Ei sentään menneet verorahat hukkaan kun nyt pojat pääsevät kokeilemaan PV:n opettamia taitoja. Kerrankin saadaan verorahoille jotain vastinetta.
https://www.facebook.com/mahmoud.ibn.abdallah
Irakin ja Levantin islamilainen valtio tai Irakin ja Suur-Syyrian islamilainen valtio (ISIS)
Ei sentään menneet verorahat hukkaan kun nyt pojat pääsevät kokeilemaan PV:n opettamia taitoja. Kerrankin saadaan verorahoille jotain vastinetta.
https://www.facebook.com/mahmoud.ibn.abdallah
Aquilifer
Kenraali
Kyllä, kyllä. Me emme ole eri mieltä asiasta. En minä heidän taistelumoraaliaan epäilekään. Ihminen, joka tulee kulttuurista jossa uskonnollissävytteinen totalitaarinen ideologia on aivopessyt heidät lapsesta saakka uskomaan että korkein miehisyyden mitta on äärimmäinen väkivalta kaikkia eri mieltä olevia kohtaan, suloisinta seksiä on vääräuskoisen raaka raiskaaminen ja korkein tavoiteltava päämäärä elämässä on kuolla taistelussa jumalansa puolesta jotta pääsisi nauttimaan tuhatvuotisista orgasmeista paratiisin ikuisissa orgioissa, tottakai tuollainen vatipää on erittäin vaarallinen.
Kohtuullisen korkea prosentti näistä varmaan tapattaa itsensä aika nopeasti, koska se hinku kuolemaan on niin kova. Darwinin lakien mukaan kuitenkin ne, jotka eivät kohtuullisen nopeasti kuole pois, sopeutuvat. Se kyllä lisää näiden vatipäiden vaarallisuutta, sillä selviä merkkejä on jo ollut siitä, että näiden taktiikat paranevat koko ajan. Käytetään raskainta aseistusta murtokohtiin, kierretään, saarretaan tai tarvittaessa jopa vähän vetäydytään, jos vastustaja on liian vahva sillä hetkellä. Ja tarvittaessa sitten laitetaan tuo kamikaze liikkeelle. Sen itsemurhaajan käyttö onkin monella tapaa osoitus heidän taktiikoidensa kehittymisestä.
Länsimaista tulleet uskonsoturit ovat usein kaikkein vaarallisimpia. He ovat paikallisten silmissä hieman epäilyttäviä, sillä heihin on saattanut tarttua jotain saastaista lännestä. Tarve siis todistaa uskonpalonsa puhtaus on kova. Länsimaiset taistelijat ovatkin innokkaimpia tviittaamaan ja feisbuukkaamaan raakuuksia, sillä heidän täytyy jatkuvasti tuoda esiin kuinka ihanaa kaulojen katkaiseminen ja raiskaaminen on. Suurin osa näistäkin on juuri niitä vatipäitä, kouluttamattomia no-go-alueiden asukkaita, joille jihad on valta-fantasioiden täyttymys. Ne lääkärit, lakimiehet sun muut, niitä minä kyllä ihmettelen. Yleensä maailmalla korkea koulutus ohjaa ihmisiä rationaaliseen ajatusmaailmaan, mutta jollain ihmeen tavalla juuri islam onnistuu nollaamaan tuon kaiken...
Isiksen ilmavoimista vielä; niitä ei tällä hetkellä ole. Ei niillä ole lentäjiä eikä huoltohenkilökuntaa. Siitä huolimatta kaikki koneet ja helikopterit pitäisi pikaisesti pommittaa paskaksi, sillä vuoden päästä niillä voi jo hyvinkin olla jostain Pakistanista tai vaikka Qatarista rekrytoituja/ palkattuja lentäjiä ja muuta porukkaa. Rahaa niillä on eikä halukkaista tulijoistakaan ole pulaa...
ISIS an 'Incredible' Fighting Force, US Special Ops Sources Say
http://news.yahoo.com/isis-incredib...s-sources-183719521--abc-news-topstories.html
aj77
Greatest Leader
Tulipa muuten mieleen, että Isisksen kaapaareiden tarinoita lukiessa,ja kaapattujen , niin siellä pojat ovat puhuneet jo avoimesti eläkkeelle siirtymisestä Bahrainiin tms. Joten tämä länsimaisten uskonnollinen hurmos ei ole ainoa syy. Monet lähtevät puhtaasti rahaa hakemaan ja aina bonusta jos saa olla tuhma siinä sivussa.
reservin esikuntaupseeri
Kapteeni
Katselin eilen vähän näitä Suomeen pesiytyneiden nuorten muslimimiesten profiileja...
Ei ole muuten mitenkään harvinaista, että diggaavat islamin aika jyrkkiäkin muotoja. Siellä liputetaan ihan avoimesti että "Pää kaulasta poikki islamin loukkaajilta" ja "Kaikki naiset puettava telttaan,jottei Sielunvihollinen saa valtaa".
Eikä kyse ole siitä, että säännöt koskisivat vain heidän omia piirejään. Heidän mielestään heidän hienot systeemit koskevat KAIKKIA. Neuvotteluvaraa? Ei ole. Allah käskee ja kaulasta poikki jos pullikoit. Islamin halventamista kaikenlainen vastaanväittäminen.
On kuulkaas vielä mielenkiintoinen porukka nousemassa maailmaan noista nuorista miehistä, sanokaan minun sanoneen. Eurooppa on kusees.
Ei ole muuten mitenkään harvinaista, että diggaavat islamin aika jyrkkiäkin muotoja. Siellä liputetaan ihan avoimesti että "Pää kaulasta poikki islamin loukkaajilta" ja "Kaikki naiset puettava telttaan,jottei Sielunvihollinen saa valtaa".
Eikä kyse ole siitä, että säännöt koskisivat vain heidän omia piirejään. Heidän mielestään heidän hienot systeemit koskevat KAIKKIA. Neuvotteluvaraa? Ei ole. Allah käskee ja kaulasta poikki jos pullikoit. Islamin halventamista kaikenlainen vastaanväittäminen.
On kuulkaas vielä mielenkiintoinen porukka nousemassa maailmaan noista nuorista miehistä, sanokaan minun sanoneen. Eurooppa on kusees.
aj77
Greatest Leader
Minun kaulaani ei katkaise. Ammun ensin ja kysyn sitten että mitä olit myymässä. Olen kasvattanut vihaani monta kuukautta. En aja vieläkään autolla ylitse,mutta vähän kuitenkin jo koukkaan sinne päin. Putinista en huolta kanna. Näistä senkin edestä.
Eli heillä on varmaan jokin valtio takanaan ja kun me tiedetään ettei ainakaan Venäjä aseista ja kouluta näitä niin voimme katsella kauaksi länteen ...
Kuka aseistaa ?
Kuka kouluttaa ?
Kuka rahoittaa ?
Kuka hyötyy ?
Saudi-Arabia voisi hyvinkin rahoittaa mutta sieltä ei tule aseistusta eikä koulutusta joten näitä kahta pitää miettiä erikseen. USA:n senaatti myönsi ison avustuspaketin muutama kuukausi takaperin paketin missä myönnettiin aseistusta Syyriaa vastaan taisteleville islamisteille joten aseistus voisi tulla sieltä. Koulutus voisi tulla joltakin yksityiseltä turvafirmalta. Kuka hyötyy se on jo mielenkiintoisempi juttu mutta Syyrian tapauksessa ainakin USA johtama liittouma hyötyisi islamistista Syyriasta.
ISIS:ksen salaperäinen johtaja on ollut Quantamossa kasvattamassa omaa vihaansa tosi pitkään.
aj77
Greatest Leader
McCain: Not a matter of stopping ISIS, we must defeat ISIS
Aug. 22, 2014 - 12:43 - Uncut: Veteran senator: Best way to send a message to ISIS is to 'blow them to smithereens and send them to hell where they belong.' Plus, McCain on Obama's series of mistakes that may have enabled terror group's rise and more
http://video.foxnews.com/static/p/v...tml?video_id=3744508133001&_fx=y&_xcf=foxnews
Aug. 22, 2014 - 12:43 - Uncut: Veteran senator: Best way to send a message to ISIS is to 'blow them to smithereens and send them to hell where they belong.' Plus, McCain on Obama's series of mistakes that may have enabled terror group's rise and more
http://video.foxnews.com/static/p/v...tml?video_id=3744508133001&_fx=y&_xcf=foxnews
Venäjä hyötyy kun öljyn hinta pysyy korkealla. Voimme siis päätellä että Venäjä kouluttaa ja aseistaa Islamilaista Valtiota.
aj77
Greatest Leader
Dronen lentävät jo Syyrian päällä. Eivätkä kuten Assad toivoi hänen valtuuttamana.
Kohta tulee noutaja.
The U.S. reportedly has begun flying surveillance drones over Syria days after President Obama authorized their use.
The Associated Press reported that the flights had started Tuesday, a move that could pave the way for airstrikes against Islamic State militants based in northern Syria. On Monday, the Syrian regime demanded that the U.S. seek permission before launching any airstrikes on its territory against Islamic State targets.
The U.S. began launching strikes against the Islamic State inside Iraq earlier this month, with Obama citing the threat to American personnel in the country and a humanitarian crisis in the north as his rationale. Top Pentagon officials have told the AP that the only way the threat from the militants can be fully eliminated is to go after the group inside neighboring Syria as well.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Tuesday that the U.S. wants more clarity on the militants in Syria, but declined to comment on the surveillance flights.
"Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture," said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. "The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have ... some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward."
A senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Obama this weekend authorized the use of drone surveillance over Syria for the first time.
The action is considered the first “intrusive” surveillance by the U.S. in Syria since the country’s civil war began. This differs from protective surveillance, such as the U.S. used in the failed mission to rescue American hostages held in Syria.
The authorization was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
"There is no decision yet to do strikes, but in order to help make that decision, you want to get as much situational awareness as possible." a senior U.S. official told the Journal.
The news comes amid a back-and-forth between Syria’s government and the Obama administration over the possibility of the U.S. launching airstrikes in the country.
The Assad regime on Monday demanded the Obama administration seek permission before launching any airstrikes on its territory against Islamic State targets, while the State Department indicated it had no intention of seeking "the approval of the Syrian regime."
The question of whether the White House should authorize airstrikes has grown in urgency in recent days -- particularly after Islamic State militants last week beheaded an American journalist captured in Syria.
Other clashes were also erupting in the region, including warnings that another northern Iraq town faces the risk of a "massacre" at the hands of the Islamic State and apparent airstrikes by Middle Eastern militaries on Islamist militias in Libya.
U.S. military officials have given mixed messages on how seriously airstrikes in Syria are being considered, saying most recently they would only be used to counter a threat to the U.S.
