Question: Is the drones armed and in the air yet?
They should for when a target is available !
Moreover, our marine embassy guards worldwide need to be locked and loaded. We should not tell everyone we've changed policy on this.
How can a Marine possibly stand for being unarmed????
If you have traveled the world extensively you will find that our Embassies' and Consulates' security is mainly staffed by locals with very few Marines to be found. We are probably the only country in the world who engages locals to protect our personnel and except for janitorial and perhaps secondary clerical staff most foreign nations operate Embassies for the purpose of trade as opposed to trying to proselytize the local government which is the root cause of the situation we find ourselves in with all of the moslem countries.
Christianity and Islam are belief systems. One believes in tolerance, the other does not. We believe it so strongly our founding fathers made it a function of the state to stay out of the religious belief system and become a sectarian as opposed to a religious state. This is not so with Islam. There is no tolerance and when it permeates the government; religious as opposed to sectarian rules take precedence. Nowhere is this more true than in Saudi Arabia where Sharia or Islamic Law is the rule. Even there as in Iraq and in Syria there are Sunnis and Shiites although Muslim, will fight each other to the death if one or the other was not in control of the government. I speak from some experience having lived in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia) for many years. In Saudi Christians and even Asians are tolerated because their services are needed, either because they haven't the skillls they want or have slaves to do the tihings they don't want to do (Mexican agricultural workers come to mind). In Saudi the number of slaves continues to grow and by slaves, those who will work for any wage because they cannot make as much if none in their own countries. Call it voluntary slavery if you will but it is slavery none the less. The Saudis do not allow non-muslims to own property or to practice their religion other than in private. Unless you are a Muslim you can never become a Saudi Citizen and if you convert from Islam the punishment is death.
How then do you resolve this dilemma. At this point you don't solve the cultural or belief issue because it is unsolvable. Isolation is the only answer until Islam becomes strong enough to anihilate all the disbelievers, starting with those who wish to convert the Muslims to Christianity The strongest (U.S.) first because it may come to the aid of weaker states. Rue the day, and it is already here or close, where Pakistan or Iran thinks they can wipe out Israel without us coming to their aid militarily.
Unfortunately we cannot and philisophically will not isolate ourselves because our own government has allowed the development of a society that cannot control its own population and we haven't developed enough self control to do it without someone imposing reason. We are then forced to deal with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the other Muslim OPEC countries because that's where the cheapest oil is. We can get along without oil because we have nearly unlimited supplies of coal and gas. The Muslim OPEC countries do not produce enough food to feed even a fraction of their population, let alone all the slaves they have imported to do the work at the high and low ends of the spectrum.
Man's fundamental instinct is that of survival. Fanatical Muslims are now gaining control of more governments in the Middle East and their ultimate aim is to annihilate any who do not believe as they do. They are spreading throughout Europe and are gaining more and more power simply because of their numbers and their singular purpose. When they get control of the government the first act is to institute Sharia Law. The assasination of non-believers who are unwilling to become slaves will go first. That is the young men who have insufficient skill to be of use and who are the only ones strong enough to provide resistance. If you have concluded by now that I am describing religious wars of history you are right and as the saying goes when we ignore history we tend to repeat it.
How then do we solve this problem. You isolate the opposition take out its leadership and then dismantle their ability to mount a counter attack. I'm afraid our leadership in this country, whether Republican or Democrat hasn't the guts to do what is necessary. Particularly the Democrats whose objectives are not far from those of the Muslims.
I'd view the idea of not having an armed contingency of US personnel in a Libya Embassy as similar to Timothy Treadwell and Grizzly bears.
Understanding the thread is noting Libia.
I think that Egypt is closely related in this conversation.
Obama just said (last night I believe) that Egypt was no ally and no enemy.
Where I think (by his correction/ explanation) I get what he meant to say.
The fact that he wasn't sure before he pushed the previous ruler out, says a lot about Obama.
