Page 63 of 65 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 647

Thread: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

  1. #621
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    Did the USA offer to at least pay for the coffins of the 1.4 million Iraq civilians that have been slaughtered since 2003

    And while I have your attention - appproximately 90% of the Iraqi oil is in the hands of US corporations such as EXXON

    Take a million with one hand and give out crumbs with the other -


    I think you meant to say 1.4 gzillion Iraqi's slaughtered and 110% of the oil in the hands of Exxon.

    (Actually, Iraq made its oil deal with China, but we all know you don't let reality get in your way of hating the USA).

  2. #622
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Have you worked for both Administrations or just with the Demo's? If the answer is yes then, Violence is the way of the World.....if not: the Demos and that which they fear most will never be exstinguished within Man. The Sooner they face that Stark Reality, they then might just quit crying when about such when people do go violent. Which then allows them to focus more on the real problems rather than using strawmen to defend their actions. So again if so and you are working for them. Take them the message.

    Do you think Policy has anything to do with what the left is minimalizing these protests to be? You are aware Google shut down anything and everything about that video to those In Indonesia.....correct?

    Also you see they got violent in Karichi in Pakistan? Then there is the fact of all the demonstrations that were held which did not target US embassies but US foreign Schools too.
    I have worked under the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Yes, violence is the way of the world but it shouldn’t be ignored. Nor should the violence of a few be held against the many.

    I don’t think policy has much to do with most of these protests. With the possible exception of Benghazi, it is just Muslim fanatics lashing out over a perceived affront to their religion. Back in 2005 the fanatics acted out in a similar fashion and that was just over a freaking cartoon. And it wasn't the US. People who are attributing this to some sort of policy failure are over thinking this.

    Google did not comply with the request for censoring. YouTube did block the actual video.

  3. #623
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    I have worked under the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Yes, violence is the way of the world but it shouldn’t be ignored. Nor should the violence of a few be held against the many.

    I don’t think policy has much to do with most of these protests. With the possible exception of Benghazi, it is just Muslim fanatics lashing out over a perceived affront to their religion. Back in 2005 the fanatics acted out in a similar fashion and that was just over a freaking cartoon. And it wasn't the US. People who are attributing this to some sort of policy failure are over thinking this.

    Google did not comply with the request for censoring. YouTube did block the actual video.
    "Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff," wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. "But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."

    Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with "insulting religion," a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of "upsetting national security," which carries a life sentence.

    In America, the government can't even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.....snip~

    Free speech, religion clash over anti-Muslim film - Yahoo! Movies


    Are you familiar with the Islamist commentator/blogger? Do you think what he is saying reflects upon US Foreign Policy or lack thereof? Another point of contention would be the fact of the media not reporting all these small groups as the Administration likes to say. At such places as US Corporations and Companies overseas there. Again as I stated the Schools, and now throw in US Embassies and US Military Instalations.

    Now that the Intel Has come out on what went down with the Libyan Consulate.....do you think Susan Rice and this Adminstration will be allowed to spin their way out of this? Kinda hard to demonize a faceless enemy on this one. Especially knowing the face that was behind the attacks.

  4. #624
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    I have worked under the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Yes, violence is the way of the world but it shouldn’t be ignored. Nor should the violence of a few be held against the many.

    I don’t think policy has much to do with most of these protests. With the possible exception of Benghazi, it is just Muslim fanatics lashing out over a perceived affront to their religion. Back in 2005 the fanatics acted out in a similar fashion and that was just over a freaking cartoon. And it wasn't the US. People who are attributing this to some sort of policy failure are over thinking this.

    Google did not comply with the request for censoring. YouTube did block the actual video.
    We have the policy of "freedom of speech" . In that, that is our policy, then yes, it did affect the protests. Since almost any printed or video material can be found to offensive to someone, we don't restrict the publishing of "offensive" materials. The protesters seem to feel that our policy of allowing individuals to produce "offensive" materials that are offensive to Islam is wrong. However, if we extended "protection" to Islam, then we would have to extend the same protections for all religions. Some do not understand this and assume we would extend protections to their religion because of course, their religion is the right one, otherwise it wouldn't be their religion.

    It has not helped that, at least in some areas, the Imams and others have been telling their followers that the movie was actually produced by the US and Israel, indicating that the governments sponsored it instead of the government just not censoring it.

    I do not have a problem with the peaceful protesters either. I do have a problem with the security policies for our embassies and consulates in some of these area, especially unstable areas with a long history of violent protest against the US and in countries, like Egypt, where the government is not fully established nor does it have a adequate security force of it's own. In these cases, the US should provide our Embassies, Consulates, and other facilities with adequate security forces, with ROE that allows them to actually do their job of protecting the facility. That includes meeting violence with violence, something that we are better at. At locations where the local government is willing and able to counter the mobs, then by all means, let them. However, we should still have security forces in place, even in those locations, to do the job ourselves if necessary. A show of weakness or lack of resolve only encourages more to become involved with the violence. As far as disparity between participants, well, if they are dumb enough to bring a knife to a gunfight, they pretty much get what the deserve.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  5. #625
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Freedom of speech it the enemy of tryannts and free discussion is the enemy of theocratic thugs. Of course they outlaw freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That is THE greatest weapon against them and the only real danger they have.

    Obama and the media SHOULD have told them "go to hell" instead of apologizing, condemning freedom of speech, and asking the video trailer be censored and banned.

  6. #626
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    Did the USA offer to at least pay for the coffins of the 1.4 million Iraq civilians that have been slaughtered since 2003

    And while I have your attention - appproximately 90% of the Iraqi oil is in the hands of US corporations such as EXXON

    Take a million with one hand and give out crumbs with the other -
    Did the US kill 1.4 million Iraqi civilians? No. In fact, even if your number is correct, the vast majority of them were killed by other Iraqis seeking dominance and control. The Shia and the Sunni have been fighting each other for centuries. Are we responsible for the actions taken by these individuals? NO. If you really want to point fingers at someone over the violence there, then start with Syria and Iran who have been funneling weapons, fighters and support to those doing the violence, not the US which has been making efforts to stop the violence.

    Is there an Iraqi owned multi-national oil company? Did they have the resources to put out the fires and rebuild the infrastructure necessary to exploit the resources there? Since companies in the US were the first to intentionally drill for oil and make useful products out of it, and were the only source of them for many years, then yes, we may have more oil companies registered in the US than elsewhere.

    Since you claim that US owned corporations control 90% of the oil there, do you have any data that actually supports that claim and a break down of everyone involved in the oil industry in Iraq?
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #627
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    We have the policy of "freedom of speech" . In that, that is our policy, then yes, it did affect the protests. Since almost any printed or video material can be found to offensive to someone, we don't restrict the publishing of "offensive" materials. The protesters seem to feel that our policy of allowing individuals to produce "offensive" materials that are offensive to Islam is wrong. However, if we extended "protection" to Islam, then we would have to extend the same protections for all religions. Some do not understand this and assume we would extend protections to their religion because of course, their religion is the right one, otherwise it wouldn't be their religion.

    It has not helped that, at least in some areas, the Imams and others have been telling their followers that the movie was actually produced by the US and Israel, indicating that the governments sponsored it instead of the government just not censoring it.

    I do not have a problem with the peaceful protesters either. I do have a problem with the security policies for our embassies and consulates in some of these area, especially unstable areas with a long history of violent protest against the US and in countries, like Egypt, where the government is not fully established nor does it have a adequate security force of it's own. In these cases, the US should provide our Embassies, Consulates, and other facilities with adequate security forces, with ROE that allows them to actually do their job of protecting the facility. That includes meeting violence with violence, something that we are better at. At locations where the local government is willing and able to counter the mobs, then by all means, let them. However, we should still have security forces in place, even in those locations, to do the job ourselves if necessary. A show of weakness or lack of resolve only encourages more to become involved with the violence. As far as disparity between participants, well, if they are dumb enough to bring a knife to a gunfight, they pretty much get what the deserve.

    Agreed, I think had an article up where the Teachers in Pakistan were telling the kids to go to the Protests and to go and Protest America and Israel. The one kid they interviewed was 12yrs old. Think they are reinforcing anything that is the truth about the situation? Then to top it off most of their Religious Leaders don't go and try to calm the unrest. They sit back and incite it more. Those that do speak are very far and few.

    Myself if they wanted to make progress they would be talking about such on their Media broadcasting stations, radio stations and in their News. They don't instead it is to push Anti American Sentiment onto their youth and next generations.

  8. #628
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I do not have a problem with the peaceful protesters either. I do have a problem with the security policies for our embassies and consulates in some of these area, especially unstable areas with a long history of violent protest against the US and in countries, like Egypt, where the government is not fully established nor does it have a adequate security force of it's own. In these cases, the US should provide our Embassies, Consulates, and other facilities with adequate security forces, with ROE that allows them to actually do their job of protecting the facility. That includes meeting violence with violence, something that we are better at. At locations where the local government is willing and able to counter the mobs, then by all means, let them. However, we should still have security forces in place, even in those locations, to do the job ourselves if necessary. A show of weakness or lack of resolve only encourages more to become involved with the violence. As far as disparity between participants, well, if they are dumb enough to bring a knife to a gunfight, they pretty much get what the deserve.
    It isn’t as simple as that for an embassy to bring in more of its own security forces on a permanent basis. Embassies (not just American ones) are capped at how many personnel they can have assigned. That cap is set by the host country. For every additional security person you add, be it a Marine or Diplomatic Security Officer, you will have to give up a Foreign Service or attaché position. The FSOs and attaches are the ones doing the work of diplomacy. As you increase the security and reduce the number of FSOs and attaches, you reduce the ability of the embassy to actually do its job. You end up with a fortress for the sake of being a fortress.

    Now if you want to talk about making the structures more secure or flat out closing missions in areas you feel are too dangerous, ok. But there is always going to be balance between security and being able to do one’s job. There is an inherent risk in working at an embassy. There is a reason we get hazardous duty pay in countries like that. I am all for strong security, but if it is done to the point we can’t do our jobs effectively, then there is no point in being there. Personally, I would like to see the US offer more training to the host country security forces who protect the embassies. And that wouldn’t affect an embassy’s manning.

  9. #629
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    It isn’t as simple as that for an embassy to bring in more of its own security forces on a permanent basis. Embassies (not just American ones) are capped at how many personnel they can have assigned. That cap is set by the host country. For every additional security person you add, be it a Marine or Diplomatic Security Officer, you will have to give up a Foreign Service or attaché position. The FSOs and attaches are the ones doing the work of diplomacy. As you increase the security and reduce the number of FSOs and attaches, you reduce the ability of the embassy to actually do its job. You end up with a fortress for the sake of being a fortress.

    Now if you want to talk about making the structures more secure or flat out closing missions in areas you feel are too dangerous, ok. But there is always going to be balance between security and being able to do one’s job. There is an inherent risk in working at an embassy. There is a reason we get hazardous duty pay in countries like that. I am all for strong security, but if it is done to the point we can’t do our jobs effectively, then there is no point in being there. Personally, I would like to see the US offer more training to the host country security forces who protect the embassies. And that wouldn’t affect an embassy’s manning.

    Why not Regionalize the Embassies.....One main Embassies for certain Regions of the Planet. Thats where the Buisness is conducted and maintained. Due to the times and technologies there is no need for the waste to have Embassies and Consulates in all of these Countries. No need to have the travel and expenses for all that such entails. Security, Personell, and of course a bit more transparency with the Media.

  10. #630
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    It isn’t as simple as that for an embassy to bring in more of its own security forces on a permanent basis. Embassies (not just American ones) are capped at how many personnel they can have assigned. That cap is set by the host country. For every additional security person you add, be it a Marine or Diplomatic Security Officer, you will have to give up a Foreign Service or attaché position. The FSOs and attaches are the ones doing the work of diplomacy. As you increase the security and reduce the number of FSOs and attaches, you reduce the ability of the embassy to actually do its job. You end up with a fortress for the sake of being a fortress.

    Now if you want to talk about making the structures more secure or flat out closing missions in areas you feel are too dangerous, ok. But there is always going to be balance between security and being able to do one’s job. There is an inherent risk in working at an embassy. There is a reason we get hazardous duty pay in countries like that. I am all for strong security, but if it is done to the point we can’t do our jobs effectively, then there is no point in being there. Personally, I would like to see the US offer more training to the host country security forces who protect the embassies. And that wouldn’t affect an embassy’s manning.
    It seems pretty stupid for that guy in Libya NOT to be in the embassy in the capital on 9/11. Just another incompetent move by Clinton as secretary of state.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •