Now that the leaders are all in jail, most likely having been ratted out by someone they thought was on their side, we can look at what succeeded and what failed in their mission.
Now comes the legal side of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Incident. Again, the Feds are NOT doing the usual thing. After the bullets ordered by #ButcherOfBurns, OR Gov. Kate Brown subsided, and everyone surrendered out on the highway and were arrested, they were dragged to Portland and they appeared in Federal Magistrate's Court yesterday. The charges they did face? Feds stacked it up, right?
Wrong. The remaining rebels are each charged with ONE count of obstructing Federal Officers, a Class C or D felony which CAN be plead down to a misdemeaner (and probably will be, as I will explain). Notably, there are NO firearms violations charged, there are NO charges for the considerable theft/damage to Federal Property which occurred, and there are NO TERROR-RELATED charges (that's the biggie here). Now, in court, and you've seen this a million times on Wolf Films TeeVee shows, the arraignment prosecutor argued for no bail, argued dangerous peeps, argued out-of-state peeps, argued flight risk, all that, but additional hearings were set nearly immediately, so bail will likely be granted soon.
So, when #KorruptKate demanded that the occupation be terminated with extreme prejudice, it WAS, but only in the case of the firebrand Finicum, who, by the best accounts so far, seemed to desire Suicide By Cop, and got it. If you recall #KillerKate's speech in Salem last week though, she wanted the Federal book thrown at the occupiers, and SHE has been rebuffed. Oregon charges might be added, but for what? Being there? No, it's all Federal property, and the Feds want out of it and are getting out. Those additional Oregon charges, BTW, would have to be filed in Harney County, and no DA there wants to touch them.
End it, and give no opportunity for a showdown in Court later, those are the obviously the orders out of Washington. Martyrs are gonna seek martyrdom, that's what they do. NOW it makes sense that the Feds sought no warrants in Court. They could easily have gotten arrest warrants for a slew of felony charges, but didn't. Now I can see why. The handwriting was on the wall for the Feds when they saw the large and sympathetic crowd waiting for the Bundys and Finicum in John Day. This rebellion was about to spread. They stopped that, and now they want to deny the rebels their all-important soap box, and will likely succeed in that, too. There ARE some thinkers on the Federal side. Too bad they are stuck playing such a rigged game.
Bundy's success: he HAS raised the Federal Lands Debate to a National Discussion. It might even make it as a platform plank in the GOPe Party Platform this year.
Bundy's failures: He was never in command of his Militia. Finicum gave HIM orders. You can't lead from the rear, unless you INTEND to be a REMF*, which is terrible leadership. Bundy was NO logistician, supply for his mission was a major issue. G-2 (Intelligence) was a HUGE failure. Bundy's case should have resembled that of the French Partisans in WW2 because the locals were on his side for the most part, but he never involved them until right at the end, when he and Finicum put together the show in John Day that he was enroute to when the Feds decided to end his game. From Day One, Bundy should have talked to the local ranchers one at a time to determine friend from foe, and set possible new refuge ground if his first choice became untenable.
To the extent that the Feds are buddy-buddy with the press, the story will now go away, unless one of the major GOPe candidates wants to keep the Lands Issue alive as a campaign issue.
* REMF = Rear Echelon Mo-Fo, a derogatory term for those of rank/leadership in a war who never faced bullets. The term may have started in an earlier war, but it came into wide use in the Vietnam War.
All those who will be convinced by Bundy and his merry little band have been convinced, and all those dead-set against Bundy, his work and his merry little band will never be convinced.
What happens in conflict situations when a true stalemate develops? Let's look at a few conflicts from a historical viewpoint:
WW1: The static warfare of no movement resulted in HUGE casualties, as both sides registered their artillery accurately and emplaced their machine guns carefully to have overlapping fields of fire. The trench systems that resulted killed almost as many troops as the bullets, as the living conditions in them were atrocious. Note that when the USA came into the war, and the allies developed the first tanks, as crude as the tanks were and as green as the American troops were, mobility finally developed, Germany was soon moving backwards, and the war was over within a few months.
WW2: The start of the war. The "sitzkrieg" (translation: "sitting war") developed, as Hitler's army was not prepared to take objectives on two fronts simultaneously. After finishing up in the East by crushing Poland, Hitler was able to bring his forces to bear against Belgium and France, and the Sitzkrieg was soon over and the entire Continent was soon in German hands.
