Obama Condemns Embassy Attacks in Libya; Vows Justice

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=204362

{sorry for the Faux News link, but it was the one from the AOL front page}

I'm glad to see Obama come out strong on this matter. The initial response to the other attack in Egypt was one sympathetic to the attackers and protesters, condemning the filmmakers as "abusing" their freedom of expression. To me, such a position is perverse, and amounts to a battered wife blaming herself for the beatings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because the best course of action at the time for those people in the embassy was to mitigate the violence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. All that statement did was validate the actions of the attackers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are certainly welcome to ignore the needs of diplomacy in the face of direct bodily harm...

 

Except - as those of us who do not get our news from Fox or blindly swallow partisan bullshit from the Romney campaign are well aware - there had been no "attack" at the time of that statement. Nobody had been injured or killed, nor had any protests occurred at the US embassy in Egypt. The initial response to the actual protests and attacks happened later - after the attacks, as is required for something to qualify as a "response" - and was very different.

To me, Romney's willingness to expound obvious bullshit as an act of craven political opportunism, while US citizens and diplomats are dieing overseas, is absolutely disgusting. That he would do so on Sept. 11th, of all days, is unconscionable. He should immediately apologize, set the record straight, and end his campaign to be elected Commander in Chief. No serious, patriotic American would ever countenance placing personal and partisan interest above the national interest in such an appallingly craven way, and certainly not on a day of national mourning and solidarity that one had already promised not to sully with nasty politics.

 

That's not diplomacy. For one, it was posted on their website, meaning that its potential penetration of the scumbags who were attacking them was minimal. Secondly, freedom of expression is a fundamental right of the American citizen, and is to be defended as such. Responding to a violent effort to suppress such expression should not be met with American officials telling its citizens to shut up.

As it turns out, the statement came out originally hours before the attacks, so they weren't actually in response to the violence. I presume they were in anticipation of this event, however, because the anger over the film had been brewing prior to the actual protests. They also reiterated their comments later, so they became, in essence, the apology that people are claiming them to be. This is cowardice, and the Obama administration put an end to it with a full condemnation of the attacks and nothing resembling an apology or warning against such expression.

 

So is there anybody left here who is not yet convinced that Balerion is a concern troll for the GOP?

 

Exactly how are we going to hunt down a former mob or random people in a country that still in the chaos of post-civil war and bring them to justice?

 

I think in these cases there are influential individuals responsible for fanning the flames. They probably already have a list of suspects.

 

It's more of a job for the actual Libyan government - which is hardly in a state of "chaos." They've been in a process of consolodating the new state and absorbing/disarming the various revolutionary militias, which I expect will come to a head with this. Indeed, this whole thing was likely cooked up by certain militias that knew they were headed for the dustbin anyway, and are looking to break out of that dynamic.

 

I agree with you on this. I sincerely hope this idiot does not get the Presidential gig.

 

The Libyan government is to be praised for offerring a swift apology, and on the face of it seem to be handling the issue competently.

The flip side is that Libya is still divided with a lot of heavily armed groups vying for influence, so far with impunity. This event may initiate a sustained crackdown.

 

heh...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ah, but it was Obama's willingness to start the Libyan War which ended with the murder a souvenir leader along with the rape and murder of innocent Libyans (some of them children) in the first place. It wasn't Mitten's who help to replace a very liberal government (with the highest number of female University students and females employed in government service in the "Islamic World") with a Fundamentalist Islamic government hellbent on returning the Libyans to the 6th century.

No No No, Obama wasn't a 'craven political opportunist'... he was protecting us from "Terrorists". And gee, now we have dead Americans thanks to Obama's Little War.

Sure, I agree Mittens is a craven political opportunist. And while Mittens is a used douche, at least his blathering didn't instigate the rape of children - unlike your Hero Obama. No one starts a war without the knowledge women and children will be raped and murdered. That's why war is only supposed to be defensive. Obama (just like any crooked politician of either patry) was more than happy to have them pay that price, to die, so long as it have him political advantage and made him appear more like a "Leader".

But he's not a craven political opportunist. No, he led the charge. He keeps us safe from "Terrorists". He's a "Hero".

 

The guy who created the movie was also associated with the southern guy who burnt the koran. It seems that there can be severe repercussions for trolling on the international stage.

 

So you think that they were justified in killing our ambassador and others?

 

No, I think we all should be aware of the potential outcomes realised by deliberately inciting others via trolling on the international stage.

 

Huh? What exactly are you trying to say here?

 

Balerion

Of course not. But if you insist on poking a lion with a stick, I wouldn't feel the lion was justified in taking your arm off, either. The video was the stick, the preacher was the one wielding it, and the Ambassador was the arm that was ripped off. Personally I see no real difference between the culpability of this preacher than of someone who yelled fire in a crowded theater that leads to a trampling death. Your free speech only extends to the end of your neighbors nose, after that it is no longer free and has gone beyond speech.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You should probably look harder then, or maybe have your eyes checked.

You are mixing quotes there. The correct one is "your right to swing your fists only extends to the end of your neighbor's nose."

Nothing these imbeciles did has "gone beyond speech." Unlike physical assault, nobody has the right not to be offended by other people's opinions.

 

I disagree. Our freedom of expression does not terminate at the border of mockery. We are free to make fun of whoever the hell we please, even if that mocking is cruel and intended to invoke a reaction. That they reacted how they did is not the fault of the people making the video, because the people who reacted are not puppets. They made a choice to react with violence, and they must own it. It's not my responsibility to make sure I don't offend you because you might go crazy, it's your responsibility to not go crazy.