CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Libyan Ambassador, embassy staff killed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libyan Ambassador, embassy staff killed - Page 2

post #51 of 128

I think if America fell on tough times and there was a breakdown of civilization, you'd absolutely have lynch mobs and christian terrorism right back in our lives.

 

 

Quote:

   Jay Townsend, a campaign spokesman for Republican Rep. Nan Hayworth (NY-19), weighed in on a local Facebook discussion with a violent comment about Democratic women in Congress, and his suggestion is now earning the congresswoman condemnation from one of her Democratic challengers.

The comment:

   Listen to Tom. What a little bee he has in his bonnet. Buzz Buzz. My question today … when is Tommy boy going to weigh in on all the Lilly Ledbetter hypocrites who claim to be fighting the War on Women? Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector.

 

 

 

The Taliban is only ever a few bad years away.

post #52 of 128

We're blaming Limbaugh for Oklahoma City now?  I missed that memo.

 

Also, nobody has dropped any facts or specifics about these fundamentalist talk radio hosts in the Mid East supposedly responsible for these acts.  What I'm seeing here is an assumption that they exist, followed by a leap that their rhetoric is primarily responsible for this violence, followed by a questionable equivalency between them and American conservative radio.  Which reads to me as a bunch of bullshit in service of tying this back to the same old targets everyone's comfortable swiping at.

post #53 of 128

They quite definitely exist, not a point of debate. Backed up by extensive extremist websites and satellite channels (many of them funded by gulf oil money).

Religious (or anti-government) fanatics do not spring, fully formed, from some sort of hateful vacuum.

A shitty Youtube video definitely did not mutate across the Middle East and gain significant traction without significant media aid. That's what happened with the Danish cartoons, it is not unreasonable to think that's what happened in this case.

'Hateful ideology transmitted through popular media channels' is the point of equivalence. Its really not that big a leap. Contorting that into me saying 'Limbaugh caused the OKC bombing' is in no way accurate.

post #54 of 128

from the Al Jazeera link I posted...

Quote:
The Arabic version of the trailer received heavy media coverage in Egypt last week, including by controversial hardline TV host Khaled Abdallah, who reported on the film on September 8.

 

and FWIW

Quote:

<excerpt>

Last year, the Egyptian-British journalist and blogger Sarah Carr wrote, “Sheikh Khaled Abdalla is part of a school of particularly shrill religious demagogues who turn every possible event into an attack on Islam.” She added that Sheikh Khaled regularly attacked Egypt’s Coptic Christian community.

 

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/obscure-film-mocking-muslim-prophet-sparks-anti-u-s-protests-in-egypt-and-libya/

post #55 of 128

I see where the overreach is - I think 'the Taliban is only ever a few bad years away' isn't in any way true (no offense, doc). 

But if we're concerned about hate speech gaining traction in the Middle East, I don't see why we wouldn't be concerned about its prevalence and popularity at home. "The Americans want to destroy Islam" isn't that much crazier than "The Democrats want to destroy America."

post #56 of 128

There's a good brief summary of the the situations going on in Libya, et al. from MotherJones

 

The US Embassy Attacks, Explained

post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeI View Post

I read an interesting analysis, I don't think it was linked to from here, about how the autocratic governments in these countries (at least until recently) make this a logical (if not rational, reasonable or decent) response. Namely that a piece of film like this could not have been produced in their countries without active government approval, therefore the US government must have signed off on this.

 

 

I've also read that people in the Middle East are being told that this film is being broadcast all over America and that most Americans have seen it.

 

Another commentator said that people in Libya have lived under government controlled Media for so long, they have no experience with dissent, satire or criticism of any kind.

post #58 of 128
Thread Starter 
post #59 of 128

jeeze, this story has gotten really fuckin' crazy....

 

Quote:

Anti-Islam Filmmaker Went by ‘P.J. Tobacco’ and 13 Other Names

 

He went by many names, the man who helped produce “The Innocence of Muslims,” the inflammatory video now roiling the Middle East: Matthew Nekola; Ahmed Hamdy; Amal Nada; Daniel K. Caresman; Kritbag Difrat; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Nicola Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Erwin Salameh; Mark Basseley Youssef; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi; even P.J. Tobacco.

