Islamic State Doxes US Soldiers, Airmen, Calls On Supporters To Kill Them 336
An anonymous reader writes in with this story about the latest weapon used by ISIS: doxing. "Middle East terrorist organization Islamic State (ISIS) has called on its followers take the fight to 100 members of the United States military residing in the US. A group calling itself the 'Islamic State Hacking Division' has posted names, addresses, and photographs of soldiers, sailors, and airmen online, asking its 'brothers residing in America' to murder them, according to Reuters. Although the posting purports to come from the 'Hacking Division,' US Department of Defense officials say that none of their systems appear to have been breached by the group. Instead, the personal data was almost certainly culled from publicly available sources, a DoD official told the New York Times on the condition of anonymity."
Needs a honeypot (Score:5, Interesting)
The military needs to post a few names and addresses themselves. They'll look like regular houses but they'll actually be guard posts. If anyone shows up and starts shooting, they end up dead.
Re:Needs a honeypot (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds like the kind of work the CIA is supposed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your government at work (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Governments create their own laws and rules on enforcing those laws. of course it can be illegal with them doing it specifically.
Try it on your own though, go to a bar and try to talk the people with short haircuts into killing someone for you. I will wait the several years it will likely take for you to tell me how it worked out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you really hold an organization like ISIS and the US Govt on the same moral equivalency?
i don't care how much you hate the USA, you fail the ability of coherent thought if you think the USA and ISIS are morally the same
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you really hold an organization like ISIS and the US Govt on the same moral equivalency?
i don't care how much you hate the USA, you fail the ability of coherent thought if you think the USA and ISIS are morally the same
I wasn't claiming moral equivalence, just behavioral equivalence. The USA is run by a completely amoral group of people for whom human life has little value. I'll say the same about ISIS. Since I'm talking about amoral people its hardly a matter of 'moral equivalence'. Its not like I'm giving it a number and saying they are both at the same level of morality. They don't even have NO morality. They see themselves as operating at a meta-level above morality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you don't have to like the USA, but if you look at the leadership of the USA, and you look at the leadership of ISIS, and you see the same kind of people, you aren't announcing an understanding of the world, you are merely announcing that you have a horribly stunted social defect, and no grasp on moral reasoning
the usa has done horrible horrible things in the world. but to examine their motivations, actions, targets, etc., and see the same as ISIS on those measures, you're a moron on this topic. there's no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, taken to the extreme, that becomes a difficult position to defend.
A group of people who want to force their beliefs on the world, and who are willing to cause civilian deaths if it achieves their ends, who don't care about the rights of anybody not in their number ... and then there's ISIS.
ISIS pretty much act like barbarians. Then again, killing civilians indiscrimin
Re: Your government at work (Score:2, Insightful)
Your argument is based on a lie. Show me any evidence that the US is killing civilians "indiscriminately" much less deliberately.
Re: Your government at work (Score:4, Insightful)
If the US were deliberately targeting civilians the dead would not number in the hundreds or even thousands but in the millions. A lot of the reason for the slow progress against ISIS is that ISIS has gotten so good at hiding among civilian populations and as a result the US and it's allies have to sift through and try to surgically remove them. Mistakes are made and innocents die but if not for the attempt at pinpoint strikes an incredible body count would arise. I disagree with what the US is doing as I've basically become an isolationist in the last couple of decades. The aim is to be proactive so as to prevent a bad situation from becoming a nightmare down the road. Militant Islam is a much bigger threat to Europe than the US and I'd like to see how it plays out against the moral snobbery of the European hypocrisy. I think I'd enjoy watching as the crazies finally force France and other enlightened nations to make hard choices about how to handle an insurgent assault against their freedom. Yes, I'd love to see all those hypocrites respond to charlie hebdo style attacks on a weekly basis. I wonder if they'd still have their outrage against collateral damage.
Re:Your government at work (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, well call me when John Boehner starts burning people alive and posting it to Youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
Drone strikes set people on fire if they aren't close enough to be completely incinerated. They're called "Hellfire" missiles for a reason.
You're right that they don't tend to end up on YouTube though. Better that they end up on CNN instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the USA does not agree with the American religious right, which is what you are referencing. Most of ISIS does not disagree with ISIS.
