Clara Petacci

Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu

Carl Schmitt

Karl Marx

Earl Warren

Rosa Luxemburg

John Dewey
(See generally JTG, Underground History Of American Education)

66 responses to “Non-Combatants

  1. I could post other photos of collaborators, but you’ve done a sufficient job to make the point.

    We don’t know how much Marx encouraged William T. Sherman to massacre old men, women, and children ; but it is known that Sherman, Sheridan, and Lincoln knew Marx’ philosophy quite well since his Manifesto had been widely published in 1847 and later.

    The rationale behind my support of secession is freedom. Freedom from the leviathan, centralizing state in D. Cl , or any other location.

    Self government is the Jeffersonian ideal, secession is the only way to achieve that.

  2. It seems clear to me that those who ordered that horrible things be done to others:
    Warren and the Ceausescu’s (or clearly the president) are combatants. The others, are ideological fools. What sort of world would you care to live in if you cannot have the liberty to develop ideas, even those you could choose, with greater wisdom, to divorce later?

    Do you condemn the mother of Hitler just because she gave birth to him? What about Abe Lincoln’s mother? Was she responsible for his madness? Conception and execution are completely separate animals.

  3. Pingback: Before It's News

  4. Prairie Fire

    Ah, Pat Hines, your statement that Billy Sherman, Phil Sheridan, and Abe Lincoln knew of Marx’s writings as you write here without going to the link, doesn’t wash. As you say without the link, they all know Marx’s philosophy quite well just because of the timing of Marx’s writings. To wit “they all knew of Marx quite will, since 1847 publication date preceded their actions.” Can’t go there, myself.

  5. Prairie Fire,
    Are you simply asking for proof of the assertion by Pat or are you disputing the tyranny brought about by these esteemed members of American history?

  6. You are conflating the distinction between “combatants” (opponents who are lawfully targetable during combat operations) and “non-combatants” (persons protected from attack; persons not lawfully (or morally) targetable during combat operations) with a different class of opponent – the ideologues who are protagonists of the enemy, whether political leaders or enablers. Your example set are manifestly guilty of crimes against their country, people and/or civilization in general. They deserved to be held accountable.

    However, it is a false argument and confuses the discussion to post their pictures as ‘non-combatants’.

    If /when civilization fails and open conflict breaks out, you can make a legitimate targeting case against such regime ideologues; but you are at fault if you lead people astray with the false “non-combatants” meme of anything goes …

    • WD:

      No conflation here.

      I am trying to provoke thoughtful comments such as yours to get people away from a simplistic “gun or no gun” rule of morality. There is much mindspace prep to be done and precious little time in which to do it.

      By the way, “by any means necessary” (BAMN) does not mean “anything goes”.

      “By any means necessary” necessarily implies that if an act is NOT necessary, it is beyond the pale.


      1) The “rape weapon”. All rapists get shot. Summarily.

      2) Shooting an unarmed kid. See above.

      3) Shooting an unarmed .gov abortionist. Hmmmmmm…..

      4) Giving a King’s man’s family a chance to evac before torching his house? Pretty good idea, methinks – especially as the inevitable reprisal cycle deepens and widens.

      5) Cannibalism? I know you have read it, but others might want to read The 900 Days before establishing a per se rule.

      6) Vigorous interrogation of a regime politician, followed by videotaped decapitation? You make the call.

      If there is conflation, it is by those (not you) who apply a “gun or no gun” rule without reference to the fact that the most morally-culpable evil people have historically been wearing the nicest clothes and living in the nicest quarters.

      And everyone better damned well skippy understand that all FREEFOR and their dependents/”unwitting accomplices” will be classified as “unlawful combatants” and dealt with as such by the Regime and its allies, regardless of the Law of Land Warfare or other Westphalian niceties.

      .Gov lives by “anything goes”.

      The historical record supports that conclusion, doesn’t it?

      Thanks for your note.

  7. I just wanted to clarify my comment earlier about Ceausescu. I mean’t the president: Ceausescu, as opposed to his wife, not anyone else past or present. I don’t need the MIB coming to visit me for bad writing, or a misinterpretation.

  8. Hahaha! What’s your point? Hahaha!

  9. The victors generally determine who is punished, who is “innocent”, and who is “guilty of a capital crime”. It’s not always right, but it is what it is.

    Some folks on “team freedom” are advocating exactly the same means to advance their utopian fantasies that these people used to work toward their utopian fantasies.

