Non-kinetic Casualties of Atrocity Hoax

That would be all the Marines rendered hors d’ combat over Haditha

A ‘Defining Atrocity’? Yes, Against Our Marines. 

Great coment to the above by Standshisground at 7:59 AM.

McGirk and Murtha need to suffer.



Filed under PSYOP

20 responses to “Non-kinetic Casualties of Atrocity Hoax

  1. …and suffer long. And then the enemedia buries the story that there are no murder charges being filed against those INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY Marines, thereby verifying that they ARE the enemy. If they were on OUR team, they’d be shouting this from the rooftops. I swear I detest the media elite. They deserve death coming to their industry.

  2. The news biz won’t die. People still want news. But “journalists” are going to go back to being “reporters” as their “profession” goes back to being a “craft” and the surviving media organizations finally learn that profitability does not lie in pumping out propaganda for the enemy and the DNC.

  3. ymarsakar

    Check out that comment thread for an example of why people sucker themselves into believing the propaganda. They think that they are immune because they have this magical ability to make accounts of events “more accurate” so long as there is more than one iteration of those accounts around.

    Mitsu, in this case, does not accept that he is vulnerable to propaganda, as everyone is. He thinks he has an ability to “see through” and “be skeptical”. As if skepticism was a shield against manipulation.

  4. ymarsakar

    I was never a believer in the idea that if I am attacked, that I am supposed to stand there and take it.

    Going beserk for the additional determination, strength, endurance, and pain tolerance takes awhile, yes, but certainly some kind of counter-attack should be launched immediately.

    When you are attacked, you strike back. You don’t “defend yourself” unless “self-defense” is a euphemism for making the other guy dead. Otherwise you get all this stuff you see on videos about people getting their head caved in in Europe by “youths”.

    The Marines got attacked. Unfortunately, lawfare attempts to dictate the passive respones to both attacks by the domestic insurgency, Murtha, and the foreign insurgency in Iraq.

    These are the restrictions that have shackled civilizations as well as men throughout the ages. Belisarius had Justinian. Hannibal had Hanno. Men and women with their lives in danger have bureacracy and anti-gun laws.

    The attempts to enslave mankind is always around in one way or another. They take many forms and incarnations.

    There are strict shackles and seals put on the power of America, and thus the armed forces of America. The world complains about the dreadful American recklessness. They haven’t seen jack.

    Until these seals are released from let’s say the SEALs, as a consequence of what happened in Afghanistan, people like Murtha will continue to live, exist, and hinder our efforts. The predator kills the civilized and productive member of society because the latter has limited itself in terms of the use of violence. Criminals do not fear a shackled individual that is more worried about the law than the criminal.

    However, there are prey that are herbivores and then there are hunters that are herbivores as well. The cape buffalo is a good example and so is Flight 93. Murtha is the hunter because he knows he will be protected from attack due to the restraints of his prey. But such things will not always be true.

    There’s only so much people will tolerate before they do a Flight 93. Most people are sheep and have no true desire to kill or hurt another fellow human being unless they are angry. That is the conditioning, shackle, and limitation people accept in return for living in a society. Anger and alcohol lowers the inhibitions and the seals. People like Murtha are the wolf in the flock. When this conditioning is removed, the wolf gets torn limb from limb. However, it is far better to be able to remove the chains voluntarily, without anger or alcohol or other such impediments. America has not suffered enough damage to be that angry or afraid. Nor has America learned how to remove the conditioning against the use of violence voluntarily.

    Individuals have done this, but not enough to change the face of America. It is ironic in a sense that the light speed communications and news networks provided Flight 93 with the information it needed to choose to pull out all the stops, when at the same time it also provided the tools for the hijackers to create a weapon an entire ocean away from their homes. In the end, things will be decided by who uses the tools of violence faster and better than the other. Murtha strikes first and thus we react and are injured. Only by being the one that does the injury, only by being the ones to attack, can we ever gain back the advantage.

    Lives are not saved by sitting in the back of the plane hoping that the government will save you.

    There is a real reason for the need for vengeance, after all. A real survival reason for the human species.

  5. Most people are sheep. Most people always have been sheep, but the rams of the flock used to have horns. It has gotten worse over the last 80 years or so as fewer and fewer Americans kill their own food. Years ago people were inclined to be peaceable until provoked to violence, but they lived in a more natural state and were not psychologically crippled about their own use of violence. They knew what happened when they slit a mammal’s throat or stove in a calf’s head with a maul, and most knew that the principle worked the same on humans and were mentally capable of it. They had a lot fewer lawyers back then, too.

    ymar, if you are punched in the nose, your disproportionate response that drives your opponent’s nose into his brain and kills him will cost you more than your bloody nose was worth.

  6. ymarsakar

    It’s easier to use compressed air from your palms to rupture his eardrum than to try to shatter his nose and hope the non-carthilage portion creates a hematoma or other injury to the brain.

    Those that have to deal with both the civil government bureacrats out for blood as well as the criminals out for blood have always had to walk the fine line between civilization and horse archer steppe attitudes of Ghenghis Khan, Attila, and those folks.

    So long as your attackers have “more deadly” weapons than you, it won’t be much of a legal problem what you do to them. Which sort of brings us into an ironic realm in which people should carry knives and concealed permits for guns in order to hunt down and decimate criminals, but go unarmed when they seek to bypass prosecutors out for bureacratic favors and status.

    It’s a good thing to be outnumbered by gangs and such outfits. Then you only have to worry about your immediate enemies, instead of the political long term consequences. Currently the US has far more firepower available than our enemies, the criminals and enemies of humanity. Thus there is a natural inclination to look towards the powerful, which is us, as being the source of the problem. The RUssians called this the underdog fixion. The idea that anyone is virtuous simply because they lack power or weapons or technology.

    That’s not really true of course, which is why the Soviets made such great use of the useful idiots in the West.

    The most powerful weapon is still the human brain, something a US Marine would have remembered hearing in one form or another.

    Social violence such as bar-room brawls should be answered with social violence, violence that is not intended to hurt others so much as push them away from your objective or territory. Asocial or anti-social violence, or wars to the knife, should be met with the intent to maim, cripple, kill, and obliterate.

    Without such intent, we get Bush’s conservative compassionate thing in this war of ours. And many will die that didn’t need so. And few if any of those, Canno, will be the bureacrats and lawfare specialists that deserve to die.

  7. suek

    >>And few if any of those, Canno, will be the bureacrats and lawfare specialists that deserve to die.>>

    I see this as at the heart of our dilemna. We want an orderly society. Bureaucrats and lawfare specialists are the mechanics of the orderly society – and are also the ones using the laws that govern us against us. How do we counter that? If the answer is civil war, then what about our military and police who are the first line of defense used by exactly those Bureaucrats and lawfare specialists and who answer to them? They will be the ones caught in-between if the sheep revolt.

    Fighting a bureaucracy is like being a dinosaur in the La Brea tar pits….

  8. suek

    Speaking of bureaucrats…

    Sorry – didn’t find a link to the original article.

  9. suek

    Here’s another one. True or not? I don’t know, but the potential is there.

  10. ymarsakar

    Those in power are protected by Blackwater and the Secret Service. Those that got shot and blown up by those released from Gitmo…. not so much. No power for them in the end, only death.

    This is why Belisarius had to worry not only about the barbarians he was fighting but the Emperor he was supposedly serving. A general that gets too good, may simply be eliminated by a paranoid emperor. Since the government no longer has to worry about the military, much anyways, betraying the civilian authorities, the government now gets to the business of stomping on the individuals that they can reach.

    Which is why terrorists at GitMo get more media attention and government support than a US citizen. Not because the ACLU believes everyone should have rights, but because those with the power decide who gets the right. Right now, the power is with the Left, although not as much as during Clinton’s years where loyalty to the Left was defined as patriotism.

    Everything the Left accuses their enemies of, the Left did first. Murder, cruelty, torture, destruction of the US Constitution, authorization of waterboarding torture, etc. All the Left did first and they know it.

  11. ymarsakar

    The fundamental difference between America and other nations in the past and present is that we are supposed to rule ourselves. If we prove unworthy, kings, emperors, dictators, and religious fanatics will be happy to rule over us and decide our fates.

    That is why democracy has often failed due to internal weaknesses. It is very hard to get a group consensus, because the strength of a chain is only as much as its weakest link. With strongmen and soldier-protectors, you get a system of government that is based upon your strongest, ideally, rather than your weakest. Those have problems as well, but they are different problems than the ones democracies and republics have.

    We must maintain strength everywhere, not just in one individual or party. Dictatorships rely upon the dictator, which has a fatal flaw if you kill the dictator. Our republic is thus a synthesis of democracy and strongman rule, in the form of the US President. We draw in benefits from both systems. Yet the core of our strength is still at the baes of the pyramid, not at the top.

    That has always been true. The Persians before Christ recognized it as the Circle of Justice. That the power of a king ultimately rests upon the well being of the people.

