US Ambassador killed in Libya

[racedo]

BBC News - US ambassador 'killed in Libya' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254)

Sad news about an attack on a diplomatic facility with resulting death of an Ambassador.

[air pig]

Indeed, condolences to their families.

Law of uninintended consequences in operation. Seen this in the Balkans Iraq, now Arabian Spring. When will we ever learn.

[Ronald Reagan]

Just watching it. We should never have got involved in removing Ghaddafi.
Atleast under him the country was stable and such a situation as we have just seen would have been highly unlikely to happen.

These revolutions are nothing but bad news for us in the long run. They will simply turn their nations into a new dark age. I can see in 10 to 15 years possibly a lot less a whole middle east united against the west.

I simply do not understand what Obama, Cameron, Sarko/Hollander are on. As for Syria best Assad remains as the alternative will be far worse!

[air pig]

Ronald Regan, agree with you, remove the 'strongman/woman you get chaos. Look what happened when Tito died in Yugoslavia. Some countries populations unfortunately need a strong foot on the throat of the population to have a degree of peace or in other words, live peacefully, do not rock the boat, and work hard. Whilst Mubarak, Ghadaffi, Assad, and Hussein were and are out and out murders and despots they did have control unlike what we see at the moment. I'm surprised we haven't see more military take over in these countries.

To the west KEEP OUT, let them sort themselves out. Keep politicans away.

[Not_a_boffin]

I can see in 10 to 15 years possibly a lot less a whole middle east united against the west.

I fail to see how "western intervention" against Gaddafi Duck, led to this incident.

The actual reason they'd all be united against the West is :

a) The "west" generally (but not unequivocally) supports the democratically run state of Israel
b) The "west" intervened military to reverse the illegal invasion of Kuwait (alongside Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others)
c) The "west" intervened militarily in response to a major state-enabled terrorist attack (about 11 years ago)
d) The "west" intervened militarily nine years ago to remove a genocidal dictator and spent the next seven years trying to stop various state-sponsored factions of the "religion of peace" slaughtering each other indiscriminately
e) The "west" intervened militarily nearly two years ago to prevent another benevolent dictator using tanks, artillery and CAS against a rebel militia in heavily built-up areas full of non-combatants
f) It's easier than confronting the contradictions of their own religion and politics and their inability to make rational decisions without the assistance of various shouty, beardy clerics.

Answers on a postcard please.......

[Ronald Reagan]

I simply think Ghadaffi would have used his military/police to prevent any riots from getting out of control. Especially close to an embassy.
He was cruel ofcourse, but he could maintain order.

American killed as radical Islamists storm U.S. Embassies in Cairo and Libya | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201780/American-killed-radical-Islamists-storm-U-S-Embassies-Cairo-Libya.html)

These guys with AK-47s would have probably not had AK-47s under Ghadaffi or been able to get weapons. To be honest they would probably be in prison or dead!

Make no mistake about it, this attack is a kind blowback already from our continued intervention in these nations.

Bet people will still be itching to get into Syria!!!! I used to support all these little wars but now they all seem a total waste of time and they often end up far worse than before. We should stop trying to be the worlds policeman.

[air pig]

Not a Boffin, Gulf War One was allowed under the terms of a UN Resolution, to just LIBERATE Kuwait, not to invade and occupy Iraq. Remember coalition forces stopped after the attacks on the road to Basra, and sorted out a ceasefire as Saddam was aware that the coalition could have keep going all the way to Baghdad. Gulf War Two was started on a basis of spin lies and deception by avaricious mendacious politicians and against the sprit of the UN.

To return to the main point, some countries with such disparate views and religions need to foot on the population to maintain peace. Lose that and the country descends into the situation which we now see in Libya, Syria and Iraq, of people slaughtering each other and poor ill educated people being manoeuvred and manipulated by both politicans and religious zealots for their own ends.

[Thud105]

Imagine, if you will, what Europe was like 600 years ago. Practically tribal, mostly feudal, generally ignorant, pretty violent, the population chained to dogmatic religious superstitions. Imagine what it would've been like if they'd had modern weapons?
The current Islamic year is 1433 AH. Discuss.

[Not_a_boffin]

Air pig

Perfectly well aware of the relevant UNSCR and objectives for Op Granby thanks. Your rationale for Op Telic is a somewhat subjective version, compared to the actual reality of what the nice man with the big moustache was (very) widely thought to have back in 2003 and more importantly his continued disregard for the existing UNSCR for inspections at the time. Still - hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Not exactly aware of huge swathes of the western population clamouring for intervention in Syria atm (or Libya back then, now I come to think of it). The only people I can think of who are implying that we should are the BBC / liberal tendency, with a "something must be done" inference in every blood-soaked news report. Why those f8ckers can't stick to the "sanctions will work" line they usually use, I'll never know......

[SASless]

Anyone care to bet that Obama does naught but go Golfing and attend Fund Raisers? Well....maybe some hand wringing about intolerance causing hatred and riot by Islamist Fundamentalists.

He cannot be too harsh on Hollywood as it is a source of lots of campaign money!

After all he is so appreciative of the Muslim Call to Prayer...their contribution to American Culture....and their Peace loving ways.

[Airborne Aircrew]

SAS:

Don't forget... Today is also the day he can't speak to Netanyahu because he has a very important meeting with David Letterman... :rolleyes:

[eastern wiseguy]

SAS ...what like this guy?



George Bush "Now, Watch This Drive" - YouTube

[racedo]

I see an election ebbing away especially given Obama and Hillarys full support for those Islamic militants in Benghazi whom Gadaffi had pegged right.

[Lonewolf_50]

This has little to do with the Mad Colonel and all to do with the Globalization and interconnectedness of modern life.

A man in one country exercising free speech, which in his country is OK and shows a criticism of Islam (however heavy handed) is used as an excuse to Act Out.

It doesn't help that the gent in question is apparently an American Jew, and that Jews and Israel are a daily sore point for some folks in the Arab Street, specifically, Muslims with an attitude.

For once, the meme "they hate us for our freedom" is applicable.

This was an act of hate, and the hate is directly linked to our freedom of speech.

Response: ought to be lethal and about one thousand dead for each American killed. Send a message: this will not be put up with.

That response might just win the incumbent an election in November. ;)

[Load Toad]

If it wasn't for oil the only thing we'd know about these countries is that goats look worried & walk funny.

An innocent man (& others) who spent most of his life serving the USA but clearly cared about the ME has lost his life, killed by the peoples his country helped free because another bigoted idiot made an inflammatory U Tube video.

And so it goes.

[Load Toad]

Response: ought to be lethal and about one thousand dead for each American killed. Send a message: this will not be put up with.

Rubbish. Stop buying products off these places. Have nothing to do with them. They can learn to sort themselves out with out big $ rushing in to sponsor their corruption and imbecility.

[air pig]

Not A Boffin, certainly agree with your second paragraph, the 'we must do something' brigade should be bound and gagged sat at a corner and more importantly ignored.

As for Saddams refusal to comply with the UN, yes it happened but weapons inspectors were still inside Iraq before Gulf War 2. Remember Dr David Kelly taking a walk in the woods? A interesting man with a long career who dealt with things that both of us hoped we'd never have to face in a 'noddy suit'. Stitched up by politicians if you believe conspiracy theorists after his evidence to the Defence Select Commitee. Do you believe the official reports about his death, I don't for a minute.

Load Toad, the only thing they export is oil and gas and at the moment we need that, we need nuclear and shale gas as a starter and then maybe we can then allow them to slaughter each other without British forces in particular and NATO and other forces being in the middle.

[dctyke]

Quote:
Rubbish. Stop buying products off these places. Have nothing to do with them. They can learn to sort themselves out with out big $ rushing in to sponsor their corruption and imbecility.

In a word............... oil, can you do without?

[SASless]

As I said....confirmed by the White House.....the bastard is off to Vegas campaigning and raising money after a brief statement at the White House!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[racedo]

SAS

He just saw his re election gone west.

[maxred]

Perfectly well aware of the relevant UNSCR and objectives for Op Granby thanks. Your rationale for Op Telic is a somewhat subjective version, compared to the actual reality of what the nice man with the big moustache was (very) widely thought to have back in 2003 and more importantly his continued disregard for the existing UNSCR for inspections at the time. Still - hindsight is a wonderful thing

1,000,000 UK marchers on the streets, basically calling Bliar, a liar, should have possibly kept us out.

Look, we all knew it was a crock of poo, but in we went. No requirement for hindsight here.

Something about you will reap what you sow......no:rolleyes:

[dirkdj]

I am almost finished reading 'Extreme Prejudice' by Susan Lindauer.
Libya, Iraq, Syria, 9/11, Patriot Act...
If this woman was incompetent to stand trial, then I am the pope. :mad:

[Not_a_boffin]

And 59 000 000 didn't, particularly as the "issue" was conflated by StWC with sympathy for Palestine / nasty Israelis / hatred of "not Al", "Kyoto criminal" Dubya, which gave a nice catch-all protest.

Not to suggest that Bliar or Dubya were fine upstanding citizens (they're pollies FFS), but the issue at the time and the basis for Telic was the repeated and sustained refusal of Iraq to comply unconditionally with UNSCR pertaining to WMD. Whether WMD were there or not was almost irrelevant, that the Iraqi government was refusing to co-operate fully with Mr Brix's weapons inspectors gave all the justification required, whether Bliar and Dubya were hot to trot or not. You could argue that in fact Saddam reaped what he sowed.

Time and media coverage not least over "dodgy dossiers" have obscured this basic fact.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Air Pig/maxred are on the mark, Not a Boffin is obviously not a boffin.

[El Grifo]

Rest assured, there will be a ****load more of this and worse, in the run up to the election.

Part of the "game" is it not !

El G.

[air pig]

Yes, Not a Boffin, but the correct action was to go through the UNSC

[Trim Stab]

The "west" generally (but not unequivocally) supports the democratically run state of Israel



Israel is only "democratic" because they keep shifting their borders around to disenfranchise Arabs. If the Palestinians locked into Gaza and West Bank ghettos and those kicked out into refugee camps in Jordan and Syria were allowed to vote in the Israel elections there would be a lot less strife around the world.

[Not_a_boffin]

Which, if memory serves, was the action taken.

The area of contention boiled down to the interpretation of whether the existing resolutions provided sufficient authority to take military action.

Predictably, some say they did (including the UK AG) and some say they didn't. Lawyers, don't you just love 'em.

[air pig]

Not a Boffin, lawyers, only slowly roasted over a BBQ, basted with a sweet chilli sauce

[Not_a_boffin]

Halal or humanely killed?

[air pig]

Any animal humanely, but in the case of lawyers and politicans, mmm difficult decision

[Not_a_boffin]

Yes. I forgot the obvious still breathing option......

[Rosevidney1]

I want to echo the words of Thud 105 and to add let us leave the United Nations. A failed organisation meddling with failed states is no use to anyone. Furthermore it is an expensive farce.

[tonker]

The latest pics from the cult of evil, released of the poor mans body being paraded around our allies in Benghazi. Graphic pics.

LiveLeak.com - picture of US Ambassador christopher Stevens To Libya being Paraded Dead.Benghazi

[Just This Once...]

Sympathy to his family and may he rest in peace.

[Robert Cooper]

When a nation chooses to be governed by incompetent leadership, people die. It's always been that way. It will always be that way. And that's the way it is now, in America. :sad:

Bob C

[dead_pan]

When did America last have a competent leader?

Tonker - drop the video mate. We really don't need to see it.

[air pig]

Many countries have incompetent leadership, but add add a dash of religion and you have anarchy. The difference between the UK and the USA is that the senior politician has to be accountable to parliament along with his/her government ministers on a regular basis. This lack of accountability and ability to take questions and answer questions showed when George Galloway gave evidence to a Senate sub-committee. He ran rings around them, he would never have gotten away with his antics in the UK.

[SASless]

Freedom is a magic concept....you don't want to see the video....ignore it!

[Load Toad]

Would you be saying that if it was a dead pilot or passengers after a crash?

[SASless]

I do not view videos or photos unless I care to do so.

I also think that viewing these kinds of things does perform a very good reality check for those that wish to keep it all nice pretty and clean for themselves so they can politely argue as though the dead, dying, and maimed are mere abstractions.

Perhaps that is where we differ.....I know it is real and accept that....and hate it all the more because it is real people and real suffering these violent acts cause.

Perhaps that is why I chose to confront evil doers rather than have someone else do it for me while I sat safely at home.

The World is filled with evil people that do evil vile things to other people. Maybe we should actually require our citizens to view such videos as part of their evening entertainment and education.

[VinRouge]

they werent parading the body. locals not linked to the militia were carring him to hospital. but hey, dont let the truth get in the way of frothing will you?:suspect:

[Jayand]

Sasless, what would you like to see Obama do?
Order days of carpet bombing with wave after wave of B52's?
Sadly one diplomat died doing a job in a dangerous country, **** happens.

[Not_a_boffin]

BBC News - US embassy in Yemen stormed in film protest (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19584734)

More trouble at t'mill.......

Not looking good.

[ORAC]

Movie that sparked murders in Libya has yet to reach Iran and Pakistan: expect more bloodshed (http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1641/movie_that_sparked_murders_in_libya_has_yet_to_reach_iran_an d_pakistan_expect_more_bloodshed)

[El Grifo]

Yep, whoever produced that 5th rate little clip, which looks more like a cheap home movie than anything else, certainly knew exactly what they were up to !

The author should be named and shamed !

[The Old Fat One]

Religious nut jobs make a film about religious nut jobs...religious nut jobs go on murderous rampage...

The inhuman race has come a long way since the dark ages, hasn't it?

[Not_a_boffin]

Sense of humour failures can only be mitigated if one exists in the first place....

Perhaps it's time for the "religion of peace" to have a "Life of Brian" moment.

[B Fraser]

I did watch a clip from the film, as expected low rate rubbish.
Did you expect the Spanish Inquisition ?

[The Old Fat One]

Perhaps it's time for the "religion of peace" to have a "Life of Brian" moment.


If you watch the video of Cleese, Palin and a random CofE cleric, following the release of aforementioned movie, you''ll see that religious fundamentalism is alive and kicking every which where. Don't much matter who believes in what when they get the thumbscrews out...

Did somebody mention the Spanish Inquisition?

[Jayand]

Free speech and freedom of expression is fine, but when you make something that will
Cause unimaginable offence to very passionate and ultimately dangerous people then why do it?
You wouldn't kick a lion in the nuts and not expect a reaction!
Sadly someone else paid the price for their ignorance and crass stupidity.

[Not_a_boffin]

The difference between the CofE cleric and the Jundi's is that while both may well have been frothing at the mouth and threatening hellfire and damnation, one chose to trust his god to deliver said punishment, the other chose to enact it themselves.

Mind - I don't recall either of them weighing Brian or the bloke in the "new" film to see if they weighed the same as a duck.....

[Roland Pulfrew]

Did somebody mention the Spanish Inquisition?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition?

Sorry. Hat, coat, etc

[SASless]

Odd.....it is not the Killers that are at fault according to some here.....now that is what I would call an absolutely indefensible position!

Actually....I would call it being a complete Dumb Ass but that would be akin to making a video as it would provoke an ugly reaction and by some folks logic....it would be my fault for saying something that would considered offensive to someone even if not directed at that person individually....and their rude, snide, angry response was a fully justified act as a result.

