Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 10:26:21 AM
Solution proposed? A three-tier force of about 4000 troops. With a few hundred first responders.
For the whole damned country. Now, picture 4000 troops just trying to maintain order in one metro area. Just one.
And they wonder why we want to be able to have enough guns and ammo to defend our families from looters?
Quote
US military may not be ready for attack
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterThu Jan 31, 11:25 AM ET
The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.
Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.
The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in you're either ready or you're not."
In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.
"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."
Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.
The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.
Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.
"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.
He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.
The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.
Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.
Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.
Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.
In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.
Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met.
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterThu Jan 31, 11:25 AM ET
The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.
Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.
The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in you're either ready or you're not."
In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.
"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."
Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.
The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.
Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.
"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.
He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.
The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.
Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.
Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.
Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.
In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.
Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met.
Post by: 280plus on January 31, 2008, 10:29:09 AM
Post by: wooderson on January 31, 2008, 10:29:46 AM
Post by: Finch on January 31, 2008, 10:31:23 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 10:33:04 AM
Post by: charby on January 31, 2008, 10:34:10 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 10:36:03 AM
Yeah, you go and train, you report once a month, but there's no possibility you'll be sent elsewhere. You would be defending your home. It's just that you'd receive military training and have access to military equipment.
I think a lot of people would sign up for that.
Post by: El Tejon on January 31, 2008, 10:41:53 AM
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
Post by: charby on January 31, 2008, 10:45:24 AM
Revive? We never gave it up.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 10:48:00 AM
Revive? We never gave it up.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.
What, with cheerful yellow hardhats, and duck-and-cover films? I thought that was mostly just feelgood thumbsucking for the masses. They knew full well that a nuclear war would be unsurvivable, so they gave people stuff that made them feel useful.
I remember reading an old CD pamphlet about making bomb shelters that explained that radiation could be defeated by putting a right angle in the entrance to your shelter.
Post by: charby on January 31, 2008, 10:49:18 AM
Revive? We never gave it up.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.
What, with cheerful yellow hardhats, and duck-and-cover films? I thought that was mostly just feelgood thumbsucking for the masses. They knew full well that a nuclear war would be unsurvivable, so they gave people stuff that made them feel useful.
winner winner chicken dinner...
Post by: wooderson on January 31, 2008, 10:57:49 AM
Anyone else remember this other President, name of Bush? Had a Secretary of Defense by the name of Cheney, as I recall... I dunno, maybe that was a hallucination.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 11:03:57 AM
Post by: Chris on January 31, 2008, 11:09:59 AM
And the military? The Cold War is over, right? So we don't need a large standing military. Cut back to spend money on other (pork) projects. the war of the ftutre is a small scale intense action, so we don't need many divisions of forces. After all, we watched the bombsight films during Gulf War I and II. Just bomb them. What? The Army/Marines have to go in afterwards? Nah, just bomb them. And if "them" happens to be on our own soil? Then it's a criminal/law enforcement matter, right?
Too many people who are "in the know" refuse to recognize that terrorism on any scale is a real threat to the US homeland, and respodning with police officers is much like responding to a house fire with a fire extinguisher. You might save the day if you are damned lucky, but more often than not, it's not going to work.
Post by: wooderson on January 31, 2008, 11:11:21 AM
Quote
And who did the force reduction then, Wooderson?
Obviously not the sitting Republican President, right?
CLINTON'S FAULT!!!!!!
Hey, wait... if you want to blame the Democratic Congress for troop reductions under a Republican President, will you be blaming the GOP House for troop reductions under a Democratic President?
(Nah.)
Post by: HankB on January 31, 2008, 11:22:06 AM
a) the troops will be in one area;
b) their guns will be securely locked up in a different area;
c) their ammunition will be securely locked up in a third area.
d) Nobody with the keys will be available, or willing to issue guns & ammo without three tiers of command REMFs signing off on the orders.
Remember, this is the Stateside US Military, where men on guard duty have been mugged and robbed because their weapons were unloaded - and their leaders STILL refused to issue ammo.
Post by: seeker_two on January 31, 2008, 11:26:13 AM
Quote
US Military Not Ready For an Attack On US...
Why would the US military want to attack the US?.....
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 11:26:50 AM
If a military force IS assigned to directly protect CONUS . . .
a) the troops will be in one area;
b) their guns will be securely locked up in a different area;
c) their ammunition will be securely locked up in a third area.
d) Nobody with the keys will be available, or willing to issue guns & ammo without three tiers of command REMFs signing off on the orders.
Remember, this is the Stateside US Military, where men on guard duty have been mugged and robbed because their weapons were unloaded - and their leaders STILL refused to issue ammo.
a) the troops will be in one area;
b) their guns will be securely locked up in a different area;
c) their ammunition will be securely locked up in a third area.
d) Nobody with the keys will be available, or willing to issue guns & ammo without three tiers of command REMFs signing off on the orders.
Remember, this is the Stateside US Military, where men on guard duty have been mugged and robbed because their weapons were unloaded - and their leaders STILL refused to issue ammo.
I wonder if it will take an actual attack of some sort here for us to adopt the Swiss model. I always liked that one, myself. All citizen-soldiers keep a functional weapon and ammunition at home, and if called up, report with both to an assembly point ready to go.
But, nah, they'd probably just form a committee to study the possibility of recommending a revision of the suggestions to another department regarding on-base weapons storage policies, and then the 4000-page report would get filed and lost.
Post by: Paddy on January 31, 2008, 11:57:58 AM
Post by: Hawkmoon on January 31, 2008, 02:39:16 PM
Quote
He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.
Wrong. The crux of the current problem is that the Pentagon is using the National Guard as an integral part of the U.S. military -- as front line and rear echelon troops in foreign countries, which is NOT the role of the National Guard. The role of the National Guard is supposed to be ... to guard the nation.
What it boils down to is that, if the U.S. expects to continue maintaining large military presences (is that a word?) all over the globe, in order to simultaneously secure the "homeland" we simply need more troops. We need more regular Army, we need more reserves, and then we might (or might not) have enough National Guard troops to fulfill their role.
It ain't all Slick Willie's fault, either. Don't forget Donald "Let's rumble" Rumsfeld. Rummie was so fixated on the wonders of high-tech toys that he continually underestimated required troop strength while simultaneously grossly overestimating the efficacy of said toys. When his top general told him he wasn't sending enough troops into Iraq to "secure the peace," did Donnie listen? Hell, no -- he canned the general and installed someone who told him what he wanted to hear. And we're still paying the price of not having secured Iraq when we first toppled Saddam, when the Iraqi people liked us and were grateful to us from driving the sorry sot out of power.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but neither party wants to be the one to 'fess up and acknowledge that we need a larger military if we're not going to bring home enough troops to defend home base.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 31, 2008, 03:36:24 PM
Times have changed, and so has our stomach for war and readiness. (Deja Vu', anybody?) The current policy after Rummy's overhaul is what's called a simultaneous win/hold plan, where we can still win one conflict, but merely hold an aggressor from making further advances in a second location. Troop and budget cuts forced that decision, which was supported by both Dems and Repubs.
I remember the "Hollow Force" military of the Carter administration, where engineless jets sat on the ramp, maintaining the outward appearance of a fully mission-capable unit. I hope we aren't too late to prevent that scenario again.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 31, 2008, 06:22:32 PM
Post by: doc2rn on January 31, 2008, 06:39:10 PM
They wanna kill each other so bad and duke it out, I say let them.
Post by: meinbruder on January 31, 2008, 06:51:16 PM
This is news?
No, not really. Its a bit disturbing the AP is reporting it worldwide. Nothing says, aid and abet like putting the weakness of the American Military under the magnifying glass of the world press. The fact that a retired Marine Major General is the foghorn for the report is also disappointing. If he is no longer in the game, why would he criticize the players? The lack of a co-coordinated defense plan for the contiguous states dates back to the forties so this really isnt news now. The cost of the study could have been better spent planning to correct the problem. It looks like a typical congress-critter expenditure to me.
Da Bianhua
}:)>
Post by: wooderson on January 31, 2008, 06:59:14 PM
Lolita Baldor, huh? Sounds foreign to me...
Post by: meinbruder on January 31, 2008, 07:25:50 PM
Da Bianhua
}:)>
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 31, 2008, 08:51:16 PM
Quote
The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."
What they are talking about is a major NBC attack. Other than the existing Marine NBC response unit (a Rein. Company?) stood up a couple years back there's no single large response force trained and equipped to respond. An NG infantry unit with MP's and NBC specialists with organic transpo would be perfect for that kind of response and could also cover any potential large-scale coordinated 5th column action (the only invasion that pencils out at all).
As much as I liked Red Dawn, barring something catastrophic (and statistically impossible), we will never see a large-scale military invasion of the homeland in our or our children's or probably their children's lifetimes. We simply control the seas and aerospace too thoroughly.
Once again it's a BS headline designed to sell papers and reel in the credulous.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 09:33:01 PM
Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.
Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.
Post by: HankB on February 01, 2008, 03:22:55 AM
Quote
They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason.
Did the guards themselves know this? 
If I were assigned to carry a firearm, it would be functional and loaded, even if I had to see to it myself. (A friend of mine - a bit older than me - was called up several decades ago to deal with urban rioting; they were issued rifles but no ammo . . . but by Day 2, everyone in his company had provided their own ammo. The leadership - which found out about this only afterwards - was not happy.
)
Post by: roo_ster on February 01, 2008, 06:00:29 AM
Quote
They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason.
Did the guards themselves know this? If I were assigned to carry a firearm, it would be functional and loaded, even if I had to see to it myself. (A friend of mine - a bit older than me - was called up several decades ago to deal with urban rioting; they were issued rifles but no ammo . . . but by Day 2, everyone in his company had provided their own ammo. The leadership - which found out about this only afterwards - was not happy.
)The brass is more worried about NDs than their men's ability to protect themselves and perform their duties.
SUch as you describe is, IMO, only possible in a NG unit with older guys less willing to tolerate BS and more careful with their own hides.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2008, 06:02:19 AM
Quote
They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason.
Did the guards themselves know this? If I were assigned to carry a firearm, it would be functional and loaded, even if I had to see to it myself. (A friend of mine - a bit older than me - was called up several decades ago to deal with urban rioting; they were issued rifles but no ammo . . . but by Day 2, everyone in his company had provided their own ammo. The leadership - which found out about this only afterwards - was not happy.
)The brass is more worried about NDs than their men's ability to protect themselves and perform their duties.
SUch as you describe is, IMO, only possible in a NG unit with older guys less willing to tolerate BS and more careful with their own hides.
Regarding that, would it be THAT difficult to sent NG people out in vehicles with loaded magazines in a locked box with a changeable code lock, and only provide the code in an emergency situation?
Post by: meinbruder on February 01, 2008, 07:04:06 AM
I cant help but wonder how the .gov would react to the presence of armed people in society rising to defend the homeland. Without any way to tell the good from the bad, a lot of good people are at risk of attack by our own military as a threat. Consider the official view of the various militia groups across the country; theyre painted as domestic terrorists in the media and the .gov shares that view.
Da Bianhua
}:)>
Who is talking of an invasion?
Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.
Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.
Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.
Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.
