The Exposing of the Enemy Within Begins

Is the United States fighting to defeat ISIS, the worldwide terror group inflicting immense pain and suffering around the world?

ISIS, which currently has France on edge after the ruthless and hideous attacks earlier this month in Paris and Brussels, home of NATO, on lock down and is killing "infidels" with lethal abandon, seems to be running roughshod across the globe, almost unabated.

Russia seems to be engaged in the fight, appearing to be forced into action after they had a passenger jet shot down about a month ago. Stop and give that a moment of thought; Russia had a passenger jet, with innocent citizens, shot down.

Vladamir Putin is not a good guy, and Russia, without question, has ulterior motives. Russia noted the turmoil being caused by the uprising in the middle east, and had taken action to increase it standing in the region. GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio accurately pointed this out in an earlier GOP debate, and of course, Mitt Romney hit Obama with the news of Russia and their dangerous plans in a 2012 debate.

If we are indeed at war with the evil terrorist group ISIS, why has the Obama administration not thoroughly dismantled their main sourcing of finance; oil. Furthermore, who are the buyers of this oil, and what are their motivations behind helping to finance this evil band of terrorists? Evidence suggests it is reasonable to conclude Obama is playing for the other team, but who else, in terms of the financing, is joining him?

An excellent article over at Zero Hedge asks The Most Important Question About ISIS Nobody Is Asking.

Among foreign leaders, Turkish PM Erdogan is Obama's best buddy, and both support establishing a greater Syria, or caliphate, in the middle east, against established American interests.

Moscow has accused Turkey of being involved in ISIS's oil trade, and has presented evidence backing the accusations.  This credible evidence, and evidence from outside observers of geopolitics and intentional markets suggests it is Turkey that is purchasing oil from ISIS, allowing it to gain strength and standing in the region.  Make no mistake, Obama is fully aware of this and has no issue with it.

Turkey is making many moves in the region, moves that would not be tolerated without the US backing. The actions are generally against the common positions held by the US, but those positions are at lengthy odds from the direction placed into action by President Obama.

US officials noted the oil being smuggled in is "economically insignificant". "The State Department has dismissed Moscow's charge against its NATO ally, insisting there is no evidence to support it."  However, an admission of the smuggling came from Amos Hochstein, U.S. special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs. "The amount of oil being smuggled is extremely low and has decreased over time and is of no significance from a volume perspective - both volume of oil and volume of revenue," he said.

It is noted that the Muslim nations, and in particular those seeking to establish the caliphate, have a deep disdain for not only the western colonial powers, but Russia, who was a signatory of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

What we have in a commander in chief; is an individual who seeks the degrading and transformation of America to a bit player, defines the USA as a country that must pay for its perceived sins as an oppressor and an individual seeking to advance the caliphate, where a Muslim country regains power similar to the days of the old Ottoman Empire. In short, it is reasonable to conclude, by his actions, our president is playing for the other team.

In September of 2014, we noted Obama was enabling enemies of state, arming terrorist organizations and helping to create the chaos necessary to fuel the flames of insurgency, all of which escalates the power Iran yields in the middle east. Obama is not delusional. His actions, assisting Iran in forming the caliphate, with ISIS free to do the necessary cleansing, are intentional and orchestrated.

President Obama has no intention of doing anything to significantly disrupt the activities of ISIS.  In fact, it certainly appears Obama and the members of his administration are enemies within.

But, placing your opinion from what you may have read here or on other sites should be secondary to watching the actions of President Obama.  They will tell you everything you need to know.

A Real Turkey

Michael Ramirez/Investors Business Daily

Given the subtle references, this is perhaps the most impressive work by Investors Business Daily brilliant editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez in many a moon.

Obama is in fact a turkey, in more ways than one.

Obama has great affection for Turkey and their Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. As we have previously reported, our commander in chief is an individual who seeks the degrading and transformation of America to a bit player, defines the USA as a country that must pay for its perceived sins as an oppressor and an individual seeking to advance the caliphate, where a Muslim country regains power similar to the days of the old Ottoman Empire. In short, it is reasonable to conclude, by his actions, our president is playing for the other team. And on this team is in PM. Erdoğan.  Neither individual is the least bit concerned about the activities of ISIS, who they see as offer a necessary function in cleansing the territory from infidels.

Obama is an enemy within, hiding in plain sight, with America unable to see the forest from within the trees.

