by liberal japonicus
With the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three U.S. government employees in Benghazi, this interview (video below the fold) with Michael Lewis, based on his Vanity Fair article, seems to display a disturbing synchronicity.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
For those of you who don't want to click on video links, an excerpt from the transcript
he solved the problem. he went outside of the process to solve the problem. the process wanted him to do nothing. didn't want us in there. and he solved the problem in such a way that it was not construed as an american act. our lust for libyan oil. it just was a humanitarian intervention and it worked. what's interesting about this at the end, it's one of his triumphs what he did in libya. as a result, you don't hear a lot about it because nobody has an interest in talking about what he's done well. even he says now, you know, that decision looks like a no brainer, but it was a 51-49 decision. and every decision that comes across my desk is like that. even now i can see how it could have been a mistake to go in. it was not easy to make that decision. in hindsight, everybody says it was obvious. the reason i'm grateful that this is out right now is i feel like it's critically important for us to not have a partisan fight over foreign policy. i think the republicans are dysfunctional on this issue. they are deciding not to update the bush era. their policies are a flight list bird with an injury. it it would never happen. because wrooer not having that fight. this is a great window into it and it makes me wonder if republicans were contesting it, if we were having national debates. it would be much more like the decisions around domestic policy. we're not going to have the debate.
I say disturbing, because Romney, either thru ignorance or calculation, has taken the tack that the Obama response to what happened represents the wrong response. As Lewis notes, if it becomes a decision like one around domestic policy, we're screwed.
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:
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.
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.
(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?
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.
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:
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?
Clinton and the embassy said that you should not denigrate the religious beliefs of others. This sits unhappily with people who believe that you should denigrate the religious beliefs of all 1.6 billion Muslims (e.g. by portraying Muhammed as a vicious criminal), because Islam and its followers are intrisically wicked/irrational.
That seems to be Blackhawk’s belief, given he says: “Mursi, at bottom, is a muslim and he will always choose Allah over “rational” politics.”
Yes, if you say you should be polite about Islam, it will please militant Muslims. It will also please millions more non-militant Muslims. The US want to get cooperation from a number of states with Muslim majorities. Does it therefore make sense to encourage insulting Islam as a whole? (FWIW I’m a Christian and don’t like a lot of current common Muslim practices – but then I also don’t like a lot of current common Christian practices).
Obama isn’t appeasing militant Muslims. If he wanted to appease militant Muslims or for that matter if he just wanted to avoid angering Muslims (and people like me) he wouldn’t be blowing people up with drones.
Blackhawk, you’re an unusual sort of leftist anti-imperialist. Sure, the intervention in Libya is debatable and we might be supporting covertly some resistance groups in Syria that aren’t boy scouts. I’m against that if it turns out to be the case. (I don’t know.) We’ve done that kind of thing before. And who knows what sort of covert action we and/or Israel is taking in Iran and who we might be using to do some of it? At the moment it’s hard to take any position in the Middle East that couldn’t be construed as supporting some version of militant Islam. Look at Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood types oppose Assad. Iran supports Assad. Hezbollah supports Assad and vice versa, while Hamas, which used to be based in Syria (I mean some of their leaders were there) is distancing itself from Assad. Militant Muslims in the Middle East are not united. But Obama is hardly “appeasing” militant Muslims simply because the administration condemned a stupid incendiary video. That’s the sort of thing he should be doing.
The plot thickens:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/blogger_alerted_film_innocence_of_bin_laden.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Who is “Some Imbecile”?
I seems we have any number of contestants standing and up and declaring “My name is Some Imbecile.”
Kitty Carlisle, you may start the questioning. You Pass?. Well then, on to Orson Bean.
They all seem to be radical, far-right, crypto-religious whackos from a number of countries, including Muslim countries, Israel, and America (none of whom “represent” the overwhelming number of folks, including decent conservatives, in their countries) intent on drawing the Presidency of Barack Obama and by extension American foreign policy into some sort of cataclysmic event leading up to the election.
