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.
Not sure anyone knows if AQ involve yet. If I was AQ I would claim it that we (AQ) killed two members of SEAL Team 6 by tracking them down. Be all sorts of positive AQ propaganda on this by word of mouth. Majority of their fighters really can't read, have a TV, internet, or a media new source besides what they hear from their commanders
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
On this note, how's everyone feel about that statement from the Cairo embassy apologizing for the freedom of speech?
I've already said my piece... (see my previous posts).
I've just talked to someone who've done embassy security detail in Europe before... he doesn't really know anything about the Libyan event and is treating it as another terrorist attack. But as to Egypt/Yemen... Jihaden is right that they would fall back to protect the people/asset... they're not "manning the walls" like at a military base and their SOP/RIO is very strict. Had they stormed the actual buildings, it'd be baaad for the protestors.
He doesn't quite believe that the Marines in Egypt were unarmed... he can't really fathom that. Has anyone seen any direct quotes/statement about this or is this still hearsay?
There were no active duty marines in Libya for embassy duty because an official embassy hasn't been declared yet. Well actually now there's like 50 marines there at the Consulate. With major fire power at their finger tips....Naval artillery....air strikes....groovy
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote: There were no active duty marines in Libya for embassy duty because an official embassy hasn't been declared yet. Well actually now there's like 50 marines there at the Consulate. With major fire power at their finger tips....Naval artillery....air strikes....groovy
Hell yeah, FAST Co on the deck. Those guys are about as lean and mean as it gets in the Corps without getting into Force Recon or MARSOC.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Frazzled wrote: I didn't particularly catch anything wrong with what the CA said (not including Tweets which I am not a party too).
Frazz... here's a partial timeline of the tweets in question:
Spoiler:
Here is a partial timeline of events. All times are Eastern Standard Time (EST), 6 hours earlier than Cairo time.
5:50AM - Cairo Embassy publishes a statement on its website which rejects those who "abuse" free speech. This is a reference to an anti-Islam film, portions of which have been broadcast on TV in Arabic. The entire speech is tweeted out line by line on the Embassy account.
1:42PM - T he Associated Press tweets word of an attack on the Cairo Embassy. The US flag is pulled down and replaced with a black Islamic flag.
5:28PM - Cairo Embassy tweets out three defensive comments, the last of which doubles down on the initial statement. It reads "3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry." To this point there has been no comment, tweet, or statement defending free speech, only the statement/tweet criticizing those who abuse it.
7:00-7:20PM - T he Embassy puts out another tweet tripling down on their initial statement. "This morning's condemnation (issued before the protests began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy." This tweet is later deleted.
8:06PM - AP reports an attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya has resulted in one death and one injury.
10:09PM - The Romney camp sends out a brief statement which reads, "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." The statement is embargoed until midnight.
10:10PM - Politico reports an unnamed Obama administration official is disavowing the statement posted on the US Embassy website, claiming it was unauthorized. No explanation is offered why the embassy was still pushing it as of 7PM.
~10:25PM - The Romney camp sends out another email ending the embargo on its statement.
10:38-10:56PM - O n the State Dept. Twitter feed, Hillary condemns the attack in Libya and confirms the death of an unnamed "officer" in Libya. One of the final tweets of the night reads "#SecClinton on the attack in #Libya: Let me be clear -- there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." However, two other tweets mixed in with her reaction to Libya reaffirm a commitment to religious tolerance and denouncing "any intentional effort to denigrate the beliefs of others."
11:40PM-11:50PM - T he Cairo Embassy deletes six tweets, including the one about "abuse" of free speech, one about hurting Muslims feelings, and the one tripling down on the initial statement (7:00PM). They do not delete two unobjectionable tweets which were at the heart of the morning press release. The latter of these echoes Hillary's statement about religious tolerance. The Embassy has effectively scrubbed the offending statements while retaining a portion which the Secretary has embraced.
The assumption made almost universally this morning is that the official statements were the work of an undisciplined junior intern of some kind. Left-leaning author Jeffrey Goldberg claimed Romney was wrong to blame Obama because "[t]he 'sympathy' was expressed not by someone in the administration, but by a tweeter in the besieged embassy in Cairo." A tweeter? Is that the official title of the bilingual diplomat who handles press at one of our most important embassies? Goldberg fails to explain how this low-level "tweeter" was also able to post a press release on the embassy website without any approval from his superiors.
In any case, the media is demanding to know why Romney jumped on this so soon rather than wait. No one seems to be asking why, instead, it took the Obama administration 16 hours to disavow an obviously offensive and indeed stupid statement. Was no one at the State Dept. in contact with the Cairo Embassy in the 13 hours before they reaffirmed the initial statement at 7pm? Apparently word had not gotten back to the "tweeter" that the administration was not thrilled.
Maybe the administration was busy with other things, though of course not so busy that they didn't ultimately find time to correct this. But there are other equally plausible possibilities which haven't been explored at all. First, it's possible the administration recognized early on that the Embassy statement was problematic but decided to wait until most of the media was in bed before correcting it. This is done all the time with so-called Friday document dumps. The story might have developed very differently throughout the day if the statement had been disavowed at 10AM instead of 10PM.
Second, it is a bit far fetched that something as important as attempting to head off a mob was left to a junior associate with no oversight by his superiors. Even if you buy that, which I don't, did no one pick up on it during the day? Finally, is it really likely that after a long day of getting beat up on social media the junior "tweeter" doubled and tripled down on the statement without checking in with his/her superiors? I'm no diplomat, but I have the impression this is not how things are generally done, not even by tweeters.
The fact is we don't actually know what happened behind the scenes. We have the self-serving disavowal of an unnamed official that this was not approved. Has anyone yet gone on the record with this? Why not? It suggests the administration was embarrassed, as they should be. That is not incompatible with either of the two options above. There has to be some explanation why the administration let this flawed statement sit out there for 16 hours. It's a shame no one in the media seems interested is asking.
Jihadin wrote:Not sure anyone knows if AQ involve yet. If I was AQ I would claim it that we (AQ) killed two members of SEAL Team 6 by tracking them down. Be all sorts of positive AQ propaganda on this by word of mouth. Majority of their fighters really can't read, have a TV, internet, or a media new source besides what they hear from their commanders
Thanks for posting the article. Shame really, makes you reconsider private security gigs.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
They were getting serious bank for that job. Average security guard american with own weapons clocks out like 160K before the perks.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced that she finds the anti-Muslim movie trailer that sparked violent and even murderous attacks on American embassies across the Middle East to be “disgusting and reprehensible” and that the United States government had nothing to do with it. I’d add that the trailer is idiotic and hilariously amateurish, but film criticism isn’t part of our chief diplomat’s job description.
It is of course true that the United States government has nothing to do with the film, and that’s an important point to make. Most Middle Easterners have spent their entire lives in an environment where the state owns and controls most or all of the media. State-run TV and newspapers are normal for them. Some honestly may not understand that we do things differently here.
Clinton also should have explained the First Amendment. We don’t punish blasphemy in the United States. Our government isn’t allowed to punish citizens for disrespecting a religion, a political party, the president, or anything or anyone else. This is not going to change. It’s certainly not going to change because violent reactionaries on the other side of the planet don’t like it.
And I have to say it’s a little unseemly for our government to officially take a position on a YouTube video, even one that sparked an international crisis. It’s even more unseemly that our government is taking the same position on that film as the people who just killed our ambassador in Benghazi.
The Bin Ladenists of the Middle East have reasons to hate just about everything on YouTube and American television; not only “blasphemous” videos like the one that inspired the current rage of the week, but also everything from South Park and Breaking Bad to Shalom in the Home and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
I don’t mean to pick on the Democrats here. President George W. Bush did the same thing in 2006. When Danish embassies were attacked in Beirut and Damascus over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad, the Republican president condemned the cartoons.
Violent mobs and terrorist organizations are not going to calm down just because Bush and Clinton go on TV and tell them they have a point. All that does in encourage them. As Matt Welch pointed out in Tablet, “Mohammad al-Zawahiri, the brother of al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly explained: The U.S. government’s statement condemning the producers of the video that insults the Prophet was not enough. Neither prophylactic apologies nor self-censorship, it turns out, seem to mollify religious fanatics.”
This should have been obvious by now even if al-Zawahiri hadn't said anything. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo condemned the film before it was attacked and repeated the condemnation afterward. Violent protests spread across the region the very next day. The Obama administration distanced itself from the embassy’s hostage-like response while it was under siege, but Clinton just went on TV and did it again. The result won't be any better this time than it was last time.
The West will not, cannot, change its laws to accommodate anybody’s emotions, especially not people on the other side of the planet who replace our flag with the Al Qaeda flag and murder our diplomats.The Internet will always be offensive and our First Amendment will not be repealed. The longer it takes for Middle Easterners to understand this and adjust, the more people are going to die.
Violent mobs and terrorist organizations are not going to calm down just because Bush and Clinton go on TV and tell them they have a point. All that does in encourage them.
Stopped reading after this bit of logically backwards politically motivated trash. You have some sort of superpower for finding and agreeing with thing written by or for14 year olds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 01:05:38
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Violent mobs and terrorist organizations are not going to calm down just because Bush and Clinton go on TV and tell them they have a point. All that does in encourage them.
Stopped reading after this bit of logically backwards politically motivated trash. You have some sort of superpower for finding and agreeing with thing written by or for14 year olds.
You need to read up on Michael Trotten... trust me, you'll be surprised.
And what exactly do you object to that quoted statement?
EDIT: Kewl! Shuma thinks I gots supa powah!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 01:28:38
Violent mobs and terrorist organizations are not going to calm down just because Bush and Clinton go on TV and tell them they have a point. All that does in encourage them.
Stopped reading after this bit of logically backwards politically motivated trash. You have some sort of superpower for finding and agreeing with thing written by or for14 year olds.
You need to read up on Michael Trotten... trust me, you'll be surprised.
And what exactly do you object to that quoted statement?
EDIT: Kewl! Shuma thinks I gots supa powah!
Among many things in there the concept that an apologetic stance towards religious insults increases and emboldens terrorist activity. Every shred of evidence and simple logic dictates the exact opposite, and no, given the quality of this 'piece' I don't think I need to look much into Micheal Trotten.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
It's a stupid argument. No one has apologized for free speech. It's completely legitimate to criticize an donkey-cave who misuses his right to free speech to foment violence and hatred. There was no need or call for Clinton to "explain the First Amendment"; lecturing other people on how we have more freedoms than they do isn't going to help the diplomatic situation.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Violent mobs and terrorist organizations are not going to calm down just because Bush and Clinton go on TV and tell them they have a point. All that does in encourage them.
Stopped reading after this bit of logically backwards politically motivated trash. You have some sort of superpower for finding and agreeing with thing written by or for14 year olds.
You need to read up on Michael Trotten... trust me, you'll be surprised.
And what exactly do you object to that quoted statement?
EDIT: Kewl! Shuma thinks I gots supa powah!
Among many things in there the concept that an apologetic stance towards religious insults increases and emboldens terrorist activity. Every shred of evidence and simple logic dictates the exact opposite, and no, given the quality of this 'piece' I don't think I need to look much into Micheal Trotten.
First: I'd really insist you to have an open mind on Michael Totten and Michael Yon... these two writers/photographers actually are on the ground in (Iraq, Afpak, Africa).
Secondly: You just refuted your own statments... there's still protest/riots/whatever even AFTER the us apologize... they DON'T CARE about our apology.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: It's a stupid argument. No one has apologized for free speech. It's completely legitimate to criticize an donkey-cave who misuses his right to free speech to foment violence and hatred. There was no need or call for Clinton to "explain the First Amendment"; lecturing other people on how we have more freedoms than they do isn't going to help the diplomatic situation.
I really disagree with this... appeasement won't be enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 01:51:55
Seriously, the most basic level of diplomacy (the kind most of us use in our daily lives) involves offering at least a little bit of sympathy and understanding to someone who's upset, while still being clear about things that are unacceptable. People had legimate reason to be upset by the video. They had no justification for violence.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Didn't see te Christians go nuts over the "Da Vinci Code"
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Seriously, the most basic level of diplomacy (the kind most of us use in our daily lives) involves offering at least a little bit of sympathy and understanding to someone who's upset, while still being clear about things that are unacceptable. People had legimate reason to be upset by the video. They had no justification for violence.
Agreed.
I was just fustrated at the missed opportunity the explain what our 1st Admendment means, as Michael Totten stated:
Clintonalsoshould have explained the First Amendment. We don’t punish blasphemy in the United States. Our government isn’t allowed to punish citizens for disrespecting a religion, a political party, the president, or anything or anyone else. This is not going to change. It’s certainly not going to change because violent reactionaries on the other side of the planet don’t like it.
Mannahnin wrote: People had legimate reason to be upset by the video.
No, they didn't.
why
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
2012/09/14 02:25:03
Subject: Re:American Diplomat/Official Killed in Protests (2nd Embassy/Consulate attacked today)
Seaward wrote: Should you? Up to you. Certainly not up to the stranger.
Well, duh.
And then afterwards, when that stranger has got offended and nothing else has been achieved at all, everyone is going to say 'well that was a fething stupid thing to do'.
And I'll defend it by saying 'it was my right to say what I want'. Because that's what donkey-caves do.
I'm saying this isn't an issue of morality. You want to discuss it in terms of morality? Very well. It's not immoral to make a film that breaks no laws. End of discussion.
Of course it's an issue of morality. The idea that someone can say 'he shouldn't have done that' and that someone else can just declare 'this isn't an issue of morality' is beyond ridiculous. As soon as a person states 'he can do that but he shouldn't have' then morality is part of the issue.
And yeah, it can be immoral to do things, even when they break no laws. Making a film that causes offence and achieves nothing else, and never could have achieved anything else, is one such example.
Where have you picked up this strange notion that you're entitled to go through life without ever being offended?
There is, very fething obviously, a big space between 'never get offended' and 'there is nothing wrong with doing offensive gak for no reason but to be offensive'.
If you would stop and think about this issue for even just a half of a second you would have figured that out. Instead you're just blurting out whatever nonsense you can in response to me. It's boring.
So I take it, in the analogy I presented earlier, you're saying that the woman's at fault as well as the attacker? Interesting.
No, I'm not. I cut that argument because it was too stupid to bother with. But if I really, really have to...
The analogy is a complete fail because at no point did I suggest the people who attacked the embassy deserved anything but complete blame for their actions. The analogy is a complete fail because unlike the rape victim, who is taking on all risk associated with her behaviour, the victims of the attack at the embassy are not the douchebag who made the video.
What?
You continue to raise points that I have expliticitly stated are false. You continue to invent nonsense that I must believe. You are debating an imaginary person, and ignoring my actual debate.
I don't know why you are doing this, but I'd wish you'd stop. Because what I actually explained to you was very simple, I would honestly be disappointed with an eight year old if they didn't understand the concept of 'you are free to do this, but that doesn't mean you should'.
Instead we have this nonsense.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/14 02:27:09
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Your looking at two different religous culture here. On our side we're a bit educated and exposed to a wide assortment of other religions. On their side they grew up in a culture thats muslim all their lives with hardly no exposure to any other religion.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Ahtman wrote: It has been awhile, but wasn't Leviathan basically one big long explanation for why Christianity required a strong Monarchy? There was a time when many thought that Christianity and Democracy were incompatible, or at least not ideal at all.
That's a good point. Great example of how quickly things can change, yeah?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: How is it that this glorified home video is distributed more widely in the Islamic world? Is it offered in Arabic and Farsi? Somehow I doubt it.
It's the daily outrage.
It's the same as Rush Limbaugh's audience having more liberals than conservatives. Or how Richard Dawkins is so much of a bigger deal in creationist circles than he is in evolutionary biology.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/14 02:34:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Jihadin wrote: Your looking at two different religous culture here. On our side we're a bit educated and exposed to a wide assortment of other religions. On their side they grew up in a culture thats muslim all their lives with hardly no exposure to any other religion.
Thats kinda my point...
Most folks over there *thinks* the US government is okay/endorse anything that come out of "America", because that's their reality in their country.
Yeah, the 'them'. The 'them' are always the most horrible, despicable group of people. Until history moves on, we get to like those people and then we find some other 'them' to hate for all the ways they're different to 'us'.
The target of racism changes, but underneath it all it's basically the same thing, isn't it?
Doesn't this "make us look weak" now though? Now the world knows that they can scale the wall and drag down our flag... don't you think they'll try pushing it more?
I don't think this is the gangster planet from Star Trek. It really isn't about looking tough so people don't take you on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 02:42:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The target of racism changes, but underneath it all it's basically the same thing, isn't it?
They all bleed red depends on the wound. Either arterial, veinous, or a bad flesh wound
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
First: I'd really insist you to have an open mind on Michael Totten and Michael Yon... these two writers/photographers actually are on the ground in (Iraq, Afpak, Africa).
Secondly: You just refuted your own statments... there's still protest/riots/whatever even AFTER the us apologize... they DON'T CARE about our apology.
whembly wrote: And what exactly do you object to that quoted statement?
The problem is that it's a false argument. No-one actually thinks everyone was running around the White House until Obama said 'nah, it's cool, I've got this. I'll apologise and then they'll stop being angry.'
Stating that the film is not what we're about isn't the complete solution, but it might be a small part of the eventual solution, and it certainly won't be part of the problem (whereas failing to acknowledge the movie, or going on some lecture about free speach could potentially exacerbate the problem).
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
First: I'd really insist you to have an open mind on Michael Totten and Michael Yon... these two writers/photographers actually are on the ground in (Iraq, Afpak, Africa).
Secondly: You just refuted your own statments... there's still protest/riots/whatever even AFTER the us apologize... they DON'T CARE about our apology.
Let's parse this nebulous concept of logic... shall we?
You said, and I quote "...concept that an apologetic stance towards religious insults increases and emboldens terrorist activity. Every shred of evidence and simple logic dictates the exact opposite..."
It certainly doesn't DECREASE and DEFLATE terrorist activities...
whembly wrote: And what exactly do you object to that quoted statement?
The problem is that it's a false argument. No-one actually thinks everyone was running around the White House until Obama said 'nah, it's cool, I've got this. I'll apologise and then they'll stop being angry.'
Stating that the film is not what we're about isn't the complete solution, but it might be a small part of the eventual solution, and it certainly won't be part of the problem (whereas failing to acknowledge the movie, or going on some lecture about free speach could potentially exacerbate the problem).
I disagree Seb... we're dealing with Extremist who doesn't understand this, or more likely they're using it as a pretext to exert influence in the region.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 03:06:53
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
depends on the wound. Either arterial, veinous, or a bad flesh wound
