My Photo

« Your Season of Abundance Friday open thread | Main | And gladly teach »

September 12, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2017744adf6fa970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When foreign becomes domestic, abandon all hope:

Comments

Romney is an evil, repulsive, demagogue.

the GOP has become an utter farce.

I'm not sure how Obama is going to make good on this promise: "Make no mistake, justice will be done."

Do we have any way, at all, of ever figuring out who launched that attack?

This is what Romney responded to:

"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," Romney wrote, an apparent reference to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that denounced the anti-Islam film that is the source of the protesters' anger. The embassy's statement was released before protesters stormed the American embassy in Cairo on Tuesday.

The embassy in Egypt wrote that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement continued. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

A second statement, from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said anger over the film did not justify the violence.

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Clinton wrote. "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

There is barely a day that goes by that someone doesn't denigrate Christianity in some way or another, or decry the violence that Christians have done or may threaten.

Yet the first reaction to threats by Muslims is to decry those that "offended" them. Thanks goodness Hilary finally got around to that caveat.

I wonder if pro-Ghaddafi Republicans, who believe President Obama did NOT kill Osama Bin Laden, have put these Libyan murderers, who give Obama (and, by extension, his appointed diplomatic corps) full credit for killing Osama bin Laden, up to this reprehensible action.

No, you (not you ... YOU) say?

Then why the identical celebration from murderous Islamic bloggers and murderous Republican Party bloggers regarding the political implications of these murders?

There is barely a day that goes by that someone doesn't denigrate Christianity in some way or another

this isn't about Christianity.

The Libyan murderers should be tried and punished, if not hunted down and killed.

The families of the American Ambassadors and the other three public servants murdered by these people should then pay a visit to Terry Jones, filmmaker from Fuckwad Studios and let him know that they are not going to hack him, the subhuman, c*cksucking, vermin filth motherf*cking Christian slacker right-wing piece of sh*t to pieces with a machete and then set the bits on fire because they are true Christians and the Constitution protects the free speech of bug-filth like his mother.

Unless his speech was yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Then, the mob should have their way with him.

CCDG, one presumes that the SecState has information about other protests and potential hotspots and might want to tamp these things down. Romney, on the other hand, seems to be have no compunction on that score.

What is the link between Bibi Netanyahu issuing ultimatums to Barack Obama regarding the bombing of Iran, the making of this anti-Islamic film by the Californian "filmmaker", Terry Jones' promotion of the film, and Mitt Romney's stance on this incident, all coincident with the closing moments of this Presidential campaign involving the hated incumbent, Barack Obama, which the End-Days lovers of mass death among us, including fanatical Christian conservatives, fanatical Zionists, and fanatical Muslim clerics love to frame, in common, as God's blood vengeance?

A prize to the Jeopardy category that best suits the Count's question.

"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," Romney wrote,

CCDG, how can you criticize the administration for failing to condemn events that haven't happened yet? I mean, their first "response" was issued before the attacks, so it was physically impossible for them to condemns the attacks.

Are you really criticizing Obama for failing to have a time machine?

This is what Romney responded to

you know what: fuck Romney. our people are getting killed and he is so goddamn crass and baldy ambitious that he can't let the government do its job without trying to insert himself into the process. on September 11th no less! he can't keep his fool mouth shut for 12 hours.

the guy is completely unfit.

and people defend this clown? idiotic.

their first "response" was issued before the attacks

and that wasn't even the official US Govt response. the first response, the one Romney is says was the Obama administration "apologizing" was an unofficial tweet from people inside the embassy who were trying desperately to tamp down the escalating situation outside - a response which the administration disavowed, no less.

Romney is just lying, again. and this time, he's stepped into matters he has no business stepping in.

"A prize to the Jeopardy category that best suits the Count's question."

lj, I'll take "Muanderings and Ravings from the Addled Mind of Poster Countme-In" for a thousand dollars.

With a bonus and a lightening round for noticing the misspelling of "Maunderings".

Are you really criticizing Obama for failing to have a time machine?

I think he (Obama, not CCDG) gets that a lot.

If I were the Jewish anti-Islam "filmmaker" from California, I'd be .... careful .... about welcoming support and favorable reviews from Terry Jones, not to mention Mitt Romney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZaNas6aOs

Jones' beliefs about the fate of ALL Jews is outstandingly anti-Semitic.

http://www.anti-semitism.net/jews/koran-burner-anti-jew-terry-jones-also-dislikes-gay-people-video.php

But, it all finds a coherent, welcoming home under the big tent of the Republican Party.

With a bonus and a lightening round for noticing the misspelling of "Maunderings".

In a sentence regarding a misspelling, you used "lightening" instead of "lightning." Way to go, Count. I'm never reading any more of your comments, um, anymore.

When in the sixth grade, my best friend misspelled "misspell" in the National Spelling Bee.

He was inconsolable and returned to his seat and cried like a baby for roughly five days.

I sent him a note in class the next day expressing solidarity, but which characterizing his performance as "irronnic".

"characterized"

blech!

bats away the entire English language away from his mouth and tosses his keyboard out of a nine-story window.

The so-called apology that Romney is hyperventillating about was tweeted in response to protest before the killiings happened. Before they happened. When they issue was just one of people being offended by the offensively bigoted video.

Bush made a very similar formal announcement after the incident with the desecrated Koran.

Even hacks like Halperin and Tapper as calling Romney a liar.

I do want to say, from the left side of ObWi* that the killings themselves are abhorrent and enormously self defeating. "Don't call our religion barbaric or we'll kill you". Well.

I hope this gets handled by law enforcement in each place, promptly and to the fullest extent. But it's a faint hope. I fear that more likely these extremist outrages will only help extremists on all sides, as is so often the case.

