Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How about going around with me on it, then?

"Sport" is irrelevant here; obviously that isn't why we kill wogs. We kill wogs because they inhabit land that's full of oil and we haven't been self-sufficient in oil production since 1970. If the people there were, you know, spics or chinks or nigras or something instead of wogs -- hell, even if they were whiteys -- we'd still kill them. It's not directed against wogs specifically. They just happen to be the ones in the way.

So we support dictators of one kind and another (the Romans used to call this kind of critter a "client king") who will sell us their oil nice and cheap, and/or with a good profit for our own oil companies, and those dictators kill wogs. Or, when a dictator gets uppity like Saddam Hussein did, we'll go the more expensive route, bomb, invade, and kill wogs our own selves instead of by proxy. It's perfectly understandable that this ticks folks off. Then they do things like fly airplanes into our buildings, and we do more bombing and invading to hunt down those responsible (supposedly).

I know they like to talk religion when they say why the hate our guts, but you'll notice that they don't equally hate the guts of other countries who are at least equally infidelish if not more so. That being the case, one is justified in questioning whether they are fully sincere in this expression of religious motivation. An alternative explanation isn't that hard to find.

Some aspects of this I can agree with but it is way over the top.

There's a vast majority of people in those lands that we do not kill. Many appreciate some of what we have done, some are actually friends. It wasn't shown on TV, of course, but the next day there were marches of Libyans with signs apologizing to us and speaking of shared friendship. There, their excercising of free speech is actually taking a mortal risk; something that most people on this forum will never have to personally do.

Obama is currently getting a lot of grief from the bluster-and-blunder crowd for toppling Mubarak and even Kaddafi and for not toppling Assad. Do we have "true believers" no less fanatical than any Islamic terrorist? Yes, perhaps more clever in the persona they project but that's so they can come to power and do what you claim. Does that make the entire US, you and I, evil? I don't think so; occasionally stupid beyond belief, but not all evil.

Most Western embassies in the Moslem countries have seen protests over the film, but the protestors know Hollywood, they know the film was produced there, and they know Al Gore made the Internet that spawned YouTube. We have our t-baggers, why would you not expect a similar array of such ignorant people in less developed countries???

Do we deal with it, or do we scratch our nuts, sing kumbaya over our right to free speech, and pontificate on how much better magic pony land would actually be?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Ok, but the point is that the filmmaker said "Islam sucks," not "go kill a bunch of Americans."
On the other hand, holding up signs that say "behead all those who insult The Prophet" IS a direct command to kill.

Ok, true but a distinction without a diffference. One actually resulted in violence. Apparently, saying "Islam Sucks" is more directive than "behead all those who insult The Prophet". Their rules, not mine. I am practically a pacifist and really don't understand violence that much. We just re-watched "American History X" this weekend and it reminded me a bit of the situation. A question was asked of Derek after an assault in prison - "has anything that you have done made your life better?" In fact, everything he had done had made his and his family's worse. I am enough of a sweetheart/sucker to hope that nothing happens to anyone involved in the making of the film. Seriously, it is just a shitty film. But, that is the American in me talking.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, and I'm sure a decade ago you'd be trying to convince us that none of your "wogs" would commit suicide by taking command and crashing their commercial planes into buildings.

Ah yes, the classic critical-thought-ending device:

"9-11!! 9-11!!! NINE-ELEVEN!!!!!!"

I'm not surprised that's all you've got. It was old and worn out years ago, you should know.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In case you hadn't noticed, the a-hole in question put his own life at risk.

Yea, I notice the a-hole in question with clothes wrapped around his face to hid his identity and surrounded by LA's finish.

I have little doubt that people ranging from cops to intelligence service and the military will have their lives put on the line protecting the chicken crusader as well over the coming months - as everyone here, of course, moves their naval gazing onto new topics in the near future.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There are a lot of polls 5 days old or more in the RCP Average at this point, but if you take the 3 recent ones that run through yesterday, this is what it looks like:

Obama: 47
Romney: 45.7

Margin: Obama +1.3
Undecied/Other: 7.3

What's remarkable is how stable this has been except for a post-Convention bump for the President. Victory has seemed to be within grasp for Mitt Romney and has somehow eluded him. Sealing the election has also eluded President Obama.

Mitt Romney is in the position in which he must take huge risks of making a fool of himself to try to win. Time is running out.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, I notice the a-hole in question with clothes wrapped around his face to hid his identity and surrounded by LA's finish.

I have little doubt that people ranging from cops to intelligence service and the military will have their lives put on the line protecting the chicken crusader as well over the coming months - as everyone here, of course, moves their naval gazing onto new topics in the near future.

It IS pretty chickenshit not to display your mug out there after producing a flick. He should be proud of his work, right? I wonder who he is afraid of, the Muslim horde or the American left?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Some aspects of this I can agree with but it is way over the top.

In what way? Let's see:

There's a vast majority of people in those lands that we do not kill.

So because we leave most of them alive, we get a pass for killing a minority of them? What's the cut-off line here? Five percent of the population? Ten percent? Or is it a matter of absolute numbers? A hundred thousand? A million? Six million, maybe?

The bottom line, which is quite unavoidable, is that we need to get out of there. We need to wean ourselves off oil dependency and stop interfering violently and forcibly in the Middle East. And while we're at it, also stop interfering violently and forcibly in the rest of the world, too, even if they're less inclined to blow themselves up and take us with them.

We need to close most of our foreign military bases, if not all of them. We need to shrink our military and redefine its mission as a clear and objective defend the United States rather than a nebulous and ultimately anything-goes defend American "interests" -- which could be anything the government says it is, amounting to a blank check to commit aggressive war anywhere and anytime.

When we do this, we will have much less in the way of hostility and violence directed our way. We can go on being godless infidel sex-crazy degenerates and all the Muslims will do is sneer at us and predict we're all going to Hell, and we're used to that from the fundie Christians already anyway. And if some jerk-off makes a film slandering the Prophet Mohammed we can just roll our eyes and shake our heads and ignore it in the confidence that all the Muslim world will do is predict that he'll go to Hell. (Which he may; what do I know?)

We can't do diddly about the crimes in our past. But we can and should and must do something about the crimes in our present, so that they will not continue to happen in our future. Until we do, this kind of thing will continue happening on any pretext.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Really. What makes you, a self-proclaimed pacifist, such an expert in "their rules?"
It was one of "them" who translated the movie into Arabic. My guess is that they know each other a lot better then we know them, and if they decide to hold up signs about beheading people, there's a reason for that.

Nothing, that was my point. I don't understand it when Christians bomb abortion clinics either. Years ago, I was asked to go with a Sunday school class to picket an abortion clinic. Wild horses couldn't have dragged me there. I left the class shortly after. Sorry, I am not going to hurl insults at people. Their business at the clinic is their business.

I wonder what would have happened had someone walked up to the kid with the sign and said "The Prophet is a so and so". Would her kid have beheaded him or her on the spot? Did they bring weapons?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

And this just shows that the person who needs to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time is you. It is possible to both condemn America's belligerent foreign policy and recognize that the culture of the Middle East is one of the most violent on Earth, and not just because they've been kicked around a lot.

Sure, its possible. It is also possible to do that and condemn a bigot spewing hate without being accused of undermining the right to free speech.

Honestly, I still remain suprise to find that you live in such a black-and-white world.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I condemn the filmmaker, but he is not responsible for anyone's death. The murderers themselves are. Period.

Well, that's some improvement.

He is responsible for giving cover to our enemies to undertake an action against us contingent on that cover provided. Perhaps they would have eventually attacked the embassy but it would not have been in the context of seeking revenge against infidels denigrating Islam; it would have been seen for what it was, extremist pursuing their own extreme agenda that doesn't sit well with the majority of Libyans - at least not yet; keep up this chorus of support for our chicken crusader, and that could change. Next time you’re on a commercial air flight taking off remember that and those shoulder-launched SAMs - it might just give you a sense of being in the x-hairs that so many of us discount as a concern for the thousands that actually are protecting our lives.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Does it matter?
Those signs were seen throughout the world, and violence is still taking place.

Not really, just musing over her commitment is all. It is all well and good to produce a sign or film, but do you have the guts to back it up?

I have the same reaction to the sign as I have to lil' KKKers at the burning cross. How sad that that kid is growing up holding such a sign. My own son just put away his stuffed animals.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Nothing, that was my point. I don't understand it when Christians bomb abortion clinics either. Years ago, I was asked to go with a Sunday school class to picket an abortion clinic. Wild horses couldn't have dragged me there. I left the class shortly after. Sorry, I am not going to hurl insults at people. Their business at the clinic is their business.

I wonder what would have happened had someone walked up to the kid with the sign and said "The Prophet is a so and so". Would her kid have beheaded him or her on the spot? Did they bring weapons?

The constant attempts to draw equivalence between Christians and Muslims are their own form of bigotry. Without comparing the prevalence of violence and the number of people killed, you're spreading misinformation. You're also leaving out the fact that the Bible forbids such acts, while the Koran mandates them. A Christian who commits murder is going against the teachings of their faith. A Muslim who does so in the name of "jihad" is acting in accordance with theirs.

There is also the fact that an abortion clinic is actually a place where human beings are killed to begin with, which is slightly different than an offensive movie. Not that it excuses attacks on abortion clinics in any way. But if you want to draw equivalence, find examples of Christians killing people over speech they find offensive.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes, the classic critical-thought-ending device:

"9-11!! 9-11!!! NINE-ELEVEN!!!!!!"

I'm not surprised that's all you've got. It was old and worn out years ago, you should know.

Your problem is that you are much more outraged by U.S. violence in retaliation for terrorist attacks than you are by terrorism itself. And you have excuses and justifications for the terrorists, but none for the U.S. Why is that?

-------------------------------------- north African incedents ---------------------------process process process-------------------------------------------------------------------------Rmoney deflated pleader------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Your problem is that you are much more outraged by U.S. violence in retaliation for terrorist attacks than you are by terrorism itself. And you have excuses and justifications for the terrorists, but none for the U.S. Why is that?

Largely because I'm considered responsible (thanks to my navy-blue passport) for the actions of the first, and not at all for the second. I tend to hold people who claim to act on my behalf to a higher standard than people who don't.

What was it that one book of yours said about motes and neighbors' eyes? It was a pretty good line, that one.

Has the north African incedents changed the nature of the political race?
Not in a way that helps Romney

Originally Posted by Pew Research Center

About four-in-ten Americans (43%) have followed news about the attacks on U.S. embassies in the Middle East and the killing of an American ambassador very closely, making it by far the most closely followed foreign news story of the year.

Those who have followed this story have much more positive opinions about Barack Obama’s handling of the situation than Mitt Romney’s comments on the crisis. Nearly half (45%) approve of Obama’s handling of the recent attacks on U.S. embassies and the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya; 36% disapprove of Obama’s handling of this situation.

In contrast, only about a quarter (26%) of those who have tracked news on turmoil in the Middle East approve of Romney’s comments on the situation; nearly half (48%) disapprove.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 13-16 among 1,001 adults, finds that public interest in the presidential campaign has increased sharply in the past week. Currently, 42% say they are following news about the presidential candidates very closely, up from 31% a week earlier.

This sould not surprise anyone. At least anyone above a certain age.
Those of us who remember 1980 know full well that this does not feel at all like 1980. After all, 1980 was a late 2T year and 2012 is an early 4T year. And turnings are marked by theri mood.
Auto-Saved

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Has the north African incedents changed the nature of the political race?
Not in a way that helps Romney


This sould not surprise anyone. At least anyone above a certain age.
Those of us who remember 1980 know full well that this does not feel at all like 1980. After all, 1980 was a late 2T year and 2012 is an early 4T year. And turnings are marked by theri mood.

45% approve of Obama's handling, 48% disapprove of Romney's comments. In other words, the exact number of people who will vote for Obama no matter what. The number of people who actually know what Romney's comments were is probably extremely small, therefore many have no opinion, while many Obama supporters will disapprove without even having heard them.

What this particular incident has in common with 1980 is the similarity in approach between Carter and Obama when it came to the Iranian Revolution and the "Arab Spring", and the similar results at U.S. embassies. It is rather uncanny.

The media is, as we speak, in an unprecedented (even for them) full court press to save Obama and the Democratic Party. They're not even attempting to be journalists anymore. They're asking no tough questions of the Administration on the collapse of its foreign policy, and instead trying to make Romney the news. They're not acting like they think they're winning. They're acting like they're desperately panicking because they know they're losing. All caution has been thrown to the wind, and they don't even care about their credibility anymore. When the dust settles, I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News is the only media outlet left standing, and ends up being the new standard of objective journalism.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Some interesting thoughts here. My perspective? If Westboro Church (and I won't say Westboro "Baptist" because it's an insult to most decent Baptists out there) wants to make an embarrassing ass of themselves and stand on a street corner and picket a veteran's funeral - they have the inalienable right to do so. Is it bad taste? Absolutely. But they have this right to do this. Do I agree with what they are doing? Absolutely not. But, I'll defend their ability to be able to make asses of themselves as that's their inalienable right to speak their piece.

If biker gangs wants to park their bikes across from the cemetery and rev-up their engines during the funeral so the family of the fallen soldier doesn't have to listen to the jeers and insults of the Westboro folks - they have the right to do this and should be able to do so.

A nut from Westboro does not have the right to become violent and aggressive with people who are walking by them. Likewise, the biker gang does not have the right to kick the shit out of the Westboro people for making asses of themselves (even though many of us wouldn't mind to see that happen) as that would be an infringement on their personage.

If someone wants to make an inflammatory Christian or Islamic film - they should be able to say what they want to say. It doesn't mean I have to be subjected to agree with it or watch it. And if Christians or Muslims want to protest what is said in said film - they should be able to do so in a peaceful manner. If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to decide to use the excuse of a film maybe 50 people had seen to slaughter an ambassador - it's not acceptable. Violence should never be an outcome of protest out of dissent for thought - and when it is it should be quashed immediately and forcefully of necessary to protect everyone.

By their actions you shall know them though - terrorists like to hide behind religious affiliations.

j.p.

That's all fine.

But now with the lost of the Navy Seal who was trying to find those SAM shoulder launchers, do we have any volunteers to go over there and re-start the hunt?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Come on guys, you know while you're out there tracking down those SAMs down, you could wax eloquently about the freedom of speech with any Libyan that wants to listen.


Anyone? Anyone?

yea, didnt' think so.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

45% approve of Obama's handling, 48% disapprove of Romney's comments. In other words, the exact number of people who will vote for Obama no matter what. The number of people who actually know what Romney's comments were is probably extremely small, therefore many have no opinion, while many Obama supporters will disapprove without even having heard them.

What this particular incident has in common with 1980 is the similarity in approach between Carter and Obama when it came to the Iranian Revolution and the "Arab Spring", and the similar results at U.S. embassies. It is rather uncanny.

Ahh, you're moving past denial and into bargaining.
There's still plenty of pain to go.
I suspect that most of it will come on a certain tuesday night in November.

But it gets better after that. :

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Largely because I'm considered responsible (thanks to my navy-blue passport) for the actions of the first, and not at all for the second. I tend to hold people who claim to act on my behalf to a higher standard than people who don't.

What was it that one book of yours said about motes and neighbors' eyes? It was a pretty good line, that one.

In other words, you have a double standard. I wonder, does it apply only to Al Qaeda or also to Saddam Hussein? Was he a poor, innocent "brown person" unjustly persecuted by the evil, racist United States?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Ah yes, the classic critical-thought-ending device:

"9-11!! 9-11!!! NINE-ELEVEN!!!!!!"

I'm not surprised that's all you've got. It was old and worn out years ago, you should know.

I think I'll let that stand without comment other than maybe you should hang that onto the door of Justin's Magic Pony Playhouse so folks know what they are getting into.

Originally Posted by Aramea

It IS pretty chickenshit not to display your mug out there after producing a flick. He should be proud of his work, right? I wonder who he is afraid of, the Muslim horde or the American left?

Either way, he'll be depending on others to protect his freedom of speech. What a guy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In what way? Let's see:



So because we leave most of them alive, we get a pass for killing a minority of them? What's the cut-off line here? Five percent of the population? Ten percent? Or is it a matter of absolute numbers? A hundred thousand? A million? Six million, maybe?

The bottom line, which is quite unavoidable, is that we need to get out of there. We need to wean ourselves off oil dependency and stop interfering violently and forcibly in the Middle East. And while we're at it, also stop interfering violently and forcibly in the rest of the world, too, even if they're less inclined to blow themselves up and take us with them.

We need to close most of our foreign military bases, if not all of them. We need to shrink our military and redefine its mission as a clear and objective defend the United States rather than a nebulous and ultimately anything-goes defend American "interests" -- which could be anything the government says it is, amounting to a blank check to commit aggressive war anywhere and anytime.

When we do this, we will have much less in the way of hostility and violence directed our way. We can go on being godless infidel sex-crazy degenerates and all the Muslims will do is sneer at us and predict we're all going to Hell, and we're used to that from the fundie Christians already anyway. And if some jerk-off makes a film slandering the Prophet Mohammed we can just roll our eyes and shake our heads and ignore it in the confidence that all the Muslim world will do is predict that he'll go to Hell. (Which he may; what do I know?)

We can't do diddly about the crimes in our past. But we can and should and must do something about the crimes in our present, so that they will not continue to happen in our future. Until we do, this kind of thing will continue happening on any pretext.

I kind of thought you'd respond that way. I was merely pointing out that we don't sterilize oil lands of human life as you suggested. The toll is substantial but its not total. I think such hyperbole stands in the way of actually being taken serioius on the serious issues you raise.

The other thing is, and I'm sure you understand, we can't extract ourselves with the wave of one of Justin's magic wanes. It's going to take serious effort and costs that many are not yet willing to pay in this country. In the meantime, I think we also agree that maybe its wise not to piss off the natives too much.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Ahh, you're moving past denial and into bargaining.
There's still plenty of pain to go.
I suspect that most of it will come on a certain tuesday night in November.

But it gets better after that. :

Yeah. Nanny nanny boo boo back at you. I'm sure you can't conceive of someone whose entire self-image and identity isn't wrapped up in the fortunes of some politician or political party, which explains the bizarre and childish nature of your post. To the left, politics is their religion, government is their church, politicians are their High Priests, and Obama is their Messiah. They don't even understand that everybody else isn't like them.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The constant attempts to draw equivalence between Christians and Muslims are their own form of bigotry. Without comparing the prevalence of violence and the number of people killed, you're spreading misinformation.

Not at all. If you're going to compare the body counts for Christianity and Islam, you need to do so for the entire history of both religions (perhaps adjusting for the fact that Christianity is a few centuries older), and so you need to include all of the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others killed for religious reasons by Christian authorities in all lands and times when Christianity has held official sanction, going back to the Roman Empire starting in 325.

If you do that, and then adjust for one other factor -- the primitiveness or advanced character of the society in each case -- you find that while Christianity may look a slight bit more savage, in fact it is primitive societies that are truly savage regardless of religion, and neither Christians nor Muslims are nearly as bloodthirsty in the modern West as their histories would lead one to expect.

You're also leaving out the fact that the Bible forbids such acts, while the Koran mandates them.

The Koran actually forbids them except in defense when attacked. ("Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors." Surat al-Baqarah 191-194.) The Bible actually mandates them (or at least the Old Testament does) when a people follows "false gods." (Exodus 32: 27-29; 1st Kings 18:40.) In both scriptures one can find justification for either aggression or peace, depending on what you emphasize and what you downplay. It's the nature of scripture, if it is at all useful, to be cryptic and subject to interpretation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I kind of thought you'd respond that way. I was merely pointing out that we don't sterilize oil lands of human life as you suggested.

Since I didn't suggest anything of the kind, this means you were engaging in a straw man.

The other thing is, and I'm sure you understand, we can't extract ourselves with the wave of one of Justin's magic wanes.

Actually, we can. It would take nothing more than telling the oil companies to stuff it when they lobby for military action to protect their access to Middle East oil.