Korea: The stalemate of THAT war of movement only developed when the strong forces of China and the US were limited in their warfare by political concerns. The Democratic Administration of Harry Truman did not want to widen the war with the objective of defeating China, because he feared that the USSR would intervene, with perhaps the use of nuclear weapons. China was limited politically by Russia, who supplied their military hardware and the technicians to run it.
Vietnam: Stalemate developed early, despite the US' development and quick perfection of airmobile envelopment. We owned the day skies, they owned the night ground. That, combined with a Democratic Administration's reluctance to actually win the war, resulted in first, stalemate, then defeat for the USA.
War on Terror: May not even BE winnable, but if it is, we have made no proper moves to win. If you include Desert Storm, yes, we won the battlefield in that limited-objective operation, but no, we failed to consider the role of defeating Saddam himself, so all that brilliant battlefield work went for naught. In today's fighting, 25 years later, we have ZERO desire or strategy to win at all, and lacking such, should not be at war.
Back to Harney County, Oregon.
With stalemate the condition of the conflict, little can be done, and there are signs that the resolve of the militia is weakening. Today's paper mentions that the militia might abandon the Malheur Refuge and move over to Grant County, which puts them 150 miles closer to Portland, which will make the liberals West of the Cascades VERY nervous. Grant County is barely East of the Cascades, and parts of it are less than a two-hour drive from Portland. Imagine the Janet Reno wannabe, Temporary Governor "Korrupt" Kate Brown may get nervous enough to actually employ force against the militia, and if she does, they have won the day, whether they survive, are jailed, or die in battle. Korrupt Krackpot Kate already tried to steamroll the FBI into attacking the militia out in Harney County, but they wisely refused her screamy demands.
Stalemate ALWAYS favors the side with the best logistics, and that is NOT the militia. They have had supply problems since Day One. The FBI knows this. KKKate ought to know this, but she is handicapped in the same way Gauleiter Janet Reno was: they both are gender-confused people.
The events unfolding in San Bernardino show us a different threat. Not an unknown threat, just a different one.
We have been used to seeing various formats of homicidal/suicidal Jihad here: 9-11, the various Jihadi gun attacks since then, etc. All these attacks had one common characteristic: the Muslims involved were all determined to kill members of the Western Civilization, but pretty much stuck to methods which left their shock troops dead with the event. One-way attacks. Don't "pass go", Get your 72 raisins immediately.
With San Berdoo, we have just seen an attack in which the Jihadis had trained and prepared to strike with force and effect, but moved on quickly to, presumably, strike again later. Far from the normal homicide/suicide attack, this is more like revolutionary attack. This resembles what we used to refer to as a "partisan" attack. Similar to the tactics of the French or Yugoslavian partisans who attacked the Nazis during WW2. What we just saw could have been very successful for the Jihadis, and the only reason it wasn't, was better training and discipline/communication on the part of the police authorities.
My purpose here is not to figure out how to defeat this different flavor of Jihad, but to prepare the average citizen to survive it. Methods of defeat for the Muslim Jihad will have to wait for a National Command Authority determined to defeat Islamic Jihad itself, and we don't have such leadership now, we have the opposite. We have political and command leadership determined to NOT face down islamic Jihad instead of the other way around. The effect for John Q. Citizen is that he will probably have to face the shock troops of Jihad alone, possibly with the help of local police.
A personal note: I am trained in various aspects of public safety, and as events unfolded and were reported yesterday in San Berdnardino, I evaluated the events as if they were the result of criminal gang activity, since, to me, the events more resembled the activity of, say, Mexican drug cartels or the criminal gang MS-13 (both very active in San Bernardino), and both are orgs not unwilling to create mass murder to get their point across. I was wrong in that analysis, mostly because I applied the usual standard of homicide/suicide Jihad, then rejected it, and this event did not fit that model.
So, how to prepare?
Arm up. The protected citizen will be armed at all times, with handgun(s) within hands' reach at home and away, and a long gun close by as well. You will have to figure out how to conform to "safe storage" laws to accomplish this in your home and in your car (presumably, your "away" long gun stays in the car). At home, I have quick-reaction pistol safes (plural), and the long gun goes back in the big safe when kids are present, so I comply. In the car, I carry on my person as I am permitted to do, and my long gun is a Kel-tec folding rifle with internal lock, carried in a locking gun case, kept in the locked trunk of the vehicle.That complies with local law as well (it would NOT comply in CA or several Eastern states though).
