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.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 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?

Well we know the movie was most definitely supposed to be offensive.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/160987602/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests

"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.

 SaintTom wrote:
Well we know the movie was most definitely supposed to be offensive.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/160987602/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests

"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:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SaintTom wrote:
Well we know the movie was most definitely supposed to be offensive.

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/12/160987602/anti-islam-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests

"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.

Frazzled, you have no point to miss.

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?

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham

5:00PM GMT 25 Mar 2011


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8425153/Libya-Former-Guantanamo-detainee-is-training-rebels.html


And the desecration of Commonwealth War Graves cemetery in Feb 2012.
(Benghazi WW2 cemetery)


Why did we ever help groups like this?

Does anyone find it odd that this even occurred on 9/11... of all days?

Does anyone not see the issue with what Obama said? (especially during a presidency comaign? )
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9538302/US-ambassador-killed-in-Libya-President-Barack-Obamas-statement-in-full.html

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?

How painful is cognitive dissonance?

No it occurred because we helped it.

Dbrown98 wrote:

 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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html
By Praveen Swami, Nick Squires and Duncan Gardham

5:00PM GMT 25 Mar 2011


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8425153/Libya-Former-Guantanamo-detainee-is-training-rebels.html


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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No it occurred because we helped it.

I don't think the fruit dealer who self immolated was American.

I assume he's referring to the support the West gave the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi, including the no-fly zone.

 whembly wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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...

 d-usa wrote:

So again I ask:

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?

PhantomViper wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 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.

The Libyan leaders stood up:
http://news.yahoo.com/libya-leader-apologizes-attack-us-consulate-125740533.html

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.

Seeing as both countries have apologized like reasonable adults, we can both start working on attempting to rectify the injustice instead.

Not going to happen. You have two sides here. The gov't and the people.

As for the RPGer. NS I have to say.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

They'll like us when we win, not before.

PhantomViper wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 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*

Well a RPGer might be a extremist but other then that he's out and determined to kill someone.