Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

[-SINAN-]

ISIS was there well before the execution and was a threat well before that. Wasn't it USA supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels to fight Assad? And now the same weapons end up with ISIS. ISIS was in the making long time ago, because of how idiotically American played it's role in the region, when none was needed. So please, wake up. This is as much of American mess as anything else.

I heard this....American weapons ended in ISIS hands....can you confirm ?

I mean, i have yet to see a TOW in the hands of ISIS...etc.

 

[gau8av]

it could well be that they use this "going against ISIS" thing to go into Syria, keep a close eye on that.. their "pundits" are already calling for the need to go into Syria as well.. and it turns out, they've already done a special operation inside Syria looking for this Foley guy : Foley rescue attempt in Syria failed, officials say

 

[Echo_419]

Obama, now please bomb these insects to hell and be done with it. Thank you.

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS - Yahoo Finance

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

The release Tuesday of a shocking video showing the brutal beheading of American journalist James Foley by a representative of the Islamic State may wind up backfiring on the Islamic fundamentalist movement that has taken over much of Iraq in recent months.

The U.S. has undertaken limited bombing of IS targets in Iraq, which has helped the Iraqi Army and the fighters from the country’s autonomous Kurdish region, dislodge IS troops from some areas they had taken over, including the critically important Mosul Dam.

Foley, a talented young journalist who had spent years in conflict zones reporting on the human toll of war, was killed by a single member of IS, who appears on the video warning the U.S., in British-accented English, to stop attacking its troops.

“Obama authorized military operations against the Islamic State effectively placing America upon a slippery slope towards a new war against Muslims,” he said. The man, whose face was covered, also threatened to execute another American journalist, Steven Joel Sotloff, if the U.S. involvement in Iraq continues.

However, judging from the public outcry over Foley’s murder, it seems possible that support for President Obama’s limited efforts to impede the progress of IS, rather than being cooled, may be strengthened going forward.

The decision to recommit even limited American military assets to Iraq was criticized by politicians on the left and right. But an outpouring of disgust in both the traditional media and on social media Wednesday left little doubt that there is now a powerful strain of public opinion in favor of taking further action to rein in – and severely punish – the Islamic State.

To be sure, some warn that further U.S. engagement might be exactly what ISIS wants. But the idea that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is sitting in the desert playing three-dimensional chess with the U.S. doesn’t hold much water.

Related: Why Obama’s Mideast Policy Won’t Stop Genocide

What ISIS is trying to do, by all accounts, is establish an actual functioning Islamic state or Caliphate in the Middle East. It may be different from its neighbors in that its rulers intend to impose a centuries-old legal system designed to oppress millions of people. But it will not be different in its need for centralized institutions of government, transportation and energy infrastructure, and a more or less public set of leaders.

All these things are necessary for a functioning state. They are all, also, potential military targets if the U.S. were to decide to intervene against the establishment or the continued existence of the Islamic State.

The U.S. military has struggled with certain kinds of adversaries over the years. In living memory, the Viet Cong and Al Qaeda, for example, have been challenging foes particularly because they were less concerned about holding territory than they were with damaging American troops.

For the U.S. military, fighting established governments has been a very different story. Ask Saddam Hussein, or Mullah Omar. That doesn’t bode well for the future of ISIS.

These Mofos won't last long now

 

[IR1907]

"The decision to recommit even limited American military assets to Iraq was criticized by politicians on the left and right. But an outpouring of disgust in both the traditional media and on social media Wednesday left little doubt that there is now a powerful strain of public opinion in favor of taking further action to rein in – and severely punish – the Islamic State."

Source: Reporter’s Execution Could Unleash U.S. Against ISIS

It should not be that hard, the key is an inclusive govt. created by Abadi where Sunni's can get representation, which should then help turn Sunni tribes against IS. Then a combined national Iraqi Army can work as boots on the ground while the US Air Force can pound them from above. I have a feeling it will done in the next few months. The goal should be to push them out of Iraq, so they can go after Assad in Syria and when the two exhaust each other, a moderate FSA rebel coalition should then take over eliminating both.

Only problem and obstacle I see is Obama's decisiveness and willingness to act in a timely manner. He has done poorly so far and I am not sure if he will do any better in the future.

What you say is somewhat correct but you are making a grave mistake here, and that is by thinking that Syrian army will get defeated.

Syrian army is now for almost 4 years fighting the most savage and most criminal terrorists on earth and yet they are still standing strong. + the army has support of the general population.

Add also Irans,Russia and Hezbollahs support to that ^^ If there are no Nato airstrikes then i dont see Syrian government falling.

