Looking into the Eye of the Tiger

The brutal killing of an ambassador is always cause for alarm. Given the tinderbox that is the Middle East, what happened in Turkey the other day is more so.

Andrei Karlov, Russia’s ambassador to Ankara, was shot in cold blood by an off-duty Turkish policemen, apparently as an act of revenge against Russia because of its involvement in Syria. All the usual Islamist fingerprints were there: right after he shot Karlov, he yelled in Arabic “Allahu akbar!” It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out what animates “votaries of Mohammed” (as Winston Churchill wrote over a century ago). To be sure, the animus against Russia was exacerbated by the detente that has developed beteen Russia and Turkey.

Fortunately, it did not have the desired effect. President Recep Erdogan immediately phoned Vladimir Putin and expressed profound regret. Sources say that Putin accepted his apologies and is convinced of the Turkish president’s sincerity in this matter. It is clear that Erdogan was shaken by the event.

Cooler heads in the Kremlin prevailed. The detente between Russia and Turkey remains in place, at least for the time being. The fact that both sides are whispering that America or NATO had something to do with it doesn’t bode well for us.

Regardless, there can be no doubt that the Kremlin is planning its revenge. It is likely that military assets are being put into place. My guess is that Putin is biding his time until President-elect Trump takes office.

Geostrategically, this gives Russia and Assad an even stronger hand to play in Syria. Although it’s not likely that the US or NATO had anything to do with it, the assassination, along with Obama’s incessant devotion to Saudi Arabia and its agents throughout the world, erases any reason for believing that Washington is an honest broker in the Middle East.

We shall see how this plays out. In the meantime, this atrocity will not only restrict Turkey’s range of movement within Syria but the State Department’s as well.

In the meantime, Monomakhos goes dark until the New Year (unless events warrant otherwise). To all on the new calendar, have a merry and blessed Christmas!

Comments

  1. George Michalopulos says:
    • I’m not married to the idea that Erdogan is the antichrist. He is still the best contender in my opinion but it appears that ISIS is upset with him at this moment. Nothing really surprises me at this moment. What I have offered are educated guesses. I have never claimed that God “told” me any of this. What I do claim is that I have come close to Him in hesychasm and that He has made me much more insightful as a result.

      Antichrist has no reason to reveal himself until he is ready to make conspicuous warfare. He is not Satan incarnate, but merely a “useful idiot”. I assume that he will be a Muslim because that is how the chess board is lining up and we have dueling eschatologies. Erdogan seems likely because he is hip deep in Sufism, believes he has attained their version of theosis (fanaa), and has started a personality cult around himself with some of his followers even proclaiming that he somehow represents Allah.

      So what I am saying is that it could be Erdogan or there could be someone else in ISIS who is calling the shots, more evil and and in league with the devil than Erdogan. We shall have to see. He can’t conceal himself forever. It’s kind of cowardly in a way but he wants to align things as best he can before he strikes overtly.

  2. “…apparently as an act of revenge against Russia because of its . All the usual…”. Because of its what, George?

  3. Hopefully Trump wont go looking into Putin’s eyes, as George Bush jr. did trying to get a sense of his soul. Trump better be ready for the little bear, with a big bite.

    George have a great Christmas,and many happy new years. Misha stay away from the spiked egg nog, you might talk the ear off one of your perceived concubine servants!

  4. You have to put all of this in context. Regardless of what you think about Erdogan’s ultimate role in current events, he certainly is a totalitarian ruler at the center of a personality cult, hell bent on resurrecting the Ottoman Empire. He wants to lead the Sunnis, that is why he has helped ISIS in Syria and backed some of the other Syrian rebels. I repeat, he wants to lead Sunni Islam.

    But Russia is allied with Shiite Iran and Syria. Bashar Assad is an Alawite Muslim. The Alawis are a subsect of Shiite Islam. That is why they are allied with Iran. Erdogan can see the chess board as clearly as anyone else. HRC would have been an asset for him, as is Obama. Trump, not so much. So the very day the electors in the United States voted to elect Trump president, Erdogan sent a message to the Kremlin: “This is not over.”

    Or, it might have been other Islamic militants, who knows? But do not assume Erdogan is innocent, though he may be intimidated now. He could not provoke Putin into a war before Trump replaces Obama with his hands on the US nuclear codes. Turkey is a Nato member. If Obama decided to defend Turkey from Russian “attack”; i.e, retaliation for Turkey murdering Russia’s ambassador, it could prematurely start WWIII.

    Putin knows what is going on.

  5. St Païsios of Mt Athos (canonized formally in 2015) prophesied that there’d be a war between Turkey & Russia. I think also he prophesied that it’d return Istanbul to Greece and would result in many Turks becoming Christian.

    Perhaps this event is the beginning. We shouldn’t ignore the prophesies of such saints!

  6. Alex, he said: “because of it’s involvement in Syria”–which is what the assassin cried as well saying it he deed was for what has happened in Aleppo.

    Lxc

  7. All this says to me is, there is some group with some kind of power who has something to gain by getting WW III started, and seeks to gain something it cannot obtain without a new great war. This group will never stop trying to get a fully blown global conflict, so it can pick over the pieces that survive the war.. One thing I am certain of is, their rich.

    • Chrysostom was Right says:

      Michael, the (((some group))) you are referring to is the Jews. It has always been the Jews. It will always be the Jews, until the Lord comes back. This is the big spiritual battle that we’re engaged in. Interest rates, porn, alcohol, gambling, Hollywood, JFK, Nuclear bombs, Goldman Sachs, whatever…it all goes back to the same place: The Jews. I’m not sure there is much that anyone can do about it; it’s just the way it is.

      • The enemy is not the Jews. There are Jews who are faithful to the Law of Moses, the Orthodox Jews, and there are those who are much more secular. The secular Jews tend to get into much more trouble. But blaming everything on the Jews is insane. There just aren’t that many of them even if they wanted to accomplish a lot of mischief.

        In the end, many Jews will convert and the final battle will involve Israel, I’m sure. St. John prophesied as much. Israel is a peculiar little country but we should not be distracted from the threat of Sunni Islam. They are the ones who chop off heads and go “boom”.

      • CWR, Look in the mirror next time you want blame anyone, or thing, for your spiritual battles, after all, all you can control is yourself. Perhaps the demons in your mind, call themselves The Jews, so that you may remain in your sins, and excuse yourself.

  8. Michael Bauman says:

    “The brutal killing…”. Is there any killing that is not brutal, any killing that is not a “hate crime”?

    The hardness of my heart is a fertile field for that kind of hate and brutality.

    Lord have mercy.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      That’s why I don’t believe in the concept of “hate crimes.” How Orwellian? Is there (can there be?) such a thing as a “love crime”? Of course not.

      • If you kill someone because you are robbing them; there is an added punishment. Hate crime is similar. If you kill someone because they are a certain race or religion; why not an added punishment?

        • George Michalopulos says:

          Because all crimes are driven by hate –pure and simple. What difference does it make to a white person who is killed by a black man instead if he was killed by a white man?

          • Obviously, there is an aspect of punishment that is done to deter social behaviors.

            If you get in a fight and kill the person who strikes you; the punishment is not the same.

            You don’t like the idea of a lesser punishment for murder if you defend yourself?

            Punishments are done to drive social behaviors.

            Stop killing people because of their skin shade or effeminate character sounds like something the society ought work harder to stop. No different than making the thief consider stealing and killing gonna get you extra.

            It is good policy.

            You go out aiming to kill a certain race or creed and you get extra.

            I like it.

            Let the punishment fit.

            I was mad at my spouse so I killed them is not the same as going on a mission to kill a black man.

          • Actually, George, not all crimes are driven by hate. There is covetousness, lust, drug addiction, desperation, and intoxication to name just a few. Nevertheless, crime is crime. I have never understood why motive should matter under the law (with the possible exception of starvation), although I would be open to hearing arguments. A person is dead, raped, defrauded…whatever. Regardless of motive the deed is done.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Brian, I beg to differ. When a man “covets” another man’s possessions, he has to feel that the would-be victim has no rights, therefore he is less than human (in his eyes). I’m not talking about a man who is destitute and needs to feed his starving family, but a man whose own moral agency is so clouded that he feels the right to confiscate someone else’s property.

              That might not be a murderous hate but it is still the furthest thing from love that I can imagine. Just my opinion.

              • True, George. It is not love to be sure. But it is not necessarily hate either. I think of a thief who robs a store or burglarizes a home, for example. The owner is a matter of indifference to the thief. Another example is a mobster who has been apprehended and might “sing” to save his skin. The other mobsters may like or even ‘love’ him as a person, but “He must be taken out” for the sake of the ‘business.’ This would be a case of murder wherein the motive was covetousness.

                As I was thinking about this topic it occurred to me that motive can (and in some cases should) matter – not in terms of the category of crime with which a person is charged (and certainly not “hate crime”), but in terms of sentencing. An example would include the wife of a chronically physically abusive husband who finally broke down and killed him. Motive can, and in some cases probably should, be a mitigating factor in sentencing. And as much as we may despise the outrageous decisions of some, as a rule sentence severity is best left in the hands of judges, as there can be no sentencing laws to fit every situation. Overly rigid sentencing laws wind up being every bit as unjust as overly lenient judges.

        • Michael Bauman says:

          Is a black man killed by a black man any less dead than a black man killed by a white man?

          Or what if the two black guys are in rival gangs and he tortures the rival before killing gim.and the white guy is just doesn’t like blacks and kills someone without torture.

          The example you give is because there are two crimes instead of one and more force is used. It is not a sound analogy.

          Is hate a crime in and of itself?

          • Michael Bauman says:

            What gives the state the authority to decide what is hate? Capricious at best and in an ideological environment as we have now, based only on the ideology in power which makes it not only capricious but discriminatory and therefore in violation of equal protection under the law.

            It is already near the point that if a black man kills a white guy, the white guy committed the hate crime.

        • The reason hate crimes are a bad idea has to do with freedom of conscience. We are free to dislike whomever we wish. Beat a man bloody and you serve time for aggravated assault, say 7 years. Beat a man bloody while hurling a racial epithet and receive 10 years. You get 7 years for the crime and 3 years for your opinion. Bur we don’t sanction beliefs. A racist is free to be a racist as long as he does not hurt anyone.

          • Anonymous says:

            Hate crime extra punishment is a good idea to drive social behavior. With as many KKK/Aryan members openly out and people stating on facebook their racial views; I find it extraordinarily delicious some fool posts his hate speech publicly and then if he is convicted of a crime against a race; he gets extra.

            Beautiful.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              This is an addition trouble with “hate crimes”: that it leads to “hate speech.” Shall we close down churches that take Romans 1 seriously? Shall we close down mosques where jihad is preached? Or synagogues that teach that goyim are “cattle” to be exploited by Jews?

              Slippery slope and all that.

              To me a violent crime is a violent crime. Whether the person who committed it was a hate-filled high-IQ bigot or a hate-filled inept criminal is beside the point. The victim is no less violated.

              • Anonymous says:

                If a mosque leader issues a fatwa or his jihad speech suggests violence; it is unlawful.

                Telling others to go kill has never been protected.

                • George Michalopulos says:

                  While true in the abstract, the reality is far different. Worse, it is harder to prove the causation. And most regrettably, the Feds have little inclination at all (at least under this present Administration) to go after their little Islamic teddy bears.

                  On the other hand, we have seen them go after the Little Sisters of the Poor because their religion teaches them to not practice contraception.

              • George,

                You nailed it. As to Islam and fatwas, that fact is that Islam encourages people to attack Christians and Jews by its existence and from its very core. If the objective is the subjugation or extermination of Christians and Jews, then the task is clear and presently apparent. You don’t need “cells”, you have an overarching ideology called Islam which militates in favor of jihad.

                That is why Trump needs to contain this beast. We have to contain, isolate and/or deport Sunni Muslims as a matter of self defense. The ideology is poison and motivates terrorism. Srdja Trifkovic and all those guys who have spoken out about it are right. In the Balkans, we were fighting the wrong people.

  9. Meanwhile the sole Muslim nuclear power (Pakistan) is doing this:

    http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/99756.htm

    • George Michalopulos says:

      I would love to see the Congress defund the UN. They can use any excuse they want as far as I’m concerned.

  10. Because the US code of law already metes out pubuishment according to the nature and severity of the crime: first-degree murder is first-degree murder whether it applies to a black, gay, white or female corpse. The laws conform to the severity of the crime, not the identity of the victim. If we create preferred groups, then all people are not equal and, therefore all people are not equal under the law.

    Try to expunge your mind of all the leftist nonsense it is laboring under.

  11. Apparently the Muses are speaking. Even Rolling Stone is slowly waking up to smell the coffee:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439