[URL="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/obama-skipping-paris-114295.html?hp=t1_r"]http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...5.html?hp=t1_r[/URL]
[quote=Amil Khan]President Obama has run into harsh criticism, both at home and abroad, for not attending this week’s Paris protest march or sending a high-level substitute in his place. French and European leaders, meanwhile, have won widespread praise for their aggressive and bold stand against jihadists
Yet it’s the European reaction that plays right into Al Qaeda’s hands, and the Americans who are actually taking the wiser approach by not turning the Paris terror attacks into a giant battle for civilization—and [I]Charlie Hebdo into a rallying cry for free speech. It was hardly a surprise that the group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/International/al-qaeda-laid-plan-charlie-hebdo-massacre-video/story?id=28213640"]appeared eager [/URL]t o claim responsibility Wednesday for the attacks. But for Al Qaeda, a triumph isn’t complete until it gets a reaction.
And, wow, did it ever get a reaction in Europe—precisely the wrong kind.
--
[I]In response, Al Qaeda has sought to overcome this lack of interest among Muslims by trying to polarize Muslim and Western views, and here is where it has had a great deal of success in Europe, far less so in the United States. The Muslim underclass in many of these European countries is already polarized, and the over-the-top reaction to the Charlie Hebdo killings is only exacerbating that trend. The idea, as stated in the jihadi strategy document “Management of Savagery,” is to “transform societies into two opposing groups, igniting a violent battle between them whose end is either victory or martyrdom.” The best way to make sure the intended audience understands the justification for the attack is to make the attack itself self-explanatory, the strategists behind the document say. Clearly, the targeting of Charlie Hebdo, a magazine well known for printing images that many, if not most, Muslims would find offensive, but were seen as part of a cherished European tradition of free expression, fit very comfortably in this strategy.[/quote][/I][/I]
You've essentially created a debate thread.
Nomatter what we do these cunts are going to say its all a part of their master plan. Just fuck off already and leave everyone alone.
Was his absence truly that big of a deal? We all know the USA has an unquestionable commitment to free speech, so it's not like his absence was indicative of a failing in that regard. It's also a tall order to expect the President of the US to travel to every terror affected country in the wake of an attack.
And even if he'd gone, you'd have people bitching about how he's concerning himself with other countries problems and not his own country.
Well to be honest it was tragic tyat people died for free speech and that there are extremists in europe, but blowing it all out of proportion with pencils, "I am Charlie", protests in all of europe with the message "we gun git dem xtreemists". Plus people are basically commercializing the deaths of people. How you ask? Well a store near me has started selling "Je suis Charlie" merc and let me tell ya, these spaceheads are buying like daily cartons of milk.
In the end they'll tire of all this because they are fighting an enemy they can't see and soon it'll just be "Who is Charlie?"
Probably because it was scheduled just days after the shooting and attending something that would require that much security would take a whole lot of planning. Seriously, the amount of security and planning that goes into a normal public appearance[I] inside[/I] the country is incredible. An unscheduled appearance in a crowded area in a foreign country would have taken such an insane amount of security that I doubt it was ever considered. I'm still surprised they didn't send Kerry or some other less important person though.
Honestly the US is either too uninvolved or too involved in foreign issues. If we had sent someone there would be more "oh look at the US getting in other people's business, ohh the oppression" bullshit.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;46957099]Probably because it was scheduled just days after the shooting and attending something that would require that much security would take a whole lot of planning. Seriously, the amount of security and planning that goes into a normal public appearance[I] inside[/I] the country is incredible. An unscheduled appearance in a crowded area in a foreign country would have taken such an insane amount of security that I doubt it was ever considered. I'm still surprised they didn't send Kerry or some other less important person though.[/QUOTE]
I find it bad when the president won't go somewhere in a first world country because of security concerns. Either the western world is nowhere near as secure as they seem fit or they're extremely paranoid.
I'm kind of glad Obama didn't participate in the free speech circle-jerk composed mainly of people that trample free speech. Pretty much every European leader went straight home and started ordering the arrests of people that didn't post "Je Suis Charlie" on Facebook the requisite number of times.
[QUOTE=pentium;46957278]I find it bad when the president won't go somewhere in a first world country because of security concerns. Either the western world is nowhere near as secure as they seem fit or [B]they're extremely paranoid.[/B][/QUOTE]
That one. He was in Austin not long ago and the city was basically shut down. Any road the motorcade was going down was blocked hours in advance. Keep in mind that this is the capital of Texas, where security is already fairly high.
John Kerry came.
it's okay
My issue is more with the fact that Eric Holder was in Paris at the time of the Rally, but decided not to go.
The leaders of the some of the worlds biggest countries out in public all at once. A suicide bombers wet dream.
[QUOTE=bitches;46956872]You've essentially created a debate thread.[/QUOTE]
You say that as if there was a debate forum
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;46956937]Was his absence truly that big of a deal? We all know the USA has an unquestionable commitment to free speech, so it's not like his absence was indicative of a failing in that regard. It's also a tall order to expect the President of the US to travel to every terror affected country in the wake of an attack.[/QUOTE]
Its actually less of a deal about President Obama going, but rather his cabinet members. The news are saying, if Obama can't turn up, why not John Kerry, the Sec of defence, the other important members.
[video=youtube;wfwDw1BpciI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfwDw1BpciI[/video]
[editline]18th January 2015[/editline]
The video I posted talks about it.
I think it was more important for European leaders to be there together. Yes it might've been nice, but not really that significant of a deal compared to something like the talks nations will be having on Climate Change later this year.
the march was dumb, i dont know what they were trying to prove besides that the terrorists did a good job of terrorising.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;46956945]And even if he'd gone, you'd have people bitching about how he's concerning himself with other countries problems and not his own country.[/QUOTE]
"Tonight on Fox News, President Obama seen hanging out with-get this- [I]cheese-eating surrender monkeys.[/I] What does the president hope to accomplish by holding hands with the French? Find out tonight at 6!"
[QUOTE=barrab;46958480]the march was dumb, i dont know what they were trying to prove besides that the terrorists did a good job of terrorising.[/QUOTE]
Showing solidarity and banding together in times of need is hardly being terrorised.
[editline]18th January 2015[/editline]
The reason why this particular incident was significant was because it was not just an attack on people, but an attack on an idea, one which is very strongly held in most European countries- freedom of speech. It wasn't just people's lives at risk in that terror attack, but they were trying to silence us. So instead, we loudened ourselves.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46960656]Showing solidarity and banding together in times of need is hardly being terrorised.
[editline]18th January 2015[/editline]
The reason why this particular incident was significant was because it was not just an attack on people, but an attack on an idea, one which is very strongly held in most European countries- freedom of speech. It wasn't just people's lives at risk in that terror attack, but they were trying to silence us. So instead, we loudened ourselves.[/QUOTE]
the unfortunate implication however, as the article explains, is polarization.
if separating people into two vitrolic, diametrically opposed groups can be accomplished by something as simple as talking about videogames, imagine what effect this particular event and issue might have.
The US President, being the leader of the Free World, has to be front and center, it's political protocol. However, this occasion would not be an appropriate one for the President to dominate. He shouldn't have gone and therefore I think that was the right choice he didn't go.
Who should go then? Isn't that what an ambassador does? Sure you could send a Secretary of State or someone similar, but that's a sign of indecisiveness. Either someone really big(ie the President) goes or just send the ambassador. Don't be wishy washy and send someone in the middle.
I don't really think it's an issue, we're probably gonna be the ones who find the asshole who ordered that attack and drone him. That should be a good consolation prize.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.