Someone please explain this to me
- Thread starter Type Username Here
- Start date
I agree with doing this. Solid public relations move.
the whole response from the administration has been wack, the other thing that was silly was them trying to say the libya incident wasnt a a terrorist attack and insisting it was a protest that got out of hand
how do you get attacked by mortars and then think its just a protest?
Mr. Somebody
Friend Of A Friend
They're telling them *hurt that demon, not the american people. We have love for you and we dont want any beef with you friends*
Type Username Here
Not a new member
You keep giving these people an inch, and they are going to take a mile.
Now we just gave them credibility to their violence and meaningless protests.
Every time someone makes a legal criticism of Islam we are going to have to tap dance.
How about a statement like this:
In our society, we respect to the rights of individuals to create art, no matter how inflammatory. The creation of this individual is not in the realm of government interference , and is not sanctioned by any government policy. The individual was within his rights to make the film in question.
Now we just gave them credibility to their violence and meaningless protests.
Every time someone makes a legal criticism of Islam we are going to have to tap dance.
How about a statement like this:
In our society, we respect to the rights of individuals to create art, no matter how inflammatory. The creation of this individual is not in the realm of government interference , and is not sanctioned by any government policy. The individual was within his rights to make the film in question.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
And it's humorous about people in here talking about tact and diplomacy. About fukking Pakistan.
A Country we have given billions upon billions of dollars to while they hide and shield the chain of command of our enemies. Real ducking Diplomatic. A Country we couldn't even share our information regarding Bin Laden because we feared their intelligence wing would notify him.
A Country we have given billions upon billions of dollars to while they hide and shield the chain of command of our enemies. Real ducking Diplomatic. A Country we couldn't even share our information regarding Bin Laden because we feared their intelligence wing would notify him.
the problem is you expect public policy to coincide with your opinions. if you feel a certain way about Pakistan, fine. but apparently the people in charge have decided they would like to keep them on our good side
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Isn't that the point of a democracy and style of governance that fits a social contract criteria? I can't have my opinion, criticisms and ideas about our government and its policies?
What do you think I am doing?
Also, I'm surprised that you used the "the people in charge must have a good reason" argument. That can be used for any policy we criticize.
WhiteDawg3000
Pro
subs
no one said you can't have an opinion. the thread title asks to "explain this to me". I mean, is this a rhetorical question?
in general, when something happens, and it doesn't make sense to you, it means you're ignorant (don't take that word the wrong way. we're all "ignorant" of many things) of the details
whether or not the people in charge have a "good reason" is besides the point. they have a reason. it's not like they pulled this decision out of a hat
basically you frame your argument around what I feel is a false premise: that we don't want/need Pakistan on our good side. again, you're welcome to have that opinion, but I think the evidence says otherwise. and I tend to default to my friend Occam
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Workings of international diplomacy? How many official diplomatic missions have you been on? Have you ever met or worked with official diplomats in any capacity? That's the typical foreigner response on here: "Well, he's American and I'm not, so I have the entire knowledge of foreign policy at my disposal." I have been on OFFICIAL diplomatic missions. In the rooms, talking to tribal and local leaders who were the de facto leaders of their regions. I have been on OFFICIAL State Department as security, in the presence of the people who are actually diplomats. Don't come here with your false sense of superiority because you are in India.
Answer me how releasing an ad in a country whose people and government actively shield the enemy command, and supply lines/routes is NOT a one-way diplomacy?. Answer me why a film made legally needs to be distanced from?
Bro, you are the king of false equivalences on here. You are comparing a Government's actions on a piece of art (whether you think it's acceptable or not) that was created legally within our laws, to the State Department asking Twitter not to do maintenance. Answer me this: did the Iranian regime also have access to twitter for communication purposes? Did the Iranian Regime also not use twitter for their propaganda during this phase? You are acting like the government ask twitter to silence one specific message.
No, I'm not a professional diplomat. however, I certainly know more than you just by the fact of how outraged you are about the regular nature of diplomatic public messaging
Now you want to mix up the issues by being mad at Pakistan and Pakistanis in general. The US had an old cold war era alliance with them and continues to do so for strategic purposes. I don't know why you're doing a random John Bolton turn in here
Now you want to mix up the issues by being mad at Pakistan and Pakistanis in general. The US had an old cold war era alliance with them and continues to do so for strategic purposes. I don't know why you're doing a random John Bolton turn in here
Fillerguy
Veteran
Since this lawful piece of art has been made: American embassies have been bombed/stormed. American citizens have been killed. An American ambassador has been killed. The attackers justifiy their actions by way of this lawful vid. What is the government supposed to do that doesnt include war in several nations?