Posted: 12/31/2015 2:08:32 AM EDT
|
So, most people probably don't remember, but I posted some stuff here before about Ukraine, realized vast majority of members get their "truth" from CNN, and bowed out. I don't have the time&writing to explain that conflict from the ground up (although you can ask specific questions if you actually want to understand things). However, recently I've come across a few pieces that focus more on current civil wars in general, and I think are very worth reading for anyone interested in surviving in extreme situations, civil unrest, and all that. Regardless of your foreign policy opinions, there's plenty of useful information in there. "Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Volunteer medic: ""Psychological stability is more important for surviving any sort of crisis than food and guns." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a5_1436824723 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. |
|
The same thing that can make someone who didn't live in the Roman Empire an expert on it. Studying. Scientific method.
Well, a lot of my old-time friends are natives of Crimea and Donbass, and still have families there. And studying post-Soviet civil wars has always been my hobby, so to speak. These days, it's easier than ever - you can literally skype people in the conflict area. In some ways, it's easier to study from the outside than inside. If you're interested in my thoughts on understanding complex issues - here they are: "Understanding the modern world: a brief guide" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f61_1447310301 EDIT: Didn't understand your comment about hotlinking? |
|
There is more to being an "expert" than reading, study, and internet research.
The Internet has endless "blogs" from self described experts. A person is not an expert because that person declares them self an expert... an expert is when other knowledgeable people recognize someone as an expert! |
|
@DasRonin
Not exactly correct. An expert is someone who can correctly state the facts and/or make correct predictions. Again, scientific method. For example, if you identify a distant animal as a deer, and state it's going to run, and an the other guy says its a rock, then the one of you who determined correctly is the bigger expert. Now, of course, nobody's perfect. I'm not the biggest specialist even among my friends, let alone among other experts. But every time CNN made an inane report about the combat situation in Ukraine, and I wrote my analysis, I turned out to be closer to the truth than they are. Same goes for the Ukrainian government, and I caught the Russians being plainly delusional many times as well. The point is, I may not be too good, but I'm better than most resources you'll see online. Then again, that's just my opinion, albeit backed up by some facts. |
|
From the liveleak page...
The biggest problem was psychological: people were not ready for stress. We had panic attacks, various mental problems, constant quarrels for all sorts of reasons … And the corporate mass media never actually talked about such a scenario being possible, they never tried to make people psychologically stable. On the contrary, they tried to make people infantile, consumerist, destroy their separate personality … I seriously advise people to find time and watch something, find a method of managing stress that works for them. Even if, God willing, we escape war - the death of loved ones, losing a job, various stresses are just as hard on people and people take them just as poorly as full-blown warfare. People don't think about it before it happens, and when it happens they are unable to deal with it and unable to handle themselves. So, everybody, especially those poor survivalists who are hoarding tons of canned food and guns - I recommend they spend a portion of the time they spend doing all that stuff and actually work on themselves and their psychological state. Trust me, psychological stability in a crisis situation is much more important than a whole roomful of canned goods. If you can't control yourself, you will die with the canned food, if you are stable, you will survive without it.” Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a5_1436824723#3lQcsBtG5JOvWQLb.99 Most people live under the illusion of stability. If things go well, that illusion is never shattered. But, if one "bad luck" event leads to a whole series of "bad luck" events, and the illusion of stability and normalcy blows up, they lose it. I don't know how the average person can prepare for that. Unless they've gone through some heavy duty personal SHTF situation. Lost their job, home, bankruptcy, leading to loss of social standing, and perhaps friends, coupled to a run in with the IRS, and legal entanglements with their liberty on the line, or experienced homelessness, poverty, or some long-term survival situation ....maybe. Most people just don't have a pre-test experience. |
|
Exactly. My intention wasn't to discuss my (limited) competence, or lack thereof.
How about instead we talk about the people who spent years in the midst of recent civil wars, and had unique insights to share? EDIT: I see someone published the quote by the medic already, and with better style. |
|
Quoted:
There is more to being an "expert" than reading, study, and internet research. The Internet has endless "blogs" from self described experts. A person is not an expert because that person declares them self an expert... and expert is when other knowledgeable people recognize someone as an expert! 
|
|
Quoted:
@DasRonin Not exactly correct. An expert is someone who can correctly state the facts and/or make correct predictions. Again, scientific method. For example, if you identify a distant animal as a deer, and state it's going to run, and an the other guy says its a rock, then the one of you who determined correctly is the bigger expert. 
Now, of course, nobody's perfect. I'm not the biggest specialist even among my friends, let alone among other experts. But every time CNN made an inane report about the combat situation in Ukraine, and I wrote my analysis, I turned out to be closer to the truth than they are. Same goes for the Ukrainian government, and I caught the Russians being plainly delusional many times as well. The point is, I may not be too good, but I'm better than most resources you'll see online. Then again, that's just my opinion, albeit backed up by some facts. I agree with you... not exactly tatzhit, the "not exactly" part! "Bigger expert" is the wrong term... the term you seek is most knowledgeable... far from an expert! I guess you never learned the term "recognized as an expert". I also doubt you have experience in for example the Federal Courts recognizing a person as an expert. Once again... experts ARE NOT SELF PROCLAIMED!!! Experts are recognized by their peers! |
|
Quoted:
There is more to being an "expert" than reading, study, and internet research. The Internet has endless "blogs" from self described experts. A person is not an expert because that person declares them self an expert... an expert is when other knowledgeable people recognize someone as an expert! LOL |
|
@DasRonin
You seem to speak of peer review process. It doesn't really exist outside of some narrow fields, and especially not for geopolitics. Being recognized as "expert" on Ukrainian conflict by US political scientists has about the same value as being recognized as an "expert" on race relations in USA by Ukrainians. In other words, not much. Facts are not determined by popular consensus. They just are. If you are a sniper and determine that a bullet will drop 3 feet when fired from a Mosin across a snowy field, it doesn't matter if some "expert" agrees. If you shoot and hit, then you are a good sniper. If you miss, bad. Whether a CNN talk show host or some random Soros scholar agrees is irrelevant. |
|
Quoted:
From the liveleak page... The biggest problem was psychological: people were not ready for stress. We had panic attacks, various mental problems, constant quarrels for all sorts of reasons … And the corporate mass media never actually talked about such a scenario being possible, they never tried to make people psychologically stable. On the contrary, they tried to make people infantile, consumerist, destroy their separate personality … I seriously advise people to find time and watch something, find a method of managing stress that works for them. Even if, God willing, we escape war - the death of loved ones, losing a job, various stresses are just as hard on people and people take them just as poorly as full-blown warfare. People don't think about it before it happens, and when it happens they are unable to deal with it and unable to handle themselves. So, everybody, especially those poor survivalists who are hoarding tons of canned food and guns - I recommend they spend a portion of the time they spend doing all that stuff and actually work on themselves and their psychological state. Trust me, psychological stability in a crisis situation is much more important than a whole roomful of canned goods. If you can't control yourself, you will die with the canned food, if you are stable, you will survive without it.” Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a5_1436824723#3lQcsBtG5JOvWQLb.99 Most people live under the illusion of stability. If things go well, that illusion is never shattered. But, if one "bad luck" event leads to a whole series of "bad luck" events, and the illusion of stability and normalcy blows up, they lose it. I don't know how the average person can prepare for that. Unless they've gone through some heavy duty personal SHTF situation. Lost their job, home, bankruptcy, leading to loss of social standing, and perhaps friends, coupled to a run in with the IRS, and legal entanglements with their liberty on the line, or experienced homelessness, poverty, or some long-term survival situation ....maybe. Most people just don't have a pre-test experience. I guess I'm lucky. My normal is SHTF. 
|
|
Quoted:
@DasRonin You seem to speak of peer review process. It doesn't really exist outside of some narrow fields, and especially not for geopolitics. Being recognized as "expert" on Ukrainian conflict by US political scientists has about the same value as being recognized as an "expert" on race relations in USA by Ukrainians. In other words, not much. Facts are not determined by popular consensus. They just are. If you are a sniper and determine that a bullet will drop 3 feet when fired from a Mosin across a snowy field, it doesn't matter if some "expert" agrees. If you shoot and hit, then you are a good sniper. If you miss, bad. Whether a CNN talk show host or some random Soros scholar agrees is irrelevant. OK skippy... you are an expert. If you recognize yourself as an expert... that is all that matters! I am not a person to commit a micro aggression! |
|
In an attempt to redirect the discussion away from "are experts determined by knowing facts, or vice-versa", let me publish a few more links to memoirs on civil wars.