Train up. At this point, if you have not already done so, join a local gun club or commercial firearms practice facility. Your preference should be one which has practice facilities for handgun (any caliber), rifle (any caliber) and shotgun. With the exceptions of no 50BMG and no full-auto, my club fits these requirements. You will need to allot sufficient funds for ammo, and/or begin to reload your chosen calibers. You will need to allot sufficient time to practice, probably a minimum of once per month in the training phase, and four times per year with all defense firearms as a maintenance-of-training effort.
Smarten up. Apply some common sense as to your selection of events to attend, particularly if you will be responsible for others' safety. Large outdoor events are Jihad targets of opportunity, as are crowded shopping malls. Organized athletic events in arenas and stadia are probably safer to some degree, but the Jihadis wouold love to target one for the kill ratio that they could achieve. Consider applying a sliding scale of risk to your life and it's chosen events. Yeah, that's a bummer, but we are at war, dude! You are probably safest at home, relatively safe out and about in your vehicle, safe enough doing shopping that is NOT done in large, crowded venues at peak predictable times. You are less safe in any public crowd, on mass transportation, at any outdoor event which has been heavily advertised as to attendance prospects. The training and/or dedication of your local policing authority is a factor in your relative safety also. Evaluate it.
Vote up. National elections are close at hand. Regardless of your political affiliation, you need to vote for your own safety. Safety is personal, and politicians and political parties which refuse to recognize your personal safety as their Job #1 should NOT get your vote. This is not about flavors of morality, this is about survival. See my note on National Command Authority, above.
Again, we are at war. The war has been brought to these shores by Islam, and it's not going to get "wished away", even though this seems to be the primary "combat strategy" of the current political Administration. YOU are responsible for your OWN safety, so make safety happen for you, NOW!
A final word. Religion. Your personal religious creed should give you the mental strength to survive the mental rigors of mortal combat. It is NOT required for that purpose, but if you hold to a creed, it will pay you to increase your attention to it in these anxious times. Your creed is your business under our Constitution. Your survival is a natural AND Constitutional Right under our system. You MUST consider anyone who attacks you for your creed or attacks your Right to survival as your enemy. Islam is attacking/denying both.
There is a relatively small population of blacks in the undergrad population at Mizzou. The issues of why haven't been addressed in the media, but the fact is that the small cabal of black students is well-organized. Said cabal has somehow blamed the University for the fact that there "aren't enough blacks". Mizzou is a State school, so all you have to do to go there is qualify by GPA, be from MO, and have the coin to pay your tuition and fees. In 1961, I got in with a 2.74 GPA! I guess that whatever standard the State has set is too high, and the inner-city kids can't qualify because their schools were dumbed down two generations ago. AFAIK, this is the lowest GPA qualification of any state school:
Can someone please explain to me just how it is this University's fault if black students can't meet this minimum requirement? This, my friends, is simply more Black Marxism at work, and these revolutionaries won't be satisfied until a quota of admissions is imposed on the school, or at least until the school is forced to spend huge dollars to "recruit" black students.
As for the beer-hall putsch put on by 32 members of the football team AND their Coach, Mizzou finds itself with a 1-5 conference record in the SEC East division this year, next to last, won't be bowl-eligible. I suspect that their poor performance on the field will now be "excused" by the liberal sportz press. #BobCostas, where are you? This story is tailor-made for your brand of sports "journalism".
So, the President of the University just resigned, after some commie lapdog of a State legislator got upset, and when Governor Nixon (D), ever the apologist for all things race-baited, echoed that sentiment.
I lay all of this at the feet of the biggest lapdog of all, President Obama, whose Presidential policies seem very well organized just to foment racial discord.
Good evening, Chair Piluso and members of the School Board. I am George Schneider, age 72, a resident of City of Gresham. I am a Veteran, having retired from the Air National Guard with 22 years of service, in the rank of Major, and having flown in air combat during the Vietnam War. I am also a retired Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff, and I served this community for 25 years. I have raised 4 children with the assistance of this school system. All of them sit on the positive side of their communities' ledgers of citizenship. I am going to say a few words about such Citizenship.
