Obama Allows Limited Airstrikes on ISIS

a reply to: St Udio

I read a new account of the action in Iraq by USA Fighterjets

Pentagon spokesman...said that US forces bombed the jihadists after artillery fire against Kurdish regional government forces defending their capital Arbil
Two US jets hit a mobile artillery piece near Arbil, he said.

Obama ordered US warplanes back into Iraqi skies to stop jihadists from moving into autonomous Kurdistan of northern Iraq
and carrying out a potential genocide against displaced minorities.

news.yahoo.com...


so the first intervention in Iraq is to protect the USA assets in Arbil which is in an ally (Kurdish) territory

so there was no proof that the artillery was from ISIS...it was only that the Kurd City with USA assets was being attacked by aggressors...so there is a built-in pausable-denialibility that the USA sought to fight the Caliphate/ISIS which is frowned upon by the Saudi & the POTUS himself

a reply to: SirKonstantin

lol yeah that's your problem focusing on "helping" everyone else,some americans value ego and romantic notions over all else life is not a movie, you don't need terminator like sayings when you roll in and defeat the bad guy!

america has never aided without a motive be it oil ,footholds,public opinion etc and when its a vastly superior to a third world country just plain old showboating is reason enough to go in

shock and awe hoorah play some heavy metal with dark shades and bandana cant see # but dam i look cool blow up your allies who are actually getting the job done .

america has killed its economy to get the edge on everyone else that cannot last ,i dont hate americans just its policy i feel for the real people in america.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Okay... ? To my knowledge, this matches the criteria stated. There was a similar article posted, but search results came up negative due to the title being different.

a reply to: IAMAMOG

Does your keyboard have ANY punctuation keys left, or do you just choose not to use them?

a reply to: parad0x122

i choose to not use them i take it you are american how many flags do you have ?

Why does Obama say there will be "LIMITED" air strikes on the ISIS?

Why not a full blown air strike on these Terrorists?

Is it because Israel will get upset at the US bombing all their mercenaries?

Or is this another lie into getting the people of the West to believe the US is anti Terrorist as it says it is?

a reply to: IAMAMOG

Yes, I am proud to be an American. And the United States of America has One flag, It looks like this:

a reply to: Hilux1996

a token gesture to keep up appearances ,no doubt isis will have a few patsys for the charade after receiving word from the boss!

a reply to: parad0x122

well that says it all really

a reply to: IAMAMOG

And what "it" is that saying, exactly?

a reply to: parad0x122

i meant how many flags do you own literally!

what exactly are you proud of?

what ownership do you have in the country you so happened to be born into ?

a few hundred years isn't a history or a race ! your not special in any way .

america or a mongrel


just realised im way off topic so this is my last post night all

a reply to: IAMAMOG

Wow, okay.

I fail to see how you can draw a correlation between the number of flags someone owns, and their level of patriotism?

Furthermore, or what any of that has to do with the OP.

Yes, please, take you hateful banter elsewhere.

a reply to: parad0x122

You should be proud even if war is always a bad thing. I'm glad the US is doing something. Now if only the EU & allies would join in and get rid of terrorists/bad guys once and for all we all could have a safer planet for everyone.

a reply to: parad0x122

What kind of ignorant fool announces dropping bombs on terrorist before it happens? Nothing like giving them some warning to prepare. Maybe we should drop leaflets first to save some ISIS lives. Just when I think I have seen the breath of one mans idiocy, something like this happens. The leader of the free world is nothing more than the thinker of smallville.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Strategically, I guess you could argue that it doesn't make much sense.

That or what they're planning on using to carry out the strikes is so good, and so precise, that it won't make a difference.

I have a feeling if the POTUS sent one of these after an individual in ISIS,

they could have all of the warning in the world and it still wouldn't matter. Wouldn't see or hear it coming!

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: parad0x122

What kind of ignorant fool announces dropping bombs on terrorist before it happens? Nothing like giving them some warning to prepare. Maybe we should drop leaflets first to save some ISIS lives. Just when I think I have seen the breath of one mans idiocy, something like this happens. The leader of the free world is nothing more than the thinker of smallville.

It is a basic military tactic. The US is not planning any sort of massive air campaign instead limited strikes. These strikes will be against heavy weapons or concentations of troops, vehicles, etc. So if you have command of your ground forces and you know that massed units or heavy weapons in use are targets what do you do? You disperse your forces to protect them from the air. This of course is going limit your offensive and defensive ablilities. As your enemy, in this case the Kurds can mass and strike while you can not. It is a very smart way of weakining ISIS with the simple threat of airstrikes. Of course this is not something the President would come up with, that is job of military planners who seen to grasp tactics a great deal better than you.

originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: St Udio




so the first intervention in Iraq is to protect the USA assets in Arbil which is in an ally (Kurdish) territory

so there was no proof that the artillery was from ISIS...it was only that the Kurd City with USA assets was being attacked by aggressors...so there is a built-in pausable-denialibility that the USA sought to fight the Caliphate/ISIS which is frowned upon by the Saudi & the POTUS himself

CNBC news is just reporting that there are more airstrikes from USA Jets just right now (3:30 PM Eastern USA)

but--- here's the catch.... all the airstrikes are Again in or NE of Arbil... which is the territory of the Kurds, our un-signed Allies... where the USA has sensitive assets in place...

when it is also reported that many women were taken prisoner at the Mountain sanctuary outside Sinjar where the ISIL murder'ers are trying to complete their Genocide against the people of a 4,000 y.o. religion that is Not Sunni based

and so it goes.... just like many have alluded to...many have suggested... that the '______' in Chief will not conduct a conflict or a bloody bombing action upon (ISIS-IS-ISIL radical Jihadists) 'Fundamentalists' ( in the nice sanitized language of the WH) at any price....
because according to the liberal minded man ~ there ain't no-such-thing- as a 'Conflict of Civilizations' & Jihadists are a peaceful expression of Islam and must be never called Radical in the military or in the government agencies


more will be hurled

To say that the U.S. is launching these airstrikes out of the goodness of their heart is ridiculous.

I was watching the news earlier and it said quite openly that the strikes were to protect American interests. Are a group of Christians and Yazidis (who let's face it 95% of Americans had probably never heard of until today) America's interests? No they're not but they certainly go down well in the media and make it more palatable for the average American Joe, especially after the U.S. has only just extricated itself from Iraq.

The U.S. has often been consent to sit back and turn a blind eye to genocide. What about the slaughter in Darfur? I didn't see any moral cry for air strikes there? Or perhaps America didn't have any "interests" there. There was nothing in it for them was there?

More recently, Irbil has become a destination in its own right for "the internationals" - the expat employees of multinational firms and aid agencies whose presence in Iraq remains a visible legacy of the US-led invasion.

Global oil giants have been setting up shop in the city, lured by the promise of Iraqi Kurdistan's untapped energy reserves. They have driven up real-estate prices and transformed a dusty backwater into an even dustier boomtown. The sand now is from countless building sites, as well as the nearby desert.

BBC News

Oh how convenient!

Obama is just playing it safe. He had to wait till U.S. interests were at stake. While also making it a humanitarian issue that the American People could get behind. Lets face it the vast majority of the American People wanted out of Iraq and the middle east. They were and are sick of those wars.

It seems like a war on ISIS or ISIL or whatever they will be called next. Would be a war everyone could get behind. But that is just not the reality of the America of today. Republicans would say to little to late. Or criticize the way it is being handled or the tactics being used. Any little thing that they can use against Obama. At this point they hate Obama and just want him gone no matter what. Democrats will have sections of their base complain that any war in the middle east is bad. That doing this will just be giving in to the Republicans. And that is bad. Because its giving grounds to the Republicans in the next election. They hate republicans and don't want one in the White House no matter what. America is too polarized. People just care about their side being right not how anything actually affects the country.

And all of that is before we get into all the chess board moves being made on the world stage. Chess board moves that do not and have never taken into account your political views or you at all. Heck the broad outline of all this stuff was probably decided in a turn of the century London room by a bunch of guys twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally. MUHAHAHAHA MUAHAHAHA MUAHAHAHA HA HA HA

Please add to the existing discussion here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thank you. Closed.