From heros to zeros!

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik
Nope, your attack plans don\'t work in the real world. First quick strikes need extremely good intel - up to the minute.

As I said, it was presuming they have enough intel.
And if they don\'t (they probebly don\'t) have this kind of intel, it only prooves the incompetence of the CIA\'s and the US army\'s intel gathering.

They failed to prevent 9/11 and Al-Queda was strong as ever.

The CIA and the governments has been warned about 9/11  since \'95 by various intelligence agencies around the world.
Over the years, more and more information about 9/11 was found and given to the US.
Over a month before 9/11 they were given exact information. They knew the date, the organization, the places, the method, and the time of the day (not exact time, but whether it was morning, noon, etc).

9/11 is not an example to lack of intel. Even if they didn\'t knew the exact people that will do it, they could do many things to prevent what happened.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
As I said, it was presuming they have enough intel.
And if they don\'t (they probebly don\'t) have this kind of intel, it only prooves the incompetence of the CIA\'s and the US army\'s intel gathering.

So you\'re basically reinforcing my point. Such intel is impossible to obtain especially when we\'re dealing with radical militants who don\'t care if they blow themselves up (How would you infiltrate such a group?). Which makes the whole base of your argument and attack plans falter.

The CIA and the governments has been warned about 9/11  since \'95 by various intelligence agencies around the world.
Over the years, more and more information about 9/11 was found and given to the US.
Over a month before 9/11 they were given exact information. They knew the date, the organization, the places, the method, and the time of the day (not exact time, but whether it was morning, noon, etc).

9/11 is not an example to lack of intel. Even if they didn\'t knew the exact people that will do it, they could do many things to prevent what happened.

Ok they were warned about an attack at an airport. They did not know as you say the exact information sorry (thats conspiracy theorist baloney unless you give me proof). All they knew is that terrorist chatter was increasing and something was obviously going to happen. They didn\'t know where or how. Maybe it might have been a hijacking - but to crash planes into buildings was unprecedented and never thought of.

And then you\'d have all the same people complaining that there\'s no real purpose for military intelligence at the end of the cold war. So closing airports over a presumed far-fetched (at the time) terrorist plot did not make sense. Now you see what happens when CIA and NSA funding went down for decades and the intel (or lack of) didn\'t get where it should have.

Same thing in any military operation. Up to the minute accurate  intelligence is rare and rarely acted upon. In any case, that attack strategy won\'t work in real life as I\'ve explained.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik
So you\'re basically reinforcing my point. Such intel is impossible to obtain

Why do you keep twisting whatever I say? : \\

The fact that the CIA and US army can\'t gather intel doesn\'t mean it\'s impossilbe.

And infiltrating such a group shouldn\'t be hard. It\'s a worldwide organization, they can\'t keep track and make cumbersome initiations on every member.
You can also just pay a few members to get such information.

I really doubt that the CIA or any intelligence agency don\'t have a few people inside Al Qaeda. Especially in these days.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear

Why do you keep twisting whatever I say? : \\

The fact that you said intelligence agencies are incompetant and probably don\'t have the info reinforce my point that such info is extremely hard and impossible given circumstances to get and definitely can\'t contribute to quick and to the point operations. I didn\'t twist anything, really.

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
The fact that the CIA and US army can\'t gather intel doesn\'t mean it\'s impossilbe.

And infiltrating such a group shouldn\'t be hard. It\'s a worldwide organization, they can\'t keep track and make cumbersome initiations on every member.
You can also just pay a few members to get such information.

I really doubt that the CIA or any intelligence agency don\'t have a few people inside Al Qaeda. Especially in these days.

Unless you are betting that a radical who has the will to blow himself up is trustworthy, I doubt it. The CIA already payed people for their loyalty in the past especially in the Afghanistan campaign. Now these same warlords have defected once again to the enemy cause.

That sure doesn\'t make this route militarily feasible or even a good strategy to counter terrorism. Neither are the others but this one won\'t even help prevent future terrorist attacks (refer to my example about cruise missile strikes and Somolia).

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik
The fact that you said intelligence agencies are incompetant and probably don\'t have the info reinforce my point that such info is extremely hard and impossible given circumstances to get and definitely can\'t contribute to quick and to the point operations.

Afaik, the CIA and US army aren\'t the only intel gathering in the world, and certainly not the best.

Unless you are betting that a radical who has the will to blow himself up is trustworthy, I doubt it.

