y'all are bugnuts

[Wrath of Dagon]

The whole thing, including the murders, was a planned set up to celebrate 9/11. No one ever heard of the video until it was shown on Egyptian TV. The role of our "friend", Saudi Arabia, should also be investigated here. Apparently they're still financing our worst enemies : http://www.theatlant...m-movie/262567/

Edited September 20, 2012 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

for further reading on another bit o' nonsense, we includes a linky... we actual is gonna recommend Not watching the embedded video.

 

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/834271/hundreds_of_whales_face_slaughter_as_norways_killing_season_resumes.html

 

...

 

don't watch video. seriously.

[Junai]

you honestly think it is ok to punch a guy in the face 'cause he called you an "arse"?

No, but it's what actually happens, and it's being exploited for all it's worth.

Some yutz puts a vid on Youtube and upsets some muslims. A diplomat is killed. Suddenly the US of A feel justified in sending another fleet of drones to the respective area to hunt down the aggressors. How many times must this scenario be repeated before ppl start to see the picture?

 

J.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Junai

[Humodour]

you honestly think it is ok to punch a guy in the face 'cause he called you an "arse"?

No, but it's what actually happens, and it's being exploited for all it's worth.

Some yutz puts a vid on Youtube and upsets some muslims. A diplomat is killed. Suddenly the US of A feel justified in sending another fleet of drones to the respective area to hunt down the aggressors. How many times must this scenario be repeated before ppl start to see the picture?

 

J.

 

4 diplomats wasn't it? Gotta agree with you though. The people protesting are bloody morons. The people violently rioting are something familiar to anyone here who has seen one's home team lose a football game. Don't get me wrong; they're absolute scum. Anybody violently rioting is, whether it is over a football game or a sky fairy.

 

But it doesn't require any sort of foreign policy response besides withdrawing diplomats (for safety) or tightening security. Idiots have short memories. Like the cartoons that Dutch guy drew, this will die down soon enough and the thugs will go back to whatever other form of thuggery comes more naturally to them then rioting (which, let's be honest, is a fair few things - muggings, rape, homicide, theft... the kind of stuff which thugs do with or without a tired religious excuse).

 

If international football championships were like world religions, and less than half a dozen teams were followed by the world's countries... then you'd probably see **** like these Islamic riots happens every now and then, too, on exactly the same scale. That's just what happens when lots of people believe zealously in the same stupid thing.

[Gromnir]

you honestly think it is ok to punch a guy in the face 'cause he called you an "arse"?

No, but it's what actually happens, and it's being exploited for all it's worth.

Some yutz puts a vid on Youtube and upsets some muslims. A diplomat is killed. Suddenly the US of A feel justified in sending another fleet of drones to the respective area to hunt down the aggressors. How many times must this scenario be repeated before ppl start to see the picture?

 

J.

 

...

 

so, because the rest of the world is peopled by immature nincompoops, Americans should have their free speech rights abridged? you, and those like you, is the problem. is Not the US that needs to change in this situation. "How many times must this scenario be repeated before ppl start to see the picture?" indeed. how many times before you and the rest o' the world, "grow up." if we were talking race issues, would you give the same advice?

 

"Yes, it is a shame that as a (add racial minority of your choice here) you should be insulted and attacked simply because you chose to peacefully protest against your inequality, but after the fourth or fifth time your presence causes an incident, should not the government learn? The government cannot stop all the bigots of the world, so the obvious solution to your dilemma is to segregate you away from the rest of the population."

 

see, in AMERICA we understands that the solution to combating hateful or ignorant speech is through education and more speech, not enforced silence. so, how many times does this sorta nonsense need to happen before you "ppl start to see the picture?" muslim extremists can react like this a thousand more times and still the solution will be more speech and education as opposed to enforced silence. they can kill 1000 more ambassadors. they can attack 1000 embassies. they can burn, loot, pillage and maim 1000 times 1000000 more times, and we will become only more certain that True freedom of speech and expression requires government protection. as is becoming the norm, you and the rest of the world has learned the wrong lesson from these tragedies. you should be learning just how important it is to protect speech and speakers, but you ain't learning that.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Junai]

Let me get this straight Grom - your message is that people around the world should grow up, so they'll be able to handle imperialist aggression, drone-wars, egotism, McDonaldism and cultural insults from the big baby that is America?

 

Ok. We'll try our best to develop Ghandi-like patience in order to endure your infantile ramblings. Then we'll go to your schools and adopt your fantastic ways.

 

Do you realize what you're asking for?

And you wonder why people hate the great Satan?

 

J.

[Malcador]

You two seem to be arguing two separate things.

[Drowsy Emperor]

This american superiority thing you have going Gromnir is tiresome.

I guess the only way for to make thinly veiled imperialism as a systematic policy and a way of life acceptable is to drill ones population into believing they're superior to everyone else.

It certainly leads to amazing feats of logic like "We're bombing your country into dust but we're doing it all for your own good".

Edited September 21, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

I'm not sure you guys really understand what Imperialism is. Because the US would be the worst Imperialist ever if that was really their goal. Have you seen how much money the US has lost in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seriously, throwing the Imperialism tag around makes zero sense.

 

The US does try and be the world's policeman. That is a more fitting title here.

[Junai]

You two seem to be arguing two separate things.

Things are looped together. As our cultural exchange with the Middle east proceeds and we tell each other what we *should* behave like, there are those who subtly fuel the hatred and avail themselves of the situation to further their own agenda. This is why I think people should curtail their desire to provoke. It's an irresponsible way of claiming ones right to free speech, and it has consequences which people are more or less blind to.

 

We had a situation in Norway a couple of years back. A blonde girl was raped by Africans, muslims who weren't used to seeing scantily clad girls. Now, if *your* daugher is going out, would you tell her to put on some clothes? if so, the foreigner has power over you, but your daughter is safe. Americans have already made the choice. They traded away their freedom for a false sense of security after 9/11, through the Patriot Act etc. Freedom of speech in America? You can be detained indefinitely without the right to a trial and jury. It's like China. I must say I find Gromnir's talk of maturity and freedom somewhat amusing.

 

J.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Junai

[Humodour]

So the Libyan people have started attacking militia outposts as revenge for the militia killing of the American ambassador.

 

http://in.reuters.co...E8KLNF920120922

 

The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

 

"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," said demonstrator Hassan Ahmed. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled."

 

Which makes Gromnir and Drowsy Emperor look just plain childish and bigoted now.

 

Here is a more detailed analysis of the story: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1260851--libyans-storm-militia-building-after-protest-in-wake-of-ambassador-s-death

Edited September 22, 2012 by Krezack

[Hurlshort]

It is good to see. I've been waiting for real Muslims to stand up and defend themselves against these extremists, and this is a big first step. Of course it would be better if there was a way to do it without violence.

 

That link didn't work for me, btw.

[Malcador]

Meh, wouldn't read too much into that. Probably acting out of fear of US reprisals rather than anything else.

[Hurlshort]

Meh, wouldn't read too much into that. Probably acting out of fear of US reprisals rather than anything else.

 

That's a pretty lousy way to look at it. I doubt they overran and extremist militia base because they were concerned about trade sanctions.

 

Now if you are implying they are worried about the US invading, then that is a pretty big stretch, but if that gets the people to seize control of their country away from the small extremist groups, then we might as well let them believe it.

[Gromnir]

So the Libyan people have started attacking militia outposts as revenge for the militia killing of the American ambassador.

 

http://in.reuters.co...E8KLNF920120922

 

The crowd waved swords and even a meat cleaver, crying "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

 

"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," said demonstrator Hassan Ahmed. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled."

 

Which makes Gromnir and Drowsy Emperor look just plain childish and bigoted now.

 

Here is a more detailed analysis of the story: http://www.thestar.c...assador-s-death

 

?

 

how does this make Gromnir seem bigoted? we never doubted that especially in libya there is a strong pro-USA element (try to explain that to junai and de) but that not change at all how differently the rest o' the world views freedom o' expression compared to the USA. junai and de is doing the big red herring nonsense, but it not change fact that freedom o' expression gets very different treatment outside the boarders o' these United States... which don't make the US superior to the rest o' the world... save for in matters o' freedom o' expression. boggles the mind that you folks in other places thinks it is a good thing for governments to curb potentially offensive speech. really.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

That's a pretty lousy way to look at it. I doubt they overran and extremist militia base because they were concerned about trade sanctions.

 

Now if you are implying they are worried about the US invading, then that is a pretty big stretch, but if that gets the people to seize control of their country away from the small extremist groups, then we might as well let them believe it.

 

Why is that lousy ? They might worry about the US deciding to go and kill these "extremists", even if it's not that likely, they might expect it. And no one wants to be bombed or have cruise missiles zipping around (that'd be a bit funny though, given their whining about NATO not bombing enough against Gaddafi)

[Hurlshort]

I just don't think that is the main reason they stormed a militia base. That's like running into a burning building because you are afraid the fire trucks will get you wet.

[Humodour]

That's a pretty lousy way to look at it. I doubt they overran and extremist militia base because they were concerned about trade sanctions.

 

Now if you are implying they are worried about the US invading, then that is a pretty big stretch, but if that gets the people to seize control of their country away from the small extremist groups, then we might as well let them believe it.

 

Why is that lousy ? They might worry about the US deciding to go and kill these "extremists", even if it's not that likely, they might expect it. And no one wants to be bombed or have cruise missiles zipping around (that'd be a bit funny though, given their whining about NATO not bombing enough against Gaddafi)

 

You're wrong on this one. Libyans hate the militias because they go around performing vigilante law such as killings, Sharia law, and they fight in the streets at night with heavy weapons.

 

People don't like the militias. The militias are extremists (of the same form as the Taliban and Al Qaeda). The Libyans drove the militias out because they're scared of THE MILITIAS, not because they're scared of US drones.

[Junai]

I wouldn't want the government to curb our liberty to speek freely, but rather see a change in public opinion regarding provocations. The US gov. fear that Bradley Manning has put lives in danger because of his leeking military documents. I'd say the provocation video is equally dangerous, considering it already got people killed.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Junai

[Malcador]

You're wrong on this one. Libyans hate the militias because they go around performing vigilante law such as killings, Sharia law, and they fight in the streets at night with heavy weapons.

 

People don't like the militias. The militias are extremists (of the same form as the Taliban and Al Qaeda). The Libyans drove the militias out because they're scared of THE MILITIAS, not because they're scared of US drones.

 

Well based on the article from the Star (really ? you chose that crappy paper here ? ) they are worried about the US striking the militias which will strengthen them. Saves the US effort if they actually fight them - I guess they don't need them anymore since Gaddafi left. Shame they didn't decide to fight them when they stormed the embassy though

[Drowsy Emperor]

Meh, wouldn't read too much into that. Probably acting out of fear of US reprisals rather than anything else.

 

Pretty much, those are just organized protests for PR purposes. I can't prove that of course, but hey everyone's going to believe whatever they want to in the long run.

[Humodour]

Meh, wouldn't read too much into that. Probably acting out of fear of US reprisals rather than anything else.

 

Pretty much, those are just organized protests for PR purposes. I can't prove that of course, but hey everyone's going to believe whatever they want to in the long run.

 

How does it feel to be so bigoted?

[Malcador]

That's just being cynical.

[ravenshrike]

On one hand, you can't go screwing around with things people consider sacred. I'm disgusted at the (mis)treatment Christianity regularly gets in Europe and the US. US is sort of divided into hardcore camps so I can understand all **** slinging between them, but Europe is a disgrace considering that Christianity made it what it is today.

 

**** that noise

 

Link is nsfw

http://www.theonion....is-image,29553/

WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

 

 

And an apropos youtube video

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok

[Enoch]

That's a pretty lousy way to look at it. I doubt they overran and extremist militia base because they were concerned about trade sanctions.

 

Now if you are implying they are worried about the US invading, then that is a pretty big stretch, but if that gets the people to seize control of their country away from the small extremist groups, then we might as well let them believe it.

 

Why is that lousy ? They might worry about the US deciding to go and kill these "extremists", even if it's not that likely, they might expect it. And no one wants to be bombed or have cruise missiles zipping around (that'd be a bit funny though, given their whining about NATO not bombing enough against Gaddafi)

 

You're wrong on this one. Libyans hate the militias because they go around performing vigilante law such as killings, Sharia law, and they fight in the streets at night with heavy weapons.

 

People don't like the militias. The militias are extremists (of the same form as the Taliban and Al Qaeda). The Libyans drove the militias out because they're scared of THE MILITIAS, not because they're scared of US drones.

 

That's part of it. The other part is that much of the politics in Libya is essentially tribalism. It's not as if there's one "al Qaeda" faction and one "anti-al-Qeada" faction. It's that there are dozens of large clan-type groups, each of which have their rivalries, their bases of influence, their alliances, and their ties to foreign powers. Al Qaeda-type groups are, in some respects, an escape valve, in that muslim extremist groups are the largest and most influential non-clannish groups, and often the only option that many people can go to if they're not happy with how things are being run in their hometown. Thus, the leadership of these clans is often very much opposed to al Qaeda groups, first because it's a threat to their power, and second because opposing the extremists helps to curry favor with the U.S. and its allies.

 

Of course, this is also the dynamic that has led to the U.S. and other Western powers (and, before 1991, Eastern powers, too) propping up many dicatorial regimes in the region over the last century. We find a clan leader who we think we can live with, and who is opposed to the factions that we want opposed (which up until 1979 was communism, and after that muslim extremism), and we help that guy secure and maintain control of the country. (I'd love to say that we've figured out a better way to do things, but then I look at Hamid Karzai.)

 

Despite the flag-waving for the cameras, there really isn't much in the way of ground-level nationalism. The Libyans decided that most of them didn't want one particular clan leader around anymore (Qaddafi), but that hasn't coalesced into much drive to do "what's right for the country." More "what's right for my extended family," with a minority of "what's right under the guidance of my local imam." Even in countries that do have some strong nationalist sentiment, like Egypt and Pakistan, most of it tends to reside in the other major non-islamist, non-clan-based organization: the military. (Which, of course, spawns its own problems.)