Sunday, November 22, 2015

Obama Won't Hit ISIS Tankers, Says Drivers Are "Civilians"

Remember this: Since all these Syrian "rebels" are not, by definition, in government, they are also, therefore by definition, "civilians!" So, by definition, ALL TERRORISTS ARE 'CIVILIANS!'

From HERE:


RUSH: This has been confirmed, too. I first heard about this last night, Fox News Special Report.  Get this.  So here's what happened.  I didn't have any backup for this.  I've got TV on in the background, I'm doing other things, and during Special Report last night, there was a reason provided for why we have not hit any ISIS oil centers or transportation depos or trucks or any of that, and I was incredulous when I heard it.  I said it's gotta be true, it's Obama, but a part of me couldn't believe it.  We have not hit any oil tanker trucks specifically for the last several years because the Obama administration had decides the drivers were civilians and therefore could not be killed.

You know, after the French attacks, last Friday, the French went in and had a big hit on Raqqa, which is the ISIS headquarters in Syria.  And there was a question that was asked shortly after that.  Why is Raqqa still standing?  I mean, it's been the ISIS headquarters for who knows how long.  Why is it still there for the French to take out?  And we find out that Obama never hit it and he hasn't hit anything to do with the oil fields, the oil industry, oil wells and fields and areas that ISIS has commandeered, it's the primary source of money, fuel, and fund their operations, and we haven't hit it.

The usual explanation is one found in environmental concerns.  "Well, we don't want to hit those oil fields, my God, can you imagine the eruptions and the potential fires and the pollution and the economic or ecological damage?  No, no, no, we can't go out and hit the oil fields.  No, no, no, no, no."  Well, it turns out none of that was the reason we left them alone.  Despite the fact that these oil tankers are transporting oil that has been used to pay for ISIS' murderous projects, we didn't hit those trucks because the Regime said they're more than likely driven by civilians.

And here's the backup for it.  It's from the Washington Free Beacon: "US military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike." This is according to congressman to Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage."
It looks like it is more of the restrictive rules of engagement that has our hands tied in Afghanistan.  "The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the US campaign to combat the Islamic State."  So we're not even serious about this, folks.  Remember the purpose of armies and the reason for war is to kill people and break things.

Now, in this PC era, I can imagine some of you out there, particularly you young Millennials who have not grown up in a particularly contentious, militarily contentious time and you hear something like that and it may be the meanest, most extremist outrageous thing you've ever heard, and you can't believe I'm getting away with saying it. And you can't believe that somebody's not gonna make me pay for saying it.  What do you mean, the purpose of armies is to kill people and break things?  That's outrageous, that's so mean, I can't believe you could say that.

That's exactly the truth.  The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things.  And there's even more to it.  You keep killing people and breaking things until your enemy surrenders and apologizes to you for starting the whole thing in the first place.  That's how wars end, and this is a world governed by impressive use of force.  And we are in the middle of a war and we're not fighting it.  We cannot hit oil tankers. We cannot hit oil depots. We cannot hit oil fields because Obama says there are civilians there and they would end up being collateral damage, and therefore they're off-limits.

Well, if they're off-limits, there's no end to this, and if they're off-limits, there's no way we're gonna win this with these kinds of rules of engagement.  It simply isn't gonna be possible.  You take a look, go back.  What am I saying, take a look.  Nobody's gonna do this.  I don't even know how I even came across this.  I was reading something on one of my tech blogs, and there was a story on one of the tech blogs about particular operations in World War II over the English Channel and some of the technology that was involved.  The story had to do with all of the civilian targets that were taken out, German targets in France that they had taken over that had to do with supply lines and depots.
The point is you cannot wage a war without hitting such targets.  You hit fuel depots.  You hit factories where they are making weapons.  You hit factories where they're building airplanes.  This is what you do in war.  It's what's always been done.  We've been so PC about it that there were times in World War II we dropped fliers warning average citizens to get out of the area within the next 10 minutes or 12 because we were coming.  We warned them we were gonna be dropping bombs.
But civilian casualties, this is really gonna shock some people.  Particularly our young college children who want to feel safe.  Many wars have been won precisely because of the number of civilians killed.  That's why Japan surrendered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  That's why the Japanese surrendered.  There were a significant number of civilian deaths in our bombing of Germany.  And by the way, the Germans were trying to kill civilians in Britain. It's what it was all about.  It's what the blitz was all about.  The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things.  And now we are governed by these surgical strikes where if we can't be guaranteed of only hitting a military soldier, then we don't do the attack.

In fact, you young college children, that's one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden was still alive to direct the attacks on 9/11.  He was in our crosshairs numerous times before 9/11.  Bill Clinton and the gang would not pull the trigger on bombing where he was because there were women and children around.  The purpose of armies: kill people and break things.  And here we have Barack Hussein Obama with restrictions on targets we can't hit because there might be civilians there.  Look, the bottom line is, all that means is that there's no way we're gonna win this, we're not gonna slow it down and we're not gonna get close to even stopping it.  And this is what gives rise to questions, how serious is Obama about this?

This is why so many people think it's really getting dangerous out here.  We're being led by somebody who may not even be serious about winning this.  I mean, he's out there talking about how he's got 'em contained and how their base of operations is actually shrinking.  He also said that at the same time he said he's got 'em contained.  The Drive-Bys are not reporting the second part of that.  They're just reporting he said that ISIS is contained, but he also said their base of operations is shrinking, their sphere of influence is shrinking.



White House Gave ISIS 45 Minute Warning Before Bombing Oil Tankers

More from here:

The Obama White House is giving ISIS a 45 minute warning before bombing their oil tankers by dropping leaflets advising potential jihadists to flee before air strikes in Syria.

“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the leaflet reads.

The leaflet drops are justified under the premise that the oil tanker drivers might be civilians and not ISIS recruits, although it’s an explanation that doesn’t wash with critics.

“It’s not like these drivers are innocent, uninvolved ‘civilians’ like children or sick people,” writes J.E. Dyer. “They’re waging ISIS’s war, just like the other non-uniformed participants who make up 100% of ISIS’s ranks. This is how far the Obama administration is going to avoid “collateral damage” — and who knows, it may be worse.”

FrontPageMag’s Daniel Greenfield makes a similar point, 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.

U.S. air strikes targeting ISIS oil assets are so rare that PBS was caught using footage of Russian fighter jets bombing an oil storage facility in Syria and passing it off as evidence of the U.S. targeting the Islamic State’s oil infrastructure.

U.S. military pilots have also confirmed that they were ordered not to drop 75 per cent of their ordnance on ISIS targets because they could not get clearance from their superiors.

“You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can’t drop, we can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif, while retired four-star U.S. general Jack Keane labeled the policy ” an absurdity from the beginning.”

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.

Earlier this year a document emerged confirming that the Pentagon foresaw the rise of ISIS and that western support for Al-Qaeda groups and other anti-Assad rebels in Syria would lead to the emergence of a “Salafist Principality” that would help to “isolate” 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 lear long effort to deliberately conceal the fact that the United States’ plan to demolish ISIS was not effective.

Evidence also continues to emerge that ISIS is receiving support from state sponsors of terror like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

$800,000,000 worth of ISIS oil has been sold in Turkey, a supposed U.S. ally. ISIS trucks are routinely allowed to cross back and forth between the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa and Turkey, while the NATO country facilitates black market oil sales on behalf of the terror group.

As Nafeez Ahmed documents, a large cache of intelligence recovered from a raid on an ISIS safehouse this summer confirms that “direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now ‘undeniable.’”

No comments:

Post a Comment