So the government found a video from the al qaeda leader yesterday on some terrorist monitoring website.

Basically he praised the boston bombings and encouraged more small scale attacks to make america soend money on security and quote "Bleed america economically". He also mentioned that they should make a large scale attack soon.

Now that the US government has this information, what do you think should be done? Spending money would just be exactly what they want and an attack on their soil may not help either.

I think we should go and give them another whuppin to straighten them up. The guy should think of what happened to the last leader.

Also, if that guy paid taxes here, he would know how much the US money has.

It's spelled Al Qaeda.

The problem isn't exactly how we respond to this, but with terrorism in general. Once we take one of these big leaders out, there's another who will fill his shoes to make more threats and glorify our disasters.

Yet we go to their land and still dig them up, one by one. And while that's what they egg us to do, I don't think what they really want. They want to plan another grand scheme attack. It's what they're good at. They would be doing it right now. But having to run from hole to hole doesn't help them any.

I say we keep the pressure on them. After all, the government's budget is supposed to be for the defense of our nation...

I have to agree with WyzDM here. I mean, we killed Osama bin Laden, didn't we? How about we crash a couple of planes on this new guy's turf, instead of the other way around?

All joking aside, I have to give them credit for their strategic planning abilities. They certainly spent quite a lot of time gathering information. But we should do the same. Brainstorm on spots in the U.S. that will likely provoke a larger response by the Gov't than otherwise. In other words, think like they do.

I know this is grave-digging/necroposting, but I have to clear some things up.

Satellite imagery was the reason for the SR-71 program to be discontinued. That and they had crazy maintenance, special types of fuel and materials to withstand the forces flying at those altitudes and speeds, and they just generally were not as useful anymore.

Drones have replaced them now. They can handle extremes human pilots cannot and they can obviously be smaller than a manned vehicle without the need for controls, seats, windows, a space large enough for a human, enough atmosphere to survive, heating, cooling, etc, etc, etc.

Plus, the SR-71 was never meant to be a bomber. That is the purpose of the B-2. They are stealth bombers and are still in service. Using the reconnaissance from drones and satellites, they drop heavier payloads than the drones can. And that's another thing: drones often have smart bombs. They can actually take out targets they spot while surveilling an area as they have in Yemen and Kuwait, I believe.

AC-130s are most certainly in the area.

Now, all of that aside, we need ground troops and land vehicles because of the terrorists' use of civilians as human shields. They operate in towns and do what gangs do: they offer "protection" in exchange for tribute in the form of supplies and shelter. Anyone attempting to turn in the Taliban/Al Qaeda is dealt with and so is their family. In order to remove these people from such areas, bombs must not be dropped. You have to go in on foot and take them out the old-fashioned way: looking down the barrel of your rifle and injecting them with hot lead from a distance.

With regard to the new leader's video and the US's defense response: This is not only nothing new, but if you know about it that means the government has been spending a lot of time responding to the thread already.

With all due respect, none of you have anything substantial to contribute.

Quote from OGrilla

I know this is grave-digging/necroposting, but I have to clear some things up.

Satellite imagery was the reason for the SR-71 program to be discontinued. That and they had crazy maintenance, special types of fuel and materials to withstand the forces flying at those altitudes and speeds, and they just generally were not as useful anymore. They did work, but, the US had to keep the game running with the Cold War.

Drones have replaced them now. They can handle extremes human pilots cannot and they can obviously be smaller than a manned vehicle without the need for controls, seats, windows, a space large enough for a human, enough atmosphere to survive, heating, cooling, etc, etc, etc.The problem with drones (the ones in service) is that transmission is lost a lot and they're basically big kites with IR cameras.

Plus, the SR-71 was never meant to be a bomber. That is the purpose of the B-2. They are stealth bombers and are still in service. Using the reconnaissance from drones and satellites, they drop heavier payloads than the drones can. And that's another thing: drones often have smart bombs. They can actually take out targets they spot while surveilling an area as they have in Yemen and Kuwait, I believe.Who ever said anything about SR-71 bombings?

AC-130s are most certainly in the area. They are, but, strikes are negated by Barry and others. Probably because, the targets are usually small and the guns would screw things up.

Now, all of that aside, we need ground troops and land vehicles because of the terrorists' use of civilians as human shields. They operate in towns and do what gangs do: they offer "protection" in exchange for tribute in the form of supplies and shelter. Anyone attempting to turn in the Taliban/Al Qaeda is dealt with and so is their family. In order to remove these people from such areas, bombs must not be dropped. You have to go in on foot and take them out the old-fashioned way: looking down the barrel of your rifle and injecting them with hot lead from a distance. Try to think of a viable way to put a small group of people in those towns and completely eradicating the Taliban controlling it. The best solutions would probably be to go in and fight the Taliban with the townspeople, which is of course, the SF's job.

With regard to the new leader's video and the US's defense response: This is not only nothing new, but if you know about it that means the government has been spending a lot of time responding to the thread already.

With all due respect, none of you have anything substantial to contribute.Of course not.

My responses are in bold.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

The main problem I am seeing is that many taliban dress like civilians. It is extremely difficult to tell who is Al Qaeda and who isn't without being extremely street-wise about that region. It takes a sharp eye to watch the way people are walking (particularly who they get near and who they avoid), and to be honest, I don't know how many of the soldiers we have think of that. Since Taliban are known for killing suspected "traitors" and their families, normal civilians would tend to step lightly around them. For example, some people might give a taliban agent a wide birth, not wanting to cause harm to themselves or their family. And one should also pay close attention to the expressions of anyone who notices the troops. Body language is one way to tell them apart. Since different castes of society have different posture, a sniper or their spotter can observe crowds from a distance (when there arent any troops near them) to see who stands out. Soldiers in the Taliban strike me as being rather proud, so perhaps a sniper should watch for certain individuals strutting about like peacocks among the civilians?

That's a job for the spies (most espionage work is done by local civilians). The problem is that people are probably afraid of doing that. If the US tried getting troops in do that, they would stand out.

Quote from Naimad

That's a job for the spies (most espionage work is done by local civilians). The problem is that people are probably afraid of doing that. If the US tried getting troops in do that, they would stand out.

Which is why I said a sniper or their spotter could do it. They would not have to get near the place they plan to observe

Quote from Naimad

Quote from OGrilla

Satellite imagery was the reason for the SR-71 program to be discontinued. That and they had crazy maintenance, special types of fuel and materials to withstand the forces flying at those altitudes and speeds, and they just generally were not as useful anymore.

They did work, but, the US had to keep the game running with the Cold War.

Of course they worked. That wasn't my point. My point was that new technology made them less cost effective. Obsolete.

Quote from Naimad

The problem with drones (the ones in service) is that transmission is lost a lot and they're basically big kites with IR cameras.

Which is why they're getting better. Development continues because they are less costly than a satellite or Blackbird. We can build new ones with design alterations quickly, especially as technology progressively makes them more capable. This also makes them more expendable as a lost drone may give the enemy a chance to reverse engineer and catch up to our technology. But it would also be obsolete by the time they could use anything gained as newer, better drones would be in operation.

Quote from Naimad

Who ever said anything about SR-71 bombings?

Honestly, I don't remember and I can't find it now, apparently. Thought someone did. Either a post was edited or deleted, because I referenced AC-130s in response to something that is clearly not there anymore.

Quote from Naimad

Quote from OGrilla

AC-130s are most certainly in the area.

They are, but, strikes are negated by Barry and others. Probably because, the targets are usually small and the guns would screw things up.

I'm not sure where the disagreement is supposed to be here.

Quote from Naimad

Quote from OGrilla

Now, all of that aside, we need ground troops and land vehicles because of the terrorists' use of civilians as human shields. They operate in towns and do what gangs do: they offer "protection" in exchange for tribute in the form of supplies and shelter. Anyone attempting to turn in the Taliban/Al Qaeda is dealt with and so is their family. In order to remove these people from such areas, bombs must not be dropped. You have to go in on foot and take them out the old-fashioned way: looking down the barrel of your rifle and injecting them with hot lead from a distance.

Try to think of a viable way to put a small group of people in those towns and completely eradicating the Taliban controlling it. The best solutions would probably be to go in and fight the Taliban with the townspeople, which is of course, the SF's job.

This is what we're doing, is it not? I have a hard time believing any of us can come up with a better solution than the US military... They are the most powerful and successful fighting force humanity has ever seen.

Quote from Naimad

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

The main problem I am seeing is that many taliban dress like civilians. It is extremely difficult to tell who is Al Qaeda and who isn't without being extremely street-wise about that region. It takes a sharp eye to watch the way people are walking (particularly who they get near and who they avoid), and to be honest, I don't know how many of the soldiers we have think of that. Since Taliban are known for killing suspected "traitors" and their families, normal civilians would tend to step lightly around them. For example, some people might give a taliban agent a wide birth, not wanting to cause harm to themselves or their family. And one should also pay close attention to the expressions of anyone who notices the troops. Body language is one way to tell them apart. Since different castes of society have different posture, a sniper or their spotter can observe crowds from a distance (when there arent any troops near them) to see who stands out. Soldiers in the Taliban strike me as being rather proud, so perhaps a sniper should watch for certain individuals strutting about like peacocks among the civilians?

That's a job for the spies (most espionage work is done by local civilians). The problem is that people are probably afraid of doing that. If the US tried getting troops in do that, they would stand out.

This is true.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

Which is why I said a sniper or their spotter could do it. They would not have to get near the place they plan to observe

Makes sense and they do that when they can.

I'm really not trying to sound like a jerk, but I have never been in the military. My brother, father, and mother have been and I've had many friends in the military. I've watched a lot of video about the war because my dad went to Iraq in 2008 as a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps. I've read a lot about the most recent conflicts.

I don't know much and I don't claim to. But I also don't claim that I have any insight the military doesn't.

As far as addressing the OP's question which started this thread:

Quote from BoomerangReturns

Now that the US government has this information, what do you think should be done? Spending money would just be exactly what they want and an attack on their soil may not help either.

I know they're going to use this information to continue on the path they've been walking for 12 years. More military action, more covert operations, more surveillance. More liberties stripped at home, more homeland security, more monitoring of citizens, etc.

What I personally think should be done is a retreat from the area and a removal of troops from most foreign bases. I believe we should keep our noses out of everyone else's business and take better care of our own people. We should stop meddling with the rest of the world unless they ask for it. This is all far too much to ask for, so I stick to reality.

Quote from OGrilla

Honestly, I don't remember and I can't find it now, apparently. Thought someone did. Either a post was edited or deleted, because I referenced AC-130s in response to something that is clearly not there anymore.

I just wanted to say here: you're not crazy. Naimad did bring it up, then edited and deleted his post. I'm not sure why he's acting like no one ever brought them up, but he said:

Yeah, if you can brainstorm and send a report to the CIA that would be nice. Also, I think this would be a great time to revive the SR-71 program or at least a replacement. I mean, it might've not been as useful back when it was dropped or whatever happened to cause the end of the program but, it will come in real useful now for reconnaissance, which is its purpose. I think there are/were AC-130s flying over the middle-east. They should keep those there, the quick, heavy weapons can hit a more concentrated shot than those infamous missiles shot by drones. Problem: It requires pilots. Solution: Do a drone/A-10 hybrid thing and shoot those mofos.

This is the debate section. If you said something you later changed your mind about, say so. Don't pretend like it never happened.

Ah, thank you, Jeff.

I guess there was no mention of SR-71s dropping bombs, but I thought it was a valid point to make, regardless.

I must respectfully disagree with you gentlemen and bring my own opinion to the table;

The War on Terror is a war that America can never win.

When faced with a war against legions of guerrilla-fighting zealots you have limited options for how you go about it;

1) You go full throttle with brutality. I'm talking scorched-earth, shock-and-awe level stuff here. You wipe them out. Not really possible nowadays but still.
2) You pull back entirely from the country and leave it by itself.
3) You pump money into EDUCATION not warfare. You educate their population as quickly as you can and reduce your opposition.

America is not using any of these tactics, you are fighting a conventional war against an unconventional idea. This is made worse by the fact that the U.S ain't exactly doing it with the purest of heart or intentions.

Drone strikes are a terrible idea because they will boost support for the anti-American groups not weaken it. People will live in fear of the terrifying angel of death that soars above, ready to rain down fire on people below at the moments notice.

And Jesus Christ the double tap. That just makes me sick.

Quote from OGrilla

What I personally think should be done is a retreat from the area and a removal of troops from most foreign bases. I believe we should keep our noses out of everyone else's business and take better care of our own people. We should stop meddling with the rest of the world unless they ask for it. This is all far too much to ask for, so I stick to reality.

I mentioned this above.

We are definitely in agreement on education. This is the answer to almost every problem in the world. Proper education and providing the impoverished with the tools they need to educate themselves, most importantly. Self-teaching is more effective than being instructed in almost every facet of life. Giving someone the power to learn on their own time and in their own ways is how we can combat so many societal ills, but unfortunately we are up against religious fundamentalism which pervades the political systems of so many governments around the world. Islamic extremists, evangelical Protestants, radical Catholics, Hindu reactionaries and militant Buddhists are all working to the detriment of global peace and equality. That's not even mentioning the nation of Israel and how wonderful they are for relations in the Middle East...

Quote from Jeff

I just wanted to say here: you're not crazy. Naimad did bring it up, then edited and deleted his post. I'm not sure why he's acting like no one ever brought them up, but he said:

This is the debate section. If you said something you later changed your mind about, say so. Don't pretend like it never happened.

I didn't bring up Blackbird bombings, I mentioned the project and that we need something similar. I wasn't acting like nobody brought it up, I was saying that those specific things weren't brought up.

Quote from TopHat

I must respectfully disagree with you gentlemen and bring my own opinion to the table;

The War on Terror is a war that America can never win.

When faced with a war against legions of guerrilla-fighting zealots you have limited options for how you go about it;

1) You go full throttle with brutality. I'm talking scorched-earth, shock-and-awe level stuff here. You wipe them out. Not really possible nowadays but still.
2) You pull back entirely from the country and leave it by itself.
3) You pump money into EDUCATION not warfare. You educate their population as quickly as you can and reduce your opposition.

America is not using any of these tactics, you are fighting a conventional war against an unconventional idea. This is made worse by the fact that the U.S ain't exactly doing it with the purest of heart or intentions.

Drone strikes are a terrible idea because they will boost support for the anti-American groups not weaken it. People will live in fear of the terrifying angel of death that soars above, ready to rain down fire on people below at the moments notice.

And Jesus Christ the double tap. That just makes me sick.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you. Whilst we can't kill an idea, we can remove its political power. The Islamist ideology is not so much an unconventional idea as it is an unconventional approach. The idea is of hostility towards the west, and more-so, everything non-Islam (and even more-so, everything non-their-form-of-Islam). This isn't an unconventional idea. Extreme nationalism and by extension (sometimes) fascism is an historic one, and one that has been dealt with repeatedly. It is a totalitarian one. Nothing has changed in its idea, except that it demands an unconventional approach because it limits itself not to a state but to a religion.

What does this mean? Well, it means that we have to fight it the way that we have been fighting it. I'm not sure that I disagree with your general proposition, that the War on Terror is a war that the west cannot win, but I'm not sure that I agree, either. The jury is still out. The problem with suggestion (1) is that it is simply not possible with a regime that is spread so far and wide throughout the middle-east. The problem with (2) is that Islamic extremism was not created by our invasions; it predated it. Islamism will not be extinguished by keeping out of their affairs. It's a creed, an ideology, and one that is faith-based, and if left to its own accords it will seek to destroy us all. The problem with suggestion (3) is that it is likely not possible. Religious extremists are, for the most part, immune to reason. The very air they breathe is tainted with inculcation and hatred. It's practically improbable, anyway, in extension to it being improbable in principle. This is still an important suggestion, however, and one that we need to be attempting. Better education in, for instance, Afghanistan, is taking some time, but it may be worth the effort.

The only way to solve the issue is to remove their political power. This means doing what we have been doing, or have been attempting to do, in the middle-east, and trying for regime change. Political ties to extremism lends to the possibility of nuclear warfare. We're already seeing the imminent possibility of this with Iran, and that is something that we should all fear: the thought of a messianic and apocalyptic state in control of WMDs. Lebanon needs close attention too; this just shows how far the seed of Islamic fascist ideology has spread in the region. At a 2009 rally Hezbollah's party banner was that of a mushroom cloud created by an atomic bomb. These aren't ideologies that can be eviscerated, unlike previous state-driven totalitarian regimes, but they can be dampened and spread thin, far from the reach of such power. They can be dampened by the sort of interventionist (and yes, imperialist, if you must call it that; I really don't care if you go as far as to call it colonialist, I will still support it) measures that we've been using, and through the de-centralisation of their powers, and ultimately the diminishing of their political reach. It is vital that we see it for what it is: a radically and dangerously faith-driven ideology, and one that must be dealt with not diplomatically, but with intervention and an iron fist.

There's my polemic for you, haha.