Well, Well, Well, what do we have here?
According to a new report by Agence-France Presse (AFP) “Syrian rebels and jihadists from the Islamic State have agreed a non-aggression pact for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus, a monitoring group said on Friday.”
What will the Obama administration do now? Originally President Obama said in a televised speech that he will support “military assistance to the Syrian opposition.” Here is what he said:
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.
This is an interesting development since Washington wants to authorize airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or ISIS on Syrian territory. It is a move that the Assad 
government and Russia say that would be an act of aggression and a breach of International law. Will the mainstream media report this peace agreement between these two organizations? Washington would welcome this development because both groups consider the Assad government a common enemy. Online news organization Middle East Eye reported that both moderate Syrian rebels and the Islamic State’s common enemy is the Assad government:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that moderate and Islamist rebels had signed a ceasefire deal for the first time in a suburb of the capital Damascus. “The two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found, and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy” to be Assad’s government and his forces.
They forgot to mention that the U.S. and other Western allies consider the Assad government their enemy as well. Although this truce is a new development, it should not surprise anyone. The U.S. has been supporting the Syrian rebels’ right from the start to remove Assad. Many of them joined the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups in the region including those in Iraq. Washington would welcome a truce between both groups because they will target the Syrian government. Washington will most likely launch airstrikes against these same terrorists in Syria as a justification to enter Syrian territory.
The AFP detailed exactly what was agreed upon between both groups:
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the ceasefire deal was agreed between IS and moderate and Islamist rebels in Hajar al-Aswad, south of the capital.
Under the deal, “the two parties will respect a truce until a final solution is found and they promise not to attack each other because they consider the principal enemy to be the Nussayri regime.”
Nussayri is a pejorative term for the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs.
The world needs to stop this war. If the U.S. does launch airstrikes into Syria to target these terrorist organizations, it will be considered an aggression against the Assad government. If innocent civilians or Syrian government forces are killed in the airstrikes, the Assad government would most likely respond with military action. Russia, China and most nations around the world would condemn U.S. actions on Syria’s sovereign territory. The U.S. wants Assad out of power. ISIL was created by the U.S. and its allies in the region. Is this the start of World War III? I hope not. The Syrian government can defeat ISIL on their own if Washington would stop sending arms into the region. The question we must ask is who will receive U.S. arms shipments now. ISIL?