 

But his real name — the one he used when he was sent to prison for bank fraud —  was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. His habit of adopting other identities earned him a 21-month sentence in federal prison. During 2008 and 2009, court documents reviewed by Danger Room (.pdf) and embedded below show that Nakoula again and again opened bank accounts with fake names and stolen social security numbers. Then Nakoula would deposit bogus checks into the new accounts and withdraw money before the checks bounced. The scheme worked for more than a year, until he was indicted in June of 2009. Eventually, he was ordered to stay off of the internet unless he got his probation officer’s permission, and pay a $794,700 fine.

<cont.>

post #60 of 128

Hm perfect profile for a stooge for an Intelligence service or radical group with money.

post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Hm perfect profile for a stooge for an Intelligence service or radical group with money.

 

That's probably the conspiracy theorist in me talking but this guy just screams patsy to me.

 

Whether he's a patsy for the Israelis, the Saudis or even the Syrians is up for grabs.

post #62 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

 

That's probably the conspiracy theorist in me talking but this guy just screams patsy to me.

 

Whether he's a patsy for the Israelis, the Saudis or even the Syrians is up for grabs.


To me, he just comes off as a major league grifter.

post #63 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

 

That's probably the conspiracy theorist in me talking but this guy just screams patsy to me.

 

Whether he's a patsy for the Israelis, the Saudis or even the Syrians is up for grabs.

 

Hey what if he's working for ALL OF THEM?!

post #64 of 128

Can someone please explain this meme to me that my right wing childhood friend posted on FB?  I don't get it. 

 

D9Bax.jpg

post #65 of 128

I don't think they do either.

post #66 of 128

I guess this falls under "Libya being quiet" then?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

post #67 of 128

And I guess that wasn't the US lobbing Tomahawk missiles into Libya last year either.

post #68 of 128

Yea, yea, it doesn't take into account the neo-colonialist policies of the U.S. over the past century that have fostered the frustration and animosity at the heart of the current violence.  Still fucking funny.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto

post #69 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuddL View Post

Yea, yea, it doesn't take into account the neo-colonialist policies of the U.S. over the past century that have fostered the frustration and animosity at the heart of the current violence.  Still fucking funny.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto

I don't think you can pin this on the US. Islam in general has no sense of humor, and widely supports the violent suppression of speech across the middle east. Pakistan recently was in a row after a 14 year old girl with mental retardation was framed for "burning pages of the Koran". Crowds were in the streets calling for her death.
post #70 of 128

Islam definitely is in need of it's own Reformation  movement. The main problem with this concept seems to be a lack of central authority to rebel against.

Even though they are the minority, the 'crazy' faction of Muslims have the 'microphone' at this time. I can only hope their insanity is eventually drowned out.  

post #71 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Islam definitely is in need of it's own Reformation  movement. The main problem with this concept seems to be a lack of central authority to rebel against.
Even though they are the minority, the 'crazy' faction of Muslims have the 'microphone' at this time. I can only hope their insanity is eventually drowned out.  

I think the problem is, at the core of it, that their holy book prescribes death and torture for a ridiculously broad array of slights against Alah. Any "crazy" Muslim is going to have the word of the profit on their side, and anyone seeking to bring the religion into the modern age is going to be swimming up stream. You can't build a better house when the foundations are rotten.
post #72 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


I think the problem is, at the core of it, that their holy book prescribes death and torture for a ridiculously broad array of slights against Alah. Any "crazy" Muslim is going to have the word of the profit on their side, and anyone seeking to bring the religion into the modern age is going to be swimming up stream. You can't build a better house when the foundations are rotten.

 

I disagree that the 'foundation is rotten'.  To continue the 'building' analogy...it's a question of getting better 'contractors' to interpret and IGNORE the aspects of the blueprints that are 'not up to modern day building codes'. 

If I am not mistaken there have been attempts to 'modernize' the Koran....I don't know if it ever gained any traction though. ??

