How can you gather intel, if your
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
You need human intelligence. need to take a few prisoners to get better intell.
I agree. I'm sure we have a lot of human intel. And I'm more sure that they aren't going to advertise it. Snowden, however, did advertise a lot of our e-intel methods. I doubt ISIS is using much twitter and cell phones to make plans anyway. They aren't stupid. Crazy yes. Stupid no.
Exactly. Thanks to Snowden's exposure of our electronic information gathering techniques, the guys planning this went strictly sneakernet: no cell phone or e-mail communication, nothing that could be overheard or intercepted.
Bingo, which is why you need to question people, instead of relying on high tech crapola. How can you electronically intercept something, if it's not electronically being transported or being stored?
Yes, I am sure foreign intel is just bursting at the seams to share what they know with the US. US intel couldn't get a phone number from a ***** by waterboarding. Who can rely on our govt to keep secrets?
Get off it. Unlike what you see on TV and the movies, this attack was not planned over the 24 hours after Obama made his statement. And while I know you want to blame Obama for everything from hangnails to hemorrhoids to your inability to get laid, the U.S. is not the only intelligence service monitoring social media.
I agree with you but how ISIS is getting pretty good at trolling Obama starting with Benghazi.
Well if we use the board doctors definition of blame the US and every other intel source missed this and thus allowed this to happen under their watch.
I know what you're saying, but even stretching it to its extreme limit I don't see how any supposedly rational person can blame Obama for attacks in Paris, attacks which it's becoming clear were largely carried out by French and Belgian citizens who had been to the Middle East and returned. In the case of Bush and 9/11 there's at least some evidence that he was too focused on Iraq to pay attention to the threat from al Qaeda and thus plans for attacks on American soil weren't disrupted.
Would you share with us the source of which you refer? What was the source that narrowed this from the body of intel received daily. I have seen sources that were hawking their books that remotely suggested a possibility. Now, you are offering a reliable source that made the prediction, but Bush ignored that reliable report???
Come on. Bush received daily threat briefings from the day after the election, all of which cited al Qaeda and not Iraq as the primary threat. Remember that al Qaeda had already carried out one attack on the WTC in 1993 and had planned several others both on U.S. soil and against U.S. interests. The most devastating if successful would have been the so-called Day of Hate in 1995, which was planned to bring down at least a dozen U.S. airliners in various parts of the world.
Why are we talking about Bush? There is plenty of failure with our current administration to keep us busy for months.
Good point. The tangent started with a post about Obama ignoring or refusing to share social media chatter about Paris attacks, as if a U.S. administration could have done anything to prevent those attacks. It's not like France doesn't have its own intelligence services to monitor those outlets.
I have to look at what you are saying in comparison to Intel report done by Jay Committee after the fact. Real time, Jay and Hillary made their known report on Senate floor illustrating the need to remove Saddam who was identifiable and in violation of peace agreement made to stop 1st Iraq War.
Who is AQ, where do you go to stop them? Reportedly had Bin Laden trapped in mountains. Next day NYT was reporting method of tracking him. Would removing him stop AQ and terrorist attacks? At the time, US had limited war casualties, should hundreds of lives be put at risk to clear the caves? Was AQ clearly on daily reports received by President(and intel committee). I understand a couple times there were reports of use of planes by AQ, but they were scrubbed by lower levels of intel when report making was processed thru intel system as not probable. Is that wrong?
One post, you say "some evidence" and the next post you say "daily". I do not know that he received daily reports about AQ as being more likely target. Would you help us a little with your sources?
You need to talk to EERS as he seems to think the only way to get Intel is through people, but you say that we couldn't get any info from people.
I understand what you are saying here but it's not like we weren't on the verge of bombing the hell out of Iraq numerous times under Clinton. I mean, we can backtrack AQ as being a problem long before Bush came in office as well.
Under Clinton we had:
Embassy Bombings (multiple), WTC attack in 93, USS Cole at Yemen, etc. This isn't even counting all of the stuff that was going on in Macedonia and the Jihadis that were battle tested through that conflict.
Don't you know? Each time a president takes office, everything is peaceful and the economy is great, they all start with a clean slate ... therefore everything that happens when they are in office is their fault. I fault Bush for a lot of the steps taken after the attacks, but to blame him for them and not point more at Clinton is foolish. They attacked us multiple times on his watch and he didn't do enough to stop them.
So if the notes were passed by courier, then how would focusing on electronic surveillance help out?
What do I have to gain by talking to EERS? If we are at odds, which is right? You profess that you know THE answers. Now, you have th opportunity to offer something useful. Step up.
Perhaps one of you could supply supporting evidence to your claim ... or you both could deflect ... I see which path you've chosen.
Great revelation. Now the libs can give Obama some credit for his screwup after only 7 years of blaming Bush for every misfortune. That is a relief, and would you share with the Dem candidates for president to stop blame Bush and US first?
So, you are not willing to make anything short of a deflection? Or, do you feel very strongly both ways?
I'm not giving Clinton a pass. It's true he had his chances to get bin Laden and didn't, especially after the embassy bombings in 1998. And I don't know why neil thinks that daily intel briefings don't count.
I'm not the one making any claims. You claim that personal intel hasn't worked, and EERS thinks that you can't do anything without it. That's why I was saying you should talk to him because when you put those statements together it comes out to "you can't do anything without gathering intel in a way that is completely ineffective".
We are collecting intel in every way that people have mentioned and also in ways that haven't been mentioned yet
Sarcasm firmly picked up on. However, for Obama to continue to try and fault Bush after as long as he has been in office is equally retarded.
Yep, I totally agree. The parallels are interesting though. Bush gets blamed for 911 when it was brewing for a long time under his predecessor and Obama gets blamed for the economy when it was brewing for a long time under his predecessor. Both can be blamed for the handling of their respective situations, but not for the cause of the situation(s) to begin with. IMO
I think in the case of the economy with Obama, no one really faults him for his starting block. I think 7 years in things should be better than they are that he has some ownership of that, certainly the godawful debt he has accumulated is an issue.
FIFY
(you've been on these boards longer than I have, you should know better, LOL)I totally agree though and have said so numerous times. Obama inherited a colossal mess and a ridiculous budget ... but to be operating at a budget deficit after all of this time is unacceptable.
Not what I said at all. Read slowly. People and agencies are reluctant to share info with us because of neglect in protecting source.
Yes, he tends to take a few liberties with honesty when he is offering his case. He tends to set up a straw man and then offer his case against his creation.