rickyp wrote:Big dogs get the attention so they become a focal point for anyone with a beef against US policy or in this case ... an elaborate insult created in the US. (The video) But it will pass.

If it was not literally life and death, I would laugh at your (and the Administration's) insistence that it's the video.

What a coincidence that it kicked off on 9/11!

How amazing that a crowd spontaneously gathered in Benghazi late in the evening complete with RPG's and other armament! Why it is a straight copy of the OWS movement!

How wild is it that it took 6 months for this video to "spontaneously" spark a firestorm!

It's positively prophetic what Senator Barack Obama said almost a year before being elected President about how his inauguration would smooth our relations with the Muslim world. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2 ... -Will-Ease

And, it's good to know that the President had his finger on the pulse of the situation. He was so confident that he flew off to a Vegas fundraiser. Good for him! It's not like he could have done anything to prevent any of this. After all, it was spontaneous:

Three days before the deadly assault on the United States consulate in Libya, a local security official says he met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.
Jamal Mabrouk, a member of the February 17th Brigade, told CNN that he and a battalion commander had a meeting about the economy and security.
He said they told the diplomats that the security situation wasn't good for international business.
"The situation is frightening, it scares us," Mabrouk said they told the U.S. officials. He did not say how they responded.
Inside the U.S. consulate in Benghazi Slain ambassador returns Possible security leak in Libya
Mabrouk said it was not the first time he has warned foreigners about the worsening security situation in the face of the growing presence of armed jihadist groups in the Benghazi area.

There is no reason to think it was planned:

Libya President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf said Sunday that 50 arrests have been made in connection with last week's "preplanned" attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

"The way these perpetrators acted and moved -- I think we, and they're choosing the specific date for this so-called demonstration, I think we have no, this leaves us with no doubt that this was pre-planned, determined," Magariaf said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"And you believe that this was the work of Al Qaeda, and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that what you’re telling us?" CBS host Bob Schieffer asked.

"It was planned, definitely. It was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago. And they were planning this criminal act since their arrival," Magariaf said.

Why, just looking at this map is a great reminder of the wisdom and insight of the Great Healer.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... l?hp=l3_b4

georgeatkins

No world-wide demands for bringing those thugs to justice, no imams haranguing true believers to seek them out and kill them. Why not

?

Harron Siddiqui reported in the Toronto Star today that every conceivable mainstream Muslim group has forcefully and repeatedly condemned violence by fellow Muslim.
A quick google provided this
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.ca/ ... lling.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_ ... ns_attacks

I think your statement is just wrong. Perhaps the condemnations are getting little to no coverage on Fox news or other American media?
If you get a chance to watch coverage on Al Jazeera, I think its available on digital cable? You'd see a lot of coverage of the moderate muslims... Perhaps the American media doesn't bother trying to cover this because the handful of rioting is more colortful? More interesting?
But is it reflecting true balance? True persepctive?
More Libyans demonstrated in sympathy with the death of the 4 Americans then demonstrated before the terrorists showed up. Did that get a lot of coverage.? Has the death of the Libyans who reacted to the terrorism been reported? Not much/....

Right now Chinese nationals are close to rioting in front of the Japanese embassey in bejing... Is that getting a lot of coverage?

Yes, I think there's perspective missing... And rationality.
Parochial American reactions to the violence and the demonstrations that ignore the history of American intervention in Muslim countries, and support for decades of dictators, are emotional. In the same way the radical muslims use the emotion of victimhood to ratchett up the violence.
If muslims think that they are targeted as somehow evil by the majority of Americans, they can always point to all kinds of bizarre behaviours that offer clear evidence of this... Something like 28 states have passed anti-sharia law legislation. As if the imposition of sharia law was an actual threat in a functioning democracy with less than 2% of the population being Muslim...
Sure radical fundamentalist mullahs are in the mosques spewing hatred... But aren't there Pamela Gellers and others spewing the same hatred in the US? And isn't the film that created the demonstrations a product of the American hate machine?
When Americans ask, why can't the Middle eastern countries clamp down on the demonstrations and the radical preaching?
Can't Muslims ask why can't the US govenrments end the hate that is creatd by American fanatics? And why do they persist in demonizing Islam officially? (anti-sharia laws for example)
Reasonable people, behaving reasonably don't make a lot of news. When you ask reasonable Muslims to condemn the violence, and ignore the fact that they pretty much all have.... can they also ask similar questions about the lack of moderation in American since 9/11?
Try and stand in the shoes of a Muslim in Libya or Cairo .... And not one of the few thousand marching in front of the Embassey, but one of the millions going about there eveery day life....

