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.
Jihadin wrote: So your saying Shuma that we need to be a major influence in the ME?
No, he's saying that your idea is not very well thought out.
The idea that the United States will immediately vacate an area because of an attack on an embassy will result in nothing but an open season being declared on embassies or other diplomatic stations by elements which want the United States out anyways.
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..
Jihadin wrote: So your saying Shuma that we need to be a major influence in the ME?
It doesn't cost us much to keep embassies and aid programs running and it gives us disproportionate sway in a region where we have significant security and energy interests. We don't need to be a major influence, but you want to throw all influence away.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
By establishing benchmarks to recieve US Aid is a bad thing? First benchmark. Total protection of the Embassy from the mobs.
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: By establishing benchmarks to recieve US Aid is a bad thing? First benchmark. Total protection of the Embassy from the mobs.
"Hi, I am Mr. Warlord/Local Terrorist Leader. I sure wish I would control all the resources in my area and be the only source of food for the people so they will do my biting. But I have a hard time making the people do what I want as long as they get their food aid from the US. Hungry people are so much easier to control. Let me just send some mobs to the embassy to make sure the people in this country go hungry again so I get my power back."
Alright, I'm one of those people who thinks religion ain't that smart. That being said, the guy who made the video wasn't that smart either. And the people who rioted over it, weren't smart at all. Romney especially wasn't smart with his comment about it.
Overall, it seems like this whole incident involved a lot of stupidity and some pointless bloodshed.
LoneLictor wrote: Alright, I'm one of those people who thinks religion ain't that smart. That being said, the guy who made the video wasn't that smart either. And the people who rioted over it, weren't smart at all. Romney especially wasn't smart with his comment about it.
Overall, it seems like this whole incident involved a lot of stupidity and some pointless bloodshed.
Edit
We had a tast of the warlord thing. Forget about Somalia?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 22:49:37
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: Is it a legit gov't? Welcome to a bench mark
Edit
We had a tast of the warlord thing. Forget about Somalia?
Governments are legitimized by the presence of diplomatic relations, so it is hard to use it as a benchmark.
And letting people go hungry and punishing them for the actions of a small group of people is usually a good way to make new enemies. OBL was our "friend" until we decided to cut off aid to him
Jihadin wrote: Is it a legit gov't? Welcome to a bench mark
Edit
We had a taste of the warlord thing. Forget about Somalia?
What about Somalia?
The Republicans howling for us to pull out when things went south on one series of operations, then turning around and using it as an example of Bill Clinton "having no backbone"?
Government is legitimize by the people not by diplomacy to other nations.
People going hungry got the US involve in Somalia. Look how that turn out for us.
Edit
The Republicans howling for us to pull out when things went south on one series of operations, then turning around and using it as an example of Bill Clinton "having no backbone"?
Even though I spent like 10 days in Somalia swapping out C&C birds with 10th Mountain. I do not remember hearing the republicans slamming Clinton on having no back bone. Link pls on this. I do know Aspin caught all heck though for being quick for denying armored tracks to US Ground Forces.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 23:02:23
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
Sure, he was not a country but that did not mean that we did not engage in diplomatic overtures toward him and his organization when they were fighting the Soviets.
Government is legitimize by the people not by diplomacy to other nations.
There is no one single bit which "legitimizes" a government.
People going hungry got the US involve in Somalia. Look how that turn out for us.
People going hungry because of clan wars and a campaign of genocidal shenanigans got us involved in Somalia.
"How it turned out for us" is that we learned from the outcome of a botched snatch and grab on Adid.
Even though I spent like 10 days in Somalia swapping out C&C birds with 10th Mountain. I do not remember hearing the republicans slamming Clinton on having no back bone. Link pls on this. I do know Aspin caught all heck though for being quick for denying armored tracks to US Ground Forces.
It was not until Clinton was going for reelection that it happened, at the same time that Republicans were accusing Clinton of playing "wag the dog" with the attempts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 23:05:44
Sure, he was not a country but that did not mean that we did not engage in diplomatic overtures toward him and his organization when they were fighting the Soviets.
OBL and a embassy are not the same thing. We're talking country here
There is no one single bit which "legitimizes" a government.
So the US government is not legit?
People going hungry because of clan wars and a campaign of genocidal shenanigans got us involved in Somalia.
"How it turned out for us" is that we learned from the outcome of a botched snatch and grab on Adid
The operation wasn't botched. The target was not there but they did snatch his LT's. What botched it was Blackburn missing the rope on the air assualt.
It was not until Clinton was going for reelection that it happened, at the same time that Republicans were accusing Clinton of playing "wag the dog" with the attempts to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.
Still Clinton won. Somalia was not a major issue point. People during that time viewed the military operationas a failure of the military to complete the mission. Hence Aspin was at fault for denying armor vehicles for the rangers. It was mention before on another thread with Manny. Clinton did not know about the request for armored vehicles.
Since some people here keep mentioning starving people in the ME. Notice we're not really making a effort in Sudan?
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: By establishing benchmarks to recieve US Aid is a bad thing? First benchmark. Total protection of the Embassy from the mobs.
So, you want to benchmark countries on their security. If it's not good enough you'll cut aid to them, that aid going heavily into providing for their security and significantly diminishing it once removed. Do you have any idea how backwards that sounds? I can't even describe that accurately without being banned from this forum.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
I don't want to sound too "European" but to me, a foreign embassy being attacked is just unacceptable. The people responsable should be severely punished.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Nope. Your cherry picking out all kinds of things but I play. Military Aid. Well its not state of the art we're giving them. I give an example. I mention this before on the hospital in Afghanistan thread. There's a couple thousands up uparmored humvees. Frag Five and Sevens for those who been over. That are not being turned over to the Afghan government because of a benchmark they haven't met. Military Aid is low tech to us.
edit
Also rumor is Israel looking to purchas a couple hundred of them but they mostly want our MRAPS and MATV.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/14 23:45:13
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
Testify wrote: I don't want to sound too "European" but to me, a foreign embassy being attacked is just unacceptable. The people responsable should be severely punished.
In the case of Libya, the acting government has started rounding people up already. Insofar as the other countries are concerned, it's harder to justify detaining and jailing hundreds of your own citizens and countries like Egypt and Yemen don't really have the mechanisms to do this at all. It's likely that after the fact instigators will be rounded up in some of these countries, but probably not all.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
I do think it's important to note that the donkey cave who did this tricked a bunch of other people into performing in his "movie" and then dubbed Mohhamed over their words.
What was shot wasn't and isn't the problem. What was done by the manipulative bugger who then left his actors to twist in the wind is.
Jihadin wrote: Is it a legit gov't? Welcome to a bench mark
Edit
We had a taste of the warlord thing. Forget about Somalia?
What about Somalia?
The Republicans howling for us to pull out when things went south on one series of operations, then turning around and using it as an example of Bill Clinton "having no backbone"?
I'm pretty sure that last part was actually bin Laden and then parroted by the GOP.
Somalia is one of the key reasons that I view Clinton in such a positive light. A guy with slim military and foreign policy creditionals(at the time) did what he thought was right and put troops on the ground, but. It so much to have us embroiled in a full scales war. It was a tough call to make and he did with aplomb. In the end it bit him, and us, but he did the best he could with the information he had at the time. He also didn't embroil us in a decade long Somali war that could have easily been our Vietnam II.
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..
Does that entitle me to throw a big, "My fee-fees, they're hurt!" tantrum?
No offense but contemporary, popular atheism very often delves into "My fee-fees, they're hurt!" tantrums. Mann already talked about the distinction between a violent protest and a speech based response, but throwing tantrums is perfectly fine from a standpoint of "righteousness"; even if it doesn't necessarily reflect positively on your cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: I don't think it's uniquely religious. More tribal, maybe. People freak out in similar ways when their country or political system is attacked/insulted.
Or families, sports teams, pets, preferred video games, preferred table-top games, and pretty much anything that is oriented around a community.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Notice the DoS already stated the Aid to the Egyptian military military will not be touched?
That's because the Egyptian military actually likes us, and we want them to have political power and continue to like us.
If you can't win over the population at least make sure the guys with guns are on your side.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/15 03:07:52
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
despite a White House request that the company review it under its own policies, the company said Friday."
“We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions,” a YouTube spokeswoman said in a statement. “This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video — which is widely available on the Web — is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube.”
Thanks to Google, a corporation, with stronger free-speech values than the United States government is willing to support.
In fact, what is "disgusting and reprehensible" is that there are people in the world who think they are justified in attacking and killing people because someone hurt their feelings or offended their sensibilities.
That's pretty much the only justifiable reason for killing people, the only question is which particular feelings and sensibilities should be considered motivation for killing.
I have defended the Obama administration against the complaints from the right that they have run an "apology tour" in the Middle East because I believe the US should admit when we make mistakes, such as the accidental burning of Korans. But what we shouldn't do is affirm the wrongheaded view that people should be protected from the free speech of others.
The US is advocating protecting other people from certain forms of speech in the exact same sense that Powers is advocating protecting people from another kind of speech.
Someone needs to explain to the White House that our Constitution protects freedom of religion from government interference, not the protection from people who say mean, critical or offensive things about one's religion.
The Constitution also only protects the freedom of speech from government interference. It doesn't mandate that the government protect speech from anyone else, or even that it cannot call certain forms of speech objectionable without making any move to restrict it.
If Christians had burned down Maher's house in response, would the administration put out a statement condemning the violence but pointing out that he should have respected the religious beliefs of others?
Of course not. Nor would anyone want that.
Actually, I imagine that is they took any kind of position, it wouldn't have been far from that.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that's too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.
The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming "We love you," too drunk on his celebrity to understand that this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged Midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.
President Barack Obama greets supporters after speaking at a campaign rally in Golden, Colo., Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012.
The president is too lazy and cocksure to have learned any prepared remarks or mastered the appropriate tone, notwithstanding that a government that spends more money than any government in the history of the planet has ever spent can surely provide him with both a speechwriting team and a quiet corner on his private wide-bodied jet to consider what might be fitting for the occasion. So instead he sloughs off the words, bloodless and unfelt: "And obviously our hearts are broken..." Yeah, it's totally obvious.
POLITICAL CARTOONS:
50 cartoons on Arab extremists hatred, blaming Romney, Chicago teacher's strike and more
And he's even more drunk on his celebrity than the fanbois, so in his slapdashery he winds up comparing the sacrifice of a diplomat lynched by a pack of savages with the enthusiasm of his own campaign bobbysoxers. No, no, says the Broadway director; that's too crude, too ham-fisted. How about the crowd is cheering and distracted, but he's the president, he understands the gravity of the hour, and he's the greatest orator of his generation, so he's thought about what he's going to say, and it takes a few moment but his words are so moving that they still the cheers of the fanbois, and at the end there's complete silence and a few muffled sobs, and even in party-town they understand the sacrifice and loss of their compatriots on the other side of the world.
But no, that would be an utterly fantastical America. In the real America, the president is too busy to attend the security briefing on the morning after a national debacle, but he does have time to do Letterman and appear on a hip-hop radio show hosted by "The Pimp With A Limp." In the real State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo is guarded by Marines with no ammunition, but they do enjoy the soft-power muscle of a Foreign Service officer, one Lloyd Schwartz, tweeting frenziedly into cyberspace (including a whole chain directed at my own Twitter handle, for some reason) about how America deplores insensitive people who are so insensitively insensitive that they don't respectfully respect all religions equally respectfully and sensitively, even as the raging mob is pouring through the gates.
When it comes to a flailing, blundering superpower, I am generally wary of ascribing to malevolence what is more often sheer stupidity and incompetence. For example, we're told that, because the consulate in Benghazi was designated as an "interim facility," it did not warrant the level of security and protection that, say, an embassy in Scandinavia would have. This seems all too plausible – that security decisions are made not by individual human judgment but according to whichever rule-book sub-clause at the Federal Agency of Bureaucratic Facilities Regulation it happens to fall under. However, the very next day the embassy in Yemen, which is a permanent facility, was also overrun, as was the embassy in Tunisia the day after. Look, these are tough crowds, as the president might say at Caesar's Palace. But we spend more money on these joints than anybody else, and they're as easy to overrun as the Belgian Consulate.
As I say, I'm inclined to be generous, and put some of this down to the natural torpor and ineptitude of government. But Hillary Clinton and Gen. Martin Dempsey are guilty of something worse, in the Secretary of State's weirdly obsessive remarks about an obscure film supposedly disrespectful of Mohammed and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs' telephone call to a private citizen, asking him if he could please ease up on the old Islamophobia.
Forget the free-speech arguments. In this case, as Secretary Clinton and Gen. Dempsey well know, the film has even less to do with anything than did the Danish cartoons or the schoolteacher's teddy bear or any of the other innumerable grievances of Islam. The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: that's not a spontaneous movie protest; that's an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower's response to it. Secretary Clinton and Gen. Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.
One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a "safe house," and switched their attentions accordingly. How did that happen? The United States government lost track of its ambassador for 10 hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they've investigated Mitt Romney's press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.
