Official Response to Attack on U.S. Embassy in Cairo

[Woody]

That is, well, unbelievable.  Couple that with Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he visits the US and you get the belief that Obama sides with the muslims and Arabs. 



To Clara
Well said Clara?  How about saying something about restraint, or  that in this country, unlike these Muslim brotherhood countries, you can speak your opinion free of government intervention or a **** beheading.


Clara, are you sure you understand what it means to support the constitution?

I'm not sure that you do. In Cairo, it's the Egyptian Constitution; in the U.S. and on U. S. Embassy property, it's the U. S. Constitution.

Now are you trying to claim that the "Egyptian Constitution" authorizes a physical mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy??

That bunch doesn't look armed to ME.  If you see a gun that I don't, please point it out.  I just see a bunch of protesters exercising on U.S. Embassy property what the U.S. Constitution protects as Freedom of Speech.

In Libya they set fire to the consulate.  Cut the crap and admit you are **** clueless to the situation.

[clistensprechen]

Well said, actually.

Do you happen to know what this is referring to?

As a general statement, it stands without needing a reference.

So Clara obviously feels that storming a US EMBASSY, tearing down our flag, and replacing it with a black flag because US Egyptian Christians made a movie they don't like is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure that she knows anything about the movie.

And judging from her content she does not have the urge to find out.

The circumstance doesn't render the statement false.  Sorry.

[wbcoleman]

That is, well, unbelievable.  Couple that with Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he visits the US and you get the belief that Obama sides with the muslims and Arabs. 




To Clara
Well said Clara?  How about saying something about restraint, or  that in this country, unlike these Muslim brotherhood countries, you can speak your opinion free of government intervention or a **** beheading.


Clara, are you sure you understand what it means to support the constitution?

I'm not sure that you do. In Cairo, it's the Egyptian Constitution; in the U.S. and on U. S. Embassy property, it's the U. S. Constitution.

Now are you trying to claim that the "Egyptian Constitution" authorizes a physical mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy??

That bunch doesn't look armed to ME.  If you see a gun that I don't, please point it out.  I just see a bunch of protesters exercising on U.S. Embassy property what the U.S. Constitution protects as Freedom of Speech.

Who said anything about them being armed?  Why is that supposed to have any relevance?  Since when is invasion and physical assault on property protected under the U.S. Constitution?  Have you lost your mind?

[Woody]

Well said, actually.

Do you happen to know what this is referring to?

As a general statement, it stands without needing a reference.

So Clara obviously feels that storming a US EMBASSY, tearing down our flag, and replacing it with a black flag because US Egyptian Christians made a movie they don't like is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure that she knows anything about the movie.

And judging from her content she does not have the urge to find out.

The circumstance doesn't render the statement false.  Sorry.

The statement is in reaction to the the activities in Cairo and Libya.  Can we glean from your position that you agree with the administration that the fault lie with the Egyptian Christians who are producing the movie in the US,

[clistensprechen]

That is, well, unbelievable.  Couple that with Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he visits the US and you get the belief that Obama sides with the muslims and Arabs. 




To Clara
Well said Clara?  How about saying something about restraint, or  that in this country, unlike these Muslim brotherhood countries, you can speak your opinion free of government intervention or a **** beheading.


Clara, are you sure you understand what it means to support the constitution?

I'm not sure that you do. In Cairo, it's the Egyptian Constitution; in the U.S. and on U. S. Embassy property, it's the U. S. Constitution.

Now are you trying to claim that the "Egyptian Constitution" authorizes a physical mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy??

That bunch doesn't look armed to ME.  If you see a gun that I don't, please point it out.  I just see a bunch of protesters exercising on U.S. Embassy property what the U.S. Constitution protects as Freedom of Speech.

Who said anything about them being armed? 

You said it was an invasion.  It clearly isn't an invasion.  You made a false claim.

Why is that supposed to have any relevance?  Since when is invasion and physical assault on property protected under the U.S. Constitution?  Have you lost your mind?

