Printable View
Here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
This response is downright pathetic.
Liberal enough I hopeQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_837911.html
nevermind
That is an article about french jets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Very good, you now sourced.
Ok, so from that source, what is your point? Again, you haven't elaborated at all.
Yet you not only watched the video but you posted a link for others to view. They don't care how many hits they get, just that people are watching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It's pretty simple it's in there, France started bombing Libya without allies consent. They even admitted it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
How is that related to the topic, though? What is it that you are trying to say here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The exact same thing of which you said it was lunacy, that it was France that started the war with Libya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
The cure for offensive speech is more speech. I believe exposing the film to be a sub-student-level piece of junk is an appropriate response. Instead of hiding it like some deep, dark secret, I say expose it as the shoddy piece of trash that it is. As a propaganda film it does not appear to be playing in Leni Riefestahl territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I know I usually sound harsh, but I'm against those that made the film receiving any notice at all. Least of all for someone to add to their viewed metrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
They started "early", they didn't start without allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Military action is not an option, the militia is not government aligned and the US is not at war with Libya or its neighbours - the situation bears no resemblance to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.
If Obama bows to the screaming to "retaliation" on the Right he is a weak president who deserves to be thrown out.
Put it how you like it, but 40.000 people, probably 80.000, got killed in a timeset that would shame any campguard's prideQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
This from the man who doesn't believe Gadaffi could have killed 6,000 of his own people before NATO got involved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Nuh-uh, you can't have it both ways Frags.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
First, let me say the response is weak. It is not just weak it is no response at all.
Other than adding a minefield around embassies and consulates there is no way to increase security.
If you had been to one of these facilities you would wonder how the mob gained entry without the use of armored vehicles. They should be proof against small arms and even RPGs. I can see them being killed if they were caught in a car but to have the building looted and burned is beyond understanding. The attack had to be a prolonged one.
Making resources available sounds much more like a platitude than any real action.
This is not going to inspire confidence and make people feel better, which it is supposed to be about.
The press may try to attack Romney for his early criticisms but that could backfire too.
It is as though he is trying to make himself look bad. At the very least he should have named the Islamic movement that was behind the attacks for condemnation, but he couldn’t even do that.
I am also shocked and disappointed.
Wanna bet I already have 6.000Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm not quite understanding the reaction here, so maybe you can help me out? PotUS and SecDef condemn the attacks. Is there something else they should be doing, absent further development of the intel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
What would an appropriate response look like?
-edit-
Is this the sort of thing that constitutes an appropriate response? Or not? I am puzzled by the speed and certainty of the reactions back here.
The U.S. is deploying elite Marine counterterrorism teams to Libya in response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The Pentagon is sending Fleet Anti-Terrorism Teams, known as FAST teams, a U.S. defense official has confirmed to the E-Ring.
The official was unsure if the teams were actually en route to Libya yet.
"Make no mistake, justice will be done," President Obama said, in a statement in the Rose Garden early Wednesday. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is not expected to appear on camera today.
Libya in flames, most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I remember this reaction eleven years ago, kill some Americans and perfectly normal citizens of your country start calling for the blood of children.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Say exactly who did it and what actions they plan to take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As I said before, their statements don’t do anything. They should be saying something to calm people and at least make them feel better about the situation.
Not even, “We are sanding a team from the FBI to assist with the investigations.”
Additional security is ridiculous. Citizens can’t even get into them with out several days notice.
The facilities are bunkers. There is nothing in them that will burn but the paper for the copy machines.
You just have no idea! And this is not even in the high risk areas.
The statements would have been harsher had it been a prison riot.
But then I am outside the US atm. Perhaps people are not upset and it is just like someone stuck up the local drugstore.
However, I see nothing in the statement that shows any decisiveness, determination, or leadership.
It just seems like weak pap to me.
Caught me with the edit.
I suppose that is an improvement but it should have been the POTUS who told us and not DOD.
This makes it look like they are doing it of their own accord. He still comes off weak and by no means decisive.
Yeah, I'm not in any way saying that the responses here are inappropriate, just that I don't understand them. Literally.
Our people were assassinated yesterday, official condemnation from PotUS and SecDef went out today, CT teams are being sent to the region, and Libya has apologized (and Egypt, notably, has not).
Very fluid situation. Personally, I would rather not hear thundering pronouncements from our government until they're quite certain about (a) what actually went down, and (b) what they intend to do about it.
But I get the sense from the responses back here that this is considered unacceptable. So I'm not baiting, and I'm not arguing, I'm asking: What would an appropriate response look like?
-edit-
Missed your post, @Fisherking, apologies. You do a good job of answering my question, so thank you. I don't agree, but at least now I understand.
The lunacy I referred to was directed to your years of participation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I said that the US gov't just put the Libyan gov in place, and hence it would be weird if they attacked them. I didn't say the US started it, was alone in doing it, or anything such. That is why I wondered why you started posting articles about french jet fighters.
So what in my original point is it that you feel like arguing against?
AND PLEASE BE MORE ELABORATE WHEN YOU FIRST COME UP WITH THE IDEA TO POST.
That way I don't have to spend so many posts just trying to understand what the **** you are trying to get said.
I don’t think a “Bring War Fire and Brimstone” approach is what is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I do think the Pres should come of as decisive and well informed and should try to make the people think that we know what we are doing and moving with a plan- real or perceived.
Telling people who the perps were and what motivated them should have been the first thing. That way they know it is not a terror plot but fundamentalists. Then what we are doing to apprehend them or aid Libya in doing so.
The beefed up security was something he had to say. It is just those who are overseas know that that is a platitude. (if you are ever in another country you should make a point of visiting one, once.)
We just need him to inspire confidence, not remind us of the Carter era.
Then PotUS would need to not say anything until he had firm intel, which would prolly cause a prolonged silence. I doubt that would satisfy anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Lots of murk in this situation. For example, the identity of the person who made the craptacular film is unclear, and the information he has given about himself may very well be fabricated.
Both the AP and the Wall Street Journal have reported interviews with Sam Bacile, the man who claims to be a California real estate developer who raised $5 million from Jewish donors to make his obviously lowest-of-low budget, amateurish anti-Islam film.
-edit-
But before the July 2012 upload of the film trailer to YouTube, under the user name Sam Bacile, you’d be hard pressed to find evidence of the existence a California real estate developer online. [...]
Consider all the contradictions: small ones, true, like in one account he is 52 and in another he is 56. To the AP he is “a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew” and to the Times of Israel he is “Jewish and familiar with the region.” And what about that bit at the end of the statement to the Times of Israel—that “even Jesus” should be “in front of the judge”? That sounds like someone who is trying to provoke more than just Muslims. A lot of things don’t add up here about the claimed identity of the filmmaker. [...]
from the AP story: “Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.”
This sums it all up pretty well. Note that the validity of the first bit is unconfirmable:
https://i.imgur.com/9bCwe.png
You would not believe me, isn't it enough that I allready proved that it wasn't the US that attacked Libya but France, as I said, which you thought was pretty rediculousQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I love how people say that islam is not dangerous and that it is just the hardcore wackos who are violent. Funny that people tear apart the Christian faith all the time (see Penn Jillette) and the hardcore wackos on the Christian side don't go attacking Atheist organizations with rocket launchers and assault rifles. Because some Israeli (based in Cali, but from what I read, still an Israeli) makes some stupid Youtube video they find to be disrespectful, they attack a US embassy? What sense does that mean. No, not all muslims are violent (nor the majority of them), but the religion lends itself to violence, and its teachings are so easily used to justify violence that I honestly think the world would be a lot better off without it. People gotta stop being afraid to say the truth.
As I pointed out, two whole posts ago, "Sam Bacille" may or may not be a fabricated identity. Extremely unclear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Bacile has identified himself as an Israeli Jew in interviews, but Israeli diplomats said they have no record of anybody with that name being a citizen.
Furthermore:
That revelation raised more questions about the identity of Bacile, who also claims to be a real estate developer in California.
Records show no evidence of a 50-something Sam Bacile residing in the Golden State or having a real estate license. He is now in hiding.
Though Bacile claims he spent $5 million on the movie -- a figure that would put the film's budget on par with the Toronto International Film Festival entrant and Julianne Moore-starrer What Maisie Knew -- the 13 minutes of footage available online look unprofessional. Furthermore, Bacile has virtually no footprint in the Hollywood community. The writer-director-producer has no agent listed on IMDBPro and no credits on any film or TV production.
I read this thread solely because I saw the last post was by Lemur.
It did not disappoint.
That statement can be said about almost everything in the world, and personally I think the aim of such statements says more about the opinions of the person exclaiming it, than what the statements are about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
This is all good and such, but both Basile and his excuse for a movie are irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the muslim reaction to that movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I know this might sound crazy but what if Romney purposefully ignited the riots to discredit Obama's foreign policy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur