France, Terrorists and the War That is not a war.

by Chuck Stanley

Other than those affected directly, I am probably handling this less well than most here.

Especially affecting me is the death of 23 y/o Nohemi Gonzalez.

It has been only five short months since I watched my own youngest daughter draw her last breath. Brandi said, “No one should die alone,” but Nohemi died alone halfway around the world from her parents and loved ones.

She and dozens more, died at the hands of criminals. It is as simple, and as complicated, as that.

Drawing back from my role as a father and a citizen, let me put on my expert hat for a moment. I have worked with law enforcement for four decades. We are also a military family, so I understand both worlds. However, speaking as an interrogator and frequent consultant on cases of violence, this spate of attacks is NOT WAR!

I wish national and military leaders, as well as media, would stop using that word. More military in the traditional sense is not the answer. All these attacks should be handled as criminal investigations. Having said that, I am not averse to highly surgical drone strikes. I have killed enough poisonous snakes over my lifetime to know the best way to kill a snake is to cut off its head.

Nor am I averse to using the military for its intelligence and surveillance capabilities. But….we sure as hell don’t need more big bombers and massive warships that one of them, all by itself, has more destructive capability than the entire Axis military of WW2.

We need better gumshoe criminal investigators, skilled interrogators, and more HUMIT (trade term for ‘human intelligence’). The latest Intel out of France indicates at least some of the attackers were using PlayStation 4 for their communications. If one thinks about it, that’s a perfect medium for circumventing the usual NSA and CIA data vacuuming systems, such as Prism.

Consider this. Many of the games one can play online are about war and military operations. Code of Honor, Call of Duty Black Ops, Medal of Honor Warfighter, and countless others involve gathering weapons and targeting “the enemy.” Such communications are hiding in plain sight, encryption or no encryption.

If the NSA scoops up all these communications, talk of weaponry and targeting is part of the games. Additionally, the simple ruses used by the Navajo Code Talkers not only used their native Navajo language, they used metaphors. That was in case the Japanese did figure out the language. When they captured and tortured a native Navajo speaker on Bataan, even he could not decipher what they were talking about. Submarines were fish. Airplanes were various kinds of birds, tanks were tortoises, and so forth.

That Navajo POW was forced to listen to the jumbled words of talker transmissions. After he was liberated, he told one of the code talkers, “I never figured out what you guys who got me into all that trouble were saying.”

The only way to solve that particular problem is infiltration of the criminal cells. Befriend the actors so as to learn their intentions. Cracking encoded and disguised transmissions are not likely to work, or if they do, will probably not work very well in situations where the lone wolf operator is at work, and speed is of the essence.

When suspects are captured, skilled interrogation is essential. That means using soundHanns-Joachim Gottlob Scharff
techniques such as the types of interrogation developed by Obergefreiter Hanns Sharff of the Luftwaffe (left photo), and US Marine Major Sherwood F. Moran Major Sherwood Moran interrogating a Japanese prisoner in the Pacific Theater, WWII

Major Sherwood Moran interrogating a Japanese prisoner in the Pacific Theater, WWII
during WW2. (right photo)

The sociopathic techniques of Dick Cheney and his enablers are not interrogations. They are punishment, designed to satiate the sadistic needs and wishes of the captors instead of gathering intelligence.

I was once “interviewing” someone who had been reticent to talk. An expert with decades of experience stood by watching. Later, she simply shook her head, saying, “You got more information in six minutes than I have gotten in six weeks.”

It’s not hard. All you need to do is listen and use good communication skills. Incidentally, that has been a lifelong interest of mine. I did my doctoral dissertation on the subject of communication skills and how easily a poor communicator can go off into the weeds, causing more harm than good.

If this were a “war” in the truest sense of the word, the criminals would have been lobbing mortar shells into that stadium and theater instead of blowing themselves up. Come to think of it, in a real war, military targets are selected. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a true warlike military attack. The Blitzkrieg was a military attack.  The invasion of Poland was a military attack. Even Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was a military attack.

Shooting people in a theater or restaurant is not a military attack. It is not war. It is an act of raw, psychopathic, criminality and should be treated as such.

As for our response, area bombing is a waste of perfectly good explosives and counterproductive to boot. Highly accurate surgical strikes by drones, helicopters or A-10 Warthogs are probably more useful than high level strikes by a B-52 or B-2.  Or even strikes by fast movers like Tornadoes, F-16s, and Mirage jets.

The civilized world does not have a war with Islam or Muslim believers. The fight is with a cabal of criminals who have a cult following. They are not the least interested in negotiation or peaceful coexistence. They consider it an honor to die for their cause, so threats of death or annihilation are empty threats. Their goal is to convert the entire world to Islam. Not ordinary Islam, but their own particular extreme brand. Part of that is to recruit gullible and alienated young people to their cause.

My very bright and perceptive granddaughter observed they are attracting the exact same sort of young person who would have been a follower of Jim Jones, Charles Manson, fringe religious cults, or other movements that give them a sense of identity and worth in otherwise aimless and disaffected lives.

It’s no surprise to me that every one of the young perpetrators of the Paris bombings and shootings have reported histories of petty crime.

It seems clear that they are trying to drive a psychological wedge between the average Muslim and the rest of the world. To some extent it is working. One of the best psychiatrists in our area was a rather moderate Muslim who had generally liberal views. However, after his home was firebombed and shot into, he said he had enough and was taking a job in Saudi Arabia. He told me he had a wife and kids to think about, and living here wasn’t tolerable, thanks to mouth-breathing knuckledraggers who no doubt flew giant Rebel flags from their pickup trucks.

The cost to our community is that the mental health center no longer has a single psychiatrist to whom I am willing to refer any of my clients. Formerly I referred all my clients with mental health issues, even the most fundamentalist Christian ones, to Dr. Ali al Garatli. They all loved him. Thanks a hell of a lot to the criminal elements of al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL.

Back to the war issue. I repeat; this is not a war. It is a criminal investigation, requiring criminal investigation expertise and proper adjudication when the criminals are caught. If they prefer death to capture, I am not above accommodating them. If there are to be “boots on the ground,” I agree with Col. Jack Jacobs this evening when he said we don’t need to go in with a division, or multiple divisions.

Boots in these cases means special operations groups, made of small highly trained elite squads. We have Delta Force and the Seal teams. The Brits have the SAS, and Russians have Spetsnaz. If there were a ever a reason for common cause, where Obama, Putin, Cameron, and other national leaders could find common ground to meld forces, intelligence and cooperation, this is it. And make no mistake, those special forces groups can do things even science fiction writers would have trouble believing.

To do otherwise makes about as much sense as bombing Bogota in order to eliminate the drug cartels there.

So to those who say we are “at war,” my response is to tell them shut the hell up until you begin to have a clue as to what you are talking about.

About Chuck Stanley

Dr. Charlton (Chuck) Stanley is a board certified forensic psychologist, with interests in aviation psychology, peace officer selection and training, ethics and communication skills.
This entry was posted in France, Terrorists, War and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to France, Terrorists and the War That is not a war.

  1. I think you are right, Chuck. And let us damn well not choose to get into war over criminal acts.

  2. rafflaw says:

    Well said Chuck! War is not the answer to these crimes.

  3. mhbtest says:

    I appreciate what you wrote here. If it happens that there is any ongoing, or deeper discussion of the points and ideas you say here I’ll be honored to join in. For now, thanks, and though you did not say it gather that you have some personal impact in this event. Peace and comfort in turbulent and sorrowful times.

    Michael

  4. yankeefarmer says:

    Three points:
    1) A good read, brought to my attention by the resident educator:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
    A germain point to this discussion, is that in the view of Daesh, it IS war.
    A war of Mohammedans vs the apostate Muslims and unbelievers.
    A war as would be waged with swords and horses, a war as-written in the Old Testament and Qur’an. A conflict of good vs. evil, a conflict where terrorism is used to “shock and awe” the opposition into subjugation. Joshua marching the Israelites three times around Jericho is a direct parallel.

