The future of ISIS (short and bloody)

France’s response to the Paris massacre should be defined as lukewarm at best. Several fighter-bombers dropped some ordnance on a few locations, where the ISIS idiots have been sheltering. France is now placing a lot of importance on “returning to life as usual” as a major form of resisting ISIS. Is this because the Christmas shopping period is coming up? Where is the big punch, the overwhelming response, the shock&awe?

While “boots on the ground” are now unrealistic and would provide ISIS fighters with an opportunity to fulfil their greatest desire of fighting the American devils on middle-eastern soil, the world does have other response mechanisms. Ones that would provide the crazy extremists with what they desire – death (their own). And, lots of it.

Question 1: Where is Curtis LeMay, when you need a crazy general from Strategic Air Command, quoted as: “I’ll tell you what war is about, you’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.” Simple. It cannot be 20 aircraft bombing some targets on a large territory. The challenge is to undertake a sustained, effective and overwhelming campaign, which will prevent ISIS from renewing its resource base. Ergo: destroy their assets faster than they can replenish them. This requires a coalition effort or just an angry US with 2 aircraft carriers in the region and some strategic bombers flying long-range missions (are they still based in UK?).

airborne death

Question 2 (resulting from the above): Don’t you think that Saddam is now vindicated in his strategies? Remember when US invaded Iraq and Saddam started burning oil fields? A cool strategy of “denial”, that will work against ISIS as well, seeing that the terrorists are earning an estimated 50 million USD per week from sales of oil. That in turn means that they have unlimited money for buying weapons, equipment, food, etc. Did you notice that the Toyota pickups they always use, have been getting newer and better? Who is the Toyota dealer for Iraq?

and we worry about car pollution

Question 3: Where is SOCOM when you really need them? US special Operations Command has proven itself as a hyper-effective tool for the elimination of Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so why not shift their efforts and capabilities to a new target? In all types of ideological movements, the secret to their defeat is to attack the leadership – those who put stupid ideas into heads of idiots and then tell those frenzied idiots to go and do crazy shit. So, as SOCOM already did in Afghanistan, you go after the ISIS leadership with surgical drone strikes and targeted assassinations. As an illegitimate non-state pretentious wannabe, ISIS leadership are not state leaders, so they will not find protection under international law. Good. Their morning coffee and cigarette on a balcony will now be done with a though that a drone could be just over the horizon.

Question 4: will Anonymous help the various governments by providing vital digital data about ISIS’s online operations. This cooperating would be unprecedented and, undoubtedly, short-lived as the hackers and Western governments have only ISIS in common. Nonetheless, ISIS digital operations would be a source of good targeting data – imagine an ISIS leader talking online and that data passed to a circling American bomber with a nice 500kg “gift” to be dropped on THAT particlar “internet location”. If the hackers could wipe out more accounts, steal money from the rabid crazies, that would be even cooler.

Question 5: when will European governments shift their security policies to preventative detentions, targeted removals of individuals with proven links but against whom no “binding in court” information can be acquired? What about stripping of nationalities from extremists and kicking them back to the sand dunes that house ISIS? Is anyone deluding themselves that Europe will NOT go towards deportations? The current softness towards migrants is a temporary thing, trust me.

All we need is some political courage.

Whaling piracy vs terrorism

Whale wars are on the verge of mutating into eco-terrorism

Sea Shepherd won with the Japanese last week, as the Japanese declared they will withdraw their whaling fleet as the anti-whaling protester ship threatened the safety of Japanese whalers. So, Discovery channel can now advertise a success of its TV show with a leading G8 nation, and the crazy mavericks on board the Sea Shepherd can party till they vomit, happy with the lives of whales they saved.
Congrats to the pirates (they DO fly the black-skull&bones flag). Good riddance to Japanese “whaling research”, whose by-products wind up in Japanese restaurants as offshoots from a valuable research project (sic!).
Unfortunately, this will not last.
The Japanese are ambitious, have a good memory and do not take kindly to such insults. Right now, there is a bunch of lawyers reading the international law books with one major aim: to equate sea piracy with terrorism. Impossible? Hmmm…
Piracy is a crime regulated by international and national laws that emerged from centuries of painful experiences. It’s primary aim is economic, i.e. the conversion of ownership of goods/people through violence of various gradation. Even the simple sinking of a ship also has economic connotations (immediate loss of investment, cost of replacement, etc). Wikipedia: Piracy is a war-like act committed by private parties (not affiliated with any government) that engage in acts of robbery and/or criminal violence at sea.
Now, terrorism is different. Especially in the post-911 world with American politicians and agencies going crazy over anything they don’t like and continuously upgrading the extent and violence of their “war on terror”. Wikipedia comes handy again: “Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.”
Where do the actions of the whale pirates fit? They have an ideology, deliberately target a specific group, disregarding the safety of “non-combatants” (whalers) and they are a non-governmental agency (a charity dedicated to anti-whaling). By calling the whaling as “research” the Japanese have removed any connotations with “economic” from their whale butchery, further pushing the whole issue towards…not-piracy.
Now, if the Japanese succeed in converting the ocean actions into terrorism, Sea Shepherd will find itself under fire from the very same military vessels that are (badly) trying to protect the ships off Somalia. The US will be required to chase this anti-whaling ship, as it cannot selectively enforce its OWN policies on anti-terrorism by pretending the crazy anti-whalers are just “deranged ocean idealists”. Discovery will have to cancel the show, and no credit card company will accept/transfer donations (like they did with wikileaks).
Still, the win is a first, and will hopefully lead to next successes of non-economic ideologies over the selfish and short-term capitalist mind-set that is destroying this planet.