Obama orders strike against ISIS Iraq

[pioneer]

It very easy, for starters they need to outfit the good guys with toyota hilux.

[1UZFE]

Centric. Go figure..

[pioneer]

ISIS bumcee winkin now

ohgoaar

Duss dem out Obama

[pioneer]

Wait wait...now muslims gonna take pics of dead isis people and say look what murica doin

yay!

[pioneer]

ISIS gon get some of this

oh lawd

[shotta 20]

I wonder what products we gonna have to boycott now??

[Who need enemy]

Obama approves US airstrikes in Syria, vows to target ISIS ‘wherever they exist’

President Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes in Syria along with expanded airstrikes in Iraq as he vowed Wednesday to wipe out Islamic State terrorists “wherever they exist,” during a prime-time address that outlined a sharp escalation of the U.S. military campaign in the Middle East.

“Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy,” Obama said.

The president’s address, just 15 minutes long, effectively completed a dramatic turnaround from the administration’s approach to the Islamic State just a few months ago, when the president downplayed the group’s advances through northern Iraq. Now, he is outlining a “comprehensive” strategy for targeting the organization in Iraq and Syria, including by potentially aiding moderate factions of the Syrian opposition.

Until now, U.S. airstrikes have been limited to specific missions in northern Iraq. But Obama said Wednesday he is expanding those efforts “beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we're hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense.”

In a nod to his plans to go into Syria, Obama said: “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq.”

Senior administration officials, on a conference call before the speech, said the president has authorized those airstrikes, and the military “will take action on the Syrian side” of the border.

The administration is not giving a timeframe for when the expanded airstrikes will begin. But senior administration officials said the militants operate freely across both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, and the U.S. cannot be restrained by that border in going after the organization.

Obama also announced Wednesday that another 475 service members will deploy to Iraq.

The president, who campaigned on ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, stressed Wednesday that this military effort will be different from those protracted conflicts and will not involve U.S. combat troops on the ground.

But, after weeks of mixed signals from the administration over how deeply it would commit to combating the Islamic State, or ISIS, the president set a goal Wednesday of eradicating the group.

“This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground,” Obama said.

The president’s approach also involves a renewed call to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels. The president asked Congress to authorize this sort of program earlier this year, but the plan has not garnered support on Capitol Hill. House Republicans, in light of the president’s speech, have delayed a vote on a spending bill in order to consider the latest request.

The White House on Wednesday also announced another $25 million in military aid to the Iraqi government, while the Treasury Department outlined efforts to go after the Islamic State’s finances.

The speech marks the president’s highest-profile effort yet to both explain his strategy to the American people and rally support – in Congress and on the world stage – for an expanded campaign against the Islamic State.

Obama for weeks has struggled to articulate his policy toward ISIS and get on the same page with his own military advisers about how urgent the threat really is outside of Iraq and Syria.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month said the terror group is “beyond anything that we’ve seen.”

Obama, though, then confounded lawmakers when he openly admitted his administration didn’t have a strategy yet for confronting the threat in Syria. He sent more mixed messages when he said the goal is to “destroy” the group but also make it a “manageable problem.”

Since then, the president has projected a more consistent message that the Islamic State must be destroyed.

But while lawmakers on both sides have been clamoring for a clear strategy from the president, it remains to be seen whether they will go along with his plan. Some have demanded a vote on authorization for more airstrikes – which Obama’s advisers have suggested they don’t need – while others have shown reluctance to approve more aid for the Syrian opposition.


Dick Cheney and Other Republicans Throw Stones at Obama From Glass House

Since he left the vice presidency six years ago, Dick Cheney has made a second career of criticizing President Obama, usually for his record on terrorism. Mr. Cheney was at it again on Tuesday, using a meeting with House Republicans to skewer Mr. Obama and promote his only remedy for foreign policy problems: War.

The Hill reported that Mr. Cheney complained (once again) that the United States took its eye off the terror threat under Mr. Obama’s watch. (Only if you don’t count Osama Bin Laden and countless other dead militants.)

The Washington Examiner, meanwhile, quoted an unnamed source at the meeting as saying Mr. Cheney warned “how unprepared the U.S. military is for any kind of medium- or large-scale engagement against ISIS because the administration is cutting the military so much.” He also blamed the rise of ISIS on Mr. Obama’s “failed policies” in the Middle East.

Whatever Mr. Obama’s shortcomings may be, Mr. Cheney is an absurdly flawed critic on national security.

He was a primary architect of the Iraq war, propelling the United States into a bogus and costly conflict that may represent the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in recent memory. It was that war, in its early days, which gave rise to the Sunni militant group that would become ISIS.

Like President George W. Bush, Mr. Cheney has shown no willingness to acknowledge the impact of these ruinous policies. Instead, he’s tried to spin an irredeemable legacy.

It wasn’t just the content of Mr. Cheney’s admonitions but also the timing that was jarring. He chose to rally the G.O.P. troops on the eve of a major speech in which President Obama intends to lay out his strategy towards ISIS. It used to be that when an American President was confronting a national security threat, including with military action, Republicans and Democrats would at least listen to what he had to say before criticizing. Mr. Cheney chose to let loose pre-emptively.

And while he urged Republicans to adopt a more muscular military posture, he apparently did not lay out a specific plan for confronting and defeating ISIS. Of course not. That failure puts him in good company, with pretty much all the other Republican armchair hawks.

The disinguenous (at best) nature of Republican criticism was typified by an appearance this morning on the Senate floor by the Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who called Mr. Obama a “reluctant commander-in-chief’’ — as if the country wants or needs an eager one — and blathered on about what Mr. Obama needed to do in his speech.

Mr. McConnell presumably knows exactly what Mr. Obama plans to say, since the president had him and other Congressional leaders down to the White House on Tuesday to tell them just that.

Representative Jack Kingston, the Georgia Republican, offered a surprisingly honest, if amazingly cynical, assessment of the politics of the moment, saying that Republicans “like the path we’re on now.”

“We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long,” Kingston told The New York Times.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Good Job Obama. Bomb them back to the stone age where they belong!!

I can't wait to see what all the local ISIS supporters in Trinidad gonna say now.

[boxy]

so accustom seeing the sarcastic thanks Obama meme not sure if Effectic being sarcastic or No

[shogun]

Good Job Obama. Bomb them back to the stone age where they belong!!

I can't wait to see what all the local ISIS supporters in Trinidad gonna say now.

Hopefully nothing ever again.

My wishful thinking pictures at least some of them taking fatal amounts of US shrapnel while fighting alongside their ISIS "brothers." Good riddance.

[shogun]

ISIS gon get some of this

oh lawd

Damn @ 6:35

[pioneer]

Is now the sleeper cells might jump out, vex an totin how mericuh bombin up dey towelhead bruddas...dey might go strike innocent people somewhere in a cowardly act.

Go take on the USAF you isis plebs.

Inb4 muslims posts pics of dead isis sayin oh goaar look how dey bomb up akram and ikbal...dem was good boys enno

[Spitfir3]

from what im seeing majority the muslims are disgusted by ISIS but they're the ones victimizing others so how could they not be?

we'll see how they really feel when Obamz start making isis bodies float...i personally can't wait to see it

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

from what im seeing majority the muslims are disgusted by ISIS but they're the ones victimizing others so how could they not be?

true but the reaction to ISIS is not anywhere near what there was to boycott Israel or some cartoonist drawing a picture of Muhammad.
I'd think the reaction to ISIS should be worse since they are grossly misrepresenting Islam and referring to themselves as the Islamic State and claim they are setting up a Caliphate in this war like and barbaric manner. Why no outcry from this "majority of muslims"?

Russia Today (RT news) is not biased to the west and America and UK as BBC or CNN can often be.
RT reports that "ISIS themselves claim to have executed 1,700 Shia soldiers in Tikrit in Iraq and Iraq’s human rights minister, Mohamed Shia Sudani, announced on June 22 that 175 air force recruits had been executed by ISIS, also in Tikrit. Some of them were thrown into the Tigris River while others were buried in mass graves."

The majority of muslims in T&T are Sunni. ISIS claims to be Sunni. Hardline Sunni muslims do not think of Shia as muslims. Hosay is originally a Shia festival.

[mamoo_pagal]

[Who need enemy]

Obama offers resolve and strategy - within limits

President Obama outlined a four-step plan on combating the threat of the Islamic State. Here are the highlights from his speech. (Nicki DeMarco and Ashleigh Joplin/The Washington Post)
By Dan Balz September 11 at 7:20 PM Follow @danbalz
During his time on the national stage, President Obama has spoken against war and in favor of war, but rarely has he faced as complex a challenge as he did Wednesday night in putting the country on a new and risky path to intensified conflict in the Middle East.

This was not a moment in which Obama’s principal task was to rally a reluctant country behind some kind of military action against Islamic State terrorists. Fresh opinion polls this week showed both universal public alarm over the threat posed by the militants and a sharp spike in support for precisely what the president outlined: continued U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and an expansion of those strikes into Syria.

But if the public had reached a conclusion that military action is needed, those same polls also revealed the depth of the doubts many Americans have about the commander in chief and his leadership. At a time of chaos and violence in the Middle East and turbulence in other parts of the world, the president’s to-do list Wednesday night certainly included putting those doubts to rest as much as possible.

It was just two weeks ago that Obama uttered the lines, “We don’t have a strategy yet” to deal with the Islamic State, just as Americans were recoiling over the gruesome Islamic State video showing the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Days later came another video of a second American journalist, Steven Sotloff, being executed in the same horrific way.

The president used a rare prime-time speech to try to reassure his critics and doubters that neither he nor his advisers underestimate the threat posed by the Islamic State and that they have an answer. He outlined a four-part strategy and said, “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter­terrorism strategy.”

[janfar]

ISIS is the rebels the US was arming to fight against the Syrian Gov. There is a reason why Russia doesnt get involved directly in conflicts like this anymore.

Libya is going to be the next big ISIS stronghold. That would not have happened under Gadaffi.

But offcourse everything I am saying is mere speculation because because if it were true CNN and BBC would have already announced it.

If you ask the guys in Saudi what they think about ISIS, most support the idea but not the method. If ISIS comes out on top of this KSA will be a big part of it.

[megadoc1]

from what im seeing majority the muslims are disgusted by ISIS but they're the ones victimizing others so how could they not be?

true but the reaction to ISIS is not anywhere near what there was to boycott Israel or some cartoonist drawing a picture of Muhammad.
I'd think the reaction to ISIS should be worse since they are grossly misrepresenting Islam and referring to themselves as the Islamic State and claim they are setting up a Caliphate in this war like and barbaric manner. Why no outcry from this "majority of muslims"?

Russia Today (RT news) is not biased to the west and America and UK as BBC or CNN can often be.
RT reports that "ISIS themselves claim to have executed 1,700 Shia soldiers in Tikrit in Iraq and Iraq’s human rights minister, Mohamed Shia Sudani, announced on June 22 that 175 air force recruits had been executed by ISIS, also in Tikrit. Some of them were thrown into the Tigris River while others were buried in mass graves."

The majority of muslims in T&T are Sunni. ISIS claims to be Sunni. Hardline Sunni muslims do not think of Shia as muslims. Hosay is originally a Shia festival.

I think the none existing reaction to ISIS from the Muslim community will only come to an end when they realize it affects the community's welfare negatively. until then they would be silently cheering along

[Who need enemy]

US to impose new sanctions on Russia

WASHINGTON -- The United States will impose a new round of sanctions on Russia on Friday, joining the European Union in ramping up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Russian presence in Ukraine.
President Obama said the broadened sanctions will target Russia's financial, energy, and defense sectors.
"These measures will increase Russia's political isolation as well as the economic costs to Russia, especially in areas of importance to President Putin and those close to him," Obama said in a statement released by the White House Press Office. "As I said last week, if Russia fully implements its commitments, these sanctions can be rolled back. If, instead, Russia continues its aggressive actions and violations of international law, the costs will continue to rise."
Details will be announced Friday. White House Press Secretary said giving specific targets before the sanctions are implemented would only serve to allow those targets to "escape this dragnet."

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

^ rebuilding the Russian empire is far more important to Putin than the sanctions that Obama is imposing. To vladimir its a small price to pay to reclaim Ukraine.

It is clear that Putin is playing chess because he knows Obama and Cameron can only play marbles.

[ModMania]

All wars start with dem sanctions first eh....russia and america preparing for a war, and that is the reason no one is commiting themselves 100% to stabilizing the middle east.

[Clean Whistle]

Obama, at war, establishes himself as America’s most reluctant warrior

A lot of things about the presidency seem to have befuddled Barack Obama since he got the job six years ago. He arrived at the White House thinking he could change the way Washington worked, despite all the money, ego and deeply entrenched vested interests that made it what it is, and are quite happy to keep it that way. He lost that battle some time ago.

Now the world’s most reluctant warrior finds himself waging war, a “war president” just like the man he replaced, George W. Bush. Mr. Obama’s war is a different sort than Mr. Bush’s. Don’t expect to catch him in a flak jacket pronouncing victory from the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. But he’s a war president just the same.

He announced his war in a speech Wednesday night. He would probably have preferred to be doing just about anything else – maybe even spending time with Republicans, which he hates to do. But he had little choice. Since golfing his way through August and declaring he had “no strategy” for countering the terrorist threat represented by ISIS/ISIL, he has been under unrelenting pressure to make a show of U.S. power in the deserts of Iraq and Iran. Even war-weary American voters were starting to get unnerved by the notion the U.S. could think of nothing useful to do to halt the advances of forces bold and brutal enough to post videos of helpless western hostages being beheaded.

ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.
So Mr. Obama acted. He said the U.S. will lead “a broad coalition of partners” in a mission to “degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.” The U.S. has already conducted 150 airstrikes in Iraq. There will be more, and they will include targets in Syria, despite the objections of the Syrian government. The Pentagon will provide “training, intelligence and equipment,” to local ground forces and send more “advisers” to help them out. It will send weapons to opposition forces in Syria, a move Mr. Obama was previously loath to do. And Washington will “redouble our efforts to cut off [ISIL] funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into – and out of – the Middle East.”

ven in revealing his strategy, Mr. Obama couldn’t hide his reluctance. The U.S. does not go into this war with banners waving and marching bands. “We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he emphasized, pledging there will be no U.S. combat troops. And they will be there to help, not to fight someone else’s battle. “This is not our fight alone,” he said. “American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region.”

Just to be sure the message was clear, he repeated it: “I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.” Instead Washington will limit itself to the relative safety of air power “and our support for partner forces on the ground.”

“It is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.”

He didn’t specify who the “partners” would be or what they would be up to, but Saudi Arabia has agreed to host training camps for Syrian rebels, Kurdish fighters will play a key role in ground fighting, as will Iraqi forces under the new U.S.-approved government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed this week that Canadian special forces are already in Iraq, though whether as formal members of a coalition is not clear.

“This is American leadership at its best,” Mr. Obama maintained. “We stand with people who fight for their own freedom; and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.”

Historians will decide some day whether Mr. Obama’s new approach to America’s role in the world represents a turning point in U.S. thinking, or is just a reflection of his overwhelming personal aversion to playing international policeman with U.S. lives. Much will depend on his successors, and whether they continue his policy of insisting others help themselves before expecting Washington to come to their rescue. They will also assess this question: if Mr. Obama had not been so reluctant, and had acted earlier, would the situation have come to this? Could ISIS/ISIL have gotten this far if not for the vacuum left by America’s absence? And can a country win a war when its commander-in-chief is so obviously ambivalent?

