One of the people arrested in Texas and charged with Supporting Terrorism was merely planning to travel to Iraq and fight Assad with ISIS....
Evidently if you fight against Assad or against the government of Baghdad you are a terrorist even if all you're doing is fighting on a field of battle.....
btw.....
I think I'm a terrorist. I am definitely a terrorist. I'm considering and thinking about starting "Islamic State of Iraq in Central Texas."
I'm thinking about it. I have never communicated with any person in that group...yet...but I'm thinking about it.
Sorry, Dr. Pieczenik, this piece by Stratfor is a piece of propaganda trying to justify ISIS.
Civilized rebels organized into fighting units don't commit mass beheadings.
This is terrorism, pure & simple. Yes, Stratfor acknowledges ISIS engages in the most brutal acts of terrorism, but tries to pass it off as just one "arrow" in the quiver of a military rebel force.
No!
When your organization engages in beheading, raping, and gratuitous destruction, civilized men have every right to treat the offenders, individually as a terrorist, and, collectively as a terrorist group.
This is not a surprising piece considering Stratfor has known contacts with the CIA which, along with Saudi, trained and financially supported ISIS, respectively.
This piece is a justification for treating ISIS as a nation-state actor, or as a legitimate fighting force.
No, ISIS is a terrorist group, which employs some military tactics.
But, as the last couple of days have shown, ISIS can't advance against a military willing to fight.
Sure, ISIS took Mosul, but there is substantial evidence that the generals were bought off... by whom?
Speculation is all I have as to whom bought off the commanding officers and mid-level officers who ordered the front line soldiers to abandon the fight.
But, certainly, a finger of suspicion points at the CIA.
In any event, a thousand terrorists don't beat 30,000 soldiers with advanced weaponry.
But, apparently, now, the Iraqi government has military units at their disposal which are ready, willing, and able to fight and so, now, ISIS is not advancing.
These ISIS types are the scum of the Earth.
My bet, when confronted with superior fire-power, they will break and any appearance of military discipline will dissolve.
Why?
Because, at heart, these men are terrorists, not soldiers.
No matter what a bought and paid for Stratfor might have to say on the subject.
Suspicious, too, is why the U. S. never delivered the F-16's and other air power, the exact military equipment necessary to make short work of advancing forces in open desert.
Russia manages to get tactical, close air support fighter jets delivered in just a couple of days.
Statfor feeds in the trough of the CIA and the military.
Okay then the US was a terrorist group in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam, etc....., as were US surrogates like Suharto, etc.....
Grow Up!
War isn't a game...a fucking game.
War is played for keeps and ever since Sherman marched to the sea rape and plunder and murder has been practiced by American soldiers in war, so put away your fucking moral outrage.
ISIS uses terror tactics among several tactics but it's primary character is as an armed force taking ground and planting their flag wherever they go.
This is the reason why I don't like war and why no nation should start war.
You're moralistic view of what you think war should be is from a Steven Speilberg movie.
CIA operator, I'm not surprised by your take. I'm sure many associated with the CIA, although not all, have your view of the military. And that attitude is fueled by trying to arrive at a moral equivalence of their 'work' with the military, to justify all the nasty things the CIA and associates have done in the past.
But the CIA and its tactics fail more often than not.
Take Operation Phoenix in Vietnam: Clearly a terror operation to pacify the South Vietnamese people, but it didn't work and evidence exists, which suggests Phoenix backfired by convincing many in South Vietnam that the Americans were brutal oppressors, not protectors, that any talk of 'noble' America was a joke.
Yes, that was the CIA's contribution to the war effort in Vietnam.
Sure, war is for keeps, but terror tactics tend to backfire, you know, blowback.
I'm sure you've heard the term, 'blowback'.
Also, in any war there are soldiers who murder & rape, but it usually isn't official policy, the best known exception is Stalin's Red Army rolling through eastern Europe and into Germany, where it was official policy. But how did that work out?
The brutality of the Red Army convinced many western Europeans that, even though they had communist sympathies, Soviet communism was not what they wanted. Ultimately, the brutality of the Red Army worked against Soviet aims to subvert western Europe. I could cite more instances where terrorism ended up backfiring on those who use it.
Terrorism, when practiced on a population, demonstrates that the terrorists have nothing but distain for the people.
That terror tactics were employed by the fighters in Syria was the clearest sign that these people had no connection to a base of support among the Syrian People.
In fact, the use of terror tactics in Syria by the so-called "rebels" was a major reason why after some ambivalence of Syrian citizens, they strongly came out for supporting Assad because the alternative was evidently barbaric.
And with the support of the Syrian People, the Syrian Arab Army is now routing the terrorists.
Crushing the terrorists, in fact.
Terror tactics are the hallmark of outside intervention because it demonstrates no concern for the people.
CIA operator stated: "ISIS uses terror tactics among several tactics but it's primary character is as an armed force taking ground and planting their flag wherever they go."
We have seen little effective military tactics in Iraq by ISIS. What we have seen is that an army can be betrayed by its leaders.
Now, what are terror tactics?
Mass beheadings, mass raping, as an intentional tactic is one example. There are other examples.
Do you really think the American Revolution would have been successful if there had been large-scale use of terror tactics by the American patriots?
Now, hit & run tactics on military check points is not a terror tactic, blowing up a bridge to stop military supplies & men is not a terror tactic.
CIA operator stated: "You're moralistic view of what you think war should be is from a Steven Speilberg movie."
No, actually, it is an opinion from somebody who likes humanity and civilization and is smart enough to know that terrorism dehumanizes the civilization.
That's the tragedy of the U. S. policy in the Middle East, it is destroying the civilization, the culture.
And the best current available evidence suggests that is exactly what the U. S. wants.
And world public opinion against the U. S. is growing because the people know the U. S. government uses terror tactics.
But, hey, give the devil his due, let's see what happens in Iraq.
My bet, the terrorists will be routed because it will be evident ISIS is nothing but a pack of deluded killers unable to fight an organized army.
The example in Syria is that terror tactics are self-defeating by disgusting the general population.
So, in the long-run, not only are terror tactics immoral, they are a failure on the ground.
A truly organic revolution growing out of a population being oppressed by a tyrannical government swims freely among the people, the rebels get significant support from average citizens.
Patriots don't murder the people they claim to represent. Terrorists murder almost anybody because their goal is power, not the welfare of the people.
Yes, there are many people who justify terrorism, but they are wrong, and, even in terms of their own supposed agenda, it is self-defeating.
Unless there goal is simply to destroy society.
That is the crucial mistake U. S. policy makers have adopted: Terrorism works.
Yes, CIA operator, the U. S. has adopted your attitude as secret official policy, so far I think its a failure.
One of the people arrested in Texas and charged with Supporting Terrorism was merely planning to travel to Iraq and fight Assad with ISIS....
ReplyDeleteEvidently if you fight against Assad or against the government of Baghdad you are a terrorist even if all you're doing is fighting on a field of battle.....
btw.....
I think I'm a terrorist. I am definitely a terrorist. I'm considering and thinking about starting "Islamic State of Iraq in Central Texas."
I'm thinking about it. I have never communicated with any person in that group...yet...but I'm thinking about it.
I must be a terrorist.
Come and get me.
Sorry, Dr. Pieczenik, this piece by Stratfor is a piece of propaganda trying to justify ISIS.
ReplyDeleteCivilized rebels organized into fighting units don't commit mass beheadings.
This is terrorism, pure & simple. Yes, Stratfor acknowledges ISIS engages in the most brutal acts of terrorism, but tries to pass it off as just one "arrow" in the quiver of a military rebel force.
No!
When your organization engages in beheading, raping, and gratuitous destruction, civilized men have every right to treat the offenders, individually as a terrorist, and, collectively as a terrorist group.
This is not a surprising piece considering Stratfor has known contacts with the CIA which, along with Saudi, trained and financially supported ISIS, respectively.
This piece is a justification for treating ISIS as a nation-state actor, or as a legitimate fighting force.
No, ISIS is a terrorist group, which employs some military tactics.
But, as the last couple of days have shown, ISIS can't advance against a military willing to fight.
Sure, ISIS took Mosul, but there is substantial evidence that the generals were bought off... by whom?
Speculation is all I have as to whom bought off the commanding officers and mid-level officers who ordered the front line soldiers to abandon the fight.
But, certainly, a finger of suspicion points at the CIA.
In any event, a thousand terrorists don't beat 30,000 soldiers with advanced weaponry.
But, apparently, now, the Iraqi government has military units at their disposal which are ready, willing, and able to fight and so, now, ISIS is not advancing.
These ISIS types are the scum of the Earth.
My bet, when confronted with superior fire-power, they will break and any appearance of military discipline will dissolve.
Why?
Because, at heart, these men are terrorists, not soldiers.
No matter what a bought and paid for Stratfor might have to say on the subject.
Suspicious, too, is why the U. S. never delivered the F-16's and other air power, the exact military equipment necessary to make short work of advancing forces in open desert.
Russia manages to get tactical, close air support fighter jets delivered in just a couple of days.
Statfor feeds in the trough of the CIA and the military.
ISIS Is a terrorist group.
Okay then the US was a terrorist group in Afghanistan and Iraq and Vietnam, etc....., as were US surrogates like Suharto, etc.....
DeleteGrow Up!
War isn't a game...a fucking game.
War is played for keeps and ever since Sherman marched to the sea rape and plunder and murder has been practiced by American soldiers in war, so put away your fucking moral outrage.
ISIS uses terror tactics among several tactics but it's primary character is as an armed force taking ground and planting their flag wherever they go.
This is the reason why I don't like war and why no nation should start war.
You're moralistic view of what you think war should be is from a Steven Speilberg movie.
CIA operator, I'm not surprised by your take. I'm sure many associated with the CIA, although not all, have your view of the military. And that attitude is fueled by trying to arrive at a moral equivalence of their 'work' with the military, to justify all the nasty things the CIA and associates have done in the past.
DeleteBut the CIA and its tactics fail more often than not.
Take Operation Phoenix in Vietnam: Clearly a terror operation to pacify the South Vietnamese people, but it didn't work and evidence exists, which suggests Phoenix backfired by convincing many in South Vietnam that the Americans were brutal oppressors, not protectors, that any talk of 'noble' America was a joke.
Yes, that was the CIA's contribution to the war effort in Vietnam.
Sure, war is for keeps, but terror tactics tend to backfire, you know, blowback.
I'm sure you've heard the term, 'blowback'.
Also, in any war there are soldiers who murder & rape, but it usually isn't official policy, the best known exception is Stalin's Red Army rolling through eastern Europe and into Germany, where it was official policy. But how did that work out?
The brutality of the Red Army convinced many western Europeans that, even though they had communist sympathies, Soviet communism was not what they wanted. Ultimately, the brutality of the Red Army worked against Soviet aims to subvert western Europe. I could cite more instances where terrorism ended up backfiring on those who use it.
Terrorism, when practiced on a population, demonstrates that the terrorists have nothing but distain for the people.
That terror tactics were employed by the fighters in Syria was the clearest sign that these people had no connection to a base of support among the Syrian People.
In fact, the use of terror tactics in Syria by the so-called "rebels" was a major reason why after some ambivalence of Syrian citizens, they strongly came out for supporting Assad because the alternative was evidently barbaric.
And with the support of the Syrian People, the Syrian Arab Army is now routing the terrorists.
Crushing the terrorists, in fact.
Terror tactics are the hallmark of outside intervention because it demonstrates no concern for the people.
CIA operator stated: "ISIS uses terror tactics among several tactics but it's primary character is as an armed force taking ground and planting their flag wherever they go."
We have seen little effective military tactics in Iraq by ISIS. What we have seen is that an army can be betrayed by its leaders.
Now, what are terror tactics?
Mass beheadings, mass raping, as an intentional tactic is one example. There are other examples.
Do you really think the American Revolution would have been successful if there had been large-scale use of terror tactics by the American patriots?
Now, hit & run tactics on military check points is not a terror tactic, blowing up a bridge to stop military supplies & men is not a terror tactic.
CIA operator stated: "You're moralistic view of what you think war should be is from a Steven Speilberg movie."
No, actually, it is an opinion from somebody who likes humanity and civilization and is smart enough to know that terrorism dehumanizes the civilization.
That's the tragedy of the U. S. policy in the Middle East, it is destroying the civilization, the culture.
And the best current available evidence suggests that is exactly what the U. S. wants.
And world public opinion against the U. S. is growing because the people know the U. S. government uses terror tactics.
But, hey, give the devil his due, let's see what happens in Iraq.
My bet, the terrorists will be routed because it will be evident ISIS is nothing but a pack of deluded killers unable to fight an organized army.
The example in Syria is that terror tactics are self-defeating by disgusting the general population.
So, in the long-run, not only are terror tactics immoral, they are a failure on the ground.
A truly organic revolution growing out of a population being oppressed by a tyrannical government swims freely among the people, the rebels get significant support from average citizens.
DeletePatriots don't murder the people they claim to represent. Terrorists murder almost anybody because their goal is power, not the welfare of the people.
Yes, there are many people who justify terrorism, but they are wrong, and, even in terms of their own supposed agenda, it is self-defeating.
Unless there goal is simply to destroy society.
That is the crucial mistake U. S. policy makers have adopted: Terrorism works.
Yes, CIA operator, the U. S. has adopted your attitude as secret official policy, so far I think its a failure.
Well, if this is a success, then I would hate to see what they call a "failure".
ReplyDelete