No, but clearly you have. Security detail is totally absent here and there is no armed offensive, so clearly this event was permitted.

[wbcoleman]

Well said, actually.

Do you happen to know what this is referring to?

As a general statement, it stands without needing a reference.

So Clara obviously feels that storming a US EMBASSY, tearing down our flag, and replacing it with a black flag because US Egyptian Christians made a movie they don't like is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure that she knows anything about the movie.

And judging from her content she does not have the urge to find out.

The circumstance doesn't render the statement false.  Sorry.

The statement is in reaction to the the activities in Cairo and Libya.  Can we glean from your position that you agree with the administration that the fault lie with the Egyptian Christians who are producing the movie in the US,

Can she seriously believe that an assault on the U.S. Embassy is justified?  Actually, why not, O's embassy itself seems to think it is!

[Woody]

They were armed in Libya.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentPrint/2/0/52597/World/0/UPDATED-Mob-sets-fire-to-US-consulate-in-Benghazi-.aspx




Care to change your position or are you being contrary to stir up **** as you once admitted.  Count-counterpoint?

[wbcoleman]

That is, well, unbelievable.  Couple that with Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he visits the US and you get the belief that Obama sides with the muslims and Arabs. 




To Clara
Well said Clara?  How about saying something about restraint, or  that in this country, unlike these Muslim brotherhood countries, you can speak your opinion free of government intervention or a **** beheading.


Clara, are you sure you understand what it means to support the constitution?

I'm not sure that you do. In Cairo, it's the Egyptian Constitution; in the U.S. and on U. S. Embassy property, it's the U. S. Constitution.

Now are you trying to claim that the "Egyptian Constitution" authorizes a physical mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy??

That bunch doesn't look armed to ME.  If you see a gun that I don't, please point it out.  I just see a bunch of protesters exercising on U.S. Embassy property what the U.S. Constitution protects as Freedom of Speech.

Who said anything about them being armed? 

You said it was an invasion.  It clearly isn't an invasion.  You made a false claim.

Why is that supposed to have any relevance?  Since when is invasion and physical assault on property protected under the U.S. Constitution?  Have you lost your mind?

No, but clearly you have. Security detail is totally absent here and there is no armed offensive, so clearly this event was permitted.

You are clearly abusing drugs today.

[Woody]

Well said, actually.

Do you happen to know what this is referring to?

As a general statement, it stands without needing a reference.

So Clara obviously feels that storming a US EMBASSY, tearing down our flag, and replacing it with a black flag because US Egyptian Christians made a movie they don't like is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure that she knows anything about the movie.

And judging from her content she does not have the urge to find out.

The circumstance doesn't render the statement false.  Sorry.

The statement is in reaction to the the activities in Cairo and Libya.  Can we glean from your position that you agree with the administration that the fault lie with the Egyptian Christians who are producing the movie in the US,

Can she seriously believe that an assault on the U.S. Embassy is justified?  Actually, why not, O's embassy itself seems to think it is!

There are many things she posts and apparently believes that are unreal.

[Woody]

That is, well, unbelievable.  Couple that with Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he visits the US and you get the belief that Obama sides with the muslims and Arabs. 



To Clara
Well said Clara?  How about saying something about restraint, or  that in this country, unlike these Muslim brotherhood countries, you can speak your opinion free of government intervention or a **** beheading.


Clara, are you sure you understand what it means to support the constitution?

I'm not sure that you do. In Cairo, it's the Egyptian Constitution; in the U.S. and on U. S. Embassy property, it's the U. S. Constitution.

Now are you trying to claim that the "Egyptian Constitution" authorizes a physical mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy??

That bunch doesn't look armed to ME.  If you see a gun that I don't, please point it out.  I just see a bunch of protesters exercising on U.S. Embassy property what the U.S. Constitution protects as Freedom of Speech.

Who said anything about them being armed? 

