US Embassy response to attack on compound in Egypt

[Jebus]

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.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2012 by Jebus

[StringJunky]

What's wrong with it?

[Jebus]

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

[Iota]

Looks like a plead to the terrorists not to kill any Americans, by stating that the people they are killing aren't 'responsible' for what they're 'protesting'. Those who expressed free speech are being condemned and the terrorists are being, almost, apologised to.

 

They should state instead that the rest of the world does not fall under Islamic law and doesn't have to comply to their fairytale belief system.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Iota

[md65536]

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

 

That seems appropriate.

 

1. Condemning one thing doesn't mean that nothing else is condemned. They don't have to list everything that's condemned, lest they imply that everything else is sanctioned.

2. They wouldn't be immature and say "Well I guess inciting violence is not as bad as the violence itself, therefore we won't condemn those who incite violence because then we're taking sides..."

3. Condemning incitement of violence is pretty clear-cut. Condemning attackers needs finesse. If you don't do so, for example with a tough but tactless stance, saying things like "Bring it on," then people can get killed.

 

Things are not the same as they were 10 years ago.

 

If there's an ongoing effort to avoid condemning attacks, that's something else, but a single instance of condemning something besides the attacks isn't "inept".

[JMJones0424]

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

 

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.

[Iota]

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.

 

Good point. Although it's still very possible that it was the US embassy attempting to pre-emptively appease the Egyptian Muslim citizens. Which to say the least, was a good idea; to try save the lives of the embassy officials. But they still pointed condemnation in the wrong direction I think... beforehand.

 

Edit: In contrast to this, Obama condemned it plainly.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Iota

[swansont]

Good point. Although it's still very possible that it was the US embassy attempting to pre-emptively appease the Egyptian Muslim citizens. Which to say the least, was a good idea; to try save the lives of the embassy officials. But they still pointed condemnation in the wrong direction I think... beforehand.

Wrong direction? How can you condemn something that hasn't happened yet?

[Jebus]

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.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Jebus

[john5746]

Yeah, they should have posted the following:

 

 

"Bring it on, we'll stick a boot in your a**"

 

Yep, I miss our former redneck foreign policy

[swansont]

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.

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

[Iota]

Wrong direction? How can you condemn something that hasn't happened yet?

 

Purely from the standpoint that the US embassy has been attacked in Cairo before, and they seemed to be anticipating action from the apologetic way the statement is written on their website. I think they saw it coming; you're right that they obviously can't say "How dare you attack our embassy!?" a day before it happened. That's a little bit fully insane. But the way they write it is in condemnation of the film maker (I know nothing about the film BTW), and seemingly pleading with Egyptian Moslems not to take action.

 

But as I said, to try and save lives at the time was more than acceptable; but after the attacks which killed embassy officials, Hillary Clinton comes on TV and talks about what a great religion Islam is (which... OK, fine.), but saying it in response to the attacks is darn right ridiculous. 'Some Moslems killed US officials? What a great religion! Damn those people who offended you!'. This to me, backs up the idea of the approach the embassy was taking beforehand. Sucking up to avoid any violence, but in the process condemning free speech.

 

^It made sense in my head. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I think that's a reasonable premise.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Iota

[swansont]

Purely from the standpoint that the US embassy has been attacked in Cairo before, and they seemed to be anticipating action from the apologetic way the statement is written on their website. I think they saw it coming; you're right that they obviously can't say "How dare you attack our embassy!?" a day before it happened. That's a little bit fully insane. But the way they write it is in condemnation of the film maker (I know nothing about the film BTW), and seemingly pleading with Egyptian Moslems not to take action.

 

But as I said, to try and save lives at the time was more than acceptable; but after the attacks which killed embassy officials, Hillary Clinton comes on TV and talks about what a great religion Islam is (which... OK, fine.), but saying it in response to the attacks is darn right ridiculous. 'Some Moslems killed US officials? What a great religion! Damn those people who offended you!'. This to me, backs up the idea of the approach the embassy was taking beforehand. Sucking up to avoid any violence, but in the process condemning free speech.

 

^It made sense in my head. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but I think that's a reasonable premise.

I think it tacitly assumes that Muslims are a monolithic collection of people. Which is the same mistake as assuming the US is a monolithic collection as well, which is what the statement was trying to point out — the video expressed views that are not representative of the US as a whole, or of the government. Just like the people that attacked are not representing all of Islam.

[CaptainPanic]

Yeah, they should have posted the following:

 

 

"Bring it on, we'll stick a boot in your a**"

 

Yep, I miss our former redneck foreign policy

The rest of the world doesn't.

[waitforufo]

What's the big deal anyway? According to President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney, attacks on an American embassy and murder of an American ambassador are not attacks on the United States. They are simply inappropriate expressions of anger against a video. Nothing to see here, just move along.

 

http://freebeacon.com/carney-protests-not-directed-at-the-united-states/

[Iota]

What's the big deal anyway? According to President Obama's spokesman Jay Carney, attacks on an American embassy and murder of an American ambassador are not attacks on the United States. They are simply inappropriate expressions of anger against a video. Nothing to see here, just move along.

 

http://freebeacon.co...-united-states/

 

Hah crikey... also burning the American flag doesn't display hate for America, it's just they ordered too many and needed to get rid of some anyway.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Iota

[ElasticCollision]

 

This video has quite a good analysis of this subject.

[Jebus]

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.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Jebus

[swansont]

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.

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

 

They should state instead that the rest of the world does not fall under Islamic law and doesn't have to comply to their fairytale belief system.

Thank goodness that people in the US never get bent out of shape over kerfuffles involving our main fairytale belief system.

[Jebus]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

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.

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.

 

——

 

I can recall two series of events in the US over the years over religious films. Life of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ. I saw the first one in the theater, and it was being picketed as blasphemy, by people who had probably not seen the film. I didn't see the second, but it was the same scenario — protests by people upset over something most had not seen; at least one of those protests was violent. One difference, other than allegedly being Christian blasphemy, was that the films were shown in countries that already had free speech, and people understood that these were not government-sanctioned propaganda, so the protests happened at theaters instead of at embassies. Of course, youtube didn't exist then, and the internet makes it hard to protest where the film is being shown. 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.

[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?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Jebus