US President Barack Obama is to set out his "game plan" against Islamic State militants in a speech on Wednesday.
Mr Obama told NBC TV the US would degrade IS, shrink its territory and "defeat them".
He was criticised last month for saying "we don't have a strategy yet" when asked about IS during a briefing.
The US expanded its operations on Sunday, carrying out air strikes on IS for the first time in western Iraq, to defend Iraqi troops at Haditha dam.
'No ground troops'Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, Mr Obama said: "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from Isil."
IS, also often referred to as Isil or Isis, has taken over large swathes of Iraq and Syria in recent months, declaring the land it holds a "caliphate".
Mr Obama went on: "On Wednesday, I'll make a speech and describe what our game plan's going to be going forward."
IS fighters have taken large swathes of Iraq and Syria. Here they parade in Raqqa, Syria
Mr Obama told NBC TV the US would degrade IS, shrink its territory and "defeat them".
He was criticised last month for saying "we don't have a strategy yet" when asked about IS during a briefing.
The US expanded its operations on Sunday, carrying out air strikes on IS for the first time in western Iraq, to defend Iraqi troops at Haditha dam.
'No ground troops'Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press, Mr Obama said: "I'm preparing the country to make sure that we deal with a threat from Isil."
IS, also often referred to as Isil or Isis, has taken over large swathes of Iraq and Syria in recent months, declaring the land it holds a "caliphate".
Mr Obama went on: "On Wednesday, I'll make a speech and describe what our game plan's going to be going forward."
He said he would "start going on some offence" against IS.
But the strategy was "not going to be an announcement about US ground troops", he added.
He said: "This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war. What this is, is similar to the kinds of counterterrorism campaigns that we've been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years.
"I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we're going to deal with it and to have confidence that we'll be able to deal with it."
Mr Obama said the strategy would not involve the US alone but would be one pursued by an international coalition.
Iraqi forces have gained ground in the north with the help of US air strikes
But the strategy was "not going to be an announcement about US ground troops", he added.
He said: "This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war. What this is, is similar to the kinds of counterterrorism campaigns that we've been engaging in consistently over the last five, six, seven years.
"I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we're going to deal with it and to have confidence that we'll be able to deal with it."
Mr Obama said the strategy would not involve the US alone but would be one pursued by an international coalition.
He said: "We are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum of Isil. We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities. We're going to shrink the territory that they control. And ultimately we're going to defeat them."
The interview was conducted on Saturday, shortly after Mr Obama returned from the Nato summit in Wales, where the grouping agreed to take on IS.
Mr Obama made his "no strategy" comment last month when asked whether he needed Congress's approval to "go into Syria".
BBC North America editor Jon Sopel says that while it showed how complex the situation in the region was, it also showed the extreme wariness of the president to unilaterally start military action when it was not clear where it would end.
Hagel warningSunday's four US air strikes were aimed at protecting Iraqi forces and Sunni tribesmen who are in control of Haditha dam.
Fighters have been taking off from the USS George HW Bush in the Gulf to strike in Iraq
The interview was conducted on Saturday, shortly after Mr Obama returned from the Nato summit in Wales, where the grouping agreed to take on IS.
Mr Obama made his "no strategy" comment last month when asked whether he needed Congress's approval to "go into Syria".
BBC North America editor Jon Sopel says that while it showed how complex the situation in the region was, it also showed the extreme wariness of the president to unilaterally start military action when it was not clear where it would end.
Hagel warningSunday's four US air strikes were aimed at protecting Iraqi forces and Sunni tribesmen who are in control of Haditha dam.
Analysis: Jim Muir, BBC News, northern Iraq
The American air attacks, the first of their kind in Anbar province, signal that Washington has crossed a line that it itself drew.
It has long had a standing request from the outgoing Iraqi government to use its air power against IS in all areas. But until recently, it made it clear it would only do that once a new, inclusive government is formed in Baghdad, with full Sunni representation.
That hasn't yet happened, though intensive efforts are under way to produce a new cabinet in the coming days.
The American air attacks, the first of their kind in Anbar province, signal that Washington has crossed a line that it itself drew.
It has long had a standing request from the outgoing Iraqi government to use its air power against IS in all areas. But until recently, it made it clear it would only do that once a new, inclusive government is formed in Baghdad, with full Sunni representation.
That hasn't yet happened, though intensive efforts are under way to produce a new cabinet in the coming days.
Fighter and bomber aircraft destroyed five Humvees, one IS armed vehicle and an IS checkpoint, and also damaged an IS bunker, the US military said.
The US has carried out more than 130 air strikes since early August to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting IS in northern Iraq, but these were the first in Anbar.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said: "If that dam would fall into [Islamic State's] hands or if that dam would be destroyed, the damage that that would cause would be very significant."
Islamic State fighters have targeted a number of dams in their offensive, capturing the facility at Fallujah.
They also took the largest dam, at Mosul, but US air strikes helped force them out.
