As Obama Launches Another Iraq Assault, Here Is An Undercover Look Inside ISIS

Tyler Durden's picture

While the biggest geopolitical news of the past week was Obama's announcement he would become only the fourth president in a row to order military action in Iraq, explicitly targeting the ISIS jihadists, the far bigger question are the developments that spurred the administration to finally act.

The NYT reports that "as the tension mounted in Washington" the catalyst for Obama's decision was sudden developments surrounding the Kurdistan capital, Erbil. "Kurdish forces who had been fighting the militants in three nearby Christian villages abruptly fell back toward the gates of the city, fanning fears that the city might soon fall. By Thursday morning, people were thronging the airport, desperate for flights out of town. "The situation near Erbil was becoming more dire than anyone expected," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the White House’s internal deliberations. “We didn’t want another Benghazi."

The reason for this is that the US has an embassy in Erbil: that falling to ISIS would be the supreme punch in the gut for an administration whose foreign policy has become the butt of all global jokes. What's worse, now that ISIS had taken control of a critical dam in Mosul (which as we reported earlier controls water levels on the Tigris levels as far as Baghdad, and whose capture "shook Kurdish officials and fueled the sense of crisis" as it gave ISIS all of the leverage) the US embassy could be flooded should ISIS blow up the dam in question.

In other words, Obama merely took to arms after the threat of another massive foreign humiliation became all too real and when the reality that the Kurdish defense was about to fall. Of course, the actual stated reason for intervention was different, a far more noble one.

At a 90-minute meeting in the Situation Room on Thursday morning, Mr. Obama was briefed again about the plight of the Iraqis stranded on Mount Sinjar. Members of an ancient religious sect known as Yazidi, they were branded as devil worshipers by the militants. The women were to be enslaved; the men were to be slaughtered.


Officials told Mr. Obama there was a real danger of genocide, under the legal definition of the term. “While we have faced difficult humanitarian challenges, this was in a different category,” said an official. “That kind of shakes you up, gets your attention.”


At 11:20 a.m., Mr. Obama left the meeting to travel to Fort Belvoir, Va., where he signed a bill expanding health care for veterans. He had all but made up his mind to authorize airstrikes, officials said, and while he was away, his team drafted specific military options.


When the president returned to the White House barely an hour later, he went back into meetings with his staff. By then, there were news reports of airdrops and possible strikes. But the White House “hunkered down,” an official said, refusing to comment on the reports for fear of endangering a nighttime airdrop over Mount Sinjar.


Mr. Obama did not announce the operations until dawn had broken in Iraq, a delay of several hours that added to the panic in Erbil. Reports of explosions near the city at dusk on Thursday night sowed confusion after Kurdish officials said the United States had begun airstrikes on the militants. The Pentagon flatly denied the reports.

The rest is now well-known (the full breakdown can be found here), and culminated with Obama's Thursday announcement as well as the immediate launch of bombing raids on ISIS militants.

Here is the most recent Iraq situation report courtesy of the Institute for the Study of War.

Within the past 24 hours, ISIS seized Mosul Dam. This capture provides ISIS strategic advantage over the Iraqi state. The dam's collapse would severely damage vast areas of the country where ISIS seeks to achieve military victory but has encountered heavy resistance. Also, ISIS now controls electricity production to Mosul and the group extends its claimed territory farther north. ISIS continues to fight the Peshmerga in Makhmour, south of Mosul and the IA in Dhuluiya, north of Baghdad. Although the United States conducted two rounds of targeted airstrikes against ISIS held territory outside of Arbil and Mosul, it remains too early to determine whether or not the group will adjust its military strategy. ISIS is likely hardening territorial boundaries for the Islamic Caliphate east of Mosul, but ISW assess ISIS will not attempt to seize Erbil. Still, fear of an ISIS attack on Erbil has peaked.

So now that the attention is once again back to ISIS, whose dramatic success in forming the caliphate was lost to the world following the return of hostilities in Ukraine and the escalation of the second Cold War, here are, courtesy of Vice News, the first two parts of a series looking at life in the Islamic State caliphate. Vice News reporter Medyan Dairieh spent three weeks embedded with the Islamic State, gaining access to the group in Iraq and Syria as the first and only journalist to document its inner workings.

In part 1, Dairieh heads to the frontline in Raqqa, where Islamic State fighters are laying siege to the Syrian Army’s division 17 base.


In Part 2 filmmaker Medyan Dairieh meets an Islamic State member from Belgium who works to indoctrinate some of the youngest members of the group. He also gains further insight into the minds of Islamic State fighters as they host celebrations and military parades featuring American tanks and APCs seized from the Iraqi army.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
junction's picture

Okay, interview and tour over.  Now let's just exterminate the ISIS, starting with their leader, whether he is a Mossad agent or not.

barbarika's picture

Can someone please drop John Mccain to be with his brethren in Islamic State. Maybe he can talk with them to only focus on Asad and returns the weapons after killing Assad. What an idiot. 

Arius's picture

Obama has been doing all he can under very difficult circumstances.  What he has facing has been much more than Bush the father, Clinton, and GW Bush ever faced alltogether ... perhaps as many as the last ten presidents all together.  What did they ever face?  a largely non existent Soviet threat.  Obama is facing that, China, Al Qaeda, ISIs and much more ...


Everyone should be supporting the President!

surf0766's picture

NO he funded ISIS. He and MCCain. He is responsible. Stop making excuses

Leonardo Fibonacci2's picture

I guess Bush wasn't that bad after all.

Arius's picture

I have noticed ZHers are anti Obama, however, I will hold on to my opinion.

I have noticed that most of the hard anti Obamas, are of the types that expect the President to solve everything by some magic bullet.

They do not realize the President at the end doesnt have that much power, there are many people, players who direct things towards a certain direction and the President it is just another player.  Yes, it is an important job, but so are many other jobs in Wall Street etc....

yes, it might make you feel good to blame someone and the President it is an easy target however, if you stop and think for a moment he has been doing all he can and he is facing quite a lot...

btw, down arrows do not bother me .. whatever....

sushi's picture

the President at the end doesnt have that much power


You are completely correct.

Being able to fire missiles at wedding parties taking place anywhere in the world is a sure sign of weakness.

Being able to collect and review all of your private communications is pretty weak.

Making sure you get your gentials groped at the airport well that is poofta stuff.

Bombing something cause you just had a hunch it needed to be bombed is totally weak.

Disregarding the US constitution is just doing what all weak dictators do.

You are so, so, correct in your views. I am flabbergasted the facts fail to support your dream state.


Cathartes Aura's picture


just because all of these things listed - and more - HAPPEN, does not mean the positioned figurehead - currently Obama, Bushes before, with a bit o' Clinton -

is the go-to for actions.  shit happens daily, always has, in the alphabet agencies, under covers, behind scenes, interwoven agendas play out.

it's handy to have a face to blame - that's what they're paid for, of course - BUT never mistake the glove puppet

for the Hand.

MalteseFalcon's picture

Does ISIS have a private central bank, yet?

nmewn's picture

Yeah, as long as you get a government approved license from one of her regulatory agencies, you can say pretty much anything you want ;-)

Stackers's picture

The terrorist sporting Raybans was a nice touch. Someone needs to get that poor fool out of the 1980's

GetZeeGold's picture



ZHers are anti Obama however, I will hold on to my opinion.


The communist muslim dictator serves up a mean glass of Koolaid!

CheapBastard's picture

Are these the 'minds and hearts' Bush won over?

Four chan's picture

america was never designed to be at perpetual war, only perpetual money printing and debt makes it so.

James_Cole's picture

The reason for this is that the US has an embassy in Erbil: that falling to ISIS would be the supreme punch in the gut for an administration whose foreign policy has become the butt of all global jokes. 

Ridiculous when people keep pretending it is "this" administration. US has been bombing Iraq continuously for roughly 3 fucking decades people! 'Obama' foreign policy represents continuous AMERICAN foreign policy. Only real difference is dem presidents seem less war mongers than their repub counterparts, but not by that much. 

Hephaestus's picture

Warning not for the feint of SOUL. Here Is An Undercover Look Inside what ISIS will soon be. And so will we all I think.

PS look at the date. They have had enought time to do it.

espirit's picture

Left handed finger wave.

I'm sure they washed up for the photo op, right?

COSMOS's picture

Something looks real fishy about those guys.  Given that VICE is owned by the Zionists one has to wonder how did it get such exclusive privilages amongst a bunch of towelheads even Al Queda is against.

Those three guys look to me more like Benny, Saul, and Shlomo

Actually the guy on the far left looks more like Jesus.

Elvis the Pelvis's picture

I think it's time to kill these motherfuckers.  'Nuff said.  Bitchez.

GetZeeGold's picture



time to kill these motherfuckers. 


Go into orbit and nuke the place from's the only way.

Davalicious's picture

If you are planning to hang out at Allen's snack bar better book a table. It seems to be popular.

yatikto's picture

VICE is not a legit news source. I don't know all the back story, but some Ukrainian reporting was diametrically opposite of the facts.

ajax's picture



This can't be real, the kittens are missing. There are no kittens - where are the kittens?


BraveSirRobin's picture

Sorry about the rank, but... Fuck "Hearts and Minds." We should never use the military to "win hearts and minds" or for "nation building." Quite he contrary. When we resort to military force, it should be about killing our enemies and "nation destruction." We should realize that the use of force is all about killing and maiming our adversaies so they beg us to quit what we are doing to them. Then it is done. All this insipid double speak from our leaders pollutes our minds... the "War of Poverty," the "War on Drugs," and the very stupid and current Democrat inflamatory idiocy claim of a Republican "War on Women." As a nation we seem to have no idea what war is, so we stager around like a druncken colosus causing varying bits of seeminly haphazard and random destruction, almost like a force of nature rather than a great power.

If you go to war, go all in, because it's all about death and destruction - get a grip on the reality of what you are doing, or stay out completely. The first thing we can do is change the name of the Department of Defense back to the War Department. Next, make war a national endeavor. Shrink the full-time career army, expand the National Guard, and always, always, send overwhelming force. Everyone's family needs to be affected so it has to be worth it to the people of the nation. All in, or all out. 

These Muslims are evil and insane beyond any measure. Any one who makes exuses for them is a fool, or also evil and insane. But if we go to war, let's get it on - all in, then it's death and destruction on a biblical scale. Who cares if they like us if they are all dead or so so afraid of us they piss on themselves every time they even think of us. But let's realize what it is we are doing. The end comes when they beg us for mercy, not when they like us, because they will never like us. It used to be called sucking it up and being a man. It's not fun, or pretty, or even glorious. It sucks hard. I've been there. I've done it, and I pray God I nor anyone I know ever has to do it again. But the question on the table really is if we leave them alone will they pacify, or will they grow and grow and grow to become a greater and intolerable threat. If you believe the latter, then it's better to do it now. It will be much less horrific and painful. If you believe the former, is it worth the risk of being wrong, and at what point do you admit you are wrong?

And for all those who say we helped create all this, fine. Though I could, I will not even argue the point, but just posit that having created the monster, is in not even more our responsibility to destroy it? 

For the record, I do not mind if they all kill and oppress each other. It's what they like to do. But they also like killing us, and that's the problem. Because they are so insane and dangerous, what should we do? I do not have the answers, but if war, make it war with full realization of what it is and what it entails. All in and git-er done, but war is indeed Hell. It's a description, not a euphamism.

Parousia's picture

Very well said!  As it relates to the situation with ISIS: all in; put an end to it quickly and thoroughly.  Anyone who believes this brand of Islam will stop conquering on their own and become less of a threat over time would be wise to study history.  As a primer:

FreedomGuy's picture

One of the best posts and very true. I would add that this is what a formal, Constitutionally mandated declaration of war does. It puts the nation all-in, as you say for a war. It lets loose the Dogs of War and enables a full scale effort. On the political side it makes weasely politicians choose and commit. Then, they cannot say stupid things like, "I was against it before I was for it." or the converse. Politicians, especially the Left love to change sides when it is expedient.

