THE NEXT 9/11: We are not prepared for how ISIL will use advanced military weapons to attack US targets

The Obama Administration has knowingly allowed ISIL to gain strength and capture more and more territory inside of Iraq and has set the stage for a second 9/11 style attack against US targets, which may in fact be the US Embassy Baghdad.  The White House looked the other way for years because the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, in particular, were covertly arming, training, equipping, and advising elements of what it falsely believed was the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Syria.  This organization of what became ISIL occurred at US sponsored bases in Jordan, Turkey, and now Syria proper.  However, the FSA was in the complete control of Islamic extremists from an early stage (  This CIA created rebel army then quickly grew too big for the CIA to control as many insiders warned would happen.  As extremists took over the remaining “moderate” elements of the FSA, advanced weapons covertly provided to fight Assad, such as the US made Stinger missiles, were seized and retasked for the fight in Iraq.  With the covert backing of the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, ISIL gained enough strength and organization to become a formidable light infantry army and capture large swaths of Sunni controlled areas of Iraq.  This fight was originally justified as necessary to build a cross border sanctuary for the anti-Assad forces fighting in Syria, but in reality turned out to be the genesis of a new terrorist state.  With the capture of territory that included Syrian and Iraqi military bases, ISIL fell into control of a large number of advanced military weapons that supercharged their fighting ability beyond what the CIA intended or could control.  At this point, some advisors took refuge in that ISIL may not have the technical knowhow to maintain and fully operate systems such as fighter jets, air defense systems, and M1 Abrams tanks.  However, this is a false logic that breeds a false sense of security because ISIL certainly has the skills to use these advanced weapons asymmetrically in attacks never before possible.  The US national security establishment is simply not prepared to deal with this increased level of state-like terrorist organization.

Previously, for a terrorist organization to have advanced military weapons, the weapons had to be provided by a state sponsor.  Thankfully, no state was going to provide items such as fighter jets and tanks because of the obvious inability to maintain plausible deniability of their support to terrorism.  Further, without a true geographical sanctuary, terrorists would find little use in a weapon such as a howitzer.  However, ISIL has crossed a new threshold.  Because the US has been so strategically inept at combatting the spread of Islamic extremism, an even more violent brand of Al Qaeda inspired Islamism has established what amounts to a terrorist state in the true sense of the term.  Under President Obama’s watch, the extreme of the extreme now possess a host of military grade weapons that include anti-tank missiles and rockets, mortars, heavy artillery, man portable air defense systems (Stingers), fighter jets and bombers, helicopters, advanced main battle tanks, night vision optics, SCUD missiles, chemical weapons, and hundreds of millions of dollars in funding.  This equipment is proliferating as I write throughout the world’s terrorist elements and will be used to great effect against US targets first abroad and ultimately domestically.

Reviewing ISIL’s order of battle, intent, and demonstrated capabilities, it is clear that ISIL will continue to operate more rapidly than US policy can predict and react.  Specifically, the US Departments of State and Defense are mired in fighting an antiquated model of terrorism and US policy makers at the White House are blind to predict how this will impact US security.  This will lead to a second 9/11 style attack in magnitude, which will leave the White House claiming the events were unforeseeable and that the CIA was caught off guard.  Based on this analysis, I have identified a few of the most likely attacks ISIL may launch.  Failure to prepare adequately for this higher level of threat will no doubt lead to loss of American lives.

The first attack we must prepare for is ISIL to use captured fighter jets and bombers to conventionally rocket or bomb strategic US installations such as our consulate in Erbil or our Embassy in Baghdad.  They could also successfully attack any number of key infrastructure targets to include critical oil pumping stations.  In an unconventional role, ISIL may simply choose to load a jet with explosives and similar to 9/11, fly a jet directly into our main embassy building in Baghdad.  Jets could also be used as human guided missiles to destroy passenger jets flying through or near Iraqi airspace.  ISIL also has helicopters that could be used to conduct raids and insert assault teams into areas believed inaccessible by infantry forces.  This operation could be conducted against lightly defended key infrastructure throughout Iraq and would almost surely take the defenders off guard.

The second attack ISIL is capable of is the use of chemical weapons such as nerve gas.  ISIL has already demonstrated its capacity to acquire and use low grade nerve agents inside of Syria in false flag attacks designed to draw the US into the Syrian War.  Now with longer range rockets, artillery, and mortars, ISIL has no technological hurdles to overcome if it desires to conduct a chemical attack inside Iraq.  ISIL even has shown footage that it has a SCUD missile.  If this is in fact true and they can launch it, they have the ability to hit not just Baghdad, but Israel with either a high explosive or chemical payload.  In fact, it is very plausible that ISIL could infiltrate a team with rockets or mortars loaded with a nerve agent to a point within the range of the US Embassy in Baghdad and hit our compound with Sarin or other chemical agents.  Although diplomatic facilities do have some means to counter this threat, the surprise of the attack would catch our personnel unprepared and cause a large number of casualties.

The third major threat area is the use of anti-aircraft missiles.  ISIL now possesses a range of man portable advanced surface to air missiles to include the US made Stinger.  Compounded by the loss of over 20,000 advanced Russian man portable anti-aircraft missiles, it is highly likely that ISIL and affiliates will use these systems to target both military and commercial air traffic.  Due to the portability of these weapons, this threat could materialize anywhere around the globe.  However, it is still most likely that aircraft transiting the Middle East and North Africa in route to or from Europe will the primary targets.  Islamic extremists have continually tried to destroy passenger jets with concealed bombs, but now have the ability to utterly bypass airport security and simply blow the plane out of the sky.  It is worth noting that the acquisition of this highly lethal military technology was preventable.  It was only after major policy blunders in both Libya and Syria, orchestrated by the White House and President Obama’s inner circle of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton that Gadhafi’s arsenals were allowed to be raided by US backed Islamic rebels in Libya and the FSA was covertly provided Stinger missiles by the US.  To put it simply, had President Obama not backed Islamists, terrorists around the world would not currently be in the possession of weapons capable of shooting down a passenger jet.

The fourth area worth discussing right now is ISIL’s possession of advanced anti-armor weapons.  ISIL now has an extremely large arsenal of anti-tank weapons.  These weapons are designed to defeat the armor of main battle tanks and are more than capable of destroying US manufactured Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles and armored cars used by VIPs and dignitaries from ranges up to five kilometers away.  Previously, insurgent factions in both Iraq and Afghanistan were limited to RPGs and homemade roadside bombs.  Although effective, they simply never presented the threat that a professionally manufactured anti-tank missile or rocket with a chemical or tandem shaped charged warhead presented.  These weapons, such as the Russian made Kornet, ( can be accurately employed by one to three men teams and utterly destroy main battle tanks, MRAPS, armored limousines, low flying helicopters, and fortifications.  Making these more dangerous, ISIL does have the organic expertise to maintain and employ these weapons effectively.  As such, we can expect to have a persistent threat to high value targets.  In particular, I fear that these will be used to target armored convoys of US personnel operating in and around the Middle East.  As these systems proliferate, they could be very effectively used against US targets in Africa as well such as diplomatic motorcades.

In summary, I have presented four new threat areas the US must prepare to counter.  These threats will grow and persist.  ISIL and Islamic extremism are nowhere close to being defeated.  In fact, their numbers are growing and the US leadership has proved totally ineffective at the strategic level in countering this growth.  As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I present this analysis in hopes of ringing the warning bells and waking up both our policy makers and the media to the new and much more serious threat presented by ISIL and like terrorist organizations.


By Guiles Hendrik

September 5, 2014

All rights reserved.

Islamic extremism and what lies ahead? Part I: Iraq


Over the last few years, I have written many posts and provided consultation on the situation I predicted would materialize in the Middle East and North Africa as a result of US policy blunders.  In short, I predicted that our policies would lead to the creation of an even greater Islamist enemy that would destabilize the entire region and likely lead to a multi-front regional war for hegemonic dominance between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.  I predicted we would be forced to recognize the Kurds, that Iraq would breakup and return to sectarian violence, that we would support false flag chemical attacks in Syria to try and ignite a war, and that our proxy army in Syria would back fire and become our worst enemy.  Further, I detailed how this conflict would continue to increase in intensity until it no longer was proxy war, but a direct full-fledged war between the belligerents with global implications.  As my previous analyses have come to pass and been proven accurate by current events down to the most specific details, it is time to expand and update what one can expect respective of the impact of Islamic extremism.

