Matter of fact? Really? There is a way to factually prove that Obama will “suffer” more because of embassy closings than NSA spying on Americans and not just because you say so? I’m all eyeballs waiting for your next post …
Since when?
Seriously? Who here has an actual clue? Shutting down the embassies, even for just one day, has to mean that there is a significant and credible threat.
Let’s just explore this thought for a moment. How many embassies do you think have their own airfield? Why do you suggest air support is a good idea? If a crowd gathers at an embassy, would you give the order to drop 500 pound bombs on them? What use are F-16s after a truck bomb goes off? Do you think countries from Pakistan to Qatar to Turkey are just going to be cool with combat-armed American aircraft flying CAPs above their sovereign capital?
How do you prove a negative? If embassies are closed and nothing happens, the President gets to say “See, look… that NSA surveillance sure is handy, isn’t it!” And the administration can say there is a continued need for secrecy so that future plots can be disrupted. I’m no conspiracy theorist but I would assume the NSA and White House are looking at this as the best thing that could have happened to the security apparatus in a long time.
I also like how the ass-covering has begun already. Extra security, including US Marines are on standby. The embassies are closed, so no Benghazi round two. The President is being briefed on minute-to-minute developments and all the heads of the alphabet soup agencies are having high-level meetings. Now we just need a strong denunciation of terroristy terrorist terrorizers who hate our freedoms.
That cuts both ways. If there’s no attack, they can’t prove they prevented it and they can’t prove there was a real risk either. People will probably assume whichever version fits their preconceived notions. Meanwhile if they don’t do anything and there’s an attack, they get blamed for not anticipating and preventing it, and if they keep the whole thing quiet, people assume the whole terrorism thing is a non-issue.
I hope they’re looking at it as a time when they really need to be on the ball because mistakes could get people killed, not evaluating potential political gains.
The ass-covering is already there in the language: no specific target, no specific group and only a chatter (increased volume of messages among suspects). The language used provides plausibility and deniability.
That’s like closing banks for fear of robbery because of known or unknown criminals chatter how best way to get to money is by robbing a place with most money. Well, makes no sense for banks but makes a lot of “sense” in Government.
It’s a theatre.
Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are not specific groups?
Sweet. So the only way to prove that you are completely off base is an epic tragedy.
Go back and watch some more faux. Or listen to rush. You, sir, have zero credibility.
You never get details about security operations- it compromises security. That’s actual and factual.
IRA is a specific group. Hamas is too. Al Qaeda is not.
Stick to arguing the issues and don’t make this personal, please.
I have no idea how you’re making that distinction, but it’s just as well - Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is pretty specific.
Nobody has details - not just me. Thats because there are no details. It’s bulletproof.
Point of order here, but you seem to have conflated the different meanings of ‘threat’. No enemy “issued a threat”. Our intel forces detected (as we’re told) that al-Qaeda was about to strike without warning. The former is a terroristic threat, the latter is a security threat.
Now, granted, feint operations are as old as the history of war, and this very could be one. But even a feint would be very different from someone saying “booga-booga, close your embassies before I come bomb them.”
But then, you already knew this.
If Obama had done that you’d be screaming about that.
The only embassy I’ve ever visited was the U.S. embassy in the Bahamas (vacation!) And, yeah, it was a (minor) fortress. Marine guards, security barriers, heavy doors, lockdown zones, etc. Comparable to a big city police station.
And that’s a friendly country with a fairly low need for security.
I don’t mean to challenge your analytical skills but even on the surface - things that are discernible or deduced from news - there are huge comparative differences. One of the most significant mentioned in numerous set of articles - which I hope I don’t have to cite - saying that AQ is an umbrella term used to refer to anyone who has ever planned action against US interests, especially since 9/11.
You absolutely need to cite that because it looks an awful lot like bullshit.