>> The US-led anti-ISIS coalition has launched its first strikes in Syria.
Now, of course, we had been engaging in some limited air strikes in Iraq for about a little over a week.
Now we have struck multiple targets in Syria.
Cities west of Aleppo and a general of the US military is saying that this is only the beginning.
Of course, we have more details.
The strikes were by the US.
We also had multiple allies in the region who helped us out with those strikes,
including Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates.
Four different cities in Syria were struck.
I believe we have some footage of the strikes and the aftermath,
which we'll show you.
You're going to see there the typical video gamy look at what war looks like in 2014 as those strikes go in.
Four different ISIS-held cities were targeted, including Arak,
which ISIS has indicated is its operational headquarters in Syria,
Deir ez-Zor, Hasakah, and Abu Kamal all struck.
And you're seeing there, obviously quite a few cities held by ISIS in Syria right now
stretching through the north and the east of that country.
We also know there were about eight strikes at that point against another terrorist organization,
which we'll tell you a little bit more about in due time.
And we have confirmation that some civilians were killed during those air strikes,
which took place throughout late yesterday and the nighted.
so what's your initial reaction to us moving into Iraq and Syria as we've promised we would?
>> ANA: Well, I find it interesting that now at this point,
we have done air strikes or have engaged in some sort of military action against Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq.
In the case of us against ISIS in Syria and doing air strikes,
of course as you know, Obama did this without congressioninal authorization.
There are constitutional issues to that, but no one seems to be discussing it.
And if you really want to talk about our foreign policy as a whole and whether or not it's been affective,
what I fail to understand is we launched a preemptive war back in 2003.
That preemptive war and our counterterrorism efforts have want been successful,
to say the least.
If anything, we've only making matters worse.
So this is an extension of failed foreign policy, which enrages me beyond belief,
because here's what doesn't happen in the Middle East, okay?
US aggression doesn't lead to less terrorists.
US aggression has led to more recruitment among terrorist groups, including ISIS.
So the Intercept reported about how these current air strikes have actually increased recruitment to ISIS considerably.
So what we're doing right now --
I mean, look, it's probably to soon to make a definitive or a declaration of failed attempt or whatever it is,
but I don't think that this is the type of foreign policy that's going to lead to good results.
I think that this is the US's effort to engage in perpetual war,
because we have people that are making a lot of money by remaining in war.
>> Yeah.
Yeah, I think the only outcome that will not come about as a result of this is that one ISIS fighter will crawl
on top of the rubble and wave a white flag.
>> ANA: It's not gonna happen.
>> Nobody sees that happening, except perhaps Bill O'Reilly.
And yeah, as you said, of course it's led to increased recruitment.
We've saying that it wasn't going to happen.
We know that's an expected outcome.
It's like the truth that shall not be named among the mainstream press, though.
For some reason, the idea that if you bomb these people, they'll find it easier to rally people to their cause.
For some reason, that is unspeakable for the press.
But one thing that we do have to point out.
Thankfully, this was discussed quite a bit.
I believe vox a short talk about it.
This is undoubtedly -- well, not yet a win for us.
It's clearly a win for sad Assad regime.
Because it wasn't that long ago before we went in and dismantled,
for the most part, their chemical weapons capabilities in Syria,
that we were considering as a country going in and bombing Assad to hell.
And yet now we're going in and we're taking out his enemies,
the rebels that are fighting against him in Syria.
And so he has to be like slow clapping, at the very least.
The strokes against ISIS were not the only strikes that took place last night.
We also -- just the US, not with our Arab allies -- launched eight different air strikes against
the Khorasan terrorist organization.
Now, if you haven't heard about this, you are not alone.
Almost no one outside of members of the intelligence community and some elected represents
for the U.S. government had heard about it prior to about last week.
But we do know a little bit about it.
It operates in Syria.
It's believed to have about 50 active members.
And it's under the protection of Jabhat al-Nusra, which is an al Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
They are led by a guy named Muhsin al-Fadhli, and they're considered to be particularly deadly,
because they have talked about launching attacks against western targets,
including the United States.