In Sept of 2014, we noted Obama was enabling enemies of state, arming terrorist organizations and helping to create the chaos necessary to fuel the flames of insurgency, all of which escalates the power Iran yields in the middle east. Obama is not delusional. His actions, assisting Iran in forming the caliphate, with ISIS free to do the necessary cleansing, are intentional and orchestrated.

A real Turkey indeed.

Whose Buying?

While there is a large contingent who despise such activity, I have always enjoyed respectful political discussion at the many local watering holes I frequent.  A recent topic engaged upon with one of my favorite participants is why, if we are indeed at war with the evil terrorist group ISIS, why has the Obama administration not thoroughly dismantled their main sourcing of finance; oil.

Furthermore, who are the buyers of this oil, and what are their motivations behind helping to finance this evil band of terrorists?   Curious George deemed this subject worthy of putting pen to pad, so therefore, BAHL'S Blog welcomes our third guest on this timely subject from Curious George:

    Are we at war with ISIS or not? This seems to be the question that The President, Congress and the press are bantering about as events play out in Iraq and Syria. Just for the sake of argument let's say that we are. This makes sense since we are dropping bombs on and shooting missiles at our enemies over there. Also let me say at the outset that I support these moves and whatever other military action we feel we need to take over there to defeat ISIS.

    Based on that premise let's take a look at the last war that we can arguably say we won, World War II. During that war, and the one before, we came to be introduced to what is arguably the age old concept of interdiction. No interdiction is not a term coined by the DEA during the war on drugs. In war, this is the concept of seizing or destroying your enemy's ability to rearm, re-enforce and resupply. This includes interdicting their commerce, their ability to sell goods to others to make money. This significantly effects their ability to replace their losses and to make war. In WWII, the allies bombed axis factories and attacked their shipping. Right after the disastrous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Secretary of the Navy issued issued a very short and direct order by radio to all US. Navy submarines operating in the Pacific. "Conduct unrestricted submarine warfare on Japan." This meant that any vessel flying the Japanese flag was a target. This order, and the effort that followed by our subs, came at our lowest point in the war. It was none the less very effective in greatly reducing the Japanese ability to make war and was a major factor in the eventual allied victory.

    Although I served in the military, I am far from an expert on warfare or for that matter, economics. But in light of all that I have seen, heard, and read; it would seem to me that the way to defeat an enemy in war is to 1) Kill them and root them from the ground they hold, and 2) as a second axis of war, interdict their resupply and commerce. In the past, these terror organizations finance infrastructure was underground and had o be investigated and rooted out. This is true of the terror state ISIS with regard to some of their financing activities. But with regard to the selling of "black market oil" we know what oil fields ISIS holds and we know that they are selling at rock bottom prices to folks who are close enough to send tank trucks to get it. Supposedly, from there, it "MAY" be going to refineries in Iran, Turkey, and to small refineries run by ordinary individuals. In addition, it has been rumored in the press that some of our EU allies have also admitted to buying ISIS black market oil. It should be noted that Turkey is also a NATO "ally", and examples of such activity have been presented in a piece at (The Daily Star, July 26th, 2014 article by Mazin Sidhmed, and an in a piece at Zerohedge.com by Tyler Dudren on 9/15/2014). It should be noted that Turkey has denied any involvement in ISIS oil smuggling operations.

    So who is buying? where is this oil going. Turkey? Oil rich Iran? Perhaps an EU "ally" like France, who has recently made comments against what is known as the petro-dollar according to the Durden article. In addition to these things, it has also been reported that sympathetic, (to ISIS), militia groups along the route are making money "protecting these shipments en-route. They are certainly no match for our air power. According to online reports, ISIS controls 11 oilfields in Iraq and Syria. We know where they are. From that information it is safe to assume that we also have the tank truck routes. Why we are not interdicting these shipments raises the question of who's interests are being protected here. We do not have to destroy the oil fields if we can stop the trucks, although I would never take the first option off the table because it might become necessary. The 'black market oil" is netting ISIS millions of dollars a day. Interdiction of these trucks would go a long way toward putting a serious dent in ISIS ability to make war. It would also fit in nicely with Obama's degrade and destroy philosophy. Take the war directly to ISIS and also destroy their ability to rearm and resupply. Why are we not doing this? Why only now is the mainstream press beginning to discuss it?

    As I stated above, I am far from an expert on economics and warfare. I'm just a taxpaying American citizen with a question, which to paraphrase Jimmy Buffett, bothers me so.