• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Empowering ISIS

Traveler

Well-known member
raymondibrahim.comhttp://www.raymondibrahim.com/other-matters/obamas-policies-to-empower-isis-exposed/
Obama’s Policies to Empower ISIS Exposed

Raymond Ibrahim

For months, many Western observers have been closely following the minute-by-minute developments concerning the battle between Islamic State and coalition forces in the hopes that such data will help them discern what the future may hold.



Yet knowledge of the end game has been available for anyone viewing the Obama administration with the eyes of a hedgehog, not a fox.

In an article published over seven months ago, I anticipated the main developments to have taken place since U.S. President Obama declared war (i.e., “airstrikes”) on the Islamic State in September, 2014. Titled “Does Obama Need ‘Time to Defeat or Forget ISIS?” I made the following predictions, all of which have come true, and in the same sequence:

Obama’s “it will take time” [to defeat IS] assertion prompts the following prediction: U.S. airstrikes on IS targets will continue to be just enough to pacify those calling for action against the caliphate (“we’re doing what we can”). The official [U.S. government’s] narrative will be that the Islamic State is gradually being weakened, that victory is a matter of time (remember, “It will take time”)….

[W]e will hear about the occasional victory against IS—this or that leader killed or captured…

Then, just as they “suddenly” appeared in Iraq, we will “suddenly” again hear—probably first from IS itself—that the Islamic State has made some major comeback, winning over some new piece of territory, as the caliphate continues to grow and get stronger.

Now consider how the Obama administration’s actions have fulfilled these predictions, and often in the same sequence.

The official [U.S. government’s] narrative will be that the Islamic State is gradually being weakened, that victory is a matter of time…

Last February, key Obama administration figures—including Secretary of State John Kerry and retired General John Allen, the president’s special coordinator for the coalition against the Islamic State—triumphantly asserted that, thanks to U.S. airstrikes, “half the group’s [IS] leaders in Iraq had been killed.”

Not long thereafter, an investigative report demonstrated that such claims were utterly false and hardly representative of reality.

[W]e will hear about the occasional victory against IS…

In April, the Pentagon announced that, thanks to U.S. airstrikes and the Iraqi army, “ISIL [Islamic State] is no longer the dominant force in roughly 25 to 30% of the populated areas of Iraqi territory where it once had complete freedom of movement.” The Pentagon even released a map showing which territories the Islamic State had lost.

Soon, however, it became evident that the Pentagon’s claim and map were misleading and incomplete. Among other irregularities, the map, while showing territories that IS once held and territories it had since lost, failed to indicate the new territories IS had gained since the coalition effort began—making the 25%-30% claim totally misleading.

[W]e will hear about … this or that leader killed or captured…

Nor was Obama administration grandstanding concerning the killing of “key” IS figures wanting. Most recently, on May 16, U.S. special forces managed to kill Abu Sayyaf. Although only a mid-ranking leader, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said his killing “represents another significant blow to Isis.” (Read here for an idea of how many times U.S. officials have made the “significant blow” assertion whenever this or that jihadi dies, only for the jihad to spread and conquer more lands.)

Even the New York Times observed that “Abu Sayyaf is a midlevel leader in the organization — one terrorism analyst compared him to Al Capone’s accountant — and likely is replaceable in fairly short order.”

Then, just as they “suddenly” appeared in Iraq, we will “suddenly” again hear—probably first from IS itself—that the Islamic State has made some major comeback, winning over some new piece of territory, as the caliphate continues to grow and get stronger.

Finally, after the Obama administration had claimed that it had killed half of IS leadership, that it had pushed IS out of 25%-30% previously held territory, that its killing of an IS midlevel leader was a “significant blow”—right on cue, the Islamic State just announced its takeover of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, one of Iraq’s most strategic provinces. According to a May 17 Reuters report:

Islamic State militants said they had taken full control of the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on Sunday in the biggest defeat for the Baghdad government since last summer.

[…]

It was the biggest victory for Islamic State in Iraq since security forces and Shi’ite paramilitary groups began pushing the militants back last year, aided by air strikes from a U.S.-led coalition.

The U.S. Defense Department, while not confirming the fall of Ramadi, sought to play down the impact on the broader Iraq military campaign of an Islamic State seizure of the city.

To fully appreciate the significance of this latest conquest by the Islamic State, consider the words of Anbar governor Ahmed al-Dulaimi spoken back in November 2014: “If we lose Anbar, that means we will lose Iraq.”

Of course, none of these developments are surprising for those among us who were able to take a step back—to transcend the distracting noise and nonsense daily grinded out by mainstream media—and look at the big picture.

For those able to read the plain writing on the wall, the end game between Obama and the Islamic State was always easy to discern.


The reproduction of any material or information originating on this website
must include either a link to this website or cite the name of this website
(RaymondIbrahim.com) as the source of the material or information reproduced.
Violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
ISIS reportedly slaughtered over 400 Syrian soldiers in Palmyra this week after the terrorists captured the ancient Roman city.
Al-Arabiya reported:

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters have executed at least 400 people in Palmyra since capturing the ancient Syrian city four days ago, Syrian state media said on Sunday.

It was not immediately possible to verify the account, but it was consistent with reports by activists that the Islamist fighters had carried out executions since capturing the city from government troops.

The militants seized the city of 50,000 people, site of some of the world’s most extensive and best preserved ancient Roman ruins, on Wednesday, days after also capturing the city of Ramadi in neighboring Iraq.

The two near simultaneous victories were Islamic State’s biggest successes since a U.S.-led coalition began an air war against the fighters last year, and have forced an examination of whether the strategy is working.

The Sunni Muslim militants have proclaimed a caliphate to rule over all Muslims from territory they hold in both Syria and Iraq. They have a history of carrying out mass killings in towns and cities they capture, and of destroying ancient monuments which they consider evidence of paganism.

“The terrorists have killed more than 400 people.. and mutilated their bodies, under the pretext that they cooperated with the government and did not follow orders,” Syria’s state news agency said, citing residents inside the city.



Read more: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/breaking-isis-executes-400-syrian-soldiers-in-palmyra/#ixzz3b9nX8f4f
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Islamic terrorists AREN'T Islamic.

It's exceedingly clear anymore...certain brain addled "really quite conservative", so called libertarians worship the same God as these jihadis and also encourage and defend the practice of abortion, which as any thinking person knows is the blatant murder of innocent victims. Exactly what is going on in the Middle East, only with slightly older victims, for the most part.

Jihadi or quite conservative libertarian...worshipping and encouraging cold blooded murder...both marching in lock step with Satan.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
"Jihadi or quite conservative libertarian...worshipping and encouraging cold blooded murder...both marching in lock step with Satan."

:agree:
 

Steve

Well-known member
isis is a reason why our 2nd amendment rights are so important.. I doubt our armed services would willingly lose the will to fight..
but with bad enough leadership, we may not have the protection we expect someday..

as the brutal thugs go door to door killing any who oppose them, they should be met with an equally brutal fight at each and every door..

I thank GOD for all those that served to make our country FREE,... We should never take that freedom for granted.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Conservative Tribune
URGENT: US Military Pilots Fighting ISIS Drop Bombshell About What Obama Is Doing to Them

American military pilots are speaking out about President Barack Obama’s insane limitations on their fight against the Islamic State group, saying that even when they have “ISIS fighters in (their) sights,” they still aren’t allowed to attack.

In an interview on Fox News, former pilots and retired generals spoke out about the White House’s limited engagement rules on the Islamic State group and how they’re crippling the U.S. military response to the terrorist group.


“There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn’t get clearance to engage,” one F-18 pilot said. “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating.”

Under current White House policy, pilots must seek permission to attack each individual target, a process that averages about an hour. By that time, it’s often too late.

“You’re talking about hours in some cases, which by that time the particular tactical target left the area and or the aircraft has run out of fuel,” retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula said. “These are excessive procedures that are handing our adversary an advantage.”



“The ultimate guidance rests in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” Deptula said. “We have been applying air power like a rain shower or a drizzle. For it to be effective, it needs to be applied like a thunderstorm.”

Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin added that American forces were averaging 14 strikes a day against the Islamic State group.

“Compare that to the first Gulf War,” she said. “The United States averaged 1,125 strikes per day. In Kosovo 135 strikes a day.”

In addition, Sen. John McCain cited the damning statistic that 75 percent of missions returned to base without firing a weapon (H/T BizPac Review).

It has become painfully obvious that the White House is more interested in scoring political points than scoring victories in the war against the Islamic State group.

Our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in the battle against these terrorists, and they deserve real leadership and the opportunity to engage the enemy, not just words.

http://conservativetribune.com/military-pilots-fighting-isis/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=SumoMe&utm_campaign=sumome_share
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
The rules of engagement under Obama are terrible. I learned how bad when I read the book "Betrayed" by
Billy Vaughn. I suggest everyone read that book. Billy Vaughn, whose son,(Aaron Vaughn, Navy Seal) was needlessly killed in a helicopter while serving in the military, will not allow Obama's name to be spoken in his house. The government has the Seals using old outdated helicoptors for raids. Had his son been in one of the new helicoptors, they could have avoided the ground fire. Plus they couldn't fire back because there may have been 'friendlies' where the ground fire came from. Billy Vaughn has done a lot of investigating on his own and what he has found will make you furious....as it did me. Lots of covering up went on and is
still going on. We are not "In it to Win It" and that is against the law according to Billy Vaughn.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
The rules of engagement under Obama are terrible. I learned how bad when I read the book "Betrayed" by
Billy Vaughn. I suggest everyone read that book. Billy Vaughn, whose son,(Aaron Vaughn, Navy Seal) was needlessly killed in a helicopter while serving in the military, will not allow Obama's name to be spoken in his house. The government has the Seals using old outdated helicoptors for raids. Had his son been in one of the new helicoptors, they could have avoided the ground fire. Plus they couldn't fire back because there may have been 'friendlies' where the ground fire came from. Billy Vaughn has done a lot of investigating on his own and what he has found will make you furious....as it did me. Lots of covering up went on and is
still going on. We are not "In it to Win It" and that is against the law according to Billy Vaughn.
Really fits in with the assertions made in the first article, IMO.
 
Top