Romney's reaction to the American embassy deaths

Duck Soup

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I made it quite clear in my earlier posts that I agree with Mitt Romney and he has nothing to be sorry about, and that this was a manufactured affront against him on the part of a hypocritical media who seemingly carries the water for Barack Obama… regardless how many times posters try to spin the faux outrage.

Well, on the matter of faux outrage we agree. The whole point of Romney's bombastic intervention was to manufacture some artificial outrage about apologies for America and sympathy for attackers that never existed.

He created a narrative based on things that were never said, one that dovetails with the line he's been pushing about Obama being Apologist-In-Chief.

But there are a couple of things that do genuinely stick in my craw.

The first is his playing fast and loose with verifiable facts. Romney said that "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Putting to one side that the statement he refers to came not from the administration but from the Cairo diplomats, it is patently impossible for the statement to be sympathizing with attackers when at the time it was published, no attacks had taken place. The statement was released at 6.11am on the morning of September 11th and the attacks on the two embassies happened between 2pm and 3pm on September 11th.

It is a chronological and logical impossibility for a statement to either condemn an attack or sympathize with attackers when no attack has yet happened.

The other thing is his willingness to exploit the situation. He's been stuck behind in the polls since forever and I'm guessing that after a near-zero convention bump, he feels he needs a high-risk strategy to shake things up.

If Romney's gamble works, people think Obama is an apologist for America. If it doesn't work, Romney goes down as the politician who was willing to exploit the deaths of American diplomats for party political purpose.

Franticfrank

There were no grounds for criticism of the Obama administration. This situation was beyond everybody's control - you can't prevent some nutjob releasing a controversial video unless you ban the Internet/free speech. Taking advantage of tragic events that were out of everyone's control was most definitely wrong. Statistics about the presidential election show polls are extremely close. It will be quite interesting to see the impact of Romney's comments over the next few days.

nagilum2

Franticfrank wrote: »

There were no grounds for criticism of the Obama administration. This situation was beyond everybody's control - you can't prevent some nutjob releasing a controversial video unless you ban the Internet/free speech. Taking advantage of tragic events that were out of everyone's control was most definitely wrong. Statistics about the presidential election show polls are extremely close. It will be quite interesting to see the impact of Crony's comments over the next few days.

I'm no fan of Romney, but I think he was dead right in this case. Further, the more time we have in the rear view mirror, the more valid his criticism looks - although that's just because he's gotten lucky. But really, that statement by the embassy was not walked back by the Obama administration. This was the statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

That is tantamount to an apology for the individuals "hurting the religious feelings" of Muslims. The big word there that needed to be redacted, and quickly, was the word abuse. Blasphemy is not abuse of free speech. Does including that part makes the statement essentially apologizing for free speech? I think Romney invoked a little hyperbole there, but at the very least that inclusion by the embassy was highly inappropriate. You are the representative for the US in a foreign country. You either stand up for principals of the constitution - freedom of expression first and foremost among them - or you don't.

Now in hindsight it looks like this statement was issued precisely because they had credible intelligence that tensions attacks were being planned and were trying to calm things, but doing it in the absolute wrong way. : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

Now 3 days later, we still don't have answers to the most basic questions. If there was credible evidence of a coordinated attack brewing, why were there not more preparation taken? Why weren't there more defensive measures taken in guarding the consulate given this information? Why if this information was available, were Marines apparently denied the use of live ammo in defending the consulate? http://nation.time.com/2012/09/13/whats-worse-no-marines-or-possibly-unarmed-marines/ Why were meetings not convened immediately to gain more understanding of the span of the threat and its potential risk to American citizens on travel in Islamic countries?

Perhaps some of these questions have been asked, and answered, but I haven't seen it. Somehow the media (at least in this country) is focusing on Romney's criticism of the original statement, which is absurd in the grand scheme of things.

This is beginning to look like an epic disaster by the State department. And unfortunately for Obama, the timing coincides with reports that he has recently skipped a great deal of his intelligence briefings.

Amerika

Franticfrank wrote: »

There were no grounds for criticism of the Obama administration. This situation was beyond everybody's control -

I don’t know about that. First, from the beginning of the reports on the attack on the Libyan embassy, I highly doubted it was the work of protestors. Protestors don’t have missiles and rockets, and I figured it was the work of terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11 and luckily for them had the protests to serve as cover. Seems I might have been right, and if the following which is being reported is in fact true, then there are serious questions needed to be asked.

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

I’ve also read that the marines guarding the embassy in Cairo were not allowed to have weapons, and the embassy in Libya did not even have a contingent of marine guards to protect it’s sovereignty and diplomats. These appear on surface to be some troubling facts.

Also, it is reported that the Libyan media falsely reported that this obscure and crude film was being widely distributed and watched in the US. Where is the outrage over this, if true, as it was little more than a means to stir up false hatred against the US?

I believe the US media response to Romney’s statement was utterly insane, and was merely using him to run cover for the inadequacies of the Obama administration, and for those countries who cannot quell the violence, which will ultimately make the president look bad in the lead up to the election.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve also read that the marines guarding the embassy in Cairo were not allowed to have weapons, and the embassy in Libya did not even have a contingent of marine guards to protect it’s sovereignty and diplomats. These appear on surface to be some troubling facts.

