Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I wonder if these mobs are reacting to US killings of Muslims in the wars, or to someone "insulting" their faith.

Sometimes, I've found, people act on more than just one simplistic motivation. In particular, crowds tend to be that way. Maybe that's just me.

I even wonder if killing justifies more killing in turn.

Justifies? No. But as the wise woman said, two wrongs may not make a right, but they damn well make it even. And there's something to be said for evening things out, when that's one of a very few similarly-crappy options around.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Sometimes, I've found, people act on more than just one simplistic motivation. In particular, crowds tend to be that way. Maybe that's just me.

People can even be wrong about what their own primary motivation is. People throughout the Middle East are already annoyed with the U.S. because we bomb them, invade them, support murderous tyrants over them, and support Israel who also bombs and invades them. Since they're already pissed off over those other things, an insult to their religion prompts a big reaction, especially when political groups are fanning the flames. If we weren't doing things that already pissed them off, the film would I think not provoke anything like this reaction.

Originally Posted by playwrite

This nonsense has been thoroughly debunked countless times.

...Like JPT, Glick (now know as JDG 66) just repeats such nonsense again and again...

-PW has a few things to explain, like how everyone who saw it coming knew what the results of the CRA, Fannie and Freddie would be:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

...Sovran Finacial & the CRA:

http://www.allbusiness.com/personal-.../123996-1.html

"...Headlines brought the news of a recent [1989] challenge by community groups to the $2.2 billion merger of Virginia's Sovran Financial Corporation and Atlanta's Citizens and Southern Corporation on grounds the institutions hadn't lived up to their CRA obligation..."

...and Continental Illinois:

"Continental Illinois National Bank was challenged [c. 1989] under CRA regulations during its purchase of an Arizona bank. In this rare CRA challenge by federal regulators, the purchasing transaction was denied."

and Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

"...The change in policy also comes at the same time [1999] that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants [BTW, in an automated system?!] ..."

...and...

Dime Bancorp/Washington Mutual:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A962958260

"Last summer, when Dime Bancorp and Anchor Bancorp announced their plans to merge, Inner City Press/Community on the Move, a nonprofit organization based in the Bronx, took a familiar stance. Charging that the two banks had failed to serve residents properly in the Bronx, Inner City moved to block the merger, relying on the Community Reinvestment Act, which compels banks to lend in the communities they serve."

...So, in the beginning, community activists used the US Congress to strong arm banks into making those loans; that's a matter of historical fact. After that, since they didn't have much choice, most of the financials decided to close their eyes and try making lemonade out of lemons...

...did everyone see it? No. It was guys like this:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick;319722
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank[/URL]

In 2003... Frank stated, "These two entities [Freddie and Fannie] ...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." ..."I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."

...were the ones who said it wasn't a problem.

Now, even they admit they were wrong:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...cts/page/full/

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession...

“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said... “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.”

...but Playwrong won't admit it.

Yet.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And yet you're still in the trailer park...

1) I've been looking for a convenient condo, but they aren't common in Clarksville.

2) I can hardly wait for Playdude to explain what's wrong with living in a trailer park.

This will be entertaining!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, where's that military history book of yours that you were so fond of telling us about?

-My Ft. Donelson research is providing raw material for my Master's Thesis, meaning that at least my professors will read it i.e., 3 times as many people who will read BR's stuff.

Oh! And Wally Poodle PinkSplice said he wanted to read it, but that was my narrative version. That was also before Pinky went beserk.

His loss!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Doubtful... They gave us the list of the 19 hijackers beforehand. That shows they wouldn't want to spoil their own operation, but it also shows that their intelligence gathering ability might be even better than our own. Here's a Fox documentary on how easily they've been able to spy on us and acquire military info/technology. Enviable really, but it puts them on a short list of actors who could get info on our consulate safe houses.

Anyway, means and motive is enough to go on a suspect list, but it's a long way from the certainty of a conviction.

The fact that you jump to that conclusion, with no evidence to support it, is troubling. Apparently you think Israel likes seeing a bunch of radical Muslims getting worked up into violent mobs. I think it's safe to say they don't.

But I think you're right that something strange is going on. It doesn't fit the typical modus operandi of Al Qaeda. AQ typically relies on improvised weapons - this attack was carried out with military-grade rifles & mortar. AQ attacks obvious and public targets then quickly vanishes before the element of surprise wears off - this was a two-part attack that went beyond the symbolic embassy itself and tracked the (secret) movements of specific diplomatic staff members over a several-hour period.

Al Qaeda has been heavily damaged by U.S. efforts. They've undergone a number of leadership changes, and it is not unreasonable to think that they've decided to try different tactics. This is something they could pull off with a few operatives in each of these countries, much easier than trying to pull off a single major terrorist attack. It has the mark of their style, of trying to make a big splash of publicity and get attention, without all the difficulties of trying to destroy some major target. Small events in a lot of countries has a similar impact to one large event.

It also seems to involve a highly-coordinated media campaign that left Americans divided and bickering over our most fundamental right to free-speech.

Maybe AQ is evolving, and integrating itself in to existing states' militaries. Maybe Mossad is sending Obama a message about his stance on Iran. Maybe this is just the remnants of well-armed and well-trained Gaddafi loyalists.

Maybe it really is just a random group of religious fundamentalists who were pissed off about a movie that ten people saw in LA... but honestly, that last one seems like it takes the biggest stretch to fit the facts.

I think I've figured out the video thing, which is clearly at least a partial red herring. The Obama Administration are the ones hyping it. Yesterday Jay Carney went so far as to insist repeatedly that it was the video, not the anniversary of 9/11, that motivated the "protests". It's CYA. If, as it seems obvious, this is a coordinated effort on the 9/11 anniversary -- probably Al Qaeda trying to say "hey, remember us, we're still here!", the Obama Administration is open to questions of why they didn't prepare for it and why their embassies were so poorly secured. It also calls into question their entire policy on the "Arab Spring", and their entire approach to national security and foreign policy in the Middle East. They don't want that. It's much better for them to talk about some YouTube video.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

"Semites" are arabs-hebrews-assyrians-etc... Nobody's got a problem with them. Fascist killers (even if they happen to hold Israeli passports), on the other hand? There's where we get to a problem. Their race and supposed-religion isn't even a factor.

Uh huh. And you would agree that Al Qaeda and similar radical Islamic terrorists are Fascist killers, right? Just checking to make sure you're not as much of a nutcase as you appear to be.

EDIT: Never mind. You removed all doubt:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Justifies? No. But as the wise woman said, two wrongs may not make a right, but they damn well make it even. And there's something to be said for evening things out, when that's one of a very few similarly-crappy options around.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm sure this comes as a surprise to you but there are terrorist groups in the Middle East that hate us. Yea, they got the bigotry, big time, but unlike you or Weave, they've got a shit load of AK47s and grenade launchers and they not only want to us them on our people, they know how to use them on our people.

However, in the ME, particularly in Libya, maybe now less so in Egypt, there are many more people who like the US or at least tolerate us. The crazies with the guns can't just go and shoot up our embassy and then dance around in the streets - more than likely the locals will kill them. So, they need the excuse/cover to attack us in a way that not only helps protect them but more importantly gives the appearance that they somehow represent the general viewpoint and willingness-to-kill-us of the larger population. It's about hearts and minds.

They are also counting on the instantaneous stupid and bigoted reaction on our side that this is exemplary of 1.6 billion Muslims just dying to do what a relatively few terrorist were able to do. And they very please to have us get caught up in some sanctimonious comparison of our freedom of speech to the obvious backwardness of those 1.6 billion Muslims. Yea, that will win hearts and minds.

This is not about freedom of speech; this is about not being so utterly stupid in a very hostile world. It’s about growing up.

So your point again is that if someone wants progressives like you to treat them with kid gloves, they just need to use a lot of violence.

I bet that does not work for you for long.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I've been pretty clear on this forum that I don't operate in magic pony land.

We have personnel in areas with hostile forces looking for cover to attack them.

You have the freedom of speech to provide that cover - the question is why would you?

Are you that much of a narcissist?

Being patriotic is more that wearing a flag lapel pin or pounding the table about sending some other family’s kid into harm’s way.

Your idea of patriotism seems to be to spend more time talking about someone who "offended" someone than looking at the people doing the killing.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If your talking about me, that's about the dumbest reach I've ever seen. Where am I prosecuting a case against the UNIVERSIAL RIGHT to free speech???

My case is against utter stupidity that gets other people killed while the stupids sit comfortable at home, afforded by those getting killed, and wax on about their free speech.

Hey jerk. speech does not kill anyone. Keep your eye on the ones who kill.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And that's equally a bullshit argument, equally a call on us to be stupid.

The filmmaker has the legal right to produce that film.

That film is really, really stupid and offensive to Muslims, and should not have been produced.

Acknowledging the second of those in no way, shape or form eliminates or contradicts the first. The only conflict is a made-up, phony one presented by people wanting to use it for political purposes. In reality, no such conflict exists.

But it was produced. So what? The answer is for muslims to accept that without violence. But we accept that they can kill over trifles.

When the bible thumpers start doing it, you won't understand why. I will. It will be because they learned that violence will teach progessives to be afraid of you.

Originally Posted by Weave

So Im bigoted now? Show one bigoted thing I've said here....because I haven't. You know Playwrite, it is possible to argue your points with others without attributing thier point of view to being a bigot or evil. And its also possible to do so without attacking them personally or using profanity. Im wont claim I'm perfect al the time but in that respect but I at least Im trying...and I'll admit when I've gone too far. You do this repeatedly using terms like "tea-bagger" etc. with impunity and its ridiculous.

By the way, you are arguing on a hill of sand. When most of the liberals here agree that freedom is speech should be defended and not being politcally correct, you've lost the argument. When your hero Obama agrees that there WAS NO justification for the attacks, you've lost the argument, when Hillary makes 2 speeches now saying this was not justified, you've lost the argument...

Youu seem to be a very angry person...how sad....

Maybe the teapart types should kill a progressive evry time one of them calls them a teabagger. Eventually, progressives could warn people aginst "bigoted" and "provocative" speech aginst Tea Partiers.

I won't even go in to the scientologists.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Since he isn't saying the attacks were justified, no, he hasn't.

Actually, nobody except maybe the people who pulled them off is saying the attacks were justified. And that includes people who say the film wasn't justified, either.

In some conflicts, nobody wears a white hat. Hitler and Stalin weren't fond of one another, you may recall.

The guy who made the movie did not kill anybody. The easily offended a$$holes of the muslim world did. Stop equating the two.

Originally Posted by B Butler

The spiral of rhetoric precedes the spiral of violence. Middle Eastern cultures tend to go violent before Americans do. Yes, by your culture and world view's standards, your culture and world view is correct, and any other culture and world view is wrong.

I'm a Whig more or less. A progressive. I see a natural progression from the hunter gatherer cultural pattern to agricultural empire to industrial democracy. These transitions are difficult. The Middle East is still transitioning from an agricultural empire pattern where autocratic highly religious cultures are dominant. Middle Eastern faith based codes of morality are even further behind the times than a typical American faith based bible thumper's view.

Ideally, everyone would be focused on getting everyone fed and forming governments that will respond to the People's needs. In this less than ideal world, clerics and politicians care more about maximizing their own power and public presence than The People. Neither side of the Atlantic has a monopoly on fire eating power hungry (expletive deleted.)

Yes. Correct. You can promote your world view as being less vile than other world views. Fine. The question is whether your world view is promoting peace. If you claim that you have a basic right to do things that are known to trigger violence, there's a problem, no?

Knuckling under to bullies who use violence to shut people up does not promote peace. You think they will stop with this?

Originally Posted by JDFP

I don't say that pro-choice folks aren't Christians (in my post, I clearly said that, it's not my place to call what is in the heart of someone) - but it's pretty clear that someone who classifies themselves as "pro-choice" are indeed going against a dogmatic teaching of the faith. And it would apply to feminists as well.

j.p.

What about a Catholic who is personally opposed to abortion in accordance with Catholic doctrine but also believes that it's not the place of government to impose that Catholic belief on a population that is majority non-Catholic? IIRC, that is the stand that Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and others have held.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

The guy who made the movie did not kill anybody. The easily offended a$$holes of the muslim world did. Stop equating the two.

Stop raping tied-up little boys.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

And now...left wing anti-semitism. Great. Goodnight.

Um. I don't think JohnMc82 is a "left winger" but perhaps he can clarify.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh huh. And you would agree that Al Qaeda and similar radical Islamic terrorists are Fascist killers, right?

Sure -- that's what it meant above when I said race and religion "isn't a factor"; did you miss that part? Because you quoted it... To the extent that such people actually exist, they're qualitatively the same kind of folks as those others. I'm sure they'd be firing missiles with reckless abandon* into California and all along the eastern seaboard if they only had the drones to do it with.

----
-edit-
*That is to say, "with great soul-rending regret for the unfortunately unavoidable collateral damages". Naturally.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Stop raping tied-up little boys.

I never started. But by wringing your hands over this california guy, you are pandering to psychos who do.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ks_115451.html

...It’s interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood–controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.... where does this logic end? One of the things we’ve learned all too well is that the “Muslim street” — and often Muslim elites — have a near-limitless capacity to take offense at slights to their religion, honor, history, or feelings.

Does Barnicle want Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses, charged with being an accessory to murder, too? That book has in one way or another led to several deaths. Surely he should have known that he was stirring up trouble. Perhaps the U.S. Justice Department and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security could work together on a joint prosecution?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Our military is supposed to be used to protect American i.e. democratic values.
The freedom to post a crappy and insulting video on youtube certainly qualifies as one of those...

-For you and everyone else: What part of the movie is offensive? Which part of the movie, had it been removed, would have satisfied the Jihadi types? Be specific.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I never started.

Neither did I.

But by wringing your hands over this california guy, you are pandering to psychos who do.

No, I am simply upholding standards of decency and religious toleration. Do you have a problem with that?

Really, I'm not the one making an equivalence here, or at least a connection. I can judge the film without even thinking about what some crazy-ass Muslims are doing in foreign countries over it.

Can you?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Excellent point.
As we've seen recently, there are already plenty of nutcases out there willing to shoot people up. All they need is an excuse.

Thanks. I think it is obvious.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ks_115451.html

...It’s interesting to see such committed liberals in lockstep agreement with the Islamist government in Egypt, which implored the U.S. government to take legal action against the filmmakers. Interestingly, not even the Muslim Brotherhood–controlled Egyptian government demanded these men be tried for murder.... where does this logic end? One of the things we’ve learned all too well is that the “Muslim street” — and often Muslim elites — have a near-limitless capacity to take offense at slights to their religion, honor, history, or feelings.

Does Barnicle want Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses, charged with being an accessory to murder, too? That book has in one way or another led to several deaths. Surely he should have known that he was stirring up trouble. Perhaps the U.S. Justice Department and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security could work together on a joint prosecution?




-For you and everyone else: What part of the movie is offensive? Which part of the movie, had it been removed, would have satisfied the Jihadi types? Be specific.

Good point. These are guys who get upset over women who don't wear a burka.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Neither did I.



No, I am simply upholding standards of decency and religious toleration. Do you have a problem with that?

Really, I'm not the one making an equivalence here, or at least a connection. I can judge the film without even thinking about what some crazy-ass Muslims are doing in foreign countries over it.

Can you?

Glick had a good point. Which part of the movie was acceptable, and which was not?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Good point. These are guys who get upset over women who don't wear a burka.

-Exactly. Back in 1991 I remember Egyptian Jihad types explaining the reason they hate America: We let our women run around "naked".


Well, I filtered back through the posts, and what do I find?

Originally Posted by playwrite

I know where I've been and what I have done...

...which is, nothing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. PW was a Marine in his time and his son is one today. What's your story?

-You mean, PW might have been a marine for the 3 days until his butt got kicked out of boot camp. Or are you referring to PW's service in the Parachute Ski Marines?

If Playfraud was a marine, he was the most incompetent and ignorant marine in history, and that's saying a lot.

From the archives:

Originally Posted by playwrite

...God, the Marine brainwash starts early. Even before he actually signed, they had him going 2x a week to "PT!" including of late, 20 milers w/packs. WTF?! They even gave him a fricken video of boot camp to learn some of the cadences. Now, he goes around singing that friken song about when a soldier dies and goes to heaven, not to fear, he'll find a marine guarding the pearly gates....

To which I responded:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-That obscure song known as The Marine Corps Hymn?
...

...that easily forgettable song which most USMC veterans simply end up referring to as "that friken song about when a soldier dies and goes to heaven, not to fear, he'll find a marine guarding the pearly gates"...

How far should I dig into the archives?

Are you actually taking Playfraud's little off hand remarks seriously, Mr. Horn? Are you really that gullible? Well, as you know, you're the real deal, so I'll always cut you a little break, Mr. Horn.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Glick had a good point. Which part of the movie was acceptable, and which was not?

No, he didn't. Especially the way he worded it. "Satisfying the Jihadi types" is completely irrelevant here. The movie is offensive because it is crude, stupid, and fallacious, not because Muslims don't like it and not because some of them may attack our embassies because of it.

This is what you don't seem to get.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, he didn't. Especially the way he worded it. "Satisfying the Jihadi types" is completely irrelevant here. The movie is offensive because it is crude, stupid, and fallacious, not because Muslims don't like it and not because some of them may attack our embassies because of it.

This is what you don't seem to get.

-Uh, it's the Jihadis that you are pandering to. That's who you're afraid of offending.

And you still haven't specified which part of the film they could have cut without offending the Jihadis.

And the point others have made is good, too: What happens if the Christians start doing this? Or the Mormons? Or the Scientologists?

I should also point out that the whole thing was pre-planned, and the movie just an excuse anyway. But it is an interesting discussion.

Edit:

This makes the point well:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/