Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So apparently the Right's narrative is dependent on pretending:

A. That a condemnation = an apology.
B. That making a sympathetic statement aimed at nonviolent people upset over an offensive video = sympathy toward violence.
C. That a later affirmation of that statement, alongside a condemnation of violence = sympathy toward violence.
D. That a statement made by an Embassy representative is the channel by which a Presidential Administration communicates its opinions.

None of these is accurate or even plausible.

This may be a stupid question Kan, but....Mittens is Romney, right?

And I also think I'm coming down on the side of 'he seems to have spoken too soon/based his speech on incorrect information'. There is just no real excuse as to making mistakes like that...I mean, if he had been spot on and hit Obama with good information when he wasn't replying to the situation, then (also if there hadn't been that truce, and the guys hadn't died) kudos for good politicking. I can appreciate good sneaky politics, its a lot smaller scale but the University of Queensland had a hilarious issue with their student elections about a month ago, the party in power changed some statutes or something and BAM the leader of the party in power's brother was now running under the oppositions name on the ticket...before the opposition could register. That was funny, and sneaky politicking. I can appreciate that. But I can't appreciate someone moving off incorrect information because they want to score points and score points fast, on a day they were not meant to, and in a situation (regarding the deaths) where they really shouldn't have.

 Mannahnin wrote:
None of these is accurate or even plausible.

Yeah, but the people who believe it don't care, and the politicians selling it to them know that.

Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy...

I don't think you're happy enough!

Quite frankly I'm surprised this thread isn't locked. It's just turned into a back and forth between Whembly's trolling and everybody else facepalming at said trolling.

We can haz padlock?

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy...

I don't think you're happy enough!

Quite frankly I'm surprised this thread isn't locked. It's just turned into a back and forth between Whembly's trolling and everybody else facepalming at said trolling.

We can haz padlock?

I don't think its fair to say he's trolling, he is arguing the other side with his own sources. Those sources may not be too good, and in the case of this thread he and the mod seem to have actually reached an agreement, if he was just trolling I wouldn't say that would happen...

Obama Team

"

The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," an administration official told POLITICO.

The Cairo Embassy

"

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," the embassy said in a statement published online.

A statement from the DoS does not have to be cleared by the White House. The White House should have affirmed the statement but in such a way not to draw more "fire" on it. All this did was showed the US Gov't can't get it together.

edit for grammer

 Jihadin wrote:
Obama

"

The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government," an administration official told POLITICO.

The U.S. embassy in Cairo put out a statement early Tuesday that was pegged to anger over an anti-Muslim film being circulated by an Israeli-American real estate developer.

The Cairo Embassy
"

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," the embassy said in a statement published online.

A statement from the DoS does not have to be cleared by the White House. The White House should have affirmed the statement but in such a way not to draw more "fire" on it. All this did was showed the US Gov't can't get it together.

True, it doesn't have to be cleared by the White House, but it does have to be cleared by the DoS. My understanding of this whole situation - perhaps outdated - is that the guy responsible for maintaining the Twitter feed basically came up with this stuff, and ran it without checking with anybody above him.

CAIRO – Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen has praised the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya and called for more attacks to expel American embassies from Muslim nations.

The statement, posted Saturday on Islamic militant websites, suggested Al Qaeda was trying to co-opt the wave of angry protests in the Muslim world over a film produced in the United States denigrating the Prophet Muhammad.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula said the killing this week of Ambassador Chris Stevens in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was "the best example" for those attacking embassies.

It said protesters' aim should be to "expel the embassies of America from the lands of the Muslims" and called on protests to continue in Muslim nations "to set the fires blazing at these embassies."

Fanning the embers a bit more

edit

KABUL, Afghanistan – Hundreds of Afghans — some shouting "Death to America" —burned the U.S. flag and an effigy of President Barack Obama on Friday during a protest against an anti-Islam film outside the eastern city of Jalalabad.

The film depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman.

Since it surfaced on the Internet, it has prompted violent protests at U.S. embassies in the Middle East. The American ambassador and three other U.S. staff members were killed when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.

Mohammad Zhirullah, a protester who spoke to The Associated Press on the phone from the site, said the crowd called on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to sever relations with the United States.

"When the movie was shown around the world, it broke the heart of every Muslim," Zhirullah said. "We condemn this act and those who are behind it should be put on trial and should be hanged to death. ... It cannot be tolerated by the Afghan people."
It is unclear who organized the demonstration, which lasted about an hour, in the Marko area of Nangarhar province between Jalalabad and the Pakistan border.

I pretty much know there's hardly any internet around JAF besides whats in the JAF FoB. This one started by word of mouth.

Squigsquasher wrote:Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy, Happy Happy Joy Joy...

I don't think you're happy enough!

Quite frankly I'm surprised this thread isn't locked. It's just turned into a back and forth between Whembly's trolling and everybody else facepalming at said trolling.

We can haz padlock?

Please do not refer to whembly as a troll. Trolls post inflammatory bs for the sole purpose of getting people riled up. While much of what whembley posts certainly fits that bill, the difference is that he honestly believes what he posts.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
None of these is accurate or even plausible.

Yeah, but the people who believe it don't care, and the politicians selling it to them know that.

On the plus side, the people that believe it have already decided who they'll vote for, and whether or not they'll vote.

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

just wow...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/index.html

I keep with Fox

just wow...

They gotta be doing something right... it's the top news cable show after all.

I don't watch it that much (rather watch sports), but their format bugs me for some reason (hence, I usually stick with CNN, if I watch news at all).

 whembly wrote:
They gotta be doing something right... it's the top news cable show after all.

That doesn't mean what they are doing right has anything to do with being accurate, trustworthy, or the news. It might be what they are doing right is appealing to the lowest common denominator as selling a bogus narrative that some people want to hear.

Or maybe I'm conning people

Right Ahtman. Sensationalism sells and news media markets are becoming more divisive and demographic oriented. For example, MSNBC is following Fox's model (although shifting to the left rather than right)--whereas an organization such as CNN, which may be deemed more moderate compared to MSNBC/Fox is struggling with ratings.

Which, really isn't a surprise. I know several liberal friends that listen to Rush, in what I can only describe as a self flagellation political ritual--even if they know he is intentionally provocative to draw such viewers. *Shrug*, we all love us some drama I guess....

But whats Rush entertainment value. I laugh my arse off on a majority things that Rush says


edit
Libyan Government is saying it was a planned attack.

Are they the top news cable show because they use facts, or are they the top news cable program because they are largely just an editorial show that only tells people what they want to hear?

But to be fair, a very small percentage of all cable news is actually focused on the reporting of news. Most shows are just editorials telling you what the news must mean and what you should think about them. It's not a symptom that is isolated to FoxNews.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Right Ahtman. Sensationalism sells and news media markets are becoming more divisive and demographic oriented. For example, MSNBC is following Fox's model (although shifting to the left rather than right)--whereas an organization such as CNN, which may be deemed more moderate compared to MSNBC/Fox is struggling with ratings.

Sadly people don't want to watch the news to find out what is going on.

People want to watch the news to find out that they are right, so FoxNews and MSNBC.

I have found more and more good programming on BBC and NPR.

 d-usa wrote:
I have found more and more good programming on BBC and NPR.

Both stalwarts of the communist plot to overthrow America, according to conservatives.

NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

BBC less so, but it admitted an antiIsraeli bias sometime back.

(Note I listen to both of them pretty much daily. i didn't say I didn't like them)

Honestly, I don't do the pledge anymore. I still stand up for it if I am in a group, just don't recite it and don't do the hand on the chest thing. But that is probably something to rage over in another thread.

Bias is hard to overcome in all news though. NPR has funny non-news broadcasts as well though. We can all get behind car talk, may the show rest in peace.

 Frazzled wrote:
NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

I don't either, and haven't since grade school.

The "under God" part pretty much did away with it at schools. I remember we recited it every morning in elementary. I know of no places that does the "Pledge of Alligience" besides the one lead by Gilford at the DNC.

I'm of the opinion that if the flag doesn't believe me by now, it never will.

NPR is far and away my favorite news outlet. What happened to Car Talk?

 Jihadin wrote:
The "under God" part pretty much did away with it at schools. I remember we recited it every morning in elementary. I know of no places that does the "Pledge of Alligience" besides the one lead by Gilford at the DNC.

We still had it in school all the way until I graduated in 2000. Still used in most political settings around here and even some community functions.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm of the opinion that if the flag doesn't believe me by now, it never will.

NPR is far and away my favorite news outlet. What happened to Car Talk?

The guys are retiring, no new episodes after October.

America today is way different then america at that time

 Jihadin wrote:



America today is way different then america at that time

You can pay more taxes for your country.

But its not a tax....and I fall over 200K

Um... this is bad...

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice official Thomas Perez, who is the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, refuses to say that his department won’t attempt to criminalize blasphemy in the future.

I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice would ever actually try such a thing, and the Supreme Court would break it in half if it did, but this is appalling.

You can watch the video of the sordid incident here.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
NPR can be quite biased. Its lead WH reporter made a major point about not standing up for the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously?

I don't either, and haven't since grade school.

Do you make a big deal about it?

 whembly wrote:
Um... this is bad...

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice official Thomas Perez, who is the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, refuses to say that his department won’t attempt to criminalize blasphemy in the future.

I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice would ever actually try such a thing, and the Supreme Court would break it in half if it did, but this is appalling.

You can watch the video of the sordid incident here.

Care to post the blog/editorial/opinion piece where you get your news from?

Because by actually watching this clip it is fairly easy to understand why Perez did what he did and that the Chairperson is only trying to score a political point which is only made more evident by refusing to let anybody else speak and continually cutting off his attempt to answer.

Hint: the relevant part is at the 50 second mark.