View Full Version : U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 12:38
So how will the US respond?
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/US-ambassador-killed-in-consulate-attack-in-Libya-3856652.php
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 13:03
So how will the US respond?
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/US-ambassador-killed-in-consulate-attack-in-Libya-3856652.php
Harsh words for the killers, condolences to the families that suffered losses, and a few drone strikes.
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 13:07
This being the run up to election, do you think the Ds can get off that easy without it hurting their chances?
I know yesterday there had already been some sniping. With one killed it was tragic. This brings it to a whole new level.
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 13:10
I know yesterday there had already been some sniping. With one killed it was tragic. This brings it to a whole new level.
The new level being drone strikes in Libya. More people are going to be killed but it won't have a strong effect on the election.
Sir Moody
09-12-2012, 13:18
there wont be Drone strikes - who would the US bomb?
The Libyan Government didn't support the so called Militamen and in fact tried to stop them, bombing them would be a diplomatic nightmare.
The US will demand the heads of the Militamen (rightfully so) and it will be the reactions of the Libyan government which will determine what happens next
If they crack down and capture/kill the Militia responsible then the US probably wont do anything - if they drag their heels or do nothing then they are going to find themselves in a lot of diplomatic problems... and then the US may consider a Military response
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 13:36
We should learn in a few hours. I don’t think the administration can sit on it.
One view on the matter.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidblair/100180582/murder-at-the-us-embassy-barack-obama-cannot-attack-libya-so-what-does-he-do/
Hooahguy
09-12-2012, 13:45
All I can see him doing is him boosting US security in embassies in predominantly Muslim nations. I mean, there really isnt much more that he can do besides demand that the leaders bring whoever did this to justice.
Also, the Muslim world needs to chill out. Seriously.
Populus Romanus
09-12-2012, 13:45
I doubt the political will exists anymore for any military action in Libya. The disappointment with the results of the intervention before preclude the possiblity of a second, methinks.
lol Obama has has condemnded the attacks. It isn't very nice aparantly.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-12-2012, 14:12
The new level being drone strikes in Libya. More people are going to be killed but it won't have a strong effect on the election.
OK, seriously, what are you smoking?
Drone strikes against a US ally? How do you think that would go down with other allies?
That isn't going to happen, the most proactive thing the US can do is offer to send CIA/FBI bods in to "assist with the investigation".
Catiline
09-12-2012, 14:20
OK, seriously, what are you smoking?
Drone strikes against a US ally? How do you think that would go down with other allies?
Ask Pakistan
Ask Pakistan
Or rather, don't ask, just do it.
Catiline
09-12-2012, 14:25
Indeed
Hooahguy
09-12-2012, 14:46
Or rather, don't ask, just do it.
Dont ask, dont tell.
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 14:52
there wont be Drone strikes - who would the US bomb?
The Libyan Government didn't support the so called Militamen and in fact tried to stop them, bombing them would be a diplomatic nightmare.
The US will demand the heads of the Militamen (rightfully so) and it will be the reactions of the Libyan government which will determine what happens next
If they crack down and capture/kill the Militia responsible then the US probably wont do anything - if they drag their heels or do nothing then they are going to find themselves in a lot of diplomatic problems... and then the US may consider a Military response
Yemen, Pakistan...
OK, seriously, what are you smoking?
Drone strikes against a US ally? How do you think that would go down with other allies?
That isn't going to happen, the most proactive thing the US can do is offer to send CIA/FBI bods in to "assist with the investigation".
Ibid.
All of this talk of force assumes we have good intel, which is news to me. Note that overwhelming force without good intel looks a lot like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War).
Anyway, here's the trailer for the film that caused the riots and assassinations. Looks like a substandard student film, honestly. Haven't angry rural subliterate mobs heard of the Streisand Effect (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/streisand-effect)?
Obvious and clumsy use of greenscreen, badly dubbed sound ... the people involved in this should have their creative license suspended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntgzoE7rU9A
What he should do? Help the authorities and normal Muslim to helps spread moderate believe and help counter extremism, especially the violent kind. Also try to help young people in the US who are vulnerable to extremists seeking them out. It might not provide a feeling of sweet vengeance but the only way to improve the situation. Violence has proven not to work, something that even children could predict, and is only detrimental. Unless you want to commit the largest genocide of yet, violence will not work. Of course trying to help who was responsible, by sending over some detectives wouldn't hurt.
Expanding the usage of drones will not only help you lose your last Muslim allies, likely many more will quit. And let's be honest most aren't really that into the way the US of A's military has been operating, nor been that supportive of most of the USA's military interventions.
Edit: also how difficult is it to make at least a somewhat comprehensible and coherent trailer? I understand acting might be not on par with professionals, nor will a script be as good. But at least make a trailer be more than just complete randomness.
Unless you want to commit the largest genocide of yet, violence will not work.
Think about it though.... a world without muslims... but yeah, you're right. Going apeshit on Libya will accomplish nothing at this point.
Think about it though.... a world without muslims... but yeah, you're right. Going apeshit on Libya will accomplish nothing at this point.
Oh could we only bring the Arab world back to days of Polytheism. When did they only stole cattle and did little raids. But war? No, they'd just bribe you off most of the time. Also camel archers vs M1A2's would be quite a sight.
Oh could we only bring the Arab world back to days of Polytheism. When did they only stole cattle and did little raids. But war? No, they'd just bribe you off most of the time. Also camel archers vs M1A2's would be quite a sight.
It's not an Arab thing, it's a muslim thing.
Also camel archers vs M1A2's would be quite a sight.
Considering how effective they are, I'd put my money on the camels in the long run.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 15:24
Tricky tricky...
Seems a bit weird if USA would attack Libya, when you just got the government they have in position. But at the same time, it's not like USA to let things like this go unpunished.
I guess the bible belt is screaming for blood and crusades?
I guess the bible belt is screaming for blood and crusades?
The Romney campaign seems eager to prove ... something ... with this attack. Not at all clear what he thinks he's going to score by jumping on this (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSCdDns_yQIoHjMpy0dH0ceq64UQ?docId=a3c55184eb0f4d80a7dceb0a889fd649).
Republican Mitt Romney slammed the Obama administration's handling of foreign affairs after attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya as foreign policy pushed to the front of the presidential campaign.
Romney branded the administration's early response to the attacks as "disgraceful" in a statement the former Massachusetts governor released before confirmation that the American ambassador had been killed. [...]
Romney pounced on news of the attacks, trying to seize an opportunity to criticize President Barack Obama on an area where voters see him as a stronger leader. Polling shows Americans trust Obama more on foreign policy and national security — areas where Republicans traditionally have an edge in public opinion. [...]
Romney said in his earlier statement that he was outraged by the attacks and the administration's early response seemed to sympathize with the attackers. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Tricky tricky...
Seems a bit weird if USA would attack Libya, when you just got the government they have in position. But at the same time, it's not like USA to let things like this go unpunished.
I guess the bible belt is screaming for blood and crusades?
France attacked Libya
Romney said in his earlier statement that he was outraged by the attacks and the administration's early response seemed to sympathize with the attackers. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
He actually has a point there. I agree that our response was disgraceful.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 15:36
France attacked Libya
Fragony, with your history of writings things that can only be described as lunatic, coupled with what seems like an inability to understand simple facts (like with Mein kampf), you really really REALLY have to elaborate more than that when you try to make a point come across.
Major Robert Dump
09-12-2012, 15:37
I love how in the statement, rather than invoking the 1st and 2nd amendments, we get a subtle condemnation of the film and filmmaker.
A guy in a country of 300 million people made a bad film that hurt someones feelings. So, change the channel, retards. Using this justification, all of Egypt should burn because the Egyptian restaurant in Houston gave me diarrhea.
Fragony, with your history of writings things that can only be described as lunatic, coupled with what seems like an inability to understand simple facts (like with Mein kampf), you really really REALLY have to elaborate more than that when you try to make a point come across.
Sorry but it's true
I love how in the statement, rather than invoking the 1st and 2nd amendments, we get a subtle condemnation of the film and filmmaker.
I must be blind, I'm not seeing the mention of the filmmaker, even in passing. Help me out here. Here's the text of the two statements (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501708_162-57511093/obama-statement-on-attack-on-libya-consulate/), one by President 44, one by SecState.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 15:41
Sorry but it's true
Ok, see. When normal people are asked to elaborate, they don't add that what they said is true.
I am trying to make you understand why it's very VERY hard to take what you write seriously. You have some good, if uncomfortable, points at times, I grant you that. However, as long as you keep debating like a pre-schooler you will find that very few bother to listen to what you say, no matter if you are right or wrong.
I must be blind, I'm not seeing the mention of the filmmaker, even in passing. Help me out here. Here's the text of the two statements (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501708_162-57511093/obama-statement-on-attack-on-libya-consulate/), one by President 44, one by SecState.
Here:
"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet," Clinton said. "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
This response is downright pathetic.
Ok, see. When normal people are asked to elaborate, they don't add that what they said is true.
I am trying to make you understand why it's very VERY hard to take what you write seriously. You have some good, if uncomfortable, points at times, I grant you that. However, as long as you keep debating like a pre-schooler you will find that very few bother to listen to what you say, no matter if you are right or wrong.
Liberal enough I hope
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/warplane-shot-down-libya_n_837911.html
Major Robert Dump
09-12-2012, 15:53
nevermind
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 15:55
Liberal enough I hope
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/warplane-shot-down-libya_n_837911.html
That is an article about french jets.
Very good, you now sourced.
Ok, so from that source, what is your point? Again, you haven't elaborated at all.
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 15:56
All of this talk of force assumes we have good intel, which is news to me. Note that overwhelming force without good intel looks a lot like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War).
Anyway, here's the trailer for the film that caused the riots and assassinations. Looks like a substandard student film, honestly. Haven't angry rural subliterate mobs heard of the Streisand Effect (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/streisand-effect)?
Obvious and clumsy use of greenscreen, badly dubbed sound ... the people involved in this should have their creative license suspended.
Yet you not only watched the video but you posted a link for others to view. They don't care how many hits they get, just that people are watching it.
That is an article about french jets.
Very good, you now sourced.
Ok, so from that source, what is your point? Again, you haven't elaborated at all.
It's pretty simple it's in there, France started bombing Libya without allies consent. They even admitted it.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 16:08
It's pretty simple it's in there, France started bombing Libya without allies consent. They even admitted it.
How is that related to the topic, though? What is it that you are trying to say here?
How is that related to the topic, though? What is it that you are trying to say here?
The exact same thing of which you said it was lunacy, that it was France that started the war with Libya.
Yet you not only watched the video but you posted a link for others to view. They don't care how many hits they get, just that people are watching it.
The cure for offensive speech is more speech. I believe exposing the film to be a sub-student-level piece of junk is an appropriate response. Instead of hiding it like some deep, dark secret, I say expose it as the shoddy piece of trash that it is. As a propaganda film it does not appear to be playing in Leni Riefestahl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl) territory.
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 16:21
The cure for offensive speech is more speech. I believe exposing the film to be a sub-student-level piece of junk is an appropriate response. Instead of hiding it like some deep, dark secret, I say expose it as the shoddy piece of trash that it is. As a propaganda film it does not appear to be playing in Leni Riefestahl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl) territory.
I know I usually sound harsh, but I'm against those that made the film receiving any notice at all. Least of all for someone to add to their viewed metrics.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-12-2012, 16:22
The exact same thing of which you said it was lunacy, that it was France that started the war with Libya.
They started "early", they didn't start without allies.
Military action is not an option, the militia is not government aligned and the US is not at war with Libya or its neighbours - the situation bears no resemblance to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.
If Obama bows to the screaming to "retaliation" on the Right he is a weak president who deserves to be thrown out.
They started "early", they didn't start without allies.
Military action is not an option, the militia is not government aligned and the US is not at war with Libya or its neighbours - the situation bears no resemblance to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.
If Obama bows to the screaming to "retaliation" on the Right he is a weak president who deserves to be thrown out.
Put it how you like it, but 40.000 people, probably 80.000, got killed in a timeset that would shame any campguard's pride
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-12-2012, 16:44
Put it how you like it, but 40.000 people, probably 80.000, got killed in a timeset that would shame any campguard's pride
This from the man who doesn't believe Gadaffi could have killed 6,000 of his own people before NATO got involved?
Nuh-uh, you can't have it both ways Frags.
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 16:59
... Here's the text of the two statements (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501708_162-57511093/obama-statement-on-attack-on-libya-consulate/), one by President 44, one by SecState.
First, let me say the response is weak. It is not just weak it is no response at all.
Other than adding a minefield around embassies and consulates there is no way to increase security.
If you had been to one of these facilities you would wonder how the mob gained entry without the use of armored vehicles. They should be proof against small arms and even RPGs. I can see them being killed if they were caught in a car but to have the building looted and burned is beyond understanding. The attack had to be a prolonged one.
Making resources available sounds much more like a platitude than any real action.
This is not going to inspire confidence and make people feel better, which it is supposed to be about.
The press may try to attack Romney for his early criticisms but that could backfire too.
It is as though he is trying to make himself look bad. At the very least he should have named the Islamic movement that was behind the attacks for condemnation, but he couldn’t even do that.
I am also shocked and disappointed.
This from the man who doesn't believe Gadaffi could have killed 6,000 of his own people before NATO got involved?
Nuh-uh, you can't have it both ways Frags.
Wanna bet I already have 6.000
First, let me say the response is weak. It is not just weak it is no response at all.
I'm not quite understanding the reaction here, so maybe you can help me out? PotUS and SecDef condemn the attacks. Is there something else they should be doing, absent further development of the intel?
What would an appropriate response look like?
-edit-
Is this the sort of thing (http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/libya_pentagon_sending_elite_anti_terrorism_marines) that constitutes an appropriate response? Or not? I am puzzled by the speed and certainty of the reactions back here.
The U.S. is deploying elite Marine counterterrorism teams to Libya in response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The Pentagon is sending Fleet Anti-Terrorism Teams, known as FAST teams, a U.S. defense official has confirmed to the E-Ring.
The official was unsure if the teams were actually en route to Libya yet.
"Make no mistake, justice will be done," President Obama said, in a statement in the Rose Garden early Wednesday. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is not expected to appear on camera today.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-12-2012, 17:24
I'm not quite understanding the reaction here, so maybe you can help me out? PotUS and SecDef condemn the attacks. Is there something else they should be doing, absent further development of the intel?
What would an appropriate response look like?
Libya in flames, most likely.
I remember this reaction eleven years ago, kill some Americans and perfectly normal citizens of your country start calling for the blood of children.
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 17:42
Libya in flames, most likely.
I remember this reaction eleven years ago, kill some Americans and perfectly normal citizens of your country start calling for the blood of children.
Really?
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 17:53
I'm not quite understanding the reaction here, so maybe you can help me out? PotUS and SecDef condemn the attacks. Is there something else they should be doing, absent further development of the intel?
What would an appropriate response look like?
-edit-
Is this the sort of thing (http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/12/libya_pentagon_sending_elite_anti_terrorism_marines) that constitutes an appropriate response? Or not? I am puzzled by the speed and certainty of the reactions back here.
The U.S. is deploying elite Marine counterterrorism teams to Libya in response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The Pentagon is sending Fleet Anti-Terrorism Teams, known as FAST teams, a U.S. defense official has confirmed to the E-Ring.
The official was unsure if the teams were actually en route to Libya yet.
"Make no mistake, justice will be done," President Obama said, in a statement in the Rose Garden early Wednesday. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is not expected to appear on camera today.
Say exactly who did it and what actions they plan to take.
As I said before, their statements don’t do anything. They should be saying something to calm people and at least make them feel better about the situation.
Not even, “We are sanding a team from the FBI to assist with the investigations.”
Additional security is ridiculous. Citizens can’t even get into them with out several days notice.
The facilities are bunkers. There is nothing in them that will burn but the paper for the copy machines.
You just have no idea! And this is not even in the high risk areas.
The statements would have been harsher had it been a prison riot.
But then I am outside the US atm. Perhaps people are not upset and it is just like someone stuck up the local drugstore.
However, I see nothing in the statement that shows any decisiveness, determination, or leadership.
It just seems like weak pap to me.
Caught me with the edit.
I suppose that is an improvement but it should have been the POTUS who told us and not DOD.
This makes it look like they are doing it of their own accord. He still comes off weak and by no means decisive.
Yeah, I'm not in any way saying that the responses here are inappropriate, just that I don't understand them. Literally.
Our people were assassinated yesterday, official condemnation from PotUS and SecDef went out today, CT teams are being sent to the region, and Libya has apologized (and Egypt, notably, has not).
Very fluid situation. Personally, I would rather not hear thundering pronouncements from our government until they're quite certain about (a) what actually went down, and (b) what they intend to do about it.
But I get the sense from the responses back here that this is considered unacceptable. So I'm not baiting, and I'm not arguing, I'm asking: What would an appropriate response look like?
-edit-
Missed your post, Fisherking, apologies. You do a good job of answering my question, so thank you. I don't agree, but at least now I understand.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 18:31
The exact same thing of which you said it was lunacy, that it was France that started the war with Libya.
The lunacy I referred to was directed to your years of participation.
I said that the US gov't just put the Libyan gov in place, and hence it would be weird if they attacked them. I didn't say the US started it, was alone in doing it, or anything such. That is why I wondered why you started posting articles about french jet fighters.
So what in my original point is it that you feel like arguing against?
AND PLEASE BE MORE ELABORATE WHEN YOU FIRST COME UP WITH THE IDEA TO POST.
That way I don't have to spend so many posts just trying to understand what the **** you are trying to get said.
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 18:34
Yeah, I'm not in any way saying that the responses here are inappropriate, just that I don't understand them. Literally.
Our people were assassinated yesterday, official condemnation from PotUS and SecDef went out today, CT teams are being sent to the region, and Libya has apologized (and Egypt, notably, has not).
Very fluid situation. Personally, I would rather not hear thundering pronouncements from our government until they're quite certain about (a) what actually went down, and (b) what they intend to do about it.
But I get the sense from the responses back here that this is considered unacceptable. So I'm not baiting, and I'm not arguing, I'm asking: What would an appropriate response look like?
-edit-
Missed your post, Fisherking, apologies. You do a good job of answering my question, so thank you. I don't agree, but at least now I understand.
I don’t think a “Bring War Fire and Brimstone” approach is what is needed.
I do think the Pres should come of as decisive and well informed and should try to make the people think that we know what we are doing and moving with a plan- real or perceived.
Telling people who the perps were and what motivated them should have been the first thing. That way they know it is not a terror plot but fundamentalists. Then what we are doing to apprehend them or aid Libya in doing so.
The beefed up security was something he had to say. It is just those who are overseas know that that is a platitude. (if you are ever in another country you should make a point of visiting one, once.)
We just need him to inspire confidence, not remind us of the Carter era.
I do think the Pres should come of as decisive and well informed and should try to make the people think that we know what we are doing and moving with a plan- real or perceived.
Then PotUS would need to not say anything until he had firm intel, which would prolly cause a prolonged silence. I doubt that would satisfy anyone.
Lots of murk in this situation. For example, the identity of the person who made the craptacular film is unclear, and the information he has given about himself may very well be fabricated (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/6377/who_is_%22sam_bacile%22).
Both the AP and the Wall Street Journal have reported interviews with Sam Bacile, the man who claims to be a California real estate developer who raised $5 million from Jewish donors to make his obviously lowest-of-low budget, amateurish anti-Islam film.
But before the July 2012 upload of the film trailer to YouTube, under the user name Sam Bacile, you’d be hard pressed to find evidence of the existence a California real estate developer online. [...]
Consider all the contradictions: small ones, true, like in one account he is 52 and in another he is 56. To the AP he is “a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew” and to the Times of Israel he is “Jewish and familiar with the region.” And what about that bit at the end of the statement to the Times of Israel—that “even Jesus” should be “in front of the judge”? That sounds like someone who is trying to provoke more than just Muslims. A lot of things don’t add up here about the claimed identity of the filmmaker. [...]
from the AP story: “Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.” -edit-
This sums it all up pretty well. Note that the validity of the first bit is unconfirmable:
https://i.imgur.com/9bCwe.png
The lunacy I referred to was directed to your years of participation.
I said that the US gov't just put the Libyan gov in place, and hence it would be weird if they attacked them. I didn't say the US started it, was alone in doing it, or anything such. That is why I wondered why you started posting articles about french jet fighters.
So what in my original point is it that you feel like arguing against?
AND PLEASE BE MORE ELABORATE WHEN YOU FIRST COME UP WITH THE IDEA TO POST.
That way I don't have to spend so many posts just trying to understand what the **** you are trying to get said.
You would not believe me, isn't it enough that I allready proved that it wasn't the US that attacked Libya but France, as I said, which you thought was pretty rediculous
I love how people say that islam is not dangerous and that it is just the hardcore wackos who are violent. Funny that people tear apart the Christian faith all the time (see Penn Jillette) and the hardcore wackos on the Christian side don't go attacking Atheist organizations with rocket launchers and assault rifles. Because some Israeli (based in Cali, but from what I read, still an Israeli) makes some stupid Youtube video they find to be disrespectful, they attack a US embassy? What sense does that mean. No, not all muslims are violent (nor the majority of them), but the religion lends itself to violence, and its teachings are so easily used to justify violence that I honestly think the world would be a lot better off without it. People gotta stop being afraid to say the truth.
Because some Israeli (based in Cali, but from what I read, still an Israeli)
As I pointed out, two whole posts ago, "Sam Bacille" may or may not be a fabricated identity. Extremely unclear (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/filmmaker-behind-anti-islamic-movie-sparked-deadly-protests-libya-egypt-hiding-article-1.1157426?localLinksEnabled=false).
Bacile has identified himself as an Israeli Jew in interviews, but Israeli diplomats said they have no record of anybody with that name being a citizen.
That revelation raised more questions about the identity of Bacile, who also claims to be a real estate developer in California.
Records show no evidence of a 50-something Sam Bacile residing in the Golden State or having a real estate license. He is now in hiding.Furthermore (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/american-ambassador-killed-libya-sam-bacile-stevens-369785):
Though Bacile claims he spent $5 million on the movie -- a figure that would put the film's budget on par with the Toronto International Film Festival entrant and Julianne Moore-starrer What Maisie Knew -- the 13 minutes of footage available online look unprofessional. Furthermore, Bacile has virtually no footprint in the Hollywood community. The writer-director-producer has no agent listed on IMDBPro and no credits on any film or TV production.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 19:20
I read this thread solely because I saw the last post was by Lemur.
It did not disappoint.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 19:24
lends itself to violence, and its teachings are so easily used to justify violence that I honestly think the world would be a lot better off without it.
That statement can be said about almost everything in the world, and personally I think the aim of such statements says more about the opinions of the person exclaiming it, than what the statements are about.
As I pointed out, two whole posts ago, "Sam Bacille" may or may not be a fabricated identity. Extremely unclear (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/filmmaker-behind-anti-islamic-movie-sparked-deadly-protests-libya-egypt-hiding-article-1.1157426?localLinksEnabled=false).
Bacile has identified himself as an Israeli Jew in interviews, but Israeli diplomats said they have no record of anybody with that name being a citizen.
That revelation raised more questions about the identity of Bacile, who also claims to be a real estate developer in California.
Records show no evidence of a 50-something Sam Bacile residing in the Golden State or having a real estate license. He is now in hiding.Furthermore (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/american-ambassador-killed-libya-sam-bacile-stevens-369785):
Though Bacile claims he spent $5 million on the movie -- a figure that would put the film's budget on par with the Toronto International Film Festival entrant and Julianne Moore-starrer What Maisie Knew -- the 13 minutes of footage available online look unprofessional. Furthermore, Bacile has virtually no footprint in the Hollywood community. The writer-director-producer has no agent listed on IMDBPro and no credits on any film or TV production.
This is all good and such, but both Basile and his excuse for a movie are irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the muslim reaction to that movie.
Hooahguy
09-12-2012, 19:27
As I pointed out, two whole posts ago, "Sam Bacille" may or may not be a fabricated identity. Extremely unclear (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/filmmaker-behind-anti-islamic-movie-sparked-deadly-protests-libya-egypt-hiding-article-1.1157426?localLinksEnabled=false).
Bacile has identified himself as an Israeli Jew in interviews, but Israeli diplomats said they have no record of anybody with that name being a citizen.
That revelation raised more questions about the identity of Bacile, who also claims to be a real estate developer in California.
Records show no evidence of a 50-something Sam Bacile residing in the Golden State or having a real estate license. He is now in hiding.Furthermore (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/american-ambassador-killed-libya-sam-bacile-stevens-369785):
Though Bacile claims he spent $5 million on the movie -- a figure that would put the film's budget on par with the Toronto International Film Festival entrant and Julianne Moore-starrer What Maisie Knew -- the 13 minutes of footage available online look unprofessional. Furthermore, Bacile has virtually no footprint in the Hollywood community. The writer-director-producer has no agent listed on IMDBPro and no credits on any film or TV production.
I know this might sound crazy but what if Romney purposefully ignited the riots to discredit Obama's foreign policy?
I like the term the Muslim reaction. As if this is the general reaction of Muslims to stuff like this.
I know this might sound crazy but what if Romney purposefully ignited the riots to discredit Obama's foreign policy?
I have no doubt that it was fabricated, but dude, that sounds more than crazy. Romney? lol, get real.
I like the term the Muslim reaction. As if this is the general reaction of Muslims to stuff like this.
Kind of like when you and others talk about the American reaction to 9/11? The only reaction that is really important here is the reaction that is causing this violence. The peaceful reactions of muslims, jews, and Christians are not really important to the discussion. The reaction that is important is that of those muslims who killed innocent people for religious reasons.
I like the term the Muslim reaction. As if this is the general reaction of Muslims to stuff like this.
Kinda is or did I miss something
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 19:31
You would not believe me, isn't it enough that I allready proved that it wasn't the US that attacked Libya but France, as I said, which you thought was pretty rediculous
Ok, after having already explained that I am fully aware that the US was but a part of the attack on Libya, I can only understand what you write as you claiming USA had nothing to do with Libya what so ever?
If so, you are again, plain wrong.
If not, I have no idea what you are arguing against?
Kralizec
09-12-2012, 19:38
I know this might sound crazy but what if Romney purposefully ignited the riots to discredit Obama's foreign policy?
Far fetched.
I have no doubt that it was fabricated, but dude, that sounds more than crazy. Romney? lol, get real.
And this is coming from the guy who speculated that Obama had Breitbart murdered and that the Sikh temple shootings were a false flag attack by gun control advocates? :rolleyes:
Oh common, that it wasn't the US but France that started that war you did't know and you didn't believe it, but I was right. You on the other hand was wrong, get a gluhwein and live with it. We will always have Tirol.
Edit: that was at the swedish ski instructer, I'll do anything
I know this might sound crazy but what if Romney purposefully ignited the riots to discredit Obama's foreign policy?
As others have said, this would be an uncharacteristically out-there move from Team Boston, so I kinda doubt it. It's not impossible, just extremely unlikely.
Romney's immediate jump on the issue, however, looks like a bad fumble (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/romneys-foreign-policy-fumble/262288/).
Far fetched.
And this is coming from the guy who speculated that Obama had Breitbart murdered and that the Sikh temple shootings were a false flag attack by gun control advocates? :rolleyes:
That is a lot more plausible than Romney staging this. If for no other reason motive and means. Also, would Romney risk that on the chance that nearly the entire muslim world would freak out and kill people over a dumb internet video? Of course if he is caught, he would lose the election.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 19:49
This is all good and such, but both Basile and his excuse for a movie are irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the muslim reaction to that movie.