For whatever reason, Secretary Clinton chose to double down on misleading the American people. "Libyans carried Chris' body to the hospital," said Mrs. Clinton. That's one way of putting it. The photographs at the Arab TV network al-Mayadeen show Chris Stevens' body being dragged through the streets, while the locals take souvenir photographs on their cellphones. A man in a red striped shirt photographs the dead-eyed ambassador from above; another immediately behind his head moves the splayed arm and holds his cellphone camera an inch from the ambassador's nose. Some years ago, I had occasion to assist in moving the body of a dead man: We did not stop to take photographs en route. Even allowing for cultural differences, this looks less like "carrying Chris' body to the hospital" and more like barbarians gleefully feasting on the spoils of savagery.
In a rare appearance on a non-showbiz outlet, President Obama, winging it on Telemundo, told his host that Egypt was neither an ally nor an enemy. I can understand why it can be difficult to figure out, but here's an easy way to tell: Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam, said some years ago that America risked being seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. At the Benghazi consulate, the looters stole "sensitive" papers revealing the names of Libyans who've cooperated with the United States. Oh, well. As the president would say, obviously our hearts are with you.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the local doctor who fingered bin Laden to the Americans sits in jail. In other words, while America's clod vice-president staggers around, pimping limply that only Obama had the guts to take the toughest decision anyone's ever had to take, the poor schlub who actually did have the guts, who actually took the tough decision in a part of the world where taking tough decisions can get you killed, languishes in a cell because Washington would not lift a finger to help him.
AustonT wrote: Which is a fundamentally false adage, especially in this age where we are seeif more and more young people hurt or kill themselves over words.
So you're saying they did not choose to kill themselves? There are very, very few words that prompt an intrinsic response in humans, if any. We always have a choice on how to handle what's said to us, no matter how insultingly it may be intended.
AustonT wrote: Which is a fundamentally false adage, especially in this age where we are seeif more and more young people hurt or kill themselves over words.
So you're saying they did not choose to kill themselves? There are very, very few words that prompt an intrinsic response in humans, if any. We always have a choice on how to handle what's said to us, no matter how insultingly it may be intended.
No words cause an intrinsic response in humans, language is learned. That doesn't mean humans control what they will be offended by, that presupposes a gated system of emotional response. Humans don't really have that.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
ShumaGorath wrote: No words cause an intrinsic response in humans, language is learned. That doesn't mean humans control what they will be offended by, that presupposes a gated system of emotional response. Humans don't really have that.
Again, I disagree. I've often had time to consider whether something actually offends me or not. Direct personal insults, obviously, are examples of things that likely do provoke an immediate 'offended/not offended' response, but this was not one of those cases, so the point's rather moot.
As the article Melissia posted earlier points out, this was exceedingly obvious bait, and you'd have to be pretty stupid to take it.
Seaward wrote: So you're saying they did not choose to kill themselves? There are very, very few words that prompt an intrinsic response in humans, if any. We always have a choice on how to handle what's said to us, no matter how insultingly it may be intended.
No, I believe he's saying that words can hurt people too.
After all, you really only take offense to being hurt because you believe that you shouldn't have been hurt. You essentially choose to take offense, buy the definition of "choice" you're using.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
AustonT wrote: Which is a fundamentally false adage, especially in this age where we are seeif more and more young people hurt or kill themselves over words.
So you're saying they did not choose to kill themselves? There are very, very few words that prompt an intrinsic response in humans, if any. We always have a choice on how to handle what's said to us, no matter how insultingly it may be intended.
No words cause an intrinsic response in humans, language is learned. That doesn't mean humans control what they will be offended by, that presupposes a gated system of emotional response. Humans don't really have that.
Shuma... I'm struggling to understand this. Are you saying that being "offended" is really derived from our upbringings? (culturely, religiously, etc)? As in, we don't have a choice?
Seaward wrote: So you're saying they did not choose to kill themselves? There are very, very few words that prompt an intrinsic response in humans, if any. We always have a choice on how to handle what's said to us, no matter how insultingly it may be intended.
No, I believe he's saying that words can hurt people too.
After all, you really only take offense to being hurt because you believe that you shouldn't have been hurt. You essentially choose to take offense, buy the definition of "choice" you're using.
Ah... gotcha! Makes sense... I think.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/15 05:25:23
The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming "We love you," too drunk on his celebrity to understand that this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation.
Does anyone actually find this humiliating?
So instead he sloughs off the words, bloodless and unfelt: "And obviously our hearts are broken..." Yeah, it's totally obvious.
Whose hearts were actually broken? The relevant families?
I suspect outside that set the people claiming such are fething liars.
...sacrifice of a diplomat lynched by a pack of savages...
Unconfirmed.
Regardless, Mark Steyn wants hits, and that's all. That he laments ignorance while exploiting it is more than a bit comical.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/15 05:54:20
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.