QuoteU.S. ambassador to Libya, three staff killed in rocket attack: official
(Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on Tuesday in the Libyan city of Benghazi, a Libyan official said.
It was not clear if the ambassador was in his car or the Libyan consulate when the attack occurred.
"The U.S. ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.
(The story corrects "Libyan" to "U.S." in quote)
(Reporting by Samia Nakhoul, editing by Diana Abdallah)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912
Ok this is now serious.
Thoughts on the appropriate response and influence on the US elections?
I should start prowling the Hungarian politics forums, so I learn how this was the making of THE JEWS, in their continuing bid for rich east euro lands.
reech beety plains of pannonia
This is an attack by Islamist terrorists. The correct response is to work with the Libyan government to bring them to justice.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on September 12, 2012, 04:47:35 AM
reech beety plains of pannonia
This is an attack by Islamist terrorists. The correct response is to work with the Libyan government to bring them to justice.
This was an attack by a bunch of thugs who had nothing better to do that evening.
It is Libya. Probably all household has a couple of RPGs nowadays.
Still, it's the obligation of a host country to ensure security of a foreign ambassador. Wars were started over less in the past.
Americans should be genuinely outraged and pissed that their embassy was overrun; Ambassador has been killed.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 12, 2012, 05:27:50 AM
Americans should be genuinely outraged and pissed that their embassy was overrun; Ambassador has been killed.
Consulate, not Embassy. But still I agree, good reason to be outraged. But the problem remains, who do we (as i "the west") bomb in retaliation?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:36:45 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 12, 2012, 05:27:50 AM
Americans should be genuinely outraged and pissed that their embassy was overrun; Ambassador has been killed.
Consulate, not Embassy. But still I agree, good reason to be outraged. But the problem remains, who do we (as i "the west") bomb in retaliation?
I would be satisfied with mass arrests and long prison sentences.
What is wrong with these fucking people? :bleeding:
When Dogma came out, you didn't see angry Catholics rioting in the streets and trying to kill Jay and Silent Bob. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2012, 05:42:49 AM
What is wrong with these fucking people? :bleeding:
When Dogma came out, you didn't see angry Catholics rioting in the streets and trying to kill Jay and Silent Bob. :rolleyes:
I'd answer that question, but I'm trying to avoid yet another religion flame war.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 04:36:51 AM
Thoughts on the appropriate response and influence on the US elections?
Mitt Romney's campaign has already issued a condemnation of the Obama Administration.
Don't marines guard these places? Can't they just mow down attackers with a 50 cal?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
Don't marines guard these places? Can't they just mow down attackers with a 50 cal?
They should have tackled the missile launchers instead.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
Don't marines guard these places? Can't they just mow down attackers with a 50 cal?
Marines are good, but last I heard they can't shoot down RPGs, dummy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 06:34:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
Don't marines guard these places? Can't they just mow down attackers with a 50 cal?
Marines are good, but last I heard they can't shoot down RPGs, dummy.
What about LARPers?
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 06:34:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
Don't marines guard these places? Can't they just mow down attackers with a 50 cal?
Marines are good, but last I heard they can't shoot down RPGs, dummy.
What about LARPers?
LIGHTNING BOLT LIGHTNING BOLT
Nah, doubt it.
From The Guardian, so far
QuoteAmbassador 'was attacked in car'
More indications that the US ambassador died in his car, not the consulate building, in Bengahazi.
Reuters, citing an unnamed Libyan official, says the ambassador "had been on his way to a safer venue" after the consulate was attacked.
"The official said the ambassador and three other staff were killed when gunmen fired rockets at his car."
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:44:23 AM
I'd answer that question, but I'm trying to avoid yet another religion flame war.
The answer is that they're the real-life Ferengi. :) Give advanced technology to a bunch of primitives, and this is what you get. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2012, 06:55:11 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:44:23 AM
I'd answer that question, but I'm trying to avoid yet another religion flame war.
The answer is that they're the real-life Ferengi. :) Give advanced technology to a bunch of primitives, and this is what you get. :sleep:
Ferengi is arabic for foreigner.
Come back Seif al-Islam. All is forgiven.
Somewhere deep in the bowels of Kremlin, Vlad just chuckled.
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 12, 2012, 07:55:21 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:37:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 04:36:51 AM
influence on the US elections?
None.
Incorrect.
Lulz
QuoteApparently President Obama can't see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the "religious feelings" of Catholics.)
But where is the president's statement about this? These countries represent his much touted "Arab Spring." How's that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our "friends" in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?
It's about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists. I realize there must be a lot on his mind these days – what with our economy's abysmal jobless numbers and Moody's new warning about yet another downgrade to our nation's credit rating due to the current administration's failure to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. And, of course, he has a busy schedule – with all those rounds of golf, softball interviews with the "Pimp with the Limp," and fundraising dinners with his corporate cronies. But our nation's security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can't afford any more "leading from behind" in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to "speak softly" to our enemies. If he doesn't have a "big stick" to carry, maybe it's time for him to grow one.
- Sarah Palin
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:03:51 AM
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
Right, because the POTUS issues instructions to the State Dept's Bureau of Diplomatic Security on a daily basis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:05:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:03:51 AM
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
Right, because the POTUS issues instructions to the State Dept's Bureau of Diplomatic Security on a daily basis.
No one would hope that they wouldn't need reminders to do their jobs.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:19:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:05:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:03:51 AM
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
Right, because the POTUS issues instructions to the State Dept's Bureau of Diplomatic Security on a daily basis.
No one would hope that they wouldn't need reminders to do their jobs.
I don't think that's lost on anybody, shitbird.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:25:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:19:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:05:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:03:51 AM
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
Right, because the POTUS issues instructions to the State Dept's Bureau of Diplomatic Security on a daily basis.
No one would hope that they wouldn't need reminders to do their jobs.
I don't think that's lost on anybody, shitbird.
Which is why I didn't find Obama's response particularly appealing.
Though mind you, I don't know what an appropriate response should be given the facts we have now. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:28:17 AM
Which is why I didn't find Obama's response particularly appealing.
Though mind you, I don't know what an appropriate response should be given the facts we have now. :P
Mittens' gleefully ignorant knee-jerk comments in the middle of the night aside, what's more disturbing is the silence coming from the Egyptian and Libyan governments.
I think this quote from "Yes, Minister" pretty much sums up the situation for Obama:
QuoteJames Hacker: Humphrey, do you think it's a good idea to issue a statement?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options. One, do nothing. Two, issue a statement deploring the speech. Three, lodge an official protest. Four, cut off aid. Five, break off diplomatic relations; and six, declare war.
James Hacker: Which should we do?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, if we do nothing we implicitly agree with the speech. Two: if we issue a statement we'll just look foolish. Three: if we lodge a protest it will be ignored. Four: we can't cut off aid because we don't give them any. Five: if we break off diplomatic relations we can't negotiate the oil rig contracts. And six: if we declare war it might just look as though we were over-reacting.
Martin - Foreign Secretary: In the old days we'd have sent in a gunboat.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes.
James Hacker: I suppose that is absolutely out of the question.
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2012, 05:42:49 AM
What is wrong with these fucking people? :bleeding:
When Dogma came out, you didn't see angry Catholics rioting in the streets and trying to kill Jay and Silent Bob. :rolleyes:
Well, Catholicism is not The Religion of Peace(tm).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhyKxCcROVM
The Ambassador Introducing himself to Libya. (I keep mis-spelling it Lybia)
Quote from: Kleves on September 12, 2012, 08:41:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2012, 05:42:49 AM
What is wrong with these fucking people? :bleeding:
When Dogma came out, you didn't see angry Catholics rioting in the streets and trying to kill Jay and Silent Bob. :rolleyes:
Well, Catholicism is not The Religion of Peace(tm).
lets not open that can of worms....
Quote from: Kleves on September 12, 2012, 08:41:23 AM
Well, Catholicism is not The Religion of Peace(tm).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.geekdo-images.com%2Fimages%2Fpic1418520_md.jpg&hash=ce99d80063882e128f9abe3cdc6232da850fa563)
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 08:43:50 AM
Quote from: Kleves on September 12, 2012, 08:41:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2012, 05:42:49 AM
What is wrong with these fucking people? :bleeding:
When Dogma came out, you didn't see angry Catholics rioting in the streets and trying to kill Jay and Silent Bob. :rolleyes:
Well, Catholicism is not The Religion of Peace(tm).
lets not open that can of worms....
What about the Diet of Worms?
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
Four: we can't cut off aid because we don't give them any.
The convenient thing is, we do. A lot.
Talk about opening Diets of Worms.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 08:43:50 AM
Quote from: Kleves on September 12, 2012, 08:41:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 12, 2012, 05:42:49 AM
What is wrong with these fucking people? :bleeding:
When Dogma came out, you didn't see angry Catholics rioting in the streets and trying to kill Jay and Silent Bob. :rolleyes:
Well, Catholicism is not The Religion of Peace(tm).
lets not open that can of worms....
What about the Diet of Worms?
Protein.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:03:51 AM
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
:lol:
Wow, the Obama campaign says some nasty things about Hillary, and you really go full Dinesh D'Souza. Can't fault you for your commitment, at least.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:49:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
Four: we can't cut off aid because we don't give them any.
The convenient thing is, we do. A lot.
Talk about opening Diets of Worms.
Yes Minister Quote.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 12, 2012, 08:56:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:03:51 AM
I'm glad Obama's around to make sure that we increase security.
:lol:
Wow, the Obama campaign says some nasty things about Hillary, and you really go full Dinesh D'Souza. Can't fault you for your commitment, at least.
Disliking Obama has nothing to do with Hillary at this point. After all, she's been an integral part of his administration. :)
Hillary's comments at the State Department right now are...rather presidential.
:wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:28:17 AM
Which is why I didn't find Obama's response particularly appealing.
Though mind you, I don't know what an appropriate response should be given the facts we have now. :P
Mittens' gleefully ignorant knee-jerk comments in the middle of the night aside, what's more disturbing is the silence coming from the Egyptian and Libyan governments.
You really don't get it do you?
You cannot score positive voter points with anything remotely pro-American ANYWHERE east of the Atlantic Ocean. Add that to the fact that the protesters were there to DEFEN TEH PROPHET!!!!!11111oneoneoneone and you know why they are silent.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2012, 09:07:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:28:17 AM
Which is why I didn't find Obama's response particularly appealing.
Though mind you, I don't know what an appropriate response should be given the facts we have now. :P
Mittens' gleefully ignorant knee-jerk comments in the middle of the night aside, what's more disturbing is the silence coming from the Egyptian and Libyan governments.
You really don't get it do you?
You cannot score positive voter points with anything remotely pro-American ANYWHERE east of the Atlantic Ocean. Add that to the fact that the protesters were there to DEFEN TEH PROPHET!!!!!11111oneoneoneone and you know why they are silent.
Oh, I get it, alright. Whether or not they do when it comes to US foreign aid is the question.
Oh, I like the Romney backdrop for his statement in Jacksonville; nice blue curtain with an American flag. Looks like it's coming straight from the White House itself.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2012, 09:07:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 08:28:17 AM
Which is why I didn't find Obama's response particularly appealing.
Though mind you, I don't know what an appropriate response should be given the facts we have now. :P
Mittens' gleefully ignorant knee-jerk comments in the middle of the night aside, what's more disturbing is the silence coming from the Egyptian and Libyan governments.
You really don't get it do you?
You cannot score positive voter points with anything remotely pro-American ANYWHERE east of the Atlantic Ocean. Add that to the fact that the protesters were there to DEFEN TEH PROPHET!!!!!11111oneoneoneone and you know why they are silent.
Mittens? Meh, his ancestors were probably shouting Defend the Prophet!!!! while butchering civilians at Mountain Meadows 160 years ago.
User comments on Austrian news sites seem to be torn between "Islam, religion of peace, my ass!" and "The AmeriKKKans had it coming!" with slightly more posters on the anti-American side it seem.
I doubt German sites look much different.
:x
One of those "staff members" was Goonswarm's chief diplomat:
Quote
RIP: VILE RAT (http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat)
So: Vile Rat, Sean Smith, my friend for over six years, both in real life and in internet spaceships, was the "State Department Official" killed in Benghazi by a mob of religious lunatics, who had been incited to violence on this September 11th by a movie that was apparently made sometime in July. Obviously, given the combined attacks in Egypt and in Libya, this was a coordinated act designed for maximum media exposure; rile up a mob, point them at an embassy or consulate on 9/11 in particular, aim for the press. Many were injured in these pointless, reprehensible acts, and one of my closest friends was killed as a result.
(12:54:09 PM) vile_rat: assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures
We knew that Vile Rat was in Benghazi; he told us. He commented on how they use guns to celebrate weddings and how there was a constant susurrus of weaponry in the background. He was in situ to provide IT services for the consulate, which meant he was on the net all the time, hanging out with us on Jabber as usual and talking about internet spaceship games.
The last time he did something like this, he was in Baghdad in 2007 or 2008. He would be on jabber, then say something like 'incoming' and vanish for a while as the Kayatushas came down from Sadr City - State had been in the former Saddam Hussein palace on the Tigris before they built that $2bn fortress-embassy later. He got out from his Baghdad post physically unscathed and had some more relaxing postings after that. Montreal, then the Hague. He kept asking me to come visit him - we'd hang out in the States a couple of times a year or see each other in Iceland for CSM crap, but I didn't have the time visit for whatever reason so I would always say 'next year'. I missed Montreal, but had made real plans for the Hague... fuck.
Norwegian boards have avoided the AmreeKKKa had it coming!!1!111oneoneone bit.
Quote from: Syt on September 12, 2012, 09:32:20 AM
User comments on Austrian news sites seem to be torn between "Islam, religion of peace, my ass!" and "The AmeriKKKans had it coming!" with slightly more posters on the anti-American side it seem.
I doubt German sites look much different.
:x
Bernard-Henry Lévy got some flak for it as well in lemonde.fr since the was the idealistic champagne lefty intellectural, pro-Arab Spring and pro-Libyan rebellion :D
Martin Niemöller sort of set the ethical and moral standard here.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Hitchens also warned us about this many years ago when the pope, Bush and religiophiles attacked the victims rather than the perpatrators in the incitement against danish cartoonists.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/stand_up_for_denmark.html
QuoteStand up for Denmark!
Why are we not defending our ally?
By Christopher Hitchens|Posted Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006, at 12:29 PM ET
Put the case that we knew of a highly paranoid religious cult organization with a secretive leader. Now put the case that this cult, if criticized in the press, would take immediate revenge by kidnapping a child. Put the case that, if the secretive leader were also to be lampooned, two further children would be killed at random. Would the press be guilty of "self-censorship" if it declined to publish anything that would inflame the said cult? Well, yes it would be guilty, but very few people would insist on the full exertion of the First Amendment right. However, the consequences for the cult and its leader would be severe as well. All civilized people would regard it as hateful and dangerous, and steps would be taken to circumscribe its influence, and to ensure that no precedent was set.
The incredible thing about the ongoing Kristallnacht against Denmark (and in some places, against the embassies and citizens of any Scandinavian or even European Union nation) is that it has resulted in, not opprobrium for the religion that perpetrates and excuses it, but increased respectability! A small democratic country with an open society, a system of confessional pluralism, and a free press has been subjected to a fantastic, incredible, organized campaign of lies and hatred and violence, extending to one of the gravest imaginable breaches of international law and civility: the violation of diplomatic immunity. And nobody in authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships. Let's be sure we haven't hurt the vandals' feelings.
You wish to say that it was instead a small newspaper in Copenhagen that lit the trail? What abject masochism and nonsense. It was the arrogant Danish mullahs who patiently hawked those cartoons around the world (yes, don't worry, they are allowed to exhibit them as much as they like) until they finally provoked a vicious response against the economy and society of their host country. For good measure, they included a cartoon that had never been published in Denmark or anywhere else. It showed the Prophet Mohammed as a pig, and may or may not have been sent to a Danish mullah by an anonymous ill-wisher. The hypocrisy here is shameful, nauseating, unpardonable. The original proscription against any portrayal of the prophet—not that this appears to be absolute—was superficially praiseworthy because it was intended as a safeguard against idolatry and the worship of images. But now see how this principle is negated. A rumor of a cartoon in a faraway country is enough to turn the very name Mohammed into a fetish-object and an excuse for barbaric conduct. As I write this, the death toll is well over 30 and—guess what?—a mullah in Pakistan has offered $1 million and a car as a bribe for the murder of "the cartoonist." This incitement will go unpunished and most probably unrebuked.
Could things become any more sordid and cynical? By all means. In a mindless attempt at a tu quoque, various Islamist groups and regimes have dug deep into their sense of wit and irony and proposed a trade-off. You make fun of "our" prophet and we will deny "your" Holocaust. Even if there were any equivalence, and Jewish mobs were now engaged in trashing Muslim shops and embassies, it would feel degrading even to engage with such a low and cheap stunt. I suppose that one should be grateful that the Shoah is only to be denied rather than, as in some Islamist propaganda, enthusiastically affirmed and set out as a model for emulation. But only a moral cretin thinks that anti-Semitism is a threat only to Jews. The memory of the Third Reich is very vivid in Europe precisely because a racist German regime also succeeded in slaughtering millions of non-Jews, including countless Germans, under the demented pretext of extirpating a nonexistent Jewish conspiracy. As it happens, I am one of the few people to have publicly defended David Irving's right to publish, and I think it outrageous that he is in prison in Austria for expressing his opinions. But my attachment to free speech is at least absolute and consistent. Those who incite murder and arson, or who silkily justify it, are incapable of rising above the childish glee that culminates in the assertion that two wrongs make a right.
The silky ones may be more of a problem in the long term than the flagrantly vicious and crazy ones. Within a short while—this is a warning—the shady term "Islamophobia" is going to be smuggled through our customs. Anyone accused of it will be politely but firmly instructed to shut up, and to forfeit the constitutional right to criticize religion. By definition, anyone accused in this way will also be implicitly guilty. Thus the "soft" censorship will triumph, not from any merit in its argument, but from its association with the "hard" censorship that we have seen being imposed over the past weeks. A report ($$) in the New York Times of Feb. 13 was as carefully neutral as could be but nonetheless conveyed the sense of menace. "American Muslim leaders," we were told, are more canny. They have "managed to build effective organizations and achieve greater integration, acceptance and economic success than their brethren in Europe have. They portray the cartoons as a part of a wave of global Islamophobia and have encouraged Muslim groups in Europe to use the same term." In other words, they are leveraging worldwide Islamic violence to drop a discreet message into the American discourse.
You may have noticed the recurrence of the term "One point two billion Muslims." A few years ago, I became used to the charge that in defending Salman Rushdie, say, I had "offended a billion Muslims." Evidently, the number has gone up since I first heard this ridiculous complaint. But observe the implied threat. There is not just safety in numbers, but danger in numbers. How many Danes or Jews or freethinkers are there? You can see what the "spokesmen" are insinuating by this tactic of mass psychology and mobbishness.
And not without immediate success, either. The preposterous person of Karen Hughes is quoted in the same New York Times article, under her risible title of "Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy." She tittered outside the store she was happily giving away: "The voices of Muslim Americans have more credibility in the Muslim world frankly than my voice as a government official, because they can speak the language of their faith and can share their experience of practicing their faith freely in the West, and they can help explain why the cartoons are so offensive." Well, let's concede that almost any voice in any world has more credibility on any subject than this braying Bush-crony ignoramus, but is the State Department now saying that we shall be represented in the Muslim world only by Muslims? I think we need a debate on that, and also a vote. Meanwhile, not a dollar of Wahhabi money should be allowed to be spent on opening madrasahs in this country, or in distributing fundamentalist revisions of the Quran in our prison system. Not until, at the very least, churches and synagogues and free-thought libraries are permitted in every country whose ambassador has bullied the Danes. If we have to accept this sickly babble about "respect," we must at least demand that it is fully reciprocal.
And there remains the question of Denmark: a small democracy, which resisted Hitler bravely and protected its Jews as well as itself. Denmark is a fellow member of NATO and a country that sends its soldiers to help in the defense and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is its reward from Washington? Not a word of solidarity, but instead some creepy words of apology to those who have attacked its freedom, its trade, its citizens, and its embassies. For shame. Surely here is a case that can be taken up by those who worry that America is too casual and arrogant with its allies. I feel terrible that I have taken so long to get around to this, but I wonder if anyone might feel like joining me in gathering outside the Danish Embassy in Washington, in a quiet and composed manner, to affirm some elementary friendship. Those who like the idea might contact me at [email protected], and those who live in other cities with Danish consulates might wish to initiate a stand for decency on their own account.
No TLDR, it's fucking hitchens, it's readable.
First they burned the danish embassy in Damascus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm), then the burned the UN compound in Kunduz (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17163315) and now the US Consulate in Benghazi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254).
The thing is that nobody can be offended, people can
choose to take offense. These people choose to be offended and they continue to choose to be offended because they get away with it and pay no cost. You can reliably expect the pope (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4734454.stm) and many other religious leaders to side with the murderers against the murdered.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:28:58 AM
Don't marines guard these places? Can't they just mow down attackers with a 50 cal?
There weren't any marines.
The Libyan response has so far been strong. The President condemned these 'despicable, criminal acts' and there have been counter-protests in a number of Libyan cities.
In Egypt on the other hand things are getting worse. The FJP and Salafi parties distanced themselves from storming the Embassy. Now they both don't want to be left behind and are calling for protests against the film. Meanwhile the government's openly at war with itself, with the Foreign Ministry publicly calling out the Interior Ministry for failing to protect the US Embassy.
My instinct is to go for a bit of gunboat diplomacy - not for the free speech issue, which really isn't the outrage here, but to protect our diplomatic network and a bit of civis Romanus sum - but weirdly I think the Libyans should get more help while Egypt could develop as unhealthy a relationship with the US as Pakistan.
Mitt made a mistake. He should have taken the opportunity to appear statesmanlike and not political.
What is this movie, anyway? Would anyone even know it existed if these fools hadn't freaked out about it?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
What is this movie, anyway? Would anyone even know it existed if these fools hadn't freaked out about it?
No.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/12/sam_bacile_s_innocence_of_muslims_leads_to_riots_that_killed_the_u_s_ambassador_to_libya_.html
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2012, 12:26:40 PM
My instinct is to go for a bit of gunboat diplomacy - not for the free speech issue, which really isn't the outrage here, but to protect our diplomatic network and a bit of civis Romanus sum - but weirdly I think the Libyans should get more help while Egypt could develop as unhealthy a relationship with the US as Pakistan.
I just wish that there was somebody we could send the gunboats against; but there isn't. The problem is that the violent religious nutjobs are in effect shielded by the government of the polity they belong to and the religious society they belong to. In effect the only action that can be taken is to encourage the governments and religious leaders that are relevant to take action. In effect we are allied with the governments of egypt, pakistan and libya against the salafists in their midsts. The thing is that the only way for us to "win" the Islamist War on the Enlightenment is for our enemies to change their minds.
In effect, we can tell which populations are our friends and which are still our enemies by seeing where they protest against embassies and consulates taking security precautions.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 12:34:15 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 12:28:56 PM
What is this movie, anyway? Would anyone even know it existed if these fools hadn't freaked out about it?
No.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/12/sam_bacile_s_innocence_of_muslims_leads_to_riots_that_killed_the_u_s_ambassador_to_libya_.html
Damn. Sounds like the world's most successful troll. :lol:
Quote from: Syt on September 12, 2012, 09:32:20 AM
User comments on Austrian news sites seem to be torn between "Islam, religion of peace, my ass!" and "The AmeriKKKans had it coming!" with slightly more posters on the anti-American side it seem.
I doubt German sites look much different.
:x
I only saw the comments on Süddeutsche and those were mostly "Oh noes, the poor Muslims. We must give them more time to learn civilization."
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 09:58:48 AM
No TLDR, it's fucking hitchens, it's readable.
First they burned the danish embassy in Damascus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm), then the burned the UN compound in Kunduz (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17163315) and now the US Consulate in Benghazi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254).
The thing is that nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense. These people choose to be offended and they continue to choose to be offended because they get away with it and pay no cost. You can reliably expect the pope (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4734454.stm) and many other religious leaders to side with the murderers against the murdered.
I don't see the relevance of the Hitchen's article. Did Washington suggest that attacks on the Danish embassy were justified?
And you're distinction about being offended vs. choosing to take offense seems rather ridiculous.
In addition to other protest in other cities e are now counter-protest protests in Benghazi.
In Tunis police are using tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds gathering at Embassy. There are also protests in Casa.
Most of the comments I see from Americans are of the "Muslims are subhuman animals who should be genocided. Obama and the Demoncrats are idiots for thinking they can be appeased with their liberal hippiness.' Which I find puzzling because I was not sure how Obama had appeased them...maybe by not slaughtering them all?
Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 09:58:48 AM
No TLDR, it's fucking hitchens, it's readable.
First they burned the danish embassy in Damascus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm), then the burned the UN compound in Kunduz (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17163315) and now the US Consulate in Benghazi (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254).
The thing is that nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense. These people choose to be offended and they continue to choose to be offended because they get away with it and pay no cost. You can reliably expect the pope (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4734454.stm) and many other religious leaders to side with the murderers against the murdered.
I don't see the relevance of the Hitchen's article.
The Relevance of the Hitchens article is that this has happened before and US and Religious groups and forces criticized the victims of violence for the violence. It was the danes own fault. I don't accept blaming skimpily clad women for them being raped and I don't blame protecting freedom of speech for embassies being burned.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 01:00:00 PM
Did Washington suggest that attacks on the Danish embassy were justified?
Yes, Bush himself validated the emotion that caused the attacks by expressing his agreement that muslims were right to be offended by free speech.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 01:00:00 PM
And you're distinction about being offended vs. choosing to take offense seems rather ridiculous.
I think it is a vital and substantial one. The justification used for much of the violence against westerners and liberal cultural muslims has been that something was so offensive that violent evil action could not be avoided. We put people in prison and hospital when they do that in our own societies.
I might clarify myself by saying that when you are emotionally agitated by the actions of others then you still have a choice of responding violently or not responding violently.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.
You don't have freedom of speech in arab societies and if you say things in public that the government disagrees with you get tortured and sent to prison. Arabs quite naturally assume that when American "imams" burn Korans they do so with government support and when American "filmmakers" (I watched this film and it is mindbogglingly bad) make movies critical of Islam they do so with government support. That is why they think that actions of individuals are tacitly supported by the government.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:22:52 PM
You don't have freedom of speech in arab societies and if you say things in public that the government disagrees with you get tortured and sent to prison.
Have you perhaps been in a cave the last 18 months or so?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
The Relevance of the Hitchens article is that this has happened before and US and Religious groups and forces criticized the victims of violence for the violence. It was the danes own fault. I don't accept blaming skimpily clad women for them being raped and I don't blame protecting freedom of speech for embassies being burned.
I think the critique was leveled towards those running the contest and the cartoon creators who created such with the aim of offending people. I don't think people then said that they deserved to be violently attacked for that - just more than they weren't the aggrieved balls of light they tried to paint themselves as.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
Yes, Bush himself validated the emotion that caused the attacks by expressing his agreement that muslims were right to be offended by free speech.
So, you said yes but you mean no? What you've just stated was that Bush was supported the attacking of the embassy but that muslims were right to be offended. Not really that different from saying Christians are right to be offended if you make piss christs.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
I think it is a vital and substantial one. The justification used for much of the violence against westerners and liberal cultural muslims has been that something was so offensive that violent evil action could not be avoided. We put people in prison and hospital when they do that in our own societies.
I might clarify myself by saying that when you are emotionally agitated by the actions of others then you still have a choice of responding violently or not responding violently.
:huh:
I get the distinction that being offended doesn't mean you should respond violently but that's not the initial distinction that you drew with "nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense" unless you are using the world offense to mean violent reaction.
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2012, 01:24:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:22:52 PM
You don't have freedom of speech in arab societies and if you say things in public that the government disagrees with you get tortured and sent to prison.
Have you perhaps been in a cave the last 18 months or so?
No, but I seem to have missed Al-Jefferson and Al-Washington in knickerbockers and powdered wigs elucidating on freedom of speech and religion that you seem to think exist.
The Mubakharat hasn't ceased to exist in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Iraq; it just has new masters. What has been lacking is a flowering of free speech in these societies.
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 12:58:44 PMDamn. Sounds like the world's most successful troll. :lol:
Pretty successful, yes. Not particularly funny, I don't think.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
The Relevance of the Hitchens article is that this has happened before and US and Religious groups and forces criticized the victims of violence for the violence. It was the danes own fault. I don't accept blaming skimpily clad women for them being raped and I don't blame protecting freedom of speech for embassies being burned.
I think the critique was leveled towards those running the contest and the cartoon creators who created such with the aim of offending people. I don't think people then said that they deserved to be violently attacked for that - just more than they weren't the aggrieved balls of light they tried to paint themselves as.
You are uninformed. The cartoons were commissioned as part of a project to expose the fact that illustrators were self-sensoring out of fear of muslim violence. They were created to expose precisely the intimidation that we saw after the Danish Imams spent months shopping around the muslim world including this one
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stuffucanuse.com%2FMohammed-cartoons%2Fpigsquealcontest.jpg&hash=fb20ed6f411159810e6f781d4150c7324a0ed4bd)
that they made themselves.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
Yes, Bush himself validated the emotion that caused the attacks by expressing his agreement that muslims were right to be offended by free speech.
So, you said yes but you mean no? What you've just stated was that Bush was supported the attacking of the embassy but that muslims were right to be offended. Not really that different from saying Christians are right to be offended if you make piss christs.
And if christians went around burning buildings and trying to axe-murder illustrators then I'd point out how violent and evil they were.
You asked me if washington suggested the attacks were justified. Bush validated the emotions of the burners after saying the word "but". At worst he justified the attacks at best he laid down a moral equivalency between drawing rude pictures and murder.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
I think it is a vital and substantial one. The justification used for much of the violence against westerners and liberal cultural muslims has been that something was so offensive that violent evil action could not be avoided. We put people in prison and hospital when they do that in our own societies.
I might clarify myself by saying that when you are emotionally agitated by the actions of others then you still have a choice of responding violently or not responding violently.
:huh:
I get the distinction that being offended doesn't mean you should respond violently but that's not the initial distinction that you drew with "nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense" unless you are using the world offense to mean violent reaction.
How about when you misunderstand me and I clarify what I meant originally you stop pretending your original misunderstanding was my main point?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.
It looks like it could be the film's producers. From the reporting I've seen it looks like they were trying to provoke exactly this response.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2012, 01:44:47 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.
It looks like it could be the film's producers. From the reporting I've seen it looks like they were trying to provoke exactly this response.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims
QuoteIn July 2012, a 14-minute excerpt from the English-language film was posted on YouTube. By September the movie had been dubbed into Arabic and was brought to the attention of the Arabic-speaking world by a Coptic blogger whose Egyptian citizenship had been revoked for promoting calls for an attack on Egypt.[11][12] Muslim leaders criticized the film's depiction of Muhammad.[13] The Daily Telegraph reported that it portrayed Muhammad as an advocate of pedophilia and a homosexual, showing him having sex.[14]
How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 12, 2012, 01:18:16 PM
Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.
The clerics in Egypt have their own versions Islamic versions of Rush and others, simply trolling the internet for good bites of anything remotely inflammatory, anything they can use to pursue their own agenda.
Unfortunately, you can't tell the uneducated mobs of the Muddled East that get all geared up over this sort of shit that some squirrelly goofball in Florida with less than 50 members in his church--the same goofball that burned the Koran last year, and subsequently getting people killed in Afghanistan--isn't representative of the entire United States.
This is the part where Obama's policy of whacking US citizens for terroristic activities would come in handy.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 12, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this?
Probably a few more than were going to die already. Pretty sad fate for them, with or without this incident.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 12, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this?
dunno.. I've been wondering how many Copts might die because of this.
Well, I won't be happy until US M1s are parked in Riyadh.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
You are uninformed. The cartoons were commissioned as part of a project to expose the fact that illustrators were self-sensoring out of fear of muslim violence. They were created to expose precisely the intimidation that we saw after the Danish Imams spent months shopping around the muslim world including this one
Gotcha, though in substance, don't really see that as different given that one had to know such things would offend (as that's why there was self-censorship in the first place!).
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
And if christians went around burning buildings and trying to axe-murder illustrators then I'd point out how violent and evil they were.
Okay?
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PMYou asked me if washington suggested the attacks were justified. Bush validated the emotions of the burners after saying the word "but". At worst he justified the attacks at best he laid down a moral equivalency between drawing rude pictures and murder.
That isn't really a justification for murder. If he says he understands how they can be offended that doesn't mean he understands why they would channel that into violence. I can understand how black people could be offended by being called the n-word but that doesn't mean it would be understandable if some black people when on a rampage and started killing random white people.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
How about when you misunderstand me and I clarify what I meant originally you stop pretending your original misunderstanding was my main point?
I was pointing out to you that offended doesn't mean the same as act violently - so your initial statement was nonsensical like I said (whereas what I'm quoting of you here seems to suggest it was my fault).
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
You are uninformed. The cartoons were commissioned as part of a project to expose the fact that illustrators were self-sensoring out of fear of muslim violence. They were created to expose precisely the intimidation that we saw after the Danish Imams spent months shopping around the muslim world including this one
Gotcha, though in substance, don't really see that as different given that one had to know such things would offend (as that's why there was self-censorship in the first place!).
The point is that in western liberal enlightenment societies self censorship due to physical intimidation is considered a bad thing which is harmful to the fabric of society itself.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PMYou asked me if washington suggested the attacks were justified. Bush validated the emotions of the burners after saying the word "but". At worst he justified the attacks at best he laid down a moral equivalency between drawing rude pictures and murder.
That isn't really a justification for murder. If he says he understands how they can be offended that doesn't mean he understands why they would channel that into violence. I can understand how black people could be offended by being called the n-word but that doesn't mean it would be understandable if some black people when on a rampage and started killing random white people.
And I didn't say it was. You asked about justification for the attacks on the embassies, that is what I responded with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-b4huMjHU&feature=player_detailpage#t=122s
"but"
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 01:39:31 PM
How about when you misunderstand me and I clarify what I meant originally you stop pretending your original misunderstanding was my main point?
I was pointing out to you that offended doesn't mean the same as act violently - so your initial statement was nonsensical like I said (whereas what I'm quoting of you here seems to suggest it was my fault).
In your mind it might be nonsensical. As I agreed you misunderstood me, I clarified and you continued to argue against your misunderstanding. Am I supposed to consider you honest?
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 01:30:23 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 12, 2012, 12:58:44 PMDamn. Sounds like the world's most successful troll. :lol:
Pretty successful, yes. Not particularly funny, I don't think.
More like absurd.
Aaaand, Fox News has pretty clear/graphic pictures of his body being dragged along the street by Libyans(one with an iPhone in his mouth, no less!) on their front page. Stay classy.
Muslims are animals. Film at 11.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 12, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this?
Allow me to respond by quoting the holy book of the only religion I have ever subscribed to for more than 10 minutes* in my adult life:
Onwards Christian Soldiers,
Onwards Buddhist Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Islam,
Fight till you're deceased.
Fight your little battles.
Join in thickest fray;
For the Greater Glory,
of Dis-cord-i-a.
Yah, yah, yah,
Yah, yah, yah, yah.
Blfffffffffffft!
*Exactly 15 minutes and 34 seconds.
Right. Because, clearly, the Copts are just as bad as the Salafists.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
The point is that in western liberal enlightenment societies self censorship due to physical intimidation is considered a bad thing which is harmful to the fabric of society itself.
I'm not sure I entirely agree - as in that case I think it was a bit of picking one's battles. I guess we could continue to publish lame things they find offensive but I'm not sure where we have room to be surprised that they then act in a ridiculous violent manner - unless we are planning to do something to curb them of their violent ways. (And I don't think a sharply worded retort qualifies.)
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
And I didn't say it was. You asked about justification for the attacks on the embassies, that is what I responded with.
Usually when someone says justification, they mean a statement that defends/supports something. I don't see how one could say that Bush's statement defended extremism only that it spoke to how they could reasonably be upset.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
In your mind it might be nonsensical. As I agreed you misunderstood me, I clarified and you continued to argue against your misunderstanding. Am I supposed to consider you honest?
Yes, I'm being honest. You used the word "offend" to mean something that it did not. I did misunderstand what you wrote because you used a word contrary to its definition. I'd be fine with that except that you're suggesting the failing was on my part.
Quote from: Martinus on September 12, 2012, 03:27:04 PM
Muslims are animals. Film at 11.
I was thinking more of Fox News in regards to classiness...but plenty of blame to go around.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 12, 2012, 03:52:48 PM
I was thinking more of Fox News in regards to classiness...but plenty of blame to go around.
It is the Democrats fault for their appeasement. This is just like Munich all over again.
Excellent remarks by Secretary Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di9E4da5G4k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di9E4da5G4k)
Why was an ambassador there without the marines?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:22:06 PM
Why was an ambassador there without the marines?
They were not in the Embassy (and actually we just have a Consulate in Bengazi so I am not even sure this guy was technically an ambassador) and it was a rocket attack.
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
The point is that in western liberal enlightenment societies self censorship due to physical intimidation is considered a bad thing which is harmful to the fabric of society itself.
I'm not sure I entirely agree - as in that case I think it was a bit of picking one's battles. I guess we could continue to publish lame things they find offensive but I'm not sure where we have room to be surprised that they then act in a ridiculous violent manner - unless we are planning to do something to curb them of their violent ways. (And I don't think a sharply worded retort qualifies.)
Sometimes I wonder if you actually read what I write and if you even try to understand what I mean. Sometimes I think you do read what I write and you are just a moral monster.
You seem to think that threatening people with violence and harm to force them to self censor themselves is not entirely a bad thing?
WTF, seriously WTF? Do you even think about what you are saying? Are you so fucking stuck up and focused on disagreeing with me that you argue that violence is even in some cases an acceptable response to words?
I am genuinely amazed.
Do you really think there is something you could say to me that I could use as a moral justification to show up at your house with an axe (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/01/apparent-attack-against-m_n_409176.html)and try to kill you?
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
And I didn't say it was. You asked about justification for the attacks on the embassies, that is what I responded with.
Usually when someone says justification, they mean a statement that defends/supports something. I don't see how one could say that Bush's statement defended extremism only that it spoke to how they could reasonably be upset.
Because that is precisely how terrorist apologist always speak. I condemn, but understand is the refrain from Gerry Adams justifying murder and bombing for the IRA, Herri Batasuna did the same for ETA and Yassir Arafat did constantly not only for his PLO but HAMAS as well.
If you can't condemn it without qualifications or caveats you are not condemning it. You are trying to avoid having to justify it while suggesting that the victims of terror only need blame themselves.
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 03:47:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 02:36:24 PM
In your mind it might be nonsensical. As I agreed you misunderstood me, I clarified and you continued to argue against your misunderstanding. Am I supposed to consider you honest?
Yes, I'm being honest. You used the word "offend" to mean something that it did not. I did misunderstand what you wrote because you used a word contrary to its definition. I'd be fine with that except that you're suggesting the failing was on my part.
So when I clarify why the fuck do you keep on harping about your own misunderstanding? I don't think you qualify for the first condition of having a discussion. You don't make any effort to understand. You just quote mine for counter attack. When I have explained or clarified multiple times and you continue to harp about you original misunderstanding I have to conclude you don't care what I think. You don't operate with the assumption that you might be wrong and can change your mind.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
I think the answer depends a lot on who the attackers are. It sounds like it may not have been a spontaneous mob lynching after all, but rather a planned attack or assassination.
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2012, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:22:06 PM
Why was an ambassador there without the marines?
They were not in the Embassy (and actually we just have a Consulate in Bengazi so I am not even sure this guy was technically an ambassador) and it was a rocket attack.
Whoever this guy was, the point still stands.
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 04:34:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
I think the answer depends a lot on who the attackers are. It sounds like it may not have been a spontaneous mob lynching after all, but rather a planned attack or assassination.
