The Difference in How the Story is Told
How do we reconcile this:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/948382.asp?pne=msntv
and this:
http://www.detik.com/peristiwa/2003/08/05/20030805-183447.shtml
I would love to see the facts checked on this, but since the article is not in english, ir probably ever won't.
Quote:
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing, but U.S. officials said there have been ?a number of warnings of potential terrorist attacks? by Jemaah Islamiah over the past several months. The officials, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, said the warnings were not specific, but indicated the militant group was prepared to attack ?soft targets,? a term used to describe lightly guarded public gathering spots such as hotels.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing, but U.S. officials said there have been ?a number of warnings of potential terrorist attacks? by Jemaah Islamiah over the past several months. The officials, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, said the warnings were not specific, but indicated the militant group was prepared to attack ?soft targets,? a term used to describe lightly guarded public gathering spots such as hotels.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/948382.asp?pne=msntv
and this:
Quote:
Translation: US Embassy cancelled the booking of Marriott Hotel 4.5 hours before the explosion There was something interesting happened just hours before the explosion shocked the JW Marriott Hotel, Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta. The US Embassy cancelled the booking of 10-20 rooms in that hotel. The cancellation was on 8.00 West Indonesian Time, Tuesday, or only 4.5 hours before the explosion. This information is from employee of Marriot Hotel who refused to be identified. He explained that the booking was made several days ago. The US Embassy's guests were planned to stay for 3 days. And the ceremony was planned on Wednesday. For information, when there was the explosion, the security of US Embassy directly came to the Marriot Hotel in Mega Kuningan. JW Marriot Hotel is known to be used frequently by US Embassy. On 4 July 2003, the Independent Day of US was celebrated on this hotel. Last year, it was also celebrated there.
Translation: US Embassy cancelled the booking of Marriott Hotel 4.5 hours before the explosion There was something interesting happened just hours before the explosion shocked the JW Marriott Hotel, Mega Kuningan, South Jakarta. The US Embassy cancelled the booking of 10-20 rooms in that hotel. The cancellation was on 8.00 West Indonesian Time, Tuesday, or only 4.5 hours before the explosion. This information is from employee of Marriot Hotel who refused to be identified. He explained that the booking was made several days ago. The US Embassy's guests were planned to stay for 3 days. And the ceremony was planned on Wednesday. For information, when there was the explosion, the security of US Embassy directly came to the Marriot Hotel in Mega Kuningan. JW Marriot Hotel is known to be used frequently by US Embassy. On 4 July 2003, the Independent Day of US was celebrated on this hotel. Last year, it was also celebrated there.
http://www.detik.com/peristiwa/2003/08/05/20030805-183447.shtml
I would love to see the facts checked on this, but since the article is not in english, ir probably ever won't.
Comments
(Demonize as you are wont, of course, don't let me stop you.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Maybe, but incompetence has been the only way to explain away just about everything that's happened under the Bush admin from day 1.
Anyway, the person that made that call would probably not have been high level, which meant a number of people knew about it more than half of a work day before the bombing. And it wasn't agencies, it was the embassy. The problem with inter-agency communication is one that affects specific groups and their channels; it is not the duct tape (universal) of explanations. There is no reason that individuals at the embassy could not notify whomever they needed to within that amount of time.
In the end, not only could this have been prevented, but someone is lying to the US press to cover it up. While this isn't anything new, it is a perfect example not only of what US officials do but also how the language barrier prevents americans from getting the full story on even the most localized events.
gaint you have a complete inability to be objective. Everything for you is seen through some kind of anti-bush/anti-american lens. Take off the specs and see the light of day.
Originally posted by Scott
...anti-american ...
You aren't in a position to say
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Anything beyond that is driven by agenda
what agenda is that?
Maybe the both of you need to go back and read the first post and the title.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
[B]The agenda that the US is not only responsible for what happened, but somehow some more sinister intention was there. People here make implications, then run and hide when they're pressed about their biases.
No, I think it's clear a group of people at the US embassy knew this was going to happen. The exact same thing happened on the morning of 9/11. I don't claim to know exactly what the situation was, but parts of it are pretty clear.
What's extremely naive is this belief some of you have that there is no contact between different groups of people, that the political victims of these attacks are totally caught off guard. It shows that you haven't bothered to really look into things before forming opinions, a pattern repeated in your interpretation of my posts.
Are you going to run and hide too?
Yeah, you know me. Ducking out every time there's a conflict.
I just wish people were more frank and open-minded.
open-minded like how? open-minded like making a decision about what someone is saying and then trying to convince them of your fantasy?
Originally posted by giant
No, I think it's clear a group of people at the US embassy knew this was going to happen.
Can I point out (again) how silly this presumption is? That the US government is more concerned with getting a refund on its $1000 worth of hotel rooms than about keeping secret its sinister worldwide role in masterminding Islamic violence?
This smells to me of coincidence or precaution, not conspiracy.
Originally posted by Towel
This smells to me of coincidence or precaution, not conspiracy.
anything to put your mind at ease
oh, and you can stop using the word 'conspiracy.' if you believe that a group did the bombing, then you believe in a 'conspiracy theory.'
Can I point out (again) how silly this presumption is?
from what I can tell, you are the one making the biggest presumption, one of motive.
I was also just reading an old post of yours where you argued for a connection between Iraq and al-qeada, even though there is no evidence, you have no support from anyone in the intel community and it makes no sense. Talk about a conspiracy theory...
I supposed, reason says only that the embassay staff, and there for the US admin knew that an attack against that particular target was imminent and therefore cancelled the event.
I guess if the obvious explaination doesn't give the answer one wants to be true, then it makes sense to try and find a solution that gives you the answer you want.
Originally posted by Tulkas Hmmm....so I guess it would be naive to assume that because of the recent increase in warnings and general chatter about possible attacks on soft targets of US interests, that the US embassay, knowing that area of the world in known as a stronghold of Al Queda types, decided it would be prudent to cancel a non-essential event that would have left them open to a possible attack.
I agree with most of this, but 'chatter' is not a realistic term. It's a word harnessed by the Bush admin that really doesn't deal with the reality of intel collection. In fact, every instance of 'chatter' regarding 9/11 has been pinned down, and it's been shown that that 'chatter' was highly specific and not the onrush of static the bush pr people pretend it is. That's the most obvious of the reasons why bush has personally blocked any real investigation.
The other thing it doesn't address is the impeccable timing of the cancellation. It's just too close for their explanation. Couple that with the invocation of the fictional idea of 'chatter' and you have a pretty clear picture of at least part of the situation.
Originally posted by giant
No, I think it's clear a group of people at the US embassy knew this was going to happen.
...
No .... no. This is where you show you're inability to process information. What we have here two news reports. One quotes and single unnamed source and the other information is from an unknown employee of the hotel. That's not good journalism.
giant in the first post
I would love to see the facts checked on this
Then ...
giant later
No, I think it's clear...blah blah blah
Make up your mind. Either the facts need to be checked or you think this information makes things "clear". Stop wasting your time on this nonsense.
Originally posted by giant
I was also just reading an old post of yours where you argued for a connection between Iraq and al-qeada, even though there is no evidence, you have no support from anyone in the intel community and it makes no sense. Talk about a conspiracy theory...
I can't argue against a unnamed old post. Dredge up a link if you want to debate my credibility.
Anyway, what, exactly, are you proposing, giant? Do you think this suggests that the Bush Administration is sponsoring these attacks? Or that they have accurate intelligence about them and choose not to stop them? In either case, why risk blowing the "op" over a few hotel reservations? All they had to do was nothing. The unnamed employee doesn't mention when the US guests were scheduled to arrive, but they obviously weren't going to be there before the bomb went off.
The only reasonable explanation is that this was part of a (probably broad) pattern of precautionary moves by US personnel in Indonesia in response to some nonspecific, but credible, intelligence of an immediate threat. They were worried something might happen, so they decided to hunker down for a while. How often do our Middle Eastern embassies get nonspecific threat warnings? So often it doesn't make the news anymore. Something similar to this has probably happened a dozen times this year in Indonesia, too, but for once the threat was real and realized.
Originally posted by giant
The other thing it doesn't address is the impeccable timing of the cancellation. It's just too close for their explanation. Couple that with the invocation of the fictional idea of 'chatter' and you have a pretty clear picture of at least part of the situation.
Just thought that should be repeated.
Originally posted by bunge
Just thought that should be repeated.
Actually it's one that should be corroborated. FACTS PEOPLE FACTS! TWO SOURCES OF INFORMATION!
Originally posted by Scott
Actually it's one that should be corroborated. FACTS PEOPLE FACTS! TWO SOURCES OF INFORMATION!
Two sources = fact?
Imagine the possibilities...