Egypt and Libya embassy attacks

[Fitz]

maybe i'm overly optimistic, but mainstream muslims denouncing violence isn't far fetched for me. I saw a lot of it in Iraq.

I mean, sure, maybe they couldn't read their signs, but I believe it's possible that they all were there to show support.

[De Selby]

I think I've seen this movie before - US intervenes in another country, arming rebels, and ends up fighting them a short while later.

[MicroBalrog]

You know, that's something that always bothered me.  English signs in a region where English is at best a second language of a small fraction.  That's called "handed out to show the press" or, "don't bomb us"

You'll be surprised how many people in the third world speak rudimentary English.

[makattak]

That's great. Words are empty, though.

You want to prove you mean it? I want to see those men who dragged our Ambassador through your streets hanging from lampposts tomorrow. Crucifixion merits bonus points.

Not that committed? Then as others have suggested, it's just PR.

[MicroBalrog]

How would a common city-dweller know where to find such a terrorist?

[MicroBalrog]

I am not responsible for the crimes of murderers, rapists, and any other scum that exist in my city just because I do not personally go out and hunt them -and neither are you, and neither is anyone else.

[makattak]

I am not responsible for the crimes of murderers, rapists, and any other scum that exist in my city just because I do not personally go out and hunt them -and neither are you, and neither is anyone else.

Nope, but if fellow countrymen commit AN ACT OF WAR in my city that I'm not supporting, I better do everything in my power to bring them to justice. And if the police WON'T do it, I'd say that significant evidence the government of the city supports the act.

[De Selby]

Nope, but if fellow countrymen commit AN ACT OF WAR in my city that I'm not supporting, I better do everything in my power to bring them to justice. And if the police WON'T do it, I'd say that significant evidence the government of the city supports the act.

Uh, and evidence that the government supports it makes you fair game to be killed why?

This is bin laden's logic.  The US commits an act of war in Saudi, therefore, all residents of US cities are fair targets.   

I had not predicted that you would subscribe to Bin Laden's rules of war.

[AZRedhawk44]

Uh, and evidence that the government supports it makes you fair game to be killed why?

This is bin laden's logic.  The US commits an act of war in Saudi, therefore, all residents of US cities are fair targets.   

I had not predicted that you would subscribe to Bin Laden's rules of war.

I'd actually argue that this IS valid provocation for the wholesale execution of cities.


Democratic societies who elect representatives that campaign on a platform of "we're going to kill all of the XYZ people" and then send soldiers to do that job, need to be accountable for their vote.

Case in point:  Palestine.  When the Palestinians elect a government that sponsors missile strikes and bombings in Israel, it's the people of Palestine that need to pay the price.

I don't think that Libyans need to pay this particular price here though.  I'm far more interested in seeing us withdraw from countries that hate us, no embassy and no foreign aid.  No acknowledgment of sovereignty.  They're a blight on the map that we treat as a hotbed of piracy and corruption, and encourage all American ventures to stay far away from.

Then have them prove otherwise.

If the whole world did this to the armpits of the ME, things would be much better off.

[De Selby]

AZ, so you don't actually think what Bin Laden did was in principle wrong, you just think he didn't accurately characterize US activity in Saudi Arabia as an act of war?   

That would be ironic considering that youve posted on the military/political nature of US involvement there just recently.

If terrorist attacks on our people are wrong, it should be wrong for us to commit terror attacks against others.

[AZRedhawk44]

AZ, so you don't actually think what Bin Laden did was in principle wrong, you just think he didn't accurately characterize US activity in Saudi Arabia as an act of war?   

That would be ironic considering that youve posted on the military/political nature of US involvement there just recently.

If terrorist attacks on our people are wrong, it should be wrong for us to commit terror attacks against others.

Bin Laden is not a State.  He is not the government of Saudi Arabia, nor the representative of the democratic voice of Saudi Arabia.

What he did is wrong no matter what.  The US didn't come and hurt him, prompting a defensive reaction where he tore down buildings and crashed planes.

That being said, our policy in the ME pertaining to Iran, Saudi Arabia, oil and the dollar is seriously *expletive deleted*ed up and needs major revision.

[MicroBalrog]

Happily, there are ways to bring the people who did this to justice without totally destroying all of Benghazi.

[De Selby]

Bin Laden is not a State.  He is not the government of Saudi Arabia, nor the representative of the democratic voice of Saudi Arabia.

What he did is wrong no matter what.  The US didn't come and hurt him, prompting a defensive reaction where he tore down buildings and crashed planes.

That being said, our policy in the ME pertaining to Iran, Saudi Arabia, oil and the dollar is seriously *expletive deleted*ed up and needs major revision.

So would Iran be morally justified in wiping out a US city, as long as it was a decision of government?

[Tallpine]

Uh, and evidence that the government supports it makes you fair game to be killed why?

This is bin laden's logic.  The US commits an act of war in Saudi, therefore, all residents of US cities are fair targets.   

I had not predicted that you would subscribe to Bin Laden's rules of war.

Don't blame me, I voted for McGovern 

 

[AZRedhawk44]

So would Iran be morally justified in wiping out a US city, as long as it was a decision of government?

