And So It Begins...Vietnam in Reverse

Flashback: Back in the late 1950's to early 1960's America sent military advisers and trainers to the the Republic of South Vietnam in order to train a fledgling military to fight the onslaught of the communist backed North Vietnamese.

Eventually, no "good" action goes unpunished and as more attacks by the North on the U.S. advisers continued, the only alternative left for the U.S. was send more and better armed troops and thus, the Vietnam War began.

Fast Forward: Just as in the case of Vietnam, the Socialists, Democrats saw that America was coming together on the War on Terror after 9-11 and THIS could not be allowed for their agenda of destruction of America to continue.

So what did the LEFT do, start undermining the war effort, both in Afghanistan and Iraqi till finally Americans became "war weary".

This "war weariness" would eventually lead to the American sheeple to elect Boo Boo Obama as our Clown in Chief with the promise that he would withdraw our troops from the Middle East.

Now, six years later, he is finally doing it and though the generals have advised against it, Boo Boo's socialist agenda ignored them.

As America and our allies withdrew combat troops, ISIS & other radical Muslims began their consolation and march to destroy everything America and our allies proudly fought and died for over the passed years.

As ISIS continued its savage march, Boo Boo finally and reluctantly sent advisers and trainers BACK to Middle East, with the "promise" that there will be "no combat boots" om the ground, although intelligent people KNOW that anytime American combat troops is in a hostile environment, they ARE combat boots on the ground.

American Sheeple never learn, they would rather believe that under Boo Boo and his Socialists, everything will be "lollipops and roses" and didn't listen or believe when many Patriots warned that sending "advisers" and "trainers" is just the beginning for our re-entry into another war in the Middle East.

American Troops Battle ISIS For First Time as Militants Attack Iraqi Base

A number of militants have been killed in Islamic State's very first battle with U.S. ground troops after the extremists attempted to overrun an Iraqi military base.

The militants attacked Ein al-Asad military base on Sunday where more than 100 U.S. military support troops are based.

Despite launching the surprise attack just after midnight, ISIS's offensive was swiftly repelled when U.S. troops and F-18 jets joined in the skirmish in support of the Iraqi Army.

Facing both Iraqi and US troops supported by F18 jets, an unknown number of ISIS attackers were killed during the two hour firefight before being forced to retreat.

Ein al-Asad came under repeated attack by ISIS troops in October, however, now bolstered by the U.S. assistance, it poses a much more formidable target.

Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi, a tribal leader in the region, said 'US forces intervened because ISIS started to come near the base, which they are stationed in, so (it was) out of self-defense,' Shafaq News reported.

He added: 'We have made progress in (the) al-Dolab area, in which ISIS has withdrawn from.'

During the Iraq War, it was the largest airbase located within Iraq's Anbar province.

Although it scaled down in size following the conclusion of the war, it remains in use by the Iraq Army and is located deep within the remote areas on the front line against ISIS.

Meanwhile, Kurdish forces have launched an operation to retake the town of Sinjar in northwest Iraq after coalition planes pounded Islamic State positions overnight, Kurdish officials said.

The peshmerga fighters made gains against ISIS throughout the day, the officials said, driving the militants out of at least eight sub-districts in the Zumar area, east of Sinjar.

If the peshmerga succeeded in recapturing the town, it would open up a corridor to Sinjar mountain, where hundreds of minority Yazidis have been besieged by ISIS militants since August.

It would also be a symbolic victory for the Kurds, whose reputation as fearsome warriors was bruised after Islamic State overpowered the peshmerga in Sinjar and killed or captured hundreds of Yazidis.

'At 8.00 this morning the ground offensive began to liberate Sinjar town,' said one official in the Kurdish region's Security Council, adding that coalition planes had bombed the area for several hours beforehand.

'There's evidence that a lot of ISIS fighters abandoned their weapons and fled the area.'

Several other Kurdish security officials gave similar accounts.

U.S. President Barack Obama cited the duty to prevent an impending massacre of Yazidis by Islamic State militants as one of the main reasons for authorizing the first air strikes in Iraq this summer.

Final note: Air power DOES NOT/WILL NOT win a war, IT will take Warriors on the ground in mud, muck and blood to WIN. I only pray that the American sheeple will soon learn this and America will grow a set, elect TRUE LEADERS, who will unleash the Devil Dogs of hell and allow our military to do what they do best, KILL THE ENEMY, BLOW THINGS UP AND COME HOME!

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2878897/American-troops-battle-ISIS-time-attempted-attack-militants-Iraqi-base.html

Politically Correct DoD Renames “unlawful combatants” in Detainee Manual

In fact, captured terrorists went out of style a long time ago, so that’s not the actual change. Until recently — like, say, two weeks ago — the Department of Defense used the term unlawful combatant as the label for terrorists captured by American military and intelligence forces as a way to distinguish them from uniformed soldiers of a recognized state authority in a straight-up fight. Their new manual dispenses with that term, the Federation of American Scientists noticed today (November 26, 2011) (via Steven Aftergood and Olivier Knox):

When it comes to Department of Defense doctrine on military treatment of detained persons, “unlawful enemy combatants” are a thing of the past. That term has been retired and replaced by “unprivileged enemy belligerents” in a new revision of Joint Publication 3-13 on Detainee Operations, dated November 13, 2014.

The manual even has this helpful chart for readers:

The only actual mention of the previous term comes in the Summary of Changes on page iii, which notes that the revision “[r]evises terminology, taxonomy, and definitions for unlawful enemy combatant, unprivileged belligerent, detainee, and detainee operations.” There is no particular explanation for why unlawful combatant no longer suffices, or why “unprivileged” makes for a clearer understanding between the categories of legitimate POW and everyone else.

So what’s going on here? Political correctness run amok, like saying there’s no such thing as an unlawful person? A way to reinforce the idea of “privilege”? No, not really — or at least not on the DoD’s behalf. If anyone’s to blame for the blandification of nomenclature … it’s Congress. The new revision to the DoD manual brings the terminology in line with 10 U.S. Code § 948a, which provides definitions for detainee policies rewritten by Congress to refine the military-commission process. It provides a very precise definition of the two classes of belligerents (Don't they mean ENEMIES...OM):

(6) Privileged belligerent.— The term “privileged belligerent” means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

(7) Unprivileged enemy belligerent.— The term “unprivileged enemy belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who—

    (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
    (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or            its coalition partners; or
    (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.

This section goes back to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, sponsored by Mitch McConnell, but the new terms were introduced in the 111th Congress in the NDAA for 2009. It passed in October 2009 and was signed a few days later by President Obama. The only contemporaneous discussion of this change I could find in a quick search was by Joanne Mariner at Findlaw, who dismissed it as “cosmetic.” Another change was somewhat more substantial:

The new law begins by tweaking the definition of individuals eligible for trial before military commissions — most obviously by scrapping the phrase “unlawful enemy combatant,” and replacing it with “unprivileged enemy belligerent.” This is a cosmetic change, not a real improvement, which mirrors the administration’s decision to drop the enemy combatant formula in habeas litigation at Guantanamo Bay.

In addition, the new definition sets out three separate grounds on which a person might be deemed an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” which vary somewhat from the grounds for eligibility included in the previous definition. The third ground, now separate from the previous two, is membership in Al Qaeda, whether or not the member has engaged in or supported hostilities against the US. (Under the previous definition, membership in “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” was relevant to the determination of whether a person had engaged in or supported hostilities, but was not itself a distinct ground for eligibility.)

Notably, the Taliban is no longer specifically named in the new definition. This suggests, perhaps, that the administration is acknowledging a meaningful difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and wants to leave open, at least for the future, the possibility that the Taliban is not the enemy (Then why doesn't Boo Boo invite the Taliban to the WH for a coffee summit?...OM).

That might seem a little more notable in the wake of the Bowe Bergdahl swap (Where is the media, FOWNEWS in particular, following up on what the Army did with this deserter?,,,OM). It’s possible that this could provide the White House a way to press for the release of more Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay (So that they can go back & join ISIS/ISSL or whatever they want to call it. I call them enemies...OM), but it would be a tendentious and silly argument. Publicly, the administration (The same administration that said if you like your doctor or your health insurance you can keep them?....OM) has argued that the risk from their release has disappeared by now, which is their main and most effective argument, even if experience has clearly proven it to be untrue — which we’ve known for years.

At any rate, the new nomenclature seems pretty silly, and the need to change from unlawful combatant non-existent. Don’t blame the Department of Defense for it, although we can certainly wonder why it took them five years to catch up to the changes (and what may have prompted the recent action). That silliness comes from one of America’s great resources of silliness and meaningless redefinitions of perfectly suitable language — from your elected officials on Capitol Hill. On the plus side, we can now ask terrorists to check their unprivilege as they enter the detention system, or something.

Let us know what you think.

Semper Fi!

A thank you to the Riceman for the tip!

Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/26/dod-renames-unlawful-combatants-in-detainee-manual-to/

ISIS militants use social media to encourage Ferguson protesters

'Chilling': Footage purportedly from a CNN live stream of the protests appeared to show one young demonstrator marching along a street holding a sign reading 'ISIS is here'

ISIS militants and their supporters are using social media to encourage protesters in Ferguson to embrace radical Islam and fight against the U.S. government.

Jihadists in Syria and Iraq and their sympathisers in the West have taken to Twitter to send messages of support to hundreds of demonstrators taking part in a ninth night of angry protests in the U.S. city following the shooting by police of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.

The militants' tweets denounce local officers for the way they have attempted to quell the violence, make reference to historic acts of police brutality, and even use the hashtag #FergusonUnderISIS in an attempt to get angry young men in the city to declare allegiance to the Islamist group.

The news comes as footage purportedly taken from the scene of the Ferguson protests appeared to show one demonstrator marching along a street holding a sign reading 'ISIS is here'.

One ISIS sympathizer calling himself Mujahid Miski, who claims to be from Minneapolis–Saint Paul but suggests he is now based in 'the horn of Africa', has led the campaign to encourage those taking part in the protests to embrace radical Islam.

In one message he tweets: 'So how is democracy treating you guys? #FergusonUnderIS #Ferguson.'

He adds: 'I thought u guys back in #Ferguson were supposed to be Free & that u had equal rights. I'd really like to know what changed? #FergusonUnderIS'.

Miski goes on to retweet dozens of messages by a Twitter user with the handle @AmreekiWitness, who claims to monitor and support the growth of radical Islam in the U.S.

Amreeki Witness' messages focus on the treatment of black people in the U.S., praise Malcolm X for embracing Islam and urge angry young black men to take up the religion as it means the police 'will fear you'.

In one message Amreeki Witness mocks the curfew police have imposed in Ferguson to bring an end to the disorder, saying: 'We IS guys hate you for your freedom, eh? Just like that freedom uplifting curfew in #Ferguson? Wake up, or they'll never let you outside.'

As the social media campaign began to take hold, with dozens of radical Islamists commenting on the Ferguson protests, Amreeki Witness tweeted: 'May be time to organize the Muslims in America upon haqq and mobilize to #Ferguson. Defend the oppressed, start jihad here.'

The message attracted a large response, with one Islamist calling himself Amarka Al-Ahlam responding: 'Preach, brother. We must organize brigades in preparation for the oncoming storm. #FergusonUnderIS #JihadinFerguson.'

Amreeki Witness added: 'They cower in fear of us whilst they massacre and oppress you! It's time to strike fear into the hearts of the oppressors. #FergusonUnderIS'.

News of the militants' campaign to encourage Ferguson demonstrators to embrace radical Islamism comes as footage purportedly from a CNN live stream of the protests appeared to show one young man holding a sign reading 'ISIS is here.'

It is not known whether the banner - footage of which has not yet been independently verified - was in support of the militant group or, as seems more likely, it was an attempt to compare ISIS to the local police force or the U.S. government. (If that were the case, WHY did the person holding the sign hide behind it...OM)

Nevertheless stills of the alleged CNN footage were embraced by jihadists who have claimed they prove jihadists are already playing their part in the protests.

Chilling images of the alleged ISIS banner being carried by demonstrators have been widely shared by ISIS sympathizers on social media, who have used them to encourage supporters based in America to travel to Ferguson to further stoke the violence in the city.

News of ISIS' attempt to hijack the Ferguson protests come as Palestinian Twitter users sent messages of support to the demonstrators and gave advice on the best way to cope with the tear gas police are using to disperse crowds.

As images emerged of heavily armed police and armored tanks on the streets of nearby St Louis, many Palestinian Twitter users expressed their solidarity with demonstrators.

The messages of support from Palestinians come amid reports that many of the Ferguson protesters were heard chanting 'Gaza Strip' as they marched through the heart of the city.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728624/How-democracy-treating-guys-ISIS-militants-social-media-encourage-Ferguson-protesters-embrace-Islamic-extremism.html