When one nation establishes an embassy/diplomatic mission, it is with the host nation's endorsement. That endorsement makes the embassy/diplomatic mission "quests" of that host nation. The host nation is obligated to protect it's guests, regardless of the source of the threat.

Failure to do so does constitutes "An Act of War".

At the very least, all western nations should send a signal to these poor host nations and recall their embassies/diplomatic missions in full. Leave no one behind.

As a true sign, last man out demolishes the embassy complex, we're not coming back!

Oh yeah and declare their embassys/diplomatic missions "Persona non grata", you have 24 hours to leave!

Well the thing is that technically, attacking the embassies with or without protection from the home nation IS an act of war regardless of the circumstances because embassies are viewed in the modern world as territories of the nation they belong to (i.e. technically, the US embassy in Moscow is American soil, just like the Russian embassy in DC is Russian soil). Thus, when the embassies are attacked, the nations that own them are attacked, and therefore the attack constitutes an act of war.

an end...have a nice day. :)

Paulus to Saulus....Skybird sometimes you crack me up lol. :)

see above post... have a nice day. :)

This is actually the funniest thing I have heard all day on NPR - These guys are reacting violently at the dipiction of Mohhamed as a violent figure!

"Mohammed is not violent! Burn down their embassys for that statement!!!"

I lauged for about 5 min straight. This has got to be a classic to add for the rest of history into the journal of the most hypocritical and stupid ideas of all time!

-S

In Iran yesterday they attacked the Austrian embassy with firebombs, now tonight they are attacking the Danish embassy with firebombs and trying to get in.

Advice to all embassy's closed due to hot heads that may help them not to be attacked or :huh:

I wonder how much of all this "popular anger" is spontanious. Most Muslim countries are dictatorships, where popular demonstrations are either organised or brutally suppressed. And the weird thing is that these drawings were made months ago, in September 2005.
Now I hate unfounded conspiracy theories ("The Kursk was sunk by the Dallas", "Bush flew the planes into the WTC himself", "Osama Bin Laden is actually defending Islam") but I have the idea that some radical Muslim states like Syria and Iraq could well profit from all this.
Syria desperately needs international support after being castigated for its subversive terror campaqign against progressive Lebanese politicians and journalists. Iraq just got the message that the big 5 nationa voted to bring its breach of the non-proliferation treaty - as established by the International Atomic Enercy Commission - on the agenda of the Security Council.
What better way to drum up support from the - often oil-rich - Muslim nations (and energy depending nations!) but by "defending Islam against the infidels"?

I think you mean Iran instead of Iraq Abraham but yeah I was thinking the same thing. :yep:

Danish, Swedish ...
 

You're absolutely right, Konovalov.

I don't see how encouraging your people to burn an embassy would endear you to anyone. The oil-rich countries are islamic as well, yet they aren't all that offended, and aren't reacting in that way...

And I don't see how Saudi Arabia might push the US - Or any western country - against Scandinavia over some cartoons. Burning embassy will not get you on anyone's sympathy list - Diplomats are supposed to be sacred.

If there was agitation, I'd look more toward countries that might have interest in sending troop into Syria and Iran to calm an insurection.