Those are questions for later. For now Mr. Obama is left to wonder how, with two years still left in his mandate, he has come to the one point he wanted so much to avoid. A wartime president who wanted nothing more than to escape war.

National Post

[Arcmanov]

Username Arcmanov

What are you insinuating???
Support for ISIS? JIHAD? RADICAL EXTREMISM?

Slow down...yuh wukkin hard dey bai.

So...where user arcmanov? gone to circumcise e piggy and join isis?

[janfar]

IS group claims beheading of UK aid worker

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 78444.html

[RASC]

Username Arcmanov

What are you insinuating???
Support for ISIS? JIHAD? RADICAL EXTREMISM?

Slow down...yuh wukkin hard dey bai.

So...where user arcmanov? gone to circumcise e piggy and join isis?

So who's side are you on then?
The Western led Allies or ISIS??

[Ted_v2]

Pew pew.

kill them all, send down the marines, send nukes , send army, send ted_v2 a m16 with 400 rounds.

[Arcmanov]

'...who' s side'?

I take no 'side' in this.

Amerikkka is wholly and solely responsible for this particular monster. A direct result of perpetrating a bogus war in Iraq.

Classic case of 'blowback'...like the mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden/Al Quaeda.

They are now reaping the whirlwind, so to speak, for their actions, so they will feel it now.


They didn't listen to the rest of the world when they decided to wage war in Iraq, but now expects 'western allies' to help fight ISIS?


Let them fight up with that.

So Amerikka now wants to fling JDAMs from afar?
Well ISIS flinging heads, and posting it online.
Guess which one has greater propaganda impact...regardless of intent.

Mark my words...another 9/11-like sorting out is coming for one of these 'western-led allies'.
I hope they ready. The barbarians are again at the gate.

[pioneer]

Is that what dem imam sayin in the mosques? Blame americuh for isis?

Blame americuh that moslems finally showing the true colors of islam?

K then

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

'...who' s side'?

I take no 'side' in this.

Amerikkka is wholly and solely responsible for this particular monster. A direct result of perpetrating a bogus war in Iraq.

Classic case of 'blowback'...like the mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden/Al Quaeda.

They are now reaping the whirlwind, so to speak, for their actions, so they will feel it now.


They didn't listen to the rest of the world when they decided to wage war in Iraq, but now expects 'western allies' to help fight ISIS?


Let them fight up with that.

So Amerikka now wants to fling JDAMs from afar?
Well ISIS flinging heads, and posting it online.
Guess which one has greater propaganda impact...regardless of intent.

Mark my words...another 9/11-like sorting out is coming for one of these 'western-led allies'.
I hope they ready. The barbarians are again at the gate.

two wrongs don't make a right.

[Soul Collector]

'...who' s side'?

I take no 'side' in this.

Amerikkka is wholly and solely responsible for this particular monster. A direct result of perpetrating a bogus war in Iraq.

Classic case of 'blowback'...like the mujahideen and Osama Bin Laden/Al Quaeda.

They are now reaping the whirlwind, so to speak, for their actions, so they will feel it now.


They didn't listen to the rest of the world when they decided to wage war in Iraq, but now expects 'western allies' to help fight ISIS?


Let them fight up with that.

So Amerikka now wants to fling JDAMs from afar?
Well ISIS flinging heads, and posting it online.
Guess which one has greater propaganda impact...regardless of intent.

Mark my words...another 9/11-like sorting out is coming for one of these 'western-led allies'.
I hope they ready. The barbarians are again at the gate.

two wrongs don't make a right.

It doesn't but you reap what you sow. By warring against them, now with these allied countries, that's not going to solve anything. It will make it worse, and like the dude above said, another 9/11 esk incident could very well take place sooner rather than later. They need to find the proper approach to clean this mess up, not use the same approach that caused this entire situation in the first place.

Is that what dem imam sayin in the mosques? Blame americuh for isis?

Blame americuh that moslems finally showing the true colors of islam?

K then

Pios have a look at that vid. I just watched this actually, then I saw your comment.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=40 ... =2&theater