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

[Hax]

Yeah, I was well-aware of the first cousin relationships that seem to happen, but I didn't know about how wide-spread they were. As for North Africa, I guess it happens mostly in the more tribal areas. It might very much be the same in the Mashriq.

[Major Robert Dump]

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?

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.

That comment was not specifically aimed at you. Everyone makes large assumptions in all directions, based on whats available as evidence, and I think we all know that history is written by the victors. We cannot definitively prove that one group was less violent anymore than we can prove it was. In the end we end up arguing things about the past that are largely irrelevant 1000 years later, which is why I brought up the muslims-in-north america thing as well. In a nut shell: who cares? Anything more than a few generations is quite frankly insignificant in the greater scope of things.

As for all this inbreeding stuff, its not an arab thing, its a poor person-tribal thing. In breeding is a problem with the native american tribes who disocurage inter-race/inter-tribal marriage, and anyone who has ever visited the Navajo reservation will see a noticably higher number of birth defects amongst the people. The tribal Choctaws of oklahoma are the same way. When you stick within the tribe, eventually you run out of options.

You will also see this with the old families of Saipan in the Northern Marainna Islands, who are fairly tribal even by modern standards. My interpreters in Afghanistan who were from smaller, secular, pure blood and tight-knit communities, like Mirzaka, were all married to their cousins through arranged marriages, while the guys from large municipalities and of mixed ethnicity were not.

[Fragony]

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.

How can you not know this. Amost all import marriages are just that

[Hax]

How can you not know this. Amost all import marriages are just that

Ah, the ones that declined with over 70% after 2000?

[quadalpha]

Nope.

It has nothing to do with the west being the west, west is just there. Better at just being there I might add.

I'm afraid I actually can't figure out what you mean here.

[Fragony]

Ah, the ones that declined with over 70% after 2000?

Thr ones you just didn't know about?

[Fisherking]

On another note, to be angry that governments conceal certain information for the purposes of national security is naive even if justified.

What you are saying here is a little unclear.

To think that governments don’t withhold information for national security reasons is naïve.

To think that elected politicians will not use national security as an excuse to hide damaging information is also naïve.

But for citizens to meekly stand by complacent when they see political abuses is not naïve. It is stupid.

Regardless of political leaning or whether it helps your party or not it is also dangerous. What else or what other abuses of power might they be guilty of or capable of?

If you demand honesty from government, particularly of the opposition, you must also demand it from your own people. If you allow it you are playing the fool.

The government that oppresses or deceives one portion of its citizens is more than capable of oppressing or deceiving all of them.

Not to speak out when you see it is to join in and be a part of it.

[quadalpha]

To think that elected politicians will not use national security as an excuse to hide damaging information is also naïve.

...
The government that oppresses or deceives one portion of its citizens is more than capable of oppressing or deceiving all of them.

Your point is well taken, but we simply have no way of judging what actually happened at the moment. To jump to the conclusion that the administration is involved in a cover up based on rumour is to pander to the peculiar American (Republican) rhetoric of distrust of centralised government ('OMG tyranny I want my militia', etc.).

[Major Robert Dump]

Actually, it is a very valid point because certain political factions tend to blame all craziness ever in the middle east as being the result of failed US policies. Then suddenly when it happens on their presidents watch, it is not the result of failed US policies. I mean, come on man. The WH Press Secretary sounds like a parrot right now, and the left leaning news agencies have literally removed most of the unrest stories from their front pages. It's an election year, how obviouys can this be?

[Moros]

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?

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.

Okay err... doing a lot of catching up and I think I might be missing some but anyway.

I don't see in what way the Pre-Islamic civilizations were so much more aggressive, but on the other hand it doesn't really matter as the religion changed the culture rather by a lot. Especially when it comes to Islam and Arabia as it was a drastic change of religion, one that really didn't evolve that slowly together. Almost a bit of a shock. Now with Islam the main single most change would be from polytheism to monotheism, together with a lot of adoptions from the jews and christians. If anything the root of militant religion might be here. While Greeks and Romans might have frowned upon cults and sometimes banned them from cities and all the likes, were certainly against the godless (Socrates!), it was only limited and usually to preserve their own traditions for themselves. And during the Hellenistic period to the Imperial period tolerance grew even to those who didn't believe in the traditional state gods or strange gods (epicurism, stoicism,...).

In pre-islamic Arabia, gods were often adopted from others and given an important place to commemorate a bond/alliance with each other. The best example is the adoption of Shams into the Sabaean pantheon as either the wife of Atthar or Almuqah. The Nabataeans connected their gods with Hellenistic counterparts and embraced Hellenism. To give two examples. Or the Minaeans who worshipped at Delphi, might be the best example!

Where and when do we really find the earliest zealous men? The Jewish culture and religion. Though often inwards or by revolt, I think they are likely to be the first to have done forced conversions and quite savagely by the way. (John Hyrcanus) Christians and violence and a need to conform and convert others is of course better known, longer and probably even more bloody. The Islam had it's periods as well. I don't think Hax denies that. But we shouldn't focus on that, if anything it is something their history shares with ours. Now does that make religion violent, or the monotheistic religions, or religious individuals? Not necessarily of course. But religion is in the eye of the beholder. From those who believe they should pray to Mekka, while others think Jerusalem to those who think religion should be spread and the basis for political structure, policy,... to those who think the Qur'an is merely a guide for the individual.

And if one were to call it agressive or violent. The origins will not be found in ancient arabian culture who rather bribe enemies for peace and buy allies than anything.

[quadalpha]

Actually, it is a very valid point because certain political factions tend to blame all craziness ever in the middle east as being the result of failed US policies. Then suddenly when it happens on their presidents watch, it is not the result of failed US policies. I mean, come on man. The WH Press Secretary sounds like a parrot right now, and the left leaning news agencies have literally removed most of the unrest stories from their front pages. It's an election year, how obviouys can this be?

(I'll assume you were responding to my post.)

I did say it was a good point, just that we don't have enough information to judge right now.

I don't think you'll find any political faction that won't blame things on their opponents, nor will you find any kind of press secretary that doesn't sound like a parrot. And I'm looking at the New York Times here, and the home page carries 5 stories related to the unrest.

My point is that it's not obvious at all. The identity, organisation, and motivation of the attackers are still very much murky, and even what happened at the consulate hasn't been publicly established. Given this lack of information, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions, no matter how politically obvious it might be.

This is a general problem with politics. The average voter knows next to nothing about the issues he is voting on. Does anyone know if the craziness in the Middle East is due to failed US policies, or could things have been better with different policies? No, and historians will be arguing about it for decades to come. Similarly with economics, which is all the more exacerbated by current anti-intellectual tendencies on both sides in the US (though perhaps there is an argument to be made for the average Republican voter more anti-intellectual).

[Fragony]

Update: you were wrong Lemur, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula also is a fake name. It was made by Alan Roberts, who also made Happy Hookers go to Hollywood, as everybody knows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080839/

edit: to everbody's surprise there are also people with culture in Belgium.

[Moros]

While there is debate between economic academics on the all known issues, there isn't much debate on the fact that the West didn't handle things too cleverly out there. Did it create the situation? Perhaps one could call it an overstatement. We might not have created a monster, perhaps we were more like Igor then Dr. Frankenstein, but our involvement can't be denied. And who in his right mind thinks GWB was diffusing a situation? A War on Terror is more on getting revenge and the brainless happy than anything else. Well okay perhaps it's more about wasting money.

[Major Robert Dump]

(I'll assume you were responding to my post.)

I did say it was a good point, just that we don't have enough information to judge right now.

I don't think you'll find any political faction that won't blame things on their opponents, nor will you find any kind of press secretary that doesn't sound like a parrot. And I'm looking at the New York Times here, and the home page carries 5 stories related to the unrest.

My point is that it's not obvious at all. The identity, organisation, and motivation of the attackers are still very much murky, and even what happened at the consulate hasn't been publicly established. Given this lack of information, it is irresponsible to jump to conclusions, no matter how politically obvious it might be.

This is a general problem with politics. The average voter knows next to nothing about the issues he is voting on. Does anyone know if the craziness in the Middle East is due to failed US policies, or could things have been better with different policies? No, and historians will be arguing about it for decades to come. Similarly with economics, which is all the more exacerbated by current anti-intellectual tendencies on both sides in the US (though perhaps there is an argument to be made for the average Republican voter more anti-intellectual).

But the White House is emphasizing that it was only the film..... only the film....only the film. CNN. MSNBC and HuffPost have gone from pure saturation coverage on their websites to a few stories in the sidebar columns. I am simply comparing this to what they were doing 2 days ago, where every story on the home page was about this issue. I do realize that this is how news works, but the downtick coincided perfectly with the WH statement.

The WH is trying to backtrack after a callous remark by Hilary about killing Khadafi. We came off as pompous liberators and bringers of democracy, and now that its not all its cracked up to be, we are blaming a video that has been out for months and most of the protestors have not seen. It's silliness.

[Major Robert Dump]

Update: you were wrong Lemur, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula also is a fake name. It was made by Alan Roberts, who also made Happy Hookers go to Hollywood, as everybody knows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080839/

edit: to everbody's surprise there are also people with culture in Belgium.

The guy is going to jail. He very clearly violated his parole. Right wing Obama haters will call it a conspiracy, but the terms of his financial wire fraud conviction was that he not use computers (check), he not use the internet (check) and he not use aliases or alternate names (check)

The moral of the story is to clean your own house before trying to rile the world. This guy appears to be a bonafide idiot

[Fragony]

While there is debate between economic academics on the all known issues, there isn't much debate on the fact that the West didn't handle things too cleverly out there. Did it create the situation? Perhaps one could call it an overstatement. We might not have created a monster, perhaps we were more like Igor then Dr. Frankenstein, but our involvement can't be denied. And who in his right mind thinks GWB was diffusing a situation? A War on Terror is more on getting revenge and the brainless happy than anything else. Well okay perhaps it's more about wasting money.

I think it is much simplier, it isn't just the US they hate the hate the whole west. If you are absolutely sure your religion is the greatest it must be a kick in the nuts to see everybody doing better, heck, I'd beat my wife

[Moros]

I think it is much simplier, it isn't just the US they hate the hate the whole west.

Oh indeed.

If you are absolutely sure your religion is the greatest it must be a kick in the nuts to see everybody doing better, heck, I'd beat my wife

Yeah those filthy rich Christians in Africa!

No seriously while the failed attempts of pan-Islamists might have disillusioned some and all. I think we must differentiate between intellectual and social groups. The real masses might be somewhat jealous of our richness, but really that doesn't make you hate someone. I don't see the Chinese bombing us, and lets be fair if one group of people has a we're better than the rest kind of mentality it's them. No seriously, if anything it's not because they are in an economical and social disadvantage. It's because we misused the powers we had and instead of trying to diffuse the situation, every time it heats up we just throw in an extra crate of dynamite on an already gigantic pile, that makes them focus their anger on us. Now I'm portraying it almost as cartoonish and black and white as you. But certainly there's a lot of frustration out there, which is actually, but caused by their local governments as well, but we're a great scapegoat and a great reason to stay true to faith and whatever political agenda. Some nutters actually believe we are the evil of all things, most nutters just use us for their own goals others are just naïve masses who will join any cause, mainly because this way they can channel their frustrations and anger only making their own situations worse. I'm really not apologetic when it comes to this, if that's what you think.

It is not about Islam being bad in se. It as bad and as good as Christianity, only it didn't evolve with our history as Christianity did. Still while there might be massive protests and when it comes to religious wacko's it doesn't seem to be getting better, we must not act like every moslim out there hates us. Do you hate us Hax?

Our foreign policies is the electricity that helps Frankenstein (the nutters) create this monster (the naïve masses). That's why we need to cut off the power. Not just trash his place.

[Hax]

I'm not a Muslim, so I can't really say.

Of course, I hate all of you equally.

[rvg]

I'm not a Muslim, so I can't really say.

Are you sure? You certainly spend a lot of time defending them. I've been around many-many non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs, and one thing that pretty much defines them across the board is that they almost universally hate Muslims.

[Beskar]

Are you sure? You certainly spend a lot of time defending them. I've been around many-many non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs, and one thing that pretty much defines them across the board is that they almost universally hate Muslims.

Perhaps you should send him to an remote island and interrogate him for years in not-torture camps to make sure.

Though, I think Hax kind of has the authority to say whether or not he is a Muslim and I don't think he randomly wakes up in the middle of the night going "Am I really sure I am not a Muslim?". I don't think he is secretly praying to Mecca in the corner whilst being a practising and self-confessing Buddhist either.

[rvg]

Though, I think Hax kind of has the authority to say whether or not he is a Muslim

Hax does. You however, do not. My question was for him.

[Moros]

Hax does. You however, do not. My question was for him.

No he is a Buddhist he's stated that before, even before he came to the backroom now that I come to think of it. Or at least I seem to remember that he posted that in the TYOLT in his early .orgah days. Why would he lie about that, also why would he go contradict himself? You're strange, so aggressively interrogating others instead of making and then defending a case for your viewpoints.

[Strike For The South]

Why does everyone think Hax is a muslim?

Every couple of months a few posters levy the same accusation.

The man does not even know that much

[Fragony]

Why does everyone think Hax is a muslim?

Because he tends to defend islam and knows a lot about it, and he's half-arab. But haxie is indeed a budhist

[Fisherking]

Your point is well taken, but we simply have no way of judging what actually happened at the moment. To jump to the conclusion that the administration is involved in a cover up based on rumour is to pander to the peculiar American (Republican) rhetoric of distrust of centralised government ('OMG tyranny I want my militia', etc.).

I am sorry you don’t think you have the info to judge.

I know it was reported. I just can’t say it got into mainstream US media.

That sir, is the problem.

The information came from Libyan TV and European journalists in the country.

An angry mob did the job with a little help from sympathetic Libyan security people on site who told them where the safe house was.

The government is feeding you a conspiracy theory that it was a planned attack by some terror organization. Some how they think that lets them off the hook for what happened to their people.

The TV footage was pulled from Youtube. Who do you think has the power to make them take it down?

Now, I am no Republican and I don’t think anyone would class me as rightwing. I once was a very active Democrat. What drove me from that party was this very issue.

I am just pointing out what I have found. If you don’t care to believe it or if you prefer to believe what you are told without question that is your choice.

All this information is (or at least was) available.

[Hax]

I've been around many-many non-Muslim (primarily Christian) Arabs, and one thing that pretty much defines them across the board is that they almost universally hate Muslims.

Actually, I'm a taqiyya-practicing Nizari Shi‘a from Alamut. I'm here to assassinate your leaders and smoke hashish (it's why I live in the Netherlands). Bow to the coming global Caliphate, infidels.

Seriously though, I think I don't really defend Islam per se. I like to think I defend people and their rights. The only thing I'm trying to say is that what we regard as Islam is an incredibly diverse and vibrant religion with many, many different kinds of facets and characteristics.

That being said, however, I tend to get in trouble with many of my Muslim co-students (and even got into an almost violent discussion in Riga) because I'm very critical about what they call the tenets of Islam. What I mean is that I'm very critical of the actions of Muhammad, the veracity and general reliability of the ahadith, the position of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic states (note, not the same as Muslim states) or the grammar in the Qur'an (seriously, when I suggested there might be grammatical errors in the Qur'an, you should have seen the faces on some of the converts in my class. Hilarious.) My own opinion is that the notion of polygamy is stupid and that regarding homosexuality and adultery as sins is stupid and that thinking that non-Muslims are inferior is more than stupid.


However, I also believe that the majority of the Muslims I know(!) tend not to think that way at all. I'm not trying to explain Islam, I'm trying to explain the actions of Muslims.

[Fragony]

Actually, I'm a taqiyya-practicing Nizari Shi‘a from Alamut. I'm here to assassinate your leaders and smoke hashish (it's why I live in the Netherlands). Bow to the coming global Caliphate, infidels.

Seriously though, I think I don't really defend Islam per se. I like to think I defend people and their rights. The only thing I'm trying to say is that what we regard as Islam is an incredibly diverse and vibrant religion with many, many different kinds of facets and characteristics.

That being said, however, I tend to get in trouble with many of my Muslim co-students (and even got into an almost violent discussion in Riga) because I'm very critical about what they call the tenets of Islam. What I mean is that I'm very critical of the actions of Muhammad, the veracity and general reliability of the ahadith, the position of non-Muslim minorities in Islamic states (note, not the same as Muslim states) or the grammar in the Qur'an (seriously, when I suggested there might be grammatical errors in the Qur'an, you should have seen the faces on some of the converts in my class. Hilarious.) My own opinion is that the notion of polygamy is stupid and that regarding homosexuality and adultery as sins is stupid and that thinking that non-Muslims are inferior is more than stupid.


However, I also believe that the majority of the Muslims I know(!) tend not to think that way at all. I'm not trying to explain Islam, I'm trying to explain the actions of Muslims.

There is no patience for that you should know that. The backlash it will get will be without precedence, it will be incredibly cruel and without any pity. Do you really want that, because it will be like that. That can not be avoided.

[Hax]

Nonsense. The first thing my Egyptian (Muslim) teacher of Islamic law said was: "In my classroom we have no room for religious convictions".

I've noticed that it's very well possible to take a critical stance on Islam and have a normal discussion. Sure, there are some crazies (especially the converts, dear God they're weird), but apart from them, no problem whatsoever.

Let me put it this way: being critical is not the same thing as being insulting. I try to avoid tropes and clichés when talking about issues such as Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. I won't say things such as "Muhammad was a pedophile", because it presupposes that Muhammad had a thing for little kids, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual discussion.

[Fragony]

Ever thought about westerners just kinda having enough with islam? That is closer than you might think

[Hax]

Not so much with Islam, but rather with the nonsense around it.