Kenya (catch all)

[JMA]

This might help clarify the role sadism plays in Islamist attacks: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dawn-pe...n-at-the-mall/ The author of the piece pursues scholarship in psychology, symbols, and ritual violence.

Is this a surprise to anyone? If so where have you been?

This sub-human behaviour is not purely carried out by Jihadists. Certainly across Africa mutilation and torture prior to killing the norm - time permitting.

I am rapidly getting to the point where I believe that western governments are deliberately keeping the general public uninformed on such matters in the misguided belief that it could cause a blacklash against so-called 'innocent' Muslims if the public knew.

[Bill Moore]

Is this a surprise to anyone? If so where have you been?

This sub-human behaviour is not purely carried out by Jihadists. Certainly across Africa mutilation and torture prior to killing the norm - time permitting.

I am rapidly getting to the point where I believe that western governments are deliberately keeping the general public uninformed on such matters in the misguided belief that it could cause a blacklash against so-called 'innocent' Muslims if the public knew.

I suspect there is some truth to your claim about Western governments keeping their constituents in the dark, but the media is free to report on this, so I think the reality is that Western media is extremely liberal and these acts don't fit their preferred narrative that these are some form of freedom fighters battling the oppressive West.

The U.S. government has considerable means to tell the unpleasant truth, but for reasons that are not clear they choose not to.

[jmm99]

In terms of US politicians, the 10 most prominent reasons for not being frank with the public on this issue are:

1. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
2. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
3. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
4. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
5. I have to say this (or not say that) to stay in office.
6. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
7. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
8. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
9. [Other Reason - Viewer's Option]
10. We have to protect American Muslims

More seriously, American politicians perceive that Americans have a zero risk tolerence for attacks here; Americans do not want to be reminded that there are man-eating human beings roaming this world; and that even minor attacks generate wide-spread panic states in Americans well beyond the actual effect of the attacks. The politicians may be accurate in their perception of the voters who elect and re-elect them.

My views on killing "bad guys" are well-known and set out in this thread, The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL, and elsewhere at SWC.

From the OP:

Comments on the practical military aspects of all this are welcome. Of course, if you think all of this Laws of War stuff is Bravo Sierra, you're welcome to say that.

The more I think about this event [killing OBL] - and the lesser cases of PIDs entering buildings "somewhere", I think of my dad saying not to send a patrol when you can send some 105s. My question is, if you have positive ID and know you will get the target by some kind of "fire mission", why not just eradicate the target if you want the target dead ?

To me, "bad guys" are still human. The savage traits (laid out in Dawn Perlmutter's Frontpage piece) have been well accepted in some otherwise very human societies of the 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th ... centuries. In short, we (human beings) have some very savage traits. They were survival effective (or at least not survival detrimental) in the "modern human" of 10,000 bce, or 250,000 bce, if you want to carry modern HSS that far back. So, it would be surprising if those savage traits did not appear in the 21st century among a "band of brothers" - a closed grouping in terms of ideology, whose most extreme features reinforce themselves into a very "we-they" psychology.

To paraphrase (as to the extreme ends of the "bands of brothers" spectrum): They were the best of men; they were the worst of men.

On to my views on some specific "gems" of mine - buried in much longer pieces - which I still believe.

On Beheadings

5-21-2009

Both the beheadings and hostage use (if evidenced - not always that easy) are war crimes. They are also typical of the AQ-Taliban way of war - they have their own LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). You can verify that via many sources on and off line. For a quick overview, see at SWJ, The Erosion of Noncombatant Immunity within Al Qaeda [2008].
...
The media and many Americans are simply incapable of seeing AQ-Taliban for what they are - as determined by what they do. Those folks should assemble a group of beheadings videos - usually done according to the law and process adopted by AQ-Taliban - and watch them while dwelling on what they are watching.

