U.S. pilots: Obama blocks 75% of ISIS strikes
<div>'We can't get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us'
<div>
President Obama has given U.S. military pilots an impossible task: Wage a successful air war against an enemy hiding among civilians – without killing a single civilian.
Pilots who have returned from deployments say Obama refuses to permit airstrikes 75 percent of the time against the Islamic State group.
Read more at
http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/u-s-pilots-ob...BivzO1M.99
</div>
</div>
Can you provide a link to this story from any credible news source? If this is true, surely a site anyone has heard of before would have the story.
Quote:1) WND IS a credible site, been around for 15+ years
2) Here's another link: <a class="bbc_url" href='http://conservativepost.com/u-s-pilots-obama-blocks-75-of-isis-strikes/'>http://conservativepost.com/u-s-pilots-obama-blocks-75-of-isis-strikes/</a>
3) and another link: <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-blocks-terror-targets/2015/11/20/id/702993/'>http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-blocks-terror-targets/2015/11/20/id/702993/</a>
If you're expecting NBC/ABC/CBS/CNBC/CNN or any other news outlet that reads off a DNC Script, don't bother
Then just post the FOX news link. Surely they're all over this one.
Quote:Both refer back to an article from the Washington Free Beacon which is about as credible as a news site as my right buttock.
Why? because it doesn't fit your liberal European point of view?
The U.S. conducted 7,319 sorties over Iraq and Syria as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in the first four months of 2015. Of those, only 1,859 flights — 25.4 percent — had at least one “weapons release,” according to data provided by United States Air Force Central Command. That means that only about one in every four flights dropped a bomb on an Islamic State target.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/75-of-...ing-a-shot
Quote:Both refer back to an article from the Washington Free Beacon which is about as credible as a news site as my right buttock.
I heard somebody at the VFW talking about it last night. It must be true.
So you think civilian casualties are acceptable? Isn't that something that would drive civilians right into the arms of ISIS?
Quote:So you think civilian casualties are acceptable? Isn't that something that would drive civilians right into the arms of ISIS?
It's an ugly truth to fighting a war
Quote:Why? because it doesn't fit your liberal European point of view
No, because it took me all of three seconds of Googling to find multiple sources calling the Washing Free Beacon's reporting unethical.
Quote:No, because it took me all of three seconds of Googling to find multiple sources calling the Washing Free Beacon's reporting unethical.
Burn.
Quote:Burn.
Yeah because nothing discredits a conservative rag like an attack from liberal ones.
If it's a true story, let's discuss it. If it's from a source that has known credibility issues, consider the source. If you're more concerned with wanting something to be true than whether or not it actually is, you're the problem.
Quote:If it's a true story, let's discuss it. If it's from a source that has known credibility issues, consider the source. If you're more concerned with wanting something to be true than whether or not it actually is, you're the problem.
Like always I suspect the narrative Drifter's sites want you to believe is most likely cobbled together from half truths and outright exaggeration.
Drifter's number of 25.9% of sorties dropping weaponry is most likely right, I've seen recent articles in my local press saying the majority of sorties don't actually result in attacks. So let's assume that's correct. Where the flaw comes in and where WDN's reporting gets exposes is the reason for the low percentage. First of those 74.9% a considerable amount probably never found a target, a significant number of sorties are done without a predefined target. Then there are the sorties that found a target but weren't allowed to engage. That's because of the Rules of Engagement which dictate when pilots can and can not attack. Those rules were most likely set by the Chiefs-of-Staff with approval/input from the Obama administration.
What the articles linked suggest is that Obama is personally monitoring flights and stopping the pilots from engaging even when they want to and have been cleared to do so. Considering the amount of sorties and targets that is a physical impossibility. What's happening is the pilots are seeing what they believe to be legitimate targets which they can't engage because of the orders they have received regarding civilians, collateral damage, etc.
Quote:I gave 4 sources in this thread. ALL independent of each other. Take it from there
Here's source #5
John McCain says 75% of airstrike missions against ISIS return without firing a weapon
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ainst-isi/
Your first three sources all base their articles on the Washington Free Beacon so in reality are only one biased and unethical source.
The other two talk about flights returning without releasing weapons which is a far cry from the "Obama is actively preventing pilots from engaging ISIS" narrative the WFB is claiming.
Quote:Your first three sources all base their articles on the Washington Free Beacon so in reality are only one biased and unethical source.
The other two talk about flights returning without releasing weapons which is a far cry from the "Obama is actively preventing pilots from engaging ISIS" narrative the WFB is claiming.
It's HIS war, HIS policies and he expects us to fight it under HIS rules
I'll guarantee you the Russians don't give a rats rear end about civilian casualties.
The French Don't give a rats rear end about it either.
Also:
He IS one of who, exactly?
The Russians don't care about civilian casualties. Which is why their failed invasion of Afghanistan created the Taliban and took a previously moderate Muslim nation and allowed radicals to take over. So. Not caring about civilian casualties only means you, your kids and your grandkids get to fight the same war.
Quote:Your first three sources all base their articles on the Washington Free Beacon so in reality are only one biased and unethical source.
The other two talk about flights returning without releasing weapons which is a far cry from the "Obama is actively preventing pilots from engaging ISIS" narrative the WFB is claiming.
For what its worth I was flipping around the radio and ended up on the hardcore right wing station for a moment and Rush was actually talking about this.....it was counter to an article I read yesterday. He was basically saying what the articles linked said. Also that the US doesn't strike trucks carrying oil because they consider the drivers civilians.
This goes against an article I read from CNN yesterday that says there was a flyer drop that warned of missile strikes that were coming, to tell your friends, and hurry up and get out....shortly after the trucks were blown up.
Is anyone really surprised if that's a policy though? I'm not even saying its a bad policy, but at times you have to take a risk/reward approach. ISIS is making a lot of money at this point selling oil. We have to curb that or they are going to get much more powerful.