 

Remember, as much as people would like to believe in the infallibility of the bible, the current version(s) are considerably different than the ones that existed 500+ years ago. 

Also, it should be mentioned that the majority of the bible's adherents have no problem ignoring and dismissing the vile shit that is still currently in it.

post #73 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

I disagree that the 'foundation is rotten'.  To continue the 'building' analogy...it's a question of getting better 'contractors' to interpret and IGNORE the aspects of the blueprints that are 'not up to modern day building codes'. 
If I am not mistaken there have been attempts to 'modernize' the Koran....I don't know if it ever gained any traction though. ??

Remember, as much as people would like to believe in the infallibility of the bible, the current version(s) are considerably different than the ones that existed 500+ years ago. 
Also, it should be mentioned that the majority of the bible's adherents have no problem ignoring and dismissing the vile shit that is still currently in it.

But Mohammad was the last prophet, and no one will ever be empowered to rewrite the Koran. It's the fundamental tenant of islam. There is no god but god and Mohammad (an ancient middle eastern warlord and charlatan) was his last prophet. The Koran does not empower people to ignore even one line. That is the problem with these ancient tribal "holy books": they bill themselves as the first and last word on god and religion. Their content that "isn't up to code" can never be fully erased or papered over. The only answer is for people to say "I love my family and cultural traditions, but the religion itself has no place in the modern world". You can't excise the cancer from Islam, because its built in from the ground up. To pretend that these are religions of peace requires massive intellectual contortions and willful distortions of the fact. You can choose to follow a more peaceful Islam but it won't be Isalm as tought by the Koran.

And just to be clear, I feel exactly the same way about Christianity and I worry about the content of the bible. I think if people ever fell on hard times, and there was a break down of civilization, Christianity would pose a huge danger to order and the rule of law.
Edited by Dr Harford - 9/14/12 at 4:09pm
post #74 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


I think the problem is, at the core of it, that their holy book prescribes death and torture for a ridiculously broad array of slights against Alah. Any "crazy" Muslim is going to have the word of the profit on their side, and anyone seeking to bring the religion into the modern age is going to be swimming up stream. You can't build a better house when the foundations are rotten.

 

Have you read the Old Testament and, specifically, Leviticus?

post #75 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

Have you read the Old Testament and, specifically, Leviticus?

My criticisms of Islam and the Koran apply equally to the bible.
Edited by Dr Harford - 9/14/12 at 4:10pm
post #76 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


But Mohammad was the last profit, and no one will ever be empowered to rewrite the Koran. It's the fundamental tenant of islam. There is no god but god and Mohammad (an ancient desert warlord and charlatan) was his last profit. The Koran does not empower people to ignore even one line. That is the problem with these ancient tribal "holy books": they bill themselves as the first and last word on god and religion. Their content that "isn't up to code" can never be fully erased or papered over. The only answer is for people to say "I love my family and cultural traditions, but the religion itself has no place in the modern world". You can't excise the cancer from Islam, because its built in from the ground up. To pretend that these are religions of peace requires massive intellectual contortions and willful distortions of the fact. You can choose to follow a more peaceful Islam but it won't be Isalm as tought by the Koran.
And just to be clear, I feel exactly the same way about Christianity and I worry about the content of the bible. I think if people ever fell on hard times, and there was a break down of civilization, Christianity would pose a huge danger to order and the rule of law.

 

Jesus.

 

First of all, it's PROPHET, not "profit."  The man was God's emissary on Earth, not the excess of revenues after expenses.

 

I'm as atheist as they come, but your view on religion is completely misguided and entirely misinformed.  There are millions upon millions of secular Muslims who practice their religion without, for instance, having to cut off the hand of the thief who steals from them.  Millions upon millions of Christians and Jews are able to live modern lives despite being believers.  Despite the fact that I think religion is nonsense, religion can have a place in modern society, even if it's based on "ancient tribal holy books."

 

The current problems in the Muslim world have more to do with post-colonialism and American neo-imperialism than they have to do with religion.  I agree that Islam needs to, for lack of a better phrase, grow up a little bit, but you have to understand that these are nations lacking a strong civil society where dissent is accepted and normalized, in large part because the West has squashed previous efforts at democracy for the sake of expediency in trade and foreign relations (cheap and secure oil, Israel).  Catholicism went through a particularly brutal phase, but it grew out of it (let's put aside child molestation, an affliction of which it hasn't grown out of).  Islam will do the same, and the Arab spring will move that forward in large part because the seeds of open societies will begin to germinate.

 

But your prescription of the problem with religion is incredibly offensive, not to mention ignorant and stereotyped.

 

ETA: removed "baseless" because, at bottom, you sort of have a point about holy books being exceedingly violent, but that's because those books are a product of their time.

 

Also, you do know that the Koran specifically forbids Muslims from killing Jews and Christians, because they are people "of the book," right?

post #77 of 128

Condolences for the families of these people who were killed for no good reason. 

post #78 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

Islam definitely is in need of it's own Reformation  movement. The main problem with this concept seems to be a lack of central authority to rebel against.

Even though they are the minority, the 'crazy' faction of Muslims have the 'microphone' at this time. I can only hope their insanity is eventually drowned out.  


Annoyingly, they kinda sorta already have.  Only it's the Sunni who seem more structurally like the Protestants and the breakaway Shia who have the top down Papal-like structure  (and the Wahhabis are kind of the Puritans).

Really, post reformation time was pretty much two different groups of arseholes trying to kill each other for a couple of hundred years and Islam has gone pretty much the same way.  There hasn't been enough of them to say, but it's like there's a broad lifecycle to a major religion sometimes.  Hopefully the more cheerful ways of the Sufis eventually prevail (who seem like a bit like Quakers from certain angles).

Unlike Christianity, Islam has this identifiable enemy (perceived or otherwise) it can point to which seems to be giving these angry types tons of mileage.  It'd be a mistake to call Islam unified, but stressing the commonality is a lot easier with an external enemy and modern communication.

post #79 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


But Mohammad was the last profit, and no one will ever be empowered to rewrite the Koran. It's the fundamental tenant of islam. There is no god but god and Mohammad (an ancient desert warlord and charlatan) was his last profit. The Koran does not empower people to ignore even one line. That is the problem with these ancient tribal "holy books": they bill themselves as the first and last word on god and religion. Their content that "isn't up to code" can never be fully erased or papered over. The only answer is for people to say "I love my family and cultural traditions, but the religion itself has no place in the modern world". You can't excise the cancer from Islam, because its built in from the ground up. To pretend that these are religions of peace requires massive intellectual contortions and willful distortions of the fact. You can choose to follow a more peaceful Islam but it won't be Isalm as tought by the Koran.
And just to be clear, I feel exactly the same way about Christianity and I worry about the content of the bible. I think if people ever fell on hard times, and there was a break down of civilization, Christianity would pose a huge danger to order and the rule of law.

 

Again, there are millions of Muslims that follow the Koran and aren't crazy fundamentalists so I reject the argument that the followers of the Koran can't live a more peaceful Islamic life.

 

It is the crazy fundamentalist Muslims that are the ones that are saying that you MUST follow ALL aspects of the Koran or you aren't a 'true' Muslim. These crazy motherfuckers need to be marginalized and excommunicated (although that's an big issue unto itself).  

 

 

All this talk reminded me of a book that I remember hearing about several years ago.  "No God But God" by Reza Aslan 

Quote:
One of the central themes is that an internal battle is currently taking place within Islam between individualistic reform ideals and the traditional authority of Muslim clerics. Aslan states that this situation is parallel to that of the 16th-century reformation in Christianity, which was as old as Islam currently is at that period
post #80 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spook View Post

Jesus.

First of all, it's PROPHET, not "profit."  The man was God's emissary on Earth, not the excess of revenues after expenses.

I'm as atheist as they come, but your view on religion is completely misguided and entirely misinformed.  There are millions upon millions of secular Muslims who practice their religion without, for instance, having to cut off the hand of the thief who steals from them.  Millions upon millions of Christians and Jews are able to live modern lives despite being believers.  Despite the fact that I think religion is nonsense, religion can have a place in modern society, even if it's based on "ancient tribal holy books."

The current problems in the Muslim world have more to do with post-colonialism and American neo-imperialism than they have to do with religion.  I agree that Islam needs to, for lack of a better phrase, grow up a little bit, but you have to understand that these are nations lacking a strong civil society where dissent is accepted and normalized, in large part because the West has squashed previous efforts at democracy for the sake of expediency in trade and foreign relations (cheap and secure oil, Israel).  Catholicism went through a particularly brutal phase, but it grew out of it (let's put aside child molestation, an affliction of which it hasn't grown out of).  Islam will do the same, and the Arab spring will move that forward in large part because the seeds of open societies will begin to germinate.

But your prescription of the problem with religion is incredibly offensive, not to mention ignorant and stereotyped.

ETA: removed "baseless" because, at bottom, you sort of have a point about holy books being exceedingly violent, but that's because those books are a product of their time.

Yes, the Koran and Bible are "products of their time" (a time long ago when people thought unicorns were real and the earth was flat) so why would we drag these books into the third Millenium? Why should they be our go to source for moral wisdom and cultural identity? They are not built to adapt, and they enshrine ideas that are, put simply, poison.

It's cool that you disagree, no problem with that. And I apologize for misspelling Prophet. Let's hope Egyptian TV doesn't get word of my error.

I understand that many / most people don't feel compelled to murder and maim because their religion proscribes it, but those religions will always be a threat to order specifically because they do command their followers to perpetrate violence and hate, and when there are poor economic conditions, massive lack of education and a hard life, it's the hate that is going to stick in people's minds. I'm not blaming religion for why things are so fucked up in the middle east, I'm saying it's the fuel on the fire that threatens to engulf the world.

We disagree on whether religion is salvageable at this late date in human history, and I hope that my view that "it's not" isn't overly offensive to you. Because it seems we are largely on the same page.
post #81 of 128

Guys. Stop. 

 

Islam doesn't have more problems than any other religion. Seriously. We're looking at a miniscule representation of those who practice the religion. You are being incredibly goddamn condescending here with your talk about Islam needing to "grow up." Islamic cultures have made incalculable contributions to science, art, and philosophy. There is no normal "cycle" or religious enlightenment. Most of the problems we see now in Islam arose in relatively recent times. You know why? Because this isn't an Islam problem, this is a globalization / imperialism / realpolitik / dictatorship problem. Islam is not inherently any more violent or backwards than any other faith system. Yes, right now, there are some countries where it's tenets are used as a tool of oppression. Which separates it from any other religion or philosophy how, exactly?

 

And again, a miniscule representation. Say, if Islam is so backwards, where are the Muslims getting violent over this movie here in the United States? Or Indonesia, where 200 million of them live? Or anywhere else with non-Middle Eastern Muslims, AKA 80% of those on the planet who profess the faith? Gee, it's almost as if this is way more about the conditions in which these particular people live, than the religion that they have.

 

Look, just read this, and #4 of this.

post #82 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones View Post

Guys. Stop. 

 

Islam doesn't have more problems than any other religion. Seriously. We're looking at a miniscule representation of those who practice the religion. You are being incredibly goddamn condescending here with your talk about Islam needing to "grow up." Islamic cultures have made incalculable contributions to science, art, and philosophy. There is no normal "cycle" or religious enlightenment. Most of the problems we see now in Islam arose in relatively recent times. You know why? Because this isn't an Islam problem, this is a globalization / imperialism / realpolitik / dictatorship problem. Islam is not inherently any more violent or backwards than any other faith system. Yes, right now, there are some countries where it's tenets are used as a tool of oppression. Which separates it from any other religion or philosophy how, exactly?

 

And again, a miniscule representation. Say, if Islam is so backwards, where are the Muslims getting violent over this movie here in the United States? Or Indonesia, where 200 million of them live? Or anywhere else with non-Middle Eastern Muslims, AKA 80% of those on the planet who profess the faith? Gee, it's almost as if this is way more about the conditions in which these particular people live, than the religion that they have.

 

Look, just read this, and #4 of this.

 

First off, I don't think anyone here would disagree with what you wrote.

You are spot on about this being a political/economic/ignorance problem at it's core but the use of religion as a dividing factor needs to be considered as well.

 

Second, I think the reason we are discussing Islam is that fact that it is a factor in these attacks. If there were attacks perpetrated by Xtian or Hindu terrorists, we'd probably be discussing the fundamentalism that exists within those religions.

 

I'll probably be accused of being 'smug' :) ...but, IMO, religion is a childish concept and a good many of it  followers DO need to 'grow up'.

 

 

edit- I just saw on TV a nice report where they showed some of the anti-US protests in Libya but they pointed out that the number of protesters were relatively small.

They also showed footage of pro-US gatherings....hey, it's a start.

:)

post #83 of 128

If you don't want to look smug, stop using simpering emoticons and linking terms that everyone understands.

 

Originally Posted by VTRan View Post

They also showed footage of pro-US gatherings....hey, it's a start.

 

It's not a fucking start. There were vigils in Iran in support of America after 9/11.

 

Frankly, given the sheer ugliness of that movie trailer, which goes beyond criticizing Islam into outright hatemongering, I kind of understand anyone who felt like protesting it. To these people, this isn't just blasphemy; it's yet another example of how the West sees them as subhuman. And in their context? Rioting is kind of one of their only options, or at least the only power that they feel they hold. No, that doesn't make it right to kill people, except oh wait that's right it looks like the attacks were planned before this movie became A Thing. In which case, Islam is much less of a factor in the attacks compared to the myriad other reasons Libyans may have to want to kill Americans. So why are we still on about the reaction to the video? I see nothing more in that conversation than intellectual / cultural dick-waving. Yes, Americans have been killed, so emotions will run high. But good grief.

post #84 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones View Post

If you don't want to look smug, stop using simpering emoticons and linking terms that everyone understands.

:(

 

...as far as linking terms everyone understands...do you mean like these ones  below?

Quote:
Look, just read this, and #4 of this.

 

Seriously....maybe not everyone understands the terms being discussed? Personally I don't see anything wrong with including a link here or there that might add a bit of information to the discussion at hand.

 

 

Quote:

It's not a fucking start. There were vigils in Iran in support of America after 9/11.

 

ummmm, no shit. I was being facetious.

 

 

 

Quote:

Frankly, given the sheer ugliness of that movie trailer, which goes beyond criticizing Islam into outright hatemongering, I kind of understand anyone who felt like protesting it. To these people, this isn't just blasphemy; it's yet another example of how the West sees them as subhuman. And in their context? Rioting is kind of one of their only options, or at least the only power that they feel they hold. No, that doesn't make it right to kill people, except oh wait that's right it looks like the attacks were planned before this movie became A Thing. In which case, Islam is much less of a factor in the attacks compared to the myriad other reasons Libyans may have to want to kill Americans. So why are we still on about the reaction to the video? I see nothing more in that conversation than intellectual / cultural dick-waving. Yes, Americans have been killed, so emotions will run high. But good grief.

 

Yup, the film's main goal seems to be a catalyst to incite violence...and unfortunately, it looks as if it is succeeding.

 

Knowing that, I think a valid discussion about the role Islam plays in middle eastern politics is more than valid as the two are quite intertwined.

 

Were the attacks/riots due to some perceived slight against a guy in a book you happen to like -or- was it due to the ongoing interference from US/Western interests?

 

If the reasons the riots are occurring are of a political nature, I can understand that....NOT condone any violence perpetrated due to it....BUT I do understand it.

 

Now, if the riots taking place are motivated by a supposed insult to a supposed deity....fuck you, it's a movie, welcome to the modern world. 
 

