The Beginning of the End of ISIS?

[Namutree]

 

 

He said public officials should "be responsible in what we decide to share with the American public, so that the public is informed."

He meant "so that the public doesn't learn the truth". I'd believe Judicial Watch over the Feds any day, the Feds have been caught lying again and again, speaking of mainstream sources the Washington Post discovered another White House cover up just today. But I'll concede the facts about ISIS are in dispute at this point.

Hunter's source has already admitted that people who were apprehended only "might" have been ISIS. Nothing is in dispute. Hunter heard a rumor and decided to state it as fact; quite irresponsibly. The department of homeland security went ahead and let people know the rumor was BS; not that they should have even been needed to clarify since the idea that ISIS would sneak into the country through the Mexican border is stupid. 

[Hurlshort]

 

90% of mainstream journalists are democrats?  Please, you probably think I'm a democrat.  

 

You put entirely too much faith in right wing media.  Personally I don't put all my eggs in any single basket, I like to read as many news sources as possible and develop my own opinions.

You may not believe you're a Democrat, but when was the last time you actually voted for a Republican for a nationwide office? And for your information, I do read different sources, you're the one with a phobia for conservatives. I evaluate everything objectively and am well aware of biases on either side. Trust me, I check out every link I post to the best of my ability.

 

 

The last election.  I have no interest in voting for Diane Feinstein.

 

I vote for who I believe to be the best candidate for the job.  I also tend to vote against anyone who has held an office for too many terms.  Lifetime politicians suck.

 

I don't have a phobia for conservatives (in fact I love conservative talk radio, it's hilarious) but it is largely the only stuff you post, so excuse me if I assume that is where you get your news.

[Namutree]

One source:

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/07/Journalist-Surveyed-Democrats-Outnumber-Republicans-4-to-1

 

RANT TIME!!!

 

It's not surprising considering that the republican party abandoned it's successful capitalist foundation to court stupid, agrarian, unprincipled, and somewhat pro-treason bunch of Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination than ideological consistency.

 

How can anyone be shocked that intellectuals fled the republicans when they ceased to be the party of reason to become the party of stupid. They're the kind of morons who throw the word socialist at Obama like an insult; only to ignore that the previous republican president actively tried to preserve social security by making it solvent. Doin' a real good job of fighting socialism when during the 'Obama-Care' debate you complain money'll be taken away from medicare. 

 

Don't worry though folks because the country is going the same way as the journalist for unsurprising reasons. Nixon's version of the republican party is the Thief 4 of political parties. Like Thief 4 it suffers from a lack of an identity and being a mish-mash of incompatible ideas. Are they capitalists? Hell no. The drug war, gay marriage, social security, and various other positions they take show they haven't the slightest respect for property. Are they the party of small government? If you only listen to their speeches sure, but the illusion of a small-government appeal fails the moment you give even a slight glance at their policy.

 

1: Hilariously huge military when we're running massive deficits. Any attempts to reign in the financially irresponsible military spending is completely opposed by party leadership. See, their plan to keep America safe is to bankrupt the country while at the same time draw all the heat from the worlds villains by getting involved in everything.

 

2: Build an extremely expensive wall at the Mexican border. Good to know that the "party of small government" want to waste billions of dollars building and maintaining a wall that won't work, and if it did work would be an economic disaster. Not to mention would give the government a great degree of control over who can leave and when. One of the little details people forget is that the wall could do more than keep Mexicans OUT; it could keep Americans IN.

 

I could go on, but then this post would be waaay too long. 

 

The republicans lose with journalist because few smart people would want to be associated with the republicans, and the few who do; do so grudgingly. 

Edited October 10, 2014 by Namutree

[obyknven]

Meanwhile Turkish plan of invasion has been failed.

1. ISIS "clean" Kobane from Kurds (especially PKK)

2. Turkey invade Syria for "saving" civilians, democracy and other bull****.

3. ISIS retreat without fight from Kobane.

4 ....

5. Profit.

But cleansing of Kobane from Kurds has been failed and PKK beat ISIS in current time. 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4da_1412848012

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syrian-kurds-still-hold-most-of-kobane-us-military.aspx?pageID=238&nID=72747&NewsCatID=359

Other symptom is how "democratic" "free" media increased hysteria about near "fall" of Kobane - it's so similar to Western media coverage of Ukrainian civil war.