And it's believed that they have been working with one of the lead bomb makers for al Qaeda.
And so it's believed that they will have advanced ID capabilities.
We have quotes from a Pentagon spokespeople giving a little bit about this organization, which previously we hasn't known about.
This is from rear admiral John Kirby saying --
he goes on to say --
back to what I was saying about their working with former al Qaeda bomb makers.
A counterterrorism official anonymously said --
And as I alluded to, very few, including politicians were aware of the resistance or the threat posed by Khorasan
prior to these strikes.
One is represent Peter King, who said --
>> ANA: So let's stop right there with that quote.
Because I think that the mentality that congress has and the mentality that the executive branch has is really
fascinating when it comes to any type of unilateral action abroad, right?
When it comes to comes of war, not only do I think that we should engage in war only to defend national security
here in the United States, but I also think that public opinion is extremely important.
But public opinion has completely been taken out of it completely.
It's not even a part of the decision-making process.
And at the same time, we now have members of congress that also don't play a role.
What I find fascinating is, again, Obama decided to do the air strikes.
And his entire strategy against ISIS without congressional authorization.
But how is that okay?
How is it that you ignore opinion and, at the same time, you ignore congress
when you go against a terrorist group that doesn't really pose an imminent threat to the United States.
Now, if ISIS does pose an imminent threat to the United States, tell me why.
Tell me how.
Then maybe you'll drum up public support.
And look, there are some polls indicating that people are in favor of doing air strikes against ISIS.
But a lot of that has to do with fear mongering that you see in the mainstream press.
Now, the beheadings, in my opinion, were more about provoking U.S. military action against ISIS,
because they knew that that would strengththen their base.
They would strengthen them with more recruitment.
That's exactly what was happened.
So we're doing exactly what ISIS wants us to do.
But at the same time, we're also doing exactly what private contractors and weapons manufacturers want us to do.
This perpetual war that makes people wealthy in this case country.
>> That's a great point by you about having to justify the imminent threat that they keep implying.
They keep alluding to this threat.
And I think that that's why Khorasan is suddenly the most dangerous organization operating in Syria.
Because they have to say, look, we can't prove that ISIS is trying to kill us in American right now.
But Khorasan, they were super deadly.
They have advanced iron man IDs and stuff like that.
So I think that's why they were making the case.
And that's why I do question it a little bit.
This organization that previously no one even in congress had heard about
is suddenly this mask threat without any indication given to their capacity to get either their members
or their weapons into the United States.
It seems like they were probably bombed pretty effectively.
That's what they want us to believe.
So it's difficult to have someone go in and report on it and find out if they're a real threat.
It's just very convenient.
>> ANA: It's just surprising to me that Peter King is not in favor of the public knowing about this big scary threat.
It seems like he was shocked and surprised that all of a sudden there were reports about this.
Like, oh, no one should be talking about it.
The U.S. should unilaterally launch a war against this particular al Qaeda linked terrorist group.
But the public shouldn't know about it.
I mean, what's the point of a democratic process then?
>> Yeah, and so back to what you said about the authorization.
It was a very interest process, because Obama came out after being called a wuss and he didn't have a plan against ISIS.
We came out and said, look I've already got the authorization I need from 60 years ago.
Or after the September 11th attacks.
But then he did try to get the authorization.
And congress did okay it as part of a continuing resolution,
almost as if they were trying to hide their support for it.
And I don't think at this point Republicans or Democrats really know exactly where they want to be seen to stand,
because the Republicans definitely want us to go more all out than Obama is currently doing.
But they also don't want to be seen to be supporting the president.
And so it's an interesting situation.
And I don't know if you were to leave it directly to the people, if you could do that.
If you want to, because we did cover last week, recent polls that show that the American people right now
massively overwhelmingly support Republicans to defend us from terrorism international conflict over Democrats.
Look, we know right now what the democratic plan looks like.
I don't like it.
I have a feeling I'd the like Republican plan a lot less
>> ANA: I absolutely agree.