|
|
On September 13 2012 04:27 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:23 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:42 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 23:33 Saryph wrote:
It really seems like Romney just politicized this issue with his speech, I wish he would have given a speech similar to what Sec. Clinton gave before him. Romney was absolutely correct to give the comments that he gave regarding the statement released by the State Department yesterday. That statement was disgraceful. Anyway, game on with the "world apology tour" stuff again. Link plz. I obviously have an opinion but would like to see this actual statement first before I chime in with my two cents. Edit: And your going on about this 'Apology' BS again? Come on. Since when is acknowledging that two nations have had their share of conflicts and differences an apology? Jesus. Since when did American exceptionalism include the God-given right to revise world history? It's such a crap argument, dude. The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Honestly, I think xDaunt has a point -- normally foreign law enforcement would be more competent and stable and able to prevent this kind of thing from happening. All these US embassies in Muslim countries need to ramp up their security, stat. Also, I think most of you have a misconception of the mentality and behaviour of mobs, and why law enforcement has such a hard time dealing with them. Most mobs are spurred on by a handful or dangerous instigators, but the grand majority of 'the mob' are simply onlookers and looky-loos. They're the 'audience' for the few criminals and perpetrators that get caught up in the hysteria and attention of all these people. That's why instead of 'mowing them down' a police force's highest priority is making the mob spread and disperse. The only reason I know this is because my city had a riot after they lost the Stanley Cup, lol. A lot of the same people that were part of the 'mob' provided the police with the photos and evidence to identify and press charges against actual rioters. Hence only mow down the ones who step foot on US soil.
They're embassy officials and diplomats. Their whole purpose is to talk and bullshit their way out of World War 3, not start it.
Edit: I think we need to wait for more details about the entire situation on the ground, this conversation is getting circular.
|
On September 13 2012 04:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:27 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:23 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:42 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Romney was absolutely correct to give the comments that he gave regarding the statement released by the State Department yesterday. That statement was disgraceful. Anyway, game on with the "world apology tour" stuff again. Link plz. I obviously have an opinion but would like to see this actual statement first before I chime in with my two cents. Edit: And your going on about this 'Apology' BS again? Come on. Since when is acknowledging that two nations have had their share of conflicts and differences an apology? Jesus. Since when did American exceptionalism include the God-given right to revise world history? It's such a crap argument, dude. The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Honestly, I think xDaunt has a point -- normally foreign law enforcement would be more competent and stable and able to prevent this kind of thing from happening. All these US embassies in Muslim countries need to ramp up their security, stat. Also, I think most of you have a misconception of the mentality and behaviour of mobs, and why law enforcement has such a hard time dealing with them. Most mobs are spurred on by a handful or dangerous instigators, but the grand majority of 'the mob' are simply onlookers and looky-loos. They're the 'audience' for the few criminals and perpetrators that get caught up in the hysteria and attention of all these people. That's why instead of 'mowing them down' a police force's highest priority is making the mob spread and disperse. The only reason I know this is because my city had a riot after they lost the Stanley Cup, lol. A lot of the same people that were part of the 'mob' provided the police with the photos and evidence to identify and press charges against actual rioters. Hence only mow down the ones who step foot on US soil. They're embassy officials and diplomats. Their whole purpose is to talk and bullshit their way out of World War 3, not start it. Edit: I think we need to wait for more details about the entire situation on the ground, this conversation is getting circular.
Well at some point you have to realize some people are beyond talking. This usually occurs when people storm an embassy and breach the walls. I understand the circular thing, though.
|
On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:42 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2012 23:33 Saryph wrote:
It really seems like Romney just politicized this issue with his speech, I wish he would have given a speech similar to what Sec. Clinton gave before him. Romney was absolutely correct to give the comments that he gave regarding the statement released by the State Department yesterday. That statement was disgraceful. Anyway, game on with the "world apology tour" stuff again. Link plz. I obviously have an opinion but would like to see this actual statement first before I chime in with my two cents. Edit: And your going on about this 'Apology' BS again? Come on. Since when is acknowledging that two nations have had their share of conflicts and differences an apology? Jesus. Since when did American exceptionalism include the God-given right to revise world history? It's such a crap argument, dude. The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos.
No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite.
The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds.
|
On September 13 2012 04:35 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:42 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 02:47 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Romney was absolutely correct to give the comments that he gave regarding the statement released by the State Department yesterday. That statement was disgraceful. Anyway, game on with the "world apology tour" stuff again. Link plz. I obviously have an opinion but would like to see this actual statement first before I chime in with my two cents. Edit: And your going on about this 'Apology' BS again? Come on. Since when is acknowledging that two nations have had their share of conflicts and differences an apology? Jesus. Since when did American exceptionalism include the God-given right to revise world history? It's such a crap argument, dude. The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos. No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds.
If a country is not going to protect our embassy from its citizens, then you're right, we do have a diplomatic problem. The problem is the other country, not us.
I have absolutely no problem gunning down mobs of people who storm (ie enter) our embassies. No sane country in the international community would condemn us for it.
EDIT: Seriously, don't some of you understand that some things simply cannot be tolerated? Storming an embassy falls within that category.
|
On September 13 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:35 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:42 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Link plz.
I obviously have an opinion but would like to see this actual statement first before I chime in with my two cents.
Edit: And your going on about this 'Apology' BS again? Come on. Since when is acknowledging that two nations have had their share of conflicts and differences an apology? Jesus. Since when did American exceptionalism include the God-given right to revise world history?
It's such a crap argument, dude.
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos. No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds. If a country is not going to protect our embassy from its citizens, then you're right, we do have a diplomatic problem. The problem is the other country, not us. I have absolutely no problem gunning down mobs of people who storm (ie enter) our embassies. No sane country in the international community would condemn us for it. EDIT: Seriously, don't some of you understand that some things simply cannot be tolerated? Storming an embassy falls within that category.
Gunning down mobs of people is one of the thing that simply cannot be tolerated.
|
I generally disagree with xDaunt, but if there are mobs of angry people surrounding your embassy, the locals are not protecting you, and armed protestors/attackers breach the compound, the marines should defend themselves and the embassy staff.
From my understanding of the situation, the compound in Benghazi was not adequate for dealing with a hostile situation, as it was small and directly on the public road, unlike a usual embassy layout.
|
Mobs attacked the embassy in Egypt, Militants attacked the embassy in Libya.
Whatever the case Romney has royally fucked up and should have kept his mouth shut.
|
On September 13 2012 05:19 Saryph wrote:
I generally disagree with xDaunt, but if there are mobs of angry people surrounding your embassy, the locals are not protecting you, and armed protestors/attackers breach the compound, the marines should defend themselves and the embassy staff.
From my understanding of the situation, the compound in Benghazi was not adequate for dealing with a hostile situation, as it was small and directly on the public road, unlike a usual embassy layout.
What happened in Libya and Egypt were totally different situations. The Egyptian embassy *was* adequately protected, and no one died, and yet this lack of bloodshed is apparently a bad thing?
|
This column on the NY Times website basically sums up my feelings regarding Romney's comments:
Mitt Romney’s fallen into quite the campaign routine – attack President Obama over anything, at any time, regardless of the facts. He followed this script to a T in responding to yesterday’s riots in North Africa.
Mr. Romney could have taken this opportunity to show that he is capable of acting with intelligence and restraint and even – perish the thought – willing to support the president when he’s faced with an international crisis. Instead, he did the opposite. [...]
It would be one thing if Mr. Romney had big ideas about foreign policy and legitimate disagreements with Mr. Obama. All he offers is blind partisan attack and fortune-cookie pronouncements.
Source
|
On September 13 2012 05:30 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:19 Saryph wrote:
I generally disagree with xDaunt, but if there are mobs of angry people surrounding your embassy, the locals are not protecting you, and armed protestors/attackers breach the compound, the marines should defend themselves and the embassy staff.
From my understanding of the situation, the compound in Benghazi was not adequate for dealing with a hostile situation, as it was small and directly on the public road, unlike a usual embassy layout. What happened in Libya and Egypt were totally different situations. The Egyptian embassy *was* adequately protected, and no one died, and yet this lack of bloodshed is apparently a bad thing?
I didn't say that at all. What I said is that people should protect themselves. If a couple kids climb your wall and chant from the top of it, I would be seriously pissed, but whatever. When guys with assault rifles are inside and are a threat to lives of Americans/whoever inside the embassy, you should defend those people.
That isn't extreme at all.
|
On September 13 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:35 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:42 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Link plz.
I obviously have an opinion but would like to see this actual statement first before I chime in with my two cents.
Edit: And your going on about this 'Apology' BS again? Come on. Since when is acknowledging that two nations have had their share of conflicts and differences an apology? Jesus. Since when did American exceptionalism include the God-given right to revise world history?
It's such a crap argument, dude.
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others. Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos. No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds. If a country is not going to protect our embassy from its citizens, then you're right, we do have a diplomatic problem. The problem is the other country, not us. I have absolutely no problem gunning down mobs of people who storm (ie enter) our embassies. No sane country in the international community would condemn us for it. EDIT: Seriously, don't some of you understand that some things simply cannot be tolerated? Storming an embassy falls within that category.
Regarding that first sentence: are you saying the Libyan government didn't care enough to try to police its people from assaulting our embassy? Maybe they failed, maybe they're incapable of protecting our embassy, but that doesn't necessarily mean a diplomacy problem. What are you accusing Libya of, here, exactly?
Embassies are embassies. Diplomacy is inherently dangerous work. If you want armor and heavy weaponry at every embassy that might be at risk from random pedestrian violence, then we might as well not even bother calling them embassies anymore. Embassies are made in good faith, not as safe grounds from violence.
]
edit: It seems our Libyan embassy was just drastically open and unguarded, which is probably our own oversight. It seems some proper building infrastructure could've saved lives. The lack of guns wasn't the problem.
|
On September 13 2012 05:36 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:35 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 03:48 xDaunt wrote:[quote] [quote] Source. I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives. That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit. "Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos. No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds. If a country is not going to protect our embassy from its citizens, then you're right, we do have a diplomatic problem. The problem is the other country, not us. I have absolutely no problem gunning down mobs of people who storm (ie enter) our embassies. No sane country in the international community would condemn us for it. EDIT: Seriously, don't some of you understand that some things simply cannot be tolerated? Storming an embassy falls within that category. Regarding that first sentence: are you saying the Libyan government didn't care enough to try to police its people from assaulting our embassy? Maybe they failed, maybe they're incapable of protecting our embassy, but that doesn't necessarily mean a diplomacy problem. What are you accusing Libya of, here, exactly? Our embassy there had security -- but it wasn't enough. You want more? How much more would be required to ensure something like this could never happen? You don't think countries would condemn us for heavily arming our embassies? Really? Are we going to start an embassy arms race? Embassies are embassies. Diplomacy is inherently dangerous work. If you want armor and heavy weaponry at every embassy that might be at risk from random pedestrian violence, then we might as well not even bother calling them embassies anymore. Embassies are made in good faith, not as safe grounds from violence.
I haven't even been talking about Libya. I've been focused on Egypt. If the Egyptian government is not going to honor its diplomatic obligations to protect our embassies that they have invited into their country, then 1) we have the right to do it ourselves, and 2) we should seriously reconsider our relationship with that country.
I sometimes wonder whether you warm and fuzzy feeling liberal-types even know when you're being shit on. The Egyptian government clearly shit on the US yesterday.
|
On September 13 2012 05:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:36 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:35 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives.
That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit.
"Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos. No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds. If a country is not going to protect our embassy from its citizens, then you're right, we do have a diplomatic problem. The problem is the other country, not us. I have absolutely no problem gunning down mobs of people who storm (ie enter) our embassies. No sane country in the international community would condemn us for it. EDIT: Seriously, don't some of you understand that some things simply cannot be tolerated? Storming an embassy falls within that category. Regarding that first sentence: are you saying the Libyan government didn't care enough to try to police its people from assaulting our embassy? Maybe they failed, maybe they're incapable of protecting our embassy, but that doesn't necessarily mean a diplomacy problem. What are you accusing Libya of, here, exactly? Our embassy there had security -- but it wasn't enough. You want more? How much more would be required to ensure something like this could never happen? You don't think countries would condemn us for heavily arming our embassies? Really? Are we going to start an embassy arms race? Embassies are embassies. Diplomacy is inherently dangerous work. If you want armor and heavy weaponry at every embassy that might be at risk from random pedestrian violence, then we might as well not even bother calling them embassies anymore. Embassies are made in good faith, not as safe grounds from violence. I haven't even been talking about Libya. I've been focused on Egypt. If the Egyptian government is not going to honor its diplomatic obligations to protect our embassies that they have invited into their country, then 1) we have the right to do it ourselves, and 2) we should seriously reconsider our relationship with that country. I sometimes wonder whether you warm and fuzzy feeling liberal-types even know when you're being shit on. The Egyptian government clearly shit on the US yesterday.
I don't think that not wanting to murder people when rubber bullets suffice to repel them makes you a warm and fuzzy feeling liberal-type necessarily, just not a sociopath.
|
On September 13 2012 05:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:36 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:35 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 04:16 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2012 04:10 Risen wrote:On September 13 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:On September 13 2012 04:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 13 2012 03:58 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
I think the Embassy, seeing there was a heavily contingent of protestors on the verge of storming them, was trying to save their own lives.
That being said, the statement is poorly worded, clunky and not American enough. Here's my totally awesome edit.
"Free speech is a cornerstone of American democracy. However, The Embassy of the United States in Cairo firmly rejects the efforts by of some to purposefully offend the religious belief of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." And where's the part that goes something like this: "Get the fuck out of our embassy before we gun you down for committing an act of war on US soil." LOL. They're Embassy staff. Not Tony Soprano. True, but he raises a good point. Why aren't these people being gunned down by marines stationed there when people storm through the gates? Edit: I know this seems harsh, but due to actions in that part of the world I would support a machine gun just mowing down anyone who stepped across onto embassy soil when in a mob storming the embassy. Because then the U.S. diplomatic mission would be expelled from Egypt and possibly other countries, depriving us of efficient diplomatic relations and a crucial source of intelligence gathering. You don't get it. Storming another nation's embassy is among the biggest of diplomatic no nos. No one is even arguing that. What you don't get it that diplomacy doesn't ever cease to be diplomacy. An embassy might be considered foreign soil, but you're there at the permission and goodwill of the country that hosts you. If we take a hard-line, military approach to our embassies, it's curbing their very purpose. They're not military bases - quite the opposite. The truth of the matter is, part of being a diplomat means being a target for people who hate your country. When an ambassador is killed, there isn't much to be done to prevent it, what matters is how the country responds. If a country is not going to protect our embassy from its citizens, then you're right, we do have a diplomatic problem. The problem is the other country, not us. I have absolutely no problem gunning down mobs of people who storm (ie enter) our embassies. No sane country in the international community would condemn us for it. EDIT: Seriously, don't some of you understand that some things simply cannot be tolerated? Storming an embassy falls within that category. Regarding that first sentence: are you saying the Libyan government didn't care enough to try to police its people from assaulting our embassy? Maybe they failed, maybe they're incapable of protecting our embassy, but that doesn't necessarily mean a diplomacy problem. What are you accusing Libya of, here, exactly? Our embassy there had security -- but it wasn't enough. You want more? How much more would be required to ensure something like this could never happen? You don't think countries would condemn us for heavily arming our embassies? Really? Are we going to start an embassy arms race? Embassies are embassies. Diplomacy is inherently dangerous work. If you want armor and heavy weaponry at every embassy that might be at risk from random pedestrian violence, then we might as well not even bother calling them embassies anymore. Embassies are made in good faith, not as safe grounds from violence. I haven't even been talking about Libya. I've been focused on Egypt. If the Egyptian government is not going to honor its diplomatic obligations to protect our embassies that they have invited into their country, then 1) we have the right to do it ourselves, and 2) we should seriously reconsider our relationship with that country. I sometimes wonder whether you warm and fuzzy feeling liberal-types even know when you're being shit on. The Egyptian government clearly shit on the US yesterday.