    We don’t want Marxist purges here, the logic goes, so we’ll use “liberty purges” to get our way. This is a refined form of “geev me mah way or ahll keeeel yew…”

    When I hear “liberty” in the same paragraph as talk about deliberately targeting and killing the family of an “enemy of liberty”, I want to vomit.

    I know men who are looking at a lifetime in jail for much, much less.

    I would stand and fight to protect even Pelosi’s grandchildren, as much as I hate what she has done/is doing, from any schizo-homicidal “liberty advocate”, any day of the week.

    • +1

    • Everybody wants a clean war (yes even Opfor, dirty wars hurt them as well) however what you are missing is it is impossible. Sooner or later some Neo- Praetorian like Gabe Suarez will do another Waco on somebodies house (this is 100% guaranteed in the mans own words) and Freefor will be false flagged for it. It will escalate and every method will be used to crush Freefor.

      By all means try and start clean but understand, no matter what this will not be like our first revolution and CW2 means collective punishment, atrocity, starvation as a weapon and worse will be used. Expect 50% casualties, mass starvation and possibly routine cannibalism if things get moving fast.

      This will lead to escalation and a climate where there is no legitimate governance. If we thought the hate from ACW1 was bad, just wait.

      Something to ponder, using the Bolshevik revolution as an example, do folks know why Anastasia got executed? The poor kid certainly didn’t deserve it no matter who did it.

      Some of it was bloodlust but a a good chunk of it is the iron law of revolution . If you don’t get them all, they’ll be back with foreign troops.

      This was the historical pattern, kick King (and our so called elected and appointed see themselves as having a right to do what they do and are thus kings) out, King comes back with Mercs.

      To quote that rotten bastard Stalin “No Person No Problem”

      So by all means try and stay clean just understand that you won’t be able to and that once you’ve won, it will never be the same. No, no “one nation under god” , No “sea to shining sea” just a bunch of smaller, some free, some not nations and 150 years (minimum) of hate.

      Given how bad and rapacious Opfor is, its probably worth it, my country is dying and if I have to have a smaller one, so be it but have no illusions. Freefor can’t have the whole thing, probably can’t govern the coastal states and will not be able to head back to the farm.

  10. Pelosi’s kids and grand kids fine…off limits. How about Pelosi herself and others of her ilk?

  11. AP,

    I realize that you know this already, but…the pukes are bent on killing your kids, grandkids, your dog even, and they’ll do it for no other reason than they want to, and they’ll get away with it.

    Does that not make you go red, sir?

  12. TIA et al:
    Do you wish to become that which you so justly loathe?
    Do you wish to sow the seeds of yet another 600 year old blood feud?
    Is there any such thing as collective guilt, and do you, as a supposed advocate of individual rights, advocate that?
    Can civil liberty be established by application of savage barbarism?

    Think very carefully about the fruit of such policies, and who will be eating it.

    • Mark Matis

      Rot in hell with your pig buddies.

      • Mark Matis

        I do not see many clamoring for a blood feud over Ceausescu nor Mussolini nor…

      • Hey Mark, could you expand on that a bit please? Was this in answer to Historian’s questions? I for one don’t have any “pig buddies” and I thought they were pretty good questions. Especially this one…

        “Do you wish to become that which you so justly loathe?”

        Mighty important question, seems to me. Am I missing something?

        • Mark Matis

          As I have said before, I go with THEIR Rules of Engagement. “If they weren’t associating with criminals, they wouldn’t have been harmed.”
          I will not intentionally target OpFor’s family. However, if the opportunity to take out OpFor presents itself, I will NOT refuse to do so because their family is present and will probably be injured or killed as well.

    • Historian,

      The blood feud you refer to has already been started, and long before you and I were even born.

      I’ve covered your questions, in my own mind, many times.

      I’m FAR more concerned about the “policies” of the powers that be, than I am of eating lead from ANY Liberty advocate.

      Spare me.

  13. AP, you always got my respect. So, I ask you, without heat, if Pelosi orders your grandchildren or family to be killed, what then? I read what you said and understand. And good on ye for defending the innocent. Mindless barbarism in the end will only produce more. Keep in mind the slop these whores have been getting away with, nigh on fifty years, the treasure they’ve stolen, and the blood on their hands. To say the least, I’ve got a bit of anger stored up.

    • ghostsniper

      What then?
      I kill the people that are trying to kill me, then I go after the person that hired them to do so.
      Sort of self explanatory.

  14. Jim, I’ve heard that one many a time. It goes something like this. There’s this rapist in the St.Louis area. After raping over thirty women, the monster is caught in New Mexico with a 14yr old girl in his room. He’s extradited, tried, and sentenced to 40yrs to life. Free medical care, dental, food, clothing, counseling, mental heath attention, jail room, bed, TV, radio, magazines, yard time. Meanwhile, his victims receive nothing but a lifetime of mental torture, and no doubt unrelenting depression. So careful are we to not “become like what we behold”, that we coddle this piece of shit for the rest of his life, instead of incinerating him in front of his victims, as he so richly deserves. If this is what civilization becomes, abject concern with the swine, none for the victims, and patting ourselves on the back for being so enlightened, then I’m through with it, and those who stand by it. So don’t piss down my back, and tell me it’s raining.

    • ghostsniper

      Justice should entail establishing a price in dollars for the criminals infractions that are due to his victims or the victims survivors. The criminal should then be given the chance to work at supervised labor with the financial gain paid to the victim and for the criminal’s maintenance.

      The first 2 questions that pop up are, how do you get blood out of a turnip, and how can you set a price on someone’s life?

      The IRS gets blood out of turnips everyday and insurance companies place prices on lives everyday.

      Currently the courts establish sentence and they can establish the price or value of the victim.

      The criminal will have the choice to pay for his maintenance and restitution or not. If he chooses to not pay for his maintenance then he will receive none. He will be chained in the elements with no food or water or shelter. In a few days he will see the error of his ways and will become instantly rehabilitated.

      You see, everybody has a threshold of tolerance and while your threshold for tolerating prison may be way up here there are people out there that can breeze right through prison as it is right now.

      The current justice system is fair to no one. It rips off the victims, the taxpayers and does little for rehabilitation. Everybody loses.

    • That ain’t me, Sean. I don’t think any of my earnings should be used for others to extradite, try, sentence or whatever. I don’t believe in coddling either, nor appeasement nor anything else stupid. I also don’t believe that someone’s else’s beliefs, whatever they are, could possibly be some claim on my life. I might join with whomever I might choose, but a claim?

      I’m not saying you said otherwise, but isn’t that the point? Do you think that’s wrong? Do you think someone else–or ANY group of people–could somehow come up with some belief so morally righteous that it could actually be a physical claim on my life?

      Liberty happens every time any individual says, “No.”

  15. ‘Eliminating the seed’ is an issue I’ve rent my mind over for many years. My conclusions run the entire gamut of prospects: one day, my feeling is to stop just the perpetrator of the crime since they are the guilty party. The next it’s terminate the entire brood because ‘blood tells’ and like breeds like.
    This is the same reasoning God used when He told Israel to eradicate entire tribes of people: to not allow the infusion of bad blood worm its way into a pure line.
    But can we set ourselves up as God and decide to eliminate an entire family for the crimes of its elders (useing the example of Pelosi and her brood [of vipers]). If we think the majority of her family don’t believe exactly as she does, we have some serious issues. If we don’t eliminate the seed, we will have the same issues to deal with down the road.
    Agreed, there’s a difference between forcing them to leave the country and wiping them out, but which is more beneficial to FreeFor and which is beneficial to expansion of the (seed’s) ideas? And why inflict our undesireables upon other parts of the planet that have no more need of their ideas than we?
    This issue of unintended consequences, birthright and moral high ground is going to be a stickler for all but the OpFor. Do we do as our enemy by returning tit-for-tat, play by their rules? And win and write our version of the history. Or do we mount out moral high horse and lose and be forever blackened by history?
    Decisions, decisions… I go along with Sean rather than the pacifists: filth needs flushing, not garnishments.

    • “This is the same reasoning God used when He told Israel to eradicate entire tribes of people: to not allow the infusion of bad blood worm its way into a pure line.”

      Invoking the mythos of a popular fairy tale is not a solid foundation for actions in our own lives. Would you be receptive if I cited precedent from the mythology of Roman gods, or pagans? Or are they not popular enough? If you want to look to The Life and Times of Jesus Christ for a perspective on moral philosophy, as many deist founding fathers did, that’s fine. But rhetoric like the above only serves to alienate agnostics who advocate individual liberty (of which there are MANY).

      • It’s only ‘mythos’ if you’re a mouse. Maybe I should quote some movie star or science fantasy author to be more agreeable to your insensibilities.

    • Once the not-winners and their families are under your control, what do you do with them? I know what happened to a branch of my family who were merchants loyal to the King of England: short-notice self-deportation to English-controlled Canada sans real property that was not very portable. They weren’t war criminals, just on the wrong side of history right then/there. In every conflict there are bunches of folks like this who are no longer welcome, but aren’t deserving of judicial prosecution or military tribunal.

      The trick is to identify where the line is, or should be. Language, location, behavior, association, knowledge, possessions, physical characteristics, or other can be where the line between inclusion/banishment/execution in the new society is placed. Who lives or dies, who goes or stays, and how?

      Thinking about this kind of thing in advance might allow some troubles to be avoided later, or give some idea as how to avoid some of the most horrific post-war situations.

      First, win.

      • Thanks for the thoughts, PDXR13. Agreed, what to do with the vanquished is going to be problematic for the ‘new and improved’ governing faction. I spend little time worrying about those after the conflict as compared to those during the conflict. Such as whipping a molotov through a bedroom window at 0330 to eliminate an official combatant- as well as his family as collateral damage. It’s unavoidable at times, for sure, but is it with an indiscriminate attack such as a molotov or IED?
        That is the question that really galls me.
        Like you, there are members of my family who fought both sides of the Revolution- my own antecedants were shipped to Canada as well. My grandfather returned to the United States early in the 1900’s, so I know which side my original people were on, disheartening as it may be.

    • Mark Matis

      I would also note that refusing to play by their rules ENCOURAGES them to do more of the same, while hitting them back with their own ROE will discourage some of them from continuing. Being nice to your enemy does NOT make them your friend.

      Furthermore, I would rather NOT kill anybody. I merely want “Law Enforcement” to honor their oath to the Constitution, including dealing with others in government who dishonor their oath. If “Law Enforcement” finds they cannot do that, I would be GLAD for them to decide that “Law Enforcement’ is not a career they care to continue. I will do everything I can to encourage them to make that choice. Hell, maybe they can get jobs as Mafia enforcers. At least THEN they would have some honor.

    • ghostsniper

      we will have the same issues to deal with down the road.

      There will always be someone around trying to take advantage of you in one way or another so therefore you must be ever vigilante to protect yourself in all ways.

      The creation of gov’t spawned a whole new tribe of people that you must remain ever vigilant of.

      Killing people that have never harmed you is not in anyone’s best interest.

    • The issue isn’t about DNA or genes, it’s about MEMES, about ideas.

      This war is about whether individuals have rights, about whether or not Jefferson was right when he said that the function of government is to secure those rights, about whether or not we will live in a constitutional republic. About whether we shall enforce responsibility for one’s actions.

      If you start acting as Pelosi does, then you become like Pelosi, regardless of what ‘blood’ flows in your veins.

  16. We deal with each man or women individually. We dont punish for what people MIGHT do. We punish for what they HAVE done. I do however reserve the right to modify that position if the situation dictates it. Semper Gumby

  17. chuckisageek

    Will there be such a thing as a “Non-Combatant” in the future conflict? I suspect that the kids/infants in Dresden and Nagasaki thought themselves to be “Non-Combatants”.


  18. Yes, Chuck, I’ve heard that saw in the woods too. The infants, the children, the women, the sick, the lame, people who in no way contribute to a war, nor seek any involvement in it. I am real damn sorry they get killed/maimed/ blinded/crippled/etc. When a country, like Japan, embarks on an orgy of conquest, murder, rape, pillage, they place the innocents in their society in harms way by doing what they do. You can’t go off on half the East, and expect no payback, nor vengence, or hatred for what you did. Sooner or later, your sins come back to visit you, and the cost is what you will bear. The blood of the innocents is on the heads of those who start the shit, both the ones they prosecute, and their own families. Take two families next door to one another. One guy screws the neighbors wife, gets found out. Both families implode, and the children who had nothing to do with the adultery suffer more than anyone. Kapische? The Japs got what was coming to them, the moment they decided to butcher civilians, POWs, and so on. Want your children, grandchildren, etc. to live in peace? Step #1 is to do no harm to another familys’ children and so on. Step#2 is to be so strong that no one will even attempt to harm you and yours. Step #3 is when someone decides to sock it to you and your family, you sock it right back to the sonsabitches, and kill every last one of them. Pour encourager des autres.

    • Islamic terrorists say exactly the same shit about us.

      In other news, I just got word my nephew, who is an Army medic, got blown up twice yesterday in Afghanistan.

      Got his bell rung, and his med kit got hit with shrapnel and tore up a chem light, but he is otherwise physically unhurt as far as we know.

      I bet the goat-humpers who set the IEDs said, “You can’t go off on half the Muslin world), and expect no payback, nor vengence, or hatred for what you did. Sooner or later, your sins come back to visit you, and the cost is what you will bear.”

      Just sayin’….

      • Tell your nephew to keep some of that shrapnel – that was the one with his name on it.

        Excellent post, BTW.

      • Mark Matis

        And I have no doubt you are correct. But then those goat-humpers are out to kill us or enslave us REGARDLESS of what we do. I merely want our government officials to honor their oath to the Constitution or to renounce their position in the government. But then that is just SO hateful of me…

  19. @Sean

    My point was missed. They will target us and our loved ones, they will make no distinction as they try to starve us, shoot us and burn us out when the veil of civilization falls and the velvet glove comes off……..

    My family can no more be expected to be treated as non-combatants anymore than the family in Dresden did, is my point.

    And knowing that might just change my behavior in a future conflict.

    I know the Patriot is kind of a cheese hollywood movie, but I think the turning point was not the capture for his older son, but the murder of the younger one, a true non-combatant. And once you realize you are a participant in the activities, like it or not, your world view will change dramatically.

  20. If we are very lucky, if the time comes that we must resort to arms to maintain our rights, those who fight will, at most, amount to 3% of the population. Probably less; my estimate is around 1/2 % overall, depending on location. In the populous urban East, a tiny fraction, while in the inter-mountain West, and in the South, especially in rural areas, the cause of Liberty will have more support. Whether the percentage of fighters is 1/2 or 3 or even 5%, the point is that we will be a small fraction of the population, and we will depend on them for our support.

    If the American Revolution is any guide, (and if it is not, it is at least a starting place) about 1/3 of the people will back the status quo, about 1/3 will sit on the fence, and 1/3 will back those willing to fight for individual freedom. At least initially. It might be 40/40/20, at first, but that isn’t what matters. What will matter is how that opinion trends, how the view of the people changes over time, what the perception of the people is with respect to those of us who purport to fight for Liberty.

    This war is first, last, and always a war of ideas. The American Revolution was won in the minds of the people before the issue came to blows; most people on the Patriot side believed, heart and soul, that they were entitled to their rights. And so did those on the other side; they differed on the means, on the appropriateness of armed rebellion against the lawful authority of the King, and on how trustworthy the common people were. So what made the difference? What turned the tide in the Patriot’s favor? The British did!

    British brutality and oppression, backed by inspired commentary and political propaganda by Paine and others, won more recruits and supporters for the Patriot cause than any other factor. The overt demonstration of concerted, deliberate tyrannical cruelty was the main reason that those sitting on the fence became Patriot supporters, and why the Tories lost their stomach for the fight and fled, fearing the vengeance of their neighbors

    If we are not able to clearly differentiate ourselves from the forces of evil in the minds of those of our neighbors and acquaintances who do not yet share our commitment to the ideals of the Founders, we will lose the support of the as yet uncommitted.
    If we lose the support of the majority of the people, and lose the war of ideas, we lose the war for freedom.

    Are we justified in being angry over the abuses so many have suffered? Yes.

    Are those who enabled, instigated, ordered or carried out such acts responsible for them? Yes.

    Does rage at unjust oppression justify the murder of innocents? No. Never.

    I say this again, beware of the consequences of letting your enemy determine your actions. You will become what you loathe, and whichever side ‘wins’, freedom loses.

    • Define “innocents”, and your stringing together of conventional “patriot” ideological positions might have a chance at being persuasive.

      Otherwise, it’s more “let them kill and ultimately defeat you, and you’ll get your reward later, ‘cuz you were a good doobie” pablum.

      How many of the aircrew over Japan and Germany came home as mass-murdering monsters?

      As an historian, you should know the answer.

      I spoke with and bought a book from the nav aboard the Enola Gay about four months ago, and he said he had no regrets. I thanked him for my life, as my dad was to be offshore in the engine room of a Casablanca-class escort carrier (a/k/a big steel unarmored coffin filled with high explosives and high-octane avgas vapors) during Operation Olympic in Nov ’45. Low likelihood of surviving that little party in that boat, according to my dad.

      Don’t think the nav became either a Japanese or a mass murderer once demob’d, either.

      Least he didn’t mention either.

      By the way, supporters of individual freedom, extremely limited government, and personal responsibility have already lost the support of the majority of the people in North America.

      Starting about seventy years ago….

      • Prairie Fire

        I might call it eighty years ago, very close to the start of the New Deal.

        During a visit with my 87-yo father several years back, it came out that his parents had voted for FDR every time. This news shocked me, I had thought… all …my… life… that they were better people than to do such a thing. I’m happy to have that information now, but hearing it was a real disappointment.

      • JM JOHNSON

        Just a thought: There were innocent women and children at Waco. That did not stop the feds. Just sayin’.

        • Mark Matis

          My point. And MANY Wacos since then, on a smaller and less reported scale. Damn every one of them to hell. And if their families get in the way…

      • The Trainer

        CA: Sean posted a simple truth here: “The blood of the innocents is on the heads of those who start the shit…..The Japs got what was coming to them, the moment they decided to butcher civilians, POWs, and so on.” (Condensed paragraph for the point’s sake…)

        The idea is not to have that blood on our heads. That is what moral action is about: Do not become the beast you confront.

        If non-combatants are killed/maimed/injured due to actions of OPFOR (not letting them evacuate, using as shields, reprisals,, etc), that blood is obviously on their heads, and depending on your view of Objective Truth and being true to that Belief eternally, FREFOR is fine so long as they purposely target those same non-combatants for payback.

        Mercy isn’t necessarily a weakness and can be very, very persuasive when it is demonstrated to an opposing non-combatant, or a technical combatant that is intellectually or emotionally on ‘the edge’ of becoming like-minded with FREFOR.

        Brutality, however, when purposely aimed at those who are not fighting you, is what OPFOR truly hopes for our side to do, because it works for them in persuading the population to accept OPFOR’s ends and means.

        If we are to have our numbers swell, we must be surgical in battle and always err on the side of doing whatever we can to ‘do no harm’ to non-combatants. Accidents will happen; that cannot be avoided. But the purposeful, “so what, you don’t want your family targeted, leave us alone” will defeat us, because we will lose even those in our own fold who aren’t in the field, but support FREFOR right now…who’ve planned for that extra meal, that place to sleep, that warm, dry blanket.

        Also, for anyone wishing to understand the historical mind-set of the Founders, please read, “The Theme Is Freedom,” by M. Stanton Evans. It is inspiring and validating. You will see that the Founders, even through the execution of the war and subsequent peace, scrupulously followed English common law in the prosecution of hostilities, and were trying to conserve the application of both the English Constitution and Common Law. We say we are trying to conserve/restore constituitonal government. Ok, then we need to walk the talk, because if we are to claim the Founders lineage, we cannot ‘raise the black flag and begin slitting throats’ where non-combatants are concerned.

        • Trainer:

          You know the esteem in which I hold you.

          So please take this question as respectfully and non-personally as I ask it:

          What exactly is a non-combatant?

          Is it a sleeping enemy soldier?

          Is it an enemy soldier who has shot his weapon dry at you and your team, and is now running away from you?

          Is it the 12 year old enemy partisan, who just shot your XO in the eye with her Cricket .22 from ambush, and is furiously trying to reload before you can see where she is hiding?

          Is it the unarmed vendor that sells the enemy force its weapons?

          Is it the unarmed medical staff that puts the wounded enemy back into combat service against you?

          Is it the unarmed old lady who cooks and cleans for the enemy so that he can concentrate on killing you and your team?

          Is it the unarmed Mr. Dewey, who devised and disseminated the anti-education model that made your enemy’s rise to tyranny possible?

          Is it Madame Ceausescu, who was put forth as “the Mother of Romania” and held the position of Deputy Prime Minister?

          Is it the unarmed California Governor Earl Warren, who supported the transport and incarceration of peaceful American citizens in the American concentration camps at Manzanar, Heart Mountain, and elsewhere?

          Is it the unarmed Rosa Luxemburg, who was a public leader of the Communist attack on the German government, culture, and nation?

          Is it the unarmed single mother of three who, once she puts her kids in daycare, prosecutes the poor devils caught up in the .Gov’s new “domestic terrorism” catch-and-not-release detention program?

          Is it the local police department clerk who processes the paperwork that transfers MRAPs from the .mil to the local standing domestic security forces?

          I believe that the military professionals reading this post need to crisply define their terms and be a LOT more specific when they urge folks to respect the Law of Land Warfare and target only “combatants”.

          I also want those military professionals to speak candidly about the odds of an undersized, unsupported, untrained insurgency going force-on-force with the combined counterinsurgency forces of the .gov and the .mil.

          For the record, I don’t want any of what is coming.

          The only thing I want even less is to lose by playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules.

          The purpose of war is to use violence to break the will of one’s opponent, so that he conforms to your wishes.

          That’s the plan of the Bad People.

          What’s the plan of those who urge playing by the Westphalian rules?

          • The Trainer

            I will answer with my thoughts later on…just starting a really busy day. And no, I don’t take your questions in a negative way. Honest discussion is necessary. More to follow later.

          • The Trainer

            CA: In my judgment, the following are combatants. Others omitted are not. This is based upon my understanding of the Laws of Land Warfare and the Judeo/Christian ethic underscoring “Just War Doctrine” (which only means anything if one reasons he will stand before God to explain his actions).

            Sleeping Solder: Combatant

            Retreating Enemy: Battle still enjoined? Combatant – he may still pick up a weapon in the on-going fight. Battle over and getting away? Non-combatant but still a belligerent (he may be captured or allowed to escape).

            12 year old engaged in combat against you: Combatant.

            Arms trafficker selling to the other side: Combatant

            Cook and housekeeper: Non-combatant. Just like the civilians under Vichy government of France in WWII.

            Dewey: Non-combatant. It is not his fault that the American citizenry trusted the government’s endorsement of the Dewey system. His system worked because it was allowed to work and was complied with by the civilian populace.

            Earl Warren: Belligerent; non-combatant. His type is usually brought up on charges after successful prosecution of the kind of war fought in this scenario.

            Rosa Luxemburg: Same as Warren.

            Unarmed Single Mother of Three Prosecutor: Same as Warren.

            PD Clerk: Non-combatant (possible resource if the situation is worked wisely).

            As to going toe to toe with .gov and .mil forces: Not a chance going toe to toe with units that have all the toys, all the time in the world to train, and replacements for days. 4GW forces don’t go ‘toe to toe’. Witness the sandbox of the last 10 years.

            No sane man wants what many see coming. No. Sane. Man.

            As to the purpose of war, breaking OPFOR’s will can never occur by atrocities commited against non-combatants.

            Our plan should be to keep our honor, our cause, and our Constitution sacrosanct. Some say that history is written by the victors, but whether we win or lose, one day, as we see happening now, the unrevised version of history will ‘eek’ out, and our actions will be viewed as either honorable and justified or dishonorable and unjustified. I would say it would be better to be viewed by posterity as honorable and justified.

            Everything else is tactics.

            • Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

              There’s room for argument, I believe, in some of those. But I get where you are going, and do not disagree in substance.

              As to the will-breaking, I think there is a lot of room for discussion in a secure environment. The killing of an East German or other regime politician does not constitute an “atrocity” in any definition of that word with which I am familiar. Nor does the killing of a regime bureaucrat.

              More importantly, especially given how regime suits generally feel about their own “boots on the ground”, I believe it probable that any regime government will be more than happy to fight to the last Praetorian – and have potential threats to their own power eliminated thereby to boot. Ergo, unless the “good guys” can break the Praetorians militarily before bleeding out themselves, unintended consequences for all regime members is both morally and practically necessary.

              Mosby’s summary quote gets it right, IMHO, from a pragmatic standpoint:

              The point was, and is, to maintain as much of the moral high ground as you can, because ultimately, you can’t kill EVERYONE who disagrees with you, but if you kill enough “innocents” EVERYONE will disagree with you.

              God be with you and yours, sir.

              See you in Berlin.

  21. Battlefield USA

    I posted this over at Mosby’s place. I am posting it here because I am interested in hearing your thoughts in this community…

    JM, Since the voters have voted us here, then we have no moral right to try to change things. Being a democracy and all. Perhaps it is not our battle to deny the will of the people. After all, they have every right to enslave their neighbors by giving the government their vote to do so.

    But let us assume that their is that moment when liberty takes arms and actually… what? Win? Defeats the… enemy. Whoever that may be. We’ll restore government. And… vote… again… our… demise? Because… our hearts and minds campaign took… root? Because the voters loved us, they’ll… get it all right this time?

    Now, you may think I am being a smart-a** or maybe just some fool. Maybe not. But certainly, this is a fact that must be considered. Because, depending on what is culled or not… this will certainly be the outcome. And we’ll just vote our way right back to where we left off. After all, don’t the voters get the government they deserve, despite mine and your protestations in a democracy?

    Honestly, we know how hearts and minds work. There is always the threat of violence… at the end of a barrel. We’ll be nice to you in a assertive way. We’ll give you food and tend to your infirmities. Maybe build a school. But… you f*ck with us… Violence and death is always, even in the hearts and mind game… the ultimate motivator.

    I am talking to you. I am not teaching you.

    • The Apple Islander

      It’s hard to say. You’d have to find a Democracy where the elected officials actually act on behalf of their constituents rather than their own interests.

      There are none right now that I know of.

  22. Somewhere, on some plane, I have to believe the ghosts of the Carthaginians are smirking.

    There won’t be any Lexington Greens this time around. It will be more like Blood Meridian: survival, often at its basest. I intend to survive, with or without Christian approval. If that sets your stomach a-flutter I’ll just save time and count you among future casualties now.

    Btw, I owe my existence to the Enola Gay as well. Granpa was a Marine in ’46. Sorry, but the life of non-tribe is not worth the same as the life of tribe. Not by a long shot. Especially when non-tribe are 13th century Emperor-worshipers who happen to possess 20th century weapons. Don’t approve, feel free to pound it sideways.

    • “Btw, I owe my existence to the Enola Gay as well.”

      How do you figure? Japan was in the process of surrendering through the mediation of USSR, but USG wouldn’t have any of it. The reason they dropped the big one was to project their power, send a message, and prevent soviet influence in the outcome. May I suggest that we avoid revising history for the sake of romanticism? /shrug “Don’t approve, feel free to pound it sideways.”

      • JM JOHNSON

        Mr. Mouse: That is not entirely correct. Some members of the Japanese government had made overtures through Bernadotte of Sweden, and through the Russian embassy in Moscow(Russia had not yet delcared war on Japan). The demand by HST for surrender was rejected by Hirohito and his government as: …not worthy of a reply(at least that is how we translated it). The army fanatics were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. Read William Craig’s book: THE FALL OF JAPAN. If your cable company has the Military Channel, they have been running that excellent documentary series from the late 70’s: THE WORLD AT WAR, narrated by Sir Laurence Olivier. All of the players who were involved in the final war with Japan who were still alive then, were interviewed.
        Now I don’t doubt that somewhere, someone in that group decided we should drop the bomb to show those Russkies what we have. I think Stimson was of that mindset. But, given the casualties suffered at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, plus the effectiveness of the Kamikazes, HST made the right call.

  23. Mouse, I suggest YOU stop revising history. The Japs weren’t in the process of anything except killing our people in defense of their country. I’ve heard that bullshit all my life, and IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. I don’t care to tell you to pound anything, as that won’t really add anything useful. The bombs were dropped, the Japs surrendered. And so what if it helped deter the Soviets? We’ve been detering the Soviets ever since, as well. You may have been paying too much attention to what Dan Rather had to say all those years. Would I drop those bombs again? Gladly.

    • I’d heard the account of Japanese being in process of surrender, and USG knowing about it but dropping the big one anyways on the History Channel a few years ago. But upon further research I can’t find any good sources supporting that claim. It looks like the Moscow mediation was very non-committal, Japan explicitly refused surrender from USG, and Moscow actually attacked Japan as USG was dropping the boys “dashing any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow’s mediation”. So I stand corrected, and I will respectfully bow out of this one.

  24. Yes, strategic bombing in any context outside of military targets is terrorism. Terrorism is politically motivated violence against non-combatants and Innocents. It is what cops do every day when they report to work.

    Those “goat-humpers” are resisting an occupation.

    Would it not be interesting to classify all politicians as target-able combatants in war for the duration of the conflict? Think of the incentives to the normally craven and cowardly rulers if they knew their own body parts were in the hazard 24/7. Government is history’s greatest engine for perverse incentives and this would certainly put a brake on unbridled strategic ambition in unjust and provoked conflicts.

    • Amen, Bill, amen.

      Additionally, the families of the Opfor are enablers, most are in full support, running numerous activities for the actual shooters.

      As I’ve said, I won’t torture, but I will remove the Opfor’s DNA down to the last discoverable atom of it and do so without remorse.

    • “…Would it not be interesting to classify all politicians as target-able combatants in war for the duration of the conflict?…”
      ‘S;cuse me if I’m wrong, but I thought they already were. If not for their actions, we’d not be in this damn mess. Well, most of it- I agree the electorate has a huge responsibility in this area. But not for the illegitimate regulations and actions conceieved and enacted by them, there’d be no Wacos or Jose Guerenas or Ruby Ridge, or…