SureFire Torchlights
-
from surefire lights to GWB to laksa... oh man..
-
Indeed 1989 intelligent services was playing catch-up. But that all slow down to a snails pace during the Clinton administration whose agenda reqiured the CIA to refocus on issues other then National Security.Originally posted by Gedanken:Clinton took over in 1993 - do you think it takes two years to completely develop a missile? Even if the US wasn't having a major post-Cold-War restructure, it would have been too late for Clinton to have done anything about it. If there was any president who could have done anything about it in time, it would have been Reagan.
Now, who's for laksa?
If I were to say that there are changes to the HUMINT protocol, you'll be asking me how or to prove it neither of which is possible to talk about. But I would say this, a red-neck from Alabama would definately stick out like a sore tumb in Asia but an Asian working for CIA would surely blend in well.
Hawala is an alternative or parallel remittance system. It exists and operates outside of, or parallel to 'traditional' banking or financial channels. It was developed in India, before the introduction of western banking practices, and is currently a major remittance system used around the world. It is but one of several such systems; another well known example is the 'chop', 'chit' or 'flying money' system indigenous to China, and also, used around the world. These systems are often referred to as 'underground banking'; this term is not always correct, as they often operate in the open with complete legitimacy, and these services are often heavily and effectively advertised.
The components of hawala that distinguish it from other remittance systems are trust and the extensive use of connections such as family relationships or regional affiliations. Unlike traditional banking or even the 'chop' system, hawala makes minimal (often no) use of any sort of negotiable instrument. Transfers of money take place based on communications between members of a network of hawaladars, or hawala dealers.
So with regards to your question as to whether its possible to trace U.S $30mil, as long as its a network of whatever form, dedicated FBI agents would know how to find it though it would take time.
Well, its likely because of the clause in the "no assasination" order that stopped SpecOps from being deployed, Clinton administration don't want to have to explain on CNN how a capture op turn into a hit job & besides he don't trust a soldier's ability to keep his finger out of the trigger.
To obtain peace between the Israelis & the Palestinians, the plan has to be accepted by both parties & its own people. The death of Rabbin & Sadat proves that whatever plan that was planned was not acceptable. Again, I refer to the fact that Bush unlike past Presidents have used to a husher tone towards Israel PM. As to the exact content of the original conversation, you'll have to get a NSA operator to get you a copy.
If the parts of a missile is developed overseas & then brought to India to be assembled together then yeah, 2 years or less is possible to have a nuke capable carrying missile. If Reagan's administration hadn't done a thing about it, upon learning India's test of nuke programe, India wouldn't had to have waited until 1995 to have its missile.
I've heard of Katong laksa but haven't had the chance to visit the area, is it really any better then other places? -
damn.Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm - perhaps I should have Katong Laksa - it's only a few minutes' walk away. -
Right - and was it the Clinton Administration or the Office of Management and Budget that controlled the funding? Give me an honest answer and then tell me if you can lay this at Clinton's doorstep.Originally posted by John Ching:Indeed 1989 intelligent services was playing catch-up. But that all slow down to a snails pace during the Clinton administration whose agenda reqiured the CIA to refocus on issues other then National Security.
If I were to say that there are changes to the HUMINT protocol, you'll be asking me how or to prove it neither of which is possible to talk about. But I would say this, a red-neck from Alabama would definately stick out like a sore tumb in Asia but an Asian working for CIA would surely blend in well.
And how much time would they have to chase after every $50 that got moved around? We're not talking about a couple of guys going into a casino and laundering 50 grand a pop here.Originally posted by John Ching:So with regards to your question as to whether its possible to trace U.S $30mil, as long as its a network of whatever form, dedicated FBI agents would know how to find it though it would take time.
As an addendum to the last point, the task actually falls under the Office of Foreign Asset Control at the Treasury Department, not the FBI at Justice. When al Qaeda was formally listed as a terrorist organisation, the OFAC had little success going after them (because they didn't know where the money was coming from either), and more Taliban assets were frozen instead. Still, the Taliban refused to give OBL up.
Wrong. Spec Ops were not deployed because they couldn't find the bugger in the first place, and neither the CIA nor the DoD had a staging area close enough for the Spec Ops guys to stay and wait for news for an extended period of time.Originally posted by John Ching:Well, its likely because of the clause in the "no assasination" order that stopped SpecOps from being deployed, Clinton administration don't want to have to explain on CNN how a capture op turn into a hit job & besides he don't trust a soldier's ability to keep his finger out of the trigger.