 

[kalu_miah]

What you say is somewhat correct but you are making a grave mistake here, and that is by thinking that Syrian army will get defeated.

Syrian army is now for almost 4 years fighting the most savage and most criminal terrorists on earth and yet they are still standing strong. + the army has support of the general population.

Add also Irans,Russia and Hezbollahs support to that ^^ If there are no Nato airstrikes then i dont see Syrian government falling.

Terrorists will not be able to beat Assad, while he gets support from many states like Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Russia. Only when Obama fully commits to one side to fully arm the "moderate" opposition, Assad will capitulate, but I doubt Obama will do that. But if Clinton is elected or any Republican is elected, only then Assad will become toast, not before that.

If Syria is not stable, Iraq will not become stable. Assad will never rule all of Syria again, that is just not going to happen. So either Assad has to go or Iraq breaks and Sunni's in Syria and Iraq joins in a single state under a moderate govt. (not IS extremists) and Assad is left with Latakia.

 

[IR1907]

Terrorists will not be able to beat Assad, while he gets support from many states like Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Russia. Only when Obama fully commits to one side to fully arm the "moderate" opposition, Assad will capitulate, but I doubt Obama will do that. But if Clinton is elected or any Republican is elected, only then Assad will become toast, not before that.

If Syria is not stable, Iraq will not become stable. Assad will never rule all of Syria again, that is just not going to happen. So either Assad has to go or Iraq breaks and Sunni's in Syria and Iraq joins in a single state under a moderate govt. (not IS extremists) and Assad is left with Latakia.

I dnt know if Syria will be fully under Syrian government control again but i think Assads goal is to regain every inch he lost to the terrorists.

He will keep on fighting for that goal, even if it takes many years.

US arms flow will not change the fate of Syrian government.

 

[sahaliyan]

Terrorists will not be able to beat Assad, while he gets support from many states like Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Russia. Only when Obama fully commits to one side to fully arm the "moderate" opposition, Assad will capitulate, but I doubt Obama will do that. But if Clinton is elected or any Republican is elected, only then Assad will become toast, not before that.

If Syria is not stable, Iraq will not become stable. Assad will never rule all of Syria again, that is just not going to happen. So either Assad has to go or Iraq breaks and Sunni's in Syria and Iraq joins in a single state under a moderate govt. (not IS extremists) and Assad is left with Latakia.

I'm afraid the moderate rebels can't control Syria even with the west help,look at Libya,you will know what I mean here

 

[dray]

Exactly. There were no active terrorist groups in Iraq before 2003, and no WMD's either, yet America was eager to invade.

Now that there are actually huge terrorist problems in Iraq, America doesn't want to do anything except sit back and missile a few targets without getting their hands dirty.

This is an excellent opportunity for China to prove itself at least as a world power, bomb ISIS.

 

[Cheetah786]

"Oldman1, post: 6082506, member: 39728"]Don't you mean Syria had a role in creating the ISIS when Assad created the civil war

Yes American and British trainers were walking by, and they saw what was happening in Syria, so they decided to help train and arm innocent terrorist arriving from all over the world.

It be like blaming the U.S. for Iraq's army failures to abandoned their weapons and falling into ISIS's hands.

Yes these terrorist attack Iraqi Army positions with sand and arrows while ridding the donkeys. Give me a break they attacked with weapons supplied to them by the west.

And the American forces left Iraq a few years and shouldn't Islamic fighters be heading home as well since then at the time?

Some American forces might have left most are still their. Most of these so called Islamic fighter are being trained by west and financed by house of Saud. question is wtf are you training them for.

Assad started the rebellion when Syrians wanted change and shooting protestors and even have many Syrian military units joined the FSA side. And along with many Jihadists flocking to Syria. And thanks to Hezbollah and Iran's involvement it makes the Sunnis feel like they are fighting the Shiites instead of just Assad

Please spare us the BS fed to Fox and CNN Tumble weed for a brain watcher. All of sudden you are speaking on behalf of Sunni just like House of Saud. what a crock of sH_T.

Black Americans want change should the Russian send in trainers to train blacks form Africa to liberate their suppressed brothers.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This is an excellent opportunity for China to prove itself at least as a world power, bomb ISIS.

That's not going to happen.

Our policy is non-interference. Especially with matters that have nothing to do with us.

America is the global policeman, if even they don't want to do it, no one else will.

 

[IR1907]

That's not going to happen.

Our policy is non-interference. Especially with matters that have nothing to do with us.

America is the global policeman, if even they don't want to do it, no one else will.

Just 200 years ago if there were groups like ISIS popping up in the world no one would care really.

Nowadays it is breaking news when a Indian villager aunty is getting raped.

