If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Two US embassies attacked and the craven diplomatic response to it would seem to be the sort of thing that warrants New York Times front-page coverage, yes? Not if it crowds out a Romney hit-piece it's not   (nytimes.com) divider line 399
    More: Obvious, United States, CTU, embassy, Benjamin Netanyahu, warrants, State Senator Roy J. McDonald, military strike  
•       •       •

4133 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Sep 2012 at 10:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



399 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-12 10:48:39 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Moopy Mac: You expect some IT worker to stop a rampaging band of armed lunatics? I'm sure YOU would, but why would you expect that out of some contractor?

Try a Wackenhut or Xe mercenary.
Why would an IT guy hang around to watch the American ambassador and three others get killed by a mob?
Think about it.


More likely it is a local doing grunt work like the majority of employees at US embassies around the world.

/And there is no such thing as Xe anymore.
 
2012-09-12 10:49:09 AM

Gulper Eel: The concept of below-the-fold applies to broadsheets, not tabloids.


I thought broads were the main audience for tabloids, no?
 
2012-09-12 10:49:45 AM

skinnycatullus: the craven diplomatic response to it

I'm confused about what this is supposed to mean. The only official response I've seen has been condemnation.


They didn't have the marines massacre the mob with Mark 19 automatic grenade launchers. I think that would have played great on the evening news.
 
2012-09-12 10:50:04 AM
So let's see if we can sort the timeline out as close as possible:

- A Jewish director, Sam Bacile (More like Im Becile), a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, wrote and directed a movie that depicts Muhammad as a pedo/womanizer/fraud. Which is probably true but let's be honest, an asshole thing to do.

- This movie was bankrolled by over 100 jewish donors and was promoted by Terry Jones, who if anyone has not heard the name before is a 'Christian' asshole who has incited international violence in the past and was on the Secret Service watch list.

- A 13-minute trailer for the film was first uploaded to YouTube in July, but did not receive much attention.

- A week ago the trailer got translated into Arabic and reposted on the same YouTube channel. Things get interesting-er.

- All of a sudden, super butthurt by Islamists as they start seeing the trailer.

- There's a protest last night at the Libyan embassy. There were obviously some security problems because some of the protesters were in fact terrorists from the Ansar al-Shari'ah organization.

- They got into the embassy and killed a bunch of people, including the US ambassador.

- The Egyptian embassy, also facing protests and not wanting to be murdered, denounced the hatred that was directed at Islam, obviously an attempt to defuse the situation there. "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the embassy said in a statement published online.

- Mitt Romney, who knows nothing about international politics but is running for President and sees this as a chance to attack the president on foreign policy, said "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," and went on to say, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's Weeners was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." Which is just a bunch of spin.

- The US government said what Egypt said was not an official US stance.

- Hillary clarified the US's position and said "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

- Some newspapers picked up on the killings late and didn't have time to get them to press.

And probably somewhere in the background some Israelis are sitting back in the aftermath of the attacks and evilly twiddling their thumbs.
 
2012-09-12 10:50:28 AM

Moopy Mac: /And there is no such thing as Xe anymore.


Yeah. Changed its name again, no doubt.

/Only an apologist would know something like that. Or care.
 
2012-09-12 10:50:57 AM

Gulper Eel: Yeah, totally there was no way to get that news on the front page before press time.


Do you ever get tired of getting outraged over stupid, inconsequential stuff?
 
2012-09-12 10:51:26 AM

Gulper Eel: Yeah, totally there was no way to get that news on the front page before press time.

[webmedia.newseum.org image 700x875] 

And the news about the first consulate employee killed broke at around 8:30, which is PLENTY of time for a newspaper with its shiat together to rework a front page.


maybe having to apologize to their readers for cheerleading the invasion of Iraq is giving them pause on this one...
 
2012-09-12 10:51:56 AM

Gulper Eel: NY Times headline for Armageddon: "WORLD ENDS: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit"


Also too"

ASTRONOMERS SAY ASTEROID TO HIT EARTH IN ONE YEAR. SOME DISAGREE.

Some being one or two creationists.
 
2012-09-12 10:52:13 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Moopy Mac: /And there is no such thing as Xe anymore.

Yeah. Changed its name again, no doubt.

/Only an apologist would know something like that. Or care.


Academi

/not an apologist
 
2012-09-12 10:52:33 AM
Anyone find it depressing that international diplomacy and communications are now conducted via Twitter?
 