Throw in the vast disappointment among various of our own home-grown whackos regarding Europe’s recent moves to deal with their problems and the Fed’s announced QE3 and what we have is a loosely connected death cult the world over who love economic chaos, unemployment, and violence as a way of gaining the political advantage.
Also, in relation to “apologies”, there’s a difference between trying to calm a dangerous situation and an abject apology.
Yeah, Some Imbecile, the movie mogul, and the mutton-chopped jagoff false prophet are exercising their right of free speech (the First Amendment covers lying and any number of as*h*le bloviations, the Liar and A*sh*le lobbies having been overly influential during the Constitutional Convention), but it covers apologies, too.
It also covers my right to call both of these specimens whatever names I like while condemning the violence and murder at our Embassies, for which the movie trailer was a poor excuse.
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand (the Austrian, not the band) was a poor excuse for butchering millions in World War I, too.
Nevertheless, if Terry Jones, yells “Fire” in a crowded theater as a prank or dare, and I’m in that theater, when the mayhem stops, I ‘ll kick his f*cking gobshite a*s.
If he pokes a rabid dog with a stick, like the cracker cousin-blowing as*hole (I love the First Amendment; any right-wing crackers lurking here want to issue a Fatwa on me?) he is, when I’m standing next to him and that dog savages me or some other innocent bystander in response, he’ll exercise his First Amendment Rights through a windpipe closed by my bare hands, after I shoot the dog.
As far as the question Phil and matttbastard raise, speaking for myself, I’m not inclined to right now. However, this is not because of what is being tolerated here has changed, I just don’t think the posts in question deserve another iota of my time. with a one sentence post reaching the tl:dr mark. That may change if you guys keep engaging with him, but he has clearly glommed onto his theory and is frantically googling to find information to support his take. do not feed
More on Who is Some Imbecile.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_09/the_phantom_director039874.php
He’s not Jewish, as some initial sources/rumors reported.
“This sits unhappily with people who believe that you should denigrate the religious beliefs of all 1.6 billion Muslims”
“That seems to be Blackhawk’s belief, given he says: “Mursi, at bottom, is a muslim and he will always choose Allah over “rational” politics.””
Just to clarify, because I just can’t let that assumption slide, I am NOT disparaging muslims. Quite the opposite, actually. I have a certain admiration for people who adhere to their stated principles. I am saying that muslims of Mursi’s quality really believe and really act according to those beliefs, unlike the Sunday morning christians in this country. Mursi is not a secularist because of his beliefs. His government is not secular. That’s all I’m saying.
I do see a lot of people here dissing religion with reckless abandone. I know that’s the hip thing for libs to do. How weird to try to turn the table on me.
“Blackhawk, you’re an unusual sort of leftist anti-imperialist”
I suppose that’s true. I’m so far left that I come all the way around to pop up on the right side of things sometimes. Essentially, I don’t follow leaders and don’t buy into brands, and being a “liberal” seems to me to be buying into a brand. Note how most libs repeat the same mindless party line.
“Obama isn’t appeasing militant Muslims. If he wanted to appease militant Muslims or for that matter if he just wanted to avoid angering Muslims (and people like me) he wouldn’t be blowing people up with drones.’
I see what you mean, sort of. On the other hand you can’t ignore what he did for and continues to do for the Arab Spring countries (including the Syrian rebels who are definitely radicals). This is just the schizophrenic nature of US ME policy. It’s all about 1. How do we manage to get the oil from these guys 2. How do we keep Israel happy. These two fundementals make for some crazy policy swinger orgies.
Take away the need for oil and the Israeli campaign $s/chosen people crap and we’d be out of the ME in a NY minute, never to return.
So, yes, sometimes BHO is appeaser, sometimes extra-judicial assassin, sometimes imperialist war wager………
Of course some people here are big on taking responsibility for the ramifications of their actions. So given their dependence on fosil fuels, I suppose they understand and appreciate their role in all of this and have nothing to gripe about.
