3 Americans killed in Algerian Hostage Crisis

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

MSNBC : "Nothing to see here... moving right along, did you hear about this Notre Dame player and his internet girlfriend?"

Meanwhile, on the front page of Fox News "First Lady Gives Boehnor Eye Roll"


OH THE HROROR!!!!

They are each others yin and yang.....both equally ridiculous (Fox & MSNBC)

Originally Posted by evolved

Meanwhile, on the front page of Fox News "First Lady Gives Boehnor Eye Roll"


OH THE HROROR!!!!

They are each others yin and yang.....both equally ridiculous (Fox & MSNBC)

That's funny that you bring this up, my fb feed is full of people posting the eye roll as an example of how cool Michelle Obama is

She is cool.

I'd pay money to watch her whip Boehner's candy ass.

Originally Posted by badfast

Benghazi was big mostly because it was used as a catalyst to attack Obama. The extreme right blew it up so the rest of the lemmings followed suit.

You actually believe Benghazi was a non issue?

Benghazi actually was a non issue.

Except for the four Americans that died. Otherwise it's exactly the same as Algeria.

Originally Posted by Act of God

That's funny that you bring this up, my fb feed is full of people posting the eye roll as an example of how cool Michelle Obama is

I'm not quite sure why it's even an issue on EITHER side of the aisle, lol.

Originally Posted by evolved

I'm not quite sure why it's even an issue on EITHER side of the aisle, lol.

Because she's a celebrity, the first family is a reality show

Originally Posted by Act of God

Because she's a celebrity, the first family is a reality show

The media plays the tune that the people demand, unfortunately.

Maybe I don't pay attention to that stuff, but Presidential wardrobes have always been a topic of discussion. Is there that much coverage of the two girls? I thought they were out of the spotlight, for the most part.

Originally Posted by evolved

The media plays the tune that the people demand, unfortunately.

Maybe I don't pay attention to that stuff, but Presidential wardrobes have always been a topic of discussion. Is there that much coverage of the two girls? I thought they were out of the spotlight, for the most part.

I don't pay attention to be honest, I seriously don't watch news or anything. I agree about playing to the tune of the people, we're getting dumber by the day.

Originally Posted by Act of God

Benghazi was about the false narrative and cover up. As this doesn't have that, there is no comparison to be made.

Or rather, the Repubs tried to inflate Benghazi as some false narrative/coverup in a ham-handed election year attempt to undermine Obama's foreign policy record. Subsequent investigations and reviews into that incident revealed no effort to actively falsify or cover up what happened there outside of some fog-of-war accounting errors and inaccuracies. Also, Obama got elected anyway, so predictably, the whole manufactured Benghazigate thing withered on the political vine.

There were some REAL problems, issues and failures regarding the diplomatic security in Libya that subsequent responsible investigations have revealed that the Obama administration should be taken to task for. However, that's very different from some fanciful and paranoid cover-up scheme.

As for Algeria, as well as what’s going on in Mali, that does bode of some real issues regarding Islamic fundamentalist (Al Queda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM) gaining influence in North Africa and perhaps the need to take this threat more seriously, if well short of some ham-handed Bush-Era type overreaction.

Originally Posted by Green_Shine

You actually believe Benghazi was a non issue?

I didn't say that.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

Or rather, the Repubs tried to inflate Benghazi as some false narrative/coverup in a ham-handed election year attempt to undermine Obama's foreign policy record. Subsequent investigations and reviews into that incident revealed no effort to actively falsify or cover up what happened there outside of some fog-of-war accounting errors and inaccuracies. Also, Obama got elected anyway, so predictably, the whole manufactured Benghazigate thing withered on the political vine.

There were some REAL problems, issues and failures regarding the diplomatic security in Libya that subsequent responsible investigations have revealed that the Obama administration should be taken to task for. However, that's very different from some fanciful and paranoid cover-up scheme.

