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

[Vladimir]

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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:

1. House and Senate GOP have left Romney pretty much on his own on this one, indicating that they have no desire to tie themselves to this tactic.
2. 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.

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]

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]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[rvg]

[*]House and Senate GOP have left Romney pretty much on his own 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]

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.

[Fragony]

Now can't read this

[Fisherking]

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]

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.

[Lemur]

Five very good questions 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]

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]

I remember when the NWO used actual Jews to do their bidding.

[Major Robert Dump]

@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]

BUT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL !!!!111111111111111

[Major Robert Dump]

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??????

[Hax]

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]

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]

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.

[Viking]

The BBC 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.

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.

[Hax]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Hax]

Silence does not equal complicity.

In addition: Al-Azhar responds

[rvg]

Silence does not equal complicity.

In addition: Al-Azhar responds

What about Morsi. Where is his voice?

[Hax]

Moving the goalposts.

[rvg]

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...

[Hax]

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.

[rvg]

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]

They will just go rip some mexican cartel beheading videos in an effort to gain sympathy for their struggles

[Hax]

Talking about the "silent majority", in any case.