U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

[Fragony]

Owwww? After the unelected socialist 'good after the war' Schulz showed what it really means to be a dhimmi by condemning the movie on behalf of the EU it couldn't get worse no? But it seems like the unelected Lady Ashton, naturally from Labour so absolutely in love with anything islam, is working on a European anti-blasphemy law.

Hatebeards vs Enlightment 2-0

[Hax]

Fragony, can you please stop using the term "dhimmi" all the time? It only makes sense in an Islamic state, you can't just slap it on anything.

[Kralizec]

I've always had the impression of Schultz as a sanctimonious, pontificating attention seeker. His latest antic of condemning the film makers (and the weak excuse of "I comdemned the rioters, too") is just the latest in a row of dissappointing remarks by political leaders to appease islamist rioters while remaining largely silent on freedom of speech. He's elected though - not liking him has no bearing on that simple fact.

There are apparently rumors that the EU is cooperating with some islamic countries for an anti-blasphemy treaty. I smell BS.

[Fragony]

Fragony, can you please stop using the term "dhimmi" all the time? It only makes sense in an Islamic state, you can't just slap it on anything.

Can on EU dhimmi's though I mean it isn't like they aren't paying the djizza by selling out our post-enlightment intellectual capital, maybe it is you who should find a new word for people who are dhimmis by choice, like the unelected 'good after the war' Schulz or the unelected Hell's Angel of political correctness Lady Ashton. It's disgusting to watch them crawl to appease an inferior culture the EU deserves to die.

@Kraz, being elected by unelected people doesn't make you elected, I don't smell BS by the way it is 100% in line with the Eurabia theory

[Kralizec]

I are confuse.

Schulz is a MEP and he was elected by German voters. Do you mean we should be able to elect who gets to live in Germany?

[Fragony]

I are confuse.

Schulz is a MEP and he was elected by German voters. Do you mean we should be able to elect who gets to live in Germany?

No he is not an MEP he is the unelected President of the European Commision, you must be reading quality media

Looks like this http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qpygZ...%3DqpygZ-ju81c

[Kralizec]

Lol, no.

He's the president of the European Parliament.

[Fragony]

Lol, no.

He's the president of the European Parliament.

Oh yeah it's hard to keep track of all that, my bad

The elected president of the European Parliament that was elected by the Germans by the way?

Yep, quality media

[Kralizec]

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

The only relevant difference is that Schulz is the leader of his fraction in the EP while presiding over procedure and whatnot; the only other place where they also do it that way which I can think of is the US house of representatives. I'd rather have that a low-key MEP became their president; being the head of one of the fractions could conflict with their duty to be impartial and fair. And Martin Schulz is a rather poor candidate for the post anyway, since he has a history of having a big mouth.

[Fragony]

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

Nice spin but the Netherlands is a nation-state and the EU isn't, they weren't asked to speak for the European community so they can't, your logic only aplies to people who wouldn't rather split skulls instead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

The only relevant difference is that Schulz is the leader of his fraction in the EP while presiding over procedure and whatnot; the only other place where they also do it that way which I can think of is the US house of representatives. I'd rather have that a low-key MEP became their president; being the head of one of the fractions could conflict with their duty to be impartial and fair. And Martin Schulz is a rather poor candidate for the post anyway, since he has a history of having a big mouth.

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

marvelous.

Back to the actual topic:

I think we should compare the reaction in Libya with that in Egypt, the death of the ambassador notwihtstanding Libya's reaction has been better all around.

[Vladimir]

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

marvelous.

Back to the actual topic:

I think we should compare the reaction in Libya with that in Egypt, the death of the ambassador notwihtstanding Libya's reaction has been better all around.

Agreed. Egypt's trying to reassert itself as a regional power while Libya realizes it needs all the help it can get.

[Xiahou]

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.

Seriously?? What were they thinking at the White House when they sent Susan Rice around to all the Sunday news shows saying it was a spontaneous attack that was an offshoot of the protests? They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination. Why the apparent coverup?

[Lemur]

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.

The most telling line from the article, in my opinion: "[T]he U.S. intelligence community was studying an intercept between a Libyan politician and a member of the so-called February 17 militia, Libyans charged with providing security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. More intelligence has come in that shows members of Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda–affiliated group operating in and around Benghazi, were attempting to coerce, threaten, cajole, and bribe members of the militia protecting the consulate."

Sounds like you have a situation with multiple militias, some of which we were buying off for protection, and the AQ-wannabes trying to drive a wedge between merc and employer. Makes sense; there's no way we could put enough assets on the ground to protect a consulate in a truly hostile environment (see Beirut under Reagan), so the best course is to buy some local muscle. It sounds as though something went wrong with the hired hands.

[Fragony]

'Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.'

Rule #1: there are no spontanious riots over there

[Vladimir]

Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.

The most telling line from the article, in my opinion: "[T]he U.S. intelligence community was studying an intercept between a Libyan politician and a member of the so-called February 17 militia, Libyans charged with providing security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. More intelligence has come in that shows members of Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda–affiliated group operating in and around Benghazi, were attempting to coerce, threaten, cajole, and bribe members of the militia protecting the consulate."

Sounds like you have a situation with multiple militias, some of which we were buying off for protection, and the AQ-wannabes trying to drive a wedge between merc and employer. Makes sense; there's no way we could put enough assets on the ground to protect a consulate in a truly hostile environment (see Beirut under Reagan), so the best course is to buy some local muscle. It sounds as though something went wrong with the hired hands.

That's an excuse and you know better. What percentage of time is anyone 100% certain of anything, especially in this context? The point is that Bush lied, people died. Wait, I mean, the Obama administration lied to the public about what they knew about the security situation. Not mislead, but made intentionally false statements to protect their interests.

Truth is, as I expected, that the ambassador was also responsible for his own death. He disliked oppressive security, as any good diplomat does, but by doing so needlessly risked his life and the life of others.

No, I'll modify it: An excuse with a deflection.

[Lemur]

That's an excuse and you know better. [...] the Obama administration lied to the public about what they knew about the security situation. Not mislead, but made intentionally false statements to protect their interests.

Truly, not making excuses. And if I were, what would I be excusing? How does representing what happened as a riot play to any advantage for the Admin over a riot-as-assassination? Cui bono? Where's the upside?

The conservative-media-complex is trying very hard to whip up outrage without answering that question. If this is a wicked, evil conspiracy, what's the goal? What's the gain? Why am I supposed to believe that this is a concerted disinformation campaign, rather than confusion?

[Fragony]

Truth is, as I expected, that the ambassador was also responsible for his own death. He disliked oppressive security, as any good diplomat does, but by doing so needlessly risked his life and the life of others.

He is responsible for his own death because he insisted on aiding what killed him, putting him on the square and throwing a few rotten eggs would have been nicer though but that's just me

[Vladimir]

Truly, not making excuses. And if I were, what would I be excusing? How does representing what happened as a riot play to any advantage for the Admin over a riot-as-assassination? Cui bono? Where's the upside?

The conservative-media-complex is trying very hard to whip up outrage without answering that question. If this is a wicked, evil conspiracy, what's the goal? What's the gain? Why am I supposed to believe that this is a concerted disinformation campaign, rather than confusion?

Unfortunately one of the president's "speedbumps" is the body of a U.S. ambassador. You're still coming at this from a bias, coupled with a perceived bias, which is leading to hyperbole.

I can only guess what you've heard about this. I'm so inundated with this type of news here that sometimes I assume everyone is familiar with the same details.

[Fragony]

The conservative-media-complex is trying very hard to whip up outrage without answering that question. If this is a wicked, evil conspiracy, what's the goal? What's the gain? Why am I supposed to believe that this is a concerted disinformation campaign, rather than confusion?

Your question has already been answered, but I will repeat it: there are no spontanious riots over there. And this ain't a conspiracy, it's people like you not really understanding how things work there

[Lemur]

Unfortunately one of the president's "speedbumps" is the body of a U.S. ambassador. You're still coming at this from a bias, coupled with a perceived bias, which is leading to hyperbole.

Instead of making an argument, you're busy telling me what's in my head. Amusing, but it doesn't advance the conversation.

What's the "speed bump" you're referencing? What's the benefit to the admin of positing a riot over an assassination? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Use some specifics and help a brutha out.

Also, if all you're capable of saying is that I'm biased and ill-informed, then link to something credible and let's talk about it. Or put me on ignore if I'm such a wealth of badness and disinformation. Sheesh.

Your question has already been answered

No, it really has not.

[Xiahou]

Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.

So why send Rice around to the Sunday shows 5 days later saying '"“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,”' when there was evidence that it was not spontaneous within the first 24 hours?

I too can't see what they would hope to gain by deliberate misdirection- so why did they do it? Is it really just incompetence? Surely, if the intel community found evidence of it being a planned attack, this would have to have gotten back to the White House within 5 days....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates

Seriously?? What were they thinking at the White House when they sent Susan Rice around to all the Sunday news shows saying it was a spontaneous attack that was an offshoot of the protests? They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination. Why the apparent coverup?

The most interesting thing is - I heard that within 36 hours.

So maybe its your news outlets that are off, not your government spokespeople?

As a response to Fragony: I'm absolutely certain the US Ambassador knew his life was in danger without a large security detail and he took the same calculated risk Bobby Kennedy did.

Like Bobby Kennedy he's dead, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

After all, the problem isn't with the ambassador, or the rioters, or the Libyan militia protecting the compound - the problem is with the people who decided to off him for minor political gain which, thankfully, appears not to have materialised.

No sanctions, no drone strikes, no loss of credibility for the elected government in the eyes of the average Libyan.

[Kralizec]

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

No, while it's not a wise thing to allow, it does not fit the defintion of "corrupt". I don't see how you could view is at such unless you also think that the speaker of the American HoR is corrupt ex officio (obvious setup for a snarky remark about politicians, I know)

Nice spin but the Netherlands is a nation-state and the EU isn't, they weren't asked to speak for the European community so they can't, your logic only aplies to people who wouldn't rather split skulls instead.

That's like, your opinion. And not relevant for what we were discussing. Nice try though, finding a way out of admitting you're wrong.

This calls for a victory dance:

[Fragony]

No, it really has not.

It is really that simple, there are no spontanious protets over there.

[Xiahou]

The most interesting thing is - I heard that within 36 hours.

So maybe its your news outlets that are off, not your government spokespeople?

That's most interesting to you?
CNN was reporting this withing 24 hours- yet our government spokespeople were still saying the opposite 5 days later.

U.S. sources say they do not believe the attacks that killed Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, were in reaction to the online release of a film mocking Islam, CNN's Elise Labott reports.

"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

[Vladimir]

Instead of making an argument, you're busy telling me what's in my head. Amusing, but it doesn't advance the conversation.

What's the "speed bump" you're referencing? What's the benefit to the admin of positing a riot over an assassination? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Use some specifics and help a brutha out.

Also, if all you're capable of saying is that I'm biased and ill-informed, then link to something credible and let's talk about it. Or put me on ignore if I'm such a wealth of badness and disinformation. Sheesh.

Pretty much what Xiahou posted.

No, it really has not.

He's saying they're an instrument of power over there. We have drone strikes and nukes (not to mention Strike) and they have mobs. It's beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

[Fragony]

That's like, your opinion. And not relevant for what we were discussing. Nice try though, finding a way out of admitting you're wrong.

This calls for a victory dance:

Enjoy it while it lasts. I have must have missed something, is a collection of states on equal levels politically as the nation-state in the same way they developed over 2000 years of bloodshed. It has been tried before in 1848, took a while before hey realised there is no common goal and alliances emerged. And all it needed was an incident in the Balkan to destroy it. Europe is not a state, never try to reign it as one.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I too can't see what they would hope to gain by deliberate misdirection- so why did they do it? Is it really just incompetence? Surely, if the intel community found evidence of it being a planned attack, this would have to have gotten back to the White House within 5 days....

