An American staff member of the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi has died following fierce clashes at the compound, Libyan security sources said.
An armed mob attacked and set fire to the building in a protest against an amateur film deemed offensive to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, after similar protests in Egypt's capital.
"One American staff member has died and a number have been injured in the clashes," Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee, said on Wednesday, adding that rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the building from a nearby farm.
"There are fierce clashes between the Libyan army and an armed militia outside the US consulate," he said. He also said roads had been closed off and security forces were surrounding the building.
Just hours earlier on Tuesday, thousands of Egyptian demonstrators apparently angry over the same film - a video produced by expatriate members of Egypt's Coptic community resident in the US - tore down the Stars and Stripes at the US embassy in Cairo and replaced it with a black Islamic flag.
The two incidents came on the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet," said a statement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who also confirmed the death of the consulate employee.
"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," she said.
Suleiman El-Dressi, Al Jazeera's producer in Benghazi, said, "A group of people calling themselves the 'Islamic law supporters' heard the news that there will be an American movie insulting the Prophet."
"One they heard this, they came out of their military garrison and went into the streets calling upon people to gather and go ahead to attack the American consulate in Benghazi.
Cairo incident
In the day's first such incident, nearly 3,000 demonstrators, most of them Islamist supporters of the Salafist movement or football fans, gathered at the US embassy in Cairo in protest against the amateur film.
A dozen men scaled the embassy walls and one of them tore down the US flag, replacing it with a black one inscribed with the Muslim profession of faith: "There is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God."
Demonstrators also scrawled the first part of the statement - "There is no God but God" - on the walls of the embassy compound.
Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, reporting from outside the US embassy in Cairo, said that the protesters want the film – portions of which can be found online - "out of circulation".
"Most of the people I've spoken to here, a lot of them from the ultra-conservative Salafi movement, say that they've seen the trailer to this film and that they're here outside the American embassy to stay until the film is pulled," she said.
"There's also a situation with the police, where there are thousands of riot police guarding the American embassy because there of the breach earlier on, when a lot of people stormed into the inner wall of the embassy and put a black flag up."
Egyptian police intervened without resorting to force and persuaded the trespassers to come down.
The crowd then largely dispersed, leaving just a few hundred protesters outside the US mission.
Embassy reaction
When asked whether the flag the protesters hoisted an al-Qaeda flag - on the anniversary of the killing of nearly 3,000 people in Washington, New York and Pennsylvania - a US state department official said she thought not.
"We had some people breach the wall, take the flag down and replace it. What I heard was that it was replaced with a plain black flag. But I may be not be correct in that," she said.
"In Cairo, we can confirm that Egyptian police have now removed the demonstrators who had entered our embassy grounds earlier today," said a senior State Department official, who added that he could not confirm any connection with the incident in Libya.
Egyptian activist Wael Ghoneim wrote on his Facebook page that "attacking the US embassy on September 11 and raising flags linked to al-Qaeda will not be understood by the American public as a protest over the film about the prophet.
"Instead, it will be received as a celebration of the crime that took place on September 11," he said.
Americans on Tuesday marked the 11th anniversary of the September 11, attacks in which nearly thousands were killed when hijacked airliners crashed into the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center, and another was brought down in Pennsylvania.
'Sorry for the embassy'
Sam Bacile, an American citizen who produced, directed and wrote the two-hour film, said he had not anticipated such a furious reaction.
"I feel sorry for the embassy. I am mad," Bacile said.
Speaking from a telephone with a California number, he said the film was produced in English and he doesn't know who dubbed it in Arabic.
The full film has not been shown yet, he said, and he said he has declined distribution offers for now.
"My plan is to make a series of 200 hours" about the same subject, he said.
Morris Sadek, an Egyptian-born Copt in the US known for his anti-Islam views, told the AP news agency from Washington that he had promoted the video on his website and on certain TV stations, which he did not identify.
Yeah, Libyas not a great place to be a foreign national right now, especially an American. Even Egypt, which has a legitimate reason to hate us, didn't go this far over the edge.
This scenario could play out very strangely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Depicting Mohammed is enough to murder someone over there, apparently.
I don't condone the act in any way, but people have died and homes have been burned over here because the Lakers won playoff games. Libya is still a powderkeg with tens of thousands of people in roving militias without purpose looking to police their own home towns. It's mob rule until strong institutions can enforce the rule of law. That'll probably be a while.
It's all over the news... but, it seems more of a clusterfeth of the embassy officials... try here:
Not so much a clusterfeth as "Oh no, the embassy is being approached by an angry mob, how can we prevent them from doing something really bad!?!"
And, honestly, most of the objections are spurious nonsense which trade on the notion that "freedom of speech" is something that it isn't. I mean, the Egyptian government wasn't doing any oppressing, nor was the Libyan "one". We're quite clear in America about how we dislike the repression of speech by the state, but aren't so upset when private entities do it.
What is this? Another example of a conservative mistaking "Freedom of Speech" with "Freedom of consequences from your Speech"?
I know Republicans think they could handle every single foreign intervention better than Obama. But how about you tone down the rhetoric and quit attacking the guy in charge while this event is going on.
I miss the good old days when attacking a sitting war time president and criticizing him on his foreign policy brought screams of treason from the right wing.
d-usa wrote: I miss the good old days when attacking a sitting war time president and criticizing him on his foreign policy brought screams of treason from the right wing.
Ah yes, the halycon days of 2005. It was a different time, a more innocent era.
d-usa wrote: What is this? Another example of a conservative mistaking "Freedom of Speech" with "Freedom of consequences from your Speech"?
The problem here isn't some guy saying something obnoxious about a historical figure, it's that religious zealots just murdered the US Ambassador to Libya. When terrorists use murder as a tool to suppress free speech, the government should not be blaming the victim.
dogma wrote: Not so much a clusterfeth as "Oh no, the embassy is being approached by an angry mob, how can we prevent them from doing something really bad!?!"
You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
d-usa wrote: What is this? Another example of a conservative mistaking "Freedom of Speech" with "Freedom of consequences from your Speech"?
The problem here isn't some guy saying something obnoxious about a historical figure, it's that religious zealots just murdered the US Ambassador to Libya. When terrorists use murder as a tool to suppress free speech, the government should not be blaming the victim.
Which again has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. The guy making the video has the freedom to make it. Anybody saying "I am sorry if it offends you" in order to try to calm the blowback from it does nothing to prevent that freedom of speech. Nobody is blaming the victim here.
The attacks are a consequence of having Freedom of Speech.
Melissia wrote: The rumor of depicting Mohammed is enough to murder someone over there, apparently.
Corrected your typo.
I like what one civil rights type said in Egypt this morning on CNN though. hard right (yes she said hard right) elements are using this for their purposes, and the scary thing is the new rulership (of Egypt) has said or done nothing about it.
dogma wrote: Not so much a clusterfeth as "Oh no, the embassy is being approached by an angry mob, how can we prevent them from doing something really bad!?!"
You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
Now the lefties on this board will sya you ar e bad you should feel bad.
I guess a more moderate response would be just everyone get the hell out.
Seaward wrote: You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Why didn't this happen, exactly? I could see refusing to authorize deadly force to protect property, but why wasn't it authorized to protect life?
Seaward wrote: You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Why didn't this happen, exactly? I could see refusing to authorize deadly force to protect property, but why wasn't it authorized to protect life?
From what I can remember of the articles that I read, there was an exchange of gunfire between the embassy guards and the militia, but this was a large armed militia, who I would assume overcame the guards through strength of numbers.
I'm just going to paste what I wrote in my duplicate thread...
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
It was utterly against our interests to provide passive support to those who overthrew Gadaffi and Mubarak. Syria's a more difficult case but I think a general plus is that the Ba'ath at least targeted religious political movements.
Henners91 wrote: I'm just going to paste what I wrote in my duplicate thread...
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
It was utterly against our interests to provide passive support to those who overthrew Gadaffi and Mubarak. Syria's a more difficult case but I think a general plus is that the Ba'ath at least targeted religious political movements.
dogma wrote: Not so much a clusterfeth as "Oh no, the embassy is being approached by an angry mob, how can we prevent them from doing something really bad!?!"
You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
This is dumb, reactionary warmongering, so yes, you should feel bad. The appropriate response is a breaking-off of diplomatic relations and a suspension of aid until such time that their government can demonstrate the ability and will to uphold international conventions governing the safety of diplomats. A state which can't guarantee the safety of diplomats is also in danger of losing its seat in the UN assembly, which will have significant economic and diplomatic repurcussions.
Henners91 wrote:I'm just going to paste what I wrote in my duplicate thread...
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
It was utterly against our interests to provide passive support to those who overthrew Gadaffi and Mubarak. Syria's a more difficult case but I think a general plus is that the Ba'ath at least targeted religious political movements.
Sad to say, you're probably right. It's not, for different reasons, a fashionable view on either the left or the right nowadays, but stable democratic government didn't come into being in first world nations in isolation, but rather as the culmination of a sequence of processes which began with the Enlightenment, something the majority of the states in the Arab world have not yet passed through. (There are, I should stress, exceptions which are at least on their ways to establishing stable democracies of a kind: Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain, for instance.) Western commentators predicting peaceful transitions to stable democracies were indeed ludicrously optimistic, and did so in ignorance of the lessons of five centuries of European history.
One of the more interesting explanations for the failure of mature democracy to take root in the Middle East is the "resource curse". Most Middle-Eastern states are funded principally through state monopolies on resource extraction (in this case oil), meaning that they impose little or no personal or business taxation. And as any American knows, a people taxed will demand - and deserve - representation; it is essentially a precondition of the contract between government and governed in a democracy. Moreover, despite rising oil prices, these states have experienced remarkably low economic growth, and an even lower rise in living standards, because oil prices artificially push up exchange rates, making other export industries uncompetitive.
Henners91 wrote: I'm just going to paste what I wrote in my duplicate thread...
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
It was utterly against our interests to provide passive support to those who overthrew Gadaffi and Mubarak. Syria's a more difficult case but I think a general plus is that the Ba'ath at least targeted religious political movements.
Its a fair argument.
No, it's a stupid argument because it's predicated on a lie by the 4th word; a clumsy incoherent one that only takes about 30 seconds on Google to debunk. Such is the state of politics today. Are we seriously going to try and pretend with a straight face that people like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney are "liberal democrats"?
Henners91 wrote: I'm just going to paste what I wrote in my duplicate thread...
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
It was utterly against our interests to provide passive support to those who overthrew Gadaffi and Mubarak. Syria's a more difficult case but I think a general plus is that the Ba'ath at least targeted religious political movements.
Its a fair argument.
No, it's a stupid argument because it's predicated on a lie by the 4th word; a clumsy incoherent one that only takes about 30 seconds on Google to debunk. Such is the state of politics today. Are we seriously going to try and pretend with a straight face that people like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney are "liberal democrats"?
You missed the point by a country mile. As the post above it noted, democratic governments and institutions did not effectively develop until the lat 19th century. For most of Europe it didn't occur until after WWII and/or the Cold War. We stick our noses in other people's business and we continually get attacked.
Best to leave them alone so they can attack each other.
I love that people bemoan the problem of gun violence in the US, and then read this little gem.
"The protesters, angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad, were firing gunshots and rocket propelled grenades."
Yep, we got ourselves a real problem here in the ole US of A.
The last 10 years I was a believer that we could do good in that part of the world. That we could instill a sense of freedom in the people, get them to take a hold of their own destiny, yadda yadda.
d-usa wrote: How is Obama saying "sorry" (not that he did) going against Freedom of Speech?
Because this is not a subject where the President of the United States should be getting all mealy-mouthed. Imagine if Americans had responded to the production of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by murdering the Russian ambassador. It would be inexcusable for the leaders of either country to start their statement by casting blame on the film-makers.
Frazzled wrote: You missed the point by a country mile. As the post above it noted, democratic governments and institutions did not effectively develop until the lat 19th century. For most of Europe it didn't occur until after WWII and/or the Cold War. We stick our noses in other people's business and we continually get attacked.
Yes, that point came... later on in the post. The opening sentence posited that it was only liberal democrats that pushed for spreading democracy in Libya, a concept that is divorced from reality.
For what it's worth though, I agree with the latter thoughts. I thought then and think now that we have no national security interests in Libya.
Frazzled wrote: You missed the point by a country mile. As the post above it noted, democratic governments and institutions did not effectively develop until the lat 19th century. For most of Europe it didn't occur until after WWII and/or the Cold War. We stick our noses in other people's business and we continually get attacked.
Yes, that point came... later on in the post. The opening sentence posited that it was only liberal democrats that pushed for spreading democracy in Libya, a concept that is divorced from reality.
For what it's worth though, I agree with the latter thoughts. I thought then and think now that we have no national security interests in Libya.
d-usa wrote: How is Obama saying "sorry" (not that he did) going against Freedom of Speech?
Because this is not a subject where the President of the United States should be getting all mealy-mouthed. Imagine if Americans had responded to the production of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by murdering the Russian ambassador. It would be inexcusable for the leaders of either country to start their statement by casting blame on the film-makers.
Which again has nothing to do with any of this.
Here was the argument:
Guy makes movie that is offensive to Muslims (or at least rumored to be), we could anticipate a bad response to this based on past events.
President Obama supposedly says something to the effect of "We are sorry if you feel offended by it", although I have yet to see an actual source on this.
People started to say that President Obama shouldn't say he is sorry because that goes against the Freedom of Speech of the guy who made the movie.
So again I ask:
How does Obama say "Sorry if it offends you" equal restricting Freedom of Speech?
"Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion."
"The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons."
"It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage."
Too bad we can't fix stupid. What else would you really think would happen? Especially since the US is always seen as bedfellows with Israel.
"Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion."
"The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons."
"It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage."
Too bad we can't fix stupid. What else would you really think would happen? Especially since the US is always seen as bedfellows with Israel.
So what?
Here's a nice twitch. if Lybyan dirt farmers want to drop sharia on Libya thats their bag. Don't go telling us what to or not do though.
or as Frazzled once said:
Henners91 wrote: I'm just going to paste what I wrote in my duplicate thread...
Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
It was utterly against our interests to provide passive support to those who overthrew Gadaffi and Mubarak. Syria's a more difficult case but I think a general plus is that the Ba'ath at least targeted religious political movements.
Its a fair argument.
No, it's a stupid argument because it's predicated on a lie by the 4th word; a clumsy incoherent one that only takes about 30 seconds on Google to debunk. Such is the state of politics today. Are we seriously going to try and pretend with a straight face that people like John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney are "liberal democrats"?
You missed the point by a country mile. As the post above it noted, democratic governments and institutions did not effectively develop until the lat 19th century. For most of Europe it didn't occur until after WWII and/or the Cold War. We stick our noses in other people's business and we continually get attacked.
Best to leave them alone so they can attack each other.
Realistically, the ones that keep attacking us are the ones we intervened in during the cold war. They're regions where we propped up dictators (Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran) or where we trained and supplied fundamental islamists against soviet states (afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc). We keep getting attacked because American foreign policy was cruel, corrupt, and imbecilic during the cold war. I don't see japan or Germany burning down our embassies. American foreign influence can be a tool for good, but right now we're recovering from some truly inept leadership and we didn't work to create a kind or just place in the middle east until very recently. We're gonna get stung.
"Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion."
"The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons."
"It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage."
Too bad we can't fix stupid. What else would you really think would happen? Especially since the US is always seen as bedfellows with Israel.
So what? Here's a nice twitch. if Lybyan dirt farmers want to drop sharia on Libya thats their bag. Don't go telling us what to or not do though. or as Frazzled once said:
Your lawn is in their country and it was attacked by answar al sharia, a militant islamist group who moved in during the protests to destroy the building. It's not really popularly representative.
Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
I think this is being misread because it occurred on the same day.
First note the date of the incidents.
The Cairo incident was a straight up protest because of the alleged blasphemy, protestors entered the embassy grouns to remove a US flag replace it with a religious one, and to scrawl graffitti. The protestors who invaded embassy ground were removed peacably by Egyptian police. The Wiki report suggests the protestors 'agreed' to leave US embassy property.
Conclusion: It was an angry but broadly peacable (at least not murderous) protest against the US. Its in keeping with Arab Spring rather frankly because the protest method is greatly lessened. The peoplke whom invaded embassy premesis didnt appear to hurt anyone (though we dont know as yet if they tried) and didnt try to destroy the embassy but to replace US iconography with religious slogans. Not acceptable behaviour, but something that can be seen as a protest rather than as an attack. Also the local police took the incident seriously and made moves to protect the embassy. I dont see this incident as a breakdown of Arab Spring at all.
The second incident occured on the same day, 9/11 is a good day to protest against the US perhaps. But this was a completely different situation. US Ambassador was making a scheduled visit to a consulate, not an Embassy. i.e far less security. An attack was launched on the consulate from cover of a nearby building with RPGs, four dead, two injured. Consulates have far less security than embassy buildings and are normally manned by local citizenry. The method of attack indicated an attempt at a saturation effect, as the ambassador was visiting the consulate there would have been people to meet, yet no local casualties were reported. So either they stayed away, or the kill team 'surgically' targeted the ambassadors location.
Conclusion: This was a planned and premeditated attack intending to kill not deface or protest. Knowing the location of the ambassador, installing a team with specific weaponry in a cover building both indicate forward planning, very likely with inside information. The 9/11 date for the visit was the bonus. This operation had nothing to do with recent accusations of blasphemy in the US media, though it could be given as an incidental added reason.
The mentality of both events are completely different, the first lot were angry and upset over a recent incident of alleged blasphemy and wanted to put their point across, the second lot was a dedicated kill team who attacked at the culmination of a patiently planned operation, which will in all likelihood claim membership of the Al Quaeda network. If its Al Quaeda then Arab Spring has nothing to do with it.
The second incident occured on the same day, 9/11 is a good day to protest against the US perhaps. But this was a completely different situation. US Ambassador was making a scheduled visit to a consulate, not an Embassy. i.e far less security. An attack was launched on the consulate from cover of a nearby building with RPGs, four dead, two injured. Consulates have far less security than embassy buildings and are normally manned by local citizenry. The method of attack indicated an attempt at a saturation effect, as the ambassador was visiting the consulate there would have been people to meet, yet no local casualties were reported. So either they stayed away, or the kill team 'surgically' targeted the ambassadors location.
Reports say the Ambassador died of smoke inhalation from the fire and that the RPG wielding militants were within the protest crowd. You're overstating the preparedness of the militants, this appears to be random and reactionary violence.
Conclusion: This was a planned and premeditated attack intending to kill not deface or protest. Knowing the location of the ambassador, installing a team with specific weaponry in a cover building both indicate forward planning, very likely with inside information. The 9/11 date for the visit was the bonus. This operation had nothing to do with recent accusations of blasphemy in the US media, though it could be given as an incidental added reason.
There is very little in any of these reports to suspect that it was a pre meditated attack that knew the ambassadors schedule and which could plan for a social media driven reactionary protest movement to flash mob in front of the consulate to give them cover. That's just silly. They're militants not oracles.
Orlanth wrote: I think this is being misread because it occurred on the same day.
First note the date of the incidents.
The Cairo incident was a straight up protest because of the alleged blasphemy, protestors entered the embassy grouns to remove a US flag replace it with a religious one, and to scrawl graffitti. The protestors who invaded embassy ground were removed peacably by Egyptian police. The Wiki report suggests the protestors 'agreed' to leave US embassy property.
Conclusion: It was an angry but broadly peacable (at least not murderous) protest against the US. Its in keeping with Arab Spring rather frankly because the protest method is greatly lessened. The peoplke whom invaded embassy premesis didnt appear to hurt anyone (though we dont know as yet if they tried) and didnt try to destroy the embassy but to replace US iconography with religious slogans. Not acceptable behaviour, but something that can be seen as a protest rather than as an attack. Also the local police took the incident seriously and made moves to protect the embassy. I dont see this incident as a breakdown of Arab Spring at all.
The second incident occured on the same day, 9/11 is a good day to protest against the US perhaps. But this was a completely different situation. US Ambassador was making a scheduled visit to a consulate, not an Embassy. i.e far less security. An attack was launched on the consulate from cover of a nearby building with RPGs, four dead, two injured. Consulates have far less security than embassy buildings and are normally manned by local citizenry. The method of attack indicated an attempt at a saturation effect, as the ambassador was visiting the consulate there would have been people to meet, yet no local casualties were reported. So either they stayed away, or the kill team 'surgically' targeted the ambassadors location.
Conclusion: This was a planned and premeditated attack intending to kill not deface or protest. Knowing the location of the ambassador, installing a team with specific weaponry in a cover building both indicate forward planning, very likely with inside information. The 9/11 date for the visit was the bonus. This operation had nothing to do with recent accusations of blasphemy in the US media, though it could be given as an incidental added reason.
The mentality of both events are completely different, the first lot were angry and upset over a recent incident of alleged blasphemy and wanted to put their point across, the second lot was a dedicated kill team who attacked at the culmination of a patiently planned operation, which will in all likelihood claim membership of the Al Quaeda network. If its Al Quaeda then Arab Spring has nothing to do with it.
while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings. The United States needs to be honest with these people and explain the facts of life. We are free people and that's why we have a military, to protect those freedoms.
Obama has a news conference soon and I hope he doesn't double-down on that above statement.
whembly wrote: Does anyone find it odd that this even occurred on 9/11... of all days?
We attacked two countries and are engaged in military operations all over north africa and the mideast because of 9/11. Tens of thousands have died directly because of us, hundreds of thousands indirectly because of situations we've created. No, it does not seem odd. It also wouldn't surprise me if the video trailer in question went viral on 9/11 due to anti mideastern sentiment in the Unites States. If it went viral here it would do the same there on the same day. This stuff moves fast.
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
Orlanth wrote: I think this is being misread because it occurred on the same day.
First note the date of the incidents.
The Cairo incident was a straight up protest because of the alleged blasphemy, protestors entered the embassy grouns to remove a US flag replace it with a religious one, and to scrawl graffitti. The protestors who invaded embassy ground were removed peacably by Egyptian police. The Wiki report suggests the protestors 'agreed' to leave US embassy property.
Conclusion: It was an angry but broadly peacable (at least not murderous) protest against the US. Its in keeping with Arab Spring rather frankly because the protest method is greatly lessened. The peoplke whom invaded embassy premesis didnt appear to hurt anyone (though we dont know as yet if they tried) and didnt try to destroy the embassy but to replace US iconography with religious slogans. Not acceptable behaviour, but something that can be seen as a protest rather than as an attack. Also the local police took the incident seriously and made moves to protect the embassy. I dont see this incident as a breakdown of Arab Spring at all.
The second incident occured on the same day, 9/11 is a good day to protest against the US perhaps. But this was a completely different situation. US Ambassador was making a scheduled visit to a consulate, not an Embassy. i.e far less security. An attack was launched on the consulate from cover of a nearby building with RPGs, four dead, two injured. Consulates have far less security than embassy buildings and are normally manned by local citizenry. The method of attack indicated an attempt at a saturation effect, as the ambassador was visiting the consulate there would have been people to meet, yet no local casualties were reported. So either they stayed away, or the kill team 'surgically' targeted the ambassadors location.
Conclusion: This was a planned and premeditated attack intending to kill not deface or protest. Knowing the location of the ambassador, installing a team with specific weaponry in a cover building both indicate forward planning, very likely with inside information. The 9/11 date for the visit was the bonus. This operation had nothing to do with recent accusations of blasphemy in the US media, though it could be given as an incidental added reason.
The mentality of both events are completely different, the first lot were angry and upset over a recent incident of alleged blasphemy and wanted to put their point across, the second lot was a dedicated kill team who attacked at the culmination of a patiently planned operation, which will in all likelihood claim membership of the Al Quaeda network. If its Al Quaeda then Arab Spring has nothing to do with it.
And the desecration of Commonwealth War Graves cemetery in Feb 2012.
(Benghazi WW2 cemetery)
Why did we ever help groups like this?
Everyone and their mother knows that the Libyan resistance had Al-Qaeda links in some areas. They admitted it during the revolution, Al-Qaeda talked about it, our own generals talked about it, the president talked about it. Those weird people that live under rocks in that one Geico commercial from last year probably know about it. We helped them because they don't represent the majority of the country or the fighting forces in the Libyan revolution. We helped them because Gadaffi bankrolled more terrorists than that and gave them a longer reach than these kids have. Foreign policy is icky sometimes, you work towards an end goal that is sometimes far off. When you're short sited and xenophobic you end up doing things like creating Sadaam husseins Iraq and training Osama Bin Laden.
whembly wrote: Does anyone find it odd that this even occurred on 9/11... of all days?
We attacked two countries and are engaged in military operations all over north africa and the mideast because of 9/11. Tens of thousands have died directly because of us, hundreds of thousands indirectly because of situations we've created. No, it does not seem odd. It also wouldn't surprise me if the video trailer in question went viral on 9/11 due to anti mideastern sentiment in the Unites States. If it went viral here it would do the same there on the same day. This stuff moves fast.
Okay Shuma... I understand your stance on this except for one thing...
Besides the Afganistan operations against the Taliban... what would you've suggest we have done differently?
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
No it occurred because we helped it.
I don't think the fruit dealer who self immolated was American. As much as you reallly want America to always be the center of attention it's not. As much as you hate the Arab spring out of your newfound and insane sense of xenophobia, in the long run it's going to be significantly better for America than bankrolling and arming dictatorial regimes whose citizens will grow up to hate and despise us for it.
whembly wrote: Does anyone find it odd that this even occurred on 9/11... of all days?
No, I took it as a given that the mobs' handlers planned it this way. Otherwise it would be a bit of a coincidence that the Cairo mob chose to make a statement by taking down the US flag and replacing it with their own at the same time it was at half mast to remember the victims of 9/11.
whembly wrote: Does anyone find it odd that this even occurred on 9/11... of all days?
We attacked two countries and are engaged in military operations all over north africa and the mideast because of 9/11. Tens of thousands have died directly because of us, hundreds of thousands indirectly because of situations we've created. No, it does not seem odd. It also wouldn't surprise me if the video trailer in question went viral on 9/11 due to anti mideastern sentiment in the Unites States. If it went viral here it would do the same there on the same day. This stuff moves fast.
Okay Shuma... I understand your stance on this except for one thing...
Besides the Afganistan operations against the Taliban... what would you've suggest we have done differently?
Nothing (well, a lot of things, but I would of gone in), afghanistan wasn't a bad war. It was basically us finally trying to clean up the mess our cold war idiocy created (one of the many messes). Bush fethed it up hugely when he diverted all of our assets to Iraq rather than security and reconstruction in Afghanistan (he then fethed up Iraq royally), I probably wouldn't have done that.
whembly wrote: Does anyone find it odd that this even occurred on 9/11... of all days?
No, I took it as a given that the mobs' handlers planned it this way. Otherwise it would be a bit of a coincidence that the Cairo mob chose to make a statement by taking down the US flag and replacing it with their own at the same time it was at half mast to remember the victims of 9/11.
The protests were a sameday reaction to a viral video in the mideast. You can't be a flash mobs handler. It doesn't work that way, that's stupid.
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
No it occurred because we helped it.
I don't think the fruit dealer who self immolated was American. As much as you reallly want America to always be the center of attention it's not. As much as you hate the Arab spring out of your newfound and insane sense of xenophobia, in the long run it's going to be significantly better for America than bankrolling and arming dictatorial regimes whose citizens will grow up to hate and despise us for it.
It won't be better for America because all those dictatorial regimes will be replaced by religious fundamentalist dictatorial regimes that will still hate America (and the rest of the Western world), simply because we exist...
How does Obama say "Sorry if it offends you" equal restricting Freedom of Speech?
It all equals Romney and company getting desperate for something that can move the needle.
I'm reminded of the scene late in the movie "Game Change," in which Ed Harris (McCain) laments "this isn't the campaign I wanted to run." I can imagine Romney having similar thoughts/conversations right about now.
ShumaGorath wrote: The protests were a sameday reaction to a viral video in the mideast. You can't be a flash mobs handler. It doesn't work that way, that's stupid.
And why do you think the video went viral in the Middle East on this particular day, when it has been on youtube since July? Remember the girl framed for burning the Koran? Remember the fabrication of fake Mohammed cartoons?
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
No it occurred because we helped it.
I don't think the fruit dealer who self immolated was American. As much as you reallly want America to always be the center of attention it's not. As much as you hate the Arab spring out of your newfound and insane sense of xenophobia, in the long run it's going to be significantly better for America than bankrolling and arming dictatorial regimes whose citizens will grow up to hate and despise us for it.
It won't be better for America because all those dictatorial regimes will be replaced by religious fundamentalist dictatorial regimes that will still hate America (and the rest of the Western world), simply because we exist...
Kinda like how Saudi Arabia does? Or Oman? We're actually doing pretty well insofar as dictatorial fundamentalist regimes go. It's only in the countries where we bankrolled genocide or tyranny where we're disliked. I kinda think that's somewhat logical.
ShumaGorath wrote: The protests were a sameday reaction to a viral video in the mideast. You can't be a flash mobs handler. It doesn't work that way, that's stupid.
And why do you think the video went viral in the Middle East on this particular day, when the movie has been on youtube since July? Remember the girl framed for burning the Koran? Remember the fabrication of fake Mohammed cartoons?
Probably because it was sent out for that exact purpose. The video is old, the Arabic translation of the video made by the same people that made the video is brand new. If you weren't so busy trying to make the world fit what you want it to be you would see it for how it actually is.
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Libya's interim president has apologized to the United States for the attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed the American ambassador and three of his staff.
Mohammed el-Megarif described the attack as "cowardly" and offered his condolences on the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans. Speaking to reporters, he vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country's close relations with the United States. He said the three Americans were security guards.
The attack on the Benghazi consulate was carried out by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad. They used machine guns and rocket propelled grenades.
"We extend our apology to America, the American people and the whole world," el-Megarif said.
Seeing as both countries have apologized like reasonable adults, we can both start working on attempting to rectify the injustice instead.
There is very little in any of these reports to suspect that it was a pre meditated attack that knew the ambassadors schedule and which could plan for a social media driven reactionary protest movement to flash mob in front of the consulate to give them cover. That's just silly. They're militants not oracles.
So social media is 'random' is it. Maybe over here, but it wasn't in Iran two years ago. When its needed terrorists use rent-a-crowd, the IRA did this a lot and this was before the era of the mobile phone. Flash mobs can be steered, I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador and the flash mob was brought to the consulate where he was, not the embassy.
All it takes to start this is a couple of phone calls, please don't make the mistake in thinking Al Quaeda are slow on the uptake. Its not a mistake to make twice.
Kinda like how Saudi Arabia does? Or Oman? We're actually doing pretty well insofar as dictatorial fundamentalist regimes go. It's only in the countries where we bankrolled genocide or tyranny where we're disliked. I kinda think that's somewhat logical.
You bankrolled the dictatorships in Egypt and Lybia? Since when? How many times did the US actually try to kill Gaddafi again? I have 0 knowledge about the situation in Oman, but make no mistake, as soon as the current Saudi Arabia rulers are overturned you'll have mobs on the street chanting "Allahu Akbar" while burning the American flag!
And I didn't actually think that Germany, Japan hell, even the RoV really dislike the USA that much and THOSE where countries where you guys actually bankrolled genocide! This has nothing to do with things that happened 20+ years ago and everything to do with muslim religious fundamentalism / ignorance and their perception that the West really is a threat to their way of life in one way or another.
There is very little in any of these reports to suspect that it was a pre meditated attack that knew the ambassadors schedule and which could plan for a social media driven reactionary protest movement to flash mob in front of the consulate to give them cover. That's just silly. They're militants not oracles.
So social media is 'random' is it. Maybe over here, but it wasn't in Iran two years ago. When its needed terrorists use rent-a-crowd, the IRA did this a lot and this was before the era of the mobile phone. Flash mobs can be steered, I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador and the flash mob was brought to the consulate where he was, not the embassy.
All it takes to start this is a couple of phone calls, please don't make the mistake in thinking Al Quaeda are slow on the uptake. Its not a mistake to make twice.
Please don't assume that the bungled burning down of a poorly (as in not) defended consulate by a mob in a country where militant militias roam around and there is no police structure is some sort of grand Al-Qaeda plot. You're pulling gak out of thin air to support yourself. The reality doesn't look particularly complicated here.
English Assassin wrote: This is dumb, reactionary warmongering, so yes, you should feel bad. The appropriate response is a breaking-off of diplomatic relations and a suspension of aid until such time that their government can demonstrate the ability and will to uphold international conventions governing the safety of diplomats. A state which can't guarantee the safety of diplomats is also in danger of losing its seat in the UN assembly, which will have significant economic and diplomatic repurcussions.
Something tells me the guys firing RPGs into a consulate or draping religious flags over an embassy aren't overly concerned with the economic repercussions of losing their UN membership card. We've been unable to engage and moderate extremists, despite well over a decade of trying, and if you're shooting at an ambassador on religious grounds, guess what, you're an extremist. Damn near everyone in that region has spent the last century putting dictators or despotic monarchs into power, so I ultimately don't care how/how often they maul each other, but bringing it into our turf? No, sorry. We've had enough of that.
Kinda like how Saudi Arabia does? Or Oman? We're actually doing pretty well insofar as dictatorial fundamentalist regimes go. It's only in the countries where we bankrolled genocide or tyranny where we're disliked. I kinda think that's somewhat logical.
You bankrolled the dictatorships in Egypt and Lybia? Since when? How many times did the US actually try to kill Gaddafi again? I have 0 knowledge about the situation in Oman, but make no mistake, as soon as the current Saudi Arabia rulers are overturned you'll have mobs on the street chanting "Allahu Akbar" while burning the American flag!
Well we bankrolled it in Egypt for like.. 30 years? Something like that. We sold them arms, used their jails and torturers in our wars, and gave them immense amounts of financial aid. We did it right up until the regime started to fall and then we tried to backpedal awfully hard. As for Libya, we didn't. Gadaffi was a soviet pawn who tried to create a bizarre pan African coalition and ended up just bankrolling terrorists against everyone who looked at him funny. He had no friends outside of North Africa.
The Saudi Citizenry isn't very extremist, they've got the rich and powerful Emirate that they want. Most of their grievances are with the Saudi royals, not us. If the Saudi regime fell they may turn anti western, but that would be as much an artifact of regional distaste for our consistent bombing of them and our military presence in their country as it is hatin' our freedom. We haven't been making friends in the mideast, we mostly just go there to shoot missiles at things. That doesn't make you popular.
And I didn't actually think that Germany, Japan hell, even the RoV really dislike the USA that much and THOSE where countries where you guys actually bankrolled genocide! This has nothing to do with things that happened 20+ years ago and everything to do with muslim religious fundamentalism / ignorance and their perception that the West really is a threat to their way of life in one way or another.
We were in Egypt funding their tyrant until 2010. We're still blowing things up in Afghannistan. We destabilized Iraq and turned it into the worlds largest sectarian civil war for years. We give Israel billions in arms and armament and turn a blind eye to the starvation and terror state that they turned Palestine into. This is about yesterday, today, and the things we could do tomorrow. We've done nothing to make friends in the mideast. For decades our foreign policy has been about securing American energy and security interests at the cost of the lives of millions. People don't forget about that gak.
English Assassin wrote: This is dumb, reactionary warmongering, so yes, you should feel bad. The appropriate response is a breaking-off of diplomatic relations and a suspension of aid until such time that their government can demonstrate the ability and will to uphold international conventions governing the safety of diplomats. A state which can't guarantee the safety of diplomats is also in danger of losing its seat in the UN assembly, which will have significant economic and diplomatic repurcussions.
Something tells me the guys firing RPGs into a consulate or draping religious flags over an embassy aren't overly concerned with the economic repercussions of losing their UN membership card. We've been unable to engage and moderate extremists, despite well over a decade of trying, and if you're shooting at an ambassador on religious grounds, guess what, you're an extremist. Damn near everyone in that region has spent the last century putting dictators or despotic monarchs into power, so I ultimately don't care how/how often they maul each other, but bringing it into our turf? No, sorry. We've had enough of that.
They'll like us when we win, not before.
In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*
There is very little in any of these reports to suspect that it was a pre meditated attack that knew the ambassadors schedule and which could plan for a social media driven reactionary protest movement to flash mob in front of the consulate to give them cover. That's just silly. They're militants not oracles.
So social media is 'random' is it. Maybe over here, but it wasn't in Iran two years ago. When its needed terrorists use rent-a-crowd, the IRA did this a lot and this was before the era of the mobile phone. Flash mobs can be steered, I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador and the flash mob was brought to the consulate where he was, not the embassy.
All it takes to start this is a couple of phone calls, please don't make the mistake in thinking Al Quaeda are slow on the uptake. Its not a mistake to make twice.
Please don't assume that the bungled burning down of a poorly (as in not) defended consulate by a mob in a country where militant militias roam around and there is no police structure is some sort of grand Al-Qaeda plot. You're pulling gak out of thin air to support yourself. The reality doesn't look particularly complicated here.
How do you explain that the demonstration and subsequent attack happened against the consulate and not at the USA embassy in Tripoli like one would expect? Don't you find that coincidence just a tad bit suspect?
In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*
Embassies aren't exactly a new concept.
At least the Libyan leaders are stepping up and trying to diplomatically address this...
Egyptian govt on the other hand has been quiet... unless I missed a meeting where US embassies stopped being US soil, Egyptians, just attacked us on 9/11, while we're still sending $$$ to the Egyptian govt. That is just wrong...
while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings. The United States needs to be honest with these people and explain the facts of life. We are free people and that's why we have a military, to protect those freedoms.
I, for one, do not see the issue you claim exists with "what Obama said".
It seems clear to me, in the very sentense you quote, that Obama decries the death of a US diplomat.
In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*
Embassies aren't exactly a new concept.
Tell that to an angry mob. Embassies aren't a new concept and they've been the target of populist uprisings and revolutions for hundreds of years. This is also a consulate, not an embassy.
Well we bankrolled it in Egypt for like.. 30 years? Something like that. We sold them arms, used their jails and torturers in our wars, and gave them immense amounts of financial aid. We did it right up until the regime started to fall and then we tried to backpedal awfully hard.
So did Russia in Libya (and Egypt before that), and I don't see mobs at their embassy!
The Saudi Citizenry isn't very extremist, they've got the rich and powerful Emirate that they want. Most of their grievances are with the Saudi royals, not us. If the Saudi regime fell they may turn anti western, but that would be as much an artifact of regional distaste for our consistent bombing of them and our military presence in their country as it is hatin' our freedom.
How can you say this when most of the "martyrs" of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia?!
We were in Egypt funding their tyrant until 2010. We're still blowing things up in Afghannistan. We destabilized Iraq and turned it into the worlds largest sectarian civil war for years. We give Israel billions in arms and armament and turn a blind eye to the starvation and terror state that they turned Palestine into. This is about yesterday, today, and the things we could do tomorrow. We've done nothing to make friends in the mideast. For decades our foreign policy has been about securing American energy and security interests at the cost of the lives of millions. People don't forget about that gak.
Again, so were the Russians in Libya, why aren't the Libyans burning the Russian flag and murdering their diplomats?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The locals lashed out against the nearest US presence they could find.
If it did not happen in Tripoli, perhaps that shows the Tripolitans are more moderate.
In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*
Embassies aren't exactly a new concept.
At least the Libyan leaders are stepping up and trying to diplomatically address this...
Egyptian govt on the other hand has been quiet... unless I missed a meeting where US embassies stopped being US soil, Egyptians, just attacked us on 9/11, while we're still sending $$$ to the Egyptian govt. That is just wrong...
They've also been levying fraudulent criminal charges against the U.S. and U.S. citizens have been attacked in the streets quite a few times. They're not a particuarly friendly population to U.S. interests, but you can't expect them to warm up to us after a single year. We gave their torturer and tyrant tanks and jets for decades. This wounds are going to take time to mend. We're a big country, unless whiny American neo conservatives get their way they'll eventually calm down. Automatically Appended Next Post:
So did Russia in Libya (and Egypt before that), and I don't see mobs at their embassy!
That's probably because Russia removed most of its interests from the region while we have hundreds of thousands of people over there. Russia has an islamist insurgency in it's own country and is hit by a pretty consistent string of terrorist attacks. They're not exactly living the good life.
How can you say this when most of the "martyrs" of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia?!
Because that's a handful of people from a country of thirty million being recruited to a terrorist organization with a support structure encompassing 3 continents.
Again, so were the Russians in Libya, why aren't the Libyans burning the Russian flag and murdering their diplomats?
Russia doesn't have much of a political presence in Libya. They also didn't come out with the video in question. America anti Islamic sentiment is strong and projected out often. It pisses people off.
while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings. The United States needs to be honest with these people and explain the facts of life. We are free people and that's why we have a military, to protect those freedoms.
I, for one, do not see the issue you claim exists with "what Obama said".
It seems clear to me, in the very sentense you quote, that Obama decries the death of a US diplomat.
What am I missing?
The point being that it isn't your responsibility as President to reject "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others". Your responsibility as President is to protect American interests, at home and abroad. Which includes standing up for our beliefs (freedom of speech)... and more succiently the embassy is US soil. It's like 1979 all over again... It's one thing to protest outside of our embassy... that's fine. But they crossed the line when they attacked it.
In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*
Embassies aren't exactly a new concept.
Tell that to an angry mob. Embassies aren't a new concept and they've been the target of populist uprisings and revolutions for hundreds of years. This is also a consulate, not an embassy.
Alright. Can I tell them using the apparently "neoconservative" method, with either a Marine Embassy Security detachment or State Department security contractors, or do I have to go ask them politely to stop throwing things while I figure out where to procure the proper prayer mat?
In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*
Embassies aren't exactly a new concept.
Tell that to an angry mob. Embassies aren't a new concept and they've been the target of populist uprisings and revolutions for hundreds of years. This is also a consulate, not an embassy.
Alright. Can I tell them using the apparently "neoconservative" method, with either a Marine Embassy Security detachment or State Department security contractors, or do I have to go ask them politely to stop throwing things while I figure out where to procure the proper prayer mat?
The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.
...cos a deity who is supposed to know what all of us get up to and created the universe, can't make it's feelings known when it's offended? It has to rely on the ignorant masses to do it's dirty work for it?!!!
Whether you're a Christian murdering an abortion Doctor or a group of Muslims storming a building it's all the same... your God can look after it'self.
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
Are American aircraft bombing pro-Gadaffi forces 'staying out of their business'?
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
Are American aircraft bombing pro-Gadaffi forces 'staying out of their business'?
Or urging that Hosni Mubarak must go?
Libya is only one country of several in the Arab spring. Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and probably Syria will all have been toppled without our help. Gadaffi was an enemy of the state who payed terrorists to attack western targets, it's not like we traded a secure state for a terrorist one.
Folks, please remember that these kinds of tragedies don't give any one license to bash religions. If you want to discuss the religious implications of the event, keep in mind that you need to be even more courteous, respectful, and sensitive than usual. Thanks!
ShumaGorath wrote: The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.
The article linked at the top of this thread stated that the diplomat was killed by smoke inhalation, along with two security contractors.
You think we leave the protection of our diplomats entirely up to foreign nationals in unstable regions? Really?
Of course not. The two dudes with him - I'm sure there were more - were likely whatever Blackwater's calling itself now. I'm pretty sure they got the big State Department contract a few years back.
Wolfstan wrote: ...cos a deity who is supposed to know what all of us get up to and created the universe, can't make it's feelings known when it's offended? It has to rely on the ignorant masses to do it's dirty work for it?!!!
Whether you're a Christian murdering an abortion Doctor or a group of Muslims storming a building it's all the same... your God can look after it'self.
Awesome troll post. You are a master.
Why? Religious people are always killing in the name of their god. Is there a "I can't be arsed to get my hands dirty dealing with this list" somewhere that I don't know about. A list that lets us mere mortals know which "dirty work" can be deputized to us?
ShumaGorath wrote: The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.
The article linked at the top of this thread stated that the diplomat was killed by smoke inhalation, along with two security contractors.
You think we leave the protection of our diplomats entirely up to foreign nationals in unstable regions? Really?
Of course not. The two dudes with him - I'm sure there were more - were likely whatever Blackwater's calling itself now. I'm pretty sure they got the big State Department contract a few years back.
The Article was one of the first up and has several facts wrong.
Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.
Scott wrote: Part of the President's responsibilities are diplomatic, so his statement is reflecting one of his roles.
Defusing or mitigating the severity of a bad diplomatic situation is a direct American interest.
Hence, my confusion regarding your statement.
Okay... I just disagree...
With which point do you disagree?
Saying this "while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" and not re-enforcing that we have freedom of speech.
Remember, they're protesting/rioting/attacking for something that was done IN AMERICA... it's not like someone did that on their soil.
They're ATTACKING us because of our freedom. Or, it gives them cover to do what they did because they don't like policies... whatever...
Like I said before, protesting outside of our embassies/consulate is fine. More powah to them... but, to attack the embassies/consulates? That's crossing the line. We've gone to war on lesser infractions.
Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.
That article contradicts nothing at all of what I said; it adds another death.
I didn't ask about diplomatic staff. I asked about diplomats. Ambassadors. If you think we let those guys just wander around places like Libya without security details, you're absolutely out of your mind. It does not happen. He had Americans with guns with him, precisely because the record of indigenous security forces in that region? Not so hot lately.
Saying this "while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" and not re-enforcing that we have freedom of speech.
Remember, they're protesting/rioting/attacking for something that was done IN AMERICA... it's not like someone did that on their soil.
And yet the internet exists on their soil. Viewing of the film exists on their soil. It was a religious insult placed into a medium that they were supposed to see. Sometimes it's not about land.
They're ATTACKING us because of our freedom. Or, it gives them cover to do what they did because they don't like policies... whatever...
That's a lazy and intellectually daft argument. You insist on conflating their hatred of our way of life and their hatred of the output of our country into their region of the world. Hating freedom of speech and being pissed that someone made a propaganda film specifically to insult them and blaspheme their religion are different things. It's only the same if you plan to be a lazy sod who doesn't want to have to think too hard when filling out his "who to bomb" sheet.
Like I said before, protesting outside of our embassies/consulate is fine. More powah to them... but, to attack the embassies/consulates? That's crossing the line. We've gone to war on lesser infractions.
Thanks to Iraq we've gone to war over exactly nothing, so that's a pretty sad argument too. That consulate was the local American presence. They wanted to strike out at an American presence. Unlike us they don't have the ability to sanction or missile a country to death for saying things we don't agree with.
Hyperbole much?
No, not really. That's your argument in a nutshell.
Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.
That article contradicts nothing at all of what I said; it adds another death.
I didn't ask about diplomatic staff. I asked about diplomats. Ambassadors. If you think we let those guys just wander around places like Libya without security details, you're absolutely out of your mind. It does not happen. He had Americans with guns with him, precisely because the record of indigenous security forces in that region? Not so hot lately.
It's cute how at first you thought it was an embassy, then you thought it was a consulate with American guards, and now suddenly the guards belonged to the ambassador. How many more times are you going to change your argument before you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
Are American aircraft bombing pro-Gadaffi forces 'staying out of their business'?
Or urging that Hosni Mubarak must go?
Libya is only one country of several in the Arab spring. Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and probably Syria will all have been toppled without our help. Gadaffi was an enemy of the state who payed terrorists to attack western targets, it's not like we traded a secure state for a terrorist one.
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
Are American aircraft bombing pro-Gadaffi forces 'staying out of their business'?
Or urging that Hosni Mubarak must go?
Exactly. So, in all the nations that have had similar unrest (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Morocco, Oman, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait) we have given military support to one, in Libya, because Gaddafi has long been an enemy of the United States. In Egypt our choices were to "do nothing", which accounts for tacit support of Mubarak, or to use diplomatic channels to ask for a diplomatic solution. There was literally no option to "stay out of their business" as the status quo was fully supportive of Mubarak.
I also find it silly, and probably just a little bit racist or at least ethnocentric, for people to talk about the Arab Spring and literally know nothing about it. Does anyone commenting here know anything about what happened in Jordan? Or what is going on in Yemen? Or Oman? Or Kuwait?
Many of the "usual crowd" of Know Nothings want to talk about the Arab Spring as ushering in anti-American Jihadists, but they themselves know nothing about what is going on.
TheHammer wrote: Wait, is Frazzled really trying to say that we should "keep out of other people's business" while simultaneously lamenting the Arab Spring, which was only really able to happen because we largely stayed out of their business?
How painful is cognitive dissonance?
Are American aircraft bombing pro-Gadaffi forces 'staying out of their business'?
Or urging that Hosni Mubarak must go?
Libya is only one country of several in the Arab spring. Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and probably Syria will all have been toppled without our help. Gadaffi was an enemy of the state who payed terrorists to attack western targets, it's not like we traded a secure state for a terrorist one.
Egypt toppled because we let it.
We are actively supporting the rebels in Syria.
Egypt toppled because Mubarak decided to leave. We weren't providing them with security, we had been providing them with guns and tanks. They already had all of that. We are not actively contributing in a meaningful fashion to the syrian resistance. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are. We're not the center of the world.
It's cute how at first you thought it was an embassy, then you thought it was a consulate with American guards, and now suddenly the guards belonged to the ambassador. How many more times are you going to change your argument before you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
You're aware that there were two separate incidents in separate countries, right? One involving an embassy, one involving a consulate? One involving a flag, one involving an ambassador?
Frazzled wrote: Libya.
Egypt we told them to get out. We give lots of money to the military.
Syria.
Kuwait - you're forgetting about a minor war no?
Oh here it comes. Apparently the gulf war is responsible for the Arab spring. I guess the English are responsible too now. Lets just see how far this bs goes back.
It's cute how at first you thought it was an embassy, then you thought it was a consulate with American guards, and now suddenly the guards belonged to the ambassador. How many more times are you going to change your argument before you just admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
You're aware that there were two separate incidents in separate countries, right? One involving an embassy, one involving a consulate? One involving a flag, one involving an ambassador?
Yes, every post I have made and the post that was the genesis of this conversation were talking about Libya. You're currently at 1 over par for back pedaling and shifting sands, lets see how high this goes.
Frazzled wants to frame his isolationist / non-interventionist beliefs (which are rather popular these days) as "doing nothing" when in reality "doing nothing" means "supporting the status quo and tyranny".
Frazzled wants to frame his isolationist / non-interventionist beliefs (which are rather popular these days) as "doing nothing" when in reality "doing nothing" means "supporting the status quo and tyranny".
It's called being a prototypical republican conservative.
Frazzled wrote: Libya.
Egypt we told them to get out. We give lots of money to the military.
Syria.
Kuwait - you're forgetting about a minor war no?
Oh here it comes. Apparently the gulf war is responsible for the Arab spring. I guess the English are responsible too now. Lets just see how far this bs goes back.
.
No no no. The Aliens were responsible for the Arab Spring! My kingdom! My kingdom for that It was Aliens Meme!
I'm just noting that several of those countries had/have our support.
ShumaGorath wrote: Yes, every post I have made and the post that was the genesis of this conversation were talking about Libya. You're currently at 1 over par for back pedaling and shifting sands, lets see how high this goes.
My very first post on the subject, and several of the subsequent ones, have referred to both.
Maybe you want to step back and have a Coke, dude. You seem to be freaking out pretty hard. Not that I don't enjoy the notion that people would actually believe we let barely-trained Libyan rebels guard are envoys, but c'mon. Stop being contrary for the sake of it.
I love how some idiot with an axe to grind (the film-maker) has cost the lives of people unrelated to the film at the hands of a bunch of other idiots (the protestors) and another group uses this as an excuse to make political hay against people they don't like (most of the people in this thread).
whembly wrote: Saying this "while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" and not re-enforcing that we have freedom of speech.
Remember, they're protesting/rioting/attacking for something that was done IN AMERICA... it's not like someone did that on their soil.
They're ATTACKING us because of our freedom. Or, it gives them cover to do what they did because they don't like policies... whatever...
Like I said before, protesting outside of our embassies/consulate is fine. More powah to them... but, to attack the embassies/consulates? That's crossing the line. We've gone to war on lesser infractions.
OK, I get that but IMO it is not the President's responsibility to remind non-Americans how our nationals are allowed to behave. The Libyans responsible for the attack don't care - they haven't the ideological comprehension of our rights because they've never lived them. They are programmed differently than we are by the fact that we are different cultures... but you know that.
And of course attacking an embassy or consulate is "crossing the line" - but then, that was their entire point.
I can not read a clear point or coherent thought, Frazzled.
Is that a reference to my posts? If so:
two points:
we actuively engaged in support of the Libya, and for Egypt were strongarmed the military to let it happen. I argue we should not be involved in other country's affairs (same position as China), just for this reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I love how some idiot with an axe to grind stirred up mobs that has cost the lives of people unrelated to the film at the hands of a bunch of other idiots (the protestors) and another group uses this as an excuse to make political hay against people they don't like (most of the people in this thread).
Frazzled wrote: Libya.
Egypt we told them to get out. We give lots of money to the military.
Syria.
Kuwait - you're forgetting about a minor war no?
Oh here it comes. Apparently the gulf war is responsible for the Arab spring. I guess the English are responsible too now. Lets just see how far this bs goes back.
.
No no no. The Aliens were responsible for the Arab Spring! My kingdom! My kingdom for that It was Aliens Meme!
I'm just noting that several of those countries had/have our support.
And outside of Libya none of that support led to the uprisings or really enabled them in a real capacity.
Frazzled wrote: Libya. Egypt we told them to get out. We give lots of money to the military. Syria. Kuwait - you're forgetting about a minor war no?
Oh here it comes. Apparently the gulf war is responsible for the Arab spring. I guess the English are responsible too now. Lets just see how far this bs goes back.
.
No no no. The Aliens were responsible for the Arab Spring! My kingdom! My kingdom for that It was Aliens Meme! I'm just noting that several of those countries had/have our support.
And outside of Libya none of that support led to the uprisings or really enabled them in a real capacity.
Except for Egypt.
EDIT: That was arguably a good deal though as we weren't directly involved, but many figured it would just replace one dictator for another. We shall see.
The protesters weren't the ones that launched the attack in Libya. Well, unless you count the Islamist group as protesters. I suppose missiles do protest things pretty well. The protesters were certainly at fault in Egypt.
Saying this "while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" and not re-enforcing that we have freedom of speech.
Remember, they're protesting/rioting/attacking for something that was done IN AMERICA... it's not like someone did that on their soil.
And yet the internet exists on their soil. Viewing of the film exists on their soil. It was a religious insult placed into a medium that they were supposed to see. Sometimes it's not about land.
Oh... so because of the internet, we don't have freedom of speech anymore... is that what I'm reading?
Look, we have reach, I get it... and if folks don't like us, they can protest all they want, burn our flags or current US prez picture, jump up and down and make noises... that's fine.
But to attack the Embassy/Consulate is where I draw the line. This is bad... very bad.
They're ATTACKING us because of our freedom. Or, it gives them cover to do what they did because they don't like policies... whatever...
That's a lazy and intellectually daft argument. You insist on conflating their hatred of our way of life and their hatred of the output of our country into their region of the world. Hating freedom of speech and being pissed that someone made a propaganda film specifically to insult them and blaspheme their religion are different things. It's only the same if you plan to be a lazy sod who doesn't want to have to think too hard when filling out his "who to bomb" sheet.
No, they're not different things. What the film is about is disgusting and inflammatory... as the creators will NOT be immune to any pushback/critism.
But, that's protected speech here...
Like I said before, protesting outside of our embassies/consulate is fine. More powah to them... but, to attack the embassies/consulates? That's crossing the line. We've gone to war on lesser infractions.
Thanks to Iraq we've gone to war over exactly nothing, so that's a pretty sad argument too. That consulate was the local American presence. They wanted to strike out at an American presence. Unlike us they don't have the ability to sanction or missile a country to death for saying things we don't agree with.
Look, I think we understand why they're lashing out... but, we need to draw the line somewhere and to me, attacking the consulate/embassy/murdering the ambassador far exceeds that line.
Hyperbole much?
No, not really. That's your argument in a nutshell.
Frazzled wrote: Libya. Egypt we told them to get out. We give lots of money to the military. Syria. Kuwait - you're forgetting about a minor war no?
Oh here it comes. Apparently the gulf war is responsible for the Arab spring. I guess the English are responsible too now. Lets just see how far this bs goes back.
.
No no no. The Aliens were responsible for the Arab Spring! My kingdom! My kingdom for that It was Aliens Meme! I'm just noting that several of those countries had/have our support.
And outside of Libya none of that support led to the uprisings or really enabled them in a real capacity.
Except for Egypt.
Where we discontinued support for the mubarak regime. We could either support them or not support them. There was no "no involvement" option there. We had already made that bed. Pressuring a diplomatic solution under the threat of military aid suspension was the most middle ground response possible. What you want is an admission that pulling out support for Mubarak led to the fall of Mubaraks regime, which isn't really shown by facts on the ground. Either way, it wasn't our "meddling" which caused that uprising which was your initial (and thoroughly wrong) point.
The "protest" got started over the video was just by word of mouth. Internet in the middle east is not wide spread as the US and Europe. As for this relationship we have with the "Arab Spring" nations its still going to be the same status quo as before. Certain people get rich and the rest can go into the gutter. The value of a human life over there is not the same with us. The people of those nations will still view the US as a combatant regardless.
dogma wrote: Not so much a clusterfeth as "Oh no, the embassy is being approached by an angry mob, how can we prevent them from doing something really bad!?!"
You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
Okay, yes, we were part of a force that intervened in Libya. I also remember you and whembly and others complaining that we were "leading from behind" and weren't in charge, but whatever.
But, sure, I'll give you Libya because Gadaffi was awful. Plus, had President Obama "minded his own business" you and others would have attacked him for enabling Gadaffi.
Mubarak is totally different. We've been propping up that regime for decades. "Doing nothing" would be removing all support for him, which seems to be the exact opposite of what you actually wanted.
As for "glassing the country" there are around 6 million people there atm and by even the most extreme estimates they didn't all storm the embassy.
While I share the anger of every American at this news I don’t think a bit of good ol' genocide is the answer.
You're right, it's not technically sovereign territory. It's functionally equivalent for our purposes in this case.
And as for glassing the country, you're absolutely right; this is a one-off occurrence, from a region, as a whole, that's shown nothing but peaceful intentions towards the United States since time immemorial.
TheHammer wrote: Okay, yes, we were part of a force that intervened in Libya. I also remember you and whembly and others complaining that we were "leading from behind" and weren't in charge, but whatever.
But, sure, I'll give you Libya because Gadaffi was awful. Plus, had President Obama "minded his own business" you and others would have attacked him for enabling Gadaffi.
Mubarak is totally different. We've been propping up that regime for decades. "Doing nothing" would be removing all support for him, which seems to be the exact opposite of what you actually wanted.
Oh... so because of the internet, we don't have freedom of speech anymore... is that what I'm reading?
Stop intentionally misinterpereting everyone you communicate with in every thread. It's obnoxious. You said that it didn't matter because it wasn't on their land. That's wrong. You said a wrong thing, I pointed it out. I didn't say "Our freedoms don't exist" i said "They were insulted and it pissed them off".
Look, we have reach, I get it... and if folks don't like us, they can protest all they want, burn our flags or current US prez picture, jump up and down and make noises... that's fine.
But to attack the Embassy/Consulate is where I draw the line. This is bad... very bad.
I agree. It kind of makes you wonder why we have such ill defended political outposts in countries where we are deeply unpopular and where there is no realistic security or police apparatus to keep militant populist outrage at our policies or actions in check. You don't get pissed off when an embassy gets hit by a tornado, and this was a hell of a lot more predictable than an electrical fire or storm. Realistic politics and statesmanship plans around this kind of thing.
No, they're not different things. What the film is about is disgusting and inflammatory... as the creators will NOT be immune to any pushback/critism.
But, that's protected speech here...
And it's not there. They are pissed about something said in our land that was in their computers. They acted out against our foreign presence in their countries. These are not strong states with leadership that can direct and control the populations. These are people who have been through decades of oppression and lengthy armed conflicts that have left hundreds of thousands with psychological scars and deep vendettas. They don't hate our freedom of speech, they hate what we say and often times what we do. That hatred is also often deserved (egypt being the perfect example of a state that really has good reason to hate us). There is a dramatic, important, logical, and easy to identify difference there. If you can't figure that out than I don't think conversations with you are going to be very worth having in the future.
Look, I think we understand why they're lashing out... but, we need to draw the line somewhere and to me, attacking the consulate/embassy/murdering the ambassador far exceeds that line.
I'd like to see how you plan to stop citizen mobs in countries without functioning security systems from defacing or attacking our outposts without greatly increasing military security. Either way there's no one to "strike back at" over these events.
Nope.
If its not you should try harder to make it seem otherwise.
As for "glassing the country" there are around 6 million people there atm and by even the most extreme estimates they didn't all storm the embassy.
While I share the anger of every American at this news I don’t think a bit of good ol' genocide is the answer.
You're right, it's not technically sovereign territory. It's functionally equivalent for our purposes in this case.
And as for glassing the country, you're absolutely right; this is a one-off occurrence, from a region, as a whole, that's shown nothing but peaceful intentions towards the United States since time immemorial.
It's not like we haven't engaged in half a dozen wars there, bankrolled and provided weapons to a dozen different dictators, and aren't routinely blowing up children with missiles fired from robots. I don't understand how you're still posting here, you've advocated the deaths of billions and are contributing nothing meaningful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: The "protest" got started over the video was just by word of mouth. Internet in the middle east is not wide spread as the US and Europe. As for this relationship we have with the "Arab Spring" nations its still going to be the same status quo as before. Certain people get rich and the rest can go into the gutter. The value of a human life over there is not the same with us. The people of those nations will still view the US as a combatant regardless.
The U.S. does not value the lives of middle eastern or african people very highly. Don't pretend like there's moral highground here when we've got people wanting to kill every muslim on earth in this very thread.
ShumaGorath wrote: I agree. It kind of makes you wonder why we have such ill defended political outposts in countries where we are deeply unpopular and where there is no realistic security or police apparatus to keep militant populist outrage at our policies or actions in check.
They're not ill-defended, you simply think they are. Based on the posture of the mission to Egypt, as seen via Twitter, it's pretty clear someone made a call not to repel the mob.
It's not like we haven't engaged in half a dozen wars there, bankrolled and provided weapons to a dozen different dictators, and aren't routinely blowing up children with missiles fired from robots. I don't understand how you're still posting here, you've advocated the deaths of billions and are contributing nothing meaningful.
Of the "half a dozen" wars we've engaged in there, I can count one that's questionable - and it was still a war against a violent, brutal dictator responsible for more of his own citizens' deaths than we ever caused. Providing weapons and cash to dictators? Of course we did. It's dictatorship or democracy, and as we've seen, democracy doesn't tend to work out too well in that region. As far as drone strikes go, we don't choose to have our enemies hiding among civilian populations while engaged in terrorist campaigns. They choose that.
Oh... so because of the internet, we don't have freedom of speech anymore... is that what I'm reading?
Stop intentionally misinterpereting everyone you communicate with in every thread. It's obnoxious. You said that it didn't matter because it wasn't on their land. That's wrong. You said a wrong thing, I pointed it out.
I disagree... this was done on our soil. The. End.
I didn't say "Our freedoms don't exist" i said "They were insulted and it pissed them off".
I know... I'm obnoxious... sorry. But, that they're feelings are hurt... who cares.
The worst thing we would do is go on Rotten Tomatoes and hit that green splat button.
Look, we have reach, I get it... and if folks don't like us, they can protest all they want, burn our flags or current US prez picture, jump up and down and make noises... that's fine.
But to attack the Embassy/Consulate is where I draw the line. This is bad... very bad.
I agree. It kind of makes you wonder why we have such ill defended political outposts in countries where we are deeply unpopular and where there is no realistic security or police apparatus to keep militant populist outrage at our policies or actions in check. You don't get pissed off when an embassy gets hit by a tornado, and this was a hell of a lot more predictable than an electrical fire or storm. Realistic politics and statesmanship plans around this kind of thing.
Yeah, I am kinda perplexed about the security arraignment in Libya.
No, they're not different things. What the film is about is disgusting and inflammatory... as the creators will NOT be immune to any pushback/critism.
But, that's protected speech here...
And it's not there. They are pissed about something said in our land that was in their computers. They acted out against our foreign presence in their countries. These are not strong states with leadership that can direct and control the populations. These are people who have been through decades of oppression and lengthy armed conflicts that have left hundreds of thousands with psychological scars and deep vendettas. They don't hate our freedom of speech, they hate what we say and often times what we do. That hatred is also often deserved (egypt being the perfect example of a state that really has good reason to hate us). There is a dramatic, important, logical, and easy to identify difference there. If you can't figure that out than I don't think conversations with you are going to be very worth having in the future.
*sigh* thats why I criticised Obama's initial response didn't have any blurb about our "freedom of speech" here...
Look, I think we understand why they're lashing out... but, we need to draw the line somewhere and to me, attacking the consulate/embassy/murdering the ambassador far exceeds that line.
I'd like to see how you plan to stop citizen mobs in countries without functioning security systems from defacing or attacking our outposts without greatly increasing military security. Either way there's no one to "strike back at" over these events.
I'm surprised that the Embassy in Cairo didn't open fire... we're missing something here... I don't think we'll know (if ever) all the facts here.
Just watch... the fallout here will be increased security in at-risk Embassies world-wide.
Nope.
If its not you should try harder to make it seem otherwise.
Heh... sure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: The "protest" got started over the video was just by word of mouth. Internet in the middle east is not wide spread as the US and Europe. As for this relationship we have with the "Arab Spring" nations its still going to be the same status quo as before. Certain people get rich and the rest can go into the gutter. The value of a human life over there is not the same with us. The people of those nations will still view the US as a combatant regardless.
The U.S. does not value the lives of middle eastern or african people very highly. Don't pretend like there's moral highground here when we've got people wanting to kill every muslim on earth in this very thread.
Dude...
There's fustration... sure. But no one here is really wanting us to "glass" all muslims.
I'm friends with a practicing muslim family... and THEY'RE more pissed at the protestors/riots/killing than I am... [man it's fun teasing them about bacon... I'll regale the story when I have time... they're good sports]
I hate to point out. In case some don't know. That the Marines PRIMARY mission is to protect areas of the embassy related to classified information. They are very rarely allowed to conduct missions outside the building.
edit
Whoa now. I'm not advocating violence let alone "glassing" anyone/country unless their disignated combatants IE Insurgents, AQ and Taliban. Even then I won't be willing to "Glass" them either. B52/B1 bomber strike yes. Nuke. No.
Jihadin wrote: I hate to point out. In case some don't know. That the Marines PRIMARY mission is to protect areas of the embassy related to classified information. They are very rarely allowed to conduct missions outside the building.
That's what I figured, there's SOP for everything and they're doing the best the can.
Everyone and their mother knows that the Libyan resistance had Al-Qaeda links in some areas. They admitted it during the revolution, Al-Qaeda talked about it, our own generals talked about it, the president talked about it. Those weird people that live under rocks in that one Geico commercial from last year probably know about it. We helped them because they don't represent the majority of the country or the fighting forces in the Libyan revolution. We helped them because Gadaffi bankrolled more terrorists than that and gave them a longer reach than these kids have. Foreign policy is icky sometimes, you work towards an end goal that is sometimes far off. When you're short sited and xenophobic you end up doing things like creating Sadaam husseins Iraq and training Osama Bin Laden.
Well said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Dogma...I hate to say it...sport fans riots award goes to UK soccar (FOOTBALL) Europe.
Sure, but the idea is that we too (we could expand it to the secular West) riot over stupid things.
The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept in a secure location.
When you drill in to it it's the usual suspects, the illiterate masses being stirred up by educated individuals with an axe to grind. For crying out loud, how many of these people would of heard of this film unless stirred up? In fact how many would of seen it? If you could grab one of them out of thin air and stick them in a room and get them to tell you exactly what part of the film was so bad, they wouldn't have a clue.
It was what I was aluding to in a hamfisted way earlier. In the past Western religions were able to stir up this type of trouble, because of the lack of education and literacy. Unfortunately there are still a big chunk of the Islamic world that is still like this and therefore easily stirred up.
What would be great is to be able to tell these people that this isn't the Crusades, we have no interest in their lands, we don't care who they worship, we just want to get along... but as per usual there is "power" at stake here and those that have it don't want to let it go.
The U.S. State Department, and even its besieged embassy staff in Cairo, is receiving a barrage of criticism because of statements like this:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
The criticism is well-deserved. As James Joyner succinctly put it,
In point of fact, making a movie commenting on the sexual proclivities of someone who died some fourteen hundred years ago in no way constitutes "incitement" under any meaningful use of the term.
I would add that my government has no business giving a whirl about "hurt[ing] the religious beliefs of others" (a standard both elastic and asymmetrical, virtually begging for a heckler's veto) and that there is no "universal right of free speech," at least in practice (as opposed to the philosophical principle, which I wholeheartedly endorse).
The fact is that the First Amendment, no matter how embattled, protects a range of expression unthinkable even in Western Europe. Because of that unique position, and because the U.S. seems doomed to play an outsized diplomatic and military role in the tumultuous Muslim world, it behooves the State Department to constantly explain the vast differences between state-sanctioned and legally protected speech in the so-called Land of the Free. If the U.S. government really was in the business of "firmly reject[ing]" private free-speech acts that "hurt the religious beliefs of others" there would be no time left over for doing anything else.
It's really not that hard. The values in that film (or "film") are not our values; our government respects religion, religious expression, and religious pluralism (including and especially that of Muslims, even in the wake of murderous Muslim-led attacks on American soil); and we are not in the business of approving or (for the most part) regulating the private speech of our citizens. To the extent that that message is not sufficient for rioters, the problem is theirs.
Some liberal Tweeters this morning are pointing out that, hey, the Bush administration condemned the Mohammed cartoons, too!, but this mostly goes to illustrate how bipartisan cravenness can be. We know that this issue will keep coming up; maybe it's about time the American government, and the rest of us, develop a more American response.
Orlanth wrote: ...I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador...
We do it all the time. There might even be good evidence to suggest that we did it with respect to Stevens, but I'm too lazy to dig through all the nonsense Google hits.
Orlanth wrote: ...I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador...
We do it all the time. There might even be good evidence to suggest that we did it with respect to Stevens, but I'm too lazy to dig through all the nonsense Google hits.
There's diplomatic protocols out of the wazoo... I wouldn't be surprised if one had to "announce" the coming/goings of the ambassadors.
How do you explain that the demonstration and subsequent attack happened against the consulate and not at the USA embassy in Tripoli like one would expect? Don't you find that coincidence just a tad bit suspect?
Benghazi is just as important to Libya as Tripoli, probably more so.
There's diplomatic protocols out of the wazoo... I wouldn't be surprised if one had to "announce" the coming/goings of the ambassadors.
Alternatively, why wouldn't you tell everyone where your ambassador was going? He's a public figure, and when he moves the point is that people pay attention to his movements.
If our government saying "we are sorry if you are offended" is going to prevent one person from killing an american then I say let them do it.
There are a few soldiers on here who put their body where their mouth is, and then there are lot of folks that I would love to see standing in front of one of those crowds and tell them "We got freedom of speech, we offend you if we want, and we will never say we are sorry because we are America!"
In point of fact, making a movie commenting on the sexual proclivities of someone who died some fourteen hundred years ago in no way constitutes "incitement" under any meaningful use of the term.
Yeah, that guy is an idiot who doesn't know jack gak at all about the subject matter.
TheHammer wrote: I'm just glad that we can be rude donkey-caves if we think we're right, and that we should never show respect or use pragmatic caution.
TheHammer wrote: I'm just glad that we can be rude donkey-caves if we think we're right, and that we should never show respect or use pragmatic caution.
“We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film’s
producers within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts
that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion.”
"Stir strife?" You mean like storming diplomatic missions, burning flags, killing ambassadors, that kind of strife?
I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.
Ahtman wrote: I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.
Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.
More evidence growing the Libya action was an Al Qaeda hit.
Ahtman wrote: I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.
Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.
But you also seem to think that freedom of speech has no limit when we know that there are limits, which is why I used an example that every 4 year old knows, that of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I'm not certain that he created this 'documentary' for any other purpose than then to cause riots such as this. You'll notice that I haven't called on the government to censor or arrest the film-maker either, so I'm not sure how recognizing that he may have done this to start violence is treading on his First Amendment rights. Being critical of someone isn't a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Actually, from my limited understanding (I have only previously read a short explanation of the Brandenburg Test)---speech may be even more limited if it leads to immediate acts of criminal behavior. So for example;
If I made a film that called for Warhammer Fans to murder Warmachine fans
AND
I knew that it would directly (and immediately) lead to Warhammer Fans murdering Warmachine fans
..then I could be prosecuted for my speech (and have it removed). Again though, I am not an attorney and that's my very limited understanding on it. I also have no idea on how restricted other nations are in regards to speech (for example--even the UK had anti-blasphemy laws on their books until the last 10 years or so IIRC).
So, if the director of the film 'knew' it would lead to the murders of Western civilians--I don't know? Would that be incitement? It's certainly morally bankrupt, regardless of your legal ability to engage in the activity.
Ahtman wrote: I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.
Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.
But you also seem to think that freedom of speech has no limit when we know that there are limits, which is why I used an example that every 4 year old knows, that of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I'm not certain that he created this 'documentary' for any other purpose than then to cause riots such as this. You'll notice that I haven't called on the government to censor or arrest the film-maker either, so I'm not sure how recognizing that he may have done this to start violence is treading on his First Amendment rights. Being critical of someone isn't a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Fire in a theater represents the potential for immeidate harm in that vicinity. To make the claim that a movie causes the deaths of people of a similar nation several thousand miles away lacks merit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AgeOfEgos wrote: Actually, from my limited understanding (I have only previously read a short explanation of the Brandenburg Test)---speech may be even more limited if it leads to immediate acts of criminal behavior. So for example;
If I made a film that called for Warhammer Fans to murder Warmachine fans
AND
I knew that it would directly (and immediately) lead to Warhammer Fans murdering Warmachine fans
..then I could be prosecuted for my speech (and have it removed). Again though, I am not an attorney and that's my very limited understanding on it. I also have no idea on how restricted other nations are in regards to speech (for example--even the UK had anti-blasphemy laws on their books until the last 10 years or so IIRC).
So, if the director of the film 'knew' it would lead to the murders of Western civilians--I don't know? Would that be incitement? It's certainly morally bankrupt, regardless of your legal ability to engage in the activity.
thats the mob carveout. Doesn't apply in this case.
One of the American diplomats killed Tuesday in a bloody attack on a Libyan Consulate told pals in an online gaming forum hours earlier that he'd seen suspicious people taking pictures outside his compound and wondered if he and his team might "die tonight."
Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer assigned to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, was well known in the online gaming forum EVE Online, where he went by the name "vilerat," and was seen as a leader by his fellow gamers. Smith was killed along with three others, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, when the consulate was attacked by an angry mob.
But hours before the bloody assault, Smith sent a message to Alex Gianturco, the director of "Goonswarm," Smith's online gaming team or "guild."
“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”
Within hours of posting that message, Smith, a husband and father of two, was dead. Gianturco, who could not be reached for further comment, got the word out to fellow gamers, according to Wired.
“My people, I have greivous [sic] news,” wrote Gianturco. “Vile Rat has been confirmed to be KIA in Benghazi; his family has been informed and the news is likely to break out on the wire services soon.
“Needless to say, we are in shock, have no words, and have nothing but sympathy for his family and children. I have known Vile Rat since 2006, he was one of the oldest of old-guard goons and one of the best and most effective diplomats this game has ever seen.”
On Wednesday, as word spread throughout the guild, tributes poured in for the foreign service information management officer who also was a moderator at the Internet community Something Awful, which is known for posting disturbing photos and videos. Nearly 500 posts to themittani.com, a site run by a the director.
"To your wife and children, know that the love of thousands of video game nerds, the world over, fall to your shoulders," wrote one poster.
"Vile Rat was a shining example of life lived to its fullest," wrote another. "A great man in all respects and will be missed by many. Not even 12 hours ago we were talking in jabber, he had made a joke about the lack of security in such places and crappy Internet. The whole thing seems surreal."
Meanwhile, President Obama vowed on Wednesday to apprehend the killers with the aid of the Libyan government.
"Make no mistake. We will work with the Libyan government to bring justice to killers who attack our people," Obama said, adding: "There is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."
AgeOfEgos wrote: If someone makes a racist or inappropriate comment, please use the yellow triangle and alert a mod--rather than quote and respond. Thanks!
Does the triangle do anything? I mashed that thing in the post on page one talking about killing a billion people and creating a parking lot out of a continent. It's still there, unmodded. I've certainly been banned for far less.
So I just saw CNN in the break room talking about the video. They mentioned some of the things that were in it, prefaced by "we're not going to show any of it here". And this seems to be a good place to discuss it in the thread.
I don't really have a good explanation for why, so if you guys want to call me out for not laying a logical foundation for my argument, you'd be right. But this feels wrong to be. It does. It feels like this should be newsworthy, and it should be shown, and it's cowardly not to do so. I don't think we should accommodate extremism, and I think we enable them when we do so.
Does the triangle do anything? I mashed that thing in the post on page one talking about killing a billion people and creating a parking lot out of a continent. It's still there, unmodded. I've certainly been banned for far less.
Hi Shuma,
We do not discuss the moderation of other individuals--please keep future discussion on topic. Thanks.
Ouze wrote: So I just saw CNN in the break room talking about the video. They mentioned some of the things that were in it, prefaced by "we're not going to show any of it here". And this seems to be a good place to discuss it in the thread.
I don't really have a good explanation for why, so if you guys want to call me out for not laying a logical foundation for my argument, you'd be right. But this feels wrong to be. It does. It feels like this should be newsworthy, and it should be shown, and it's cowardly not to do so. I don't think we should accommodate extremism, and I think we enable them when we do so.
Why is it newsworthy to show the video? The video wasn't what made the news, it was the fact that people died because of it. People can seek the video out if they want to, it's not the job of the news to give platform to specific political views, especially ones repugnant and inflammatory enough that they've already caused deaths.
ShumaGorath wrote: Why is it newsworthy to show the video? The video wasn't what made the news, it was the fact that people died because of it. People can seek the video out if they want to, it's not the job of the news to give platform to specific political views, especially ones repugnant and inflammatory enough that they've already caused deaths.
Well, here's what I'm thinking. They can't talk about how something is inflammatory without actually showing the thing. Presuming the job of the news is to educate it's viewers*, how can it do so unless it provides all the facts?
Do you think that when the Mohammed bomb-turban image was going around, and people were incensed about it, that news outlets should not have shown the image?
*I know that's not really how it works, but lets play pretend here.
Well, here's what I'm thinking. They can't talk about how something is inflammatory without actually showing the thing. Presuming the job of the news is to educate it's viewers*, how can it do so unless it provides all the facts?
The job of the news is to inform, not educate (there is a lot of overlap between these things). Their duty in this instance is to inform people about the situations in libya and egypt and the situation at home with the pastor. Showing the video does not inform, it gives experience of the video which itself is a propaganda tool designed to misinform and breed hatred. It does not truly enhance peoples understanding of the situation in a way that in my view would make it worth airing. It would further inflame peoples misconceptions about both America and Muslims and it would only serve to be informative or useful to people who already have a deep understand of the story and the social systems that caused people to react in the way they did. The vast majority of people would just be insulted or bemused by it, would learn wrong things, or wouldn't care.
That air time is best left given to platforms that provide a social service or which enhance the telling of news.
Do you think that when the Mohammed bomb-turban image was going around, and people were incensed about it, that news outlets should not have shown the image?
Having the freedom of expression doesn't mean you should express everything. It would have kept a couple of people from dying and the reporting on it didn't serve any social or educational good. It was just a shock story to drum up ad revenue.
Well, here's what I'm thinking. They can't talk about how something is inflammatory without actually showing the thing. Presuming the job of the news is to educate it's viewers*, how can it do so unless it provides all the facts?
The job of the news is to inform, not educate (there is a lot of overlap between these things). Their duty in this instance is to inform people about the situations in libya and egypt and the situation at home with the pastor. Showing the video does not inform, it gives experience of the video which itself is a propaganda tool designed to misinform and breed hatred. It does not truly enhance peoples understanding of the situation in a way that in my view would make it worth airing. It would further inflame peoples misconceptions about both America and Muslims and it would only serve to be informative or useful to people who already have a deep understand of the story and the social systems that caused people to react in the way they did. The vast majority of people would just be insulted or bemused by it, would learn wrong things, or wouldn't care.
That air time is best left given to platforms that provide a social service or which enhance the telling of news.
Do you think that when the Mohammed bomb-turban image was going around, and people were incensed about it, that news outlets should not have shown the image?
Having the freedom of expression doesn't mean you should express everything. It would have kept a couple of people from dying and the reporting on it didn't serve any social or educational good. It was just a shock story to drum up ad revenue.
I see what you're saying on the first issue. I think I disagree though. My feeling, especially on the latter, is that when we refuse to show things like that, we legitimize the violence of extremists. We make it more effective by being afraid. I don't think we should do that. You say "it would have kept a couple of people from dying", but the picture didn't murder anyone, religious fundamentalists did, and we need to stop acting like we have a responsibility for the actions of lunatics.
To give an analogy, about a year ago the "Piss Christ" image was damaged. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story about this that did not include an image of the art in question. When the media refuses to show art that a group considers offensive because they might behead someone, then we're empowering them. That's not what America is all about.
I'm late to the thread but I wanted to toss out a couple of things...
The first is the demonstrations were not 'spontanious'. Just like the demonstrations about the Dutch cartoons a few years back professional agitators found the clips and whipped up a frenzy among the population. This does not relive anyone of responsibility but we need to understand it's not as simple as make video/draw cartoon -> murderous riots. People make this happen.
Second, the video, like Jones' burn the Koran Day were apparently meant to provoke a reaction like this. This is not a case of someone writing a critique of modern Islam, it's a group of provocateurs looking to toss gasoline on a flame. It could be argued that when that's the intent these videos fall outside free speech and are incitements to immanent violence. It would be a tricky case but it's possible.
Third the attack in Libya appears to be a pre-planned militant attack on the Consulate. It was not demonstration that got out of hand. The attackers opened fire on the Libyan guards (who shot back) and had RPGs.
Finally the Libyan government condemned the violence (though the Egyptian did not).
It is very easy to fall into the narrative of 'crazy fanatic Arabs killing over Youtube' but there is more to the story.
Frazzled wrote: Fire in a theater represents the potential for immeidate harm in that vicinity. To make the claim that a movie causes the deaths of people of a similar nation several thousand miles away lacks merit.
And if we were talking about trying him a court that would mean something, but again, not calling for censor or arrest. One can recognize that the film-maker was purposely trying to provoke violence and call him a jackass for doing so, while also recognizing that the idiots that were stupid enough to take the bait are also being jackasses. One group acting horribly doesn't absolve another group from acting horribly. While I think a video like this may be akin to yelling fire in a theater, it certainly isn't exactly the same, or else I would call on the Westboro Baptist Church to be arrested, which I haven't either. I can think about the moral and ethical implications of a thing without simplifying it down to 'is it illegal or not'.
Frazzled wrote: Fire in a theater represents the potential for immeidate harm in that vicinity. To make the claim that a movie causes the deaths of people of a similar nation several thousand miles away lacks merit.
And if we were talking about trying him a court that would mean something, but again, not calling for censor or arrest. One can recognize that the film-maker was purposely trying to provoke violence and call him a jackass for doing so, while also recognizing that the idiots that were stupid enough to take the bait are also being jackasses. One group acting horribly doesn't absolve another group from acting horribly. While I think a video like this may be akin to yelling fire in a theater, it certainly isn't exactly the same, or else I would call on the Westboro Baptist Church to be arrested, which I haven't either. I can think about the moral and ethical implications of a thing without simplifying it down to 'is it illegal or not'.
Agreed on all points actually. There is scuttlebutt there is no actual movie, just the teaser. Yep thats bs.
I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.
I'm angry that the Administration's paltry response to a region-wide attack on America, which is, incidentally, what this is, is to deploy 50 Marines/some ships to Libya and jet-off to a Vegas fundraiser while preparing a top-ten list for Letterman's show. Don't you remember the media's demand that the RNC suspend their convention because of Hurricane Issac? Where's the same urgency by the Media towards Obama? This double-standard is staggering...
I'm angry that the cornerstone freedoms of speech and religious liberty enshrined in our Constitution are so routinely dismissed and mocked by this Administration. 1st Amendment freedom of speech? "Not if it hurts feelings" we are told. Freedom of religion? "Not if it stands between our Administration and giving Sandra Fluke a free abortion should she want one" we are hectored.
I'm angry that his initial reponse was "while the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants" and yet he coined the phrase "bitter clingers" referencing the religious Americans...
But with four Americans dead, our flag burning, and our embassies trashed, you know what really makes me angry?
Our president isn't.
Think about that fact...
Our president isn't. He read a bland and bloodless set of prepared remarks for 10 minutes, took no questions, and then thought the best thing he could do would be to hit the Vegas strip.
The truth is this: yesterday I read that the President's team came out swinging against the "2016:Obama's America" movie... an over the top anti-Obama movie.
They didn't like the way the president was portrayed. So they attacked Dinesh D'souza (the film's producer) and, for some reason, Tea Partiers.
Here is the language they used on BarackObama.com:
“It should say enough about D’Souza’s credibility that a movie catering to the Tea Party attacks someone for allegedly ‘anti-colonial’ views,” the entry reads. “His attempts to hide his lies behind pseudo-scholarly presentation and glossy production values cannot withstand basic scrutiny. The facts show that 2016: Obama’s America is nothing more than an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the President by giving intellectual cover to the worst in subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks.”
That's tougher than anything Obama said in response to the death of an American ambassador, his staff, or the attack on our embassy grounds. So, it isn't that he's incapable of "tough talks"... ugh...
About as well as everyone expected. Some countries are undertaking difficult steps towards modern representative states, and it's unknown how many will get there. Some people are expressing surprise that people don't suddenly become western liberals the second they're handed democracy. Others are surprised at how difficult and often dangerous the path can be, probably because they've never read history in any depth. And some people are constantly talking down the achievements, because they hate the other and think the only answer is to have him controlled by 'our man in the region'. And others are just talking it down because it a Democrat happened to be in the White House when the whole thing kicked off, and somehow in their brains that means they have to oppose it, even though it's got stuff all to do with the actions of any particular president.
Henners91 wrote: Where are all dem Liberals who embraced democratic values, western ways and apple pie at? Y'know, the majority of the Arab population that was totally leading the way?
Oh, wait, it was all imagined by the Western Media... at least the dictators before were secular dictators. Say hello to Islamic extremism!
And here is case one for 'our man in the region'. With a little bit of 'wow so they don't just all become western liberals overnight'.
English Assassin wrote: Sad to say, you're probably right. It's not, for different reasons, a fashionable view on either the left or the right nowadays, but stable democratic government didn't come into being in first world nations in isolation, but rather as the culmination of a sequence of processes which began with the Enlightenment, something the majority of the states in the Arab world have not yet passed through. (There are, I should stress, exceptions which are at least on their ways to establishing stable democracies of a kind: Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain, for instance.) Western commentators predicting peaceful transitions to stable democracies were indeed ludicrously optimistic, and did so in ignorance of the lessons of five centuries of European history.
My point has always been that having a dictator in place won't make that journey happen. What we're seeing now is the best, most likely path to one day having a healthy, modern state. It isn't pretty or safe, but history rarely is.
One of the more interesting explanations for the failure of mature democracy to take root in the Middle East is the "resource curse". Most Middle-Eastern states are funded principally through state monopolies on resource extraction (in this case oil), meaning that they impose little or no personal or business taxation. And as any American knows, a people taxed will demand - and deserve - representation; it is essentially a precondition of the contract between government and governed in a democracy. Moreover, despite rising oil prices, these states have experienced remarkably low economic growth, and an even lower rise in living standards, because oil prices artificially push up exchange rates, making other export industries uncompetitive.
In addition, if the path to wealth is through business and skilled profession, then people will become educated in order to compete. Education being what it is, it will expose many people to ideas of equality and other values, which will in turn form and strengthen such movements.
Whereas in these resource rich countries with single, highly lucrative industries that are almost always state owned, the best path to wealth is through attaching yourself to it, normally through nepotism.