2012-09-12 10:52:39 AM
Why not combine them? The story here should be a Romney hit-piece about his bullshiat statement regarding the attacks.
 
2012-09-12 10:52:41 AM

bdub77:
Mitt Romney, who knows nothing about international politics but is running for President and sees this as a chance to attack the president on foreign policy, said "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," and went on to say, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administrati ...


Also, Mitt Romney did not say anything about Obama's Weeners. :)
 
2012-09-12 10:53:51 AM

dofus: Anyone find it depressing that international diplomacy and communications are now conducted via Twitter?


No. I find it sad that there are single sourcing multi-channel delivery mechanisms and the only one that gets reported on is the Tweet as if that is the only outlet for the information.
 
2012-09-12 10:53:58 AM

Paul Baumer: So, two things are now clear (although they were fairly obvious already) - Romney and his campaign aren't going to let any foolish old fashioned "water's edge" patriotism impact how they do business, and they know they are so far behind this is the only way they can hope to get back in it. I suspect it will cause more to share the President's purported distaste for the man as an intellectually and morally bereft lightweight. What an ITG.


What else can he do? All he's got is some shoddy "the president is soft on terrorists!" narrative to run with. And if those responsible for the attack are quickly arrested, he'll have to downplay the importance of the whole incident and try to focus attention back on domestic issues. Either way he's forced to react to the administration's lead on foreign affairs - where they've been pretty solid in the past.
 
2012-09-12 10:54:54 AM

bdub77: bdub77:
Mitt Romney, who knows nothing about international politics but is running for President and sees this as a chance to attack the president on foreign policy, said "I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," and went on to say, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administrati ...

Also, Mitt Romney did not say anything about Obama's Weeners. :)


Let's be honest. In the area of weeners, Romney is probably not going to be the one to come out ahead.
 
2012-09-12 10:55:46 AM

Parthenogenetic: HotIgneous Intruder: Moopy Mac: /And there is no such thing as Xe anymore.

Yeah. Changed its name again, no doubt.

/Only an apologist would know something like that. Or care.

Academi

/not an apologist


If someone on fark went about changing his name every so often, there'd be a name for that.
Corporations with something to hide and protect, dissolve the entity and move on blameless, nothing to be proud of here! Move along imperial citizen.
 
2012-09-12 10:57:25 AM
Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?
 
2012-09-12 10:57:45 AM

Moopy Mac: Am I missing something?

"U.S Envoy to Libya Is Killed in Attack" is the top story on the front page.

NY Times front page


The lame stream media is covering up Obama's failures. Don't fark with the narrative.
 
2012-09-12 10:57:59 AM

Moopy Mac: Am I missing something?

"U.S Envoy to Libya Is Killed in Attack" is the top story on the front page.

NY Times front page


You're missing that subby doesn't know how print media works.
 
2012-09-12 10:58:16 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Parthenogenetic: HotIgneous Intruder: Moopy Mac: /And there is no such thing as Xe anymore.

Yeah. Changed its name again, no doubt.

/Only an apologist would know something like that. Or care.

Academi

/not an apologist

If someone on fark went about changing his name every so often, there'd be a name for that.
Corporations with something to hide and protect, dissolve the entity and move on blameless, nothing to be proud of here! Move along imperial citizen.


You leave PhilHerup / HellBentForLeather / AfternoonDelight / GatoNegro / tenpoundsofderp out of this!
 
2012-09-12 10:58:46 AM

Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?


Only if it was ordered by a Nation.
 
2012-09-12 10:59:08 AM
I just heard Obama's address on the 4 deaths.

Very presidential.

Any chance this latest action will make RW retards rethink their clever plan of trolling the Islamic world on a regular basis?

/Yeah, I didn't think so either.
 
2012-09-12 10:59:39 AM

Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?


Assuming the intent was to do that, probably. Who are you going to declare war on? Islam?

Sigh. Remember when violent attacks were clearly originated from a sovereignty? It's been awhile. Good times.
 
2012-09-12 10:59:44 AM

hammettman: Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 348x640] 

The Front Page of the NYT in Submitter's link. I see nothing anywhere about it.

Dear dumbass and tardmitter and all butthurt knuckledraggers, you do realize that papers are printed on a deadline, don't you? And said events may have occured after said deadline. And that even Obama and his magical time machine can't go back and change a paper once it's printed. You do realize these things, don't you?????


Yes, of course, they know that. But they're going to ignore the facts so they can attack the Administration. Does this surprise anyone?
 
2012-09-12 10:59:53 AM
FlashHarry


i love how the romneybots have already come out and said that obama's response is "craven" when in fact he condemned it harshly. way to turn the death of an american patriot into a political point, you scumbags.


Don't be an idiot, this is a political situation and it should be pointed out how weak the Administration's response has been. Thanks for promoting the Arab Spring, Thanks alot PBO.
 
2012-09-12 11:00:07 AM

skinnycatullus: Gulper Eel: With some blubbering about abusing the freedom of speech.

That statement was issued before any attack took place, so I'm not sure how that can reasonably be considered a response to the attacks.


And it was not a statement. It was a fricking tweet sent by a scared person inside the embassy. Hillary Clinton issued a formal statement saying it was not policy three minutes before Mitt's team decided to joyously make political hay out of American blood.
 
2012-09-12 11:00:09 AM

mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.


Well, its always an act of war. When it isn't done by a nation it just makes it more complicated. The nature of the event doesn't change, your options for responses do.
 
2012-09-12 11:00:20 AM
I'm outraged that the NYT didn't use Obama's time machine to go back and change the front page of their print edition.
 
2012-09-12 11:00:39 AM

Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?


Yes, but the ambassador wasn't killed by a state actor...so yeah.
 
2012-09-12 11:02:09 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.

Well, its always an act of war. When it isn't done by a nation it just makes it more complicated. The nature of the event doesn't change, your options for responses do.


Yeah it kind of does. Who do you plan to declare war on.
 
2012-09-12 11:02:44 AM

quatchi:
Any chance this latest action will make RW retards rethink their clever plan of trolling the Islamic world on a regular basis?


Attacking the president-hugging-pizza-guy on Facebook probably gets boring after a while.
 
2012-09-12 11:02:46 AM

Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?


Yes. It is. However every act of war does not lead to war. If it did the US would be at war with a great many countries of the world due to our actions.
 
2012-09-12 11:02:58 AM

Geotpf: And the news about the first consulate employee killed broke at around 8:30, which is PLENTY of time for a newspaper with its shiat together to rework a front page.

8:30 Eastern or 8:30 Pacific? 8:30 Eastern you have a point. 8:30 Pacific is 11:30 Eastern and probably past deadline.


It's the New York Times, so that'd be Eastern.

Most papers go to press in the 10:30-11:30 window, especially if they have evening events to cover like sports. This article has the LA Times trying something different - 6p press time with an 11:30 late-breaking section.

The Wall Street Journal does something similar, but they put the late-breaking stuff in a couple columns on the left side of the front page above the fold.

And yes, the Journal had the story up in print this morning.

Also, newspapers will not hesitate to pull their delivery trucks back and do their front pages over in the middle of the night if their lead story has been overtaken by events. The Times decided not to do that.

FYI: the print version of the Times does have the story. It's buried on page A4 according to this synopsis, sharing space with a far more peaceful and unrelated protest in Hungary.
 
2012-09-12 11:03:16 AM

Buffalo77: FlashHarry


i love how the romneybots have already come out and said that obama's response is "craven" when in fact he condemned it harshly. way to turn the death of an american patriot into a political point, you scumbags.


Don't be an idiot, this is a political situation and it should be pointed out how weak the Administration's response has been. Thanks for promoting the Arab Spring, Thanks alot PBO.


What is the proper response?
 
2012-09-12 11:03:30 AM

mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.


Hmm. So if you had an embassy you wanted to remove or an ambassador you wanted to kill, the trick would be to quietly rally up a riot and send them in that direction.

No intent no foul, right?
 
2012-09-12 11:03:35 AM

quatchi: I just heard Obama's address on the 4 deaths.

Very presidential.


I believe I heard a journalist shout, after the speech, 'Was this an act of war?"
 
2012-09-12 11:04:31 AM
.isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Sooo....invade Iraq again?
 
2012-09-12 11:04:41 AM

Fart_Machine: Wicked Chinchilla: mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.

Well, its always an act of war. When it isn't done by a nation it just makes it more complicated. The nature of the event doesn't change, your options for responses do.

Yeah it kind of does. Who do you plan to declare war on.


That's why its more complicated.

