Bounty for terrorists innefective?

It would seem to me that offering large amounts of cash for information on the location of terrorist leaders could backfire.

Wouldn't it cause the terrorist leader to either split, or at least dig in deeper and move around more?

Have we paid any of these bounties for the assisted capture of a leader before?

I think they paid a bounty to one of Saddams cousins for the info he provided to find Saddams sons.

Originally posted by Psychoses
I think they paid a bounty to one of Saddams cousins for the info he provided to find Saddams sons.

they payed 20mil

No horse caca its uneffective if sattelites and people on the ground cant find them then how are you suppose to convince people to bring the battle to their doorsteps ......case in point Israel/Gaza Strip people innocent to the missle attacks are being killed because missles are being shot off next door and the retaliation is coming accross and destroying the house next door killing everyone and your house killing you now does that sound like modivation to speak out not to me .....my policy is dont get killed and your day will go alot better

Yes priest, but the question is, do you think that offering rewards in the form of large sums of cash will help to bring in terrorist leaders, or help drive them more deeply underground?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Yes priest, but the question is, do you think that offering rewards in the form of large sums of cash will help to bring in terrorist leaders, or help drive them more deeply underground?

It shouldnt change them at all like I said they park themselves next door to an innocent cause they know if their is a strike and they manage to get out well bye bye next door neighbors and hello disouraging failure and murder of innocience

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
It shouldnt change them at all like I said they park themselves next door to an innocent cause they know if their is a strike and they manage to get out well bye bye next door neighbors and hello disouraging failure and murder of innocience

This doesn't make any sense. This doesn't even address the issue. If the terrorist leader were to park himself next to the innocents, do you think those innocents would be more likely to give up his location for the reward, and if so, do you think the leader would be less likely to park himself there?

Besides, if he parks himself next to the innocents, and the innocents die, it's not because they accidentally hit the innocent's home, it's just because the bomb was too big for just one house. These bombs hit their intended targets most of the time. Parking himself next to innocents wouldn't necessarily make him any more safe from an airstrike.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
It shouldnt change them at all like I said they park themselves next door to an innocent cause they know if their is a strike and they manage to get out well bye bye next door neighbors and hello disouraging failure and murder of innocience

This doesn't make any sense. This doesn't even address the issue. If the terrorist leader were to park himself next to the innocents, do you think those innocents would be more likely to give up his location for the reward, and if so, do you think the leader would be less likely to park himself there?

Besides, if he parks himself next to the innocents, and the innocents die, it's not because they accidentally hit the innocent's home, it's just because the bomb was too big for just one house. These bombs hit their intended targets most of the time. Parking himself next to innocents wouldn't necessarily make him any more safe from an airstrike.

Thats what I am trying to say the people nextdoor so to speak are less likely to turn in the terrorist for fear of being killed either by over kill or out right mistake ......the terrorists know that if they surround themself with innocents then they are far less likely to be turned in and even if they are dont you think the person who turned you in might just want to move away before a strike and that would just be a warning sign ......another words as long as the stormtrooper attack with gunships and missles mentality is in use what good is money when you end up dead either by the hand of the terrorists or those who you squeal to ......

Because it is my understanding that when an informant reveals him or herself, they are protected, not just left out in the streets. That is the policy, am I wrong?

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Because it is my understanding that when an informant reveals him or herself, they are protected, not just left out in the streets. That is the policy, am I wrong?

not all the time often informants are used as human street signs they are put under surveilence and told to act casual while leading the surveilence teams to an exact location because in case you havent notice over there the postal addresses dont work the same sometimes houses dont have numbers and tanks ran over the street signs so a point of reference is often needed before the attackers reveal themselves.....also say you go to meet with them and leave your family home to avoid suspicion it only takes 7-15 minutes for an air strike to be in place and underway with our present military dispersment over there

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
...because in case you havent notice over there the postal addresses dont work the same sometimes houses dont have numbers and tanks ran over the street signs so a point of reference is often needed before the attackers reveal themselves

No, I haven't noticed the street sign/non-numbered houses problem. Have you? Look, the military never uses street addresses in their planning. Street names, yes, but they don't need signs on the ground because they have maps and surveillance. If military tactics were to suffer a massive breakdown because a tank ran over a street sign, we would be pretty poor at what we do. We're not.

I still don't see what this would have to do with a reward for information leading to the capture or death of a terrorist leader. I understand that someone would be in greater danger from the Iraqi resistance if they were to get caught, but they could just leave the country. Aren't there any sympathetic mercenaries who dont' have families in Iraq? What about all these policemen... are they eligible for a reward if they do the work on their own time? Probably not.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

No, I haven't noticed the street sign/non-numbered houses problem. Have you? Look, the military never uses street addresses in their planning. Street names, yes, but they don't need signs on the ground because they have maps and surveillance. If military tactics were to suffer a massive breakdown because a tank ran over a street sign, we would be pretty poor at what we do. We're not.

Actually that was a stab at levity ,but in that I seem to have shown a point surveillence and how do they get to the place of surveilence they are lead there right thats what Im trying to say...

I still don't see what this would have to do with a reward for information leading to the capture or death of a terrorist leader. I understand that someone would be in greater danger from the Iraqi resistance if they were to get caught, but they could just leave the country. Aren't there any sympathetic mercenaries who dont' have families in Iraq? What about all these policemen... are they eligible for a reward if they do the work on their own time? Probably not.

Okay fine your a big wig bad guy looking for anything odd to tip you off you have had a base in the house next to a person you probably intimidate or even wave at friendly every day all the sudden they dissapear then wait wait its coming to me wait """""HELLO BIG BELLS GOING OFF'''''hey Im in danger that butt head next door gave me away and moved

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Actually that was a stab at levity ,but in that I seem to have shown a point surveillence and how do they get to the place of surveilence they are lead there right thats what Im trying to say...

Ok, I might just be confused by the utter lack of grammar or punctuation in your writing, but I think what you're saying is that the only way for us to get to a place that we are keeping under surveillance is to be led there by the informant? If we already had it under surveillance, then wouldn't we already know where it is?

Yes, we know where everything in Baghdad is, without the aid of an informant. There are maps upon maps with overlays upon overlays. There are 3-D digital maps with relief, there are GPS coordinates plotted for every major landmark in every city in Iraq for points of reference.

Not every man in Iraq has a family. And the informant doesn't have to live next to or near where the terrorist leader is. The informant could be an associate. Or a fellow soldier who has sold out his cause. It isn't really necessary or realistic for the informant to actually 'live next door' to the target.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Ok, I might just be confused by the utter lack of grammar or punctuation in your writing, but I think what you're saying is that the only way for us to get to a place that we are keeping under surveillance is to be led there by the informant? If we already had it under surveillance, then wouldn't we already know where it is?

Only in part, I know we dont have stupid troops. I just am mearly stating this is often the occurance in unfamilular terrain....It may be me but, I dont think terrorist leaders are going to set up shop in an area we know everything about.


And I know not all informants have families. My point is that the modivation is not quite at the level it would need to be to get the objective accomplished. Its hard to pay when noone sticks their hand out, right.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Only in part, I know we dont have stupid troops. I just am mearly stating this is often the occurance in unfamilular terrain....It may be me but, I dont think terrorist leaders are going to set up shop in an area we know everything about.

I'm here to tell you that in and around Baghdad, there is no more familiar terrain. I spent 6 months working in a Battalion S-2 office (which deals with intelligence gathering and analysis), and the first thing that happens in the area of operations is the familiarization of terrain. By now that familiarization is to the point that the company commanders and platoon leaders know the area like the back of their hand. There is nowhere in Iraq that we know nothing about, and truthfully, terrorist leaders have no choice but to set up shop in areas that we do know everything about. Mainly the cities.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I'm here to tell you that in and around Baghdad, there is no more familiar terrain. I spent 6 months working in a Battalion S-2 office (which deals with intelligence gathering and analysis), and the first thing that happens in the area of operations is the familiarization of terrain. By now that familiarization is to the point that the company commanders and platoon leaders know the area like the back of their hand. There is nowhere in Iraq that we know nothing about, and truthfully, terrorist leaders have no choice but to set up shop in areas that we do know everything about. Mainly the cities.

Having just said that do you actually believe that the enemy doesn't. As I said they aren't going to set up shop inside that type of area. They are going to go to a place they know well and the US units are at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
Having just said that do you actually believe that the enemy doesn't. As I said they aren't going to set up shop inside that type of area. They are going to go to a place they know well and the US units are at a disadvantage.

I'll give you that. The locals do know the terrain much better than we do in practice. And that definitely puts us at a disadvantage against guerilla fighters. We know where all the locations are, and how to get to them, but we do not know all of the small alleyways, and nooks and crannies of the cities, this is true.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I'll give you that. The locals do know the terrain much better than we do in practice. And that definitely puts us at a disadvantage against guerilla fighters. We know where all the locations are, and how to get to them, but we do not know all of the small alleyways, and nooks and crannies of the cities, this is true.

I may have not been clear but basically reached the same point, the neighbor thing is still applicable as those alleys still contain homes true???

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
I may have not been clear but basically reached the same point, the neighbor thing is still applicable as those alleys still contain homes true???

Yeah, some of those alleys are peoples homes. Just like the alleys of our big cities.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
I may have not been clear but basically reached the same point, the neighbor thing is still applicable as those alleys still contain homes true???

Yeah, some of those alleys are peoples homes. Just like the alleys of our big cities.

sorry dude to be gone so long I was in another thread and was not paying attemtion to my ats tab ......

You then see where I am suggesting the possiblilties are that what Im saying has a point. If they know the nooks better than us and they have innocient neighbors then where is the motive.....And we need someone to lead us there that knows how to get there

[edit on 25/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]