U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

[Fisherking]

From most of the US reports I am reading the Attack on the Libyan Consulate is being pushed as a planned raid.

The way it reads to me, seeing more international press was that the crowd showed up unarmed but later went and got weapons because they thought they were being fired on from the consulate. Apparently after they took the building some members of the Libyan Security Forces told the rioters where the safe house was. The crowd then went there and grabbed the Ambassador. The mortar fire on the safe house could have come from sympathizers in the Libyan Forces too. That or there are enough experienced fighters in Benghazi to handle a couple of mortars.

Anyway, the Ambassador was raped before he was murdered and carried around in the streets for hours before they left his body. I have seen several photos. In one for sure he is still alive, which only proves the point that they took him and killed him in cold blood.

Americans are all being told it was an organized terror attack, It does not look that way to me.

It looks like the government is lying to you and the press is reporting it their way.

There was also a video from Libyan TV and put up on Youtube by AFP, a French news agency.

It was pulled. Likely at direction from US Government.

Now, Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference to me but I really have a problem with the government withholding information or lying to its people.

[Fragony]

Now who could possibly be the hand under the skirt here, didn't I once tell you all that the muslim brotherhood abandoned terrorism because they found useful idiots more effective. You are all idiots. All except Panzerjaeger but still a majority

Oh and Viking, who's right now told you this would happen

[Ironside]

What really scares me is... Is that the muslim world used to be above us.

Most of our understanding of Greek philosophy, is from Muslim sources having carried the torch of enlightenment throughout our dark age.

We, however, were "blessed" to have people like Galileo Galilei. Sure the church tried to shut him up, but his words just couldn't be silenced.

YOU intellectuals of the muslim world need to sit down and ponder: "where did it all go wrong"

They did for about a century ago. It broke into two lines, the secular ones who ended up as dictators, and the more fundie line. They would need to do it better this time I think.

The tricky part about this, is how much of it that's propaganda and funneling of aggression. The start of it certainly are. Digging up some almost unknown case of insulting muslims, that can be fairly old and spice it up. That's a good question, what information are the rioters recieving?

[Fragony]

They did for about a century ago. It broke into two lines, the secular ones who ended up as dictators, and the more fundie line. They would need to do it better this time I think.

The tricky part about this, is how much of it that's propaganda and funneling of aggression. The start of it certainly are. Digging up some almost unknown case of insulting muslims, that can be fairly old and spice it up. That's a good question, what information are the rioters recieving?

Wrong question, what is it.. The islam just happens to be an ultra-violent desert ideoligy and the parents of most muslims are direct cousins. Viola. -snip-

[Fisherking]

We are all also to believe it is about this idiot film. The attack on the German Embassy was about the 2005 cartoon by a Dane.

If this can be believed: http://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/13/arabic-sources-reveal-the-truth-regarding-attacks-on-u-s-embassy-in-egypt-one-of-culprits-to-visit-u-s-on-september-15th/

Then it is much more about the Salafist party and changing international law.

Touting the Libyan attack as an act of terror is a convent out. It is also the government pushing a conspiracy theory when the public information suit’s the situation pretty clearly.

They don’t need to reveal sources because it is National Security so they can pretend to chase shadows and it gives a focus to anger other than policy.

[Fragony]

edit

Ah screw it, how is the 9-11 mosque going by the way

[Hax]

You can't read this but that is nonsense, the islam has never done anything other than feeding. Older civilisation that could do something, anything, were overrun and submitted to said islam. It pretty litterary means submitting. They still had a few books laying around and some muslims axing doors surpringly could read. It doesn't get any better than growing beards, blaming everybody, and shouting alluha akhbar.

Your post, Fragony, is not rooted in any kind of historical reality. The average Arab in 500 AD probably spoke more languages than you will ever learn. Most Arabs could read and write. We have over a million inscriptions dating to pre-Islamic times. Do you seriously want to maintain the point of view you have right now?

Apart from that, Islamisation and Arabisation of the conquered territories took well over 500 years in countries such as Egypt, and it still hasn't been fully Islamicised. We have information that there were still Coptic-speaking. Other places, such as Iran, are still largely non-Arabic speaking. The notion of "conversion by the sword" has been thrown into the garbage bin decennia ago.


Wrong question, what is it.. The islam just happens to be an ultra-violent desert ideoligy and the parents of most muslims are direct cousins. Viola. The average IQ is 75 in the muslim world, that's what we call retarded over here, they couldn't drool over a shiny surface even if they tried because they are too stupid for that.

Arse gravy, again, of the words kind. Citation required, citation required, citation required.

What's this totally foolish assumption that inbreeding is supposedly really common in the Arab world? Take my own family for instance. My grandfather, who was Turkish, married an Arab girl.

You're basically ignoring the immense varieties and diversities that exist to this day in the Arab world. And do you speak or read Arabic? I didn't think so.


They did for about a century ago. It broke into two lines, the secular ones who ended up as dictators, and the more fundie line. They would need to do it better this time I think.

It's a bit more complex than that. Starting from around 1802, with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and the subsequent British colonisation, it's clear that European concepts based in the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods started flowing into the Arab world (we see the same thing happening in Iran, but in a different way), ideas that were generally happily accepted. An important scholar who translated massive amounts of literature into Arabic at the time was the Egyptian scholar Rifa‘a al-Tahtawi, who went to France and was immensely influenced by the works of Montesquieu, Voltaire, Racine and La Fontaine. Starting from around Rifa‘a al-Tahtawi there's this period in Arab literature that we call the Nahda (renaissance), mostly characterised by the development of new kinds of literature in the Arab world such as (satirical) plays, short stories, and novels, and the use of Arabic dialects in the written word.

Some other guy who went to the West was Jalal al-Din al-Afghani, who came up with the idea of pan-Islamism as a response to European colonialism (basically calling upon all the states of Islam to form a united front against European imperialism. It should probably be noted that this concept of "pan-Islamism" was purposed at a more political level and wasn't exactly calling for the institution of a Caliphate or anything like that (the Caliphate actually still existed at the time, in the form of the Osman/Ottoman Empire).

The really interesting character (in my opinion) that we want to look at is his student, Muhammad ‘Abduh, who got exiled to France and worked on a magazine called "al-urwä al-wuthqä" (the unbreakable bond) which only ran for a few years, but was hailed throughout the Islamic world. He got recalled to Egypt and made it to the position of head Mufti there. What's interesting about this Muhammad ‘Abduh character is that he formulated European notions in Islamic terms and said some (in his time) quite liberal things about topics such as polygamy (which he forbade on Qur‘anic grounds) and basically said that people should use their brains, rather than blindly following everything done by earlier generations. He died around 1905.

After his death there was something of a divergence, as Ironside rightly pointed out, but it didn't look like one at the time. With the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1924, there were some scholars (such as the self-taught Rashid Rida from Lebanon) who thought that the Caliphate was an intrinsic part of the Islamic world. Others, such as the Azhar-trained Ali ‘abd al-Raziq, thought that the Caliphate was a reduntant institution and Abd al-Raziq even proposed that there was nothing in Islam that required its presence. To be fair, he got kicked out of Al-Azhar and got stripped of his rank as a judge because of his treatise. My great-great-uncle, who was Mufti of Constantine, was also in the same line of scholars as Abd al-Raziq.

Eventually, Rashid Rida's ideas were picked up by Hassan al-Banna, whose name is probably familiar to most people. Working with those ideas, he eventually created a boy scout-like organisation called al-ikhwan al-muslimun, or "The Muslim Brotherhood", which eventually lost its character as a sunday school where boys were taught all kinds of different things and evolved into a political organisation.

I think I expounded on the issue of Saudi-bred Wahhabism a time ago, and it should be noted that the Saudi Wahhabis don't regard the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate organisation for several reasons.

So when we're talking about "the Muslim reaction" to this (ridiculously bad) film, who exactly are we talking about here? The a-political Wahhabis of Saudi-Arabia? The sympathisers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? The radical jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Secularised (in the sense that they believe in seperation of religion and state) scholars and their students at the Azhar?

[Fragony]

"What's this totally foolish assumption that inbreeding is supposedly really common in the Arab world"

Sure it isn't, not at all

[Viking]

Oh and Viking, who's right now told you this would happen

What happened? A mob attacked the consulate. I'll let you in on a secret: public opinion tends to diverge on most matters.

If mobs and protesters suddenly and magically started to represent the majority of a population, the majority of the population in Western countries would be quite schizophrenic.

[Hax]

Sure it isn't, not at all

Citation required. Also, nice how you completely ignored the second part of my reply. Nicely done, where'd you learn to do that?

[Fragony]

What happened? A mob attacked the consulate. I'll let you in on a secret: public opinion tends to diverge on most matters.

If mobs and protesters suddenly and magically started to represent the majority of a population, the majority of the population in Western countries would be quite schizophrenic.

Sure I can make meatballs with cranberrysauce, why do you ask

[Major Robert Dump]

I find it hard to believe that people, be them chrisitian, muslim or anything, were more refined and less brutal 1500 years ago than they are now. I simply do not buy it, and I never will. I am also digging all the people making claims based on fragmentary historical remnants that require huge leaps of faith to connect point A to point B, kind of like this new thing the American muslims are doing where they say that muslims discovered America.

Coverup of brutal mob mentality and calling it an organized attack would make sense in order to not make the administration look folly for reaching out to muslims, and in order to make the Libyan endeavor not look so foolish, and would not be the craziest thing a president has done. In fact, presidents excel at things like this. What is scary, is that if this is the case, it works to the mobs advantage to not disupte the administrations claims because it allows them a second chance, a chance to continue getting financial support, a chance to save face internationally, so we can repeat this again in a few years.

[Fisherking]

That is a wise way of looking at it MRD. Of course these people have just been shown that protest can get them their way so they are looking to do it with their religion too.

For the rest of you

Look people most of you are missing the point.

These people are not stupid. They are a product of their environment just as you are.

Most of the protests have been lead by clerics and sometimes with government backing.

What they want is for people to not insult their religion. It is not as though they actually know or care about the insults or what they are asking other governments to do, in denying rights and liberties to their people.

Most have a different and more limited world view but it doesn’t make them dumb.

Some of the protests have turned violent. It is not like this has never happened anywhere else. Mobs can do that and it is in the interests of some groups to make them violent.

Spurious name calling and charges of inbreeding is just deflection from what is going on.

Until the last century it was common in Europe and America to marry cousins. Usually among the upper classes and ruling class.
The Swedish royal family was replaced with French peasant stock due in part to the problem.
Charles Darwin was married to his first cousin as was his father and grand father IIRC.
FDR was married to his first cousin too. .

[Ironside]

The Swedish royal family was replaced with French peasant stock due in part to the problem.


Eh, no that's not the reason. Cousin marriages did commonly occur amoung nobles (also isolated peasant groups to keep the land together), but the Swedish line had not done that for some time at that point. The short version: Gustav IV really hated Napoleon, got into a war, Russia (allied with Napoleon at the time) takes Finland, Gustav IV is forced to abdicate, and that line rejected from the throne. Candidate B, Karl August dies falling of his horse, no good candidates around, except that old childless dude (who did have the throne until he died). Ahh, coup is failing, lets do some radical move and get a French Marshal on the throne, so we can retake Finland. What do you mean he's not intested in taking back Finland, but goes for Norway instead?

[Hax]

I am also digging all the people making claims based on fragmentary historical remnants that require huge leaps of faith to connect point A to point B, kind of like this new thing the American muslims are doing where they say that muslims discovered America.

I am no some kind of popular historian trying to say that Islam was the best thing that has ever happened. In fact, close scrutiny of the sources I mentioned has the exact opposite effect. Do you honestly believe that suggesting that the language of the Qur'an was not the language spoken on the Arabian peninsula, or that the Syrian dialects of Arabic existed for more than five hundred years before Muhammad's time are somehow good?

All I'm trying to say is that the assumption that (most) Arabs in the time were nomads and then immediately connecting it to violent desert ideologies to make a wide claim about the tenets of Islam is historically incorrect. Moros can tell you much more about pre-Islamic Arabian civilisation. And as a sidenote, most Arab nomads were not raiders. They were shepherds.

[quadalpha]

Can't we all agree that mobs are generally not highly blessed in the intellectual department without painting an entire culture (really, cultures) with the same brush? And that the radicalisation of large demographics in the Islamic world against the West is due to a mixture of legitimate historical resentment, opportunistic demagoguery, and long dominant histories of fundamentalist religious interpretation? None of this justifies mob violence, but surely go a long way toward explaining it.

On another note, to be angry that governments conceal certain information for the purposes of national security is naive even if justified.

[Fragony]

Can't we all agree that mobs are generally not highly blessed in the intellectual department without painting an entire culture (really, cultures) with the same brush? And that the radicalisation of large demographics in the Islamic world against the West is due to a mixture of legitimate historical resentment, opportunistic demagoguery, and long dominant histories of fundamentalist religious interpretation.

Nope.

It has nothing to do with the west being the west, west is just there. Better at just being there I might add.

[Furunculus]

What's this totally bullshit assumption that inbreeding is supposedly really common in the Arab world? Take my own family for instance. My grandfather, who was Turkish, married an Arab girl.

http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#Middle_East_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/firstcousin-marriages-come-under-scrutiny-7626995.html

[Hax]

Interestingly, the practice appears to be common well outside the Arab world as well.

Still, I should admit that this was largely unknown to me.

[rvg]

What's this totally bullshit assumption that inbreeding is supposedly really common in the Arab world? Take my own family for instance. My grandfather, who was Turkish, married an Arab girl.

Can't say anything about North African Arabs (I have no information about them), but as for the Arabs from Iraq, Syria or Jordan, yes, they do inbreed. Marrying first cousins is norm both among Muslims and Christians. It's just something they do. Still not as bad as West Virginia, but they do love some o'dat inbreedin'.

[Hax]

Yeah, I was well-aware of the first cousin relationships that seem to happen, but I didn't know about how wide-spread they were. As for North Africa, I guess it happens mostly in the more tribal areas. It might very much be the same in the Mashriq.

[Major Robert Dump]

I am no some kind of popular historian trying to say that Islam was the best thing that has ever happened. In fact, close scrutiny of the sources I mentioned has the exact opposite effect. Do you honestly believe that suggesting that the language of the Qur'an was not the language spoken on the Arabian peninsula, or that the Syrian dialects of Arabic existed for more than five hundred years before Muhammad's time are somehow good?

All I'm trying to say is that the assumption that (most) Arabs in the time were nomads and then immediately connecting it to violent desert ideologies to make a wide claim about the tenets of Islam is historically incorrect. Moros can tell you much more about pre-Islamic Arabian civilisation. And as a sidenote, most Arab nomads were not raiders. They were shepherds.



That comment was not specifically aimed at you. Everyone makes large assumptions in all directions, based on whats available as evidence, and I think we all know that history is written by the victors. We cannot definitively prove that one group was less violent anymore than we can prove it was. In the end we end up arguing things about the past that are largely irrelevant 1000 years later, which is why I brought up the muslims-in-north america thing as well. In a nut shell: who cares? Anything more than a few generations is quite frankly insignificant in the greater scope of things.

As for all this inbreeding stuff, its not an arab thing, its a poor person-tribal thing. In breeding is a problem with the native american tribes who disocurage inter-race/inter-tribal marriage, and anyone who has ever visited the Navajo reservation will see a noticably higher number of birth defects amongst the people. The tribal Choctaws of oklahoma are the same way. When you stick within the tribe, eventually you run out of options.

You will also see this with the old families of Saipan in the Northern Marainna Islands, who are fairly tribal even by modern standards. My interpreters in Afghanistan who were from smaller, secular, pure blood and tight-knit communities, like Mirzaka, were all married to their cousins through arranged marriages, while the guys from large municipalities and of mixed ethnicity were not.

[Fragony]

Interestingly, the practice appears to be common well outside the Arab world as well.

Still, I should admit that this was largely unknown to me.

How can you not know this. Amost all import marriages are just that

[Hax]

How can you not know this. Amost all import marriages are just that

Ah, the ones that declined with over 70% after 2000?

[quadalpha]

Nope.

It has nothing to do with the west being the west, west is just there. Better at just being there I might add.

I'm afraid I actually can't figure out what you mean here.

[Fragony]

Ah, the ones that declined with over 70% after 2000?

Thr ones you just didn't know about?

[Fisherking]

On another note, to be angry that governments conceal certain information for the purposes of national security is naive even if justified.

What you are saying here is a little unclear.

To think that governments don’t withhold information for national security reasons is naïve.

To think that elected politicians will not use national security as an excuse to hide damaging information is also naïve.

But for citizens to meekly stand by complacent when they see political abuses is not naïve. It is stupid.

Regardless of political leaning or whether it helps your party or not it is also dangerous. What else or what other abuses of power might they be guilty of or capable of?

If you demand honesty from government, particularly of the opposition, you must also demand it from your own people. If you allow it you are playing the fool.

The government that oppresses or deceives one portion of its citizens is more than capable of oppressing or deceiving all of them.

Not to speak out when you see it is to join in and be a part of it.

[quadalpha]

To think that elected politicians will not use national security as an excuse to hide damaging information is also naïve.

...
The government that oppresses or deceives one portion of its citizens is more than capable of oppressing or deceiving all of them.

Your point is well taken, but we simply have no way of judging what actually happened at the moment. To jump to the conclusion that the administration is involved in a cover up based on rumour is to pander to the peculiar American (Republican) rhetoric of distrust of centralised government ('OMG tyranny I want my militia', etc.).

[Major Robert Dump]

Actually, it is a very valid point because certain political factions tend to blame all craziness ever in the middle east as being the result of failed US policies. Then suddenly when it happens on their presidents watch, it is not the result of failed US policies. I mean, come on man. The WH Press Secretary sounds like a parrot right now, and the left leaning news agencies have literally removed most of the unrest stories from their front pages. It's an election year, how obviouys can this be?

[Moros]

I am no some kind of popular historian trying to say that Islam was the best thing that has ever happened. In fact, close scrutiny of the sources I mentioned has the exact opposite effect. Do you honestly believe that suggesting that the language of the Qur'an was not the language spoken on the Arabian peninsula, or that the Syrian dialects of Arabic existed for more than five hundred years before Muhammad's time are somehow good?

All I'm trying to say is that the assumption that (most) Arabs in the time were nomads and then immediately connecting it to violent desert ideologies to make a wide claim about the tenets of Islam is historically incorrect. Moros can tell you much more about pre-Islamic Arabian civilisation. And as a sidenote, most Arab nomads were not raiders. They were shepherds.

Okay err... doing a lot of catching up and I think I might be missing some but anyway.

I don't see in what way the Pre-Islamic civilizations were so much more aggressive, but on the other hand it doesn't really matter as the religion changed the culture rather by a lot. Especially when it comes to Islam and Arabia as it was a drastic change of religion, one that really didn't evolve that slowly together. Almost a bit of a shock. Now with Islam the main single most change would be from polytheism to monotheism, together with a lot of adoptions from the jews and christians. If anything the root of militant religion might be here. While Greeks and Romans might have frowned upon cults and sometimes banned them from cities and all the likes, were certainly against the godless (Socrates!), it was only limited and usually to preserve their own traditions for themselves. And during the Hellenistic period to the Imperial period tolerance grew even to those who didn't believe in the traditional state gods or strange gods (epicurism, stoicism,...).

In pre-islamic Arabia, gods were often adopted from others and given an important place to commemorate a bond/alliance with each other. The best example is the adoption of Shams into the Sabaean pantheon as either the wife of Atthar or Almuqah. The Nabataeans connected their gods with Hellenistic counterparts and embraced Hellenism. To give two examples. Or the Minaeans who worshipped at Delphi, might be the best example!

Where and when do we really find the earliest zealous men? The Jewish culture and religion. Though often inwards or by revolt, I think they are likely to be the first to have done forced conversions and quite savagely by the way. (John Hyrcanus) Christians and violence and a need to conform and convert others is of course better known, longer and probably even more bloody. The Islam had it's periods as well. I don't think Hax denies that. But we shouldn't focus on that, if anything it is something their history shares with ours. Now does that make religion violent, or the monotheistic religions, or religious individuals? Not necessarily of course. But religion is in the eye of the beholder. From those who believe they should pray to Mekka, while others think Jerusalem to those who think religion should be spread and the basis for political structure, policy,... to those who think the Qur'an is merely a guide for the individual.

And if one were to call it agressive or violent. The origins will not be found in ancient arabian culture who rather bribe enemies for peace and buy allies than anything.

[quadalpha]

Actually, it is a very valid point because certain political factions tend to blame all craziness ever in the middle east as being the result of failed US policies. Then suddenly when it happens on their presidents watch, it is not the result of failed US policies. I mean, come on man. The WH Press Secretary sounds like a parrot right now, and the left leaning news agencies have literally removed most of the unrest stories from their front pages. It's an election year, how obviouys can this be?

(I'll assume you were responding to my post.)

I did say it was a good point, just that we don't have enough information to judge right now.

I don't think you'll find any political faction that won't blame things on their opponents, nor will you find any kind of press secretary that doesn't sound like a parrot. And I'm looking at the New York Times here, and the home page carries 5 stories related to the unrest.

My point is that it's not obvious at all. The identity, organisation, and motivation of the attackers are still very much murky, and even what happened at the consulate hasn't been publicly established. Given this lack of information, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions, no matter how politically obvious it might be.

This is a general problem with politics. The average voter knows next to nothing about the issues he is voting on. Does anyone know if the craziness in the Middle East is due to failed US policies, or could things have been better with different policies? No, and historians will be arguing about it for decades to come. Similarly with economics, which is all the more exacerbated by current anti-intellectual tendencies on both sides in the US (though perhaps there is an argument to be made for the average Republican voter more anti-intellectual).

[Fragony]

Update: you were wrong Lemur, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula also is a fake name. It was made by Alan Roberts, who also made Happy Hookers go to Hollywood, as everybody knows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080839/

edit: to everbody's surprise there are also people with culture in Belgium.

[Moros]

While there is debate between economic academics on the all known issues, there isn't much debate on the fact that the West didn't handle things too cleverly out there. Did it create the situation? Perhaps one could call it an overstatement. We might not have created a monster, perhaps we were more like Igor then Dr. Frankenstein, but our involvement can't be denied. And who in his right mind thinks GWB was diffusing a situation? A War on Terror is more on getting revenge and the brainless happy than anything else. Well okay perhaps it's more about wasting money.

[Major Robert Dump]

(I'll assume you were responding to my post.)

I did say it was a good point, just that we don't have enough information to judge right now.

I don't think you'll find any political faction that won't blame things on their opponents, nor will you find any kind of press secretary that doesn't sound like a parrot. And I'm looking at the New York Times here, and the home page carries 5 stories related to the unrest.

My point is that it's not obvious at all. The identity, organisation, and motivation of the attackers are still very much murky, and even what happened at the consulate hasn't been publicly established. Given this lack of information, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions, no matter how politically obvious it might be.

This is a general problem with politics. The average voter knows next to nothing about the issues he is voting on. Does anyone know if the craziness in the Middle East is due to failed US policies, or could things have been better with different policies? No, and historians will be arguing about it for decades to come. Similarly with economics, which is all the more exacerbated by current anti-intellectual tendencies on both sides in the US (though perhaps there is an argument to be made for the average Republican voter more anti-intellectual).

But the White House is emphasizing that it was only the film..... only the film....only the film. CNN. MSNBC and HuffPost have gone from pure saturation coverage on their websites to a few stories in the sidebar columns. I am simply comparing this to what they were doing 2 days ago, where every story on the home page was about this issue. I do realize that this is how news works, but the downtick coincided perfectly with the WH statement.

The WH is trying to backtrack after a callous remark by Hilary about killing Khadafi. We came off as pompous liberators and bringers of democracy, and now that its not all its cracked up to be, we are blaming a video that has been out for months and most of the protestors have not seen. It's silliness.

[Major Robert Dump]

Update: you were wrong Lemur, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula also is a fake name. It was made by Alan Roberts, who also made Happy Hookers go to Hollywood, as everybody knows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080839/

edit: to everbody's surprise there are also people with culture in Belgium.

The guy is going to jail. He very clearly violated his parole. Right wing Obama haters will call it a conspiracy, but the terms of his financial wire fraud conviction was that he not use computers (check), he not use the internet (check) and he not use aliases or alternate names (check)

The moral of the story is to clean your own house before trying to rile the world. This guy appears to be a bonafide idiot

[Fragony]

While there is debate between economic academics on the all known issues, there isn't much debate on the fact that the West didn't handle things too cleverly out there. Did it create the situation? Perhaps one could call it an overstatement. We might not have created a monster, perhaps we were more like Igor then Dr. Frankenstein, but our involvement can't be denied. And who in his right mind thinks GWB was diffusing a situation? A War on Terror is more on getting revenge and the brainless happy than anything else. Well okay perhaps it's more about wasting money.

I think it is much simplier, it isn't just the US they hate the hate the whole west. If you are absolutely sure your religion is the greatest it must be a kick in the nuts to see everybody doing better, heck, I'd beat my wife

[Moros]

I think it is much simplier, it isn't just the US they hate the hate the whole west.
Oh indeed.


If you are absolutely sure your religion is the greatest it must be a kick in the nuts to see everybody doing better, heck, I'd beat my wife
Yeah those filthy rich Christians in Africa!

No seriously while the failed attempts of pan-Islamists might have disillusioned some and all. I think we must differentiate between intellectual and social groups. The real masses might be somewhat jealous of our richness, but really that doesn't make you hate someone. I don't see the Chinese bombing us, and lets be fair if one group of people has a we're better than the rest kind of mentality it's them. ~;) No seriously, if anything it's not because they are in an economical and social disadvantage. It's because we misused the powers we had and instead of trying to diffuse the situation, every time it heats up we just throw in an extra crate of dynamite on an already gigantic pile, that makes them focus their anger on us. Now I'm portraying it almost as cartoonish and black and white as you. But certainly there's a lot of frustration out there, which is actually, but caused by their local governments as well, but we're a great scapegoat and a great reason to stay true to faith and whatever political agenda. Some nutters actually believe we are the evil of all things, most nutters just use us for their own goals others are just naïve masses who will join any cause, mainly because this way they can channel their frustrations and anger only making their own situations worse. I'm really not apologetic when it comes to this, if that's what you think.

It is not about Islam being bad in se. It as bad and as good as Christianity, only it didn't evolve with our history as Christianity did. Still while there might be massive protests and when it comes to religious wacko's it doesn't seem to be getting better, we must not act like every moslim out there hates us. Do you hate us Hax?

Our foreign policies is the electricity that helps Frankenstein (the nutters) create this monster (the naïve masses). That's why we need to cut off the power. Not just trash his place.

[Hax]

I'm not a Muslim, so I can't really say.

Of course, I hate all of you equally.

[rvg]

I'm not a Muslim, so I can't really say.
Are you sure? You certainly spend a lot of time defending them. I've been around many-many non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs, and one thing that pretty much defines them across the board is that they almost universally hate Muslims.

[Beskar]

Are you sure? You certainly spend a lot of time defending them. I've been around many-many non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs, and one thing that pretty much defines them across the board is that they almost universally hate Muslims.

Perhaps you should send him to an remote island and interrogate him for years in not-torture camps to make sure.

Though, I think Hax kind of has the authority to say whether or not he is a Muslim and I don't think he randomly wakes up in the middle of the night going "Am I really sure I am not a Muslim?". I don't think he is secretly praying to Mecca in the corner whilst being a practising and self-confessing Buddhist either.

[rvg]

Though, I think Hax kind of has the authority to say whether or not he is a Muslim

Hax does. You however, do not. My question was for him.

[Moros]

Hax does. You however, do not. My question was for him.

No he is a Buddhist he's stated that before, even before he came to the backroom now that I come to think of it. Or at least I seem to remember that he posted that in the TYOLT in his early .orgah days. Why would he lie about that, also why would he go contradict himself? You're strange, so aggressively interrogating others instead of making and then defending a case for your viewpoints.

[Strike For The South]

Why does everyone think Hax is a muslim?

Every couple of months a few posters levy the same accusation.

The man does not even know that much

[Fragony]

Why does everyone think Hax is a muslim?

Because he tends to defend islam and knows a lot about it, and he's half-arab. But haxie is indeed a budhist

[Fisherking]

Your point is well taken, but we simply have no way of judging what actually happened at the moment. To jump to the conclusion that the administration is involved in a cover up based on rumour is to pander to the peculiar American (Republican) rhetoric of distrust of centralised government ('OMG tyranny I want my militia', etc.).

I am sorry you don’t think you have the info to judge.

I know it was reported. I just can’t say it got into mainstream US media.

That sir, is the problem.

The information came from Libyan TV and European journalists in the country.

An angry mob did the job with a little help from sympathetic Libyan security people on site who told them where the safe house was.

The government is feeding you a conspiracy theory that it was a planned attack by some terror organization. Some how they think that lets them off the hook for what happened to their people.

The TV footage was pulled from Youtube. Who do you think has the power to make them take it down?

Now, I am no Republican and I don’t think anyone would class me as rightwing. I once was a very active Democrat. What drove me from that party was this very issue.

I am just pointing out what I have found. If you don’t care to believe it or if you prefer to believe what you are told without question that is your choice.

All this information is (or at least was) available.

[Hax]

I've been around many-many non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs, and one thing that pretty much defines them across the board is that they almost universally hate Muslims.

Actually, I'm a taqiyya-practicing Nizari Shi‘a from Alamut. I'm here to assassinate your leaders and smoke hashish (it's why I live in the Netherlands). Bow to the coming global Caliphate, infidels.

Seriously though, I think I don't really defend Islam per se. I like to think I defend people and their rights. The only thing I'm trying to say is that what we regard as Islam is an incredibly diverse and vibrant religion with many, many different kinds of facets and characteristics.

That being said, however, I tend to get in trouble with many of my Muslim co-students (and even got into an almost violent discussion in Riga) because I'm very critical about what they call the tenets of Islam. What I mean is that I'm very critical of the actions of Muhammad, the veracity and general reliability of the ahadith, the position of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic states (note, not the same as Muslim states) or the grammar in the Qur'an (seriously, when I suggested there might be grammatical errors in the Qur'an, you should have seen the faces on some of the converts in my class. Hilarious.) My own opinion is that the notion of polygamy is stupid and that regarding homosexuality and adultery as sins is stupid and that thinking that non-Muslims are inferior is more than stupid.


However, I also believe that the majority of the Muslims I know(!) tend not to think that way at all. I'm not trying to explain Islam, I'm trying to explain the actions of Muslims.

[Fragony]

Actually, I'm a taqiyya-practicing Nizari Shi‘a from Alamut. I'm here to assassinate your leaders and smoke hashish (it's why I live in the Netherlands). Bow to the coming global Caliphate, infidels.

Seriously though, I think I don't really defend Islam per se. I like to think I defend people and their rights. The only thing I'm trying to say is that what we regard as Islam is an incredibly diverse and vibrant religion with many, many different kinds of facets and characteristics.

That being said, however, I tend to get in trouble with many of my Muslim co-students (and even got into an almost violent discussion in Riga) because I'm very critical about what they call the tenets of Islam. What I mean is that I'm very critical of the actions of Muhammad, the veracity and general reliability of the ahadith, the position of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic states (note, not the same as Muslim states) or the grammar in the Qur'an (seriously, when I suggested there might be grammatical errors in the Qur'an, you should have seen the faces on some of the converts in my class. Hilarious.) My own opinion is that the notion of polygamy is stupid and that regarding homosexuality and adultery as sins is stupid and that thinking that non-Muslims are inferior is more than stupid.


However, I also believe that the majority of the Muslims I know(!) tend not to think that way at all. I'm not trying to explain Islam, I'm trying to explain the actions of Muslims.

There is no patience for that you should know that. The backlash it will get will be without precedence, it will be incredibly cruel and without any pity. Do you really want that, because it will be like that. That can not be avoided.

[Hax]

Nonsense. The first thing my Egyptian (Muslim) teacher of Islamic law said was: "In my classroom we have no room for religious convictions".

I've noticed that it's very well possible to take a critical stance on Islam and have a normal discussion. Sure, there are some crazies (especially the converts, dear God they're weird), but apart from them, no problem whatsoever.

Let me put it this way: being critical is not the same thing as being insulting. I try to avoid tropes and clichés when talking about issues such as Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. I won't say things such as "Muhammad was a pedophile", because it presupposes that Muhammad had a thing for little kids, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion.

[Fragony]

Ever thought about westerners just kinda having enough with islam? That is closer than you might think

[Hax]

Not so much with Islam, but rather with the nonsense around it.

[Fragony]

Not so much with Islam, but rather with the nonsense around it.

You are going to get bombed, in the worst way possible

[HopAlongBunny]

Within any societal division you want to make you will find perfectly reasonable people with whom you can work, and you will find crazies (I call them something a lil stronger) who are a complete waste of time to try to deal with. Defining each classification around the crazies might be safer but its a focus that does not get you anywhere. While I personally wouldn't have cared if they shuttered the churches here during the "Snipers for Christ" fad of the "pro-life" movement, I think that would have been counter-productive. Labeling every Christian as a murderer and exterminating them would have caught a lot of innocent people, and a lot of good people.

[Hax]

You are going to get bombed, in the worst way possible

Yeah, well, I'm not afraid of the Sharia4Belgium and their goons.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/islamist-militia-libyan-anger?intcmp=239

Backlash against the Islamists has started.

[Hax]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

[HopAlongBunny]

OMG! They have infected the Beaver People! Noooo!!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/09/15/calgary-muslim-film-protest.html

[Husar]

So, which leadership do the Germans deserve?

a) Nazis
b) Merkel
c) the Iron Chancellor

c!! ~;)

[Fragony]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/islamist-militia-libyan-anger?intcmp=239

Backlash against the Islamists has started.

That's good

[quadalpha]

I am sorry you don’t think you have the info to judge.

I know it was reported. I just can’t say it got into mainstream US media.

That sir, is the problem.

The information came from Libyan TV and European journalists in the country.

An angry mob did the job with a little help from sympathetic Libyan security people on site who told them where the safe house was.

The government is feeding you a conspiracy theory that it was a planned attack by some terror organization. Some how they think that lets them off the hook for what happened to their people.

The TV footage was pulled from Youtube. Who do you think has the power to make them take it down?

Now, I am no Republican and I don’t think anyone would class me as rightwing. I once was a very active Democrat. What drove me from that party was this very issue.

I am just pointing out what I have found. If you don’t care to believe it or if you prefer to believe what you are told without question that is your choice.

All this information is (or at least was) available.

I don't believe anything without question. All sources of information are limited in reliability either actively or passively. So, in this case, I am not sure why I should valorise Libyan or European journalists' reports, as you would not expect journalists in general to have access to evidence of a conspiracy anyway. Now I admit I have not seen the pulled Youtube footage, and so have not been able to take that into account.

I mean, I'm not saying you are wrong. In fact, it's quite plausible, and you may well have access to better information than I've seen, but I'm just maintaining the legitimacy of saying I just don't know.

[PanzerJaeger]

double

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/islamist-militia-libyan-anger?intcmp=239

Backlash against the Islamists has started.


That's a backlash? The reporter basically found a government official and a few people in the street who said that they did not like the Islamists very much but that could be bothered to do anything about it. They would not even question them in the hospital. I also enjoyed the implication that the people were against killing Americans not because it is a particularly bad thing to do, but because it may cause the Americans to stop giving things to Libya.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Libyan history could have seen that the initial armed uprising against Gaddafi in Benghazi was the work of LIFG type Islamists, not liberals - who are more interested in posting youtube videos and skyping with journalists than fighting. The protests were a cover and nothing more. It took the Syrian opposition nearly a year to militarize. Islamists were storming government barracks within 3 days in Libya.

But no one in the West wanted to hear it. The narrative was too strong. People still to this day believe the nonsense about Gaddafi forces slaughtering protestors in the streets and an imminent genocide. The Security Council vote was pushed through without any actual knowledge of the reality on the ground in Libya. And now it appears we have handed large swathes of the nation to anti-Western Islamists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a backlash? The reporter basically found a government official and a few people in the street who said that they did not like the Islamists very much but that could be bothered to do anything about it. They would not even question them in the hospital. I also enjoyed the implication that the people were against killing Americans not because it is a particularly bad thing to do, but because it may cause the Americans to stop giving things to Libya.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Libyan history could have seen that the initial armed uprising against Gaddafi in Benghazi was the work of LIFG type Islamists, not liberals - who are more interested in posting youtube videos and skyping with journalists than fighting. The protests were a cover and nothing more. It took the Syrian opposition nearly a year to militarize. Islamists were storming government barracks within 3 days in Libya.

But no one in the West wanted to hear it. The narrative was too strong. People still to this day believe the nonsense about Gaddafi forces slaughtering protestors in the streets and an imminent genocide. The Security Council vote was pushed through without any actual knowledge of the reality on the ground in Libya. And now it appears we have handed large swathes of the nation to anti-Western Islamists.

Well, we hate you and we don't try to kill you - we just want the F-35.

So Libya should fit right in.

Have you seen the pictures of the Libyan girls with tea lights and photographs of the ambassador?

[Noncommunist]

So why did this supposedly Islamist movement give way to a liberal party in power?

[quadalpha]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/middleeast/attack-by-fringe-group-highlights-the-problem-of-libya-militias.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/douthat-its-not-about-the-video.html

[PanzerJaeger]

Have you seen the pictures of the Libyan girls with tea lights and photographs of the ambassador?

Adorable, but how is their proficiency with Soviet bloc small arms?


So why did this supposedly Islamist movement give way to a liberal party in power?

Fraud (http://observers.france24.com/content/20120706-libya-observers-reveal-possibility-fraud-voter-registration-parliamentary-elections) of course. Don't be naive, the West got exactly the government it wanted out of the elections, and that government has exactly no power over the nation writ large. Just like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, the West will have to continue to do the heavy lifting to keep the nominal government in Tripoli propped up if it has any hope of getting a decent ROI on this latest adventure. The drones have already been sent in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Adorable, but how is their proficiency with Soviet bloc small arms?

As I said to rvg, you don't change things just by killing people.

Western backing for the popular uprising (and there was one beyond the Islamists) meant that it wasn't the Islamists that freed Libya, it was a cross-section of Libyans backed by the "Christian" NATO.


Fraud (http://observers.france24.com/content/20120706-libya-observers-reveal-possibility-fraud-voter-registration-parliamentary-elections) of course. Don't be naive, the West got exactly the government it wanted out of the elections, and that government has exactly no power over the nation writ large. Just like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, the West will have to continue to do the heavy lifting to keep the nominal government in Tripoli propped up if it has any hope of getting a decent ROI on this latest adventure. The drones have already been sent in.

I was not aware of widespread accusations of fraud in Libya, generally I believe UN observers found the elections to be mostly free and fair.

As to the Islamists, they'll have to fight the tribes and the regional militias if they want to subvert the elections. The Libyans right now want a democracy, and it looks like they will continue to want one. It also looks like many members of the NTC, who didn't stand in the recent elections, are on course for electoral success once the Constitution has been drafted.

Libya has a lot of problems, but writing the country off as a basket case and painting Gadaffi's crackdown as a fabrication are hardly helping.

I genuinely hope you are wrong about the drones, because all that will do will damage American credibility in the eyes of the Libyans, and your international stock is low enough already after Iraq and especially Lebanon.

[Major Robert Dump]

Don't underestimate the power of candles and signs. This one time when we were pinned in an ambush, we pulled out our candles and signs and the Haqqani then left us alone. It's a little known fact that suicide bombers, while they do target civilians, will shy away from people with sings and candles. The DOD is thinking of making signs and candles standard issue for all American troops in afghanistan because it will probably keep the ANA and ANP from shooting us in the backs due to an argument over canaloupe in the dining facility.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In related news: Libya's elected assembly asks the Us not to blow up their city without asking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/libyan-president-magariaf-military-action

At this point, Drone strikes would be an Act of War.

[Fragony]

-Link removed-

The cartoon that caused zero outrage globally. Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam

Edit: hehe in all fairness, these sharia4belgium idiots called for a protest in Amsterdam, nobody came but them

Dutchie muslims :sweetheart: quite the contrast with the 230 arrests made in Antwerpen

My theory: they are used to being insulted by now just like everybody else

[Major Robert Dump]

In related news: Libya's elected assembly asks the Us not to blow up their city without asking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/libyan-president-magariaf-military-action

At this point, Drone strikes would be an Act of War.


Attacking an embassy and murdering its occupants is an act of war, funny how that works

[Papewaio]

Can an enemy combatant start a war between nations?

[Major Robert Dump]

If the host country let the attack happen -- gave the location of the safe house in fact -- then I would say yes, probably.

I want you guys to think of every crazy conspiracy movie you have ever seen. Every CIA-gonna-bomb-LA so their budget doesnt get cut. Every Fireman-gonna-start-fires for job protection. Every crazy scenario where people sell out other people -- often innocent people -- in order to save their own skin or to make a few bucks.

This is happening in Mexico with the drug war, and this is happening in the middle east, north africa and east asia with occupying militaries and foreign aid. People scoff at the idea that foerign aid gets funneled to the enemy which in turn keeps the foriegn aid flowing like water. People scoff at the idea that authorities pay tribute to the really bad people in exchange for mutual breathing room. We are talking about money and power here, and the big stupid americans and their bottomless bank accounts are more than happy to keep funneling money. Whats a few less infidels more or less.

[quadalpha]

The cartoon that caused zero outrage globally. Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam

Hah, good one.

Yeah, I was thinking when I first heard that killing the ambassador has to carry serious consequences. It's so utterly barbaric that you realise that there is a limit to communication with these people.

[Fragony]

In Copenhagen there is also culture it seems, not that people who read non-quality media already knew that, but explosives have been found in an enriched area

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I read one more news article about how a video "sparked" protests...

[Fragony]

If I read one more news article about how a video "sparked" protests...

you are going to explode??? ;)

[Fisherking]

Can an enemy combatant start a war between nations?

Serbia 1914?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Austria wanted that war - the Serbian terrorists were an excuse.

It currently seems unlikely that the Libyan government was involved, so US aggression would be unacceptable at this point.

[Fragony]

Austria wanted that war - the Serbian terrorists were an excuse

Heh no. It were the Serbian terrorists that wanted it, and Russia

Oh and Viking, the UN reported that jihadi's are now fighthing with the whoeverknowswhat, toldyouso total chaos

Accordding to the report violations of human rights are increasing in number, speed, and scale

aka wrong as usual

[HopAlongBunny]

The mistake is in thinking the civil war is over. With large armed groups still roving the country it is better to think of the end of the civil war as "under negotiation". A brief summary of the divisions 7175; it could be well over a decade before this all shakes out.

[Fragony]

The mistake is in thinking the civil war is over. With large armed groups still roving the country it is better to think of the end of the civil war as "under negotiation". A brief summary of the divisions 7175; it could be well over a decade before this all shakes out.

Who would have thought that

[Kralizec]

Austria wanted that war - the Serbian terrorists were an excuse.

It currently seems unlikely that the Libyan government was involved, so US aggression would be unacceptable at this point.

The death of a crown prince is surely more than just an excuse. A better way of putting it would be that there was a history of antagonism between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which canned any chance the Serbians may have had to defuse the situation.

[rvg]

The death of a crown prince is surely more than just an excuse. A better way of putting it would be that there was a history of antagonism between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which canned any chance the Serbians may have had to defuse the situation.

Agreed. Killing the heir to the Austrian throne is a casus belli in and of itself. If you factor in the animosities, then any chance for peace is truly lost.

