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:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

I get it, I think.

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".

TheHammer wrote:
I get it, I think.

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.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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.

What are you even talking about?

I can not read a clear point or coherent thought, Frazzled.

Think some of you all are thinking the quality of life there is the same as in th US and Europe.

No one thinks that, and how would people thinking that (not that anyone is) be at all relevant.

Do you even know what started the Arab Spring, and the social and economic situations that really prompted 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.

Anyway, carry on....

The only people at fault here are the protestors.

TheHammer wrote:
What are you even talking about?

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).

Corrected your typo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CuddlySquig wrote:
The only people at fault here are the protestors.

Agreed, and the ones that organized them.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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.

This actually supports Orlanth's viewed that this was a planned attack (L:ibya):
http://wtop.com/215/3033617/Officials-Embassy-attack-in-Libya-was-coordinated


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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.

 CuddlySquig wrote:
The only people at fault here are the protestors.

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.

 ShumaGorath 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.

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.

Nope.

 Frazzled wrote:
This actually supports Orlanth's viewed that this was a planned attack (L:ibya):
http://wtop.com/215/3033617/Officials-Embassy-attack-in-Libya-was-coordinated


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

It's not sovereign US territory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Scroll down to the "Extraterritoriality"

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.

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.

You're confusing, Frazzled :(

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

It's not sovereign US territory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Scroll down to the "Extraterritoriality"

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.

You're confusing, Frazzled :(

No, I'm pretty consistent: no support.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

It's not sovereign US territory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission

Scroll down to the "Extraterritoriality"

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.

TheHammer wrote:
Plus, had President Obama "minded his own business" you and others would have attacked him for enabling Gadaffi.

^
This x9000.

Really repulsive behavior, but it is what trolls do.

Plus, had President Obama "minded his own business" you and others would have attacked him for enabling Gadaffi

Think quite few would defend this stance.

 Seaward wrote:

You let the embassy Marines standing around with you go weapons free. The embassy's sovereign US territory.

Interestingly, that would have been a violation of free speech.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

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.