Post by: MillCreek on February 01, 2008, 07:08:45 AM
Post by: Tallpine on February 01, 2008, 07:28:26 AM
We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here, right
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 01, 2008, 08:36:25 AM
Quote from: carebear
... An NG infantry unit with MP's and NBC specialists with organic transpo would be perfect for that kind of response and could also cover any potential large-scale coordinated 5th column action (the only invasion that pencils out at all).
Who is talking of an invasion?
Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.
Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.
Besides NBC attacks, are we forgetting about sleeper cells? Are LEOs supposed to be the only ones to respond if a bunch of jihadists coordinated a mass-casualty attack in cities across the country, literally taking schools like the Chechens took that Russian school, holding hostages while others do suicide-bombs in malls and try to take down infrastructure like power plants, Wall Street (even though trading is not centralized there, it'd still have the effect), even the Capitol? Hit-and-hide RPG hits in major cities, car bombs all over the place, or a bunch of attackers in some place like Disney World? They just fined the security firm overseeing Turkey Point Nuclear in Florida because they'd removed the firing pins from the guards ARs for some reason. Most of our power plants would be easy hits to take down.
Tell me why that could not happen. Because I think it'd be ridiculously easy for it to happen, as long as they're coordinated. There's already a lot of jihadists and sympathizers in the country.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2008, 08:57:09 AM
4000 people. For the whole country.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 01, 2008, 09:31:18 AM
Also, the 4000 is hard to believe. At any given time, there are units training all over the country in military bases. Besides, the garrison at Fort Knox alone is larger than 4000.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 01, 2008, 01:12:51 PM
Post by: Strings on February 01, 2008, 01:50:39 PM
Any attack here in CONUS is going to involve sleepers: they're not going to be visually obvious as BGs (except when they shoot at others). The military and police are going to be severely hampered by the fact that they can't tell the good from the bad. Which is going to result in militias trying to do the job (and respond to basically random occurances).
Want to know what the end result will look like? Watch Reservoir Dogs. The "Mexican Standoff" at the end, only on a MUCH larger scale. America will get to see first-hand just how hot "low-intensity conflict" actually is.
Post by: Bogie on February 01, 2008, 02:00:21 PM
Infiltrate them into the US.
None of them really knows what is going on. They just know their particular job. For instance, Ahmed is supposed to shoot at trucks along a stretch of highway on the first day he is deployed. On the second day, he's supposed to target a wal-mart. On the third day, an attack on a church.
Even figuring a 50% defection rate, that's more than our folks could deal with.
And it's gonna happen after we bug out of the middle east.
Post by: wooderson on February 01, 2008, 02:13:10 PM
Because every single terrorist in the world is tied up there, and 1000 terrorists leaving would completely deflate the ranks of the True Believers. They wouldn't re-assign anyone or anything like that, if it were in the cards.
Your argument has about as much merit as saying that the Martians are going invade us just as soon as we "bug out of the Middle East."
Post by: Bogie on February 01, 2008, 02:22:46 PM
Post by: wooderson on February 01, 2008, 02:25:53 PM
They've got this super-specific plan in mind, that could be accomplished at any time regardless of our presence in the Middle East, but they're only going to initiate it if we leave the Middle East, out of some kind of machismo. Not because they hate us, or because it makes tactical sense as a 'terrorist' act - but because we've shown weakness.
Post by: Bogie on February 01, 2008, 02:35:58 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 01, 2008, 03:19:23 PM
Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.
Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2008, 03:33:04 PM
The WTC attacks are small potatoes now.
Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.
Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.
Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.
Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.
Hijacking just won't work anymore. It worked because people were still following the old idea to comply with the hijackers.
Now, the new version is that if someone tries to hijack the plane, everyone on board kicks the living crap out of them and ties them up. Or they're "subdued" with repeated blunt object trauma till they stop moving.
Because everyone now knows that if you comply, everyone will die anyway.
Post by: wooderson on February 01, 2008, 03:36:00 PM
Quote
Frankly, there were a LOT easier things to do than steal a few cruise missiles and pilot 'em to the targets...
Several years and a large percentage of the organization's resources devoted to 19 terrorists...
But you just assured us all that when we leave Iraq, they'd have 1000 terrorists involved in a much larger plot in no time at all.
Post by: Scout26 on February 01, 2008, 03:47:27 PM
Quote
The role of the National Guard is supposed to be ... to guard the nation
News to me. When I was on active duty in Germany in the late '80's a big part of the Op-Plan and annual REFORGER exercises was what we called "Ten Divisions in Ten Days". That meant getting ten Divisions of Active Duty and and NATIONAL GUARD troops across the pond should the Warsaw Pact decide they wanted to visit Frankfurt or Paris. The National Guard was always considered to be ready to deploy overseas. In fact in WWI and WWII the Guard were some of the first units sent overseas. And let's not forget about the militia units that fought in the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars
Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna could be lucky in war, notably at the Alamo, but he had a problem with food. He lost his leg in the so-called French Pastry War, fought between France and Mexico in 1838. Then in 1847, facing the United States at the Battle of Cerro Gordo in Mexico, he stopped paying attention to the war long enough to linger over a roast chicken.
His lunch was interrupted by an uninvited regiment of Illinoisans, who ate the general's chicken and carried off his cork leg. Santa Anna hobbled away to fight another day.
It was a huge victory for the 4th Regiment Illinois Volunteers, who also discovered a hoard of gold used to pay Mexican soldiers
..snip....
Mark Whitlock of Camp Lincoln's Illinois State Military Museum says the leg is going nowhere, ever. "It's an important part of Illinois history," he said. Cerro Gordo's place in history is marked by an inscription on the shin of the leg: "General Santa Anna's cork leg, captured at the Battle of Cerro Gordo, Mexico, by Private A. Waldron, First Sergeant Sam Rhoades, Second Sergeant John M. Gill April 18, 1847, all of the Fourth Regiment, Illinois Volunteers of the Mexican War."
His lunch was interrupted by an uninvited regiment of Illinoisans, who ate the general's chicken and carried off his cork leg. Santa Anna hobbled away to fight another day.
It was a huge victory for the 4th Regiment Illinois Volunteers, who also discovered a hoard of gold used to pay Mexican soldiers
..snip....
Mark Whitlock of Camp Lincoln's Illinois State Military Museum says the leg is going nowhere, ever. "It's an important part of Illinois history," he said. Cerro Gordo's place in history is marked by an inscription on the shin of the leg: "General Santa Anna's cork leg, captured at the Battle of Cerro Gordo, Mexico, by Private A. Waldron, First Sergeant Sam Rhoades, Second Sergeant John M. Gill April 18, 1847, all of the Fourth Regiment, Illinois Volunteers of the Mexican War."
Quote
With the threat of both a European and a Pacific War, President Franklin Roosevelt called the 33rd Division of the Illinois National Guard into active federal service on March 5, 1941. After mustering in Chicago, the 33rd Division spent three months training at Camp Forrest in Tennessee. This included bayonet practice, marksmanship and war exercises. The Division was sent to Camp Lewis, Washington where it received training in mountain combat, followed by desert training in California. The 33rd was then sent to defend the Hawaiian Islands and continue training.
On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed the American Naval Fleet at Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to declare war on Japan. Within a week Germany declared war on the United States.
Elements of the 33rd Division took part in various campaigns in the Pacific Theater of War. The 132d Infantry, of the Illinois National Guard, arrived on Guadalcanal on 8 Dec to support the United States Marines in expanding the campaign. They played a large role in the first Japanese land battle defeat in history.
On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed the American Naval Fleet at Pearl Harbor, prompting the United States to declare war on Japan. Within a week Germany declared war on the United States.
Elements of the 33rd Division took part in various campaigns in the Pacific Theater of War. The 132d Infantry, of the Illinois National Guard, arrived on Guadalcanal on 8 Dec to support the United States Marines in expanding the campaign. They played a large role in the first Japanese land battle defeat in history.
And yep, a Red Dawn or a seaborne invasion ain't gonna happen. No other nation or terrorist group could make it happen (heck, even the best Germany could do in WWII was land small groups of agents on Long Island, and Japan could only launch a couple of rounds from the deck guns of submarines on the west coast.)
Sleeper cells and/or terrorist groups a what's gonna hit us. There's no need to reivive the old Coast Artillery Corps.
And yep, it's easier to fight them over there then fight them over here. Plus it easer from them to "strike" at us over there, then to try to "strike" at us over here. I'd much rather fight them over there then fight them over here.
Post by: freakazoid on February 01, 2008, 06:08:48 PM
Quote
No, if the troops were here, the Democrat party would just downsize the military again like Clinton did. Don't try to pretend that wouldn't happen.
That would be a bad thing?
Quote
Quote
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
Massachusetts Representative Elbridge Gerry, House of Representatives; Amendments to the Constitution - Amendment 2 - August 17th - 20th, 1789.What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
Quote
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep andbear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited,liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction
-St. George Tucker (1803).Quote
I still think they ought to revive State Militias, myself.
Yeah, you go and train, you report once a month, but there's no possibility you'll be sent elsewhere. You would be defending your home. It's just that you'd receive military training and have access to military equipment.
I think a lot of people would sign up for that.
Yeah, you go and train, you report once a month, but there's no possibility you'll be sent elsewhere. You would be defending your home. It's just that you'd receive military training and have access to military equipment.
I think a lot of people would sign up for that.
Now that wouldn't be a bad thing.
Post by: Strings on February 01, 2008, 06:44:19 PM
First off, a seaborne invasion IS possible, via international shipping container. Sustaining such an operation would be somewhat problematic, but not impossible.
Second: "sleeper cells". These don't have to be made up of folks of Middle-Eastern decent. Think of some of the groups that operate on college campuses today: NOT hard to retask them without "spilling the beans" as to the new actual goals. Think some of the loonies at DU wouldn't jump at the chance to act out, if they thought they were just hurting Bush?
Third (and this has been mentioned): NBC. Especially biological or chemical. Massive impact from low numbers. I seem to recall hearing about a computer model done, using E.Bola as the agent. 20 man cell involved in dispersal, utilizing airliners. The computer model showed roughly 75% of the planet down, depending on when such an attack is used.
Know what happens to society when you remove 75% of the population?
Personally, I'm guessing a "combined arms" type scenario: Achmed over there does a biological or chemical attack (or two). Sam and his anarchist buddies devote their time to bombs. Julio and his homies start doing some random shootings...
Ain't I a bright lil' ray of sunshine?
Post by: Bogie on February 01, 2008, 06:51:33 PM
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/spb/mnpages/dispages/ebola/qa.htm
Thus far, there haven't been non-burnout cases of aerial transmission, but that's not to say that there won't be... Smallpox also scares the heck out of me.
I could see college students getting told to "protest" by taking out power lines, etc... At the same time, take out transport routes, and you've got three days until the cities start to run out of beer...
Post by: Strings on February 01, 2008, 07:00:33 PM
Like I said: right lil' ray of sunshine, ain't I?
Post by: wooderson on February 01, 2008, 07:13:13 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 01, 2008, 08:41:42 PM
Quote
And here I thought I was prone to daydreaming...
Yup. Daydreaming. Just like those guys who thought about crashing a fully-fueled airliner into a skyscraper or two.
Nobody ever thinks up that stuff, do they, Wooderson?
And we shouldn't even consider defending ourselves against something like that, either.
Of course, who'd be the first to scream outrage and incompetence were another attack to slip through?
It's Bush's fault, ain't it?
