Embassy Attacks

[bbsam]

But you have a problem. Your disdain for the president has been a constant, your vitriol omnipresent. Too much smacks of more of the same. Even when the facts are on your side which they are in several recent cases, it just feels like Republicans are spewing more of the same hatred. Benghazi remains the same to me as it always has. A badly planned mission in a war zone. We have had alot of those in the past decade. That it happened to be a diplomat and his team is no more a loss to me than had it been a patrol in Iraq attacked by a roadside bomb.

 

[moreluck]

...."to explain what the "OUTRAGE" was over bengazi, NOT ONE OF YOU CAN DO SO.. I find this hilarious".....(TOS)


Yeah, funny as hell that 4 people died...........you're friggin' hilarious!!

 

[Nimnim]

I don't care who the president is, if an embassy is attacked every available resource should be sent in an attempt to help, be it just a fly over. If by the time word gets to anyone who has say the event is already over fine, do nothing, but if it's still going on why not send the people to help? If the situation changes while people are in transit so be it, people can be recalled before they get there.

The fact that people wanted to go while things were still going on, but were told not to bothers me. Sure it might have ended up much worse, though I have a much harder time blaming an administration if they sent people in an attempt to save and it went wrong than if people were told not to go even though it could have made a difference.

It never sits well with me if people die, but I certainly feel better about someone dying while protecting others, than others dying without any hope of help.

 

[Nimnim]

Before anyone says anything, no I've never been military, I had 3 years of JROTC in HS and that taught me I would not mesh with the current military environment. That does not say that if I'm in a situation to protect someone I won't. Certainly I'd rather not get injured or killed, but if my protecting others costs me my life I'm willing to do it. Sometimes the outside intrusion can defuse a situation, and that's what I'd rather bet on than sit idly by just hoping things work out.

 

[ajblakejr]

It never sits well with me if people die, but I certainly feel better about someone dying while protecting others, than others dying without any hope of help.

Four AMERICANS dead = outrage

Died without HOPE.

American Citizens serving our country.

I don't care who is in the White House when it comes to saving American Lives.

 

[ajblakejr]

I pay attention to details. It doesnt take a genious to figure out the motives of a politically operated television channel. Further, I pay attention to the reality of that channels history. FOX NEWS was sued for reporting false stories on the air, and had it NOT been for RIGHT WING appellate courts overturning decisions against the channel, they would be punished for false news reporting.

FOX NEWS OWN lawyers argued in the Florida state supreme court that it was "OK TO LIE ON THE AIR" and those lies were protected "FREE SPEECH" under the US Constitution.

For a "NEWS" channel to argue that "LYING" to the public in public broadcasts is ok, then, that alone disqualifies them as a reliable news channel. FOX NEWS parent owner, Rupert Murdoch is a scumbag along with his degenerate son, who BOTH are close to getting thrown out of the UK for their deceptive practices.

Many countries BAN FOX NEWS from being shown because of their "FALSE REPORTING".

The cable giant is nothing more than a political mouthpiece for the GOP/REPUBLICAN machine. ALL of its lineup of hosts express nothing more than their "PERSONAL OPINIONS" on issues and none of them can back up anything they say on the air.

Each hour, its the same nonsense... "SOME SAY", "THERE ARE THOSE THAT SAY", "PEOPLE SAY". "ITS BEEN SAID", "SOME IN CONGRESS" , "SOME IN THE SENATE",.... the same old lines of someone or somebody saying something that is never proven.

Same talking heads come on and repeat the days political talking points.. Monica Crowley, is the latest meathead willing to sell her soul to say the most ridiculous things about the president. What does she have to lose? Her career ended years ago, and she found some resurection on FOX during the 2012 elections despite being WRONG on every issue she spoke about.

She made predictions on many things during 2012, and in EACH CASE, she was WRONG, yet, the base viewers of FOX still eat up the chitt she is cooking.

As long as FOX presents the "ANTI" OBAMA rhetoric its base desires, then even donkey doo would taste like filet mignon.

Peace

TOS

Then you do watch Fox news. You are a student of Fox News.

 

[Babagounj]

An embassy is considered part of the nation's territory.
Failing to repel invading mobs shows a deep lack of legal obligations to defend your own country .
Now every other embassy's staff knows should another mob attack , no help will be coming . And that they are on their own.


Why then if the WH thought it was all over didn't they issue a air strike , hopefully killing many of the invaders and sending the message that we will fight back ?

 

[ajblakejr]

An embassy is considered part of the nation's territory.
Failing to repel invading mobs shows a deep lack of legal obligations to defend your own country .
Now every other embassy's staff knows should another mob attack , no help will be coming . And that they are on their own.


Why then if the WH thought it was all over didn't they issue a air strike , hopefully killing many of the invaders and sending the message that we will fight back ?

How did they know this would be short? This gets me.

Foreign Service employees now know they are sitting ducks and being an American is a worthless piece of paper.

 

[Jones]

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

 

[bbsam]

That's interesting, Jones. It seems like many here claiming it isn't political had no knowledge of the long list of such attacks prior to the current president. That would indicate that it is political. Of course, I can't think of anything more inherently political than war and armed intervention.

 

[Nimnim]

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

I can't contest any of these have occurred, but any attack on a US consulate or embassy should warrant an immediate military response. With the possible exception of the suicide bombings which would have been over before any word of attack could have been let out. Even then though there should have been heightened military activity making response time for anything further must faster.

 

[Nimnim]

That's interesting, Jones. It seems like many here claiming it isn't political had no knowledge of the long list of such attacks prior to the current president. That would indicate that it is political. Of course, I can't think of anything more inherently political than war and armed intervention.

As for me it's not political, I'm only 29 and I only really started paying attention to politics about 2007. I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000 and I was still young and naive in 2004. By the election cycle for 2008 which started sometime in 2007 I started examining the sources and came to at least a more informed opinion, since then I've much further examined the political landscape. I'm not happy with either party but I'd rather put my efforts into poking at the party in power than the one who's too afraid to utilize what power they have despite being in the minority.

 

[moreluck]

Via WaPo:

“The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

— President Obama, remarks at a news conference, May 13, 2013

Once again, it appears that we must parse a few presidential words. We went through this question at length during the 2012 election, but perhaps a refresher course is in order.
Notably, during a debate with Republican nominee Mitt Romney, President Obama said that he immediately told the American people that the killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya “was an act of terror.” But now he says he called it “an act of terrorism.”

Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”? [...]
During the campaign, the president could just get away with claiming he said “act of terror,” since he did use those words — though not in the way he often claimed. It seemed like a bit of after-the-fact spin, but those were his actual words — to the surprise of Mitt Romney in the debate.

But the president’s claim that he said “act of terrorism” is taking revisionist history too far, given that he repeatedly refused to commit to that phrase when asked directly by reporters in the weeks after the attack. He appears to have gone out of his way to avoid saying it was a terrorist attack, so he has little standing to make that claim now.
Indeed, the initial unedited talking points did not call it an act of terrorism. Instead of pretending the right words were uttered, it would be far better to acknowledge that h
e was echoing what the intelligence community believed at the time–and that the administration’s phrasing could have been clearer and more forthright from the start.

​

 

[wkmac]

But you have a problem. Your disdain for the president has been a constant, your vitriol omnipresent. Too much smacks of more of the same. Even when the facts are on your side which they are in several recent cases, it just feels like Republicans are spewing more of the same hatred. Benghazi remains the same to me as it always has. A badly planned mission in a war zone. We have had alot of those in the past decade. That it happened to be a diplomat and his team is no more a loss to me than had it been a patrol in Iraq attacked by a roadside bomb.

Ah, but you'll get your chance for retribution at some future election. I mean look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the democrats when it came to GB policies and yet when the crown of authority shifted your way, you all but literally did the same thing policy wise. Some cases even more so. And yet where are those objectors now?