[Fragony]

The death of a crown prince is surely more than just an excuse. A better way of putting it would be that there was a history of antagonism between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which canned any chance the Serbians may have had to defuse the situation.

They knew it would happen, they had a free pass at the border. They knew they were Black Hand

[Kralizec]

Yes, and the Black Hand was definitely not sanctioned by the Serbian government. However Austro-Hungary made several demands (which I don't know in detail) to Serbia in order to root out all Black Hand members involved, and they refused most of them.

[Conradus]

Some of those demands couldn't be expected to be met. But still, Europe was going to war anyway, either in 1914 or some years later.

[Fragony]

Yes, and the Black Hand was definitely not sanctioned by the Serbian government. However Austro-Hungary made several demands (which I don't know in detail) to Serbia in order to root out all Black Hand members involved, and they refused most of them.

Austria-hungary was actually put on a leash by Germany for two weeks

[Lemur]

An interesting take (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html) on the outrage-a-thon currently sweeping the Arab world:

As the latest wave of indignation sweeps across the Muslim world, we should not be despondent. Yes, this is a setback for the Arab Spring. Yes, it is bloody, dangerous, and chaotic on the streets. Yes, innocent people are dying and their governments are powerless. But this too shall pass.

Utopian ideologies have a short lifespan. Some are bloodier than others. As long as Islamists were able to market their philosophy as the only alternative to dictatorship and foreign meddling, they were attractive to an oppressed polity. But with their election to office they will be subjected to the test of government. It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. The governments will begin to fail as soon as they set about implementing their philosophy: strip women of their rights; murder homosexuals; constrain the freedoms of conscience and religion of non-Muslims; hunt down dissidents; persecute religious minorities; pick fights with foreign powers, even powers, such as the U.S., that offered them friendship. The Islamists will curtail the freedoms of those who elected them and fail to improve their economic conditions. [...]

In one or two or three decades we will see the masses in these countries take to the streets—and perhaps call for American help—to liberate them from the governments they elected. This process will be faster in some places than others, but in all of them it will be bloody and painful. If we take the long view, America and other Western countries can help make this happen in the same way we helped bring about the demise of the former Soviet Union.

[Kralizec]

Austria-hungary was actually put on a leash by Germany for two weeks

Austro-Hungary wasn't on anybody's leash in 1914. But they decided to wait until they could get explicit ensurance from Germany that they'd have backup. John Keegan's assesment was that immediately after the murder the world and its governments were shocked, and that if Austro-Hungary went after Serbia immediately even the Russians would have understood and not intervened. Because they took so bloody long however the Russians regained their composure, and the rest is history.

[Viking]

Oh and Viking, the UN reported that jihadi's are now fighthing with the whoeverknowswhat, toldyouso total chaos

Are we talking about Syria? Don't think I've said much about Syria.

[Fisherking]

Let’s not re-fight the first world war. It is sufficient to say that Terrorists were and excuse then and Terrorists are the current cause du Jour for most anything it does or wants to do.

Labeling a particular militia terrorists after the fact is convenient. Why not take necessary precautions beforehand?

And too, Obama’s praise for rioters dropping the body at the hospital after killing him, and in light of who they were with regard to the hospital does not inspire great confidence in the man.

[Lemur]

Obama’s praise for rioters dropping the body at the hospital after killing him, and in light of who they were with regard to the hospital does not inspire great confidence in the man.
I just wasted five entire minutes trying to Google up a transcript that reflects/substantiates this claim, and came up empty. Could you please provide a link when you assert the President said something? I think this is a reasonable request for two reasons:


The Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly (https://i.imgur.com/9MZd0.png) in this crisis that they will criticize the President for things he never said or did.
It would save time and substantiate the accusation.

[Fisherking]

I just wasted five entire minutes trying to Google up a transcript that reflects/substantiates this claim, and came up empty. Could you please provide a link when you assert the President said something? I think this is a reasonable request for two reasons:


The Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly (https://i.imgur.com/9MZd0.png) in this crisis that they will criticize the President for things he never said or did.
It would save time and substantiate the accusation.


To be truthful, I did not read that account. A friend of a friend put it up on fb so it could easily be a misquote or even a fabrication.

My wrong assumption that it was so.

[CBR]

The people who brought his body to the hospital were rioters?

[Fisherking]

The Libyans say the body was left at the hospital. In view that that militia guards the hospital you can see why and how.

Now I have to go to fb and see that link that was put up…

[Viking]

I just wasted five entire minutes trying to Google up a transcript that reflects/substantiates this claim, and came up empty. Could you please provide a link when you assert the President said something? I think this is a reasonable request for two reasons:


The Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly (https://i.imgur.com/9MZd0.png) in this crisis that they will criticize the President for things he never said or did.
It would save time and substantiate the accusation.


Clinton said some stuff (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19576729). Shortly after 1:05. "Libyans carried Chris' body to the hospital."

[Fisherking]

It could have been that Hillary said it. It may have been that it was just attributed to the Obama Administration.

At any rate it has fallen of my radar, due to kitsch cards, new photos, and football fans.

I will be more careful in the future. I do my very best not to blame Democrats for the things Hillary says.

[CBR]

The Libyans say the body was left at the hospital. In view that that militia guards the hospital you can see why and how.

I found articles saying it was Libyans who tried to defend the Americans and another saying it was looters who later found the body.

Obama and Clinton praised them and said they had tried to defend the consulate. Whether that is true or not, they certainly did not call them rioters.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The mistake is in thinking the civil war is over. With large armed groups still roving the country it is better to think of the end of the civil war as "under negotiation". A brief summary of the divisions 7175; it could be well over a decade before this all shakes out.


The death of a crown prince is surely more than just an excuse. A better way of putting it would be that there was a history of antagonism between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, which canned any chance the Serbians may have had to defuse the situation.

I'll take both of these together, just because all I can say is that they are both fair points.


An interesting take (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html) on the outrage-a-thon currently sweeping the Arab world:

As the latest wave of indignation sweeps across the Muslim world, we should not be despondent. Yes, this is a setback for the Arab Spring. Yes, it is bloody, dangerous, and chaotic on the streets. Yes, innocent people are dying and their governments are powerless. But this too shall pass.

Utopian ideologies have a short lifespan. Some are bloodier than others. As long as Islamists were able to market their philosophy as the only alternative to dictatorship and foreign meddling, they were attractive to an oppressed polity. But with their election to office they will be subjected to the test of government. It is clear, as we saw in Iran in 2009 and elsewhere, that if the philosophy of the Islamists is fully and forcefully implemented, those who elected them will end up disillusioned. The governments will begin to fail as soon as they set about implementing their philosophy: strip women of their rights; murder homosexuals; constrain the freedoms of conscience and religion of non-Muslims; hunt down dissidents; persecute religious minorities; pick fights with foreign powers, even powers, such as the U.S., that offered them friendship. The Islamists will curtail the freedoms of those who elected them and fail to improve their economic conditions. [...]

In one or two or three decades we will see the masses in these countries take to the streets—and perhaps call for American help—to liberate them from the governments they elected. This process will be faster in some places than others, but in all of them it will be bloody and painful. If we take the long view, America and other Western countries can help make this happen in the same way we helped bring about the demise of the former Soviet Union.

This, however, is more of the complacency evidenced by Frags and PJ, among others. The key assumption is that this strife is necessary and that it is all part of the "growing pains" the Arab world has to go through. This is based on several fallacious assumptions.

1. A succession of Civil wars are necessary for a nation to mature and "grow out of" violence.

2. The people in the Arab world are generally immature.

3. The situation in the Arab world is a natural state of affairs, and it just needs to progress to the next level.

4. This particular current cycle of strife is necessary, and if we just let it go on then it will eventually wear itself out.

This is all WRONG WRONG WRONG.

1. Much of the Arab world has been a pawn in someone else's game for the last couple of centuries, this isn't Europe where nation-states formed when people broke away or banded together, this is a completely different world.

2. The people in the Arab world are generally quite politically mature, most aren't raving loons and the ones in the cities are generally quite well educated to boot. The tribal peoples are the result of a lack of Urbanisation, which itself results from the poor state of the economy, which is down to bad management in a lot of cases.

3. There's nothing "natural" about the Arab dictators, all of them from Iran to Libya were propped up by the West until they were bedded in. There has been a policy for at least five decades of Western Powers overthrowing monarchies and democracies in favour of "friends" - the worst example is Iran, where a Constitutional Monarchy with a democratic government was overthrown by the West and the Shah was made an autocrat - Iran is our fault.

4. The idea that, having overthrown one dictator, the various Arab peoples will install another one is only surpassed in stupidity by the belief that they'll overthrow the next dictator "in a few decades". If we ever thought this was true the USSR and more recently Iran should disabuse us of the notion. If another dictator takes control of Libya it will be with outside help, and there is no telling how long he will stay. More to the point, we cannot simply shrug our shoulders and say the Arabs need to solve their own problems when many of those problems are of our making.

So, what to do?

For one thing, learn from Afghanistan. There the US backed a minor Warlord who was seen as "friendly" to the US over the Afghan King, the only man who might have been able to build a consensus. The mistake here was for the US to think it knew best who should be in charge, and that it could create an administration that was friendly by default.

The US has a poor history in how it treats its allies, the abysmal situation in the Falklands is a good example of the US trying to woo naturally hostile governments with dubious records rather than protecting vulnerable communities under the care of its long-term partners.

With Arab world the US, and the US is the only country that matters really, needs to realise that supporting dictators hasn't worked and is never going to. It burns up political capital in the region and generates ill feeling, to the extent that the US as a nation is blamed for any perceived insult visited upon Arabs by Americans. Basically, the Arabs think the Americans don't respect them as a people - they're right.

Despite this, the US has generated positive feeling in Libya, as demonstrated by the vote of sympathy for the Ambassador in the wake of his killing; Drone strikes would destroy that good feeling which exists at ground-level. The US government should capitalise of the good feeling it has in the country by helping Libya and the other newly-democratic Arab countries, and continuing to help them so long as they main democratic. Instead of waiting for democracy to break out in the Middle East like a rash we should support the democrats and the democratic governments. The freer a country is, the better its judiciary and the more transparent a government it has the more help it should get.

It's simple really, make it in the interests of the Libyan politicians to help the Libyan people, if they don't you can withdraw support, offer asylum to the political dissidents who do want something better for their fellow countryman. During the Cold War there was Polish Government in Exile in London, and it remained there until the exiles could return to a free Poland.

I've said it before - you can't kill an idea - but you can help it to take root and flourish.

[Fragony]

The people who brought his body to the hospital were rioters?

Lol he is crearly alive at first, and he's obviously dead later, look at the pics h

[Fisherking]

I found articles saying it was Libyans who tried to defend the Americans and another saying it was looters who later found the body.

Obama and Clinton praised them and said they had tried to defend the consulate. Whether that is true or not, they certainly did not call them rioters.

No, the government would not have called those who returned the body rioters, nor would they have said looters.

Nothing that I have seen from government sources have said that he was captured alive, killed, and paraded through the streets either but that is obviously what happened. It was perpetrated, at least in part by a militia group that boasted of their ability to do this very thing, beforehand. They also do not see Islam as compatible with democracy, that is fine.

Put out the truth in full measure. Not part of it or a little now and a little later. Deal with the truth above board. Let politicians tell us the worst and why their course of action was taken.

If they are hiding this and we know it, what else could be covered up? When do we know what is true and what isn’t? Are we only to get the truth through political filters or what they wish us to know?

[Beskar]

Despite this, the US has generated positive feeling in Libya, as demonstrated by the vote of sympathy for the Ambassador in the wake of his killing; Drone strikes would destroy that good feeling which exists at ground-level. The US government should capitalise of the good feeling it has in the country by helping Libya and the other newly-democratic Arab countries, and continuing to help them so long as they main democratic. Instead of waiting for democracy to break out in the Middle East like a rash we should support the democrats and the democratic governments. The freer a country is, the better its judiciary and the more transparent a government it has the more help it should get.

It's simple really, make it in the interests of the Libyan politicians to help the Libyan people, if they don't you can withdraw support, offer asylum to the political dissidents who do want something better for their fellow countryman. During the Cold War there was Polish Government in Exile in London, and it remained there until the exiles could return to a free Poland.

I've said it before - you can't kill an idea - but you can help it to take root and flourish.

Completely and utterly agreed on this. It is so simple an idea which it seems to escape many people.

[CBR]

Lol he is crearly alive at first, and he's obviously dead later, look at the pics h
I can't say if he was alive or not. I don't see any parading in the photos but I see chaos though. We know nothing of the surroundings and the situation beyond the limited details from the photo. You don't even know if this is the group who brought him to the hospital.

If he was alive at first and then dead in the later photo then what? I guess it must mean they killed him! It's obvious!!

[Fragony]

Libyia... Sounds like Australia http://www.news.com.au/national/probe-into-boy-holding-beheading-sign/story-fncynjr2-1226475238920

[Fisherking]

You know what I don’t get?

This Libyan TV footage taken off of Youtube!

It is not that they are just denying US viewer access. It is world wide!


In other words we have US government telling the world at large what they can and cannot see, and yet there has been not a whimper of protest by any Europeans or others around the world?

Would it be less ignorable if you had fewer political sympathies with the current administration or with it be okay if George Bush had done it too?

Or do you just assume that the media would not cooperate with a Republican, and that makes it okay?

[Fragony]

You know what I don’t get?

This Libyan TV footage taken off of Youtube!

It is not that they are just denying US viewer access. It is world wide!


In other words we have US government telling the world at large what they can and cannot see, and yet there has been not a whimper of protest by any Europeans or others around the world?

Would it be less ignorable if you had fewer political sympathies with the current administration or with it be okay if George Bush had done it too?

Or do you just assume that the media would not cooperate with a Republican, and that makes it okay?

I am not having trouble it's all still on youtube

[CBR]

I am not having trouble it's all still on youtube
Oh a video?

Yes found one. Finding him and carrying him through a window. I don't know what they are saying beyond the allahu akbar bit, but I guess that must mean something bad is about to happen right?

Is that the same group that took the photos? And same group who took him to the hospital?

[Hooahguy]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/437772/ultimatum-to-us-criminalise-blasphemy-or-lose-consulate/

They get over $2B from us, and they are making demands? We should just pull our cash and our embassy now, why bother with these people?

Favorite quote from the article:

“If the US claims to be a civilised nation, why does it stoop to insult other religions and civilisations?”

As if we're going to change our Constitution for you :daisy: heads.

[HoreTore]

You know what I don’t get?

This Libyan TV footage taken off of Youtube!

It is not that they are just denying US viewer access. It is world wide!


In other words we have US government telling the world at large what they can and cannot see, and yet there has been not a whimper of protest by any Europeans or others around the world?

