Forced the following dialogue into my head just now:

Zarf: I've been waiting for you, Einstein. We meet again, at last. The circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now *I* am the master.
Einstein: Only a master of evil, Zarf.

You all say this now... but do you REALLY want to run the risk of having me in your family?

No.  You have to address the contradiction before you get the advantages of your proposal.  Otherwise, your proposal falls apart, and you can't claim those advantages.

EDIT: Oh, and... whoops!  So apparently he does extend his argument to works on the issue, rather than simply the individuals.

Pretty sure he's talking about the individuals.  That being said, a book can't actually exist without a writer.  So if, in the future, a Marxist decided to write a Marxist book, under a strict interpretation of the OP, the book would not be banned, but the writer could be classified as a Marxist, probably using the book as evidence against him.  Not exactly the best incentive program for writing.

Godwin's Law.

That's what she said!

Is it the government's gas station?

But you didn't specify that in your rule above!  Yes, there would be a whole ceremony... but as of that wording, it would still be a burning... and thus still be interrupted by Flint screaming "Foe" and attacking boy scouts. 

It should exist!

Make that happen! 

> Genesis wrote:

> 1. Actually I didn't, because there is no comparison. If you want to talk about major intelligence and operational blunder, 9/11 was it. A president who has been on the job for nearly an year and is caught totally with his pants down is your idea of a good president?

Then explain:
"> Genesis wrote:

> So when something bad happens during a Republican mandate, it's the Democrats fault. When something bad happens during a Democrat term, it's the Democrats fault too.

I think I can see your point."

In reply to Flint explaining why the failure to prevent 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton.  Any sensible person would draw this as a comparison of the two.

Additionally, exactly when did I say "Bush was not to blame?"  Putting blame on Clinton does not necessarily mean Bush is not to blame.  All I was doing was explaining the logic that you can't simply timestamp blame based on the day of the attack, but have to extend it to include the entirety of the operation.

> 2. The embassy itself is not, but the thousands and thousands of kilometers surrounding it are. Are you implying the attack came from inside the embassy?

Considering the mortar attacks were focused on the embassy safehouse (which is kept secret for just such an occasion), and considering that a good portion of local security forces fled the emassy during the attack, I would suggest you not rule out the possibility that someone on the inside was complicit.

But that aside, the US has defensive mechanisms which could have been used, even if it's something as simple as "increase security."  Remember, the OP link, which you are not questioning the truth of, claims that the US ambassador actually told the government about his worries.  Once those fears were tipped off, it becomes the perogative of the government to either heed or ignore those worries.  At that point, it doesn't matter if the attack originated outside the embassy if there is something that could be done within the embassy.  This wasn't a random American tourist killed on the street.  This was an attack at a location which any government would use resources to secure against this very type of thing.

3. The distinction is you have alot more control and possibility to prevent an attack on your own soil, rather than an embassy on some forsaken place in the middle of a muslim state. Unless you wanted the US army to occupy all the surrounding areas of every US embassy in the Middle East. Do you?

Add US soldiers to protect the embassy, and possibly replace the foreign security officials with US security forces.  Done.  Better defenses against the attack, and I don't need to acknowledge your strawman attack.

> I suppose those embassies which got bombed to hell years ago were also Obama's fault.

Idiots

Seriously, Gen, stop it!  You're a former mod.  There's no reason you need to resort to either personal attacks or making strawman arguments.  You should know better.  Try to show some civility.

1: The comparison was drawn by both you and Primo first.  I'm only answering/following through on your reasoning.
2: A US embassy... is not foreign soil.
3: The distinctions in terms of prevention go right out the door once you consider the OP information, that DC was tipped off on the issue long beforehand.  Once the US got word from its ambassador (the guy who's actually in the country in question) that there was a heightened attack risk, the US was fully capable of increasing security or taking other measures to defensively prepare the attack.

*secretly drafts into your fam just to screw up your hopes for activity*