    2) It’s a war every day for the Yazidis and Kurds, modernized by the weapons “donated” by fleeing Iraqi Sunni conscripts, who’s dog in this fight was a paycheck.
    Conscripts who’s religious leaders, tribal leaders, and klan leaders have no allegiance to the Shite government in Bagdad. Who’s conflicted by this call to “overthrow the apostates and unbelievers” as that’s what’s been told to them since birth. Shites are apostates and are put to death. Yazidis are pagans, and are converted, enslaved or killed.
    Christians are to be subjugated to Islam, willingly and with joy pay the Jizya, or be enslaved.
    “The Sunni fighters of Daesh, are doing what we’ve always been told to do during our lessons at the Madrassa.
    Not to mention they slaughter all those who oppose them.
    No, they can have Bagdad’s machine gun and truck, I’m going home… perhaps they will leave us alone.”

    Instead of some French flag motif, I’ve employed the flag of the non-country, “Kurdistan”.
    There’s a whole diary or five, on why the Peshmerga aren’t being adequately supported by the US Government. Short version: “Kurdistan” is where the oil, gas, water and minerals are. It also encompasses the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and most importantly Turkey. A Turkey eager to let Daesh kill-off the Kurds, then reclaim that region for Turkey. Re-drawing the Ottoman borders.
    Oh, one more thing: ZOMG, there’s the RUSSIANS and PUTIN and we so need Turkey against such a threat to NATO. The very card Turkey’s been waving for years. A much emboldened Turkey after Crimea’s annexation.

    3) Chuck wrote:
    “However, after his home was firebombed and shot into, he said he had enough and was taking a job in Saudi Arabia. He told me he had a wife and kids to think about, and living here wasn’t tolerable, thanks to mouth-breathing knuckledraggers who no doubt flew giant Rebel flags from their pickup trucks.”

    Police response to such thing is “we’re investigating” and “redneck kids doing stupid things” which equals “not doing much about it”.
    The community here in the US, needed to do something substantial.
    Put other pickups out front of the doctor’s house, hold a 24 hour vigil. If that public vigil doesn’t work, put other persons with other guns, and other flags in those trucks. Provide an escort of average citizens, who put themselves between the rednecks and the doctor’s family.
    The police won’t like it. The politicians won’t like it. And, frankly that’s the point.
    Both groups know who the mouth-breathers are, hell son… unlike this so-called ‘Doctor’ they’re all born right here, and vote boy! They vote!
    So lock-up 30 citizens providing escort. Then 30 more. Then 30 more.
    Come elections, you’ll find out how important 30×30 citizens can be.
    It worked in the Civil Rights era, it’ll work today.

  5. Ted Spirakis says:

    Spot on analysis and recommendations regarding these acts of criminal violence we are witnessing these days.

    This talk and constant drumbeat of full out military action is absurd and foolhardy, much less counter productive to addressing the larger picture of the problem(s). It has been demonstrated that it is now always far easier for DC to deploy fathers and mothers, sons and daughters into harms way, which is in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt. This unfortunately has become the “standard normal operating procedure” of this country that we, the commons, have come to accept in many of our “dealings” around the world. “Diplomacy” via the strong-arm approach was quietly and skillfully brought upon us in the adoption of the now referred to term the “Bush Doctrine” (George W. Bush) and ushered in quickly without a due diligence national debate due to the horrific actions resulting from 911. It specifically is the unbridled acceptance and use of preemptive strikes should there even be a possible terrorist threat, or in retaliation of those that did occur in the Middle East. The question now begs to be asked: Has our intelligence always been correct? Sadly no, as it has been lacking, shoddy, incomplete, inadequate and in turn, has allowed for the consequences of violence and revenge we are experiencing today. It has now become so easy to send in the tanks airplanes and guns, and sort out the mess later when we face such crisis(s) such as the I.S.I.L. conundrum. But then again, what caused this problem in the Middle East? A vacuum of power and political instability brought upon by such incompetent strategic thinking known as the “Bush Doctrine”

    But I digress…..