As for Algeria, as well as what's going on in Mali, that does bode of some real issues regarding Islamic fundamentalist (Al Queda in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM) gaining influence in North Africa and perhaps the need to take this threat more seriously, if well short of some ham-handed Bush-Era type overreaction.

this. It demonstrates the limits on our war on terror. We will chase AQ wherever they may hide except anywhere in Europe, and apparently Africa.

Algerian Hostage Negotiation Strategy....Kill them all! Fu@k Yeh...

Originally Posted by Lair

She is cool.

I'd pay money to watch her whip Boehner's candy ass.

She reminds me of Biden with some of her public gestures.

Here is some interesting updates from KGS Nightwatch:

Algeria-US: Update. A senior Algerian official said that one of the terrorists captured at the In Amenas gas plant said under interrogation that some of the dead Egyptian terrorists also participated in the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi last year. Three terrorists are in custody.

The official said the terrorists staged in southern Libya with arms purchased in Tripoli, Libya. He also said, "This is the result of the Arab Spring.... I hope the Americans are conscious of this."

Comment: There is no way to corroborate the detainee's statement.[/B] What is worth noting is that the Algerian official's statements help explain why the Algerians might have had few qualms about assaulting the terrorists, despite the risk to foreigners. [B]The Algerian government expects more attacks and the outcome will probably not be much different for foreigners.

The government has opposed US policy in the Arab world, especially the overthrow of the Qadhafi government. Some officials are making it very clear they hold American policy ultimately responsible for the gas plant attack in Algeria, the invasion of northern Mali by Islamist fighters and future attacks to come.

Americans working in Algeria are at increased risk from terrorists. Moreover, their safety does not appear to be a major factor in government planning for rescue operations.

Chad-Niger-Mali: A task group of Chadian armor and infantry has traveled across Niger to the border with Mali, as part of the African intervention force. Plans call for Chadian and Nigerien troops to move against the city of Gao in eastern Mali, which is held by Islamist fighters.

Comment: Niamey, the capital of Niger, is about 350 miles from Gao. It is a much closer staging area to support fighting in eastern Mali than is Bamako.

The Chadian and Nigerien forces appear to be preparing to open a second front against the Islamist fighters, threatening their base in Gao.

One of the more interesting new items reported by French media is that the Qatar Red Crescent has been seen working with the Islamist rebels. Two French members of parliament accused Qatar of financing and supporting the rebellion in northern Mali.

Comment: Qatar has not responded to the charges, but is known to be a major backer of the Syrian uprising; of Hamas in the Palestine State and is providing extensive financial support to the Egyptian government. Qatar is a major financier of Sunni causes.

I do see this attack as being linked not only due to what is happening in Mali, but also because of American (NATO) intervention in the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime. Libya is still unstable with a weak government, and a weaker security apparatus. We saw this in the Benghazi attack. With the weakened security situation in Libya it is no surprise that arms came from Libya.

I certainly think this a failure of US policy. Pushing democracy onto states that have not developed the capacity to handle it. Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan are failed democracies--in the liberalism sense. We see the problem spreading to Mali, and I suspect, as disappointing as it is to say, that a rebel victory in Syria will produce the same results as Libya and Egypt--weak "democratic" government with a weak security situation combined with anti-US rhetoric and leadership.

Originally Posted by badfast

Here is some interesting updates from KGS Nightwatch:


I do see this attack as being linked not only due to what is happening in Mali, but also because of American (NATO) intervention in the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime. Libya is still unstable with a weak government, and a weaker security apparatus. We saw this in the Benghazi attack. With the weakened security situation in Libya it is no surprise that arms came from Libya.

I certainly think this a failure of US policy. Pushing democracy onto states that have not developed the capacity to handle it. Libya, Egypt, and Afghanistan are failed democracies--in the liberalism sense. We see the problem spreading to Mali, and I suspect, as disappointing as it is to say, that a rebel victory in Syria will produce the same results as Libya and Egypt--weak "democratic" government with a weak security situation combined with anti-US rhetoric and leadership.

