History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15528
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Mattis: ISIS ‘couldn’t last 2 minutes in fight with our troops’
CounterJihad by Paul Sperry


Defense secretary nominee Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis believes ISIS is “al-Qaida on steroids” and must be defeated in head-to-head “battles of annihilation” that leave “no survivors” on the enemy side, according to a recent discussion he participated in with a conservative think tank.

The career Marine, who faces Senate questioning at a confirmation hearing slated for January 20, also asserts that the US military “can handle Iran” in a shooting war, but cautioned that the Navy needs more warships to challenge “China’s bullying in the South China Sea.”

Mattis made the eye-opening remarks in a little-noticed interview with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution in Palo Alto, Calif., where he is a visiting fellow.

Before retiring in 2013 after a 43-year-career in the US Marine Corps, Mattis directed military operations of more than 200,000 troops and allied forces across the Middle East as commander of U.S. Central Command.

Mattis doesn’t believe in “managing” the Islamic State threat or just running ISIS out of Middle Eastern towns, but pulverizing the Islamist enemy.

He said the US currently has the forces available to wipe out ISIS, which operates primarily out of Syria and Iraq, but “they’re not in place” due to a lack of “political” will to deploy them, an attitude that is expected to change under a Trump administration.

“They’re a lot like al-Qaida philosophically, but operationally, they’re like al-Qaida on steroids. And when you put that together, they’re a uniquely capable organization,” he added during the revealing 2015 Hoover interview. “But the fact is, they couldn’t last two minutes in a fight with our troops.”

Mattis said America and the West can no longer tolerate “the assassinations, the mass killings, the mass rapes that are going on there,” to say nothing of the ISIS-directed and -inspired terrorist attacks plaguing both European and American cities.

“We should try to shut down its recruiting, shut down its finances, and then work to fight battles of annihilation — not attrition, but annihilation — against them; so that the first time they meet the forces that we put against them, there should basically be no survivors,” he asserted. “They should learn that we can be even tougher than them.”

Added the general: “If they want to fight, they should pay a heck of a price for what they’ve done to innocent people out there.”

Mattis didn’t pull any punches regarding Iran, either, which has aggressively pursued the development of nuclear weapons while threatening both the US and Israel.

Through its proxy Hezbollah, the Islamist regime has carried out terrorism around the globe, including attacks that have killed American citizens. In 1983, for example, an Iran-trained suicide truck bomber killed 220 of Mattis’s fellow Marines while they slept in barracks in Beirut. Iran is also responsible for IED-related deaths of US soldiers in Iraq.

Mattis, who joined the Marine Corps at 18, confidently predicted victory if the US had to go to war against Iran.

“It would take more forces if we had to go with the military option for Iran,” he said. “But we can handle Iran. I have no doubt.”

“It would be bloody awful,” he added. “But could we handle it from a military point of view? Absolutely.”

An invasion of Iran would be tougher than Iraq because Iran is surrounded by mountains, making it hard for tanks and artillery to pass. Behind the towering ranges, the terrain becomes unstable salt flats and dry lake beds oozing with thick black mud that would make it even more difficult to advance on Tehran.

It was the Great Salt Desert where the fateful 1980 military mission to rescue American hostages in Tehran ran into bad weather and had to be aborted.

Asked about Beijing seizing islands in the South China Sea and clandestinely building airstrips and other military installations there, Mattis says the US should no longer turn a blind eye to such territorial expansion in contested international waters. He says the US will need a larger naval presence there to check Beijing’s military aggression.

“In light of China’s bullying in the South China Sea, I don’t think we’re building enough ships,” Mattis noted, adding that China’s military maneuvers will require the Pentagon to adopt “a more naval strategy.”

Right now the Navy has 272 ships, more than 80 ships short of what the Navy Force Structure Assessment calls for to meet the new threat reality in the South China Sea and other global hotspots.

“We may have to give the Navy a bigger slice of the budget,” he added, to help reassure Taiwan and other allies in the region threatened by the communist army’s growing mischief.

“There are a lot of nations out in that region that would like to see more US Navy port calls in their harbors, from Vietnam to the Philippines, from Malaysia to Taiwan and Japan,” Mattis said.

He added that while the first option in the growing conflict ought to be diplomacy, “Sometimes the best ambassador you can have is a man-of-war.”

Mattis, who following 9/11 commanded the First Marine Expeditionary Brigade and Naval Task Force 58 in operations against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, also revealed in the interview that he does not agree with President Obama that the US combat role in Afghanistan is over.

“We have irreconcilable differences with the Taliban,” he said.

Added Mattis: “They will continue to support al-Qaida, they will continue to do this kind of terrorism that they conduct over there every day. And as they do that, for us to declare arbitrarily that the war is over may not match the reality on the ground.”

Since Obama withdrew troops in 2014, ISIS and other terror groups have joined the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, all working to topple the US-backed government in Kabul. All told, there are now 20 terrorist groups operating inside Afghanistan and along the Afghan-Pakistani border region.

The post Mattis: ISIS ‘couldn’t last 2 minutes in fight with our troops’ appeared first on CounterJihad.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:02 am
Posts: 15528
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe
The UN Holocaust: More Lies and Treachery on the Way?
Yves Mamou
gatestoneinstitute.org


Israel, this tiny country in the heart of Middle East, has become the new target of diplomacy-abuse at the United Nations, headed by the Americans, the Europeans (mainly France) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) -- 57 Islamic states plus "Palestine", which at the moment forms the largest bloc at the UN.

On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which effectively sets the boundaries for the Palestinian state at the 1949 armistice lines. The Arabs had previously refused to accept the armistice line as a border, presumably because agreeing to it might preclude the Palestinians from trying to get the rest of "Palestine", defined by them as "from the river [Jordan] to the sea [Mediterranean]" -- meaning all of Israel. Just look at any Palestinian map -- It is identical to the shape of the entirety of Israel.

According to Res. 2334, not only are Jewish settlements are illegal, overnight, effectively making their Jewish residents criminals, but the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City -- the heart of Judaism for nearly 4,000 years and the seat of Christianity for more than 2,000 years -- are now grotesquely considered "occupied territory".

As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer noted:

"It's as if the U.N. passed a resolution declaring Mecca and Medina to be sovereign Jewish or Christian territory. It's absurd. It's an insult to the intelligence of the world and is supremely damaging to the Israeli claim to its own holy places."

Krauthammer then wondered why the resolution included East Jerusalem, site of the Old City and the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount -- all that is left of the Jews' Second Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and at which Jews pray every day. Hmm. As Res. 2334 rejects Res. 242's founding assumptions that peace can only be negotiated between belligerents, could it be that President Obama and the US administration, along with the Islamists, dictators, and many of Europe's Islamized leaders who now populate the UN, are planning to declare a Palestinian State, presumably with East Jerusalem as its capital at a UN Security Council meeting scheduled for January 17, three days before Obama leaves office? We sincerely hope to be proven wrong.

A vote at the UN Security Council (illustrative). [Image source: U.S. State Department]


Regrettably, the US-UN-OIC assault on Israel clearly seems to be the second prong of outgoing US President Barack Obama's lame duck campaign against Israel -- part of a larger plan to displace much of Israel, including its heart, the Old City of Jerusalem, with an Islamic state.

Already, on October 13, 2016, another branch of the United Nations, UNESCO, falsely declared the site of Judaism's two ancient temples, Islamic sites.

Before that, in 2015, UNESCO also falsely declared two ancient Biblical Jewish sites, Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs, "Islamic sites" -- despite Islam not even having historically existed until hundreds of years later in the seventh century.

The vote was unanimous, except for the US, which, after orchestrating and nurturing the entire assault, demurely abstained and then tried to deny that the US was behind it.

The denial played out like a bad film in which the wife hires a hit-man to kill her husband, and then tells the judge she is innocent because at the time of the murder she was having her hair done.

Secretary of State John Kerry's " candid thoughts" on December 28, 2016, tried to disguise the Obama Administration's treachery -- the US abstaining instead of opposing Res. 2334 -- with a lot of fake-friendly advice. But according to Kerry, the "interests of the United States" were not aligned anymore with the interests of Israel. Why is that? Because of settlement policy:


"We've made countless public and private exhortations to the Israelis to stop the march of settlements. In literally hundreds of conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for an international response. We have all known for some time that the Palestinians were intent on moving forward in the UN with a settlements resolution, and I advised the prime minister repeatedly that further settlement activity only invited UN action."