But Syria seemed intent on capitalizing on the growing clamor among some U.S. officials to expand the current American air campaign -- provided the Syrian government is a partner.
Speaking in Damascus, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem appeared acutely aware of how much has changed since last August, when the U.S. was threatening to carry out punitive airstrikes against Bashar Assad's government in the wake of the chemical attack. Since then, global disapproval has shifted away from Assad and toward the Islamic extremists who are fighting him and spreading destruction across Syria and Iraq.
Al-Moallem told reporters his government is ready "to cooperate and coordinate" with any side, including the U.S., or join any regional or international alliance against the Islamic State group. But he said any military action inside Syria should be coordinated with the government, "which represents Syrian sovereignty."
"Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression," he said.
He said Damascus repeatedly has warned of the threat of terrorism and the need to cut off resources and funding, but "no one listened to us." Syria's government has long described the rebels fighting to topple Assad as "terrorists" in a foreign conspiracy.
The Obama administration has bristled at the thought of teaming up with the Assad government, while acknowledging they might have enemies in common.
"Just because the Syrian regime may be taking on ISIL or ...speaking publicly about that, and certainly the United States is, it certainly doesn't mean we're on the same side of the coin here," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Monday.
Asked specifically whether the U.S. would have permission to act in Syria, she said: "I think when American lives are at stake, when we're talking about defending our own interests, we're not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime."
Kohta tulee noutaja.
The U.S. reportedly has begun flying surveillance drones over Syria days after President Obama authorized their use.
The Associated Press reported that the flights had started Tuesday, a move that could pave the way for airstrikes against Islamic State militants based in northern Syria. On Monday, the Syrian regime demanded that the U.S. seek permission before launching any airstrikes on its territory against Islamic State targets.
The U.S. began launching strikes against the Islamic State inside Iraq earlier this month, with Obama citing the threat to American personnel in the country and a humanitarian crisis in the north as his rationale. Top Pentagon officials have told the AP that the only way the threat from the militants can be fully eliminated is to go after the group inside neighboring Syria as well.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Tuesday that the U.S. wants more clarity on the militants in Syria, but declined to comment on the surveillance flights.
"Clearly the picture we have of ISIS on the Iraqi side is a more refined picture," said Dempsey, using one of the acronyms for the Islamic State group. "The existence and activities of ISIS on the Syrian side, we have ... some insights into that but we certainly want to have more insights into that as we craft a way forward."
A senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Obama this weekend authorized the use of drone surveillance over Syria for the first time.
The action is considered the first “intrusive” surveillance by the U.S. in Syria since the country’s civil war began. This differs from protective surveillance, such as the U.S. used in the failed mission to rescue American hostages held in Syria.
The authorization was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.
"There is no decision yet to do strikes, but in order to help make that decision, you want to get as much situational awareness as possible." a senior U.S. official told the Journal.
The news comes amid a back-and-forth between Syria’s government and the Obama administration over the possibility of the U.S. launching airstrikes in the country.
The Assad regime on Monday demanded the Obama administration seek permission before launching any airstrikes on its territory against Islamic State targets, while the State Department indicated it had no intention of seeking "the approval of the Syrian regime."
The question of whether the White House should authorize airstrikes has grown in urgency in recent days -- particularly after Islamic State militants last week beheaded an American journalist captured in Syria.
Other clashes were also erupting in the region, including warnings that another northern Iraq town faces the risk of a "massacre" at the hands of the Islamic State and apparent airstrikes by Middle Eastern militaries on Islamist militias in Libya.
U.S. military officials have given mixed messages on how seriously airstrikes in Syria are being considered, saying most recently they would only be used to counter a threat to the U.S.
But Syria seemed intent on capitalizing on the growing clamor among some U.S. officials to expand the current American air campaign -- provided the Syrian government is a partner.
Speaking in Damascus, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem appeared acutely aware of how much has changed since last August, when the U.S. was threatening to carry out punitive airstrikes against Bashar Assad's government in the wake of the chemical attack. Since then, global disapproval has shifted away from Assad and toward the Islamic extremists who are fighting him and spreading destruction across Syria and Iraq.
Al-Moallem told reporters his government is ready "to cooperate and coordinate" with any side, including the U.S., or join any regional or international alliance against the Islamic State group. But he said any military action inside Syria should be coordinated with the government, "which represents Syrian sovereignty."
"Any strike which is not coordinated with the government will be considered as aggression," he said.
He said Damascus repeatedly has warned of the threat of terrorism and the need to cut off resources and funding, but "no one listened to us." Syria's government has long described the rebels fighting to topple Assad as "terrorists" in a foreign conspiracy.
The Obama administration has bristled at the thought of teaming up with the Assad government, while acknowledging they might have enemies in common.
"Just because the Syrian regime may be taking on ISIL or ...speaking publicly about that, and certainly the United States is, it certainly doesn't mean we're on the same side of the coin here," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Monday.
Asked specifically whether the U.S. would have permission to act in Syria, she said: "I think when American lives are at stake, when we're talking about defending our own interests, we're not looking for the approval of the Syrian regime."
reservin esikuntaupseeri
Kapteeni
Suomeenkin tarvittais tommoinen McCain joka sanoo suorat sanat.
"smithereens", onks toi nyt "pillun päreiksi" amerikan kielellä?
"smithereens", onks toi nyt "pillun päreiksi" amerikan kielellä?
aj77
Greatest Leader
5-syytä miksi Isisksen kimppuun iskeminen ei onnistu, ja miksi Obama tekee sen silti.
