Oh I know for a fact he won't, just gave my opinion on what should happen.TedSheckler;1270791 wrote:Threats won't work. And do you honestly think the POTUS would threaten Middle Eastern countries? Egypt is our ally, remember?
End of Line;1270793 wrote:Anonymous ⎝⏠⏝⏠⎠ ‏<S style="COLOR: rgb(187,187,187); TEXT-DECORATION: none">@</S>OperationLeakS
BREAKING: The US Embassy in <S style="COLOR: rgb(102,193,193); TEXT-DECORATION: none">#</S>Tunisia is on Firehttp://pic.twitter.com/89Ccoz3z
Shocking news from the Drudge report!QuakerOats;1270683 wrote:Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'...
State Dept 'had credible information 48 hours before'...
Revealed: Inside story of ambassador's assassination...
Sensitive documents go missing...
Exposed: Names of Libyans who are working with Americans...
Was 'revenge for drone strike'...
'There were 400 attackers'...
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DENIES...
PAPER: Egypt intelligence warned on Sept. 4 of possible attacks...
No, I was more pointing that on those that blame all Muslims/Islam for this. And I'm unaware that there were Afghans who died trying to prevent 9/11, there were Libyans who died trying to stop this.jmog;1270547 wrote:Horsecrap on equalizing those saying to blame Lybia as a country are just as bad as the people who did the killing. That is not only stupid, but honestly can't believe you posted something like that IWP.
That's like saying "well, those that blame Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks are just as bad as the Al Qaeda who planned the attacks."
Complete Bull$#!%
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you here but are you suggesting that we should threaten to attack Mecca or Medina as they are very holy cities in the minds of Muslims? Is that what you're alluding to?jmog;1270783 wrote:Beginning to wonder if a SERIOUS threat of retaliation against a major city that all of the protestors respect in common would be the best course of action to stop the violence.
I wonder what city they all care about, even from many different nations.
I'm not saying bomb the crap out of the city, I'm saying THREATEN to do it if the violence against our embassies does not stop within 24 hours (gives them time to spread the word).
This might be the dumbest thing written this week in the entire world, congrats.jmog;1270783 wrote:Beginning to wonder if a SERIOUS threat of retaliation against a major city that all of the protestors respect in common would be the best course of action to stop the violence.
I wonder what city they all care about, even from many different nations.
I'm not saying bomb the crap out of the city, I'm saying THREATEN to do it if the violence against our embassies does not stop within 24 hours (gives them time to spread the word).
Coming from a guy who posted something saying that those blaming the countries are just as bad as the terrorists, that is funny.I Wear Pants;1270818 wrote:This might be the dumbest thing written this week in the entire world, congrats.
I say those two need to be givens, but at a minimum some strategic drone strikes in each country involved (obviously targeting the people who did it) needs to be carried out as well.sleeper;1270868 wrote:The retaliation by the US should be simple. Pull the embassy out of the rioting country and cut any foreign aid to that country indefinitely.
Yeah, because that policy has worked so well for us the past 11 years.jmog;1270872 wrote:I say those two need to be givens, but at a minimum some strategic drone strikes in each country involved (obviously targeting the people who did it) needs to be carried out as well.
Do you really think threatening their holy places would lessen the violence? It would give any of those bastards plenty of recruiting material to get new guys to go plant IEDs or blow themselves up near our soldiers. Not worth it.jmog;1270865 wrote:Coming from a guy who posted something saying that those blaming the countries are just as bad as the terrorists, that is funny.
Probably a knee jerk reaction for sure, but being attacked on our soil by multiple nations and our diplomats being assassinated all within a couple days of each other...what would you have our country do IWP? More talks? More sanctions?
Someone needs to pay for this, and I don't mean jail time.
I also did not mean actually attacking the cities, I said to threaten it to see if the violence stops, they hold those cities in such high reverence that it might actually work (if they believe the 'satan of the west' would actually attack the cities).
I bet the drone attacks will happen, but they won't be made public.jmog;1270872 wrote:I say those two need to be givens, but at a minimum some strategic drone strikes in each country involved (obviously targeting the people who did it) needs to be carried out as well.
1. Can't really be watered down to a "few" anymore can it? The sheer number of attacks over the last few days necessitates it being called what it is. A major attack on our country.I Wear Pants;1270894 wrote:Do you really think threatening their holy places would lessen the violence? It would give any of those bastards plenty of recruiting material to get new guys to go plant IEDs or blow themselves up near our soldiers. Not worth it.
And you're obviously not as bad as the terrorists/this mob because you didn't kill anyone, that was a distinction that I think should have been added to that image I posted, but your doing the same thing they are intellectually in wanting to hold the entire religion/region/etc accountable for the actions of a few.
Agreed....although I'd still chuck a drone or two at them on the way out the door.I Wear Pants;1270892 wrote:Yeah, because that policy has worked so well for us the past 11 years.
Pull out our embassy and cut foreign aid. That sends exactly the message that needs to be sent. No need for us to waste our money or risk any of our military lives trying to bomb them or kill them which could just as likely kill people who had nothing to do with it.
Exactly.fish82;1270915 wrote:Agreed....although I'd still chuck a drone or two at them on the way out the door.
Actually all you need to do is click on the links and it takes you right to the source of the news ...... neat how that works.Bigdogg;1270808 wrote:Shocking news from the Drudge report!
So you're literally saying that the United States should threaten to bomb two cities in Saudi Arabia, the holiest cities in the minds of all muslims because of attacks committed by terrorist muslims in completely different nations.jmog;1270865 wrote:Coming from a guy who posted something saying that those blaming the countries are just as bad as the terrorists, that is funny.
Probably a knee jerk reaction for sure, but being attacked on our soil by multiple nations and our diplomats being assassinated all within a couple days of each other...what would you have our country do IWP? More talks? More sanctions?
Someone needs to pay for this, and I don't mean jail time.
I also did not mean actually attacking the cities, I said to threaten it to see if the violence stops, they hold those cities in such high reverence that it might actually work (if they believe the 'satan of the west' would actually attack the cities).
LMAOjmog;1270910 wrote:
2. I never said we SHOULD threaten the cities,
Read your own post!I'm not saying bomb the crap out of the city, I'm saying THREATEN to do it
jmog;1270783 wrote:Beginning to wonder if a SERIOUS threat of retaliation against a major city that all of the protestors respect in common would be the best course of action to stop the violence.
I wonder what city they all care about, even from many different nations.
I'm not saying bomb the crap out of the city, I'm saying THREATEN to do it if the violence against our embassies does not stop within 24 hours (gives them time to spread the word).
There, I posted the whole original quote not just your out of context snippet.BoatShoes;1271076 wrote:LMAO
Read your own post!
Reading comprehension is your friend.BoatShoes;1271070 wrote:So you're literally saying that the United States should threaten to bomb two cities in Saudi Arabia, the holiest cities in the minds of all muslims because of attacks committed by terrorist muslims in completely different nations.
You think that the foreign policy of the United States should be to threaten to attack totally unrelated cities.
Not to mention that you seem to believe that this would make these people less violent.
Unbelievable.
Agreed. Even threatening cities in countries that have nothing to do with this it's about as dumb as blowing up an embassy because some whack job preacher made a movie.tcarrier32;1271157 wrote:I love how some of the people on this site are reacting the way these attackers want you to, with bloodlust.
Just pull out, and leave them be. Beef up support at our remaining embassies and consulates.
Threats of violence, or even retaliatory attacks will only worsen the situation. Shame on those in this thread wishing death on my generation again. Fucking disgusting.
I wear pants wrote: So we have the right to just run roughshod over anyone and they are automatically the bad guys for using gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight.
