Obama Wants Unconstitutional Authorization to Attack ISIS

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that only “Congress shall have the power… to declare war.”

Some members of Congress have criticized the administration for failing to seek congressional approval for the new war which began in August when the U.S. attacked ISIS under the pretense of humanitarian intervention to rescue Yazidis allegedly trapped on the Sinjar Mountain in northwestern Iraq.

It was later learned the humanitarian crisis was largely manufactured.

“It turns out there were Yazidis already living on the top of the mountain, and while there were some refugees who fled up there, the humanitarian crisis was never what it was made out to be, and an influx of Kurdish PKK fighters from Syria quickly broke the overblown siege,” Jason Ditz wrote on August 13, 2014.

“The administration just seems grateful that they got an excuse to start a war they’ve been chomping at the bit for, and even if the excuse didn’t exactly pan out, they’ll quickly find another.”

Obama wants the new authorization to replace and update a 2002 authorization used by Bush to launch the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The 2001 authorization put into place after the September 11, 2001 attacks will remain in place. Obama has used it to justify conducting a drone war against al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia.

The alleged death of American aid worker Kayla Mueller will be used by advocates of continued war in the Middle East to push through the authorization….

By Kurt Nimmo – Infowars –

US Sending Troops To Train ISIS Terrorist Group!

[T]he US is indeed, not only supporting terrorist groups, but is continuing to actively use the US Military to train our attackers!

Starting with the new report from USA Today, headlined with “400 U.S. troops will deploy to train Syrian opposition,” which provides details, confirmed by Defense officials, that US troops will be training Syrian “rebels” out of sites in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, as ” part of the overall campaign to defeat the Islamic State militants who seized large swaths of Syria and Iraq.” The USA Today was citing an AP article with that last quote.

What both the AP article and the USA Today article neglected to mention, thinking it fell down the memory hole of the internet, was that reports as far back as 2012 proved conclusively that Syrian “rebels” not only joined a pact with ISIS to not attack them but many of it’s members, trained BY THE US, joined the terrorist group after said training.

IBT from June 2014:

As the American government is contemplating on whether or not to launch an airstrike on ISIS that is threatening to destroy Iraq, reports have now surfaced that way back in 2012, the US Army had trained members of the same terrorist group in Jordan.

As per several corroborated reports, hundreds of ISIS militia were indeed trained by US instructors for covert operations to destabilize Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government, though the training was strictly for Syria.

Other major media groups such as Agence France-Presse, Huffington Post, RT, just to name a few, all provided information on the Syrian “rebels” connection with ISIS, their agreement and pacts with them, yet now the US is sending 400 more troops, and their “enablers” to quote the USA Today article, to train more.

As recently as December 25, 2014, Syrian National Coalition representative to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Adib Al-Shishakli, warned that “Moderate Syrian opposition fighters are increasingly joining the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) for financial reasons.” A July 8, 2014 report shows that a 1,000 strong Syrian Rebel brigade defected to ISIS.

ISIS has threatened to attack the west time and time again, has claimed to have hacked into the CENTCOM mobile devices then splashed personal information from those intrusions onto the CENTCOM social media accounts of Twitter and YouTube, threatened to burn NY, and much more, yet the US claims they are trying to destroy them out of one side of their mouth, while at the same time actively training the very people that are joining the group.

By Susan Duclos – All News PipeLine –

Islamic State hands out rules for sex slaves

The Islamic State has made clear its justification for the rape and enslavement of non-Muslim women and children with a color-printed pamphlet “Question and Answers on Female Slaves and their Freedom,” being distributed in Mosul.

Armed men handed out the pamphlet in the militant occupied Iraqi city on Friday after sunset prayers, several residents toldCNN on Saturday.

The document explains the terrorist group’s policy on having sexual intercourse with female slaves — even those who haven’t reached puberty — citing the Koran for justification.

SEE ALSO: Elite U.S. Navy SEALs in action

“If she was a virgin, he (the owner) can have intercourse with her immediately after the ownership is fulfilled,” the pamphlet explains, CNN reported. “If she was not a virgin, her uterus must be purified (wait for her period to be sure she is not pregnant.)”