The last thing it does is force the leadership to explain their postion and reasoning to the whole country. It is not too hard after a Pearl Harbor. It would be a lot harder for unconfirmed "weapons of mass destruction" (used by Clinton, Bush and Obama).

I also agree with what you imply that these people do not stop unless they are dead or very sure they will be dead and dead for no purpose. Agree or disagree but the atomic bomb on Japan sent exactly that message. They would be incinerated without any glorious Last Samurai death for no practical purpose. The Japanese who fought to the death most everywhere surrendered inside a week.

Duffy's picture

You're a fucking idiot, with a brain either rotted from watching too much Fox news, or reading too many hasbara handbooks... or both.

GetZeeGold's picture



Pretty sure he got that on MSNBC.

Jumbotron's picture

Fuck off Duffy.

Sooner or later we're going to kill all your Muzzie lovers right there in the dirt where they belong.

It's not their religion.  It's the gun they draw and the sword they wield.  Their insane religious rantings are just a front.

They're nothing but desert gang bangers.  And they are going to die.

And there isn't a fucking thing you or the other Jew haters on this site can do about it.


Jumbotron's picture

And the judicious use of nuclear weapons on these animals is just what is called for.  Like the Japs....once they know that the power of the Sun can and will be used on them and their families......they will shit themselves in minutes and grovel like the cowardly dogs they are.

They are nothing but neighborhood bullies.  Beat the shit out of them mercilessly, nuke them families to ashes.....and they will give up any notion that Allah is real and wants them to supply Allah with the  blood of the innocents.

And if they resist......kill them all.  The world will not care.  The world will not miss them.  The world is sick of their shit.  The world is just too chicken shit to do what needs to be done with this human filth.

But please....keep it up ISIS.....keep it up Hamas.  Keep it up Hezbo-Lezbo-Allah.  We will continue to isolate you, kill you and kill your wives and your children until you get it throught your thick, fucking animal skulls to grow up and be civilized.

Until then.....suck on that cruise missile bitch.


22CF45's picture

Remember Sherman and the march to the sea...that worked.

Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

You speak as if the USSA government has any legitimacy or ability to start, manage, and finish such an endeavor, when it can't even secure its own borders. I presume a draft is what you mean by "Everyone's family needs to be affected..."

Who determines what my biggest threats are? You? CONgress? Some heeb in new york city? To date, no one has come close. So now they will try to draft my family? SHIT WILL HIT THE FAN.

BraveSirRobin's picture

The United States can secure it's own borders, at least to a much greater extent. It just declines to do so. 

I do not advocate a draft, I advocate a national debate and consensus before we drop bombs on people.

Who determines the the biggest threats? We all do in forming a broad based consensus via debate, or that's the dream. Right now we have a small clique in the government/corporist/financial/media elite who control and enact these decisions without anyone else's input or consideration. This is the problem of "legitimacy" you mentioned earlier, and yes, it is a problem. 

I do not think you and I really disagree. I am saying "Don't bomb people if at all possible." But if you find you must do it, then do it, and admitt what it is and the lenghts you will to go to end the violence. If you cut someone's kid in two with a machine gun and then give the family a bandaid, you have not made any friends. Instead, you have made and multiplied an implaccable enemy. So, if you start down that path, you will have to kill not only the kid, but also his brothers and sister, mom and dad, and all their close relatives and good friends, or they will just come after you and it will never end. This is the problem with "limited response" and "surgical strikes." You have still killed people, but it solves nothing and multiplies your enemies and is therefore pointless and useless and a waste of lives. I am not advocating - far from it. I am just describing what must be done if anyone proceeds down that path. When you descend into Hell, and war is hell on earth, there are no limits. Best not to go there in the first place, but if that is the path you choose, you had better fucking know where are going before you start the journey or the destination is going to be one big, ugly, horriffic shock. 

