The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on June 25, 2014, 09:05:31 am
-
Dick Cheney: Expect 'Far Deadlier' Terror Attack Within Decade
Tuesday, 24 Jun 2014 08:41 PM
By Cathy Burke
Former Vice President Dick Cheney predicts there will be a terrorist attack on the United States within the next decade and that it will be "far deadlier" than the attacks of 9/11.
"I doubt it," Cheney told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt when asked if he thinks America will "get through this decade" without another "massive attack on the homeland," in audio posted by Business Insider.
Urgent: Do You Approve of Obama's Handling of Foreign Policy? Vote Here
Story continues below video.
"I think there will be another attack," Cheney told Hewitt, "and the next time, I think it's going to be far deadlier than the last one. Imagine what would happen if somebody could smuggle a nuclear device, put it in a shipping container, and drive it down the Beltway outside Washington, D.C."
Cheney also was asked if another attack would lead to "military rule" and the reconstitution of the U.S. government, but he responded by detailing the "continuity of government" program, which he said was set up during the Cold War so a "government in waiting" could be in place if necessary.
Cheney's radio interview comes on the heels of his sharp criticism of President Barack Obama's foreign policy in a co-bylined op-ed in The Wall Street Journal with his daughter, Liz Cheney, saying the president is "so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."
But the former vice president has sounded the worse-than-9/11 warning before, including during an appearance last weekend on ABC's "This Week," when he criticized Obama's announcement that all but 9,800 troops would be out of Afghanistan by year's end.
Urgent: Do You Approve of Obama's Handling of Foreign Policy? Vote Here
Story continues below video.
"One of the things I worried about 12 years ago, and that I worry about today, is that there will be another 9/11 attack and that the next time, it'll be with weapons far deadlier than airline tickets and box cutters," he said.
"And when we have a situation developing in Pakistan, for example, where there are nuclear weapons, where supposedly that technology has been sold to the North Koreans, at the same time, the president announces the complete withdrawal from Afghanistan right next door, that we're missing the boat."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/decade-911-deadlier/2014/06/24/id/579066#ixzz35djzbMWD
-
The guy is paranoid. I feel sorry for him, but he seems to live in this constant fear that a Muslim boogeyman is ready to strike at any moment.
-
The guy is paranoid. I feel sorry for him, but he seems to live in this constant fear that a Muslim boogeyman is ready to strike at any moment.
Maybe that's because he was VP when Muslim "boogeymen" slaughtered 3000 innocent people and had to try to deal with keeping America safe for the next 7 years (and did, btw).
Sheesh. Don't feel sorry for the guy. He's brilliant, filled with integrity, and a hero.
-
The guy is paranoid. I feel sorry for him, but he seems to live in this constant fear that a Muslim boogeyman is ready to strike at any moment.
That's because you still lack the real understanding of what's out there he has!
-
That's because you still lack the real understanding of what's out there he has!
Even some of us layfolk understand that militant Islam is a very real threat to our safety, and even our way of life.
But imagine knowing what Cheney knows and watching a Marxist punk destroy everything you worked so diligently and faithfully to preserve.
I'm actually surprised that he isn't saying more.
-
Even some of us layfolk understand that militant Islam is a very real threat to our safety, and even our way of life.
But imagine knowing what Cheney knows and watching a Marxist punk destroy everything you worked so diligently and faithfully to preserve.
I'm actually surprised that he isn't saying more.
I'm surprised that a LOT of people aren't saying more!
-
Be afraaaaaaid! Be verrrrrrry afraaaaaid! OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!
Now please sign the dotted line and forfeit more of your freedoms for the illusion of protection and safety.
-
I'm surprised that a LOT of people aren't saying more!
I think they may still be afraid of being called racists for opposing the first not-really-African-America President.
There's not a whole lot of courage left in this country, and I for one, am thrilled to see it displayed in VP Cheney.
-
Oh yeah.............and there are a whole lot of very naïve people who prefer keeping their heads in the sand to dealing with the reality of militant Islam.
-
Oh yeah.............and there are a whole lot of very naïve people who prefer keeping their heads in the sand to dealing with the reality of militant Islam.
Let me know when militant Islam storms the Californian coastline.
-
Let me know when militant Islam storms the Californian coastline.
I've sworn to not waste another drop of cyber ink on you Dex but I'm making an exception!
IT ALREADY IS YOU IGNORANT TWIT!
-
Let me know when militant Islam storms the Californian coastline.
What in heaven's name does that have to do with anything? Is a militant Islamic equivalent of D-Day in the state of California what it's going to take to wake you up to the REALITY of the danger we face?
How sound asleep are you? How deep in the sandy beach is your head??
-
Be afraaaaaaid! Be verrrrrrry afraaaaaid! OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!
Well, at least you're discussing this rationally.
:thud:
-
What in heaven's name does that have to do with anything? Is a militant Islamic equivalent of D-Day in the state of California what it's going to take to wake you up to the REALITY of the danger we face?
You mean like the ongoing invasion from Mexico?
Like the ongoing sale of our country to Red China in exchange for funding entitlement benefits?
Not to mention our own internal collapse.
But hey, let's raise the specter of another attack that can seemingly only be prevented by spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on a war that won't help the situation so that his pension can benefit from the no-bid contracts Halliburton gets from it.
-
You mean like the ongoing invasion from Mexico?
Like the ongoing sale of our country to Red China in exchange for funding entitlement benefits?
Not to mention our own internal collapse.
But hey, let's raise the specter of another attack that can seemingly only be prevented by spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on a war that won't help the situation so that his pension can benefit from the no-bid contracts Halliburton gets from it.
I'm not sure why you think those things are mutually exclusive.
It's not "raising the specter" if it's a very real possibility..............which it is.
And that's in addition to those other very real dangers you listed.
(btw, the mention of Halliburton is highly questionable, and I'm not sure where it's coming from, other than to site a leftist "bogeyman".....to use your own words).
-
Be afraaaaaaid! Be verrrrrrry afraaaaaid! OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!
Now please sign the dotted line and forfeit more of your freedoms for the illusion of protection and safety.
