U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m jumping in a bit late here, but didn’t they attack an embassy? Isn’t that American soil?

Isn’t this an act of war?[/quote]

Did anyone ever answer this?[/quote]

Not the first time AQ has committed an act of war. Pakistan/Saudi Arabia etc. use AQ as a proxy to attack foreign interests - e.g. Mumbai Attacks. The IslamoNazi regime in Iran does the same thing - acts of war against Israel, the U.S. and the west via proxy groups. Even the Red Chinese are into it:

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16243293,00.html[/quote]

Well, it is also not the second or third time, because al Quaeda is entirely unable to commit an act of war.

Of violence, maybe, but so is every schmuck on the street.

202

Act of war:

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances.

Act of terrorism:

According to 6 CFR 25.2 [Title 6 Homeland Security; Chapter I Department Of Homeland Security, Office Of The Secretary; Part 25 Regulations To Support Anti-Terrorism By Fostering Effective Technologies], the term “Act of Terrorism” means "any act determined to have met the following requirements or such other requirements as defined and specified by the Secretary:

(1) Is unlawful;

(2) Causes harm, including financial harm, to a person, property, or entity, in the United States, or in the case of a domestic United States air carrier or a United States-flag vessel (or a vessel based principally in the United States on which United States income tax is paid and whose insurance coverage is subject to regulation in the United States), in or outside the United States; and

(3) Uses or attempts to use instrumentalities, weapons or other methods designed or intended to cause mass destruction, injury or other loss to citizens or institutions of the United States."

203

But lets look at another, entirely hypothetical scenario:

Lets say a nation, lets call her nation A, was exercising “effective control” of a region. Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations states that ?Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army?.

This would mean that country A had obligations under article 55 of the Geneva convention, which, if they were not met, would constitute a war crime.

Lets say one or more vessels of a country B were on their way with goods to relieve the civilian population and was attacked and boarded in international waters.

Since Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea prohibits that unless the vessel is engaged in piracy, the slave trade or is the same nationality as the warship, this would at the very least be an act of piracy and murder, if some of the civilians on this ship were to be killed.

Furthermore, if the attack is sanctioned by country As government this would not only be a breach of international law, if country A just so happened to have signed 1988 International Maritime Organization?s Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and if it was a UN member also Article 87 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, oh no, this either borders on being or simply is an act of war.

Now lets say country A claims that, oh no, we are not occupiers, this is a blockade.

Well, in that case, there are rules for blockades which have to be met and if they are not met, like arbitrarily deciding what you let through or not would make it unlawful.

No, a legal blockade explicitly states what goods are not ok and then removes them from the ships trying to break the blockade with them.

So if that blockade was illegal all the reasons above would still apply why boarding another nations vessel would be illegal and possibly a war crime, if, and that is in the grey area, a blockade actually is an act of war.

Since people seem to be eager to find “acts of war” I thought I would provide a pointer on how to find them if one was looking for them.

204

Thanks for those definitions orion. So what you’re saying is that these states use terrorism and terrorist groups as proxies to commit acts of war. And ‘plausible deniability’ doesn’t have to be the least bit plausible nowadays. You can be the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and deny any involvement in Muslim Brotherhood atrocities. Gotcha.

205

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I can see why you’d think it just “minor semantics.” And yet, it seems so damned hard to get a Muslim to make such a clear cut statement for some reason… [/quote]Is this a way of implying that my first post here wasn’t clear enough?

Even including the expansions and explanations afterwards?

Or are you in ‘just sayin’ mode?

Or is it all of the above?
Maybe something else entirely…?

I genuinely cannot tell

[quote]Let me ask: Do you feel that Muslims speak out sufficiently in opposition to this kind of stuff? [/quote]The whole non monolithic bit fits better in this question than the next one - and it’s also a major understatement.

I cannot blame you for thinking that there is a gap. There isn’t much organization by Muslims in America beyond the most basic level (from what I’ve seen anyways). You should see what Eid prayers look like around here. Every single mosque becomes way overcrowded, the parking is ridiculous. The prayer itself starts about an hour late, because the people from the last batch are being blocked in by the ones trying to enter. And the ones trying to get in are blocked by the guys who just finished (…I’m actually serious)

What I’m saying is that we can do better. What you’re highlighting is at least partially the symptom of a larger organizational problem.

…There is also another point that I must make. I think that when most of you do see Muslims speak out against it - it doesn’t even fully register. I imagine that most of the readers here have forgotten the link someone posted earlier of all those pictures.

I know I did. It may have lasted in my mind for maybe 30 minutes - tops. It’d have been gone forever from my mind if you hadn’t asked me this. People took some serious effort for that - and by the end of the day it doesn’t make a single dent.

[quote]And, granting that Islam is not monolithic, how do you feel about the not-insignificant number of Muslims who believe that death is the righteous punishment for aposty or blasphemy?[/quote]To be completely honest I don’t feel anything. What I mean is that it’s not on my radar. I’m not thinking about this often

I would stand against it if / when it were presented to me. I could very easily make a logical case to other Muslims for why this wouldn’t be a good idea. I could also hit’em with some from the Quran… doesn’t necessarily mean they would accept it I guess. I have no idea what the numbers are btw

If you feel that any of these were a dodge - it’s probably because they are forced. I don’t think in these terms

206

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I’m jumping in a bit late here, but didn’t they attack an embassy? Isn’t that American soil?

Isn’t this an act of war?[/quote]

Did anyone ever answer this?[/quote]

No its obviously not.

If the Egyptian government had done this, then yes, or if lets say a government attacked another nations vessel on the high seas, that is an act of war.

As a hard and fast rule, wars need at least two governments and a howling mob is not a government.[/quote]

Alrighty, thanks for that.

208

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Thanks for those definitions orion. So what you’re saying is that these states use terrorism and terrorist groups as proxies to commit acts of war. And ‘plausible deniability’ doesn’t have to be the least bit plausible nowadays. You can be the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and deny any involvement in Muslim Brotherhood atrocities. Gotcha.[/quote]

These countries or people in this country?

There is a difference you know, like American citizens funding the IRA is one thing, whereas Israel and the US funding and training Kurdish organizations which arguably do indulge in terrorism is quite another.

So, is this more like the first or the latter?

209

[quote]orion wrote:

These countries or people in this country?

[/quote]

…both.

[quote]
There is a difference you know, like American citizens funding the IRA is one thing, whereas Israel and the US funding and training Kurdish organizations which arguably do indulge in terrorism is quite another.

So, is this more like the first or the latter? [/quote]

Not like either. Also, the funding and training of Kurdish separatists was in response to many years of Iranian terrorism directed at the west. And Kurdish separatists, whilst arguably engaged in terrorism of one form or another are pursuing a realistic and rational goal. They don’t want a global caliphate and they don’t incite genocide. They merely want sovereignty over their own homelands.

210

Obama and Clinton lied in front of 4 flag draped caskets to the American people about Lybia

211

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Obama and Clinton lied in front of 4 flag draped caskets to the American people about Lybia[/quote]

Of course they did. Those deaths are a direct reflection on their job performance in carrying out their duty to keep Americans safe. This affects Obama electoral chances this year and Hillary’s chances later on. They needed a suitable cooling off period so the media could feed us the bad news in small manageable bites instead of all at once.

This way they later on they can claim to have told us the truth. Even though it was done in such a way that it was merely background noise amid the hue and cry over Romney saying that forty seven percent of Obama voters are going to vote for him no matter what because they are dependent upon the government.

212

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Obama and Clinton lied in front of 4 flag draped caskets to the American people about Lybia[/quote]

Of course they did. Those deaths are a direct reflection on their job performance in carrying out their duty to keep Americans safe. This affects Obama electoral chances this year and Hillary’s chances later on. They needed a suitable cooling off period so the media could feed us the bad news in small manageable bites instead of all at once.

This way they later on they can claim to have told us the truth. Even though it was done in such a way that it was merely background noise amid the hue and cry over Romney saying that forty seven percent of Obama voters are going to vote for him no matter what because they are dependent upon the government.[/quote]

Shit makes me sick.

Fuck the media in this country. No one but Fox is reporting this. But don’t worry the Daily Show is posting videos about how “evil” fox is on Google+ and the zombies are eating it up.

213

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Or we could just apologize for being American and act like this was all our fault.

.[/quote]

You know what is America’s fault? Freedom & Strength.

Freedom to say what you think and know you won’t be slaughtered for it, and the Strength to not slaughter another for speaking their thoughts. [/quote]

Agreed. Tragedies like this one only serve to accentuate our greatness.[/quote]

Agreed, taking it up the arse only continues to prove that you’re straight.

214

More forces at work here than just the September 11 murder, but that was certainly a catalyst. Good to be reminded that there are a lot of descent people on our side over there.

215

A couple of years ago in Belgium there was a big scandal concerning certain Christian priests mistreating young children. Everywhere in the news & in daily life people were talking about how bad this was etc. I know a lot of Christians who actually said they wanted to distance themselves from the Church but not from their faith. Hell, the public reaction was extreme. The synopsis is: bad things happened in the Church and the Christians / public reacted very very strongly (too strongly I think, it should be treated as a criminal case, nothing more). Now “bad things happened in Islam” (the killing of the innocent ambassador etc)…and I am putting it extremely mildly here. Nobody seems to critize Islam, especially not Muslims themselves. Have the actors of this deed been brought to justice? Why these differences between reactions?

There are tons of blasphemous things around about Christianity. Do Christians start randomly killing people? No. One blasphemous video of Islam appears and those extremists seem to think this is the Apocalypse. Why do people accept this?

Try to go as a Christian to a Muslim country…you need to adapt to their rules (which I understand), put up with extreme racism and it is sometimes even dangerous.
Try to go as a Muslim to a Christian country (I mean where the majority are Christians, we usually separated state & religion)…nothing happens. All they do is impose their views without any problems.
Why?

For every minor criticism one might have considering the Islam, you’re branded as a racist. At the same time you can’t open the newspaper without reading criticism about Christianity (in Europe anyway). Why?

I could go on and on giving these examples. However what they have in common are these DOUBLE STANDARDS. While I understand the extremists don’t represent the Islam as a whole, I will critize Islam as a whole as long as “moderate Muslims” do not openly & strongly reject extremists and as long as these pathetic double standards still exist.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mak & AC, this was an act of war and I am honestly flabbergasted due to the weak response from the White House. For starters the criminals should be delivered to the USA, they should allow the FBI to investigate everything (I don’t know if the FBI works oversees but you catch my drift) in a reasonable timetable (which is already passed I believe). If not the USA has to be consequent, an act of war justifies war.

EDIT: I didn’t read the last posts about this not being an act of war. In that case disregard what I said about war. However my opinion on the White House’s reaction still stands.

217

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:
A couple of years ago in Belgium there was a big scandal concerning certain Christian priests mistreating young children. Everywhere in the news & in daily life people were talking about how bad this was etc. I know a lot of Christians who actually said they wanted to distance themselves from the Church but not from their faith. Hell, the public reaction was extreme. The synopsis is: bad things happened in the Church and the Christians / public reacted very very strongly (too strongly I think, it should be treated as a criminal case, nothing more). Now “bad things happened in Islam” (the killing of the innocent ambassador etc)…and I am putting it extremely mildly here. Nobody seems to critize Islam, especially not Muslims themselves. Have the actors of this deed been brought to justice? Why these differences between reactions?

There are tons of blasphemous things around about Christianity. Do Christians start randomly killing people? No. One blasphemous video of Islam appears and those extremists seem to think this is the Apocalypse. Why do people accept this?

Try to go as a Christian to a Muslim country…you need to adapt to their rules (which I understand), put up with extreme racism and it is sometimes even dangerous.
Try to go as a Muslim to a Christian country (I mean where the majority are Christians, we usually separated state & religion)…nothing happens. All they do is impose their views without any problems.
Why?

For every minor criticism one might have considering the Islam, you’re branded as a racist. At the same time you can’t open the newspaper without reading criticism about Christianity (in Europe anyway). Why?

I could go on and on giving these examples. However what they have in common are these DOUBLE STANDARDS. While I understand the extremists don’t represent the Islam as a whole, I will critize Islam as a whole as long as “moderate Muslims” do not openly & strongly reject extremists and as long as these pathetic double standards still exist.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mak & AC, this was an act of war and I am honestly flabbergasted due to the weak response from the White House. For starters the criminals should be delivered to the USA, they should allow the FBI to investigate everything (I don’t know if the FBI works oversees but you catch my drift) in a reasonable timetable (which is already passed I believe). If not the USA has to be consequent, an act of war justifies war.

EDIT: I didn’t read the last posts about this not being an act of war. In that case disregard what I said about war. However my opinion on the White House’s reaction still stands.[/quote]

Just curious, but where do you live?[/quote]

Belgium, small town between Brussels & Bruges. The center of socialism, almost communism, anti-Americanism, politically correctness and Muslim immigration. Luckily I have plenty of opportunities to travel.

220

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Xav wrote:
A couple of years ago in Belgium there was a big scandal concerning certain Christian priests mistreating young children. Everywhere in the news & in daily life people were talking about how bad this was etc. I know a lot of Christians who actually said they wanted to distance themselves from the Church but not from their faith. Hell, the public reaction was extreme. The synopsis is: bad things happened in the Church and the Christians / public reacted very very strongly (too strongly I think, it should be treated as a criminal case, nothing more). Now “bad things happened in Islam” (the killing of the innocent ambassador etc)…and I am putting it extremely mildly here. Nobody seems to critize Islam, especially not Muslims themselves. Have the actors of this deed been brought to justice? Why these differences between reactions?

There are tons of blasphemous things around about Christianity. Do Christians start randomly killing people? No. One blasphemous video of Islam appears and those extremists seem to think this is the Apocalypse. Why do people accept this?

Try to go as a Christian to a Muslim country…you need to adapt to their rules (which I understand), put up with extreme racism and it is sometimes even dangerous.
Try to go as a Muslim to a Christian country (I mean where the majority are Christians, we usually separated state & religion)…nothing happens. All they do is impose their views without any problems.
Why?

For every minor criticism one might have considering the Islam, you’re branded as a racist. At the same time you can’t open the newspaper without reading criticism about Christianity (in Europe anyway). Why?

I could go on and on giving these examples. However what they have in common are these DOUBLE STANDARDS. While I understand the extremists don’t represent the Islam as a whole, I will critize Islam as a whole as long as “moderate Muslims” do not openly & strongly reject extremists and as long as these pathetic double standards still exist.

I wholeheartedly agree with Mak & AC, this was an act of war and I am honestly flabbergasted due to the weak response from the White House. For starters the criminals should be delivered to the USA, they should allow the FBI to investigate everything (I don’t know if the FBI works oversees but you catch my drift) in a reasonable timetable (which is already passed I believe). If not the USA has to be consequent, an act of war justifies war.

EDIT: I didn’t read the last posts about this not being an act of war. In that case disregard what I said about war. However my opinion on the White House’s reaction still stands.[/quote]

Just curious, but where do you live?[/quote]

Belgium, small town between Brussels & Bruges. The center of socialism, almost communism, anti-Americanism, politically correctness and Muslim immigration. Luckily I have plenty of opportunities to travel.
[/quote]
Huh, even better than I thought :slight_smile:

I guessed you weren’t American, and that typically means a different attitude than yours around here.

A pleasant surprise.[/quote]

It sounds like he’s right in the middle of a marxist multi-cultural enrichment zone. The people who actually have to live with the end results of the marxist agenda have a different view.

What is happening to Europe is gerrymandering through immigration. Elections are an inconvenience. The left know that independent thinking European voters can’t be trusted to consistently give them the “correct vote”. What they have figured out is they can avoid this problem by importing voters who they make loyal by pandering to them in ways they never would for the unreliable indigenous people.

Leftists get along well with muslims because their ideology is very tribal and pushes group thinking over independent thought. So convinced are they in the morality and correctness of their ideology they have no inhibitions against dealing with critics ruthlessly.

This is why even minor criticism or merely voicing an observation of something that is self evident will immediately bring shrill accusations of racism.