    I am a firm believer of the tactic of “brains over brawn” as the intelligence gathered, if conducted properly, and professionally, will yield far better answers for solutions to addressing the remedies that one has as options for success. I too believe that this methodology and approach in turn will allow for a higher success rate for the prevention of such criminal violent actions moving forward, and also will result in shorten investigation times of incidents that have occurred.

  6. Yankee Farmer has excellent points. The only unworkable part is staking out the psychiatrist’s home. Far too random, and if the perps are local, they would just wait until the heat is off and coast clear. Another sad point. My friend was doing wonderful work with the mentally ill, but going from the local mental health center to the King Fahad Medical City means he is probably making more (tax free) in a month than he was making in a year here. As for his wife driving, that sure isn’t necessary, given they have cars and chauffeur furnished, not to mention luxury home and staff.

    The police investigated, but not as much as they did when some clown left homemade pipe bombs in people’s mailboxes as a sick prank. All done in the middle of he night, so no one was hurt, but you can bet the hunt was on. It was teens and they caught them in short order.

    Ted, spot on, and I know that you know your tradecraft. That is what is needed, not more billion dollar bombers. That is a great article in the Atlantic you linked to. Thanks for the tip.

    I am working on an update and adding information. Also have an article about interrogation in the works…the right way and the wrong way.

  7. Ted Spirakis says:

    Chuck:

    I am a hardcore “advocate” of good, sound, ethical and moral intelligence over brute power although sometimes the hammer is the only answer only after much thought and planning has been invested to secure a probable successful and least invasive outcome. Our agencies in DC in my opinion have many great folks that do an excellent job at what they are trained and do day to day (I used to know a few of them), but there are many policies of the IT world within the DC intelligent functions that to this day just make me shake my head. I can’t and won’t detail my thoughts, just my opinion. On the other hand, our overall need to “drop the hammer” to smite the ant is wasteful and irresponsible on many tactical fronts, and therefore I do side with a more cerebral “Zen like” style approach to problem resolution given we have the moral fortitude and competency to get the mission accomplished.

  8. Bob Stone says:

    Using an idiom to invoke specially reserved powers, be it declaring war on a gerund form of a verb/state of mind [terror/terrorizing], does not entitle the government to use any expanded powers that were specifically reserved to prosecute wars against nation states. Simply because you can put the words ‘war on terror’ together it does not follow that you can lay claim to war powers.

    However, declaring war on ISIS would not fall into that category. Since ISIS has been exhibiting the characteristics of a sovereign nation, including the killing of foreign citizens in furtherance of the conquest of foreign lands, etc..

    And while ISIS may deem their jihad to be superior to any notion of nationalism itself, thereby not bothering to declare itself a sovereign state, there is absolutely no reason for the world not to treat it as such. The contractual law analogy here is a “contract by conduct” — meaning; even in the absence of a written contract, or in this case a declaration of sovereignty, the law will recognize its existence if the conduct of the parties suggests its existence.

    “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.”

    Since ISIS has been walking and quacking like a nation state, there’s a strong argument in favor of declaring war against it as a sovereign nation.

  9. Bob,
    I understand where you are coming from; however, because ISIS acts as if it is a nation state does not give it the same status. One of the main differences it that it is an amorphous organization, loosely knit, and with no borders at all. In fact, that is one of their points of pride. As Ted points out above, a more cerebral approach must be taken rather than a military one. If you recall, in Vietnam, we won all the battles, but in the end, lost the war. Suggest you read a bit of Sun Tzu. He pretty much wrote the book on how to win a war, and the brute force model ain’t it. In fact, in Vietnam, General Giap was a student of Sun Tzu, using his tactical suggestions. Westmoreland and the Johnson DoD were still fighting WW2.

    Sun Tzu said, “The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.”

    In other words, think first, then fight.