A little colorful, but essentially on point. Those who poo-poo this possibility have forgotten that in the mad, headless, scramble after 9/11 Congress passed, and Bush signed, the PATRIOT Act, which has been responsible for taking a huge bite out of our individual freedoms in ways that bear little real relationship to preventing terror attacks in the US.
Of course there's a real, and significant, risk that there will be another major terror attack within the US and that that attack might be worse than 9/11, but if we forfeit all of our most essential freedoms in exchange for (mostly empty) promises of security, then the terrorists have essentially won without having to lift a finger. As a simple illustration, the 9/11 terrorists managed to cow us over transportation to the point where we now willingly humiliate and terrorize ourselves every time we board a plane courtesy of the Homeland Security monster we created with the PATRIOT Act.
-
So now those presumably on our side bring up Halliburton as if it were a dirty word?
So why has every administration since LBJ relied on Halliburton to supply the military, including the Obama administration which recently gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton? The answer is Halliburton is the best at what they do.
-
So now those presumably on our side bring up Halliburton as if it were a dirty word?
So why has every administration since LBJ relied on Halliburton to supply the military, including the Obama administration which recently gave a no-bid contract to Halliburton? The answer is Halliburton is the best at what they do.
Because the government is corrupt, and LBJ is a perfect example of it.
-
The guy is paranoid. I feel sorry for him, but he seems to live in this constant fear that a Muslim boogeyman is ready to strike at any moment.
That's because he has actual experience with those "muslim bogeymen" you speak of, being in the actual hot seat when they flew airplanes into buildings.
You cannot possibly be that ignorant and I hate to think you are that dim. You really need to go review recent History from a reputable source and try again...
:smokin:
-
It is the people who think we are safe that are crazy. I agree with him we will be hit and it will be soon. I don't know what will happen but I do know it will. We have opened our borders and let the world in and the world flowing into our country is not peaceful and friendly. There are Muslims figuring out how to kill us every minute of the day. This is fact not fiction. I am logical I have common sense as does Cheney.
-
That's because he has actual experience with those "muslim bogeymen" you speak of, being in the actual hot seat when they flew airplanes into buildings.
You cannot possibly be that ignorant and I hate to think you are that dim. You really need to go review recent History from a reputable source and try again...
:smokin:
I believe there are many upon reading the first two or three paragraphs of the daily security briefing would literally piss themselves.
-
I believe there are many upon reading the first two or three paragraphs of the daily security briefing would literally piss themselves.
I guarantee that you're right about that.
btw, Bob Beckel on The Five this evening, screamed that Dick Cheney, single-handedly, through his lies, brought us into Iraq.
The left is stark raving mad about this man, and it's a bit disturbing to see some of it pop up here.
-
The guy is paranoid. I feel sorry for him, but he seems to live in this constant fear that a Muslim boogeyman is ready to strike at any moment.
I think if you would sit down in daily security briefings you may develop a paranoia too. The threat to us by radical Islam is real, and I'm one that is kind of glad I don't know everything Cheney knows about it.
-
I guarantee that you're right about that.
btw, Bob Beckel on The Five this evening, screamed that Dick Cheney, single-handedly, through his lies, brought us into Iraq.
The left is stark raving mad about this man, and it's a bit disturbing to see some of it pop up here.
Beckel is the side show there! Bolling is getting to be on my last nerve lately. He's the epitome of Kruschev's "rope" example.
-
The guy is paranoid. I feel sorry for him, but he seems to live in this constant fear that a Muslim boogeyman is ready to strike at any moment.
When you've seen, read, and heard all of the intelligence reports that Cheney has seen, then you have a right to comment on his opinion.
-
Beckel is the side show there! Bolling is getting to be on my last nerve lately. He's the epitome of Kruschev's "rope" example.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is Kruschev's "rope" example?
(btw, I'm confused by Bolling's emotional, irrational feelings about Iraq. He's usually more cerebral than he's being now).
-
When you've seen, read, and heard all of the intelligence reports that Cheney has seen, then you have a right to comment on his opinion.
Cheney hasn't seen an intelligence report in five years.
-
When you've seen, read, and heard all of the intelligence reports that Cheney has seen, then you have a right to comment on his opinion.
:hands:
-
musiclady wrote above:
[[ Even some of us layfolk understand that militant Islam is a very real threat to our safety, and even our way of life.
But imagine knowing what Cheney knows and watching a Marxist punk destroy everything you worked so diligently and faithfully to preserve.
I'm actually surprised that he isn't saying more. ]]
Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words:
(http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Barack+Obama+Sworn+44th+President+United+States+6BRY63hRUHTl.jpg)
-
Cheney hasn't seen an intelligence report in five years.
Really?? And just how the frack do you know that??
Ever hear the one about when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging??
:smokin:
-
Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words:
(http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Barack+Obama+Sworn+44th+President+United+States+6BRY63hRUHTl.jpg)
Perfect!
:thumbsup2:
-
Really?? And just how the frack do you know that??
In most cases, you stop receiving work-related materials when you leave your job. Cheney's pretty much a private citizen now. Other than perhaps some Secret Service protection, I'd suspect he doesn't get much access to anything beyond what you or I have at our disposal.
Look, I understand that this board is largely populated with older members with military background— and that's obviously not my profile. I understand the skew more toward national defense among many on this board. I don't agree with it, but I can see the perspective.
Yet there is a difference between accurately assessing a legitimate threat and deliberately exaggerating the threat by stoking fear in the hearts of Americans. Cheney openly admits he's calling for a very expensive and draining Middle East operation, the same kind that failed to produce a lasting stable government in Iraq the first time. To do so, he has concocted this scenario involving a mass casualty event the scale of which the Islamic terror movement has never pulled off before in any area of the world.
It is one of the stated goals of al-Qaeda to bankrupt the United States. Cheney is falling right into the trap.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what is Kruschev's "rope" example?
(btw, I'm confused by Bolling's emotional, irrational feelings about Iraq. He's usually more cerebral than he's being now).
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
I believe Bolling is bothered by the face his son is about 15 years old. He doesn't want him spent on the battlefield for no reason. Based upon what's been going on over there, I don't really blame him. Although the MEN who died on D Day and at Chosin were someone's son, father or husband.
-
In most cases, you stop receiving work-related materials when you leave your job. Cheney's pretty much a private citizen now. Other than perhaps some Secret Service protection, I'd suspect he doesn't get much access to anything beyond what you or I have at our disposal.
Look, I understand that this board is largely populated with older members with military background— and that's obviously not my profile. I understand the skew more toward national defense among many on this board. I don't agree with it, but I can see the perspective.
Yet there is a difference between accurately assessing a legitimate threat and deliberately exaggerating the threat by stoking fear in the hearts of Americans. Cheney openly admits he's calling for a very expensive and draining Middle East operation, the same kind that failed to produce a lasting stable government in Iraq the first time. To do so, he has concocted this scenario involving a mass casualty event the scale of which the Islamic terror movement has never pulled off before in any area of the world.
It is one of the stated goals of al-Qaeda to bankrupt the United States. Cheney is falling right into the trap.
Not exactly true. Most active or formerly actives here are still plugged in to the system to a certain extent. We have friends who are still working, people we have trained, children who have gone into service. In the old days it were tricky - phone calls or letters or face to face meet ups. Now, 30 seconds for a quick email and the contact is done. It is beneficial, mostly. The inactives (never say retired) give their experience and feel useful, and the actives gain the benefit of often decades of experience.
While I personally don't find Cheney a savory sort of character, do you think he doesn't have as expansive a network as us peons? It's probably three times the size that most of us have, and a little bit looser as far as "need to know" goes, since security clearance is rarely if ever revoked.
Your point about assessing a threat vs exaggerating a threat is a good one. Yet you miss the point - we are trained to take all threats deadly seriously. To use Chief as an example, he spent years on a floating island. A bloody massive thing, a technological marvel. Yet put an inflatable rubber dingy heading their way and the threat assessment goes way up. The Navy remembers the Cole, even if no one else does. I could have used another couple of dozen regular posters with the same effect.
It's an extreme case of plan for the worst. It's one of the main reasons and justifications for civilian oversight of the military.
-
The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
I believe Bolling is bothered by the face his son is about 15 years old. He doesn't want him spent on the battlefield for no reason. Based upon what's been going on over there, I don't really blame him. Although the MEN who died on D Day and at Chosin were someone's son, father or husband.
Yes, I've heard him say he wants to protect his son, but as a Mom of a 17 year old Army Reserve when 9/11 hit, I don't have a lot of sympathy for his cause.
YES, every single (good) parent wants to protect his or her son, but you don't determine your views on foreign policy because of your parental instincts.
I obviously understand why Bolling doesn't want his son to fight in the disaster that Obama has created in Iraq, but his emotional absolutism about foreign policy is, IMO, way over the top.
He's usually rational.
(Oh, and thanks for the explanation of the "rope" example!)
-
I believe Bolling is bothered by the face his son is about 15 years old. He doesn't want him spent on the battlefield for no reason. Based upon what's been going on over there, I don't really blame him. Although the MEN who died on D Day and at Chosin were someone's son, father or husband.
I used the recent ISIS invasion in Iraq to re-emphasize to my son why I counseled him not to join the military. All of the efforts of the men who fought and died there were pissed-away by an unprincipled politician for short-term political gain.
My son's life is worth more than that...
-
Not exactly true. Most active or formerly actives here are still plugged in to the system to a certain extent. We have friends who are still working, people we have trained, children who have gone into service. In the old days it were tricky - phone calls or letters or face to face meet ups. Now, 30 seconds for a quick email and the contact is done. It is beneficial, mostly. The inactives (never say retired) give their experience and feel useful, and the actives gain the benefit of often decades of experience.
While I personally don't find Cheney a savory sort of character, do you think he doesn't have as expansive a network as us peons? It's probably three times the size that most of us have, and a little bit looser as far as "need to know" goes, since security clearance is rarely if ever revoked.
Your point about assessing a threat vs exaggerating a threat is a good one. Yet you miss the point - we are trained to take all threats deadly seriously. To use Chief as an example, he spent years on a floating island. A bloody massive thing, a technological marvel. Yet put an inflatable rubber dingy heading their way and the threat assessment goes way up. The Navy remembers the Cole, even if no one else does. I could have used another couple of dozen regular posters with the same effect.
It's an extreme case of plan for the worst. It's one of the main reasons and justifications for civilian oversight of the military.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Thank God there are at least a few around here who understand how things REALLY work in the free world!
-
Not exactly true. Most active or formerly actives here are still plugged in to the system to a certain extent. We have friends who are still working, people we have trained, children who have gone into service. In the old days it were tricky - phone calls or letters or face to face meet ups. Now, 30 seconds for a quick email and the contact is done. It is beneficial, mostly. The inactives (never say retired) give their experience and feel useful, and the actives gain the benefit of often decades of experience.
While I personally don't find Cheney a savory sort of character, do you think he doesn't have as expansive a network as us peons? It's probably three times the size that most of us have, and a little bit looser as far as "need to know" goes, since security clearance is rarely if ever revoked.
Your point about assessing a threat vs exaggerating a threat is a good one. Yet you miss the point - we are trained to take all threats deadly seriously. To use Chief as an example, he spent years on a floating island. A bloody massive thing, a technological marvel. Yet put an inflatable rubber dingy heading their way and the threat assessment goes way up. The Navy remembers the Cole, even if no one else does. I could have used another couple of dozen regular posters with the same effect.
It's an extreme case of plan for the worst. It's one of the main reasons and justifications for civilian oversight of the military.
Exactly right and I could not have put it better myself. Civilians have no idea what kind of ties people take with them into retirement, as well as the extent of some of the personal contacts people make along the way.
I worked with a Navy Lieutenant who flew the A-6, and he had done a joint tour earlier in his career with the Israeli Defense Force, and cultivated a number of close contacts with some very good Israeli pilots who were pretty high up the food chain. Right before the first Gulf War kicked off, there was a lot of concern about Saddam Hussein attacking Israel with his chemical weapons. My Lt. friend made a call to his buddy in Isreal one night just to touch bases and make sure he was safe. My friend asked his friend what he thought would happen if Saddam did what he was threatening to do, and the Israeli assured him that when the first Iraqi chemical warhead landed on Israeli soil, "The sun will rise over Baghdad" shortly thereafter.
I have an uncle who is a retired Navy Commander who is a professional nuclear weapons expert that works specifically on determining what nuclear weapons secres can and cannot be declassifed. He and I have had many a long conversation about topics I would never be able to repeat in public, and even then I only know what he was comfortable talking about. He's expanded my horizons incredibly on tactical and strategic issues of all descriptions.
Now if I have those kinds of contacts still, after a 20 year career in the Navy, concluding as a Senior Enlisted man, one can easily imagine what kind of ongoing contacts Dick Cheney still has after serving as Vice President, Secretary of Defense, along with a long Congressional career. To think he was simply cut off from all of that once he retired from the Vice Presidency is absurd, and not worth considering. All one has to do is read what Cheney had to say, and you cannot deny he is speaking from the depths of his long, long experience on these matters.
Like him or not, Dick Cheney still has a lot of important things to say about the state of the Union, and he is well worth listening to, for those who have ears......
:smokin:
-
I used the recent ISIS invasion in Iraq to re-emphasize to my son why I counseled him not to join the military. All of the efforts of the men who fought and died there were pissed-away by an unprincipled politician for short-term political gain.
My son's life is worth more than that...
Truth be told, if I were an Iraqi and they doing a call to arms, I would think twice about joining. There is no way to determine the level of deceipt and sabotage that is going on over there.
-
Truth be told, if I were an Iraqi and they doing a call to arms, I would think twice about joining. There is no way to determine the level of deceipt and sabotage that is going on over there.
I wouldn't even have to think twice. The answer would be no.
The U.S. has a long history of abandoning 'allies' once they are no longer politically useful and that shows no sign of changing...
(Not the American people, but our 'government'. I hope that the rest of the world understands that but, I'm thinking not.)
-
I have an uncle who is a retired Navy Commander who is a professional nuclear weapons expert that works specifically on determining what nuclear weapons secres can and cannot be declassifed. He and I have had many a long conversation about topics I would never be able to repeat in public, and even then I only know what he was comfortable talking about. He's expanded my horizons incredibly on tactical and strategic issues of all descriptions.
Now if I have those kinds of contacts still, after a 20 year career in the Navy, concluding as a Senior Enlisted man, one can easily imagine what kind of ongoing contacts Dick Cheney still has after serving as Vice President, Secretary of Defense, along with a long Congressional career. To think he was simply cut off from all of that once he retired from the Vice Presidency is absurd, and not worth considering. All one has to do is read what Cheney had to say, and you cannot deny he is speaking from the depths of his long, long experience on these matters.
Like him or not, Dick Cheney still has a lot of important things to say about the state of the Union, and he is well worth listening to, for those who have ears......
:smokin:
Don't know about you, but in some ways that is the worst for me. Knowing which tail is wagging which dog and simply not being able to talk about it outside of a VERY small circle of very trusted friends and relatives.
I can give a small example. My Father in law, God rest his soul, was instrumental in the formation of Operation Gladio in Italy back in 1948. My wife was born in 1959 and had absolutely no clue about what he was doing until it was declassified in 1990. She has fond memories of her "American Uncle" who were CIA station head at the time, but that is all she knew. He was just a nice man with a pair of daughters her age, his Italian was bad, who would buy ice cream for them all, then talk to her father while they ate and swam in the pool. She never found out until I told her about it in very general terms - her father and I got to talking one night when I were due to go out again.
Secrecy is important. There are some things the public does not have the right to know. Yet it's annoying to watch people make the same damned mistakes over and over again.
-
Just exactly who are we supposed to support in the Middle East in order to prevent the next 9/11? ISIS, the enemy of the moment, is the creation of the Saudis and other Sunni countries along with our CIA. But now we are supposed to join Iran (the enemy of the last 45 years) in order to defeat them. But then when Iran wins and creates a Middle East superpower, then what?
Our policies in the Middle East have been a joke. We cannot impose civilization on people who do not desire to be civilized. You might as well try to civilize the monkeys at the zoo. It's time we get the hell out of there and let them settle their affairs themselves. With any luck, there will be nothing left of the place when they are done.
-
With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen.
Accept that it will. A monolithic command structure can not deal with independent cells. It can respond well, sure, but the problem is seeing what is going to happen before it happens. Not many precogs on the NSA staff.
As far as what to do and who to support - I say do nothing and support no one. Humanitarian aid, sure - go for it, the Marshall plan was a pretty successful idea. But picking sides - just no. I've said it before - ISIL is a proving ground. It is harder training than anything a soldier goes through. Fail, you die, win, you keep breathing. Keeping breathing is a powerful motivator. After 3 years of constant warfare in Syria, they know their business. These are not suicide bombers, these are cold and experienced killers.
-
Ditto, massadvj.
-
Just exactly who are we supposed to support in the Middle East in order to prevent the next 9/11? ISIS, the enemy of the moment, is the creation of the Saudis and other Sunni countries along with our CIA. But now we are supposed to join Iran (the enemy of the last 45 years) in order to defeat them. But then when Iran wins and creates a Middle East superpower, then what?
Our policies in the Middle East have been a joke. We cannot impose civilization on people who do not desire to be civilized. You might as well try to civilize the monkeys at the zoo. It's time we get the hell out of there and let them settle their affairs themselves. With any luck, there will be nothing left of the place when they are done.
There are two major motivations behind ME policy, oil and religion. Oil? It's not just a matter of needing it for our industrial purposes but preventing our "rivals" from getting what they need. If we can direct export to our allies, so much the better.
The second, religion, is our ally Israel in that bad neighborhood. We our allied because our values are based upon their historical values. Judeo-Christian ethics ring a bell? Those who would disregard that connection, would cut our mooring to much of what we are.
With whom do we remain alllied? Israel. Full stop. Let the others come to us. Americans, piss-poor negotiators they are, forget we need Arabian and Qatari and Kuwaiti and U.A.E. oil but they can't defend themselves from Iran or any other screwball in the area. Let them come to us for defense. Turn the situation around for the love of Christ.