Only if they were attacked by a democratically elected US government whose representatives reflect the will of its people.  Which is arguably true in this case, if we attack them first.  Yes, they have a moral justification to attempt to destroy us.


Frankly, I think the whole thing is solved by having elected representatives hung for initiating international hostilities of any sort without a resolution from Congress or similar national governing body in other countries, also drawn democratically from the people.

That being said, democracy is not the governmental system best used to protect rights... you need a Republic for that.


It all just sucks.

[Scout26]

I leave this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xx1J5FdNE

[Fitz]

Nope, but if fellow countrymen commit AN ACT OF WAR in my city that I'm not supporting, I better do everything in my power to bring them to justice. And if the police WON'T do it, I'd say that significant evidence the government of the city supports the act.

OK...

let's run with this thought experiment.

Where do you live?

[MicroBalrog]

Only if they were attacked by a democratically elected US government whose representatives reflect the will of its people.  Which is arguably true in this case, if we attack them first.  Yes, they have a moral justification to attempt to destroy us.


Frankly, I think the whole thing is solved by having elected representatives hung for initiating international hostilities of any sort without a resolution from Congress or similar national governing body in other countries, also drawn democratically from the people.

That being said, democracy is not the governmental system best used to protect rights... you need a Republic for that.


It all just sucks.

So all those people who spend money on things that reduce collateral damage. THey must be morons?

[AZRedhawk44]

So all those people who spend money on things that reduce collateral damage. THey must be morons?

If we want to apply morality to war, we're setting ourselves up for failure from the start.

But if you want to engage in the exercise, let's try.

US strikes against targets in Iran are going to be targeted at key military infrastructure, nuclear reactors, government communication systems and targets of high economic sensitivity.

Iran is well justified in retaliating in kind.

If, however, Iran nukes Los Angeles instead... that is immoral.  Because the US didn't target civilian populations in Iran, Iran is not justified in targeting civilian populations in the US.

Yes, high tech smart weapons and precision strikes keep war "civil."  Yay.

It all falls apart when you ask what non-warlike provocation justified the first warlike response.  Someone has to escalate something for war to come about. 

[kgbsquirrel]

You'll be surprised how many people in the third world speak rudimentary English.

This. English supplanted Latin as the language of education and commerce a few centuries ago.

I'm curious about their native language signage though, do we have an in-house translator that can decipher those for us? (Despite the Navy's best attempts to the contrary, I still can't read squiggle.)


ETA:

I leave this here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xx1J5FdNE

That right there is how it's bloody well done!

[MicroBalrog]

If we want to apply morality to war, we're setting ourselves up for failure from the start.

Morality applies to pretty much all human activity, almost by definition.

Why would you purposefully kill more innocent people when the possibility is around to kill less?

If it is possible - for example - to find out where the terrorists live, fire a Tomahawk missile at said location, kill the terrorists - and, say, fifty innocents - why should we instead pick an option that would also destroy the city they live in?

Happily we have reached a time  where guided weapons reduce collateral damage - and simultaneously make friendly troops safer (because rather than deploy, for instance, multiple squadrons of bombers to plow everything around the target into the ground with unguided bombs, exposing the bombers to AA fire in the process, you fire just one or two ALCMs from beyond the horizon) and improve engagement effectiveness.

This is not, mind you, some starry-eyed leftist view that 'if one Pakistani child is killed it is a war crime'. Merely pointing out he calls 'to level the entire city' are at the best merely emoting.

[lupinus]

And we can now add our friends in Yemen to the list

[Jamie B]

Interesting perspective.

Seems that my Father had met the Ambassador some years back.
He was a VP at a large university at the time which had been doing business overseas.
Dad said that he was quite fluent in Arabic, and had been involved in the region for many years.

He was far from a honorific Ambassador, and was very committed to trying to do his best in the region.
Dad said that he was not the type of guy to get out at the first inkling of trouble, and was someone who would get readily involved despite the risks, as he was that committed to the area.

Dad had a lot of respect for his abilities and his commitment to doing the right thing when required.
I have never heard him speak in such terms about anyone else, ever.
Hearing all of this, his death is a great loss.

[Jamie B]

And we can now add our friends in Yemen to the list

Yea, we need to GTFO now.

[birdman]

You'll be surprised how many people in the third world speak rudimentary English.

True, but rudimentary is usually easy to spot in verb conjugation, especially weird English ones (is/was).  "Chris Stevens WAS a friend of Libya" is not only properly conjugated, but reflects proper English use of the past tense when referring to the deceased.   In any case, this picture may not be the best example, but my point was in many pro/against ME protests, you see a greater fraction of English signs than Arabic...and that is pandering to media, something the MSM is highly complicit in.  Let's say the percentage of (first or second language) Spanish speakers in the US is comparable to the percentage of English speakers in Iran or Libya...and then compare tht to the percentage of signs at protests written in each nation's primary language.

True, English is the most spoken language on earth, but protests are typically (in most other countries) are to get a point across to ones own countrymen or government (you see Japanese signs in Japan, Korean in Korea, French in France, etc)...if its not an English majority speaking country, English signs do not serve the normal purpose, and my hypothesis is they are media-fare to support lawfare.