Romney Blasts Obama on Cairo Embassy Apology

Can you just imagine what the reaction will be in the Arab world , should Americans have the stupidity to elect Mittens. He's even pized off the Brits.. Right now, the world is safer under Obama compared to Bush , post 911..
Give Mitt a chance to put his anti arab Neo cons into office , allow the evangelicals to continue their anti Islam Jihad, and we'll have John McCain wish to have war with one billion people. What happened in Libya and Cairo is just a start should Mitt's unbalanced view of the Middle East become US policy.

about those lives, so he can say any reckless garbage he wants

The Beirut Barracks Bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War, when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing.

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the American Marines barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II. In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast. The explosives used were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT.

In the attack on the French barracks, the eight-story 'Drakkar' building, two minutes after the Marine attack, 58 paratroopers from the 1st Parachute Chasseur Regiment were killed and 15 injured, in the single worst military loss for France since the end of the Algerian War. The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building were also killed.

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

The loss of life and the damages were far greater. Reagan was helpless. But he was re-elected nevertheless.

We don't yet know what is behind this incident in Syria or the other incident in Egypt.

right. He recognized that keeping troops in Lebanon was not feasible

However, I do not believe reagan was elected because of that.

Mondale appeared tired and drawn during the debates. That was unfortunate because it was the start of deregulation, and led to the financial crisis we are going through

let him explain to the Muslims why he made the movie

then anyone who is gay and we can just keep moving down the list. Sorry but these guys dont get to have a veto over my freedoms no matter what they do.

Tell me, knowing the history of the current Islamic world reacting to less than favorable portrayals of Mohammad (Satanic Verses, Koran burning preachers, dutch cartoonists) can you honestly say that the movie was not created with malice aforethought! Jefferson did say that about freedom of speech being like freedom to swing one's arm, it ends at the other man's nose. The film maker should be held responsible. This does not limit your freedom of speech, but you should be responsible for the results.

we expect people to act like rational adults!! I simply cannot remember how many people died as a result of The Last Temptation of Christ. The Muslims who think the rest of the world needs to respect their fantasies need to get a grip on reality.

When you KNOW that religious extremism will be the result of your film, why shove it into the faces of an unstable culture?

It's madness on both sides. We can't stop Libyans from acting irrationally but we can stop Terry Jones.

We have laws protecting speech - even when it's hateful and insulting.

In America, people do have free speech. They are also liable for the results of their free speech. I am not into censoring beforehand, but when someone incites trouble deliberately, they should be held accountable for it. It is called personal responsibility, the other side of the coin of freedom.

If Americans have to go around worried that their speech is going to incite some asshole halfway across the world, what kind of freedom is that? Personal responsibility either applies to everyone or it doesn't and it seems many here only want to make that applicable to Americans.

We our responsible for OUR laws, and the actions of OUR citizens. Making that film is not about free speech, it is incitement to hate. Then again, a muzzle would look on Rush L, but I don't advocate it. Besides, get real. A maker of a movie being distributed internationally is not the same as Americans have to go around worried that their speech is going to incite some asshole halfway across the world This is the work of someone looking to get people riled up.

This is not a movie that's being distributed internationally - it's a video on You Tube. The vermin who really started this riot told the mob it was in fact a major production and is much more to blame than the moron in Florida. Were you this riled up when someone put a crucifix on urine and called it art? I'm thinking not and that was also considered insulting to many Catholics and Christians. You don't think that was done to provoke a response? Why do you seem to want to give a pass to those that murder in the name of Mohammad?

Urine and feces I actually understood. Symbols in Africa for fertility. Then again, I was an art teacher. Sorry, I didn't see your example as insulting. However, knowing full well how Satanic Verses, dutch cartoons, and preachers burning Korans, I cannot see how the movie producer cannot expect the result of this little film to being the equivalent of dropping a tanker of high grade gas in a wild fire.

purposefully misunderstood. I'm not Christian or Muslim and I have never felt a need to adhere to any behavior that would supress my free speech because of how others may react. I've had many right wingers send me shit on email trying to provoke me and I simply laugh and tell them "see you in November". Someone told the mob that this was an American movie that was being distributed widely on 9/11 and that's what started this madness. So now we're not only supposed to be responsible for what our citizens do but also for the lies that may come from it.

