US House approves Obama Syria plan

[webfact]

Islamic State crisis: US House approves Obama Syria plan

(BBC) The US House of Representatives has approved President Barack Obama's plan to train and arm the moderate Syrian opposition taking on Islamic State.

The vote passed by a large majority in the Republican-controlled House and is expected to be adopted in the Senate.

The endorsement came after President Obama repeated that he would not be committing American combat troops to ground operations in Iraq.

The US has undertaken 174 air strikes against IS in Iraq since mid-August.

The jihadist group controls large areas of Syria and northern Iraq.

In the most recent air strikes on Tuesday and Wednesday, US forces destroyed two IS armed vehicles north-west of Irbil and several units south-west of Baghdad, according to US Central Command (Centcom).

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29248955


-- BBC 2014-09-18

[Exsexyman]

There are no "moderate" Syrian rebels, Obama is taking people for fools if he expects them to believe that. It is worth remembering that these "moderate" rebels, who the Obama administration has been supporting with training, arming, financing for a long time, are the very same "moderates" who kidnapped the journalists who have been beheaded and 'sold' them to ISIS. Now the House of Representatives have legitimized Obama's immoral and totally dishonest behaviour. He is not arming and training these "moderates" to fight against ISIS, they have recently signed a 'non aggression treaty' with ISIS, they have pledged not to take up arms against them until President Assad is toppled. That is what this is about, regime change in Syria, Obama couldn't get his way last year when he wanted to attack Syria on behalf of these 'moderates", but wiser heads prevailed. If Obama and Cameron had got their way Syria would now be in the same state as Libya, ie, a totally failed state, infrastructure destroyed and the country under the control of Islamic jihadists with all that would entail. Yet it is obvious by this latest pronouncement that Obama still wishes for this vile scenario to be visited upon the people of Syria. He is arming these "moderates' to overthrow Assad, at least he should have the cojones to admit it instead of pretending otherwise. What is his agenda here, why does he want to replace a secular society with a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist regime, ie, ISIS? Because that is what will replace Assad. Who's interests is he really serving here? He should be made to answer this and give his reasons why ISIS is preferable to a secular society.

His pretence that the Free Syrian Army represent a "moderate" faction in Syria is not borne out by the reality on the ground. Over the past year entire units of them have defected to the al Nusra Front, a particularly savage group of fundamentalists who are basically a branch of ISIS. The biggest lie of all coming from the current regime in Washington is that once Assad is gone these "moderates" will miraculously see the error of their ways and stand four square behind the US and take the fight to ISIS. Pure fantasy. Obama must know this, lets face it anyone with half a brain knows it. Yet this is what Obama is selling. He is a phoney, his anti ISIS rhetoric is phoney, he must be judged on his actions and it is obvious by these actions that far from helping to destroy ISIS, the opposite is the case.

http://www.examiner.com/article/moderate-syrian-rebels-sign-non-aggression-treaty-with-isis

[arjunadawn]

There are no "moderate" Syrian rebels, Obama is taking people for fools if he expects them to believe that. It is worth remembering that these "moderate" rebels, who the Obama administration has been supporting with training, arming, financing for a long time, are the very same "moderates" who kidnapped the journalists who have been beheaded and 'sold' them to ISIS. Now the House of Representatives have legitimized Obama's immoral and totally dishonest behaviour. He is not arming and training these "moderates" to fight against ISIS, they have recently signed a 'non aggression treaty' with ISIS, they have pledged not to take up arms against them until President Assad is toppled. That is what this is about, regime change in Syria, Obama couldn't get his way last year when he wanted to attack Syria on behalf of these 'moderates", but wiser heads prevailed. If Obama and Cameron had got their way Syria would now be in the same state as Libya, ie, a totally failed state, infrastructure destroyed and the country under the control of Islamic jihadists with all that would entail. Yet it is obvious by this latest pronouncement that Obama still wishes for this vile scenario to be visited upon the people of Syria. He is arming these "moderates' to overthrow Assad, at least he should have the cojones to admit it instead of pretending otherwise. What is his agenda here, why does he want to replace a secular society with a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist regime, ie, ISIS? Because that is what will replace Assad. Who's interests is he really serving here? He should be made to answer this and give his reasons why ISIS is preferable to a secular society.

His pretence that the Free Syrian Army represent a "moderate" faction in Syria is not borne out by the reality on the ground. Over the past year entire units of them have defected to the al Nusra Front, a particularly savage group of fundamentalists who are basically a branch of ISIS. The biggest lie of all coming from the current regime in Washington is that once Assad is gone these "moderates" will miraculously see the error of their ways and stand four square behind the US and take the fight to ISIS. Pure fantasy. Obama must know this, lets face it anyone with half a brain knows it. Yet this is what Obama is selling. He is a phoney, his anti ISIS rhetoric is phoney, he must be judged on his actions and it is obvious by these actions that far from helping to destroy ISIS, the opposite is the case.

http://www.examiner.com/article/moderate-syrian-rebels-sign-non-aggression-treaty-with-isis

Totally brilliant post; thanks. Step back and consider every US intervention, either by omission or commission, over the past 6 years involving anything islamic or despotic. Now, look at how each separate incident turned out. Whether it is Tunisia or Libya, Egypt, Israel, Iraq or Taliban, etc., ad naseum... Islamists were empowered. One would be hard pressed to find multiple examples that differ with my statement.