To begin, let’s recap the current state of affairs pertaining to just a few major on-going crises in our region of focus.  First, the terrorist organization called ISIL come ISIS come IS has repeatedly made headlines since seizing large sections of Iraq, establishing the first terrorist state, and most recently beheading a captive American reporter.  The speed and violence of ISIL’s ascendance has made President Obama, who now infamously stated that ISIL was a “JV” organization, appear to be lying to cover his policy failures and/or completely incompetent.  Making matters worse, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest signed President Obama up for another major embarrassment while trying to justify Obama’s statements respective of defeating Al Qaeda when he stated “…the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan, has been decimated and defeated in Afghanistan- there’s no question about that.  And that is the result of the many decisions that were made by the president.”  Contrary to Mr. Earnest’s statement, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are more alive and well today in Pakistan and Afghanistan than they were in 2001 with their original leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri still living well and in firm control of the organization.  I am pretty sure the White House would rather Americans forget Al-Zawahiri even exists because his existence after over a decade of war means we utterly failed to kill or capture the ideological leader of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Further, Earnest completely ignores the fact that as the US military retreats in strategic defeat from Afghanistan, the Taliban are retaking entire regions of Afghanistan making it only a short period of time before most of Afghanistan is again firmly in the control of Islamic extremists. However, Mr. Earnest is correct in inadvertently linking the policies that have led to the strategic US failure in Afghanistan to President Obama.

The White House claims it was caught off guard by ISIL’s development and has blamed the intelligence community for this failure.  However, as my previous posts have clearly shown, not only did the White House have intimate knowledge of the development of ISIL, but it was integral in ISIL’s development.  Specifically, President Obama signed off on covert action in Syria to arm, train, equip, fund, and advise what was originally called the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in Jordan, Syria, and Turkey.  This was done with extensive support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar even though most analysts warned this was a bad idea and would blow back on the US.  In fact, back in 2013, I posted a detailed warning the week Islamists used a literal decapitation strike against FSA leadership in what I termed the most important coup that no one heard about  In that post, I explicitly stated this meant the FSA was no longer a viable ally against Assad and was now firmly an Islamic terrorist organization.  Now that all hell has broken loose in the Middle East and North Africa as a direct result of the amateur policy making at the White House, President Obama and his inner circle are scrambling to contain the mess they created.  However, they have painted themselves into a corner that almost certainly must lead to greater violence and bloodshed as I previously predicted in intimate detail to include even writing that Washington would be forced to join forces with the Kurds

Not to break with a pattern of being wrong, President Obama was also completely wrong about Libya.  President Obama and his gang of amateurs to include Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton crafted a Libya policy that amounted in practice to a “how to guide” on creating a failed state run by Islamic extremists hell bent on the death and destruction of the Christian West.  Not only did their policies lead to the death of a US Ambassador, but a total retreat of the US from Libya early in July as we closed our embassy doors in Tripoli and fled the country with little more than our lives as local tribes poured across the walls of our recently renovated 400 million dollar embassy.  The collapse of Libya also led to the massive proliferation of military grade weapons to extremists throughout the region to include up to 20,000 advanced surface to air missiles that are still not all recovered.  The loss of these missiles most likely led to the shoot down of the Algerian Airline’s Flight AH5017 in July by Tuareg Rebels even though the official story is still that it crashed in bad weather.  The millions of other Libyan weapons and munitions that were looted and sold have super charged Islamic factions across Africa from Somalia and Sudan to Nigeria fueling a new outbreak of warfare and violence.  These weapons have even made it to Syria, Yemen, and Palestine.  On that note, the Palestinian conflict is no closer to resolution, Yemen is still a hot bed of extremism, and Syria’s civil war is a blood bath.

If you are now utterly depressed with the global chaos created by President Obama’s incompetence, you should probably stop reading because what comes next is even worse.  To simplify the analysis, let’s say the White House has proved unable to understand and manage the current events as they stand so you can safely predict they will be completely unable to handle what comes next as the situation deteriorates on all fronts and spirals out of control.  This makes for knee jerk policy decisions, which are admittedly difficult to predict. However, because the policy decisions have been so bad, they have forced the US into corners on most fronts, which means some outcomes and actions are nearly foregone.  With this in mind, I will outline what will most likely transpire over the next 12 months in Iraq.


To begin, the breakup of Iraq along sectarian lines will be complete; however, the lines between Sunni and Shia Arab lands will continue to be violently contested.  Iranian backed Shia forces will continue to battle Saudi backed Sunni forces and ISIL.  ISIL will not be going away as they are the proxy army of Saudi Arabia and Qatar built to fight Iran.  The loss of ISIL means a strategic defeat for Saudi Arabia that they will not occur without far greater bloodshed.  The US Embassy Baghdad will also become untenable as both Shia and Sunni forces see the US as the bigger problem fueling the conflict.  These forces will launch direct attacks against American diplomats and military personnel currently holding the US compounds if they venture beyond the gates and begin to launch rockets and artillery into the embassy compound, which will force the evacuation and surrender of our BILLION DOLLAR embassy.

ISIL will be used to justify increasing military action in Iraq and soon become the flash point for the Third Iraq War, which Obama with his Nobel Peace Prize will own.  However, even in spite of the White House’s lies about not putting boots on the ground in Iraq, the White House will be forced to increase our military presence in Iraq to counter ISIL.  This will prove ineffective and force Obama to justify a greater number of overt military strikes and boots on the ground.  The number of strikes will ultimately reach a point that the humanitarian arguments will fade and it will simply be a new war.  This war’s front will quickly shift to Syria where Obama’s inner circle has long pushed for an unjustifiable war against Syria’s President Assad.  The US is currently using unmanned drones and soon will conduct limited strikes to test Syrian air defense responses and then will move to manned airstrikes inside Syria.  Although it is a complete violation of Syrian airspace and sovereignty, as long as the targets attacked are only ISIL concentrations, Assad knows this is to his benefit and will allow it.  However, if Obama allows these attacks to go after Assad and his government forces, it will become a very dangerous situation and a military disaster for the US.  Not only will Hezbollah turn to attack US interests, but both Iran and Russia will be forced to directly intervene in much greater capacities to include providing Assad with advance air defense systems capable of shooting down US jets.  This situation must be avoided or the potential for an all-out regional war with the potential to become a world war becomes a real, yet, horrific possibility.

As ISIL suffers some tactical defeats, but gains global media attention, it will gain momentum as extremists from around the globe swell their ranks.  This will allow them to retake ground lost to the Iraqi military.  Even as the Iraqi military, supported clandestinely by US “boots on the ground” and US airstrikes, also retake some captured key terrain, ISIL will out maneuver the unwieldy Iraqi military forces and hold onto historically Sunni areas such as Mosul, which the US military was unable to pacify even at the height of the war.  Further, ISIL will adapt to the threat of US airstrikes and begin to blend with the local population making it nearly impossible to target ISIL concentrations from the air without inflicting large scale civilian casualties and major collateral damage.  They will acquire and use man portable surface to air missile systems such as the US made (and provided) Stinger Missile for low altitude air defense against jets, drones, and helicopters.  As we are forced to increase our airstrikes, you can expect to see ISIL to begin using human shields to screen their convoys and offensives.  As ISIL obtains greater technical knowhow, they will also begin to more effectively employ advanced military weapon systems such as artillery, tanks, air defense systems, and even aircraft, but perhaps in asymmetric ways.  For example, ISIL may use captured fighter jets as guided missiles to take out civilian jetliners or key buildings like the US Embassy in Baghdad.  ISIL may also use tanks to deliver massive payloads of explosives into areas generally considered hardened against vehicle borne explosives. They also have the capability to launch chemical attacks with mortars and rockets outfitted with nerve gas canisters as demonstrated in Syria.   ISIL fighters will also infiltrate into civilian regions and conduct guerilla warfare to include assassination of key officials and sabotage of key infrastructure.  What is certain is that we have underestimated ISIL and have not given the degree of thought to the enemy we face.  This dereliction sets the stage for us to be surprised in another attack and virtually assures our limited bombing campaign will be ineffective and suck us deeper into the conflict.

