Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for Halo 1 modding and tech, with unique means of rewarding individual content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time! EST. 2012

Weps

World Conflict Thread

280 posts in this topic

What are the politics between the FBI and CIA? They seem to have somewhat overlapping duties, but come to different conclusions now and again.

 

I was just reading this article FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia’s motives in 2016 hacks and it does have some interesting insight into their philosophical differences:

 

Quote

 

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.“The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court,” one of the officials said. “The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means ‘we’re pretty damn sure.’ It doesn’t mean they can prove it in court.”

 

 

But, are there power struggles between the two agencies?

xvii likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of Open Carnage never see off-site ads.

1 hour ago, WaeV said:

What are the politics between the FBI and CIA? They seem to have somewhat overlapping duties, but come to different conclusions now and again.

 

I was just reading this article FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia’s motives in 2016 hacks and it does have some interesting insight into their philosophical differences:

 

 

But, are there power struggles between the two agencies?

 

From what I read about the history of the CIA, yes, there has been power struggles since the conception of the CIA. IIRC, J. Edgar Hoover felt that the FBI was all the Fed needed for protection of the U.S. and the FBI role in cracking NAZI spy rings in the U.S. and Latin America proved this. Hoover hated the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) which was a predecessor to the CIA and wanted the FBI to play a more worldwide role and this was brought to an end since the FBI failed to stop 5 OSS Soviet moles (1945) and failed to stop Soviet moles in other government areas and so the FBI's role in helping alleviate the fears of the Red Scare made Pres. Truman sign the National Security Act in 1947 which was passed by Congress, and the National Security Council (NSC) and the Central Intelligence Agency were born.

 

During the Cold War, FBI interfered with CIA operations within the U.S. with holding out information (VENONA Project) that could prove vital to bringing down moles. Also IIRC, FBI managed to fuck up a CIA capture by acting by themselves instead of helping the CIA in a joint effort.

 

I might have over simplified this and/or forgot some parts but yeah. FBI, under certain leadership of course, has had a history of getting buttmad with other agencies like the OSS and the CIA.

 

Source: The Secret History of the CIA by Joseph J. Trento.

Edited by ZION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ZION said:

 

This footage is on point. Wow...

 

That is some insane footage. Seeing quite a bit of PRC/PLA hardware too.

 

14 hours ago, WaeV said:

What are the politics between the FBI and CIA? They seem to have somewhat overlapping duties, but come to different conclusions now and again.

 

I was just reading this article FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia’s motives in 2016 hacks and it does have some interesting insight into their philosophical differences:

 

 

But, are there power struggles between the two agencies?

 

Zion's summation is very apt. The FBI and CIA have always had an extreme hatred towards each other over a very contested and bumpy operational history. 

 

The WaPo published a CIA leak about President Obama ordering an overview of possible tampering in US electoral processes by the Russian Government, which in and of itself means nothing. The CIA, without evidence or data, as well as without confirmation from any of the 15 other intelligence agencies within the intel community presented an informal report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence with accusations of Russian electoral tampering.

 

The question that has to be asked is, how and where is the CIA deriving this information from? Are we simply basing this on the word of analysts who say "Oh, well Russia is quite capable of this and Putin has the means. as well as the motive", or are we talking digital fingerprints actually showing links to known Russian sources? What's the political influence here? What possible reason would the Russians want with Trump in office for?

 

The FBI is concerned with actual hard data and evidence, of which AFAIK there is none. 

 

 As far as political alliances, it's been said the CIA is extremely influenced by the Bush's, due to George H.W. Bush's tenure as DCI and his "reformation" of the agency. 

 

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2016-featured-story-archive/bush-as-director-of-central-intelligence.html

 

Where the FBI is still heavily influenced by Hoover and his policies. 
 

Edited by Weps
WaeV likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2016 at 11:03 PM, ZION said:

 

 

It's funny to watch these compilations. 90% of the video are misses or glancing strikes which only result in cosmetic damage. Only one clip (2:30) shows an M1 getting hit and the activation of the munitions ejection system and it's internal blast venting systems, which is to be expected with a ATGM like the TOW. The clip in and of itself shows the tank's safety systems and armor package operated correctly, keeping the crew safe. Versus footage from Syria where you see the same ATGM and AT systems in use, turning RGF and SAA T-72 and T-80 into burning hulks.

 

The M1 in the last clip is an Iraqi M1A1M that ISIS packed full of PETN and then detonated, as can been seen in the explosion emanating outward from the tank, rather than an inward detonation on one side, as would be the case with AT/ATGM. Any tank packed full of explosives is going to fly apart like a toy. 

 

Now, what I really hate about videos like this, is they feed into false bullshit. Modern media across all platforms has given the general public false information in how the dynamics of explosive effects work and military sciences g. Most folks would watch this and think the M1 is garbage because they saw them being hit, not knowing the entire point of armor is to take the force and reflect or stop it. Most people think armor has some mystical property that just makes enemy munitions just disappear. 

Edited by Weps
xvii and Solaris like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Weps said:

 

It's funny to watch these compilations. 90% of the video are misses or glancing strikes which only result in cosmetic damage. Only one clip (2:30) shows an M1 getting hit and the activation of the munitions ejection system and it's internal blast venting systems, which is to be expected with a ATGM like the TOW. The clip in and of itself shows the tank's safety systems and armor package operated correctly, keeping the crew safe. Versus footage from Syria where you see the same ATGM and AT systems in use, turning RGF and SAA T-72 and T-80 into burning hulks.

 

The M1 in the last clip is an Iraqi M1A1M that ISIS packed full of PETN and then detonated, as can been seen in the explosion emanating outward from the tank, rather than an inward detonation on one side, as would be the case with AT/ATGM. Any tank packed full of explosives is going to fly apart like a toy. 

 

Now, what I really hate about videos like this, is they feed into false bullshit. Modern media across all platforms has given the general public false information in how the dynamics of explosive effects work and military sciences g. Most folks would watch this and think the M1 is garbage because they saw them being hit, not knowing the entire point of armor is to take the force and reflect or stop it. Most people think armor has some mystical property that just makes enemy munitions just disappear. 

Right, they're about on par with trolling/prank videos. If a small arms munition like the RPG-7 or RPG-29 can do any serious damage to an M1, we've got problems of our own. 


Grumpy UNIX and Cloud Administrator | 90's Boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Solaris said:

Right, they're about on par with trolling/prank videos. If a small arms munition like the RPG-7 or RPG-29 can do any serious damage to an M1, we've got problems of our own. 

 

Exactly. 

In the past 15 years, I've only heard of a single incident where an RPG-7 actually successfully penetrated an M1 and it was a complete fluke. An Iraqi RPG gunner managed to strike the unarmored access skirt panel over the tracks with an PG-7VR tandem warhead as the turret was turned to the rear to engage dismounts, lining up an extremely small slit where the hydraulic reservoir tube enters into the turret/hull. The HEAT slug blew into the reservoir tube cross point, up through the turret basket fencing, passed through the loaders seatback and the loader, ricocheted off the front turret wall, and stuck itself into the door panel on the munitions stowage. Other than the loader, no injures were sustained and the M1 was put in for repair. 

Other than that, the only things RPG-7 and RPG-29 have done is cause mobility kills through engine damage or track linkage being damaged, which is going to be the same case for all tanks. In the above video you see an RPG-29 cause an M1 to activate it's munitions ejection system, but reports have shown extreme explosive shock can active the system, even with no penetration into the munitions compartment. 

Now the new Kornet is a beast, it's actually done serious damage to some Iraqi and Saudi M1's, but still no recorded incidents of crew compartment penetration. 

 

Now, IEDs be a different story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/12/28/14/03/israeli-leader-issued-stern-warning-to-new-zealand-in-lead-up-to-un-vote/?ocid=9newsfb

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally phoned New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully to warn him that the country's co-sponsorship of a UN resolution was a "declaration of war."



 

The UN Security Council resolution declared Israel's settlements "illegal" on Sunday after the US abstained from voting, breaking with a tradition of abstaining from votes concerning Israel.

 

Mr Netanyahu publicly called it a "shameful anti-Israel resolution" and lashed out at world leaders and diplomats who supported the resolution.

In the hours before the vote, Mr Netanyahu reportedly issued a stern warning of repercussion if New Zealand if it voted in support.

"This is a scandalous decision. I’m asking that you not support it and not promote it," Mr Netanyahu told McCully by phone, as allegedly relayed to Haaretz by Western diplomats present at the time of the call.

 

"If you continue to promote this resolution from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem."


Grumpy UNIX and Cloud Administrator | 90's Boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.