ISIS captures yet another critical town in central Syria. AP

An ISIS fighter on top of a captured Syrian armored vehicle. ISIS photo via AP/Yahoo.

ISIS has captured yet another town in central Syria. AP. The town of Qaryatain fell to ISIS after three suicide bombers targeted Syrian Army checkpoints at the gates of the town. After the bombings, ISIS and the Syrian loyalist had a fierce battle where ISIS was eventually successful. Qaryatain lies 85 kilometers from Homs, and is southwest of the recently captured city of Palmyra. The town was a gateway between ISIS fighters in the east and west. Its capture means the two groups of ISIS can now link up and support each other. The city has a mixed population of Sunni Muslims and Christians, as well as a large population of refugees who fled the city of Homs. The capture of Qaryatain has reversed a string of defeats ISIS has suffered in Syria after the capture of Palmyra. 

My Comment:

Looks like ISIS is on the march again in Syria. Not sure how important the town of Qaryatain is. From the maps I have seen it just seems like another town, not all that connected to any major front lines. I will say that if ISIS keeps heading west they may be able to cut the Syrian regime in half. If they are able to capture the string of cities and towns between them and the Lebanese border, they should be able to cut off Damascus and the south of the country from Homs, Aleppo and the coastal cities of the north. That would be absolutely devastating for the regime. 

Will it happen though? Who knows at this point. The Syrian regime is under immense pressure right now so anything could happen. Not only is ISIS tearing up the center of the country and threatening their isolated outposts in the east, al-Nusra is making advances in the north west and the more secular rebels in the south are making gains as well. In short, they may not have the forces available to blunt this offensive in the center of the country. It all depends on what fire they want to put out first, but I don't think they can take care of all the fires at once. 

ISIS hasn't had much luck in Syria lately. They haven't taken Hasakah in the northeast, despite major terrorist attacks and offensives there. They have also been pushed away from the Turkish border by the Kurds. Their only real successes have been against the Syrian regime itself, and even then, the last major victory they had was Palmyra, a couple of months ago. That isn't to say they aren't still a threat, it just means that this is the first victory they have had for awhile now. 

And from what it sounds, ISIS is still using the same tactics that have proven so effective in places like Ramadi and Mosul. They started with a series of suicide bombings to blow a hole through the enemy's defensive line and then rushed through the hole with light troops. It is such an effective tactic. Not only is in fairly effective, it is incredibly demoralizing when they pull it off. Suicide bombings are hard to prevent and they are effective at breaking enemy morale. 

I think ISIS will continue to use these tactics to take small towns and cities like Qaryatain for the foreseeable future. There isn't force in the region that is strong enough to counter these attacks and I think that ISIS may be in an even better position now that Turkey has entered the war.

Why? Because the Turks are preoccupied with fighting the Kurds. To date, the Kurds have been the most effective fighting force opposed to ISIS. With the Turks attacking the Kurds, many Kurdish fighters are abandoning the fight against ISIS to fight the Turks. Sure, Turkey has sent some token air raids against ISIS, but do they really outweigh the effect they are having on Kurdish forces? I would say no. 

Whatever happens though, Syria will remain a mess. My concern now lies with the people of Qaryatain. Hopefully, most of the people were able to flee. The fact that it is a mixed religion city means that there  is a real chance that there could be a massacre of anyone who is left. Officially, Christians are supposed to be given a choice: pay a tax, convert to Islam, or die. ISIS doesn't always give a choice though, and choose death or exile no matter what. And, of course, ISIS does not treat Sunni Muslims all that much better. No matter what the people of Qaryatain have to look forward to a religious police state that kills with little regard to justice. 

Obama's U.S. trained rebels are having even more trouble against al-Nusra in Syria. AFP.

Al-Nusra Front fighters in Syria. Yahoo/AFP.

Obama's unit of trained secular rebels are running into even more trouble in Syria, even as Obama vows to send airstrikes in to support them. AFP. The U.S. linked Division 30, 54 members strong at the onset of their deployment, has lost 5 more members to the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra, who abducted the men. The terrorist group abducted 8 other Division 30 troops just a few days before. Al-Nusra also launched an attack on Division 30's base in Aleppo province, and was only pushed back when U.S. airstrikes came to support the rebels. The airstrikes, while not the first directed against al-Nusra, were the first to come in support of non-Kurdish rebels in Syria. The new airstrikes mark a change in policy as the Pentagon has warned the Syrian regime that they will be subject to airstrikes as well if they attack U.S. trained rebels. Syrian and regional sources downplay the threat due to the unlikely chance that the rebels and the regime would come into conflict. 

My Comment:

The situation in Syria is surreal. It baffles me why we are sending in airstrikes to support a unit that is essentially a platoon. And with casualties and kidnappings they are already at less then full strength. From what I have read it seems like they have lost at least 15 members out of 54. Not that 54 members can accomplish more then 39, but the point still stands, the unit is already weaker then it was when it started. 

The really crazy thing is that these rebels were trained to fight ISIS, but they are spending their time fighting al-Nursa instead. Of course, al-Nusra is pretty terrible in their own right, and we are right to give them a bloody nose if we can, but that is not the mission these rebels are supposed to be doing. They are supposed to be fighting ISIS, but as far as I can tell, they haven't even engaged with them yet at all. Not that they have a choice, al-Nusra has made it very clear that they want to wipe these U.S. trained rebels out. It's fight al-Nusra or die before they even get a chance to fight.

It also seems that the only thing keeping these rebels alive is U.S. airstrikes. The rebels had demanded that the United States provide airstrikes to support them. They also demanded that the airstrikes be directed at Assad loyalists, which the U.S. had balked at. That seems to have changed. The change in policy is a major shift in the way the United States operates in Syria since we have never struck at regime targets before. 

That being said, I doubt that this will actually result in attacks on the regime. For one thing, Division 30 is not engaged with them and given the situation on the ground, they are unlikely to do so. From what I have been able to gather the regime has both ISIS and al-Nusra between them and the U.S. backed rebels. There is little chance of them getting into a battle so the question is mostly academic. 

I think it has a lot more to do with reassuring the rebels then anything else. The rebels were understandably frightened of not having air cover if they came up against the regime, and this should mitigate those fears. It also sends a message to the regime, mess with our guys and you will suffer. The last thing the regime needs is a U.S. lead air campaign. They are on the verge of collapse as it is, and that could push them over the edge. My guess is that Syria will do everything they can to avoid engaging these units. Who knows if Obama would actually follow through though. He has threatened airstrikes against the regime before but has never actually done so. 

Still, Syria is so chaotic right now that it is very hard to predict the future. Right now it's a four way brawl between the regime, ISIS, al-Nusra and the few secular rebels left. Plus the Kurds fighting against ISIS as well. Turkey is the wild card but for now they seem to be focusing on the Kurds, who until recently, were the most effective fighters against ISIS. If the Kurds get their asses kicked by the Turks, it will fall on the U.S. trained rebels to fight off ISIS. As we have seen, they aren't up to the task. Even if they were, there is a good chance that al-Nusra will wipe them all out before they even get a chance to fight ISIS. 

Once again, I have to point out that the training program was never a real attempt to do much of anything in Syria. It was all about appearances. The government wanted to look like it was doing something without actually doing something. Sure it cost an obscene amount of money ($500 million) and has done nothing to actually fight ISIS, but it makes it look like something is happening. Just like threatening the regime with airstrikes, it's a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. These rebels won't have much of an effect on the war. Like it or not, they, and by extension we, are sideshows and ISIS, al-Nursa, the regime, and now the Turks, are the main show. 

Editor's note

Expect posting to be a bit less frequent lately. I have been working, and will continue to work, a lot of overtime lately. I'm burning the candle at both ends and it's starting to effect things. I have some vacation coming up around the end of the month, but that could cut into posting as well. After that though, I should be better able to keep up with my posting.

Also, there hasn't been that much going on lately that I have wanted to post about. I do hope to watch the Republican primary debates soon and post a reaction, but I don't know if I will be able to.

Debunked? The Navy is NOT charging Lt. Commander White with gun crimes after all... so far.

Facebook post from the U.S. Navy confirming that nobody has been charged with an offense. 

Yesterday's post about the rumor that Lt. Commander Timothy White, the commander of the Navy recruiting station that was attacked in Chattanooga, being charged with a gun crime has turned out to be largely unfounded... just like I suspected. The U.S. Navy posted on their official facebook page that no one has been charged in the incident at this time. Though that is not a complete refutation of the article that started this whole kerfuffle, it does shoot down the theory that Lt. Commander White was in immediate danger of being charged. Indeed, it sounds very likely that the story had no basis in fact. 

The story never made much sense in the first place. Though the premise, that the government could follow the letter of the law and charge White with a crime, was plausible, in actuality, the Navy and the President knew that doing so would create a firestorm of criticism. That happened anyways, even though it is extremely unlikely that anyone seriously considered charging Lt. Commander White with a crime. 

After all, the prohibition on carrying firearms at military instillation seems to be on the way out, even if the President and the Navy brass aren't too keen on repealing it. Indeed, the attack on Chattanooga showed that the lower ranks aren't following the rule in the first place. They rightly reasoned it was better to risk a charge then lose their lives in a terror attack. To punish people for trying to defend themselves while breaking an unpopular law that will likely be repealed in the near future would be, quite frankly, even too stupid for the Obama administration. 

And if they DID what to punish White, they could do it in ways that wouldn't attract attention. For example, they could just make sure that he never made the rank of Commander, or just transfer him to an undesirable post. That makes a lot more sense to me then trying him in public and creating a firestorm of controversy. If you are against a cause, like gun rights, it does not make sense to turn someone who is already thought of as a hero and turn him in to a martyr. 

So why did the rumor start in the first place? Well Allen West wrote up a post, citing anonymous sources, saying that White would be charged and basically blamed the whole thing on the Navy and the Obama administration. The whole thing reeked of motivated clickbait and of course it went viral. 

Since the story appears to be false, one has to wonder what really happened. It's clear that the story was premature at the very least, and it should not have been published. I can think of a few options.

1. The story by West scared the Navy enough that they decided to back down and won't be charging White with anything. I am sure this is what West will claim if he ever addresses this point again, but my guess is that won't happen. The story when viral, but almost exclusively on fringe right wing news outlets. The government doesn't care about the right at all under this administration, and I seriously doubt that the fringe would have this much of an impact.

2. West is right and White will be charged. They just need more time to do the investigation. I sincerely doubt that this will happen for all the reasons I listed above. I give it less then a 10% chance of happening. 

3. West had a source that either lied or unintentionally misrepresented what was happening. Without knowing who West's source is we won't be able to tell for sure. But I sincerely doubt that West had a source that had inside knowledge of the case. My guess is that either someone had a grudge against the Obama administration or the Navy top brass and made the whole thing up, which is extremely plausible given how unpopular both of those organizations are right now with the military, or someone heard some un-sourced gossip and passed that info on to West thinking it is real. I think the second option is a very likely outcome because it wouldn't even need someone to outright lie. They could just have repeated something they have heard without properly checking it out and them passed it on to a guy that believed him. I'd put money on this being what happened. 

4. West out and out lied. It's almost impossible to prove that he did. Given his political leanings, he certainly has a motive to do so. But without any evidence that he out and out lied, I'm not comfortable calling him a liar. The jury is still out at this point...  

About the only good thing that came out of this whole debacle is that there is yet another example out there of a good guy with a gun responding to a shooting. It's not clear how much of an effect Lt. Commander White, and the Marine who returned fire and died in the attack, had in stopping the shooting, but you have to think that this helps the cause of gun rights. If nothing else, the gun control advocate's scenario where everyone ends up shooting each other instead of the suspect, did not happen. And again, as far as I know, it has NEVER happened. And even if Lt. Commander White did not shoot or kill the suspect, at the very least he bought time to for the police to arrive and for his fellow sailors and Marines to escape. That also does not fit the gun control advocates scenario. 

A good guy stopping a mass attack happens more often then is covered in the media, and if it wasn't for this pseudo-scandal, it would have been buried in this case as well. I can think of two cases I have posted on this blog alone where good guys stopped someone from committing mass murder. A man with a rifle stopped Muslim man after he had decapitated one woman and was trying to do the same thing to another.  In another case, a doctor at a gun free zone hospital shot a man trying to commit mass murder, allowing another person to tackle the man. That's three examples in the little over a year of doing this blog. And I am sure there are other ones I have missed. 

But the myth that mass shootings are never stopped by good guys with guns will probably never go away. The media is motivated to not cover these kinds of things, since they tend to go alone with our president. Our current administration is incredibly hostile to gun and self defense rights, so it makes it easier to believe that they would do something like charge a man for defending himself during a terrorist attack. Still, we have to remember to not fall for clickbait and to take a critical look at everything. Even if the source matches your world view. Especially if the source matches your worldview! People are always able to spot B.S. from sources that fit the other tribe's narrative, but it's always hard to see it when it is coming from your side... 

Ugly rumor of the day: Navy to charge Lt. Commander Timothy White with illegal gun possession during Chattanooga shooting.

The recruitment station that was attacked. April Grimmit.

I usually don't post about rumors but this one is incredibly disturbing if true. According to Allen West, a former congressman and Army Lt. Colonel, the United States government is going to charge Lt. Commander Timothy White with illegal possession and/or use of a firearms. Who is Timothy White? Well, according to the Time Free Press, a Chattanooga newspaper, Lt. Commander Timothy White was the commander of the Navy recruitment center that was attacked by Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez during the 2015 Chattanooga shootings. White returned fire with his own personal weapon during the attack, though it is not known if he hit Abdulazeez. The attack took place in a gun free zone, of course, and if White really did return fire, then he could indeed be prosecuted.

There is a huge caveat to the whole story though. Nobody reliable is reporting it. The only primary source is from Allen West, and he doesn't strike me as entirely credible. Nobody so far has actually talked to the military, as far as I can tell, and West is citing an anonymous text message without any way to confirm. And there is a whole lot of outrage and finger pointing in West's article, but very little in the way of facts.

I don't know much about Allen West other then I could gather on Wikipedia. He seems to have been a one term congressman and has a stellar war record from the first and second Iraq Wars. He also seems to have an ax to grind against the current administration. As of this writing, he is the only source that I have been able to find that is saying that White will be charged. And the Times Free Press article is the only one I have been able to find that said White even fired his weapon, or even exists at all. I have seen articles saying that one or two Navy or Marine servicemen returned fire at Abdulazeez, but none that named Timothy White as one of the shooters. 

So is the story accurate? Way too early to tell, but it sounds like something that could happen. Our government is completely tone deaf and I could see them charging someone under these circumstances. After all, it was illegal to carry firearms on military installations, even if those installations are vulnerable to attack. And our current administration absolutely hates the idea of self defense and gun rights.

But seriously? I have to think that even the Obama administration isn't that stupid. They would have to know how poorly this would play to the American public. After all, even if White did carry his weapon illegally, shooting at a terrorist who was killing American servicemen, is an act of heroism. You don't send hero's to prison, unless you want to piss everyone off.

My guess? Either this story was completely pulled out of thin air by Allen West and has nothing to do with reality, or there is some kind of mitigating factor here we aren't hearing about yet that could justify charges. The only thing I can think of, and this is pure wild speculation on my part, is that White fired and hit one of his own guys, but I seriously doubt that happened. If it did though, it would be a nightmare scenario for gun rights since gun control advocates always like to say that concealed carriers could shoot innocent people by accident during a mass shooting. As far as I know it has never happened, and I doubt it happened here. But it is the only thing I can think of that would make this make any sense whatsoever.

Of the three options I think the story being false is the most likely. None of the sources I have read that claim White will be charged have been credible. Most of them are far to the right and come off as conspiracy sites. Sure Allen West was a congressman but that doesn't necessarily make this story credible. I am guessing that the story will be debunked soon by actual journalists. Until then, I would urge restraint. The last thing we need to do is go nuts over something that isn't even going to happen.

That being said, if the story is confirmed as West wrote it, then I plan to stand by Lt. Commander White. Charging a man for defending himself and others is just sick and it should never happen. Period.