1 Dead in Pakistan Consulate Attack

[saxitoxin]

Why do Americans protest so little?

Is it because of the government goodies?

Is it because of the education? The nationalism?

Secularism is a part of it... Religion and it's use and abuse to control people actions and warp their minds is at the root of the protests in 21 countries, specifically all across to Middle East (not to paint with too broad a brush)

So, all secular countries have people which protest less?
I'm not sure secularism matters. We've got a lot of religious people in the US, but you don't see them protesting in the droves.

France protests a lot, and those protestors are predominantly not Muslim... Oh, but they're Christians, so shall we blame that on religion or something else like unions?

no, secularism is just a part of it. We have lots of religious people, yes, but we do not have hundreds of thousands of religious fundamentalists who burn down buildings anytime their religion is offended, partly, due to our secularist (at least tolerant of) society.

They're burning down the buildings because their kids are having their limbs detached from their bodies by Obama's Hellfire missiles. The "four U.S. embassies have been captured because of a home video people didn't like" is a White House tap dance to minimize the U.S.' responsibility.

If this were about feeling they were being insulted, you wouldn't have had thousands of Hezbollah Mahdi scouts cheering Benedict XVI's arrival yesterday in Lebanon. How does it make sense Muslims are mad about a movie and storming U.S. embassies but give the Pope a hero's welcome? It doesn't. The movie is a strawman.

[Phatscotty]

Of course the movie is a strawman!

[saxitoxin]

Of course the movie is a strawman!

We have lots of religious people, yes, but we do not have hundreds of thousands of religious fundamentalists who burn down buildings anytime their religion is offended

I'm not sure which of these I'm supposed to follow.

[Phatscotty]

Of course the movie is a strawman!

We have lots of religious people, yes, but we do not have hundreds of thousands of religious fundamentalists who burn down buildings anytime their religion is offended

I'm not sure which of these I'm supposed to follow.

The movie is a strawman, but many of the protesters have not even seen the movie, or the 12 minute clip, or even 1 second of the movie. Many of the protesters just heard about it. The movie is being used to fan the flames, and it's working, even though it is a strawman. Also, yes many of the protesters are angry at the consequences and the collateral damage of the American Empire.

I'm not sure what the communication problem is here, but you are good times so you can ask me whatever you want and I will be continue. I realize I am caught between the narrative and the reality, but I'm just choosing not to ignore the narrative as the strawman video is also a legitimate cause for many protestors being out on the street

[BigBallinStalin]

Evidence that the main motivator is that movie:

most US/Western media sources make this claim.

That's the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC6yGzpSvjU

Published Sept 11, has 2+ million views, but since yesterday or two days ago, YouTube banned it in Egypt and Libya.


Maybe non-Western media sources say that the video is the prime culprit for these attacks:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 57576.html
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/top ... ests-10701
(and we'll assume these other websites say basically the same assertion).


Okay. So, the question remains: if the video is primarily responsible, then why would people target the US?

(A) Because it was produced in the US?
(B) Or because the US has been responsible for killing 100s of 1000s civilians in the Middle East over the past 30 years, for propping up oppressive ME governments, etc.?

I'm gonna make a bold claim and go with B. A somewhat matters, but not much.

Remember the Dutch cartoonist who drew unfavorable pictures of the prophet Mohammed? You didn't see a widespread attack on Dutch embassies in Middle Eastern, Asian, Western, and "Pacific Islander" countries.


In this recent scenario, the main motivator is due to the notorious legacy and consequences of US foreign policy.

[saxitoxin]

Of course the movie is a strawman!

We have lots of religious people, yes, but we do not have hundreds of thousands of religious fundamentalists who burn down buildings anytime their religion is offended

I'm not sure which of these I'm supposed to follow.

The movie is a strawman, but many of the protesters have not even seen the movie, or the 12 minute clip, or even 1 second of the movie. Many of the protesters just heard about it. The movie is being used to fan the flames, and it's working, even though it is a strawman.

OK, I understand now.

- Scott says film is a Muslim strawman. You believe the movie is being used by Muslim clerics to deceive Muslim people. But that, ultimately, they're protesting over the movie.

