US 'set to launch air strikes' on senior Isis terror chiefs in Syria

[CJCRANE]

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]

1. Whats the difference between "military commanders" and "terror chiefs?"

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]

4. Isis/Isil/Is doesn't subscribe to

the rules of war.

[Maedhros]

6. Neither does Israel, but we don't call Netanyahu a "terror chief."

This is all bullshit neocon Newspeak.

[flamingdem]

14. K. You win let's send ISIS to the UN

Head tip to Isis!

[Maedhros]

20. If you would care to pay the slightest amount of attention to the things you read on the Internet,

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]

26. You're right and you're wrong imo

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]

30. As for not following the rules of war:

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

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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]

32. Nice try to drag Israel into this

At this point, it's not the point.

[Maedhros]

33. Yeah, it is a bit of a diversion.

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]

43. my understanding is that ISIS are not insurgents and they are inflicting terror

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]

46. I think the difference revolves around insurgents being focused on taking territory

and terrorists doing sneak attacks, but for sure it's a bit of both since their tactics are meant to terrorize

[indepat]

25. Netanyahu is our best-est bud who expressed the U.S. has the right to protect itself against

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]

9. Because they have no country sponsoring them

Last I checked, Islam was not a country.

[7962]

13. Hey, I agree with you!!!!!!

[paleotn]

22. If you consider suicide bombing to be conventional tactics, maybe....

....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]

31. The Imperial Japanese Army routinely used suicide bombing tactics in World War II,

sometimes by forcing their own civilians to carry the bombs (for example, in Okinawa). Nobody has ever called the IJA "terrorists."

[Legalequilibrium78]

34. What a load of b.s.

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]

36. My response was to the point that ISIL violated the laws of war, and thus are "terrorists."

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

As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.

The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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]

38. It's all semantics for you..

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]

47. I'm criticizing the American press for its hypocrisy.

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]

44. Israel has violated international law over and over again

and could be said to be inflicting terror on the citizens of Gaza, as well as stealing their land. Just sayin'

[flamingdem]

2. Guessing they don't want ISIS to take Tabqua airbase or

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]

3. a win for the UK if it can get rid of its extremists and killers nt

[Rhinodawg]

5. When do extremists and killers become terrorists?

[7962]

15. When they start slitting the throats of women and children is a start

[Rhinodawg]

18. Well, I guess we're there then.

[magical thyme]

45. slitting throats is bad enough. They are doing worse.

They behead with a small knife by sawing off heads.

[Dems to Win]

7. I'm sure there will be plenty of other fanatics to step up and replace the individuals targetted

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]

8. How about not broadcasting this?

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

[840high]

10. ....

[TwilightGardener]

12. If you read the text, the administration is "considering" and "debating" airstrikes

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]

21. Maybe it's just to get

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?!"

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. That is a ridiculous, bigoted statement.

[7962]

16. It irritates the hell out of me that we announce what we MAY do soon!!!!!!!

Why the hell cant we keep a secret? Its much easier to eliminate someone when they dont know its coming

[TwilightGardener]

19. Airstrikes in Syria are kind of a big deal, I think they have to let

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]

28. Congress can be in on it in secret. Operational success trumps our right to know, IMO.

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]

29. No problem since Bashar Asaad would invite the US

and welcome the airstrikes.

Thus, the airstrikes would not amount to invasion of a country or a territorial transgression.

[Kingofalldems]

17. I agree with this but watch traitors Cheney and pals

try to embolden the enemy.

[freshwest]

24. Turkey is in NATO, can't get away from that. They've been urging action since

last year because of the rockets crossing the border and killing their people. They wanted it stopped. Although they were not the intended target, their citizens still died.

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]

27. ISIS will never become a state that will be recognize as such by anyone.

No legitimate country on Earth will ever recognize their existence as one that is legit.

IOW, they are doomed to fail.

[SnakeEyes]

42. I don't think they care if they are recognized

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]

35. Except the article states that Turkey is facilitating fighters to cross over

into Syria and Iraq, and has been for a long time.

They are and were the pipeline for the rebels.

[EEO]

37. Continued escalation.

[L0oniX]

39. Well at least you let them know in advance. Duh!

[whereisjustice]

41. in case you missed it

WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior White House official raised the possibility Friday of a broader American military campaign that targets an Islamic extremist group's bases in Syria, saying the U.S would take whatever action is necessary to protect national security.

"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.