It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fundamentals of a Successful Insurgency

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
There is a very well known and commonly used playbook when concerning successful insurgencies.. the a set of recurring events that has led to the ousting of an administration and the installation of a new regime..

The way Terrorism has been sold to us " cause fear and terror in the civilian population" is only half the story at best.. at worst it is an intentional omission for some nefarious reason or the other..


"Causing fear and terror amongst the civilians" is the FIRST STEP in any insurgency in history.. not the final goal.. the final goal is to install your own governing body..with isis being one modern example..


Every even semi successful insurgency in history has followed a very specific blueprint..

First you organize or in our present situation radicalize your resistance force ..

Then you perpetrate big demonstrations that cause fear and terror amongst the population such as blowing up buildings, or attacking military personnel..

But for act 2 you need help.. to win the support of the locals and actually gain the public trust you need the present authority to over react...
You need them to do something that makes the terrorism you have been instigating look like the lesser of 2 evils. You need them to make a disasterous mistake that hurts their own people... you need them to make you look like a robinhood attacking the evil authority.. the insurgency needs the government to kill kill



The goal of all that fear and terror is not to kill civilians or cause fear and terror.. it is to illicit an overwhelming response from the governing power which goes to far and ends up pissing off the civilianry at the government more they they are mad at the resistance..

Without that they cannot win the support of the people.. without the support of enough people, you cannot take power..


It's a blue print as old as history, yet it is one repeated throughout the ages..

I think the only way to truely combat an insurgency is to be supremely targeted.. screw this "no assassibations" clause put in place by politicians to make sure none of them died in battle..

You have to kill only those who deserve killing, and not provide the fodder to allow it them become a full scale rebellion..

You assassibate the leaders and soldiers, but not if it requires the deaths of any civilians or the loss of any civil liberties..




posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Another way for insurgence to be successful is to gain enough power within a government to disallow any criticisms of the insurging group. Shame is the most used tool of insurgents today. If you criticize the group of insurgents, the insurgents use their pawns ie SJWs to try to shame their enemies. When that doesn't work, more and more of the insurgent's sympathizers retort to drastic measures, such as holding a fake severed head of the leader of the enemies head up for all to see.
edit on 5-6-2017 by 3daysgone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I agree with most of what you said. A good example of a successful insurgency being the American Revolution. A good example of shutting down an insurgency would be the Brit's vs. the Republicans in N. Ireland. In addition to the points you made is that the Brit's were able to control the media to the point where even when they overreacted, much of the citizenry, especially the protestants, were more afraid of the insurgents than the army.

That's why I think the ISIS game plan is short term mayhem only. However, we feed into is life span by routinely bombing innocents. We are regularly told how technologically progressive our weaponry is, and yet we continue to kill innocents. I know mistakes will happen, but we routinely accept collateral damage that should be avoided.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Another way is to simply have a large enough sympathetic group aiding and abetting you.

You are thinking there needs to be an American group to assist (or European group composed of ... say native Brits in the traditional sense), but there doesn't need to be. Thanks to multi-culturalism, there are large colonies of many different nationalities and ethnicities and idenities living inside every country in the world.

It did not take a large army to rebel against England, but it did take passive aggressive support among the populace.

Similarly, the radicals don't need large groups of active rebels, only enough support among their coreligionists.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't see fear being instilled in the population.

I see anger towards Radical Islam.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't see fear being instilled in the population.

I see anger towards Radical Islam.


I think if people fear anything, it's the measures that the government might take to defang us in the name of making us "safe" which will really be a matter of taking greater control.

They'll do it in the name of making us safer from Radical Islam, but that will really have nothing to do with it. Most of us are smart enough to know that too.
edit on 5-6-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't see fear being instilled in the population.

I see anger towards Radical Islam.


I think if people fear anything, it's the measures that the government might take to defang us in the name of making us "safe" which will really be a matter of taking greater control.

They'll do it in the name of making us safer from Radical Islam, but that will really have nothing to do with it. Most of us are smart enough to know that too.


Absolutely.

The Government is a much bigger threat to my liberty than terrorists.



posted on Jun, 5 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Murdering civilians and then hiding among them to make casualties of them when the gubment rides to the rescue.

Painting this in the main scream media as the tragedy, blaming the military for "killing their people", instead.

Destruction of property and slaughter during the ensuing fighting on both sides, meant to make the cry for humanitarian interventions, corridors and no fly zones as a pretext to full on invasion, because the insurgents can't hope to win alone against the modern equipped army, by themselves.

Guerrilla warfare, developed and exploited long ago, used to create a crisis from within. that then needs solving from without.

You guys do remember seeing this tactic employed in Iraq and Libya, right?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't see fear being instilled in the population.

I see anger towards Radical Islam.


I think if people fear anything, it's the measures that the government might take to defang us in the name of making us "safe" which will really be a matter of taking greater control.

They'll do it in the name of making us safer from Radical Islam, but that will really have nothing to do with it. Most of us are smart enough to know that too.


Absolutely.

The Government is a much bigger threat to my liberty than terrorists.


I see corporate cartels and monopolies as a bigger threat than the government. What difference does it make anything the government does when the price of a large pizza is days worth of work?


edit on 6-6-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

You do understand that without the collusion of government to employ protectionist measures on their behalf, there wouldn't be the same issue?

Government creates the laws and regulations that allow the very large to squash the small and put them out of business creating those monopolies you so fear, and then you turn around and scream for more controls. You play right into their hands.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Another way for insurgence to be successful is to gain enough power within a government to disallow any criticisms of the insurging group. Shame is the most used tool of insurgents today. If you criticize the group of insurgents, the insurgents use their pawns ie SJWs to try to shame their enemies. When that doesn't work, more and more of the insurgent's sympathizers retort to drastic measures, such as holding a fake severed head of the leader of the enemies head up for all to see.




That would fall under lost civil liberties..

Though we don't have an american insurgency as of yet..

So no your obviously partisan analogy doesn't work..
people don't go to war because you point out Christianity has exactly as violent of a history, and a holy book equally as brutal...

How many terrorist attacks by the "war on Christmas" crew have you seen...

Way to be a shill..



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Is it a short term game plan or is it just that they don't have the global inferstucture to play the media game???

The thing with the wahabist terrorists is that they are not trying by to take over America.. they are trying to take over the ME..

any attacks in the west, are to cause an over reaction there.. not here.

We don't have even remotely the population of wahabist to even begin to flip public opinion..

Though our next insurgency will absolutely play off the patriot act and NSA ..



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think your assuming America is the goal, not the means..

We provided the overreaction THERE.. They needed us to remove whatever warlord held power and push the local population into their corner. Which we did with bells on..


They have no hope of making a caliphate here.. but are well on their way to making one in Iraq and Afghanistan.


We were just the cats paw.. in fact if osama was a history buff, we may have been played like a fiddle. The 911 attacks always meant to have us remove their local compatition and providing a enemy to unite the people against..


In the words of "war daddy" :

"In insurgency math if you have 10 terrorists, and kill two, you now have 20 terrorists.. because killing those 2 is likely to create another 18.."



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

But you only get 2 options...

Trust the government to regulate big buisness ..

Or trust big buisness to regulate themselves..

Big buisness is ONLY beholden to profit, and what's best for society is almost always less profitable than raping and pillaging..

With government at least they are beholden to us through the voting process..

There is no third option.. and imho big buisness has repeatedly shown they cannot be trusted to police its self.

Also all of everything comes from the government..

All property, all ownership all everything...

If the government dusapperars tomorrow you don't own your stuff..the local warlord does..


So I have never understood the anti government kick.. I understand the anti corruption kick.. obviously..

But the concept most on the right push where "government is the problem" is just patently ridiculous..

There are so many logical fallacies and over generalizations in that it would never make it past a high school debate referee..



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

That's because we are not the target audience, we are the cats paw...

It is meant for local consumption, and we have danced to that fiddle with gusto.


Sharia law coming to America was all ways stupid.. we have like 2% Muslim rate, and we can't get good laws past congress.. so how exactly does that work here...

It doesn't.. it was always propaganda.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

It is old as history.. every successful rebellion in history has followed that same path...

It requires the previous government to kill more civilians than they do or did.. they tend to stop once they win the population over and then it is just the authority killing folks.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

It is old as history.. every successful rebellion in history has followed that same path...

It requires the previous government to kill more civilians than they do or did.. they tend to stop once they win the population over and then it is just the authority killing folks.

Except in Syria, specifically Eastern Aleppo, the 'killing of civilians' stopped when the insurgents were defeated.

Notice we haven't heard any more about the evils of Assad there?

Now we (NATO) just attack syrian military assets outright.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox




Though we don't have an american insurgency as of yet..


Depends on who you ask.



So no your obviously partisan analogy doesn't work..


It worked in Europe. Don't be blind.



people don't go to war because you point out Christianity has exactly as violent of a history, and a holy book equally as brutal...


History is history. Learn from it and prepare for the future. I named no religions. Looks like your partisan is showing.



How many terrorist attacks by the "war on Christmas" crew have you seen...


How many terrorist attacks on the West have you seen?



Way to be a shill..


You really need to look up the definition of the term shill.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join