The guide lays out other rules as well. For example, two men who co-own a slave can’t both have sex with her and a man can’t have sex with his wife’s slave.

Regarding children: “It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse,” The Islamic State rules said. “However, if she is not fit for intercourse, he (the owner) can only enjoy her without intercourse.”

But the Q&A makes is clear that the captors have complete control of their captives.

“It is permissible to buy, sell or give as a gift female captives and slaves, for they are merely property,” the pamphlet reads.

By Kellan Howell – The Washington Times –

Why American Efforts to Create Foreign Armies Fail

By William J. Astore –

In June, tens of thousands of Iraqi Security Forces in Nineveh province north of Baghdad collapsed in the face of attacks from the militants of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS), abandoning four major cities to that extremist movement. The collapse drew much notice in our media, but not much in the way of sustained analysis of the American role in it. To put it bluntly, when confronting IS and its band of lightly armed irregulars, a reputedly professional military, American-trained and -armed, discarded its weapons and equipment, cast its uniforms aside, and melted back into the populace. What this behavior couldn’t have made clearer was that U.S. efforts to create a new Iraqi army, much-touted and funded to the tune of $25 billion over the 10 years of the American occupation ($60 billion if you include other reconstruction costs), had failed miserably.

Though reasonable analyses of the factors behind that collapse exist, an investigation of why U.S. efforts to create a viable Iraqi army (and, by extension, viable security forces in Afghanistan) cratered so badly are lacking. To understand what really happened, a little history lesson is in order. You’d need to start in May 2003 with the decision of L. Paul Bremer III, America’s proconsul in occupied Iraq and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), to disband the battle-hardened Iraqi military. The Bush administration considered it far too tainted by Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party to be a trustworthy force.

Instead, Bremer and his team vowed to create a new Iraqi military from scratch….

So here’s the $60 billion question: Why did such sustained U.S. efforts bear such bitter fruit? The simple answer: for a foreign occupying force to create a unified and effective army from a disunified and disaffected populace was (and remains) a fool’s errand. In reality, U.S. intervention, now as then, will serve only to aggravate that disunity, no matter what new Anbar Awakenings are attempted.

Upon Saddam’s overthrow in 2003 and the predictable power vacuum that followed, score-settling ethno-religious factions clashed in what, in the end, was little short of civil war. In the meantime, both Sunni and Shia insurgencies arose to fight the American occupiers. Misguided decisions by Bremer’s CPA only made matters worse. Deep political divisions in Iraq fed those insurgencies, which targeted American troops as a foreign presence. In response, the U.S. military sought to pacify the insurgents, while simultaneously expanding the Iraqi constabulary. In military parlance, it began to “stand up” what would become massive security forces. These were expected to restore a semblance of calm, even as they provided cover for U.S. troops to withdraw ever so gradually from combat roles.

It all sounded so reasonable and achievable that the near-impossibility of the task eluded the Americans involved….

 
Continue Reading

US to fund Iraq-Syria war by unlimited war credit card: Analyst

From PressTv.com –

With mandatory military spending cuts looming next year, the United States will use a slush fund known as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) to pay for its new military campaign in Iraq and Syria, an analyst tells Press TV.

The Pentagon has estimated that the ongoing air offensive against the ISIL terrorist group is costing up to $10 million a day.

In addition, lawmakers have approved a measure authorizing the Pentagon to begin training and arming “moderate” Syrian militants into a proxy ground army against both ISIL and the Syrian government, a plan that could take years and cost over $1 billion.

In recent weeks, US military leaders have seized on the war on ISIL and increased military spending by China and Russia, imploring Congress to eliminate the nearly $500 billion in budget cuts that were planned over the next decade.

However, analysts predict that Congress will most certainly fund the ISIL war using the OCO account, a so-called war credit card with no limits in borrowing, according to Stars and Stripes, a military newspaper.

 
Continue Reading