June 29, 2006

General Pershing - A true military genius

He was our Napoleon, our Caesar, and our Honor Harrington.

June 28, 2006

Old Ideas for New Times

*Found this in my clipboard program history, I think I wrote this about the first time Murtha came online or just there abouts*

It is quite amusing and intersting the asymmetrical tones of this political conflict. The Democrats use people like Kerry and Murtha because their war efforts make it hard for Republicans to criticize them. One of the reasons why Democrats nominated Kerry, cause they thought he'd win given the Republicans support for the military. Why wouldn't Republicans and Independent Americans vote for Kerry?

There's two sides to this issue, and perhaps even more, as with all asymmetrical conflicts. The Democrats don't appreciate military service as a virtue in itself, seeing it for its political benefits. The Republicans and mainstream America truly values the armed forces, making it a political hot potato, everyone wants it so they're all fighting over it and getting burned in the process.

A very insightful look into how having obvious strengths and strong points makes you vulnerable to enemy attack and infiltration. once the enemy knows your weak points, he can know where to attack, and where to avoid.

But the Democrat's plan didn't quite work. Maybe because they didn't realize that the American people value the military and military service not because it is "military and war like" but because it serves the purpose of protecting the US Constitution and the American people. Why does that make a difference? Because, if "war heroes" like Kerry or Murtha ever acted to harm the US Constitution or the American people, their military service is not going to prevent people from acting against them. This is the difference of swearing allegiance to the government of the United States and the President of the US, to swearing an allegiance to the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

From what I've witnessed, Americans don't tend to put the military upon a pedestal, appreciating its existence and not its purpose. It is a bad analysis of Americans, when the Democrats conclude that military service will defacto make them right, presumably because people don't know better than to put their faith in the military.

This kind of exploitation is troublesome, but it is also ineffective. Don't expect loyalty from people that you mistrust and abuse. Loyalty in human affairs go both ways, or else it doesn't exist.

Matoko Chan - Shivers

I've watched too many "Japanese anime" shows that used "chan". Aziz might be getting a bit too cute here. Shivers down the spine, cute.

Aziz: irrelevant. he is talking about math at the 2+2 level as being more real than abtractions about the real number line

Great, here we go with spiritual vs empiricism again.

Science, in using inductive logic, bases itself on empiricism. Philosophy, and religions that deal with Revealed Truth and other truths, are operating on both levels, the inductive and deductive logics. But mostly on deductive logic, things that must be true rather than things that are "probably true".

Science can no more make conclusions based upon what they can't see as humans can avoid being blinded by the sun. Scientists are limited by what they can see and sense. Philosophers reach beyond the physical level, and trace it all back to the a prioris. If this, then that. While science does it back wards. If I see this, then it was that.

Matoko: but theorems and postulates are structure.

They are a posteriori, and science plus religion all use a posterioris. Ridiculous to suggest that science and religion/philosophy is inherently based upon a superior to inferior level. The basic fundamentals and building blocks are the same. It'd be like saying Iron (science) is superior to uranium (philosophy) because uranium is rarer.

Aziz: you don't need a shared language you need to explain why higher math is important and what makles it useful even though it is abstraction

Matoko: but how can i explain that? it is like explaining higher math to a dog!

Aziz: no it isn't. he's a human being not a dog. and someone had to one day say, hey let's take math beyond 2+2, what was their rationale?

Explaining that things like Good and Evil exist on a non-material non-physical plane of existence, independent of human existence, is not easy nor should people actually do it. Understanding comes from within, and Matoko obviously understands that but does not apply it to religion or philosophy.

However, I think that the conversation illustrates the difference between high IQ and high g.

I think it illustrates that intelligence is tri-luminary. IQ=innate problem solving, wisdom=true understanding, and knowledge=data learned in life. It is all linked. People without the knowledge, can solve the enigma and understand it. But if you can solve problems, but don't have wisdom nor the knowledge (of how to do it), then you won't know.

A sensei could have a great and talented student in the martial arts, but does that mean the student has a true understanding of what he has learned? Does that mean the student has an automatic access to the "knowledge" that long term training would give him as his skill increases? No. IQ can't be increased, since I am refering to Intelligence Quotient, not the test. So in this sense, IQ for me is G for others, innate intelligence and talents. The potential.

M looks like she knows the math, as a piece of knowledge and skill. She also looks like she has a high natural intelligence, born of the genes. What she lacks, is wisdom, true understanding. The ability to piece it all together, so that it means something. Knowledge about car mechanics is knowledge about car, and only, car mechanics. True understanding of car mechanics is true understanding of humans as well. Thus someone with a HIGH Iq innate intelligence are better at both knowledge retention and wisdom comprehension. But neither is guaranteed.

Tiger Woods visit Special Warfare Institute

From Froggy. Interesting to see some details of Wood's life that hasn't been popularly reported for some reason.

June 24, 2006

Now comes death now comes red blood

External link is in the title.

I believe that, at core, America is a Jacksonian nation. And when America finally realizes with what loathing we are regarded by the rest of the world, the result will not be what the rest of the world thinks will occur. There will be no sudden American need to apologize and submit ourselves to the world's judgment. We are a nation founded on telling the rest of the world to go to hell, and shedding our blood to send it there. One of the things that enrages those who hate us is the sneaking suspicion that America and Americans consider themselves and their nation to be better than they and theirs. In this, they are correct, although it is not the American way to toot our horns on the issue. Still, Americans don't really understand just how much our national success angers those who secretly lust after it and who, unable to achieve it, would see it destroyed here if they could.

When Americans realize that much of the rest of the world is not our friend, then they will regard much of the rest of the world as our enemy. And I can guarantee you that the rest of the world really does not want a Jacksonian America as its enemy.

Terroist demands

Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo.

The prisoners will be released by Allah’s will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun.

By all means, release them. Releast them now, by gun and sword. Execution style of course. Terroists demand, we give them their demands, in our own way.

Comment to Black Five

Reporters talking about being blooded, reminds me of the days when "journalists" sometimes had more "combat zone experience" than the dough boys at the war front.

Esprit de Corps. Can't have that without an enemy to fight. Iraq will become different than pacifistic and useless Germany (a waste of Prussian military discipline in my opinion) and wacky Japan ( a waste of Bushiddo code and Japanese philosophy that North Korea and China might recoup for us).

For them, their peace will not be handed to them on the hands of AMerican conquerors because they surrendered to us (obviously they didn't). There is a benefit in defeating an enemy and not breaking their spirit, instead using that fight in them to ascend your own interests. Japan's and Germany's spirit was broken, and therefore they were never a military threat, to anyone, afterwards. Iraq will be different, and so will Afghanistan. Theirs is not a defensive occupation at the end of a war. But an offensive shock troops training center for the start of the first war in the 21st century, which will last a rather long period of time in human affairs. Just when people thought the coming millenium heralded the end of time, we see that God is not yet done with the human race.

The supremacy of the American military was never ordained by God. Back when old Washington was training a bunch of slacking off undisciplined layabouts in his Revolutionary War (against the British that he once fought with before), a Prussian dude came over to train the American guerrila army, either regular or irregular. Washington even had to deal with the "I only signed up for 1 year" deal. Oh, what he would have given for stop loss.

If Washington could get a bunch of individual unmilitary people to win any battle with the help of a Prussian trainer, I'm pretty sure the United States that sprung from his initial ancestral actions can train up the Iraqis to the best force in the Mid East. And it is proof that if you give a nation superior military training, discipline, and virtues through the Band of Brothers bond, then that nation will in the end repay the nation of Prussia far in excess of the initial investment. It was not the US's fault Germany chose not to ally with us in WWI, their loss. Don't give up on those you trained from the cradle, they might just become the teacher.

It is amusing the ignorance of the Left when they talk about America, an America that they fabricated whole cloth rather than sourced from the reality. "Americans don't run from the enemy". Oh, ya we do. Humans are humans, and Americans are not the uber-menschen that the Left would like to make us.

The most impressive thing about this Iraqi unit is that they are running their outfit themselves (as opposed to the US running their unit).

What was funny is that John Ringo suggested in 2001 that you get a bunch of Afghanistan sepoys that were lead by American NCOs and officers, sorta like the Gurkhas (as a way to lessen the CNN casualty sensitivty of Americans). Obviously a similar situation was attempted in Iraq, yet because of the Regular Army Way that was implemented, it didn't get off on a good start. Now we've somehow leap frogged (shunpo) John Ringo's initial recommendations, to the Iraqis running their own stuff without ever actually going into the phase of leading them ourselves via American NCOs and officers, except by example.

Unfortunately, the US did not take Iraqi troop training seriously in the first two years of the war, and we are playing catch up now.

What was that saying I heard? There's the right way, there is the wrong way, and then there is the Army Way?

American idioms

America has some weird idioms once you figure out where they come from. For example.

Going off half cocked came from the Kentucky rifle, when if you half cocked the firing hammer, it'd be very likely to strike the flash powder zone and fire your weapon when you didn't want it to. Cocked and loaded, is also related. Same as Lock, Stock, and Barrel. A kentucky rifle has a lock, that holds and hits the blackpowder primer, a stock to be used as a shoulder rest, and a barrel.

Beat around the bushes and cut to the chase, seems to me to mean basically that you should stop having the beaters beat around in the bush to flush out the prey, instead cutting to the chase of that prey. HUnting terms basically. Cut to the chase, forget all this beating around the bushes to flush the prey.

That's all I can remember, the non-literal vernacular idioms. Pretty sure there are more.

VDH on Why they want us to lose

August 28, 2003
Hoping We Fail
Who loses and who wins in the high-stakes poker in Iraq?
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

Other VDH articles and comments to that effect.






Israel's war with Palestine - Asymmetry in Action

It's a good listing of the major points of Israel's propaganda disadvantage, as well as the characteristics of the propaganda operators both in Palestine as well as the global media. With a dash and dollop of human psycology of course.

In the media war, Israel has three disadvantages. The first is an open society, which allows reporters (and filmmakers and activists and human-rights observers) the freedom to roam, record, and interview in first-world comfort. This has saddled Israel with what may be the world’s highest per capita concentration of reporters. Jerusalem is host to 350 permanent foreign news bureaus, as many as New York, London, or Moscow; the volume of reportage on Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank is 75 times greater than on any other area of comparable population. This obsessive attention necessarily distorts, by casting the Israel-Palestinian war in a theatric, world-historical light.

In the last decade, around 4,500 Israeli and Palestinian lives have been lost to the fighting. The Russo-Chechen war has killed 50,000 (11 times as many), the Darfur crisis has killed 180,000 (40 times as many), and the Congolese civil war has killed 3.5 million (778 times as many). But very few Americans can call to mind images of the ghastly violence in Chechnya, Sudan, or Congo—or even identify the warring parties—because these are places so dangerous that the New York Times simply cannot responsibly send a reporter there, much less a bureau.

Then there are the reporters themselves.

How do these reporters or photographers, on a quest for dramatic stories and footage, know where the “spontaneous” violence is to “erupt”? One or another foot soldier in their “small army of Palestinian fixers” is tipped off by the attackers. The Associated Press, Reuters, and Agence France-Press (which together supply 80% of news images to the world media) require the assistance of natives who speak the local language, know who’s who, and can get things done. These hired locals, in turn, make decisions about where to drive and what to translate (or leave un-translated).

The Al Dura episode.

On September 30, 2000, film footage became available to the world showing a Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Dura, who, cradled in his father’s arms, is shot by Israeli soldiers. Or so it seemed. Subsequent analysis, based especially on firing angles and ballistics examinations, called the story into doubt. Israel, in fact, was probably not responsible for the shooting. But by the time the Israeli army released the findings about its unlikely guilt, the Pietà-like image had zipped around the world, eventually appearing on a Belgian postage stamp, inspiring renamed streets and squares across the Arab world, and co-starring in the propaganda film extolling the execution of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

On October 12, 2000, less than two weeks after the al-Dura incident, two Israeli reservists took a wrong turn while driving home and were arrested by Palestinian police, taken to the local station, and lynched by a mob. One photographer happened onto the scene:

Within moments [the crowd was] in front of me and, to my horror, I saw that it was a body, a man they were dragging by the feet. The lower part of his body was on fire and the upper part had been shot at, and the head beaten so badly that it was a pulp, like red jelly…. My God, I thought, they’ve killed this guy. He was dead, he must have been dead, but they were still beating him, madly, kicking his head. They were like animals.

The crowd tore the photographer’s camera from him and smashed it. But a colleague managed to capture the infamous image of one of the murderers holding up his bloody hands for a cheering crowd.

The two scenes provided visual scripture from which reporters sermonized about symmetry, suffering on both sides, and cycles of violence. But Gutmann discerns the tragedy, for Israel, precisely in the asymmetry:

The images were frequently paired—by the news media. But it was a forced symmetry, created by the media for its convenience and because it was more soothing and less complicated to represent the situations as the same. Consider just the two pieces of videotape by themselves, which was all anyone had to work with at this time: In ‘Ramallah’ we actually see perpetrators at work—men hoisting a body to a window ledge, then shoving it off the ledge to a crowd below, whom we then see all too clearly stomping and stabbing it. In ‘al-Dura,’ however, we see a boy collapsing, apparently shot. That is all. In one story, most of the who, what, where and why is answered. But in ‘al-Dura,’ virtually everything, except that two people were shot at in front of a wall, is essentially a mystery.

Less of a mystery is that the “al-Dura” cameraman became a minor celebrity, treated to interviews at European media conferences. The “Ramallah” cameraman, on the other hand, remains unknown, while death threats forced his bureau chief to flee the region.

June 23, 2006

The Triumph of the Will

VDH makes some comments about the Nazi propaganda film by Leni Riefenstahl, The Triumph of the Will, which if you ever saw it, was quite spectacular. It really had the ability to energize the spirit. I do not refer to the film itself, I'm refering to the parades through the night streets, with everyone carrying a torch, forming themselves into the NAZI emblem. Pure, efficient, orderly. Even a young Jewish boy was caught up in the excitement when he snuck out to see such a sight. The sight I saw was on the history channel ,the sight, the sounds, and the atmosphere could not be done justice by words.

I am not admiring Nazi mythology, I only recognize the very human power of Nazi propaganda. Propaganda is more powerful and destructive than nuclear weapons simply because propaganda works on everyone at the same time while nuclear weapons are one shot deals that a lot of people resist trying to use on the entire world at once. Obviously self-preservation still serves its purpose in helping the human race survive.

UPDATE Wasn't VDH, was Bruce Thornton republished in VDH's private papers with permission.

Purify Islam once and for all

Books that teach Occupation and Insurgency

I can't say that I read non-fictional work to learn about insurgencies, because I focus mostly on fictional stories about human beings. And if human beings have to deal with occupation and insurgency, then I'd learn something as well as enjoy the book. Besides, it being free is also a point in favor. I can better understand something when it is applied by humans and to humans, then discussed as part of a theory.

Freehold, which is thematically based upon Farnham's Freehold but set in a modern futureques setting with UN corruption and all, etc.

Contrast all these books, after you read them, with this technical treatise on insurgencies and there is a mighty big difference in perspectives.

The Course of Empire

What I find most enlightening is that it portrays the human dynamic so well. Technical is technical, it is always true. But humans are a lot more variations than the physical rules of the universe might reliably predict.

How far should occupations go in suppressing rebellions? How far should insurgents go towards resisting? These are the questions the fictional novels listed here tackle.

These fictional events, can be compared to the events in Ireland, the IRA for example.

Crusade by David Weber is also a good, although minor, contribution to the insurgency vs occupation theme. However, it makes up for that by focusing extremely well on the moral and ethical dilemma of those who fight in insurgencies and those who fight on the side of the occupation forces.

You can download these ebooks in various formats, for free, and read them.

Here is what I found on the IRA problems in Ireland. You're welcome to peruse them for more information about real life insurgencies. Reading books don't provide instant enlightenment, nor are they a quick fix for ignorance, however books do provide you with the mental context that allows you then to use those mental tools to understand what is really going on.

June 21, 2006

Blood Boiling Time - Interview with Taliban terroist

By MSNBC no less. What are they trying to do, outpace Dan Rather at the appeasing evil men game?

June 20, 2006

The Locations of American Divisions and Brigades

This is good information the next time someone tells you that we are stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore this means we can't kick the ass of North Korea or Iran. Total Bullshit, absolutely not based upon the facts or even a liberal interpretation of the facts. The divisions are there, not in abundance, but they are there. What isn't there, is the political will, so politicians excuse their moral cowardice by saying, 'oh, the Iraq war is the problem, I can't do anything and we can't do anything because every freaking Army and Marine combat unit is there', just like the National Guard was in Iraq instead of being deployed to Hurricane Katrina.

June 19, 2006

Ongoing Argument with Charlemagne

Please re-read carefully what I had written in my original post. I had written (notice the italicized part):

So cut out the portion that had the dictators. The main gist of the sentence was whether you believed that the humans in the UN would look out for the interests of the citizens of the member nations, without the check and balances in the US system.

The mention of many of the member nations in the UN being dictators is to further prove the point that the UN does not look out for the interests of the citizens of member nations, it was not an indication that you believed the UN was only full of democratic nations. The reverse logic, if you include what I said, is that even if we assume for the sake of argument that Indians are represented by the UN, the same cannot be said for dictatorship countries.

This is a layered argument, which takes one argument at one level, then makes another argument on another. It is about the same subject, but rather than staying on one logic track, it branches out to other possibilities.

Bureaucrats do not set policies.

The UN bureacrats did not set the policy of which nations were able to deal with Saddam under the Oil for Food program, which companies had the right to make deals with an internationally sanctioned regime? It is quite apparent given the evidence, logic, and reasoning that bureacrats do set the application of policies. Unless you are suggesting of course that the representatives of France and Russia worked to set policies that would enable them to exploit Saddam and the Iraqis for their own gain, in return for being exploited by Saddam.

Those who control the details of a plan, control that plan. It matters not who set the policy into existence in the beginning, if that policy is used against the spirit of the founders. This is a false argument about metaphysics. By quoting the causality chain of who set the policy first, you are not making one dint on whether bureacrats unlawfully corrupt the spirit and purpose of those policies.

Again, India has 1.1 billion people, and yet they do not have a veto on whether someone becomes the UN Secretary-General or not. You remark on the representation India gets at the UN, but the obvious differences in representation by population belays that claim. When you talk about a vote, I do remind you that the basis of liberal democracies is one man, one vote, one time. India canvote how many times they want for a leader, but the nations with vetos can override them all the time, therefore their vote does not matter. We're not talking about the future, btw, so any reforms you seek to implace is not relevant to whether Indians and other nation-peoples get representation NOW or Before.

Nevertheless, as I said before, the UN is a good start.

A undemocratic start is not a good start. The American Revolution which acquired independence but did not remove slavery, that was a good start cause obviously we look at the current events and we understand that it was a success. The UN which disenfranchises the billion or so people in India and other countries like Japan, which pay the UN proportionally most of their funding, is not a good start. Why? Simply because, not only does the UN tax nations like Germany and Japan (the more wealthier nations) without representation, but they don't represent the great majority of the people in this world. Any redeem values people remark about the UN are figments of their imagination, hopes and desires that might exist sometime in the future, but in the current affairs what we have is things like Peacekeeping for Sex in the Congo, Blood for Oil in Iraq, and various other boondogles that instead of being investigated, are actually being covered up and ignored, delayed and rope a doped. Things are a good start when people have reasonable justifications that it will end well, or if they have confirmation through history that it did end well. Some starts were bad, and then ended up being successful like Washington's entire life perhaps, but that is not quite relevant to "good starts" as you mean it.

Too much idealism is not useful, and therefore not a good start.

What I said was that, compared to a scenario in which the USA effectively functions as a world government

But the US doesn't function as a world government even today. It can only be described as an enforcement agency that enforces specific standards upon as many people as it can reach and influence. A government requires taxation, the US taxes nobody. In point of fact, our military protection is extended to many nations via "status of forces acts" with no revenue being returned, in Germany for example our bases are actually revitalizing the local economy there. I have never heard of a government that provided benefits to citizens and paying them a reward, without that government deriving taxes from those citizens. Well, I actually I have, and it is called socialized welfare. So if you mean the US is the socialized welfare nanny of the world, then yes it is. BUt if you mean world gov as in "collects taxes and administers laws", then no.

The UN you refer to as representative is in the future, right now it is not representing anyone except the interests of the power lobbyists and the bureacrats. The US you refer to as a world government, is no such world government in today's world.