Each day brings unsettling news of the Islamic State's (IS) latest conquest. Last week, the flashpoint was the Mosul Dam in Iraq; today, the Taqba air base in Syria falls. Meanwhile, the U.S. air campaign continues -- haltingly -- against IS positions. Anyone who's ever been to a carnival can tell who eventually wins the game of Whac-a-mole.
Even the Obama administration knows it can't defeat IS with a few 500-pound bombs in Iraq alone. There are just too many damn moles, with too much room to maneuver. And yet it seems that the White House's answer is to just grab another hammer -- to start slamming IS on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border.
Barack Obama is still a risk-averse president, particularly when it comes to the use of force in the Middle East. But like a moth to a flame, realities on the ground, the logic of the situation, and his own calculus are irrepressibly drawing him closer to using air power in Syria.
Here are five reasons why it's not such a great idea: Let's quickly lay out the downsides of striking IS in Syria. And then move to the reasons the president is increasingly likely to do so anyway.
1. Syria isn't Iraq: In Iraq, the United States has several advantages that could make air strikes against the Islamic State reasonably effective, including reliable Kurdish allies; the chance of standing up U.S.-trained Iraqi defense forces; intelligence assets; U.S. special operators on the ground; and at least a chance to forge a political reconciliation in Baghdad that might ease the disaffection and alienation of Iraqi Sunnis on which IS now feeds.
Syria has none of these. And none are soon coming, even if the United States gets serious about training and equipping those elusive Syrian moderates or creating an entirely new military force. Indeed, in this regard,
Syria has always been a witches' brew of negatives.
Syria has always been a witches' brew of negatives. And it's tough to see that changing now, even with a belated and more focused U.S. effort to provide weapons and support to the moderate rebels.
Just look at a few of the obstacles to consistent support: A dizzying array of divided and dysfunctional rebel groups; external backers whose motives are diametrically opposed (see: Saudi Arabia and Qatar); and a Free Syrian Army which in the words of the Monkey Cage's Marc Lynch was always more fiction than reality. This landscape has fueled the Islamic State's rise and simultaneously limited the effectiveness of outside intervention, including air strikes.
2. Airstrikes won't work: To have a chance of hitting the right targets with any consistency, those 500-pound American bombs require local allies on the ground to provide forward spotters and good intelligence. Airstrikes, as we saw in the open desert of Libya during the 2011 intervention, are better suited against militaries concentrating and moving in open areas than against local militias that have taken root. Take foir instance Raqaa, the headquarters of the Islamic State's caliphate. There's no way an air assault in that urbanized and populated environment would work.
The idea that a bombing campaign alone -- even if it's devastating and sustained -- will seriously check, let alone defeat, IS in Syria is a flat-out illusion. And I say this knowing all of the Islamic State's many weaknesses: a governing ideology that alienates; weak or nonexistent opponents; and the absence of deep roots and legitimacy in Syria. The Islamic State has drawn support not just from Bashar al-Assad's brutal repression of Sunnis, but from former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's repressive policies toward Iraq's Sunnis. Indeed, IS's roots are in Mesopotamia and lead back to Abu Musab Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It's not a coincidence that the megalomaniacal "Caliph Ibrahim" is actually named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Damascus or Raqaa may important but it's only a means to achieve the more important goal -- a caliphate based in Baghdad.
Still, IS is now ensconced in its host Syrian environment like a barnacle attached to the side of a boat. If you believe that it can be defeated or rolled back without a major ground campaign either by the United States or its allies on the ground and without the emergence of stable and good governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border, I've got a great tip on some yellow cake in Niger I'd like to sell you.
3. Americans ain't interested: Polls suggest most Americans don't like Obama's foreign policy. Who would? It's messy, seemingly devoid of strategy, and he hasn't had a slam dunk since whacking Osama bin Laden. To try to sell another ground war in Iraq (and/or Syria) with grandiose conflict-ending goals won't be politically popular or even feasible. Look at the quandary Congress confronted in 2013 when asked to authorize limited airstrikes in Syria in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. I was told calls to some congressional offices were running 10 to one against. Given IS's particularly unique brutality, today's politics might sustain airstrikes, special operators, drone strikes, and the supply of weapons to the rebels. But much more beyond that seems unlikely now.
The only circumstance that might engender the kind of political consensus to sustain a comprehensive military strategy to defeat IS would be an attack on the homeland. But even after our sad experience in Iraq, it would have to be a pretty significant event to justify anything more than a tactical response. You can blame Obama all you want for the rise of IS -- heading to the exits too quickly in Iraq and not supporting Syria's moderate rebels early enough -- but his predecessor's unpopular policies in Iraq gave birth to the group that is now the Islamic State. American's are right to be cautious about being scared into another quixotic Iraqi adventure.
4. The homeland's doing just fine: Terror isn't a strategic threat to the United States right now. Last year, the State Department's Annual Terrorism Report identified 17,891 global fatalities to terror; 16 of those were Americans. And despite the Islamic State declaring its intention to fly the flag of Allah from the White House, the reality is that it's very unlikely the group will ever be an existential threat to the homeland. But with money, weapons, passports, foreign fighters, and sanctuaries it's been acquiring, the Islamic State clearly poses a significant risk to the United States and its allies.
James Foley's murder isn't the equivalent of 9/11. But former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell's warnings that IS has declared war on the United States and that he wouldn't be surprised if a member opened fire with an AK-47 at a U.S. mall has shifted the image of the group as a distant regional threat to one here at home.
