Back to the beginning. I can read between the lines.
That called interpreting everything through predetermined ideas. You do realize that it means you are crazy when you see things that aren't there, don't you?
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it?
with this:
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I can read between the lines [and see things that aren't there]
How does pointing out that bush lied about WMD indicate that I have 'liberal' values. All it shows is that I am able to acknowledge that a fictional reports are, well, fictional. It's not rocket science, and it's not dogmatic.
How does pointing out that bush lied about WMD indicate that I have 'liberal' values.
Well, for one, we're not talking about Bush and WMD, we're talking about a hotel bombing in Indonesia. And don't get too hung up on the word "liberal." My point is that you seem to think that the US had some sort of unscrupulous reason to not warn others about the bombing, where there are other possible, not necessarily correct, explanations. You refuse to consider possibilities outside of the ones that demonize the Bush administration.
Well, for one, we're not talking about Bush and WMD, we're talking about a hotel bombing in Indonesia. And don't get too hung up on the word "liberal."
No, I will get hung up on it, since you seem to think it applies.
So since nothing previous led you to use the word liberal in reference to me, exactly how do my posts in this thread demonstrate that I'm a [so-called] liberal, and what exactly does being a [so-called] liberal entail.
Quote:
My point is that you seem to think that the US had some sort of unscrupulous reason to not warn others about the bombing, where there are other possible, not necessarily correct, explanations. You refuse to consider possibilities outside of the ones that demonize the Bush administration.
How is that? Do you need me to repeat the explanation that I think happened?
Quote:
giantI think they have someone in the group that planned it feeding info, the embassy got the info, cancelled the rooms and notified people associated not to go there. I don't know who notified the hotel staff or if they just inferred it from the actions of the embassy (there was probably more detail), but it seems clear that it was not a surprise.
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. This is the same thing that happened with 9/11. Just as with 9.11, the smart thing to do is deny knowledge, since anything said can come back and bite.
how does this apply at all specifically to the Bush admin? 9.11 certainly does, but I don't know what influence the bush admin has had on the us embassy in jakarta and I don't claim to. The only thing I've said about the bush admin here was in reference to the BS argument of 'incompetence' that is used by so many people to explain away the mountain of facts that conflict with their predetermined belief systems.
And this is why you are so unbelievably FOS. Get a clue, and a better hobby than arguing with people about things you make up in your head.
If you want to start talking about things the bush admin is actually known to be responsible for ignoring, intel in the lead up to 9.11, I'm certainly willing to do so, but it will be yet another case of me providing a mountain of info and a bunch of little numbnuts whining without any substance to back up thier objections.
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. ...
We do? Please tell me what the "specific" warning was. Be "specific" this time. Also tell me what the "specific" warning for 9-11 was. Once again be "specific" about it. If you don't know what "specific" means then look it up in the "dictionary".
This thread bores me so. I wrote a really long reply, but to hell with that. To sum up:
Don't get your panties in a bunch over the works "conservative" or "liberal." They're de facto terms used relative to that polarizing force that is the Bush administration.
I don't care what happened, and I don't claim to know. My original point way back when was that there are 1. scenarios that you might not have considered, and 2. that your implication that the US government deliberately withheld that info from some demonstrates a bias.
First off giant, I want to be sure you don't think I was attacking you in my post. I was just responding with what I thought was a reasonable explaination.
Sometimes I do get overly aggressive in my posts, I think everyone here does. I think the fact that you get so many opposing responses comes from the fact that 1) you are obviously one that tries to stay as informed on topics as you can and have access to more information than most of us here do and 2) you do generally take pretty strong views on pretty controversial issues. Combined or alone both or good traits. So long as everyone tries to avoid personals, I think you ought to take the volume and passion of responses to your posts as pretty positive. just my 2 cents.
Now back to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Do you really want to know what I think (though I don't claim to know): I think they have someone in the group that planned it feeding info, the embassy got the info, cancelled the rooms and notified people associated not to go there. I don't know who notified the hotel staff or if they just inferred it from the actions of the embassy (there was probably more detail), but it seems clear that it was not a surprise.