Facts? LOL, really? And they're only 'troubling' to those who can't be bothered to search for, oh, 20 seconds.

Here, let me help you:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Straight from the USMC itself.

And the embassy in Libya wasn't attacked. It was a consulate.

Duck Soup

Never ones to stop digging when they're in a hole, the Romney campaign is now saying that all this trouble in the Middle East would never have happened on a Romney watch.

"There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation," Romney adviser Richard Williamson told the Washington Post.

So let's walk it through. Somewhere in America, some idiots make a Muslim-baiting movie trailer and put it up on the internet. This starts to inflame opinion in the Middle East. People start to gather on the streets. At this point - what? What would Romney have done that would have stopped them? Spoken in a very cross tone?

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-adviser-under-president-romney-libya-attack-never-would-have-happened.php

Memnoch

Duck Soup wrote: »

Never ones to stop digging when they're in a hole, the Romney campaign is now saying that all this trouble in the Middle East would never have happened on a Romney watch.



So let's walk it through. Somewhere in America, some idiots make a Muslim-baiting movie trailer and put it up on the internet. This starts to inflame opinion in the Middle East. People start to gather on the streets. At this point - what? What would Romney have done that would have stopped them? Spoken in a very cross tone?

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/romney-adviser-under-president-romney-libya-attack-never-would-have-happened.php

He would have bombed all the Muslims in the world back to the stone age of course, starting with Iran. There wouldn't be any of them LEFT to riot.

Romney's great rap anthem: No Muslims, No problems.

Amerika

Memnoch wrote: »

He would have bombed all the Muslims in the world back to the stone age of course, starting with Iran. There wouldn't be any of them LEFT to riot.

Romney's great rap anthem: No Muslims, No problems.

I see hypobrole is alive and well and reproducing like jackrabbits among supporters of Democrats and President Obama here at boards.ie.

nagilum2

Mjollnir wrote: »

Facts? LOL, really? And they're only 'troubling' to those who can't be bothered to search for, oh, 20 seconds.

Here, let me help you:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo

Straight from the USMC itself.

And the embassy in Libya wasn't attacked. It was a consulate.

If it's straight from the USMC itself, why are you quoting an unreliable source (motherjones). Time magazine, a comparatively trusted source, originally reported the Marines not being allowed live ammunition. UPDATE - Time magazine has now stated that reports Marines were not allowed live ammo were incorrect, so there's no need to quote a source like motherjones.

What is clear, however, is despite seemingly advance warnings, there was inadequate security at foreign consulates when advance warning did exist on the potential for attacks, at a time when Obama has been skipping intelligence briefings: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/is-it-okay-for-president-obama-to-skip-some-daily-intelligence-briefings-share-your-thoughts/2012/09/11/4474e59c-fc26-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

Thiessen quotes the report as saying that through mid-June 2012, the president “attended his PDB [presidential daily brief] just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast,” Thiessen writes, Obama’s predecessor (and Thiessen’s former boss, it should be noted) “almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.”

Of course the broader question that really needs to be asked, is why American forces were allocated to assist in Libya, and why the administration got behind the forces desiring to remove Mubarak. Both those decisions now look terrible in hindsight. This administration clearly did not learn the lessons from the Bush administration - that you cannot force democracy on anyone, and that the power that rushes to fill a vacuum is often worse than that which was deposed in the first place.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

You don't understand the concept of free speech so let me sumarise it for you.

You are free to produce whatever pile of offensive/classless trash you want to produce.

The rest of us are also FREE to point out that what you've produced IS offensive AND classless.

Considering the fact that American citizens are being attacked and killed because of this film, I don't see a problem with making it clear that this film DOES not represent the view of the US of A and that the majority of SANE americans would see it as an act of bigotry and hate. Of course, it looks like the Obama administration never endorsed the statement from the embassy so it looks like Romney fired his blanks too early again.

I think you're on the wrong tack.

You are, of course, completely correct that the right to speech does not mean that one is immune to the rights of others to tell you you're a complete idiot, dick, or whatever else. However, I don't think it's up to the government in its official capacity to express its approval or disapproval of how its citizens chooses to exercise the rights that the government provides. The government's role is to guarantee the exercise of that right.

When the various ambassadors from muslim countries attempted to seek an audience with the Danish Prime Minister once the cartoon thing came up, the Danish government said 'no', with a short letter of explanation: "The freedom of expression has a wide scope and the Danish government has no means of influencing the press. However, Danish legislation prohibits acts or expressions of blasphemous or discriminatory nature. The offended party may bring such acts or expressions to court, and it is for the courts to decide in individual cases" (The legal system subsequently concluded that no laws were broken)

That would probably be the correct official position for the US Government to take. "One of the things which comes with the freedom that you Libyans fought for last year is the freedom to say what you like." No more, no less.

Be it the actions of a minority or not, Islam has a serious PR problem. Penn's interview last year is a case in point.
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2010/jun/24/celebrity-issue/

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

I see hypobrole is alive and well and reproducing like jackrabbits among supporters of Democrats and President Obama here at boards.ie.

Actually it was satire.

joseph brand

Memnoch wrote: »

He would have bombed all the Muslims in the world back to the stone age of course, starting with Iran. There wouldn't be any of them LEFT to riot.

Romney's great rap anthem: No Muslims, No problems.

Don't be so silly.

Romney would have issued 'protective mormon underpants'. :pac:

Seriously though. Romney would incite more anti-US hatred in the Middle East, than Obama. These attacks weren't a result of Obama's foreign policy. They're not even political, they're religious. Resulting from an ignorant film, which was made with the sole purpose of angering muslims. Like poking a bee-hive with a stick.

The latest on the mystery producer of the film.

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

If it's straight from the USMC itself, why are you quoting an unreliable source (motherjones). Time magazine, a comparatively trusted source, originally reported the Marines not being allowed live ammunition. UPDATE - Time magazine has now stated that reports Marines were not allowed live ammo were incorrect, so there's no need to quote a source like motherjones.

A. No, it's not 'unreliable'
B. If you could have been bother to actually read the link I posted you would have seen this:



From: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:55 PM
To: Cross, Alex Maj OLA, LA-41B
Subject: Marines in Libya and Egypt


Ladies and Gentlemen-

The following information is provided regarding Marine involvement in the recent actions in Egypt and Libya:

Egypt:
-The Ambassador did not impose restrictions on weapons or weapons status on the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group (MCESG) detachment. The MCESG Marines in Cairo were allowed to have live ammunition in their weapons. The Ambassador and Regional Security Officer have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. Reports of Marines not being able to have their weapons loaded per direction from the Ambassador are not accurate.
- The Marine Corps does not establish Rules of Engagement (ROE). Nonetheless, ROE is classified and release of that information would jeopardize the Marines and U.S. interests. Any further inquiry should be directed to the State Department, since Marine security guards report to the ambassador not to a military commander.
-As reported in open sources, approximately 2000 personnel were protesting outside the U.S. Embassy and six individuals entered Embassy grounds. The Marines quickly took control of these six individuals and subsequently turned them over to local security officials.
-There were no Marines injured in this, or other actions in Cairo.
-There are no Marine dependents in Cairo.

Libya:
-Contrary to open source reporting, there are no Marines currently stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli, or the Consulate in Benghazi.
-There were no Marines killed in the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi.

Yemen:
-The American Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen has a MCESG reinforced with a Marine security force. Due to operational security, we are not at liberty to provide additional details at this time.

Marine Corps Embassy Security Guards (MCESG):
Embassy security in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi fall under the Regional Security Officer with the State Department. The U.S. maintains over 285 diplomatic facilities worldwide. MCESG provides 152 security detachments provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States. Perimeter security is the responsibility of the host nation police/security forces. AMEMB Tripoli does not have a MCESG detachment. Typically, when a new embassy is established, it takes time to grow a new MCESG detachment. In coordination with the State Department, there was discussion about establishing a detachment in Tripoli sometime in the next five years. Overall, the plan is to grow the number of MCESG detachments worldwide to 173. The size of a MCESG detachment depends on the size of the Embassy and the security situation on the ground. They normally range anywhere from 5-20+ Marines in size. MCESG can, and have, provided security at Consulates as well as Embassies. For example, Marines guard the US Consulate in Hong Kong and, in the past, have guarded the US Consulate in addition to the Embassy in Haiti. The decision as to which consulates receive this augmented security lies with the State Department. State identifies its requirements and DOD/Marines work to provide it. A U.S. Ambassador serving in an unstable region can/will normally have a security detail provided by the State Departments Diplomatic Security Corps. State has agents specially trained to provide personal security details (similar to the Secret Service). Stephanie Hoostal at the State Liaison Office (B-330) can be reached at 6-4542 if you have questions specific to the State Dept.

Fleet Anti-Terrorism Support Team (FAST):
A FAST platoon deployed to Libya yesterday (12 Sep 12) to provide security for the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Established in 1987, FAST platoons provide a limited-duration, expeditionary security force to protect vital naval and national assets. FAST companies maintain forward-deployed platoons at various naval commands around the globe and possess U.S.-based alert forces capable of rapidly responding to unforeseen contingencies worldwide. FAST is not designed to provide a permanent security force for installations. FAST platoons are primarily designed to conduct defensive combat operations, military security operations, and rear area security operations in response to approved requests in support of geographic combatant and fleet commanders. When deployed to reinforce embassies with existing MCESG detachments, FAST platoons will customarily provide an outer cordon of security inside the embassy compound, while MCESG Marines maintain security of the chancery proper, and host nation police/security forces provide an outer cordon of security beyond embassy grounds.

NOTE: Although a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) has traditionally been forward deployed to the Mediterranean (2.5 MEU forward deployment-1 x east coast MEU to the Med, 1 x west coast MEU to the Pacific, and the 31st MEU forward based out of Okinawa, Japan), there is currently no MEU presence in the Mediterranean. The Marine Corps currently maintains a 1.5 MEU presence forward deployed. We currently have the 24th MEU from the east coast deployed to the Persian Gulf, a west coast MEU is conducting work-ups for deployment, and the 31st MEU is operating from Okinawa.

Please see the attachments for more information on FAST or MCESG. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your Marine Corps Liaison Office in RHOB-B324.

Respectfully,
Alex Cross, Maj USMC
Deputy Director, Marine Liaison Office
U.S. House of Representatives
B-324 Rayburn

Amerika

Although I don't like the way Romney is being treated by the media right now, it is nothing compared to what Obama is currently going through in international matters. I am certainly no fan of the President, but with misguided unrest erupting against the US, and some allies, all over the middle east and Muslim world, I hope and pray for Barack Obama’s help and guidance in dealing with the foreign governments to cool the growing anger.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Although I don't like the way Romney is being treated by the media right now, it is nothing compared to what Obama is currently going through in international matters. I am certainly no fan of the President, but with misguided unrest erupting against the US, and some allies, all over the middle east and Muslim world, I hope and pray for Barack Obama’s help and guidance in dealing with the foreign governments to cool the growing anger.

The best thing the Republicans could do right now is shut up. The warmongering muttering is alive and well, Obama will be forced to launch a few more drone strikes to take out 'terrorists', some children will die, and the bad guys will have another propaganda goldmine on their hands. Dead children, American murderers. You don't see how this could turn out?

Now the Obama administration has shown scant regard for international law, due process, or the rules of war so far, so I don't expect there to be much to cheer about in the coming days. Lots of dead people. Maybe a terrorist or two caught almost by accident in a drone strike. Lots of dead civilians. Long live the great American Republic.

who_me

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are, of course, completely correct that the right to speech does not mean that one is immune to the rights of others to tell you you're a complete idiot, dick, or whatever else. However, I don't think it's up to the government in its official capacity to express its approval or disapproval of how its citizens chooses to exercise the rights that the government provides. The government's role is to guarantee the exercise of that right.

That's not really true though, is it. There is no absolute freedom of speech; never has been and never will be.

In various countries (including the US), you can be sued and/or arrested for what you say - racism, incitement to violence, slander etc. Add this case to that list. I wouldn't expect the government to come out to defend the speaker's rights in those situations.

As for where do you draw the line between what you can and can't say... life's too short to start that argument.

Denerick

who_me wrote: »

That's not really true though, is it. There is no absolute freedom of speech; never has been and never will be.

In various countries (including the US), you can be sued and/or arrested for what you say - racism, incitement to violence, slander etc. Add this case to that list. I wouldn't expect the government to come out to defend the speaker's rights in those situations.

As for where do you draw the line between what you can and can't say... life's too short to start that argument.

There is a difference between libel, incitment, and free speech.

In most western democracies, you are free to criticise the political system, politicians, and culture. (Unfortunately religion often comes in for special treatment)

You are not really allowed to insult on a personal basis, make allegations without proof (Such as corruption, infidelity, etc.) Similarily you're not really allowed to call for the mass murder of Jews, Blacks, Muslims, gays, whatever.

I think its a pretty reasonable compromise between liberty and safety.

Memnoch

Are the GOP utterly thick? Paul Ryan lambasting Obama's foreign policy for 'lacking moral clarity.'

Maybe I'm not getting it, but the GOP's position on Obama's foreign policy is that he hasn't been bullish enough? I really don't get what kind of fictional universe they are living on?

These insane protests are an absolute tragedy. I hope the GOP and their supporters can see things for what they are and learn that there is a value to diplomacy. It doesn't matter if you have the strongest military in the world, you still need diplomacy and you need to value it.

This thread started out with the question of the GOP accusing Obama for apologising for the film, which he didn't do. They weren't even happy with the Cairo embassy saying that the film didn't represent the views of Americans (it doesn't does it?).

What planet are these guys living on?

Memnoch

Amerika wrote: »

Although I don't like the way Romney is being treated by the media right now, it is nothing compared to what Obama is currently going through in international matters. I am certainly no fan of the President, but with misguided unrest erupting against the US, and some allies, all over the middle east and Muslim world, I hope and pray for Barack Obama’s help and guidance in dealing with the foreign governments to cool the growing anger.

I don't know about Obama's guidance. But I think a cool head and DIPLOMACY are what's needed. The GOP forcing him into a corner into taking an unnecessarily bullish stand due to the November election is certainly not going to be helpful. They need to put the partisanship aside and show that America's government is united both in its defense of free speech (including the kind that is critical of inflammatory and offensive material) as well as the condemnation of violence.

nagilum2

Memnoch wrote: »

Are the GOP utterly thick? Paul Ryan lambasting Obama's foreign policy for 'lacking moral clarity.'

Maybe I'm not getting it, but the GOP's position on Obama's foreign policy is that he hasn't been bullish enough? I really don't get what kind of fictional universe they are living on?

These insane protests are an absolute tragedy. I hope the GOP and their supporters can see things for what they are and learn that there is a value to diplomacy. It doesn't matter if you have the strongest military in the world, you still need diplomacy and you need to value it.

This thread started out with the question of the GOP accusing Obama for apologising for the film, which he didn't do. They weren't even happy with the Cairo embassy saying that the film didn't represent the views of Americans (it doesn't does it?).

What planet are these guys living on?

What is germane is that the embassy apologized for a film produced by a private citizen, with no government support. No embassy should ever be apologizing for an American exercising their freedom of speech. Doing so only lends credibility to the thought that there may be some action that may be legally taken against the person who submitted the video. That needed to be countermanded quickly, and it wasn't.

As a side note, I can't believe at this stage that anyone can still believe this obscure video is really what is at the root of these protests.

Mr.Micro

Amerika wrote: »

Although I don't like the way Romney is being treated by the media right now, it is nothing compared to what Obama is currently going through in international matters. I am certainly no fan of the President, but with misguided unrest erupting against the US, and some allies, all over the middle east and Muslim world, I hope and pray for Barack Obama’s help and guidance in dealing with the foreign governments to cool the growing anger.

Such ingratitude from the Muslims in Egypt and Libya? It comes as a big surprise to the US yet again how unpopular it is for its meddling in the middle east, coming in the forms of murder and violence, using a film as the catalyst. What would Romney do? invade like a crusade?

Memnoch

nagilum2 wrote: »

What is germane is that the embassy apologized for a film produced by a private citizen, with no government support. No embassy should ever be apologizing for an American exercising their freedom of speech. Doing so only lends credibility to the thought that there may be some action that may be legally taken against the person who submitted the video. That needed to be countermanded quickly, and it wasn't.

As a side note, I can't believe at this stage that anyone can still believe this obscure video is really what is at the root of these protests.

The embassy did not appologise for the video. The embassy sought to correct a MISPERCEPTION that was being used by extremists to fuel tensions among people who didn't know better that the film represented the views of America or the west somehow (which it doesn't.) Quit using the word apology, it's dishonest.

The video is just the spark. What's at the route is America bullying people in the middle east, invading countries, bombing people with impunity and protecting Israel from facing sanctions for warcrimes.

nagilum2

Memnoch wrote: »

protecting Israel from facing sanctions for warcrimes.

Yes, clearly their recent behaviour demonstrates that if only Israel would just give back the land and move, the middle east would magically transport their civilization forward nine centuries in time and everyone would all get on like a house on fire, right? :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

nagilum2 wrote: »

Yes, clearly their recent behaviour demonstrates that if only Israel would just give back the land and move, the middle east would magically transport their civilization forward nine centuries in time and everyone would all get on like a house on fire, right? :rolleyes:

It might be a start at least, to return the lands to the Palestinians, to put one wrong to rights and set the precedent for the future. Nothing as bad as hypocrisy when it comes to laying the laws down to other nations.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

Yes, clearly their recent behaviour demonstrates that if only Israel would just give back the land and move, the middle east would magically transport their civilization forward nine centuries in time and everyone would all get on like a house on fire, right? :rolleyes:

When I read this kind of stuff I can't help but wonder about the future of humanity. You do realise that the revolution that crumbled an authoritarian dictatorship in Egypt was led, organised and succesfully carried out by a bunch of western orientated young adults with modern communications systems who would by any standard be considered 'progressive'. The Islamists took a back seat throughout the whole affair.

This reactionary, knee jerk hatred that has seeped through over the last couple of days is reminiscent of the anti semitism that was so in vogue in the run up to the second world war. The level of ignorance and raw hatred for a billion people never ceases to amaze. Every generation has its demons I suppose.

Dirk Gently

the whole situation is very depressing. People on both sides calling for blood in the name of their peace loving magic invisible friend. Nutter christians and nutter muslims spouting ignorance and hate. We're still living in the dark ages while religion controls so many idiots.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

When I read this kind of stuff I can't help but wonder about the future of humanity. You do realise that the revolution that crumbled an authoritarian dictatorship in Egypt was led, organised and succesfully carried out by a bunch of western orientated young adults with modern communications systems who would by any standard be considered 'progressive'. The Islamists took a back seat throughout the whole affair.

This reactionary, knee jerk hatred that has seeped through over the last couple of days is reminiscent of the anti semitism that was so in vogue in the run up to the second world war. The level of ignorance and raw hatred for a billion people never ceases to amaze. Every generation has its demons I suppose.

What I realize is that regardless of who anyone thinks led the overthrow of Mubarak (and I don't accept on face value that the Islamists took a backseat), that is irrelevant now. Sadly, the many people who predicted the Muslim Brotherhood would ultimately take control of the country have been proved right, and the man who is now the president of Egypt - the most populous Islamic country west of India, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And what we also know is that the Muslim Brotherhood's creed says:

"Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations." Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."

And we know that there are currently massive numbers of rioting Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere that are behaving in a manner entirely consistent with this creed.

This is the reality on the ground, right now. Please show us any series of facts during the antisemitism of the 1930's and earlier that is even remotely similar to the this. Yours is such a ridiculously specious comparison, it beggars belief.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

What I realize is that regardless of who anyone thinks led the overthrow of Mubarak (and I don't accept on face value that the Islamists took a backseat), that is irrelevant now. Sadly, the many people who predicted the Muslim Brotherhood would ultimately take control of the country have been proved right, and the man who is now the president of Egypt - the most populous Islamic country west of India, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And what we also know is that the Muslim Brotherhood's creed says:


And we know that there are currently massive numbers of rioting Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere that are behaving in a manner entirely consistent with this creed.

Ah, so its no muslims you're scared of, its merely their politicians? The Muslim Brotherhood wouldn't be my choice were I Egyptian and had I the vote, but if they wanted to create an Islamic state with full blown Sharia law they've been pretty bad at it seeing as this doesn't look likely anytime soon. Similarily in Tunisia, which has an Islamist government, the political scene is more reminiscent of western Europe than Saudi Arabia. I think you're going out of your way to scare yourself.

This is the reality on the ground, right now. Please show us any series of facts during the antisemitism of the 1930's and earlier that is even remotely similar to the this. Yours is such a ridiculously specious comparison, it beggars belief.

Its the raw hatred, the ignorance, the common belief that one billion muslims are somehow homogenous and alike and are working in concert. (Just like many anti semities attributed quasi magical powers to the 12 million or so Jews in the 1930s) Not saying it'll all end in death camps a la Nazi Germany or anything, but the level of moral panic is reaching critical proportions.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

You mean this Tunisia? http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-protests-tunisia-school-idUKBRE88D18020120914



Sounds like a fine place. Let's book a holiday!

Yeah, I know what you mean:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2011/aug/09/at-home-with-the-london-riots?INTCMP=SRCH

I sure as hell am never setting foot in that place. Sounds crazy. Loads of mad people running around smashing things up. Lets never go to London. Or Belfast. Or Dublin. Or Paris. Or Amsterdam. Or Northern Spain. Or Los Angeles.

Or.Any.Other.Frigging.Western.Country.That.Has.Had.Riots.In.The.Past.20.Years.

Sorry for literally spelling it out to you like that. But you're reading and interpreting exactly what you want to read an interpret. The real world is much more complex than that. Note that Tunisian police tackled the rampagers. Just like western police in the aforementioned cities and regions tackled the rampagers. Get some perspective, please.

nagilum2

No need to apologize, and I get your point, but I also think this is a bit of a straw man.

Surely we can all agree that militant Muslims whipped into a frenzy and driven to violence by religious clerics is fundamentally different from gang violence?

I don't *want* to interpret anything. I am simply observing the facts. According to wikipedia, there are at present 52 majority Muslim countries in the world containing about 650 million people. Those countries are disproportionately involved in the world's conflicts. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

What to do about it, I don't know. But what is clear to me is that the Obama administration has not learned the right lessons from the Bush administration. Namely, that any interference in their internal affairs will only blow back to America, and that you simply cannot try to superimpose democracy on a society that is so fundamentally intolerant of opposing viewpoints, and expect a better society to emerge.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

First I can only respond to messages from posters who are not hidden to me.

What in gods name are you talking about?

Now, answer me this... Why is it okay for Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, to reject the Cairo Embassy’s statement, but not okay for Mitt Romney to do the same? It has been reported that Clinton rejected the initial Cairo Embassy statement on the developing violence in Egypt and Libya as weak and inappropriate… but they issued it anyway. Yet Romney is the only one to become the focus of media anger and hate for it?

Because Mitt didn't just reject the statement. He accused the administration of apologising for free speech, no such apology was issued. You do realise it's more than just the media that are angry at Romney don't you? Everyone I have talked to about it was blown away by how ill timed it was and I don't hang around with many registered Dems.

And why did the White House disavow the statement from their own appointees at the Cairo embassy?

Sorry, but it all proves to me that it was little more than an apology and deserved of criticism.

It was not an apology. The above is proof of nothing. You or I can easily read the entire text of the statement verbatim. It does not contain an apology for free speech as you contend.

It matters not who disavowed it or stood behind it, the statement was written in plain English for all to see. Romney foolishly saw an opportunity and went for it. He made a mistake.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

Surely we can all agree that militant Muslims whipped into a frenzy and driven to violence by religious clerics is fundamentally different from gang violence?

The only difference is that the gang leaders are secular and the clerics are Islamic. Which I think is the core of the issue. People just don't like muslims. We've always had a hatred of the other, which in the 1930s and 40s led to the horrors of the death camps. It in inherent in human societies to hate what is different.

I don't *want* to interpret anything. I am simply observing the facts. According to wikipedia, there are at present 52 majority Muslim countries in the world containing about 650 million people. Those countries are disproportionately involved in the world's conflicts. Do you really think that is a coincidence?

You'll note that the US has military bases across the world and is presently engaged in two seperate wars in Islamic countries. It also regularly launches drone strikes on Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, among others, which it is not technically at war with. Again, interpreting what you want to interpret. Some African countries have Islamic/Christian splits that are neatly territorial - only the most obtuse would conclude that the fault always lies with the Islamic entities in question. Furthermore, Russia regularly launches pogroms on muslims in the caucasus (We barely hear about it any more because it so common), and Burma has a Muslim minority that could potentially be expelled from the nation, despite having been there for centuries and the violence is being perpetrated by the Buddhist majority.

And all this without even going into the contentious Israel/Palestine issue.

But no, make sure you only interpret what you want to interpret. Convince yourself the world isn't complex, it gives nice easy answers to difficult questions.

