Any time an Ambassador of the United States is killed as a rule, it puts Americans to the defense. As an isolated incident, if Americans do not know anything about the personal life of the person, then there is a principal, just as if a piece of land was attacked, or an embassy {or consulate} with no one in it.
Pictures, of what appears to be moments just before or just after his death, show in the science that deals with physio-biological effects of certain thematic topics that might have been at thresholds of what was occurring to the mind --whether they were carried out in the practical level or not is another story-- might not be ones that are directly approved of by the people there, indirectly.
Whether he did, was, is, had a history of the behaviors, rumors circulating, so on so forth, that is not something that straight minded authors feel inclined to investigate into.
Rounding up, incidents such as what occurred surrounding Ambassador Stevens, puts a strain on two camps.
The level of security [i.e. embassy or consulate]. Was it lax? Or was it strong enough according to some technicalities, then deemed lax after the fact? The bottom line is, whatever the level was, it did not result in blockading the attack.
All the way over in Washington DC, pointing the blame to senior level officials in business attire, may also have contradictions of laws that were set in place as long ago as the Founding Fathers, for a more extensive and complex set of reasons.
Positive directive in intention/ camp 1: is protective of the Embassy/consulate staff and the security team, comprised of positions that are close to heart
Positive directive in intention/ camp 2: protective of all senior level officials and ambassadors, embassy and consulate staff, notably those that are credited by some to be at the high echelons regarding the conditions of embassies
When camp 1 is so fueled about that aspect, it can have disagreements with camp 2.
Altogether, the abovementioned paragraphs hit upon issue 1.
Issue 2, without going into detail, as it is still early in the moments after the missile strikes that just occurred in Palestine to make a more comprehensive statement that is based on all the facts involved, is, how justified was the method of a missile strike, and how far it is or is not adherent to international rules of treatment of one another?
In the previous post, it was stated that missile were being fired as a generality, the type of strikes a separate subject, as what was going in the area, meaning Syria-Turkey border, Palestine, and Israel occupied areas.
Issue 3, is the 'name game', reference events like those surrounding the 'Innocence' film earlier this year. The writing you are reading right now is a blog, not a report being officially submitted that requires investigations for word for word fact finding. The name game is played by so many deviant people for many things. Blog writers are going to make the effort to set the or their point, and little gambit strategies of perpetrators in the wrong doing does not detract from it.
Long term strategies looking back, -- ; short term actions ???
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Syria and Turkey and Israel are Bombing and Missile Striking at the Same Time. Edited Post and Title on 9/17/2013.
An outrage:
Near and during the Hajj season
events which for some reason have not been gaining much headline news over here in the United States
--there has been some, but ostensibly sporadic--, you have to look for it to find it,
the way it has been handled insofar coverage of the stories is already suspect;
because any other time when there is an opportunity to condescend the Arab world as a result of infighting, it is smeared all over every headline for every moment
Concerning matter, is U.S. troops are on 'just in case' standby status to get involved in Syria
Getting involved with Syria should not be looked at as just another situation, place and geographic region that application of military skill can be exercised
Getting involved in a place like Syria that has a historically many holy dimensions of it, might automatically result in whoever gets involved to be condescended in other ways by the Arab World
That is why hurrying to involvement, {is being talked about} nevermind coming up with a strategy to justify involvement that involves acting wry
Once again, over here in America, the press has to take time off from what they are doing to keep our homeland on the up and up, like repairing from Hurricane Sandy,
and pay attention to the build-up of a situation that is shame on the Arab World
Here is the list of a few:
And who said there is a Civil War going on Syria?
----Comments, edits, and revisions placed September 17, 2013 about this question asked here of 'who said there is Civil War?':
Included in the general definition of civil war, according to dictionaries in the U.S., is a war that is between citizens of the same country.
On a technicality, insofar whomever the following statement has as referent, are citizens of the same country,
"We are in a state of real war, in every aspect of the words, and when we're in a state of war, all of our politics has to be concentrated on winning this war," President Bashar al-Assad told his new Cabinet during a speech about the economy and domestic issues in which he called for unity to make the country strong."
source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest
Al-Assad: 'We're in a state of war'
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 9:18 PM EDT, Tue June 26, 2012
Technicalities in consideration of all the facts, such as, are all parties fighting actually doing so fully in capacity as citizens of the country, and are they being impelled purely by motives that have to do with what is for the country, and their motive coming from, from the country, and many dimensions along this line, might result in depictions.
Is or was the state of affairs when this post was written, more accurately, war, and not necessarily civil war?
Assad said according to the source, it is drawn from, "We are in a state of real war".
The source the statement it is drawn from, same source above, http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest, did not verbatim say civil war.
The distinguishing of the source the statement is drawn from, from his exact statement, is to leave room for possible translations, dialects and colloquial meanings.
See for further reading at the bottom of this post, for more on the subject.
----end of September 17, 2013 comment
----September 17, 2013 revised statement:
Forthrightly what is being referred to here is the unethical misuse of violence and strife, for the purpose of further unethical violence.
----end of September 17, 2013 revised statement----
Cover stories here, there, then don't cover stories here, there, time it, okay, that's enough based on what's on the news, do something dangerously reckless, and get yourself and others hurt in ways far beyond what you've ever thought of before --that's what sits on the ledge of potential capable imminent to unfold
--like a bird sitting on the edge of a rooftop, waiting to...
And, Syria and Turkey are going back and forth, missile strikes, bombing, and at the same time, Israeli missiles are striking targets in the same area, these shots some press says are one in the same with warning shots
--low notes: is it a safe guess that Israel must be on Turkey's side, Turkey on the 'side' of Israel respective of the Syria situation, like in cartoons of soldiers meant for 7 year olds to watch?
Golan Heights area
All of this is just an initial inhale of the situation, not even an analysis or study of the situation
More in-depth studies might be provided in the upcoming future
'Since '73'
What about since the Ottoman Empire
Who else is sitting perched?
-----end of original article in blog post written 2012-----
For further reading:
1.
What Is Civil War?
Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition
Nicholas Sambanis
Department of Political Science, Yale University
Abstract
"...Without ad hoc rules to code its start and end and differentiate it from other violence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to define and measure civil war. A wide range of variation in parameter estimates makes accurate predictions of war onset difficult, and differences in empirical results are greater with respect to war continuation."
http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/48/6/814.abstract
2.
civil war
Definition
Armed conflict between a government and another group from within the same country.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/civil-war.html
What does 'from' in the definition here mean, when for example, if there are people in the country fighting against another party, but the former are not originally from the country, take for instance mercenaries, or trouble-makers?
3.
Over a 1000 people died, and at least a 100 from each side, point of scholastic assessments, in consideration; then, what were the time windows, for instance, over a 1000 people killed over the course of 500 years in a case of empires in Europe, the 1000 people averages to 2 persons per year; is that rate, of 2 deaths a year, commonly perceived as civil war?
4.
Looking at the statement, "We are in a state of real war",
Who or what was being referred to, reference "concentrated on winning", winning over who, a group of fully recognized citizens in Syria, or a broader situation that extends beyond the borders of the country, or a combination of events, and angles such as these, or, these aside, what was said to who was being talked to, was the purview, whereat it is not appropriate to try to speculate inappropriately?
5.
Do terrorists comprise an entity that when fighting them, the fighting that emerges should be considered civil war?
6.
Based on what Syrian President Assad said in an interview with Charlie Rose within recent weeks thereabout, September 2013, included in what his regime has been contending with recently is Al Qaeda.
Near and during the Hajj season
events which for some reason have not been gaining much headline news over here in the United States
--there has been some, but ostensibly sporadic--, you have to look for it to find it,
the way it has been handled insofar coverage of the stories is already suspect;
because any other time when there is an opportunity to condescend the Arab world as a result of infighting, it is smeared all over every headline for every moment
Concerning matter, is U.S. troops are on 'just in case' standby status to get involved in Syria
Getting involved with Syria should not be looked at as just another situation, place and geographic region that application of military skill can be exercised
Getting involved in a place like Syria that has a historically many holy dimensions of it, might automatically result in whoever gets involved to be condescended in other ways by the Arab World
That is why hurrying to involvement, {is being talked about} nevermind coming up with a strategy to justify involvement that involves acting wry
Once again, over here in America, the press has to take time off from what they are doing to keep our homeland on the up and up, like repairing from Hurricane Sandy,
and pay attention to the build-up of a situation that is shame on the Arab World
Here is the list of a few:
- Syrian people are being killed
- Turkish people are being killed
- Akcakale
- Involved now are other countries voicing their positions, --does it help reduce casualty?-- remote string attached to 'in the picture', is what is being referred to here, Qatar is making statements according to news sites
And who said there is a Civil War going on Syria?
----Comments, edits, and revisions placed September 17, 2013 about this question asked here of 'who said there is Civil War?':
Included in the general definition of civil war, according to dictionaries in the U.S., is a war that is between citizens of the same country.
On a technicality, insofar whomever the following statement has as referent, are citizens of the same country,
"We are in a state of real war, in every aspect of the words, and when we're in a state of war, all of our politics has to be concentrated on winning this war," President Bashar al-Assad told his new Cabinet during a speech about the economy and domestic issues in which he called for unity to make the country strong."
source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest
Al-Assad: 'We're in a state of war'
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 9:18 PM EDT, Tue June 26, 2012
Technicalities in consideration of all the facts, such as, are all parties fighting actually doing so fully in capacity as citizens of the country, and are they being impelled purely by motives that have to do with what is for the country, and their motive coming from, from the country, and many dimensions along this line, might result in depictions.
Is or was the state of affairs when this post was written, more accurately, war, and not necessarily civil war?
Assad said according to the source, it is drawn from, "We are in a state of real war".
The source the statement it is drawn from, same source above, http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest, did not verbatim say civil war.
The distinguishing of the source the statement is drawn from, from his exact statement, is to leave room for possible translations, dialects and colloquial meanings.
See for further reading at the bottom of this post, for more on the subject.
----end of September 17, 2013 comment
----September 17, 2013 revised statement:
Forthrightly what is being referred to here is the unethical misuse of violence and strife, for the purpose of further unethical violence.
----end of September 17, 2013 revised statement----
Cover stories here, there, then don't cover stories here, there, time it, okay, that's enough based on what's on the news, do something dangerously reckless, and get yourself and others hurt in ways far beyond what you've ever thought of before --that's what sits on the ledge of potential capable imminent to unfold
--like a bird sitting on the edge of a rooftop, waiting to...
And, Syria and Turkey are going back and forth, missile strikes, bombing, and at the same time, Israeli missiles are striking targets in the same area, these shots some press says are one in the same with warning shots
--low notes: is it a safe guess that Israel must be on Turkey's side, Turkey on the 'side' of Israel respective of the Syria situation, like in cartoons of soldiers meant for 7 year olds to watch?
Golan Heights area
All of this is just an initial inhale of the situation, not even an analysis or study of the situation
More in-depth studies might be provided in the upcoming future
'Since '73'
What about since the Ottoman Empire
Who else is sitting perched?
-----end of original article in blog post written 2012-----
For further reading:
1.
What Is Civil War?
Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition
Nicholas Sambanis
Department of Political Science, Yale University
Abstract
"...Without ad hoc rules to code its start and end and differentiate it from other violence, it is difficult, if not impossible, to define and measure civil war. A wide range of variation in parameter estimates makes accurate predictions of war onset difficult, and differences in empirical results are greater with respect to war continuation."
http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/48/6/814.abstract
2.
civil war
Definition
Armed conflict between a government and another group from within the same country.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/civil-war.html
What does 'from' in the definition here mean, when for example, if there are people in the country fighting against another party, but the former are not originally from the country, take for instance mercenaries, or trouble-makers?
3.
Over a 1000 people died, and at least a 100 from each side, point of scholastic assessments, in consideration; then, what were the time windows, for instance, over a 1000 people killed over the course of 500 years in a case of empires in Europe, the 1000 people averages to 2 persons per year; is that rate, of 2 deaths a year, commonly perceived as civil war?
4.
Looking at the statement, "We are in a state of real war",
Who or what was being referred to, reference "concentrated on winning", winning over who, a group of fully recognized citizens in Syria, or a broader situation that extends beyond the borders of the country, or a combination of events, and angles such as these, or, these aside, what was said to who was being talked to, was the purview, whereat it is not appropriate to try to speculate inappropriately?
5.
Do terrorists comprise an entity that when fighting them, the fighting that emerges should be considered civil war?
6.
Based on what Syrian President Assad said in an interview with Charlie Rose within recent weeks thereabout, September 2013, included in what his regime has been contending with recently is Al Qaeda.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
America * Move Ahead to the Light, in Consideration the 2012 Presidential Election is Over
Moving forward, moving ahead
Now that the Presidential Election of 2012 is behind us, --barring no post-election vote count commotion--, let not the vagaries of why the race seemed to be so tight, from psychological perspectives, distract America and Americans from the light that could be ahead.
And the same for disillusioned myth predictions and fairy tales of what America might undergo in the next few years; that we do not get distracted unduly for this thing.
Join us to make America a better place.
Now that the Presidential Election of 2012 is behind us, --barring no post-election vote count commotion--, let not the vagaries of why the race seemed to be so tight, from psychological perspectives, distract America and Americans from the light that could be ahead.
And the same for disillusioned myth predictions and fairy tales of what America might undergo in the next few years; that we do not get distracted unduly for this thing.
Join us to make America a better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