Muslim (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/libyans-take-to-twitter-to-condemn-deadly-embassy-attack-1.952977) reactions? (http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/09/quicktake-we-condemn-us-envoy-killing-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-egypt-ibrahim-hooper-cair-96980/) Which (http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/169482776.html) ones? (http://mobile.twitter.com/Ikhwanweb/status/245874490423255040#!/Ikhwanweb/status/245874490423255040)
Kind of like when you and others talk about the American reaction to 9/11?
When talking about how the US state reacted to 9/11, what term other than "American reaction" can you use?
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 19:52
Then PotUS would need to not say anything until he had firm intel, which would prolly cause a prolonged silence. I doubt that would satisfy anyone.
Lots of murk in this situation. For example, the identity of the person who made the craptacular film is unclear, and the information he has given about himself may very well be fabricated (http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/6377/who_is_%22sam_bacile%22).
Both the AP and the Wall Street Journal have reported interviews with Sam Bacile, the man who claims to be a California real estate developer who raised $5 million from Jewish donors to make his obviously lowest-of-low budget, amateurish anti-Islam film.
But before the July 2012 upload of the film trailer to YouTube, under the user name Sam Bacile, you’d be hard pressed to find evidence of the existence a California real estate developer online. [...]
Consider all the contradictions: small ones, true, like in one account he is 52 and in another he is 56. To the AP he is “a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew” and to the Times of Israel he is “Jewish and familiar with the region.” And what about that bit at the end of the statement to the Times of Israel—that “even Jesus” should be “in front of the judge”? That sounds like someone who is trying to provoke more than just Muslims. A lot of things don’t add up here about the claimed identity of the filmmaker. [...]
from the AP story: “Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.” -edit-
This sums it all up pretty well. Note that the validity of the first bit is unconfirmable:
https://i.imgur.com/9bCwe.png
I don’t know how you can say that. If he just repeated what was available in the media he had enough information to go on-air with more than he said.
The film is immaterial unless someone plans to prosecute. That doesn’t sound like the best idea to me either.
And of course it is Republicans raising a fuss that is because the man is a Democrat, or haven’t you noticed? If he were a Republican then it would be Democrat idiots making the racket.
Dunno if anyone saw this, but one of the guys that was killed was a Mod over at Something Awful, and a senior member of Goonswarm:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/vilerat/
I'm not quite sure why that has such an effect on me, but it does.
Muslim (http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/libyans-take-to-twitter-to-condemn-deadly-embassy-attack-1.952977) reactions? (http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/09/quicktake-we-condemn-us-envoy-killing-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-egypt-ibrahim-hooper-cair-96980/) Which (http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/169482776.html) ones? (http://mobile.twitter.com/Ikhwanweb/status/245874490423255040#!/Ikhwanweb/status/245874490423255040)
None of these... muslim reaction to the movie...
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 19:56
Oh common, that it wasn't the US but France that started that war you did't know and you didn't believe it, but I was right. You on the other hand was wrong, get a gluhwein and live with it. We will always have Tirol.
Edit: that was at the swedish ski instructer, I'll do anything
Well, I do try to follow up on media. It's always tricky saying exactly when and where a war (or conflict as we call it today) started. With that said, yeah, US were not first in.
However, that still has absolutely NO, let me explain it to you again, it had absolutely NO impact on my original statement. That it would be weird for the US to attack Libya now when they just got the government in place there.
See, who initiated the war has absolutely NO bearings on that argument, so you understand my confusion when you go off on a rant about something entirely different, and it takes me what? 5 posts to understand what the heck you are trying to say?
Seriously Frags, you are starting to slip.
I really AM trying to understand your points, I often try to help your formulate your thoughts. But it would help immensely if you were trying a little too.
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 20:00
None of these... muslim reaction to the movie...
Again, which ones? The few who attacked the embassy, the ones who protested peacefully, the ones who said the movie was irrelevant and should be forgotten, the ones who said the film is within the bounds of free speech or the vast majority who simply did not care enough about it to say anything?
If he were a Republican then it would be Democrat idiots making the racket.
On the contrary, when an analogous situation arose over the Muhammed cartoons, Bush 43 made very conciliatory and respectful remarks (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14F83D5A0C778CDDAB0894DE404482) about Islam in 2006, and I'm unable to find any record of Dems in power jumping on him for it.
The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, ''We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.'' [...]
The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, reading the government's statement on the controversy, said, ''Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images,'' which are routinely published in the Arab press, ''as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.''
Again, which ones? The few who attacked the embassy, the ones who protested peacefully, the ones who said the movie was irrelevant and should be forgotten, the ones who said the film is within the bounds of free speech or the vast majority who simply did not care enough about it to say anything?
The ones who attacked, obviously.
Well, I do try to follow up on media. It's always tricky saying exactly when and where a war (or conflict as we call it today) started. With that said, yeah, US were not first in.
However, that still has absolutely NO, let me explain it to you again, it had absolutely NO impact on my original statement. That it would be weird for the US to attack Libya now when they just got the government in place there.
See, who initiated the war has absolutely NO bearings on that argument, so you understand my confusion when you go off on a rant about something entirely different, and it takes me what? 5 posts to understand what the heck you are trying to say?
Seriously Frags, you are starting to slip.
I really AM trying to understand your points, I often try to help your formulate your thoughts. But it would help immensely if you were trying a little too.
Like I said we will always have tirol
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 20:06
The ones who attacked, obviously.
Ah....
So you are talking about the reaction of the people who attacked the embassy, not the reaction of muslims then?
Good to have that cleared up.
Ah....
So you are talking about the reaction of the people who attacked the embassy, not the reaction of muslims then?
Good to have that cleared up.
They are muslims, are they not?
HoreTore
09-12-2012, 20:10
They are muslims, are they not?
They are. They are also "male". I presume they also belong to the category "people over the height of 1.50".
But even though I am a mighty 1.72, I don't really think it's appropriate to lump me in the same category as people who kill ambassadors.
They are. They are also "male". I presume they also belong to the category "people over the height of 1.50".
But even though I am a mighty 1.72, I don't really think it's appropriate to lump me in the same category as people who kill ambassadors.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 20:16
Like I said we will always have tirol
That comment.
That comment won you the argument?
I think I will get back to ignoring you.
They are. They are also "male". I presume they also belong to the category "people over the height of 1.50".
But even though I am a mighty 1.72, I don't really think it's appropriate to lump me in the same category as people who kill ambassadors.
Call that mighty that is really small here, I am +\- 1.85 and that's not big
That comment.
That comment won you the argument?
I think I will get back to ignoring you.
That is always possible, but I challenge you for a contest in intelligence and wit instead
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 20:28
On the contrary, when an analogous situation arose over the Muhammed cartoons, Bush 43 made very conciliatory and respectful remarks (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14F83D5A0C778CDDAB0894DE404482) about Islam in 2006, and I'm unable to find any record of Dems in power jumping on him for it.
The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, ''We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive.'' [...]
The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, reading the government's statement on the controversy, said, ''Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images,'' which are routinely published in the Arab press, ''as anti-Christian images, or any other religious belief.''
Come now, if you were being the least bit intellectually honest you would realize the Ds are just as viscous as the Rs.
Or are you just an alt for this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Carville
Come now, if you were being the least bit intellectually honest you would realize the Ds are just as viscous as the Rs.
Oh, I'm not saying the Dems can't be rat bastards when it suits them. Rather that this is not the sort of situation where it suits them, as evidenced by the 2006 example. So to take Romney's (unwise) yowling about Obama over the embassy assassinations and say, "If situations were reversed it would be the same," is demonstrably false.
The Dems like to demagogue about social stuff. See "war on women," "pushing grandma off the cliff," etc.
Oh, I'm not saying the Dems can't be rat bastards when it suits them. Rather that this is not the sort of situation where it suits them, as evidenced by the 2006 example. So to take Romney's (unwise) yowling about Obama over the embassy assassinations and say, "If situations were reversed it would be the same," is demonstrably false.
The Dems like to demagogue about social stuff. See "war on women," "pushing grandma off the cliff," etc.
This is a speculation on your part. You can't possibly know what the Dem reaction would have been if the situation were reversed.
This is a speculation on your part. You can't possibly know what the Dem reaction would have been if the situation were reversed.
Obviously I can't "know," but I can look for a recent, analogous situation, where militant Muslims were rioting and burning embassies, and the President of the United States made statements that were full of praise for Islam and condemnation of the abuse of free speech (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14F83D5A0C778CDDAB0894DE404482), and I can look at the reactions from the time. I don't see how that is invalid.
Also, looks like there might be more than mob violence (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-usa-libya-attack-idUSBRE88B1C620120912) to the attack in Libya. Intel developing.
The attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, may have been planned and organized in advance, U.S. government officials said on Wednesday.
The officials said that there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved in organizing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya's second-largest city.
They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.
"It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack" and appeared to be preplanned, one U.S. official said.
The officials asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information. More specific details about the possible role of militant groups or cells in the attack were not immediately available.
Obviously I can't "know," but I can look for a recent, analogous situation, where militant Muslims were rioting and burning embassies, and the President of the United States made statements that were full of praise for Islam and condemnation of the abuse of free speech (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14F83D5A0C778CDDAB0894DE404482), and I can look at the reactions from the time. I don't see how that is invalid.
But what makes you think that Dems wouldn't have reacted the same way Romney did, had it been the presidential election year.
Vladimir
09-12-2012, 20:40
Obviously I can't "know," but I can look for a recent, analogous situation, where militant Muslims were rioting and burning embassies, and the President of the United States made statements that were full of praise for Islam and condemnation of the abuse of free speech (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0B14F83D5A0C778CDDAB0894DE404482), and I can look at the reactions from the time. I don't see how that is invalid.
Also, looks like there might be more than mob violence (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-usa-libya-attack-idUSBRE88B1C620120912) to the attack in Libya. Intel developing.
The attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, may have been planned and organized in advance, U.S. government officials said on Wednesday.
The officials said that there were indications that members of a militant faction calling itself Ansar al Sharia - which translates as Supporters of Islamic Law - may have been involved in organizing the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya's second-largest city.
They also said some reporting from the region suggested that members of Al-Qaeda's north Africa-based affiliate, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, may have been involved.
"It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack" and appeared to be preplanned, one U.S. official said.
The officials asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information. More specific details about the possible role of militant groups or cells in the attack were not immediately available.
It's good that someone is saying that. The attack looked more planned than some random assassination or car bomb. Someone looking to make a name for themselves using Sep 11.
But what makes you think that Dems wouldn't have reacted the same way Romney did, had it been the presidential election year.
Two things:
House and Senate GOP have left Romney pretty much on his own (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81103.html) on this one, indicating that they have no desire to tie themselves to this tactic.
2006 was an election year if you were in Congress.
That said, no analogy is perfect. But it's pretty obvious that Dems tend to demagogue on social issues ("war on women"), while Repubs tend to demagogue on foreign policy ("Obama apology tour").
Meanwhile, someone affiliated with that craptacular film admits what we all suspected: "Sam Bacille" is a fabrication (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/).
Klein told me that Bacile, the producer of the film, is not Israeli, and most likely not Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is, in fact, a pseudonym. He said he did not know "Bacile"'s real name. He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California. "After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me."
He said the man who identified himself as Bacile asked him to help make the anti-Muhammad film. When I asked him to describe Bacile, he said: "I don't know that much about him. I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He's not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved, Terry Jones (the radical Christian Quran-burning pastor) is not involved. His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he's Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign."
I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, "Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They're from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they're some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical."
What are we to make of Steve Klein's assertions? I'm taking everything about this strange and horrible episod with a grain of salt, though I will say that I haven't seen any proof yet that Sam Bacile is an actual Israeli Jew, or that the name is anything other than a pseudonym.
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 20:44
Oh, I'm not saying the Dems can't be rat bastards when it suits them. Rather that this is not the sort of situation where it suits them, as evidenced by the 2006 example. So to take Romney's (unwise) yowling about Obama over the embassy assassinations and say, "If situations were reversed it would be the same," is demonstrably false.
The Dems like to demagogue about social stuff. See "war on women," "pushing grandma off the cliff," etc.
Mistake or no. We will have to see what the spin doctors can do with it. It could still backfire.
I don’t have a dog in this fight though. Too bad this election isn’t going to none of the above.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 20:49
This message is hidden because Fragony is on your ignore list.
Aaaaaah... Like a breath of fresh air. I didn't actually know the forum had this function. I always thought "I will ignore you" was just a phrase.
I always thought "I will ignore you" was just a phrase.
Pretty sure as a mod you're not supposed to use that function; a very good reason to refuse the green, should it be offered.
House and Senate GOP have left Romney pretty much on his own (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81103.html) on this one, indicating that they have no desire to tie themselves to this tactic.
Congress has been pretty quiet over the course of this election cycle. With approval rating in the teens their opinion is worth nothing.
2006 was an election year if you were in Congress.
Exactly. No contest between a Presidential year and a regular election year.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 21:08
Pretty sure as a mod you're not supposed to use that function; a very good reason to refuse the green, should it be offered.
I honestly think the only thing you got going for you is them cool masks...
That you have to take turns on the bike to power up the server is what would stop me though.
Fisherking
09-12-2012, 21:21
I am very hesitant about playing a terrorist card. I had seen some earlier reports that all the people were supporters of the previous regime and read no more of the article. Now we get this.
The Salafi have been quite a thorn for Libya in the past months. Destroying other religious sites. But no one in the US government has brought them up, even though we know it was them that perpetrated both the attack in Egypt and in Libya.
As I have pointed out there is not much that can reasonably be done to increase security so it had to be a concerted and sustained attack but that does not exclude a well armed mob.
Saying terrorists did it is akin to saying it was an act of god. There is little that can be done after the fact. If they are deploying Marines it gives them a mission but it smell fishy to me.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 21:34
I am very hesitant about playing a terrorist card. I had seen some earlier reports that all the people were supporters of the previous regime and read no more of the article. Now we get this.
The Salafi have been quite a thorn for Libya in the past months. Destroying other religious sites. But no one in the US government has brought them up, even though we know it was them that perpetrated both the attack in Egypt and in Libya.
As I have pointed out there is not much that can reasonably be done to increase security so it had to be a concerted and sustained attack but that does not exclude a well armed mob.
Saying terrorists did it is akin to saying it was an act of god. There is little that can be done after the fact. If they are deploying Marines it gives them a mission but it smell fishy to me.
I don't know...
The US have a recent history of being spectacularly good at initiating whole wars for less than this.
So I for one think it a bit too early to wave the "all clear" flag.
Five very good questions (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/five-nagging-questions-about-the-libya-and-egypt-embassy-attacks/262292/) about the attacks and assassinations.
1. The Obama administration now says it suspects the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi may have been pre-planned and not directly linked to the film protests. Intelligence reports suggest it's even possible the attackers "generated the protests as a cover for their attack," according to the New York Times. Did they engineer the protests or simply exploit them?
2. Who actually pulled off the Libya attack, anyway? The "chief suspect" is an obscure extremist Islamist group called "the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades," according to CNN, citing U.S. intelligence. The Libyan group, which has surfaced only this year, appears to support al-Qaeda, but it's not clear if there are any direct operational links. Earlier reports cited Ansar al-Sharia, a loose network of Libyan extremists. The Libyan ambassador to the U.S. blamed former fighters for Muammar Qaddafi's staunchly anti-Islamist regime.
3. Who is "Sam Bacile," the possibly fake name used by the director-producer of Innocence of Muslims, the outrageously offensive film that started it all?
4. Why did "Bacile" tell the Wall Street Journal that he is Israeli-American (which, it turns out, may be false) and had funded the film with donations from "about 100 Jewish donors"? Why does a consultant who worked with "Bacile" seem to think that he is connected to Evangelical and Coptic Christians?
5. Maybe the most curious of all: Why did it take Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi until 7 p.m. this evening Cairo time, about 24 hours after Egyptians stormed the U.S. embassy compound in Cairo and pulled down the American flag, to issue any public statement? Why put it out on Facebook? Why, when his Libyan counterparts had so quickly and categorically condemned the (admittedly much more severe) attack in their own country, did Morsi follow so much more slowly and using such tepid language? Why, for that matter, did Reuters report at about 11 p.m. Tuesday night east coast U.S. time, many hours before Morsi's Facebook statement, that Egyptian state media was saying Morsi had asked his embassy in Washington to "take legal action" against the American filmmakers?
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 21:54
I like the term the Muslim reaction. As if this is the general reaction of Muslims to stuff like this.
My problem, is that we can depict Jesus as homosexual, and Christians will start mail bombing you.
Depict Muhamemd in any way, and muslims will start bombing you. Do you see the difference there?
I am not saying all muslims are idiots. But all idiots seem to be muslim. You can defend the religion all you want, but the fact is that there are MILLIONS of people out there with what I consider an extremely unhealthy look on life at large. And they all seem to wave a quaran around (can't be bothered to spell the piece of **** book right in English).
Strike For The South
09-12-2012, 22:19
I remember when the NWO used actual Jews to do their bidding.
Major Robert Dump
09-12-2012, 22:23
Lemur (and others)
First off, in my intial post I was distracted and should not have mentioned the 2nd Amendment. That as carelessless on my part. I meant only the 1st.
In regards to the statement, regarding the "denigration of religion...."
In the past, for example the idiot preacher in Florida burning Korans, condemnation of the act was typically accompanied by a reminder that although it was distatesful, it was also legal. Over and over, people like KArzai called for the preachers arrest and prosecution, and over and over, he was told it was not illegal what the man did.
This time, we get just a subtle reference to the films intent, along with rebuking the violence.
The fact is these people, and I do mean these people in the most bigoted, ethnocentric manner, need to be reminded that what this man did was not illegal, and no amount of rioting and violence is ever (I hope) going to make our government start preventing things like this from being produced. These people need to be reminded that the world does not revolve around their superstitions or their religious whims, because the more you remind them the more likely they may eventually come around to understanding the concept of religious freedom and freedom of expression.
Trying to explain these freedoms to even the most progressive, intelligent Afghan working for me was like trying to teach a chicken a magic trick. They just didn't get it. "Why dont you arrest himg?"...."Why doesn't the president just make him stop?" were their responses, they just didn't get it. I guess that's all you can expect from someone who is indoctrinated from birth and cannot even study science, math or history without having their textbooks peppered with allah This and Allah That, but hey, elightenment is worth a try....
Strike For The South
09-12-2012, 22:25
BUT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL !!!!111111111111111
Major Robert Dump
09-12-2012, 22:26
Also, I love how Hamid KArzais call for justice invokes some image of this filmmaker inducing mad crazy violent strife in between two religions, as if christians and jews are out there with farmer tools fighting with the muslims.
This is totally one sided, as usual. But hey, if you leave the meat uncovered, amIright??????
My problem, is that we can depict Jesus as homosexual, and Christians will start mail bombing you.
Depict Muhamemd in any way, and muslims will start bombing you. Do you see the difference there?
Muhammad has been depicted numerous times throughout history, both by Muslims and non-Muslims alike and very little people were hurt in the process (not counting falling bricks and mishaps with shovels and the like). So that's definitely not the same as "in any way".
That does not at all detract the hysterical and insane reactions that seemed to be the case after the Jyllands-Posten cartoons or this more recent film, which is not what I'm arguing about and merits no arguing at all. There are some crazy people out there.
I am not saying all muslims are idiots. But all idiots seem to be muslim.
Really? The Church of Scientology has done some crazy things? Remember Aum Shinrikyo in Japan? The Manson family? Jonestown?
The notion that (mass) hysteria and disproportionate acts of retribution are somehow a part of Islam or that it is supposed to be a religion that lends itself extraordinarily well (speaking relatively to Christianity, Judaism and other religions) to violent behaviour is rooted in the idea that there are core aspects of Islam (as a religion) that are incompatible with our working definition of "civilisation". This then supports the notion that behind every well-behaved and decent Muslim there exists some kind of core that hates democracy and women. People just have to scratch hard enough and then this core would supposedly reveal itself. Edward Saïd wrote a lot about this concept back in the seventies.
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2012, 22:37
Muhammad has been depicted numerous times throughout history, both by Muslims and non-Muslims alike and very little people were hurt in the process (not counting falling bricks and mishaps with shovels and the like). So that's definitely not the same as "in any way".
That does not at all detract the hysterical and insane reactions that seemed to be the case after the Jyllands-Posten cartoons or this more recent film, which is not what I'm arguing about and merits no arguing at all. There are some crazy people out there.
Well, my point is that other religions seem to do a WAY better job of sorting out their loons.
Until the rest of the muslims start acting out against your more lunatical members of the muslim family, you must understand that the family at large will be questioned.
Kralizec
09-12-2012, 22:40
Call that mighty that is really small here, I am +\- 1.85 and that's not big
1.85 is my height as well and I think that's the average for males here. But then again, we are the greatest people on earth.
I thought, maybe we should start calling HoreTore Wickie de Viking, but I don't think that he would understand the reference.
~;)
The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19572912)brought me to this:
If you watch closely, you can see that when the actors are reading parts of the script that do not contain Islam-specific language, the audio from the sound stage is used (the audio that was recorded as the actors were simultaneously being filmed). But anytime the actors are referring to something specific to the religion (the Prophet Muhammed, the Quran, etc.) the audio recorded during filming is replaced with a poorly executed post-production dub. And if you look EVEN closer, you can see that the actors’ mouths are saying something other than what the dub is saying.
Interesting. You find the times of specific examples in the source (http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2012/sep/12/religious-references-innocence-muslims-dubbed/).
In a world where the cartoon depiction of the Prophet Muhammed can spark riots, it seems plausible that an actor would not want to be involved in a project that so blatantly offends a whole religion (and whether or not you are Muslim, it is evident that this film is meant to be offensive). Perhaps the filmmakers thought they would have a problem getting people to sign on to such a project. This is just my own theory put forth after watching the trailer, but I would be curious to know from the actors themselves.
The dubbings seems pretty consistent with regards to this theory, actually.
Well, my point is that other religions seem to do a WAY better job of sorting out their loons.
Until the rest of the muslims start acting out against your more lunatical members of the muslim family, you must understand that the family at large will be questioned.
Explaining to you the exact causes of why things are as they are takes a venture back into the 19th century and the foundation of the Saudi state, which will help explain a lot, but not everything.
I also disagree with the notion that somehow, Muslims are immediately complicit or approve of the actions committed by these people in Libya and Egypt, as I don't see the reason why the Irish should somehow all distance themselves from the IRA or that Germans should distance themself from the Holocaust now. A better example might be the presence of neo-nazis in contemporary Russia. When is the last time you said: "not all Russians are idiots, but all idiots seem Russian. Why aren't Russians distancing themselves from those neo-nazis in Moscow"?
you must understand that the family at large will be questioned.
This is not only arse gravy of the worst sort, it's also quite dangerous. So now Muslims from Indonesia, Morocco, Iran and Lebanon, with all the sectarian differences and differences in opinions between them are somehow also complicit.
This is not only arse gravy of the worst sort, it's also quite dangerous. So now Muslims from Indonesia, Morocco, Iran and Lebanon, with all the sectarian differences and differences in opinions between them are somehow also complicit.
Because they are silent.
Silence does not equal complicity.
In addition: Al-Azhar responds (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/52728/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-calls-for-rational-response-to-antiIslam-a.aspx)
Silence does not equal complicity.
In addition: Al-Azhar responds (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/52728/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-calls-for-rational-response-to-antiIslam-a.aspx)
What about Morsi. Where is his voice?
Moving the goalposts.
Really? Is it too much to expect some sort of condemnation from the man who represents Egypt? He sure was quick to condemn the movie...
You're asking about the silent majority, I cite a case, now you want someone different.
I'm not Morsi representative, go give him a call or something.
You're asking about the silent majority, I cite a case, now you want someone different.
I'm not Morsi representative, go give him a call or something.
The majority is still silent. As always.
Major Robert Dump
09-12-2012, 23:13
They will just go rip some mexican cartel beheading videos in an effort to gain sympathy for their struggles
Talking about the "silent majority", in any case (http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/09/libyans-protest-and-condemn-attack-on-us-consulate-in-benghazi).
Talking about the "silent majority", in any case (http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/09/libyans-protest-and-condemn-attack-on-us-consulate-in-benghazi).
Now that is indeed a positive development.
Major Robert Dump
09-12-2012, 23:22
I am pleased by those photos.
And I fear for the lives of the people in them.
Hooahguy
09-12-2012, 23:51
Though I know this sounds silly but I keep getting distracted by that kids sign- "America this is not the pehavior of our Islam and Profit."
Its touching to know that this kid put in the effort to make such a sign. He didnt get the grammar right but who cares? Its a touching thought.
Profit does not lead to murder. We all know that. Corporations are people, too.
A follow-up on the dubbing theory:
Gawker (http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-me-sick-actress-in-muhammed-movie-says-she-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam):
The story of the Muhammed movie which sparked deadly protests in Libya and Egypt gets weirder. The actors who appeared in it had no idea they were starring in anti-Islam propaganda which depicts Muhammed as a child molester and thug. They were deceived by the film's director, believing they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.
Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.
CNN (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/):
A statement released on the behalf of the 80 cast and crew members of "Innocence of Muslims," a film that reportedly prompted Tuesday protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, indicates that they are not happy with the film and were misled by the producer.
"The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose," the statement says. "We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."
Starting to look interesting.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 00:12
One of them was a popular gamer
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/murdered-state-department-official-sean-smith-influential-online-185547152.html
PanzerJaeger
09-13-2012, 01:36
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/imagesCAGKD9X1.jpg
Miss me yet?
So America is finally feeling a little bit of the pain it has inflicted on so many of Libya's most defenseless peoples with this latest intervention. I have absolutely no sympathy for Christopher Stevens or the others. Meddlers, all of them. We learned the consequences in blood and treasure of overthrowing a secular, rational regime in the Middle East and trying to replace it with a democracy based on human rights in Iraq. The throngs don't want it and don't deserve it. People largely get the leadership they deserve, and the people in that region simply require a strong hand, or should I say, a strong man. There's really no point anymore in mentioning the absolute insanity of the local's behavior. Muslims have been redefining the word 'overreaction' for years now. As Einstein said, true insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And now they cannot wait to get into Syria...
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2012, 01:38
BUT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL !!!!111111111111111
There are times I simply adore you, Strike.
I said a prayer for the families and the deceased in this episode. Quite sickening, all told, but if anything surprisingly infrequent when you pause to think about it.
Kadagar_AV
09-13-2012, 01:55
Hax,
Again.
Personally I need more. If YOU want a religion you are proud of, then that religion must start to adhere to some of the basic principles as to how the rest of us view religions.
Even in Sweden we have imams with absolutely HORRIBLE views, and they are not shut up. I agree with you, I much agree with you, with the fact that they are often argued against. But, I don't care much if some imams are for blowing young Swedes up on the streets, and more imams are against a young Swede getting blown up on the streets.
My PROBLEM is that there is a young Swede blowing himself up in the street.
The same view is true from a larger perspective as well.
So again, until you go through your religions ranks and get rid of the more unwanted actors, you will have to deal with being lumped together with them.
The christian church, as well as all other religions, have had its own cleansings over the years. Otherwise they would today have had to deal with the same loons you now do. But that they have had the same problems but dealt with them, while you still have the problems but dont' deal with them. That wont get your religion any respect from me.
Me? I'm just a crazy atheist thinking the world would be a better place if people focused more on discovering space, inner and outer, than age old books and myths.
I have absolutely no sympathy for Christopher Stevens or the others.
You sure about this?
PanzerJaeger
09-13-2012, 02:28
You sure about this?
Yes. Stevens was an early advocate of the Libyan adventure. Unlike a true diplomat, he chose sides early before ascertaining a true understanding of the situation and didn't waver in his support for the rebellion no matter how many immigrants hung from the lamp posts of Benghazi. Where once a nation existed, now we have a vast lawless expanse filled with vying tribal warlords who the 'government' dares not interfere with for fear of losing their nominal control over Tripoli.
He was reckless in his diplomacy, and, judging from the security situation at the consulate, he was reckless with his life. I do have sympathy for the poor bastards that are going to have to go into that godforsaken place and try to clean up his mess.
Crazed Rabbit
09-13-2012, 02:56
I must be blind, I'm not seeing the mention of the filmmaker, even in passing. Help me out here. Here's the text of the two statements (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501708_162-57511093/obama-statement-on-attack-on-libya-consulate/), one by President 44, one by SecState.
I think MRD is talking about the statement from the US Embassy in Egypt (http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html):
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others
CR
Strike For The South
09-13-2012, 03:04
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/imagesCAGKD9X1.jpg
Miss me yet?
So America is finally feeling a little bit of the pain it has inflicted on so many of Libya's most defenseless peoples with this latest intervention. I have absolutely no sympathy for Christopher Stevens or the others. Meddlers, all of them. We learned the consequences in blood and treasure of overthrowing a secular, rational regime in the Middle East and trying to replace it with a democracy based on human rights in Iraq. The throngs don't want it and don't deserve it. People largely get the leadership they deserve, and the people in that region simply require a strong hand, or should I say, a strong man. There's really no point anymore in mentioning the absolute insanity of the local's behavior. Muslims have been redefining the word 'overreaction' for years now. As Einstein said, true insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And now they cannot wait to get into Syria...
The man was simply towing the company line, all our little adventures are under the guise of this sort of liberation theology. I sympathize and honor him, if only because he decided to put his money where his mouth was
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 03:16
I'm thinking the other guy from the state department, who was a big wig in Eve Online, may have brought this on. Maybe he ripped off some online credits from Chinese gold farmers, and they decided to engage in some PK
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/imagesCAGKD9X1.jpg
Miss me yet?
7150
No
Yes. Stevens was an early advocate of the Libyan adventure.
There were also two marines that died defending the consulate and some schmuck who worked there. What's their crime?
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 04:16
There were also two marines that died defending the consulate and some schmuck who worked there. What's their crime?
Not understanding that there is only one god and mohammed is his prophet? I mean, duh. Everyone knows if you yell that to the mob they will whisk you away for Chai and butt rape you far less than the non believers. Soldiers need ot learn their soundbytes
PanzerJaeger
09-13-2012, 05:15
7150
No
And yet, Libya ruled by a reformed, anti-Islamist, former terrorist was a less destabilizing presence in the world than today's Libya, where Islamic extremists have free range over much of the country. Geopolitics stresses the unproductive nature of grasping on to the past instead of focusing on the present. Western interests, and in fact the interests of many Libyans, were better served with Gaddafi in place.
There were also two marines that died defending the consulate and some schmuck who worked there. What's their crime?
Meddling, as I stated in my first post.
a completely inoffensive name
09-13-2012, 07:15
Meddling, as I stated in my first post.
That's pathetic. Their job is to do what their country tells them. Spitting on the pawns is nothing but elitist. And I fully agree with your assessment of Islamic middle eastern societies.
a completely inoffensive name
09-13-2012, 07:21
Feel no pity for a Soldier who dies in combat. Respect him, but don't pity him. Especially American volunteer Soldiers.
I am going to feel pity for two American soldiers who just wanted to protect the lives of American citizens on American soil from an angry mob. To suggest that because they were wrapped up in geopolitical politics that we find ugly that we should not feel bad is to cast a negative light on every soldier that died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not a bleeding heart, I just feel like this is a case of hate the game not the player.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 08:49
When I was in afghanistan, I looked fowrard to the large breasted Polish girls who scooped my macaroni and cheese in the Fluor DFAC, and the model class Jordanian broads who walked around spreading multiculturalism in their hotpants during Zuma class. I don't really know wtf the war was about
Greyblades
09-13-2012, 11:07
The christian church, as well as all other religions, have had its own cleansings over the years. Otherwise they would today have had to deal with the same loons you now do. But that they have had the same problems but dealt with them, while you still have the problems but dont' deal with them. That wont get your religion any respect from me.
...Huh, could have sworn that the church was refusing and actively resisting attempts to cleanse itself.
Shaka_Khan
09-13-2012, 12:04
A peaceful one in Iran -> Iranians protest film outside Swiss Embassy (http://news.yahoo.com/iranians-protest-film-outside-swiss-embassy-report-105202479.html?_esi=1)
Fisherking
09-13-2012, 12:23
Yemen joins the fun
Of course things like this go on as long as there is no consequence for the actions.
Maybe Obama’s statement wasn’t quite strong enough.
What else can he do but condemning it and sending a few ships for evacuations should it be necesary.
live footage from Yemen http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/09/live_ambassade_riot_egypt_tv.html#comments
People largely get the leadership they deserve
So, which leadership do the Germans deserve?
a) Nazis
b) Merkel
c) the Iron Chancellor
Which leadership do the pre-colonisation indigenous Amercians deserve?
a) George W. Bush
b) John F. Kennedy
c) British colonial rule
d) Chieftain Big-Butt
and the Libyans?
a) Fascist Italy
b) Constitutional monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Libya)
c) Gaddafi
d) the post-revolution leadership
Help me out here, I am not so good at eastern mysticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma).
1. The Obama administration now says it suspects the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi may have been pre-planned and not directly linked to the film protests. Intelligence reports suggest it's even possible the attackers "generated the protests as a cover for their attack," according to the New York Times. Did they engineer the protests or simply exploit them?
This was my first thought on the matter... This was just a carried out plan.
GaDaffy sympathizers instigated this and used a bad cover "some obscure anti-muslim film" to further fuel the extremists.
This was an act of war (killing a nation's diplomatic envoys and ambassador) in the hopes of US retaliations against Libya. If lucky USA will cut diplomacy with the current government and maybe free the way back to power.
Meddling, as I stated in my first post.
So, how would you define that? Is having a consulate in Benghazi a form of meddling, or is working at the said consulate considered to be meddling? How exactly did those two security guys "meddle"?
Fisherking
09-13-2012, 13:37
What else can he do but condemning it and sending a few ships for evacuations should it be necesary.
live footage from Yemen http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/09/live_ambassade_riot_egypt_tv.html#comments
Do you expect me to write his speeches for him?
He could talk a bit tougher, whether he means it or not.
The US looks like it is in a weak position and can’t do a thing. What effect do you think that will have?
Yemen is a result of the statement and the policy. Now it is just party time down at the embassy until these people find a new dog to beat.
Meantime Obama should fire his staff and hire someone with a little more sense.
Fisherking
09-13-2012, 13:51
This was my first thought on the matter... This was just a carried out plan.
GaDaffy sympathizers instigated this and used a bad cover "some obscure anti-muslim film" to further fuel the extremists.
This was an act of war (killing a nation's diplomatic envoys and ambassador) in the hopes of US retaliations against Libya. If lucky USA will cut diplomacy with the current government and maybe free the way back to power.
No, I don’t think so. Until they can prove it my guess it is just a Bug-a-bear cover story. It will get him mileage in the press and sympathy form the public and he never needs to prove it.
The Libyan populous is heavily enough armed to break in with enough time and no real police response. Several RPGs will knock down even the blast resistant doors. They are made to buy time for response teams, which were not coming. We are luck there were only 4 casualties.
gaelic cowboy
09-13-2012, 13:57
He could talk a bit tougher, whether he means it or not.
Even if he did you would have just ignored it as rhetoric and declared action was required not tough words.
The US looks like it is in a weak position and can’t do a thing. What effect do you think that will have?
The USA is in a weak position because it's Mid East problems are no longer frozen and therefore harder to control.
Yemen is a result of the statement and the policy. Now it is just party time down at the embassy until these people find a new dog to beat.
Yemen is a result of the fact Yemen is a basketcase
No, I don’t think so. Until they can prove it my guess it is just a Bug-a-bear cover story. It will get him mileage in the press and sympathy form the public and he never needs to prove it.
The Libyan populous is heavily enough armed to break in with enough time and no real police response. Several RPGs will knock down even the blast resistant doors. They are made to buy time for response teams, which were not coming. We are luck there were only 4 casualties.
There are indicators that it was either planned or carried out by several 'professionals':
Libya rescue squad ran into fierce, accurate ambush (http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E8KCMYB20120912?sp=true)
A squad of U.S. troops despatched by helicopter across the Libyan desert to rescue besieged diplomats from Benghazi on Wednesday ran into a fierce overnight ambush that left a further two Americans dead, Libyan officials told Reuters.
Accounts of the mayhem at the U.S. consulate, where the ambassador and a fourth American died after a chaotic protest over a film insulting to Islam, remain patchy. But two Libyan officials, including the commander of a security force which escorted the U.S. rescuers, said a later assault on a supposedly safe refuge for the diplomats appeared professionally executed.
[...]
Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, whose special operations unit was ordered by Libya's authorities to meet an eight-man force at Benghazi airport, said that after his men and the U.S. squad had found the American survivors who had evacuated the blazing consulate, the ostensibly secret location in an isolated villa came under an intense and highly accurate mortar barrage.
"I really believe that this attack was planned," he said, adding to suggestions by other Libyan officials that at least some of the hostility towards the Americans was the work of experienced combatants. "The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any regular revolutionaries."
[...]
"It began to rain down on us," Obeidi told Reuters, describing the moment the attack began - just as the Libyan security force was starting up the 10 pickup trucks and sedans they had brought to ferry the Americans to the airport.
"About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa," he said. "During this firing, one of the marines whom I had brought with me was wounded and fell to the ground.
"As I was dragging the wounded marine to safety, some marines who were located on the roof of the villa as snipers shouted and the rest of the marines all hit the ground.
"A mortar hit the side of the house. One of the marines from the roof went flying and fell on top of us."
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 14:37
That film has been out for a while. Funny it just now stirs controversy.
I actually think the protests and the kills ARE linked, but that the protestors were unwitting participants.
Remember Mazi Ar Shariff in Afghanistan? Same thing happened. The badguys used social media and cell phones to whip people into a flash mob, then used the flash mob as cover to assault the base and cut some heads off. This is common practice, and for the badguys it is a win-win, because they get their kills and the blame initially goes on the locals.... if they are lucky, some locals are killed in the process,,, if they are really lucky there is multi layered political fallout and the gap between the religions and cultures are further widened, which is what they are ultimately after
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 14:50
That film has been out for a while. Funny it just now stirs controversy.
I actually think the protests and the kills ARE linked, but that the protestors were unwitting participants.
Remember Mazi Ar Shariff in Afghanistan? Same thing happened. The badguys used social media and cell phones to whip people into a flash mob, then used the flash mob as cover to assault the base and cut some heads off. This is common practice, and for the badguys it is a win-win, because they get their kills and the blame initially goes on the locals.... if they are lucky, some locals are killed in the process,,, if they are really lucky there is multi layered political fallout and the gap between the religions and cultures are further widened, which is what they are ultimately after
They are linked. That's been confirmed. They're brutal but smart.
Western interests
I like your imperialism. People can suffer just as long as it is 'our' dictator. Crackpots killing thousands of innocents is perfectly okay as they are serving 'Western interests'.
Libya is still going through the stages of stablising, and oddly enough, these attacks are happening elsewhere too. There are also signs as posted by Hax where the "silent majority" of Libyans support the US and are very thankful for their efforts.
I guess appreciation for good work and a bright future for the Libyan people isn't enough.
Very reminiscent of pre-World War 2 where many in the west saw Hitler as "Our guy" and "buffer against Russia" and the later examples such as the America overthrowing democratic elected governments in coups to "impose our guys" which lead to the Islamic Revolution of Iran and a bunch of tinpot states scattered across the globe.
It is about time geopolitics shifted away from that, and Libya was an example of how the USA should intervene. Helping the natives when it is needed and offering/supplying support in constructing a modern democratic state.
Crackpots killing thousands of innocents is perfectly okay as they are serving 'Western interests'.
It is regrettable, but ultimately not our problem.
I like your imperialism. People can suffer just as long as it is 'our' dictator. Crackpots killing thousands of innocents is perfectly okay as they are serving 'Western interests'.
Libya was doing fine
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 15:08
Ghadaffi had an entourage of all female bodyguards. I supported him for this alone, and was very saddened when he got stabbed in the butthole
He could talk a bit tougher, whether he means it or not.
You know, we tried the tough-talking, "come at me bro" style for eight years, without great results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm). Bluster is not always desirable.
https://i.imgur.com/W55Nb.jpg
Furthermore, macho posturing is usually an indication of weakness, not strength. It's kinda like if you declare that you're cool, by definition you are not cool.
If you want to blame some of the current situation on President 44's policies, that's an argument to make, but your irritation at his tone seems petty, misguided, and misplaced.
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 15:39
I like your imperialism. People can suffer just as long as it is 'our' dictator. Crackpots killing thousands of innocents is perfectly okay as they are serving 'Western interests'.
Libya is still going through the stages of stablising, and oddly enough, these attacks are happening elsewhere too. There are also signs as posted by Hax where the "silent majority" of Libyans support the US and are very thankful for their efforts.
I guess appreciation for good work and a bright future for the Libyan people isn't enough.
Very reminiscent of pre-World War 2 where many in the west saw Hitler as "Our guy" and "buffer against Russia" and the later examples such as the America overthrowing democratic elected governments in coups to "impose our guys" which lead to the Islamic Revolution of Iran and a bunch of tinpot states scattered across the globe.
It is about time geopolitics shifted away from that, and Libya was an example of how the USA should intervene. Helping the natives when it is needed and offering/supplying support in constructing a modern democratic state.