 

[kalu_miah]

I dnt know if Syria will be fully under Syrian government control again but i think Assads goal is to regain every inch he lost to the terrorists.

He will keep on fighting for that goal, even if it takes many years.

US arms flow will not change the fate of Syrian government.

The key factor here is Obama. In 2008 if Clinton was elected instead of Obama, we would see a different world, in my opinion. Assads survival, rise of IS, I believe all happened due to Obama and his inaction. When Clinton comes to power in 2016 or there is a Republican, the tide will turn. Till then the stalemate will continue. Iraq may get stabilized partially in the meantime and IS may be pushed out of Iraq, thanks to this grisly beheading of a innocent good human being.

I'm afraid the moderate rebels can't control Syria even with the west help,look at Libya,you will know what I mean here

I believe the situations in Libya and Syria are not the same. They both speak Arabic, but these two countries have completely different people, demographics and geopolitics.

 

[sahaliyan]

The key factor here is Obama. In 2008 if Clinton was elected instead of Obama, we would see a different world, in my opinion. Assads survival, rise of IS, I believe all happened due to Obama and his inaction. When Clinton comes to power in 2016 or there is a Rublican, the tides will turn. Till then the stalemate will continue. Iraq may get stabilized partially in the meantime and IS may be pushed out of Iraq, thanks to this grisly beheading of a innocent good human being.



I believe the situations in Libya and Syria are not the same. They both speak Arabic, but these two countries have completely different people, demographics and geopolitics.

The Libya is tribal society,while the mainstream Syrians aren't
But Syria has too many religious sects that Libya doesn't,so the situation of post-Assad Syria is more dangerous than post-Gaddafi Libya

 

[Oldman1]

Yes American and British trainers were walking by, and they saw what was happening in Syria, so they decided to help train and arm innocent terrorist arriving from all over the world.



Yes these terrorist attack Iraqi Army positions with sand and arrows while ridding the donkeys. Give me a break they attacked with weapons supplied to them by the west.



Some American forces might have left most are still their. Most of these so called Islamic fighter are being trained by west and financed by house of Saud. question is wtf are you training them for.




Please spare us the BS fed to Fox and CNN Tumble weed for a brain watcher. All of sudden you are speaking on behalf of Sunni just like House of Saud. what a crock of sH_T.

Black Americans want change should the Russian send in trainers to train blacks form Africa to liberate their suppressed brothers.

No they trained and worked with the FSA. If they were training the ISIS they be dead. After all they are Americans and British correct? And as people pointed out the Iraqi military abandoned their weapons allowing it to fall into enemy hands. I guess the U.S. told the Iraqi military to do that eh? And the Russians have done this before during the Cold War days buddy. This is nothing new for the Russians. They do the same thing in Ukraine currently, they did it in South America and Asia and all other parts of the world during the Cold War. Nothing new.

1) We were treaty-bound at that time too, and ignored the treaty. I suppose you could argue that if you ignore it once, it's ok to ignore it again, but we were then and still are treaty-bound to stop genocide (as are all other UN members). If you don't like the treaty, you should terminate the treaty, not ignore it, IMHO. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 78/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf

2) As far as drowning anyone in blood, it is a silly threat - Arabs are famous for wild exaggeration along these lines (remember Baghdad Bob? (Baghdad Bob Quotes - Iraqi Information Minister Quotes Killing a reporter is no more than other militant groups have done before (Daniel Pearl, and others). The fact that the world media is outraged by a journalist getting killed, but was considerably less interested by the potential massacre of 50,000 non-Europeans is kind of indicative. This or some other militant group will kill more reporters in the future. Preventing a single killing is probably impossible, but we can do something about wiping out a whole people.

3) If you don't like the intervention, make up a sign and go protest somewhere. I will not be joining you, and will exercise my voting franchise accordingly.

Did anybody stop the genocide in Cambodia as well? And this was long before Rwanda and nobody stopped that so this is not the first buddy.

 

[Cheetah786]

No they trained and worked with the FSA. If they were training the ISIS they be dead. After all they are Americans and British correct? And as people pointed out the Iraqi military abandoned their weapons allowing it to fall into enemy hands. I guess the U.S. told the Iraqi military to do that eh? And the Russians have done this before during the Cold War days buddy. This is nothing new for the Russians. They do the same thing in Ukraine currently, they did it in South America and Asia and all other parts of the world during the Cold War. Nothing new.

Sure FSA good Terrorist ISIS bad terrorist Understood. Spin it all you like, at the end of the day you guys trained these monsters.

Iraqi military abandoned their post because they were attacked by highly trained Terrorist with more superior weapons then they had, where did the terrorist acquire those weapons and training when they crossed into Iraq from Syria?