Ricky, your impassioned post isn't without a grain of truth, more than a grain in fact - there are few absolutes in this matter - but I don't think you've hit the nail on the head. Muslims engage in excessive political/religious violence not just against the USA but against many other parties, not to mention the fraternal sunni-shi'a violence. Do various Muslims have grievances against Hindus, Israel, Germany, England, Spain, Christian Nigerians, Danes, et cetera? Certainly. The world is full of grievances in all directions. Why do suicide bombings and attacks on innocents seem to cluster on the fringes of the Muslim world?

Yes, we're talking about a minority of Muslims. You make very good points about all the nice Muslims who protest against violence. Why can they not prevail? Or at least start to? You'd like, it seems, for there to be no differences among cultures that could possibly affect something like the propensity to group violence. Unfortunately, there's nothing other than such wishes to suggest it might be so. Poverty is an element of culture, as is the treatment of women, as is the treatment of inter-gender relations among the unmarried, as are attitudes toward education, as is religion. Islam has many peculiarities and one of them is the matter of grievances. Muhammad suffered (as he saw it) insults, setbacks, rejections, and resistance. So did Jesus. So did the patriarchs of the Old Testament. They didn't all react the same way. Religions, like cultures, do differ. It's a hard fact but one that can't be denied.

Another peculiarity of Islam is the absolutism of the reverence for the prophet. In no other religion is a figure held in comparable esteem. In no other is a figure's total perfection in all ways and all things made so foundational an element of doctrine. As a result, in no other religion are (a minority of) adherents so likely to feel personally assaulted and abused when a figure is mocked.

You talk about Muslims at least figuratively "point[ing] to all kinds of bizarre behaviours that offer clear evidence of" a majority of Americans considering Islam evil, and of Americans demonizing Islam. You, of course, are sensitive to that and see more of it than there is, but sure, there's more than a little. Americans aren't made of wood. Fly some planes into our buildings and chop our heads off and we get kinda' pissy. Prior to 9/11 we didn't demonize Islam very much at all, and yet we were subjected to attack. Denmark wasn't terribly anti-Islam when the cartoons spurred violence.

I don't think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't entirely reject your POV and I hope Americans will try to read your screed in a spirit of open-mindedness and a willingness to be self-critical, but I don't think you've hit the nail on the head. In short, correcting the ills of the Arab world will require a lot more than a change in American attitudes or behaviors. America (and Israel) could vanish from the earth tonight and excessive political-religious violence will still plague the Arab world and interfere with their progress. They need to change attitudes and behaviors; the minority of bad guys especially, but the majority as well.

rickyp wrote:Something like 28 states have passed anti-sharia law legislation.

I googled "anti-sharia law" and did a bit of research. It seems that "over two dozen" states have considered such laws but only two (as best I can tell - Tennessee and Kansas) have passed them. In one or two cases courts have overturned a law. What does it take to "consider" a law? It takes one stupid state rep to offer a bill in committee - then it could be said that the entire state has "considered" the proposed law.

You cite the anti-sharia laws essentially to blame the USA for getting hysterical about a non-existent threat. Pot... kettle? Just a little?

Criticize the two states. (They are states that also try again and again to get creationism taught in public schools.) Criticize the states that consider anti-shari'a. Fine. But exaggerating the degree of US demonization of Islam really doesn't help things. Not one bit. It's what rabble-rousers on the Arab street do.

