Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, May 7, 2014.
Uh, this really makes no sense at all. Wouldn't that call for a ramping up of security?
You may have never heard of this concept, but there have been a few books, movies and even TV shows on the subject.
The CIA prefers to operate as a covert organization. This requires drawing minimal attention to yourselves and your facilities sometimes.
You said protect. I think you mean insert or maintain. As to protect, would require some kind of ramping up of either security or vigilance on their part. Neither, it appears, was happening here.
Nice try though. I'll give you that.
And yet the video explanation certainly fit perfectly with the narrative of Obama's 2008 election campaign. Guess I'm the only one who finds that a little fishy.
And that's my biggest bone of contention. So, if the other side makes them twist for it, I'm okay with that. They deserve it for being such cynical political opportunists.
Sigh. My role as educator here never ends.
You see, any overt showing of security undercuts a covert operation.
Again, I refer you to the trove of literature and media on this subject.
Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk
So, back to the original post and Rick's question about why we left them over there.
Your response was "To protect CIA assets in the area, possibly."
So, your contention is we left the assets in the area to protect them, correct? Or, is it that we left a shell force to protect them (assuming any effective "asset" in Libya is most likely a local)?
So, again, not sure how doing nothing (when, as Rick contended, our allies were pulling their staffs out) was protecting them. As I said, simply ramping up the "assets'" vigilance for potential problems would be called for if you expected problems, maybe even having a contingency (helicopters waiting to jump in at sign of trouble) plan in place.
But thank for educating me. . . . about nothing.
Where are the perpetrators?
Oh, I forgot, he is in jail for the video.
"Protect CIA assets" as in preserve them as covert, not surround them with marines.
Hey, 24 just came back on the air. Give it a shot.
What assets? The American's at the embassy? Or the covert - assuming Libyan - assets on the ground? In either case, how does doing nothing help protect them or their status?
1. How does fortifying the embassy - where the American delegation is already known to be - blow their cover?
2. How does fortifying the embassy blow the cover of Libyan operatives who are presumably already on the ground and in place (undercover)?
The biggest difference between humans and spider monkeys is the ability to use logic and reason. You should try it sometime.
Again, I refer you to sources that can help you understand the setup and operations of covert organizations.
Don't use James Bond as a reference--he's more like a superhero.
Whatever fred. Enjoy that purple sunset in fred-world.
Reagan blamed himself. Obama blamed ... a Youtube video. Enough said. On to the next silly thread.
Obama's acceptance of the blame has been quoted on this thread, Jersey. So you have no excuse for your ignorance.
1 out of 5 mentioned the video as a possibility.... yet the others suggested other activity...
Great point thanks for bringing that back up.
This is about people's lives that were murdered because of Hilary Clinton's short sightedness... not some made-up controversy. One that your leftists friends, in politics, think they're getting away with.
Lol... that's what we're all going to see unfold in these congressional hearings. So sit back and watch it happen on TV before you exclaim that you already know all the facts about this case.
Lol... I'm sure she thought of those BS lies all on her own.
After Hildabeast gets thoroughly reamed she'll be next in line... and that after the elections because Obama will be implicated.
We'll see about who said what... and, people in the CIA lie too.