No. 2 ISIS Leader Killed in US Military Strike

[AMDR]

White House: No. 2 ISIS Leader Killed in US Military Strike
White House: No. 2 ISIS Leader Killed in US Military Strike | Military.com

OAK BLUFFS, Massachusetts -- The Obama administration says the No. 2 leader of the Islamic State militant group was killed in a U.S. military air strike in Iraq earlier this week.

National Security Council spokesman Ned Price says Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali was traveling in a vehicle near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul when he was killed Tuesday.

As the senior deputy to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Hayali was the primary coordinator for moving large amounts of weapons, explosives, vehicles and people between Iraq and Syria.

Price characterized Al-Hayali's death as a blow to Islamic State operations because his influence spanned finance, media, operations and logistics for the group.

Also killed in the air strike was an Islamic State media operative known as Abu Abdullah.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Good shooting!

 

[Irdid]

Good Riddance.

 

[waz]

Ha! Time for Waz's famous joke.

What was the last thing going through Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali's mind before he died?










A hellfire missile.

 

[Serpentine]

White House: No. 2 ISIS Leader Killed in US Military Strike
White House: No. 2 ISIS Leader Killed in US Military Strike | Military.com

OAK BLUFFS, Massachusetts -- The Obama administration says the No. 2 leader of the Islamic State militant group was killed in a U.S. military air strike in Iraq earlier this week.

National Security Council spokesman Ned Price says Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali was traveling in a vehicle near the northern Iraqi city of Mosul when he was killed Tuesday.

As the senior deputy to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Hayali was the primary coordinator for moving large amounts of weapons, explosives, vehicles and people between Iraq and Syria.

Price characterized Al-Hayali's death as a blow to Islamic State operations because his influence spanned finance, media, operations and logistics for the group.

Also killed in the air strike was an Islamic State media operative known as Abu Abdullah.

They'll reappear like mushrooms, there are always substitutes for these bastards. Unless, if it was possible, to obliterate various very senior leaders all at once. It would be a huge blow and could paralyze their operations in some areas.

 

[gangsta_rap]

This will complement the upcoming Mosul liberation. Let's see whose next to be hellfired.

 

[Madali]

Daesh isn't about number 1 or number 2 or number 10. It's about the funding. Cut off the funding, pressure countries to stop supporting Daesh, and in two weeks, they'll all start to fall.

 

[type93]

Somewhere in Ankara, erdogan is becoming more miserable.

 

[24 Hours]

BIH
Burn in Hell

 

[A.M.]

Looks like the U.S. has finally infiltrated IS with their spies.

Happy hunting.

 

[KTOOOOM]

and still people say the usa has weakened and cant fight a war ..smih

 

[mike2000 is back]

They'll reappear like mushrooms, there are always substitutes for these bastards. Unless, if it was possible, to obliterate various very senior leaders all at once. It would be a huge blow and could paralyze their operations in some areas.

Huh.....i thought that according to you and your leaders, the evil U.S/West are actively supporting and arming ISIS while targeting Iran and its Hezbollah terror proxies?

The saudi and other Arabs accuse the U.S of the opposite instead(i.e U.S/Westvhaving a soft spot for Iran and its militias in the region while targeting other Syrian rebel groups fighting Assad). So which 1 is it finally??

Confused much??

 

[Madali]

Huh.....i thought that according to you and your leaders, the evil U.S/West are actively supporting and arming ISIS while targeting Iran and its Hezbollah terror proxies?

The saudi and other Arabs accuse the U.S of the opposite instead(i.e U.S/Westvhaving a soft spot for Iran and its militias in the region while targeting other Syrian rebel groups fighting Assad). So which 1 is it finally??

Confused much??

It's not confusing actually. USA wanted to get rid of Assad, that's why they fully supported the opposition and did not criticize Qatar & Turkey for arming & funding the rebels.

They thought, the whole thing would take a few weeks, while Assad will fall, and they will get a new puppet government. It would be a great win for them to get rid of Syria's government.

Two things didn't go according to plan. First of all, the opposition was weak and unpopular, and did not have much ground support. The second was that Russia wasn't willing to let Syria be another Libya. With Libya, Russia got fooled. The supported a no-fly zone, thinking that was all it would be, not knowing that a no-fly zone soon turned into a full scale NATO attack on the country.

