"Chatter" and terrorists

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 7, 2004, 11:47 am

From CNN's front page:

A drop in so-called "chatter" among suspected terrorists is troubling some counterterrorism officials, who noticed a reduction in intercepted communications before the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, government sources said.

Lately we have been bombarded with comments about how an increase in chatter worries them.. how that means terrorist acts are about to happen.. and now a decrease means the same thing? Am I missing something here?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 7, 2004, 1:58 pm

Kelshara wrote:From CNN's front page:

A drop in so-called "chatter" among suspected terrorists is troubling some counterterrorism officials, who noticed a reduction in intercepted communications before the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, government sources said.
Lately we have been bombarded with comments about how an increase in chatter worries them.. how that means terrorist acts are about to happen.. and now a decrease means the same thing? Am I missing something here?

It could mean a few things. One would be that they figured out another means of communicating which is bad for us. It's better to hear chatter and be somewhat aware of things than to not know anything at all.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 7, 2004, 2:05 pm

Actually when the chatter dies down, the thought it the decision has been made and the wheels are turning. Chatter is game plan, a drop in chatter leads them to beleive they are moving on a plan. Keep in mind also that when the chatter died before 9/11, we did hear a couple of snipets that should have given someone a clue on Sept 10

"Tomorrow is zero hour"

"The match begins tomorrow"

Noone bothered to translate these until Sept 12...

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 7, 2004, 2:47 pm

Yeah I understand the part about having settled on a game plan etc.. but then why all the fearmongering about "we have increased chatter", "this increased chatter worries us and proves a terrorist attack is about to happen" etc?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 7, 2004, 2:55 pm

i'm not sure you can make much from the press releases about "chatter".

i think sometimes frankly people don't know what to think. And that is normal. there are going to be peaks and valleys in information, and it won't always carry meaning when one of those events occurs.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 9, 2004, 4:15 pm

The reason the chatter stopped is because the guy arrested during the democratic convention - was *OUR* mole, and the guy giving us our information.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 9, 2004, 4:33 pm

oh you mean the only mole we've ever had in the organization?

oh that guy

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 9, 2004, 4:38 pm

Yeah that guy

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 9, 2004, 6:33 pm

Ok you hypocrites.....riddle me this: Why do you blast them for releasing information in this case, but you also blast them for keeping sources from you when they made the decision to go to Iraq?

Could you please stick to one line and ride it to the end? There are a handfull of you that do nothing but sit around all day and look for ways to twist everything into how the government is wrong in everything they do.

Seriously.....I will pay for your one way plane tickets if you leave and never come back.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 9, 2004, 9:12 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Ok you hypocrites.....riddle me this: Why do you blast them for releasing information in this case, but you also blast them for keeping sources from you when they made the decision to go to Iraq?

Could you please stick to one line and ride it to the end? There are a handfull of you that do nothing but sit around all day and look for ways to twist everything into how the government is wrong in everything they do.

Seriously.....I will pay for your one way plane tickets if you leave and never come back.

Bali, but you have to send the whole family

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 9, 2004, 9:16 pm

When your enemy stops talking it usually means he is acting has long been a maxim of war.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 9, 2004, 9:39 pm

Kylere wrote:When your enemy stops talking it usually means he is acting has long been a maxim of war.

Or like I said before - because we outted the highest mole we had in Al Qaeda

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiap ... rror.wrap/

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 9, 2004, 10:25 pm

Thess wrote:
Kylere wrote:When your enemy stops talking it usually means he is acting has long been a maxim of war.
Or like I said before - because we outted the highest mole we had in Al Qaeda

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiap ... rror.wrap/

Umm I was not commenting on that at all, just on the fact that chatter as it relates to communications is in fact a sign of problems. Anyways I do not think they are referring to humint here but rather comint, so your point is moot.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 10, 2004, 12:00 am

Thess wrote:
Kylere wrote:When your enemy stops talking it usually means he is acting has long been a maxim of war.
Or like I said before - because we outted the highest mole we had in Al Qaeda

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiap ... rror.wrap/

One Pakistani mole does not compromise the bulk of our intelligence monitoring of terrorist communication channels.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 12:46 am

no but when we are outing moles for PR, that is a problem.

i know that dorks like me posting shit on everquest messageboards really swings the electorate heavily to the left, but i think they could have weathered the storm.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 10, 2004, 1:22 am

Voronwë wrote:no but when we are outing moles for PR, that is a problem.

i know that dorks like me posting shit on everquest messageboards really swings the electorate heavily to the left, but i think they could have weathered the storm.

They shouldn't be outing moles but it really shows you can't win. The level of whining is reaching a fevor pitch from anti Bush people anytime a terror alert goes up.

From here on out, I wouldn't say shit each time the terror alert level is raised. Liberals want us to blow our contacts and covert operations...and will whine their asses off if we don't. I'll take the whining over damaging our intelligence operations.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 10, 2004, 5:37 am

Liberals want us to blow our contacts and covert operations...and will whine their asses off if we don't

You really are turning into Midnyte Jr.
How do you interpret "liberals" complaining about the irresponsible outing of an AQ mole into them "wanting to blow our contacts"? Any reasonable human being with the ability to interpret written English reaches the opposite conclusion.

Why do you blast them for releasing information in this case, but you also blast them for keeping sources from you when they made the decision to go to Iraq?

Why? Well allow me to join the dots for you:
1) Releasing information irresponsibly and harming the fight against Al Qaeda = bad.
2) When the decision to go to war is so divisive and frankly suspect, releasing the information so someone can maybe point out the blatant falsehoods in some of it and the politically motivated "Chalabi Intel" that comprised the rest, that may prevent an unjust, unneccessary and costly war from going ahead. That = good.

I mean where does it say people have to decide one thing or another and stick with it forever regardless of applicability? It's just typical simplistic righty thinking along the lines of "with us or against us". Learn to use your brain at all times and adapt yourself to each situation as is approriate.

The level of whining is reaching a fevor pitch from anti Bush people anytime a terror alert goes up

Well keep your head in the sand where the whining will be nice and muffled, numbskull. Nobody here has whined they have posed one simple question: Why is a decrease in "chatter" a sign of an imminent attack as well as an increase? Nobody here has provided even a shade of an answer yet. Just a load of hurt-pussy bitching from the Bush dick suckers.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 9:09 am

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=10682

Read that link Tanc. It is a whole 5....count them FIVE....days old. It is filled with whining pussies talking about how terror alerts were raised for no reasons or just for political reasons. It was not just on this site either......it was rampant.

So the administration tells everyone WHY they were raised and NOW these same fucksticks are whining about how the "cover" was blown. It was because you assholes DEMANDED it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 10, 2004, 9:53 am

First off I recommend YOU read the thread again and take stock of just how many "whining pussies" were asking for the info to be revealed. I count none. In fact by and large all I see is a pretty level headed debate on the topic of the raised alert level except for Winnow et al crying their eyes out because someone dared question GWB. Again. Anyway. . .

It is filled with whining pussies talking about how terror alerts were raised for no reasons or just for political reasons. It was not just on this site either......it was rampant

Due to reasonable suspicion, and reports that the intelligence being used was 3+ years old. Besides you can only raise the terror alert level so many times before people think you are crying wolf. Given the performance of Bush's administration I think people have a right to be cynical. I'm sure you disagree but so fucking what.

So the administration tells everyone WHY they were raised and NOW these same fucksticks are whining about how the "cover" was blown. It was because you assholes DEMANDED it

In no way does the release of this information require the guy's name. That was some idiot doing some grandstanding. Pakistan was still denying the arrest and the passing on of any intelligence anyway.
Doesn't it get tiring making these huge stretches to blame "pussy liberals" for everything?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 10:24 am

Actually, there were 5 liberal pussies and Voronwe who all determined it was a political ploy (before the thread derailed). The liberals were Lynks, Siji, Kelshara, Miir, and Kyoukan. Surprisingly, Xzion actually believed there was something more behind it than political motivation. I could not be more surprised at that than if Midnyte posted that he was running as the VP on Hillary Clinton's ticket.

I bet I can find posts from the same people that determined that information from 3 different intelligence organizations other than our own was not good enough information to oust Saddam. We don't know the exact details of what was passed on to Bush to make his decision, but we sure know fuckheads like you have ridden his ass for it since day 1. Personally, I don't beleive for 1 minute that the intel folks from those 3 countries were ALL wrong. Something was going on and there is a lot not being told to the public.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 10:34 am

thats it, you are going down at recess.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 10:40 am

The amusing part is that Kilmoll bitches so much about people whining now but I BET he whined a hell of a lot more during Clinton.

Also: I have yet to see any info that goes against the idea that the timing of the information was suspect. And the fact that they ousted a mole just proves how completely idiotic the administration is. Hence it supports us.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 10, 2004, 10:41 am

I bet I can find posts from the same people that determined that information from 3 different intelligence organizations other than our own was not good enough information to oust Saddam

If two of those 3 are the UK and Australia they've all ready admitted the intel was not good enough and the "attack Saddam" position was overstated.

Actually, there were 5 liberal pussies and Voronwe who all determined it was a political ploy (before the thread derailed)

Voronwe explicity stated he believed the opposite in his opening post. Most of the others couched their statements with qualifications making them far from outright claims of conspiracy.

We don't know the exact details of what was passed on to Bush to make his decision, but we sure know fuckheads like you have ridden his ass for it since day 1

Almost nobody made the unequivocal claim that the alert raise was purely politically motivated. That's an assumption that you righties have jumped to and the posts made by the lefties don't bear it up.
I'm not going to comment about ass-riding as you are clearly much more of an expert on the subject than I.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » August 10, 2004, 10:45 am

Kilmoll wrote:but we sure know fuckheads like you have ridden his ass for it since day 1

While I was wary of him coming into office - it took him a whole hundred days to piss me off.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 10, 2004, 10:59 am

Where did I demand proof of the mole? Besides, did you not read the part later on where I gave suggestions to prevent this? My guess is no, you probably on read what you want to read.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 10, 2004, 11:03 am

We don't know the exact details of what was passed on to Bush to make his decision, but we sure know fuckheads like you have ridden his ass for it since day 1

Oddly enough, I was neither pro nor anti Bush when he became president.
Only his actions since then have served to mold my opinions of him and his administration.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 11:15 am

Kelshara wrote:The amusing part is that Kilmoll bitches so much about people whining now but I BET he whined a hell of a lot more during Clinton.

Also: I have yet to see any info that goes against the idea that the timing of the information was suspect. And the fact that they ousted a mole just proves how completely idiotic the administration is. Hence it supports us.

I whined about 1 thing during Clinton.....that he lied under oath. He should have been impeached and jailed for lying under oath. Any other citizen would have been.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 11:19 am

vn_Tanc wrote: Voronwe explicity stated he believed the opposite in his opening post. Most of the others couched their statements with qualifications making them far from outright claims of conspiracy.

His opening statement says that he didn't originally think it.....but after reading the article he began questioning whether Homeland Security was being manipulated for political gains. You obviously have not read more than a couple of lines of that thread.

Voro is obviously turning liberal as per requirements of Teh fnord.

3:00 Georgia boy! At the monkey bars.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 11:20 am

actually any other citizen would have had an attourney be able to object to the defendent being questioned about an extra marital affair that happened 20 years after the real estate deal that he was being questioned on.

but he was impeached.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 11:29 am

objecting and having it accepted are two whole different issues. You never know if the judge is going to overrule it or allow it. It may well have been pertinent to the case as the prosecution was proving a point that the defendant was lying under oath.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 10, 2004, 12:10 pm

OK, time to interject a small peice of logic into the situation. The mole was uncovered by the NYT, they reported on him, BY NAME and then after they did so, later the same day the White House acknowleged he was the source of the l33t beta infos. That the White House confirmed it is TOTALLY irrelevant, had they said nothing the mole was still pulled into the sun for all to see in the Times article. The issue is who in power gave the Times the info (White House, CIA, OHS, FBI), and we can blame the Times for losing us an important tool in the war on Terror, I am all for freedom of the Press, but a journalist needs to use his head and decide on the greater good, so does his Editor. They failed us in this case.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 10, 2004, 1:49 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:OK, time to interject a small peice of logic into the situation. The mole was uncovered by the NYT, they reported on him, BY NAME and then after they did so, later the same day the White House acknowleged he was the source of the l33t beta infos. That the White House confirmed it is TOTALLY irrelevant, had they said nothing the mole was still pulled into the sun for all to see in the Times article. The issue is who in power gave the Times the info (White House, CIA, OHS, FBI), and we can blame the Times for losing us an important tool in the war on Terror, I am all for freedom of the Press, but a journalist needs to use his head and decide on the greater good, so does his Editor. They failed us in this case.

Sorry Pherr the NYT answers to a higher power than mere patriotism, logic, or common sense. The people have a right to know whatever the NYT thinks they should know according to their own agenda.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 10, 2004, 2:18 pm

You were whining about the terror alert, not the mole. OF COURSE you didn't know about a mole to complain about. vn_Tanc is Twistmaster B when it comes to spinning what people say.

Sit back and enjoy the show the next time the terror alert is raised and see for yourself.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 10, 2004, 2:42 pm

Metanis wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:OK, time to interject a small peice of logic into the situation. The mole was uncovered by the NYT, they reported on him, BY NAME and then after they did so, later the same day the White House acknowleged he was the source of the l33t beta infos. That the White House confirmed it is TOTALLY irrelevant, had they said nothing the mole was still pulled into the sun for all to see in the Times article. The issue is who in power gave the Times the info (White House, CIA, OHS, FBI), and we can blame the Times for losing us an important tool in the war on Terror, I am all for freedom of the Press, but a journalist needs to use his head and decide on the greater good, so does his Editor. They failed us in this case.
Sorry Pherr the NYT answers to a higher power than mere patriotism, logic, or common sense. The people have a right to know whatever the NYT thinks they should know according to their own agenda.

Very true, but the point I was making is this had nothing to do with the drivel people are going on and on about, once the story was leaked it was checkmate on the mole, the Bush confirmation of the name is not relevant and yet people continue to dickjoust

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 10, 2004, 2:46 pm

I'd rather blame the idiot that gave the NY Times the information. Good job trusting journalists with secret infos!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » August 10, 2004, 3:03 pm

who the fuck did the NYT get the info from? Pakistan denied the arrest, nothing stopped the US from denying it also.

it was the White HOuse who leaked ot the NYT, that is the point. According to BBC comments from British and Pakistani intelligence sources anyway.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 3:49 pm

Voronwë wrote:who the fuck did the NYT get the info from? Pakistan denied the arrest, nothing stopped the US from denying it also.

it was the White HOuse who leaked ot the NYT, that is the point. According to BBC comments from British and Pakistani intelligence sources anyway.

OK....so NOW you trust British intelligence.

Would you like powdered sugar and syrup with that?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 4:10 pm

Kil sounds like a broken record at IHop.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 10, 2004, 4:31 pm

I am at least sticking to one line of belief. There is a group here that twists every news article so that it fits their own little warped view. You of course fall under that category.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 10, 2004, 4:42 pm

Sure I do considering I've posted several threads asking questions to get better insight into things and have admitted when I am wrong. You, on the other hand, are just like Bush: You'll stick to your lies even when evidence is showed down your throat. You make me laugh and feel pity for you at the same time.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 12, 2004, 2:17 pm

Last week, after The New York Times reported that Washington officials had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the [U.S. government's most recent] security alerts," the Bush administration broke the most hallowed rule of espionage: It revealed the name of the hitherto anonymous spy, a double agent who was actively linked to al Qaeda and was providing valuable intelligence data to the United States at the same time. (Reuters)
The uniquely positioned Pakistani man was Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, a skilled computer hacker. For whatever reasons, Bush administration officials exposed him "while he was still cooperating with Pakistani authorities." (Reuters/Dawn, Pakistan). Khan, who was arrested last month in Lahore, had been "coaxed" by Pakistani intelligence officials into working undercover to help track down al Qaeda militants in the United Kingdom and the United States (Rediff.com) "After his capture, he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. (new Zealand Herald)

Computer data recovered from Khan showed "detailed plans and information about several U.S. and British targets, including financial centers and other public buildings." However, Khan's material was three years old. (Rediff.com) Nevertheless, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, obliquely referring to Khan and defending the administration's decision to expose him at the same time, said that "the information that there were plots under way that might relate to the pre-election period" made it "inconceivable" for the government not to warn potential terrorist targets in the United States, such as the New York Stock Exchange. Similarly, Rice suggested, the Bush administration was obliged to make known the source of its timely information, which meant identifying Khan. (CNN)

Pakistan's interior minister appeared to disagree. "This is a very sensitive subject," he said. "... [W]e must exercise extreme caution in coming out with such names and such information." (Reuters/Dawn, Pakistan) An op-ed commentator for Pakistan's Daily Times was more critical. "The unthinkable in the murky world of intelligence has come to pass," he wrote of the Bush team's decision to blow the cover of "one of the most important assets inside al Qaeda ... the U.S. has ever had."

Tim Ripley, a writer for Jane's Defence publications in the United Kingdom (subscription required), observed of the White House's action, "The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse.... What are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? ... Running agents within a terrorist organization is the holy grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback that negates months and years of work ...." The head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy, in Essen, Germany, said, "If it is correct, then I would say it's another debacle of the American intelligence community." (Reuters/New Zealand Herald)

In the United Kingdom, Home Secretary David Blunkett, whose office handles domestic security, offered a more measured response to the latest, heightened terrorism concerns linked to data reportedly provided by Khan. Is it "really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counterterrorism" to "feed the media," to "increase concern" and to "have something to say, whatever it is, in order to satisfy the insatiable desire to hear somebody saying something?" Blunkett wrote in an Observer commentary. "Of course not," he concluded. "This is arrant nonsense."

Unlike his American counterparts, Blunkett insisted that "there are very good reasons why we shouldn't reveal certain information to the public." For starters, he noted, "we do not want to undermine ... our sources of information, or share information that could place investigations in jeopardy. Second, we do not want to do or say anything which would prejudice any trial." Blunkett reported that the United Kingdom's security and counterterrorism agencies "are doing their job."

"[T]hey're protecting us in a way that I desire, you desire and we all expect from them," he asserted. "That is all, at the moment, there is to be said." (Observer)

From the SF Chron (http://www.sfgate.com)

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 12, 2004, 2:38 pm

Nothing new there Pherr.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 12, 2004, 4:13 pm

Multiple world newspapers... perspective from outside out borders... new no, interesting to see how we were perceived, yes.

And hiyas Met

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 12, 2004, 5:49 pm

Pherr the Dorf wrote:Multiple world newspapers... perspective from outside out borders... new no, interesting to see how we were perceived, yes.

And hiyas Met

We miss ya bud.

Hope things are going well in your neck of the woods

Edit - PS.. I broke 6k mana pool and I still can't keep a tank alive!!!

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 12, 2004, 6:06 pm

Kelshara wrote:You'll stick to your lies even when evidence is showed down your throat. You make me laugh and feel pity for you at the same time.

You mean you'd admit mistakes if you were proven wrong?

Dirty waffler!

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » August 12, 2004, 6:13 pm

We miss ya bud.

Hope things are going well in your neck of the woods

Edit - PS.. I broke 6k mana pool and I still can't keep a tank alive!!!

Stick to Current events!!!onezz!
This belongs in Everquest forum, don't make me ban you.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 12, 2004, 6:23 pm

mmm waffles..

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » August 12, 2004, 7:35 pm

Metanis wrote:
Pherr the Dorf wrote:Multiple world newspapers... perspective from outside out borders... new no, interesting to see how we were perceived, yes.

And hiyas Met
We miss ya bud.

Hope things are going well in your neck of the woods

Edit - PS.. I broke 6k mana pool and I still can't keep a tank alive!!!

coughcoughIkindacoughcoughmissdyingbecausecoughcoughyousuckbuttcoughcough

VeeshanVault

"Chatter" and terrorists

"Chatter" and terrorists

Re: "Chatter" and terrorists