Plan has been failed from the begining.

P.S. I wondering why West so worried about ISIS. These  "jihadists" (who never attack Israel, but constantly attack enemies of Israel lol) nothing more than paper tiger. Such "threat" can impress only infantile Westlings who newer see wars IRL.

[Gorth]

The Turkish strategy seems to come straight out of the WWII history books, where the Soviets pulled the same stunt with the Polish Partisans in Warsaw. Waiting on the other side of the river for the Germans and the Polish to wipe each other out and then scoop up the "price" after most of the killing is done.

[Namutree]

The Turkish strategy seems to come straight out of the WWII history books, where the Soviets pulled the same stunt with the Polish Partisans in Warsaw. Waiting on the other side of the river for the Germans and the Polish to wipe each other out and then scoop up the "price" after most of the killing is done.

Back in my Halo 2 days it's how I played. I was never quite as good as my friends at fighting when we played local multi-player, but I still managed to win since I was a crafty strategist. 

 

I would wait somewhere in the middle of the map for one of my friends to start fighting the other. Once a battle broke out I would jump in and steal the kills. Good times.

[Valsuelm]

 

One source:

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/05/07/Journalist-Surveyed-Democrats-Outnumber-Republicans-4-to-1

 

RANT TIME!!!

 

It's not surprising considering that the republican party abandoned it's successful capitalist foundation to court stupid, agrarian, unprincipled, and somewhat pro-treason bunch of Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination than ideological consistency.

 

How can anyone be shocked that intellectuals fled the republicans when they ceased to be the party of reason to become the party of stupid. They're the kind of morons who throw the word socialist at Obama like an insult; only to ignore that the previous republican president actively tried to preserve social security by making it solvent. Doin' a real good job of fighting socialism when during the 'Obama-Care' debate you complain money'll be taken away from medicare. 

 

Don't worry though folks because the country is going the same way as the journalist for unsurprising reasons. Nixon's version of the republican party is the Thief 4 of political parties. Like Thief 4 it suffers from a lack of an identity and being a mish-mash of incompatible ideas. Are they capitalists? Hell no. The drug war, gay marriage, social security, and various other positions they take show they haven't the slightest respect for property. Are they the party of small government? If you only listen to their speeches sure, but the illusion of a small-government appeal fails the moment you give even a slight glance at their policy.

 

1: Hilariously huge military when we're running massive deficits. Any attempts to reign in the financially irresponsible military spending is completely opposed by party leadership. See, their plan to keep America safe is to bankrupt the country while at the same time draw all the heat from the worlds villains by getting involved in everything.

 

2: Build an extremely expensive wall at the Mexican border. Good to know that the "party of small government" want to waste billions of dollars building and maintaining a wall that won't work, and if it did work would be an economic disaster. Not to mention would give the government a great degree of control over who can leave and when. One of the little details people forget is that the wall could do more than keep Mexicans OUT; it could keep Americans IN.

 

I could go on, but then this post would be waaay too long. 

 

The republicans lose with journalist because few smart people would want to be associated with the republicans, and the few who do; do so grudgingly. 

 

 

It seems you bought a whole lot of discount propaganda when it was on sale.

 

The Republican party is no more a party of "..... Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination" than the Democrat party is a party of intellectuals.

 

You correctly point out that the Republican platform can be shallowly described as essentially a bunch of hypocrites, but so can the Democrats. At most fundamental levels the only difference between the two parties is BS rhetoric they spit out, and there's not even that much of a difference in that anymore. At the end of the day there is very little difference between the two parties. Which, if you educate yourself on why we even have two parties and who funds each of them, would be as surprising as the sun rising in the morning.

The idea that your average journalist is an intellectual is amusing. Apparently you don't know many of them, and well... you did buy a whole lot of discount propaganda so you must think those peddling it are intellectuals? The majority are not. They aren't even competent.

 

You should try and keep in mind though, that both parties are made up of a bunch of people, and that while most of the members of each party are whackoloons to put it nicely there are a few sincere, or at least mostly sincere voices in each. So, for example, when the idea of 'small government' is espoused by some and the rest of the party catches on it's only because that idea is a fairly popular one with the people. Most politicians at the national level in each party are criminal psychopathic liars who will say and do anything to remain in power or gain it.

