The Pentagon and State Department, echoed as usual by the mainstream press, have expressed “concern” about Russian deliveries of the most modern tanks, fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles and other military equipment to Syria. They call them “counterproductive,” although it’s not clear what sort of productive cause they counter.
They say these shipments—which they’ve tried to thwart by instructing NATO allies to deny delivery flights through their airspace—are likely “to prolong the war” in that tragically suffering country. Cable news anchors, with furrowed brows and glaring eyes, warn their viewers that Moscow’s stepped-up support for the Assad regime is a “worrisome development.”
Moscow responds blandly that Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) have been allied to the Syrian government since the 1950s, when (like the U.S., actually) it saw the secular Baathists as a preferable alternative to Islamist throughout the region. Russia has been Syria’s main arms supplier for decades, and is (according to RT television) currently filling contracts with Damascus signed years ago.
(Moscow might add that it has maintained a naval base at Tartus on the Syrian coast since 1971, and an airbase at Latakia. These are among Russia’s foreign military basis, which you can count on one hand. The U.S. in contrast has, as you know, well over 700 military bases in over 135 countries where around 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed.)
The Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly urged the establishment of an international coalition to fight ISIL, which seems rational enough on the face of it. While it has not yet killed as many people as George W. Bush did, this well funded, growing organization, rapidly evolving into a viable state, is as manifestly cruel as the former U.S. president and his cabinet of amoral neocons hell-bent on imposing their own sort of caliphate on Southwest Asia. It is surely evil.​

   Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir (left) in New York with US secretary of state John Kerry.     Photograph: Craig Ruttle/AP            
Saudi Arabia: Assad cannot stay in power  This post was originally published on this site. Guardian
Saudi Arabia (world's pre-eminent beheaders) has called on Bashar al-Assad to give up power or be removed by force. The threat was made on Tuesday by Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel Al-Jubeir. 
“There is no future for Assad in Syria,” Jubeir told journalists at the UN general assembly. “There are two options for a settlement in Syria. One option is a political process where there would be a transitional council. The other option is a military option, which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power. This could be a more lengthy process and a more destructive process but the choice is entirely that of Bashar al-Assad.”  The foreign minister did not specify how Assad would be forcibly removed, but pointed out that Saudi Arabia is already backing “moderate rebels” in the civil war. 
       
COMMENTS of people from the discussion on Facebook about this article:
'In a slightly less imperfect world there'd be no future for the House of Saud utterly corrupt monarchy! Is Syria attacking the United States? What is the real reason the United States is involved in this ? What would the United States government do if another nation injected itself into US national government ?  I am very confused by all this aggressive behavior on behalf of my government. We are funding fundamentalist Islamists. Why? At least Russia is a long standing ally of Syria, does it not make sense that they would assist Assad? This is all too confusing to me and makes no sense at all. Why do ISIS militants have so much US weaponry? Don't you think that these questions should be answered at least at a basic level? Are these reasonable questions?'
- Frank Pastuck:"And we listen to them for what reason again? Oil is an all time low..." 
- Bill Franklin:"In with the Israel? Maybe PUTIN WILL KICK BOTH THEIR  ASSESS". 

Aleister Crowley in a Turban.
In 1910, the English occultist, Freemason, and poet, Aleister Crowley, published a strange and now little-known work called The Scented Garden of Abdullah: The Satirist of Shiraz under the name Abdullah el Haji. In the work, which imitated Sufi poetry, Crowley claims to have been accepted into “the joyous company of the Sufis,” but that he cannot openly discuss Islamic mysticism, “if only because I am a Freemason.”

In other words, the English occultist was suggesting that Sufism and Freemasonry were in some way connected, whether philosophically or through historical ties. He, however, was not the only one to think this. The explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton – whose translation of Eastern texts influenced Western spirituality – believed that Sufism was “The Eastern parent of Free-Masonry.” And, later, modern Sufi and author Idries Shah would make much the same claim.