I don't think it makes a difference.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
Not at all ?
Or good luck not being able to drive to work from the winter onwards.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:40:41 PM
Whoever this guy was, the point still stands.
Mob attacked the Consulate so the ambassador escaped. The Marines were at the Consulate I believe.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
Not at all ?
Or good luck not being able to drive to work from the autumn onwards.
There is a global market for oil, which the ME produces a good chunk. We don't get much from there, you guys do. If the ME went down, the price would spike for everyone, but it would be your supply chain that would be messed up.
Besides, you know who really needs to get oil to market to keep themselves afloat? OPEC.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:49:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
Not at all ?
Or good luck not being able to drive to work from the autumn onwards.
There is a global market for oil, which the ME produces a good chunk. We don't get much from there, you guys do. If the ME went down, the price would spike for everyone, but it would be your supply chain that would be messed up.
Besides, you know who really needs to get oil to market to keep themselves afloat? OPEC.
You haven't gone far enough, think more globally still; it's relatively cheap oil that drives our economies, sort of some stupidity in the Gulf, oil isn't going to stop flowing, but instability increases the prices and harms us all.
We're all engaged with and in love of cheap oil, so my point stands, you can't disengage from the Middle East. But picking the 'wrong' side can make things worse.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
Well, I won't be happy until US M1s are parked in Riyadh.
You know what? I bet there are already a bunch there. We probably have some. Well, maybe outside the city, because we can't offend them with our infidel ways. We also probably sold them some.
From what I've read the Libyan government hasn't been performing too badly given the huge task they face, but they have failed to deal with the militia brigades and haven't stood up to the Salafists at all.
Up until now it's been left to local residents and determined individuals in other militias and government to face them down, for example this recent item:
http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=13919 (http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=13919)
Quote
Three Salafists reported dead following clashes with locals defending Sufi shrines
By Maha Ellawati.
Benghazi, 8 September:
Three people have been killed in the latest attempt by militant Salafists to destroy a Sufi shrine, the interior minister has said.
The incident took place yesterday in the town of Rajma, some 35 kilometres from Benghazi, when local residents sought to defend the Sidi Al-Lafi mausoleum from the extremists.
Sources have told the Libya Herald that all three of the dead men were Salafists and that a further seven were injured. Three of those are said to be in a critical condition and are receiving treatment in hospital in Benghazi.
Whereas the security forces did nothing to stop the desecration of three Sufi shrines in Tripoli, Zliten and Misrata, a battalion of the army's Libya Shield brigade is said to have intervened to stop the fighting, albeit belatedly.
Two of the vehicles were reported to have sustained damage, and the house of a local resident was burned down.
This is the first time that Salafists have been challenged and killed in their campaign to eradicate Sufism in Libya.
On 23 August they committed huge damage to the Abdul-Salam Al-Asmar Al-Fituri shrine in Zliten, apparently taking advantage of separate clashes there that had left at least three dead.
On 25 August, another mausoleum, that of Sheikh Ahmed Al-Zarruq, was targeted in nearby Misrata, the same day that the Al-Sha'ab shrine in Tripoli was also hit.
In the latter instance the Salafists returned with an automatic digger to continue the destruction over a period of 48 hours.
The Interior Ministry chose not to intervene in that instance, leading to allegations that extremist elements within the Supreme Security Committee had refused to act.
Interior Minister Fawzi Abdelal tendered his resignation on 26 August following intense criticism from the Congress over his handling of the situation, although he reversed this decision two days later on the grounds that it would "further complicate security".
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
Well, I won't be happy until US M1s are parked in Riyadh.
You know what? I bet there are already a bunch there. We probably have some. Well, maybe outside the city, because we can't offend them with our infidel ways. We also probably sold them some.
No trust me I'm thinking of something more pro-active, say giving Seigy free rein for a week or two. :D
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 04:59:12 PM
You haven't gone far enough, think more globally still; it's relatively cheap oil that drives our economies, sort of some stupidity in the Gulf, oil isn't going to stop flowing, but instability increases the prices and harms us all.
We're all engaged with and in love of cheap oil, so my point stands, you can't disengage from the Middle East. But picking the 'wrong' side can make things worse.
I completely agree to the extent we are all in this together with our need for ME oil. But at the margins, we have less than many at stake. We also seem to be quite fallible on the war and peace questions.
But I need to go to bed. :P
On the larger Libya question, it seems like a no-win situation whether to get involved or not. If you help topple the mass murders, you get Islamists rising up, and let's get real, few democracies have been ushered in by the cries of "Allahu Akbar". If you support the secular dictators, tacitly or otherwise, then you just keep stoking the fire of religious extremism, and sooner or later it's going to engulf the region whether you like it or not.
I think the future of Libya is far from settled.
There are definitely Islamist anti-American types who'd love to take over Libya. They're the kind of people behind the attack, and at this moment I think there's little they'd like better than Americans and other Westerners writing Libya off as a bunch of wacky Muslim extremists; that way the Islamist anti-Americans have a much better chance of winning.
My impression - and I'm obviously far removed from the situation - is that both the Libyan government and the majority of the Libyan people are outraged and this attack by this attack.
(As an aside, I really like how the Libyan representative at the UN describing the US ambassador as a "wonderful person" when he denounced the attack; it may just have been a translation or ESL thing or something, but it sounded like he was personally upset about the killings)
Quote from: DGuller on September 12, 2012, 05:24:33 PM
On the larger Libya question, it seems like a no-win situation whether to get involved or not. If you help topple the mass murders, you get Islamists rising up, and let's get real, few democracies have been ushered in by the cries of "Allahu Akbar". If you support the secular dictators, tacitly or otherwise, then you just keep stoking the fire of religious extremism, and sooner or later it's going to engulf the region whether you like it or not.
The problem is that democracy doesn't just happen. I'm actually a bit shocked to find that I have moved from pre-Iraq war position that you can give a country democracy to one where I see it just doesn't happen like that. Democracies where they exists have either come into being as part of some severe national trauma where political pluralism is seen as the only way to end a destructive and interminable conflict or it comes about by adoption from a culture that is admired, respected and considered close.
I actually now agree with the pre-Iraq War war opponents that you can't impose democracy. You can only give a society a fighting chance of building it themselves. If a country is a democracy it is likely to be seen by the arab "street" as either an enemy or as allied to the enemy. To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel. Both the nationalists and salafists will oppose becoming like the enemy; while the liberalists are too few. This is why Kemalism never developed democracy until the end of the cold war and why Turkey is backsliding.
In a sense you just have to let it burn and let the locals fight it out before they are sufficiently traumatized to realize that democracy is the only way to end the internal civil conflict. It took the ECW to give the english speaking world democracy, it took Napoleon and the bourbon restoration to give it to the french and it took WWII to give it germany and japan.
I think the Eisenhower age expression "making the world safe for democracy" is the best one to use and live by. We can't make Libya a democracy, we can only make Libya safe for those who seek to build one. We also have to remember how counter-intuative democracy is to a tribal society and to an autocratic one. In these societies freedom is equivalent with weak government. Government is always oppressive and power is always used to weaken the center. Democracy achieves freedom by strengthening the government massively. The government establishes a monopoly on violence. This is what makes the transition to democracy so ultimately hard, at the same time you disarm the traditional protectors of liberty while arming the traditional enforces of autocracy while you give the populace the right to choose the rulers. Pick the wrong ruler and you get Nazi Germany and don't disarm you get post war Iraq.
It seems Romney's response to the Cairo embassy communication is turning into a bit of a political kerfluffle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
It seems Romney's response to the Cairo embassy communication is turning into a bit of a political kerfluffle.
How so ?
I haven't had the chance to see any of the US coverage so far or indeed much of anyones, other than on Languish.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F17phmv.jpg&hash=cd88476bab9feab5d7778c9a69d3153c53586a20)
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
It seems Romney's response to the Cairo embassy communication is turning into a bit of a political kerfluffle.
How so ?
I haven't had the chance to see any of the US coverage so far or indeed much of anyones, other than on Languish.
He's kind of perceived to have reacted like this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fzipmeme.com%2Fuploads%2Fgenerated%2Fg1347490412309328662.jpg&hash=222f68211a1079328422ec073287d1ac06c9aa3a)
(the picture is from when he gave his reaction statement)
Here's an editorial summarizing what seems to be the general reaction to Romney's response (including from a number of Republicans): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-death-of-an-ambassador/2012/09/12/ed3b719e-fcfa-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
You're making Tim and Raz look like Rhodes Scholars in comparison.
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
Which part of what Romney said do you agree with?
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
How so ?
I haven't had the chance to see any of the US coverage so far or indeed much of anyones, other than on Languish.
It's a bit confusing, with a lot of accusations flying.
AFAICT, yesterday during the day the Cairo embassy released a statement saying the US filmmaker should be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities.
Last night Romney addressed the press. The only line that CNN broadcast was something about the Obama administration should not apologize for US principles. Which to me works pretty well.
Later on (before/after Romney's statement??) the US ambassador in Egypt and the White House disavowed the Cairo statement.
Then the Democrats, and a number of Republicans jumped on Romney for politicizing the death of a US ambassador.
My thought was, what does his statement have to do with the death of the ambassador? At the time of Romney's statement the ambassador was considered by the White House to be missing. They didn't find out he was dead until this morning.
*Then* this evening on CNN Romney's national security dude was on saying that yes, in fact both the Cairo protests and the ambassador's death are symptomatic of the disorder (chaos?) that Obama's foreign policy has created in the region. To me that was a boneheaded thing to say. First, you have a chance to disassociate Romney's comment from the death but pass it up, then you want to fault Obama for the end of strongman regimes in the Arab world?
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 06:12:35 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.tinypic.com%2F17phmv.jpg&hash=cd88476bab9feab5d7778c9a69d3153c53586a20)
:)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:28:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
How so ?
I haven't had the chance to see any of the US coverage so far or indeed much of anyones, other than on Languish.
It's a bit confusing, with a lot of accusations flying.
AFAICT, yesterday during the day the Cairo embassy released a statement saying the US filmmaker should be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities.
Last night Romney addressed the press. The only line that CNN broadcast was something about the Obama administration should not apologize for US principles. Which to me works pretty well.
Later on (before/after Romney's statement??) the US ambassador in Egypt and the White House disavowed the Cairo statement.
Then the Democrats, and a number of Republicans jumped on Romney for politicizing the death of a US ambassador.
My thought was, what does his statement have to do with the death of the ambassador? At the time of Romney's statement the ambassador was considered by the White House to be missing. They didn't find out he was dead until this morning.
*Then* this evening on CNN Romney's national security dude was on saying that yes, in fact both the Cairo protests and the ambassador's death are symptomatic of the disorder (chaos?) that Obama's foreign policy has created in the region. To me that was a boneheaded thing to say. First, you have a chance to disassociate Romney's comment from the death but pass it up, then you want to fault Obama for the end of strongman regimes in the Arab world?
Did you read the link in jacob's post?
No.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:28:06 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 05:54:47 PM
How so ?
I haven't had the chance to see any of the US coverage so far or indeed much of anyones, other than on Languish.
It's a bit confusing, with a lot of accusations flying.
AFAICT, yesterday during the day the Cairo embassy released a statement saying the US filmmaker should be more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities.
Last night Romney addressed the press. The only line that CNN broadcast was something about the Obama administration should not apologize for US principles. Which to me works pretty well.
Later on (before/after Romney's statement??) the US ambassador in Egypt and the White House disavowed the Cairo statement.
Then the Democrats, and a number of Republicans jumped on Romney for politicizing the death of a US ambassador.
My thought was, what does his statement have to do with the death of the ambassador? At the time of Romney's statement the ambassador was considered by the White House to be missing. They didn't find out he was dead until this morning.
*Then* this evening on CNN Romney's national security dude was on saying that yes, in fact both the Cairo protests and the ambassador's death are symptomatic of the disorder (chaos?) that Obama's foreign policy has created in the region. To me that was a boneheaded thing to say. First, you have a chance to disassociate Romney's comment from the death but pass it up, then you want to fault Obama for the end of strongman regimes in the Arab world?
:cheers:
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:43:13 PM
To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.
:hmm:
Quote from: sbr on September 12, 2012, 06:32:59 PM
Did you read the link in jacob's post?
Link dinnae work. What's the skinny?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:43:13 PM
To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.
:hmm:
If Israel were a theocracy, the Jews would tear it down in weeks, then spend a lot of time arguing amongst themselves, hence democracy ? :unsure:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296698_10151016630820685_1910857112_n.jpg)
For those who are interested, here's a blog from someone working at the US Department of State, covering the events: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130827/-DIARY-OF-A-BELTWAY-FACTOTUM-Libya-and-Romney-from-Inside?showAll=yes
(It's on Daily Kos)
Quote from: sbr on September 12, 2012, 06:22:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
You're making Tim and Raz look like Rhodes Scholars in comparison.
Hey!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:43:34 PM
Quote from: sbr on September 12, 2012, 06:32:59 PM
Did you read the link in jacob's post?
Link dinnae work. What's the skinny?
QuoteThe Post's View
Mr. Romney's rhetoric on embassy attacks is a discredit to his campaign
By Editorial Board, Wednesday, September 12, 12:02 PM
J.CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was a skilled and courageous diplomat who repeatedly placed himself at risk in order to support the cause of a democratic Libya. His death, along with those of three other Americans, during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday is a tragedy that should prompt bipartisan support for renewed U.S. aid to Libyans who are struggling to stabilize the country. That it instead provoked a series of crude political attacks on President Obama by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is a discredit to his campaign.
Mr. Romney's first rhetorical assault came Tuesday night in response to a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was also besieged by demonstrators Tuesday. His statement claimed that the administration's first response was "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." In fact the embassy statement was issued before the protests began; referring to an ugly anti-Islam film that was the focus of demonstrators, it condemned "those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious belief of others."
Mr. Romney did not then know the extent of the Benghazi incident — his statement referred only to "the death of an American consulate worker." So it was stunning to see the GOP nominee renew his verbal offensive Wednesday morning, when the country was still absorbing the news of the first death in service of a U.S. ambassador since 1988, as well as the loss of three other Americans. Though reports were still sketchy, it appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the Libyan security force at the consulate.
At a news conference, Mr. Romney claimed that the administration had delivered "an apology for America's values." In fact, it had done no such thing: Religious tolerance, as much as freedom of speech, is a core American value. The movie that provoked the protests, which mocks the prophet Mohammed and portrays Muslims as immoral and violent, is a despicable piece of bigotry; it was striking that Mr. Romney had nothing to say about such hatred directed at a major religious faith.
Mr. Obama struck the right tone on Wednesday, saying that "we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" but that "there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence." Lauding Mr. Stevens's service, the president promised "justice" for "this terrible act" while also committing the administration to continue cooperating with Libya's democratic government — which apologized for the attack.
Since the overthrow of dictator Moammar Gaddafi last year, Libya has been plagued by armed groups that have refused to submit to the new government. Now the United States must press the government to take action against Ansar al-Sharia and other jihadist organizations that have established themselves in the eastern Libyan desert. Security assistance, which has been limited so far, ought to be stepped up, by the Obama administration and by other governments that joined last year's NATO intervention.
As for Mr. Romney, he would do well to consider the example of Republican former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who issued a statement Wednesday lamenting "the tragic loss of life at our consulate," praising Mr. Stevens as "a wonderful officer and a terrific diplomat" and offering "thoughts and prayers" to "all the loved ones of the fallen." That was the appropriate response.
Interesting.
Not sure we really do reject all attempts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:58:52 PM
Interesting.
Not sure we really do reject all attempts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
No I don't think you do, but it seems to me that the idealized America that shines as a beacon to the rest of the world aspires to reject such attempts. So I don't see how the statement should be controversial.
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
No I don't think you do, but it seems to me that the idealized America that shines as a beacon to the rest of the world aspires to reject such attempts. So I don't see how the statement should be controversial.
I don't think we even aspire to do that.
QuoteEgyptian President Mohamed Morsi has called on the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take legal action against the producers of the "Innocence of Muslims" film, the official news agency MENA reported.
Derka Derka.
Seems like the actors in the film are considering suing the producer too: http://gawker.com/5942748
Probably won't work.
Mittens' and his campaign's entire behavior, from the initial release to his statement today, simply shows how much of a foreign policy noob he really is.
It's consistent with his entire foreign policy approach this entire campaign season: nothing but bluster and blunders, all from trying too hard.
Making inflammatory statements as well as holding an even more inflammatory press conference before the POTUS addresses the issue isn't just bad politics, it's simply poor form.
Quote from: sbr on September 12, 2012, 06:22:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
You're making Tim and Raz look like Rhodes Scholars in comparison.
My GPA for my Masters was 4.0 :smarty:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:28:06 PM
*Then* this evening on CNN Romney's national security dude was on saying that yes, in fact both the Cairo protests and the ambassador's death are symptomatic of the disorder (chaos?) that Obama's foreign policy has created in the region. To me that was a boneheaded thing to say. First, you have a chance to disassociate Romney's comment from the death but pass it up, then you want to fault Obama for the end of strongman regimes in the Arab world?
I saw some Republican chick on Fox News this morning while flipping through the channels. She was blaming Obama for removing our "allies" Mubarak and
Gaddafi from the region and therefore handing it to the extremists. :wacko:
Quote from: Kleves on September 12, 2012, 07:45:14 PMI saw some Republican chick on Fox News this morning while flipping through the channels. She was blaming Obama for removing our "allies" Mubarak and Gaddafi from the region and therefore handing it to the extremists. :wacko:
:huh:
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 07:46:29 PM
:huh:
I know. It was bizarre - she must have been a tea partyer. Good looking, though.
Douthat pointed out that the GOP attack on Obama's foreign policy is that he's soft on Islamists and that he leads from behind on things like Libya. The two don't seem coherent, if anything they're contradictory.
I think there is a very conservative realist case to be made, but to do that they'd need to dump the past eleven years of rhetoric and policy.
As I say in my view Romney should've taken the chance to look Presidential. He didn't and I think it was a big mistake. What's a shame is that Romney apparently didn't want to release a statement because of 9/11, but his advisers were very gung ho. Again, weak, weak, weak.
Even Peter King (America's most despicable Congressman) said while Romney was right he should've waited a day.
Interesting comments from the Libya protests today. Apparently the chant was 'no to terrorism, this is Libya' and someone commented that they'd all miss the Ambassador because 'he believed in Libya more than Libyans.' The statements from the government seem genuinely heartfelt too.
Oh and the latest reports are that this was a temporary consulate. So no marines, no bomb proofing and not even any bullet proof glass or anything that's standard at a US Embassy. And the current view is that this looks like a planned attack that used the protest as cover.
Obama talking live in Las Vagas; didn't quite catch what he was saying about the event, other than about public service abroad.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2012, 08:01:17 PM
Oh and the latest reports are that this was a temporary consulate. So no marines, no bomb proofing and not even any bullet proof glass or anything that's standard at a US Embassy. And the current view is that this looks like a planned attack that used the protest as cover.
QuoteRep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said there is strong evidence that the attack was planned.
"This was a well-armed, well-coordinated event," Rogers said in an interview on MSNBC. "It had both indirect and direct fire, and it had military maneuvers that were all part of this very organized attack." Rogers referred to weapons that aimed directly at a target and those, such as rockets and mortars, that are fired without a direct line of sight.
According to Firas Abdelhakim, a Libyan television journalist who said he witnessed part of the attack, a group of several dozen armed men mounted the assault.
Abdelhakim said he was about three miles from consulate when he saw 20 to 30 cars driving toward the consulate shortly before 9:30 p.m. Tuesday.
When he reached the consulate, he said, he saw about 50 armed men gathering who were not carrying banners or chanting slogans. When asked who they were, they described themselves variously as "Muslims defending the Prophet" and "a group of Muslim youth" who were "defending Islam," Abdelhakim said.
Interesting MSNBC report on how this attack may have been retaliation for Al Libi's drone death back in June. Apparently there may be more to the story.
We should just destroy Libya. :wacko: This is becoming very tedious.
Just watching the BBC World coverage and the anchor is having kittens because the female reporter in Washington is saying US marines are going to Libya, he says "that would be something, US boots on the ground in Libya"
Hilarious, not understanding that it's common practice to have Marines guard US embassies.
Seriously a lot of you guys on Languish could do much better, more balanced and informed job than these media types.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2012, 08:01:17 PM
And the current view is that this looks like a planned attack that used the protest as cover.
Ya know, the more that comes out about this the sillier Mitt Romney is made to look. Trying to score political points in the midst of a life-and-death event involving American citizens on the anniversary of 9/11 is something I thought I'd never see from a serious presidential candidate. I am actually embarrassed that I at one point contemplated voting for him.
Quote from: Jaron on September 12, 2012, 08:18:17 PM
We should just destroy Libya. :wacko: This is becoming very tedious.
Nonsense; always a few fleas in the fur. Libyans are overwhelmingly pro-American. There's a lot more to this than is out there in open source at the moment.
Now Egypt, on the other hand...
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 12, 2012, 08:21:22 PM
Ya know, the more that comes out about this the sillier Mitt Romney is made to look. Trying to score political points in the midst of a life-and-death event involving American citizens on the anniversary of 9/11 is something I thought I'd never see from a serious presidential candidate. I am actually embarrassed that I at one point contemplated voting for him.
Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, he and his people running his campaign continually prove he isn't a serious presidential candidate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:23:21 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 12, 2012, 08:18:17 PM
We should just destroy Libya. :wacko: This is becoming very tedious.
Nonsense; always a few fleas in the fur. Libyans are overwhelmingly pro-American. There's a lot more to this than is out there in open source at the moment.
Now Egypt, on the other hand...
Morsi needs a dead pig on his desk.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:25:46 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 12, 2012, 08:21:22 PM
Ya know, the more that comes out about this the sillier Mitt Romney is made to look. Trying to score political points in the midst of a life-and-death event involving American citizens on the anniversary of 9/11 is something I thought I'd never see from a serious presidential candidate. I am actually embarrassed that I at one point contemplated voting for him.
Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, he and his people running his campaign continually prove he isn't a serious presidential candidate.
I'm one of the three people in the country where foreign policy is my sole salient issue. Mitt Romney is dead to me now.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 12, 2012, 08:29:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 08:25:46 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 12, 2012, 08:21:22 PM
Ya know, the more that comes out about this the sillier Mitt Romney is made to look. Trying to score political points in the midst of a life-and-death event involving American citizens on the anniversary of 9/11 is something I thought I'd never see from a serious presidential candidate. I am actually embarrassed that I at one point contemplated voting for him.
Unfortunately, when it comes to foreign policy, he and his people running his campaign continually prove he isn't a serious presidential candidate.
I'm one of the three people in the country where foreign policy is my sole salient issue. Mitt Romney is dead to me now.
Who are the other two guys?
Me
And the UPS guy I knew when I lived in Illinois
I'll be Chevy Chase, you'll be Martin Short and ups guy Steve Martin.
This is just a distraction. Nuking the Chinese coastline is still what's most important. Sure, Islam is incompatible with civilization, but that's why they're not a real threat.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 12, 2012, 09:04:03 PM
I'll be Chevy Chase, you'll be Martin Short and ups guy Steve Martin.
EL GUAPO :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 07:18:29 PM
Seems like the actors in the film are considering suing the producer too: http://gawker.com/5942748
Probably won't work.
..Good luck suing the Mossad.
Do I have a plethora?
Quote from: katmai on September 12, 2012, 09:21:13 PM
Do I have a plethora?
Oh yeah. You have a plethora.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsP%2F13899-19453.jpg&hash=3c2031b3b44925b69d29a77aed1d535580f784e9)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 12, 2012, 04:32:30 PM
Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?
To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.
No, I don't agree with that at all.
In fact, I vehemently disagree that the ability of radicals to engage in violence should ever deter us from acting, or "getting involved".
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 03:47:36 PM
I'm not sure I entirely agree - as in that case I think it was a bit of picking one's battles. I guess we could continue to publish lame things they find offensive but I'm not sure where we have room to be surprised that they then act in a ridiculous violent manner - unless we are planning to do something to curb them of their violent ways. (And I don't think a sharply worded retort qualifies.)
This is simply mindboggling.
First of all, "we" do not continue to publish anything - our societies are not monolythic and our governments do not control content of free speech.
Secondly, be careful what you wish for - since your very existence is offensive to muslims, so you are probably going to be next on the list.
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 12, 2012, 06:58:52 PM
Interesting.
Not sure we really do reject all attempts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
No I don't think you do, but it seems to me that the idealized America that shines as a beacon to the rest of the world aspires to reject such attempts. So I don't see how the statement should be controversial.
Wow, you completely misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech, don't you?
The statement from the US embassy condemning "those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious belief of others" is simply outrageous in a secular democracy. Doing away with blasphemy laws was (or is, in case of Poland) one of the greatest achievements towards freedom of speech - and I can't think of a statement more "denigrating" religious beliefs of others than "God does not exist and your beliefs are a lie". Suggesting that it is an abuse of freedom of speech to "hurt religious beliefs of others" is not acceptable, and if this is what Romney is slamming Obama for, he is right.
And while we are at it, where are all the other apologies from Obama for US citizens unaffiliated with the US government hurting feelings of other people? Why hasn't the White House (or at least some US embassies) issued an apology to homosexuals for Fred Phelps saying "God hates fags" or NOM releasing movies about gays molesting children; or why hasn't Obama apologised to Vatican for Chick tracts? Or (here's a crazy thought) is the entire statement a way to appease crazy idiots who intimidated Obama with violence so unless you storm an embassy or murder the ambassador, you can't really count on an apology?
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 01:29:36 AM... Or (here's a crazy thought) is the entire statement a way to appease crazy idiots who intimidated Obama with violence so unless you storm an embassy or murder the ambassador, you can't really count on an apology?
Here comes the apology:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-drone-war/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-drone-war/)
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
Which part of what Romney said do you agree with?
the part where he disagrees with doing this -> "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:43:13 PM
To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.
:hmm:
The logic is as follows
1 - Israel is the Enemy
2 - We do not wish to be like the enemy
3 - We do not wish to be like Israel
4 - Israel is a Democracy
5 - We do not wish to be a Democracy
Democracy itself is tainted by association with Israel.
Quote from: mongers on September 12, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Just watching the BBC World coverage and the anchor is having kittens because the female reporter in Washington is saying US marines are going to Libya, he says "that would be something, US boots on the ground in Libya"
Hilarious, not understanding that it's common practice to have Marines guard US embassies.
Seriously a lot of you guys on Languish could do much better, more balanced and informed job than these media types.
no on the former, yes on the latter...
I'm surprised the the Anthem of the US Marines hasn't been brought up yet.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:51:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:43:13 PM
To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.
:hmm:
The logic is as follows
1 - Israel is the Enemy
2 - We do not wish to be like the enemy
3 - We do not wish to be like Israel
4 - Israel is a Democracy
5 - We do not wish to be a Democracy
Democracy itself is tainted by association with Israel.
Uhm, who is the "we" in that?
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2012, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:51:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 12, 2012, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 05:43:13 PM
To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.
:hmm:
The logic is as follows
1 - Israel is the Enemy
2 - We do not wish to be like the enemy
3 - We do not wish to be like Israel
4 - Israel is a Democracy
5 - We do not wish to be a Democracy
Democracy itself is tainted by association with Israel.
Uhm, who is the "we" in that?
Ah, oh, I now see the point. What I meant to say was
To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in
the Arab World :blush:
The fact that Israel is full of Arabs and Russians is a hindrance to democracy in Israel. :P
The U.S. Embassy in Yemen has been overrun.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-yemen-usa-embassy-idUSBRE88C0AM20120913 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-yemen-usa-embassy-idUSBRE88C0AM20120913)
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 12, 2012, 03:47:36 PM
I'm not sure I entirely agree - as in that case I think it was a bit of picking one's battles. I guess we could continue to publish lame things they find offensive but I'm not sure where we have room to be surprised that they then act in a ridiculous violent manner - unless we are planning to do something to curb them of their violent ways. (And I don't think a sharply worded retort qualifies.)
This is simply mindboggling.
First of all, "we" do not continue to publish anything - our societies are not monolythic and our governments do not control content of free speech.
Secondly, be careful what you wish for - since your very existence is offensive to muslims, so you are probably going to be next on the list.
:yawn:
See? There is no room for negotiations with these savages.
Rasmussen 1. Obama 0.
Eastern Europeans and Rasmussen. :rolleyes:
Overnight Gallup tracking has the spread at 7 points now, and Obama at 51% approval, over 50% for the first time since OBL got double tapped and joined the Indian Ocean food chain.
Can't we install fucking claymores in the embassy walls?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 13, 2012, 07:23:56 AM
Can't we install fucking claymores in the embassy walls?
No. No, we can't.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 13, 2012, 04:29:48 AM
The U.S. Embassy in Yemen has been overrun.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-yemen-usa-embassy-idUSBRE88C0AM20120913 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-yemen-usa-embassy-idUSBRE88C0AM20120913)
The very fact that this is "spreading" like this shows that this is not a reaction to the offensive stimulii but rather a reaction to the reaction. What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Yeah that's the thought I had this morning. Shame.
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:28:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Yeah that's the thought I had this morning. Shame.
Fuck you I don't want free speech hating scum like you agreeing with me.
:lol:
I have been told before that advocating for genocide is illegal in Canada, so I won't.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:31:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:28:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Yeah that's the thought I had this morning. Shame.
Fuck you I don't want free speech hating scum like you agreeing with me.
:yawn:
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:31:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:28:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Yeah that's the thought I had this morning. Shame.
Fuck you I don't want free speech hating scum like you agreeing with me.
I think he is more of a retard than scum. Like Jacob.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 07:37:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:31:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:28:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Yeah that's the thought I had this morning. Shame.
Fuck you I don't want free speech hating scum like you agreeing with me.
I think he is more of a retard than scum. Like Jacob.
Too many eloquent people manage to propound the same immoral doctrine of blaming the victim for it just to be mental retardation. It's an insult to all retards.
It's the lack of thought (and refusal to think) about the actual consequences. It seems ok for people to be murdered if you sympathise with goals of the murderer or you think the victim is morally culpable. By suggesting that you should accept that you are at fault if you provoked the religious lunatic that tried to kill you is just vile. It just signals a lack of human empathy on garbon's part here. People he doesn't like aren't full humans.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:44:49 AM
People he doesn't like aren't full humans.
If that were true, there would only be one human on earth.
Looks like the Euros are frothy this morning. You'd think it was their ambassador that got killed.
QuotePresident Barack Obama says the U.S. would not consider Egypt an ally, ''but we don't consider them an enemy.''
Morsi just got a Smithfield ham on the desk.
O: :) Now go further. Call on congress to cut their aid.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 07:37:14 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:31:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 07:28:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:27:13 AM
What "this" is is not a rent-a-mob showing up to protest US imperialism but rather the novel (well since 1979) activity of trying to storm the embassy and killing it's inhabitants.
Yeah that's the thought I had this morning. Shame.
Fuck you I don't want free speech hating scum like you agreeing with me.
I think he is more of a retard than scum. Like Jacob.
It's more like unless we actually try to convince our governments to do something about their violent reactions, rallying around juvenile creations as a free speech issue - posting furiously online and writing articles is rather silly. After all, we already know the established routine - some bozo creates some work that muslims deem offensive, muslims somewhere get violent. (I'm calling said things juvenile as none of the works discussed in this thread are particularly interesting but really just rather shitty.)
That isn't to justify the violent muslim reaction or suggest that people should be restricted from creating juvenile works. But to act as though there isn't a cause and effect of juvenile work => crazy muslims is nonsensical. I'm not saying the author of the juvenile work is responsible for the violence but merely remind you of a clear pattern of events.
And I guess I wonder - if we aren't actually taking steps to curb such violent muslim reactions, I wonder if we as individuals should take a pause to think when we go about creating works that trigger the established pattern. I don't think being a homosexual is a good comparison as that's just myself living my daily life whereas I don't think anyone's life really has to consist of making shitty art (or that they'd be unhappy if they couldn't).
Saying that one should consider when to exercise free speech isn't saying that it should be thrown out - anymore than the suggestion that one should probably avoid shouting out the n-word when walking around a majority black neighborhood.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 12, 2012, 06:47:06 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296698_10151016630820685_1910857112_n.jpg)
Profits not Prophets! :yeah:
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 07:59:42 AM
Profits not Prophets! :yeah:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lauragreaves.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F04%2Fjay-and-silent-bob2.jpg&hash=8c0b1c4e14740623327acb9c55398609d1db91e0)
Kevin Smith sucks.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 07:59:42 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on September 12, 2012, 06:47:06 PM
Profits not Prophets! :yeah:
Arabic doesn't really transliterate to latin lettering. Vowels are pretty arbitrary, and often not included and for consonants hard/soft distinctions often disappear (f/b, p/b, s/z, k/g etc.). Often these signs are often transliterations of mipronounciations in arabic of english words. So you'll often end up with signs like
Dawon Dawon USA (down down USA)
Death to the Juice (death to the jews)
etc.
2 destroyers with Tomahawks off the Libyan coast? MY MURDER BONER IS OUT OF CONTROL.
I was hoping for actual gunboats from the 1910s, not guided missile destroyers. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2012, 07:54:07 AM
Looks like the Euros are frothy this morning. You'd think it was their ambassador that got killed. Jews were involved.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 13, 2012, 08:14:59 AM
I was hoping for actual gunboats from the 1910s, not guided missile destroyers. :(
Gunboats were there to threaten the government, not the rebels.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 08:21:13 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 13, 2012, 08:14:59 AM
I was hoping for actual gunboats from the 1910s, not guided missile destroyers. :(
Gunboats were there to threaten the government, not the rebels.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 13, 2012, 08:14:59 AM
I was hoping for actual gunboats from the 1910s, not guided missile destroyers. :(
Meh, the Tomahawks will be able to zero in on drone targeted facilities much, much better, insha'allah.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:02:42 AM
Kevin Smith sucks.
You continue to find new ways to sicken me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 12, 2012, 07:26:44 PM
Mittens' and his campaign's entire behavior, from the initial release to his statement today, simply shows how much of a foreign policy noob he really is.
It's consistent with his entire foreign policy approach this entire campaign season: nothing but bluster and blunders, all from trying too hard.
Making inflammatory statements as well as holding an even more inflammatory press conference before the POTUS addresses the issue isn't just bad politics, it's simply poor form.
You nailed it.
Even in this partisan age, other Republicans found this bad form.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 08:30:27 AM
You people that worship that fat fuck offend me.
Snootchie bootchies, bitch.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
Which part of what Romney said do you agree with?
the part where he disagrees with doing this -> "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
What attacks are you referring to? There weren't any attacks at the time the statement was made.
Watching the BBC I'm beginning to think these grotesque savages should not be allowed to operate anything more complicated than a camel if a YouTube clip can get them that worked up.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:44:49 AMToo many eloquent people manage to propound the same immoral doctrine of blaming the victim for it just to be mental retardation. It's an insult to all retards.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 08:59:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
Quote from: Jacob on September 12, 2012, 06:23:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 12, 2012, 06:21:22 PM
TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.
"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."
Which part of what Romney said do you agree with?
the part where he disagrees with doing this -> "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
What attacks are you referring to? There weren't any attacks at the time the statement was made.
In all the previous rounds where people have been killed an embassies burned.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
In all the previous rounds where people have been killed an embassies burned.
Where does the statement express sympathy for that?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 09:20:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
In all the previous rounds where people have been killed an embassies burned.
Where does the statement express sympathy for that?
Where it condemns the bigots who made that silly movie. Or the one before that when the condemned the cartoonists. Or the one before that when the condemned the novel.
It validates those who think the problem is how free speech is used rather than the violence used to try and suppress it.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 09:40:20 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 09:20:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
In all the previous rounds where people have been killed an embassies burned.
Where does the statement express sympathy for that?
Where it condemns the bigots who made that silly movie. Or the one before that when the condemned the cartoonists. Or the one before that when the condemned the novel.
So it doesn't.
Quote from: DGuller on September 13, 2012, 07:47:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:44:49 AM
People he doesn't like aren't full humans.
If that were true, there would only be one human on earth.
Who? Hillary Clinton?
I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.
Because that is a separate civil rights issue. And you know how we feel about free speech, regardless of however abhorrent, disturbing or LGBT-friendly.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.
Don't see how that follows. If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.
Because that is a separate civil rights issue. And you know how we feel about free speech, regardless of however abhorrent, disturbing or LGBT-friendly.
What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.
Tell you what: when a bunch of drag queens start scaling the walls at Magazine Street and setting chiffon cocktail dresses on fire over something on youtube, then the US government will issue a statement.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.
Because that is a separate civil rights issue. And you know how we feel about free speech, regardless of however abhorrent, disturbing or LGBT-friendly.
What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.
I suppose that you have to at least say something when someone attacks one of your embassies. That's not to say that it was the right thing to say.
Of course, the best thing to say IMO would simply be to point out that any opinions expressed by private individuals or groups are not the views of the US government. Sooner or later maybe people will figure out that Fred Phelps, the makers of the film at the center of the current storm, and the Danish cartoonists aren't branches of the US government.
You guys are all abusing free speech :rolleyes:
Dunno if this really means anything or not, but...
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/obama/2012/09/13/obama-speaks-with-libyan-egyptian-presidents/gNYivFq9kLSODWg3egLZqL/story.html
QuotePresident Barack Obama says the U.S. would not consider Egypt an ally, ''but we don't consider them an enemy.''
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/obama-romney-has-tendency-to-shoot-first-aim-later-135355.html
QuoteAsked if Romney's remarks were irresponsible, Obama responded: "I'll let the American people judge that."
...
Most Republicans "reacted responsibly, waiting to find out the facts before they talk, making sure that our number one priority is the safety and security of American personnel," Obama said, according to Carney. "It appears that Gov. Romney didn't have his facts right."
There is "never an excuse for violence against Americans, which is why my number one priority and my initial statement focused on making sure that not only are Americans safe, but that we go after anybody who would attack Americans," the president added, according to Carney.
...
In his interview with CBS News -- according to Carney's reading of the president's statements -- Obama defended the embassy's response, saying it was "an an effort to cool the situation down" as protests broke out in Cairo. "It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2012, 10:21:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.
Don't see how that follows. If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.
Indeed.
Quote"It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."
Score!
A great response.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.
To protect our people abroad of course.
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 10:51:41 AM
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2012, 10:21:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.
Don't see how that follows. If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.
Indeed.
If the topic of conversation is someone going into someone house and murdering their entire family, and the response is to note that someone called the guys mom a name, then I certainly think that is bullshit. It suggests that perhaps the actions of the victim in some fashion excuse or mitigate the actions of the criminal.
The instigation is so out of whack with the response that mentioning it as even a mitigating circumstance is not worthy, and suggests in fact that maybe the response is not all that unreasonable, or more importantly, that even if the response was not reasonable, maybe people should in fact censor their speech in case more unreasonable responses occur. And that is completely wrong.
The issue here is that people have every right to be offensive assholes. People do in fact have the right to speak out against things they find wrong, and even have the right to do so in a manner that those they are speaking out against find offensive. Pointing out in the same breath that something terrible has happened while noting that the perpetrators were provoked suggests that perhaps people should stop provoking them.
Which is exactly what those who engage in this kind of violence are trying to accomplish
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 10:57:33 AM
The issue here is that people have every right to be offensive assholes. People do in fact have the right to speak out against things they find wrong, and even have the right to do so in a manner that those they are speaking out against find offensive. Pointing out in the same breath that something terrible has happened while noting that the perpetrators were provoked suggests that perhaps people should stop provoking them. Which is exactly what those who engage in this kind of violence are trying to accomplish
Exactly.
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2012, 10:33:12 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:10:53 AM
I am still waiting for the answer to my question why the US government does not issue official statements condemning US-based bigots who say offensive things about gays, or Jews, or Catholics, or pretty much anyone except Muslims.
Because that is a separate civil rights issue. And you know how we feel about free speech, regardless of however abhorrent, disturbing or LGBT-friendly.
What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.
I suppose that you have to at least say something when someone attacks one of your embassies. That's not to say that it was the right thing to say.
