What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (2 Viewers)

White House saying the protests are not directed at the US. :confused: LINK
What a moronic thing to say.
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.
:confused: 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.
maybe thats' at odds with the administration's policy?
:confused: 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?
ask the WH. They made the statement.

 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
What they really need to say is something like "the US administration does not comment on, endorse, condemn, or prevent a particular expression of free speech by private citizens. America was founded on the right of free speech. Violence against our citizens and officials in response to any speech is not acceptable or tolerable."This "I'm so sorry someone hurt your feelings" response is awful and weak. What's to say a string of these movies aren't going to start showing up now that they generate such a response? Nip it in the bud right now.
 
White House saying the protests are not directed at the US. :confused: LINK
What a moronic thing to say.
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.
:confused: 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.
maybe thats' at odds with the administration's policy?
:confused: 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?
:goodposting:
 
Status update....

LEBANON - Security forces opened fire in the northeastern Lebanese city of Tripoli, killing one person after a crowd angry over the film set fire to a KFC and a Hardee's restaurant. About 25 people were wounded in the melee, including 18 policemen who were hit with stones and glass.

SUDAN - Several hundred protesters stormed the German Embassy in the capital, Khartoum, burning a car parked behind its gates and trash cans. Police fired tear gas, pushing the protesters outside the embassy's gates. There appeared to be no injuries to embassy staff and no apparent damage to the building. Most protesters dispersed, but a group marched to protest at the nearby British Embassy.

YEMEN - Security forces shot live rounds in the air and fired tear gas at a crowd of around 2,000 protesters trying to march to the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Sanaa. Police kept the crowd about a block away from the embassy. Friday's demonstration came a day after hundreds stormed the embassy compound and burned the American flag.

EGYPT - Riot police clashed with hundreds of protesters blocks away from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, as the president broadcast an appeal to Muslims to protect embassies and tried to patch up strained relations with Washington. After weekly prayers, a crowd in Cairo's Tahrir Square tore up an American flag, and waved a black, Islamist flag. When protesters tried to move toward the embassy, ranks of police confronted them, firing tear gas.

IRAN - Thousands shouted 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' in Tehran in a demonstration after Friday prayers. Some burned the American and Israeli flags. State TV says similar protests were held in other Iranian cities.

BAHRAIN - More than 2,000 protesters chanted against the film and burned American and Israeli flags after Friday prayers in a Shiite mosque in Diraz, outside the capital, Manama. Security forces were absent, even though the area is a hotbed of opposition in Bahrain's 19-month Shiite-led uprising against the Sunni ruling system. Separately, Bahrain's Interior Ministry ordered media regulators to attempt to block access to the film clip in the Gulf kingdom.

IRAQ - Hundreds demonstrated in Baghdad's northern Sunni neighborhood of Azamaiyah, some shouting: 'No, no America! No, no to Israel,' and, 'We are ready to sacrifice ourselves for our Prophet.' Dozens also marched in Baghdad's Sadr City, a poor Shiite area in the capital's northeast. In the southern city of Basra, about 1,000 took to the streets and burned the American and Israeli flags. One banner said: 'Freedom doesn't mean offending two billion Muslims.'

TUNISIA - A crowd of several thousand demonstrators protested outside the US embassy in Tunis. Police respond to stone-throwing with tear gas. An AP reporter on the scene witnessed several people overcome by intense clouds of gas. An army helicopter flew overhead while armored vehicles protected the embassy.

ISRAEL - The Israeli police say about 400 people marched toward the U.S. consulate in east Jerusalem in protest over the prophet film. Demonstrators threw bottles and stones at police, who responded by firing stun grenades. Four protesters were arrested and the crowd was prevented from reaching the U.S. consulate.

WEST BANK - In the city of Nablus, about 200 people demonstrated against the film as Muslim clerics throughout the territory preached against it in Friday sermons.

SYRIA - About 200 protesters waved the Syrian flag and shouted anti-American slogans outside the long-closed U.S. Embassy in Damascus. The crowd held banners saying: 'He who curses the Prophet doesn't seek democracy' and 'a nation whose Prophet is Mohammad, would never kneel down.' The U.S. embassy has been closed since February because of the country's bloody conflict that has killed about 23,000 people.

AFGHANISTAN - About 1,500 protested in the eastern city of Jalalabad, shouting 'Death to America' and urged President Hamid Karzai to cut relations with the U.S.