Each day brings unsettling news of the Islamic State's (IS) latest conquest. Last week, the flashpoint was the Mosul Dam in Iraq; today, the Taqba air base in Syria falls. Meanwhile, the U.S. air campaign continues -- haltingly -- against IS positions. Anyone who's ever been to a carnival can tell who eventually wins the game of Whac-a-mole.
Even the Obama administration knows it can't defeat IS with a few 500-pound bombs in Iraq alone. There are just too many damn moles, with too much room to maneuver. And yet it seems that the White House's answer is to just grab another hammer -- to start slamming IS on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border.
Barack Obama is still a risk-averse president, particularly when it comes to the use of force in the Middle East. But like a moth to a flame, realities on the ground, the logic of the situation, and his own calculus are irrepressibly drawing him closer to using air power in Syria.
Here are five reasons why it's not such a great idea: Let's quickly lay out the downsides of striking IS in Syria. And then move to the reasons the president is increasingly likely to do so anyway.
1. Syria isn't Iraq: In Iraq, the United States has several advantages that could make air strikes against the Islamic State reasonably effective, including reliable Kurdish allies; the chance of standing up U.S.-trained Iraqi defense forces; intelligence assets; U.S. special operators on the ground; and at least a chance to forge a political reconciliation in Baghdad that might ease the disaffection and alienation of Iraqi Sunnis on which IS now feeds.
Syria has none of these. And none are soon coming, even if the United States gets serious about training and equipping those elusive Syrian moderates or creating an entirely new military force. Indeed, in this regard,
Syria has always been a witches' brew of negatives.
Syria has always been a witches' brew of negatives. And it's tough to see that changing now, even with a belated and more focused U.S. effort to provide weapons and support to the moderate rebels.
Just look at a few of the obstacles to consistent support: A dizzying array of divided and dysfunctional rebel groups; external backers whose motives are diametrically opposed (see: Saudi Arabia and Qatar); and a Free Syrian Army which in the words of the Monkey Cage's Marc Lynch was always more fiction than reality. This landscape has fueled the Islamic State's rise and simultaneously limited the effectiveness of outside intervention, including air strikes.
2. Airstrikes won't work: To have a chance of hitting the right targets with any consistency, those 500-pound American bombs require local allies on the ground to provide forward spotters and good intelligence. Airstrikes, as we saw in the open desert of Libya during the 2011 intervention, are better suited against militaries concentrating and moving in open areas than against local militias that have taken root. Take foir instance Raqaa, the headquarters of the Islamic State's caliphate. There's no way an air assault in that urbanized and populated environment would work.
The idea that a bombing campaign alone -- even if it's devastating and sustained -- will seriously check, let alone defeat, IS in Syria is a flat-out illusion. And I say this knowing all of the Islamic State's many weaknesses: a governing ideology that alienates; weak or nonexistent opponents; and the absence of deep roots and legitimacy in Syria. The Islamic State has drawn support not just from Bashar al-Assad's brutal repression of Sunnis, but from former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's repressive policies toward Iraq's Sunnis. Indeed, IS's roots are in Mesopotamia and lead back to Abu Musab Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). It's not a coincidence that the megalomaniacal "Caliph Ibrahim" is actually named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Damascus or Raqaa may important but it's only a means to achieve the more important goal -- a caliphate based in Baghdad.
Still, IS is now ensconced in its host Syrian environment like a barnacle attached to the side of a boat. If you believe that it can be defeated or rolled back without a major ground campaign either by the United States or its allies on the ground and without the emergence of stable and good governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border, I've got a great tip on some yellow cake in Niger I'd like to sell you.
3. Americans ain't interested: Polls suggest most Americans don't like Obama's foreign policy. Who would? It's messy, seemingly devoid of strategy, and he hasn't had a slam dunk since whacking Osama bin Laden. To try to sell another ground war in Iraq (and/or Syria) with grandiose conflict-ending goals won't be politically popular or even feasible. Look at the quandary Congress confronted in 2013 when asked to authorize limited airstrikes in Syria in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. I was told calls to some congressional offices were running 10 to one against. Given IS's particularly unique brutality, today's politics might sustain airstrikes, special operators, drone strikes, and the supply of weapons to the rebels. But much more beyond that seems unlikely now.
The only circumstance that might engender the kind of political consensus to sustain a comprehensive military strategy to defeat IS would be an attack on the homeland. But even after our sad experience in Iraq, it would have to be a pretty significant event to justify anything more than a tactical response. You can blame Obama all you want for the rise of IS -- heading to the exits too quickly in Iraq and not supporting Syria's moderate rebels early enough -- but his predecessor's unpopular policies in Iraq gave birth to the group that is now the Islamic State. American's are right to be cautious about being scared into another quixotic Iraqi adventure.
4. The homeland's doing just fine: Terror isn't a strategic threat to the United States right now. Last year, the State Department's Annual Terrorism Report identified 17,891 global fatalities to terror; 16 of those were Americans. And despite the Islamic State declaring its intention to fly the flag of Allah from the White House, the reality is that it's very unlikely the group will ever be an existential threat to the homeland. But with money, weapons, passports, foreign fighters, and sanctuaries it's been acquiring, the Islamic State clearly poses a significant risk to the United States and its allies.
James Foley's murder isn't the equivalent of 9/11. But former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell's warnings that IS has declared war on the United States and that he wouldn't be surprised if a member opened fire with an AK-47 at a U.S. mall has shifted the image of the group as a distant regional threat to one here at home.