Of course, the best thing to say IMO would simply be to point out that any opinions expressed by private individuals or groups are not the views of the US government. Sooner or later maybe people will figure out that Fred Phelps, the makers of the film at the center of the current storm, and the Danish cartoonists aren't branches of the US government.
QuoteTell you what: when a bunch of drag queens start scaling the walls at Magazine Street and setting chiffon cocktail dresses on fire over something on youtube, then the US government will issue a statement.
Ok so you are essentially confirming that Obama has been bullied to issue that statement. Not very statesmanlike.
The right to freedom of speech as a liberal ideal is not subject to review based on the perception of offensiveness of the speech by some arbitrary group willing to engage in violence in response to it.
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
I concur that we should not limit freedom of speech, especially in response to violence and attempted intimidation.
On the other hand, I think it's perfectly legitimate for a government and it's representatives to acknowledge that a particular exercise of speech does not represent the view of the government or the nation, and that the particular example of speech is deliberately offensive and wrong - especially when that's true.
In short, I think it's legitimate for the embassy to say "that video insulting your religion does not represent the US, and the people who made it are assholes"; but it is not okay to add "so we'll make some laws to make sure those assholes are punished for upsetting you."
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 10:57:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 10:51:41 AM
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2012, 10:21:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.
Don't see how that follows. If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.
Indeed.
If the topic of conversation is someone going into someone house and murdering their entire family, and the response is to note that someone called the guys mom a name, then I certainly think that is bullshit. It suggests that perhaps the actions of the victim in some fashion excuse or mitigate the actions of the criminal.
The instigation is so out of whack with the response that mentioning it as even a mitigating circumstance is not worthy, and suggests in fact that maybe the response is not all that unreasonable, or more importantly, that even if the response was not reasonable, maybe people should in fact censor their speech in case more unreasonable responses occur. And that is completely wrong.
The issue here is that people have every right to be offensive assholes. People do in fact have the right to speak out against things they find wrong, and even have the right to do so in a manner that those they are speaking out against find offensive. Pointing out in the same breath that something terrible has happened while noting that the perpetrators were provoked suggests that perhaps people should stop provoking them. Which is exactly what those who engage in this kind of violence are trying to accomplish
But it's really just establishing the chronology of events / understanding that people might have gotten upset by what was said. That doesn't mean that you're excusing the actions that were taken as a result of being upset. After all, if you don't at least try and understand why someone could have gotten angry - you've really no common ground and no way of trying to convince them why they shouldn't go and murder people (especially those not even involved).
Going back to the example I posted this morning. If a group of white guys go into a black neighborhood and one starts cursing about n****ers - there could be a non-zero chance that guy would be attacked and perhaps even all of them would be attacked (though their only fault was hanging out with a racist) - and let's posit here that one of the accompanying white guys died. I don't see what is wrong with saying that one understands why the black people were upset but that their response was disproportionate to the offending event. Those black people should also get punished to the full extent of the law for what they did - but I don't understand how it becomes death to free speech if one says perhaps the white guy shouldn't have gone to that neighborhood saying those things. He isn't guilty but he did play a role in what happened.
Is the difference between that scenario and real events that there's no real threat of the black guys wanting to destroy the free-speech culture of those white guys - which isn't the case with these muslim fundamentalists vs. the US?
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 10:51:53 AM
Quote"It didn't come from me. It didn't come from Secretary Clinton. It came from folks on the ground who are potentially in danger. And my tendency is to cut those folks a little bit of slack when they're in that circumstance rather than try to question their judgment from the comfort of a campaign office."
Score!
A great response.
Then why did the administration disavow the embassy statement?
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2012, 11:16:27 AMOn the other hand, I think it's perfectly legitimate for a government and it's representatives to acknowledge that a particular exercise of speech does not represent the view of the government or the nation, and that the particular example of speech is deliberately offensive and wrong - especially when that's true.
The problem is that such acknowledgement does not seem to be a part of any consistent policy.
Furthermore, I question whether it should be a job of foreign office/embassies of a secular state to issue statements targetted not at other nations but at religions. Had citizens or the government of a specific country been offended, I would perhaps see a merit in an embassy making a light statement, but I really fail to see how it is a foreign affairs matter, if the group offended by the action includes, potentially, also citizens of the US.
In short, this is a completely messy, haphazard, chaotic and non-transparent policy that appears to have no rhyme or reason, other than the fact that it is caused by violence or a threat of violence. And I think we can all agree that it is a very bad thing for a country to respond to intimidation in this manner.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
Ok so you are essentially confirming that Obama has been bullied to issue that statement. Not very statesmanlike.
I'll defer to Jacob's previous response, as mine would simply be laced with profanity, you AIDS magnet.
You're really picking the wrong issue to wave your hysterical homo agenda.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 11:49:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
Ok so you are essentially confirming that Obama has been bullied to issue that statement. Not very statesmanlike.
I'll defer to Jacob's previous response, as mine would simply be laced with profanity, you AIDS magnet.
You're really picking the wrong issue to wave your hysterical homo agenda.
Not really. You are the one with "Obama can do no wrong" shtick here. I fully agree with Berkut - he is right, because unlike you, he is still capable of thinking in non-partisan terms.
Quote from: Jacob on September 13, 2012, 09:06:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 07:44:49 AMToo many eloquent people manage to propound the same immoral doctrine of blaming the victim for it just to be mental retardation. It's an insult to all retards.
What the fuck are you talking about?
He is saying that calling you a retard is an insult to all retards. You must be really retarded not to get that. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
In short, this is a completely messy, haphazard, chaotic and non-transparent policy
It's not a policy at all. It's a statement issued from embassy personnel that wasn't cleared with State or the White House.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:53:06 AM
Not really. You are the one with "Obama can do no wrong" shtick here. I fully agree with Berkut - he is right, because unlike you, he is still capable of thinking in non-partisan terms.
Don't get bitchy and wave your car keys at me because I'm calling you out on using this incident as a soapbox for your usual anti-religious meta meme.
Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.
Had someone spoken out about this video PRIOR to a bunch of nutjobs killing people over it, I would have been right there calling the people making the video a bunch of assholes.
But to keep quiet UNTIL someone reacts violently suggests that in fact it is the violence that has triggered the criticism, rather than the content of the speech.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:47:30 AM
In short, this is a completely messy, haphazard, chaotic and non-transparent policy
It's not a policy at all. It's a statement issued from embassy personnel that wasn't cleared with State or the White House.
Which is fine. But many people in this thread seem to be arguing that it is alright for governments to issue such statements.
I don't blame the embassy personnel to say stupid crap to save their lives - I blame people who retroactively argue that such crap was objectively right and correct.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.
Ignoring the fact that many muslims around the world seem to blame the US government - one of its embassadors was targeted - would be pretty dumb.
I cannot think of a more solid principle than affirming a strong stance on tolerance and particularly tolerance of religious belief. I dont actually understand your objection.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:57:35 AM
I cannot think of a more solid principle than affirming a strong stance on tolerance and particularly tolerance of religious belief. I dont actually understand your objection.
It's the usual.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
Do you think that's something the government should get involved with? If so, then why don't we set up a Department of Criticism of Ignorant Speech, just to make sure nothing slips through the cracks?
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.
I agree. But I think this is one of those times when it is appropriate. Muslims around the world are venting their anger at the US government and its officials for something the US government had nothing to do with. I think it is a rational response for the US government to say that not only did they have nothing to do with it but also to strongly affirm its commitment to tolerance of religious beliefs.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:56:32 AM
Had someone spoken out about this video PRIOR to a bunch of nutjobs killing people over it, I would have been right there calling the people making the video a bunch of assholes.
But to keep quiet UNTIL someone reacts violently suggests that in fact it is the violence that has triggered the criticism, rather than the content of the speech.
How about the fact that virtually no one knew about this shitty film until someone acted violently?
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.
I don't know about you, but I think a policy of "we don't comment on things unless, for whatever reason, they become widely discussed around the world" is pretty defensible.
Quote from: garbon on September 13, 2012, 12:04:49 PM
How about the fact that virtually no one knew about this shitty film until someone acted violently?
Yeah, no shit.
Once the embassy in Cairo got wind of the heat it was generating with Egyptian clerics on the street, they issued their statement to simmer things down locally, since nobody fucking else on the planet outside Egyptian mosques knew about it at all.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:02:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
Do you think that's something the government should get involved with? If so, then why don't we set up a Department of Criticism of Ignorant Speech, just to make sure nothing slips through the cracks?
Ignorant speech is routinely regulated. Take an example of of someone selling snake oil saying it will cure cancer. Does one need a Department of Silly speech (a department of the ministry of silliness), just down the hall form the Department of Silly Walks, to take care of such a thing. No, but it does requires some common sense which I am afraid Libertarians seem to lack.
What makes this case difficult is that the ignorant speech in this case would, widely defined, itself fall under a protected form of speech and so it cannot and should not be regulated but there are other ways to deal with it and that is to roundly condemn it for what it is. As I said, freedom of speech does not and never should include freedom from criticism.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 11:56:27 AM
Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.
He was aware he was ambassador to Egypt and not Canada right?
Also, this whole "policy" of religious tolerance, particularly with regards to Islamic-centric events, has been boilerplate since 9/11.
From 9/11 to the Iraqi insurgency to Abu Gharib to Afghanistan, there's been no deviation in the United States' public affirmation of respecting all faiths.
The Bush Administration reinforced that concept for the entire length of his presidency. Don't see why it's suddenly a problem now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:56:32 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
No argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.
I agree. But I think this is one of those times when it is appropriate. Muslims around the world are venting their anger at the US government and its officials for something the US government had nothing to do with. I think it is a rational response for the US government to say that not only did they have nothing to do with it but also to strongly affirm its commitment to tolerance of religious beliefs.
That is fine, I guess.
However, who are we kidding here?
It's not like anything that the US Government can say is going to make a damn bit of difference with people who are prone to murder in response to any perceived offense towards their deity. The idea that if only the government says or does the right thing, maybe it will make it better is pretty much hopeless, IMO.
People who are not rational are not amenable to rational discourse. And religious fanatics are not rational.
What are the rules of engagement for embassy personnel anyway? I imagine that actually firing live ammo at inhabitants of the host country is highly undesirable, and would only be contemplated when people in the embassy start getting beheaded.
Quote
Ignorant speech is routinely regulated. Take an example of of someone selling snake oil saying it will cure cancer. Does one need a Department of Silly speech (a department of the ministry of silliness), just down the hall form the Department of Silly Walks, to take care of such a thing. No, but it does requires some common sense which I am afraid Libertarians seem to lack.
We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.
QuoteWhat makes this case difficult is that the ignorant speech in this case would, widely defined, itself fall under a protected form of speech and so it cannot and should not be regulated but there are other ways to deal with it and that is to roundly condemn it for what it is. As I said, freedom of speech does not and never should include freedom from criticism.
...from other private citizens. I don't think government should be in the business of criticizing speech it doesn't like.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 12:12:02 PM
It's not like anything that the US Government can say is going to make a damn bit of difference with people who are prone to murder in response to any perceived offense towards their deity. The idea that if only the government says or does the right thing, maybe it will make it better is pretty much hopeless, IMO.
People who are not rational are not amenable to rational discourse. And religious fanatics are not rational.
I agree that it might not make any difference. But it would be wrong not to at least try. Also, in terms of the domestic audience I think it is important for the government to affirm the value of tolerance in society.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:56:32 AMNo argument here, except to note that the government should be very careful about even criticizing speech - they have unique powers that make it problematic for them to criticize speech without at the same time curtailing it, even if unintentionally.
Had someone spoken out about this video PRIOR to a bunch of nutjobs killing people over it, I would have been right there calling the people making the video a bunch of assholes.
But to keep quiet UNTIL someone reacts violently suggests that in fact it is the violence that has triggered the criticism, rather than the content of the speech.
That's also fair enough as a general principle. I think there is some wiggle room if, say, you're not aware of the speech in question until someone angrily brings it to your attention; I mean, it's not like we expect the various governments to watch out for every bit of offensive speech and disavow it preemptively. So there has to be room somewhere to react to other people's upset and anger and then let them know that you, as a government, do not agree with the offending speech; but I agree with you that it should not be in response to the violence.
Regarding this specific course of events, is there anything you think should have been handled different in term of the US's response?
... and as an aside, I don't think that characterizing the killers as nutjobs is likely to be accurate. I suspect (but I don't know), that the killers have a very specific and rational agenda, though one that is obviously both violent and anti-American, and that they either opportunistically took advantage of the anger of the mob or deliberately staged and encouraged the protests to use as cover.
Mohammed is not even a diety he is just a dude. Theologically speaking it should not even be blasphemy to insult him.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:02:33 PMI agree. But I think this is one of those times when it is appropriate. Muslims around the world are venting their anger at the US government and its officials for something the US government had nothing to do with. I think it is a rational response for the US government to say that not only did they have nothing to do with it but also to strongly affirm its commitment to tolerance of religious beliefs.
Yeah, I concur.
It's worth it to be vigilant about slipping down the slope of government controlling free speech, but I don't think this is on that slope.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 12:11:58 PM
Also, this whole "policy" of religious tolerance, particularly with regards to Islamic-centric events, has been boilerplate since 9/11.
From 9/11 to the Iraqi insurgency to Abu Gharib to Afghanistan, there's been no deviation in the United States' public affirmation of respecting all faiths.
The Bush Administration reinforced that concept for the entire length of his presidency. Don't see why it's suddenly a problem now.
It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
:huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
Does advertising count as speech? :hmm: I mean legally?
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 12:09:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 11:56:27 AM
Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.
He was aware he was ambassador to Egypt and not Canada right?
She was. But I'm guessing she was maybe worried about some trigger-happy marine escalating the situation. Assuming the rumors are true, of course.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:17:25 PM
It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.
Isn't it one of the central pillars of our country and government? Religious tolerance I mean.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 12:19:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:17:25 PM
It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.
Isn't it one of the central pillars of our country and government? Religious tolerance I mean.
I guess I was referring to the policy of over-affirming it in public statements to offended Muslims-- to the point where it becomes a near-apology.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
Does advertising count as speech? :hmm: I mean legally?
Yes. However under Canadian law and, as I understand it US law, it is given lesser protection than other forms of speech.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:21:47 PM
I guess I was referring to the policy of over-affirming it in public statements to offended Muslims-- to the point where it becomes a near-apology.
If it peels off some people from the extremists than it is a good policy isn't it? We should aim to weaken our enemies.
Quote from: dps on September 13, 2012, 10:21:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:49:11 AM
I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.
Don't see how that follows. If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.
It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother.
It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother, but, your brother did call his mother a whore.
see the difference between the two statements?
Gerry Adams kept saying "I cannot condone such actions, but, the brutal British government policies in the North of Ireland mean that they will continue happening." Yassir Arafat use his nearly patented phrase "I condemn all attacks on civilians*, but this doesn't justify the oppression/occupation/genocide of the palestinian people"
These are the worst cases but this language is echoed, for example, by norwegian politcians who can't manage to condemn the murder of israeli civilans without using the word "but" in the same sentence. Weasle words like this contrive to either establish a causal effect between each of the meanings before and after the "but", but also suggest a moral equivalence or in the worst case the cancellation of the sentiment before the "but".
This is why I think this is so important and why Mitt is right on this issue. Please note that it is the militant atheist ghey loving yooros that are siding with Mitt against Obama on this issue. This is not something we are taking lightly or something that fits easily into our political pre-conceptions. I'm pretty sure Mitt is doing this for opportunistic reasons, the broken clock is right two times a day.
* note that the PLO had previously declared all israeli civilians to be combatants due to the draft.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
This is why I think this is so important and why Mitt is right on this issue. Please note that it is the militant atheist ghey loving yooros that are siding with Mitt against Obama on this issue. This is not something we are taking lightly or something that fits easily into our political pre-conceptions. I'm pretty sure Mitt is doing this for opportunistic reasons, the broken clock is right two times a day.
* note that the PLO had previously declared all israeli civilians to be combatants due to the draft.
It does dovetail nicely into you and Marti's thoughts on religion though.
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 12:12:02 PMThat is fine, I guess.
However, who are we kidding here?
It's not like anything that the US Government can say is going to make a damn bit of difference with people who are prone to murder in response to any perceived offense towards their deity. The idea that if only the government says or does the right thing, maybe it will make it better is pretty much hopeless, IMO.
People who are not rational are not amenable to rational discourse. And religious fanatics are not rational.
Personally, I think the attacks on the embassy were very rational. They were carried out by people who favour extremist Islam and who do not want the US to be involved in Libya, Egypt etc. The objective is to drive a wedge between the US and Libya, Egypt etc as much as possible, and to make the position of anyone in those countries who is friendly towards the US and/or the West less solid. Those are all rational, solid political goals and the methods are cost-effective.
Now, individual members of the protesting mobs were perhaps not there for rational reasons and their complaints were obviously seriously misdirected, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that they are prone to murder. They may very well have been used as cover by the murderers who acted out of rational (and reprehensive) motives.
As for whether US official statements mean anything - of course they do. They are unlikely to sway the hard-headed anti-American fighters of various stripes, and probably not particularly likely to sway the easily manipulated members of the mob in question (whether they were there because they believe what they protested or whether they were there because they were paid to, or to support someone who helped them rather than because they believed), but they're not the only audience; the rest of the country and the rest of the world, including America, hears and are influenced by the US response as well.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 12:45:09 PMThis is why I think this is so important and why Mitt is right on this issue. Please note that it is the militant atheist ghey loving yooros that are siding with Mitt against Obama on this issue. This is not something we are taking lightly or something that fits easily into our political pre-conceptions. I'm pretty sure Mitt is doing this for opportunistic reasons, the broken clock is right two times a day.
I'm taking it lightly for two reasons:
1) The position and reasoning you ascribe to Mitt Romney is not that close to what he actually has said or stands for.
2) This is yet another manifestation of your intense hatred for religions of all kind and Islam in particular.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:17:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 12:11:58 PM
Also, this whole "policy" of religious tolerance, particularly with regards to Islamic-centric events, has been boilerplate since 9/11.
From 9/11 to the Iraqi insurgency to Abu Gharib to Afghanistan, there's been no deviation in the United States' public affirmation of respecting all faiths.
The Bush Administration reinforced that concept for the entire length of his presidency. Don't see why it's suddenly a problem now.
It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.
:lol: OK, derBolton.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 12:45:09 PM
It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother.
It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother, but, your brother did call his mother a whore.
see the difference between the two statements?
There are whole spectrums of nuance and grey inbetween. I see it all the time in court. "Yes, my client committed this crime, however although it does not excuse it, here's what else you should know".
Sometimes the "Yes, but" gets so extreme the person talks themselves out of the guilty plea. Sometimes it becomes so mealy-mouthed that it just angers the judge, rather than providing an excuse. But, if worded properly, the "yes, but" can provide useful and helpful context.
This video was clearly made with the express purpose of upsetting muslims. I see no problem in government commenting on that, and distancing themselves from it. But it depends on the tone and tenor of how it is done.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
:huh:
Once you realize he's trolling, it's easier to ignore stuff like that.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 12:09:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 11:56:27 AM
Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.
He was aware he was ambassador to Egypt and not Canada right?
Cairo is actually a really friendly place with nice people and has soldiers on every corner in the ferengi friendly districts. If I were the ambassador I'd be more worried about the marine with two tours in iraq and ptsd than any locals. There are about 20 egyptian soldiers visible on the street outside the us embassy. The US embassy is also a stones throw from tahrir square and the egyptian museum. The protest is going on with government blessing and the army is keeping the mob from doing much more than threatening to storm the embassy and murder the staff.
It's pretty obvious that Morsi is playing for the local audience. He lived in LA for 15 ish years and he knows very well how US free speech works. He was a professor at Cal State Northridge, he knows what free speech is and how it works. If he were trying to calm things down then he would be explaining to the egyptian people how free speech works in america not demanding things that nobody in the us government can or wants to deliver. I think this is why Obama went all "Cornelius Gallus is no longer a friend of mine." on his ass.
Quote from: Valmy on September 13, 2012, 12:16:05 PM
Mohammed is not even a diety he is just a dude. Theologically speaking it should not even be blasphemy to insult him.
I have held the view for quite a while now that it is Idolatry to be offended by any depiction of Mohammed; since in a sense the worshiper has built an idol in his own mind.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 01:06:42 PM
If I were the ambassador I'd be more worried about the marine with two tours in iraq and ptsd than any locals.
The USMC Embassy Security Group is one of the most difficult units to get into, and has a rather strict volunteer program. Not just every Marine gets in; there's a substantial admission and training process involved. I doubt many, if any, Marines with combat experience get in without the strictest vetting.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 12:53:10 PM
:lol: OK, derBolton.
Back atcha, CountDeMarshallDavis :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 01:06:42 PM
If I were the ambassador I'd be more worried about the marine with two tours in iraq and ptsd than any locals.
The USMC Embassy Security Group is one of the most difficult units to get into, and has a rather strict volunteer program. Not just every Marine gets in; there's a substantial admission and training process involved. I doubt many, if any, Marines with combat experience get in without the strictest vetting.
Well, at least they didn't let Siegy in...
Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2012, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
:huh:
Once you realize he's trolling, it's easier to ignore stuff like that.
libertariantards of the world unite!
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
Well, at least they didn't let Siegy in...
Only the Army would take Siegy. That tells you all you need to know.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 01:18:31 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2012, 12:59:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:17:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 12:14:36 PM
We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.
Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech. I think we are making progress with you.
:huh:
Once you realize he's trolling, it's easier to ignore stuff like that.
libertariantards of the world unite!
Thanks for proving my point. :hug:
Quote from: Habbaku on September 13, 2012, 01:34:51 PM
Thanks for proving my point. :hug:
Only half trolling :hug:
Now that Morsi has demanded that the makers of the Innocence of Muslims be put on trial, I point to almost the exact same situation in reverse. A Horseman without a Horse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2409591.stm
QuoteThursday, 7 November, 2002, 12:07 GMT
Egypt airs 'anti-Semitic' series
Egyptian broadcasters have aired the first episode in a controversial television series - in spite of US and Israeli requests that it be banned as anti-Semitic.
Two Egyptian television stations began showing the 41-part Horseman Without A Horse across the Arab world on Wednesday night.
The series is billed as a chronicle of the Arab struggle against colonial rule and against the establishment of the state of Israel.
But it includes a sub-plot involving a forged document - the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - describing an alleged Jewish plot for world domination, which was used by the Nazis as a pretext for the Holocaust.
"At a time when the Egyptian government is working to promote peace in the region, a program that promotes hatred would be extremely unfortunate and counterproductive," State Department spokeswoman Anne Marks said.
Forty-six members of the US Congress sent a letter on Monday to Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak expressing concern about the program.
Journalist's tale
The show stars Mohammed Sobhi in the role of journalist Hafez Neguib.
The first episode finds him wandering through the desert, dishevelled and exhausted, in the aftermath of Israel's creation in 1948 on what was once Palestine.
"The armies of the free have been defeated by treachery," he said in a sombre voice over.
"Beloved Palestine is lost, grabbed by Zion's sons through organised plundering."
Sobhi's character then shows what had happened to his father in Egypt in 1855 when he was abducted by a Turkish nobleman desperate for a son.
'Not offensive'
Egyptian officials denied that the series contained anything against Jewish people in general.
The State Department became involved after the US-based Jewish pressure group, the Anti-Defamation League, wrote to it, describing the series as the "latest manifestation of an ongoing pattern of anti-Semitic incitement in the Egyptian media".
A BBC correspondent in Cairo, Heba Saleh, said the Egyptian press had predictably hit back, portraying the US complaint as an insulting attempt to dictate to a sovereign nation what it can run on television.
The row is also being presented as yet another example of American submission to Israel and the Jewish lobby.
I just wonder how Bush and Sharon administration hacks can justify calling on the Egyptians to ban Horseman and not do the converse themselves? Or will Morsi suddenly find a backbone and prosecute the makers of horseman (or have they already been purged, I don't know).
So who is going to organize a riot at the Egyptian embassy? :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.
Tell you what: when a bunch of drag queens start scaling the walls at Magazine Street and setting chiffon cocktail dresses on fire over something on youtube, then the US government will issue a statement.
The funny thing is, when it's gays on the chopping block the US government can't say enough damning people. People in the US government issue statements denouncing all sorts of intolerance all the time. This is simply a type of intolerance that Marty approves of.
Here's an example of the US State Department denouncing anti-gay laws in Russia. http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/02/09/state-dept-denounces-russian-antigay-bill
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 13, 2012, 02:16:21 PM
So who is going to organize a riot at the Egyptian embassy? :P
Large groups of angry young Jews-- going back in time to 2002 :P
Viking, you sure choose an odd battleground on which to wage your war against religion; Languish of all places, it ain't exactly god botherers central is it ? :hmm:
Maybe you should get out and take the fight to some flesh and blood muslims. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2012, 02:41:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
What's a separate civil rights issue? I asked a question why the US government feels a need to issue a formal statement with respect to an action of a private US citizen, not affiliated in any manner with the US government, that offends a certain group, where it does not seem to have the same policy with respect to similar actions offensive to other groups.
Tell you what: when a bunch of drag queens start scaling the walls at Magazine Street and setting chiffon cocktail dresses on fire over something on youtube, then the US government will issue a statement.
The funny thing is, when it's gays on the chopping block the US government can't say enough damning people. People in the US government issue statements denouncing all sorts of intolerance all the time. This is simply a type of intolerance that Marty approves of.
Here's an example of the US State Department denouncing anti-gay laws in Russia. http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2012/02/09/state-dept-denounces-russian-antigay-bill
That's not really a relevant example. Unless Russia happened to qualify as a private US citizen.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
Viking you sure choose an odd battleground to wage you war against religion, Languish of all places, it ain't exactly god botherers central is it. :hmm:
I am a God Warrior :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fsquare%2F000%2F001%2F417%2Fgod-warrior.jpg&hash=eea1ba6ec55608fb09f5d91fd2e4ae4741a76c73)
Darksider here. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2012, 12:07:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 13, 2012, 11:02:38 AM
To suggest in any way that the act of speech should be curtailed in response to violence intended to suppress it is a terrible, terrible message to send to both those speaking and those who are deciding whether some more violence to curtail some more speech might be in order.
Speech which is ignorant should also be condemned as such whether or not people have also reactived violently too it. Freedom of speech does not carry with it the freedom from criticism - quite the opposite. If that criticism curtails the ignorant speech then that is an undeniable good.
The thing is that governments (quite rightly, by the way, if only because it would take too much time) do not, as a rule, issue official statements whenever their citizens say something ignorant. There is no reason why this is being done in this case, other than fear of violence. If I was an American, I would think it is shitty for my government to conduct its policy in response to threats of violence, but would prefer it to be built on more solid principles.
I don't know about you, but I think a policy of "we don't comment on things unless, for whatever reason, they become widely discussed around the world" is pretty defensible.
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy
is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist
are widely discussed around the world. And so on and so forth. The only difference here is that noone was killed over this. I find it highly amusing/infuriating that you guys are unable to admit that the only difference here is not how offensive something is, or how widely reported it is, but that we are dealing with violent savages here.
I find it to be an extemely shitty policy to bow down to violence and threats of terror when it comes to freedom of speech.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world. And so on and so forth. The only difference here is that noone was killed over this. I find it highly amusing/infuriating that you guys are unable to admit that the only difference here is not how offensive something is, or how widely reported it is, but that we are dealing with violent savages here.
I find it to be an extemely shitty policy to bow down to violence and threats of terror when it comes to freedom of speech.
I don't understand why you think this is an incredibly shitty policy. I can understand why my POTUS gets involved and speaks when something dreadful is happening. I don't understand why he should have to speak out after every hateful thing that is said - that'd be a full time job.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world. And so on and so forth. The only difference here is that noone was killed over this. I find it highly amusing/infuriating that you guys are unable to admit that the only difference here is not how offensive something is, or how widely reported it is, but that we are dealing with violent savages here.
The rest of us find it highly amusing (and we dont care enough to be frustrated) that you dont actually understand what the difference is between those things and this case.
But to help you here is a hint. Nobody was blaming the US for those things.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
Viking, you sure choose an odd battleground on which to wage your war against religion; Languish of all places, it ain't exactly god botherers central is it ? :hmm:
Maybe you should get out and take the fight to some flesh and blood muslims. :)
I'm not on an atheist mission to languish. When the issue comes up I speak my mind. The vitriol comes from those who accuse me of hating religion. I just think the metaphysical claims of religion are untrue and think that those that demand that their religious view should be treated with a level of respect their political or ethical views don't get are wrong.
Telling a religious person that I think his religion is untrue and that he has been wasting his life is somehow more insulting than telling a socialist that his political views are untrue and he has been wasting his life.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 02:56:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
Viking you sure choose an odd battleground to wage you war against religion, Languish of all places, it ain't exactly god botherers central is it. :hmm:
I am a God Warrior :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fsquare%2F000%2F001%2F417%2Fgod-warrior.jpg&hash=eea1ba6ec55608fb09f5d91fd2e4ae4741a76c73)
I'm a non-God non-Warrior :contract:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world. And so on and so forth. The only difference here is that noone was killed over this. I find it highly amusing/infuriating that you guys are unable to admit that the only difference here is not how offensive something is, or how widely reported it is, but that we are dealing with violent savages here.
The rest of us find it highly amusing (and we dont care enough to be frustrated) that you dont actually understand what the difference is between those things and this case.
But to help you here is a hint. Nobody was blaming the US for those things.
Muslims are crazy, film of embassy burning at 23.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world. And so on and so forth. The only difference here is that noone was killed over this. I find it highly amusing/infuriating that you guys are unable to admit that the only difference here is not how offensive something is, or how widely reported it is, but that we are dealing with violent savages here.
The rest of us find it highly amusing (and we dont care enough to be frustrated) that you dont actually understand what the difference is between those things and this case.
But to help you here is a hint. Nobody was blaming the US for those things.
Muslims are crazy, film of embassy burning at 23.
It's funny how their argument is essentially "The US have to apologise to the muslims because Muslims murdered the US ambassador. Other people US citizens offended did not murder the US ambassador so there is no need for an apology." It's mindboggling, really.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
Viking, you sure choose an odd battleground on which to wage your war against religion; Languish of all places, it ain't exactly god botherers central is it ? :hmm:
Maybe you should get out and take the fight to some flesh and blood muslims. :)
I'm not on an atheist mission to languish. When the issue comes up I speak my mind. The vitriol comes from those who accuse me of hating religion. I just think the metaphysical claims of religion are untrue and think that those that demand that their religious view should be treated with a level of respect their political or ethical views don't get are wrong.
Telling a religious person that I think his religion is untrue and that he has been wasting his life is somehow more insulting than telling a socialist that his political views are untrue and he has been wasting his life.
You've said yourself you hate religion.
QuoteWhy do I hate religion? Well, duh....
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5358.msg273758.html#msg273758
QuoteIf you forget Sarah Palin was blessed by a witch hunting african preacher and has associated with people like that. This is real and evil and yet another reason I hate religion.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7141.msg387884.html#msg387884
If Marcin & Viking are on my side, I don't wanna be right.
Quote from: katmai on September 13, 2012, 04:02:34 PM
If Marcin & Viking are on my side, I don't wanna be right.
That's all you could come up with? Shameful.
It's more then enough.
I haven't been paying attention to particulars of this case. Was just general statement on threads on languish.
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 02:56:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
Viking you sure choose an odd battleground to wage you war against religion, Languish of all places, it ain't exactly god botherers central is it. :hmm:
I am a God Warrior :contract:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fsquare%2F000%2F001%2F417%2Fgod-warrior.jpg&hash=eea1ba6ec55608fb09f5d91fd2e4ae4741a76c73)
I'm a non-God non-Warrior :contract:
aka Dork-Sided. GET OUT OF MAH HOUSE NOW!
Holy crap. I haven't seen the god warrior in quite a while.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world.
Under what circumstances would an American embassy be in a position to comment on this, though?
For example, yes it is true that Fred Phelps does outrageously offensive things like picket funerals and claim that Obama is the Antichrist. I suppose the White House could issue a press release expressing strong disagreement with the notion that the President is the Antichrist, but it shouldn't be difficult to grasp why they don't do that. Nor would there be any reason for the US embassy in Warsaw (or anywhere else) to issue statements on that matter, or about Phelps' pickets of military funerals, or his backing of anti-gay ordinances in Topeka. If the US had an embassy to Kansas, perhaps that might be different . . .
QuoteIf the US had an embassy to Kansas,
I've been reliably informed that Oklahoma is close to breaking away from the US.
Do we know cause of death, yet?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/310388_10151228754362650_559416963_n.jpg)
http://theaviationist.com/2012/09/13/deployment-benghazi/
Supposedly 12+ Special Operations planes are crossing the Atlantic. I :wub: Spooky.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 13, 2012, 04:32:50 PM
QuoteIf the US had an embassy to Kansas,
I've been reliably informed that Oklahoma is close to breaking away from the US.
Only if they agree to take Texas.
Quote from: katmai on September 13, 2012, 04:43:02 PM
Only if they agree to take Texas.
What do you know about Texas? You bailed on me everytime you threatened to visit. :P
But no the only thing worse than living in a country governed by Texans would be to throw Okies in there.
What do I know about Texas?!
Dude my family has lived in that damn infernal state for couple hundred years. From my dad through great-great grandfather were born in state, I finally broke that streak. :P
I don't go there for a reason, and it isn't unfamiliarity. :contract:
The State crew on the ground in Cairo isn't as stupid as Mittens and derfetus want them to be.
QuoteWhile Egyptian protesters battled security forces outside the US embassy on Thursday morning, another standoff was taking place -- this time in cyberspace.
The Muslim Brotherhood's official English-language Twitter account @Ikwanweb reposted a message from the group's deputy head, Khairat El-Shater, saying he was "relieved none of @USembassycairo staff was hurt" and expressing his hope that US-Egypt relations could weather the events.
This reconciliatory tweet, however, was posted while the Brotherhood's Arabic-language Twitter account and its official website were both praising the protests -- staged against a US-made film judged defamatory towards Islam -- and calling for a million man march on Friday.
One Arabic language article on the Brotherhood's site sported the headline 'Egyptians rise to defend the Prophet'.
Noting the contradiction, the US Embassy in Cairo tweeted a tart response from its own account: "Thanks. By the way, have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too."
Seemingly stung, the Brotherhood replied some 20 minutes later, saying "we understand you're under a lot of stress, but it will be more helpful if you point out exactly the Arabic feed of concern."
They were just three tweets, but they provided a snapshot into the strains US-Egypt relations are under this week.
NPR reports that the producer of the video is a Copt living south of LA, who was pretending to be a Jew Dude was jailed for $800,000 worth of fraud.
Copts in Egypt are fucked.
U.S. Marines in Cairo were not allowed to carry live ammunition (rumor)"A stunning report released Wednesday night at the national security newsletter NightWatch says that U.S. Marines guarding the embassy in Cairo were not allowed to carry live ammunition, thereby limiting their ability to protect the facility when it came under attack.
...
U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson "did not permit US Marine guards to carry live ammunition, according to USMC blogs. Thus she neutralized any US military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy."
http://www.examiner.com/article/report-says-u-s-marines-cairo-not-allowed-to-carry-live-ammunition (http://www.examiner.com/article/report-says-u-s-marines-cairo-not-allowed-to-carry-live-ammunition)
http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/ (http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/)
QuoteU.S. officials, however, have not commented on the report, and Time magazine’s Battleland blog said that "senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”
Battleland also said they could not find the blogs that former veteran Defense Intelligence Agency analyst John McCreary cited in his report.
"With or without a weapon, Marines are always armed,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said Thursday afternoon, according to an update at Battleland. “I’ve heard nothing to suggest they don’t have ammunition."
"The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols," Adam Kredo wrote at the Free Beacon.
“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the adviser told Kredo. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”
U.S. Marines are typically used to protect embassies and other facilities abroad, but Kredo wrote that that the Obama administration was apparently "relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2-b.examiner.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fimage_content_width%2Fhash%2Fac%2F19%2Fac191b217b079026d5d15e383f199950.jpg&hash=1cac7fdf0cfa007f48fdc0224bcfedc342abc0ca)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2012, 05:01:21 PM
NPR reports that the producer of the video is a Copt living south of LA, who was pretending to be a Jew Dude was jailed for $800,000 worth of fraud.
Copts in Egypt are fucked.
Christians are already fucked throughout the Middle East. Extinguished from Iraq, they might also disappear from Syria.
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 13, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world. And so on and so forth. The only difference here is that noone was killed over this. I find it highly amusing/infuriating that you guys are unable to admit that the only difference here is not how offensive something is, or how widely reported it is, but that we are dealing with violent savages here.
The rest of us find it highly amusing (and we dont care enough to be frustrated) that you dont actually understand what the difference is between those things and this case.
But to help you here is a hint. Nobody was blaming the US for those things.
Muslims are crazy, film of embassy burning at 23.
It's funny how their argument is essentially "The US have to apologise to the muslims because Muslims murdered the US ambassador. Other people US citizens offended did not murder the US ambassador so there is no need for an apology." It's mindboggling, really.
Who is making this argument Marti?
If you think that is what is being said you are missing the point entirely.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 13, 2012, 04:35:25 PM
Do we know cause of death, yet?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/310388_10151228754362650_559416963_n.jpg)
Radio said smoke inhalation.
Quote from: katmai on September 13, 2012, 04:54:02 PM
What do I know about Texas?!
Dude my family has lived in that damn infernal state for couple hundred years. From my dad through great-great grandfather were born in state, I finally broke that streak. :P
I don't go there for a reason, and it isn't unfamiliarity. :contract:
Your hatred of your ancestral homeland fills me with sadness :(
I have nothing but the warmest of affection for Maryland no matter how white trash it may be :contract:
I really wish you guys would stop posting and reposting that picture.
Well at the end of the day nobody in Cairo was actually harmed. I am sure they have ammo now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 04:56:16 PM
The State crew on the ground in Cairo isn't as stupid as Mittens and derfetus want them to be.
QuoteWhile Egyptian protesters battled security forces outside the US embassy on Thursday morning, another standoff was taking place -- this time in cyberspace.
The Muslim Brotherhood's official English-language Twitter account @Ikwanweb reposted a message from the group's deputy head, Khairat El-Shater, saying he was "relieved none of @USembassycairo staff was hurt" and expressing his hope that US-Egypt relations could weather the events.
This reconciliatory tweet, however, was posted while the Brotherhood's Arabic-language Twitter account and its official website were both praising the protests -- staged against a US-made film judged defamatory towards Islam -- and calling for a million man march on Friday.
One Arabic language article on the Brotherhood's site sported the headline 'Egyptians rise to defend the Prophet'.
Noting the contradiction, the US Embassy in Cairo tweeted a tart response from its own account: "Thanks. By the way, have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too."
Seemingly stung, the Brotherhood replied some 20 minutes later, saying "we understand you're under a lot of stress, but it will be more helpful if you point out exactly the Arabic feed of concern."
They were just three tweets, but they provided a snapshot into the strains US-Egypt relations are under this week.
Not sure I ever said they were stupid, but getting in a pissing match via Twitter does not necessarily mean they're smart.
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Smart enough to know when the game is over you do not want to be caught on the losing side.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Did Hans hack your account or did you just take a stupid pill?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Did Hans hack your account or did you just take a stupid pill?
Why?
Anyway, the White House 'clarified' the remark but did so half-assedly:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/13/white_house_clarifies_obama_s_statement_that_egypt_is_not_an_ally
Quote from: katmai on September 13, 2012, 04:54:02 PM
What do I know about Texas?!
Dude my family has lived in that damn infernal state for couple hundred years. From my dad through great-great grandfather were born in state, I finally broke that streak. :P
I don't go there for a reason, and it isn't unfamiliarity. :contract:
Traitor.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:13:43 PM
Why?
Ok well what should we have done? Made empty statements in support of the Egyptian losers instead of the Egyptian winners? That is your International Relations plan? Brilliant.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Paying them bribe money doesn't make them an ally.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Did Hans hack your account or did you just take a stupid pill?
I think he's going to be like this for a few more months.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:13:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Did Hans hack your account or did you just take a stupid pill?
Why?
Anyway, the White House 'clarified' the remark but did so half-assedly:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/13/white_house_clarifies_obama_s_statement_that_egypt_is_not_an_ally
Mitt gaffe followed by a Barry gaffe. sigh...
and there I was hoping for another "Cornelius Gallus i no longer a friend of mine" moment in history.... sigh...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 05:20:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Paying them bribe money doesn't make them an ally.
Enough about Israel.
Quote from: mongers on September 13, 2012, 05:26:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 05:20:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Paying them bribe money doesn't make them an ally.
Enough about Israel.
Opposite direction.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
You do know there's a new government in town over there, right? Our man Hosni's not in charge anymore, but a whole lot of people that didn't appreciate our support of him for decades are now. You do realize the difference?
This isn't your father's Egypt anymore.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2012, 05:09:49 PM
I really wish you guys would stop posting and reposting that picture.
We can agree on that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 05:20:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
Paying them bribe money doesn't make them an ally.
Like Pakistan is an ally. Or China is an ally.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 05:39:29 PM
Like Pakistan is an ally. Or China is an ally.
Right-o
Pakistan is a MNNA designee as well BTW.
Rand Paul has tabled a bill in the Senate to cut all aid to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2012, 05:45:34 PM
Rand Paul has tabled a bill in the Senate to cut all aid to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan.
"Personhood" amendments attached? Wait, of course there are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
"Personhood" amendments attached? Wait, of course there are.
You've officially passed up Raz.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2012, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
"Personhood" amendments attached? Wait, of course there are.
You've officially passed up Raz.
It's Rand Paul, dude. Man doesn't mail his electricity bill without a "Personhood" amendment attached to it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
You do know there's a new government in town over there, right? Our man Hosni's not in charge anymore, but a whole lot of people that didn't appreciate our support of him for decades are now. You do realize the difference?
This isn't your father's Egypt anymore.
Fuck'em. For a billion and a half a year, I want obedience.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 05:11:08 PM
They are probably smarter than our president, who was too stupid to realize Egypt actually is a US ally.
You do know there's a new government in town over there, right? Our man Hosni's not in charge anymore, but a whole lot of people that didn't appreciate our support of him for decades are now. You do realize the difference?
This isn't your father's Egypt anymore.
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
The "clarified position" is not a contradiction of his original statement. So solly.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
The "clarified position" is not a contradiction of his original statement. So solly.
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
So either you have to agree with Obama's statement yesterday that Egypt is not an ally, or agree with today's "clarified" statement. You can't agree with both, as much as you'd love to, being an unquestioning Obama worshiper.
Oh, ffs, Egypt has never been a real ally, nor has any other Arab country.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 13, 2012, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 05:47:21 PM
"Personhood" amendments attached? Wait, of course there are.
You've officially passed up Raz.
That mean you are going cry "stalking" and bail when CdM talks to you?
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
The "clarified position" is not a contradiction of his original statement. So solly.
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
So either you have to agree with Obama's statement yesterday that Egypt is not an ally, or agree with today's "clarified" statement. You can't agree with both, as much as you'd love to, being an unquestioning Obama worshiper.
His spokesman also said, "I think folks are reading way too much into this." Kinda like you.
I can appreciate you fishing for an angle on this one, but there's none to be found, derMittens. You'd be better off Bernanke-bashing.
The Non-NATO ally designation is not so much a list of countries that are allied (like NATO) but rather countries which have access to certain military technologies.
Yet another in a long list of abuses of language.
Israel, Egypt, Morroco, Jordan, Argentina, Thailand and Pakistan are not countries the US is allied with. They are countries that the US wants to help build proper armies.
QuoteNations named as major non-NATO allies are eligible for the following benefits:
entry into cooperative research and development projects with the Department of Defense (DoD) on a shared-cost basis
participation in certain counter-terrorism initiatives
purchase of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds
priority delivery of military surplus (ranging from rations to ships)
possession of War Reserve Stocks of DoD-owned equipment that are kept outside of American military bases
loans of equipment and materials for cooperative research and development projects and evaluations
permission to use American financing for the purchase or lease of certain defense equipment
reciprocal training
expedited export processing of space technology
permission for the country's corporations to bid on certain DoD contracts for the repair and maintenance of military equipment outside the United States
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
The "clarified position" is not a contradiction of his original statement. So solly.
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
So either you have to agree with Obama's statement yesterday that Egypt is not an ally, or agree with today's "clarified" statement. You can't agree with both, as much as you'd love to, being an unquestioning Obama worshiper.
Where is it written that Egypt is "Officially a non-Nato Ally"?
I'd hope that someone you give $1billion a year to is an ally...otherwise we might look like suckers.
Two of the victims were ex-Navy Seals working as security. The attack must really have been well planned and executed.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/13/13847618-two-killed-in-libyan-consulate-attack-identified-as-ex-navy-seals?lite
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
The "clarified position" is not a contradiction of his original statement. So solly.
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
So either you have to agree with Obama's statement yesterday that Egypt is not an ally, or agree with today's "clarified" statement. You can't agree with both, as much as you'd love to, being an unquestioning Obama worshiper.
Where is it written that Egypt is "Officially a non-Nato Ally"?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2321k
Looks like Obama can remove that designation, but he needs to give congress 30 days notice before he does so.
So, how's that Arab Spring and Democracy thing all working out?? I remember during the Arab Spring demonstrations how so many people thought that a better day, democracy and human rights, would spring up. Yeah, right. With the Muslim Brotherhood, and various other extremist groups that were in line to gain power, what were any of us thinking? I even thought, at first, that maybe something good would come out of it. But no, we threw Mubrarak under the bus and sang Kumbaya. :huh:
Even Libya might have been better off with Ghadafi as a strongman holding the nation's factions together. Now they'll be a factionalized nation, probably just a different group opressing the people, and who knows who will actually fill the power vacuum. The extremist groups still have their pipe dream of resurrecting the Caliphate across North Africa to Turkey. And we see even Turkey going through some unsettling changes.
Quote from: KRonn on September 13, 2012, 07:51:31 PM
So, how's that Arab Spring and Democracy thing all working out?? I remember during the Arab Spring demonstrations how so many people thought that a better day, democracy and human rights, would spring up. Yeah, right. With the Muslim Brotherhood, and various other extremist groups that were in line to gain power, what were any of us thinking? I even thought, at first, that maybe something good would come out of it. But no, we threw Mubrarak under the bus and sang Kumbaya. :huh:
Did we really throw Mubarak under the bus? My recollection is that he was ripped out from our embrace and placed under the bus by the Egyptian military, and we actually earned enmity for supporting him for too long.
Well then, I guess our rendition program to Egypt is all shot to shit now.
DG, you may be right. He was already partly under the bus, and I think the US just went along with the flow of the protesters. Maybe not much the US could do. I do wonder though if the US had another choice to try and prop him up, to avoid the radical elements from taking over. But then the US would have been seen as supporting another dictator. But instead what Egypt really got, so far it seems, was another form of totalitarianism in another name. And as that faction gets stronger, who knows where Egypt will wind up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
Well then, I guess our rendition program to Egypt is all shot to shit now.
We still have our boys in the GCC. All hail the sheiks.
Libya and Tunisia seem to be doing fine, it's Egypt I'm worried about.
So WTF was an Ambassador doing wandering around Benghazi on the anniversary of Sept 11? That's a date when radicals seem to try and attack US interests. And were all Embassies heavily defended for that date? It now seems quite obvious that the video was just a prop for a well orchestrated attack on the anniversary of Sept 11. I'm sure this has already been said in this 24 page thread, but I haven't read all of it.
Quote from: KRonn on September 13, 2012, 08:06:49 PM
So WTF was an Ambassador doing wandering around Benghazi on the anniversary of Sept 11? That's a date when radicals seem to try and attack US interests. And were all Embassies heavily defended for that date? It now seems quite obvious that the video was just a prop for a well orchestrated attack on the anniversary of Sept 11. I'm sure this has already been said in this 24 page thread, but I haven't read all of it.
IIRC, he was trying to help the Benghazi consulate evacuate.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 13, 2012, 07:15:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 13, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM
So then I take it you disagree with Obama's clarified position?
The "clarified position" is not a contradiction of his original statement. So solly.
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
So either you have to agree with Obama's statement yesterday that Egypt is not an ally, or agree with today's "clarified" statement. You can't agree with both, as much as you'd love to, being an unquestioning Obama worshiper.
Where is it written that Egypt is "Officially a non-Nato Ally"?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2321k
Looks like Obama can remove that designation, but he needs to give congress 30 days notice before he does so.
Okay, next time one your GOPtard pals goes on about Pakistan being the enemy you set them straight as they are a Non-NATO ally.
NSFW. At all. Seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
NSFW. At all. Seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
:bleeding: :lmfao:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 13, 2012, 04:30:17 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 13, 2012, 03:33:20 PM
The "God hates fags" Phelps idiocy is widely discussed around the world. The Jack Chick tracts that call the Pope an Antichrist are widely discussed around the world.
Under what circumstances would an American embassy be in a position to comment on this, though?
For example, yes it is true that Fred Phelps does outrageously offensive things like picket funerals and claim that Obama is the Antichrist. I suppose the White House could issue a press release expressing strong disagreement with the notion that the President is the Antichrist, but it shouldn't be difficult to grasp why they don't do that. Nor would there be any reason for the US embassy in Warsaw (or anywhere else) to issue statements on that matter, or about Phelps' pickets of military funerals, or his backing of anti-gay ordinances in Topeka. If the US had an embassy to Kansas, perhaps that might be different . . .
Ok, I'm at loss here. I don't understand how anything you said is relevant and really do not know how to respond. Why is the "if the US had an embassy to Kansas" relevant here? I thought the offensive film here was made by a Texan (or a Californian) - so why the US embassy to Egypt and not the US embassy to California or Texas is making a statement? :huh:
The film that offended muslims was not specifically broadcast in Libya and Egypt - it was made available on the internet, by a US citizen, and uploaded from the US. How is that different from the offensive stuff posted online by the Phelpses?
Or are you saying that if Polish GLBT organizations staged a protest in front of the US ambassy in Warsaw, protesting the shit Fred Phelps says on the internet, there would be an apology forthcoming? Or would they have to murder the ambassador and drag his body through the streets first?
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
NSFW. At all. Seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
awesome :lol: and they will be right. nobody will die because of it. Which of course DOES prove a point.
This is Onion at its finest. Every once in a while they manage to hit the nail on its head with a surgical precision.
Great stuff from the Onion :lol:
Proof Positive that the best response to the abuse of free speech is the correct application of free speech.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/mohammed-movie-s-mystery-director.html
QuoteAnti-Muslim Movie Maker a Meth Cooker
by Christine Pelisek Sep 13, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
The man allegedly behind the film that sparked deadly protests in the Middle East has a sordid criminal past. By Christine Pelisek.
Update: The man behind the incendiary film, Innocence of Muslims, has a criminal record that includes a narcotics conviction. According to a source close to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested by the L.A. Country Sheriff's Department on March 27, 1997 and charged with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced on Nov. 3, 1997 to one year in county jail and three years probation. The D.A.'s office said he violated probation on April 8, 2002, and was re-sentenced to another year in county jail.
Nakoula had been registered to vote as a Democrat from 2002-2008, according to the L.A. County Registrar Recorder's office. In April of 2008, he changed his political affiliation to American Independent.
Nakoula's identity and involvement in the film was confirmed to the Associated Press by federal law-enforcement officials. Nakoula, who lives near Los Angeles, had claimed to numerous media outlets that the man who created and directed the film was an Israeli real estate developer named Sam Bacile. The Associated Press reported yesterday that Nakoula was a Coptic Christian convicted of federal bank fraud charges in 2010.
***
In late June, a Los Angeles law enforcement agency was tipped off that an anti-Muslim film called Innocence of Bin Laden was going to be shown at a theater in Hollywood. Law enforcement officers were sent to the Vine Theater on Hollywood Boulevard to make sure nothing went wrong. "Whenever you have something like that, people get riled up," said a law enforcement source who didn't want to be identified. "You don't know who your audience is going to be."
As it ultimately happened, the audience ended up being shocked Islamic extremists half a world away, who were sparked to violence in Egypt and Libya this week after a 13-minute preview of the amateurish movie, renamed Innocence of Muslims, was dubbed into Arabic and uploaded to YouTube.
When the film premiered this summer, it seemed more likely destined for the dust bin than infamy. The premiere was a bust, with less than a dozen people attending. Among them was the man who would later identify himself to news outlets as the film's maker, Sam Bacile.
The director didn't watch his creation the night of the premiere. Instead, he sat by himself at a nearby restaurant, staring intensely at the theater, the law enforcement source told The Daily Beast. What he didn't know was that he was being watched by officers. "You are monitoring the people in the area for behavioral characteristics, and he was displaying them. Normal people don't act like that. He was across the street, on the opposite side of the block, so he could view what was going on. He was sweating and focusing in on the entrance. He was watching what was going on around and who was going in," the source said.
The officers approached the man, who looked to be in his mid-40s or 50s, and he introduced himself as the director of the film.
This week, the director was busy introducing himself to various news outlets as Sam Bacile. He told The Wall Street Journal he was a 52-year-old Israeli real-estate developer in California, and that he had made the film with $5 million raised from 100 Jewish donors. He said he made the movie, which depicts the Prophet Muhammed as a womanizer, pedophile, and homosexual, because "Islam is a cancer."
The Associated Press, which spoke to Bacile by phone, reported that he went into hiding shortly after the violence erupted at the embassy in Libya. Bacile claimed he felt bad over the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, but blamed his death on poor security at the embassy. "I feel the security system [at the embassies] is no good," Bacile told the AP. "America should do something to change it."
Bacile described him as having a "voice thickly accented." But that doesn't jibe with what officers observed of the director at the premiere in Hollywood. "He sounded Western. He didn't have a heavy accent," the law enforcement source said. "These guys adopt different roles for different people."
In fact, as officials and journalists began digging for details about the director Wednesday, it quickly became apparent that "Sam Bacile" might not exist at all. Bacile could not be found on any database searches. The licensing board for the state of California has never heard of him—in fact the only Bacile listed in California is Michael S. Bacile, who is a Greek-American musician from Oakland.
Doubts about Bacile's identity began to surface after the film's consultant, Steve Klein, told another news organization that "Bacile" was a pseudonym and that he was not Jewish or Israeli. Klein, an insurance agent in Hemet, Calif., said the money used to finance the low-budget flop came from a mixed bag of donors, including Middle Easterners, Jewish people, Christians, and former Muslims.
Klein, who spent the majority of yesterday giving interviews to local television and print reporters, has a dubious background himself. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which wrote about Klein and his affiliation with a California extremist evangelical group called Church at Kaweah that is said to have roots in the militia movement, noted Klein once bragged about leading a "hunter killer" team as a marine in Vietnam.
According to the Law Center article, which appeared in the Intelligence Report in the spring of 2012, Klein stated that California is riddled with Muslim Brotherhood sleeper cells "who are awaiting the trigger date and will begin randomly killing as many of us as they can."
The article quoted Klein, who sued the California city of San Clemente for stopping him from placing fliers on cars opposing illegal immigration, as saying: "I know I'm getting prepared to shoot back." Klein, who calls Islam a "penis-driven religion," according to the article, became the leader of the California-based Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment in 2011. The organization led a campaign directed toward students and passed out fliers that portrayed the Prophet Muhammed as a deviant pedophile.
Klein is also linked to the Minuteman movement, the Christian Guardians, and the Utah-based Anti-Muslim group called Courageous Christians United. According to its website, the group exists to boldly and respectfully defend traditional Christianity against cults and other "false" religions and philosophies on all sorts of levels, and to equip the Body of Christ in facing these challenges. A recent posting on their message board states: "CCU involvement in the making of the 'The Innocence of Muslims' will soon become public. Your hateful ways will be exposed to the world."
Klein also set his sights on Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who he claimed praised the Council on American Islamic Relations in a speech. "We are alarmed that Sheriff Baca, who has sworn to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic, is making public statements in support of The Muslim Brotherhood," said a statement that appeared on the website Jihad Watch. "We demand he be fired and that the L.A. Sheriff department make an unequivocal statement renouncing the work of the Muslim Brotherhood."
Klein told The Daily Mail in an interview that of the 15 people who made the film, three were tortured. "One of the directors was thrown in a cell that was just big enough to stand up in for 90 days, and they broke his legs. Another was tortured for six months, and he was one of the richest men in the country."
He added in the interview, "Sam is committed to this film, like the rest of us. I don't want to give too many details, but he was given an ultimatum that he had to leave his country or be tortured."
Klein said he allegedly warned Bacile that by making the movie "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Dutch filmmaker Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after he made a film that allegedly insulted Islam.
By late Wednesday, the hunt for the "real" Sam Bacile was pointing in yet another direction. The Associated Press published another story, this time reporting that Bacile is most likely 55-year-old Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a California Coptic Christian convicted of federal bank fraud charges. In 2010, he was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution, and sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. Nakoula told the AP that he was involved in the film and said he knew Bacile.
After some of the actors in the film were located yesterday, the players issued a joint statement claiming they were duped by the man who called himself Sam Bacile. One actress who had a small role in the film, Cindy Lee Garcia, told Gawker that she thought she was appearing in another film about ancient Egyptians, supposedly titled Desert Warriors, and that the offensive anti-Muslim dialogue was dubbed during the post-production of the film. Garcia said the man who claimed to be Bacile told her he was from Egypt, and spoke Arabic to some of the "dark-skinned" cast members.
"The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer," read the statement from the actors. "We are 100 percent not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic rewrites of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Christine Pelisek is a staff reporter for The Daily Beast, covering crime. She was previously a reporter at the LA Weekly, where she covered crime for the last five years. In 2008 she won three Los Angeles Press Club awards, one for her investigative story on the Grim Sleeper.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at [email protected].
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2012, 04:59:00 AM
Proof Positive that the best response to the abuse of free speech is the correct application of free speech.
I don't follow.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
NSFW. At all. Seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
The only thing more disgusting than Buddha getting fisted by Ganesha was the coffee spewing out of my nose.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 14, 2012, 05:11:58 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2012, 04:59:00 AM
Proof Positive that the best response to the abuse of free speech is the correct application of free speech.
I don't follow.
banning shit makes people want to watch it, exposing the author as an incompetent bigoted version of Walter White makes people want to not watch it.
You may now refer to me as "PJ Tobacco".
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2012, 05:50:58 AM
banning shit makes people want to watch it, exposing the author as an incompetent bigoted version of Walter White makes people want to not watch it.
Attacking embassies over it makes people really want to watch it. And I would love to see Walt go into film-making. :lol:
When in doubt, play the Jimmy Carter card.
QuoteRomney team sharpens attack on Obama's foreign policy
Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.
"There's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation," Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. "For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we've had an American ambassador assassinated."
Williamson added, "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property."
The aggressive approach by Romney's campaign thrust the issue of foreign policy to the forefront of the presidential campaign a day after the Republican candidate was widely criticized for blasting Obama while U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya were under attack.
Criticism from Republicans over their nominee's handling of the situation overseas quieted Thursday, with influential voices in the party's foreign policy establishment rallying to Romney's defense. And it was Obama who faced criticism for saying that he did not consider Egypt an ally — a comment that his administration struggled to explain.
"The president can't even keep track of who's our ally or not. This is amateur hour — it's amateur hour," said Williamson, a former assistant secretary of state and ambassador. He was among those who counseled Romney to respond aggressively on Tuesday night and was offered by the campaign to speak about the candidate's foreign policy.
Williamson was referring to Obama's interview Wednesday night with Telemundo in which the president said that the U.S. relationship with Egypt was a "work in progress."
"I don't think that we would consider them an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy," Obama told Telemundo. "They're a new government that is trying to find its way."
Administration officials tried throughout the day to parse Obama's statement on Egypt without appearing to contradict him.
Obama was right in "diplomatic and legal terms," White House spokesman Jay Carney said, because " 'ally' is a legal term of art" that refers to countries with which the United States has a mutual defense treaty such as the NATO alliance.
But the United States tried to work around just that problem in 1989, creating the designation of "major non-NATO ally" for countries on which it wanted to bestow approval, weapons sales and defense cooperation prohibited to non-treaty nations. Egypt — along with Israel, Australia, Japan and South Korea — was among the first countries to be so designated that year.
Pressed to explain why a "major non-NATO ally" is not an ally, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland repeated the treaty argument, then referred reporters to the White House. Later asked whether the United States still considers Egypt a "major non-NATO ally," Nuland said "Yes."
At campaign stops in Nevada and Colorado, Obama avoided any mention of Romney as he paid tribute to those who lost their lives in Libya and again promised to track down their killers.
But his campaign responded by noting that the protests this week were triggered by the video, not by U.S. policy, and that the video likely would still have been produced if Romney had been president. And they noted that there have been attacks on Americans under every president in recent history, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
"It is astonishing that the Romney campaign continues to shamelessly politicize a sensitive international situation," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said. "The fact is that any president of either party is going to be confronted by crises while in office, and Governor Romney continues to demonstrate that he is not at all prepared to manage them."
Romney himself struck a more measured tone and tried to refocus on his core economic argument on the campaign trail Thursday in Northern Virginia. He did not mention Obama by name, but suggested that the president was a weak commander in chief and unreliable guardian of American strength abroad.
"As we watch the world today, sometimes it seems that we're at the mercy of events instead of shaping events, and a strong America is essential to shape events," Romney said at a rally in Fairfax County.
The approach on foreign policy by the Romney campaign is a signal that it feels it can gain some advantage in an area that has so far it has found problematic.
In addition to the criticism Romney received on Wednesday, he came under fire two weeks ago for failing to mention the war in Afghanistan or acknowledge U.S. troops serving abroad in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. In July, his tour through Europe and the Middle East was marred by missteps. And he has been ridiculed for his assertion that Russia is, "without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe."
"We were ready for a major debate on this," Eliot A. Cohen, a former State Department official and foreign policy adviser to Romney, said in an interview. "It just happened to blow up now. It's there, and it's in some ways a clarifying moment."
In debating foreign policy with Obama, Romney is perceived to be at a disadvantage. The president consistently has outpolled Romney on the issue, and he earned high marks for the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Stuart Stevens, Romney's chief political strategist, rejected the suggestion that voters may question Romney's temperament and commander-in-chief credentials because of his early and aggressive response to the attacks in Egypt and Libya.
"It's not an issue," Stevens said in an interview. "It was an issue with Barack Obama four years ago, given the fact that he was younger and had little experience, and given his answers in the debates. He had stumble after stumble with foreign policy. Mitt Romney hasn't. He's run for president twice now and it's not been his problem."
Romney's policy advisers laid out steps that a President Romney would have taken in the Middle East that they said Obama has not done.
"What would the governor do differently? It really starts with having a vision for the future of the Middle East, supporting those that have been shortchanged by the administration," Mitchell Reiss, a top Romney policy adviser, said in an interview. "There are things that we can do in terms of what we say, the constancy of what our vision is — pluralism, respect for law, human dignity — these are things that you don't hear from the administration, and the people in the region want to hear that."
Romney's campaign hopes to force a broader debate about America's role in the world and to argue that while Obama has been successful in fighting terrorism, his foreign policies have resulted in waning U.S. influence abroad.
"We've got Barack Obama with a risk-adverse, lead-from-behind approach, and how's that worked?" Williamson said. "We not only have the events in Egypt and Libya and now in Yemen, but we have in Syria 20,000-plus people killed, many by means of various atrocities by a regime, and the Obama administration is missing in action."
:bleeding:
Derspeiss eats this shit right up.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
NSFW. At all. Seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
:hmm: Why is Ganesha circumcised?
Quote from: DGuller on September 14, 2012, 07:17:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 14, 2012, 12:38:23 AM
NSFW. At all. Seriously.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
:hmm: Why is Ganesha circumcised?
I saw a bull elephant expose himself to my bus while on safari in south africa, I can tell you elephant penis looks nothing like that and is much much much bigger.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 01:56:13 AM
so why the US embassy to Egypt and not the US embassy to California or Texas is making a statement? :huh:
The US embassy to California? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 08:25:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 01:56:13 AM
so why the US embassy to Egypt and not the US embassy to California or Texas is making a statement? :huh:
The US embassy to California? :huh:
What did you expect? He is Polish.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 08:59:48 AM
:rolleyes:
Rolleyes at garbon or dreams of bull elephants?
Quote
Germany's foreign minister has confirmed that their embassy is Sudan has been attacked and is partially in flames, Associated Press reports. He called for the violence to stop immediately.
well they kept out of Libya. It was worth it. Their embassy was only PARTIALLY set ablaze.
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2012, 09:09:35 AM
well they kept out of Libya. It was worth it. Their embassy was only PARTIALLY set ablaze.
But is the US embassy in Texas safe? :concerned:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2012, 09:09:35 AM
well they kept out of Libya. It was worth it. Their embassy was only PARTIALLY set ablaze.
But is the US embassy in Texas safe? :concerned:
Depends. Did they apologize for Phelps?
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2012, 09:11:54 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2012, 09:09:35 AM
well they kept out of Libya. It was worth it. Their embassy was only PARTIALLY set ablaze.
But is the US embassy in Texas safe? :concerned:
Depends. Did they apologize for Phelps?
No. They insulted Texas barbeque and prefer Kansas City BBQ. BEHEAD ALL WHO INSULT TEXAS.
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
Obama correctly said that Egypt is not an "ally" (lowercase), which can be verified by the fact that no alliance exists between the two countries.
If Obama had said that Egypt was not a Major Non Nato Ally under Title 22, Section 32, then he would have been mistaken.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 14, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
Obama correctly said that Egypt is not an "ally" (lowercase), which can be verified by the fact that no alliance exists between the two countries.
If Obama had said that Egypt was not a Major Non Nato Ally under Title 22, Section 32, then he would have been mistaken.
:lol: I guess you have your religion/deity, and I have mine.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 01:56:13 AM
Ok, I'm at loss here. I don't understand how anything you said is relevant and really do not know how to respond.
It's really quite simple. We are discussing statements made by US embassies. The question is under what circumstances would it make sense for an overseas US embassy to make statements about Fred Phelps. It is admittedly a rhetorical question, as it is difficult to conceive any likely set of circumstances in which that would happen.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 09:26:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 14, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 13, 2012, 06:54:13 PM
Yes it is. They have officially been a "Non-NATO ally" since the late 80s. Obama yesterday incorrectly said they were not an ally, and his spokesman today said Egypt's status is not changing.
Obama correctly said that Egypt is not an "ally" (lowercase), which can be verified by the fact that no alliance exists between the two countries.
If Obama had said that Egypt was not a Major Non Nato Ally under Title 22, Section 32, then he would have been mistaken.
:lol: I guess you have your religion/deity, and I have mine.
Yes, your religion is Obama is stooopid and evil and has to use a teleprompter to get through the day.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 09:26:19 AM
:lol: I guess you have your religion/deity, and I have mine.
As religions go, the gods of grammar and reading comprehension are pretty worthy.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 09:22:28 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2012, 09:06:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 08:59:48 AM
:rolleyes:
Rolleyes at garbon or dreams of bull elephants?
garbon/Tamas
Well Joan's US Embassy to Kansas hypothetical made sense in the context of discussing Phelps and anti-gay ordinances in Kansas.
Your "I thought the offensive film here was made by a Texan (or a Californian) - so why the US embassy to Egypt and not the US embassy to California or Texas is making a statement?" makes little sense as only one those mentioned things exists.
I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. :huh:
I'd have agreed except that the US Embassy to Egypt doesn't really make sense as a mention in such a hypothetical.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 14, 2012, 09:31:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 01:56:13 AM
Ok, I'm at loss here. I don't understand how anything you said is relevant and really do not know how to respond.
It's really quite simple. We are discussing statements made by US embassies. The question is under what circumstances would it make sense for an overseas US embassy to make statements about Fred Phelps. It is admittedly a rhetorical question, as it is difficult to conceive any likely set of circumstances in which that would happen.
Could you explain to me how this hypothetical is different from the US embassy making statements about a movie made by a US citizen on American soil? What are the circumstances under which it makes sense for the US embassy in Egypt to make the statement it did in the case at hand?
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 09:43:25 AM
Could you explain to me how this hypothetical is different from the US embassy making statements about a movie made by a US citizen on American soil? What are the circumstances under which it makes sense for the US embassy in Egypt to make the statement it did in the case at hand?
Seriously?
It came to the embassy's attention that the reputation of the US among 90% entire local population had been damaged by a rumor that the US was somehow responsible for the production of this film. The embassy was aware that mass protests were being planned and that the incident threatened not only US interests in the country but potentially the safety of US nationals in country. Pointing out that the material in question was not produced by the US government and does not reflect the views of US in that context is a no brainer; it is exactly the kind of thing that embassies do. The only screw-up here was the poor content of the message and the failure to vet it first.
In contrast, the kinds of people overseas who are aware of (and offended by) the antics of Fred Phelps are also the kinds of people who understand without explanation that Fred Phelps does not represent the view of the United States government or the vast majority of its citizens. I.e the League of Gay Warsaw Professionals, while at times quite confused in other contexts, is not likely to start beating on Americans in the street because of their disgust with Fred Phelps.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. :huh:
I'd have agreed except that the US Embassy to Egypt doesn't really make sense as a mention in such a hypothetical.
Ok let me walk you through this.
I ask why the US embassy to Egypt makes a statement about "Innocence of Muslims", a movie made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends muslims, but no US embassy anywhere makes a statement about "God Hates Fags", a website made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends gays. .
Joan responds by saying that only if the US had an embassy in Kansas, it would make sense for such embassy to make a statement. I presume this is because that's where Fred Phelps lives.
I respond that I am puzzled by this response. This is because both examples involve speech by US citizens made on the US soil that is offensive to a group people that consists both US and non-US citizens, and that is not associated with any specific country or countries (there are both Muslims and gays in Egypt, for example, but neither all Egyptians are Muslim nor they are all gay).
So by Joan's line of reasoning, if the only embassy fit to make a statement about "God Hates Fags" is the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the website lives, the only embassy fit to make a statement about "Innocence of Muslims" would also be the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the movie lives (which I believe to be Texas or California - hence my hypothetical). I.e. the embassy to Egypt is equally (un)fit to make such a statement in both cases.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2012, 09:33:59 AM
Yes, your religion is Obama is stooopid and evil and has to use a teleprompter to get through the day.
I don't really think Obama is stupid. I think he's intelligent-- just not as smart as his supporters think he is. And I don't think he's evil. I do think he's a much better communicator with a teleprompter than without it, so do what you will with that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 14, 2012, 09:57:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 09:43:25 AM
Could you explain to me how this hypothetical is different from the US embassy making statements about a movie made by a US citizen on American soil? What are the circumstances under which it makes sense for the US embassy in Egypt to make the statement it did in the case at hand?
Seriously?
It came to the embassy's attention that the reputation of the US among 90% entire local population had been damaged by a rumor that the US was somehow responsible for the production of this film. The embassy was aware that mass protests were being planned and that the incident threatened not only US interests in the country but potentially the safety of US nationals in country. Pointing out that the material in question was not produced by the US government and does not reflect the views of US in that context is a no brainer; it is exactly the kind of thing that embassies do. The only screw-up here was the poor content of the message and the failure to vet it first.
In contrast, the kinds of people overseas who are aware of (and offended by) the antics of Fred Phelps are also the kinds of people who understand without explanation that Fred Phelps does not represent the view of the United States government or the vast majority of its citizens. I.e the League of Gay Warsaw Professionals, while at times quite confused in other contexts, is not likely to start beating on Americans in the street because of their disgust with Fred Phelps.
Ok, so you are essentially agreeing with those who say that the only reason such statement was made is because the US embassy to Egypt feared that Muslims are stupid and violent.
Perhaps if you didn't start off by a flippant dismissive comment about the hypothetical "embassy to Kansas" and just stated that up front, I wouldn't have to respond.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 10:06:06 AM
I do think he's a much better communicator with a teleprompter than without it...
I disagree. I think he is a better communicator when he has a written speech than when he is speaking off the cuff, but I also think that this is and was true of every president and 99.54% of the non-presidents. Whether Obama was speaking using a teleprompter versus paper notes doesn't seem to impact his communications much.
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 10:04:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 09:42:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 09:40:45 AM
I meant the embassy in Texas and California in the same hypothetical sense Joan meant the embassy in Kansas - I didn't add "if it existed" because I didn't think anyone would be as stupid/obtuse to assume I thought these embassies existed. :huh:
I'd have agreed except that the US Embassy to Egypt doesn't really make sense as a mention in such a hypothetical.
Ok let me walk you through this.
I ask why the US embassy to Egypt makes a statement about "Innocence of Muslims", a movie made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends muslims, but no US embassy anywhere makes a statement about "God Hates Fags", a website made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends gays. .
Joan responds by saying that only if the US had an embassy in Kansas, it would make sense for such embassy to make a statement. I presume this is because that's where Fred Phelps lives.
I respond that I am puzzled by this response. This is because both examples involve speech by US citizens made on the US soil that is offensive to a group people that consists both US and non-US citizens, and that is not associated with any specific country or countries (there are both Muslims and gays in Egypt, for example, but neither all Egyptians are Muslim nor they are all gay).
So by Joan's line of reasoning, if the only embassy fit to make a statement about "God Hates Fags" is the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the website lives, the only embassy fit to make a statement about "Innocence of Muslims" would also be the hypothetical embassy to the place where the author of the movie lives (which I believe to be Texas or California - hence my hypothetical). I.e. the embassy to Egypt is equally (un)fit to make such a statement in both cases.
Because in Egypt, people where planning to attack the embassy & american citizens present in Egypt.
If say, Thailand extremists were to plan an attack on the US embassy over God hates Fags, you could expect the US Thailand embassy to say something.
I don't understand whats your problem with it?
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 10:04:42 AM
I ask why the US embassy to Egypt makes a statement about "Innocence of Muslims", a movie made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends muslims, but no US embassy anywhere makes a statement about "God Hates Fags", a website made by a US citizen on the US soil that offends gays. .
Simple. There's no perceived association between Fred Phelps and the US government that needs to be disavowed. I read Joan's "hypothetical" as more of a joking dig at Kansas. In Egypt, even if it was in their heads, to a majority of the population, there was an association between this movie and the federal government that needed to be disavowed.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2012, 10:19:13 AM
I don't understand whats your problem with it?
He thinks it makes bad policy for embassies(govts) to make statements when they think said statements could protect their citizens.
I wonder what the Arabic translation of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is ?
edit:
google translate suggests this:
"العصي والحجارة قد تكسر عظامي، لكن الكلمات لن يؤذيني"
Quote from: Martinus on September 14, 2012, 10:07:07 AM
Ok, so you are essentially agreeing with those who say that the only reason such statement was made is because the US embassy to Egypt feared that Muslims are stupid and violent.
No the reason such statements are made was that the US embassy in Egypt is aware that Egyptians are badly informed, prone to conspiratorial thinking and not accustomed to the concept of separate private and state media.
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 10:24:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2012, 10:19:13 AM
I don't understand whats your problem with it?
He thinks it makes bad policy for embassies(govts) to make statements when they think said statements could protect their citizens.
I think it's hilarious that Martinus has managed to get most of the board to swallow his trollhook for the last 18 or so pages in this thread.
He may have a shitty grasp on the law, but he certainly knows how to drag along a witness during cross examination.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 10:32:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 10:24:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2012, 10:19:13 AM
I don't understand whats your problem with it?
He thinks it makes bad policy for embassies(govts) to make statements when they think said statements could protect their citizens.
I think it's hilarious that Martinus has managed to get most of the board to swallow his trollhook for the last 18 or so pages in this thread.
He may have a shitty grasp on the law, but he certainly knows how to drag along a witness during cross examination.
Therefore, given he describes himself as very successful, lawyering is just a matter of advanced trolling ? :unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 10:32:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 14, 2012, 10:24:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2012, 10:19:13 AM
I don't understand whats your problem with it?
He thinks it makes bad policy for embassies(govts) to make statements when they think said statements could protect their citizens.
I think it's hilarious that Martinus has managed to get most of the board to swallow his trollhook for the last 18 or so pages in this thread.
He may have a shitty grasp on the law, but he certainly knows how to drag along a witness during cross examination.
Meh just boredom. :D
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 10:36:10 AM
Therefore, given he describes himself as very successful, lawyering is just a matter of advanced trolling ? :unsure:
You disagree with that premise? I don't.
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2012, 10:16:55 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 10:06:06 AM
I do think he's a much better communicator with a teleprompter than without it...
I disagree. I think he is a better communicator when he has a written speech than when he is speaking off the cuff, but I also think that this is and was true of every president and 99.54% of the non-presidents. Whether Obama was speaking using a teleprompter versus paper notes doesn't seem to impact his communications much.
But it seems that when using paper notes he's more likely to interject some off the cuff remarks, which is where he has had problems.
More then the ordinary person? More the most presidents? More then his predecessor? Or perhaps you frequent sites that focus on these and sometimes invent them.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2012, 11:13:59 AM
More then the ordinary person? More the most presidents? More then his predecessor? Or perhaps you frequent sites that focus on these and sometimes invent them.
More than he does when he's using the teleprompter.
Man, you guys cannot stand even the slightest criticism of your guy. I've never seen anything like this before.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:16:28 AMMore than he does when he's using the teleprompter.
Man, you guys cannot stand even the slightest criticism of your guy. I've never seen anything like this before.
:lol:
Speaking of reasonable criticism of Obama, here's more - Kansas want to take him off the ballot because they're not sure he's American - http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/14/obama-birth-certificate-kansas-ballot/70000327/1?csp=34news#.UFNZAGlYsjc
Quote from: Jacob on September 14, 2012, 11:20:16 AM
Speaking of reasonable criticism of Obama, here's more - Kansas want to take him off the ballot because they're not sure he's American - http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/14/obama-birth-certificate-kansas-ballot/70000327/1?csp=34news#.UFNZAGlYsjc
That's dumb, and crap like this unwittingly plays in Obama's favor.
Mittens condemns Cairo embassy statement and agrees with it at the same time on
Good Morning America.
QuoteThe Cairo embassy press release said the United States "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. " It added: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Romney has said it amounted to sympathizing with America's attackers. He blamed President Obama, although he conceded that Obama had also distanced himself from the statement.
But, asked about the film itself, Romney said he hadn't seen and had no intention of doing so. Still, he seemed to agree with much of the substance of the embassy's statement.
"And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is simply inappropriate and wrong," he said. "And I wish people wouldn't do it. Of course, we have a First Amendment. And under the First Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do. They have the right to do that, but it's not right to do things that are of the nature of what was done by, apparently this film."
No wonder his was picked to save the Olympics; he's more flexible than Mary Lou Retton.
:lol: yeah I just saw that: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-condemns-anti-muslim-film-echoing-white-house-position.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
So I guess Viking prefers Mittens wording when he says the same thing Obama did?
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:16:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2012, 11:13:59 AM
More then the ordinary person? More the most presidents? More then his predecessor? Or perhaps you frequent sites that focus on these and sometimes invent them.
More than he does when he's using the teleprompter.
Man, you guys cannot stand even the slightest criticism of your guy. I've never seen anything like this before.
Okay, then riddle me this. What is the obsession with Teleprompters? I mean this has been bouncing around the Conservative echo chamber for years now. It's really fucking bizarre. Hell, Congressmen have gotten in on it, trying to remove funding for Obama teleprompters from the budget. Did anyone try obsess over Bush's teleprompter, over Clinton's over Reagan's? While we are at it, why it that conservatives seem to think that liberals secretly worship Obama as a messiah figure in a very literal sense.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2012, 11:29:48 AM
Okay, then riddle me this. What is the obsession with Teleprompters?
