Want to know why the US can't destroy ISIS?

Earlier this week, CNN’s senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta asked President Obama the following question at a press briefing:

"A lot of Americans have this frustration that they see the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS. I guess the question is, and if you'll forgive the language, but why can't we take out these bastards?"
Well Jim, the answer is quite simple and indeed, if you - or any other member of the mainstream media for that matter - would bother to look at things like the declassified Pentagon report that Judicial Watch turned up earlier this year, you’d be less confused.

Allow us, once again, to provide you with the answers you seek, straight from the Pentagon ca. 2012:

...there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”
Translation: if Sunni extremists were to establish a proto-state in eastern Syria that would be great because it would destabilize Assad and cut off Iran from Hezbollah thus endangering the preservation of Tehran’s Shiite crescent.

For those who need a still simpler formulation: ISIS started out no different than any of the other rebels the US supports in Syria. They likely received guns, money, and training if not directly from the US, then from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Washington seems to have had some idea that they would seek to capture and hold territory and as far as the Pentagon was concerned, that was just fine. Whether or not the CIA anticipated what would come next is up for debate, but make no mistake, US intelligence knew good and well this was a possibility and let it happen because ousting Assad was (and still is) the top priority.

So when the Jim Costas of the world ask “why can’t we take out these bastards?”, the answer is that if if we did, one of the main forces destabilizing the Assad regime would be gone and not only that, the US would no longer have an excuse to be in Syria, which would leave the country’s political future entirely up to Russia and Iran and that is a decidedly unpalatable outcome not only for Washington, but for Riyadh and Doha as well.

It’s Occam’s Razor Jim: look for the simplest possible explanation and go with that.

Of course that explanation is simply too bad to be true for most Americans and so the public and the mass media will continue to exists in a state of perpetual bewilderment as to why 13 months of aerial bombardment hasn’t done anything to degrade the group.

In case any of the above isn’t clear enough, Sergei Lavrov has commentary which may help to drive the point home, presented below without further comment:

"Despite announcing ambitious plans for its coalition against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), the analysis of those [US-led] airstrikes during over a year lead to conclusion that they were hitting selectively, I would say, sparingly and on most occasions didn’t touch those IS units, which were capable of seriously challenging the Syrian army."

“Apparently, it’s a kind of a ‘honey is sweet, but the bee stings’ situation: they want IS to weaken Assad as soon as possible to make him leave somehow, but at the same time they don’t want to overly strengthen IS, which may then seize power."

"The US stance seriously weakens the prospects of Syria to remain a secular state, where the rights of all ethnic and religious groups will be provided and guaranteed,”

"Russia’s assessment of the US-led anti-terror operation in Syria is based on observations of specific results and there are little results, not to say there are none – except the fact that during this period [since August 2014] the Islamic State has grown on the territories they control.”
Clear enough?

So to put it into my own words. The United States wants President Assad (President of Syria) gone however we don't have the political backing to do it (not to mention Russia and Iran are allied with Assad) without looking like tyrants or starting a war with larger powers, mainly Russia, so, we raised this little terrorist group called ISIS while funding it, training it, and supporting it, to do our fighting against Assad.

Unfortunately, the dog got big and now we have two problems on our hands. ISIS is large and powerful (because of us) and President Assad is still in power (because ISIS isn't doing what we wanted them to do), and lots of innocent people are dying and fleeing from Iraq/Syria.

Thanks American Government!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-18/russia-explains-clueless-us-public-why-obama-cant-defeat-isis

Wouldn't be the first time really, the US is up to so much secretive shit it's not even funny, and the shit they get caught over are the reason everyone considers them the biggest threat to peace currently even above Russia post-Crimea. At least, according to a guy I listen to called SecularTalk.

Yeah, it's frustrating to see this stuff go on day after day on TV and nobody steps up and calls Obama out on it. America and Russia have been fighting proxy wars for decades manipulating smaller, less developed countries as puppets, thus destroying them in the process. America and Russia are SOOO Ventrue.

Sadly that's true of all great powers. First they climb over corpses to become great and then they play games with other great powers to maintain their position.

And they love groups like ISIS that don't pose a significant theat to the great power, but can be used to scare the great power's people into being good little citizens.

Dragatus wrote:

...
And they love groups like ISIS that don't pose a significant theat to the great power, but can be used to scare the great power's people into being good little citizens.

...until those groups "suddely" become a threat. I still remember that the US armed the rebels in Afghanistan after the soviet invasion 1980. And what happened? These rebels became the Taliban and were said to be responsible for 9/11.
So Afghanistan had to be invaded by America. And to do so, they supported another faction in the civil war. And the result is that the civil war over there is worse than before...
So let's hope the next IS attack is in the US.

Or not at all ideally. Sufficed to say, the best hope as far as taking down ISIS goes is for the Kurds and Iran being kept in the picture as the most reliable fighters against ISIS so far, moreso the former. As for Assad well, he is a tyrant no doubt; but I wonder if it's not another Saddam Hussein moment here where Saddam was a tyrant but he was also a stabilizing force in the region and through his death ISIS rose.

Karavolos wrote:

Or not at all ideally. Sufficed to say, the best hope as far as taking down ISIS goes is for the Kurds and Iran being kept in the picture as the most reliable fighters against ISIS so far, moreso the former. As for Assad well, he is a tyrant no doubt; but I wonder if it's not another Saddam Hussein moment here where Saddam was a tyrant but he was also a stabilizing force in the region and through his death ISIS rose.

Exectly that. Saddam is a bloody bastard that would put not only Ventrue but also Tzimisce to shame, but he keeps the region stable-ish. Was there a Muslim state that worked and wes not a tyranny? Didn't hear of any either. And don't quote Turky: first army, now islamists rule it. Elections...?

With Americans there is a pattern: they lack imagination even more so than Germans, evert thime they try to "fix"a non-European country (or at least non_Western by culture), things get ugly. I think the best explanation is the American thinking pattern. A short but condensed attempt at an explanation below:

http://www.returntoorder.org/2014/10/isis-problem-wrong-beliefs-expressed-savagely/?utm_source=sm-rto&utm_medium=email&utm_content=RTOE0177&utm_campaign=rto_newsletter

As for Effects of American interventions out of "White"world:

Wietnam ---> Commie Wietnam
Iran ----> Shia Islamic Republic
Afghanistan ----> Taliban
Somalia ----> WTF is there now...?
Iraq ----> half Iran, half al-Daesh (ISIS)
Lybia ---> like Somalia, plus wave of migrants in Europe.
Syria ----> al-Daesh (ISIS)

The only exception to the above trend was Korea, to a degree...

Dear Americans, don't bring democracy to Poland, we have it shitty enough as it is.

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done
Might've been ideal if not for the whole Crimea and reuniting the old Soviet states and all. Oh well.

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done
Might've been ideal if not for the whole Crimea and reuniting the old Soviet states and all. Oh well.

Putin and his Syrian and Iranian allies do care to kick ISIS. Americans have no buisness in it.
Simply put, he defends his own naval base neat Latakia that gives Russia the capability to operate in the Mediterenan and play a global power.
But yeah, credit where credit is due.

But you know, to think of it, it is funny. To get rid of a mildly homicidal dictator (Assad), Murica created another one (al-Bagdadi), who given the means would have gladly put Lenin and Hitler to shame...

Karavolos wrote:

Or not at all ideally. Sufficed to say, the best hope as far as taking down ISIS goes is for the Kurds and Iran being kept in the picture as the most reliable fighters against ISIS so far, moreso the former.

Except the Iranians are busy fighting the Kurds and securing their nuclear deal with Obama. The Iranians are nothing but a huge problem for the middle east, just as much as if not more than ISIS themselves. So much attention has been given to ISIS when President Assad of Syria and Iran are a much bigger threat to the region.