    Our enemies claim that we have no right to humanity or charity because we are not always charitable. The obvious rejoinder is that our enemies have no right to legal protections because they are not always legal or just.

  12. Times will be mighty hard in America before law enforcement and the courts cease preserving the bureacrats and lawfare specialists that “deserve to die.”

  13. Conventional civil war won’t go too well, suek. The Federales have the preponderance of hard power. Mostly non-kinetic 4GW and a 5GW they don’t even know they’re in might work better.

  14. ymarsakar

    I tend to see all warfare as the same when stripped down to the fundamentals. Instead of creating generational varieties and extrapolations, which creates complexity from a single source, stripping war down to its fundamentals simplifies what would otherwise be a chaotic and confusing entity.

  15. ymar, I don’t know how many wars you’ve been in, but were any of them not chaotic and confusing?

  16. Ymarsakar

    Whether events are chaotic or confusing, does not mean that one should communicate to others using complex explanations or models.

    The fog of war and friction in warfare is not the same as whether a single individual sees events in warfare as chaotic or confusing.

    It is not a sufficient reason to say that wars involve numerous variables and unforseen events, therefore we should not train people in simplifying their OODA loops so that they can make decisive decisions and distill complex events into critical problems that must be solved now and bridges that can be crossed later.

    I’m not talking about whether wars are chaotic and confusing. I’m forwarding the statement that making warfare into a chaotic and confusing subject, via numerous generational classifications, is not a positive or productive development.

    Do you really believe, Canno, that making up another term for warfare creates any better understanding of it?

  17. There are all different kinds of wars. Humans are complex creatures, and the ways they find find to engage in conflict with each other are limited only by the imagination. Those who make a profession of the study of it delight in incomprehensible jargon and acronyms, the mastery of which indicates their place in the pecking order.

    You don’t like the XGW concept. OK. You don’t have to.

    Blitzkreig is another term for a type of warfare that creates a better understanding of it. Sometimes coming up with new terms does help.

  18. Ymarsakar

    Blitzkrieg is an old term and it has been used to commonly refer to historical events that are not changing all the time. It is also a war that has ended, unlike the current war which is still proceeding.

    In point of fact, blitzkrieg is nothing but a modern reminder of horse archer tactics from the steppes. Mobility vs static defense of the settled tribes and towns. Its merit is that many know about Germany’s bypassing or defeat of the French defense, whereas many do not know of the horse archer tactics of the steppes.

    I’m not sure how much of a help the word blitzkrieg was to the people living in 1945. The event, rather than a word to describe what people should already know, would have done the most to steer generals towards the acceptance that mobility is better than static defense. They could have called it anything, what mattered is the age old principle that a moving target has less tactical weaknesses than a target that isn’t going anywhere.

    So long as people learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others, what people decide to call tactics is not nearly as important.

    There are all different kinds of wars.

    How can there be different kinds of wars when they are all fought by human beings, who haven’t changed since many thousands of years? Do the fundamental rules concerning humanity change depending upon one war as opposed to another? Is what is true for one human being, drastically different if he is in one war as opposed to another? I say they don’t, that any refinement of war is simply an artificial attempt by human beings to change the fundamental nature of humanity or warfare. Only of temporary effectiveness even if it is possible to refine certain aspects of war into different “kinds” of war.

    Counter-insurgency and guerrilla warfare has been practiced by people going onto Alexander the Great’s time. And even further back. None of it is new. What is new are ideologies like Islam and multi-culturalism, combined with new technologies that allow for various different tricks and applications of the same principles that have powered warfare since humanity’s inception.

    Each human generation brings something new to the world, but they are not fundamentally different from the last generation. They are still human beings with human limitations. We should not forget that labels only tell the superficial story.

    You don’t like the XGW concept. OK. You don’t have to.

    Whether I like it or not is beside the point. My view is expressed in the statement that such generational concepts of warfare do not add anything particularly new to the understanding of warfare or the communication of warfare concepts to others, that other more simplified explanations could not do better.

    Humans are complex creatures, and the ways they find find to engage in conflict with each other are limited only by the imagination.

    Which is precisely why it is more effective to teach core principles that is always true in warfare, rather than attempting to keep up with the various permutations of the human creativity complex that will never stop.

    How is it an aide to comprehension if things keep changing and what someone learned before is no longer exactly applicable to the next new generation in the saga warfare?

    Once someone grasps the key core principles, then he is able to both predict and understand all the various potential permutations that might crop up.

  19. Ymarsakar

    Do you mean post a link?