• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders

apdst said:
When you send the military out to hunt down and kill the enemy, it's warfare.
Click to expand...

Not in the context your applying here. You're taking the macho approach of "war is hell, people die, **** happens." Warfare is not just "warfare." There is conventional, unconventional, asymmetrical, etc. Counter terrorist operations are by design very pointed operations designed to take out specific targets. They involve covert and overt ops, but almost always have a very specific target(s). Collateral damage in these kinds of operations is not "acceptable" as you seem think it is. Hellfire missiles fired at heat signatures doesn't always work out like you want it to.

Terrorist organizations must be dealt with differently than legitimate military organizations because of their very nature. Collateral damage and innocent deaths among the civilian population exacerbates the problem that terrorism causes. Conventional tactics involving air strikes, cruise missiles, drone attacks...those are not effective counter terrorism weapons (unless you know the terrorist is hiding all by his lonesome or with his pals). JDAM's on a village or mosque do not help defeat terrorism when you kill and maim innocents. It fertilizes it.

You can save the callous, gung ho oratory for someone who truly doesn't understand the subject. It's not nearly as simple as you want it to be.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Not in the context your applying here. You're taking the macho approach of "war is hell, people die, **** happens." Warfare is not just "warfare." There is conventional, unconventional, asymmetrical, etc. Counter terrorist operations are by design very pointed operations designed to take out specific targets. They involve covert and overt ops, but almost always have a very specific target(s).
Click to expand...

An assissination program is a very surgical strategy. And, as far as we know, this operation was conducted in such a manner. As far as I know it wasn't executed using airstrikes to attack area targets, but rather using precise and accurate long range fire to engage and defeat a point target.



Terrorist organizations must be dealt with differently than legitimate military organizations because of their very nature. Collateral damage and innocent deaths among the civilian population exacerbates the problem that terrorism causes. Conventional tactics involving air strikes, cruise missiles, drone attacks...those are not effective counter terrorism weapons (unless you know the terrorist is hiding all by his lonesome or with his pals). JDAM's on a village or mosque do not help defeat terrorism when you kill and maim innocents. It fertilizes it.

You can save the callous, gung ho oratory for someone who truly doesn't understand the subject. It's not nearly as simple as you want it to be.
Click to expand...


As has been seen in Iraq, sooner, or later the local indiginous personel will get tired of getting blown up, just because some terrorist decided to use their house for cover. You're mistaken when you claim that collateral damage is self defeating. It's only self defeating when you kill one, or two non-coms. It's actually an effective strategy when you kill thousands. That was proven during WW2 with the British night bombing.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Lerxst said:
This isn't necessarily "warfare." It's counter terrorist operations when we are talking about taking out specific Al Qaeda or Taliban operatives.
Click to expand...
For whatever reason, the self-described 'forward thinking' left seems rooted in the 19th century when it comes to modern warfare.

Given that these 19th century rules and principles were created within the context of war fought between states, they do not and can not effectively be applied a state v non-state conflict.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

TheNextEra said:
The "enemy" is defined by however the government wants it to be.

The fact that people don't have a say so in who the enemy should be without any oversight would scare the hell out of even me.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a modern example of a nation's people having a say as to 'who is the enemy'?
 
Re: Will the Liar?

TheNextEra said:
This is just one plan. Do you excuse our government for doing things that are not legal, and by that I mean ANYTHING the U.S. has done? And if so, how is that any different than Iran, or NK?

Or do you think that ANYTHING the U.S. does is good. Just curious.
Click to expand...
I believe that covert operations are part of the CIA mission.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

American said:
I believe that covert operations are part of the CIA mission.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, are illegal and immoral.

The US should never use covert operations, as it dirties us and takes us off the moral high ground. When we do so, we sink to the level of our enemies.

:roll:
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Goobieman said:
For whatever reason, the self-described 'forward thinking' left seems rooted in the 19th century when it comes to modern warfare.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you need to step back and take a look at what Bush and his administration put together, they took a deliberately "un-forward" thinking approach to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Poor military strategy is a hallmark of the right at this point if you want to go down this road.
Given that these 19th century rules and principles were created within the context of war fought between states, they do not and can not effectively be applied a state v non-state conflict.
Click to expand...
Again, the right under Bush would be the number one perpetrators of this sin. Of course it looks like the left is doing their level best to play catch up at this point.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Lerxst said:
Well, I think you need to step back and take a look at what Bush and his administration put together, they took a deliberately "un-forward" thinking approach to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Poor military strategy is a hallmark of the right at this point if you want to go down this road.

Again, the right under Bush would be the number one perpetrators of this sin. Of course it looks like the left is doing their level best to play catch up at this point.
Click to expand...
Well, OK, but.... I am speaking of the broader issue of the war against terrorists. Iraq and Afghanistan are part of that, but not really the part I am discussing.

I thought the context was clear from the post I responded to...
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Goobieman said:
Which, of course, are illegal and immoral.

The US should never use covert operations, as it dirties us and takes us off the moral high ground. When we do so, we sink to the level of our enemies.

:roll:
Click to expand...
The PC version of war is called Outcome-based Conflict.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Goobieman said:
Well, OK, but.... I am speaking of the broader issue of the war against terrorists. Iraq and Afghanistan are part of that, but not really the part I am discussing.

I thought the context was clear from the post I responded to...
Click to expand...

I guess I was failing to make the connect with out the "left" got put into that conversation. My thoughts were if we are going to bring "left and right" into it, well we were obligated to look at recent history.

But I get your point and can't say I disagree.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Goobieman said:
Which, of course, are illegal and immoral.

The US should never use covert operations, as it dirties us and takes us off the moral high ground. When we do so, we sink to the level of our enemies.

:roll:
Click to expand...

covert operations need to be competent or the entire nation looks foolish. The recent Republican administration was like a neighborhood loudmouth, telling everyone how tough they were but unable to perform when the time came. Whatever happened to "getting Osama binLaden dead or alive"?
 
Re: Will the Liar?

WillRockwell said:
covert operations need to be competent or the entire nation looks foolish. The recent Republican administration...
Click to expand...
^ ^ ^ ^
More partisan hackery.
 
apdst said:
An assissination program is a very surgical strategy.
Click to expand...
It really depends. Ideally you are only targeting one person, but the target may sorround himself with other people that could jeporadize the operation. This was the case with Bin Laden in the 90s. We had two clear chances to take him out and beaucracy decided against it both times because of collateral damage.
And, as far as we know, this operation was conducted in such a manner. As far as I know it wasn't executed using airstrikes to attack area targets, but rather using precise and accurate long range fire to engage and defeat a point target.
Click to expand...
Actually, we know that it was executed using unmanned aerial vehicles but we don't know if they used and precise long range fire. They likely didn't.

As has been seen in Iraq, sooner, or later the local indiginous personel will get tired of getting blown up, just because some terrorist decided to use their house for cover. You're mistaken when you claim that collateral damage is self defeating. It's only self defeating when you kill one, or two non-coms. It's actually an effective strategy when you kill thousands. That was proven during WW2 with the British night bombing.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is fundamental to counter-insurgency to only use soft tactics whenever possible. The 82nd airbourne--in 2004 when stationed in Anbar province-- used an electronic system to designate where mortar strikes were being launched against them, and would respond with a volley of artillerly fire. What did insurgents do in response? They would setup in a random persons home, fire a couple of mortars, and leave. Then the 82nd airbourne would completely decimate the random persons home. To that person, who is the perpetrator here? Who destroyed this persons home?

The US military re-adopted its counter-insurgency tactics--which they had learned in Vietnam--and made defending the Iraqi people its #1 priority(instead of earlier priority which was to transition areas to the Iraqi government). Sunni tribes turned against Al Qaida because they were clearly the antagonist... They disregarded civilian casualities and used terror tactics to stay influential. (When you protect the people, they don't turn to the insurgents for security. It's that simple.)
 
Re: Will the Liar?

Goobieman said:
^ ^ ^ ^
More partisan hackery.
Click to expand...

It happens to be true. The recent administration was no good at covert operations or any other kind. Why is Osama still at large? Why didn't Bush pay attention to reports such as "Osama determined to strike within the US"? Why didn't the incoming Bush administration act on the information and anti-terrorist planning handed to it by the Clinton administration?
 
Devil505 said:
Here's a place to start:

International Law and War Crimes

Do a web search
Click to expand...

I already know what International Laws of War say. I told you what they say. it's time for you to go do the research and educate yourself.


Goobieman said:
Which, of course, are illegal and immoral.

The US should never use covert operations, as it dirties us and takes us off the moral high ground. When we do so, we sink to the level of our enemies.

:roll:
Click to expand...

It's about winning and losing. There are no points for second place and no awards for good sportsmanship.

Tubub said:
It really depends. Ideally you are only targeting one person, but the target may sorround himself with other people that could jeporadize the operation. This was the case with Bin Laden in the 90s. We had two clear chances to take him out and beaucracy decided against it both times because of collateral damage.
Click to expand...

And, all three cases the order to strike should have been given. Just think of the hundreds of thousands of lives it would have saved. As long as we allow the enemy to use civilians as human shields, they will do it.

Actually, we know that it was executed using unmanned aerial vehicles but we don't know if they used and precise long range fire. They likely didn't.
Click to expand...

The particulars of this operation are classified, so no, we don't know how the engagements were executed, or that there even were any.



Wrong. It is fundamental to counter-insurgency to only use soft tactics whenever possible. The 82nd airbourne--in 2004 when stationed in Anbar province-- used an electronic system to designate where mortar strikes were being launched against them, and would respond with a volley of artillerly fire. What did insurgents do in response? They would setup in a random persons home, fire a couple of mortars, and leave. Then the 82nd airbourne would completely decimate the random persons home. To that person, who is the perpetrator here? Who destroyed this persons home?
Click to expand...

And, after a while the civilians of the area figured out that the reason their homes were getting blown up was because there was an indirect fire weapon hiding in the living room. When the houses stopped being used as a base of fire, the houses weren't getting blown up anymore. It was called, "The Anbar Awakening".

The US military re-adopted its counter-insurgency tactics--which they had learned in Vietnam--and made defending the Iraqi people its #1 priority(instead of earlier priority which was to transition areas to the Iraqi government). Sunni tribes turned against Al Qaida because they were clearly the antagonist... They disregarded civilian casualities and used terror tactics to stay influential. (When you protect the people, they don't turn to the insurgents for security. It's that simple.)
Click to expand...


However, you can't spare civilians to the point that your force can't effectively fight the enemy. Anytime you allow the enemy sactuary, they're going to take advantage of it. When you show the enemy, as well as the civilian populace that you're going to engage the enemy whenever and where ever, the enemy will stop using civilians as human shields and the civilians will stop allowing themselves to be used as human shields.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

WillRockwell said:
It happens to be true. The recent administration was no good at covert operations or any other kind. Why is Osama still at large?
Click to expand...

Bin Laden's dead.

Why didn't Bush pay attention to reports such as "Osama determined to strike within the US"? Why didn't the incoming Bush administration act on the information and anti-terrorist planning handed to it by the Clinton administration?
Click to expand...

Because there was no, "where, when and how", attached to that anti-terrorist plan.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

apdst said:
Bin Laden's dead.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and sad to say, isn't even confirmed by the U.S. government.

Let's see, you claiming he is dead is about as credible as 9/11 truthers claiming Bush was behind 9/11.

When you have actual evidence, like the U.S. government claiming the same, maybe then I will believe you. Until then, have fun in fantasy-ville.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

TheNextEra said:
That's your opinion, and sad to say, isn't even confirmed by the U.S. government.

Let's see, you claiming he is dead is about as credible as 9/11 truthers claiming Bush was behind 9/11.

When you have actual evidence, like the U.S. government claiming the same, maybe then I will believe you. Until then, have fun in fantasy-ville.
Click to expand...

It's been reported by two different sources in the region and we haven't seen UBL in a long time, while his #2 guy produces a video tape every month.

I don't have any evidence that he's dead, but there isn't enough evidence that he's alive to suggest that he is alive.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

apdst said:
It's been reported by two different sources in the region and we haven't seen UBL in a long time, while his #2 guy produces a video tape every month.

I don't have any evidence that he's dead, but there isn't enough evidence that he's alive to suggest that he is alive.
Click to expand...

Again, it's also been reported by sources that Bush was behind 9/11. That doesn't mean it is true though.

Silence doesn't mean he is dead. MANY of Al-Q members are silent right now. That doesn't mean they are dead either.
 
Last edited:
Re: Will the Liar?

TheNextEra said:
Again, it's also been reported by sources that Bush was behind 9/11. That doesn't mean it is true though.
Click to expand...

Bush, along with everyone else before Bush was behind on 9/11. There wasn't enough information on the where, when and how to formulate a practical plan to prevent an attack.

Silence doesn't mean he is dead. MANY of Al-Q members are silent right now. That doesn't mean they are dead either.
Click to expand...


They have nothing to gain be being silent. UBL surely doesn't have anything to gain. He taunted the US before and after 9/11. Why stop?
 
Re: Will the Liar?

apdst said:
Bush, along with everyone else before Bush was behind on 9/11. There wasn't enough information on the where, when and how to formulate a practical plan to prevent an attack.
Click to expand...

Bush was notified about a pending terrorist attack. I know it was vague, but that still should have sent red flags. I don't blame him but I do think they should have done more.

apdst said:
They have nothing to gain be being silent. UBL surely doesn't have anything to gain. He taunted the US before and after 9/11. Why stop?
Click to expand...

Yeah the have nothing to gain by being silent except their lives, which is something they hold very dear. That is the reason why they send OTHER people to die for them.


If they truly believed half the **** they spouted to their followers they would be volunteering to go meet those virgins they expect they will earn. The fact they don't shows they value their own lives more than their cause.
 
Last edited:
Re: Will the Liar?

TheNextEra said:
Bush was notified about a pending terrorist attack. I know it was fabgue, but that still should have sent red flags. I don't blame him but I do think they should have done more.
Click to expand...

Done more, yes, but what? There wasn't anywhere near enough solid intel to ascertain what the appropriate response should have been. Prior to 9/11, the only obvious strategy would have been to closely scrutinize Arab/Middle-Eastern/Muslim/Asian persons within the United States and we all know that that would have been a serious no-go with the PC crowd.



Yeah the have nothing to gain by being silent except their lives, which is something they hold very dear. That is the reason why they send OTHER people to die for them.
Click to expand...


I disagree that they're silent out of fear. I believe they're silent, because the dead tell no tales.
 
Re: Will the Liar?

apdst said:
Done more, yes, but what? There wasn't anywhere near enough solid intel to ascertain what the appropriate response should have been. Prior to 9/11, the only obvious strategy would have been to closely scrutinize Arab/Middle-Eastern/Muslim/Asian persons within the United States and we all know that that would have been a serious no-go with the PC crowd.
Click to expand...

One of the things mentioned was hijacking. That right there should have sent red flags to airports across the country. There is no reason why anaylists shouldn't have IMMEDIATELY been on the job to search for odd habits in airports.

apdst said:
I disagree that they're silent out of fear. I believe they're silent, because the dead tell no tales.
Click to expand...

Right so the ENTIRE Al-Q movement is dead then because most are not communicating openly, so no more terrorists right? Come on.

Again, silence is not proof of death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom