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 wrote:Bad enough I think they flubb'ed this thing...

Now, they're running ads apologizing:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/20/state-department-spends-your-tax-dollars-to-buy-pakistani-tv-ads-apologizing-for-your-free-speech

Haven't watched it, but I'm just gonna go ahead an assume that there is no apology for Americans having free speech, but rather an apology because a few specific Americans chose to be d-bags.

 Seaward wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
A price to pay for every sagriellieges.

I'm not sure if muslim protesters demand all the film crews to be handed over to them (so those 'criminal' will be punished for sagriellieges. burned at stake as every 'heretics' should meet their ends)? the only demans i've heard is that the sagrielliege film to be banned worldwide.

I'm going to play it 24/7 in my front yard, I think.

Perfect provocation

but think twice before doing this.
or who do you think will come to your aid should that happen?

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Bad enough I think they flubb'ed this thing...

Now, they're running ads apologizing:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/20/state-department-spends-your-tax-dollars-to-buy-pakistani-tv-ads-apologizing-for-your-free-speech

Haven't watched it, but I'm just gonna go ahead an assume that there is no apology for Americans having free speech, but rather an apology because a few specific Americans chose to be d-bags.

Yup... dats right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Bad enough I think they flubb'ed this thing...

Now, they're running ads apologizing:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/20/state-department-spends-your-tax-dollars-to-buy-pakistani-tv-ads-apologizing-for-your-free-speech

Haven't watched it, but I'm just gonna go ahead an assume that there is no apology for Americans having free speech, but rather an apology because a few specific Americans chose to be d-bags.

Yup... dats right.

WSJ getting in the act:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444032404578010470656228606.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

What message does the ad actually send the Mohammed Tariq Khans? On the one hand, a message of weakness: Assemble a big enough mob, kill enough people, burn enough flags and churches, and you too can grab the attention of the most powerful man and woman in the world. On the other hand, a taunt. If Obama and Mrs. Clinton really mean it, the Khans must think, why haven’t they presented the video makers for public mincing? The State Department’s ad contains no answer to that crucial question.

If our government is going to run an ad to educate Pakistanis (or whoever) about American attitudes, wouldn’t it make sense to include an explanation as to why America’s leaders cannot and will not enforce the mob’s standards of blasphemy? To an American, what’s objectionable about this ad isn’t so much the apology for the video’s offense as the abject failure to defend basic American principles of freedom. That same failure makes the ad less than worthless as an educational tool.

That's what I was trying to say...

Okay, I was bored and actually went to your link, Whembly.

And in doing so, I immediately found the article to be bankrupt of any intelligent debate or even reasonable talking points. That article is the sort of thing that Breitbart would spew during a white power orgy. Here's my favourite excerpt:


"It’s bad enough that they said this garbage in the first place. Now they’re using it in ads.
And yet those poor victims in Pock-ee-stohn are still rioting. Guess we’re not appeasing them abjectly enough. Grovel, Barry. Kowtow, Hillary. Submit.
Bow."



Now, I'll put that video clip into context for you, since that borderline-hate-speech blog isn't going to: the people rioting do not have the same freedoms of speech & expression that you do. They live in an area of the world where there is very little freedom of speech, and in their world you cannot make and post videos unless the state approves it and endorses the video. As such, they think that if something is posted on YouTube, it must have the consent of the US government, because that is how it works in their country. So the rioters might naturally think that the Terry Jones video is supported by the US government, which is obviously not the case. The US government seems to understand this differentiation of cultures and rights, and is thereby trying to educate the rioters that their anger towards the US government, and by that extension its embassies, is misdirected.

I think the US should be taking the current stance that it is, in trying to explain that there is a separation between what the US government, and what random US d-bags say.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Okay, I was bored and actually went to your link, Whembly.

Hey if you're board, let's talk about Hockey! How's dem Leafs doing?

Are you familiar with the "Roman Polak Door"?

And in doing so, I immediately found the article to be bankrupt of any intelligent debate or even reasonable talking points. That article is the sort of thing that Breitbart would spew during a white power orgy. Here's my favourite excerpt:


"It’s bad enough that they said this garbage in the first place. Now they’re using it in ads.
And yet those poor victims in Pock-ee-stohn are still rioting. Guess we’re not appeasing them abjectly enough. Grovel, Barry. Kowtow, Hillary. Submit.
Bow."

Okay... I'll admit, that was waaaay over the top.

Now, I'll put that video clip into context for you, since that borderline-hate-speech blog isn't going to: the people rioting do not have the same freedoms of speech & expression that you do. They live in an area of the world where there is very little freedom of speech, and in their world you cannot make and post videos unless the state approves it and endorses the video. As such, they think that if something is posted on YouTube, it must have the consent of the US government, because that is how it works in their country. So the rioters might naturally think that the Terry Jones video is supported by the US government, which is obviously not the case. The US government seems to understand this differentiation of cultures and rights, and is thereby trying to educate the rioters that their anger towards the US government, and by that extension its embassies, is misdirected.

I think the US should be taking the current stance that it is, in trying to explain that there is a separation between what the US government, and what random US d-bags say.

Yes, Whembly. I'm sure many of the folks who came from Iran & Jordan, etc. and have lived in the US for the last 40 years know exactly what your freedoms are.

However, I doubt the families who are still in contact with those folks are the ones doing the rioting.

Whembly, that article was already posted earlier:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/477584.page#4789988

Why do you relay on the words of these liars and scumbags who are just selling a political agenda full of vitriol and lies?

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=285793

The ad doesn't include any apology. It says the US supports religious freedom, and that we condemn people who denigrate any religion. Usually the conservatives want religious freedom protected, not the freedom to bash religion. The fact that they're up in arms defending an donkey-cave's right to bash Islam just speaks to the fact that they don't care about protecting religion in general, just about protecting their own religion, and feth anyone else's.

Seaward wrote:

Jihadin wrote:@lonelictor

personally believe that President Obama is defending our national security by campaigning. By doing so, he is protecting us against a potential Romney presidency. At least Obama believes in something; all Romney believes is that he wants to be President because power is fun. Oh, and that he should cut taxes on himself and his friends who are helping him in his campaign.

I'm voting for Romney because I'm his friend

I'm voting for him just because HuffPo liberals annoy me more than Hotair conservatives at the moment. It was the other way around last election.

Everyone agrees that HuffPo is annoying. But at least HuffPo is rarely taken seriously. Even hardcore liberals like myself tend to disregard it.

Fox News on the other hand...

My wife was reading HuffPo the other day, I had to give her a hard time about it.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Whembly, that article was already posted earlier:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/477584.page#4789988

Why do you relay on the words of these liars and scumbags who are just selling a political agenda full of vitriol and lies?

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=285793

The ad doesn't include any apology. It says the US supports religious freedom, and that we condemn people who denigrate any religion. Usually the conservatives want religious freedom protected, not the freedom to bash religion. The fact that they're up in arms defending an donkey-cave's right to bash Islam just speaks to the fact that they don't care about protecting religion in general, just about protecting their own religion, and feth anyone else's.

Manny... we've already had this discussion...

The ad announces that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounce the movie... as in, a representative of our government "offically" had a stance on this religious view... you don't have a problem with that?

What they should've said is simply the US Government neither endorse or denounce any religious views. That's it.

That's what was my original contention from that Egyptian communication...

And for the record... I bash all religions... I send my kids to Catholic church/school... and they eat their god.

Woah...

Next summer fighting season going to be heavy in Afghanistan.

 Jihadin wrote:
Next summer fighting season going to be heavy in Afghanistan.

Is there a withdrawl date set? Or, are we still training a lot of Afgani troops/police?

2014 we pull out. All the surge troops have left already. Training of their forces have halt due to the numerous Green on Blue killing. 2015 the fall of the current admin in Afghanistan

 Jihadin wrote:
2014 we pull out. All the surge troops have left already. Training of their forces have halt due to the numerous Green on Blue killing. 2015 the fall of the current admin in Afghanistan

Damn... do you know if that 2014 is the current administration's target date or is that some agreement with the Afgani government?

Our current Admin date.

Does it matter now long we stay? Place still going to crap if we leave later.

 d-usa wrote:
Does it matter now long we stay? Place still going to crap if we leave later.

I guess that's the age old question now eh? Can we make enough difference there? We've already spent blood/treasure... and if there's any hope for sucess, I'd rather stick around and help.

EDIT: well... lemme ask Jihadin this... is it worth staying?

Taming Afghanistan is like halting the tide or stopping the march of the planets in their orbits.

Hell, we ought to know, we helped make it that way in the 1970's and 80's.

With 650,000 combat troops in Afghanistan we do not have a problem. oh also we in the military have to qualify for the GI Bill.

 whembly wrote:

The ad announces that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounce the movie... as in, a representative of our government "offically" had a stance on this religious view... you don't have a problem with that?

Why should he? Most of the members of our government have official stances on religious views, they just tend to be sympathetic stances with respect to certain Christian religious views (I believe in God, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, etc.). Members of government can have any official stance on a religious view they want, they just can't sign those views into law if they involve specific codification (eg. No Muslims Allowed, or the Bible can only be interpreted literally) of their views.

 whembly wrote:

What they should've said is simply the US Government neither endorse or denounce any religious views. That's it.

Except that would be a lie, because we denounce religious views in other countries (and this one) all the time. The most obvious example is radical Islam which we denounce in basically every way we can without specifically referring to radical Islam despite the fact what we denounce is a key part of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Hell, we ought to know, we helped make it that way in the 1970's and 80's.

It was like that well before.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The ad announces that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounce the movie... as in, a representative of our government "offically" had a stance on this religious view... you don't have a problem with that?

Why should he? Most of the members of our government have official stances on religious views, they just tend to be sympathetic stances with respect to certain Christian religious views (I believe in God, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, etc.). Members of government can have any official stance on a religious view they want, they just can't sign those views into law if they involve specific codification (eg. No Muslims Allowed, or the Bible can only be interpreted literally) of their views.

 whembly wrote:

What they should've said is simply the US Government neither endorse or denounce any religious views. That's it.

Except that would be a lie, because we denounce religious views in other countries (and this one) all the time. The most obvious example is radical Islam which we denounce in basically every way we can without specifically referring to radical Islam despite the fact what we denounce is a key part of it.
.

OKay Dogma... you do have a point.

I'm gonna cool my jets on this...

Woops. I took Biden word for it. He was suppose to mean 68,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Jihadin wrote:Woops. I took Biden word for it. He was suppose to mean 68,000 troops in Afghanistan.

I thought that 650,000 troops number seemed awfully high for not being a full-scale all-your-base-are-belong-to-us sorta deal.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Does it matter now long we stay? Place still going to crap if we leave later.

I guess that's the age old question now eh? Can we make enough difference there? We've already spent blood/treasure... and if there's any hope for sucess, I'd rather stick around and help.

EDIT: well... lemme ask Jihadin this... is it worth staying?

Worth it? Not an easy question to answer. Short term, most definitely not. Long term, really hard to say. Afghanistan is a very mineral rich country, not to mention a very strategically placed country. Having another "friendly" Islamic nation in that part of the world would be very beneficial as well. The more there that support us, the easier it is for us when we do have to drop the hammer somewhere. Economically, the benefits could be astounding, but we may have already missed our window on that with China snapping up huge amounts of whats being found there.

I'd say the best justification we could have for staying there is the humanitarian aspect. If we pull out, and the current government collapses with the Taliban taking over again, it'll be bad. Real bad. Every Afghani who ever helped us over the last 11 years will have to fear for their lives. Also, don't think for a second that they won't be looking for a way to hurt us again as well. It may not be something on the scale of 9/11, but they can cause a lot of trouble for us and our allies. A resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan could have resounding effects in Pakistan as well.

Pakistan is certainly not our friend, but we don't want them to be our enemy. The government there is unstable, and I don't think that the Taliban would hesitate for a second to try to tip it over and then all of a sudden they're in control of a nuclear power. Bad situation.

There is no easy answer for Afghanistan, and that is why I won't point any fingers at the Obama admin over this one. We're going to get burned anyway we go on this.

I'd say the best justification we could have for staying there is the humanitarian aspect. If we pull out, and the current government collapses with the Taliban taking over again, it'll be bad. Real bad. Every Afghani who ever helped us over the last 11 years will have to fear for their lives. Also, don't think for a second that they won't be looking for a way to hurt us again as well. It may not be something on the scale of 9/11, but they can cause a lot of trouble for us and our allies. A resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan could have resounding effects in Pakistan as well.

Be mentally prepare for it. There will be executions once we leave.

 Jihadin wrote:

I'd say the best justification we could have for staying there is the humanitarian aspect. If we pull out, and the current government collapses with the Taliban taking over again, it'll be bad. Real bad. Every Afghani who ever helped us over the last 11 years will have to fear for their lives. Also, don't think for a second that they won't be looking for a way to hurt us again as well. It may not be something on the scale of 9/11, but they can cause a lot of trouble for us and our allies. A resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan could have resounding effects in Pakistan as well.

Be mentally prepare for it. There will be executions once we leave.

It'll be hard to do. We've been in Afghanistan the entire time I've served. 8 years of that time I've spent in theatre or at units that directly supported from CONUS. I've put a huge portion of my life out there helping the mission, and the last thing I want to see was it all for nothing.

Afghanistan will be completely gone to gak by 2015.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Afghanistan will be completely gone to gak by 2015.

I agree, but I also think that the invasion was a domestic political necessity.

 dogma wrote:

It was like that well before.

Yes and no. The US took an existing situation and took it up to 11. Afghanistan was dangerous, and then they armed everyone and his goat.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Yes and no. The US took an existing situation and took it up to 11. Afghanistan was dangerous, and then they armed everyone and his goat.

Not yes and no, just yes. Afghanistan has never been effectively controlled by a Western power because it wasn't so long ago that it controlled itself. The present political infighting actually dates back to the aftermath of the Anglo-Afghan wars, and the amount of weaponry in country dates back to Russian support of the PDPA.

Simply blaming America in this situation is just lazy.