What the rel
Re:Your government at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the USA does not agree with the American religious right, which is what you are referencing. Most of ISIS does not disagree with ISIS.
Actually most of ISIS disagrees with ISIS much more strongly, since most of them are coerced into joining at gunpoint.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the USA does not agree with the American religious right, which is what you are referencing. Most of ISIS does not disagree with ISIS.
Nice, most USAians don't agree with the religious right but most of the religious right do. Most muslims don't tend to agree with ISIS either. Here your equivalents are UASians - Muslims and USA religious right - ISIS. If you want to tar them all with the same brush you're starting from very shakey grounds.
You can almost guarantee if they thought they could get away with it (at least some of) the religious right there(USA) would seriously consider carving themselves out some land, through force of arms m
Re: (Score:3)
"Then again, killing civilians indiscriminately with drone strikes as "collateral damage" is pretty barbaric as well."
You are an idiot. The entire purpose of drone strikes is to carry out very targeted killings. If we didn't care about collateral damage and didn't mind indiscriminately killing people, expensive drones would not be necessary. All we'd need is some far cheaper cluster bombs. Maybe some napalm.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you sanitized it a little doesn't make it right. Drones are a little more targeted but still kill unacceptably high numbers of civilians. Civilians you are not even at war with.
Drone strikes are what motivate a lot of the people fighting against you.
Re: (Score:2)
Bleh, ISIS is the 'contras' of the middle east, keeping out the commies. They receive their weapons (billions of dollars worth, 500 mil was just declared "unaccounted for") at drop off points in Libya, Yemen, Iraq, etc. And then the lapdog press dutifully reports that they have been 'raided'. Why would anybody believe there is anything 'moral' in this business from either side? It's a business! And business is damn good right now. Don't be so deluded into believing the US is any more innocent than anybody.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between ISIS and the USA, is that when the USA tortures or murders innocent people, it forces news organizations to sue under the FOIA for pictographic or video evidence. When ISIS does that stuff, it posts the evidence to youtube. Either way, the actions are despicable, ISIS is just less media savvy (the US having learned from Viet Nam the importance of limiting what gets published).
Re: (Score:3)
you really hold an organization like ISIS and the US Govt on the same moral equivalency?
i don't care how much you hate the USA, you fail the ability of coherent thought if you think the USA and ISIS are morally the same
You're right, at least ISIS stand by what they believe in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is most certainly NOTprotected speech. It is a specific and immediate threat to harm someone. If Isis had posted something like 'death to soldiers' this might be protected because while it is a threat it is not specific or immediate.
Re:Needs a honeypot (Score:5, Insightful)
The military needs to post a few names and addresses themselves.
Maybe they just did, and this is a false flag [wikipedia.org] operation to lure ISIS supporters into the open.
Re: (Score:2)
This is stupid. Nobody needs to dox anyone. These kinds of people that ISIS wants to target are self identifying. There are any number of obvious symbols that "terrorists" could latch onto if they wanted to lash out at servicemen and their families.
There's simply no need for cloak and dagger or "hacking".
Re: (Score:3)
Great idea! But if anybody actually acts on the ISIS information with domestic attacks on personnel, their religion is finished in this country for all time to come. I'm the first to agree that wouldn't be fair, but in this time of war that is what will happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Even at that time, we still had hope that a silent Muslim majority would arise, and proclaim "That's not us!" After Charlie Hebdo and that fiery cage, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Careful, they might shoot back (Score:4, Interesting)
Targeting those with the ability to shoot back seems like a less than cunning plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic that ISIL is anti west capitalism, yet it's the corporate misinfotainment industry that gives them so much power.
Re:Careful, they might shoot back (Score:4, Insightful)
Even though they are little more than rednecks with AKs, we see articles on them all the time
Because where they are located as a group (not to be confused with the "lone wolf" types that the communication in question is trying to egg on), they've brutally killed thousands of people, and are armed with pretty nice toys, left behind by the courageous Iraqi regulars who went running for the hills when ISIS showed up.
Imagine if the same amount of press was done with some far right-wing militia group in the US.
If some group in the US did anything LIKE what ISIS is doing in across huge swaths of land in the Middle East, and did so with tens of thousands of people gleefully participating, then you'd see far MORE press about it that we're seeing about ISIS. But because there are no such huge groups of prisoner-burning, foreigner-decapitating militarized crazies occupying the equivalent of large portions of multiple states in the US, there's nothing to talk about.
ISIS's propaganda is working so well that even Europe has all but recognized them as a sovereign state.
Well, they control land, have a standing army, control and sell oil resources, and have people from around the world traveling to submit to their regime. That's about as (or more) put together as, say, Yemen is right now - a country that the EU recognizes.
If ISIS loses the ability to show some atrocity or chop off another head
So you're proposing control over the internet as a solution, here?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In case you wonder how ISIS is receiving US support
So if you give your neighbor some used garden tools including a good brush clearing machete, and then your neighbor is run out of their house by MS13 so they can set up a meth lab, and they happen to use the machete to kill a rival drug dealer ... are you supporting MS13?
Get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
The deal was made after the trouble started and is ongoing
Non-spun, non-insane, credible citation required.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get to shoot back if you're dead.
Put yourself in the place of someone who wants to murder an identified US serviceman. Could the victim do anything to stop you if you were determined and patient enough, and willing to die?
Our system protects people by instilling fear of consequences. That works very well for most crimes and criminals, but not if the criminal believes he has the skills to avoid being caught (the beltway sniper) or is intent on committing blue suicide (Adam Lanza).
Re: (Score:3)
There's only one problem with an otherwise perfect hypothesis: Most soldiers on base don't walk around armed. Hell, even Marines guarding embassies overseas aren't often armed. Look at stock photos and you can see that while they may be walking around with M16s, there are no magazines in the gun.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you imagine how bad a SWATing could go? Armed and trained military personnel who are already paranoid that guys might be coming to get them. Clueless gun-ho cops with itchy trigger fingers on a power trip.
Even just ordering them a few pizzas could easily go south.
Gun control ... (Score:2)
Targeting those with the ability to shoot back seems like a less than cunning plan.
Unless the addresses are in jurisdictions that heavily restrict the private possession of firearms.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They are ultimate, perfect libertarians. Rand Paul eat your heart out!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
libertarian
n.
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
what?
Re: (Score:2)
Rand Paul has no heart, he's a libertarian.
Re:Careful, they might shoot back (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that they have survived this long with most Europe virtually recognizing them as a sovereign state
They *are* a sovereign state, by all rights. They control territory with military force, they tax citizens, they provide services, they buy and sell oil resources, they make and enforce laws, they have a standing army; how do they not meet the definition of a sovereign state or legitimate government? Yeah, they suck, they're brutal, etc., but so is North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
So as religion slowly loses foothold in our increasingly secular world, the Caliphate cannot achieve their objective. In the end, if they partially succeed, there will be a new radical Muslim state in the Middle East but I can't see any of the nation states giving land to them.
True, the idea of them establishing a new world-wide caliphate with all other nations submitting to them is simply ridiculous. However they can be successful in establishing a new nation-state in the middle east, and are already part
Re: (Score:3)
Um, genocide really isn't considered acceptable these days. Besides, the people they're murdering are mainly the people in the areas they control, who would be nuked in your scenario, so that seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The obvious solution to me seems to be containment. Keep them contained within a certain area and don't let them expand their territory any more. The people under their control will suffer (but hey, at least they won't be irradiated to death), but oh well.
One
Re:Careful, they might shoot back (Score:4, Insightful)
From a group that made its name slaughtering helpless civilians, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of guile.
I'm confused and not properly following this thread. Are you saying ISIS or the US military have made their names slaughtering helpless civilians?
Or both?
I declare a Fatwah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
List culled from public sources, and here it is: (Score:5, Funny)
the personal data was almost certainly culled from publicly available sources
IS has called for the deaths of:
Sgt Bilko
Captain John Carter
Colonel Jack O'Neil
Colonel Jack O'Neill
Major Dad
General Hospital
Re: (Score:2)
And General Protection Fault was also rumoured
Re: (Score:2)
I hear Major Malfunction has gone into hiding.
Re: (Score:2)
I found General Failure... not sure why he was reading my hard drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Colonel Panic, on the other hand, just stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:List culled from public sources, and here it is (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget...
Private Browsing
Corporal Punishment
General Recklessness
Sgt. Slaughter
Captain Jack Sparrow
Major Damage
Commander Riker
Re: (Score:2)
Please, not Private Gomer Pyle.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my fucking God! The Muslims killed Captain Crunch . . . and Snap, Crackle and Pop . . . and the Trix Rabbit! Things are getting serious now! C'mon Americans! Radical Muslims are easy to spot. Their women wear head to toe burkas. You are armed to the teeth . . . you just need to shoot at the burkas!
Otherwise, Muslims will take out your breakfast precious bodily fluids!
Re: (Score:2)
/Oblg. Captain Obvious ...
Captain Caveman
Captain Crunch
Captain Falcon
Captain Jack Sparrow
Captain John Carter
Captain Obvious
Colonel Jack O'Neil
Colonel Sanders
Colonel Sandurz
Commander Riker
Commander Shepard
Corporal Punishment
General Confusion
General Hospital
General Protection Fault
General Recklessness
General Tso
Kernel Lingus
Kernel Panic
Major Dad
Major Damage
Major Malfunction
Major Woody
Private Affairs
Private Benjamin
Private Browsing
Private Parts
Sgt. Bilko
Sgt. Slaughter
Hope this makes agencies to take doxing seriously (Score:3)
But doxing of other activists would really have a chilling effect in the political speech. Hope agencies take doxing seriously and if any of the perps are within jurisdiction, hope they catch them and punish them.
Re: (Score:2)
Towns must not have the OPSEC memo (Score:3)
Personally I think it is a nice tribute and hope it continues. These service members are at a greater driving their car on the highway than from ISIS. Lets not get all hysterical, which is what ISIS wants.
So Where Are You Now, NSA? (Score:2)
Our supposedly omnipotent spy agency should be able to track down where these posts are coming from. Their silence on this matter is deafening.
Re:So Where Are You Now, NSA? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever listen to what NSA and CIA say in front of Congress and the Press? The last thing they claim is omnipotence. Rather they emphasize how much they do not know. Maybe you could go back to your TV, you aren't ready for the real world.
Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Turnabout is fair play? (Score:2)
Considering they doxed ISIS fighters, does anyone find it surprising they're returning the favour?
Kill them all. (Score:2, Informative)
This isn't even about religion. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last time we eradicated some power-hungry murderous group in the middle-east, we created ISIS.
No, that happened because we left before there was a half-decent force in place to keep Iraq functioning, and because the many crossed "red lines" in Syria turn out to be no red lines at all (says the administration), and that conflict has been allowed to fester - a situation the sort of people who morphed their groups into ISIS just love.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, you've never done any such thing.
You've convinced yourself that the forces of truth and justice went in and cleaned up things right good.
All you really did is bluster around for a while and then leave saying "mission accomplished". Only to discover you'd left a power vacuum in unstable societies where this could happen.
America has achieved damned little there, despite claiming the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
The US invasion made the whole shit possible.
Let's not kid ourself, Saddam was an asshole. But he was a secular asshole. In the whole region, there was exactly ONE state that could be considered secular and not full of religious nuts, and that was the Iraq. 'cause they didn't get to gain any ground with Saddam. I sure as hell would not want to live in a country ruled by that madman, but he kept the whole region stable.
Sadly at the key moment, when the nation needed a smart, strong and level headed leader, a
Re: (Score:3)
Two actually. Turkey used to be secular as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If brutality would work, ISIS would be in complete control of the Middle East. But it doesn't, and that's why ISIS is being battered by both Western and Middle Eastern States.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked in Gaul, Carthage, post-WW I Russia, the Native Americans, Tiananmen Square, Nazi Germany (against the Nazis), Eastern Georgia under German Sherman, Imperial Japan...
Re: (Score:2)
No one in this list were a part of a psychotic death cult...
Re:Kill them all. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Romans had little use for unifying the refugees of their occupied lands. They killed all that resisted and the rest were enslaved. Those that remained assimilted Roman culture because the opposite was death. This basic structure is the same in every place where force was successful.
The West's military misadventures have failed because Western militaries have become preoccupied with defeating armies and weapon systems. They are no longer focused on defeating a nation. Military force can only be successful to the extent that it is willing to defeat a people and break not only their ability to fight but to their willingness to fight.
This is not done through "nation building", nurturing or any other touchy-feely behavior. It is done by killing people who resist and destroying their places of living. Every act of resistence should be dealt with death and destruction until everyone willing to fight is dead and everyone else won't fight.
You approach a village and you take fire from it? You level the village and kill everyone who resists. You keep doing this and you will not have any resistence. People will learn that resistence is futile, that resistence means death.
There is nothing nice about this. It is vicious and it is brutal. Which is why we should not engage in military actions unless we are willing to pursue it. Because the opposite is viciousness and brutality for both sides without any resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Our appetite for foreign militarism is entirely the result of our politicians selling the idea that our enemy is the leadership and their military forces, but the populace is our friend. With our advanced military weapons, we can defeat the defined "enemy" and then the populace will embrace us as liberators.
What I don't know is where this idea originated. My only guess was that it grew out of the reconstruction era in postwar Germany where civilian resistance was minimal and largely theoretical understan
Re: (Score:2)
whooooosh!
Re:Kill them all. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kill them all. (Score:5, Insightful)
....They need to die. Every last one of them..... It's about a power-vacuum that was created in the Middle East....
That's exactly the problem. We make a list of every so-called asshole and kill them all only to find out that the problem hasn't been solved and that we need to make a new list of the new assholes who filled in the power-vacuum we created by killing the last bunch of assholes. Not to get all soft here, but the ISIS, Al Quida, etc. are symptoms of underlying political and social-economic problems that need to be addressed. The middle-east was always politically unstable since we broke up the Ottoman Empire in 1920. But the violence was limited as long as the economy was able to provide employment for the majority of the population. What we have had since the 1990s is the rise of globalism and the erosion of middle-class jobs, especially in the countries that have failed to diversify their economies and encourage innovation. The combination of economic pressure and lack of legitimate political structures has caused a perfect storm in which organisations such as ISIS can thrive.
Re: (Score:3)
As you say it was stable under the Ottoman empire, because they took over and kept it, America needs to do the same thing. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ were all British colonies, but the difference is the white people never left, so they remain beacons of progress. Hate to sound all racist here, but there is a strong correlation between those and African, Middle Eastern states that were given back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it is very much about religion. At its core, Daesh is a religious movement for control of Islam. The Koran backs much of what they do. Islam never had a reformation like Christianity and Judaism. The latter have effectively jettisoned those parts of "scripture" which are just plain wicked. In essence, humanity has triumphed over religion in those two cases (i.e., the Greeks won). Islam has never had a reformation. And it doesn't appear likely it will anytime soon because anyone attempting it is us
Re: (Score:2)
How did you determine in WW2 who is Nazi and who isn't?
Ah (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, now can we admit its not a "religion of peace"?
(quick, mod him down, he said something we don't like! Plus all religions are equally evil - Presbyterians are just itchin to shop off some heads! Plus, wascally wepubwicans!)
Another contribution to peace. Thanks Islam. (Score:2)
PC mush heads still don't get it.
In other news water is wet! (Score:2)
So ISIS wants to kill US soldiers? Wow! Holy shit! Clearly this is a surprising development!
Think of it as evolution in action... (Score:3)
... not of us, but of them. ISIS is sort of like an extremely virulent infection. It is really bad if you get it, but it kills so fast that the patient dies before the infection has time to spread much, and it has EVERYBODY working to exterminate it. At the moment, all of the batshit crazy teenagers filled with Islamic Angst are heading ISIS-ward to be indoctrinated and (one supposes) employed eventually as suicide bombers. The only problem is, it requires a special kind of crazy to become a suicide bomber or fatwah-murderer, and the world has a finite supply of that kind of crazy. The other problem is that collecting all of the nut-cases in one place makes it comparatively easy to (eventually) hit them with the moral equivalent of an antibiotic.
The only thing that I can see ISIS accomplishing is -- eventually -- convincing the moderate Islamic world that it is better to be an atheist (or at worst, any other religionist) than to be Muslim. Pakistan made a major play in that direction yesterday when the woman was beaten and then burned to death for allegedly burning the Quran. It publicly stated that it was wrong for the public to have killed this woman for burning the Quran -- only it (the government) got to prosecute and then murder the woman for burning the Quran. It never occurred to them that it might be absolutely insane to murder somebody, ever, for burning a book that you bought, paid for, and own. Especially a violent, psychotic, hate-filled document like the Quran. Or a violent, psychotic, hate-filled document like the Bible (either part). Or any religious text, violent, psychotic, and hate-filled or not. Or a copy of Dirac's Quantum Mechanics (although there it might arguably be an act of criminal stupidity).
I'm tempted to go out and burn a Quran myself out of sheer sympathy and in protest and in support of freedom of speech and freedom of (and from!) religion. But first I'd have to buy a copy of the Quran, and who wants to reward the idiots who publish it? So I just bring up copies of the Skeptics Annotated Quran on my browser and then -- wait for it -- close the browser window. Just like that, I make my current copy of the Quran disappear, even worse than just burning it. Over and over again. I may even write a script to copy an online version of it and overwrite it repeatedly with random numbers. Some people are so very, very, 17th century clueless about information.
rgb
Re: (Score:2)
Once someone loses his capacity to feel remorse for the consequences of his actions, horrors that would deter an ordinary person from doing something only feed his sense of self-importance and self-righteousness. This is true across the board no matter what your religion or ideology; the only thing that stops any of us from becoming monsters is our awareness of impending remorse.
Take the US drone strike programs in the Middle East. For the most part I feel these are a less destructive than the other milit
Re: (Score:2)
If your enemy is in an unassailable position you have two choices; infiltrate and kill them in their sleep or attack something outside their fortress which they must come out to defend. Though I would think that the most obvious targets for the infiltration would be the drone 'pilots' families, people they do business with, people who make them burgers, people they owe money to, people who owe them money.
Re: (Score:2)
If your enemy is in an unassailable position you have two choices; infiltrate and kill them in their sleep or attack something outside their fortress which they must come out to defend. Though I would think that the most obvious targets for the infiltration would be the drone 'pilots' families, people they do business with, people who make them burgers, people they owe money to, people who owe them money.
True. But the "obvious" targets illustrate my point about the depraved mind not being able to comprehend unintended consequences. These targets only work if the enemy reacts to attacking them exactly the way you hope he will. If he instead acts the opposite way, if he becomes more aggressive and indiscriminate in his drone attacks, that will only make you to double-down on your impotent strategy.
You can see this in Japan's strategy in WW2. In retrospect most of Japan's strategic aims in WW2 seem irration
Re: (Score:2)
look at ISIS. They are fighting a brutal but futile campaign; even without the west Muslims themselves would refuse to be united under them. But the irrational futility of their actions only feeds their fanaticism.
How is their campaign "futile"? If it weren't for the west's (mainly US's) military support, both direct (drone-bombing) and indirect (helping the Iraqi army and other forces with arms and training), they'd be a lot more successful than they are now. As it stands, they control a huge amount of t
Re: (Score:2)
And the right thought Occupy was the biggest threat to civilization possible.
Actually the right thought Occupy was a gift. It discredited the calls for strong reform and heavy punishment, giving such calls a wacko fringe taint.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the CIA never lost assassination powers, except for heads of state. That was basically a "gentleman's agreement" anyway; they didn't want more state agents trying to assassinate our President (like JFK), so they stopped assassinating other heads of state.
ISIS leaders probably don't really count in this policy. And the US routinely drone-bombs high-value targets in other countries; they've bombed lots of terrorist leaders in Yemen.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Weddings? That's where you draw the line?
Killing people for bringing blankets and beds to kids, that's cool. Killing journalists, that's cool. Terrorizing locals, that's cool. Attacking schools, that's fine? Weddings none of that shit. ... that's it ... huh. To each his own, I guess.