In any case, they wouldn't have had to go in - there were plenty of Southern Afghan tribesmen willing to do the job. However, the best plan they came up with was only given a maximum 15 percent change of success and was therefore not greenlighted.
Sadat's death proves that his plan wasn't acceptable? Have you seen Egypt's political stand in the Middle East lately, like in the last 25 years?Originally posted by John Ching:To obtain peace between the Israelis & the Palestinians, the plan has to be accepted by both parties & its own people. The death of Rabbin & Sadat proves that whatever plan that was planned was not acceptable. Again, I refer to the fact that Bush unlike past Presidents have used to a husher tone towards Israel PM. As to the exact content of the original conversation, you'll have to get a NSA operator to get you a copy.
As for GWB's harsh (not hush) words to Sharon, I haven't heard anything of the sort - have you read an NSA report lately? Careful, John - don't say it if you can't back it up.
Tell me you're kidding. First, I'll have to admit the error of taking your word to be accurate. In fact, the Prithvi program was started in 1983, and was first test-fired in 1988 - let's not worry about versions 2 and 3 because the Prithvi 1 was already nuclear-capable. Gee, who was president then? Second, it was indigenously developed - nobody sent Apu out to Radio Shack and PlumbTec to pick up parts, so your "if" about it being developed overseas doesn't apply.Originally posted by John Ching:If the parts of a missile is developed overseas & then brought to India to be assembled together then yeah, 2 years or less is possible to have a nuke capable carrying missile. If Reagan's administration hadn't done a thing about it, upon learning India's test of nuke programe, India wouldn't had to have waited until 1995 to have its missile.
I had a great char kway teow at Tiong Bahru this evening, by the way. -
Yup, the Office of Management & Budget controls the fundings. But if Bush can request for the current fundings to the military & others, I don't see why Clinton can't sweet talk his way for it. You've got to admit, its Clinton who chose to cut the defence funding. It wasn't a wrong move though if you were to look at it from an economic view, it helped to cut the deficit then. But did he had to cut so much of the defence budget?Originally posted by Gedanken:Tell me you're kidding. First, I'll have to admit the error of taking your word to be accurate. In fact, the Prithvi program was started in 1983, and was first test-fired in 1988 - let's not worry about versions 2 and 3 because the Prithvi 1 was already nuclear-capable. Gee, who was president then? Second, it was indigenously developed - nobody sent Apu out to Radio Shack and PlumbTec to pick up parts, so your "if" about it being developed overseas doesn't apply.
I had a great char kway teow at Tiong Bahru this evening, by the way.
I don't believed that I claimed that tracing of money was going to be easy & quick but rather that it would take time. Seriously, the Treasury department is far more concern with countries abusing the U.S dollar then tracing legal money use for illegal purpose. So while they do have a Office of Foreign Asset control, they didn't really had the asset to back it up. The FBI traces legal U.S dollar used for illegal purpose or funding of terrorism & an FBI agent can be found in almost every U.S embassy around the world.
With regards to the oppotunity to capture OBL by SpecOps, there were actually 2 occasion that was possible. 1 was before the bombing of the U.S embassy in Kenya & the other was on the day they decided to use Tomak hawk missile to blow up an empty camp from which OBL had left the place a couple of hours earlier. Prove me wrong.
Who's the current President of Egypt? Does that answer your question as to who place Egypt where it is today? Of course, feel free to argue on about it.
Hey, if you really want a copy of the transcript between Bush & Sharon, wait 50 years when they declassify it & release it to the public. Theres no need for me to prove anything or be cautious about anything, Freedom of Speech & the fact that I know where the line is drawn with regards to information.
Wow! You actually took time to check my spelling, are you a teacher by profession? Never mind.
As for the Prithvi programe, Wow! again. You actually took time to go check it out on the internet huh!
So the programe started in 1983, still they did not have an accurate missile until 1995. Now before you jump your guns on Reagan'administration, remember he was focusing on ending the cold war with a country that had just as many nuke warhead as the U.S & were not the least concern if their missile were accurate or not so long as it hit the U.S. Honestly, Clinton was made aware of the programe when he took office but couldn't be bother about it until India test fired the accurate Prithvi missile. In any case, all he did then was go to the U.N & gave a wonderfull speech about how disappointed he was with India & hoped that India would be wise enough to cancel their nuke programe so that the world can be a better place. Not even an embargo was proposed.
I just had salad & a beer for dinner. -
Yo Ged,
As necessary as it is for you to expect me to give accurate & detailed informations about things such as the Prithvi missile & so on, I've got to disappoint you on that. This forum to me is just to kill sometime after work & not have to work on it. Besides, most of the information can be found on the Net or mags such as Jane's intel, weapons, et cetra.
So chill out, relax & have a beer.
Hopefully the debate won't end up like a girlie match.
-
actually... I'd take Ged's word for it more. He's the one person whom I'd especially trust where military info is concerned.
-
Bush had the advantage of 3000+ dead people, four wrecked planes and a Pentagon that got turned into a square. That effectively put the US on a war footing, and in such times, an extraordinary amount of money gets released, especially since it would be political suicide for anyone to oppose it. Besides, everybody knows that you don’t get that kind of money by sweet-talking – you get it by kicking it out of someone when he’s down.Originally posted by John Ching:Yup, the Office of Management & Budget controls the fundings. But if Bush can request for the current fundings to the military & others, I don't see why Clinton can't sweet talk his way for it. You've got to admit, its Clinton who chose to cut the defence funding. It wasn't a wrong move though if you were to look at it from an economic view, it helped to cut the deficit then. But did he had to cut so much of the defence budget?
Well, there you go - if you've read the analyses of where OBL's money came from, you'd know that most of it wasn't in US dollars. They had a hard enough time treying to trace the funds, and the money being moved in small denominations and non-US currency didn't help.Originally posted by John Ching:I don't believed that I claimed that tracing of money was going to be easy & quick but rather that it would take time. Seriously, the Treasury department is far more concern with countries abusing the U.S dollar then tracing legal money use for illegal purpose. So while they do have a Office of Foreign Asset control, they didn't really had the asset to back it up. The FBI traces legal U.S dollar used for illegal purpose or funding of terrorism & an FBI agent can be found in almost every U.S embassy around the world.
Actually, there were five, depending on how you want to count it. In 1998 the Principals Committee gave the go-ahead for an operation to use Afghan tribals to capture OBL. On May 29, 1998, either Tenet or Pravitt killed the mission. On August 20, 1998, the US Navy fired Tomahawks at suspected al Qaeda sites, but did not get Bin Laden. On December 21, 1998, the US Navy was preparing to hit OBL at the Haji habash house in Kandahar, but he had flown the coop. On February 12, 1999, the US military once again missed a chance for a cruise missile strike against OBL in the Sheikh Ali camp near Kandahar, and again in May 1999 in various locations in Kandahar.Originally posted by John Ching:With regards to the oppotunity to capture OBL by SpecOps, there were actually 2 occasion that was possible. 1 was before the bombing of the U.S embassy in Kenya & the other was on the day they decided to use Tomak hawk missile to blow up an empty camp from which OBL had left the place a couple of hours earlier. Prove me wrong.
Effectively, Spec Ops boys were not put on the ground due to military bureaucracy. Such a mission would have put Spec Ops as a supported command, instead of the supporting command as listed in the US military's ORBAT. Despite arguments by officers such as General Peter Schoomaker, Spec Ops was not allowed to act as a supported command.
There you go - you're wrong.
Oh, so you're saying that Hosni Mubarak is responsible for Egypt's no longer being in chaoots with Syria, Iraq and other Mideast countries in rolling tanks over Israel's border? Get real - he carried out the Camp David Accords, signed by Sadat and Begin in 1978.Originally posted by John Ching:Who's the current President of Egypt? Does that answer your question as to who place Egypt where it is today? Of course, feel free to argue on about it.
Well, unfortunately I can't see how your claim about Bush's harsh words to Sharon stands - there's no evidence to that effect, at least not for the next fifty years.Originally posted by John Ching:Hey, if you really want a copy of the transcript between Bush & Sharon, wait 50 years when they declassify it & release it to the public. Theres no need for me to prove anything or be cautious about anything, Freedom of Speech & the fact that I know where the line is drawn with regards to information.
Nope, I'm a psychologist - your average teacher doesn't have to write a 45,000-word thesis without a single grammatical error.Originally posted by John Ching:Wow! You actually took time to check my spelling, are you a teacher by profession? Never mind.
Hey, somebody's got to keep you honest!Originally posted by John Ching:As for the Prithvi programe, Wow! again. You actually took time to go check it out on the internet huh!
Now before you jump your guns, the Clinton administration was trying to sort out the mess left behind by Reaganomics, a shifting political stage thanks to the Soviet Union's collapse, Saddam's shenanigans, the first WTC bombing, plus a growing domestic terrorist threat thanks to a certain Mr McVeigh (may he rot in hell) and a pain-in-the-butt-Republican-majority congress.Originally posted by John Ching:So the programe started in 1983, still they did not have an accurate missile until 1995. Now before you jump your guns on Reagan'administration, remember he was focusing on ending the cold war with a country that had just as many nuke warhead as the U.S & were not the least concern if their missile were accurate or not so long as it hit the U.S. Honestly, Clinton was made aware of the programe when he took office but couldn't be bother about it until India test fired the accurate Prithvi missile. In any case, all he did then was go to the U.N & gave a wonderfull speech about how disappointed he was with India & hoped that India would be wise enough to cancel their nuke programe so that the world can be a better place. Not even an embargo was proposed.
Cuts both ways - have you ever seen an administration that didn't have its hands full? Common sense states that an accurate Prithvi would have been easier to prevent if there wasn't a Prithvi in the first place.
Nah, weÂ’re going toe-to-toe so far without personal insults, and IÂ’m actually having a good time. A good roti prata would be the perfect finish to this day.Originally posted by John Ching:Hopefully the debate won't end up like a girlie match. -
Sadly the death of 3000+ people had to be associated to Bush asking for war fundings. But if Clinton didn't slash a large amount of the defence spending, work concerning national security can still go on. Have you seen how everyone has forgiven Clinton for free willie incident? The man actually sweet talked the nation into feeling sorry for him. So is it not possible for him to sweet talk for more fundings?Originally posted by Gedanken:Nah, weÂ’re going toe-to-toe so far without personal insults, and IÂ’m actually having a good time. A good roti prata would be the perfect finish to this day.
As for the tracing of money, there you go, Treasury guys won't be bother about tracing it. However, FBI are far more wider in their scope of tracing.
With regards to the issue on SpecOps, your earlier thread said there was only 1 incident whereby SpecOps was propsoed for the capture of OBL. But that aside, 5 oppotunity & not 1 approved. It wasn't because of military bureaucracy that prevented deployment. Clinton was still haunted by the Somolia outcome.
Hmm! I didn't mentioned anything about Mr Hosni Mubarak. I merely asked who was the current President of Egypt & if it answered your question? Hahaha...
Oh! And you should know that there was also the Camp David Accords of which Clinton was the host, is now dust in the wind.
Ah! Unfortunately as the saying goes " what you can't see, doesn't mean its not there...". The same applies to the result of Bush's conversation with Sharon.
YOUR A SHRINK? You better not run a tab on me, I can't afford to pay. Besides, I'm perfectly sane.
Seriously, I'm not into writting 45,000 words & if I had to do that at work, I'll definately be in need of a shrink.
If Clinton wasn't honest about his DICK-tation style, I don't see the need for me to be honest too. Hahaha...
Well, if Clinton can be excuse for clearing up Reagan's mess then Bush should be excuse for clearing up Clinton's mess. Seriously, I say again, no one gave Bush a chance since the day he swore in as the 43rd President.
What can I say about the accurate Prithvi? Well, the genius at MIT, or something similar, analyse that neither India nor Pakistan would've an accurate nuke carrying missile for at least 50 years or something like that. So Reagan focus on the real enemy then, Communism. By the way, those same genius also analyse that Chinese Communism would be the next to crack after Russia.
Well, I'm having tea before bed time. -
By the way Ged, the Pentagon didn't end up as a square. The plane that snmashed into it didn't reach in the inner building. It stopped at the 3rd building I think.
-
uh, Ged doesn't like Clinton either. but what r facts are facts yeah?
Free Willie. LOL. I like that phrase. -
Now back to the topic on SureFire torches, currently FBI is investigating FAA's allegation that someone or group, is using laser to strike into the pilot's cabin. Now the details are still rough but terrorism theory has been discredited & FBI is looking into whats actually being flashed into the pilot's cabin. Understand this, not all American or any pilot knows about Surefire torch or how its beam looks like. So if the outcome of the FBI investigation shows a surefire torch as the weapon used by some joker, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would not be sold in future to the public. So if you've got the cash to spend & you're a hardcore collected of SF torch, I suggest you consider about quickly getting which ever model of the torch you want.
