American Embassies under attack

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.

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:
I hate to point out. In case some don't know. That the Marines PRIMARY mission is to protect areas of the embassy related to classified information. They are very rarely allowed to conduct missions outside the building.

That's what I figured, there's SOP for everything and they're doing the best the can.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

Yep, we got ourselves a real problem here in the ole US of A.

**Jihadin**

Dogma...I hate to say it...sport fans riots award goes to UK soccar (FOOTBALL) Europe.

**dogma**

ShumaGorath wrote:

Everyone and their mother knows that the Libyan resistance had Al-Qaeda links in some areas. They admitted it during the revolution, Al-Qaeda talked about it, our own generals talked about it, the president talked about it. Those weird people that live under rocks in that one Geico commercial from last year probably know about it. We helped them because they don't represent the majority of the country or the fighting forces in the Libyan revolution. We helped them because Gadaffi bankrolled more terrorists than that and gave them a longer reach than these kids have. Foreign policy is icky sometimes, you work towards an end goal that is sometimes far off. When you're short sited and xenophobic you end up doing things like creating Sadaam husseins Iraq and training Osama Bin Laden.

Well said.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Dogma...I hate to say it...sport fans riots award goes to UK soccar (FOOTBALL) Europe.

Sure, but the idea is that we too (we could expand it to the secular West) riot over stupid things.

**whembly**

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Evidences that this "protest" was a diversion to attack the consulate:

The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept in a secure location.

**Wolfstan**

When you drill in to it it's the usual suspects, the illiterate masses being stirred up by educated individuals with an axe to grind. For crying out loud, how many of these people would of heard of this film unless stirred up? In fact how many would of seen it? If you could grab one of them out of thin air and stick them in a room and get them to tell you exactly what part of the film was so bad, they wouldn't have a clue.

It was what I was aluding to in a hamfisted way earlier. In the past Western religions were able to stir up this type of trouble, because of the lack of education and literacy. Unfortunately there are still a big chunk of the Islamic world that is still like this and therefore easily stirred up.

What would be great is to be able to tell these people that this isn't the Crusades, we have no interest in their lands, we don't care who they worship, we just want to get along... but as per usual there is "power" at stake here and those that have it don't want to let it go.

**Jihadin**

Thats sport though. This is about muslims rioting over the video's. A religous riot and some hate towards the US for the video maker.

**whembly**

THIS!
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/12/whats-so-hard-about-saying-in-the-united

Spoiler:

The U.S. State Department, and even its besieged embassy staff in Cairo, is receiving a barrage of criticism because of statements like this:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

The criticism is well-deserved. As James Joyner succinctly put it,

In point of fact, making a movie commenting on the sexual proclivities of someone who died some fourteen hundred years ago in no way constitutes "incitement" under any meaningful use of the term.

I would add that my government has no business giving a whirl about "hurt[ing] the religious beliefs of others" (a standard both elastic and asymmetrical, virtually begging for a heckler's veto) and that there is no "universal right of free speech," at least in practice (as opposed to the philosophical principle, which I wholeheartedly endorse).

The fact is that the First Amendment, no matter how embattled, protects a range of expression unthinkable even in Western Europe. Because of that unique position, and because the U.S. seems doomed to play an outsized diplomatic and military role in the tumultuous Muslim world, it behooves the State Department to constantly explain the vast differences between state-sanctioned and legally protected speech in the so-called Land of the Free. If the U.S. government really was in the business of "firmly reject[ing]" private free-speech acts that "hurt the religious beliefs of others" there would be no time left over for doing anything else.

It's really not that hard. The values in that film (or "film") are not our values; our government respects religion, religious expression, and religious pluralism (including and especially that of Muslims, even in the wake of murderous Muslim-led attacks on American soil); and we are not in the business of approving or (for the most part) regulating the private speech of our citizens. To the extent that that message is not sufficient for rioters, the problem is theirs.

Some liberal Tweeters this morning are pointing out that, hey, the Bush administration condemned the Mohammed cartoons, too!, but this mostly goes to illustrate how bipartisan cravenness can be. We know that this issue will keep coming up; maybe it's about time the American government, and the rest of us, develop a more American response.

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:
...I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador...

We do it all the time. There might even be good evidence to suggest that we did it with respect to Stevens, but I'm too lazy to dig through all the nonsense Google hits.

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
...I do not believe the US would advertise the movements of their ambassador...

We do it all the time. There might even be good evidence to suggest that we did it with respect to Stevens, but I'm too lazy to dig through all the nonsense Google hits.

There's diplomatic protocols out of the wazoo... I wouldn't be surprised if one had to "announce" the coming/goings of the ambassadors.

**dogma**

PhantomViper wrote:

How do you explain that the demonstration and subsequent attack happened against the consulate and not at the USA embassy in Tripoli like one would expect? Don't you find that coincidence just a tad bit suspect?

Benghazi is just as important to Libya as Tripoli, probably more so.

whembly wrote:

There's diplomatic protocols out of the wazoo... I wouldn't be surprised if one had to "announce" the coming/goings of the ambassadors.

Alternatively, why wouldn't you tell everyone where your ambassador was going? He's a public figure, and when he moves the point is that people pay attention to his movements.

**d-usa**

If our government saying "we are sorry if you are offended" is going to prevent one person from killing an american then I say let them do it.

There are a few soldiers on here who put their body where their mouth is, and then there are lot of folks that I would love to see standing in front of one of those crowds and tell them "We got freedom of speech, we offend you if we want, and we will never say we are sorry because we are America!"

**Melissia**

In point of fact, making a movie commenting on the sexual proclivities of someone who died some fourteen hundred years ago in no way constitutes "incitement" under any meaningful use of the term.

Yeah, that guy is an idiot who doesn't know jack gak at all about the subject matter.

**Jihadin**

Well. They seem to think the attack was coordinated

**TheHammer**

I'm just glad that we can be rude donkey-caves if we think we're right, and that we should never show respect or use pragmatic caution.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

**whembly**

TheHammer wrote:
I'm just glad that we can be rude donkey-caves if we think we're right, and that we should never show respect or use pragmatic caution.

What? Not sure I follow man...

**kronk**

He [the dude that made the video] was/is certainly foolish, but why are you playing the race card, TheHammer?

**Albatross**

TheHammer wrote:
I'm just glad that we can be rude donkey-caves if we think we're right, and that we should never show respect or use pragmatic caution.

People who think they're witty are worse.

**AgeOfEgos**

If someone makes a racist or inappropriate comment, please use the yellow triangle and alert a mod--rather than quote and respond. Thanks!

**whembly**

Now the Egyptian government want's to sue the filmaker?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4280756,00.html

“We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film’s
producers within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts
that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion.”

"Stir strife?" You mean like storming diplomatic missions, burning flags, killing ambassadors, that kind of strife?

**Ahtman**

I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.

Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

More evidence growing the Libya action was an Al Qaeda hit.

**Ahtman**

Frazzled wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.

Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

But you also seem to think that freedom of speech has no limit when we know that there are limits, which is why I used an example that every 4 year old knows, that of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I'm not certain that he created this 'documentary' for any other purpose than then to cause riots such as this. You'll notice that I haven't called on the government to censor or arrest the film-maker either, so I'm not sure how recognizing that he may have done this to start violence is treading on his First Amendment rights. Being critical of someone isn't a violation of their First Amendment rights.

**AgeOfEgos**

Actually, from my limited understanding (I have only previously read a short explanation of the Brandenburg Test)---speech may be even more limited if it leads to immediate acts of criminal behavior. So for example;

If I made a film that called for Warhammer Fans to murder Warmachine fans
AND
I knew that it would directly (and immediately) lead to Warhammer Fans murdering Warmachine fans

..then I could be prosecuted for my speech (and have it removed). Again though, I am not an attorney and that's my very limited understanding on it. I also have no idea on how restricted other nations are in regards to speech (for example--even the UK had anti-blasphemy laws on their books until the last 10 years or so IIRC).

So, if the director of the film 'knew' it would lead to the murders of Western civilians--I don't know? Would that be incitement? It's certainly morally bankrupt, regardless of your legal ability to engage in the activity.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I'm still on the fence about the film. It wasn't made to be a documentary that would convince anyone; it would only preach to the choir and rile up the Muslim world; the intent wasn't to inform; it was to throw a Molotov cocktail at Muslims and then watch as a fire broke out. I'm not 100% certain he didn't, for all intents and purposes, yell fire in a crowded theater at this point. I'm not saying the blame is entirely on him, but I'm not sure I would also say he is blameless either. It is something I will have to mull over a bit.

Freedom of speech includes even bad speech, even speech that I disagree with (which makes it inherently wrong).
Don't like it don't watch it.

But you also seem to think that freedom of speech has no limit when we know that there are limits, which is why I used an example that every 4 year old knows, that of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. I'm not certain that he created this 'documentary' for any other purpose than then to cause riots such as this. You'll notice that I haven't called on the government to censor or arrest the film-maker either, so I'm not sure how recognizing that he may have done this to start violence is treading on his First Amendment rights. Being critical of someone isn't a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Fire in a theater represents the potential for immeidate harm in that vicinity. To make the claim that a movie causes the deaths of people of a similar nation several thousand miles away lacks merit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Actually, from my limited understanding (I have only previously read a short explanation of the Brandenburg Test)---speech may be even more limited if it leads to immediate acts of criminal behavior. So for example;

If I made a film that called for Warhammer Fans to murder Warmachine fans
AND
I knew that it would directly (and immediately) lead to Warhammer Fans murdering Warmachine fans

..then I could be prosecuted for my speech (and have it removed). Again though, I am not an attorney and that's my very limited understanding on it. I also have no idea on how restricted other nations are in regards to speech (for example--even the UK had anti-blasphemy laws on their books until the last 10 years or so IIRC).

So, if the director of the film 'knew' it would lead to the murders of Western civilians--I don't know? Would that be incitement? It's certainly morally bankrupt, regardless of your legal ability to engage in the activity.

thats the mob carveout. Doesn't apply in this case.

**Jihadin**

One of the American diplomats killed Tuesday in a bloody attack on a Libyan Consulate told pals in an online gaming forum hours earlier that he'd seen suspicious people taking pictures outside his compound and wondered if he and his team might "die tonight."

Sean Smith, a foreign service information management officer assigned to the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, was well known in the online gaming forum EVE Online, where he went by the name "vilerat," and was seen as a leader by his fellow gamers. Smith was killed along with three others, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, when the consulate was attacked by an angry mob.

But hours before the bloody assault, Smith sent a message to Alex Gianturco, the director of "Goonswarm," Smith's online gaming team or "guild."

“Assuming we don’t die tonight,” the message, which was first reported by Wired, read. “We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

Within hours of posting that message, Smith, a husband and father of two, was dead. Gianturco, who could not be reached for further comment, got the word out to fellow gamers, according to Wired.

“My people, I have greivous [sic] news,” wrote Gianturco. “Vile Rat has been confirmed to be KIA in Benghazi; his family has been informed and the news is likely to break out on the wire services soon.

“Needless to say, we are in shock, have no words, and have nothing but sympathy for his family and children. I have known Vile Rat since 2006, he was one of the oldest of old-guard goons and one of the best and most effective diplomats this game has ever seen.”

On Wednesday, as word spread throughout the guild, tributes poured in for the foreign service information management officer who also was a moderator at the Internet community Something Awful, which is known for posting disturbing photos and videos. Nearly 500 posts to themittani.com, a site run by a the director.

"To your wife and children, know that the love of thousands of video game nerds, the world over, fall to your shoulders," wrote one poster.

"Vile Rat was a shining example of life lived to its fullest," wrote another. "A great man in all respects and will be missed by many. Not even 12 hours ago we were talking in jabber, he had made a joke about the lack of security in such places and crappy Internet. The whole thing seems surreal."

Meanwhile, President Obama vowed on Wednesday to apprehend the killers with the aid of the Libyan government.

"Make no mistake. We will work with the Libyan government to bring justice to killers who attack our people," Obama said, adding: "There is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/diplomat-killed-in-libya-to-fellow-gamers-assuming-dont-die-tonight/#ixzz26IMVavAX

I think most of you are cool but I doubt in all seriousness I let you all know I'm about to freaking die soon.

**ShumaGorath**

AgeOfEgos wrote:
If someone makes a racist or inappropriate comment, please use the yellow triangle and alert a mod--rather than quote and respond. Thanks!

Does the triangle do anything? I mashed that thing in the post on page one talking about killing a billion people and creating a parking lot out of a continent. It's still there, unmodded. I've certainly been banned for far less.

**Ouze**

So I just saw CNN in the break room talking about the video. They mentioned some of the things that were in it, prefaced by "we're not going to show any of it here". And this seems to be a good place to discuss it in the thread.

I don't really have a good explanation for why, so if you guys want to call me out for not laying a logical foundation for my argument, you'd be right. But this feels wrong to be. It does. It feels like this should be newsworthy, and it should be shown, and it's cowardly not to do so. I don't think we should accommodate extremism, and I think we enable them when we do so.

**AgeOfEgos**

ShumaGorath wrote:

Does the triangle do anything? I mashed that thing in the post on page one talking about killing a billion people and creating a parking lot out of a continent. It's still there, unmodded. I've certainly been banned for far less.

Hi Shuma,

We do not discuss the moderation of other individuals--please keep future discussion on topic. Thanks.

**ShumaGorath**

Ouze wrote:
So I just saw CNN in the break room talking about the video. They mentioned some of the things that were in it, prefaced by "we're not going to show any of it here". And this seems to be a good place to discuss it in the thread.

I don't really have a good explanation for why, so if you guys want to call me out for not laying a logical foundation for my argument, you'd be right. But this feels wrong to be. It does. It feels like this should be newsworthy, and it should be shown, and it's cowardly not to do so. I don't think we should accommodate extremism, and I think we enable them when we do so.

Why is it newsworthy to show the video? The video wasn't what made the news, it was the fact that people died because of it. People can seek the video out if they want to, it's not the job of the news to give platform to specific political views, especially ones repugnant and inflammatory enough that they've already caused deaths.