Depends on what you mean that is wasn't a surprise. As I said in my last post, given the increased alerts about non-specific targets and the high number of al queda types in the area and their historical willingness to attack in the region, I think it is quite reasonable assume this is reason enough for the embassy to have cancelled a non-important event.
The evacuation is more difficult to explain. But, again, given the history of the area and the increase in warnings, perhaps the cancellation by the embassy was enough to give the hotel management the jitters enough to take precautions.The article at SkyNews didn't mention how long before the blast the evacuation happened, so we don't now if it was shortly before the blast or shortly after the cancellation. I think that is a fairly reasonable explaiantion and doesn't require any sinister motives other than that of the bombers.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. This is the same thing that happened with 9/11. Just as with 9.11, the smart thing to do is deny knowledge, since anything said can come back and bite.
I don't think that it is truly that clear that there was a specific warning.
But if there was and now the US officials are denying it, I think it may point to nothing more sinister than try to avoid blame that not enough was done, and perhaps that is sinister enough in it own rights. But, if a specific warning was had, it is obvious by how close in time the cancellation and the bombing were (only 4.5 hours) that the embassy didn't have a lot of time to implement a plan, other than perhaps the cancellation of the rooms and warning to the hotel. If there was a warning, we don't know how specific it was. It could have said US interests in the region, area or city. It could have name the hotel specifically or not at all. Aside from what the embassy could control, that is cancelling the rooms, given a possibly vague warning, the hotels may have been weary of doing much more than a simple evacuation. Obviously it wasn't a full evac. Assuming that scenario, a coverup would seem to not be covering up much other than just how vunerable US interests are, even when given some sort of warning.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
That's what I think, and it deals with the facts.
ditto...though perhaps my fact checking isn't as thourough as yours.
Depends on what you mean that is wasn't a surprise. As I said in my last post, given the increased alerts about non-specific targets and the high number of al queda types in the area and their historical willingness to attack in the region, I think it is quite reasonable assume this is reason enough for the embassy to have cancelled a non-important event.
The evacuation is more difficult to explain. But, again, given the history of the area and the increase in warnings, perhaps the cancellation by the embassy was enough to give the hotel management the jitters enough to take precautions.The article at SkyNews didn't mention how long before the blast the evacuation happened, so we don't now if it was shortly before the blast or shortly after the cancellation. I think that is a fairly reasonable explaiantion and doesn't require any sinister motives other than that of the bombers.
I don't think that it is truly that clear that there was a specific warning.
But if there was and now the US officials are denying it, I think it may point to nothing more sinister than try to avoid blame that not enough was done, and perhaps that is sinister enough in it own rights. But, if a specific warning was had, it is obvious by how close in time the cancellation and the bombing were (only 4.5 hours) that the embassy didn't have a lot of time to implement a plan, other than perhaps the cancellation of the rooms and warning to the hotel. If there was a warning, we don't know how specific it was. It could have said US interests in the region, area or city. It could have name the hotel specifically or not at all. Aside from what the embassy could control, that is cancelling the rooms, given a possibly vague warning, the hotels may have been weary of doing much more than a simple evacuation. Obviously it wasn't a full evac. Assuming that scenario, a coverup would seem to not be covering up much other than just how vunerable US interests are, even when given some sort of warning.
See how easy it is, guys? Sharing of ideas is a much better path to understanding than having knee-jerk reactions.
moving on, I would agree, tulkas, except for a couple of things. One, emptying a major hotel is not something done lightly. It is a last resort for a business like a hotel. It would simply be too much of a coincidence for the US embassy to cancel the rooms and for the major hotel to be evacuated right before the blast. I doubt that a major hotel would have been evacuated simply because of room cancellations if there had been vauge warnings for a month or two. Something triggered the severe response.
Also, that hotel does not appear to be the kind of place that is easily evacuated, so it makes sense that there would still be people around regardless of whether the call went out 4 hours before or 1.
Since the reasons above make me feel there was a warning, it also makes sense that there is communication between the embassy (typically a center of US intel in a region) and someone with contact to or in the group that planned the bombing.
Beyond that, everything is much more hazy. What was the motive, for instance? I have some ideas, but I'm not sure at all yet.
