I wouldn't call them "protesters". "Fried chicken enthusiasts" would be more like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Printable View
I wouldn't call them "protesters". "Fried chicken enthusiasts" would be more like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
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 damnedQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
LOL!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
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:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Oh sigh, these hatemonkeys don't even know what embassy they are attacking any non-islamic will doQuote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
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
I did, and I know, and I still don't recognise a valid parallel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.
From most of the US reports I am reading the Attack on the Libyan Consulate is being pushed as a planned raid.
The way it reads to me, seeing more international press was that the crowd showed up unarmed but later went and got weapons because they thought they were being fired on from the consulate. Apparently after they took the building some members of the Libyan Security Forces told the rioters where the safe house was. The crowd then went there and grabbed the Ambassador. The mortar fire on the safe house could have come from sympathizers in the Libyan Forces too. That or there are enough experienced fighters in Benghazi to handle a couple of mortars.
Anyway, the Ambassador was raped before he was murdered and carried around in the streets for hours before they left his body. I have seen several photos. In one for sure he is still alive, which only proves the point that they took him and killed him in cold blood.
Americans are all being told it was an organized terror attack, It does not look that way to me.
It looks like the government is lying to you and the press is reporting it their way.
There was also a video from Libyan TV and put up on Youtube by AFP, a French news agency.
It was pulled. Likely at direction from US Government.
Now, Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference to me but I really have a problem with the government withholding information or lying to its people.
Now who could possibly be the hand under the skirt here, didn't I once tell you all that the muslim brotherhood abandoned terrorism because they found useful idiots more effective. You are all idiots. All except Panzerjaeger but still a majority
Oh and Viking, who's right now told you this would happen
They did for about a century ago. It broke into two lines, the secular ones who ended up as dictators, and the more fundie line. They would need to do it better this time I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
The tricky part about this, is how much of it that's propaganda and funneling of aggression. The start of it certainly are. Digging up some almost unknown case of insulting muslims, that can be fairly old and spice it up. That's a good question, what information are the rioters recieving?
Wrong question, what is it.. The islam just happens to be an ultra-violent desert ideoligy and the parents of most muslims are direct cousins. Viola. -snip-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
We are all also to believe it is about this idiot film. The attack on the German Embassy was about the 2005 cartoon by a Dane.
If this can be believed: http://www.shoebat.com/2012/09/13/ar...eptember-15th/
Then it is much more about the Salafist party and changing international law.
Touting the Libyan attack as an act of terror is a convent out. It is also the government pushing a conspiracy theory when the public information suit’s the situation pretty clearly.
They don’t need to reveal sources because it is National Security so they can pretend to chase shadows and it gives a focus to anger other than policy.
edit
Ah screw it, how is the 9-11 mosque going by the way
Your post, Fragony, is not rooted in any kind of historical reality. The average Arab in 500 AD probably spoke more languages than you will ever learn. Most Arabs could read and write. We have over a million inscriptions dating to pre-Islamic times. Do you seriously want to maintain the point of view you have right now?Quote:
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.
Apart from that, Islamisation and Arabisation of the conquered territories took well over 500 years in countries such as Egypt, and it still hasn't been fully Islamicised. We have information that there were still Coptic-speaking. Other places, such as Iran, are still largely non-Arabic speaking. The notion of "conversion by the sword" has been thrown into the garbage bin decennia ago.
Arse gravy, again, of the words kind. Citation required, citation required, citation required.Quote:
Wrong question, what is it.. The islam just happens to be an ultra-violent desert ideoligy and the parents of most muslims are direct cousins. Viola. The average IQ is 75 in the muslim world, that's what we call retarded over here, they couldn't drool over a shiny surface even if they tried because they are too stupid for that.
What's this totally foolish assumption that inbreeding is supposedly really common in the Arab world? Take my own family for instance. My grandfather, who was Turkish, married an Arab girl.
You're basically ignoring the immense varieties and diversities that exist to this day in the Arab world. And do you speak or read Arabic? I didn't think so.
It's a bit more complex than that. Starting from around 1802, with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt and the subsequent British colonisation, it's clear that European concepts based in the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods started flowing into the Arab world (we see the same thing happening in Iran, but in a different way), ideas that were generally happily accepted. An important scholar who translated massive amounts of literature into Arabic at the time was the Egyptian scholar Rifa‘a al-Tahtawi, who went to France and was immensely influenced by the works of Montesquieu, Voltaire, Racine and La Fontaine. Starting from around Rifa‘a al-Tahtawi there's this period in Arab literature that we call the Nahda (renaissance), mostly characterised by the development of new kinds of literature in the Arab world such as (satirical) plays, short stories, and novels, and the use of Arabic dialects in the written word.Quote:
They did for about a century ago. It broke into two lines, the secular ones who ended up as dictators, and the more fundie line. They would need to do it better this time I think.
Some other guy who went to the West was Jalal al-Din al-Afghani, who came up with the idea of pan-Islamism as a response to European colonialism (basically calling upon all the states of Islam to form a united front against European imperialism. It should probably be noted that this concept of "pan-Islamism" was purposed at a more political level and wasn't exactly calling for the institution of a Caliphate or anything like that (the Caliphate actually still existed at the time, in the form of the Osman/Ottoman Empire).
The really interesting character (in my opinion) that we want to look at is his student, Muhammad ‘Abduh, who got exiled to France and worked on a magazine called "al-urwä al-wuthqä" (the unbreakable bond) which only ran for a few years, but was hailed throughout the Islamic world. He got recalled to Egypt and made it to the position of head Mufti there. What's interesting about this Muhammad ‘Abduh character is that he formulated European notions in Islamic terms and said some (in his time) quite liberal things about topics such as polygamy (which he forbade on Qur‘anic grounds) and basically said that people should use their brains, rather than blindly following everything done by earlier generations. He died around 1905.
After his death there was something of a divergence, as Ironside rightly pointed out, but it didn't look like one at the time. With the abolishment of the Caliphate in 1924, there were some scholars (such as the self-taught Rashid Rida from Lebanon) who thought that the Caliphate was an intrinsic part of the Islamic world. Others, such as the Azhar-trained Ali ‘abd al-Raziq, thought that the Caliphate was a reduntant institution and Abd al-Raziq even proposed that there was nothing in Islam that required its presence. To be fair, he got kicked out of Al-Azhar and got stripped of his rank as a judge because of his treatise. My great-great-uncle, who was Mufti of Constantine, was also in the same line of scholars as Abd al-Raziq.
Eventually, Rashid Rida's ideas were picked up by Hassan al-Banna, whose name is probably familiar to most people. Working with those ideas, he eventually created a boy scout-like organisation called al-ikhwan al-muslimun, or "The Muslim Brotherhood", which eventually lost its character as a sunday school where boys were taught all kinds of different things and evolved into a political organisation.
I think I expounded on the issue of Saudi-bred Wahhabism a time ago, and it should be noted that the Saudi Wahhabis don't regard the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate organisation for several reasons.
So when we're talking about "the Muslim reaction" to this (ridiculously bad) film, who exactly are we talking about here? The a-political Wahhabis of Saudi-Arabia? The sympathisers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? The radical jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Secularised (in the sense that they believe in seperation of religion and state) scholars and their students at the Azhar?
"What's this totally foolish assumption that inbreeding is supposedly really common in the Arab world"
Sure it isn't, not at all
What happened? A mob attacked the consulate. I'll let you in on a secret: public opinion tends to diverge on most matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If mobs and protesters suddenly and magically started to represent the majority of a population, the majority of the population in Western countries would be quite schizophrenic.
Citation required. Also, nice how you completely ignored the second part of my reply. Nicely done, where'd you learn to do that?Quote:
Sure it isn't, not at all
Sure I can make meatballs with cranberrysauce, why do you askQuote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I find it hard to believe that people, be them chrisitian, muslim or anything, were more refined and less brutal 1500 years ago than they are now. I simply do not buy it, and I never will. I am also digging all the people making claims based on fragmentary historical remnants that require huge leaps of faith to connect point A to point B, kind of like this new thing the American muslims are doing where they say that muslims discovered America.
Coverup of brutal mob mentality and calling it an organized attack would make sense in order to not make the administration look folly for reaching out to muslims, and in order to make the Libyan endeavor not look so foolish, and would not be the craziest thing a president has done. In fact, presidents excel at things like this. What is scary, is that if this is the case, it works to the mobs advantage to not disupte the administrations claims because it allows them a second chance, a chance to continue getting financial support, a chance to save face internationally, so we can repeat this again in a few years.
That is a wise way of looking at it MRD. Of course these people have just been shown that protest can get them their way so they are looking to do it with their religion too.
For the rest of you
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Eh, no that's not the reason. Cousin marriages did commonly occur amoung nobles (also isolated peasant groups to keep the land together), but the Swedish line had not done that for some time at that point. The short version: Gustav IV really hated Napoleon, got into a war, Russia (allied with Napoleon at the time) takes Finland, Gustav IV is forced to abdicate, and that line rejected from the throne. Candidate B, Karl August dies falling of his horse, no good candidates around, except that old childless dude (who did have the throne until he died). Ahh, coup is failing, lets do some radical move and get a French Marshal on the throne, so we can retake Finland. What do you mean he's not intested in taking back Finland, but goes for Norway instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I am no some kind of popular historian trying to say that Islam was the best thing that has ever happened. In fact, close scrutiny of the sources I mentioned has the exact opposite effect. Do you honestly believe that suggesting that the language of the Qur'an was not the language spoken on the Arabian peninsula, or that the Syrian dialects of Arabic existed for more than five hundred years before Muhammad's time are somehow good?Quote:
I am also digging all the people making claims based on fragmentary historical remnants that require huge leaps of faith to connect point A to point B, kind of like this new thing the American muslims are doing where they say that muslims discovered America.
All I'm trying to say is that the assumption that (most) Arabs in the time were nomads and then immediately connecting it to violent desert ideologies to make a wide claim about the tenets of Islam is historically incorrect. @Moros can tell you much more about pre-Islamic Arabian civilisation. And as a sidenote, most Arab nomads were not raiders. They were shepherds.
Can't we all agree that mobs are generally not highly blessed in the intellectual department without painting an entire culture (really, cultures) with the same brush? And that the radicalisation of large demographics in the Islamic world against the West is due to a mixture of legitimate historical resentment, opportunistic demagoguery, and long dominant histories of fundamentalist religious interpretation? None of this justifies mob violence, but surely go a long way toward explaining it.
On another note, to be angry that governments conceal certain information for the purposes of national security is naive even if justified.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by quadalpha
It has nothing to do with the west being the west, west is just there. Better at just being there I might add.
Interestingly, the practice appears to be common well outside the Arab world as well.
Still, I should admit that this was largely unknown to me.
Can't say anything about North African Arabs (I have no information about them), but as for the Arabs from Iraq, Syria or Jordan, yes, they do inbreed. Marrying first cousins is norm both among Muslims and Christians. It's just something they do. Still not as bad as West Virginia, but they do love some o'dat inbreedin'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax