View Full Version : Killing of US Ambassador to Libya John Christopher Stevens and 3 other Americans
Is anyone else completely freaked out about this?
This seems like terrible news to me.
I am right now just trying to read up on the situation and on the face of it .... it seems like Kooks vs. Kooks (religious extremists over there drumming up lies and lynch mobs by picking up on the the voices in the wilderness of religious extremists here in the US).
It is very scary to me.
How can the US afford to retaliate? We can't have boots on the ground everywhere.... yet the killing of our envoys is unacceptable.
And then all of this playing itself out through a highly charged, polarized political lens.
We are becoming paralyzed by the bastardization of our political process.
I think our country is in some deep, deep doo right now.
If you read around the web on the comment sections. There is some intense hatred out there in our country.
Redfox - I just can't help but think of your Muslim relatives and what they have to go through here in our country that is at least, in word, based on Freedom of Religion. (and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press...)
I guess I should go read up on the Freedom thread now in progress here.....
ToomuchStuff
9-12-12, 9:53am
Is anyone else completely freaked out about this?
His spouse, family, those that were/are in charge of protection, families of the others killed, the extremists that caused this....
Freaking out IS the cause. People complain about the "faith that is behind this" and behind that is always people controlling it, via interpeting. Christians had the same thing and we refer to it as the dark ages (where you could be tried for heresy). We still have "Christian" groups that promote hate.
Even if we didn't have religion, we would still have idiots, scumbags, etc.
Yes, its horrible.
I think we should get ourselves (U.S.) out of most countries and let them destroy themselves.
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-12, 11:54am
I think we should get ourselves (U.S.) out of most countries and let them destroy themselves.
instead of doing it for them :)
Is anyone else completely freaked out about this?
This seems like terrible news to me.
I am right now just trying to read up on the situation and on the face of it .... it seems like Kooks vs. Kooks (religious extremists over there drumming up lies and lynch mobs by picking up on the the voices in the wilderness of religious extremists here in the US).
It is very scary to me.
How can the US afford to retaliate? We can't have boots on the ground everywhere.... yet the killing of our envoys is unacceptable.
Who is even keeping up on what is really going on in Libya now? Not I. A toppled (in an entirely undeclared war) INCREDIBLY OIL RICH (and plans are definitely made on the oil) dictatorship for which noone has any love, the slide toward civil war in the absence of this central authority, the rise of religious extremism which had previously been kept in check by that dictatorship. And the end game of most U.S. middle east interventions is occupation.
And then all of this playing itself out through a highly charged, polarized political lens.
We are becoming paralyzed by the bastardization of our political process.
I think our country is in some deep, deep doo right now.
It's bad but it's meaningless. It's meaningless because democracy breaks down in governing en empire. It's one thing to vote on the economy (it's still full of hidden macroeconomic assumptions) but at least one has some DIRECT EXPERIENCE of not being able to get a job and neither are all your friends or whatever. Who can keep track of a half a dozen countries the U.S. is directly at war or undeclared war with, half a world away. Always hidden agendas, nothing can ever be taken at face value, CIA involvement, secret support to rebel factions, the official line is almost always a lie, who can keep track. And this from someone who initially followed the invasion of Iraq ever single day! I've heard polls show few vote on foreign policy. This is understandable from an individual perspective but just shows why democracy breaks down in governing an empire. And so of course does freedom! An empire whose citizens are extremely uninformed about the rest of the world and who don't even care about voting for foreign policy issues. Thus an UNACCOUNTABLE EMPIRE.
If you read around the web on the comment sections. There is some intense hatred out there in our country.
into the void of ignorance flows hated, I mean all these people are experts on Libya right?
As I understand it, the short film that has enraged them has been around for a year or so. It seems to me that someone engineered the events in Cairo and Benghazi to occur on the anniversary of the events of 9/11, which makes it political rather than a spontaneous uprising.
The killings in Benghazi represent the intentional murder of U.S. government officials on U.S. sovereign soil. It will be interesting to see how our government reacts to this as it seems like 1979 all over again to me, and the parallels to the beginning of World War I are scary as well.
Who made that short film? And its pretty scary to think with the internet, You tube, etc., that one or a couple people can cause so much damage and its perceived as how our whole country feels.
Well, I feel much better now that Obama and Clinton have condemned the attack in "the strongest possible terms". That'll show 'em not to kill our embassadors and drag their bodies through the streets while desecrating the corpses!
"From the Halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli;"...
Who made that short film? And its pretty scary to think with the internet, You tube, etc., that one or a couple people can cause so much damage and its perceived as how our whole country feels.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120912/world/film-creator-goes-into-hiding.436665
"Well, I feel much better now that Obama and Clinton have condemned the attack in "the strongest possible terms". That'll show 'em not to kill our embassadors and drag their bodies through the streets while desecrating the corpses!" (bae)
What? The report I read indicated the diplomat was taken to a hospital where he died of smoke inhalation. What should we do--invade and compound the incident with more loss of innocent life?
If Libya is so unstable, closing the embassy would be a prudent response. Achieving democracy can be a bloody business; I'm not ready to write off the Arab Spring just yet.
Who made that short film? And its pretty scary to think with the internet, You tube, etc., that one or a couple people can cause so much damage and its perceived as how our whole country feels.
Look at what happened to Salman Rushdie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_Satanic_Verses_and_the_fatw.C4. 81). Or look at what happened in Denmark when those cartoons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) were published in 2005. It's not just the U.S. The reactions do, disproportionately, seem to be from a mindset held by a group that doesn't seem to have a compelling reason for existence beyond its iron hands. If you wonder why none of the other kids on the playground want to play with you.... Mind you, I'm not for discrimination or spreading lies about a particular group. I just feel it's counterproductive (and ironic) that the reaction to a drawing of a group's leader with a bomb on his head is violence. Doesn't do much for helping people see the inaccuracy in the portrayal.
flowerseverywhere
9-12-12, 1:28pm
Well, I feel much better now that Obama and Clinton have condemned the attack in "the strongest possible terms". That'll show 'em not to kill our embassadors and drag their bodies through the streets while desecrating the corpses!
"From the Halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli;"...
What would be an appropriate response? Should we drop bombs, send in troops? I have no idea myself, but I for one hate to see us slide into another conflict.
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-12, 1:34pm
What would be an appropriate response? Should we drop bombs, send in troops? I have no idea myself, but I for one hate to see us slide into another conflict.
Isn't the U.S. already involved in a conflict there, has Libya become more or less stable since then? Not a defense of Gadaffi but it's chaos there now it seems.
Well, I feel much better now that Obama and Clinton have condemned the attack in "the strongest possible terms". That'll show 'em not to kill our embassadors and drag their bodies through the streets while desecrating the corpses!
"From the Halls of Montezuma, To the shores of Tripoli;"...
Well, I never pegged you for a neocon, but, whatever...any port in a storm, eh? Or rather, any excuse to go to war!:(
The report I read indicated the diplomat was taken to a hospital where he died of smoke inhalation. What should we do--invade and compound the incident with more loss of innocent life?
Did the report mention that the three others were all killed by gunfire? Or that the Libyan security forces charged with protecting the embassy directed the folks with rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns to the building where the Ambassador was being held?
I'm pretty sure his death wasn't accidental. Actually, the photographs I've seen of his body being carried through the crowds remind me of the last photos we saw of Muammar Gaddafi just minutes before he mysteriously died.
As I understand it, the short film that has enraged them has been around for a year or so. It seems to me that someone engineered the events in Cairo and Benghazi to occur on the anniversary of the events of 9/11, which makes it political rather than a spontaneous uprising.
The killings in Benghazi represent the intentional murder of U.S. government officials on U.S. sovereign soil. It will be interesting to see how our government reacts to this as it seems like 1979 all over again to me, and the parallels to the beginning of World War I are scary as well.
Well, President Obama has a pretty cool head. I really don't see him declaring war over some religious zealots acting like thugs, which religious zealots do, after all. It is a tragedy, but just as military people know, at least intellectually, that they are placing themselves in danger, so do diplomats. This fine diplomat would be the first person to say, step back, take a breath, and don't rush off half c---ed. He would not want a war started over this senseless killing.
Now, I personally am for closing the embassy, and following the 'Star Trek' rule..."We'll come back in a hundred years when you have become civilized"
Religious fundamentalist are bad news, no matter which religion!
*my husband raised an interesting question this morning. He wondered why, as half of the men in those countries are named Mohammad, this isn't blasphemous! Why isn't it blasphemous to raise your kid to the level of the prophet? I'm pretty sure, in this country, if someone named their kid Jesus, or Jesus Christ, Christians would consider that blasphemous! They wouldn't carpet bomb your house, but...
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-12, 2:02pm
I'm pretty sure, in this country, if someone named their kid Jesus, or Jesus Christ, Christians would consider that blasphemous! They wouldn't carpet bomb your house, but...
Wow. Jesus is a fairly common hispanic name (pronounced like Jose). So I think we can infer Catholics don't have a problem with it.
Jesse might be some kind of Anglo (and well African American I guess :)) variant.