Diplomacy isn't about one-upping the other guy, especially when your country has the upper hand in so many ways. We're treated unfairly, in some respects, all across the world -- that's part of the game. If Romney is going to be President, he's going to have similar situations. So what will he do? Bite the bait? Be provoked? Pack up his toys and go home? Diplomacy for a country like ours is eating the occasional crow, rather than being provoked into rash decisions that will deteriorate our standing with other nations.
Obama is faced with this crisis and I think he's trying to do his best to put our country's best interest ahead of pride and nationalism. And what does Romney do? Immediately criticizes the leader of our country. Romney is handling diplomacy like everything else in his campaign -- going for the easy, quick low-blow without questioning its transparency or merit.
|
Best way to protect embacy?
Put a nuke inside. As long as diplomats are alive, it will not fire, but if they all die/live the teritory, it blows.
That thing would absolutely reliably protect the lives of diplomats, or at least ensure, that none of the attackers survived.
On a serious note, embacies need to be armed. It is their readiness to protect themselves violently, that will give the most guarantee, that they would not actually have to use their abilities to defend.
It is one thing to assault the person/organisation that can not fight back, risking your own life doing so, is quite another. It is the attitude, that embacy should not fight for it`s live at it`s best, is what endangers lives in the first place.
embacies do not pose any real threat to the host country, they can not have a significant in military terms garrison anyways.
|
On September 13 2012 06:03 naastyOne wrote:
Best way to protect embacy?
Put a nuke inside. As long as diplomats are alive, it will not fire, but if they all die/live the teritory, it blows.
That thing would absolutely reliably protect the lives of diplomats, or at least ensure, that none of the attackers survived.
On a serious note, embacies need to be armed. It is their readiness to protect themselves violently, that will give the most guarantee, that they would not actually have to use their abilities to defend.
It is one thing to assault the person/organisation that can not fight back, risking your own life doing so, is quite another. It is the attitude, that embacy should not fight for it`s live at it`s best, is what endangers lives in the first place.
embacies do not pose any real threat to the host country, they can not have a significant in military terms garrison anyways.
Putting a nuke inside is too big of a risk. too many innocents could be killed, there could be other Americans in the area, etc.
I'm just surprised the embassy didn't have some sort of safehouse with like blastproof doors and stuff. No way a mob can get through multiple layers solid concrete/steel/etc.
|
On September 13 2012 06:07 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 06:03 naastyOne wrote:
Best way to protect embacy?
Put a nuke inside. As long as diplomats are alive, it will not fire, but if they all die/live the teritory, it blows.
That thing would absolutely reliably protect the lives of diplomats, or at least ensure, that none of the attackers survived.
On a serious note, embacies need to be armed. It is their readiness to protect themselves violently, that will give the most guarantee, that they would not actually have to use their abilities to defend.
It is one thing to assault the person/organisation that can not fight back, risking your own life doing so, is quite another. It is the attitude, that embacy should not fight for it`s live at it`s best, is what endangers lives in the first place.
embacies do not pose any real threat to the host country, they can not have a significant in military terms garrison anyways. Putting a nuke inside is too big of a risk. too many innocents could be killed, there could be other Americans in the area, etc. I'm just surprised the embassy didn't have some sort of safehouse with like blastproof doors and stuff. No way a mob can get through multiple layers solid concrete/steel/etc.
If you are talking about Benghazi then it was a consulate not an embassy, and from a report I read it was only a temporary location that was not reinforced or designed as an embassy would be.
|
On September 13 2012 02:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
And really Romney? Apologizing for our values? What value? The value to insult another culture? Pathetic. free speech is an American value...
Free speech gives you the "right" to say what you want, but to use it to completely shit on the beliefs of 1.2 billion Muslims is a nono.
|
Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
|
On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote:
Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
I thought it turned out this was some kinda terrorist sect and not Libyans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
