What with the US travel warning and shutting your embassies?

[WelshBloke]

Hmmmmm, I posted this in OT to avoid some of the replies in this thread. Guess that failed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hmmmmm, I posted this in OT to avoid some of the replies in this thread. Guess that failed.

With what we've had going on recently what else could you expect

 

[woolfe9998]

Since the NSA revelations I can't take anything Obama says as true. This may be real or it may be an attempt to increase support for the WOT. I'd say the wisest thing would to treat these as legit for safety purposes and continue with skepticism. I think there's no more basis for trust than that which Cheney merits. YMMV.

So if an actual attack seems to occur, how will we know that it wasn't staged by the government to garner "support for the WOT?"

 

[woolfe9998]

This is probably the answer to the OP's query. Or, for those who prefer, it's the government's version of the answer:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...and-serious-intelligence-committee-chief?lite

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So if an actual attack seems to occur, how will we know that it wasn't staged by the government to garner "support for the WOT?"

You won't. You also don't know if Cheney was responsible for the fall of the WTC. I choose not to believe that or your scenario. There's most likely concern about events related to Egypt, most likely peripherally, however my specific doubts aren't really relevant to your post.

 

[woolfe9998]

You won't. You also don't know if Cheney was responsible for the fall of the WTC. I choose not to believe that or your scenario. There's most likely concern about events related to Egypt, most likely peripherally, however my specific doubts aren't really relevant to your post.

Right, you never really "know" anything, do you? Except cogito ergo sum, if even that. Which doesn't really get us anywhere meaningful in the discussion.

My interest is the in the reach of this logic - that if recent revelations about NSA's surveillance and data gathering suggest that we should be suspicious of a world wide embassy lock down as something being done just for show then what are the limits of that suspicion? Maybe all the unemployment numbers we get from BLS every month are doctored as some people have suggested.

 

[dmcowen674]

You also don't know if Cheney was responsible for the fall of the WTC.

"Pull it"

 

[WelshBloke]

With what we've had going on recently what else could you expect

Yeah, I don't really care about the pissing match you guys have between the repubs and democrats though, it never seems to have much grounding in the real world.

This is probably the answer to the OP's query. Or, for those who prefer, it's the government's version of the answer:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...and-serious-intelligence-committee-chief?lite

Yeah, that article fits in with my thoughts, there's a specific threat and there's political pressure not to have any incidents that involve embassy staff.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right, you never really "know" anything, do you? Except cogito ergo sum, if even that. Which doesn't really get us anywhere meaningful in the discussion.

My interest is the in the reach of this logic - that if recent revelations about NSA's surveillance and data gathering suggest that we should be suspicious of a world wide embassy lock down as something being done just for show then what are the limits of that suspicion? Maybe all the unemployment numbers we get from BLS every month are doctored as some people have suggested.

Regarding the latter the numbers aren't doctored as far as I can tell. I would suggest that the interpretation and emphasis on what those figures mean is often spun
For example one sees a headline- "Unemployment falls to 7.4%"
True? Certainly, but there is such a thing as a vacuous truth. Outside of a number what else is there? Did people find work or give up? What type of jobs are most represented? On average are wages of like amount as what they replaced? Why are things as they are?

I think those things more useful than an isolated number, but pointing out such things would subvert partisan motives. Any administration will select out the best and the opposition the worst. Same for the fans of a particular ideology or party.

Yes it's natural enough but what happens when an individual chooses political expediency over other concerns? Well that comes down to individual bias, experience and the method behind reasoning.

Everyone assigns weights to whatever factors they perceive. Perceptions may or may not have a basis in reality. In terms of credibility how many times may a boy cry wolf before that's lost?

In my case I see the extent to which individuals in prior administrations have stretched credulity and that seems to be fairly constant since Carter, who I consider among the most honest to hold the office in my lifetime. Moving forward, there was a cry for accountability before the election by Obama, then an embrace of what he complained about. Then we had Biden going over data mining and how one shouldn't trust a President who approves. Note the reversal.

Now one can write this of as politics or a reassessment, however it is hard for me to believe that at least Biden wasn't very much aware of much that went on, being an insider for so long. Obama? I'm less certain of what he knew but at least he should have known better. Politics as usual then which some dismiss as irrelevant however I'm old fashioned in that if something cannot be discussed honestly or on the occasion that facts must give way to duplicity for genuine national interests, speak not at all in the first case and rarely and with great caution and only at need.

I'm not seeing that here. I hear about one thing and "trust me". Then another and trust me again.

Now I'm far from naive about such things. I understand that many things simply cannot be discussed. I know there is a need for security agencies. I know bad things are done at need for safety. I might give the administration a pass and I understand the position it finds itself in. But that history bothers me. Even more is something not lost on the rest of the world and that is the Peace Prize winner turned international bully. Not much surprises me but that did. Backdoor communications? Diplomatic wrangling? Sure. That's how things get done. Want to call Ecuador and threaten? Sure again. What was done however wasn't that. What mattered is that the world saw us do it. We put the world on notice and pushed their faces in it. That was astounding. It was as tactless and egotistical as Bushes Axis speech.

So that's my take on things. Now this? Even though I haven't access to Truth I am not without opinion guided by events. I have grave doubts. Do I think Obama faked this? No. One reason is my hope things haven't gone that far, but even if it has I believe Obama knows these things can come back to haunt.

What do I think may have happened? One thing I am sure of is that closures are actions which come about as a result of the evaluation of weighted parameters and current intel assessments. That being the case and in light of what I've just covered causes me to believe that someone might put a thumb on the scale to tip it over the threshold to support something badly wanted. This would not be the first case in history, sadly this happens top much.

I don't see a virtue in this administration that makes it substantially different than most who have gone before it.

Anyway there's the insight into what I think and why. Others do the same, but the evidence they consider and their biases vary. They weigh things differently and with more or less knowledge and care.

 

[ControlD]

I'm not sure if this is related or not, but I just got back from DC today and you cannot get closer than about a half mile from the White House right now. I overheard someone asking a local tour guide about it and they said it was highly unusual. They have all kinds of barricades and defense people surrounding the area.

 

[Agent11]

That's interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Slew Foot]

absolutely nothing will happen.

"fear will keep them in line"
-Grand Moff Tarkin

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

absolutely nothing will happen.

"fear will keep them in line"
-Grand Moff Tarkin

I hope not but I believe there's a basis for the alerts. I think it unwise to make absolute statements as to what will or won't happen in the absence of sufficient data. Don't fear but don't be foolish.

 

[woolfe9998]

Regarding the latter the numbers aren't doctored as far as I can tell. I would suggest that the interpretation and emphasis on what those figures mean is often spun
For example one sees a headline- "Unemployment falls to 7.4%"
True? Certainly, but there is such a thing as a vacuous truth. Outside of a number what else is there? Did people find work or give up? What type of jobs are most represented? On average are wages of like amount as what they replaced? Why are things as they are?

I think those things more useful than an isolated number, but pointing out such things would subvert partisan motives. Any administration will select out the best and the opposition the worst. Same for the fans of a particular ideology or party.

I think you're confusing the government's reporting of this data with the media summaries of it. The media pretty much dumbs down everything they report into soundbites, and that includes economic data. The actual BLS report has tons of data in it but no one reads it except economists and a few interested lay people.

The way the data is simplified doesn't really cut one way or the other either. For example, if the unemployment rate goes down, it is sometimes pointed out that the article didn't mention that that labor force participation went down at the same time, meaning the declining unemployment rate is not very good news. OTOH, when unemployment goes up, the media may also not report that labor force participation went up along with it, meaning the increasing rate isn't such bad news either.