They've been replaced by new objectors who now walk under the banner of the elephant and became electrified by the presence of tri corner hats and Camden flags while those old objectors of the donkey brand defend the status quo just as the elephant brand did 5 years ago.

Well we best take our seats as intermission is almost over and the performance will continue. Don't you just love human tragedy's for their comedic value? And for some reason, this play just never seems to end by just repeating itself over and over.

 

[bbsam]

Ah, but you'll get your chance for retribution at some future election. I mean look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the democrats when it came to GB policies and yet when the crown of authority shifted your way, you all but literally did the same thing policy wise. Some cases even more so. And yet where are those objectors now?

They've been replaced by new objectors who now walk under the banner of the elephant and became electrified by the presence of tri corner hats and Camden flags while those old objectors of the donkey brand defend the status quo just as the elephant brand did 5 years ago.

Well we best take our seats as intermission is almost over and the performance will continue. Don't you just love human tragedy's for their comedic value? And for some reason, this play just never seems to end by just repeating itself over and over.

Somewhat. My biggest complaint though is that less than 1% of our population is asked to fight our wars and in return they get crapped on. Oh, we "thank them for their service" and...and that's about it. No outrage when they die in "defense of our freedoms", or "bringing democracy to the middle east", but somehow these four are different? I don't get it. There's a far different standard here. Universal service. Maybe then we'd think twice before going in.

 

[The Other Side]

Stunning indeed. A here and now event, and they want to go back in history. Why the heck are they called progressive? Isnt that regressive?

What is the outrage? Ah gee maybe because it was a blatant lie, that the attack was caused by a video, because someone made that up, so the word terror was not uttered?

Or could it be because they did nothing, for months, to protect an embassy, who had requested more security, before budget cuts and sequestration were even in the picture.
Could it be because witnesses have stepped down from jobs and came forward with the fact, that the phone calls never said anything about a video, yet they continued to lie, and had other people lie as well. And the phone calls for help went unanswered. No one knew if this attack would be over in minutes, or days. People could have been sent, people wanted to go, someone told them no. Yet still Seals went, and unfortunately lost their lives, trying to do what they were trained to do, save lives, rescue people, and got ZERO back up. Thank you Hillary and Obama.
And I still say, if you are not outraged, about this, you are not paying attention. And it would not matter one bit to me if it had ben dubya as you all call him. I do not stand by my man when hes wrong. But this is not about the past this is about NOW. So whatever did or did not happen before I do not care. Its over. This is here now, and important.

Again, your attempting to sound "informed" but in reality, you are not. What i gather from your post is that you are "OUTRAGED" over the "explanation" of events? Departments of the goverment told us that it was a video that caused the attack, and you prefer to hear the word "TERROR ATTACK" ??

What you leave out of your equation, is the FACT that on that VERY DAY, other embassys came under attack because of this ridiculous RIGHT WING/Christian video slamming the prophet mohammed no matter how ridiculous the video was. It was easy to "assume" in the heat of the moment that the libyan temporary embassy was a victim of the same violence. You cannot possibly believe that you can have "instant gratification" of information on a fluid event in the middle of the night, do you?

You are "outraged" over not hearing the word "terror"? as if you are not smart enough to figure that out for yourself? Who in their right minds would believe this was anything "other" than a terrorist attack? Is there a "video attack" description for things?

Causation, is what needs to be found out. WHY did these terrorists attack the embassy? Were they trying to free prisoners secretly held in the CIA black site that the temporary embassy was a front for? Who knows?

Here is the CAIRO US EMBASSY on that same day earlier in the day. Violence over this video spread to a dozen muslim countries on sept 11th because of the video, and yet, you think its "implausable" that the libyan embassy couldnt be confused with these other events? I ask you WHY you leave out this part of the story??

Is it because you are not TOLD to consider these facts by your Sources of information? Is it because you have been directed away from these events as to make it appear as if the libyan embassy was the only embassy attacked that day??

