It's interesting that you and the Post are seemingly quite willing to give UBL credit for it just because he asks for it.

It's interesting that you and the Post are seemingly quite willing to give UBL credit for it just because he asks for it.

 

And it's interesting that despite the complete lack of evidence, you are willing to believe the same agencies that failed to prevent the attack in the first place.

And it's interesting that despite the complete lack of evidence, you are willing to believe the same agencies that failed to prevent the attack in the first place.

So you really believe that this event was planned and organized by a centralized AQ structure, and this isn't just UBL trying to co-opt credit?

So you really believe that this event was planned and organized by a centralized AQ structure, and this isn't just UBL trying to co-opt credit?

 

 

 

Every time you get called on something, you have to change the issue by asking another question.

 

Every time you get called on something, you have to change the issue by asking another question.

 

Exactly. I know the source wasn't left wing so it can't be believed...

 

Every time you get called on something, you have to change the issue by asking another question.

I just struggle to believe it. Without even attempting to defend any government org, there's lots of reasons why I struggle to believe that.

 

1. Supposedly, we already know the cleric(s) it involved.

2. Its quite clear that he was involved mostly with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is one of those, let's say "Franchises" of AQ at best.

3. It doesn't have any of the Hallmarks of the classic AQ attack. Multiple targets, well trained guys, etc. It was at best a small event.

4. UBL has just as much motivation to try to claim credit for something that didn't even involve him as any group within the government has to try to deflect blame. It's not like he's giving evidence here for why it was his plan.

 

I found it striking enough that he was seemingly willing to accept UBL's words at 100% face value without question that I asked if he actually was totally serious about it.

Exactly. I know the source wasn't left wing so it can't be believed...

I thought Usama was a Demycrat? Shouldn't I be believing him because of that?

I just struggle to believe it. Without even attempting to defend any government org, there's lots of reasons why I struggle to believe that.

 

1. Supposedly, we already know the cleric(s) it involved.

2. Its quite clear that he was involved mostly with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is one of those, let's say "Franchises" of AQ at best.

3. It doesn't have any of the Hallmarks of the classic AQ attack. Multiple targets, well trained guys, etc. It was at best a small event.

4. UBL has just as much motivation to try to claim credit for something that didn't even involve him as any group within the government has to try to deflect blame. It's not like he's giving evidence here for why it was his plan.

 

I found it striking enough that he was seemingly willing to accept UBL's words at 100% face value without question that I asked if he actually was totally serious about it.

 

Let me ask you this, how many attacks have been claimed by Osama Bin Laden, that weren't actually from his organization?

Let me ask you this, how many attacks have been claimed by Osama Bin Laden, that weren't actually from his organization?

It depends on how you define "His organization" which is, IIRC, exactly what I said to open this thread.

It depends on how you define "His organization" which is, IIRC, exactly what I said to open this thread.

 

So in other words... how many.

So in other words... how many.

It depends on how you define Al Qaeda at this point. There are press reports that this guy claimed he was a member. There are press reports that the Ft. Hood shooter had email contact with a cleric in Yemen that you might have been able to call sort of linked to that. Neither one of them appear to have trained in camps, served in Afghanistan, or had any dealings/funding from any sort of central organization. If you define AQ as the remnants of the centralized organization that existed on 9/11, then no, these guys didn't have any dealings with it. If you define AQ as the looser network of anti-American groups that grew up after we failed to kill off AQ in Afghanistan and the remaining guys spread throughout the region, then we might be getting closer.

That was me on Dec., 28. How do you define his organization? Are you counting the franchises or not? Because I could say more than a few, if you let us count those, because they claimed credit for a lot of attacks in say, Iraq, that happened to have been carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was one of those franchise groups.

If this is the best that AQ now has to offer, a guy failing to blow up his junk, then count me as unimpressed, and therefore, fairly encouraged.

If this is the best that AQ now has to offer, a guy failing to blow up his junk, then count me as unimpressed, and therefore, fairly encouraged.

If this is the best the U.S. can do, failing to detect the exact kind of explosive a guy had in his shoes 8 years ago because they moved it up 2 feet, then they ought to be encouraged as well.

That was me on Dec., 28. How do you define his organization? Are you counting the franchises or not? Because I could say more than a few, if you let us count those, because they claimed credit for a lot of attacks in say, Iraq, that happened to have been carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was one of those franchise groups.

 

Very specifically attacks that Osama himself has claimed that AQ committed. Unless there is some sort of evidence that exists that he is lying, which for now is the word of our ultra-truthful intelligence agencies, you are arguing schematics to avoid the truth.

Very specifically attacks that Osama himself has claimed that AQ committed. Unless there is some sort of evidence that exists that he is lying, which for now is the word of our ultra-truthful intelligence agencies, you are arguing schematics to avoid the truth.

My last word; understanding the basics of how AQ's structure currently operates is a lot more than just semantics.

My last word; understanding the basics of how AQ's structure currently operates is a lot more than just semantics.

 

So in other words, you have nothing for me.

Kap and 2k5 can ignore this because it comes from a blog and no one with any expertise ever does that, but here's Prof. Cole's argument that it's not even UBL on the tape.

 

If it isn't him, then he isn't claiming it. But I will tell, you what. I want to make sure from now on that you never blame a parent company of anyone or anything that happens, which by the way is EXACTLY what you have been preaching about with your irrational fear of foreigners involved in campaigns nationally.

If it isn't him, then he isn't claiming it. But I will tell, you what. I want to make sure from now on that you never blame a parent company of anyone or anything that happens, which by the way is EXACTLY what you have been preaching about with your irrational fear of foreigners involved in campaigns nationally.

It really is an interesting look into the modern Conservative psychology how either all of the credit/blame goes 100% to the top or 0%, there's no possibility for gaining any understanding by actually evaluating the exact organizational relationships and having anything in-the-middle.

It really is an interesting look into the modern Conservative psychology how either all of the credit/blame goes 100% to the top or 0%, there's no possibility for gaining any understanding by actually evaluating the exact organizational relationships and having anything in-the-middle.

 

The Conservative psychology huh? Did I miss the democrats taking credit for anything that has gone wrong in the last year? GMAFB.

The Conservative psychology huh? Did I miss the democrats taking credit for anything that has gone wrong in the last year? GMAFB.

Yes you did.

Yes you did.

 

Great, now I'd love to see them take credit for the failure of health care instead of blaming a minority for it.

Yes you did.

 

And that's BS, too. Blame everyone, everything, the last 8 years, blah blah blah the entire f***ing speech and then the last sentance say "I take responsibility" and that's all the coverage we get. How nice.

And that's BS, too. Blame everyone, everything, the last 8 years, blah blah blah the entire f***ing speech and then the last sentance say "I take responsibility" and that's all the coverage we get. How nice.

So you'd rather that all the headlines didn't read "Obama admits he failed"?

Just to change topics a bit, I get the feeling, between this attack, the general sense of things overseas, and the Brits raising their terror alert level without discussing why, that there's at least a belief that something big is in the works for the near future.