A friend and I were commenting that the entire embassy burning fad going on in Muslim lands had one oddity to it, in that it was said over and over that anger about the cartoons was often directed at the US but there were no attacks on US Embassies.
People in the west already said that the attacks on the Danish and other embassies was the inspiration of agitaors, so what if the agitators were the CIA, trying to fan flames, to make the Islamic people look worse, to make specific events happen, that would reduce sympathy for the Muslim world and make an attack on Iran look more logical, just something to do to even the score, “remember the US embassy takeover” kind of thing.
The race is on for the Iranian oil, to get it before China lays their hand on it in a month or two, so maybe bombing a few reactors is the reason for it.
The entire issue has had the feel of a marketing campaign from the beginning. That was a good catch you found and there are others. Combine that with Rice’s request for $75million and a recruiting drive shown in the MSM and it all looks more questionable.
The dead and injured though are all too real.
Sorry, but there goes your theory.
Is this the extent of the attack?
of their parts sometimes.
But you have to understand Washington’s poition. What they really wanted was to crank it up a notch in Europe, to bring down the rental rate of expendables for expansion of the crusade to Iran and beyond.
They really didn’t need any more support for the war on terror in the US, or any uptrend in rabidity of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, anti-Generalized frightening beige other sentiment, which is what they got, along with a clear indication that crackdown funding to client states must be increased. Again.
And now, it seems, they also got some broken windows at the guard post and a cracked gate in their embassy in Indonesia, alas.
Have you checked the U.S. embassy in Indonesia lately?