Of course, my original point of posting the two stories was to demonstrate how much of this info was left out in the english language source.
See how easy it is, guys? Sharing of ideas is a much better path to understanding than having knee-jerk reactions.
moving on, I would agree, tulkas, except for a couple of things. One, emptying a major hotel is not something done lightly. It is a last resort for a business like a hotel. It would simply be too much of a coincidence for the US embassy to cancel the rooms and for the major hotel to be evacuated right before the blast. I doubt that a major hotel would have been evacuated simply because of room cancellations if there had been vauge warnings for a month or two. Something triggered the severe response.
Also, that hotel does not appear to be the kind of place that is easily evacuated, so it makes sense that there would still be people around regardless of whether the call went out 4 hours before or 1.
Since the reasons above make me feel there was a warning, it also makes sense that there is communication between the embassy (typically a center of US intel in a region) and someone with contact to or in the group that planned the bombing.
In the article I read yesterday, the Jakarta police are the ones who suspected the Marriot Hotel. Maybe they gave the warning to the US Embassy and the hotel?
Originally posted by X X In the article I read yesterday, the Jakarta police are the ones who suspected the Marriot Hotel. Maybe they gave the warning to the US Embassy and the hotel?
The info the police had was non-specific, didn't only focus on the marriot and was a month old. It doesn't account for the actions of the us embassy or the evacuation.
The info the police had was non-specific, didn't only focus on the marriot and was a month old. It doesn't account for the actions of the us embassy or the evacuation.
Well, common sense dictates that they had specific enough information to have the hotel evacuated, and obviously their fears were legitimate.
And, "didn't only focus on the Marriot," the Marriot was the only building mentioned in the article you linked. Apparantly any other possible target was ancillary compared to the hotel, as your article implies.
This intelligence and other intelligence gathered since does account for the actions taken by the people who did occupy the hotel and were about to occupy it.
Well, common sense dictates that they had specific enough information to have the hotel evacuated, and obviously their fears were legitimate.
Who's they? The police certainly don't claim to.
Quote:
And, "didn't only focus on the Marriot," the Marriot was the only building mentioned in the article you linked. Apparantly any other possible target was ancillary compared to the hotel, as your article implies.
that was because it was the target that was hit, and headline would read 'ramada' if it was the ramada that was hit. Every account that refers to these documents cites them as not-specific:
The revelations came as the Australian government said intelligence showed more attacks across Indonesia, particularly in its capital, were likely in coming days.
Jakarta police spokesman Prasetyo said the documents were seized in the central Java town of Semarang last month, when police arrested four alleged members of the Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah.
'In the documents there were some strategic areas including the location of the Marriott,' he told The Associated Press.
and
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.
Quote:
This intelligence and other intelligence gathered since does account for the actions taken by the people who did occupy the hotel and were about to occupy it.
No it doesn't. This was the major hotel for westerners in jakarta. Have you ever been in a hotel evacuation? I was. It was a hotel about 1/4-1/3 this size in london, canada, and it is not a simple task and is REALLY bad for business.
And if they knew about it a month before, it doesn't account for why the rooms were cancelled only 4 hours before the blast.
In short, all available evidence (including explicit comments from multiple and diverse sources) points to your speculative path being inaccurate.
Regardless, your version of the events backs up what I said in the first two posts.
Regardless, your version of the events backs up what I said in the first two posts.
Giant, you can be a frustrating at times. I don't disagree with what you said in your first two posts, and I don't disagree with a lot of your other posts.
You made the comment about it not being a surprise. I agree and was simply making a comment myself about reading an article that implied the police new something was up with the Marriot (even in conjunction with other possible targets).
I wasn't attacking what you said and wasn't trying to be argumentative. To the contrary, I was trying to support your comment. Clearly there is more known than what was said by the media. Who knew this? When did they know it? We can only speculate.
I know a lot of people attack what you write, and maybe this is why you got defensive with what I wrote, but I don't like being attacked either because you misinterpret my intentions.
Looks like the Australian government have admitted prior knowledge that an attack was imminent in Jakarta. Seems they knew a week beforehand.
So, question now is: could Australia have known this info and the US not ?
If yes, then no lessons have been learned from the security f** up of 911 (if such it was) - in fact it's far worse and America is basically a sitting duck.
If no, then it's proven. Either way it stinks.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee imo - there never was a solid commitment to a WOT by Bush and his lackeys, it was all just meaningless rhetoric by another opportunist 'leader' devoid of ideas and vision. Either that or the terrorists are actually winning...
Your lack of logic is truly amazing. I would've thought at least every person had some measure of logical thought process in their brains that could be put to good use on something, but you've proven me wrong.
Looks like the Australian government have admitted prior knowledge that an attack was imminent in Jakarta. Seems they knew a week beforehand.
Already discussed in this thread. Vague warnings of possible attacks in a general area are pretty useless to begin with, even more useless in an area that is resistant to doing anything to deal with these groups.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
So, question now is: could Australia have known this info and the US not ?
Not a worthwhile question by anymeans. Ok, so the US had the same vague idea of a possible attack. Useless.
As giant as well pointed out, this is only sinister if the various gov's had specific knowledge about times locatios and did nothing.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
If yes, then no lessons have been learned from the security f** up of 911 (if such it was) - in fact it's far worse and America is basically a sitting duck.
If no, then it's proven. Either way it stinks.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee imo - there never was a solid commitment to a WOT by Bush and his lackeys, it was all just meaningless rhetoric by another opportunist 'leader' devoid of ideas and vision. Either that or the terrorists are actually winning...
As X X pointed out, your leaps in logic are astounding.
I would've thought at least every person had some measure of logical thought process in their brains that could be put to good use on something, but you've proven me wrong.
Then you should take your own advice and explain this poster's illogical thought process. As things stand, you've offered less than the person you're criticizing.
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Back to the beginning. I can read between the lines.
That called interpreting everything through predetermined ideas. You do realize that it means you are crazy when you see things that aren't there, don't you?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You take a lot of assumptions as undeniable fact rather than consulting all real possibilities due to your political fantasies, and you;re dogmatic on top of it?
with this:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I can read between the lines [and see things that aren't there]
How does pointing out that bush lied about WMD indicate that I have 'liberal' values. All it shows is that I am able to acknowledge that a fictional reports are, well, fictional. It's not rocket science, and it's not dogmatic.
Originally posted by giant
You do realize that it means you are crazy when you see things that aren't there, don't you?
I'm Daffy!
How does pointing out that bush lied about WMD indicate that I have 'liberal' values.
Well, for one, we're not talking about Bush and WMD, we're talking about a hotel bombing in Indonesia. And don't get too hung up on the word "liberal." My point is that you seem to think that the US had some sort of unscrupulous reason to not warn others about the bombing, where there are other possible, not necessarily correct, explanations. You refuse to consider possibilities outside of the ones that demonize the Bush administration.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Well, for one, we're not talking about Bush and WMD, we're talking about a hotel bombing in Indonesia. And don't get too hung up on the word "liberal."
No, I will get hung up on it, since you seem to think it applies.
So since nothing previous led you to use the word liberal in reference to me, exactly how do my posts in this thread demonstrate that I'm a [so-called] liberal, and what exactly does being a [so-called] liberal entail.
My point is that you seem to think that the US had some sort of unscrupulous reason to not warn others about the bombing, where there are other possible, not necessarily correct, explanations. You refuse to consider possibilities outside of the ones that demonize the Bush administration.
How is that? Do you need me to repeat the explanation that I think happened?
giantI think they have someone in the group that planned it feeding info, the embassy got the info, cancelled the rooms and notified people associated not to go there. I don't know who notified the hotel staff or if they just inferred it from the actions of the embassy (there was probably more detail), but it seems clear that it was not a surprise.
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. This is the same thing that happened with 9/11. Just as with 9.11, the smart thing to do is deny knowledge, since anything said can come back and bite.
how does this apply at all specifically to the Bush admin? 9.11 certainly does, but I don't know what influence the bush admin has had on the us embassy in jakarta and I don't claim to. The only thing I've said about the bush admin here was in reference to the BS argument of 'incompetence' that is used by so many people to explain away the mountain of facts that conflict with their predetermined belief systems.
