Terrorism [message #71795] |
Mon, 15 March 2004 14:11 |
hareman
Messages: 340 Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Terrorism is defined as: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes.
I would also add: it is intended to create terror and to incite violence among the populace of a given target. IT MORE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH AN IDEOLOGY THAN POLITICS. There are two areas of terrorism that we concern ourselves with. The three types that we as Americans have had to deal with in the past (pre 1980s), The Reagan Time period and shortly thereafter and the hyper modern terrorism that abounds today.
For the early area of terrorism how many of you can even give one incident here? We as Americans have a shameful past where this concerned and for the most part is overlooked by everyone except historians, the court system and law enforcement.
The Reagan era is another era that is a great embarrassment to how we dealt with terrorism. The Reagan administration viewed as a consequence of the global struggle with the Soviets. If you want to place a great deal of blame here is where it belongs. The military's first large scale operation was a horrible tragedy (can you say Desert One?) And before someone corrects me I fucking know that Carter was president. But this incident is what enabled Reagan to take the White house, that and the back channel negotiations that resulted in the result of the hostages. The end result of these negotiations was ... IRAN-CONTRA. A patently illegal operation that supported terrorism and traded arms for hostages. A trade that was in direct opposition to stated the policy at the time. OMG a politician lied to the public. This was during THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY. Many of what we in law enforcement see as a trend began with the actions of OUR OWN country under both political parties
And Yet, starting with the Reagan era we see mismanagement of too many incidents to be even looked at as anything but criminal.
Let's start with my own first hand knowledge:
Grenada, a goat situation from the word go. A country, in this case Cuba, takes over another. It probably wouldn't have been much of a big deal until the locals angry with Americans take over the medical school and the Cubans refuse to do anything about it. How we found out is nothing short of an intelligence failure. Hell, when we found out about the medical school The US had not one idea that there were Cubans there in the first place. I quote from an official who was involved with planning Grenada "what the fuck are all those Cubans doing there and why didn't we know about it?"
To confront the Cubans we sent a contingent of Marines, Army Rangers Air Force Special Ops and Navy Seals to deal with what was essentially 2 companies of Cuban troops. The mismanagement was atrocious. There was no support for Seals that held the Governors mansion for 24 hours …. The admiral in charge of the operations was retired after it was disclosed he shipped home 100 + Aks on the US tax payer. Army Rangers were landed in broad daylight so the helicopter pilots wouldn’t violate noise restrictions on neighboring Islands. I could go on but the that isn’t germane to why I am here
The next major incident was the bombing of the American Embassy over 240 men and women serving the country died in this incident. Did any of you know that it was preventable? A few months earlier a team of naval personnel had conducted a threat assessment of the embassy and had concluded an attack on was highly likely given the distrust of the locals. That report even described where and how the attack would take place. A procedure was outlined that would have saved the embassy but the report was given little credence by the embassy personnel. And so we lost those lives unnecessarily.
That is part of a lecture I gave in terrorism
|
|
|
|
Terrorism [message #71898] |
Mon, 15 March 2004 22:08 |
hareman
Messages: 340 Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
no but the era of hyper modern terrorism began with Reagan's policies. He is no more at fault than say ..... LBJ for supporting Pol Pot and we know how that ended up.
There are many examples of how poorly intelligence and operational art have been handled by the administration of succesive presidents since Reagan. We among the opreators have always said give us the intell and the assets and we can take care of the problem.
What I am saying is that every administration since Truman (YOu could probably make a good case for the FDR years as well) has supported terrrorism worldwide, created the very conditions taht these groups tthrive in.
There is no President that can claim he has done more or less to stop it either. Post 9/11 data supports the conclusions that today's terrorists are better funded, better trained and there is also a 3 fold in crease over pre 9/11 in recruits.
SO you make up your mind about where the true failures of our systen come from. Adn it is not at the opreational level.
I can't say where I gave the lecture but I can say it was to a group that influences policy
|
|
|
|
Terrorism [message #71917] |
Tue, 16 March 2004 04:48 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
You forgot the Panamanian FUBAR.
A platoon of SEALs airdropped at night into choppy water, overloaded with gear. Men die, and the SEALs dump all thier gear, but thier rifles. Then once ashore, the nitwit in command gets his platoon pinned down on the tarmac of the airport while trying to take out Noriega's planes. Major loss of life from the Panamanian regulars in the hangar. The regulars find out that skipping bullets off the tarmac is quite effeicient at slaughtering SEALs.
The only part of this that went well was blowing up his personal yacht.
This is why SEALs should not be incorporated into JSOC, and why they should not be directly supervised by the Joint chiefs. Glory hounds in Washington get warriors slaughtered.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Terrorism [message #71929] |
Tue, 16 March 2004 07:30 |
hareman
Messages: 340 Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
LMAO I have no issues with an open border it is one of the benefits of a "free and democratic" society and changing that means 'they' have won
|
|
|
|
Terrorism [message #71954] |
Tue, 16 March 2004 10:30 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Mine says, buy a gun, and know how to use it.
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Terrorism [message #72047] |
Tue, 16 March 2004 17:13 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756 Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Quote: | Mine says, buy a gun, and know how to use it.
|
Take a pretty big gun to stop a plane.
We should just put an Aegis Cruiser turret in the middle of all major cities.
No civilian airliner's going to get through a near-solid wall of depleted uranium shells...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
Terrorism [message #72063] |
Tue, 16 March 2004 17:59 |
|
Aircraftkiller
Messages: 8213 Registered: February 2003
Karma: 1
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
You don't even know what an Aegis system is, much less how it's used.
Most DDGs use Standard missiles as anti-air defense. Some can hit large missiles but that's not too often from what I remember.
DU shells aren't going to stop an airliner before it crashes into a city. A network of SAM sites would.
Furthermore, aren't you the same guy who bitched about DU being used in Iraq, thus causing all sorts of maladies for Iraqi civilians? :rolleyes:
|
|
|