US 'set to launch air strikes' on senior Isis terror chiefs in Syria
Source: Guardian UK
White House will 'take action' against threats as Turkey comes under pressure to halt flow of jihadists across its border
The United States was said to be considering air strikes aimed at eliminating individual leaders of Islamic State as Turkey came under mounting pressure to stem the flow of jihadists across its border into Syria.
As Washington on Saturday debated extending air strikes into Syria, senior British politicians urged Ankara to act to block recruits from the UK and other countries from entering Syria via Turkey, en route to joining Islamic State (formerly Isis). This weekend large numbers of Isis jihadists were trying to secure greater control of the border area, pushing northwards in armoured trucks looted from abandoned Iraqi military bases.
Isis wants to establish dominance in the area to make it easier for potential recruits to gain safe passage and to allow the movement of vital supplies, including weapons and oil. The route has been used by most of the foreign fighters who have joined the cause, and is believed to have been taken by several hundred of those who have joined Isis from the UK.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/23/us-air-strikes-isis-commanders-syria-considered
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)ISIL has been described as an organized force fighting with conventional tactics - doesn't that make them an army?
Why the "terror chief" propaganda language?
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)the rules of war.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)This is all bullshit neocon Newspeak.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Head tip to Isis!
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)you might perceive that the objection in my post was to the use of the propaganda language "terror chief" which is designed to entice the weak-minded into blase acceptance of continued military intervention in Iraq.
However, I can see how less astute readers could miss the point of the post and instead mistakenly assume that the post was somehow an endorsement of ISIL.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Yes they're not terrorists as much as insurgents, so that term shouldn't really be used. But no Israel is not a correct comparison.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Israel violates Occupation law routinely, which counts as "not following the rules of war":
http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israels responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israels jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country is therefore both a diversion and baseless.
Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.
It is hypocritical to denounce ISIS for violating the laws of war and give Israel a pass. It just underscores how American analyses of Middle East conflicts are rank propaganda.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)At this point, it's not the point.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)However it does point out the dishonesty of our dialog about the Middle East in this country. It's always been this way - think back to the "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua backed by the Reagan White House. One couldn't find a more ruthless, despicable, brutal group of thugs on the planet - but they were our thugs, so we use favorable terms in reference to them.
When they aren't our thugs, we call them "terrorists." In post-9/11 America, this elicits the desired Pavlovian response, prompting even erstwhile liberals to preen with retributive glee at the thought of exacting military justice from those nasty Arab people for what they did to our Twin Towers.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)on any locals that refuse to renounce their own religions and adopt theirs.
There are quick and relatively painless ways to execute your enemies. Sawing off heads of captives is intended to incite terror.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)and terrorists doing sneak attacks, but for sure it's a bit of both since their tactics are meant to terrorize
indepat
(20,899 posts)teenage black male terrorists obviously alluding to the wasting of the unarmed black male teenager in Ferguson, Mo. by a white police officer. Whata' guy for our best-est bud.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Last I checked, Islam was not a country.
7962
(11,841 posts)paleotn
(17,912 posts)....but I do agree with you somewhat on the language. I think the MSM is just preconditioned since 9-11 to call any Muslim crazy running around with a gun in the ME while not officially affiliated with a nation state a terrorist and their leaders "terror chiefs." In defense of the MSM, Islamic State (IS) has used terror tactics tactically and strategically, but then again so have many other organized fighting forces most would not ordinarily consider terrorist organizations. The problem is IS wants to be a nation state, and already is close to a nation state level of resources. They're really somewhere between a military in the conventional, nation state sense and a terrorist organization. A different animal altogether than Al-Queda, which is rightly causing much anxiety for western government.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)sometimes by forcing their own civilians to carry the bombs (for example, in Okinawa). Nobody has ever called the IJA "terrorists."
Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)To compare Prime Minister Netanyahu's actions and by extension that of Israel to a terrorist organization is so absurd. Israel is a legal entity, a country that is internationally recognized. Holds a free and democratic elections, have given equal rights to its citizens, arabs included. ISIS is an upstart fanatical organization, hell bent on creating their stupid Islamic caliphate; where people are given no options other than death or to convert.
You're vitriolic hatred towards Israel and it's democratically elected leader is shameful.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The point regarding Netanyahu is that Israel regularly violates the laws of war, yet we don't call him a "terror chief".
http://www.thenation.com/article/180783/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked
The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israels responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israels jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country is therefore both a diversion and baseless.
Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.
The term "terror chiefs" was chosen by the publisher of that piece specifically for its propaganda value. Were these the same "terror chiefs" we were arming and funding to fight Assad in Syria, at which time they were "moderate rebels?"
We're being manipulated into cheering on another yet another military adventure.
Legalequilibrium78
(103 posts)It is clear as daylight to any sober analysts out here, and everywhere else that ISIL as an organization's aims, it's purpose, is to subvert the infidels i.e. you and I, and scores of millions of people in the near region of Iraq and Syria. The fact that you are giving me a technical definition of what constitute a "terrorist acts/actions" by a state vis a vis Israel is by in itself stretching it.
We all have our own individual biases borne out experience, class, ethnic background, etc. In your case you are clearly marking, if not equating the legitimate actions of a state to protect it's citizens from the callous and stupid attacks from a political/terrorist gov't. that is Hamas. It is fine for you us or you, or anybody here to pontificate about the actions that Israel decided to employ against a group that has and will never recognize Israel's right to exist; not just as a country but of it's heritage and it's ethnicity. Israel has never declared any public or private announcements for the destruction of an ethnic group or country period.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Legitimate states commit acts every bit as brutal as that of ISIL, for reasons every bit as sinister, yet we call those acts "regrettably necessary." I'm not excusing ISIL, I'm pointing out how the language is being used to manipulate us into supporting another military misadventure. Just like the "genocide" against the Yazidi, which turned out to be...not.
And I'm also able to discern pro-Likud propaganda. Bye.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and could be said to be inflicting terror on the citizens of Gaza, as well as stealing their land. Just sayin'
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)other cities that would give it control to the sea.
Jihad Johnny, as the Brit press has dubbed him, might not be long for this world.
Would be interesting to hear what was said to Turkey.
msongs
(67,405 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)They behead with a small knife by sawing off heads.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Sounds like the incremental, slow start to US involvement in both a Syrian and Iraqi civil war.
I would support the US using its satellites and drones to locate every US-supplied truck, humvee, artillery piece, and tank in ISIS hands, and air strikes to take them all out. Kaboom. Done. Then, withdraw all US personnel from both countries and thus remove any pretext for further US involvement.
If ISIS is not the real Islam, then let the people who do practice the real Islam step up and take them out.
US should remove the weapons they carelessly left on the field of battle, but beyond that it is not a war we should be involved in.
Or...if we are going to fight radical fundamentalist Islam, then fight it at its source: Bomb Saudi Arabia First. ISIS is a Saudi creation; Saudi Arabia is ISIS's inspiration. There are weekly beheadings in Riyadh. If we are going to war again in the mideast, at least bomb the correct people this time.
christx30
(6,241 posts)There should be no 'will' when it comes to reporting military strikes against commanders. The headline should have said "US forces have completed airstrikes against senior ISIS chiefs in Syria" with a subhead stating that Syrian commanders have confirmed the deaths. "We will attack" just makes it likely the 'terror chiefs' will depart the area, makeing them hard to find.
ETA:
This complaint is not about the OP. This is directed to the administration and the news media. Thank you for understanding
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)in Syria. The Guardian is the only news outlet with this sort of headline. I don't know why they're jumping the gun.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Assad used to the idea of us attacking Isis on his soil? "Six months ago we were thinking about attacking you. Now we're going to help you out. Isn't geopolitics weird?!"
Response to CJCRANE (Original post)
cosmicone This message was self-deleted by its author.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Why the hell cant we keep a secret? Its much easier to eliminate someone when they dont know its coming
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)the American public know that they're at least thinking about it--we're talking basically an act of war in new country we haven't been involved in before (aside from the hostage rescue attempt). The current justification for airstrikes in Iraq that the President laid out would not necessarily apply to airstrikes in Syria. They would have to announce their reasons for doing this and notify Congress, I would think.
7962
(11,841 posts)As far as Syria is concerned, We wouldnt be attacking Syrian forces, so I doubt we'd hear any protests from Assad or any of his backers. Oddly enough, Russia and Iran would probably be silent on it. Which is bizzaro world in itself. Thats how off the rails this group is. Even those aligned against us dont like them.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and welcome the airstrikes.
Thus, the airstrikes would not amount to invasion of a country or a territorial transgression.
Kingofalldems
(38,454 posts)try to embolden the enemy.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Turkey also said then that jihaists were coming across the border with the many refugees from Syria. An American general working closely with Obama says the plight of 20 million refugees displaced from Syria and Iraq must be addressed or there will be no peace.
ISIS wants to create a new state that will give those people a homeland and has larger ambitions. It's likely Turkey is also on ISIS's list of nations they intend to possess as they seek to expand their caliphate into Europe, as older caliphates and empires did.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)No legitimate country on Earth will ever recognize their existence as one that is legit.
IOW, they are doomed to fail.
SnakeEyes
(1,407 posts)If they acquire enough land, resources, and power of the ME like older caliphates the world will have no choice but to deal with them. Much like we deal with other terrible regimes
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)into Syria and Iraq, and has been for a long time.
They are and were the pipeline for the rebels.
EEO
(1,620 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Response to L0oniX (Reply #39)
CJCRANE This message was self-deleted by its author.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)"We're not going to be restricted by borders," said Ben Rhodes, President Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-faces-options-iraq-and-syria
It's all part of the processes of grooming us (and world) to accept more violence and more spending on war is coming.
This gives no material advantage to the enemy. And if it provokes them into reactionary patterns of movement, it will be valuable intelligence.
Finally, the problem here isn't that IS is so strong, it's that we started an idiotic war holding Saddam responsible for 9/11. That supreme blunder left Iraq in chaos and vulnerable to religious extremists, extremists who are funded by primarily by Saudi oil money, something we continue to dismiss with a wink and a nudge.
Oil has an intoxicating effect that way.