It is a fact that islamic jihad has in the Obama administration its greatest champion. This might be why citizens, after deposing Morsi (whom Obama threatened al sissi not to depose) carried signs declaring Obama supports terrorism. Indeed, even Obama's brother was indicted for being a bag man for the muslim brotherhood. So, we have these shocking developments that clearly suggest the US president commits treason and otherwise has his loyalties elsewhere- yes! This is the only conclusion that can be reached. It is beyond credulity to suggest that this large swath of countries from North Africa through the Levant, that were once ruled by strongmen who kept the MB and Islamic Jihad running scared, have turned islamist by accident, or natural development. Poppycock. The one thing that was stopping islamic jihad from sufficient progress was the local despots. Now they are mostly gone or pending.

Cui bono? Islam.

The US House has just authorized direct transfer of weapons to ISIS. Previously, weapons had to be transferred to IS through Benghazi, Turkey pipeline, or through Croatia purchases by Saudi Arabia, to Turkey pipeline. Now it is direct. The IS snatch and grab was likely the largest of its kind in history- invade Iraq for a limited excursion, capture vast arms and heavy weapons, and retreat back into contested lands. How utterly brilliant. ISIS, like so much of the contrived Arab Spring, is another proxy designed to lay groundwork for a caliphate. Many may oppose these points but just opposing does not the better argument make; these points above are widely in the public record.

[ABCer]

There are no "moderate" Syrian rebels, Obama is taking people for fools if he expects them to believe that. It is worth remembering that these "moderate" rebels, who the Obama administration has been supporting with training, arming, financing for a long time, are the very same "moderates" who kidnapped the journalists who have been beheaded and 'sold' them to ISIS. Now the House of Representatives have legitimized Obama's immoral and totally dishonest behaviour. He is not arming and training these "moderates" to fight against ISIS, they have recently signed a 'non aggression treaty' with ISIS, they have pledged not to take up arms against them until President Assad is toppled. That is what this is about, regime change in Syria, Obama couldn't get his way last year when he wanted to attack Syria on behalf of these 'moderates", but wiser heads prevailed. If Obama and Cameron had got their way Syria would now be in the same state as Libya, ie, a totally failed state, infrastructure destroyed and the country under the control of Islamic jihadists with all that would entail. Yet it is obvious by this latest pronouncement that Obama still wishes for this vile scenario to be visited upon the people of Syria. He is arming these "moderates' to overthrow Assad, at least he should have the cojones to admit it instead of pretending otherwise. What is his agenda here, why does he want to replace a secular society with a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist regime, ie, ISIS? Because that is what will replace Assad. Who's interests is he really serving here? He should be made to answer this and give his reasons why ISIS is preferable to a secular society.

His pretence that the Free Syrian Army represent a "moderate" faction in Syria is not borne out by the reality on the ground. Over the past year entire units of them have defected to the al Nusra Front, a particularly savage group of fundamentalists who are basically a branch of ISIS. The biggest lie of all coming from the current regime in Washington is that once Assad is gone these "moderates" will miraculously see the error of their ways and stand four square behind the US and take the fight to ISIS. Pure fantasy. Obama must know this, lets face it anyone with half a brain knows it. Yet this is what Obama is selling. He is a phoney, his anti ISIS rhetoric is phoney, he must be judged on his actions and it is obvious by these actions that far from helping to destroy ISIS, the opposite is the case.

http://www.examiner.com/article/moderate-syrian-rebels-sign-non-aggression-treaty-with-isis

Totally brilliant post; thanks. Step back and consider every US intervention, either by omission or commission, over the past 6 years involving anything islamic or despotic. Now, look at how each separate incident turned out. Whether it is Tunisia or Libya, Egypt, Israel, Iraq or Taliban, etc., ad naseum... Islamists were empowered. One would be hard pressed to find multiple examples that differ with my statement.

It is a fact that islamic jihad has in the Obama administration its greatest champion. This might be why citizens, after deposing Morsi (whom Obama threatened al sissi not to depose) carried signs declaring Obama supports terrorism. Indeed, even Obama's brother was indicted for being a bag man for the muslim brotherhood. So, we have these shocking developments that clearly suggest the US president commits treason and otherwise has his loyalties elsewhere- yes! This is the only conclusion that can be reached. It is beyond credulity to suggest that this large swath of countries from North Africa through the Levant, that were once ruled by strongmen who kept the MB and Islamic Jihad running scared, have turned islamist by accident, or natural development. Poppycock. The one thing that was stopping islamic jihad from sufficient progress was the local despots. Now they are mostly gone or pending.

Cui bono? Islam.

The US House has just authorized direct transfer of weapons to ISIS. Previously, weapons had to be transferred to IS through Benghazi, Turkey pipeline, or through Croatia purchases by Saudi Arabia, to Turkey pipeline. Now it is direct. The IS snatch and grab was likely the largest of its kind in history- invade Iraq for a limited excursion, capture vast arms and heavy weapons, and retreat back into contested lands. How utterly brilliant. ISIS, like so much of the contrived Arab Spring, is another proxy designed to lay groundwork for a caliphate. Many may oppose these points but just opposing does not the better argument make; these points above are widely in the public record.

Who is Obama Syria?

What is the Religion of Obama?

Nobody can serve two Masters.

[Chicog]

I like the fact the Congress had to approve it, and then promptly went on holiday again.

Unbelievable, not only the do-nothing Congress, but the sod-off-and-not-even-bother-being-there congress.

[simple1]

There are reports that the FSA / ISIS non-aggression pact is a furphy developed from an Agency France Press article referring to a 24 hour cease fire to collect bodies and so on. There has been extensive fighting with FSA, together with Islamic Front, against ISIS South of Damascus. The alleged purpose of the purportedly false claim was to undermine the Administration in an endeavour to derail the decision to supply arms to FSA and not based upon actual events on the ground. Read the article talking to this matter below:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/16/syrian-opposition-blasts-reports-it-signed-a-truce-with-isis.html