Any intervention on our part, short of total war, will not decisively change the ground situation in Iraq.  In fact, it will only prolong and worsen the rebalancing of power in the Middle East.  We have bombed Iraq for a quarter century and to think a few more tons of explosives will change things decisively is just plain stupidity.  Nonetheless, we will solidify Kurdish lines for at least the next 6 months to a year because contrary to our weak humanitarian arguments and claims of threats to our extremely small consulate in Erbil (that could be evacuated in less than an hour via the adjacent international airport), Exxon Mobile and other US oil companies have heavily invested in Kurdish oil fields and cannot afford to have those fields overrun.  Although cliché, it is big oil’s fears of a massive loss in investment funds that forced Obama’s hand behind the scenes to launch very limited strikes against ISIL.  Nonetheless, the intervention was a blunder and will draw the US deeper into the conflict in Iraq because a few strikes simply will not be enough to stop ISIL.  In fact, only the regional actors will be capable of stopping ISIL because US forces can and will only enflame the situation short of a total war of annihilation it is clear President Obama is unwilling to wage.  As such, Obama will continue to quietly bomb while trying to come up with a new justification for why we are now at war again in Iraq.  If Kirkuk and big oil’s investment is lost, it is possible Obama will pull the plug on the entire operation, but to date, it appears oil lobbyists have cornered the White House into justifying the US involvement in another unnecessary, undeclared war for special interests against an enemy the White House created.

In summary, I expect escalation of the fighting in and around Iraq over the next 12 months.  This will gradually draw the deeper into the conflict with dire strategic results for US interests. Obama’s undeclared Third Iraq War will be used as a pretext to finally justify the original war with Syria, which will bring both the Iranians and Russians into the fight in a much greater capacity if the US turns its bombs on Syrian President Assad’s forces instead of ISIL fighters.  Inside Iraq proper, expect to see the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia reach new levels of violence with both sides continuing to support their factions with more advanced military hardware.  With this will come the use of advanced military weapons in asymmetric ways by ISIL.  These attacks could include using rockets and mortars to launch chemical attacks against the US Embassy and captured Iraqi military jets as guided missiles to take down passenger airliners and government buildings.  Ultimately, Iraq will not be stabilized this year and as I previously predicted, simply become the main battle ground for a regional proxy war being fought between Saudi Arabia and Iran.


By Guiles Hendrik

Sept. 1, 2014

All rights reserved. 

Lessons from Ferguson: Policing goes Paramilitary

Paramilitary Police Draw Down on Man in Ferguson, Missouri

Paramilitary Police Draw Down on Man in Ferguson, Missouri

The events leading up to the shooting death of an 18 year old man in Fergusson by a police officer are under investigation and the “facts” appear to be conflicting. What are not in doubt are the events that transpired after the shooting. Citizens genuinely concerned and outraged wanting a full and impartial investigation rose up in peaceful, legitimate protests, but so did the most criminal elements within our society. It appears that not only was the race baiting, rabble rousers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ready to pounce and exploit this shooting, but so were many hoodlums that exploited the protests to rob, loot, and destroy. The media was right on their heels to cover the ratings generating violence and President Obama wasted no time wading into what can only be considered divisive racial politics his track record suggests he favors stoking. However, as prepared citizens, what really should concern us is at least two-fold and goes far beyond the distractive on-going racial narrative from Missouri.
At the most basic personal level, the wanton destruction of property, looting, and robbery is of immediate concern. Mobs of violent criminals, bent on destruction and looting caused millions of dollars in damage. Business was scared off, stores were looted, vehicles were torched, and countless individuals were assaulted. The police, cornered in a no-win situation, due in no small part to inflammatory politics, were paralyzed to act. If they crushed the riot they would increase tensions and be blamed for continued use of heavy handed tactics. If they did nothing, they would be seen as impotent, allowing innocent people to be victimized. However, many businesses and personal property escaped any damage at all. These properties were overtly guarded by armed teams of prepared individuals. Further, safeguarding these properties required neither heavy handed policing nor government intervention, just armed citizens prepared to protect their property.
Here in lies a truth the big government would hope most miss. Bad governance in large part led to the problems in Ferguson. Government also proved wholly inadequate to effectively deal with the problems in a humane and civil way once the problems spiraled out of control. However, it was local citizen actions that proved the most effective. After all, no one cares more about you and your property than you. Considering this, one should quickly realize that in the event of a crisis, the government will not be there to help you. In fact, the government will most likely be divided between exploiting the situation for political gains and protecting its own interests of control and power. This means you will be a victim twice over…once from the mob and or catastrophe and once by the government intervention. To prevent becoming a victim, the simple answer is to be prepared, be organized (with like-minded neighbors and friends), and be armed.
The second and more ominous development was the militarization of our police being paraded in full regalia as they beat, shot, gassed, cussed, arrested, and intimidated innocent citizens, press, and thugs alike. The total lack of discretion displayed by the heavy handed police response was so over the top, it provoked outrage from all sectors of the US. The outrage even precipitated from unlikely, traditionally pro-law enforcement sources such as many Republican representatives on Capitol Hill. Although this transformation has not occurred overnight, the transformation from peace officer to government goon has gone on unabated for almost three decades now. As a result, the police throughout the US have become paramilitary units with extensive weaponry. Further, these paramilitary units are supported by high tech surveillance equipment and in major cities, police departments also have developed Orwellian intelligence collection and analysis units designed and modeled by former CIA and NSA employees. In fact, unbeknownst to the public, and likely in violation of the law, CIA employees are currently employed by and are actively working with local law enforcement to conduct intelligence collection operations against citizens. This support goes beyond intelligence fusion cells and includes far more draconian aspects such as conducting covert style targeting and collection operations against mainly completely innocent citizens in complete violation of the 4th Amendment. When these intelligence activities, tainted by CIA biases for fomenting revolutions and violence overseas, combine with paramilitary police units, it creates a situation where since the capability exists, it must be used and used it is.
The gear and equipment provided to these police departments make it too easy to take a heavy handed approach, which is justified by the grossly overused excuse of “officer safety.” For example, police have drastically increased the number of high risk, “no knock” warrant service over the last two decades. In these raids, police use their full array of SWAT gear, which predisposes officers to an aggressive, shoot first, military mindset that is wholly incompatible with a peaceful, free society. This type of warrant service has been proven to be very dangerous for both police officers and citizens alike. Literally thousands of police officers and citizens have been mistakenly killed, wounded, and/or maimed by these military style raids. However, a close review of many of these warrants reveals that the use of a no knock warrant was unnecessary and other, far less militaristic means of effecting an arrest and search were viable, but not used.
To combat this phenomenon, communities can still have a significant power. First of all, we must work at the local level. Petition local officials and elect sheriffs that protect your civil liberties and rebuke heavy handed police operations. Further, demand that police departments reform their hiring practices and review the current officer profiles. The quality of the officer has nothing to do with whether the officer is white or black or Hispanic and should never be the driving hiring factor as many of the race baiters would lead you to believe. Instead of race, character and experience are paramount. The utmost discretion must be used in selecting the most mature, professional, and experienced officers. Before anyone is hired as an officer, these candidates must be respected public figures with demonstrate outstanding judgment and life experience coupled with an ingrained sense of civil liberties and understanding of the Constitution. This would go a long way to prevent many of the problems related to overzealous police actions before the even occur. We must petition at the federal level as well beginning with forcing your representatives to repeal the aspects of the Defense Department’s 1033 program that provide military weapons and weapons related equipment to police. These items include machine guns, night vision devices, and armored vehicles and have become highly visible since the defacto martial law was declared in Ferguson.
Citizens must push on the legal front for suit to be brought against the government violating 4th Amendment rights through the use of unlawful surveillance and intelligence collection programs. Legal challenges work and are effective. Recently, court decisions have yielded victories for your civil liberties on fronts ranging from preventing unwarranted searches of your cell phones to ending stop and frisk operations. The rulings also include the ending the program of unlawful intelligence collection and surveillance of Muslims in New York City. Further, CIA operatives must be permanently removed from domestic law enforcement. To do this, a great start would be using the Freedom of Information Act to request all government data on the use of military, military intelligence, and intelligence community support to local and state law enforcement agencies. From there, demands should be made at the congressional level to open hearings into the use of CIA operatives domestically and legislation should be crafted to end it.
Finally, all of this can be combatted on the financial front. Vote against any increase to the funding of law enforcement and policing programs. In fact, demand that the departments scale back operations through reduced budgets. Cut taxes at the local, state, and federal levels by defunding law enforcement activities and programs. Simply by following the speed limit and rejecting speed and traffic cameras in your local county, city, or parish would go far to strip local and state funds to law enforcement. Ultimately, most of these paramilitary operations require significant expenditure of funds that without will have to be shut down. As such, stop financing your oppressors.
Sadly, we are today far removed from the times in our country where police were near universally respected and seen as the good guys. We now have young punks with heavy weapons instead of respected men with exceptional experience and judgment being provided authority to strip you of your rights. This authority has begun to default more and more to the use of lethal force to enforce the government’s edicts. There are still good cops and our police do not have to go the way of police in the rest of the world where they are universally viewed as the bad guys. However, we are at a critical juncture where we either allow our police to descend into a modern day gestapo staffed with government thugs or reform our policies and again reestablish peace officers that professionally protect the free state and its citizens.

