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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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.

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?

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

In this case our turf was in the middle of their turf*

Embassies aren't exactly a new concept.

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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...

 whembly wrote:
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.

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?

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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!

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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?!

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Guess I'll just tuck away my tinfoil hat then.

 whembly wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

Scott wrote:

 whembly wrote:
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.

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.

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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?

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

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...

Edited by Manchu.

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?

 Henners91 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?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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?

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

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.

 whembly wrote:

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?

Scott wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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?

The unsupported ideological point where a president should never apologize and whose only diplomatic duty is to say angry things and look aggressive.

Scott wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Scott wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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?

The unsupported ideological point where a president should never apologize and whose only diplomatic duty is to say angry things and look aggressive.

Hyperbole much?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The Article was one of the first up and has several facts wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The Article was one of the first up and has several facts wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

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?

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Henners91 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?

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.

 Henners91 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?

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Henners91 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?

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.

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?