PAKISTAN - Hundreds of hardline Muslims held peaceful protests against the film throughout Pakistan, shouting slogans and carrying banners criticizing the U.S. and those involved in the film. Police in Islamabad set up barricades and razor wire to prevent protesters from getting to the diplomatic enclave, where the U.S. Embassy and many other foreign missions are located. Protests were also held in Karachi, Peshawar and Lahore, where protesters shouted 'Down with America' and some burned the U.S. flag. About 200 policemen and barbed wire ringed the U.S. Consulate in Lahore.

GREAT BRITAIN - In London, around 250 protesters marched noisily but peacefully through Britain's capital to the U.S. embassy. The group, which called itself the 'Defenders of The Prophet,' held placards denouncing the U.S. and perceived Western imperialism.

TURKEY - Hundreds of people gathered in Istanbul's Beyazit Square to protest the prophet film. The protest was organized by Turkey's main Islamist political party, Saadet.

MALAYSIA - About 20 protesters held a peaceful demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur. They briefly shouted 'Allahu akbar!' or God is great, and handed reporters a letter addressed to the American ambassador expressing anger over the movie and calling for greater respect for religions.
Yup, pretty much the same as Christianity. All religions are the same.
:goodposting: Religion of Peace.

 
White House saying the protests are not directed at the US. :confused: LINK
What a moronic thing to say.
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.
:confused: 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.
maybe thats' at odds with the administration's policy?
:confused: 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?
:goodposting:
It was joke,people......geez
 
White House saying the protests are not directed at the US. :confused: LINK
What a moronic thing to say.
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.
:confused: 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.
maybe thats' at odds with the administration's policy?
:confused: 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?
:goodposting:
It was joke,people......geez
#######it, I told all you people that we don't have scorecards.
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
 
1. Do you know for a fact that there was no added precaution?

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.

3. There are vague warnings of attacks all the time. To hold an administration accountable for every attack just because there may have been some intelligence chatter is absurd. Do you place the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the Bush administration? As I understand it, there were plenty more and more specific warnings in that case then in this one.

I'll ask again- did you or anyone else advocate any course of action by Obama or anyone else in his administration prior to the attacks that you think would have prevented the attacks? If so, can you give me a link? If not, how is what you're doing anything other than Monday morning quarterbacking? Or if you're more of a South Park guy, Captain Hindsight-ing?
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?

3. I hold the State Department responsible for poor security measures. If this is a common problem then it should be rectified everywhere.

4. I don't believe the State Department should have ever created a flashpoint by announcing to the world the existence of this movie. I doubt Obama had any direct influence on that, but his administration certainly did. This all falls under the State Department.
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

3. Fine, Captain Hindsight. You can blame State Department security levels after the fact. Congratulations. If only our military had your ability to see things after they happen and adjust strained resources accordingly!

4. That's a lot of assumptions. The controversy over the movie already existed. You seriously think a tweet from a low-level embassy official (an apologetic, non-confrontational one at that) bears responsibility for this? Do you have a mat you use when you make ridiculous jumps to conclusions like that? And you want to hold Obama to blame for it? Ugh.
1. You claimed his opinion was "non-sensical" so clearly you have come to a conclusion. Right? There are only two options here. They either took precautions or they didn't. If one option makes no sense to you then clearly you have decided the other option does.2. Your link only points to where the communication emanated, not the process by which it got there.

3. Oh, name calling. Classy. They had almost no security at all. That would have been as shocking to me before the incident as it is now. DD seemed to indicate this is pretty standard. I don't find that at all acceptable.

4. Yes, I do. If it was such an irrelevant part of the timeline then why did it play such a prominent role in the news when the riots started? Clearly, I'm not the only one that feels it played a significant role. At the very least it can hardly be said that I'm jumping to some kind of "ridiculous" conclusion.

 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.
 
White House saying the protests are not directed at the US. :confused: LINK
What a moronic thing to say.
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.
so the "death to America" chants are just Muslim schtick? :confused:
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.
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.
I certainly don't think you are the only one in here acting like a political hack. You just jumped on the bus. We all have our moments.
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
Against a specific target or just random people? Wouldn't it be a better response to figure out exactly who did this, capture them and bring them to the US for trial or kill them where they are?
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.
There seems to be ample evidence that the Libyan "security" aided the attack. I don't think it would be a stretch to call that an act of war. Given the situation I think it would be ill-advised and short-sighted to do anything about it though. We already attacked one government it would seem rather silly to attack the replacement a year later.We are currently engaging in a military response I believe. I'm sure we have drones out there bombing the crap out of suspected terrorist camps.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
I think that's a bad idea. It won't get us the kind of results we want.
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.
There seems to be ample evidence that the Libyan "security" aided the attack. I don't think it would be a stretch to call that an act of war. Given the situation I think it would be ill-advised and short-sighted to do anything about it though. We already attacked one government it would seem rather silly to attack the replacement a year later.We are currently engaging in a military response I believe. I'm sure we have drones out there bombing the crap out of suspected terrorist camps.
I think you're wrong on the facts here
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.
story linked earlier
One of the groups to emerge in post-revolution Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility Wednesday for the attack in Benghazi, which has been condemned by the country's new government.
certainly, we know something about these guys, no?
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
I think that's a bad idea. It won't get us the kind of results we want.
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake. And then they jump on anybody condemning him for "excusing" what these people did. No, but if you go poking at a hornets nest just because you can, people are going to get stung. Acknowledging that and avoiding wherever possible is not excusing anything, it's using your ####ing head.
 
Somebody should find this clown and hand him over to one of these mobs.
Don't EVEN... FREE SPEECH!!11!!!The reality? Free to speak your mind? Absolutely. Free to reap what you sow. Abso####inglutely.

 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.
story linked earlier
One of the groups to emerge in post-revolution Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility Wednesday for the attack in Benghazi, which has been condemned by the country's new government.
certainly, we know something about these guys, no?
I don't think you have to worry about there not being an effort to find and deal with the people responsible.
 
1. You claimed his opinion was "non-sensical" so clearly you have come to a conclusion. Right? There are only two options here. They either took precautions or they didn't. If one option makes no sense to you then clearly you have decided the other option does.

2. Your link only points to where the communication emanated, not the process by which it got there.

3. Oh, name calling. Classy. They had almost no security at all. That would have been as shocking to me before the incident as it is now. DD seemed to indicate this is pretty standard. I don't find that at all acceptable.

4. Yes, I do. If it was such an irrelevant part of the timeline then why did it play such a prominent role in the news when the riots started? Clearly, I'm not the only one that feels it played a significant role. At the very least it can hardly be said that I'm jumping to some kind of "ridiculous" conclusion.
1. I claimed his opinion was non-sensical because there was no sense behind it. He asserted that there was no additional security, and then reached a conclusion based on that. I'm challenging the assertion, not making a conclusion. Without something to back the assertion, the conclusion is nonsense. I don't have a responsibility to prove something just because I'm pointing out that somebody else is asserting the opposite with zero evidence to back it up.2. Sorry. Here's more info for you about the famous Cairo tweet. Apparently not only did it not emanate from the White House, but the White House actually rejected it before it was posted. News to me. Anyway, actions by rogue low-level employees are not something you can hold the administration accountable for IMO.

3. Was a South Park reference, not name-calling. I agree, more security would be great.

4. I can't prove that a tweet from a low-level embassy staffer in Cairo wasn't the primary cause of an incident hours later in Libya. You can't prove it was. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. But for the reasons I stated before, even if you're correct, I think it's a real stretch to hold the entire State Department or Administration responsible.

 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
By whom? Generally it's a good idea to have a justifiable target for a military action.
story linked earlier
One of the groups to emerge in post-revolution Libya, Ansar al-Sharia, claimed responsibility Wednesday for the attack in Benghazi, which has been condemned by the country's new government.
certainly, we know something about these guys, no?
I don't think you have to worry about there not being an effort to find and deal with the people responsible.
well then, let's hear more talk about this and less about some BS youtube video. Mark me down as one who strongly prefers "with us or against us" or "axis of evil" or "wanted dead or alive" rhetoric in cases where our sovereignty is attacked.

 
Somebody should find this clown and hand him over to one of these mobs.
Don't EVEN... FREE SPEECH!!11!!!The reality? Free to speak your mind? Absolutely. Free to reap what you sow. Abso####inglutely.
Your post has angered me. I'm going to track you down and kill you. Under your own logic, please notify your local police department that they are not to intervene in anyway, since you're simply reaping that which you have sown.
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
Damn :goodposting:
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
:goodposting:Oh...everybody can make fun of whatever they want, but don't you dare make fun of Muhammad or the crazy ### Muslims will come kill you.Bull####. #### them, we should make so many anti-Muhammad movies they wouldn't even be able to begin to actually protest all of them.
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
:goodposting:Oh...everybody can make fun of whatever they want, but don't you dare make fun of Muhammad or the crazy ### Muslims will come kill you.Bull####. #### them, we should make so many anti-Muhammad movies they wouldn't even be able to begin to actually protest all of them.
After this global response, I'm sure plenty of nerds are already on it.
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with "in this country." The dangerous people this is antagonizing are not in this country. The security of this country is not available to those where the threats lay. The First Amendment does not apply where these threats lay. And the people ultimately who are going to be killed or maimed are not "in this country." Spare me the naive, idealistic nonsense. This guy knew he was going to stir up a ####storm and did it anyway. But YAY AMERICA FREEDOM DUST!!! YAAAAYYYY!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
:thumbup: I don't even think I can link to it without risking a ban, but I strongly recommend The Onion's take on this issue. Google "no one murdered because of this image."
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
I don't know. US consulates are considered American soil, and representatives of the US government, acting on official duty, were killed. these are overt acts of war. I don't know what the proper thing to do is, but I know that I want a military response.
I think that's a bad idea. It won't get us the kind of results we want.
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake. And then they jump on anybody condemning him for "excusing" what these people did. No, but if you go poking at a hornets nest just because you can, people are going to get stung. Acknowledging that and avoiding wherever possible is not excusing anything, it's using your ####ing head.
I don't think we'll ever be able to accomplish that. We can't stop our #######s from speechifying and we don't really want to, even if they're being assholios supremos. I think our president should be able to maintain a conciliatory tone with people who are offended by what some of our citizens say while at the same time expressing how it remains one of our bedrock beliefs.
 
I think you're wrong on the facts here
its been widely reported. here's one example:
Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/?tag=stack
 
1. You claimed his opinion was "non-sensical" so clearly you have come to a conclusion. Right? There are only two options here. They either took precautions or they didn't. If one option makes no sense to you then clearly you have decided the other option does.

2. Your link only points to where the communication emanated, not the process by which it got there.

3. Oh, name calling. Classy. They had almost no security at all. That would have been as shocking to me before the incident as it is now. DD seemed to indicate this is pretty standard. I don't find that at all acceptable.

4. Yes, I do. If it was such an irrelevant part of the timeline then why did it play such a prominent role in the news when the riots started? Clearly, I'm not the only one that feels it played a significant role. At the very least it can hardly be said that I'm jumping to some kind of "ridiculous" conclusion.
1. I claimed his opinion was non-sensical because there was no sense behind it. He asserted that there was no additional security, and then reached a conclusion based on that. I'm challenging the assertion, not making a conclusion. Without something to back the assertion, the conclusion is nonsense. I don't have a responsibility to prove something just because I'm pointing out that somebody else is asserting the opposite with zero evidence to back it up.2. Sorry. Here's more info for you about the famous Cairo tweet. Apparently not only did it not emanate from the White House, but the White House actually rejected it before it was posted. News to me. Anyway, actions by rogue low-level employees are not something you can hold the administration accountable for IMO.

3. Was a South Park reference, not name-calling. I agree, more security would be great.

4. I can't prove that a tweet from a low-level embassy staffer in Cairo wasn't the primary cause of an incident hours later in Libya. You can't prove it was. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. But for the reasons I stated before, even if you're correct, I think it's a real stretch to hold the entire State Department or Administration responsible.
1. You are asking him to prove a negative and then claiming the inability to do so is non-sensical. Come on. Have you found any evidence that security was beefed up? I certainly can't find any.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?” The answer would clearly be “no”. I also find it hard to believe the Cairo embassy suddenly went rogue. I think it's far more likely this is damage control, but I don't believe Obama had a direct role to play in any of it. I never did.

3. I guess you don't blame the State Department for inadequate security. I do, and was quite shocked to find out how little was there. It is Libya after all.

4. I definitely hold the State Department responsible for part of this; both in terms of the poor security and creating a flashpoint. We can agree to disagree about that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. You are asking him to prove a negative and then claiming the inability to do so is non-sensical. Come on.
We're fairly close to agreement (or agreeing to disagree), but on this one point: I'm asking him to provide evidence to support his claim before he goes around drawing conclusions based on it. He made the claim, he has the burden of supporting it IMO. Whether you can call his conclusions despite a failure to do so "nonsense" is a semantic question, but I think it's completely fair. I someone said that you did or didn't do X and therefore you are a fool, wouldn't you say that they have the burden of showing that you did or didn't do X? And if they don't, wouldn't you consider their opinion of you to be nonsense?
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
:goodposting:
 