Now, these are less "abstract" and less applicable to USA, but still cool stories. Ukrainian politician Tatiana Montyan: "All sides of the conflict suck" (this lady hates both Putin and the incompetents new Ukrainian government, so her viewpoint of the conflict is one of most balanced... even if she did try to ban Russian language schools in Kiev) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d03_1437695429 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=15f_1438999023 Murz about "Working Tanks" (a political activist who was jailed by Putin and later fought for Ukrainian rebels explains that the conflict is a lot less army-like than TV shows) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ec_1435084693 "Confessions of a combatant" (a memoir of 50-something guy who joined the militias in East Ukraine - fairly common in summer 2014, less so now, because reasons). http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/07/confessions-of-combatant.html Quoted:
Reply to people by hitting quote, hotlink your links. Thanks. God, AR15 interface is barebones ) |
|
Quoted:
How do we address half these issues when our own government refuses to do anything? Well, IMO it's a bit premature to form militias - thousands of ISIS fighters aren't about to fly across the ocean tomorrow. Personally (since I'm so focused on mass media coverage, and biases in it), I'd say one of the steps should be some sort of oversight against hate-mongering by mainstream media. Yeah, that's gov't meddling in the mass media, but not like there's any sort of even-handed coverage anyway. I'd say the whole "hands up don't shoot" hoax did quite a bit to foster domestic discontent and extremism - probably more than all the ISIS videos combined. So why not have the same mass media bias against hate-mongers like Al Sharpton, as against Ayatollah Khomeini and Russians? Also, in the same vein - decrease mass media reporting on terrorism. Terrorists kill fewer Americans domestically than faulty toasters, yet exert influence completely out of proportion with their real power precisely because of fear-mongering on TV. Then again, this is unfamiliar territory for me - I'm not really into domestic policy, just Ukrainian conflict mostly, so I may be very wrong. |
|
Also, talking about "what can be done", I just remembered something that medic in the OP said.
Roughly, it went like this: "Educating yourself is more important than learning to shoot, too. Because unless you understand politics very well, in a moment of crisis you may end up marching among the fascists, and helping destroy your country." So, "what can we do if government doesn't do much?". I'd say, first and foremost, educate yourself. |
|
Quoted:
Volunteer medic: ““Psychological stability is more important for surviving any sort of crisis than food and guns." The presence of mind to prepare for things getting shitty goes a long way towards dealing with it without freaking out. Have a plan; have a backup; and then have a good attitude about coming up with something else when those don't work out. |
|
Quoted: So, most people probably don't remember, but I posted some stuff here before about Ukraine, realized vast majority of members get their "truth" from CNN, and bowed out. I don't have the time&writing to explain that conflict from the ground up (although you can ask specific questions if you actually want to understand things). However, recently I've come across a few pieces that focus more on current civil wars in general, and I think are very worth reading for anyone interested in surviving in extreme situations, civil unrest, and all that. Regardless of your foreign policy opinions, there's plenty of useful information in there. "Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Volunteer medic: ""Psychological stability is more important for surviving any sort of crisis than food and guns." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a5_1436824723 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. |
|
Quoted:
Also, talking about "what can be done", I just remembered something that medic in the OP said. Roughly, it went like this: "Educating yourself is more important than learning to shoot, too. Because unless you understand politics very well, in a moment of crisis you may end up marching among the fascists, and helping destroy your country." So, "what can we do if government doesn't do much?". I'd say, first and foremost, educate yourself. Yep. The most educated people are the most zen about current events. There truly isn't anything new under the sun. If anyone thinks there is, they should just go check out some history or geopolitical books from their local library. The discovery and colonization of America forever changed world history due to our geography and culture, which is unmatched in the entire rest of the globe. |
|
Quoted:
8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities To be fair, see my footnote in Liveleak post: "Russia has some 16 million Muslims (over 10% of population), but Russian Muslims historically aren’t very zealous and follow the less extreme interpretations of the Quran; this is what Russians refer to as 'traditional Islam' (as opposed to radical Islam that started entering the country in the 90s with Saudi preachers and money). Chechens were briefly radicalized during their wars, but they didn’t fight the wars with Russia because they were radicals; rather, their leadership used radical islam as a convenient ideology for wartime." I have no idea how well that resembles US situation with Muslims. I know a few but they're not Arab, and I don't think they even go to mosques, so not exactly target demographic for jihadis. Anyone got a link or insight they can share? |
|
I always find it remarkable in these discussions that people talk about moderate Islam. Doesn't matter...not even a little bit. If only 1 percent of Muslims are radical, then they are a huge number of enemies. And we know the number is larger than 1 percent. As things stand now, I treat them the same way I do democrats: can't trust them and don't want them at my house. I lived in the shadow of the Mosque that supported and ran the Holy Land foundation. People living within my apartments had plans to kill me. Not cool. But all that aside, thanks for the reminder that I need to get to a different attitude about life. I have been complacent fro too long.
