NationStates Jolt Archive

A double car bomb attack on the US embassy in Yemen has killed at least 16 people, Yemeni officials say.

Washington said bombers targeted the main security gate as staff were arriving for work, but they failed to breach the compound's walls.

The militants, who were reportedly dressed as policemen, also exchanged gunfire with guards during the assault.

The US blamed al-Qaeda for the attack, and President George Bush said it was a reminder that the US is at war.

Security sources said six members of the Yemeni security forces, six attackers, and four bystanders were killed in the attack, which occurred in the capital, Sanaa, at about 0830 (0530 GMT).


We saw... a massive fireball very close to the US embassy
Trev Mason
eyewitness

Yemen faces new Jihad generation
US officials have confirmed that none of the casualties were Americans

Speaking in Washington, Mr Bush said the attack was "a reminder that we are at war against extremists who will murder innocent people to achieve their ideological objectives".

Mr Bush said the US government wanted people to be able to lead normal lives and would "help governments survive the extremists".

Condemning the "vicious" attack, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said it bore "all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda attack".

Separately, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the US would continue working with Yemen's government to "increase our counter-terrorism activities to prevent more attacks from taking place".

'Massive fireball'

British citizen Trev Mason described hearing explosions while in his residential compound near the embassy.
Map of Yemen

"We heard the sounds of a heavy gun battle going on," he told CNN television.

"I looked out of my window and we saw the first explosion going off, a massive fireball very close to the US embassy."

The attack is the second on the embassy in the past six months.

Earlier this year, the US ordered the evacuation of non-essential personnel from Yemen after mortar bombs were fired towards the embassy. They missed but hit a nearby school.

A group calling itself the Islamic Jihad in Yemen said it had carried out the attack, and threatened to target other foreign missions in the region unless its jailed members were released.

The authenticity of the claim could not be immediately verified.

'Sophisticated attack'

Sean McCormack said he understood that two vehicle-borne bombs had been involved in Wednesday's attack.

"They didn't succeed in this case, and it's a testament again to the kind of security upgrades that we have put in place," he said.

"We are looking at what further security steps we might take in the coming days to make sure the embassy is protected."

Yemen has long been a haven for Islamist militants.

In 2000, 17 US sailors were killed when suicide bombers with alleged links to al-Qaeda blew themselves up on an inflatable raft next to the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

The government of Yemen, which backs America's "war on terror", has often blamed al-Qaeda for attacks on Western targets in the country.

US special forces have been helping the government fight the Islamist militants, but analysts say there has been only limited success in restraining the militant groups.

Yemen is a desperately poor corner of the Middle East and, like Afghanistan, there is rugged mountainous terrain, with a vast supply of weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7620362.stm

This is terrible. My prayers go out to those killed in this attack.

Now, for the political side of this mess. This is the second time that an attack has happened on this embassy. I think it would be wise if we just pulled out of the places that continue to do harm against our gov't officials and citizens. It makes sense to me. However, I can't help but to think that this will be another justification to stay in the Arabian Peninsula, as we have to "stand tough, and never back down", which is a very idiotic stance. Why we are trying to be bad asses standing tough and all that junk, we are losing people that are presumably doing their best to promote peace, and international relations on the positive side.

Standing tough isn't the same as invading countries for no reason.

When somebody attacks a US embassy, that is an act of war because they are effectively striking at American soil; closing our embassies will do nothing but isolate us from the very nations we need to destroy terrorism. We gain no favor from them for doing so, and we appear weak and willing to give up when faced with enemy hostility.

These people are not attempting to force out an occupying force, they are trying to kill innocent people to advance their hate-filled, repressive ideology.

Standing tough isn't the same as invading countries for no reason.

When somebody attacks a US embassy, that is an act of war because they are effectively striking at American soil; closing our embassies will do nothing but isolate us from the very nations we need to destroy terrorism. We gain no favor from them for doing so, and we appear weak and willing to give up when faced with enemy hostility.

These people are not attempting to force out an occupying force, they are trying to kill innocent people to advance their hate-filled, repressive ideology.