Purple, I appreciate the attitude. I also want to correct any misperception that I don't think that the fundamental Islamic sects aren't a problem.
They are. But they are more of a problem for the countries where they exist then for the US.
Some of what you say about religion I think is worth challenging.

Another peculiarity of Islam is the absolutism of the reverence for the prophet. In no other religion is a figure held in comparable esteem

really? The Pope, for centuries. Christ, for fundamental Christians in particular.
we can always review the history of crimes done in Christs name, I suppose, starting with the Crusades...

Religion has often, perhaps one can say usually, been used by elites to manage the extraction of power and wealth from the masses... It was a partner with the feudal lords for centuries in Europe ... (And the use of Christianity in this way started with Theodossseus and his father in Rome)
Democracy, creating ever more inclusive societies challenges a lot of the controls that some elite religionists would like to establish. If there is a "clash of cultures" going on ...it is the clash between the inclusiveness of a modern democratic society and the controlling aspect of the fundamental muslims. Their mullahs see democracy as a threat to their power, prestige and wealth. And it probably is.... But they aren't all the mullahs....
And Islam, like other religions, is dependent on popular support of adherents. If the vicious mullahs start to lose appeal, their mosques empty....
More inclusive societies, that evolve as educational levels improve, as a middle class grows, tend to eschew the narrow parochial vision of the world and as a result are less easily manipulated .
The reasonable reaction that most of the Muslim world displayed to the terrorism in Libya, is evidence that even with just an initial whifff of freedom and democracy, a temperate society can grow.
The problem in looking at this with persepective, is that there seems to be little sense of history. Or the time it takes to establish the institutions of democracy that produce an ever inclusive society.
I think that the one thing to most clearly hang onto is that the violence, though aimed at the US, is really about the US. Even 9/11 New York wasn't. The US is simply a symbol through which the fanatical are trying to establish and keep their own power in their own world... And their world is constantly under seige from the ideas, and cultures of inclusive societies that offer far more to the people then the comparably constant misery that many of the severe religionists offer.
It took centuries for religion to lose its grip in Europe. It'll take less time in the Middle East because of the miracles of modern communication. But it will happen.
Its just important to not over react to the events like the Libyan terrorism. At the same time, this doesn't give the terrorists license, nor the nascent govenrments license to ignore the terrorism. So far, I think they are getting that lesson. (Though Morsi seems to either want or have to throw his fundamentalists more of a bone, by visiting Somalia... But he isn't yet a truly free man, as the military has much control.)

purple

Criticize the states that consider anti-shari'a. Fine. But exaggerating the degree of US demonization of Islam really doesn't help things. Not one bit. It's what rabble-rousers on the Arab street do

.

Fair point. I missed the "considered" in the news I took that from. But consider this... if laws are being considered ....and Arab media gets hold of that fact .... do you think they follow up as you have done? DO you think they boterh to report, "a couple of idiots in the Arkansas State legislature..."
When a loon like Michelle BAchman is given a national stage with her Muslim conspiracies, and the media doesn't bury her nonsense with appeals to fact, context and reality ....then there is a real problem.
The media, much of it anyway, in the Middle East is as culpable as much of the the media in the West at not producing a complete picture of the issues.
Someone recently said, its like news cameras taking close ups of demonstrations. They look vicious, and represent an enormous proble. Until and unless the cameras pull back and show the "mob" in the context of the space . And often then, the context makes the "mob" less significant....)

really? The Pope, for centuries. Christ, for fundamental Christians in particular.
we can always review the history of crimes done in Christs name, I suppose, starting with the Crusades...

That's a little different. The Pope was always a very political figure and while technically the notion of Papal infallibility existed, in practice most Popes weren't really treated with special reverence by ordinary Christians. Christ again is a different case. He's generally regarded as being an aspect of the divine rather than as a mortal man, which doesn't apply to Mohammed. Don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-Christian as the next committed atheist, but I do think there's a difference.