Today's children, tomorrows citizens and leaders, can only sit on the positive side of THEIR communities' ledgers if their parents and their schools do their best to inculcate them with the best qualities of citizens. The recent case of the wrong-headed administrative action taken against the Moore child tramples one of these best qualities, and it supported no others. With almost a month to reflect on this disaster and huge adverse press, I am sure that the Board realizes this, but yet, I have seen no evidence presented of policy reform that would insure that this sort of error is not repeated. If the Board is considering permanent policy changes to modify the insane “zero-tolerance of violent images” policy, you need to put them out in front of the public. I sense that the Board lacks proper input to formulate such policy, so I offer to head up or serve on a committee of citizens to offer a replacement policy. I have no secrets: my suggestions would be largely a return to the status quo ante on clothing images, which served well before this Board got swept up in the “zero-tolerance” mania, really nothing more than a herd-behavior stampede, with the First Amendment being the first trampling casualty.
The present policy, if applied fairly, would change most textbooks, require school resource officers to dress the same as teachers and prohibit field trips to places such as the State Capitol, where statuary of armed citizens and soldiers are presented. Everyone in this room can see how absurd this zero-tolerance policy really is, and yet there is no proposal to change it. We, the citizens, are waiting for that change, and I suggest that we will wait no longer than another year. This issue WILL affect the voting on next year's ballot. That is a promise.
Thank you for your attention.
If you are local to the Portland area, and you have nothing other than citizenship as your duty for tonight, the meeting starts at 7 pm (1900 for Veterans). I will be the "Q-Tip" in the tweed jacket...
School Board AAR: The Superintendent of the School District opened the meeting with a rambly, wonkish speech trying to support the "zero tolerance for violent images" policy. I took notes. An hour and a half later, when it was my turn to speak, I set aside my prepared remarks and hammered the Supt: 1. Supt. Schlacter made no less than 3 attempts to link the horror of school shootings to this issue of the Battlefield Cross. I called him out on it. Illogical propaganda. Boogeyman trick. 2. I requested that the Supt. confer with his attorneys on the subject of "in loco parentis", the legal construct which gives the school the authority of parents. I reminded him that in a case of rules violations, no "deal" can be made with a student, because the student lacks AGENCY to act for the parents. 3. I suggested that Zero Tolerance flies in the face of the school's renewed mission to instill critical thinking skills in students, the better to facilitate STEM education. 4. I suggested that while the school must have authority over students, it should not discard the idea of freedom of speech entirely, see Item #3. 5. I noted that the burden of proof is on the School District to demonstrate that images of the Battlefield Cross are an actual THREAT, and that burden may not be shifted to the student to prove they are NOT a threat.
Interesting case, all the more so because it all happened within 5 miles of my residence.
Fact set: Crazy kid defeats lock on older brother's gun safe (a sheet-metal type, it sounds like), takes an AR-15, a vest and plenty of ammo then goes to shoot up the local High School (biggest high school in the State). He kills one, wounds another, but when the pressure is applied by the good guys, he kills himself (standard MO of these cowards).
Continuing. At the time, there was quite some speculation that the liberal Multnomah County District Attorney would charge the shooter's older bro (gun owner) with some crime, but in the end, no one could prove that the safe was left unlocked (and Oregon lacks "safe storage" laws anyway), and older bro said he had locked it. So, no crime was charged, but the authorities kept the AR and associated equipment. The older bro SUED THE CITY OF TROUTDALE, because Oregon law is quite clear that when no charges are preferred, evidence seized MUST be returned to lawful owners within a time certain.
Enter: the Troutdale City Attorney. It seems that he disagrees with his superior prosecutor, the DA, and wanted charges on older bro, but lacks jurisdiction to file them (in Oregon, only minor crimes may be charged by a City, most crimes have to be charged by the District Attorney), so he dithered and kept the gun, which was in the custody of the Troutdale Police Property Room. A State Judge heard the lawsuit, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff (older bro) that the gun and equipment must be returned. The City Attorney stalled, but apparently figured out a way to keep the plaintiff's gun: give him Fair Market Value for it. The lawsuit was soon settled.
According to this article, the City Council buried the payment to older bro on a lengthy and boring agenda of City Council administrative business, and snuck it through, except for the reporters on the City Beats. Oregonian Reporter Steve Duin, a gun-grabber himself by many previous writings, noticed and wrote the story up. Okay, at least said reporter is a digger, is willing to take on government hanky-panky, right?
About fifty words in, Reporter Duin writes a paragraph listing the property involved in the lawsuit:
"One Daniel Defense Armament DDM4 carbine rifle, one of the bullies in the AR-15 family(emphasis added). Eight 30-round Magpul magazines. A “plate carrier” vest, a United State Army standard-issue laundry bag and “several hundred rounds” of ammunition."
It appears that TWO people have now personified the rifle (illogically made an inanimate object into a person), not only the City Attorney, who could not bear the idea of the gun being returned to it's rightful and blameless owner, AND Reporter Duin, who has declared that the most popular rifle in the USA is a "bully".
I was taught that there is no higher authority on the etymology of the English Language than the Oxford English Dictionary, so I went there and looked up "bully":
"(pl. bullies) a person who uses their strength or power to frighten or hurt weaker people" (my emphasis).
O.E.D. very specifically refers to a "bully" as a PERSON (twice, once directly and one indirectly).
So sorry, Steve Duin, old sport, your anti-gun predjudice is STILL showing in your public writing. Don't bother apologizing or issuing a correction though, it would compound your anti-liberty personality defect by adding insincerity to it.
So now I can scribble my sweet nothings about Saving The Culture again! Oh, goody!
Bragging Humble: Yes it is possible for a little fish in a big ocean to matter, all you have to do is migrate upstream to a smaller water body, to wit:
Gresham, Oregon. I live in the 4th largest city in Oregon, and all of the other Cities bigger than Gresham are far more liberal. Portland being the best example of a lib-town.
Gresham is over 100,000 now, but there are enough conservatives (relatively-speaking, the citizens are "conservatives") living here to actually cause the City Administration and other functionaries of Government to have to plan to accomodate our points of view.
Example: Recently, a wrong-headed school Principal sent a lad home for wearing a tee shirt depicting the "Battlefield Cross", or combination of boots, rifle and helmet that has come to symbolize a soldier who fell in battle, making the ultimate sacrifice for his country. This caused an immediate outrage in Gresham, an outrage which spurred the liberal Oregonian newspaper to opine:
Common sense deficit: The subject of firearms is a sensitive one these days, particularly in schools. Even so, the treatment an eighth-grade student in Gresham’s Dexter McCarty Middle School almost beggars belief. Alan Holmes wore a T-shirt to school last week that featured an image of a rifle. No, Holmes wasn’t wearing promotional NRA gear. On his shirt, rather, was an arrangement of helmet, boots and rifle widely used to indicate respect for fallen soldiers. Lest anyone mistake the arrangement for anything but a memorial, the shirt also read, “Standing for those who stood for us.” Holmes was told that his shirt violated the school’s dress code, The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Laura Frazier wrote. His choices: Change it or go home. He went home, and the district has since promised to review its dress code. We’ll see where that goes. The code, as Frazier reported, prohibits clothing with, among other things, “violence related references.” To cram Holmes’ shirt within this definition is a stretch, to say the least. But if a memorial arrangement that contains a rifle is too disturbing a thing for Gresham’s eighth-graders to witness, district officials might want to reconsider Gresham High School’s fight song too. It begins as follows: “March, march on down the field/ Fighting for Gresham High/We’ll back the blue and white/With the spirit of do or die.” March, fight, do or die. That’s awfully martial. And talk about “violence related references.”
Well, then. If Liberal Portland can opine, conservative Gresham might feel a tad stronger. The Gresham Outlook published my letter on the subject, a letter in which, as a Veteran, I demand redress of insults to me and all local Veterans, as well as the child directly affected. Note how the Editor dressed it up with a bold sidebar of my demands:
Folks, this business of Saving The Culture can get into some conflict. I am laying MY creds on the line here, and demanding, as a citizen, that the culture be protected from the erosion of the faceless liberal zombies. In MY day, this erosion would never have happened, because respect for veterans who fell in battle was automatic, and never questioned. Maybe we can't go all the way back to that time, but we can and MUST demand the respect due our heroes of war.
I am shortly going to have major surgery, and will miss the next meeting of the School Board, in which I would, in the normal course of events, have presented these demands in person. I am working on a surprise for the School Board, though, and my message should still get through. Let's just say that I am not the only Grumpy Major in these parts, and two others ought to be there in my stead at the meeting on November 5th. Thanks to the magic of You Tube, I might be there myself...more later when I get that video up.
