Monthly Archives: March 2010

CJCSI 6504.01

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 6504.01, Information Assurance and Computer Network Operations, dated 1 APR 10,  is out.  Irregulars who want to impress Regulars by larding their conversation with the latest buzz words should memorize these: 



War using cyberspace operations to achieve sensational yet bloodless results for friendly forces while seeking to inflict massive inconvenience on the adversary in a manner that offers the most photogenic and telegenic depiction for domestic and international public audiences. 


Uniformed and non-uniformed personnel of the Department of Defense, civilian resources, and other government agencies (OGA) conducting fullspectrum cyberwarfare operations. 


Make sure you get to p. 11. 

H/T:  InfowarMonitor

Comments Off on CJCSI 6504.01

Filed under CNA, CND, IA, PSYOP

I Must Have Been Getting The Better of THAT Argument

Delete my comments, Chirol, and I’ll just post them on my own blog.

The discussion was about  local or state approved volunteer self-organized militias for border control

  • Is not maintenance of the territorial integrity of the Republic an inherently governmental function?

    The Federal Gov’t secures the border too well for lefties who want to grant amnesty to millions of illegals and register them to vote for Obama in 2012, while other Americans want their favorite Westphalian nation-state defended from invasion, and its sovereignty respected.

    Border states could, if the failures of FedGov drove them to it, deploy State Defense Forces, State Guards, and Sheriff’s Posses to augment the Border Patrol, perhaps even Relieve In Place in some sectors. Such measures would be resisted by those who do not want the border secured, and the State and County volunteers derided as Dumbass amateurs


  • Cochise County Militia ready to patrol


  • FemBots Roam The Desert

    Israel controls its borders. They are willing to use deadly force against invaders and unwelcome border crossers at unauthorized border crossing points. An illegal border crosser of the United States border is guilty only of a misdemeanor.

    Virtual Border Watch


  • Israel is also a tiny country with borders far easier to control. Moreover, there is no excuse for deadly force against peaceful immigrants who simply want a better life for themselves. That does not mean we should let them in. But deadly force is only justified for self defense and the only cases in which this would be legitimate on the border is against criminals and smugglers.


    • Peaceful immigrants who simply want a better life for themselves, or invaders?

      To be sympathized with and aided, or to be defended against?

      Illegal border crossing at unauthorized border crossing points is a crime, albeit only a misdemeanor at present, so whoever commits such acts are petty criminals and smugglers, smuggling themselves.

      Israel is a small country, but their borders are no easier to control than ours. They are just much more serious about it than we are.


  • Immigrants motivated by economics and quality of life are not invaders. If you think so then you need to go and study an English dictionary.

    And if you believe shooting unarmed people is justified then you have no business either carrying a weapon or defending the border.

    Moreover, it’s just absurd to think that Israel’s borders are no easier to secure than ours. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. To even suggest it is as difficult to patrol that versus the thousands of miles of US border shows a complete lack of common sense and logic.

  • I responded, but Chirol deleted my response.  I went to ComingAnarchy and posted this:


    Main Entry: in·vade
    Pronunciation: \in-ˈvād\
    Function: transitive verb
    Inflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing
    Etymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go — more at wade
    Date: 15th century

    1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
    2 : to encroach upon : infringe
    3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : permeate <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>

    synonyms see trespass


    in·vad·er noun

    He deleted that, too.

    I’m reconstructing the comments deleted  from Rethinking the United States from memory.  The first deleted comment included the above definition of invader and continued thusly:

    Should we really care what their motivations for entering the country illegally are?  Does it matter that the first act these potential new Americans did was to violate our laws?

    Try walking in to Area 51 sometime and see if they don’t shoot you because you were unarmed.

    Is the United States of America worth defending?

    If it is, unpleasant things will occassionally happen to vulnerable people who tug at our heartstrings.  Shooting a beautiful Latina with a cherubic babe in her arms and another one in the oven is hard to do, but rules are rules, right?

    I think that’s the part that got him.

    Am I seriously advocating the cold-blooded murder of innocent Mexicans who merely want a better life? Chirol seems to think I am.

    Is he seriously advocating forming militias to control the land frontiers of the United States? I thought so yesterday, when I took him seriously.

    The other comment he deleted was a simple link to The Battle For America. Notice the map at that link. Where the red touches the border is where subnational paramilitary border protection elements might have a chance.


    Filed under BorderOps, IW