Safer now that "W" is gone
202 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=BondGuy]
getting the truth without the spin is harder and harder. Fox way too right, MSNBC ridiculously left, Cnn left of center,but usually good with the facts before the spin machine starts. ABC OK, usually. I read a lot as well. But it’s tough.
My understanding of Afhanistan/bin laden is this:
We were undermanned from the start. We had three objectives, find Osama Bin laden, free the country of the taliban, and bring democracy to the country. We failed on all counts. For a time the taliban was out of the pictuure, but they are back.
As for finding bin laden my understanding is we had him at Tora bora, is that the name? However, failure to committ U. S. troops to a search ended up becoming our biggest failure in his capture. He got away. If what you are saying is that he was never at Tora Bora, direct me, I’d like to read about that.
Lastly, Osama was in Afghanistan from the mid/late 90s going forward. Clinton issued a directive to the CIA in the late 90s, 98 or so, take him dead or alive. The CIA had him serveral times but couldn’t get it done. I know we launched at least one cruise missle attack against him but he survived. We launched something like 60 cruise missles, so go figure! Another was cancelled after it was discovered during the countdown to launch that members of Saudi Royal family were with him at the same terrorist training camp. We tried to get him Sudan as well. So again, Clinton issued a death warrant, but our elite spy corps couldn’t get it done. That’s twisted by the right spin machine to : Clinton didn’t do anything. That Clinton couldn’t get him using the best of the best is one reason I’m not all over bush for not getting him. Putting this bastard down is one tough mission!
[/quote]
BG - My best friend from college was the Scout Platoon leader of the Iron Rakassans of 101st. His mission during and after Anaconda was to follow the leads to bin Laden in Tora Bora and use snipers supported by AF CCTs to capture or kill him.
Here’s what he told me. "I had the best snipers you can imagine attached to me, and they were Canadian of all things. In addition to us, there were SEAL teams and 10th Mountain soldiers combing the area. Here’s where we screwed up: when we had solid intel, there would be one or two al Qaeda to ambush a unit. We were crowding the mountains, way too visible. And these caves have multiple outlets, carved since the days of the Soviets. We finally got smart and pulled most of the regular infantry out, leaving scouts and Special Ops. By then it was too late."
BG - I will not disclose his name. But you can find most of what I wrote from a press release. Google 187th Rakassans Canadian sniper and then some of the other links.
It was an AP article originally. BG I don’t know if you have ever been in the military. But there is a difference between tactics and strategy. More troops would just have made it more difficult to hunt. Which is why we don’t have that many there now. However, the proposed increase in troops is to fight existing Taliban insurgents and not find bin Laden. Those teams are already in place.
We experienced the same thing in the mountains of Iraq. When we reduced our patrols to squad-level from platoon level, it was easier to capture insurgents crossing from Iran.
One comment on the “torture is wrong”.
It sure is. But there’s a reason we have SERE school. The world tortures and it WORKS. They wouldn’t train people to withstand it if it didn’t.
Like volt said. War is hell. If you don’t think so, you have spent too much time in your cozy world of the United States, where the rule of law holds sway. In these countries, it is still the law of the jungle. You cannot bring law to these please or these people without taming the jungle.
In my humble opinion we screwed up when we didn’t utilize a low yield tactical nuke in those mountains. You f*ck with the bull, you get the horns.
I will also remind all the Bush haters the war with Iraq cause another nation to surrender their chemical and biological weapons. The tip of the spear is sharp, they didn’t want to feel it.
[quote=mlgone]all 4 torture
Most experts say it doesn’t work…information is tainted to say the least. Anybody will say anything to stop the pain.
with that said I am all for doing anything that protects this nation. Wiretaps, torture etc[/quote]
General Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander, is against torture because he feels it doesn’t bring reliable information. Sen John McCain is against torture because he went through it. When everybody on this forum has more experience than General Petraeus, then I’ll listen. The Army Counterinsurgency manual that Gen Petraeus wrote talks about torture in depth.
