Embassy attack in Libya

Not sure what to say or to ask.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/US-ambassador-libya-christopher-stevens-kill...

If this is just because of a movie...

I don't know what to say.

Romney's opportunistic reaction is not reassuring, but rather smacks of desperation more than resolution.

I did not like that response myself.

The Reason blog did a decent piece on one aspect of it
http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/12/whats-so-hard-about-saying-in-the-united

It's really not that hard. The values in that film (or "film") are not our values; our government respects religion, religious expression, and religious pluralism (including and especially that of Muslims, even in the wake of murderous Muslim-led attacks on American soil); and we are not in the business of approving or (for the most part) regulating the private speech of our citizens. To the extent that that message is not sufficient for rioters, the problem is theirs.

Some liberal Tweeters this morning are pointing out that, hey, the Bush administration condemned the Mohammed cartoons, too!, but this mostly goes to illustrate how bipartisan cravenness can be. We know that this issue will keep coming up; maybe it's about time the American government, and the rest of us, develop a more American response.

On another thread we were discussing "empathy" -- Romney's response, on the heels of the death of the US Ambassador to Lybia, seems like a classic example of, if not a lack of empathy, at least a peculiar tone-deafness to the emotional realities of the situation.

The bit I saw of the movie is pretty despicable--OTOH going on a death dealing rampage because of it is just idiocy but I expect if Moslem's started filming the burning of bibles or making disrespectful films about Christ or Abraham or Moses there would be a lot of outrage in some parts of the USA. The middle east is a particularly volatile area and the thing that sets the flames afire more than anything else is religion. The filmmaker IMO was playing with matches and now tries to make himself out as some sort of victim. If he's not a US citizen he should be deported.

>6: "I expect if Moslem's started filming the burning of bibles or making disrespectful films about Christ or Abraham or Moses there would be a lot of outrage in some parts of the USA"

We can offer a comparandum: Andres Serrano's 1987 sculpture, "Piss Christ", which showed a Crucifix suspended in a jar of urine.

Was there outrage? Yes. But even though the art was supported by the U.S. government through NEA funds, did the State Department go around issuing apologies to the Vatican? No.

Instead, when the National Gallery of Victoria (Australia)'s 1997 exhibition of the work was criticized, the gallery's Director, Dr. Timothy Potts, told a local paper that to ban a photograph on the grounds of blasphemy was "an antiquated concept in a pluralistic society. ... We have to live with the freedom of artistic expression. From time to time this will involve controversial displays, but it is not up to us to decide if anything should be excluded. ... There are many things in today’s society, such as divorce and birth control, that the church finds inappropriate. Why does it seem so much more serious when it occurs in the artistic arena?" (Source: http://www.martinrothonline.com/lw10.htm )

So if as offensive a piece of government-funded art as "Piss Christ" should be accepted without question, why shouldn't we accept some Internet film that nobody in America had heard of until it became cause for Libyans to murder our Ambassador?

(I know that I am being intentionally provocative, and perhaps overstating the case, for rhetorical effect. I should note that I actually support increased funding of the NEA -- society should support the arts, for they speak directly to the human soul, even if {or should that be "except when"?} they choose to give up their nobler pursuits in favor of crass barbarism.)

#7--not a lot of people keeping up with sculpture today--maybe they should. But in the case you cite I would think that Andres Serrano is not a member of one religion attacking another nor was his sculpture ever likely to provoke a massive violent outburst from anybody. If you look online Mr. Bacile (or whatever his name is--there's some talk that that's a pseudonym) more or less admits he was expecting a violent backlash.

Your example isn't really that good IMO. A better one might be the filming of Nikos Kazantzakis' Last temptation of Christ which certainly did provoke a lot of outrage in the United States.

>8: I'd just point out that, as a Christian theologian, I actually enjoyed The Last Temptation of Christ (well, other than the fact that Scorsese had Willem Dafoe keep his New York accent, which grates a little...)

The whole point of the movie is that Christ ultimately resists the temptation put before him to come down off the Cross and live a nice, regular life with a wife and kids. It's a penetrating and worth-while meditation, especially for the modern American, on the humanity of Christ.

The bit I saw of the movie is pretty despicable

So WHAT if some American posts a YouTube video against Islam? We are a country that doesn't censor what people say, and there are 311 million people in this country. We don't merely have one idiot with negative views of Islam, we have thousands. We also have thousands of left-handed folk-dancing one-armed midgets, and probably ten times as many YouTube videos of their cats. Get over it.

For my part I'm sorry you watched the video. In all these things, the problem is giving people air. Take the "Westboro Baptist Church." They're a dozen people, most of them the direct relations of the minister. Yet they have more Google news hits than the Anglican Church, which has hundreds of millions.

I don't want to be insensitive, but I feel the only appropriate response here is to say that people need to get a grip, and stop inventing reasons for murder. Salman Rushdie was one thing—a straight-forward case of defending freedom of the press. But we don't need to deplore some insignificant nobody's YouTube account. Doing so merely adds to the sense that this is some sort of cultural war, and not a disgusting orgasm of violence by ignorant and bloody-minded people who can't think straight about moral responsibility.

If he's not a US citizen he should be deported.

The law is not entirely clear, but it seems that it is illegal for the government to deport someone for speech which, if said by a citizen, would not be illegal. As someone who cares about free speech, I think that's the right call.

