I think we all realize that there's a need for secrecy while the investigation continues.
However, the authorities are asking people to swallow ridiculous stories.
Why don't they come out and say that while the investigation is ongoing, they can't say anything?
Instead of these ridiculous spins that are being put on this and other incidents. How many times can they say with a straight face that it's a loner, an isolated incident, etc.
This has been going on now for over 10 years. One incident after the other.
Haven't they learned by now? It only invalidates those running this show, and it makes those of us who are paying attention, lose faith in their ability to secure the situation.
I don't think it's asking too much of those who we elect, and to whom we fork over half of our income, to give us a reason to trust them.
If some kind of attack is foiled under the media's radar, then stonewalling can create enough room for our security agencies to maneuver and exploit the take.
But when an attack takes place and is reported on by the media, the only chance of buying the time necessary to exploit the take requires making the enemy believe we have mis-read the situation.
To be honest, I'm not saying that you, or anyone else here is violating security, because this one, in my opinion, got out too far and wide to be contained. That doesn't preclude the official reaction though, there's a huge difference between suspecting an enemy has gotten inside on you and KNOWING an enemy has gotten inside on you, we do not wish to confirm to the enemy that we indeed have skirted his screens on this one.
What does irritate me is people who aren't accepting what their own eyes are telling them. An explosion can be anything. An exploding person, with any subsequent demolitions of unexploded ordinance limits the possibilities significantly. The discovery of further ordinance inside the suicide bomber's living quarters tells me everything I need to know.
A Pakistani roommate and visits to a mosque are icing on the cake.
An inability to account for the bomber's previous whereabouts, in this context, is a bright red arrow pointing at a jihadist training camp.
A demonstrated ability to account for the bomber's previous whereabouts in the recent past, such as his presence in a fertilizer store can only indicate an ongoing investigation that started before he vaporized himself.
I guess the question then is, just what exactly, is it going to take for people to realize that they have it right?
Because the next step is an official admission, such as the one I posted in my last message here.
Trust your instincts, recognize the information you can extract from your conclusions, and move ahead. Put the knowlege to work. Large gatherings of Americans have been, are, and will continue to be an attractive target for terrorism. Do you really need to have someone openly admit that yes, football games qualify for inclusion in this context?