Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[garbon]

Rolleyes at garbon or dreams of bull elephants?

garbon/Tamas

Well Joan's US Embassy to Kansas hypothetical made sense in the context of discussing Phelps and anti-gay ordinances in Kansas.

Your "I thought the offensive film here was made by a Texan (or a Californian) - so why the US embassy to Egypt and not the US embassy to California or Texas is making a statement?" makes little sense as only one those mentioned things exists.

[Martinus]

I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. 

[garbon]

I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. 

I'd have agreed except that the US Embassy to Egypt doesn't really make sense as a mention in such a hypothetical.

[Martinus]

Ok, I'm at loss here. I don't understand how anything you said is relevant and really do not know how to respond.

It's really quite simple. We are discussing statements made by US embassies.  The question is under what circumstances would it make sense for an overseas US embassy to make statements about Fred Phelps.  It is admittedly a rhetorical question, as it is difficult to conceive any likely set of circumstances in which that would happen.

Could you explain to me how this hypothetical is different from the US embassy making statements about a movie made by a US citizen on American soil? What are the circumstances under which it makes sense for the US embassy in Egypt to make the statement it did in the case at hand?

[The Minsky Moment]

Could you explain to me how this hypothetical is different from the US embassy making statements about a movie made by a US citizen on American soil? What are the circumstances under which it makes sense for the US embassy in Egypt to make the statement it did in the case at hand?

Seriously?

It came to the embassy's attention that the reputation of the US among 90% entire local population had been damaged by a rumor that the US was somehow responsible for the production of this film.  The embassy was aware that mass protests were being planned and that the incident threatened not only US interests in the country but potentially the safety of US nationals in country.  Pointing out that the material in question was not produced by the US government and does not reflect the views of US in that context is a no brainer; it is exactly the kind of thing that embassies do.  The only screw-up here was the poor content of the message and the failure to vet it first.

In contrast, the kinds of people overseas who are aware of (and offended by) the antics of Fred Phelps are also the kinds of people who understand without explanation that Fred Phelps does not represent the view of the United States government or the vast majority of its citizens.  I.e the League of Gay Warsaw Professionals, while at times quite confused in other contexts, is not likely to start beating on Americans in the street because of their disgust with Fred Phelps.

[Martinus]

I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. 

I'd have agreed except that the US Embassy to Egypt doesn't really make sense as a mention in such a hypothetical.

Ok let me walk you through this.

I ask why the US embassy to Egypt makes a statement about "Innocence of Muslims", a movie made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends muslims, but no US embassy anywhere makes a statement about "God Hates Fags", a website made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends gays. .

Joan responds by saying that only if the US had an embassy in Kansas, it would make sense for such embassy to make a statement. I presume this is because that's where Fred Phelps lives.

I respond that I am puzzled by this response. This is because both examples involve speech by US citizens made on the US soil that is offensive to a group people that consists both US and non-US citizens, and that is not associated with any specific country or countries (there are both Muslims and gays in Egypt, for example, but neither all Egyptians are Muslim nor they are all gay).

So by Joan's line of reasoning, if the only embassy fit to make a statement about "God Hates Fags" is the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the website lives, the only embassy fit to make a statement about "Innocence of Muslims" would also be the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the movie lives (which I believe to be Texas or California - hence my hypothetical). I.e. the embassy to Egypt is equally (un)fit to make such a statement in both cases.

[derspiess]

Yes, your religion is Obama is stooopid and evil and has to use a teleprompter to get through the day.

I don't really think Obama is stupid.  I think he's intelligent-- just not as smart as his supporters think he is.  And I don't think he's evil.  I do think he's a much better communicator with a teleprompter than without it, so do what you will with that.

[Martinus]

Could you explain to me how this hypothetical is different from the US embassy making statements about a movie made by a US citizen on American soil? What are the circumstances under which it makes sense for the US embassy in Egypt to make the statement it did in the case at hand?

Seriously?

It came to the embassy's attention that the reputation of the US among 90% entire local population had been damaged by a rumor that the US was somehow responsible for the production of this film.  The embassy was aware that mass protests were being planned and that the incident threatened not only US interests in the country but potentially the safety of US nationals in country.  Pointing out that the material in question was not produced by the US government and does not reflect the views of US in that context is a no brainer; it is exactly the kind of thing that embassies do.  The only screw-up here was the poor content of the message and the failure to vet it first.

In contrast, the kinds of people overseas who are aware of (and offended by) the antics of Fred Phelps are also the kinds of people who understand without explanation that Fred Phelps does not represent the view of the United States government or the vast majority of its citizens.  I.e the League of Gay Warsaw Professionals, while at times quite confused in other contexts, is not likely to start beating on Americans in the street because of their disgust with Fred Phelps.

Ok, so you are essentially agreeing with those who say that the only reason such statement was made is because the US embassy to Egypt feared that Muslims are stupid and violent.

Perhaps if you didn't start off by a flippant dismissive comment about the hypothetical "embassy to Kansas" and just stated that up front, I wouldn't have to respond.

[grumbler]

I do think he's a much better communicator with a teleprompter than without it... 

I disagree.  I think he is a better communicator when he has a written speech than when he is speaking off the cuff, but I also think that this is and was true of every president and 99.54% of the non-presidents.  Whether Obama was speaking using a teleprompter versus paper notes doesn't seem to impact his communications much.

[Grey Fox]

I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. 

I'd have agreed except that the US Embassy to Egypt doesn't really make sense as a mention in such a hypothetical.

Ok let me walk you through this.

I ask why the US embassy to Egypt makes a statement about "Innocence of Muslims", a movie made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends muslims, but no US embassy anywhere makes a statement about "God Hates Fags", a website made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends gays. .

Joan responds by saying that only if the US had an embassy in Kansas, it would make sense for such embassy to make a statement. I presume this is because that's where Fred Phelps lives.

I respond that I am puzzled by this response. This is because both examples involve speech by US citizens made on the US soil that is offensive to a group people that consists both US and non-US citizens, and that is not associated with any specific country or countries (there are both Muslims and gays in Egypt, for example, but neither all Egyptians are Muslim nor they are all gay).

So by Joan's line of reasoning, if the only embassy fit to make a statement about "God Hates Fags" is the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the website lives, the only embassy fit to make a statement about "Innocence of Muslims" would also be the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the movie lives (which I believe to be Texas or California - hence my hypothetical). I.e. the embassy to Egypt is equally (un)fit to make such a statement in both cases.

Because in Egypt, people where planning to attack the embassy & american citizens present in Egypt.

If say, Thailand extremists were to plan an attack on the US embassy over God hates Fags, you could expect the US Thailand embassy to say something.

I don't understand whats your problem with it?

[DontSayBanana]

I ask why the US embassy to Egypt makes a statement about "Innocence of Muslims", a movie made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends muslims, but no US embassy anywhere makes a statement about "God Hates Fags", a website made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends gays. .

Simple.  There's no perceived association between Fred Phelps and the US government that needs to be disavowed.  I read Joan's "hypothetical" as more of a joking dig at Kansas.  In Egypt, even if it was in their heads, to a majority of the population, there was an association between this movie and the federal government that needed to be disavowed.

[garbon]

I don't understand whats your problem with it?

He thinks it makes bad policy for embassies(govts) to make statements when they think said statements could protect their citizens.

[mongers]

I wonder what the Arabic translation of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is ?





edit:
google translate suggests this:
"العصي والحجارة قد تكسر عظامي، لكن الكلمات لن يؤذيني"

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok, so you are essentially agreeing with those who say that the only reason such statement was made is because the US embassy to Egypt feared that Muslims are stupid and violent.

No the reason such statements are made was that the US embassy in Egypt is aware that Egyptians are badly informed, prone to conspiratorial thinking and not accustomed to the concept of separate private and state media.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't understand whats your problem with it?

He thinks it makes bad policy for embassies(govts) to make statements when they think said statements could protect their citizens.

I think it's hilarious that Martinus has managed to get most of the board to swallow his trollhook for the last 18 or so pages in this thread.

He may have a shitty grasp on the law, but he certainly knows how to drag along a witness during cross examination.