At 10/3/12 07:19 PM, Warforger wrote:
And you still managed to take it out of context. You were responding to a comment that supposedly said that nothing was to be expected, that comment however was saying that the White House had little knowledge of a specific attack.
No...I'm not taking it out of context. I'm pointing out that the following premise of your argument is wrong:
that the level of warning the Obama Administration had was about as ambiguous as the warning the Bush Administration had.
Now they may not have know the specifics about number of militants and timing. But they did have a target (US interests in Libya) and a date (9/11). That, from a military/national security perspective, is far more specific than the "an attack is imminent" warning Bush had.
The point is, overseas you take extra precautions especially on days where local passions tend to be inflamed. You beef up security.
To begin with we've had 11 years with no incident, next that doesn't matter when there is insider info to the militia.
To begin with you have to look no further than Wikipedia to see you are incorrect.
And there are ways of countering insiders with the militia. You simply give them the day off and have security run by US personnel. That's the way we've done it before.
No. Bin Laden was unable to do any type of attack outside of Afghanistan because most people in his network were dead. Combined with the heightened intelligence Al-Qaeda itself is unable to commit any attacks directly. Thus many of these "attacks" are committed by groups/individuals who aren't Al-Qaeda.
1) UBL was in Pakistan soon after 9/11.
2) You simply do not know how al-Qaida operates. It is a multi-headed hydra designed to operate even if UBL or al-Zawahiri were isolated. Here's some reading for you.
But Islamic terrorists aren't credible, when the attacks in Oslo Norway happened initially an islamic group in Oslo claimed responsibility for the attack. The militia which attacked the embassy were not in communication with Al-Qaeda. i.e. Islamic terrorist groups constantly threaten, but it's not clear when they're actually realistic.
You need to learn about the process of radicalization. Al-Qaida operatives do not just go waltzing into organizations they wish to infilitrate and say: "Hi, I'm Abdul and I want to talk to you about joining al-Qaida." They infilitrate and organize and in the cases of militias in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Iraq...direct activities. All without letting the participants know they are part of an al-Qaida operation.
No they're not. This is why say an attack like 9/11 hasn't occured since, this is why all the terrorist attacks were random; the underwear bomber the Fort Hood shooting the storming of the embassy. Because so many have died the network has been unable to effectively work together. Now they're present of course in certain area's trying to build up grassroots support by joining rebel forces but those groups tend to be formed without any connection to mainstream Al-Qaeda. because of the intense attacks by NATO they're no longer an effective force.
This is not why a 9/11 attack hasn't occured since. There are two main reasons:
1) Increased security measures in the US and countries that fly to the US.
2) al-Qaida diverted their resources to fighting the US in Iraq.
Now you talk about connections to 'mainstream Al-Qaeda' (sic); there never has been such a thing. Al-Qaida uses a modified cell structure that uses many, many cells so that even if the uppermost cell is compromised the organization can live on. A good novel demonstrating this would Robert Heinlen's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
Furthermore, al-Qaida is known for it's technological savy in the way it communicates. For example, it found a way to imbed messages in the empty spaces of .jpg files. They used sports and porn pics to imbed these messages and send them back and forth to one another to avoid detection. Therefore, it would be near impossible to stamp out every network of cells.
3) We armed the Lybian rebels which were infiltrated in part by al-Qaida operatives, thereby helping re-supply the group.
Oh wow. What a terrible argument. Using this logic Reagan was responsible for 9/11 because he trained Bin Laden. Nevermind the arms leftover by Qaddaffi's army.
Too bad for you, it's not a terrible argument. The difference is at the time, the thought was we would allies in the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan used the money to train elements that would become the Taliban to fight an insurgent war against India. Instead they returned to Afghanistan full of Islamic zeal and anti-west/outsider conviction.
In Libya we just assumed the rebels were Jeffersonian Democrats...with 30+ years of experience telling us not to. Essentially, Obama didn't learn from Reagan's mistake.
That's what I was saying anyway. My point is that you're acting like it was in some way linked to Al-Qaeda when they're not very reliable.
Now who's twisting words? I'm saying that in the Middle East a coordinated attack by al-Qaida IS a very likely probablity. You're saying its not.
Oh great so you know more about this than the State department.
I know what capabilities the State Department has. Ergo, on the open source stuff at least, I know better who to listen to. And it's not State.
After the attack?
Dude! You realize you just lost this point, don't you? The point is: a Marine security detachment should have been deployed long before the attack. That it was not in place by 9/11 is a sign of the administration's incompetence in National Security matters.
....Which doesn't make a difference when the government doesn't have control over the military.
Yes it does.
Um he did have that, 4 Americans died 2 of those were Navy SEALS.
Um...no he did not have that. As we learn more about the attack he did not have the full security complement for an embassy in the region/country...nor were the facilities properly hardened against such an attack. As for the former Navy SeALs, so? Make a Marine Embassy Detachment, this does not.
I didn't say anything about Bush.
No, you made an ad hominem accusation that I would not be as critical as a president I supported. I'm pointing out that you are wrong. Here's a few more gems for you:
I like Reagan as a president over the first Bush. But:
Reagan didn't really have many military successes. Grenada, while ultimately successful, was a bungling operation that only succeeded b/c of the inadequacy of the invaders we pushed out. Other than that, Reagan didn't do much militarily. Bush I on the other had was rather successful militarily (Panama, Iraq, early stages of Somalia). Clinton was mixed. Somalia was a travesty that was bungled at his level. But OPERATION: Desert Fox and the Kosovo Air Campaigns were very effective.
... I'm not sure what you mean by incompetence. ...
Obama has damaged our reputation with France, England, Israel and even proven ineffective in South Korea. He missed a chance at change in Iran. He is indecisive in making military decisions that really count such as the surge in Afghanistan...when you already have troops committed and fighting you do not take weeks to weigh all options. You either send in more or pull everyone out. I personally think he should've pulled us out of there instead of sending in a surge.
And please do not bring up killing UBL. The killing of one man, even a symbolic one like UBL, is less important than winning the war. I'm not saying it's not a good thing, I actually support it and think Obama did good. But make a comprehensive foreign/military policy, it does not.