It's time to start talking about what exists today, rather than the ideas of the future.

Why? Because an Indian citizen has at least some say in policy decisions at UN (through the representative sent to the General Assembly by the Indian government which the Indian citizen democratically elected) whereas the Indian citizen has absolutely no say in policy decisions made by the US government.

Again, I repeat the argument I made before that nullies this claim of yours. Indians elect their government, and their government makes 1 to 1 individual deals with the USA. This allows the recognition of India, by America, of their economic potential and population. Which the UN does not do at this moment. Your argument that an Indian citizen at the lowest base, has more say in the policy decisions of the UN, then the policy decisions of US-Indian relations, deals, and economic evaluations is not true. If the Indian government goes into a deal with the US, it will be honored. It will not be vetoed by some guy the Indians did not elect. If the USA agrees and India agrees, then it exists. However, if India agrees with everyone in the UN except a veto holder, then India gets nothing regardless of what they vote for. I am not refering to a perfect, nominal, ideal, futuristic UN. I am talking about the UN as it exists at this moment, which is relevant to the context of this discussion as much as the current existence of the US system at this moment in time, is.

As I said, you're making the "might is right" argument here.

Again, you're free to replace the might is right argument with another version to your liking, but that is how it exists right now, at this time, in this state of reality. If you have another state of reality you'd like to push, go ahead. There is nothing inherently wrong with might is right, because no nation has been right without also being victorious. No nation, no person, nobody in the HISTORY of the human race has failed and then said "oh, I got it right so who cares". Getting it right and failing is not mutually inclusive. It is not might that matters, it is victory, might simply facilitates victory. So in essence, victory makes right, to the victor goes the spoils.

If you want to deny and characterize the world we have \ today as some other type of system, a utopia perhaps, you're free to do so. But you should refrain from advocating your arguments ad nauseam because they don't become more efficacious as timely repetitions go on.

By the same logic, then, in the USA, the wealthy (who pay a higher share of the total taxes collected by the government) should have veto power over legislation in the US Congress and the US Senate?

Again,my argument is not to argue whether the USA should or should not have a veto. My argument is that if you seek to replace the system as it exists today, you need to shell out some serious money. This is true of the US as well, if the Democrats want to win and change the way things are done, they will have to committ a SERIOUS amount of money to defense and other things. You miss the point if you try to transplant the UN veto to the American system. Like I stated, the US system has check and balances the UN does not have, obviously it would be stupid to transplant the UN's faulty and bug ridden system to one that actually works, in the USA.

So no, it is not by my logic, but rather by yours in the context of transplanting the UN's faulty veto system to the US. The President has a veto, because all citizens elect him through direct population and proportional representation. This has little or nothing to do with the UN.

Thanks for making your viewpoint about democracy quite clear.

Thanks for making a straw man out of my arguments, but you should stop doing that if you wish to continue to use logic. You do understand what logic is, correct, and what a straw man is? Just to clarify, but a straw man is something you create by using your logic, and call it as having originated from my argument, then having dashed this straw man creation of yours, you then state that you now claim victory over my argument. But in the end, my argument still stands, regardless of the illusionary sleight of handle performed.

June 18, 2006

Tequilamockingbird - So Mockingly Dead Wrong

Here is an argument I had with Tequila about whether he posted 25 times in secession or not. Below the quoted portions of the argument, is the actual evidence of that 25 times. I present it here to save it from deletion and to summarize the subject.

"Tequila did 25 very long posts in consecutive action by copying and pasting news articles."

Excuse me? Your grip on reality is getting increasingly tenuous, Yguy. Or, to put it another way, that's a lie.

Do you have anything to contribute in response to my original post? If not, of course you're welcome to blather on to your heart's content.


10:23 PM, June 18, 2006
tequilamockingbird said...

Apologies to Quantam for my quick-repeat post.

I'm getting more outraged by Yguy's lying attempt to smear me. Someone who contributed 25 long, consecutive, cut-and-paste news articles would certainly be trying to stifle debate. I have never done and would never do such a thing.

Ymarsakar, my opinion of you has never been high because your writing is so opaque, convoluted, ungrammatical and inarticulate. As far as I'm concerned, you have exposed yourself as a liar and a -- gasp! -- troll.

I'll try not to be drawn by your provocation in the future.



Confud or Conned provided a link, early on, to a former Neo neo con post, and when I was looking at the comments, Tequila's name came up so many times in secession at the end, that it was pretty easy to recognize the name.

Now Neo may tell us if I got the name right, because I sure didn't dream up a link provided by someone else and written by neo, our host, here.

I'll go with tequila being the name 25 times in secession, or more I really didn't count it just was long enough to overlap one full page, and you can go with some other name that you'd prefer.

Again, to use something called logic, lying is when someone purposefully says something they know isn't true and isn't something that they personally believe. Because I personally believe the name of the poster that did the 25 something comments in a row in a very old comment was Tequilamockingbird, then logically I cannot be lying about something that I believe to be true.

Perhaps you find my writing hard to understand because you pay no attention to analyzing the logic, understanding my reasoning, or do anything else that is of constructive rather than destructive in origin.

Why should I care if tequila believes that it is his duty to attack strangers on a website that he reads?

11:11 PM, June 18, 2006
Guess what, I actually found the page using google.

So who wants it?

People like tequila really needs to stop underestimating the power of google to record their words, especially if they don't go anon and undercover.

You shouldn't have said I was lying, tequila. That is bad tradecraft. You should have crafted a story that had you being the victimized party, with an anon guy posing as you and trying to sully your reputation, since comments still allowed write in names. Instead, you totally denied anything like that ever happening. So instead of riposting my strike on you, you just apply the critical hit on yourself.

I told Confud not to mess with Ymar, he might be unstable but he ain't stupid, you know. Ymir ain't getting in on this however, not enough killing involved.

So little ol me, Sakar, had to go and search for this little itty bitty link about when Tequila posted like 25-50 times in a row with each post being very long. Well, to give credit where credit is due, I think one of those actually gave me the tip, so fair's fair. But they didn't go look, though.


tequilamockingbird said...

Hey, guys, I've only been on this site for 48 hours, and I'm rapidly losing interest. Richard Aubrey and Homer have retired from the fray -- no doubt because of my irrefutable logic and debating skill -- just kidding, Richard and Homer, who I'm sure are lurking. Just kidding!

I'm a nightowl -- nightmockingbird? -- and it's 2:45 a.m. here on GMT. That's time for even people on the Left Coast to have got home from their work oppressing the downtrodden and have lit a Monte Cristo and got the little woman to mix them a martini. Time to relax on the computer with their good friend tequilamockingbird.

Where are you guys? I'll check in tomorrow. If nobody can come up with a coherent message between now and then, adios, amigos. I know Richard and Homer et al will hate to see me go, but that's life!



9:57 PM, August 11, 2005

This is what Tequila said in the 25 comment link. Then he goes on to do... Fourty Seven Consecutive Posts Without a Freaking. Break. At. All.

UPDATE Tequila apologized for calling me a liar because he just remembered what he really did. Which was far more than the 25 consecutive posts that I estimated on a conservative basis. Like I said in reply, he gets points for self-honesty.

June 16, 2006

My Perspective on the Killer of Children

# Ymarsakar Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm

You’re correct in saying that my outlook on things military is not derived from any formal training or War College tenure. I don’t see it as being particularly difficult for the world media to spin things their way, not given the amount of territory they already hold.

I do not dispute that Z man could have provided additional information, simply because the human element is always useful to know about. I wouldn’t characterize it as a gold mine however. If it is a gold mine, it is offset by some of the disadvantages. There are advantages and disadvantages to any action taken, it just so happens to appear that whether zarqawi lived or died was out of the hands of the soldiers at the scene. HIs ultimate fate caught up to him, and neither you or I could stay the hand of destiny.

The argument you are rendering is specious in the sense that if you don’t like my arguments because you discount my formal training in intelligence, then that is neither thinking outside the box nor adapting to the situation as it presents itself. Whether you like my arguments or not, should be based upon the detriments, flaws, and inconsistencies presented thus to you, it should not be because I hold a lower rank, have no formal training, or do not come from the same background as you do. Whether we agree on our interests or not, does not matter in the sense that two people can come to the same conclusion based upon different facts, techniques of analysis, and interpretations.

I interpret the advantages and disadvantages one way, I focus more on the morale that z man’s death would bring to the Iraqis who have suffered death and destruction in the wake of z man and the American forces that shed blood trying to stop that destruction and death. You focus more on the goldmine of intelligence, acquiring prisoners and sources. I am more concerned with why people disbelieve me, than the fact that they prefer their own arguments over mine. A monolithic outlook in military operations is simply a way to do things that are logical, in the wrong way. Just because it is logical and by the book, does not mean it will bring success. And just because it is unorthodox and out of the box, does not mean it will fail. But before we get to that, explaining why you disbelieve and why I believe in the things that I do, is the right thing to do.

Military intelligence should have realized long ago that differing and diverse outlooks and interpretations is a plus. Some people think in straight line logical analysis of A to B to C, they are methodical in calculating the odds with the variable data at their disposal. Others are more intuitive, their tactical awareness is out of the box thinking. You should not discount my views as specious just because you believe your way is the right way, and that anyone without any formal experience doesn’t know what is going on. You are limited by your view of things just as I am, and therefore I can cover your blindspots easier than you can do it for yourself, just as it is the same for me.

Whatever problems the world media and the Democrats bring to the table concerning Zarqawi, is a separate campaign. Because propaganda is not based upon reality, whether someone is dead or not doesn’t really matter all things considered, since you can promote the detriments either way in light of the war effort. If z man is alive, this shows American weakness and how terroists can jihad against American while America will shed blood to save jihadists. If z man dies, well we already have seen what the world media has done with that. This category of things is Bush’s area of responsibility. I limit myself only to the pluses, the minuses, the positives, and the negatives of z man being alive or being dead. My argument already calculates the intelligence value of z man into it, it still comes out as a net positive that he is dead rather than alive.
# Ymarsakar Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pm

To summarize the positives that z man’s death brings, I only point people out to the joy of the Iraqis, the consolidation and hope that the Iraqi government is bringing to the table, the showing of American will and power to the Sunnis, and various other things that are greater than the sum of the disparate parts. All these are true, they are not specious (logical fallacies). It is not logically falacious to say that these are positives that would not have occured or would have occured in lesser quality had z man lived.

