BF2S Forums Let's iron out some transatlantic misconceptions?

Bertster7 wrote:

1) If they are based in other countries, as most of them are, you cooperate with local law enforcement agencies - rather than just going in alone.

2)International cooperation and high quality intelligence work

3) not fabricated intelligence to back government policy (WMDs...) - but real intelligence that leads to tracking down the terror

1) We tried that, for MANY years, but Saddam didn't really want to cooperate, all the political and financial pressure in the WORLD didn't stop him??

2) Read 1

3) Fabricated? Oh come the fuck on, now you are just being extreme, EVERYONE HAD THE SAME INTELLIGENCE prior to the war, it WAS NOT FABRICATED, omfg I am so sick of that one.

But I agree with your main point that INFORMATION and INTELLIGENCE is the way to wage war on terror, but don't ever imply that intelligence was fabricated without evidence, Cmon now.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Yes well because we didnt carpet bomb we did create any more terrorists than there already were, they were decreasing in numbers every year, or atleast their activity was.

I never saw one video of carpet bombing runs. Incase you have never heard of the good that is going on. http://www.defendamerica.mil/

Totally right Vilhaim - we didn't bomb them and so we didn't exacerbate the situation. Bombing doesn't get rid of terrorists. It might kill some of them - but then you end up with even more than you started with - which is why the war on terror in it's current form is a waste of time. The war on terror needs to be a purely intelligence operation.

Since 9/11 the actions of the US government have created an evironment perfectly suited to creating more and more terrorists. The war in Iraq being a prime example.

Bombing and invading are not how to deal with terrorists. You investigate terrorist cells and then arrest them. If they are based in other countries, as most of them are, you cooperate with local law enforcement agencies - rather than just going in alone. International cooperation and high quality intelligence work - not fabricated intelligence to back government policy (WMDs...) - but real intelligence that leads to tracking down the terror suspects. A bit like has been going on in Britain with homegrown terrorists.

And how many attacks have their been on US soil since 9/11 (5 Years). We are fighting them in their backyard.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-08-18 10:57:25)

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I never saw one video of carpet bombing runs. Incase you have never heard of the good that is going on. http://www.defendamerica.mil/

Totally right Vilhaim - we didn't bomb them and so we didn't exacerbate the situation. Bombing doesn't get rid of terrorists. It might kill some of them - but then you end up with even more than you started with - which is why the war on terror in it's current form is a waste of time. The war on terror needs to be a purely intelligence operation.

Since 9/11 the actions of the US government have created an evironment perfectly suited to creating more and more terrorists. The war in Iraq being a prime example.

Bombing and invading are not how to deal with terrorists. You investigate terrorist cells and then arrest them. If they are based in other countries, as most of them are, you cooperate with local law enforcement agencies - rather than just going in alone. International cooperation and high quality intelligence work - not fabricated intelligence to back government policy (WMDs...) - but real intelligence that leads to tracking down the terror suspects. A bit like has been going on in Britain with homegrown terrorists.

And how many attacks have their been on US soil since 9/11 (5 Years). We are fighting them in their backyard.

How many attacks were there on US soil before 9/11? I believe 1996 was the last one prior to 9/11, at the Atlanta games (5 years).

That proves nothing. There have been far more US casualties as a result of terrorism since 9/11 as a result of US foreign policy. There has also been more terrorist activity around the world than ever before.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-08-18 11:08:56)

Bertster7 wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

And how many attacks have their been on US soil since 9/11 (5 Years). We are fighting them in their backyard.

.

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11?

1993

They don't exactly attack on a regular basis.

Not true.

There was one in 1996 and another in Oklahoma in 1995 the attack that I assume you are talking about in 1993 in the WTC.

But before that there weren't any for AGES. At least 10 years.

Domestic terrorism is not the same deal. That is fought in a highly different manner. Are you critisizng our success. 9/11 was not planned under the Bush administration.

R3v0LuT!oN wrote:

I think Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) resent the US mostly for our self-righteous arrogance and the "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks" attitude.

American foreign policy helps the resentment here i.e.

'Do what we say or we'll kick yer head in' about sums its up

The rest of the world is just waiting for the bully to get its inevitable comeuppance

Kmarion wrote:

TheFlipTop wrote:

R3v0LuT!oN wrote:

I think Europeans (and the rest of the world for that matter) resent the US mostly for our self-righteous arrogance and the "we don't care what the rest of the world thinks" attitude.

American foreign policy helps the resentment here i.e.

'Do what we say or we'll kick yer head in' about sums its up

The rest of the world is just waiting for the bully to get its inevitable comeuppance

I hope you also realize under my sig is a joke. ...lol

Well our SAS would kick shit outta yer Navy Seals

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

.

When was the last terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11?

1993

They don't exactly attack on a regular basis.

Not true.

There was one in 1996 and another in Oklahoma in 1995 the attack that I assume you are talking about in 1993 in the WTC.

But before that there weren't any for AGES. At least 10 years.

Domestic terrorism is not the same deal. That is fought in a highly different manner. Are you critisizng our success. 9/11 was not planned under the Bush administration.

