Jump to content

US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks


GostHacked

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your faulty grammar may be throwing me, but, again, what are you talking about? Where in that CBS article does it say Clinton apologized?

Did you read the headline?

Why did she have to qualify that the US doesn't want to insult anyone's religion? Who cares about their religion?

Did Denmark feel the need to comment on the Mohamed cartoons?

Why must the world feel the need to tip-toe around these people?

If a Christian killed Bill Maher for his Religulous movie would the government comment on the country's need to be inclusive and not offend other religions?

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the headline?

Why did she have to qualify that the US doesn't want to insult anyone's religion? Who cares about their religion?

Yes, I read the headline. I also saw the question mark at the end of it, which is the universal sign for misleading, speculative spin.

I thought you might be able to provide some insight into what she actually said that sounded like an apology to you. I guess saying the U.S. doesn't want to insult anyone's religion is an apology now?

I think, since there was a mob of raging lunatics at the embassy door who thought the U.S. was insulting their religion, she was just trying to contain that situation as well as she could. When you have crazed lunatics on one side trying to instigate a fight with crazed lunatics on the other, it seems prudent to be a voice of reason.

But I guess that's not what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if the mob thinks they're in the right then no.

What about sending Marines to Libya?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1255410--u-s-ambassador-to-libya-three-staffers-killed-in-attack

They killed the ambassador I think sending marines is more than warranted in this situation. I would say pulling out their people altogether might be a better idea but either way they are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes just like Bush said Saddam must go. I remember you were very supportive of that. FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP.

But Bush was also responsible for the aftermath. So must Obama be. No I wasn't supportive of ousting Mubarak because he was an ally. Replacing an ally with an extreme Islamic is the essence of idiocy. Kind of like Carter replace the Shah and giving us the Mullahs.

Shady: pro-dictator.

Nope, pro-ally, and anti-replacing allies with extremist Islamic regimes like Carter did in Iran, and now Obama in Egypt and Lybia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shows just how ill-informed you are. In both cases, Obama stated publicly that Mubarak must go, and that Gaddafi must go.

Shhh big kids are talking.

As per the US intelligence services and advice from top military brass. You have to be one of the most ill-informed posters on this board. Got some balloons to complain about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He knows that if he insults them they will start some violence.

This is a deliberate attempt to stir the pot.

Of course it is! And he is an ass for doing so.... but the violence is the sole responsibility of the perpetrators. If you are so faithful that a silly film makes you want to kill people, then you are an idiot and your faith is ridiculous. Crazy Muslim extremists can go to hell, like any religious nutbar. "Religion of peace"? My ass....

Edited by The_Squid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is! And he is an ass for doing so.... but the violence is the sole responsibility of the perpetrators. If you are so faithful that a silly film makes you want to kill people, then you and your faith suck ass. Crazy Muslim extremists can go to hell, like any religious nutbar. "Religion of peace"? My ass....

Do you go around provoking bears in the woods? Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you go around provoking bears in the woods? Why not?

Because the Bear will attack you. This guy is an ass and a coward but he didn't commit a crime. Just like the Danish Cartoonist and the Quran Burning Pastor didn't commit crimes. They're goal is to expose how absolutely insane these people are.

That being said, his douchiness shouldn't excuse the people in these countries that turned into a violent mob over an internet movie.

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you go around provoking bears in the woods? Why not?

We are not talking about bears and woods. We are talking about intolerant religious fanatics who happen to be human. You analogy is a bad one... bears are not as senseless as these people...

Do you always voluntarily remove your rights because of extremist religious idiots? Richard Dawkins receives threats all the time because of his books/lectures that are anti-religion. Should he just shut up?

Edited by The_Squid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...