-
damn. that bad? surefire as a weapon?Originally posted by John Ching:Now back to the topic on SureFire torches, currently FBI is investigating FAA's allegation that someone or group, is using laser to strike into the pilot's cabin. Now the details are still rough but terrorism theory has been discredited & FBI is looking into whats actually being flashed into the pilot's cabin. Understand this, not all American or any pilot knows about Surefire torch or how its beam looks like. So if the outcome of the FBI investigation shows a surefire torch as the weapon used by some joker, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would not be sold in future to the public. So if you've got the cash to spend & you're a hardcore collected of SF torch, I suggest you consider about quickly getting which ever model of the torch you want. -
Hey, forgiveness doesn't cost anybody a dime (unless Republicans want to turn it into a multi-million-dollar inquest). Restructuring the military and intelligence services costs a lot more than a dime, so it's a different ballgame altogether.Originally posted by John Ching:Sadly the death of 3000+ people had to be associated to Bush asking for war fundings. But if Clinton didn't slash a large amount of the defence spending, work concerning national security can still go on. Have you seen how everyone has forgiven Clinton for free willie incident? The man actually sweet talked the nation into feeling sorry for him. So is it not possible for him to sweet talk for more fundings?
Note that my original point in bringing up the money tracing was to illustrate the shortcomings of Sigint, and the difficulties of even using Humint for such purposes. In short, the intelligence failing cannot be blamed on Clinton.Originally posted by John Ching:As for the tracing of money, there you go, Treasury guys won't be bother about tracing it. However, FBI are far more wider in their scope of tracing.
It wasn't Clinton that stopped it, it was the inflexibility of the military hierarchy.Originally posted by John Ching:With regards to the issue on SpecOps, your earlier thread said there was only 1 incident whereby SpecOps was propsoed for the capture of OBL. But that aside, 5 oppotunity & not 1 approved. It wasn't because of military bureaucracy that prevented deployment. Clinton was still haunted by the Somolia outcome.
Well, in fact it didn't. If Messrs Netanyahu and Sharon had been good boys and followed through with Rabin's plan like Mubarak had with Sadat's, we wouldn't have had this mess.Originally posted by John Ching:Hmm! I didn't mentioned anything about Mr Hosni Mubarak. I merely asked who was the current President of Egypt & if it answered your question? Hahaha...
Oh! And you should know that there was also the Camp David Accords of which Clinton was the host, is now dust in the wind.
Doesn't mean that it's necessarily there either. We've got Clinton, Bush and food - shall we add metaphysics to the menu?Originally posted by John Ching:Ah! Unfortunately as the saying goes " what you can't see, doesn't mean its not there...". The same applies to the result of Bush's conversation with Sharon.
Nah, the 45 grand was easy. That'll be $1500, please, and I don't take cheques.Originally posted by John Ching:YOUR A SHRINK? You better not run a tab on me, I can't afford to pay. Besides, I'm perfectly sane.
Seriously, I'm not into writting 45,000 words & if I had to do that at work, I'll definately be in need of a shrink.
I fear you misinterpreted the meaning of "keeping you honest" - I'm just keeping you on your toes, that's all.Originally posted by John Ching:If Clinton wasn't honest about his DICK-tation style, I don't see the need for me to be honest too. Hahaha...
Well, he wasn't actually voted in by a majority, was he? He's had a lot to prove since day 1, and you have the recount to thank for that.Originally posted by John Ching:Well, if Clinton can be excuse for clearing up Reagan's mess then Bush should be excuse for clearing up Clinton's mess. Seriously, I say again, no one gave Bush a chance since the day he swore in as the 43rd President.
Ooh, are you talking about an intelligence failure during the Reagan years? Say it ain't so!Originally posted by John Ching:What can I say about the accurate Prithvi? Well, the genius at MIT, or something similar, analyse that neither India nor Pakistan would've an accurate nuke carrying missile for at least 50 years or something like that. So Reagan focus on the real enemy then, Communism. By the way, those same genius also analyse that Chinese Communism would be the next to crack after Russia. -
Yes it did - poor humour on my part.Originally posted by John Ching:By the way Ged, the Pentagon didn't end up as a square. The plane that snmashed into it didn't reach in the inner building. It stopped at the 3rd building I think. -
Heng's right - I've never been a big fan of Clinton's. I'm just taking on a perspective that I don't necessarily support for the intellectual exercise.Originally posted by HENG@:uh, Ged doesn't like Clinton either. but what r facts are facts yeah?
Free Willie. LOL. I like that phrase. -
True, facts are facts. But its usually how people choose to interpret the facts that becomes the final result.Originally posted by HENG@:uh, Ged doesn't like Clinton either. but what r facts are facts yeah?
Free Willie. LOL. I like that phrase.
Take the former CIA director for example, during the Clinton's administration he chose to interpret OBL as a mad man whose threat to the U.S was no different then other anti America groups.
Then when Bush took over & OBL has already become America's number 1 enemy, he decided that inorder for him to remain creditable he chose to use old intelligence information & information from Britan to interpret that Saddam has WMD. Bush chose to stand by him. -
Sheesh - how bright are those things?Originally posted by John Ching:Now back to the topic on SureFire torches, currently FBI is investigating FAA's allegation that someone or group, is using laser to strike into the pilot's cabin. Now the details are still rough but terrorism theory has been discredited & FBI is looking into whats actually being flashed into the pilot's cabin. Understand this, not all American or any pilot knows about Surefire torch or how its beam looks like. So if the outcome of the FBI investigation shows a surefire torch as the weapon used by some joker, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would not be sold in future to the public. So if you've got the cash to spend & you're a hardcore collected of SF torch, I suggest you consider about quickly getting which ever model of the torch you want. -
Uh, I think you got George Tenet mixed up with either Richard Clarke or Michael Sheehan. Sheehan was described as a "one-note Johnny nutcase".Originally posted by John Ching:Take the former CIA director for example, during the Clinton's administration he chose to interpret OBL as a mad man whose threat to the U.S was no different then other anti America groups.
Then when Bush took over & OBL has already become America's number 1 enemy, he decided that inorder for him to remain creditable he chose to use old intelligence information & information from Britan to interpret that Saddam has WMD. Bush chose to stand by him.
In any case, Clinton's making a personal visit to Pervez Musharraf, the first presidential visit to Pakistan since 1969, and against the strongest recommendations of the White House and the Secret Service, to personally ask Musharraf's assistance in getting OBL out of Afghanistan, showed that he took the OBL threat pretty seriously. -
If forgiveness doesn't worth a dime, what about the other scandal that included Hillary? They sweet talked their way out of it. Anyway, there wouldn't be a need to restructure the military and intelligence services if the fundings weren't greatly slashed in the first place. It probably wouldn't have been up-to-date but at least it wouldn't have become pathetic.Originally posted by Gedanken:Ooh, are you talking about an intelligence failure during the Reagan years? Say it ain't so!
Oh! But the failure of intel is the result of Clinton's agenda. If he did not pressure the CIA to redirect their focus & did not slash their fundings too, CIA probably would've a current paid asset in Iraq to provide the truth on Iraq's WMD.
It was the military that propose to send SpecOps to get OBL. The red tapes were from the Clinton's administration that was ensuring that everything met Clinton's agenda. Besides, he was the Commander-in-Chief, if he wanted to deploy troops it would've been within his right as CIC.
Let's face it, if Messrs Netanyahu and Sharon had been good boys and followed through with Rabin's plan, Rabin would still be killed by an Israeli & his peace plan would still become a failure. How can his plan be a success if his own people doesn't support it?
Doesn't mean that it's necessarily there either, true. Only time & the people who eventualy interpret it would tell.
$1500 you said, no problem. Put it on my tab, I'll send the cash by post later.
Hey, I don't disagree that Clinton did a hell of a job to get the U.S economy back from the grave. But he did it at the risk of national security. Many people claim that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. But the truth is that the world was much more dangerous before 9/11. No one recognised the danger of OBL & Al Queada. They were plotting the deaths of as many people in America as they could during the times of "peace". At least now the world has woken to reality.
If you chose to associate those genius at MIT to be related to the intelligence community? Then yeah, there was a failure. Failure in trusting the views of civilians. -
bright, but not weapons-grade bright?Originally posted by Gedanken:Sheesh - how bright are those things? -
Tenet became acting director of CIA in 1996, he's the men who brief the President on CIA analysis of OBL or whoever or whatever needed to brief. So he was responsible.Originally posted by Gedanken:Uh, I think you got George Tenet mixed up with either Richard Clarke or Michael Sheehan. Sheehan was described as a "one-note Johnny nutcase".
In any case, Clinton's making a personal visit to Pervez Musharraf, the first presidential visit to Pakistan since 1969, and against the strongest recommendations of the White House and the Secret Service, to personally ask Musharraf's assistance in getting OBL out of Afghanistan, showed that he took the OBL threat pretty seriously.
Well, Clinton has never been to India, so he might as well get a free trip on Airforce 1. If he had been serious about OBL's threat, he would not have resign the exacutive order forbidding assasination of any kind during his 2nd term. Clinton never liked the military or the intelligent services as he believes that they always exaggerate the threat from around the world. -
By the way, torch light with the same kind of brightness as SF has been link to the death of Britan Princess D. Anyway, I haven't encounter a weapons-grade torch light before.Originally posted by HENG@:bright, but not weapons-grade bright? -
It is defintely a laser that was shone into the cockpit. It is a green one. On at least 1 incident, it caused temporary blindess in one of the pilots and possibly damage to the retina. It could be those industrial kind equipped with a scope.
-
Nope - in any case, the intelligence services were still to heavy on Sigint and too light on Humint, and even if you had the funding, it would still take time to recruit operatives and assets.Originally posted by John Ching:If forgiveness doesn't worth a dime, what about the other scandal that included Hillary? They sweet talked their way out of it. Anyway, there wouldn't be a need to restructure the military and intelligence services if the fundings weren't greatly slashed in the first place. It probably wouldn't have been up-to-date but at least it wouldn't have become pathetic. [/b
Oh! But the failure of intel is the result of Clinton's agenda. If he did not pressure the CIA to redirect their focus & did not slash their fundings too, CIA probably would've a current paid asset in Iraq to provide the truth on Iraq's WMD.
Correction - it was Peter Schoomaker who proposed getting Spec Ops in and the rest of the military hierarchy that stopped it. The nature of the ops in Afghanistan would have required Spec Ops Command to act as a supported, not supporting, force, and the military structure was too inflexible to accommodate for that. Nothing Clinton could have done about that.Originally posted by John Ching:It was the military that propose to send SpecOps to get OBL. The red tapes were from the Clinton's administration that was ensuring that everything met Clinton's agenda. Besides, he was the Commander-in-Chief, if he wanted to deploy troops it would've been within his right as CIC.
Sadat was killed, but Mubarak took his plan all the way home. It's Netanyahu and Sharon's failure to carry on with Rabin's plan that made it fail. One dickhead law student with a gun does not constitute the lack of support from the people - it just constitutes an extreme Right-wing moron.Originally posted by John Ching:Let's face it, if Messrs Netanyahu and Sharon had been good boys and followed through with Rabin's plan, Rabin would still be killed by an Israeli & his peace plan would still become a failure. How can his plan be a success if his own people doesn't support it?
If Bush was serious about giving Sharon a slap behind the ears, he'd be pulling back all military and financial support from Israel ASAP. Somehow his actions aren't matching his words.Originally posted by John Ching:Doesn't mean that it's necessarily there either, true. Only time & the people who eventualy interpret it would tell.
Good - it'll take me a bit closer to my next Rolex.Originally posted by John Ching:$1500 you said, no problem. Put it on my tab, I'll send the cash by post later.
I disagree. Amongst the things that did do the US in were the unsuitability of the military and intelligence structures for this kind of war, and a lack of interdepartmental cooperation in gathering and analysing terrorism data, especially from the FBI. They kept a lot of information to themselves because they feared it would interfere with any legal proceedings that could be brought against arrested terrorists. Guess they missed the forest for the trees.Originally posted by John Ching:Hey, I don't disagree that Clinton did a hell of a job to get the U.S economy back from the grave. But he did it at the risk of national security. Many people claim that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. But the truth is that the world was much more dangerous before 9/11. No one recognised the danger of OBL & Al Queada. They were plotting the deaths of as many people in America as they could during the times of "peace". At least now the world has woken to reality.
Uh, there's a problem with civilians? Who do you think does the analyses at places like Lawrence Livermore?Originally posted by John Ching:If you chose to associate those genius at MIT to be related to the intelligence community? Then yeah, there was a failure. Failure in trusting the views of civilians.