I think its a bit of both of the things you mentioned in the last statement you made. The hate filled ideology is successful among young muslim men because of the fact that the American government is seen as an occupying force, especially in the holy lands of the Arabian peninsula. Do you remember what pissed OBL? Part of the reason was that he was snubbed by the Saudi when the first Gulf War broke out. The Saudis wanted Americans to place troops there to avoid war with Iraq, and turned down OBL's offer of mujaheddin fighters. Having American troops or personnel in Islamic holy lands is going to, and already has pissed off a great number of people, and again, causes them to buy into the hateful rhetoric given by forceful speakers and leaders.

I think its a bit of both of the things you mentioned in the last statement you made. The hate filled ideology is successful among young muslim men because of the fact that the American government is seen as an occupying force, especially in the holy lands of the Arabian peninsula. Do you remember what pissed OBL? Part of the reason was that he was snubbed by the Saudi when the first Gulf War broke out. The Saudis wanted Americans to place troops there to avoid war with Iraq, and turned down OBL's offer of mujaheddin fighters. Having American troops or personnel in Islamic holy lands is going to, and already has pissed off a great number of people, and again, causes them to buy into the hateful rhetoric given by forceful speakers and leaders.
The only problem with that is that closing an embassy is, in and of itself, an expression of hostility towards the host nation's government. It is a formal governmental act and declaration all by itself. Unless we are going to open up hostilities between the US and Yemeni governments, it is too big a step to take, one that could cause trouble all by itself. Standing there and being a target might be giving the terrorists what they want, but closing the embassy will also be giving them what they want. Diplomacy is difficult precisely because it is all about painting oneself into a corner and then finding a way to get in and out of that corner at will.

I think its a bit of both of the things you mentioned in the last statement you made. The hate filled ideology is successful among young muslim men because of the fact that the American government is seen as an occupying force, especially in the holy lands of the Arabian peninsula. Do you remember what pissed OBL? Part of the reason was that he was snubbed by the Saudi when the first Gulf War broke out. The Saudis wanted Americans to place troops there to avoid war with Iraq, and turned down OBL's offer of mujaheddin fighters. Having American troops or personnel in Islamic holy lands is going to, and already has pissed off a great number of people, and again, causes them to buy into the hateful rhetoric given by forceful speakers and leaders.

One has to wonder at the disconnect many people have when they believe that Islamic extremism began with Bush. Tell me, where has treating terrorists as mere legal targets gotten us? One forgets that such activities have been going on for since the 1970's. Long before the "holy lands" were occupied by the evil crusaders.

So be an idiot and blame this all on Iraq or troops in Saudi Arabia. But history is full of these lunatics who believe that their medieval mindset will triumph over the weak forces of civilization. The fact that you are trying revisionist tactics, a la Ho Chi Minh, to make Osama Bin Ladin a freedom fighter only shows the deepest depths of ignorance. The concept of "freedom" does not exist in his vocabulary.

Which brings about an even more disturbing trend: the liberal/leftist base has no issue with the "noble" Islamofascist attempting to gain total control over every aspect of life, including the repression of women and homosexuals, yet falls into spasms of revulsion when Christians try to pass a law declaring the legal definition of marriage. Supposedly those brown folk over in the Middle East are not ready to realize rights for women and homosexuals and that is just fine. Quite the disconnect in my mind and a complete lack of proportion.

Sorry about that. I guess what I meant to say was that standing up to terrorism is macho bullshit right? Can I get an echo?

Can I get an echo?
No. Those who vehemently oppose Christian fundamentalists vehemently oppose Islamic fundamentalists as well.

Which brings about an even more disturbing trend: the liberal/leftist base has no issue with the "noble" Islamofascist attempting to gain total control over every aspect of life, including the repression of women and homosexuals, yet falls into spasms of revulsion when Christians try to pass a law declaring the legal definition of marriage.


Really? Like the majority of liberals belive this? that's what 'base' suggests right?

I'd love to see you provide some examples. *doesn't hold breath*

What? You can't? Surprise surprise surprise.

One has to wonder at the disconnect many people have when they believe that Islamic extremism began with Bush. Tell me, where has treating terrorists as mere legal targets gotten us? One forgets that such activities have been going on for since the 1970's. Long before the "holy lands" were occupied by the evil crusaders.

