America's New Worldwide Vietnam

The attached stratfor.com write up is a semi-good analysis within limits. Jewish owned Stratfor.com also has now openly flipped over from 'analysis' to policy advocacy. And that policy is pro-Zionist to a hilt. Stratfor's products were always tinged with disinformation designed to serve Jewish interests but it is now very blatant. All the ZOGists' masks are coming off. In the following analysis Stratfor is essentially concluding that the Islamics are now operating like Zionist Jews. It's an interesting analogy although they don't spell it out. See this quote:

"An interesting development arising in the aftermath is the multitude of states accused of providing support to the attackers: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria and Syria, among others, have all been suggested. All of them could have been involved in some way or another, with the result being dozens of nations providing intentional or unintentional support. The attackers even appear to have drawn support from the United States itself, as some of the suspected hijackers reportedly received flight training from U.S. schools. The attackers have organized themselves to be parasitic. They are able to attach themselves to virtually any country that has a large enough Arab or Islamic community for them to disappear into or at least go unnoticed within."

This is exactly how the Zionists previously operated prior to 1948 and how the Mossad operates today among the 'Diaspora' Jewish communities. They base themselves out of and on Jewish communities worldwide, using and trading on ethnic and religious sympathies for support. Jonathon Pollard is just one of many examples, Jewish and Islamic).

Drawing on funds acquired from one or many sources, they are able to extract resources wherever they are and continue operating. If such is the case, then even if Iraq or Afghanistan gave assistance, they are still not necessarily the attackers' center of gravity. Destroying the government or military might of these countries may be morally just or even required, but it will not render the enemy incapable of continuing operations against the United States.

This is Jewish owned Stratfor's best attempt (they do have to maintain credibility with their clientele by not straying too far from reality) to clearly explain the situation without using language that might help erode elite public support for the Zionist Connection. Without baldly stating the fact, he's telling us America is now at war with all of Islam worldwide.

I've already made my own thoughts clear on the following matter. We're fighting a transnational entity that has no geographical center of gravity. All the current hysteria about Osama Bin Laden is merely a stalking horse for "Islam". His function right now is to provide the public with an identifiable focal point for hate and anger. This is the same role Emmanual Goldstein served as the eternal and undestroyable evil genius alter ego enemy of Big Brother in 1984. In the build-up to Tuesday's attacks it clearly was the territory of the United States of America itself that provided the greatest amounts of pre-attack sanctuary, logistics support and training. So far the only identified second 'base country' has turned out to be NATO ally Germany. This at least makes it convenient for the Cro-Magnon 'Bomb'em into the Stone Age' response. The U.S. Air Force won't even use much fuel. It can launch strikes from Eglin Air Force Base in northern Florida against the flight training schools of South Florida. Other units flying out of Rhein-Main and Rammstein can strike Frankfurt, Germany. I apologize if this sounds sarcastic. Unfortunately the level of Judeo-Media and public political discourse on what to do is currently proceeding at just such idiotic levels.

The hard truth is very different. Europe had a massive immigration of Muslims of all hues in the 20th Century. Future attacks like these are at least as likely to emanate from 'Dutch', 'Danish', 'French' or other 'Europeans' as they are to come from Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Afghanistan. I predict right now that at least some of Black Tuesday's conspirators will be found to have been 'American' or 'European' citizens or at least permanent legal immigrants to these areas.


Update: 26 September

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010926/ts/attack_afghan_binladen_strength_dc.html 
   This Russian government intelligence memo provided to the UN Security Council lists 55 al-Qaeda training camps and a currently estimated 13,000 Islamics of multiple races now in Afghanistan.  Now trace back 4-5 years for an estimate of the numbers of men possibly passed through training courses of all kinds just in Afghanistan.  These men have to be considered as leadership cadres and technicians rather than individual soldiers.   The resources required to sustain such a training effort are far beyond even bin Laden's large and mostly frozen fortune to support.