You're the one who brought it up.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2012, 11:29:48 AM
Okay, then riddle me this. What is the obsession with Teleprompters? I mean this has been bouncing around the Conservative echo chamber for years now. It's really fucking bizarre. Hell, Congressmen have gotten in on it, trying to remove funding for Obama teleprompters from the budget. Did anyone try obsess over Bush's teleprompter, over Clinton's over Reagan's? While we are at it, why it that conservatives seem to think that liberals secretly worship Obama as a messiah figure in a very literal sense.
Reagan invented the teleprompter; therefore, the Unread First Reader is always exempt.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 10:50:33 AM
But it seems that when using paper notes he's more likely to interject some off the cuff remarks, which is where he has had problems.
I don't see it, but then I am not a tribal, so maybe I can't see it.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 11:32:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 14, 2012, 11:29:48 AM
Okay, then riddle me this. What is the obsession with Teleprompters?
You're the one who brought it up.
I'm not the one that tried to get it removed from the budget.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 14, 2012, 10:22:50 AM
I read Joan's "hypothetical" as more of a joking dig at Kansas.
had I known it would cause such grief, I wouldn't have bothered.
Quote from: KRonn on September 13, 2012, 08:06:49 PM
So WTF was an Ambassador doing wandering around Benghazi on the anniversary of Sept 11? That's a date when radicals seem to try and attack US interests. And were all Embassies heavily defended for that date? It now seems quite obvious that the video was just a prop for a well orchestrated attack on the anniversary of Sept 11. I'm sure this has already been said in this 24 page thread, but I haven't read all of it.
The video had nothing to do with it. The attack was planned and was going to happen anyway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
The video had nothing to do with it. The attack was planned and was going to happen anyway.
Pretty much, yeah. The video just happened to be a convenient coincidence.
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2012, 11:33:47 AM
I don't see it, but then I am not a tribal, so maybe I can't see it.
Grumbler predates tribes.
I think we should make sure we emphasize that Islam should not be judged by the actions of Muslims all over the world.
Quote from: Kleves on September 14, 2012, 12:56:51 PM
I think we should make sure we emphasize that Islam should not be judged by the actions of Muslims all over the world.
:lol:
The persons who make negative comments about Islam should take a minute and imagine a world without Islam. :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2012, 01:06:04 PM
The persons who make negative comments about Islam should take a minute and imagine a world without Islam. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages5.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F29700000%2Fimagine-no-religion-atheism-29778243-640-600.jpg&hash=8532cc0a0d235ab9c5037bc00bbb22c577c68dd3)
mmm... no Islam....
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
The video had nothing to do with it. The attack was planned and was going to happen anyway.
:hmm: you don't think the video was distributed as part of the planning?
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2012, 01:06:04 PM
The persons who make negative comments about Islam should take a minute and imagine a world without Islam. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ltbtgjU70B1qztjn5o1_500.jpg&hash=553e9b4b5bed7ce9bd513bad3dcdb6f8e0ff2344)
:hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 12:21:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
The video had nothing to do with it. The attack was planned and was going to happen anyway.
Pretty much, yeah. The video just happened to be a convenient coincidence.
Jay Carney sez UR WRONG.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/249561-white-house-no-actionable-intelligence-ahead-of-libyan-assault
Quote"We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack," Carney said. "The unrest we've seen across the region was in response to a video ... not in response to a 9/11 anniversary, that we know of."
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2012, 01:24:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2012, 01:06:04 PM
The persons who make negative comments about Islam should take a minute and imagine a world without Islam. :mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ltbtgjU70B1qztjn5o1_500.jpg&hash=553e9b4b5bed7ce9bd513bad3dcdb6f8e0ff2344)
:hmm:
MotherFUCKER, I was trying to find that pic. :mad:
:cheers:
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 01:28:37 PM
Jay Carney sez UR WRONG.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/249561-white-house-no-actionable-intelligence-ahead-of-libyan-assault
Quote"We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack," Carney said. "The unrest we've seen across the region was in response to a video ... not in response to a 9/11 anniversary, that we know of."
Who says it needed to have anything to do with 9/11? Certain Libyan groups have been taking potshots at foreign personnel with increasing frequency in recent months.
So David Rivera sez UR WRONG TOO
QuoteHowever, the transition has been turbulent and marred by violence from armed militias and as part of regional and tribal disputes. Much of the violence has been centered in Benghazi. Assaults have included rocket-propelled grenades hitting the offices of the International Red Cross in May, a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a vehicle carrying Britain's ambassador to Libya in June, and a bombing just outside the perimeter walls of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi just one day earlier.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249593-libya-attack-part-of-a-dangerous-pattern-of-unrest
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Do they know Colonel Sanders doesn't actually hold rank in the US army? :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on September 14, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Do they know Colonel Sanders doesn't actually hold rank in the US army? :hmm:
:unsure:
Though we can be certain less Lebanese will die of coronary heart disease. :cool:
edit:I was going to extend the joke along the lines of more risk dying of lead poisoning, but it now turns out one person was killed in this incident. :(
Quote from: Malthus on September 14, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Do they know Colonel Sanders doesn't actually hold rank in the US army? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders
QuoteSanders falsified his date of birth and enlisted in the United States Army at the age of fifteen, completing his service commitment as a mule handler in Cuba.[6]
Mule Handler is probably a rank that they locals understand.
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2012, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 14, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Do they know Colonel Sanders doesn't actually hold rank in the US army? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders
QuoteSanders falsified his date of birth and enlisted in the United States Army at the age of fifteen, completing his service commitment as a mule handler in Cuba.[6]
Mule Handler is probably a rank that they locals understand.
Probably outranks colonel in some places.
Quote from: derspiess on September 14, 2012, 02:04:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 14, 2012, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 14, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Do they know Colonel Sanders doesn't actually hold rank in the US army? :hmm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_Sanders
QuoteSanders falsified his date of birth and enlisted in the United States Army at the age of fifteen, completing his service commitment as a mule handler in Cuba.[6]
Mule Handler is probably a rank that they locals understand.
Probably outranks colonel in some places.
yeah most western armies have more colonels than mules.. so yeah...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19600542 (http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19600542)
Quote
Fathi Baja Libyan professor who had breakfast with slain US ambassador Chris Stevens on the day of his death
told the BBC: "The security [at the consulate] was not enough. I was there in the morning with Chris around 0915 having breakfast but the security was not just insufficient, there was a big lack of security. He had 4 Libyans, 2 of them in front of the door and 2 inside the small room by the fence. It was very normal security measurements as if you were going to a hotel."
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 13, 2012, 08:06:49 PM
So WTF was an Ambassador doing wandering around Benghazi on the anniversary of Sept 11? That's a date when radicals seem to try and attack US interests. And were all Embassies heavily defended for that date? It now seems quite obvious that the video was just a prop for a well orchestrated attack on the anniversary of Sept 11. I'm sure this has already been said in this 24 page thread, but I haven't read all of it.
The video had nothing to do with it. The attack was planned and was going to happen anyway.
Agreed. That's why I called it a prop, something they used as an excuse to stir up Muslim sentiment as a smoke screen for their Sept 11 anniversary attacks.
QuoteFelicia Sonmez of the Washington Post
tweets again from a Republican rally in Virginia: asked one woman here what she thought of events in Libya/Egypt/Yemen. "It's sad," she said. Not much more to say. "I'm more of a sports fan"
Tressel would have punted with a three point lead.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 06:55:22 PM
QuoteFelicia Sonmez of the Washington Post
tweets again from a Republican rally in Virginia: asked one woman here what she thought of events in Libya/Egypt/Yemen. "It's sad," she said. Not much more to say. "I'm more of a sports fan"
Tressel would have punted with a three point lead.
Spurrier would've punted with a three point lead. On third down.
Wow, wish I had mentioned this possibility several pages ago. Oh wait, I did.
QuoteOne of the biggest questions still outstanding about the attack on a United States consulate in Libya is whether it was planned or whether it was the result of a protest against a U.S.-made film that criticizes the Prophet Muhammad.
The attack killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
The bottom line is that nothing is firm. But NPR's Leila Fadel reports that Libya's Deputy Interior Minister, Wanis al Sharef, said this was a sophisticated two-prong attack.
The first attack was against the consulate in Benghazi and the second came hours after the original attack, when American and Libyan forces were attempting to rescue two Americans from a safe house.
"Militants staged a second attack on the safe house," Leila reports. "Sharef said it may have been an infiltrator inside the Libyan security forces that tipped the militants off to the location of the safe house. He says this is the attack that killed the two unidentified Americans and wounded 14 others."
It's important to note that U.S. officials from the State Department, the National Security Council and law enforcement have told NPR that they have not been able to confirm that this was a planned attack.
The Associated Press also spoke to Sharef who told them that the "attacks may have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary" and that the "militants used civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as a cover for their actions."
Leila reports that part of what Sharef said is contradicted by witnesses.
"A lot of the witnesses that we've spoken to — neighbors, the son of the landlord, a Libyan guard who was wounded during the first part of the attack on Tuesday night — all say there was no protest at all," Leila reports. "They say that it began as an organized attack on the consulate."
Update at 6:42 p.m. ET. Avenge An Al-Qaida Death:
The experts at the Quilliam Foundation, a "counter-extremism think tank" based in London, have put out their own reading of the situation.
"We have reason to believe that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al-Qaida's second in command killed a few months ago," the group writes in a press release.
They report that according to their sources, the attack was perpetrated by about 20 militants and it happened 24 hours after an al-Qaida spokesman called on his followers to avenge the death of al-Libi.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers echoed that thinking in an interview with Fox News.
"It was a coordinated, military-style, commando-type raid," Rogers told Fox. "This was a well- planned, well-targeted event. No doubt about it."
The dude on CNN reporting from Cairo got Tear gas in his face. LET'S WATCH.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 07:07:47 PM
The dude on CNN reporting from Cairo got Tear gas in his face. LET'S WATCH.
No, that's Anderson Cooper. And it was just spooge.
HA!
I'd do Arwa Damon.
Ben's got red face. AWESOME.
lo, Ben keeps looking over the ledge, like they're going to scale the walls like in Aliens. GET SOME GET SOME YOU WANT SOME HUH HOW BOUT YOU
Ben's waiting on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiiUJ4sDuX0&feature=related
(I couldn't find the Marines from Wind and the Lion)
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 07:19:46 PM
(I couldn't find the Marines from Wind and the Lion)
Yeah, I used to have that shit bookmarked. No longer there.
Maybe this? http://youtu.be/1csr0dxalpI?t=3m40s
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 07:23:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 07:19:46 PM
(I couldn't find the Marines from Wind and the Lion)
Yeah, I used to have that shit bookmarked. No longer there.
Have some Chuck Heston chewing up the scenery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BujhFOoXxWQ&feature=related
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 14, 2012, 07:31:47 PM
Maybe this? http://youtu.be/1csr0dxalpI?t=3m40s
The defenders were reported for war crimes and deported to the Hague for trial.
:(
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 14, 2012, 07:31:47 PM
Maybe this? http://youtu.be/1csr0dxalpI?t=3m40s
Here a modern rendition of that scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cenvCzWS9x0&feature=related
Quote from: PDH on September 14, 2012, 12:23:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 14, 2012, 11:33:47 AM
I don't see it, but then I am not a tribal, so maybe I can't see it.
Grumbler predates tribes.
What is he, an Australopithecine?
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2012, 01:06:04 PM
The persons who make negative comments about Islam should take a minute and imagine a world without Islam. :mad:
John Lennon did and he was shot. Coincidence?
Quote from: Maximus on September 14, 2012, 01:20:10 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 14, 2012, 12:12:44 PM
The video had nothing to do with it. The attack was planned and was going to happen anyway.
:hmm: you don't think the video was distributed as part of the planning?
Well, the Lebanese ambassador to Warsaw (btw, shouldn't the US Lebanese embassy apologize for Phelps denigrating lesbians? :P) said in an interview that the movie was made by a Jew, for Jewish money, with a deliberate intent of antagonizing muslims and christians. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2012, 03:34:13 AM
John Lennon did and he was shot. Coincidence?
Not really. For it to be a coincidence instead of two random unconnected facts, Chapman would have needed to use a bomb. :contract:
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:52:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 14, 2012, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 14, 2012, 01:40:42 PM
Something good has come out of it:
Quote
In the Lebanese city of Tripoli, protesters set fire to a KFC branch, sparking clashes with security forces.
Do they know Colonel Sanders doesn't actually hold rank in the US army? :hmm:
:unsure:
Though we can be certain less Lebanese will die of coronary heart disease. :cool:
edit:
I was going to extend the joke along the lines of more risk dying of lead poisoning, but it now turns out one person was killed in this incident. :(
I don't get it - if a person was shot, this makes the joke more a propos, and consequently better. :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 14, 2012, 07:08:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 14, 2012, 07:07:47 PM
The dude on CNN reporting from Cairo got Tear gas in his face. LET'S WATCH.
No, that's Anderson Cooper. And it was just spooge.
Now that Anderson Cooper got a sponge to his face and the Lebanase got outraged, too, WILL THE US ADMINISTRATION FINALLY APOLOGIZE FOR FRED PHELPS???
sponge?
This is just entirely ludicrous at this point (not that it wasn't before but when is this going to end?).
http://news.yahoo.com/western-embassies-edgy-muslim-anger-film-simmers-000716007.html
QuoteProtesters enraged by a film mocking the Prophet Mohammad battled with police in several Asian cities on Monday and vented their fury against the United States, blaming it for what they see as an attack on the Muslim religion.
Police fired in the air to break up a crowd marching on the U.S. consulate in the Pakistani city of Karachi while in Afghanistan and Indonesia people burnt U.S. flags and chanted "Death to America".
Indonesian police fired tear gas and water cannon to disperse hundreds of demonstrators who massed outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, capital of the most populous Muslim nation.
In Kabul, protesters set fire to cars and shops and threw stones at police.
"We will defend our prophet until we have blood across our bodies. We will not let anyone insult him," said one protester in the Afghan capital. "Americans will pay for their dishonor."
...
No, no clash of civilizations going on here. Nope.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 04:57:51 PM
No, no clash of civilizations going on here. Nope.
Doesn't it take two to tango?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 04:57:51 PM
No, no clash of civilizations going on here. Nope.
Doesn't it take two to tango?
That's why I used the plural.
Yeah but it seems odd as its more like them throwing a tantrum over us than us really caring at all about them.
After all, we weren't seeing our marines mowing down these violent protesters.
Careful garb, gonna give Ed a boner.
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:18:11 PM
Yeah but it seems odd as its more like them throwing a tantrum over us than us really caring at all about them.
Well, they do throw their tantrums. It happens with TEH PROFIT. Your average American doesn't really give two thoughts about Islam over the course of any given day, unless they're flying planes full of people into buildings full of more people.
On the other hand, they can't grasp the concepts of freedom of speech, or that there's a difference between the United States Government and a wingnut with a handy cam. But there ya go.
QuoteAfter all, we weren't seeing our marines mowing down these violent protesters.
We can dream.
Quote from: Viking on September 17, 2012, 06:02:19 PM
It only takes one to have a war :contract:
Well, they've been waging it since the 9th century. Go fig.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 05:21:58 PM
unless they're flying planes full of people into buildings full of more people.
Or building Islamic centers in Lower Manhattan. That even turned people who hate NYC against them. :D
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 17, 2012, 05:21:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 05:18:11 PM
Yeah but it seems odd as its more like them throwing a tantrum over us than us really caring at all about them.
Well, they do throw their tantrums. It happens with TEH PROFIT. Your average American doesn't really give two thoughts about Islam over the course of any given day, unless they're flying planes full of people into buildings full of more people.
On the other hand, they can't grasp the concepts of freedom of speech, or that there's a difference between the United States Government and a wingnut with a handy cam. But there ya go.
I saw some news reports on TV saying that the guy who put that video out is an Egyptian Coptic Christian. Anyone see that reported? Maybe it's in this thread already somewhere.
And yes, they have no clue how the democratic nations work with freedoms and such. Free speech they have no concept of, and also that the govt doesn't have anything to do with videos. Just one guy putting out some stuff doesn't mean a reason to attack all Americans, or people of western nations. The people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 08:54:03 PM
The people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.
Maybe we could get them to see Dr. Phil! :w00t:
Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2012, 08:58:57 PM
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 08:54:03 PM
The people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.
Maybe we could get them to see Dr. Phil! :w00t:
Heh. ;)
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 08:54:03 PM
I saw some news reports on TV saying that the guy who put that video out is an Egyptian Coptic Christian. Anyone see that reported? Maybe it's in this thread already somewhere.
Yeah, that's not news anymore.
QuoteThe people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.
Unless it's teachers, of course.
Teachers are ok, it's their unions. Though when teachers so blindly support their unions as in Chicago then the teacher reps suffer too.
Teacher unions are in cahoots with the prison-industrial complex. Kids fail. Kids go to jail. :!:
Heh, we think the Muslim world is riled up now? Wait until later this year and the movie about the killing of bin Laden comes out.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:06:27 PM
Teachers are ok, it's their unions. Though when teachers so blindly support their unions as in Chicago then the teacher reps suffer too.
A lot of times, the administration is so shitty that the teachers need their unions to defend themselves against their superiors' stupidity. This crap is top-down. There is no trust anywhere.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:31:23 PM
Heh, we think the Muslim world is riled up now? Wait until later this year and the movie about the killing of bin Laden comes out.
That will not piss them off as much.
If I try to be sympathetic to these animals (and I mean the "protesters" themselves, no the muslim world in general), I must conclude that movies like these must be terribly frustrating for them indeed.
Their entire existence is made worse by a lot of arbitary rules. No booze, no oogling of women on the street, no fun.
The basis for these strict life-worsening rules, The Reason Why This Worth It At The End is that Mohammed knew his shit, and he is the überest mofo ever to have lived, and his words and person are untouchble.
When somebody makes a shittie anti-Mohammed production like this one, and is not smitten by the mighty smiter, proves one fucking painful thing:
their lives are mandatory fucked up in total and utter vain.
Quote from: KRonn on September 17, 2012, 09:31:23 PM
Heh, we think the Muslim world is riled up now? Wait until later this year and the movie about the killing of bin Laden comes out.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2141875/
This is interesting:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html
QuoteAuthorities in Cairo have ordered the arrest of seven US-based Egyptian Coptic Christians for their alleged involvement in an anti-Islam video.
The crude production posted on YouTube has sparked violent protests and riots across the Muslim world for its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.
It is unclear who made the film, but it has been linked to an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in the United States.
An arrest warrant has also been issued for US Christian pastor Terry Jones.
One woman and seven men, including Mr Jones, are accused of "insulting the Islamic religion, insulting the Prophet and inciting sectarian strife", according to the prosecutor's office.
It said international police agency Interpol would be notified of the warrants. A request will also be filed with US judicial authorities.
lolz
I am ever slowly moving towards the "Nuke Islam" position.
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 18, 2012, 07:52:54 PM
I am ever slowly moving towards the "Nuke Islam" position.
I've been there since 1979.
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20120918_00301001
english translation with google translate, but I think it should be comprehensible
Quote
It's not about respect for religion
The Holy determines what sacrilege
Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 3:00
Author: Saligram Narayanrao Reageer35 Like 92
Entire stacks flags have been burned before, for that one anti-Islam film. Muslims should be consistent, find SALIGRAM NARAYANRAO BALAGANGADHARA: if they do not want them to be offended, they should also not offend other religions.
The film Innocence or Muslims, the past week cities across the world put on stilts, and threatens to do that yet. "We never insult other prophets," says the tenor of several Muslims, "so why can not we demand that Muhammad get respect? We respect the others, why they insult us? " Others suggested that the anger came from a requirement of "freedom": the right of a community to be free from heavy insults against her identity and values.
As with the Muhammad cartoons from a few years ago the same cliché pops up in the debates, there should be more respect for the other. Everyone thinks that he has that respect for the other. But despite all that self-esteem is declared the world does not peaceful to become. What is it really going on?
For Muslims, the religious question of ridiculing the Prophet. But to whom is the prophet Muhammad? Yet only those who believe in Islam? This clause applies to all religious symbols. Something is always a symbol for a particular person, which is a symbol for one is not for another. Take a heathen like me: for me symbolizes neither the cross nor the prophet Mohammed anything. One is one thing and the other is a man. The Sikhs in India, the turban is regarded as their religious symbol, but that's neither for me nor for the Protestant case.
Requirement to repentance
Something is only a religious symbol within the boundaries of a particular religion. Outside has the same symbolic value anymore. What does it mean to non-Muslims to demand that they respect Muhammad? Is it a requirement to recognize him as a religious symbol or a prophet? In that case it comes down to a requirement to provide visibility to convert to Islam. Without this step, Muhammad never a religious symbol or prophet for me and any other non-Muslim. What is the significance of the complaint that the film mocking the prophet "and that it should not do?
Muslims argue that the Prophet Muhammad depiction sacrilege, because the prophet pictures of themselves and Allah has forbidden. The answer is simple: the words of the prophet are only valid for those who accept him as a prophet. For non-Muslims, this rule no power.
But the question is: are we doing something immoral by their sense of sacrilege not to 'respect'? To answer, we must expand our perspective. Until today criticize some Protestants, Catholics openly by the pope "the antichrist" to call the Catholic church as "the church of the devil" to portray, and the believers as "devil worshipers" to condemn. Europe experienced decades of wars about. Until today remain central tenets of Protestantism sacrilege for Catholics, just as the existence of Catholicism itself sacrilege continues for many Protestants. What should we do, if one says that one group may not do what the other sees as sacrilege?
When I look Indian with even more amazement to the requirement of the protesting Muslims. For centuries it belongs to the essence of Islam to the Indian traditions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) describe as idolatry and false demonic religion. According to Islam, Hindus worship Satan and his companions: their elephant god Ganesha, the adulterous Krishna or Shiva phallic. That image is still relevant. Are such statements about the gods of India no sacrilege? Can we Muslims demand that their basic doctrines of idolatry, God and Satan deny? If Islam do that, she would raise her own existence as a religion. In other words, from a pagan perspective, the existence of a religion such as Islam (or Christianity) in itself 'sacrilege'. The core of these religions transforms millions of people in Asia to idol worshipers and worshipers of the devil.
Muslims must be consistent: if they do not want that one commits sacrilege against their religion, then they do not do that to other religions and traditions far.
Superior to all
If they are not willing to accept this conclusion, then the requirement of the protesting Muslims in fact is this: the world must treat them as an exceptional religious community, not equal to and superior to all. Of course, they believe that this is the case. That is why it is not acceptable for belief that the rest of the world. The whole debate is neither about 'respect for other religions', nor 'freedom of expression'. It's about a religious group, calling themselves eight superior to all others, demands that the whole world the truth of this belief would endorse. Who is willing to do that? I certainly do not.
Who? Director of the India Platform professor and comparative cultural studies, UGent.
What? Muslims who protest against the anti-Islam film, in fact demands that the world treats them as exceptional community.
Why? Expressions that are critical to their religion, they can not find, but Islam itself is the other religious experiences is sacrilege.
time for the muslims to either learn and accept this or go extinct
French decide on solidarity with America, elect to get bombed too.
QuoteFrance shutters embassies, schools over new Muhammad cartoon
By NBC News' Nancy Ing and wire reports
France has temporarily closed its embassies and schools in 20 countries after a satirical magazine in Paris published insulting cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, a move it fears will add "fuel to the fire" of global tensions over an anti-Islam film.
"We have indeed decided as a precautionary measure to close our premises, embassies, consulates, cultural centers and schools," a Foreign Ministry spokesman told Reuters.
Riot police were also sent to the offices of the weekly magazine, Charlie Hebdo.
The publication came amid widespread outrage over a crude, provocative film, made by anti-Islam campaigners in California, that mocked the Prophet and ignited days of deadly protests including an attack in Libya in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed.
The front page cartoon had the figure in a wheelchair saying "You mustn't mock'' under the headline "Untouchable 2'', a reference to a hugely popular French movie about a paralyzed rich white man and his black assistant.
Charlie Hebdo's Paris offices were fire bombed last November after it published a mocking caricature of Muhammad.
Many Muslims consider any representation of Allah or the Prophet Mohammad offensive.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius criticized the magazine's move.
"Is it relevant and intelligent in this environment to add fuel to the fire? The answer is no,'' Fabius told France Info radio. "I'm very worried... and when I saw this I immediately issued instructions for special security precautions to be taken in all the countries where it could be a problem.''
The government has called for restraint over the cartoons, restating the principles of free speech in France and urging those shocked by the images to take action through the courts.
Muslim leaders in France, which has Europe's largest Muslim population, have appealed for calm.
Salafist Muslims in Paris has already called for a protest this Saturday at Trocadero, near the Eiffel Tower, against the California-made film.
A small group of about 100 were prevented by riot police from approaching the US Embassy in the center of Paris last Saturday.
French authorities have refused to authorize any demonstration.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the authorities had rejected a request to hold a march.
"There is no reason for us to allow conflicts that do not concern France to enter our country,'' Ayrault told RTL radio.
You know, I'm getting tired of this shit. A hundred years ago, when the Chinese besieged our embassy we allied with Russians, Japanese, French, Germans etc and just kick their asses all over the place.
Quote from: Tamas on September 18, 2012, 06:33:47 AM
If I try to be sympathetic to these animals (and I mean the "protesters" themselves, no the muslim world in general), I must conclude that movies like these must be terribly frustrating for them indeed.
Their entire existence is made worse by a lot of arbitary rules. No booze, no oogling of women on the street, no fun.
The basis for these strict life-worsening rules, The Reason Why This Worth It At The End is that Mohammed knew his shit, and he is the überest mofo ever to have lived, and his words and person are untouchble.
When somebody makes a shittie anti-Mohammed production like this one, and is not smitten by the mighty smiter, proves one fucking painful thing:
their lives are mandatory fucked up in total and utter vain.
I don't think these protests are spontaneous. They are inspired by leaders who capitalize on religious outrage, and are almost entirely for domestic consumption. The youtube movie is just a pretext - if it wasn't that, it would have been something else.
For the love of god, can we just take our shit & leave them behind?
Let Saudis conquer everyone & just buy our Oil from them?
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 19, 2012, 07:01:43 AM
For the love of god, can we just take our shit & leave them behind?
Let Saudis conquer everyone & just buy our Oil from them?
Have you been to France, lately? "Leaving them behind" is no longer an option - they are here.
Incidentally, I don't think there is another group of people (barring people guilty of some crimes) that I detest and abhor more than Westerners who convert to Islam.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2012, 07:05:31 AM
Incidentally, I don't think there is another group of people (barring people guilty of some crimes) that I detest and abhor more than Westerners who convert to Islam.
You mean collaborators?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2012, 07:07:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2012, 07:05:31 AM
Incidentally, I don't think there is another group of people (barring people guilty of some crimes) that I detest and abhor more than Westerners who convert to Islam.
You mean collaborators?
Nah, I just see this as dangerous insanity. I consider religions to be generally stupid and a waste of time, but among them Islam is one of the worst, if not the worst (definitely the most backward, violent, anti-modern religion of all the "great religions"). I am however willing to accept that people who grew up in that religion, even in the West, may be willing to follow it, if only out of the sense of cultural custom etc.
However, people who were raised in a different religion or no religion at all, and then discover Islam and find it appealing are just total, insane, dangerous scum to me - idiots with brains fucked up beyond recovery.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2012, 07:05:31 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 19, 2012, 07:01:43 AM
For the love of god, can we just take our shit & leave them behind?
Let Saudis conquer everyone & just buy our Oil from them?
Have you been to France, lately? "Leaving them behind" is no longer an option - they are here.
Incidentally, I don't think there is another group of people (barring people guilty of some crimes) that I detest and abhor more than Westerners who convert to Islam.
Never been to France. I have enough with the Frenchman here, no need to go there to be annoyed 24/7 by them.
That's a problem too but it's not a reason not to distance ourselves from the Islam-axis around the world.
Quote from: Martinus on September 19, 2012, 07:13:26 AM
Nah, I just see this as dangerous insanity. I consider religions to be generally stupid and a waste of time, but among them Islam is one of the worst, if not the worst (definitely the most backward, violent, anti-modern religion of all the "great religions"). I am however willing to accept that people who grew up in that religion, even in the West, may be willing to follow it, if only out of the sense of cultural custom etc.
However, people who were raised in a different religion or no religion at all, and then discover Islam and find it appealing are just total, insane, dangerous scum to me - idiots with brains fucked up beyond recovery.
Well it certainly has many of the most violent adherents now, but that doesn't mean that one has to support violence to support the religion.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 19, 2012, 07:01:43 AM
For the love of god, can we just take our shit & leave them behind?
Let Saudis conquer everyone & just buy our Oil from them?
Iran would crush the Saudis, unfortunately.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 12:45:22 PM
Well it certainly has many of the most violent adherents now, but that doesn't mean that one has to support violence to support the religion.
Now that I think about it Westerners converting to Islam or Muslims becoming Westerners would be one of the few ways this whole conflict might be resolved peacefullly. Presuming, of course, these Westerners are just swapping religions and not rejecting Western culture.
Or maybe not. But just a thought.
The average Arab mooselimb is a savage.
Hey, is it time for another Languish Spec Op to the Gawaher Forum?
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2012, 02:02:54 PM
Now that I think about it Westerners converting to Islam or Muslims becoming Westerners would be one of the few ways this whole conflict might be resolved peacefullly. Presuming, of course, these Westerners are just swapping religions and not rejecting Western culture.
Or maybe not. But just a thought.
Yeah, I don't see why it's a problem unless it comes with a rejection of Western culture.
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2012, 03:13:04 PM
No one becomes Muslim who doesn't reject Western culture.
I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2012, 03:18:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:18:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2012, 03:13:04 PM
No one becomes Muslim who doesn't reject Western culture.
I find that hard to believe.
You don't have to believe. That's the beauty of not being Muslim.
Disagree as I think there are a lot of Christians in my country who would say that I have to believe if I don't want to spend eternity in hell.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 06:29:32 AM
French decide on solidarity with America, elect to get bombed too.
QuoteFrance shutters embassies, schools over new Muhammad cartoon
By NBC News' Nancy Ing and wire reports
Salafist Muslims in Paris has already called for a protest this Saturday at Trocadero, near the Eiffel Tower, against the California-made film.
A small group of about 100 were prevented by riot police from approaching the US Embassy in the center of Paris last Saturday.
French authorities have refused to authorize any demonstration.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said the authorities had rejected a request to hold a march.
"There is no reason for us to allow conflicts that do not concern France to enter our country,'' Ayrault told RTL radio.
I was in Paris during that weekend :)
Actually, that demonstration approaching the US embassy near the Champs-Elysées and the Élysée palace, was more like 250 people from which 2/3 got arrested (very high ratio!) for ID checking then fined. Four cops were slightly injured as well.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:18:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2012, 03:13:04 PM
No one becomes Muslim who doesn't reject Western culture.
I find that hard to believe.
All you need to disprove that is showing one westerner that converts and doesn't adopt the trappings of arab or muslim culture.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2012, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 03:18:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 19, 2012, 03:13:04 PM
No one becomes Muslim who doesn't reject Western culture.
I find that hard to believe.
All you need to disprove that is showing one westerner that converts and doesn't adopt the trappings of arab or muslim culture.
I'll make that a priority.
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
They aren't real Muslims.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 04:45:13 PM
They aren't real Muslims.
You can make that case for Muhammed Ali and Abdul Jabbar since arguably Nation of Islam is to Islam what Mormonism is to christianity. But, Dave Chapelle is the real thing. In keeping his religion personal and private he exemplifies the ideal of the western religious person. Q.E.D. The Brain is wrong and garbon is right.
I think Ali became an orthodox Sunni didn't he?
Dave Chappelle is Muslim? :huh:
Is ganja halal?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 05:21:22 PM
Dave Chappelle is Muslim? :huh:
Is ganja halal?
Allegedly. You can find him roaming the county I live in.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2012, 05:21:00 PM
I think Ali became an orthodox Sunni didn't he?
I think they both went orthodox eventually on paper. That still doesn't change the fact that they got in through a political organization. The NOI just muddles the who issue making it less clear cut than Chapelle.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
Cat Stevens jumps to mind as well.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 04:45:13 PM
They aren't real Muslims.
You can make that case for Muhammed Ali and Abdul Jabbar since arguably Nation of Islam is to Islam what Mormonism is to christianity. But, Dave Chapelle is the real thing. In keeping his religion personal and private he exemplifies the ideal of the western religious person. Q.E.D. The Brain is wrong and garbon is right.
Isn't keeping it personal and private pretty much impossible in Islam? It is such a pervasive force in all aspects of private and public life, it's as much a political ideology as a religion. It pretty much started politically, in contrast to Christianity which only acquired political aspects later on.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
Cat Stevens jumps to mind as well.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newmuslimdhikr.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fyusuf-islam%2F7.jpg&hash=9dcbb637233481baee32504251205fc1da1462a2)
You don't count as westernized when you look more like Osama Bin Laden than you do like Frank Zappa and you call for the death of Salman Rushdie.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 04:45:13 PM
They aren't real Muslims.
You can make that case for Muhammed Ali and Abdul Jabbar since arguably Nation of Islam is to Islam what Mormonism is to christianity. But, Dave Chapelle is the real thing. In keeping his religion personal and private he exemplifies the ideal of the western religious person. Q.E.D. The Brain is wrong and garbon is right.
Isn't keeping it personal and private pretty much impossible in Islam? It is such a pervasive force in all aspects of private and public life, it's as much a political ideology as a religion. It pretty much started politically, in contrast to Christianity which only acquired political aspects later on.
I think Chapelle proves you can keep it personal and private. Naturally this requires quite a bit more theological acrobatics than killing westerners, but still it is possible and that was garbon's claim. There are lots of cultural muslims that manage to westernize.
Islam isn't a rejection of Western black culture. I think you need to look again.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 05:59:39 PM
It pretty much started politically, in contrast to Christianity which only acquired political aspects later on.
That's true for Christianity if later on means within a generation or two. And I'd say no, I don't really think keeping it personal and private is pretty much impossible anymore than it is to be a Christian and not proselytize.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 11:44:42 PM
That's true for Christianity if later on means within a generation or two.
What are you thinking about here? Armenia? :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
Cat Stevens jumps to mind as well.
Of what? He said that if he learned of the place of residence of Salman Rushdie, he would give it to the people willing to kill him. If that does not count as a rejection of Western values, I don't know what does.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2012, 06:56:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 05:59:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 19, 2012, 04:45:13 PM
They aren't real Muslims.
You can make that case for Muhammed Ali and Abdul Jabbar since arguably Nation of Islam is to Islam what Mormonism is to christianity. But, Dave Chapelle is the real thing. In keeping his religion personal and private he exemplifies the ideal of the western religious person. Q.E.D. The Brain is wrong and garbon is right.
Isn't keeping it personal and private pretty much impossible in Islam? It is such a pervasive force in all aspects of private and public life, it's as much a political ideology as a religion. It pretty much started politically, in contrast to Christianity which only acquired political aspects later on.
I think Chapelle proves you can keep it personal and private. Naturally this requires quite a bit more theological acrobatics than killing westerners, but still it is possible and that was garbon's claim. There are lots of cultural muslims that manage to westernize.
That's not really my point, though. To me even if you keep Western culture trappings, converting to Islam is just a proof of a fucked up state of mind. If you want religion, there is plenty to choose from among your cultural circles (all kinds of Christian denominations, for starters) or if you really want to be exotic, there is the whole East Asia world of choice. Converting to a religion that has the most backward, violent, fanatical adherents on the planet is just a proof you are nuts even if you don't subscribe wholeheartedly to their fundamentalism (btw, I would actually argue that it does entail some form of rejection of Western values but that wasn't the point I was making).
Edit: although to be honest, I was originally thinking about white Europeans converting to Islam - as happens to some odd nuts in Poland, for example. For the American blacks, I think it's more of a fad based on desperately looking for a cultural identity that goes beyond slavery, the same way they did with the silliness that is Kwanzaa, or claiming that Cleopatra is black.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 19, 2012, 10:19:50 PM
Islam isn't a rejection of Western black culture. I think you need to look again.
I guess that could be because "Western black culture" is an oxymoron. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 12:58:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
Cat Stevens jumps to mind as well.
Of what? He said that if he learned of the place of residence of Salman Rushdie, he would give it to the people willing to kill him. If that does not count as a rejection of Western values, I don't know what does.
You say you want kill people all the time. Whole groups of people.
By the way, wasn't Dave Chapelle admitted to a mental health institution at some point?
As for the others mentioned, I would posit that changing your name to one of different culture upon converting to another religion constitutes at least a symbolic rejection of your hitherto culture, even if you do not immediately start killing people.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 01:06:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 12:58:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
Cat Stevens jumps to mind as well.
Of what? He said that if he learned of the place of residence of Salman Rushdie, he would give it to the people willing to kill him. If that does not count as a rejection of Western values, I don't know what does.
You say you want kill people all the time. Whole groups of people.
But I do it for enlightened, rational and non-religious reasons. Killing whole groups of people for enlightened, rational and non-religious reasons is the cornerstone of modern Western values. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
By the way, wasn't Dave Chapelle admitted to a mental health institution at some point?
Sounds Western to me.
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2012, 01:13:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
By the way, wasn't Dave Chapelle admitted to a mental health institution at some point?
Sounds Western to me.
As I said, my point is not necessarily that they are not Western (that's what you and garbon started to argue), but that they are nuts.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 01:12:00 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 01:06:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 12:58:49 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2012, 04:36:22 PM
Actually, I forgot how wikipedia likes to list things: Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Dave Chappelle are pretty Western, no?
Cat Stevens jumps to mind as well.
Of what? He said that if he learned of the place of residence of Salman Rushdie, he would give it to the people willing to kill him. If that does not count as a rejection of Western values, I don't know what does.
You say you want kill people all the time. Whole groups of people.
But I do it for enlightened, rational and non-religious reasons. Killing whole groups of people for enlightened, rational and non-religious reasons is the cornerstone of modern Western values. :contract:
See? He's a Russian.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
By the way, wasn't Dave Chapelle admitted to a mental health institution at some point?
No, he went to south africa a spent some time with a religious mentor. He did not have a mental breakdown and he did not get admitted to a mental institution. He was rich enough so he decided after some soul searching to get out of the game.
One of the actresses in the movie explains how she ended up in the movie on Neil Gaiman's blog:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html
Excerpt from much longer post:
Quote[...]
A year ago, in the summer of 2011, I submitted my materials to various projects on the Explore Talent web-site. I received a call from the casting director of the movie "Desert Warrior", and my audition date was scheduled. I auditioned for the role of Hilary. Several days later, I was informed that I got a callback. I did the callback. Several days later, I was informed that I landed the role of Hilary in the movie called "Desert Warrior".
The filming of the movie was done in August of 2011. We were filming the movie in a studio warehouse with a green screen in Duarte, CA. The project was a low budget, independent feature movie.
The filming of the movie was beginning soon after the day I was told I got a role. The script was not sent to me. When I got to the set, I was merely provided with the scenes my character was in.
I did not consider this to be an unusual thing, seeing as I have had an experience with something like this before. I did a movie once where the script was written in a foreign language and only my parts were translated into English and accordingly, I was provided with my scenes only. Having experienced that, I thought the same thing was happening with "Desert Warrior". Aware of the fact that the supposed producer and the script-writer of the movie (known as Sam Bassil) was a foreigner (thanks to his accent), I thought that the original script was written in his native tongue and that not all scenes were translated into English. Also, the filming dates of the movie had to be rescheduled last minute to fit my schedule (I had other films to do right after the "Desert Warrior" outside CA). Because of this rushed rearrangements, I thought that the production first forgot and then did not consider it necessary to send me the script, and again - I did not find this unusual, since I knew what role I had, I knew about my character and I knew about the story of the film.
My character Hilary was a young girl who is sold (against her own free will) by her parents to a tribe leader known as GEORGE. She is one of his (most likely, the youngest) brides in the movie.
The film was about a comet falling into a desert and different tribes in ancient Egypt fighting to acquire it for they deemed that the comet possessed some supernatural powers.
The movie that we were doing in Duarte was called "Desert Warrior" and it was a fictional adventure drama. The character GEORGE was a leader of one of those tribes fighting for the comet.
There was no mention EVER by anyone of MUHAMMAD and no mention of religion during the entire time I was on the set. I am hundred percent certain nobody in the cast and nobody in the US artistic side of the crew knew what was really planned for this "Desert Warrior".
[...]
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2012, 01:50:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 01:10:11 AM
By the way, wasn't Dave Chapelle admitted to a mental health institution at some point?
No, he went to south africa a spent some time with a religious mentor. He did not have a mental breakdown and he did not get admitted to a mental institution. He was rich enough so he decided after some soul searching to get out of the game.
:lol:
Anyway, pity about Dave Chapelle. I used to like him. Same with Will Smith and scientology. Too many nuts.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 02:17:33 AM
Anyway, pity about Dave Chapelle. I used to like him. Same with Will Smith and scientology. Too many nuts.
Me too I'm a great fan of Chapelle's work.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 01:01:54 AM
Edit: although to be honest, I was originally thinking about white Europeans converting to Islam - as happens to some odd nuts in Poland, for example. For the American blacks, I think it's more of a fad based on desperately looking for a cultural identity that goes beyond slavery, the same way they did with the silliness that is Kwanzaa, or claiming that Cleopatra is black.
Because Islam and enslavement of blacks have absolutely nothing in common. :P
I love the notion that because I noted some black people (2 of whom also altered their names) as a quick reply back to the notion that you must sacrifice Western culture when you convert to Islam, that said examples don't really count.
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2012, 08:51:00 AM
I love the notion that because I noted some black people (2 of whom also altered their names) as a quick reply back to the notion that you must sacrifice Western culture when you convert to Islam, that said examples don't really count.
A classic example of the "No True Scotsman" argument. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on September 20, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 20, 2012, 08:51:00 AM
I love the notion that because I noted some black people (2 of whom also altered their names) as a quick reply back to the notion that you must sacrifice Western culture when you convert to Islam, that said examples don't really count.
A classic example of the "No True Scotsman" argument. :lol:
Which weird as I thought we'd have gotten beyond those by now.
Well, if you want an example of a white American who converted to Islam who isn't obviously nuts and didn't reject Western value, I guess you could go with Lewis Arquette. I admit that I really don't know anything about him, but if he was nuts, at least he wasn't spectacularly, publicly nuts like, say, Tom Cruise.
Gotta agree, though, that Cat Stevens is probably not a good example, because he does seem to have rejected a lot of Western values.
Oh noes, America apologizes.
QuoteUS spends $70,000 on Pakistan ad denouncing anti-Muslim film
The U.S. has bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video that has sparked violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa.
In the 30-second ad that began running Thursday, Obama says, "Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others."
Clinton appears after Obama and says, "Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
The ad is subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language.
A U.S. seal is also displayed in the video. The comments by Obama and Clinton are from previous public statements and were not taped specifically for the ad.
"It is common and traditional to have to buy air time on Pakistan TV for public service announcements," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2012, 06:05:13 AM
Oh noes, America apologizes.
QuoteUS spends $70,000 on Pakistan ad denouncing anti-Muslim film
The U.S. has bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video that has sparked violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa.
In the 30-second ad that began running Thursday, Obama says, "Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others."
Clinton appears after Obama and says, "Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
The ad is subtitled in Urdu, the main Pakistani language.
A U.S. seal is also displayed in the video. The comments by Obama and Clinton are from previous public statements and were not taped specifically for the ad.
"It is common and traditional to have to buy air time on Pakistan TV for public service announcements," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.
:bleeding:
I'm glad I don't have to vote in the US Presidential Elections - Romney and Obama are doing so much lately to make me hate them.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 12:11:05 AM
Gotta agree, though, that Cat Stevens is probably not a good example, because he does seem to have rejected a lot of Western values.
Indeed, rejecting Western values was the whole point for Stevens.
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 07:10:31 AM
:bleeding:
I'm glad I don't have to vote in the US Presidential Elections - Romney and Obama are doing so much lately to make me hate them.
It's called "outreach". We all know you're about as tolerant as a fag-killing skinhead curb stomping fairy cock smokers in white-laced Dr. Martens, but we try to make friends with people who hate us. It's the higher road.
Quote from: Neil on September 21, 2012, 07:35:59 AM
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 12:11:05 AM
Gotta agree, though, that Cat Stevens is probably not a good example, because he does seem to have rejected a lot of Western values.
Indeed, rejecting Western values was the whole point for Stevens.
This is also the point of the NOI and suggests that is the motive of it's converts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2012, 07:36:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 07:10:31 AM
:bleeding:
I'm glad I don't have to vote in the US Presidential Elections - Romney and Obama are doing so much lately to make me hate them.
It's called "outreach". We all know you're about as tolerant as a fag-killing skinhead curb stomping fairy cock smokers in white-laced Dr. Martens, but we try to make friends with people who hate us. It's the higher road.
but it's so fucking pointless. You really think that it matters? For them, having the video on Youtube is proof that America is out to conquer the world for the Jews. The 70k ad campaign is a clever and shameless plot to hide their true agenda, which is of course conquering the world for Jews.
should have launched the nukes instead.
Great, I can't wait to have these in the subway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2Ff527e76f92b3be1a1b0f6a7067006a8b.jpg&hash=82eefb89217249f4ac2c46768a74370ec631b925)
http://news.yahoo.com/anti-jihad-savage-ads-going-nyc-subway-220228596.html
QuoteA provocative ad that equates Muslim radicals with savages is set to go up in the city's subway system as violent protests over an anti-Islamic film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad sweep over much of the Muslim world.
A conservative blogger who once headed a campaign against an Islamic center near the Sept. 11 terror attack site won a court order to post the ad in 10 subway stations next Monday. The ad reads, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."
The ad was plastered on San Francisco city buses in recent weeks, prompting some artists to deface the ads and remove some of the words, including "Jihad," or holy war. The blogger, Pamela Geller, said she filed suit Thursday in the nation's capital to post the ad in Washington's transit system after officials declined to put up the ad in light of the uproar in the Middle East over the anti-Islam film.
Abdul Yasar, a New York subway rider who considers himself an observant Muslim, said Geller's ad was insensitive in an unsettling climate for Muslims.
"If you don't want to see what happened in Libya and Egypt after the video — maybe not so strong here in America — you shouldn't put this up," Yasar said.
But "if this is a free country, they have the right to do this," he said. "And then Muslims have the right to put up their own ad."
Geller, executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and publisher of a blog called Atlas Shrugs, called an order by a federal judge in New York allowing the ads "a victory for the First Amendment" and said she wasn't concerned that her ad could spark protests like the ones against the depiction of Muslims in the video "Innocence of Muslims." Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya.
"If it's not a film it's a cartoon, if it's not a cartoon it's a teddy bear," she said. "What are you going to do? Are you going to reward Islamic extremism? I will not sacrifice my freedom so as not to offend savages."
New York police aren't anticipating adding any security to subways when the ads go up and have received no threats or reports of violence relating to them, chief spokesman Paul Browne said.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York initially refused to run Geller's ad, saying it was "demeaning." But U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled last month that it is protected speech under the First Amendment.
"Our hands are tied," MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said. "Under our existing ad standards as modified by the injunction, the MTA is required to run the ad."
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, backed publication of the "patently offensive" ads.
"More offensive would be their censorship because that would violate the guarantee of free expression of all ideas regardless of how distasteful they are," she said.
Geller said the subway ads cost about $6,000. Donovan said they will be up for a month.
Opponents say the ads imply that Muslims are savages.
"We recognize the freedom of speech issues and her right to be a bigot and a racist," said Muneer Awad, the executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
But he said he hopes elected officials and the MTA, which runs the nation's largest mass transit system, "take on a leadership role in denouncing hate speech."
Geller, as head of a group called Stop Islamization of America, helped spur a monthslong campaign two years ago to remove a planned Islamic community center blocks from the World Trade Center site, which she called the "ground zero mosque." Plans to build a larger center are pending, although Muslims still have regular prayer services at a mosque in the building.
When the ad ran in San Francisco from Aug. 13 to Sept. 4, transit officials took the unusual step of running disclaimers on the sides of the buses, while some artists painted over "Jihad" or photoshopped pictures that said instead, "Defeat Racism."
Geller's group has also placed ads in Metro-North Railroad stations north of New York City that read: "It's not Islamophobia, it's Islamorealism."
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority hadn't seen Geller's lawsuit on Thursday, spokesman Dan Stessel said. The agency told Geller the ad would be "deferred" because of the ongoing violence in the Middle East, he said.
"To be clear, we have not rejected the ad," Stessel said, but "merely asked the advertiser to be sensitive to the timing of the placement out of a concern for public safety, given current world events."
Saw that yesterday. Should be fun!
I'm sad that the muslims in Laramie haven't rioted, haven't marched, haven't burned flags. Instead they held an inter-faith panel with a priest and a rabbi and talked about tolerance and free speech.
Wyoming muslims must be fake. Maybe it is because their center used to be a nice wooden church that the baptists moved out of (and into a huge pre-fab steel barn on the edge of town).
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 12:11:05 AM
Well, if you want an example of a white American who converted to Islam who isn't obviously nuts and didn't reject Western value, I guess you could go with Lewis Arquette. I admit that I really don't know anything about him, but if he was nuts, at least he wasn't spectacularly, publicly nuts like, say, Tom Cruise.
Gotta agree, though, that Cat Stevens is probably not a good example, because he does seem to have rejected a lot of Western values.
Pretty much all of them. Him changing his name to Yusuf Islam was kind of a strong hint.
Quote from: PDH on September 21, 2012, 08:53:10 AM
I'm sad that the muslims in Laramie haven't rioted, haven't marched, haven't burned flags. Instead they held an inter-faith panel with a priest and a rabbi and talked about tolerance and free speech.
Wyoming muslims must be fake. Maybe it is because their center used to be a nice wooden church that the baptists moved out of (and into a huge pre-fab steel barn on the edge of town).
I think it's probably because they're surrounded by white people with gun racks on their pickups. Gives one pause.
My buddy's muslim wife was barely aware any of it was going on. But then again she eats bacon and ham-- as long as her mom's not around.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 21, 2012, 08:53:10 AM
I'm sad that the muslims in Laramie haven't rioted, haven't marched, haven't burned flags. Instead they held an inter-faith panel with a priest and a rabbi and talked about tolerance and free speech.
Wyoming muslims must be fake. Maybe it is because their center used to be a nice wooden church that the baptists moved out of (and into a huge pre-fab steel barn on the edge of town).
I think it's probably because they're surrounded by white people with gun racks on their pickups. Gives one pause.
Is it possible to be surrounded by people in Wymoing? :huh:
QuoteThe ad was plastered on San Francisco city buses in recent weeks, prompting some artists to deface the ads and remove some of the words, including "Jihad,"
I guess the author leaves it to the reader's intelligence to figure out that this leads the ad to read "Support Israel defeat", which is slightly more than just "removing words".
Quoteor holy war.
I guess this part was succesful as the ad does not seem to include "holy war" expression in it. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2012, 09:10:36 AM
Is it possible to be surrounded by people in Wymoing? :huh:
As long as "surrounded" is loose.
Quote from: PDH on September 21, 2012, 08:53:10 AM
I'm sad that the muslims in Laramie haven't rioted, haven't marched, haven't burned flags. Instead they held an inter-faith panel with a priest and a rabbi and talked about tolerance and free speech.
Considering Laramie is a place where locals crucify, stone and torture gays to death, it could also be that Muslims there feel at home and do not have significant differences with other creeds. :)
Edit: Also it's quite telling that Wyoming does not have legislation targetting anti-gay hate crimes to this day.
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 09:30:40 AM
Considering Laramie is a place where locals crucify, stone and torture gays to death, it could also be that Muslims there feel at home and do not have significant differences with other creeds. :)
Edit: Also it's quite telling that Wyoming does not have legislation targetting anti-gay hate crimes to this day.
You said "gays..." I am sure that the one incident has been replayed a number of times in your mind, but I fail to see how that is a horrible incident that happened to more than one person.
Oh wait, it didn't. You are just a troll.
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 09:22:58 AM
I guess this part was succesful as the ad does not seem to include "holy war" expression in it. :huh:
Do you know how to read? It's pretty clear that the holy war bit was a translation of Jihad.
He knows but this isn't a gay issue so he's trying to cope.
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2012, 09:38:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 09:22:58 AM
I guess this part was succesful as the ad does not seem to include "holy war" expression in it. :huh:
Do you know how to read? It's pretty clear that the holy war bit was a translation of Jihad.
Sorry, didn't realize the author was writing for retards who do not know that. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 09:42:18 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2012, 09:38:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2012, 09:22:58 AM
I guess this part was succesful as the ad does not seem to include "holy war" expression in it. :huh:
Do you know how to read? It's pretty clear that the holy war bit was a translation of Jihad.
Sorry, didn't realize the author was writing for retards who do not know that. :huh:
Not everyone is so well versed in Islamic culture as you. :)
So today 30-50 000 Libyans (in Benghazi alone) marched against extremism and for a unified government. They then stormed a jihadi camp, which they proceeded to burn down. All in retaliation for the killing of an American ambassador. I continue to find Libya extraordinarily surprising.
Caught Frontline's piece on the battle for Syria. Veddy interesink.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/battle-for-syria/#
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2012, 07:31:18 PM
So today 30-50 000 Libyans (in Benghazi alone) marched against extremism and for a unified government. They then stormed a jihadi camp, which they proceeded to burn down. All in retaliation for the killing of an American ambassador. I continue to find Libya extraordinarily surprising.
Arabs that understand the concept of gratitude:
Libyans
Kuwaitis
Done
Again, it's not about you. They liked Stevens. But the real issue in this is about the future of Libya.
Edit: Also, which other Arab peoples have you helped? What should any of them be grateful to the US for?
I thought the Kuwaitis paid for their liberation; didn't the US along with Egypt and Syria even make a profit out of Desert Storm ? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2012, 08:19:16 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2012, 07:31:18 PM
So today 30-50 000 Libyans (in Benghazi alone) marched against extremism and for a unified government. They then stormed a jihadi camp, which they proceeded to burn down. All in retaliation for the killing of an American ambassador. I continue to find Libya extraordinarily surprising.
Arabs that understand the concept of gratitude:
Libyans
Kuwaitis
Done
It's better then the Chinese. The US was giving the Chinese weapons and support and eventually destroyed their enemies, the Japanese, and less then a decade later the Chinese were fight the US in Korea.
I remain optimistic about Libya, though the central government must stand up to the islamist/anti-democratic militias, disarm them and expel foreign Salafists. It could be quite bloody, but better done now than later, then I think Libya has a bright future.
Quote from: mongers on September 21, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
I remain optimistic about Libya, though the central government must stand up to the islamist/anti-democratic militias, disarm them and expel foreign Salafists. It could be quite bloody, but better done now than later, then I think Libya has a bright future.
Thing is, there are so very few of the generation of Libyans left that actually worked closely with the European relationships prior to 1968 that the country's practically starting from scratch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2012, 08:57:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 21, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
I remain optimistic about Libya, though the central government must stand up to the islamist/anti-democratic militias, disarm them and expel foreign Salafists. It could be quite bloody, but better done now than later, then I think Libya has a bright future.
Thing is, there are so very few of the generation of Libyans left that actually worked closely with the European relationships prior to 1968 that the country's practically starting from scratch.
Yeah, my mate was one of the very last British soldiers to leave the country after the coup and he's an old man, though still quite active.
I think a plus is that Gaddafi forced so many people to go into exile during his rule, there's a sizeable exile community of varying ages and western experience, many of whom have gone back to help; certainly the couple I knew have.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 21, 2012, 08:57:11 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 21, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
I remain optimistic about Libya, though the central government must stand up to the islamist/anti-democratic militias, disarm them and expel foreign Salafists. It could be quite bloody, but better done now than later, then I think Libya has a bright future.
Thing is, there are so very few of the generation of Libyans left that actually worked closely with the European relationships prior to 1968 that the country's practically starting from scratch.
As I say I think Libya had the worst violence, but the strongest set of mitigating circumstances. They've not yet got a total central government or security system and, as you say, they're starting from scratch. Add their remarkable response to these riots (from yesterday's protests and government statements to the memorial services for Stevens) and I think they've enough to give the benefit of the doubt.
Libyan mob in Benghazi overrun militia compounds and run Ansar-al-Sharia out of town:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/pro-american-libyans-besiege-militant-group-in-benghazi.html?_r=0
Seems like significant number of Libyans like the US enough and dislike hardline Islamists enough to do something about it.
Quote"We want justice for Chris," read one sign among the group of an estimated 30,000 Libyans, including families, who marched into Benghazi's main square on Friday to protest in front of the main encampment of Ansar al-Sharia. Some held signs reading "The ambassador was Libya's friend" and "Libya lost a friend."
...
Protesters chanted: "You terrorists, you cowards. Go back to Afghanistan."
Incidentally all this shows the power and effectiveness of talented diplomats. Hopefully it may even stop the global gutting of foreign ministries as easy austerity targets :( <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2012, 07:31:18 PM
So today 30-50 000 Libyans (in Benghazi alone) marched against extremism and for a unified government. They then stormed a jihadi camp, which they proceeded to burn down. All in retaliation for the killing of an American ambassador. I continue to find Libya extraordinarily surprising.
Yeah, that's really great news. :)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/africa/libya-benghazi-counter-protest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/world/africa/libya-benghazi-counter-protest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fl1.yimg.com%2Fbt%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FrFEyPnBGyM3y4r7s01VYYA--%2FYXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjcyMTtjcj0xO2N3PTQ0ODM7ZHg9MDtkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTM4MztxPTg1O3c9NjMw%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_us%2FNews%2Fap_webfeeds%2Ffa5c0388ac45d61a1b0f6a70670016cc.jpg&hash=1595a8c179baf649b44eab694d558a19184bb9f1)
Quote from: Jacob on September 21, 2012, 09:22:33 PM
Seems like significant number of Libyans like the US enough and dislike hardline Islamists enough to do something about it.
Amazing what happens with the natives' outlooks when we don't tacitly support nasty authoritarian regimes for decades, unlike you-know-who-next-door.
:(
http://www.france24.com/en/20120920-muammar-gaddafi-rape-weapon-libya-annick-cojean-le-monde-sexual-slavery-harem-abuse-women
Quote'For Gaddafi, rape was a weapon'
A French reporter has published a book of testimonies from women forced into former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's harem. France 24 interviewed the author about the ordeals the women endured and the problems they face in a post-Gaddafi Libya.
By Marc DAOU (text)
Young and beautiful, they were kidnapped, beaten, humiliated and raped by former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
Annick Cojean, a reporter for French daily Le Monde, has gathered testimonies from the women forced into Gaddafi's harem and published them in a book entitled "Les Proies: Dans le harem de Kadhafi" (or "Prey: In Gaddafi's Harem").
The book recounts the experiences of these women, whose lives became a living nightmare after they had the misfortune of catching Gaddafi's eye. One example is Soraya*, who became the Libyan tyrant's sex slave at age 15.
"It was one of my most painful investigations," Cojean confided.
FRANCE 24: Everyone knows Gaddafi as a tyrant, but few knew he was a serial rapist and had sex slaves. Tell us about this side of him.
Annick Cojean: Gaddafi had a harem of women kept in the basement of his residence, in little rooms or apartments. These women, obligated to appear before him in their underwear, could be called at any time of day or night. They were raped, beaten, subjected to the worst kinds of sexual humiliation. For Gaddafi, rape was a weapon ... a way of dominating others -- women, obviously, because it was easy, but also men, by possessing their wives and daughters.
Similarly, he forced some of his ministers to have sex with him. He did the same with certain tribal chiefs, diplomats and military officials over whom he wanted to get the upper hand. We know that Gaddafi, who dreamed of being Africa's "king of kings", had sex with several wives and daughters of African heads of state. Of course, he didn't rape them ... but he lured them with piles of money or sumptuous jewels.
F24: In your book, you describe a network of multiple accomplices beyond Libyan territory. Do you think Gaddafi had anyone helping him recruit women during his official visits to Europe?
A.C.: When he left Libya for short periods, he was accompanied by part of his harem, notably Mabrouka Cherif, a woman who never left his side. She was in charge of supplying him with young women, and sometimes with young men.
When she came to Paris, her principal task was to recruit young women to take them back to Libya. During these Parisian missions, she stayed in a very prestigious hotel on the Champs-Elysées. An important French diplomat once told me that [Mabrouka] was "doing her shopping" in Paris, and that wouldn't be possible without some help from the Libyan embassy. The French authorities must have known something, too, since the dictator's barbaric ways were infamous in the West. But French officials were certainly not aware of everything, because most people didn't know how violently Gaddafi treated these women.
F24: Soraya, the main figure in your investigation, says: "I'd love to build a life in the new Libya. I wonder if it's possible." What are things like in Libya now for the women you interviewed?
A.C.: For the moment, things are horribly difficult for her. She lives in hiding, she doesn't dare leave home, she has cut off ties with her family, who are very ashamed of her. Some of her brothers would like to see her killed, and would be willing to do it themselves in order to purge their shame through an "honour killing". Many people want to portray these women as guilty by association ... but they never chose to be trapped, raped and sequestered. These women are currently terrorised at the thought of their painful secrets being revealed.
F24: How did you convince them to talk?
A.C.: I was extraordinarily lucky to meet these women, because very few of them want to talk. Soraya, notably, had the courage to confide in me, obviously under protection of anonymity.
These women so would have liked to see Gaddafi judged for his crimes one day. Soraya, for example, was angry, because she realised that with Gaddafi dead, she would be forced to keep quiet. Even in the new Libya. You can talk about all of Gaddafi's crimes, all the bad things he did to political prisoners, but it's pretty much forbidden to talk about what he did to women. Rape and anything having to do with sex is such a taboo in Libya. Consequently, these women would rather not talk, because they have everything to lose. That's why an investigation like this is necessary: so that one day the guilty and their accomplices are punished.
*A pseudonym used in the book.
Strongmen lead such cool lives. Shorter than usual sometimes, but I'd take 69 Qaddafi years over 98 Ken Starr years.
Supplying him with young men?
Quote from: garbon on September 21, 2012, 11:31:45 PM
Supplying him with young men?
Ken Starr was into young men?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2012, 08:22:25 PM
Again, it's not about you. They liked Stevens. But the real issue in this is about the future of Libya.
Edit: Also, which other Arab peoples have you helped? What should any of them be grateful to the US for?
The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them. They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.
The rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.
I'm going to say I personally didn't help any of those people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:35:39 AM
The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them.
Well let's balance that against eighty years of them being crushed by the House of Saud and call it a wash in terms of thankfulness.
Quote
They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.
Again that has to be balanced against forty years of oppression and it seems to rather be taking the credit for the Egyptian revolution. So I don't think this example stands up either.
QuoteThe rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.
You talked about Arab gratitude. My point is that, with the exception of Libya, I can't think of a single Arab nation who should feel grateful towards the US. That area's like your Warsaw Pact.
As an aside I think natural disaster aid's a bit weak too. By that measure the world should feel very grateful to the EU.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:35:39 AM
The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them.
Well let's balance that against eighty years of them being crushed by the House of Saud and call it a wash in terms of thankfulness.
I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.
Arguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.
If every international issue revolves about how what the US did or should have done then you are deliberately obfuscating the issues on the ground.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
Quote
They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.
Again that has to be balanced against forty years of oppression and it seems to rather be taking the credit for the Egyptian revolution. So I don't think this example stands up either.
Same as above. The Egyptians themselves created the Free Officer Regime, not the US. Apparently the US is to blame for every action by every dictatorship it isn't actively trying to overthrow while at the same time it is imperialistic when it tries to overthrow said dictatorships.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
QuoteThe rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.
You talked about Arab gratitude. My point is that, with the exception of Libya, I can't think of a single Arab nation who should feel grateful towards the US. That area's like your Warsaw Pact.
As an aside I think natural disaster aid's a bit weak too. By that measure the world should feel very grateful to the EU.
Saving Egypt in 1956 sort of stands out as the kind of actual principled altruistic deed that should be remembered. Threatening to screw over your most important ally in the world to help Egypt nationalize the Suez Canal?
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 07:34:20 AM
I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
QuoteArguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.
I doubt anybody but the most Weeniest of the EUOT Euroweenie faggot meatbags actually believe the latter part of your argument anyway.
Meh, selling Saddam a few weapons in the late 70s when he was a bona fide Soviet state client isn't the same as stabilizing the House of Saud through both military and economic means; it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2012, 01:40:45 AM
Quote from: garbon link=topic=8379:.msg477928#msg477928 date=1348288305
Supplying him with young men?
He's dead, man.
I see your accusation and resent it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 07:34:20 AM
I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
People spend most of their lives making up excuses to convince themselves that they are good, competent, decent people. I don't expect the Arabs to be any different. This might be how it is seen but we are not complicit for the simple reason that we are not responsible for the evil acts of others.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
QuoteArguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.
I doubt anybody but the most Weeniest of the EUOT Euroweenie faggot meatbags actually believe the latter part of your argument anyway.
Meh, selling Saddam a few weapons in the late 70s when he was a bona fide Soviet state client isn't the same as stabilizing the House of Saud through both military and economic means; it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.
1 - the US did not sell Saddam any weapons, his weapons were Eastern Bloc, French and South African.
2 - Saudi nationalized Aramco in 1980.
The saudis were stabilizing themselves and no military presence was there until the first gulf war. There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.
But to sum up.
The Moral Equivalency argument is immoral and the facts backing it up are untrue.
I might respond later, when I've a laptop, but I don't see anything in what you've posted that suggests Arabs should feel gratitude to the US which is what we were talking about. Most Europeans, big chunks of East Asia, Africa - yes, there's a claim there. From Arab peoples, not so much.
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:07:10 AM
People spend most of their lives making up excuses to convince themselves that they are good, competent, decent people. I don't expect the Arabs to be any different. This might be how it is seen but we are not complicit for the simple reason that we are not responsible for the evil acts of others.
Yeah, well it doesn't work that way, now does it?
Quote
1 - the US did not sell Saddam any weapons, his weapons were Eastern Bloc, French and South African.
2 - Saudi nationalized Aramco in 1980.
The saudis were stabilizing themselves and no military presence was there until the first gulf war. There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.
1. Yeah, funneling them munitions through the Saudi pipeline doesn't really count. NO RECEIPTS LULZ
2. I wrote it past tense "like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades" for a reason. You do remember the 1970's when the peninsula was swarming with Americans and Euros, right? The Arabians do.
QuoteBut to sum up.
The Moral Equivalency argument is immoral and the facts backing it up are untrue.
Good luck trying to get your average Arab knucklehead to buy that one. Moonworshippers can't handle cartoons, for fuck's sake.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 08:17:59 AM
I might respond later, when I've a laptop, but I don't see anything in what you've posted that suggests Arabs should feel gratitude to the US which is what we were talking about. Most Europeans, big chunks of East Asia, Africa - yes, there's a claim there. From Arab peoples, not so much.
Well, the independence of Egypt and possession of the Suez Canal for one.
I think that's your one relevant point. But I think historical distance, subsequent history and national myth gets in the way, you may as well ask Britain to be grateful over the war. As I say I'm away from a laptop so I can't respond fully.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 08:40:27 AM
I think that's your one relevant point. But I think historical distance, subsequent history and national myth gets in the way, you may as well ask Britain to be grateful over the war. As I say I'm away from a laptop so I can't respond fully.
It is relevant. The Palestinians are obsessing about something that happened even longer ago than that, The russians and chinese still have mongol issues to this day. I challenge you to name one act by one nation towards another in human history that was as altruistic and as effective as that one. I also challenge you to find a people on this planet that hates any other country or people more (israel excepted) than the arabs hate the US.
BTW, I am fucking grateful to all the allies for WWII. Even if they did it for selfish reasons or did so involuntarily.
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:51:36 AM
I also challenge you to find a people on this planet that hates any other country or people more (israel excepted) than the arabs hate the US.
Canadians hate us more. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
We can, however, mock western knuckleheads who say the same things even though they should know better.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 22, 2012, 09:53:53 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
We can, however, mock western knuckleheads who say the same things even though they should know better.
By all means, enjoy your Arab street education outreach program. I'm sure they'll appreciate your efforts in explaining how the Hosni's oppression for decades with US equipment, or the Star of David painted on American military hardware, is "just business".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:00:47 AM
the Star of David painted on American military hardware, is "just business".
Well, there's the real issue most Arabs have with the US, ain't it now. Take away US support for Isreal, and 99% of the reasons that many Arabs hate us goes away. The US supported more unpleasant regimes in Latin America for far longer than in the Arab world (and propped those Latin American regimes up more directly, and in some cases actually created them--which we get accused of sometimes in the Middle East, but the only regime we can honestly be accused of helping create there is the Shah's in Iran, which of course isn't an Arab nation), yet, while certainly the US is unpopular with a lot of people in Latin America, there's not the outright hatred of us there that you find in many Arab states.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 21, 2012, 07:31:18 PM
So today 30-50 000 Libyans (in Benghazi alone) marched against extremism and for a unified government. They then stormed a jihadi camp, which they proceeded to burn down. All in retaliation for the killing of an American ambassador. I continue to find Libya extraordinarily surprising.
Only Arabs can burn a building down as a sign of protest against violence. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:35:39 AM
They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.
This reminds me of an old Soviet era joke:
Q: How can you tell Comrade Stalin was a magnanimous, benevolent man when he gave candy to a starving girl?
A: He could have gutted her instead.
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 01:35:39 AM
The Saudis and the Gulf states should be thankful we prevented Saddam from steamrolling them.
Well let's balance that against eighty years of them being crushed by the House of Saud and call it a wash in terms of thankfulness.
I don't accept the premise that anybody can be blamed for letting them do something like that to themselves. The constant nauseating arguments that assert that by making deals with and conducting diplomacy with nasty dictatorships somehow makes "us" culpible for every single act of that dictatorship. That is flipping responsibility on it's head. The House of Saud is oppressing Saudi Arabia, the US is not. The US is making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi Government.
Arguments of this kind are always immoral since they are never honestly made about the country in question, they are always about the local politics of the person making the argument. The height of such immorality came when the US was accused of proping up saddam for years when he was evil and then when the US wanted to topple him the US was told that since it had "created" him it had no moral standing to remove him.
If every international issue revolves about how what the US did or should have done then you are deliberately obfuscating the issues on the ground.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
Quote
They Egyptians should be thankful we told Hosni it was time to go.
Again that has to be balanced against forty years of oppression and it seems to rather be taking the credit for the Egyptian revolution. So I don't think this example stands up either.
Same as above. The Egyptians themselves created the Free Officer Regime, not the US. Apparently the US is to blame for every action by every dictatorship it isn't actively trying to overthrow while at the same time it is imperialistic when it tries to overthrow said dictatorships.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
QuoteThe rest are Muslims but not Arabs: Bosnia we saved from the Serbs, Somalia we tried to save from anarchy, Pakistan and Indonesia we helped save from Mother Nature.
You talked about Arab gratitude. My point is that, with the exception of Libya, I can't think of a single Arab nation who should feel grateful towards the US. That area's like your Warsaw Pact.
As an aside I think natural disaster aid's a bit weak too. By that measure the world should feel very grateful to the EU.
Saving Egypt in 1956 sort of stands out as the kind of actual principled altruistic deed that should be remembered. Threatening to screw over your most important ally in the world to help Egypt nationalize the Suez Canal?
I don't think anyone here is advancing an argument that the US is somehow particularly evil for pursuing its interests in the region.
I think people are disputing the preposterous claim by Yi that the actions of the US are something Arabs should be grateful for.
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:51:36 AM
The Palestinians are obsessing about something that happened even longer ago than that
Are you for fucking real? Are you saying that if a period of perceived oppression and injustice starts 70 years ago and continues to this day, it should be viewed as something that happened 70 years ago and has no modern relevance? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
Well, there's the real issue most Arabs have with the US, ain't it now. Take away US support for Isreal, and 99% of the reasons that many Arabs hate us goes away. The US supported more unpleasant regimes in Latin America for far longer than in the Arab world (and propped those Latin American regimes up more directly, and in some cases actually created them--which we get accused of sometimes in the Middle East, but the only regime we can honestly be accused of helping create there is the Shah's in Iran, which of course isn't an Arab nation), yet, while certainly the US is unpopular with a lot of people in Latin America, there's not the outright hatred of us there that you find in many Arab states.
I'd say, maybe 66% would go away. :P
Comparing US foreign policy in South America versus the Muddled East is United Fruit apples and oranges, though. For a variety of reasons, namely a history of spells of positive engagement. There's a reason most Latin American capitals have a boulevard named for Roosevelt.
And they're predominantly members of a real religion, not moon worshippers. Nor have their populaces suffered from the sheer ignorance that your average Muddled Easterner suffers under.
Quote from: Martinus on September 22, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:51:36 AM
The Palestinians are obsessing about something that happened even longer ago than that
Are you for fucking real? Are you saying that if a period of perceived oppression and injustice starts 70 years ago and continues to this day, it should be viewed as something that happened 70 years ago and has no modern relevance? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Fuck 70 years ago; Muslim hang-ups go back to the Abrahamic covenant.
Catholicism is somewhere in between the barbaric nature of Islam and proper, advanced religions like Protestantism. But it's closer to civilization than not.
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 10:00:47 AM
the Star of David painted on American military hardware, is "just business".
Well, there's the real issue most Arabs have with the US, ain't it now. Take away US support for Isreal, and 99% of the reasons that many Arabs hate us goes away. The US supported more unpleasant regimes in Latin America for far longer than in the Arab world (and propped those Latin American regimes up more directly, and in some cases actually created them--which we get accused of sometimes in the Middle East, but the only regime we can honestly be accused of helping create there is the Shah's in Iran, which of course isn't an Arab nation), yet, while certainly the US is unpopular with a lot of people in Latin America, there's not the outright hatred of us there that you find in many Arab states.
This is not the case. The problem is not a case of protesting US support for Arab enemies.
The fundamental problem is that the regular arab when he looks around the world he sees that his country and the arab world is poorer, less developed and weaker than the countries he likes to consider his equal. Arab societies have failed to produce successful states and empires. A small european style country like Israel can not only stand up to equal sized arab states, but completely dominate arab states with 10 times its own population. To the arab mind (or any other mind really) requires an explanation. They do not understand what free markets, religious freedom and politcial freedom are, what consequences they have and what they mean for society, politics, economy and the military. There are arabs and turks (kemalists) who understand this but they are few and usually ignored. It is much easier for the regular arab to think that "somebody did this to us". The regular arab in the street will harken back to the chaliphate and think that the arab world can dominate and should and naturally is easily enamoured by the idea of a "dolchstoss" that the arab world was somehow cheated out of it's natural place as the world superpower (as promised by god and the koran). These people will look for conspiracies, traitors and dastarly underhanded and unfair dealings by the arab world's rivals and enemies. This is why the 3 billion us support to israel in an economy of 250 billion somehow, supposedly takes a weak minnow and makes it a superpower. Another faction in the arab world will take the same approach as the jews of the old testament did when confronting conquest and occupation (after god supposedly gave them the land), they claimed that this was punishment for not following the law. This is bin Laden's explanation, in OBL's mind the whole thing started in 1924 (as if the muslim world was powerful in 1924) when Ataturk abolished the Caliphate. Abandoning true islam(tm) is the cause for the arab world's failure.
So the don't hate the US for what it does, but rather for what it is, the world's sole superpower. The Salafists who think that the arab world has stopped following the koran belive that the good muslim must fight the infidel who does not surrender.
They hate the US and Israel because they expose the weakness and patheticness of the arab world.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 11:13:22 AM
Catholicism is somewhere in between the barbaric nature of Islam and proper, advanced religions like Protestantism. But it's closer to civilization than not.
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:04:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 22, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:51:36 AM
The Palestinians are obsessing about something that happened even longer ago than that
Are you for fucking real? Are you saying that if a period of perceived oppression and injustice starts 70 years ago and continues to this day, it should be viewed as something that happened 70 years ago and has no modern relevance? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Fuck 70 years ago; Muslim hang-ups go back to the Abrahamic covenant.
Mama Hagar, why does Father Abraham not love me? Why does he prefer Sarah and Isak to us?
Quote from: Martinus on September 22, 2012, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:51:36 AM
The Palestinians are obsessing about something that happened even longer ago than that
Are you for fucking real? Are you saying that if a period of perceived oppression and injustice starts 70 years ago and continues to this day, it should be viewed as something that happened 70 years ago and has no modern relevance? :lol: :lol: :lol:
No. Please re-read what I said. Sheilbh says Suez happened too long ago to matter, I said, it should matter, see all these people obsessing about things that happened longer ago than suez. I am for fucking real, you, however, can't or won't read.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 11:13:22 AM
Catholicism is somewhere in between the barbaric nature of Islam and proper, advanced religions like Protestantism. But it's closer to civilization than not.
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
It believes in indoctrination.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
So reading the bible oneself doesn't lead to heretical thoughts anymore?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2012, 11:28:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
So reading the bible oneself doesn't lead to heretical thoughts anymore?
Sola Scriptura
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2012, 11:28:33 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
So reading the bible oneself doesn't lead to heretical thoughts anymore?
Only if it involves whipped cream.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 11:13:22 AM
Catholicism is somewhere in between the barbaric nature of Islam and proper, advanced religions like Protestantism. But it's closer to civilization than not.
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
I wouldn't go that far. After all, Catholic 'education' was devastating to Catholic Europe.
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 11:13:22 AM
Catholicism is somewhere in between the barbaric nature of Islam and proper, advanced religions like Protestantism. But it's closer to civilization than not.
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
I wouldn't go that far. After all, Catholic 'education' was devastating to Catholic Europe.
Protestant ignorance has been devastating to the US.
Protestant education and enlightenment was the torch that lead humanity out of the dark ages. :blink:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 12:33:56 PM
Protestant ignorance has been devastating to the US.
Nah, America's done pretty well for herself.
Quote from: Jaron on September 22, 2012, 12:49:19 PM
Protestant education and enlightenment was the torch that lead humanity out of the dark ages. :blink:
I didn't know there were Protestants in the 11th century.
In my opinion, the Dark Ages lasted until the Reformation. ;) The Catholic Church casts a long shadow.
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 11:17:50 AM
No. Please re-read what I said. Sheilbh says Suez happened too long ago to matter, I said, it should matter, see all these people obsessing about things that happened longer ago than suez. I am for fucking real, you, however, can't or won't read.
You should re-read what I said and the comparison I made. I think you've a point on Suez, but it happened a couple of generations ago and has been followed by forty years of support for authoritarianism. In addition the national myth about Suez emphasises the success of Arab nationalism over both Israel and the old colonial powers, given that both the US and USSR roles are not going to attract gratitude.
As I say it's like Britain and the war. It was a long time ago and our national myth, especially during the decline of Empire, is about 'very well then, alone'. A British view of the war covers the Blitz, the Battle of Britain and El-Alamein, not lend-lease. Because of that and because the war's rather wrapped up in British patriotism it's not a subject British people are likely to feel grateful about.
Quote from: Jaron on September 22, 2012, 01:55:51 PM
In my opinion, the Dark Ages lasted until the Reformation. ;) The Catholic Church casts a long shadow.
Good thing you've moved on from teaching.
Has he though. I think he's angling to be on the faculty at BYU someday.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 03:39:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 11:17:50 AM
No. Please re-read what I said. Sheilbh says Suez happened too long ago to matter, I said, it should matter, see all these people obsessing about things that happened longer ago than suez. I am for fucking real, you, however, can't or won't read.
You should re-read what I said and the comparison I made. I think you've a point on Suez, but it happened a couple of generations ago and has been followed by forty years of support for authoritarianism. In addition the national myth about Suez emphasises the success of Arab nationalism over both Israel and the old colonial powers, given that both the US and USSR roles are not going to attract gratitude.
So you are saying what is done and when doesn't matter the only thing that matters is how the arabs represent what happened and they will always represent it in the manner producing least cognitive dissonance. If so then we agree. The Egyptians should be fucking grateful for 1956; a british/french owned suez canal backed by israeli military force would have been a complete manifest disaster for egypt in general. If they are not it is because they don't know their own history. This is a people that thinks it won the 1973 war and pretends the 1967 one didn't happen.
But it seems we have a consensus. Country are rarely grateful for anything. As Fouad Ajami said of Hamid Karzai, "don't expect gratitude in the hindu kush".
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 03:39:42 PM
As I say it's like Britain and the war. It was a long time ago and our national myth, especially during the decline of Empire, is about 'very well then, alone'. A British view of the war covers the Blitz, the Battle of Britain and El-Alamein, not lend-lease. Because of that and because the war's rather wrapped up in British patriotism it's not a subject British people are likely to feel grateful about.
The myth is what matters the truth doesn't. What the USA does or does not do is almost incidental since how it is portrayed that matters. The actions of the USA and Israel are always protrayed as evil as possible regardless of what they do. The US gets blamed for what the dictator does AND it gets blamed for trying to overthrow him. There are no good actions that would satisfy the arabs. The very nature of US power and wealth is in and of it self insulting.
"Support for authoritarian regimes" seems to consist for the most part of recognizing a state diplomatically and conducting commerce with them. By that token every country in the world (that I know of) has been "supporting authoritarian regimes" in the Middle East. Do the people there have a legitimate grievance with the whole world? Do the people of Cuba have a legitimate grievance with the whole world except the US?
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 04:23:53 PM
The myth is what matters the truth doesn't. What the USA does or does not do is almost incidental since how it is portrayed that matters. The actions of the USA and Israel are always protrayed as evil as possible regardless of what they do. The US gets blamed for what the dictator does AND it gets blamed for trying to overthrow him. There are no good actions that would satisfy the arabs. The very nature of US power and wealth is in and of it self insulting.
I wouldn't oppose myth and truth. A myth is true, it's the way we explain our histories to ourselves and that matters because it influences our values and the society we are even if it isn't a nuanced academic history. I always think of the Reformation, it's only in the last fifty years that a more accurate picture's emerged. That it wasn't necessarily popular, it wasn't a moment of English liberation and that Henry was a tyrant. But I don't think you can easily understand lots of subsequent English history without knowing the myth of the Reformation. Suez is, to Egypt, what freedom at midnight is to India. It's the moment they defeated the old colonial powers and asserted their own national independence. That they did it themselves is the useful myth though it is inaccurate because it misses the Cold War angle which was crucial.
Aside from that I think your view is racism laced with cod anthropology and bullshit philosophising, reasoning with yourself to reach your determined conclusions. The Libyans and Kuwaitis have reason to be grateful to the Us and in Libya 54% have a positive opinion of the US and US leadership. I think most Arabs have no reason to be grateful.
I'm incidentally not. Criticising US policy in general. They wanted stability, containment and security for Israel which were all sensible goals. That was delivered by supporting friendly regimes. But don't follow that policy and then expect the people to thank you.
Apparently the Libyan government's taking advantage of the popular feeling, they're forcing extremist militias out of their bases across the country. Impressive use of the momentum.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2012, 04:31:58 PM
"Support for authoritarian regimes" seems to consist for the most part of recognizing a state diplomatically and conducting commerce with them. By that token every country in the world (that I know of) has been "supporting authoritarian regimes" in the Middle East. Do the people there have a legitimate grievance with the whole world? Do the people of Cuba have a legitimate grievance with the whole world except the US?
And extensive military aid to say Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Egypt and Bahrain. Also security services cooperation. So it's closer to Russia and Cuba than Canada. As I say for the last sixty years I think it's been a fair policy but expecting gratitude seems a bit much.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 04:46:33 PM
And extensive military aid to say Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Egypt and Bahrain. Also security services cooperation. So it's closer to Russia and Cuba than Canada. As I say for the last sixty years I think it's been a fair policy but expecting gratitude seems a bit much.
Military "aid" to Saudi and Bahrain? We give them free money??
Jordan I agree is the one true client state in the region. It also happens to have one of the most popular governments.
Aid in exchange for bases and cooperation historically. Which'll reassure everyone in Jeddah.
I don't know about the popularity of the government (and I love a Hashemite) but according to Pew Jordan tends to be one of the most anti-American and anti-west countries in the region.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 04:41:49 PM
Aside from that I think your view is racism laced with cod anthropology and bullshit philosophising,
You can take your copy of Orientalism and shove it up your ass. Bernard Lewis is not a "cod" anthropologist or a bullshit philosopher. I don't discuss with people who discuss with racists, so I won't be discussing anything with you until you retract your accusation and apologize for calling me a racist. This is unacceptable behavior on your part.
If I were a pansy and on another forum I'd report you to a mod for that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
I'll bookmark this passage for when anyone asks me what a self-hating American sounds like.
By your logic, the US is complicit in every eveil regime and evil deed since 1776, because the US didn't stop it. Of course, every other country is equally complicit, so you get to diffuse responsibility away from the people actually committing the acts.
QuoteMeh, selling Saddam a few weapons in the late 70s when he was a bona fide Soviet state client isn't the same as stabilizing the House of Saud through both military and economic means; it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.
The US didn't sell Saddam any weapons.
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
the only regime we can honestly be accused of helping create there is the Shah's in Iran
The US didn't create "the Shah's" regime in Iran. :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 03:39:42 PM
In addition the national myth about Suez emphasises the success of Arab nationalism over both Israel and the old colonial powers, given that both the US and USSR roles are not going to attract gratitude.
So the Arabs are not grateful even when they should be? That was Yi's point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 04:41:49 PM
They wanted stability, containment and security for Israel which were all sensible goals. That was delivered by supporting friendly regimes. But don't follow that policy and then expect the people to thank you.
I agree with this for the most part. However, the US government criticized even those "friendly" governments when they enacted oppressive measures. That the criticism was much milder than it was for similar measures by "unfriendly" governments (and remained verbal rather than via action) is certainly enough to give pause to anyone thinking the US was altruistic in the region.
I think that Yi's point is that the US gets little or no credit in the Arab world for those times it
did act in the interests of the Arabs, because it is easier for uneducated or undereducated Arabs (as so many others) to see the world in black and white.
I don't think this will change any time soon.
Quote from: grumbler on September 22, 2012, 05:14:52 PM
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
the only regime we can honestly be accused of helping create there is the Shah's in Iran
The US didn't create "the Shah's" regime in Iran. :huh:
You may have been there, but the US government admitted that it did it. So, no, the US participated in "helping create ... the Shah's [regime] in Iran".
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 22, 2012, 07:14:39 AM
You talked about Arab gratitude. My point is that, with the exception of Libya, I can't think of a single Arab nation who should feel grateful towards the US. That area's like your Warsaw Pact.
Kuwait?
Quote from: grumbler on September 22, 2012, 05:09:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
I'll bookmark this passage for when anyone asks me what a self-hating American sounds like.
By your logic, the US is complicit in every eveil regime and evil deed since 1776, because the US didn't stop it. Of course, every other country is equally complicit, so you get to diffuse responsibility away from the people actually committing the acts.
So the US hasn't had a nasty public relations problem in the Middle East, and with the average Egyptian in particular, for the last several decades. Everything's just peachy over there. Roger that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 06:40:16 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 22, 2012, 05:09:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 07:55:36 AM
We are complicit in that oppression, and that's the way it's going to be seen. Just like the "Palestinian Street" sees the Israelis suppressing the Palestinians with American-made Apaches, your average Arabian knucklehead in Riyahd isn't going to make the distinction "oh, it's just the US government making diplomatic and military deals with the Saudi government" when they're getting the business end of an American-made M-16 to the head.
You seem to ascribe the same level of education and knowledge of current events that you have to the average Arab knucklehead. That would be incorrect.
I'll bookmark this passage for when anyone asks me what a self-hating American sounds like.
By your logic, the US is complicit in every eveil regime and evil deed since 1776, because the US didn't stop it. Of course, every other country is equally complicit, so you get to diffuse responsibility away from the people actually committing the acts.
So the US hasn't had a nasty public relations problem in the Middle East, and with the average Egyptian in particular, for the last several decades. Everything's just peachy over there. Roger that.
I don't think anybody denies we have a PR problem there; the question is how deservedly so.
Quote from: dps on September 22, 2012, 08:40:32 PM
I don't think anybody denies we have a PR problem there; the question is how deservedly so.
And my argument is not whether it's deserved or not, but how it appears to the average dune coon under Saudi and Egyptian not-so-nice guys. But apparently I'm apologizing for America or something.
Going to have to go with Viking with this. The Arabs are a very proud people with a superiority complex. They are simply envious of American power.
Egypt's President speaks:
QuoteCAIRO — On the eve of his first trip to the United States as Egypt's new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi said the United States needed to fundamentally change its approach to the Arab world, showing greater respect for its values and helping build a Palestinian state, if it hoped to overcome decades of pent-up anger.
A former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt's first democratically elected president, Mr. Morsi sought in a 90-minute interview with The New York Times to introduce himself to the American public and to revise the terms of relations between his country and the United States after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, an autocratic but reliable ally.
He said it was up to Washington to repair relations with the Arab world and to revitalize the alliance with Egypt, long a cornerstone of regional stability.
If Washington is asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, he said, Washington should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian self-rule. He said the United States must respect the Arab world's history and culture, even when that conflicts with Western values.
And he dismissed criticism from the White House that he did not move fast enough to condemn protesters who recently climbed over the United States Embassy wall and burned the American flag in anger over a video that mocked the Prophet Muhammad.
"We took our time" in responding to avoid an explosive backlash, he said, but then dealt "decisively" with the small, violent element among the demonstrators.
"We can never condone this kind of violence, but we need to deal with the situation wisely," he said, noting that the embassy employees were never in danger.
Mr. Morsi, who will travel to New York on Sunday for a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly, arrives at a delicate moment. He faces political pressure at home to prove his independence, but demands from the West for reassurance that Egypt under Islamist rule will remain a stable partner.
Mr. Morsi, 61, whose office was still adorned with nautical paintings that Mr. Mubarak left behind, said the United States should not expect Egypt to live by its rules.
"If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment," he said. "When the Egyptians decide something, probably it is not appropriate for the U.S. When the Americans decide something, this, of course, is not appropriate for Egypt."
He suggested that Egypt would not be hostile to the West, but would not be as compliant as Mr. Mubarak either.
"Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region," he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians.
He initially sought to meet with President Obama at the White House during his visit this week, but he received a cool reception, aides to both presidents said. Mindful of the complicated election-year politics of a visit with Egypt's Islamist leader, Mr. Morsi dropped his request.
His silence in the immediate aftermath of the embassy protest elicited a tense telephone call from Mr. Obama, who also told a television interviewer that at that moment he did not consider Egypt an ally, if not an enemy either. When asked if he considered the United States an ally, Mr. Morsi answered in English, "That depends on your definition of ally," smiling at his deliberate echo of Mr. Obama. But he said he envisioned the two nations as "real friends."
Mr. Morsi spoke in an ornate palace that Mr. Mubarak inaugurated three decades ago, a world away from the Nile Delta farm where the new president grew up, or the prison cells where he had been confined by Mr. Mubarak for his role in the Brotherhood. Three months after his swearing-in, the most noticeable change to the presidential office was a plaque on his desk bearing the Koranic admonition, "Be conscious of a day on which you will return to God."
A stocky figure with a trim beard and wire-rim glasses, he earned a doctorate in materials science at the University of Southern California in the early 1980s. He spoke with an easy confidence in his new authority, reveling in an approval rating he said was at 70 percent. When he grew animated, he slipped from Arabic into crisp English.
Little known at home or abroad until just a few months ago, he was the Brotherhood's second choice as a presidential nominee after the first choice was disqualified. On the night of the election, the generals who had ruled since Mr. Mubarak's ouster issued a decree keeping most presidential powers for themselves.
But last month Mr. Morsi confounded all expectations by prying full executive authority back from the generals. In the interview, when an interpreter suggested that the generals had "decided" to exit politics, Mr. Morsi quickly corrected him.
"No, no, it is not that they 'decided' to do it," he interjected in English, determined to clarify that it was he who removed them. "This is the will of the Egyptian people through the elected president, right?
"The president of the Arab Republic of Egypt is the commander of the armed forces, full stop. Egypt now is a real civil state. It is not theocratic, it is not military. It is democratic, free, constitutional, lawful and modern."
He added, "We are behaving according to the Egyptian people's choice and will, nothing else — is it clear?"
He praised Mr. Obama for moving "decisively and quickly" to support the Arab Spring revolutions, and he said he believed that Americans supported "the right of the people of the region to enjoy the same freedoms that Americans have."
Arabs and Americans have "a shared objective, each to live free in their own land, according to their customs and values, in a fair and democratic fashion," he said, adding that he hoped for "a harmonious, peaceful coexistence."
But he also argued that Americans "have a special responsibility" for the Palestinians because the United States had signed the 1978 Camp David accord. The agreement called for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank and Gaza to make way for full Palestinian self-rule.
"As long as peace and justice are not fulfilled for the Palestinians, then the treaty remains unfulfilled," he said.
He made no apologies for his roots in the Brotherhood, the insular religious revival group that was Mr. Mubarak's main opposition and now dominates Egyptian politics.
"I grew up with the Muslim Brotherhood," he said. "I learned my principles in the Muslim Brotherhood. I learned how to love my country with the Muslim Brotherhood. I learned politics with the Brotherhood. I was a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood."
He left the group when he took office but remains a member of its political party. But he said he sees "absolutely no conflict" between his loyalty to the Brotherhood and his vows to govern on behalf of all, including members of the Christian minority or those with more secular views.
"I prove my independence by taking the correct acts for my country," he said. "If I see something good from the Muslim Brotherhood, I will take it. If I see something better in the Wafd" — Egypt's oldest liberal party — "I will take it."
He repeatedly vowed to uphold equal citizenship rights of all Egyptians, regardless of religion, sex or class. But he stood by the religious arguments he once made as a Brotherhood leader that neither a woman nor a Christian would be a suitable president.
"We are talking about values, beliefs, cultures, history, reality," he said. He said the Islamic position on presidential eligibility was a matter for Muslim scholars to decide, not him. But regardless of his own views or the Brotherhood's, he said, civil law was another matter.
"I will not prevent a woman from being nominated as a candidate for the presidential campaign," he said. "This is not in the Constitution. This is not in the law. But if you want to ask me if I will vote for her or not, that is something else, that is different."
He was also eager to reminisce about his taste of American culture as a graduate student at the University of Southern California. "Go, Trojans!" he said, and he remembered learning about the world from Barbara Walters in the morning and Walter Cronkite at night. "And that's the way it is!" Mr. Morsi said with a smile.
But he also displayed some ambivalence. He effused about his admiration for American work habits, punctuality and time management. But when an interpreter said that Mr. Morsi had "learned a lot" in the United States, he quickly interjected a qualifier in English: "Scientifically!"
He was troubled by the gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles, he said, and dismayed by the West's looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called "naked restaurants," like Hooters.
"I don't admire that," he said. "But that is the society. They are living their way."
And strip malls.
Quote"Successive American administrations essentially purchased with American taxpayer money the dislike, if not the hatred, of the peoples of the region," he said, by backing dictatorial governments over popular opposition and supporting Israel over the Palestinians.
This is a mistake we perhaps should not repeat with the current administration.
Egypt can be America's India.
The only question I guess, and this was quite predictable: will the new Egyptian dictator stick to just sabre-rattling against israel to maintain his power, or he will be stupid/desperate enough to trigger a war? If the former, will he be able to control the level of tension?
QuoteHe was troubled by the gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles, he said, and dismayed by the West's looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called "naked restaurants," like Hooters.
MIND YER OWN GODDAMNED BUSINESS
Quote from: Razgovory on September 22, 2012, 12:33:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 22, 2012, 11:14:09 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 22, 2012, 11:13:22 AM
Catholicism is somewhere in between the barbaric nature of Islam and proper, advanced religions like Protestantism. But it's closer to civilization than not.
At least it believes in education, whereas neither Islam or Protestantism do not.
I wouldn't go that far. After all, Catholic 'education' was devastating to Catholic Europe.
Protestant ignorance has been devastating to the US.
Not really. Economics has been a far more important factor in American stagnation than religion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2012, 04:53:09 PM
QuoteHe was troubled by the gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles, he said, and dismayed by the West's looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called "naked restaurants," like Hooters.
MIND YER OWN GODDAMNED BUSINESS
That's as bad as insulting Mohammed. Hooters is our Mohammed. :ultra:
Quote from: Jaron on September 23, 2012, 02:39:46 PM
Egypt can be America's India.
No comprendo. Que significa?
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2012, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 22, 2012, 01:55:51 PM
In my opinion, the Dark Ages lasted until the Reformation. ;) The Catholic Church casts a long shadow.
Good thing you've moved on from teaching.
Considering that the beginning of protestantism is one of the four dates considered by scholars to be the border point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I don't really see what is so controversial in what he said. :huh:
The other three are the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the birth Dionysius II and the moon landing.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2012, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 22, 2012, 01:55:51 PM
In my opinion, the Dark Ages lasted until the Reformation. ;) The Catholic Church casts a long shadow.
Good thing you've moved on from teaching.
Considering that the beginning of protestantism is one of the four dates considered by scholars to be the border point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I don't really see what is so controversial in what he said. :huh:
garbon just enjoys nitpicking. He knows what I said was meant to be somewhat whimsical.
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
You may have been there, but the US government admitted that it did it. So, no, the US participated in "helping create ... the Shah's [regime] in Iran".
Link?
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 05:10:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
You may have been there, but the US government admitted that it did it. So, no, the US participated in "helping create ... the Shah's [regime] in Iran".
Link?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Quote from: Jaron on September 24, 2012, 01:54:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2012, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 22, 2012, 01:55:51 PM
In my opinion, the Dark Ages lasted until the Reformation. ;) The Catholic Church casts a long shadow.
Good thing you've moved on from teaching.
Considering that the beginning of protestantism is one of the four dates considered by scholars to be the border point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I don't really see what is so controversial in what he said. :huh:
garbon just enjoys nitpicking. He knows what I said was meant to be somewhat whimsical.
But apparently Marti did not.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 05:33:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 05:10:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
You may have been there, but the US government admitted that it did it. So, no, the US participated in "helping create ... the Shah's [regime] in Iran".
Link?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Nice attempt at a sidetrack, but I was asking if you had a link that shows the US government "admitt[ing] that it help[ed] create ... the Shah's [regime] in Iran." There was already a Shah's regime in 1953, and the US efforts in the 1953 dismissal of Mossadeq were failures. The plotters the CIA used had to flee to US protection, and the Shah fled to Baghdad. See your link, which isn't from "the US government" anyway.
Mossadeq fell because his mistook the nature of his victory in the attempt to dismiss him, and overplayed his hand. The British and the CIA had abandoned hope for success by that point.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
Considering that the beginning of protestantism is one of the four dates considered by scholars to be the border point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I don't really see what is so controversial in what he said. :huh:
What the heck are you talking about? The Renaissance is most often linked firmly with the growth of humanism in the Middle Ages (quite a few put the Renaissance firmly in the Medieval tradition).
The Reformation was simply the Medieval heretical movements that stuck, in part because of a growing more literate society making it more difficult to squash. In many ways Luther is more the heir of the firmly Medieval Wycliffe and Hus than some break with tradition.
Jaron said "Dark Ages" not "Medieval" which is a huge difference. I understand you don't understand subtlety sometimes, but to equate the though of the 15th century to the thought of the 8th century is ridiculous unless someone is trolling.
Quote from: PDH on September 24, 2012, 07:54:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2012, 01:47:52 AM
Considering that the beginning of protestantism is one of the four dates considered by scholars to be the border point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, I don't really see what is so controversial in what he said. :huh:
What the heck are you talking about? The Renaissance is most often linked firmly with the growth of humanism in the Middle Ages (quite a few put the Renaissance firmly in the Medieval tradition).
The Reformation was simply the Medieval heretical movements that stuck, in part because of a growing more literate society making it more difficult to squash. In many ways Luther is more the heir of the firmly Medieval Wycliffe and Hus than some break with tradition.
Jaron said "Dark Ages" not "Medieval" which is a huge difference. I understand you don't understand subtlety sometimes, but to equate the though of the 15th century to the thought of the 8th century is ridiculous unless someone is trolling.
:)
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:07:10 AM
There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.
:huh:
Aramco owns the oil fields, but there are still large numbers of foreign companies, engineers, technicians and advisors active in Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2012, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:07:10 AM
There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.
:huh:
Aramco owns the oil fields, but there are still large numbers of foreign companies, engineers, technicians and advisors active in Saudi Arabia.
Don't confuse Viking with facts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2012, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:07:10 AM
There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.
:huh:
Aramco owns the oil fields, but there are still large numbers of foreign companies, engineers, technicians and advisors active in Saudi Arabia.
That's what oil companies do, they own oil or the rights to the oil and they hire contractors to get the oil out. Not even the largest oil companies are big enough to have all the skills and experience to do it on their own. There is only one oil company in Saudi, there are many oilfield service companies. Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not.
http://news.yahoo.com/actress-sue-anti-islam-filmmaker-federal-court-lawyer-133856277.html
QuoteAn actress suing the producer of an anti-Islam movie that has spawned violent protests across the Muslim world plans to drop her suit and file a new case in federal court over copyright claims, her lawyer said on Monday.
Cindy Lee Garcia, who appeared in the "Innocence of Muslims," filed a lawsuit last week in a state court in Los Angeles against Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the California man thought to be behind the movie, claiming she was duped into playing a role and her life has been put at risk as a result.
Her case also named YouTube and its parent company, Google Inc., as defendants for their role in distributing the short, crudely made film on the Internet. A California state court judge on Thursday rejected her motion for an order for YouTube to pull the film off its site.
"Today we will dismiss the state court lawsuit, but we're going to file again today in federal court," Garcia's lawyer, Cris Armenta, said on NBC's "Today" show.
"My client has a copyright claim," she said. "We intend to enforce it."
Garcia's is the first-known civil lawsuit connected to the video that depicts the Prophet Mohammad as a womanizer and a fool.
Armenta asserted that third-party content distributors hold some responsibility for the content on their platforms.
"I think we should be very clear that Google and YouTube are doing the wrong thing, that they say in their own terms and guidelines that hate speech is not allowed," Armenta said. "How can this not be hate speech? How can this not be wrong, morally intellectually, legally?"
Google previously rejected a request by the White House to reconsider its decision to keep the clips on YouTube, but the company has blocked the trailer in certain Muslim countries such as Egypt and Libya. The White House had asked Google to evaluate whether the video violated YouTube's terms of service.
In her lawsuit, Garcia, of Bakersfield, California, accused a producer of the movie, whom she identified as Nakoula using the alias Sam Bacile, of duping her into appearing in a "hateful" film that she had been led to believe was a simple desert adventure movie.
The film helped generate a torrent of violence across the Muslim world during the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and in the following days.
The violence included an attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed. U.S. and other foreign embassies were also stormed by furious Muslims in cities in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
On Friday, 15 people were killed during protests in Pakistan, and over the weekend a Pakistan government minister offered $100,000 to anyone who kills the movie's maker.
For many Muslims, any depiction of the prophet is blasphemous. Caricatures deemed insulting have provoked protests and drawn condemnation from officials, preachers, ordinary Muslims and many Christians.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 09:51:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2012, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 22, 2012, 08:07:10 AM
There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others.
:huh:
Aramco owns the oil fields, but there are still large numbers of foreign companies, engineers, technicians and advisors active in Saudi Arabia.
That's what oil companies do, they own oil or the rights to the oil and they hire contractors to get the oil out. Not even the largest oil companies are big enough to have all the skills and experience to do it on their own. There is only one oil company in Saudi, there are many oilfield service companies. Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not.
Better tell Shell that. It thinkis it has a presence in "Saudi."
QuoteSaudi Aramco Shell Refinery Company
P.O. Box 10025
Madinat Al-Jubail
Al-Sinaiyah 31961
Phone: +966 3 357 2000
Fax: +966 3 357 3142
QuoteShell Overseas Services Ltd- Riyadh Branch
P.O. Box 16996
Riyadh 11474
Phone: +966 1 477 4402
Fax: +966 1 478 9255
http://www.shell.com/home/content/footer/about_this_site/contact/contact_saudiaarabia.html
I could probably find the same about Esso and BP, but one example puts the lie to your statement, so won't bother.
QuoteHe was troubled by the gangs and street of violence of Los Angeles, he said, and dismayed by the West's looser sexual mores, mentioning couples living together out of wedlock and what he called "naked restaurants," like Hooters.
Well it is not like we like the gangs and street violence. Do they have no criminals in the Muslim world?
I find it amusing half the world thinks Americans are prudes and the other half thinks we are have no sexual mores at all. I wonder what the Muslims think of the people who call us prudes.
I'm really glad Egypt has decided to get stupid.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 09:51:06 AM
Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not.
Don't they have some partnerships with Aramco or something?
A copyright claim? I'm pretty sure that the actors sign releases for their image when they take the job. That's how being an actor works.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Better tell Shell that. It thinkis it has a presence in "Saudi."
Yes and?
Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2012, 11:22:48 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 09:51:06 AM
Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not.
Don't they have some partnerships with Aramco or something?
Esso used to own it all. One of the motivating factors for Mossadeq back in the day was when Esso agreed to a 50/50 profit sharing with the saudis while BP (who ran Iran) (Shell owned Iraq while Royal Dutch owned Indonesia) refused to budge at 25%, which prompted mossadeq to nationalize and the CIA to topple him. Over time the Dar al Saud has owned more and more of it. It bought out the last foreign finanacial stake in saudi oil back in 1980. Since then no foreign oil companies have been in saudi.
All the companies in Saudi today provide services to Aramco. Halliburton cements, Schlumberger logs, Baker plugs and weatherford drills.
If foreign oil companies (that is to say foreign companies which operate oil wells in other countries) are in saudi it is to sell services to Aramco (the most valuable being "How to be an oil company")
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2012, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true.
In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2012, 12:22:18 PM
In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.
You'd take his word over that of Shell itself?
If Viking says "Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while
Shell, Esso and BP
are not" but Shell says that it is, indeed, "in Saudi," then I'll believe Shell.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Better tell Shell that. It thinkis it has a presence in "Saudi."
Yes and?
And you said that they were not "in Saudi." You were wrong.
QuoteWhatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.
This is what we call a "weasel." You can't dance around the fact that you said shell wasn't there, and they are.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2012, 12:22:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2012, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true.
In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.
I would take Viking's word on a number of technical aspects of the oil industry, but not on this question. In my previous employment as a private sector lawyer in Calgary I did work for a number of "oil companies". Te thing is that there is no definition of what is or is not an "oil company" - it is a term without any legal importance. I have never heard it argued that oilfield service companies are not "oil companies".
I can even give you an example. Take CAPP - the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. They have two categories of membership - Producers and Associates. So they certainly take the position that you can be a member of CAPP while not physically producing oil.
http://www.capp.ca/aboutUs/membership/Pages/default.aspx
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 12:31:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2012, 12:22:18 PM
In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.
You'd take his word over that of Shell itself?
If Viking says "Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not" but Shell says that it is, indeed, "in Saudi," then I'll believe Shell.
I'm less concerned about whether they're "in" than whether they are "owning and operating oil wells" which was the statement BB replied to.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2012, 12:45:21 PMI would take Viking's word on a number of technical aspects of the oil industry, but not on this question. In my previous employment as a private sector lawyer in Calgary I did work for a number of "oil companies". Te thing is that there is no definition of what is or is not an "oil company" - it is a term without any legal importance. I have never heard it argued that oilfield service companies are not "oil companies".
I can even give you an example. Take CAPP - the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. They have two categories of membership - Producers and Associates. So they certainly take the position that you can be a member of CAPP while not physically producing oil.
http://www.capp.ca/aboutUs/membership/Pages/default.aspx
The interesting part of the conversation for me is the information about how the oil industry is organized in Saudi Arabia; the information provided by Viking. The usual semantic quibbling about the meaning of the word "in" and the term "oil company" is much less interesting. Yes, Viking is quibbling too, but since he's providing actual information I'm much less concerned about how his idiosyncratic definition differs from your idiosyncratic definition.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Yes and?
Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.
Yes and?
Your post was responding to Seedy's comment:
Quoteit's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.
They did before Aramco's nationalization, afterwards, and still today.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 24, 2012, 12:58:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Yes and?
Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.
Yes and?
Your post was responding to Seedy's comment:
Quoteit's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades.
They did before Aramco's nationalization, afterwards, and still today.
But hey, you and I never worked on a rig on the North Sea, so what Dan Yergin and Anthony Sampson tell us doesn't matter.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2012, 12:46:10 PM
I'm less concerned about whether they're "in" than whether they are "owning and operating oil wells" which was the statement BB replied to.
Since no one is arguing that they are "owning and operating oil wells" in Saudi Arabia, I don't think your distinction has any meaning.
Viking is now arguing (as a weasel from his argument that " [t]here is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others" when it was pointed out that there were, in fact, other oil companies in "Saudi") that Shell isn't an oil company because it doesn't own or operate wells in Saudi Arabia. You may not care that he is arguing this, but I don't understand why you are even participating in the discussion if you don't care.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2012, 12:54:00 PM
The interesting part of the conversation for me is the information about how the oil industry is organized in Saudi Arabia; the information provided by Viking. The usual semantic quibbling about the meaning of the word "in" and the term "oil company" is much less interesting. Yes, Viking is quibbling too, but since he's providing actual information I'm much less concerned about how his idiosyncratic definition differs from your idiosyncratic definition.
Viking was "providing actual information," as I was, and BB is. The difference is that Viking is making his "actual information" up (like the claim that Shell wasn't present at all in Saudi Arabia) and BB and I are not only giving actual information, but links where you can confirm it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Fnap.jpg&hash=efc50a2ab8682710288e3c0ddcb502f19076c34f)
Good point, grumbler. I'm out :)
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 12:11:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Better tell Shell that. It thinkis it has a presence in "Saudi."
Yes and?
And you said that they were not "in Saudi." You were wrong.
QuoteWhatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.
This is what we call a "weasel." You can't dance around the fact that you said shell wasn't there, and they are.
I don't think I am weasling. Shell are not in saudi as an oil company. The don't own or operate oil wells. That is what I meant when I said they were not "in saudi". I could have used Shell E&P to specify Shell the oil company rather than Shell the refinery or Shell the gas station. But none of you know what E&P is.
Shell is not an oil company in Saudi, it may be doing other things, but it is not an oil company in that country.
Baker, SLB, Halliburton and Weatherford are oilfield service companies in saudi.
Where do you get your definition of "oil company" such that oilfield service companies aren't "oil compnies"?
It's a complicated world out there, and ultimately who "owns" the oil rights itself is hardly the most important fact in who does what.
To make an analogy
Viking: There is only one dentist in Ft. Worth and that is Dr Brush DrMedDent
grumbler: You are lying, there are two dentists in Ft. Worth, here is a link to Dr Floss DrMedDet and his address is in Ft. Worth
Viking: But Dr Floss doesn't have his practice in Ft. Worth, his practice is in Dallas.
A Dentist is both the man and the practice. Dr Brush and Dr Floss are both dentists in Ft. Worth, but if I go to the dentist in Ft. Worth my only option is Dr Brush' dental practice.
I see no contradiction here.
I'm inclined to side with Viking on this meaningless, endless, tiresome semantic argument. Halibruton, Baker-Hughes et al are never referred to as "oil companies."
On the other hand, the fact that Shell, which is most definitely an oil company, has some unit or another operating in Saudi undercuts the claim a bit.
Quote from: Jacob on September 24, 2012, 02:05:47 PM
Good point, grumbler. I'm out :)
:console:
You tried. I, for one, appreciate the effort.
We need to kill another US ambassador just to put a stop to this argument. :(
A search for "semantics oil corporation of saudi arabia" turned up nothing:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=semantics+oil+corporation+of+saudi+arabia&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest (http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=semantics+oil+corporation+of+saudi+arabia&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest)
Go figure.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2012, 02:49:41 PM
We need to kill another US ambassador just to put a stop to this argument. :(
Pfft, who are you? ; the guy who makes the trains run on time in Pakistan ?
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 02:17:13 PM
I don't think I am weasling. Shell are not in saudi as an oil company. The don't own or operate oil wells. That is what I meant when I said they were not "in saudi". I could have used Shell E&P to specify Shell the oil company rather than Shell the refinery or Shell the gas station. But none of you know what E&P is.
You said that Halliburton
was "in Saudi." You said that Shell was not. If your argument is that "in Saudi" means "in Saudi Arabia as an oil company," then how do you explain the fact that Halliburton was "in Saudi" but not as "an oil company?"
You can't have it both ways. You drew a contrast between Haliburton
et al and Shell
et al that was false. All the weaseling in the world won't get you out of that. If Haliburton is "in Saudi," then so is Shell.
QuoteShell is not an oil company in Saudi, it may be doing other things, but it is not an oil company in that country.
Nor is Haliburton, which you claimed
was "in Saudi."
QuoteBaker, SLB, Halliburton and Weatherford are oilfield service companies in saudi.
That is correct. And Shell, BP, and "Esso" (ExxonMobil) are "in saudi" as well.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=484&contentId=2000678
http://www.exxonmobil.com/MENA-English/PA/about_what.aspx
Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Shame as there were actually some items posted relevant to the incident that happened and not that side discussion.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2012, 02:26:51 PM
To make an analogy
Viking: There is only one dentist in Ft. Worth and that is Dr Brush DrMedDent
grumbler: You are lying, there are two dentists in Ft. Worth, here is a link to Dr Floss DrMedDet and his address is in Ft. Worth
Viking: But Dr Floss doesn't have his practice in Ft. Worth, his practice is in Dallas.
A Dentist is both the man and the practice. Dr Brush and Dr Floss are both dentists in Ft. Worth, but if I go to the dentist in Ft. Worth my only option is Dr Brush' dental practice.
I see no contradiction here.
No need to make analogies, we can trace the discussion:
Seedy: "it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades"
Viking: "There is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others."
Minsky: "Aramco owns the oil fields, but there are still large numbers of foreign companies, engineers, technicians and advisors active in Saudi Arabia."
Viking: "That's what oil companies do, they own oil or the rights to the oil and they hire contractors to get the oil out. Not even the largest oil companies are big enough to have all the skills and experience to do it on their own. There is only one oil company in Saudi, there are many oilfield service companies. Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not."
grumbler: "Shell at al are, in fact, in Saudi Arabia, and here's proof."
Viking: [vague weaseling about how Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil aren't oil companies because they don't own oilfields in Saudi Arabia, or something]
The analogy, if you insist on one, is that you would argue that no oil companies have offices in Irving, Texas because no oil is drilled within the city limits, and so ExxonMobil isn't an oil company within the city limits of Irving.
Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Thanks for the congrats. Now you know what it is like to read threads where you bring in your views on politics.
Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Grumbler got involved. What do you expect?
For some reason, every time I opened this thread the last day or two, I just scrolled through right to the end of new posts. I thought at first that it was a sign that I was dead tired, but now I realize that it was just a protective reflex.
Quote from: grumbler on September 24, 2012, 03:55:41 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Thanks for the congrats. Now you know what it is like to read threads where you bring in your views on politics.
I don't really see how that's comparable. At least his are usually entertaining (though not in the way he anticipated).
I'm going to suggest the group that carried out the murder of the US ambassador was in part funded from contributions received from Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2012, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Grumbler got involved. What do you expect?
Now, now...Viking set it on fire, grumbler just came along to extinguish the flame with his piss. :D
And Vinegar, can't forget the Vinegar.
I'm glad I haven't felt like visiting the last couple of days. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 24, 2012, 05:44:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2012, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 24, 2012, 03:20:59 PM
Congrats for murdering this thread people. I couldn't be bothered properly reading the last 5 pages. What a bore.
Grumbler got involved. What do you expect?
Now, now...Viking set it on fire, grumbler just came along to extinguish the flame with his piss. :D
That seems to be his solution to everything.
"Oh, good morning Grumbler, I was just having a tasty bowl of Cheerios and OH GOD NO!"
QuoteRep. Gohmert says Obama helping to build second Ottoman Empire
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) on Friday accused President Obama of conducting a foreign policy that is helping to create a second Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.
Gohmert was speaking on the House floor, where he accused the Obama administration of pulling out of Iraq after victory had been won, and allowing Iran to better influence Iraq. He said withdrawing means less American influence there, and said the results of that decision are already being seen in some of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts in the Middle East and North Africa.
"This is the beginning... a massive beginning of a new Ottoman Empire that President Obama can take great credit for," Gohmert said. "Thank you President Barack Hussein Obama. This will be quite a legacy for you.
"And I'm not one of those who says he's not a Christian. All I know is that's between him and God. But what I do know is he has helped jump start a new Ottoman Empire, and left our friend and ally Israel so vulnerable in this sea of radicalism that he has helped bring to the surface."
Gohmert added later that while Obama said he would be able to negotiate better with Muslim countries given his time living abroad, the U.S. is now less liked under Obama than it was under President Bush.
"The approval rating of the United States in those Muslim countries where we've been was 33 percent, which was terrible, under President Bush in 2008," Gohmert said. "And now under this president, we see a report last week, it's now 15 percent.
"This president is trying to buy affection from people who are bullies, who are radical Islamists, who want to destroy us. You're not going to get love and affection, you get contempt."
Gohmert's comments came as part of a nearly one-hour critique of the Obama administration on a range of issues including the economy and the growing national debt. He started by saying Democrats were disingenuous for saying they want to reduce federal spending.
"How incredibly disingenuous for anyone in America who would stand up and say, 'gee we really want to bring down our spending.' And yet everything they propose except for the military creates more spending," he said.
He also said the sequester benefits Democrats who want to see military cuts, and said Republicans should never have supported the agreement that created the sequester.
"I blame my leadership," Gohmert said, referring to Republican leaders. "We should never have agreed with Democrats to that stupid supercommittee, deficit ceiling bill. We should not have."
Gohmert spoke after Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who accused Republicans of crashing the economy and then questioning the speed at which it is recovering under Obama, and for failing to compromise with Democrats. But Gohmert rejected that analysis on several fronts.
In response to Pelosi's charge on the lack of cooperation, he said, "Are you kidding me?" and argued that Democrats did not cooperate with Republicans at all when passing the healthcare law in 2010.
Gohmert was followed on the floor by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who cited several statistics indicating the weakness of the economy under Obama. For example, he noted that the labor force participation rate is at its lowest point in 31 yeast, the number of unemployed Americans hit 15 million for the first time, the time needed to find a job is at a new record high, and that four million people have stopped looking for work.
The House recessed subject to the call of the chair after Franks spoke, signaling an end to floor activities in the House until after the election. The House will meet again next Tuesday for a pro-forma session.
When I saw that title, I was dumbfounded. How would a Republican Congressman even know what an Ottoman Empire was? As I read this article, that question answered itself.
You know, if Gerald Ford could see what Republican Congressmen were getting up to these days, he'd be ashamed.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2012, 08:32:38 PM
You know, if Gerald Ford could see what Republican Congressmen were getting up to these days, he'd be ashamed.
By all accounts a gentle man, but I think he'd want to slug a few of these nowadays.
The Ottoman Empire reforming would be a good thing for that region.
I think that a lot of those great old men would just give up politics. Between the wretchedness of the modern Republicans and the fact that most of the Democratic agenda is unpalatable, it's enough to make a man sad.
All we need to know now is if a bass is a perch or a trout.
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
I don't really see how that's comparable. At least his are usually entertaining (though not in the way he anticipated).
To me, Viking's flailing about as he tries to avoid the consequences of his mis-statements is as amusing as Tamas's doing the same. YMMV.
Quote from: DGuller on September 24, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
When I saw that title, I was dumbfounded. How would a Republican Congressman even know what an Ottoman Empire was? As I read this article, that question answered itself.
Maybe he's a lurker here.
LOL CAN OBAMA BE: OTTOMAN EMPIRE?
Quote from: grumbler on September 25, 2012, 06:34:50 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 24, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
I don't really see how that's comparable. At least his are usually entertaining (though not in the way he anticipated).
To me, Viking's flailing about as he tries to avoid the consequences of his mis-statements is as amusing as Tamas's doing the same. YMMV.
It does - greatly.
Quote"This is the beginning... a massive beginning of a new Ottoman Empire that President Obama can take great credit for," Gohmert said. "Thank you President Barack Hussein Obama. This will be quite a legacy for you.
Wow that would be quite a legacy. Establish an easily controlled and corrupt Caliphate to keep the Arab world under control? Heck if he did that he would earn that Nobel Prize.
Quote"How incredibly disingenuous for anyone in America who would stand up and say, 'gee we really want to bring down our spending.' And yet everything they propose except for the military creates more spending," he said.
The Republicans, on the other hand, would make sure the military also creates more spending.
Texas House Republicans are so adorable sometimes. :lol:
:huh:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/25/161739302/obama-chris-stevens-and-those-like-him-must-determine-worlds-future
Quote"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 01:48:30 PM
:huh:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/25/161739302/obama-chris-stevens-and-those-like-him-must-determine-worlds-future
Quote“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Dude, even I'm going to call BS on taking that quote out of context.
Just seems like a weird thing for him to say, whatever the context.
He was referencing individuals in the Muddled Eastern countries.
Quote"It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future or the prisons of the past, and we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment, and America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt. It must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women. It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.
(APPLAUSE)
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources. It must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with. There's is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi, "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." "
I watched the speech, didn't strike me as anything weird. Of course, it'll be in a Crossroads USA commercial by the evening news.
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
Just seems like a weird thing for him to say, whatever the context.
To you, Obama saying "Good morning!" will sound like a weird thing to say.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2012, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
Just seems like a weird thing for him to say, whatever the context.
To you, Obama saying "Good morning!" will sound like a weird thing to say.
If he said it to me, yeah.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2012, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
Just seems like a weird thing for him to say, whatever the context.
To you, Obama saying "Good morning!" will sound like a weird thing to say.
What's so good about it? That millions of Americans are out of work? Is that what passes for "good" in Obama-speak? :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 02:36:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2012, 02:29:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 25, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
Just seems like a weird thing for him to say, whatever the context.
To you, Obama saying "Good morning!" will sound like a weird thing to say.
If he said it to me, yeah.
:lmfao: Touche.
problem is of course that say that mohammed was a warmongering slaver is slander to some, even if he actually was a warmongering slaver. And not a prophet at all (as obviously he can only be a prophet to muslims)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2012, 02:22:37 PM
I watched the speech, didn't strike me as anything weird. Of course, it'll be in a Crossroads USA commercial by the evening news.
Doesn't strike me as weird though I do wonder why in those countries why the future must not belong to those who slander Muhammad. If anything that seems better than what we have now.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 25, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
problem is of course that say that mohammed was a warmongering slaver is slander to some, even if he actually was a warmongering slaver. And not a prophet at all (as obviously he can only be a prophet to muslims)
All religions are in and of themselves insulting to all other religions. In the case of Muhammed if not for divine permission and divine command ethics then he is a monster. There isn't a single criminal law that he didn't break in his lifetime and he was given license for all of this by god. To rephrase C.S. Lewis' alliterative Lunatic Liar or Lord trichotomy, he is either a Prophetic, Psychiatric or Pedophile.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 25, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
problem is of course that say that mohammed was a warmongering slaver is slander to some, even if he actually was a warmongering slaver. And not a prophet at all (as obviously he can only be a prophet to muslims)
All religions are in and of themselves insulting to all other religions. In the case of Muhammed if not for divine permission and divine command ethics then he is a monster. There isn't a single criminal law that he didn't break in his lifetime and he was given license for all of this by god. To rephrase C.S. Lewis' alliterative Lunatic Liar or Lord trichotomy, he is either a Prophetic, Psychiatric or Pedophile.
I don't see why that follows. I mean a person may do bad things that end up being good for most - and doesn't have to be a monster simply because he didn't actually receive said instructions from God.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
I don't see why that follows. I mean a person may do bad things that end up being good for most - and doesn't have to be a monster simply because he didn't actually receive said instructions from God.
I would think whether or not one was a monster is unrelated to whether or not said atrocities occured by divine order. After all if they did that just means you chose to follow a monstrous god.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2012, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
I don't see why that follows. I mean a person may do bad things that end up being good for most - and doesn't have to be a monster simply because he didn't actually receive said instructions from God.
I would think whether or not one was a monster is unrelated to whether or not said atrocities occured by divine order. After all if they did that just means you chose to follow a monstrous god.
I'm not sure I'm equipped to judge the level of monstrosity of a god.
Quote from: Viking on September 25, 2012, 03:45:37 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 25, 2012, 03:40:08 PM
problem is of course that say that mohammed was a warmongering slaver is slander to some, even if he actually was a warmongering slaver. And not a prophet at all (as obviously he can only be a prophet to muslims)
All religions are in and of themselves insulting to all other religions. In the case of Muhammed if not for divine permission and divine command ethics then he is a monster. There isn't a single criminal law that he didn't break in his lifetime and he was given license for all of this by god. To rephrase C.S. Lewis' alliterative Lunatic Liar or Lord trichotomy, he is either a Prophetic, Psychiatric or Pedophile.
I don't think there was a firm rule of law in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century...
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 03:53:38 PM
I'm not sure I'm equipped to judge the level of monstrosity of a god.
Well the level of monstrousness in the content of a god's commands might be a consideration if you plan on following said god's commands.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2012, 03:58:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 03:53:38 PM
I'm not sure I'm equipped to judge the level of monstrosity of a god.
Well the level of monstrousness in the content of a god's commands might be a consideration if you plan on following said god's commands.
Seems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
Really? I mean I guess one could take some sort of moral stand but it seems like one would want to avoid the wrath of said god which would likely be incurred by ignoring the god's commands.
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2012, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
I don't see why that follows. I mean a person may do bad things that end up being good for most - and doesn't have to be a monster simply because he didn't actually receive said instructions from God.
I would think whether or not one was a monster is unrelated to whether or not said atrocities occured by divine order. After all if they did that just means you chose to follow a monstrous god.
:cthulu:
Quote from: Valmy on September 25, 2012, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
I don't see why that follows. I mean a person may do bad things that end up being good for most - and doesn't have to be a monster simply because he didn't actually receive said instructions from God.
I would think whether or not one was a monster is unrelated to whether or not said atrocities occured by divine order. After all if they did that just means you chose to follow a monstrous god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
:lol:
That's easy for you to say, coming from a place where we've disproved the existence of gods.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
Really? I mean I guess one could take some sort of moral stand but it seems like one would want to avoid the wrath of said god which would likely be incurred by ignoring the god's commands.
It's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PM
It's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
So God is a fickle entity, wont to change its mind at any given moment? ;)
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2012, 05:23:17 PM:lol:
That's easy for you to say, coming from a place where we've disproved the existence of gods.
:lol:
Well put :cheers:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
Would appear an irrelevant moral stand as you'd have no hope of making change. Even if everyone stood up, said god could just wipe you all out and start fresh.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 06:53:58 PMWould appear an irrelevant moral stand as you'd have no hope of making change. Even if everyone stood up, said god could just wipe you all out and start fresh.
Freeeeeeeeeedom!
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
But in this case the cruel totalitarian despot is a force of nature. It can make sense to stand up against another human being, or even a human government. A human being be convinced or killed, and a government can be toppled. Making a moral stand against the universe because you don't like the rules doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
But not exactly. A despot is just a man who thinks he's a god. A true god really is better than any man, or all men. A god is totalitarian by his nature. because he is all that is. A god is cruel by his nature, because he defines what is and isn't just. When you're the universe, and it conforms to your whim, no man is fit to judge you.
Taking a stand where you can't make any difference and where your punishment will be unending isn't noble or brave. It's madness.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 06:53:58 PMWould appear an irrelevant moral stand as you'd have no hope of making change. Even if everyone stood up, said god could just wipe you all out and start fresh.
Freeeeeeeeeedom!
I'm not sure freedom stated like that is possible when we're all dead.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 06:59:19 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:55:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 06:53:58 PMWould appear an irrelevant moral stand as you'd have no hope of making change. Even if everyone stood up, said god could just wipe you all out and start fresh.
Freeeeeeeeeedom!
I'm not sure freedom stated like that is possible when we're all dead.
Not just dead, but either being tormented eternally or as if having never existed in the first place.
But I suppose that is better then admitting you're wrong.
Well, so far I'm not being punished eternally so I'm pretty confident that I'm not wrong on this.
That, or god is not some petty asshole like you're hypothesizing.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 07:12:06 PM
Well, so far I'm not being punished eternally so I'm pretty confident that I'm not wrong on this.
That, or god is not some petty asshole like you're hypothesizing.
That's because there's no god in real life. If there was, you would be entirely in the wrong.
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2012, 07:05:33 PM
Not just dead, but either being tormented eternally or as if having never existed in the first place.
Well that depends on the god we're talking about.
@Jacob - Kinda what Neil said. I mean my statement came on the hypothetical of someone who believed in a god and said god was monstrous (by some human definition). I don't think anyone was hypothesizing what you suggested we were hypothesizing.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 07:12:06 PM
Well, so far I'm not being punished eternally so I'm pretty confident that I'm not wrong on this.
That, or god is not some petty asshole like you're hypothesizing.
That or you get punished after you die.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 07:44:34 PMThat or you get punished after you die.
I'll worry about that after I die then.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 09:49:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 07:44:34 PMThat or you get punished after you die.
I'll worry about that after I die then.
If you really thought it was a likely possibility it would be worth worrying about now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2012, 09:57:29 PM
If you really thought it was a likely possibility it would be worth worrying about now.
True.
But then, what reason do I have to think that Raz's hypothetical complete asshole god is more likely to exist than a hypothetical not an asshole god?
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 10:07:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 25, 2012, 09:57:29 PM
If you really thought it was a likely possibility it would be worth worrying about now.
True.
But then, what reason do I have to think that Raz's hypothetical complete asshole god is more likely to exist than a hypothetical not an asshole god?
What reason do you have to think that any god exists, apart from myself? For the hypothetical to work, there has to be evidence of a god. And if there is a god, you seem to think that you should rebel against him because he's a god.
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2012, 10:14:21 PMWhat reason do you have to think that any god exists, apart from myself? For the hypothetical to work, there has to be evidence of a god. And if there is a god, you seem to think that you should rebel against him because he's a god.
I don't think there is a god, but if there was and he was an asshole I'd rebel against him. In fact, I'd expect that's what he would want me to do - having made me as I am. I'd expect the asshole part was nothing but a test, and that all the idiots who went along with the asshole requirements of the allegedly asshole god would be the ones to burn in hell (if such a place existed) for failing to use their moral faculties appropriately.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PM
It's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
Only if you disregard free will. I didn't take you for a Calvinist
Sigh. No. One does not need to believe in predestination to think that rebelling against God is a bad idea. Jake already doesn't believe in God, so it's a moot point. His reasoning strikes me as bizarre though, God will reward me if I do the opposite of what he says because I'm staying true to my own moral code that I just made up.
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2012, 06:58:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
But not exactly. A despot is just a man who thinks he's a god. A true god really is better than any man, or all men. A god is totalitarian by his nature. because he is all that is. A god is cruel by his nature, because he defines what is and isn't just. When you're the universe, and it conforms to your whim, no man is fit to judge you.
Taking a stand where you can't make any difference and where your punishment will be unending isn't noble or brave. It's madness.
Isn't that how Ancient Greek religion worked? All their Gods were dicks, and they knew it, but they worshiped them anyways in order to avoid punishment.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 11:26:53 PM
Sigh. No. One does not need to believe in predestination to think that rebelling against God is a bad idea. Jake already doesn't believe in God, so it's a moot point. His reasoning strikes me as bizarre though, God will reward me if I do the opposite of what he says because I'm staying true to my own moral code that I just made up.
Yeah it's hard to tell if he's being serious.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 25, 2012, 11:28:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2012, 06:58:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
But not exactly. A despot is just a man who thinks he's a god. A true god really is better than any man, or all men. A god is totalitarian by his nature. because he is all that is. A god is cruel by his nature, because he defines what is and isn't just. When you're the universe, and it conforms to your whim, no man is fit to judge you.
Taking a stand where you can't make any difference and where your punishment will be unending isn't noble or brave. It's madness.
Isn't that how Ancient Greek religion worked? All their Gods were dicks, and they knew it, but they worshiped them anyways in order to avoid punishment.
We don't have complete information on Greek ideas about the afterlife, but what we do have suggests that it was believed to a pretty dreary place at best regardless of how virtuous or immoral you had been in life. The Greeks seemed to worship their gods more to avoid being killed and sent to the afterlife sooner than expected than to receive any reward there.
If God wanted us to believe in his existence, he wouldn't have given us free will.
Quote from: dps on September 26, 2012, 12:30:49 AM
We don't have complete information on Greek ideas about the afterlife, but what we do have suggests that it was believed to a pretty dreary place at best regardless of how virtuous or immoral you had been in life. The Greeks seemed to worship their gods more to avoid being killed and sent to the afterlife sooner than expected than to receive any reward there.
That sounds a bit more Ancient Middle Eastern than Greek. Sure, the Greek Gods were dicks at times, but they also extended protection and gave aid - even if they also had a pretty severe desire to enforce traditional mores. While the afterlife seems to have been dull, the gods were not always the evil 10 year olds that the Sumerians seemed to have feared.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2012, 08:37:39 AM
If God wanted us to believe in his existence, he wouldn't have given us free will.
Not sure what this statement has to do with anything. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
Really? I mean I guess one could take some sort of moral stand but it seems like one would want to avoid the wrath of said god which would likely be incurred by ignoring the god's commands.
Are you that uneducated? That dilemma is one of the most common motifs in the Western philosophical and artistic thought, yet you are acting as if the idea was a novel one. :huh:
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2012, 05:23:17 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
:lol:
That's easy for you to say, coming from a place where we've disproved the existence of gods.
"Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" is not the stance of an atheist.
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2012, 09:05:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 04:03:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 04:01:54 PMSeems to me that if you believed a god exists and you think a god is monstrous, you'd be better served by obeying.
Screw that.
Really? I mean I guess one could take some sort of moral stand but it seems like one would want to avoid the wrath of said god which would likely be incurred by ignoring the god's commands.
Are you that uneducated? That dilemma is one of the most common motifs in the Western philosophical and artistic thought, yet you are acting as if the idea was a novel one. :huh:
Says the bumpkin to the Stanford grad.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2012, 06:53:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 06:32:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 06:00:56 PMIt's like taking a moral stand against gravity.
No, it's like taking a moral stand against a cruel, totalitarian despot.
Would appear an irrelevant moral stand as you'd have no hope of making change. Even if everyone stood up, said god could just wipe you all out and start fresh.
So according to you a moral stand is justified only when it is effective? Where did you learn your morals, son? From Ayn Rand?
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2012, 07:12:06 PM
Well, so far I'm not being punished
I'd reconsider if I were you. You are arguing with Razgovory and garbon.
If hell is other people, Languish is its ninth circle.
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2012, 09:08:56 AM
So according to you a moral stand is justified only when it is effective? Where did you learn your morals, son? From Ayn Rand?
When there is a non-zero chance of effectiveness? Sure. I mean we aren't talking about something like civil rights where even the failings of early moral stands eventually culminate in the overthrow of an established awful system. There is no chance of overthrowing this hypothetical god, so why flail about hopelessly? In fact, it seems like it'd be an act of extreme hubris to suggest that one's own moral code was correct even while lorded over by this god that said otherwise.
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2012, 09:10:45 AM
I'd reconsider if I were you. You are arguing with Razgovory and garbon.
Look at it another way, he could be arguing with Grumbler and Berkut.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 09:17:46 AM
When there is a non-zero chance of effectiveness? Sure. I mean we aren't talking about something like civil rights where even the failings of early moral stands eventually culminate in the overthrow of an established awful system. There is no chance of overthrowing this hypothetical god, so why flail about hopelessly? In fact, it seems like it'd be an act of extreme hubris to suggest that one's own moral code was correct even while lorded over by this god that said otherwise.
Well you could find another God. Plenty are out there.
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2012, 09:18:47 AM
Well you could find another God. Plenty are out there.
Maybe I'm missing something (as a not particularly religious person) but I don't think you get to pick and choose your gods. You either believe in them or you don't, no? I thought we were discussing a case where you truly believe that a) a god exists and b) that god is monstrous.
For all we know, Zeus is frothing in rage at all the new heretic cults that sprang up in the last few thousands of years. I don't think that even being a devout Christian is going to save you from his rage in that case.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 09:21:48 AMMaybe I'm missing something (as a not particularly religious person) but I don't think you get to pick and choose your gods. You either believe in them or you don't, no? I thought we were discussing a case where you truly believe that a) a god exists and b) that god is monstrous.
The best thing to do when faced with a hypothetical monstrous god is to hypothesize a less monstrous one.
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2012, 09:35:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 09:21:48 AMMaybe I'm missing something (as a not particularly religious person) but I don't think you get to pick and choose your gods. You either believe in them or you don't, no? I thought we were discussing a case where you truly believe that a) a god exists and b) that god is monstrous.
The best thing to do when faced with a hypothetical monstrous god is to hypothesize a less monstrous one.
But then that defeats what was being discussed - which was what should you do if you believe (truly believe) in the existence of a monstrous god.
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2012, 09:35:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 09:21:48 AMMaybe I'm missing something (as a not particularly religious person) but I don't think you get to pick and choose your gods. You either believe in them or you don't, no? I thought we were discussing a case where you truly believe that a) a god exists and b) that god is monstrous.
The best thing to do when faced with a hypothetical monstrous god is to hypothesize a less monstrous one.
Too uncertain.
Much safer to sacrifice to that monsterous god, to appease his (or her, or its) terrible, terrible wrath.
I can think of several Langisites as possible sources ... :hmm:
I say we have the Canadians draw straws.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2012, 11:26:53 PM
Sigh. No. One does not need to believe in predestination to think that rebelling against God is a bad idea. Jake already doesn't believe in God, so it's a moot point. His reasoning strikes me as bizarre though, God will reward me if I do the opposite of what he says because I'm staying true to my own moral code that I just made up.
If we are assuming an omnipotent/omniscient god in the Christian mode, my moral code is no more made up than anything else the god created. The options to my mind are to assume the god isn't as monstrous as he's made out to be (trickster god) or to fight against his monstrousness however I can. I don't see why what a god says when it conflicts with everything I believe should be followed. There are too many presumptions that could be wrong.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2012, 09:53:11 AM
I say we have the Canadians draw straws.
The hypothetical monsterous god says Canadians taste bad. :P
Quote from: Malthus on September 26, 2012, 10:03:18 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2012, 09:53:11 AM
I say we have the Canadians draw straws.
The hypothetical monsterous god says Canadians taste bad. :P
Nonsense. All monstrous gods love maple syrup.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 09:42:01 AMBut then that defeats what was being discussed - which was what should you do if you believe (truly believe) in the existence of a monstrous god.
You seek psychological help before you hurt yourself or other people.
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 09:59:29 AMIf we are assuming an omnipotent/omniscient god in the Christian mode, my moral code is no more made up than anything else the god created. The options to my mind are to assume the god isn't as monstrous as he's made out to be (trickster god) or to fight against his monstrousness however I can. I don't see why what a god says when it conflicts with everything I believe should be followed. There are too many presumptions that could be wrong.
Exactly.
To mirror the question, Raz and garbon: what if god appears perfectly monstrous to test us? If you follow the apparent dictates of the monstrous god and act monstrously, you are eternally damned. If you try to cleave to being good and decent in the face of a monstrous god and a cruel universe, you pass the test and are rewarded with heavenly joy etc etc?
What do you do then?
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2012, 11:16:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 09:42:01 AMBut then that defeats what was being discussed - which was what should you do if you believe (truly believe) in the existence of a monstrous god.
You seek psychological help before you hurt yourself or other people.
Okay. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2012, 11:24:32 AM
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 09:59:29 AMIf we are assuming an omnipotent/omniscient god in the Christian mode, my moral code is no more made up than anything else the god created. The options to my mind are to assume the god isn't as monstrous as he's made out to be (trickster god) or to fight against his monstrousness however I can. I don't see why what a god says when it conflicts with everything I believe should be followed. There are too many presumptions that could be wrong.
Exactly.
To mirror the question, Raz and garbon: what if god appears perfectly monstrous to test us? If you follow the apparent dictates of the monstrous god and act monstrously, you are eternally damned. If you try to cleave to being good and decent in the face of a monstrous god and a cruel universe, you pass the test and are rewarded with heavenly joy etc etc?
What do you do then?
I'm not sure why said person would assume the God was a trickster god.
As in I think frunk makes just as many presumptions in choosing to follow what he feels is good.
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2012, 11:24:32 AM
Exactly.
To mirror the question, Raz and garbon: what if god appears perfectly monstrous to test us? If you follow the apparent dictates of the monstrous god and act monstrously, you are eternally damned. If you try to cleave to being good and decent in the face of a monstrous god and a cruel universe, you pass the test and are rewarded with heavenly joy etc etc?
What do you do then?
A god who would do that is still monstrous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 26, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
A god who would do that is still monstrous.
Any more monstrous than a supposedly good god who creates a world where suffering exists?
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
Any more monstrous than a supposedly good god who creates a world where suffering exists?
Suffering is a choice of free will.
(Temporary) Suffering makes you appreciate the good parts more. However, any kind of eternal hell pretty much automatically qualifies god as a monster.
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2012, 11:40:51 AM
Suffering is a choice of free will.
So if I am born with a congenital defect that causes me unimaginable pain throughout my life, this resulted from free will?
Actually I just looked at would say again we've gone beyond the parameters of what I said. I stated that I personally didn't feel that I had the perspective to gauge the level of monstrosity of a god. My hypothetical was predicated on the notion that one believed in a god that believed that said god was monstrous. I'm not sure trickster gods really matter in such a case where one believe that the god is monstrous.
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
So if I am born with a congenital defect that causes me unimaginable pain throughout my life, this resulted from free will?
The pain is a result of phyiscal laws, which we are all subject to but are without morality they just exist. The suffering, to the extent this causes you suffering, is your interpretation of it.
All I know is that God wanted me to have a chocolate eclair right now, but I don't have one. Something is wrong.
Quote from: garbon on September 26, 2012, 11:28:40 AMI'm not sure why said person would assume the God was a trickster god.
... and I'm not sure why said person would assume the god in question was just an asshole.
QuoteAs in I think frunk makes just as many presumptions in choosing to follow what he feels is good.
That's the point. Your hypothetical is built on a set of presumptions designed to give you the answer you're looking for. Thus, if you don't like the pre-supposed answer (and I don't), your best option is to change the presumption or the hypothetical.
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2012, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 11:47:09 AM
So if I am born with a congenital defect that causes me unimaginable pain throughout my life, this resulted from free will?
The pain is a result of phyiscal laws, which we are all subject to but are without morality they just exist. The suffering, to the extent this causes you suffering, is your interpretation of it.
Does this mean that it's not possible to have a monstrous god if monstrosity is defined as intentionally bringing about suffering, since we could choose not to suffer?
Quote from: frunk on September 26, 2012, 12:12:30 PM
Does this mean that it's not possible to have a monstrous god if monstrosity is defined as intentionally bringing about suffering, since we could choose not to suffer?
If you define monstrosity that way then sure. If a Nazi tortures a Jew who is at peace the whole time does that mean he is not a monster?
Quote from: Valmy on September 26, 2012, 12:17:28 PM
If you define monstrosity that way then sure. If a Nazi tortures a Jew who is at peace the whole time does that mean he is not a monster?
Of course the Nazi is a monster, and just because we define suffering so that it can't be inflicted doesn't mean that any god is off the hook for creating an environment where nasty things happen.
Seems racist to me to claim that the poor Arab Mohammed couldn't tell fantasy from fact.
Quote from: Jacob on September 26, 2012, 12:04:37 PM
That's the point. Your hypothetical is built on a set of presumptions designed to give you the answer you're looking for. Thus, if you don't like the pre-supposed answer (and I don't), your best option is to change the presumption or the hypothetical.
It isn't the answer I'm looking for. Again, I was the one who said I'd have difficulty judging the monstrosity of a god (primarily for the reasons that frunk listed).
Quote from: The Brain on September 26, 2012, 12:47:53 PM
Seems racist to me to claim that the poor Arab Mohammed couldn't tell fantasy from fact.
not when you say the same thing about hitler, stalin and scientologists.
I would think that most people would like to believe that they would maintain their moral system in any situation.
Man, the administration needs to get its shit together on this Libya thing:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/10/state-department-disowns-susan-rices-libya-narrative/57801/
ITS A FLUID SITUATION.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 02:29:40 PM
ITS A FLUID SITUATION.
Is that another way of saying certain people are pissing their pants? :P
Wouldn't be the first time someone spoke out of their ass before all the facts were in. It happens. See: Ashcroft, John.
Granted, not a month before the presidential election. But there ya go.
And it looks like Hillary's trying to take a bullet for Barry:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/index.html
QuoteLima, Peru (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
"I take responsibility" for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.
Whelp, SoS is in charge of the diplomatic corps and the BDS, not the POTUS. That's the way it works.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 09:05:10 PM
Whelp, SoS is in charge of the diplomatic corps and the BDS, not the POTUS. That's the way it works.
Yeah, the buck never seems to stop with Obama. Wonder how quiet you'd be on this whole thing had it happened during the Bush presidency.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 09:09:18 PM
Yeah, the buck never seems to stop with Obama. Wonder how quiet you'd be on this whole thing had it happened during the Bush presidency.
Meh, it was an unfortunate situation in an unfortunate environment, and as someone who grew up watching our embassies getting blown to rubble during the Reagan Administration, I'm not particularly fazed about it, nor would I be if it happened during the ZOMG DUBYA presidency. PARTY PARTISANSHIP ENDS AT THE COASTLINE
Besides, Bush had much bigger foreign policy fuck ups to bitch about. But go ahead, DerIssa, buy into the White House cover-up.
The timing does seem curious.
Everybody wants answers and accountability, there ya go. Somebody's being accountable.
Now, because it's not the person you want to be accountable, well...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 10:32:58 PM
Everybody wants answers and accountability, there ya go. Somebody's being accountable.
Now, because it's not the person you want to be accountable, well...
I noticed that none of your post spoke to timing. There's already been plenty of time for Hil to step forwards.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 10:36:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 10:32:58 PM
Everybody wants answers and accountability, there ya go. Somebody's being accountable.
Now, because it's not the person you want to be accountable, well...
I noticed that none of your post spoke to timing. There's already been plenty of time for Hil to step forwards.
How much timing do you want? People are clamoring for answers and accountability. Damn, can't make any of you bitches happy.
What happens tmrw?
Well that is very cheap. Did Hillary want to help Obama or hurt him? "I am not the guy in charge, I have no better chance to protect our ambassadors than the guy in charge, but it was MY fault. Yeah"
Why doesn't anybody see that this is Hillary trying to be presidential?
I dunno. I can kinda see how there might be a connection between the head of the government department that runs embassies and embassies. Of course it might be Obama's fault for having embassies in the first place, or at least not abolishing them.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2012, 09:09:18 PM
Yeah, the buck never seems to stop with Obama.
It would have to get passed to him first. :contract:
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Why would anybody be thrown under the bus? Islamist groups claim shit everyday. Ansar al-Sharia will probably claim responsibility for Tropical Storm Sandy.
Your partisan bullshit is so not good for America. Stop being a divider, DerIssa.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 11:26:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Why would anybody be thrown under the bus? Islamist groups claim shit everyday. Ansar al-Sharia will probably claim responsibility for Tropical Storm Sandy.
Your partisan bullshit is so not good for America. Stop being a divider, DerIssa.
WHAT DID HE KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Key takeaway: read before posting.
QuoteTwo hours after first being notified of an attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, a government e-mail to the White House, the State Department and the FBI said an Islamist group had claimed credit, according to a copy obtained by CNN.
An initial e-mail was sent while the attack was still underway, and another that arrived two hours later -- sent from a State Department address to various government agencies including the executive office of the president -- identified Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.
The group denied responsibility the next day.
I reject the notion that State Department public communications should be dictated by the unconfirmed hearsay claims of terrorist groups.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
I reject the notion that State Department public communications should be dictated by the unconfirmed hearsay claims of terrorist groups.
Dan Issa rejects your rejection.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
Key takeaway: read before posting.
I did. Immediately following your quote:
QuoteHowever, the e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September 11 attack that left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Btw how does Susan Rice still have her job?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 12:00:28 PM
Btw how does Susan Rice still have her job?
What would be the justifiable grounds for termination?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
To answer your question, they trotted out Hil to speak to what Joan said.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I'm uncertain where conservatives are going with all of this. That the Obama administration is uncertain who committed an unsolved crime?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 01:45:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
Wonder who the Administration will throw under the bus on this story?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I'm uncertain where conservatives are going with all of this. That the Obama administration is uncertain who committed an unsolved crime?
I think everyone has now said that it wasn't the result of the video (although I saw a news article pop on google from fox news saying new evidence says it was - but I wouldn't click on a fox link. :x).
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 01:45:19 PM
I'm uncertain where conservatives are going with all of this. That the Obama administration is uncertain who committed an unsolved crime?
No. That they blamed the video for weeks after the attack when it was obvious to the rest of us it was a planned attack.
I think the accusation is that the President knew it wasn't about the video and was a terrorist attack but still went around blaming the video. I'm not positive.
Ed: What he said.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:07:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 01:45:19 PM
I'm uncertain where conservatives are going with all of this. That the Obama administration is uncertain who committed an unsolved crime?
No. That they blamed the video for weeks after the attack when it was obvious to the rest of us it was a planned attack.
Really, do you know who did it?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2012, 12:31:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 12:00:28 PM
Btw how does Susan Rice still have her job?
What would be the justifiable grounds for termination?
Uh...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ambassador-susan-rice/2012/10/15/c5a9fe04-16d9-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html
At best, she was undercutting the administration's credibility. If I were all the way out on your side I'd be pissed at her.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Really, do you know who did it?
I know it wasn't spontaneous and it wasn't over the video.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Really, do you know who did it?
I know it wasn't spontaneous and it wasn't over the video.
You do? How?
The same way everyone else here called it shortly after the attack (go back through this thread if you forgot). It was pretty obvious from the details that came together a day or two later.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:17:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Really, do you know who did it?
I know it wasn't spontaneous and it wasn't over the video.
You do? How?
The same way everyone else here called it shortly after the attack (go back through this thread if you forgot). It was pretty obvious from the details that came together a day or two later.
No, why don't you actually tell me how you know this. The rest of us could only speculate. And while you are at it, why do you think Obama claimed it was the film while you became certain of the organization of this attack.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:17:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Really, do you know who did it?
I know it wasn't spontaneous and it wasn't over the video.
You do? How?
The same way everyone else here called it shortly after the attack (go back through this thread if you forgot). It was pretty obvious from the details that came together a day or two later.
No, why don't you actually tell me how you know this. The rest of us could only speculate. And while you are at it, why do you think Obama claimed it was the film while you became certain of the organization of this attack.
Calm the hell down, nobody is hurting your chieftain
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:07:11 PM
No. That they blamed the video for weeks after the attack when it was obvious to the rest of us it was a planned attack.
So what's the theory? Obama lied about this because a terrorist attack on his watch would make him look bad, but somehow his massive conspiracy unraveled (thank you conservative bloggers!)?
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:07:11 PM
No. That they blamed the video for weeks after the attack when it was obvious to the rest of us it was a planned attack.
So what's the theory? Obama lied about this because a terrorist attack on his watch would make him look bad, but somehow his massive conspiracy unraveled (thank you conservative bloggers!)?
Why does it have to be a "massive conspiracy" and not something like "Obama is inept at handling foreign affairs, here's another example"?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
Key takeaway: read before posting.
I did. Immediately following your quote:
QuoteHowever, the e-mails raise further questions about the seeming confusion on the part of the Obama administration to determine the nature of the September 11 attack that left U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.
That part is not fact, it is opinion, and it isn't particularly well thought opinion either.
Whatever "seeming confusion" he is referring to, these emails don't raise "further questions" about it. To the extent these emails demonstrate anything, they demonstrate that the stituation was objectively confusing.
QuoteBtw how does Susan Rice still have her job?
She's not resigning and the President isn't going to make her while an election is on.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2012, 05:04:49 PM
Whatever "seeming confusion" he is referring to, these emails don't raise "further questions" about it. To the extent these emails demonstrate anything, they demonstrate that the stituation was objectively confusing.
Which is why if there is any criticism (although largely dull to my mind) it should be on the fact that the administration had Rice making rather definitive statements (which were informed by faulty intelligence from CIA). That's not very fun though and harder to use on Obama.
It's an argument about nothing to cover up the fact that you need a high-power microscope to discover the policy differences between the candidates on foreign affairs. Mitt made the mistake of letting Fox and Limbaugh set his rhetorical agenda but he wised up in time for Debate 3.
What all the debate about the attack in Libya misses is that no matter who is President, there will be times that there are terrorist threats that are perceived at some level, but aren't passed on to higher-ups in the Administration, particularly not the President himself, and sometimes we're going to get bit in the ass because no one reacted to the reports--but it's simply not possible to react to every report, because there are so many of them. Just look back at the reports we now know various agencies had about the 9/11 attackers prior to the attacks. In hindsight, we can look at those reports and wonder, "how come something wasn't done about this threat?" but what that doesn't take into account is that for every accurate hunch about what terrorist attacks might be coming, there were dozens, or hundreds, or maybe even thousands of inaccurate hunches. Sure, we know now that terrorists were planning on hijacking airliners and flying them into major buildings, but looking at all the assessments that were out there on 9/10/2002, it would have probably been more likely to conclude that the biggest terrorist threat was that someone was going to poison the LA water supply or something like that.
Quote from: Tamas on October 24, 2012, 03:51:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:17:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:14:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:08:53 PM
Really, do you know who did it?
I know it wasn't spontaneous and it wasn't over the video.
You do? How?
The same way everyone else here called it shortly after the attack (go back through this thread if you forgot). It was pretty obvious from the details that came together a day or two later.
No, why don't you actually tell me how you know this. The rest of us could only speculate. And while you are at it, why do you think Obama claimed it was the film while you became certain of the organization of this attack.
Calm the hell down, nobody is hurting your chieftain
Isn't it? What I'm seeing is attacks on Obama because his administration made statements about how they thought an attack happened with the information they had at the time. They believed this for two weeks before they changed their mind for whatever reason. This doesn't strike me as odd. Yet for some strange reason, this is apparently really fucking important. I have no idea why. As of now, nobody except the people who perpetrated the crime actually know what happened. The identity of people of involved is not known let alone how they were organized. Yet Derspiess knows for certain. It's obvious to him. I'd like know how he knows this.
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 04:37:20 PM
So what's the theory? Obama lied about this because a terrorist attack on his watch would make him look bad, but somehow his massive conspiracy unraveled (thank you conservative bloggers!)?
Theory? I don't know what Obama would have had up his sleeve. Just seems like an inept handling of the situation. Sorta like with Operation Fast & Furious.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
No, why don't you actually tell me how you know this. The rest of us could only speculate. And while you are at it, why do you think Obama claimed it was the film while you became certain of the organization of this attack.
Why should I oblige you if you're too lazy to go back through through this thread?
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 06:36:15 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 04:37:20 PM
So what's the theory? Obama lied about this because a terrorist attack on his watch would make him look bad, but somehow his massive conspiracy unraveled (thank you conservative bloggers!)?
Theory? I don't know what Obama would have had up his sleeve. Just seems like an inept handling of the situation. Sorta like with Operation Fast & Furious.
Yeah, because Obama was obviously directly involved with that :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 06:40:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2012, 02:22:07 PM
No, why don't you actually tell me how you know this. The rest of us could only speculate. And while you are at it, why do you think Obama claimed it was the film while you became certain of the organization of this attack.
Why should I oblige you if you're too lazy to go back through through this thread?
Cause I looked back in the thread and failed to find exactly how you "know" this. Though I did find you bitching about Obama criticizing the guy who made that stupid film. I wonder if that's actually the root of all this. Obama criticized a dishonest bigot, and that just doesn't sit well with Republicans. Hits a little close to home. I mean, there are plenty of Republicans who really don't like Muslims that much, so maybe some took offense at the idea of Obama stating that the assassination could have been triggered by some crazy Islamophobe.
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:07:11 PM
No. That they blamed the video for weeks after the attack when it was obvious to the rest of us it was a planned attack.
So what's the theory? Obama lied about this because a terrorist attack on his watch would make him look bad, but somehow his massive conspiracy unraveled (thank you conservative bloggers!)?
Yeah I really don't understand what the criticism is here. I don't get the theory or whatever, but I don't even understand what the points of criticism are :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:31:24 PM
Quote from: Kleves on October 24, 2012, 04:37:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2012, 02:07:11 PM
No. That they blamed the video for weeks after the attack when it was obvious to the rest of us it was a planned attack.
So what's the theory? Obama lied about this because a terrorist attack on his watch would make him look bad, but somehow his massive conspiracy unraveled (thank you conservative bloggers!)?
Yeah I really don't understand what the criticism is here. I don't get the theory or whatever, but I don't even understand what the points of criticism are :mellow:
D and I already said it. Slipping it into another piece of the narrative of his inept foreign policy (reaching back to our reset in Russia). After all while we were focused on it being the video, we all (myself included so I can't judge -_-) were getting the terrorism is awful but maybe which should antagonize Muslims for the sake of antagonizing them spiel.
But again what's he done wrong? As I say I can't understand what's actually prompting the criticism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:40:46 PM
But again what's he done wrong? As I say I can't understand what's actually prompting the criticism.
He's apologizing for America all over the place.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:40:46 PM
But again what's he done wrong? As I say I can't understand what's actually prompting the criticism.
He didn't say the magic words ("terror") fast enough.
I mean, except for the fact that he did.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2012, 09:17:58 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 25, 2012, 08:40:46 PM
But again what's he done wrong? As I say I can't understand what's actually prompting the criticism.
He didn't say the magic words ("terror") fast enough.
I mean, except for the fact that he did.
Foreign policy is the same as a game of snap; things happen and you have to slam down a card or shout out snap ASAP, that's how you win in diplomacy and foreign affairs.
State Dept. Faulted in Libya Attack; 3 Officials Resign'Three State Department officials resigned under pressure Wednesday, less than a day after a damning report blamed management failures for a lack of security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, where militants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans on Sept. 11.'
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/12/19/us/politics/ap-us-us-libya-attacks.html (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/12/19/us/politics/ap-us-us-libya-attacks.html)
QuoteThe report said poor leadership in both bureaus left the post underprotected.
"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus" resulted in a security level that was "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," according to the report released late Tuesday by the independent Accountability Review Board.
...
The House committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said he was dissatisfied with the lack of progress in finding the attackers.
Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary responsible for embassy security, rejected requests for more security in Benghazi, instead training "local Libyans and army men" to provide security, a policy in force at U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world.
...
The board confirmed that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the facility.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, administration officials linked the attack to the spreading protests that had begun in Cairo earlier that day over an American-made, anti-Islamic film. Those comments came after evidence already pointed to a distinct militant attack.
U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on numerous TV talk shows the Sunday after the attack and used the administration talking points linking it to the film.
...
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., emerging from the Senate briefing on the report, kept up the congressional criticism of Rice.
"Now we all know she had knowledge. She knew what the truth was. It was a cover-up," he said.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BJ594_BENGHA_G_20121218174402.jpg&hash=e3bcb253036411f63373b76fe031f9e4b2e0bc21)
QuoteSen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., emerging from the Senate briefing on the report, kept up the congressional criticism of Rice.
"Now we all know she had knowledge. She knew what the truth was. It was a cover-up," he said.
:lol: No it wasn't, Jim. Still hating on black women. How derspiessish.