10-12-2010

How should one class the beheading videos (having watched a few) in terms of reciprocity and the reasons for them ? I expect that is very much in the eyes of the beholder. In my own eyes, comparing them to what the Gurk did (based on our limited facts) suggests that he was guilty of a breach of etiquette.

and 10-25-2010

First, the facts, as stated from article:

His unit had been told that they were seeking a ‘high value target,’ a Taliban commander, and that they must prove they had killed the right man. The Gurkhas had intended to remove the Taliban leader’s body from the battlefield for identification purposes. But they came under heavy fire as their tried to do so. Military sources said that in the heat of battle, the Gurkha took out his curved kukri knife and beheaded the dead insurgent. He is understood to have removed the man’s head from the area, leaving the rest of his body on the battlefield.

Second, looking at these first facts from a Laws of War standpoint, the more appropriate COA (removal of the entire body from the field) was foreclosed by enemy fires. The Gurk, utilizing judgment in terms of the military necessity to ID the HVT, took an alternative COA to achieve that goal and complete his mission. [JMM !!]

On Not Being Terrorized

3-28-2009

Terror is an Effect

Terror, like its cousin Shock & Awe (and other "EBOs"), is subjective, based on the psychological reaction of the targeted population (an effect) to the violent event (the means). As such, it is essentially useless in classifying the means or the actor, either for legal or military purposes. One must concede that consideration of terror is important to the targeted population because, if a substantial segment of that population is terrorized, it will lose its resolve to resist and will be inclined to submit to the will of the attacker. Thus, the best tool to fight "terrorism" (or any other "EBO") is a targeted population that refuses to be terrorized, shocked or awed by the violent means used by the attacker.

9-12-2011

As to mindset, a starting point (and the ultimate defense against terrorism as a tactic) would be the civilian population's refusal to be terrorized. Soldiers accept risks in the field; civilians should also accept risks in this kind of conflict (the risks not being anywhere close to existential with respect to the civilian population as a group).

The Sermonette

9-16-2009

This is my personal take, which I've had since 9/11.

1. We must expect attempts at violence in the US by AQ, either directly, via supported groups or by persons who are simply thinking in parallel with AQ.

2. So far, the violent incidents have been few (e.g., the DC snipers & the Arkansas shootings by "parallel thinkers"); and a number of plots have been foiled.

3. We cannot expect this successful record to continue without a serious incident happening. It will occur. Homeland security will not be perfect.

4. How people react will depend on the person. If you were terrorized by 9/11, you probably will be terrorized by the event which will surely happen. If you were intensely angered by 9/11 without feeling terrorized, the same emotion will probably flow from that event.

5. I (and every US citizen, for that matter - some will disagree with this), since 9/11, have sent hundreds of thousands of guys and gals into situations where they don't have our at home luxuries and are subject to far greater risks than we have at home. So, it is time for the homeland to grow up about risks of violence.

6. I don't suggest we adopt the mentality of a herd of prey stalked by predators. But, I do suggest that, besides the logical COA to arrest or kill when we can, we realize that AQ (as it presently stands) is not an existential threat to the US. It is simply a threat.

End sermonette.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

More seriously, American politicians perceive that Americans have a zero risk tolerence for attacks here; Americans do not want to be reminded that there are man-eating human beings roaming this world; and that even minor attacks generate wide-spread panic states in Americans well beyond the actual effect of the attacks. The politicians may be accurate in their perception of the voters who elect and re-elect them.

Mike:

This is accurate if you limit it to perceptions of politicians and to the sensibilities of superzips (Charles Murray's superzips), specifically the liberal establishment mass media elites (thank you Mike Rosen). I don't think it applies to the flyover people that make up the Americans.

Us flyover people pretty much know or strongly suspect there are beasts out there, having worked with them here, been robbed or beaten up by them here or chased them down and seen their work over there. The passengers in the back of the airplane so to speak, are combat vets, EMTs, rocket scientists, historians, DAs, cops, docs and many are parents. The Americans can take whatever is thrown at them, but they have to be leveled with.

The superzips on the other hand, live lives so insulated from the hard edge of existence they don't really believe it exists and don't want to be reminded of it. It is my opinion that it isn't the Americans that have a zero tolerance for attacks or casualties, we don't. We take whatever comes and go on. But the superzips can't, and because they can't they figure the rest of us can't and act accordingly. The politicians, many of the old line (from both parties) ones anyway are an integral part of superzipistan. The other zips are their peers and their true constituents. They play to them and so we get what we get.

