U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[pittstownkiller]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

I understand that is now the assumption. However, the assumption is also that the protests at both embassies were because of the film.

The attack can't be both because of the film and an Al-Queda operation set to occur around 9/11.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the movie has been "out" for about a month.

 

[timschochet]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

I understand that is now the assumption. However, the assumption is also that the protests at both embassies were because of the film.

The attack can't be both because of the film and an Al-Queda operation set to occur around 9/11.

We have three separate incidents here: the protests at the embassy in Egypt, the protests at the embassy in Libya, and the subsequent rocket attacks on the ambassador and other Americans in Libya. The first two of these were instigated, according to the protestors, because of the film. The rocket attacks were apparently planned by al-Qaeda, but whether or not they used the protests as cover or chose to attack at this time because of their OWN anger over the film, we really don't know.

 

[drummer]

Let me ask you a question: making the assumption that this was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack to kill a U.S. Ambassador, orchestrated to fall on 9/11; what is the political fall out (of course all sympathies to the families of the people lost but this is a political question)?

In terms of the election? I don't think there is one. Traditionally the public tends to believe that Republicans are "tougher" on foreign affairs, and Democrats are "weak". Obama managed to fight against this when OBL was killed. Ever since that happened, Republicans have attempted to return to the previous narrative. No doubt they'll use this latest event to push their case; that's already started. Whether or not they are successful in this attempt, or overplay their hand, remains to be seen.

But in the end, it won't have any significance IMO. 2004 was an election about leadership and foreign policy. This election is going to be about the economy, and nothing else will overshadow that.

I read this somewhere too.

 

[timschochet]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

I understand that is now the assumption. However, the assumption is also that the protests at both embassies were because of the film.

The attack can't be both because of the film and an Al-Queda operation set to occur around 9/11.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the movie has been "out" for about a month.

I think this is wrong; I was told the film was released for 9/11. (Though I'm not sure about this.)

 

[roadkill1292]

Has FavreCo chimed in? He is usually very good with these topics.

This is amusing on several levels.

 

[ffldrew]

Can't wait for the "You didn't condemn that" commercials and statements from the Republicans

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Can't wait for the "You didn't condemn that" commercials and statements from the Republicans

Most of the major name Republicans have left Mitt out there on his own on this one.

 

[pittstownkiller]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Obviously false - Jews would never make a movie this bad.

There seems to be some mystery as to who exactly made this film.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims#section_1

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Well I hope this can be worked through without sending in military forces from the U.S.

war ships on their way

 

[Quez]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

So will the Syrian invasion happen before or after the elections?

 

[Topes]

Can't wait for the "You didn't condemn that" commercials and statements from the Republicans

Most of the major name Republicans have left Mitt out there on his own on this one.

I didn't think Romney's opportunism or statement were as tasteless as many make them out to be. Factually challenged? Sure. But that's what we expect from Governor Romney.

The story behind the film is interesting to see unfold, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the attack in Libya.

 

[Topes]

There seems to be some mystery as to who exactly made this film.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims#section_1

Indeed!

 

[meatwad1]

Can't wait for the "You didn't condemn that" commercials and statements from the Republicans

I was thinking more along the lines of "You shouldn't have skipped those foreign intelligence meetings".

 

[jamny]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

There were plenty of people who were talking about how we were arming Al Qaeda at the time. It was well known, yet didn't stop.It's like Fast and Furious - Middle East

 

[meatwad1]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

So will the Syrian invasion happen before or after the elections?

Yes...this is our President we are talking about..so eloquent, so intelligent. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this a mile away. Dictators are a wholly unpalatable bunch, but in many cases, a necessary evil because this is the sort of thing that happens when certain groups of people are left to their own devices.

 

[Eephus]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

So will the Syrian invasion happen before or after the elections?

Yes...this is our President we are talking about..so eloquent, so intelligent. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this a mile away. Dictators are a wholly unpalatable bunch, but in many cases, a necessary evil because this is the sort of thing that happens when certain groups of people are left to their own devices.

The alternative was propping up Gadaffi. Would that have helped America's foreign policy interests?

 

[drummer]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

So will the Syrian invasion happen before or after the elections?

Yes...this is our President we are talking about..so eloquent, so intelligent. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this a mile away. Dictators are a wholly unpalatable bunch, but in many cases, a necessary evil because this is the sort of thing that happens when certain groups of people are left to their own devices.

Ladies and Gentleman........it's meatwad!

 

[MaxThreshold]

Can't wait for the "You didn't condemn that" commercials and statements from the Republicans

I was thinking more along the lines of "You shouldn't have skipped those foreign intelligence meetings".

What Foreign Intelligence Meetings? You mean there were Foreign Intelligence Meetings? Sorry, had a fundraiser scheduled in Vegas and had to play the back 9. They'll just have to wait it out at the embassy.

 

[pittstownkiller]

v

Let me ask you a question: making the assumption that this was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack to kill a U.S. Ambassador, orchestrated to fall on 9/11; what is the political fall out (of course all sympathies to the families of the people lost but this is a political question)?

In terms of the election? I don't think there is one. Traditionally the public tends to believe that Republicans are "tougher" on foreign affairs, and Democrats are "weak". Obama managed to fight against this when OBL was killed. Ever since that happened, Republicans have attempted to return to the previous narrative. No doubt they'll use this latest event to push their case; that's already started. Whether or not they are successful in this attempt, or overplay their hand, remains to be seen. But in the end, it won't have any significance IMO. 2004 was an election about leadership and foreign policy. This election is going to be about the economy, and nothing else will overshadow that.

You seem to dismiss the Jewish/Israeli angle here, and while I don't think that I am an expert such as you (not meant as a slight), I am not so quick to dismiss it. Now I do not disagree that the election is going to come down to the people's pocketbooks, I do think that the Jewish vote will be important in a close election and anything that impacts it for the Democrats, should be noticed. I think that there are a valid questions about the Obama's administration handling of this situation, both before and after the attacks.

 

[drummer]

Still no Doctor Detroit in this thread. Which sucks because everybody else is Broestlerizing it.

 

[timschochet]

v

Let me ask you a question: making the assumption that this was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack to kill a U.S. Ambassador, orchestrated to fall on 9/11; what is the political fall out (of course all sympathies to the families of the people lost but this is a political question)?

In terms of the election? I don't think there is one. Traditionally the public tends to believe that Republicans are "tougher" on foreign affairs, and Democrats are "weak". Obama managed to fight against this when OBL was killed. Ever since that happened, Republicans have attempted to return to the previous narrative. No doubt they'll use this latest event to push their case; that's already started. Whether or not they are successful in this attempt, or overplay their hand, remains to be seen. But in the end, it won't have any significance IMO. 2004 was an election about leadership and foreign policy. This election is going to be about the economy, and nothing else will overshadow that.

You seem to dismiss the Jewish/Israeli angle here, and while I don't think that I am an expert such as you (not meant as a slight), I am not so quick to dismiss it. Now I do not disagree that the election is going to come down to the people's pocketbooks, I do think that the Jewish vote will be important in a close election and anything that impacts it for the Democrats, should be noticed. I think that there are a valid questions about the Obama's administration handling of this situation, both before and after the attacks.

I don't dismiss it; I even started a thread a while back about how many of my Jewish relatives distrusted Obama. His divide with Netanyahu is a bigger issue than this one is. But I still don't think it's going to ultimately impact the election too much.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

So will the Syrian invasion happen before or after the elections?

Yes...this is our President we are talking about..so eloquent, so intelligent. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this a mile away. Dictators are a wholly unpalatable bunch, but in many cases, a necessary evil because this is the sort of thing that happens when certain groups of people are left to their own devices.

The alternative was propping up Gadaffi. Would that have helped America's foreign policy interests?