No one is trustworthy, and not all the Al Qaeda members are willing to blow themselves up. If most of the Al Qaeda members couldn\'t wait to just blow themselves up taking as many Americans as they can, they\'d do these things alot more frequently.

The CIA already payed people for their loyalty in the past especially in the Afghanistan campaign. Now these same warlords have defected once again to the enemy cause.

First of all, Bin Laden turned against the US because they didn\'t let him fight against Saddam in the first Gulf War. The US went in, and became very influencing in the Middle East, so Bin Laden went mad and now he wants the US to get out of the Middle East.

Also, I\'m not talking about paying warlords for loyalty and to fight armies. I\'m talking about paying the little guys for information about bases.
And they\'ll die when the bases are invaded anyways, so they won\'t be able to come back 20 years later and use the $20 they got against anyone.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Afaik, the CIA and US army aren\'t the only intel gathering in the world, and certainly not the best.

Not the best, yet still no other intelligence agency can infiltrate these groups. The point remains valid.

No one is trustworthy, and not all the Al Qaeda members are willing to blow themselves up. If most of the Al Qaeda members couldn\'t wait to just blow themselves up taking as many Americans as they can, they\'d do these things alot more frequently.

That\'s why the offensive in Afghanistan was effective. It basically killed those who were most radical (the ones not afraid to run into the fight and die) and the others simply ran to the tribal areas of Pakistan or out of the country.

Too bad the mountains and valleys provide excellent cover and plenty of ways for the terrorists to come back into the country once their strength returns.

First of all, Bin Laden turned against the US because they didn\'t let him fight against Saddam in the first Gulf War. The US went in, and became very influencing in the Middle East, so Bin Laden went mad and now he wants the US to get out of the Middle East.

Partially true. Bin Laden and Mohammed Atef (he was killed by a Predator drone) made Al-Quada in 1988, before the gulf war. At that time the US officially cut contact with him. He was angry that the US dared to enter holy Saudi territory where only muslims are allowed to enter. After that he began calling the US \"great satan\", etc etc.

Also, I\'m not talking about paying warlords for loyalty and to fight armies. I\'m talking about paying the little guys for information about bases.
And they\'ll die when the bases are invaded anyways, so they won\'t be able to come back 20 years later and use the $20 they got against anyone.

That won\'t work. The little guys are out of the loop and can only give mediocre intelligence at best (Then you\'d have to find them first too - who\'s little and who\'s pretending to be little). The really fanatic inner members have the best intel. But even a $25 million dollar bounty on Bin Laden\'s head isn\'t working.  It worked for secular figures like Saddam where one of the bodyguards gave his bosses position. Won\'t have the same effect for the radicals.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik
no other intelligence agency can infiltrate these groups. The point remains valid.

I doubt it.
And even if they can, they need to do is to intercept the communication between the bases. Once they know the locations of the bases, collecting information about the inside of them shouldn\'t be a problem.

That won\'t work. The little guys are out of the loop and can only give mediocre intelligence at best

Let me remind you that I\'m talking about gathering of information about bases, not about the location of Bin Laden or something.
They know where the bases they go to are, and they know how many people are usually there. They also know about locations of traps there (they were probebly warned about them). These are the important things.

 (Then you\'d have to find them first too - who\'s little and who\'s pretending to be little)

How about using satellites? The US obviously knew about atleast one base in Afghanistan. They just monitor the place and see who goes in and out. Shouldn\'t be hard to pick the little ones out of the officers.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
I doubt it.
And even if they can, they need to do is to intercept the communication between the bases. Once they know the locations of the bases, collecting information about the inside of them shouldn\'t be a problem.

It is a problem actually. The terrorist organizations stopped using radio communications because they know its easy to tap. Now they use old fashioned methods which are slower, but stealthier. The benefit to us is that they become less organized, but still dangerous.

Let me remind you that I\'m talking about gathering of information about bases, not about the location of Bin Laden or something.
They know where the bases they go to are, and they know how many people are usually there. They also know about locations of traps there (they were probebly warned about them). These are the important things.

Location of the bases sure didn\'t help when the cruise missiles struck the Afghanistan bases and Saddam\'s safe houses at the start of the Iraq war. You need location of people, not location of bases because the bad guys are always on the run.

How about using satellites? The US obviously knew about atleast one base in Afghanistan. They just monitor the place and see who goes in and out. Shouldn\'t be hard to pick the little ones out of the officers.
 

Its harder than you think. All you can see is figures and maybe clothing with good enough resolution. Problem is that Al-Quida doesn\'t have formal military uniforms and attire so sorting them out is hard and time consuming. Then there\'s the chance you can mistake civilians for fighters - as has happened many times before.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik
It is a problem actually. The terrorist organizations stopped using radio communications because they know its easy to tap. Now they use old fashioned methods which are slower, but stealthier.

Old methods can be intercepted too.
I don\'t know about any method of communication that can\'t be intercepted. Maybe if they talk to each other using telepathy, but I don\'t think they do that. And it might be possible to intercept too, if it goes by waves or something.

Location of the bases sure didn\'t help when the cruise missiles struck the Afghanistan bases and Saddam\'s safe houses at the start of the Iraq war. You need location of people, not location of bases because the bad guys are always on the run.

Well, once you reveal the location of many bases, it doesn\'t really matter.
You can watch them with satellites (read below) before the invasion actually starts. When the forces are closing in to Afghanistan, some will notice them and report to Al Qaeda.
Some will hide in tunnels, and some will run out of the building to hide in another building.
With enough people looking at the monitors, you can track many people that are on the run.

The forces will then be deployed, search the buildings as I said in the previous posts, and try to see if there are any trapdoors or whatever that lead to tunnels (tunnels will be dealt with as I said in previous posts).
Other units will be deployed in the places the terrorists ran to.


Terrorists in civillian buildings will of course cause more innocent civillians to be killed, but it\'s by far less than simply ruining whole cities as happened when the US invaded.

Its harder than you think. All you can see is figures and maybe clothing with good enough resolution. Problem is that Al-Quida doesn\'t have formal military uniforms and attire so sorting them out is hard and time consuming.

Still, you can see people coming and going.
When somone comes out of the HQ (afaik, the US knew about it\'s location), he\'s probebly a terrorist. And if he\'s a resident, he\'s an Al Qaeda supporter, because he gotta be really stupid not to understand he\'s living in a peanuting HQ!

Resident houses with bases are obviously diffrent than normal resident houses. You\'ll see alot more people coming and going into bases, and this is something that can be seen using a satellite.

If their way of communication is by messangers, you can tell too.
Think about it, you see a house, and a person comes out of it. He walks to some other house, and stays there for some time. Then you see some guy (maybe the same guy, doesn\'t matter) walking back to the first house.
A coincidence? Yeah, right.
Both houses are then marked as bases, and are being watched.
The CIA probebly have a few operatives in Afghanistan. Once a certain house is marked as a base, an operator can watch the house from a closer range to give a final verification.
I\'m not sure what he\'ll have to do to see if it\'s a base or not, but I\'m sure they can do it somehow.



Also you said that:

cruise missiles struck the Afghanistan bases

So they did know about the bases. Enough to justify sending a cruise missile launcher.
Satellites can monitor these bases, and CIA operatives can watch them to try and see wich method of communication they\'re using.

[derwoodly]

Sorry I missed the begining of this.  I would like to answer Blades original question.  

Personally it makes me sad that the world view has changed the way it has.  I am from the US.  The impresion I get is exactly what the title of this thread implies.  We went from good to bad overnight.

I would like to point out that USA is not the largest or the most populated country.  We are a minority in the world.  A sort of redheaded stepchild.  Made up of the worlds rejects.  Actually \"Americans\" have never been thought of in high reguard, but now it is open season on us.  We have not gone from good to bad, we have gone from tollerated to loathed.  

I believe the our Presidents actions have been just.  The Terorist have not changed their goals and neither have we.  This is a no compromise war between the USA and Islamic fundimentalist.  Why the rest of the world can not feel our pain I do not understand.  I am not just talking about 9/11.

[Taldor]

Originally posted by derwoodly
compromise war

What\'s that?

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
Old methods can be intercepted too.
I don\'t know about any method of communication that can\'t be intercepted. Maybe if they talk to each other using telepathy, but I don\'t think they do that. And it might be possible to intercept too, if it goes by waves or something.

This is getting old fast   . There are thousands of ways they can keep in touch and communicate. They can change it each and every time. The simple fact is that nearly every western intelligence agency is trying to do what you say but it isn\'t getting them the kind of intel needed for quick strikes. They couldn\'t even prevent the Madrid train bombings and the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia where 22 people were killed. I ask you - does this method prove effective in real life? Real world events signify that it does not.

The forces will then be deployed, search the buildings as I said in the previous posts, and try to see if there are any trapdoors or whatever that lead to tunnels (tunnels will be dealt with as I said in previous posts).
Other units will be deployed in the places the terrorists ran to.

Terrorists in civillian buildings will of course cause more innocent civillians to be killed, but it\'s by far less than simply ruining whole cities as happened when the US invaded.

The US is doing exactly as you say - surveying the area with satelite and recon teams. The problem is that the insurgents love to hide in civilians areas and spread out all over the city to get good sniper positions as well as RPG posts. Their exact strategy is to use the city itself as a shield. And the US isn\'t ruining the whole cities... I didn\'t hear of any B-52 carpet bombing missions to level Falluja or anything. Using smart bombs doesn\'t mean its perfect but its not exactly leveling whole cities...

So they did know about the bases. Enough to justify sending a cruise missile launcher.
Satellites can monitor these bases, and CIA operatives can watch them to try and see wich method of communication they\'re using.

Which is exactly what they did. The problem? They destroyed an old run down base doing barely any damage or inflicting casualities. What did the fighters do? Simply split up and us the mountain ranges for cover then move to a new base. They can do this every single time as they were trained to do.

Originally posted by derwoodley
Actually \"Americans\" have never been thought of in high reguard, but now it is open season on us. We have not gone from good to bad, we have gone from tollerated to loathed.

It\'s simple really. The US is a big target. Damned if you do and damned if you don\'t.

[SaintNuclear]

Originally posted by kbilik
They couldn\'t even prevent the Madrid train bombings and the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia where 22 people were killed. I ask you - does this method prove effective in real life? Real world events signify that it does not.

As I say, say again, and say three more times:
They should look for the bases.

They\'ll never get intel about future terrorist attacks unless they\'re lucky. They should locate their bases. Locating their bases should be by far easier than trying to figure out where they\'re going to attack.

The US is doing exactly as you say

Yes, after they caused mayhem and let all the terrorists run for cover.
I\'m talking about what they should\'ve done, not what they should do after they already made idiotic decisions.

I didn\'t hear of any B-52 carpet bombing missions to level Falluja or anything. Using smart bombs doesn\'t mean its perfect but its not exactly leveling whole cities...

What causes more damage:
1. Soldiers that go into a building, killing a few people, and taking prisoners.
2. Launching \'smart\' bombs on buildings.
?

Besides, I\'ve seen a few pics of Kabul some time after the war in Afghanistan dropped from the main pages. It wasn\'t exactly neat. And it wasn\'t because of a defunct government.

They destroyed an old run down base doing barely any damage or inflicting casualities. What did the fighters do? Simply split up and us the mountain ranges for cover then move to a new base. They can do this every single time as they were trained to do.

Again, you fail to see what I\'ve been saying in the last few posts.
They should get the locations of many bases and only then deploy soldiers in all of them at the same time. Not find a base, launch a missile on it, and expect the terrorists to sit there and wait for the missile to blow them up.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by SaintNuclear
As I say, say again, and say three more times:
They should look for the bases.

They\'ll never get intel about future terrorist attacks unless they\'re lucky. They should locate their bases. Locating their bases should be by far easier than trying to figure out where they\'re going to attack.

And you can keep on saying it. That doesn\'t mean it will work because its been proven not to over and over. Locating bases is of no use for a mobile enemy that can hide in 60 countries.

What causes more damage:
1. Soldiers that go into a building, killing a few people, and taking prisoners.
2. Launching \'smart\' bombs on buildings.
?

Besides, I\'ve seen a few pics of Kabul some time after the war in Afghanistan dropped from the main pages. It wasn\'t exactly neat. And it wasn\'t because of a defunct government.

Soldiers going into a building. Reasons - they attract fire to their positions and return fire into the outlying areas as far as hundreds of meters. You\'re also putting the soldiers into risk by sending them over. If they\'ll get stuck, you\'ll need to send a rescue force which in turn will be susceptible to ambush and it goes on from there.

Again, you fail to see what I\'ve been saying in the last few posts.
They should get the locations of many bases and only then deploy soldiers in all of them at the same time. Not find a base, launch a missile on it, and expect the terrorists to sit there and wait for the missile to blow them up.

All at the same time? Yeah right. The world is fluid, its not a game where you can pause and plan all your actions plus position every force at the same time. Planning takes time - by then the terrorists move and you need new intel, what then? And while you\'re planning the enemy is already doing their thing carrying out attacks and moving.

[SaintNuclear]

I won\'t bother keeping arguing with you, you just keep not reading what I\'m saying and what you do read you twist.