You said it was an invasion.  It clearly isn't an invasion.  You made a false claim.

Why is that supposed to have any relevance?  Since when is invasion and physical assault on property protected under the U.S. Constitution?  Have you lost your mind?

No, but clearly you have. Security detail is totally absent here and there is no armed offensive, so clearly this event was permitted.

You are clearing abusing drugs today.

No, what this is is an attempt to save her ass.  She made a steeple comment in support of the official release before understanding the situation.  She is like kentay and will argue until she is blue in the face before admitting she was clueless.

[clistensprechen]

Well said, actually.

Do you happen to know what this is referring to?

As a general statement, it stands without needing a reference.

So Clara obviously feels that storming a US EMBASSY, tearing down our flag, and replacing it with a black flag because US Egyptian Christians made a movie they don't like is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure that she knows anything about the movie.

And judging from her content she does not have the urge to find out.

The circumstance doesn't render the statement false.  Sorry.

The statement is in reaction to the the activities in Cairo and Libya.  Can we glean from your position that you agree with the administration that the fault lie with the Egyptian Christians who are producing the movie in the US,

Can she seriously believe that an assault on the U.S. Embassy is justified?  Actually, why not, O's embassy itself seems to think it is!

I don't see security detail.  Show me where security staff is. Show me the guns.

[clistensprechen]

That is, well, unbelievable.  Couple that with Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu when he visits the US and you get the belief that Obama sides with the muslims and Arabs. 



To Clara
Well said Clara?  How about saying something about restraint, or  that in this country, unlike these Muslim brotherhood countries, you can speak your opinion free of government intervention or a **** beheading.


Clara, are you sure you understand what it means to support the constitution?

I'm not sure that you do. In Cairo, it's the Egyptian Constitution; in the U.S. and on U. S. Embassy property, it's the U. S. Constitution.

Now are you trying to claim that the "Egyptian Constitution" authorizes a physical mob invasion of the U.S. Embassy??

That bunch doesn't look armed to ME.  If you see a gun that I don't, please point it out.  I just see a bunch of protesters exercising on U.S. Embassy property what the U.S. Constitution protects as Freedom of Speech.

Who said anything about them being armed? 

You said it was an invasion.  It clearly isn't an invasion.  You made a false claim.

Why is that supposed to have any relevance?  Since when is invasion and physical assault on property protected under the U.S. Constitution?  Have you lost your mind?

No, but clearly you have. Security detail is totally absent here and there is no armed offensive, so clearly this event was permitted.

You are clearing abusing drugs today.

No, what this is is an attempt to save her ass.  She made a steeple comment in support of the official release before understanding the situation.  She is like kentay and will argue until she is blue in the face before admitting she was clueless.

Show me where the security officers are. Show me the guns.

[Woody]

Well said, actually.

Do you happen to know what this is referring to?

As a general statement, it stands without needing a reference.

So Clara obviously feels that storming a US EMBASSY, tearing down our flag, and replacing it with a black flag because US Egyptian Christians made a movie they don't like is perfectly acceptable.

I'm not sure that she knows anything about the movie.

And judging from her content she does not have the urge to find out.

The circumstance doesn't render the statement false.  Sorry.

The statement is in reaction to the the activities in Cairo and Libya.  Can we glean from your position that you agree with the administration that the fault lie with the Egyptian Christians who are producing the movie in the US,

Can she seriously believe that an assault on the U.S. Embassy is justified?  Actually, why not, O's embassy itself seems to think it is!

I don't see security detail.  Show me where security staff is. Show me the guns.

Coleman, she is diverting.  Answer this question.  Are you saying you agree with the administration that blaming the Egyptian Christians for this is the proper response?

[Woody]

Rabbit hole post on the way...

[wbcoleman]

I don't see security detail.  Show me where security staff is. Show me the guns.

Let me get this straight.  If I object to your comments here, it's OK for me to bring a mob to your house, enter your property, and cause physical damage?  At least so long as you don't offer armed resistance??