It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Exclusive: ISIS Gaining Ground in Syria, Despite U.S. Strikes

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:56 PM

It looks like Obama’s flimsy idea of fighting ISIL is a sham as many here predicted it would be.

Obama is the worst foreign policy president in history and will go down as such.

Obama cleary in this issue is way over his head. It’s a complex one where the Syrian rebellion is involved and this would take a president with some leadership instincts which Obama is sorely lacking.

What Obama refuses to do is ally with Syria in this conflict not just drop bombs willy-nilly on ISIL combat formations in this complex 4 dimensional war without any strategic plans.

He is doing the Libyan methodology but that brought ruin to Libya so why should he do the same plan?

Because he lacks the intestinal fortitude to make needed decisions here such as allying with Syria as the US allied with Russia in WWII to stop Hitler.

Now we here that ISIL is NOT losing this war but maintaining its gains…

American jets are pounding Syria. But ISIS is taking key terrain—and putting more and more people under its black banners. At least one-third of the country’s territory is now under ISIS influence, with recent gains in rural areas that can serve as a conduit to major cities that the so-called Islamic State hopes to eventually claim as part of its caliphate.
Meanwhile, the Islamic extremist group does not appear to have suffered any major ground losses since the strikes began. The result is a net ground gain for ISIS, according to information compiled by two groups with on-the-ground sources.

A map developed by the Coalition for a Democratic Syria (CDS), a Syrian-American opposition umbrella group, shows that ISIS has nearly doubled the amount of territory it controls since airstrikes began last year. In the first two months following American airstrikes, about a million Syrians who had previously lived in areas controlled by moderates now lived in areas controlled by extremist groups al Nusra or ISIS, according to CDS, citing conversations with European diplomats who support the Syrian opposition

What this implies is that the conspiracy theorists are correct that this may be a US war started in order to destroy Syria and create a viable enemy for the next president so we could have a real war of " clash of civilizations" nice and manufactured.

Obama’s response to the ISIL onslaught is so ridiculous and any one with can see it won't work that it leaves little room for any other interpretation.

Of course the other interpretation is that Obama is just a weak willed president putting the US in a dangerous position by not confronting ISIL with a real plan to defeat it.

edit on 15-1-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:59 PM
a reply to: Willtell

Ugh. As soon as someone starts blaming whatever problems were having on Obama i stop reading their perspective and go strait to the article.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:14 PM
Some theories suggest the "bombings" are not even hitting anything significant against ISIS.

Some theories think the entire "coalition" against ISIS is just controlled opposition.

The House of Saud and Qatar still wants a gas pipeline under a Sunni umbrella.

Theories say ISIS is the visible spearhead for a Caliphate.

The MSM has everybody freaked out and off course.


posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:20 PM
What? You mean bombs can't take and hold ground?!?

Who knew?

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: Willtell

What this implies is that the conspiracy theorists are correct that this may be a US war started in order to destroy Syria…

Thats not a theory. "Assad must go". Hasn't changed. Syria has always been next, then Iran.

Just that the schedule is a little behind. Empires underestimate the amount of resistance to their Utopian ideals.

They wish things would go smoothly, costing as little as possible, dammit.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: Willtell

Maybe we're paving the way for them. Failure is in the eyes of the beholder.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:56 PM

Hillary Clinton. Assad Must Go


posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:13 PM
With all this going on Obama releasing 4 Guantanamo prisoners at this time!

You’re telling me this is not provocative actions.

The puppet Manchurian candidate Obama it appears is following a script.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 09:21 PM
This is how Obama and the elite get over so easy.

People forget.

So he could do what he wants or not do what he wants and the people fall silent as one obsession after another is absorbed by the people…
Were long past the ISIS savagery so nobody cares now so the beat goes on

I wonder what's coming next?

Another mysterious plane crash?
Another spree killing?

Another false flag or not terrorist killing?

Another celebrity scandal?

Another racial killing?

Wanna take bets?

Somethings on the horizon and we'll get obsessed again and again and again then forget soon and wait for the next madness.

When will it end?

edit on 15-1-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:01 PM
Yet at the same time, IS is losing ground in Iraq.

Most of the USA's Syrian bombing efforts have been focused on strategic structures, Raqqah and the Kurdish city of Kobane. While i agree that the USA should ally itself with the Syrian government for as long as the threat of IS remains, the recent territorial advance by IS cannot be blamed on Obama. The Syrian war is a difficult and complicated one, and Obama can't be directly blamed for the decisions of independent forces on the ground.

I predict that IS will eventually collapse, as the USA continues to strike its sources of income. I also predict that IS' alliances with local tribal structures and other allies will eventually disintegrate, perhaps leading to the loss of land and its ultimate defeat. IS is finding it difficult to govern such a large swathe of land. Add to this the shortages of necessities and infighting between forces, a collapse may be seen in the future. If not a collapse, then definite defeats in some spheres.

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:27 PM
a reply to: daaskapital

It’s not about blame but cause and effect.

About Isis eventually falling, I hope you’re right, and believe you’re right but at what expense the murder of millions of people because Obama doesn’t want to involve the US or do his job?

My point is that Obama is a weakling and ignorant unqualified man in foreign policy.

I’ll say it over and over and the hell with people who don’t want to hear it.

Look at other presidents.

Even Nixon did dynamic things such as went to China and started Detente with Russia

Jimmy Carter got the Israelis and Arabs to sign a peace treaty

What has Obama done but order drone strikes and allegedly order the killing of Bin Laden.

Oh gee that was real haed

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 10:32 PM
a reply to: onequestion

We sure can't blame Bush can we. Obama yanked all of our troops out of Iraq causing this chaotic vacuum. Yeah, we can blame Obama.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 02:03 AM
a reply to: Willtell

I do see your point, and i do mostly agree with it. Obama's foreign policy has not been a good one. Between destroying former stable states, souring relations with other power players and relying on countries such as Australia to maintain a presence in the Pacific, i think he has not done very well in the foreign relations sphere. That said, i do think he has played his cards better than what his last two Presidential campaign opponents would have (who continue to suggest that the USA deploy ground troops into tumultuous areas).
edit on 16-1-2015 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 03:44 AM
a reply to: Willtell

Isis spings up from nowhere with plenty of resources, organstion, logistics etc and heads straight for Syria via Iraq. This give the US an excuse to re-enter Iraq and to bomb ISIS in Syria without ever asking the Syrans for permission. The US bombs the liven christ out of ISIS and fails to make a dent in them.

ISIS springs up and enteres Syria 12 months after the US got stoped from bombing Syria

Does'nt any of this sound add to you? The ISIS spring up out of nowhere and does the US a favour by going into Syria so the US can bomb them. Only by some accounts the US is actually bombing Syrian Infrastructure and not bothered about ISIS. A very convienient enemy just at the right time dont you think?

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 03:53 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

The House of Saud and Qatar still wants a gas pipeline under a Sunni umbrella.

This one is more true plus lower oil helps the ISIS.

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:02 AM
What do people expect Obama to do?

Deploy troops - they'll just criticise him for putting American lives in the way
Drone Strikes - they'll just criticise him for more mindless slaughter
Cruise Missiles - They'll just criticise him for wasting money and more mindless slaughter
Do nothing - They'll just criticise him that he's allowing terrorists to thrive and kill innocents
Ask Iraq for help - We cant do that because George Bush had him hanged
Ask Syria for help - We cant do that because we were framing him for chemical weapons use only a year ago

So all you ''Obama's to blame crowd'', what would you have him do?

Truthfully, air-strikes is all he can do at the moment. Its safe, cheap, and it kills ISIS and ISIL members. If you were stupid enough to believe air-strikes = defensive positions and military checkpoints then guess what - you need to rethink this.

What Obama can and should do, is use his allies around the world to assist in air strikes and special forces on the ground doing sabotage and hit and run missions. Which is exactly what he is doing.

No one said ISIS/ISIL would be destroyed in a matter of months, they specifically said it would take a while. All I know is ISIS/ISIL hasn't advanced across large amounts of territory like it was BEFORE the US and its allies were striking them. Which is a win.

edit on am434318162015-01-16T04:34:44-06:00042015p by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 04:02 AM
Of course rofl...

I have kind of wondered at this whole thing, it seems the US is literally backing fundamentalist Islam for some time, toppling regimes being very conveniently useless in regards to stopping things like Isis,, it's been hard to understand the strategy.

But I "got it" it's actually as plain as the nose on your face really...

We can't fight "terrorism" it's impossible to do, get one head 2 spring up... freakin "Hail Hydra"

We want the extremists to control nations, we want ISIS there, sure that removes Assad but that's just a small goal, the thing is everyone is right the "Taliban" wasn't enough, just one group hiding in inaccessible mountains, but reality check... there are Millions of extremists in a Billion people and we don't want to kill ordinary normal Muslims, it's genocide unthinkable in todays climate....

So that's the plan, "Islamic State" let them grow, the call is all over the ME, "we are winning, come fight"

That we can deal with, we can Fubar any Army, so get rid of the strong men in the worst places like Syria and Lybia, withdraw, let the Nuts run the Asylum, give them an Army let the atrocities grow particularly in a "set location" where...when the time comes and the world is horrified enough that even as is already happening the Majority of Islam is like WTF????? Then we bomb the crap out of them as an Army

ISIS will be around a while and become very, very scary... all the bedbugs are coming out of the Mattress for this, gathering.... where they can when their usefulness has run out be obliterated and the rest of Islam will literally ask us to do it and say please....

Brilliant really if you ask me...


log in