Certainly Republicans don't help by not standing behind the President and their nation. That's what Democrats would have done.

Who is Sam Bacile, director and producer of the anti-Islam film?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/is-sam-bacile-even-a-real-person-ctd.html

This contrast, in this LGM post, makes it visually clear what we are dealing with here. I'm generally a person who thinks that in politics, if things can go wrong, they will, but this Daily Kos post suggests that Mittens has screwed the pooch. One can only hope.

What I find interesting is how many derogatory nicknames and straightforward slurs and curses can be included in one thread about Romney. There is no way ONE comment like that about Obama would go unbanned. Straight out F bombs, no reaction. The front pager using Mittens. And that's ignoring the counts normal rants.

Hey, you didn't think the rules were for both sides, did you?

CCDG, perhaps you haven't picked up on this, but I try to separate what I write on the front-page and what I write in the comments. I realize it is a bit subtle, but with an outrage-o-meter that can classify 'Mittens' in a group of 'straightforward slurs and curses', I would have thought you might have been able to discern that.

And I would urge you to review all the times I have intervened in the comments and the way I have, most recently with Blackhawk7, who is not banned, in case you missed it. To claim I would ban someone on the basis of one non-spam comment is as big a fantasy as assuming that Romney has thought about foreign policy.

Tomorrow he will die. (Pause) He'll die because to name your sins, he'll have to mention . . . mittens. I leave at once for other lands, since I have mentioned . . . mittens.

From the Thirteen Clocks.

I just had to mention it.

And Brett, considering the amount of slack you've gotten, you are really the last one to be making that observation.

"There is barely a day that goes by that someone doesn't denigrate Christianity in some way or another, or decry the violence that Christians have done or may threaten.

Yet the first reaction to threats by Muslims is to decry those that "offended" them. "


I'm kinda gobsmacked that anyone could say this with a straight face considering the body count that our "Christian Nation" has racked up.

I thought Romney sent a clear message to Islamic jihadists and Christian domioninsts alike that if you want that global religious war he is definitely the guy to bring it and make a profit while doing so.

What I find interesting is how many derogatory nicknames and straightforward slurs and curses can be included in one thread about Romney.

I count 7, and one f-bomb.

But I'm including "evil", "repulsive", "demagogue", and "unfit", which are not really nicknames or curses. It remains to be seen if they qualify as "slurs" or not.

That number may need to be adjusted, depending on whether you count "evil, repulsive demagogue" as one slur, or three.

If you exclude cleek's posts, all I can find is "Mittens", which is certainly derisive and a nickname. But, it's also pretty small beer as these things go. IMVHO.

Here's my point of view:

Romney's comments were, first, false. When given the opportunity to retract, he doubled down.

More to the point, his comments were unwelcome and irresponsible. A freaking US ambassador was killed yesterday, along with three other people. The situation in Libya, and elsewhere, is extremely volatile.

The proper thing for Romney to do is acknowledge his error, preferably in the form of an apology, and then STFU until things settle down.

Romney is a guy who I have never particularly agreed with, but who I had some regard for simply due to his basic competence and his lack of interest in engaging in stupid ideological pissing matches.

These days, it seems there is no principle or position the man is not eager to throw to the curb, and no stupid bullshit teabagger talking point he is not happy to embrace with both hands, in order to become President.

We all expect a heaping helping of BS when election season rolls around, but this particular episode goes a few steps beyond mere horsecrap.

I'm tired of people pimping the dead for their political advantage. I'd like Romney to apologize and then STFU, because his remarks were false, inappropriate, and potentially extremely harmful to our national interests and to the safety of our people who are currently in harms way.

I don't expect either to happen.

I'd also like Terry Jones and Sam Bacile (known among his friends as "Im", the "I" is short) to have to spend the next few days in the company of the families of Ambassador Stevens and the other three folks killed.

Or, you know, spend the next year among the folks in Libya who are trying to get their nation up and running after a couple of generations under Qaddafi.

They won't do either. Bacile, assuming he exists, appears to have gone into hiding.

Brave Sir Robin!

Jones will continue to stir the sh*t, regardless of whose life is forfeit, because it gets his stupid ignorant bigoted hateful mutton-chopped mug on the camera.

What do you have to do to qualify as "evil" these days?

An f-bomb seems appropriate, to me. YMMV.

I think that it is unfitting of the respect that I have for the people in this thread to jump directly to f bombs, evil and demagogue. What possible world do you want to live in where people get to kill random people because a jerk made an insulting movie about their religion? Objecting to that is not evil.

The last time I used the word hypocrisy on this site it was not taken well. So, I just call bs here. You can mock the bible, burn a flag and no one on this site would blink. Insult Allah and you should be killed. Defend ones right to do that and you are evil.

And who here objetced when every Dem bashed Romney for not specifically mentioned Afghanistan, because he agrees with the current President, in his speech. Pimping the dead is bad? My a$$.

I cant imagine how vitriolic this might get if Romney actually looked like he had a chance to win.

There is no way ONE comment like that about Obama would go unbanned. Straight out F bombs, no reaction.

oh moy. what a pearl clutcha!

no no no. never before has the F Bomb been typed here!

get over yourself.

your guy is a craven crass liar.

works better if i spell better: site, not stie

You can mock the bible, burn a flag and no one on this site would blink. Insult Allah and you should be killed.

when was the last time someone was killed because someone insulted Allah on this site?

THIS IS STILL NOT ABOUT CHRISTIANITY

when will "conservatives" realize that rugged individualism is the polar opposite of permanent self-imposed victimhood?

CCDG, would you mind answering the question I asked you earlier about whether you're blaming Obama for not having a time machine?

If it will make CCDG STFU I will gladly insult Allah until the cows come home. Islam is stupid. Christianity is stupid. Theism is stupid.

Gee, not only am I not dead yet, nobody here called for me to be killed. Imagine that. Now let's all hold hands and dream of the day when Christians can finally get an even break in the Atheist States of America,

And who here objetced when every Dem bashed Romney for not specifically mentioned Afghanistan, because he agrees with the current President, in his speech.

Hey, if he's gonna live with the party of "Support the troops!" and the party that believes "commander-in-chief" is the most important part of the president's job, he can die by it, too.

Turb,

No.not really. So excuse the following rant.

I am not really all that thrilled about the initial statement from the embassy or Hilary's followup remarks(Hilarys more than the embassy's), or Romneys remark. And, as things unfold, the Libya attack seems it may have been more organized and less reactionary violence. Which, of course, wouldn't be surprising. I suspect there are some number of Libyans not thrilled with us.

It's just tiresome when a thread goes from "was this a bad idea" to evil, demagogue in two comments.

AFAICT, Romney hasn't done a single thing in his life, in business or as Governor that remotely resembles evil.

CCDG,

Calm the [bleep] down, or you will confuse people about the antecedents of your pronouns.

"YOU can mock the bible, burn a flag and no one on this site would blink. Insult Allah and YOU should be killed," you write. I can only interpret this as your idea of what some liberal ObWi commenter might say to some unspecified "you".

Well, I'm here to tell you that I am as liberal as they come, and I will mock any number of Bibles at the drop of a hat. I am absolutely in the would-not-blink category on the Bible and flag thing. But you seem to say that someone like me would ALSO espouse the you-should-be-killed line on the Allah thing. This, THIS, is what I call "BS".

If you can't grasp the notion that people like me have EQUAL contempt for Islamists AND Christianists, that's your problem.

I think there's a class of professional grievance-seekers in the "Muslim world" who make a living out of making sure their co-religionists are well-informed about Danish cartoons or Florida "pastors" or YouTube videos that they would otherwise have remained utterly untroubled by. But I see very little difference between THOSE rabble-rousers and their counterparts in "Christian" America who ALSO make a living (sometimes a lavish one) out of grievance-seeking.

If only I believed in hell, I could comfort myself with the notion that BOTH those classes of religionists (who DO claim to believe in hell) will end up there.

--TP

xp I think pretty much everything in this paragraph is actually evil.

Boston Spirit magazine has dug a bit deeper into Mitt Romney’s past interactions with LGBT people, particularly during his time as governor. Many of these stories are known: his firing of two state employees ostensibly for marrying their same-sex partners, his dissolution of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth,  his blocking of an anti-bullying guide because it contained the words “bisexual” and “transgender,” and his testimony against marriage equality to the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the state’s ban was unconstitutional

(via here

Yes, the advocacy for the murder of Allah insulters is rampant around here. Examples are easy to find. Show 'em, Marty. Let 'em have it. Fish in a barrel, right?

I'd also like to know why everyone is so upset specifically about Romney's condemnation of the murders in the US consulate in Libya. That is what everyone's been talking about here, no? It certainly isn't all about some other aspect of the situation, is it?

You're all fucking crazy. We have no business inserting ourselves into tumultuous foreign internal political environments unless there is an obvious, proveable, direct immenent threat to our country. Period.

Guess what. A lot of people are religious and take it seriously. Sorry you don't like that. yes, religious ideology causes conflict. Always has. Always will.

All of you oh so enlightened atheists are full of shit. The vast majority of the world disagrees with you and is willing to kill you over that disagreement. Get over it. That's the way it is. Until any of you are willing to go to one of these places and preach your enlightened athiestistic perspective, you are left sounding like whining little bitches.

Obama is wrong for intervening there and Romney is wrong for suggesting a different form of intervention. It's the intervention that's wrong, regardless of style, shape, form, etc.

A fucking embassy prick was killed. Again, get over it. He stuck his neck out. He knew the risks.

People in other countries don't like us and they never will because you what? We aren't so great. Learn this. Integrate this. And get over it.

People in other countries don't like us

Nah. They just don't like YOU. Get over it.

--TP

"I cant imagine how vitriolic this might get if Romney actually looked like he had a chance to win."

My imagination flags sometimes too, and when I fall short in my vitriol I take some time to refresh by visiting the Obama-hating masters at FOXNews, Rush Limbaugh, Redrum, the Joe Kernan hour every morning on CNBC, maybe a little Michelle Malkin to hone my snotty edge, and assorted other celeb types like Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, Sarah Death Palin and any number of talky radio lunkheads on the Right, and for that steely eyed we've-got-guns-and-we'll-use-em-if-we-don't-get-our-way there's nothing like a few minutes with Grover Norquist or Wayne La Pierre for that I love the smell of napalm in the morning aromatherapy lift to the spittle-flecked rhetoric.

It takes me maybe, oh, seven minutes to review all of these people for my vitriol booster shot, since its the same highly remunerative and effective, in terms of acquiring real power in America, tape played over and over again for the past 30-odd years.

One Erick Erickson tweet can keep me at the top of the vitriol game for weeks.

It might make you wonder how it is I can crack the jokes I do, given the entirely humorless bunch of sourpusses I've chosen as mentors.

It must be the leavening of Looney Tunes.

I'd suggest C-Span late at night when they run any number of elected whizbang whackjobs spewing directly into the well of the House of Representatives for how vitriol can become the common currency for all of us.

All-in-all, I'd say the audience share of everyone I've mentioned is roughly 40 million.

Really, the vitriol here at OBWI is tame and undistinquished, and I include my wordy mimicry (not that I'm not sincere, by cracky) in that assessment.

OBWI's audience share: roughly 37 folks with maybe the same number of lurkers, among whom is the diminutive johnt, commenter at Redrum, (I know you're there, johnt), who used to stop in here occasionally and sh*t the bed with incompetent smugness.

For the real item in the smugness category, I'd refer you to Tacitus, who could yawn and study his nails for imperfections while beating you senseless with a thesaurus.

After his act, one yearned for a little honest vitriol.

We're a reasoned whisper in a banshee hurricane of vitriol in the real world.

And you're surprised at a little leakage?

Ahh, our Buchananite has spoken. I guess there is enough space to the right of Sarah Palin for both blackhawk7 and CCDG to live on.

Shane, the good news is that the authorities in Libya are trying hard to get the perps. Their capability is still pretty limited, but their intentions are clear. And the people of Libya in general seem to be pretty furious at the events there. I won't be surprised if the attackers actually get hit.

In Egypt, in contrast, the government isn't looking particularly helpful. Not to mention that the MB has more protests about the film scheduled, and no interest in cancelling them.

One thing for sure: there are two very different situations here.

"I'd also like Terry Jones and Sam Bacile (known among his friends as "Im", the "I" is short) to have to spend the next few days in the company of the families of Ambassador Stevens and the other three folks killed."

Why should he?

Let us grant that his movie was in bad taste, and meant to be provocative. This distinguishes it in no way from hundreds of movies every year. Even the fact that it was intentionally offensive to a particular religion doesn't make it very unusual.

So, idiot produces a movie here, thousands of miles away moral monsters commit an atrocity. There is no reasonable, sane connection, such that Terry Jones bears any of the blame for it.

Seriously, you think they wouldn't have found some other pretext for this act, if Jones had made a movie about Mormonism, instead? You think this wasn't going down no matter what?

This is the Stockholm syndrome talking, not reason. There are people who owe something to the Ambassador's family, but Jones and Bacile are not among them.

the connection may be neither reasonable nor sane, but Jones' actions have a history of producing these outcomes.

and given that kind of history, at some point - regardless of the moral validity of the mechanism that connects you to the violence - once you start to figure out that your actions can cause violence and death on the other side of the world it behooves you to not do take those actions. or, so i would think, based on my limited knowledge of what it means to be a pastor. religion of peace, etc..

but no, Jones didn't kill anyone directly.

No, it does NOT so behoove you. It never behooves you to give madmen veto power over the actions of people in a free society. Never, ever lose sight of who is morally responsible for an evil act: The person who commits it.

Jones didn't kill anyone, PERIOD. Not directly, nor indirectly. He made a film he was entitled to make. That's all.

Even from this warped moral perspective, that legitimizes the terrorist's veto, the claim makes no sense: Multiple embassies across the Middle East were attacked in a coordinated fashion on the 11th anniversary of 9-11, and you think this really had anything to do with that film? Rather than the film being a post hoc rationalization? You think they wouldn't have found something else to yell about?

Short of embracing utter dhimmitude, there is nothing we can do to make these loons happy. They're mad that we dare to not be Muslims, and not be ashamed of not being Muslims. All we can do is go on with our lives as though they didn't exist, and whenever they do something evil because we dare to not obey them, hunt them down like dogs.

In the end, you you really want to teach the religions of the world that being willing to commit murder pays off? Don't live for the momentary comfort of paying off the madmen. He who pays the Danegeld is never free of the Dane.

if i discover that my actions lead to people's death, and i purposefully continue those actions, i am not going to sleep well at night.

obviously, i am not a "conservative".

Defend ones right to do that and you are evil.

??????

Who is defending the folks who killed Stevens?

I must have missed something.

Why should he?

It might give him a tangible understanding of the downstream consequences of his actions.

Sometimes people learn from stuff like that. Not always, just sometimes.

Na ga ha pen in any case, so no worries.

There is no reasonable, sane connection, such that Terry Jones bears any of the blame for it.

I'm not a conservative or a libertarian. The idea that I own some responsibility for the outcomes that flow from my words or actions, even when I am only indirectly involved, is not foreign to me.

Especially when they are easily predictable.

*Especially* when they have created precisely the same outcome on earlier occasions.

Liberty incurs responsibility, otherwise it is merely license. Suitable for adolescents, not adults.

The apparent failure of current-day conservatives and libertarians to recognize that simple reality is reason number 1 why I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be either a political conservative, or a libertarian.

Never.

cleek, "obviously, i am not a "conservative"."

Obviously you are pathetically addled. Where does one even begin to address the confused nature of your thinking? Person A offends person B. So person B kills person C (who is unrelated to person A) and you find this (person B's behavior) to be a logical response and you think person A is responsible for the whole thing.

I challenge you. Find me law any where in this world that supports your theory. I'm not just talking about industrialized nations, I'm talking about even the most backwards islamic countries.

I do not understand this desire to appease insane murders. It's simply bizarre.

"The idea that I own some responsibility for the outcomes that flow from my words or actions, even when I am only indirectly involved, is not foreign to me."

That is ridiculous and impossible as an absolute. You cannot possibly even know what the ramifications of your actions are.

And even if you are aware I'm sure that you can very easily distance yourself from unreasonable connections to consequences. You simply cannot be responsible for everything that everyone you meet does based on what you said (or didn't say) or do (or didn't do).

Any how, what you are advocating sounds like battered wife syndrome. The wife gets to where she feels like she deserved the beating because she overcooked the husbands steak.

If you were take a look at Islamic law you would see that it does not support killing an embassador because of something Jones did. It might support the issuing of a fatwa against Jones himself, but that is all.

The only thing every single religion seems to have in common is a dark and sinister side that is completelyl antithetical to its purported mission. It's always been that way. Why is that?

It never behooves you to give madmen veto power over the actions of people in a free society.

As an aside, everyone think about this in the context of abortion law and gay marriage and see if it leads you and Brett to the same place.

In the end, you you really want to teach the religions of the world that being willing to commit murder pays off?

It paid off for Christianity. Repeatedly. In spades.

Jones didn't kill anyone, PERIOD. Not directly, nor indirectly. He made a film he was entitled to make. That's all.

I wonder if I'm the only one who remembers this?

. . . As I've repeatedly said, the dude could have hopped into an SUV, and racked up the same death toll by driving through a crowd. Might even have found it easier! He wouldn't have had to park and walk into the theater, and getting the SUV would have been easier.

Why didn't he? I suppose because Hollywood doesn't endlessly spin off movies glorifying killing people with cars . . .

. . . I expressed my theory: Hollywood endlessly glorifies shooting people. The music industry has made celebrities of hoods. Our mass media are full of images of people shooting people.

The dude is now a celebrity. Shooting people got him the fame he probably craved.


You cannot possibly even know what the ramifications of your actions are.

Actually, sometimes you can. Or make a pretty solid prediction.

And even if you are aware I'm sure that you can very easily distance yourself from unreasonable connections to consequences.

Yeah, I've noticed that. Reasonable ones, too.

Some folks make an art of it.

Any how, what you are advocating sounds like battered wife syndrome.

Yeah, it's just exactly like that.

If you were take a look at Islamic law you would see that it does not support killing an embassador because of something Jones did.

Then I guess the dudes that killed Stevens aren't very good Muslims.

Why is that?

Because every single religion on the face of the earth is practiced by humans.

You cannot possibly even know what the ramifications of your actions are.

Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Are you suggesting that I have no way of knowing that my hitting someone in the head with a hammer as hard as I can might cause that person some kind of harm? You're making the proposition an absolute all by yourself, blackhawk. Common sense should tell you russell wasn't proposing it as such.

You cannot possibly even know what the ramifications of your actions are.

I think when you dupe the actors and resort to dubbing in dialog, you know exactly what the ramifications are.

I challenge you. Find me law any where in this world that supports your theory.

i'm not talking about laws.

I do not understand this desire to appease insane murders.

that's because this "desire" is a figment of your imagination. nobody wants that.

It's simply bizarre.

imagination often is.

"Then I guess the dudes that killed Stevens aren't very good Muslims."

Well, I think we need to be realistic about all of this. The rioting and killing and seige of US embassies has nothing to do with a stupid obscure movie (how and why did these people even learn about an unreleased movie anyhow? one must ask). It has to do with the politics of the radical muslim elements that now run the countries that participated in the so call Arab Spring. Blaming the movie is, on the US' part, a red herring to divert attention from the fact that BHO and Clinton totally blew it when they supported the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and other radicals in overthrowing their countries' governments. Now that they have quite naturally and quite predictably turned on us BHO/Clinton should be highly embarassed. The movie is a lame prop that BHO/Clinton use to make excuses for what is happening as opposed to confessing their idiotic policy. Ditto the US media - particularly the liberal media - who wrote up the revolutionaries as darlings of democracy.

On the radical Islamist side, the movie is also a prop used to encite the mob into the violent anti-US action that they were already prediposed to take.

This is going to be Tehran all over again. If BHO had any brains he would immediately cut off all funding to these new "governments" and he would immediately withdraw all embassy personnel and close down the embassies. But he won't do this. This failure has the potential to cost him the election a la Jimmy Carter.

In this thread, nobody has ever heard of YouTube. And by "nobody" I mean stupid people.

In addition to being realistic about all of this, let's be honest as well. Liberals tend to hate religion, especially as practiced by white southern gomers. So it's fun for libs to target Jones and blame him for a sorts of catastrophies.Right?

What libs seem to be forgetting for the moment is that radical Islam also disdains homosexuality, nudity, graphic sexuality, sex between unmarried people and a host of other things that libs like and enjoy as content in their entertainment. Today it's Jone's movie and libs are ok with that. Tomorrow it might be some other movie that libs appreciate as entertainment.

Do we really want a media censor committee established with radical muslims as ranking members just so we can be certain that we don't upset the muslim world when we attempt to exercise our 1st amendment rights? Libs are bad enough with all their PC. Now you guys want to expand your PC to include radical muslim sensibilities? I can hardly wait........

Damn, guys, looks like the love affair between US liberalism and radical Islam is finally over. Well, we had a good run.

(In reality, of course, it's been cultural conservatives who have tried to make common cause with Islam over hot-button cultural issues, but I don't expect Stupid People to know or understand that. Largely because they are stupid.)

"In this thread, nobody has ever heard of YouTube. And by "nobody" I mean stupid people."

Ah, silly naive little man, the offending film's writer, director and producer is Israeli- American Sam Bacile. Bacile says he raised $5 million from Jewish donors in order to produce the film. This is a zionist black flag opperation. Who even knows if an actual full lengthed movie exists? It may be just trailers designed to do exactly what has been done.

"In reality, of course, it's been cultural conservatives ....."

False dichotomy. I never said conservatives are better at this. How about door #3. We mind our own business and take care of our own country and stay out of places where we are not appraciated or wanted?

Try to keep up, Stupid People.Sam Bacile doesn't exist.

So the Associated Press did a careful investigation of the ‘Sam Bacile’ who supposedly directed the hate film, ‘The Innocence of Muslims.’ And AP found that probably he does not exist, but is a persona used by a convicted Coptic Egyptian fraudster, Nakoula Bassely Nakoula.

But the story gets more complex. Nakoula had Coptic and evangelical associates in the shooting of the film, including Steve Klein, a former Marine and current extremist Christian who has helped train militiamen in California churches and has led “protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques.” My guess is that most of the Egyptian Copts involved are converts to American-style fundamentalism.

For the Stupid People in the audience, Coptics are Christians.

But I guess I'm silly and naive for looking up facts instead of leaping straight for anti-Semitic baloney that soothes my bigoted little mind.

Seriously, though, mods, is open anti-Semitism welcome now at ObWi?

"But I guess I'm silly and naive for looking up facts...."

You found an article that, while it creates doubts, is inconclusive. Guess what, on the internet anyone can find just about anything to support whatever preconceived notion they may have. But enjoy your little victory dance if it makes you happy.

Obviously the zionist entity would cover its tracks after creating the film as a black flag op.

"....anti-Semitic baloney...."

really? You deny that the zionist entity controls US ME policy? You deny that they use the US to further their own interests? That the zionist entity is not shy about using extreme violence to it its ends?

Even Pat Lang, a former DIA chief and ME expert concurs with my perspective on this. But I guess you know better than a DIA chief.

Sam Bacile is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian from LA. he's also a convicted bank fraudster.

(or, what Phil said)

Oh, cleek, you silly, naive little man. Who are you to argue with Pat Lang and some Stupid Person on the Internet? PAT LANG, for heaven's sake!!

Brett - They're mad that we dare to not be Muslims, and not be ashamed of not being Muslims.

This is why they went on to firebomb the Japanese, German, UK, Chinese, South Korean, Australian, Canadian, etc. embassies next.

Nakoula had Coptic and evangelical associates in the shooting of the film, including Steve Klein, a former Marine and current extremist Christian who has helped train militiamen in California churches

Some folks just love to stir the sh*t. They won't be happy until the world is in flames.

It's an equal opportunity thing, natch. Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Krishna, or no god at all, everybody can join in the fun.

L'homme armé doibt on doubter, doibt on doubter. Still true.

Blackhawk, they have good medication for paranoid delusions nowadays. Just a thought.

Repeating Phil's question, since this isn't the first time that BH has gone off re: "zionist" media:

"Seriously, though, mods, is open anti-Semitism welcome now at ObWi?"

Guess what, on the internet anyone can find just about anything to support whatever preconceived notion they may have.

Unintentionally Ironic Quote of the Day.

Do we really want a media censor committee established with radical muslims as ranking members just so we can be certain that we don't upset the muslim world when we attempt to exercise our 1st amendment rights?

who doesn't love the smell of freshly-cut straw, man?

And Brett, considering the amount of slack you've gotten, you are really the last one to be making that observation.

O.k., I'll make the observation too.

And this conversation has devolved.

Here's my two bits:

Obama disavowed the statement from the embassy. So part of this debate is moot. Obama agrees it was inappropriate.

My problem with Obama's statements includes what he doesn't say. And that he left for a campaign event in Vegas. Really? Can't we pause for just a sec?

And is it only me that is in wonder that the media (and this commentary) is focused on the respective statements of the candidates in response to the events rather than on what should come next (i.e. what is the appropriate U.S. response)? Can't we get outside of campaign mode even for a day?

Can't we get outside of campaign mode even for a day?

I think the point of the top post was that we might get out of campaign mode with a new president who lacks the judgement necessary to be president, based on the fact that he doesn't know when not to be in campaign mode. That is, in and of itself, a scary thing, regardless of what we do next about the embassy attacks.

But, yes, the conversation has devolved.

Obama agrees it was inappropriate.

That was pretty dumb of him.

And that he left for a campaign event in Vegas. Really? Can't we pause for just a sec?

Er, why should he stop his campaign? Americans die all the time every day. Each death is tragic, but we don't stop all activity just because someone somewhere died.

And is it only me that is in wonder that the media (and this commentary) is focused on the respective statements of the candidates in response to the events rather than on what should come next (i.e. what is the appropriate U.S. response)?

Because there's an election happening soon that Americans can actually do something about and because Americans can't do a darn thing about the Libyan killings? I mean, what exactly do you propose? Perhaps we could invade Libya? Or should we close all embassies anywhere in the world where there is danger?

"But, yes, the conversation has devolved."

There was never high starting ground.

The problem is that most people here just want to hurl negatives at Romney while disregarding the fact that the BHO administration actually supported the over of sovereign governments by the very people that are now turning on us. That the Muslim Brotherhood and similar radical groups would emerge as the ruling class post revolution was pretty freakin' obvious. BHO didn't care, apparently, or if he did, he attempted to appease them in some lame hope that they would like us. BHO blew it and blew it big time. How Romney could do worse is beyond me.

The BHO admin is still attempting appeasement. Do they not learn?

What should be done? I already tossed out what I think is the only viable option. Put the carrots back in the fridge and start using increasingly larger sticks. 1. Immediately cut off all funding to these governments. 2. Shut the embassies down before there is another Iran hostage type situation.

BHO will not do these things. I'm willing to bet on it. I think Romney would - not that I like Romney, just saying that he can't be worse than BHO in this particular regard.

"....is open anti-Semitism..."

Define open anti-semitism please. Sounds to me like its any critical assessment of Israel. I happen to believe that Israel is an illegally established "country" that is the source of much evil in the region, will be the source of WW3 and that uses and abuses its relationship with the US in a very one sided manner through control of congress via campaign $s and via spying and theft. These latter (influence, spying and theft) are documented realities. Tough sh_t if you can't handle that and feel the need to censor. What's you big love affair with zionism? And, BTW, I have never said anything against Jewish people in general. Only against zionism. As for anti-semitism, I am all for the Palistinians. They are semites, no?

PAT LANG.

The problem is that most people here just want to hurl negatives at Romney

Romney decided he needed to shove himself ass-first into a fast-moving foreign policy matter by attacking the President while our people are in harm's way.

that kind of conduct deserves all the negatives one can muster.

"conservatives" used to know that.

...while disregarding the fact that the BHO administration actually supported the over of sovereign governments by the very people that are now turning on us.

please direct us to the evidence that the people who are "turning on us" are part of, or are condoned by, or are supported by, the people we supported.

I guess what I'm still unclear on is how Obama is appeasing militant Muslims in the Middle East.

Perhaps one of the brighter lights can explain.

I guess what I'm still unclear on is how Obama is appeasing militant Muslims in the Middle East.

Perhaps one of the brighter lights can explain.

Blackhawk is presumably arguing that the US should have propped up Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, rather than allow him to be overthrown. Because after all, the US supporting corrupt Middle Eastern rulers couldn't possibly go wrong, could it? I'm not clear whether he also thinks the US should have attempted to keep Gaddafi in power in Libya.

This is going to be Tehran all over again. If BHO had any brains he would immediately cut off all funding to these new "governments" and he would immediately withdraw all embassy personnel and close down the embassies. But he won't do this. This failure has the potential to cost him the election a la Jimmy Carter.

From an international perspective, this is an utterly stupid point of view. Closing an embassy in another country is a great way to make a statement, but it is also more-or-less final act. USA is a great power. If you Americans close an embassy in a minor country, you can't come back as long as the current regime is in power. Otherwise, you lose face.

And if you close the embassy in a foreign country, it means also closing down all peaceful intergovernmental contacts. In practice, it is the ultimate act of "losing a country". After that, American companies and NGOs in the country no longer have the support of the embassy. It means that all the American trade there dries up. It means that the local military goes to Europe, Russia and China for weapons purchases and advanced training.

And, most importantly, it marks that country as an enemy of the United States. The local government can thrive forever by rallying the people around the flag to counter American aggression.

At the present, Iran, Cuba, North Korea are such permanent enemies. Do you really propose, Blackhawk, adding two relatively large, populous oil-producing countries on that list? Do you really want to hand over North Africa to the Chinese?

thanks magistra, perhaps you are right.

cos see, the thing that makes me want to call Romney a chickensh*t punk is the part where he says we're appeasing militant Muslims.

I call BS. As best I can tell, we blow up militant Muslims on a more or less daily basis, and have been for about 10 years now.

Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

Yes, Pat Lang, http://www.turcopolier.typepad.com/

I'd say his credentials are more than sufficient to provide informed opinion. Perhaps he's on some liberal persona non grata list that you dismiss him so readily? A liberal fatwa as it were?

"Romney decided he needed to shove himself ass-first into a fast-moving foreign policy matter by attacking the President while our people are in harm's way."

Yeah? And BHO goes off to Vegas. I think it is important to understand the man's perspective on all of this. He is asking us to vote for him and, if elected, he will have to deal with it all.

Situations where people are in harm's way are exactly the ones that should be discussed and debated. I notice how BHO has dodged any serious discussion of the Afghanistan war. I think this is wrong. I suppose you also think that is off limits? By your thinkng the bigger and more dangerous the f'up the more it is off the table for discussion. Some form of democracy you advocate.

"please direct us to the evidence that the people who are "turning on us" are part of, or are condoned by, or are supported by, the people we supported."

Mursi. Muslim Brotherhood. I shouldn't need to say more.

First, they would not able to burn and riot if the govt wasn't complicit. Mursi, for example, has known and admitted ties to the muslim brotherhood. He was elected to create a salafist sharia law state. He can't (won't and hasn't) put down the anti-US riots without sacrificing his MB/salafist cred.s. Mursi has been to Tehran recently to strengthen ties. The country, Egypt, is now run by the muslim brotherhood. That is a fact. They hold a substantial number of seats (a majority I think) in government. Do I have to explain who and what the MB is? They have called for a million people to assemble in Tahrir square to protest that silly movie. Allowing anti-US behavior builds Mursi's power. Mursi, at bottom, is a muslim and he will always choose Allah over "rational" politics. This is the guy we handed Egypt to when we decided to not back the existing government. The situation in the other Arab Spring countries is the same. What part of that is escaping you?

"Blackhawk is presumably arguing that the US should have propped up Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, rather than allow him to be overthrown. Because after all, the US supporting corrupt Middle Eastern rulers couldn't possibly go wrong, could it? I'm not clear whether he also thinks the US should have attempted to keep Gaddafi in power in Libya. "

Yes.

All governments are corrupt. You'd rather have salafists than Mubarak? What? On priciple? On vague notion that one was corrupt (whatever that actually refers to) and the other won't be (even though they are fervently anti-US)?

Very very odd values.

I'd agree to them to some limited extent *if* we then left the region never to return.

How do you think these salafists are going to treat your zionist buddies?

If you Americans close an embassy in a minor country, you can't come back as long as the current regime is in power. Otherwise, you lose face.

You also lose face when the embassy is over run and hostages are taken.

I think closing the embassy send the message that we will not deal with radical muslims that use violence and terrorism as a means.

Then again, we could send in more Marines and start a shooting war in defending the embassy. BTW, are you volunteering to work in the US embassy in Egypt (or the Yemen or Libya....)?

I notice how BHO has dodged any serious discussion of the Afghanistan war.

jaw.on.floor.

First, they would not able to burn and riot if the govt wasn't complicit.

whew.

tell me, does this sound familiar "the Americans could not make that movie if the government wasn't complicit" ?

Mursi, for example, has known and admitted ties to the muslim brotherhood.

now, Mr Beck, go and prove the Mulsum Brotherhood was responsible for the attacks in Libya.

keeping in mind that they did Tweet this:

“We strongly condemn deadly attack on US Emb in Benghazi & tragic loss of lives. We urge restraint as ppl peacefully protest & express anger,”

and their spokesman did say this:
“Any nonpeaceful activity will be exploited by those who hate Islam to defame the image of Egypt and Muslims.”

connect the dots for us, Mr Beck.

"tell me, does this sound familiar "the Americans could not make that movie if the government wasn't complicit" ?"

The two are not the same. Mursi's government has the resposibility to protect the embassy. All foreign governments have the same resposibility concerning foreign embassies on their soil. He has not. Nor has he condemned the attacks.

This is a far far cry from someone making a movie in a country with free speach.

Wheh. I can't beive that actually needs to be explained.

"keeping in mind that they did Tweet this:"

Yeah. Nudge nudge wink wink. A salafist is a salafist is a salafist. All of these groups are connected/united when it comes to anti-US activities. And the Muslim Brotherhood is a salfist group as Mursi is a salfist.

All foreign governments have the same resposibility concerning foreign embassies on their soil. He has not. Nor has he condemned the attacks.

why do i feel the need to fact-check every sentence you type?

All of these groups are connected/united when it comes to anti-US activities.

of course they are, Mr Beck. of course they are.

good day.

This is the guy we handed Egypt to when we decided to not back the existing government. The situation in the other Arab Spring countries is the same. What part of that is escaping you?

The part where supporting the existing government was a good idea, I guess, at least not under the circumstances at hand. Generally, life involves choices among a number of imperfect alternatives. I don't think anyone here or anywhere else thinks the actual outcomes were perfect by a long shot, but there were no potential outcomes that were perfect, were there? Or even close to it.

I might agree that there was a bit too much optimism expressed about how these revolutions would turn out - though not on this site, particularly. But that doesn't change the fact that fundamentally problematic situations don't present very good solutions, only not-as-bad-as-the-other-soulutions, um, solutions, at best. That's what makes them such a problem.

Cleek, Do I have to fact check your fact checking? Mursi didn't exactly condemn the attacks. He just said he disagreed with the method. His language was much stronger against the US for allowing freedom of speach to include things like the movie in question.

Any how, whatever he said, he only said it just today. Two days late and a dollar short. This probably only because he is in Europe right now with his hand out and probably because the US has threatened exactly what I suggested the course of action should be.

"Blackhawk is presumably arguing that the US should have propped up Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, rather than allow him to be overthrown. Because after all, the US supporting corrupt Middle Eastern rulers couldn't possibly go wrong, could it?"

I read Pat Lang semi-regularly--leftist anti-imperialist types often agree with paleocons on some parts of our foreign policy. But I don't agree with Lang (and Blackhawk) that supporting Mubarak would have been a good idea. Anyway, we supported Mubarak almost until the last minute. Lang used to work for Reagan so I expect some realpolitik attitude from him, but I don't get how a consistent anti-imperialist (on the left or the right) could think it was a good idea to support an unpopular dictator.

As for Morsi going to Iran, sure, that goes against the US/Israeli attempt to isolate Iran, but it's not clear to me why I should care. Maybe I should--I'm not sure. I don't want Iran to get the Bomb, though not because I think the Iranians are suicidal, but more because I'd worry about a war through miscalculation or paranoid response to a false alarm (which almost happened in the Cold War--deterrence between hostile nuclear powers is overrated.) But I could think of a few things the US and Israel could do if they really want to stabilize the region, and not just stabilize it exactly on their own terms. Anyway, Morsi didn't entirely please his Iranian hosts when he came out with strong criticism of the Syrian government. Not that this makes Morsi a poster child for Amnesty International--he probably just sympathizes with the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, which had a long history of violence under Assad's father (who responded by demonstrating at Hama that violent insurgents are no match for a government when it comes to inflicting large scale mayhem.)

"leftist anti-imperialist types often agree with paleocons on some parts of our foreign policy."

I meant, they often agree in their criticisms of some parts of our foreign policy.

Donald, that is all a fair assessment. I am a leftist anti-imperial type and I appreciate Lang's position on many, but not all, things. That said, I also appreciate realpolitik when the US has an absolute need to be somewhere else in the world.

I agree that the Arab Spring situation was a no win conundrum. The people were bound to overthrow the dictators, so why side with a loser? On the other hand, I totally objected to the naive support of the rebels because it was obvious from the start that they were going to be installing some form of Islamic govt and, if not overtly radical themselves, the govts would at least be sympathetic to more radical elements. And this spells Trouble for (ok, when in Rome) Israel which, in turn, spells Trouble for US given our unnatural attachment to that little religious settlement.

BHO played a losing game supporting the rebels. He should have kept us out of the whole mess. Would have saved a few $s at least. Unfortunately, he is still playing that losing game and THAT is the problem.

Can somebody please point me to the place where Obama was appeasing militant Muslims?

Or, for that matter, how any of the embassy staff's tweets were attempts to appease militant Muslims?

I'm not seeing it.

"Can somebody please point me to the place where Obama was appeasing militant Muslims?"

For starters there's when he brought American airpower to bear on Qadaffi's troops ....to giving the Egyptian islamic govt (with clear anti-US leanings) a bunch of aid money....all the way to this week when he was aplogizing for free speach and the offending movie trailers that resulted from it. Is that enough?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast