Ooh! Sounds like someone’s cousin just bought a big insurance policy on her husband. With the special “Death by Drone” rider.
Just an aside, in light of the “Black Widow” phenomenon in Russia: Does a female suicide bomber get 72 male virgins in Heaven? Because that sounds like they would last her about an hour, plus another half hour for do-overs for the ones who did not technically lose their virginity the first time. And if their virginity is magically restored every morning, well, I can’t see what’s so heavenly about being spooged in and on by six dozen teenagers for eternity. Do they warn these women that Heaven will be a bukkake party for all time?
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Great Debates thread meander this far away from the main topic. Certainly, I now have visual images to scrub from my brain!
I have seen threads wander away from the original topic. I have even seen threads deteriorate into nothing but snark exchanges.
I tend to close such threads and this thread is very much in danger of being shut down as pointless.
Well, actually, what I was getting at is there seems to be a bit of fog about what defines “Al Queda”. My understanding is that a lot of the stench emanating from Issa the Pissa has to do with Obama denying the proven Al Queda connection, for reasons obscure but reliably villainous.
As well, we hear a lot of verbiage to the effect that a given group is “associated with Al Queda” or “connected with Al Queda”, which can be a fact or it could as easily be an insinuation trying to pass itself off as evidence. As I said, what’s to stop any random group of ignorant yahoos from calling themselves Al Queda of Yahoostan? Are there licenses, credentials, charters from the Main Office?
I suppose if it were revealed that a given group was exclusively Shia, that might be a clue for Mr. Issa that they were not likely “affiliated with Al Queda”. Surely he knows that much! Shirley?
Isn’t the idea of AQ that it is decentralized? “Leaderless resistance?” It has the occasional leader figure, but they aren’t central to the structure; it isn’t a formal hierarchy.
There’s a nifty book on the concept, “The Starfish and the Spider,” subtitled “The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.” It contrasts highly centralized organizations, like the Vatican, with high decentralized organizations – the author mentions the Apache resistance to the U.S. military in the Old West.
Pretty obviously, each kind of organization has certain strengths and weaknesses. One of the key strengths of a very decentralized organization is that it is much, much harder to destroy.
ETA: Relevant to this discussion, one of the weaknesses of a highly decentralized organization is that it is very poor at policing itself. It is very hard for anyone to say that a particular group is not really a part of the overall organization.
(“Hail Hydra! Cut off a limb, and two more shall take its place!”)
Think of it as OWS. I heard that not having a leader, central organization or defined set of objectives was a strength, but I could be remembering that incorrectly.
Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheik Mohammed…their counterparts in OWS would be who? But, aside from the corpses and terrorism stuff, a pretty sound analogy. Like both the Aryan Brotherhood and a bunch of hippies on a commune dislike authority, so, really, they are a lot alike. Uh huh.
I was agreeing with you. Anyone can set up a banner and claim to be “affiliated” with al Qaeda. There are no entrance exams or ID checks. Just like OWS.
I already went through the logistical side of this and dispelled all the gross mis-information regarding the launching of aircraft. Putting a military hat on it doesn’t change the job function a micron. In fact, a great number of people in military logistics end up on the civilian side. It’s completely interchangeable. I also cited the displeasure of the ops team that was shut down. So they must have thought there was some value in a rescue mission.
That you think it’s some kind of miracle for a group of people to do what they’re trained to do doesn’t make sense. There was nothing special about this mission that would have changed given a week of planning. They had the ability to insert at a point of their choosing while monitoring the situation in real time. It doesn’t get any better than that.
“Why do you assume you understand the situation better than the then-Secretary of Defense, a former Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two four-star combatant commanders, the commander of the four-person Special Forces team based in Tripoli, and an independent review board that included the services of a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?”
Because all those people are on the record directly disputing what you posted here.
I served, and “ops teams” and the like are always disappointed if their mission gets shut down. Everyone in the military wants an opportunity to put their skills to the test. It’s the job of their commanders to determine when it’s appropriate, and safe (within reason), to do it. It’s very realistic that the real-time commanders might have determined that it was too risky to send in additional forces based on the information they had at the time, especially because that is what the real-time commanders are saying now. You’re just really, hilariously, and sadly, wrong about this situation. The terrain might not have been right, the lack of knowledge about the enemy they were facing might not have been right… there are a thousand things that can make a commander pull the plug on a mission – and it’s a very good thing that they have the authority to do so.
No, you didn’t. You cited Greg Hicks, who claimed that Lt. Col. Gibson was angry when he was ordered not to board the plane from Tripoli to Benghazi.
It was then, repeatedly, (see post 353 for one example), pointed out to you that Lt. Col. Gibson himself denies being told to stand down, or being upset.
In [this post](It makes a BIG difference WHY it happened, and apparently you don’t know it either.), YOU were quite on the other side of that particular fence. After all, you were the one that said, “It makes a BIG difference WHY it happened, and apparently you don’t know it either.”
Strange that you can claim that Clinton is not allowed to ask that question, but you don’t hold yourself to that same standard.
I think that Hillary’s question is just as legitimate as your conflating the PotUS with the death of the mastermind behind 9/11. I’m sure you weren’t actually advocating for the death of Obama, and I’m willing to admit that it was certainly inadvertent on your part.
However, it could be a Freudian Slip. And a very telling one, at that.
What’s really telling in this exchange is the propensity for armchair quarterbacks on both sides to focus on scenarios, theories, and other dubious forecasting exercises that never took place, as opposed to what ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, both during and before to include the events and circumstances leading up to it. Some basic facts are simply oh so illuminating: Who, what, where, where and WHY usually do the trick.
Please don’t be so presumptuous as to imply what you think I think. Put it here.