And its pretty scary to think with the internet, You tube, etc., that one or a couple people can cause so much damage and its perceived as how our whole country feels.
They didn't "cause so much damage". The people with the guns and grenade launchers did. Unless you're prepared to implement a pretty comprehensive censorship regime, you're never going to avoid offending someone somewhere. Especially among people who owe their positions to maintaining a high level of outrage.
Well, I never pegged you for a neocon, but, whatever...any port in a storm, eh? Or rather, any excuse to go to war!:(
You need to stop lashing out, really.
Closing the embassy for the foreseeable future gets my vote as the first reaction. If you get right down to it there are several embassies I would probably support closing. Along with several military bases.
Well, President Obama has a pretty cool head. I really don't see him declaring war over some religious zealots acting like thugs, which religious zealots do, after all. It is a tragedy, but just as military people know, at least intellectually, that they are placing themselves in danger, so do diplomats. This fine diplomat would be the first person to say, step back, take a breath, and don't rush off half c---ed. He would not want a war started over this senseless killing.
Now, I personally am for closing the embassy, and following the 'Star Trek' rule..."We'll come back in a hundred years when you have become civilized"
Religious fundamentalist are bad news, no matter which religion!
... ...
My sentiments, pretty much. We're a lightning rod for anti-imperialist frustration around the world, so it's no surprise embassies routinely warn their personnel about known threats and employ various levels of security.
My sentiments, pretty much. We're a lightning rod for anti-imperialist frustration around the world, so it's no surprise embassies routinely warn their personnel about known threats and employ various levels of security.
The Cairo and Benghazi riots don't seem to have had much to do with "anti-imperialist frustration". They seemed to have been connected with outrage over somebody's uncouth excercise of freedom of expression. I don't see how retreating from the world like pre-Meiji Japan would help matters all that much.
Well, President Obama has a pretty cool head. ..
Gosh I know it! That dude is just cool.
Wow. Jesus is a fairly common hispanic name (pronounced like Jose). So I think we can infer Catholics don't have a problem with it.
Jesse might be some kind of Anglo (and well African American I guess :)) variant.
Agreed, and "Jesus" is so prevelant an Hispanic name in the Southwest that now I question peggy's assertion that she even lived in Texas or else she'd know that.:D
but I thought it was pronounced "Hey-zeus" not "Ho-zey."
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-12, 4:39pm
but I thought it was pronounced "Hey-zeus" not "Ho-zey."
Yea, I just meant the J has an H sound.
Agreed, and "Jesus" is so prevelant an Hispanic name in the Southwest that now I question peggy's assertion that she even lived in Texas or else she'd know that.:D
but I thought it was pronounced "Hey-zeus" not "Ho-zey."
I have a co-worker by that name. He told me his mother had high hopes for him.
I was just listening to an interview with Mideast expert Richard Miniter, who made it a point to mention the individual heroism of many Libyans who responded to the embassy attack to help survivors, including carrying Ambassador Stevens to the hospital at risk to their own lives.
As President Obama cited in his statement:
Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’ body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.
The effectiveness of terrorism lies in its potential for a few fanatics to make an impact way out of proportion to their numbers. It's a tactic of the weak and powerless, for the most part. That said, Iran is already being fingered by some. for this particular action. Shades of 9/11 and Iraq, perhaps.
It is pronounced 'Hey-zeus', and not only was I in Texas, I am a Texan, born and bred!:~)
Perhaps I should have highlighted the 'IN THIS COUNTRY' part of my post. I am well aware of Jesus as 'Hey-zeus' among Hispanics, and certainly in Mexico. But then, I was also referring to fundamentalist Christians in this country, as we were talking about fundamentalists, and the "Gee-zuss' pronunciation, or Jesus Christ.
I assumed you all knew what I was talking about. I guess i was wrong.
Now, if someone, not Hispanic, or even Hispanic, in this country named their kid Jesus (Gee-zuss) Christ, don't you think the fundamentalist of this country would consider that blasphemous?
You need to stop lashing out, really.
And you need to stop trying to twist every single comment into some sort of personal attack, really!
That shtick gets pretty old pretty fast!
(and really bae, it pretty much loses it's effectiveness after about the 5,000th time....FYI)
Can we please keep this discussion civil and avoid lashing out at each other? People have died in tragic circumstances and it is rather distasteful to see this kind of sniping going on.
I work closely with Embassy colleagues and spend a fair amount of time at an Embassy satellite office here in Beijing. The main Embassy building is pretty much a fortress, but security at the satellite locations is much more lax. It is nice in some ways -- I always dread having to go to the main Embassy building because it takes up to an hour to get through security. But the satellite offices are definitely vulnerable. As are many of the consulates. There were new standards put into place for Embassy/consulate security after some of the major attacks that have taken place (Chengdu was firebombed in 1999 after the NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade), but there are still major issues that haven't been addressed in many places. I had a look at the draft State Department budget last spring, and noted one of the things where they were proposing saving money was on slowing down the plan to get all overseas facilities up to the security standards. One of those things that people don't think about much when complaining about the federal budget.
Another thing that has always troubled me is that the security staff at Embassies/Consulates all is from the local country. Yes, I know that at the main Embassy compound they do have Marines on site, but they are relatively few in number. I suppose we have US guards on Embassies in DC, but still this seems like something that could potentially have serious repercussions if the wrong people were in those positions.
My thoughts are with the Embassy staff and their families/colleagues who were touched by this tragic event. Foreign service personnel do a great deal on behalf of the US and our relations with foreign countries. Truly a great loss.
lhamo
The effectiveness of terrorism lies in its potential for a few fanatics to make an impact way out of proportion to their numbers. It's a tactic of the weak and powerless, for the most part. That said, Iran is already being fingered by some. for this particular action. Shades of 9/11 and Iraq, perhaps.
Generally I would agree about why terrorism is effective. It causes terror. The actual attacks are rarely as effective at undermining the target as the anticipation of them. It would, however, be a mistake to underestimate the opposition. A small but determined group can present an obstacle that is anything but weak or powerless. Ask the Soviets what they found in Afghanistan. For that matter ask anyone from Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan through General McChrystal what its like there. Not that the Afghan fighters are all terrorists, but the point is that a small group can be very hard to defeat. In the case of the Afghans, anyone who can hold off armies for 1800 years is probably worth checking out.
I was truly sorry to read of tjhe circumstances of his death. It is my understanding that embassy staff are fully informed and kept informed that they, as symbols of the nation they represent, are vulnerable to attack. The fact that it rarely happens is to the credit of the host countries. Libya is a fragile nation and liable to experiencing tragic and violent outbursts. The ambassador knew this and accepted the assignment. What this means to me is that we need to appreciate our embassy staff more.
Generally I would agree about why terrorism is effective. It causes terror. The actual attacks are rarely as effective at undermining the target as the anticipation of them. It would, however, be a mistake to underestimate the opposition. A small but determined group can present an obstacle that is anything but weak or powerless. Ask the Soviets what they found in Afghanistan. For that matter ask anyone from Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan through General McChrystal what its like there. Not that the Afghan fighters are all terrorists, but the point is that a small group can be very hard to defeat. In the case of the Afghans, anyone who can hold off armies for 1800 years is probably worth checking out.
Terrorism and guerrilla warfare can work hand in hand to defeat much stronger and better-funded foes--especially if you win the locals over to your cause. No doubt about it.
The Cairo and Benghazi riots don't seem to have had much to do with "anti-imperialist frustration". They seemed to have been connected with outrage over somebody's uncouth excercise of freedom of expression. I don't see how retreating from the world like pre-Meiji Japan would help matters all that much.
I've heard the protest in Egypt had something to do with the video, but there's also talk of targeted terrorism to coincide with 9-11 that had nothing to do with it.
ApatheticNoMore
9-12-12, 5:57pm
I don't think this kind of stuff can be known immediately, so many people that could take advantage of even a peaceful protest, so many shadowy actors backed by who knows who. Just be wary if they start pushing ever more war based on things like this.
I was truly sorry to read of tjhe circumstances of his death. It is my understanding that embassy staff are fully informed and kept informed that they, as symbols of the nation they represent, are vulnerable to attack. The fact that it rarely happens is to the credit of the host countries. Libya is a fragile nation and liable to experiencing tragic and violent outbursts. The ambassador knew this and accepted the assignment. What this means to me is that we need to appreciate our embassy staff more.
Bless you, razz, for always being the coolest head in the house. This event's tragic enough without using it as an excuse for more partisan bickering and finger-pointing.
It is ironic (or maybe not ironic at all) that only a handful of months ago we supported NATO with air support to help stop Qaddafi's march on Benghazi, which might have resulted in the massacre of many many innocent Libyan citizens. Arab Spring indeed.