And this is why you are so unbelievably FOS. Get a clue, and a better hobby than arguing with people about things you make up in your head.
If you want to start talking about things the bush admin is actually known to be responsible for ignoring, intel in the lead up to 9.11, I'm certainly willing to do so, but it will be yet another case of me providing a mountain of info and a bunch of little numbnuts whining without any substance to back up thier objections.
Originally posted by giant
...
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. ...
We do? Please tell me what the "specific" warning was. Be "specific" this time. Also tell me what the "specific" warning for 9-11 was. Once again be "specific" about it. If you don't know what "specific" means then look it up in the "dictionary".
Don't get your panties in a bunch over the works "conservative" or "liberal." They're de facto terms used relative to that polarizing force that is the Bush administration.
I don't care what happened, and I don't claim to know. My original point way back when was that there are 1. scenarios that you might not have considered, and 2. that your implication that the US government deliberately withheld that info from some demonstrates a bias.
G'night
Sometimes I do get overly aggressive in my posts, I think everyone here does. I think the fact that you get so many opposing responses comes from the fact that 1) you are obviously one that tries to stay as informed on topics as you can and have access to more information than most of us here do and 2) you do generally take pretty strong views on pretty controversial issues. Combined or alone both or good traits. So long as everyone tries to avoid personals, I think you ought to take the volume and passion of responses to your posts as pretty positive. just my 2 cents.
Now back to the discussion.
Originally posted by giant
Do you really want to know what I think (though I don't claim to know): I think they have someone in the group that planned it feeding info, the embassy got the info, cancelled the rooms and notified people associated not to go there. I don't know who notified the hotel staff or if they just inferred it from the actions of the embassy (there was probably more detail), but it seems clear that it was not a surprise.
Depends on what you mean that is wasn't a surprise. As I said in my last post, given the increased alerts about non-specific targets and the high number of al queda types in the area and their historical willingness to attack in the region, I think it is quite reasonable assume this is reason enough for the embassy to have cancelled a non-important event.
The evacuation is more difficult to explain. But, again, given the history of the area and the increase in warnings, perhaps the cancellation by the embassy was enough to give the hotel management the jitters enough to take precautions.The article at SkyNews didn't mention how long before the blast the evacuation happened, so we don't now if it was shortly before the blast or shortly after the cancellation. I think that is a fairly reasonable explaiantion and doesn't require any sinister motives other than that of the bombers.
Originally posted by giant
HOWEVER, here we have a US news source quoting officials saying that there was no specific warning, when clearly there was. This is the same thing that happened with 9/11. Just as with 9.11, the smart thing to do is deny knowledge, since anything said can come back and bite.
I don't think that it is truly that clear that there was a specific warning.
But if there was and now the US officials are denying it, I think it may point to nothing more sinister than try to avoid blame that not enough was done, and perhaps that is sinister enough in it own rights. But, if a specific warning was had, it is obvious by how close in time the cancellation and the bombing were (only 4.5 hours) that the embassy didn't have a lot of time to implement a plan, other than perhaps the cancellation of the rooms and warning to the hotel. If there was a warning, we don't know how specific it was. It could have said US interests in the region, area or city. It could have name the hotel specifically or not at all. Aside from what the embassy could control, that is cancelling the rooms, given a possibly vague warning, the hotels may have been weary of doing much more than a simple evacuation. Obviously it wasn't a full evac. Assuming that scenario, a coverup would seem to not be covering up much other than just how vunerable US interests are, even when given some sort of warning.
Originally posted by giant
That's what I think, and it deals with the facts.
ditto...though perhaps my fact checking isn't as thourough as yours.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Depends on what you mean that is wasn't a surprise. As I said in my last post, given the increased alerts about non-specific targets and the high number of al queda types in the area and their historical willingness to attack in the region, I think it is quite reasonable assume this is reason enough for the embassy to have cancelled a non-important event.
The evacuation is more difficult to explain. But, again, given the history of the area and the increase in warnings, perhaps the cancellation by the embassy was enough to give the hotel management the jitters enough to take precautions.The article at SkyNews didn't mention how long before the blast the evacuation happened, so we don't now if it was shortly before the blast or shortly after the cancellation. I think that is a fairly reasonable explaiantion and doesn't require any sinister motives other than that of the bombers.
I don't think that it is truly that clear that there was a specific warning.
But if there was and now the US officials are denying it, I think it may point to nothing more sinister than try to avoid blame that not enough was done, and perhaps that is sinister enough in it own rights. But, if a specific warning was had, it is obvious by how close in time the cancellation and the bombing were (only 4.5 hours) that the embassy didn't have a lot of time to implement a plan, other than perhaps the cancellation of the rooms and warning to the hotel. If there was a warning, we don't know how specific it was. It could have said US interests in the region, area or city. It could have name the hotel specifically or not at all. Aside from what the embassy could control, that is cancelling the rooms, given a possibly vague warning, the hotels may have been weary of doing much more than a simple evacuation. Obviously it wasn't a full evac. Assuming that scenario, a coverup would seem to not be covering up much other than just how vunerable US interests are, even when given some sort of warning.
See how easy it is, guys? Sharing of ideas is a much better path to understanding than having knee-jerk reactions.
moving on, I would agree, tulkas, except for a couple of things. One, emptying a major hotel is not something done lightly. It is a last resort for a business like a hotel. It would simply be too much of a coincidence for the US embassy to cancel the rooms and for the major hotel to be evacuated right before the blast. I doubt that a major hotel would have been evacuated simply because of room cancellations if there had been vauge warnings for a month or two. Something triggered the severe response.
Also, that hotel does not appear to be the kind of place that is easily evacuated, so it makes sense that there would still be people around regardless of whether the call went out 4 hours before or 1.
Since the reasons above make me feel there was a warning, it also makes sense that there is communication between the embassy (typically a center of US intel in a region) and someone with contact to or in the group that planned the bombing.
Beyond that, everything is much more hazy. What was the motive, for instance? I have some ideas, but I'm not sure at all yet.
Of course, my original point of posting the two stories was to demonstrate how much of this info was left out in the english language source.
Originally posted by giant
See how easy it is, guys? Sharing of ideas is a much better path to understanding than having knee-jerk reactions.
moving on, I would agree, tulkas, except for a couple of things. One, emptying a major hotel is not something done lightly. It is a last resort for a business like a hotel. It would simply be too much of a coincidence for the US embassy to cancel the rooms and for the major hotel to be evacuated right before the blast. I doubt that a major hotel would have been evacuated simply because of room cancellations if there had been vauge warnings for a month or two. Something triggered the severe response.
Also, that hotel does not appear to be the kind of place that is easily evacuated, so it makes sense that there would still be people around regardless of whether the call went out 4 hours before or 1.
Since the reasons above make me feel there was a warning, it also makes sense that there is communication between the embassy (typically a center of US intel in a region) and someone with contact to or in the group that planned the bombing.
In the article I read yesterday, the Jakarta police are the ones who suspected the Marriot Hotel. Maybe they gave the warning to the US Embassy and the hotel?
Regards,
Originally posted by X X In the article I read yesterday, the Jakarta police are the ones who suspected the Marriot Hotel. Maybe they gave the warning to the US Embassy and the hotel?
Regards,
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/lat...203435,00.html
The info the police had was non-specific, didn't only focus on the marriot and was a month old. It doesn't account for the actions of the us embassy or the evacuation.
Originally posted by giant
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/lat...203435,00.html
The info the police had was non-specific, didn't only focus on the marriot and was a month old. It doesn't account for the actions of the us embassy or the evacuation.
Well, common sense dictates that they had specific enough information to have the hotel evacuated, and obviously their fears were legitimate.
And, "didn't only focus on the Marriot," the Marriot was the only building mentioned in the article you linked. Apparantly any other possible target was ancillary compared to the hotel, as your article implies.
This intelligence and other intelligence gathered since does account for the actions taken by the people who did occupy the hotel and were about to occupy it.
