It’s already been heavily reported how badly the first class of New Syrian Forces (NSF), also known as Division 30, did after being trained by the US and sent into Syria. There were 54 of them to start, and last week Centcom conceded there were only “four or five left.” This may still look like a runaway success compared to the second class.
A statement from al-Qaeda’s Syria branch said the group’s membership had agreed to give them everything in return for “safe passage,” and that the leader of the second class, Anas Ibrahim Obeid, plans to issue a statement repudiating the US training strategy.
Obeid told al-Qaeda he “tricked” the US coalition because he wanted their weapons. Ironically he would’ve been one of the top ranked NSF forces left, after Lt. Col. Mohammad al-Dhaher resigned this weekend, complained the program was “not serious.”
The latest loss speaks volumes about the state of US vetting of its “pro-US” rebels, at a time when reports suggest they intend to dramatically lower those vetting requirements in the future for the sake of faster arming of rebel factions.
The very best thing the US could do in terms of foreign policy is to get the fuck out of the Middle East completely.
It’s already been heavily reported how badly the first class of New Syrian Forces (NSF), also known as Division 30, did after being trained by the US and sent into Syria. There were 54 of them to start, and last week Centcom conceded there were only “four or five left.” This may still look like a runaway success compared to the second class.
A statement from al-Qaeda’s Syria branch said the group’s membership had agreed to give them everything in return for “safe passage,” and that the leader of the second class, Anas Ibrahim Obeid, plans to issue a statement repudiating the US training strategy.
Obeid told al-Qaeda he “tricked” the US coalition because he wanted their weapons. Ironically he would’ve been one of the top ranked NSF forces left, after Lt. Col. Mohammad al-Dhaher resigned this weekend, complained the program was “not serious.”
The latest loss speaks volumes about the state of US vetting of its “pro-US” rebels, at a time when reports suggest they intend to dramatically lower those vetting requirements in the future for the sake of faster arming of rebel factions.
If there was ever any doubt that the US doesn’t have a good handle on who the ISIS leadership is, it should be exemplified by the new reports of US officials openly talking about, in their effort to “destroy ISIS,” assassinating people whose Twitter accounts are seen as too pro-ISIS.
There appears, at the very least, to be some debate among counter-terror officials on the matter, though none seem to be questioning whether or not it’s appropriate to assassinate people on the basis of speech, and are simply arguing over whether or not it’s worthwhile.
The opponents see it as “wasting time” on “low level guys,” and believe the US should spend more time trying to assassinate actual ISIS leaders, instead of just killing Tweeters and declaring them “propagandists.”
One unnamed US official in favor of killing Tweeters, who ominously started his argument by declaring “we are the angel of death” like he’s some comic book villain, argued that since the ISIS war is a “propaganda war” and a “war of ideas” it’s entirely appropriate to kill people who are forwarding ideas they object to, saying he sees no reason to limit the killing to “military leaders.”
Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero was also a proponent of assassinating people on social media, saying ISIS has a “huge competitive advantage” on Twitter and that with little intelligence on the actual leadership of ISIS, you “attack what you can,” which means people on Twitter.
Another official, perhaps even more ominously than “angel of death” guy, talked up the killing of US-born cleric Anwar Awlaki as an example of the US assassinating people for speech, declaring “shoot your mouth off all you want. Eventually we are going to kill you.”
Ricky Muir is an Australian Senator from the Motoring Enthusiast Party. He was elected due to some complicated party preferences that allow votes to flow from candidate to candidate until someone has the majority. Someone did some mathematical modelling of how to broker deals between a multitude of minor parties until rather perverse results occur when someone who has less than a couple of percent of the votes and who's campaign even he didn't take seriously ends up getting elected.
He was treated as a joke by pretty much everyone. Didn't help that his social media presence included a video of him having a kangaroo-poo fight with his mates. So now we are eating crow when, at least on some occasions, he makes more sense than the major parties (and this isn't the first time).
The background to the story is that the government is planning to allow a government minister to revoke the Australian citizenship of dual citizens who he thinks have supported terrorism, no trial or nothing.
The graph did say right-wing terrorists, not white supremacists. So I'd say they also go after government employees and contractors, kids in daycare... Pretty scary IMO. And the government has more tools to investigate jihadists than right wing extremists because they have a position that anyone outside the country can be subject to intelligence gathering including information regarding any contacts within the country.
The jihadi unify society against them rather than being divisive. You should have seen the number of people at Anzac Day services here after a couple of kids were busted for planning an attack on the holiday. A collective FU from the people.
The problem is that the perception of risk is almost unrelated to the actual risk. And if the risk falls dominantly on a particular segment of the population it is particularly unjust.
And another thought: I found the police over-reach after the Boston bombing to be far scarier than the bombing itself.
Looks like you and I do have some points of agreement after all, good to see you are not a Statist at least.
I got the numbers from your article, I didn't invent them. They were included in your article. They must be germane to this at some level, or they would not have been included in your article. A graph that showed the wounded by itself would have been sufficient to make the graph about the few killed irrelevant and would show that with total damage measured, the jihadi beat the rwx's hands down. The rwx's are amatuers compared to the jihadi. Besides you don't believe in global jihad as you have said before. Anyway, you failed on this one.
Terror is all about collateral damage. That is the scariest part of it. Some of the survivors envy the dead. But again, you see terrorists as freedom fighters, depending on whose side they are on. I approve of no terrorism.
All's you have is straw on this one and plenty of smelly fish on the side.
The article doesn't talk about the wounded.
Ultimately the point is that there's only media-induced hysteria about one group (and eagerly lapped up and repeated by some folks). A.k.a. scapegoat politics and tribalism.
There is no Global War on Right Wing Extremists or billions/trillions of dollars spent to hunt them down.
When all is tallied (globally) in the GWOT the biggest killers aren't the Muslim extremists when compared to their supposed targets. It's the people who at first use them for their own purposes, then creating larger imaginary threats that eventually re-materialize as real threats when lots of innocent people get killed in the game. Self-fulfilling prophecies of good and evil.
It’s already been heavily reported how badly the first class of New Syrian Forces (NSF), also known as Division 30, did after being trained by the US and sent into Syria. There were 54 of them to start, and last week Centcom conceded there were only “
