Paul Schnee: If you agree with the article posted below please contact your congressman, senator and the White House to urge a change of direction.
Al-Jolani, now ensconced in Damascus and enjoying the woefully misguided approval of President Trump, is an unapologetic ISIS terrorist killer despite donning a suit in an attempt to lull us into a state of narcotic serenity. Make no mistake, he is viscerally opposed to the West in general and to the United States in particular.
By replacing Bashar al-Assad with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani all we have done is switch deck chairs on the Titanic.
It comes as no surprise that The Guardian would justify a policy that rewards our enemies and punishes our friends, something that became commonplace after Barack Hussein Obama scrambled into the imperial box.
Donald Trump has managed to get a lot of things right but he is catastrophically wrong on this as our allies the Kurds are now discovering.
With his eyes wide shut President Trump is supporting the kind of vicious Islamic totalitarian regime he ostensibly opposes while making it virtually impossible for the embattled and loyal Kurds to achieve a state of their own not to mention placing Israel’s security in a much more precarious position.
Francisco Gil-White | MOR | Feb 12, 2026
Kurdish Soldiers Qameshli, Syria. Photo by Yan Boechat/VOA – Voice of America, Public Domain, Wikipedia
- If you care about the West, you should care about the Rojava Kurds.
- If the Rojava Kurds care to live, then they must fight.
- And if other Kurds care to have a future, they must join that fight.
- There is no alternative.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, anti-racism is racism, the protection of enemy civilians is genocide, and a man is a woman. That’s the world you live in: the world that George Orwell described. So the year is 1984—no matter what your Gregorian calendar says.
And now we have this:
- ISIS is anti-ISIS
This one just came out. You don’t believe me? I have proof. It comes from The Guardian.
First, the context. The Guardian article I will pick on reports on events in Syria following the collapse of the Assad regime and the formation of a new government in Damascus. This new government insists that the Rojava Kurds in northeastern Syria—who created the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) during the Syrian Civil War—must lay down their arms. They must accept Damascus as the only armed force in Syria.
Since the nervous Rojavans didn’t want to disarm, Damascus attacked and defeated them, forcing the Rojavan border significantly back. A tense ceasefire was announced two weeks ago that was to last one month, while the new government in Damascus waited to see if the Rojava Kurds would lay down their arms, or if there was to be more war.
What is the position of the US bosses on all this? The Guardian is explaining that very point. And the way they do that proves that you are living in 1984—in Orwell’s universe. And it means the Rojava Kurds are in great danger.
I’ll get to all that, but first I need to lay out some context.
Before I quote The Guardian, a few annotations
Keep in mind that in reference to the terrorist group ISIS (the acronym stands for ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’), the Guardian writes instead the shorter ‘IS’ (‘Islamic State’). During 2014–2017, when this group had peak visibility, however, almost everybody called it ISIS, and that’s the name that everyone recognizes.
These ISIS terrorists, you may recall, swept over Iraq and Syria, proudly beheaded their enemies on video, and moreover terrorized Europe with a number of horrific attacks—because they mean to destroy the entire West, as they announced publicly.
ISIS has not disappeared.
US President Donald Trump’s policy on ISIS, and on other matters in Syria, is communicated by Tom Barrack, Trump’s chief negotiator in the Middle East.
For other clarifications, I’ve inserted helpful brackets.
Okay, let’s look at the relevant passage.
This is what The Guardian says
“The US, which has backed the [Rojava] Kurdish force [in northeast Syria] for the past decade, has [now switched and] made its support for [the new government in] Damascus clear, with [Tom] Barrack saying the [Rojavan] SDF’s role as the anti-IS force in Syria had now been filled by the [new] Syrian government [in Damascus].
The US military [which had established some positions inside Rovajan territory] has already began [sic] transferring IS prisoners from Kurdish territories to prevent any escapes ahead of a renewed [Rojavan] war with [the new government in] Damascus. Once IS prisoners are secured, there will be little strategic interests left for a US military presence in north-east Syria.”1
Once I explain the above passage, you’ll see that The Guardian is saying this:
- ISIS is anti-ISIS.
Surface analysis: on the face of it, what is The Guardian communicating?
According to The Guardian, during the Syrian Civil War,
“The US … has backed the [Rojava] Kurdish force [in northeast Syria] for the past decade…
But now,
“The US … has made its support for [the new government in] Damascus clear.”
What does this mean? That Donald Trump is supporting the new government in Damascus against the Rojava Kurds, because Damascus wants all other forces in Syria to disarm—else they will be attacked.
And why? Well, because the new government in Damascus, says The Guardian, is now the proper and legitimate anti-ISIS force in Syria, so the other forces should help stabilize the country by laying down their arms and let the government lead the fight against ISIS. Yes, the Rojavans used to be the only ones who could properly defeat ISIS, but “Barrack [is] saying the [Rojavan] SDF’s role as the anti-IS[IS] force in Syria [has] now been filled by the [new] Syrian government [in Damascus].”
Look: let’s end the Syrian Civil War once and for all—damn it—and get back to one central government for all Syrians. Enough of this divisiveness! That’s what they are saying.
Further, since the new Damascus government will now be responsible for fighting ISIS, and the Rojavans will therefore no longer be needed for that fight, there is in consequence “little strategic interest left for a US military presence in north-east Syria,” where the Rojavans hold territory, because the point of that “US military presence” was to help the Rojavans fight ISIS.
Moreover, since Donald Trump is most interested in seeing this new, ISIS-fighting Damascus government consolidate its control over all of Syria, if the Rojava Kurds do not play along with Trump’s policy for Syria, and lay down their arms, then Trump greenlights the Damascus government to attack the Rojava Kurds in order to disarm them.
What I just said is the precise diplomatic meaning of “The US … has made its support for Damascus clear” in the context of a tense ceasefire declared right after Damascus attacked and conquered a big chunk of Rojavan territory. And Trump is staking this position because he wants very badly to have everybody join the central government’s fight against ISIS, without divisions, and get done with ISIS once and for all, and very fast—no pussyfooting.
Always on that ISIS-killing frequency, Trump wants to be extra careful, because, should war between the Rojava Kurds and the Damascus government resume, there is of course a danger that all those ISIS prisoners whom the Rojava Kurds had been holding might escape—you know, from the territory that the Damascus government just killed a lot of Rojava Kurds to conquer. So “the US military has already began [sic] transferring IS[IS] prisoners from [formerly] Kurdish territories to prevent any escapes.”
Did you get all that? I haven’t made any comments yet. I am just making clear what The Guardian is communicating.
Now I will explain what is actually going on, and what The Guardian does not want you to understand.
What is the hidden meaning behind what The Guardian is saying?
Al Jolani is ISIS?
Yes.
When Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, leader of ISIS in Iraq, wanted to create a branch of his movement in Syria, he sent Muhammad Al Jolani.
Now, they’ll tell you that Al Jolani later had a falling out with ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They’ll say he moderated. So call him Ahmed Al Sharaa—his birth name—instead of his jihadi nom de guerre: Muhammad Al Jolani. His organization, they’ll say, is no longer ISIS. It has a different name, ‘Al Nusra,’ then ‘HTS,’ then whatever—every season a new name, as if rebranding were repentance. They’ll even dress him up in a suit and a tie and pretend that he doesn’t look like a terrorist in a suit and a tie.
But don’t let them befuddle your thinking. This is Al Jolani:
That’s a US State Department poster from just a few years ago, announcing a $10 million reward for Al Jolani—because he is a terrorist. The blood of countless innocents is on his hands. Al Jolani’s confrontation with Al Baghdadi was not a quarrel over doctrine; it was a struggle over command. Al-Jolani prevailed; Al Baghdadi was killed. And Al Jolani now stands as the senior surviving architect of the ISIS project in Syria.
This is the new government in Damascus to which Donald Trump is giving his blessing. This is ISIS.
And while Donald Trump shakes Al Jolani’s hand, The Guardian looks you in the eye and tells you we should let this new government in Damascus have all of Syria because it is the best new “anti-ISIS force.”
- ISIS is anti-ISIS.
If Al Jolani is ISIS—and he is—and Trump supports Al Jolani—and he does—the conclusion follows: Donald Trump is supporting ISIS and concealing it in plain sight. His method is amazing: he just claims to do the opposite—that he fights ISIS. And it works. Because nobody can now remember—and The Guardian does not remind them—what everybody, even in the mainstream media, all recognized just a few years ago when ISIS first burst onto the world scene: that ISIS was a creation of US policy.
For the Rojavans, the meaning of all this is as follows.
First, they must not believe any promises made by the US government.
Second, they must understand that ISIS will not let them live. If they fight, they may lose. But if they lay down their arms they are finished. They will be destroyed.
Human rights groups and the Rojavan SDF are already reporting killings of civilians and attacks near Kobani—breaches of the ceasefire by Al Jolani’s forces.2
The Rojava Kurds must fight. There is no alternative.
Christou, W. (2026, January 24). Syrian and Kurdish forces agree to extend ceasefire as threat of war looms. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/24/syria-kurdish-military-extend-ceasefire-war
Kurdistan24. (2026, January 27). Rights groups report civilian massacres in Rojava despite stated ceasefire.
https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/890208
“But what are those policy goals? The MOR (Management of Reality) model of politics and geopolitics claims that the Western bosses are masterminding the jihadi destruction of the West.”
There is no “West”. Just look at the attitudes of “Western Europe” for a start.
So what’s the purpose of the game?
@keelie
I would argue the purpose should be one of renewal, to distinguish the rot which shrouds the great ideals which marked and guided the Western world, to challenge by example and rationale that the way forward lies upon a path which draws from the past, tethered to the identity and magnanimity which characterized the West before the West declined into its current state of collapse. So the road forward is truly the road backward, while being able to recognize the chaff from the wheat and having the temperance and wisdom to choose accordingly.