US an Arab allies begin airstrikes in Syria

[libertad]

View attachment 92518
Saturday, September 27, 2014
US airstrike kills Mavi Marmara "activist" in Syria

View attachment 92519
The World Bulletin (Turkey) writes:

A Turkish aid worker who survived the Mavi Marmara incident in 2010 has been killed in a US-led air strike targeting ISIL positions in the Syrian city of Idlib, Turkish media has revealed.

40-year-old Yakup Bulent Alniak was in Syria to carry out aid work ahead of the Islamic Eid al-Adha feast, organizing the distribution of meat of Syria's needy.

Alniak, who in 2010 escaped unharmed when Israeli commandos raided IHH Humanitarian Relief's Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara aid flotilla, in which ten Turkish citizens were killed after being hit by live ammunition, had been in Syria for two months.

He leaves behind his wife and two children.​

Well, maybe he wasn't there exactly "to carry out aid work."

Other Turkish media say that he went to Syria to fight with the Syrian al-Qaeda offshoot the al-Nusra Front.

It seems that the supposedly peaceful IHH that sailed the Mavi Marmara is sending mujahadin to Syria to join the Sunni terror groups there.

Will they protest the US for killing their "aid worker"?

(h/t Rotter via Yenta Press)

I'm not a fan of the intervention, but i'll not shed a tear for these terrorists.

 

[Superboy]

especially after Assad gassed people back in the day

no proof Assad ordered the gas attack

 

[Mosamania]

Saudi special forces in an "undisclosed location" with unit patch removed:
10610756_758493770878165_5610671994810525416_n - casimages - casimages.com

 

[1000]

Top Republican calls for US ground war amid fresh strikes on Isis | World news | theguardian.com

The Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, on Sunday ramped up the political rhetoric over Syria and Iraq by saying American forces will need to be put on the ground in the battle against the Islamic State (Isis).

 

[Mosamania]

Top Republican calls for US ground war amid fresh strikes on Isis | World news | theguardian.com

The Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, on Sunday ramped up the political rhetoric over Syria and Iraq by saying American forces will need to be put on the ground in the battle against the Islamic State (Isis).

There are already "special boots" on the ground.

 

[1000]

Saudi special forces in an "undisclosed location" with unit patch removed:
10610756_758493770878165_5610671994810525416_n - casimages - casimages.com

that's an old pic of americans

see this link Google

 

[Mosamania]

that's an old pic of americans

see this link Google

This is why Twitter is not a reliable source. Just so that everyone knows, putting it out there.

 

[Ceylal]

Who do you see in the Republican side that has the name recognition and high profile Hilary has? I think she has a very good chance of becoming the next President. Benghazi is not such a big deal in the US, as far as I can tell. Not enough to destroy her chance.

Benghazi is a big deal...and I think the next will be him...Just like his dad he has gentle manners...

 

[kalu_miah]

Benghazi is a big deal...and I think the next will be him...Just like his dad he has gentle manners...
View attachment 95226

If he runs, he may have a chance. He has one of the highest profiles, with two former Presidents in his immediate family. But he has problems with the conservative base on some issues:
Jeb Bush's struggle to win over conservatives - Chicago Tribune
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/politics/jeb-bush-returns-to-fray-and-finds-going-rough.html

 

[Ceylal]

If he runs, he may have a chance. He has one of the highest profiles, with two former Presidents in his immediate family. But he has problems with the conservative base on some issues:

The conservatives, may create a distraction in the primaries but they will rally with the main republicain stream during the election. Most the time the choice of the vice-president will alleviate any dissention within the party. From the hopefuls that are inclined or mau run, Jeb Bush is only horse ,with enough baggage and support from both isles, that make it to the end.

 

[Bubblegum Crisis]

Unlike in August 2013, the chamber of Senate is now open to an intervention in Syria.

Obama admits ISIS threat was misjudged as U.S. splits emerge

By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
September 29, 2014 -- Updated 0034 GMT (0834 HKT)

…

The President warned the campaign probably won't conclude any time soon.

"There is a cancer that has grown for too long that suggests that it is acceptable to kill innocent people who worship a different God.

"And that kind of extremism, unfortunately, means that we're going to see for some time the possibility that in a whole bunch of different countries, radical groups may spring up -- particularly in countries that are still relatively fragile, where you had sectarian tensions, where you don't have a strong state security apparatus.

"And that's why what we have to do is, rather than play whack-a-mole and send U.S. troops wherever this occurs, we have to build strong partnerships," Obama told "60 Minutes."

Aides to Obama have been careful to underscore that the military operation in the Middle East won't resemble the wars of the past decade, which left many Americans skeptical of intervention abroad.

"We're doing this in a very different way than in the past," Tony Blinken, a deputy national security adviser, said on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley.

"We're not sending in hundreds of thousands of American troops," Blinken continued. "We're not spending trillions of American dollars. What we are doing is empowering local actors with some of the huge assets we can bring to this, like our airpower, intelligence, training and equipping, advising and assisting."

The "no boots on the ground" mantra was questioned Sunday by House Speaker John Boehner, who said if local forces aren't trained to battle ISIS quickly enough, U.S. troops would be required.

"Maybe we can get enough of these forces trained and get 'em on the battlefield. But somebody's boots have to be there," the Republican leader said on ABC's "This Week."

Boehner added later that if Obama advanced a new resolution authorizing the military action in Syria, he would be willing to call lawmakers back from the campaign trail to vote on it.

Obama claims he doesn't need Congress' permission for the air campaign under way in Iraq and Syria, citing the 2001 authorization to go after al Qaeda. He has said he would "welcome" Congress showing its support for the mission.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said Sunday an authorization vote would allow lawmakers -- and by turn the American public -- to hear more about long-term plans in Syria.

"I think the reason that we need to have the debate is so that we can get a better explanation as to what the endgame is in Syria," Murphy, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said on "State of the Union."

"In the end, that's the check on a war without end: a Congress speaking for the American people who can put an end date on an authorization for military force or put a limitation, so that you can't use ground troops," he said.

Obama admits ISIS misjudged as splits emerge - CNN.com

 

[Broccoli]

no proof Assad ordered the gas attack

So you are saying that Assad doesn't know what his army is doing?

 

[Hurter]

 

[Al Bhatti]

October 6, 2014

Arab Gulf states on the right side of the fight
Joining the US-led coalition against Daesh is a huge decision and these six nations wonder if Washington really appreciates the risks they have taken upon themselves

The Six Arab Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the UAE are pleasantly surprised to see the US take the lead role in the fight to ‘degrade and defeat’ Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Many are surely rejoiced to see a more determined US President Barack Obama. When the Arab Gulf states see the US step in to avert regional disorder that is not only encouraging but it is music to their ears. A decisive superpower is always needed here and there and nearly everywhere in this typically Hobbesian international system.

But as pleased as the Arab Gulf states are right now, they are also sceptical about Obama’s new resolve and America’s sudden change of attitude. At this initial stage, most Gulf capitals feel they are completely in the dark as to what exactly the US is up to and wants to accomplish and what Washington’s true motives are when it comes to fighting an extended war against Daesh. In other words, what are the strategic imperatives of the Obama war? They privately wonder whether there is some deep thinking in Washington or this is simply about the president’s own legacy. Others cannot help but ask if this is another imperial war that will eventually end up in disaster — similar to the grand Iraq invasion in 2003.

Their concerns are legitimate and are part of the lingering doubt about the strength and durability of the American commitments to fight the fight to the very end. Basically, the Arab Gulf states do not believe that the innately pacifist Obama has the energy and the stomach to go through with an extended war. Just a year ago, Obama had said it loud and clear: “I have spent four-and-a-half years to end wars, not to start them.” But now he seems full of energy to promote his own open-ended war in Iraq and Syria to dismantle “this network of death”. Astonishingly, he sounds these days as warlike as George W. Bush ever was. This born-again interventionist and war-enthusiast Obama is too good to be true. They hope he keeps his words, does not make a jolting U-turn and that America means business and does not make an abrupt exit.

Frankly, the Arab Gulf states seriously fear entrapment and abandonment and being left alone to deal with the unknown. There is no guarantee that this will not happen again. The question of the hour is whether this war on Daesh is a reactive response to the beheading of two Americans by a murderous group or it is another imperial war or even part of a well-thought out strategy to re-engage the region and prevent further chaos. The videotapes showing the horrific beheadings of several western journalists and aid workers by the terrorist Daesh movement are repulsive and America has every right to go after the killers and bring them to justice. But is that all there is to this huge global mobilisation of nearly 50 states’ resources, including six Arab States, against Daesh?


One thing is certain, America is far from being frank about its true intentions. No one knows what triggered this sudden change in US policy and what is behind the American posture in taking to the volatile Middle East politics? Furthermore, there is the constant fear that every time the US touches the Middle East it makes things worse and instead of solving regional problems it invariably creates bigger ones. History also shows that every time Washington tries to destroy a monster it unintentionally creates a bigger monster. The Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, has lately suggested a hands-off policy of “do no more harm”.

Unfortunately, America spends billions of dollars every year on intelligence, think tanks and legions of Middle East experts, but fails to understand the real dynamics of the Middle East. It insists on making blunders of historical proportions and leaves the place in a bigger miss. This time around, it may be empowering extremist Iran-backed Shiite militants who are as murderous as Daesh. Singling out one terrorist group while empowering another is not a smart policy. There is also the deep concern about Iran, which has a proven record of taking advantage of America’s mistakes. It could be once again the net beneficiary of this campaign against Daesh. This is going to be a nightmare scenario for the Arab Gulf states and feeds into the conspiratorial thinking that America and Iran are in this together.

Whatever the concerns about the final outcome and the unintended consequences, the Arab Gulf states are committed to roll back Daesh once and for all. Their commitment is solid and irreversible. They are sending the best of their sons and daughters to be at the forefront of the ongoing air strikes against Daesh. They seized the moment as full partners flexing their soft and hard powers in full display for all to see.

This is a big decision for the usually cautious Arab Gulf states. They wonder if the US really appreciates the huge risks they are taking upon themselves, especially for Saudi Arabia, which has put all of its military, political and moral weight behind the US-led campaign.

The risk taken by Saudi Arabia is formidable considering the difficult domestic challenges involved for the kingdom. Riyadh, in particular, deserves special recognition for its public involvement in this global mobilisation against Daesh. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf partners are rightly asking what they get in return for being on the right side of the fight so publicly. Certainly not another unkind and ungrateful statement by the often misspoken US Vice-President Joe Biden. Hopefully, Washington and the other world capitals have at least one good answer to deliver to the various Gulf capitals.

Dr Abdulkhaleq Abdulla is professor of Political Science. You can follow him on Twitter at Abdulkhaleq Abdulla (@Abdulkhaleq_UAE) | Twitter

Arab Gulf states on the right side of the fight | GulfNews.com

 

[Superboy]

So you are saying that Assad doesn't know what his army is doing?

He's only a public face of oligarchs. He does not control the army.