Pushing democracy onto states that have not developed the capacity to handle it. An interesting perspective, given our dreadful experience of our militarily pushing democracy onto Iraq and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

The Libyan revolution, as well as the rest of the Arab spring, was a far more organic, homegrown push for democracy that we only supported to various degrees from the sidelines primarily, with some limited active military air support in Libya. The Arab Spring countries are still, quite understandably, in states of varying degrees of instability, but I think it unreasonable to expect stability to develop overnight, especially in this region with limited experience with democratic governance.

Are more nefarious elements trying to take advantage of this instability? Of course and that does need to be addressed a bit more actively and forcefully IMO, lest these elements get a deeper, Taliban-era-Afghanistan type foothold. This is especially so now during this transitional period where the institutions of democratic government are still being developed and strengthened.

I would not call this a failure of U.S. policy. Rather, I think it has been vastly more successful, if imperfectly, than our adventure in Iraq ever was and that we were essentially correct in our overall approach to the Arab Spring. The other major policy options would have been basically to:

A. Do nothing and either let these democracy movement be brutally crushed or have 0 influence on the outcome of successful overthrows. We'd either end up with the same baleful dictators still in power or with AQIM and the like in a far stronger position than now.

B. A far more aggressive intervention -- translation: boots on the ground -- to forcefully control these overthrows. Its hard to know where to begin to list the shortfalls of this approach, but one might start with: massive costs, American casualties, Arab public opinion blowback on yet more Western occupation, and the inevitable unintended consequences. Oh, and nearly 0 American public support for any more military nation-building adventurism across the political spectrum.

Again, I do think we need to take a somewhat more active stance in this region as the Mali situation seems to show, but that is more a tweaking of current overall policy than an outright failure of it.

I don't think our democratic adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful. Pushing purple thumbs should not be a policy for instituting democracy. Instituting democracy is not an overnight project. It takes years, and even decades to implement. But the US charges in and demands free elections. And for our demands what have we acquired? An unstable democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Free elections in Egypt brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power. The ability to provide people with free elections grants people the right to vote their rights away--a paradox of democracy if you will. We are witnessing this in Egypt. Free elections brought Hamas to power in 2006. Turkey, a Muslim country, has been a successful democracy for many years. Turkey's success did not come overnight. It took decades of ensuring that its people were ready to handle the responsibility of democracy.

I certainly think that putting boots on the ground would be disastrous. So that option I would not support. As it appears now we have little to no influence regardless of our involvement. Our influence in Egypt is weak. I don't see things getting better in Libya. Libya may have an elected assembly council, but it has had little success in uniting the various militias and tribes that reside in Libya. Pushing purple thumbs may have been symbolic, but, as of now, it has been largely ineffective.

I certainly see that there are certain requirements that a state must reach before it can be a successful (liberal) democracy--education, religious involvement, economics, and civil rights. There certainly is a relationship between income per capita and democracy. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan certainly don't meet the economic criteria for democracy. Of course this requires modernization of the markets and a turn towards capitalism. Capitalism leads to democracy. As incomes grow political reform becomes inevitable. Many countries fit this profile. Even China has shown movements towards democracy. Democracies can't be implemented by force. I am unsure on why this rule has applied everywhere, but the United States in the Post 9/11 era seems to think that democracy can be forced from the outside rather than grown from the inside.

Originally Posted by badfast

but the United States in the Post 9/11 era seems to think that democracy can be forced from the outside rather than grown from the inside.

post-911? #vietnam

Originally Posted by Act of God

post-911? #vietnam

Little different. Vietnam was to maintain the status quo. There was a fear of dominoes collapsing and the loss of containment.

Originally Posted by bimmerfan08

She reminds me of Biden with some of her public gestures.

That's a buncha malarkey.