I don't and haven't thought there is anything wrong with us, the Americans. There is something horribly wrong with our leadership class and how we select them.

I like the sermonette and think that if you asked, most of us flyover people would agree. The zips won't though.

[jmm99]

Yup, we SuperUnZips (and, yes, remember I made you an honorary Yooper ) have a different take from most in the Beltway. So, note my artful phrasing :

The politicians may be accurate in their perception of the voters who elect and re-elect them.

We then have to ask: who elects these folks ? I would like to agree with you on this being fact:

This is accurate if you limit it to perceptions of politicians and to the sensibilities of superzips (Charles Murray's superzips), specifically the liberal establishment mass media elites (thank you Mike Rosen).

But, the fact remains that the SuperZips and Political Elites are not sufficient to swing national elections. They are necessary, but not sufficient to elect and re-elect the politicians of the Beltway.

While "flyover country" has a plethora of good people - and I live in something of a blessed nature preserve, the fact has been that many "flyover people" have elected and re-elected those schmucks that each of us (in his own way) have been decrying for decades.

While it may be comforting to believe that there is a "silent majority" out there - completely opposed to the SuperZips; that "silent majority" (if it does exist) is simply not showing itself in the election returns.

Regards

Mike

PS: The reasons for making Carl an honorary Yooper is that he used to fly into our weather-forsaken airports; and used to go out with a gal from IIRC Suomi College (now Finlandia University). The last took real courage.

[M-A Lagrange]

Target Of U.S. Raid In Somalia Called A Top Attack Planner

A Kenyan intelligence official of Somali origin says that the "high-value terrorist leader" whose residence was targeted in Saturday was the senior al-Shabab leader Abdikadir Mohamed Abdikadir, alias Ikrima.

Ikrima is a Kenyan of Somali descent who boasts connections to both al-Shabab in Somalia and to a Kenyan jihadist group called al-Hijra. Kenyan authorities announced on Friday that two of the four terrorists killed in the were al-Hijra militants.

[...]
A leaked Kenyan intelligence report confirms that Ikrima was plotting "multiple attacks" inside Kenya, "sanctioned by al-Qaida" in Pakistan, and "involving financial and logistical support from South African operatives." The report continues:

"By December 2011, the planners had acquired safe houses in Nairobi & Mombasa, trained the executors, received explosives from Somalia and commenced assembly of and concealment of explosives."

According to the report, Ikrima's small "terror cell" included two British nationals: an explosives expert named Jermaine John Grant and the infamous White Widow, Samantha Lewthwaite. (Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta had confirmed that a "British woman" may have been among the fighters in Westgate Mall.)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...aid-in-somalia

Main target seems accurate. For the rest, usual caution with intelligence leaks are to be observed.

[carl]

Yup, we SuperUnZips (and, yes, remember I made you an honorary Yooper ) have a different take from most in the Beltway. So, note my artful phrasing :

Mike:

I did note your artful phrasing but plunged on regardless. The temptation to mount my soapbox was irresistible.

But, the fact remains that the SuperZips and Political Elites are not sufficient to swing national elections. They are necessary, but not sufficient to elect and re-elect the politicians of the Beltway.

While "flyover country" has a plethora of good people - and I live in something of a blessed nature preserve, the fact has been that many "flyover people" have elected and re-elected those schmucks that each of us (in his own way) have been decrying for decades.

While it may be comforting to believe that there is a "silent majority" out there - completely opposed to the SuperZips; that "silent majority" (if it does exist) is simply not showing itself in the election returns.

Regards

Mike

All true. There may not be a wise silent majority anymore. An unspoken tactic of the zips is to make an alliance with the takers of the country in order increase and retain their power. That is most often seen in big cities. But there may be more hope than we think. I believe there are still a number of people who could be takers who refuse to because of personal values, Cinderella men and women. And it takes time for people to take action after they have woken up. There is quite a transition going on in the GOP right now that may be a manifestation of that. The states are always the places where the real political action is in the US and a lot that is hopeful is happening in the states. We'll see I guess.

I have an honorary Yooper card that I got from another friend. I am very proud to have had that honor conferred upon me by two real Yoopers. (The card does say that I'm not allowed to move there though.)