What to do about it, I don't know. But what is clear to me is that the Obama administration has not learned the right lessons from the Bush administration. Namely, that any interference in their internal affairs will only blow back to America, and that you simply cannot try to superimpose democracy on a society that is so fundamentally intolerant of opposing viewpoints, and expect a better society to emerge.

'Superimpose democracy'. Good lord. So American marines lost their lives to bring democracy to certain select nations that very few of them would have been able to locate on a map beforehand. It takes a special kind of optimism to conclude that American Imperial ambitions are well intentioned.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

The only difference is that the gang leaders are secular and the clerics are Islamic. Which I think is the core of the issue. People just don't like muslims. We've always had a hatred of the other, which in the 1930s and 40s led to the horrors of the death camps. It in inherent in human societies to hate what is different.

Isn't it interesting, that this same "hatred of the other" doesn't seem to transfer as readily to Hindus or Buddhism. I wonder if it's because I can't recall the last time mass murder was committed in the name of those religions.

You'll note that the US has military bases across the world and is presently engaged in two seperate wars in Islamic countries. It also regularly launches drone strikes on Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, among others, which it is not technically at war with. Again, interpreting what you want to interpret. Some African countries have Islamic/Christian splits that are neatly territorial - only the most obtuse would conclude that the fault always lies with the Islamic entities in question. Furthermore, Russia regularly launches pogroms on muslims in the caucasus (We barely hear about it any more because it so common), and Burma has a Muslim minority that could potentially be expelled from the nation, despite having been there for centuries and the violence is being perpetrated by the Buddhist majority.

And all this without even going into the contentious Israel/Palestine issue.

But no, make sure you only interpret what you want to interpret. Convince yourself the world isn't complex, it gives nice easy answers to difficult questions.

Nice soliloquy that doesn't answer the question.

'Superimpose democracy'. Good lord. So American marines lost their lives to bring democracy to certain select nations that very few of them would have been able to locate on a map beforehand. It takes a special kind of optimism to conclude that American Imperial ambitions are well intentioned.

When did I ever say anything about American intentions? Way to divert away from the subject.

I'll tell you what it takes a special kind of optimism to conclude. It takes a special kind of optimism to conclude that a history of such fundamental intolerance and barbarism will magically evaporate if only people can elect their leaders. Is that what YOU believe? Really?

Without tolerance, "democracy" simply becomes mob rule. I don't know about you, but I can think of a few other mobs I'd rather rule than the Islamists.

I think it is you who are interpreting what you want to interpret, rather than looking at facts objectively.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

Isn't it interesting, that this same "hatred of the other" doesn't seem to transfer as readily to Hindus or Buddhism. I wonder if it's because I can't recall the last time mass murder was committed in the name of those religions.

A similar hatred of the other was faced by jews for centuries. Jews didn't start wars or mass murders because they were a permanant minority in every country they ever lived in since the second exodus. I don't see your argument as particularly persuasive.

Nice soliloquy that doesn't answer the question.

Whatever.

When did I ever say anything about American intentions? Way to divert away from the subject.

I'll tell you what it takes a special kind of optimism to conclude. It takes a special kind of optimism to conclude that a history of such fundamental intolerance and barbarism will magically evaporate if only people can elect their leaders. Is that what YOU believe? Really?

Without tolerance, "democracy" simply becomes mob rule. I don't know about you, but I can think of a few other mobs I'd rather rule than the Islamists.

I think it is you who are interpreting what you want to interpret, rather than looking at facts objectively.

The 'facts' that you have established are the following:

*That 'Muslims' are to be treated as a broad generalisation and that they aren't to be trusted with 'western' ideas like democracy or liberty.

*That 'Muslims' (Again, a broad generality) are inherently violent.

*That Islamism automatically equates religious fundamentalist government (In the two most succesful Islamic democracies - Turkey & Indonesia - this has turned out to be quite false). Tunisia and Egypt, whilst ruled by Islamists, are more concerned with wealth creation and economic issues because this is what the electorate is more concerned by.

I think you've a deep lack of understanding of the Islamic world, its heritage, its culture, and its present political position.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

A similar hatred of the other was faced by jews for centuries. Jews didn't start wars or mass murders because they were a permanant minority in every country they ever lived in since the second exodus. I don't see your argument as particularly persuasive.



Whatever.



The 'facts' that you have established are the following:

*That 'Muslims' are to be treated as a broad generalisation and that they aren't to be trusted with 'western' ideas like democracy or liberty.

*That 'Muslims' (Again, a broad generality) are inherently violent.

*That Islamism automatically equates religious fundamentalist government (In the two most succesful Islamic democracies - Turkey & Indonesia - this has turned out to be quite false). Tunisia and Egypt, whilst ruled by Islamists, are more concerned with wealth creation and economic issues because this is what the electorate is more concerned by.

I think you've a deep lack of understanding of the Islamic world, its heritage, its culture, and its present political position.

Your post history is interesting. You seem to have been warned by the mods previously for throwing out the antisemitism straw man, just as you have done here, yet again. The two are totally unrelated and under normal circumstances I'd borrow your phrase, "When I read this kind of stuff I can't help but wonder about the future of humanity."

Except now I'm relieved, because it's clear that this is just your modus operandi.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

Your post history is interesting. You seem to have been warned by the mods previously for throwing out the antisemitism straw man, just as you have done here, yet again. The two are totally unrelated and under normal circumstances I'd borrow your phrase, "When I read this kind of stuff I can't help but wonder about the future of humanity."

Except now I'm relieved, because it's clear that this is just your modus operandi.

Is this obfuscation? Answer the questions put before you. Or at least don't respond, because a response like the above is worse than no response at all. The incident you speak of is years old.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

Is this obfuscation? Answer the questions put before you. Or at least don't respond, because a response like the above is worse than no response at all. The incident you speak of is years old.

What questions? In your last 3 posts, you have not asked a question - you have made only made statements.

You also responded to my question of what you believe by not answering it. Rather, you attempted to restate and summarize my position in hyperbolic terms, setting up a strawman to attack.

It feel as though you want to criticize me for making generalizations, while making statements yourself such as:

People just don't like muslims.

Denerick

nagilum2 wrote: »

What questions? In your last 3 posts, you have not asked a question - you have made only made statements.

You also responded to my question of what you believe by not answering it. Rather, you attempted to restate and summarize my position in hyperbolic terms, setting up a strawman to attack.

It feel as though you want to criticize me for making generalizations, while making statements yourself such as:

Ok then. We'll have a discussion when you feel more up to it.

Atlantis50

Funny how Obama is the one actually losing support in national polls conducted since Wednesday, not Romney who is actually gaining support.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

Ok then. We'll have a discussion when you feel more up to it.

Happy to whenever you're ready to stop using sweeping generalizations yourself whilst simultaneously accusing others of doing the same by arguing against points they never actually made.

nagilum2

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Funny how Obama is the one actually losing support in national polls conducted since Wednesday, not Romney who is actually gaining support.

It is interesting, although it could (probably does) have less to do with Romney's statement, and more to do with people coming to the realization that Obama's foreign policy decisions played a direct role in the governments for both Libya and Egypt by devoting US military power to help overthrow Gaddafi, and turning their backs on Mubarkek.

I'll also be interested to see more than just the one poll. The coming few days should confirm whether there is really a trend there.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Don't be so silly.

Romney would have issued 'protective mormon underpants'. :pac:

Seriously though. Romney would incite more anti-US hatred in the Middle East, than Obama. These attacks weren't a result of Obama's foreign policy. They're not even political, they're religious. Resulting from an ignorant film, which was made with the sole purpose of angering muslims. Like poking a bee-hive with a stick.

The latest on the mystery producer of the film.

Hold on, were you advocating on the Atheist forum that people should draw Mohammad in an act of freedom of expression and speech. Now you are one step away from condemning this film as its unnecessarily trying to piss off a group of Muslims. You cant have it both ways.

jank

Denerick wrote: »

The best thing the Republicans could do right now is shut up. The warmongering muttering is alive and well, Obama will be forced to launch a few more drone strikes to take out 'terrorists', some children will die, and the bad guys will have another propaganda goldmine on their hands. Dead children, American murderers. You don't see how this could turn out?

Now the Obama administration has shown scant regard for international law, due process, or the rules of war so far, so I don't expect there to be much to cheer about in the coming days. Lots of dead people. Maybe a terrorist or two caught almost by accident in a drone strike. Lots of dead civilians. Long live the great American Republic.

Well that is one way to look at it, however was there any declaration of war on 9/11? Would you rather live under the American republic or sharia law?

Denerick

jank wrote: »

Would you rather live under the American republic or sharia law?

Would you rather have eggs for breakfast or cow ****?

My question is just as sensible and logical as yours.

nagilum2

Denerick wrote: »

Would you rather have eggs for breakfast or cow ****?

My question is just as sensible and logical as yours.

Is this obfuscation? Answer the questions put before you. Or at least don't respond, because a response like the above is worse than no response at all.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Well that is one way to look at it, however was there any declaration of war on 9/11? Would you rather live under the American republic or sharia law?

I didn't realise it was an either or situation? I also don't see the relevance of this question so please elaborate.

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

Your post history is interesting. You seem to have been warned by the mods previously for throwing out the antisemitism straw man, just as you have done here, yet again. The two are totally unrelated and under normal circumstances I'd borrow your phrase, "When I read this kind of stuff I can't help but wonder about the future of humanity."

Except now I'm relieved, because it's clear that this is just your modus operandi.

What 'antisemitism'?

nagilum2

Mjollnir wrote: »

What 'antisemitism'?

Read Denerick's past posts on this thread

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

Read Denerick's past posts on this thread

I did. There is none.

Perhaps people might refrain from trying to use words that they don't understand.

nagilum2

Mjollnir wrote: »

nagilum2 wrote: »

Read Denerick's past posts on this thread

I did. There is none.

Perhaps people might refrain from trying to use words that they don't understand.

What do you think you're looking for??

I wasn't accusing him of being antisemitic, I was accusing him of making a ridiculous comparison between the current situation and the antisemitism of the 1930's.