So because of the State of Israel's settlement policy, the interest of the United States is now to weaken the diplomatic position of Israel, and make the only free, open, pluralistic democracy in the region a pariah among other nations and every Israeli in the area a potential criminal or a potential target for a general boycott. Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick said:


"...contrary to what has been widely argued, 2334 does not strengthen the boycott of 'settlements.' 2334 gives a strategic boost to the boycott of Israel as a whole.

"2334 calls on states 'to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.' Since no Israeli firms make that distinction, all Israeli economic activity is now threatened with boycott. Tnuva is an 'occupation' dairy because it supplies communities beyond the 1949 lines with dairy products.

"Bank Hapoalim is an 'occupation' bank because it operates ATM machines in post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

"Fox clothing chain is an 'occupation' chain because it has a store in Gush Etzion. And so on and so forth.

"Resolution 2334 gives Europe and its NGOs a green light to wage a complete trade and cultural boycotts against all of Israel."


Kerry finished his speech by enumerating six principles for peace, supposedly based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps (but of course leaving Israel with nothing much to swap); recognition of Israel by the Palestinians as a Jewish state; help to solve the refugee issue; internationalization of Jerusalem as a capital for two countries; viable borders for Israel; end of the conflict and all outstanding claims. These "principles" can only be considered a monument to hypocrisy. These "simple" goals contradict resolution 2334. Why should Palestinians agree to land swaps if settlements have already been declared illegal?

Alarmingly, we probably have not yet seen the end of this mess yet. A third stage of this anti-Israeli rocket is in preparation and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has good reasons to think "that the United Nations Security Council could take fresh action against Israel during a meeting on January 17, three days before US President Barack Obama is slated to leave office".

France has protested that it is "not planning" an Israeli-Palestinian UN resolution, but of course that leaves other countries -- perhaps New Zealand, Venezuela, Malaysia or Senegal again -- to "help out"? The launch of this diplomatic Holocaust will start on January 15, in Paris, at a "peace conference"; it should immediately be postponed for at least a week.

Otherwise, at the initiative of France's equally lame duck, President François Hollande, an international conference will gather the foreign ministers of some fifty States to drive Israel to a fictitious "peace with the Palestinians". But one thing is for sure: All these diplomats can elaborate a resolution of their own, to be put forth by another hit-man, perhaps presented by France or Sweden or another "real friend" of Israel. And the United States can again disingenuously save face by abstaining.

Soon after Kerry's speech, Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May distanced the UK from Washington on Kerry's condemnation of Israel, in comments that appear to be designed to build bridges with the incoming Trump administration. Britain's ambassador, Sir Kim Darroch, has even said he hopes it will emulate the rapport between Margaret Thatcher and her US counterpart Ronald Reagan. It would be magnificently Churchillian or Thatcherian if May were to veto any further UN hijinks.

With a UN now run as if it is the universal caliphate, assisted mostly by dictators and despots, it is hard to see much good ever coming from it. No one has yet been made accountable for the $100 billion " oil for food" scandal, and peacekeepers still dole out food to children in exchange for sex. If the US separately wants to fund the World Health Organization as a spin-off, for example, that is always an option.

The UN does not solve the refugee problem; instead the UN perpetuates it, noted the great Soviet dissident, Natan Sharansky.

The UN also does not prevent or resolve world conflicts, instead, it seems to perpetuate them - take Syria, Iraq, the Sudan.

As the prizewinning Middle East historian Bat Ye'or recently wrote about the UN and UNESCO:


"Led astray from their primary mission, these organizations have become tools of corruption or terrorism, reinforcing global Islamic power. But let us not forget that those who vote are Heads of State, fully conscious and responsible individuals, motivated by interests and ideologies that are often criminal and not all of which represent the opinions of their people whom they tyrannize, including those from European 'democracies'. Their latest resolutions do not only confirm the victory of jihadism and illiteracy: they also express the success of the years of effort made by this post-war Europe that continues to destroy, defame and delegitimize the Jewish State in the name of Islamic justice. The beginning of this long journey dates back to 1967, in France.... Europe rushed to adopt the French position in 1973 and, along with the OIC, planned political measures designed to destroy the Jewish State by denying its sovereign rights and its cantonment on an indefensible territory. Resolution 2334 is now the icing on the cake of this policy, which forms the basis for a Euro-Islamic policy to merge in all EU political and social sectors, as well as in promoting globalism and the enforcement of the UN's supranational decision-making powers."