This two factors prevented reaching their original goal. Eventually, foreign politics started to seem to be very complicated for the Qataris and they pulled back. Libya turned into a shithole. Egypt's new democratic inspirations where short lived. Bahrain's protests were squashed with Saudi soldiers & tanks marching in. Yemen's revolution brought in a temporary President who stayed on after his term was over. And everyone realized that Arab Spring had turned into Arab Winter.

Now, USA was stuck with Syria's situation. They couldn't directly fund the opposition anymore because they turned out to be such extremists that it made Osama Bin Ladin look like a progressive thinker. Any moderate rebels they would help would either turn into a failure or they'd join the extremists. They didn't want to directly help Assad either. They thought, hey, lets help the Kurds, but that didn't turn out well either, because their NATO ally, the Turks, didn't like that either.

So, here is their choice:
Support the Kurds? Turks won't like that.
Support Assad? Their M.E. allies won't like that
Support ISIS? Their own population won't like that

So, because their first priority is their own population, they do some strikes against ISIS to make sure the war doesn't go 100% their way, but not enough for ISIS to also completely lose. In the current circumstances, their best outcome is what's going on now:

Prolong the war. As long as no one is winning, everyone is losing, and that's in line with USA's strategy for Syria.

That is, since they aren't getting the government they want in Syria, they prefer no one gets anything either.

 

[mike2000 is back]

It's not confusing actually. USA wanted to get rid of Assad, that's why they fully supported the opposition and did not criticize Qatar & Turkey for arming & funding the rebels.

They thought, the whole thing would take a few weeks, while Assad will fall, and they will get a new puppet government. It would be a great win for them to get rid of Syria's government.

Two things didn't go according to plan. First of all, the opposition was weak and unpopular, and did not have much ground support. The second was that Russia wasn't willing to let Syria be another Libya. With Libya, Russia got fooled. The supported a no-fly zone, thinking that was all it would be, not knowing that a no-fly zone soon turned into a full scale NATO attack on the country.

This two factors prevented reaching their original goal. Eventually, foreign politics started to seem to be very complicated for the Qataris and they pulled back. Libya turned into a shithole. Egypt's new democratic inspirations where short lived. Bahrain's protests were squashed with Saudi soldiers & tanks marching in. Yemen's revolution brought in a temporary President who stayed on after his term was over. And everyone realized that Arab Spring had turned into Arab Winter.

Now, USA was stuck with Syria's situation. They couldn't directly fund the opposition anymore because they turned out to be such extremists that it made Osama Bin Ladin look like a progressive thinker. Any moderate rebels they would help would either turn into a failure or they'd join the extremists. They didn't want to directly help Assad either. They thought, hey, lets help the Kurds, but that didn't turn out well either, because their NATO ally, the Turks, didn't like that either.

So, here is their choice:
Support the Kurds? Turks won't like that.
Support Assad? Their M.E. allies won't like that
Support ISIS? Their own population won't like that

So, because their first priority is their own population, they do some strikes against ISIS to make sure the war doesn't go 100% their way, but not enough for ISIS to also completely lose. In the current circumstances, their best outcome is what's going on now:

Prolong the war. As long as no one is winning, everyone is losing, and that's in line with USA's strategy for Syria.

That is, since they aren't getting the government they want in Syria, they prefer no one gets anything either.

No, for one most of you here say the U.S still supports ISIS even today, ask your other iranian brothers here

Anyway, even if what you said was true, thwn i'm perfectly ok with that. The U.S, U.K,/West to just need to watch from the sk and bomb when they desire(as we are already doing). Since Iran's Mullah and the syrian dictatorial regime also supported their own terrorists groups against us in Iraq. These same terrorists are now hunting them to the last man today.lool Talk of Karma. Lmao. So i will say we should let them wreak havoc against their former sponsors(just like Hamas also sided with rebels against the syrian dictatorial regime/Iran stooges hezbollah.lol).

We shouldn't send even one of our soldiers to die here. Just play some games from the sky and enjoy the scene, while the bleed the syrian regime/hezbollah terror group dry. no side is the good side anyway