[quote=army13A]
[quote=mlgone]all 4 torture
Most experts say it doesn’t work…information is tainted to say the least. Anybody will say anything to stop the pain.
with that said I am all for doing anything that protects this nation. Wiretaps, torture etc[/quote]
General Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander, is against torture because he feels it doesn’t bring reliable information. Sen John McCain is against torture because he went through it. When everybody on this forum has more experience than General Petraeus, then I’ll listen. The Army Counterinsurgency manual that Gen Petraeus wrote talks about torture in depth.
[/quote]
Does the CIA have more experience securing information than David Patraeus?
[quote=voltmoie]
[quote=army13A]
[quote=mlgone]all 4 torture
Most experts say it doesn’t work…information is tainted to say the least. Anybody will say anything to stop the pain.
with that said I am all for doing anything that protects this nation. Wiretaps, torture etc[/quote]
General Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander, is against torture because he feels it doesn’t bring reliable information. Sen John McCain is against torture because he went through it. When everybody on this forum has more experience than General Petraeus, then I’ll listen. The Army Counterinsurgency manual that Gen Petraeus wrote talks about torture in depth.
[/quote]
Does the CIA have more experience securing information than David Patraeus?
[/quote]
Securing information from the old Cold War days is completely different than the world we are in today. Tactics from the past do not apply to today’s modern day threat. Add that to the fact that former senior members of the CIA say it doesn’t work as well . . .
Interrogation techniques have not changed much in the last 300 years. People won’t give you information unless some type of pressure is applied.
Appointed CIA officials say torture does not work, no most field agents.
With respect to the word “torture” I’m speaking of the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by the Bush administration at the request of the CIA. Not quit splinters under finger nails or the rack.I’ll let the experts tell me what’s best and that is not a West Point grad with a tank battalion surrounding his base. Its the CIA guy in a sh*th!ole village that interrogates people for a living. This isn’t the movies, being nice does not work.
[quote=voltmoie]Interrogation techniques have not changed much in the last 300 years. People won’t give you information unless some type of pressure is applied.
Appointed CIA officials say torture does not work, no most field agents.
With respect to the word “torture” I’m speaking of the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by the Bush administration at the request of the CIA. Not quit splinters under finger nails or the rack.I’ll let the experts tell me what’s best and that is not a West Point grad with a tank battalion surrounding his base. Its the CIA guy in a sh*th!ole village that interrogates people for a living. This isn’t the movies, being nice does not work.[/quote]
This is completely not true.
First things first. Do you really think Gen. Petraeus would put in the manual that it’s a good thing to torture? Of course he cares about his career. That would be ridiculous.
John McCain knows torture works, witnessed in his book of the people who broke under torture. He was tortured, of course he doesn’t want it to happen.
The CIA techniques are not from the cold war. I think it’s an error to assume they use the exact same methods for gathering information.
And finally - General Petraeus is a brilliant strategist and logistician. He has a good theoretical knowledge of combat and how to fight. He is, however, an unblooded warrior. With the exception of getting shot on a training exercise, he has no idea what it is like to engage the enemy in combat. Very few officers these days do, and most of them junior officers like you Army. The only problem is the same structure that allows for discipline within the ranks also prevents senior officers from listening to their juniors. The only ones that do, were prior enlisted soldiers. If that manual were written with the aid of junior and senior NCOs, it would have likely included some brutal measures.
So, point in fact, I have more combat experience that Gen. Petraeus. If you have ever read “Once an Eagle” (which I think all officers are required to read it), Gen. Petraeus is Gen. Courtney Massengill. I have more experience with insurgents than he does. The first time he “saw combat” was as a Major General. Not exactly in the thick of the fight.
As for torture not working. Put a bullet through a guy’s hand, jam your finger in it, and see if he doesn’t tell you where the meeting between the sheikh and the insurgents will be where the sheikh is providing weapons.
One more thing - torture is horrible. It is disgusting. There is nothing honorable about war, only the warrior who does what he can for the guy next to him. If war were as glorious as some think, I’d still be in. War is hell. There are those who can separate the intellectual from the physical. I am not one of them. War is brutal and to romanticize it as anything other than what it is is a fool’s game.
Walk me though it then, Still. We're not talking about a 16yr old kid in an interview room with some white cops trying to be his friends trying to figure out where he hid the gun. We are talking about some perverted religious zealots that have have time sensative information. Your window is tight and when that's the case you apply pressue. Same now as it always has been.[quote=voltmoie]Interrogation techniques have not changed much in the last 300 years. People won’t give you information unless some type of pressure is applied.
Appointed CIA officials say torture does not work, no most field agents.
With respect to the word “torture” I’m speaking of the enhanced interrogation techniques deployed by the Bush administration at the request of the CIA. Not quit splinters under finger nails or the rack.I’ll let the experts tell me what’s best and that is not a West Point grad with a tank battalion surrounding his base. Its the CIA guy in a sh*th!ole village that interrogates people for a living. This isn’t the movies, being nice does not work.[/quote]
This is completely not true.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873
Here you go BG, from your favorite source, ABC. The original info came from the AP.
What’s your guess? I’m gonna go with he was trying to get a hold of al Qaeda so that he could talk them out of being terrorists.
Anyone who goes postal is mentally ill. Nothing more, regardless of what people want to make it into. The guy could have contacted Bin laden, so what! He was pissed off and acting in an unbalanced way. That nobody stopped him is the story. But not because they suspected terrorism. Because he was in such a controlled environment, an army unit getting ready to deploy, someone should have taken note that this guy was coming unglued. After the shooting people who noticed are coming out of the woodwork.
As always with these situations the news orgs are trying to make a story. They are going to dig up any tidbit and hang on it. We've got the neighbors who knew he was up to no good. And we've got the ex-coworkers saying they are only surprised it took this long. And, we've got Lieberman calling him a terrorist. So right now, it's a three ring circus of Let me get my 15 minutes of fame! No cred anywhere. Let's see where it goes before we jump to any conclusions. Regardless of where it goes, it's inexcusable that you and others are so prejudiced against Muslims that you had the guy convicted before any facts were known. The lynch mob gathers! Oh ,and by the way- watch out for those GM pick up trucks! They blow up when they get sideswiped. Saw it on the news!BG - you never read my first post then. Never convicted him, although the evidence is mounting.
I see this guy could have a picture of him and bin Laden poring over maps of the Ft. Hood SRC and you would still think he is “just some crazy”.
I even tried to use “your” news source.
Get real. Sometimes a cat really is a cat.
Btw - that kind of prejudice gets you killed in combat. I am suspicious, not prejudiced. Just like I’m suspicious of guys who dress like thugs, priests who hang around playgrounds and men who stare at my wife.
Funny, this morning on the Today Show..they had the female Soldier who apparently saved someone's life during the shooting...Merideth says "at what point did you know that this wasn't a drill...was it when you heard him scream Allah Akbar?"....The Soldier basically said, I heard someone scream, but I never said it as Allah Akbar....this is an example of how the media skews things. This girl never said anything of the sort, and now that Merideth said it on Today, everyone is going to spread the word that it is an act of terror. Now...that being said, I think it is pretty evident that this guys agenda was terroristic, however, that doesn't mean he was sitting somewhere with Bin Laden smoking opium, talking about how he was going to shoot up Fort Hood! I think he is a rogue terrorist at best...he could just be bonkers!?!?...at this point does it really matter???
My ol man said, "He was part of a sleeper cell that decided to take some guys out before being forced to go overseas and fight his brothers." But he also believes the government will slap bar codes on our asses before 2015.
The truth will come out in time and I am sure if it shows him to be mentally unstable and not some rouge terrorist, the news stations will drop the story like it has a disease.
[quote=DeBolt]…The truth will come out in time and I am sure if it shows him to be mentally unstable and not some rouge terrorist, the news stations will drop the story like it has a disease.[/quote]
I agree…Al Qadea has a very clear m.o…and this clearly isn’t it.
Anyone who even hints that this is the work of Al Qadea is a jackass.
FYI:
Al Qadea =
1. Large explosions for a high body count
2. Simultaneous attacks
3. Identifiable targets
4. Claim responsibly immediately
I agree...Al Qadea has a very clear m.o....and this clearly isn't it.
Anyone who even hints that this is the work of Al Qadea is a jackass.
FYI:
Al Qadea =
1. Large explosions for a high body count
2. Simultaneous attacks
3. Identifiable targets
4. Claim responsibly immediately
[/quote] There's a big difference between Al Qaeda and an Al Qaeda sympathizer, but both are terrorists.