genocide of civilians. President Assad, on the other hand, is falling into an abyss of evil doers, like Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

Syria President Assad's Days are Numbered - He Can't Survive Genocide and Displacement of Millions of People

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have picked up the initiative on Secretary of State John Kerry's carrot, to offer a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crises, the fact is, regardless of who does what and when, the regime of President Bashar al Assad is doomed to fall.  It's just a matter of time.  A nation's leader can't be responsible for killing thousands of citizens, both militants and civilians, as well as displace millions of terrorized people who are living in international refugee camps and still continue to have credibility. In fact, President Assad has no place to hide or he would already be there.  Moreover , Russian President Putin has probably already "fired" Assad (as a proxy boss), by jumping into the diplomatic arena to help deflect a US military attack against the Syrian government's use of Sarin poison gas, to kill over a thousand civilians, including many children. A good news reporter should ask whether or not President Putin even contacted President Assad before leaping to Kerry's serendipitous offer of a diplomatic solution.  
One has to wonder, did Assad learn about the Putin intervention through the news? Or, did Putin call Assad before making news about the potential diplomatic intervention, first? News reporters should be asking this question; but, it seems, our news media continues to report polarizing views rather than informative news. Why does it matter? Because, if Putin offered an intervention before consulting Assad, it means there is undue influence over the Syrian president and he isn't in charge of his own nation.  It's possible Assad isn't in charge of Syria.  Certainly, Assad's random responses to Charlie Rose on CBS News were not those of a many who knows exactly what's going on around him. So, who is in charge of Syria? That's the salient question.   

If Assad is guilty of genocide, with proof of allowing for the displacement of millions of Syrians and killing over a thousand people with poison gas, then he must be removed as the nation's leader, right away.  Then, of course, the problem is, who replaces Assad?  Therein is a problem, probably, even more serious than the current crises.  In fact, if President Putin jumped into the diplomatic solution, offering for Assad to give up chemical weapons, then he has enormous influence over Syria. Perhaps, however, Iran is the nation propping up Assad, for the purpose of deflecting attention away from Iranian nuclear armament. In this case, the world has a problem with yet another nuclear nation hiding behind the Syrian crises. Perhaps, the worst situation is that both Russia and Iran are the controls behind the Syrian curtain of authority. Between Iran, Russia and Syria, the trio of terror will soon become impossible to deal with, especially, after the 2014 Olympic games in Sochi, Russia are over and Putin won't have to deal with international public relations anymore.

In the likely event Assad is already a puppet leader, ie, a surrogate for Putin to control the Middle East and a deflector for Iran's nuclear program, then the bigger problem is far more serious than the horrid use of poison gas on civilians.  A Russian block is in place to obstruct peace in the Middle East, except on Russia's terms.

Additionally, Syria gives Russia a long coveted access to a year round open sea port. Therefore, President Assad may well be a stepping stone for Putin to tramp on as he, potentially, annexes Syria for Russia's strategic interests.

All of the above are somewhat hypothetical, but certainly possible considerations in the developing reality for the future of Syria.

Regardless of what happens with President Putin's diplomatic initiative or President Obama's intention to retaliate against Assad, the fact is, the end of this saga will see a regime change in Syria. But, the bad news is, the people of Syria are living in a state of delusion if they believe a regime change will bring peace.  In fact, who or what follows after President Assad is dumped is a terrifying unknown.  

Syria - Five Reasons to Support President Obama

Of course it's easy to say "No" to military intervention in Syria, even when the country's President Assad used chemical weapons to murder well over a thousand civilians who he apparently felt were, somehow, threatening his leadership.

Nobody in their right minds would deliberately choose the risk of war over the opportunity to simply stay neutral, regardless of how many innocent civilians were murdered in the Syrian Sarin gas genocide.  

But Assad's deplorable use of chemical weapons against civilians crosses an international, global red line, said Secretary of State John Kerry speaking in Paris, France.

Obviously, the easier decision is to ignore the use of chemical weapons, because their use didn't violate American national security. Yet, support for a response is obviously a more difficult decision. Any reasons in support of a US military led response to the Syrian chemical weapons attack on civilians are fraught with risk for a wider war.  Nevertheless, doing nothing will likely postpone another, even worse, issue, at a later time. Evil dictators who use chemical weapons once will do so again and, worse, open the door to other like minded tyrants to do the same.

Here are five important reasons the United States should lead in response to the genocide of Syrian civilians who died as a result of the Sarin gas genocide.  

Of course, the most important reason is because Assad committed genocide against his country's citizens. This one reason is so evident, it supersedes all others. 

Here are five others:

1.  War is evil and destructive, but adding chemical weapons to the arsenal of any military initiative puts momentum in the direction of the side with the most poisons. There's no end to this acceleration with nothing but devastating outcomes for both sides.  Leaders who use chemical weapons without retribution will do so again.

2.  American credibility is on the line. To do nothing will reinforce our nation's vulnerability among our allies. America will need the help of allies in unknown future conflicts, but they could become reluctant to support a nation where ambiguity replaces leadership. Moreover, no response gives our enemies, like Al Qaeda, a sense of empowerment, as lack of a response will indicate weakness.

3.  Chemical weapons are a weapon of mass destruction (WMD).  President Assad crossed an international red line, ratified to ban the use of chemical weapons.  The Geneva Protocol prohibits the first use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. Most civilized nations in the world signed this Protocol.

4.  Syria is a shield for Iranian nuclear weapons development. Senator John McCain has been prophetic about the risk of doing nothing in Syria. Allowing the Syrian rebels to go undefended serves to shield Iran from the intense scrutiny of its own nuclear weapons program - a diversion.  McCain has been a proverbial voice in the wilderness about the dangers of inaction in Syria.  In July, 2013 he said arming Syrian rebels against President Assad is an important step in deterring Iran from its nuclear ambitions.  Speaking to Army Radio on a visit to Israel, the Republican Senator McCain deflected concerns that weapons provided to rebels could fall into the hands of terrorists, who might use them against the United States and Israel. Rather, arming the rebels will help prevent Assad from expanding his influence in the Middle East while providing cover to Iran's nuclear weapons program.  

“There’s [sic] no good options,” said McCain, “Would you rather have these weapons – perhaps some of them – in the hands of the wrong people, or would you rather have [Syrian President] Bashar Assad prevail and then encourage Iran to further their ambitions on nuclear weapons?”

5.  Genocide is genocide is genocide.  Look to the past as an indication of the future.  Past genocides have remained in historical memories far beyond the experiences:  (a) French genocides of the Huguenots beginning with the 1572, St. Bartholomew Day's massacres; (b)  1755 Engliish genocide and deportation of French Acadians called Le Grand Derangement, from Acadia, modern day Nova Scotia, an event immortalized by American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in the epic poem "Evangeline", published in 1847;  (c)  the Armenian genocide of 1915 also known as the Armenian Massacres and by Armenians as the Great Crime was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. It took place during and after World War I and was implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and forced labor, and the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches to the Syrian Desert.  The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Other indigenous and Christian ethnic groups such as the Assyrians, the Greeks and other minority groups were similarly targeted for extermination by the Ottoman government, and their treatment is considered by many historians to be part of the same genocidal policy; (d) the evil Holocaust perpetrated by the German Nazis, against the Jewish people; nine million Jews resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed in Nazi Extermination camps located throughout Europe; (e) Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia during the 1970s, led by the tyrant, a Cambodian named Pol Pot.

A somber and daunting genocides in history reads like a doomsday list on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Assad, held responsible for the Syrian genocides, is now included in the death list. Nevertheless, Assad has the additional distinction of joining a short list of tyrants to use deadly chemical weapons to kill civilians - his evil comrades are Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

Of course, opponents of Syrian retribution have an easy position to defend. They claim that any US attack against the Assad regime will engage our nation in a conflict where our involvement may not significantly change the outcome of the conflict.  Maybe opponents of intervention are right, but doing nothing can't be "right", either. 

Looking to the future, we can only use the past as an indicator of how doing nothing in the face of genocides creates centuries of unresolved anger.  Let's support President Obama, who is dedicated to doing something to prevent future genocides by evil leaders who will find the easy use of chemical weapons can quickly prevent uprisings. We must show the world how any leader who engages in genocide will receive justice.  There are plenty of reasons to support a retribution against Assad in Syria, but all of them are difficult to put into a bumper sticker or sound bite.  

Obviously, President Obama must make a convincing argument to a justifiably reluctant American public, who have every reason to resist Syrian involvement.  

But, we certainly don't want any other Assad's killing civilians because, eventually, left unchallenged, that's exactly what will happen.

Syria and Sarin

President Obama needs the persuasive ability of Winston Churchill to convince Americans about the need for moral leadership against the use of Sarin poison gas in Syria.  Perhaps General Petraeus and his strategic military leadership will help.

Americans are politically divided about a lot of issues that don't rise to the threshold of life versus death. Issues like immigration reform, Obamacare, Medicaid and tax equity would disappear like sea smoke on a sunny day if US citizens were threatened with death by Sarin, a weapon of mass destruction poison gas. 

Even the National Rifle Association would oppose the use of Sarin poison gas against innocent civilians!

Syrian citizens who were victims of Sarin didn't have a choice on August 21, 2013, when the government of President Bashar al Assad murdered over a thousand of Syrian citizens with the poison gas.  Assad's leadership has been threatened in a protracted civil war.  Assad obviously doesn't "get" that his leadership might as well have been "gassed", along with the innocents he murdered, because no dictator can survive the genocide of his own citizens.  It's just a matter of time before Assad is taken out as President of Syria, either by assassination or jailed as an international criminal.

Meanwhile, the dead innocent people who were caught in this genocide are the evidence of this violation of the Geneva Protocol, "The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare".

Although Americans saw some video images of the massive civilian Sarin victims, the US Congress was shown more graphic images of the tortuous deaths suffered by the victims.

CNN reports images of men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background.

These are some of the hard-to-stomach images that the Obama administration has shown a select group of senators in closed-door briefings to make the case that a limited military attack on Syria is justified.

CNN obtained 13 different videos seen by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that depict the gruesome scene of an chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. The administration told senators that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community.

The attack, allegedly carried out by Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad, touched off a critical foreign policy question: Is a military response merited?

The videos capture a moment of panic, as those who are standing try to feed water to those who appear incapacitated. Prayers are repeated.

Meanwhile, retired four star General David Petraeus has gone public to help explain the risks of not responding to the Syrian genocide.

General Petraeus is a highly skilled military professional.  

Petraeus backs Obama administration on Syria

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus announced Saturday he's behind the White House's plan for limited military strikes against the Syrian government.

In a statement, President Barack Obama's former CIA director called for Congress to support the administration's call for airstrikes against President Bashar al-Assad's forces, warning that rejecting the president's request would embolden "Iran, North Korea, and other would be aggressors."

"Failure of Congress to approve the president’s request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world," Petraeus said.

Petraeus also said that the planned aerial assault "is necessary" to both enforce the international laws forbidding the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Assad's overall military capabilities.

Petraeus’ statement was endorsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), who described the retired general as “the most respected military leader of our time.”

In addition to the persuasive skills of the knowledgeable General Petraeus, the list of knowledgeable people who support taking action against the murderer Assad includes Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain and the President of France Francois Hollande.  

Obviously, this short list of impressive leaders will need to engage in a non-stop communications campaign to educate the understandably reluctant American public about the urgency of responding to Assad's Sarin attack.  

Unfortunately, politically divided Americans are asked to unite about a crises happening half way around the world. Moreover, the crises in happening in Syria, a Middle Eastern nation where the people are nearly as culturally different from Americans as Aboriginal Australians are from Alaskan Eskimos. 

But, regardless of how politically divided we are, Americans must care about our fellow human beings who are victims of genocide.

Syrians murdered with Sarin will not be an isolated incident if Assad gets away with genocide.  Although Assad's days are numbered, his evil act opened the door to other evil dictators to potentially use the same tactics to subdue rebellions.  Syrians attacked by Sarin eventually deserve the satisfaction of justice.  More important, responding to the Syrian Sarin attack will be a badly needed warning to future perpetrators of genocide because, tragically, there always seems to be another one lurking in the wings of tyrannical power.  

Sarin Nerve Gas- A Weapon of Mass Destruction and a Growing National Security Threat

Is Sarin nerve gas a Weapon of Mass Destruction? (WMD)

by Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that samples collected by first responders after the reported August 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin.

What is Sarin nerve gas?  Is Sarin nerve gas a national security threat? 

It has been classified as a weapon of mass destruction in UN Resolution 687.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

What is Sarin nerve gas?

Sarin is a type of nerve gas that was developed by the Germans in 1938 prior to World War II, originally for use as a pesticide.

Chemical nerve agents: A "very toxic and horrible way to die"

Dr. Bart Janssens...from Doctors Without Borders Medecins Sans Frontieres, said in an Aug. 24 statement. "This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."

Sarin is classified as a nerve agent because of its poisonous effects on the body's central and peripheral nervous systems, explained biological weapons expert Dr. Kenneth Spaeth, director of the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Center at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y, in an interview with CBSNews.com.

In the event of an attack, the gas can also absorb through the skin or eyes and remain on clothing, the latter posing a risk to emergency responders rushing to treat the wounded.

Even with treatment, there may still be long-term effects for survivors of a nerve gas attack. Some of the thousands injured in a 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway still experience respiratory and neurological effects that linger to this day. 

Knowing all of the above, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry must convince Americans that use of Sarin in Syria is a threat to our national security.  Well, Saddam Hussein was a national security threat because it was suspected he was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction. Thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians were killed trying to prove this false WMD assumption. So, what does the US do to another arrogant Middle Easter tyrant, President Bashar al Assad, who, in fact, used Sarin, a real Weapon of Mass Destruction?

According to President Obama, we'll to ask our US Congress for permission to do something.  

Okay. Right....our US Congress, with an approval rating of about 13 percent on a good day, will now decide how to respond to the massacre of thousands of innocent Syrians who are desperately waiting for somebody to save them from genocide. 

Although the Syrian genocide is an "in your face" by evil President Assad to President Obama and others who oppose him, retribution efforts are now complicated by Britain's Parliament having squashed a response proposed by Prime Minister David Cameron. 

So, in conclusion, it seems like Sarin will become the response of choice by evil dictators who want to put down rebellion.  Imagine if Egyptian ex-President Mubarak had used Sarin gas on Egyptinas?

Of course, President Assad will eventually face the consequences of people who simply won't tolerate his evil use of chemical warfare against his own citizens.  Somebody will eventually direct poison into his face.  But, until then, when nations like Great Britain and the US balk at a response, Sarin gas use will, most likely, continue until an international response is launched against the use of real Weapons of Mass Destruction.  

Yes, the fact is, Sarin is a Weapon of Mass Destruction and its use is a growing national security threat.