I think an argument could be made that Gadhafi had turned a corner, relinquished his nuclear ambitions, and changed his ways; do I think he was a good guy, no, but this most likely does not happen under his watch. Egypt is a more troubling case where we lost an ally, granted he was a horrible human being, in a part of the world where we need them; I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

 

[timschochet]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either. There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

 

[quickhands]

Do we know who exactly we are backing in these overthrows?

Libyan rebels have Al Qaeda links.

So basically we gave a rebel group, al-qaida, weapons to destabilize Libya, and now they are using them against us. This sounds familiar.

So will the Syrian invasion happen before or after the elections?

Yes...this is our President we are talking about..so eloquent, so intelligent. Anyone with half a brain could have seen this a mile away. Dictators are a wholly unpalatable bunch, but in many cases, a necessary evil because this is the sort of thing that happens when certain groups of people are left to their own devices.

The alternative was propping up Gadaffi. Would that have helped America's foreign policy interests?

how bout beefing up our embassy's, especially around 9/11

 

[pittstownkiller]

v

Let me ask you a question: making the assumption that this was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack to kill a U.S. Ambassador, orchestrated to fall on 9/11; what is the political fall out (of course all sympathies to the families of the people lost but this is a political question)?

In terms of the election? I don't think there is one. Traditionally the public tends to believe that Republicans are "tougher" on foreign affairs, and Democrats are "weak". Obama managed to fight against this when OBL was killed. Ever since that happened, Republicans have attempted to return to the previous narrative. No doubt they'll use this latest event to push their case; that's already started. Whether or not they are successful in this attempt, or overplay their hand, remains to be seen. But in the end, it won't have any significance IMO. 2004 was an election about leadership and foreign policy. This election is going to be about the economy, and nothing else will overshadow that.

You seem to dismiss the Jewish/Israeli angle here, and while I don't think that I am an expert such as you (not meant as a slight), I am not so quick to dismiss it. Now I do not disagree that the election is going to come down to the people's pocketbooks, I do think that the Jewish vote will be important in a close election and anything that impacts it for the Democrats, should be noticed. I think that there are a valid questions about the Obama's administration handling of this situation, both before and after the attacks.

I don't dismiss it; I even started a thread a while back about how many of my Jewish relatives distrusted Obama. His divide with Netanyahu is a bigger issue than this one is. But I still don't think it's going to ultimately impact the election too much.

I think this goes hand in hand with his divide with Netanyahu, as does the unbelievably stupid shenanigans at the DNC over the status of the words "God" and "Jerusalem" in the platform. I think the last minute attempt by the Obama Administration to put out that fire, was concession enough that the Democrats think that the Jewish vote is important.

 

[quickhands]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either. There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

i think the general drift is towards the negative.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

 

[drummer]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Wait and see is a proper approach when your Military is already overstrecthed and in two wars. One thing that would ease Middle East uprisings is to get out of the Arabian peninsula altogether.

 

[Ursa M]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

 

[drummer]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

pitts wants to invade Costa Rica. He heard they burned a flag there. It was a Mexican one because of a soccer match, but the US didn't do anything about it.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Wait and see is a proper approach when your Military is already overstrecthed and in two wars. One thing that would ease Middle East uprisings is to get out of the Arabian peninsula altogether.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

I am not looking to invade. I do think we should of propped up Mubarak and Gadhafi reached out to us for help; we could of steered either one of these outcomes.

 

[pittstownkiller]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

pitts wants to invade Costa Rica. He heard they burned a flag there. It was a Mexican one because of a soccer match, but the US didn't do anything about it.

Drummer use your stupidity to speak for yourself; I am capable of using my stupidity to speak for me, all by myself.

 

[drummer]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

pitts wants to invade Costa Rica. He heard they burned a flag there. It was a Mexican one because of a soccer match, but the US didn't do anything about it.

Drummer use your stupidity to speak for yourself; I am capable of using my stupidity to speak for me, all by myself.

I like that way that was put.

 

[timschochet]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

 

[Kumerica]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

pitts wants to invade Costa Rica. He heard they burned a flag there. It was a Mexican one because of a soccer match, but the US didn't do anything about it.

Pittstownkiller is the guy who thought a Netflix account entitled him to see every movie ever, right?

 

[pittstownkiller]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

pitts wants to invade Costa Rica. He heard they burned a flag there. It was a Mexican one because of a soccer match, but the US didn't do anything about it.

Pittstownkiller is the guy who thought a Netflix account entitled him to see every movie ever, right?

Incorrect (even though that is what I typed) but it really has a ####ty streaming selection. I also know that I do not have the time left on earth to see every movie ever made; I just wanted to watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail with my son.

 

[Quez]

One of the Americans killed was an online gamer.

Sorry if this was already posted, I thought it was interesting that his online friends already knew.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

One of the Americans killed was an online gamer.

Sorry if this was already posted, I thought it was interesting that his online friends already knew.

Yeah that was kind of messed up.

 

[Kumerica]

a hands off foreign policy.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

pitts wants to invade Costa Rica. He heard they burned a flag there. It was a Mexican one because of a soccer match, but the US didn't do anything about it.

Pittstownkiller is the guy who thought a Netflix account entitled him to see every movie ever, right?

Incorrect (even though that is what I typed) but it really has a ####ty streaming selection.

Okay.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

 

[timschochet]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

Where did I write or indicate that? We haven't been perfect in the Middle East, but neither we nor Israel are responsible for the general misery of the Arabic people. They have, by and large, caused it themselves.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

Where did I write or indicate that? We haven't been perfect in the Middle East, but neither we nor Israel are responsible for the general misery of the Arabic people. They have, by and large, caused it themselves.

I took an implication from here; if I read too much into it , I apologize. Another question: after all the "outrage" here of Romney's comment politicizing these attacks, and him not showing enough respect for the dead, how do you feel about Obama running out to campaign stops today?

 

[Ursa M]

Wait and see is a proper approach when your Military is already overstrecthed and in two wars. One thing that would ease Middle East uprisings is to get out of the Arabian peninsula altogether.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

I am not looking to invade. I do think we should of propped up Mubarak and Gadhafi reached out to us for help; we could of steered either one of these outcomes.

I think propping up unpopular murderous dictators would be entirely fitting with the ethos upon which the US was founded. Oh....wait...

 

[pittstownkiller]

Wait and see is a proper approach when your Military is already overstrecthed and in two wars. One thing that would ease Middle East uprisings is to get out of the Arabian peninsula altogether.

Hands off? We are still in Afghanistan and will be for some time, we routinely kill terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere with our drones and you call this hands off? How many countries do you think we can invade?

I am not looking to invade. I do think we should of propped up Mubarak and Gadhafi reached out to us for help; we could of steered either one of these outcomes.

I think propping up unpopular murderous dictators would be entirely fitting with the ethos upon which the US was founded. Oh....wait...

Why don't we ask the Coptic Christians how popular and tolerant the Muslim Brotherhood is.

 

[Eephus]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

It's a huge oversimplification to say Sadat was assassinated solely because of the Camp David Accords. At the time of his death, Sadat was more popular in the West than he was at home. There are many suspects and potential motives behind the conspiracy that killed him. Mubarak probably had more to gain with Sadat removed than the Islamist officer who took the fall. 35 years isn't a long time in the history of Egypt but the regional dynamics were a lot different in 1977.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

It's a huge oversimplification to say Sadat was assassinated solely because of the Camp David Accords. At the time of his death, Sadat was more popular in the West than he was at home. There are many suspects and potential motives behind the conspiracy that killed him. Mubarak probably had more to gain with Sadat removed than the Islamist officer who took the fall. 35 years isn't a long time in the history of Egypt but the regional dynamics were a lot different in 1977.

I will give you that the definitive history of Sadat's assassination may not have been written but to think that his role with the Accords had little to nothing to do with it is delusional. The regional dynamics may have changed but the issues regarding the Jews have been around for a couple millennium and have really been the focal point.

 

[Eephus]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

It's a huge oversimplification to say Sadat was assassinated solely because of the Camp David Accords. At the time of his death, Sadat was more popular in the West than he was at home. There are many suspects and potential motives behind the conspiracy that killed him. Mubarak probably had more to gain with Sadat removed than the Islamist officer who took the fall. 35 years isn't a long time in the history of Egypt but the regional dynamics were a lot different in 1977.

I will give you that the definitive history of Sadat's assassination may not have been written but to think that his role with the Accords had little to nothing to do with it is delusional. The regional dynamics may have changed but the issues regarding the Jews have been around for a couple millennium and have really been the focal point.

Never said Camp David or the Arab-Israeli rivalry were non-factors but economic and social issues are as important to Egyptians and Libyans as they are to people in the FFA.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

It's a huge oversimplification to say Sadat was assassinated solely because of the Camp David Accords. At the time of his death, Sadat was more popular in the West than he was at home. There are many suspects and potential motives behind the conspiracy that killed him. Mubarak probably had more to gain with Sadat removed than the Islamist officer who took the fall. 35 years isn't a long time in the history of Egypt but the regional dynamics were a lot different in 1977.

I will give you that the definitive history of Sadat's assassination may not have been written but to think that his role with the Accords had little to nothing to do with it is delusional. The regional dynamics may have changed but the issues regarding the Jews have been around for a couple millennium and have really been the focal point.

Never said Camp David or the Arab-Israeli rivalry were non-factors but economic and social issues are as important to Egyptians and Libyans as they are to people in the FFA.

So where are you going with this? Egyptians are poor and are easily led astray? I'm not picking a fight, expand on your thoughts.

 

[timschochet]

The regional dynamics may have changed but the issues regarding the Jews have been around for a couple millennium and have really been the focal point.

It doesn't have much to do with the thread but this statement is not correct. The issues regarding the modern state of Israel are less than 100 years old. The Jews who live in Israel have almost nothing to do with the ancient Hebrews who lived in Judea 2,000 years ago. In fact, we may not even be talking about the same people.

 

[timschochet]

I do not think we can feel as "good" about Egypt as we did two years ago.

The most optimistic liberals hoped for a turning point that would produce, for the first time in history, an Arab state that featured freedom and democratic rule for it's citizens. That hasn't happened.The most pessimistic conservatives feared an Islamist dictatorship, run by the Muslim Brotherhood, similar to Iran, extremely hostile to our interests in the region. That hasn't happened, either.

There are both positive and negative signs for the future in Egypt. I think at this point we have to adopt a "wait and see" attitude.

Unfortunately I don't think that we have a choice now but that is what happens when you have a hands off foreign policy. Just curious here: does our embassy being overrun, our flag being torn down and burned, and the fact that the protest are still happening right outside of the compound in Cairo - even after today's events - qualify as a negative sign?

Of course. The public in Egypt doesn't like us very much. That's never good. It's also not surprising.

Tim, are you going to start with we must atone for our "sins" in the Middle-East. The Egyptians slaughtered Sadat for crissakes, just because he signed a treaty with Begin; this has more to do with Israel than us.

Where did I write or indicate that? We haven't been perfect in the Middle East, but neither we nor Israel are responsible for the general misery of the Arabic people. They have, by and large, caused it themselves.

I took an implication from here; if I read too much into it , I apologize. Another question: after all the "outrage" here of Romney's comment politicizing these attacks, and him not showing enough respect for the dead, how do you feel about Obama running out to campaign stops today?

No need to apologize. I don't see the connection you're making. I have no problem with Obama campaigning, or Romney campaigning for that matter. I found Romney's criticisms to be unwise.