And now that they are in Syria, we have tons of humint on the ground keeping track of them?
See, I thought part of your argument was that we aren't saying anything because we don't want to tip our hand, for the reason that somehow we believe they're (relatively) secure where they are now and we wouldn't want them moved to baddies. I am specifically disputing the notion that they are "secure" where they are now in any real sense, or that we can be sure they haven't been/aren't being moved to baddieas already. (This all ssumes that they were indeed moved to Bekaa in the first place, of course.) In other words, I am disputing that the rationale we supposedly have for not wanting to say anything is actually operative.
My reason for offering the alternate explanation was not to convince you but to expand your thinking.
Ok. And, thank you. I appreciate these theories. Again, I wish an explanation like yours were the truth, but I doubt that it is.
I shall not respond further to the baiting which follows these threads.
"baiting"?
Look, feel free not to respond if you wish, but I don't get where I was "baiting". This is a discussion board for commenting on news items. That's what I did and that's what I continue to do. Let the record show that you responded to me first. So, I responded back. It's totally ok for you not to respond to my comments further after that but this accusation of "baiting" just makes no sense.
... 'what follows these threads' ... relax, I wasn't accusing you of baiting; we have had a worthwhile exchange that I do not wish to further engage. Thanks.