 

As for socialists... the sad reality is that many many Americans are such, both Democrat and Republican, and other. It's a complex subject as to how it happened, but to really really simplify it: Lots of people want small government but don't cut their program or welfare check! Over the last few generations people have become indoctrinated with socialist ideals, disgustingly many to the point they actually think they're more 'civilized' or 'intellectual' for thinking that way (it's a very effective way to brainwash people: fill their heads with BS and at the same time fluff their egos about that BS to the point they think they are better than others for having those ideas. It's also an effective way to divide and conquer.). At the same time they've been told they are evil on the other side of the world. But if you call it a different name in the media over and over and over, 'Socialism' in the west, 'Communism' in the east, people actually buy the idea they are different things. They're no more different than blue and cerulean. [A different subject, but on the same hand: when police or military break out the gear and beat people down in the streets in some parts of the world, great foul is cried! But when it happens in our backyard or in a nation we're officially 'friendly' with it's either ignored or justified.] Cognitive dissonance rules the minds of most in the west.

 

Edited October 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 

You correctly point out that the Republican platform can be shallowly described as essentially a bunch of hypocrites, but so can the Democrats. 

True, but the democrats were always worthless populists with no convictions. Once upon a time the republicans weren't a populist party; which is why seeing them in the miserable state they've chosen for themselves is quite frustrating.

 

 

 

The idea that your average journalist is an intellectual is amusing. 

I guess it depends on what is meant by 'intellectual' really. When I think intellectual, I mean some one who is educated. Most journalists are fairly educated; so I feel it's fair to call them intellectuals. Doesn't mean they're intelligent or have critical thinking skills though.

 

 

EDIT: I better make this more relevant to ISIS. I'm also making it less insulting.

 

It's annoying me how some 'conservatives' are trying to tie people's fear of ISIS into issues that are totally unrelated. Although it's also a tad amusing to see people who actually would believe for even a second that ISIS is trying to sneak into the US through the border.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Namutree

[Hurlshort]

It's always weird when I hear people attack academics, as if having an education is some sort of terrible character flaw.

[Namutree]

It's always weird when I hear people attack academics, as if having an education is some sort of terrible character flaw.

It's because some of our higher learning institutions aren't about expanding people's minds, but indoctrinating them.

[HoonDing]

I see shooting without aiming is in fashion again, if anyone gets killed in those middle eastern battles its by accident. Its not surprising that they always run out of ammo so quickly. 

What's interesting is that majority of ISIS ground troops are on narcotics. Maybe that's how they try to cope with going up against female fighters, but it hardly makes them effective.

 

Not to mention that a lot of them are angsty western immigrant teenagers used as cannon fodder.

Edited October 10, 2014 by HoonDing

[Malcador]

It's always weird when I hear people attack academics, as if having an education is some sort of terrible character flaw.

It is if you took a social science.

 

But more seriously, it is silly to do - if they are implying the people are behaving in some groupthink sort of way, better to frame it as such

[Valsuelm]

It's always weird when I hear people attack academics, as if having an education is some sort of terrible character flaw.

 

You make the mistake of assuming academics are educated, and that someone who is educated is an academic. They are two different things, except to those who have bought the idea that you need academics to become educated. A trillion dollar industry has been built upon that belief, and it is a false belief.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

The idea that your average journalist is an intellectual is amusing. 

I guess it depends on what is meant by 'intellectual' really. When I think intellectual, I mean some one who is educated. Most journalists are fairly educated; so I feel it's fair to call them intellectuals. Doesn't mean they're intelligent or have critical thinking skills though.

 

 

You use the term 'educated' much more loosely than I do, as well as the term 'intellectual'. One of course can in modern times refer to anyone engaged in what's perceived to be a profession that uses one's brain more than one's hands as an 'intellectual'. Nevermind if that person is actually a critically thinking individual or even competent at their job. With this definition you could call an extremely incompetent teacher only half well versed in spreading the brainwash they've been given an 'intellectual', or the most incompetent lawyer you can find an 'intellectual', or everyone in congress an 'intellectual', and so on. The better and more historical definition of the word refers to someone who actually engages in critical thinking, original thought, real logic, reason, etc.

