Terror over Detroit
84 RepliesJump to last post
[quote=imabroker][quote=Moraen] [quote=army13A] [quote=Moraen] That’s not entirely correct. Passenger manifests are approved by the airlines. Especially international. If the U.S. was told that a man might be a possible radical (maybe we should believe the guy’s dad for crying out loud!) and they put him on the DO NOT LET THIS GUY ON A PLANE (there is a list for that btw), then he would not have been allowed on the plane. He flew under his real name. That’s a problem with the administration. [/quote]
His name went on a list in McLean and got lost in the abyss. I don't think it had anything to do with the administration. It's the lazy government workers who don't give a rats ass about anything and who don't take their jobs seriously. For example, two of my close friends are State Troopers. We were coming back from a night out on the town when this really shady car was driving recklessly on the highway and one of my friends being an undercover detective realized that it was probably a car that had illegal drugs and a drug dealer. He called in to his station at around 2:50am as we were about 10 miles away from the station to get one of his buddies who was on shift to go out and pursue. He told them everything in full detail and I was getting excited because I haven't had any Hooah action since my Army days. Do you know the response we get? "Hey man, we're off sh*t in ten minutes and we just pulled back into the station. We already started our paperwork to finish the shift." WTF???? We were giving these guys a nice heads up as their station was right on the highway. Take them five minutes to get geared back up and head out because I've done that PLENTY OF TIMES in Iraq. But these guys were lazy as snails. That's government workers for you. When I got calls like that in Iraq, I turned right around without hesitation.
You can say he is apologizing and making us look weak but I lived overseas for five years. When me and my buddies went out away from our military installations and had to lie to people about being American ( we were Canadian medical students was our story), that's a problem. It had nothing to do with us not being proud Americans. Every single World Cup match the US played, we had our HUGE American flag right downtown in the city we lived. But once we ventured out into other parts of Europe (Bulgaria, England, Czech Republic), we had to worry about our safety. I do believe that the US is the best country in the world but other countries think that about their own countries as well. So when we sh*t on the rest of the world, it does affect the Americans who are living in other countries and that isn't cool.
I don't blame this administration for this. When Obama gave the order to shoot the Somali pirates, was that pussyfooting? And for the record, I'm not a big Obama fan but I don't blame everything on him like my hard core Republican friends just like I didn't blame Bush for everything as my hard core Democrat friends. [/quote]
As a military officer you know that sh^t rolls down hill brother. But lazy government workers = lazy leadership.
Squared away battalions usually have squared away BCs.[/quote] Yeah! This never would have happened under Republican rule. Um, except... that it did. Oh wait, never mind - that was Clinton's fault. You can't blame an idiot for not knowing he's an idiot.[/quote]
Bush is to blame for a lot. I will even blame him for 9/11. However, we didn't have terrorists coming out of the wordwork when he was in office after he began to lay the smack down. And I also say that bringing the war to Iraq was a stroke of genius, unlike most others. I was in the hills and cities in Iraq. There was al Qaeda, Hamas, al aqsa Martyrs brigade. Who do you want fighting these folks? Kids on planes, or soldiers who know weapons and tactics?
You know, I was in France in 2006, where I was the typical American. Not only did I discuss my service, but most of the people in France were admiring. I realize had I been in Paris, it would have been different.
I was in the country. It is interesting that people in the cities often don't "get it" when it comes to having to do what is necessary. People that work hard understand sacrifice. People in cities do not, for the most part.
Look at the pundits, they live in cities and don't know sh!t.
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen]Start a fund where everybody contributes $5. Which would be over a $1 billion. Lobby Congress to pass a good campaign finance and lower their pay. Here is the catch. If it does NOT pass, the $1 billion goes to the political party that has the highest percentage of votes in FAVOR of the bill.
I will bet anybody $1 million dollars that you can get it passed if you do that.[/quote]
I love this idea, except I am ok with what they get paid.
Campaign finance is where priorities and incentives are completely out of order.
[/quote]
You are ok with what they get paid? Are you ok with their pensions? One term and a nice fat pension?
They get paid too much. As if they don’t have enough privileges. They are servants of the public. $100k would work.
I think I’m going to start a non-profit and ask for donations for campaign finance reform.
They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration thus they are no longer afraid? You are kidding, right? Or did i misunderstand the part about this guy trying to blow himself up? Terrorist aren't afraid of dying in horrible ways, yet they are afraid of George Bush? Unbelievable that people actually believe this! That the terrorist aren't afraid to die is what makes them diabolical. That you fail to see the fallacy in your reasoning is scary. Earthly consequences don't factor into suicide.Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.
Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.
The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration thus they are no longer afraid? You are kidding, right? Or did i misunderstand the part about this guy trying to blow himself up? Terrorist aren't afraid of dying in horrible ways, yet they are afraid of George Bush? Unbelievable that people actually believe this! That the terrorist aren't afraid to die is what makes them diabolical. That you fail to see the fallacy in your reasoning is scary. Earthly consequences don't factor into suicide. [/quote][quote=Moraen]Of course, Still@jones and BG will say it is an isolated incident, just like Texas.
Terrorists are no longer afraid. Because we will not do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That means you should all be afraid now. There are no consequences for these guys.
The world may have hated Bush, but they certainly feared getting caught by his administration. They know nothing bad will happen to them under the current administration.
Torture is different than choosing your own way to die. It makes little sense to you or I, but I've been with these people and spoken with them.
They will run from a fight because they are frightened and the next day strap on a bomb. It makes little sense, but that is the way of things. Army13A has likely experienced the same things.
BondGuy, like I said before. I like your posts and respect your opinion. But I believe that my experience in this matter is greater than yours. I have arrested, interrogated dozens of these people. Iraqis, Afghanis, Suadis, Yemenis.
It is a different culture and different way of thinking.
Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is. After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went.
Still, I do respect much of what you have to say, and you bring up a good point; failure to know your enemy. And your point on it being a different culture, a different way of thinking, also true. Not that stopped Bush Incorporated from trying to impose western democratic values on this different thinking culture. Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades, died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4. They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun. There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed.[quote=BondGuy]Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is. After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went. Agree. The war was mismanaged on a strategic basis. I am NOT the be-all-end all expert. However, before I was in this business I was a Security professional (Board certified in Security Mangement) and actually served on a team to present guidelines on airport safety after 9/11. As for Bush, he served as an Air Force officer, Rummy was in the military, and Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Rummy was an arrogant prick. They should have crucified him. While I am not THE expert, I do have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject. More than say, even Tom Ridge or Rudy Guiliani (who thinks he is a security expert because he presided over the attack of his city. More than James Carville (who I think is awesome, even though I disagree with him a lot). Even more than some generals. I would say that knowledge of terrorism and security qualifies me as an expert at least.
Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades, died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? Those few who died, did die for a good cause. I feel in my heart and know in my mind that many innocent Americans were saved from their sacrifices. My brother was one such. Most Iraqis are "decent" people. We may not agree that they like to screw goats, but hey. You are right that it is an aberration. And in my capacity as a warrior, I dealt with the scum more than with the goodly people.
As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4. They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun. There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed. [/quote]
You don't attack their children. This is where economics comes into play. When their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit, they will stop. While applying rationality to irrational people can be difficult. I think that the cost must be high for them.
Once again, radicals do not VALUE their children like we do. So it would be a mistake to blow them up. What they value is their lives and souls.
I also like to think of it as similar to string theory. String theory states that there are more than 3 dimensions. Possibly eleven.
We only see 3, because that's what we KNOW.
However, that is not to say there are not other dimensions.
The same goes true for knowing our enemy, as you so eloquently put it. Just because we don't see a difference in dying as a suicide bomber and dying before you get a chance to kill Americans, doesn't mean it does not have value for them. My point is that it is difficult to get inside the enemy's head.
Twisted religion can twist minds. Twisted culture can twist minds.
I understand your point of view. And I know it makes sense to you. I will backtrack here and say that I do NOT think your point of view is scary or even ill-informed. My point of view is that when you make it so terrible to commit terrorist acts, you destroy the incentive to commit those acts.
I have probably been way too holier-than-thou on this subject, and for that I apologize to everyone. But I still feel that you cannot talk your way to winning a war.
Moraen,
I tend to believe there are intelligent, rational people in Iraq who are directing the “twisted minds” you speak of. The people you keep mentioning are the foot soldiers - and you are right, these people can not be changed (just like we can’t change the people in Operation Rescue, Greenpeace and the like…)
The resistance in Iraq is most likely being driven by the people who will benefit if the US fails (I’m not sure who this is). These people are probably intelligent, resourceful, wealthy and have advanced knowledge of warfare. I believe Obama is trying to change the tone of the occupation so that these people will stop directing these “twisted minds” to kill American soldiers.
Whatever it is worth…it looks like we will lose about 150 soldiers in Iraq in 2009. This is much less than the 800-900 per year we lost up to 2008. I believe this is a good thing. Really, I believe that!
[quote=Still@jones]
Moraen, I tend to believe there are intelligent, rational people in Iraq who are directing the “twisted minds” you speak of. The people you keep mentioning are the foot soldiers - and you are right, these people can not be changed (just like we can’t change the people in Operation Rescue, Greenpeace and the like…) The resistance in Iraq is most likely being driven by the people who will benefit if the US fails (I’m not sure who this is). These people are probably intelligent, resourceful, wealthy and have advanced knowledge of warfare. I believe Obama is trying to change the tone of the occupation so that these people will stop directing these “twisted minds” to kill American soldiers. Whatever it is worth…it looks like we will lose about 150 soldiers in Iraq in 2009. This is much less than the 800-900 per year we lost up to 2008. I believe this is a good thing. Really, I believe that!
[/quote]
I remember riding in the back of a Bradley to Balad Air Base with a Princeton educated Saudi national. His family was wealthy, and in fact knew some of bin Laden’s sons.
Most of the people in Iraq are indifferent. A small minority love us and a small minority hate us.
Changing the tone will not help. They are like predators. When they sense weakness, they attack.
Like I said, once the war ends, training deaths will rise considerably. Here is why it is safer: 90% of your time you are not engaging the enemy (and that’s if you are combat arms - if you are not, it’s closer to 100%). When you are training for war, you constantly running exercises that can kill you. What does this mean? It means training works. But it also means it is more dangerous to train for war, than to actually BE in a war.
[quote=Moraen] I remember riding in the back of a Bradley to Balad Air Base with a Princeton educated Saudi national. His family was wealthy, and in fact knew some of bin Laden’s sons.
Most of the people in Iraq are indifferent. A small minority love us and a small minority hate us.
Changing the tone will not help. They are like predators. When they sense weakness, they attack.
Like I said, once the war ends, training deaths will rise considerably. Here is why it is safer: 90% of your time you are not engaging the enemy (and that’s if you are combat arms - if you are not, it’s closer to 100%). When you are training for war, you constantly running exercises that can kill you. What does this mean? It means training works. But it also means it is more dangerous to train for war, than to actually BE in a war.
[/quote]
Your logic saying soldiers are safer at war than at peace just does not make sense.
From 1993-2000 there were an average of 1,469,441 soldiers in the military and an average of 938 deaths per year - One death per 1,567 soldiers.
From 2001-2008 there were an average of 1,395,119 soldiers in the
military and an average of 1,643 deaths per year - One death per 849
soldiers. Or, almost twice as many as during the most recent period of peace.
Finally, in Iraq from 2004-2007, there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag. That is significantly more dangerous than peacetime.
Maybe this is something they tell the troops to keep morale up…but it is simply not true.
Go look in the 80’s.
It is true. The study was conducted by three very well-respected economists. Nobody tells soldiers war is safer - that would be stupid and actually BAD for morale.
But if you strip the opinions and emotion out of it - it is true. Sorry buddy, you are wrong on this one.
You are skewing numbers and not using the statistics correctly.
Look at amount of active duty time in 2001-2008 vs. 1993 - 2000. Also, what are called “training days”. Most of the non-combat zone deaths occurred during the “training calendar”. This is a period where there are many live-fire exercises, large scale exercises (JRTC, etc.).
When troops rotate home, they get some time off and then back into the training calendar (where most of the deaths occurred between 2001 - 2008.
[quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%.
You and I are looking at exactly the same data; and I was surprised at how many peace-time deaths there are, but it still does not make war-time safer any way you look at it.
Sure, the 80’s peace-time was especially more dangerous than the 90’s, but none of the years in the 80’s was more dangerous than the safest year from 2003-2007.
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%. [/quote]
Let’s say 2,000,000 troops rotated through but the daily average was always 250,000; would the death rate change? Would Iraq be more or less safe? No the dangers and risks would be the same. That’s what I’m saying - it should be based on the average number of troops there. The number of troops that rotate through is arbitrary.
But, beyond this, the reality is the death rate and risk really come down to how aggressive a strategy is employed. The aggression was toned down in 2008 because it was an election year. Do you think a military strategy should change based on the election cycle in the US?
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen] [quote=Still@jones] there were 250,000 soldiers stationed and an average of 855 deaths per year - One of every 292 soldiers went home in a body bag.
This statement is incredibly flawed. Over 800,000 troops rotated through Iraq between 2004-2007.
That’s a little over 1%. [/quote]Let’s say 2,000,000 troops rotated through but the daily average was always 250,000; would the death rate change? Would Iraq be more or less safe? No the dangers and risks would be the same. That’s what I’m saying - it should be based on the average number of troops there. The number of troops that rotate through is arbitrary. But, beyond this, the reality is the death rate and risk really come down to how aggressive a strategy is employed. The aggression was toned down in 2008 because it was an election year. Do you think a military strategy should change based on the election cycle in the US? [/quote]
So what you are saying is that if one person gets killed, it should be based on the number of troops that are THERE at THAT TIME?
That makes no sense. The rate does indeed change if you account for the number of troops cycling through.