Partly it's that there is no way to make "there was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11 and we weren't ready for it" sound anything but incompetent. But mostly I think it's that Obama has a strong belief that the real problem is with anti-muslim sentiment in the US that has been publicized and used as propaganda in muslim countries, and that those countries haven't been educated enough about how ideal our culture of free speech is. He thinks that condemning the video will have a significant effect on our relations with muslims, just like he thought his speeches would be a big deal. It's a fairly typical mentality for liberals. It's the same strain of thought that explains the wage gap with sexism, and black poverty with racism. It's a quasi religious world view where Sin is what needs to be defeated to effect a positive change in the world.

It's possible that he sees this as such a "chickens coming home to roost" moment that he finds it natural to lump everything together and blame it on the video (representing our moral failings). See here (from almost 2 weeks later I think), he is still tying the deaths in with the video:



"The first thing is, there's never an excuse for violence. I don't care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive, and we should shun it, but there's never an excuse for violence, never an excuse for attacking embassies, never an excuse for killing innocent people, or assaulting our diplomats. In the age of the internet, when any knucklehead can post something up and suddenly it travels all around the world, every country has to recognize that, you know, the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it"


Essentially his response is the way it is because of his shallow intellectual and moral view of the world. You have to laugh at him saying "the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it". Obviously he can't be referring to himself, since he's done anything but ignore it. So he's referring the muslim protesters. Is that what he thinks they want? To "marginalize that kind of speech"? Protesting in a high profile way would be a pretty stupid way to do that, so I'm guessing he thinks they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, lol. But my explanation is that him saying that is just his way of lecturing both sides with sentiments chosen because they sound good to him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, while it's not a wise thing to allow, it does not fit the defintion of "corrupt". I don't see how you could view is at such unless you also think that the speaker of the American HoR is corrupt ex officio (obvious setup for a snarky remark about politicians, I know)

US Speaker Corrupt ex officio?

sounds sensible - the US system enshrines the two current parties pretty much in the Constitution.

To be clear, that makes the system corrupt, not the incumbent.

It is really that simple, there are no spontanious protets over there.

Oh don't be silly - that's like saying there are no spontaneous protests anywhere. The idea that Muslims just sit around waiting to be told to set cars on fire is not only absurd, it paints them as actually less than human.

That's most interesting to you?
CNN was reporting this withing 24 hours- yet our government spokespeople were still saying the opposite 5 days later.

Were they?

Didn't hear it over here. Are you sure they weren't saying "we don't know it wasn't a part of the protest"?

It can sound the same, once Fox gets ahold of it.

Partly it's that there is no way to make "there was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11 and we weren't ready for it" sound anything but incompetent. But mostly I think it's that Obama has a strong belief that the real problem is with anti-muslim sentiment in the US that has been publicized and used as propaganda in muslim countries, and that those countries haven't been educated enough about how ideal our culture of free speech is. He thinks that condemning the video will have a significant effect on our relations with muslims, just like he thought his speeches would be a big deal. It's a fairly typical mentality for liberals. It's the same strain of thought that explains the wage gap with sexism, and black poverty with racism. It's a quasi religious world view where Sin is what needs to be defeated to effect a positive change in the world.

It's possible that he sees this as such a "chickens coming home to roost" moment that he finds it natural to lump everything together and blame it on the video (representing our moral failings). See here (from almost 2 weeks later I think), he is still tying the deaths in with the video:

"The first thing is, there's never an excuse for violence. I don't care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive, and we should shun it, but there's never an excuse for violence, never an excuse for attacking embassies, never an excuse for killing innocent people, or assaulting our diplomats. In the age of the internet, when any knucklehead can post something up and suddenly it travels all around the world, every country has to recognize that, you know, the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it"

Essentially his response is the way it is because of his shallow intellectual and moral view of the world. You have to laugh at him saying "the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it". Obviously he can't be referring to himself, since he's done anything but ignore it. So he's referring the muslim protesters. Is that what he thinks they want? To "marginalize that kind of speech"? Protesting in a high profile way would be a pretty stupid way to do that, so I'm guessing he thinks they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, lol. But my explanation is that him saying that is just his way of lecturing both sides with sentiments chosen because they sound good to him.

Except - he's basically right. This isn't about the video, it's about Muslims seeing the US as evil incarnate, which is a recent state of affairs - relatively speaking.