Accurate or not, the media is beating the drum with reports of sleeper cells in America and American-born fighters returning home to commit terror attacks. Accurate or not, the media is beating the drum with reports of sleeper cells in America and American-born fighters returning home to commit terror attacks. Indeed, the chilling picture of a masked terrorist executing Foley has brought the conflict home, making a bunch of crazy terrorists killing people in a far-off region a deeply personal and American problem.
But I think few people would argue that Obama should make a major military commitment in Syria to avenge the life of one American.
5. Assad still isn't our friend: The final downside hasn't changed in four years. Any campaign to weaken the Islamic State will help out Bashar al-Assad. Many analysts argue that IS, in fact, is a creation of the Assad regime, which has used the brutality of this Islamist group to present the message to would-be enemies in Washington and other capitals that Damascus is defending Syria from a fate far worse. After reportedly releasing up to 1,000 hardened prisoners in 2012 and willfully avoiding the targeting of IS positions, the Syrian regime has finally gotten serious about trying to weaken the Islamic State as the jihadis have moved against regime facilities in northeastern Syria.
The alignment, however indirect, of U.S. and Syrian regime interests may be an inconvenient truth but it's hardly a shocker. Assad is killing his own people and radicalizing Sunni jihadists, but unlike the Islamic State he hasn't singled out the United States or Europe as a primary target of his military campaign. And though he might be a cold-blooded killer, his status-quo mentality and secularism doesn't quite alarm us in the way that IS's nihilist fundamentalists do. Nobody is calling for a U.S. alliance with Assad. But it seems clear that Washington has accepted the reality that his regime is going to survive.
* * *
So, let's presume that Obama gets all this. And we already know that he's inherently risk averse when it comes to Syria. So why am I so certain Obama will act?
First of all, look at the tough talk that's being thrown around right now: The president's somber statement last week following Foley's savage beheading; Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's comments that IS represents an "imminent threat" to U.S. interests; and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey's frank assessment that defeating IS would require military action in Syria. All lay the rhetorical foundation for an expanded war. Then Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes capped it off, warning ISIS that if "you come after Americans we're going to come after to you wherever you are." It may have lacked the lacked the punch of George W. Bush's dead or alive language, but it's pretty direct.
If there's one area where this president has already demonstrated willingness to take risks, it's in protecting the safety and security of the American people. This is the president's ultimate responsibility, and many things can be justified and explained in its name.
Presidents -- like the rest of us -- need their own internal explanations when making tough and risky decisions, particularly when they have avoided them in the past. And there's simply no better or more credible way to convince yourself you're doing the right thing than the argument you are protecting America. In that context, carrying out airstrikes or deploying limited special operators across what is a nonexistent border between Iraq and Syria should be no problem.
Unfortunately, there is no short-term answer to the Islamic State in either Iraq or Syria. A few bombs -- or a few hundred -- might save innocent lives and kill a few jihadists, but it's not going to do much beyond that. A long-term strategy of arming, training, equipping, marshaling allies, addressing Iraq's political dysfunction, well ... is long-term. (For a smart take on that, by the way, see my friend and former State colleague Zalmay Khalilzad's article in the National Interest.)
And that, oddly enough, is perhaps the most compelling reason President Obama has to act in Syria.
Since Washington can't sit on the sidelines and wait for the results of a long-term approach, it'll do what it does best: find the middle ground. The battlefield will be expanded; airstrikes in Syria will happen. Does it all lack for strategy? Is it a prescription for mission creep? Yes and yes. But blowing up a bunch of very bad people feels good. And whether you approve or not, it's coming.
But I think few people would argue that Obama should make a major military commitment in Syria to avenge the life of one American.
5. Assad still isn't our friend: The final downside hasn't changed in four years. Any campaign to weaken the Islamic State will help out Bashar al-Assad. Many analysts argue that IS, in fact, is a creation of the Assad regime, which has used the brutality of this Islamist group to present the message to would-be enemies in Washington and other capitals that Damascus is defending Syria from a fate far worse. After reportedly releasing up to 1,000 hardened prisoners in 2012 and willfully avoiding the targeting of IS positions, the Syrian regime has finally gotten serious about trying to weaken the Islamic State as the jihadis have moved against regime facilities in northeastern Syria.
The alignment, however indirect, of U.S. and Syrian regime interests may be an inconvenient truth but it's hardly a shocker. Assad is killing his own people and radicalizing Sunni jihadists, but unlike the Islamic State he hasn't singled out the United States or Europe as a primary target of his military campaign. And though he might be a cold-blooded killer, his status-quo mentality and secularism doesn't quite alarm us in the way that IS's nihilist fundamentalists do. Nobody is calling for a U.S. alliance with Assad. But it seems clear that Washington has accepted the reality that his regime is going to survive.
* * *
So, let's presume that Obama gets all this. And we already know that he's inherently risk averse when it comes to Syria. So why am I so certain Obama will act?
First of all, look at the tough talk that's being thrown around right now: The president's somber statement last week following Foley's savage beheading; Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's comments that IS represents an "imminent threat" to U.S. interests; and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey's frank assessment that defeating IS would require military action in Syria. All lay the rhetorical foundation for an expanded war. Then Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes capped it off, warning ISIS that if "you come after Americans we're going to come after to you wherever you are." It may have lacked the lacked the punch of George W. Bush's dead or alive language, but it's pretty direct.
If there's one area where this president has already demonstrated willingness to take risks, it's in protecting the safety and security of the American people. This is the president's ultimate responsibility, and many things can be justified and explained in its name.
Presidents -- like the rest of us -- need their own internal explanations when making tough and risky decisions, particularly when they have avoided them in the past. And there's simply no better or more credible way to convince yourself you're doing the right thing than the argument you are protecting America. In that context, carrying out airstrikes or deploying limited special operators across what is a nonexistent border between Iraq and Syria should be no problem.
Unfortunately, there is no short-term answer to the Islamic State in either Iraq or Syria. A few bombs -- or a few hundred -- might save innocent lives and kill a few jihadists, but it's not going to do much beyond that. A long-term strategy of arming, training, equipping, marshaling allies, addressing Iraq's political dysfunction, well ... is long-term. (For a smart take on that, by the way, see my friend and former State colleague Zalmay Khalilzad's article in the National Interest.)
And that, oddly enough, is perhaps the most compelling reason President Obama has to act in Syria.
Since Washington can't sit on the sidelines and wait for the results of a long-term approach, it'll do what it does best: find the middle ground. The battlefield will be expanded; airstrikes in Syria will happen. Does it all lack for strategy? Is it a prescription for mission creep? Yes and yes. But blowing up a bunch of very bad people feels good. And whether you approve or not, it's coming.
reservin esikuntaupseeri
Kapteeni
On näitä pojat Suomessakin.... täs yks noin malliksi http://www.facebook.com/Al.muhajir92
Voi tosin olla, ettei ole Suomessa enää tuokaan profiili vaan tuolla päänleikkausestraadilla Allahin hommissa. Ei ainakaan ole vastannut mitään feissarissa. Varmaan ei yhteydet toimi niin kaksisesti ISIStaniassa.
Tässä toinen, ei kuitenkaan suomalainen, joka on ainakin paikanpäällä kun Kalifaattia tehdään. Komee ilme.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...=a.339349296232756.1073741826.100004730658049
Voi tosin olla, ettei ole Suomessa enää tuokaan profiili vaan tuolla päänleikkausestraadilla Allahin hommissa. Ei ainakaan ole vastannut mitään feissarissa. Varmaan ei yhteydet toimi niin kaksisesti ISIStaniassa.
Tässä toinen, ei kuitenkaan suomalainen, joka on ainakin paikanpäällä kun Kalifaattia tehdään. Komee ilme.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...=a.339349296232756.1073741826.100004730658049
Viimeksi muokattu:
aj77
Greatest Leader
No Snowdenhan paljasti jo aikaa sitten että Isis on Cian ja Mossadin luomus. Tämä kerrottu suomenkin lehdissä,ja jopa äkkiä muokattu että ei varmuudella voida Snowdenin sanomaksi kertoa.Tosin ei ole ainoa joka tätä sanoo. Sitten vasta tulee foliot. Tässä ote: Tietovuotaja Edward Snowdenin on väitetty sanoneen, että Britannian, Yhdysvaltain ja Israelin salaiset palvelut ovat olleet perustamassa Isisiä. Salaiset palvelut halusivat luoda terroristijärjestön, joka houkuttelisi maailman kaikki ääriainekset samaan paikkaan muurahaispesästrategialla. Tarkoituksena oli suojella Israelia. Lausuntoa ei kuitenkaan ole varmuudella pystytty yhdistämään Snowdeniin, ja sen on väitetty olevan osa Iranin mustamaalauskampanjaa
Snowden puhuu mitä Kreml käskee puhumaan. Tosin en tiedä onko Snowden ikinä tuollaista väittänyt oikeasti kun nopean googlaamisen perusteella tuonkaltaisia uutisia levittävät lähinnä ulkomaalaiset verkkomedian vastineet.
Joku tiedusteli aikaisemmin jotta osaako IS porukkaa käyttää Irakista kaapattuja M198 haupitseja... tässä ampuvat Aleppoa yhdell sellaisella.
Joku tiedusteli aikaisemmin jotta osaako IS porukkaa käyttää Irakista kaapattuja M198 haupitseja... tässä ampuvat Aleppoa yhdell sellaisella.
Kweirisin ilmavoimien tukikohta on tällä hetkellä Islamilaisen Valtion piirittämä (vähintäänkin 100 sotilasta jumissa) ja Aleppoon johtavat Syyrian armeijan huoltolinjat ovat myös olleet hyökkäysten kohteena. Aleppo on selvästikin kohteena tällä hetkellä... vaan kenen puolelle kaupungissa jumissa olevat FSA:n joukot asettuvat?
aj77
Greatest Leader
Huomatkaa julkinen touhuaminen.
USA ja Iso-Britannia muodostavat superyksikön Isisin murskaamiseksi
Tiistai 26.8.2014 klo 20.41 (päivitetty klo 20.56)
Yhdysvaltain erikoisjoukot tunnetaan paremmin nimellä Green Berets, Vihreät baretit. (U.S. ARMY / WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
Ryhmän nimi on Task Force Black, eli Musta iskuryhmä. Yhdysvaltain erikoisyksikkö Green Beretsin (Vihreät baretit) ja Ison-Britannian maavoimien erikoisjoukon Special Air Servicen taistelijoista muodostettu yksikkö pyrkii tuhoamaan Isisin hyökkäämällä sen johtoporrasta vastaan.
Ison-Britannian pääministeri David Cameronon ohjeistanut maan erikoisjoukot käyttämään kaikki voimavaransa islamilaiseksi valtioksi itseään kutsuvan ryhmän peittoamiseen.