Riot at US Embassy in Cairo Being Attacked by Muslim - YouTube

I posted a CLEAR LINK demonstrating to you how the republicans in the house CUT FUNDING for ALL EMBASSYS in the world. In my opinion, i would think they did this on PURPOSE, hoping for some event that would end up embarrassing the president just before an election. Well, IMO, they got their wish. It matters NOT what protection ambassador stevens asked for, the GOP cut the funds to provide him with such.

You want to talk about budget cuts and sequestration, but you are confusing TWO separate issues alltogether.

""Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.""

Its clear, the budget was cut for security PRIOR to september 11th, and the temporary libyan embassy was NOT designed for protection as it was in a residential community. The libyan temp embassy was to be kept "LOWKEY" as to not bring attention to it and exposing the CIA black site contained nearby.

Its clear to ALL americans that an "act of terror" caused the deaths of the personnel at the embassy, and no description, whether attributed to a video or al qaeda connection makes ANY difference at all.

If you are suggesting , that you cannot determine an ACT OF TERROR, unless you are told to do so, then you should really not be involved in world events. TO the rest of the country, this issue of Bengazi is a NON ISSUE because "we' understand that events "UNFOLD" over time.

Talking points, are just that.. TALKING POINTS.

They are NOT FACTS, they are NOT DIFINITIVE, They are NOT CONCLUSIVE.

They are merely the information known at the time and subject to CHANGE. Somehow, You and the others in the "outraged" crowd, want to hang your hats on "TALKING POINTS" while disregarding the fluidity of the event given the "world" events that day involving other embassy's.

What you need to understand is that whatever the President was told on that morning (12am), the information was presumably going to be WRONG as all the witnesses to the event were dead or dying. If the president had come out and said this was an act committed by al qaeda, and it later proved to be WRONG, you would be saying the same thing today, only about al qaeda.

Your "outrage" isnt real. You cant define in any terms what the president lied about, or the state department lied about.

What you have is conjecture created by a political party and a news source whos only function is to confuse you on issues.

I ask you, "WHY IF at 12 other embassys on that day, riots were breaking out over the video, is it not unrealistic to connect the libyan attack to those attacks considering they occured on the same day?"

Peace

TOS

 

[UPS Lifer]

Actually a very small percentage of NPR's budget is from the federal government...it's majority listener-funded.

And, for what it's worth, Benghazi has been almost NPR daily since it happened, more so this week. The IRS issue has received daily coverage and analysis as well.

What you won't find on NPR is the histrionics of certain other media - from my perspective, they try to showcase both sides of whatever issue they present.

YMMV.

One small emphasis. The federal government is funded by us - the taxpayer. As a tax payer - I don't want my money going to NPR. By your own admission, they don't need my money anyway.

If you want to fund them - contribute as a listener!

 

[bbsam]

I don't want my tax money going to the military industrial complex, but we don't always get what we want, do we?

 

[UPS Lifer]

The outrage is obvious. Or it at least should be to anyone with an open mind. Less then two months before a crucial election that would have meant an obvious shift in power and control of a lot of things.....this administration lied. And they've been caught in the lie. And you guys still deem it some sort of Fox News conspiracy. Now the IRS is infringing on the first amendment rights of some groups and this administration still uses terms like "if this is happening" EVEN AFTER THE IRS HAS ADMITTED TO IT!!!!!

stunning.

What the IRS did is criminal. Nixon should have been impeached. He chose to resign. That was the right thing to do. If there is a link to the White House and obama, then he should be impeached as well.

It does not matter who is in charge, wrong is wrong and should not go unpunished.

Tell me who has been held accountable and how were they punished for any scandals? Did they lose pay? Were they fired from the federal government. Don't count the whistle blower (Gregory Hicks) who was threatened and then demoted for telling the truth at the last hearing.

 

[bbsam]

I think you are going to find that the IRS was not acting politically, but in reaction to what it perceived as people it thought were trying to take advantage of the "Citizens United" decision.