Joe Bloe, Take Note - Now THIS is a credible news report...

It doesn't exactly take rocket science to realise that embassies in the middle east on the anniversary of 9/11 may be more vulnerable to attack.

Geez. Originally Posted by essence

And don't you think that the ambassador should know this risk and plan accordingly.

Should Washington micro manage ever detail of movement ?

We are killing folks with drones, do any of you think that there will not be deaths on our side?

I'm not sure wtf it is some of you want. Do you want to pull out of the ME completely? Or do you want war in the ME?

WTF is it you want?

BTW, the original report in The Independent seems to be increasingly discredited.

But, apparently we did nothing. Originally Posted by ExNYer

BTW, the original report in The Independent seems to be increasingly discredited. Originally Posted by essence

Care to comment exNYer?

they had broken the Japanese code before pearl harbor,and look what happened...

And we did not suspect that the Towers would be a target? The WTC had been targeted before. Nothing was done.

We are still on some stupid alert for flying in this country. Orange? Do you know how many false alerts there are? Originally Posted by WTF

No, we didn't suspect it. That is just 20/20 hindsight.

BTW, doesn't the second paragraph in your post kind of refute the first paragraph? There were a lot of false alarms in 2001, also.

With as many targets as we have in a continent-sized country of 300+ million, there is no reason to assume they would have hit the same target again. Even if we DID think they would go for the WTC again, why wouldn't we be looking for another car or truck bomb? And the WTC had already changed the parking security to make sure no more big vehicles could get near the WTC.

Even if we suspected plane hijacking, why would we have suspected IN 2001 they would crash the planes into anything? Sure we do NOW, but that's because we have seen it happen. In 2001, we would have assumed it would be hostage taking, just like all of the plane hijackings in the 1970s and 1980s. The ragheads had never done kamikaze missions before and the default position of security personnel is always to assume this crisis is like the last crisis and to act and negotiate accordingly.

And if we did suspect a plane on a kamikaze mission, would we not IN 2001 have suspected an attack on the White House or the Capitol Building while Congress was in session, or the Pentagon (that one WOULD have been true)?

Sure we know NOW what Al Queda is capable of. But not then.

Also, there are about 10,000 flights a day in this country. Even NOW we cannot defend them all. Even if we had specific information that AQ was going to attack a US commercial plane some time later this year, what would we do? Search everybody twice? Cut liquids down from 3 ounces to 1 ounce?

The truth is, we could only warn people to be on extra alert. Many wouldn't fly and the rest would be looking to kill any passenger that causes problems

Speaking of which, the only REAL defense is passengers rising up and killing hijackers with their bare hands. And frankly, that happened once already when some crazy guy tried to kick in the cockpit door on a plane. The passengers "subdued" him and in the process choked him to death.

And that is probably why AQ hasn't tried more hijackings. Even they know if won't work again. Which is why they have switched to shoe bombs and underwear bombs.

The current failures in security are nothing like the 9-11 failures. This was much more preventable. I don't mean we could have stopped the rioters, but we could have evacuated and cleared out the secret documents and files. And probably saved lives.

No, we didn't suspect it. That is just 20/20 hindsight.

With as many targets as we have in a continent-sized country of 300+ million, there is no reason to assume they would have hit the same target again. Even if we DID think they would go for the WTC again, why wouldn't we be looking for another car or truck bomb? And the WTC had already changed the parking security to make sure no more big vehicles could get near the WTC.

Even if we suspected plane hijacking, why would we have suspected IN 2001 they would crash the planes into anything? Sure we do NOW, but that's because we have seen it happen. In 2001, we would have assumed it would be hostage taking, just like all of the plane hijackings in the 1970s and 1980s. The ragheads had never done kamikaze missions before and the default position of security personnel is always to assume this crisis is like the last crisis and to act and negotiate accordingly.

And if we did suspect a plane on a kamikaze mission, would we not IN 2001 have suspected an attack on the White House or the Capitol Building while Congress was in session, or the Pentagon (that one WOULD have been true)?

