We could hope all politicians would do that
|
We could hope all politicians would do that
Yeah... but like the old saying goes... hope in one hand and take a crap in the other... see which gets full first.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Seems the White House may have been threatening whistleblowers, which I could have guessed if past history is any indication.
Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says | Fox News
Shame the rest of the media has forgotten their role.
Oh dear, a violation of international law, so once again treaties mean nothing to the United States, they just go about their business as if no one else exists and when it bites them in the bum, someone hollars foulQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Clete ,yesterday when asked about the people looking for whistle blower protection because they are being threatened by State Dept if they testify before Congress; the Emperor claimed he knew nothing about it even though it has been a major story in at least a 48 hr cycle. Well now he knows and he can easily direct his agencies to give the status to anyone in State or the special forces who wants to testify . Also ,the adm should immediately produce the names of the 30+ people who were rescued .
One of the people who wants to testify (a special ops soldier who has had to use a voice modulator to talk to the press as if he's Reva Khalidi hiding from the Iranian regime) ,claims that they know who the leaders of the attack are ,and where they are located... and that the adm refuses to pull the trigger on either capture or kill. This despite the Emperor's constant prattle that he will not rest until the attackers are 'brought to justice '.
And of course I still want it officially disclosed what the mission in Benghazi entailed . The emperor still dances around the fact that the US has been working behind the scenes arming the opposition in Syria.
All I know is the media wet all over themselves over some Bush attorneys getting fired and this doesn't even rouse their curiosity.
Tom you really want another f@up like the Bin Laden extraction, no Libya is a soveriegn nation, leave them alone, either it will bite them or they will deal with it
You have to face it every time you get involved the nuckle draggers make a mess
Hello again:
Well, we're going to get some NEWS this week. Maybe they'll say that Obama and Hillary were THERE, and ordered the bad guys to rape our ambassador.
excon
Or maybe we'll find out that Evita's State Dept hired an AQ affiliate called the' February 17th Martyrs Brigade' ,to provide security at the mission in Benghazi. That it should've been known who they were hiring as the group posted the AQ black flag on its Facebook page.
Maybe we'll find out that same group actually warned the State Dept before Ambassador Stevens trip to Benghazi that they would NOT protect him. Maybe we will find out that that warning was relayed to the regional security officer (RSO).
So what did the AQ affiliated guards do when the attack started ? They threw down their weapons and ran away after telling the attackers where to find the 'safehouse'.
Then maybe if they probe deep enough they will begin to ask :why wasn't there American security at the "special mission" ? No it wasn't sequester... no it wasn't even budget cuts. It was because of the nature of the activities that were operating out of the mission and the CIA annex. They couldn't have US security at the villa because it would have let the cat out of the bag.
Or maybe Stevens ignored warnings and maybe orders and went to Benghazi anyway.
Sounds just as believable as any story you guys have speculated on.
Plausible... we won't know until the incident is properly investigated... no ? Here is one bottom line to me (and this is just one of the many issues that need to be resolved regarding this case ) . Sovereign US territory was attacked and the man who represents the President of the United States assassinated . The adm handed the ball to the Justice Dept as if it was some kind of criminal matter. Meanwhile it has now been confirmed that the government at very least had photos of the attackers ;and chose to not show them to the public until some whistle blowers came out and told the public that not only did they KNOW the identity of the attackers... but they knew where to get them. So then why has the President not authorized a Bin Laden style attack on them ? Or a drone strike ? Even now the FBI is going through the charade of asking help in identifying them.
There must be more to it than just waltzing in and taking out the enemy... at present.
Tom you have been playing with the facts, that wasn't soveriegn US territory how ever much you might think it was so it wasn't a treaty violation and yes it is a criminal matter but difficult to pursue at distance. I think you might find there will be a strike when and if they get a firm location and a photo isn't identification so park all these strawmen in the garage. Reality Check!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
See article 22Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/ins...s/9_1_1961.pdf
.Quote:
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
Them, except with the consent of the head of the mission
That treaty applies to permanent diplomatic missionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
More answers needed. I have called it a special mission .Others have called it a consulate. Let's leave that unresolved . An attack on an Ambassador is an act of war... Not a matter of a criminal investigation.
We already have a war on terrorist.
Tom I have no doubt this act of aggression was part of the War on Terror. If you could identify a state that carried out the attack then you could respond in kind, but failing that, the investigation will require the procedures of a criminal investigation just like any other act of murder, and with the cooperation of various state agencies in Libya to enable the evidence to be gathered and assessed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I know you would want the matter prosecuted, we all do, because we can't have this sort of thing going on anywhere
Libya was a failed state under Q~Daffy. There is no government we can go to for support there now. Nope you are wrong. We did a military strike on Bin Laden in the same neighborhood as the Paki military HQ. These were not "criminals"... they are jihadists waging war against us and we should respond in kind. We tried the criminal investigation method throughout the 1990s as our enemy became ever more emboldened at out weak response. Now we are falling back to the same failed method.Quote:
If you could identify a state that carried out the attack then you could respond in kind, but failing that, the investigation will require the procedures of a criminal investigation just like any other act of murder, and with the cooperation of various state agencies in Libya to enable the evidence to be gathered and assessed.
8 months after the attack the FBI is now suddenly interested in getting an id on the attackers... REALLY??
Tom you are not telling us anything new either you invade Libya or Pakistan or your recognise your reach isn't as long as you would like. Your laws end just off your shores and no one has to respect them beyond that boundary. Investigation takes time and resources and you are not in control however much that hurts that is a fact, whether it was Bin Laden or Benghazi you are not in control, you never were. That is the islamic world and you are tolerated, not respected you need to understand thisQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ok let's not call it respect . Call it fear. They need to know that assassinating an American Ambassador comes with a heavy price. They "respect " the "strong horse" .
The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The problem is the, "strong horse" doesn't actually exist. It is a ideological construct for the convenience of domestic and foreign policy.
Academia.edu - Share research
It happens to be a premise that has been followed since the days of Ibn Khaldun ,and probably before Mohammed in the Middle East.
That may well be the case. But how you actually translate that into domestic and foreign policy is a world apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Read the link I provided
Hello again,
Watching Issa on FOX breaking news on Benghazi. We were attacked by terrorists..
Duh!
excon
Owebama for weeks was trying to convince everyone it was all about some damn movie nobody ever watched... in fact they arrested some poor man for making it for no reason at all... other than admit the fact... they screwed up. And Hillary Clinton was drunk and never even answered the phone when that 3am call came.
OK ,I'll give it a go although I know that you are aware that Post-structuralism is just another ism . I see it as a sort of academic circle jerk created by 1960s mushroom eaters trying to deconstruct standard logic and replace it with relativist mush. It's sort of a theory looking for a theory ;simular to Intelligent Design... which serves a useful purpose in poking holes in Evolutionary Theory ;but does not propose an alternate scientific explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
That's what we said 8 months ago while Obama was putting his shills out there saying it was spontaneous outrage at a video.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Duh.
Interesting ;a 20 page dissection of a fallacy of terminology . I guess a graduate student at Georgia State has too much time on his hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
In a world that strives for political correctness ,terms like "War on Terrorism" are acceptable alternatives to actually naming an enemy . He is correct that Terrorism is a tactic and not an enemy .Nor does calling an organization a 'terrorist organization ' explain their goals (unless of course they are nihilists with no purpose except that they have a pathology to blowing things up).
But everyone knows that there is a real enemy out there . Some call it radical Islam . I prefer to call it jihadistan . Sept.11,2001 was a terrorist attacks on our nation by Islamist Jihadis . Sept.11,2012 was a terrorist attacks on our nation by Islamist Jihadis. It makes no difference to me if it was on our shores ;or an attack on foreign shores . The enemy is the same.
Nick J. Sciullo calls it a battle against abstraction. I say that we have real identifiable enemies in this fight . Perhaps he'd better spend his time learning about the difference between the Westphalian state and the Islamic concept of the Califate . In fact our leaders fall into the same trap. Our enemy does not recognize national borders . He spends 20 pages knocking down an abstract . In 3 paragraphs I call out the flaw in his thesis. Truth be told ,he knows who the real enemy is. But as a graduate student ,he has to write something . When he or someone he cares about gets attacked by that abstract maybe he'll rethink his position.
The only flaw in your thinking Tom is that the enemy has a name but no zip code to drop a bomb on. Jihadist are so widespread that conventional warfare in so many countries that you cannot just invade one and destroy it, or even react with swiftness to a location. You do have to recognize that not only we as a country are targets, but many Islamic governments are also through out the Arab world and beyond.
To deny those many conflicts is to lose sight when trying to applying your type of single target retaliation. Benghazi was a terrible event, but there were bigger more devastating targets in sight that required resources besides a small isolated "mission" at the same time. We just have to wait for the full picture to be made clearer.
Unfortunately confusion and misdirection are the weapons that terrorist use. But our reactions cannot be to be effective.
What bigger more devastating target was more urgent than that terrorist attack?
If the report of the whistleblower is true then we do know where and who. We cannot let an attack like this go unanswered.Quote:
The only flaw in your thinking Tom is that the enemy has a name but no zip code to drop a bomb on.
You still don't get the significance of an Ambassador being assassinated ;and if what I think is true about the purpose of the mission ,it has far ranging implications.Quote:
Benghazi was a terrible event, but there were bigger more devastating targets in sight that required resources besides a small isolated "mission" at the same time. We just have to wait for the full picture to be made clearer.
Dems don't give a crap about any of it, they have one agenda in this and that's to protect Hillary at all cost. Who gives a rip about a dead ambassador when they have more elections to win?
And who has paid that price? No one, and do you think you are the strong horse, I think you are more like the old grey nag. You may as well chase a puff of wind as chase those who did the deed or attempt to find those who ordered itQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You saw how Ronald Regan Got Blohard Kadaffi to shut up and toe the line back in the day, And you saw how quick the Towelheads in Iran handed over the hostages when he got elected.. . Owebama could never do that because he defines the term Wishy-washy. Taking it away from Jimmy Carter.
So BO is on the nose in the strong horse stakes but everything isn't about strong arm or horse tactics
Reagan ran when 300 marine were killed and wounded by terrorist in Lebanon and paid the ransom for the hostages in Iran. And you guys are freakin' over Benghazi? How quickly you forget.
They are freaking out because they have no one to blame so they want to blame Evita, just in case she emerges as a candidate. This thing was SNAFU no doubt about that and there isn't someone you can drop a cruise missile on.
This is what you get when you don't follow the normal processes and are ering around in the backblocks
Obviously you don't think much post-structuralism in terms of its origins.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Firstly. The origins of a theory have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the theory itself. So I think we can dispense with that style of criticism.
Secondly. I am not sure what you call, "standard logic." Perhaps you can provide an explanation.
Thirdly. Post-structuralism is very much concerned with providing alternative explanations when it comes to the social sciences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, I can live with anyone( such as yourself) who deals in abstractions. However, we should draw the line when we start to believe these concepts actually have a particular existence of their own. That is to say in the same way as particular things have an actual existence.
This idea is fundamentally flawed because it is a category error. I believe Gilbert Ryle was mentioned in the article as the person who came up with that particular insight.
Category errors make for bad political policy. The enemy can also gradually become your own social, legal and political institutions.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 AM. |