[ExI] remote embassies
spike66 at att.net
Sat Oct 24 13:53:10 UTC 2015
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 10:59 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] remote embassies
On 2015-10-24 00:28, spike wrote:
OK I have heard several reasons why we should have embassies, and do let us
assume them valid. Yesterday we heard testimony by the former US Sec of
State who held to the story that the attack on the US embassy in Libya was
caused by an internet video, with no other motive offered as an alternative.
>.Sigh. And do you think that is actually a plausible explanation?
Hi Anders, no I don't believe the story either. That video business was a
cover story, but a very revealing one. We sent a message to the world that
US embassies can be attacked, with the justification that they found
something on the internet they didn't like. The US will not even attempt to
defend its property overseas, but will go on an apology tour for our having
freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
It looks to me like that declares open season on any American travelling
overseas. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion will not be compromised
in the US. The government has no say on those matters. In the former Sec
of State and now presidential candidate's testimony it came out that she had
said "We will find the man who made the video and arrest him." He was a
swindler and they did arrest him on a parole violation. Since when has the
State Department intervened in a local parole board action? He was clearly
OK then, I am not a swindler, not on parole, so I can make blasphemous
videos and post them to YouTube. I don't even have a job, so it is unclear
to me what the IRS can do to me, even with its new role and apparently
unlimited powers as an 8th amendment-free attack dog for the federal
government. So, we have shown that our foreign embassies are sitting ducks
and our foreign travelers are accomplices to blasphemy.
>.But that also implies that the US is not able to protect its own embassy
and does not trust the local polity to actually be able to protect it. That
is a rather strong signal. Dr Anders Sandberg
This was clearly demonstrated on 11 September 2012.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat