Why do some people seem not to know that attacking an embassy is a blatant act of war?
Embassies are sovereign ground. Intrusion is a blatant act of war. Of course since yesterday was was 9/11 there was NO need for additional security forces...
- Anonymous7 years agoBest Answer
Willful ignorance and love for Obama.
- Señor GatoLv 77 years ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. Embassies are not 'sovereign ground'. The notion that they are extensions of the US is a myth. The property still is part of the host nation, however the host nation cannot enter the grounds without permission. Further, it is not an act of war because it was not Egyptian or Libyan forces that stormed the embassies. If attacks on US embassies were acts of war the US would have been at war 23 times over the years, including against such countries as Jordan, Indonesia and Greece.
- IcoulatorLv 77 years ago
All Embassy sites are considered to be the property of the nation in that site. However, a Consulate is not considered to have such status, and has no property rights or protection. A nation can have many Consulates, but only one Embassy.
- CiphLv 67 years ago
An act of war requires a sovereign nation to authorize an attack. A frenzied mob only represents themselves and is dealt with as criminals.
Even rogue military elements have never been construed as invoking acts of wars by attacking targets across a border - this has actually happened and is considered a diplomatic issue, not a war.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- random_manLv 77 years ago
So your answer is what? Attack Egypt because a bunch of civilian rioters stole our flag?
In Libya a consular office was attacked not our embassy. (not that that matters much, it's still horrible and people lost lives). Also not carried out by the government, but rather a civilian mob. I suppose you want to go to war there too?
Personally, I'm not ready to see our sons and daughters go fight and die over this.
- OwlBearLv 77 years ago
People are too stupid to learn from history. Here's the cycle:
A more powerful nation oppresses a weaker one without justification.
Some people from the oppressed nation strike back.
The oppressor nation says, "See how those terrorist barbarians attacked us without provocation! They obviously need policing!" Which justifies even more oppression, continuing the cycle.
Idiot chicken-hawks won't be satisfied until the US imposes a totalitarian dictatorship on the entire rest of the earth or goes broke trying.
- Anonymous7 years ago
Embassies are NOT sovereign ground. That's a myth. Where'd you get that? On 24?
But yeah, ambassadors enjoy full immunity, and the host country is responsible for the security.
- mommanukeLv 77 years ago
It would only be an act of war if the country itself attacked the embassy, not a group of citizen rioters. I think the person who made the movie as well as the person who dubbed it in Arabic and put it on the web should face charges of encouraging sedition.
- BflowingLv 77 years ago
If it was by foreign government forces, it would be. But these were attacks by a small organized group. If it can be shown that the government was involved, then some action would be needed. I doubt we would go to a full scale war.
- 7 years ago
The Security Council makes war. Behold . . .the swift and decisive use of military force.
- Anonymous7 years ago
The no need for additional security on 911 is the funny part.
Excuse me sir, I seem to have left my pants around my knees.