  10. bron98 says:

    For all who don’t quite get it yet, we are at war with militant Islam and have been since 1979 or earlier. The philosophical locus of this ideology is Iran and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia. Talking to them is not going to do anything arresting a handful of them is not going to do anything. More will take their place. The snakes head is Iran and the mullahs. That is the head that needs to be cut off. Isis and Hamas, etc. are all proxies for Iran. Iran is the state actor behind radical Islam.

    This is definitely a war, this is not some criminal activity. And the sooner the West wakes up to this fact the better off it will be for everyone including peaceful Muslims.

  11. yankeefarmer says:

    Ted, I’m going to disagree on some points, and say “hell yeah” on others.
    The knee-jerk post 9/11 was entirely unwarranted.
    a) the USA PATRIOT Act was, and is, unconstitutional. It was a laundry list long-ago prepared, seeking to address ‘activist courts interfering with effective prosecution’.
    That’s tradespeak for: let’s not let a few trifling details derail my rise in power and prestige.

    b) “nation building”, in the true sense of rubber stamping ‘Merican democracy(tm), per The New American Century was at one time a masturbatory fantasy. It should have stayed there.
    Our last successful attempt at nation building was to create West Germany from the ashes of WWII.
    That’s to ignore the consequences of, and to, the Eastern Bloc.
    Germany, was accustomed to a functional central government, regional and local authorities administering civil law, and a degree of personal freedom. Not so in many former dictatorships (USSR, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya as a recent examples). Afghanistan last functioned as a modern State, in the Nixon era.
    The Communists swept-out the Monarchists and Western modernists. The Mujahidin swept out the Communists (and Soviets), firmly returning the country to a pre-20th Century era.

    Our successes, though brief in Afghanistan, were Special Ops partnered with anti-Taliban Muj.
    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” works right up to the time you become the enemy.
    Installing the nation building version of democracy was a foreseeable failure.

    c) As Chuck wrote above, HUMINT is currently a bad bad bad word.
    It’s the “Intelligence” community version of the A-10 Thunderbolt II (warthog).
    It’s slow, ungainly, ugly, minimally multi-tasked, and brutally effective. It evokes “splatter” and everyone from the pilot to those on either side of the conflict, know the carnage that results from such a hands-on, close-range encounter.
    It’s diametric to what’s in-vogue: Fast, sexy, clean, agile, multi-tasking from stand-off distances.
    Rather than splatter, there’s blowback. Collateral damage.
    SIGINT, is plausible, deniable, and most of all, financially profitable.

    SIGINT didn’t fail, and lead to 9/11. Not, as currently gathered.
    It DID however fail. As the Signals were in the form of conversations with concerned citizens.
    Not informants. Not spies. Not your paygrade either.
    “So write a memo, put it in the packet along with the work YOU WERE TASKED WITH and send it to Washington. My ticket out of this mid-worst shithole is you doing what I, Senior Agent In Charge tells you to. Arabs, not wanting to land jet aircraft, is inconsequential. They’re fucking Arabs… crazy shit’s to be expected.”

    In Washington, someone said: “Huh, Arabs… well, no note came with this, so it goes into the ‘bizarre shit received this week’ file folder, into the box, and onto the shelf.”
    When the third plane hit? That person was scrambling to find that box, and that file.

    ALL the SIGINT in the world means Jack, if you don’t know what you’re looking at.
    HUMINT has the benefit of informed opinions:
    “THIS is critically important! Why wouldn’t you want to land an aircraft – unless you never PLAN to LAND an aircraft? What’s the options? Take down another airliner? A military transport? Air Force One?”
    Even in missing “hit the Pentagon, the Capital, the WTC”?
    Important action would have been undertaken.
    Instead? Nothing… and then, all too much.

    Ted wrote:
    “Diplomacy” via the strong-arm approach was quietly and skillfully brought upon us in the adoption of the now referred to term the “Bush Doctrine” (George W. Bush) and ushered in quickly without a due diligence national debate due to the horrific actions resulting from 911. It specifically is the unbridled acceptance and use of preemptive strikes should there even be a possible terrorist threat, or in retaliation of those that did occur in the Middle East. The question now begs to be asked: Has our intelligence always been correct? Sadly no, as it has been lacking, shoddy, incomplete, inadequate and in turn, has allowed for the consequences of violence and revenge we are experiencing today. It has now become so easy to send in the tanks airplanes and guns, and sort out the mess later when we face such crisis(s) such as the I.S.I.L. conundrum. But then again, what caused this problem in the Middle East? A vacuum of power and political instability brought upon by such incompetent strategic thinking known as the “Bush Doctrine”

  12. bron98 says:

    “In fact, in Vietnam, General Giap was a student of Sun Tzu, using his tactical suggestions. Westmoreland and the Johnson DoD were still fighting WW2.”

    That is almost a rewriting of history. The reason we did not win the Vietnam War was because there was no civilian will to do so in the United States. Had we placed mines around Vietnamese ports and had we bombed the Red River rice fields they would’ve folded quickly. But we did not do so for humanitarian reasons. They quickly came to the table when Nixon mined Haiphong Harbor.

    general Giap won the war in the New York Times and other liberal newspapers around the United States along with the SDS and the weatherman and all of the campus riots.

    Personally, I don’t think we should’ve even gotten into that war.

  13. randyjet says:

    OS I agree with most of what you say, but given the fact that ISIS holds a good size bit of territory, it would be amenable to conventional military operations. I think that the special ops guys should be sent in now to do their thing, and later depending on what they find, then bigger forces could be sent to grab as many of the ISIS as possible along with their documents and intel. Right now though is not the time to try that. Hopefully, our allies on the ground and the special ops can do the job, but if not, then regular military forces might be needed.

  14. Carlyle Moulton says:

    OT but I have not seen Annie commenting on the Turly Blog for many days now, has she been posting here?

  15. Carlyle,
    Nope, not seen her anytime recently. She may have become bored with arguing with the paid trolls, who probably get a residual for every disruptive post they make. No sense in helping the Italian Flash make more money. Personally, I have not even looked in over there in months, so don’t know….and don’t care….what is going on.

  16. Ted Spirakis says:

    yankeefarmer:

    You wrote:

    “The knee-jerk post 9/11 was entirely unwarranted.
    a) the USA PATRIOT Act was, and is, unconstitutional. It was a laundry list long-ago prepared, seeking to address ‘activist courts interfering with effective prosecution’.
    That’s tradespeak for: let’s not let a few trifling details derail my rise in power and prestige.”

    “Knee jerk”??
    Where did I ever condone the USA Patriot ACT? I too believe that it is unconstitutional, but many policy legislation came out of the shock doctrine book of tactics that allowed for this to become an agency unto itself. Also, I do believe that they had the proper intelligence prior to 911 to have prevented such a catastrophe, but ignored, or whatever terminology you care to use for another agenda as we all later found out.

    The Clinton administration knew what was possibly going to happen, and they also relayed that intelligence information and warning to the Bush administration when it took office. Bush was warned right up to August of 2001:

    IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

    “On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

    On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.”

    Regarding my comment on the Bush Doctrine: The Bush Doctrine was created in July of 2001:

    “The phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001 to describe the Bush Administration’s unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.”
    https://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=the+bush+doctrine&btnG=Search&sitesearch=&gws_rd=ssl

    It was then used to include the use of force after the 911 attacks. Here is the complete chronology of the Bush Doctrine from PBS’s Frontline:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

    After Bush senior’s Iraq invasion, we left many intelligence personnel on the ground in, and around Baghdad to continue to work on intelligence gathering. We also had them in Afghanistan as well. I would also venture to speculate that the Israelis also were assisting us back then as well as they had an intelligence gathering operation network already in place and functioning.

    Also, I am not sure what your point(s) are, also please clarify of you would, and please allow for some links to your allegations and statements for further clarification and verification.

  17. bron98 says:

    9/11 was an act of war. Jijadis went after our financial, military and government sectors. There were other teams that were probably targeting power and infrastructure.
    This was s well planed but not fully executed.

    I would say anyone who thinks this is a criminal endeavor ought to rethink their position. We are in the beginning stages of wwiii against Islamic extremists. The sooner we accept that fact the better off we will be. We need to implement a concept of full war, we destroy their cities by all means available and kill every living thing and keep going city by city until they have no will left to fight.

    • mhbtest says:

      We need to implement a concept of full war, we destroy their cities by all means available and kill every living thing and keep going city by city until they have no will left to fight.

      And when has this ever worked? Rome and Carthage comes to mind. The ancient Assyrians were pretty good at this. Is this the level of destruction you advocate?
      We certainly can do it. It certainly has been considered by some of our more august leaders like Nixon.
      But if these examples are too far away in time and assumed to be to hyperbolic a response, how about the Germans and how they responded to their occupied populations. They certainly were not inhibited in their response, and went full on in implementing exactly the sort of system you proffer here.
      If you protest I misunderstand you then what would you do different from these examples and still implement your proscription?

      And if you might reflect deeper, at least differently , you might come across a different notion of what the problem is, and thus how to respond. Something perhaps a bit more complex than the brutish and brutal solution here advocated.

  18. mhbtest says:

    And when and if we do implement your plan who will we have become? What would we have to give up as a nation , and our principles and core beliefs about ourselves in order to do what you proscribe?

    And then I notice that Bushco essentially did exactly what you are advocating in re Afghanistan and Iraq. And that has worked out pretty well… And we have lost already quite a bit of what it once meant to be an American..don t you think?
    The history and outcomes of that pernicious time has been worked out pretty well on this board from time to time.

  19. mhbtest says:

    Of course, you and those who think like you are in good company. You have Jeb! and Trump and Cruz as the thought leaders here.

    Should we , even if only a courtesy , ask them if they might want to become Christians before we bomb the shit out them? We ought to at least give them a choice shouldn’t we?
    Jeb! might think so…assuming he thinks at all.

    Heck, even the Muslims of old gave their defeated peoples that much of a chance…. Perhaps we are better than they were however…

  20. Fortunately for the rest of us, there is a sane man in the White House. One who understands the difference between disrupting a criminal gang of sociopaths and the bombing of Dresden.

  21. bron98 says:

    We are facing a philosophy of death far worse than the nazis.

    We have spent 15 years and enough blood on this, it is time to implement a doctrine of full war and end this once and for all. These are not criminals they are Islamic terrorists who are creating a state. They want a war with the west. Based on the last 15 years of our half measures, they think they can win.

    The dark ages are knocking at our door. But then liberals seem to have an affinity for Islam which makes sense since both want total submission. Just like the communists and the nazis using each other to gain power. Each thinking they will destroy the other once they come to power.

  22. bigfatmike says:

    “Fortunately for the rest of us, there is a sane man in the White House. One who understands the difference between disrupting a criminal gang of sociopaths and the bombing of Dresden.”

    Unfortunately, whether we are at war or not, does not depend on the weapons and tactics that are most appropriate for the task at hand.

    It is curious to note the convergence of the left and the right. Both seem to think that the only way to be at war is to round up a few hundred thousand men and women, train them up, and send them off to foreign lands to battle for unconditional surrender.

    The only real difference between the left and right analysis is that the right thinks waging war with hundreds of thousands of troops on foreign soil is a good thing. The left on the other hand thinks that by refusing to call it war we can change reality and prevent sending troops to foreign soil.

    All that leaves out some important questions. Does the criminal justice model illuminate the details necessary to protect ourselves or does it obscure important points.

    You might ask yourself what kind of criminals are motivated by ideology, what kind of criminal enterprise has political and social programs, what kind of criminal enterprise takes and holds territory, what kind of criminal enterprise provides government services, what kind of criminal enterprise presents its message and recruits through advertising and social media.

    Of course law enforcement and the intelligence establishment must play a significant (massive) role in defeating our adversaries. But that does not mean their targets are fully or reasonably understood as criminals. That does not imply that we can depend on LE tactics to accomplish our task.

    Being at war mean selecting the right tool for the task.

    Maintain situational awareness. Know your enemy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.