-
With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen.
Accept that it will. A monolithic command structure can not deal with independent cells. It can respond well, sure, but the problem is seeing what is going to happen before it happens. Not many precogs on the NSA staff.
As far as what to do and who to support - I say do nothing and support no one. Humanitarian aid, sure - go for it, the Marshall plan was a pretty successful idea. But picking sides - just no. I've said it before - ISIL is a proving ground. It is harder training than anything a soldier goes through. Fail, you die, win, you keep breathing. Keeping breathing is a powerful motivator. After 3 years of constant warfare in Syria, they know their business. These are not suicide bombers, these are cold and experienced killers.
You've hit on several good points, EC. (I will only quibble about the humanitarian aid aspect, simply because the US can no longer afford it. It seems that we all have become desensitized (which is a natural phenomenon of the human condition) to the reality of the debt. But that is another topic.)
There are some key aspects of the whole "war on terror" that have been "oversold" (to put in mildly) and have been used to justify the wholesale looting and bankrupting (in more ways than financially) of the nation. One of them is the notion that we must fight ground wars in the ME or NA to prevent terrorism from reaching our shores. Lately I have been wondering when FNC is going to start looping the videos of terrorists jumping over saw horses and climbing makeshift monkey bars that were used shortly after 9/11 to drum up support for the need to eliminate "training camps." I am amazed at the folly of this whole notion. The simple reality of how jihadist attacks may come to the US shores again can not be prevented by blowing up, or commandeering, large tracts of desert or mountains across the globe. The kinds of attacks that they may undertake don't require legions of fighters training with weapons that will be used to invade as a landing force.
All that is required for this type of planning, funding, sourcing, and recruitment is a set of encrypted satellite phones (with an ever changing set of cryptology) and a one-room apartment or hotel room. This type of planning is, and has been, taking place in cities like Berlin, London, Paris, and DC. There certainly doesn't seem to be any shortage of planners, funders, or recruits, it does seem that the sourcing of weapons to inflict the type of mass damage and causalities that they may desire has been the sticking point. Whenever I hear people talk about "terrorists training in Afghanistan for the original 9/11 attack" I shake my head in wonder. It seems pretty clear that those 20 odd jihadists that are generally believed to be the perpetrators of the 4 airplane highjackings did the bulk of their "training" right here in the US. Flight schools from the west coast to the east were apparently used, and much of the clandestine meetings and planning sessions were conducted right here as well, in and around various mosques spread across the country (and perhaps in Berlin). So I simply fail to understand how spending upwards of a trillion dollars, far too many lives of young men and women, not to speak of the tens of thousands that have returned with their lives irrevocably shattered, in order to destroy and rebuild a nation of feudal fiefdoms (living in the 7th century for all intents and purposes) in Afghanistan, has done much of anything to either avenge the 9/11 attacks or prevent subsequent attacks. (I am not even going to get into an Iraq discussion at this point.)
What has happened is that a large portion of the US citizenry has been manipulated by emotions, rather than reason, post-9/11. We've been manipulated into throwing our support into two (still waiting for the third) massive war efforts that simply could not yield anything that they were advertised to do. Instead, they've led to the continuing bankruptcy of the nation's treasury and caused incalculable suffering and pain to far too many families across the nation. We've done all of this, and are our collective appetite for more of the same is being whetting constantly, especially of late. And none of it has done anything of substance to prevent any subsequent attacks for the reasons that you note above. And I haven't even mentioned the cost of our freedom and liberties that have been stripped away (with barely a whimper of protest) in the name of this "war on terror."
Vic's post above alluded to the money trail and who has benefited greatly from all of it, I won't bother to further comment on that, he spelled it out pretty clearly. It is no wonder that the West fails to acknowledge and confront the true source of this terror, because as long as that giant elephant is allowed to stand in the middle of the room, there remains a lot of money to be made (and a lot of power to be consolidated) via the ongoing, long-term destruction of the West. People from all "sides" of the aisle need to wakeup and start thinking with their heads, and not their hearts.
-
You've hit on several good points, EC. (I will only quibble about the humanitarian aid aspect, simply because the US can no longer afford it. It seems that we all have become desensitized (which is a natural phenomenon of the human condition) to the reality of the debt. But that is another topic.)
There are some key aspects of the whole "war on terror" that have been "oversold" (to put in mildly) and have been used to justify the wholesale looting and bankrupting (in more ways than financially) of the nation. One of them is the notion that we must fight ground wars in the ME or NA to prevent terrorism from reaching our shores. Lately I have been wondering when FNC is going to start looping the videos of terrorists jumping over saw horses and climbing makeshift monkey bars that were used shortly after 9/11 to drum up support for the need to eliminate "training camps." I am amazed at the folly of this whole notion. The simple reality of how jihadist attacks may come to the US shores again can not be prevented by blowing up, or commandeering, large tracts of desert or mountains across the globe. The kinds of attacks that they may undertake don't require legions of fighters training with weapons that will be used to invade as a landing force.
All that is required for this type of planning, funding, sourcing, and recruitment is a set of encrypted satellite phones (with an ever changing set of cryptology) and a one-room apartment or hotel room. This type of planning is, and has been, taking place in cities like Berlin, London, Paris, and DC. There certainly doesn't seem to be any shortage of planners, funders, or recruits, it does seem that the sourcing of weapons to inflict the type of mass damage and causalities that they may desire has been the sticking point. Whenever I hear people talk about "terrorists training in Afghanistan for the original 9/11 attack" I shake my head in wonder. It seems pretty clear that those 20 odd jihadists that are generally believed to be the perpetrators of the 4 airplane highjackings did the bulk of their "training" right here in the US. Flight schools from the west coast to the east were apparently used, and much of the clandestine meetings and planning sessions were conducted right here as well, in and around various mosques spread across the country (and perhaps in Berlin). So I simply fail to understand how spending upwards of a trillion dollars, far too many lives of young men and women, not to speak of the tens of thousands that have returned with their lives irrevocably shattered, in order to destroy and rebuild a nation of feudal fiefdoms (living in the 7th century for all intents and purposes) in Afghanistan, has done much of anything to either avenge the 9/11 attacks or prevent subsequent attacks. (I am not even going to get into an Iraq discussion at this point.)
