ISIS

[Yorkshire pud]

No, what it does is inform the rest of the world that if you attack us, knock down our buildings, and kill thousands of our citizens, you will be annihilated.

And so will those who fired the first shot.

[PB the Deplorable]

Of course Muslims cross the Mexican border. So do Chinese, Polish, Swedish, and Russian people.

Your quote makes the case for better border control, which I'm all in favor of, but it misses the point of the discussion which was to question whether the cartel would support/back/fund ISIS in attacking the US from across the border. What your quote definitely doesn't do, in my opinion, is make the case for spending yet more trillions on the other side of the planet killing Islamic extremist animals, only to rinse and repeat every few years... building further hostility across generations as we go.

On the cartel thing... there's no way the cartel helps ISIS. It's a ludicrous notion. It entirely impairs the cartel's mission of making money through the free flow of drugs. A quick buck from some ISIS goons is never going to offer the steady prosperity the drug trade has given the cartel. As I said a week ago, with the first terrorist attack confirmed to have crossed the Mexican border, the border will be locked up so tightly you won't be able to throw a ball across it. This circumstance would not be favorable to the drug trade. Obviously.

First, if ISIS wanted to plant cells in the US and do so by bringing them in across our southern border, they wouldn't necessarily need help from the cartels to do it.  If they used the coyotes, they wouldn't have to tell them who they really are and why they want to go tot he US.

But let's say ISIS decided to work with the cartels.  The cartels would certainly be in favor of more Muslim terror in the US, which would continue to keep the spotlight away from them.  They would conceivably make pretty good money, as ISIS has plenty of it. 

Above all, the cartels don't respect us.  They're laughing at us.  They aren't going to turn down good money and a chance to expand their operations by partnering with ISIS due to some fear of what our country will do on the border.

[b_dubb]

Mercenaries have their place .... on the grassy knoll?

[Zoo]

You're so cute when you talk like that.

Well it is  nice to see you come over to the darkside MV. Remember, if we can keep doing nothing and let the powers to be do there thing. They will destroy everything for us. Merica!!1

[RealCool Daddio]

No, what it does is inform the rest of the world that if you look like, pray like, or live near the people who attacked us, knocked down our buildings, and killed thousands of our citizens, you will be annihilated.

Fify.

[FightTheFuture]

A November 2012 House Committee on Homeland Security report from the Oversight Sub-Committee stated:

U.S. Government officials who are directly responsible for our national security continue to affirm the vulnerability. In August 2007 former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell stated that not only have terrorists used the Southwest border to enter the United States but that they will inevitably continue to do so as long as it is an available possibility. In a July 2012 hearing before the full U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed that terrorists have crossed the Southwest border with the intent to harm the American people. Additionally, the U.S. Border Patrol regularly apprehends aliens from the 35 “special interest countries” designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.” From Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011, there were 1,918 apprehensions of these Special Interest Aliens at our Southwest border.



As I have stated, it is common knowledge that coyotes/cartels are transporting really bad people, intent on doing really bad stuff, across the border. Whether or not the true intentions and origins of the terrorists are known to the coyotes is up for debate. Frankly, I don`t think they care who they work with, as long as the money is right. They know what all of us know: the political will to secure the southern border does NOT exist, nor will it EVER. That means business is going to be plenty profitable for a very long time to come.

[WOTR]

I think this is it. Enjoy.


http://youtu.be/F2MgB5R60Mo

Thanks.  I will probably watch it tonight (but only if George sucks and is not worth listening to.) 

[VtaGeezer]

A November 2012 House Committee on Homeland Security report from the Oversight Sub-Committee stated:

U.S. Government officials who are directly responsible for our national security continue to affirm the vulnerability. In August 2007 former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell stated that not only have terrorists used the Southwest border to enter the United States but that they will inevitably continue to do so as long as it is an available possibility. In a July 2012 hearing before the full U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed that terrorists have crossed the Southwest border with the intent to harm the American people. Additionally, the U.S. Border Patrol regularly apprehends aliens from the 35 “special interest countries” designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.” From Fiscal Years 2006 to 2011, there were 1,918 apprehensions of these Special Interest Aliens at our Southwest border.



As I have stated, it is common knowledge that coyotes/cartels are transporting really bad people, intent on doing really bad stuff, across the border. Whether or not the true intentions and origins of the terrorists are known to the coyotes is up for debate. Frankly, I don`t think they care who they work with, as long as the money is right. They know what all of us know: the political will to secure the southern border does NOT exist, nor will it EVER. That means business is going to be plenty profitable for a very long time to come.

A couple points:

First, politicians use "terrorist" way too broadly to describe threats ranging from AQ or ISIL to Mexican cartels to wife beaters to opposing political positions. We get generalizations and innuendo about "terrorist" border intrusions from Mexico but never a specific example of a verifiable intercept of anyone with Islamist terror connections sneaking in.  If they exist, why are they never cited?  All the Islamist terrorist incidents in the US were by people here legally.

Second, the right's obsession with Mexican border security is basically an ongoing partisan gotcha that ignores the reality of a 2000 mile border with constant heavy flow of people and goods.  Almost limitless military and security resources couldn't secure the borders in Iraq or in Afghanistan even where deadly force is nominally considered appropriate.  Regardless what may be done, ways will be found to get past it.  And when the conservatives controlled the govt (2001-2007), the US experienced its heaviest ever illegal immigration, not to mention being at the height of AQ fears, but it was a low GOP prioority.

[Yorkshire pud]

Thanks.  I will probably watch it tonight (but only if George sucks and is not worth listening to.) 

About 15 minutes in: Definition Bravery; see that man. Astonishing.

[albrecht]

About 15 minutes in: Definition Bravery; see that man. Astonishing.

Awesome. Give them their proper friggin' pensions already!! They are the "good ones." I think, technically/legally, they aren't  "mercenaries" (as defined under international law) since they pledge allegiance to the Crown and due to the Tripartite Agreement, even though not UK or "common wealth" subjects.

[Yorkshire pud]

Awesome. Give them their proper friggin' pensions already!! They are the "good ones." I think, technically/legally, they aren't  "mercenaries" (as defined under international law) since they pledge allegiance to the Crown and due to the Tripartite Agreement, even though not UK or "common wealth" subjects.

I agree. Was a hell of a stink a few years ago about that. The fragrant Joanna Lumley got involved with the cause, her father I believe was an officer in the Gurkhas.

[FightTheFuture]

A couple points:

First, politicians use "terrorist" way too broadly to describe threats ranging from AQ or ISIL to Mexican cartels to wife beaters to opposing political positions. We get generalizations and innuendo about "terrorist" border intrusions from Mexico but never a specific example of a verifiable intercept of anyone with Islamist terror connections sneaking in.  If they exist, why are they never cited?  All the Islamist terrorist incidents in the US were by people here legally.

Second, the right's obsession with Mexican border security is basically an ongoing partisan gotcha that ignores the reality of a 2000 mile border with constant heavy flow of people and goods.  Almost limitless military and security resources couldn't secure the borders in Iraq or in Afghanistan even where deadly force is nominally considered appropriate.  Regardless what may be done, ways will be found to get past it.  And when the conservatives controlled the govt (2001-2007), the US experienced its heaviest ever illegal immigration, not to mention being at the height of AQ fears, but it was a low GOP prioority.

I agree with your first point. Although, in this instance, Big Sis had no motivation to lie. If anything, she was highly motivated to tell the truth. Not only was she under oath, some members on the committee had already seen intelligence reports that she was referencing. Besides, any body can take a look at the statistical breakdown of people apprehended  crossing the border. And those are just the ones that were caught. Many many times that actually elude capture. My point is, at some juncture we must wonder why all these Middle Eastern people are crossing the border illegally. It's not exactly a leap of faith to assert that they have ill intentions. At least some of them. And it only takes one or two, here and there, before you have a sizable cell just waiting to be activated.


with respect to your second point, I don't have much of a problem with it. The fact is, both political parties lack the will to do anything about the border. the Republicans want an open border for cheap labor, the Democrats want the border open for future voters. Could we secure the border (not to include the normal flow of commerce, of course) if we had the desire to do so? Of course. It would actually be fairly easy. You need only consult with leadership in the border states to find that out. Unfortunately, we have a Department of Justice that would rather sue the border states for trying to do what the federal government is obligated to do ,but is negligent in doing.

[MV/Liberace!]

Fact is, they don't wear a uniform saying that they are ISIL.

which makes yet another foreign military adventure seem all the more ridiculous.  these people (ISIS) will easily blend into the local population, and in many cases are going to be supported by the very same local populations we are supposedly protecting from ISIS.  let the arab world clean up its own back yard.

[VtaGeezer]

My point is, at some juncture we must wonder why all these Middle Eastern people are crossing the border illegally. It's not exactly a leap of faith to assert that they have ill intentions. At least some of them. And it only takes one or two, here and there, before you have a sizable cell just waiting to be activated.

I don't buy it.  I live in AZ, with a hard core right wing govt.  If Joe Arpaio or any of the dozen rightwing AZ sheriffs could produce illegal middle easterners they claim are so common, they'd put them in a parade.  Again, where are these potential Muslim terrorists that are leaving a trail of prayer rugs and "Muslim" leading to the border? 

[MV/Liberace!]

And when the conservatives controlled the govt (2001-2007), the US experienced its heaviest ever illegal immigration, not to mention being at the height of AQ fears, but it was a low GOP prioority.

it's true that the bush administration totally blew it on border security, as did the republicans in the senate and the house, but let's be clear:  republicans controlled the government at that time, not conservatives.

[paladin1991]

I saw that BBC series while on TDY to the UK a few years ago.  Truly an eye-opener for a guy who grew up in the Vietnam-era in the US.  Few know there are several Gurka regiments in the Indian Army as well as in the UK, I remember reading most of them are on the border with China.

[/b]
Maybe that's why there is a border with China.   

[Yorkshire pud]

[/b]
Maybe that's why there is a border with China.   

Yeah that border between China and India is Nepal. The Himalyas. A country that is basically a mountain ridge.

[paladin1991]

We will have to disagree - I do not believe we HAVE unleashed massive, overwhelming force. Ask any combat vet about "rules of engagement"... rules, designed by quivering lambs that cry when it gets too hot in their office or their coffee is too strong, that the people putting THEIR LIVES on the line must abide by.

We have NOT let the military do the job it was trained to do. We've used them as political pawns for election campaigns.

When the first round cracks or whines by your head or through your position, the rules are out the window.  You kill every threat that appears as quickly, brutally and efficiently as possible.  When the shooting stopped.  I was surprised that it was over.  That I wasn't hit and that my bros were 'all good.'  Then came the dry heaves fm adrenaline overload.  Some guys giggle like little girls, a few may cry, others all stoic.... I go cotton mouth and dry heaving. I'm no tough guy, I'm just some guy who was very good at his job.
Rules?  You win, somebody dies.  Rules?  I send my ppl home alive.  Rules?  They are on paper or you even say the words.  Rules?  don't make me fucking laugh.

[Uncle Duke]

The principal problem any troops will have (I'll get to Gurkhas and FFL) is the same in any conflict that has the opposition melting into the population. Knowing who they are, and being sure you know who they are. These thugs have a command and control structure, a great many are the displaced ex Iraqi military commanders who benefitted from Western training in SH era. We're very very good at that; training the soldiers and pilots of other countries. They deliberately turn to US and UK governments to pay for their training teams to fly over and spend a few years turning shambolic, undisciplined but aggressive young men into very disciplined, motivated and highly trained aggressive fighting forces. Couple this with their home advantage and knowing their territory better than we ever can and they're not the walk over we might think they might be. We can't shame them; we can't make them see reason or feel compassion, it isn't something they recognise.

However, they goad us by murdering, raping, displacing and just generally go about being murderous bastards on their home turf, knowing full well that by and large, our troops are not (with the few exceptions) murderous, pillaging rapists.  We can't have any kind of negotiation with them, they're not interested, they basically couldn't care less what we say, do or think. For every one of theirs we kill, they'll get more to replace them, no sorrow, no regret, no pausing to contemplate their situation; they just get on with getting on.

This will be a long drawn out conflict, and has no end in sight, personally I think at best it will be contained, but only if there are soldiers on the ground. The likes of the FFL and Gurkhas is a noble gesture, but they don't have the numbers, they're in those special positions because they're the few of the very few who can meet the standards. Same goes for elite SF's, same goes for the Royal Marines, and indeed any quick, adaptable, better than the rest fighting force.  Estimates of the thugs is 30000 in number; it might be more. I appreciate that SF's by their definition fight above their weight, many fold in some cases, but fatigue sets in, and they can't sustain it for ever when the thugs can replenish easily; unless those prospective members are frightened to death to think about doing it, and that's where our PR comes in..psy ops. Convincing the wannabees that it really isn't worth it, and they won't reach paradise.

No pressure then?

Yeah, I wasn't talking about sending ONLY the FFL and Gurkas (who are mercs, which is why they even came up in the first place), rather was using them more as examples of the quality of troops  that if sent would rout IS.  But you bring up a few points I think are worth discussing:

1) Yes, in all probability the IS senior leadership, as well a good number of the rank-and-file thugs, are former Iraqi military.  The last several times we saw the Iraqi military they were more adept at running away and surrendering than fighting when faced with overwhelming military capability.  Six Day War, Yom Kippur War, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and most recently fighting the IS.  (Yes, they did better against Iran, but there they didn't face overwhelming superiority and actually started that conflict on the offensive.)  Former Iraqi military in IS have used atrocities and terror as a force multiplier in fighting disjointed Iraqi and militia forces, but they're not fighting first rate Western forces.  Not going to find many US Marines, Brit Paras, or FFL who are impressed with criminals who murder innocent people.  When confronted with professional forces, they will do what cowards do best, run.

2) Not too concerned about them "melting into the populace".  First, a fair number of them are foreigners who will stand-out.  Secondly, we're not talking about Vietnam, Malaysia, Rhodesia, or even post Iraqi Freedom Iraq where the local populace actually supported irregular forces.  Won't happen like that here, IS has made few friends as they've rolled across Iraq and Syria murdering, raping, and pillaging.  Finally, they've been fighting as a conventional force, I think they actually believe their own press clippings and would stand and fight initially.  Of course that could change after they get savaged in their first set-piece battle with professional forces, but for the reasons stated above, not too concerned they'd have much success as an insurgency.  No popular support means no supplies except what they can take.

3)  Conventional military wisdom dictates a 3-1 ratio of attackers to defenders, but I submit that's outdated doctrine from the days of opposing ground forces marching into battle.  We know there are force multipliers in modern warfare that were never dreamed of by the likes of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, things like air power, mobility, real time intel capabilities, unparalleled logistical support etc.  Besides you don't have to count all forces on both sides, just those at critical points of battle.  Considering the West, with its logistical/intel/mobility assets, can pretty much pick the time and place of battles and employ unchallenged airpower, overall numbers on the ground are not as big a concern. Quality v. quantity will tell.

[Yorkshire pud]

When the first round cracks or whines by your head or through your position, the rules are out the window.  You kill every threat that appears as quickly, brutally and efficiently as possible.  When the shooting stopped.  I was surprised that it was over.  That I wasn't hit and that my bros were 'all good.'  Then came the dry heaves fm adrenaline overload.  Some guys giggle like little girls, a few may cry, others all stoic.... I go cotton mouth and dry heaving. I'm no tough guy, I'm just some guy who was very good at his job.
Rules?  You win, somebody dies.  Rules?  I send my ppl home alive.  Rules?  They are on paper or you even say the words.  Rules?  don't make me fucking laugh.

Yeah but QK shot a coyote and didn't kill it. And he didn't march on the underwhelmingly numbered American Spring demo. He knows the score.