- Saxi says film is an American strawman. I believe the movie is being used by the White House to deceive the world's population about the protestors intent and that most Arabs could care less about the movie.

I'm correct, in this case. At the exact same hour thousands of Arabs were ripping down KFCs in Lebanon, less than ten miles to the south these were the scenes when the highest ranking representative of Christianity arrived in the middle of it all.



These are not religious protests. The protestors are parents mad that the US and Europe is blowing their children into a bajillion pieces every day. They could care less about home videos made by felons in California. The protests would have happened without the movie. These are the death throws of the US and the west as Israel reaches its claws out of the abyss to pull the west down with it. The problem is Israel.

[Baron Von PWN]

Evidence that the main motivator is that movie:

most US/Western media sources make this claim.

That's the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC6yGzpSvjU

Published Sept 11, has 2+ million views, but since yesterday or two days ago, YouTube banned it in Egypt and Libya.


Maybe non-Western media sources say that the video is the prime culprit for these attacks:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 57576.html
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/top ... ests-10701
(and we'll assume these other websites say basically the same assertion).


Okay. So, the question remains: if the video is primarily responsible, then why would people target the US?

(A) Because it was produced in the US?
(B) Or because the US has been responsible for killing 100s of 1000s civilians in the Middle East over the past 30 years, for propping up oppressive ME governments, etc.?

I'm gonna make a bold claim and go with B. A somewhat matters, but not much.

Remember the Dutch cartoonist who drew unfavorable pictures of the prophet Mohammed? You didn't see a widespread attack on Dutch embassies in Middle Eastern, Asian, Western, and "Pacific Islander" countries.


In this recent scenario, the main motivator is due to the notorious legacy and consequences of US foreign policy.

I seem to recall seing dutch flags being burned and large protests back then as well. Granted they weren't nearly as large but that was also before the arab spring had encouraged the mob.

What I think we see here is a combination of genuine fanatical rage, with past US actions or perceived actions adding fuel to the fire.

[saxitoxin]

The solution to religious fundamentalism and war in the middle east is simple. The U.S. needs to -

(1) cut-off aid to "Israel"
(2) ban Americans from sending gun money to "Israel" (apparently the USG can legally do this since they banned Americans from sending humanitarian funds to Ulster, Ireland)
(3) stop selling weapons to the corpulent kings of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait
(4) stop supporting al-Qaeda in Syria and making destabilizing comments about President Assad
(5) release Saif al-Islam from prison and pay him $100 billion to rebuild Libya

Unfortunately for the U.S., they don't have the freedom to do any of that because the Zionists will start threatening to attack everyone with their French-built, German-rocketized nuclear weapons. The U.S. has become a sad, tragic thing held hostage by an inconsequential desert nation that has inserted itself, like a carrion crawler, as a kind-of fourth branch of government.

[saxitoxin]

"You people have absolutely no idea what you've unleashed. Give them one year and you will find out the reality but please don't say that, on the day Saif al-Islam was taken prisoner, he didn't warn you of that." - Dr. Saif al-Islam Qadaffi, September 2011

[Phatscotty]

Soundtrack for the world on fire

[Dukasaur]

The solution to religious fundamentalism and war in the middle east is simple. The U.S. needs to -

(1) cut-off aid to "Israel"
(2) ban Americans from sending gun money to "Israel" (apparently the USG can legally do this since they banned Americans from sending humanitarian funds to Ulster, Ireland)
(3) stop selling weapons to the corpulent kings of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait
(4) stop supporting al-Qaeda in Syria and making destabilizing comments about President Assad
(5) release Saif al-Islam from prison and pay him $100 billion to rebuild Libya

Unfortunately for the U.S., they don't have the freedom to do any of that because the Zionists will start threatening to attack everyone with their French-built, German-rocketized nuclear weapons. The U.S. has become a sad, tragic thing held hostage by an inconsequential desert nation that has inserted itself, like a carrion crawler, as a kind-of fourth branch of government.

It's sad when you begin as the voice of reason in this thread and gradually degenerate into this Jew-baiting parody of yourself.

Anyone who thinks that exterminating the Jews will be an end to the Jihadist movement probably thought that the Sudetenland would be Hitler's last territorial demand in Europe. Pure bull. For those with totalitarian ambitions, each conquest is just a step towards the next. After the Treaty of Luneville and the Treaty of Amiens, France had gotten everything she had ever wanted, but Napoleon just couldn't help himself but go meddle in Italian affairs and start a new round of wars. After Arbela, Alexander had total mastery of the known world, but he just couldn't help but spend the rest of his life and squander the finest army of the time pursuing and beating up nomadic tribes in Afghanistan.

One who wishes to rule others, ultimately wishes to rule ALL others. He may tell himself that he will be satisfied once this group of enemies or that group of enemies is dispatched, and he may honestly believe it, but on the morning after his "final" conquest, he will wake up with a gnawing feeling that somebody somewhere isn't walking the proper path, and needs to be shown the error of their ways. And so it begins again.

[saxitoxin]

Soundtrack for the world on fire

[Phatscotty]

Soundtrack for the world on fire

Just curious, do you have the impression that I thought Qaddafi was evil and had to be deposed? (remember US military action in Libya, that was ME)

[saxitoxin]

Soundtrack for the world on fire

Just curious, do you have the impression that I thought Qaddafi was evil and had to be deposed? (remember US military action in Libya, that was ME)

Do you support Reagan's attempt to murder Qaddafi in 1986?

[Qwert]

One who wishes to rule others, ultimately wishes to rule ALL others. He may tell himself that he will be satisfied once this group of enemies or that group of enemies is dispatched, and he may honestly believe it, but on the morning after his "final" conquest, he will wake up with a gnawing feeling that somebody somewhere isn't walking the proper path, and needs to be shown the error of their ways. And so it begins again.

This last also can be say for US to. In last 50 years after WWII US cause and get involve in many wars. This is like obsessions for wars. When will come day,when US will say " This is internal problem of this independent countrie, and this its not our business".
In Libya, protester become armed, how? In Syria protester also become armed,how? US cause all this troubles in North Africa, and in Middle East, and for why? I don't believe that its bringing democracy to this people, but to some people fill hes pocket with money.

[saxitoxin]

Tomorrow in 1187, Saladin the Great of Syria begins the Siege of Jerusalem. The Patriarch surrenders the following week. Saladin issues a decree ordering all Jews expelled by the crusaders be allowed to return to the city and their properties repatriated. (No similar courtesy extended by Israel with regard to the Golan Heights.)

"I am Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn!"

[Phatscotty]

Just curious, do you have the impression that I thought Qaddafi was evil and had to be deposed? (remember US military action in Libya, that was ME)

Do you support Reagan's attempt to murder Qaddafi in 1986?

I was only 7 at the time, so I am sure there is plenty of real time information that I missed and only have the narrative, and that narrative is that Libyan terrorists highjacked a plane and blew it up, and after the USA turned up the heat, Qaddafi started to see things in a new, more progressive way, to the point of little or no terrorism for the next 2 decades and even recently cooperating with the USA to give up it's nuclear weapons program in order to do their part for a safer world. Also, over the last 2 decades, it seems to me that Libya made great progress, comparatively.

Go ahead, do your worst...

[Dukasaur]

One who wishes to rule others, ultimately wishes to rule ALL others. He may tell himself that he will be satisfied once this group of enemies or that group of enemies is dispatched, and he may honestly believe it, but on the morning after his "final" conquest, he will wake up with a gnawing feeling that somebody somewhere isn't walking the proper path, and needs to be shown the error of their ways. And so it begins again.

This last also can be say for US to. In last 50 years after WWII US cause and get involve in many wars. This is like obsessions for wars. When will come day,when US will say " This is internal problem of this independent countrie, and this its not our business".
In Libya, protester become armed, how? In Syria protester also become armed,how? US cause all this troubles in North Africa, and in Middle East, and for why? I don't believe that its bringing democracy to this people, but to some people fill hes pocket with money.

I don't disagree.

[saxitoxin]

Just curious, do you have the impression that I thought Qaddafi was evil and had to be deposed? (remember US military action in Libya, that was ME)

Do you support Reagan's attempt to murder Qaddafi in 1986?

I was only 7 at the time, so I am sure there is plenty of real time information that I missed and only have the narrative, and that narrative is that Libyan terrorists highjacked a plane and blew it up, and after the USA turned up the heat, Qaddafi started to see things in a new, more progressive way, to the point of little or no terrorism for the next 2 decades and even recently cooperating with the USA to give up it's nuclear weapons program in order to do their part for a safer world. Also, over the last 2 decades, it seems to me that Libya made great progress, comparatively.

Go ahead, do your worst...

Very close!

Reagan accused Libya intelligence of bombing a nightclub in Berlin, Germany.

In his memoirs in 1998, Col.-Gen. Markus Wolfe, the long-time head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the German Democratic Republic (and highest ranking Jew in either Germany), whose office was less than 3 miles from the nightclub in question, wrote:

"What did the Americans know and could they have prevented the bombing? It took President Reagan less than one day to announce the United States had definite proof of Libyan involvement. The main organizer of the bombing, a man named Chreidi, had easily traveled back and forth between East and West Berlin during a period of heightened security measures at Checkpoint Charlie. More ominously, our PLO sources implied that Chreidi was no mere Libyan terrorist, but in fact in the employ of the United States.”

Wolfe was banned from entering the United States and the Clinton White House tried to get his publishing contract pulled.

[GabonX]

These are not religious protests. The protestors are parents mad that the US and Europe is blowing their children into a bajillion pieces every day. They could care less about home videos made by felons in California. The protests would have happened without the movie. These are the death throws of the US and the west as Israel reaches its claws out of the abyss to pull the west down with it. The problem is Israel.

Blame the Jews. It's been done throughout history, but I'm not aware of any instances where their persecution or ridicule has brought about the aims of their persecutors. Perhaps it's different this time...

God forbid we should look at the actions of the Arabs and condemn them for what they've done. It's easier to blame ourselves for the actions of others, actions which would not have been taken if not for Western support of international Jewry. The question is not, what have they (the Arab perpetrators) done? but rather, what have we done to make them do it? Right Saxi?

Maybe we should cut off Israel, and perhaps Israel is so weak that they could not stand alone. To hell with the massive technological contributions they've made to the world, the only way to move forward is to allow Jews in the Middle East to be slaughtered en mass to quell the Arabs and indeed the Ummah as a whole. But what if that doesn't bring a stop to the aggression we're seeing?

[BigBallinStalin]

Evidence that the main motivator is that movie:

most US/Western media sources make this claim.

That's the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC6yGzpSvjU

Published Sept 11, has 2+ million views, but since yesterday or two days ago, YouTube banned it in Egypt and Libya.


Maybe non-Western media sources say that the video is the prime culprit for these attacks:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 57576.html
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/top ... ests-10701
(and we'll assume these other websites say basically the same assertion).


Okay. So, the question remains: if the video is primarily responsible, then why would people target the US?

(A) Because it was produced in the US?
(B) Or because the US has been responsible for killing 100s of 1000s civilians in the Middle East over the past 30 years, for propping up oppressive ME governments, etc.?

I'm gonna make a bold claim and go with B. A somewhat matters, but not much.

Remember the Dutch cartoonist who drew unfavorable pictures of the prophet Mohammed? You didn't see a widespread attack on Dutch embassies in Middle Eastern, Asian, Western, and "Pacific Islander" countries.


In this recent scenario, the main motivator is due to the notorious legacy and consequences of US foreign policy.

I seem to recall seing dutch flags being burned and large protests back then as well. Granted they weren't nearly as large but that was also before the arab spring had encouraged the mob.

What I think we see here is a combination of genuine fanatical rage, with past US actions or perceived actions adding fuel to the fire.

Burning a flag is cheap. Storming a few embassies, killing a US ambassador, stealing US embassy computers, and protesting in countries in the five important continents is not cheap.


It's 10% due to that video, and 90% due to US foreign policy. Sax makes a great point too. If you shift blame to things beyond your control, then all your past actions look real groovy (you, as in the US).

[BigBallinStalin]

The solution to religious fundamentalism and war in the middle east is simple. The U.S. needs to -

(1) cut-off aid to "Israel"
(2) ban Americans from sending gun money to "Israel" (apparently the USG can legally do this since they banned Americans from sending humanitarian funds to Ulster, Ireland)
(3) stop selling weapons to the corpulent kings of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait
(4) stop supporting al-Qaeda in Syria and making destabilizing comments about President Assad
(5) release Saif al-Islam from prison and pay him $100 billion to rebuild Libya

Unfortunately for the U.S., they don't have the freedom to do any of that because the Zionists will start threatening to attack everyone with their French-built, German-rocketized nuclear weapons. The U.S. has become a sad, tragic thing held hostage by an inconsequential desert nation that has inserted itself, like a carrion crawler, as a kind-of fourth branch of government.

It's sad when you begin as the voice of reason in this thread and gradually degenerate into this Jew-baiting parody of yourself.

Anyone who thinks that exterminating the Jews will be an end to the Jihadist movement probably thought that the Sudetenland would be Hitler's last territorial demand in Europe. Pure bull. For those with totalitarian ambitions, each conquest is just a step towards the next. After the Treaty of Luneville and the Treaty of Amiens, France had gotten everything she had ever wanted, but Napoleon just couldn't help himself but go meddle in Italian affairs and start a new round of wars. After Arbela, Alexander had total mastery of the known world, but he just couldn't help but spend the rest of his life and squander the finest army of the time pursuing and beating up nomadic tribes in Afghanistan.

One who wishes to rule others, ultimately wishes to rule ALL others. He may tell himself that he will be satisfied once this group of enemies or that group of enemies is dispatched, and he may honestly believe it, but on the morning after his "final" conquest, he will wake up with a gnawing feeling that somebody somewhere isn't walking the proper path, and needs to be shown the error of their ways. And so it begins again.

So, ending the aid and military transfers to Israel and the authoritarian Muslim states will somehow exterminate the Jews?

Please explain how that would happen.

[GabonX]

An Iranian bomb is detonated in Tel Aviv, and an angry mob crosses the borders in conjunction with rocket fire from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, accompanied by thousands of tanks moving North from the Sinai. Really there's a lot of things that could happen...


You guys seem to think US policy is the root of the problem while forgiving Arabs and Muslims for their aggression and anti antisemitism. These things are of course not the fault of the people that pursue this course of action, but rather they are the fault of the people they target for any number of reasons...

If this is the case, please explain why the Muslim world was violently expansive under Ottoman rule, how the policies of the Ottomans differ from the teachings of Mohammad, and why things would be different in the modern age if the West cut of support to Israel.

[BigBallinStalin]

An Iranian bomb is detonated in Tel Aviv, and an angry mob crosses the borders in conjunction with rocket fire from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, accompanied by thousands of tanks moving North from the Sinai. Really there's a lot of things that could happen...

Um wut? All because the US stop subsidizing the Israelis and other authoritarian regimes? Where did all their intelligence networks and armed forces go? And 1000s of tanks from Sinai? You know that the Egyptian government is broke and unorganized, right? Somehow, they'd be able to effectively mobolize their armed forces without no one noticing and then pitch a mass conflict against Israel? Please. The Egyptian government under Mubarak could have done the same, but a nuclear armed Israel was an effective enough deterrent (and the threat of US/NATO intervention or at least aid to Israeli).

And somehow the Iranians sneak in a bomb... of what proportion? If it's a nuclear one, do you realize how difficult that is? Of all the nuclear-armed rouge regimes with unstable populations, none of them allowed one to be obtained by some crazy organization which then detonated the bomb past the security of a foreign country. Nowhere has that happened over the roughly 40 years since this scenario could have happened.

This doesn't make sense. It's not like all the countries' armed forces and intel services suddenly disappear over night, and it's not like the US won't use its forces--as it's currently doing--as a safeguard against outright Iranian/Egyptian aggression...

That scenario is a very imaginative slippery slope argument.

[GabonX]

Care to respond to the second part?