# Outed



## racing_kitty (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm sure this will pop up in General Discussion at some point, but I figured post here first, since it is intel related.  If the breaking news is correct, then the CIA has got serious problems in Lebanon.  They outed some of our spies, and have arrested them.  http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111121/D9R53CD80.html


----------



## mike_cos (Nov 21, 2011)

...Obama's exit strategy...?...:-"


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 21, 2011)

mike_cos said:


> ...Obama's exit strategy...?...:-"


 
I was thinking peace offering... "Here, you can have some of our guys.  Can we stay friends?"  I know, unrealistic, and downright hateful, but I trust him about as far as I can throw my car.


----------



## fox1371 (Nov 21, 2011)

Hopefully they can repair this quickly and get the individuals out that are evenly remotely close to being compromised. Personally I think that Iran is too strong right now to go after and that we need to work something out in the same fashion that we did with China. Once we went into Iraq we took away the buffer that Saddam provided between us and Iran. Unfortunately when we took out Saddam we took away the pressure that he had on Iran.


----------



## mike_cos (Nov 21, 2011)

You are not in war in Lebenon... yet...


----------



## CDG (Nov 21, 2011)

fox1371 said:


> Hopefully they can repair this quickly and get the individuals out that are evenly remotely close to being compromised. Personally *I think that Iran is too strong right now to go after* and that we need to work something out in the same fashion that we did with China. Once we went into Iraq we took away the buffer that Saddam provided between us and Iran. Unfortunately when we took out Saddam we took away the pressure that he had on Iran.


 
I think this is only true in the context of us already being engaged on two fronts.  If we were to shift total focus to Iran, and use our forces the proper way, I think we would do ok.


----------



## fox1371 (Nov 21, 2011)

CDG said:


> I think this is only true in the context of us already being engaged on two fronts. If we were to shift total focus to Iran, and use our forces the proper way, I think we would do ok.


I think that taking on Iran as an individual country is possible, however I think that Iran has been funding a wide variety of groups that will immediately come to their aid for various reasons.  I think that if we try and take on Iran, that we will end up attempting to take on damn near the entire Middle East.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 21, 2011)

Interesting situation.


----------



## Crusader74 (Nov 21, 2011)

Just hope the UNIFIL troops don't suffer a back lash...


----------



## QC (Nov 21, 2011)

Predictable patterns...:-(


----------



## Brill (Nov 21, 2011)

Outed in Lebanon and Iran is a bullet to the head.  Sucks.


----------



## mike_cos (Nov 22, 2011)

Several informants spy agency were unmasked by the militant pro-Iranian Hezbollah and their capture would have undermined the operation of the "station" in Beirut. According to the ABC television network have been discovered thanks to wiretapping crossed with the movements of people kept an eye on. It seems that the Americans had 007 as a meeting place with informants also a fast-food chain Pizza Hut. And when in their talks on a cell phone talking about "pizza" - the TV has added ABC - meant that the appointment was in the room. The Hizbullah would not have put a lot of time to find out and from here he rebuilt the contacts. Told it seems hardly credible. That's a joke or proof of unparalleled ingenuity. Unless it is a version of the facade and that there are other reasons for the origin of a misstep that has had serious consequences. With reduced capacity to monitor the extremist group the fate of those who have fallen into the hands of the guerrillas. The news of the capture of "moles" actually dates back to June and was the secretary of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, emerged to announce it was clear that a link with CIA agents in Lebanon under diplomatic cover. The revelation was accompanied by comments on the ability of Americans to infiltrate an organization better able to protect themselves. Now, however, that episode has been reinterpreted in a different light. And officials quoted in the media argue that the spies were discovered because they have not taken adequate measures have been imprudent and - despite warnings - the use of telephones. The breach was exploited by Hezbollah that he would use technology acquired abroad to monitor the communications of Americans. In the past, the movement was able to neutralize a network of Israeli Mossad source systems using French or Russian (but not excluded either that it concerns material U.S.). In addition to this, however, but there is another side. Lebanese sources have revealed that the militants would received assistance from elements of the Lebanese security. A relationship get stronger after the summer with his appointment as head of "General Safety" Liwa Abbas Ibrahim, a senior Shiite official. A few days after his promotion, the officer has attended a private meeting with Nasrallah. A summit of congratulations (which took place July 18) followed by a series of agreements to facilitate the movement of pro-Iranian. The "General safety" may be important for the clandestine operations of the group. The agency, in fact, control the borders, deals with foreign nationals, visiting personalities, visa and has eyes in ports and airports. In addition, Abbas Ibrahim has an excellent knowledge of South Lebanon, the area where Hezbollah has its shelters and UN peacekeepers operate, including Italians. From 2005 to 2008 he headed the military intelligence in this region and later became its number two nationally.
Amen


----------



## mike_cos (Nov 23, 2011)

The CIA Fiasco.... from WP.. (Petraeus... Petraeus... give us back McCristall)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...otect-assets/2011/11/21/gIQAlJg6gN_story.html


----------



## sitrepful (Nov 24, 2011)

It sucks that this happened, but I can't help but wonder why the CIA would use assets with inadequate proficiency in fieldcraft.


fox1371 said:


> Personally I think that Iran is too strong right now to go after.


How do you reckon?


----------



## Brill (Nov 24, 2011)

sitrepful said:


> It sucks that this happened, but I can't help but wonder why the CIA would use assets with inadequate proficiency in fieldcraft.



Um, how do you expect them to get better? Tough to send them away for training.


----------



## CDG (Nov 24, 2011)

sitrepful said:


> How do you reckon?



Did you read all the posts?  He addressed this in post #7.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 24, 2011)

racing_kitty said:


> I was thinking peace offering... "Here, you can have some of our guys. Can we stay friends?" I know, unrealistic, and downright hateful, but I trust him about as far as I can throw my car.


Also hurts Pretraeus  (sp?) politically.  He will go down as the CIA director who lost the most agents at a single sitting, smooth move by the Administration.


----------



## sitrepful (Nov 24, 2011)

fox1371 said:


> I think that taking on Iran as an individual country is possible, however I think that Iran has been funding a wide variety of groups that will immediately come to their aid for various reasons. I think that if we try and take on Iran, that we will end up attempting to take on damn near the entire Middle East.


 
They do fund a lot of groups, but since they are Shi'a and that brand of Islam only accounts for 10% to 20% percent of all adherents, I would assess that many of the Sunni Islamic groups would be ambivalent about helping Iran. AQAP has stated publicly (via their western mouthpiece publication, _Inspire_) that they don't differentiate between _Kafir _westerners and Shi'a Muslims. While it is possible that they might choose the "greater of two evils" route, my assessment is that is highly unlikely, given the fact that AQ and other networks/groups have never really been known for their ideological flexibility, particularly in this instance which would ultimately be giving aid to the most powerful Shi'ite entitity there is, hardly something that Salafists and Wahhabists find attractive.


----------



## Brill (Nov 24, 2011)

sitrepful said:


> They do fund a lot of groups, but since they are Shi'a and that brand of Islam only accounts for 10% to 20% percent of all adherents, I would assess that many of the Sunni Islamic groups would be ambivalent about helping Iran. AQAP has stated publicly (via their western mouthpiece publication, _Inspire_) that they don't differentiate between _Kafir _westerners and Shi'a Muslims. While it is possible that they might choose the "greater of two evils" route, my assessment is that is highly unlikely, given the fact that AQ and other networks/groups have never really been known for their ideological flexibility, particularly in this instance which would ultimately be giving aid to the most powerful Shi'ite entitity there is, hardly something that Salafists and Wahhabists find attractive.


 
To be blunt: you need to read more.  The IRGC is funding and supplying the Taliban, whose "islam" makes the Wahhabs look like moderates.  Wasn't there a recent press report about Iranian equipment showing up in Libya?  Didn't Iran fund, train, and equip Bosnians during their war?

Iran is ripe for a revolution...they just need a little nudge and they will crumble from within.


----------



## sitrepful (Nov 24, 2011)

That's good to know, I will definitely look into it.


----------



## fox1371 (Nov 24, 2011)

sitrepful said:


> They do fund a lot of groups, but since they are Shi'a and that brand of Islam only accounts for 10% to 20% percent of all adherents, I would assess that many of the Sunni Islamic groups would be ambivalent about helping Iran. AQAP has stated publicly (via their western mouthpiece publication, _Inspire_) that they don't differentiate between _Kafir _westerners and Shi'a Muslims. While it is possible that they might choose the "greater of two evils" route, my assessment is that is highly unlikely, given the fact that AQ and other networks/groups have never really been known for their ideological flexibility, particularly in this instance which would ultimately be giving aid to the most powerful Shi'ite entitity there is, hardly something that Salafists and Wahhabists find attractive.


I think that you underestimate the Islamic religion.  A prime example is the fact that Afghanistan has stated that they will side with Pakistan if the two of us were to go to war. 

On a small note, I distinctly recall pulling old Iranian military ID's off of dead guys in Afghanistan.


----------



## alibi (Nov 24, 2011)

fox1371 said:


> I think that you underestimate the Islamic religion. A prime example is the fact that Afghanistan has stated that they will side with Pakistan if the two of us were to go to war.
> 
> *On a small note, I distinctly recall pulling old Iranian military ID's off of dead guys in Afghanistan*.


 


They were that blatant about it?


----------



## sitrepful (Nov 24, 2011)

That's pretty crazy fox. When did this happen?


----------



## sitrepful (Nov 24, 2011)

Crazy as in"thats wild!", not crazy as in "retarded"

Just to clarify.


----------



## Ben Dare (Nov 26, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Also hurts Pretraeus (sp?) politically. He will go down as the CIA director who lost the most agents at a single sitting, smooth move by the Administration.


 
political maneuvering?... probably not. Severely bad timing... a resounding *بله*


----------

