What I’m seeing on the news is that the closings are related to a combination of intercepted AQ messages, the recent prison breaks in a couple of countries (I assume I don’t have to convince you that those are real) and the end of Ramadan.
Who fooled you and when?
And your theory is that every one of these countries is doing this to distract people from the spying?
You know, I’d do it differently. I’d sneak all the civilians out, replace them all with elite military forces, fully armored and armed to the teeth.
Yes, and a bunch of marines with rifles are invulnerable to truck bombs.
Marines can’t shoot up every truck that drives by the embassy in Yemen like they can in Baghdad.
That’s fine as far as you go, but the POTUS has more than just one Republican (who doesn’t have a bully pulpit) to worry about, and you know damn well everyone on your side of the aisle from McConnell to Beck would be screaming bloody murder if another embassy was attacked.
No, of course not. But they’d be on the lookout for them, and have a good chance
If I’ve learned anything from the A-Team, it is that one good shot to the radiator or tire will disable a speeding truck almost immediately.
But the problem is that it then veers off the road into a cleverly disguised ramp, where the truck is flipped over onto its side (or tumbles over three or four times) and the bad guys inside are unhurt and run away.
Yep, Marines can take down a truck bomb. Piece of cake.
In peacetime you need permission to shoot people. May need, I guess. sometimes you can just kill somebody.
Why can’t we do this on a case-by-case basis? Closing an embassy for a day or week is nothing compared to the biggest sporting event in America. Of course they won’t cancel the Super Bowl, but if somebody threatens a Little League game, you gonna agree we can’t move that or cancel it?
How many lives must you risk by needless arrogance? So what if we empower some terrorists? We’ll find a way to deal with them next time, and we won’t close it again. We’re still the most powerful country in the world, even if we closed all our embassies and ordered the nation to hide under their beds sucking their thumbs. Tomorrow we’ll still have exactly the same amount of nukes, tanks, and jets, and we’ll still be able to blow people away by remote control from thousands of miles away. You’re falling to reverse psychology
And part of this I blame conservatives. Always the first to say how much we should be standing up and in front of terrorists, but always blaming liberals if anybody gets hurt. Maybe if they dropped all objections to Benghazi and forever agree to never bring it up, then Obama can plan a careful response away from second-guessing by politically vulnerable Republican hypocrites
So which of you guys wants to staff the embassy on these days? I assume your spouses and children are cool with that? And you’d be fine with your son or daughter working through the weekend, right? You wouldn’t advise them to maybe call in sick that day.
Embassy staff are, for the most part, pretty normal office workers. They are middle managers, IT guys, secretaries and accountants. They are not military. Most of them are not intelligence folks. They will inevitably face some increased danger and may occasionally have to bust out the heroics, but they did not sign up for “taking a stand” when danger can easily be averted. Heck, in most embassies a good chunk of the staff isn’t even American, and certainly has no obligation to get blown up for our sake.
There’s nothing to indicate its a truck bomb.
Hm… no specific target. No specific method. Nope, still not specific. (note that I do not expect to have all the details released for obvious reasons, but so far we’ve still got a giant “Trust Us” in action here)
I’m of the opinion that the “something big” they want to do on the holiday is a cook-out at the lake or something.
If only there were some way for the NSA to use the technology it uses against Americans, against the terrorists instead.
Right- you’re not expecting all the details, just more than have ever been released in similar situations. Do you want the suspects’ mothers’ maiden names, or will their middle initials suffice?
Perhaps a bonfire. Or two.
So the point is this… do you want to exclude normal traffic from the one area we can now be sure an attack won’t take place? And of course you’d like to know, but was there a major media outlet that was not carrying this story today?
I mean, seriously.
[del]Isn’t that basically how they say they found out about this[/del] Dang, you’ve caught them.
Um, no, but this is an extension of some of the same problems I have with things like the whole concept of the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, PATRIOT Act, etc. - we don’t know how many, if any, attacks they managed to thwart without some kind of tangible proof, giving them the ability to say things like “Thanks to the NSA programs, we’ve stopped over 300 attacks!” - without ever having to prove it.
That means we can’t EVER get rid of those agencies or programs, because… well, just imagine how much worse things would be without them?
That’s a real concern, but it’s not the same as going ‘wake up people!’ for this specific situation. It was claimed upthread that this was BS because there were no particulars about the purported threat; now there are some specifics out there and the goalposts get moved.
While true, I trust that you will forgive me if I need something a bit more than just “Because we said so” when it comes to things like this, after 12 years of it in ever-increasing doses.