The group has so far failed in its attempts to capture Haditha dam, on the Euphrates valley. It is Iraq's second largest dam.
Separately, the governor of Anbar, Ahmed al-Dulaimi, was wounded in fighting in the province, the army said.
It said a mortar round had wounded Mr Dulaimi in the town of Barwana shortly after it was retaken from IS on Sunday.
Key Iraqi dams taken or at risk of being taken by Islamic State
The US has carried out more than 130 air strikes since early August to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces fighting IS in northern Iraq, but these were the first in Anbar.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said: "If that dam would fall into [Islamic State's] hands or if that dam would be destroyed, the damage that that would cause would be very significant."
Islamic State fighters have targeted a number of dams in their offensive, capturing the facility at Fallujah.
They also took the largest dam, at Mosul, but US air strikes helped force them out.
The group has so far failed in its attempts to capture Haditha dam, on the Euphrates valley. It is Iraq's second largest dam.
Separately, the governor of Anbar, Ahmed al-Dulaimi, was wounded in fighting in the province, the army said.
It said a mortar round had wounded Mr Dulaimi in the town of Barwana shortly after it was retaken from IS on Sunday.
Since when do you give your “game plan” to your opponent?
Did FDR and Churchill tell the Germans when D Day was?
Did the NVA give us a heads up for Tet?
Did OBL call W to warn him of 9/11?
And why does Obama feel the need to broadcast what he’s going to do?
For once I’d like him to just shut his pie hole and do his job. No presser, no fanfare, no speech. Just do it.
Did FDR and Churchill tell the Germans when D Day was?
Did the NVA give us a heads up for Tet?
Did OBL call W to warn him of 9/11?
And why does Obama feel the need to broadcast what he’s going to do?
For once I’d like him to just shut his pie hole and do his job. No presser, no fanfare, no speech. Just do it.
Iraq crisis: Sunni rebels 'ready to turn on Islamic State'
Sunni militants initially co-operated with IS in an uprising against the Iraqi government
Stifled by the Islamic State (IS) militants in their own areas, Iraqi Sunni rebels who took up arms against the Shia-dominated government of Nouri Maliki are signalling for the first time that they are ready to turn against IS if Sunni rights are enshrined in a reformed political order in Baghdad.
The rebels, including tribal militants and former army personnel organised in military councils throughout the Sunni areas, see American and international guarantees as crucial to any such deal.
"We don't want guns from the Americans, we want a real political solution, which the US should impose on those people it installed in the Green Zone," said Abu Muhammad al-Zubaai, referring to the Iraqi political leaders who took over after the US-led occupation in 2003.
"The IS problem would end. If they guarantee us this solution, we'll guarantee to get rid of IS," said Mr al-Zubaai, a tribal leader from Anbar province speaking on behalf of the rebels, using a nom de guerre.
The tribal and military rebels, who had been fighting government forces since January, played a role in the spectacular advances scored after IS - in its previous guise as Isis - erupted into Iraq from Syria in June and captured the second city, Mosul, among other mainly Sunni areas.
But since then, the Sunni groups have been suppressed, with IS ordering them to join its own ranks or disarm.
"Living with IS is like holding burning coals in your hand," said Mr al-Zubaai. "They do not tolerate any other flag to be raised. They control all Sunni areas now."
He said tribal militants from the military councils clashed with IS at Garma, near Falluja recently, killing 16 of the Islamic radicals.
"We had to choose between a comprehensive confrontation with IS, or ceding control of that area and keeping a low profile," he said.
"We decided to stand down, because we are not ready to fight IS in the current circumstances - who would we be fighting for?"
'Nothing to lose'Events of the past three weeks have heightened the dilemma of the Sunni rebels.
The lightning IS strikes on Iraqi Kurdistan have drawn the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters into the fray in many areas, imposing economic blockades on Sunni townships because of the IS presence there.
Start Quote
With the Americans and other powers becoming involved, the rebels fear they will simply be tarred as IS terrorists and the Sunni areas reduced to rubble.
"The Sunnis feel that everybody is ganging up on them, that they are targeted by everybody," said Mr al-Zubaai.
"The worst thing is to realise that you have nothing to lose any more. The situation is very bad and getting worse. It's enough to make you blow yourself up. This is where the political process has taken us.
"Our biggest concern now is a political solution. A security solution will achieve nothing. The bombing has to stop."
Sense of betrayalUnder Nouri Maliki, who remains as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in a caretaker capacity until the new government is formed, towns like Falluja and many other Sunni areas have been bombed daily, with heavy casualties among civilians.
IS does not tolerate any dissent in the areas under its control
Caught between two fires, the position of the Sunni rebels has changed sharply since the IS operation began in June.
In the early phases, they hoped a joint effort would carry the Sunni insurgency into the heart of Baghdad, ousting Prime Minister Maliki and overturning the current constitution and political order.
At that stage, they said, they would have turned on the IS militants and driven them out, as they did with al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007.
But they feel bitterly deceived by that earlier process, and betrayed by Mr Maliki, who failed to carry out commitments given to the Sunnis and gradually drove them into a position of outright revolt after the bloody suppression of peaceful protest demonstrations from 2012.
That is why they are seeking international guarantees for a new power-sharing deal. They do not trust the Shia, and fear that under Mr Maliki's nominated successor Haidar al-Abadi, who comes from the same party, things may not change.
"Appointing someone from the same Dawa party to succeed Maliki is like appointing a Baathist to replace Saddam Hussein," said Mr al-Zubaai.
Fear of isolationThe tribal and military rebels are proposing a national reconciliation conference under international auspices, with all factions invited except for IS and also the Shia militias, which they regard as equally bad as, or worse than, IS.
A similar high-level "national accord" conference was held in Cairo in 2005, but the outcome was never followed up.
They dismiss as unrepresentative the Sunni politicians who are currently involved in intense negotiations in Baghdad over the formation of a new government under Mr al-Abadi, who has until 10 September to present his cabinet.
"These people have been involved in the political process since 2003, and they achieved nothing," said Mr al-Zubaai.
But as well as pressing for a good allocation of portfolios in the cabinet, the Sunni leaders in Baghdad have been demanding changes to the way power is shared.
If they help hammer out a deal that many Sunnis regard as fair, the rebels may find themselves with no choice but to sign up, or risk finding themselves politically isolated and physically under threat from both IS and a US-backed coalition on the ground.
Growing urgencyBut the Sunni rebels, who say they can mobilise 90% of the tribes, believe that only they can tackle IS, with outside help.
The Iraqi army has shown little capability or cohesion in the field, and to defend Baghdad, Mr Maliki had to rely heavily on mobilising Shia militias and volunteers.
If such forces are thrown into battle against IS-held Sunni areas with US air support under a new al-Abadi government, the Americans might find themselves doing what they have been trying to avoid - backing one side in a sectarian civil war involving horrendous carnage and destruction.
But if the tribal and military rebels were on board, it would, by their own account at least, be an entirely different affair.
They say they have written to the Americans, but received no substantive response.
Mr al-Zubaai warned against allowing the situation to drift.
"If things stay the same, a new generation will emerge, beyond the control of the US or Iran or Syria - hundreds of thousands of young men will join up with IS," he said.
"This is a danger the West should be aware of - they have millions of [Muslim] youths, free to embrace the ideology of IS, to wave its flag in the streets."
Stifled by the Islamic State (IS) militants in their own areas, Iraqi Sunni rebels who took up arms against the Shia-dominated government of Nouri Maliki are signalling for the first time that they are ready to turn against IS if Sunni rights are enshrined in a reformed political order in Baghdad.
The rebels, including tribal militants and former army personnel organised in military councils throughout the Sunni areas, see American and international guarantees as crucial to any such deal.
"We don't want guns from the Americans, we want a real political solution, which the US should impose on those people it installed in the Green Zone," said Abu Muhammad al-Zubaai, referring to the Iraqi political leaders who took over after the US-led occupation in 2003.
"The IS problem would end. If they guarantee us this solution, we'll guarantee to get rid of IS," said Mr al-Zubaai, a tribal leader from Anbar province speaking on behalf of the rebels, using a nom de guerre.
The tribal and military rebels, who had been fighting government forces since January, played a role in the spectacular advances scored after IS - in its previous guise as Isis - erupted into Iraq from Syria in June and captured the second city, Mosul, among other mainly Sunni areas.
But since then, the Sunni groups have been suppressed, with IS ordering them to join its own ranks or disarm.
"Living with IS is like holding burning coals in your hand," said Mr al-Zubaai. "They do not tolerate any other flag to be raised. They control all Sunni areas now."
He said tribal militants from the military councils clashed with IS at Garma, near Falluja recently, killing 16 of the Islamic radicals.
"We had to choose between a comprehensive confrontation with IS, or ceding control of that area and keeping a low profile," he said.
"We decided to stand down, because we are not ready to fight IS in the current circumstances - who would we be fighting for?"
'Nothing to lose'Events of the past three weeks have heightened the dilemma of the Sunni rebels.
The lightning IS strikes on Iraqi Kurdistan have drawn the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters into the fray in many areas, imposing economic blockades on Sunni townships because of the IS presence there.
Start Quote
The Sunnis feel that everybody is ganging up on them”
Abu Muhammad al-ZubaaiTribal leader
With the Americans and other powers becoming involved, the rebels fear they will simply be tarred as IS terrorists and the Sunni areas reduced to rubble.
"The Sunnis feel that everybody is ganging up on them, that they are targeted by everybody," said Mr al-Zubaai.
"The worst thing is to realise that you have nothing to lose any more. The situation is very bad and getting worse. It's enough to make you blow yourself up. This is where the political process has taken us.
"Our biggest concern now is a political solution. A security solution will achieve nothing. The bombing has to stop."
