Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 agnosto wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Most indications and reports do not back up the claim that they were paramilitary, simply they were selecting targets based on color of skin, and shooting them. That is domestic terrorism, not freedom fighting.

There is no clear difference between freedom fighting and terrorism, other than perspective. The fact they targeted whites doesn't change anything, if they perceived white police as the oppressors then why wouldn't they target white police? Since it was during a "black lives matter" event, race is probably going to be a big factor.

There were no political statements

I think murdering white police officers, at a BLM event, kind of speaks for itself.

 LethalShade wrote:
If you want it to be done your way, do it yourself.

Ironically perhaps, that is the message that is being sent out... If you want to protect your family, get a gun and do it yourself. If you don't want to be raped, get a gun and protect yourself. If you feel you are being marginalised by the system, get a gun and fight back... This is the message that is being constantly drummed into people, and it's the wrong message. People should be encouraged to work towards a better and safer society that rejects violence, not one that embraces it.

So, IRA in Northern Ireland, freedom loving patriots or terrorists?

depends on what side you are on honestly, but the IRA has a plan, is organized, even though they are decentralized they have a structure. They also classify as terrorists IMO because they hit civilian targets for political gain, vs military targets.

 agnosto wrote:
So, IRA in Northern Ireland, freedom loving patriots or terrorists?

Unfortunately I have run into many Americans that believe them to be the former.

And back to the actual topic:

Investigators named the suspect as Micah X. Johnson.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/police-identify-dead-dallas-suspect-as-micah-x-johnson/

I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.

Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.

Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula

Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.

If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.

I've read Lind's essays on 4th Generation War and I've read through the 2006 COIN manual, I've not read much of the '14 revised version. I still don't agree with your view that it's applicable. This isn't an insurgency. It's a single crime that hasn't been linked to a group or any other crimes yet. It's mass murder, it's not proof of an insurgency. For all we know everybody involved in the attack is already in custody. Let's not try to turn this into something it's not. There's no evidence of widespread attacks on police or a group/movement that is committed to starting such a campaign. Let's not rush to declare that a handful of people angry at the police is the same thing as the Taliban or AQI and that similar tactics and strategy against them are needed.

 Jihadin wrote:
I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.

They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.

 redleger wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.

They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.

The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.

Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.

Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula

Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.

If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.

I've read Lind's essays on 4th Generation War and I've read through the 2006 COIN manual, I've not read much of the '14 revised version. I still don't agree with your view that it's applicable. This isn't an insurgency. It's a single crime that hasn't been linked to a group or any other crimes yet. It's mass murder, it's not proof of an insurgency. For all we know everybody involved in the attack is already in custody. Let's not try to turn this into something it's not. There's no evidence of widespread attacks on police or a group/movement that is committed to starting such a campaign. Let's not rush to declare that a handful of people angry at the police is the same thing as the Taliban or AQI and that similar tactics and strategy against them are needed.

I understand what you are saying, Im simply saying if we use ASCOPE and dig a little deeper, figure out the whys behind the action, and work socially, we could do more than kinetic operations would yield in the long run. But yes, I concede this is not yet part of a bigger group, unless the Black Panther party really was involved as they claim.

 redleger wrote:
If I ddin't know any better Smacks, I would say you advocate these actions.

I categorically do not advocate these actions, or endorse any other violence. In fact, I have always argued that more should be done to prevent this kind of thing, and have had to argue with people, who I believe have repeatedly encouraged these kind of actions with their politics (albeit inadvertently).

Prestor Jon wrote:
Arming yourself for protection is a nonviolent action, it's not aggressive at all. It's a passive preparation for the contingency that violence might be brought to you, it has nothing to do with seeking out to do violence to others. Violence should always be viewed as a last resort and political statments shouldn't be made by violent assaults or murders.

Preparing for violence with a weapon in your home is not just "a contingency", it's a reflection of social attitudes.

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
If I ddin't know any better Smacks, I would say you advocate these actions.

I categorically do not advocate these actions, or endorse any other violence. In fact, I have always argued that more should be done to prevent this kind of thing, and have had to argue with people, who I believe have repeatedly encouraged these kind of actions with their politics (albeit inadvertently).

Prestor Jon wrote:
Arming yourself for protection is a nonviolent action, it's not aggressive at all. It's a passive preparation for the contingency that violence might be brought to you, it has nothing to do with seeking out to do violence to others. Violence should always be viewed as a last resort and political statments shouldn't be made by violent assaults or murders.

Preparing for violence with a weapon in your home is not just "a contingency", it's a reflection of social attitudes.

It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm. I have never wanted to die being right, I am however ok with making someone else die for their cause, if they attempt to use force on me. However being prepared and advocating active violence are not even remotely the same thing.

When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.

 Jihadin wrote:
When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.

well lets hope we don't start seeing any more IEDs in America. Those things scare me.

Back on topic though, sorry.

anymore information that isn't propaganda?

Dallas PD saying they're still being uncooperative

 Jihadin wrote:
When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.

The Tsarnaev brothers used IEDs, and the crap bags in San Bernardino tried to.

Obviously completely unrelated the the guys who did this, but their use has happened.

I think more than a weapon is going to define an insurgency.

This is sad. All it will serve to do is further divide the country. While I'm not particularly fond of certain activist groups I hope most keep in mind these individuals don't represent the whole.

Is anyone able to find a US news outlet reporting Black Power taking responsibility? All I can find are the UK outlets reporting it. Seems a bit odd.

This is going to be an interesting couple of years.

 redleger wrote:

Spoiler:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 redleger wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
If they are claiming the result of terrorism, treat them like terrorists. Burn them down.

Or we could just prosecute them for premeditated murder. It's not like we don't already have laws against murdering people. Every horrific crime doesnt have to be classified as terrorism and turned over to the Feds.

Someone needs to read Counter Insurgency Warfare by David Galula

Counter Insurgency Warfare isn't applicable to street crime. We're not fighting an insurgency. The US military doesn't have the authority or capability to do so domestically anyway and the police still have to respect our civil rights. What happened in Dallas was a crime, not a war or an insurgency. Trying to put that square peg in a round hole only results in revoking civil rights, damaging society and the rule of law all in the name of a false sense of security that doesn't make us safer.

If you think people taking up arms in America against other Americans in a organized fashion is not an insurgency then you are wrong. It may not be warfare, but if you had read about COIN operations, you would know that stopping this has nothing to do with enforcing law, although we must act within our own laws, or we risk creating more terrorism. There are many many parallels. And the message was actually meant for Frazzled, since burning them down is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen, and proper prosecution is what does need to happen. I was actually in agreement with you, but you would need to understand COIN to know that.

I've read Lind's essays on 4th Generation War and I've read through the 2006 COIN manual, I've not read much of the '14 revised version. I still don't agree with your view that it's applicable. This isn't an insurgency. It's a single crime that hasn't been linked to a group or any other crimes yet. It's mass murder, it's not proof of an insurgency. For all we know everybody involved in the attack is already in custody. Let's not try to turn this into something it's not. There's no evidence of widespread attacks on police or a group/movement that is committed to starting such a campaign. Let's not rush to declare that a handful of people angry at the police is the same thing as the Taliban or AQI and that similar tactics and strategy against them are needed.

I understand what you are saying, Im simply saying if we use ASCOPE and dig a little deeper, figure out the whys behind the action, and work socially, we could do more than kinetic operations would yield in the long run. But yes, I concede this is not yet part of a bigger group, unless the Black Panther party really was involved as they claim.

Ok, I see your point now, your brevity was hard to get a read on before. I think we're mostly in agreement. The real solution to the social tensions and problems at the root of the violence we're seeing need to be solved with political and social work and changes to policies and methods, more so than just further militarization of the police and a tougher crack down with enforcement. It's gotten to be far too much of an Us vs Them mentality with people and cops and taking sides on that basis instead of stepping back and taking a holistic approach to dealing with our society.

Our political system needs to stop being beholden to an entrenched status quo and allowing problems to persist as campaign issues instead of working towards effective data based solutions. Our system is geared to make govt work slowly to help ensure we get things right so change won't happen overnight but by putting off change we are left with antiquated systems and persistent problems that only worsen over time.

 redleger wrote:
It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.

And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".

Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers. I believe it is also pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.

My condolences go out to the Dallas Police Department and their families who were involved in the atrocious acts that transpired last night.

If one thing is certain, it's that these low level degenerates who carried out these shootings WILL be brought to justice.

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
When IED's come into play within the US of A then I think COIN/Insurgent can come into play. Other then that. Low level players of "Domestic Terrorists" or "Extremists Terrorist" IMO so far. These guys (and woman) is in the column of "Domestic Terrorist" being the nature and execution of the attack. I agree with D-USA on the Orlando shooter.

The Tsarnaev brothers used IEDs, and the crap bags in San Bernardino tried to.

Obviously completely unrelated the the guys who did this, but their use has happened.

I think more than a weapon is going to define an insurgency.

Don't forget those Hutaree fethwits who wanted to use IEDs to take out cops. They wanted to murder a cop to cause a funeral procession and then hit the procession with IEDs.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/

I'm talking on the amount that IED's and their configurations were used in Iraq and Afghanistan happening here.

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.

And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".

Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers. I believe it is also pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.

The police are not here to protect you. If they were you would be 100% correct. They can not be every where at once. It is impossible to think they can. Keeping a weapon in my house does absolutely nothing to degrade our society assuming I keep it in a safe place away from my children, and everyone knows it is not a toy. The majority of police men and women will tell you they can not protect you in a break in, a car jacking, or most situations that happen randomly. It is not a rhetoric, it is a truth.

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.

And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".

Eh, don't worry. Even I, as a Frenchman, am exposed to this rhetoric on a daily basis and starting to look for weapons to protect myself. It's not just an American thing.

 CptJake wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.

They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.

The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.

It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.

And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".

Eh, don't worry. Even I, as a Frenchman, am exposed to this rhetoric on a daily basis and starting to look for weapons to protect myself. It's not just an American thing.

Once again I allowed myself to steer off course. Lets discuss the events at hand. Mods tend to lock all threads im interested in and I just realized the direction we are headed.

 Smacks wrote:

 redleger wrote:
It may be a reflection of social attitudes, but being righteous does not keep you alive when someone is trying to do you harm.

And that is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Americans are being exposed to on a daily basis. The idea that you need a gun or you'll be in danger, and the police can't protect you. If you are that afraid of violent crime, and have that little faith in the police, then perhaps the message should be "we need to invest more in our society", not "you're own your own, make sure you're armed".

Don't get me wrong, I can see the logic in having a gun as a contingency. But there is a lot of rhetoric and propaganda that goes along with that, which I believe is unhelpful, and might even have contributed to a number of violent incidents, including the murder of these police officers, and might generally be pushing society towards a more fearful and dangerous situation.

Peddling fear is definitely a problem for society. It's counterproductive and immoral no matter who does it, politicians, media companies, the NRA, it doesn't matter who the guilty party is, it's all equally damaging.

There are plenty of problems facing society today, plenty of people that are hard done by and struggling but things are still better than ever. We have a larger knowledge base than ever, greater technological and medical advancements than ever, more connectivity, education, awareness and tolerance than ever. Crime is low, lifespans are long, progress is constant, the vast majority of people are good honest people. Yet we are constantly bombarded with the message that things are bad, that we should be worried and scared, fearful of other people, and that the important decisions that we make should be motivated by fear that a wrong choice will be catastrophic. Society needs to take a collective breath, realize that the world isn't out to get us, that things are going to be ok and demand sound leadership from our government, ethical behavior from our businesses and pragmatic solutions to our problems.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.

They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.

The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.

It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.

it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:
Sure, I can see how it's bad that badly trained police shoot people almost at random. But how are you going to get better police if you shoot some totally unrelated police officers? Guys who were actually doing their jobs, threatening no one and keeping a peaceful demonstration safe?

IMO they were targeted for being Police, not because they were Dallas police. This could have happened in Alaska, Rhode Island, anywhere...

As I said, rightly or wrongly, there are sections of American society who see police as the 'enemy' and America has to come together and address this issue. It won't go away...

They were not targeted for just for being police according to the perp. He targeted them first for being white. He said he wanted to kill whites, especially white cops.

At least that is what came out of the press conference.

I'm not doubting what you heard, but given that there were white people marching with the original demonstration, perhaps the motivations for this are still unclear.

None the less, and working under the assumption that the police were deliberately targeted, it is still a major issue that American society needs to solve.

The solutions for dealing with this, and making your police 'better' are out there. In America, or in friendly nations like my country, there is plenty of material out there for American law enforcement to use.

 redleger wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I dislike snipers. I seriously hate snipers who know what they are doing. I just hate the untrained sniper who don't know what they are doing. These Chuckleheads have some intelligence but not the full knowledge to be truly dangerous.

They were dangerous. Looks like they hit more than they missed and spread panic. But yes, it could have been so much worse.

The video showing the one perp capping the cop by the columns indicates some level of training. The guy moved very well.

It was an army veteran apparently, which would go some way to explaining it.

it was already stated they seemed to move with military type abilities and strategies. It does not surprise me at all.

I'm a bit surprised that veterans would believe that murdering cops was an effective solution to a problem or some kind of worthwhile political statement.