 

I certainly would not call most journalists educated other than the sense that many of them actually went to school, like most of the rest of us. Just going to school doesn't mean you're educated in my book, or in the traditional/historical sense of the word.

 

Have you read many newspapers, magazines, or watched many journalist talking media lately? It's common to find journalistic media that is ridden with grammatical and factual errors, and it seems things are worse than they've ever been with the internet, and the fact that 'Broadcast Journalism'/'Communications' is a very popular major at colleges throughout the U.S., despite the fact that most of those even at the most prestigious universities for said major never actually get hired to work the field they studied. Why is it popular? Well, one reason certainly is that it's a damn easy major relative to many others out there, much like another very popular major: Psychology.

[Woldan]

What's interesting is that majority of ISIS ground troops are on narcotics. Maybe that's how they try to cope with going up against female fighters, but it hardly makes them effective.

 

Not to mention that a lot of them are angsty western immigrant teenagers used as cannon fodder.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up?

Would explain a lot though.

[Zoraptor]

Haven't heard that they are, but there is at least somewhat of a tradition of it- the Hashashim and Sudan's Whirling Dervishes were pretty famously off their trollies most of the time. And there are allegations that a lot of suicide bombers are doped up as well.

[Hurlshort]

 

What's interesting is that majority of ISIS ground troops are on narcotics. Maybe that's how they try to cope with going up against female fighters, but it hardly makes them effective.

 

Not to mention that a lot of them are angsty western immigrant teenagers used as cannon fodder.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up?

Would explain a lot though.

 

 

That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

What's interesting is that majority of ISIS ground troops are on narcotics. Maybe that's how they try to cope with going up against female fighters, but it hardly makes them effective.

 

Not to mention that a lot of them are angsty western immigrant teenagers used as cannon fodder.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up?

Would explain a lot though.

 

 

That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters.

 

 

The Taliban actually implemented policies that brought Afganistan's Opium output to lows not seen in decades if not centuries. Not long after the U.S./U.K. overthrew them and occupied the nation, Opium output reached record levels. Note that at the time (and possibly today too (I haven't looked it up)) the U.S. and U.K. were the #1 and #2 importers respectively of both 'legal' and 'illegal' opiates in the world.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

 

He said public officials should "be responsible in what we decide to share with the American public, so that the public is informed."

He meant "so that the public doesn't learn the truth". I'd believe Judicial Watch over the Feds any day, the Feds have been caught lying again and again, speaking of mainstream sources the Washington Post discovered another White House cover up just today. But I'll concede the facts about ISIS are in dispute at this point.

 

Hunter's source has already admitted that people who were apprehended only "might" have been ISIS. Nothing is in dispute. Hunter heard a rumor and decided to state it as fact; quite irresponsibly. The department of homeland security went ahead and let people know the rumor was BS; not that they should have even been needed to clarify since the idea that ISIS would sneak into the country through the Mexican border is stupid.

 

Johnson has made similar denials before, only to admit later that there was something to the reports. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeland-security-says-terrorists-havent-crossed-us-mexico-border/ Of course there's no way to know the full truth unless the government owns up to it, but I don't trust anything they say.

[Walsingham]

 

 

 

What's interesting is that majority of ISIS ground troops are on narcotics. Maybe that's how they try to cope with going up against female fighters, but it hardly makes them effective.

 

Not to mention that a lot of them are angsty western immigrant teenagers used as cannon fodder.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up?

Would explain a lot though.

 

 

That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters.

 

 

The Taliban actually implemented policies that brought Afganistan's Opium output to lows not seen in decades if not centuries. Not long after the U.S./U.K. overthrew them and occupied the nation, Opium output reached record levels. Note that at the time (and possibly today too (I haven't looked it up)) the U.S. and U.K. were the #1 and #2 importers respectively of both 'legal' and 'illegal' opiates in the world.

 

 

You do realise the Talibs deal in opium base and heroin?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

What's interesting is that majority of ISIS ground troops are on narcotics. Maybe that's how they try to cope with going up against female fighters, but it hardly makes them effective.

 

Not to mention that a lot of them are angsty western immigrant teenagers used as cannon fodder.

Hm, thats news to me, what makes you think that they're drugged up?