...perhaps this is a better discussion for the Religion forum. (although I'm sure it's already been run into the ground there)

post #85 of 128

VTRan you simpering FOOL!

post #86 of 128

A question I have that hasn't been answered yet: how many Libyans were killed in the defense of the embassy?  I imagine that they are sorting the bodies of Libyians and trying to figure out who was fighting on what side, but I am interested to hear.

post #87 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

VTRan you simpering FOOL!


first 'smug', now this...

 

damn it....where's my bible

post #88 of 128

on a related tangent....

 

oh yeah,  this is some great timing

 

Quote:

<excerpt>

In Khartoum, wider anger at Western attitudes to Islam also saw the German embassy overrun, with police doing little to stop demonstrators who raised a black Islamist flag. Violence at the U.S. embassy followed protests against both Washington and the Sudanese government, which is broadly at odds with the West.

 

The wave of indignation and rage over the film, which portrays Mohammad as a womanizer and a fool, coincided with Pope Benedict's arrival in Lebanon for a three-day visit to a region still in the throes of upheaval and with Christian minorities fearful of the rise of political Islam from Egypt to Syria.

 

"We were attacked by Obama, and his government, and the Coptic Christians living abroad!" shouted one long-bearded Muslim protester during the Cairo stand-off with police ringing the U.S. embassy. The involvement of a prominent Egyptian-American Christian in promoting the film has caused anger and worry among Christian leaders in Egypt, who condemned the film.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-film-protests-idUSBRE88D0O320120914

post #89 of 128

interesting WSJ op-ed

 

Quote:

Husain Haqqani: Manipulated Outrage and Misplaced Fury

Islamists stoke resentment of the West—and anger over the long decline of Muslim influence—to serve their own violent ends.

 

The attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions this week—beginning in Egypt and Libya, and moving to Yemen and other Muslim countries—came under cover of riots against an obscure online video insulting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. But the mob violence and assaults should be seen for what they really are: an effort by Islamists to garner support and mobilize their base by exacerbating anti-Western sentiments.

 

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to calm Muslims Thursday by denouncing the video, she was unwittingly playing along with the ruse the radicals set up. The United States would have been better off focusing on the only outrage that was of legitimate interest to the American government: the lack of respect—shown by a complaisant Egyptian government and other Islamists—for U.S. diplomatic missions.

 

Protests orchestrated on the pretext of slights and offenses against Islam have been part of Islamist strategy for decades. Iran's ayatollahs built an entire revolution around anti-Americanism. While the Iranian revolution was underway in 1979, Pakistan's Islamists whipped up crowds by spreading rumors that the Americans had forcibly occupied Islam's most sacred site, the Ka'aba or the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Pakistani protesters burned the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.

 

Violent demonstrations in many parts of the Muslim world after the 1989 fatwa—or religious condemnation—of a novel by Salman Rushdie, or after the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2005, also did not represent spontaneous outrage. In each case, the insult to Islam or its prophet was first publicized by Islamists themselves so they could use it as justification for planned violence.

 

Once mourning over the death of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and others subsides, we will hear familiar arguments in the West. Some will rightly say that Islamist sensibilities cannot and should not lead to self-censorship here. Others will point out that freedom of expression should not be equated with a freedom to offend. They will say: Just as a non-Jew, out of respect for other religious beliefs, does not exercise his freedom to desecrate a Torah scroll, similar respect should be extended to Muslims and what they deem sacred.

 

But this debate, as thoughtful as it may be, is a distraction from what is really going on. It ignores the political intent of Islamists for whom every perceived affront to Islam is an opportunity to exploit a wedge issue for their own empowerment.

 

<cont.>

post #90 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post

A question I have that hasn't been answered yet: how many Libyans were killed in the defense of the embassy?  I imagine that they are sorting the bodies of Libyians and trying to figure out who was fighting on what side, but I am interested to hear.

Last I read it was around 10.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1132073/-Many-Libyans-Died-Defending-US-Embassy

post #91 of 128

In any case, I think we may all rest easy now. The malefactor behind all this chaos has been dealt with:

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/anti-muslim-film-nakoula-basseley-innocence-muslims.html

 

Frankly, I don't think the authorities went far enough. If we're to sacrifice our sacred freedoms on the altar of certain people's delicate sensibilities, we fucking well ought to go whole-hog (so to speak-- don't want to offend anybody):

 

I think this man should be brought before TV cameras, broadcasting live across the world. A quick show-trial-- but only if we want to observe the niceties of the rule of law. And then he should have his head sawn off, Daniel Pearl-style.

 

That ought to show the bastards that, really, we''re on their side in all this, and love and respect them, and their stupid fucking barbarian beliefs. And that should get them off our backs...

 

Shouldn't it--?

post #92 of 128

Overreact much?

post #93 of 128

From that very article:

 

 

Quote:
He had been ordered not to own or use devices with access to the Internet without approval from his probation officer -– and any approved computers were to be used for work only. "Defendant shall not access a computer for any other purpose," the terms read.

 

So this isn't about him making the movie, it's about him violating his parole by using his computer to post it to YouTube.  It's sort of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.

post #94 of 128

I have the sneaking suspicion this film has nothing at all to do with the attacks. It really seems like smokescreen to explain the goings on to the American public.

post #95 of 128

Every time someone writes 'Xtian' I think they are referring to a fictional alien race. When did this become a thing?

Islam is most definitely having more problems than other religions, right now, because of where its at in its historical development. Give Mormonism another millennium and you'll have factions murdering each other in the Utah desert over whether or not the Golden Plates actually existed.

post #96 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

From that very article:

 

So this isn't about him making the movie, it's about him violating his parole by using his computer to post it to YouTube.  It's sort of like getting Al Capone for tax evasion.

 

Well, yeah... Except this guy ain't Capone. Except the LA County Sheriff's wasn't exactly champing at the bit to bring him in for "questioning" about probation violations for posting a dumb-ass video to YouTube, until some jihadist grievance-mongers themselves disseminated said dumb-ass video far beyond the dreams of this poor schmuck. But I'm sure that's just coincidence... 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post

Overreact much?

 

So no, Stelios. I was exaggerating for effect, but I was not overreacting. Police came to a man's house in the middle of the night and seized him because of something he posted to YouTube. With a full retinue of print and TV cameras in tow, mind you, better to pinpoint for the interested psychopaths out there where the guy fucking lives. 

 

Before that, the federal government contacted YouTube to see if the dumb-ass video violated their terms of service, with an eye toward taking it down. Since when are the feds interested in all that, if not to suppress a particular bit of speech-- if not to feed this asshole to the dogs?

 

From where I stand, that's sick.

post #97 of 128

OK.

post #98 of 128

The guy's a con artist. He stepped in some serious shit, and he got popped for it. If his probation says he can't use a computer, then he shouldn't use a fucking computer. Hyping it up into some Gestapo tactic seems sort of silly. 

post #99 of 128

I guess I see it as the difference between Chris Rock using the N-word and the Grand Dragon of the KKK shouting it on a street corner.  Sure, they're both protected forms of speech, but you might just want to look into what the second guy is up to.

post #100 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

The guy's a con artist. He stepped in some serious shit, and he got popped for it. If his probation says he can't use a computer, then he shouldn't use a fucking computer. Hyping it up into some Gestapo tactic seems sort of silly. 

 

I'm not hyping anything. That's what happened. Nobody gave a good fuck if he was a con artist, or a probation violator, or an all-around asshole until the supposed reaction to the video hit in the Middle East. All week the press have been on a hunt for "Sam Bacile"... He was found, and then the police were sent to his house. All because he posted that dumb-ass video to YouTube.

 

If that doesn't bother you, it bloody well should.

 

And by the way:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post

Islam is most definitely having more problems than other religions, right now, because of where its at in its historical development. Give Mormonism another millennium and you'll have factions murdering each other in the Utah desert over whether or not the Golden Plates actually existed.

 

I like you, Zhukov-- but this is historically ignorant. The Mormons already had their period of internecine struggles and armed insurrection-- in the 19th Century, shortly after the religion was founded. And do you know what the Mormons did after all that--? They assimilated.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Libyan Ambassador, embassy staff killed