Who is talking about equal blame?Pug wrote:
"equal blame"
that would be the issue
The US WERE IN NO WAY TO BLAME for the 9/11 attacks. At fault? Yes. To blame? Certainly not.
The US WERE IN NO WAY TO BLAME for the 9/11 attacks. At fault? Yes. To blame? Certainly not.
I didn't dismiss them...I just realize the differences are far more important than the similarities.CameronPoe wrote:
Dismiss the obvious relevance of the similiarities if you must. Not exactly very wise to do so.FEOS wrote:
That is where the similarities end. You're talking about two remarkably similar cultures and ethoses when you talk about NI, as well as completely different strategic objectives for the insurgents. It's not remotely the same in the AQ fight.
A matter of weeks? What world do you live on?CamPoe wrote:
All and any. At any time. Possible many. It tooks just a matter of weeks to implement air marshals, fingerprinting, air traveller phototaking/information gathering (for incoming foreigners) and proper searches at airports all across the length and breadth of the US. But of course a few more bombs dropped on caves and mudhuts would have prevented the need for all that....FEOS wrote:
Which buildings? Which cities? How many? Coming from which airports?
Now do you see why the risk couldn't be determined? There were simply too many vectors...like trying to plug a sieve with three plugs.
When did I say that what is being done will prevent further terrorism? So long as there are radicals out there (Islamic or otherwise), there will be terrorism.
We were talking about your "sit and wait" approach.
A few bombs dropped in the right place and at the right time...of course it would've prevented all that.
I'm creating nothing.CamPoe wrote:
FEOS - you are creating more potential terrorists. Just look at the Pakistani popular reaction to US airstrikes within their borders. Are you blind to the consequences??? What is the point in engaging in this money/blood whirlpool if what you're doing doesn't prevent further terrorism!??
Has AQ been able to pull off a spectacular attack an attack of any significance recently? The fight is against AQ and AQ aligned organizations...and they are becoming less and less functional.
"Dismiss the obvious relevance of the similiarities if you must. Not exactly very wise to do so."CamPoe wrote:
No inconsistency. Like I said, NI is not very similar to WWII and is in many ways far, far more complicated.FEOS wrote:
I made no such mistake. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your position.
Inconsistency much?
Heard much from AQ lately? Seen much in the way of attacks or claims of attacks from AQ lately?CamPoe wrote:
You're right about it being a very small (counterproductive and exorbitantly costed) part, that's for sure.FEOS wrote:
And again you misunderestimate (like that?) what I was saying. I said AQ, didn't I? I didn't say terrorism writ large. And my "macho man" attitude actually combines all elements of national power to stop AQ on all fronts...the kicking down the door bit is a very, very small part of the overall effort.
Counterproductive...right.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
...and I suppose we should say that the British government and police were pretty fucking stupid to have allowed the 7/7 bombings to occur given the massive amount of cameras all over London.Uzique wrote:
In light of the forewarnings and pathetic attempts at air defense, you were pretty fucking stupid.Pug wrote:
And this is why I think you are a crazy man.Braddock wrote:
Well yes, it was the domestic security services who were at fault in their sloppiness but it was very much the Saudi extremists who were to blame for the attacks.
Obviously we deserved it because it's our fault.
Didn't you scramble jets that flew in the wrong direction for 25 minutes? Most militarily sophisticated and well-defended country in the world? Wut. Britain's 'Dads Army' in World War II would have done a better job than that (read: pensioners with pitchforks).
The moral of the story is that some things are hard to avoid -- much like idiots on the internet.
Weeks? Are you daft? It took more than a year to get everything in place, and that was with a high priority and money being thrown around willy-nilly. It took more than 6 months just to get armored doors put on the aircraft! Photographing and information gathering is STILL not in place in a majority of US airports (not just counting international ones.) There are still occasional news stories about people beating security around here, so one can argue that the increase of security is STILL not complete.CameronPoe wrote:
All and any. At any time. Possible many. It tooks just a matter of weeks to implement air marshals, fingerprinting, air traveller phototaking/information gathering (for incoming foreigners) and proper searches at airports all across the length and breadth of the US. But of course a few more bombs dropped on caves and mudhuts would have prevented the need for all that....
As to your other point, there have been no more successful attacks on US soil since the invasions of Afghanastan and Iraq, so there may be an argument in there about a few more bombs actually working...
As for tracking planes...
map of flights over US
It isn't like the sky is empty. Military style radar (showing all radar hits) would be swamped with the amount of traffic to scan and clear. Air Traffic controllers work based on transponders. Turn off your transponder (like the terrorists did on 9/11), and that plane ceases to exist on the ATC screens.
In what way?FEOS wrote:
I didn't dismiss them...I just realize the differences are far more important than the similarities.
A few bombs on a flight school in Florida? Or on your buddy Saudi Arabia? Really? It seemed to me the US got their house in order pretty sharpish when they had realised their failings. They should have known it had to be done. A CIA report in 1995 alluded as much.FEOS wrote:
A matter of weeks? What world do you live on?
A few bombs dropped in the right place and at the right time...of course it would've prevented all that.
Sorry I should say US.FEOS wrote:
I'm creating nothing.
Has AQ been able to pull off a spectacular attack an attack of any significance recently? The fight is against AQ and AQ aligned organizations...and they are becoming less and less functional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings
Many incidents in other nations like Morocco and Turkey.
Many near misses.
Similarities of the asymettric warfare in NI to asymettric warfare in middle east. NOT similarities in either to the warfare of WWII. You have confused the two.FEOS wrote:
"Dismiss the obvious relevance of the similiarities if you must. Not exactly very wise to do so."
Inconsistency much?
Well let's see:FEOS wrote:
Heard much from AQ lately? Seen much in the way of attacks or claims of attacks from AQ lately?
Counterproductive...right.
US military deaths in Iraq - 4200 (more than on 9/11 incidentally)
US military deaths in Afghanistan - 627
Several hundred dead civilian contractors.
The Spanish and British were/are involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings
It didn't prevent them from getting nailed, eh...
The frequency of attacks on US soil is somewhere in the region of once every ten years (based on the only two incidents that have occurred...). And you still maintain that these two stupid exercises have prevented attacks on US soil!!?? lol. Again - they wouldn't last a minute under the microscope of a cost(blood and money)/benefit analysis.
I wasn't aware the phototaking/info gathering would apply to travellers internal to the US. My weeks comments aside, the systems were in place for internationals remarkably quickly for such a task. A similar thing would have been when the Brits called for liquids no greater than 100ml allowed on flights - the entire western world followed suit in days - on the back of MI intelligence.imortal wrote:
Weeks? Are you daft? It took more than a year to get everything in place, and that was with a high priority and money being thrown around willy-nilly. It took more than 6 months just to get armored doors put on the aircraft! Photographing and information gathering is STILL not in place in a majority of US airports (not just counting international ones.) There are still occasional news stories about people beating security around here, so one can argue that the increase of security is STILL not complete.
As to your other point, there have been no more successful attacks on US soil since the invasions of Afghanastan and Iraq, so there may be an argument in there about a few more bombs actually working...
As for tracking planes...
map of flights over US
It isn't like the sky is empty. Military style radar (showing all radar hits) would be swamped with the amount of traffic to scan and clear. Air Traffic controllers work based on transponders. Turn off your transponder (like the terrorists did on 9/11), and that plane ceases to exist on the ATC screens.
Please see my other points for why thinking Iraq/Afghanistan prevents attacks on US soil is flawed. As to your final point: your airport security should never have allowed someone into a position where they were in control of the aircraft.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-19 02:25:10)
your people are working on a new attack i'm sure... and hopefully we can stop it before it happens... and if we can't we will still be here... there are lots of us and we have guns and determination....CameronPoe wrote:
In what way?FEOS wrote:
I didn't dismiss them...I just realize the differences are far more important than the similarities.A few bombs on a flight school in Florida? Or on your buddy Saudi Arabia? Really? It seemed to me the US got their house in order pretty sharpish when they had realised their failings. They should have known it had to be done. A CIA report in 1995 alluded as much.FEOS wrote:
A matter of weeks? What world do you live on?
A few bombs dropped in the right place and at the right time...of course it would've prevented all that.Sorry I should say US.FEOS wrote:
I'm creating nothing.
Has AQ been able to pull off a spectacular attack an attack of any significance recently? The fight is against AQ and AQ aligned organizations...and they are becoming less and less functional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings
Many incidents in other nations like Morocco and Turkey.
Many near misses.Similarities of the asymettric warfare in NI to asymettric warfare in middle east. NOT similarities in either to the warfare of WWII. You have confused the two.FEOS wrote:
"Dismiss the obvious relevance of the similiarities if you must. Not exactly very wise to do so."
Inconsistency much?Well let's see:FEOS wrote:
Heard much from AQ lately? Seen much in the way of attacks or claims of attacks from AQ lately?
Counterproductive...right.
US military deaths in Iraq - 4200 (more than on 9/11 incidentally)
US military deaths in Afghanistan - 627
Several hundred dead civilian contractors.
The Spanish and British were/are involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings
It didn't prevent them from getting nailed, eh...
The frequency of attacks on US soil is somewhere in the region of once every ten years (based on the only two incidents that have occurred...). And you still maintain that these two stupid exercises have prevented attacks on US soil!!?? lol. Again - they wouldn't last a minute under the microscope of a cost(blood and money)/benefit analysis.
Love is the answer
What now?????????????????????????????????? Drunk post?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
your people are working on a new attack i'm sure... and hopefully we can stop it before it happens... and if we can't we will still be here... there are lots of us and we have guns and determination....
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-19 03:24:41)
Already pointed out. Different culture/ethos/objectives/situation. The only similarity is an occupation and insurgency. That's it.CameronPoe wrote:
In what way?FEOS wrote:
I didn't dismiss them...I just realize the differences are far more important than the similarities.
No, a few bombs/TLAMs on training camps in Afghanistan...without warning the Paks would've done the trick.CamPoe wrote:
A few bombs on a flight school in Florida? Or on your buddy Saudi Arabia? Really? It seemed to me the US got their house in order pretty sharpish when they had realised their failings. They should have known it had to be done. A CIA report in 1995 alluded as much.FEOS wrote:
A matter of weeks? What world do you live on?
A few bombs dropped in the right place and at the right time...of course it would've prevented all that.
Hence why I qualified it with "recently". And the other incidents you mention were so spectacular that you couldn't even specify them.CamPoe wrote:
Sorry I should say US.FEOS wrote:
I'm creating nothing.
Has AQ been able to pull off a spectacular attack an attack of any significance recently? The fight is against AQ and AQ aligned organizations...and they are becoming less and less functional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings
Many incidents in other nations like Morocco and Turkey.
Many near misses.
Near misses...wonder why they would be near misses?
I have confused nothing. You say the "wait and see" principle you espouse should be used...that distance is important. That without someone attacking your homeland, you can't do anything. Those situations from WWII met those criteria. But you changed your tune then.CamPoe wrote:
Similarities of the asymettric warfare in NI to asymettric warfare in middle east. NOT similarities in either to the warfare of WWII. You have confused the two.FEOS wrote:
"Dismiss the obvious relevance of the similiarities if you must. Not exactly very wise to do so."
Inconsistency much?
So you're saying the differences in the situations are key and that your application of your espoused principles is not a one size fits all. So we are in agreement, then?
When did I say "US soil"? You're the one who makes that a requirement, not me. And you are completely dismissing the fact that in over three years, no Western interest has been hit by AQ. Why do you think that is? Especially considering they had at least one spectacular attack per year from 2001-2005...CamPoe wrote:
Well let's see:FEOS wrote:
Heard much from AQ lately? Seen much in the way of attacks or claims of attacks from AQ lately?
Counterproductive...right.
US military deaths in Iraq - 4200 (more than on 9/11 incidentally)
US military deaths in Afghanistan - 627
Several hundred dead civilian contractors.
The Spanish and British were/are involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2 … n_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_200 … n_bombings
It didn't prevent them from getting nailed, eh...
The frequency of attacks on US soil is somewhere in the region of once every ten years (based on the only two incidents that have occurred...). And you still maintain that these two stupid exercises have prevented attacks on US soil!!?? lol. Again - they wouldn't last a minute under the microscope of a cost(blood and money)/benefit analysis.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The key thing is that the US/coalition will be viewed as an occupying force. Nothing trumps that. Like I said - look at the popular reaction in Pakistan. The coalition bolsters support for anti-coalition factions, whatever their ethos.FEOS wrote:
Already pointed out. Different culture/ethos/objectives/situation. The only similarity is an occupation and insurgency. That's it.
What training do you need to board a plane at a specified time with a pair of 'boxcutters'? The real training happened in Florida, USA.FEOS wrote:
No, a few bombs/TLAMs on training camps in Afghanistan...without warning the Paks would've done the trick.
I guess 5 years after the 1993 WTC bombings you were expounding on how the US 'had things in hand' too....FEOS wrote:
Hence why I qualified it with "recently". And the other incidents you mention were so spectacular that you couldn't even specify them.
Near misses...wonder why they would be near misses?
Couldn't specify them or couldn't be bothered specifying them? Do you want me to do a search for the simple sake of proving a point you know to be true: that there were several near misses?
Near misses: intelligence gathering and domestic security.
There is no 'wait and see' about it FEOS. It is 'go and see'. That's what the CIA is for. The espoused principles differ when it comes to fighting the apparatus of a state as against a stateless organisation. With the latter you don't have the luxury of steamrolling the state into submission.FEOS wrote:
I have confused nothing. You say the "wait and see" principle you espouse should be used...that distance is important. That without someone attacking your homeland, you can't do anything. Those situations from WWII met those criteria. But you changed your tune then. So you're saying the differences in the situations are key and that your application of your espoused principles is not a one size fits all. So we are in agreement, then?
Are you seriously telling me that there are little/no cells in western nations currently planning operations and that we will not see further terrorism in western nations, because of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that what you're telling me? Are you telling me that those missions prevent people from going to Karachi or Islamabad, jumping on a flight to London or New York (or just south of the Mexican border for that matter) to 'visit their relatives'? You think that '3 years without an attack - SUCCESS!'. There were 8 years between the WTC bombing and 9/11. Are you contradicting CIA findings that the mission in Iraq has actually bolstered and increased terrorist numbers?FEOS wrote:
When did I say "US soil"? You're the one who makes that a requirement, not me. And you are completely dismissing the fact that in over three years, no Western interest has been hit by AQ. Why do you think that is? Especially considering they had at least one spectacular attack per year from 2001-2005...
PS I would regard the lives of western soldiers a 'western interest'.
PPS There are spectacular attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan every month, but that's OK: they only affect Arabs/Muslims...
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-19 04:21:35)
Don't know if you realize this, but there aren't any US/Coalition troops in Pakistan.CameronPoe wrote:
The key thing is that the US/coalition will be viewed as an occupying force. Nothing trumps that. Like I said - look at the popular reaction in Pakistan.FEOS wrote:
Already pointed out. Different culture/ethos/objectives/situation. The only similarity is an occupation and insurgency. That's it.
You're focusing on the less important part of the equation. That's not what is driving the bulk of the insurgency...that's the difference between NI and Iraq/Afghanistan.
The FLIGHT training happened there. The combat and tactics training happened in Afghanistan. If the Paks hadn't been given a heads up by Albright back in the day...CamPoe wrote:
What training do you need to board a plane at a specified time with a pair of 'boxcutters'? The real training happened in Florida, USA.FEOS wrote:
No, a few bombs/TLAMs on training camps in Afghanistan...without warning the Paks would've done the trick.
Nope. When/where did I say "the US 'had things in hand'"?CamPoe wrote:
I guess 5 years after the 1993 WTC bombings you were expounding on how the US 'had things in hand' too....FEOS wrote:
Hence why I qualified it with "recently". And the other incidents you mention were so spectacular that you couldn't even specify them.
Near misses...wonder why they would be near misses?
Hmmm...and where do you think that intelligence came from?CamPoe wrote:
Couldn't specify them or couldn't be bothered specifying them? Do you want me to do a search for the simple sake of proving a point you know to be true: that there were several near misses?
Near misses: intelligence gathering and domestic security.
Do you know just how much the CIA was cut back in the 90's? There were virtually no HUMINT sources to provide anything on AQ planning. All that "exquisite" intel was found after the fact based on knowing what they did and looking backward to find something that points to that. That's a far cry from figuring out what they are going to do beforehand.CamPoe wrote:
There is no 'wait and see' about it FEOS. It is 'go and see'. That's what the CIA is for. The espoused principles differ when it comes to fighting the apparatus of a state as against a stateless organisation. With the latter you don't have the luxury of steamrolling the state into submission.FEOS wrote:
I have confused nothing. You say the "wait and see" principle you espouse should be used...that distance is important. That without someone attacking your homeland, you can't do anything. Those situations from WWII met those criteria. But you changed your tune then. So you're saying the differences in the situations are key and that your application of your espoused principles is not a one size fits all. So we are in agreement, then?
That's like looking up the information in the textbook after you've been given the test key...hell of a lot easier than studying everything.
I'm not telling you any of those things. What I am saying is that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as complementary efforts) are putting pressure on AQ that they have not had before and it is disrupting their ability to plan/coordinate/execute attacks.CamPoe wrote:
Are you seriously telling me that there are little/no cells in western nations currently planning operations and that we will not see further terrorism in western nations, because of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is that what you're telling me? Are you telling me that those missions prevent people from going to Karachi or Islamabad, jumping on a flight to London or New York (or just south of the Mexican border for that matter) to 'visit their relatives'? You think that '3 years without an attack - SUCCESS!'. There were 8 years between the WTC bombing and 9/11. Are you contradicting CIA findings that the mission in Iraq has actually bolstered and increased terrorist numbers?FEOS wrote:
When did I say "US soil"? You're the one who makes that a requirement, not me. And you are completely dismissing the fact that in over three years, no Western interest has been hit by AQ. Why do you think that is? Especially considering they had at least one spectacular attack per year from 2001-2005...
I never said that three years without a spectacular attack is success. It is an indicator...particularly when you look at the plans that have been disrupted over the years. AQ is unable right now to operate the way they want to and it is affecting their ability to plan/coordinate/execute attacks. That is fact.
Those CIA findings are somewhat dated at this point.
I'm not even going to address this drivel.CamPoe wrote:
PS I would regard the lives of western soldiers a 'western interest'.
PPS There are spectacular attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan every month, but that's OK: they only affect Arabs/Muslims...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The US/coalition have been bombing parts of Waziristan and anti-western sentiment transcends borders too. Brethren of a particular creed or tribe empathise with each other, irrespective of borders.FEOS wrote:
Don't know if you realize this, but there aren't any US/Coalition troops in Pakistan.
You're focusing on the less important part of the equation. That's not what is driving the bulk of the insurgency...that's the difference between NI and Iraq/Afghanistan.
What combat training was needed? Hold a pair of box cutters up to somebody's throat? Act casual entering the aircraft? There are training camps in all manner of places, the Sahara apparently has them too. All you do is chase the camps further afield - evidently into Pakistan... Where does it end? The Himalayas? Do you have the resources and financial wherewithall to chase them that far? Will you even be able to find them once they recede into heavily populated Pakistan?FEOS wrote:
The FLIGHT training happened there. The combat and tactics training happened in Afghanistan. If the Paks hadn't been given a heads up by Albright back in the day...
You seemed to allude that they did with your lauding of the fact there hadn't been an attack in 3 years.FEOS wrote:
Nope. When/where did I say "the US 'had things in hand'"?
Mostly domestic wiretapping, staking out mosques, intercepting emails and monitoring of 'suspect' individuals.FEOS wrote:
Hmmm...and where do you think that intelligence came from?
The CIA published a report in 1995 on how civilian airliners could be used to crash into skysrapers. Nothing was done.FEOS wrote:
Do you know just how much the CIA was cut back in the 90's? There were virtually no HUMINT sources to provide anything on AQ planning. All that "exquisite" intel was found after the fact based on knowing what they did and looking backward to find something that points to that. That's a far cry from figuring out what they are going to do beforehand.
That's like looking up the information in the textbook after you've been given the test key...hell of a lot easier than studying everything.
FEOS, I don't think Al Qaeda is some global network of hyper-intelligent super-villains. It is essentially open source terrorism. What happens if they kill Mullah Omar? Nothing, it will continue. What happens if they kill Osama Bin Laden? Nothing, it will continue. What happened when they killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Nothing changed. It's a many headed beast, every time you chop one off it grows another one. Simply phoning 'friends' in Riyadh, Rabat, or Cairo from a kiosk in Islamabad is enough to get the ball rolling on a 'project'. They don't sit around a conference table in an office building in the Tora Bora mountains discussing plans or even in a bunkercave poring over blueprints to the Pentagon. It's anarchism. And anyone can create anarchy, it's incredibly simple.FEOS wrote:
I'm not telling you any of those things. What I am saying is that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as complementary efforts) are putting pressure on AQ that they have not had before and it is disrupting their ability to plan/coordinate/execute attacks.
I fundamentally disagree. The coalition may have killed a lot of people that might perpetrate acts against the west but then their boots have probably been filled three times over and they probably now have a far wider network of support in Pakistan - a notoriously unstable nuclear country - than they previously had. I think it's an indicator of the marked improvement in surveillance, intelligence gathering and sea/airport security.FEOS wrote:
I never said that three years without a spectacular attack is success. It is an indicator...particularly when you look at the plans that have been disrupted over the years. AQ is unable right now to operate the way they want to and it is affecting their ability to plan/coordinate/execute attacks. That is fact.
Those CIA findings are somewhat dated at this point.
Why not? Do you not classify the attacks in Iraq as terror attacks? Why do you feel so comfortable with the expendability of the US soldiery?FEOS wrote:
I'm not even going to address this drivel.
Done with the full agreement of the Pakistani govt, btw. Maybe they should bitch at them...when they're not busy attacking/being attacked by them.CameronPoe wrote:
The US/coalition have been bombing parts of Waziristan and anti-western sentiment transcends borders too. Brethren of a particular creed or tribe empathise with each other, irrespective of borders.FEOS wrote:
Don't know if you realize this, but there aren't any US/Coalition troops in Pakistan.
You're focusing on the less important part of the equation. That's not what is driving the bulk of the insurgency...that's the difference between NI and Iraq/Afghanistan.
Yes, combat training. Hand-to-hand tactics. How to take over an aircraft...unless you think people are just born with that knowledge?CamPoe wrote:
What combat training was needed? Hold a pair of box cutters up to somebody's throat? Act casual entering the aircraft? There are training camps in all manner of places, the Sahara apparently has them too. All you do is chase the camps further afield - evidently into Pakistan... Where does it end? The Himalayas? Do you have the resources and financial wherewithall to chase them that far? Will you even be able to find them once they recede into heavily populated Pakistan?FEOS wrote:
The FLIGHT training happened there. The combat and tactics training happened in Afghanistan. If the Paks hadn't been given a heads up by Albright back in the day...
Chase them further afield...or make it so painful/costly that they do something different. Either way, they are too busy trying to stay alive to be effective.
Your inference does not equate to my allusion.CamPoe wrote:
You seemed to allude that they did with your lauding of the fact there hadn't been an attack in 3 years.FEOS wrote:
Nope. When/where did I say "the US 'had things in hand'"?
Only not. Where do you get your ideas from?CamPoe wrote:
Mostly domestic wiretapping, staking out mosques, intercepting emails and monitoring of 'suspect' individuals.FEOS wrote:
Hmmm...and where do you think that intelligence came from?
I can't divulge where the intel comes from...but it's not that.
And just what could be done? Civilian airliners could be used to crash into skyscrapers. They could also be used to crash into cruise ships. Or blown up mid-ocean. You need something far more specific than that to take meaningful action. Unless you've got the benefit of hindsight...which you are clearly using.CamPoe wrote:
The CIA published a report in 1995 on how civilian airliners could be used to crash into skysrapers. Nothing was done.FEOS wrote:
Do you know just how much the CIA was cut back in the 90's? There were virtually no HUMINT sources to provide anything on AQ planning. All that "exquisite" intel was found after the fact based on knowing what they did and looking backward to find something that points to that. That's a far cry from figuring out what they are going to do beforehand.