All freedom-loving nations should, unfortunately, abandon immediately before laws are made for them next -- or, second-best, at least de-fund it. Sadly, that is the only language the UN evidently understands.

On January 5, the US House of Representatives voted 342-to-80 to condemn the UN vote, with 100 Democrats joining the Republicans. Countries imagining that in US President-elect Donald J. Trump they have another pushover, watch out. You will be in for quite a shock.


Yves Mamou is a journalist and author based in France. He worked for two decades for the daily, Le Monde, before his retirement.

_________________
I am Charlie


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:21 pm
Posts: 2097
Location: Canada, India, Singapore
I hope Bibi really takes off the gloves and holds back no words about the Obama admin ASAP.

_________________
Truth can not be suppressed and always is the ultimate victor.
- Yajur Veda


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17471
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Defense secretary nominee Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis believes ISIS is “al-Qaida on steroids” and must be defeated in head-to-head “battles of annihilation” that leave “no survivors” on the enemy side, according to a recent discussion he participated in with a conservative think tank.


A man after my own heart.

One thing Zerobama got right. Daesh really is the JV team. They are winning because they are fighting the Freshmen. But they can score points against the Pros, if the Pros don't take to the field.

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:54 pm 
Offline
Legendary Overlord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:17 am
Posts: 4949
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
Quote:
Defense secretary nominee Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis believes ISIS is “al-Qaida on steroids” and must be defeated in head-to-head “battles of annihilation” that leave “no survivors” on the enemy side, according to a recent discussion he participated in with a conservative think tank.


A man after my own heart.

One thing Zerobama got right. Daesh really is the JV team. They are winning because they are fighting the Freshmen. But they can score points against the Pros, if the Pros don't take to the field.


true. Daesh, or whatever one wants to call that pack of psychopathic murdering lunatics, has only won as long as the major and intermediate powers didn't get serious.

the powers are sorta serious, but not really.

one US Armored brigade with a US tactical airwing (either service) could go through them in the immortal words of Patton.

and IS is losing.

but they won't be eradicated. They have already gone to ground and live everywhere using the internet.

We can defeat them, including there. But we have to get serious. We need to conventionally annihilate them in the territory they hold. And we need to hunt them down through the web in a sustained cyber war and destroy their systems and support.

we need to cut off their financial and logistical support from the various countries, agencies and communities that fund them.

and we need to defeat their ideology of radical Islamic jihadism and Islamic supremacy/sharia.

we have Muslim allies. (some are) Those "allies" need to get serious, or added to the target list.

_________________
Maybe the problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:38 pm
Posts: 2282
I wonder why there hasn't at least(!) been a more sustained and comprehensive effort, reactive as well as proactive) by the US, NATO and the individual countries of the West (I'd rather not have Russia or China involved) to at least harrass and destroy the lamp rubbers' digital propaganda efforts.

All countries have more or less capable cyber capabilities. Why are they not used?

_________________
A Missouri man had once written the Confederate[s] that all they had to do to get rid of the St. Louis Unionists was to destroy the breweries and seize all the beer: 'By this, the Dutch will all die in a week and the Yankees will then run from this state.'


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4629
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Jotun wrote:
I wonder why there hasn't at least(!) been a more sustained and comprehensive effort, reactive as well as proactive) by the US, NATO and the individual countries of the West (I'd rather not have Russia or China involved) to at least harrass and destroy the lamp rubbers' digital propaganda efforts.

All countries have more or less capable cyber capabilities. Why are they not used?

I suspect that the problem is that the civilised world's information warfare capabilities are poorly optimised to countermeasures against a distributed multi-platform social media campaign. After that sentence I feel a little dirty, but it's likely true. Counteracting the message needs to be done through old-fashioned propaganda techniques.