[paladin1991]

I maintain we deploy 15 to 20 thousand American ground troops with artillery, into Western Iraq to cut escape routes. Our special operators push, cajole and horse whip the Iraqis to fight their way North. The Kurdish forces, armed now with our equipment and resources, move from the North. That all presupposes the fact that we will be greatly increasing our bombing sorties throughout Syria which will effectively chase  ISIL into the anvil, where they will be absolutely crushed. This plan makes the greatest use of our military, with the least amount of casualties

Here's my take.  Arm up the Kurds and the Iraqi's (yes, again) and tell them we and the coalition will supply all the air they can possibly handle.  Kurds drive South.  Iraqis, drive North.  Both sides...you keep what you take.  What's that Iraq?  Why should the Kurds have Iraqi territory?  It's not yours anymore, is it?  IS seems to hold the deed currently.   

[b_dubb]

when the fuck will we learn?  why don't we create our own ISIS/ISIL group and just have a good ol' fashioned proxy war?  you say that's effectively what the iraqi army is?  well played.

[Uncle Duke]

when the fuck will we learn?  why don't we create our own ISIS/ISIL group and just have a good ol' fashioned proxy war?  you say that's effectively what the iraqi army is?  well played.

*laughs*  That's what Bill O'Reilly suggested. 

[VtaGeezer]

I just saw it reported that ISIL took another Iraqi Army base just 50 miles from Baghdad today, and collected another inventory of US weapons and armor.  The Iraqis bugged out again. 

[paladin1991]

I just saw it reported that ISIL took another Iraqi Army base just 50 miles from Baghdad today, and collected another inventory of US weapons and armor.  The Iraqis bugged out again.

Chickenhearted assholes.  In the end, where will they run to?  Kuwait?  Saudi?  Good luck on that.  Stand and fight.  To the death.  It's the only way.  I'd rather have my children remember me standing on a sand dune with a bloody k-bar in one hand and an IS sack of nuts in the other screaming my defiance as the rest of the IS horde charges me....instead of as 'my dad the coward who fled to Kuwait and left mom and us here to be gangbanged to death.'

[Uncle Duke]

Chickenhearted assholes.  In the end, where will they run to?  Kuwait?  Saudi?  Good luck on that.  Stand and fight.  To the death.  It's the only way.  I'd rather have my children remember me standing on a sand dune with a bloody k-bar in one hand and an IS sack of nuts in the other screaming my defiance  as the rest of the IS horde charges me....instead of as 'my dad the coward who fled to Kuwait and left mom and us here to be gangbanged to death.'

Dude, I think you just defined your next avatar.

[PB the Deplorable]

Here's my take.  Arm up the Kurds and the Iraqi's (yes, again) and tell them we and the coalition will supply all the air they can possibly handle.  Kurds drive South.  Iraqis, drive North.  Both sides...you keep what you take.  What's that Iraq?  Why should the Kurds have Iraqi territory?  It's not yours anymore, is it?  IS seems to hold the deed currently.

The Kurds are the only group in the area that are both on our side, and have a real army.

Obola won't arm them because he's afraid of angering Turkey.  Of course Turkey isn't worried about angering Obama by providing support for ISIS

[Quick Karl]

Obola...

[albrecht]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about sending ONLY the FFL and Gurkas (who are mercs)

Technically, according to International Law, the Gurkhas are not "mercs" per the Tripartiade Agreement. They swear allegiance to the Crown so although they are not "common wealth" members they (Nepalese, Indian) can serve properly and obey same regulations etc as regular British troops. FFL is under a French Flag and likewise to the Gurkhas according to various Geneva Conventions, not mercenaries. I can't resist because I don't like throwing those august organizations under the same bus with any random "gun for hire." (Having said that- one could quibble on the foreign policy and war decisions of the UK or the French in history.)

[VtaGeezer]

Chickenhearted assholes.  In the end, where will they run to?  Kuwait?  Saudi?

Probably ran back to Baghdad and kept heading S.  I also read an interview with an Iraqi soldier who, when asked if he felt obliged to fight ISIL, said that he was not...it was just a job.  What's astonishing is that I'm now looking at another story about ISIS fighters being in a firefight just two miles from Baghdad city limits.