That's like looking up the information in the textbook after you've been given the test key...hell of a lot easier than studying everything.
AQ has specific goals and objectives and they are willing to go much farther than other groups to achieve those goals. They have proven that much. True, it is a movement as much as an organization...particularly now that it is fractionalized. But that also weakens it. Without unity of effort, it is difficult to pull off the kind of attacks we saw up until 2005--they simply don't have the luxury of time and resources to focus.CamPoe wrote:
FEOS, I don't think Al Qaeda is some global network of hyper-intelligent super-villains. It is essentially open source terrorism. What happens if they kill Mullah Omar? Nothing, it will continue. What happens if they kill Osama Bin Laden? Nothing, it will continue. What happened when they killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Nothing changed. It's a many headed beast, every time you chop one off it grows another one. Simply phoning 'friends' in Riyadh, Rabat, or Cairo from a kiosk in Islamabad is enough to get the ball rolling on a 'project'. They don't sit around a conference table in an office building in the Tora Bora mountains discussing plans or even in a bunkercave poring over blueprints to the Pentagon. It's anarchism. And anyone can create anarchy, it's incredibly simple.FEOS wrote:
I'm not telling you any of those things. What I am saying is that the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as complementary efforts) are putting pressure on AQ that they have not had before and it is disrupting their ability to plan/coordinate/execute attacks.
You are confusing hatred with ability to act in a meaningful way. Just because there are a lot of people who are angry does not mean they are able to do anything about it. That requires resources, time, and continuity...none of which AQ has right now.CamPoe wrote:
I fundamentally disagree. The coalition may have killed a lot of people that might perpetrate acts against the west but then their boots have probably been filled three times over and they probably now have a far wider network of support in Pakistan - a notoriously unstable nuclear country - than they previously had. I think it's an indicator of the marked improvement in surveillance, intelligence gathering and sea/airport security.FEOS wrote:
I never said that three years without a spectacular attack is success. It is an indicator...particularly when you look at the plans that have been disrupted over the years. AQ is unable right now to operate the way they want to and it is affecting their ability to plan/coordinate/execute attacks. That is fact.
Those CIA findings are somewhat dated at this point.
Yes, they are terrorist attacks (particularly the ones against purely civilian targets). And just where the fuck do you get off saying I'm comfortable with "the expendability of US soldiery"?CamPoe wrote:
Why not? Do you not classify the attacks in Iraq as terror attacks? Why do you feel so comfortable with the expendability of the US soldiery?FEOS wrote:
I'm not even going to address this drivel.
Fuck you. I've buried too many friends to even justify that with a fucking response.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
freudian slip and a few beers...lol... you defend these people way to much in my opinion...CameronPoe wrote:
What now?????????????????????????????????? Drunk post?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
your people are working on a new attack i'm sure... and hopefully we can stop it before it happens... and if we can't we will still be here... there are lots of us and we have guns and determination....
I'm not sure if that's because of your thinly veiled disgust with the US or that you think these crazy islam radicals are right?
Maybe i'm wrong... i sure hope so?
Love is the answer
Ordinary Pakistanis throughout Pakistan are livid, irrespective of the position of their government.FEOS wrote:
Done with the full agreement of the Pakistani govt, btw. Maybe they should bitch at them...when they're not busy attacking/being attacked by them.
You can take a course in kickboxing pretty much anywhere on planet earth. Taking over an aircraft isn't rocket science either. It's not like they had to invent a new art.FEOS wrote:
Yes, combat training. Hand-to-hand tactics. How to take over an aircraft...unless you think people are just born with that knowledge?
Chase further field/destabilise other parts of the world. Whichever. Effective enough to continue bombings in Iraq on an alarmingly frequent basis...FEOS wrote:
Chase them further afield...or make it so painful/costly that they do something different. Either way, they are too busy trying to stay alive to be effective.
Perhaps you can tell us how information in Afghanistan or Iraq helped the German and British police intervene with German and British citizens of the Muslim faith prior to them committing acts of terrorism....FEOS wrote:
Only not. Where do you get your ideas from?
I can't divulge where the intel comes from...but it's not that.
You could have implemented what has been implemented today or what has been practiced by El Al for many moons. But no, nothing was done. And 1995 = foresight.FEOS wrote:
And just what could be done? Civilian airliners could be used to crash into skyscrapers. They could also be used to crash into cruise ships. Or blown up mid-ocean. You need something far more specific than that to take meaningful action. Unless you've got the benefit of hindsight...which you are clearly using.
The less unity, the more anarchic. I'm wondering how much 'unity' there was in the first place anyway.FEOS wrote:
AQ has specific goals and objectives and they are willing to go much farther than other groups to achieve those goals. They have proven that much. True, it is a movement as much as an organization...particularly now that it is fractionalized. But that also weakens it. Without unity of effort, it is difficult to pull off the kind of attacks we saw up until 2005--they simply don't have the luxury of time and resources to focus.
We'll certainly see whether it manifests itself as violent anarchy directed against the west. I'm betting it will.FEOS wrote:
You are confusing hatred with ability to act in a meaningful way. Just because there are a lot of people who are angry does not mean they are able to do anything about it. That requires resources, time, and continuity...none of which AQ has right now.
Well you seem to think that 4,200 US deaths has been worth it. Would there have been 4,200 civilian deaths without Iraq or Afghanistan? I contend that a cost(money & blood)/benefit analysis would show otherwise.FEOS wrote:
Yes, they are terrorist attacks (particularly the ones against purely civilian targets). And just where the fuck do you get off saying I'm comfortable with "the expendability of US soldiery"?
Fuck you. I've buried too many friends to even justify that with a fucking response.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-20 03:00:52)
Read all of my posts again. Nowhere, not anywhere, do I 'defend' the people you speak of.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
freudian slip and a few beers...lol... you defend these people way to much in my opinion...CameronPoe wrote:
What now?????????????????????????????????? Drunk post?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
your people are working on a new attack i'm sure... and hopefully we can stop it before it happens... and if we can't we will still be here... there are lots of us and we have guns and determination....
I'm not sure if that's because of your thinly veiled disgust with the US or that you think these crazy islam radicals are right?
Maybe i'm wrong... i sure hope so?
And? Governments deal with other governments. If the ordinary Pakis are livid, then they should probably engage with their government...or rethink who they support so they don't have to worry about it.CameronPoe wrote:
Ordinary Pakistanis throughout Pakistan are livid, irrespective of the position of their government.FEOS wrote:
Done with the full agreement of the Pakistani govt, btw. Maybe they should bitch at them...when they're not busy attacking/being attacked by them.
kickboxing...lulz.CamPoe wrote:
You can take a course in kickboxing pretty much anywhere on planet earth. Taking over an aircraft isn't rocket science either. It's not like they had to invent a new art.FEOS wrote:
Yes, combat training. Hand-to-hand tactics. How to take over an aircraft...unless you think people are just born with that knowledge?
"Welcome to kickboxing class. Does anyone have any questions before we begin?"
"Yes. How you kick infidel pilot to take over aircraft?"
You can take marksmanship courses pretty much anywhere on earth, too. Yet strangely enough, law enforcement and military train their own.
I'm assuming you're talking about car bombings here and not airstrikes...since there hasn't been an airstrike in Iraq in months.CamPoe wrote:
Chase further field/destabilise other parts of the world. Whichever. Effective enough to continue bombings in Iraq on an alarmingly frequent basis...FEOS wrote:
Chase them further afield...or make it so painful/costly that they do something different. Either way, they are too busy trying to stay alive to be effective.
And with the exception of last week...not really many bombings in Iraq at all for quite a while. At least not against civilian targets.
Without looking extensively at open source reporting, I can't safely address this issue. It is safe to say that much of the tips that the US and Europeans have gotten that started internal investigations came from exploitation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. I'll just leave it at that.CamPoe wrote:
Perhaps you can tell us how information in Afghanistan or Iraq helped the German and British police intervene with German and British citizens of the Muslim faith prior to them committing acts of terrorism....FEOS wrote:
Only not. Where do you get your ideas from?
I can't divulge where the intel comes from...but it's not that.
Without reading the report itself, it's fairly difficult to determine if it was a realistic scenario or if it was just a "hey, if the planets aligned properly, this could happen" kind of thing. I'm willing to guess the latter rather than the former...which explains why nothing was done. Balancing costs of trying to counter a very improbable event against the likelihood of it happening.CamPoe wrote:
You could have implemented what has been implemented today or what has been practiced by El Al for many moons. But no, nothing was done. And 1995 = foresight.FEOS wrote:
And just what could be done? Civilian airliners could be used to crash into skyscrapers. They could also be used to crash into cruise ships. Or blown up mid-ocean. You need something far more specific than that to take meaningful action. Unless you've got the benefit of hindsight...which you are clearly using.
El Al's problem set is miniscule compared to the US airline industry. Just as every European country's airline industry is miniscule in comparison to the US's.
There was quite a bit of unity to begin with...that's what made AQ so effective. Anarchy in an organization is detrimental to achieving its goals...detrimental to its very existence. Which in the case of an organization like AQ is a good thing for the rest of us.CamPoe wrote:
The less unity, the more anarchic. I'm wondering how much 'unity' there was in the first place anyway.FEOS wrote:
AQ has specific goals and objectives and they are willing to go much farther than other groups to achieve those goals. They have proven that much. True, it is a movement as much as an organization...particularly now that it is fractionalized. But that also weakens it. Without unity of effort, it is difficult to pull off the kind of attacks we saw up until 2005--they simply don't have the luxury of time and resources to focus.
If it's anarchy, then it's not a threat. That means there is no organization, no unity of effort to achieve a given goal. That dilutes those individuals' efforts greatly.CamPoe wrote:
We'll certainly see whether it manifests itself as violent anarchy directed against the west. I'm betting it will.FEOS wrote:
You are confusing hatred with ability to act in a meaningful way. Just because there are a lot of people who are angry does not mean they are able to do anything about it. That requires resources, time, and continuity...none of which AQ has right now.
Certainly not without Iraq. And I'm no Iraq War fanboy. From an operational perspective, the fight in Iraq has helped the overall fight against AQ. AQ and their supporters threw their lot in there, which was a strategic blunder.CamPoe wrote:
Well you seem to think that 4,200 US deaths has been worth it. Would there have been 4,200 civilian deaths without Iraq or Afghanistan? I contend that a cost(money & blood)/benefit analysis would show otherwise.FEOS wrote:
Yes, they are terrorist attacks (particularly the ones against purely civilian targets). And just where the fuck do you get off saying I'm comfortable with "the expendability of US soldiery"?
Fuck you. I've buried too many friends to even justify that with a fucking response.
But to argue against the fight in Afghanistan is naive. I would certainly prefer if we had never engaged in Iraq and had focused more effort on Afghanistan and Waziristan/FATA areas of Pakistan.
The loss of any life is tragic...particularly my brothers and sisters in arms. But it happens. It's not a question of "is it worth it"...it's just the nature of military service. But that doesn't make it any less painful when you're standing in Arlington National Cemetery looking at a box that contains pieces of your best friend, watching a General hand a flag to a 4 year old kid.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Exactly my point. You may find yourselves with another Iran on your hands come election-time....FEOS wrote:
And? Governments deal with other governments. If the ordinary Pakis are livid, then they should probably engage with their government...or rethink who they support so they don't have to worry about it.
Oh yes, in the military and law enforcement they teach entirely different methods of holding and firing guns... lulzFEOS wrote:
kickboxing...lulz.
"Welcome to kickboxing class. Does anyone have any questions before we begin?"
"Yes. How you kick infidel pilot to take over aircraft?"
You can take marksmanship courses pretty much anywhere on earth, too. Yet strangely enough, law enforcement and military train their own.
And nowadays the indoctrination starts in Pakistani madrassahs.
Start here:FEOS wrote:
I'm assuming you're talking about car bombings here and not airstrikes...since there hasn't been an airstrike in Iraq in months.
And with the exception of last week...not really many bombings in Iraq at all for quite a while. At least not against civilian targets.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/RAS949298.htm
...and continue with every previous day. 'not really many bombings'. lol
Inconclusive. And 7/7 was entirely UK based, merely drawing on the fact the UK were in Iraq for inspiration.FEOS wrote:
Without looking extensively at open source reporting, I can't safely address this issue. It is safe to say that much of the tips that the US and Europeans have gotten that started internal investigations came from exploitation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. I'll just leave it at that.
'Planets aligned properly'? How's about: ban all items that can potentially be used as weapons on airplanes. Not rocket science. And El Al have been there, done that. What is the cost of 3,000 9/11 victims?FEOS wrote:
Without reading the report itself, it's fairly difficult to determine if it was a realistic scenario or if it was just a "hey, if the planets aligned properly, this could happen" kind of thing. I'm willing to guess the latter rather than the former...which explains why nothing was done. Balancing costs of trying to counter a very improbable event against the likelihood of it happening.
El Al's problem set is miniscule compared to the US airline industry. Just as every European country's airline industry is miniscule in comparison to the US's.
You seem to be playing up the 'we couldn't'/'we can't' when very very evidently the US can and has - since 9/11.
How were they 'so effective'? They bombed America in 1993. They performed 9/11 8 years later (something that could easily have been prevented through aforementioned foresight). Aside from this they mostly just snapped at the ankles of the big boys. Personally I'm not a big fan of anarchy. It's kind of destabilising for society...FEOS wrote:
There was quite a bit of unity to begin with...that's what made AQ so effective. Anarchy in an organization is detrimental to achieving its goals...detrimental to its very existence. Which in the case of an organization like AQ is a good thing for the rest of us.
Yes the 7/7 anarchism wasn't threatening at all.FEOS wrote:
If it's anarchy, then it's not a threat. That means there is no organization, no unity of effort to achieve a given goal. That dilutes those individuals' efforts greatly.
I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with your assertion. Islamic terrorism, as I see it, is no nearer to eradication (not that that is even possible) and the threat is every bit as real today as it was in 2001 or even in 1993. The fight in Afghanistan is only destabilising the neighbouring country, Pakistan, a pivotally important and notoriously unstable nuclear power.FEOS wrote:
Certainly not without Iraq. And I'm no Iraq War fanboy. From an operational perspective, the fight in Iraq has helped the overall fight against AQ. AQ and their supporters threw their lot in there, which was a strategic blunder.
But to argue against the fight in Afghanistan is naive. I would certainly prefer if we had never engaged in Iraq and had focused more effort on Afghanistan and Waziristan/FATA areas of Pakistan.
The loss of any life is tragic...particularly my brothers and sisters in arms. But it happens. It's not a question of "is it worth it"...it's just the nature of military service. But that doesn't make it any less painful when you're standing in Arlington National Cemetery looking at a box that contains pieces of your best friend, watching a General hand a flag to a 4 year old kid.
If you don't agree that the Afghan mission has had a detrimental impact on Pakistan and if you don't agree that the US' very presence on the ground in the region fuels terrorism, then I'm afraid we are quite simply going to have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-20 04:42:00)
Un-fucking-believable... You continue to epitomize the quintessential "with us or against us" right-winger on this forum. The fact that you would, on any level, equate those of us here who speak out against certain foreign or security policies with actual Islamic terrorists highlights your utter ignorance. Perhaps you should stick to a FOX News forum.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
freudian slip and a few beers...lol... you defend these people way to much in my opinion...CameronPoe wrote:
What now?????????????????????????????????? Drunk post?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
your people are working on a new attack i'm sure... and hopefully we can stop it before it happens... and if we can't we will still be here... there are lots of us and we have guns and determination....
I'm not sure if that's because of your thinly veiled disgust with the US or that you think these crazy islam radicals are right?
Maybe i'm wrong... i sure hope so?
"your people".... sheesh.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-20 05:48:07)
Well supposedly Iran poses no threat to anyone, so why should that bother anyone?CameronPoe wrote:
Exactly my point. You may find yourselves with another Iran on your hands come election-time....FEOS wrote:
And? Governments deal with other governments. If the ordinary Pakis are livid, then they should probably engage with their government...or rethink who they support so they don't have to worry about it.
lulz that you think marksmanship training is just about holding and firing guns.CamPoe wrote:
Oh yes, in the military and law enforcement they teach entirely different methods of holding and firing guns... lulzFEOS wrote:
kickboxing...lulz.
"Welcome to kickboxing class. Does anyone have any questions before we begin?"
"Yes. How you kick infidel pilot to take over aircraft?"
You can take marksmanship courses pretty much anywhere on earth, too. Yet strangely enough, law enforcement and military train their own.
FixedCamPoe wrote:
And nowadays the indoctrination has always starts started in Pakistani madrassahs anyway.
You missed the last part. I'll go ahead and repeat it here.CamPoe wrote:
Start here:FEOS wrote:
I'm assuming you're talking about car bombings here and not airstrikes...since there hasn't been an airstrike in Iraq in months.
And with the exception of last week...not really many bombings in Iraq at all for quite a while. At least not against civilian targets.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/RAS949298.htm
...and continue with every previous day. 'not really many bombings'. lol
Out of the five things listed, three involved bombings. One involved civilians. One. As compared to dozens or more per day a while back.FEOS wrote:
At least not against civilian targets.
What exactly do you mean by "inconclusive"? If you want to play it that way, fine. I'm not going to risk my security clearance to set some Irish ginger on an internet gaming forum straight on things.CamPoe wrote:
Inconclusive. And 7/7 was entirely UK based, merely drawing on the fact the UK were in Iraq for inspiration.FEOS wrote:
Without looking extensively at open source reporting, I can't safely address this issue. It is safe to say that much of the tips that the US and Europeans have gotten that started internal investigations came from exploitation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. I'll just leave it at that.
I'm not playing up anything. I'm talking about the realities of risk management. It's very easy with the benefit of hindsight to say "you should've done this, that, or the other". When you're talking about limited resources and dealing with threats, you deal with the most likely first, then the most dangerous of the less likely.CamPoe wrote:
'Planets aligned properly'? How's about: ban all items that can potentially be used as weapons on airplanes. Not rocket science. And El Al have been there, done that. What is the cost of 3,000 9/11 victims?FEOS wrote:
Without reading the report itself, it's fairly difficult to determine if it was a realistic scenario or if it was just a "hey, if the planets aligned properly, this could happen" kind of thing. I'm willing to guess the latter rather than the former...which explains why nothing was done. Balancing costs of trying to counter a very improbable event against the likelihood of it happening.
El Al's problem set is miniscule compared to the US airline industry. Just as every European country's airline industry is miniscule in comparison to the US's.
You seem to be playing up the 'we couldn't'/'we can't' when very very evidently the US can and has - since 9/11.
There was far more than just those two events, and you know it full well. And again, "aforementioned foresight" is easy to point out with the aforementioned hindsight.CamPoe wrote:
How were they 'so effective'? They bombed America in 1993. They performed 9/11 8 years later (something that could easily have been prevented through aforementioned foresight). Aside from this they mostly just snapped at the ankles of the big boys. Personally I'm not a big fan of anarchy. It's kind of destabilising for society...FEOS wrote:
There was quite a bit of unity to begin with...that's what made AQ so effective. Anarchy in an organization is detrimental to achieving its goals...detrimental to its very existence. Which in the case of an organization like AQ is a good thing for the rest of us.
Anarchy within a group is destabilizing to the group. That's what we're talking about...not society writ large.
What makes you think anarchism had anything to do with 7/7? AQ was still somewhat together at that point.CamPoe wrote:
Yes the 7/7 anarchism wasn't threatening at all.FEOS wrote:
If it's anarchy, then it's not a threat. That means there is no organization, no unity of effort to achieve a given goal. That dilutes those individuals' efforts greatly.
It's not about ALL Islamic terrorism. It's about AQ and associated groups' terrorism--those that pose a threat to US interests. Not all Islamic terrorism does (HAMAS, Hezbollah). We certainly keep tabs on them, however.CamPoe wrote:
I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with your assertion. Islamic terrorism, as I see it, is no nearer to eradication (not that that is even possible) and the threat is every bit as real today as it was in 2001 or even in 1993. The fight in Afghanistan is only destabilising the neighbouring country, Pakistan, a pivotally important and notoriously unstable nuclear power.FEOS wrote:
Certainly not without Iraq. And I'm no Iraq War fanboy. From an operational perspective, the fight in Iraq has helped the overall fight against AQ. AQ and their supporters threw their lot in there, which was a strategic blunder.
But to argue against the fight in Afghanistan is naive. I would certainly prefer if we had never engaged in Iraq and had focused more effort on Afghanistan and Waziristan/FATA areas of Pakistan.
The loss of any life is tragic...particularly my brothers and sisters in arms. But it happens. It's not a question of "is it worth it"...it's just the nature of military service. But that doesn't make it any less painful when you're standing in Arlington National Cemetery looking at a box that contains pieces of your best friend, watching a General hand a flag to a 4 year old kid.
The threat is not nearly what it was back then, because the organization is fractured, their funding is spotty, they are constantly on the run...all of which disrupts their ability to plan/train/execute attacks.
I never said anything of the sort. I agree with parts of both of those, particularly the first point.CamPoe wrote:
If you don't agree that the Afghan mission has had a detrimental impact on Pakistan and if you don't agree that the US' very presence on the ground in the region fuels terrorism, then I'm afraid we are quite simply going to have to agree to disagree.
As for "fueling terrorism", I'd say it's more accurate to say "fueling anti-US/Western sentiment". Those two do not necessarily equate, although the former relies on the latter for existence.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You ain't exactly on friendly terms with them is what I meant. Want another enemy?FEOS wrote:
Well supposedly Iran poses no threat to anyone, so why should that bother anyone?
What part of 9/11 involved guns again....? lolFEOS wrote:
lulz that you think marksmanship training is just about holding and firing guns.
Oh yeah that's right: civilians are less expendable than policemen and soldiers.... (and yes civilians continue to be killed).FEOS wrote:
You missed the last part. I'll go ahead and repeat it here.
Everyday FEOS, everday. Three in that particular day!FEOS wrote:
Out of the five things listed, three involved bombings. One involved civilians. One. As compared to dozens or more per day a while back.
You really have plummeted with this post FEOS. When did you turn into a playground schoolkid? Not once on this forum have I treated you with any kind of intentional disrespect.FEOS wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "inconclusive"? If you want to play it that way, fine. I'm not going to risk my security clearance to set some Irish ginger on an internet gaming forum straight on things.
OK so you are essentially saying that not doing was 'worth the risk'. The US found the resources pretty damn fucking quick after the event didn't they??FEOS wrote:
I'm not playing up anything. I'm talking about the realities of risk management. It's very easy with the benefit of hindsight to say "you should've done this, that, or the other". When you're talking about limited resources and dealing with threats, you deal with the most likely first, then the most dangerous of the less likely.
USS Cole and Kenyan embassy spring to mind. Not much else. And nothing else in the US. The supposed anarchy hasn't stopped bombings from the Phillipines across to Morocco. How a cave in Afghanistan drives events in such distant and different places is beyond me.FEOS wrote:
There was far more than just those two events, and you know it full well. And again, "aforementioned foresight" is easy to point out with the aforementioned hindsight.
Anarchy within a group is destabilizing to the group. That's what we're talking about...not society writ large.
'Still somewhat together'? Didn't I just see Ayman Al Zawahiri delivering an 'Obama is a fucking negro Jew-lover' speech from the incapacitated Al Qaeda leadership?FEOS wrote:
What makes you think anarchism had anything to do with 7/7? AQ was still somewhat together at that point.
I don't regard Hesb'allah or Hamas as Islamic terror per se. They are anti-occupation groups. If they were 'Islamic terrorists' in the classical sense then Hamas would not have provisions in their charter for peaceful coexistence of people of other faiths in a Hamas led state of Palestine. My reference was to the Islamic fundamentalist terror characterised by the likes of Al Qaeda, which is the focus of US efforts. It is impossible to quantify the threat level, it is a matter of opinion. My beliefs are counter to yours on the basis of the ease with which acts can be carried out by anybody, anywhere, at any time and on the basis that the internet has made global communication easy - meaning a 'base' is not exactly very necessary anymore. A migration of Al Qaeda to Pakistan proper is a scary thought to me. I'd rather an unstable Afghanistan to a more unstable Pakistan.FEOS wrote:
It's not about ALL Islamic terrorism. It's about AQ and associated groups' terrorism--those that pose a threat to US interests. Not all Islamic terrorism does (HAMAS, Hezbollah). We certainly keep tabs on them, however.
