iyaayas01 posted:Which is why they aren't entering without permission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:This video supposedly shows Amb. Stevens body being taking out of the consulate in Benghazi. It would be interesting if anyone who knew Arabic could translate anything interesting that was being said. They seem to be dragging his body out of the building and very happy about it: From last page, (edit: two pages back now, jesus) but this has been a point I'd like to get confirmed somehow. I saw the ensuing few posts that suggested the crowd consisted of relieved rescuers, and the optimist in me will stick with that, but there have been two posts at the National Review blog The Corner, one from the day after the event, and one from today, claiming -- based on what, I know not -- well, I'll just quote them: Victor Davis Hanson posted:The horrific photos of Ambassador Stevens bring to mind memories of Mogadishu or Fallujah... and John O'Sullivan posted:Details of their brutalization and murder still remain uncertain, but they died horribly, their corpses were humiliated, and their violation must not go unpunished. I love the "details remain uncertain" bit immediately followed by certainty about details. It's all ghoulish and makes me ill, but I'm hoping that some kind of truth can be established.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Jesus christ no. Embassies are not sovereign soil. How many times do we have to go over this. Sorry - I didn't know this. I was under the impression that inside of embassies there were some special rules that allowed the nation to operate inside those walls under it's laws as opposed to the host nation's. My guess if you'll have to go over it a lot since this is a 750+ page thread and people are going to drop in without reading the last 40 pages. Acting like a smug rear end in a top hat about it doesn't really repair the situation either. kylejack posted:They have certain extraterritorial aspects, but no, the embassy sits on Sudanese territory. If we feel we can't ensure security for the embassy, yeah, I think that would be a good idea. Thankfully we live in a digital age, and can conduct diplomacy with the government without having an actual foothold in the country. That's been my thought the whole time. If our people are unsafe what's the purpose of a physical embassy. I understand in Ye Oldene Tymes that things moved slowly and it was necessary to have foreign dignitaries around so the wheels stayed greased. Nowadays everyone has a cell-phone and e-mail so instant communication isn't really an issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
kylejack posted:There's two aspects: One, there's the unsourced Independent thing, second, they're claiming that the embassy statement condemning the video is proof that they knew they were going to be attacked. I don't know the validity of this article, but it seems to indicate that they knew that "A Bad Thing" may happen and released the statement condemning the video but it was all too late. So read into it what you will; the local diplomatic group would (should) have had their finger on the pulse and felt like they'd acted accordingly by releasing condemnation of the video but there was nothing to indicate that they'd expect an assault with the level of coordination that occurred in Libya. http://smh.com.au/world/the-tiny-piece-of-newsprint-that-started-a-global-inferno-20120916-260ex.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Sorry - I didn't know this. I was under the impression that inside of embassies there were some special rules that allowed the nation to operate inside those walls under it's laws as opposed to the host nation's. My guess if you'll have to go over it a lot since this is a 750+ page thread and people are going to drop in without reading the last 40 pages. Acting like a smug rear end in a top hat about it doesn't really repair the situation either. Sorry, but it seems like it's gotten discussed once every couple pages for the past 6 or 7, not like we talked about it once on page 5 and never since. sicarius posted:That's been my thought the whole time. If our people are unsafe what's the purpose of a physical embassy. I understand in Ye Oldene Tymes that things moved slowly and it was necessary to have foreign dignitaries around so the wheels stayed greased. Nowadays everyone has a cell-phone and e-mail so instant communication isn't really an issue. There's something to be said for face to face personal contacts, even in a somewhat dangerous situation, otherwise we wouldn't bother with embassies at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There's something to be said for face to face personal contacts, even in a somewhat dangerous situation, otherwise we wouldn't bother with embassies at all. Oh, I agree. But is the value of those exchanges worth the risk of dozens of lives? I would argue, "probably not." I fully understand that face to face communication is always more effective since a great deal of our communication is unspoken, but I wouldn't really want to be the guy who puts others in a situation where I am, essentially, making the claim that communication if more valuable then their lives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:32
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There's something to be said for face to face personal contacts, even in a somewhat dangerous situation, otherwise we wouldn't bother with embassies at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Oh, I agree. But is the value of those exchanges worth the risk of dozens of lives? I would argue, "probably not." I fully understand that face to face communication is always more effective since a great deal of our communication is unspoken, but I wouldn't really want to be the guy who puts others in a situation where I am, essentially, making the claim that communication if more valuable then their lives. Welcome to the Diplomatic Service, your life isn't necessarily the most important thing. Everything is a tradeoff, and I'm sure that the assessments for pulling out are constantly being performed, but it really isn't a binary "if we don't deploy the additional Marines then we must withdraw all personnel" type thing. Deploying the additional Marines would obviously lower the risk