American over throwing democratically elected governments? If you referring to Africa I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=the+world+was+going+our+way&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=6032808687&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=19576664372071702864&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_1atrij2yij_b
Battling myths of Cold War history.
HopAlongBunny
09-13-2012, 15:48
I doubt it has much to do with the dearly departed Daffy.
Libya has enough divisions w/o resurrecting him; until the state stabilizes and someone has authority (maybe even felt to be legitimate) the "crown" is going to be considered "in play". To drive a wedge between whatever national gov't emerges and the US is to the advantage of many groups; some not even indigenous to Libya.
I think it is a real failure of intelligence work in Libya that the incident occurred, was successful and remains unattributed. No hint this was coming? Not even a feeling of: Gee, maybe we should buff up our security. Tragic, wherever the fault lies anyhow.
Kind of a side-issue, but it looks as though AP found the actual "Sam Bacille." His name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifWYKzUPaqJJsJ5aj-58K0JCL1Fg?docId=91c9d18979f24144ba8ea358237f046f).
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Muslims and the prophet Muhammad and may have caused inflamed mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. He provided the first details about a shadowy production group behind the film.
Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cell phone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula's aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.
Nakoula told the AP that he was a Coptic Christian and said the film's director supported the concerns of Christian Copts about their treatment by Muslims.
Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. During a conversation outside his home, he offered his driver's license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found it and other connections to the Bacile persona. [...]
Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer. [...]
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams said Nakoula set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers, then checks from those accounts would be deposited into other bogus accounts from which Nakoula would withdraw money at ATM machines.
It was "basically a check-kiting scheme," the prosecutor told the AP. "You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money."
Kind of a side-issue, but it looks as though AP found the actual "Sam Bacille." His name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ifWYKzUPaqJJsJ5aj-58K0JCL1Fg?docId=91c9d18979f24144ba8ea358237f046f).
This guy is not very bright. $50 says that there will be a fatwa on his hiney before the end of the month.
Oh please no. If this was made by a coptian christian that is bad
Yes he is a Coptic Christian, yes he was behind the film, and yes this is being confirmed by law enforcement (http://rt.com/usa/news/nakoula-confirmed-anti-muslim-movie-063/). There's also a rather strange group called "Media for Christ" which is hip-deep in this sham.
[A] law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed to the AP that Nakoula was in fact behind the production of the film to a degree must larger than he claimed.
During their investigation, the AP identified Nakoula as an ex-con who had been convicted of bank fraud. He described himself as a Coptic Christian and had connections with Morris Sadek, a conservative practicing member of the religion who had promoted "Innocence of Muslims,” in the days before the film is believed to have sparked outrage overseas.
On their part, LA Weekly claims to have successfully tied Nakoula to Media for Christ, a company that described itself as “established to become the light that shows Jesus Christ to all human beings” that is also listed on the permit obtained to film the flick.
Sir Moody
09-13-2012, 17:04
if the article is to be believed the guy is a scam artist - I wouldn't believe he is a Coptic just because he says so...
Edit
Seems he really is ... wow this could get bad
As I said in a different thread, I can't understand why the US media isn't more interested in the woefully inadequate security at the consulate...
Ambassador Stevens killed at site with no Marines (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81134.html)
The consulate where the American ambassador to Libya was killed on Tuesday is an “interim facility” not protected by the contingent of Marines that safeguards embassies, POLITICO has learned.
The Benghazi consulate had “lock-and-key” security, not the same level of defenses as a formal embassy, an intelligence source told POLITICO. That means it had no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies. The intelligence source contrasted it with the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt – “a permanent facility, which is a lot easier to defend.” The Cairo embassy also was attacked Tuesday.
Why was this permitted? It's not like there weren't indications that attacks could happen (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9539148/US-consulate-attack-in-Libya-the-warning-signs-were-there-in-Benghazi.html).
Several RPGs will knock down even the blast resistant doors. They are made to buy time for response teams, which were not coming. We are luck there were only 4 casualties. There were no blast resistant doors there. :no:
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 17:53
Well in fairness if it was a consulate and not a full embassy the amount of security would be dramatically lowered. Of course, it is Libya, but you may want to see if this is the norm.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2012, 18:06
Anybody on site who has served as an Embassy Marine care to handle the particulars here?
As the Yemeni incident earlier today indicates, embassy security must inevitably rely on the basic security of the surrounding environment. The marines and other security can handle isolated incidents and can, occassionally, "face down" some intrusion or mob aggression. If a mob gets serious and is not headed off by numerous security personnel from the host country, then the marines are faced with a simple choice: Do I mow down largely unarmed civilians in job lots to defend the embassy or consular compound or do I retreat to the next line of defense and delay/stall for time/let the local security build up a response? I cannot imagine the difficulty in gauging the proper reaction. What a host of variables to consider and what a horror story if I choose incorrectly.
Kadagar_AV
09-13-2012, 18:10
Well in fairness if it was a consulate and not a full embassy the amount of security would be dramatically lowered. Of course, it is Libya, but you may want to see if this is the norm.
Uh... Given some cash I'm pretty sure I could wipe out the US embassy here no problem... It's an embassy, not a fort. And when you start building them like forts, that would signal a problem larger than the matter at hand, and would also very much go against what the embassy is all about.
Uh... Given some cash I'm pretty sure I could wipe out the US embassy here no problem... It's an embassy, not a fort. And when you start building them like forts, that would signal a problem larger than the matter at hand, and would also very much go against what the embassy is all about.
You can’t read this
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 18:51
Uh... Given some cash I'm pretty sure I could wipe out the US embassy here no problem... It's an embassy, not a fort. And when you start building them like forts, that would signal a problem larger than the matter at hand, and would also very much go against what the embassy is all about.
Fine, here's some Bitcoin. Good luck.
Picks or it didn't happen.
Hooahguy
09-13-2012, 18:53
Uh... Given some cash I'm pretty sure I could wipe out the US embassy here no problem... It's an embassy, not a fort. And when you start building them like forts, that would signal a problem larger than the matter at hand, and would also very much go against what the embassy is all about.
But at the same time, you need to have a certain level of defense in the embassies in the more dangerous countries. There is a responsibility of the government to keep their diplomats and state department officials safe in volatile environments.
Well in fairness if it was a consulate and not a full embassy the amount of security would be dramatically lowered. Of course, it is Libya, but you may want to see if this is the norm.That's kind of the point. The embassy in Tripoli is reinforced and guarded by Marines. Why was the ambassador stationed in an unfortified consulate, with no Marine escort on September 11, when there was reason to suspect attacks?
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 19:56
That's kind of the point. The embassy in Tripoli is reinforced and guarded by Marines. Why was the ambassador stationed in an unfortified consulate, with no Marine escort on September 11, when there was reason to suspect attacks?
And there's the rub. Why was he there? Who knew he would be there on that day? How did they know? ...
And there's the rub. Why was he there? Who knew he would be there on that day? How did they know? ...
I don't think he was directly targeted, his death was just an icing on the cake. They obviously went after the easier target (consulate vs embassy) as to improve their odds of success. Why was he there? Apparently, he liked to go there at least twice a year to check on the local developments, talk to staff and local groups.
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 20:14
I don't think he was directly targeted, his death was just an icing on the cake. They obviously went after the easier target (consulate vs embassy) as to improve their odds of success. Why was he there? Apparently, he liked to go there at least twice a year to check on the local developments, talk to staff and local groups.
Given that there was some level of planning I believe it is possible that he was deliberate a target. Plus, those guys are pretty obvious when they travel.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 20:15
I don't think he was directly targeted, his death was just an icing on the cake. They obviously went after the easier target (consulate vs embassy) as to improve their odds of success. Why was he there? Apparently, he liked to go there at least twice a year to check on the local developments, talk to staff and local groups.
Man, I don't know. Not on 9/11. I don't think his superiors would approve of such a trip. They won't even let the military go out on normal, day-to-day missions on 9/11 in afghanistan without an additional level of approval by the big wigs.
But hey, maybe this guy was so loved in the community he felt no danger. As said before, there are some hidden puppeteers here, and they used the protesters as cover, I doubt the locals were involved directly in his death
Man, I don't know. Not on 9/11. I don't think his superiors would approve of such a trip.
He could have traveled there the day before and stayed overnight.
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 20:24
Man, I don't know. Not on 9/11. I don't think his superiors would approve of such a trip. They won't even let the military go out on normal, day-to-day missions on 9/11 in afghanistan without an additional level of approval by the big wigs.
But hey, maybe this guy was so loved in the community he felt no danger. As said before, there are some hidden puppeteers here, and they used the protesters as cover, I doubt the locals were involved directly in his death
I'm pretty sure the ambassador is the HMFIC. You can't do :daisy: in country if he doesn't approve.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 20:25
That would actually make the whole thing seem more dumb, per lack of planning.
He may have been responding to something of urgent matters, perhaps meetings with people who could not get to the embassy, and just didn't feel threatened. Complacency does that.
Vladimir
09-13-2012, 20:51
That would actually make the whole thing seem more dumb, per lack of planning.
He may have been responding to something of urgent matters, perhaps meetings with people who could not get to the embassy, and just didn't feel threatened. Complacency does that.
State Department isn't big on security. Claims it stops them from doing their job or whatever.
Diplomats, social people with an entirely different culture. Just look at those idiotic tweets from the Cairo embassy.
Fisherking
09-13-2012, 20:52
@ Viking. I would agree that it shows professionalism. Benghazi is full of just that type of people. The second attack does show that it was going beyond mob violence. But it is still hard to know if it was planed or just a fallow on without more details. But it is the city in North Africa that sent the most men to Iraq and elsewhere so there are hardened fighters and terrorists.
@ Lemur,
You know, we tried the tough-talking, "come at me bro" style for eight years, without great results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-02-bush-iraq-troops_x.htm). Bluster is not always desirable.
https://i.imgur.com/W55Nb.jpg
Furthermore, macho posturing is usually an indication of weakness, not strength. It's kinda like if you declare that you're cool, by definition you are not cool.
If you want to blame some of the current situation on President 44's policies, that's an argument to make, but your irritation at his tone seems petty, misguided, and misplaced.
You know all I had in mind was for him to be a national leader and make the people feel like someone was in charge.
I ran this up while cooking dinner so it is definitely not polished.
Two of our diplomatic missions in Egypt and Libya have been attacked by mobs.
They appear to be part of a religious cult who feel it is their duty to protect the name of Mohamed and were insulted by something they found on the web, attributed to someone living in the United States.
I say to them, America has always been a land of religious freedom and a land that strives for religious tolerance. But America is also a land where freedom of expression is guaranteed. And while the majority of people in this country may be reveled by some of those messages we must protect the rights of the citizens.
The people of Egypt and Libya are citizens of new democracies. Perhaps as yet they are unaware that democracy does not only protect the rights of the majority but must also protect the rights of those who may hold different views.
Insert first two paragraphs of Obama Statement here
I am raising the alert status of the two American Fleets in the area and dispatching additional security teams.
Insert remaining portion of Obama Statement here.
There is nothing there that likely was not done or is extreme and war like. But I don’t even think the Republicans would have had much to criticize
What is petty, misguided, and misplaced is slavish dedication to a political line of thinking and the “your guy can do no wrong“ attitude.
It is not about politics, you know state craft is also part of the job.
What is petty, misguided, and misplaced is slavish dedication to a political line of thinking and the “your guy can do no wrong“ attitude.
If you are truly convinced that I am an Obamessiah Love Slave, incapable of independent thought, why bother responding at all? Not much point in debating reflexive party-line zombies, is there?
For my part, I'll assert that I do my own thinking, cite my sources, and show my work. I don't pretend to be an internet lawyer, and I generally leave "proof" to mathematicians, but my thinking (if we can call it that) is pretty much on record.
Your proposed statement is riddled with unconfirmed intel. What is this "religious cult"? Are you referring to all of Islam, thus inflaming the situation further? What if it turns out that there is no cult as such, but that it was a mob action? There's lots of unclear intel at the moment. The more specifics you insert, the more you might be proved wrong in a few days.
And why announce fleet actions just 24 hours after the assassinations?
Fisherking
09-13-2012, 22:03
If you are truly convinced that I am an Obamessiah Love Slave, incapable of independent thought, why bother responding at all? Not much point in debating reflexive party-line zombies, is there?
For my part, I'll assert that I do my own thinking, cite my sources, and show my work. I don't pretend to be an internet lawyer, and I generally leave "proof" to mathematicians, but my thinking (if we can call it that) is pretty much on record.
Your proposed statement is riddled with unconfirmed intel. What is this "religious cult"? Are you referring to all of Islam, thus inflaming the situation further? What if it turns out that there is no cult as such, but that it was a mob action? There's lots of unclear intel at the moment. The more specifics you insert, the more you might be proved wrong in a few days.
And why announce fleet actions just 24 hours after the assassinations?
Believe me, I don’t want to think of you as a political hack, but sometimes you do come off sounding that way.
Referencing the Salafis. Important name, try to remember it. If you had actually read about the attacks you might have run across it.
Heightened alert status dose not mean a fleet action. It doesn’t mean you are scrambling plains to bomb someone.
The is nothing there that was unknown to the public at the time of the statement. You are obsessing on intel but you can not always wait for it. If it is wrong later you have staff, you go with the best you have at the time.
Tried to find the one from the 11th but just have this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9537570/Benghazi-attack-on-US-shows-post-Arab-Spring-challenges-in-Libya.html
If he is trying to avoid mistakes by not saying anything you had better have him start talking again because it s not working.
Referencing the Salafis. Important name, try to remember it. If you had actually read about the attacks you might have run across it.
Hey, if you could manage to make your points without directly insulting me, that would be peachy-keen, and would save me the (seemingly pointless) effort of responding to the personal stuff.
If you'll look back through the thread, you will see that I was linking to as much primary material as anyone. So "if you had actually read about the attacks" is coming from left field. Secondly, why on earth would I not know about the Salafist movement and their Saudi bankrollers? And why on earth would you run about asserting that others don't know about a major religious movement when you do not, in fact, have any direct knowledge of what they do or do not know? It's like declaring that someone has never read a book. Much of the time, it turns out they have, providing great comedy all around.
And then you're on about what I should tell the President to do, since I guess now he's my love-slave, instead of me being his. Or something.
Fisherking, if you want to debate policies and/or ideas, I'm game. But the personal assertions (and the necessary responses to them) are going to waste a lot of bandwidth.
Have a beer, or the relaxing beverage of your choice. Cool down.
HoreTore
09-13-2012, 22:29
make the people feel like someone was in charge.
He is in charge. Part of "being in charge" includes rating "doing something" higher than "caring about feelings". And it should also be noted that Condi Rice's said the first thing they did on the presidents staff meeting after 9/11, was to "find some maps and figure out what "Afghanistan" was". How's that for a response, eh?
I'm reasonably sure Obama knows that Libya lies between Egypt and Tunisia...
Also, I have to say that it never ceases to amuse and amaze me how quickly Lemur is put in the "hardcore left-wing liberal democrat supporter for life"-bin as soon as he says anything good about a democrat, or anything bad about about a republican.
Major Robert Dump
09-13-2012, 23:14
He was at the consulate because he was participating in an opening cermony of a multi cultural center. Kind of an odd placement of priorities for 9/11, and especially so soo after a freaking civil war, but hey, we democracies love our cultural centers.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2012, 00:26
Arrests After Deadly Libyan Embassy Attack (http://news.sky.com/story/984852/arrests-after-deadly-libyan-embassy-attack)
Dunno if this was said already
PanzerJaeger
09-14-2012, 04:07
So, how would you define that?
Here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meddle) you go: to interest oneself in what is not one's concern; interfere without right or propriety
You may also want to check your sources. Your two 'marines' were actually contractors who volunteered to be in Libya, as did the IT guy. All four of them volunteered to continue the farce.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2012, 04:13
Here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meddle) you go: to interest oneself in what is not one's concern; interfere without right or propriety
You may also want to check your sources. Your two 'marines' were actually contractors who volunteered to be in Libya, as did the IT guy. All four of them volunteered to continue the farce.
I dunno... Last I was in a brainwashing institution, when someone asked for volunteers 50 boots hit the ground simultaneously, mine included.
Salafis generally don't concern themselves with politics. I'd say we're talking about radical jihadis here, that are a group of their own. Linked to Salafism, but not exactly the same.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2012, 06:50
EDIT: Sometimes I catch myself being stupid before anyone else need to point it out :)
And it should also be noted that Condi Rice's said the first thing they did on the presidents staff meeting after 9/11, was to "find some maps and figure out what "Afghanistan" was". How's that for a response, eh?
Citation required.
I don't buy it, for the simple reason that the United States had been supplying mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet war.
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 07:28
The two squishies were killed in the initial wave and fire. The 2 contractos, who were ex SEALS who were there to find and destroy shoulder fired rockets, were killed in a fire fight a couple of hours later.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2012, 07:34
The two squishies were killed in the initial wave and fire. The 2 contractos, who were ex SEALS who were there to find and destroy shoulder fired rockets, were killed in a fire fight a couple of hours later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-54wAE7nJI
I for one am glad SEAL contractors were killed and not actual SEAL US troopers.
Admittedly DAMN hard to tell the difference these days.
Add EDIT: What is the difference? One gets paid by the state and have to uphold the Geneva convention... The other get paid by the state not to?
Furunculus
09-14-2012, 09:02
i have watched the video, and it is an unfunny version of monty-python pointed in a different direction.
NOTHING in it justifies violence against anyone, ever, not even if it had been commissioned by barry obama himself!
it only serves to confirm my culturalist prejudices, i'm afraid.
it is much to be hoped that another hundred years will provide sufficient time for:
a) islam to mature a little further
b) arab cultures to bring marriage of cousins down to western levels
in order that we might deal with these cultures on equal terms as adults.
the life of brian was a little shocking when it arrived all those decades ago, but the conservative-party-at-prayer* did not choose to burn down cambridge/oxford(?) in retaliation.
yes, this was an act committed by individuals, but it is equivocated over by societies, and those societies have to take responsibility for that equivocation.
* aka the anglican church of the time.
HoreTore
09-14-2012, 09:18
Citation required.
I don't buy it, for the simple reason that the United States had been supplying mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet war.
She says it in a documentary about 9/11 which NRK has shown quitw a few times. It's a rather good documentary, even if it's quite clear that it's sanctioned by the Bush administration(ie. semi-propaganda). As such, there's no "evil filmmaker" trying to screw her, nor does she have much of a reason to lie about something like that, so I accept it as truth.
I can try digging it up for you, if you want. Besides the quote, it's a good account of what Bush and his administration thought about 9/11.
Edit: I think it's this (http://www.documentarywire.com/911-state-of-emergency) one. I'm in a lecture right now, so I can't check it, however.
Ow, in Egypt people who have culture are also marching towards the US embassy. Leftist people know, for a fact, that it is an arab spring
Cool pics though, monkeys rattling he cages http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202606/Death-America-chant-protestors-storm-U-S-Embassy-Yemen-smashing-windows-pelting-offices-stones.html
edit, in Indonesia there is now also culture. Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam
Fisherking
09-14-2012, 10:58
@ Lemur
I am sorry Lemur if you felt insulted. I suppose I took your barb about petty, misguided, and misplaced more strongly than you had meant it.
In retrospect I should remember that people looking at events from the US do not have the same information as those living in other places.
I did not mean for the issue to be a political on. I simply felt that the statement made by the Whitehouse lacked any clear substance and did not do what it needed to do, which was CLEARLY outline the situation and response with some detail.
The information contained in my piece was only what was being reported internationally. Knowing US news, it was likely not reported there. To me it was not about Obama, it was about the President. They just happen to be one in the same. Note that I said nothing about the Egyptian embassy statement or Mrs. Clinton’s response.
My explanation of the news source did not explain that there were several other articles that laid out the situation with the Salafis more clearly but in hast and the lateness of the hour (here) I was unable to find them, so I gave you the one I could. The whole point of the salafis is to give someone other than the whole of Islam to focus on and not to allow public opinion to view the entire religion as the source of conflict.
I know that you have stated on occasion that you are a political independent, and I should except that.
In situations were someone sounds as though they are from the DNC it only means that their primary new source and from which they formulate their opinions is not Fox News or Talk Radio (RNC).
Would, that we all had a news outlet that truthfully informed us and took to task all political viewpoints in just that light. Sadly, there is none.
I suppose I am just too politically jaded. I seem to view all elected politicians as professional liars and pandering pimps to public opinion.
It was my own too high expectation of leadership and statesmanship in a difficult circumstance that led to my disappointment. Had I thought of it as election year politics I would have understood a candidates need to say as little as possible without making a mistake in dealing with an inconvenient stone in the road, and moving on to the important business of getting reelected. Something he did quite well, in fact.
I know American media is polarized so most individuals can not help being the same.
I am sorry if you felt attacked personally. I was over the top.
@ Hax
You could very well be right. What politicians in the west need to do is narrow the scope of attacks so the whole of Islam is not blamed each time a wack job throws a rock. Also, simply saying it was a terror act or al-Qaeda dose little to narrow that focus.
Meantime everything gets worse: http://www.examiner.com/article/lebanese-report-us-ambassador-raped-before-murdered
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-14-2012, 11:19
I dunno... Last I was in a brainwashing institution, when someone asked for volunteers 50 boots hit the ground simultaneously, mine included.
Can I sig that?
Citation required.
I don't buy it, for the simple reason that the United States had been supplying mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet war.
You know why I don't buy it?
Colin Powell was SecState at the time.
So, maybe what she meant was, "Colin Powell took out a map and explained to us what Afghanistan was."
Fisherking
09-14-2012, 11:53
With regard to the crowd locating the Libyan safe house where the Ambassador was located
We have this:http://www.inquisitr.com/330504/ambassador-stevens-was-raped-before-his-murder-reports-claim/
And a much more vitriolic piece from this site:http://www.nowpublic.com/world/us-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens-raped-he-was-murdered
Could this possibly be true? It is not something I wish to believe. It goes much wider than US media if it is so.
I prefer to see it as an attack on the administration but it dose raise doubts and need to be looked into.
Also these:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/horror-lebanese-reports-us-ambassador-raped-before-his-murder/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/09/islamists-murder-us-ambassador-to-libya-and-three-staff-members/
I am not familiar with the first site which shows pictures and a now removed video.
The second site is the Washington Times which hosted the same video. While it is a conservative paper one would assume they would not be party to a hoax.
I am outside my comfort zone on this.
Do we assume it is a vicious hoax or a cover up?
Doesn't look dead in the first pic in the second link. Very very scared but not dead. our media are furiously screaming he choked but Imdon't think so
Fisherking
09-14-2012, 12:21
If it is a right wing hoax there will be a backlash.
If it is selective reporting I don’t even want to think of the implications.
You tube pulled the video but the other sites have not pulled the photos.
I would assume that if it were a known hoax, they would have done so.
There has still been no confirmation by the U.S. so far as I know as to the truth of the allegation.
It was seemingly a credible source, for first reports. I guess we will find out in a few hours.
Sir Moody
09-14-2012, 12:25
i have watched the video, and it is an unfunny version of monty-python pointed in a different direction.
NOTHING in it justifies violence against anyone, ever, not even if it had been commissioned by barry obama himself!
it only serves to confirm my culturalist prejudices, i'm afraid.
it is much to be hoped that another hundred years will provide sufficient time for:
a) islam to mature a little further
b) arab cultures to bring marriage of cousins down to western levels
in order that we might deal with these cultures on equal terms as adults.
the life of brian was a little shocking when it arrived all those decades ago, but the conservative-party-at-prayer* did not choose to burn down cambridge/oxford(?) in retaliation.
yes, this was an act committed by individuals, but it is equivocated over by societies, and those societies have to take responsibility for that equivocation.
* aka the anglican church of the time.
you need to read up on "the life of Brian" or better still watch the Documentary that was produced recently
while there were no acts of Violence the entire cast were inundated with mail threatening violence/death and the film itself was BANNED for quite a while
personally I look on it this way - in the West we have some of the best Police and Security services - the Religions over here are full of the same kind of nut cases you see in the middle east, they just cant get away with the same level of idiocy and generally don't follow through on their vitriol - reverse the situation and the life of Brian could have provoked just he same riots...
you need to read up on "the life of Brian" or better still watch the Documentary that was produced recently
while there were no acts of Violence the entire cast were inundated with mail threatening violence/death and the film itself was BANNED for quite a while
personally I look on it this way - in the West we have some of the best Police and Security services - the Religions over here are full of the same kind of nut cases you see in the middle east, they just cant get away with the same level of idiocy and generally don't follow through on their vitriol - reverse the situation and the life of Brian could have provoked just he same riots...
Sure
HoreTore
09-14-2012, 12:42
Can I sig that?
You know why I don't buy it?
Colin Powell was SecState at the time.
So, maybe what she meant was, "Colin Powell took out a map and explained to us what Afghanistan was."
No idea if Powell attended or not.
Anyway, it wasn't the film I posted earlier. I've tried digging it up, but I haven't found it. I'll post it if/when I do though...
Germany, just saying, but your ambassadors in Sudan are being killed right now
Crazed Rabbit
09-14-2012, 14:07
So those idiots in Yemen (the ones protesting) are fine enough with all our Drone killings in that country, but they'll kill over a video?
What a bunch of violent moronic psychos. We ought to release films like this everyday until these idiots wear themselves out or accept that they do no get to silence people.
CR
Strike For The South
09-14-2012, 14:12
This just proves how awesome of a social networking tool twitter is.....wait...wrong riot
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 14:46
you need to read up on "the life of Brian" or better still watch the Documentary that was produced recently
while there were no acts of Violence the entire cast were inundated with mail threatening violence/death and the film itself was BANNED for quite a while
personally I look on it this way - in the West we have some of the best Police and Security services - the Religions over here are full of the same kind of nut cases you see in the middle east, they just cant get away with the same level of idiocy and generally don't follow through on their vitriol - reverse the situation and the life of Brian could have provoked just he same riots...
Woulda coulda
But they don't
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 14:58
I'm sorry but the man is not dead in the photo of him being dragged away. Dead people do not hold their heads up as they are being dragged. Furthermore, that is typically not the manner in which an injured person is assisted, being dragged like that while other take photos.
Dude was alive there.
Sir Moody
09-14-2012, 15:00
Woulda coulda
But they don't
as I said - reverse the positions and I bet they would - the riots say more about the societies these people live in than the Religion
we like to pretend to our selves that Christianity has "matured" but the reality is western societies attitudes have matured, not the Religion - actions of the radical Christians in Africa prove that
we don't see violent out bursts on the same scale over here simply because we as a people have come to reject them - in the Middle East they are the norm and that has nothing to do with Islam (more poverty, education and freedom of expression)
as I said - reverse the positions and I bet they would - the riots say more about the societies these people live in than the Religion
we like to pretend to our selves that Christianity has "matured" but the reality is western societies attitudes have matured, not the Religion - actions of the radical Christians in Africa prove that
we don't see violent out bursts on the same scale over here simply because we as a people have come to reject them - in the Middle East they are the norm and that has nothing to do with Islam (more poverty, education and freedom of expression)
How often do you see Lebanese Christian mobs running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
How often do you see Lebanese Christian mobs running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
How often do you see movies making fun of Christ?
Honestly it's never about how any religion is wrong. It's about how people who interpret it are wrong.
I am sorry Lemur if you felt insulted. I suppose I took your barb about petty, misguided, and misplaced more strongly than you had meant it.
No biggie, Fisherking, like I said, I just felt it was going to waste bandwidth. Two thoughts: One, I've crossed the line and made inaccurate/misguided/personal attacks in my time. You can't post in the same place for eight years and not wind up committing every sin known to man. Two, I was directing my criticism at your position, not your person. I thought your focus on the PotUS's statement just after the attacks was ... monomaniacal? Hyper-focused? It's a fluid situation, new facts are emerging constantly, our government is responding, and to get so worked up about the initial statement struck me as, well ... misplaced. It was a minor point dressed up in harsher language than it deserved, for which I am sorry.
I know that you have stated on occasion that you are a political independent, and I should except that.
Every now and then I think about registering as a Dem, but inevitably they do something so bone-headed that I can't. But at this moment in U.S. history, I can't imagine voting for a mainstream Repub. The party in its current state would reject Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and GHWB. (Most repubs now disavow GWB, for what it's worth.) So those who accuse me of being a mindless minion of the Obamessiah have somewhere between 1/4th and 1/8th of a point.
Would, that we all had a news outlet that truthfully informed us and took to task all political viewpoints in just that light. Sadly, there is none.
I'm fond enough of The Economist (http://www.economist.com/) that I pony up their stupid-high subscription price (http://www.economist.com/products/subscribe) once a year. It's like a news magazine ... for grownups!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TT81o4hL4c
How often do you see movies making fun of Christ?
"The Last Temptation of Christ" comes to mind.
How often do you see movies making fun of Christ?
Do you ever watch South Park?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rIwg9E_dHk
What are the beliefs of Kentucky Fried Chicken, got to wonder as people with culture also attacked the KTC. Leftist people know, for a fact, that they scream for democracy.
What are the beliefs of Kentucky Fried Chicken, got to wonder as people with culture also attacked the KTC. Leftist people know, for a fact, that they scream for democracy.
Yeah, that's messed up. Everyone knows that if some Copt living in America makes an anti-islamic movie, the proper reaction is to go burn down the German Embassy.
Fisherking
09-14-2012, 16:00
Yeah, that's messed up. Everyone knows that if some Copt living in America makes an anti-islamic movie, the proper reaction is to go burn down the German Embassy.
Just so you know the British Embassy next door is also under attack.
Well, I guess some Canadians are feeling left out from all the others getting the attention: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-group-says-it-wants-to-screen-controversial-anti-islam-film/article4544551/
Well, I guess some Canadians are feeling left out from all the others getting the attention: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/toronto-group-says-it-wants-to-screen-controversial-anti-islam-film/article4544551/
The group can say they want to screen the film, but I got bad news for 'em: AP reporters have been trying to find the film for days without luck. The only footage anyone can find is the spectacularly awful YouTube trailer.
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 16:15
How often do you see movies making fun of Christ?
Honestly it's never about how any religion is wrong. It's about how people who interpret it are wrong.
You're kidding, right?
Christ is a common target of comedians. It's so common no one notices anymore.
And yes, there are crazy christians in africa who do crazy things, things that pale in comparison to stuff like in this thread. Moody has a valid point about the societies, but religion does not get a free pass here
The group can say they want to screen the film, but I got bad news for 'em: AP reporters have been trying to find the film for days without luck. The only footage anyone can find is the spectacularly awful YouTube trailer.
There is a longer 13 minute clip on Youtube. It's a spectacularly awful movie. Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8&bpctr=1347639715) for those interested.
There is a longer 13 minute clip on Youtube. It's a spectacularly awful movie. Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8&bpctr=1347639715) for those interested.
Yeah but still, they act exactly like in the movie
How often do you see Lebanese Christian mobs running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
How often do you see Muslim mobs in Qatar and Kuwait running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
How often do you see Muslim mobs in Qatar and Kuwait running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
You don't. That does not give the Egyptians, Libyans or Tunisians an excuse to do it.
How often do you see Muslim mobs in Qatar and Kuwait running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
What's left to kill
The diplomats. And the camels.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2012, 20:59
Seems like the violence is spreading...
Germany's embassy also seem to have got trashed somewhere.. Just saw some photos of quaran waving fanatics showing what the "religion of peace" think of the German flag and symbols.
I guess they think we in the west will see it as an equal insult, while most of us just see a bunch of inbreeds doing their thing.
Hax, proud day to be muslim much?
Goofball
09-14-2012, 21:48
you need to read up on "the life of Brian" or better still watch the Documentary that was produced recently
while there were no acts of Violence the entire cast were inundated with mail threatening violence/death and the film itself was BANNED for quite a while
personally I look on it this way - in the West we have some of the best Police and Security services - the Religions over here are full of the same kind of nut cases you see in the middle east, they just cant get away with the same level of idiocy and generally don't follow through on their vitriol - reverse the situation and the life of Brian could have provoked just he same riots...
Banned, eh? That's pretty harsh. Were any diplomats murdered just because they were of the same nationality of the filmmakers? Did the Israelis storm the British embassy and burn it? Did the Vatican Swiss Guard go on a rampage and slaughter UK fans at the next England/Italy football match?
I've lived in the middle east. The security forces there are much more heavy handed and brutal when it comes to maintaining public order, and they are not hampered by the same pesky legal requirements to adhere to basic human rights principles like we in the west are. If they security forces in the middle east really wanted this kind of thing not to happen, it wouldn't happen. And if they really wanted to catch the people who did it, they would be caught. That will be the real test here: how well they cooperate with the pursuit of those responsible.
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 22:16
How often do you see Muslim mobs in Qatar and Kuwait running around killing people over a movie/picture/story/whatever?
Qatar and Kuwait operate with a pretty heavy hand, and they tend to shut down any sort of civil disobedience fairly quickly. Same in Saudi Arabia.
@Goofball (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=3383): Where did you live?
It should also be noted that the Saudi brand of Wahhabism abhors fitna (disruption of a harmonious society) way more than disbelief. It might help to understand why there's been so little response from Saudi-Arabia. That being said, I think the standard of living in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco compared to that of Saudi-Arabia actually plays a larger role.
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 22:42
Well sure it does, Hax, as poor, illiterate people are more likely to do rash and stupid things. However, one cannot make the argument that it is only the society/culture and not the religion, just like one cannot make the argument that it is only the religion and not the society/culture. We are getting people who want either or, and in reality both factor into the situation.
That being said, their religion is not immune from criticism. On one hand I want to argue that most of those people probably have never even read the Koran, but then again what they are doing in some manner is exactly what the Koran says to do (except its misguided) and they think they are simply following directions. We certainly get the same thing with Christians who pick and choose what to follow in the Bible and ignore the old testament, but again, those people are not rioting by the tens of thousands everytime someone insults them.
The solution is not to ignore obvious associations of the guilty parties, as Sweden likes to do, in hopes that eveyrthing will blow over. The solution is to call a pig a pig, no pun intended
Goofball
09-14-2012, 22:56
@Goofball (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=3383): Where did you live?
It should also be noted that the Saudi brand of Wahhabism abhors fitna (disruption of a harmonious society) way more than disbelief. It might help to understand why there's been so little response from Saudi-Arabia. That being said, I think the standard of living in Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco compared to that of Saudi-Arabia actually plays a larger role.
Saudi Arabia
PanzerJaeger
09-14-2012, 23:12
Truly disgusting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/14/white-house-asked-youtube-to-review-anti-muslim-film/).
The White House asked YouTube on Tuesday to review an anti-Muslim film posted to the site that has been blamed for igniting the violent protests this week in the Middle East.
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”
However, the video remained on the site as of Friday afternoon, and it is posted many other places on the Internet.
Messages to YouTube, and Google, which owns the site, were not immediately returned Friday. On Wednesday, a YouTube spokesperson said the video “is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube.”
The spokesperson added, however, that the site restricted access in Libya and Egypt because of the unrest. “We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions. This can be a challenge because what’s OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere,” the spokesperson said.
The video, a trailer for what the promoters say is full-length film produced in the United States, has been cited as a cause for the some of the violent unrest in several Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt and Yemen. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday that investigators have no evidence that the protests were caused by anything other than the video.
“It is in response to a video, a film, that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting,” Carney said. “That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protest directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and — to Muslims. Again, this is not in any way justifying violence. And we’ve spoken very clearly out against that and condemned it. And the president is making sure in his conversations with leaders around the region that they are committed, as hosts to diplomatic facilities, that — to protect both personnel and buildings and other facilities that are part of the U.S. representation in those countries.”
This is the scandal Mitt Romney should be highlighting. The White House should be celebrating the fact that we live in a society that allows such a film, not trying to get it censored out of fear of the Muslim rabble. We should never compromise our values in the face of violence.
a completely inoffensive name
09-14-2012, 23:33
I lol'd when I read rvg liked the above post. I guess each thread is in its own universe.
Major Robert Dump
09-14-2012, 23:35
So we should ban the film?
Qatar and Kuwait operate with a pretty heavy hand, and they tend to shut down any sort of civil disobedience fairly quickly. Same in Saudi Arabia.
The thing is, there were protests in Qatar, and they seem to have been peaceful:
In Qatar, a crowd marched in Doha to the United States Embassy, which became a focal point as worshippers spilled out of afternoon prayers at the large mosque across the street. Some of them held placards that demanded the release of a Qatari man who is being held in prison in the United States.
Justin D. Martin , a journalism professor in Doha, described the protest there and also pointed out the coverage of the Al Jazeera network, which has its headquarters in the city.
Huge protest in #Doha right now. Big event for nation of Qatar. Down the street, #ALJazeera network is rambling on about the Pope
14 Sep 12 Reply Retweet Favorite
Justin D. MartinJustin_D_Martin
Crazies in the region are burning embassies and fried chicken. People here in #Qatar are protesting peacefully or riding jet skis.
14 Sep 12 Reply Retweet Favorite
Justin D. MartinJustin_D_Martin
Not sure why Qatar gov is keeping #ALJazeera from reporting Doha protest. The demo is peaceful, no? Is that not cause for pride?
A peaceful demonstration seems to have been held in Kuwait, as well:
In Kuwait, about 200 demonstrators gathered outside the United States embassy late on Wednesday. At one point during the protest, the crowd picks up a chant “Obama, Obama, all of us are Osama.” The protest was reported by a Kuwait news site .
Source for all of the above: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/updates-on-protests-over-anti-islam-film/
It's not like the police in Egypt is the most soft-handed in the world, either. Nor in Yemen. In Lebanon, a protester was shot dead (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-lebanon-idUSBRE88D0PR20120914) by security forces.
In Lebanon, protesters were shot dead.
I wouldn't call them "protesters". "Fried chicken enthusiasts" would be more like it.
Major Robert Dump
09-15-2012, 00:04
The thing is, there were protests in Qatar, and they seem to have been peaceful:
A peaceful demonstration seems to have been held in Kuwait, as well:
Source for all of the above: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/updates-on-protests-over-anti-islam-film/
It's not like the police in Egypt is the most soft-handed in the world, either. Nor in Yemen. In Lebanon, a protester was shot dead (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-lebanon-idUSBRE88D0PR20120914) by security forces.
I see what you are getting at, but peacefully gathering and doing some hateful chants isn't really the civil disobedience I was getting at, and in this case, the authorities may very well agreee with the protesters. It's not like they care calling for the ouster of parliament. Had those folks started causing real trouble, the authorities there would have no qualms or issues with shutting it down. I am not saying its right to drop kick protesters, I am just saying that the "culture" of a people and wether or not they want riot may have less to do with the matter than does the states paramilitary power. We are really coming full circle in the argument on a sens., because the same could be said for certain factions in the USA. Where you say its culture and what is socially acceptable, I say its the states ability and willingness to drop kick people who are getting out of hand, religion be damned
Kadagar_AV
09-15-2012, 00:05
I lol'd when I read rvg liked the above post. I guess each thread is in its own universe.
LOL!!!!
That just made my day, thanks for pointing it out!
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Major Robert Dump
09-15-2012, 00:13
I think the White House blaming only the video -- and saying that the riots are not a result of US Policy -- not only undermines the root cause of this, but is probably insulting to Muslims. That's just a guess. Kind of funny, since its the Democrats who seem to have a hard-on for Muslims, and they defend them by basically castrating them. But then again, that's kind of how they do all minority hroups so its kind of status quo
The other funny thing about this is that, as PJ pointed out, they seem to be subtley attackign freedom of expression rather than defending it.
HopAlongBunny
09-15-2012, 00:40
The video is a convenient scapegoat. It allows complete deflection from examining the US position in the area or any critical analysis of just how bad US intel in the area is.
Kadagar_AV
09-15-2012, 02:31
The video is a convenient scapegoat. It allows complete deflection from examining the US position in the area or any critical analysis of just how bad US intel in the area is.
DUDE!! We need to see more of you in here.
The video is a convenient scapegoat. It allows complete deflection from examining the US position in the area or any critical analysis of just how bad US intel in the area is.
Oh sigh, these hatemonkeys don't even know what embassy they are attacking any non-islamic will do
My suggestion, cut all aid untill they solve this properly. Maybe it isn't all that fun anymore once they realise they are only alive because we aren't starving them
Edit, lol the UN surprisingly condemns the movie, it's the movies fault not the surface to feet toes of inbreedingbegrieveds
Furunculus
09-15-2012, 08:22
you need to read up on "the life of Brian" or better still watch the Documentary that was produced recently
while there were no acts of Violence the entire cast were inundated with mail threatening violence/death and the film itself was BANNED for quite a while
personally I look on it this way - in the West we have some of the best Police and Security services - the Religions over here are full of the same kind of nut cases you see in the middle east, they just cant get away with the same level of idiocy and generally don't follow through on their vitriol - reverse the situation and the life of Brian could have provoked just he same riots...
I did, and I know, and I still don't recognise a valid parallel.
Yes we have improved since, but even then society did not equivocation on the matter of violence, there was no permissive atmosphere within which lunatic plans could breed, rather thanremain as angry poison pen missives.
Kadagar_AV
09-15-2012, 08:34
I did, and I know, and I still don't recognise a valid parallel.
Yes we have improved since, but even then society did not equivocation on the matter of violence, there was no permissive atmosphere within which lunatic plans could breed, rather thanremain as angry poison pen missives.
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"
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.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.