The threat is not nearly what it was back then, because the organization is fractured, their funding is spotty, they are constantly on the run...all of which disrupts their ability to plan/train/execute attacks.
For me there is one thing that would decimate such terrorism: affluence. And at the moment we can barely afford our own bills let alone creating functioning states in far flung parts of the world (nor should we).
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-20 06:25:54)
They are already an enemy apparently, so no loss there.CameronPoe wrote:
You ain't exactly on friendly terms with them is what I meant. Want another enemy?FEOS wrote:
Well supposedly Iran poses no threat to anyone, so why should that bother anyone?
Way to avoid the point.CamPoe wrote:
What part of 9/11 involved guns again....? lolFEOS wrote:
lulz that you think marksmanship training is just about holding and firing guns.
This isn't about the relative worth of a human life, you smartass. And you fucking well know it.CamPoe wrote:
Oh yeah that's right: civilians are less expendable than policemen and soldiers.... (and yes civilians continue to be killed).FEOS wrote:
You missed the last part. I'll go ahead and repeat it here.
It's about the fact that targeting of military and Iraqi government (ie, police) is legal. Targeting civilians is not.
Perhaps you missed my "per day" comparison in your rush to sarcasm. I fully realize it was a single day and that there are attacks nearly every day somewhere in Iraq. As compared to dozens of attacks every single day before. The rate is down and the targeting has shifted from primarily civilian to primarily military/governmental.CamPoe wrote:
Everyday FEOS, everday. Three in that particular day!FEOS wrote:
Out of the five things listed, three involved bombings. One involved civilians. One. As compared to dozens or more per day a while back.
But I realize you have to ridicule that because to do otherwise would be to admit the progress that has been made.
Did you answer the question? What do you mean by "inconclusive"?CamPoe wrote:
You really have plummeted with this post FEOS. When did you turn into a playground schoolkid? Not once on this forum have I treated you with any kind of intentional disrespect.FEOS wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "inconclusive"? If you want to play it that way, fine. I'm not going to risk my security clearance to set some Irish ginger on an internet gaming forum straight on things.
Yes. That's what happens. You're missing the point regarding making risk management decisions.CamPoe wrote:
OK so you are essentially saying that not doing was 'worth the risk'. The US found the resources pretty damn fucking quick after the event didn't they??FEOS wrote:
I'm not playing up anything. I'm talking about the realities of risk management. It's very easy with the benefit of hindsight to say "you should've done this, that, or the other". When you're talking about limited resources and dealing with threats, you deal with the most likely first, then the most dangerous of the less likely.
Now you're just intentionally being obtuse. The whole point is that the sporadic attacks are not linked to any larger strategy...exactly because there is no driving, unifying force.CamPoe wrote:
USS Cole and Kenyan embassy spring to mind. Not much else. And nothing else in the US. The supposed anarchy hasn't stopped bombings from the Phillipines across to Morocco. How a cave in Afghanistan drives events in such distant and different places is beyond me.FEOS wrote:
There was far more than just those two events, and you know it full well. And again, "aforementioned foresight" is easy to point out with the aforementioned hindsight.
Anarchy within a group is destabilizing to the group. That's what we're talking about...not society writ large.
Making a video is not leading.CamPoe wrote:
'Still somewhat together'? Didn't I just see Ayman Al Zawahiri delivering an 'Obama is a fucking negro Jew-lover' speech from the incapacitated Al Qaeda leadership?FEOS wrote:
What makes you think anarchism had anything to do with 7/7? AQ was still somewhat together at that point.
It is not possible to quantify threat because threat cannot be quantified in any situation. It can only be estimated based on what you know. The fact that it relies on human behavior makes it non-quantifiable. So arguing that because of some non-quantifiable threat, someone should've acted in a certain way is not congruent.CamPoe wrote:
I don't regard Hesb'allah or Hamas as Islamic terror per se. They are anti-occupation groups. If they were 'Islamic terrorists' in the classical sense then Hamas would not have provisions in their charter for peaceful coexistence of people of other faiths in a Hamas led state of Palestine. My reference was to the Islamic fundamentalist terror characterised by the likes of Al Qaeda, which is the focus of US efforts. It is impossible to quantify the threat level, it is a matter of opinion. My beliefs are counter to yours on the basis of the ease with which acts can be carried out by anybody, anywhere, at any time and on the basis that the internet has made global communication easy - meaning a 'base' is not exactly very necessary anymore. A migration of Al Qaeda to Pakistan proper is a scary thought to me. I'd rather an unstable Afghanistan to a more unstable Pakistan.FEOS wrote:
It's not about ALL Islamic terrorism. It's about AQ and associated groups' terrorism--those that pose a threat to US interests. Not all Islamic terrorism does (HAMAS, Hezbollah). We certainly keep tabs on them, however.
The threat is not nearly what it was back then, because the organization is fractured, their funding is spotty, they are constantly on the run...all of which disrupts their ability to plan/train/execute attacks.
For me there is one thing that would decimate such terrorism: affluence. And at the moment we can barely afford our own bills let alone creating functioning states in far flung parts of the world (nor should we).
Your beliefs about the "easy" nature of mounting these attacks are not that far off. Where we disagree is in the effectiveness of those attacks. Based on the decrease in attacks globally, it's safe to assume that the parties involved realize they aren't very effective, so are therefore not worth the risk to attempt to execute.
I'll just leave it at that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well according to you they aren't. They're tacitly agreeing to allow coalition airstrikes on their soil, whilst making meek staged denouncements in the press.FEOS wrote:
They are already an enemy apparently, so no loss there.
I think the point is that conventional military training - marksmanship, hand-to-hand combat - is not exactly relevant to an enemy primarily engaged in explosive devices in civilian areas. I'm fairly sure there are websites out there with the relevant information on how to prepare explosives and mobile phones take care of the organisation.FEOS wrote:
Way to avoid the point.
I'm just calling what I see from your posts. And since when has Al Qaeda - presumably a bunch of foreigners - targeting the Iraqi police been legal? Legal for Iraqi insurgents maybe, but not Al Qaeda. And like I said, civilians continue to be killed almost daily.FEOS wrote:
Oh yeah that's right: civilians are less expendable than policemen and soldiers.... (and yes civilians continue to be killed).
This isn't about the relative worth of a human life, you smartass. And you fucking well know it.
It's about the fact that targeting of military and Iraqi government (ie, police) is legal. Targeting civilians is not.
If progress wasn't achieved using an army 30,000 stronger than the original one then I'd be questioning what was wrong with said army. More soldiers in - tallies come down. Soldiers taken out - tallies go up. People keep dying - soldiers, policemen, civilians - the level just varies.FEOS wrote:
Perhaps you missed my "per day" comparison in your rush to sarcasm. I fully realize it was a single day and that there are attacks nearly every day somewhere in Iraq. As compared to dozens of attacks every single day before. The rate is down and the targeting has shifted from primarily civilian to primarily military/governmental.
But I realize you have to ridicule that because to do otherwise would be to admit the progress that has been made.
How can I comment on an 'if I told you I would have to kill you' type comment verifiable by only one party in the debate???FEOS wrote:
Did you answer the question? What do you mean by "inconclusive"?
Seems naive. You don't find Israel taking chances like that. When you are one of the most hated nations on earth it pays to bank on high impact low probability projections.FEOS wrote:
Yes. That's what happens. You're missing the point regarding making risk management decisions.
Atocha seemed to be driven by a unifying force from a Moroccan branch of the organisation whose leadership you contend to be decimated. A leadership that is probably not even in Afghanistan anymore and haven't been for a long time, they're more than likely in Pakistan.FEOS wrote:
Now you're just intentionally being obtuse. The whole point is that the sporadic attacks are not linked to any larger strategy...exactly because there is no driving, unifying force.
If they can get videos broadcast to the world I'm fairly sure they can communicate plans, in private, to pretty much anybody. It would appear they still have phones and internet connections (something I'm not too sure is very prevalent in the Afghan/Pakistan border region....FEOS wrote:
Making a video is not leading.
When lives are at stake hedge on worst case scenario.FEOS wrote:
It is not possible to quantify threat because threat cannot be quantified in any situation. It can only be estimated based on what you know. The fact that it relies on human behavior makes it non-quantifiable. So arguing that because of some non-quantifiable threat, someone should've acted in a certain way is not congruent.
They are very effective. Look at stock markets when attacks happen. Look at the fear generated.FEOS wrote:
Your beliefs about the "easy" nature of mounting these attacks are not that far off. Where we disagree is in the effectiveness of those attacks. Based on the decrease in attacks globally, it's safe to assume that the parties involved realize they aren't very effective, so are therefore not worth the risk to attempt to execute.
I'll just leave it at that.
And global attacks have 'decreased'? What now? Based on a three year sample (in which attacks have been much higher than anything pre-9/11)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te … ents,_2008
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-20 17:39:25)
Sorry. The alcohol is getting to me. I thought you were talking about Iran.CameronPoe wrote:
Well according to you they aren't. They're tacitly agreeing to allow coalition airstrikes on their soil, whilst making meek staged denouncements in the press.FEOS wrote:
They are already an enemy apparently, so no loss there.
The government isn't an enemy. So unless/until there is an Iranian-like revolution that installs a nutjob regime...no issue.
Wow. You clearly haven't read much about their training. It's all about marksmanship, hand-to-hand combat, small squad tactics, explosives, etc. And they don't use mobile phones very much...they are far too OPSEC-conscious.CamPoe wrote:
I think the point is that conventional military training - marksmanship, hand-to-hand combat - is not exactly relevant to an enemy primarily engaged in explosive devices in civilian areas. I'm fairly sure there are websites out there with the relevant information on how to prepare explosives and mobile phones take care of the organisation.FEOS wrote:
Way to avoid the point.
AQ is hardly operating in Iraq at all anymore. Mostly Shi'a insurgents at this point.CamPoe wrote:
I'm just calling what I see from your posts. And since when has Al Qaeda - presumably a bunch of foreigners - targeting the Iraqi police been legal? Legal for Iraqi insurgents maybe, but not Al Qaeda. And like I said, civilians continue to be killed almost daily.FEOS wrote:
Oh yeah that's right: civilians are less expendable than policemen and soldiers.... (and yes civilians continue to be killed).
This isn't about the relative worth of a human life, you smartass. And you fucking well know it.
It's about the fact that targeting of military and Iraqi government (ie, police) is legal. Targeting civilians is not.
And like I said, far fewer numbers are being hurt or killed now than in the past.
Your "call" is so completely off base that it doesn't even merit a response. Check your cynicism and try some objectivity.
Soldiers have been taken out and the level is still lower. So how does that fact factor into your argument?CamPoe wrote:
If progress wasn't achieved using an army 30,000 stronger than the original one then I'd be questioning what was wrong with said army. More soldiers in - tallies come down. Soldiers taken out - tallies go up. People keep dying - soldiers, policemen, civilians - the level just varies.FEOS wrote:
Perhaps you missed my "per day" comparison in your rush to sarcasm. I fully realize it was a single day and that there are attacks nearly every day somewhere in Iraq. As compared to dozens of attacks every single day before. The rate is down and the targeting has shifted from primarily civilian to primarily military/governmental.
But I realize you have to ridicule that because to do otherwise would be to admit the progress that has been made.
I wouldn't kill you. I just won't put myself in that situation. For some reason, I figured you'd understand. Apparently not.CamPoe wrote:
How can I comment on an 'if I told you I would have to kill you' type comment verifiable by only one party in the debate???FEOS wrote:
Did you answer the question? What do you mean by "inconclusive"?
Actually, your view is remarkably naive. Israel doesn't have to take those kinds of chances because their situation is completely different from an implementation perspective. As I pointed out before.CamPoe wrote:
Seems naive. You don't find Israel taking chances like that. When you are one of the most hated nations on earth it pays to bank on high impact low probability projections.FEOS wrote:
Yes. That's what happens. You're missing the point regarding making risk management decisions.
And that leadership is not driving what happens in Morocco. Hence the fractionalized nature that I mentioned before. Each regional group is acting pretty much autonomously. Kind of hard to work toward a common objective when you aren't working together and don't know what that common objective is.CamPoe wrote:
Atocha seemed to be driven by a unifying force from a Moroccan branch of the organisation whose leadership you contend to be decimated. A leadership that is probably not even in Afghanistan anymore and haven't been for a long time, they're more than likely in Pakistan.FEOS wrote:
Now you're just intentionally being obtuse. The whole point is that the sporadic attacks are not linked to any larger strategy...exactly because there is no driving, unifying force.
That is also remarkably naive. Making a video and coordinating on something as complex as operational planning are night and day. They don't use phones, and they don't use the internet directly. That makes distributed planning nigh on impossible.CamPoe wrote:
If they can get videos broadcast to the world I'm fairly sure they can communicate plans, in private, to pretty much anybody. It would appear they still have phones and internet connections (something I'm not too sure is very prevalent in the Afghan/Pakistan border region....FEOS wrote:
Making a video is not leading.
Lives are always at stake. You identify the most likely and most dangerous courses of action. You mitigate the most likely first, then worry about the most dangerous...assuming they are not one and the same. It all still boils down to balancing probability, risk, and resources.CamPoe wrote:
When lives are at stake hedge on worst case scenario.FEOS wrote:
It is not possible to quantify threat because threat cannot be quantified in any situation. It can only be estimated based on what you know. The fact that it relies on human behavior makes it non-quantifiable. So arguing that because of some non-quantifiable threat, someone should've acted in a certain way is not congruent.
Which stock markets? From what I've seen, the stock markets react far more to credit crises than to car bombs in Iraq. Maybe you saw something I haven't?CamPoe wrote:
They are very effective. Look at stock markets when attacks happen. Look at the fear generated.FEOS wrote:
Your beliefs about the "easy" nature of mounting these attacks are not that far off. Where we disagree is in the effectiveness of those attacks. Based on the decrease in attacks globally, it's safe to assume that the parties involved realize they aren't very effective, so are therefore not worth the risk to attempt to execute.
I'll just leave it at that.
Please point to where I ever said "global attacks have decreased". Go ahead. I'll wait.CamPoe wrote:
And global attacks have 'decreased'? What now? Based on a three year sample (in which attacks have been much higher than anything pre-9/11)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_te … ents,_2008
And how many in that list are AQ, btw? How many were "spectacular"?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I kinda said it to get under his skin... I actually have a lot of respect for him and his knowledge of world events and how much he has travelled... The thing i was trying to convey is that... I don't believe he or you has AQ posters on your wall or idolizes the group.. I just think he is too quick to for lack of a better word... defend... these people that would kill us first chance they get...Braddock wrote:
Un-fucking-believable... You continue to epitomize the quintessential "with us or against us" right-winger on this forum. The fact that you would, on any level, equate those of us here who speak out against certain foreign or security policies with actual Islamic terrorists highlights your utter ignorance. Perhaps you should stick to a FOX News forum.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
freudian slip and a few beers...lol... you defend these people way to much in my opinion...CameronPoe wrote:
What now?????????????????????????????????? Drunk post?
I'm not sure if that's because of your thinly veiled disgust with the US or that you think these crazy islam radicals are right?
Maybe i'm wrong... i sure hope so?
"your people".... sheesh.
Every time any radical islam guy or group does something or threatens and we mention it... you come back with... The US is bad too and they are the same...blah blah blah...
Doesn't it bother you guys that Iran is closing in on missiles that can reach and obliterate Europe? I realize that unless they are really stupid they wouldn't use them... but imagine the bullshit they could put Europe and other close countries through by threatening you guys and even the US eventually...
We have your back and will fight alongside you all...but let's not discount what the radical guys are trying to do... that's all... They are already making fun of Obama...
People of all ethnicities come to the US and realize that they can say and do what they wan't and follow any religion they wan't... i just wish people that listen to these maniacal folks could come see the US and realize that we are just regular people that wan't to live normal lives and raise our kids in peace.... just like they do...
Love is the answer