Canada’s Academia Performs Lynching Of World Renown Expert Susan Crockford !

The Academic Lynching Of Polar Bear Expert Susan Crockford

Published on October 17, 2019

Written by Donna Laframboise

A world-renowned expert in animal bone identification has lost her position at the University of Victoria (UVic) for, she believes, telling school kids politically incorrect facts about polar bears.

Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford is routinely hired by biologists and archeologists in Canada and abroad to identify the remains of mammals, birds, and fish. She has helped catalog museum collections and assisted police with forensic analyses.

But UVic students will no longer benefit from her expertise, and her ability to apply for research grants has come to a screeching halt. In May, the Anthropology Department withdrew her Adjunct Professor status, depriving her of a university affiliation.

Crockford describes her expulsion as “an academic hanging without a trial, conducted behind closed doors.” After being renewed unanimously in 2016 for a three-year term, her adjunct status was not renewed the next time around.

Crockford is the author of a popular blog, polarbearscience.com, as well as five books about these animals. Polar Bear Facts and Myths has been translated into four languages.

She says that, contrary to the claims of environmental activists, polar bears are currently thriving and are at no risk of extinction from climate change.

Informing the public of these plain facts now appears to be unacceptable to UVic. After 15 years, Crockford was advised in May that an internal Appointment Reappointment Promotion and Tenure (ARPT) committee had “voted not to renew your Adjunct Status.”

No reasons were provided. Having undergone hip surgery in the interim, Crockford is only now going public.

When contacted by the National Post recently, UVic spokesman Paul Marck refused to say how many people were on the ARPT committee, how many voted against Crockford, or how many were zoologists in a position to make an informed decision about her abilities.

The position of Adjunct Professor is unpaid. In exchange for mentoring students, sitting on thesis committees, and delivering occasional lectures, adjuncts gain official academic standing and full access to library research services.

When asked what safeguards ensure that adjuncts can’t be excommunicated merely for expressing unpopular ideas, spokesman Marck declined to respond, citing provincial privacy legislation.

In his words, the university doesn’t disclose “information about internal processes. We must respect the privacy rights of all members of our campus community.”

In this case, the university is not protecting Crockford’s right to privacy. Instead, it is using a privacy smokescreen to protect members of a committee who have decided to purge an adjunct professor without reason or explanation.

Absent any other plausible explanation, Crockford has concluded that she was removed in order to suppress views on polar bears and related climate change issues and prevent her from continuing to challenge the high-profile academics who claim polar bear populations are in crisis.

G. Cornelis van Kooten, a UVic professor of economics who also holds a Canada Research Chair in environmental studies, says he is “appalled and distressed” by the Crockford removal. When, he asks, did “universities turn against open debate? There’s now a climate of fear on campus.”

Academia is a “publish or perish” workplace, and Crockford is an accomplished scholar. Last year, she was the co-author of a paper published in Science, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals.

On any campus, the number of professors whose recent work appears in that journal is small. Once again citing privacy concerns, UVic spokesman Marck declined to tell the National Post how many other UVic professors have met this high standard.

Crockford says she isn’t entirely surprised by her expulsion, given her previous ban from the UVic Speakers Bureau. For the better part of a decade, that entity had arranged for her to deliver unpaid lectures to elementary and high school students, as well as to adult community groups.

One talk concerned the early origins of domestic dogs. The other was titled Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change.

There is every indication she was a popular speaker. But in 2017, UVic Speakers Bureau co-ordinator Mandy Crocker advised her of a policy change.

The chair of the Anthropology Department now needed to confirm that Crockford was “able to represent the university” when discussing these topics.

Crockford’s 2004 dissertation broke new ground with regard to the mechanisms by which wolves evolved into domestic dogs. UVic awarded her a Ph.D. for that research.

Yet 13 years later, Dr. Ann Stahl, as Chair of the Anthropology Department, banned Crockford from telling members of the public about it as a representative of the school.

In April 2017, Stahl advised: “I will not be endorsing your request to be included in the Speakers Bureau roster for 2017-2018.”

Admitting that she couldn’t prevent Crockford from speaking elsewhere as a private citizen, Stahl drew the line at her doing so “as a representative of UVic.”

