Attacks on US Embassies

Extremists did a punk test on our embassy in Libya and our security failed miserably.

They need to put real Marines in the embassies and send the rent-a-cops back to the mall.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']All you no-beards look the same to us.[/quote]
Except that this couldn't be further from the truth as evidenced by Clak's link prior to his.

I was very surprised and impressed to see them. I'd really like to see more denouncing the attacks as opposed to pro-america sentiments though.
Especially from some of the more 'liberal' Arab states (UAE, Kuwait, Qatar?)
Click to expand...
Surprised and impressed that people in the Middle East aren't a monolithic group of religious fanatics?:rofl:
 
[quote name='eldergamer']All you no-beards look the same to us.



I was very surprised and impressed to see them. I'd really like to see more denouncing the attacks as opposed to pro-america sentiments though.
Especially from some of the more 'liberal' Arab states (UAE, Kuwait, Qatar?)[/QUOTE]

I've never understood this insistance by some, for leaders of groups to be required to apologize for the actions of a few fuckwits they may or may not have any involvement with. What does the UAE have to do with this? Nothing. Kuwait? Nothing. Qatar? Nothing. Hell, 80% of UAE is expatriots, so you want the general public which is made up of Indians, Brits, Russians, to issue apologies? The killings of Muslim-Chinese by the government and local non-muslims means that North Korea and Cuba should be issuing apologies, right?

I know I come off like I have a bucketload of sand in my vagina on these topics, but because of my background and experiences, it's probably fair to say I'm among the most knowledgable on all of the Vs. board regarding these issues, so I get particularly irked when misinformation is assumed to be fact, or assumption is used in place of critical thought.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Except that this couldn't be further from the truth as evidenced by Clak's link prior to his.


Surprised and impressed that people in the Middle East aren't a monolithic group of religious fanatics?:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Yes. What is the region ever represented as anything but? It's like saying Utah is full of Mormons, and the South is full of bible thumpers.

It's not like we're looking to the middle east to see what the latest fashion trends (Paris), or robot anime series. (Japan)

Their main exports are oil, and crazy.

True or not, it's what the perception of that area is.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Yes. What is the region ever represented as anything but? It's like saying Utah is full of Mormons, and the South is full of bible thumpers.

It's not like we're looking to the middle east to see what the latest fashion trends (Paris), or robot anime series. (Japan)

Their main exports are oil, and crazy.

True or not, it's what the perception of that area is.[/QUOTE]
You say that as if that isn't your perception of it, when clearly, true or not, it is.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I've never understood this insistance by some, for leaders of groups to be required to apologize for the actions of a few fuckwits they may or may not have any involvement with. [/QUOTE]
Islamic extremism isn't just a few fuckwits, though. I don't disagree with your point, just raising another important one. It's a very real force in the world today, and what makes it scary is that it's so reactionary.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']Islamic extremism isn't just a few fuckwits, though. I don't disagree with your point, just raising another important one.[/QUOTE]

I hear ya, but what percentage of a group needs to be met to go from a few fuckwits to a substantial minority? We're probably talking about less than one half of one percent who are violent radicals. Again, the "Islamic" extremism part of it is more deeply rooted in politics than it is Islam. I don't disagree that much of the culture throughout the Arab world doesn't promote fact checking, or questioning what they read/hear, but for ages many of these people have lived under dictators who managed what they could read/hear. Literacy rates are low, access to technology is low. It's much easier for an idiotic rumor to spread in those regions than it is here. There's an historical sociopolitical set of events that predispose many of these regions to be unstable.

How do you think things were along the North/South border in the leadup to the Civil War here? Now imagine how much worse it could've been if a third country were heavily meddling in the affairs to the degree that the US has done regionally.

Extremism is a problem, but it's a problem that has a lot of causes. Poverty, disenfranchisement, oppression, colonization. Many more.
 
Now Tunis is flipping their shit. 3 killed.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/1...otesters-near-u-s-embassy-in-yemen/?hpt=hp_t1

Fire at the German embassy in Sudan as well.

[quote name='berzirk']
Extremism is a problem, but it's a problem that has a lot of causes. Poverty, disenfranchisement, oppression, colonization. Many more.[/QUOTE]Culture, too. Other groups have been as oppressed and impoverished as these people rioting, yet there is no amount of compromise they are willing to have and no negotiation is desired. The biggest problem is that the culture and religion is so embedded in the governments around there. We should just get out.
 
Sad thing is that there are people here who wish our government was just like it, heavily embedded with Christianity. Sure, what could go wrong there...
 
[quote name='Clak']Sad thing is that there are people here who wish our government was just like it, heavily embedded with Christianity. Sure, what could go wrong there...[/QUOTE]

But it isn't and it never will be. At jury duty, I've never had the judge tell us what religious doctrine we could consider.
 
We don't value our secularism as highly as we should. It takes something like Islam to scare people these days into rethinking how church and state should be separated. Chaplains in the army? Good! Oh wait, Islamist chaplains too? Hmmm.

Not so fun when you aren't the only major religion.
 
What examples are there of secularism not being too highly valued in the U.S.? Is it swearing an oath on the Bible or "In God We Trust?"

I consider that stuff empty rhetoric anyway, and anyone who does not want to swear an oath on the Bible may request an affirmation instead.

What's wrong with chaplains in the military? They offer a service that is in demand. Hospitals also have mini-churches. I don't think anyone is required to go to them. And they are having a hard time filling these positions anyway.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']We don't value our secularism as highly as we should. It takes something like Islam to scare people these days into rethinking how church and state should be separated. Chaplains in the army? Good! Oh wait, Islamist chaplains too? Hmmm.

Not so fun when you aren't the only major religion.[/QUOTE]

Meh - I don't really have a problem with either of those chaplains.

Military folks put alot on the line, I don't think having a religious advisor is too much to ask. As long as the religious advisor will counsel all soldiers equally, regardless of the soldier's personal faith.
 
[quote name='Spokker']What examples are there of secularism not being too highly valued in the U.S.? Is it swearing an oath on the Bible or "In God We Trust?"[/QUOTE]

Anti-stem cell research. Teaching creationism to kids. Anti-abortion movements. These are the problems with not publicly condemning religious zealots, and instead having a major political party that caters to them.

You give into rational America on those issues, and we'll let you keep the oath on the bible and the saying on our change.
 
[quote name='camoor']Anti-stem cell research. Teaching creationism to kids. Anti-abortion movements. These are the problems with not publicly condemning religious zealots, and instead having a major political party that caters to them.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to have a problem with individuals advocating for religious issues. In many ways, the federal government's position is different.

In the United States, teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools has been decisively ruled by a Federal District court to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the court found that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.", and hence cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public school science classrooms under the jurisdiction of that court.
Click to expand...

As for abortion, the law of the land is Roe vs. Wade. And one can take a secular position against abortion and stem cell research.

At the end of the day, we can debate and freely speak on these issues. You cannot in many Middle Eastern nations because religious doctrine is not just embedded into the people, but also the government. In the United States, the people are religious, but the government is not.
 
[quote name='Spokker'] What examples are there of secularism not being too highly valued in the U.S.? Is it swearing an oath on the Bible or "In God We Trust?"
I have always thought it was strange how after major political speeches the candidates always have to close with God bless you, and God Bless America. It feeds into this idea that everything has to be about God or else you lose political support. What about the backlash when the DNC removed the word God a couple of times from their party platform and people came out of the woodwork about how the Democrats are trying to kill God!

http://nation.foxnews.com/dnc-convention/2012/09/04/dems-remove-all-references-god-party-platform

I don't really give a rat's ass what the religion of a politician is (including the exclusion of religious belief), but apparently at least half of the country cares very much. What were two of the hottest issues during Obama's first run for President-1) His former pastor at church was a racist hate-mongerer!!! and 2) Obama is a MOZLUM! Dazzlingly, his opponents created both stories...his church is racist, and he's a closet Muslim. Logical, eh?. Both related to religion.

It's funny because our politicians who you would think strongly believe in the Constitution, are often the ones who blur the lines between Church and State more than anyone else.
Click to expand...
 
I was more pointing to the idea of how people change their minds when it's no longer just christianity on the table. I have nothing against official army chaplains, though they shouldn't be there to begin with. People make room for america's christain values, and push the constitution aside when it comes to their own beliefs.

Same with prayer in school and all that. Yeah, yeah, harmless. Oh, but I don't mean muslim prayers.

All I'm saying is we should keep the slate clean to begin with.
 
[quote name='Spokker']What examples are there of secularism not being too highly valued in the U.S.? Is it swearing an oath on the Bible or "In God We Trust?" [/QUOTE]


I have always thought it was strange how after major political speeches the candidates always have to close with God bless you, and God Bless America. It feeds into this idea that everything has to be about God or else you lose political support. What about the backlash when the DNC removed the word God a couple of times from their party platform and people came out of the woodwork about how the Democrats are trying to kill God!

http://nation.foxnews.com/dnc-conven...party-platform

I don't really give a rat's ass what the religion of a politician is (including the exclusion of religious belief), but apparently at least half of the country cares very much. What were two of the hottest issues during Obama's first run for President-1) His former pastor at church was a racist hate-mongerer!!! and 2) Obama is a MOZLUM! Dazzlingly, his opponents created both stories...his church is racist, and he's a closet Muslim. Logical, eh?. Both related to religion.

It's funny because our politicians who you would think strongly believe in the Constitution, are often the ones who blur the lines between Church and State more than anyone else.
 
[quote name='panzerfaust']
Same with prayer in school and all that. Yeah, yeah, harmless. Oh, but I don't mean muslim prayers.[/QUOTE]

I went to a public school and I was never made to say any prayers. What you have an issue with is the hypocrisy of individuals who want prayer in public schools, which I would agree with. What I am saying is that they are losing. If this were truly a nation without separation of church and state, they would be winning.
 
spok i'm just giving examples of the hypocrisy, not saying were under threat from the inside of becoming a theocracy. we live in a secular society, i know. i'd just like it to be less vague on that separation.

gay marriage is one example where religion has no place, if you can at least follow me on that.
 
Why is it that so many folks get "religious" issues confused with "Christians".

It's not just Christians that are against things like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. MOST major main-stream religions are, in some form or another, against these issues.

So to prop it up as "The Christian Right" creating laws in this country is a little misleading. It's just the Religious folks in general.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why is it that so many folks get "religious" issues confused with "Christians".

It's not just Christians that are against things like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. MOST major main-stream religions are, in some form or another, against these issues.

So to prop it up as "The Christian Right" creating laws in this country is a little misleading. It's just the Religious folks in general.[/QUOTE]

Yah, but what would you suspect the religious breakdown of all three branches of government are? 80% Christian, 10% Jewish, 9% closet atheist, .995% Other, .005 Muslim?

OK, not to toot my own horn, but those were my raw guesses above. A quick search online: Jewish makeup, about 40/535 for Congress-7.5%. Muslims, 2/535, about 4%. Wow. I'm gooood.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Tell me though, would the types of policies being advocated be all too different if the makeup was 80% Islamic?[/QUOTE]

I'd say this is what would happen if it was 80% Jewish http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2006/11/2008525125533234491.html

Israel on abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Israel

Turkey appears to be somewhere between the US and the rest of the middle east for treatment of gays. Much closer to the US though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Turkey

And Turkey on abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Turkey

I would say the Vatican probably isn't allowing gay marriage any time soon:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...y-marriage-pope-benedict-xvi-church-and-state
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why is it that so many folks get "religious" issues confused with "Christians".

It's not just Christians that are against things like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. MOST major main-stream religions are, in some form or another, against these issues.

So to prop it up as "The Christian Right" creating laws in this country is a little misleading. It's just the Religious folks in general.[/QUOTE]

Raised Muslim, I can agree with this. The Muslim thought process on whether or not to justify things like gay marriage doesn't go much beyond, "What's the book say? No? Sorry, queers." To this day, don't think I could even talk about it with my parents with them taking me seriously.
 
berzirk - Let's look at your links one at a time:

Same-Sex Marriage in Israel - awesome - but not a result of the will of the people or a progressive government. It was a clear result of a court decision... one that, in theory, should come down here.

Israel on Abortion - Umm.. what, you can't get an abortion unless approved by a government panel? And only then under very strict reasoning? How's that better?

Same-Sex marriage in Turkey - As you said, close to the US, but not quite.

Turkey on Abortion - Wasn't it just earlier this year that they were looking at passing some kind of more strict laws regarding the hows and whens behind abortions?

I can't imagine it was their vast Christian population that was pushing for those laws.

While there is a small segment of folks who are anti-abortion or anti-same sex marriage for secular reasons, the vast majority of the ones pushing agendas like that are religious folks. Here in the US, it's "Christians" because we have a lot of "Christians" here... but they're not pushing the agenda because they're Christian, they're pushing it because they're religious. Make sense?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Characterizing the people that committed these actions as "murderous savages" implies that there is no rhyme or reason as to why they did it and that it's incomprehensible. This couldn't be any further from the truth. berzirk has given many well-reasoned arguments that can explain a lot of the mentality behind these acts and it all points to historical foreign interventions fomenting radical fundamentalism.[/QUOTE]

"Murderous Savages" is an accurate , truthful, and very clear description of those that carried out the murders. If you choose to take it any other way then that is on you. Which begs to ask the question as to why you would take it any other way. Is murder to you an act of a civilized person?

I was speaking specifically to the murders in Libya while berzirk was talking in over generalizations and the standard "it's complicated" jargon to the entire region of the ME and did not address Libya or the murders specifically. He was not addressing that (at least not at the time of my last post) and if he was then he was incorrect and while generalized still narrow and limited in range. Again though In berzirks defense as I said he was not responding to or talking about Libya and the murders there or to me.
 
Not to butt in on DD here, but "Murderous Savages"... are you talking about those who did the killings at the embassy or those in our own government who authorize and execute drone strikes, murdering untold numbers of people?

drone-strikes.jpg


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html

Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.

There is growing belief that the attack was in revenge for the killing in a drone strike in Pakistan of Mohammed Hassan Qaed, an al-Qa'ida operative who was, as his nom-de-guerre Abu Yahya al-Libi suggests, from Libya, and timed for the anniversary of the 11 September attacks.
Click to expand...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19575753
Although the attack on the US consulate has been linked to the US film, Libya experts have also suggested a different reason.
Glass, debris and overturned furniture are strewn inside a room in the gutted US consulate in Benghazi, Libya Rooms of the consulate were completely gutted in the attack

"This was a precision attack," said Mr Joffe. "One that would have required a degree of planning. It may well have been inspired by the call by al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri to avenge the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi."

Al-Libi was a Libyan-born al-Qaeda commander killed in June by a US drone strike in the North Waziristan-Afghan borderlands.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not to butt in on DD here, but "Murderous Savages"... are you talking about those who did the killings at the embassy or those in our own government who authorize and execute drone strikes, murdering untold numbers of people?
[/QUOTE]

Obama's Policy?

Characterizing the people that committed these actions as "murderous savages" implies that there is no rhyme or reason as to why they did it and that it's incomprehensible. This couldn't be any further from the truth. There are many well-reasoned arguments that can explain a lot of the mentality behind these acts.
 
You can explain the mentality, but you can't justify or excuse it.

Holding hands and singing "We Shall Overcome" never occurred to them as a protest measure as opposed to chopping off heads and dragging bodies through the streets?
 
[quote name='Recycle']Obama's Policy?

Characterizing the people that committed these actions as "murderous savages" implies that there is no rhyme or reason as to why they did it and that it's incomprehensible. This couldn't be any further from the truth. There are many well-reasoned arguments that can explain a lot of the mentality behind these acts.[/QUOTE]

I imagine very few individuals who have actively taken a life would say that they don't feel that they could make a "well-reasoned argument" for the action they took.

For example, in the case of these folks, you've got the government of a foreign country that is occupying land in your country. This government is launching virtually weekly attacks on your homeland, killing your friends, neighbors and family - with virtually no outcry from the international community. This government is also interfering in your country's political process and (in some cases), using this to their advantage to rape your country's land of its natural resources.

Just because you can justify it in your mind doesn't mean it's not murder.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why is it that so many folks get "religious" issues confused with "Christians".

It's not just Christians that are against things like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. MOST major main-stream religions are, in some form or another, against these issues.

So to prop it up as "The Christian Right" creating laws in this country is a little misleading. It's just the Religious folks in general.[/QUOTE]

Meh too simplistic. Religions are divided on these topics. I mean, sure Catholicism is against everything. But there are all different flavors of Christianity and many that are cool with abortion, gays, etc. Plus you even have folks in a religion who don't walk in lockstep with their leadership.

For example - Cheney is a Methodist and the Methodist church is not cool with gays. But Cheney is ok with gays.
 
[quote name='camoor']Meh too simplistic. Religions are divided on these topics. I mean, sure Catholicism is against everything. But there are all different flavors of Christianity and many that are cool with abortion, gays, etc. Plus you even have folks in a religion who don't walk in lockstep with their leadership.

For example - Cheney is a Methodist and the Methodist church is not cool with gays. But Cheney is ok with gays.[/QUOTE]

I don't disagree - but I'm just saying that it's a little misleading to blame "Christians" for the social-conservative agenda in US Politics. Saying that some Christians do and some Christians don't doesn't really change that. The only reason "Christians" get the blame is because they're the majority religion here in the US... even though there's a good chance if you did a major poll based on some of the hot topic social issues and broke it down by opinion and religion, I wouldn't at all be surprised if some topics had a higher percentage of "religious" individuals who were against it in non-Christian religions.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't disagree - but I'm just saying that it's a little misleading to blame "Christians" for the social-conservative agenda in US Politics. Saying that some Christians do and some Christians don't doesn't really change that. The only reason "Christians" get the blame is because they're the majority religion here in the US... even though there's a good chance if you did a major poll based on some of the hot topic social issues and broke it down by opinion and religion, I wouldn't at all be surprised if some topics had a higher percentage of "religious" individuals who were against it in non-Christian religions.[/QUOTE]

Well I would be surprised. If you know of a study please post it, that would be interesting.