hound out |
|
Quoted: To be fair, see my footnote in Liveleak post: "Russia has some 16 million Muslims (over 10% of population), but Russian Muslims historically aren’t very zealous and follow the less extreme interpretations of the Quran; this is what Russians refer to as 'traditional Islam' (as opposed to radical Islam that started entering the country in the 90s with Saudi preachers and money). Chechens were briefly radicalized during their wars, but they didn’t fight the wars with Russia because they were radicals; rather, their leadership used radical islam as a convenient ideology for wartime." I have no idea how well that resembles US situation with Muslims. I know a few but they're not Arab, and I don't think they even go to mosques, so not exactly target demographic for jihadis. Anyone got a link or insight they can share? Quoted: Quoted: 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities To be fair, see my footnote in Liveleak post: "Russia has some 16 million Muslims (over 10% of population), but Russian Muslims historically aren’t very zealous and follow the less extreme interpretations of the Quran; this is what Russians refer to as 'traditional Islam' (as opposed to radical Islam that started entering the country in the 90s with Saudi preachers and money). Chechens were briefly radicalized during their wars, but they didn’t fight the wars with Russia because they were radicals; rather, their leadership used radical islam as a convenient ideology for wartime." I have no idea how well that resembles US situation with Muslims. I know a few but they're not Arab, and I don't think they even go to mosques, so not exactly target demographic for jihadis. Anyone got a link or insight they can share?  |
|
Quoted: There is more to being an "expert" than reading, study, and internet research. The Internet has endless "blogs" from self described experts. A person is not an expert because that person declares them self an expert... an expert is when other knowledgeable people recognize someone as an expert! |
|
Quoted: So, most people probably don't remember, but I posted some stuff here before about Ukraine, realized vast majority of members get their "truth" from CNN, and bowed out. I don't have the time&writing to explain that conflict from the ground up (although you can ask specific questions if you actually want to understand things). However, recently I've come across a few pieces that focus more on current civil wars in general, and I think are very worth reading for anyone interested in surviving in extreme situations, civil unrest, and all that. Regardless of your foreign policy opinions, there's plenty of useful information in there. "Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Volunteer medic: ""Psychological stability is more important for surviving any sort of crisis than food and guns." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a5_1436824723 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. Not an expert, but I got my degree in Political Science and while doing so spent a good portion studying non-state actors. The stuff you identify is what the real experts believe, only it hasn't gotten traction yet because of international policy dogma and many other convoluted reasons. Although I disagree with border security, any type of static security for that matter I think is way overrated. Turkey for example, and most any Arab country. They risk a popular uprising if they back Western interests too openly and appear "anti-Muslim". At the same time though these governments need the US support to keep their states under control. |
|
Quoted:
Not an expert, but I got my degree in Political Science and while doing so spent a good portion studying non-state actors. The stuff you identify is what the real experts believe, only it hasn't gotten traction yet because of international policy dogma and many other convoluted reasons. Although I disagree with border security, any type of static security for that matter I think is way overrated. Turkey for example, and most any Arab country. They risk a popular uprising if they back Western interests too openly and appear "anti-Muslim". At the same time though these governments need the US support to keep their states under control. Quoted:
Quoted:
"Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. Not an expert, but I got my degree in Political Science and while doing so spent a good portion studying non-state actors. The stuff you identify is what the real experts believe, only it hasn't gotten traction yet because of international policy dogma and many other convoluted reasons. Although I disagree with border security, any type of static security for that matter I think is way overrated. Turkey for example, and most any Arab country. They risk a popular uprising if they back Western interests too openly and appear "anti-Muslim". At the same time though these governments need the US support to keep their states under control. I assume you mean the parts about solutions to extremism being primarily economic and ideological, not military? Because I doubt his other point, about citizen militia being necessary, is commonly accepted |
|
