This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The power of the media to portray an image is causing people to over-react.although the attack onnthe ambassador may be a planned attack whci is a bot different. We'll have to see what facts come to light.
Makes you wonder why the Germans got clobbered instead. Maybe the Sudanese had surrounded ours with troops?
Ursa is correct that my posts have a political tone to them; most everything I have posted starting with my initial conversation with Tim had to do with how this would play out and to a lesser extent it happened. I feel as terrible as any American that our people have come into harm's way but I take that everyone feels this and it as not the basis of my arguments. I see that Ursa did not mean his post exactly the way I took it and if I look at it in the widest possible spectrum I can see where he is coming from; I want peace in the M.E. (and everywhere else) but I think the administration is wrong on their policy there. I lauded Obama for his use of drones in his campaign against terrorist leaders but I will heartily admit it had more to do with that I did not think he had it in him. The nuts and bolts of politics interests me and is the "base" for most of my posts.
The 9/11 hijackers were a part of a small minority; your point is?
Even though they are a minority, there are millions across the globe who wish us harm and would take pride in a terrorist strike against us. The is is what the WOT was about - crippling their ability to get funding, organization, recruitment etc. By knocking out and/or choking out the leaders and simultaneously increasing security, the odds of these rubes being able to pull off a successful attack are greatly diminished.
Toby, my analysis of this whole situation has been through a political prism; if that is "nonsensical", or disrespectful, to you is unfortunate and certainly not my intent. I feel the loss of life is terrible but I think that as a given, I am really looking at this from a more analytical approach.
It is Monday morning quarterbacking at best, and mostly just nonsensical, to allege that a completely unpredictable international incident falls at the feet of the current administration. Can you show me a single statement by any person- you, a foreign policy expert, a security expert, anyone- who suggested some reasonable course of action by the administration that could have avoided these attacks that dates back to before they happened?
It's about time he shows hs face.Where is Obama now?'Rohn Jambo said:4protesters shot dead and many wounded when a crowd stormed the US Embassy in Yemen. Could get uglier tomorrow...
I think its growing pains for the fldgling Arab Spring. I don't think there has been sigificant difference between Obama's policies and Bush's or a theoretical Pres McCain or Pres Romney.That said, if the Libyan attack was a coordinated attack by a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda or other, then that is a big development that would need strategizing.'jonessed said:
so they are burning the US flag just to stay warm?White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.LINK
fypWhite House saying the protests are not directed at the US Policy.
I think it could be seen as common sense that on the anniversary of 9/11 that some added precaution should be taken; the fact that the Cairo Embassy sent a preemptive bulletin demonstrated at least an awareness of problems on the horizon and we did have a threat against us after our last drone strike killed an Al-Qaeda leader. The talk of warnings of attacks issued by our intelligence services are even more troubling and if they are true they would also fall at the Administration's feet.
really? I would have thought Omdurman.
In India, they burned Obama in effigy to show their admiration.so they are burning the US flag just to stay warm?White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
huh.. maybe they DO like us!In India, they burn people in effigy to show their admiration.so they are burning the US flag just to stay warm?White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
Highest level of love is when they does it Tandoori style with our embassies.huh.. maybe they DO like us!In India, they burn people in effigy to show their admiration.so they are burning the US flag just to stay warm?White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
I don't care if Bush would have done the same thing. Bush was a moron. I put blame on the State Department for relying on unreliable governments to protect our foreign representatives. It's Libya for crying out loud, a country we just attacked less than a year ago. Seems like a legitimate security detachment would have been warranted.
You're right. I think it says more that the remainder of the population tolerates or even supports those who are committing the violence. The government has not exactly been active in putting a stop to it and have condemned the film much more than the violence and even the murder of Americans in neighboring Libya. If 200 thugs went nuts on a foreign embassy in this country it wouldn't be tolerated, not by the government, not by the military or police, not by the population in general.
In all honesty Bush would of supported Mubarek and may have propped up Gadhaffi but the latter has so much political baggage I do not know.
1. Do you know for a fact that there was no added precaution? Having been around lots of targets on 9/11s past, I bet there actually was.2. Hasn't it been established that the tweet by the Cairo embassy, which was sent prior to any attacks, also was not run past anyone in the States? How can you hold the administration accountable for that? Seems like the worst kind of political finger-pointing to hold a president and his administration accountable for every action by a relatively low-level government employee. And in any event, it's a Bob Beamon-type leap to go from that tweet to a conclusion of awareness of the threat of attacks.
It is perfectky valiud to say that our embassies should have been safeguarded much better and this may have well have happened under Bush.I think it's also legitimate to question the lack of any kind of response for 15 hours, and that, only after Romney said something. I think that is something that would not have happened under Bush, Clinton (or a fictional Pres Gore or McCain)The thing is, that the YouTube came out in early July and then on 9/10 it was denounced.
What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
Gaddafi didn't need propping up. He just didn't need foreign forces invading his country and wiping out his government. We should have left Libya to the Libyans. We had nothing to gain by attacking them.
What is the appropriate time frame for a response and why?
Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
1. Do you know for a fact there was? We are talking opinions here. You assume one, he assumes the other. I don't see how you can claim the upper-hand here. Not that it matters anyway. The protection for these people was almost non-existent.2. Has it? By whom? The embassy?
What would you like it to be? I'd like for O or Hilary to say, "We're sorry that the abuses that sometimes occur in a free society with freedom of expression have offended the religious sensibilities of so many. I hope we can see our way past these differences, unalterable ones in our case."
Obama is thinking of sending out some invitations for a beer party but the guest list and seating plan is giving him a big headache. Link
so the "death to America" chants are just Muslim schtick?Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
You're being unhelpful again.
[*]For a fact, no but it begs the question: do you know for a fact they did? I think the reality is that enough wasn't done.
He knows damn well it's not true. He's just in full political hack mode.The movie may have been a spark, but our foreign policy and our culture (that allows for movies like this to be created) is obviously a very large factor in all of this. We don't have a history of being real popular in these countries.so the "death to America" chants are just Muslim schtick?Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
These protests do seem to be directed "at the United States writ large." They're pissed that we allow videos like this to be made, and frankly the protestors are 100% correct that this freedom is part of what makes America what it is.1. No. That's why I haven't come to any conclusions. Sorry, but the person who's pointing fingers is the one who has the burden of backing their finger-pointing. Presuming blame without reason and presuming nothing are not the same thing. It's ridiculous to say they are.2. Yes, the timeline and the source of the is well-established. Link
maybe thats' at odds with the administration's policy?Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
c'mon. I bet this thought has crossed Obama's mind a few times.
maybe thats' at odds with the administration's policy?Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
Obama has a policy that middle eastern Muslims can't get pissed? Or Obama has a policy that we don't allow these types of videos?
the film was made by an anti-Islam Egyptian..
I'm sure general anti-US sentiment is a factor, but it wasn't necessarily the primary cause. It was inartfully worded, I'll give you that, but it's pretty clear what he was getting at. Right, I'm the one in political hack mode. Not the people who are responding to an attack on American embassies by blaming a president after the fact without a single decent explanation as to what he could have done differently. Not the ones parsing through WH press secretary quotes so they can justify finger-pointing. It's me. Sure. You can tell by all the praise I've thrown towards Obama or any Dems, and the blame and criticism I've directed towards Romney or the GOP here.He knows damn well it's not true. He's just in full political hack mode.The movie may have been a spark, but our foreign policy and our culture (that allows for movies like this to be created) is obviously a very large factor in all of this. We don't have a history of being real popular in these countries.so the "death to America" chants are just Muslim schtick?Good thing he didn't say it, then. He said they're not directed US policy or the administration or the US people generally. Which is true.What a moronic thing to say.White House saying the protests are not directed at the US.