As for your last question. No, never. However, aggression was toned down prior to 2008.
As for OpTempo. My old unit is back over RIGHT NOW. They are running missions as often as we did in '04. More, in fact. Out of 5000 troops (1000 combat arms) in that Brigade, less than 10 have been killed. They are due to come home in 20 days. At this point, they should be doing “right-seat rides” which are basically area familiarization and not combat missions, but they are not. However, although nobody is dying they are constantly arresting and having to release people. And then arresting them the next week or a month later on a raid.
Three men who died over the summer died, because they released someone. This is Obama’s war now. That didn’t happen when I was there. Do you think we should keep releasing terrorists over and over because we are closing Gitmo and have no place to put them? So they can return to the battlefield and kill?
As for why deaths are down: The reason they aren’t getting killed is because they are battle-hardened and experienced. They are well-trained because they train hard.
[quote=BondGuy]Morean is it possible for me to respect your service to our country, but not hold you up as the be-all end-all expert on terrorism? I believe it is. After-all, not one of George Ws closest advisors served in the military. Well, there was Rummy, and you see where that went.
Still, I do respect much of what you have to say, and you bring up a good point; failure to know your enemy. And your point on it being a different culture, a different way of thinking, also true. Not that stopped Bush Incorporated from trying to impose western democratic values on this different thinking culture. Yet, it is not this culture we speak of. It is an aberration from this culture, a cancer from this culture that is the problem. You know first hand that the average Iraqi is a decent person. At least, I assume that you know that. After-all, many of our countrymen, your comrades, died to free these people from oppression. So, please tell me that was for a good cause? As decent as they are the cancer grows. Why? because of our failure to understand these people. We lose the battle for hearts and minds. That's Afghanistan today. As we lose that battle, the one you can't win with an Army the cancer grows. The hate forments, more terrorist are created. They are taught that their reward waits not in this world but the next. They are as sure of that as our children are of 2 plus 2 equals 4. They fear failure not for the consequense of torture or detainment but for the humiliation of not doing God's will. Cutting off the arms of their children will only make them more determined that we are the evil they were born to destroy. You can't fight a twisted ideology with a gun. There is an army of them awaiting their chance to be the passenger in seat 19A. Failure to understand that fact will get many americans killed. [/quote] So taking a war to them is not the answer in your opinion. What is your answer ? What would you do to protect us ?For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.
[quote=Moraen]For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]
You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???
Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army.
This is how Afghanistan beat Russia
This is how Vietnam beat USA
This is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region.
Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the Revolution
How the IRA beat the crap out of the British.
Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up.
I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective.
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen]For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army. This is how Afghanistan beat RussiaThis is how Vietnam beat USAThis is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region. Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the RevolutionHow the IRA beat the crap out of the British.Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up. I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective. [/quote] Native Americans were butchered AFTER the American Revolution.
In addition, The British Empire did not bring all of their strength to bear, and we Americans like to forget if it were not for the French we would have lost.
Afghanis had help from us.
And the Vietnamese are bad-asses, and had an extremely large army. They were well-trained, and hard-core.
Read: Lies My Teacher Told Me. Professor of American History. His name escapes me. If you are truly middle of the road, you will love the book.
Also, Still just curious. But where does your expansive knowledge of guerilla warfare come from?
[quote=Still@jones]
[quote=Moraen]For the record, total war does work. Ghengis Khan, Alexander. Hell, look at our more recent history: Native Americans were butchered left and right and moved off of their land. Why did they stop fighting us? Anybody remember? It wasn’t because we were nice to them. That came later.[/quote]You are really digging into the past for those references. I mean really, Indians vs. Americans???Conventional warfare used to work, it does not any more. Guerrilla warfare is too effective today to justify conventional warfare. The strongest army in the world can’t beat an entrenched guerrilla army. This is how Afghanistan beat RussiaThis is how Vietnam beat USAThis is why Israel can barely control the Palestinian region. Or, if you want to go back, this is how Americans won the RevolutionHow the IRA beat the crap out of the British.Interestingly, in every one of my examples, the losing military used excessive violence to try to control an entrenched population. It just won’t work. People today are too smart and weapons are too easy to acquire. They know they don’t just need to give up. I also believe this because if my country were occupied, I would never give up no matter how much violence was used. I’m guessing you would give up - this is why you believe this would be effective. [/quote]
Hahaha! You think you couldn’t be made to give up. That is hilarious! Still, I never took you for an ignorant redneck!
You have no clue what true violence is!
You made my New Year!
Thought I would post this link. NOT FoxNews.
Same guy from Yemen linked to both the Ft. Hood guy and Christmas bomber.
Coincidence?:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/31/abdulmutallab.terror.radical.cleric/index.html