Childe of Malkav wrote:

Dragatus wrote:

...
And they love groups like ISIS that don't pose a significant theat to the great power, but can be used to scare the great power's people into being good little citizens.

...until those groups "suddely" become a threat. I still remember that the US armed the rebels in Afghanistan after the soviet invasion 1980. And what happened? These rebels became the Taliban and were said to be responsible for 9/11.

The 9/11 attacks were a tragedy and I don't want to be disrespectful to the people who suffered the consequences, but they simply were not an existential threat to either the USA or even the vast majority of it's citizens.

3000 people killed in a country of 300 million is 0,001% of the total population. And in that same year 42,000 Americans died in car accidents (link). That is 7x as many as died in the 9/11 attacks but nobody freaked out and tried to limit citizen's rights in order to protect them from the "automobile threat". And if we look at longer periods of time, things start looking even less favorable for the terrorists.

The Soviet Union setting up nuclear missiles on Cuba in 1962? Now that was a proper existential threat.

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done

On that matter I have heard reports that Putin used the anti Isis Pretext to attack the moderate anti Assad opposition in Syria.

Childe of Malkav wrote:

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done

On that matter I have heard reports that Putin used the anti Isis Pretext to attack the moderate anti Assad opposition in Syria.

Lies and slander! He used the pretext to attack all anti-Assad oposition in Syria, not just the moderate ones.

Dragatus wrote:

Childe of Malkav wrote:

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done

On that matter I have heard reports that Putin used the anti Isis Pretext to attack the moderate anti Assad opposition in Syria.

Lies and slander! He used the pretext to attack all anti-Assad oposition in Syria, not just the moderate ones.

True. They are buddies with Assad. You know, Old Dictators Club, Gents Only...

Childe of Malkav wrote:

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done

On that matter I have heard reports that Putin used the anti Isis Pretext to attack the moderate anti Assad opposition in Syria.

They are supported by Isis and the USA. They are moderate terrorist

MxM wrote:

Childe of Malkav wrote:

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done

On that matter I have heard reports that Putin used the anti Isis Pretext to attack the moderate anti Assad opposition in Syria.

They are supported by Isis and the USA. They are moderate terrorist

What is a "moderate terrorist"?
To me it is like with a pregnancy: you either are pregnant or not.

Feral wrote:

MxM wrote:

Childe of Malkav wrote:

Karavolos wrote:

Putin got ISIS on the run in some country in the Middle-East after like a week of entering; while the US was there for a decade. Say what you will about Putin, but he gets shit done

On that matter I have heard reports that Putin used the anti Isis Pretext to attack the moderate anti Assad opposition in Syria.

They are supported by Isis and the USA. They are moderate terrorist

What is a "moderate terrorist"?
To me it is like with a pregnancy: you either are pregnant or not.

It was ironic. The press and media say they are moderate, but being trained by CIA and supported by ISIS I higly doubt the "moderate" part, I just see them as terrorists.

Moderate terrorists are the ones that are only moderately terrifying.

Dragatus wrote:

Moderate terrorists are the ones that are only moderately terrifying.

Nah, can't be. A third of my coworkers would have qualified, and not even the halal third...

USA might be holding back, but someone else sure isn't.

http://www.viralalternativenews.com/2015/11/russia-decimates-isis-oil.html

Dragatus wrote:

USA might be holding back, but someone else sure isn't.

http://www.viralalternativenews.com/2015/11/russia-decimates-isis-oil.html

A very good find, Dragatus. As for the Turks, well... Ottoman Empire was a country founded on jihad, no?

YEAH MOTHAFUCKAS

RED PRESIDENT
IS
BEST PRESIDENT

Let' just hope this doesn't escalate.

BTW: http://www.infowars.com/turkey-in-2012-short-term-border-violation-can-never-be-a-pretext-for-an-attack/