We can offer a comparandum: Andres Serrano's 1987 sculpture, "Piss Christ", which showed a Crucifix suspended in a jar of urine. … Was there outrage? Yes. But even though the art was supported by the U.S. government through NEA funds, did the State Department go around issuing apologies to the Vatican? No.

Right. Serrano was a major artist, being shown in major art galleries and museums. These places were a legitimate objects of peaceful protests. And that's all that happened. Americans have every right to line up on the street with placards deploring a piece of art.

Americans aren't torching California Pizza Kitchen because YouTube has a video against Jesus.

7> These are separate incidents: the murders in Libya are not connected to the film but rather are being tied to an Al Qaedaesque planned attack.

Now this:

WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks
By the US accepting the UK threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies.

WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks
By the UK threatening to breach the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies, in general. It must retract.

#12--you mean apart from creating a climate to carry out this kind of attack?

14> No, I mean there's no causal connection between the youtube clip and the attack in Libya.

"Libya's interim government has struggled to impose its authority on a myriad of armed groups that refused to lay down their weapons and often take the law into their own hands.

Security experts say the area around Benghazi is host to a number of Islamist militant groups who oppose any Western presence in Muslim countries."

Courtesy of Reuters; a WSJ article indicates that the interim Libyan government was caught by surprise and in no way supported the attack. (Although how much they can actually do about such matters given their relative weakness is open to question.) But it appears that in Libya, the 'muslim on the street' isn't very open to this sort of political discourse...

#15--you think not?

It did not make sense to me that this attack was based on a movie. The movie might have been an easy prop to get a mob stirred up. The timing of Sept 11 sure seems conveniently coincidental.

We may yet not know all the details behind this.

The statement by Obama seems about as good and acceptable an initial statement we could ever expect a POTUS to make after something like this.

What Rmoney did was unworthy of a human being with a normal amount of common human decency.

At this point anyone who would vote for Rmoney is either not paying any attention at all - which is just g.d. sad - or is as morally scummy if not scummier than Rmoney himself.

>13: I think that gets the award for most brazenly disingenuous attempt of the week to make your own propaganda out of the deaths of others. (Unless you want to nominate Romney's conceit that the U.S. government somehow sympathizes with the people who just killed our Ambassador...)

#18--the reaction to Rushdie's Satanic verses or the Theo Van Gogh cartoon didn't make much sense either at least in respect to the over reaction but Islamic culture at least outside the USA for a long time has been neurotic.

And a al Quaeda type of organization certainly has a better on the ground read in the countries with a mostly Islamic culture than I suspect we would and could take full and calculated advantage of a situation that it knows is heating up.

#21 Yep, from the headlines where the USA is investigating the murders were by an "extremest group" , It would make sense for a group to just lie in wait for an event like the movie and then strike under the cover of indignant protestors. At the same time, as others have said, it was a despicable, inexcusable act.

Were there any casualties among the attackers caused by the Libyan guard I wonder? Jeez, just leave the place to the oil corporations and their legion of "blackwater" guards if that is the best protection the Libyan government has. I was outraged and angry when I heard the news first thing this morning as I am sure 99% of the rest of the USA was.

By the US accepting the UK threat to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London it helped to normalize attacks on embassies.

Although someone obliquely threatened it, the UK did not, and would not. Back in 1984 a gunman inside of the Libyan embassy in London took aim from a window and shot and killed a policewoman watching over a peaceful protest. The British didn't invade the embassy over that, and they let the gunman along with all other Libyans return home unmolested under diplomatic immunity. They weren't going to over Assange.

No, I mean there's no causal connection between the youtube clip and the attack in Libya.

It's unclear. There certainly was an anti-film protest in Libya. But it may have provided the opportunity for a planned attack, rather than being the natural consequence of it.

#21: Islamic culture at least outside the USA for a long time has been neurotic.

Only if you count muslim countries plagued by a history of Western interventionism and European countries that have marginalized their muslim immigrant population with socialism.

#25--well I'll agree with you about our continued intervention in Middle East politics anyway.

This little incident should give the enthusiasts who want to support the rebels in Syria pause. Gaddafi was bad. But is Libya a better place without him? Maybe someday, but certainly not at the moment. If Assad is overthrown in Syria, will Syria become a democracy, like Egypt, or a violent, anarchist failed state like Libya and Somalia?

The Internet and social media prompted the Arab Spring. Looks like this is its dark side, allowing violent forces to manipulate religious and national inclinations for their perverse ends. Violent forces don't need to create provocations--they just wait until someone in a country that permits hate speech pops something off... Lots of good can be undone. Innocent people killed. How can the Terry Joneses sleep at night? How can we (including Muslims) shun them in a way that restores some civility to public discourse?

ETA: "...In America, a Muslim advocacy group called the movie "trashy" and said its producers represented neither the United States nor the Christian faith."

""We urge that this ignorant attempt to provoke the religious feelings of Muslims in the Arabic-speaking world be ignored and that its extremist producers not be given the cheap publicity they so desperately seek," said the Council on American-Islamic Relations."

"Facebook sprouted several pages dedicated to condemning the film, including one called "Israelis, Jews & Americans Against Sam Bacile's 'Innocence of Muslims' Film.""

"A post on that page simply said: "IM-Bacile.""

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/anti-islam-film/index.html

This little incident should give the enthusiasts who want to support the rebels in Syria pause. Gaddafi was bad. But is Libya a better place without him? Maybe someday, but certainly not at the moment. If Assad is overthrown in Syria, will Syria become a democracy, like Egypt, or a violent, anarchist failed state like Libya and Somalia?

Libya is not a failed state. Nor are Tunisia and Libya. Libya stands the greatest chance insofar as regionalism is a powerful force there. (Indeed, there would be a certain logic if it split back into Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan.)

I think it's a given that we wouldn't necessarily like a Syrian democracy. This isn't Europe, where the newly freed eastern countries like us a lot better than the long-free western ones. And in both Syria and Egypt there's a very significant worry about minorities--Copts in Egypt, Christians (of various types) and Alawites in Syria. In some ways it's better for US foreign policy if middle-eastern dictatorships remain backwaters—outlaws internally who grow slowly and can't project much in the way of influence. But, in the long run, democracy is better for all concerned. Democracies may not be friendly, but they are much less likely to go to war with their neighbors, etc. While a free Syria is good for it's own sake, it would also be a blow to Iran.

How can we (including Muslims) shun them in a way that restores some civility to public discourse?

By not treating him like an important person. Terry Jones is a third-rate Florida pastor and nothing more. The media made him into something more, much as the media made the Westboro Baptist church and its dozens parishioner into some sort of real force. Both are simply ignorant clowns, unworthy of discussion or regard in a great and diverse nation of 300 million.

>29: "I think it's a given that we wouldn't necessarily like a Syrian democracy."

And here's the thing: every night on the news, there's another report of more slaughter, of more crimes against humanity, committed by the Assad regime against its own people. And every night, those news reports note that the international community is sitting idly on the sidelines, paralyzed. This latest incident in Libya doesn't give us much encouragement to intervene: after all, the Ambassador supported Libyan independence and freedom, and his reward was to be suffocated by the smoke as the consulate burned around him. Why should we intervene to help these people if that's how they treat us afterwards?

Yet, I can't help but think that 10, 20, 50 years from now, historians will look back on this--much as we look back on Rwanda--and ask, "Why didn't we do something to stop the bloodshed, to protect the innocent?"

I completely agree. While I think we shouldn't spend our time apologizing for having a free press, we also shouldn't imagine that this proves support for a free Libya was wrong.

As far as Syria goes, I think it's appalling. I can't believe Aleppo—a city I visited and loved back in college, when I studied in Turkey—is a site of carnage. It makes me white with rage. But then I was out in front of the White House demonstrating to allow arms shipments to the Bosnians way back then too. Someone elect me President.

>29 You're assuming Syria without Assad will be democratic. That's not necessarily what will happen. And with growing anger and distrust between Sunnis, Shiites and Alawites, not to mention Kurdish separatists and vulnerable Christian and Druze minorities, Hezbollah, etc., it would be a miracle if there is peace and real democracy in Syria before the end of this decade. Or the next one.

Sure, it would be nice if Iran lost a satellite state, but not if it becomes a militant Islamic state, or falls into anarchy and becomes a safe haven for every terrorist group in the region. Interventions have unintended consequences, and the allies of today often become the enemies of tomorrow. Or have we learned nothing from the last two decades?

>31: I get daily (and sometimes hourly) updates on my Facebook newfeed from a group of Syrians tracking the damage the fighting is doing to the archaeological and cultural patrimony of the country. At one point, it was reported that various forces had actually occupied the crusading fortress Krak des Chevaliers, whose walls were being shelled.

Courtesy of Juan Cole...

"Anyway, the bigotry of the edited film, directed at Muslims, is part of a movement of religious prejudice that also targets . . . Mormons.

Mitt Romney may want to rethink his ‘visceral’ reaction to the US embassy in Cairo’s tweet condemning the group’s hate speech.

Then it turns out that the film was shot in such a way that there was originally no mention of the Prophet Muhammad in the script, and the cast had no idea what they were getting themselves into, and then the name of Muhammad was clumsily dubbed into the final edit.

So, the film was from the beginning a fraud. It was directed by a fraud. It was promoted by a militia trainer. And Nakoula marketed it fraudulently as the work of a fictitious Israeli-American Jewish real estate agent, ‘Sam Bacile,’ and falsely said it had been funded by “a hundred Jewish donors.”

The group behind the film, in other words, managed to evoke all the classic themes of anti-Semitism as a way of disguising the Coptic and evangelical network out of which the ‘film’ came. When they weren’t busy picketing Mormons and defaming Muslims they were trying to get Jews killed for their own smears of Islam!"

From today's 'Informed Comment'.

These tinpot dictators needed to go--in Libya and Egypt and also in Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What our part should be in this is the question and to be honest it should be mostly hands off--but Libyan's now have hope something they didn't have with Gaddafi. That is better than what they did have. IMO Israel could do with a regime change as well--get away from the warmongers like Netanyahu.

You're assuming Syria without Assad will be democratic. That's not necessarily what will happen. And with growing anger and distrust between Sunnis, Shiites and Alawites, not to mention Kurdish separatists and vulnerable Christian and Druze minorities, Hezbollah, etc., it would be a miracle if there is peace and real democracy in Syria before the end of this decade. Or the next one.

