Egypt...WTF??? - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MTI · #91 09-12-2012, 01:12 PM

Let's drop the big one, pulverize "em . . .

Air&Road · #92 09-12-2012, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neumann

According to early reports they seems to be a leaning towards involvement of the group known as Ansar al-Sharia, others involved have been identified as local tribesmen, militia and other gunmen. There have been video postings of the attacks. All involved should be hunted down and dealt with just as if the attack was inside the United States. This is like dealing with an infant spoiled brat....keep giving in and appeasing and you wind up with a teenage spoiled brat that is much harder to deal with. We have the intel, we just need the will.

How would you deal with the situation?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but what came to mind while reading it is that we could easily have a new Bin Laden to start looking for. If THAT happens, I guess our military will be over there ANOTHER ten years.

retmil46 · #93 09-12-2012, 01:16 PM

Several have asked why the Marines didn't open fire.

I'd imagine the first priority in that situation is safeguarding the lives of the embassy staff and their families. Needless to say that takes absolute priority over protecting property.

In the case of the Libyan embassy, it's my understanding so far that the deaths were caused by incoming rocket fire. Marines are usually very competent marksmen, but I dare say it's well nigh impossible to shoot down an incoming RPG round with an M-16 or M1911.

(And if any of them were able to accomplish that spectacular feat of marksmanship, I'd call them SIR regardless of rank.)

Given the first priority of protecting the embassy staff civilians, orders from the ambassador/embassy staff notwithstanding, it was up the Marine on-scene commander to assess the situation and determine the best way to not only accomplish Priority # 1, but also minimize the danger and casualties to those under his command as well - also mindful of what international repercussions his actions might have.

In both cases, had the Marines opened fire and wounded or killed any locals - it most likely would have turned what was initially a group of rioters in relatively small number, obstensibly initially only intent on destroying property - into an angry lynch mob of thousands bent on revenge and blood.

We have absolutely zero info on what the situation was on the ground, and I for one am not going to second guess the decisions of the on-scene commander in either case - other than to say, had the ambassador indeed given totally nonsensical orders, that would have resulted in needless injury or death to civilians and/or the Marine contingent, I'm fairly certain the Marine commander would have (respectfully, of course) told the ambassador to go screw himself and taken the appropriate actions.

The opinion that BO's election chances are now in the hands of the Libyan and Egyptian authorities, and how they respond to this, is spot on. Not only that, but the future of both country's internal affairs and citizens for the next 2 or 3 generations, and how the world deals with them, is on the line as well. Both country's internally are still in a state of flux after the Arab Spring, the final outcome still to be determined.

If the rioters receive only a slap on the hand, or no response at all, from the authorities, it doesn't bode well - it indicates that the Islamic fundamentalists/radicals have gained the upper hand, and that both countries may eventually become Islamic republics or theocracies along the lines of Iran - sadly, that in the end, their citizens only traded one form of authoritarian government for another, that most likely will be even worse.

flainn · #94 09-12-2012, 01:18 PM

According to this, the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks, but rather to apologize for Pastor Terry's actions ...

Obama's response (U.S. Embassy in Cairo): "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts of misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."

Romney's response to Obama's reponse: “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi ... It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Of course, it's safer for Romney to not couch his language in diplomatic double-speak, but I've got to say I like his response better.

Air&Road · #95 09-12-2012, 01:24 PM

Apologizing for an American exercising their freedom of speech is really pathetic. I don't AT ALL agree with the contents of that movie, but apologizing for it is akin to agreeing that it was the US of A that produced it as opposed to an individual citizen OF the US of A.

Obama has to be the diplomatic clown of the century. SURELY there was someone on his staff URGING him not to do this. Would it be possible to find a wimpier idiot for our President?

aklim · #96 09-12-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strelnik

Most moderates either don't want to get involved,

or they are involved in a "safe" way, like giving money that can't be traced to them.

Most moderates are cowards when it comes to talking about the extremists that they know.

Well, if you don't want to get involved then how is anyone to know that you are a moderate that is one of the "good" ones? People keep saying "It is the work of the bad apples". How do they know that?

If you are doing so, how are you a "moderate"? This is like me financing your bank heist and saying "Sorry. Not me. I wasn't even nearby. I was in the Gulf of Mexico on a boat with 50 witnesses.". Is the "bad guy" only the one with the bomb vest and AK-47? I think not.

Or maybe they do agree but are too cowardly to really pick up the gun and the bomb vest or drive the bomb laden trucks?

aklim · #97 09-12-2012, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but what came to mind while reading it is that we could easily have a new Bin Laden to start looking for. If THAT happens, I guess our military will be over there ANOTHER ten years.

Bin Laden is merely a figurehead. We have "incapacitated" their organization on paper so much, they should not be able to function in a traditional sense. However, the way they work is hardly traditional. Cut off the head and there are more heads. It isn't just your usual 1 headed snake where you cut off the head and it dies.

jplinville · #98 09-12-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flainn

According to this, the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks, but rather to apologize for Pastor Terry's actions ...

Obama's response (U.S. Embassy in Cairo): "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts of misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."

Romney's response to Obama's reponse: “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi ... It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Of course, it's safer for Romney to not couch his language in diplomatic double-speak, but I've got to say I like his response better.

Until you have proof that the idiot Pastor Terry is behind the film, then you are doing nothing that spreading lies...which is the wrong thing to do. I'm not standing up for the guy, but standing against lies. From what I've found online, he only agreed with the film and supports it.

Personally, I support the right of the filmmaker that made it. I don't have to agree with the topic or subject of the film, only the right the guy had in making it.

Benz Fan · #99 09-12-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Apologizing for an American exercising their freedom of speech is really pathetic. I don't AT ALL agree with the contents of that movie, but apologizing for it is akin to agreeing that it was the US of A that produced it as opposed to an individual citizen OF the US of A.

Obama has to be the diplomatic clown of the century. SURELY there was someone on his staff URGING him not to do this. Would it be possible to find a wimpier idiot for our President?

I have an answer to this question.

retmil46 · #**100** 09-12-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

High-faluttin' words. I'm inspired by them in a very French sort of way.

Wee-wee, mon-sewer.

I love the part about condemning any efforts to offend believers of any religion - remembering the off-handed comment of a particular candidate during the 2008 campaign - referring to the rural population of PA as "Hymietown, clinging to their god and their guns".

DieselGuy53 · #**101** 09-12-2012, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Apologizing for an American exercising their freedom of speech is really pathetic. I don't AT ALL agree with the contents of that movie, but apologizing for it is akin to agreeing that it was the US of A that produced it as opposed to an individual citizen OF the US of A.

Obama has to be the diplomatic clown of the century. SURELY there was someone on his staff URGING him not to do this. Would it be possible to find a wimpier idiot for our President?

Here for you

President Obama denounces killing of U.S. envoy to Libya | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

flainn · #**102** 09-12-2012, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

Until you have proof that the idiot Pastor Terry is behind the film, then you are doing nothing that spreading lies...which is the wrong thing to do. I'm not standing up for the guy, but standing against lies. From what I've found online, he only agreed with the film and supports it.

Personally, I support the right of the filmmaker that made it. I don't have to agree with the topic or subject of the film, only the right the guy had in making it.

Oh. Okay, sorry; I thought he (Terry) was the one responsible for it. I don't particularly care who made it; regardless of who did, I think the Obama Administration's initial response is ridiculous.

MS Fowler · #**103** 09-12-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Fan

Are you really going to try to draw a parallel between a one-day flare-up at an embassy, versus a 444-day long hostage crisis clearly conducted in cooperation with the then-current Iranian government? Do you have strong evidence of Libyan government complicity in yesterday's events?

Are you saying its all over? The hostage situation also started with a single day, but it kept on and on.
No historical parallels are ever perfect. I was looking at an embassy situation before an election. Both times a sitting Democrat looking for re-election in poor economic times. Nothing more.

MS Fowler · #**104** 09-12-2012, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

100% correct. If there wasn't oil in the ME, no one would give two craps about it.

I'm still trying to figure out why so many Muslims get so incensed about a book, picture or cartoon that takes a shot at a dead prophet. Many years ago some goober dropped a crucifix in a beaker of piss and called it art. Care to imagine the response if he'd done that with any religious artifact related to Islam?

Oil in the ME. OK, but who uses that oil? We don't. We get almost no ME oil; it goes to China and Europe. I don't see how oil in the ME is our reason to be there. let the countries who need that oil take care of the situation there. Lets take our $3T in aid to Egypt, and whatever else we spend over there, and come home.

t walgamuth · #**105** 09-12-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flainn

According to this, the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn the attacks, but rather to apologize for Pastor Terry's actions ...

Obama's response (U.S. Embassy in Cairo): "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts of misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."

Romney's response to Obama's reponse: “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi ... It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Of course, it's safer for Romney to not couch his language in diplomatic double-speak, but I've got to say I like his response better.

Please show your source for the first statement and the day and time it was stated.