He's ether lying or a not the "smartest guy in the room" as the news would have you believe.
How could he not know the Muslim Brotherhood was behind the up rising, the whole "Muslim Spring" and all.
How could he not know he was arming Al quaeda, to over through a friendly government to us.
Through his strong belief in Christianity, he obviously can only find the good in people- knowing they think the same as us, right?
They were on the path of democracy right?
He must have had someone in his chamber saying maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
If the best thing for those people was to have the Muslim Brotherhood take over, than we should have just let them fight it out themselves.
If these two rulers, "O" assisted in ousting, were so bad to their people.
Than how do they get off blaming Bush for getting rid of Sadam?
"O" can say he killed Osama all he wants, but he gave weapons to countries that now will be ally's of Al quaeda.
So was Obama right in saying they are "no ally".
They never were.
I think the real question here would be are the Dems an ally of the american people?
They all seem to have some illusion on how Muslims faith is good, maybe to some extent here in the US it is ok.
But, their faith only has a tolerance on some non believers.
The rest of us hold no value.
Someone earlier on this thread pointed that out as well.
Bottom line, we need to protect our real ally- Israel.
"O" obviously doesn't like them much.
Is "O" the anti- Christ?
Well.. if he actually acted like he was a Christian, I might be inclined to think so.
pmconusa you just said in the end bomb them back to the stone age I believe !
Also the best explanation of the situation.
Earlier I posted that Fox News said two of the men who died in the American Consulate in Libya were Marines. Now NBC News has a fairly detailed story saying the men weren't Marines, but were ex-Navy Seals, working on a contracted security team assignment. The third man killed was called an information management officer. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/13/13847618-two-killed-in-lib...
I 'heard' earlier that either the Marines or, in this cas, x Seals, weren't allowed to carry 'live rounds'. Haven't heard it again since so I can't provide a link.
I also heard that this was a much bigger plot and that the State Dept. had advance warning. The Independent can reveal . .
Who says the Clintons and Obamas don't get along?
Marines guarding the embassy in Cairo are not permitted live ammo, on orders of our ambassador (Anne Patterson).
This seems unwise. (understatement of the year)
One of the many aspects of these events in Cairo was the announcement that they were curtailing ,visa, processing due to events!!!!
That in and by itself raises so many other questions about so many other things.
Bruce: I was being a softy. Mans basic instinct is self preservation. When confronted with those who would take your life the only answer is to eliminate those who would eliminate you. The interim solution is to eliminate all those who hold similar views and indoctrinate the next generation to be more tolerant. Ask yourself what conquerors did in the past? They slaughtered all the males capable of reproducing and then raped their women. The problem is unless you wipe out them all, the seed of intolerance is still there to grow. You can practice tolerance only so long as your own life is not threatened. While we were being hypnotized by politicians we have allowed ourselves to stop growning enough food to eat and now must be tolerant of socieities (belief systems) who produce a surplus.
It's interesting that MOST of the stories about the attack in Benghazi are being published in the UK press. Here's another: Bloody hand prints, stolen documents and shocking security failings: Harrowing pictures inside crumbling U.S. consulate in Benghazi after attacks that left ambassador and three others dead
This a link to the U.S. State Department describing the responsibility of the Secretary of State in securing U.S. embassies and consulates: Securing Our Embassies Overseas
Breitbart.com posted a column yesterday pointing the Secretary Clinton as being responsible for the failure of security at the consulate in Benghazi: State Department: Secretary Responsible for Security Failures. Today we're learning from the UK press that the State Department was warned or had information that attacks would occur 48 hours before. And we're learning that the Ambassador to Egypt ordered the Marines to use something other than bullets to defend themselves and the U.S. Embassy.
Will the Congress investigate? Why not? What about Huma Abedin, Clinton's advisor, whose mother is in the Muslim Brotherhood women's "auxiliary"?