I think it's a fair guess that it will be democratic in form, rather than a dictatorship or military rule, especially if the international community is involved in Assad's overthrow. Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya are, and I expect they will remain so, even if the form is mostly just that. But indeed there's a very real risk of nasty inter-ethnic war. This is no doubt one reason the Alawites are not abandoning Assad; they fear the inevitable post-Assad retaliation. They have every reason to.

Krak des Chevaliers

Blech. I'd put my money on a French castle, however, as against the many far more delicate treasures there.

>36: " But indeed there's a very real risk of nasty inter-ethnic war."

Many (though not all) of the borders in North Africa and the Middle East were drawn not with regard to ethnic groups but with regard to how colonial powers conquered them and then let them go. So I think we could see some of these countries headed in the direction of the former Yugoslavia: a break up along ethnic lines.

(Heck, as John can amply witness, it's already started to happen with the secession of South Sudan.)

AP: "Federal authorities have identified a Coptic Christian in southern California who is on probation after his conviction for financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday."

And that's exactly what we don't have a government for—to tell the press who's behind an objectionable but, as far as the law is concerned, perfectly legal movie, when anyone half-sane knows its creator is liable to be killed. If Rushdie had published The Satanic Verses anonymously, would some US government official have leaked his name?

>38 hear hear. Although I suppose since diplomatic personnel were killed in the attack it would be Federal authorities (FBI?) that would investigate, and that investigation would take them wherever it took them. I don't suppose they'd stop and say, woah, getting into free speech territory here! But I don't get why they'd leak it.

The guy is a coward if he has to do it anonymously. I don't think the government should be outing people, but I think he should be outed.

>38: What if Wikileaks had revealed the information?

>40 The guy is a coward if he has to do it anonymously.

Worse, wasn't he (a Coptic Christian) presenting himself as an Israeli-American Jew to insult Islam's Prophet? Talk about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater!

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/13/13842406-man-behind-anti-islam-fil...

Maybe he can just go to jail for probation violation. He should be safe in jail, right?

Federal law enforcement officials are investigating whether Nakoula violated his probation on federal fraud charges in his efforts to promote the movie, an official has confirmed to NBC News.

If this is about a parole violation, that is public information, and yes, I don't mind the government enforcing parole, and letting us know they are doing it.

Is he a US citizen?

"One of its main producers, Steve Klein, a Vietnam veteran whose son was severely wounded in Iraq, is notorious across California for his involvement with anti-Muslim actions, from the courts to schoolyards to a weekly show broadcast on Christian radio in the Middle East." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/origins-of-provocative-video-...

The latest attempt by Rmoney to spin this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/romney-white-house-agrees_n_1882415.htm...

Interesting. Rmoney claims the white house sides with him against Obama.

This is so off the wall I think maybe Rmoney has finally lost it and was referring to the actual building.

I wish some news reporter had the balls just to ask Rmoney "If Obama agrees with the terrorists against America so damn much as you say - then why is he so good at having them blown to hell with drone strikes - something like 2,000 of them overt the last three years? And why has he ordered two U.S. destroyers moved to the coast of Libya in response to the attack? -you stupid piece of shit."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/us-moving-navy-destroyers-off-coast-of-...

Rmoney is clearly lower on the scale of humanity than your average carney. In fact I think a good case could be made now that Rmoney is sleazier than the people who came up with the rich Nigerian prince email scam.

> Rmoney

Cuttting!

~12

My G_d, a conspiracy theory.

~27

"This little incident should give the enthusiasts who want to support the rebels in Syria pause. Gaddafi was bad. But is Libya a better place without him? Maybe someday, but certainly not at the moment."

I think that this is, perhaps, a bit of an over reaction. The U.S. was neither better nor worse as a society the day before or the day after Timothy McVeigh did his thing. Because "they" are Libyans and "we" are Americans doesn't seem to make much difference, does it?

#30: And here's the thing: every night on the news.... Yet, I can't help but think that 10, 20, 50 years from now, historians will look back on this--much as we look back on Rwanda--and ask, "Why didn't we do something to stop the bloodshed, to protect the innocent?"

Reality is more complicated than that. Don't let the media tell you that Assad is the next Saddam Hussein "killing his own people." Between Assad and the rebels there are plenty of war atrocities to go around and the rebels don't have a lot of popular support. The US's real reason for being against the Assad regime is because they are an ally of Iran's. It's a civil war and you're not going to help stop any kind of sectarian bloodbath by passing it off as a one-sided genocide.

It seems that whenever a country has peaceful protestors marching against the regime (Egypt, Bahrain), the US is on the side of the regime. Even when the Egyptian regime was evidently going to be on the losing side, the Obama administration tried to pass off Mubarak's chief torturer as his successor. And Bahrain... well, you'll never hear a peep about the atrocities there from the "news." But as soon as rebels pick up weapons and attempt a violent revolution (Lybia, Syria), every sick fuck in DC from Karl Rove to Samantha Power gets an erection. That's who the news' real audience is. Don't let the news make you stupid.

>50 I wasn't just referring to the attack on the U.S. embassy, but rather the general state of affairs in Libya. Yet it's instructive to compare the protest in Egypt, which was largely peaceful (the protesters didn't have guns or bombs, and didn't try to set the embassy on fire) to the attack on the embassy in Libya.

If Libya, where nearly everyone is a Sunni Muslim, and most consider themselves Arab, is this lawless, imagine what Syria after 'liberation' will be like, with it's much larger ethnic and religious minorities.

"Because "they" are Libyans and "we" are Americans doesn't seem to make much difference, does it?"

For the record, I am neither Libyan nor American. I am a Canadian resident of China.

>36 "I think it's a fair guess that it will be democratic in form, rather than a dictatorship or military rule, especially if the international community is involved in Assad's overthrow."

Democratic in form? You mean like the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea?' Sure, many countries are 'democratic in form'. Didn't you know we just had an election here in China, to choose delegates to the next People's Congress? Everyone who is a party member got to vote. Verrrry democratic.

I'm not a fan of Assad. But I'm not sure the rebels are any better. If I thought a real democracy- one that respects minority rights, and individual freedom- would follow the revolution, I'd be all for it. But the examples of history have made me cynical about violent revolutions, especially in the Middle East.

Have we heard from any Islamic clergy that it is not nice to storm an embassy, kill those inside, drag dead bodies around, and then spread the violence?

Please post any reports of the reaction from Islamic religious leaders.

Not sure if these are representative:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/12/muhammad-film-reaction-middle-east

http://www.13abc.com/story/19532586/local

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19593578

I don't know what people expect from what passes for a Libyan government that is obviously going to have to suffer through some growing pains. I mean they finally throw off a long, long term repressive dictatorship and then are left with trying to piece together a democracy out of all the ruins and out of all kinds of different elements with different political agendas etc. etc.--some of which were just fine with Gaddaffi--some of which are so extreme that they can't find traction with the general population to gain power and when shortcut opportunities comes along will use any means necessary to try to catapult them to the front of the line. I mean we can see versions of this in our everyday life here in the United States.

The aftermath of a violent revolution is chaos and it takes time to create a normal environment that most people will be able to more or less live peacefully in. Religion in the Middle East is inflammable material and it doesn't matter which religion we're talking about. Right wing elements are using religion whether in Israel, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen to keep the fires burning--to take power or to keep power.

>54 Please post any reports of the reaction from Islamic religious leaders.

"...In America, a Muslim advocacy group called the movie "trashy" and said its producers represented neither the United States nor the Christian faith."

""We urge that this ignorant attempt to provoke the religious feelings of Muslims in the Arabic-speaking world be ignored and that its extremist producers not be given the cheap publicity they so desperately seek," said the Council on American-Islamic Relations."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/anti-islam-film/index.html

A similar statement from group in Canada. OTOH, a Canadian Hindu group wants to screen the film to teach tolerance (???): http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/13/as-violent-protest-spread-in-middle-east...

I liked Secretary Clinton's speech at an Eid observance: http://news.yahoo.com/secretary-clinton-delivers-powerful-religion-speech-middle...

ETA: In Egypt, "The Muslim Brotherhood called for a peaceful nationwide protest on Friday. Mr. Mursi was the Brotherhood’s presidential candidate, although he formally resigned his membership on taking office saying he wanted to represent all Egyptians." I think I read elsewhere that they would only demonstrate in Tahrir Square. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/protest-over-anti-muslim-film-continue...

~52

" I wasn't just referring to the attack on the U.S. embassy, but rather the general state of affairs in Libya. Yet it's instructive to compare the protest in Egypt, which was largely peaceful (the protesters didn't have guns or bombs, and didn't try to set the embassy on fire) to the attack on the embassy in Libya. "

Yes, there have been many peaceable and many violent "protests" in many places at many points in time. Generally, no inference can be made from a particular one to the general state of society in which it occurs.

I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were intending to say. This is, of course, a thread about the embassy attack in Libya, so I mistakenly believed that your remarks might have something to do with that event and its significance.

"For the record, I am neither Libyan nor American. I am a Canadian resident of China."

Well, if you want to come back to the Western hemisphere you might exclude Oregon and much of the Southwest U.S. from your consideration. AZ is a possibility, but only until some of my people again obtain control.

> 54
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims-and-muslim-organi...
http://www.oic-oci.org/topic_detail.asp?t_id=7155

A similar statement from group in Canada. OTOH, a Canadian Hindu group wants to screen the film to teach tolerance

"Teach the controversy!"

Juan Cole's latest blog mentions that Libyan officials promptly decried the attack, and are working to find the perpetrators.

Egypt apparently took a bit more persuading to reach the same point, although the Salafis (sp?) spoke up earlier condemning the attack as contrary to Islamic law.

Fine words from leaders, but to little effect. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/9542014/US-sends-mari...

It seems that ordinary Libyans feel much the same way as their leaders, from that article.

I did hear an interesting report on the BBC News Hour this morning (which I can't seem to find online, sadly) about the frequent abuse of Coptic Christians through vile and denigrating rhetoric in Egypt -- rhetoric much like that of the anti-Muslim film currently at the root of so much controversy.

The story highlighted the seeming disconnect: Muslims are rioting over this tiny and insignificant internet film, while their clerics routinely aim the same type of denigrating rhetoric at Christians with impunity.

ETA: I've found at least one story, quoting Fr. Rafic Greiche, a spokesman for the Catholic Church in Egypt:

Father Greiche added regretfully that although Muslim leaders are virulent in their condemnations of any offense against Islam, popular publications in Egypt routinely contain attacks on Christians, and “nobody talks about it or is scandalized by it.”