I've noticed that people who question the data have a tendency to only question positive numbers. Negative numbers are taken for granted as being accurate. Ultimately if you really want the truth you have to look under the hood and not just cherry pick whatever data supports a pre-conceived view.

Yes it's natural enough but what happens when an individual chooses political expediency over other concerns? Well that comes down to individual bias, experience and the method behind reasoning.

Everyone assigns weights to whatever factors they perceive. Perceptions may or may not have a basis in reality. In terms of credibility how many times may a boy cry wolf before that's lost?

In my case I see the extent to which individuals in prior administrations have stretched credulity and that seems to be fairly constant since Carter, who I consider among the most honest to hold the office in my lifetime. Moving forward, there was a cry for accountability before the election by Obama, then an embrace of what he complained about. Then we had Biden going over data mining and how one shouldn't trust a President who approves. Note the reversal.

Now one can write this of as politics or a reassessment, however it is hard for me to believe that at least Biden wasn't very much aware of much that went on, being an insider for so long. Obama? I'm less certain of what he knew but at least he should have known better. Politics as usual then which some dismiss as irrelevant however I'm old fashioned in that if something cannot be discussed honestly or on the occasion that facts must give way to duplicity for genuine national interests, speak not at all in the first case and rarely and with great caution and only at need.

I'm not seeing that here. I hear about one thing and "trust me". Then another and trust me again.

Yeah, I generally agree about the broken promise for increased transparency with this administration. I think they saw a problem and wanted to fix it, but once in office, for whatever reason this determination fell by the wayside.

What I do not see is any necessary connection between whether we can trust what the NSA says about its various surveillance and data gathering activities (we cannot), and whether an actual alert where embassies have been closed is based on a real threat.

No one should be surprised about a "lack of transparency" in what agencies like the NSA are doing, or even that they lie and/or tell half truths about it. Some of what they are doing is classified, and even where not classified, telling the public precisely what they're doing tends to defeat the purpose of what they're doing. If spy agencies can't carry on covertly, they really can't carry on at all.

At the same time, there has to be accountability for what they're doing. If they overstep their bounds we must have mechanisms in place to stop it. This is a quandary which I have been struggling with since the first revelations about the NSA gathering e-mail pen registers in 2006 and it continues to bother me with the even more disturbing developments recently.

Yet none of this convinces me that they aren't actually trying to combat terrorism. 9/11 really did a number on the American collective psyche, and there was a very loud call for the government to keep us safe. Never mind that the concern may have been exaggerated and continues to be so. If a heinous attack does succeed, we both know who will be second guessed and blamed for it.

When people are trying to CYA, they may do all manner of things, even some things they shouldn't be doing. Especially when they think they can get away with these things they shouldn't be doing because of the necessary secretiveness of it. But none of that points to that surveillance and spying being an end in and of itself. I have no reason to believe it isn't simply an over-reaction to a real threat. Which is why I don't think a connection here is very likely.

Now I'm far from naive about such things. I understand that many things simply cannot be discussed. I know there is a need for security agencies. I know bad things are done at need for safety. I might give the administration a pass and I understand the position it finds itself in. But that history bothers me. Even more is something not lost on the rest of the world and that is the Peace Prize winner turned international bully. Not much surprises me but that did. Backdoor communications? Diplomatic wrangling? Sure. That's how things get done. Want to call Ecuador and threaten? Sure again. What was done however wasn't that. What mattered is that the world saw us do it. We put the world on notice and pushed their faces in it. That was astounding. It was as tactless and egotistical as Bushes Axis speech.

It was pretty tactless and didn't make us look very good. Either we need to 1) not incur another serious attack, or 2) not be so spooked about them if they do happen, or you will continue to see all manner of bad behavior on the part of the government. Do not expect it to get better unless or until the public mood shifts. It will stay the same or get worse as one thing builds upon another. It will continue into future administrations. Somewhere along the way we need a serious dialogue about security vs. privacy and we need to alter the message we're sending.

So that's my take on things. Now this? Even though I haven't access to Truth I am not without opinion guided by events. I have grave doubts. Do I think Obama faked this? No. One reason is my hope things haven't gone that far, but even if it has I believe Obama knows these things can come back to haunt.

What do I think may have happened? One thing I am sure of is that closures are actions which come about as a result of the evaluation of weighted parameters and current intel assessments. That being the case and in light of what I've just covered causes me to believe that someone might put a thumb on the scale to tip it over the threshold to support something badly wanted. This would not be the first case in history, sadly this happens top much.

I don't see a virtue in this administration that makes it substantially different than most who have gone before it.

Anyway there's the insight into what I think and why. Others do the same, but the evidence they consider and their biases vary. They weigh things differently and with more or less knowledge and care.

I think these closures are the result of some kind of intel, though it's an open question how serious/credible the threat actually is. As I said, it may very well be an over-reaction to something, but over-reactions are a pattern now.

 

[Balt]

Looks like some of them will remain closed until at least August 11th.

 

[ivwshane]

It's not a rant, it's reality. We've been told numerous times that the war on terror is over, that Al-Qaeda is on the run, etc. I don't know if I would classify these as lies. I mean they are, but to a prog, they are the results they wished for. The intention was good, the plan was executed and just because it failed, that is no reason to declare it a failure. It's not truly an ego thing, it's a maturity thing.

You're wearing the hat buddy and proudly too.

The only people saying the war on terror is over are the idiots you listen to that spun Obamas words into something he didn't say.

So surprise you fell for the propaganda hook line and sinker.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Next week they'll arrest 3+ people then say how the NSA spying program saved us from whatever and then the public will be "OK" keeping the program
__________________

what exactly is so terrible about that.....

 

[shady28]

Right, you never really "know" anything, do you? Except cogito ergo sum, if even that. Which doesn't really get us anywhere meaningful in the discussion.

My interest is the in the reach of this logic - that if recent revelations about NSA's surveillance and data gathering suggest that we should be suspicious of a world wide embassy lock down as something being done just for show then what are the limits of that suspicion? Maybe all the unemployment numbers we get from BLS every month are doctored as some people have suggested.

You don't need to doctor statistics to make them appear to support a false statement. Unfortunately, most people don't get it.

As far as unemployment statistics, it is possible for 99% of the country to be without a job and have a zero % unemployment rate.

 

[michal1980]

Didn't Obama say the terrorists were on the run?

 

[IGBT]

didn't the obama defeat Al-Qaeda?? This is just another feeble attempt to divert attention away from his numerous scandals. Your obama is political blight.

 

[John Connor]

This is just an attempt to somehow validate an attempt to continue to violate our fourth amendment rights.

 

[mmntech]

With the recent non-sense out of the United States over the past few months, I think I'm starting to become a bit anti-American. When I first heard this threat, my gut reaction was not to believe it. Not that it matters. Wouldn't go to any of those countries on their best day.

I can't help but feel though the Obama administration is up to something. Wouldn't be shocked if they're gearing up for another military "intervention" in the region.

 

[ivwshane]

With the recent non-sense out of the United States over the past few months, I think I'm starting to become a bit anti-American. When I first heard this threat, my gut reaction was not to believe it. Not that it matters. Wouldn't go to any of those countries on their best day.

I can't help but feel though the Obama administration is up to something. Wouldn't be shocked if they're gearing up for another military "intervention" in the region.

I hope you don't use that gut reaction of yours for anything important.

 

[John Connor]

Gut reactions are for playing poker or gambling. I wouldn't gamble with intelligence sources. Especially that of the greatest of them all, the U S of A.

 

[Lithium381]

what exactly is so terrible about that.....

Its not going to be real t'rists! Its just going to be some people who made some crappy YouTube videos or were shopping online for pressure c00kers