Task Force Black -nimeä käytettiin aiemmin yksiköstä, joka toimi Irakissa ääri-islamistisen Al-Qaidan terroristien tuhoamiseksi. Nyt yksikön pääkohteeksi on nostettu Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, joka toimii Isisin johtajana ja on yksi maailman etsityimmistä terroristeista.
- Irakissa Task Force Black suoritti täsmäiskuja joka yö. Se oli armoton, tiedusteluun perustunut hyökkäys Al-Qaidaa kohtaan. Operaatio vaati paljon kovaa työtä ja suuren määrän uhrauksia, mutta se toimi, brittilehti Mirrorin sisäpiirin lähde kertoo.
"Näiden ihmisten kanssa ei voi neuvotella"
Nyt alkavan operaation johdossa on Yhdysvaltain keskustiedustelupalvelu CIA. Yksi ryhmän ensimmäisistä tehtävistä tulee olemaan viime viikolla maailman tietoisuuteen nouseen mystisen brittimuslimin tunnistaminen.
Mies teloitti yhdysvaltalaistoimittaja James Foleyn Isisin julkaisemassa videossa. Teloittajan uskotaan olevan brittisyntyinen pakistanilainen Lontoosta.
- Meidän on mentävä Syyriaan sekä Irakiin ja tapettava niin monta Isisin jäsentä kuin mahdollista. Näiden ihmisten kanssa ei voi neuvotella, lähde totesi Mirrorille.
Yhdysvaltain armeija on tehnyt jo aiemmin lukuisia täsmäiskuja Lähi-idässä estääkseen Isisin etenemisen alueella. Jihadistijärjestö on hyökkäillyt siviilien kimppuun muun muassa Pohjois-Irakissa ja valloittanut siellä isoja maa-alueita.
CIA:n entisen johtajan Michael Haydeninarvion mukaan on vain ajan kysymys, että Isis hyökkää yhdysvaltalaisiin tai eurooppalaisiin kohteisiin.
USA ja Iso-Britannia muodostavat superyksikön Isisin murskaamiseksi
Tiistai 26.8.2014 klo 20.41 (päivitetty klo 20.56)
Yhdysvaltain erikoisjoukot tunnetaan paremmin nimellä Green Berets, Vihreät baretit. (U.S. ARMY / WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)
Ryhmän nimi on Task Force Black, eli Musta iskuryhmä. Yhdysvaltain erikoisyksikkö Green Beretsin (Vihreät baretit) ja Ison-Britannian maavoimien erikoisjoukon Special Air Servicen taistelijoista muodostettu yksikkö pyrkii tuhoamaan Isisin hyökkäämällä sen johtoporrasta vastaan.
Ison-Britannian pääministeri David Cameronon ohjeistanut maan erikoisjoukot käyttämään kaikki voimavaransa islamilaiseksi valtioksi itseään kutsuvan ryhmän peittoamiseen.
Task Force Black -nimeä käytettiin aiemmin yksiköstä, joka toimi Irakissa ääri-islamistisen Al-Qaidan terroristien tuhoamiseksi. Nyt yksikön pääkohteeksi on nostettu Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, joka toimii Isisin johtajana ja on yksi maailman etsityimmistä terroristeista.
- Irakissa Task Force Black suoritti täsmäiskuja joka yö. Se oli armoton, tiedusteluun perustunut hyökkäys Al-Qaidaa kohtaan. Operaatio vaati paljon kovaa työtä ja suuren määrän uhrauksia, mutta se toimi, brittilehti Mirrorin sisäpiirin lähde kertoo.
"Näiden ihmisten kanssa ei voi neuvotella"
Nyt alkavan operaation johdossa on Yhdysvaltain keskustiedustelupalvelu CIA. Yksi ryhmän ensimmäisistä tehtävistä tulee olemaan viime viikolla maailman tietoisuuteen nouseen mystisen brittimuslimin tunnistaminen.
Mies teloitti yhdysvaltalaistoimittaja James Foleyn Isisin julkaisemassa videossa. Teloittajan uskotaan olevan brittisyntyinen pakistanilainen Lontoosta.
- Meidän on mentävä Syyriaan sekä Irakiin ja tapettava niin monta Isisin jäsentä kuin mahdollista. Näiden ihmisten kanssa ei voi neuvotella, lähde totesi Mirrorille.
Yhdysvaltain armeija on tehnyt jo aiemmin lukuisia täsmäiskuja Lähi-idässä estääkseen Isisin etenemisen alueella. Jihadistijärjestö on hyökkäillyt siviilien kimppuun muun muassa Pohjois-Irakissa ja valloittanut siellä isoja maa-alueita.
CIA:n entisen johtajan Michael Haydeninarvion mukaan on vain ajan kysymys, että Isis hyökkää yhdysvaltalaisiin tai eurooppalaisiin kohteisiin.
Mitenköhän nuo meinaavat suorittaa iskujaan Islamilaisen Valtion ja heimojen kontroimilla alueilla? Irakissa olivat aikoinaan miehittäjinä ja saivat liikkua melko vapaasti, mutta viime aikoina länsimaalaiset erikoismiehet ovat epäonnistuneet melko usein tehtävissään (Somalia, jne) ja nyt vielä ilmoittavat etukäteen mitä meinaavat tehdä.
Syyriassa jenkit ovat käyneet ennenkin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Abu_Kamal_raid