Sense of betrayalUnder Nouri Maliki, who remains as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in a caretaker capacity until the new government is formed, towns like Falluja and many other Sunni areas have been bombed daily, with heavy casualties among civilians.
IS does not tolerate any dissent in the areas under its control
Caught between two fires, the position of the Sunni rebels has changed sharply since the IS operation began in June.
In the early phases, they hoped a joint effort would carry the Sunni insurgency into the heart of Baghdad, ousting Prime Minister Maliki and overturning the current constitution and political order.
At that stage, they said, they would have turned on the IS militants and driven them out, as they did with al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2007.
But they feel bitterly deceived by that earlier process, and betrayed by Mr Maliki, who failed to carry out commitments given to the Sunnis and gradually drove them into a position of outright revolt after the bloody suppression of peaceful protest demonstrations from 2012.
That is why they are seeking international guarantees for a new power-sharing deal. They do not trust the Shia, and fear that under Mr Maliki's nominated successor Haidar al-Abadi, who comes from the same party, things may not change.
"Appointing someone from the same Dawa party to succeed Maliki is like appointing a Baathist to replace Saddam Hussein," said Mr al-Zubaai.
Fear of isolationThe tribal and military rebels are proposing a national reconciliation conference under international auspices, with all factions invited except for IS and also the Shia militias, which they regard as equally bad as, or worse than, IS.
A similar high-level "national accord" conference was held in Cairo in 2005, but the outcome was never followed up.
They dismiss as unrepresentative the Sunni politicians who are currently involved in intense negotiations in Baghdad over the formation of a new government under Mr al-Abadi, who has until 10 September to present his cabinet.
"These people have been involved in the political process since 2003, and they achieved nothing," said Mr al-Zubaai.
But as well as pressing for a good allocation of portfolios in the cabinet, the Sunni leaders in Baghdad have been demanding changes to the way power is shared.
If they help hammer out a deal that many Sunnis regard as fair, the rebels may find themselves with no choice but to sign up, or risk finding themselves politically isolated and physically under threat from both IS and a US-backed coalition on the ground.
Growing urgencyBut the Sunni rebels, who say they can mobilise 90% of the tribes, believe that only they can tackle IS, with outside help.
The Iraqi army has shown little capability or cohesion in the field, and to defend Baghdad, Mr Maliki had to rely heavily on mobilising Shia militias and volunteers.
If such forces are thrown into battle against IS-held Sunni areas with US air support under a new al-Abadi government, the Americans might find themselves doing what they have been trying to avoid - backing one side in a sectarian civil war involving horrendous carnage and destruction.
But if the tribal and military rebels were on board, it would, by their own account at least, be an entirely different affair.
They say they have written to the Americans, but received no substantive response.
Mr al-Zubaai warned against allowing the situation to drift.
"If things stay the same, a new generation will emerge, beyond the control of the US or Iran or Syria - hundreds of thousands of young men will join up with IS," he said.
"This is a danger the West should be aware of - they have millions of [Muslim] youths, free to embrace the ideology of IS, to wave its flag in the streets."
[h=1]'I want Cameron's head on a spike': Female British jihadist hits out at PM 'for wars against Muslims' and says she doesn't care if she is stripped of her citizenship[/h]
.
A female British jihadist has condemned David Cameron for 'waging wars' against Muslims, saying she wants his 'head on a spike'.
The 18-year-old, who is believed to be living in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, north-east Syria, also hit out at the Prime Minister's plans to prevent British jihadis from re-entering the country.
She claimed she would not care if she was stripped of her UK citizenship, describing the notion as 'quite laughable'.
It comes amid concerns that a growing number of young women are leaving their families in Britain to join the jihadi cause in Syria.
.
- 18-year-old is believed to be living in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa in Syria
- She said she wants Cameron's 'head on spike' for 'wars against Muslims'
- Also hit out at his plans to ban British jihadis from returning to the country
- Taking to Twitter, she said she would not care if citizenship was removed
- Concerns that rising number of UK women are joining jihadi cause in Syria
.
A female British jihadist has condemned David Cameron for 'waging wars' against Muslims, saying she wants his 'head on a spike'.
The 18-year-old, who is believed to be living in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, north-east Syria, also hit out at the Prime Minister's plans to prevent British jihadis from re-entering the country.
She claimed she would not care if she was stripped of her UK citizenship, describing the notion as 'quite laughable'.
It comes amid concerns that a growing number of young women are leaving their families in Britain to join the jihadi cause in Syria.
.
- SHARE PICTURE
+7
+7
Threat: A female British jihadist has condemned David Cameron (right) for 'waging wars' against Muslims, saying she wants 'his head on a spike'. Left, the girl posted this chilling photo (left) on her Twitter profile
Post: Taking to Twitter, the 18-year-old wrote: 'In sha Allaha day will come when David Camerons head will be on a spike as he continues to wage war on the awilya of Allah... and strike terror in the hearts of the kuffar'
Taking to Twitter, the girl wrote: 'In sha Allah [God willing] a day will come when David Camerons head will be on a spike as he continues to wage war on the awilya [protectors] of Allah... and strike terror in the hearts of the kuffar.'
She added: 'I really do not understand why Britain is threatening to remove our citizenship like we care lool its actually quiet laughable (sic).'
.
Although the girl, who uses the handle @UmmKhattab_, has posted photos to the social networking site showing her wearing a niqab with a gun slung over her shoulder, she is yet to reveal her identity.
In recent weeks, she has also called for the black flag of ISIS to be raised over Downing Street and claimed she is 'excited' at the thought of U.S. soldiers being 'slayed' if an invasion took place.
Criticism: The girl, who is believed to be living in the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria, also hit out at the Prime Minister's plans to ban British jihadis from re-entering the country. She described them as 'quite laughable'
Encouragement: And she encouraged other Britons to travel to the war-torn country of Syria, saying: 'I might be only 18 but I know coming to shaam [is] the best decision. Staying in the UK completely diminishes your islam'
.
She has even encouraged other Britons to travel to Syria, saying: 'I might be only 18 but I know coming to shaam [is] the best decision. Staying in the UK completely diminishes your islam.'
The jihadist set up her Twitter account on June 27 - just one day after schoolgirl sisters Salma and Zahra Halane fled to Syria.
The 16-year-old twins, who have 28 GCSEs between them, ran away from their family in Chorlton, Greater Manchester, on June 26 for 'paradise' in the war-torn Middle East.
They have vowed never to return home after following their brother to Syria, and are said to have already married ISIS fighters.
+7
Devastation: Syrians are pictured inspecting the rubble of a damaged houses and cars on Saturday following a Syrian government airstrike in the north-eastern city of Raqqa, which is an Islamic State stronghold
+7
+7
Recruits: The jihadist set up her Twitter account on June 27 - just one day after schoolgirl sisters Salma (right) and Zahra (left) Halane fled to Syria. The 16-year-old twins ran away from their family in Chorlton, Manchester
.
Yesterday, it was claimed that female British jihadis are operating a religious police force in Syria that punishes women for 'un-Islamic' behaviour.
The al-Khanssaa brigade is a female-only militia set up by the Islamic State in Raqqa, Syria, with a key figure believed to be Aqsa Mahmood, 20, of Glasgow, who fled to the country last year.
Academics at King's College London have identified three other British females as members of the group - and say there are about 60 UK women who have gone to Syria on jihad.
I really do not understand why Britain is threatening to remove our citizenship, like we care... it's actually quite laughable
Female British jihadist
Most of these women - including privately-educated Mahmood - are aged between 18 and 24, with al-Khanssaa said to be seeking out people engaging in Western culture in Raqqa.
Melanie Smith, a research associate at King's College's International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, told journalists Robert Mendick and Robert Verkaik of The Sunday Telegraph: ‘Al-Khanssaa is a sharia police brigade. This is Isil’s female law enforcement.
'We think it’s a mixture of British and French women but its social media accounts are run by the British and they are written in English.
‘Given how small the community networks are - we know there are about 500 male British jihadis out there - it is quite likely these women move in the same circles as the British killer of Foley and Sotloff.'
Among the British women currently waging jihad in Syria are the Halane twins, mother Khadijah Dare, 22, and Muslim convert Sally Jones, 45, from Chatham, Kent.
+7
+7
Jihadis: A key figure in the al-Khanssaa brigade is believed to be Aqsa Mahmood (right), 20, from Glasgow, while Sally Jones (left), 45, from Kent, claims to have joined jihadis roaming the border between Syria and Iraq
.
The jihadist set up her Twitter account on June 27 - just one day after schoolgirl sisters Salma and Zahra Halane fled to Syria.
The 16-year-old twins, who have 28 GCSEs between them, ran away from their family in Chorlton, Greater Manchester, on June 26 for 'paradise' in the war-torn Middle East.
They have vowed never to return home after following their brother to Syria, and are said to have already married ISIS fighters.
+7
Devastation: Syrians are pictured inspecting the rubble of a damaged houses and cars on Saturday following a Syrian government airstrike in the north-eastern city of Raqqa, which is an Islamic State stronghold
+7
+7
Recruits: The jihadist set up her Twitter account on June 27 - just one day after schoolgirl sisters Salma (right) and Zahra (left) Halane fled to Syria. The 16-year-old twins ran away from their family in Chorlton, Manchester
.
Yesterday, it was claimed that female British jihadis are operating a religious police force in Syria that punishes women for 'un-Islamic' behaviour.
The al-Khanssaa brigade is a female-only militia set up by the Islamic State in Raqqa, Syria, with a key figure believed to be Aqsa Mahmood, 20, of Glasgow, who fled to the country last year.
Academics at King's College London have identified three other British females as members of the group - and say there are about 60 UK women who have gone to Syria on jihad.
I really do not understand why Britain is threatening to remove our citizenship, like we care... it's actually quite laughable
Female British jihadist
Most of these women - including privately-educated Mahmood - are aged between 18 and 24, with al-Khanssaa said to be seeking out people engaging in Western culture in Raqqa.
Melanie Smith, a research associate at King's College's International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, told journalists Robert Mendick and Robert Verkaik of The Sunday Telegraph: ‘Al-Khanssaa is a sharia police brigade. This is Isil’s female law enforcement.
'We think it’s a mixture of British and French women but its social media accounts are run by the British and they are written in English.
‘Given how small the community networks are - we know there are about 500 male British jihadis out there - it is quite likely these women move in the same circles as the British killer of Foley and Sotloff.'
Among the British women currently waging jihad in Syria are the Halane twins, mother Khadijah Dare, 22, and Muslim convert Sally Jones, 45, from Chatham, Kent.
+7
+7
Jihadis: A key figure in the al-Khanssaa brigade is believed to be Aqsa Mahmood (right), 20, from Glasgow, while Sally Jones (left), 45, from Kent, claims to have joined jihadis roaming the border between Syria and Iraq
.
Earlier this month, Mr Cameron unveiled controversial new plans to crack down on jihadists bringing bloodshed to Britain’s streets.
He vowed to introduce measures to bar home-grown fanatics fighting in the Middle East from re-entering the UK, either by stripping them of their passports or stopping them boarding flights back home.
It has been reported that as many as 30 British jihadis are looking at ways of returning to the UK after losing faith with the brutal cause, but fear being imprisoned.
.
He vowed to introduce measures to bar home-grown fanatics fighting in the Middle East from re-entering the UK, either by stripping them of their passports or stopping them boarding flights back home.
It has been reported that as many as 30 British jihadis are looking at ways of returning to the UK after losing faith with the brutal cause, but fear being imprisoned.
.
After the 'husbands' of these wom...er...child brides are killed in battle they are shunned by the community. They are no longer pure. So they are at best cast away, and at worst gang raped. Then they are cajoled into believing the only way they can reclaim their purity for Allah is to become a suicide bomber. They are already in hell, just unaware as of yet.
i know you folks in here hate you some Rand Paul anti-war foreign policy so here you go:
If I had been in President Obama's shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS
Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.
I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.
As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.
Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?
And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?
This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.
And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.
This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.
The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.
The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.
We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.
Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.
We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.
Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.
We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.
Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.
ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.
This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.
To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.
Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.
Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.
Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leave few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.
If I had been in President Obama's shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS
Some pundits are surprised that I support destroying the Islamic State in Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) militarily. They shouldn’t be. I’ve said since I began public life that I am not an isolationist, nor am I an interventionist. I look at the world, and consider war, realistically and constitutionally.
I still see war as the last resort. But I agree with Reagan’s idea that no country should mistake U.S. reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.
As Commander-in-Chief, I would not allow our enemies to kill our citizens or our ambassadors. “Peace through Strength” only works if you have and show strength.
Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS. After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world?
And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?
This administration’s dereliction of duty has both sins of action and inaction, which is what happens when you are flailing around wildly, without careful strategic thinking.
And while my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened.
If I had been in President Obama’s shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session—even during recess.
This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it.
Once we have decided that we have an enemy that requires destruction, we must have a comprehensive strategy—a realistic policy applying military power and skillful diplomacy to protect our national interests.
The immediate challenge is to define the national interest to determine the form of intervention we might pursue. I was repeatedly asked if I supported airstrikes. I do—if it makes sense as part of a larger strategy.
There’s no point in taking military action just for the sake of it, something Washington leaders can’t seem to understand. America has an interest in protecting more than 5,000 personnel serving at the largest American embassy in the world in northern Iraq. I am also persuaded by the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities.
The long-term challenge is debilitating and ultimately eradicating a strong and growing ISIS, whose growth poses a significant terrorist threat to U.S. allies and enemies in the region, Europe, and our homeland.
The military means to achieve these goals include airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Such airstrikes are the best way to suppress ISIS’s operational strength and allow allies such as the Kurds to regain a military advantage.
We should arm and aid capable and allied Kurdish fighters whose territory includes areas now under siege by the ISIS.
Since Syrian jihadists are also a threat to Israel, we should help reinforce Israel’s Iron Dome protection against missiles.
We must also secure our own borders and immigration policy from ISIS infiltration. Our border is porous, and the administration, rather than acting to protect it, instead ponders unconstitutional executive action, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants.
Our immigration system, especially the administration of student visas, requires a full-scale examination. Recently, it was estimated that as many as 6,000 possibly dangerous foreign students are unaccounted for. This is inexcusable over a decade after we were attacked on 9/11 by hijackers including one Saudi student who overstayed his student visa.
We should revoke passports from any Americans or dual citizens who are fighting with ISIS.
Important to the long-term stability in the region is the reengagement diplomatically with allies in the region and in Europe to recognize the shared nature of the threat of Radical Islam and the growing influence of jihadists. That is what will make this a comprehensive strategy.
ISIS is a global threat; we should treat it accordingly and build a coalition of nations who are also threatened by the rise of the Islamic State. Important partners such as Turkey, a NATO ally, Israel, and Jordan face an immediate threat, and unchecked growth endangers Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Gulf countries such as Qatar, and even Europe. Several potential partners—notably, the Turks, Qataris, and Saudis—have been reckless in their financial support of ISIS, which must cease immediately.
This is one set of principles. Any strategy, though, should be presented to the American people through Congress. If war is necessary, we should act as a nation. We should do so properly and constitutionally and with a real strategy and a plan for both victory and exit.
To develop a realistic strategy, we need to understand why the threat of ISIS exists. Jihadist Islam is festering in the region. But in order for it to grow, prosper, and conquer, it needs chaos.
Three years after President Obama waged war in Libya without Congressional approval, Libya is a sanctuary and safe haven for training and arms for terrorists from Northern Africa to Syria. Our deserted Embassy in Tripoli is controlled by militants. Jihadists today swim in our embassy pool.
Syria, likewise, has become a jihadist wonderland. In Syria, Obama’s plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy.
Unfortunately, Obama’s decisions—from disengaging diplomatically in Iraq and the region and fomenting chaos in Libya and Syria—leave few good options. A more realistic and effective foreign policy would protect the vital interests of the nation without the unrealistic notion of nation-building.
[h=1]Boehner demands strategy to defeat ISIS from Obama at Oval Office meeting today claiming it is EIGHT months late[/h]
.
Speaker of the House John Boehner pressed President Barack Obama to come up with a strategy to defeat the Islamic State today, telling reporters at a press conference that it is eight months overdue.
'I’ve been calling for a strategy to deal with the growing terrorist threat since January, when ISIS came across the border in western Iraq,' Boehner said.
'We have a very serious problem, and what we need is a strategy, he added.
Boehner said he expected the president to put forward his plans for decimating the extremist group that has taken over large swaths of land in Iraq and Syria at a meeting in the Oval Office with Congressional leaders this afternoon.
+2
Still waiting: House Speaker John Boehner said today that Obama's strategy for destroying the Islamic State is eight months overdue
.
The president is scheduled make a public announcement about his plans tomorrow evening after he's had a chance to consult with Congressional leadership.
In addition to Boehner, Obama will pow wow with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell this afternoon.
Administration officials will also meet with key Senators tomorrow. Members of the House won't have the opportunity to question the president until Thursday, after his address.
Obama was tight-lipped over the weekend about his master plan during an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd.
The Commander in Chief told the Meet the Press host that his strategy would include military, economic and political components but gave out few other details.
.
Obama indicated that his plan would likely take 'some resources above...what we are currently doing' while declining to provide specifics.
The president suggested he would not need the legislative branch's approval to take action, however, and plainly stated he had no intention of putting troops on the ground Iraq or Syria.
'This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war,' he said.
The Hill reported on Monday that the Obama may ask Congress to revisit his request for a $5 billion counter terrorism fund, however.
When the White House first asked Congress for the money it said $2.5 billion would go toward providing training and weaponry to international partners, according to the Hill.
Another $1.5 billion would be directed to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq to support Syrian refugee camps.
Just $500 million of the fund was to be allotted to 'unforeseen contingencies related to counterterrorism or regional instability.'
+2
President Barack Obama, right, was tight lipped about his grand plan to defeat Islamic extremists during an interview last weekend with Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, right
.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that the counterrorism fund ' is a core component of the president’s strategy for dealing' with extremists in Iraq and Syria and 'and other issues like it around the globe.'
Earnest said Obama would use the money to 'build up effective partners so that when the United States has to confront threats like this, that we have well-trained, well-equipped, effective partners that we can work with to confront these problems.'
What is unclear is how Obama plans to stop jihadists ransacking Iraq and Syria at present.
The United States had already launched 153 airstrikes on the Islamic State in Iraq as of Tuesday afternoon. It has not engaged the group militarily in Syria.
Lawmakers are divided over whether the president needs authority from Congress to continue its bombing campaign in Iraq and whether it ought to begin striking Syria.
The president is legally required by the War Powers Resolution to ask for Congress' approval of military action after 60 days of war with a country.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers are claiming that Obama must ask for the legislative branch's permission to carry out airstrikes in Iraq after the 60 day cut off on October 7.
Boehner said Tuesday he wasn't convinced that the situation in Iraq constituted as a war, though, and refused to speculate further on possible military actions Obama could take.
'I am looking for a strategy from the president that takes on this terrorist threat and defeats it,' he said when asked by a reporter whether he was 'opposed to ground troops.'
Other congressional leaders have avoided advocating specific action in Iraq and Syria as well.
House Democratic caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra told reporters on Tuesday that members of the president's party were waiting for Obama to articulate his strategy before forming an opinion on the issue.
'Don't ask us what you think we should do, just tell us what you're going to do,' Becerra said, according to The Hill.
.
- 'We have a very serious problem, and what we need is a strategy,' Boehner told reporters
- Boehner refused to comment on hypothetical actions Obama could take, saying he wanted to wait until he spoke with him this afternoon
- Obama with meet with Congressional leaders today before announcing his plans to the nation tomorrow
.
Speaker of the House John Boehner pressed President Barack Obama to come up with a strategy to defeat the Islamic State today, telling reporters at a press conference that it is eight months overdue.
'I’ve been calling for a strategy to deal with the growing terrorist threat since January, when ISIS came across the border in western Iraq,' Boehner said.
'We have a very serious problem, and what we need is a strategy, he added.
Boehner said he expected the president to put forward his plans for decimating the extremist group that has taken over large swaths of land in Iraq and Syria at a meeting in the Oval Office with Congressional leaders this afternoon.
+2
Still waiting: House Speaker John Boehner said today that Obama's strategy for destroying the Islamic State is eight months overdue
.
The president is scheduled make a public announcement about his plans tomorrow evening after he's had a chance to consult with Congressional leadership.
In addition to Boehner, Obama will pow wow with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell this afternoon.
Administration officials will also meet with key Senators tomorrow. Members of the House won't have the opportunity to question the president until Thursday, after his address.
Obama was tight-lipped over the weekend about his master plan during an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd.
The Commander in Chief told the Meet the Press host that his strategy would include military, economic and political components but gave out few other details.
.
Obama indicated that his plan would likely take 'some resources above...what we are currently doing' while declining to provide specifics.
The president suggested he would not need the legislative branch's approval to take action, however, and plainly stated he had no intention of putting troops on the ground Iraq or Syria.
'This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war,' he said.
The Hill reported on Monday that the Obama may ask Congress to revisit his request for a $5 billion counter terrorism fund, however.
When the White House first asked Congress for the money it said $2.5 billion would go toward providing training and weaponry to international partners, according to the Hill.
Another $1.5 billion would be directed to Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq to support Syrian refugee camps.
Just $500 million of the fund was to be allotted to 'unforeseen contingencies related to counterterrorism or regional instability.'
+2
President Barack Obama, right, was tight lipped about his grand plan to defeat Islamic extremists during an interview last weekend with Meet the Press host Chuck Todd, right
.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that the counterrorism fund ' is a core component of the president’s strategy for dealing' with extremists in Iraq and Syria and 'and other issues like it around the globe.'
Earnest said Obama would use the money to 'build up effective partners so that when the United States has to confront threats like this, that we have well-trained, well-equipped, effective partners that we can work with to confront these problems.'
What is unclear is how Obama plans to stop jihadists ransacking Iraq and Syria at present.
The United States had already launched 153 airstrikes on the Islamic State in Iraq as of Tuesday afternoon. It has not engaged the group militarily in Syria.
Lawmakers are divided over whether the president needs authority from Congress to continue its bombing campaign in Iraq and whether it ought to begin striking Syria.
The president is legally required by the War Powers Resolution to ask for Congress' approval of military action after 60 days of war with a country.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers are claiming that Obama must ask for the legislative branch's permission to carry out airstrikes in Iraq after the 60 day cut off on October 7.
Boehner said Tuesday he wasn't convinced that the situation in Iraq constituted as a war, though, and refused to speculate further on possible military actions Obama could take.
'I am looking for a strategy from the president that takes on this terrorist threat and defeats it,' he said when asked by a reporter whether he was 'opposed to ground troops.'
Other congressional leaders have avoided advocating specific action in Iraq and Syria as well.
House Democratic caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra told reporters on Tuesday that members of the president's party were waiting for Obama to articulate his strategy before forming an opinion on the issue.
'Don't ask us what you think we should do, just tell us what you're going to do,' Becerra said, according to The Hill.
.
this
just do what our top military advisers and intelligence agencies and regional experts suggest, I'm sure common ground can be found
don't broadcast it to our enemies
More good news from the Stuttering Clusterfuck!
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...mic-state-terrorists-are-not-islamic-n1890155
"ISIL is not Islamic," Obama said in his speech Wednesday night about ISIL [ISIS]. "
Really? Then what the hell are they, sir...zen Buddhists? This is the equivalent of saying MS-13 members are not gangsters.
This fucking moron is as much of a danger to the US as he is an embarrassment. It's not going to take ISIL long to figure out that someone who sympathizes with the Islamic view is sitting in the Oval Office.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...mic-state-terrorists-are-not-islamic-n1890155
"ISIL is not Islamic," Obama said in his speech Wednesday night about ISIL [ISIS]. "
Really? Then what the hell are they, sir...zen Buddhists? This is the equivalent of saying MS-13 members are not gangsters.
This fucking moron is as much of a danger to the US as he is an embarrassment. It's not going to take ISIL long to figure out that someone who sympathizes with the Islamic view is sitting in the Oval Office.