Sure we know NOW what Al Queda is capable of. But not then.

Also, there are about 10,000 flights a day in this country. Even NOW we cannot defend them all. Even if we had specific information that AQ was going to attack a US commercial plane some time later this year, what would we do? Search everybody twice? Cut liquids down from 3 ounces to 1 ounce?

The truth is, we could only warn people to be on extra alert. Many wouldn't fly and the rest would be looking to kill any passenger that causes problems

Speaking of which, the only REAL defense is passengers rising up and killing hijackers with their bare hands. And frankly, that happened once already when some crazy guy tried to kick in the cockpit door on a plane. The passengers "subdued" him and in the process choked him to death.

And that is probably why AQ hasn't tried more hijackings. Even they know if won't work again. Which is why they have switched to shoe bombs and underwear bombs.

The current failures in security are nothing like the 9-11 failures. This was much more preventable. I don't mean we could have stopped the rioters, but we could have evacuated and cleared out the secret documents and files. And probably saved lives. Originally Posted by ExNYer

We were operating on the T.S. Garp pre-disastered strategy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBSAeqdcZAM

Care to comment exNYer? Originally Posted by WTF

Not until Essence posts something substantive.

Do I have to take Essence's word for it that it is being increasingly discredited?

Also, I was careful to say "IF" it is true, it is on Obama.

Also note this post was addressed to Joe Bloe. For some background you might want to read the thread about the supposed gangrape of Ambassador Stevens.

The current failures in security are nothing like the 9-11 failures. This was much more preventable. I don't mean we could have stopped the rioters, but we could have evacuated and cleared out the secret documents and files. And probably saved lives. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I will let your answer be my answer
''That is just 20/20 hindsight..''

. That is just 20/20 hindsight..



. Originally Posted by ExNYer

BTW, doesn't the second paragraph in your post kind of refute the first paragraph? There were a lot of false alarms in 2001, also.



. Originally Posted by ExNYer

That was my point, to criticize one without criticizing the other is total BS.

I criticize neither. You seem to want to have it both ways.
The problem is paralysis. Life is all about risk assessment. For the most part we get it right. But nobody gets it right all the time. You have fallen into the BS political gotcha trap.

Carry on if that is all you want to do.

Not until Essence posts something substantive.

Do I have to take Essence's word for it that it is being increasingly discredited?

Also, I was careful to say "IF" it is true, it is on Obama.

Also note this post was addressed to Joe Bloe. For some background you might want to read the thread about the supposed gangrape of Ambassador Stevens. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I already know joe blow is full of shit.

I am hoping you are not.

The United States Government is huge, to blame everything on the President is ludicrous.

You have lowered yourself to his level.

Not until Essence posts something substantive.

Do I have to take Essence's word for it that it is being increasingly discredited?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Do I have to do all the work for you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...te-attack.html

I don't think the White House would make such clear statements if there was any hint of truth about them.

Grudge report, indeed.

I already know joe blow is full of shit.

I am hoping you are not.

The United States Government is huge, to blame everything on the President is ludicrous.

You have lowered yourself to his level. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't blame everything on the President, nor should anyone.

But some things should be.

9-11 was unique and very likely unreproducible.

But this was far more preventable. Not guaranteed, of course. But if they had done something - anything - reasonable, and Stevens got killed anyway, then Obama shouldn't get the blame.

We should always have a heightened sense of alert on 9-11. This isn't the first time there has been trouble on a 9-11 anniversary.

There aren't that many embassies and consulates in the Middle East and N. Africa.

Do I have to do all the work for you?

I don't think the White House would make such clear statements if there was any hint of truth about them.

Grudge report, indeed. Originally Posted by essence

No, but you should at least do the work you started. How hard would it have been to post that link the first time?

And the first Article was from The Independent, not Drudge. Drudge might have linked to it, but that doesn't make it a "Grudge" report.

And so far all I am seeing is a blanket denial, which is to be expected. I'll wait to see how the Independent responds.

Unlike certain posters in the thread about Ambassador Stevens being gang raped, I and NOT hoping The Independent report is true.