But I get your point. IMO the right is more guilty of this then anyone else.

The left is typically careful to say "religious right" or "conservative Christian" to denote the specific voting bloc they are referring to (there are exceptions, but for the most part)

On the other hand, right and far-right Christians often seem eager to coop their more liberal brethren when trying to win support for their favorite policies, such as a ban on abortion, stem cell research, etc. They will eagerly proclaim that it is a Christian nation without bothering to point out that all Christians do not share the same right and/or far-right views that they hold.

Food for thought :)
 
[quote name='dohdough']That's because Rand Paul is your typical Republican in libertarian clothing. He pays lip service and appropriates the name of Ayn Rand to that end all while banking on the Paul name with his father greasing the gears for him. Rand Paul is nothing more than an opportunist with a shitty haircut.

And your example doesn't compute. Aren't those things libertarian solutions? Especially the privatization of TSA? How is what Rand Paul proposing a 7?


Yeah, pretty good op-ed.[/QUOTE]

The libertarian solution to the TSA and DHS is to abolish them, not use taxpayer dollars to outfit the TSA/DHS in a private company's uniform. Same with foreign aid; it should be abolished, not given with strings attached.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
For example, in the case of these folks, you've got the government of a foreign country that is occupying land in your country. This government is launching virtually weekly attacks on your homeland, killing your friends, neighbors and family - with virtually no outcry from the international community. This government is also interfering in your country's political process and (in some cases), using this to their advantage to rape your country's land of its natural resources.
[/QUOTE]

Who exactly are these folks? You know who the murderers are?
An embassy is considered occupying land in your mind?
Since you know who the murderers are then maybe you can explain where their homeland is exactly. Is it Libya? Who their friends and family were that were killed by whom and how there was no outcry when these specific things happened to these specific people.
What religion and ideological doctrines do they follow? Does it conflict with others in said homeland? What are those conflicts internal and external? All that should start us off with a few details.
Are you their spokesman? Just asking as you have a strange detailed grasp of exactly who the murderers are, their beliefs, their specific backgrounds, their declared homeland, and reasons and justification for murder.

You are right in it is murder and I agree with you.
 
[quote name='Recycle']Who exactly are these folks? You know who the murderers are?
An embassy is considered occupying land in your mind?
Since you know who the murderers are then maybe you can explain where their homeland is exactly. Is it Libya? Who their friends and family were that were killed by whom and how there was no outcry when these specific things happened to these specific people.
What religion and ideological doctrines do they follow? Does it conflict with others in said homeland? What are those conflicts internal and external? All that should start us off with a few details.
Are you their spokesman? Just asking as you have a strange detailed grasp of exactly who the murderers are, their beliefs, their specific backgrounds, their declared homeland, and reasons and justification for murder.

You are right in it is murder and I agree with you.[/QUOTE]

America has been full blown imperialist since WWII, and since 9/11 it's turned otherworldly in its display of power and aggression. We've outright militarily invaded two countries, overtly overthrown another and covertly worked to overthrow several others, and we're drone striking at least seven others.

Read Dying to Win, by Robert Pape. Or Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson.
 
Feeding the Abscess, I have a few questions for you.

1) Using Africa as an example, do you feel the U.S. has negatively impacted the economies of any African nations through various interventions, wars, our presence, etc.

2) If so, how do you feel about foreign aid to countries that we've hurt already. Does it make things worse or help them at all?

3) How would you have the government restrict or stop foreign aid? Would you try to end it all as fast as possible, or would you have them do it case by case at different lengths of time?


Edit: One reason I ask is because I want to know who you feel is responsible for what and how repercussions, if any, there should be.
 
[quote name='Recycle']An embassy is considered occupying land in your mind?[/quote]

If a hostile and aggressive country with poor intentions has an embassy in one's country, then yes, I would consider it occupying land. Did you know that the US removed the Iranian Embassy "occupation" from our land when things went south with them? (Coincidentally, do you know why things went south with Iran to begin with? Once upon a time, we used to be considered a close ally of Iran...)

Since you know who the murderers are then maybe you can explain where their homeland is exactly. Is it Libya?
Click to expand...

I can't say exactly who the murderers are, but I can say that they're likely from and many of the protestors are from Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan. Then, you've got a bunch more protestors in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia where we've been sending monetary and military support to keep a corrupt and abusive government in power for YEARS.

Who their friends and family were that were killed by whom and how there was no outcry when these specific things happened to these specific people.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you're unaware of any outcry from the continued drone attacks by the US Military?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, it is.

It's ridiculous that our government would make such a request to begin with.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

I also see an attack ad coming on this subject alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top