In Ireland, correct!

next: http://i.imgur.com/PLaLI.jpg

You have to think of Islam's young age! Afterall, it's only 1400 years old, which in religious years makes it still just a teenager!

Put it in context, think what Christianity was doing when it was only 1400 years old... We're just lucky there weren't cellphones around to film that stuff back then

Correct

next: http://i.imgur.com/FWStx.jpg

Nope.

He's a regular contributor to a popular show in the US

nope

You are extremely intelligent! Well done

next: http://i.imgur.com/qEkbA.jpg

I was wondering what the Ambassador was doing at the consulate instead of the Embassy and why no one heard about or from the Consul

nope it's in Africa

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > Genesis wrote:

> 1. Actually I didn't, because there is no comparison. If you want to talk about major intelligence and operational blunder, 9/11 was it. A president who has been on the job for nearly an year and is caught totally with his pants down is your idea of a good president?

Then explain:
"> Genesis wrote:

> So when something bad happens during a Republican mandate, it's the Democrats fault. When something bad happens during a Democrat term, it's the Democrats fault too.

I think I can see your point."

In reply to Flint explaining why the failure to prevent 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton.  Any sensible person would draw this as a comparison of the two.

Additionally, exactly when did I say "Bush was not to blame?"  Putting blame on Clinton does not necessarily mean Bush is not to blame.  All I was doing was explaining the logic that you can't simply timestamp blame based on the day of the attack, but have to extend it to include the entirety of the operation.

Thank you, tha's what I was trying to get at. It's never one man's fault, like they're trying to pin down on Obama.

> 2. The embassy itself is not, but the thousands and thousands of kilometers surrounding it are. Are you implying the attack came from inside the embassy?

Considering the mortar attacks were focused on the embassy safehouse (which is kept secret for just such an occasion), and considering that a good portion of local security forces fled the emassy during the attack, I would suggest you not rule out the possibility that someone on the inside was complicit.

But that aside, the US has defensive mechanisms which could have been used, even if it's something as simple as "increase security."  Remember, the OP link, which you are not questioning the truth of, claims that the US ambassador actually told the government about his worries.  Once those fears were tipped off, it becomes the perogative of the government to either heed or ignore those worries.  At that point, it doesn't matter if the attack originated outside the embassy if there is something that could be done within the embassy.  This wasn't a random American tourist killed on the street.  This was an attack at a location which any government would use resources to secure against this very type of thing.

I don't know what the security forces were, I don't know what exactly the ambassador told his superiors, I will assume neither the ambassador is a martyr who doesn't mind dying for his country not the central government is happy to see officials die. I do not think trying to pin yet another thing on Obama is a valid argument in this case.

3. The distinction is you have alot more control and possibility to prevent an attack on your own soil, rather than an embassy on some forsaken place in the middle of a muslim state. Unless you wanted the US army to occupy all the surrounding areas of every US embassy in the Middle East. Do you?

Add US soldiers to protect the embassy, and possibly replace the foreign security officials with US security forces.  Done.  Better defenses against the attack, and I don't need to acknowledge your strawman attack.

Better defended against mortars?

> I suppose those embassies which got bombed to hell years ago were also Obama's fault.

Idiots

Seriously, Gen, stop it!  You're a former mod.  There's no reason you need to resort to either personal attacks or making strawman arguments.  You should know better.  Try to show some civility.

This has nothing to do with being a mod or not, it's a matter of common sense. Alot of people in this forum have a serious case of hatred towards Obama, and they make poor arguments, at best, to attack him. Half of them are spam. Most of them are based on idiocy, prejudice and party bias. It's a matter of fact.

Nooooooooooooow, if you excuse me, I will no longer reply to you as I will keep to my word and run! Good day!

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> 1: The comparison was drawn by both you and Primo first.  I'm only answering/following through on your reasoning.
2: A US embassy... is not foreign soil.
3: The distinctions in terms of prevention go right out the door once you consider the OP information, that DC was tipped off on the issue long beforehand.  Once the US got word from its ambassador (the guy who's actually in the country in question) that there was a heightened attack risk, the US was fully capable of increasing security or taking other measures to defensively prepare the attack.

Ok I'll play this game one time. Then I'm going to run because you turn into a robot!

1. Actually I didn't, because there is no comparison. If you want to talk about major intelligence and operational blunder, 9/11 was it. A president who has been on the job for nearly an year and is caught totally with his pants down is your idea of a good president?

2. The embassy itself is not, but the thousands and thousands of kilometers surrounding it are. Are you implying the attack came from inside the embassy?

3. The distinction is you have alot more control and possibility to prevent an attack on your own soil, rather than an embassy on some forsaken place in the middle of a muslim state. Unless you wanted the US army to occupy all the surrounding areas of every US embassy in the Middle East. Do you?

I suppose those embassies which got bombed to hell years ago were also Obama's fault.

Idiots

I'm sorry, are you trying to compare the highjacking of 4 civilian airplanes in american airports to perform attacks on your home ground to an attack in Libia?

I still don't understand you.