Post by: wooderson on February 01, 2008, 09:08:38 PM
Quote
Yup. Daydreaming. Just like those guys who thought about crashing a fully-fueled airliner into a skyscraper or two.
Nobody ever thinks up that stuff, do they, Wooderson?
Are you saying that Internet Commandos had concocted that exact same plan and busted out their ideas to stop it before 9/11? No?Nobody ever thinks up that stuff, do they, Wooderson?
You mean... terrorism is unpredictable?
But no, I don't think increasingly elaborate Internet fantasies about the methodology for attacking the US are particularly healthy, mentally...
Quote
Of course, who'd be the first to scream outrage and incompetence were another attack to slip through?
Probably the political enemies of whomever happened to be in power at the time.Just a guess.
Post by: seeker_two on February 02, 2008, 02:49:41 AM
The WTC attacks are small potatoes now.
Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.
Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.
Anything from that point on has to be more spectacular, because nobody's going to get away with a box cutter hijacking these days, and in particular they need to bolster recruitment efforts as they continue to martyr themselves over time.
Think something like a jar of anthrax spores released into the Super Bowl.
Forget the Super Bowl......a truck bomb at a local high-school football game or shopping mall will put an even greater fear into the American people. That will bring the WOT to every person's doorstep....
Quick look at the crystal ball shows me something VERY disturbing...
Any attack here in CONUS is going to involve sleepers: they're not going to be visually obvious as BGs (except when they shoot at others). The military and police are going to be severely hampered by the fact that they can't tell the good from the bad. Which is going to result in militias trying to do the job (and respond to basically random occurances).
Want to know what the end result will look like? Watch Reservoir Dogs. The "Mexican Standoff" at the end, only on a MUCH larger scale. America will get to see first-hand just how hot "low-intensity conflict" actually is.
Any attack here in CONUS is going to involve sleepers: they're not going to be visually obvious as BGs (except when they shoot at others). The military and police are going to be severely hampered by the fact that they can't tell the good from the bad. Which is going to result in militias trying to do the job (and respond to basically random occurances).
Want to know what the end result will look like? Watch Reservoir Dogs. The "Mexican Standoff" at the end, only on a MUCH larger scale. America will get to see first-hand just how hot "low-intensity conflict" actually is.
....and when the military tries to stop civilian militias from attacking people, it'll make Unintended Consequences look like a light comedy....
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2008, 03:58:00 AM
....and when the military tries to stop civilian militias from attacking people, it'll make Unintended Consequences look like a light comedy....
Of course, this is why a lot of the weapons I have can go away very quickly to as to avoid being pointed at as "There's one of them!" by an mistaken and understandably edgy LEO or soldier. I believe the assumption is that there's multiple shooters unless it's proven otherwise, which does make sense, but can get you unintentionally targeted.
Those include a folding-stock AK with an American-style rail system completely covering the distinctive gas tube, and the fastest-to-deploy-and-tuck compact long gun I've yet found, Kel-Tec's Sub 2000. Because in my opinion, if someone was going around your neighborhood, mall, school or any place you're at doing the jihad thing, your best chance of survival would be to stop the threat, and then put your own gun completely out of sight before any good guys see you through a scope. Walking around with a weapon on a single-point sling, even if you thought you were "helping" defend your neighborhood, would be a good way to get shot by mistake, IMO.
(note with the AK...I think if you have one, you really want to disguise the profile if you consider it an emergency carry weapon. That distinctive gas tube's sihouette would otherwise say BAD GUY RIFLE to lots of soldiers who have already served overseas, I'd think.)
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 02, 2008, 07:50:55 AM
Quote
Are you saying that Internet Commandos had concocted that exact same plan and busted out their ideas to stop it before 9/11? No?
You mean... terrorism is unpredictable?
But no, I don't think increasingly elaborate Internet fantasies about the methodology for attacking the US are particularly healthy, mentally...
You mean... terrorism is unpredictable?
But no, I don't think increasingly elaborate Internet fantasies about the methodology for attacking the US are particularly healthy, mentally...
Ok, Wooderson. My hat's off to you, and my former employers should've hired you to game plan their strategy against incidents of domestic terrorism. We could've parked our WC-135s on alert back in the boneyard again, you'd be a lot cheaper.
They're stupid for having their staff think up scenarios and responses while on the government dime, aren't they?
Post by: wooderson on February 02, 2008, 09:03:06 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 02, 2008, 09:27:02 AM
They'll see it as a weakness, and in their culture, weaknesses are to be exploited. Period.
It seems that the universal theme I have heard from these terrorists is that if you leave them and stay out of hte Middle East, they would not attack us or our allies. How about we try that?
Post by: Bogie on February 02, 2008, 09:34:34 AM
Like it or not, their culture is now part of a global economy. Which means that they're gonna be over here, and we're gonna be over there.
If nobody buys their oil, it will inconvenience the rest of the world for a bit... But people will adapt. But their countries would self-destruct.
Post by: RevDisk on February 02, 2008, 10:49:23 AM
Revive? We never gave it up.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
Mane, feds would never go for that. Too much power given to the states.
I foresee an expanded DHS.
I'd like to see DHS go and have the Civil Defence like during the cold war era come back.
What, with cheerful yellow hardhats, and duck-and-cover films? I thought that was mostly just feelgood thumbsucking for the masses. They knew full well that a nuclear war would be unsurvivable, so they gave people stuff that made them feel useful.
I remember reading an old CD pamphlet about making bomb shelters that explained that radiation could be defeated by putting a right angle in the entrance to your shelter.
I'd agree with that mostly. With a couple exceptions. Amateur radio especially. They got a lot of the electromagnetic spectrum (relatively speaking, of course) because of their value to civil defense and emergency responce. Check USRACES for one example. Generally, a significant part of any communications still functioning in any disaster area is provided by amateur radio volunteers. The military sponsors MARS, Military Affiliate Radio System, and there is extremely good coordination between the DoD and licensed amateur radio operators as a worldwide auxiliary emergency communications system.
Quote
The brass is more worried about NDs than their men's ability to protect themselves and perform their duties.
SUch as you describe is, IMO, only possible in a NG unit with older guys less willing to tolerate BS and more careful with their own hides.
SUch as you describe is, IMO, only possible in a NG unit with older guys less willing to tolerate BS and more careful with their own hides.
Pretty much. Depends on the NG unit, but yes, a lot of them carry personal weapons if not issued ammo. Fun to dodge your own commanders as well as possible enemies. Sigh. Your first statement is so true you have no idea.
Quote
What they are talking about is a major NBC attack. Other than the existing Marine NBC response unit (a Rein. Company?) stood up a couple years back there's no single large response force trained and equipped to respond. An NG infantry unit with MP's and NBC specialists with organic transpo would be perfect for that kind of response and could also cover any potential large-scale coordinated 5th column action (the only invasion that pencils out at all).
Perhaps you should tell the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) that. There is one about 45 minutes to an hour away from my home at a NG base under state control. I won't get overly specific, but it was near a motor pool we used often enough. 3rd CST, operational since Aug 2001. Through the Smokers Association (ie, shooting the breeze with fellow smokers) I got a lil tour of their equipment. All things considered, not bad. Small, yes. A mobile lab, a command RV, and a lot of black Suburbians. But their entire point is to link up with other resources (NG, feds, whoever) and provide technical expertise.
One of Clinton's few ideas I agreed with.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 02, 2008, 12:14:41 PM
I actually started typing this frustrated, but thought twice. Still I'm not going to change what I wrote, just be aware I'm calmer now.
I'm not sure why this topic is so controversial, everybody seems to have their neck hair up.
Anyway, what I wrote a minute ago....
Quote
I thought I was perfectly clear in that snippet you quoted that the only Federal-specific unit I was aware of was the Marine unit.
Also I believe I stated that the NG is, in my opinion, the perfect group to do that job. So I'm glad they already are.
My larger point was that this is kind of a non-issue, a big "what-if" of extremely low statistical probablility.
Almost every country in the world, whether they agree with us on Iraq or not, is now hyper alert about massing of known terrorist associates and of chatter in every spectrum. If the sleeper cells aren't here in CONUS already, they are not going to just trip gaily in. As much as I deride our security theatre and lack of border security, it is just plain difficult to get across the oceans in any numbers with any amount of equipment, even today.
It took everything Al Quaeda had to pull off 9/11 and they came this close to getting caught even without a coherent group of agencies in this country looking for them and with them having more-or-less free rein in Germany and their other training and assembly sites. In today's world it will be just that much harder.
It is as likely that another McVeigh will blow up a high school football game or another what's his name will shoot a few people around Washington as it is that some immigrant will. The realistic threats haven't changed a whit, and can be dealt with in the same manner as always.
Also I believe I stated that the NG is, in my opinion, the perfect group to do that job. So I'm glad they already are.
My larger point was that this is kind of a non-issue, a big "what-if" of extremely low statistical probablility.
Almost every country in the world, whether they agree with us on Iraq or not, is now hyper alert about massing of known terrorist associates and of chatter in every spectrum. If the sleeper cells aren't here in CONUS already, they are not going to just trip gaily in. As much as I deride our security theatre and lack of border security, it is just plain difficult to get across the oceans in any numbers with any amount of equipment, even today.
It took everything Al Quaeda had to pull off 9/11 and they came this close to getting caught even without a coherent group of agencies in this country looking for them and with them having more-or-less free rein in Germany and their other training and assembly sites. In today's world it will be just that much harder.
It is as likely that another McVeigh will blow up a high school football game or another what's his name will shoot a few people around Washington as it is that some immigrant will. The realistic threats haven't changed a whit, and can be dealt with in the same manner as always.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2008, 12:45:29 PM
Are your former employers Internet Commandos?
Wooderson, he's retired Air Force AFAIK.
I think you ought to close your mouth now, because your own foot is heading for it at mach 2.
Post by: Bogie on February 02, 2008, 12:56:03 PM
Post by: RevDisk on February 02, 2008, 12:57:24 PM
Rev,
I actually started typing this frustrated, but thought twice. Still I'm not going to change what I wrote, just be aware I'm calmer now.
I'm not sure why this topic is so controversial, everybody seems to have their neck hair up.
Anyway, what I wrote a minute ago....
I actually started typing this frustrated, but thought twice. Still I'm not going to change what I wrote, just be aware I'm calmer now.
I'm not sure why this topic is so controversial, everybody seems to have their neck hair up.
Anyway, what I wrote a minute ago....
Whoops, I apologize. I didn't mean to sound like I had my hair up. Part of the problem with the internet is often it's hard to understand someone's tone in a nonverbal medium. I should have said something along the lines of "That is a good idea, and it's been implemented."
Quote
I thought I was perfectly clear in that snippet you quoted that the only Federal-specific unit I was aware of was the Marine unit.
Also I believe I stated that the NG is, in my opinion, the perfect group to do that job. So I'm glad they already are.
My larger point was that this is kind of a non-issue, a big "what-if" of extremely low statistical probablility.
Almost every country in the world, whether they agree with us on Iraq or not, is now hyper alert about massing of known terrorist associates and of chatter in every spectrum. If the sleeper cells aren't here in CONUS already, they are not going to just trip gaily in. As much as I deride our security theatre and lack of border security, it is just plain difficult to get across the oceans in any numbers with any amount of equipment, even today.