On Wednesday, the pro-2A site, Bearing Arms, published an article detailing several parents of Roseburg shooting victims who had objected to President Obama's political blood-dancing for gun control immediately after the horrific crimes were committed.
Yesterday, as the parents/families of the victims were assembled at Roseburg High School to meet Obama for his supposedly-humanitarian trip to Roseburg, one parent was excluded. Note that he was one of the parents who had expressed his displeasure at Obama's blood-dancing.
This puts the definite lie to Obama's claim that the trip was solely for humanitarian purposes, to "hug" the parents and family members of the victims. Even if Mr. Cooper had had an angry moment before, he should have been invited. He could have been privately frisked for weapons and accompanied by several Secret Service agents if there was any threat past verbal anger, but he should have been invited, not excluded.
Obama can't stand the heat, and should stay the HELL out of the kitchen.
Politically, Obama just lost ALL of the bona fides he might have built up for making the trip, and the National orgs which protect the 2A ALL need to follow my example and spread this news far and wide. NOW!
Anyone who still lacked an insight into Obama's character need look no farther than this display of discourteous cowardice.
Resign, Mister President. You are unfit to hold office for another minute.
On 9-11-01, 19 un-noticeable radical Islamic men hijacked 4 aircraft and kicked off a serious war with the USA. We have fought that war, even though our current President won't even call it a war, ever since. Introspection and history reveals that we should have been fighting it a lot sooner.
In most terror-related events since 9-11-01, we have seen terrorists express their Islamic fanaticism in stereotypical ways (shouting "Allahu Akbar"), while dressed and even armed stereotypically. The terrorists want us to see their evil side, the better to strike fear into our hearts.
Suppose, for a moment, that there ARE some smart terrorists leading Islam's war with the West, and they recognize the political fact that with Obama and the Left, Islam has an opportunity of winning it's war with the West faster*, but to gain that advantage, they would have to end the practice of in-our-face-jihad, because the images of jihad give us a mental picture of who to hate. Would they change their tactics to suit the political reality here?
How do we fight this war if the terrorists hide among us and don't show themselves until they strike?
Short answer: with great difficulty, given the present leadership. We have to re-think strategies and tactics ourselves, because in reality, what difference does it make if we lose our war to radical Islam or lose a war to a Socialist dictatorship? Liberty is gone in both cases.
The answer for us is to raise our personal levels of awareness, raise our personal levels of combat-readiness, and sell these higher levels of conflict-consciousness to the less-committed at every turn.
What if there had been a couple of trained concealed-weapons carriers in that Roseburg classroom? What if the de jure State position allowing campus concealed carry did translate to the de facto side and the campuses were forced to accept that? School shootings end when the campuses are properly armed. Israel proved that over 40 years ago.
*Obama is losing the war for us, quickly. Ineffective military leadership from a de-professionalized and hyper-politicized military, deliberately pushing group-weakness over individual personal strengths (the rise of the gimme-gimme class), disarming veterans (the very people who, given a weapon, are the most likely to use it successfully against the enemy), all of these are war-losing strategies, not war-winning strategies.
...has made a monkey out of US Middle East "policy". I apologize for the use of the word "policy", since using it implies thoughtful formulation of goals and results, and this Administration is incapable of such thought or action.
Vladimir Putin is going to help Baby Assad regain control of his country. The Russians started today with a classic Frontal Aviation air attack, a bombing formation attacking in line abreast. They were using a mix of HE and Cluster munitions, and the attack looked to be quite effective in terms of levelling buildings.
The Obama folks immediately cried "foul", screaming that the target attacked was not on OUR list of known ISIS targets. Well, EXCUUUSE ME.
Couple of things wrong with that Obummer protest: First, our intel isn't fit to wipe a PFC's butt with, and second, it's not OUR war any more, it's Putin's.
We screwed the pooch, backed the wrong horses, and have ZERO moral impetus to do anything in Syria. There are between 2K-5K Chechnians fighting with various extremist muzzie armies in Syria now, and Putin means to kill as many of them in Syria as he can, before they can "retire" from that conflict and go back to the Caucasus and start THAT war again. I'd lay odds that today's targets included some of those Chechnians.