I'm saying is that the person who, as I believe, with malice aforethought, should be held responsible for the violence he unleased. HE, not US.

for the lie that was told to get the riot started? It wasn't the obscure you tube video that started this. It was the lie that this was an American movie being released on 9/11 to wide distribution. And good luck getting 12 people to agree that Jones - while certainly an asshole - is responsible for the murder of a diplomat.

There is no room in the world for purists. Not in our imperfect world.

I'm perfectly within my legal rights to call Jesus Christ a pedophile if I choose. You wont see anyone dying for it.

In Brandeburg v. Ohio SCOTUS laid out the current criteria for restriction of speech -

he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Right or wrong, being hateful and insulting to Islam has been historically proven to produce imminent lawless action IMO. Sometimes ya gotta put the ideals in a box under the bed and be pragmatic..

hard time convincing any American court that that an American's right to free speech should include worrying about imminent lawless action in other countries.

American embassies, I could see a pretty good case on the government's part.

to Ari Fleisher's remark after 9/11 - that we need to watch what we say. I have the same reaction now as I did then - bullshit - I'll say whatever I like and if others cannot control their behavior, that's not my problem.

I tend to generally agree with you, and think that critical and even satirical works, e.g. the Danish cartoons a few years ago, are perfectly reasonable and fair...but stuff that's specifically designed to be provocative, offensive and incendiary, intended to provoke a minority segment that responds with savage violence, falls well past even strict scrutiny. It's not my problem if they can't control their behavior, but it is my problem when they blow the shit out of my Ambassador.

That, plus I'm not willing to sit here and take their lack of control - if they want to play the violence game I'm more than willing to play it back, part of me kind of hopes the President's kill list just got a little longer

I want those motherfuckers to be crapping their pants for the rest of their (hopefully short) lives. When I said it wasn't my problem, I wasn't trying to diminish the sacrifice the ambassador of Libya (or anywhere else dangerous) - only that I cannot watch every word that comes out of my mouth because someone, somewhere may have a problem with it. There comes a point when the only people responsible for actions are the people who make them.

You don't yell fire in a movie theater.

It is an imperfect world. We need to recognize the reality of that.

The scandal is that the US helped set the stage for this attack by helping destroy the Libyan state, and that today it colludes with terrorists in Syria who aim to unleash similar chaos there.

I think a lot of us have been waiting for some sort of Class A dirty trick -- and this seems suspiciously well-coordinated.

I wonder who his financial backers really are?

of speech?

is allowed freedom of speech. But it's obvious what he's trying to do with that speech. The next thing to look into is if he or his associates have contacts in the ME who deliberately promote his videos to stir up mayhem.

...in a crowded theater?

Open fire in a crowded theater?

When I was in high school, there were people who didn't like that I was gay - some even had violent tendencies about such issues. But that rightly didn't stop me from being openly gay. That there are extremist theocrats using terrorism and intimidation to get their way should be met with firm opposition, not appeasement.

concentrate on these international distractions.

Time for Romney to fire his adviser for saying his boss is distracting attention from what Romney should be talking about? Romney does like firing people, after all:

in his hand. Just like Cheney or Bushy boy. They are the beaters of children, women, and defenselss animals. Rmoney would be dropping bombs on every country he could steal something from....including this one. He's probably never made an apology in his life. Certainly not to all of the people he put out of work in his lifetime. Screw him and the horse he rode in on.

WTF? The embassy’s apology was release before the attack happened and Romney complains that it doesn't condemn the attacks.
Only Romney can retroactively look into the future or rewrite history.

Not even Bush was this reckless with his words.

at risk. This further demonstrates how incompetent romeny actually is

Only quote from the National Review article:

"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 the statement, which was published online.

Send Romney to stay in the Embassy and recall the apology.

Really now, would you want Romney in charge when he could save lives by saying the US government doesn't support nut-cases but he doesn't say anything because he's so, so "tough".