By Guiles Hendrik
August 26, 2014
All rights reserved.

Ebola: When to Act

Recently, many of our readers have become very concerned about the on-going Ebola outbreak that has spread across West Africa. In particular, they want to know if this disease is something to worry about and when and how they should hit the bug out button. The answers to these questions now are relatively simple, but as this disease evolves, possible contingencies may arise where one must be prepared to take more drastic measures.
To begin, Ebola is a fatal communicable disease where up to around 90% of patients die. This particular strain does not appear to be as fatal, but has spread over a much broader region. There is no known cure and treatment is generally limited to providing pain management and fluids. The disease is transmitted by close contact with an infected person’s bodily fluids that include sweat, vomit, and most likely saliva. It does appear possible that the disease has some persistence and items contaminated with infected body fluids can transmit the disease until sterilized or disinfected. Also, the virus can be transmitted from an infected corpse after the person has died making burial and handling of bodies very risky. At this time though, the disease is not airborne and effective precautions can be taken to mitigate the spread. Nonetheless, to date, over 100 health care workers that did take “proper precautions” have become ill with the disease and most have since died. Further, it is important to note that a virus by its design mutates to survive. It is possible that in a worst case scenario, Ebola could mutate to be an airborne virus. This would constitute a biological worst case scenario that would quickly become a worldwide pandemic. Still though, for the virus to rapidly spread, it doesn’t require it to be airborne. In an area like West Africa where diseases are already endemic, understanding of the disease is poor, and hygiene and health care services are inadequate, the disease is now spreading like wildfire. In fact, since the virus has made its way out of the jungles and into the cities, Ebola escaped our best chance to contain the virus and is now exponentially spreading.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has instructed the public not to worry and said that Ebola does not pose a threat to Americans. However, actions speak louder than words. The CDC declared a Level 1 health emergency, which is its highest threat level, making one wonder why the CDC would go on its highest state of alert if the public has “nothing to fear” as the government claims. Since then, a growing number of Americans are being tested for Ebola “symptoms,” but the government has not released the details of these possible cases even as the numbers grow. This leads one to conclude the government is trying to suppress the true danger of this disease to prevent panic all while hiding behind medical privacy. Further, other countries are taking Ebola very serious. Nigeria recently declared a state of emergency after at least five people in and around Lagos were confirmed to have Ebola and Sierra Leon and Liberia are deploying troops and closing borders. The World Health Organization has also declared the Ebola outbreak as out of control and declared it a health emergency. So, even if the CDC says not to worry, it is clear governments are very worried. In fact, when the government says stay calm and don’t panic, it is probably time to become worried.

Extremely worrisome is the fact it appears that the US government and CDC are trying to calm nerves with faux action designed more to prevent hurt feelings than to stop the spread of a deadly disease. Instead of closing down our borders and restricting travel to and from countries known to have active Ebola outbreaks, the US government announced it was only stepping up the screening of passengers for symptoms coming from countries in West Africa. Those that understand the disease should quickly realize the ridiculous ineffectiveness of this strategy. Specifically, the disease can take up to 21 days for a patient to become symptomatic after exposure to Ebola. Although a patient is only believed to be contagious while actively showing symptoms, the infected person could easily move through international airports around the world for weeks before any symptoms arise. This means individuals with Ebola could already be inside the US and easily pass through our ports of entry with the disease. Further, once here, it would likely be a number of days before an infected person sought medical help for their worsening symptoms that first present like any other bad flu. During this time, even one infected person could come into contact with thousands of other people and unknowingly infect many. As this disease spreads into the urban populations, it has the potential to quickly overwhelm medical facilities and fuel very real panic.
So to answer your questions, yes, Ebola is something you should worry about, but radical action at this time would be premature. I have read many articles that claim Ebola is being used to create panic and sell vaccines. These articles often seem to imply that because a pharmaceutical company may seek to profit off of this disease that somehow the disease is overblown or not a threat. This logic is plain stupid and although companies may indeed exploit this situation, it by no means mitigates the disease threat to you and your family. Ebola has not yet spread to the point that one should consider bugging out/in. However, after analyzing the spread of the disease in West African cities, it is clear the numbers of infected hit a critical tipping point approximately two weeks ago and is now exponentially spreading. As such, I predict with a high level of assurance that Ebola will begin to be confirmed in major cities around the globe over the next two weeks. As the cases are confirmed and patients are moved to quarantine in hospitals, a growing number of health care workers will contract Ebola. This will begin a cycle that could quickly strain the health care system if the disease is not contained within days from this post.

If Ebola breaks out in major cities around the world, as it now looks increasing likely, this is when you will need to start looking at a bug out/in option. Right now, if you have not done so, you should be stocking up on decontaminates like hydrogen peroxide and Clorox as well as medical grade masks, gloves, face shields, and gowns. These items will become nearly impossible to get once Ebola goes mainstream in major cities around the world. Note that these items alone will not protect you from Ebola contamination if you are in direct close contact with an infected patient, but they will give you some stand off and ability to decontaminate your own living spaces. For proper precautions against Ebola, one would need to be fully covered in duplicate full body suits and ideally have a totally contained suit with its own oxygen supply. Depending on how the outbreak develops, if it becomes clear hospitals in the US are receiving a growing number of Ebola patients, which almost definitely would correspond with a growing number of health care workers contracting the disease, it would be wise to go ahead and pull your kids from school and take a long term leave of absence from work. In short, this is when one should be ready to leave town.

My personal trip wire for bugging out parallels this logic, but is a tiered response. Specifically, as I monitor the disease outbreak, I initially self-segregate from others and highly populated areas as much as possible. This includes restricting my travel through major transportation hubs and completely avoiding large public gatherings. I also mandate constant hand washing and implement more severe disease mitigation strategies around my work and home. Further, I try to get what I can delivered to my house and do any residual necessary shopping when the fewest number of people are out, usually in the early morning or late evening. I also will not shake hands and forego any type of hugs or physical contact with others. If the disease spread worsens, I then close up shop and move all my operations to an offsite interim bug out location. This location is far safer, more secure, and requires only the most minimal contact with the outside, but one which is still in contact with my work, small town America, stores, and supplies if needed. If the disease outbreak moves to Middle America and continues to spread, I execute my full scale bug out contingency and lock down my retreat. Until the disease has a vaccine or burns itself out, I remain completely isolated from anyone that wasn’t a part of the initially quarantined group. This makes bugging in a poor choice for those located in urban areas where the disease spread will always be worse. If at all possible, remove yourself and your family/group to a remote bug out location and monitor the crisis safely from the radio, internet, and TV. Your guiding principles should be the sooner you leave the better and the fewer people you have contact with the safer. You also should not advertise your plans and destination, but rather use a viable cover story if necessary for work and school to explain the absence. Ultimately, each one of your situations is unique and will require a custom tailored response; however, always trust your good judgment and maintain a bias for action. Do not rely on the government to help you or to tell you when it is too late. Remember that when the government steps in, it will be because it is already too late and their mission is not to protect you, but rather, retain their control. This will almost certainly not work out well for you if your plan for survival relies on the government to save you so act now, the clock is ticking.

Stay safe and healthy,

Guiles Hendrik
August 8, 2014
All rights reserved.

If California’s Drought Weren’t Scary Enough, Now It May Trigger Earthquakes


As the worst drought in living memory persists in California, more evidence has arisen supporting my previously published theory on earthquakes from December 2013

Specifically, scientists are now beginning to bandwagon on the idea that as aquifers are drawn down, the earth will simultaneously sink and rebound causing quakes. I outlined this theory as a probable mechanism to explain why quakes in areas such as Charlottesville, Virginia and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where quakes were very rare, were suddenly occurring. I was able to conclude that there was a close correlation to quake activity in regions centered over confined, lake-like aquifers that have been heavily drawn down in recent years. Both Oklahoma City and Charlottesville have seen significant population increases over the last decade and have significantly drawn down their aquifers, which I believe has resulted in the occurrence of earthquakes. This conclusion better explains what I believe is a generally flawed belief that hydraulic fracking has caused quakes, specifically around Oklahoma. I dismissed fracking in my theory because the occurrence of quakes simply did not correspond well with high fracking activity. For example, if quakes were caused by fracking alone, then West Virginia and Pennsylvania should be experiencing a large number of quakes. This is not the case and when accounting for naturally occurring fault lines and other “known” causes of quakes, one must conclude that something other than fracking is at work. As stated, I have theorized that aquifer depletion is at the root of this quake activity and have been publishing on it since before the mainstream scientific community even considered the possibility.

The “so what” factor for our readers is apparent when it comes to my quake activity theory. If you live in an area that draws on a confined aquifer and has a high population density, preparing for earthquake activity would be smart. As the drought in the South West persists, demand on ground water resources will continue to grow. The increased demand will unleash a number of small quakes that may or may not be capable of damaging homes and infrastructure. What is not known is if these quakes could disturb the stability of the ground so much that the aquifer reductions could trigger secondary and much larger quakes along known fault lines. I theorize that in the event an isolated aquifer is heavily drawn down and is collocated with a known fault, it could indeed trigger much larger and unpredicted quakes than previously thought possible. Now don’t say you didn’t see it coming!

By Guiles Hendrik
August 13, 2014
All rights reserved.

For more:

Trauma Medicine for Massive Hemorrhage: Combat Gauze versus Celox

If you are looking to update your medical kit with effective and proven products, consider adding hemostatic agents. Over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan trauma medicine has markedly improved with hemostatic gauze being one major advance. These clotting agents have proven so effective; they are standard in every medic’s trauma kit on the battlefield. As such, it is worth comparing the two most popular brands sold under the names QuickClot®Combat Gauze and Celox.
First of all, one should understand that clotting agents have been around for some time and have undergone an evolution in both composition and the mechanisms by which they work. Both Combat Gauze and Celox are the current result of this evolution and are far safer and more effective than their earlier ancestors. For example, the original QuickClot® essentially cauterized a wound with heat from a chemical reaction, which caused serious burns and contraindications. As a result, it was removed from medical kits and replaced with newer and better hemostatic agents. Today’s products are impregnated with hemostatic agents that facilitate blood clotting by complimenting or enhancing the body’s natural clotting faculties to stop massive hemorrhaging. Both Combat Gauze and Celox do this well, but which is best? Both also are used broadly by military, law enforcement, and rescue units around the world. However, these products are not cheap so if one is to invest in only one product, I recommend Celox for your medical kit.
Hemostatic agents in Combat Gauze and Celox allow for the formation of much larger clots than normal, which are more stable and more difficult to dislodge. This is critical for effective stoppage of heavy bleeding, especially, when a patient will have to be moved and clots could be jarred loose such as on the battle field. Further, both require the gauze to be used with constant firm pressure to be effective and allow the clot to form. Both are essentially used in the same manner. The specific location of the massive hemorrhage is located in the wound (usually a severed artery or large vein), is quickly wiped clean so that the wound location is identifiable, and the gauze is placed firmly and directly upon the bleed. For penetrating wounds such as gunshots, the cavity is then packed tightly being careful to maintain constant pressure on the bleed location while completely filling the void with tightly packed gauze. The packing is then held in place with a compression dressing. The gauze should be so tightly packed that it forms a gauze golf ball in the wound channel. The critical aspect for effective application of both products relies on their correct placement on the bleeding vein or artery and the maintenance of constant pressure until the bleeding stops. It is also worth noting that plain sterile gauze packed in a wound in the same manner using direct pressure is also still highly effective for stopping hemorrhaging.
Even though both products essentially are used the same way, Celox has notable advantages. First, in tests and operational employment, the Celox simply worked better at stopping serious bleeds. When similar wounds were unpacked in a surgical setting, it was clear from the degree of blood saturation that far less blood was lost in a patient when Celox was used. Specifically, in like wounds that severed the femoral artery of patients, Combat Gauze was unpacked and laid out showing over 12 yards of blood saturation whereas Celox showed approximately 12 inches before the gauze was blood free. This large difference could mean the difference between decompensated shock induced by severe blood loss and then the death of a patient or the complete prevention of hemorrhagic shock and survival of the patient. Further, the thicker Z-Folded Celox was much easier to handle and pack into wounds than the old school style of rolled Combat Gauze. Nothing is worse than having an entire roll of sterile gauze unwind into the muck on the ground just as you are trying to pack the wound of a severely hemorrhaging patient.
Evaluations of wounds treated with Celox and Combat Gauze also revealed that the clots formed by Celox tended to be larger and more stable. This may be due to how Celox and Combat Gauze clot. With Celox, the clotting agents are inherent in the compound so that they react instantly when they come into contact with blood. However, Combat Gauze relies upon concentrating the body’s own clotting agents (platelets) as they contact, accumulate, and react with the gauze. This is problematic since often, as a body enters shock from blood loss; the body naturally shunts blood flow from the core preventing the critical clotting compounds from reaching the wound site and the gauze. Further, when intravenous fluids are given without the addition of platelets, it reduces the effectiveness of Combat Gauze’s clotting mechanism because the fluid dilutes the blood’s natural clotting compounds.
Celox and Combat Gauze both help blood to begin clotting, but Celox is designed to work across a much broader range of patients. Specifically, Combat Gauze is designed to work with the narrow body chemistry of healthy fighting age patients. Celox on the other hand is designed to be effective across a much greater range of patients to include geriatric, those taking medications, and those taking blood thinners. This alone makes Celox a better “civilian” choice where it is more likely the patient will not fit into the perfect physically fit specimen of a fighting age soldier. In short, Celox employs a hemostatic agent that applies to everyone, whereas Combat Gauze is only designed to be effective in healthy fighting age soldiers.
In the recent DoD comparative study, Celox Gauze had the least overall blood loss, the highest survival and the highest overall hemostasis of all products. This study corresponds to the empiric evidence that I have gathered over the years using a variety of these products operationally.

By Guiles Hendrik
July 8, 2014
All rights reserved.