So, Obama drops a few bpmbs on ISIS? He killed some folks, but ended nothing. He further angered these insane looney toons, and multiplied our enemies - that's what I object too. So if we get involve in this thing, he, and we, had better realize he has to kill them all. Furthmore, I wish he would take no action until he develops a broad national concesus for extreme action. Otherwise, lets stay the fuck out of it. I hope I made myself clear on these points. 

Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

"We all do in forming a broad based consensus via debate, or that's the dream."

But that is the heart of the matter. When will there be consensus on anything? The former majority apparently wanted diversity and that's what they got. They got diversity of race, diversity of culture, diversity of religion, diversity of morals, diversity of goals, etc. They got so much diversity that a consensus on anything is now impossible. Except in the rare case of 9/11 which may have been planned by some entity, seeing such unravellings, as a vain attempt to create consensus. There is no going back now. There is only more and more diversity fueled by greed, apathy, ineptitude, gridlock, and chaos.

BraveSirRobin's picture

Perhaps, but I still prefer not to give up. BTW, I think the elite powers have foisted "diversity" on us on purpose as a way to divide and conquor us... to play us off one against the other. I do not believe in grand plots or conspiracies, but clearly there are people in the diversity and grievance industry have done this quite purposfully to develop a powerbase. Some have been quite successful. 

Having said that, I still think when an existential threat becomes so manifestly self-evident, the people will respond and rally to a consensus of action. Or at least, I hope so.

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

"The communist Muslim dictator serves up a mean glass of Koolaid!"

I always get a kick out of people who cherry-pick the facts to suit their "emotionally preferred model".  Obama a Muslim, really?  If only it fit the facts... ROFLMAO.

So far, we have seen tons of Muslims and Christians die (Afghanistan, Pakistan, MENA, Ukraine), but hardly any Jews.  How is that?  Why is everybody else fighting and dying around them, and they live in this little Oasis?  Call the "rocket attack" from Hamas (an Israeli-founded org) serious?  Shit, I can do more damage with Chinese firecrackers that I get at an Indian Reservation, than they did!  All their attacks did, was gave the Israelis the pretext to attack Gaza. 

The facts fit far, FAR better a different model:  a model that Obama is a complete an utter sock-puppet of Global Neo/Zio-cons.  He is aiding & abetting the disintegration of powerful states around Israel, and seeing them crumble and regress into Medieval chaos and carnage, from which they won't recover for a long, long time.

nmewn's picture

"Obama a Muslim, really? "

His parents at the time, Soetoro & Dunham claimed him to be a Muslim when he was entered into a madrassa in Indonesia, which makes him Muslim by default.

That is of course, unless they lied, which makes him a son of liars or an apostate.

Which do you prefer? ;-)

Jumbotron's picture

"His parents at the time, Soetoro & Dunham claimed him to be a Muslim when he was entered into a madrassa in Indonesia, which makes him Muslim by default.

That is of course, unless they lied, which makes him a son of liars or an apostate."


It's situational, of course.

When he is here in the States.....he goes to Jeremiah Wright's church.

When he is in the presence of Muslims....well....he knows the score.

nmewn's picture

So we can conclude he is a liar, having been raised by liars.

Sounds like the imperfect candidate "we've all been waiting for!" ;-)

GetZeeGold's picture



Thank goodness he was throughly vetted by the media.


Oh wait.....that didn't happen.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

God, the people that fall for the Kenya and Muslim angle... Still?

After all these years?

His poppa was Frank Marshall Davis, not Obama Sr.  That fact getting out would clearly have derailed his political career before it began, and you can tell Obama was groomed FOR A LONG TIME, by his grandparents and momma. 

Please, people, Google is your friend.

jwoop66's picture

I forced myself to read his book, "dreams of my father".  Well, i got halfway through... regardless, lying; or the desire to lie is a theme barry discusses a number of times in his book.