Jebus

When the statement was made, there had been no violence. Why would the violence change the assessment of the video? The assessment, which is criticism, that you agree everyone has a right to express.

 

These films were banned(!) in some places, by people who admitted they hadn't seen them. So you have government condemnation here, too, AND actual suppression of freedom of speech, not just a statement about that freedom being abused.

I would still criticize his assessment if there was no violence (I should of mentioned this in my earlier post). I originally thought it was the response to the attack. He has a right to express himself but he was not just representing himself when he issued that statement-without authority from the State Department.

There was also a move to remove certain words ( I think swear words) from Saving Private Ryan which was being aired on November 11th, a few years ago. I object to that and the other examples you described. Have you seen the film, A Man for All Seasons?

What did the attack change that should affect the content of the original statement?

First of all, that video was not made to incite violence. Second, most of those thugs probably did not see the video and third, there is no right to be free from criticism.

Obama rightly criticized the attacks, and his decision to send the Marines is justified.

"To the shores of Tripoli!"

But condemnation of an attack does require an attack to have happened.

I was replying to his statement that a condemnation requires finess, not necessarily relating to the events that happend.

Now knowing the statement was issued before hand, but still reiterated after the attack on the embassy. My criticism still stands on that individual who issued it, Schwartz.

This is false. Did you read the statement that you posted? The statement isn't regarding the attack on the embassy, as it was issued prior to the attack.

From the link you gave me, it mentioned the individual responsible for publishing the statement (without authorization). Though the statement was issued beforehand, that individual defended it on twitter, after the compound was breached. Though he condemned the breaches as well.

And condemnation of attacks do not require, "finess." You obviously don't have to sy bring it on, a simple, "we condemn the attacks on our citizens and property," would be enough.

Also have any of you seen the video? It is not that bad (there are worse) and does not incite violence.

They are condemning the video but not the attackers. I thought it was pretty obvious...

The US embassy made a very inept statement regarding the attack on the compound on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

They have removed the statement from their website. I took a screenshot hours before.

Very often US soldiers would step in and help detainees because Iraqis wanted to beat the living crap out of them.

Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Israel bombed it. Lets hope they stop the Ayatollah's as well.

Yeah thats exactly what private interest groups are. I'm guessing your republican?

No. I have views from both sides.

Hmm, thats weird. Just search, "private interest groups" (with the quotation marks) with google. It's the first link.

OMG no lol, regardless of all that stupid over the top conspiracy stuff.

 

The groups are private because they don't have to give their names or any information out about the money they donated. It is for "political campaigns" and not taxed. So I can;t really give out any names but they do exist. My highschool government teacher is a U.S historiant and has his masters in education. He told me about them and I did my own research about them online.

 

I can tell you my views on them but their biased just google private interest groups or start off with special interest groups and come back to talk about it on this thread.

I googled and I found this, http://texaspolitics...edu/5_2_2.html It doesn't seem so bad.

My highschool government teacher is a U.S historiant and has his masters in education.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. The fact that your teacher has his masters means absolutely nothing.

Those walls u listed as examples failed. There was a point in history where the best defence became a strong offense.

I want Afghanistan to succeed but we are not doing what is necessary, if you think your answers will solve it, then go right ahead and tell the generals your idea.

Also the Taliban promised security, and they brought it when Afghanistan was broken up into territories controlled by warlords. In my opinion, they were too harsh, especially on the women and their biggest mistake was harbouring Al queda.

Your mile long fortress is ridiculous. Ahmad Shah Massoud told us this would soon be our problem, unfortunately we (the west) didn't listen and he is dead now. He said that if we can get Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to stop funding and help us in this fight, it would have been over in a year.

Afghanistan is going to take a very long time, it lacks the infrastructure needed to succeed on their own.

Most afghans do not want the Taliban to return, but the Taliban atleast make due with their promises. We have not. Progress has been made, but it has not been enough. There was a point in 2011 when huge progress was being made, but with the pullout of troops, this progress is decreasing. Green on blue attacks are becoming more and more common. The ROE that is in place is not sufficient for our troops.

The ANA and ANP are getting much better and are taking the lead on several operations. This is a good sign.

I hope the next elections will bring in an actual leader capable of uniting afghans and ending the corruption.

This war we are fighting is not against a religion, but a civilization. An old and backwards civilization. Our is not perfect, but it is the best we have, and worth fighting for.

Athena, are you pro-life, or just pro-human life? There is also similarities between animals that we put down and insects we exterminate and (according to your statements) the holocaust.

Life began over 3500 million years ago, not in the womb.

No. It seems that Unitarian is one of the more common (in fact, JFK was the FIRST and ONLY catholic president).

 

http://www.adherents...presidents.html

Never mind then. They all seem the same to me.

A few of his issues do appeal to me though. On Energy, "Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research." On Healthcare "Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines," and I agree with his foreign policy. Obama isn't that much different that Romney though...

Well, Romney is a mormon. If he gets elected, would that be the first time a president is neither catholic nor christian (excluding Jefferson)?

Did you mean John Huntsman? He was a very rational and intelligent man... I think that's why he lost the Republican primary so quickly.

Yes, it's Jon Hunstman. I don't know why I said Paul... lol. Too bad he lost though.

I was rooting for Paul Hunstman.

The comparisons made between abortion/hitler and Bush/hitler are absurd, the differences are night and day.

Shockingly, when referring to the illegal war I meant the illegal one.

 

Now, since the there's just as good a video of Mr Rumsfeld supporting Saddam as there is of Mr Galloway doing so, I think you must concede that it it isn't just the left who pander to dictators.

So why did you make the assertion that ...

forget it.

I doubt anyone cares why you decided to say what you did about the left wing supporting dictators: it was wrong anyway.

The Right installed Saddam in the first place.

Perhaps I made the assertion because of this, http://markhumphrys.com/left.islamic.html. You obviously cared since you cared so much to reply to it. I know the right installed Saddam, you said that already... But they also removed him from power.

I think that may qualify you for the twit of the year award.

 

I tell you what, why don't we look at some of the people who really, knowingly, documentedly supported Saddam and see how left wing they were.

http://en.wikipedia....ghands_high.OGG

Wait, I may have misunderstood your earlier post; where you referring to the gulf war, which was UN-Authorized as, not legal?

I said the Gulf war was legal according to an organization that is filled with dictators but not the second war in 2003. Decisions are not right or wrong based on who makes them, but on the reasons for them.

BTW, I'm openly critical of the right as well.

I never said it was, "Legal," but justified. Obviously not all the protestors supported Saddam, but some did and very openly... Jesus tap dancing christ.

"I said they were demanding he stay in power. "

No they did not.

They just wanted a better way of kicking him out.

Specifically, one backed by the UN. That would have needed to wait for the UN's nuclear inspectors to finish.

The effect would have been to show that the whole world was against Saddam- rather than just the US and it's followers.

That would have made the action legitimate and legal.

You are complaining that the Leftists actually wanted this done legally.

 

The video is a fine example of propaganda.

 

"At the meeting, he reported the support given to Saddam by the people of the Gaza Strip and ended his speech in English with the statement "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability".[62] In a January 2007 edition of the BBC's Hardtalk he stated that he was saluting the "Iraqi people".[9] Galloway's speech was translated for Hussein. Anasal-Tikriti, a friend of Galloway's and a Respect candidate, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain said: "I understand Arabic and it [Galloway's salutation] was taken completely out of context. When he said "you" he meant the Iraqi people, he was saluting their indefatigability, their resolve against sanctions. Even the interpreter got it right and, in Arabic, says salutes the stand of the Iraqi people'.""

from

http://en.wikipedia....way#Controversy

 

Anyway, enough of that. Perhaps we should get back to the topic.

The references on that wiki page lead to nothing....

People protested the Gulf war, which was, "legal." Since Iraq was violating the resolutions imposed by the UN for over a decade, does that not justify action?

As people marched in London, New York and Montreal, Iraqis were praying for someone to come and save them. Their prayers were answered. Not by the UN which had failed them for over a decade but the very people they marched against, Bush and Blair. A friend of mine (Kurdish) told me that Bush was a prophet sent by god to help liberate them and the soldiers, angels.

http://www.nationalr...qis/amir-taheri

Also Ramsey Clark protested the Intervention in Iraq and openly supported Saddam Hussein. The group ANSWER, protested the Iraq war and is well known for its support of dictators.

As I said, I saw plenty of people protest that a war isn't a good way to deal with problems.

What evidence was there that they actually supported Saddam (and, since it was your original assertion) what evidence was there that they were left wing?

 

Did you go and ask them?

Were they carrying placards saying "CPGB supports Saddam"?

Or did you just make up the asserted link because it suited you?

I never said they supported Saddam. I said they were demanding he stay in power. If you are going to protest against the removal of a dictator, that pretty well implies that he should stay in power, since no other force is going to remove him from power. Well they didn't mention any credible ideas anyway...

A lot of the protests were organized by socialist (left wing) organizations. Some on the right were protesting against as well but it definitely was not their slogan. It was Obamas though - to remove troops from Iraq.

George Galloway however actually saluted Saddam Hussein.

Exactly who were those people?

I know that some people were quite clearly expressing the opinion that diplomatic to depose him means should have been tried first, but I don't know anyone who said he should stay.

Several thousand protestors.

They tried diplomacy for over 10 years, in those 10 years Saddam built a palace in every province for himself while parading dead children as though the cause were from the sanctions. We later learned doctors were forced to keep dead children frozen.

+1^^

There are plenty of successful African Americans on the right. Frederick Douglas is my favourite. The fact that the Republican party was responsible for the abolition of slavery might also have something to do with it.

I'm not sure how you would discuss about such persons though, it just seems weird to devote a thread on it.