quote:An American has been killed and at least one other wounded after militiamen stormed the US consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, officials say.
It is believed the protest was held over a US-produced film that is said to be insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.
The building was set on fire after armed men raided the compound with grenades.
And, Cairo too. I'll be honest - I don't think the embassy's statement will be received well here at home:
quote:The US embassy earlier issued a statement condemning "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Romney and the right will portray it as "Obama apologizing for America" again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He'll be right to do so, too. Though somehow I doubt he'll reflect much on just how many other people go out of their way to apologize for criticisms of Islam, or even purported criticisms of Islam, when they're met with lethal reprisals.
Makes me pretty angry, really, to see our supposed ideals of freedom of speech so hastily disrespected and dismissed in the name of not hurting anyone's feelings. Frankly if speech-criticism of any aspect of any religion is likely to bring a violent response, then I want it criticized, I'm glad to see it criticized, and disgusted at even head fakes towards apologizing for it.
It'll be interesting to see what sort of response this draws in terms of media coverage, government statements, and religious figure statements. Thinking back to the words-met-with-force over the past decade in the field of religion (of which Islam has received the most publicity, I can't speak to the actual proportions), there's consistently been a lot of apologizing for the initial statements that drew offense. Rarely has there been things like, "Listen, you freaking lunatics, right now we're not talking about whether we condone the initial play or book or film you despised and felt was sacrilegious. Right now we're talking about not freaking killing people because you don't like what they say."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Am I condoning the violence? Of course not. It's counterproductive, immoral, and just plain wrong.
But this isn't criticism, it's an intentional provocation. It's poking the bear to elicit a response, and then criticizing the response. The two aren't quite the same.
I don't think violence is the right answer, but just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you should. Islamists certainly don't have a monopoly on violence as a response to verbal provocation.
It was the same story when the US servicemembers burned a bunch of qurans. It was intentionally, inherently provocative. If a bunch if Muslims burned a pile of bibles in a public demonstration in America, the response would be insane. I'd almost like them to do it just to measure the hypocrisy of the response.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Huh? Did I say or suggest you were, Lyrhawn? Nor do I think Islam has a monopoly on violence or suppression of freedom of speech, as we've seen with CFA and NFL players lately here in the States.
The thing is, I don't really care if it's intentionally provocative. Well, I do, but at a substantially lower intensity and later in time compared to the violent response to the provocation-because I don't care what some fanatic says, burning a Koran or claiming Jesus didn't exist or that Christopher Hitchens writhes in hellfire or Stalin is an illegitimate tyrant doesn't hurt anyone. Just because someone says, "I am hurt," doesn't make it true. Nor even, if you examine it closely, do the actual respective creeds in most cases. The book physical essence isn't infused with any of the religion's power, the figure's divinity isn't diminished by someone's non-belief, and the fellow citizen isn't injured by the act of the sounds of rebellious ideas impacting their eardrums.
It just pisses people off, that's all. So sure, have the 'dude, don't be a dick' discussion at some point, but that's a problem that pales in comparison. We've forgotten, if we ever knew, that we actually have a right to be offended and that in many ways that's critical to freedom of speech as well, not just the right to offend.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: He'll be right to do so, too.
+1
And when people start excusing Muslims by comparing them to *bears* of all things, well ... I think principles have been bent enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There is, underlying this sort of statement by governments and spokespeople, a troubling whiff of an idea that's really unpleasant. Sometimes it's more than a whiff: the idea that people have a right, or rather that it is not morally objectionable, to get really viciously angry at someone if they espouse an idea you don't like.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would make a distinction between some dude trying to add extra citations for Jack Chick versus a dude who comes up with uncomfortable conclusions as a result of legitimate scholarly endeavors.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The thing is, I don't really care if it's intentionally provocative.
I care. I don't care as much, but I care.
As an example: I have two daughters. They're lovely girls, and generally very kind, but sometimes one of them will get it in her head to start some trouble and will start poking the other one. Maybe it'll be literal poking; maybe it'll be some pushing of well-known emotional buttons. Either way, the goal will be to provoke the other one.
And then the other one lashes out, often after repeatedly asking her sister to stop, and somebody is struck and both of them start crying and I'm called in to intervene.
Israel -- the entire country -- operates at the emotional level of a giant, floundering, blubbery five-year-old. The Arab states are worse; they're like, three, because they haven't figured out sarcasm yet.
So here's my problem: yeah, free speech guarantees you the right to call your sister's favorite doll a doody-head. And if she lashes out and hits you, it's her fault. And then you say something like, "Sophie, it's never nice to hit anyone, no matter how mad their words make you." And then you say something like, "Haley, Sophie asked you to stop calling Mohammed (assuming that's the name of her favorite doll) a doody-head. Twice. And you knew it was going to make her mad. Tell her you're sorry."
And then maybe Haley responds with, "I'm not sorry! I did it just to demonstrate to the international community how irrational her response would be! And it's a shame my face hurts where she slapped me, but that was just acceptable and predictable collateral damage that I'm not responsible in the slightest for provoking!"
And then you'd send them both to sit in the corner in their naughty chairs, except it turns out that all the pizza is in that corner and you're really hungry.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Where the comparison falls apart...more or less entirely...is in the idea that the 'offense' given was *only* intended to provoke a response. It was only, entirely designed to piss someone else off, and not also to convey a message 'this belief is bogus'.
Because this crap doesn't just happen when soldiers burn Korans, or call Mohammed a doody head. It also happens when novelists write books, when plays are staged, when a girl accidentally burns 'holy' pages, so on and so forth.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Huh? Did I say or suggest you were, Lyrhawn?
You didn't, sorry, the ordering of my paragraphs was perhaps confusing. I just meant that as a sort of disclaimer going into my post.
quote:Where the comparison falls apart...more or less entirely...is in the idea that the 'offense' given was *only* intended to provoke a response. It was only, entirely designed to piss someone else off, and not also to convey a message 'this belief is bogus'.
In this particular instance, of the video in question that touched off today's actions, I'm leaning very heavily towards believing it was in fact intentionally provocative. Again, it doesn't excuse the violence, and I don't think that type of speech should be outlawed, but I think it's incredibly stupid.
Telling Muslims to simply get over it probably isn't going to work, it's simply going to take awhile. In the mean time, why try to make the situation worse? Have we forgotten in the last decade that Muslims around the world sometimes do incredibly irrational things in the name of their religion?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Stevens, 52, was a career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and had already served two tours in Libya, including running the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Kadafi. He was confirmed as ambassador to Libya by the Senate earlier this year.
Before Tuesday, five U.S. ambassadors had been killed in the line of duty, the last being Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979, according to the State Department historian's office.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Where the comparison falls apart...more or less entirely...is in the idea that the 'offense' given was *only* intended to provoke a response. It was only, entirely designed to piss someone else off, and not also to convey a message 'this belief is bogus'.
Because this crap doesn't just happen when soldiers burn Korans, or call Mohammed a doody head. It also happens when novelists write books, when plays are staged, when a girl accidentally burns 'holy' pages, so on and so forth.
That there are folks who drum up those same emotions in neutral situations isn't something we can control.
I mean have you *read* what the film "Innocence of Muslims" is about? Freaking Terry Jones (Mr. "Lets have Koran bonfire!") is super psyched about this movie, and intends to promote it.
It's clearly a movie designed to play on the fact Muslims don't like having Mohammad depicted in art, and says, "How about we show Mohammad doing just about every despicable thing we can imagine, lets see them stick that in their pipe and smoke it."
When you are making a movie, and you know there is a very good chance it's going to invoke that rage we've seen so many times that people *die*, that needs to enter your moral calculus when you decide to make a movie, and that it must be about that.
We shouldn't censor free speech here, we shouldn't censor the criticism of people who are in the know, and use that freedom immorally.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Killing in the name of your favorite character in a particular book is disgusting.
Two years ago Terry Jones caused riots over his intent to burn someone elses magic book, in the name of his magic book. He also promoted the video that incited these new riots and deaths. This is also disgusting.
I am sick of seeing people throw these destructive tantrums, but be treated as more than fitful children because they attach mysticism to it all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am sick of seeing people throw these destructive tantrums, but be treated as more than fitful children...
*points back to his analogy*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Killing in the name of your favorite character in a particular book is disgusting.
Two years ago Terry Jones caused riots over his intent to burn someone elses magic book, in the name of his magic book. He also promoted the video that incited these new riots and deaths. This is also disgusting.
I am sick of seeing people throw these destructive tantrums, but be treated as more than fitful children because they attach mysticism to it all.
So what do you think that we should do instead?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
If I knew I would have been extremely vocal about it before now.
For now the best I can offer is contempt for such horrible acts and sympathy for innocent people and those who love and miss them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you think that we should do instead?
Pour la canaille, la mitrailleuse.
No, seriously. Mob violence in the streets happens because the rioters think they can get away with it, and because someone thinks it's useful. Establish, once or twice, that the side with the near-monopoly on actual military force is not going to put up with it, and it'll end. Then we can have a nice poo-flinging contest like civilised monkeys. Yes, this requires carpeting a street, probably outside a US embassy, in bodies; it will not be nice. That will still mean fewer dead than will occur from having a riot every few months for years and decades on end. Plus, of course, we won't have to censor our local dickheads and assholes, which is fortunate, since most of them have guns and votes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What level of atrocity should we commit? "Proportional" reprisals haven't been a deterrent.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
To those who are at all familiar with Eve online, one of the other casualties in the attack was Vile_Rat, a fairly prominent player.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What level of atrocity should we commit? "Proportional" reprisals haven't been a deterrent.
Where have they been tried?
You are probably aware of the origin of the phrase "read the Riot Act"? I am suggesting that any crowd threatening a western embassy should be warned three times to disperse, and if they fail to do so, whatever troops are available should open fire, aiming to kill. Depending on the layout of the streets and the determination of the leaders, this should cause between a few dozen and a few hundred dead, and twice or three times that number of wounded.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I don't quite understand. When you have a crowd of people outside your embassy and some of them have weapons you shout "disperse!" three times and open fire? I mean Americans shouting and Americans opening fire?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Worked at Lexington?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was thinking more of a crowd shooting or throwing rocks, and trying to climb over the walls. But otherwise, yes. I observe that embassies are national territory; international law allows deadly force in defense of national borders, including shooting back out at people who are standing outside your borders and shooting in.
If there are riots in an area of the town not close to the embassy, oh well. That's an internal matter for the host country to deal with. Any nation should be welcome to blow up and burn down its own stuff.
Bombings, admittedly, are harder to deal with in this way. There's no obvious target.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Let's not forget that the riots aren't happening because of cartoons and Koran burnings, full stop. It is not as if there is a lack of Muslim mocking and Muslim cartooning in say, China, but we aren't seeing a whole lot of Chinese embassies being blown up.
Especially in the case of the soldiers burning Korans in Afghanistan, there are larger issues such as the actual occupation, the drone attacks on civilians, the American support of Israel, etc. The Koran burning and film are probably better viewed as convenient triggers for getting people riled up all at once but if they didn't exist, I wouldn't be surprised if some other reason came up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
As for large scale military defence of embassies, the first example that comes to mind would be the Boxer Rebellion. However, between the two or three following revolutions, I'm not sure it is easy to draw any simple conclusions about cause and effect.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Boxer Rebellion was a formal civil war fought by large-scale militias and regular armies. It does not compare to mobs of random street people armed with whatever comes to hand. What's more, the difference between even a well-armed rioter, ie someone with an ancient Kalashnikov, and a soldier of the modern US military (including the heavy weapons backing him up), is much larger than the difference between a Chinese conscript with a muzzle loader and a German conscript with a bolt-action rifle. The small arms are more similar but the coordination, training, and backup are not.
If you have a real siege of the embassy, especially if it's by forces loyal to or at least tacitly winked at by the host country, that's a completely different situation. In that case it's time to call for an evacuation and consider sending in the gunboats. The amount of violence required to suppress rioting in the streets by lightly-armed or unarmed civilians should not be beyond an embassy guard force.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I guess it's a complex international law problem. The embassy is a US territory, but I don't think it's possible fot the US personnel to shoot someone outside the embassy if they hadn't been shot at first. Then it would be self-defence probably allowed by Libyan law and embassy or not everyone could shoot. American law ends at the gates. The Riot Act does not apply.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We condemn oppressive regimes for firing on their own protesters - as we should. A bit harder to do once we fire on their protesters.
[ September 12, 2012, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Without endorsing KoM's idea, I suspect you're aware he set the bar for retaliation higher than 'protesters'.
It's a strange world where the idea of forcible defense of an embassy literally being attacked with force is met with squeamishness.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Well, better this way than the other way around.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Without endorsing KoM's idea, I suspect you're aware he set the bar for retaliation higher than 'protesters'.
It's a strange world where the idea of forcible defense of an embassy literally being attacked with force is met with squeamishness.
I would agree except that it can be really difficult to distinguish between peaceful protestors, not-so-peaceful protestors, rioters, angry mobs, and people trying to commit violence. In fact, there are often elements of all of the above in those situations. Those lines are really thin and often blurry even at something as tame as NATO protests.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
And weapons in Libya were pretty easy to come by, I guess...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hold on a second. Rioters and angry mobs are people trying to commit violence, in the first case by definition and in the second almost but certainly by its tone. Anyway, you've shifted the grounds of your statement now. Is lethal force in defense of an embassy to be objected to because we don't want to appear hypocritical by firing on 'protesters', or because it's difficult to tell the difference between protesters and an angry mob?
I submit that it's actually not that hard at all to tell the difference between a protest rally and an angry mob threatening violence. Angry mobs threatening violence don't often just shift abruptly from sitting with candles in their hands to firing rifles and climbing walls, after all.
quote:Let's not forget that the riots aren't happening because of cartoons and Koran burnings, full stop. It is not as if there is a lack of Muslim mocking and Muslim cartooning in say, China, but we aren't seeing a whole lot of Chinese embassies being blown up.
Well, but let's examine this for a moment, Mucus. Do you think that's entirely to do with (compared to the US, at least) China's minimal involvement in the Arab world? Because I think you know as well as I do that there are more than a few Muslims pretty pissed at China, in China. Or does it also have something to do with the belief-the certainty, really-that if a Chinese embassy were blown up or attacked, the consequences would shall we say be bad?
-------
It's still strange to me, a perverse sort of discrimination or prejudice against religious people, by religious people: it is to be expected that if you publish caricatures of a given religion's prophet, you and people near you or who look like you or who come from your home town will be threatened with violence and death. Everyone knows this...and you did too when you published it, so you need to show some 'responsibility'.
What happens if atheists, agnostics, or hell, Mongolian Jainists just for fun, decide that they're going to consider it an unbearable sacrilige for Jesus to be proclaimed as God in any land where they're the majority? They get a reputation for it, in fact, responding with violence reliably when it's done. Are we going to be beating around the bush talking about how Christians need to show some responsibility and awareness of how their speech will be received?
No, and not just because Islam has been grandfathered in and those atheists, agnostics, and Jainists would need to have a few centuries worth of staying power before they accrued that sort of fawning respect. But also because we would say, "Well we're sorry you feel that way, but if our citizens wish to say Jesus is God, we're legally and morally bound to let them do so, and that's really all there is to it."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, even in my tame, fairly boring life, I have been in crowds that contained peaceful protestors, not-so-peaceful protestors, rioters, and innocent bystanders all at the same time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're probably right. It is too hard to tell the difference between a rally that is angrily protesting at the gates of an embassy, and a mob which is trying to break them down and attack it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You can also fire white phosphorous to disperse crowds.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
A friend of a friend was killed in Benghazi. My heart goes out to the families, and to people who serve dangerous missions abroad.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots: Protesters ≠ armed rioters.
Lyr: The VAST majority of Muslims are as peaceful as the VAST majority of Christians, it is not the Muslims who should be singled out for violence, it is the extremists...of ANY creed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You can also fire white phosphorous to disperse crowds.
Maybe you are talking about smoke grenades made of white phosphorus...because otherwise...
quote: As an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus burns fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire, and cause serious burns or death.
...you are out of your freaking mind.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
I became aware of this event through images - namely ones of the dead body of ambassador Stevens on my Facebook feed. So I want to respond with some other images I found:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're probably right. It is too hard to tell the difference between a rally that is angrily protesting at the gates of an embassy, and a mob which is trying to break them down and attack it.
Crowds are not homogeneous, Rakeesh. That is my point. The crowd is not one thing. It is many different people doing different things and, in the heat of the moment, it can be hard to tell the 14 year-old yelling and waving arms from the 17 year-old next to him who may have just thrown a rock, or a bottle, or a grenade. Or the idiot protestor shooting in the air (not uncommon) from the ones shooting at the embassy. Especially as they are likely (at least to Western eyes) to look similar and be wearing similar clothing.
Take a look at Bloody Sunday in Derry if you want an example of what can happen when you send soldiers against civilians who may or may not be armed. And it was super effective at preventing further violence, too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I became aware of this event through images - namely ones of the dead body of ambassador Stevens on my Facebook feed. So I want to respond with some other images I found:
Thanks for posting those.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: I became aware of this event through images - namely ones of the dead body of ambassador Stevens on my Facebook feed. So I want to respond with some other images I found:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: boots: Protesters ≠ armed rioters.
Lyr: The VAST majority of Muslims are as peaceful as the VAST majority of Christians, it is not the Muslims who should be singled out for violence, it is the extremists...of ANY creed.
No. But they could be standing right next to each other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Protests used to be called 'demonstrations'. That is an interesting word. For example, I may demonstrate a gun by firing at a pumpkin. The idea being that the pumpkin, now splattered all over the wall, could just as easily have been someone's head. That's what guns do, after all. A demonstration, in a similar vein, shows that a lot of people are angry about whatever it is they are protesting; angry enough at any rate to come out into the streets and shout about it. The point being 'demonstrated' is that "the placards they are waving could just as easily be clubs". (Indeed a properly constructed placard is made with a stick much heavier than it needs to be, for the possibility of instant conversion into a weapon.) A protest is at least an implicit threat of violence, or it is useless. Which is why demonstrations are now rare in the West; the threat is no longer credible. When demonstrations were a real tool of political power, it was because people believed that they could turn into mob violence. And indeed, sometimes they did, at least as late as the seventies.
My point: You can't add your body weight to a protest, and then claim to be completely innocent when someone else takes the violence further than you were personally prepared for. You were both there to make a threat. If you didn't mean it seriously you should have stayed home.
It is true that many teenagers are thick as two short bricks and too full of hormones to think this through. If my recommendation is adopted, several dozen such teenagers will die, which will suck. What sucks even more is that the threat of mob violence, inevitably shading into real violence every so often, is considered a reasonable and viable means of political pressure. I'd rather have a violent end than unending violence.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those needn't be the only choices. It does help to refrain thinking of them uniformly as "rabble" though.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:The original Cairo Embassy statement — issued before the attacks on the diplomatic missions occurred — clearly struck a chord with Romney. His initial statement and his decision to stand by it today speak to an idea that forms the central theme of his 2010 book and it’s a talking point he uses almost every day on the campaign trail: “No apology.”
As Romney said on Wednesday at his news conference in Jacksonville, Fla.: “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values, that instead when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course.”
quote:Romney keyed his statement to the American Embassy in Cairo's condemnation of an anti-Muslim video that served as the trigger for the latest in a series of regional riots over obscure perceived slights to the faith. But his statement — initially embargoed to avoid release on September 11, then released yesterday evening anyway — came just before news that the American Ambassador to Libya had been killed and broke with a tradition of unity around national tragedies, and of avoiding hasty statements on foreign policy. It was the second time Romney has been burned by an early statement on a complex crisis: Romney denounced the Obama Administration's handling of a Chinese dissident's escape just as the Administration negotiated behind the scenes for his departure from the country.
"They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up," said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an "utter disaster" and a "Lehman moment" — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader.
He and other members of both parties cited the Romney campaign's recent dismissals of foreign policy's relevance. One adviser dismissed the subject to BuzzFeed as a "shiny object," while another told Politico that the subject was the "president's turf," drawing a rebuke from Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Romney's timing is a little off. When the "apology" statement came out, the actual attacks hadn't occurred yet.
Once they did, there was nothing from the Administration but condemnation from Obama.
This is a stupid issue for Romney to get caught up in. While this plays into his foreign policy narrative, it opens him up to a host of questions that he's avoided for more than a year. I think he's overreacting to the criticism that his RNC speech didn't mention the troops.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
His advisers are horrible if this is how they're telling him to play it. Possibly he's just going rogue, and they'll be stuck picking up the pieces. That's what its seemed like for a while.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Do you think that's entirely to do with (compared to the US, at least) China's minimal involvement in the Arab world?
No, it also has to do with China's largely positive and growing commercial ties with the region in addition to the fact that they're not militarily involved.
This shows that not only is China favoured in all polled Middle Eastern countries, it particularly enjoys a 24% to 33% advantage in Tunisia and Egypt.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Or does it also have something to do with the belief-the certainty, really-that if a Chinese embassy were blown up or attacked, the consequences would shall we say be bad?
Eh?
Both countries may pull back tourism and foreign investment if their embassies are attacked, so that's a tie. The Americans might toss a few drone missiles at some Muslims, kidnap a few more to torture. China would probably whine about the incident hurting the feelings of the Chinese people or some such.
Consequences don't seem to be a factor favouring attacking the American embassy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The Boxer Rebellion was a formal civil war fought by large-scale militias and regular armies.
Are we talking about the same event? The Boxer Rebellion is rarely considered to be a civil war, formal or otherwise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Crowds are not homogeneous, Rakeesh. That is my point. The crowd is not one thing. It is many different people doing different things and, in the heat of the moment, it can be hard to tell the 14 year-old yelling and waving arms from the 17 year-old next to him who may have just thrown a rock, or a bottle, or a grenade. Or the idiot protestor shooting in the air (not uncommon) from the ones shooting at the embassy. Especially as they are likely (at least to Western eyes) to look similar and be wearing similar clothing.
This seems to be-I'll let you clarify, if you like-suggesting that if a small but coherent group of radicals began to, say, storm the embassy from multiple points amidst a wider more or less peaceful (though angry) protest, even then lethal force should not be used in an effort to protect the embassy and its people, because the premeditated militant may be standing next to the sky-shooting (which, by the way, is profoundly stupid anywhere, much less next to an embassy) who in turn stands next to the angry teen carrying a sign taught for years to hate America.
How, then, do we or anyone else protect our embassies, or is the answer simply not to under certain circumstances?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, did you not understand KoM's reference?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But Romney's criticism did come at the right time, because the administration's offense was apologizing for anyone who would make Moslems "feel bad," rather than standing up for American values of free speech and free expression. That apology, if anything, only made America look weak, and emboldened the terrorists in thinking they could get away with killing the U.S. ambassador. Obama's subsequent claim that the apology was not run by the White House for approval is just another instance of Obama trying to avoid responsibility for yet another blunder by his administration.
Latest word is that U.S. warships are headed toward Libya. What exactly are they going to do? Shell Tripoli? Finding the people who killed the ambassador is a job for the CIA, not the navy. Sending the warships toward Libya is just posturing. Maybe Obama thinks he can win votes by looking tough. But it is too late for that. The time to be tough was back when rioters first tried to make a public display of violent protest against an American made movie that simply told the historical truth about Mohammed. That was when a true leader would have stood up for American ideals, and warned protestors not to violate our values and sensitivities.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Gosh, I sure wish President Obama had thought to telepathically tell the embassy security force to open fire. Also, as chief diplomat, he should be personally directing all work every embassy across the world does at any given moment.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The thing is, I don't really care if it's intentionally provocative.
I care. I don't care as much, but I care.
As an example: I have two daughters. They're lovely girls, and generally very kind, but sometimes one of them will get it in her head to start some trouble and will start poking the other one. Maybe it'll be literal poking; maybe it'll be some pushing of well-known emotional buttons. Either way, the goal will be to provoke the other one.
And then the other one lashes out, often after repeatedly asking her sister to stop, and somebody is struck and both of them start crying and I'm called in to intervene.
Israel -- the entire country -- operates at the emotional level of a giant, floundering, blubbery five-year-old. The Arab states are worse; they're like, three, because they haven't figured out sarcasm yet.
So here's my problem: yeah, free speech guarantees you the right to call your sister's favorite doll a doody-head. And if she lashes out and hits you, it's her fault. And then you say something like, "Sophie, it's never nice to hit anyone, no matter how mad their words make you." And then you say something like, "Haley, Sophie asked you to stop calling Mohammed (assuming that's the name of her favorite doll) a doody-head. Twice. And you knew it was going to make her mad. Tell her you're sorry."
And then maybe Haley responds with, "I'm not sorry! I did it just to demonstrate to the international community how irrational her response would be! And it's a shame my face hurts where she slapped me, but that was just acceptable and predictable collateral damage that I'm not responsible in the slightest for provoking!"
And then you'd send them both to sit in the corner in their naughty chairs, except it turns out that all the pizza is in that corner and you're really hungry.
This is a poor analogy, Tom.
In reality, it's a poorly made, obscure film made by an American director and some Egyptian immigrants, and is mostly about the oppression of Christians in Egypt. It wasn't created by the U.S. government. It wasn't endorsed by the U.S. government. I didn't even know about it until the attacks yesterday.
The people who were killed yesterday had no part in the making of the film. And they are in no way responsible. I don't really think you can argue that the U.S. as a nation has a policy of blaspheming Mohammed - the worst we usually do is NOT jail or silence people who choose to do so. It doesn't make the murders that happened yesterday any less immoral.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which part? About the Riot Act which would literally be read before crowds unruly and unlawful (not necessarily threatening, I might add, freedom of assembly being not quite the done thing in places where it was read), so on and so forth? Yes, I did. You didn't answer my question, though, and this is now the second or third time you've shifted the discussion.
-----
Once more Ron offers political analysis not just dissociated from the facts of the sequence of events, but even from what most of the far right of his own party has to say on the matter.
------
You know, it occurs to me, with all of this talk about 'responsible free speech', how familiar is everyone with how this film's trailer came to the attention of the Libyan and Egyptian public? The answer may surprise.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
My understanding was that it was shown (in parts at least) on Egyptian T.V.
Frankly, I don't see how Romney is going to blame Obama, he is posturing, and it shows he won't know how to be diplomatic ever.
Being diplomatic doesn't mean you apologize when your people are attacked, which Obama did not do.
The comments Romney attributed to him, that came out before the attack, which condemned the disgraceful attack on Islam were the right thing to do, under the circumstance.
The Administration or the State department didn't release the statement while under attack, it was released by something (I believe at the Embassy) knowing there would be blowback once the video became a big deal over there. From my understanding it seems like the Ambassador was a decent man, and knew what he was doing.
You can't really expect idiots like those attacking the embassy to understand that "All of America" isn't YouTube, and all Americans aren't the enemy - They see something from America, and stupidly they attack the biggest grouping of Americans they can get to, there's no defending their actions, it's not all of Islam, but there are definitely militant wings of Islam that need to be stopped.
They get told left and right that all of their troubles are from "Americans." That's a problem. It's also not an easy fix as the radicals recruit young impressionable children. But it's not something we can solve by automatically moving to violence in response.
Also there is no defense to be had for Romney, he obviously politicized it, he didn't have to. He could have condemned the attacks and left it at that, he probably could have even gotten away with saying he would be a "strong leader" or something to that effect, while it would get a few grumbles from the left, it wouldn't get condemnation.
He came out, intentionally misled the American public on how the events happened, and tried to score political points. Probably because he already sees the writing on the walls, and knows he will most likely lose the election, so he's throwing out all stops.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:In reality, it's a poorly made, obscure film made by an American director and some Egyptian immigrants, and is mostly about the oppression of Christians in Egypt. It wasn't created by the U.S. government. It wasn't endorsed by the U.S. government.
In my analogy, the U.S. government is not a child; it is the parent. A certain breed of whiny, ultra-conservative Jew is one of the children.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In reality, it's a poorly made, obscure film made by an American director and some Egyptian immigrants, and is mostly about the oppression of Christians in Egypt. It wasn't created by the U.S. government. It wasn't endorsed by the U.S. government.
In my analogy, the U.S. government is not a child; it is the parent. A certain breed of whiny, ultra-conservative Jew is one of the children.
There's strong evidence that there wasn't actually any Jewish involvement. Rather, while significant questions remain, it seems more likely the work of "the Coptic Christian diaspora". There's some evidence that the film maker, pseudonomously named Sam Bacile, is actually Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian. Nakoula admits he manages the company that produced the film, but denies he directed it. However, the Bacile name associated with the director appears to be a common alias of Nakoula, who seems to have a rather fluid identity. He has at least two known aliases and was convicted of financial crimes (essentially check kiting using stolen identities) in 2010.
There's also significant doubt about the claim that he raised $5 million for the film, largely from Jewish donors. All evidence is that it was a low-budget affair, and no Jewish groups or individuals have, to my knowledge, been associated with the movie. Instead, it's conservative American Christians (like Steve Klein and Terry Jones) and Coptic Christians (like Nakoula and Morris Sadek) who have been positively associated with the movie's production and promotion.
[ September 13, 2012, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Romney's criticism did come at the right time, because the administration's offense was apologizing for anyone who would make Moslems "feel bad," rather than standing up for American values of free speech and free expression. That apology, if anything, only made America look weak, and emboldened the terrorists in thinking they could get away with killing the U.S. ambassador. Obama's subsequent claim that the apology was not run by the White House for approval is just another instance of Obama trying to avoid responsibility for yet another blunder by his administration.
Latest word is that U.S. warships are headed toward Libya. What exactly are they going to do? Shell Tripoli? Finding the people who killed the ambassador is a job for the CIA, not the navy. Sending the warships toward Libya is just posturing. Maybe Obama thinks he can win votes by looking tough. But it is too late for that. The time to be tough was back when rioters first tried to make a public display of violent protest against an American made movie that simply told the historical truth about Mohammed. That was when a true leader would have stood up for American ideals, and warned protestors not to violate our values and sensitivities.
Bullshit, on so many levels.
Check the actual freaking TIME STAMPS on the statements that were made. The first statement was made in an attempt to avoid violence BEFORE it happened. Not after, excusing it. And the freaking SoS's FIRST WORDS were to condemn the violence.
And that "film" was a piece of trash at best.
Once the walls were breached, we should have mowed them down, plain and simple.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: a statement in the name of cast and crew was issued, distancing them from the footage. "We are 100% not behind this film, and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."
Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, California, who had a small role in the video, told Gawker she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered an agency's casting call last summer. The script was titled Desert Warriors, she said, and contained no mention of Islam."It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago. It wasn't based on anything to do with religion – it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything."
Looks like the actual "film" may not exist, only a 13 min trailer, and the whole trailer was overdubbed. It wasn't even a religious movie when filmed, or at least the actual lines they read weren't.
Disgusting. It doesn't justify the violence, of course, but disgusting none the less.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Our embassy in Yemen breached, though thankfully without the same results and even without much in the way of bloodshed amongst the protesters and would-be breachers.
It's also not known so far whether that embassy was occupied, or if the staff had been moved to a different location. I wouldn't be surprised. Protests are spreading too at other US Embassies in the Arab world, with one smaller protest being reported as far as Bangladesh. It's interesting what Egypt's President has to say about the attacks-some unsurprising (given his constituency and necessary politics) double-talk. Condemnation of insult or assault on the Prophet, but also an appeal to respect the law and not attack embassies. Nothing about how if God is so irritated at insults to the Prophet, we're sure to burn in hell for eternity of course, so maybe don't burn us early.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: To those who are at all familiar with Eve online, one of the other casualties in the attack was Vile_Rat, a fairly prominent player.
ricree, do you play? In all honesty, I first found out about the attacks by reading an Eve website. At first I felt kind of bad about that, but now that I've encountered multiple people today, days after the initial riots, who haven't heard about them at all or the death of the ambassador, I'm ok with my decision to check Evenews24 before CNN yesterday morning.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Doesn't seem like double talk to me. "They are idiots but don't try and kill them" is not unreasonable.
Hell, I live in FL, and I think of that every single time Terry Jones makes the TV. The fact that he carries a loaded gun has no bearing on if I kill him or not. The only thing keeping me from doing so is my sense of morals, and my beliefs. The world would be better off without him, to be sure, but violence and intolerance only adds to the fire, it doesn't prevent it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Which part? About the Riot Act which would literally be read before crowds unruly and unlawful (not necessarily threatening, I might add, freedom of assembly being not quite the done thing in places where it was read), so on and so forth? Yes, I did. You didn't answer my question, though, and this is now the second or third time you've shifted the discussion.
I was referring to the Wellington quote, "pour la canaille, la mitrailleuse" - "for the rabble, the grapeshot". Not "for specifically targeted violent people in the crowd, specially trained snipers who will miraculously kill only the bad people" but pretty much fire randomly into crowds because they are rabble so who cares. KoM even acknowledged that non-violent protesters would be harmed. I realize that their lives aren't as valuable as our are but what is the exact ratio?
And do you want to create more places where freedom of assembly is "not the done thing"? Should the US be on the side of suppressing freedom of assembly? Ambassador Steven, by all accounts, was a brave and compassionate man who cared about Libya. Do you think he would want that legacy?
I even gave an example of how that attitude backfires. I am pretty sure that there were some armed and possibly violent folks among the protestors in Derry but the folks that were killed were innocent. Rather than quelling violence and unrest in N. Ireland, Bloody Sunday escalated the violence.
I am not shifting the conversation at all; you are continuing to miss the point.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I realize that their lives aren't as valuable as our are but what is the exact ratio?
The use of machine guns does not rely on any particular life being less valuable. It relies on the idea that there will actually be less bloodshed in the long run. Now that may be empirically false, but it is a statement about future facts and events, not about values.
Incidentally, Wellington had 'mitraille', which is, as you say, grapeshot. The quote is brought up to date by making it 'mitrailleuse', machine gun.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kwea, the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi did not have any marine guards. So when the crowd attacked, they could not just "mow them down."
Rakeesh, it was announced yesterday on FNC that the Amabassador and several staff members had been removed from the consulate to another location, and there are suspicions that someone in the Libyan security tipped off the terrorists where they were.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did notice that. The weapons may be updated but the attitude of disregard for "rabble" was preserved. There is no indication that overall violence would be lessened, just the attitude that violence against rabble is not all that big a deal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was referring to the Wellington quote, "pour la canaille, la mitrailleuse" - "for the rabble, the grapeshot". Not "for specifically targeted violent people in the crowd, specially trained snipers who will miraculously kill only the bad people" but pretty much fire randomly into crowds because they are rabble so who cares. KoM even acknowledged that non-violent protesters would be harmed. I realize that their lives aren't as valuable as our are but what is the exact ratio?
To speak of missing the point and then to post this...well. Their lives are as valuable as ours (and thanks, by the way, for that despicable implication, don't think I missed it), which is why I've asked the question at least twice now: how is an embassy to be protected when people attempt to storm it?
It appears your solution really is that if after a demonstration turns violent and the embassy is breached, guards and soldiers there should simply permit themselves to be overrun. I do wish you'd skip ahead to the part where you simply come right out and say so.
As for Derry-this isn't Derry. And I'm not talking about firing on a protest. I'm talking about using lethal force when an embassy is attacked. Not protested, attacked. Let anyone who wishes wave signs, shout, use bullhorns or ladders or pulpits or even lynch American politicians in effigy in front of an embassy. But when the embassy itself is actually attacked, use lethal force on those attacking and the minimal necessary force to disperse the wider crowd.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Interestingly, the development of non-lethal area effect weapons, while chilling to contemplate for scenarios like non-violent protest dispersal, is ideal for things like embassy defense.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: They get told left and right that all of their troubles are from "Americans."
Especially in Egypt, how quickly we forget the Arab Spring, they clearly don't think that all of their problems come from the US, although it's probably high on the list.
Also has implications for the promoters of firing indiscriminately or "mowing them down." I'm sure that would work, of course the American people are going to need a strength of will that surpasses, well Hosni Mubarak's.
Edit to add: To clarify, I'm thinking about a long term solution re: "I'd rather have a violent end than unending violence." as opposed to simply mowing people down on the way to evacuating the embassy, which would be much easier.
[ September 13, 2012, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Interestingly, the development of non-lethal area effect weapons, while chilling to contemplate for scenarios like non-violent protest dispersal, is ideal for things like embassy defense.
That was pretty close to my thoughts.
What would people think of a low tolerance for non-lethal crowd control when dealing with embassy protests that turn violent?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I was referring to the Wellington quote, "pour la canaille, la mitrailleuse" - "for the rabble, the grapeshot". Not "for specifically targeted violent people in the crowd, specially trained snipers who will miraculously kill only the bad people" but pretty much fire randomly into crowds because they are rabble so who cares. KoM even acknowledged that non-violent protesters would be harmed. I realize that their lives aren't as valuable as our are but what is the exact ratio?
To speak of missing the point and then to post this...well. Their lives are as valuable as ours (and thanks, by the way, for that despicable implication, don't think I missed it), which is why I've asked the question at least twice now: how is an embassy to be protected when people attempt to storm it?
It appears your solution really is that if after a demonstration turns violent and the embassy is breached, guards and soldiers there should simply permit themselves to be overrun. I do wish you'd skip ahead to the part where you simply come right out and say so.
As for Derry-this isn't Derry. And I'm not talking about firing on a protest. I'm talking about using lethal force when an embassy is attacked. Not protested, attacked. Let anyone who wishes wave signs, shout, use bullhorns or ladders or pulpits or even lynch American politicians in effigy in front of an embassy. But when the embassy itself is actually attacked, use lethal force on those attacking and the minimal necessary force to disperse the wider crowd.
Yes. And KoM was talking about mowing down rabble with machine guns. You also seem to think that it is easy to tell the bad guys from the good guys in this kind of situation and I think that is unrealistic. I am not saying that embassies should be undefended; I am saying that what KoM suggests is bad as well as being historically unproductive and that it isn't as easy as you seem to think to do what you suggest without it becoming what KoM suggests.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I had to look it up...I had thought that everyone was talking about Monty Python alum Terry Jones and am glad to understand it's a different bloke all together.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The event has been pretty surreal. One of the killed was Vilerat from SA/EvE, many libyans were killed trying to PROTECT the embassy and I think the event shows an opportunity to really close gaps in solidarity with libyan people (for the most part), and — depending on how much actually gets talked about in regards to the incident — Romney seems to have wanted to end his campaign in earnest, earlier on than anticipated.
quote:Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain in McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News Wednesday that Romney's "comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake." "There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points," he said. "And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I don't see any point in killing protesters, when tear gas can do what is needed: It makes the mob go away. The majority of them is not going to come back with gas masks. I don't know how easy it is for an average person to get gas masks in Libya and other countries, but probably not that easy?
I'm just saying, when there are other obvious non-lethal options, they should be used first, before machine guns are fired into crowds that might or might not have dangerous people in them.
I also don't believe that blindly killing large protester crowds will mean less killings in the long run. If anything, it will just increase the cycle of violence. Fanatics don't care if people get killed, they want it to happen, because it will make them more powerful.
If people attack you with guns and grenades, of course you can shoot them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:a strength of will that surpasses, well Hosni Mubarak's.
I rather suspect that Mubarak was perfectly willing to order the use of machine guns. The question is whether the Egyptian army would have obeyed. Observe that he did attempt to use violence to disperse the protesters, bringing in his own little mobs of counter-protesters armed with rocks and clubs and mounted on camels. This improvisation suggests to me that it wasn't a question of his will, but of his ability to enforce it on the rest of the army.
Observe further that Mubarak is gone, but the colonels and generals who refused, presumably, to take his orders are still there, and could likewise refuse to take the orders of the new democratically elected politicians. I suggest that the events at Tahrir Square will not serve as a demonstration of the power of protesters to bring down well-armed regimes. They are much better viewed as an example of the ability of political factions within an army to use demonstrations to gain leverage in internal disputes.
So, we would not need willpower exceeding Mubarak's, we would need Marines or other armed forces willing to open fire on protestors not of their own citizenry, and not serving any sort of political purpose for the officers. Moreover, our objectives would be much more limited. Mubarak wanted to stay in power and transfer power to his sons; he had to impose his will on a whole country including its armed forces. We would just want to keep people out of an embassy and its immediate environs for a few hours or days, until we could evacuate. Limited objectives can be accomplished with way more limited means, including willpower.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's strange for me how the full emotional weight of the tragedy only felt real for me when i heard vilerat was one of the casualties.
Community makes the difference I guess.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
There does not seem to be much if any American coverage of this.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It's strange for me how the full emotional weight of the tragedy only felt real for me when i heard vilerat was one of the casualties.
Community makes the difference I guess.
Funny, my first thought was "WW1 started over less."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I found this on a humor site, just so happens to be the most uplifting thing I've seen in sometime.
There does not seem to be much if any American coverage of this.
I wonder what they might be risking being so public.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
In further "things may not be what they seem they are" news, NPR's coverage this morning and the profile piece above suggest the attack may have been a pre-planned militant action that used the chaos created by the crowd protesting the anti-Muslim film as an opportunity to assault the consulate in Benghazi. This suggests exactly how complicated the interplay between peaceful protests, civil unrest and militant actions can be. I don't really have a position on the broader question of how to balance security with the right to assemble, except to trust the trained professionals to act appropriately and recognize that it's not always possible to satisfy two objectives that are frequently in opposition.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That seems to be in line with what I've been hearing too-especially when you consider recent past violent attacks on American personnel in Libya.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
ABC News just confirmed that 4 people were arrested in Lybia for the attack. Link to an article.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a convicted felon who has served time for producing Meth andcheck fraud, is now confirmed as the producer, director, and finceer of the movie that started all of this. He initally claimed to distribute it, but denied it was his film. He also claimed that it had a budget of 5 million, and was financed by Jews, when in fact he is a copic Christian (or claims to be) and the movie was finaced by his wife's family for a small budget.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ron, I just saw the news and the security was horrible.
It's fairly simple...if someone climbs the fence, or storms the building, they are fiar game. I wouldn't fire on protesters, but once they are inside the perimiter they aren't protesting, they are attacking.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams said Nakoula set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers; then, checks from those accounts would be deposited into other bogus accounts from which Nakoula would withdraw money at ATM machines.
It was "basically a check-kiting scheme," the prosecutor told the AP. "You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money."
Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems in recent years, according to California state tax and bankruptcy records. In June 2006, a $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in the Los Angeles County Recorder of Deeds office. In 1997, a $106,000 lien was filed against him in Orange County.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... We would just want to keep people out of an embassy and its immediate environs for a few hours or days, until we could evacuate.
I think I pretty much said that evacuating was easy here.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: To clarify, I'm thinking about a long term solution re: "I'd rather have a violent end than unending violence." as opposed to simply mowing people down on the way to evacuating the embassy, which would be much easier.
What I'm addressing is what you were talking about on the first page, which is much more long term.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Establish, once or twice, that the side with the near-monopoly on actual military force is not going to put up with it, and it'll end ... That will still mean fewer dead than will occur from having a riot every few months for years and decades on end.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... the attack may have been a pre-planned militant action that used the chaos created by the crowd protesting the anti-Muslim film as an opportunity to assault the consulate in Benghazi.
Yep, "[the] Koran burning and film are probably better viewed as convenient triggers for getting people riled up all at once but if they didn't exist, I wouldn't be surprised if some other reason came up."
That's why I think/thought the free speech thing was kind of a redundant discussion. Even if Americans tossed away their free speech principles, it probably would only have bought a little bit of time till the next big distraction.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
As more information comes out its looking more and more like the attack in Libya was a 9/11 timed planned attack. While the protests going on in Egypt are unrelated events.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's why I think/thought the free speech thing was kind of a redundant discussion. Even if Americans tossed away their free speech principles, it probably would only have bought a little bit of time till the next big distraction.
That's one of the big reasons I'm so unsettled when talk turns (in tone, though not necessarily in content) to 'giving an inch' so to speak on the subject. I feel that way because the sorts of people and groups who are offended by such films to the extent they want ambassadors ejected, charges filed, or even endorse violence, they are not people with whom it is possible to compromise on the subject, because to them there simply is no compromise so long as any right to speak in unapproved ways on religion is on the table. And of course it doesn't stop there, but starts.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, also wanted to mention before I forget for like a sixth time: your points on China and embassies and protests are well taken. I didn't mean to suggest that the only reason there is a difference in treatment was because of the promise of harsher responses-I agree economics plays a huge role there. As for the rset, I was speaking as much about domestic as well as foreign critical speech, but I'm nit sure how you would'ce known that. Sloppy posting on my part.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
It appears (directly from interviews) a lot of this comes from undereducated people believing the US government funded the video, and promotes anti-Islam sentiment. Now I'm not sure its all ignorance, I've seen many a politician publicly stating their hatred of Islam. Including some really dicey stuff from Bush years ago.
They see things that people do (including a small subset of politicians) and believe the US hates Islam. They might be right for a lot of Americans, but sadly they're only going to make it worse attacking our (empty) embassies.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: ricree, do you play? In all honesty, I first found out about the attacks by reading an Eve website.
No, but I've followed the game on and off for a couple years.
In this case, I first heard about it from the Escapist. But since I'd been following The Mittani's writings for a while, I had a very rough idea who Vile Rat was.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Apparently wingnuts have been spreading false rumors about the Ambassador in Eqypt requiring the Marines stationed there to not carry ammunition. People seem to eat that crap up.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I found this on a humor site, just so happens to be the most uplifting thing I've seen in sometime.
There does not seem to be much if any American coverage of this.
I wonder what they might be risking being so public.
Considering everything that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last ten years, I would say it is about 50/50 that Pro-American protests would kill them as opposed to not being vocal and representing that Libya does not hate America. Nonetheless I think they are quite brave for doing it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: As more information comes out its looking more and more like the attack in Libya was a 9/11 timed planned attack. While the protests going on in Egypt are unrelated events.
Susan Rice, UN ambassador says the attack was not pre-planned, in direct contradiction to what Libyan officials are saying (which is that this was an al-Qaeda operation, with foreign elements entering the country months ago to begin preparations).
I think that the blog post 'fact-check' is a bit too credulous in accepting President al-Magariaf's statements at face value while questioning Rice's statement because of the administration's self-interest in depicting the attack as spontaneous. I think a good fact checker would have accounted for the self-interest of Libyan officials as well as US officials. Middle Eastern leaders (among others) frequently use the specter of 'foreign influence' to excuse their inability to quell internal dissension and/or to justify military or police actions against citizens.
To me, the statements of a Libyan military official (echoed by statements by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy) that the accuracy of the attack suggested planning and preparation are somewhat more persuasive than an argument of self-interest, but I think it's pretty hard on the basis of evidence to really question whether Rice was fibbing in her depiction of the attacks as spontaneous events hijacked by extremists.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I bet it was an attack of opportunity, based on the protests. With that many people rioting/protesting it becomes much harder to trace motives and check movement of individuals.
Not to say there wasn't planning involved, but I doubt they had this specific date or event in mind. But they would be stupid if they didn't see this as a chance to step up to the plate.
There is a real fear in Libya that we will respond with overwhelming force to this, so the government in Libya has a vested self interest in blaming terrorists...true or not. I don't discount what they are saying because of that, but I do keep it in mind when considering their "intel".
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Neil Gaiman posted a letter he received from one of the actresses in the film, detailing what the people involved THOUGHT it was going to be. None of the people shown in the film actually had anything to do with anything anti-Islam, and some (included the actress who wrote the letter linked above) are now scared for their lives if they leave the country.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Now even aspiring actors have to be afraid of getting work, becuase they may be used to incite international violence. The phrase "I couldn't make this up" comes to mind.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: It appears (directly from interviews) a lot of this comes from undereducated people believing the US government funded the video, and promotes anti-Islam sentiment. Now I'm not sure its all ignorance, I've seen many a politician publicly stating their hatred of Islam. Including some really dicey stuff from Bush years ago.
I'm curious what dicey stuff you're thinking of. Do you remember any specifics, or maybe think you could find one or two on google? Just curious.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Devotion to patently insane conspiracy theories is a worldwide phenomenon. Really, you'd have to be surprised if a lot of people *didnt* think the US gov was up to something. And if you live in a world where your access to information is limited to hearsay and sources you ought not trust and don't understand why that is, you'll buy nothing that appeals t you as a consumer. People do it in the US too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Matthew Olsen, US counter-terror chief also claims the attacks were not premeditated, but several senators including Susan Collins and John McCain push back, essentially claiming that the administration is trying to excuse a planning and intelligence failure.
Does anyone know why Stevens was at the consulate in Benghazi instead of the embassy in Tripoli? I'd heard in passing (I think on NPR) that he'd moved for security reasons surrounding Sept. 11, and there was some speculation about whether his whereabouts had been leaked by the Libyan government to the attackers. However, I can't find any stories referencing that speculation now, and I'm not certain of where or when I first heard it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see why it can't be both, to a degree.
You don't plan to attack, then you see a spontaneous riot taking place and grab your RPGs and head out, hoping to get lucky.
In other words, it could have been a target of opportunity that there was no way to foresee.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't see why it can't be both, to a degree.
You don't plan to attack, then you see a spontaneous riot taking place and grab your RPGs and head out, hoping to get lucky.
In other words, it could have been a target of opportunity that there was no way to foresee.
That's more or less the administration's line. It's disputed by the Libyan government as well as some earlier statements from US government representatives who say the attack had been planned for months.
<edit>Perhaps the two versions can be reconciled if the line is 'an attack had been in preparation for months, and when an opportunity presented itself they seized it.' Is that what you were saying? If so, it still leaves open the question of why we weren't better prepared for an attack. Stevens evidently had been saying for months that he was on al Qaeda's hit list, and had expressed concern over al Qaeda making inroads in eastern Libya. In retrospect, it's easy to say the situation should have been handled more carefully, but I guess it's not clear why we weren't better prepared for an attack given the apparent warning signs.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They planned for months that Ambassador Stevens would happen to be at the Benghazi consulate that particular day and that there'd be a riot?
Perhaps, but I'd have to see a lot of proof, because it sounds a little farfetched on its face.
To address your edit: That's sort of what I'm saying. But it still seems farfetched. They have a ton of weapons lying around. When militants raided Ghaddafi's armories, people made off with all sorts of goodies. The country is an armed camp of factions. I don't think it's unreasonable to surmise that when the riots broke out, anti-American forces had a target in mind, and the means to do it, so they just did it. Not everything is a shadowy plot planned out months in advance.
I agree though, that he should have had more security, and that's something almost everyone has noted. Honestly though, that seems more like Clinton's fault than Obama's though. Micromanaging embassy security at that level simply isn't his day to day job. But it IS Clinton's job.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
One thing I find unlikely about "just a bunch of guys with RPGs" as an explanation is that knowledgeable observers on the ground, both US and Libyan, said the attack was far more coordinated and precisely executed than one would expect from such a situation. I could see, however, a dedicated group planning an attack, waiting for a window of opportunity, training on their weapons for months. Then, when they hear about the riots they rush their plan into action.
<edit>Note in this scenario there need not be (although it also doesn't preclude) specific targeting of Stevens; it could just be he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of these militants are training constantly in general, not necessarily for a specific attack on a relatively minor US consulate building in a relatively minor city.
Regardless, why would we have heard of it? I have sickening faith in the abilities of the CIA, but come on, at some point there has to be a reasonable expectation that their abilities don't reach into every situation, and this sounds like exactly the sort of thing they couldn't know about.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you think that we should do instead?
Nice try, I'm not subscribing!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
That's weird. It showed up for me in my Google News feed. I was able to read the whole article (which I thought was great). But now when I go back it's behind the pay firewall. Bummer.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I missed this event, I have to give props to them regardless of how I might feel about their religious beliefs.
quote:Whatever the organizational outcome, the Sept. 14, 2012 attack on Camp Bastion is arguably the worst day in USMC aviation history since the Tet Offensive of 1968. The last time VMA-211 was combat ineffective was in December 1941, when the squadron was wiped out during the 13-day defense of Wake Island against the Japanese. Eight irreplaceable aircraft (the AV-8B has been out of production since 1999) have been destroyed or put out of action – approximately 7 percent of the total flying USMC Harrier fleet. Worse yet, the aircraft involved were the AV-B+ variant equipped with the APG-65 radar and AAQ-28 Litening II targeting pods – the most capable in the force. Given the current funding situation, it’s likely that the two damaged AV-8Bs will become spare parts “hangar queens” and never fly again. A Harrier squadron commander is dead, along with another Marine. Another nine personnel have been wounded, and the nearby Marines at Camp Freedom are now without effective fixed-wing air support.
quote:Ten days after four Americans were killed in their Libyan city, hundreds marched in Benghazi and took over the headquarters of a radical Islamist group tied to the attack.
Thousands of protesters had taken to the street earlier Friday, loudly declaring that they -- and not those behind last week's deadly attack -- represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people.
"I am sorry, America," one man said. "This is the real Libya."
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: It appears (directly from interviews) a lot of this comes from undereducated people believing the US government funded the video, and promotes anti-Islam sentiment. Now I'm not sure its all ignorance, I've seen many a politician publicly stating their hatred of Islam. Including some really dicey stuff from Bush years ago.
I'm curious what dicey stuff you're thinking of. Do you remember any specifics, or maybe think you could find one or two on google? Just curious.
I actually stand corrected here. I blame the revisionist ability of memory for this, so my fault. I was equating the Islamaphobia from the "Sharia Law" crap from 2010, the Mosque debacle, and some other politicians comments from earlier than that, that I must have equated to Bush in memory somehow. From what I can see, he took about the same position Obama, Clinton, Bush 1, and Reagan appear to have taken. "Don't believe all Muslims as terrorists." and stand against offensive cartoons, novels, etc. As all of them have done, while admitting that freedom of speech allows people to be asshats.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't follow your last post, Mucus.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Knocking out a squadron of irreplaceable aircraft from the world's foremost air power is a remarkable achievement for a group of militia insurgents and anyone who considers warfare a serious hobby should rightly be impressed. Knowing the enemy requires you respect them and their abilities.
There's this major political show which I think airs in Canada called "No Agenda" put forward an interesting theory, that this is orchestrated as a conspiracy by Israel under Bibi and the Romney campaign to become Obama's "Iranian Hostage Crisis" moment and cost him his chance at reelection, but virtually everything at every step of the process went FUBAR'ed and so the whole thing has backfired for all involved.
I haven't watched the show and don't know what evidence they are using for this speculation, for instance if they're relying on the Mohammed movie for instance then it largely falls apart.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Ten days after four Americans were killed in their Libyan city, hundreds marched in Benghazi and took over the headquarters of a radical Islamist group tied to the attack.
Thousands of protesters had taken to the street earlier Friday, loudly declaring that they -- and not those behind last week's deadly attack -- represent the real sentiments of the Libyan people.
"I am sorry, America," one man said. "This is the real Libya."
This is wonderful news. If anything, it demonstrates that the culture of fear that the extremists have created is not strong enough to subdue any attempt at dissent. It is an example of Muslims taking initiative to show that their cultural identity, as Libyans and Muslims, does not have to lump them in with the violent, reactionary hatemongers storming around.
As long as there are people from within brave enough to fight the culture of fear, there is hope for democracy and freedom in the region. It is from these vocal moderates that any substantive change to the culture that promotes violence in response to blasphemy will come.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't follow your last post, Mucus.
Well, as an "radical"* atheist Chinese Canadian, the Taliban would probably sooner kill me than talk to me.
But one does have to have a respect for their achievements. In guerilla warfare terms, this sounds like an achievement that compares favourably to individual achievements by the CCP during the civil war/Korean war or by the Americans during the revolutionary war.
* in the Douglas Adams sense
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, that's about what I thought you probably meant. Though generally (and this may be an unusual interpretation), giving props means to express approval and respect-that is of something worthwhile (even if conventional society frowns on it) done well. But that may be a regional thing, or just my own twist on the phrase. Giving props to people engaged in a campaign of murder, repression, and mayhem, particularly being unavoidably provincial against American soldiers rang very, very nastily to me so I had to decide you didn't mean it that way.
Anyway, yes, the Taliban and al Qaeda are certainly serious enemies, particularly in areas like this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, I may be old school, but ...
quote:Both men had the greatest respect for their enemy. Monty kept a portrait of the German in his command caravan while Patton studied Rommel's book on tactics. Rommel returned the compliment: 'Montgomery never made a serious strategic mistake … [and] in the Patton Army we saw the most astonishing achievement in mobile warfare.'
And the guy was literally a Nazi. I'm no general but I think one can have a respect for one's opponent without approving of their cause.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Technically, he may have been working for Nazis as opposed to being a Nazi party member, but you know what I mean and it doesn't affect the larger point for me)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I didn't think you approved of their cause. It was just the way the term rang to me, is all.
Now, that said, the comparison is only loosely appropriate I think. The relationship between Montgomery and Rommel, and the British and German militaries, was not the same as that between Western forces and various Taliban and al Qaeda groups. But I don't think you mean to suggest the relationship or respective standings are the same, either.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure what you mean by relationship or standing or in what manner that would affect our respect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it seems appropriate in some respects, or at least most cultures tell us so, for soldiers to respect even enemies while trying their best to defeat them in battle. You know?
Al Qaeda and Taliban forces, on the other hand, aren't entirely soldiers or at least certainly not in the way Montgomery or even Rommel were. I suppose what I'm getting at is that I recoil from things that smack of legitimizing them, even things that seem reasonable, such as a respect for their tenacity and skill at guerilla warfare.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll bet we felt the same about the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, but decades later, their tactics are taught in military schools, and we spend multiple classes on them in military history classes.
Sometimes I wonder what "legitimizing" means in this context. What legitimacy are you afraid of giving them by acknowledging that they're capable fighters?
Lord knows we've seen enough videos of them on monkey bars over the years, they should be good at something.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Ah, I understand that there always has been tension and variations in how much people "legitimize" guerilla warfare. But that's sort of why I gave the examples of the American revolutionary war, the Korean War, the Chinese Civil War, etc. Ultimately, for me it is sort of a "There but for the grace of God, go I" thing, especially when you get down to the individual level of the soldier.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Director of National Intelligence spokesman says attack was "deliberate and organized". The more intelligence is gathered, the more the story looks like extremists, some affiliated with al Qaeda in the Islamic Meghreb, ran a disciplined and organized attack. There is still no statement on whether the attack had been pre-planned, or whether it was a spontaneous reaction to the opening provided by the protests.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
The Daily Beast, working from an unclassified CIA 'talking points' memo and some anonymously-sourced intelligence officials, try to give a sense for how and why the assessment of the attack has varied over time. There's an accusation by one intel operator of "cherry picking" data, which is then disputed by official spokesmen. And there's the interesting wrinkle (which I hadn't previously considered) that if al Qaeda was found responsible for the attack, then a military response would be valid under our current declaration of war against the organization.
What I'd be most interested in, but which isn't part of the article, is why the assessment changed. There is no indication of what additional intelligence was gathered that changed the assessment from a spontaneous riot turning violent to a deliberate and coordinated attack.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So you'd like an explanation of the internal workings of CIA analysts and you'd like to know what pieces of information they did and didn't use at certain times to formulate their theories?
Let me know how that goes.
You should also keep in mind that it's fairly normal for two people to look at the same evidence and draw from it two different conclusions.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So you'd like an explanation of the internal workings of CIA analysts and you'd like to know what pieces of information they did and didn't use at certain times to formulate their theories?
Let me know how that goes.
You should also keep in mind that it's fairly normal for two people to look at the same evidence and draw from it two different conclusions.
I get that; I'm not trying to play a 'gotcha' game or anything. It was more frustration that there has clearly been a shift in the intelligence assessments based on what they can tell us, but there hasn't been a commensurate sense of additional information becoming available, or additional analysis being done. I'm sure both those things are happening to varying degrees, but even a little bit of transparency into why the assessments have evolved would be interesting.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The revelation came as new documents suggested internal disagreement over appropriate levels of security before the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
quote: According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote.
Eric Nordstrom, who was the regional security officer in Libya, also referenced a State Department document detailing 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012 that demonstrated the danger there to Americans.
quote:The things they are telling me about [Sean's death] are just outright lies...they could at least acknowledge that I have a right to know. Something! Something other than 'oh, we're checking up on it' or 'trust me'. I like that one the best of all. 'Trust me, I will let you know'. Well, I don't trust you anymore! I don't trust you anymore. You, you, I'm not going to say lied to me, but you didn't tell me and you knew!
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the almost complete lack of attention to the facts about this killing. Obama, Clinton, Rice, and on and on all lied about there even being a protest and hardly anyone cares? Watergate was simply a stupid botched break in, this was an attack on 9/11 that President Obama blatantly and knowingly lied about, then went to Vegas for $$$. How is this not front page news?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think you're considerably overstating things. I agree it's disappointing that the shifting story isn't more important to people, but it seems very premature to assert that "President Obama blatantly and knowingly lied about" the attack. Much more likely to me is that the Administration made a flawed inference based on limited information and is now having a hard time admitting their mistake. I think it would be good, both for the Administration and for the public, if they provided insight into why they got things wrong. I also think that until they do clarify what went wrong and why with their assessment, people will choose to fill in those blanks with the worst possible assumptions (as I think you have here).
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I'm pretty sure that they knew, and knew beforehand, or at the very least should have known. But the almost complete lack of reporting, and the insanely botched 'investigation' by the FBI is stunning.
How much do you know about what's required for an FBI team to perform an investigation in a dubiously friendly (let's just say) country, DarkKnight?
To be clear, it's plain you know very little, but I'm curious what you THINK you know, and to what extent this is just election month posturing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Or how about this: you have literally *no* idea why they were only there for 12 hours. Could have been included in terms set by the Libyan government. Could have been a narrow scope of mission that was determined ahead of time to ensure security.
You have *no* idea. You're just "asking questions."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I'm pretty sure that they knew, and knew beforehand, or at the very least should have known. But the almost complete lack of reporting, and the insanely botched 'investigation' by the FBI is stunning.
It couldn't possibly be that there was a reason they didn't want to jump to conclusions. You know, we might invade another country not responsible for it, or kill thousands of civilians....again.
What I saw, over and over again, was the people in our government say "We don't know yet, but as far as we can telll right now...."
But don't let actual facts interfere with your narrative.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show...
The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."
While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.
By the following morning, Reuters was also reporting the possible connection. While it's often the case that terrorist organizations claim responsibility for attacks they had nothing to do with in order to raise their profile, this is just another data point about possible gaps in the intelligence process.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)