But Romney? Forget about it. He’s obviously an @sshat jerk.
Also, a prominent American Jew, and almost assuredly in some sense a sane Zionist, while certainly condemning the Embassy violence by radical Muslims who have co-opted the Muslim Brotherhood and other Arab Spring movements, goes after Bibi Netanyahu, a crazy person who has co-opted Zionism for radical ends, for his recent unprecedented interference, with the tacit compliance of the American right-wing, which has co-opted the Republican Party, in American foreign policy during this dangerous, important season.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/he-wants-us-to-do-his-dirty-work.html
Rush Limbaugh said al Qaeda “gave up” Osama bin Laden to make Barack Obama look good.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81176.html
There, this thread is now fair and balanced.
It’s my very infrequent unfortunate experience that most violence in bars is over free speech.
Does Limbaugh frequent bars on Florida?
Which ones?
I think whatever support Obama is giving to Syrian radicals (I’d have to track down the reference I saw to this and I’m not sure if it’s true offhand, but it wouldn’t surprise me) is just plain old realpolitick. Syria is on Iran’s side and Iran is the current Great Satan. They’re also brutal, of course.
As for Egypt, the US wants Egypt to adhere to the Camp David accord–we supported two Egyptian dictators for decades with billions of dollars of aid for that reason. Obama turned against Mubarak at the last minute–saying that he supported the Arab Spring in that country is, well, strange. They saw which way the wind was blowing and didn’t want to alienate the Egyptian people (including the secular liberals) by continuing to prop up Mubarak. If we’d told Mubarak to crack down with our blessing as Pat Lang seems to have wanted us to do imagine how much hatred that would have earned us, not just from extremists, but from almost everyone in the region outside of Israel. But of course it was likely the Muslim Brotherhood would take over. There’s not much we could do to prevent that (is that our role?) and if Obama wants Egypt to continue to adhere to the Camp David accords and cooperate with our bestest pal ever to their north, working against Salafists in the Sinai (who have killed Egyptian troops IIRC) then they’ve got to stay friends or try to stay friends with whoever takes power in Egypt. We did intervene in Libya–I continue to have no idea if that was good or bad.
I don’t like Obama much, but Romney’s foreign policy advisors are apparently just exactly the wonderful people who advised Bush. Neocons. So I can’t really fathom why you’d think he’d be no worse than Obama. Your position in this thread is, as I’ve said before, strange. Parts of it are exactly like the kinds of things that far right Israel supporters say, yet you’re not exactly one of them. Sometimes being contrarian isn’t a virtue, as Christopher Hitchens demonstrated. Often.
I am faintly familiar with Coptic Christian culture and theology. But recently, many right-wing nationalist Protestants (mostly referred to as “evangelical” Christians, although I still struggle to see what their political stances on foreign policy have to do with spreading the Gospel, but we won’t get into that again) have been attempting to enroll Arab Christians to join their ranks to justify their form of Islamophobia and racist forms of Christianity. Secular right-wing Jews have tried this, as well.
Arab Christians are, justifiably, suspicious of the hand racist American Protestants and uber-Pro Likudnik Jews. Remember the “9-11 Mosque Controversy”?
Rallies against this ”Ground Zero Mosque” led by Pamela Geller led to what North Jersey’s Mike Kelly’s view of “zero tolerance” was over the issue of the Ground Zero mosque when protesters berated two Egyptians speaking Arabic.
According to Mike Kelly, they were thought to be Muslim, but were actually “Egyptian Coptic Christians” yet police officers had to quickly pull them back from the crowd for their safety.
Most of the End-Times news networks (TBN, CBN) have attempted to enroll Arab Christians (especially Palestinian Christians) as well. The problem is, it seems, most Arab Christians just do not support the right-wing agenda of End-Times Protestants in the United States. Nor the pro-Likudnik stances of the secular Jews.
But apparently, they found some common cause with a felon, with a Coptic Christian background.
Donald, seriously, does it look like Egypt is going to adhere to the Camp David Accord?
Does it look like, by not helping Mubarak crack down, we have gained a friend? I mean they’re rampaging in the streets and tearing up our embassy. Even BHO says that Egypt is “not exactly an ally”.
“They saw which way the wind was blowing and didn’t want to alienate the Egyptian people (including the secular liberals) by continuing to prop up Mubarak.”
Do you see any evidence that the secular liberals have any juice in the new government?
You, yourself, seem to recognize, at least subconsciously, that what was attempted was an appeasement of the revolutionaries. It’s right there in what you wrote.
Maybe it seemed like the right thing to do at the time given the intel, the resources and the other options on the table. Still, appeasement it was.
The point is that BHO didn’t have to back an Islamic govt. he could have just stood down and/or stated that the US sought a secular govt. His backing is the appeasement attempt, which has, apparently, failed miserably as anyone in the know could have, and in fact did, predict.
I think you’re one of the smart ones here Donald, but I am having trouble undrstanding why you cannot see what consitutues appeasement.
I like Romneys foreign policy – the little I’ve seen of it – even less than BHO’s. That doesn’t mean I like BHO’s. This is why I am not upset that Romney made comments regarding the unfolding of events. It’s good to know where a candidate stands. This is the appropriate time to find out. Not post election. If Romeny really has a problem with the way BHO is handling this crisis, then by all means, put it out there.
I don’t support Israel at all. I say leave them to their own and let them work it out, or not. Without us backing them they may actually have to make concessions and become civilized towards their own Arab citizens and neighbors.
Maybe I should just the label “End-Times Protestants” instead of “right-wing nationalist Protestants” considering the views some right-wing nationalist Protestants have concerning the state of Israel.
That should be:
Maybe I should just label them “End-Times Protestants” instead of “right-wing nationalist Protestants” considering the views some right-wing nationalist Protestants have concerning the state of Israel.
First, just to state my views on the Libya tragedy: I didn’t see anything wrong with condemning speech that insults Islam (or any other religion). Condemning speech isn’t the same as infringing speech – condemning is just more speech. Also, Romney is an idiot. He makes that apparent with increasing frequency – maybe because he’s making himself apparent with increasing frequency. I thought, when he was in the primaries, that he was reasonable, having come from Massachusetts and all. He’s a cipher for the Republican party, which happens to be a club of hateful maniacs.
I think whatever support Obama is giving to Syrian radicals (I’d have to track down the reference I saw to this and I’m not sure if it’s true offhand, but it wouldn’t surprise me) is just plain old realpolitick.
Second, to address the quote from Donald: What? Realpolitik? It’s unfortunate that the Syrian rebels are so disorganized and unsupportable (as a practical matter). But their brave opposition to the Assad regime is incredible. I don’t really see how you, a human rights advocate, can be anything other than on their side. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying. Do you really think that Obama wouldn’t try to find a chance to support them? I know you “don’t like Obama much” (and, of course, I do) but why would it be realpolitik for him to try to find a way to support them?
You can sum up this thread, and every comment thread about the 2012 election quite simply:
Mitt Romney lies all the time about everything, and no matter how contemptible the lie, there will be someone willing to come repeat the contemptible lie, and that person will unfailingly then complain insufferably and at length about being treated with contempt.
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….
Seems to me both the Egyptian and Libyan people wanted a change.
I guess we could have lined up on either, or neither, side of it. There are points to be made for all of those positions, no doubt.
Hard for me to see Qaddafi as a friend of the US, full stop. Hard for me to see the ouster of Murbarak as anything other than the will of the Egyptian people.
The Muslim Brotherhood are certainly a prominent political actor in Egypt now. They have been for decades. They represent a substantial constituency in Egypt.
Maybe we’d prefer a purely secular government there. It’s not our country.
Trust me when I say we give lots and lots of aid to people who are not entirely on board with the whole Jeffersonian democracy thing. Sorry to break that bit of news to you.
If you are proposing that we step down from our position as global hegemon and international cop, I’m all ears. But that isn’t really what we’re talking about here, is it?
all the way to this week when he was aplogizing for free speach and the offending movie trailers that resulted from it.
Show me the apology.
Do you know what was actually said? Do you know who said it?
The movie was posted online, by folks who have some interest in stirring people up. Mission accomplished.
Muslims in a number of places reacted as one might expect. They are *BY FAR* not unique in responding strongly, even violently, to their religion and culture being ridiculed.
Embassy staff was in conversation with a variety of people via social networks. They stated that they did not endorse, and in fact renounced, the movie, because it belittled Islam as a religion.
They also, repeatedly, stated their support of the right to free speech, etc. They just thought the movie was an abuse of that right.
Can’t say I disagree.
That’s pretty much the extent of it.
All of that preceded the attacks.
The attacks, per se, appear to have had bugger all to do with the movie. Militants exploited the situation to attack US embassies and, in Libya, kill US embassy staff.
You know, the folks you refer to as “embassy pricks”.
It seems the US is not done following up on that.
Those are the facts.
Show me the apology. You say Obama has apologized, for something or other.
Show me the apology or stand down.
For that matter, show me an apology from the State Dept, or any member of the embassy staff.
Show me an apology from the guy that empties the trash barrels in the State Dept offices.
Show me the apology, or stand down.
Thanks.
Really this seems more important than the back and forth on this thread.
Don’t know what your point is CCDG. We all know that there are places in the world where certain fundamentalist religious adherents freak out at insults to their religion. What to do about it? Bomb them? Kill ourselves? Use our superior military to install dictators to shut them up? What are you suggesting?
Definition of CONTEMPTIBLE
1 : worthy of contempt
Synonyms: cheap, cruddy, deplorable, despicable, dirty, grubby, lame, lousy, mean, nasty, paltry, pitiable, pitiful, ratty, scabby, romney, scummy, scurvy, sneaking, sorry, wretched
Antonyms: admirable, commendable, creditable, laudable, meritorious, praiseworthy
” But their brave opposition to the Assad regime is incredible. I don’t really see how you, a human rights advocate, can be anything other than on their side.”
Change “Syria” to “Israel” and “brave opposition” to “Hezbollah” or maybe even “Hamas” (though Hezbollah was much more effective) and ask me again. No, I’m not on the side of Hamas or Hezbollah, no matter how critical I might be of Israel. Hezbollah fighters can be very brave though.
Isn’t it amazing how Americans have this keen sense to judge just which guerilla groups are noble and veritable Robin Hoods, as opposed to the ones who do nasty things and feel hatred and commit atrocities? How happy it is that we always romanticize the guerillas who really are just wonderful. We are so full of such keen insight that way, as we’ve shown over and over again.
I was complaining about this to the public editor at the NYT just a day or two ago. There are brave people who oppose Assad–there are also Muslim fundamentalists who oppose him. There are human rights violations on both sides–more on Assad’s side but he has more power. It’s the same old story with Westerners, conservative and liberal alike. We see some guerilla fighters resisting some brutal opponent with more power and we just automatically turn it into some morality play of good against evil. Remind me of how the Afghan resistance was portrayed in the 80’s and what they did to Kabul in the 90’s.
Do you really think that all the fighters against Assad are defenders of truth, justice, and so forth? That there are no sectarian hatreds involved? That of all the nasty wars that have occurred in the Mideast this happens to be the one which is clean on one side? You can get a sense that it’s not quite like that even if you just read the NYT, let alone some bad-tempered Arab-American blogger like As’ad AbuKhalil link (I didn’t seek out any particular story at his blog, but he’s been writing about the conflict for months and has a rather jaundiced view of the resistance, while despising Assad as the thug he is.)
“Does it look like, by not helping Mubarak crack down, we have gained a friend? ”
At the risk of being flippant, who cares? What kind of anti-imperialist are you? You want to continue to support a “pro-American” dictator because he and his regime will be our “friend”? And when there is a popular uprising, don’t you think we’d be hated ten times more, with good cause, by nearly everyone, if we had sided with Mubarak and he’d pulled a Tianammen Square (sp?)? You didn’t respond to that point.
Frankly, we’ve screwed around so much in the Mideast I don’t see why everyone shouldn’t hate us, but assuming we at least want to keep the hatred at manageable levels then don’t support Mubarak when he’s toppling. That’s not hard.
I remembered where I had most recently read that the US is supporting Syrian rebels, from a writer (Robert Dreyfuss of the Nation) who thinks this is a really bad idea–
link
BTW, sapient, sorry if I got excessively sarcastic in the 11:14 post, but I think that romanticizing of one side of some conflict is a real source of problems in our foreign policy sometimes. And everyone seems to do it, whether it is lefties idealizing, say, the Vietcong or much of America thinking the mujahadeen in Afghanistan were cool or whatever. Of course it’s a bigger problem when people in the government do it, as opposed to some leftwing college kids in the 60’s.
“What kind of anti-imperialist are you? ”
My policy would be to exit all of the countries and cut off all funding. Start at 0. Then re-build our relationships to a limited degree and to the extent that they make real sense. I agree that we have meddled way too much and the whole thing has become a mess inside a pressure cooker. My policy would also be to publicly distance ourselves from Israel and demand justice for the Palistinians.
BTW – I liked what you said about rebels and morality plays. The Syrian rebels are racking up as many atrocities as Asad.
However, I am not a policy maker and I am not running for office. My comments that caused you confusion over my anti-imperialism were meant to show that both BHO and Romney are saddly lost given that they are not anti-imperialists and, quite to the contrary, seek to operate an empire.
http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120913/a_tendency_to_shoot_first_and_aim_later_president_obama_on_romney_s_reaction_to_the_current_crisis
The above is a good summation. It isn’t really about the silly movie.
“It really isn’t about the silly movie.”
No kidding.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/why-innocence-muslims-doesnt-really-matter-very-much
Some imbecile isn’t quite convinced yet from his hidey hole.
Also from Drum, another imbecile has all of the secret answers, presumably including, since Some Imbecile’s free speech has no ramifications, that the latter should be hired by a Romney State Department to make films for the U.S. Government’s Foreign Policy outreach:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/romneystrength-birth-meme
I’d be torn about who to shoot first were I in a foxhole with Some Imbecile and/or Terry Imbecile and they stood up, shot a flare off, and yelled “come and get it, you turbaned, pork-eating bastards!” in the direction of the other guy’s front line.
Maybe some friendly fire first and then turn one’s attention to cleaning up the bigger mess.
Really this seems more important than the back and forth on this thread.
I agree. I’m gonna shut up about this now.
“Really this seems more important than the back and forth on this thread.”
Well, yeah, in the trivial sense that nothing that occurs in any ObiWi thread actually matters compared to anything in the real world.
Donald Johnson (I’m not sure why I’m signed in as D.–I don’t remember having that name on any account)
Some new info:
Media for Christ, Led By Anti-Muslim Agitator Joseph Nasralla, Produced Incendiary Film
Nasralla has spoken at rallies organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (hugging Nasralla in photo at right) and has partnered in projects with Steve Klein and Gary Cass, including the 911 Defend Our Students Campaign . Cass is founder of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, an anti-gay and anti-Muslim organization that includes a who’s who of Religious Right luminaries on its advisory board. Media for Christ includes a production house for “The Way,” a Christian satellite television program in English and Arabic launched in 2010.
Coptic Christian leader of organization that produced anti-Muslim film spoke at Pamela Geller’s anti-mosque rally
Christian charity, ex-con linked to film on Islam
“I think the whole film is a terrible idea,” he said. “I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths. I don’t think that should happen. I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment —- the good judgment — not to be — not to offend other peoples’ faiths. It’s a very bad thing, I think, this guy’s doing.”
“he” = “Mitt Romney”
HE APOLOGIZED!!!
idiot.
“HE APOLOGIZED!!!”
I thought you were joking. Such a flipflop didn’t seem possible in such a short time. I googled–you’re not. Romney is just about the dumbest candidate for President I’ve ever seen. He can’t even play the jingoism card correctly–usually a sure winner for Republicans– and now he belatedly says the right thing.
“Romney is just about the dumbest candidate for President I’ve ever seen.”
Sigh. I didn’t think it possible, but his stupidity may surpass Bush.
My policy would be to exit all of the countries and cut off all funding.
Perhaps a bit all-or-nothing to be practical, but this seems like an interesting debate on the topic.
Not taking a position, just thought I’d pass it along as possibly being of interest.
that’s pretty good, russell, IMO. Yes, I was being a bit extreme, but not terribly so, IMO. The point was the idea that the dial needs to be reset.
What follows is going to sound like a tanget, but it’s really not.
see, here is the problem – or at least a major problem – US corporate policy is that profits must increase every quarter. Of course, they don’t always, but that is nonetheless what exec.s are driven to achieve. Now, in a world full of free market competition, profit margins will not – cannot – perpetually increase. In fact economic theory states that, in the long run in a free market, profits will *decrease* until they reach the normal rate of return on investments. Why? because other companies will enter a successful market niche and the force of that competition will drive prices down.
So US companies, in order to please investors, must defy free market forces. They must create monopolies on resources (resources include labor) and control resource costs. One way they do this is to exploit foreign markets where the free market is either not in operation or much less so than in the US or other industrialized nations. US companies gain and maintain a foothold in these countries through use of diplomatic sources, propaganda, corruption of the host countries’ politicians and outright military force. This has been the story of US involvement in the ME, Latin America, etc.
So, from a world peace perspective, the smaller footprint makes sense. From a corporate profit perspective it does not. So far the corp profit interests have won out.
The there is the fact that some resources in these countries are limited, esp. oil, and if the US doesn’t get it for its use then the Chinese et al will get it for their own use. However, this also gets us back to price and profit. The MEs will sell to the highest bidder they have no particular affinity for the Chinese or anyone else. We just don’t want to pay that much because so many bottom lines would be impacted.
So we are always meddling and we are not fooling those we meddle with – though I note that we often fool our own people at home who want to believe that we are the good guys. Actually, most of us are good guys. Only the corporatists that represent us in those other countries are not.
Where did they find this guy, who seems to be a cousin of Some Inbecile?
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/social-conservatives-cheer-islamic-ex-terrorist-huckster-at-values-voter-summit.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Before this election season is over, I expect to see Mitt Romney trot out the rotting zombie corpses of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who will lean stiffly into the microphone and endorse the Republican ticket, including the down-ticket candidates, and warn of the coming Apocalypse under an Obama second term.
That said, Count, BHO is an lying imbecile as well. Someone I know who was awarded the purple heart a couple weeks weeks ago (half the DNA in the spilled blood is mine) and got thrown back on the lines on the A-Stan/Pak border tells me that ANA bases are burning since 9/11. Everyone is on full high alert and everyone (US troops) is now assigned to a quick reaction force. The word is keep your safety off and finger on the trigger and stay behind ANA partners. The sh!t has hit the fan. It’s analogous to Tet ’68 over there. Yet, the slimy BHO has not the balls or honesty to address this. Nor does the US media.
BHO and Romney; Snots from the same nose. Different nostril perhaps, but how much does that matter?
What the country needs is good nasal decongestant.
I hope your relative comes through this Bh7.
add 5 …. 12
Yes, Blackhawk7 is a bit of a jerk. I’m the reasonable one ;-). Thanks for the kind sentiment, Count.