Originally posted by X X
Well, common sense dictates that they had specific enough information to have the hotel evacuated, and obviously their fears were legitimate.
Who's they? The police certainly don't claim to.
And, "didn't only focus on the Marriot," the Marriot was the only building mentioned in the article you linked. Apparantly any other possible target was ancillary compared to the hotel, as your article implies.
that was because it was the target that was hit, and headline would read 'ramada' if it was the ramada that was hit. Every account that refers to these documents cites them as not-specific:
The revelations came as the Australian government said intelligence showed more attacks across Indonesia, particularly in its capital, were likely in coming days.
Jakarta police spokesman Prasetyo said the documents were seized in the central Java town of Semarang last month, when police arrested four alleged members of the Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah.
'In the documents there were some strategic areas including the location of the Marriott,' he told The Associated Press.
and
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.
This intelligence and other intelligence gathered since does account for the actions taken by the people who did occupy the hotel and were about to occupy it.
No it doesn't. This was the major hotel for westerners in jakarta. Have you ever been in a hotel evacuation? I was. It was a hotel about 1/4-1/3 this size in london, canada, and it is not a simple task and is REALLY bad for business.
And if they knew about it a month before, it doesn't account for why the rooms were cancelled only 4 hours before the blast.
In short, all available evidence (including explicit comments from multiple and diverse sources) points to your speculative path being inaccurate.
Regardless, your version of the events backs up what I said in the first two posts.
Originally posted by giant
Regardless, your version of the events backs up what I said in the first two posts.
Giant, you can be a frustrating at times. I don't disagree with what you said in your first two posts, and I don't disagree with a lot of your other posts.
You made the comment about it not being a surprise. I agree and was simply making a comment myself about reading an article that implied the police new something was up with the Marriot (even in conjunction with other possible targets).
I wasn't attacking what you said and wasn't trying to be argumentative. To the contrary, I was trying to support your comment. Clearly there is more known than what was said by the media. Who knew this? When did they know it? We can only speculate.
I know a lot of people attack what you write, and maybe this is why you got defensive with what I wrote, but I don't like being attacked either because you misinterpret my intentions.
Regards!
Originally posted by segovius
Looks like the Australian government have admitted prior knowledge that an attack was imminent in Jakarta. Seems they knew a week beforehand.
So, question now is: could Australia have known this info and the US not ?
If yes, then no lessons have been learned from the security f** up of 911 (if such it was) - in fact it's far worse and America is basically a sitting duck.
If no, then it's proven. Either way it stinks.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee imo - there never was a solid commitment to a WOT by Bush and his lackeys, it was all just meaningless rhetoric by another opportunist 'leader' devoid of ideas and vision. Either that or the terrorists are actually winning...
Your lack of logic is truly amazing. I would've thought at least every person had some measure of logical thought process in their brains that could be put to good use on something, but you've proven me wrong.
Originally posted by segovius
Looks like the Australian government have admitted prior knowledge that an attack was imminent in Jakarta. Seems they knew a week beforehand.
Already discussed in this thread. Vague warnings of possible attacks in a general area are pretty useless to begin with, even more useless in an area that is resistant to doing anything to deal with these groups.
Originally posted by segovius
So, question now is: could Australia have known this info and the US not ?
Not a worthwhile question by anymeans. Ok, so the US had the same vague idea of a possible attack. Useless.
As giant as well pointed out, this is only sinister if the various gov's had specific knowledge about times locatios and did nothing.
Originally posted by segovius
If yes, then no lessons have been learned from the security f** up of 911 (if such it was) - in fact it's far worse and America is basically a sitting duck.
If no, then it's proven. Either way it stinks.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee imo - there never was a solid commitment to a WOT by Bush and his lackeys, it was all just meaningless rhetoric by another opportunist 'leader' devoid of ideas and vision. Either that or the terrorists are actually winning...
As X X pointed out, your leaps in logic are astounding.
Originally posted by X X
I would've thought at least every person had some measure of logical thought process in their brains that could be put to good use on something, but you've proven me wrong.
Then you should take your own advice and explain this poster's illogical thought process. As things stand, you've offered less than the person you're criticizing.