I am sure there are other positives, that I don’t know about while others do. People like Michael Yon said he jumped in the air when he heard z man was taken out, he was so happy. Happy that a man died? Why would people be happy that a man died? The psychology matters as much, if not more so, than the hard factual data that can you get from interrogating z man. And as I said, it is not as if the choice was between killing z man and losing the information, or preserving z man and saving the information.

This reminds me of something. Spies and information specialists always rely upon their sources and try not to burn them (meaning kill potential sources of information or out them through leaks). If this meant sacrificing a pawn, like say what Churchill did with a British raid in order to keep a double agent in Hitler’s inner circle, then spies would approve of it. While I understand this outlook, the perspective of spies and people who hold information as their speciality, I do not ascribe to it.

I prefer supporting the Marines and letting the grunts take care of things. I cannot explain it adequately, except to say that it has shades of honor and duty. The people who have seen zarqawi’s rampage of death, those who have seen the corpses of children killed at the express orders of z man, those people and those families deserve to see Zarqawi’s deaths. If I was an irrational, raging man, I would favor z man’s death regardless of the intelligence potential. But I am not, I would have preserved z man’s life if it had meant that we could get the information that would spell the death of the insurgency. Ending the insurgency is larger than whether z man lives or dies. But because his laptop already gave us the information to roll up a large portion of his organization (400 raids so far), I did not have to make that moral and ethical decision whether to keep z man alive or let him die.

In civilian affairs, it is plea bargains. Is a plea bargain just, if the information you get allows you to arrest and convict a bigger criminal? I guess it depends. Even though I understand why intelligence is important, I still don’t like keeping someone like z man alive because of the fact that he was the one who ordered children killed and therefore we must preserve his life in return for the informatin that would allow us to prevent more children from being killed. It is not just, but that is war and reality for you.

This is Disinformation

Bush has the power to do this by 5 X 10 to the power 2. Such is the power of propaganda and predictive behavior on the Democrats side.


Didn't have time to elaborate, so this is what I mean by Disinformation.

I recommended on Bookworm's site that Bush should use disinformation in order to bait the media and the Democrats into a trap, and then crush them when they take the bait. I remarked that the media were guillible, very very guillible. They believe Palestinian propaganda (like the beach incident) as if it was true. I would have more respect for them if they purposefully supported the stories of Palestinians because they knew it was false, but that is not what the world media is doing.

The link about the Democrats snapping the bait that Iraq would give asylum to those who killed Americans, is a good example of how Democrats can be baited into ambushes and traps so easily that it is gross negligence on Bush's part that he refuses to engage in deception and propaganda operations. Unlike other Republicans or conservatives or neo-conservatives, I don't just say that Bush has failed in the propaganda and media war, I actually tell you what he should be doing.

Great Reminder - Steven Den Beste

This is a nice personal account of how Den Beste affected the author's views post-9/11. I was also reading Den Beste, when I was formulating my political and philosophical identity. This was when I was still trying to learn what Epistemology and Logic was.

A Canadian I was debating with, said "Den beste is a crackpot". My first taste of fake liberal prejudices.

But the positives of Den beste was far greater than any tertiary considerations. His posts were enlightening, educational, and mighty mind expanding.

Anti-Americanism ain't new

This tied in with the history of ANti Americanism is a very educational experience.

June 15, 2006

Zarqawi's information and life

The Special Forces would have ways of killing Z-Man that an autopsy would not find. Their motto is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy. Well, the other motto other than to liberate the oppressed. The SF guys, if they believed Z-Man was going to live, would probably not have done anything extra to comfort Z-Man and it is possible that if they believed if Z-Man was going to live, they unilaterally decided that he had to die. After all, all the insurgency information was on his laptop, and Z-Man would be in the hospital, not available to "interrogation". So it is not like you can get any useful actionable intel from this guy.

Whether it turned out that bombs explosively decompressed Z Man's lungs, requiring no outside intervention, or the SF troopers made sure Z Man died and that an autopsy would not find the truth, is unknown.

The SF isn't regular army. Regular Army would not have creatively interpreted their orders to mean "make sure Z Man dies if you see him". Regular army follows orders, and does nothing without those orders. The SF are different, whether Delta or SEAL.

You are not going to be able to interrogate z man for his knowledge of organization, if he survived, mike. The media will be posting guards on him 24/7, any interrogation you want to do will turn out to be TORTURE of a DISABLED HELPLESS man VICTIM to the US stormtroopers.

Actionable intel is actionable intel. Once it was on the news that z-man was captured, every freaking terroist in every pocking hole in Baghdad is going to leave their safe houses and be on the move. You won't find any of them even if you got the information, because it would be too late. This is the fog of war. Getting the information from z man's house and laptop, was actually better than interrogating z man for it, believe it or not. Thus is the age of the information superhighway. Useful, but like any technology, it has two edges. One for you, one for the enemy.

June 14, 2006

YouTube Technology

NazNomad has some very funny and entertaining video splices of Star Wars.

This song summary of the storyline is pretty pleasant.

Dean Esmay pointed me towards a Star Trek vs Star Wars splice, which is also really funny.

The difference between conservatives and liberals

Comment to Mary and another commenter at nncon's blog.

At 1:41 PM, June 14, 2006, Ymarsakar said...

LOL. Are you a fan of Deadwood?

Cooked up that one myself after reading about how the Muslims treat pig flesh as if they are eating human flesh. Then combined with the support of blackfive's commentators responding to Z Man's tortuous last 59 minutes, I combined human flesh and pig flesh to give the terroists a gourmet meal worthy of Guantanamo inmates. It's better than bat guana, at least.

If so, it still doesn't seem accurate to me, since many posts are provocative, yet those accused of "trolling" are only those with contrary views. Can I get a clarification?

Trolls, as best as I take it, means people engaging in sabotage and agent provocateur actions. As part of asymmetrical warfare, it seeks to demoralize and fatigue enemies rather than confronting them man on man, square on square, with symmetry. The objective is to maniplate, deceive, twist, distort, riposte, block, parry, and deflect attacks of the enemy, by going into enemy territory harass and raid their supply lines. To apply the military analogy. Thus Confud and Conned sees interest and value in going itno what they perceive as enemy nests, in order to infiltrate and accomplish objectives for The Cause.

Psychologically, people become upset, annoyed, defensive, fatigued, tired, and angry when faced by opposing and mutually exclusive views, perspectives, and beliefs. Thus, the motivation for Confud and Conned to stay here at neo-neocon, reading and writing and reading and writing, must be greater than the natural human psychological detriments would allow.

Republicans cannot read the New York Times or Daily Kos or Atrios 24/7, they would become too tired, upset, and fatigued. So what energizes Confud and Conned, except the true belief that they are here for fun, games, and productive exercises? A person can be frustrated, but if he loves his job and his family, he will keep trucking on. Confud obviously loves the Palestinians, therefore he takes pains to fight neo-cons here, since it is his perception that neo-cons are out to destroy Palestine, in league with the Jewish state.

You cannot truly understand what people mean by troll, until you understand humans and one way to understand humans is to study warfare, which is the art of how to defeat human beings. By learning how to defeat an opponent, you learn his weaknesses, his beliefs, and his strengths. Thus warfare and psychological warfare applies in many respects, to common day human activities. Anything inherently basic can be reduced down to human fundamentals, even the accussation of troll. Because most people only understand their personals beliefs in an intuitive manner, they are unable to explain through descriptions and analysis. Thus, they use a simple agreed upon term, that is troll, acquiring meanings (both denotative and connotative) that is beyond what you cna find in the dictionary. In essence, words mean what the speaker knows it will be interpreted as, as well as how the speaker interprets it himself. Therefore people use the same word, troll, but they don't mean the exact same thing, thus a dictionary is no help.

A classic fundamental extrapolation of troll behavior, is when the woman guilt trips the man, through manipulation, into doing what the woman wants and which is detrimental to the man's interests. And yet the man does the woman's bidding, because the woman holds the morale high ground and the man feels guilty for his lack of standing and seeks to redeem himself through sacrifice. Deception, manipulation, or lies of omission are not possible without telling the truth. Thus people misunderstand the very fundamental potential of manipulation, the ones they use and the ones used on them. Troll phenomenon as termed on the blogosphere, is only one trick out of the grab bags of guerrila warfare, psychological warfare, and propaganda warfare. And on the scale of human affairs, it is quite a spec amongst the stars.

June 12, 2006

Convincing the Left - Not Easy

Well, ray, this is the psychology of the Left. Having spend a lot of time on neo-neocon's site bunking up on the psycho craziness, I think I have some few sparse insights to share.

The thing with legality is a cultural thing. Fake liberals believe, culturally, that superior people should treat inferior people as inferiors. Unilateral behavior. No agreement by the inferiors, no say, no "uppityness" in other words. Jacksonian Americans have a different cultural thing. Jacksonians treat people that are honorable, with honor. They treat those without honor, like child rapists, without honor. Which means we can hang the child rapists and that is perfectly good for us, but we won't hang say "a guy who robbed a lady and then redeemed himself".

So keep in mind "unilateral" vs Jacksonian belief. The Jacksonians believe if people want to be treated well, they should return that favor. Respect given is respect received. Ivy League fake liberals believe that you treat poor people because they are poor, not because of how the poor behave or whether the poor is doing the right things to the rich. The Left unilaterally decides, YOU MUST DISARM, because you are strong, and everyone else is weak.

Jacksonians say to the Russians, "we'll disarm when you disarm first". So Geneva Conventions. They believe we should treat terroists via Geneva, and not because the terroists treat their prisoners via Geneva. No, to the Left, we should use Geneva cause that makes us 'morally superior' like the guy with a lot of money saying he knows how to take care of the poor. Morally superior.

Jacksonians believe that terroists who blow up women and children should not be treated like they are some kind of soldier acting with honor and compassion, hence we don't treat terroists with honor or compassion. Except Bush is a compassionate conservative, so Bush gives terroists geneva convent protections. Which is disgusting and a really bad policy, but Bush don't listen to critics, as we kept telling the Left while they were wasting their breath with anti-Bush propaganda.

Ray will have little chance to convince the 50% true believer that his beliefs are wrong. That is like trying to convince a mother that they don't really really love their children. The strength of belief in fake liberal ideology isn't as strong as a mother's love of course, but it is analogous to the difficulty of changing their beliefs.

True Belief

There are two kinds of fanatics, or true believers if you will. There are more, variations being what they are, but the important thing lies only with the two.

There are true believers, people who believe in an ideology or set of logical premises, and will do everything that that person believes is necessary to further that ideology and/or end-goal.

A classical liberal that believes in human rights, regardless of what threats are issued towards them or their family, regardless of the social ostracism or economic difficulties, and regardless of the personal costs in greater or lesser amounts, is a true believer in the Rights of Humanity. A classical liberal is every bit as “fervent” and “fanatical” in his beliefs as the most fanatical and fervent Islamic Jihadist. I use fervent and fanatical without the negative connotations and the negative denotations. Belief is belief, no matter how you cut it. Kind of hard to cut and separate something that only exists in people’s metaphysical minds. But that is only a tertiary matter.

The other kind of [true] believer, the regular old fanatic that blows himself up for example, is the kind of person that is weak minded. He doesn’t know what he believes, so he just latches onto whatever is available. The strength of the connection of a true believer to his belief is like a molecular bond, extremely tough to crack without destroying the true believer. The strength of a suicide bomber fanatic, is about the strength of a baby clutching a lolly pop. It is a reflex, easily out-muscled, regardless of what the baby wants because the baby don’t know what it wants. It just grabs, at anything, available that is. Islamic Jihad gives them pride, gives them a way to pay for their families, gives them self-worth and self-esteem, and a Purpose. These are important instincts that a human is born with and grows to Need.

A true believer, of the molecular bond strength variety, knows exactly what he is doing, why he is doing it, and the best methods that will acquire his end results. He does not blow himself up, for that is a waste of his talent and does nothing to further the end goals of Jihad. If everyone in Islamic Jihad blew themselves up, the Jihad would be over, literally in pieces. This gives no right or truth to his beliefs or methods, as he himself realizes. Victory is the only forgiveness the true believer seeks. Robbespiere was willing and eager to sacrifice as many people as it took to save the Revolution, because Robbespiere believed in the Revolution. Not with some baby’s reflexive grabbing about, but with a physical connection in reality as strong as molecular bonds.

An example of a true believer is the arch-nemesis in Firefly, a highly recommended science fiction movie using Western motiffs and atmosphere.

Are fake liberals true believers? Not really, as we all know, they are raised with the guilt of privilege and are taught going into Ivy league that they are responsible for the plight of the poor because they are so much superior to the poor, that they OWE the poor their attention and compassion. This indoctrination produces a belief about as strong and idiot proof as 1 inch clear tape.

I believe in America. In the Constitution. In the ability of humanity to trascend the petty limits of idiots and murderers, if only on a temporary basis. To what lengths am I willing to go for that objective? I can say that the limits Bush has set on treating terroists with geneva convention protections, are nowhere near my own.

Do you remember Zawahiri saying to Z man, in an intercepted letter, that his indiscriminate killing of Sunnis were hurting the cause? Zawahiri is a true believer, he knows what should or should not be done to further his cause. Zawahiri knows the reality he is on and the reality he is attempting to make. Z-Man just wanted to spread a sheet of everlasting blood upon the denizens of humanity. Thus, in this manner, Z-Man’s belief in Jihad was only a means to an end. Z-Man believed in jihad because Jihad allowed him to grasp at blood and death in a manner that nothing else allowed him to. Was Z-Man a true believer? I don’t know, but I suspect that his belief in Jihad was stronger than a baby grasping at candy, but weaker than the AL-Qaeda masterminds that helped create the ideology of Islamic JIhad. It isn’t about courage, it is about belief.

True believers aren’t always trying to kill each other in heinous ways. A patriot of Germany fighting a patriot of America, can have respect for each other even if their duty demands that they fight and kill each other to further their “cause”. This is where Honor Amongst Enemies is relevant. The terroists have no honor. Because Japan and Germany had honor, we could make peace with them because their patriotism does not demand the destruction of every other patriot once we removed Hitler. The jihadists never obey the spirit of a peace plan, they always go back to Jihad, to exterminating every other rival belief system like Israel.

It is hard to gauge belief, because how people act is determined by wisdom, experience, and intelligence as much as the strength of their beliefs and culture. A guy, for example, going into Iraq to fight for “Jihad” and then is blown up by his own people while he is “driving to get recon data”, has little strength of belief in Jihad if this turns him away from the Jihad.

This has happened before, and the jihadist survived the car bomb his own people detonated. These “involuntary suicide bombers” are a great example of the strength of true belief. How hard is your belief really tested if all you have to do is to kill yourself and then it is over, except for the reward? That’s like someone believing he can quit smoking, does it for 5 days, and then says it is over. Hey, it ain’t over. That’s a weak showing of the strength of your beliefs.

True belief is a tricky subject. But I do know that the Socialists don't truely believe in socialism. Their mind is too weak and flawed for any true bond strength to develop.

Song of Life and Death, Creation and Destruction

All decadent civilizations have fallen to the barbarians, for the leaders of men thought themselves truly superior and self-evolved beyond the need for crude defensive measures against low browed neanderthals.

The age old test of might and right, still exists. To test the beliefs of socialists and Leftists (reach far enough left and you hit the right, it is global) requires that you engage in a simple war to the death with them, belief against belief, will against will. In the end, the stronger belief triumphs, for humanity cannot shed the mantle of our legacy from mother nature. For to fight for what we value is our destiny. And while not everyone that wins is right, everyone that loses is most definitely wrong. A fundamental flaw that does not entitle them to survival nor immortality in the coils of the human condition.

There is a life and a vibrancy amongst the barbarians, the head choppers, the Islamic jihadists, that is not present in the decadent Western systems of beliefs. Which include, amongst other beliefs, Right to Die, Right to Parasitism, and Right to Forever Non-violent Peace.

There is a cellular wall, however, preventing the loss of water and vitality from civilization. He who cannot maintain the life force strength of the cellular wall, will find that the cell itself will be leached of its life giving waters and will shrink into age and decrepit death. Osmosis, balance, water. The wall of militia and military men and women keep the barbarians at bay, preserving the life blood of civilization in all the cells that it exists in human existence. The barbarians will make new enclaves of civilization, but in the meantime the wound grows poisoned and infected, and much time will be required to regenerate the cellular damage.

I've confronted people on the internet, people who are from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, who literally do not understand why a person would need a weapon for self-defense. They believe that they have no need of such things in their country, even when they have been assaulted twice, so therefore the American perspective and obsession with guns is a false arrogance we present to the world in lieu of true civilization, confidence, peace, or prosperity.

They see not, for they are not. They are weak, for they do not choose to be strong. In their knowledge, lies ignorance and despair, and in their despair, lies the path for the death and regeneration of all that is in our life and all that ever will be. For no human being can set down the weapons of war, and declare that he has self-evolved beyond the need for violence and devastation. When the Declaration said all men are created equal, it is not a provisionary device to force government to use force to guarantee that provision. No, it is simply a statement of fact. The right to life must be guaranteed and paid for by the blood of patriots and the vigilance of freed men, but men being created equal is something the human race has no choice about.

We are all created equal for no one is born with the divine spark of divinity, able to transcend human limitations on a permanent and legendary basis. Temporarily, may we touch the realm of the divine and breach past the chains of humanity, to forge an unshackled entity.

Animals are defined by the limits nature set in stone, humanity is defined not only by the limits of nature but by our willpower as well. In this case, things being as they will, humans will compete to be the best for a long time to come. Competition might include teamwork, competition might include pre-forged rules, but competition will never be what the pacifists, the socialists, and people like Probligo and BMC envisions.

The human condition is not something that we can purify violence out of, it is not something that we can purify death, suffering, despair, or joy out of either, and neither should we try. Perfection is a goal for God like beings of infinite and finite divinities, the fate of limitless chainings is not the fate and destiny of humanity. Ours is a slower, surer, path. It does not guarantee instant salvation, it does not guarantee instant welfare and solutions to the plight of humans and animals alike. And surely, it does not guarantee that if you lay down your arms, weapons, and will to fight, that the barbarians will accept you as brothers forever more to feast all day and party all night with. I will prepare myself for all eventualities, for I am not a god as the Leftist fake liberals fancy themselves, I do not know whence peace might fail and war become fiery born in the hearts of men.

The Islamic JIhadists believe themselves Chosen, but their power curvature is no more potentially stronger than my own. If I eat the fruits of ambrosia, then power would be mine, and if I was starved of the nutrition of the heart then I will be weak. The Islamic Jihadists are just as vulnerable as I am, and thus lies the path to whatever victory you might imagine. The first step, however, must be an acceptance that every human being is vulnerable to the same things as every other human being. Without that recognition, we will have people from New Zealand coming in and telling us the Americans that we are too arrogant to give up our guns, because there is no need.

The Socialists and Leftist fake liberals have no need of weapons in self-defense, for they are prey with no knowledge or recognition of their own vulnerability nor that of others, a resource the barbarians will ravage while they travel the countryside to besiege the shining pearl pristine cities of human civilization.

June 11, 2006

Al Capone and Gitmo

Comment inspired by pat's sub sect

People should study the Mob, and how they could circumvent the legal system. The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government. But who is going to protect us from the Mob, when the Mob can't be touched because the police is prevented from doing so because of the law?

Just as it is no use jailing one low "made man", it is no use just jailing one terroists. Him and his buddies are still out there, and eventually, they'll kill somebody to get their buddies out of jail. Or kidnap a judge's daughter, or put a bomb in Parliament, or take some hostages at a bank.

The mob has to be infiltrated from the ground up, destroyed, and decapitated. This allows peaceful citizens to live a life free of terror, which means that they will inform the citizen of any crimes so that the police can crush the criminals before they become "organized".

The absolute total freaking lack of knowledge of how a civilized society survives in the presence of murdering, brutal, criminals is one reason why civilizations tend to fall like cherry blossoms.

Al Capone got his arse in the island, because the feds set up "extra-legal" IRS laws just so they could charge Capone with something that could stick. You don't charge a mob boss with murder. He didn't murder nobody, and he'll be the first guy who orders your knees broken for even suggesting it.

Justice is not the law and the law is not Justice. The law is a faithful hound, that exists to protect the family and the small children. The moment the "law" turns on the children, the faithful hound becomes the faithfully dead hound.

Al Capone had the right to get jailed for trumped up IRS charges. Everyone else had the right to be terrorized by Capone's goons. Is that fair? No, is it just that Capone gets jailed for IRS tax evasion while his murder victims are still dead? No.

There is no justice when people and organizations like Capone is out there. First step is to get rid of them. Then we can talk about people having "rights", then we can talk about children being safe again.

Under Torrio, Capone worked as an enforcer and later got a job as a bouncer and bartender at the gang-controlled Harvard Inn. During this time an altercation with a knife-wielding bar patron resulted in the famous scars that came to symbolize Capone's violent persona. He was arrested for suspicion of murder in 1919 in New York City, but the charges were dismissed when witnesses refused to testify against him.


That said, prisoners at normal American jails have been tried and convicted of a crime they were charged with at the time of their arrest. They had the right to see the evidence against them, the right to confront their accuser(s), and the right to an attorney.

I got a right not to be murdered and then have to see the murderer get away scot free. I think that was under the "Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing. Conceptual rights anyway.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that criminals have a right to know their accuser, so that they can assassinate the accuser so that the trial will fail.

Ulster Orangemen death squads and IRA terror

[inspired by some comments on neo neocon's site that referenced the IRA, and support of the IRA in the US]

One of the things most people don't know about the IRA problem, is that it was actually a way to defend against a rival terroist organization, namely the Protestant Orangemen death squads that went into Irish communities, much as Zarqawi goes into Sunni and Shia communties and chops up the children and put their heads into baskets intended for their mothers to see and smell.

Britain tried to send peacekeepers, namely the SAS, to quell the problem. The British Army, police, local paramilitary loyalist police, and the SAS were all focused more on crushing the uppity Irish than dealing with the legitimate security needs of the Irish.

Some highlights of Irish protests

The revenge of the IRA

I am no fan of the EU criminal courts, so take this court judgement considering my personal biases

If there is one single place which symbolises its 1969 rebirth and growth, it is Bombay Street in the Falls Road area of Belfast, where marauding loyalists burnt down much of the street and killed a junior IRA member.

The IRA split at that point, one faction going into eventual obscurity while most activists joined a hugely expanded 'Provisional IRA'. A republican mural depicting a phoenix and the words 'From the ashes of Bombay Street rose the Provisionals' appeared in the street. Even today a mural there declares: 'Bombay Street " never again'.

The initial emphasis was on defence, the IRA vowing to protect areas open to loyalist attack. But soon the organisation was squaring up to the Army, while loyalists remained lethally active and the situation inexorably deteriorated.

By 1972 the IRA, loyalists and the security forces were involved in large- scale clashes, with 500 people killed in that year as the IRA switched the emphasis from defence to an aggressive campaign aimed at British withdrawal.

For those who wonder what they mean by "loyalist", what they are talking about are the Ulster terror squads that are inherently, death squads ala Saddam Hussein.

The spiral into violence was marked by security force mistakes and misdeeds such as internment without trial and the shootings of Bloody Sunday. Loyalists carried out many killings, sometimes torturing their Catholic victims in the backstreets.

For its part, the IRA invented the car bomb, a device which claimed many civilian lives. In one of many such incidents, known as Bloody Friday, nine people were killed in Belfast in 1972 when the IRA detonated 20 devices in just over an hour.

That incident produced one of ghastliest images of the troubles, with television pictures showing mangled human remains being swept into plastic bags.

But it was not to be the last such atrocity: every year that followed brought destruction and deaths, amounting to 3,700 killings in all. The IRA was responsible for almost half of these, and itself lost hundreds of members and supporters.

The decades brought various phases of IRA activity, marked with what republicans called 'spectaculars.' One of these was the assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten in 1979, on the same day that 18 soldiers were killed at Warrenpoint in Co Down.

Compare the BBC, British, reporting of their oppression of the Irish and the IRA, and the facillitation of Ulster Orangemen death squads free reign in Irish communities, with how the British BBC treat the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Guilt, is a powerful motivation.

Some of you may wonder why I so freely believe that the British kills people and then tries to cover it up, given what people accuse the USMC and Americans of doing. The difference is simple. The British shot a Muslim, as he complied with police, after 7/7 AND THEN TRIED to cover it up by saying he resisted. He didn't resist. The British are trigger happy, remember the Revolutionary War, don't let "common defense" lead you to the wrong conclusions.

The British are a mercurial people. One moment they are weak, appeasement orientated, and then they are full out waging Total War bombing Dresden via Bomber Harry. In this sense, they are sorta like American Alpha version 7.8x. Alpha versions, being inherently unstable.

Remember, it was the British that wanted Versailles, along with the French, because of their thirst for revenge. Don't be so surprised when the British execute an innocent civilian and then tries to cover it up.

By that stage, the republican movement was in the hands of a new northern- based leadership dominated by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, who had pushed out the older southern leaders in a bloodless coup. The IRA was reorganised to make it a smaller, tighter organisation less vulnerable to penetration by informers.

In 1984, an attempt was made to kill Margaret Thatcher and Cabinet during the Conservative Party conference in Brighton. She survived unhurt, but five people died in the attack.

In the late 1980s, the IRA received a huge boost with the arrival of sizeable arms shipments from Colonel Gaddafi's Libyan regime. This material, which included heavy machine guns and Semtex plastic explosives, greatly increased its capacity for violence.

More shootings and bombings resulted, but so too did enhanced efforts by the security forces. 'The Brits have raised their game, ' commented an IRA leader at the time.

The IRA then began putting out feelers to the British government and to Irish political and clerical leaders. There had been surreptitious contacts in the past, most notably when the Government flew Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and others to Chelsea in 1972, in an RAF aircraft, for secret discussions with the Northern Ireland Secretary, William Whitelaw.

Those talks came to nothing, but in the 1990s the IRA began to signal that it was interested in dialogue. But the fact that the organisation insisted on maintaining its campaign of violence during this period meant that many did not take its approaches seriously.

Here is the timeline as I see it. The IRA was formed to defend against British and British-Ulster loyalist's unlawful executions. The IRA then became more extreme, as their thirst for violence, revenge, and death consumed them. With a lot of help from the British. When the British stepped up the retaliation killings, ambushes, and deah squad executions, the IRA realized that this kind of death and terrorism did not fullfill the original goal of the IRA, to protect Irish communities from Ulster and British repression.

The extreme nature of IRA terrorism and rebellion, would have started drying up American-Irish support. Someone, in Sinn Fein, decided that negotiation and diplomacy would benefit them more than continued British retaliation executions and deaths. The IRA, as extreme and violent as they were, were no match against the SAS.

Americans are different than the British. When the Sunnis act up and try to blow people up, first we offer the less violent folks amnesty and a political solution, then we go after to capture the Sunni leaders. If they resist, then they are killed. Americans are disciplined enough at heart, not to engage in unnecessary "kill on sight" missions. This is why British occupied territories always tended to start "rebelling", while Americans solve "rebellions" through both ruthlessness and compassion. The British have no compassion when their goats are up.

You ever wonder why the British was given control of the Southern cities like Basrah, and not Al-Anbar or Baghdad? It is because the US military knew who they could control and who they can't. They can't control the British, the British are not susceptible to being tried by the US Code of Military justice. Best not get the British embroiled into a fight where civilians might be at risk, is what might have influenced High Command's decisions.

Think of it as this. The world got to blame America for My Lai, and America learned from our mistakes. The rest of the world learned how to blame America, they didn't learn from their mistakes.

For decades, the authorities tried to beat the IRA, but never managed it: now the organisation is voluntarily offering to disarm, and to put an end to the toll of violent death.

The Irish in America, must have told the IRA that they should travel another path. The IRA, being ethnic orientated, would trust no outsiders except their own, the Irish.

ALTHOUGH THE British Army has spent more than three decades involved in conflict in Northern Ireland, the experience is unlikely to be of great benefit to its men on the streets of Baghdad.

So many differences exist between Iraq and Ireland that surprisingly little read-across will probably be found between the two conflicts. They have different rules, a very different enemy, different weapons and, most of all, different purposes.

The Troubles dragged on for so long that a majority of troops have probably been based in Northern Ireland, some of them undertaking half a dozen or more tours of duty. But war in Belfast and Londonderry was an unusual exercise, not just in its longevity but also in its character. Above all it was a low-level form of conflict, for the most part aimed at containment. By contrast, Baghdad is likely to see sustained and intense conflict.

Two striking and perhaps ominous points stand out. First, although the Army fought against the IRA for all those years, the result in the end was not a clear military victory over terrorism but, in effect, stalemate.

The British failed to win an insurgency warfare. They were brutal and ruthless enough, they just weren't Good enough to do the job. Sinn Fein knew about the stalemate, which is why Sinn Fein tried to get a cease fire going, Sinn Fein was tired of Irish women and children being killed because Sinn Fein killed some Ulster Loyalist or British Army sniper. Did "peace talks" convert a terroist organization into a political organization? No. What converted terroists to politicians, is the fact that they had no better choice available to them. The US gives he Sunnis two choices. Either die on our bayonets or under the bullets of the Shia majority or go the political route. Sinn Fein knew the SAS could be deployed against the IRA, Sinn Fein knew that no political option would be possible if the IRA had been decapitated.

The Stalemate Ended

The fact that active armies inevitably inflict civilian casualties means it is futile to hope that armies can help to win any battle for the people. In Northern Ireland the experience is that troops in close contact with civilians almost always generate friction rather than increase support.

The British don't get it. Americans are the younger, more brilliant, genius in the Anglo-Saxon family. The British got one lesson from their Troubles, and they seek to apply it to Israel and the US. Prejudiced and arrogant. America is the new and improved version, compared to the buggy alpha version that is Britain. Britain deserves respect for its age, sort of like the rickety disabled grandfather. But that don't mean we're going to emulate the old generation.

The SAS, at least, deserves respect. Even if the British army, politicians, intel branches, do not. The SAS were good, much much better than Sinn Fein and the IRA's operators. Why were the British stalemated with the IRA, then?

A number of former SAS men were speaking out as loyalist terrorist Ken Barrett was beginning the shortest life sentence ever for the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane.

Barrett and other members of the UDA and UFF were used by British intelligence and the RUC Special Branch to kill republican figures and sympathisers.

One ex-SAS soldier said: "They had to turn to these guys because we were not prepared to do their dirty work and most of the time, they killed the wrong people.

"Innocent people were murdered because of orders from the very highest level.

"We knew that at some time the British Government and the IRA would have to sit down at the table and sort things out.

"There was total panic when we gave them our answer. We told them: 'We will not be pulling any triggers. We are soldiers, not a death squad'."

The SAS commanders were 100 percent behind the decision because they knew that they, too, would have faced prosecution. But the SAS men revealed that they did keep a very close watch on the men on the death list, hoping to get a reason to shoot or arrest them.

Respect the SAS, because they can and will kill you if you get in their way.

Stalemated, without the SAS

Court findings of shoot to kill policies

The British authorities were not operating a shoot-to-kill policy, but failings in the command of the SAS operation, meant the deaths of the three terrorists were unjustified, the European Court of Human Rights ruled yesterday.

But in the area of the control and organisation of the operation, the court ruled that the Human Rights Convention had been breached. It questioned why the suspects had not been arrested as they arrived at the Gibraltar border, and pointed out that the bomb attack was not expected for a further four days.

The judgment said it was disquieting that the SAS had been briefed that there was definitely a bomb, while the intelligence assessment was only that it was a suspected bomb. This, together with the fact that the SAS were told the bomb could be set off at the touch of a button, made the use of force almost unavoidable, the court concluded.

Noting that soldiers were trained, once they had opened fire, to shoot to kill, the court added: "The reflex action in this vital respect lacked the degree of caution in the use of firearms to be expected from law-enforcement personnel in a democratic society, even when dealing with dangerous terrorist suspects."

The agents that killed the Muslim in the suburb, were also told "he had a bomb" when obviously there was no reason for the intel agents to believe that. So why did the controls for the shooters (the agents), tell the agents something they knew wasn't true? Shoot them first, then ask questions later is that it?

I'm extremely skeptical about any organization with the names "European" or "Commission" in their names. I recommend you do the same.

The existence of the risk to civilians was enough to justify the SAS response. Shooting to wound rather than to kill would have been dangerous since a wounded terrorist could still have set off a bomb.

This is the same reasoning they used to "cover up" the execution of the Muslim that was just an innocent migrant worker. The reasoning is valid, the application, is not when the British applies it, given the evidence I have read during the research for this post.

I give the British the benefit of the doubt. I like how Tony Blair phrases his defense of his support of Bush. I appreciate the political benefits. That don't mean Britain is the "competent stoic ally" of the US until death do us part, however.

O'Reilly - The Saboteur and Assassin

Pat says some stuff about the suicides at GitMo. I have 3 recommendations, and I mentioned some of it at Pat's comments section. Stop feeding the GitMo slugs when that food can be better put to use to feeding hogs, US soldiers, and starving Iraqis.

2nd, make official policy that we will "assist" with anyone that wants to choose suicide. Assisted suicide.

3rd, the ultimate goal is then, assisted involuntary suicide.

Once you get to stage 3, GitMo won't be a problem anymore and the Left will have their wish, GitMo will be closed. Since after all, there's no one there anymore, that is alive that is.

O'Reilly went to GitMo on Friday/Saturday and soon after, 3 jihadists suicided. Coincidence?

On Probligo

Some of Probligo's comments, just to clarify his position since he won't do it himself.


Truly the fools are those who put such a weak candidate up against Bush at the last election.

Truly the fools are those milions who believe that Bush is right.

Truly the fools are those who voted George Bush another four years in office.

Truly the fools are those in power in the US who do nothing to rein in the idiocy of their administration.
# posted by The probligo : February 14, 2005 9:59 PM

To be continued


At 1:55 AM, June 10, 2006, The probligo said...

Good grief!! What a long, tedious, and self-gratuitous string of confused thinking, misinterpretation and shouting past each other.

To show how "important" the US will consider Haditha and the war crimes committed there (and those committed elsewhere in Iraq that we will NOT hear about)...

1. Any of the Marines responsible for Haditha murders who return to the US alive will be charged with the murder of those civilians.

2. It will take at least two years, likely as long as four years, for them to appear in Court as there will be delays "for the gathering of evidence" and "while the defendants recover from PTSD".

3. When they do eventually appear in US Military Court, they will be committed on the grounds that they were suffering from PTSD at the time of the offences owing to the fact that they had narrowly escaped being killed by an IED.

4. If any are found guilty (and that is a very long shot) they will probably be sentenced to another season in Iraq.

At 9:19 AM, June 10, 2006, Ymarsakar said...

I don't consider Probligo, who can't even understand a need to self-arm for self-defense, a person that qualifies to judge anything relating to war including violations of the Military Code.

At 8:55 PM, June 10, 2006, The probligo said...

No, dear Y, as I keep saying to you, and as you are obviously totally unable to understand or perceive -

Where I live, where confude lives, there is no need to carry arms for protection.

When you are able to wrap your four neurons around that idea perhaps you might be able to think a little more clearly about how the rest of the world see you and your kind.

Neo, sorry. I did not intend to include you in this but Y, his stupidity, his racism, his need for penile compensation with big-bore weapons, has gotten to me totally. He hasn't the guts to reply to my post on my site. He had to take his reply away to his own site - probably because he feared I might delete it...

I feel sorry for those who live in places that are so insecure, so unsafe, that carrying arms for defence as a matter of course is a neccessity. That is not how I live my life. It should not be neccessary to live like that in any country that promotes freedom.

I have freedom and no need for a gun.

Why does Y need a gun? Because he lives in fear, not freedom.

At 11:43 PM, June 10, 2006, Ymarsakar said...

I've said this recently toConfud in a more recent thread at Neo. Handguns and rifles rank a mere 3 on an absolute scale of 1 to 10.

The logic is simple, as it is demanding of attention. Racism isn't the difference between someone disbelieving he needs weapons and someone that believes weapons are useful. And that's it.

He had to take his reply away to his own site - probably because he feared I might delete it...

You wrote your reply on your blog instead of here at neo's, so I wrote my reply at my own blog instead of here. That's it, simple logic.

Guts is part of weapons making, but in this case it is not relevant.

Probligo has described being assaulted twice or thrice. I have never been assaulted by anyone, with or without a weapon, although there was a burglary once. The difference between the philosophy of warriors and those who live by the sword, to other folks, is not about what is necessary. It is about what is virtuous, or in this case, what is good for human beings.

Collection of conservatives held captive in enemy territory

At 4:51 PM, June 03, 2006, knoxgirl said...


I work with people who are quite conservative and people who are quite liberal. It's a small company and it's pretty obvious who thinks what. The conservatives avoid politics and remain silent when the subject comes up.

The liberals have said, at times: Bush will use bird flu to declare martial law and take over the country; he'll let the poor people die; Americans don't care about helping other countries (this, only a few months after the tsunami) Bush purposely let people die in Hurricane Katrina; Bush is a brilliant mastermind of evil, and as dumb as a dog; started the Iraq war for money, oil, racism, to establish another "colony"; Bush wants to destro the planet; Bush hates Mexicans (!?); conservatives are evil; Bush and the republicans only care about money (this from our accountant who is famously stingy!)... this, I promise you, is only the tip of the iceberg.

I have found that you cannot say even one moderate, mild statement without immediate backlash. And I will fully admit that these are otherwise thoughtful, consciencious, likeable people who I (mostly) love working with. One of them is particularly measured, diplomatic, and very reticent to be critical of others or to be judgmental. I think very highly of him on all non-political fronts... But let someone betray even a hint of--not even conservative!--non-leftist opinion and there is instant, barking invective.

I too would have at one time thought that stories like that of DBrooks were exaggerations or made up. Not anymore.

It will never cease to baffle me and I have friends that I have chosen to distance myself from because they cannot leave politics alone. So sad, because I am more than willing to close the subject.

Anyway, not sure what the point of this was, but to sympathise with others out there with the same experience.

Real to Real - Raid on Entebbe

Saw this movie on the History Channel, while also on the computer.

The dated look gave it a curious authenticity looking at backwards from 2006.

The most notable scenes were when the dialogue said "shoot in short bursts, make your shots count, and make sure the terroists don't kill the hostages". In response to the counter-terrorism troops that were training for the raid.

Another one was the Israelis yelling and arguing about whether to authorize the raid in the first place, even while the transport planes were already en route to the target in Uganda. "They are still debating when therei s a small army in the air enroute, well that's democracy for you".

June 10, 2006

The Evolution of Dance

YouTube is a great innovation and application of "what you see is what you get".

The title-link is the good, but this is the bad.

Snow pulled some strings

O'Reilly is being given exclusive access to GitMo. Looks like Snow made good on his promise to give more access to reporters. He must have lobbied the President, that it would be a good idea to let specific reporters to showcase GitMo, to counter enemy propaganda. It is after all, one of my original plans in countering and manipulating the media.

If you give exclusives to those reporters that will do a good job, then the reporters will discipline themselves so that you don't have to yell them down. Incentives and decentives, as they say. Anyone can be bought, but in this case, reporters are being bought by access and exclusives. Which is how it always has been done, it just so happens that all the peopel buying the media were the dicators and anti-Americans like Saddam.

CNN was willing to censure themselves to retain exclusive access to Saddam, that should tell you how to properly manipulate the media.

June 09, 2006

My Thoughts on Zarqawi - Collected Comments

The media has tried to report Zar dieing, like they tried to do it with Saddam. The military has never officially declared Saddam or Zar captured/dead until they actually could confirm it.

The military already knows that they should not believe everything they hear. There is a reason for this, and I’ll come back to it later at the end here.

In retrospect, this would make a great propaganda film. Just visualize it. Here you have a swaggering murderer and assassin moving around beheading people like Nick Berg, going from house to house. Then a bomb finally takes them out and they acquire the body. You could do it in two ways. The first half of the film could be full of blood and savagery, and endless party of death and mutilation as we witness Z-man’s death and jihad fun. Throw in some emotional and heart tearing testimony from the victims, and we have the same emotional setup as the Iranian hostage incident.

Then the second half we would see Z-Man running afraid from house to house, his LTs dieing in droves, and finally a bomb blows him up.

That’s one way to do it. Another version of the propaganda President Bush can fund with Pentagon funds is this. First half stays the same, to setup the audience and tie them in to the faceless deaths that otherwise would be seen on the media. The second half then would show the perspective from the US side instead of Z-Man’s perspective of running. The purpose of the second half is to tie the audience into the emotional fatigue of the soldiers in trying to find Z-Man and failing. Until finally, they do, and they blow him up. A final clip of Z-Man having a drink and toasting the future success of the JIhad could be a nice flourish as the bomb guides in on a tv mounted camera.

The military has soldiers trained in reporting, CGI, production, orchestration, filming. THey don’t need Hollywood. They just need Bush’s authorization.

The most optimistic end result would be this. A person watching propaganda film version 1, would feel frustration and anger at Z-Man’s free romp through human beings with faces, feelings, and families. The second half would give them satisfaction, a satisfaction nobody got after seeing hostages freed by Iran, as they see Z-Man scared and running, the prey instead of the predator. The denument would be his death.

Version 2, would give them the same emotions in Part 1, but would give them a double dose of frustration, rage, and empathy as they see US soldiers attempt to get Z-Man. The emotional catharsis at the end, would be twice as potent.

TS is betting that the military got it wrong. I’ll bet otherwise. But it isn’t as simple as that, really. The media is waging a disinformation campaign, and people should really understand what that means. When they report that Saddam is dead, or even that he might have died, this is disinformation designed to demoralize you. It gets your hopes up, then squashes it. So the next time you hear something like it, you won’t ever feel as uplifted as you would the original time. Boy crying wolf is an obvious disinformation operation.

When the media reports or hints or implies that Z-Man might have been harmed or captured or killed, this is disinformation that has a corrosive effect upon the morale of those who watch it. The military went through this when they tried to get Saddam. There were lots of false starts, their Intel branch had to rework the entire description of Saddam’s family structure from the ground up. It was like trying to write a family tree of the God Father by watching every 1 second out of every 60 seconds. Hard brutal work. Lots of times they searched houses and Saddam escaped by minutes. The military, because of the discipline they have, are trained to handle this kind of demoralization. Civilians are not. Civilians get their hopes up. When the media reports that the Miners Trapped Under a Cavein were alive…. well let’s just say that disinformation is disinformation, regardless of whether it was intended as such.

You can’t devastate someone’s hopes if they don’t have any. So you have to give them something to hope for, then crush it. The media does this almost unconsciously, as when they reported the Miners as alive when they were really dead.

The emotional and propaganda impact of the President’s announcement will do little to effect civilian morale. You can tell, because some people here were wishing for something different to be said.

There are other things you could do, you know, other than propaganda films and changing the words of the President, to boost morale. 5 days before this for example, the President could have announced that there was an amnesty deal that was being talked about concerning Z-Man. Imagine what people would have felt. Depressed? Perhaps. Enraged? Possibly. Disappointed and disgusted? Of course. Doubt in the Iraqi’s abilities and morality? Most certainly.

Then 5 days later, Z-Man dies. Emotinal catharisis perhaps?

The timing need not be exact, they didn’t know when they would get close. But they knew they were getting close. General Pace kept saying months ago, that they were getting closer to Z-Man on interviews. Presumably nobably believed him,b ut the President should have. If I was a betting man, I would have betted on the military as I am now.

Create disinformation, create news items that the media will report because they want it to be true. This time, the goal is to depress civilian morale, in order for Z-man’s death to have its maximum effect.

This is how you boaster and support civilian morale in warfare, this is how you stay the course, and this is how you bring unity in war. But Bush won’t lie or deceive people purposefully, and my disinformation and propaganda methods require both to be present.
Check out the comments at blackfive.com. The military is throwing a party or will soon. Retired military and active duty. The Iraqis are perhaps even more joyous. This is the man that they saw as eluding their justice, this is the man that was the face and hand behind the deaths of their children and women.

The point that the so called “multiculturalists” are in fact parochial, is very apt. I realized this once I had studied Japanese culture, and started using some of it online and the fake liberals would come back with charges of brutality, violence, and etc. towards my character. A simple comparison with how multiculturalists treat other cultures, filled in the gaps.

A real multicultural system takes in the strengths of a foreign culture and dilutes the weaknesses with a base solution. This creates a hybrid stronger than the individual component cultures added together.

The rednecks aren’t on the Right anymore, to me. They have somehow teleported. This ain’t an American thing either. Just take a look at my recent blog post about Probligo to see that Australians, New Zealander’s and the rest of the West is equally affected by parochialism.

True cosmopolitanism in a person is a trait worth its weight in gold. In this sense, the military is much much more cosmopolitan than the French, the UN, ABC/CBS/AP, or Hollywood are. Marines usually have tours in Japan, Korea, Europe, Philliphines, and more. They learn culture and people face to face, powered by full immersion. The Iraq experience has broadened this, because combat presents a new motivation factor for the soldiers to get to know the people they are stationed with.

There is a lot of contempt from the Left, the fake liberals, and Hollywood against the military for being classless, tasteless, and village orientated brutes. Crude caricatues of high society material, they may think.

But the truely self-confident person, a person who is true to himself, feels no contempt for his inferiors and no envy for his superiors. For he or she is centered, and content, and the rages of passion and emotion can no longer pull at that person as the winds of fate dictate. A martial arts application, from the East.
# Ymarsakar Says:
June 8th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
In response to Laer.

I knew nothing about the military except what I saw while watching Black Hawk Down, on 9/11. Zero. Well, if you don’t count all those episodes Hollywood produced for tv, which showed the military arresting, brutalizing, and oppressing civilians who just wanted to be “free” you know.

David Weber, John Ringo, Sun Tzu, hours spent a few weeks there or here studying the Civil War and other historical wars, catching various programs on the History Channel, have contributed now after 5 years, to me, an above average understanding of military affairs.

Just reading Sun Tzu provided no real understanding, just as when I first read Romeo and Juliet I did not understand the full impact or tragedy. There has to be other things you have to know first, to fully comprehend such things as what Sun Tzu wrote about. Such a thing as simple as “it is best to win wars without fighting” becomes infinitely complex when you try to apply it, as Clausewitz noticed. All simple things in war, become hard due to friction or otherwise known as the fog of war.

Knowing the ranks of the Marines and the Navy and the Army, those things are superficial. Insurgent warfare is not even conventional war, which means Clausewitz did not cover it, however Sun Tzu did. His wars back then were so old it had never had a “convention” to obey. The media faces an onion effect which gets harder and harder as they reach the core. First they have to understand the military, then they have to understand strategy, tactics, and logistics. Then they have to combine it into an understanding of conventional warfare, either infantry or armored column warfare. Then they have to translate this into insurgency warfare, which is neither here or there.

Military Science is not an advanced degree for nothing. Clausewitz’s final work was so huge, I haven’t even started in on it yet.

But al-Zarqawi was mourned in Anbar province.

“This a great loss for all the Sunnis,” 40-year-old Abid al-Duleimi said. “If they killed al-Zarqawi, more than one al-Zarqawi will replace him.”

One thing the media is competent at, and it is propaganda. You don’t need military science to know how to use propaganda and deception. You can depress people without knowing how to kill as well, even if the effects are the same.

Morale is the key, it is the Keystone to the ability to win wars without having to fight, kill, lay siege, or squander your resources. Break the enemy’s morale, and the fight is over. If the morale of your forces are broken, you might as well give up since your soldiers definitely have.

Because the media knows propaganda, PR, deception, and glitz, they know how to affect the morale of the American people. But the media has no knowledge of military affairs, so they do NOT know how to affect the morale of insurgents or of the enemy. Thus, the media, which is sort of like a bully, picks on the weaker more available target rather than the tough, dangerous, gang member.
# Ymarsakar Says:
June 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

The way I see it, jg, is that the blogosphere is fighting a true guerrila war, cell based and hit and run, against the legacy media’s bigger more powerful propaganda appartus.

The blogosphere is the underdog, the legacy media the occupation forces. The truth is more complex, because it encompasses every single individual conscience and molecule of matter in the known universe. So what you have is like 2 wars on two different metaphysical planes of existence, fighting on two different fronts.

You have the propaganda war, where the enemy has the upper hand. Then you have the actual war, the killing and the blowing up of people, where the United States and our allies have the advantages of training, nerve, skills, wealth, firepower, technology, and size.

When people tell you that the “enemy” is so weak and what not, because we have bombs and they can only use suicide bombers, they’re just using another deception ploy.

The reason why the full might of the United States is taking 3 to 4 years to crush an insurgency in a nation with the pop of 25 mil, is because of what Napoleon said. Morale is to the physical, as is 3 is to 1. Full understanding of that requires some context.

To take it literally, it takes 3 hits with an axe to equal one successful hit on someone’s mind. The mind will break under one hit, the body will break under 3. So now you know. If the enemy has the advantage in morale manipulation, then regardless of how much conventional firepower we have, we have to be 3 times as good. We have to hit them 3 times for every 1 time they hit us. And amazingly enough, the US military does it. Not only that, but they exceed the minimum quota of victories.

This reminds me of the Peloponesian War, if i hadn’t mentioned this here before. Sparta had an elite phalanx force, while Athens had a superior Navy. Sparta only beat Athens, when Sparta beat the Athenian navy with a spartan built navy. To cut the story short.

The US will win, absolutely, once we gain the advantage in the propaganda war. The terroists will never, never, gain the advantage in the conventional war. Because guerrilas and terroists, never win, until they can build a conventional military force that can beat off the enemy. The United States Revolutionary Guerrilas lead by Washington, did just that. So what they want, is just to kick our conventional forces out, so they don’t have to fight them, cause they know they can never beat us at that warfare. So we have to leave, for them to win.

Now let’s apply this to the blogosphere and the propaganda war. If the terroists and the insurgents can’t win unless they can somehow get rid of our conventional force, then this applies to the propaganda war as well when the US is the underdog.

We must either get rid of the mSM propaganda apparatus, or we need to become superior at propaganda than the MSM and terroists combined.

That is the winning strategy, reduced down to fundamentals that removes any need to have a military background. It explains the why, in a way that is different than saying “stay the course” or “we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up”.

Bush is emphasizing the third option I did not mention. You can use shock troops to fight your wars for you, conventional or propaganda based, morale or physical. Bush is betting that the Iraqis can fight both the terroists propaganda wise and conventional wise. Bush is right. But America isn’t going to win the war on terrorism without doing what I have described here. Winning Iraq is one battle amongst a sea of battles. It is D-Day, it is a toe-hold in enemy territory.