Stahl said she respected “issues of academic freedom,” but Crockford’s talks at schools had “generated concern among parents regarding balance” and that this concern had “been shared with various levels of the university.”

Stahl did not respond to a request by the National Post for an interview.

That was the first time Crockford was made aware of any problems. Because no one from the Speakers Bureau or the Anthropology Department has ever advised her of any specific complaint, she was never given an opportunity to defend herself.

The Speakers Bureau draws its volunteers from UVic “faculty, staff, graduate students and retirees.” Prospective speakers complete a form on its website, which says nothing about departmental approval.

There is no suggestion that presentations must be balanced, and many appear to be overtly political.

For example, Social Studies associate professor Jason Price currently delivers a lecture titled Education and the Revolution: Climate Change and the Curriculum of Life, to students as young as kindergarten age.

Patrick Makokoro, a UVic graduate student, offers a presentation to audiences as young as 10 about social justice.

Dwight Owens, an employee of Ocean Networks Canada, an entity affiliated with UVic, has no scientific training. His BA is in Chinese language and literature. His MA is in educational technology.

Nevertheless, under the auspices of the UVic Speakers Bureau, he has been giving talks about ocean chemistry and climate change for years.

The National Post asked UVic spokesman Marck how many people have been forbidden from participating in the Speakers Bureau, and what mechanisms are in place to vet presentations about controversial topics.

Marck refused to address either of these matters. Speakers Bureau co-ordinator Crocker also declined to be interviewed.

Current and former UVic faculty members contacted by the National Post aren’t aware of any vetting process. Currently, therefore, there is no evidence that even inexperienced graduate students need permission to “represent the university.”

That requirement appears to have been invented solely as a means of silencing the eminently qualified, highly experienced Crockford.

Because her polar bear message conflicts with activist rhetoric, and because activists apparently complained to administrators, her career as an academic researcher has come to an abrupt end.

Jeffrey Foss, a former chair of UVic’s philosophy department, says Crockford has been punished for speaking her own mind about matters of fact, which means she has been denied academic freedom and free speech. “I’m beginning to lose faith and hope in the university system,” he says.

During the time she delivered lectures to elementary school students, Crockford says she was continually “astonished to learn that every single teacher believed that only a few hundred to a few thousand polar bears were left.”

She feels duty-bound as a scientist to speak up, to point out that the global population is officially estimated to be in the range of 22,000 to 31,000 and maybe much higher.

“I talk to groups about the adaptive features of polar bears that allow them to survive changes in their Arctic habitat,” she says.

This week, Crockford will begin a five-country European speaking tour. Audiences in Oslo, London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Munich will hear about her research, evaluate her arguments, and draw their own conclusions.

The University of Victoria needs to explain why it has allowed an internal committee to secretly purge and thereby punish an internationally-recognized researcher, for no known reason other than the fact that some unknown accusers do not agree with her views.

Donna Laframboise blogs at BigPicNews.com and is the author of two books about the UN’s climate report generator, the IPCC.

UK, EU Forge New Withdrawal Deal—Will It Work?

Boris Johnson has surprisingly got a new withdrawal agreement with the the EU. The question is if this will pass muster in the UK Parliament. The Northern Island question looms large and may doom the deal .

Here is what the Bruges Group which opposes a more centralized Europe had to say :

‘Statement from Barry Legg, Chairman of The Bruges Group on the Withdrawal Agreement

The Bruges Group is opposed to the acceptance by Parliament of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration which has been released today.

The Bruges Group has always put the highest priority in maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom. This agreement provides for a different status for Northern Ireland and therefore has the potential to lead to the break up of the whole of the United Kingdom. The UK must leave the European Union as one entity.

The agreement also binds the United Kingdom to EU Regulations in any future trade agreement with the EU which would severely damage our prospects of signing free trade agreements with other countries.

The agreement still includes an unjustified £39bn charge on UK tax payers. We reject this punishment levy. This sum is equivalent to nearly a quarter of the entire revenue raised from income tax this year.

This money would be better used in boosting our economy by cutting the taxes of hard working people and/or giving an immediate boost to some of our hard pressed public services.

We urge Members of Parliament who wish to honour the result of the Referendum to reject this defective agreement if it is put before them.

Barry Legg

Chairman’

American Fake Peace Prize recipient backs Canadian Law Breaker

American Fake Peace Prize recipient backs Canadian Law Breaker

Least kept secret on the continent .

Fake Peace Prize recipient Obama backs Law Breaker Justin.

So what are we to do? Perhaps just laugh.

They need each other to sooth each others’ rampant hypocrisy —-one per centers disguised as caring leaders as they fake their way to corridors of power. They represent the genuine breeding ground for political correctness.

To disfigure Shakespeare‘s words —-‘they are full of sound and fury—signifying nothing.’

Enough words and time already.

Terror Attacks in France: A Culture of Denial

From Gatestone Institute

Terror Attacks in France: A Culture of Denial
by Alain Destexhe
October 15, 2019

Summary

This latest attack also demonstrates how inadequately prepared France is to tackle the problem. The murderer was not just any civil servant: his security clearance allowed him to have access to sensitive files such as the personal details of police officers and individuals monitored by the department, including several individuals suspected of terrorism.

Beyond the political sphere, there is also a culture a denial of the Islamist threat in the French media. Journalists, academics and politicians, with a few exceptions, have consistently played down not only the risk of terrorist attacks but also the threat of growing Salafist radicalization in the country.

According to a study by the Montaigne Institute, 29% of Muslims in France believe that Sharia law is more important than French law. This means that almost one-third of French Muslims live according to values that are fundamentally incompatible with French or Western standards.

It is important to note that theses quotes are not from right-wing thinkers or activists. Both François Hollande and Gerard Collomb were long-time eminent figures of the Socialist Party.

These are typical examples of what some call “la démission des élites” (the abdication of the elites): refusing to act on a situation of which they are perfectly aware but afraid to mention because of the dominant ideology of political correctness.

Content

On October 3, 2019, a knife-wielding Muslim employee of the Paris Police Department Intelligence Directorate stabbed to death four other employees at police headquarters in the center of Paris, before a trainee police officer shot and killed him. While it was not the deadliest terror attack France has experienced in recent years, the fatal stabbings that took place at the Paris police headquarters were perhaps the most worrisome. Its author (a French public servant employed by the police), its highly sensitive target, and the catastrophic handling of the aftermath of the attack reveal the failure of the French institutions.

As it was the case for all recent terror attacks, French media and authorities first tried to downplay what happened. The attacker was initially described through potentially mitigating factors, such as his handicap (the killer is partly deaf and mute). It took 24 hours before it was eventually revealed that he was an Islamist militant who had carefully planned his attack.

That a radicalized militant had been able to remain undetected in a critical security institution for years sent shockwaves throughout the country. Members of the parliamentary opposition asked for the resignation of Home Affairs Minister Christophe Castaner, who at first had said that the attacker “had never shown any warning signs or behavioral difficulties.”

For the record, this “very normal behavior” included cutting down to a bare minimum communication with women (he had for months being avoiding all women but his wife), attending a notoriously radical mosque, and having a phone full of Islamist contacts. His colleagues reported that already in January 2015, he had cheered the murderous Islamist terror attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in front of other police employees. In many countries, a mistake of this scale would be enough for a government minister to resign, but not in France.

The whole picture of the attack, which is still not clear, demonstrates an incredible failure of internal control inside the French police. The French Parliament is now asking how the murderer managed to fly under the radar when everything in his behavior clearly signaled an increasing radicalization.

Notably, this is the first time that the French state and its institutions were directly targeted. Also for the first time, the victims were not journalists (as was the case for the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015), Jews (who have been targeted several times in recent years) or civilians (such as the massive coordinated attacks in Paris on November 2015 that caused more than 131 deaths and 413 wounded).

This latest attack also demonstrates how inadequately prepared France is to tackle the problem. The killer was not just any civil servant: his security clearance allowed him to have access to sensitive files such as the personal details of police officers and individuals monitored by the department, including several individuals suspected of terrorism.

After Charlie Hebdo, the Bataclan in Paris, the truck-ramming massacre in Nice, and countless other attacks, French institutions have failed repeatedly. However, instead of recognizing this failure and assuming a share of responsibility, instead of hitting the problem of religious radicalization head-on, French President Emmanuel Macron regularly describes it as a “societal problem,” that “institutions alone will not be able to solve.” It is necessary first to recognize and name a problem in order to tackle it. In the current state of affairs, French political institutions are a long way from success in the fight against terrorism.

