Quote:
Originally Posted by offshoredrilling
RPGs where US issue
Ambassador Chris Stevens gay
So not buying quoted part of your post. Then Oblama blames it on a youtube clip. ya right
|
Part of the problem in a discussion like this is that facts and reason that don't support the pre-conceived/desired conclusion don't get much consideration. The other is that facts presented as de facto proof without analysis are pretty meaningless....they are the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?".
Still, let's give it a shot.
RPG's are not in the US arsenal. They are former Warsaw Pact weapons, like AK-47s. It's certainly possible that the attackers got their hands on weapons that at one time were provided by the US to someone we supported. Before we started equipping the Afghan National Army with NATO weapons, we supplied them with AK's and RPGs and the like. As much as we are attempting to destroy all the WP weapons as we NATOize the ANA, some of that stuff will probably fall off the truck. My question is, so what? Unless you are suggesting that the Obama administration specifically provided weapons to the attackers and tasked them with conducting the attack, then anything else regarding the origins of the weapons is irrelevant. The country just went through a civil war where all sorts of folks and factions had the chance to get their hands on weapons. I just can't see how that reflects on our foreign policy. Stuff like that has been happening throughout the modern era regardless of who sits in the White House. How is this reality the fault of President Obama?
As for the Ambassador's sexual orientation...at best it's a rumor, but let's pretend for the moment that he was. The guy had been serving in diplomatic posts in Northern Africa for quite a while, and apparently had a sufficiently stellar career that he got the Ambassadorship...don't see the problem. It's just not credible that such a concerted attack was about that...it doesn't survive any kind of careful scrutiny. Besides, the guy wasn't even attacked directly. His death was a result of asphyxiation from smoke inhalation while hiding in his safe room. He didn't even die at the consulate, but later at a Libyan hospital. It stands to reason that he was not the focus of the attack, although it was initiated during his visit, so can't rule it out.
As for whether an Ambassador can be gay or not, I get that the pro-discrimination folks would have a problem with that, but considering that President Obama had just got done eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it would be hypocritical to discriminate for the same thing at the State Department.
Finally, the dude was probably straight anyway.
As for the video factor; while preliminary reports seemed to tie the motivation for the attack to a similar event in Cairo that was sparked by the anti-muslim movie, those conclusions have long been discarded, so it's not even close to being accurate to assert this far along that the President of the United States is blaming the attack on the reaction to the video.
I'm left with the reality that, in time when we are in armed conflict with terrorist elements who are mostly Islamic extremists, one of the factions with whom we are at war launched an attack at one of our consulates. When you are at war, it's not entirely surprising that your enemy will mount an attack from time to time. Still not getting how that particular reality of armed conflict reflects in any particular way on President Obama.
