Printable View
Here is a link to one of the pages from the french satirical paper, not the best copy, but kind of hard to find. He has several mohammed cartoons this episode, and also one where a rabbi is pushing a muslim and they are declaring themselves as "untouchables," but this particular page is the most colorful
link removed
lol good showQuote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Here's an ad we're running in Pakistan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNu6E7c4vA
This video shows the American delusion at its worst. "Look how enlightened we are, we have these wonderful principles", blah blah. It's like inventing exclusive rules of etiquette and fashion so that you can take pride in being more polite and civilized than other people. It's not true enlightenment, it's BS, and everyone knows it, who the hell do they think they're kidding. It isn't true today and it certainly wasn't true "from the very founding of our nation"; the colonial rebels had a lot in common with these protesters.
We don't reject people who denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Comedians who make a living doing that are celebrities. And the fact is the essence of some branches of religion involves a huge drive for conversion and reform, and tolerant pluralism strikes right at the heart of those religions. You can't redefine religion as "something people are no more than moderately passionate about".
"Riot all you want, but keep off our property", that's all that needs to be said here. The vain, ignorant, and laughable self-glorifying should be ditched completely. It's pathetic and I'm really skeptical that it does anything but backfire.
The number one thing we need to do as a country is to abandon the rhetoric of free speech, liberty, religious tolerance etc that we use to feel good about ourselves. The news on these protests is a farce: "religious tolerance makes America the best!" "No, free speech makes America the best!".
It would be completely acceptable for the average American to be ignorant about other countries and cultures if the "intelligentsia" would grow up and face the truth instead of using ideology and tradition as a crutch for their fragile egos.
Kenan Malik, as solid as always.
People use easily digestible caricatures to manipulate the populace and gain power? :0Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Kenan Malik is an idiot who cherry picked 1 out of 1000 historical examples in order to "back" his blatantly obvious point.
Every idiot with an internet connection and a 3rd grade reading level fancies himself an intellectual.
That word use to mean something
lol, after that the unelected eurocrat 'good after the war' schultz showed what it means to be a dhimmi, German quality media takes it even further
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven....html#comments
I hope this is a joke
Used Strike, used :flirt:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Edit: Oh bama, after 'good after the war' Schultz expressed his deep sympathy for people who break things over nothing Obama also condemns a youtoube video. With nobody less then that chick I saw in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or was it Desperate Housewives, I forgot but I think she's called Hillary Clinton
What word? Internet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I thought the point of the blogpost was not that they used caricatures, but religion in general, to gain power. The "outrage" is just one of many means to an end.
And in other news, looks like the WH is now backtracking on their "it's only the film!" mantra. I believe on day 1 of this thread I pointed to the badguys whipping up flashmobs using social media, and them using the mob as cover and concealment, both political and literal. I still stand by that wager, it's just that I do not know who the bad guys are in this case.
The mobs are a means to demonstrate and exercise power. That's the only outlet those people have had for a while and there is no shortage of people looking to take advantage of that.
Who would have thought, except Viking ieQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Sure there are no militias, sure this is over
Look Frags - nobody said this would be over by Christmas, but you don't have to be a total cynic.
Why not, we bombed the crap out of Libya only to aid something much worse. All experts warned us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So they attack an Islamist stronghold and it's still not okay? Okay.
Who said there were no militias? That doesn't even make sense. The war is over, but occasional bloodshed might happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The only thing I've predicted, is that Libya will not be another Iraq. This because the Iraqi sectarian fault lines have no parallel in Libya.
That a group of protesters stormed the base of rogue militia speaks in favour of a peaceful future, not against it.
No that just means that there are more rogue militia'sQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
You by the way, you said it
The protestors were unarmed, or armed with blunt weapons at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Link or didn't happen.Quote:
You by the way, you said it
In that case it didn't happen then, but we both know better then thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Baby step steps to stability or crushing of freedom:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa...155740677.html
Worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
No.
As bad?
Potentially, but by all accounts the Libyans are not inclined to spend any more time under someone's ideologically justified jackboot.
They didn't like Islamic Socialism, there's no reason to believe they'll no go in for Islamic Fascism - you need to get over this phobia of religious people in general and Muslims in particular.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...lamist-militia
Apparently, the militias have finally overstayed their welcome - they don't want the embarrassment of being set to flight, so they appear willing to go quietly. This is a pivotal point in Libya's transition to a post-Gadaffi state - the question is whether the elected government can manage the security vacuum, and how they will behave once the militias are no longer their to oppose them.
My instinct is that the men running Libya like being in charge, but they also like being revolutionary heroes and having access to Western support, and more than anything they like having their skins intact. Being heavy handed didn't work at all for Gadaffi, and they saw what happened to him first hand.
I fear the militias will be back. Especially if they have support from international Islamofascist terrorist organizations. And when they come back, they will bring IEDs with them.
That the sectarian divide does not exist here like it does in Iraq is of little consequence. That would imply that regions where everyone is the same sect enjoys automatic peace, when in fact the members of the same sect then disintegrate and fight over power and money, and even more so when the money in question is coming from the Grand Endless Money Tree of the West.
I want it wo work out for them, really I do. But so far all we have seen is posturing and people too quick to pull the trigger and cry "success!" , whihc seems to be an all-too-common mistake with nation building these days
You are not providing any detailed mechanisms for future conflict. In a poor thirld war country, perhaps you can start a war by pouring in resources. In a relatively homogeneous and rich oil state, it seems less likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
If you want to catch bad guys in Iraq, it is Iraqi-Sunni versus Iraqi-Shia; in Libya, (such as recently in Benghazi and Derna) it is more Libyan versus Libyan. The internal dynamics are incomparable.
There is always a potential for conflict along the lines of Amazigh versus Arab. Ethnic divide is a different beast, though, and should be easier to handle. Individual religions, like those of Iraq, tend to claim that they alone are the only correct one, and thus there is an insensitive to go to war against disbelievers. It's easier to accept that people of other ethnicities exist.
I think you need more than money to start an insurrection or Civil War - you need an "us" and a "them". You do have an East-West divide in Libya, and the country may fracture along those lines, but right now it seems people don't want it to. In the absence of a foreign power to blame for Libya's ills I think the average Libyan wants to get on with his life more than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053485160] - you need an "us" and a "them"./QUOTE]
Pretty easy to "instill" in a country riddled with divides and guns. Like Yugoslavia, once armed ppl start busting in a few doors and yelling "Ya fer us or against us!?" choosing up sides become prudent. I am encouraged by the disarmament that is being attempted and wish them luck.
I'm not talking about funding a civil war with foreign money.
I am talking about the locals fighting over control of the foreign aid, not to mention the resource revenue. Very unlikely to reach civil war proportions. The idea that it could degrade into a northern mexico situation not so unlikely. Either way, I expect there to be homeade bombs.
[QUOTE=HopAlongBunny;2053485247]The Balkans had seen something like a thousand years of war before the Communist State, when it collapsed the tensions it had suppressed erupted to the surface. Those were not manufactured conflicts, they were organic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Tribal divisions have a history that pre-dates Marx. The Col. used those divisions to keep people divided and weak. His removal might be used to exploit injuries real, perceived or historical for a settling of accounts.
I agree with (what I think) MRD is suggesting; division of spoils is likely to be the main bone of contention. The step from conflict over those particulars to civil war is large, but possible.
I hope the story ends: "And they lived happily ever after." Yes, I really hope that's the outcome.
This looks to be a full-blown scandal for the State Department. Here's an email exchange between Hillary Clinton spokesman, Philippe Reines and Buzzfeed's Michael Hastings...
Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “**** Off” And “Have A Good Life”
Insulting reporters—that always works. Give the man a promotion!
Apparently this all revolves around CNN finding the late ambassador's journal, a bit of a tangled story.
That said, Michael Hastings has one hell of a track record on defense reporting, and anyone stupid enough to curse at him in writing ...
-edit-
Meanwhile, WND asks the hard questions: Was Libyan ambassador gay like our President?