Thread: Obama Considers Air Strikes In Syria On Terrorists He Previously Supported

Obama Considers Air Strikes In Syria On Terrorists He Previously Supported

Nothing to see here, we've always been at war with ISIS



by Steve Watson | Infowars.com | June 20, 2014

In a very Orwellian turn of events, the Obama administration is mulling the prospect of air strikes in Syria, against militants that it supported less than a year ago during the effort to oust The Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
The Hill reports that the President is weighing up a possible air offensive in Syria on the terror camps of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
“We don’t restrict potential U.S. action to a specific geographic space,” a senior administration official said when asked whether military action could extend into Syria.
“The president’s made clear time and again that we will take action as necessary, including direct U.S. military action, if it’s necessary to defend the United States against an imminent threat,” the official said.
The ISIS terror group has taken control of swathes of Iraq in recent weeks, seemingly rising up out of nowhere. Republicans have blamed the Obama administration for pulling troops from Iraq. However, the president has claimed that it was not his decision to do so, and that his administration was facilitating the wishes of the Iraqi government.
“Clearly we’re focused on Iraq. That’s where our ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] resources have surged. That’s where we’re working to develop additional intelligence,” the official added.
“But the group [ISIS], again, operates broadly and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States.” the source noted.
Should US missiles rain down on the militants in Syria, it would mark an incredible turn around of events.
Just over a year ago, the administration green lighted the arming and training of militants in Syria, despite intelligence indicating that they had direct links to extremist groups.
The president even took executive action to waive prohibitions under the Arms Export Control Act, to enable the arming of “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Assad.
A year on, and Obama officials have admitted to the arming of “moderate” militants in Syria, despite the fact that it is known that the weapons supplied by the US have been transfered to Islamic extremists.
The administration is also engaged in facilitating civil war in both Iraq and Syria, by providing resources and training to moderate fighters in order to counter the rise of “Al-Qaeda-linked extremists.”
Yet, it has been extensively documented that such moderate groups also run joint operations with al-Qaeda proxy groups in Syria, the very same that the US government says it is now attempting to counter, and the same groups that the Syrian and Iraqi armies have been engaged in bloody battles with.
In addition, there is compelling evidence to show that the ISIS group itself was trained directly by the US military at a secret base in Jordan in 2012 to run operations along the Syrian/Turkish border.



The Obama administration is also weighing air strikes in Iraq, a proposition that some say would equate to a fresh act of war on the country.
Sen. Rand Paul said yesterday that Obama should seek new authorization from Congress before taking military action in Iraq, saying it would be “absurd” to rely on the 2001 authorization to use military force.
“This is a debate we’ve had and the Obama administration as well as many Republicans think that you can stay at war forever based on [the] 2001 use of authorization of force,” Paul told reporters Thursday. “I don’t agree with that. I don’t think one generation can commit another generation to war forever.”
“Can one vote in Congress in 2001 say that we are at war forever, anywhere, anytime around the world? I think that’s absurd,” Paul continued. “And I think if the American people could weigh in on it they would be horrified to think that a vote with no geographic limit and time limit and no limit upon what enemies. I think it’s an untenable position.”
“This is precisely why we should have repealed the AUMF a couple of years ago when I tried to repeal it. Now we are in a situation where no one is going to want to talk about it,” Paul said.
In further comments, Paul noted that there are “many questions” that need to be addressed before the U.S. proceeds with any military action “What would air strikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran’s air force? What’s in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?” the Senator stated.
On the prospect of US troops returning to Iraq, Paul noted that for a decade now the US has funneled aid to the Iraqi army and “you gotta wonder what’s happened to all the money.”
“You can’t ask American soldiers to defend territory the Iraqis are unwilling to defend themselves,” Paul added.
In a later appearance on Fox News, the Senator echoed all of these previous comments.

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.


http://www.infowars.com/obama-consid...sly-supported/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/blowback-u-...surgen-304915/

http://www.alipac.us/f19/isis-domest...litary-305049/

http://www.alipac.us/f9/u-s-backed-%...-syria-279752/

Freedom Outpost

America’s Alleged Allies are Funding ISIS in Iraq

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/americas-alleged-allies-funding-isis-in-iraq/



America’s Alleged Allies are Funding ISIS in Iraq

Joshua Cook 14 hours ago
1 Comment

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is currently storming its way through Iraq, was funded for years by rich donors from our supposed allies in Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

According to The Daily Beast, Kuwait's involvement is an ironic twist since back in 1990, the U.S. attacked Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's clutches. Now Kuwait is helping the rise of his successors.
As ISIS takes over town after town in Iraq, they are acquiring money and supplies including American-made vehicles, arms and ammunition. The group reportedly scored $430 million when they looted the main bank in Mosul.
"Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it's coming from the Arab Gulf," said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Kuwait's banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq."
Donors in Kuwait, the Sunni majority Kingdom on Iraq's border, have taken advantage of Kuwait's weak financial rules to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to a host of Syrian rebel brigades, according to a December 2013 report by The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank that receives some funding from the Qatari government.
ISIS formed in April 2013 out of al-Qaeda in Iraq and an affiliate in Syria.
According to the Telegraph, ISIS has gained most of its financing from smuggling, extortion and other crime.
There is an apparent paradigm shift occurring in the U.S. regarding its foreign policy.

Congressman Mick Mulvaney made this statement on Facebook: "As I said in the Facebook town hall meeting Monday night, my immediate reaction is that getting involved in what is essentially a religious civil war (Shia v. Sunni) sounds like a really bad idea."
Senator Rand Paul in his recent op-ed said, "Today the Middle East is less stable than in 2003. The Iraq war strengthened Iran's influence in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Sunni extremists backed by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have filled the vacuum. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has taken over the cities of Mosul, Tikrit and is on the march to Baghdad."
"This administration, through bad decision-making that I specifically warned against, has already indirectly aided al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria—the very group some now propose to counter with U.S. troops," he added.
Paul continued, "For the small group calling for boots on the ground—how can we ask our brave men and women to risk their lives for a country the Iraqis aren't willing to fight for themselves? Iraqi soldiers are stripping off their uniforms and fleeing this fight. We shouldn't ask our soldiers to put their uniforms on to take their places."


Source



Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.




http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/06/am...-isis-in-iraq/

http://www.alipac.us/f9/u-s-backed-%...-syria-279752/