What has happened is that a large portion of the US citizenry has been manipulated by emotions, rather than reason, post-9/11. We've been manipulated into throwing our support into two (still waiting for the third) massive war efforts that simply could not yield anything that they were advertised to do. Instead, they've led to the continuing bankruptcy of the nation's treasury and caused incalculable suffering and pain to far too many families across the nation. We've done all of this, and are our collective appetite for more of the same is being whetting constantly, especially of late. And none of it has done anything of substance to prevent any subsequent attacks for the reasons that you note above. And I haven't even mentioned the cost of our freedom and liberties that have been stripped away (with barely a whimper of protest) in the name of this "war on terror."
Vic's post above alluded to the money trail and who has benefited greatly from all of it, I won't bother to further comment on that, he spelled it out pretty clearly. It is no wonder that the West fails to acknowledge and confront the true source of this terror, because as long as that giant elephant is allowed to stand in the middle of the room, there remains a lot of money to be made (and a lot of power to be consolidated) via the ongoing, long-term destruction of the West. People from all "sides" of the aisle need to wakeup and start thinking with their heads, and not their hearts.
Very thoughtful and insightful post. Maybe as ISIS comes at Baghdad driving US Humvees and carrying m-16's someone's curiosity will be aroused. But I doubt it.
-
Don't know about you, but in some ways that is the worst for me. Knowing which tail is wagging which dog and simply not being able to talk about it outside of a VERY small circle of very trusted friends and relatives.
I can give a small example. My Father in law, God rest his soul, was instrumental in the formation of Operation Gladio in Italy back in 1948. My wife was born in 1959 and had absolutely no clue about what he was doing until it was declassified in 1990. She has fond memories of her "American Uncle" who were CIA station head at the time, but that is all she knew. He was just a nice man with a pair of daughters her age, his Italian was bad, who would buy ice cream for them all, then talk to her father while they ate and swam in the pool. She never found out until I told her about it in very general terms - her father and I got to talking one night when I were due to go out again.
Secrecy is important. There are some things the public does not have the right to know. Yet it's annoying to watch people make the same damned mistakes over and over again.
Well put, and I concur completely. The need (and ability) to keep one's pie-hole closed can lead to some amazing opportunities.
I don't mean to rub salt in any wounds, but another highlight of my tour at LSO School was the opportunity to meet, chat with and hear a personal debrief of the mission he led for Argentinian Naval Air Force against HMS Sheffield, from Capitán de Fragata Augusto Bedacarratz. Either he or his wingman hit Sheffield with an Exocet. He was their Chief LSO and came to the US periodically to train with the US Navy, check his LSOs out on our carrier landing simulator and operate on our flight decks whenever possible. Hell of a guy, enormous bushy moustache, and tells one hell of a combat war story...I've never seen a pilot with a flight jacket covered with more patches than his. I swear his jacket was made of overlapping squadron and unit patches.
I've launched Argentinian Super Entendards using their throwaway bridles when I was on Ike...we operated with all kinds of NATO aircraft because Eisenhower still had two catapults with bridle launch capabilities. We used to shoot French F-8 Crusaders periodically as well...those are a lot of fun to shoot and land. Starting with CVN-70 the Navy started phasing out bridle launching completely, and did not install any bridle arrestors on any subsequent hulls. The ramps on the very front of the flight deck are the bridle arrestor track ramps to pull the bridle down away from the aircraft. Older ships still have them both, Eisenhower only had one on the bow, and newer boats have none.
:beer:
-
With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen.
Accept that it will. A monolithic command structure can not deal with independent cells. It can respond well, sure, but the problem is seeing what is going to happen before it happens. Not many precogs on the NSA staff.
As far as what to do and who to support - I say do nothing and support no one. Humanitarian aid, sure - go for it, the Marshall plan was a pretty successful idea. But picking sides - just no. I've said it before - ISIL is a proving ground. It is harder training than anything a soldier goes through. Fail, you die, win, you keep breathing. Keeping breathing is a powerful motivator. After 3 years of constant warfare in Syria, they know their business. These are not suicide bombers, these are cold and experienced killers.
Concur again. The way to prevent another suicide attack is not to allow it to happen in the first place. "Leading from behind" is not a defense plan. It is a display of weakness that people who do not care about human life interpret as an invitation to kill.
The problem is that when Obama pulled out of the World Leadership role in 2009 he not only created a power vacuum he pulled the cork out of the bottle that had contained Islamic extremism and has allowed it to run rampant ever since. The damage that has been done will not be solved easily or quickly, and the problems have already been festering for five years. These guys are very good at killing and I fear what is coming.
-
Concur again. The way to prevent another suicide attack is not to allow it to happen in the first place. "Leading from behind" is not a defense plan. It is a display of weakness that people who do not care about human life interpret as an invitation to kill.
The problem is that when Obama pulled out of the World Leadership role in 2009 he not only created a power vacuum he pulled the cork out of the bottle that had contained Islamic extremism and has allowed it to run rampant ever since. The damage that has been done will not be solved easily or quickly, and the problems have already been festering for five years. These guys are very good at killing and I fear what is coming.
B I N G O ! ! !
-
I don't mean to rub salt in any wounds, but another highlight of my tour at LSO School was the opportunity to meet, chat with and hear a personal debrief of the mission he led for Argentinian Naval Air Force against HMS Sheffield, from Capitán de Fragata Augusto Bedacarratz. Either he or his wingman hit Sheffield with an Exocet. He was their Chief LSO and came to the US periodically to train with the US Navy, check his LSOs out on our carrier landing simulator and operate on our flight decks whenever possible. Hell of a guy, enormous bushy moustache, and tells one hell of a combat war story...I've never seen a pilot with a flight jacket covered with more patches than his. I swear his jacket was made of overlapping squadron and unit patches.