Beyond the political sphere, there is also a culture a denial of the Islamist threat in the French media. Journalists, academics and politicians, with a few exceptions, have consistently played down not only the risk of terrorist attacks but also the threat of growing Salafist radicalization in the country. A growing number of Muslims, while not advocating the use of violence, desire to live under Sharia law, separate from the rest of French society.

According to a study by the Montaigne Institute, 29% of Muslims in France believe that Sharia law is more important than French law. This means that almost one-third of French Muslims live according to values that are fundamentally incompatible with French or Western standards.

Although France is the European country most targeted by Islamists (263 killed since 2012), politicians are paralyzed by the fear of being accused by the mainstream media of discrimination against Muslims, of creating an amalgam between terrorists and Muslims or of “fueling tensions.” Senior figures acknowledge a major problem only when they are no longer in charge. In a book published after he stepped down, the socialist former president François Hollande wrote:

“Islam? Yes, there is indeed a problem with Islam. Nobody doubts this. The Islamic veil is a form of enslavement. We cannot continue welcoming migrants without any form of control in the context of increased terror attacks.”

Hollande never would have said such a thing when he was president. Like others, he sheepishly ignored the problem.

The same happened with Christophe Castaner’s predecessor, Gerard Collomb, after he resigned as Interior Minister. He warned against no less than the risk of civil war in France.

“In some suburbs (…) it is the rule of the strongest, of drug dealers and radical Islamists that prevails instead of the laws of the Republic… Today we live side by side, next to each other, but tomorrow, I fear that we might end up facing each other.”

It is important to note that theses quotes are not from right-wing thinkers or activists. Both François Hollande and Gerard Collomb were long-time eminent figures of the Socialist Party.

These are typical examples of what some call “la démission des élites” (the abdication of the elites): refusing to act on a situation of which they are perfectly aware but afraid to mention because of the dominant ideology of political correctness.

In the meantime, France’s police officers are increasingly unmotivated and demoralized. Since the start of the year, more than 50 police officers have committed suicide. They face increasingly difficult working conditions, in particular, rioters in the suburbs of cities like Paris, Marseille, Lille or Lyon — suburbs that are progressively escaping the control of the French authorities.

Attack after attack, the ritual is the same. There are flowers, tributes and words for the victims, political leaders affirm their resolve to act to protect the people. But after a few days, the news cycle ends and things go back to normal — until the next terrorist attack.

Alain Destexhe, an honorary Senator in Belgium, was awarded the Prize of Liberty by Nova Civitas in 2006.

The Bidens Concede

The Bidens Concede
Do CNN and NBC still want to defend the family business model?

By James Freeman of WSJ
Oct. 14, 2019 2:45 pm ET

Not even the Biden family seems willing to stand behind their questionable financial arrangements. A business associate in Shanghai doesn’t seem to have an explanation yet, either. Are the bitter-enders at CNN and NBC News finally ready to stop defending the indefensible?

James Taranto

@jamestaranto
· Oct 12, 2019
I wonder how long it will take these guys to figure out that making an announcement that you are suppressing the news defeats the purpose of suppression. https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1182773349044408324
Meet the Press

@MeetThePress
WATCH: The president held a campaign rally last night and attacked Hunter Biden. We cannot in good conscience show it to you @chucktodd: “Politics ain’t beanbag, but it isn’t supposed to be this either. We all need to play a role in not rewarding this kind of politics”

Michael Battey
@MSBattey
The urge to virtue signal overwhelmed their urge to suppress.

Last week this column noted that former Vice President Joe Biden once again declined to offer a defense of his family’s business model even in an op-ed ostensibly responding to attacks on this model. Over the weekend, his son Hunter Biden quit another of the overseas engagements for which he seemed eminently unqualified.

The Journal’s Ken Thomas and Thomas Grove noted on Sunday:

Hunter Biden is stepping down from a director’s position at a Chinese private-equity firm and said he wouldn’t serve on any foreign boards if his father, Joe Biden, is elected president, lowering his controversial business profile as it becomes embroiled in the 2020 election and Democrats’ efforts to impeach President Trump.

…The former vice president’s son, 49 years old, served on the board of Ukrainian natural-gas company Burisma Holdings Ltd. while his father oversaw U.S. policy on Ukraine as vice president. Hunter Biden stepped down from the Burisma board in April. The younger Biden remained a director of BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Co., a Chinese investment firm, where Mr. Trump also alleges inappropriate conduct by the Bidens. Hunter Biden said Sunday he would remove himself from the firm’s board on Oct. 31.

The statement released through Hunter Biden’s lawyer, George Mesires, described his work for Burisma, saying “at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term.”

This is the Bill Clinton standard—that any conduct not deemed illegal in a foreign jurisdiction is fair game for those with U.S. political juice.

Today the Journal’s Mr. Thomas reports from Washington:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden released a series of ethics proposals Monday, looking to spotlight concerns about President Trump’s record while also addressing criticism about his son’s business dealings.
…Hunter Biden is sitting for an interview with ABC News that will air Tuesday, which will mark his first televised comments on the matter.

If Hunter Biden can come up with a good explanation for ABC of what he was doing in overseas locales where his father was leading U.S. policy, perhaps he can also share it with his longtime partners. Cissy Zhou and Jun Mai report today in the South China Morning Post:

BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company has grabbed global media attention for its links with Hunter Biden, the son of former United States vice-president Joe Biden, after US President Donald Trump fired a barrage of corruption allegations at him and requested China investigate the Bidens’ financial activities in the country.

The company has repeatedly declined to elaborate on the younger Biden’s role at the firm when contacted by the South China Morning Post via phone, mail and visits to the office. But Jonathan Li Xiangsheng, the firm’s chief executive and Hunter Biden’s partner, has said the company was working on an explanation about the American’s role.

Li refused to comment on the younger Biden when reached by the Post on Monday.

A recent visit to the firm’s registered address in Beijing found a small, plainly decorated office, where a receptionist said she had never seen Hunter Biden.

More than five years after going into business with Hunter Biden, his associates in China are still “working on an explanation” of his role there? If this doesn’t arouse the curiosity of a neutral journalist, it’s hard to imagine what would. But the reaction of much of the American media perhaps tells us how rare such journalists have become.

In a Saturday op-ed entitled, “He who must not be named,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley noted a widespread media urge to simply suppress the story:

Hunter Biden: The mere mention of his name seemingly triggers the vapors among cable TV hosts and their guests.

When President Trump turned to the Bidens and Ukraine in a speech, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace cut off the coverage, declaring she had to protect the listeners: “We hate to do this, really, but the president isn’t telling the truth.”

When Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) tried to answer a question about the Ukraine scandal by referencing the Bidens, “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd angrily told him not to “gaslight” the nation.

…What is most remarkable about the paucity of coverage of Hunter Biden’s dealings is the conclusory mantra that “this has all been investigated.” …When Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) raised the issue on CNN, host Erin Burnett cut him off: “There is no evidence of Joe Biden doing anything wrong, and this is something that has been looked into, and I think — I want to make a point here — I think what we need to talk about right now is what did the president right now do or not do.” Other CNN hosts have repeated the line of “no evidence of wrongdoing” like a virtual incantation.

Instead of a near-religious repetition of a Biden defense, perhaps staff at CNN and NBC could try to get an answer to a simple question: What did Hunter Biden’s overseas associates think they were paying for?

KINSELLA: Why I can’t vote Liberal on Oct. 21

FROM : Toronto Sun

KINSELLA: Why I can’t vote Liberal on Oct. 21

‘I was Jean Chretien’s special assistant. I helped oversee his war room when he won in 1993 and 2000. I ran for the Liberals in B.C. in 1997.
And I can’t vote Liberal. I won’t. And I don’t think you should either.
Here’s why.

People vote for (or against) politicians for different reasons. In 2015, they voted for Justin Trudeau because he wasn’t Stephen Harper, who they’d grown tired of.

They voted for Trudeau because he was fresh and new and charismatic. Because he had his father’s surname. Because we (me especially) thought he’d be different.
They voted for him because he promised ethical and accountable government. They voted for him because he promised electoral reform, and balanced budgets, and harmonious relations with First Nations and the provinces and the world.

And now, many Canadians are voting against him because he didn’t do any of those things. He did the exact reverse.

He lied about balanced budgets and electoral reform. He didn’t deliver on harmony with other levels of government, First Nations and the provinces, and important international players — like China and the U.S. and India — think he’s a child.

And ethics? That didn’t work out so well, either. He’s the first sitting prime minister to have been found guilty of breaking ethics laws — in the Aga Khan and Lavscam scandals. In the latter case, the RCMP have said they are now reviewing the conduct of Trudeau’s government “carefully.” Some people may go to jail.

But for this writer — who happily voted for Liberal Nate Erskine-Smith in the Toronto Beach riding in 2015 — I can’t vote again for the Trudeau Party, which bears no resemblance to the Liberal Party of John Turner and Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. I can’t vote for it because it isn’t a political party.

It’s a cult.

It bears all the hallmarks of a cult. Slavish and unquestioning devotion to the leader. The willingness to punish and isolate critics and outsiders.

The fundamental belief that they are everything — in Trudeau’s case, that the Liberal Party is Canada, and vice versa. If you are against them, you are literally against Canada. That’s what they think.

Along with running some campaigns (winning and losing), I’ve written books about politics. Along the way, I’ve learned that people vote based on emotion, not reason.

In my case, my reasons for objecting to the Trudeau cult are deeply personal and real. I have written about, and opposed, racism for more than three decades. I am also a proud father of an indigenous girl.

How can I look my daughter in the eye and say I voted Liberal, after what Trudeau did to the female indigenous hero named Jody Wilson-Raybould? After he attacked her and exiled her for telling the truth? For saying no to a group of grasping men? For standing up for the rule of law?

I can’t do that.

How, too, can I vote for a man-boy who donned racist blackface — not once, not twice, but at least three times that we know about — and still say I fight racism? How can I claim to be against bigotry when I legitimize the bigotry of a clueless, overprivileged brat with my vote?

Politicians like to say that elections are about choices, because they are. They also are choices that are highly emotional and highly personal. Emotionally, personally, rationally, I cannot bring myself to vote for this loathsome cult.

And, with the greatest respect, I don’t know how you could either.

How Terrible Does Turkey Have to Get?

I carried an article by Caroline Glick in favour of the US Government’s decision to leave Norther Syria.

Here is a contrary view carried by The Gatestone Institute

‘How Terrible Does Turkey Have to Get?

by Burak Bekdil
October 14, 2019

So where is this “economic devastation” against Turkey? Or does that make two promises that the U.S. has not kept?

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been threatening to flood Europe with more refugees. “We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way,” he promised on October 10.

Meanwhile, obscenely, Erdoğan has been invited to the White House for November 13.

The real crime was for the US to betray the Kurds — savory or not — by making promises it did not keep… and leaving the world to wonder which Middle East ally the US will double-cross next. Take a guess?

Turkey’s military offensive into the overwhelmingly Kurdish northeastern Syria is sending messages on many wavelengths. One consequence is beyond dispute: Turkey is adding further chaos, bloodshed and tears to a region already in turmoil. The U.S. had apparently “assur[ed] Kurdish protection from Turkey.” Trump spoke of “economic devastion” if Kurdish forces were attacked. “As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),” Trump tweeted on October 7. [Microsoft may thoughtfully have censored this tweet for you. Ed.]

So where is this “economic devastation” against Turkey? Or does that make two promises that the U.S. has not kept?

In theory, the Turkish incursion will build a safe zone that is 30 kilometers (20 miles) deep and stretches more than 480 kilometers (300 miles) toward Syria’s Iraqi border -– which just so happens to be the very place where many of the Kurds in Syria live. From there, the Turkish army will push Kurdish militants south and ward off an “existential threat” to Turkey. Once cleared of the YPG forces, the main Kurdish group (the Syrian offspring of the insurgent umbrella organization PKK) Turkey says it will build homes, hospitals schools and rehabilitation centers for the two million Syrian refugees it hosts.

This happy-ending scenario may not materialize so easily.

As in earlier cross-border clashes with the Turkish military, the Kurds have vowed to fight back despite allegedly heavy losses. On Oct. 13, the fifth day of the Operation Peace Spring, the Turkish Defense Ministry said its forces “neutralized” 525 Kurdish fighters. Kurdish shelling in over 300 rounds killed 18 civilians on the Turkish side of the border, including a nine-month old Syrian baby. More than 100 civilians were injured in Turkish towns and villages. One Kurdish, politician, Hevrin Khalaf, and nine other civilians were reportedly dragged from their cars and “executed.”

As for the potential resurgence of jihadist terrorists holed up in the area and held in makeshift prisons, first, on Oct. 11, five Islamic State (IS) fighters reportedly escaped from a Kurdish-run prison and extremists claimed responsibility for a bomb that exploded in the regional capital. Then, “at least 750” “militants” have already escaped,” and IS’s sleeper cells in the region are also expected to take advantage of the Turkish invasion to recapture the land they controlled in the early years of the Syrian civil war. In the US-led, allied war against IS, Syrian Kurds operated as the main land force. As Kurds now flee, radical Islamists are likely to retake control of parts of the war zone.

Turkey’s demurely named “Operation Peace Spring,” although in its first days of fighting, has fueled a fresh wave of refugees in a region already a source of immigrants threatening Europe. According to UN sources, as of the second day of the Turkish invasion, 100,000 people had fled their homes.

As the fighting escalates, hundreds of thousands of people could flee as well, and their access to humanitarian services could be cut off, creating yet another refugee crisis in the war-torn region.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been threatening to flood Europe with more refugees. “We will open the gates and send 3.6 million refugees your way,” he promised on October 10.

The Turkish offensive has pitted Turkey against most of the free (and not-so-free) world. In addition to the UN, the governments of the European Union, Britain, Italy, Israel, Japan, Australia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran united in condemnation of Turkey’s invasion. Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland have banned arms sales to Turkey.

Turkey’s Muslim friends also joined the global chorus. The League of Arab States called on the UN Security Council to take action against Turkey. Its Secretary General Ahmed Aboul Gheit called Turkey’s military action an “invasion” and an “aggression” against an Arab state. He said the Arab League “condemns the invasion and that the world must not accept it, either, since it contradicts international norms and international law, no matter what pretext the invader uses.”

In America, congressmen took action to sanction Turkey. On the same day as Turkey announced its military incursion into Syria, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) announced that they had reached an agreement on new sanctions against the NATO member country. “I am pleased to have reached a bipartisan agreement with Senator Chris Van Hollen on severe sanctions against Turkey for their invasion of Syria,” Graham tweeted, announcing the deal. “While the Administration refuses to act against Turkey, I expect strong bipartisan support. … Most Members of Congress believe it would be wrong to abandon the Kurds who have been strong allies against [IS],” he added.

In addition the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) and ranking Republican Michael McCaul (R-TX) announced they would introduce legislation to sanction Turkish officials involved in the Syria operation and the banks involved in the defense sector until Turkey ends its military operations in Syria. The bill also requires the administration to sanction Turkey for its Russian made S-400 purchase. The bill would, in addition, prohibit American arms exports to the Turkish Armed Forces conducting operations in Syria and prohibit use of the emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act for Turkey.

“Operation Peace Spring,” like similar past cross-border offensives, will likely fail to yield the results Turkey intends: finishing off armed Kurdish efforts to win autonomy in Kurdish-held Iraq, Syria and Turkey. In February 2008, for instance, the Turkish military launched an incursion into northern Iraq, another pre-dominantly Kurdish area, ostensibly to “prevent the region from being a permanent and safe base for the terrorists, and [that] will contribute to Iraq’s stability and internal peace.” In the 11 years after the incursion into Iraq, thousands of Turks and Kurds died in the fighting, prompting Turkey this time to send its troops into Syrian soil. According to Crisis Group’s fatality toll, last updated on Oct. 4, at least 4,686 people have been killed, either in clashes or PKK’s terror attacks since July 20, 2015, when, after a ceasefire, violence resumed.

In 2030, Gatestone will probably report another Turkish military incursion into Syria or Iraq, with Turkish leaders pledging to “finish off” the Kurdish insurgency and the world uniting to condemn Turkey’s invasion.

Meanwhile, obscenely, Erdoğan has been invited to the White House for November 13.

The real crime was for the US to betray the Kurds — savory or not — by making promises it did not keep – and leaving the world to wonder which Middle East ally the U.S. will double-cross next. Take a guess?

Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey’s leading journalists, was recently fired from the country’s most noted newspaper after 29 years, for writing in Gatestone what is taking place in Turkey. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.’