The report on fast and Furious was released on Sept. 19, 2012.
Also, the operation started under Bush.
“Unilaterally” means that they proved this all by their lonesome without any other contributors? How is that authoritative?
And just because the administration denies it doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Case in point, they said that the attack was because of some video. Then they finally admitted that it was a coordinated attack. Should we have believed what they said first? Or should we believe what they say now? When do we know when they are dissembling?
Lastly, do you believe everything that you read?
If you had read the Snopes article, you would have seen the sources and read them yourself.
I just couldn’t resist jumping in. Mea culpa. But really this is an invigorating forum.
Clearly you only believe what you read if it confirms what you already think.
OP appears to be under the apprehension that the attack occurred at an “Embassy”.
It did not.
I’m not sure how we can discuss this with someone who doesn’t understand the fundamental facts of what happened and where.
Well I just think a system as far-reaching as ours will always be culpable of deaths over any 4 year period, regardless of it’s goodness or badness or what-have-you.
Is it just me or am I seeing a string of frothing at the mouth right wing newbies whose user names are all in an “[shortword][coupleofdigits]” format?
The Pit gets a little rough at times, a little goofy at others.
But the distinguishing characteristic of the board is that it holds its members to certain rhetorical standards. If you make an assertion, you’re expected to back it up. Basically, people are clowning around here, but in GD (Great Debates) you’d be expected to substantiate your case with links and argumentation. The standard answer to post 57 would be, “No, um, you show us why it’s reasonable to believe those things. Then we’ll pick your argument apart (and you will reply, etc. etc.)”.
As a rule nothing ever gets settled - the debate here never reaches that level of discipline. But the main lines of argument often get laid out and ignorance is fought from time to time. Which is the purpose of this board. That, and making wise cracks. 
Some video? It wasn’t quite just “some video.”. It was a notorious video that did spur demonstrations against the US.
As to the administration’s characterization of the precipitating context, please cite for me any example.of them definitively and categorically stating that the video caused the incident.
Opinions are also quite welcome, but if you try to post an opinion as a fact, it won’t fly very long here at all.
[Quote=Princhester]
Is it just me or am I seeing a string of frothing at the mouth right wing newbies whose user names are all in an “[shortword][coupleofdigits]” format?
[/quote]
Those of us with the [couple of digits][shortword] format, however…
If you do start your own thread on this topic, please provide a link. You have a germ of a point, but your description here is confused. You blithely skate across important distinctions between dimensional and categorical measurements of the construct.
For one, the term sociopathy is uncommon in the literature. The construct of psychopathy is far and away the more relevant construct.
Your description is a bit like the “successful psychopath” that Cleckley (1941) described, wherein one might be considered to be a psychopath but still would function modestly well in society. This would roughly be someone who is able to use and manipulate others to his or her advantage without remorse. A car salesman or a lawyer, for example, might possibly gain occupational advantage from these types of features.
This is an old formulation, though. The current measurement of psychopathy is exemplified in the Psychopathy Checklist. Here is where some difficulties arise in your discussion above. To be considered positive for psychopathy (as in, categorized as a psychopath relative to non-psychopaths), one has to score quite high on the measure. The best cutoffs are not well established, and appear to vary between forensic and general populations. Roughly speaking, however, estimates for the prevalence of psychopathy vary from less than 1% to perhaps 2%, or at the extreme, perhaps 5%. My sense is that the lower estimates are probably more reliable. So the idea that there are psychopaths all around us in our midst is a bit misleading.
You might argue, however, from a dimensional perspective, suggesting that psychopathic traits are pervasive (as you somewhat suggest with the allusion to Autism versus Asperger’s Disorder). That is perhaps true to a point, but the problem then is that the dimensional measurement includes a variety of items, such as being glib or superficially charming, being impulsive, being irresponsible, having shown juvenile delinquency, having short term marital relationships, showing a shallow affect, showing a proneness to boredom…
If I am impulsive, irresponsible, and lack long term goals, is it really meaningful to suggest that I am a “little bit” of a psychopath? It doesn’t make much sense to me to do so. It’s the same problem as looking at the criteria for ADHD, autism or depression, seeing a couple of items that feel familiar to you, and then worrying or claiming that you have the disorder. The criterion cut scores exist for a reason.
One side note: it is a little misleading to set Autism and Asperger’s Disorder as points on a spectrum as if Asperger’s Disorder were always less severe than Autism. The distinction between Asperger’s Disorder and Autism is that the development and use of communication skills is intact in the former and not in the latter. So, in general, individuals with Autism are more likely to be more severely impaired, but it is quite possible to have individuals with relatively low severity presentations of Autism and individuals with relatively high severity presentations of Asperger’s Disorder such that the latter might be worse off than the former.
A terrific summation of what it is we do here.
This.
Great post, but I take a minor issue with this point due to some changed coming up in DSM-5 (I was doing an essay on autism and happened on a paper complaining about the changes).
Here’s part of the rationale:
Well, you’re right. I don’t know the difference between an Embassy and a Consulate. Does a consulate not have the protection of “foreign soil?” Any how does that make any difference as to whether we should have saved those people or not? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
Exactly what is “protection of “foreign soil””?
CMC
Canada has a Consulate in Minneapolis. It’s on the 4th floor of an office building downtown.
Embassies have a lot of security, may have walls around it (depending on location), etc.
Consulates not so much. Their primary mission is business and civilian contacts, not diplomatic functions.
Operation Wide Receiver (OWF) did not morph into Operation Fast and Furious (OF&F). OWF was different in some key ways. First, they actually did try and track the weapons into Mexico. But, once they realized that the tracking devices were being removed from the weapons, they discontinued it. Also, they notified Mexican authorities of this operation.
OF&F did not try and track the weapons. They moved a lot more weapons. And the Mexican government was not aware of the operation.
One ignorant question if you don’t mind: What is the numbers in brackets in your post concerning the Inspector General report? I can’t find anything about this practice in the FAQs.
Thanks