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

I like the term the Muslim reaction. As if this is the general reaction of Muslims to stuff like this.

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

Originally Posted by Hax

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

Originally Posted by Fragony

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?

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I know this might sound crazy but what if Romney purposefully ignited the riots to discredit Obama's foreign policy?

Far fetched.

Originally Posted by Vuk

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?

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

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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?

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.

Originally Posted by rvg

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 reactions? Which ones?

Originally Posted by Vuk

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?

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

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:

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.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Muslim reactions? Which ones?

None of these... muslim reaction to the movie...

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Originally Posted by rvg

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?

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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 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.''

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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....

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

Originally Posted by Lemur

On the contrary, when an analogous situation arose over the Muhammed cartoons, Bush 43 made very conciliatory and respectful remarks 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

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

Originally Posted by Lemur

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.

Originally Posted by rvg

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, 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 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.

Originally Posted by Lemur

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, 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.