Obama airstrikes Syria

[drbrumley]

US War on Syria, Day Two: Civilian Casualties, New Scarier Group Hit, Israel Joins

Daniel McAdams

In an attack on Syria that the Obama administration promises will be “ongoing,” the first day of US bombs has reportedly left eight civilians dead including three children. Some 33 fighters were reportedly killed, producing a typical but troubling civilian-to-fighter kill ratio. US airstrikes struck inside the city of Raqqa, including residential buildings claimed to be occupied by ISIS. The group has already re-located its heavy weaponry out of the area, however.

The US has also, according to press reports, attacked the newly discovered (by the media at least) “Khorasan” group, touted as even scarier than ISIS and far more terrifying than the relatively tame al-Qaeda. The Pentagon claimed in a statement that this latter group was plotting an “imminent attack… against the United States and western interests.”

Meanwhile, Israel shot down a Syrian government fighter jet that, perhaps accidentally, veered into Golan Heights airspace. Golan is Israeli-occupied Syrian territory. When hit, the Syrian jet was reportedly bombing Quneitra, rebel-held territory carved out of Syria’s border area with Israel by the Israeli military to provide a staging position for an eventual rebel assault on Damascus.

The shoot-down of a Syrian Sukhoi fighter sends a strong cautionary signal to the Syrian government: Israel is ready to strike again.

 

[WizardofOz]

No "nation" opposes the State as an institution either. So what?

Let's establish a standard. Should the US have gotten involved in WWII?

You trust the US government to fix a problem it created? I don't.

Air strikes are not going to fix the ISIS problem. These strategic strikes are aimed at slowing them down at best.

You think ISIS is going to invade the US?

Of course not. They would love to carry out a terror attack within our borders, however. That much is obvious.

The problem is that the neocons say this every time. And unfortunately, they control more politics than they do. Don't give them an inch or they'll take a mile. As Ron Paul has said, stand for bedrock principles.

What is Ron Paul saying? Leave the region and let the Syrians and Iranians take care of ISIS. Well, until that happens dropping a few bombs on their known strongholds isn't the worst idea in the world...

Ron Paul on ISIS

I also oppose arming Syrians, but I also oppose strategic air strikes, or any other kind.

If we drop a bomb on ISIS targets in Raqqa, what the downside? Especially with an actual coalition of Muslim nations taking part..."All the foreign partners participating in the strikes with the United States are Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar."

In lieu of action taken by nations in the region capable...

 

[drbrumley]

If we drop a bomb on ISIS targets in Raqqa, what the downside?

US airstrikes struck inside the city of Raqqa, including residential buildings claimed to be occupied by ISIS.

From last post

 

[WizardofOz]

Obama Attacks Syria, Flouts Constitution and International Law

Daniel McAdams

The Obama Administration has initiated a bomb and land-based missile attack against Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, without a request for assistance from the Syrian government, and without a UN Security Council resolution.

This is an act of US aggression against a foreign nation and a violation of international law.

The attacks were also made with no declaration of war or authorization from the US Congress. This is an illegal act according to US law, a violation of the US Constitution.

The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Force against perpetrators of 9/11 attacks could not be legally valid for Obama’s attacks on ISIS in Syria because ISIS is not part of al-Qaeda and in fact did not exist at the time of the 2001 attacks.

Ostensibly, today’s attacks on Syria are part of the US president’s plan to “degrade and destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), however the “international coalition” participating in today’s airstrikes in Syria – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan — have all to varying degrees supported ISIS and other radical groups seeking to overthrow Syrian president Bashir al-Assad. Additionally most are despotic states every bit as authoritarian and theocratic as ISIS itself.

Even France, which enthusiastically participated in the 2011 bombing attacks on Libya, has refused to participate in the US air war against Syria.

There is no legal justification for the US government to attack Syria. A request for US bombs on its own country by US-backed opposition seeking to overthrow the Syria government is not legally sufficient to legalize US actions on Syrian territory.

On the pretext of destroying ISIS, the US is cooperating with the Gulf states which have backed ISIS, and is acting against the Syrian government which has fought ISIS for three years. US mainstream scare media will not touch this critical point, but that is the lie of US government propaganda.

I agree. These missile strikes are not legal. It seems we stopped caring about legal a long time ago...

 

[WizardofOz]

US airstrikes struck inside the city of Raqqa, including residential buildings claimed to be occupied by ISIS.

From last post

This is a tough situation to be sure. I'd wager that many more are dying by the hands of these animals than by our missiles.

They already control hundreds of square miles, large enough to start a nation.

Perhaps we should allow them to do so, so that we can immediately declare was on this new nation.

And yes. I blame the neoconservative "think tanks" for this mess. We created a huge vacuum in Iraq and have awoken a monster far more brutal than Saddam.

 

[drbrumley]

This is a tough situation to be sure. I'd wager that many more are dying by the hands of these animals than by our missiles.

They already control hundreds of square miles, large enough to start a nation.

Perhaps we should allow them to do so, so that we can immediately declare was on this new nation.

And yes. I blame the neoconservative "think tanks" for this mess. We created a huge vacuum in Iraq and have awoken a monster far more brutal than Saddam.

All true....

 

[drbrumley]

Interesting take

The Erupting U.S. Armageddon in the Middle East and Beyond


By Jack D. Douglas

September 24, 2014

Every day there are major new developments in this erupting Armageddon.

Just yesterday the Houthi Shia of Yemen allied with Iran overthrew the Sunni tyranny in the capital of Yemen and seized the major buildings, weapons, and much of the capital, even traffic control in the streets. The Shia army and party have signed a temporary agreement of transition with the remnants of the U.S. supported Sunni tyrants, but this is clearly meant to try to avoid counter attacks. Yemen is on the Southern border of Saudi Arabia. The nearly 10 million Houthi are obviously a very effective fighting force and are being compared to the super-guerrila army of Hizbollah.

The Shia armies of Moqtada al Sadr in Baghdad are now highly mobilized and fighting IS on the outskirts of Baghdad, pushing them back from Shia Baghdad.

IS has just released the Turkish diplomats they took hostage in N. Iraq. They are making peace with the Turks, not cutting off their heads, to protect their northern borders. IS has seized the Kurd areas of Syria and about 1.5 million Kurds have poured into bordering Turkey for protection, which is frightening to Turkey because of their long civil war with Kurds. All of this helps to pin down the Turks and Kurds to the North of IS.

A day ago two top police officials in Egypt were killed by a bomb near their headquarters in Cairo. The Islamist Holy Warriors allied with the vast party of the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt and beyond is getting very effective in fighting the U.S. proxy Egyptian Army tyranny that overthrew the Brotherhood’s democratic government. Even Qatar, home base for much of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, is allied with the Brotherhood for protection.

The Libyan Islamists have continued to solidify power in Libya.

The Afghan U.S. proxies have just reached an agreement for a new U.S. Puppet Regime to replace the old one being blown away by the Islamist Holy Warriors. This new government is a farce split down the middle which will keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan and all of that will help enrage the Holy Warriors more.

Saudi Arabia is now encircled by the Shia Holy Warriors and the IS Sunni Holy Warriors. They are obviously frightened, since they are the primary local enemy of all of them and the blackgold jackpot.

IS seems to be solidifying its state and making peaceful moves to protect its border with Sunni in the North and Shia to the East.

It is conceivable now that the Holy Warriors of the Sunni and Shia will ally, as they have already done in Palestine and Lebanon and Qatar and some of Syria, to keep the U.S. Satans out and to seize or reach an agreement with the Saudi Sunnis and the other dwarf Sunni oil sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf. There is plenty of oil money for all of them if they do so and the West and Asia will buy the oil.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Let's establish a standard. Should the US have gotten involved in WWII?

No.

Air strikes are not going to fix the ISIS problem. These strategic strikes are aimed at slowing them down at best.

So why do you support doing that?

Of course not. They would love to carry out a terror attack within our borders, however. That much is obvious.

I have no doubt they'd love to. Here's the question, why? Do you think it is foreign policy related on our part? I do.

What is Ron Paul saying? Leave the region and let the Syrians and Iranians take care of ISIS. Well, until that happens dropping a few bombs on their known strongholds isn't the worst idea in the world...

Ron Paul on ISIS

Ron Paul has never supported bombing ISIS.

If we drop a bomb on ISIS targets in Raqqa, what the downside? Especially with an actual coalition of Muslim nations taking part..."All the foreign partners participating in the strikes with the United States are Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar."

In lieu of action taken by nations in the region capable...

How about the fact that innocent civilians will inevitably be killed? Is that not good enough reason not to do it?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Just listened to Ron's comment. Sure enough, Ron supported pulling out, which is 100% the correct answer. Bombing is not going to help.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He was speaking of self-identified liberals who are largely hypocritical.

Understood. Of course, conservatives who opposed Obama's wars and supported Bush's (mostly Iraq, I understand Afghanistan is a bit more nuanced though I still don't agree with it) are also hypocrites. And those who support both are just bloodthirsty neocons (as are those who support some but not the others... really.... if you support any of these interventions you have a problem.

 

[Eeset]

I have not yet seen anyone in our government describe what victory in the middle east looks like.

 

[99lamb]

Turkey falls to the Islamic State, and we have the Ottoman Empire in 2014.

 

[99lamb]

Why would the U.S. government allow citizens of the U.S. who fight with Islamic State in Syria to return to the U.S.?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...erners-feel-secure-bedrooms-article-1.1948057

another news agency carrying the story:
“It includes those who’ve gone, those who’ve tried to go, some who’ve come back and are under active—the FBI is looking at them,” the official said. “These are FBI matters, I refer you to them on specifics.”
https://time.com/3418455/isis-isil-barack-obama-us/

But I am glad that the FBI has these 'traitors' under observation. :hammer:

 

[WizardofOz]

Let's establish a standard. Should the US have gotten involved in WWII?

No.

Really? Wow. Even Ron concedes that involvement in WW2 was "unavoidable".

I guess I would only agree with you 8/10 times

Air strikes are not going to fix the ISIS problem. These strategic strikes are aimed at slowing them down at best.

So why do you support doing that?

I'll actually side with the Russians on this one. These attacks are illegal. Obama should have gotten Assad on board with these strikes to legalize them. I see no reason why he would have objected. These strikes aid him probably more than any other faction in Syria.

I have no doubt they'd love to. Here's the question, why? Do you think it is foreign policy related on our part? I do.

Of course it is.

Ron Paul has never supported bombing ISIS.

I never said he did. He assumes Iran and Syria will deal with them. Well, Syria is inept and far too divided and Iran thus far has no incentive to do so.

How about the fact that innocent civilians will inevitably be killed? Is that not good enough reason not to do it?

They're worse off as a whole if no action is taken.

How many has ISIS killed? How many more will they kill if they are allowed to thrive in the region?

 

[resurrected]

I have not yet seen anyone in our government describe what victory in the middle east looks like.

when the last drop of oil is extracted and all that's left is sand

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't know what he could have done better, standing by and watching the innocent slaughtered should not be option. Also the use and selection of allies is politically very clever and stops IS playing the Christian vs Muslim card

Yeah, this has to be the most vexing problem for ISIS. And I imagine there's a lot of bemusement in Damascus and Iran, as the leadership there tries to figure out how they ended up with their interests matching ours.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Well this may be news for you but Obama's mandate stops at Americas borders, he has no responsibility for the Arab uprising and the general situation in the middle east political.

These are things an American government reacts to and interacts with, but not things American policy dictates.

The US withdrawal in IRAQ was not catalyst for the rise of ISIS, it was the lack of action on the Syria issue. This was dictated as much by Russian and Chinese foreign policy than American foreign policy.

As bad as the current situation is, its much preferable to a US - Russia proxy war going in Syria which is what could have happened if the US had intervened in Syria in spite or Russian opposition.

I think if American ground troops were currently dying in Syria and Iraq you would have bigger issues with Obama than you do now.

Well, he could have stayed in Iraq, and he could have stayed on top of this Arab uprising from the beginning, but he didn't. These are the end days, and Bambi was the perfect dupe to make them come all the sooner. I expect nothing but more mistakes out of him.

 

[glorydaz]

I have not yet seen anyone in our government describe what victory in the middle east looks like.

A glass parking lot.

 

[This Charming Manc]

hmmm have you talked with Jesus about that view?

A glass parking lot.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I don't think anyone knows...

however somedays you have to just oppose evil and take it from there

I have not yet seen anyone in our government describe what victory in the middle east looks like.