Bluntly....how a video done in one country can justify murder in a different country....just completely escapes me. How a cartoon done in Denmark can prompt the killing of dozens of people in Afghanistan defies logic as well.

The mentality of the Islamic Radicals is offensive to me....so I guess using their line of thought... it would be right an proper to burn down the Pakistani Embassy or ambush the Egyptian Ambassador, or invade the Yemeni Consulate grounds and raise a US Flag.

If you argue I am wrong for doing any of those things....why not take the position the Islamic Radicals are wrong?

[charliegolf]

How a cartoon done in Denmark can prompt the killing of dozens of people in Afghanistan defies logic as well.



Ah, I think I can see a flaw in your thinking there, SAS. You're allowing these freaks the credit of applying logic to their actions.

More seriously, right at the start of this thread, and on hearing the news, I immediately felt retribution was in order. But what, exactly? What will make good on this man's death? Expel all Libyans from the US; break off relations; embargo all trade, blockade the ports? What.

Oh, and I'm not having no dig at the Yanks neither. (Michael Caine accent)

CG

PS

If you argue I am wrong for doing any of those things....why not take the position the Islamic Radicals are wrong?

You're not because you don't, they are because they do.

[Trim Stab]

I'm wondering what the Ambassador was doing in a low-security consulate when the State Department had already raised the security state of vulnerable Embassies. Presumably US domestic intelligence agencies were already monitoring the extremist nutter who made the film? If not, why not?

[SASless]

CG....I have no doubt the Libyan people in general and the Libyan government do not support or condone the attack and killings of the US Consulate staff and Ambassador.

I also have no doubt this was a planned attack and not some spontaneous reaction as some wish to attribute to the video.

History is full of attacks like these....Hitler and Poland, LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin are two that spring to mind....that used bogus cover stories to mask the true intent of the perpetrators.

The American response should be focused upon the individuals and group(s) that carried out the attack...not the Libyan People or the Libyan government.

I have no doubt that will happen....even with Obama at the Helm.

He may have a problem admitting publically what he will say in private but he has shown he can issue an order that ends someone's life.....Bin Liner being a prime example. There are some decisions that shall be made no matter who is in the Oval Office at the White House.

I am still for giving him his "Walking Papers" come November followed by an Eviction Notice in January!

[El Grifo]

Back in Scotland I used to work on farms for a bit.

One job was to check the sheep every morning, you know, walking through the fields doing a head count and looking for any problems.

They used to make me laugh !

One of the sheep would get up and bolt to the corner of the field, every other one would follow.

Minutes later, another would get up and casually stroll to the centre of the field, all the others would follow !

It was almost as if they had no mind of their own. One acted and the rest just mindlessly followed suit.

Sheep !

[SASless]

Well now....the plot sickens....errrrrr....thickens!

A convicted Felon, a Coptic Christian (we think), and not a native born American I shall bet....is behind the video. It appears he has scammed the actors and others in the making of the film....and may very well be in violation of his Probation for Federal Crimes.

He should not worry about the Muslim Brotherhood....because he has certainly miffed the Chicago crowd and they know how to play hard ball politics.

Who is the man behind anti-Islam film? | syracuse.com (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/09/who_is_the_man_behind_anti-isl.html)

[El Grifo]

My views on Islam and most of what entails are fairly well known by some on this site (especially the Mods who have often had more than just a quiet word)

This piece of crap filming is a dangerous and seriously inflammatory piece of work which already has and will continue to result in death and injury.

It is clear that is exactly what the originator had in mind.

In situations like this, someone has to be brought to book !

[SASless]

I suppose this heinous crime against humanity....the making of the video warrants condemnation.

That being said....perhaps there should be the same kind of scrutiny of Muslim conduct in Egypt re treatment of Christians.

I would submit the video is an insult....the other side is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity.

Unless of course you think a Muslim majority can do as it wishes with no repercussions despite their continuing crimes against the minority.

[Jayand]

Sasless, I for one am not defending the perps of this crime as you rightly say it is indefensible. What I am saying is that you need to understand the way these people think.
Making the video was a very provocative act to a very sensitive and incendary people, not very clever! some might say that the video was inciting violence and hatred by knowing what the reaction would be.
And I think you are wrong in stating that the video has nothing to do with the attack as the further embassy attacks and protests throughout the middle east today have shown.

[El Grifo]

SASless, I am reading off the exact page as you, trust me :ok:

Are we not meant to be more intelligent, less inbred, more developed as humans, as these sheep-people.

Do we not inhabit a slightly higher moral ground, free to think, free to dress and free to believe as we like.

For some dunderhead to produce such a crass piece of crap as the aforementioned video, pretty much puts him in the same league as the sheep-people.

The obvious result is death and mayhem along with political turmoil.

Can we perhaps question his motive ?

[SASless]

Jay,

I am of the belief the video in and of itself is not what is driving these events. I strongly believe it is being used as a prop to the real goal of AQ and the MB to attack American Interests and power. If it was not this video....they would latch onto something else to use as a tool to agitate the zealots.

An example.....remember the problems when some Qurans got burned after the Terrorists had used them as a method of passing hand written messages....dozens of people were killed during the riots that followed that event.

Never mind the Terrorists at Gitmo had written in the the things, that no one in the printing shop wore white gloves, the shipping department at the printers had boxed the things up and loaded them into the backs of trucks, packed them into shipping containers....or in any way treated them with the care, courtesy, and "respect" our Military did.....the radical Islamists were all up in arms over it.

We are not dealing with logical, reasonable, sane people here.....they are very warped, sick, insanely twisted folks that are so easily revved up by the agitators and genuine Terrorists.

We have to accept the fact there shall always be some excuse for them to run amok.....as they are on the alert for any perceived insult or affront.

How many Millions of Muslims found it within themselves to remain calm and peaceful......yet we are not talking about them....just a few hundred...perhaps a few thousand of easily manipulated excitable people.

If I were a member of AQ or the MB....I would be doing exactly what they are.....doing my dead level best to take my fight to the Great Satan.....and that is just what they are doing.

We cannot fall prey to their aims, goals, tactics, and strategy....that is my point. The Western World survived the Danish Cartoon thing, the Quran burning, Abu Grahib, and all the other crisis' that have been thrown out for public consumption by the Islamists.

We will survive this one too.

Grifo.....absolutely we can question his motive....and condemn him for putting it out too. But....we have to be fair in assessing blame to both parties to this mess. If this guy is in fact a Coptic and has either suffered mistreatment by Muslims or has family or friends that have then perhaps we might begin to understand where he is coming from. Life for Christians in a country or area ruled by Fundamentalist Islamists is not a pleasant situation.

In our Societies, the majority rules but does try to hold some consideration for the Minority either by law or by tolerance. That is not the way with the Fundamentalists in the Middle East is it?

As more information comes out....and if this guy's background is proved to be that of a Coptic Christian who has immigrated or whose parents immigrated to the United States....we might begin to put all this into a reasonable structure.

He does apparently have a criminal record for Bank Fraud and thus has proven nimself to of less than sterling character. Assuming initial reports are correct.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

I've just had a look on t'internet to see what the fuss is about. What a load of hoop! If you can force yourself to watch more than a minute or so, you're a better man than me! That said, it certainly looks like a modern equivalent of the Nazi propoganda film 'The Eternal Jew' and, IMHO, should be consigned to the same bin! Appalling - Yes; Anti-muslim - certainly; worth watching - not on your life; worth killing people for - I think not.

Duncs:ok:

[El Grifo]

You know that, I know that and the vast majority of Pprunites know that, but try telling that to the sheepites :ugh:

[Lonewolf_50]

Our government had no hand in making that film.

Thus, to attack our consulate is a non sequitur.

I thus conclude that the excuse is rubbish, and this all had to do with other motives, and some rubbish in the internet, which was first posted a month or so ago, is a cheap fig leaf.

[PTT]

You are assuming a logical response rather than the more likely outraged one of "have at the nearest thing which can be associated with it".

That said, nobody comes out of this looking good.

[Robert Cooper]

There is no excuse for the murder of an unarmed man, who is supposed to be protected by diplomatic code and protocol, who is on a peaceful mission, and who is a non-combatant. NONE.

The trouble is that the so-called peace loving, almost tolerant, but not exactly learned members of the Religion of the Perpetually Outraged are a vile and evil mob who are beyond normal codes of conduct.

It is time for retribution of the most violent kind, and I wait to see if Obama is capable of dealing with this outrage.

[Dushan]

Hillary looked and sounded panicked, today, apologizing for something she, or her government had nothing to do with, and furthermore is perfectly legal (although repugnant) where it was made. The fact that some islamist extremist doesn't like it is tough tities.

These people need to be dealt with. The only thing they understand is brute force. After all we keep saying that they live in the 12th century. Well, les give them some of the 12th century response to burning an embassy and killing an ambassador and his staff.

[ORAC]

I thus conclude that the excuse is rubbish, and this all had to do with other motives, and some rubbish in the internet, which was first posted a month or so ago, is a cheap fig leaf. I know where I'd start looking, at least as agitators and paymasters if not participants - The Quds Force (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/493584-iranian-leader-orders-terror-attacks-west.html#post7372810) and here's why (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/493584-iranian-leader-orders-terror-attacks-west.html#post7372810). Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

[Not_a_boffin]

With the able assistance of the BBC who are still badging "the film" on the headlines page as "US-made", as opposed to "appears to be made by some rather shady private individuals who may or may not be US citizens" - which is probably more accurate.

[Argonautical]

In a similar vein, Channel 4 has had to cancel a repeat of its recent program about Islam because of threats against the reporter.

[racedo]

ORAC

With all due, QUDS and Al Q are fundamentally opposed. AL Q hate the Shia version of Islam more than Christianity.

[El Grifo]

It is time for retribution of the most violent kind, and I wait to see if Obama is capable of dealing with this outrage.

Some cynical wag suggested that this might be the first live shots in the election campaign.

How silly :ok:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Some cynical wag suggested that this might be the first live shots in the election campaign.

So if Obama turns the middle and near east to glass will the itchy trigger finger red necks drop Mitt Romney, a man out-witted by Boris Johnson, and vote Democrat?

[Torque Tonight]

British (and other) embassies stormed in Sudan.:ugh:

BBC News - Anti-Islam film: German and UK embassies in Sudan attacked (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19602177)

[wiggy]

Not a Boffin

With the able assistance of the BBC who are still badging "the film" on the headlines page as "US-made",

Since you've mentioned the BBC may I offer up this reader's comment from the Daily Telegraph a couple of days back:

Where's the BBC in all this? Last year they sounded like all their reporters had vibrators in their pants as they exulted about the ridiculously false "Arab Spring."
Yippeee! they cried:
"The Muslims are going to be just like Islington champagne socialists now that they've gotten rid of their horrible Western-backed dictators. They'll set up Fair Trade cotton cooperatives, carbon trading exchanges, put windmills everywhere, legalize gay marriage, subsidize electric cars, and build lots and lots of ETHNIC RESTAURANTS."
Whereas anyone with half a brain could see how the story was really going to turn out.

[phantomstreaker]

Is it only me that smells a bad kipper here?

A youtube video is released of a badly dubbed anti islam film, supposedly made by a radical christian ethiopian living in america funded by Jews...isnt this a bit of a coincidence ? Some one must know this would have caused outrage in the muslim world especially after friday prayers:(


Is this type of thing released by the west IA so they can respond as it sees fit?


or is it AQ using reverse propaganda to stir up trouble in after the arab spring uprising in order to topple unstable goverments?

something is amiss here?

[El Grifo]

Similarly minded as my "cynical freind" :ok:

[Shack37]

There is no excuse for the murder of an unarmed man, who is supposed to be
protected by diplomatic code and protocol, who is on a peaceful mission, and who is a non-combatant. NONE.



The trouble is that the so-called peace loving, almost
tolerant, but not exactly learned members of the Religion of the Perpetually Outraged are a vile and evil mob who are beyond normal codes of conduct

What, all of them?

It is time for retribution of the most violent kind, and I wait to see if Obama is capable of dealing with this outrage.

I suggest you read your own first paragraph and compare it with your own suggested solution quoted in paragraph three. Against who exactly are you proposing "retribution of the most violent kind"? The civilian populations of all muslim states, anyone who happens to be a muslim or all of the above?

[El Grifo]

What, all of them?

No no no, not at all Shack !

The ones who avoid attending riots like this but somehow never actually condemn, should probably be excluded !

[mushroom69]

Imagine, if you will, what Europe was like 600 years ago. Practically tribal, mostly feudal, generally ignorant, pretty violent, the population chained to dogmatic religious superstitions. Imagine what it would've been like if they'd had modern weapons?
The current Islamic year is 1433 AH. Discuss.

That is so FUNNY!!!!! I was literally laughing out loud, as I was blown back to high school and university discussions....... Sadly, I don´t think that schools actually do this sort of thing anymore. Too dangerous. I especially liked one instructor who, after the lines were drawn and discussions had raged for a while, instructed the participants to take the opposite view! The first time he did this, I was dumbfounded (maybe he was training us to be politicians?) but it was a fantastic way to defuse the situation, so that the arguments were divorced from personal views and we learned a lot.

After classes, we often continued these discussions....it was called learning and debating....leading to study to shore up arguments, which actually led to a change of mind or a viewpoint with greater understanding.

A bit OT, but thanks for the skip through memory of what in hindsight, were blessed days!

[Shack37]

No no no, not at all Shack !

The ones who avoid attending riots like
this but somehow never actually condemn, should probably be excluded !


Those actually attending....probably hundreds.
Those who never actually condemn openly......probably millions.
A bit like last year's UK riots.

How do those millions get the publicity achieved by the rioting hundreds?

I abhor any kind of violence, especially of the kind we are discussing but I ask again of Robert Cooper:

"Against who exactly are you proposing "retribution of the most violent kind"? The civilian populations of all muslim states, anyone who happens to be a muslim or all of the above"?

Would you exclude women and children from your proposed violence? If so, how?

[El Grifo]

"Against who exactly are you proposing "retribution of the most violent kind"? The civilian populations of all muslim states, anyone who happens to be a muslim or all of the above"?



Fair question. Impossible to hold the moral high ground if you join in with the barbarity of the Barbarians.

[Shack37]

Impossible to hold the moral high ground if you join in with the barbarity of
the Barbarians.


Exactly, but having caught the actual perpetrators (or instigators) of these atrocities, despatch them to enjoy the company of the virgins reserved for such martyrs. In the event, I could almost share their disappointment.

[GreenKnight121]

Modified for a generic "martyr":

The dead terrorist makes his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington.

"How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping him in the face. Patrick Henry comes up from behind: "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches the confused Muslim on the nose. James Madison comes up next, and says, "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on the man's knee.

The dead terrorist is subject to similar beatings from John Randolph of Roanoke, James Monroe and 65 other 18th-century American revolutionaries. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.

As he awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams, "This is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies: "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you. What did you think I said?"

[El Grifo]

LIke the ubiquitous B.
Connelly says:-

"72 Virgins, what the **** would I do with 72 feckin Virgins ? Give me three fire-breathing whores any day"

Subtle, but the message is delivered :ok:

[SASless]

Fair question. Impossible to hold the moral high ground if you join in with the barbarity of the Barbarians.

I will happily settle for just the "High Ground" as militarily that is the objective and is far easier to defend.

If you hold the High Ground you decide what is "moral".

This isn't Bean Bag we are playing at here......this is real life and survival of our way of life and belief structure if you care to check it.

We have real enemies out there that seek our destruction.....like it or not we have to confront that enemy. If it means using violence then that is how it goes. So far....polite talk hasn't seemed to win them over to reason and logic.

I will bet somewhere in the wonderful Quran there is a passage that says something about living by the sword and all that....knowing what a peaceful and contemplative religion Islam really is.

[Robert Cooper]

Shack37

The Marines and the FBI are in Libya now, and hopefully an investigation will identify the Al Qaeda instigators of that mob. Those are the ones we need to bring to justice. This mess has spread across the Middle East and now we have three colleges in the US with bomb threats. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Did the US not already try killing 800,000 mostly muslim civilians when they invaded Iraq?

Some spurious reason about non-existent WMD seems about on a par with a youtube movie.

Doesn't seem to have been terribly successful.

We have got another 25 years of unintended consequences I reckon - thanks a bundle George & Tony.



.

[Easy Street]

Mideast riots: Who's behind the anti-Islam video? - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/233335/mideast-riots-who-is-the-filmmaker-behind-the-anti-islam-video)

The more I read about this, the more the conspiracy theorist in me comes out!

[blaireau]

There is much to be said for arguably efficient, vicious dictators when it comes to keeping primitive, supersticious rabble in check.

[jindabyne]

Quite. London could do with one now ----

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Our ancestral diplomats understood this; I should think our current ones do too, but our politicians are no longer listening. People much prefer to be ruled by their own dictator rather than a foreign government of any hue. And even where they don't, they are too busy fighting their own government rather than ours.

No wonder Saddam was so surprised by Dubya's determination to remove him. I expect Bashir is shaking his head too.

This isn't to defend said dictators; but we should wash our hands of them rather than trying to remove them.

Which brings us back to oil independence.

[PTT]

Which brings us back to oil independence.Of or from? Neither is likely.

[500N]

America and Canada have heaps of Oil, Shale oil and other fields
but the western countries are hindered by Greeny legislation that
stops them from getting at it and decisions are forever being put off
- oil pipeline in the US as an example.
.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

So the masses (including the Greenies) buy T-shirts made in Pakistani factories where 283 burn to death because cheaper means no safety exits. And talk on iPhones made in Chinese factories where worker suicide is the most common way of 'resigning'. Trainers, Bangladeshi children, etc, etc.

These people never ask themselves "Why the f#ck do you think they're so cheap?"

[PTT]

Some ask, at dinners parties with their friends etc after a few bottles of wine. Few do anything, and those who do are dismissed as loony lefties. Maybe they are: maybe exploitation is just part of the human condition. Altruism among animals suggests not, to me.

Anyway, back on topic: woe betide anyone who acts barbarically towards us, for we shall do the same back, but more so, to prove how uncivilized they are!

[ORAC]

ORAC: I know where I'd start looking, at least as agitators and paymasters if not participants - The Quds Force and here's why. Could be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

racedo:

ORAC, With all due, QUDS and Al Q are fundamentally opposed. AL Q hate the Shia version of Islam more than Christianity.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend...

Sunni Hamas and Shiite Iran Form a Common Political Theology (http://writingrights.nu.org.za/2010/11/10/sunni-hamas-and-shiite-iran-form-a-common-political-theology/)

Iran and the "War on Terror" (http://www.mepc.org/articles-commentary/commentary/iran-and-war-terror?print)

[SASless]

Proving how barbarous we can be?

How about just putting down the rabid dog....we do that out of a service to the community I thought!

[The Helpful Stacker]

The problem is that it isn't just one rabid dog and every time you try to put one down another one pops up with a more virulent version of the same disease.

Keeping with the medical analogy, the best way to avoid becoming a victim of the 'virus' is by keeping those infected isolated. If though you wish to keep putting yourself within an area where there is a risk of infection, even given all the evidence in place that such risks exist, then you shouldn't be surprised when you experience the symptoms of the disease yourself.

[A A Gruntpuddock]

Saw on another website that 'virgins' might be a mistranslation - the original probably said 'raisins'.

Boy, are they going to be disappointed!

[SASless]

Stacks......or you inoculate the pack against the disease....and carry on until you have the disease irradicated.

[El Grifo]

Keeping with the medical analogy, the best way to avoid becoming a victim of the 'virus' is by keeping those infected isolated.

Problem is Stacker that the virus is spreading and breeding all over the planet at an alarming rate and no one has the will or the means to halt it.

All happening in plain sight !

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

It is not alarming the average voter, so the politicians do nothing. History seems to indicate that the politicians will do something when their power is threatened, either by being personally blown up (as opposed to ordinary citizens being blown up) or voted out.

In general, most terrorist organisations, including Al Qaeda, are very bad at achieving their stated aims. This is mostly because their leaders are actually interested in preserving their power and attaining perceived glory - which is very different from achieving success.

[Shack37]

Shack37

The Marines and the FBI are in Libya now, and hopefully an
investigation will identify the Al Qaeda instigators of that mob. Those are the
ones we need to bring to justice. This mess has spread across the Middle East
and now we have three colleges in the US with bomb threats. For a superpower, it
is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep
them in check.


If you can get hold of the instigators/perpetrators by all means use whatever retribution to show them the error of their ways but not a general onslaught against the civil population.

We're never going to be loved anyway and how do you scare people who are happy to die for the cause believing they are going straight to paradise and all the eternal happiness that awaits them there?

Maybe our politicians should just wind their necks in, keep all our forces at home and leave the stone age mentals to their caves.

[Pontius Navigator]

Remind me, how many of the leaders say 'follow me'?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

As long as the money men control politics, we can never 'stay at home'.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Stacks......or you inoculate the pack against the disease....and carry on until you have the disease irradicated.

Which works if you have an inoculation but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way to treat people who believe in various sorts of make believe people. So in lieu of inoculations, keeping away from the infected is the only other recourse, because people aren't dogs which rules out humane destruction.

So, if you don't want to experience the effects of the disease stop going into the isolation area to rearrange the furniture. If they are allowed to decide the positions of their own furniture then they may feel comfortable enough to stay in isolation and not wander about everywhere else.

I think this analogy has run its course.

[The Old Fat One]

Maybe our politicians should just wind their necks in, keep all our forces at home and leave the stone age mentals to their caves.


This :ok:

With two added caveats:

1. Invest heavily in all forms of homeland security.
2. Rapidly progress the technology and research in alternative energy.

The window of opportunity is now...as the "Arab Spring" is going to keep them all preoccupied with domestic issues for the next 5-10 years.

[glojo]

Proving how barbarous we can be?

How about just putting down the rabid dog....we do that out of a service to the community I thought! Who is the rabid dog? The five or six year old child throwing stones, the women who have been ordered to join in the protests?

We are unfortunately comparing Western standards to those of nations that do not hold the same believes. and I am most certainly NOT condoning or excusing the murder of the US politician.

We are talking about countries where over 70% of the population cannot read or write, they are born into a society which has ALWAYS been ruled in a manner completely alien to anything I understand and what right do you or I have to say what they can, or cannot do. What they can, or cannot believe in... In their country you do NOT mock their religion, it matters not what our thoughts are regarding this issue, if we want to insult their religion, then we can expect this type of reaction :( :uhoh:

Before we took on this 'War on terror' as a serviceman I could walk through the market place or bazaar of most Middle East countries without a care in the World. Even when we were fighting in both Aden and Oman I still managed to wander through the bazaars and sites of interest.

I hate with a passion anyone that burns my National flag or an effigy of my Prime Minister and I feel it hypocritical of these demonstrators to do just that whilst protesting over acts that they consider insulting but.....

It would be extremely naive to produce that film and not expect ramifications and is anyone here seriously suggesting they did not expect this? Grab a tiger by its tail and you had better be prepared for a reaction.

These demonstrators do not have rabies or any other medical issue, they simply live in a culture that has different values to those that I live by.

I would be extremely surprised if any of those protesters have even watched that film and do we need to better understand why they are so offended?

If we want to make this World a better place then is it down to us to better understand these issues as at the moment I for one do NOT believe we have made any progress at all regarding this so called war on terror!

Polite questions..
I wonder how long a 'Gay' priest would last that wanted to open a church in Mississippi just to marry homosexuals. Look at the violent demonstrations that regularly take place in the USA regarding abortion laws... There have certainly been deaths regarding this issue.

Instead of threatening to attack those demonstrators, why not as a first course of action, cut off ALL the aid we give to these countries?

[The Helpful Stacker]

These demonstrators do not have rabies or any other medical issue, they simply live in a culture that has different values to those that I live by.

As a healthcare professional I disagree. Many indicators found when dealing with mental health patients are also found when dealing with people who have strong religious beliefs.

Violent actions carried out in the name of unproven beliefs? Sounds like something my colleagues in forensic psychiatry deal with quite a bit.

[SASless]

Glojo....are you lumping the Al Qaeda Terroritsts into the group you call "Demonstrators"?

Ah yes....now we have Queers and Pro-Lifers thrown into the discussion on the evils of radical Islam.....my your flexibility is amazing!

Speaking of which....how do Homosexuals and Christian Ministers fare under radical Islam?

Since you seem concerned about the two or three murders outside Abortion Clinics.....how about the hundreds of thousands of deathes inside the clinics?

Got children? How does a Parent explain Mom aborting a baby brother or sister to the ones she let live?

[glojo]

Hi SASless

Ah yes....now we have Queers and Pro-Lifers thrown into the discussion on the evils of radical Islam.....my your flexibility is amazing! I would like to think my flexibility is nothing out of the ordinary.

I find it just as offensive that so called 'Pro-Lifers' think it acceptable to kill those that disagree with their beliefs or values, surely they are no better than your radical Islamists?

Perhaps I should make a film highlighting just how barmy they are!

[SASless]

glojo....just how many killings have there been....since it seems such a huge thing to you? More folks got gunned down within two blocks of Obama's house in Chicago last week than have been murdered by Pro-Life radicals.

Where is your sense of perspective?

Lacking.....I would say.

Take a seat next to Caco and a few others.

[The Helpful Stacker]

...just how many killings have there been....since it seems such a huge thing to you? More folks got gunned down within two blocks of Obama's house in Chicago last week than have been murdered by Pro-Life radicals...

But surely to the pro-lifers every life is sacred, so it isn't a question of numbers?

[SASless]

Stacks.....Glowplug is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Out of the Millions of Pro-Life folks in this country....there have been only two or three killings of Abortionists.

In one week there were as many murders within two blocks of Obama's Chicago home that is guarded 24/7 by the Secret Service.

Now if we wish to accept life being sacred......I do not think the Pro-Abortion enthusiastists wish to go there.

I will quite happily go there....and I am not a rabid assed Pro-Lifer.....but do have some very serious moral objections to Abortion as a means of contraception or choosing the sex of a child.

We have plenty of argument about seeking the higher moral ground and all that kind of feel good **** by those on the Left....but not when it comes to Abortion on Demand.

As usual....I see their logic to be lacking when it comes to this issue.

We mustn't kill, bomb, strafe, shoot, or impugn, insult, or ostracize....but by God if it comes to saving the life of Killer or taking the life of the innocent....they will raise Holy Hell about it and protect the guilty but freely abandon the innocent.

[Granite City Express]

glojo....just how many killings have there been....since it seems such a huge thing to you? More folks got gunned down within two blocks of Obama's house in Chicago last week than have been murdered by Pro-Life radicals.
12 people were gunned down in cold blood in a cinema in Aurora Ill. That is 3 times the number of Americans that were murdered in Benghazi.

Where were the NRA members offering apologies and showing sympathy then? Shouldn't we be hunting down those that enabled this act of barbarity? Take out the gun shops that sold him the guns. Shouldn't there have been drone attacks on this guy's family and friends?

Sorry, but the hypocrisy in the right wing agenda is amazing. What happened in Libya was appalling but somehow we need to find a little perspective don't you think?

Christianity has not exactly been innocent in the past, in fact it has a pretty blood soaked history, which makes the hypocrisy of WASPs even more breathtaking.

SASless before you arc up that I am an apologist for the hate filled islamofascists, maybe you need to stop and look at some of the hate filled rhetoric you have been spouting recently.

[SASless]

...before you arc up that I am an apologist for the hate filled islamofascists....


Apologist isn't exactly what I am thinking about you.

That would be far too flattering and allow you some credit for having a well thought out view of things.

I do fail to understand your logic of comparing the insane criminal act of a single individual to that of a Terrorist group and somehow thinking a legitmate business owner should be a target of retribution for the perpetrators actions.

Please do explain how you arrived at that idea will you?

Now that you bring in the issue of past actions of Christians in the past.....I guess you will be trying to convince us under the "Eye for an Eye" concept of Sharia Law....these attacks on Westerners are justifiable as revenge or punishment for past acts...or do I miss your point?

Now I suppose what you refer to is the Protestant transgressions against the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland.....or was something to do with the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Hunts.

[Granite City Express]

Very sorry SASless, you are of course correct. All muslims are terrorists, we should kill every single one of them.

Sorry for having an opinion that may vary from yours.

[rmac]

I am not so far away from Glojo's position.

There are many devout and peaceful Muslims as well as Christians, Buddhists and the rest, and if believing in deities helps them cope with the daily grind and the Inevitable future outcome of their life good luck to them.

But as has been proven in our own past, religion, if used for violent purposes, is often the "excuse" rather than the reason, we don't need to go further back than our own Northern Ireland conflict to try to understand that.

What you have around the main part of the Muslim world is excessive poverty and drudgery for the vast part of the population with very little me-time, but sufficient access to media these days to see the "west"with most of the wealth (in their eyes often aided and abetted by their wealthy leaders in their supply of oil to us). The people they see in the west live a very different life, already getting our paradise on earth by their comparisons and it must lead to an awful lot of envy and frustration.

As most of you will know many extreme critics are motivated by bitterness that they cannot get a piece of the action. The politics of envy will drive them to destroy what they too cannot have. Now if at this point anyone want to chip in with the comment that I am overlaying western value on other cultures, bollox, human wants are very similar wherever. If they could all have a nice house, two holidays a year, a shiny car, a wife and (and maybe a mistress) and all without having to work hours of manual toil in the hot sun, they would probably not be in such arush to run out and cause trouble.

Now this is the point at which someone will argue, what about extreme British Muslims ? Well there are elements of the same reasoning at work, unlike the US, which has more Muslim immigrants but does not share the same problem, the UK is much more homogenised in general and therefore more difficult to integrate, but many British Muslims are managing to do that well after two to three generations, the Pakistani guy who runs the corner shop near my house works his ass off and sends his kids to the same private school as mine, one is in the same class as my youngest and is a delightful little boy. However, for the workshy, the socially awkward or perhaps even the ones who believe that society owes them a living (like many non Muslims) the same politics of envy apply.

Take all of this envy, hand it weapons and point it in the right direction and hey presto !!

I remember my troops mantra. "Friday night a f*ck or a fight", well with option two largely out of the question, in the Muslim world I imagine it's "Friday night, a fight or a fight".

I don't know what the answer is, we live in a complicated world and cannot create social justice however much some think we can, it's just not that easy for a whole range of human factors ......but....maybe we are not helping out too much by giving them the opportunity on a regular basis and maybe beating them with a big stick and making them stand in the naughty corner on a regular basis isn't helping either.

And if you think that it is only the Muslim world,prepare for a shock, China's one child policy together with the desire to produce male heirs, left them with such a gender imbalance that "Saturday night a fight or a fight" is a very real possibility in that huge nation and why central government is heavily invested in internal security control and (rightly) deaf to any criticism from our side. The spectre of violent disagreement between haves and have-nots within Chinas borders keeps the Chinese leaders awake at night, and we all know the easiest way to defuse internal problems is to turn the populations attention outside !! So we are all heavily invested in helping China to keep internal passions under control.....god forbid anyone gets any ideas for a "Chinese spring" it would make the Arab one look like a sideshow.

Rmac

[Robert Cooper]

Islam fundamentalism is the driving force behind every major conflict in the Middle East — and, by one calculation, it is behind about half of the world's armed conflicts, from Algeria to the Philippines. The evils of dogmatism and religious tyranny are endemic to Islamic culture — and our evasion of this fact is making a mockery of the War on Terrorism.

If we want to win this war, we must begin by recognizing that this is Islamic fundamentalism's war against the "infidel" secularism of the West. Our goal in this war should be to beat down, to curtail, to drive out Islamic fundamentalism — not to replace it with our own religion, but to force Islam, like the religions of the civilized world, to lay down its arms and accept the freedom of a secular society.

Bob C

[lj101]

Robert

Beating down, curtailing, forcing etc etc etc doesn't seem to work terribly well though does it.

I don't understand the mind of the fundamentalist, perhaps those who are involved in 'cults' have a better idea as to how people can be easily led into behaviour that the majority don't understand or display, space ships anyone?

I have no idea what the solution is, but I don't believe violence (as you describe it) is the way forward. Education helps, on both sides.

[PTT]

Proving how barbarous we can be?

How about just putting down the rabid dog....we do that out of a service to the community Ithought!Dehumanisation as justification has long been attempted, and only really works on the unthinking (or those unable/unwilling to) zealot. Barbarism is barbarism, no matter the direction. Only history judges otherwise, and we all know which set of barbarians gets to write that...

[PTT]

Many indicators found when dealing with mental health patients are also found when dealing with people who have strong religious beliefs.Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. As a medical professional you are doubtless familiar with Latin, although perhaps less so with logical fallacies ;)

[finestkind]

Agree with RMAC.

Reading the discussion going on here and how intense, at times, it becomes is there any wonder that religious fanatics and zealots of any kind use violence as a means of expression.

We are a product of our environment/society. If you had been born in the 1920's in Germany its odd's on you would have been a Nazi or at least in the Nazi youth.

Its not excusable but there is a reason for the type of behaviour that occurs in the Middle East, just the same as what occurs in the deep South of America.

Its human nature. Belief is like hope and when it reaches the stage of fanaticism is a human disease that allows people to survive the most horrendous situation but at the same time commit the most inhuman acts possible.

I find it bereft of sanity to see arguments to limit weapons that mutilate and cause unbelievable injuries on the justification that this is not civilised and we are descending into inhumane behaviour. Get a grip, war is inhumane behaviour and its been going on since the caveman picked up a club ( you can imagine the committee on whether the club was an acceptable weapon "No its not allowed to be bigger than X and must be made of basalt wood).

What has the above line got to do with it all. We are at war with terrorism. Its not Marquess of Queensbury rules. We are human and always will be different, unless we end up like George Orwell's 1984, which is what Afghanistan was like (under the Taliban) and Russia was and China is and Cambodia was and Uganda was and North Korea is and kceflknhceflncefnj. There never will be a Utopia where everyone thinks and believes the same (thank heavens, what a boring place).

How does this explain the violent protest of the peace loving Muslims in living in Western cities. The same as it explains the Vietnam protests. The mob is easily led, particularly the young whom want to be part of something, anything and have a reason for getting out of bed.

What do we do. I think it would be acceptable to deport them to where this style of behaviour, violent protests and burning of flags and effigies is acceptable. Will that solve the problem. Nope but it would be nice to do something.

Are we getting to the stage were it has become obvious that we need to protect and look after our society and culture. Nope its too multi-cultural to do that.

[The Helpful Stacker]

PTT - I'm not quite sure how my comment can be considered a logical fallacy but I'd be interested in an explanation of your assertion.

[BEagle]

If you had been born in the 1920's in Germany its odd's on you would have been a Nazi or at least in the Nazi youth.

Very probably - after 1936, HJ membership was compulsory for 'Aryan' children.....:(

When I was young, the babysitter who came to make sure we didn't burn the house down when our parents were out for the evening was a German ex-PoW who had stayed in England after the war. 'Rudi' was a very pleasant chap.

One night we were allowed to stay up to watch The Valiant Years and the programme featured the HJ. Poor old Rudi looked very uncomfortable and told us "It was not like the Boy Scouts, you had to join it!".

His telephone report from Dunkeswell to my father in Jan 1963 was memorable: "It iss schnowink like schtink!".....

[racedo]

Reading the discussion going on here and how intense, at times, it becomes is there any wonder that religious fanatics and zealots of any kind use violence as a means of expression.

We are a product of our environment/society. If you had been born in the 1920's in Germany its odd's on you would have been a Nazi or at least in the Nazi youth.


The idea that its only zealots who use violence as a means of expression is flawed, many nation states including the old and new imperial states have always used violence as a means of control. They still continue to do so but now use their Intelligence services to do it under shadowy and deniable organisations.......... these same organisations are called terrorist organisations if controlled by countries not deemed as friends.

As for being in Nazi party, many people were not and Hitler youth became compulsory



What has the above line got to do with it all. We are at war with terrorism. Its not Marquess of Queensbury rules. We are human and always will be different, unless we end up like George Orwell's 1984, which is what Afghanistan was like (under the Taliban) and Russia was and China is and Cambodia was and Uganda was and North Korea is and kceflknhceflncefnj. There never will be a Utopia where everyone thinks and believes the same (thank heavens, what a boring place).

The western powers instigate terrorism as much if not more than the countries they blame for it. They happy to start proxy wars and then claim deniablility as the people are supposedly ex armed forces etc etc or being used as fronts for Multinationals.

[Thud105]

I'm starting to think - having read some of SASLess's recent ramblings about guns, homosexuals and abortion, that if you could ever get him and a nicely rabid Islamist in the same room, that they'd soon discover they actually have rather a lot in common.
You can analyse it all you want, but IMHO it's actually quite simple;-
Many of the Muslim protestors have a medieval mindset (remember, on their calender its the 15th Century).
Wars are good for big business, do you really think BAEs, EADS, Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc want the 'War On Terror' to end? When the Cold War ended the Military-Industrial complex was probably pretty concerned about profits.
Right now, business is good. If the bosses of every major arms manufacturer, and every senior politician, had a son or daughter on the frontline you'd soon see a change.

[SOSL]

I'm beginning to suspect that SASless is a troll; but that may not be the whole story because I seem to detect a touch of waltishness about some of his posts on various threads.

Or is it just me?

Rgds SOS

[glojo]

SASLess is someone who I hold in the highest of regard although I completely disagree with his views regarding his latest comments.

Ironic how Afghanistan was invaded to remove the Taliban and here we are negotiating with these same radicals regarding our withdrawal from that country.

[SASless]

SOSL......why don't you start a thread and we can discuss it....or will you do your usual thing and "Pop in....Pop off....and Piss off!"?

You seem to have a reluctance to hang around upon being challenged to defend your comments....as noticed in multiple threads and forums....and it doesn't matter who it is that throws down the gauntlet at you.

When challenged you do a runner.....how about this time.....care to start that thread and prove your allegations you just made or is this yet another one of your personal attacks you enjoy making then hiding in the woodwork for a while?

Either stand up or be known as a Dick Head!

[500N]

SOSL

I think it might be you.

I could think of others who have far less cred than SaSless who
at least stays and discusses his views.

Re Walt, I think he posted something again the other day that
proves he is at the other end of the scale to a Walt. If you didn't
see it, do some research on his posts.


SOSL - you threw out a challenge so suggest you start a thread where you two can thrash it out and you can back up what you have insinuated.
If your not prepared to back up what you say, I think you might be down at the Walt end of the scale.

[ORAC]

Well worth the read.

Torygraph: How the West is losing the cognitive war with Islamism and its death cults (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardlandes/100181323/how-the-west-is-losing-the-cognitive-war-with-islamism-and-its-death-cults/)

[PTT]

TheHelpfulStacker, your comment was:
As a healthcare professional I disagree. Many indicators found when dealing with mental health patients are also found when dealing with people who have strong religious beliefs.in response to:These demonstrators do not have rabies or any other medical issue, they simply live in a culture that has different values to those that I live by.
Your implication (indicated by your disagreement) is that because they are religious then they are likely to have medical issues. The logical error is to assume that the link is directly between strong religious belief and mental health issues rather than there being other factors which may cause such events (e.g. poverty). While it is possible that some of them do have mental health issues, it is not a logical step to say that they do, nor is it a logical step to link it to religiousness.

SASless, you're still promoting acting like a barbarian.

[SASless]

SASless, you're still promoting acting like a barbarian.

You have the floor PTT....please do explain how you arrived at that view or is that just a gratuitous barb you wish to throw?

[The Helpful Stacker]

PTT,

Your implication (indicated by your disagreement) is that because they are religious then they are likely to have medical issues. The logical error is to assume that the link is directly between strong religious belief and mental health issues rather than there being other factors which may cause such events (e.g. poverty). While it is possible that some of them do have mental health issues, it is not a logical step to say that they do, nor is it a logical step to link it to religiousness.

I'm not sure how you drew all that from my comment but it is completely incorrect.

I wasn't stating that people with strong religious beliefs have mental health issues, just that the actions of people with strong religious beliefs have parallels with indicators used within the mental health profession to diagnose those who do.

If you are trying to draw an implication from my comments then it could as easily be religious people can have mental health issues also and that such issues could be mis-diagnosed as being 'religious belief'.

To add to my comments though, the question of whether religious belief is a type of mental health issue though is open to debate. There was an interesting meta-study conducted into religion and mental health a while back by Charles H. Hackney which, among other things, questioned just this point.

[Thud105]

Well SASLess, are you disturbed to realise just how much you do have in common with Islamic fundamentalists?

[racedo]

There was an interesting meta-study conducted in religion and mental health a while back by Charles H. Hackney which, among other things, questioned just this point.

Questioning something is not proof of anything as on that basis a study could start with the question that " All men are rapists".

Based on the loose wording you have used by its mere questioning it claims guilt on all males.

[Shack37]

SASless
As always I read your posts with interest, sometimes sharing your view, sometimes not. In this case I think we differ but to confirm I would like to ask you this.

Leaving aside euphemisms about rabies and mad dogs etc, is it your position that full scale attacks on the civil populations of muslim countries, genocide against men, women and children is the solution? A simple yes or no will be fine.

I personally am in favour of stepping back and leaving them to it because I believe, sooner or later, the populations of these countries will themselves say "enough is enough". I also think their oil products, while we need them, will be available as those who run these places need to sell it to survive. In the meantime the West must step up research and production of other forms of energy in sufficient quantities even if our own oil giants don't like it.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Questioning something is not proof of anything.....

It was a little more than just a question. It drew upon much peer-reviewed research and provided a conclusion based on said research. If you use the authors name in a search engine you should be able to find the paper, read it and draw your own conclusion.

[SASless]

Thud....care to explain how that is so? Just what is it I have in common with those folks in your opinion?


Shack....just where I have endorxed "Genocide", "full scale attacks on civilian populations", or anything remotely equivalent to that?

Did I say wage war on the Terrorists and their support structure....YES!

If I am not mistaken...that is what many Western countries are doing right at this very moment....and a lot of Muslim countries as well when it suits their national security interests anyway.

I too wish we could simply leave them to themselves in that part of the World. It would be an improvement over the current situation. Until we become independent suppliers of our own energy needs....that cannot be.

Mitt Romney, the Republican Candidate for President has made that move to Energy Independence his first step in his plan for Economic Recovery....and he is the first President in my life time to say that. Our illustrious Department of Energy (USDOE) was created to achieve that goal....and we see how well that worked out.

If you wish to debate the issues....be specific in where you and I differ and we can have a back and forth on them.

[SOSL]

Hi SAS, thanks for your mini-rant at post #134. I admit I broke protocol by posting off thread and, of course this post is itself off thread. I'll try to be more disciplined in future.

Maybe I should call meself Richard Ness, in future.

Rgds SOS

[SASless]

I'm beginning to suspect that SASless is a troll; but that may not be the whole story because I seem to detect a touch of waltishness about some of his posts on various threads.

Or is it just me?

Rgds SOS

Off thread?

Since when is a personal attack merely "Off Thread"?

You made the allegations.....prove them!

Otherwise an apology and removal of the insult would be appropriate....as is that not what Officers and Gentlemen do when it is the right thing to do?

[con-pilot]

Or is it just me?


Yup SOSL, it's just you.

SAS did the walk, talked the talk and did what he said he did.

Now, just what are your credentials?

Take your time, I'll wait.

[PTT]

@ SASless

Why on earth would I bother with a "gratuitous barb"? Although the fact you describe it as a barb suggests it stung some, perhaps belying that you see the truth in the statement?

Here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/495344-us-ambassador-killed-libya-6.html#post7415048) is your statement again:
Proving how barbarous we can be?

How about just putting down the rabid dog....we do that out of a service to the community I thought!

@ TheHelpfulStacker

I drew my conclusion from your disagreement with the initial statement by glojo (that the demonstrators do not have rabies or any other medical issue). That "the actions of people with strong religious beliefs have parallels with indicators used within the mental health profession to diagnose [patients]" I don't doubt, but your disagreement, specifically stating that you thought the demonstrators (who, we assume, are religious) may well have mental health issues implied that you considered the two to be strongly correlated at best, and potentially causal at worst.

Having looked at Charles H Hackney's "Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies" (which is the study to which I assume you refer) he does use a Pearson product moment correlation (http://www.experiment-resources.com/pearson-product-moment-correlation.html) for his meta-analysis. While I don't know much at all about the mental health profession, I do know enough about statistics and coding to have an opinion on the study itself (which, being a meta-analysis, was basically an exercise in statistics rather than in medicine), and he states that there is a "significant correlation" between religiosity and mental health in the populations studied. Given the r value of 0.10 that is an interesting interpretation (http://www.surveysystem.com/correlation.htm). Basically it means only 1% that the variation in religiosity is related to the variation in mental health - not what I would call a strong indication, by any stretch. Statistically, an r value of 0.1 to 0.3 is generally considered to be a weak positive correlation. Where I really take issue, though, is his statement "regardless of any considerations of religiosity or mental health definitions, religiosity may be said to have a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment" - this suggests a causal relationship which correlation cannot and should never be used to imply, and he goes further when he talks about his "practical implications" - "The pattern described in our research suggests that regardless of the clinical target (reduction of anxiety, daily adjustment, or long-term growth), clinicians would achieve the greatest results by concentrating on personal devotion/relationship-with-God aspects of religiosity", although he does mention the issue as one of his 3 limitations of the database (which is interesting given that he had just used that same database to suggest using one to cause the other!). His "final difficulty" is possibly the most damning to the study - the classifications are arbitrary, and different classifications will produce different results.

tldr version: the study you cite has a number of flaws, goes no way towards suggesting that "religious belief is a type of mental health issue (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/495344-us-ambassador-killed-libya-7.html#post7418558)", nor does it suggest that there is a strong correlation or causal link between religion and mental health (as much as I, as an atheist, would like it to be true!).

[SASless]

SASless, you're still promoting acting like a barbarian.

Your comment suggesting I am promoting folks be like barbarians....I think that is what you mean.

You based that on this statement of mine?


Proving how barbarous we can be?

How about just putting down the rabid dog....we do that out of a service to the community I thought!

I fail to see any linkage at all between your comment and mine....care to solve the riddle for me and explain how putting down a Rabid Dog is a barbarous act?

If you provide the full context of the disucssion.....you will find I suggested those who wantonly murder innocent people for whatever reason....are the barbarians and want putting down to protect society and innocent people from further attacks and murders.

Are you suggesting combating Terrorists is engaging in Barbarian behavior? Do you really think that?

[Thud105]

SASLess, I think it was your obvious dislike of homosexuals and abortion, love of guns and general intolerance. Do you know what the difference is between a fundamentalist Muslim who burns bibles and a fundamentalist Christian who burns Korans?
There is no difference. They're both ignorant, bigoted tw@ts.

[PTT]

@ SASless
It's because killing people is the answer you (continue to) promote, and you continue to justify it through dehumanisation ("rabid dog"). You're suggesting that this will be resolved by killing more and more people but, like TheHelpfulStacker said (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/495344-us-ambassador-killed-libya-6.html#post7415138), kill one and up pops another. Violence begets violence (as you are ably demonstrating), and it takes the civilised man to find a way out of that spiral.

[SASless]

Bit of over simplification I should think, Thud!

Where have I said I "dislike" homosexuals? I did say I do not care for "in your face Gay Pride Homosexuals" as I do not care to have that agenda forced upon me. How do you stretch that to a general dislike of all homosexuals?


I said I was against Abortion as a means of contraception or choosing the sex of a child. What is radical about that sort of opinion?

"Love of guns"....because as an American I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights and own and use Firearms in a completely legal manner. Remembering I am a former law enforcement officer at both the local and federal level, and served in the military where I carried firearms on a daily basis.....that makes me some sort of nut case when it comes to guns?

Hoss.....I think you doth protest too much!

As to Bible and Quran burning.....no where have I espoused either activity and have been quite clear saying I find "extremists" of any ilk to be objectionable.

So....what is your agenda here?

You seem to want to make this a "personal" attack rather than addressing the issues.....which of late seems to be a very common thing here.

Small point but usually when one asks a question....it is considered polite to wait for an answer before giving an answer. Since you answered your own question....I see no need to try to answer it for you.

I do find it a bit odd....that Christians in particular and Americans in general are accused of intolerance.....while all around us we see Radical Islamists rioting, burning churches, murdering non-Muslims and very few folks want to tell us all about them being in the wrong.

Why is that I wonder?

How does a two bit hunk of video justify mruder, arson, and armed insurrection ? When the Al Qaeda thugs were hacking off heads of innocent victims trussed up like Christmas Turkeys....we did not go around burning, looting, and murdering....so why do they get a pass and we get labelled as being evil? It simply defies logic....but then there is a lot on the Left I find impossible to understand.


PTT.....OK....I will stipulate to your statement about violence begetting violence. So there sat the American Ambassador in the Benghazi Consulate having a Pint and watching CNN on the Telly....when through the Window comes an RPG and Mortar shells start falling on the roof and in the courtyard....followed by Automatic Weapoins fire and an armed assault by many people. Just exactly what did he do to earn that bit of surffering and death at the hands of a mob?

Lastly, you of course have never used symbolism in your speech or any post here at pprune have you? By the way....I leave the Saul Alinsky methods of politics to the Left. I very much prefer to make it all about humanizing the situation.....in the person of the victims of the Terrorists. The Left are the ones that wish to keep these discussions in the abstract and do anything to ignroe the human side of it.

[500N]

Thud

I think it was your obvious dislike of homosexuals and abortion, love of guns and general intolerance.

" I think it was your ............. dislike of homosexuals ................., love of guns and general intolerance."

I think you summed me up so I am in SaS's court. Like SaS, not a great fan of overt homosexuals, love of guns and don't suffer fools or dickheads.

I still think those who are having a go at him have blown
what he said way out of proportion !

.

[PTT]

Just exactly what did he do to earn that bit of surffering and death at the hands of a mob?Well that depends on your perspective, really. US aid to Israel, not only materially, but in terms of UN vetoes (43 at the last count (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html)) and political support in the region are certain to annoy a bunch of them even if not directed at them specifically (apart from the minor incident of a shootdown of a Libyan aircraft), or a small Op called Operation El Dorado Canyon may have coloured their perspective on the US. In terms of Chistopher Stevens the individual, he has, to the best of my far-from-complete knowledge of him, done nothing; in terms of what he represents as the US ambassador, more than enough. Like has been said, already, if you don't want to risk the effects of "the disease" then keep clear.

I do try not to use symbolism when calling for the death of other people. Such symbolism is where dehumanisation starts.

Humanising the situation is precisely what this is about. You seem to want to ascribe the epithet of "human" only to the victims, though. Everyone involved in this sorry situation is human, and you would do well to remember that before condemning them as "rabid dogs", no matter what they have done.

[dead_pan]

Taken in isolation the video certainly probably wouldn't justify the response except to the hotheads who'd get worked up over merest perceived insult to their religion. I suspect it is taken by many in the wider population in Middle East and the latest in a long line of provocations - we in the West certainly have not covered ourselves in glory the region over the past decade what with our heavy-handed interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, One can only imagine the hatred we have kindled as a result of the numerous questionable killings (where coalition forces seem to be able to act as judge, jury and executioner with little apparent consequence if they get it wrong), not to mention the various botched drone strikes in the likes of Pakistan - these must be pure recruiting gold for the Islamists.

Personally I'm all for us pulling back from the region and letting them sort themselves out, at the same time offering sanctuary to those who, like the rest of the planet, would prefer to live their lives in the 21st century with all its attendant benefits.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Personally I'm all for us pulling back from the region and letting them sort themselves out"

but they won't.
what they would do is send more people to infiltrate the west and create more terrorist and dissident problems here

Personally I'd simply bomb them back into the stone age. Systematically bomb the water, power and industrial infrastructure out of existence. Country by country. And when they kill our people, bomb their mosques, one for each life taken.
Fight fear with fear

[brickhistory]

4 June 2009 - Cairo, Egypt

Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09 | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/)



I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.


Yeah, how's that working out so far?

Say, when was the last time an American ambassador died in the line of duty? I believe it was a gent named, unfortunately for him, Adolph, Adolph Dubs. Who killed him? I believe it was more of those peace-loving Muslims who like killing instead of a civilized court.

Did I miss the part where Christians in the modern age go around slaughtering Muslims because they don't like a film? Or more realistically, a country's way of life?

How's that multi-culturalism thing working out?

Funny, I don't see the IIRG having their LGBT parades. Must have missed the press coverage.

[Shack37]

"Personally I'm all for us pulling back from the
region and letting them sort themselves out"

but they won't.
what they
would do is send more people to infiltrate the west and create more terrorist
and dissident problems here

Personally I'd simply bomb them back into the
stone age. Systematically bomb the water, power and industrial infrastructure
out of existence. Country by country. And when they kill our people, bomb their
mosques, one for each life taken.
Fight fear with fear


No Milo, if we withdraw and leave them to their own devices and without a common enemy they will be too busy hacking each other (sunni, shi'ite) to bits to bother us in the West. Warlord V warlord, dictator V potential dictator etc. You can't fight fear with fear against an enemy who is happy to die for the cause and enter paradise. You'd only be terrorising ordinary men, women and children.

[SASless]

Poll just released shows marked decline in Arab nation approval of the United States from 2009 and today.....it would appear Obama's Cairo Speech and subsequent Foreign Policy has worked just exactly in reverse of that he promised upon taking office. No surprise there based upon the past couple of years experience.

With the upcoming election in November and Obama's attacks on Romney claiming Romney has no Foreign Policy experience....if the Obama Administration admits publically the Benghazi attack was a premeditated attack by a Islamist Terror group and more specifically done by Al Qaeda.....Obama will be in deep Doo-Doo with the independent Voters.

I think he best get his hip boots out of the store room!

[Thud105]

Apologies, I didn't mean it to be a personal attack SAS, just thought (and still think) that you really do have a lot more in common with Fundamentalist Muslims than you realise. Personally, I loathe all Fundamentalists, of all religions.(But, as I'm not superstitious, I have little time for any religion. As the Brits say, "it's all Bollocks, isn't it".)

[SASless]

From what I just read....yes it is just all bollocks!

[finestkind]

You cannot reason with a fanatic or a drunk. Both are dangerous if armed. The only positive and not always 100% is the drunk will sober up and hopefully feel like a total f^^6up for his/her actions. The fanatic never sobers up.

[PTT]

SASless, what poll? Please link to your source.

[lj101]

Not the poll discussed but


Opinion Briefing: Arab Nations Differ on Uprisings' Upside (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157400/opinion-briefing-arabs-doubt-benefits-uprisings.aspx)

[dead_pan]

what they would do is send more people to infiltrate the west and create more terrorist and dissident problems here

A low-level threat, easily contained IMO. Now we know what we're facing they're going to have to work very hard to catch us out.

And when they kill our people

It is interesting how some posters on this thread place so much more value on the lives of 'their' nationals.

I wonder whether the ambassador who died would have been happy with the some of the sentiments being expressed hereabouts about avenging his death? I doubt it.

[PTT]

lj101: I may have missed it, but I'm not seeing any Arab nation approval ratings of the US.

[Pontius Navigator]

A low-level threat, easily contained IMO. Now we know what we're facing they're going to have to work very hard to catch us out.

Really? I wished I could share your confidence.

The incidence on green on blue illustrates how difficult it is to differentiate between friend and foe when the 'friend' has been vetted. In this country no such vetting takes place for most people.

It is a curious fact, I think, but there seems to be a surge of immigration from each country in which we have intervened and that has gone on for many, many years.

[lj101]

PTT hi,

It wasn't the poll discussed, sorry. This one is a bit more relevant:


Arab Attitudes: 2011 | The Arab American Institute (http://www.aaiusa.org/reports/arab-attitudes-2011)

[SASless]

Stats were taken from the Transatlantic Poll 2012.

Zogby also has a poll out that is similar.

Conclusion....Obama's Foreign Policy for the Islamic World has failed.


Polls Show Erosion of U.S. Image Abroad Over the Past Four Years | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/polls-show-erosion-us-image-abroad-over-past-four-years)

[Pontius Navigator]

Conclusion....Obama's Foreign Policy for the Islamic World has failed.

Good, that is one policy we can discard. Next?

What would be an effective policy then?

[ORAC]

What would be an effective policy then? Machiavelli - The Prince - Chapter XVII - Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared (http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince17.htm)

.......Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved.............

[PTT]

While the Conservative News Service poll is hardly likely to be unbiased, the Arab American Institute one is a better source. I'm not sure I'd be so quick to leap to conclusions of failure, though - factors outwith US control have caused the US to be largely reactive in many cases, as was true for G W Bush.

ORAC - this isn't the 15th Century. That's the point I've been making. Machiavelli has his place, but foreign policy isn't it.

[SASless]

PN,

I would start with becoming Energy Independent. No more imported oil from anywhere with a predominantly Muslim government or fundamentalist presence.

I would form an "American Co-Prosperity Sphere" (coining a phrase here....) that would include North, Central, and South America....and focus upon improving economic, political, and military cooperation between those regions.

By doing that.....we cut off the flow of close to a Trillion Dollars to the Middle East. Our balance of trade in that region reverses itself.....as if we no longer buy their oil....they will be left as "Buyers" not "Sellers".

As we would no longer really care about that 35% of the World's Oil that must pass through the Straits of Hormuz....we could withdraw our Military from that area. That eliminates one of the major irritants to the radical Islamists.

Our economy would improve.....as we would be spending far more money at home, our defense costs would go down as we would no longer have to maintain a worldwide defence posture, our energy costs would go down, our involvement in other areas that are so sensitive would decrease.

Europe would have to deal with Russia....Japan and China would have to deal with the Middle East.

We would have to maintain a strong Navy and Air Force to ensure our Freedom of the seas in the America's only. Europe and the UK would have to start fending for themselves, Japan and China would have to sort out their part of the World.

The Middle East could just go get screwed....as their situation would be very much changed They would continue to fight one another.....one tribe against another....one branch of Islam against another....one country against another...and it would not matter one whit to the "America's" as the only thing the Middle East would mean to us is their value as a market for our foodstuffs and consumer goods.

The America's have two huge Moats....the Atlantic and the Pacific....so defending the borders becomes much easier than trying to defend our overseas presence as we do now.

Some serious dialogue with the Middle Eastern Countries....about the dangers of attacking us after we have withdrawn from their lands and lives....and Bob's yer Uncle.

There's my plan if I were King for a Day!


PTT....typical Leftie comment.....the Poll was cited in the CNS article....read the damned poll and ignore the CNS commentary. The fact it was CNS that referenced the Poll doesn't make the Poll results any less accurate.....and your reference doesn't make their results any more accurate just because of who referenced the Poll. Polls are just polls....but when countanced with real events....they can be indicative of the situation.

Pray tell just how can anyone say Obama's Foreign Policy has been a success?

We are losing in Afghanistan....it is his "Good War" remember....he is the one that has run the thing for four years now. Bush started it....Obama inherited it...but he is the guy holding the steering wheel for FOUR YEARS.

We have the ongoing situation with Iran....are we any closer to a resolution after FOUR YEARS?

We have Syria going on.....just what the hell has Obama done right in that one?

We have the ascendency of the Muslim Brotherhood and a growing Radical Islamist presence in all of the Muslim countries....due in no small part to the "Soft" approach of the Obama Policies. Just how is that a success?

Obama spurns the Israelis....and plays cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood....how does that work out for us re Iran, Egypt, and Israel? Not good I can assure you. Thugs know weakness when they see it....and will capitalize on it to the maximum extent possible....and we can see that happening right now.

Obama has been a dismal failure when it comes to Foreign Policy... there is no denying it!

The Pakistani Doctor that heloed us get Bin Liner....is in a Paki Prison on a 33 Year sentence.....if Obama was so successful....why is that good Man in Prison at all...much less still in Prison?

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, your plan certainly answers the question and has a certain appeal, shades of Wilson, but certainly would not appeal to me and my kin folk.

[SASless]

PN.....what is your plan? I posted mine....now throw out yours please.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Well, SASless,
Energy Independence is the key, but the energy costs will go UP, sharply. Otherwise, of course, we'd have done this decades ago.

The only thing that will make it possible is for oil prices to keep rising to the point where the average consumer switches to electric (or hydrogen) vehicles. Like it or not, people usually vote with (and for) their pockets.

Don't forget that Mr Chavez and his mates might not be too keen on the America's Co-Prosperity Sphere, aka US Empire. The yanks are fed up with illiterate thugs crossing their southern borders and stealing all the jobs. The Canadians feel the same.

[SOSL]

Nonetheless, SASless has set out a cogent and sensible, if somewhat idealistic, strategy.

I think the idea of an Americas co-prosperity area has a lot of merit; it's not a new idea. The concept of not buying oil from the middle east is attractive.

The problems, as always, would lie in the detail but if "Prosperity" is on offer low level problems tend to go away.

Sadly, it just wouldn't happen because humankind, in collective mode, is fundamentally stupid and perverse.

Rgds SOS

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, my plan is not for publication. Other than that, clueless.

[11Fan]

Pray tell just how can anyone say Obama's Foreign Policy has been a success?

Perhaps it is just a matter of perspective. If you meant to bring it down, well then, mission accomplished. :ok:

And SAS, I'm just about with you there. I never thought I would evolve to a more isolationist point of view, but I'm pretty God Damn tired of being the babysitters in the world, along with our friends and allies of course. To some respect, we are all in this together.

Over the last few days I've been humming this tune in my head. It's an old anti-war song from the 60's by Country Joe and the Fish. One of the lines in the song is "We only know peace can be won if we blow them all to kingdom come."

Although they sang it in protest, one wonders if there may be an element of truth to it.



Left one little tidbit out there to see if any Bush bashers nibble.

[SASless]

PN....so you are quite willing to listen to others....critique what is said....but you are prepared to go on record as you want others to do.

If you are not confident enough in your thoughts then why engage others for theirs?

What are you afraid of?

Are you like Obama....want to vote "Present" but take no position that can be criticized?

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, quite. We spoke. There are solutions but, like your island America one, they are not realpolitik.

[SOSL]

Guys, I am as guilty as anyone of allowing myself to be dragged into this thread; mostly as a reaction to the quasi-extremist views being posted.

But, what on earth has it got to do with military aviation?

Rgds SOS

[Pontius Navigator]

SOSL, nothing - we hope.

[SOSL]

PN - fair enough....oooowhhh - I just did it again!

Rgds SOS

[PTT]

@ SASless
PTT....typical Leftie commentHow you love to pigeon-hole people ;)
You can't categorise everyone as simply as you seem to want to - people are complex. The fact is that I mistrust conservative papers which are printing anti-liberal stories and liberal papers which are printing anti-conservative ones. Knowing the motives behind the paper is an important part of understanding the story.

Still, I read the polls. There were several cited, but you knew that, right? ;)
1. Transatlantic Trends 2012 - only covers 15 countries, only one of which could be considered Arabic/Middle-Eastern (Turkey).
CNS reported "in all but one of 12 European countries polled in both 2009 and 2012, approval for Obama’s handling of international affairs dropped over that period," while the poll itself states "A majority of Americans and more than two-thirds of Europeans approved of U.S. President Barack Obama’s handling of international policies," and "Despite a 12-point decline from 2009 (President Obama’s first year in office), 71% of people in the 12 EU countries polled still approved of his handling of international policies." While a drop from 83% to 71% is still a drop, but certainly doesn't amount to a failure of policy. Nor does it offer a comparison with Bush approval ratings at any point.
2. Pew Global Attitudes Project report in June - a grand total of 6 Muslim countries in this poll, but it does show that opinion of Obama in these countries is lower than it was of Bush in 2008. What might be a fairer comparison is opinion of Obama after 4 years with opinion of Bush after 4 years. 2004 data (http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/12/18/global-public-opinion-in-the-bush-years-2001-2008/) shows that the UK, Germany, France and Spain all had a lower opinion of Bush after 4 years than they do of Obama after 4 years. Of the Muslim countries only Turkey, Jordan and Pakistan are in both datasets, with Turkey and Pakistan showing lower opinion of Obama than of Bush. That said, the assumption is that this is entirely due to foreign policy rather than other factors outwith the control of both Bush and Obama.
3. Globescan gave pdf of a BBC world service poll including 22 countries, although only Pakistan is there representing Muslim countries, and it only compares 2012 with 2011, so is of no use to us.
4. Gallup gives a poll which shows hefty increases in US approval ratings in Europe and Asia, and of the Global median, between 2008 and 2011 (limit of the poll).
5. Another Gallup poll, specific to Libya, shows that 54% of Libyan adults approve of US leadership (cf 40% who disapprove).

So, of the 5 polls cited: one of them shows a drop in Obama approval, but the approval still remained very high, while giving no comparison with Bush approval; one didn't compare like with like (end of 2 terms with end of 1 term), and a like-with-like comparison revealed very little data; one was useless unless we're comparing with 1 year ago; one showed a big approval increase from Bush to Obama; and the last was relevant only to Libya. In short, this is why I don't trust CNS (or any politicised newsroom) to provide a picture of what is going on: the data is very carefully chosen to ensure the correct headline is achieved - something known as "cherrypicking" statistically.
Obama has been a dismal failure when it comes to Foreign Policy... there is no denying it!I think you'll find I just did... ;)

The problem here is that the period is taken in isolation. In order to assess how successful foreign policy has been it needs to be compared with similar interval polls for other Presidents. I would hypothesise that there is almost always a decline in approval ratings after a new President has been in office for some time, and further suggest that it is hope for change which causes the initial bump, and disappointment that it is "business as usual" for the US which causes the slump. Whether foreign policy has been successful or not would be judged by comparing the mean change in approval after 4 years in office with the change in approval of the individual being assessed. Even then there would be issues with outside factors skewing things - 9/11, WW2, OBL capture, whatever, with have a meta-effect on the data which cannot be isolated.

As for your "plan", isolationism isn't an option - even China has seen that and opened its doors to the global economy.

[pr00ne]

MiloMindbender,

Personally I'd simply bomb them back into the stone age. Systematically bomb the water, power and industrial infrastructure out of existence. Country by country. And when they kill our people, bomb their mosques, one for each life taken.
Fight fear with fear

Milo,
Thankfully murderous psychopaths like you don't hold the reigns of power!

SASless,

Usually you and I are miles and miles apart on almost every issue that I can think of, BUT, here I find a certain amount of sympathy for your view re "fortress USA" though not quite sure how pax America would work out with the current make up of some South and Central American Governments.

Still, it's a case worth debating and I don't think that you quite deserve the stick you have received here.

[SASless]

Pr00ne,

Mine was a very simplistic view....but one I have heard proposed by some very credible folks.

If one takes a look at the Globe....considers the Oil Reserves....factor into the mix transportation and other logistical issues....then factor the politics into that final brew....it does make a lot of sense.

Russia has plenty of oil and gas....and is on the same land mass as Europe....and Europeans are used to dealing with the Russians. As time goes on and the Russians morph into a more honest Capitalist system and buys into a steady secure market place for its oil and the benefits that brings then there could be some sort of accommodation reached that works for all parties.

The Americans....all of us would benefit from the same sort of cooperative agreement. Fat Boy in Venezuela shall not be with us forever and I am sure his followers are smart enough to understand the power of the Dollar. Then too, we could have a very stable situation.

The rub comes with the Chinese and the Japanese but again....if left to their own needs and abilities....they too will find cooperation beats confrontation.

The only side that really faces a downside in all this is our favorite bunch of troublemakers....those in the Middle East. As they would no longer have the Golden Goose....they would have to decide how to behave or wither. If they play hard nose with the Chinese...we know how that would work out. The Chinese are the oldest continuous society on Earth....for a reason. They know how to handle problems....and they are very much "businessmen".

If we in the USA do in fact go independent upon our energy needs....imagine how that will decrease the World's demand in the markets we pull out of as a result.

The Oil Companies might have a problem with that too.

Lots of Commodity Brokers would be jumping out of windows too.



As to the "Stick".....it comes with the turf....I have never hesitated to poke a stick at the Lions about the place....so it is only fair to get a growl out of them now and then.

With only a few exceptions it has been good sport and a bit of verbal jousting....but a couple have crossed the line but they are the ones that lose when they do...not me. I have apologized in the past when I stepped over the line thus I am not immune from saying something I should not. When I did...I apologized....as should be done when in the wrong.

[Robert Cooper]

How on Earth are we going to win this conflict when we have to deal with the following PC insanity?

The Thomas More Law Center announced that it is representing U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, a 1994 Graduate of the U. S. Military Academy at West Point. In April 2012, LTC Dooley, a highly decorated combat veteran, was publicly condemned by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and relieved of his teaching assignment because of the negative way Islam was portrayed in an elective course entitled, Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

The actions against LTC Dooley, an instructor involved with this elective, follow a letter to the Department of Defense dated October 19, 2011 and signed by 57 Muslim organizations, demanding that all training materials that they judge to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and instructors “are effectively disciplined.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “We are privileged to represent Lieutenant Colonel Dooley. He has honorably served his Nation for 18 years and effectively carried out every assigned mission with distinction. He served as Aide-de-Camp to three different General Officers and deployed to Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq for a total of six operational and combat tours. During that time he received numerous awards and decorations. Now after a lifetime of service to his country, he is being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and expediency by the Army he so loyally served . . . and loves.”

Thompson observed, “In order to appease Muslims and the White House, General Dempsey and the Department of Defense rushed to punish LTC Dooley. In the process, they violated not only our Nation’s core principles of free speech and academic freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, but also, a number of the military’s own regulations dealing with academic freedom and non- attribution policies of the National Defense University (NDU) to which LTC Dooley was assigned. They violated the right to due process of law and even by-passed the University’s Provost, who under NDU’s own rules has primary responsibility for adjudication of this matter.”

The result is certain. Officers and instructors see what has happened to LTC Dooley, and will refrain from telling the truth about Islam or confronting the difficult strategic challenges facing our nation for fear of jeopardizing their professional careers. The Pentagon has still apparently not learned from the politically correct policies that led to the Ft. Hood massacre.

Our military, while conducting the difficult task of threat analysis, does not have the luxury of hiding from potentially offending those who would do us harm. It is precisely our refusal to consider the often irrational, volatile nature of those who do not think with our western world view that has led us to this crisis of conscience. Those people who subscribe and enforce the current environment of political correctness are the ones most often surprised by incidents like the terrorism at Ft. Hood and the uncivilized behavior currently roiling North Africa and the Middle East.

This is a threat to our National Security. In effect, our own government is applying Islamic Sharia law to prevent any criticism of Islam. The chill on instruction is already happening at the Joint Forces Command College of the National Defense University, to which LTC Dooley is assigned.

Claire M. Lopez, a former CIA agent and strategic policy and intelligence expert, recently commented on General Dempsey’s order:
“The final bastion of America's defense against Islamic jihad and sharia, the Pentagon, fell to the enemy in April 2012, with the issuance of a letter from General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, re-issuing his earlier order that all Department of Defense (DoD) course content be scrubbed to ensure no lingering remnant of disrespect to Islam.

Are we our own worst enemy?

Bob C

[PTT]

Aware of the story, but please cite your specific source - it's important to know who's putting the spin on it.

[onetrack]

PTT - Some links to the story behind the story ....

Top U.S. Officer: Stop This 'Total War' on Islam Talk | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/dempsey-islam-irresponsible/)

Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails | Islam in America Right Side News (http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012091817061/us/islam-in-america/muslim-influence-in-pentagon-prevails.html)

[onetrack]

Of course, to balance this discussion, we need to read the opinion of the perennially-angry, perennially-repressed, and perennially-outraged Islamic people - so we can understand that 9/11 was an inside job - that the U.S. uses all its embassies and consulates as local HQ's, to plot against Islam - and that Israel and Zionism rules all U.S.-decision making, to perpetrate continuous attacks on all peace-loving, innocent Islamics .... :ugh:

PressTV - War on Terror? Euphemism for War on Islam? (http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/09/18/262215/war-on-terror-guise-for-war-on-islam/)

[finestkind]

SAS.


Must admit I am confused about your statement of a “ more honest Capitalist system” as I believe there is no such animal.

[PTT]

Onetrack, I'm aware of the story: I just wanted to know the source of Robert Cooper's version.

[lj101]

PTT

Could be from here

Muslim Influence in Pentagon Prevails; Material on Radical Islam "Purged, (http://www.thomasmore.org/press-releases/2012/09/muslim-influence-pentagon-prevails-material-radical-islam-purged-outstanding-)

[PTT]

Thanks lj101. So it's his lawyer. That's likely to be an unbiased source, then... :rolleyes:

[lj101]

Exactly. :suspect:

[SASless]

While our PC Brigade marches through our DOD Schools....bear in mind that during the Cold War we taught the use and implementation of Nuclear Weapons against the Soviet Union....and probably still do.

As we are confronted with a "War" against Radical Islam and its growing strength amid emerging "Democracies" as a result of the over throw of despotic regimes (some with our assistance)....then just why is Dooley's course material that suggests "possible" strategies any the different than those used to expose Military Officers to potential warfare?

We know that the very same Officers are being taught how to put down Rebellions or Insurrections right here in the United States....which to some is just as offensive as the other would be to the radical Islamists who are not American Citizens.

The one difference that I see is our current President who seems very sympathetic to all things Muslim....and too often in direct opposition to existing long term committments to other nations and principals. It is Obama's directive that drives the FBI, CIA, and Military to do this cleansing of "offensive" material in our training system.

The same administration is still calling the Fort Hood Massacre a "Work Place Violence" event and not calling it what it is....and act of Terrorism. This same President has forced the end to the use of the phrase "War on Terror" and changed it to something like "Overseas Contingency Operation", and who refuses to utter the words "Radical Islamist". The videos of his Attorney General Eric Holder, who is in Contempt of Congress, has been grilled by Congress on the matter but never would use the words Islam and Terrorism in the same paragraph much less jointly. The video of that is just sickening.

When the Fort Hood shooting first happened....the former Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, went public to decry the damage the shooting might do to the Army's Diversity Program....not publically offer his condolences to the victims and their families....all his fellow Soldiers.

That his how bad our Senior Army Leadership has gotten....and how strong the PC movement under Obama has gotten.

[PTT]

As we are confronted with a "War" against Radical IslamReally? I thought it was The War Against Terror.

[SASless]

Just who seem to be the Terrorists of late PTT....radical Quakers? And No...there is no "War against Terror" anymore....Obama, may Allah bless him, has decreed it to be called "Overseas Contingency Operation" striking any mention whatsoever of Islam, Muslim, or anything remotely linking such things to acts of Terrorism.

[El Grifo]

Principally the same thing in my books !

9/11, 7/7, Atocha, et al :ugh:

[PTT]

Just who seem to be the Terrorists of late PTTMaybe that is EXACTLY the question which needs to be asked. And it has been (http://www.globalresearch.ca/politics-and-religion-stoking-the-fires-of-islamophobia-in-the-us-congress/)!

Here's an extract:Using the FBI statistics, Franklin Lamb points out that between 1980 and 2005 only six percent of terrorist incidents in the US were committed by Muslims while 94% were committed by non-Muslims. “The FBI claims that of the 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three were clearly connected with the jihadist cause (3.6% of total).” Lamb further points out that “The picture is similar in Europe. Of a total of 1,571 terrorist attacks in the E.U. from 2006-2008 only 6 were committed by Islamist terrorists which translates to less than 0.4% of all attacks, which means 99.6% of all attacks were committed by Non-Muslims.”
And from here (http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/CONGRESSMAN-PETER-KING-S-G-by-Franklinl-Lamb-110312-878.html):According to the FBI, with the exception of a white supremacist's firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City, all of the domestic terrorist incidents were committed by special interest extremists active in the animal rights and environmental movements.Presumably this refers only to that year.
So, unless you're willing to fall foul of journalistic sensationalism and the machinations of politicians who want you to live in fear, it seems that PETA and Greenpeace should be topping your "most wanted" list.

Clearly that only covers domestic terrorism, so what about international terrorism? Or, more pertinently, terrorist acts carried out against Americans overseas. Perhaps a look at a map of US military presence (http://www.motherjones.com/military-maps) (or another one (http://economicharmonies.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/us-military-bases-worldwide.jpg), or a more up-to-date one, but with less detail (http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/57705000/gif/_57705638_us_military624x415.gif)) and comparing it to a map of world religions (http://www.mapsharing.org/MS-maps/map-pages-worldmap/images-map/5-world-map-religions.png) might help answer that. It does become a bit of a chicken-egg debate, though: are the terrorists there because of the bases (which is what they say (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatwa_1996.html)) or are the bases there because of the terrorists? Certainly some of the bases are there because of the terrorists - the timeline map shows that Afghanistan was free of US presence until relatively recently. So what else might the bases be there for?

[SASless]

Well....now how about this....Obama Administration now says the Attack on the Consulate was a Terror Attack.....with Al Qaeda being involved.

What say you PTT....can we rightfully call this an act by Radical Islamists now?


Obama official: Benghazi was a terrorist attack | The Cable (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/19/obama_official_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack)


The French are running a Cartoon of a Naked Mohammed....closing down Twenty of their Embassies in anticipation of violence by those offended by cartoons.

Let's hear the outcry about how insensitive the French are over this.....don't they know this will cause death and mayhem? What are they thinking....Sacks of Blue!

[PTT]

At what point did I say that no Radical Islamists are terrorists? I'm pretty sure I've not said that at all. Certainly some terrorists are Radical Islamists, just as some are Radical Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik) (or a US Christian terrorist group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree), if you prefer).

I think I'd call them militant rather than radical though (in both Islamic and Christian cases), because it draws the distinction between those who are taking active, combative and aggressive measures and those those who simply take an extreme view - I'd probably view "militant" as a sub-set of "radical". So yes, the Libyan embassy attacks were carried out by Militant Islamists who are likely also Radical Islamists. That does NOT make all Radical Islamists terrorists, though, any more than it makes all terrorists Militant Islamists (as shown above).

As for the French cartoon, it's not the French who are at fault for it any more than the Americans are at fault for the film. Individuals were at fault, just as individuals were at fault for attacking the US embassy in Libya.

[El Grifo]

Are you Muslim PTT ?

[PTT]

No. Why do you ask?

[hval]

Ptt,

You are essentially correct in that there are some Christians who are terrorists. The numbers, though, are somewhat different, as is the influence that Muslim terrorists are having on the world scene. I think you might also agree that the aims are somewhat different.

I am not sure I would label Breivik as a terrorist though. Mind you it does depend upon what you define a terrorist as.

The Muslims poke fun at other religions, but no one is allowed to poke fun at Islam. To me that is somewhat two faced to say the least. The fact that Muslims then make use of their religion to increase their power also is somewhat galling. Having written that, look at the Catholic church. They may not resort to violence these days, but they certainly do like to control their flock.

[El Grifo]

Just wonderin'
Nowt wrong with that is there ?

Thanks for your quick response !

[lj101]

One point of view:

Why they hate us (II): How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years? | Stephen M. Walt (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/30/why_they_hate_us_ii_how_many_muslims_has_the_us_killed_in_th e_past_30_years)

I'm not religious:

[500N]

Going by those numbers, the Japanese should still be hating the US
for many years to come.

[The Old Fat One]

I am not sure I would label Breivik as a terrorist though.


Seriously.

Terrorist/nutter...nutter/terrorist. Outhwith academic mumbo jumbo and pre-conceived adgenda's who gives a **** how we label sub-human retards who kill and maim others to further their insane views of the world.

Of course Breivik was a terrorist...and a raving ****ing looney. As is/was every ****head that has blown himself/herself up in the name of religion of any creed or colour.


The Muslims poke fun at other religions, but no one is allowed to poke fun at Islam


Go back through history and I think you'll find all religions at one point or another classed piss taking as blasphemy, for which they have all murdered and tortured at will. The only reason why Western religions have stopped doing this (so much) is that their power has been progressively mitigated by the onset of democracy and civil society.

Assuming democracy catches on in the Middle East (not in my lifetime), religious fundamentalism will gradually fade away there to.

[onetrack]

How many Muslims has the U.S. killed in the past 30 years?

The more pertinent question is - How many Muslims have the radical Muslims killed in the past 30 years? :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

It seems that the killing of other non-complying, or Western-favouring Muslims, can be overlooked, in the Muslims wail about "mistreatment", "repression" and "Western hatred", when it comes to adding up the numbers of Muslims killed ... :*

[Whenurhappy]

Though not appologising for Islamic reaction to provocative films and images, there was a very interesting discussion on the BBC World Service last night analysing reactions, which in some way explained the situation.

Unfortunately, across much of the Islamic world/Arc of Crisis, populations are semi-literate, often dirt-poor, no concept of Western democracy and their experience of the world frequently is limited to their village/valley or sprawling urban areas. Previously their sole source of guidance and 'news' was the local Imman, often semi-literate himself - yet they are now being exposed to the world (an oft-distorted view) via TV, internet etc. Thus, they often lack basic analytical skills that Western populations have, built up over centuries. Moreover, as identified by some clever chaps in Thames House, UK Immans, in commom with many in Western countries, also lack the skill and knowledge to engage with young Muslims who then seek their answers from the internet.

It was also pointed out during the discussion the 'outrage' surrounding allegedly topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge, and the lengths the Palace was going to restrict their publication - as a parallel to Muslim reaction to the shoddy, amatuerish film produced by some vicious half-brains in the US.

[PTT]

@ hval
Looking at the numbers I posted here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/495344-us-ambassador-killed-libya-11.html#post7422749) I'd agree with you - there are far fewer Muslim terrorists, it seems. As for "influence", that's a wooly concept and is defined, at least in part, by those who set the agenda - newsrooms and politicians. I would argue that someone who kills some people in his basement but is labelled by the media as a serial killer has a greater "effect" than someone who beheads someone on the internet, but has much less "influence" politically.

If Breivik were Muslim and claimed affinity to shadowy Muslim groups, insisted he were sane and claimed a political cause for his actions he would absolutely be labelled a terrorist. The only difference is that he is a white Christian. Breivik is, by all reasonable standards, a terrorist.

Heresy has been punishable by many religions over the years. Blashpemy was illegal in the UK up to 2006.

@ El Grifo - no, just wondering why you might ask.

@ 500N - there is an element of recency to memory. A lot of Japanese died in WW2, but they are mostly people who would be dead now anyway, as would their families. The same is not true of the people incorporated in the figures lj101 gave.

@ onetrack - if that is the case then perhaps we should look at how many Americans have been killed by other Americans over the past 30 years. Looking at at the 10 years from 2001, there were 33 terrorist-related deaths, while there were ~150,000 murders (source (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/09/10/316260/terrorism-expert-since-911-only-33-deaths-from-muslim-terrorism-vs-150000-deaths-from-murders/?mobile=nc)). Seems that it's acceptable for Americans to kill each other, but war will be waged on anyone non-American who dares kill an American!

[Andu]

Firstly, Whenurhappy, it's "imam"; secondly, I didn't see Buck House or any of the Royal family's inner circle rioting on the streets and screaming for the beheading of anyone who doesn't follow the Church of England because of the pics of the Duchess' pecs.

I have to say that, until the publication of these particular photographs, I assumed that the Duchess of Cambridge was canny enough about the ever-present paparazzi to know that there is no such thing as privacy for someone in her position - to the point where she should be careful about walking from her bedroom to her bathroom - even with the curtains drawn - in a state of (un)dress in which she would not wish to be photographed.

[Red Line Entry]

Can you only commit Blashpemy when you're drunk?

[PTT]

Probably :P

[Whenurhappy]

Andu

As I said, I was not justifying the protests, nor equating the reation to that of the 'outrage' concerning images of the spouse of a fellow officer. However, this is how it is viewed in some quarters, bearing in mind that 'perception becomes reality' in the Strat Com game.

[SASless]

When did this "Terrorism" thing really get its start?

Wasn't it the PLO that began this by hijacking and blowing up airliners....and it has just sort of morphed into what we have today?

[PTT]

Arguably it was back in the 1st Century with the Sicarii Zealots - Jews who wanted to throw off the Roman yoke (think "Life of Brian" but without Reg or Stan/Loretta). For something more modern you have the French Resistance, the IRA (1916 onwards), the Narodnaya Volya (19th Century) or a whole host of others. The PLO weren't even the first to hijack an aircraft - that distinction goes to a bunch of revolutionaries in Peru (http://www.airdisaster.com/features/hijack/hijack.shtml) in 1931.

All of which leads back to the question from the previous page: why is The War Against Terror actually being waged as a War Against Islamic Terror only?

[SASless]

The answer is the same as on the previous pages, threads, and forums....because it is they who are the Terrorists attacking us today.

Deny it, spin it, twist it, ignore it.....but the Radical Islamists are the evil bastards out there bombing, killing, maiiing, beheading, and doing all the uproar and destruction.

London, Madrid, New York, Mumbai, Bali, Benghazi, Beirut, how long a list do you want PTT.

[PTT]

Using the FBI statistics, Franklin Lamb points out that between 1980 and 2005 only six percent of terrorist incidents in the US were committed by Muslims while 94% were committed by non-Muslims. “The FBI claims that of the 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three were clearly connected with the jihadist cause (3.6% of total).” Lamb further points out that “The picture is similar in Europe. Of a total of 1,571 terrorist attacks in the E.U. from 2006-2008 only 6 were committed by Islamist terrorists which translates to less than 0.4% of all attacks, which means 99.6% of all attacks were committed by Non-Muslims.”
It appears to be you who is ignoring the facts.

[SOSL]

No, SASless it wasn't the PLO that started it. They didn't even exist until after 1948 when the returning Jews dispossed them.

Well before that there were organized political groups who chose terrorism as their primary instrument: The early IRA, the Bosnian Serbs who ignited WW1 and centuries ago the Indian Thugees - to name but a few.

I could guess that "terrorism" began when small bands of early Homo Sapiens first encountered small bands of Homo Erectus and probably butchered and ate them and raped their females - this is pure conjecture but traces of the interbreeding still exist in the modern human genome.

But in "modern" times it could be argued that religious terrorism started when most of the states in so called Christendom, on several occasions, amassed huge armies and set out to drive the (then peaceful) Muslims from their native lands by violence and pillage. They called them Crusades and they consisted of "Christian" armies inflicting gratuitous violence and butchery on innocent, peace loving, muslims. What a wonderful example we set them.

Rgds SOS

[racedo]

Well before that there were organized political groups who chose terrorism as their primary instrument:

Define Terrorism..................

Is Viking raping and pillaging terrorism or economic theft ?

Was William a terrorist at Hastings or not ?

Easy to pick out specific groups but isn't Govts sending out armies to take over territory terrorism or does it just apply to those who fight back.

Was Judean Peoples Front terrorists or splitters ?

[SOSL]

"Define Terrorism"

If there is anyone on this thread who can define terrorism I know it's not me and I suspect it's not you either, because if you can define it, why ask me?.

"Is Viking raping and pillaging terrorism or economic theft ?"

Or just expansionism. I don't know - what do you think?

"Was William a terrorist at Hastings or not ?"

Well, I guess it depends which side you were on.

"Easy to pick out specific groups but isn't Govts sending out armies to take over territory terrorism or does it just apply to those who fight back."

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. In my post I used the Crusades as an early example of modern terrorism. In that case the Govts (sic) of the then Christian world sent out armies to take over territory from the muslim countries with no declaration of war and no threat from the muslims countries - in my view that was certainly terrorism. Those who fought back against the crusaders were not terrorists - they were just trying to hold onto their homes.

"Was Judean Peoples Front terrorists or splitters ?"

I've never heard of the Judean Peoples Front and I don't believe I know what splitters are. Maybe you could help me out with this one.

Rgds SOS

[HTB]

SOS

If you've ever done Q, or waited between waves at APC Deci for your turn to strafe the horses at Frasca, or any other location/acitivity when you needed to mindlessly fill the time, you might have seen "The Life of Brian", in toto or in segments (other vids of all genres were also available).

You could then join in exchanging the multitude of one-liners, including knowing about the JPF (and its alternatives); "blessed are the cheesemakers", "Oi big nose" "he's a very naughty boy" etc.

Mister B

[SOSL]

Ok fellas - now I geddit.

Dohhh - I've done it again.

Rgds SOS

[SASless]

PTT.....the one thing that is constant about the FBI and its statistics is they are as about as accurate as my guessing at what the stock market is going to do next week.

If you knew anything about the methodology they use in their Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), then you would take anything they put out with a huge grain of salt.

Remember we are dealing with the same outfit that saw fit to murder Americans at Waco and Ruby Ridge, then destroy evidence and perpetrate a cover-up of what really happened at those places.

Do you think the FBI is going to report accurately information that would destroy Presidents and Administrations?

You see how the current administration is making like Cats coveriing Poop over "Fast and Furious"?

Also....remember they do not get to brag about the plots that are prevented....or used to not do so because of Security concerns. Thus if you take failed plots into consideration you will see a change in that data.

Also...what are defining a "Terrorist Act" to be?

Statisitcs are fine....but you have to consider the agenda they are going to support and the motives behind the organization puttiing them out.

I have explained the fallacies of the UCR's here several times.

The key problem is the criteria used to list crimes.....which really mean when they list a crime....they are actually saying "incident".

Example....Burglar breaks into a house at night, rapes the daughter, sodomizes Mom, maims the Son, shoots Dad dead, burns the house down, steals TV, steals the family car, uses the Debit Card at an ATM, runs over a Cop, and kidnaps a hostage......total crime count in all that.....ONE....Murder (the most serious offense).

So....you hang your hat on the great FBI and their Stats.....not me thank you!

Do remember I was a Federal Law Enforcement Officer....I know what I am talking about here.

[Pontius Navigator]

IMNSHO a terrorist is one who sets out to cause terror in the hearts of his victims.

The victims are usually civilians. If the villagers in Afghanistan are in terror of the Taliban then the Taliban are terrorists. If OTOH the villagers support the aims of the Taliban and are not in fear of them then the Taliban, when engaging the ISAF and Afg Forces are either freedom fighters or revolutionists but not terrorists.

Simples.

If the Taliban/AQ/Others attack targets in the west, 9/11 or 7/7 for instance, then they are not freedom fighters or revolutionaries but terrorists.

Simples.

It follows therefore that they may be terrorists or freedom fighters depending on where they choose to fight.

[Robert Cooper]

SOSL

Quote: "But in "modern" times it could be argued that religious terrorism started when most of the states in so called Christendom, on several occasions, amassed huge armies and set out to drive the (then peaceful) Muslims from their native lands by violence and pillage. They called them Crusades and they consisted of "Christian" armies inflicting gratuitous violence and butchery on innocent, peace loving, muslims. What a wonderful example we set them."

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword.
The warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of Western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

[PTT]

@ SASless
Some evidence, other than your anecdote, that FBI statistics are misleading would be useful here. Otherwise you're simply dismissing evidence on the basis of the say so of, well, you. And you're hardly unbiased in this debate ;)
Your objections seem to be:
- The FBI is incompetent: most large organisations have a degree of incompetence. I fail to see how field errors translate to an inability to count, though.
- The real statistics would take down administrations/presidents: makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Unless you have some sort of evidence to back this up then I have no choice but to dismiss it as such or appear like one myself. I choose the former.
- They don't report prevented plots: au contraire (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror). I'd suggest that in this day and age that to do so is the only way to secure further funding.
This isn't an attack on your credentials, btw - I'd expect you to ask me for evidence on something which you suggested and I denied was the case even if I were experienced in the field myself.

Even if you do come up with some evidence that the FBI stats are misleading, then you are yet to come up with any evidence yourself that US terrorism is even mostly perpetrated by Muslims. Apart from the 150,000 murders carried out on the streets of the US, here are just a few of the more recent non-Muslim US terrorist incidents:
Unabomber (you knew I'd mention him, right? ;) )
Jewish Defence League (killed a US congressman in 2001)
Oklahoma City
Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Anthrax attacks
Washington Sniper
Austing Inland Revenue building attack
Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting
Knoxville Unitarian Church shooting

All of which simply goes to prove my point: not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, if we believe the statistics we have (which, until you provide evidence that they are incorrect or provide an alternative source), then not even most terrorists are Muslims.

@ Robert Cooper
Of course, the whole world was Christian before the evil Muslims came along and took it away, right? Talk about spin.
The background to the Crusades was set when the Seljuk Turks decisively defeated the Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem. The Byzantine emperor, Alexis I feared that all Asia Minor would be overrun. He called on western Christian leaders and the papacy to come to the aid of Constantinople by undertaking a pilgrimage or a crusade that would free Jerusalem from Muslim rule. When this happened the Christians did not return the land to the Emperor, but set up latin states instead: it was a war of conquest, and it was the conquest of the Byzantine empire which was undertaken, with two sides - Christian and Muslim - eager to divide up the religiously rich spoils of a dying empire.

[Lonewolf_50]

PTT, it would be more accurate to say that the first Crusade, or even the first three, were the Eastward Reconquista. Re-establishing that part of the world into Christendom, which it had been for a few centuries before Islam took the effort to make it part of the Ummah. Mind you, the Westward Reconquista began a bit after Charles Martel stopped the Muslims/Umayyads at Tours/Poiters.

The Mohammadens had began in the 7th century to spread their culture and faith by the sword, and by a bit of subterfuge, and by commerce, both east and west. (A find digression into how Islam morphed a bit when it went east and into Persia is fascinating history, by the way).

By the time of the crusades, you can see that for three hundred years the West and Christendom had already been fighting to take back parts of Christendom from the Muslims. (France and Spain) Seems logical to do that in the East as well, given that the cradle of Christendom is in the Levant: Jerusalem, and for that matter, Alexandria, one of the most important cities of Rome, and then for Christians, during the formative centuries of Christianity.

Take a look at the Roman Empire, Circa 320 AD. About the time of Constantine, about 10% of that part of the World was Christian. Fifty years later, Theodosius established Christianity as the official Roman Empire Religion. For the next three centuries, give or take some Vandals and the general breakdown of Occidental Imperial coherence, Christendom could be associated with what you demark as the boundaries of the Roman Empire.

The Western Reconquista took Seven Hundred bloody years to complete, when at long last Granada was rid of the last emir.

The Turk run Caliphate tried to expand and conquer West over the sea yet again, less than a hundred years later, to be snubbed a Lepanto, thanks once again to a King of Spain and HRE at the time.

The Turk Caliphate got as far as Vienna in the 16th and 17 centuries ... or hadn't you remembered that? The Caliphate as run by the Turks was a plundering, invading, murderous empire, among other things.

Your cherry picking "who came after who" makes you come off as a bit of an Islamic apologist, which I don't think you intended.

Cooper is more right than you allow for.

[PTT]

Robert started with the Crusades, so it seemed logical. I agree that the "who came before who" argument is fruitless, although my intent was to point out that the Crusades were hardly the justified defensive war Robert tried to make them out as: the armies of Christendom conquered former Byzantine lands: the lands of the very empire which had asked them for help against the conquering Muslim armies!

[Rosevidney1]

Isn't religion and its mindset baggage endlessly er, entertaining? (Not)

[Thud105]

It is amazing isn't it? I guess that it's simply fear of the dark that makes all of these superstitious fools (regardless of which franchise of gobbledegook mumbo-jumbo they've bought into) feel the need for an invisible friend. What I find astounding is how so many apparently rational people appear to believe in things that simply won't stand an ounce of scrutiny. I mean, exactly how do Creationists explain away the Dinosaurs? And - even more importantly - what do Creationists and Dinosaurs have to do with military aviation?

[onetrack]

I didn't think you'd need a degree, and to spend 40 years studying the history of the radical Islamic religion, to understand that it has dedicated itself to the killing of infidels (i.e. - Christians), and to the subjugation of as many "lesser religions" as it can manage, by militaristic aggression and murder, over the last 1350 or so years. Not much has changed in that time, just the methods have modernised.
The Crusades were a reaction to the brutality of the Muslims against Christians - in reaction to large numbers of Christians being murdered - and the overthrow of Christian lands, and the defiling of Christian places of worship.
The Islamics still feel keenly about violent Christian reactions to Muslim expansion by force and fear - but anyone with more than two working brain cells understands that the Muslims were the first "religion" to subjugate people by force, fear, and murder - and that they targetted Christians, in particular.
Any war action by Christian countries against Islam, is not about conquering Islam overall - it's about conquering radical, terrorism-based, Islamic expansion.

[PTT]

anyone with more than two working brain cells understands that the Muslims were the first "religion" to subjugate people by force, fear, and murderSo that's not what the Israelites did in the Levant when they conquered Canaan about 800-1000 years BC? ALL religions have conquered regions - Christianity did it to the New World. The Persians did it, the Romans did it, the Greeks did it, and they all took their gods with them and built their temples and subdued the populace, converting them in the process.
History of Religion (http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html)

Personally I'm astonished at the number of people who want to make this a war on a specific religion. War on terror I (kind of, given the stupidity of the concept) understand; war on militant dissidents makes even more sense, and war on militants of a certain religion is at least a comprehensible policy, but war on a religion based on revisionist history and biased reporting is a nonsense. Perhaps that degree and 40 years of study is necessary, or a least reading a few books.

[SASless]

PTT.....how do you square the Saudi Officers comment in this email by General Curry? I will assume you shall take issue that it cannot be valid for some reason....but at least others will read it and understand exactly what was said.


y Major General Jerry Curry,

USA, Ret. Published:

7:12 AM 01/28/2012

The great British poet Rudyard Kipling, understanding todays situation in
Afghanistan better than our State Department wrote, I have eaten your bread
and salt. I have drunk your water and wine. The deaths ye died I have
watched beside. And the lives ye led were mine.

There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense
may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East
and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real
life happenings.

Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort
Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten
month course of instruction were from foreign countries. For about half of
the course my table mate was an Arab. We studied together, completed
homework assignments together, got to know each others families and
generally enjoyed each others company. ****

Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching
and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab
classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into
my mind and without evaluating it I said, I have a question to ask you, but
you may find it a little impertinent . or, perhaps, offensive.

Thats quite alright, he replied. We know each other well enough to be honest
with each other. So go ahead and ask your question.

Well, I began. Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your
socks off. Why dont you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?

The words hadnt passed my lips before I knew that I shouldnt have asked that
particular question. But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didnt get
angry. He didnt even think before replying.

My dear friend, he said in his British accent, You are absolutely right.
Each time we attack the Israelis they whip our asses. But have you noticed
that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war
before.

Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said,
Sometime in the next thousand years . we will win!

Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I dont
think Im very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and
defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is
difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a
nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of
years.

Point two: during the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by
side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in
victory there was a celebration in the officers club with everyone
congratulating each other. A lot of handshaking and hugging was going on. It
was a time of displaying real brotherly love. Seeing this, one of the senior
Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. Look, he said to a
small cluster of American generals. We have fought together and some of us
have died together. I know you feel that makes us brothers. But that is not
the way it is in my world.

He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. I dont want
to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow
for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country and you came
and helped us when we desperately needed your help and no matter how
friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still
Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. Im sorry
but to us, you will always be Infidels!

And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, but we have not made
their countries nor their people depositories of freedom and liberty. No
matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure,
educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they
need our help as the Arab general pointedly noted we can never be brothers
to each other.

Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote,

East is East, and West is West,

and never the twain shall meet.

He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims,

we Christians will always be infidels!

[Lonewolf_50]

PTT, the "conquest" you allude to is a bit more aligned with the Fourth Crusade (there were nearly a dozen when all was said and done) and of course included the Venetian backed sack and takeover of Constantinople.

You might want to refer to your own notes in that request for succor came to Rome from the Byzantines as they were being attacked and their territory conquered by the Mohammadens.

There is no question that no small amount of opportunism was underway during the early crusades, as various crusaders established their own fiefs in the Holy Land. More to this than purely religion, of course.

That said, I'll ask you to try to be a bit more precise in your criticisms.

[PTT]

@ SASless

I would say that we in the West need to stop assuming that everyone lives by our values, or that they want to.

That said, without knowing (or really caring to know) a bit more about Maj Gen Curry, I have no idea what agenda he is trying to push.

@ Lonewolf

You might want to refer to your own notes in that request for succor came to Rome from the Byzantines as they were being attacked and their territory conquered by the Mohammadens. That's what I said:
"the armies of Christendom conquered former Byzantine lands: the lands of the very empire which had asked them for help against the conquering Muslim armies!"
Or am I misunderstanding your comment?

As to what is or is not "purely religion," who is to say, even nowadays?

[Pontius Navigator]

A western, ergo Christian, goal is universal democracy. Is democracy the right way to Govern? We try an impose democracy on land areas deliniated by lines western maps.

Is it possible to impose real democracy or will it always be the rule of a very small and very powerful clique?

Are benevolent dictatorships more honest?

Would western deliniated countries be better managed as tribal lands?

Is it right that we should export democratic values against the will of a peoples?

[Lonewolf_50]

Pontius, IMPOSING democracy may not work so well. It seems that democracy grows and functions best "from the ground up" rather then being imposed via the bayonet.

That said, the Cold War containment strategy took a stab at containing communism driven totalitarian, statist regimes within "regions natural to them" and encouraging democracy outside that zone ... with dedicedly mixed results. In time, some natural gardens of democracy (Czechs, Poles, Slovenes, others) were able to finally get out from under the thumb, but again, that seems to have been a bit of a "ground up" deal.

Imposing democracy on Germany after WW II wasn't so hard, as a parliamentary form had already been in place, and any number of cultural memes and norms were already in place for centuries. (Recall the electors who put Holy Roman Emperors into place in the Germanic Holy Roman Empire ... )

A bit trickier in Japan, but it worked out well enough as we can see from Japan's current state of play.

I also note that democracy can grow in places like India, but in its own fashion and at its own pace.

I thus surmise that democracy can perhaps grow in the Muslim world, with each place or sub culture developing at its own pace.

Can't be rubber stamped.

No perfect template.

And it doesn't get a free pass from whatever forms oppose it. The growth into democracy is an operation in a resistant environment.

[Thud105]

Exactly! To return to my original point - these people have a medievel mindset (1462, I think) Not only are they simply not ready for democracy - they probably don't even want it! That's the bottom line. They have a 15th Century world-view, but (unfortunately) 21st Century Coms and weapons.
The fact that the above is an unpleasant truth, does not make it any less true. We cannot foist our values on them any easier than you could foist them on a 15th Century English peasant.

[Al R]

I'm not so sure that the current wave of civil restrictions passing muster in Poland will warm the hearts of the shipworkers in Gdansk. Some will be turning in their graves. I wonder too, how we reconcile the differences between living in a repressive democracy (rather than a truly liberal one) and a totalitarian state. For my part, I quite liked the idea of being able to (in principle at least) demonstrate near where the great and the good legislators of my land churn out increasingly denser volumes of partisan, inpenetrable and counter-intuitive legislation, meant to make my life 'better'.

[SASless]

PTT.....your evidence you asked for. To burst your bubble....I do know what I am talking about when referring to the UCR's, the FBI's political agenda, and the ways of all government bureaucracies.


Some evidence, other than your anecdote, that FBI statistics are misleading would be useful here. Otherwise you're simply dismissing evidence on the basis of the say so of, well, you. And you're hardly unbiased in this debate

A quote from the FBI's own Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Handbook (The User's Manual).....


The experience of law enforcement agencies in handling UCR data shows that, for the most part, offenses of law occur singly as opposed to many being committed simultaneously. In these single- offense situations, law enforcement agencies must decide whether the crime is a Part I offense. If so, the agency must score the crime accordingly. However, if several offenses are committed at the same time and place by a person or a group of persons, a different approach must be used in classifying and scoring. The law enforcement matter in which many crimes are committed simultaneously is called
a multiple-offense situation by the UCR Program. As a general rule, a multiple-offense situation requires classifying each of the offenses occurring and determining which of them are Part I crimes. The Hierarchy Rule requires that when more than one Part I offense is classified, the law enforcement agency must locate the offense that is highest on the hierarchy list and score that offense involved and not the other offense(s) in the multiple-offense situation.

[PTT]

First, please link your sources in future. You could have written that yourself, for all I know. I'm not suggesting you did, merely asking for provenance of information.

Second, that's just the bit about only recording the worst offence, which is not the bit I was questioning.

Finally, there is no "bubble", and I don't know why you think there is. I didn't question that you know what you're talking about - I was quite clear on that - what I was saying was that your opinion on the validity of the data and the motives of the FBI is biased, and that is the bit I'd like to see some evidence for.

[SASless]

From the Weekly Standard....Talking about the Obama Administration taking nine days to admit the attack in Libya was a planned act of Terrorism by Al Qaeda. Remembering how the blame was put on a spontaneous protest over a particular video. The Administration ran out Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice with the White House Talking Point to that effect, continued that right up to the time a Counter-Terrorism Expert testified to Congress under Oath to the contrary. Despite that Obama himself clung to the video story during the interview by Univision.

Why the ignoring of the patently obvious? Why lie when the truth would sound better? Why not just say...."The incident is under investigation and when we have enough information about the attackers we will inform the public." as an official position?


Barack Obama came to office promising to repair relations with the Islamic world. What he couldn’t accomplish by the mere fact of his presidency, through his name and his familiarity with Islam, he would achieve through “smart diplomacy.”

Instead, over the last four years, and particularly the last two weeks, the defining characteristics of his foreign policy have been mendacity, incompetence, and, yes, stupidity.

[PTT]

The Weekly Standard - A Weekly Conservative Magazine and Blog is the header it gives itself. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard) calls it "an American neoconservative opinion magazine". The same magazine which is trying to vindicate Romney's 47% remark (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/not-gaffe_652869.html) which, at the very least, is factually incorrect.
Published by News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's own conservative media outlet.

People read editorials which validate their own opinions - seems you're doing just that and quoting them here for us as "evidence".

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

BBC News - Anti-Islam film: Pakistan minister offers bounty (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19687386)

A Pakistani Government Minister is sponsoring terrorism and advocating murder.

Islam is a religion of peace, apparently.

[SASless]

I guess we shall continue to fund the Paki's....despite their now being a State Sponsor of Terrorism. :ugh:

[PTT]

He's offering the reward privately, out of his own pocket. That doesn't in any way excuse it, but does mean that Pakistan is not a state sponsor of terrorism because of this incident.