ToomuchStuff
9-13-12, 2:04am
America was formed by fighting the British, in a mostly guerrilla style, and we dealt with terrorism early on in the first Barbary war. While I do not believe this was an attack by various nations, I do believe this was at least in part (no telling with the internet now days how quickly something can spawn something else), a terrorist attack. (stuff we have and will be dealing with for DECADES, if not centuries) I hate to say it, but it may be a while before the ones ultimately responsible for giving the order, will be held accountable. (it is a war we are already in, as THEY declared it)
As for Bae and Peggy, don't we have an ignore function on this board, or is there some attraction? (get a room!):laff:
ApatheticNoMore
9-13-12, 3:06am
While I do not believe this was an attack by various nations, I do believe this was at least in part (no telling with the internet now days how quickly something can spawn something else), a terrorist attack.
The truth often takes weeks, sometimes months, in a few cases years, to be fully known ...
(stuff we have and will be dealing with for DECADES, if not centuries)
I'm not sure who "we" is, I don't know if the U.S. actually has a few more centuries (or the human race), but if you mean as long as the human race and war and power exists those that are relatively powerless will use terrorism as a tactic, well yea.
I hate to say it, but it may be a while before the ones ultimately responsible for giving the order, will be held accountable. (it is a war we are already in, as THEY declared it)
Debatable, U.S. involvement preceeds much. But in this case who is "they" anyway, it's not "us" right? Or ..... it is unknown exactly who the U.S. supported when it supported rebel factions in Libya, it is unknown who was empowered by this, perhaps these very terrorists for all we know. Meanwhile the U.S. is currently backing rebel factions in Syria. Al-Qaeda is infiltrating these rebel factions in Syria. That's about all I need to know to upchuck a decade worth of war on terror where Al-Queda was *THE* enemy like a bad case of food poisoning.
It may be awhile more of war whoop de doo, but wait, the potential for complications was entirely foretold by those that said don't go into Libya in the first place. The U.S. disposes of these strongmen, horrible dictators, and yet there is nothing to fill the vacuum, and there is in the Muslim world some factions who are religious extremists, and so they end up being one of the groups left vying for power. At least when you had dictatorships they were stable, and now the U.S. wants to topple Syria (so we can have another country like the U.S. LEAVES THEM? in chaos? like Iraq, like Afghanistan, like Libya?). It's like dealing with an addict, when no matter how many times the consequences strike and compound, they keep getting worse and worse in their addictive behaviors. It will be awhile of endless war, a war in one country against "terrorism", a war in another country where we arm rebels of which Al-Queda is part, endless war.
Meanwhile no jobs, no healthcare, no retirement, all these disappear, but endless war continues.
"War makes war
It won't bring peace
It just makes more
without cease"
John Gorka
The Storyteller
9-13-12, 7:26am
Jesus was a common name even in his day. Lots of folks named Jesus.
And Muhammad is generally a surname, even though it comes first.
I agree with bae. Send in the Marines.
Jesus was a common name even in his day. Lots of folks named Jesus.
And Muhammad is generally a surname, even though it comes first.
I agree with bae. Send in the Marines.
And do what?
I agree with bae. Send in the Marines.
I didn't exactly propose to send in the Marines. I simply posted a line from the Marine Corps Hymn, to remind us that this has all happened before, in Jefferson's day. Our response at the time did include sending in the Marines, but there was a bit more to it than that...
Perhaps jetting off to fundraise for the election is the best approach after all, time will tell....
Seems like US conflict with this region in many forms has been going on for decades. We are realistically still in the thick of what might be an endless ordeal. It is sad that humans let their ideological differences rule all actions. In my idealistic imagination, I wish the women of the world could rise up and say "enough".
I didn't exactly propose to send in the Marines. I simply posted a line from the Marine Corps Hymn, to remind us that this has all happened before, in Jefferson's day. Our response at the time did include sending in the Marines, but there was a bit more to it than that...
Perhaps jetting off to fundraise for the election is the best approach after all, time will tell....
Due to the primacy of money in U.S. elections--and thanks to that wonderful SCOTUS Citizens United decision--anyone running for office who isn't on the Koch brothers/Karl Rove/Crossroads payroll is basically chained to a treadmill of fund-raising for the duration. Fortunately, President Obama seems to be able to multi-task. He's sent in the marines, and unless you expect him to ride into the fray standing up in a HumVee, I don't know what more you'd have him do.
--anyone running for office who isn't on the Koch brothers'/Karl Rove/Crossroads payroll is basically chained to a treadmill of fund-raising for the duration.
Unless, of course, he could get on the George Soros, ActBlue, union payroll. If a person were to have that support it might open up a little free time for other pursuits. Getting our diplomats out of the Middle East, for example. Yemen anyone?
The Storyteller
9-13-12, 11:18am
I didn't exactly propose to send in the Marines. I simply posted a line from the Marine Corps Hymn,
I know. I jest.
Mostly. I do believe a military response is warranted. Sounds like we will be working with and supporting (and perhaps joining) the Libyan government tracking this batch down and taking them out. A prudent plan, seems to me.
BTW, I love the Marine Corps Hymn. More than our national anthem.
ApatheticNoMore
9-13-12, 5:08pm
Send in the Marines:
"It’s pop-quiz time when it comes to the American way of war: three questions, torn from the latest news, just for you. Here’s the first of them, and good luck!
Two weeks ago, 200 U.S. Marines began armed operations in…?:
a) Afghanistan
b) Pakistan
c) Iran
d) Somalia
e) Yemen
f) Central Africa
g) Northern Mali
h) The Philippines
i) Guatemala"
I don't know! I choose f as I've heard such involvement has been increasing, the correct answer was i (Guatemala):
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175592/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_washington_invested_in_wa r
And the U.S. is involved militarily in most of the countries. Sigh ... it's so ridiculous it really is almost funny. Endless global war.
The Storyteller
9-13-12, 7:26pm
Oorah.
Send in the Marines:
"It’s pop-quiz time when it comes to the American way of war: three questions, torn from the latest news, just for you. Here’s the first of them, and good luck!
Two weeks ago, 200 U.S. Marines began armed operations in…?:
a) Afghanistan
b) Pakistan
c) Iran
d) Somalia
e) Yemen
f) Central Africa
g) Northern Mali
h) The Philippines
i) Guatemala"
I don't know! I choose f as I've heard such involvement has been increasing, the correct answer was i (Guatemala):
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175592/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_washington_invested_in_wa r
And the U.S. is involved militarily in most of the countries. Sigh ... it's so ridiculous it really is almost funny. Endless global war.
You have to know that 'involvement' could mean 5 advisers, or a few more marines to guard an embassy, which isn't a bad thing. Sure, I would like them to close a few more embassies. but as long as we have them, I think we need to protect them. It's really easy for those who don't understand the full extent of world political realities to just say, "let's leave", or "Stop the wars now" without understanding the real difficulty of our entanglement in those realities.
World politics is a very tangled, and difficult place to be, and the incredible nuance needed to navigate this is pretty incomprehensible to most of us. I am a pretty smart person, but i realize i am not smart enough to navigate this.
Please, when you vote this fall, think beyond the bumper stickers. Think about the natural curiosity, the nuance, and the ability of the candidate. The president is more than 'Will he give me a tax break" . In this age, the President has to be a leader of the World. And not a 'knee jerk leader' but a real leader,
You have to know that 'involvement' could mean 5 advisers, or a few more marines to guard an embassy, which isn't a bad thing. Sure, I would like them to close a few more embassies. but as long as we have them, I think we need to protect them. It's really easy for those who don't understand the full extent of world political realities to just say, "let's leave", or "Stop the wars now" without understanding the real difficulty of our entanglement in those realities.
World politics is a very tangled, and difficult place to be, and the incredible nuance needed to navigate this is pretty incomprehensible to most of us. I am a pretty smart person, but i realize i am not smart enough to navigate this.
Please, when you vote this fall, think beyond the bumper stickers. Think about the natural curiosity, the nuance, and the ability of the candidate. The president is more than 'Will he give me a tax break" . In this age, the President has to be a leader of the World. And not a 'knee jerk leader' but a real leader,
And it would be nice if he attended the daily security briefings and maybe took action when given a couple days warning of planned embassy attacks. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
ApatheticNoMore
9-13-12, 9:26pm
The warnings don't seem anywhere near that concrete.
ApatheticNoMore
9-13-12, 9:46pm
You have to know that 'involvement' could mean 5 advisers, or a few more marines to guard an embassy, which isn't a bad thing.
Well the Guatamala thing is supposedly drug war related.
World politics is a very tangled, and difficult place to be, and the incredible nuance needed to navigate this is pretty incomprehensible to most of us. I am a pretty smart person, but i realize i am not smart enough to navigate this.
If it's all too complex for one to possibly ever conceivably understand, why should I make any assumption whatsoever about motives or who the good guys and bad guys even are (if such a thing can even be said to exist). As an inhabitant of an empire, I am told my empire is always benevolent, but of course it's only natural an inhabitant of an empire would be told such. There's plenty of knowledgable people trying to influence power, but who hasn't seen how insular such knowledge can get reverberating around the halls of DC.
Please, when you vote this fall, think beyond the bumper stickers. Think about the natural curiosity, the nuance, and the ability of the candidate.
Ok that's it, I'm voting for Bill Clinton! Not really a Clinton fan, but in terms of natural curiosity it seems to me Clinton was this to a far greater degree than Obama.
The president is more than 'Will he give me a tax break" . In this age, the President has to be a leader of the World. And not a 'knee jerk leader' but a real leader
Well maybe you can have 1 or maybe if you are very lucky 2 of 3:
1) a european style welfare state
2) low taxes
3) an empire
And in order of priority, like most citizens I'd probably be better off living under #1 or if I can't have #1 then #2 (libertopia). But we only ever get #3 on the menu.
It's mostly just really depressing, wars that never end, are escalating even more.
And it would be nice if he attended the daily security briefings and maybe took action when given a couple days warning of planned embassy attacks. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
Pretty weak 'evidence' Allen. Did you actually read the article you linked to, or are you just hoping no one will actually click on it and read it, cause all it really says is, we were warned of unrest....well, duh! There was no specific warning that on this day at this time, yada yada. Well here's a warning for you, and I don't even need to 'attend' a briefing. ALL of our embassies in sensitive countries are AT RISK! All the time! Is this news to you? It's not news to most people, especially EMMBASSY STAFF!
So where, in this supposedly 'damning' article does it say that President Obama failed to attend some meeting? Or are you just channeling Rush Beck?
I'll tell you one thing all this tells me. It tells me how easily religious fundamentalist are manipulated and spun up to use as pawns for political gain. Kind of how Fox Nation spins up the low information folks, where you probably got this link.
Sorry, you don't even get an A for effort cause, you know, anyone who actually reads this article can see for themselves.
Actually, Hilliary Clinton gave a very goo speech on this.
http://news.yahoo.com/secretary-clinton-delivers-powerful-religion-speech-middle-east-034054319--abc-news-politics.html
"In her remarks, Clinton repeated much of what she's said in the last two days. Namely that the Benghazi attack was carried out by a "small and savage group," and that the United States completely rejects what she called the "inflammable and despicable" anti-Muslim film circulating the Internet. However, Clinton pointed out all religions have faced insults and denigration, but that's no justification for violence. The response to such insults is what separates people of true faith from those who would use religion as an excuse to commit violent acts, she said."
"... But she also highlighted the outpouring of support the United States has received from the Muslim world. She thanked the Libyan Ambassador, Ali Suleiman Aujali, who gave a heartfelt tribute U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens ,whom he called his dear friend, killed in Benghazi on Tuesday.
"I must tell you, Madam Secretary, and tell the American people, that Chris is a hero," said Aujali. "He loves Benghazi, he loves the people, he talks to them, he eats with them, and he [was] committed - and unfortunately lost his life because of this commitment."
And it would be nice if he attended the daily security briefings and maybe took action when given a couple days warning of planned embassy attacks. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html
I read the article. There was no reference to Obama or his missing his security updates. Another case of shooting before aiming.
The recent issue of Vanity Fair has a good article (available online) about Obama and what his daily routine is like. Interestingly it is about his decisions on leading NATO to support the Libyans. I don't think he idles away much time bass fishing in Texas.
Pretty weak 'evidence' Allen. Did you actually read the article you linked to, or are you just hoping no one will actually click on it and read it, cause all it really says is, we were warned of unrest....well, duh! There was no specific warning that on this day at this time, yada yada.
LOL, I thought several folks here would appreciate that 'weak' evidence since similarly 'weak' evidence has been mentioned on these forums many times in the past and again in just the past few days as a means to imply that the Bush administration was lax in securing America on 9/11. It's sometimes hard to resist that goose/gander thing. :devil:
So where, in this supposedly 'damning' article does it say that President Obama failed to attend some meeting? Or are you just channeling Rush Beck?
Sorry about using two examples in one sentence. I simply assumed that a 'high information voter' such as yourself kept up with political news, especially those items that have been around for a while. Here ya go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
I'll tell you one thing all this tells me. It tells me how easily religious fundamentalist are manipulated and spun up to use as pawns for political gain. Kind of how Fox Nation spins up the low information folks, where you probably got this link.
Thanks again for your inappropriate display of condecension. It makes it easy to see where you're coming from. :thankyou:
I read the article. There was no reference to Obama or his missing his security updates. Another case of shooting before aiming.
Speaking of 'shooting before aiming', please see my response to Peggy on this subject. Or, simply Google 'Obama Security Updates'. The subject has been much discussed and written about over the past week so you'll find plenty of supporting commentary.
The Storyteller
9-14-12, 10:25am
Here ya go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
All this tells me is Obama is a reader, and George wasn't. Which is okay, we all get our information in different wasy. And it doesn't say he missed this particular meeting, or that he didn't read the briefing for it.
I love straw men. They are so easy to knock down.