It's worth noting that Australia is going through a fairly mild version of this right now. Mining has pushed up exchange rates, making other businesses difficult. And kids in school are now saying 'why do I need to learn this, I can just go get a job on the mines.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: To give an analogy, about a year ago the "Piss Christ" image was damaged. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story about this that did not include an image of the art in question. When the media refuses to show art that a group considers offensive because they might behead someone, then we're empowering them. That's not what America is all about.
I think there's a difference between not showing an image because you're afraid of violence, and not showing an image because you don't want to offend a large number people who don't need to be offended.
For instance, here in Australia many aboriginal groups find it offensive to show images of the dead. This makes it hard to talk about issues in which one or more aboriginal people have died. Now, I don't agree with a government coming in and telling people they cannot show those images, but I do believe media outlets need to show some restraint, and some consideration for whether that image really needs to be shown.
I think much the same of images of Mohammed, or of anything else really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings.
No, but it is where personal responsibility starts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: You bankrolled the dictatorships in Egypt and Lybia? Since when?
1951 through 1967. Well, not so much bankrolled, but US and particularly UK support was essential to the emerging state during this period.
Not that US and UK involvement directly led to the downfall of the Kingdom, but nor is completely removed from us. History is a lot more complicated than that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point being that it isn't your responsibility as President to reject "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".
No, absolutely not. It is absolutely part of the job of the figurehead of that country to embrace and support its core values. And the US is open, pluralist society that believes it is wrong to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
Damn right Obama should comment that video was wrong. It's not as wrong as killing someone, obviously, but then he said that as well.
This is the country in which my friend's brother was attacked because he had a bumper sticker that said 'Proud to be Iroquois' that some absolute imbecile thought meant 'Proud to be Iraqi'...
Ervin lambasted the actions taken oversees and said that it showcases how the West is “failing to bring the Islamic world into the 21st century by catering to the lowest denomination.”
“I call it ‘cultural imperialism’ — that many, especially the left in this country, are catering to the lowest denomination,” she said, going on to claim that liberals don’t expect Muslims to understand free speech, so they end up protecting extremists and allowing the backwardness to continue.
whembly wrote: The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings.
No, but it is where personal responsibility starts.
What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.
Is that what you meant by "responsibility?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The point being that it isn't your responsibility as President to reject "efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others".
No, absolutely not. It is absolutely part of the job of the figurehead of that country to embrace and support its core values. And the US is open, pluralist society that believes it is wrong to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
Damn right Obama should comment that video was wrong. It's not as wrong as killing someone, obviously, but then he said that as well.
Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.
As Ben Franklin famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it
This is the country in which my friend's brother was attacked because he had a bumper sticker that said 'Proud to be Iroquois' that some absolute imbecile thought meant 'Proud to be Iraqi'...
Seaward wrote: Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
Because people live there. Only homicidal lunatics think nothing of killing people, and fortunately we're not homicidal lunatics.
Seb... he was sarcastic there...
What makes you think that? Every post he made in this thread implies he has a casual disregard for the lives of muslims in that region as well as the motivations to hate them.
Dumb people exists everywhere dude...
So stop defending them in every thread and maybe there'll be less.
Seaward wrote: Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
Because people live there. Only homicidal lunatics think nothing of killing people, and fortunately we're not homicidal lunatics.
Seb... he was sarcastic there...
What makes you think that? Every post he made in this thread implies he has a casual disregard for the lives of muslims in that region as well as the motivations to hate them.
His phrase, "We always need more off-site parking"... I read that as a tongue-in-cheek comment. Maybe my sarcasm-meter is broken?
Dumb people exists everywhere dude...
So stop defending them in every thread and maybe there'll be less.
I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.
I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.
I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.
I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.
um... what? o.O
Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?
I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.
I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.
um... what? o.O
Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?
I think he's countering your own irrational anger and societal angst with his own.
sebster wrote: My point has always been that having a dictator in place won't make that journey happen. What we're seeing now is the best, most likely path to one day having a healthy, modern state. It isn't pretty or safe, but history rarely is.
You say that like you're sure of it. The truth of the matter is, we have no idea how to bring about a healthy, modern state in the Middle East, or even if it's possible. The only non-Israeli example that actually functions is Turkey, and they still flirt with theocracy more often than anyone should be comfortable with, not to mention they've been on Europe's doorstep for centuries and have some pretty important cultural differences with the rest of the states in the region.
The notion that they're going to vote for theocrat extremists now, but will be electing their version of Benjamin Franklin in the future, is nothing more than hope, and predicated on the notion that democracy's going to stick around once the extremists get in power.
I'm angry that the gut instinct of the Administration is to sympathize with and excuse those who hold our fundamental values in contempt as those same people actively seek any pretext they can find to slaughter us where we stand.
I also hold 'our' supposedly fundamental values in contempt. Apparently a middle class kid from the Chicago suburbs is not American anymore.
um... what? o.O
Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?
I think he's countering your own irrational anger and societal angst with his own.
Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?
No, just pointing out that I'm American and I hold the values espoused in the essay you cited in contempt. Apparently that the Administration might sympathize with me is angering to some.
More broadly, I get annoyed when people say things like "We believe..." or "Americans believes..."
Wolfstan wrote: When you drill in to it it's the usual suspects, the illiterate masses being stirred up by educated individuals with an axe to grind. For crying out loud, how many of these people would of heard of this film unless stirred up? In fact how many would of seen it? If you could grab one of them out of thin air and stick them in a room and get them to tell you exactly what part of the film was so bad, they wouldn't have a clue.
It was what I was aluding to in a hamfisted way earlier. In the past Western religions were able to stir up this type of trouble, because of the lack of education and literacy. Unfortunately there are still a big chunk of the Islamic world that is still like this and therefore easily stirred up.
What would be great is to be able to tell these people that this isn't the Crusades, we have no interest in their lands, we don't care who they worship, we just want to get along... but as per usual there is "power" at stake here and those that have it don't want to let it go.
That's well said. It's worthing pointing out that the Mohammed cartoon thing had a lot of extra cartoons added to it as it worked its way through the Islamic world, all far more offensive than the originaly cartoons. And most of the really strong complaints against the The Satanic Verses were about things that simply weren't in the book.
But that said, do you remember when people were convinced that Saddam really was the worst of the worst of the worst, because of all those stories about bayonetting babies in infirmaries, and feeding people into acid vats, and the sons grabbing girls off the street to rape? In the West we might be more resistant to manipulation, but we're not immune.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.
He intended to stir gak. gak got stirred, and some people are dead. He deserves to be blamed for making the film.
The trick comes, I think, in realising that just because he deserves blame, it doesn't mean we should do anything about him or any other dill weed that wants to make a racist movie. Nor does it mean the people who acted violently deserve any less blame.
Referencing the Teacher's strike in Chicago or something?
No, just pointing out that I'm American and I hold the values espoused in the essay you cited in contempt. Apparently that the Administration might sympathize with me is angering to some.
More broadly, I get annoyed when people say things like "We believe..." or "Americans believes..."
Frazzled wrote: Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.
You keep talking about speech as if the entirety of the concept begins ands with the legal issue of free speech. It doesn't. Personal responsibility is a major issue.
You say that like you're sure of it. The truth of the matter is, we have no idea how to bring about a healthy, modern state in the Middle East, or even if it's possible. The only non-Israeli example that actually functions is Turkey, and they still flirt with theocracy more often than anyone should be comfortable with, not to mention they've been on Europe's doorstep for centuries and have some pretty important cultural differences with the rest of the states in the region.
I like how by "healthy" and "modern" you really mean "Western."
The notion that they're going to vote for theocrat extremists now, but will be electing their version of Benjamin Franklin in the future, is nothing more than hope, and predicated on the notion that democracy's going to stick around once the extremists get in power.
Of course its hope, we are talking about the future after all.
And when did democracy become intrinsically opposed to extremism? One can very easily democratically elect extremist politicians repeatedly.
One of the arguments that lots of scholars and developing countries make is that the West is to focused on its sort of democracy, to the point where it doesn't see democracy as something which is independent of being a Western nation. I think its a pretty good argument, and something many people need to consider. Of course, young Huntington agrees.
Frazzled wrote: Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.
You keep talking about speech as if the entirety of the concept begins ands with the legal issue of free speech. It doesn't. Personal responsibility is a major issue.
You keep bringing up "personal responsibility"... what do you really mean by it?
The trick comes, I think, in realising that just because he deserves blame, it doesn't mean we should do anything about him or any other dill weed that wants to make a racist movie.
I'm not sure of it. I don't know which, if any, of the Arab Spring states will produce healthy states.
But I am sure that there isn't a better alternative. You don't just decide that some people can't be democratic, so we better install our man in the region. I mean, we tried that. That's one of the big reasons we are where we are.
The truth of the matter is, we have no idea how to bring about a healthy, modern state in the Middle East, or even if it's possible.
Of course it's possible. Exactly how is a good question, but I'd guess it's a combination of blood, bravery, a lot of good fortune and time.
Comments like it come up every time a Muslim does something bad. They're not meant as a real suggestion, but nor are they joking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Its not going to be a democratic government we're use to. Either they're going to declare Sharia Law or come close to it.
That's more than a little simplistic. There's a whole range of options between Sharia Law and open, liberal democracy. It can end up a very conservative state with strict regulations, and not follow Sharia law.
Just, go and read about Indonesia. It's an interesting place, and the law is informed by conservative religious values in a way that'd make Christian Dominionists in the US think that's too far, but it is at the same time a long way from Sharia Law.
Ouze wrote: To give an analogy, about a year ago the "Piss Christ" image was damaged. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story about this that did not include an image of the art in question. When the media refuses to show art that a group considers offensive because they might behead someone, then we're empowering them. That's not what America is all about.
I think there's a difference between not showing an image because you're afraid of violence, and not showing an image because you don't want to offend a large number people who don't need to be offended.
For instance, here in Australia many aboriginal groups find it offensive to show images of the dead. This makes it hard to talk about issues in which one or more aboriginal people have died. Now, I don't agree with a government coming in and telling people they cannot show those images, but I do believe media outlets need to show some restraint, and some consideration for whether that image really needs to be shown.
I think much the same of images of Mohammed, or of anything else really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The right of people to speak doesn't end at someone elses delicate feelings.
No, but it is where personal responsibility starts.
(purple emphasis mine) OK, so that is I think the point Shuma was trying to make to me, and even though you were responding to someone else. I see what you guys are saying. Less about cowardice, more about pragmatism.
whembly wrote: What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.
Is that what you meant by "responsibility?
I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.
I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.
Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.
Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.
As Ben Franklin famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it
Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.
sebster wrote: I'm not sure of it. I don't know which, if any, of the Arab Spring states will produce healthy states.
But I am sure that there isn't a better alternative. You don't just decide that some people can't be democratic, so we better install our man in the region. I mean, we tried that. That's one of the big reasons we are where we are.
That's not exactly true. We didn't play kingmaker in most of these states, we just worked with the ones who came to power. You know, like every one else.
Of course it's possible. Exactly how is a good question, but I'd guess it's a combination of blood, bravery, a lot of good fortune and time.
I disagree, until there's proof one way or another, I'll say it's impossible.
Comments like it come up every time a Muslim does something bad. They're not meant as a real suggestion, but nor are they joking.
They come up, from me at least, anytime a fanatic of any religion does something bad. I don't play favorites; none of the major superstitions are better than any of the others.
Ouze wrote: (purple emphasis mine) OK, so that is I think the point Shuma was trying to make to me, and even though you were responding to someone else. I see what you guys are saying. Less about cowardice, more about pragmatism.
Yeah, but not just pragmatism. Even if there was no violent retaliation to this kind of thing, it is worth asking if the offence caused is really justified by what you have to say.
It's an answer that depends on each case. I mean, I'd in the case of The Satanic Verses the answer would clearly be that it was worth it, because that book had a lot to say about Islam and how it interacted with the modern world (even though ultimately the book wasn't that good).
On the other hand, I'd say that Piss Christ had little of interest to say, and was really motivated more by shock value than anything else, and the artist should have shown some self censorship and said 'actually, this will just piss some people off and isn't very good, so I won't release it'.
sebster wrote: Yeah, but not just pragmatism. Even if there was no violent retaliation to this kind of thing, it is worth asking if the offence caused is really justified by what you have to say.
So you're saying you're in favor of freedom of speech only if it's justified?
whembly wrote: What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.
Is that what you meant by "responsibility?
I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.
I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.
Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.
Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.
As Ben Franklin famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it
Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.
You're right... I agree with this...
I'm more of a "stand by" what you said/done kind of thing...
But, I want to clarify that last statement:
'that kind film is not what this country is about'... no, but we're the kind of country that allows it...
Seaward wrote: That's not exactly true. We didn't play kingmaker in most of these states, we just worked with the ones who came to power. You know, like every one else.
Some we did, some we didn't. Even where we didn't we frequently had a strong influence afterwards.
The point is that deciding some group of people can't run their own country and that some agreeable dictator is the solution puts that country on hold. Sooner or later that dictator will fall and when
I disagree, until there's proof one way or another, I'll say it's impossible.
Poppycock. Islam is a religion, no more, no less. It doesn't magically stop anyone from being part of a democracy.
They come up, from me at least, anytime a fanatic of any religion does something bad. I don't play favorites; none of the major superstitions are better than any of the others.
Do think bigotry against religion is any better when it's against all religion?
The point is that deciding some group of people can't run their own country and that some agreeable dictator is the solution puts that country on hold.
You need to stop acting as though we're the ones who make that call. It's the people in the countries themselves, not us.
Poppycock. Islam is a religion, no more, no less. It doesn't magically stop anyone from being part of a democracy.
Who said it had anything to do with Islam? You're operating on theory, I'm looking at, you know, what's actually going on over there. If you can point to a democracy in the region that's not Israel or Turkey that you'd consider a shining example for the others to aspire to, by all means, be my guest.
Do think bigotry against religion is any better when it's against all religion?
I think anyone attempting to defend the killing of another human being on grounds of superstition is off their fething rocker.
sebster wrote: Yeah, but not just pragmatism. Even if there was no violent retaliation to this kind of thing, it is worth asking if the offence caused is really justified by what you have to say.
So you're saying you're in favor of freedom of speech only if it's justified?
I think the point might have been that, just because you have the right to say something and no one can stop you from doing it, doesn't mean you should do it.
whembly wrote: What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.
Is that what you meant by "responsibility?
I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.
I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.
Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.
Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.
As Ben Franklin famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it
Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.
You're right... I agree with this...
I'm more of a "stand by" what you said/done kind of thing...
But, I want to clarify that last statement:
'that kind film is not what this country is about'... no, but we're the kind of country that allows it...
That's the difference...
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
The rests of your posts are pretty much just regurgitations of conservative talking heads telling you why you should be angry about something Obama said. You are making Frazzled sound like MSNBC, so that's a skill. I don't put anybody on ignore, but I make a choice not to interact with some people, I think your posts are getting there.
d-usa wrote: So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?
d-usa wrote: So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?
If you have the choice of Obama saying "Sorry if it offends you, but it is a result of our freedom" in order to try to calm a mob and maybe safe some American lives, and Obama saying "We got freedoms and we don't care how you feel about it", which one do you prefer and which one is the more diplomatic one?
Automatically Appended Next Post: If an idiot makes a stupid movie in order to piss people off then that is his freedom. Our President doesn't have to legitimize the movie by standing behind it. Which brings me back to page 1 or 2 where I stated that Freedom of Speech doesn't absolve you from using it responsibly and anticipating the results.
If you have the choice of Obama saying "Sorry if it offends you, but it is a result of our freedom" in order to try to calm a mob and maybe safe some American lives, and Obama saying "We got freedoms and we don't care how you feel about it", which one do you prefer and which one is the more diplomatic one?
If those are my choices, I'd pick the former. And I'd have no problem with it. What I would have a problem with is what's been said elsewhere in this thread, a, "Sorry, it should not have been made," sentiment.
d-usa wrote: So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?
If I were to say toy you that 'I wish death upon you and your family' should I assume that any offense you take is just because your crazy or is the onus on me to realize that that statement is crass and offense and need not be said
d-usa wrote: So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?
If I were to say toy you that 'I wish death upon you and your family' should I assume that any offense you take is just because your crazy or is the onus on me to realize that that statement is crass and offense and need not be said
You're missing the point. You can say something offensive to me, and I can be offended by it. There's no problem with that, and it happens all the time. There's no guarantee that I'm aware of anywhere that suggests you have a right to live your life free of ever being insulted.
Where the disconnect comes in, with you people who are suggesting this is all the film's fault, is the assumption that being offended leading to the killing of another human being, or even the storming of a foreign embassy, is somehow justified. It's not. It's crazy.
d-usa wrote: So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
Why are you so comfortable with the burden being on us to avoid saying anything someone else may not like, rather than on people to not act like nutjobs when they hear something they don't like?
If I were to say toy you that 'I wish death upon you and your family' should I assume that any offense you take is just because your crazy or is the onus on me to realize that that statement is crass and offense and need not be said
Exactly.
What if I go to an NCAAP meeting and yell "N****** are stupid"? Is it the fault of the group that they would be offended?
I have freedom of speech, but I also know the result of that speech before I say it and the only reason for me to say it would be to get the anticipated response. Purpose of speech is important, and while we shouldn't restrict it we also shouldn't let people off the hook for being irresponsible with it.
If you have the choice of Obama saying "Sorry if it offends you, but it is a result of our freedom" in order to try to calm a mob and maybe safe some American lives, and Obama saying "We got freedoms and we don't care how you feel about it", which one do you prefer and which one is the more diplomatic one?
If those are my choices, I'd pick the former. And I'd have no problem with it. What I would have a problem with is what's been said elsewhere in this thread, a, "Sorry, it should not have been made," sentiment.
"Sorry, it should not have been made" sounds like the perfect thing to say. It shouldn't have been made, simply because it is akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre; and it was not meant to accomplish anything other than inciting riots. However, "Sorry, it should not have been made" reconciles perfectly with "nevertheless, it was still that individual's right to make it".
I think you're starting to blue the lines between a "should not have been made" statement, and a "will not be allowed to be made" statement, when really they are miles apart.
What if I go to an NCAAP meeting and yell "N****** are stupid"? Is it the fault of the group that they would be offended?
I have freedom of speech, but I also know the result of that speech before I say it and the only reason for me to say it would be to get the anticipated response. Purpose of speech is important, and while we shouldn't restrict it we also shouldn't let people off the hook for being irresponsible with it.
Quit conflating "being offended" with "killing someone because they offended you."
You guys are coming awfully close to making the argument that fueled dueling as a method of dispute resolution for so long in the West. "He offended me, therefore I have a right to kill him."
Simple question: do I have the right to insult you?
Nobody is letting people off the hook for killing anybody. Also keep in mind that the attack that resulted in deaths has nothing to do with the movie. The attack in Egypt happened because people who had a reason to be offended expressed it in a way that they didn't have the right to. They violated our embassy and took down our flag, they didn't kill anybody though.
You have the right to insult me, and I have the right to be offended by it. Depending on the substance of the insult I might have legal options to deal with it.
Seaward wrote: So you're saying you're in favor of freedom of speech only if it's justified?
No. I have explicitly stated several times I do not think it should be censured. I have spoken entirely in terms of personal responsbility.
To explain it to you, yet again, I do not believe government should go about deciding what speach is justified. But I do believe every person has a responsibility to consider their speach, and whether it is really needed. And when a person shows blatant disregard for that speach and something like this happens then other people have not only the right but the obligation to say 'that person was a dill weed and now he has blood on his hands'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: You need to stop acting as though we're the ones who make that call. It's the people in the countries themselves, not us.
So we just pretend we've had no influence in the situation there?
Who said it had anything to do with Islam? You're operating on theory, I'm looking at, you know, what's actually going on over there. If you can point to a democracy in the region that's not Israel or Turkey that you'd consider a shining example for the others to aspire to, by all means, be my guest.
"Because a thing hasn't happened it can't happen" is about the only truly wrong thing you can say about history.
And for the record, people were claiming the same stuff about Asia 50 years ago.
I think anyone attempting to defend the killing of another human being on grounds of superstition is off their fething rocker.
Well, duh. How does it compare to wanting to glass an entire region because someone in it was off their rocker?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I think the point might have been that, just because you have the right to say something and no one can stop you from doing it, doesn't mean you should do it.
I'm more of a "stand by" what you said/done kind of thing...
But, I want to clarify that last statement:
'that kind film is not what this country is about'... no, but we're the kind of country that allows it...
That's the difference...
Absolutely, but I don't think that part of the message needed to be made in Obama's speach. That'd be getting too far off topic
In the following days, and especially with this Egyptian call to charge the maker of the video, there might be a good time to make that statement as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The former becomes unnecessary with the latter.
No it doesn't. Even if someone is the model of restraint and doesn't retaliate in any way, it is still poor form to piss them off for no reason.
This is something we all know, by the way. We all know it's poor form to walk up to some stranger and tell him he's ugly, even if we know there'll be no physical consequence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Where the disconnect comes in, with you people who are suggesting this is all the film's fault, is the assumption that being offended leading to the killing of another human being, or even the storming of a foreign embassy, is somehow justified. It's not. It's crazy.
No-one has said it is justified. People have explicitly pointed out that it is not justified. Pay attention, and don't just make gak up.
The point is that there is more than enough blame to go around, to say that people who killed embassy staff are complete whackjob lunatics, and at the time say the whackjob that made the video is a gak stirring twerp.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Simple question: do I have the right to insult you?
Yes. And you have the obligation to consider if that insult is really needed. And I have the responsibility to consider my response.
How are you not getting this? You are living, breathing, functioning human. You follow the above every single day of your life. It doesn't change when it moves to issues between nations.
No. I have explicitly stated several times I do not think it should be censured. I have spoken entirely in terms of personal responsbility.
To explain it to you, yet again, I do not believe government should go about deciding what speach is justified. But I do believe every person has a responsibility to consider their speach, and whether it is really needed. And when a person shows blatant disregard for that speach and something like this happens then other people have not only the right but the obligation to say 'that person was a dill weed and now he has blood on his hands'.
The filmmaker thought it was needed. You disagree. The only facts to be dealt with are that one side was within their rights, the other was not. Anything beyond that is personal opinion, and its worth ends at the individual's lips. What someone should or shouldn't do is up to them, not you. Should we reduce the penalties against rapists because the woman was dressed provocatively? She shouldn't have dressed like that in that part of town, after all.
Personal responsibility's great. I advocate it for everyone. But the absence of it - real or perceived - does not justify or make more reasonable illegal acts in retaliation. Nor should one be afraid to act within the law for fear of illegal reprisal.
So we just pretend we've had no influence in the situation there?
Influence? Sure, we've had influence, as had every other major power on Earth, going back as far as you care to go. We didn't set up the modern Middle East exactly how we wanted it, and we've had very little influence, prior to our invasion of Iraq, over who gets tapped to head any given government in the region. As I said, we deal with whoever that ends up being, just like everyone else.
"Because a thing hasn't happened it can't happen" is about the only truly wrong thing you can say about history.
It has just as much factual basis as your counter of, "Just because a thing hasn't happened it will happen."
Well, duh. How does it compare to wanting to glass an entire region because someone in it was off their rocker?
I don't know. I haven't seen anyone advocating that.
Seaward wrote: The filmmaker thought it was needed. You disagree. The only facts to be dealt with are that one side was within their rights, the other was not.
Framing actions entirely in terms of rights is completely disfunctional.
Once again... it is within my rights to tell a random stranger he is ugly, but should I?
Anything beyond that is personal opinion, and its worth ends at the individual's lips. What someone should or shouldn't do is up to them, not you.
Yes, it is up to them. And it's up to other people to discuss whether those actions were moral or not. That's how we discuss, and develop moral frameworks.
I mean, are you really claiming we shouldn't discuss other's actions in terms of morality?
Should we reduce the penalties against rapists because the woman was dressed provocatively? She shouldn't have dressed like that in that part of town, after all.
Personal responsibility's great. I advocate it for everyone. But the absence of it - real or perceived - does not justify or make more reasonable illegal acts in retaliation.
Look, I could go back and drag up every instance of me stating nothing justifies the retaliation. But that'll just make it look like a bit of an ass and none of us really want that.
So we'll just look past that, pretend that somehow you've missed every single time that's been pointed out, and instead I'll just explain the whole concept to you in short simple sentences.
A person is free to say whatever they want. But they should consider whether their comment is really needed. That idea is not tied to the possibility of repercussions, but simply to offence itself. Any response is bounded by law, but also by personal responsbility, and so a person should consider whether their response is legal, and also whether it is moral. It is possible for more than one party to be at fault in a situation. Not only that, but it is possible for the blame assigned to one party to not reduce, in any way, the blame assigned to another party.
Now that you've got that, can you please arguing with imaginary people?
Framing actions entirely in terms of rights is completely disfunctional.
Once again... it is within my rights to tell a random stranger he is ugly, but should I?
Should you? Up to you. Certainly not up to the stranger.
Yes, it is up to them. And it's up to other people to discuss whether those actions were moral or not. That's how we discuss, and develop moral frameworks.
I mean, are you really claiming we shouldn't discuss other's actions in terms of morality?
I'm saying this isn't an issue of morality. You want to discuss it in terms of morality? Very well. It's not immoral to make a film that breaks no laws. End of discussion.
A person is free to say whatever they want.
But they should consider whether their comment is really needed.
That idea is not tied to the possibility of repercussions, but simply to offence itself.
Where have you picked up this strange notion that you're entitled to go through life without ever being offended?
Any response is bounded by law, but also by personal responsbility, and so a person should consider whether their response is legal, and also whether it is moral.
It is possible for more than one party to be at fault in a situation.
Not only that, but it is possible for the blame assigned to one party to not reduce, in any way, the blame assigned to another party.
So I take it, in the analogy I presented earlier, you're saying that the woman's at fault as well as the attacker? Interesting.
Now that you've got that, can you please arguing with imaginary people?
The filmmaker thought it was needed. You disagree. The only facts to be dealt with are that one side was within their rights, the other was not. Anything beyond that is personal opinion...
Wait, are we really pretending that rights that aren't legally enshrined exists beyond personal opinion?
SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Protesters angered by an anti-Islam film have stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Yemen's capital, Sanaa.
The protesters were on the embassy's grounds but did not enter the building housing the offices.
Before storming the embassy compound on Thursday, the demonstrators removed the embassy's sign on the outer wall and set tires ablaze. Once inside the compound, they brought down the U.S. flag and burned it.
Yemen is home to al-Qaida's most active branch and the United States is the main foreign supporter of the Yemeni government's counterterrorism campaign. The government on Tuesday announced that al-Qaida's No. 2 leader in Yemen was killed in an apparent U.S. airstrike, a major blow to the terror network.
Not really surprised if al-Qaida would use a film like that as a recruiting tool.
"Hey guys, are you angry that somebody made a movie about our prophet? Are you angry that the US would allow such a thing? We don't like the US either! Come and join us!"
Once you have an angry mop, anybody can try to take control of it and use it for their purposes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just for the people that like to call for a nuclear strike against the entire region:
A person is free to say whatever they want.
But they should consider whether their comment is really needed.
That idea is not tied to the possibility of repercussions, but simply to offence itself.
Where have you picked up this strange notion that you're entitled to go through life without ever being offended?
He hasn't. He's just saying that offending someone just because you can is a stupid thing to do. You keep twisting what he says into some sort of bizarre attack on the freedom of speech, it's getting silly.
Moved onto Yemen now I see... yet another country filled with an illiterate population, easily fired up, and again if you asked them what had them all fired up, they would tell a story that bares no resemblance to what was shown in the film.
Sebster wrote:Poppycock. Islam is a religion, no more, no less. It doesn't magically stop anyone from being part of a democracy.
It has been awhile, but wasn't Leviathan basically one big long explanation for why Christianity required a strong Monarchy? There was a time when many thought that Christianity and Democracy were incompatible, or at least not ideal at all.
Thinking its time to leave the ME. Give the "Bat Phones" over to the head of states with a note saying "Call us incase needed". Of course they might get a a disconnected message if calling us due to budget cuts
Jihadin wrote: Thinking its time to leave the ME. Give the "Bat Phones" over to the head of states with a note saying "Call us incase needed". Of course they might get a a disconnected message if calling us due to budget cuts
Better give them this emergency number 1-800-BITE-ME
AustonT wrote: How is it that this glorified home video is distributed more widely in the Islamic world? Is it offered in Arabic and Farsi? Somehow I doubt it.
Actually it came to prominence after a translated version in Arabic was released online.
The actual origin of this version, if not the entire film, is very murky.
With considerable media interest in the authorship of the anti-Islam Innocence of Muslims YouTube video, the AP tracks down one of its originators:
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced “Innocence of Muslims”…
Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cell phone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula’s aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.
The only reasonable conclusion from this is that Nakoula is Bacile. And it seems that Nakoula – who has a fraud conviction – is playing some sort of game: the “Sam Bacile” persona described himself to journalists as being an “Israeli Jew”, and he claimed that “100 Jewish donors” had contributed to the short film’s production. Presumably the motive is that this will incite acts of anti-Semitism, thus exposing “true” Muslim attitudes (aspects of a vigilante syndrome I’ve seen before).
The AP account also draws attention to Steve Klein, “a Christian activist involved in the film project”. At the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg reports speaking with him:
He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California. “After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me.”
…I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, “Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They’re from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they’re some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical.”
It should be noted that tone of the Innocence of Muslims is crude and satirical – there is nothing suggestive of a religious motivation, and the actors, according to the AP, claim that they were lied to about the film’s subject matter.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has further details about Klein, who is involved with militia groups:
Klein has been waging his own holy war since 1977, when he founded Courageous Christians United (CCU), a group that conducts “respectful confrontations” outside of abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques.
…Klein now heads Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, which has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The group recently partnered with the ironically named Christian Anti-Defamation Commission to leaflet California high schools with material depicting the prophet Mohammad as a sex-crazed pedophile.
…He runs drills with the Christian Guardians, a San Francisco-based group headed by Andrew Saqib James, an American-born Pakistani Christian who calls Islam “a giant crime syndicate” and hopes his group will become “the most feared militia in the world.” The trainings, which allegedly take place at the Church at Kaweah’s sprawling central California compound, are described as a “unique system of learning how to survive the Muslim Brotherhood as we teach the Christian Morality of Biblical Warfare.”
The Fresno Bee has further details on the church (also sometimes called “the Church of Kaweah”):
The church at Kaweah — it uses a lower-case “c” in its name — is a rustic, one-story building off a rural foothill road just west of Sequoia National Park.
…Pastor Warren Mark Campbell on Wednesday confirmed that Klein has spoken twice, in 2010 and 2011, at The church at Kaweah: “He came to our church and spoke to us on Islam and the history of Islam and problems with jihad in America and around the world. He’s a specialist on the subject of Islam.”
…Klein is not a member of The church at Kaweah, Campbell said. But he refused to answer questions about the church’s relationship with Klein.
The church at Kaweah is the focus of the Southern Poverty Law Center Spring 2012 intelligence report, which states that it teaches far-right views and trains a militia.
Campbell blasted the report as “full of lies and distortions. They never met with me or anyone.”
These kinds of connections might suggest that Klein is a marginal figure, but Max Blumenthal notes links to better-known activists:
It appears Klein (or someone who shares his name and views) is an enthusiastic commenter on [Pam] Geller’s website, Atlas Shrugged, where he recently complained about Mitt Romney’s “support for a Muslim state in Israel’s Heartland.” In July 2011, Spencer’s website, Jihad Watch, promoted a rally Klein organized alongside the anti-Muslim Coptic extremist Joseph Nasrallah to demand the firing of LA County Sheriff Lee Baca, whom they painted as a dupe for Hamas.
I discussed Nasralla in June 2010 here, after he took part in Geller’s anti-mosque protest in New York (he came to wide attention because he had been mistaken for a Muslim and abused). As reports note, Klein has a programme, entitled Wake Up America, on Nasralla’s The Way TV station.
The AP also notes the involvement of two other familiar individuals:
The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt’s Christian Coptic population has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country’s Arab majority.
Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who burned Qurans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, said he spoke with the movie’s director on the phone Wednesday and prayed for him.
As I discussed Sadek and his links to Jones here.
AustonT wrote: How is it that this glorified home video is distributed more widely in the Islamic world? Is it offered in Arabic and Farsi? Somehow I doubt it.
The trailer was recently translated into Arabic. Interested parties are using it.
dogma wrote: Not so much a clusterfeth as "Oh no, the embassy is being approached by an angry mob, how can we prevent them from doing something really bad!?!"
You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory. You don't get to storm it, tear down the flag, and replace it with your own. You definitely do not get to kill an ambassador.
Someone remind me again why we haven't just glassed that whole region? We always need more off-site parking.
Now the lefties on this board will sya you ar e bad you should feel bad.
I guess a more moderate response would be just everyone get the hell out.
Actually, for once, I think that's the perfectly appropriate response. Well, maybe not the 'glassed that whole region' argument, but the weapons free one.
The only reason that some humans subscribe to is pontificated from the barrel of a gun.
Kilkrazy wrote:The video was originally created by a US based person in English and later subtitled in Arabic by an Egyptian Copt.
Have you seen it in either language? It's so incredibly bad I can't believe anyone can take it seriously. Kind of like how I don't take Gaza TV seriously.
Dbrown98 wrote:These people just wanted an excuse.
They are so unlike most of us in the West.
I'm hoping the second half was meant to be sarcastic.
And just for the people that like to call for a nuclear strike against the entire region:
Spoiler:
Collateral Damage.
That is some serious courage right there, holding a sign like that I think could get those people marked and killed. There was a comment earlier in this thread about putting one's body where one's mouth is. These people are doing just that for the sake of letting us know they feel sorrow for what's happening around them.
It's their world and I'm just livin' in it.
whembly wrote: What do you mean there? Sure, if we're responsible enough say what we believe freely, then we should be expected to accept any responses to those belief.
Is that what you meant by "responsibility?
I mean that while you are free to say whatever you want without government censure, you still need to ask yourself if it really needs to be said.
I am, afterall, free to tell my mother-in-law she is fat, but I should first of all ask myself if I really need to say it. Similarly, you or I or anyone is free to make a movie about Mohammed being a pedophile, but we should all ask ourselves if the harm and possible offence caused is really worth it.
Freedom makes an action possible, but it doesn't excuse that action if it was the wrong thing to do.
Sure... as a figurehead, Obama can say that, but he has no power to do anything about it... it's protected speech.
As Ben Franklin famously said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it
Nor did Obama suggest or imply that he was going to do anything about it. There are important principles outside of purely law enforcement. Having the head of state come out and say 'that kind film is not what this country is about' is important.
You're right... I agree with this...
I'm more of a "stand by" what you said/done kind of thing...
But, I want to clarify that last statement:
'that kind film is not what this country is about'... no, but we're the kind of country that allows it...
That's the difference...
So Obama should go on TV and say "It is our right to make inflammatory videos that serve no purpose other than to throw a match into dry grass, and we will do it again and again because we don't care how you feel about it."
No... that's not what I'm asking.
It's really not that hard. He can say that the values in that film are not our values... that's fine and I have no problem with that... but he also needs to reaffirm that our government respects religion, religious expression, and religious pluralism and the government is not in the business of approving or regulating (for the most part) the private speech of our citizens. That was a missed opportunity there.
But you know, since a night's sleep I've calmed down. I don't think it's fair to criticize" balls-to-the-wall" on the Administration... yes, there were mistakes, lets acknowledge them, address them and move on.
The rests of your posts are pretty much just regurgitations of conservative talking heads telling you why you should be angry about something Obama said. You are making Frazzled sound like MSNBC, so that's a skill. I don't put anybody on ignore, but I make a choice not to interact with some people, I think your posts are getting there.
I like debating you...
You're not going to believe me... but I think it's funny that I get my news from FoxNews... I really don't go there simply because I dislike their website format (ugh, doesn't anyone else think it's bad?). I usually go to CNN/Yahoo/BBC...
*Don't you think you were too harsh on Frazzle? MSNBC? ugh, really dislike that site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Thinking its time to leave the ME. Give the "Bat Phones" over to the head of states with a note saying "Call us incase needed". Of course they might get a a disconnected message if calling us due to budget cuts
So if we did that... what would happen?
Wouldn't Russia/China step into the void? Is that a bad thing though? The ME is practically in their backyard and I don't think they want the situations to get out of hand any more than we do.
Kilkrazy wrote:The video was originally created by a US based person in English and later subtitled in Arabic by an Egyptian Copt.
Have you seen it in either language? It's so incredibly bad I can't believe anyone can take it seriously. Kind of like how I don't take Gaza TV seriously.
Dbrown98 wrote:These people just wanted an excuse.
They are so unlike most of us in the West.
I'm hoping the second half was meant to be sarcastic.
Yes. I couldn't stand to watch more than a couple of minutes, it is so crappy.
ya in the west we just riot and kill people based on how our sports teams did, or how a trial case ended (LA riots for the kids), or just having a bad day in school. Yep were just so totally unlike each other.
ya in the west we just riot and kill people based on how our sports teams did, or how a trial case ended (LA riots for the kids), or just having a bad day in school. Yep were just so totally unlike each other.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Wouldn't Russia/China step into the void? Is that a bad thing though? The ME is practically in their backyard and I don't think they want the situations to get out of hand any more than we do.
Let them. Russia and China are natural enemies, especially now that their international economic interests are competing beyond Asia major. The Russians are wonderfully bad at quelling insurrection (see Afghanistan and Chechnya) and the Chinese are starting to make waves at becoming an international power (see anti Piracy deployments to Africa). It is in our interests for China and Russia to engage in mutually destructive military and political conflict. And it's not as if Russia haven't supported the Arab league in the first place.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Marines can only defend certain areas within the embasy building. they cannot engage in combat operation outside the buildinig. If so they got the blessing of God himself to make it happen.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Pretty sure I called that a few pages back.
Sorry... I missed that. That just doesn't seem right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Marines can only defend certain areas within the embasy building. they cannot engage in combat operation outside the buildinig. If so they got the blessing of God himself to make it happen.
It make sense that they would have a strict rules of engagement...
But being unarmed? I really hope that report is wrong.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
That might have been for the best, Egypt is an armed society and nothing inflames local tensions worse than body bags. They burned a flag, it was an insult, but in egypt at least it didn't go much farther than that. A lethal defense of the embassy (while fully within our rights) would likely have had disastrous results.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Nope, I called it for Egypt. I know you've had trouble discussing more than one at a time, so I forgive you.
Incidentally, it's been confirmed that at least three of the Americans killed with the ambassador in Benghazi were American security personnel - two Marines, one private contractor.
From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Have the Benghazi counter protest photos been linked here yet? It was rather uplifting to see normal citizens coming out and saying "feth you, murder is not the way of Islam nor does it represent us."
Nope, I called it for Egypt. I know you've had trouble discussing more than one at a time, so I forgive you.
Incidentally, it's been confirmed that at least three of the Americans killed with the ambassador in Benghazi were American security personnel - two Marines, one private contractor.
I thought it was four Americans total were killed. The ambassador, two Marines and an FSO. (Foreign Service Officer that is)
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
I thought it was four Americans total were killed. The ambassador, two Marines and an FSO. (Foreign Service Officer that is)
Nope. Latest reports I've seen has it up to five now. Boston Globe confirms one of them was a (former SEAL) contractor, CBS News says two Marines, we all know about the FSO and the Ambassador, which brings us to five.
Nope, I called it for Egypt. I know you've had trouble discussing more than one at a time, so I forgive you.
Incidentally, it's been confirmed that at least three of the Americans killed with the ambassador in Benghazi were American security personnel - two Marines, one private contractor.
Yeah, and the consulate was manned with Libyan security personnel. I know you have trouble reading posts, including your own, but you argument was first that the consulate was an embassy (it wasn't). Then it had marine security personnel (it didn't). Then the ambassador was the one with marine security personnel (sure). I'm sure you'll eventually be right about everything because you've changed what you said every time you've been caught wrong.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Yeah, and the consulate was manned with Libyan security personnel. I know you have trouble reading posts, including your own, but you argument was first that the consulate was an embassy (it wasn't). Then it had marine security personnel (it didn't). Then the ambassador was the one with marine security personnel (sure). I'm sure you'll eventually be right about everything because you've changed what you said every time you've been caught wrong.
I went back to look for my first posts regarding the ambassador's security. Here's what I came up with:
ShumaGorath wrote: The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.
The article linked at the top of this thread stated that the diplomat was killed by smoke inhalation, along with two security contractors.
You think we leave the protection of our diplomats entirely up to foreign nationals in unstable regions? Really?
Of course not. The two dudes with him - I'm sure there were more - were likely whatever Blackwater's calling itself now. I'm pretty sure they got the big State Department contract a few years back.
Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.
That article contradicts nothing at all of what I said; it adds another death.
I didn't ask about diplomatic staff. I asked about diplomats. Ambassadors. If you think we let those guys just wander around places like Libya without security details, you're absolutely out of your mind. It does not happen. He had Americans with guns with him, precisely because the record of indigenous security forces in that region? Not so hot lately.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?
And I think something needs to be said of the Egyptian Government... it's their job to help protect the embassy... so, this is implicit approval from the government that this is acceptable. Probably the best response right now is to leave Egypt and kick the Egyptian consulate here in America out for awhile (you're grounded!).
Yeah, and the consulate was manned with Libyan security personnel. I know you have trouble reading posts, including your own, but you argument was first that the consulate was an embassy (it wasn't). Then it had marine security personnel (it didn't). Then the ambassador was the one with marine security personnel (sure). I'm sure you'll eventually be right about everything because you've changed what you said every time you've been caught wrong.
I went back to look for my first posts regarding the ambassador's security. Here's what I came up with:
ShumaGorath wrote: The CONSULATE was defended by local Libyan security personnel. Not Marines. And go ahead, find a prayer mat. It'll get you out of this thread for a few days while you search. It'll improve the tone of the conversation and at least one more person will stop coming in here with bunk facts and child like reasons for wanting to nuke billions.
The article linked at the top of this thread stated that the diplomat was killed by smoke inhalation, along with two security contractors.
You think we leave the protection of our diplomats entirely up to foreign nationals in unstable regions? Really?
Of course not. The two dudes with him - I'm sure there were more - were likely whatever Blackwater's calling itself now. I'm pretty sure they got the big State Department contract a few years back.
Here's a more recent one, you should learn to update your sources when discussing breaking stories. Yes, I do think we'd leave protection of our diplomatic staff up to foreign nationals. It's customary in small scale operations with very few personnel (such as this minor consulate). That there was an ambassador there at all was a strange and unfortunate coincidence. That's not where he did his work.
That article contradicts nothing at all of what I said; it adds another death.
I didn't ask about diplomatic staff. I asked about diplomats. Ambassadors. If you think we let those guys just wander around places like Libya without security details, you're absolutely out of your mind. It does not happen. He had Americans with guns with him, precisely because the record of indigenous security forces in that region? Not so hot lately.
Care to try again?
You know I was quoting you right? The part you left out? The part where you were wrong about it being an embassy and having it's own marines? You can't really backpedal that well when everyone can scroll back and see it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?
And I think something needs to be said of the Egyptian Government... it's their job to help protect the embassy... so, this is implicit approval from the government that this is acceptable. Probably the best response right now is to leave Egypt and kick the Egyptian consulate here in America out for awhile (you're grounded!).
Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.
ShumaGorath wrote: You know I was quoting you right? The part you left out? The part where you were wrong about it being an embassy and having it's own marines? You can't really backpedal that well when everyone can scroll back and see it.
You're welcome to dig it up, if you like. You'll have to do some pretty creative editing.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.
I hope you have helicopters firing up then. Because if you think that killing the guys on top of the wall is the "logical" thing to protect yourself you can be sure that you will be overrun by the giant mop of pissed of people outside.
Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.
The issue isn't protecting the flag, the issue is being unable to predict what those guys are going to do once they've gotten over the walls.
Also I seem to recall the building in Bhenghazi was a "Cultural outreach center" or some BS like that.
I ended up having a pretty loud argument with the old man over this one. He said we should have bombed Bhenghazi. Even if we had the ROE to do that, who the hell do you bomb in a decent sized city to punish them for a mob (who were possibly acting as cover for terrorist elements) attacking something? Pick five random buildings? This is the problem with any form of COIN operation, you have to make sure you're primarily killing bad guys, and it's really goddessdamn hard to find the bad guys.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?
And I think something needs to be said of the Egyptian Government... it's their job to help protect the embassy... so, this is implicit approval from the government that this is acceptable. Probably the best response right now is to leave Egypt and kick the Egyptian consulate here in America out for awhile (you're grounded!).
Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.
Its not the flag, its the Egyptian government permitting the attack to occur in the first place. their lukewarm repsonse (replete with the MB contiuing to stir more protests) reaffirms how Egypt should be treated at this point.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.
I hope you have helicopters firing up then. Because if you think that killing the guys on top of the wall is the "logical" thing to protect yourself you can be sure that you will be overrun by the giant mop of pissed of people outside.
Belt fed weapons and walls are a surprisingly useful crowd control device. You'd be amazed at how long a defensive position like an embassy could hold out. You seem to be under the odd impression that people scaling and potentially coming over the walls just want to give you a hug or something, and that defending the lives of everyone inside the walls is the least healthy of the two potential options. Again, this turned out for the best and it's something we should all be thankful for. But it could have very easily gone the other way.
Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.
The issue isn't protecting the flag, the issue is being unable to predict what those guys are going to do once they've gotten over the walls.
You might be unable to predict what those guys are going to do on top of the walls.
We can however predict what will happen once you open fire on them.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also I seem to recall the building in Bhenghazi was a "Cultural outreach center" or some BS like that.
I ended up having a pretty loud argument with the old man over this one. He said we should have bombed Bhenghazi. Even if we had the ROE to do that, who the hell do you bomb in a decent sized city to punish them for a mob (who were possibly acting as cover for terrorist elements) attacking something? Pick five random buildings? This is the problem with any form of COIN operation, you have to make sure you're primarily killing bad guys, and it's really goddessdamn hard to find the bad guys.
I wouldn't consider this event to be indicative of an insurgency. We're not even occupiers and they didn't attack their own state.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: From what I understand the Egyptians didn't breach the walls, thus they were not fired upon. There's a difference between donkey-caves being donkey-caves like in Egypt and a mob covering an attack like in Libya.
Most descriptions I've seen say they scaled the walls - that's close enough for government work, far as I'm concerned.
Good thing you are not in charge then.
Marines should only fire to protect lives in direct danger. Not to protect walls or flags.
Clearly you've never been on the other side of a defensive wall with people attacking over it then... you don't wait till they come up and try to knife you into the guts. Me personally I would have been all for clearing them off the walls the hard way. That said, that is why we have ROE. To keep us (Marines) from doing the logical and combat effective thing and instead doing the politically relevant and effective thing. This usually results in Marines getting killed, but that thankfully that was not the case this time.
I hope you have helicopters firing up then. Because if you think that killing the guys on top of the wall is the "logical" thing to protect yourself you can be sure that you will be overrun by the giant mop of pissed of people outside.
Belt fed weapons and walls are a surprisingly useful crowd control device. You'd be amazed at how long a defensive position like an embassy could hold out. You seem to be under the odd impression that people scaling and potentially coming over the walls just want to give you a hug or something, and that defending the lives of everyone inside the walls is the least healthy of the two potential options. Again, this turned out for the best and it's something we should all be thankful for. But it could have very easily gone the other way.
And if you would have opened fire it would have gone the other way.
Despite the glorification and worship of it by certain parts of our population, it is just a piece of cloth and even if they took a dump on it and burned every single flag ever made in a fire this country will endure.
The issue isn't protecting the flag, the issue is being unable to predict what those guys are going to do once they've gotten over the walls.
You might be unable to predict what those guys are going to do on top of the walls.
We can however predict what will happen once you open fire on them.
They will die, buying enough time for the Egyptian army and police to actually do something.
If the marines or any embassy marines start opening fire thats a whole new can of worms. Thats why their SOP is geared to defend within building if it is breached.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Also I seem to recall the building in Bhenghazi was a "Cultural outreach center" or some BS like that.
I ended up having a pretty loud argument with the old man over this one. He said we should have bombed Bhenghazi. Even if we had the ROE to do that, who the hell do you bomb in a decent sized city to punish them for a mob (who were possibly acting as cover for terrorist elements) attacking something? Pick five random buildings? This is the problem with any form of COIN operation, you have to make sure you're primarily killing bad guys, and it's really goddessdamn hard to find the bad guys.
I wouldn't consider this event to be indicative of an insurgency. We're not even occupiers and they didn't attack their own state.
Dealing with a mob like that one that attacked the consulate in Benghazi is however directly comparable to a COIN operation on many levels. Yes the over all structure of a terrorist/insurgent organization probably isn't there, and there is again some evidence to the mob being a cover for a terrorist attack from what a couple people in positions I can't talk about have told me (and also the news I believe...) but the basics of the situation for COIN purposes remain the same. Hostile elements within a community, hitting and immediately vanishing back into the population. So the question I ended the conversation with my father on was simply "Well who the hell do you HIT?" which is the same bottom line question we run into with COIN in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thankfully they're a little easier to hunt down there.
Jihadin wrote: If the marines or any embassy marines start opening fire thats a whole new can of worms. Thats why their SOP is geared to defend within building if it is breached.
That appears to be what they did in Yemen and Egypt.
“And obviously [our] hearts are broken for the families but I wanted to encourage those folks at the State Dept. that they were making a difference,” Obama told volunteer leaders in Las Vegas, according to the pool report. “The sacrifices that our troops and our diplomats make are obviously very different from the challenges that we face here domestically but like them, you guys are Americans who sense that we can do better than we’re doing….I’m just really proud of you.”
http://twitchy.com/2012/09/13/sickening-obama-compares-campaign-volunteers-to-murdered-embassy-staff/
Source is Michelle Malkin's website so slightly biased, but still... kinda interesting.
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Pretty sure I called that a few pages back.
Sorry... I missed that. That just doesn't seem right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Marines can only defend certain areas within the embasy building. they cannot engage in combat operation outside the buildinig. If so they got the blessing of God himself to make it happen.
It make sense that they would have a strict rules of engagement...
But being unarmed? I really hope that report is wrong.
I don't know about unarmed but if so it's criminally stupid and I don't know that the State Department has the ability to impose on the Embassy detachment's CO like that.
It's been several years since anyone I've known personally was on an embassy detail, but when they were I was told the ROE was about as strict as it gets even inside the walls but if it gets ugly those Marines are about the last guys on Earth you want to feth with. Then again he and most of his fellow guards were combat veteran 0311s which I'm given to understand is not typical.
I'd be careful with statements like that. There's free speech and all that but statements in regard to presidents or presidential candidates safety are not taken lightly at all.
SOP is more along the RIO way. What the RIO has no control over is the protection of the classified areas. the CO makes the call on that. Still not thinking there were actual marines with the ambassador when he got killed. A two man secuirty team from a contract company yes (Formaly Blackwater since they won that contract last year) but actual marines no. Reason why its strict for the marines is if thy start shooting outside the walls of the embassy. That nation military can become involve in defense of the people.
Jihadin wrote: SOP is more along the RIO way. What the RIO has no control over is the protection of the classified areas. the CO makes the call on that. Still not thinking there were actual marines with the ambassador when he got killed. A two man secuirty team from a contract company yes (Formaly Blackwater since they won that contract last year) but actual marines no. Reason why its strict for the marines is if thy start shooting outside the walls of the embassy. That nation military can become involve in defense of the people.
Heard on the radio yesterday that one was definitely a marine from the MD area. (I live in MD.) He was on a temporary assignment to Libya. Sad all around. :(
Jihadin wrote: SOP is more along the RIO way. What the RIO has no control over is the protection of the classified areas. the CO makes the call on that. Still not thinking there were actual marines with the ambassador when he got killed. A two man secuirty team from a contract company yes (Formaly Blackwater since they won that contract last year) but actual marines no. Reason why its strict for the marines is if thy start shooting outside the walls of the embassy. That nation military can become involve in defense of the people.
The Marine Corps Times (and we know how accurate the military Times are...) has it down as the Ambassador and three embassy staffers, Business Insider says the Corps is denying any personnel KIA or injured in Libya but they only link that article.
Two of the four Americans killed in the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi have been identified as former Navy SEALs.
A source confirmed to Fox News on Thursday that one of the victims was Tyrone Woods, a 41-year-old former SEAL.
Glen Doherty, a former Navy SEAL from Massachusetts, was one of the other victims in the deadly attack, according to a family friend.
The U.S. government earlier confirmed that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer, died in the attack.
The Boston Globe first reported that Doherty was among the victims. His sister told the Globe that Doherty, 42, was working for a private company providing security at the time.
A former ski instructor in Utah, Doherty reportedly trained as a sniper and medical officer after joining the Navy SEALs. He served for seven years before leaving to work at the private security firm.
According to FOX5 in San Diego, Doherty lived in Encintas, Calif., after leaving the Navy. He worked at the CrossFIT/SEALFIT gym as well as security firms.
Based on an account of the Benghazi attack provided by senior administration officials, Doherty and Woods likely died while trying to take cover from gunfire in the annex near the main U.S. consulate building. At least three others were wounded in the attack.
)