that the embassy will be overrun, but not deploying them doesn't automatically take the risk past the acceptable risk threshold. kylejack posted:Well, that isn't their only purpose. There were the two CIA recently killed in Mexico. They were only wounded, but yeah, fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Welcome to the Diplomatic Service, your life isn't necessarily the most important thing. Everything is a tradeoff, and I'm sure that the assessments for pulling out are constantly being performed, but it really isn't a binary "if we don't deploy the additional Marines then we must withdraw all personnel" type thing. Deploying the additional Marines would obviously lower the risk that the embassy will be overrun, but not deploying them doesn't automatically take the risk past the acceptable risk threshold. I wasn't trying to imply that it was a binary decision at all. I just don't know how far down in the gutter security would need to be before we withdraw our diplomats. I'd probably be the guy that went the cautious route as opposed to risking lives what what, essentially, can be accomplished by email, Skype, and a phone call. Even if that somewhat compromised the quality of face-to-face interactions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Vilerat I'll remember time you came back to goonswarm, and it was like a real-life soap opera swerve. Thanks for your service to this country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Anus Dei posted:From last page, (edit: two pages back now, jesus) but this has been a point I'd like to get confirmed somehow. I saw the ensuing few posts that suggested the crowd consisted of relieved rescuers, and the optimist in me will stick with that, but there have been two posts at the National Review blog The Corner, one from the day after the event, and one from today, claiming -- based on what, I know not -- well, I'll just quote them: The National Review tries to act like it's a classy, reliable source, but it's really not. They get in trouble for being racist shits every other month or so and twist the truth in ways that would make Fox news blush.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
sicarius posted:I wasn't trying to imply that it was a binary decision at all. I just don't know how far down in the gutter security would need to be before we withdraw our diplomats. I'd probably be the guy that went the cautious route as opposed to risking lives what what, essentially, can be accomplished by email, Skype, and a phone call. Even if that somewhat compromised the quality of face-to-face interactions. Yeah, I should stop being so snippy. It's ultimately a judgement call, one way or the other, and honestly DoS is a pretty risk averse organization when it comes to employee safety, just like the rest of the federal government...look at all the restrictions/permissions required to travel to certain areas in certain countries or read some of the accounts of restrictions they placed on folks working in Iraq or Afghanistan and how it impacted the ability to carry out their operations there. A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The National Review tries to act like it's a classy, reliable source, but it's really not. They get in trouble for being racist shits every other month or so and twist the truth in ways that would make Fox news blush. 15-20 years ago and beyond, it was a good resource, but recently not so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
http://www.youcaring.com/fundraiser_details?fundraiser_id=9332&url=benefitforseansmithsfamily Fund for Vile Rat's (Sean Smith) family has been started and is well over $2,000 already. Please lend a hand!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah, I should stop being so snippy. It's ultimately a judgement call, one way or the other, and honestly DoS is a pretty risk averse organization when it comes to employee safety, just like the rest of the federal government...look at all the restrictions/permissions required to travel to certain areas in certain countries or read some of the accounts of restrictions they placed on folks working in Iraq or Afghanistan and how it impacted the ability to carry out their operations there. Thanks for that. I've been involved, in the past, in politics and this is something that I think a lot of people not just take for granted, but overlook. Hopefully this tragedy will get people concerned about every American who serves the country overseas, not just the folks in uniforms with guns. Until this happened I can honestly say I never even thought about the security of ambassadors or associated staff in embassies. Sad that it takes a tragedy to make people focus on this kind of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:http://www.youcaring.com/fundraiser_details?fundraiser_id=9332&url=benefitforseansmithsfamily Raised: $10493.00 I seem to have misplaced  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Thanks for that. I've been involved, in the past, in politics and this is something that I think a lot of people not just take for granted, but overlook. Hopefully this tragedy will get people concerned about every American who serves the country overseas, not just the folks in uniforms with guns. Unfortunately this happens every once in a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Raised: $10493.00 I think I lost a couple of hundred somewhere. In completely unrelated news, Raised: $21,580. RIP Sean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
This video from Deir Ez Zor appears to show a helicopter that's on fire above the town https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xgl1o8JHn8 HRW have also put out a report on torture and executions by the Syrian opposition. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
Rice was making the rounds on all the Sunday morning news shows pushing the idea that the attack on the consulate wasn't premeditated and was a spontaneous direct outgrowth of the protest. This strikes me as a) premature, since the feds that are going to investigate just got on the ground a couple of days ago, and b) more than a bit of a stretch, since all the evidence (attacking when the ambassador was at the consulate, coordinated effective indirect fire, enough RPGs and mortars to keep up an effective base of fire during the assaults, knowing where the supposedly covert safe house was) points to a premeditated attack. I mean, bringing RPGs to a protest, okay, fair enough, it's post-revolution Libya, but mortars? Come on. "Hey, Muhammad, let's get down to the protest!" "Okay, but don't forget to bring your backpack of 60mm shells! I've got the mortar tube but make sure Yusif brings the baseplate!" Right. Since it's a stretch, it raises the question...why? Simple explanation is that they're trying to push back against the idea that they had prior warning and did nothing, but that strikes me as rather risky since it opens them to charges of politicizing the event from the GOP (hypocrisy be damned) and that idea is a flat out lie propagated by one English newspaper...it's going to burn itself out soon enough, and the only people who will still believe it aren't the type of people who are going to be convinced by a member of the administration saying otherwise. So non-simple explanations...we've already seen reports that the U.S. is deploying UAVs and additional intel assets and Libyan officials are going after Ansar al-Shariah; it's probably easier to spin that involvement as only "bringing those directly responsible to justice" than what it will really be, which is assisting the Libyan government in dismantling that entire group. Pushing the narrative that it was a "spontaneous attack" will make it easier to spin it as the first vs the second. Just some thoughts, I'm happy to get some disagreements or alternative ideas. I just found Rice's statement rather odd and not in agreement with the facts; FWIW Carney has made similar statements over the past couple of days so it's not like Rice was off the reservation, this seems to be the narrative the administration is going with, at least for now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
Here's a worrying sign I think points towards the conflict lasting long after Assad goesquote:In Syria’s largest city, rebellion takes on an overtly religious tone
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5a0_1347842882 5 minute video featuring reporter "Nick Paton Walsh" in "Aleppo, Syria". The narrative describes urban warfare at a stalemate. There's some image stabilization technology at work, though it's applied after the "CNN EXCLUSIVE" watermark was added - it's weird, but watchable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Mujahideen doesnt really mean holy warrior, its one of the old misconceptions that ties Jihad to holy war. It simply means "resistance" or literally "struggle". Its also used interchangeably with revolutionaries anyway, in the same sense the use of the word martyr, although martyr has holier connotations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Adar posted:I think I lost a couple of hundred somewhere. In completely unrelated news, Raised: $21,580. Yeah, me too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:06
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Mujahideen doesnt really mean holy warrior, its one of the old misconceptions that ties Jihad to holy war. It simply means "resistance" or literally "struggle". Its also used interchangeably with revolutionaries anyway, in the same sense the use of the word martyr, although martyr has holier connotations. Mujahideen means "those who carry out jihad". Jihad as a word is used in the Quran in a way that corresponds with a concept of struggling that can include, but is not confined to, armed combat against the agents of oppression/injustice/untruth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
I think mujahid in wehr is defined as basically someone who fights for a cause, and doesn't mention religion at all (iirc). But it's all very contextual isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 12:38
|
|
|
Ghost of Babyhead posted:I hadn't realised that attack on Camp Bastion last Friday had done so much damage As a dedicated War Nerd reader I would like to thank the Taliban for blowing up those stupid loving jets that had no business being used in that war in the first place. Thank you for saving the lives of our servicemen who would have had to ride in those useless $20 million dollar war ponies  sicarius posted:Where did the story even emerge that Obama and the administration had previous warning about these attacks? I haven't seen that reported ANYWHERE credible. It seems like another of those things that started on twitter and blogs and spread like wildfire, so now every Obummer hater is just parroting it, but can't source it. Ahaha, that's because it started here: It started here-- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html (Freedom of Information Act shows Bush ignored 9/11 warnings even worse than everyone already thought) and with longer articles that describe the incredible amount of work Obama does. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obama which were quickly followed by nonsense like this http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/is-president-obama-skipping-intelligence-briefings/ (answers from the article: according to facts, no. He gets briefed all the time from all sorts of sources. According to the comments section: gently caress that traitor) Like a lot of anti-Obama stuff from the Right, it's mostly Rove-style echo-chamber accusations that his strengths are actually his weaknesses and water-muddying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
SavageBastard posted:http://www.youcaring.com/fundraiser_details?fundraiser_id=9332&url=benefitforseansmithsfamily Donated some myself, but it's unfortunate that this kind of thing is necessary. Why doesn't the Department of State have the foresight to provide sufficient life insurance for the people it is sending into harms' way?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Donated some myself, but it's unfortunate that this kind of thing is necessary. Why doesn't the Department of State have the foresight to provide sufficient life insurance for the people it is sending into harms' way? There probably are death benefits and pensions and so forth, but I doubt they're enough to (for example) pay for college for his kids, or cover surprise medical bills. Remember this is America, where you can't spell "social safety net" without "socialism".
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 18:21
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There probably are death benefits and pensions and so forth, but I doubt they're enough to (for example) pay for college for his kids, or cover surprise medical bills. Remember this is America, where you can't spell "social safety net" without "socialism". I know when I was in the military my life insurance would pay out around $400,000 to my family had I died. I imagine the State Department must have something nearly equitable for foreign service officers.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Multiple videos from activists seem to prove that the FSA have pushed the Syrian army out of Salahedin, Aleppo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoGVCu7-SGs It seems to prove that entering the third month of fighting the frontlines are very changeable, and it appears the Syrian army still can't make any serious progress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
The Institute for the Study of War has a handy map of the North of Syria Here's an video from August I missed that particularly depressing for a variety of reason, Google translated title "Youngest child Syrian Mendes - revenge on the murderer of his parents" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75V84kvA6ms Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Not being funny or anything but do we really even need embassies in these poo poo countries? Leave them be until they A) sort themselves out or B) wipe themselves out. If they continue to riot etc then at least they're just loving up their own countries rather than affecting any of us. Also people who are in UK/Australia/France etc who hate their "host" country, protest against soldiers, want Islamic law etc should either be A) hosed off back where they came from or B) imprisoned for life if they were born in those countries. Maybe a bit extreme but thinking purely logically, what benefit do these people have to our society? What good is coming out of letting these people live here exactly? The sooner we clamp down on this poo poo the better IMO and btw I'm not saying ALL Muslims aren't welcome here, just the crazy ones that hate the West etc - those who just want to live peacefully side by side with everyone else are totally welcome IMO I just don't understand why we continue to tolerate the crazies. One way or the other, just them gently caress them off out of Western society - why is nobody willing to do this? I genuinely don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:Not being funny or anything but do we really even need embassies in these poo poo countries? Leave them be until they A) sort themselves out or B) wipe themselves out. If they continue to riot etc then at least they're just loving up their own countries rather than affecting any of us. My suspicion is that the consulates and embassies in some of these countries exist as much to be CIA fronts as anything else. The two "former SEALs" who died in Libya seem to fit that; one of them was described in an article as basically just travelling around Libya destroying MANPAD's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My suspicion is that the consulates and embassies in some of these countries exist as much to be CIA fronts as anything else. The two "former SEALs" who died in Libya seem to fit that; one of them was described in an article as basically just travelling around Libya destroying MANPAD's. Isn't an embassy the worst CIA front you could imagine ? Everyone going in and out of the embassy will be registered and possibly followed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
Embassies and consulates have lots of uses, not the least of which is protecting the interests of your nationals within that country's borders. It'd be even more dangerous to be in a country with which your country doesn't have diplomatic relations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
I will freely admit that I have no support for those suspicions other than poo poo I read on the internet and one too many Deus Ex playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Isn't an embassy the worst CIA front you could imagine ? Everyone going in and out of the embassy will be registered and possibly followed. Most intelligence gathering is fairly mundane; plus, if diplomatic staff are caught spying egregiously, all that happens is that they are declared persona non grata and expelled from the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
A young student visits his school in Homs on the first day of the new term https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ijJgkYFPgw
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My suspicion is that the consulates and embassies in some of these countries exist as much to be CIA fronts as anything else. I actually kind of doubt it, if for no other reason than that they'd want to avoid turf wars. The State Dept has its own intelligence wing, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), and as with all intelligence agencies, they're somewhat protective of what they consider "theirs." Plus, having too many CIA officers among the Foreign Service would probably compromise the latter's ability to do its business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
brapbrapbrap posted:Not being funny or anything but do we really even need embassies in these poo poo countries? Leave them be until they A) sort themselves out or B) wipe themselves out. If they continue to riot etc then at least they're just loving up their own countries rather than affecting any of us. Regardless of how volatile a country's situation is, the thought is that it's better to have some kind of presence and some base where you can keep your ear to the ground rather than being isolated from events and not knowing what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 21:48
|
|