All this tells me is Obama is a reader, and George wasn't. Which is okay, we all get our information in different wasy. And it doesn't say he missed this particular meeting, or that he didn't read the briefing for it.
I love straw men. They are so easy to knock down.
Of course, it could also tell you that the opportunity to not only be presented with relevant information, but to also question the details might be helpful to its intended audience. I guess it just depends on who it's being presented to.
ApatheticNoMore
9-14-12, 11:54am
LOL, I thought several folks here would appreciate that 'weak' evidence since similarly 'weak' evidence has been mentioned on these forums many times in the past and again in just the past few days as a means to imply that the Bush administration was lax in securing America on 9/11. It's sometimes hard to resist that goose/gander thing.
Ok, so we wasted our time entirely by clicking on the link, because it was really just some elaborate game playing. Here we were trying to read it at a rational adult level and it was meant purely at a childish level "but teacher, Johnny does it too!". Thanks, I feel um ... played? I read the article with the W scenario in mind and found it equally weak (what W could have done is empower those under him, but what you can't do is lock down an entire country of this population and size, heaven knows after 9-11 they have tried and I *despise* that and even so it's mostly security theater, how effective it is is highly doubtful, my choice is risk and civil liberties). So really folks you'd be better off reading my *commentary* link about Guatamala (which I didn't expect anyone to necessarily read, and which is openly biased (anti-interventionist left) - it's um commentary, but even then more useful information than trying to parse through that link that Alan gave).
Ok, so we wasted our time entirely by clicking on the link, because it was really just some elaborate game playing. Here we were trying to read it at a rational adult level and it was meant purely at a childish level "but teacher, Johnny does it too!". Thanks, I feel um ... played? .
I wouldn't consider it a waste of time. I'd consider it an opportunity to discuss why someone would consider one to be 'weak' while the other is proof of ineptness, but perhaps we already know the answer to that.
Plus, there seems to be little to no reporting of the 48 hour warning in the American media. Doesn't it make you wonder why we must look abroad for things like that?
Why do you keep assuming he didn't read this report? Why do you assume he didn't ask any questions or be in touch with the embassy? Were you there? Just because something terrible happened doesn't mean he wasn't aware of the dangers. he was, trust me. So was the embassy staff and this fine diplomat. Thy were all aware of the unrest. So were we, if you happened to be paying attention. Did he shut down the embassy and pull everyone out? No, but if he did that for every threat, we would have no embassies anywhere.
You keep using hindsight as some sort of crystal ball. Well, why don't you just travel back in time and tell them that these people are going to be killed, on this day, so maybe they can do whatever it is you expected them to do without this information.
For the record, that briefing didn't say 'the embassy will be scaled and those people will be killed" in case you have the mistaken belief that's what it said.
My criticism of Bush doesn't necessarily surround the missed security brief, although it did say 'Bin Laden wants to attack in the US", in great big bold letters, and since they tried to do the world trade center once before, and Clinton tried to warn them when his administration took office, well.... my issue with Bush is his total lack of leadership after we were attacked. If someone wants to hit the US, they are going to hit the US, eventually. I don't blame Bush for that.
But when the idiot (and he is a complete idiot) was told that the US was under attack, how did he react? Well he didn't did he? Not at all! Not for 7 whole minutes (sit and look at your watch for 7 minutes and you will see how incredibly long that is) He didn't move until someone whispered in his ear to get off his butt and act presidential. And then he just went into hiding to let the real President, Cheney, run the show.
This guy was no leader. He proved it after 9/11 and again after Katrina, another missed opportunity to 'be presidential'. Grabbing a bullhorn and jumping up on a pile of rubble doesn't make you a leader. It doesn't make you Presidential. It makes you an opportunist, maybe.
It's really laughable that you want to compare Bush's 'leadership' with President Obama's..you know, the guy who actually 'got' Bin Laden.
Plus, there seems to be little to no reporting of the 48 hour warning in the American media. Doesn't it make you wonder why we must look abroad for things like that?
It actually makes me wonder if it is a wild rumor or total fabrication to sell copy and get attention.
"The White House has denied claims from a British newspaper that it ignored credible information about an impending attack on American diplomats in Libya."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-white-house-denies-report-that-it-had-a-48-hour-advance-warning-on-the-libya-attack-2012-9#ixzz26TvNckFx
It actually makes me wonder if it is a wild rumor or total fabrication to sell copy and get attention.
"The White House has denied claims from a British newspaper that it ignored credible information about an impending attack on American diplomats in Libya."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-white-house-denies-report-that-it-had-a-48-hour-advance-warning-on-the-libya-attack-2012-9#ixzz26TvNckFx
+1
worth repeating.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.