Consider the source, but if true a head needs to roll

[umbrella39]

Your unimaginative and snarky attempt to involve Obama makes you look stupid, did you know that.

Coming off as an uninformed partisan retard has never stopped him or his retarded ilk before. Why stop now.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's not really amnesia so much as it's that there are absolutely no consequences for being absolutely full of shit. Nobody ever really gets called on it, certainly not by people on their "side". So why not just repeat every unsubstantiated thing you hear and see what sticks? If it turns out you're wrong, no need to even apologize, just move on to the next thing. I give the OP some credit for prefacing a totally unsubstantiated, fairly suspicious story with "consider the source", which is notable mainly because you hardly ever see that sort of thing.

That's what amazes and disgusts me. The extreme extent people will go to to legitimize what is obviously complete and utter bullshit. It just makes me sick to think that people would rather their side be right than know what reality actually is. Or at least acknowledge it publicly. It's just sad and pathetic.

 

[Emos]

Looks like is BS as usual.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Ignore the source, refer to letter at the bottom.

That's nice to know actually, and the Marines acted like the professionals they are.

 

[Emos]

It's not really amnesia so much as it's that there are absolutely no consequences for being absolutely full of shit. Nobody ever really gets called on it, certainly not by people on their "side". So why not just repeat every unsubstantiated thing you hear and see what sticks? If it turns out you're wrong, no need to even apologize, just move on to the next thing. I give the OP some credit for prefacing a totally unsubstantiated, fairly suspicious story with "consider the source", which is notable mainly because you hardly ever see that sort of thing.

This is what I find despondent also, the "by any means necessary" and the "end justifies the means" mentality to advancing political agendas is simply toxic to rational discourse and problem solving.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not really amnesia so much as it's that there are absolutely no consequences for being absolutely full of shit. Nobody ever really gets called on it, certainly not by people on their "side". So why not just repeat every unsubstantiated thing you hear and see what sticks? If it turns out you're wrong, no need to even apologize, just move on to the next thing. I give the OP some credit for prefacing a totally unsubstantiated, fairly suspicious story with "consider the source", which is notable mainly because you hardly ever see that sort of thing.

You note I didn't once mention "Obama this or that", right? The problem is that while the veracity of the story is in doubt, the significance of it is not. I'd also suggest that the piece I posted is unverified by official statements and so is the one that is cited as repudiation. Frankly I hope that the second is true, but both remain unverified. As that is the case what grounds does the poster you quoted have in fact to render a statement of condemnation or vindication other than "whack a mole"?

Perhaps its the fact that anything brought up which does not reflect positively at the start on how things were handled were at issue. I don't see much objectivity in declaring the "the other side" wrong. Worse, the ingrained concept of having to have a side promotes foolishness in otherwise intelligent people.

Pick a side if you must, and that goes for left or right, but please do so based on something more than political favoritism.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's what amazes and disgusts me. The extreme extent people will go to to legitimize what is obviously complete and utter bullshit. It just makes me sick to think that people would rather their side be right than know what reality actually is. Or at least acknowledge it publicly. It's just sad and pathetic.

I agree. I hope your link proves to be the correct version of events. As I said at the very beginning if this was not true the Ambassador isn't at fault but those who make a claim based on nothing. If the opposite comes to pass I hold to my initial opinion as well.

Lets keep our eyes on developments so the matter is settled.

 

[davmat787]

For the record, an embassy is not US Soil. The land belongs to the host country. The protections an embassy is provided are a diplomatic courtesy.

Then how come Julian Assange is all safe tucked away in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? The UK can't touch him while he is in there from what I understand, because of long standing diplomatic rules that the Embassy is considered on soil of the related country, not the host country.

Am I missing something?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I agree. I hope your link proves to be the correct version of events. As I said at the very beginning if this was not true the Ambassador isn't at fault but those who make a claim based on nothing. If the opposite comes to pass I hold to my initial opinion as well.

Lets keep our eyes on developments so the matter is settled.

Hey I'll be the first to say I was impressed on your multiple attempts to qualify the version as unverified. Far more integrity than many would have in presenting the story.

 

[schneiderguy]

Anne Patterson

Women tend to live in la-la land and think no one will ever hurt them. They probably should be kept of out unstable countries/war zones.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Women tend to live in la-la land and think no one will ever hurt them. They probably should be kept of out unstable countries/war zones.

Perhaps you should tell that to Golda Meyer's family. I'd also suggest to wait to see what the ambassador did and just what happened before deciding she is unfit. This thread is about the potential harm that may have befallen people at the embassy and if handled badly then there should be severe consequences. Likewise if she exercised good judgement and faithfully fulfilled her obligations I commend her.

 

[TerryMathews]

Then how come Julian Assange is all safe tucked away in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? The UK can't touch him while he is in there from what I understand, because of long standing diplomatic rules that the Embassy is considered on soil of the related country, not the host country.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, you're missing the fact that we aren't afforded the same protections and privileges we were used to because there are no repercussions when countries treat us badly. We just continue to turn the other cheek, smile, and apologize.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey I'll be the first to say I was impressed on your multiple attempts to qualify the version as unverified. Far more integrity than many would have in presenting the story.

I've had a few hats in my day and have been put in situations where life and limb were at stake. The thought of individuals sacrificed for political gain, no matter the justification does not sit well. We did that in Vietnam.

My personal history makes me more sensitive than some to such events I'm sure, and so I posted. Even so I realized that there would be a tendency by some on both sides to poison the intent and so felt the necessity to beat what I thought was becoming a dead horse. In retrospect I'm glad I didn't stop 😉

 

[FuzzyBee]

What's interesting is that according to this article:

There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: "The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs."

 

[Brainonska511]

Then how come Julian Assange is all safe tucked away in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? The UK can't touch him while he is in there from what I understand, because of long standing diplomatic rules that the Embassy is considered on soil of the related country, not the host country.

Am I missing something?

It's a diplomatic courtesy and the UK isn't willing to cause an international incident over Assange by entering the embassy without the ambassador's permission. And then there are treaties to consider and your own diplomatic missions to consider.

From an article about Assange:

Under international law, security forces across the world are not allowed to enter an embassy without the express permission of the ambassador – even though the embassy remains the territory of the host nation. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations codified the "rule of inviolability", which all nations observe because their own diplomatic missions are otherwise at risk elsewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador

 

[Doppel]

In light of the fact that we know soldiers in airports at times have not had ammunition this doesn't surprise me. Not saying it's true, but it seems incredibly plausible.

 

[Wreckem]

Then how come Julian Assange is all safe tucked away in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London? The UK can't touch him while he is in there from what I understand, because of long standing diplomatic rules that the Embassy is considered on soil of the related country, not the host country.

Am I missing something?

A country can sever diplomatic ties and kick an embassy out at any time if it wanted to. Its treated as sovereign soil only as long as there are diplomatic ties.