No 9/11 was not planned under the Bush administration, but the Bush administration did have intelligence suggesting an attack involving planes hitting the WTC may be imminent.

There have been more attacks globally than ever before - no not in America, because America is virtually a police state. There have always been very few attacks on US soil throughout history - mostly because the US is a long way away from the Arab world and has a very low Arab population. Homegrown terrorism is a phenomenon that has become more and more prominent in Europe; Madrid, London etc. It is only a matter of time before there is another attack on US soil. Higher alert levels in the US are a god idea and are a valuable part of the war on terror. Invasions are not (although Afghanistan made a lot of sense).

The tactics of the war on terror are completely wrong. This is a war about intelligence and international cooperation rather than military force - which seems to be the American answer to every problem, however badly suited it is to solving it.

The war on Iraq for example, has created many more terrorists - Iraq was one of the very few middle eastern states where no terrorists came from. Saudi Arabia, one of the US's close allies is one of the most popular terrorist breeding grounds (that's where Bin Laden came from, as well as most of the 9/11 terrorists). It is impossible for you to take out all the terrorists, except possibly through intelligence work with the cooperation of governments, like the Saudis. It is therefore a good idea to reduce the number of terrorists by reducing the causes of terrorism - invading countries will only have the opposite effect and create more terrorists.

I think you're partially right.  I think you're partially wrong about Iraq.  I guess I'm not sure how to get rid of Saddam and the Taliban without invasion?

Edit: referring to Bertster's quote...snarky guy slipped in a post whilest I typed...

Last edited by Pug (2006-08-18 11:55:26)

Bertster7 wrote:

The tactics of the war on terror are completely wrong. This is a war about intelligence and international cooperation rather than military force - which seems to be the American answer to every problem, however badly suited it is to solving it.

.

It's about there belief that they are destined to kill us because we are living free. At least at the core. It's the radical nut jobs that recruit. If someone blows my house up I'm pissed. If I truly believe I will be forever rewarded in my afterlife if I can blow myself up to promote my cause.

Bottom line here my security is more important to me than your opinion or transatlantic misconceptions. Being respected is nice but I have to prioritize .

Since 9/11 there have been at least 10 Serious terrorist plots disrupted.

   1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.
   2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.
   3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the U.S.
   4. The 2004 UK Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.
   5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.
   6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.
   7. The 2004 UK Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the UK.
   8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa'ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.
   9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.
  10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

Bertster7 wrote:

Why get rid of Saddam (I'm speaking purely from a terrorism perspective here)? Iraq was a country with no terrorists in and now it is swarming with them.

Funny http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 0kmbzd.asp

Bertster7 wrote:

If you are doing it purely to depose an evil brutal dictator, then why not one of the many equally bad other ones, which are less likely to backfire completely - Mugabe for one.

So we can be accused of forcing ourselves into every situation right? Why doesn't your country.. I know that's a crazy idea.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why get rid of Saddam (I'm speaking purely from a terrorism perspective here)? Iraq was a country with no terrorists in and now it is swarming with them.

Funny http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P … 0kmbzd.asp

Can't say I am in the slightest way inclined to believe your source, which doesn't have any credible references in it. It looks to me like yet another right wing propaganda site - like all the left wing propaganda sites which I also do not credit as reliable sources.

The Weekly Standard wrote:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has convened several meetings in recent weeks to discuss the Pentagon's role in expediting the release of this information. According to several sources familiar with his thinking, Rumsfeld is pushing aggressively for a massive dump of the captured documents. "He has a sense that public vetting of this information is likely to be as good an astringent as any other process we could develop," says Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita.

The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

Seems distrubing to me the way the Bush administration is not releasing the documents that prove there were terror camps in Iraq because they would create sympathy for Iraq and "prove that sanctions were working".

It all smells suspiciously like bullshit to me. There has been nothing about any of this in any mainstream media, because it's not true.

Pug wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why get rid of Saddam (I'm speaking purely from a terrorism perspective here)? Iraq was a country with no terrorists in and now it is swarming with them. If you are doing it purely to depose an evil brutal dictator, then why not one of the many equally bad other ones, which are less likely to backfire completely - Mugabe for one.

The Taliban, absolutely, I have stated many times that I completely backed the invasion of Afghanistan.

We still have Saddam - should we put him back in power?  Do you think removing him was a bad move?

In truth the goal of both Afghanistan and Iraq were to replace the regime...so kind of similar???

No, don't be silly.

But Iraq does need a brutal, secular dictator - like Saddam for the country to function effectively. We don't complain about the brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia and the number of terrorists from there - of course not, because they're our allies. In fact the UK have just got a contract to sell them Eurofighter Typhoons.

In Afghanistan the regime were openly supporting terrorism in Iraq there was no support for terrorism (I have yet to see any credible evidence to the contrary and have seen lots of evidence to suggest this is the case).

Bertster7 wrote:

It all smells suspiciously like bullshit to me. There has been nothing about any of this in any mainstream media, because it's not true.

Umm 9/11 commision ?
Composed of both liberals and conservatives.

"Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.  We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.  Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action."