But anyway, the Crusades happened 1000 years ago. There haven't really been any serious religiously inspired wars in the Christian world since the Enlightenment. It's a fact that the only major faith which currently serves as a significant cause of strife and conflict in the world is Islam. It may not be especially polite to point this out, but it isn't very helpful to ignore it either.

Now allow me to put forward an alternate view and idea. The main problem here is a failure in the Arab-Muslim (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the wider Muslim) world to appreciate the meaning and value of freedom of expression. Too many think that if an idea is broadcast it must represent the official "line" of the authority/power that could have, with enough use of that authority/power, prevented the broadcast. This gets really nasty in this day and age when "broadcast" can mean use of a $200 camera to make an HD movie and free posting via YouTube or the like.

Attribution of private opinion to public authority is one issue. Another is the matter of honor, shame, insults, humiliation, and modes of redress. In much of the Arab-Muslim world attitudes in this regard differ enormously from attitudes in advanced Western nations. "...But words can never hurt me" is a mantra that has cogency in Kansas but not so much in Khartoum. I feel that Ricky would like to see Westerners become more sensitive to Islamic sensibilities and sensitivities. I think he's saying that if only we would accept their dislike of ridicule more, we'd do less of it and things would improve.

To hell with that. It won't work. Not only is it unreasonable to expect every single westerner to act with as much sensitivity as it would take to make this work (because it takes only one a-hole to make an insulting cartoon), it ignores the fact that free expression of all ideas, with minimal regard for the feelings of others, is the ideal toward which the world has been steadily moving for centuries. It's the Arabs and Muslims who must lose their thin skin, not we who must resist pinching them.

And thus my alternative: instead of being restrained and polite, we should all of us go out of our way to broadcast words and ideas insulting to Islam and to the prophet. By flooding the thin-skinned with irritants we will eventually make them numb to insult.

It's a hypothesis. It's dangerous, and not necessarily offered with the hope to be taken at face value. It's offered so as to set up a questioning of paradigms.

I tend to agree. Not that we should actively seek to insult Islam of course, but that the problem is their thin skin and not our freedom of expression. It's easy to lose sight of that simple truth, and we should strive to remember it.

Sassenach wrote:I tend to agree. Not that we should actively seek to insult Islam of course, but that the problem is their thin skin and not our freedom of expression. It's easy to lose sight of that simple truth, and we should strive to remember it.

I wish I could do photoshop. I think these are pretty good though. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/16/na ... -the-best/

That's the guy who did nothing illegal (produced the allegedly offensive movie trailer) or wrong being brought in for "voluntary questioning."

I think there's something askew.

Well, we don't know whether this was something he was forced to do or what they're questioning him about. Probably he asked for police protection and they said he'd have to turn himself in before they could provide it. I'm assuming he won't face any criminal charges, your constitution is pretty clear. If he had the misfortune to be a British citizen right now he'd probably be facing charges for 'incitement to religious hatred'.

But let's try not to make him out as some kind of hero shall we ? The guy is a pathetic bigot. We can endorse his right to an opinion without associating ourselves too closely with the opinion itself.

Sassenach wrote:Well, we don't know whether this was something he was forced to do or what they're questioning him about. Probably he asked for police protection and they said he'd have to turn himself in before they could provide it. I'm assuming he won't face any criminal charges, your constitution is pretty clear. If he had the misfortune to be a British citizen right now he'd probably be facing charges for 'incitement to religious hatred'.

Which is insane. I'm sorry, but there is something desperately wrong with putting someone in jail for daring to criticize a religion, any religion. That's something we should be a few hundred years removed from.

But let's try not to make him out as some kind of hero shall we ? The guy is a pathetic bigot. We can endorse his right to an opinion without associating ourselves too closely with the opinion itself.

Oh, he's no hero. But, he's no more a villain than Bill Maher and the Feds aren't dragging him in.

I've never seen anything like this in my life. The Sheriff's Department doesn't run errands like this. From the LA Times:

Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies escorted a man believed to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula to an awaiting car. The man declined to answer questions on his way out and wore a hat and a scarf over his face. He kept his hands in the pockets of a winter coat.

This is blatant politics. The man is no more a criminal than Maher is. He might be as big an idiot, but he's no criminal. Yet, they go to his house at midnight?

Why?

Because if the film (I understand it's a trailer for a never-made movie) is THE cause of the unrest, Obama is off the hook for the death of the ambassador, the rioting across the Islamic world, and the loss of secret info (I understand, for example, a list of cooperative Libyans was removed from the Consulate--think that might be handy?).

Plus, the message to the Muslim world in unmistakable: Obama took action!

Where is the ACLU?

fate

That's the guy who did nothing illegal (produced the allegedly offensive movie trailer) or wrong being brought in for "voluntary questioning."

I think there's something askew.

AH.... the conspiracies abound!!!!
This is him arriving at a scheduled meeting with his parole officer. According to the terms of his parole he was to have nothing to do with the internet, and he may have parole revoked becasue of his recent escapade.
It was on TMZ for crying out loud.

purple

I feel that Ricky would like to see Westerners become more sensitive to Islamic sensibilities and sensitivities. I think he's saying that if only we would accept their dislike of ridicule more, we'd do less of it and things would improve.

Well, I feel that going out of one's way to provoke anyone is ill advised. You might get a response you don't like.
What I'd like is for less tolerance of intolerance and ignorance all around. There's a general acceptance of some pretty ridiculous clams about some minorities in western media. Particularly in the US. If we can't control the loons here, why complain when the Arab world has trouble with a few extremists too. (Course more of there's have access to bombs. I was going to say weapons, but thats probably not true ....is it?)

But I don't thinkk as you have inferred, "

I think he's saying that if only we would accept their dislike of ridicule more, we'd do less of it and things would improve."

We need to control our reaction to their anger. And we need to realize that their anger has less to do with the West than we think.
There's no point creating cartoon images of Muslims in Rage, As newsweek is about to do, because it adds nothing to a true dialogue.
Look, there have been two out rages on th Internet. One was the stupid anti Muslim video. (Actually there are dozens of web sites with equally stupid and insulting material, the video just got press,,,)
The other was the pictures of Kate Middleton, sans bikini top . Interestingly both the royals and the govenrments of several Arab countries are taking the same response. They are suing the creators and distributors of the pictures and video.
Don't you find that interesting? recourse to the courts by suppossedly enraged Muslims? And you can bet Elizabeth is raging....
Perhaps the news of the law suit will in itself be edifying to the Arab street?
Pull back from the pictures of the demonstrations in the middle east and look how relatively small they are... and work with the moderate and growing Arab media to educate the populace on what happens in a free society. People in the Arab world, aren't after all used to freedom and expect that if something was published it had to be with government compliance. So they have to learn that sometimes freedom is abused.

Things will change. Therres no reason to drop bombs or go to war over recent events.
Mean time terrorists were arrested on the weekend in both Libya and in Chicago....

rickyp wrote:fate

That's the guy who did nothing illegal (produced the allegedly offensive movie trailer) or wrong being brought in for "voluntary questioning."

I think there's something askew.

AH.... the conspiracies abound!!!!
This is him arriving at a scheduled meeting with his parole officer. According to the terms of his parole he was to have nothing to do with the internet, and he may have parole revoked becasue of his recent escapade.
It was on TMZ for crying out loud.

It's federal probation. There is a difference.

Deputy sheriffs do not go to someone's home at midnight for possible probation violations, especially not federal beefs.

Did you even READ anything? You say he's "arriving at a scheduled meeting with his parole officer."

No, no he wasn't. It was at his HOME. It was "just after midnight."

That's not a conspiracy theory. But, thanks for exposing the inner workings of your mind.

Pretty sad.