Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The U.S. love affair with ISIS.

The U.S. has been drinking the bathwater of ISIS. Even having them drown people in cages and burn a pilot in a cage didn't slow Obama down. Our boys!

But, mind you, Assad is "the Butcher." Does "this man strike you as a monster who must be removed from the world stage?

Anyway, let's move on to the point about excessive (i.e., absurd) levels of U.S. concern for the welfare of ISIS:

FrontPageMag’s Daniel Greenfield makes a similar point [that the ISIS oil truck drivers being given warnings by the U.S. are not innocent noncombatants], commenting, “So after all this time, they came up with a great plan; drop flyers on ISIS trucks so that the drivers, who may or may not be ISIS members, can run away in time. Meanwhile ISIS gets 45 minutes of warning.”

Compare the Obama White House’s approach to fighting ISIS to that of Russia.

While it took the U.S. fifteen months to even begin targeting ISIS’ oil refineries and tankers, air strikes by Moscow destroyed more than 1,000 tankers in a period of just five days.

In comparison, Col. Steve Warren said that the U.S. had taken out only 116 tanker trucks, the “first strike” to target ISIS’ lucrative black market oil business, which funds over 50 per cent of the terror group’s activities.[1]

Obama is an enemy to ISIS in the same way that I am an enemy to children, kitties, and puppies in my neighborhood.


Then there's this:
Numerous analysts claim that the Obama White House’s fifteen month wait before it began targeting the primary funding mechanism behind ISIS was part of a tacit policy to help the Islamic State overthrow Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

* * * *

“The bottom line – the almost irrefutable truth – is that the US and its regional allies were all-in on the “use Sunni extremists to bring about regime change in Syria” strategy from the word “go”, and the direct result of that strategy is ISIS,” reports Zero Hedge, adding, “The US didn’t want to cut off Islamic State’s funding, because without money, the group couldn’t fight Assad.” The New York Times is also reporting that US Central Command may have engaged in a year long effort to deliberately conceal the fact that the United States’ plan to demolish ISIS was not effective.[2]


New guy in town destroys tankers at a rate of 200 per day. Obama destroys one (1) tanker every four (4) days. Russian rate of destruction = 800 times that of Obama rate. Is the fix in, or what?

There is something rotten in the Obama war against Syria, not the least of which is the fact that his aggressive war against Syria is unconstitutional. Even though that's so, like, yesterday.

Notes
[1]  "White House Gave ISIS 45 Minute Warning Before Bombing Oil Tankers. Why did it take 15 months for the U.S. to target the Islamic State's oil infrastructure?" By Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars, 11/23/15.
[2] Id.

H/t: CONSERVATIVEbyte.com.

7 comments:

  1. Something is amiss, to wit: O is aligned with Iran, Iran is aligned with Syria, Russia is aligned with Iran and Syria. But O is against Russia and Syria. So who is calling the shots? Turkey? Does this make sense to anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I loved Col. (Ret.) Peter's description of Obama as concerns foreign policy: "A babe-in-the-woods with a soiled diaper." I think that would make Kerry "a special-needs babe-in-the-woods without a diaper".

    Andy Texan: It is easier to understand if you remember that while Obama is aligned with Iran (a muslim country which has promised to destroy Israel, which would please Obama inordinately), Iran is NOT aligned with Obama, let alone America. Syria is still secular under Assad, not ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is Obama's preferred oligarchy, so that has to change. Obama completely approves of ISIS, he simply can't be seen to admit it. Consequently, he will do all he can to assist them.

    Does anyone really think Obama gives a tinker's damn about collateral damage? Review the drone attacks he has approved (and reportedly thrills to watch again and again) where lots of civilians (including children) have been killed. ROEs of zero civilian deaths makes him sound like a humanitarian, but the fact that he does nothing to protect the thousands of non-muslims killed so cruelly by ISIS is proof he is a narcissistic liar who cares nothing for anyone but himself. He doesn't even care about muslims killing other muslims, let alone "infidels". He is an arrogant, lying piece of xxxx work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I wrote the above I was puzzled by the seemingly incongruous Obama policy in the Middle East. However I have developed a theory that probably has already been posited but I am going to put it forward for elaboration. Think 'Comintern' updated for the present era. Our dear prezzy is a member of the an international conspiracy to overturn the old era of democratic nation state and replace it with a governing council of international players that will enthrall everyone else. A new feudalism for the world. The object of leaving Iraq cold turkey was to allow the point of the spear, ISIS is emerge. Since this emergence, O has been nurturing them in secret. Islam is the tool to overturn the democratic nation state by spreading it's influence through refugees to Europe and the US/Canada. O's "treaty" with Iran was partly a personal vendetta against his own country and partly more instability and partly an economic play for the internationalists. I think that George Soros is a major player in this 'great game' and he has been driving events forward at a faster pace due to his age. Crazy theory but the pieces seem to fit quite well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Additionally, "Global Warming" is but another weapon system in the great globalist game. Islam to defeat the democratic nation state from without and "Global Warming" policy to apply economic pressure from within. Anyone appearing in Paris for the great "Climate Change" conference is part of the conspiracy: Islamic 'refugees' from without/energy poverty from within. How can is be that the same international players support both policies so vigorously at a clear detriment to their respective nations and its citizens?

    Where does Putin and Russia fit in to this grand conspiracy? He seems to be the odd man out at this time: fighting Islamic radicals instead of supporting them; not willing to dissolve Russian national sovereignty unlike Obama and the EU. Maybe he has decided not to join the world movement to no borders and that is the reason, they are mad at him?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Unraveling the interests and goals in Syria and M.E. is like knife fighting in the dark. It's hard to distinguish the outlines of any combatant. As Turkey's and Obama's undeniable assistance to al Qaida and ISIS become clear I think it's the beginning of getting some perspective. The "Assad must go" mantra of the U.S. for some years now is harder to understand. I don't believe he initiated the nerve gas attack for one minute and he's a rarity in the Muslim scheme of things for having worked to build a secular, tolerant state, things you'd think leftists would be swooning over.

    Don't miss Matthew Bracken's piece at Gate of Vienna today for a good take on the overall correlation of forces.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the referral to the Bracken piece. Excellent.

    Destabilization of the middle east has been the end result of every one of 'our' policies in that region. Obama is either batting zero or 100. What are the products of such actions? Why it's the movement of people (moslem people). Destabilization of energy production seems to be a goal of major domestic policy initiatives. To what end? Why to curb the living standard of Americans and pressure the economy. Open borders have been a consistent domestic policy of the Uniparty. To what end? To curb the living standard of Americans. I hate to fall back on conspiracy as an explanation but are these not the major concerns of the entirety of civilized world, the UN, NGOs and Soros also? Is this not by definition conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is a major switch for me to think as I do now, that the aims of U.S. foreign policy are illegitimate. It's clear that the domestic policies of Obama are that as well, and the Republicans have proved that they are utterly useless as a putative opposition part. We are adrift legally and philosophically in every area I can think of and, consequently, what we're doing in Syria is more than alarming to me. The "Assad must go" goal is just a lie. Nothing sets him apart as a leader and exactly how many Syrians would have died had the U.S., the Europeans (maybe), the Israelis, the Saudis, and the Qataris not in some way worked to foment rebellion and civil war in Syria?

    Off the top of my head, I think there are three possible goals of the U.S. in Syria:

    1. Lick the boots of the Saudis and Qataris who want to keep Iran from extending its influence west and/or otherwise want to dominate the M.E. as Sunnis. This gets us oil and more Saudi purchase of U.S. debt.

    2. Interfere anywhere we feel like it to keep all competitors on the defensive so that the U.S. is the unchallenged top dog, something that I understand is advocated by Brzezinski.

    3. We lick the boots of the Israelis whose new policy (?) is to create a balance of power or undermine or co-opt possible sources of opposition to it (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, SA). This would be a change from pursuing a comprehensive peace with regional actors.

    I think there would be no dead Syrian, no refugee Syrians, no ISIS, and no Russian intervention if we had stayed in Iraq a while longer, not supported ISIS, and not fomented civil war in Syria.

    Bottom line, I can't figure out who the heck we are to be trying to bring about "regime change," which is known to be a disaster. Add in the demonisation of Russia and the odd and unseemly NATO rush into the Balkans and up to the Russian border, the encouragement of Georgia to invade S. Ossetsia and you have a snapshot of a foreign policy that is confused and dishonorable.

    Our China policy is confused as well. Something like, provoke them but continue to maintain a large trade deficit with them so they can finance a larger, more capable military to deal with our provocations. How much China needs to be confronted isn't clear to me. Regardless, I'm reasonably sure our foreign policy there is as confused as it is anywhere else.

    Exhibit A for that idea is my favorite: tens of thousands of U.S. troops around the world but not one on our borders to defend "the homeland" as these fools we have as leaders like to speak of it. If that is the mother of all ironies I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.