:beer:
I envy you that chance, and no salt rubbed! The Sheffield was a horrible mess (anyone who had the tiniest bit of medical training, fire fighting training or SAR training were grabbed and used. Don't think any of us could eat pork for months afterwards.) but I never heard one grunt or swabbie ever blame the pilot for the launch. He were doing his job, just as we were. Came in at the perfect time when our air cover was dispersed, saw the shot and took it. He'd have been derelict in his duty if he hadn't.
It's another thing that separates military from civilian - they find it very hard or impossible to believe that we rarely take it personally. Personal indignation and revenge is for geeing up the folks back home, not for work. When we took Port Stanley, the Argentinian prisoners were held in a warehouse, guarded by a single squad. The guards were not to prevent them escaping, they were to protect them from any civ with ideas of payback.
In some ways, that is a failing now. AQ and it's affiliates are not military. They are rabble with weapons. It needs a different mindset to combat, one that goes against nearly everything painfully knocked into you in training. I mean - was bomb baiting even a thing when you served? It's standard here - and has a need of a completely new doctrine to deal with it.
-
mass asks:
[[ Just exactly who are we supposed to support in the Middle East in order to prevent the next 9/11? ]]
No one. Not a one of them.
If they are islamic, they are enemies of The West.
They cannot be trusted (that doesn't mean they can't be used or useful to us).
That's the reality of The West insofar as islam is concerned.
My opinion only, worth what you paid for it.
Others' will be different.
-
EC wrote:
[[ With both respect and sorrow - you are not going to prevent the next 9/11. It may happen tomorrow, or it may happen in a decade, but it will happen. ]]
A thoughtful comment, and I cannot disagree with you.
This is probably coming, particularly if the democrats remain in power after 2017, but I doubt that even a Republican president would (or could) do much to really prevent it.
What will matter is the severity of the attack. Seems to me that world-class terrorism (islamic style) is a game of one-upsmanship. That is to say, you've got to do something "bigger and better" than last time.
The islamic world has its eyes on the prize. They want "the big one", and we all know what that is. DC is probably too hard a target, New York City might or might not be. But there are other cities where a crushing blow for muhammed might be struck.
The 9/11 attack was "the clarion call" -- the sounding of the battle cry, a summoning to arms.
It's what will happen AFTER the next attack that determines the destiny of The West.
Tell me something. You sound like someone with military experience. There seem to be many others here. My time in the military was short (I was drafted, twice, actually), and inconsequential.
What do -you- think an "appropriate" response to the next 9/11 should be ??
-
I would expect a terrorist shoot down a commmercial liner with a MANPAD of some type within the next ten years. Destroying a city either with a "dirty" bomb or a MIRV. The MIRV would have to be constructed piece by piece and loaded in a truck. I would choose a MIRV because it would pack the most punch and there are so many of them in countries that are not friendly to the West. The purpose of the MIRV is to greater target damage for a given missile payload. Radiation (including radiated heat) from a nuclear warhead diminishes as the square of the distance (called the inverse-square law), and blast pressure diminishes as the cube of the distance.
-
I would expect a terrorist shoot down a commmercial liner with a MANPAD of some type within the next ten years. Destroying a city either with a "dirty" bomb or a MIRV. The MIRV would have to be constructed piece by piece and loaded in a truck. I would choose a MIRV because it would pack the most punch and there are so many of them in countries that are not friendly to the West. The purpose of the MIRV is to greater target damage for a given missile payload. Radiation (including radiated heat) from a nuclear warhead diminishes as the square of the distance (called the inverse-square law), and blast pressure diminishes as the cube of the distance.
I will go as far as the warhead coming from a Eurasian country. Maybe Iran, Pakistan or if North Korea went absolutely psychotic from one of their arsenal or a collaboration of both.
-
Tell me something. You sound like someone with military experience. There seem to be many others here. My time in the military was short (I was drafted, twice, actually), and inconsequential.
What do -you- think an "appropriate" response to the next 9/11 should be ??
Find them. Kill them, down to the very cockroaches in the walls. If you want to ask them a few questions first, by all means. Give the interrogators an hour or so, and use drugs. Then they disappear for good. No trials, no detention, no bargains. They simply cease to exist, along with their entire families. They want to play terror - then lets play it back at them.
The problem of the support network is more tricky. What do you do with a government that colludes with terrorists, even if by only turning a blind eye to their actions? Afghanistan showed that while you can swing in and topple a government fairly easily, what fills the power vacuum tends to be worse in the long run.
With an atrocity on the level of 9/11, you do have unanimity of the big 4, so isolating the offending government will work. I mean total isolation. No aid, no imports, no exports, no travel, all assets outside the country completely frozen or confiscated to recompense companies that have lost contracts with said country. Not every company can take the financial hit of a big contract being frozen, so it'd be justice of a sort. Enough patty-cake playing.
I agree about the "one-upping" terrorists seem to go for. The IRA fell into that trap for a while too, as did the Bader - Myerhofs. They are still people and want to make a big splash. It's a puppy mistake, and one they will stop making at some stage. There are disturbing signs from Syria, Iraq and Nigeria that they are starting to understand that a constant low grade level of terror is far more debilitating and effective in the long run than big flashy displays.
-
Very thoughtful and insightful post. Maybe as ISIS comes at Baghdad driving US Humvees and carrying m-16's someone's curiosity will be aroused. But I doubt it.
Me too. Too many are too invested in what they know in their heart to be "true." And so it goes....
-
I will go as far as the warhead coming from a Eurasian country. Maybe Iran, Pakistan or if North Korea went absolutely psychotic from one of their arsenal or a collaboration of both.
I did forget suitcase bombs.Thus far, only the United States and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation are known to have possessed nuclear weapons programs developed and funded well enough to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf
-
Since Sept 2001 you have all been hearing "we will get hit again - It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN". And not one person on this thread, I don't think has ever doubted it or voiced an opinion against it. Not until Dick Cheney says it, then because of a certain minority here that have such a distaste for that man it now becomes a controversial statement and generates a thread with over 50 replies and growing, either defending his statement or tearing it down. Come on now, isn’t the real reason this thread is lasting so long is because of Dick Cheney – love him or hate him?
-
Since Sept 2001 you have all been hearing "we will get hit again - It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN". And not one person on this thread, I don't think has ever doubted it or voiced an opinion against it. Not until Dick Cheney says it, then because of a certain minority here that have such a distaste for that man it now becomes a controversial statement and generates a thread with over 50 replies and growing, either defending his statement or tearing it down. Come on now, isn’t the real reason this thread is lasting so long is because of Dick Cheney – love him or hate him?
I think you are EXACTLY right! And I will gladly tell you that the 2000 ticket would have been Cheney/Bush if I'd had my way!
-
Since Sept 2001 you have all been hearing "we will get hit again - It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN". And not one person on this thread, I don't think has ever doubted it or voiced an opinion against it. Not until Dick Cheney says it, then because of a certain minority here that have such a distaste for that man it now becomes a controversial statement and generates a thread with over 50 replies and growing, either defending his statement or tearing it down. Come on now, isn’t the real reason this thread is lasting so long is because of Dick Cheney – love him or hate him?
Creating an arbitrary time limit before we are attacked again is nothing but a bad attempt at fear mongering.
-
Since Sept 2001 you have all been hearing "we will get hit again - It's not a matter of IF, but WHEN". And not one person on this thread, I don't think has ever doubted it or voiced an opinion against it. Not until Dick Cheney says it, then because of a certain minority here that have such a distaste for that man it now becomes a controversial statement and generates a thread with over 50 replies and growing, either defending his statement or tearing it down. Come on now, isn’t the real reason this thread is lasting so long is because of Dick Cheney – love him or hate him?
One more option............deeply, DEEPLY respect him! The man knows what he's talking about, and wouldn't be out there sounding (a much needed) warning, if there weren't a very good reason for it.
After all the endless lies and attacks he's endured from the mindless left, he could be just sitting at home enjoying life.
In stead, he's out there trying to wake people up.
-
I'm not fond of him.
It's not that the message is wrong, he's a smart guy and knows his stuff. It's just the way he puts it. You can color me slightly shallow for that, but I really do prefer to be treated as an adult. Dad can talk to me like I am a kid, and my wife can talk to me like I am an idiot (probably both respectively true). No one else gets that right.
-
I'm not fond of him.
It's not that the message is wrong, he's a smart guy and knows his stuff. It's just the way he puts it. You can color me slightly shallow for that, but I really do prefer to be treated as an adult. Dad can talk to me like I am a kid, and my wife can talk to me like I am an idiot (probably both respectively true). No one else gets that right.
I have great respect for his public service over the years, and I think he has a great military mind. Unfortunately, methinks he's still thinking the USA can keep a genie in a bottle when in truth the genie has already been let out of the bottle.
-
EC wrote above:
[[ Find them. Kill them, down to the very cockroaches in the walls. If you want to ask them a few questions first, by all means. Give the interrogators an hour or so, and use drugs. Then they disappear for good. No trials, no detention, no bargains. They simply cease to exist, along with their entire families. They want to play terror - then lets play it back at them. ]]
Nope, this won't work with the followers of muhammed. In fact, we already tried that once, no, twice before.
Doesn't work. You're attempting a "military response" to a problem that transcends the ability of any military on earth to conquer it, including ours.
I'll give you an anecdotal story. Probably don't mean nuthin', I ain't that smart:
Down in my backyard, there are a couple of old apple trees.
The apples aren't good for eating, and each autumn they fall to the ground, and I have to clean them up and throw them against the fence.
I can get rid of every one of them that fall this year -- but NEXT YEAR, they'll be right back there, and I'll have to do it all over again.
There's one way I can assure that I'll never have to clean up those apples again.
That is to say, cut down the trees from which they fall.
Now, told you that to tell you this:
The "terrorists" of today are but a few of this year's crop of bad apples. Makes no difference if we get rid of every one of them, even with extreme prejudice.
They will soon be back again.
If we want to forever get rid of of islam's bad apples, what must we do to "the tree" from which they fall?
-
A fair point and a fair analogy. :beer:
Though even if you cut the trees down, what then? The roots are still there and may send up new shoots. It's a respite, nothing more. Or if the trees do not re-sprout, something will take their place. It always does. Better to leave the trees. Graft a variety onto the trunk that produces pleasant tasting apples, and lets face it, the bitter ones can always be pulped for cider. (my tactic as outlined above :laugh: ).
After all - the one advantage of keeping the trees is you always know where the apples are.
-
1. Containment is no longer a viable strategy with the availability of nuclear weapons.
2. What brought down the Ottoman Empire? The supposed "Sick Man of Europe"? Think "Caliphate vs Cells".
3. There is a military solution and it goes back to Caliphate.
We are looking at a military solution from one point of view, one military. Islam is a hydra. We kill one head, two heads sprout back. The Russians have Chechnya, the Chinese the Uighars, Europe the Islamic Diaspora, the United States has Iran. All have some form of terrorism.
The strategy is both simple and difficult. President Bush 2 had it correct. This is going to be a long war, many battles. Slacker Jones gets elected and suddenly it over. We've won. Like "Jeannie" or "Samantha", he crossed his arms and blinked or twitched his little nose and no more problem.
The problem is, the war on Islam is in each nation's interest but not yet on the world's interest. The current response is like firefighting, a flash here we fight here. Flames there, we fight there. The mistrust between nations is greater than the desire to end this virus once and for all.
-
I would expect a terrorist shoot down a commmercial liner with a MANPAD of some type within the next ten years. Destroying a city either with a "dirty" bomb or a MIRV. The MIRV would have to be constructed piece by piece and loaded in a truck. I would choose a MIRV because it would pack the most punch and there are so many of them in countries that are not friendly to the West. The purpose of the MIRV is to greater target damage for a given missile payload. Radiation (including radiated heat) from a nuclear warhead diminishes as the square of the distance (called the inverse-square law), and blast pressure diminishes as the cube of the distance.
Written in June 27
I would expect a terrorist shoot down a commmercial liner with a MANPAD of some type within the next ten years.
I predicted this. It turned out to be a military Missile rather a MANPAD
-
Written in June 27
I would expect a terrorist shoot down a commmercial liner with a MANPAD of some type within the next ten years.
I predicted this. It turned out to be a military Missile rather a MANPAD
I expect more to come.