Though I am reminded of SIS replacing an Islamist website's content with cupcake recipes a few years ago. :lol:

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3454
Location: CIVLANT
According to an interview conducted by Bill O'Riely and col. David Hunt the US has 10,000 combat troops in Iraq/Syria. I was wondering why the Iraqi Army was doing so well against ISIS in Mosul and now I know. According to Col. Hunt 5,000 US combat troops are taking part in the Mosul Op and they ARE NOT "in the rear with the gear"; they are in close combat with ISIS. I bet having US FOs on the ground combined with sane ROE's issued by POTUS Trump also is making a major positive impact.
U.S. troops fighting in Syria, Iraq and Yemen
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5359613247001

Nightwatch2 wrote:
edgeplay_cgo wrote:
Quote:
Defense secretary nominee Gen. Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis believes ISIS is “al-Qaida on steroids” and must be defeated in head-to-head “battles of annihilation” that leave “no survivors” on the enemy side, according to a recent discussion he participated in with a conservative think tank.
A man after my own heart.
One thing Zerobama got right. Daesh really is the JV team. They are winning because they are fighting the Freshmen. But they can score points against the Pros, if the Pros don't take to the field.

true. Daesh, or whatever one wants to call that pack of psychopathic murdering lunatics, has only won as long as the major and intermediate powers didn't get serious.

the powers are sorta serious, but not really. one US Armored brigade with a US tactical airwing (either service) could go through them in the immortal words of Patton. Does a 5,000 man Striker and Ranger force equal an US Armored brigade? Col. Hunt said that was the force that "invaded" Syria last week. There are also reports the 11 MEU's 6 gun 155mm towed M777 howitzer battery has landed in Syria.

and IS is losing.

but they won't be eradicated. They have already gone to ground and live everywhere using the internet.

We can defeat them, including there. But we have to get serious. We need to conventionally annihilate them in the territory they hold. And we need to hunt them down through the web in a sustained cyber war and destroy their systems and support.

we need to cut off their financial and logistical support from the various countries, agencies and communities that fund them.

and we need to defeat their ideology of radical Islamic jihadism and Islamic supremacy/sharia.

we have Muslim allies. (some are) Those "allies" need to get serious, or added to the target list.

The question in my mind is WHY should those Muslim Allies get serious given the US history of abandoning our allies, especially under DNC regimes Carter, BUbba, and Obama?
I doubt they want to wind up like The Shah or Mubarak.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:07 pm 
Offline
Legendary Overlord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:17 am
Posts: 4949
OSCSSW wrote:
According to an interview conducted by Bill O'Riely and col. David Hunt the US has 10,000 combat troops in Iraq/Syria. I was wondering why the Iraqi Army was doing so well against ISIS in Mosul and now I know. According to Col. Hunt 5,000 US combat troops are taking part in the Mosul Op and they ARE NOT "in the rear with the gear"; they are in close combat with ISIS. I bet having US FOs on the ground combined with sane ROE's issued by POTUS Trump also is making a major positive impact.
U.S. troops fighting in Syria, Iraq and Yemen
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5359613247001

Nightwatch2 wrote:
true. Daesh, or whatever one wants to call that pack of psychopathic murdering lunatics, has only won as long as the major and intermediate powers didn't get serious.

the powers are sorta serious, but not really. one US Armored brigade with a US tactical airwing (either service) could go through them in the immortal words of Patton. Does a 5,000 man Striker and Ranger force equal an US Armored brigade? Col. Hunt said that was the force that "invaded" Syria last week. There are also reports the 11 MEU's 6 gun 155mm towed M777 howitzer battery has landed in Syria.

and IS is losing.

but they won't be eradicated. They have already gone to ground and live everywhere using the internet.

We can defeat them, including there. But we have to get serious. We need to conventionally annihilate them in the territory they hold. And we need to hunt them down through the web in a sustained cyber war and destroy their systems and support.

we need to cut off their financial and logistical support from the various countries, agencies and communities that fund them.

and we need to defeat their ideology of radical Islamic jihadism and Islamic supremacy/sharia.

we have Muslim allies. (some are) Those "allies" need to get serious, or added to the target list.

The question in my mind is WHY should those Muslim Allies get serious given the US history of abandoning our allies, especially under DNC regimes Carter, BUbba, and Obama?
I doubt they want to wind up like The Shah or Mubarak.


a 5,000 Striker force is a brigade. It is not quite what I meant by an Armored Brigade. An Armored Brigade has real tanks and stuff. That is a no kidding kick the door in force with power and mobility and troops to hold it. Strikers aren't quite at that level. The division here at Ft Carson has both types and I've been at some of their events.

I kinda doubt they are in the front of the fight with IS. I think we'd have heard more of it. Given the fight in Mosul is an urban warfare fight I suspect (do NOT know) that are guys are operating in support so far. Will that continue? we'll see.

I've heard that the MEU battery has been deployed and that in part what that Stryker force is for is to bring up that Marine artillery, put them in range, and ensure they operate without interference. That battery will systematically level any hard spots for the Iraqi/Syrian and Kurdish troops on the ground.

oh, and to deter/prevent Turkey from taking the Kurdish areas in the rear.

(we are protecting our allies from our allies. can this get any more $!#!$%^#%^$%%$!!!!!!)

by the way. The Marines have a lot of their artillery in the reserves. my son is off on a Marine Reserve Artillery drill. it is too strong a term to say the reserves have been "alerted", but they have been told to get ready.....

_________________
Maybe the problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:53 am
Posts: 540
Don't call them Daesh; THAT, is what Boingo the wonder dog called them, with the implicit intention of the name including the territory that includes the state of Israel. Giving them a bigger than boots ambition and impression to the minions who think they are relevant.

EXTERMINATE THEM
Utterly, and without mercy


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 4951
Location: EGUD
KenH wrote:
Don't call them Daesh; THAT, is what Boingo the wonder dog called them, with the implicit intention of the name including the territory that includes the state of Israel. Giving them a bigger than boots ambition and impression to the minions who think they are relevant.

:?:
Quote:
So what does Daesh really mean? Well, D.A.E.SH is a transliteration of the Arabic acronym formed of the same words that make up I.S.I.S in English: ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’, or ‘لدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام’ (‘al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il-i’raaq wa-ash-shaam’). That’s the full name chosen by the organisation, and – when used in full – it’s definitely how they want to be referred to. In Arabic, just like in English, that phrase consists of six words, four of which make it into the acronym (‘in’ and ‘and’ are omitted) : ‘دولة dowla’ (state) + ‘إسلامية islaamiyya’ (Islamic) + ‘عراق i’raaq’ (Iraq) + ‘شام shaam’. That last word, ‘shaam’, is variously used in Arabic to denote Damascus (in Syrian dialect) ‘Greater Syria’ / the Levant, or Syria – hence the US-preferred acronym ISIL, with the L standing for Levant. In Arabic there is a single letter for the sound ‘sh’, hence our transliteration of the acronym having five letters, not four. And the vowel which begins the word ‘islaamiyya’ becomes an ‘a’ sound when differently positioned in a word, hence the acronym being pronounced ‘da’ish’ when written in Arabic, and the ‘a’ coming over into our transliteration of the acronym. Of course the amazing Arabic letter ‘ع’ which begins the word for ‘Iraq’ is unpronounceable to an anglophone, and can’t be written in Latin letters, hence the use of an ‘e’ (or occasionally an ’e) in the transliteration.

Still with me? Nothing mysterious there – or nothing that anyone who speaks Arabic wouldn’t be able to explain. It’s not a previously existing word in its own right. It does indeed now mean ‘tyrannical, despotic, murdering fundamentalists who claim to be Islamic and claim to be a state’ but only as a result of how it sounds (more on that in a minute) and as a result of the associations that quickly attach to a neologism, in the same way that they have attached to the word ISIS. So it’s not based on any previous – or mysterious, or quasi-mystical Eastern – meaning.

And so if the word is basically ‘ISIS’, but in Arabic, why are the people it describes in such a fury about it? Because they hear it, quite rightly, as a challenge to their legitimacy: a dismissal of their aspirations to define Islamic practice, to be ‘a state for all Muslims’ and – crucially – as a refusal to acknowledge and address them as such. They want to be addressed as exactly what they claim to be, by people so in awe of them that they use the pompous, long and delusional name created by the group, not some funny-sounding made-up word. And here is the very simple key point that has been overlooked in all the anglophone press coverage I’ve seen: in Arabic, acronyms are not anything like as widely used as they are in English, and so arabophones are not as used to hearing them as anglophones are. Thus, the creation and use of a title that stands out as a nonsense neologism for an organisation like this one is inherently funny, disrespectful, and ultimately threatening of the organisation’s status. Khaled al-Haj Salih, the Syrian activist who coined the term back in 2013, says that initially even many of his fellow activists, resisting Daesh alongside him, were shocked by the idea of an Arabic acronym, and he had to justify it to them by referencing the tradition of acronyms being used as names by Palestinian organisations (such as Fatah). So saturated in acronyms are we in English that we struggle to imagine this, but it’s true.

https://www.freewordcentre.com/explore/ ... ce-guthrie

TL:DR it's the Arabic acronym for the name they like to use, and they hate people using it because Arabs don't use acronyms and it diminishes them when people do.

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:00 am 
Offline
Legendary Overlord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:17 am
Posts: 4949
pdf27 wrote:
KenH wrote:
Don't call them Daesh; THAT, is what Boingo the wonder dog called them, with the implicit intention of the name including the territory that includes the state of Israel. Giving them a bigger than boots ambition and impression to the minions who think they are relevant.

:?:
Quote:
So what does Daesh really mean? Well, D.A.E.SH is a transliteration of the Arabic acronym formed of the same words that make up I.S.I.S in English: ‘Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’, or ‘لدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام’ (‘al-dowla al-islaamiyya fii-il-i’raaq wa-ash-shaam’). That’s the full name chosen by the organisation, and – when used in full – it’s definitely how they want to be referred to. In Arabic, just like in English, that phrase consists of six words, four of which make it into the acronym (‘in’ and ‘and’ are omitted) : ‘دولة dowla’ (state) + ‘إسلامية islaamiyya’ (Islamic) + ‘عراق i’raaq’ (Iraq) + ‘شام shaam’. That last word, ‘shaam’, is variously used in Arabic to denote Damascus (in Syrian dialect) ‘Greater Syria’ / the Levant, or Syria – hence the US-preferred acronym ISIL, with the L standing for Levant. In Arabic there is a single letter for the sound ‘sh’, hence our transliteration of the acronym having five letters, not four. And the vowel which begins the word ‘islaamiyya’ becomes an ‘a’ sound when differently positioned in a word, hence the acronym being pronounced ‘da’ish’ when written in Arabic, and the ‘a’ coming over into our transliteration of the acronym. Of course the amazing Arabic letter ‘ع’ which begins the word for ‘Iraq’ is unpronounceable to an anglophone, and can’t be written in Latin letters, hence the use of an ‘e’ (or occasionally an ’e) in the transliteration.

Still with me? Nothing mysterious there – or nothing that anyone who speaks Arabic wouldn’t be able to explain. It’s not a previously existing word in its own right. It does indeed now mean ‘tyrannical, despotic, murdering fundamentalists who claim to be Islamic and claim to be a state’ but only as a result of how it sounds (more on that in a minute) and as a result of the associations that quickly attach to a neologism, in the same way that they have attached to the word ISIS. So it’s not based on any previous – or mysterious, or quasi-mystical Eastern – meaning.

And so if the word is basically ‘ISIS’, but in Arabic, why are the people it describes in such a fury about it? Because they hear it, quite rightly, as a challenge to their legitimacy: a dismissal of their aspirations to define Islamic practice, to be ‘a state for all Muslims’ and – crucially – as a refusal to acknowledge and address them as such. They want to be addressed as exactly what they claim to be, by people so in awe of them that they use the pompous, long and delusional name created by the group, not some funny-sounding made-up word. And here is the very simple key point that has been overlooked in all the anglophone press coverage I’ve seen: in Arabic, acronyms are not anything like as widely used as they are in English, and so arabophones are not as used to hearing them as anglophones are. Thus, the creation and use of a title that stands out as a nonsense neologism for an organisation like this one is inherently funny, disrespectful, and ultimately threatening of the organisation’s status. Khaled al-Haj Salih, the Syrian activist who coined the term back in 2013, says that initially even many of his fellow activists, resisting Daesh alongside him, were shocked by the idea of an Arabic acronym, and he had to justify it to them by referencing the tradition of acronyms being used as names by Palestinian organisations (such as Fatah). So saturated in acronyms are we in English that we struggle to imagine this, but it’s true.

https://www.freewordcentre.com/explore/ ... ce-guthrie

TL:DR it's the Arabic acronym for the name they like to use, and they hate people using it because Arabs don't use acronyms and it diminishes them when people do.


and because they hate the term Daesh - we should always call them that. as we pull the trigger

_________________
Maybe the problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5815
Location: Cambs, UK
I dug this up out of the Maximal Realism essay that was this lunchbreak's reading, and found it rather appropriate for the current situation.

Quote:
Quote:
We are trying to root out and destroy an international, underground terrorist organization, and to do that successfully, we need the willing assistance of the rest of the world. We are not going to get it by blundering around threatening everyone and alienating our allies and friends.


Seer Stuart writes:

Think this one through for a moment. Terrorism is nothing new, its been around in various guises for a very long time. So what is it? Think about the mechanics of "Maximal-Realism" for the moment. We have the hegemon at the top and a challenger emerging from below. By very definition, the hegemon is more powerful, perhaps much more powerful, than the challenger. So the challenger looks for ways to fight that offset that strength. LIGHT COMES ON. Terrorism is one tool that a challenger can use to displace a hegemon. Terrorism doesn't just occur; its part of a challenge to a hegemon. Look how terrorism was virtually non-existant in the 1950s, picked up strength in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, receeded dramatically in the 1980s, almost vanished in the early 1990s and then became resurgent in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Doesn't that pattern look familiar?

Terrorism per se isn't important. Who's using it and the reasons behind them using it are important. Terrorism is a series of blows aimed at a hegemon aimed at weakening it, at demonstrating to other nations that the hegemon isn't able to protect itself, let alone its allies. That its military and state power are helpless against the challenger. Thast why Khobar Towers and the Cole were attacked. It was a demonstration that the Hegemon (the US) military forces were helpless. Thats why the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked - it was a demonstration that the Hegemon government couldn't even protect itself. Thats why the nightclub in Bali and the French oil tanker were attacked; it was a demonstration that the Hegemon couldn't protect its allies.

The key issue here is who is using terrorism; the terrorists themselves are unimportant. Finding and killing the terrorists is all very nice and quite satisfying but more important is to identify the challenger behind them and remove him.

Quote:
We have managed in a very short time to totally throw away the support and goodwill engendered by 9-11 worldwide, and I think that is foolish and wasteful.


Yes indeed; but we didn't throw it away by acting; we threw it away by not acting violently and decisively enough. If we'd done immediately to Iraq what we did in Afghanistan and moved on to pounding on the next threat on the list, that support and goodwill would still be with us (or the rationale is that they would be; in reality, governments would be stepping very carefully to avoid upsetting us and going out of their way to say friendly things every time a carrier got within 500 miles of them.)


_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 8:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 10163
Eric wrote:
Mattis: ISIS ‘couldn’t last 2 minutes in fight with our troops’


To quote a North Vietnamese officer in a slightly (only slightly) different context. "That is true but it is almost completely irrelevant."

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 458
Terrorism is popularly perceived as something a few people cook up in their basement. Nonsense. Fighting asymmetrically is really hard and barely possible. It's a top level technical skill, much harder than just putting together a second rate sort of large conventional army as Hussein did and the Kims have done, and so is only really possessed by the first rank powers. It does occasionally happen: Breivik was probably a real independent terrorist. He was also high enough in IQ to be a tech entrepreneur yet committed enough to his cause to throw that great life away. Very unusual. Certainly in low literacy, low commitment societies.

Most terrorists are patsies. Terrorism blew up in the 50s and 60s because it was being sponsored by the USSR and vanished in the 90s because the USSR was gone (the skills and ammunition don't vanish all at once but they decay pretty quickly - see the graph I posted in the IRA thread).

The question is whose patsies are they because the Muslim world doesn't contain a single first rank power.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group