Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 27, 2014, 10:07:31 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81960 Posts in 2244 Topics by 1047 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 81 
 on: August 24, 2014, 06:47:25 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q44yGYlUoQQ

Kind of nice to have an MRAP and ARs and tactical training for these scenarios, yes?

 82 
 on: August 24, 2014, 05:40:55 PM 
Started by Crafty Dog - Last post by G M

Funny how the MSM has totally missed the story.

 83 
 on: August 24, 2014, 05:28:11 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by G M
If your loved one is bleeding out at the scene of a violent crime, wouldn't it be nice for your local law enforcement agency to have the equipment and training to rescue that loved one while the bullets are still flying and they still have a chance at survival?

Listening to Radley Balko on law enforcement is like listening to Rev. Sharpton on anything. Their agendas have nothing to do with the truth.

 84 
 on: August 24, 2014, 02:22:14 PM 
Started by captainccs - Last post by Crafty_Dog


U.S. Journalist Held by Qaeda Affiliate in Syria Is Freed After Nearly 2 Years

An American journalist held captive for nearly two years by Al Qaeda’s official branch in Syria has been freed, according to a representative of the journalist’s family and a report on Sunday by the Al Jazeera network.
The journalist, Peter Theo Curtis, was abducted near the Syria-Turkey border in October 2012. He was held by the Nusra Front, the Qaeda affiliate in Syria, which has broken with the more radical Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Another American journalist, James W. Foley, who was kidnapped in Syria the following month, was beheaded last week by ISIS, which posted images of his execution on YouTube.
A family friend confirmed on Sunday that Mr. Curtis, originally from Boston, had been handed over to a United Nations representative.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/middleeast/peter-theo-curtis-held-by-qaeda-affiliate-in-syria-is-freed-after-2-years.html?emc=edit_na_20140824


 85 
 on: August 24, 2014, 01:55:33 PM 
Started by Crafty Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog


http://www.westernjournalism.com/jihadi-serial-killer-ones-talking/#EDuK867Q3KpftgHw.99 

 86 
 on: August 24, 2014, 01:15:16 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

 87 
 on: August 24, 2014, 01:10:33 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/uk-police-stop-someone-knife/

with comments by Marc MacYoung

Some points about this. One, the cops had secured the area (arguably containing the threat).

Two, the guy was disturbed, not attacking.

Three, those two points allowed for discretionary time. (A wonderful concept and process, because among other things it allows you time to get other options -- like a fuckin' taser)

Four, the cop acting nonchalant hid the taser from sight and set up the attack The crazy dude didn't know he was being set up so he didn't react violently. Literally this -- not the technology -- is what made this a viable strategy.

Five the cop 'shot him in the back' (again, reducing the time crazy guy had to assess what was happening and decide to attack)

Six, the nature of the crazy guy's behavior was more threatening violence than actually attacking. Important because violence overwhelmingly comes with instructions how to avoid it -- even from crazy people. When he was first hit with the taser his reaction was more threatening than an actual attack (although it's possible he was waving the blade to clear the wires)

Seven, when he finally did get around to trying to attack the officer - well let's just say electricity is faster.

Eight, where I think the cops 'goofed' is their lack of polearms. While I'm sure there was a lethal back up, that's not necessarily effective for officer safety. Had that guy spun and attacked when the barbs hit him, we'd have a chopped cop. This even if the shooters opened fire.

Remember that discretionary time? If you're going for non-lethal (although less than lethal is more accurate) yay team! But you need to have something lined up to keep the officer safe if non-lethal doesn't work (which sad to say does happen.*) Even if another cop had a push broom it could have been used to hold the guy off until the lightening took effect. Or kept one's fellow officer alive long enough for the shooters to influence the outcome.

Am I for non-lethal measures if possible? Hell yes. But look at the the circumstances when they work instead of just assuming they'll work all the time. Or that you'll have time for them.

M

* Let's say that there's a 20% failure rate in certain circumstances of non-lethal means. Here's the thing about that. The people who are demanding the police ALWAYS use them, would not themselves volunteer for an assignment where their chances of dying were two out of ten -- so where do they get off demanding the cops take those risks?

 88 
 on: August 24, 2014, 01:03:44 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://greenberetproam.org/

 89 
 on: August 24, 2014, 01:03:00 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
http://greenberetproam.org/

 90 
 on: August 24, 2014, 12:38:23 PM 
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Please post that in the Politics thread.  TIA

========================

Our Thoroughly Modern Enemies
ISIS in the 21st Century
POTH
AUG. 23, 2014
Ross Douthat

IN his remarks on the murder of James Foley, the American journalist decapitated by the terrorists of ISIS, President Obama condemned Foley’s killers, appropriately, as a “cancer” on the Middle East and the world. But he also found room for the most Obama-ish of condemnations: “One thing we can all agree on,” he insisted, is that the would-be caliphate’s murderous vision has “no place in the 21st century.”

The idea that America’s foes and rivals are not merely morally but chronologically deficient, confused time travelers who need to turn their DeLorean around, has long been a staple of this administration’s rhetoric. Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and tyrants in general have been condemned, in varying contexts, for being on the dreaded “wrong side of history.” Earlier this year, John Kerry dismissed Putin’s Crimea adventure in the same language Obama used last week: “19th-century behavior in the 21st century,” foredoomed by its own anachronism.


These tropes contain a lot of foolishness. Where ISIS is concerned, though, they also include a small but crucial grain of truth.

The foolishness starts with the fact that the history of liberal democracy is actually inseparable, as Abram Shulsky writes in The American Interest, from “the constant appearance of counter-ideologies that have arisen in reaction against it.” Whether reactionary or utopian, secular or religious, these counter-ideologies are as modern, in their way, as the Emancipation Proclamation or the United Nations Charter. Both illiberal nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism are younger than the United States. They aren’t just throwbacks or relics; they’re counterforces that liberal modernity seems to inevitably conjure up.

So writing off the West’s challengers as purely atavistic is a good way to misunderstand them — and to miss the persistent features of human nature that they exploit, appeal to and reward.

These features include not only the lust for violence and the will to power, but also a yearning for a transcendent cause that liberal societies can have trouble satisfying.

As The Week’s Michael Brendan Dougherty argues, discussing the Europeans who have joined up with ISIS, liberalism’s “all-too-human order” — which privileges the sober, industrious and slightly boring — is simply “not for everyone.” Nor, most likely, will it ever be: in this century, the 22nd, or beyond.

Which is why liberalism’s current dominance is contingent rather than necessary, and why its past victories have often been rather near-run things. The arc of history, another favored Obama phrase, has at times bent toward pogroms and chattel slavery, totalitarianism and genocide, nuclear annihilation. (For the Middle East’s persecuted Christians and Yazidis, it bends toward annihilation even now.) The ideals of democracy and human rights are ascendant in our age, but their advance still depends on agency, strategy and self-sacrifice, no matter what date the calendar displays.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

And yet: Despite perpetuating various comforting fallacies, the White House’s talk of history’s favorites does hint at an important point about the key weakness of the enemies we face right now.


That’s because even if history doesn’t actually take sides, many people the world over share President Obama’s impulses: They want to feel that it sides with them. So the most successful counter-ideologies, the most threatening of liberalism’s rivals, have always managed to give the impression that their ideas are on the winning side of history, and that it is the poor milquetoast liberal democrats who are antique and out of date.

This was obviously true of Marxist-Leninism, but it was true of fascism as well. The fascists were reactionaries, to a point, in their appeals to mythic Roman and Teutonic pasts. But they offered far more than nostalgia: What the late Christopher Hitchens called “the mobilizing energy of fascism” was inseparable from a vision of efficiency, technology and development, one that helped persuade many Europeans (and some Americans) that Mussolini and then even Hitler stood at history’s vanguard, that the future was being forged in Rome and Berlin.

Fortunately for us, that kind of energy is mostly absent from today’s counter-ideologies, and particularly from the self-styled caliphate whose brutality was on display last week. The term “Islamofascist,” popularized after 9/11, was imprecise because it gave groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS too much credit: They may know how to use the Internet to propagandize, but they otherwise lack even a hint of the reactionary futurism, the marriage of romanticism to industrial efficiency, that made the original fascism appealing to so many.

That doesn’t mean their ideas are destined to disappear. Their place in our century, our era, is secure. We may crush them militarily, kill and scatter their adherents, but variations on Al Qaeda and ISIS will probably persist as long as liberalism does.

But to contend for mastery, to threaten us the way Nazis and Communists once did, they would need to do more than demonstrate, by their continued depredations, that history doesn’t have necessary destinations. They would need to somehow persuade the world that history’s arc might actually be about to bend toward them.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!