• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

Grant said:
They could only know that if they believed that Muslims were a bunch of ignorant out of control maniacs.



Muslims have been murdering innocent people for more than 10 years. The modern era of Muslim violence and barbarism would have started at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Again we hear that 'FIRE in a crowded theater cliche' which, by the way, has never actually happened.
However if there is a fire in a crowded theater then it might be smart to mention it.


It is a stupid film but making stupid films is not illegal. In fact there is a market for them.

Bachmann loved it? That's stupid too.
Click to expand...

Stupid but true. You even think it is worthwhile or you wouldn't be defending it. There is nothing about free speech that allows you to knowingly cause people harm. I beelive all involved with the production or financing of this film should be arrested for inciting violence with intent to kill. Not for the killings in Libya, that was an Alqeada reprsial for the killing of one of theirs and was planned long ago. But for the senseless violece thst has spread across the muslim world because a few sickos decided they can get away with it.
 
Hicup said:
And as someone not dumb enough to get that, would have a leg up in social circles, no? THAT's the point. Even, and I mean even if it was purposeful, why wouldn't a civilized "people" not get that? If none of it is true, then why all the hub bub? Why kill people that had absolutely zero to do with its making or message? You speak of dumb, and I think you nailed it. It's dumb and despotic to rage against the individual ramblings of a single person or even a group of persons that purposely goes out if their way to denigrate if the message isn't true, or even remotely true. Why kill innocent people over such a thing? I'll tell you why. Because they're so used to being led around like little sheep that they have no concept of rational-objefctive singlular thoughts of their own.

There are people here on this forum that display the same characteristics every day. I'd say the irrational sheep-type personality is more common than not, and is why we've been unable to evolve socially for the last few decades; perhaps even a few hundred years. Organization is fine, following a particular group is fine, but this should always cease to be the case when the the ideals of the group begin to differ into those that you instinctively know you yourself do not share. We should always strive as people to be objective about other peoples positions, even if we ourselves initially disagree.

What happened, and is still happening in the ME, is shameful because it seems to represent a majority of the attitudes of a whole very large group of people, and that it does is alarming.


Tim-
Click to expand...

If you have a scab do you constanly pick on it so that it never heals? Your logic sounds like that to me.
 
iguanaman said:
If you have a scab do you constanly pick on it so that it never heals? Your logic sounds like that to me.
Click to expand...

If it's really just a symptom of the cancer inside me, then picking at it really doesn't matter. Even if I left it alone it would kill me.


Tim-
 
Moot said:
LOL Really and what did you expect them to do, hold down the fort like it was the Alamo?


No, I'm not kidding.
Click to expand...

I would expect them to obey General Order #1: Gaurd everything within the limits if their post and quit their post only when properly relieved.

Anything less is a faillure to obey a general order, deriliction if duty and cowardice under fire, cort martial offenses and punishable by death.
 
DVSentinel said:
Maybe they were, but they didn't get permission to fire in self defense as possibly required by their ROE. I bring that up because apparently there was some security there but we have absolutely no reports of any attackers wounded. Even if it was only 2 Marines with M-9s, why didn't they fire as they retreated? Putting M-60s on the roof is only useful if you let the guy behind the rifle pull the trigger. If the Marines and other security forces actually had permission to fire and ammo, then why don't we see reports of the dead and wounded attackers? And if they didn't have/get permission to fire in self defense, then they were just more targets and completely useless for security.

And in Cairo, we now have reports that the Marines there weren't even allowed Ammo, much less given permission to fire. An M-16/M-4 is a rather clumsy and fairly useless club, an M-9 even more so and an M-60 is way to unwieldy to be a good club. If there is no ammo in the rifle, what use is it? Unless they inserted empty clips, it is not hard to notice that any of the standard weapons issued were empty.
Click to expand...

If they were forbiden to fire on attackers, that equates to insufficient security.
 
apdst said:
If they were forbiden to fire on attackers, that equates to insufficient security.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with that assertion. I just hate when Politicians place troops in dangerous positions but give them a restrictive ROE (Rules of Engagement) that limit or take away their ability to act in self defense. It just happens way to often, and I don't know if it coincidence or deliberate policy, but every time it bites our troops in the ass, there seems to be a Dem in the White House. Without access to the actual ROE given, which is usually classified, I can not prove it is deliberate policy, but that is what I suspect.

Incidents like these reminds me of the documentary/archive film of Marines at the Embassy in Saigon, during the TET Offensive, taking fire but crouching down and one of them on the radio requesting "permission" to return fire. And that the Embassy in Tehran was overrun without shots being fired. The Sailors on the Cole watching the boat approach and not being allowed/able to do anything about it.

The same thing keeps happening, over and over, but no one in a decision making position seems to be learning from it.
 
iguanaman said:
Stupid but true.
Click to expand...

Since when is the truth stupid?

You even think it is worthwhile or you wouldn't be defending it. There is nothing about free speech that allows you to knowingly cause people harm. I beelive all involved with the production or financing of this film should be arrested for inciting violence with intent to kill. Not for the killings in Libya, that was an Alqeada reprsial for the killing of one of theirs and was planned long ago. But for the senseless violece thst has spread across the muslim world because a few sickos decided they can get away with it.
Click to expand...

I only defend this film because it is covered by the First Amendment. If enough Americans want to discard the First Amendment and have government regulation of speech and opinion then go for it. I doubt you'll get much support.
 
apdst said:
If they were forbiden to fire on attackers, that equates to insufficient security.
Click to expand...

Treating highly trained US Marines like Barney Fife is one of the greatest acts of dereliction of duty in US history.
 
Grant said:
Treating highly trained US Marines like Barney Fife is one of the greatest acts of dereliction of duty in US history.
Click to expand...

How very true, but as the poles show, many Americans are concerned about what Obama will give them than about holding him accountable.

He pissed on the Constitution and acted illegally. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He got troops killed in the field because of his inadequate and often stupid ROE in a war zone. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He didn't provide adequate security for Embassies and Consulates, resulting in dead diplomats. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He has established an apologist and weak foreign policy, even stating that he wants US actions to have International approval before we take them, subjugating our Sovereignty to the UN. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He established an Energy policy based upon environmentalist fantasies, wasting billions while people have seen their fuel costs and energy cost continue to rise and our dependence on foreign oil increased. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

How many bad things does he do, that actually harm us, but yet a lot of the voting public still take the attitude "Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away"? I guess they just don't realize that in the end, the bankruptcy of the country due to his policies and those like his will definitely end their entitlements.
 
DVSentinel said:
How very true, but as the poles show, many Americans are concerned about what Obama will give them than about holding him accountable.

He pissed on the Constitution and acted illegally. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He got troops killed in the field because of his inadequate and often stupid ROE in a war zone. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He didn't provide adequate security for Embassies and Consulates, resulting in dead diplomats. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He has established an apologist and weak foreign policy, even stating that he wants US actions to have International approval before we take them, subjugating our Sovereignty to the UN. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

He established an Energy policy based upon environmentalist fantasies, wasting billions while people have seen their fuel costs and energy cost continue to rise and our dependence on foreign oil increased. Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away.

How many bad things does he do, that actually harm us, but yet a lot of the voting public still take the attitude "Oh, well, I still get my entitlements and am afraid the other guy will take them away"? I guess they just don't realize that in the end, the bankruptcy of the country due to his policies and those like his will definitely end their entitlements.
Click to expand...

And yet calling him the "Food Stamp President", which he is of course, is 'racist'. Pointing out his incompetence, his bewilderment, his narcissism, is racist.

The issue instead is Mitt Romney's tax returns or speaking out before BHO chats up "The Pimp With A Limp" or fundraises with his Vegas audience.

This grievous error of the last four years has to be corrected in November, and I think it will be.
 
Grant said:
Treating highly trained US Marines like Barney Fife is one of the greatest acts of dereliction of duty in US history.
Click to expand...

I can't think of what could be more insulting than to believe that our servicemen can't be trusted with live ammunition.
 
Moot said:
Thats absurd. You watch too many movies and have no sense of reality. They were diplomats in a foreign country that we helped to liberate, not commando's in a war zone with air support and war ships waiting for their command. Although, two of the diplomats that were killed were ex Navy Seals.
Click to expand...

The property the consulate site on is American land.

Any invasion onto that land is call for extreme force to protect the American lives within.

Is this something you did not know?
 
Grant said:
Islam is a scab?

Not a bad analogy.
Click to expand...

And picking on it will make if bleed and fester. Look at what good those filmakers have done for Al Qeada now. They will make Islaminc heroes of them yet.

CAIRO — Al-Qaida's branch in Yemen praised the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya in a Web statement Saturday and called for more attacks to expel American embassies from Muslim nations.

The statement suggests al-Qaida was trying to co-opt the wave of angry protests in the Muslim world over a film produced in the United States denigrating the Prophet Muhammad.
Click to expand...

Al-Qaida calls for more attacks on embassies | General Headlines | Comcast
 
iguanaman said:
And picking on it will make if bleed and fester. Look at what good those filmakers have done for Al Qeada now. They will make Islaminc heroes of them yet.
Click to expand...

If Muslims are impressed by those who murder innocent people, including women and schoolchildren then they are already beyond redemption.



Al-Qaida calls for more attacks on embassies | General Headlines | Comcast
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

And why not? Americans continue to blame each other for these attacks. That will suit AQ just fine.

Do you suppose Obama might finally change the rules and allow the Marines to put bullets in their guns?
 
Mason66 said:
The property the consulate site on is American land.

Any invasion onto that land is call for extreme force to protect the American lives within.

Is this something you did not know?
Click to expand...
The embassy is also located in the middle of a soveriegn country. So what part of extremely outnumbered and completely surrounded don't you understand?

The notion that you can just send in the infantry and conduct military warfare is naive and absurd, especially when it's not the country's government that's attacking the embassy. The only obligation the diplomats have when under threat is to get the hell out of there ASAP before anyone gets injured, kidnapped or killed. It's the diplomats that have value, not the small patch of land in a foreign country. Because if they're gone, then there's nothing left there of value to protect.
 
Moot said:
The embassy is also located in the middle of a soveriegn country. So what part of extremely outnumbered and completely surrounded don't you understand?

The notion that you can just send in the infantry and conduct military warfare is naive and absurd, especially when it's not the country's government that's attacking the embassy. The only obligation the diplomats have when under threat is to get the hell out of there ASAP before anyone gets injured, kidnapped or killed. It's the diplomats that have value, not the small patch of land in a foreign country. Because if they're gone, then there's nothing left there of value to protect.
Click to expand...
Mom, come look! Another surrender monkey!
 
apdst said:
I would expect them to obey General Order #1: Gaurd everything within the limits if their post and quit their post only when properly relieved.

Anything less is a faillure to obey a general order, deriliction if duty and cowardice under fire, cort martial offenses and punishable by death.
Click to expand...

Ambassadors and diplomats are not Marines.
 
Misterveritis said:
Mom, come look! Another surrender monkey!
Click to expand...

Son, the last time you leaped before you looked, over 8,000 of our young men and women came home in body bags and another 100,000 were wounded. The American people are **** full of conservatives phoney bravado and lying us into unneccessary wars.
 
Moot said:
Son, the last time you leaped before you looked, over 8,000 of our young men and women came home in body bags and another 100,000 were wounded. The American people are **** full of conservatives phoney bravado and lying us into unneccessary wars.
Click to expand...
Oooh! Where was that?

Are you arguing that the price we paid in Iraq was too high compared to the results? Do you think surrender costs less?

You do sound like a full fledged Obama supporter. Understood.
How is that hope and change working out?
 
Grant said:
“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’’
Click to expand...
Obama was right. The McCain campaign tried to paint Obama as un-American, a foreigner, a Muslim, born in Kenya. But thing that was most striking is they called him a "communist" and a "socialist" which is exactly what conservatives back in the 1960's, called Martin Luther King.

It's been caught on video tape, too.

Elon Student Protester At Palin Campaign / negative Racist Conservative comments - YouTube




No, nothing like that at all. You obviously never read the article you submitted.

Whenever a liberal says, "Kinda like" you know they're going to miss the point completely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know what you mean, it's kinda like a conservative suddenly having cognitive disconnect and going into hyperbolic fallacy mode because logic, fact and reason have failed them. It seems to be a common trait among conservatives.


Biden on Romney/Ryan: "They're Going to Put Y'all Back in Chains" - YouTube[/url

and here's HBO not only going homeboy but lying as well. Funny stuff!

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KC7CF5B9E&feature=related]Barack Obama in Selma - YouTube
Click to expand...

Funny, I was just talking about Martin Luther King......and how conservatives used the same fallacious attacks against Obama that they used against MLK. So which came first, the McCain campaign calling Obama a "communist" and a "socialist?" OR...Obama trying to connect himself to Martin Luther King?
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Oooh! Where was that?

Are you arguing that the price we paid in Iraq was too high compared to the results? Do you think surrender costs less?
Click to expand...
What do we have to surrender in the ME? We don't live there, we don't even speak their language.


You do sound like a full fledged Obama supporter. Understood.
How is that hope and change working out?
Click to expand...

In 1984, Reagan surrendered Lebanon after a Marine base was blown up that killed over 235 Marines. A few months later the US embassy in Beirut was blown up that killed 20 people. A lot of conservatives accused Reagan of "cut and run" and "surrendering to terrorists", too.....and still, Reagan was re-elected. The similarities to Obama are uncanny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom