Funny? Why would you think that: We are apparently awaiting an al-Queda attack - if you’re that gullible.
Indeed. July was a better month for US drone attacks in Pakistan: only three.
I could not find a single attack on Israeli target attributed to Al Q.
Can you help out?
The report is that something might be in the planning, not “a bomb is going to go off any minute.”
Isn’t a mere existence of a group like Al Q a sign that “something might be in the planning”?
Don’t you see how utterly ridiculous all of this is – embassy closures AND this discussion?
But they’ve existed for years and their existence alone has never been used to justify this kind of thing. the claim here isn’t “this group exists and is therefore planing something.” The claim is that specific people within that group were discussing an attack on a group of targets in a particular time frame.
There’s a great deal of ridiculousness here, but most of it is coming from people who keep tilting at conspiracies.
The only one “tilting at conspiracies” would be you.
Unless, of course, there never was a case of US Government making exaggerated claims about enemy threat and even lying to their peers’ faces in UN Security Council.
Then, yeah, I guess, my suggestion would be wildly out of order :rolleyes:
What conspiracy am I proposing? You’re saying the U.S. government made up a terrorist attack warning to distract the public and tamp down public criticism and a bunch of other countries took its word without checking or something. I’m saying that doesn’t make much sense and their behavior supports the idea that they really felt there was a threat. And of course the complaint that there were no specifics about the warning has been met with some specifics.
Uh, you realize that there will be zero deaths if a closed embassy is bombed?
Yammering on about Benghazi isn’t particularly useful to this discussion. Sometimes embassies and consulates are attacked. Fewer have happened under Obama than under Bush, but it’s an unfortunate fact of life that these things will happen. If we catch wind of something and can take targets away, great.
However the endless crusade to turn Benghazi into a crippling scandal is useful context here.
The attack has been cancelled as new target has been identified - http://www.theweek.co.uk/sports-people/premier-league/54482/gareth-bale-al-qaeda-spurs-real-madrid
Please note the chain of information here:
When it come to Al Q reporting it appears there’s more journalistic integrity in any British tabloid than “serious” newspapers :o
Erm, no. This is just stupid. Not only is this in a British tabloid, it’s a story that begins with the question “Could this be happening?” - which is always a sign that the thing being discussed is not actually happening.
Pointlessness.
Meanwhile the U.S. pulled about 100 people out of Yemen overnight and is urging travelers to get out of the country, and there are reports of a drone strike there as well. More evidence that the whole thing was a made up distraction, I guess.
explain please. Are the workers sent to the International Space Station or Cheyenne Mountain for safe keeping? What makes them less vulnerable?
I would think the US response to an attack on their embassy employees is dead center of this discussion.
How are the targets taken away? Again, do you think the terrorists make bombs that expire after a few days or have day jobs and can’t get the time off for an attack next week? How does closing an embassy for a day or a week prevent them from carrying out an attack when it’s re-opened?
Yes, the US has been conducting drone strikes in Yemen for awhile now. What’s new, is that we are now terrorizing the residents of the Yemeni capital Sanaa. The people there are more afraid of dying from US drone attacks than they already are from terrorist attacks.
No, but they are stepping out of the crosshairs. They’re being moved away from an area thought to be in danger. While they are out of the target, the threat can be addressed and we hope eliminated. Do you also think it’s foolish to evacuate a building during a fire?
Not really. The Benghazi attack is a phony scandal used to inflame right wing hatred of Obama. It seems like the intelligence about the potential Yemen attack is stronger than what we had prior to the Libya attack.
You take people out of a facility known to be a target and move them elsewhere. It might be that the terrorists are taken out in the next week or they have to reset their plan and we hope that we catch wind of it next time they plan to pull it off. Since they somehow tipped their hand about this week’s planned attack, it might be that we can catch word of the next one, too. Leaving sitting ducks in place seems to me to be a rather silly plan.
I would like the NSA to explain how they determine that there is a “credible threat”? I mean, even Osama bin Laden was not so foolish as to broadcast his plans on the internet (he used human couriers carrying thumb drives). The NSA cannot track that-they admit this. So its easy to justify spying on American citizens sing the all-encompassing “credible threat” schtick.
To me it sounds like a smokescreen, for Obama to deflect attention away from NSA abuses.
A “credible threat” issued by NSA is a contrivance designed to distract attention away from the NSA.
Pretty much. Now you’re getting the hang of it.