I think you're wrong on the facts here
its been widely reported. here's one example:
Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/?tag=stack
thanks for the link, that was news to me. The reports I had seen were that official Libyan security were defending the embassy but were outgunned.edit - further stories seem to indicate that libyan security had been infiltrated by extremists, no surprise there I guess.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
What they really need to say is something like "the US administration does not comment on, endorse, condemn, or prevent a particular expression of free speech by private citizens. America was founded on the right of free speech. Violence against our citizens and officials in response to any speech is not acceptable or tolerable."This "I'm so sorry someone hurt your feelings" response is awful and weak. What's to say a string of these movies aren't going to start showing up now that they generate such a response? Nip it in the bud right now.
I strongly disagree with this. Your response is a reasonable one, and it is designed for reasonable people. These are NOT reasonable people. They are firmly convinced that the United States government planned this whole thing. They swallow conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat. Our goal is not to convince them otherwise, because we never will, but to keep them small and isolated, and convince the masses that might join them to stay indifferent. The only way to do that is to condemn the film, condemn attacks on Islam in general, and to emphasize that our government had nothing to do with it. If that seems weak or apologetic to you, too bad. In the long run it will save lives.
 
1. You are asking him to prove a negative and then claiming the inability to do so is non-sensical. Come on.
We're fairly close to agreement (or agreeing to disagree), but on this one point: I'm asking him to provide evidence to support his claim before he goes around drawing conclusions based on it. He made the claim, he has the burden of supporting it IMO. Whether you can call his conclusions despite a failure to do so "nonsense" is a semantic question, but I think it's completely fair. I someone said that you did or didn't do X and therefore you are a fool, wouldn't you say that they have the burden of showing that you did or didn't do X? And if they don't, wouldn't you consider their opinion of you to be nonsense?
I certainly can't find any evidence that they beefed up security so that would lead me to the conclusion that they didn't. How in any way is that process "non-sensical"? If security was beefed up as a precautionary measure I'm 99% certain it would have been reported as such in at least one of these articles. I would consider that pretty significant news.What would you propose that I do? Create a link to all of the articles I can't find any evidence on? There are articles on this everywhere. None of the ones I have read say anything about strengthened security at these locations in preparation for the movie or the 9/11 anniversary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Not a single mention in this thread that the Libyans have arrested the people responsible for the murder of the ambassador? 2. It's not "out of control over there." In Cairo, there are a few hundred protestors. The vast majority of the population want nothing to do with this. Heck, we had more people in the Occupy movement than they have over there protesting this. Yemen is bound to be a little worse, because the population is much poorer. But again, it's still only a small minority of folks. We all need to calm down a little.
Tim, first even the State Department ill not confirm anyone, let alone who, was arrested; secondly the the embassy in Sudan is burning and other embassies are repelling attacks - does that sound likes it is getting better?
I didn't say it was getting better. I said it was a small minority. Are you aware of how many millions of people live in Cairo, for example? It's one of the most densely populated cities in the entire world. 17 million people live there, more than twice the entire population of Israel. And you think a few hundred protestors are representative of anything?
The 9/11 hijackers were a part of a small minority; your point is?
WTF??
 
what has the US response been so far? Anything beyond a stern reprimand and finger-wagging?
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."
What they really need to say is something like "the US administration does not comment on, endorse, condemn, or prevent a particular expression of free speech by private citizens. America was founded on the right of free speech. Violence against our citizens and officials in response to any speech is not acceptable or tolerable."This "I'm so sorry someone hurt your feelings" response is awful and weak. What's to say a string of these movies aren't going to start showing up now that they generate such a response? Nip it in the bud right now.
This reminds me of the "outrage" by conservatives when Obama bowed to a Chinese official. Whats wrong with being respectful? Whats wrong with sympathizing? Obama didn't say he's going to revoke our 1st amendment, he didn't say that the Libyan's are justified in their response. He just said sorry about the kook trying to incite hatred, and then condemned the violence. Whats wrong with that?
 
There is a significant cut-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face contingent in this country lately. There are people defending this filmmaker, for Christ's sake.
That's a good thing. One of things that I'm most proud of is the fact that people are free to express themselves in this country. The filmaker is a ####, but he didn't do anything that justifies violence. The notion that violence is somehow justified in this case is far more offensive than anything that might appear in this film.
:thumbup: I don't even think I can link to it without risking a ban, but I strongly recommend The Onion's take on this issue. Google "no one murdered because of this image."
I am actually making that very movie mentioned in the Onion article. Christo will play the Buddha.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top