It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: thesmokingman
I completely agree with you and nothing to add to your op!
As a footnote though on CNN this morning they were discussing what name we should really be calling this group, how precious. They went back and forth over the few choices saying the usual rhetoric; they are not Islam, they are not a state, yada yada yada but then they turned to France of all places to congratulate them for a perfect choice for a name.
"Daese Cutthroats" (probably spelled it wrong)
I watched the entire news crew joking and laughing stating on about how much ISIL will cut the tongues off anyone that breathes this name in their presence and they are finally glad they have a way to 'get' to them psychologically. They even went as far to state France should get an award for this.
Yes, I turned off the TV at that point!
originally posted by: misscurious
People will always find a way to beat the system... The same way prisoners get phones and drugs into high security prisons... I get what your all saying but at the same time don't think tptb are as smart or power full as people think or make out...
There are 7 billion people on this planet they can't watch all of them..
Keep in mind IS grew rather quickly, the attention they are receiving now is because of how fast they grew, but technically they haven't gone far enough to illicit as much attention as their future plans will get.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Regarding Israel I have been thinking the same thing. ISIS seems hell-bent on destroying America, when Israel is right up the road, a lot closer than the US. I just figured that perhaps ISIS will not attempt anything where Israel is concerned until they've solidified their power in Iraq and Syria, which is the right move, but another potential explanation is western involvement. I will not say I believe it is true at this point, but is a possibility.
Regarding US systems such as drones and spy satellites, these types of technologies are highly localized. For instance, a drone pilot cannot readily identify a person, and they are not going to just shoot everybody. And even a drone would have to fly around a lot to even identify a possible target, and there would have to be many, many drones to get meaningful results that justify the cost and expenditure of resources. Usually the drones go in, acting on intelligence information, and bomb a specific target. They also worked with troops on the ground when the troops would are engaged or could identify target locations or areas. And besides, drones are more effective at going after strategically important targets rather than being used to annihilate enemy forces. It is just not feasible to use drones in the latter sense, especially without intelligence information. Instead, they are better used for attacking high value targets, leadership, etc., again based on intelligence.
And even pilots have to get permission to engage. There are just so many factors to consider. And with satellites and drones there are not enough of them to watch everything all the time. Satellites are used for intelligence gathering. They can specifically look at an area of interest, or an analyst can look at what the satellite saw on an earlier pass, looking for targets and anomalies or any other information that can be acted on in the near future. So they cannot feasibly use them to track every potential member of ISIS, or even the leadership. It just doesn't work that way.
Using phones and stuff is more feasible, at which point you can bomb targets where ISIS leadership are located, but I imagine that processing the vast amounts of information is one of the problems. Another problem is actually identifying such people, and what phones they're using. And if they use multiple phones it gets more difficult. They can use methods like voice matching and whatnot, but this requires time and effort, and you have to have info to go on in the first place. All methods require resources and personnel as well. And we don't even know if the US can intercept all cell signals in Iraq or Syria. The ISIS leadership is probably not in Iraq in my opinion, where the US has more control and freedom of action. So without knowing the US's ability to collect electronic communications in Iraq and Syria, which probably have sparse cell coverage anyway, I cannot accurately determine why they may or may not use such methods. I would also expect ISIS to behave sort of like Bin Laden did.
The use of phones was not widespread at all. Rather, go-betweens would use phones within a city, well away from the area of operations in most instances, and there would barely be any people using phones. Rather the comms were done in person or between couriers of information. That is a simple way to bypass the US's sophisticated systems for electronic interception. I would also expect them to use radios for shorter distance communications, or battlefield comms. Obviously this would allow interception of such transmissions on the battlefield, which is why militaries encrypt such communications, and ISIS probably does this as well. It is not that difficult, and the necessary information can be taught to those who need to know the information.
So even though it sounds counter-intuitive, the US doesn't have enough intelligence to use these particular intelligence-gathering and combat assets. That is my take on it anyway, in a broad sense. Such methods definitely could prove useful in certain contexts, but where eliminating ISIS is concerned such methods are only tools to help the situation along in certain ways, rather than actually being the main tools. I mean we couldn't use such technology to defeat Al Qaeda either, and they were not as sophisticated as ISIS in terms of communications, encryption, or anything really. And they have more resources in general, and you can bet they've learned from the war on terror as well, and will not make any mistakes that Al Qaeda made.
originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: thesmokingman
I think ISIL is designed to scare nosey Journalists out of Reporting what is gong on in the Middle East, it seems laughable that they haven't attacked Israel.
Who’s Paying the Pro-War Pundits?
Talking heads like former General Jack Keane are all over the news media fanning fears of ISIS. Shouldn’t the public know about their links to Pentagon contractors?
Lee Fang - TheNation
September 12, 2014
If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIS, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region. They will say that our government should deploy, as retired General Anthony Zinni demanded, up to 10,000 American boots on the ground to battle ISIS. Or as in retired General Jack Keane’s case, they will make more vague demands, such as for “offensive” air strikes and the deployment of more military advisers to the region.
But what you won’t learn from media coverage of ISIS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world. Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry.
Keane is a great example of this phenomenon. His think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), which he oversees along with neoconservative partisans Liz Cheney and William Kristol, has provided the data on ISIS used for multiple stories by The New York Times, the BBC and other leading outlets.
Keane has appeared on Fox News at least nine times over the last two months to promote the idea that the best way to stop ISIS is through military action—in particular, through air strikes deep into ISIS-held territory. In one of the only congressional hearings about ISIS over the summer, Keane was there to testify and call for more American military engagement. On Wednesday evening, Keane declared President Obama’s speech on defeating ISIS insufficient, arguing that a bolder strategy is necessary. “I truly believe we need to put special operation forces in there,” he told host Megyn Kelly.
Left unsaid during his media appearances (and left unmentioned on his congressional witness disclosure form) are Keane’s other gigs: as special adviser to Academi, the contractor formerly known as Blackwater; as a board member to tank and aircraft manufacturer General Dynamics; a “venture partner” to SCP Partners, an investment firm that partners with defense contractors, including XVionics, an “operations management decision support system” company used in Air Force drone training; and as president of his own consulting firm, GSI LLC.