Notices

Paris Was Warned About Attacks

Old 11-15-2015, 12:55 PM
  #1  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,384
Default Paris Was Warned About Attacks

Saw this on AOL when checking email.

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Senior Iraqi intelligence officials warned members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group of imminent assaults by the militant organization just one day before last week's deadly attacks in Paris killed 129 people, The Associated Press has learned.


http://m.aol.com/article/2015/11/15/...id%3D133927532
Freeebird is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 02:12 PM
  #2  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,585
Default

I'm not surprised if it's so, we knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but needed it to have it happen so we could get the public behind the war.
YFMF is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 02:19 PM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Central Florida
Posts: 7,283
Default

The "warning" was vague and non specific. See the quote from the article you referenced below:

"Iraqi intelligence sent a dispatch saying the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had ordered an attack on coalition countries fighting against them in Iraq and Syria, as well as on Iran and Russia, through bombings or other attacks in the days ahead.

The dispatch said the Iraqis had no specific details on when or where the attack would take place, and a senior French security official told the AP that French intelligence gets this kind of communication "all the time" and "every day."

I think we can safely assume that it is a normal condition now. I don't see how that warning meant much.
Seacat FL is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 03:50 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Seefood Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,672
Default

Originally Posted by YFMF View Post
I'm not surprised if it's so, we knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but needed it to have it happen so we could get the public behind the war.
Do you actually believe that we intentionally let the japs bomb PH, just to go to war?

Please tell me you don't subscribe to that "Fiddyism"
Seefood Man is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 04:03 PM
  #5  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,384
Default

Originally Posted by Seacat FL View Post
The "warning" was vague and non specific. See the quote from the article you referenced below:

"Iraqi intelligence sent a dispatch saying the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had ordered an attack on coalition countries fighting against them in Iraq and Syria, as well as on Iran and Russia, through bombings or other attacks in the days ahead.

The dispatch said the Iraqis had no specific details on when or where the attack would take place, and a senior French security official told the AP that French intelligence gets this kind of communication "all the time" and "every day."

I think we can safely assume that it is a normal condition now. I don't see how that warning meant much.
This little tidbit caught my eye. Maybe there were more specifics, maybe not.

"Two officials told the AP that France was warned beforehand of details that French authorities have yet to make public."
Freeebird is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 04:20 PM
  #6  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Saugus, Ma. USA
Posts: 11,063
Default

Keep in mind there's also a lot of crying wolf. In fact, there have been so many "signs, indicators, and warnings" that if you were to pick any week between 9/11/01 and today, and scrutinize intel from that week, you'd see clear signs that there was a likelihood of another attack during whatever week you picked.
There's been over 700 weeks that came and went since that horrific day, and you could find evidence of a "warning" in every single one of those weeks. Not sure what you'd expect people to do - it isn't actionable intel beyond what we're already doing.
jobowker is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 04:23 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 985
Default

Originally Posted by YFMF View Post
I'm not surprised if it's so, we knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but needed it to have it happen so we could get the public behind the war.
Perhaps you could back up that statement?
mitchk is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 04:24 PM
  #8  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Marblehead, Ohio
Posts: 9,697
Default

Originally Posted by Seefood Man View Post
Do you actually believe that we intentionally let the japs bomb PH, just to go to war?

Please tell me you don't subscribe to that "Fiddyism"
It's pretty well documented.
Boataholic is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 06:31 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 985
Default

Originally Posted by Boataholic View Post
It's pretty well documented.
OK, enlighten me.
mitchk is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 06:49 PM
  #10  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,585
Default

Originally Posted by Seefood Man View Post
Do you actually believe that we intentionally let the japs bomb PH, just to go to war?

Please tell me you don't subscribe to that "Fiddyism"
Yes I do, you need to go back to the times we were in. Fresh out of WWI which was not a popular war with the people to start with, into a great depression and then into another war in Europe. The American people wanted no part of another war that didn't involve us.

They (the Govt.) needed a way to get the American people to back a war, what better way then to have the hated "JAPS" sneak attack our boys on a Sunday, a day of rest. I mean no offense when I say this, but if you trust the govt. that's on you, I on the other hand question everything they do. (Forward he cried, from the rear....)

Originally Posted by mitchk View Post
Perhaps you could back up that statement?
As time goes by it gets more and more difficult to find viable corroboration, but I'll see what I can do.


I tried to research this a few years back for a friend in college and it was pretty hard, I thought it would be even more so today. But alas, 70 years later info is pouring out.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-attack.html
YFMF is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 06:59 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,786
Default

Originally Posted by YFMF View Post
Yes I do, you need to go back to the times we were in. Fresh out of WWI which was not a popular war with the people to start with, into a great depression and then into another war in Europe. The American people wanted no part of another war that didn't involve us.

They (the Govt.) needed a way to get the American people to back a war, what better way then to have the hated "JAPS" sneak attack our boys on a Sunday, a day of rest. I mean no offense when I say this, but if you trust the govt. that's on you, I on the other hand question everything they do. (Forward he cried, from the rear....)



As time goes by it gets more and more difficult to find viable corroboration, but I'll see what I can do.




I tried to research this a few years back for a friend in college and it was pretty hard, I thought it would be even more so today. But alas, 70 years later info is pouring out.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...se-attack.html


Next thing you are going to tell us is 911 was an inside job.......
alligatorgar is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:03 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 648
Default

It was. I watched this movie that said that they were "replacing the fire alarm and security wiring" for a couple of weeks prior to 9/11. Turns out our government was just planting explosives and wiring it all together. It was a movie so had to be true, no?
caferacermike is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:04 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Barnacled's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lower, AL
Posts: 5,177
Default

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...FFKT4m5Vowm.97

The French gave warning.
Barnacled is online now  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:12 PM
  #14  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 5,585
Default

Originally Posted by alligatorgar View Post
Next thing you are going to tell us is 911 was an inside job.......
I'm not looking to argue with you over this, I supplied a link to back up my claim, one I've been making for decades now. So try with some logic to dispute the link and we can talk. If you want to try and make a mockery of my statement by mixing in 9-11 stuff it just shows your argument is weak.

I'm up for a debate, not ridicule.
YFMF is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:18 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North Coast of America
Posts: 7,107
Default

Originally Posted by alligatorgar View Post
Next thing you are going to tell us is 911 was an inside job.......
And that we never landed on the Moon.
osudaddy is online now  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:27 PM
  #16  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,384
Default

Hey, when it comes to cloak and dagger crap and our government, nothing would surprise me. I think the truth, past and present, would scare the hell out of all of us.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:33 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: God Bless Texas / LOTO
Posts: 842
Default

When you look back, every attack has is signal you can see after the fact. I takes some specific forewarning to take action.

I bet The White House gets warnings on a daily basis. I guess we could put Washington DC on lockdown for every threat?
DNinja is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:35 PM
  #18  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: On The Tenna Sea
Posts: 13,384
Default

Originally Posted by DNinja View Post
When you look back, every attack has is signal you can see after the fact. I takes some specific forewarning to take action.

I bet The White House gets warnings on a daily basis. I guess we could put Washington DC on lockdown for every threat?
I'd comment on that, but I don't want this one to be bilged.
Freeebird is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 07:42 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: God Bless Texas / LOTO
Posts: 842
Default

Originally Posted by Freeebird View Post
I'd comment on that, but I don't want this one to be bilged.
I understand. I have been on the receiving end of a threat, among a multitude of others, that was an actual one that needed action. Intell is so much easier to decipher after the event.
DNinja is offline  
Old 11-15-2015, 08:34 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 131
Default

Originally Posted by YFMF View Post
I'm up for a debate, not ridicule.
Ok, I'll play.

1) While it is true that the U.S. GOV expected a Japanese attack prior to DEC 7, it's widely known from first hand accounts that the attack was expected in the Philippines or far eastern US territories. Naval theory of the day held that Pearl Harbor was not vulnerable to air attack since it was (assmuned falsely) to be too shallow for aireal torpedoes. Battleships were thought to be too armored for aireal bombs to sink, and only torpedos could do the job. The Japanese learned lessons from the British attack at Taranto while the US did not.

2) If the GOV did know about the impending attack, as you propose, they would have sortied their battleships as well. Naval theory of the day held that carriers were only for screening/harassment and battleships were the main offensive arm of naval warfare. There is no way Roosevelt would have allowed the Japanese to neutralize his main offensive weapon in the Pacific. Our switch in doctrine to carrier warfare was born out of necessity due to Pearl Harbor and saying otherwise is revisionist.

3) If our Intel was as good as you postulate, Roosevelt would have known the Japanese planned to declare war shortly before their attack on DEC 7. There was no need to knowingly sacrifice the Pacific fleet. Roosevelt would have had his declared war even with a Japanese attack on an emptied Pearl Harbor.
Tread_Head57 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread