Libya and Egypt Attacks (Page 2)

Of course perhaps a Coptic Christian in Egypt might have a reason for his feelings, given the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt since the "Arab Spring".  So Kicking a hornets nest, probably.  But, perhaps the world and the U.S. should take notice of the treatment of Coptic Christians in Egypt since the Arab Spring.  And we should stop this PC notion that the Arab Spring is going to result in a kinder more free societies.  The truth is that "radical islam" is the predominate political and theological ideology in the middle east.  It brings with it all of the abuses of "radical islam",  the denial of rights to women, the denial of rights to non-muslims, cruel and unusual punishments for petty crimes.

Non-Muslims saw an espoused world view from the press that the "arab spring" was a revolt by the oppressed in favor of more open and democratic societies.  A world view that many in the press and many in circles of power have perpetuated.  However, a world view that is probably inaccurate.  We know that Coptic Christians have been the target of violent retaliation by Muslims, both backed by the government and privately backed. (Smithsonian magazine of all publications did a pretty good article on this several months ago.)  The murder of Coptic Christians for nothing more than their religious views of not being muslim has occurred, as has other violations of the most basic rights.

I haven't seen this guys video, nor will I.  It's more than likely garbage and offensive on many levels.  However, there is nothing that could justify murdering someone based upon the contents of a film.

You have your facts wrong.  The statement from the embassy (which the whitehouse had nothing to do with) was issued before the protests even began and well before the violence at the embassy and then in Libya occurred.

The embassy in Cairo released their statement prior to the knowledge of the attack to embassy in Libya.  Stop calling facts information that is innacurate.

I get it, you despise Obama, and it is your rigth to, but your reasoning and what you call facts are silly.  Just despise him, you dont need a reason.

One thing I found a little interesting was how long it took for the Obama administration to condemn the attacks of both embassies yet they had time to condemn Romney for criticizing the administration almost immediately at midnight last night.  The official condemnation of the attackers wasn't until 8:00am this morning.

Does it mean anything?  No.  Does it show the priorities of the administration?  maybe.

I have the right to walk into the west side of Chicago and start shouting "I hate Ni***ers!".  I'm pretty sure that violence would result.  I pretty much doubt that there would be any sympathy for me, and while it's certainly my right to do so, it's not well advised.

The filmmaker effectively is doing the same, though someone else got to bear the brunt of the violence.  He admits(1)(2) to making it specifically to provoke a reaction like what has now occurred ( though he says he didn't intend specifically for our Ambassador to be killed ).

(1)  The film's 52-year-old writer, director and producer, Sam Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie."

Mr. Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California.

(2)  Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.

"I feel the security system [at the embassies] is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."

A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said the filmmaker is concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Bacile declined to confirm.

Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.

I could never be able to call both of those an "attack" in the same sentence.  It's not even remotely close.

I sometimes wonder if people just skim articles and choose to read specific sentences and ignore the rest.

The response to Romney statement didnt come from the Obama administration, it came from the re-election campaign side, it may seem the same but it is not. 

In addition, Romney just didnt critisize the administration, he just got his facts flatly wrong and stated the same thing that has been flloating around this thread (that it was 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.) 

Indeed.  The first statement by the Administration (either Obama or his Cabinet) was Sec of State, shortly (approx 6 hours) after the attacks occurred saying:

"I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.  

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

Is that neither official enough or condemnation enough?

I think since the press release came out before the protests even began it was more about saying 'Hey we, get why you're mad, we don't like bigots either, so just go on home'.   Because I'm sure the protesters keep a close eye on embassy press releases.  But I don't see how they can be blaming the victim when there hadn't been a victim yet.

I don't see anything wrong with condemning the actions or words of bigots.  Substitute a couple of words and this could be a condemnation put out by any politician against the westboro baptist church and no one would bat an eye about the language or claim that it's blaming the victim. 

I read the whole article and both statements.  I do admit that the timing of some of the responses get confusing on both sides.  Romney responded to the statement that was released by the Embassy (prior to the death's) and I can't remember if it was before or after Obama distanced themselves from the statements.  Then after the deaths were known team Obama attacked Romney for his statements (prior to the death knowledge) making it look like he was insensitive to the deaths for political purposes.  

So the Obama Campaign is not the administration?  ok I guess we can disagree on that one.

A little good news on the subject: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI 

Great post coredump.  

If the Right really wants to paint the president as weak and apologetic to enemies of the U.S., they might want to talk to Al Qaeda's leaders...oops, might be tough, the Presidents been irking human rights groups by using drones all over the middle east picking these guys off one by one.  Challenging Obama on foreign policy will doom the GOP's chances...which I'm really not against.  

The violence was denunciated pure and simple.  Should we be responding by dropping bombs on Tripoli and Cairo?  Seriously, this just strikes me as manufactured outrage...a bit of "grasping at straws."

I think you might have it backwards on the foreign policy debate.  Using drones to assassinate bad guys is not a big winner for the civil rights crowd and certainly doesn't make friends abroad.  The lack of leadership with the Arab Spring and tarnishing generational old relationships with the UK and Israel certainly aren't big political winners either.

Killing UBL was definitely a positive, but any president in power would have made that call and I think it's even turned into a slight negative the way Obama's tried to politicize it.

I agree that dropping bombs is not the answer to yesterday, but there do need to be severe consequences to send a message that you don't F with the USA.  It's obviously premature to judge the President on his consequences because he hasn't put any out there yet.  If I were to guess though, I don't think he will push for any consequences other than tell the countries to bring the guilty people to justice.

Tony, that was the point I was making...about the drones, it's a huge political win for Obama everywhere in the civilized world.  The fringe human rights groups and Al Qaeda are about the only folks up in arms over the drone attacks picking off Al Qaeda leaders on a monthly basis.  One of my favorite Obama moments was early in his presidential campaign when he assertively stated that if he had actionable intelligence on terrorists in a foreign land, he would take them out.  He was roundly criticized by Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton for being naive and being too forceful...well, I for one am glad he's done the right thing, and so is the majority of the civilized world.

btw, to say "any president in his situation" would have given the go on the OBL raid is your opinion, I don't agree.  If special ops were taken down and it was discovered OBL got away, you're lookin' at Jimmy Carter Part II.  It was the right call and a gutsy one at that.

On the latest attacks, what are you suggesting we do?  Honestly, other than hunt down those responsible, what are you expecting?  Back when state-sponsored terrorism was the biggest game in town, Reagan had the luxury of taking out some Qaddafi family members with missiles...nowadays it takes some time to ferret out the involved parties.

one more response, to the "tarnished relations" with UK and Israel...I am fairly certain the British populace would elect President Obama over Romney in a landslide.  Israel's a whole different ball of wax...perhaps, just perhaps it may be in our nation's best interests to be "friends" with as opposed to "besties" with Israel seeing as how they're probably pretty dang close to launching an attack on a nation who has sworn protectors in Russia.  The whole"don't F with the USA" sounds great in theory, but if played to the extreme, could be irresponsible and lead down a path we definitely don't want to go down...just sayin'.  

Outside of the politics of this all we need to remember there were real people with real families that lost their lives.
I just read this article and it's a glimpse into the night from somebody on the inside.  Just a guy on a gamer forum much like us posting on BT.  yikes

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/diplomat-killed-in-libya-to-fellow-gamers-assuming-dont-die-tonight/

X2 - because they are coming, and they need to, our soil was attacked and our citizens were killed....but I'm not sure our President has his head screwed on straight right now.  I don't like Obama, but I wish Romney would have kept his yap shut until this was down the road a bit.  The President needs to make some pretty serious decisions right now and I'd rather have politics out of it....but here we are, and lives are at stake.

Hey, I agree.....but geez...give the President a minute without having to worry about how it plays out politically. 

I was in the Marine Corps during the Iran hostage crisis.....to his credit, Reagan's political rhetoric did not come during the initial days.  Carter screwed the pooch, and Reagan made him pay...rightfully so.

Obama may pay as well.....but at least let him have some room to make the decisions....he IS the President and our Nation was just attacked.