It took everything Al Quaeda had to pull off 9/11 and they came this close to getting caught even without a coherent group of agencies in this country looking for them and with them having more-or-less free rein in Germany and their other training and assembly sites. In today's world it will be just that much harder.
It is as likely that another McVeigh will blow up a high school football game or another what's his name will shoot a few people around Washington as it is that some immigrant will. The realistic threats haven't changed a whit, and can be dealt with in the same manner as always.
Also I believe I stated that the NG is, in my opinion, the perfect group to do that job. So I'm glad they already are.
My larger point was that this is kind of a non-issue, a big "what-if" of extremely low statistical probablility.
Almost every country in the world, whether they agree with us on Iraq or not, is now hyper alert about massing of known terrorist associates and of chatter in every spectrum. If the sleeper cells aren't here in CONUS already, they are not going to just trip gaily in. As much as I deride our security theatre and lack of border security, it is just plain difficult to get across the oceans in any numbers with any amount of equipment, even today.
It took everything Al Quaeda had to pull off 9/11 and they came this close to getting caught even without a coherent group of agencies in this country looking for them and with them having more-or-less free rein in Germany and their other training and assembly sites. In today's world it will be just that much harder.
It is as likely that another McVeigh will blow up a high school football game or another what's his name will shoot a few people around Washington as it is that some immigrant will. The realistic threats haven't changed a whit, and can be dealt with in the same manner as always.
There's actually a couple different units. The Marine unit and an Army quasi equiv (Technical Escort Unit) are moreso just normal military units with better MOPP gear. No offense the to CBIRF, they are good at what they do. Agree with ya that the NG is the right choice. The CST's under equipped, under funded and under staffed, but who ain't?
I do have to disagree with ya on one point. Terrorism NBC is a low probability, completely agree with you. However, NBC is NOT a low probability. Gimme the contents of the cleaning supplies under your kitchen sink, and you can create a chemical weapon. Most NBC incidents are accidents, not terrorism. Having someone skilled at detection and throughly skilled at HAZMAT handling is a must. The good news is that experience with routine accidents helps prepare you for 'the real thing' (which isn't, it's a freakin statistical anomoly, but I digress.). The 3rd CST responded to the anthrax letters in Washington. A couple dozen industrial accidents and other ordinary chemical spills gave them the necessary skills to appropriately respond.
I don't think we need to go hog wild on extremely rare events, which terrorism is. The anthrax thing was 'domestic' terrorism. So was OKC and numerous other incidents. Foreign terrorism is very rare, and not an easy thing to pull off. The logistics of such are a nightmare, as you point out. Tis why I go nuts when people proclaim that the Constitution must be gutted to save us from this rare and unlikely type of attack. Natural disasters and simple accidents are often similiar in nature to terrorist attacks, from the technical perspective rather than the psychological perspective. We do need to be prepared for such events. We don't need to go off the handle, as I think our government is doing these days.
My solution to "defending the US" ? Keep the NG decently equipped, keep specialized units/teams well practiced, and hold joint exercises more often. That's it. We don't need a rapid response force of division sized ready to jump anywhere in the US. We need better communication between folks, that's the only real concern with defending the US from foreign attack.
Post by: roo_ster on February 02, 2008, 04:26:07 PM
They'll see it as a weakness, and in their culture, weaknesses are to be exploited. Period.
It seems that the universal theme I have heard from these terrorists is that if you leave them and stay out of hte Middle East, they would not attack us or our allies. How about we try that?Been tried. Spanish pulled up stakes and got outta Iraq.
Didn't keep the terrorists from plotting and planning more terrorism in Spain.
Post by: Boomhauer on February 02, 2008, 06:51:51 PM
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
Post by: De Selby on February 02, 2008, 09:11:09 PM
All you appeasers on this forum, I don't know what you think you are getting out of opposing the war against the terrorists.
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
You honestly believe that if George Bush became Muslim and forced the whole country to adopt the Saudi "legal" system, but changed not a single US foreign policy, Bin laden would give up the whole thing and be happy?
There are religious actors in the conflict, but this is not a religious war and never has been. Bin Laden and his criminal conspiracy don't care what religion you are; they're more than happy to kill Muslims whenever it suits their purposes, and one of the prime targets for his terrorism is Saudi Arabia....so I don't think it makes much sense to allege that he "hates your freedom."
What I wish is that the "us" and "them" in this debate could be used without referring to religion-I'm an American, that's who I'm with. Bin Laden is a man with no country and who fights any country-and he has proven that his principles always take a back seat to his maniacal politics, religious issues notwithstanding.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2008, 09:16:35 PM
What I wish is that the "us" and "them" in this debate could be used without referring to religion-I'm an American, that's who I'm with.
Then stop being an apologist for people who want to destroy America.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 99% of the people in the world trying to hurt us, actively trying to kill our troops and plot things to hurt civilians here and in Europe are young Muslim males. And they do horrific things, from just now sending two mentally disabled women to blow themselves up in Baghdad to sawing the heads off hostages. You're not even allowed to leave the religion, or you're an apostate, and they'll kill you too.
And that is simply a fact.
Your religion needs a good self-cleansing instead of denial about the rotting that's going on within it, the barbaric acts, the belief that barbaric acts are okay, and the 12th century backwards ideas of how women should be treated. Every place Islamic extremists go has become an orgy of blood and destruction, with bombings and factional violence and civilization falling apart...and they're spreading. And unless Muslims face up to that fact and DO something, all that's left will be the extremists, who will have to be put down like a rabid animal to save human civilization.
Post by: Antibubba on February 02, 2008, 09:19:22 PM
Quote
No, not really. Its a bit disturbing the AP is reporting it worldwide. Nothing says, aid and abet like putting the weakness of the American Military under the magnifying glass of the world press. The fact that a retired Marine Major General is the foghorn for the report is also disappointing. If he is no longer in the game, why would he criticize the players? The lack of a co-coordinated defense plan for the contiguous states dates back to the forties so this really isnt news now. The cost of the study could have been better spent planning to correct the problem. It looks like a typical congress-critter expenditure to me.
Tin foil hats on!!
Perhaps an attack on home soil is a desirable thing, from a certain point of view. Most of America was 150% gung ho after the WTC attacks, and it would certainly allow one political faction to attack another political faction for weakening their resolve.
'Course, I don't believe that. I also don't think the major terror organizations are looking at another galvanizing attack on America. I don't think Osama was looking forward to cave-dwelling. I think they've focusing on their own home countries--better to create the caliphate at home, first, before working on the Great Satan.
That doesn't eliminate the fringe groups or the true crazies, though...
Post by: De Selby on February 02, 2008, 09:24:20 PM
What I wish is that the "us" and "them" in this debate could be used without referring to religion-I'm an American, that's who I'm with.
Then stop being an apologist for people who want to destroy America.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 99% of the people in the world trying to hurt us, actively trying to kill our troops and plot things to hurt civilians here and in Europe are young Muslim males. And they do horrific things, from just now sending two mentally disabled women to blow themselves up in Baghdad to sawing the heads off hostages. You're not even allowed to leave the religion, or you're an apostate, and they'll kill you too.
And that is simply a fact.
Your religion needs a good self-cleansing instead of denial about the rotting that's going on within it. And unless Muslims face up to that fact and DO something, all that's left will be the extremists, who will have to be put down mercilessly to save human civilization.
Sorry, but saying that all Muslims aren't terrorists, and that Bin Laden and his crazies aren't secretly using US mosques to force you to pray, is not "apologizing for crazies." It's pointing out that many, many people are letting the hype scare them into treating Americans who are Muslim as if they're terror suspects-and also advocating things that are divisive and nasty to their fellow Americans, like, eg, the people who say "we should nuke Mecca!" or "they ought to be humiliated! When they know their religion is false, they'll all just stop!". I have seen both of those things said on this very forum-and elsewhere.
"My religion" is not a human being, so it can't do anything, nor can it be personally responsible for the deeds of others. I'm sorry, but as an individualist, I find the idea that I can be in any way held responsible for Bin Laden's doings to be outrageous and flatly un-American.
You are going after all Muslims because of what some individual Muslims do-and claiming that we have some special responsibility to act based on what terrorists do. I oppose that, and you call it "apologizing for those who want to destroy America."
I call it "pointing out that individuals should be treated as individuals, and should not be forced to answer for the conduct of others on the mere fact that they happen to profess the same religion."
As for your statistics, 99 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. But aside from the ubiquitous 99 percent hyperbole, it is equally true to say that 99 percent of child molestors in America are Americans. Does that mean that we should hold every American responsible for the "global assault on children", and that we need to crack down on American rights to "end the destruction of our future generations at the hands of armies of molestors"
Think about the logic you are applying here-if you apply to any other situation, it is downright scary. I think Muslims in America who hear this kind of talk are right to be worried about it.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2008, 09:29:32 PM
Go ahead. Keep being an apologist.
The frustrating thing is that I hear this from more and more "moderate" Muslims.
So go ahead and keep on denying that your religion has a problem. Let the extremists keep spreading instead of staying NO! and destroying them, revealing them, exposing them yourself.
Because Islam will not destroy civilization. All that will happen is that the extremists will destroy Islam by rotting it from the core into nothing but a death-cult, eliminating all the "moderates" and anyone who wants peace.
And then the rest of world can, without remorse, utterly destroy what's left in the failed nation-states that will result, because there's nothing to save, no peaceful people left in it. There's no danger that it will destroy Western civilization, Western civilization is too powerful. It's just holding back.
Keep up the current course, and it won't have a reason to hold back anymore. You're just dooming your own religion.
So please. Go ahead.
Post by: De Selby on February 02, 2008, 09:35:36 PM
Quote
So go ahead and keep on denying that your religion has a problem. Let the extremists keep spreading instead of staying NO! and destroying them, revealing them, exposing them yourself.
Wait, so you think that moderate Muslims are covering up for Bin Laden?
What exactly do you think is going on? Muslims know of terrorists but just don't report them? Or what? What is the allegation you're making here?
The US military can't find bin laden, but "the muslims" generally are supposed to "destroy, reveal, and expose" every terrorist? This is really an absurd thing to demand. Terrorists don't go advertising that they're terrorists-there's not a secret conspiracy of Muslims where we get let in on the identities of these people. But it seems like you are alleging just that...do you honestly believe we mostly know who these people are, but just choose not to tell on them? Or what?
Quote
Because Islam will not destroy civilization. All that will happen is that the extremists will destroy Islam by rotting it from the core into nothing but a death-cult, eliminating all the "moderates" and anyone who wants peace.
Where are these extremists winning? What country are they "tranforming into a death cult"?
I'd honestly like your response to my concerns about individualism. Do you not think that what you are doing is judging a mass of people based on the conduct of other individuals? Or do you admit that it is, but you just don't think it's wrong?
What's your theory behind this? Is religious discrimination okay, as long as enough members of a religion are bad people???
I don't see how you can reconcile a purported belief in individual rights with the logic you're using to condemn my statements about Islam.
Post by: Strings on February 02, 2008, 10:55:51 PM
The extremist Muslims are using their faith as a handy excuse, but that's all it is: an excuse to act in a barbaric manner. And I have heard PLENTY of moderate Muslims speak out openly against terror...
If you were to somehow remove the "religious motivation" from this conflict, not a whole lot would change: the terrorists would STILL be trying to hit us. Unfortunately, I have to say that US policy has helped create this monster (just not the policies most think of)...