So be an idiot and blame this all on Iraq or troops in Saudi Arabia. But history is full of these lunatics who believe that their medieval mindset will triumph over the weak forces of civilization. The fact that you are trying revisionist tactics, a la Ho Chi Minh, to make Osama Bin Ladin a freedom fighter only shows the deepest depths of ignorance. The concept of "freedom" does not exist in his vocabulary.

Which brings about an even more disturbing trend: the liberal/leftist base has no issue with the "noble" Islamofascist attempting to gain total control over every aspect of life, including the repression of women and homosexuals, yet falls into spasms of revulsion when Christians try to pass a law declaring the legal definition of marriage. Supposedly those brown folk over in the Middle East are not ready to realize rights for women and homosexuals and that is just fine. Quite the disconnect in my mind and a complete lack of proportion.

Sorry about that. I guess what I meant to say was that standing up to terrorism is macho bullshit right? Can I get an echo?

Incredible! You could build enough huts to house the entire population of Wasilla with all the straw you just burned!

Really? Like the majority of liberals belive this? that's what 'base' suggests right?

I'd love to see you provide some examples. *doesn't hold breath*

What? You can't? Surprise surprise surprise.

All I need is the opposition to allowing Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt democracy. Please Google at will the number of liberals and leftists who proclaim them there Middle Eastern people to be too "primitive" or too "tribal" to understand, much less implement, a democratic government.

And yes, a great many of liberals/leftist DO believe this. One way to alleviate yourself to heavy mental lifting is to ask others to do it for you. I will not so feel free to declare yourself full of "win".

Which brings about an even more disturbing trend: the liberal/leftist base has no issue with the "noble" Islamofascist attempting to gain total control over every aspect of life, including the repression of women and homosexuals, yet falls into spasms of revulsion when Christians try to pass a law declaring the legal definition of marriage. Supposedly those brown folk over in the Middle East are not ready to realize rights for women and homosexuals and that is just fine. Quite the disconnect in my mind and a complete lack of proportion.

Sorry about that. I guess what I meant to say was that standing up to terrorism is macho bullshit right? Can I get an echo?

I can't quite see you through the massive cloud of flies gathered over the gargantuan pile of bullshit you're standing in.

Incredible! You could build enough huts to house the entire population of Wasilla with all the straw you just burned!

You could house all of New York City with that straw, let alone Wasilla.

And I love the irony of some his statements too. They're all over the place and rather contradictory.

All I need is the opposition to allowing Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt democracy. Please Google at will the number of liberals and leftists who proclaim them there Middle Eastern people to be too "primitive" or too "tribal" to understand, much less implement, a democratic government.

And yes, a great many of liberals/leftist DO believe this. One way to alleviate yourself to heavy mental lifting is to ask others to do it for you. I will not so feel free to declare yourself full of "win".

so the usual post and run cowardice void of anything factual or sourced that we have come to expect of you?

*yawn*

All I need is the opposition to allowing Iraq and Afghanistan to attempt democracy. Please Google at will the number of liberals and leftists who proclaim them there Middle Eastern people to be too "primitive" or too "tribal" to understand, much less implement, a democratic government.

And yes, a great many of liberals/leftist DO believe this. One way to alleviate yourself to heavy mental lifting is to ask others to do it for you. I will not so feel free to declare yourself full of "win".

He who asserts must prove.

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GWYE_enCA261CA261&q=the+number+of+liberals+and+leftists+who+proclaim+them+there+Middle+Eastern+people+to+be+too+%22pri mitive%22+or+too+%22tribal%22+to+understand%2c+much+less+implement%2c+a+democratic+government

Yeah, totally helpful.

OMG, do you have any idea how many Conservatives believe that if you turn a condom inside out, you can actually use it again? Seriously! Totally go Google it! It's not up to ME to prove it, YOU go look, lazy bones!

I can't quite see you through the massive cloud of flies gathered over the gargantuan pile of bullshit you're standing in.

And I can't hear you over the blarring ad homin attack you just pulled.

One has to wonder at the disconnect many people have when they believe that Islamic extremism began with Bush. Tell me, where has treating terrorists as mere legal targets gotten us? One forgets that such activities have been going on for since the 1970's. Long before the "holy lands" were occupied by the evil crusaders.
We've never truly treated terrorists as mere legal targets, and I honestly don't see where you're getting this idea that we've claimed Islamic extremism started with Bush. Only someone ignorant of history would say that.

Furthermore, we've had problems precisely because of our prior actions. 1953 coup of democratic Iran ring a bell?

So be an idiot and blame this all on Iraq or troops in Saudi Arabia. But history is full of these lunatics who believe that their medieval mindset will triumph over the weak forces of civilization. The fact that you are trying revisionist tactics, a la Ho Chi Minh, to make Osama Bin Ladin a freedom fighter only shows the deepest depths of ignorance. The concept of "freedom" does not exist in his vocabulary.
I have no idea where you're getting this either. Where did any of us say any of that? I don't think you'll find very many of us having respect for Osama Bin Laden as some sort of "freedom fighter." We're all quite aware that he's a lunatic.

We disagree on how to fight him, is all.

Which brings about an even more disturbing trend: the liberal/leftist base has no issue with the "noble" Islamofascist attempting to gain total control over every aspect of life, including the repression of women and homosexuals, yet falls into spasms of revulsion when Christians try to pass a law declaring the legal definition of marriage. Supposedly those brown folk over in the Middle East are not ready to realize rights for women and homosexuals and that is just fine. Quite the disconnect in my mind and a complete lack of proportion.

What? No, seriously, what? Again, where did we say any of that?

You seem to be confusing our pointing out that not all Middle Eastern Muslims are extremists as something entirely different.

Sorry about that. I guess what I meant to say was that standing up to terrorism is macho bullshit right? Can I get an echo?
Nope. You'll not hear any of us say that either.

Finally, to sum up your post:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/PIcaRDMPC/128632187960172177.jpg

OMG, do you have any idea how many Conservatives believe that if you turn a condom inside out, you can actually use it again? Seriously! Totally go Google it! It's not up to ME to prove it, YOU go look, lazy bones!

I don't know about Conservatives but there are alot of people who believe the whole inside out thingy. Pretty gross but the internet is full of surprises. But hey, I was wondering if what you posted was true and a small search showed me that those idiots do exist. Yet I did see that it was not a Conservative phenomenon. So it is you that are the idiot since I did my own research.

Wow. That was hard. Next thing you will tell me to prove is that the media is not liberal or that leftists don't like capitalism. Prove it!

And I can't hear you over the blarring ad homin attack you just pulled.

You clearly don't understand ad hominem.

I'm attacking his shitstain of an argument. Some of that just happened to splatter on him.

You seriously think his bullshit assertations pulled out of some dark rectal recess deserve more than this? You, sir, have low expectations.

I don't know about Conservatives but there are alot of people who believe the whole inside out thingy. Pretty gross but the internet is full of surprises. But hey, I was wondering if what you posted was true and a small search showed me that those idiots do exist. Yet I did see that it was not a Conservative phenomenon. So it is you that are the idiot since I did my own research.
That wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Wow. That was hard. Next thing you will tell me to prove is that the media is not liberal or that leftists don't like capitalism. Prove it!

The media is not liberal in the sense you mean. American media is almost wholly corporate, with the addition of an American conservative bias on the part of Fox News.

As for leftists, it's not that leftists don't like capitalism, but more that they don't like certain aspects of it, and there is an extreme range of difference between the communistic belief that capitalism is entirely worthless and what would be the centre of the American view of capitalism.

Wow. That was hard. Next thing you will tell me to prove is that the media is not liberal or that leftists don't like capitalism. Prove it!

Yes. Were you to make these assertions, I would expect you to prove it.

That's how it works. I'm not sure how you got it so bass ackwards.

You clearly don't understand ad hominem.

I'm attacking his shitstain of an argument. Some of that just happened to splatter on him.

You seriously think his bullshit assertations pulled out of some dark rectal recess deserve more than this? You, sir, have low expectations.
Your references are really rather crappy. I highly advise you to stop referencing fecal matter before we all raise a big stink.

You clearly don't understand ad hominem.

I'm attacking his shitstain of an argument. Some of that just happened to splatter on him.

You seriously think his bullshit assertations pulled out of some dark rectal recess deserve more than this? You, sir, have low expectations.

I am not as right wing as he is, however his post has some good points.


One has to wonder at the disconnect many people have when they believe that Islamic extremism began with Bush. Tell me, where has treating terrorists as mere legal targets gotten us? One forgets that such activities have been going on for since the 1970's. Long before the "holy lands" were occupied by the evil crusaders.



So be an idiot and blame this all on Iraq or troops in Saudi Arabia. But history is full of these lunatics who believe that their medieval mindset will triumph over the weak forces of civilization. The fact that you are trying revisionist tactics, a la Ho Chi Minh, to make Osama Bin Ladin a freedom fighter only shows the deepest depths of ignorance. The concept of "freedom" does not exist in his vocabulary.

However, this part of his arguement is just plain stupid.



Which brings about an even more disturbing trend: the liberal/leftist base has no issue with the "noble" Islamofascist attempting to gain total control over every aspect of life, including the repression of women and homosexuals, yet falls into spasms of revulsion when Christians try to pass a law declaring the legal definition of marriage. Supposedly those brown folk over in the Middle East are not ready to realize rights for women and homosexuals and that is just fine. Quite the disconnect in my mind and a complete lack of proportion.

And I can't hear you over the blarring ad homin attack you just pulled.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

In fact, I do not think "ad homin" means anything at all, though "ad hominem" does.

An ad hominem would have been "you're a piece of shit." The shit in this case was the argument.

We've never truly treated terrorists as mere legal targets, and I honestly don't see where you're getting this idea that we've claimed Islamic extremism started with Bush. Only someone ignorant of history would say that.

At least you admit the liberal ignorance of history.


Furthermore, we've had problems precisely because of our prior actions. 1953 coup of democratic Iran ring a bell?

Does the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 ring a bell? My Iranian relatives would say that one was far worse than the other.

I have no idea where you're getting this either. Where did any of us say any of that? I don't think you'll find very many of us having respect for Osama Bin Laden as some sort of "freedom fighter." We're all quite aware that he's a lunatic.

Wow. Quite a disconnect. Apparently you have not been to DailyKos or Huffington Post or listened to Air America.

We disagree on how to fight him, is all.

Indeed. This is true. I do remember the thread about Osama's driver where everyone mocked holding a mere driver of a car never recognizing that this person stood in meetings where the deaths of 1000's of innocents was discussed and plotted without invoking any human compassion. Please do not fault me if I believe such a reaction to be ignorant and stupid.

What? No, seriously, what? Again, where did we say any of that?

I am sorry, perhaps I am confusing you with the politicians you claim to support. My bad.

You seem to be confusing our pointing out that not all Middle Eastern Muslims are extremists as something entirely different.

Hardly. I can tell the difference and, having Muslim family members, actually KNOW the difference. Luckily I am more about the quality of posts rather than the number, or getting the last word.

Enjoy your evening everyone.

Luckily I am more about the quality of posts rather than the number, or getting the last word.



AWESOME! I've been looking for a good sig!

Aye it was mega pish. Shame people died etc.

I am not as right wing as he is, however his post has some good points.

Don't post this unless you are ready to be tarred and feathered.

However, this part of his arguement is just plain stupid.

Really? You have not read, watched, or listened to the liberal media and politicians telling you that the Middle East is not ready for Democracy? That the hurdles are just to big for such tribal-minded people? That the voting in Iraq was a mere staged-event, 73% voting parcipation, that was doomed to failure because of thousand's of years of history?

Yep. Stupid me. Just plain stupid. So stupid that Biden was talking about dividing Iraq into three parts because those ethnic groups just can't get along. Yep. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

AWESOME! I've been looking for a good sig!

I always thought your "My agenda is superior." was far better than that.

Don't post this unless you are ready to be tarred and feathered.



Really? You have not read, watched, or listened to the liberal media and politicians telling you that the Middle East is not ready for Democracy? That the hurdles are just to big for such tribal-minded people? That the voting in Iraq was a mere staged-event, 73% voting parcipation, that was doomed to failure because of thousand's of years of history?

Yep. Stupid me. Just plain stupid. So stupid that Biden was talking about dividing Iraq into three parts because those ethnic groups just can't get along. Yep. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

No what I mean is that It is the same kind of bigotry behind the attempt to define marriage between a man and a woman that is ongoing the middle east.

Really? You have not read, watched, or listened to the liberal media and politicians telling you that the Middle East is not ready for Democracy? That the hurdles are just to big for such tribal-minded people? That the voting in Iraq was a mere staged-event, 73% voting parcipation, that was doomed to failure because of thousand's of years of history?

Yep. Stupid me. Just plain stupid. So stupid that Biden was talking about dividing Iraq into three parts because those ethnic groups just can't get along. Yep. Stupid. Just plain stupid.

Nope, I havent. If its so common place, Im sure you can find me an example of the left doing it...?

Nope, I havent. If its so common place, Im sure you can find me an example of the left doing it...?

Don't be lazy! Do your own research to prove his point! Apparently that's how it works.


At the gay bar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI).

At least you admit the liberal ignorance of history.

I do?

Please source your statement then.


Does the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 ring a bell? My Iranian relatives would say that one was far worse than the other.

Yes it does. It happened primarily because we had been continously supporting the Shah of Iran, a rather oppressive dictator.

Funny how people listen to anything they want to hear when they want to get out from under a dictator.


Wow. Quite a disconnect. Apparently you have not been to DailyKos or Huffington Post or listened to Air America.

Source your statement, please. These are biased organizations, to be sure, but they're not biased towards Islamic extremism.

On a side note, I don't read or listen to any of those, because I tend to prefer to get news from an unbiased source, such as NPR.


Indeed. This is true. I do remember the thread about Osama's driver where everyone mocked holding a mere driver of a car never recognizing that this person stood in meetings where the deaths of 1000's of innocents was discussed and plotted without invoking any human compassion. Please do not fault me if I believe such a reaction to be ignorant and stupid.


I believe people were mocking holding him because he was being held in Guantanamo Bay. Furthermore, if I remember that thread correctly, most of the complaints were more at the idea of considering him of equal value, prisoner wise, which is a ridiculous idea no matter what meetings he was present at. He was not involved in the planning of anything nor was he ever consulted. He was simply a driver.

I am sorry, perhaps I am confusing you with the politicians you claim to support. My bad.

I have only expressed support for Obama in this thread, and furthermore: source please.


Hardly. I can tell the difference and, having Muslim family members, actually KNOW the difference. Luckily I am more about the quality of posts rather than the number, or getting the last word.

I find this incredibly unlikely considering your posting history, and the random invocation of the old "I can't be ____ because I've got ____ friends/family members/whatever" does not help your case.

Enjoy your evening everyone.

I most certainly will, thank you.

Simply put, this is terroism, a sad thing, many good people have been killed.

Standing tough isn't the same as invading countries for no reason.

When somebody attacks a US embassy, that is an act of war because they are effectively striking at American soil

Erm. No. An embassy is the sovereign territory of the country in which it's located, NOT of the nation whose diplomatic mission is housed there.

Does the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 ring a bell? .


Internal dissenters against a foreign sponsored dictator v a foriegn sponsored coup against a democratically elected leader....Hmmmm, toughie.


Indeed. This is true. I do remember the thread about Osama's driver where everyone mocked holding a mere driver of a car never recognizing that this person stood in meetings where the deaths of 1000's of innocents was discussed and plotted without invoking any human compassion. .

So we should hang the janitors in the pentagon, and have strung up Stalins tea lady.......

Erm. No. An embassy is the sovereign territory of the country in which it's located, NOT of the nation whose diplomatic mission is housed there.

Actually, while they are within the territory of the host country, an embassy has extraterritorial status and is effectively treated as if it were the territory of the home country. Agents of the host country, for example, may not enter without permission.