This is an email going around. It's been sent to me twice by friends:
"Whoever thought this out is nothing less than a genius.
The muslims are not happy!
They're not happy in Gaza .
They're not happy in Egypt .
They're not happy in Libya .
They're not happy in Morocco .
They're not happy in Iran .
They're not happy in Iraq .
They're not happy in Yemen .
They're not happy in Afghanistan .
They're not happy in Pakistan .
They're not happy in Syria .
They're not happy in Lebanon .
So, where are they happy?
They're happy in Canada .
They're happy in Australia .
They're happy in England .
They're happy in France .
They're happy in Italy .
They're happy in Germany .
They're happy in Sweden .
They're happy in the USA .
They're happy in Norway .
They're happy in every country that is not Muslim.
And who do they blame?
Not their leadership.
THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!
AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO BE LIKE THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM . .
WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY..........
Excuse me, but . . .
How freaking stupid can you get?"
You don't hae to be stupid, you have to be very smart. In each of the countries you describe the situation is such that the population now depends on trade for survival, Saudi Arabia in particular. It means they must trade with with infidels to survive. The Saudis are able to survive the longest because they can still buy what they because they have something the infidels need which is oil. When they run out of oil they will have nothing to trade and will either starve or try to steal what they need from others. In the end, when either air, water or food runs out there will be no problem for humans because there won't be any. Until that time they will try and survive by eliminating all those who don't believe as they do.
The problem is unless you wipe out them all, the seed of intolerance is still there to grow. You can practice tolerance only so long as your own life is not threatened.
Yeah I think they call that genocide, that ought to work on a worldwide scale. I'd say if you want to live with grizzlys expect to get eaten from time to time
Drudge's lead, at this moment, includes a picture that appears to portray Obama burning in effigy. The link underneath doesn't repeat the picture, so unless you happened to see it, you'll have to use your imagination while you ponder the irony.
The link leads to this, within which you can read:
"The State Department has stood up a 24-hr monitoring team to insure appropriate coordination of information and our response . . " They stood up?
In an entirely unrelated development:
"His lawyer, Daniel Lilley, Strong's lawyer, argued that the case . . "
Overlooked, thanks to jihadist love but still unrelated:
"Ratings firm Egan-Jones said it cut its credit reating on the U.S. government . . "
pmconusa Fri, 09/14/2012 - 9:01am #42: "... Mans basic instinct is self preservation. When confronted with those who would take your life the only answer is to eliminate those who would eliminate you. The interim solution is to eliminate all those who hold similar views and indoctrinate the next generation to be more tolerant. Ask yourself what conquerors did in the past? They slaughtered all the males capable of reproducing and then raped their women. The problem is unless you wipe out them all, the seed of intolerance is still there to grow. You can practice tolerance only so long as your own life is not threatened. While we were being hypnotized by politicians we have allowed ourselves to stop growning enough food to eat and now must be tolerant of socieities (belief systems) who produce a surplus."
Wipe out everyone who can reproduce with the wrong "seed"? Eugenics is offensive and irrational. So is the contradictory notion that "tolerance" should be "indoctrinated" and is the answer as the basic principle.
ewv: Tolerance is a learned behavior as opposed to instinct. I need only remind you of the Donner party who ended up eating each other since there was nothing else. If the last one was the last homo sapien the species would have died in the Rocky Mountains. We also have others of the species who have died out because of learned behavior. I remind you of the shakers who needed converts to continue (learned behavior) and ultimately died out because one of their beliefs was not to procreate. It is happening today where large numbers of people (gays and lesbians), like the shakers, avoid procreation and will ultimately vanish when they can no longer replace themselves one on one with others who do not or will not believe as they do. If you want to read more of the future scenario I suggest George Orwell's 1984.
But you left out mention of the "gay gene" and the fact that all of them were born that way, so the claim goes.
I read on Facebook this morning that some are saying that primitive tribes practiced gay marriage for thousands of years!
Facebook is a great place to learn something new everyday.
Sarcasm button OFF.
Mike G "It will be tough to blame this one on Bush"
That is why they are blaming it on a nameless film. Now they have taken the film-maker in for investigation as a further doubling down in their appeasement and blame response to a very serious problem
Suspected anti-Islam filmmaker questioned by federal probation officers
They are also blaming it on Romney for daring to raise an Obama problem of policy and action during the election campaign, namely his policies pandering to the Islamics and apologizing for American values. They have progressed from 'Bush did it' to 'Romney did it'. Romney is accused of politicizing an already political issue by talking about it.
This is what you would expect from people who also don't want Obama's wreckage of the economy raised in the campaign. They want us to believe that a major presidential election should be decided not on policy and a record of actions and their consequences, but rather "likeability" and the "stories" they put out: Dingy Harry and his Imaginary Friend tell us Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years, the Obama campaign has an activist tell us in a political ad that Romney killed his wife with cancer, Obama tells us that "Romney Hood" "steals" from the poor to give to the rich by not wanting to take more from the successful in taxes, etc.
Obama's collectivist ideology and statist agenda to "fundamentally transform America", the nature of which in principle he has tried to hide from the public behind his demagoguery emotionally fanning envy and resentment in standard community organizer chaos-creation, is deemed to be irrelevant.
We have been told for decades, in the name of 'pragmatism', that political principles are irrelevant to politics and government, so why wouldn't a far left demagogue try to cash in on that, blame a disastrous foreign policy on an obscure and badly done film from last July that no one was watching, and accuse anyone who raises questions of political principles as "politicizing" a political campaign? The chickens have come to roost.
"They are also blaming it on Romney for daring . . "
I agree with all of your points and can only add that I don't see Romney or Ryan putting up much of a fight . . on anything. I hope they've got something extraordinary up their sleeves for the debates.
As for the movie story . . on day one, it started to break that the Libya attack was a military like assault that either created or took advantage of the protest cover. Now, it's all about the movie? All day ' . . attacks inspired by a poorly made movie . . ' How about attacks inspired by a culture that doesn't want anything to do with us . . infidels.
The role of the movie, which is itself by far secondary to the planned attacks and their underlying causes, was that a segment of the video was translated into Arabic (accurately?) and deliberately spread in the Mideast, including on Egyptian television, in order to stir up 'protests' against something that no one in the civilized world even cared about, let alone was promoting.
The chaos-creating "community organizers" of the Mideast did the same thing several years ago with the Danish cartoons, resulting in riots and deaths of their own minions. Obama isn't so stupid that he doesn't know that, and exploits the video just as they have, in a way that continues to pander to the Islamo-fascists.
Also, to add to what Mackenzie wrote about government attempts to shut down the video, the Obama administration in the last few days also tried to pressure Google into suppressing the utube video trailer. No one here cares about the inept, badly produced video, and suppression would not stop the deliberate dissemination in the Mideast. Such suppression would now have no practical effect in itself on who sees the video, and is obviously intended to appease and support the Muzzl'ems at the expense of American rights.
This is on top of the original 9/11 Obama administration pandering last week to Muzzl'ems (who demand that the US government censor the video) with this government denunciation of what it calls the "abuse" of free speech:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. . . . Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
The Obama government is "condemning" private speech it disapproves of as "abuse" of the right of free speech. An individual stating what he believes is not "abusing" his right to say it, whether the government or anyone else disagrees and whether or not the "feelings are hurt" of those who disagree because of intellectual rejection of their ideology. It is no grounds for the government to publicly "condemn" anyone. The freedom to say what you want as long it does not offend someone who disagrees would be meaningless. Freedom of speech and thought includes the right to intellectually "hurt beliefs", as the last sentence put it, that you disagree with. There are no exemptions for anyone's "religion".
This anti-free speech stance of the Obama government is both a chilling, intimidating assault on the right of free speech (which it dares not explicitly reject, at least yet), and a further multi-culturalist pandering to savage enemies of American values to the point of their acts of war through violent attacks and murders at US embassies.
Yet when Romney stated “It’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values, apology for America’s values is never the right course” he was denounced for 'politicizing' what is already political and fundamental, as if it should have nothing to do with the election campaign and decision of who will be the next president. On the contrary, especially in the light of Obama's record of such apologies, it should be central.
That this campaign ploy of dismissal not only occurred, but has received so little attention for what it is, let alone denunciation together with the reasons why, shows how far down the dominating intellectuals -- illustrated by the media -- have sunk. An Obama is the result and a cashing in on this, not the cause. Neither Obama or the rest of them are the moral idealists they pretend to be. If only Romney knew enough to say so and why.
Maybe the WH translated the movie and distributed it, a sort of wag the dog moment
Does the continued US presence in any of these muslin countries just give the more radical elements of their societies a rallying point?
Isn't the theory of the enemy of my enemy is my friend in play here?
pmconusa alludes to it, as do others that if we aren't around they'll go back to killing each other. And if those who believed that their are moderate forces at work in these countries the absence of the foreign powers distraction may attract more supporters to their cause.
It's harder to export terrorism when the have to spend more of their resources oppressing and controlling their own. Especially if we stop building infrastructure for them...no more schools, hospitals, roads, etc.
Meanwhile back in the land of the free and the home of the brave, brownshirts have taken in an American citizen for "voluntary questioning" about a movie he worked on. Who says there's no punishment for blasphemy in the USA?
Defend the constitution quickmeme
......"Isn't the theory of the enemy of my enemy is my friend in play here?"......
........"pmconusa alludes to it, as do others that if we aren't around they'll go back to killing each other"......
I have a friend who is part Russian and perhaps other parts of travelling salesman, as he puts it. He looks middle eastern and has spent more than a few years walking around much of the middle east, including much time in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He says the entire area is very "tribal", in that it is made up of large family and extended family groups, that, in their natural state of living, lay claim to certain areas, while other "tribes" (for lack of a better word, lay claim to other areas. He told me that it would be impossible for anyone not knowing the people to travel across Afghanistan, on foot, and make it alive to the other side of the country. The borders around many of these "countries" were arbitrarily drawn by the colonial holders originally and have little meaning to those who live there, and make little sense to those people also.
Within most of these countries there are various "sects" (tribes) that hate one another and have spent many centuries killing and enslaving one another as the situation suits. Reading "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll (a great tale of the Russian war in Afghanistan) illustrates this quite well as the varioious tribes made peace long enough to take on, and defeat the best the Russian army could throw at them. We have no more chance of real success than the Russians did. Anyone reading Coll's book would think we were insane for putting military forces on the ground over there.
Yes, in my opinion, if we withdrew, they would go back to their centuries old tribal wars and the killing of each other.....again!
The true "fundemental Islamists" are too uncivilized to ever fit into the modern world. In order to live in a civilized world you have to be able to agree to disagree, a skill totally lacking in many of the true belivers and the radical among them.
There is no "pacifying" these folks. The A**-kisser in chief, gave it his best shot, even to disarming the embassy guards, and see where it got us. These savages see these kinds of moves.......as weakness. We need to send heavily armed marines to guard the emabssies and personnel, as long as they are there, and kill anyone who climbs the walls. They would get that message I bet.
As far as I am concerned there is absolutely nothing in the middle east that is worth the life of one American soldier, and we should do the smart thing and get out of there. They don't want us there anyway, other than folks like the Saudis who want us to protect them from their own people and protect the royal family's wealth.
Let em defend it themselves I say!
You are of course right, wc. We waste our precious resources, both human and material to accomplish what? An undefined objective of questionable importance. Roger Ek has posted much on other threads concerning the futility of our involvement in Afghanistan. Of which I absolutely agree.