Post by: RevDisk on February 02, 2008, 11:14:39 PM
All you appeasers on this forum, I don't know what you think you are getting out of opposing the war against the terrorists.
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
True, there are a number of hardcore terrorists that want exactly what you said. Sharia law dominating all. Islamic theocracies. Killing all infidels, not so much, but 'conversion by the sword', sure. Sigh. Apparently, there's something called 'numbers' that you seem to be forgetting. The rabid ultra fanatical Islamic extremists are small. You could argue whatever estimate you want. Five hundred, five thousand, five hundred thousand. Whatever. There are over 6.6 billion people on the planet. I don't care how hardcore one's belief structure is, "total domination" is impossible to scale to 6.6 billion people. The overwhelming majority (say, 99.9%) of any group of people mind their own business, work a job, get married, crank out kids, etc. They could give a damn about much else. Sure, some number of them are exactly like you. They spout off insane notions of genocide and hatred of entire groups of other people. But they do little more than spout off to friends, coworkers or internet message boards.
The point I'm trying to make is that Islamic fundimentalists are pretty freakin rare statistically speaking. A concern, yes. But not a global threat. Communism was a thousand times more dangerous, and not many people on our side were advocating genocide of communist nations.
I'm pretty sure you will call me an 'apologist' and think even more graphical terms. Just know this. I spent time in Muslim countries for the US Army. I worked with Muslims and I'm more than aware that a number of them wanted me dead. I learned the local lingo, spent time with the locals, etc. If you wanted to wax poetical, you could call it "hearts and minds" crap. Most of it was simply getting to know each other. Some Muslims risked their necks giving us information. One gentleman was assassinated by grenade and bled out on a sidewalk cafe. He got no money from us. We didn't give him squat. He helped us because he like many many others thought extremists were whack jobs and he didn't want to live in their world. He paid for it by spending his last few minutes on this earth screaming as he bled out. This is one of the Muslims you want wiped from the earth? For what? To prove that he was wrong to hope for a better tomorrow? In exchange for the illusion of safety?
There are plenty of evil men out there. Yes, many desire to die. Some we have no choice but to kill. But know this, if we must become something far more evil than our enemy, far more evil than ANY enemy we've faced, it will be our undoing. The NKVD was created to safe guard a fledgling nation against its enemies. In the end, they were monsters that slaughtered tens of millions of their own citizens that did nothing wrong.
Fanatics with insane ideologies will always be a risk. Whether it is fascism, communism, religious extremism, racial 'purity', or any other such dreck. Your words echo what I heard from Serb nationalists that believed genocide was the means of ensuring racial/ethnic purity and security. Change the nouns and I heard the same from Islamics fundimentalists. I'm sure Stalin's commisars said the same about fascism, and then imperial capitalism.
I believe you are motivated out of fear, not out of racial/religious/cultural hatred. I sincerely hope I am right. I'll make another assumption and suppose you've never seen mass graves filled with innocents by zealots of a genocidal bent. I made my small and rather insignicant contribution to the war on terrorism and received my shiney GWOT medal. That medal sits in a box somewhere, and I could care less about it. The experiences abroad are what made a more lasting impression to me. I have seen evil, and I do not want it spreading here. Call me naive, idealistic, stupid or 'appeasing', but I do not wish to become the monsters we must fight and kill. I've seen that road, covered in blood. For every one bastard that deserved it, a thousand did not.
The irony of all this? Derek Zeanah, the guy who owns the server this board runs on, who donates his time to keeping it running, is a Muslim that more than a few members here apparently hate. I personally would pop a fuse if someone was using my server to advocate elimating my religion. Derek is apparently much more of a peaceful kinda guy than I am.
Post by: Warren on February 02, 2008, 11:18:01 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 02, 2008, 11:32:07 PM
1. Muslim extremists spread unchecked because of Muslims not doing enough to stop and expose and reject them.
2. Muslim extremists displace, recruit, or kill all remaining moderate Muslims. Yes, it can happen.
3. There are no peaceful Muslims left within a couple generations, thanks to the extremists.
4. Western civilization is forced to destroy the deathcult that remains. The religion was gone long before.
THAT is what will happen on the current course.
Post by: seeker_two on February 03, 2008, 03:01:31 AM
....and when the military tries to stop civilian militias from attacking people, it'll make Unintended Consequences look like a light comedy....
Of course, this is why a lot of the weapons I have can go away very quickly to as to avoid being pointed at as "There's one of them!" by an mistaken and understandably edgy LEO or soldier. I believe the assumption is that there's multiple shooters unless it's proven otherwise, which does make sense, but can get you unintentionally targeted.
Those include a folding-stock AK with an American-style rail system completely covering the distinctive gas tube, and the fastest-to-deploy-and-tuck compact long gun I've yet found, Kel-Tec's Sub 2000. Because in my opinion, if someone was going around your neighborhood, mall, school or any place you're at doing the jihad thing, your best chance of survival would be to stop the threat, and then put your own gun completely out of sight before any good guys see you through a scope. Walking around with a weapon on a single-point sling, even if you thought you were "helping" defend your neighborhood, would be a good way to get shot by mistake, IMO.
(note with the AK...I think if you have one, you really want to disguise the profile if you consider it an emergency carry weapon. That distinctive gas tube's sihouette would otherwise say BAD GUY RIFLE to lots of soldiers who have already served overseas, I'd think.)
One of these wouldn't be a bad idea, either. Easy to conceal under a roomy jacket.....
http://www.dsarms.com/prodinfo.asp?number=BTTP9
Post by: Manedwolf on February 03, 2008, 05:58:31 AM
But a sudden epidemic of incidents of "one guy going jihad and walking around with a WASR taking potshots at people", yes, I'd want something long with sights (the Sub 2000's peep sight is surprisingly not bad) to have a better chance of stopping them. Those still look like pistol length to me.
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 07:01:42 AM
The thing that perplexes me is that nice, normal, religious folks will give aid and concealment to the nutjobs. Nope. That disturbs me. Achmed the Terrorist walks into a mosque, and the people let him. Nobody just leaves, and says "Hey, he's over there - Place _used to be_ a place of worship. Ain't anymore. Go for it."
Do the muslims have an overall leader? Or is everything just so fragmented? If a buncha catholics started this crap, wouldn't you expect the pope to say "Hey, you guys ain't a part of us anymore, eh? Excommunicated, capisce?" - hey - did they ever do anything like that around the Irish problems?
I know Sister Mary Stigmata wouldn't hold with snake handlers either... That ruler would be a blur...
Religious people don't bother me. Religious fanatics scare me. Because the typical fanatic has devolved into an "us vs. them" mentality, and usually the number of "us" ain't that cohesive with the "them" of the rest of the world. Look at the Phelps, and his crew...
Remember - the average IQ is 100.
The average mob's IQ is considerably lower.
Post by: Firethorn on February 03, 2008, 08:04:53 AM
They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
You honestly believe that if George Bush became Muslim and forced the whole country to adopt the Saudi "legal" system, but changed not a single US foreign policy, Bin laden would give up the whole thing and be happy?'
I think that the remaining part of the quote answers that. From what I've seen and read, Muslim extremists lacking an external target engage in internal factional warfare - Sunnis vs Kurds vs Shiites, for example.
Quote from: Bogie
The thing that perplexes me is that nice, normal, religious folks will give aid and concealment to the nutjobs. Nope. That disturbs me. Achmed the Terrorist walks into a mosque, and the people let him. Nobody just leaves, and says "Hey, he's over there - Place _used to be_ a place of worship. Ain't anymore. Go for it."
shootinstudent, this is pretty much my view. Sure, Osama can hide from the US Military - who has to worry about borderlines and not knowing the language, from a different culture running around in distinctive uniforms.
But if the locals in the areas he's hiding out in were willing to come forward, we'd have him. If it wasn't for the sympathizers who give aid and comfort to the terrorists, they'd be a lot weaker.
Heck, there's been a number of mosques in the USA found to have been funneling money to terrorist organizations.
You want to save Islam? You need to conduct a purge then. Fix the public perception of Islam. Be SEEN to oppose the extremists. Because right now, it's not happening. I've said before that the terrorists are conducting a PR war in Iraq more than an actual war. Same thing that lost us Vietnam.
Acknowledge that the terrorists are also effectively waging a PR war against moderate Islam itself, and start countering it.
When I was a kid, touring Egypt and Baghdad and such were on my lists of things to do - After all, Indiana Jones went there.
Right now, I've been to Baghdad, but not in the 'touring' way. Egypt is off the list for the foreseeable future.
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 08:40:34 AM
Guys, we DO NOT want a guerilla war here...
Post by: Manedwolf on February 03, 2008, 08:45:24 AM
Guys, we DO NOT want a guerilla war here...
No, we don't. And people don't seem to realize that it could happen, IEDs and all. Even random single-shot snipers could shut down our economy. Guerilla wars are terrible things. Some nut is attacking in your neighborhood, and you can either A) do nothing and likely get killed, or B) shoot back and chance that you'll be mistaken for a bad guy through a scope when the cavalry finally arrives. I'm sure home defenders in Iraq have been killed by coalition forces by mistake doing just that, "guy with AK on rooftop", it happens, and it's a tragedy, not the soldier's fault, not the defender's either. We don't want that here.
And the most infuriating thing is that I know there's some mosques in the US that would shelter the people doing it. Absolutely so in places like Dearborn, but elsewhere as well. And I'm at a loss to explain that.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 03, 2008, 08:47:27 AM
All you appeasers on this forum, I don't know what you think you are getting out of opposing the war against the terrorists.
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
Please define "They" for me. All terrorists? Some terrorists? Al Queada, Hamas, PLO, IRA, Baader-Meinhorf, or the Shurinjko movement?
They want you dead. If you are not a devout Muslim, they want you dead. They might let you out of it if you convert to Islam, they might not.
They would be happy to sacrifice however many believers/sympathizers it takes to rule you.
They will use WHATEVER means to achieve their goals of total domination. They don't whine about torture camps, waterboarding, etc unless used against them. They don't care about Amnesty International, except that currently, organizations like that support their cause, and are useful.
I, for one, am NOT willing to live under a Muslim controlled state. I will NOT convert to Islam. I will NOT accept Islamic law. I fight to my last breath to prevent this when the time comes.
If we wiped out a few unfriendly nations in the Mideast, I would be damned happy. I'm just returning the favor- they wish me dead, I wish them dead. Religion of Peace, my ass.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 03, 2008, 09:34:25 AM
Guys, we DO NOT want a guerilla war here...
No, we don't. And people don't seem to realize that it could happen, IEDs and all. Even random single-shot snipers could shut down our economy. Guerilla wars are terrible things. Some nut is attacking in your neighborhood, and you can either A) do nothing and likely get killed, or B) shoot back and chance that you'll be mistaken for a bad guy through a scope when the cavalry finally arrives. I'm sure home defenders in Iraq have been killed by coalition forces by mistake doing just that, "guy with AK on rooftop", it happens, and it's a tragedy, not the soldier's fault, not the defender's either. We don't want that here.
And the most infuriating thing is that I know there's some mosques in the US that would shelter the people doing it. Absolutely so in places like Dearborn, but elsewhere as well. And I'm at a loss to explain that.
There they can swim like fish in the sea. Here, there are not that many mosques that woud give them shelter. Most American Muslims would lead the raids to capture men who's extremist beliefs put themselves, their families and their neighbors at risk. They as "moderates" gone all soft, heretical and Americanized (You let your women work? ...and not wear the burqua? Death to you!) would be among the first targets of both the extremists AND idiot, race-hating non-Muslims.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 03, 2008, 09:40:53 AM
Guys, we DO NOT want a guerilla war here...
No, we don't. And people don't seem to realize that it could happen, IEDs and all. Even random single-shot snipers could shut down our economy. Guerilla wars are terrible things. Some nut is attacking in your neighborhood, and you can either A) do nothing and likely get killed, or B) shoot back and chance that you'll be mistaken for a bad guy through a scope when the cavalry finally arrives. I'm sure home defenders in Iraq have been killed by coalition forces by mistake doing just that, "guy with AK on rooftop", it happens, and it's a tragedy, not the soldier's fault, not the defender's either. We don't want that here.
And the most infuriating thing is that I know there's some mosques in the US that would shelter the people doing it. Absolutely so in places like Dearborn, but elsewhere as well. And I'm at a loss to explain that.
There they can swim like fish in the sea. Here, there are not that many mosques that woud give them shelter. Most American Muslims would lead the raids to capture men who's extremist beliefs put themselves, their families and their neighbors at risk. They as "moderates" gone all soft, heretical and Americanized (You let your women work? ...and not wear the burqua? Death to you!) would be among the first targets of both the extremists AND idiot, race-hating non-Muslims.
Huh. A group wanted to build the first mosque in New Hampshire. For their keynote speaker and as someone to work with the mosque in the long run, they invited someone under multiple investigations for inciting violence, who was also a character witness for the "blind sheik" in the first Trade Center bombing.
You sure about the number of mosques that wouldn't shelter terrorists? I'm not.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 03, 2008, 09:43:50 AM
Duh. There have already been such incidents and they were dealt with about as quickly as they could have been. Throwing soldiers at a problem that requires good investigatory techniques is worse than useless.
Unless you want armed soldiers standing on every street corner, which would take more men under arms than any of us would stand for, I'm not sure exactly what an entire Brigade-sized organization would do.
A Breslin-type op will be prevented by intel work. Its resolution will be a police matter, with military assets called in for specific knowledge. In neither case would Infantry and tanks be useful.
These kind of incidents are in fact the only reason we can justify the massive increase in SWAT-type units on the large locality, state and Federal level.
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 09:44:45 AM
I just wonder how long it would continue...
Also, when the next major attack happens, all those cute widdle flag lapel pins are going to come out again... And the same patronizing twits will be parading around with 'em - the same ones who tell us today that anyone who is politically aware is a cretin...
Gheesh... I remember this one guy from HR...
Oh, and then they're going to blame Bush for not stopping the attack.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 03, 2008, 09:46:43 AM
Standard investigation and intel techniques can tell us which ones were the "harboring kind" from the beginning, like the intel that let us know who was speaking at the New Hampshire mosque.
That's not a "sea", that's a series of disconnected fishbowls.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 03, 2008, 09:49:34 AM
Okay, say hundreds, even thousands, of mosques with hundreds of attendees.
Standard investigation and intel techniques can tell us which ones were the "harboring kind" from the beginning, like the intel that let us know who was speaking at the New Hampshire mosque.
That's not a "sea", that's a series of disconnected fishbowls.
Standard investigation and intel techniques can tell us which ones were the "harboring kind" from the beginning, like the intel that let us know who was speaking at the New Hampshire mosque.
That's not a "sea", that's a series of disconnected fishbowls.
It wasn't intel. It was a public announcement by the group, resulting in stunned "WTF NO" reactions from the community in general.
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 09:53:33 AM
Quote
As far as "one sniper/bomber/terror team" can shut us down...
Try 20... And keep them moving... I think that the DC sniper was a test... If those two had been going cross country, and after each hit played spin the compass, they could have been going for a lot longer... Take 20 guys with .30-06 rifles, and have them start shooting at tractor-trailers on or near interstates - you could rapidly make things to where truckers would not go anywhere except with an armed escort... Probably cutting transport by 50%...
I'm also surprised that nobody's launched a stinger at an airliner... But it's probably coming.
Cutting power lines is easy. Cutting a LOT of power lines is easy.
Contaminating water is harder, but doable.
Derailing trains is fairly easy. Figuring a "high value one" (for instance, loaded with chlorine or flammables) and an urban area is a bit harder, but c'mon... it ain't rocket science.
Our schools are soft targets. Most of our churches. Most of our government buildings. Most of our businesses.
100 terrorists could cause a LOT of problems.
Post by: roo_ster on February 03, 2008, 11:00:47 AM
Guys, we DO NOT want a guerilla war here...
No, we don't. And people don't seem to realize that it could happen, IEDs and all. Even random single-shot snipers could shut down our economy. Guerilla wars are terrible things. Some nut is attacking in your neighborhood, and you can either A) do nothing and likely get killed, or B) shoot back and chance that you'll be mistaken for a bad guy through a scope when the cavalry finally arrives. I'm sure home defenders in Iraq have been killed by coalition forces by mistake doing just that, "guy with AK on rooftop", it happens, and it's a tragedy, not the soldier's fault, not the defender's either. We don't want that here.
And the most infuriating thing is that I know there's some mosques in the US that would shelter the people doing it. Absolutely so in places like Dearborn, but elsewhere as well. And I'm at a loss to explain that.
There they can swim like fish in the sea. Here, there are not that many mosques that woud give them shelter. Most American Muslims would lead the raids to capture men who's extremist beliefs put themselves, their families and their neighbors at risk. They as "moderates" gone all soft, heretical and Americanized (You let your women work? ...and not wear the burqua? Death to you!) would be among the first targets of both the extremists AND idiot, race-hating non-Muslims.
MW has the closer grasp of reality on the ground.
N Texas has a large Muslim pop, similar to Dearborn. When some local boys were picked up, tried, and convicted for overt support of terrorists, did the local "moderates" say, "Hang 'em high?" No, they were all full of support for the convicted and all mealy-mouthed "explanations" and dissembling.
If "moderates" did not support the extremists, the extremists could not operate.
To give you an idea of what goes for "moderate Islam" in the USA, here is an event held by moderate Muslims in a city nearby:
See those speakers listed? Dallas Central Mosque, CAIR, Mohamed Elibiary (invitee to the White House by GWB as a "moderate")
So, moderates think a Khomeini Ayatollapoluza is a great thing to not only attend, but to speak at. Any wonder why "Muslim moderates" don't spotlight and purge the "extremists" in their midst?
So, is the split between moderate and extremist one only of overt action? It seems support of murder & terrorism falls under the "moderate" label. Just where is the dividing line?
"An Iranian moderate is one who has run out of ammunition."
---Henry Kissinger
Of bananas and Mohamed Elibiary
I see that Dallas Muslim leader Mohamed Elibiary's warning to me that if I didn't stop writing about Islam in ways he disapproves of, I "could expect" someone to put a banana in the exhaust pipe of my car ("or something") is getting some attention on other sites. To be sure, there are worse things that can happen to one than an Islamist to tamper with one's car in that way; a would-be suburban jihadist might short-sheet my bed, for example. Arf arf! What struck me as worth commenting on about Elibiary's missive is the threat that my continuing to draw unwanted scrutiny to Muslim thought and actions would cause someone from his community to tamper with my car, or worse. I have written far more critical commentary of Catholic bishops, of gay radicals, and others, and despite angry, even profane, letters from dissenting readers, with the exception of the followers of Rev. Al Sharpton, nobody has suggested that my person or my property would be harmed because of my words. Until Mohamed Elibiary.
I see that Dallas Muslim leader Mohamed Elibiary's warning to me that if I didn't stop writing about Islam in ways he disapproves of, I "could expect" someone to put a banana in the exhaust pipe of my car ("or something") is getting some attention on other sites. To be sure, there are worse things that can happen to one than an Islamist to tamper with one's car in that way; a would-be suburban jihadist might short-sheet my bed, for example. Arf arf! What struck me as worth commenting on about Elibiary's missive is the threat that my continuing to draw unwanted scrutiny to Muslim thought and actions would cause someone from his community to tamper with my car, or worse. I have written far more critical commentary of Catholic bishops, of gay radicals, and others, and despite angry, even profane, letters from dissenting readers, with the exception of the followers of Rev. Al Sharpton, nobody has suggested that my person or my property would be harmed because of my words. Until Mohamed Elibiary.
[borat_voice]Nice![/borat_voice]
Post by: De Selby on February 03, 2008, 12:18:57 PM
EVERY group has nutjobs. And since they tend to yell a lot louder than the rest of the group, the nutjobs tend to get a lot of attention.
The thing that perplexes me is that nice, normal, religious folks will give aid and concealment to the nutjobs. Nope. That disturbs me. Achmed the Terrorist walks into a mosque, and the people let him. Nobody just leaves, and says "Hey, he's over there - Place _used to be_ a place of worship. Ain't anymore. Go for it."
The thing that perplexes me is that nice, normal, religious folks will give aid and concealment to the nutjobs. Nope. That disturbs me. Achmed the Terrorist walks into a mosque, and the people let him. Nobody just leaves, and says "Hey, he's over there - Place _used to be_ a place of worship. Ain't anymore. Go for it."
Are you serious? Where does this happen?
The only places in the world where people like Bin Laden can roam are rural Afghanistan and Sudan. I think that fact speaks for itself-if he were to show up in Muslim Singapore or Malaysia, for example, I highly doubt he would feel "concealed."
The idea that terrorists are going to the Masjid (mosque) and announcing who they are, and then not being reported, is really, really hard to believe. It smacks of conspiracy theory-that somehow a few million people are in on this secret terrorist, but they all just choose not to tell?
Quote
Do the muslims have an overall leader? Or is everything just so fragmented? If a buncha catholics started this crap, wouldn't you expect the pope to say "Hey, you guys ain't a part of us anymore, eh? Excommunicated, capisce?" - hey - did they ever do anything like that around the Irish problems?
There is no such thing in Islam.
Post by: lupinus on February 03, 2008, 01:47:21 PM
Quote
There is no such thing Islam.
Which makes it the responsibility of all leaders to condemn them. Post by: De Selby on February 03, 2008, 02:38:01 PM
Quote
There is no such thing Islam.
Which makes it the responsibility of all leaders to condemn them. Can you name one religious organization of Muslims that hasn't done this?
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 02:48:01 PM
"We condemn them! We condemn them!"
(insert pause...)
"Okay - here is more money. Go kill infidels."
Post by: roo_ster on February 03, 2008, 02:53:48 PM
Ah, but they do... Here's how it usually works...
"We condemn them! We condemn them!"
(insert pause...)
"Okay - here is more money. Go kill infidels."
"We condemn them! We condemn them!"
(insert pause...)
"Okay - here is more money. Go kill infidels."
My favorite is:
Left side of mouth: "We condemn terrorism!"
Right side of mouth: "Killing Israelis or <fill in with infidel of choice> is not terrorism."
Post by: Firethorn on February 03, 2008, 04:24:54 PM
100 terrorists could cause a LOT of problems.
This reminds me of when I made a sort of plan. While not a terrorist, when asked to counter them, the first thing I think of is 'what would I do if I was a terrorist leader'?
My plan involved ~100 terrorists, two man cells. Not including controllers.
Basically, each team was to engage in shenanigans. Random sniper attacks, the occasional bomb, train derailment, chain stretched across a mildly busy road, etc...
Hit up things like garage sales for supplies, make some of the other stuff. Definitely cache stuff - so they can't simply pull up the camera footage from walmart or the hardware store. IE the chain was bought six months to a year ago by a control cutout.
Give each two man team a state - though they wouldn't be restricted there.
I figure, in the end, that it'd take around 200 total - 100 actual attackers, 80 suppliers, and 20 controllers.
Absolute havoc.
Post by: lupinus on February 03, 2008, 04:39:18 PM
Post by: lupinus on February 03, 2008, 04:40:26 PM
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 04:53:55 PM
We have too many academics.
They get power, and they don't want to be around large sweaty people who are capable of breaking things.
So they try to run things. They try to insist that the world adhere to their "game plan." To their "rules."
Just one little problem.
There _are_ no rules. NONE. And that's not even a rule.
These guys are playing blue-sky games, with millions of dollars getting fed into computerized disaster projection programs, etc., etc., but that in itself has a fundamental problem - there are parameters which must be followed. Since, de facto, they do not exist, there is little to no likelihood of a manufactured projection panning out.
IMHO, the first week of cadet training at the major academies should have the cadets changing identity numbers, training partners, and training leaders daily. At random. One day at 3:00 a.m., move everyone's bunk. Wait two days, do it in the afternoon. Constantly off guard, having to adapt. Serve them lunch for breakfast. One meal nothing but dessert. Because real life does that to you.
That way, when some twisted SOB with a mindset like Firethorn or myself is leading a guerilla assault on the country, we might have a chance.
Too many folks cannot think on their feet. I'm guessing we've still got some general officers who are wondering why they don't do ReForGer any more... There's no Munich in the middle east...
Post by: Bogie on February 03, 2008, 05:02:08 PM
"No, Snibbs. How many times do I have to tell you? That scenario won't work. The attack has to be on a major city. The team doesn't want to drive two hours into the boonies to do a threat/preparedness assessment - Now, what's wrong with using Washington? Or Alexandria? Oh, and remember that you have to give the SWAT team 24 hours notice about the drill. The general really didn't like it when you forgot to do that, and it took them half an hour to get to the scene. It made him look bad."
Post by: seeker_two on February 03, 2008, 05:14:35 PM
seeker_two, the only reason why I'd carry a folding long gun is due to the increased accuracy inherent in any long gun over a pistol. Capacity isn't the issue..I'd not expect to get into a protracted firefight, nor would I want to endanger bystanders with excessive shots, that's movie stuff. But a sudden epidemic of incidents of "one guy going jihad and walking around with a WASR taking potshots at people", yes, I'd want something long with sights (the Sub 2000's peep sight is surprisingly not bad) to have a better chance of stopping them. Those still look like pistol length to me.
But a sudden epidemic of incidents of "one guy going jihad and walking around with a WASR taking potshots at people", yes, I'd want something long with sights (the Sub 2000's peep sight is surprisingly not bad) to have a better chance of stopping them. Those still look like pistol length to me. All true....but one thing that I thought about (and John Taffin in the recent issue of GUNS magazine) is having something with a lot of firepower that can be easily concealed so you don't become the SWAT team's next target. And one of those TP9's with the shoulder strap and a forearm light to hold onto would do quite well....even at extended yardage....
Your idea is good, too.
Post by: Firethorn on February 03, 2008, 07:58:41 PM
Now, what's wrong with using Washington? Or Alexandria? Oh, and remember that you have to give the SWAT team 24 hours notice about the drill.
Given a little more thought on this, we also spend far too much time on airports and nuclear plants - People, any half-smart terrorist is going to realize that the worst they can likely do with a nuclear plant is SCRAM it such that it isn't going to be making power for a while. You CAN'T make a modern nuclear plant go boom - there are too many safeguards in areas that even a suicidal terrorist isn't going to last long enough in to make a major radiation release possible.
Airports, of course, have lots of security.
Attack them? Nah... it's already been done. Besides using a home-brew derailer to knock trains containing dangerous chemicals off the tracks around inhabited areas, I'd go after chemical plants and petroleum refineries. Much more bang for the buck, so to say. Safer too.
So air travel is already unsafe - now roads(due to chains and IEDs), and rails are unsafe as well. Work's not safe either(I'd have them hit up the occasional business as well).
The whole idea is to turn us into a bunch of whining cretins afraid to go out of our homes*. Make us feel unsafe, etc...
That and a single two man team, with a two man support element, working a 'leisurely' if at odd hours, say 40 hours a week. Don't want to wear them out... That's 160 man-hours a week. We'd put more than that in in the first HOUR after an attack - the very goal of asymmetric warfare.
*Heck, a few home invasions, kill everybody in the house, then leave would remove even that.
Post by: Boomhauer on February 03, 2008, 08:14:26 PM
And then the government would be trying to appease the terrorists in order to stop the attacks. Instituting Islamic law, hiring organizations sympathetic to the terrorists' cause to offer advice, etc.
You mentioned refiniries and chemical plants, Firethorn. I agree. Shut down some oil production, and prices skyrocket. Riots and looting occurs. Hit a chemical plant, and you've got mandatory evacuations, etc. Utter chaos.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 03, 2008, 08:19:43 PM
Quote
Work's not safe either(I'd have them hit up the occasional business as well).
Here, I suspect open carry would quickly become the fashion at work, and even lots of the senior management would have a rifle leaning in their office. I don't know about other places.
Post by: De Selby on February 03, 2008, 08:39:17 PM
I figure, in the end, that it'd take around 200 total - 100 actual attackers, 80 suppliers, and 20 controllers.
Absolute havoc.
Try this-spread a rumor that you're doing something bad to 100 people that you know, and believe you can trust.
See how long it takes for someone you don't trust to know the rumor.
That's why 100 man plans won't function, and why we have been busting these plans left and right.
With 19 people and a few handlers, Al Qaeda barely managed September 11th. Terrorism is still a threat, but secret plots involving this many people just aren't going to happen anytime soon.
Post by: De Selby on February 03, 2008, 08:51:36 PM
Ah, but they do... Here's how it usually works...
"We condemn them! We condemn them!"
(insert pause...)
"Okay - here is more money. Go kill infidels."
"We condemn them! We condemn them!"
(insert pause...)
"Okay - here is more money. Go kill infidels."
My favorite is:
Left side of mouth: "We condemn terrorism!"
Right side of mouth: "Killing Israelis or <fill in with infidel of choice> is not terrorism."
That's actually something I see said by Middle Eastern organizations all the time. They don't agree that killing Israeli soldiers by Palestinians is terrorism, because they consider the Israel/Palestine conflict to be open warfare. Some even go so far as to voice the deplorable and grossly immoral claim that killing people in cafes is okay on the theory that all Israelis are reserve soldiers, so attacking them wherever is legitimate.
It is deplorable, but not any different from what you see some groups saying about Arabs and Muslims in the US and Israel. (Eg, the "let's nuke Mecca!" cheering crowd-they are supporting exactly the same kind of terrorism as the people who support suicide bombers in Israel.) And it has absolutely nothing to do with the "clash of civilizations" nonsense that people ascribe to Bin Laden and to the rest of the global terrorist groups-indeed, most of the organizations that conduct terrorist operations in Israel are totally uninterested in and uninvolved in attacks outside of their own back yards.
Different war, different terrorists, different phoney and despicable justifications for killing civilians-one of the biggest mistakes we can make in dealing with terrorism is to conflate all terrorists together and claim they all do what they do for the same reasons.
Post by: Firethorn on February 04, 2008, 01:56:10 AM
That's why 100 man plans won't function, and why we have been busting these plans left and right.
That's why I specified a cellular structure and two man teams. Sure, some will be caught, but they don't know each other, don't know their cutout, etc...
Post by: roo_ster on February 04, 2008, 05:14:26 AM
Properly executed, it is robust.
Like many simple things, it is all about execution.
Post by: Bogie on February 04, 2008, 05:34:45 AM
And heck, make their targeting random...
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on February 04, 2008, 05:55:43 AM
Quote
They don't agree that killing Israeli soldiers by Palestinians is terrorism
As much as I despise the Animalstinians, I think the above statement is true. Attacking soldiers of any stripe is not terrorism. It's guerrilla warfare. While it may be clandestine and sneaky, it ain't terrorism. Terrorism is where you constantly attack soft civilian targets while looking like a member of that soft civilian target, with the intent of economic or political disruption.
Also, in the mythical SHTF/TEOTWAWKI/WTFBBQLOL "Revolution" where we reclaim our country from the demonic and unholy alliance between the Clinton-Kennedy machine and the UN, we'll be likely to use extremely similar tactics to what islamic terrorists use today.
Post by: Firethorn on February 04, 2008, 08:46:21 AM
And heck, make their targeting random...
I figured dartboards and dice would make an appearance, at least at the controller level. Heck, even at the operation level. 'Thunk' - Ah, achmed, a target has been selected. (At least if they're about as good as me - 50-50 chance of hitting the dartboard).
Quote from: AZRedhawk44
Terrorism is where you constantly attack soft civilian targets while looking like a member of that soft civilian target, with the intent of economic or political disruption.
The israeli inactive reserve aside - the Palestinion terrorists are terrorists because they prefer blowing up areas with civilians, especially women and children. For example, explosions at checkpoints is generaly a last resort when the bomber is exposed. They DO attempt to blend in with the civilians and attack 'civilian' targets like clubs and restraunts.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 04, 2008, 09:02:21 AM
Do you think they are already here and just waiting for some particular event to trigger it?
I'm not trying to be snarky, but it is a really easy thing to plan, and for guys like us, who can disappear into the crowd and have supportive folks already in place in the millions, to execute. If they could, why haven't they?
I don't think they have the guys here and I really think you guys are underestimating the logistic hurdles to getting a significant number of folks in place now to actually pull it off, when you have to start from so far away with so many layers of competent people looking for just such activity.
Looking at the 9/11 report, they really got lucky several times in getting guys in place and that while they had access to their financial assets and free run of Afghanistan and other places to train. It took all of their European assets to make happen. Those assets and training sites are under near-constant interdiction now.
Obviously I'd hate to be proven wrong, but I don't see the multi-cellular nationwide attack happening, certainly not with much success past the first hit and involving nothing we need a special brigade of troops to deal with.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 04, 2008, 09:03:46 AM
Post by: Firethorn on February 04, 2008, 10:27:16 AM
Because the enemy has a very long memory and plans in terms of decades.
Because people like bogie and I are actually pretty rare, and not prone to the sorts of extremism needed to commit acts such as we propose?
That and the extremists have a problem with much of their manpower and resources being sucked up by our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Post by: Bogie on February 04, 2008, 12:15:29 PM
And who is to say that they're not following the "insert an agent a day for the next decade" plan? They have patience. They have been doing this for centuries.
We can't even deal with a half-hour TV show without channel surfing...
Post by: lupinus on February 04, 2008, 12:25:06 PM
they always want big and spectacular. It takes a long time to put people into place to take dow nthe world trade center.
It takes very little to have a guy buy a rifle and a few hundred rounds of ammo, pull onto an I-95 over pass, and start shooting at anything that moves. Hell give Akmed 1000 bucks, a car, and someone legal to buy the rifle (or point him in the right direction to the right car trunk), and he could have this plan done within a week of sneaking across the Mexican border. But the enemy want's to blow up things on the scale of the world trade center.
They aren't stupid, to call them so would grossly underestimate them. But their priorities are different places then simple and effective.
Post by: roo_ster on February 04, 2008, 04:00:03 PM
I don't think they have the guys here and I really think you guys are underestimating the logistic hurdles to getting a significant number of folks in place now to actually pull it off, when you have to start from so far away with so many layers of competent people looking for just such activity.
Which is why recruiting those already in the USA is a higher priority than brining in new blood. Even better, if they can net themselves a 2nd-gen American who speaks perfect English.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 04, 2008, 05:24:31 PM
I don't think they have the guys here and I really think you guys are underestimating the logistic hurdles to getting a significant number of folks in place now to actually pull it off, when you have to start from so far away with so many layers of competent people looking for just such activity.
Which is why recruiting those already in the USA is a higher priority than brining in new blood. Even better, if they can net themselves a 2nd-gen American who speaks perfect English.
I'll grant that, but there has been no sign of that yet has there? Are they really that good?
Their past ops don't suggest any superlative skill, again, their big deal strike on 9/11 was planned for over a decade and in a much more permissive environment and almost fell apart without active countermeasures being taken.
Post by: De Selby on February 04, 2008, 06:25:19 PM
I don't think they have the guys here and I really think you guys are underestimating the logistic hurdles to getting a significant number of folks in place now to actually pull it off, when you have to start from so far away with so many layers of competent people looking for just such activity.
Which is why recruiting those already in the USA is a higher priority than brining in new blood. Even better, if they can net themselves a 2nd-gen American who speaks perfect English.
It's also been an utter failure-the only people they can consistently rely on are extended family members and a select few recruits from specific middle eastern cities.
They have, in a few isolated cases, gotten English speaking, ethnic westerners to go to Afghanistan to fight their wars against Afghanis.
They have not successfully used such a person in an attack against a Western country even once.
Post by: Bogie on February 04, 2008, 06:33:25 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 04, 2008, 06:41:49 PM
You don't think the DC snipers weren't aimed? I don't think they came up with that themselves - I think they got told what to do... And they/their families, are getting a reward for them keeping their mouths shut. I think they were just a test case. The first penguin that gets shoved into the water, to see if something large tries to eat it...
Given the lack of contrary evidence, I gotta go with Occam in the case of the DC sniper. One nut, one seed.
Post by: De Selby on February 04, 2008, 06:44:25 PM
You don't think the DC snipers weren't aimed? I don't think they came up with that themselves - I think they got told what to do... And they/their families, are getting a reward for them keeping their mouths shut. I think they were just a test case. The first penguin that gets shoved into the water, to see if something large tries to eat it...
Is there like some investigative reporting on the money their families are getting? Or anything to indicate who was giving the orders?
Post by: Bogie on February 04, 2008, 10:08:13 PM
Achmed is recruiting in the middle east, and they can trickle in... Achmed is recruiting in our prisons. They'll trickle out. I don't think the next attack will be all that complex, but it'll be big. And "big" doesn't have to be localized. If 100 teams do 100 things in 100 places, they may not kill 3,000 people, but you can bet that they'll drop the Dow back down, and if they do things right, they'll cause one helluva lot more of a ripple effect.
Post by: roo_ster on February 05, 2008, 03:34:39 AM
I don't think they have the guys here and I really think you guys are underestimating the logistic hurdles to getting a significant number of folks in place now to actually pull it off, when you have to start from so far away with so many layers of competent people looking for just such activity.
Which is why recruiting those already in the USA is a higher priority than brining in new blood. Even better, if they can net themselves a 2nd-gen American who speaks perfect English.
It's also been an utter failure-the only people they can consistently rely on are extended family members and a select few recruits from specific middle eastern cities.
They have, in a few isolated cases, gotten English speaking, ethnic westerners to go to Afghanistan to fight their wars against Afghanis.
They have not successfully used such a person in an attack against a Western country even once.
Granted, they have been a failure, since all of the already-here recruits have yet to pull off a high-profile successful operation.
They have been a success in recruiting, however. The cells that the FBI has rolled up in the last few years have been 2nd-gen and long-term residents/citizens almost exclusively.
IOW, they are finding willing recruits in the Muslim community in America. They just have not been all that effective, or our anti-terrorism G-men have been particularly good (depending on who you decide to grant competence or ineptitude).
Post by: Strings on February 05, 2008, 08:17:31 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 05, 2008, 08:22:59 AM
And remember, there are a certain number of self-professed anarchists on our college campuses that would be willing to cause trouble. That could throw some serious confusion into the mix...
How do anarchists organize, anyway?
Post by: Bogie on February 05, 2008, 08:34:25 AM
Post by: De Selby on February 05, 2008, 04:52:14 PM
I don't think they have the guys here and I really think you guys are underestimating the logistic hurdles to getting a significant number of folks in place now to actually pull it off, when you have to start from so far away with so many layers of competent people looking for just such activity.
Which is why recruiting those already in the USA is a higher priority than brining in new blood. Even better, if they can net themselves a 2nd-gen American who speaks perfect English.
It's also been an utter failure-the only people they can consistently rely on are extended family members and a select few recruits from specific middle eastern cities.
They have, in a few isolated cases, gotten English speaking, ethnic westerners to go to Afghanistan to fight their wars against Afghanis.
They have not successfully used such a person in an attack against a Western country even once.
Granted, they have been a failure, since all of the already-here recruits have yet to pull off a high-profile successful operation.
They have been a success in recruiting, however. The cells that the FBI has rolled up in the last few years have been 2nd-gen and long-term residents/citizens almost exclusively.
IOW, they are finding willing recruits in the Muslim community in America. They just have not been all that effective, or our anti-terrorism G-men have been particularly good (depending on who you decide to grant competence or ineptitude).
2nd gen-long term residents? I know of about a dozen cases, none of whom were actually in contact with Al Qaeda personnel. What are the numbers you've seen for this phenomenon?
The FBI has managed to find literally a handful of such people in its sting operations, and they did so without going to Mosques-there's never been a single verified instance of Al Qaeda doing this in our country, and certainly not in religious centers. Sorry, but I think you are overstating the case by a wide margin when you say that they find "willing recruits in the Muslim community."
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 05, 2008, 05:19:00 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 05, 2008, 05:21:42 PM
never been to school there but from the published excerpts from the cirriculum i'd say the saudi sponsered academy outside dc crosses my line
How many American terrorists have been recruited there so far?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 05, 2008, 05:43:00 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 05, 2008, 06:22:36 PM
does fundraising to support groups count?
Sure-how many are fundraisers for terrorist groups?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 05, 2008, 07:14:16 PM
http://banking.senate.gov/_files/clarke.pdf
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1311
and this ones swamped me with stuff to sort through for a while
http://www.danielpipes.org/biblio_cair.php
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 05, 2008, 07:25:35 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 05, 2008, 07:39:51 PM
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/21/TampaBay/Suit_labels_Al_Arian_.shtml
http://banking.senate.gov/_files/clarke.pdf
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1311
and this ones swamped me with stuff to sort through for a while
http://www.danielpipes.org/biblio_cair.php
http://banking.senate.gov/_files/clarke.pdf
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1311
and this ones swamped me with stuff to sort through for a while
http://www.danielpipes.org/biblio_cair.php
Native born Palestinians and Saudis constitute "homegrown, white or second generation Muslim terrorists"?
Or were you talking about something else in those reports that I don't see?
I don't see a single instance of the people we're talking about working for, or being involved in, terrorism here.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 06, 2008, 02:21:26 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 06, 2008, 04:56:23 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on February 06, 2008, 07:02:51 AM
and there is no mafia either
Post by: De Selby on February 06, 2008, 06:53:15 PM
How is it that shootinstudent manages to twist nearly every thread into an "Islamists R Victims" obfuscation worthy of CAIR?
What exactly is the twist here?
We were debating whether or not terrorist groups had any success in recruiting native born Americans, with the characteristics necessary to blend in as Americans, out of Mosques and religious organizations.
I pointed out that no such person has been recruited for an attack on the United States yet (at least, not that we know of)-and concluded that these so-called "terror mosques" likely don't exist, and that the Muslim religious community here does not yield terrorists.
That there are foreign born terrorists who operated in the US is so obvious it shouldn't even be a topic of discussion; that's a "duh" fact right there.
Let me requote what we were talking about there:
Quote
They have been a success in recruiting, however. The cells that the FBI has rolled up in the last few years have been 2nd-gen and long-term residents/citizens almost exclusively.
IOW, they are finding willing recruits in the Muslim community in America. They just have not been all that effective, or our anti-terrorism G-men have been particularly good (depending on who you decide to grant competence or ineptitude).
IOW, they are finding willing recruits in the Muslim community in America. They just have not been all that effective, or our anti-terrorism G-men have been particularly good (depending on who you decide to grant competence or ineptitude).
Post by: Firethorn on February 07, 2008, 05:39:28 AM
I pointed out that no such person has been recruited for an attack on the United States yet (at least, not that we know of)-and concluded that these so-called "terror mosques" likely don't exist, and that the Muslim religious community here does not yield terrorists.
However, the local muslim religious communities have been repeatably tracked back to having provided funding for terrorist organizations. In many cases, the local organizers of the 'charity' had to know.
In a number of cases, translating the speaches used have resulted in encouragement and positive potrayel of terrorist activities, so that indicates a potential pool of recruits.
Given that I'd be going after the shell-game terrorist funding organizations anyways, at least some monitoring of 'hate speech' should be done. Whether or not such speech crosses the line into prosecutable areas I'll leave up to the individual situations.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 07, 2008, 07:55:52 AM
I pointed out that no such person has been recruited for an attack on the United States yet (at least, not that we know of)-and concluded that these so-called "terror mosques" likely don't exist, and that the Muslim religious community here does not yield terrorists.
However, the local muslim religious communities have been repeatably tracked back to having provided funding for terrorist organizations. In many cases, the local organizers of the 'charity' at had to know.
In a number of cases, translating the speaches used have resulted in encouragement and positive potrayel of terrorist activities, so that indicates a potential pool of recruits.
Given that I'd be going after the shell-game terrorist funding organizations anyways, at least some monitoring of 'hate speech' should be done. Whether or not such speech crosses the line into prosecutable areas I'll leave up to the individual situations.
Post by: Firethorn on February 07, 2008, 09:26:55 AM
The news has translated the speech? I guess that they are responsible for recruiting terrorists.
Not the news, the authorities. As for recruiting, they were probably going after first or second generation citizens - ones who still know languages other than english(for the most part).
Post by: De Selby on February 07, 2008, 10:29:37 PM
I pointed out that no such person has been recruited for an attack on the United States yet (at least, not that we know of)-and concluded that these so-called "terror mosques" likely don't exist, and that the Muslim religious community here does not yield terrorists.
However, the local muslim religious communities have been repeatably tracked back to having provided funding for terrorist organizations. In many cases, the local organizers of the 'charity' had to know.
Well, this has certainly been alleged, and in the most high profile cases has resulted in acquittals. The "material support" law is overbroad, and certainly the US congress now understands that since one of its alumni has been charged.
But yeah, those cases that have been prosecuted have involved how many "second generation americans"
I don't know of a single one.