Would it be less ignorable if you had fewer political sympathies with the current administration or with it be okay if George Bush had done it too?

Or do you just assume that the media would not cooperate with a Republican, and that makes it okay?

It's a true shame that what Youtube does is seen as relevant.

[Fragony]

Oh a video?

Yes found one. Finding him and carrying him through a window. I don't know what they are saying beyond the allahu akbar bit, but I guess that must mean something bad is about to happen right?

Is that the same group that took the photos? And same group who took him to the hospital?

It isn't thard, he was alive and suddenly he's dead. I sespect murder

[Fisherking]

That is not the video acquired by AFP and put up on the net. That is the one the 4 pics came from.

Did you find it on Youtube? No!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/437772/ultimatum-to-us-criminalise-blasphemy-or-lose-consulate/

They get over $2B from us, and they are making demands? We should just pull our cash and our embassy now, why bother with these people?

Favorite quote from the article:
As if we're going to change our Constitution for you :daisy: heads.

This is simply not a politic statement - 2Bn is nothing in the US budget, and in any case it is not a question of money.

[Major Robert Dump]

Some are saying they were cheering because he was a alive, and the calls to hold hm up were sympathetic

And some are saying that they were chanting because he was captured, and the calls to hold him up were to put him on display so they could take photos.

Maybe Hax or another Arabic speaker could shed some light



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/youtube-video-christopher-stevens-after-libya-attack.html

[rvg]

They get over $2B from us, and they are making demands? We should just pull our cash and our embassy now, why bother with these people?

One reason not to pull the aid right now is because the government in Tripoli has limited control over what is going on in Benghazi. Similar to what goes on in the tribal Frontier Province of Pakistan: nominally the central government is in control, but in reality the region is self-ruled.

[Hax]

Yes found one. Finding him and carrying him through a window. I don't know what they are saying beyond the allahu akbar bit, but I guess that must mean something bad is about to happen right?

A note on the use of "allahu akbar" as a slogan. It carries about the same connotation as "oh my God" and can (and is) used in a lot of different situations.

EDIT: But having seen the video you referred to, I don't think it's anything good either, in this case. The original point remains, though.

[Major Robert Dump]

Pakistanis and Afghans are saying they will not rest until the filmmaker is prosecuted.

Whats funny, is that he violated probation, and will likely go to jail. So in their little pea-brains they will think they actually got him prosecuted HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Kralizec]

I was thinking more of the other side of the coin: thousands of people on the webs will complain that the US bent over for islamists and killed free speech.

[rvg]

A note on the use of "allahu akbar" as a slogan. It carries about the same connotation as "oh my God" and can (and is) used in a lot of different situations.

EDIT: But having seen the video you referred to, I don't think it's anything good either, in this case. The original point remains, though.

Hopefully the autopsy will shed more light onto this.

[CBR]

Pakistanis and Afghans are saying they will not rest until the filmmaker is prosecuted.
We had similar stuff with the cartoons. And KFC was also hit back then. They will get over it and get back to burning the US flag for the usual reasons.

[Vladimir]

Some are saying they were cheering because he was a alive, and the calls to hold hm up were sympathetic

And some are saying that they were chanting because he was captured, and the calls to hold him up were to put him on display so they could take photos.

Maybe Hax or another Arabic speaker could shed some light



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/youtube-video-christopher-stevens-after-libya-attack.html

That makes me incredibly sad yet hopeful.

[Fisherking]

I see no point in taking it out on the Libyan people in general. Getting the perps is enough, if the government there is up to the task.

I don’t think sending US troops is a good idea. It is only likely to make matter worse. And it is not the 18th century where we must see honor satisfied, I hope.

[Major Robert Dump]

I was thinking more of the other side of the coin: thousands of people on the webs will complain that the US bent over for islamists and killed free speech.

That is already happening all over conservative pundit land. Even heard people talking about it in HEB. The misinformation is astounding.... "OMG I cant believe CNN outed the filmmaker!!""

Um... public record.... um, violation of probation=court=public record.... um, Valerie Plame, pffft.... not only that, but the guy knew the risks when he made the film

[Fragony]

Some are saying they were cheering because he was a alive, and the calls to hold hm up were sympathetic





http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/youtube-video-christopher-stevens-after-libya-attack.html

That would make me feel pretty stupid. It's certainly not something I ever considered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/anti-us-protesters-london

Oh no!

Now London's at it.

[Fragony]

It's England

[Strike For The South]

It's England

Hello Hello whats all this then

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hello Hello whats all this then

8.5/10

It should be: " 'ello 'ello, what's all this then."
But well done for trying.

[Fisherking]

That is already happening all over conservative pundit land. Even heard people talking about it in HEB. The misinformation is astounding.... "OMG I cant believe CNN outed the filmmaker!!""

Um... public record.... um, violation of probation=court=public record.... um, Valerie Plame, pffft.... not only that, but the guy knew the risks when he made the film


He also dubbed over the original film dialogue to change George to Mohamed and other :daisy: stuff.

So he hoodwinked the actors too. But the bad part is what can happen to other Coptic Christians back in Egypt. If there was anything to keep quiet about it was his background and religion. That just to protect the innocent from reprisals. But then again they will be able to report on that too, maybe…killing Christians may not be news…

[Major Robert Dump]

I think the fact that they are not attacking Coptic Christians right now is a pretty good indication that this hate is geared at the US.

I disagree that the media should keep quiet on his religion to protect egyptian christians from reprisals. Free speech goes both ways, man. And his religion is relevant to the larger story. We don't shut down koran burning pastors to protect the troops, we shouldnt block a guys personal info when he makes his life an open book through his actions.

[Major Robert Dump]

When will we stop catering and cowering to these monsters?

It is no coincidence that McDonalds has delayed the McRib return to appease the Islamofascists. This was likely done at the request of the White House. Obama is destroying America, and destroying good food.

http://consumerist.com/2012/09/not-to-dash-your-holiday-dreams-or-anything-but-the-mcribs-return-might-be-delayed.html

[Fisherking]

I think the fact that they are not attacking Coptic Christians right now is a pretty good indication that this hate is geared at the US.

I disagree that the media should keep quiet on his religion to protect egyptian christians from reprisals. Free speech goes both ways, man. And his religion is relevant to the larger story. We don't shut down koran burning pastors to protect the troops, we shouldnt block a guys personal info when he makes his life an open book through his actions.


No they can tell it. They may even push for more Hate Crime Bills over it. Who knows?

It is about America, Cheeseburgers, and KFC. It is also about a religious agenda. I am sure there is enough hate to go around.

[Vladimir]

When will we stop catering and cowering to these monsters?

It is no coincidence that McDonalds has delayed the McRib return to appease the Islamofascists. This was likely done at the request of the White House. Obama is destroying America, and destroying good food.

http://consumerist.com/2012/09/not-to-dash-your-holiday-dreams-or-anything-but-the-mcribs-return-might-be-delayed.html

Great. Now the blacks are going to riot too. Oh the irony.

[Hax]

Why do all different minorities insist they're the ones being persecuted? Either it's "the media is anti-Muslim, they want to offend us!" or it's "the media is afraid of Islam, they refuse to say anything about Islam!"

One of the statements has to be false.

[Shaka_Khan]

I see no point in taking it out on the Libyan people in general. Getting the perps is enough, if the government there is up to the task.

I don’t think sending US troops is a good idea. It is only likely to make matter worse. And it is not the 18th century where we must see honor satisfied, I hope.
I agree. The situation is too dangerous to have embassies in those countries. The extremist clerics will have more ammo for their manipulative propaganda if a marine fires in self defense. The clerics have the advantage because they are more familiar with the language and the culture of the region where they live.
This is also happening because of the lack of understanding on the American culture by the rioters and terrorists. The person who uploaded the video clearly doesn't represent most of the Americans. There'll be violence no matter what the Western governments do. They should just withdraw.
The only mistake that the US did in this situation is accepting the immigration of an Egyptian who turned out to have issues against the Muslims.

[Lemur]

What strikes me is the symbiotic relationship between the West's free-speech trolls and the protesters. Clearly they need each other, and clearly they feed off each other.

Sad thing is that it only takes a vanishingly small number of free-speech trolls feed the protest trolls.

I'm not really making a point here, just taking a break from a deadline project.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No no, it's a three part relationship. First come the protesters, who don't need anyone else. Then the "coexist" trolls who need the protesters for a chance to pass themselves off as enlightened. Then the free-speech trolls to make a huge fuss over the "coexist" trolls. And then me to make condescending criticisms of all three. Booyeah!

[Shaka_Khan]

What strikes me is the symbiotic relationship between the West's free-speech trolls and the protesters. Clearly they need each other, and clearly they feed off each other.

Sad thing is that it only takes a vanishingly small number of free-speech trolls feed the protest trolls.

I'm not really making a point here, just taking a break from a deadline project.
The small number was just one. We've had plenty of experience. The government is just realizing this now.

[Lemur]

Then the free-speech trolls to make a huge fuss over the "coexist" trolls.
Oh, by "free-speech troll" I was referring to the people who make craptacular films or burn Korans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/florida-pastor-terry-joness-koran-burning-has-far-reaching-effect/2011/04/02/AFpiFoQC_story.html) because, you know, they can. Would they even bother if they didn't know they would get a massive dose of attention? Hence my use of the term "troll." They exist in a separate sphere (in my mind) from genuine artists, novelists (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2012/09/salman-rushdie-is-a-wanted-managain-satanic-verses-fatwa-renewed), or documentarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)) who also provoke the ire of the Ummah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah). (Obviously, the border between troll and artist can be a little porous ...)

[Papewaio]

Great write up particularly about the Sydney protests but it does cast a wider net:


No. Let's start with the fact that so few of the protesters who descended on Sydney's CBD this weekend seem actually to have seen the film that so gravely offends them. When asked by journalists, they bluntly admit this, one even adding that she refuses to watch something so offensive. It's almost impressive how cyclical this stupidity is. But it's also instructive. In fact, this is the key to making sense of something so gobsmackingly senseless. The protesters - at least the ones quoted in news reports - know nothing except how offended they are.
From "The Incredible Muslim Hulk proves to be no friend of Islam either (http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-incredible-muslim-hulk-proves-to-be-no-friend-of-islam-either-20120916-260e8.html)"... In the Sydney Morning Herald online

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In fact, this is the key to making sense of something so gobsmackingly senseless. The protesters - at least the ones quoted in news reports - know nothing except how offended they are.

People who admit they have no idea what is motivating people shouldn't try to explain it. "The protest is the point", why? You can't pretend like that's a revealing conclusion when it skips answering the most obvious question.

Lemur: I would call those guys ant-islam trolls...free speech trolls being the ideologues who think this situation is all about defending free speech.

[Papewaio]

Considering the article has quite a few paragraphs that follow that point. I think it is answered well enough if you read the whole article, not much of it is sound bite size and it can be taken out of context. But I will try...

"That, you see, is all that matters. This isn't about a film. It's about an excuse. We know because we've seen it all before, like when Pakistani protesters vandalised American fast food outlets and burnt effigies of President George W. Bush in response to the Danish cartoons."

"This is the behaviour of a drunkenly humiliated people: swinging wildly with the hope of landing a blow, any blow, somewhere, anywhere. There's nothing strategic or calculated about this. It doesn't matter that they are the film's most effective publicists. "

"It feels good. It feels powerful. This is why people yell pointlessly or punch walls when frustrated. It's not instrumental. It doesn't achieve anything directly. But it is catharsis. Outrage and aggression is an intoxicating prospect for the powerless."

BTW to put the bolded part in context that is referring to an alleged incident involving our Federal Opposition Leader, the potential future Prime Minister. Who apparently losing a university election and a keen boxer decided to punch a wall in frustration, his young female political opponent head just happened to be beside the blows. Essentially it is one of the current bits of alleged aggressive tendencies attributed to him. To put it in context imagine the top contender in the Republican campaign having the same repeated about him in the run through the primaries.

It is both a dig at him and showing that the protestors aren't the only ones prone to violent displays of aggression.

I personally think that the authour has a better understanding of people's motivations and in particular the protestors then most.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're right...sorry I didn't see that there was more to the article.

That is my own impression of the protesters as well. I find it much easier to sympathize with them than with say, the occupy protesters.

[Papewaio]

There is a counter article to this which is far more/to forgiving of the protestors. However it is more in their shoes and potential to find solutions:
He's my brother - why angry Muslim youth are protesting in Sydney (http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/hes-my-brother--why-angry-muslim-youth-are-protesting-in-sydney-20120918-264l1.html)

"Why were some protesters chanting ''Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell''? When prominent Muslim leaders cannot even begin to fathom how some Muslim youth have mentioned corpses when apparently protesting about a movie, we need to question whether the real problem is that such leaders are incredibly out of touch with the reality of Muslim youth in this country. Waleed Aly has correctly identified that, ''This isn't about the film''. Correct.
Rather than dismissing these protests as an excuse for these youth to ''feel good about themselves'' or as a public statement of righteousness, we need instead to give genuine consideration to why our youth are acting in this manner. We need to give the situation context."

"To begin with, many Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them. So, when a Muslim woman is killed collecting firewood in Afghanistan, these youth are angered at the fact that their sister was murdered. When a Muslim man is crushed to death in Palestine, they lament the loss of their brother. It may not make sense to a Western audience, but that doesn't matter. This is what is angering our youth, and until we start discussing it honestly and genuinely, the confusion will remain."

[SoFarSoGood]

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it".

Seems to pretty obvious that anyone anywhere can say they wish as long as a gun isn't pointed at them. It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

Freedom of expression leads to a discussion and interchange and what is called in philosophy a new dialectic; a new 'paradigm' to use the Khunian term. It brings progression from one understanding to another. The reason perhaps why the Islamic states fell behind the West (when previously they had been ahead) is precisely because of 'religious bigotry' (for want of another phrase) that cannot accept these God given rights - for to say "that anyone anywhere can say what they wish" means it is a God given right. Even if you a point a gun at my head you cannot stop me saying as I wish; that is my right.

[rvg]

Seems to pretty obvious that anyone anywhere can say what the f*ck they wish as long as a gun isn't pointed at them. It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

What I find interesting is that there do not seem to be any reports of muslims protesting here in the States. At least none that I see on the major networks.

[Strike For The South]

You're right...sorry I didn't see that there was more to the article.

That is my own impression of the protesters as well. I find it much easier to sympathize with them than with say, the occupy protesters.

It still does not make their actions correct. Of course that's probably not what you're after, The terms "right" and "wrong" lost all there meaning to you long ago, didn't they?

Can I have an hour to pick your brain? I find you terribly interesting. I'll buy the beer.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It still does not make their actions correct. Of course that's probably not what you're after, The terms "right" and "wrong" lost all there meaning to you long ago, didn't they?

Can I have an hour to pick your brain? I find you terribly interesting. I'll buy the beer.

Sympathize as in understand, not sympathize as in "it would be wrong to drench them in tear gas".

[Strike For The South]

Sympathize as in understand, not sympathize as in "it would be wrong to drench them in tear gas".

Why do you not sympathize with the occupy protesters? I mean , I don't either, but I am interested in your reasonings

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why do you not sympathize with the occupy protesters? I mean , I don't either, but I am interested in your reasonings

I don't understand them, they baffle me.

[PanzerJaeger]

What I find interesting is that there do not seem to be any reports of muslims protesting here in the States. At least none that I see on the major networks.

American Muslims are in a unique position. They haven't been radicalized by oppressive regimes in the Middle East and they haven't been separated into aggrieved, yet dependent, minorities as in many other Western nations (although the Left does try its best). They are, in essence, normal citizens in a modern representative democracy and thus act like normal people. I've also noticed that they tend to be fiercely protective of their rights, all of them; which I attribute to their recent experience in one or both of the above mentioned situations.

The American Muslims I know wouldn't be caught dead protesting such a film. They understand that pretty much any yokel can post whatever crap he wants on youtube. In short, they get how modern society works.

[Strike For The South]

I don't understand them, they baffle me.

How so?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How so?

The pretense and self drama. Protesting in a particular way just to get arrested (by blocking a bridge say) because it makes it feel more legitimate. Intellectual outrage rather than any deeply sourced passion. What's changed since the occupy protests? Nothing. But you don't see them rioting over the latest mitt romney video, they got interested in something else presumably.

I don't see how people can play out a self involved drama like that and not notice what they're doing. Or not stop if they do notice it.

[Noncommunist]

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it".

Seems to pretty obvious that anyone anywhere can say what the f*ck they wish as long as a gun isn't pointed at them. It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

Freedom of expression leads to a discussion and interchange and what is called in philosophy a new dialectic; a new 'paradigm' to use the Khunian term. It brings progression from one understanding to another. The reason perhaps why the Islamic states fell behind the West (when previously they had been ahead) is precisely because of 'religious bigotry' (for want of another phrase) that cannot accept these God given rights - for to say "that anyone anywhere can say what the f*ck they wish" means it is a God given right. Even if you a point a gun at my head you cannot stop me saying as I wish; that is my right.

Eh, while Europe did eventually go on to advance ahead of the muslim world and end up with free speech/other enlightenment based stuff, when they pulled ahead technologically seemed to happen before they had the enlightenment. After all, as Spain became a world power, they also were expelling Jews and Moriscos while the Ottomans were accepting of them. And Europe spent a long time slaughtering each other as they found new trade routes and conquered the new world which was denied to Islam.

By the time that the Ottomans/Safavids/Mughals were declining, then more enlightenment stuff showed up in Europe. Perhaps more of a product of technological progress than a cause of it.

[Lemur]

then more enlightenment stuff showed up in Europe.
Part of that was Europe exhausting itself in bloody, horrible religious wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion), which set the stage for the Enlightenment, and discredited religion as an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of people for a generation or two.

Trust me, the Founding Fathers of the United States had the wars of religion very much on their minds when they wrote our constitution.

So clearly, if we just wait around for a few centuries and let a few million Muslims die in religious-civil wars, there's at least a 20% chance they'll snap out of it.

[Vladimir]

Part of that was Europe exhausting itself in bloody, horrible religious wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion), which set the stage for the Enlightenment, and discredited religion as an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of people for a generation or two.

Trust me, the Founding Fathers of the United States had the wars of religion very much on their minds when they wrote our constitution.

So clearly, if we just wait around for a few centuries and let a few million Muslims die in religious-civil wars, there's at least a 20% chance they'll snap out of it.

Exactly. We generally learn our lesson once enough people have died. It wasn't so much religion, as those wishing to use religion as a tool of their ambition.

[Ironside]

Eh, while Europe did eventually go on to advance ahead of the muslim world and end up with free speech/other enlightenment based stuff, when they pulled ahead technologically seemed to happen before they had the enlightenment. After all, as Spain became a world power, they also were expelling Jews and Moriscos while the Ottomans were accepting of them. And Europe spent a long time slaughtering each other as they found new trade routes and conquered the new world which was denied to Islam.

By the time that the Ottomans/Safavids/Mughals were declining, then more enlightenment stuff showed up in Europe. Perhaps more of a product of technological progress than a cause of it.

Spain is interesting. That expulsion and intolerance is probably what caused the dowfall of Spain. It certainly destrayed Spain as a cultural center.

[Major Robert Dump]

THE FRENCH CARTOONS ARE SO FUNNY.

My favorite is "A Star is Born."

This makes me love France, at least for today. I hope that man does not get killt

[rvg]

The American Muslims I know wouldn't be caught dead protesting such a film. They understand that pretty much any yokel can post whatever crap he wants on youtube. In short, they get how modern society works.
It gives me hope that we're doing something right in America with regards to Muslims.

[Hax]

I think the American way of dealing with minorities is much more effective than the methods we use in Europe. In our desire not to offend anyone, I think it's been more offensive than anything else. Rather than treating everyone equally, we have the tendency to treat (the Muslim) minorities like children. I think it's extremely patronising.


Freedom of expression leads to a discussion and interchange and what is called in philosophy a new dialectic; a new 'paradigm' to use the Khunian term. It brings progression from one understanding to another. The reason perhaps why the Islamic states fell behind the West (when previously they had been ahead) is precisely because of 'religious bigotry' (for want of another phrase) that cannot accept these God given rights - for to say "that anyone anywhere can say what they wish" means it is a God given right. Even if you a point a gun at my head you cannot stop me saying as I wish; that is my right.

We don't know. For example, the Safavids had a relatively liberal policy religion-wise, but even though the rule of Shah Abbas went hand-in-hand with an increase of Iranian art and culture and religious freedom (well, except for Sunnis) we can't really speak of a period of scientific prowess. We have to be extremely careful in trying to tie religious freedom with scientific progress. I don't believe it's that simple.


It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

People still write "Muslim" that way? In any case, I think it's kinda telling that you're talking about Christian countries here, instead of anything else. Secular, for example. That's quite an important difference.

[Vladimir]

I've always been a fan of Musulman myself. Reminds me of the days you people were raiding southern France.

Never forget!

[Hax]

Huh? Southern France?

Oh, right, you mean the time Constantinople was put under siege. Matter of priorities, I guess!

[Vladimir]

Huh? Southern France?

Oh, right, you mean the time Constantinople was put under siege. Matter of priorities, I guess!

No, was thinking about 800 years before that.

Look at the big brain on Vlad. :dancingchicken:

[Hax]

I was talking about that other one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717–718))!

[Vladimir]

I was talking about that other one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717–718))!

Oh, ya got me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was talking about that other one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Constantinople_(717–718))!

Ah, back when the ERE still deserved the name.

[Shaka_Khan]

The news stopped mentioning the riots. I wonder what's going on - the situation subsided?
So this is how it carries on? I see no mention of withdrawing the embassies. And the rioters continue to misunderstand. They probably think that they won. They might do it again if "provoked" then.

[Fragony]

lol the EUSSR gives a masterclass in dhimmitude. Naturally absolutely terrified of offending and absolutely in love with anything islam the EU condems this joke of a movie. How low can one go, enjoy the sala-fisting mr Schultz maybe you can still bite when the salafist finally reaches your mouth

[HopAlongBunny]

Much fuss about a man named "George":

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/09/201292022655471310.html and:

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161168231/debunking-the-myth-of-the-muslim-tide

[rvg]

This is just freaking lovely (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pakistani-man-accused-of-blasphemy-for-not-protesting-film-1.962187)...


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Demonstrators angry over an anti-Islam film accused a local businessman in southern Pakistan of blasphemy, forcing the police to open a case and driving him and his family into hiding, following an argument that broke out when he refused to join their protest, officials said Wednesday.

[Fragony]

Owwww Australia, I didn't know you are absolutely terriffied/completely in love, wilders was denied a visa by people who know, for a fact, that islam is peace. That sala-fist, does it fit? What the que Australia? He's the head of the third biggest democratically elected party here

[Major Robert Dump]

Here is a link to one of the pages from the french satirical paper, not the best copy, but kind of hard to find. He has several mohammed cartoons this episode, and also one where a rabbi is pushing a muslim and they are declaring themselves as "untouchables," but this particular page is the most colorful

link removed

[Fragony]

Here is a link to one of the pages from the french satirical paper, not the best copy, but kind of hard to find. He has several mohammed cartoons this episode, and also one where a rabbi is pushing a muslim and they are declaring themselves as "untouchables," but this particular page is the most colorful

link removed

lol good show

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Here's an ad we're running in Pakistan:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNu6E7c4vA

This video shows the American delusion at its worst. "Look how enlightened we are, we have these wonderful principles", blah blah. It's like inventing exclusive rules of etiquette and fashion so that you can take pride in being more polite and civilized than other people. It's not true enlightenment, it's BS, and everyone knows it, who the hell do they think they're kidding. It isn't true today and it certainly wasn't true "from the very founding of our nation"; the colonial rebels had a lot in common with these protesters.

We don't reject people who denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Comedians who make a living doing that are celebrities. And the fact is the essence of some branches of religion involves a huge drive for conversion and reform, and tolerant pluralism strikes right at the heart of those religions. You can't redefine religion as "something people are no more than moderately passionate about".

"Riot all you want, but keep off our property", that's all that needs to be said here. The vain, ignorant, and laughable self-glorifying should be ditched completely. It's pathetic and I'm really skeptical that it does anything but backfire.

The number one thing we need to do as a country is to abandon the rhetoric of free speech, liberty, religious tolerance etc that we use to feel good about ourselves. The news on these protests is a farce: "religious tolerance makes America the best!" "No, free speech makes America the best!".

It would be completely acceptable for the average American to be ignorant about other countries and cultures if the "intelligentsia" would grow up and face the truth instead of using ideology and tradition as a crutch for their fragile egos.

[HoreTore]

Kenan Malik, as solid as always. (http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/here-we-go-again/)

[Strike For The South]

Kenan Malik, as solid as always. (http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/here-we-go-again/)

People use easily digestible caricatures to manipulate the populace and gain power? :0

Kenan Malik is an idiot who cherry picked 1 out of 1000 historical examples in order to "back" his blatantly obvious point.

Every idiot with an internet connection and a 3rd grade reading level fancies himself an intellectual.

That word use to mean something

[Fragony]

lol, after that the unelected eurocrat 'good after the war' schultz showed what it means to be a dhimmi, German quality media takes it even further

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/09/eu_schulz.html#comments

I hope this is a joke

[Fragony]

People use easily digestible caricatures to manipulate the populace and gain power? :0

Kenan Malik is an idiot who cherry picked 1 out of 1000 historical examples in order to "back" his blatantly obvious point.

Every idiot with an internet connection and a 3rd grade reading level fancies himself an intellectual.

That word use to mean something

Used Strike, used :flirt:

Edit: Oh bama, after 'good after the war' Schultz expressed his deep sympathy for people who break things over nothing Obama also condemns a youtoube video. With nobody less then that chick I saw in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or was it Desperate Housewives, I forgot but I think she's called Hillary Clinton

[Major Robert Dump]

People use easily digestible caricatures to manipulate the populace and gain power? :0

Kenan Malik is an idiot who cherry picked 1 out of 1000 historical examples in order to "back" his blatantly obvious point.

Every idiot with an internet connection and a 3rd grade reading level fancies himself an intellectual.

That word use to mean something

What word? Internet?

I thought the point of the blogpost was not that they used caricatures, but religion in general, to gain power. The "outrage" is just one of many means to an end.

And in other news, looks like the WH is now backtracking on their "it's only the film!" mantra. I believe on day 1 of this thread I pointed to the badguys whipping up flashmobs using social media, and them using the mob as cover and concealment, both political and literal. I still stand by that wager, it's just that I do not know who the bad guys are in this case.

[Vladimir]

The mobs are a means to demonstrate and exercise power. That's the only outlet those people have had for a while and there is no shortage of people looking to take advantage of that.

[Hax]

Some more news from Libya (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292205259561409.html).

[Fragony]

Some more news from Libya (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/201292205259561409.html).

Who would have thought, except Viking ie

Sure there are no militias, sure this is over

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look Frags - nobody said this would be over by Christmas, but you don't have to be a total​ cynic.

[Fragony]

Look Frags - nobody said this would be over by Christmas, but you don't have to be a total​ cynic.

Why not, we bombed the crap out of Libya only to aid something much worse. All experts warned us.

[Hax]

So they attack an Islamist stronghold and it's still not okay? Okay.

[Viking]

Who would have thought, except Viking ie

Sure there are no militias, sure this is over

Who said there were no militias? That doesn't even make sense. The war is over, but occasional bloodshed might happen.

The only thing I've predicted, is that Libya will not be another Iraq. This because the Iraqi sectarian fault lines have no parallel in Libya.

That a group of protesters stormed the base of rogue militia speaks in favour of a peaceful future, not against it.

[Fragony]

Who said there were no militias? That doesn't even make sense. The war is over, but occasional bloodshed might happen.

The only thing I've predicted, is that Libya will not be another Iraq. This because the Iraqi sectarian fault lines have no parallel in Libya.

That a group of protesters stormed the base of rogue militia speaks in favour of a peaceful future, not against it.

No that just means that there are more rogue militia's

You by the way, you said it

[Viking]

No that just means that there are more rogue militia's

The protestors were unarmed, or armed with blunt weapons at best.


You by the way, you said it

Link or didn't happen.

[Fragony]

The protestors were unarmed, or armed with blunt weapons at best.



Link or didn't happen.

In that case it didn't happen then, but we both know better then that

[HopAlongBunny]

Baby step steps to stability or crushing of freedom:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/09/2012922231155740677.html

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why not, we bombed the crap out of Libya only to aid something much worse. All experts warned us.

Worse?

No.

As bad?

Potentially, but by all accounts the Libyans are not inclined to spend any more time under someone's ideologically justified jackboot.

They didn't like Islamic Socialism, there's no reason to believe they'll no go in for Islamic Fascism - you need to get over this phobia of religious people in general and Muslims in particular.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/23/libyan-authorities-islamist-militia

Apparently, the militias have finally overstayed their welcome - they don't want the embarrassment of being set to flight, so they appear willing to go quietly. This is a pivotal point in Libya's transition to a post-Gadaffi state - the question is whether the elected government can manage the security vacuum, and how they will behave once the militias are no longer their to oppose them.

My instinct is that the men running Libya like being in charge, but they also like being revolutionary heroes and having access to Western support, and more than anything they like having their skins intact. Being heavy handed didn't work at all for Gadaffi, and they saw what happened to him first hand.

[Major Robert Dump]

I fear the militias will be back. Especially if they have support from international Islamofascist terrorist organizations. And when they come back, they will bring IEDs with them.

That the sectarian divide does not exist here like it does in Iraq is of little consequence. That would imply that regions where everyone is the same sect enjoys automatic peace, when in fact the members of the same sect then disintegrate and fight over power and money, and even more so when the money in question is coming from the Grand Endless Money Tree of the West.

I want it wo work out for them, really I do. But so far all we have seen is posturing and people too quick to pull the trigger and cry "success!" , whihc seems to be an all-too-common mistake with nation building these days

[Viking]

That the sectarian divide does not exist here like it does in Iraq is of little consequence. That would imply that regions where everyone is the same sect enjoys automatic peace, when in fact the members of the same sect then disintegrate and fight over power and money, and even more so when the money in question is coming from the Grand Endless Money Tree of the West.

You are not providing any detailed mechanisms for future conflict. In a poor thirld war country, perhaps you can start a war by pouring in resources. In a relatively homogeneous and rich oil state, it seems less likely.

If you want to catch bad guys in Iraq, it is Iraqi-Sunni versus Iraqi-Shia; in Libya, (such as recently in Benghazi and Derna) it is more Libyan versus Libyan. The internal dynamics are incomparable.

There is always a potential for conflict along the lines of Amazigh (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txk89Knr5WA) versus Arab. Ethnic divide is a different beast, though, and should be easier to handle. Individual religions, like those of Iraq, tend to claim that they alone are the only correct one, and thus there is an insensitive to go to war against disbelievers. It's easier to accept that people of other ethnicities exist.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fear the militias will be back. Especially if they have support from international Islamofascist terrorist organizations. And when they come back, they will bring IEDs with them.

That the sectarian divide does not exist here like it does in Iraq is of little consequence. That would imply that regions where everyone is the same sect enjoys automatic peace, when in fact the members of the same sect then disintegrate and fight over power and money, and even more so when the money in question is coming from the Grand Endless Money Tree of the West.

I want it wo work out for them, really I do. But so far all we have seen is posturing and people too quick to pull the trigger and cry "success!" , whihc seems to be an all-too-common mistake with nation building these days

I think you need more than money to start an insurrection or Civil War - you need an "us" and a "them". You do have an East-West divide in Libya, and the country may fracture along those lines, but right now it seems people don't want​ it to. In the absence of a foreign power to blame for Libya's ills I think the average Libyan wants to get on with his life more than anything else.

[HopAlongBunny]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053485160] - you need an "us" and a "them"./QUOTE]

Pretty easy to "instill" in a country riddled with divides and guns. Like Yugoslavia, once armed ppl start busting in a few doors and yelling "Ya fer us or against us!?" choosing up sides become prudent. I am encouraged by the disarmament that is being attempted and wish them luck.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not talking about funding a civil war with foreign money.

I am talking about the locals fighting over control of the foreign aid, not to mention the resource revenue. Very unlikely to reach civil war proportions. The idea that it could degrade into a northern mexico situation not so unlikely. Either way, I expect there to be homeade bombs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053485160] - you need an "us" and a "them"./QUOTE]

Pretty easy to "instill" in a country riddled with divides and guns. Like Yugoslavia, once armed ppl start busting in a few doors and yelling "Ya fer us or against us!?" choosing up sides become prudent. I am encouraged by the disarmament that is being attempted and wish them luck.

The Balkans had seen something like a thousand years of war before the Communist State, when it collapsed the tensions it had suppressed erupted to the surface. Those were not manufactured conflicts, they were organic.

[HopAlongBunny]

Tribal divisions have a history that pre-dates Marx. The Col. used those divisions to keep people divided and weak. His removal might be used to exploit injuries real, perceived or historical for a settling of accounts.

I agree with (what I think) MRD is suggesting; division of spoils is likely to be the main bone of contention. The step from conflict over those particulars to civil war is large, but possible.

I hope the story ends: "And they lived happily ever after." Yes, I really hope that's the outcome.

[Xiahou]

This looks to be a full-blown scandal for the State Department. Here's an email exchange between Hillary Clinton spokesman, Philippe Reines and Buzzfeed's Michael Hastings...
Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “**** Off” And “Have A Good Life”
(http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/hillary-clinton-aide-tells-reporter-to-fuck-off)

[Lemur]

Insulting reporters—that always works. Give the man a promotion!

Apparently this all revolves around CNN finding the late ambassador's journal (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html), a bit of a tangled story.

That said, Michael Hastings has one hell of a track record on defense reporting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)), and anyone stupid enough to curse at him in writing ...

-edit-

Meanwhile, WND asks the hard questions: Was Libyan ambassador gay like our President? (http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/did-obama-send-a-gay-ambassador-to-libya/)

[Fragony]

Owwww? After the unelected socialist 'good after the war' Schulz showed what it really means to be a dhimmi by condemning the movie on behalf of the EU it couldn't get worse no? But it seems like the unelected Lady Ashton, naturally from Labour so absolutely in love with anything islam, is working on a European anti-blasphemy law.

Hatebeards vs Enlightment 2-0

[Hax]

Fragony, can you please stop using the term "dhimmi" all the time? It only makes sense in an Islamic state, you can't just slap it on anything.

[Kralizec]

I've always had the impression of Schultz as a sanctimonious, pontificating attention seeker. His latest antic of condemning the film makers (and the weak excuse of "I comdemned the rioters, too") is just the latest in a row of dissappointing remarks by political leaders to appease islamist rioters while remaining largely silent on freedom of speech. He's elected though - not liking him has no bearing on that simple fact.

There are apparently rumors that the EU is cooperating with some islamic countries for an anti-blasphemy treaty. I smell BS.

[Fragony]

Fragony, can you please stop using the term "dhimmi" all the time? It only makes sense in an Islamic state, you can't just slap it on anything.

Can on EU dhimmi's though I mean it isn't like they aren't paying the djizza by selling out our post-enlightment intellectual capital, maybe it is you who should find a new word for people who are dhimmis by choice, like the unelected 'good after the war' Schulz or the unelected Hell's Angel of political correctness Lady Ashton. It's disgusting to watch them crawl to appease an inferior culture the EU deserves to die.

@Kraz, being elected by unelected people doesn't make you elected, I don't smell BS by the way it is 100% in line with the Eurabia theory

[Kralizec]

I are confuse.

Schulz is a MEP and he was elected by German voters. Do you mean we should be able to elect who gets to live in Germany?

[Fragony]

I are confuse.

Schulz is a MEP and he was elected by German voters. Do you mean we should be able to elect who gets to live in Germany?

No he is not an MEP he is the unelected President of the European Commision, you must be reading quality media

Looks like this http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qpygZ-ju81c&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqpygZ-ju81c

[Kralizec]

Lol, no.

He's the president of the European Parliament.

[Fragony]

Lol, no.

He's the president of the European Parliament.

Oh yeah it's hard to keep track of all that, my bad

The elected president of the European Parliament that was elected by the Germans by the way?

Yep, quality media

[Kralizec]

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

The only relevant difference is that Schulz is the leader of his fraction in the EP while presiding over procedure and whatnot; the only other place where they also do it that way which I can think of is the US house of representatives. I'd rather have that a low-key MEP became their president; being the head of one of the fractions could conflict with their duty to be impartial and fair. And Martin Schulz is a rather poor candidate for the post anyway, since he has a history of having a big mouth.

[Fragony]

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

Nice spin but the Netherlands is a nation-state and the EU isn't, they weren't asked to speak for the European community so they can't, your logic only aplies to people who wouldn't rather split skulls instead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Splitting hairs. Our new chairman of the Tweede Kamer is was chosen by the other members. Same for the Speaker in the British commons. They're still elected representatives.

The only relevant difference is that Schulz is the leader of his fraction in the EP while presiding over procedure and whatnot; the only other place where they also do it that way which I can think of is the US house of representatives. I'd rather have that a low-key MEP became their president; being the head of one of the fractions could conflict with their duty to be impartial and fair. And Martin Schulz is a rather poor candidate for the post anyway, since he has a history of having a big mouth.

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

marvelous.

Back to the actual topic:

I think we should compare the reaction in Libya with that in Egypt, the death of the ambassador notwihtstanding Libya's reaction has been better all around.

[Vladimir]

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

marvelous.

Back to the actual topic:

I think we should compare the reaction in Libya with that in Egypt, the death of the ambassador notwihtstanding Libya's reaction has been better all around.

Agreed. Egypt's trying to reassert itself as a regional power while Libya realizes it needs all the help it can get.

[Xiahou]

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html)

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya.
Seriously?? What were they thinking at the White House when they sent Susan Rice around to all the Sunday news shows saying it was a spontaneous attack that was an offshoot of the protests? They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination. Why the apparent coverup? ~:confused:

[Lemur]

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....
Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.

The most telling line from the article, in my opinion: "[T]he U.S. intelligence community was studying an intercept between a Libyan politician and a member of the so-called February 17 militia, Libyans charged with providing security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. More intelligence has come in that shows members of Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda–affiliated group operating in and around Benghazi, were attempting to coerce, threaten, cajole, and bribe members of the militia protecting the consulate."

Sounds like you have a situation with multiple militias, some of which we were buying off for protection, and the AQ-wannabes trying to drive a wedge between merc and employer. Makes sense; there's no way we could put enough assets on the ground to protect a consulate in a truly hostile environment (see Beirut under Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing)), so the best course is to buy some local muscle. It sounds as though something went wrong with the hired hands.

[Fragony]

'Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.'

Rule #1: there are no spontanious riots over there

[Vladimir]

Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.

The most telling line from the article, in my opinion: "[T]he U.S. intelligence community was studying an intercept between a Libyan politician and a member of the so-called February 17 militia, Libyans charged with providing security for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. More intelligence has come in that shows members of Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda–affiliated group operating in and around Benghazi, were attempting to coerce, threaten, cajole, and bribe members of the militia protecting the consulate."

Sounds like you have a situation with multiple militias, some of which we were buying off for protection, and the AQ-wannabes trying to drive a wedge between merc and employer. Makes sense; there's no way we could put enough assets on the ground to protect a consulate in a truly hostile environment (see Beirut under Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing)), so the best course is to buy some local muscle. It sounds as though something went wrong with the hired hands.

That's an excuse and you know better. What percentage of time is anyone 100% certain of anything, especially in this context? The point is that Bush lied, people died. Wait, I mean, the Obama administration lied to the public about what they knew about the security situation. Not mislead, but made intentionally false statements to protect their interests.

Truth is, as I expected, that the ambassador was also responsible for his own death. He disliked oppressive security, as any good diplomat does, but by doing so needlessly risked his life and the life of others.

No, I'll modify it: An excuse with a deflection.

[Lemur]

That's an excuse and you know better. [...] the Obama administration lied to the public about what they knew about the security situation. Not mislead, but made intentionally false statements to protect their interests.
Truly, not making excuses. And if I were, what would I be excusing? How does representing what happened as a riot play to any advantage for the Admin over a riot-as-assassination? Cui bono? Where's the upside?

The conservative-media-complex is trying very hard to whip up outrage without answering that question. If this is a wicked, evil conspiracy, what's the goal? What's the gain? Why am I supposed to believe that this is a concerted disinformation campaign, rather than confusion?

[Fragony]

Truth is, as I expected, that the ambassador was also responsible for his own death. He disliked oppressive security, as any good diplomat does, but by doing so needlessly risked his life and the life of others.

He is responsible for his own death because he insisted on aiding what killed him, putting him on the square and throwing a few rotten eggs would have been nicer though but that's just me

[Vladimir]

Truly, not making excuses. And if I were, what would I be excusing? How does representing what happened as a riot play to any advantage for the Admin over a riot-as-assassination? Cui bono? Where's the upside?

The conservative-media-complex is trying very hard to whip up outrage without answering that question. If this is a wicked, evil conspiracy, what's the goal? What's the gain? Why am I supposed to believe that this is a concerted disinformation campaign, rather than confusion?

Unfortunately one of the president's "speedbumps" is the body of a U.S. ambassador. You're still coming at this from a bias, coupled with a perceived bias, which is leading to hyperbole.

I can only guess what you've heard about this. I'm so inundated with this type of news here that sometimes I assume everyone is familiar with the same details.

[Fragony]

The conservative-media-complex is trying very hard to whip up outrage without answering that question. If this is a wicked, evil conspiracy, what's the goal? What's the gain? Why am I supposed to believe that this is a concerted disinformation campaign, rather than confusion?

Your question has already been answered, but I will repeat it: there are no spontanious riots over there. And this ain't a conspiracy, it's people like you not really understanding how things work there

[Lemur]

Unfortunately one of the president's "speedbumps" is the body of a U.S. ambassador. You're still coming at this from a bias, coupled with a perceived bias, which is leading to hyperbole.
Instead of making an argument, you're busy telling me what's in my head. Amusing, but it doesn't advance the conversation.

What's the "speed bump" you're referencing? What's the benefit to the admin of positing a riot over an assassination? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Use some specifics and help a brutha out.

Also, if all you're capable of saying is that I'm biased and ill-informed, then link to something credible and let's talk about it. Or put me on ignore if I'm such a wealth of badness and disinformation. Sheesh.


Your question has already been answered
No, it really has not.

[Xiahou]

Hmm, reading that article it isn't immediately clear that there's anything more at work than uncertain intel on a complex situation, combined with ham-handed PR. The article does not actually support your assertion that "They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination." They had leads and locations, which is different from being 100% positive of anything.So why send Rice around to the Sunday shows (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/) 5 days later saying '"“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,”' when there was evidence that it was not spontaneous within the first 24 hours?

I too can't see what they would hope to gain by deliberate misdirection- so why did they do it? Is it really just incompetence? Surely, if the intel community found evidence of it being a planned attack, this would have to have gotten back to the White House within 5 days....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This keeps getting weirder and weirder....

U.S. Officials Knew Libya Attacks Were Work of Al Qaeda Affiliates (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html)

Seriously?? What were they thinking at the White House when they sent Susan Rice around to all the Sunday news shows saying it was a spontaneous attack that was an offshoot of the protests? They knew in the first 24 hours that it was a pre-planned assassination. Why the apparent coverup? ~:confused:

The most interesting thing is - I heard that within 36 hours.

So maybe its your news outlets that are off, not your government spokespeople?

As a response to Fragony: I'm absolutely certain the US Ambassador knew his life was in danger without a large security detail and he took the same calculated risk Bobby Kennedy did.

Like Bobby Kennedy he's dead, but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

After all, the problem isn't with the ambassador, or the rioters, or the Libyan militia protecting the compound - the problem is with the people who decided to off him for minor political gain which, thankfully, appears not to have materialised.

No sanctions, no drone strikes, no loss of credibility for the elected government in the eyes of the average Libyan.

[Kralizec]

Ah, more evidence of corruption and graft in the EU?

No, while it's not a wise thing to allow, it does not fit the defintion of "corrupt". I don't see how you could view is at such unless you also think that the speaker of the American HoR is corrupt ex officio (obvious setup for a snarky remark about politicians, I know)



Nice spin but the Netherlands is a nation-state and the EU isn't, they weren't asked to speak for the European community so they can't, your logic only aplies to people who wouldn't rather split skulls instead.

That's like, your opinion. And not relevant for what we were discussing. Nice try though, finding a way out of admitting you're wrong.

This calls for a victory dance:


:elephant:

[Fragony]

No, it really has not.

It is really that simple, there are no spontanious protets over there.

[Xiahou]

The most interesting thing is - I heard that within 36 hours.

So maybe its your news outlets that are off, not your government spokespeople?
That's most interesting to you? :inquisitive:
CNN was reporting (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/) this withing 24 hours- yet our government spokespeople were still saying the opposite 5 days later.

U.S. sources say they do not believe the attacks that killed Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, were in reaction to the online release of a film mocking Islam, CNN's Elise Labott reports.

"It was not an innocent mob," one senior official said. "The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective, but this was a clearly planned military-type attack."

[Vladimir]

Instead of making an argument, you're busy telling me what's in my head. Amusing, but it doesn't advance the conversation.

What's the "speed bump" you're referencing? What's the benefit to the admin of positing a riot over an assassination? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. Use some specifics and help a brutha out.

Also, if all you're capable of saying is that I'm biased and ill-informed, then link to something credible and let's talk about it. Or put me on ignore if I'm such a wealth of badness and disinformation. Sheesh.

Pretty much what Xiahou posted.



No, it really has not.

He's saying they're an instrument of power over there. We have drone strikes and nukes (not to mention Strike) and they have mobs. It's beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

[Fragony]

That's like, your opinion. And not relevant for what we were discussing. Nice try though, finding a way out of admitting you're wrong.

This calls for a victory dance:


:elephant:

Enjoy it while it lasts. I have must have missed something, is a collection of states on equal levels politically as the nation-state in the same way they developed over 2000 years of bloodshed. It has been tried before in 1848, took a while before hey realised there is no common goal and alliances emerged. And all it needed was an incident in the Balkan to destroy it. Europe is not a state, never try to reign it as one.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I too can't see what they would hope to gain by deliberate misdirection- so why did they do it? Is it really just incompetence? Surely, if the intel community found evidence of it being a planned attack, this would have to have gotten back to the White House within 5 days....

Partly it's that there is no way to make "there was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11 and we weren't ready for it" sound anything but incompetent. But mostly I think it's that Obama has a strong belief that the real problem is with anti-muslim sentiment in the US that has been publicized and used as propaganda in muslim countries, and that those countries haven't been educated enough about how ideal our culture of free speech is. He thinks that condemning the video will have a significant effect on our relations with muslims, just like he thought his speeches would be a big deal. It's a fairly typical mentality for liberals. It's the same strain of thought that explains the wage gap with sexism, and black poverty with racism. It's a quasi religious world view where Sin is what needs to be defeated to effect a positive change in the world.

It's possible that he sees this as such a "chickens coming home to roost" moment that he finds it natural to lump everything together and blame it on the video (representing our moral failings). See here (from almost 2 weeks later I think), he is still tying the deaths in with the video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCASno3kKrk&feature=player_embedded

"The first thing is, there's never an excuse for violence. I don't care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive, and we should shun it, but there's never an excuse for violence, never an excuse for attacking embassies, never an excuse for killing innocent people, or assaulting our diplomats. In the age of the internet, when any knucklehead can post something up and suddenly it travels all around the world, every country has to recognize that, you know, the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it"


Essentially his response is the way it is because of his shallow intellectual and moral view of the world. You have to laugh at him saying "the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it". Obviously he can't be referring to himself, since he's done anything but ignore it. So he's referring the muslim protesters. Is that what he thinks they want? To "marginalize that kind of speech"? Protesting in a high profile way would be a pretty stupid way to do that, so I'm guessing he thinks they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, lol. But my explanation is that him saying that is just his way of lecturing both sides with sentiments chosen because they sound good to him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, while it's not a wise thing to allow, it does not fit the defintion of "corrupt". I don't see how you could view is at such unless you also think that the speaker of the American HoR is corrupt ex officio (obvious setup for a snarky remark about politicians, I know)

US Speaker Corrupt ex officio?

sounds sensible - the US system enshrines the two current parties pretty much in the Constitution.

To be clear, that makes the system corrupt, not the incumbent.


It is really that simple, there are no spontanious protets over there.

Oh don't be silly - that's like saying there are no spontaneous protests anywhere. The idea that Muslims just sit around waiting to be told to set cars on fire is not only absurd, it paints them as actually less than human.


That's most interesting to you? :inquisitive:
CNN was reporting (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/) this withing 24 hours- yet our government spokespeople were still saying the opposite 5 days later.

Were they?

Didn't hear it over here. Are you sure they weren't saying "we don't know it wasn't a part of the protest"?

It can sound the same, once Fox gets ahold of it.


Partly it's that there is no way to make "there was a planned terrorist attack on 9/11 and we weren't ready for it" sound anything but incompetent. But mostly I think it's that Obama has a strong belief that the real problem is with anti-muslim sentiment in the US that has been publicized and used as propaganda in muslim countries, and that those countries haven't been educated enough about how ideal our culture of free speech is. He thinks that condemning the video will have a significant effect on our relations with muslims, just like he thought his speeches would be a big deal. It's a fairly typical mentality for liberals. It's the same strain of thought that explains the wage gap with sexism, and black poverty with racism. It's a quasi religious world view where Sin is what needs to be defeated to effect a positive change in the world.

It's possible that he sees this as such a "chickens coming home to roost" moment that he finds it natural to lump everything together and blame it on the video (representing our moral failings). See here (from almost 2 weeks later I think), he is still tying the deaths in with the video:

"The first thing is, there's never an excuse for violence. I don't care how offensive this video was, and it was terribly offensive, and we should shun it, but there's never an excuse for violence, never an excuse for attacking embassies, never an excuse for killing innocent people, or assaulting our diplomats. In the age of the internet, when any knucklehead can post something up and suddenly it travels all around the world, every country has to recognize that, you know, the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it"

Essentially his response is the way it is because of his shallow intellectual and moral view of the world. You have to laugh at him saying "the best way to marginalize that kind of speech is to ignore it". Obviously he can't be referring to himself, since he's done anything but ignore it. So he's referring the muslim protesters. Is that what he thinks they want? To "marginalize that kind of speech"? Protesting in a high profile way would be a pretty stupid way to do that, so I'm guessing he thinks they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, lol. But my explanation is that him saying that is just his way of lecturing both sides with sentiments chosen because they sound good to him.

Except - he's basically right. This isn't about the video, it's about Muslims seeing the US as evil incarnate, which is a recent state of affairs - relatively speaking.

[rvg]

the US system enshrines the two current parties pretty much in the Constitution.
Could you elaborate on this?

[Xiahou]

Were they?

Didn't hear it over here. Are you sure they weren't saying "we don't know it wasn't a part of the protest"?


It can sound the same, once Fox gets ahold of it.Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts and following the accompanying links before trying to refute what you think I posted. :yes:

So why send Rice around to the Sunday shows (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/) 5 days later saying '"“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,”' when there was evidence that it was not spontaneous within the first 24 hours?A direct quote from the US Ambassador to the UN and an accompanying link to ABC- not Fox.

[Lemur]

Pretty much what Xiahou posted.
No, not really.


I too can't see what they would hope to gain by deliberate misdirection- so why did they do it?
Which is the exact question I asked Vladimir. If it's a conspiracy, cui bono?


I think it's that Obama has a strong belief [...] He thinks that [...] It's a fairly typical mentality for liberals. [...] It's possible that he sees this as [...] it is because of his shallow intellectual and moral view of the world. [...] my explanation is that him saying that is just his way of lecturing both sides with sentiments chosen because they sound good to him.
That's an awful lot of information from inside the President's brain. And as an explanation, it relies on him being remarkably stupid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could you elaborate on this?

I could at great length - but in brief:

Everything about US politics is geared towards the two parties - the primaries, the way the seats are arranged in the House, the little R's and D's they put before the people's names in front of their seats, the change to the Constitution so that the candidates run on double tickets, and the fact that both Houses are chaired by partisan actors...

Even the design of the Houses encourages a two-part mentality, by the way the desks are arranged.

It's not virtually impossible for a "third Party" to breakout at the Federal level because in order to be taken seriously you have to already be at the Federal level.

I'm English, our system is flat out designed for two parties, almost explicitly, certainly for two sides (in power and not) but we still have a more plural system than you.

[rvg]

...the change to the Constitution so that the candidates run on double tickets...

What are you referring to? The rest is pure fluff, but this is intriguing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What are you referring to? The rest is pure fluff, but this is intriguing.

Look it up - you'll be shocked.

[Vladimir]

Lemur

Conspiracy? Really? Are you that unfamiliar with politics and politicians that you can't understand why they'd use deception for their benefit? I really can't explain it to you better than others here already have.

[rvg]

Look it up - you'll be shocked.

Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Except - he's basically right. This isn't about the video,

Eeeeh....you see your problem here?




That's an awful lot of information from inside the President's brain. And as an explanation, it relies on him being remarkably stupid.

Yes and yes. I'm curious why you think he's smart, personally I can't relate to people who watch him give speeches and come away with that impression.


Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

Is he talking about the change in the rules about the vice presidency? I don't see what's shocking about that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just as I suspected. Your argument begs the question.

Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.

Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.

As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh come off it, fine if you're too lazy.

They changed the Constitution so that the Presidential nominees could pick a VP, rather than the VP being the runner up in the election - which actually makes infinitely more sense, given that he's the Speaker of the Senate.

Now ask yourself why every child is taught about that amendment in school.

As to the rest, it's not "fluff" because it's about perception and perception is the only thing that matters in an election.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eeeeh....you see your problem here?

Why don't you summarise, in under three sentences - because the riots aren't about the video, so Obama is right about that.


Is he talking about the change in the rules about the vice presidency? I don't see what's shocking about that.

I do - and if you think about it you will too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the vice president was radically different then they won't work well together in the white house and assassination becomes many times more viable.

Think harder.

This is the point I am making about your system - look back at the elections prior to the change, see how the system was meant​ to work.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Think harder.

This is the point I am making about your system - look back at the elections prior to the change, see how the system was meant​ to work.

The elections of washington were basically uncontested if I remember correctly. I think originally we hoped there would be no "faction" but it turned out there was. You can't have a system that assumes no faction when there are very bitterly opposed factions.

I'm not sure why you are appealing to any "original" meaning as if that's better.


Why don't you summarise, in under three sentences - because the riots aren't about the video, so Obama is right about that.


He's been associating the riots and even the killings with the video practically non stop. And for him, if it's not about the video specifically its about a history of things like the video, which is also faulty. So you are saying that he's wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The elections of washington were basically uncontested if I remember correctly. I think originally we hoped there would be no "faction" but it turned out there was. You can't have a system that assumes no faction when there are very bitterly opposed factions.

I'm not sure why you are appealing to any "original" meaning as if that's better.

You are correct - Washington's election was effectively uncontested (the other were jostling for VP) but John Adams' election was not, and he and Jefferson managed not to kill each other despite being bitter political rivals.

The point is - there was always conflict but the reforms that have been enacted have entrenched it.

after all - lots of countries have managed with Premiers and Vices from different parties - we have that situation in the UK now, and we won World War II with the same arrangement.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed - I'm saying look​ at the change made - look at the double ticket.


He's been associating the riots and even the killings with the video practically non stop. And for him, if it's not about the video specifically its about a history of things like the video, which is also faulty. So you are saying that he's wrong.

The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.

[Strike For The South]

The video is the smokescreen that the bourgeoise use in order to exploit the proletariat.

YOU FOOLS

[Lemur]

[Y]ou can't understand why they'd use deception for their benefit?
For the third and final time, what is the benefit? I don't know how to be any clearer about this.


I'm curious why you think [Obama]'s smart, personally I can't relate to people who watch him give speeches and come away with that impression.
Just because you posit that our President is an idiot hamstrung by ego and ideology—and explain everything related to Washington and Libya on this premise—it does not follow that I am saying the man is a genius. False equivalence is false.

Look at your post: four paragraphs of telling us what's in Obama's mind, all of it bad (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142461-U-S-Ambassador-and-three-others-killed-in-Libya&p=2053485616&viewfull=1#post2053485616). I'm suspicious of any explanation of any phenomena that requires in-depth, detailed knowledge of another person's brain. You're neither thick nor slow, so you can see why I find such a premise problematic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You are correct - Washington's election was effectively uncontested (the other were jostling for VP) but John Adams' election was not, and he and Jefferson managed not to kill each other despite being bitter political rivals.

The point is - there was always conflict but the reforms that have been enacted have entrenched it.

after all - lots of countries have managed with Premiers and Vices from different parties - we have that situation in the UK now, and we won World War II with the same arrangement.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been changed - I'm saying look​ at the change made - look at the double ticket.

Their rivalry was one of the main reasons it was changed. And heck, just look at all the presidents who have died in office (8 I think).

A two party system is ideal, so you're going to have be more explicit about what you think is corrupt.

Ideally you have one party who errs on the side of caution and tradition and common sense, and another that mostly agrees but has ideas about how the world is changing and how the older ideas don't fit anymore. This works as long as you have an ok starting tradition. Essentially you would have all moderates. The important thing in politics is to keep radicals at a minimum. I for one am happy that the "BUILD A WALL ACROSS THE WHOLE BORDER" people and the "HAVING "IN GOD WE TRUST" ON OUR PENNIES IS OPPRESSION" people are kept in positions of minimal leverage.

Our problems are when our "common sense" traditions are faulty, and when radicals (left-liberals and libertarians usually) puke their ideology all over the place.




The video triggered it, but it's not about the video - I realise that's a nuanced point, but it's not that complicated.

He has consistently made it about the video. Goodness.

And the video didn't trigger the protests, and certainly not the killings, as he suggests in that clip and has been suggesting.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Just because you posit that our President is an idiot hamstrung by ego and ideology—and explain everything related to Washington and Libya on this premise—it does not follow that I am saying the man is a genius. False equivalence is false.

I said smart, not genius. Anyway, do you think he's smart? Why or why not?

[Strike For The South]

Define smart?

The man certainly does not challenge any paradigms, although no one who has power inklings ever does/