Its an act of war because: US sovereignty was violated, US personel were killed. Those are unchangeable facts regardless of those responsible.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:14 AM
This thread looks like me with severe PMS. Keep up the good work.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:19 AM
This instigating American preacher is going to get his idiot ass stabbed if he's not careful.

And not a single fark will be given.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:22 AM

Somacandra: [i.imgur.com image 348x640] 

The Front Page of the NYT in Submitter's link. I see nothing anywhere about it.


Maybe the should have bumped the 9/11 reference.

Or the Iran story.

Sure, they could have replaced the Romney/Vietnam story, but then we'd hear biatching about the story being "below the fold."

Thank God we have Fox News, which has this as "Latest News:"

EXCLUSIVE: Did Obama administration endanger heroes of bin Laden raid, SEAL Team Six?

I didn't know a question counted as "news," but okay.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:28 AM

Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?


If the Libyan government had stormed the embassy, then probably. But it was a terrorist organization, so there's not really anything to declare war on.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:48 AM

Infernalist: This instigating American preacher is going to get his idiot ass stabbed if he's not careful.

And not a single fark will be given.


On that day, nothing of value will be lost.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:54 AM

I_C_Weener: skinnycatullus: Gulper Eel: With some blubbering about abusing the freedom of speech.

That statement was issued before any attack took place, so I'm not sure how that can reasonably be considered a response to the attacks.

The embassy response was before the riot?  It was just about the film outrage?  That gives it some perspective.  Still a stupid apology for a private citizens YouTube video.  But not a response to the riots right or wrong. Are you sure?


It was an attempt to calm the protests before they turned violent. Obviously it didn't work. Not something even remotely worth condeming, much less condeming OBAMA over.
 
2012-09-12 11:05:58 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: hammettman: Moopy Mac: Am I missing something?

"U.S Envoy to Libya Is Killed in Attack" is the top story on the front page.

NY Times front page

Tardmitter is using the printed front page, which was printed before the events happened.

Time/space continuum, how does it work?

Really, when you think about it, this is Obama's fault for not lending the NY Times his time machine. Of course if Romney was President they would be able to retroactively file to have their print edition front page recorded as showing coverage of the Ambassador's killing.


Don't be silly. They only use the Time Machine for important stuff. For example they used it to start a hurricane headed right for the GOP convention. They know that under Chaos Theory, a small change can have big consequences later. So they send Obama back in time to take a leak way out in the Atlantic at just the right spot, then jump forward to see if a hurricane formed. If not, they send him back to take another leak in a slightly different spot. That does use up a lot of Obama's timeline time though, so he does not have much Obama time to do anything else in his timeline. Duh.
 
2012-09-12 11:06:11 AM

vernonFL: Tehran 1979, Beirut 1982

Cairo and Benghazi 2012.


Guess we should do what Reagan did in 1982 - cut and run.
 
2012-09-12 11:06:12 AM

Dalrint: mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.

Hmm. So if you had an embassy you wanted to remove or an ambassador you wanted to kill, the trick would be to quietly rally up a riot and send them in that direction.

No intent no foul, right?


You had intent. That's why you ginned up the riot. Of course, if no one found out you would get away with it. If not....
 
2012-09-12 11:06:12 AM

Buffalo77: FlashHarry


i love how the romneybots have already come out and said that obama's response is "craven" when in fact he condemned it harshly. way to turn the death of an american patriot into a political point, you scumbags.


Don't be an idiot, this is a political situation and it should be pointed out how weak the Administration's response has been. Thanks for promoting the Arab Spring, Thanks alot PBO.


*puts Buffalo77 on the list of people who support violent dictators*
 
2012-09-12 11:06:23 AM

Dalrint: mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.

Hmm. So if you had an embassy you wanted to remove or an ambassador you wanted to kill, the trick would be to quietly rally up a riot and send them in that direction.

No intent no foul, right?


Only if you don't mind a few drone strikes coming in your direction.
 
2012-09-12 11:07:04 AM

Dalrint: mrshowrules: Dalrint: Putting aside the bullshiat politics for a second...isn't attacking and killing an ambassador an act of war?

Only if it was ordered by a Nation.

Hmm. So if you had an embassy you wanted to remove or an ambassador you wanted to kill, the trick would be to quietly rally up a riot and send them in that direction.

No intent no foul, right?


If they could prove that indeed state agents were behind the attack, no that would constitute an act of war. Can we prove this is the case here?
 
Displayed 50 of 399 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report