#2 2012-09-12 14:30:36
Mitt acted impulsively? He was rightly thumping Obama for suggesting the embassy attackers had good cause to do their mayhem. If that isn't enough for you, read this article about the lack of funding for security at our embassies. Here is a little excerpt wherein the State Department wants to substitute distance learning for security training:
While the State Department has responded to some of the criticisms leveled by congressional oversight bodies and its own internal watchdog, its Diplomatic Security (DS) office recently acknowledged it lacked the funding for some recommended improvements, such as security training, and was instead looking for workarounds.
“We cannot sufficiently meet the additional training recommendations outlined in the Secretary's QDDR (quadrennial review). Therefore, DS is aggressively pursuing on-line alternatives, e.g., distance learning of FACT lessons minus the hard skills (i.e., weapons familiarization and driver's training) to increase training capabilities,” the department
Offline
#3 2012-09-12 14:47:50
When did Obama suggest that "the embassy attackers had good cause to do their mayhem"?
Offline
#4 2012-09-12 15:08:05
ah297900 wrote:
When did Obama suggest that "the embassy attackers had good cause to do their mayhem"?
Here is the statement issued by the US embassy after the attack. This is it in its entirety. Sounds to me, and almost everyone reading it, like an apology to the Muslims for the film that ignited the violence.
"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."
Offline
#5 2012-09-12 15:22:55
Condemnation is not an apology.
Offline
#6 2012-09-12 15:55:48
Phweddy get's the Mitten's Custom Mormonwear(tm) Award for sticking his nose as far up Mitty's hiney as possible! Even rightwing foreign policy wonks things he's an idiot on this one.
You seriously support this Phwedd? Or is it the usual knee jerk?
Just Askin'
Offline
#7 2012-09-12 16:01:00
insomniac wrote:
Condemnation is not an apology.
and that was issued by the Cairo embassy as riots were going on outside.
Saying Obama made this statement is inaccurate.
Offline
#8 2012-09-12 16:45:09
ah297900 wrote:
insomniac wrote:
Condemnation is not an apology.
and that was issued by the Cairo embassy as riots were going on outside.
Saying Obama made this statement is inaccurate.
Saying Obama killed Osama is inaccurate too, but it happened under his watch and was carried out by a department under his command, so he gets the credit.
Offline
#9 2012-09-12 16:47:59
phreddy wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
When did Obama suggest that "the embassy attackers had good cause to do their mayhem"?
Here is the statement issued by the US embassy after the attack. This is it in its entirety. Sounds to me, and almost everyone reading it, like an apology to the Muslims for the film that ignited the violence.
"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."
Not to agree with Phreddy, who seems irrationally desperate to portray your president as a traitor, but there is something a little off about the preceding paragraph. What is "universal free speech" after all? The right to say anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings? That's a keg of sour Pissbrau, and no one with half a mind to logic should read it without criticism. On the other hand, to come right out and say "Fuck you, we'll make fun of your stupid prophet if we want to" would run counter to the most obvious precepts of diplomacy.
So what are we left with? Wilber's constant - "w" - still in development as an attempt to reconcile the relativistic differences in certain aspects of discourse. Imagine it as a proportionality constant between the truth (T) of a statement and its utility (U). "U=Tw" is, by my own assertion, a fundamental property of communications, and can be interpreted as a minimum inherent measure of qualitative attributes such as "hypocrisy."
Of course, it's the same people who think that democracy is best served by cardboard printer-guns, who fail to recognize that rubbing salt in your enemy's wounds is almost always a bad idea - the sort of arrogant and thoughtless activity that can garner an entire nation a Darwin Award. There is another constant for that: i, but I think you know that one already.
Offline
#10 2012-09-12 17:56:17
phreddy wrote:
ah297900 wrote:
insomniac wrote:
Condemnation is not an apology.
and that was issued by the Cairo embassy as riots were going on outside.
Saying Obama made this statement is inaccurate.Saying Obama killed Osama is inaccurate too, but it happened under his watch and was carried out by a department under his command, so he gets the credit.
He decided to send in SEALs. He did not decide for the Cairo embassy to make that statement.
Either way, telling an asshole "shut the fuck up--you're not helping" is not infringing on their free speech.
Have you noticed how far we are from your original contention that "Obama suggested the embassy attackers had good cause to do their mayhem"?
Offline
#11 2012-09-12 18:12:12
Couple of points, here Phreddy. First, the statement by the embassy that so inflames your ire was issued before the attack, not after, so that whacks your theory on the head. Second, the attack was carried out on 9/11, so don't you suspect there might have been an element of planning involved long before the terrible (terrible in terms of acting, writing, direction, etc) movie was chosen as a pretext? More likely the protests about the movie were used as a cover for the attack. Why the movie was made, why the trailer was released when it was and why Terry Jones chose to screen it on 9/11 are better subjects for analysis. Mitt's comments prove nothing except that he's a good candidate for analysis too.
Last edited by Tall Paul (2012-09-12 19:21:05)
Offline
#12 2012-09-12 18:27:20
Look, we've all seen the trailers for this so-called "movie". Frankly I agree with the statement and the rioters, it's a good-awful piece of shit designed to piss people off.
I've said it before - poking stupid people with sharp sticks is never a good idea.
Offline
#13 2012-09-12 20:15:13
What Em said.
Offline
#14 2012-09-12 20:19:57
Then I guess you should stop poking Phreddy.
Offline
#15 2012-09-12 22:49:54
Fled wrote:
Then I guess you should stop poking Phreddy.
Yes Yes Yes Yes!
Offline
#16 2012-09-13 13:43:49
Fled wrote:
Then I guess you should stop poking Phreddy.
The difference is that Phreddy will counter with a rational argument instead of a bomb. None of us should ever consider withholding our criticisms simply because we may piss off a fanatic. This is the root of political correctness and, even more malignant, a policy of national impotence.
Offline
#17 2012-09-13 19:19:40
phreddy wrote:
Fled wrote:
Then I guess you should stop poking Phreddy.
The difference is that Phreddy will counter with a rational argument instead of a bomb. None of us should ever consider withholding our criticisms simply because we may piss off a fanatic. This is the root of political correctness and, even more malignant, a policy of national impotence.
Well, as rational as his first statement anyway.
Offline