Would explain a lot though.

 

 

That was certainly the case with many of the Taliban fighters.

 

 

The Taliban actually implemented policies that brought Afganistan's Opium output to lows not seen in decades if not centuries. Not long after the U.S./U.K. overthrew them and occupied the nation, Opium output reached record levels. Note that at the time (and possibly today too (I haven't looked it up)) the U.S. and U.K. were the #1 and #2 importers respectively of both 'legal' and 'illegal' opiates in the world.

 

 

You do realise the Talibs deal in opium base and heroin?

 

 

They initially banned it when they ruled Afghanistan but after the USA invaded they now turn a blind eye to it because it helps to fund there military campaign against the USA and it allies

 

I guess military expediency trumps religious doctrine when convenient

[Valsuelm]

They initially banned it when they ruled Afghanistan but after the USA invaded they now turn a blind eye to it because it helps to fund there military campaign against the USA and it allies

 

I guess military expediency trumps religious doctrine when convenient

 

 

Convenient?

 

When people are shooting at you, you tend to do what is necessary, all other things be damned.

 

That said, most information coming out of Afghanistan these days is dodgy.

[Woldan]

When people are shooting at you, you tend to do what is necessary, all other things be damned.

Except aiming and hitting your enemy it seems.

[nipsen]

Haven't heard that they are, but there is at least somewhat of a tradition of it- the Hashashim and Sudan's Whirling Dervishes were pretty famously off their trollies most of the time. And there are allegations that a lot of suicide bombers are doped up as well.

..mm. Did you know US marines, and other ground forces as well, still have "user doses" of morphine/opioids/ketamine in the rations? The doses are not large enough to be effective for treating severe pain after wounds, etc. They're not "battle-enhancers" either. But commonly used to steady the pace a bit. Works great, apparently. Takes the edge off for a while, doesn't impair you significantly, you follow through orders with the focus of a fairly intelligent and agile zombie.

 

But yes, drugs and opium derivatives in particular have a long and multifaceted history in warfare. Also in current wars.

 

Btw, I got it now. It's not "war porn", this is "war snuff". heheh.

 

 

 

When people are shooting at you, you tend to do what is necessary, all other things be damned.

Except aiming and hitting your enemy it seems.

 

It was sort of an accident, and it wasn't in battle - but.. I've been shot at by multiple 7.62mm rounds. And I suddenly understood why you essentially never create a battle-plan, even in the most experienced unit, that relies on returning accurate fire when you're suppressed. It's simply not going to happen.

 

Ground battles are messy, and that's that. So all and any military forces train for and expect to hit the enemy in an ambush, or on the offensive, while moving. If that fails.. Well, you don't want there to be anything after the first hit. There's just no good plan that works then. Things get messy. The best you train for in a withdrawal is continuous fire, not accurate fire. ..In a well-defended position, you make sure you can hit first while the enemy has to move, and so on. But even then it's a bad place to be if the bullets start flying, or the enemy doesn't take the hint when they see the nests and keep away. They know where you are, and even a busted ak will hit reasonably close up towards 3-400 meters.

 

But I guess saying that wouldn't make for a great recruitment speech.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

When people are shooting at you, you tend to do what is necessary, all other things be damned.

Except aiming and hitting your enemy it seems.

 

It was sort of an accident, and it wasn't in battle - but.. I've been shot at by multiple 7.62mm rounds. And I suddenly understood why you essentially never create a battle-plan, even in the most experienced unit, that relies on returning accurate fire when you're suppressed. It's simply not going to happen.

 

Ground battles are messy, and that's that. So all and any military forces train for and expect to hit the enemy in an ambush, or on the offensive, while moving. If that fails.. Well, you don't want there to be anything after the first hit. There's just no good plan that works then. Things get messy. The best you train for in a withdrawal is continuous fire, not accurate fire. ..In a well-defended position, you make sure you can hit first while the enemy has to move, and so on. But even then it's a bad place to be if the bullets start flying, or the enemy doesn't take the hint when they see the nests and keep away. They know where you are, and even a busted ak will hit reasonably close up towards 3-400 meters.

 

But I guess saying that wouldn't make for a great recruitment speech.

 

 

Very interesting post, did you do some sort of military training?