TedSheckler;1270791 wrote:Threats won't work. And do you honestly think the POTUS would threaten Middle Eastern countries? Egypt is our ally, remember?

Oh I know for a fact he won't, just gave my opinion on what should happen.

This is the worst attacks on the US since 9/11 and so far we are sitting back giving speeches about civility.

End of Line;1270793 wrote:Anonymous &#9117;&#9184;&#9181;&#9184;&#9120; &#8207;<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

Change we can believe in...

Looks like we have to apologize to the Tunisians now.

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...

Shocking news from the Drudge report!

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$#!%

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.

As for the apology thing that some here are so upset about, that "apology" (it wasn't one) was released several hours before this happened and the statement was amended after the statement to condemn this act of violence.

The position I'm in is basically "it's unfortunate that some people use their freedom to say/write inflammatory things. However, that is our protected right as Americans and if you have a problem with the statements of an individual you can seek redress in court not buy killing people Killing a person removes any and all sympathy"

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).

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.

I Wear Pants;1270818 wrote:This might be the dumbest thing written this week in the entire world, congrats.

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).

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.

Jmog isn't entirely off base. I don't think any violence needs to be instituted by the USA but letting these people kill innocent US citizens is UNACCEPTABLE. We can't just sit back and let them walk all over us.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

I bet the drone attacks will happen, but they won't be made public.

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.

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.

2. I never said we SHOULD threaten the cities, I wondered aloud if it would stop the violence. I also never said or thought it was the correct or right thing to do. I believe I even started the post with "I am beginning to wonder if..." you can compare me to terrorists if you like, it just makes you look as stupid as if you said I was just as bad as the terrorists with some text in a picture. Oh wait, you already did that.

I am not saying annihilate entire countries, I am saying attack strategic locations in multiple countries.

Also, by your standards war or an attack would never be an acceptable retaliation for an attack against the US. Because, as sad as it is, there are always civilians hurt or killed in wars. It sucks but the alternative is being a doormat and letting these radicals walk all over us.

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.

Agreed....although I'd still chuck a drone or two at them on the way out the door.

fish82;1270915 wrote:Agreed....although I'd still chuck a drone or two at them on the way out the door.

Exactly.

Bigdogg;1270808 wrote:Shocking news from the Drudge report!

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.

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).

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.

jmog;1270910 wrote:
2. I never said we SHOULD threaten the cities,

LMAO

I'm not saying bomb the crap out of the city, I'm saying THREATEN to do it

Read your own post!

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).

BoatShoes;1271076 wrote:LMAO



Read your own post!

There, I posted the whole original quote not just your out of context snippet.

Look again, at the very beginning I said "I'm beginning to wonder IF..."

It was a hypothetical and never said that I believed we absolutely should do it.

Read it again, it basically said "I wonder if threatening certain cities would stop the terrorists from attacking"

No where did I say we should do it, that is unless you take only a portion of the text and cut the rest out like you did.

You are smarter than that Boat, don't stoop to that level.

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.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

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.

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.

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.

gosh a ruddies we can see attitudes toward those who attack Americans

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.