[Malaclypse]

*Is so deliriously happy to be across the ocean from bible-banging crazyland*

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

amphibian, on 14 September 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

Honestly, the conservatives I've seen are less nice to each other than the liberal people amongst themselves that I've seen. I think there's a rock bottom of snootiness buried in American political conservativeness and it isn't pleasant to deal with in social situations for anyone.

But we're getting off topic here.

I am 95% sure that the videos that provided the "spark" for the riots were fake and that the imams and community leaders who whipped up the riots knew it was such, but went ahead and did it anyways. There was a case in Pakistan recently where an imam tried to get the community all pissed off at a girl with Down's Syndrome because she "burned pages of a Qu'ran while making a fire from scrap paper." It turned out that she gathered paper alright, but the imam planted scraps of a Qu'ran he burnt himself into the remnants of the fire and then got on his soapbox.

These are the kind of tactics that are being used to hurt and to defame the good people out there that are trying to effect positive change (not limited to Americans, Libyans or really any nationality).

At least sort of. It seems the actors who took part had no idea the film was about Islam and that all the references to Islam, Muhammed, etc, were dubbed in by the producer later on.

http://gawker.com/59...was-about-islam

This post has been edited by Gwynn ap Nudd: 14 September 2012 - 02:10 AM

[Terez]

Now some right-wing publications are saying that the ambassador was raped before he was killed, and there are some pretty rough pictures going around. I think I'll stay out of that territory for now... But Maddow did a good segment on it tonight:

http://www.msnbc.msn...15908/#49027233

[amphibian]

Terez, on 14 September 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

Now some right-wing publications are saying that the ambassador was raped before he was killed, and there are some pretty rough pictures going around. I think I'll stay out of that territory for now... But Maddow did a good segment on it tonight:

http://www.msnbc.msn...15908/#49027233

There is a very weird "tradition" of mutilating the person being lynched or already lynched. We don't see it often here in the US (but it does happen, particularly in LGBTQ hate crimes), but it happens all the time in the Middle East.

I'm being very serious here when I say that I believe that this was pre-meditated. There were attacks by IED and guns elsewhere on the embassy personnel of other nations and storming the embassy, fighting the way through 12+ resisting Libyans and American guards and killing the ambassador is something that reeks of a planned operation that was perhaps moved up to take advantage of the situation. The people who planned this probably immediately went elsewhere to hide and may not be caught or killed.

However, I hear that there are arrests being made by the Libyan government/police and that is a good thing to hear.

[Terez]

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that it was premeditated. What's not incredibly obvious is whether the protests were related. Some sources say there weren't any protests in Libya at all.

[amphibian]

Terez, on 14 September 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that it was premeditated. What's not incredibly obvious is whether the protests were related. Some sources say there weren't any protests in Libya at all.

This is a good summary of what's happening and where.

http://www.longwarjo...cting_the_p.php

It doesn't get much into the "why", but little hints here and there show that there was some sort of widely coordinated plan for demonstrations and protests that was in place - perhaps intended for another time, but accelerated for this one. Ugh.

[EmperorMagus]

amphibian, on 14 September 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Terez, on 14 September 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious at this point that it was premeditated. What's not incredibly obvious is whether the protests were related. Some sources say there weren't any protests in Libya at all.

This is a good summary of what's happening and where.

http://www.longwarjo...cting_the_p.php

It doesn't get much into the "why", but little hints here and there show that there was some sort of widely coordinated plan for demonstrations and protests that was in place - perhaps intended for another time, but accelerated for this one. Ugh.

Thank you , useful link.
I don't know about elsewhere but in Iran , the protests were completely fake and government engineered.
What I'm now wondering about is what are the purpose of these protests and attack , And who is behind the whole thing ...

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 14 September 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Thank you , useful link.
I don't know about elsewhere but in Iran , the protests were completely fake and government engineered.
What I'm now wondering about is what are the purpose of these protests and attack , And who is behind the whole thing ...

You're Iranian? I'm a huge fan of Iranian wrestlers. Reza Yazdani was the best wrestler in the world at 96 kg over the past year (deeeeeep division too) and it was such a heartbreaker to see the injured knee finally give way in the Olympic semi-finals of a division he was poised to win. Best single legs in the world right now too.

Ok, getting back on topic, I'm fully aware that there are legitimate reasons for many people around the world to protest the American interventionism/colonialism. I have a B.A. in Middle Eastern History. I'm aware of the depths of the screwovers - however, the Russians, the British and the Turks were far, far worse and for longer periods of time, so I'm curious as to why the Americans continually get the heat nowadays. It's like the Russian/Ossetian/Chechnyans etc. etc. just don't register on the radar screens of these protesters.

[Terez]

From a relatively ignorant perspective, I figured the answer to that was simple enough: after the British Empire wound down, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, there are only two real superpowers left—the US and China (a developing superpower)—and only one of those two has been incredibly interventionist in the Muslim world in the last few decades—the lives of many of these protesters. The European Union was an attempt to balance that, but 1) Europeans generally do not tend toward interventionism like the US does, 2) US financial bungling infected the eurozone and helped to weaken the Union. (Convenient, that.) In that sense, the US is the head of the beast.

On top of that, the US has a self-projected image of cultural superiority, and a tendency to completely ignore what is going on in the rest of the world, up to and including what our military is doing in the Muslim world (and many other developing regions). We think of it as spreading freedom and democracy to the ends of the earth, and extremists like al Qaeda and its many children use our freedom and democracy against us, because democracy implies a certain level of civilian responsibility, and freedom leads to things like this stupid movie being allowed. Of course, these are the ideas that trickle down from the leadership; from what I've seen the understanding on the ground in protests like these is much narrower than it is near the top, and much more influenced by the image of Americans as being self-centered Muslim-haters, and the last has plenty of evidence since the ignorant Muslim-hating contingent in the US continually grows more powerful. And from what I have read, Iranians in particular (average Iranians) tend to reject that kind of thinking for the most part (hence protests being staged by the thugs who are running things, not incredibly different from some of our thugs really).

In other words, history is important, but for those who don't really study history, what's happening in your daily life is much more important. In that sense, it doesn't matter that others were worse historically; it only matters that the US is today's oppressor. The history was just the beginning.

[amphibian]

Terez, on 14 September 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

From a relatively ignorant perspective, I figured the answer to that was simple enough: after the British Empire wound down,

Before the British Empire was even conceived of, outside people were messing around politically in the Middle East. The Persian Empires were always the incomplete welding of tribal and ethnic groups, fueled by the massive grain crops and kept alive by a very erudite professional bureaucrat/aristocratic class. Long after Alexander swept through, the Great Powers before World War I, in the interregnum before World War II and after World War II were screwing things up left and right. There is no single nation to blame, but the Russian need for seaports and oil down south has ever been a constant source of worry for the Middle Eastern tribal/ethnic groups. That above all is the primary fear of the Middle Eastern nations - Russia coming to squash them into subjugation.

Quote

and after the fall of the Soviet Union, there are only two real superpowers left—the US and China (a developing superpower)—and only one of those two has been incredibly interventionist in the Muslim world in the last few decades—the lives of many of these protesters. The European Union was an attempt to balance that, but 1) Europeans generally do not tend toward interventionism like the US does, 2) US financial bungling infected the eurozone and helped to weaken the Union. (Convenient, that.) In that sense, the US is the head of the beast.

Great Britain was the worst of the meddlers in the Middle East post World War I (in terms of actions taken and results gotten). Their actions have directly led to the madness in Israel/Palestine/Jordan/Syria. Before that it was Germany who brought up the rear. The US didn't get involved in the Middle East proper until trade was threatened (the Barbary pirates in the early 1800s) and their actions were limited in scope. They didn't have the power, military or economic, to compete with the big boys in that region for the trade routes. In the 1920s, the Iranians and Saudis discovered oil. The US sent a pair of brothers to talk to the Iranians and they offered an extremely fair deal to develop the oil extraction process, which the Iranians accepted. Everything went downhill from then on - and the middle class in nearly every nation thereabouts has been fleeing over time. Education for the masses has dropped to abysmal levels - except for most of Iran (which is why Iran as a nation is kind of way ahead of everybody else in the region, despite a terribad government).

The Muslim world doesn't give that much of a crap about the Euro-zone unless they live there (a la France and the Parisian riots).

Quote

On top of that, the US has a self-projected image of cultural superiority, and a tendency to completely ignore what is going on in the rest of the world, up to and including what our military is doing in the Muslim world (and many other developing regions). We think of it as spreading freedom and democracy to the ends of the earth, and extremists like al Qaeda and its many children use our freedom and democracy against us, because democracy implies a certain level of civilian responsibility, and freedom leads to things like this stupid movie being allowed. Of course, these are the ideas that trickle down from the leadership; from what I've seen the understanding on the ground in protests like these is much narrower than it is near the top, and much more influenced by the image of Americans as being self-centered Muslim-haters, and the last has plenty of evidence since the ignorant Muslim-hating contingent in the US continually grows more powerful.

There's a lot of conjecture here and I can't say any of it is really wrong. Keep in mind that the education levels are terrible in most of these regions and the extremists (with a small sub-set of terrorists) are out there in force, delivering food, rudimentary health care, "education" in the form of religious indoctrination and more. Most people just pass through unaffected and get what they need without being a detriment to the world. However, the young, vulnerable and dissatisfied are often sucked into a world of madness and violence that is "religiously okayed" by people who have no real idea of anything other than anger and hate. The usual middle class people that help ameliorate this and drive the group as a whole someplace better have already emigrated or are emigrating. There is a gigantic gap in the middle of the society of many Middle Eastern nations.

Quote

In other words, history is important, but for those who don't really study history, what's happening in your daily life is much more important. In that sense, it doesn't matter that others were worse historically; it only matters that the US is today's oppressor. The history was just the beginning.

Ultimately, yes, the US is seen as the oppressor. They have resoundingly lost the public relations battle almost everywhere in the Maghreb and Middle East. And the evil people manipulate that to their own advantage (on all sides, not just the Middle Easterners).

The future for US envoys is very dangerous and I'm kind of having a tough time believing that Ambassador Stevens and the others weren't evacuated or protected more. Nobody can predict every black swan event, but there were many warning signs here.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 15 September 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

Terez, on 14 September 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

From a relatively ignorant perspective, I figured the answer to that was simple enough: after the British Empire wound down,

Before the British Empire was even conceived of, outside people were messing around politically in the Middle East.

Yes, but my point was, that's ancient history now and ultimately less important than what's going on right now, and what has happened in the lifetimes of our protesters. World dynamics change, often drastically.

amphibian, on 15 September 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

The Persian Empires were always the incomplete welding of tribal and ethnic groups, fueled by the massive grain crops and kept alive by a very erudite professional bureaucrat/aristocratic class. Long after Alexander swept through, the Great Powers before World War I, in the interregnum before World War II and after World War II were screwing things up left and right. There is no single nation to blame, but the Russian need for seaports and oil down south has ever been a constant source of worry for the Middle Eastern tribal/ethnic groups. That above all is the primary fear of the Middle Eastern nations - Russia coming to squash them into subjugation.

Perhaps Russia remains the primary fear, but doesn't US interventionism play a role in that?

amphibian, on 15 September 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

The Muslim world doesn't give that much of a crap about the Euro-zone unless they live there (a la France and the Parisian riots).

I wasn't really trying to imply that the Muslim world cared about the EU. In fact, I was trying to say that they were nearly irrelevant from the get-go because of the net European approach to military spending and interventionism in recent decades. But not quite irrelevant because, as you say, Muslim immigration plays a big role in Europe. It just doesn't usually extend to support for US interventionism, and lines were drawn particularly during the Iraq war that made a significant distinction between the general West and the US.

amphibian, on 15 September 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

Quote

In other words, history is important, but for those who don't really study history, what's happening in your daily life is much more important. In that sense, it doesn't matter that others were worse historically; it only matters that the US is today's oppressor. The history was just the beginning.

Ultimately, yes, the US is seen as the oppressor. They have resoundingly lost the public relations battle almost everywhere in the Maghreb and Middle East. And the evil people manipulate that to their own advantage (on all sides, not just the Middle Easterners).

The future for US envoys is very dangerous and I'm kind of having a tough time believing that Ambassador Stevens and the others weren't evacuated or protected more. Nobody can predict every black swan event, but there were many warning signs here.

I'm glad you brought that up because I have been bothered by some of the responses today from the Obama administration. Benghazi is in the eastern part of Libya, closer to Derna, the hotbed of Libyan jihadists, and Stevens had been reporting on Derna for some time. The embassy is in Tripoli, the capital, on the western coast, but Stevens was on the eastern coast on 9/11 when there was a general (and public) call for anniversary operations from Al Qaeda, and specifically a call for revenge for the drone assassination of Abu Yahya Al-Libi, at the time Al Qaeda #2, and a Libyan. Why was Stevens even there in the first place? And why is the administration still reporting that the attacks on the Libyan consulate were driven by the video when the evidence suggests the two are not really related at all? I think it's easy for leaders to make mistakes like this in an election cycle, but Obama (unlike Romney) is actually the president, and his mistakes might be of more concern. And I hate that it's before the election and the reporting on this will no doubt continue to fall into the usual left-right dichotomies, and I hate especially that the (truly) liberal media won't hold the administration accountable for fear that people will then jump to the conclusion that Romney would somehow be better.

http://thehill.com/h...-libyan-assault

The Hill said:

Republican lawmakers have said the attack on the Libyan consulate, which took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, looked more like a coordinated effort by militants. But [White House Press Secretary Jay] Carney on Friday said there was no evidence it was a planned terrorist assassination. He said it appeared that, like the embassy storming in Cairo, Egypt, the attack was sparked by a trailer circulating on the Internet for a supposed anti-Islam film.

“We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack,” Carney said. “The unrest we’ve seen across the region was in response to a video ... not in response to a 9/11 anniversary, that we know of.”

This post has been edited by Terez: 15 September 2012 - 04:41 AM

[EmperorMagus]

amphibian, on 14 September 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 14 September 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Thank you , useful link.
I don't know about elsewhere but in Iran , the protests were completely fake and government engineered.
What I'm now wondering about is what are the purpose of these protests and attack , And who is behind the whole thing ...

You're Iranian? I'm a huge fan of Iranian wrestlers. Reza Yazdani was the best wrestler in the world at 96 kg over the past year (deeeeeep division too) and it was such a heartbreaker to see the injured knee finally give way in the Olympic semi-finals of a division he was poised to win. Best single legs in the world right now too.

Ok, getting back on topic, I'm fully aware that there are legitimate reasons for many people around the world to protest the American interventionism/colonialism. I have a B.A. in Middle Eastern History. I'm aware of the depths of the screwovers - however, the Russians, the British and the Turks were far, far worse and for longer periods of time, so I'm curious as to why the Americans continually get the heat nowadays. It's like the Russian/Ossetian/Chechnyans etc. etc. just don't register on the radar screens of these protesters.

Imagine a Muslim country with a lot of oil and other national reserves. The people believe they are as good as any in the world, and they are Muslims so the god is protecting them too. When they notice that their country is slightly behind infidel countries in science,economy,education and etc . People will start speaking and protesting against government . In this situation every new or old government will look for something to distract the protesters ,In most Arabic/Islamic countries protesting , the government is either "new and unstable" or "old and unstable" So the governments just hopped on a chance to distract the people .

Current Iranian government was doing this before it came to power , So after they had the country they blamed every single thing on either the U.S or U.K . Iraq attacks ? oil price drops ? drug usage increase ? all U.S . you get the picture.

[Gnaw]

Terez, on 14 September 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

.

amphibian, on 15 September 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

Quote

In other words, history is important, but for those who don't really study history, what's happening in your daily life is much more important. In that sense, it doesn't matter that others were worse historically; it only matters that the US is today's oppressor. The history was just the beginning.

Ultimately, yes, the US is seen as the oppressor. They have resoundingly lost the public relations battle almost everywhere in the Maghreb and Middle East. And the evil people manipulate that to their own advantage (on all sides, not just the Middle Easterners).

The future for US envoys is very dangerous and I'm kind of having a tough time believing that Ambassador Stevens and the others weren't evacuated or protected more. Nobody can predict every black swan event, but there were many warning signs here.

I'm glad you brought that up because I have been bothered by some of the responses today from the Obama administration. Benghazi is in the eastern part of Libya, closer to Derna, the hotbed of Libyan jihadists, and Stevens had been reporting on Derna for some time. The embassy is in Tripoli, the capital, on the western coast, but Stevens was on the eastern coast on 9/11 when there was a general (and public) call for anniversary operations from Al Qaeda, and specifically a call for revenge for the drone assassination of Abu Yahya Al-Libi, at the time Al Qaeda #2, and a Libyan. Why was Stevens even there in the first place? And why is the administration still reporting that the attacks on the Libyan consulate were driven by the video when the evidence suggests the two are not really related at all? I think it's easy for leaders to make mistakes like this in an election cycle, but Obama (unlike Romney) is actually the president, and his mistakes might be of more concern. And I hate that it's before the election and the reporting on this will no doubt continue to fall into the usual left-right dichotomies, and I hate especially that the (truly) liberal media won't hold the administration accountable for fear that people will then jump to the conclusion that Romney would somehow be better.

http://thehill.com/h...-libyan-assault

The Hill said:

Republican lawmakers have said the attack on the Libyan consulate, which took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, looked more like a coordinated effort by militants. But [White House Press Secretary Jay] Carney on Friday said there was no evidence it was a planned terrorist assassination. He said it appeared that, like the embassy storming in Cairo, Egypt, the attack was sparked by a trailer circulating on the Internet for a supposed anti-Islam film.

"We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack," Carney said. "The unrest we've seen across the region was in response to a video ... not in response to a 9/11 anniversary, that we know of."

I think the "why was he there" is going to turn out to be very important since we're 6 weeks out from the election. Right or wrong, this event is going to be politicized domestically. And I don't see how the administration can spin it away. Facts are few at the moment so spin is all we're going to get for the next couple of days.
From what we know of Stevens (extremely competent, big balls, knew many of the players), could he have been there in an attempt to forestall an event he could see coming? A "quiet, semi-official" presence would explain why he had so little security; you don't take a squad of Marines if you are trying to be unobtrusive.
Edit: According to the NYT, he was there to open a cultural center and he was known to favor low/no security.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 15 September 2012 - 06:27 PM

[Terez]

It's interesting how the headlines on this continue to play out. Most western news organizations are focusing on the protests over the movie trailer—even Al Jazeera is playing down the Benghazi attack somewhat—and if you search for 'libya al qaeda' you get western publications saying that Al Qaeda 'praised' the Benghazi attack and encouraged more attacks on embassies and the like. From non-western news you get headlines about how Al Qaeda claims the Benghazi attack was revenge for the death of Abu Yahya (though they don't claim responsibility for the attack, exactly). It's like the only people in the US who are really talking about the Benghazi attack are the right-wingnuts, and they're hardly a good source for accurate information. But they appear to be right just on that particular detail. (The mix of other crap is, of course, unfortunate.)

[amphibian]

The "video" that started some of this was made by a couple of anti-Islamic Egyptian Coptic Christians and a crazy anti-Islamic American preacher.

http://www.csmonitor...ti-Islamic-film

[worry]

A little humor on Newsweek's horrific, godawful "Muslim Rage" issue/cover/twitter stunt: http://www.salon.com...s_muslim_humor/

[King Lear]

worrywort, on 17 September 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

A little humor on Newsweek's horrific, godawful "Muslim Rage" issue/cover/twitter stunt: http://www.salon.com...s_muslim_humor/

and the Muslim rage hashtag is good too

https://twitter.com/...arch/muslimrage

[Gnaw]

worrywort, on 17 September 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

A little humor on Newsweek's horrific, godawful "Muslim Rage" issue/cover/twitter stunt: http://www.salon.com...s_muslim_humor/

King Lear, on 18 September 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

worrywort, on 17 September 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

A little humor on Newsweek's horrific, godawful "Muslim Rage" issue/cover/twitter stunt: http://www.salon.com...s_muslim_humor/

and the Muslim rage hashtag is good too

https://twitter.com/...arch/muslimrage

Bouncing Budha on a pogostick. Really? It's been awhile since I've paid any attention to Newsweek; when did they go tabloid??
At least I saw the humor post before I saw the cover.

https://mobile.twitt...995074074529792
"And the winner of the #MuslimRage contest is: RT @LSal92: Lost your kid Jihad at the airport. Can't yell for him.#MuslimRage"

[Brujah]

Horrible for all parties and countries involved.

As an American, I feel bad for the dead, but I also think our govt should stay out of foreign countries. It's a huge lose- lose situation for everyone involved.

I hope the world knows that not all Americans are as retarded as our govt.

[Obdigore]

And apparently the French (or some of them) feel that drawing who they want how they want is a right.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

I'm interested in seeing if the French Embassies get attacked as well.