3 ms·
Sounds like they had a legitimate question for the ambassador who reacted badly - which is no surprise for someone in this administration.
by aetch 3mo ago
Sounds like they had a legitimate question for the ambassador who reacted badly - which is no surprise for someone in this administration.
- Chu4eeno 3mo agoI just don't want to jump to any conclusion as I've never heard of this site nor these people before, for all I know they could be known for doing stunts or something. Though if this really happened as they say, it reflects very badly on Belgium as well.
- tokai 3mo agoIf you don't want to jump to conclusions, why then didn't you research a bit before posting?
- iso1631 3mo ago> Though if this really happened as they say, it reflects very badly on Belgium as well. Not so sure. If the security at the event said "these people are active threats to security", then its the police's job to remove the threat and then investigate. However it should now be on those lying about it that made the accusation to prevent their evidence, and if that's not good enough then to revoke their diplomatic credentials. If the event was a private function as it appeared to be, then removing them is fine, but from the report it sounds like more accusations were made then "these people are no longer allowed at our event", and like the boy who cried wolf, that's where the problem needs to be sorted.
- expedition32 3mo agoWhen America is sending their diplomats they're not sending their best!
- throwaway173738 3mo agoWe used to send people who were concerned with building relationships. These days it sounds like we’re sending people to milk relationships dry.
- burgreblast 3mo agoSo a long article about them being kicked out and all they detail about their own actions is that "we asked him about it"? I'm not sure what "tacitly threatened" means, either. If they want sympathy, they probably should lay out the details of their actions more clearly. This just reads as some juveniles went to an event, tried to rile up an official (while filming the response in hopes of getting a juicy clip), then were surprised when they were kicked out.
- dylan604 3mo agoThat does seem to be a trend in the stories becoming more about the journalists when the expected no comment response is given as if that was the true intent because of course they are not going to comment to hostile questions. In 2026, this is not news. We know what the administration is doing, so becoming the story is not the story they want it to be. They kept repeating "we were invited" as if that means something. While you can be invited, that invitation can be rescinded. At that point, you can't keep saying "we were invited" as a meaningful response to you being asked to leave regardless of why. To me, it does feel a bit like some journos looking for clout. Kaitlan Collins is the poster child for this type abuse from Trump even if she's not being manhandled by police.
- vanviegen 3mo agoYou rescind an invitation by (preferably kindly) asking the people in question to leave. Not by informing the police that they are an "active threat".
- watwut 3mo agoThey were not an active threat. It was simply a lie. They were in fact invited.