Quoted: I assume you mean the parts about solutions to extremism being primarily economic and ideological, not military? Because I doubt his other point, about citizen militia being necessary, is commonly accepted Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. Not an expert, but I got my degree in Political Science and while doing so spent a good portion studying non-state actors. The stuff you identify is what the real experts believe, only it hasn't gotten traction yet because of international policy dogma and many other convoluted reasons. Although I disagree with border security, any type of static security for that matter I think is way overrated. Turkey for example, and most any Arab country. They risk a popular uprising if they back Western interests too openly and appear "anti-Muslim". At the same time though these governments need the US support to keep their states under control. I assume you mean the parts about solutions to extremism being primarily economic and ideological, not military? Because I doubt his other point, about citizen militia being necessary, is commonly accepted There are some experts out there who say that the only way to win against asymmetric warfare is to turn the people against the opposition forces. I have not read any recommendations for straight up militias, although it seems to be the common case in countries like Iraq, where every tribe and sheik seems to have a private army. If you do just kind of a glace at foiled terrorist attacks, most of them were thwarted in the act by vigilant citizens. For example, Paris train shooter, Shoe bomber, Flight 93 and others. The Boston Marathon bombers were turned in by wary citizens if I remember correctly. |
|
Quoted:
There are some experts out there who say that the only way to win against asymmetric warfare is to turn the people against the opposition forces. I have not read any recommendations for straight up militias, although it seems to be the common case in countries like Iraq, where every tribe and sheik seems to have a private army. If you do just kind of a glace at foiled terrorist attacks, most of them were thwarted in the act by vigilant citizens. For example, Paris train shooter, Shoe bomber, Flight 93 and others. The Boston Marathon bombers were turned in by wary citizens if I remember correctly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. Not an expert, but I got my degree in Political Science and while doing so spent a good portion studying non-state actors. The stuff you identify is what the real experts believe, only it hasn't gotten traction yet because of international policy dogma and many other convoluted reasons. Although I disagree with border security, any type of static security for that matter I think is way overrated. Turkey for example, and most any Arab country. They risk a popular uprising if they back Western interests too openly and appear "anti-Muslim". At the same time though these governments need the US support to keep their states under control. I assume you mean the parts about solutions to extremism being primarily economic and ideological, not military? Because I doubt his other point, about citizen militia being necessary, is commonly accepted There are some experts out there who say that the only way to win against asymmetric warfare is to turn the people against the opposition forces. I have not read any recommendations for straight up militias, although it seems to be the common case in countries like Iraq, where every tribe and sheik seems to have a private army. If you do just kind of a glace at foiled terrorist attacks, most of them were thwarted in the act by vigilant citizens. For example, Paris train shooter, Shoe bomber, Flight 93 and others. The Boston Marathon bombers were turned in by wary citizens if I remember correctly. Interesting thread topic and points. I agree that we need the eyes and actions of the common citizens since the police or security cannot be so ubiquitous. However, this means having the "hearts and minds" of the population. For that to happen the population must trust the government. I see the chances of this happening with the current administration as equal to zero. No way to trust someone who has been demonstrating intent on destroying our society and total ineptitude for the other stuff, which may be even intentional. Add the mediocrity, promiscuity and corruption of certain segments of society and the recipe for disaster is certain. I also agree that the mindset is as critical, or even more, than having material stocked at the houses. A need to expect the unexpected and the will to overcome diversity is basic and without it one can forget about surviving a calamity like the one OP describes. With the current self-entitled mindset the average Joe and Jane demonstrate we can see our society as we know it crumbling quite fast. One risk about having local militias and a non-trusted central government is the country's fragmentation under the leadership of regional war lords that may not work with each other and may lead to the old city States or smaller "kingdoms" like in Europe before the big unification that led to the countries we see today. And we see all the was and crisis they had and Middle East has today. But, History runs in circles so that's where we might be going. 
Just my 2c. |
|
Quoted:
There are some experts out there who say that the only way to win against asymmetric warfare is to turn the people against the opposition forces. I have not read any recommendations for straight up militias, although it seems to be the common case in countries like Iraq, where every tribe and sheik seems to have a private army. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Russian colonel(ret.) from Syria - Airstrikes and armies won't work; citizens and government must fight terrorism together" http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=51e_1451526640 Contents of the first interview: 1. Regular army can not be everywhere at once; insurgents can 2. Airstrikes are almost useless against an enemy that is dispersed and has no high-value assets 3. You have to target the countries that recruit, train, arm and finance terrorists, not the expendable gunmen 4. Border security and passport control are #1 way to prevent terrorism 5. In Syria, jihadists got in with Libyan and Iraqi refugees 6. Either Turkey is training and arming jihadists – in which case it is the aggressor and not protected by NATO, or it needs to start attacking their bases and ask other countries for help 7. To defeat jihadists' ideology of justice, which appeals to the impoverished masses, a state needs to offer a real alternative 8. There are many brands of Islam – the moderates should be supported, and the extremists prosecuted; alternative institutions of Islamic theology need to be capable of matching the capabilities of wealthy extremists in Saudi Arabian universities 9. Citizens' militia is absolutely essential to defend against the terrorist threat, but in order to be effective, it has to be supported by the federal government 10. Information warfare is very important, and so is rationally assessing the situation: those that blindly approve of every action by their government or 'their side' are just as harmful as those who blindly disapprove of everything 11. Extremism spreads on the Internet and should be fought there as well 12. The people cannot fight terrorism alone, but the government can not either. Unite or perish Peace. Not an expert, but I got my degree in Political Science and while doing so spent a good portion studying non-state actors. The stuff you identify is what the real experts believe, only it hasn't gotten traction yet because of international policy dogma and many other convoluted reasons. Although I disagree with border security, any type of static security for that matter I think is way overrated. Turkey for example, and most any Arab country. They risk a popular uprising if they back Western interests too openly and appear "anti-Muslim". At the same time though these governments need the US support to keep their states under control. I assume you mean the parts about solutions to extremism being primarily economic and ideological, not military? Because I doubt his other point, about citizen militia being necessary, is commonly accepted There are some experts out there who say that the only way to win against asymmetric warfare is to turn the people against the opposition forces. I have not read any recommendations for straight up militias, although it seems to be the common case in countries like Iraq, where every tribe and sheik seems to have a private army. In my opinion (and this is based on post-Soviet civil wars, not Middle East), the best option for dealing with a people's militia probably is not to fight it. For example, in Georgia there were breakaway regions of Abkhazia, Ossetia and Adjaria. In Moldova, there were Gagauzia and Transnistria. In all five cases, the rebel regions had (fairly justified) concerns with radical nationalists seizing power in the country and preparing to variously oppress them. Here, the roads diverge: In Adjaria(Moldova) and Gagauzia(Georgia), the nationalists didn't dare use force - in Adjaria, army brigade quartered there sided with the locals, and in Gagauzia, the locals were a warlike people and organized a large militia early on. So those regions simply stayed semi-autonomous for a while, and re-integrated with the rest of the country once the radicals/fascists were cursed and forgotten. In the other three regions, nationalists thought they're gonna have easy victories against almost unarmed and severely outnumbered minority populations, and moved in. In all cases, this led to rather protracted lessons on subjects like "civil war really sucks for everyone involved" and "it doesn't matter that you have tanks if you're using conscripts and looters against a motivated volunteer force". The regions are still split now. Yes, it is also possible to beat a people's militia militarily, but it needs overwhelming force AND usually a period of blockade/"cold war", so that people lose faith in militia's ability to successfully run the region during relative peace. A good example is Chechnya - Russians won the second time around not only because they were more competent, but because locals were tired of lawlessness and islamic extremism. Srpska Kraijna is less good, because Croats essentially ethnically cleansed all the Serbs, but it was also accomplished after a long period of attrition. By the way, Donbass may be heading towards one of those possibilities, but that is contingent on the Kremlin selling the locals out - no idea if that's gonna happen. If you do just kind of a glace at foiled terrorist attacks, most of them were thwarted in the act by vigilant citizens. For example, Paris train shooter, Shoe bomber, Flight 93 and others. The Boston Marathon bombers were turned in by wary citizens if I remember correctly. Yup, plus an educated/trained populace probably makes for a better society overall. Even free first aid classes would go a long way. Peace, Tatzhit |
|
Quoted: Well, our current crop of "experts" has left us with no-go zones of jihadists in every major European city. I'd be willing to listen to pretty much anyone else at this point. Quoted: Quoted: There is more to being an "expert" than reading, study, and internet research. The Internet has endless "blogs" from self described experts. A person is not an expert because that person declares them self an expert... an expert is when other knowledgeable people recognize someone as an expert! (necropost) ^This. SAA are still holding out in Syria, despite pressure from most of the world and losing some insane proportion of the population. Also, Russians managed to win in Chechnya, although admittedly that was a lot easier than say pacifying Iraq (IIRC Chechnya is like 50 times smaller). |