   By comparison North Vietnam between 1958-1960 infiltrated an estimated 12,000 leadership cadremen south to form the backbone of the National Liberation Front and the Viet Cong for the subsequent guerrilla war.  It took the Saigon government and the US about ten years from 1960-1970 to effectively destroy the NLF-VC infrastructure.  This left the conventional jungle war between the North Vietnamese forces and Saigon-US.  Keep this perspective in mind as the Bush Administration talks about a "10 year effort" against "terrorism."  The actual coming struggle is a really worldwide counter-insurgency war against an Islamic guerilla insurgency.

   The emerging character of this fight heightens the urgency for whites to plan and execute permanent evacuation from the future multicultural war zones identifed in the FAEM Threat Assessment of September 26, 2001.


Stratfor article follows with my embedded comments in blue:

"Maguire"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

S T R A T F O R THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE COMPANY, 13 September 2001

COMPLIMENTARY INTELLIGENCE REPORT – FULL TEXT

**NOTE**This is a complimentary full-text intelligence report, normally reserved for members only. For full-text reports every day and access to the full range of global intelligence, become a member today!

No Easy Battle 2000 GMT, 010914

Summary

In the wake of this week's terrorist attacks in the United States, the U.S. government is trying to decide how it can defeat its new style of enemy. The key to victory is finding the enemy's center of gravity, or what enables it to operate, and destroying it. But what has worked for the U.S. military in the past may not be enough this time around.

Analysis

The foundation of any successful military operation is defining and attacking the enemy's center of gravity: the capacity that enables it to operate. A war effort that does not successfully define the enemy's center of gravity, or lacks the ability to decisively incapacitate it, is doomed to failure. The center of gravity can be relatively easy to define, as was the Iraqi command and control system, or relatively difficult to define, as was Vietnam's discovery of America's unwillingness to indefinitely absorb casualties. In either case, identifying the adversary's center of gravity is the key to victory.

In the wake of this week's terrorist attacks in the United States, this question is now being discussed in the highest reaches of the American government. The issue, from a military standpoint, is not one of moral responsibility or legal culpability. Rather, it is what will be required to render the enemy incapable of functioning as an effective force. Put differently, what is the most efficient means of destroying the enemy's will to resist? This is an extraordinarily difficult process in this case because it is not clear who the enemy is.

Two schools of thought are emerging though. One argues that the attackers are essentially agents of some foreign government that enables them to operate. Therefore, by either defeating or dissuading this government from continuing to support the attackers, they will be rendered ineffective and the threat will end. Such a scenario is extremely attractive for the United States. Posing the conflict as one between nation-states plays to American strength in waging conventional war. A nation-state can be negotiated with, bombed or invaded. If a nation-state is identified as the attackers' center of gravity, then it can by some level of exertion be destroyed. There is now an inherent interest within the U.S. government to define the center of gravity as Iraq or Afghanistan or both. The United States knows how to wage such wars. (Ed note. ZOG-USA also has a compelling State Interest in concealing the true nature and extent of the enemy and his war goals. Otherwise the American people would rapidly consider alternate definitions of 'victory' for extracting themselves from this war.)

The second school of thought argues that the entity we are facing is instead an amorphous, shifting collection of small groups, controlled in a dynamic and unpredictable manner and deliberately without a clear geographical locus. The components of the organization can be in Afghanistan or Boston, in Beirut or Paris. Its fundamental character is that it moves with near invisibility (ed note. Only invisible to those suffering from ZOG's mass hypnosis concerning multi-racialism and multi-culturalism). around the globe, forming ad hoc groups with exquisite patience and care for strikes against its enemies.

This is a group, therefore, that has been deliberately constructed not to provide its enemies with a center of gravity. Its diffusion is designed to make it difficult to kill with any certainty. The founders of this group studied the history of underground movements and determined that their greatest weakness is what was thought to be their strength: tight control from the center. That central control, the key to the Leninist model, provided decisive guidance but presented enemies with a focal point that, if smashed, rendered the organization helpless. This model of underground movement accepts inefficiency – there are long pauses between actions – in return for both security, as penetration is difficult, and survivability, as it does not provide its enemies with a definable point against which to strike. (Ed Note: This is similar to but not identical with Leaderless Resistance theories. What we're really seeing is an extremely flat two level organizational structure. At the bottom are an infinite number of unconnected transnational combat cells formed for specific operations. The 'control' at the second top layer is nothing less than the Islamic religion, people and races themselves. There are various prime money bag movers. The Zionists themselves (Marc Rich is just one example) do too much 'trading with the enemy' to ever strike effectively at these targets.)

This model is much less attractive to American military planners because it does not play to American capabilities. (Ed. It also imperils ZOG's entire multi-racial Immigration Invasion project by provoking thought among American servicemen and non-Jewish elites) is impervious to the type of warfare the United States prefers, which is what one might call wholesale warfare. It instead demands a retail sort of warfare, in which the fighting level comprises very small unit operations, the geographic scale is potentially global and the time frame is extensive and indeterminate. (Ed note. As I titled this, America's New World-Wide Vietnam.) It is a conflict that does lend itself to intelligence technology, but it ultimately turns on patience, subtlety and secrecy, none of which are America's strong suits. It is therefore completely understandable that the United States is trying to redefine the conflict in terms of nation-states, and there is also substantial precedent for it as well. (Ed note: Multi-racial ZOG-USA is trying to redefine this conflict. The previous white American republic even up to the early 1970s could never have been seriously touched by such a war. There simply wasn't a large enough Islamic community inside the USA to provide sanctuary and logistics support until the early 1980s. Until that time any group attempting to 'infilitrate' would have stood out like pink flashing neon signs. The 'tactics' have changed and the scope of the 'war' expanded to America precisely because the racial groups fighting this conflict elsewhere have now established themselves in North America in large numbers.)

The precursor terrorist movements of the 1970s and 1980s were far from self-contained entities. All received support in various ways from Soviet and Eastern European intelligence services, as well as from North Korea, Libya, Syria and others. From training to false passports, they were highly dependent on nation-states for their operation. It is therefore reasonable to assume the case is the same with these new attackers. It would follow that if their source of operational support were destroyed, they would cease to function. A bombing campaign or invasion would then solve the problem. The issue is to determine which country is supplying the support and act. There is no doubt the entity that attacked the United States got support from state intelligence services. Some of that support might well have been officially sanctioned while some might have been provided by a political faction or sympathetic individuals. But although for the attackers state support is necessary and desirable, it is not clear that destroying involved states would disable the perpetrators.

One of the principles of the attackers appears to be redundancy, not in the sense of backup systems, but in the sense that each group contains all support systems. (Ed note. And these cells are self-destructing upon completion of the operation. There is no way to penetrate such entities in most cases ahead of the event.) In the same sense, it appears possible that they have constructed relationships in such a way that although they depend on state backing, they are not dependent on the support of any particular state. (Ed note. It should be obvious these cells aren't receiving official state backing per se. They're receiving support from sympathizers inside the governments of various states, and including the U.S. Government. If the response is sufficiently brutal and kills sufficient numbers of people, new sympathizers could even appear among those Muslims with custody of Pakistan's nuclear weapons or Egypt/Syria's chemical weapons or Iraq's bio-war stocks. This could even happen WITHOUT Saddam Hussein's sanction. ) An interesting development arising in the aftermath is the multitude of states accused of providing support to the attackers: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Algeria and Syria, among others, have all been suggested. All of them could have been involved in some way or another, with the result being dozens of nations providing intentional or unintentional support. The attackers even appear to have drawn support from the United States itself, as some of the suspected hijackers reportedly received flight training from U.S. schools.

The attackers have organized themselves to be parasitic. They are able to attach themselves to virtually any country that has a large enough Arab or Islamic community for them to disappear into or at least go unnoticed within. Drawing on funds acquired from one or many sources, they are able to extract resources wherever they are and continue operating.If such is the case, then even if Iraq or Afghanistan gave assistance, they are still not necessarily the attackers' center of gravity. Destroying the government or military might of these countries may be morally just or even required, but it will not render the enemy incapable of continuing operations against the United States. (Ed note. Question. Why then does Jewish owned Stratfor advocate a strategy which even it admits almost certainly won't conclude the war on favorable terms? Answer. The resulting reaction in the Islamic world would be similar to most Americans' reaction to Black Tuesday. This will irrevocably commit the people of the USA to the Jewish side in what can now be clearly seen as a racial-religious war. At the ultimate level this is one more example of the Jewish mind advocating, "Let's you goys fight to the death." This 'strategy' also very conveniently targets Israel's principle national state opponents of Syria and Iraq. As I said yesterday, TWATKWP (Third War To Kill White People) is rapidly being perverted into serving OTHER'S safety and advantage, not Americans'. This is no different than the real conduct and result of FWATKWP and SWATKWP. One is tempted to tell the former U.S. intelligence analysts of Stratfor to go join the Israeli service. But then they probably already have. (Wink, wink). Jonathon Pollard found dual service with the US Navy and the Mossad to be compatible.

The only possible victorious strategy for the American PEOPLE, as opposed to other disloyal parasitic groups inside America, as Stratfor terms them, is to destroy any identifiable cells while simultaneously returning to General Washington's foreign policy of exclusively seeking what's best for America ONLY. Put another way, America is now in the middle of someone else's racial-religious war. At the bare minium the only possible exit strategy for the American people is to remove from all any influence at all of American foreign policy ALL of the combatants and all of their sympathizers. Question. Given the current structure of the U.S. political system is this possible without also physically expelling these groups or at least disenfranchising them politically?)

It is therefore not clear that a conventional war with countries that deliberately aided the culprits will achieve military victory. The ability of the attackers to draw sustenance from a wide array of willing and unwilling hosts (ed note. Question. So is America a willing or unwilling host? The Jewish community in its overwhelming majority certainly strove for and celebrated the 1965 Immigration law changes that permitted the massive growth of the Islamic communities now inside the USA) may render them impervious to the defeat of a supporting country. (Ed note. Thanks for telling us what we already learned from the Gulf War and all the Arab-Israeli wars) The military must systematically attack an organization that tries very hard not to have a systematic structure that can be attacked. (Ed note. The 'organization' is no more concentrated than the Arab race and Islam. New supporters will appear like heads of the hydra. A previously 'patriotic' Arab-American or Afghan-American (plenty of Afghan refugees were admitted) will instantly turn into an 'Islamic Jihad' supporter the morning after air strikes kill some of his relatives ('collateral damage') in Syria-Iraq-Lebanon-Afghanistan, ad infinitum) In order for this war to succeed, the key capability will not be primarily military force but highly refined, real-time intelligence about the behavior of a small number of individuals. (Ed note. Welcome to '1984'. We cannot keep our liberties or even survive without removing ALL the combatants and their sympathizers from America. This will also conveniently help ZOG silence all political dissidents who have a different conception of 'patriotism' and 'national interest'. Welcome to the Judeo-Stalinist totalitarian police state.) But as the events of the last few days have shown, this is not a strength of the American intelligence community. And that is the ultimate dilemma for policymakers. If the kind of war we can wage well won't do the job, and we lack the confidence in our expertise to wage the kind of war we need to conduct, then what is to be done? The easy answer – to fight the battle we fight best – may not be the right answer, or it may be only part of the solution.

<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend!

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Since Stratfor says, 'send to a friend', we are. We're sending it to the friends of FAEM.