Department of Homeland Oppression and the FBI Target Gun Owners in Walmarts across Virginia

Think your latest purchase of a firearm or ammunition from Wal-Mart was innocent? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), aka Department of Homeland Oppression, in coordination with the FBI doesn’t think so and wants to know who you are. In fact, they believe you may be a potential domestic terrorist according to reports from Wal-Mart sales managers.
Over the last two weeks our field reporters dispersed across Northern Virginia to question sales representatives selling sporting goods throughout Virginia after rumors surfaced of agents questioning sales representatives. What they found should is shocking. In Wal-Mart after Wal-Mart, our reporters were able to verify that FBI and or DHS special agents had recently visited the stores requesting information on any suspicious buyers. According to sales managers working in the retail chain Wal-Mart, special agents requested information about anyone that appeared suspicious, attempted to buy ammo in bulk, or made anti-government comments. The special agents inquired specifically about anyone that made statements relating to sovereign citizen movements and buyers that seemed out of place to the sales manager warning that they could be potential domestic terrorists. In the event the sales manager had information, they were instructed to contact various agents from the FBI and DHS.
Make no mistake; DHS and the Justice Department consider you a threat to the US. If you buy ammunition in bulk to save money, exercise your constitutionally protected First Amendment, or are otherwise having a bad day your name and information could be passed on to the FBI or DHS for investigation as a potential terrorist. This information then goes to fusion centers across the nation where you are labeled and placed on watch lists as a domestic threat. Often this information is then used to generate faux “probable cause” to obtain a search warrant that will be justified under the nebulous national security exceptions to the rule of law and basic civil “RIGHTS.” Once a warrant is obtained, agents will execute a high risk, “no-knock” warrant most likely in the middle of the night and heavily armed to arrest you and ransack your home looking for anything they can construe as a threat. Often things as innocent as duct tape, old wire, and water barrels that many of us have in abundance are cited as “bomb making” materials or evidence of “terrorist” activities. God forbid if you are caught with a book that is politically incorrect on top of the duct tape and old wire.
If you think you have nothing to hide because you are “innocent” and have done nothing wrong, don’t be fooled because you are not exempt. Remember, all it takes is the impression of a Wal-Mart sales clerk to get labeled. Who knows, perhaps, you came across as unfriendly, maybe you were disturbed that they didn’t have any 9mm ammunition in stock, or maybe the sales clerk is just a bad judge of character. Either way, it doesn’t matter in a spy state where intimidation tactics abound and citizens are coerced into spying on their fellow neighbors by the government. Many honest Americans have had their lives ruined by being “swatted” or by unjustly becoming the subject of investigation by an overly militaristic gestapo agent at DHS or the FBI. Being “watch listed” is an extremely dangerous threat. We have seen numerous examples of how these “tips” have led to egregious acts on the part of law enforcement. At best you are questioned and labeled for surveillance. However, the worst examples include raiding the homes on innocent victims, which led to the incarceration of harmless citizens, pets being shot, children kidnapped by Child “Protective” Services, and even the killing of the unsuspecting homeowner that reached for a gun in self-defense as gestapo agents broke down their door in the middle of the night.
You need to protect yourselves. Option one is to maintain a low profile and not use traceable means of commerce such as credit cards instead of cash when purchasing guns or ammunition from retailers. However, that alone apparently constitutes you being a potential threat according to memos released by DHS and doesn’t solve the issue. A better method may be to use sunlight to disinfect and inoculate your local stores before the feds can hijack your information. Use the size and finances of these companies to fight our battle for freedom. To do this, directly contact your local sporting goods retailers and have a frank, honest, and open discussion about these gestapo tactics with their management. Make it clear to store managers that you are not comfortable shopping at their stores if you know you are going to be spied on and your information potentially handed to the government. Insist that your privacy is respected and demand proof. Further, ensure their employees are briefed on the underhanded government tactics and how that violates basic civil liberties.
Contrary to what the government desires, companies still require profits to exist and no matter what the government wants, the companies; especially large retailers like Wal-Mart, will begin to push back against the government (legally if necessary), when they are boycotted and their profits begin to shrink. We have witnessed this in the case of internet companies and NSA spying. Even Google and AT&T have begun to legally push back against government spying as they recognize their profits are not immune and free men and women across the globe will take their business elsewhere if their privacy is not ensured. The bottom line is if the management pushes back on protecting our basic civil rights, organize local and regional boycotts of the retailer. Make it impossible for them to conduct profitable business if it becomes clear that they are supporting domestic targeting of innocent Americans. When the knowledge of what the retailer is doing goes viral, contemporary precedents suggest that the retailer will cave to customer demands.

By Guiles Hendrik
All rights reserved.
July 14, 2014

The O’Reilly “Fiction:” Setting the Factor Straight

Against my better judgment, I decided to watch a segment of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News to hear his points on the latest developments in Iraq. In O’Reilly’s defense, he has been a brilliant talk show host and highly successful writer and businessman. However, at the end of the day, O’Reilly is still a journalist with limited real world expertise on many of the topics he provides commentary on. Specifically, O’Reilly poses as an expert, but is totally lacking in experience when it comes to matters of military application and foreign affairs. O’Reilly has never served in combat, is not an intelligence analyst, and so far has not demonstrated himself as a policy maker. So to no surprise, when I tuned in, O’Reilly was expounding his usual pompous, ill informed, bomb them all rhetoric with respect to the Islamic extremist army dubbed ISIL or ISIS. Within thirty seconds of listening to O’Reilly’s poorly informed diatribe, I remembered why I had stopped watching Fox. As such, I feel as though Fox News and Bill O’Reilly needed some better informed input to ensure Fox lives up to its “fair and balanced” moniker and openly challenge O’Reilly to a debate on Iraq policy.
First of all, I want to make it clear we lost in Iraq. Bill O’Reilly is still grasping to a false reality and believes we actually accomplished strategic objectives (won) in Iraq before our retreat. The fact the US was defeated is tough to deal with, but nonetheless fact. It in no way diminishes the honor of our veterans. Suggesting otherwise to those that cannot dissect honor from the success or failure of an army in battle is ridiculous. The notion that loss in battle or war dishonors our troops is no more logical than suggesting soldiers of losing armies across thousands of years of recorded history had no honor. For example, the many British army units fought with the utmost honor in the American Revolution, soldiers fighting for the Confederate Army during the American Civil War fought with great honor, and Rommel’s Afrika Corps has been distinguished again and again for its honor by historians, but all of the above armies ultimately lost their respective wars. In fact, honor is not hinged upon whether one wins or loses, but in how one conducts himself in combat. Iraq was never pacified and never made safe for Americans, but we maintained our honor. The US certainly isn’t calling the shots across the nation now. The end state achieved was a strategic setback for US interests across the region by strengthening our foes. No matter how much the Obama Administration whitewashes our retreat from Iraq, the enemy was still fighting and still holding ground when we left.
For those of you who did not fight in Iraq and have not visited Iraq since our retreat, you should know that Mosul was never pacified and maintained its status as a hotbed of Al Qaeda (AQ) activity. Neither President Bush nor President Obama finished the war. To the present day, Mosul has been a part of the ratline of jihadists making their way to fight in Syria. In fact, US intelligence has been well aware that Mosul has been a key staging point for AQ training and equipping jihadists en route to joining ISIL for years. Mosul has also been effectively “no-go” territory for westerners and has been controlled since before the US retreat by Sunni extremists. As such, the fear and panic that ISIL has “captured” Mosul is overstated. It is true they kicked out the token government forces, but the Iraqi military never controlled anything beyond the ground below their feet hiding behind the walls of abandoned US military bases. Beyond kicking out the token Iraqi forces, the only difference appears to be ISIL formally cemented their previous control of that city and surrounding regions with the execution of anyone supporting the Iraq government. So, if O’Reilly was consistent and well informed, he would have recognized that Mosul and neighboring cities like Tikrit with a large presence of Sunni extremists “falling” to ISIL was not in and of itself a game changer.
Second, O’Reilly fails to remember that it was the Sunnis, during the “Awakening,” that allied with US forces to fight the Shia militias attacking and killing Americans daily. In fact, I distinctly remember Sadr’s brigades of Shia militia backed by Iran attacking US military personnel with zeal throughout the war. I also remember the Shia going from house to house in what was originally mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhoods of Baghdad and ethnically cleansing the population. The Shia death squads brutally murdered any Sunni they found and turned Baghdad into a Shia city. However, it is now the Sunni extremists that O’Reilly has repeatedly called “savages” that deserve to be bombed. I would argue to O’Reilly that both factions have lived up to the pejorative term savage and have demonstrated their eagerness to kill Americans before their fellow Iraqi time and again and as such, we should be happy to leave them to their demise. In short, they are getting what they deserve and I see no reason Americans need to be again placed in the line of fire and paying to “save” savages that want us dead while they are busy killing one another.
Third, O’Reilly has totally forgotten that it was Maliki and the Iraqi government that refused to grant the US a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have protected our troops and allowed them to remain in Iraq beyond their set date of retreat. True, President Obama used the SOFA as a means to justify the US retreat out of Iraq, but nonetheless, the Iraqis wanted American forces out of their country. O’Reilly should perhaps volunteer himself for military service in a country that he is not invited and where killing, even in self-defense, will be deemed murder. Perhaps he does not realize the very real legal dangers our troops will be faced with as they return to Iraq. O’Reilly’s insistence on the deployment of military forces creates a conundrum for the troops because they are being deployed outside of war, to a sovereign nation, and violating its laws. Does O’Reilly actually believe Maliki’s word that our troops will now receive immunity and that President Obama will do whatever is necessary to ensure Maliki is held to his word? I think not.
Third, O’Reilly just doesn’t seem to get the fact that the war as fought under Bush was a disaster and later under Obama was also a disaster. I guess O’Reilly missed the fact that when the war began, Saddam Hussein was killing extremists for free and had nothing to do with 9/11 beyond being the fall guy for Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, which was responsible for carrying out a state sponsored act of war against the US on 9/11. This fact is why Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina wants the classified 9/11 Report released so that the public will know the truth and the lies perpetrated by the US government. If US strategy was effective, there would be LESS, not more extremists. Of course it is overwhelmingly clear our strategy failed judged by this bar. O’Reilly also seems to forget that by toppling Saddam’s regime, we created the vacuum that allowed these extremists to flourish to the point they now occupy their own autonomous Islamic state. When this point is made, O’Reilly flies into defense mode and charges the person as an “apologist.” O’Reilly solely blames the Islamists, but fails to recognize the very clear order of events of cause and effect leading to this situation. O’Reilly can believe what he wants, but is not allowed to create his own facts and cherry pick from his arbitrary timeline of events. For example, O’Reilly makes the point that we invaded Iraq to rid the country of Saddam and for humanitarian purposes. On this point alone, O’Reilly must have deleted his memory files much as the IRS seems to have deleted emails. We did not invade Iraq for the purposes O’Reilly states. We invaded Iraq because we were made to believe that Iraq was an existential threat that possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that it would not turnover to U.N. inspectors, was going to use the WMD against the US, and was supporting AQ. Nothing short of creating this existential threat would have brought American into the war. As the invasion kicked off and the contrived lies became clear, the Bush Administration had to save face. The Administration then made a deliberate policy decision to change the motive for the war effort to regime change and humanitarian issues. As such, O’Reilly’s stated purpose for the war is completely fictitious. Further, O’Reilly has chided every democratic administration for humanitarian military operations, but somehow thinks he can hang on to that rationale to defend the disaster Bush created in Iraq.
O’Reilly claims we did Iraq a great favor by ridding the country of Saddam, but again, suspends logic by implying that a full invasion was the only way to “rid” Iraq of Saddam. O’Reilly has to know that there were numerous opportunities and plenty of other options to eliminate and or contain Saddam and any threat he could have possibly posed to the US. In stating this, O’Reilly totally undermines the deaths of near 1,000,000 Iraqis throughout both wars with Iraq. More importantly to me, he also dishonors the American veterans that fought in Iraq by incorrectly believing that perpetuating political lies and propaganda he somehow brings honor to their unnecessary injuries and deaths. Only by telling the truth and prosecuting the political liars within our own government that sent them out to fight a senseless war would he actually do these honorable men and women justice. However, O’Reilly continues to pander to his establishment masters to the disgrace of all who served. Although the likes of Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney may applaud O’Reilly, Bill becomes vile in the eyes of veterans those traitors sent to an illegal war. I am positive that very few of the million dead Iraqis posed even the slightest threat to America and would be much happier if they were alive for starters. I am also confident that the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones or that were horribly wounded would also be better off alive and well today, even if Saddam was still in power. No matter what O’Reilly believes from his ivory tower about how we improved the lives of the average Iraqi, the millions of wounded, displaced, starved, and dead would find comfort in knowing the US would never come to “help” Iraq again.
Fourth, our bombing didn’t work, yet, O’Reilly is adamant about the positive effects “heavy bombing” would have for the US against ISIL. O’Reilly seems to think that if we just carpet bomb one more convoy we will win. He seems to “know” that our pilots can positively identify targets flying at nearly the speed of sound or faster and often from above 35,000 feet as long as the “bad guys” are in the open desert. I would laugh, but he is actually serious…and using his own words, a buffoon. I guess he fails to understand how the fact ISIL is operating with the same US provided military vehicles that the Iraqi military is using can complicate targeting. If perhaps, O’Reilly had actually served in combat as a Joint Tactical Air Controller, he would know that his line of logic is ridiculous, but since he did not, let me enlighten him. Just because there is a convoy of trucks with guns in the Middle East does not positively identify the convoy as “bad guys.” In fact, the factions fighting often look indistinguishable even from the ground and much less so from the air. Without good intelligence and legitimate boots on the ground observing, identifying, and marking targets for air, O’Reilly’s airstrikes will not only be futile, but 100% counterproductive. I also think that O’Reilly must have somehow shelved the knowledge that ISIL possesses “Stinger” missiles. Even though I would argue that the likelihood is the bulk of these man portable, surface-to-air missiles are advanced Soviet designs smuggled into Syria by our very own CIA from Libya (hello Benghazi), the missiles nonetheless exist and pose a significant threat to our aircraft operating at low altitudes. I wonder if the loss of an American pilot and an F-16 is worth it to O’Reilly?
Finally, O’Reilly went on to say that ISIL does not recognize the Iraq-Syrian border and that we must pursue ISIL into Syria. I do not disagree that the border has long since ceased to exist and that to prosecute an effective campaign, you must not allow the insurgent sanctuary. Too bad we didn’t use this same logic in Afghanistan where even the dullest of officers recognized that to decisively defeat the Taliban, one must either secure the border or cross into Pakistan, but I digress. Moving back to bombing ISIL in Syria, O’Reilly completely demonstrates his hypocrisy and wins the award for pinhead. Time and again, O’Reilly has been on air demanding President Obama support the rebels in Syria and has attacked the Administration repeatedly for not doing enough, yet, he fails to realize that he is simultaneously demanding we bomb ISIL and support ISIL. O’Reilly is naïve and or ignorant if he fails to make the connection that we have been covertly organizing, arming, training, and equipping the rebel forces in Syria to fight President Assad and it is these same forces, which are now rampaging throughout Iraq. The savages that O’Reilly demands we bomb are the savages we created just like in Afghanistan and Libya. In fact, if we bomb ISIL at their points of origin as O’Reilly suggests… in their training camps in Syria (Jordan and Turkey too O’Reilly), I wonder if he realizes we will be killing American special forces and CIA ground branch officers currently training these terrorists. So I ask O’Reilly, who are the good guys and who are the bad guys because I am very confused.

By Guiles Hendrik
All rights reserved.

New White House Scandal Emerges: US Covering Up Loss of Stinger Missiles in Syria to ISIL


Media reports (see:, later tacitly confirmed by the Department of Defense (DOD) before burying the subject, have identified that ISIL possesses Stinger Missiles.  The US manufactured Stinger missile is a highly potent, man portable, shoulder launched, anti-aircraft missile that has advanced technology to defeat aircraft counter measures.  To see a video of various Stinger Missile variants in action click here: (  These missiles pose an extreme threat to any low flying aircraft to include passenger jets.  The missiles are considered a highly sensitive weapon system and are heavily controlled due to their potential lethality.  As such, the DOD goes to great lengths to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands and they are accounted for individually.  Nonetheless, these very dangerous weapons have somehow made their way into the hands of ISIL extremists.  The scandal and cover up precipitate from the answer of how these weapons found their way into the hands of ISIL.

The White House would have been happy if the media had never reported that ISIL possessed Stinger missiles.  However, it soon became clear that ISIL did possess the missiles and this could not be suppressed (,,;  Therefore, the White House created a narrative about how the US missiles found their way into terrorist hands.  The White House blamed the Iraqi military and claimed the Stingers must have been captured when ISIL overran Iraqi military bases in Mosul.  There is just one major problem with this claim.  The DOD did not provide the Iraqi military with Stinger missiles and none were stored in Mosul.  The truth is that the Stinger missiles ISIL possess were not captured and did not come from Iraq.  The White House is fully aware of this fact and has intentionally attempted to cover up the truth.  The Stinger Missiles ISIL possesses are missiles the CIA directly provided “moderate” rebel groups in Syria to help them overthrow Syrian President Assad.  President Obama cannot plead ignorance on this matter because he had to personally sign the covert action “finding” to arm the rebels with Stingers.   President Obama granted this approval after the rebels pleaded for a capability to shoot down Syrian military aircraft that were persistently bombing rebel positions.  Counter to President Obama’s claims of supporting only “moderate” rebel factions and our “ability” to ensure any military weaponry the US provides the rebels would not fall into extremist hands, this is exactly what has occurred.  President Obama has at best allowed and at worse given terrorists anti-aircraft missiles and is now in complete denial mode!

The White House has been caught in another lie and the media is simply too bought and or too ignorant to identify another major cover up right in front of them.  Minimal investigative journalism would have allowed a decent reporter to put the pieces together on wear in fact the ISIL Stinger Missiles actually came from in Syria.  What makes this most recent White House scandal so damning and dangerous is the fact that, as we have warned, these anti-aircraft missiles will most likely be used against civilian passenger jetliners in the near future to kill Americans.  WHEN it happens, the Obama Administration will no doubt be “caught by surprise” and will have a readymade excuse blaming someone else (like the Iraqi military) for their utter dereliction of their duties to protect Americans.  It is your job to make sure the word gets out and you can help fix this if you contact media outlets and your elected representatives and grill them over this scandal.  Demand all military aid and support for the terrorist backed rebels in Syria be immediately cut off.  Further, demand a full investigation into how these missiles were given to terrorists and insist on prosecution of those responsible under the federal acts prohibiting material support to terrorist organizations.

For more see:


By Guiles Hendrik

All rights reserved. 


The Disintegration of Iraq: US Military Action in Iraq neither Wise nor Suitable

As the hordes of American/Saudi/Qatari sponsored terrorists race across Iraq in what appears to be a blood orgy of Islamic extremism of the worst sort, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki has appealed for help. Maliki’s forces, to include two divisions of American trained Iraqi soldiers, have broken and fled leaving all of their equipment behind to the attacking extremist army. Although, I believe the takfir blitzkrieg will be blunted once it hits Shia neighborhoods as it presses its advance into Baghdad and initially bypass the city for key oil infrastructure, it is clear Maliki has lost control of what used to be Iraq. In spite of the incompetence of the White House and senior advisors, this occurred exactly as we have been warning and predicted over a year ago.


Now that Iraq has fully disintegrated, the Kurds are now effectively independent, the Sunni areas are consolidated under extremist Sharia rule, and the Shia areas are left relying on Iran to save them from being completely massacred and conquered. This critical juncture has policy makers grappling with whether or not to send in US military support to which I emphatically warn is a horrible idea. I say again, INTERVENTION IS A HORRIBLE IDEA!

Now that Iraq has collapsed, many in the US are demanding the US military again be deployed to defend “gains” previously made in Iraq. These individuals are the same hacks that never fought in a war and led US “strategy” to a complete failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact many of these snake oil policy makers hid from reckless wars like former Ambassador John Bolton and profit handsomely from the industry of war. Further, when one hears Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain expound upon how the US must bomb the extremist army before it seizes Baghdad, consider these are the same senators that also demanded that President Obama do more in Syria to arm this very same army and bomb President Assad. Ironically, it was Assad that has been fighting this extremist army from the beginning and pleading for help from the international community. Further, it was Russia that warned the US that this army was in fact composed of radical extremists, but we ignored them and called them liars when it was the US that was lying. After all, we knew from the beginning the army was made of jihadists because the CIA’s ground branch is what organized, armed, and trained this army. If you do not see the obvious hypocrisy, bias, lobbyist dollars, and stupidity all wrapped up in US Middle East Policy, you should remove the blindfold now and engage your faculties of logic.

The problem with the logic of intervention in Iraq is multifaceted. First of all, it completely ignores the fact that just across the Iraqi border to the west in Jordan, Syria, and Turkey, the US is covertly and now clandestinely (yes, these are different) arming, training, and equipping these terrorists to fight Syrian President Assad, which I have argued from its covert beginnings could only end bad. Second, to believe an overthrow of Maliki’s government somehow translates to lost gains presumes one actually bought into the White House’s lies and propaganda respective of accomplishing anything decisive in Iraq. The reality is the US was strategically defeated in Iraq and used the hand over and pullout as a face saving maneuver to explain its retreat. I would invite anyone that disagrees with the notion of US defeat in Iraq to attempt to walk through Iraq without being killed, kidnapped, or imprisoned. Note that we will see this strategic defeat repeated in Afghanistan. However, in Afghanistan, it will be to greater American detriment since we are currently planning on leaving 10,000 personnel in that country to be captured in killed by the Taliban when they launch their offensive to regain power shortly after the US reaches the 10,000 level of troops. Third, Iraq refused (to no angst of President Obama, who was looking for an excuse to pullout) to agree to a status of forces agreement (SOFA), which would have provided legal protections to any potential future US forces stationed in Iraq. Without a SOFA in place, US personnel could be tried under Iraqi law. As a soldier that potentially would have to kill an Iraqi in self-defense, the prospect of being tried for “murder” in Iraq made any future garrisoning of troops in Iraq untenable. Finally, it is insane to think that the US can drop a few bombs and stem the tide of events in Iraq. Events have long moved beyond the effectiveness of a few bombing raids. We spent a decade vainly trying to subdue Sunni extremists while simultaneously being attacked by Sadr’s Iranian backed Shia forces. Both sides hate us and have proven they prioritize killing Americans above killing each other. To this end, American intervention would only waste more precious blood and treasure that we can ill afford.

To avoid another quagmire, it would be best to stop aiding terrorists in Syria as a reasonable start. We should then be quite content to let the factions fight it out amongst themselves while reinforcing the Kurds and letting Assad press the extremist army from the west. In particular, the Kurds have access to ample oil, are better fighters than the Arabs, have a functioning government and infrastructure, hold a strategic geographical position and are welcoming of US bases, have proven to be pro-American, and are religiously moderate. The US Department of State, for reasons that in all respects appear to be a systemic ethnic prejudice, has persistently degraded US relations with the Kurds and at every opportunity placed Kurdish interests far below Sunni and Shia interests in Iraq. If there was ever a time to change policy and embrace the Kurds, now would be it. Finally, the US must address and stop Saudi Arabia. Saudi funding is the true catalyst of the Islamic extremist movement. The US has turned a blind eye to Saudi actions far too long and it is time the US demands Saudi Arabia stops the exportation of Wahhabism and capture, kill, and or arrest the senior Saudis responsible for the export of terrorism. Continuing to ignore the Saudi gorilla in the room is tantamount to knowingly fighting the wrong adversary while simultaneously claiming to be confused why they real enemy is still growing stronger and able to attack you. After all, it is no surprise that since the “War on Terrorism” began, Islamic extremism has done nothing but expand and strengthen. Might that have something to do with the fact we are fighting a faux war against the wrong enemy? Mark my words, until someone dismantles the Saudi extremist industry, the threat of Islamic extremism will continue to spread and grow. Radical sharia law is already upon our doorsteps, but for reasons of political correctness, ignorance, and or lobbyist dollars, our government has been derelict to the point of treason addressing the growing existential Saudi threat.

By Guiles Hendrik
June 22, 2014
All rights reserved.