# US won't share secret of beating roadside bomb info with allies.



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242008/US-wont-share-secret-beating-roadside-bombs.html

_"This comes from retired US Army Lieutenant-General Thomas Metz._
_Lieut-Gen Metz has urged the Pentagon to share top-secret methods used by US forces to detect the so-called Improvised Explosive Devices and the terror networks which build them._
_But Pentagon chiefs have refused, arguing that if the information falls into the hands of the Taliban, new ways will be found to beat the technology._



So tell me, did my martial arts student die along with many others last year because the Americans have chosen not to tell us something that could have saved all their lives, not to mention all those you have lost limbs?

This is not what we want to hear coming from our 'ally'. I have most of my students going out from the end of this month onwards, are they to die too because the Americans don't want to share info with us?

Angry doesn't cover how people feel about this. It's been on a lot of the forces network along with the families networks.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 10, 2010)

This is inexcusable if true.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

It's not an accusation that has come from the Allies or anyone outside the US, it's a statement by a former high ranking US soldier. I don't know what his motivation is other than trying to save lives, it's not something that I think will do him any political good in his own country so there seems little reason to disbelieve him.


----------



## crushing (Jan 10, 2010)

Could it be disinformation in an attempt to get the Taliban to change how they are doing it now?


----------



## fireman00 (Jan 10, 2010)

sorry for your loss.

more then likely we didn't share because the information would wind up in the hands of the enemy and they would then adapt and find new ways to hide their IEDs.


----------



## grydth (Jan 10, 2010)

It is certainly something which deserves complete investigation and a clear answer. I do not know how we can expect other countries to support us if we are not supporting them with knowledge that can keep their soldiers alive.

I am somewhat skeptical that the US even has such knowledge, given that our own personnel continue to suffer and die from explosives at such an alarming rate.

On the other hand, the Christmas bombing attempt shows that, even years post 9/11 our agencies do not talk efficiently with each other - can we be surprised if such inefficiency carries over into dealing with friendly nations?


----------



## Flea (Jan 10, 2010)

I have zero military background, so forgive me if this is off-base, but ... it seems like common sense to me that if the insurgents wanted to be effective they'd be working on new tactics all the time _anyway_, right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

The average grunt has no idea what's being done at the command level. Do our forces tell each other everything? No, they don't.  Never have, never will. That's the nature of things. But, if there's ways to better detect threats, that information I'm sure is shared. The last thing the US needs is one of it's few remaining engaged allies to say "hey, we lost 5 guys this year because you were keeping us ill equipped to survive, we quit."


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

fireman00 said:


> sorry for your loss.
> 
> more then likely we didn't share because the information would wind up in the hands of the enemy and they would then adapt and find new ways to hide their IEDs.


 
yeah thanks for that, our soldiers are known for their loose mouths aren't they, especially when being blown to pieces. It stands to reason that telling us would result in it being passed on to the enemy. I hope you didn't mean it the way it read.

Ongoing work is always being done to outwit the enemy as they are always working on looking for ways to outwit us.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Considering that the Taliban in Afghanistan can see the video feed from the Predator drones as they fly overhead, it's easy for them to find things out.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The average grunt has no idea what's being done at the command level. Do our forces tell each other everything? No, they don't. Never have, never will. That's the nature of things. But, if there's ways to better detect threats, that information I'm sure is shared. The last thing the US needs is one of it's few remaining engaged allies to say "hey, we lost 5 guys this year because you were keeping us ill equipped to survive, we quit."


 

Any idea why this soldier should have stated this, whether it's true or not it's still going to cause a great deal of damage isn't it? Is he known for being political or having an axe to grind?

We've lost more than 5, we've lost over 100 now, most to roadside bombs. The list of injured is in the hundreds too so it's a big thing here. it's not just our soldiers either, its the children.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...MilitaryMedicsSaveAfghanGirlsInjuredByIed.htm


But then again if the Americans have a secret it's not working that well?
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...hJournalistRupertHamerKilledInAfghanistan.htm


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Considering I don't know this soldier, never met him, never communicated with him, couldn't pick him out of a sea of short haircuts and square faces, I have no idea.

I can speculate, I can postulate, I can guess, but in the end I would still have no idea.

Maybe he's just an *** hole?

British losses, killed and wounded after 9 years, 10 months of continuous engagement are still significantly less than the losses the British forces suffered during their Falklands War (258K/777W), or any single day of any WW2 major campaign or engagement.  While any single death is too many, neither the US nor Britain are suffering heavy losses, and considering the large number of unsuccessful attempts to harm our forces on a daily bases, the odds are quite good in our favor.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm sure ALL of our allies are sharing everything THEY know....

Not that it excuses this behavior, but come on. This surprises anybody with military or espionage experience????

-Considering how our own intelligence agencies don't share WITH EACH OTHER!-


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

Since many of these bombs are being detonated via signals from cell phones, garage door openers and other signals it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it's probably some form of energy/radio/signal system that is detonating these things from a distance. That and drones and sat imagery. 

That would be my guess.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Considering I don't know this soldier, never met him, never communicated with him, couldn't pick him out of a sea of short haircuts and square faces, I have no idea.
> 
> I can speculate, I can postulate, I can guess, but in the end I would still have no idea.
> 
> ...


 
We've lost 246 soldiers in Afghan, 101 last year alone. The deaths in Falklands were 255. the wounded have far exceeded the Falklands. as the figures from the MOD show. The columns haven't been added together to make the total. Each is a total in itself.



The spreadsheet is here
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEOjtESRY5o0dw

names of dead, how they died and date of death here.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEOjtESRY5o0dw


We have 9000 service people in Afghan, you can work out the percentage of our troops that are being killed and injured and as you can see it's not a small amount at all.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2010)

As part of NATO, the US asked for its allies help with Afghanistan, as such they should be sharing all information possible to aid those allies in the task of defeating the insurgants.

There is no such thing as a low death count. One is one too many.

Are American deaths more valuable then other allied deaths? 

There has to be more to this story. I can't see the guys on the ground doing this to each other. 

*Coalition deaths in Afghanistan by country* 




USA: 882*




 UK: 246



Canada: 137*




 Germany: 40



France: 36



Denmark: 31



Spain: 26



Italy: 22



Netherlands: 21



Poland: 16



Australia: 11



Romania: 11



Estonia: 7



Norway: 4



Czech Republic: 3



Latvia: 3



Hungary: 2



Portugal: 2



South Korea: 2



Sweden: 2



Turkey: 2



Belgium: 1



Finland: 1



Jordan: 1



Lithuania: 1
*TOTAL*: 1,510


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

I've stated in previous discussions that 1 death is too many.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 10, 2010)

Trying to compare costs is pointless; every nation that has men and women serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else is paying a high price in lives ended and impacted through injuries.

At the same time, sharing military intelligence and technology, even among allies, isn't a simple matter.  Sometimes there are sources and methods or raw tech that has to be vetted for sharing, and this takes time.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

People getting all worked up over a news article are fools. There is ALWAYS more to the truth of the matter than what you see in the press. It's either a shallow piece or its INTENDED to generate controversy without all the facts. It also is used by people with preconceived notions as support for opinions that they hold already.

Seeing how the US far and away has lost more soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't see where this great technology is doing such an excellent job anyway. There are political and personal issues going on with this Generals "coming out" with this...bet on it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> People getting all worked up over a news article are fools. There is ALWAYS more to the truth of the matter than what you see in the press. It's either a shallow piece or its INTENDED to generate controversy without all the facts. It also is used by people with preconceived notions as support for opinions that they hold already.
> 
> Seeing how the US far and away has lost more soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't see where this great technology is doing such an excellent job anyway. There are political and personal issues going on with this Generals "coming out" with this...bet on it.


 
One could argue though that America dragged the rest of us into their war both in Iraq and Afghanistan, to be sure Nato wouldn't have declared war on either country without America wishing it.

Whatever the facts of this information not being shared or not you soldier has caused a great deal of damage. I would really like to know why if it's not for reasons of saving lives.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

NATO wouldn't do squat EVER for ANYTHING imo. 

Russia had no fear of NATO whatsoever when they invaded Georgia. They know the truth.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm more concerned about why the CIA, FBI, NSA and other "three letter agencies" are not sharing their intelligence with each other.

Im fairly certain that the UK intelligence agencies (along with the rest of our allies) have some pretty good stuff they are holding close to their vests too. This story is being USED for a purpose.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

So Tez, why aren't the British sharing everything they know with the US?  Surely our troops lives are worth as much as your own troops lives?



> http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/01/gns_afghanistan_ied_info_sharing_010710/&#8220;We continue to have a tremendous problem with the jammers because each nation builds its jammers a different way,&#8221; Metz said. &#8220;No one wants to open up their box and show how the electronics works.&#8221;
> Jammers are used to interfere with the signals that insurgents use to trigger bombs electronically.
> Metz and other military officials have said the most effective way to counter the roadside bombs is to attack the networks of people who build and support them.
> That, too, requires sharing information.
> &#8220;If you&#8217;ve got some information about the network, you don&#8217;t have to share how you got that information. But it would surely be nice if your allies and your coalition partners got that part of the information that they needed to be successful,&#8221; Metz said.



Seems that the General is being misquoted by some unreliable news source, maybe over some editors agenda, or a political slant or something?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Same link


> Insurgents in Afghanistan in recent years have been turning increasingly to roadside bombs and suicide attacks to target coalition forces. The number of IED attacks that killed or wounded coalition forces increased to 60 in December from 32 in December 2008. *The total number of IEDs, including those that were found before they detonated, increased to 8,690 last year from 3,783 in 2008.*


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

There ya go...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> NATO wouldn't do squat EVER for ANYTHING imo.
> 
> Russia had no fear of NATO whatsoever when they invaded Georgia. They know the truth.


 

So what? NATO is there for the defence of member countries not to act as a police force between warring neighbours. Russia shouldn't have invaded Georgia but then Georgia in turn shouldn't have invaded South Ossetia. It was definitly a situation where sending foreign troops in to take either side would have been wrong. There were faults on both sides.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...mes-Georgia-for-starting-war-with-Russia.html

These things aren't as simple as many think.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

Then neither were the Balkans. Should have just left them alone. Germany invading Poland in 39? Eh..not our affair. "Peace in our time" and all.

NATO is a toothless tiger.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I'm more concerned about why the CIA, FBI, NSA and other "three letter agencies" are not sharing their intelligence with each other.
> 
> *Im fairly certain that the UK intelligence agencies* (along with the rest of our allies) have some pretty good stuff they are holding close to their vests too. This story is being USED for a purpose.


 
So what information is that? You work with the military, are privy to military secrets then? Which intelligence service is witholding information and what info is is pertaining to? Are they methods of saving lives that are being withheld? 
This isn't about intel btw it's about methods used to detect roadside bombs.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Then neither were the Balkans. Should have just left them alone. Germany invading Poland in 39? Eh..not our affair. "Peace in our time" and all.
> 
> NATO is a toothless tiger.


 
Germany invading Poland certainly wasn't America's business was it? We went to war becasue of it, you didn't come along until a lot later.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Tez, since your clearance level for UK military intelligence is higher than mine, could you please tell us what we haven't shared?

As to WW2, Chamberlin.  All I have to say to that one.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

http://www.defencetalk.com/lynn-says-fight-against-ieds-remains-priority-23553/

Military sources say there is no question of the US refusing to use its superior technology to help save the lives of British combat troops.

The numerous -reliable & informed- articles I'm finding on this issue indicate that the problem isn't that the US isn't sharing, it's that *no one is sharing efficiently* and securely.  That differences in policy, bureaucracy, and tradition are at the heart of the problem, not to mention differences in technology.

Metz said. &#8220;No one wants to open up their box and show how the electronics works.&#8221;

So, Tez, why won't you open your jammers up and show us how they work so we can help you? Why are you purposefully putting your own men and women in harms way by refusing to be open with us?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

I know of no information that hasn't been shared tbh. I will say though that the Americans rely too much on electronic intel instead of humint. Sometimes the old ways are the best and reverting to playing the Great Game isn't a waste of time at all. 

What the retired American officer is alleging is that military methods of detecting roadside bombs haven't been shared. This isn't an intel issue, this is purely a military concern, army to army.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> http://www.defencetalk.com/lynn-says-fight-against-ieds-remains-priority-23553/
> 
> Military sources say there is no question of the US refusing to use its superior technology to help save the lives of British combat troops.
> 
> ...


 
The jammers are yours, old son. I just help look after them lol!
The electronic spies here are all yours too btw and they are often pointing away from us and towards you lot.

_"RAF Menwith Hill functions primarily as a field station of the National Security Agency (NSA), which is the largest of several elements of the US DoD represented at the base." _

Hey,* your* retired soldier started all this not one of ours and not me, I think someone needs to ask him why don't you? 


Much of what we are dealing with now is a result of what happened after the First World War and how the Allies then carved things up in the Middle East. The First World War is also responsible for the Second one. Nothing is unrelated. Attitudes taken years ago cause modern wars, if Iraq, Iran and the other countries hadn't had borders enforced and rulers imposed perhaps we wouldn't have found ourselves in the situation we are in now.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm saying your biased paper got their facts wrong, that other reliable informed sources state a bit differently.  I'm not in a position to talk to him, and I'm sure he's not allowed to discuss such with a civilian.

As to the rest, can't they do something productive, like introduce soap to the French?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm saying your biased paper got their facts wrong, that other reliable informed sources state a bit differently. I'm not in a position to talk to him, and I'm sure he's not allowed to discuss such with a civilian.
> 
> As to the rest, can't they do something productive, like introduce soap to the French?


 

You haven't been to France have you?
Don't blame me if one of your senior officers can't keep from talking to newpapers, he could have chosen an independant one rather than a Tory one though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Press conference, not an private interview.  Full article which your paper references based on the quotes indicate that the story as posted is quite skewed.


As to France, nope.  No desire to either, other than to visit Normandy and pay my respects there.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Press conference, not an private interview. Full article which your paper references based on the quotes indicate that the story as posted is quite skewed.
> 
> 
> As to France, nope. No desire to either, other than to visit Normandy and pay my respects there.


 
Normandy isn't France it's Normandy ask them there. Same as Provence, the Loire etc isn't France. It's like calling the Welsh english, just not done.

So where is the full article then?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Any equipment we have is usually compatible with American equipment, in many cases it's researched with the Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/28/DI2007092801469.html


_*"McLean, Va.:* Sir, although I understand you cannot reveal details, I am wondering if work is being done to detect any unique measurable signatures associated with the manufacturing of IEDs. Thank you. _
_*Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata:* We are evaluating every alternative. We are soliciting input from every possible source, including industry, academia, other nations, etc. Unfortunately in this forum we cannot share all that we are doing to protect our troops. _
________________________ _
_*Boston:* Is TRL Technologies (U.K. company now part of L-3) a part of the counter-IED program? They had some interesting technology developed originally in response to "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. _
_*Brig. Gen. Anthony Tata:* We have a very close working relationship with the United Kingdom and have British officers embedded in our staff. We meet regularly to exchange information, including learning from the U.K. experience. The U.K. faces all of the same threats U.S. forces do in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so it is to our benefit to partner in all respects. "_


So what's going on folks?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

I included the link a few posts back. 

What is going on is sloppy biased reporting by a biased publication, the misinformation picked up on by people who need an excuse to bash the US.

What I am forced to conclude here is that the UK sadly has no reliable news sources, outside of Page 3 and their constant outting of weapons of mass distraction.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I included the link a few posts back.
> 
> What is going on is sloppy biased reporting by a biased publication, the misinformation picked up on by people who need an excuse to bash the US.
> 
> What I am forced to conclude here is that the UK sadly has no reliable news sources, outside of Page 3 and their constant outting of weapons of mass distraction.


 

So where did he say he was sharing the stuff with us then?

Oh and I have warned you before about certain newspapers here but no, you all decided, as witness the sarky comments on the thread about Myleene Klass and the knife thing, that I'm the one who blames everything on biased newspapers, thanks guys. When a newspaper prints something you don't like all of a sudden our papers are twisted but when I tell you that some papers here are very politically biased you think I'm whinging about your posts and the newspapers are correct!


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

Folks want to use this to reaffirm their dislike of America/American Government/Americans (whomever) because...well..they dislike Americans. Us damn Americans just want to see Brit Soldiers killed that's it..that's gotta be the reason...the end...



> So tell me, did my martial arts student die along with many others last year because the Americans have chosen not to tell us something that could have saved all their lives, not to mention all those you have lost limbs?



Yup. It's an American conspiracy.

Whatever.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

I've lost a friend and mentor to an IED. 

If the US has knowledge of how to help prevent allied deaths and won't share it then I call BS. 

Especially if we won't share it with the Brits for cryin' out loud. They've been more effective in keeping secrets than we have in the past!!! 

Can you imagine how WWII would have gone with this mentality? 

Our "allies" are there to help, so we should be helping them any way we can. It's not rocket science. 

Allied losses negatively impact our mission. We should be doing everything we can to help minimize their losses. 

The excuse that sharing this data with allies could compromise the effectiveness of beating IED's is absurd. 

...just further proof that our leadership needs to be replaced.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Folks want to use this to reaffirm their dislike of America/American Government/Americans (whomever) because...well..they dislike Americans. Us damn Americans just want to see Brit Soldiers killed that's it..that's gotta be the reason...the end...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Grow up.

I was asking a question based on what was reported to have been said by an American soldier. I wasn't making a statement, I ASKED. A sarky answer back from you which concerned young people dying is unworthy of you.
I have also asked why this American soldier would make statements like that. A proper answer would have been welcomed. No one least of all me has expressed any hatred or even dislike for Americans and plenty of people are sorry that there are any deaths, no matter what nationality.

Incidentally the brother of that student while not a member does read this forum as I recommended it to him a while back. He's an avid martial artist but not quite old enough to join yet.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 10, 2010)

celtic_crippler said:


> Our "allies" are there to help, so we should be helping them any way we can. It's not rocket science.
> 
> Allied losses negatively impact our mission. We should be doing everything we can to help minimize their losses.


 
While not the sole reason, the public pressure over the mounting death toll in Canada has been instrumental in out Government's decision to exit Afghanistan in 2011.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> While not the sole reason, the public pressure over the mounting death toll in Canada has been instrumental in out Government's decision to exit Afghanistan in 2011.


 

Can't say I blame 'em.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 10, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> While not the sole reason, the public pressure over the mounting death toll in Canada has been instrumental in out Government's decision to exit Afghanistan in 2011.


 
Exit the combat role, but it wouldn't surprise me if we stayed on in a rebuilding role.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> So where did he say he was sharing the stuff with us then?
> 
> Oh and I have warned you before about certain newspapers here but no, you all decided, as witness the sarky comments on the thread about Myleene Klass and the knife thing, that I'm the one who blames everything on biased newspapers, thanks guys. When a newspaper prints something you don't like all of a sudden our papers are twisted but when I tell you that some papers here are very politically biased you think I'm whinging about your posts and the newspapers are correct!


I've decided nothing. I don't trust any main line news source.  

The retiring General said we needed better sharing. Not that we were not sharing anything. He mentioned concerns, he indicated problem areas that needed to be addressed. He did not say "Brits are dying because we won't tell them how to save their arses.".


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2010)

Why then did he bring the whole subject up. He asked the question, 'why aren't we sharing stuff?'. So why? We buy our equipment from you anyway so why can't we buy whats needed?  Much of NATO stock now is compatible. You may think the newspaper is biased but they didn't misquote him. In fact it's quite hard not to put the interpretation on his speech that they did. 

Yes, we do *buy* a lot of our equipment from you, along with what you buy off companies I reckon someone is laughing all the way to the bank don't you?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

As I don't have access to his brain, I can't do the Vulcan Mind Meld to pull that information out.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As I don't have access to his brain, I can't do the Vulcan Mind Meld to pull that information out.


 

He is, however, answerable to you not me! I can email 10 Downing Street and ask for an explanation when one of ours says something like that. I can email the Defence Secretary too, can you not do the same to your equivilants? I will receive a reply too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2010)

I can do that, but the generic form letters I get back never address anything I ask about.

He's also not answerable to me. He's answerable to his superiors, and ultimately the President. I can write the President, hell I wrote Hillary Clinton, but I've never received any personal reply nor answer to my inquiries before.


----------



## Carol (Jan 11, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Any idea why this soldier should have stated this, whether it's true or not it's still going to cause a great deal of damage isn't it? Is he known for being political or having an axe to grind?
> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...hJournalistRupertHamerKilledInAfghanistan.htm



He just (quietly) stepped down from a cabinet position.

http://www.defencetalk.com/lynn-says-fight-against-ieds-remains-priority-23553/

There seems to be a lot to this story that we are not being told.


----------



## crushing (Jan 12, 2010)

tez3 said:


> these things aren't as simple as many think.


 
qft


----------



## searcher (Jan 12, 2010)

I have not read all of the posts, but I have a few things that need to be stated.

You are worried/angry about us not sharing our techniques with you.     Our own services don't share techniques or information with each other, let alone another country.

It may be mis-information, plain and simple.

I don't think anyone would say that the soldiers of the UK, Canada, or any other ally have big mouths.    Its just that, the more people that know a thing, the greater the chance it will get back to the BGs.


I am a firm believer that we need to have a cross-training with our allies, but there needs to be a heavy duty screening process to decide who gets to come and train.   And who they are able to share the information with.     Your soldiers/countries may not have a problem with double agents, but we seem to have one right now.



I'm done.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jan 12, 2010)

This might be the time to let cooler heads prevail, rather than trashing relations with our allies over the allegations of one man.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2010)

IMO what he said probably has a large piece of truth in it. The thing is..this sort of stuff has gone on for ages, will go on for ages and is being done by the gvts. of ALL of our allies and their intelligence/security agencies to some extent or another. Hell it's going on between OUR OWN intell agencies!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 12, 2010)

I know that the Brits, the Americans and the Canadians train together all the time. In fact they patrol some places together too. I don't know the whole story but I can almost be certain that few if any of these guys hold back intel or information from each other on the front lines. 

Higher up? Probably.


----------