"...the (Coptic Christian) community has been the target of violence in Egypt. (S. Michael) Saad (chair, Council for Coptic Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif) says the community's situation now — after the movie — is more tenuous."

""The reaction in Egypt is going to be terrible," he said. "Without movies, it's been miserable.""

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/14/161118009/copts-in-u-s-fear-terri...

ETA: Meanwhile, Pope Benedict arrives in Lebanon: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/pope-benedict-arrives-in-leba...

I have already heard today how much tolerance for other religions that Islam has. That information was provided on NPR Here and Now.

ETA
I think the word actually used is respect for other religions.

In Libya, it was a personality/political matter. The U.S. Ambassador was liked and seen as supportive, so even Libyans who don't like the movie were horrified at what happened to someone they saw as a friend (and not connected to the film in any way). There's also the fact that right now the new Libyan government needs support. So, religious 'respect' wasn't the big issue there.

In Egypt, the new government is trying to please all sides, and finding out that sitting on the fence not only makes you a pain in the $%@, but a target of all sides as well.

This is getting nuts - over a stupid movie?

More dead?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57513174/dozens-storm-breach-wall-of-u.s-emb...

In a riot, the initial incident is often comparitively trivial.

But that incident sparks the fuel that has been building in the area for years, sometimes decades.

The movie was the spark, the trigger; don't confuse the ignition point for the real cause.

>38 & 39
Isn't the "responsibility" part of free speech, the act of standing behind that which you are putting out there ? Why should this guy be protected ?
I don't believe Rushdie is a good comparison...he published his book, he did not do it anonomously and the price he paid , for assuming free speech was the fact that he had to leave his country.
The guy who made the movie may have to do the same thing...but he made the movie...it is a rash and nasty piece of work from which rash and nasty consequences will come. Already been a crap storm of stuff. Apparently he has been playing with fire for quite a while. That is HIS problem...nobody should have to "protect" him. He can hire someone to do that if he persists in this manner. Maybe he should have hired someone sooner but again...his problem.

What he did was legal... have at it...but what happens afterwards should be one's own responsibility. Not the job of our government to protect them. May have been legal but certainly not moral.

I believe that protecting one's right to free speech is a whole different matter than protecting one after they've used that right to promote hate, intolerance or violence. It is called "responsibility" If you open your trap you better be prepared for the consequences.

Again, smaller government ? And then we need the government to protect people after something like this ? I don't think these two ideas go hand in hand.

>69 Not the job of our government to protect them. It's not the job of the government to justify them. It is the job of the government to protect people from any repercussions that might in themselves be illegal. Which includes things like threats of violence.

For some perspective: there was a huge riot in London just last year, no single cause behind it.

#69

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it includes freedom for the speech you hate.

And Tim is right; although the information was available, and several commentators quickly located the true identity of the maker of the film, it wasn't the government's job or duty to reveal that information. Especially not if he was the subject of an investigation.

However, the government does have a duty to protect people who have engaged in lawfully-protected speech...no matter how offensive or disruptive that speech may have been. If we decide to abandon that principle when it becomes inconvenient, then what separates us from any other tyrannical regime? Reality TV?

>70
If this is the case, we can not expect our government to get any smaller nor should we complain about what it costs us to maintain that government.


>72
" If we decide to abandon that principle when it becomes inconvenient, then what separates us from any other tyrannical regime? "

It is not the government that is going to do him harm...he has his freedom....he does what he chooses with that freedom, he should have the responsibility of protecting himself if he enrages enough people.

Don't argee with that at all. Takes all the responsibility for one's actions, in this case making a movie, that sparked something which caused the death of four American's and puts it on the government. I said it now you keep me safe.....that is NOT freedom of speech.

As far as death threats...agreed, he can call those in to the proper authorities, as any other person would do, but he doesn't have the right to expect the government or anyone else to keep his name a secret. Or hide him or anything else of that nature. The government wouldn't do it for me if someone in my neighbor hood decided to issue a death threat because of something I did or said.....probably would advise me to move.

the government does have a duty to protect people who have engaged in lawfully-protected speech...no matter how offensive or disruptive that speech may have been

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

>73 If this is the case, we can not expect our government to get any smaller nor should we complain about what it costs us to maintain that government.

I'd be willing to bet that investigating death threats made against people who say stupid things is not a big drain on the government, all things taken into consideration.

Takes all the responsibility for one's actions, in this case making a movie, that sparked something which caused the death of four American's and puts it on the government. I said it now you keep me safe.....that is NOT freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech very much includes accepting responsibility for what you say. Witness the recent brouhaha over statements made by the owner of Chick-fil-a about gay marriage. He publicly stated his opposition, and people responded by publicly calling for a boycott of his restaurants. All above board and no one's freedom of speech was threatened. If people had responded with death threats, though, then we would have the obligation--the duty--to protect him from harm.

You say that this movie "sparked something that caused the death of four Americans." I refer you to the frightened backlash that surrounded the movie Natural Born Killers. The only people responsible for the deaths of those Americans are the people who actually killed them. The movie maker is NOT to blame. He may need to take responsibility for his own actions, but he is not culpable for the actions of others.

he doesn't have the right to expect the government or anyone else to keep his name a secret.

But we have the right to expect a professional and thorough investigation into the incident--which does not, as a rule, include the government leaking information about said investigation before it has been completed.

A bad Court decision. By setting up 'tiers' of speech, the Supreme Court effective allowed virtually any speech to be declared 'illegal', despite the First Amendment.

>69

We may be facing some trouble if this initial incident is comparatively trivial - attacking an embassy resulting in the death of 4 people including the amassador.

>75
Not accusing the man of doing the killing but much like Palin and her "Bullseye Map" certain actions and or words are structured to get certain reactions. Much like putting a gun down on a table in a room full of angry lunitics and riling them up till someone picks it up and uses it. NO....the one doing the instigating isn't necessarly the guilty party but they certainly played a part. We have the freedom to do this....I understand that...what we shouldn't expect is that when our actions and or words bring us to an uncomfortable spot, someone else has the responsibility to protect us.

You are right about an investigation, however, I think this guy has been playing with fire for a long time. If he is the "go to" person in this matter, it is his own actions that made it so.

As for privacy....not going to exist in this day and age. Along with losing social skills verbally, face to face, most people do not think much about what they pass along electronically. Every thing and anything...it will soon be totally up to the individual to decide what is crap and what is not. I don't think this is GOOD, but I think it is a fact.

We just witnessed a Presidential candidate issue a statement that was false and inflammatory...and repeat it and repeat it and still today he is getting cheers from his crowd as he repeats it once again. People are starting to make up their own truth and it does not need to be based in any type of reality Nothing needs to be true and nothing is sacred, including the identity of people who are going to put themselves out there in any kind of fashion. That day is long past....not sure the government has a snowballs chance in you know where keeping much under wraps.

Guess people who are going to do this kind of thing should be aware of this and act accordingly. If not.....oh well.

What he did was legal... have at it...but what happens afterwards should be one's own responsibility. Not the job of our government to protect them. May have been legal but certainly not moral.

However, the government does have a duty to protect people who have engaged in lawfully-protected speech...no matter how offensive or disruptive that speech may have been.

Even if what he did were illegal, the government is there to prevent extrajudicial violence. The alternative is vigilantism and mob rule. That the filmmaker's work was perfectly legal only underscores the necessity for the government to protect him, and certainly not to expose him.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

Your implication is that making a video about how Muhammed is a buffoon and a letch is covered by the doctrine of "fighting words"? That's… ridiculous.

Finally, one thing needs to be said. Let's not overdo how terrible this movie is. I certainly think it's offensive to Muslims. But it's on par with many similar attacks on other religious leaders—making them into buffoons, taking the absolute worst spin on various true and legendary details of their lives, etc. Any number of rewritings of Jesus' life take exactly the same approach, and few bat an eye. You can say that Jesus had Mary Magdalene for a mistress or was buggering his apostles. You can attack the circumstance of Joseph Smith's polygamy revelation. Why on earth do we specially condemn it when a filmmaker draws out the sordid implications of Muhammed consummating marriage with a nine year-old? That's life in a pluralistic society with free speech.

In sum, we should explain that and stop. By apologizing for the actions of some guy in America, we are only encouraging the notion that the US government has any role in approving or condemning such things. This is, of course, how things function throughout the muslim world. We do ourselves no favor by not disabusing people of the notion we work that way too.

Welcome to the goldfish bowl.

#79

It's reasonably clear that the maker of the film wanted/expected some violent reaction. Moreover, there is some evidence that the maker was hoping to pin the blame for the film (and the response) on someone else; a case of 'let's you and him fight'. I'm not sure what (if any) legal charges could be filed for such misrepresentation. However, this is a case of those consequences for free speech. If I use speech to injure someone's reputation, their financial standing, then I can be held accountable for the act of injury; not the act of speaking itself.

This is a bit much - Xratedly offensive. But here it is .

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

Does anyone know if the families of the slain Americans would have grounds to sue the filmmaker for damages in civil proceedings?

(Though I'm not sure I want to encourage litigiousness...)

>81 If I use speech to injure someone's reputation, their financial standing, then I can be held accountable for the act of injury; not the act of speaking itself.

Libel is notoriously difficult to get a conviction on in the United States.

Here's a good take on the complexities of American-style Free Speech in the global arena:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/14/why-free-speech-is-baffling-t...

Does anyone know if the families of the slain Americans would have grounds to sue the filmmaker for damages in civil proceedings?

Not in the U.S. I suspect that bringing such a civil suit in a court in the U.S. would subject the lawyer taking the case to Rule 11 sanctions (or whatever the equivalent would be in whatever state the suit was brought).

#84

I could be held responsible; there's no assurance that I will be, but it is a risk.

Interesting article, though, and illuminating as to why so many people are talking at cross-purposes.

...YouTube clip blocked (ETA: but not in the US)

"The Afghan government on Wednesday temporarily blocked YouTube in an effort to discourage people from watching the clip. YouTube also blocked the video in Egypt, agency reports said."

"In a statement issued on Wednesday, the company said: "We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions."

"This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere."

""This video - which is widely available on the web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries."

""Our hearts are with the families of the people murdered in Tuesday's attack in Libya.""

"Observers say Google has grown more averse to removing videos. After its 2006 acquisition of YouTube, it was accused of censorship in several high-profile controversies."

""They're squeezed on all sides," said Rebecca MacKinnon, a fellow at the New America Foundation.""

""But because of pressure from a lot of people who feel they made the wrong decisions, they now generally err on the side of keeping things up.""

"In recent years, Google has used technology to filter out videos in certain countries to comply with local regulations."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201291214042970150.html

ETA: "Google Inc rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East."

"The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where U.S. embassies have been stormed by protestors enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/white-house-innocence-of-_n_1885684.htm...

One has to keep in mind that in most countries in the Middle East the general population would not understand what it means to have the free speech we enjoy here in the States. They would assume that the government is backing whatever is being said or else, to their way of thinking, the government would deal with something like this.

>79
How do you explain government protection for this guy to the family members of those who were killed ? I don't think the government should have any role in dealing this guy AT ALL. He did nothing illegal and he caused himself a whole lot of trouble....I said before, if he gets death threats he needs the protection any citizen gets but otherwise, he has to deal with his actions.

Are you sure it was the government that "leaked" his name ? How can anyone be sure where information like this comes from anymore ? This guy is obviously well known for being antagonistic to Muslims. He knew how to get his message out there and he used the same medium that his "leaked" name came across.

But, I guess it is good to know that I have the right to antagonize my neighbor's repeatedly, name calling, foul language, obscene pictures or videos, ridicule their religious faith and then call the cops when someone does a smack down on me. Guessing if it happened enough the cops would find ways to arrive very slowly. You know...freedom comes with RESPONSIBILITY......we want to say what ever the heck we feel like and then have protection against the consequences....personally, I think that this is a huge part of the problem we are experiencing in this country. No one should have right to trample the rights of others.....there is a line and when crossed, you've lost your freedoms.
Not advocating that anyone sue him, not saying the government should "punish" him but he should have to deal with the consequences of his actions. First lesson in changing behavior in children....if there are never any consquences the behavior never improves and it often gets worse.

The people in the Middle East are responding irresponsibly, and what ever comes their way they too have coming but the American's who were killed had a right that was taken from them and this idiot was the trigger for their loss of LIFE, let alone liberty and persuit of happiness. He had the right to be that trigger but it ends there to my mind.

"One has to keep in mind that in most countries in the Middle East the general population would not understand what it means to have the free speech we enjoy here in the States. They would assume that the government is backing whatever is being said or else, to their way of thinking, the government would deal with something like this."

..................................

"The people in the Middle East are responding irresponsibly, and what ever comes their way they too have coming but the American's who were killed had a right that was taken from them and this idiot was the trigger for their loss of LIFE, let alone liberty and persuit of happiness. He had the right to be that trigger but it ends there to my mind."

=========================

That was good. There are several paragraphs of separation between these two entirely contrary thoughts.

Does anyone know if the families of the slain Americans would have grounds to sue the filmmaker for damages in civil proceedings?

No way.

If I use speech to injure someone's reputation, their financial standing, then I can be held accountable for the act of injury; not the act of speaking itself.

Libel requires the statement be about YOU. If the filmmaker said that Ambassador Stevens was a child molester, he could sue. You can't sue someone for a perfectly legal film which caused irrational people to riot and murder someone else.

No One Murdered Because Of This Image

Notice who's not in it—Muhammed. We all know that's the red line. Cross it and your life as you know it may well be over.

One has to keep in mind that in most countries in the Middle East the general population would not understand what it means to have the free speech we enjoy here in the States. They would assume that the government is backing whatever is being said or else, to their way of thinking, the government would deal with something like this.

That true. This is a teachable moment. By failing to teach, and implicitly agreeing with their ignorant view of how free countries operate, we do outselves damage in the long run.

How do you explain government protection for this guy to the family members of those who were killed ?

By citing the fact that we live in a society of laws and rights? I have the feeling Ambassador Stevens wasn't an idiot, and I'm guessing his family aren't idiots too. I suspect they understand why the US government protects Americans who are threatened with death for making perfectly legal films.

Are you sure it was the government that "leaked" his name ?

No, it seems reporters dug it up before. Acccording to the AP story, the government confirmed it.

But, I guess it is good to know that I have the right to antagonize my neighbor's repeatedly, name calling, foul language, obscene pictures or videos, ridicule their religious faith and then call the cops when someone does a smack down on me.

That's right. You do. Welcome to America.

That was good. There are several paragraphs of separation between these two entirely contrary thoughts.

Well played.

That was the point of the Onion cartoon. Only with Islam does the movie, the cartoon, the book bring forth attacking an embassy and killing, then spreading the violence to other places.

BTW that cartoon made the front of my MSN homepage this morning.

Australia, really?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13877580-obama-us-has-profound-res...

Now…

ABC: White House Asks YouTube To ‘Review’ Anti-Muslim Movie
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/white-house-asks-youtube-to-review-...

Absolutely disgusting.

~93

Well, I don't know that it is absolutely disgusting, but it is somewhat disquieting.

To use JGL's expression "I could vomit" over the extent of anti-Muslim crap floating around in the US media. However, I do agree with you on this one, Tim. This is a teaching moment. Time to teach the existing Muslim world what a "private sphere" means, and that it includes "the right" to say what you want, when you want (presuming that you rent the hall or that the owner allows your use of it).

I wonder what it says about this topic that otherwise antagonists (e.g. Tim, lawecon, and StormRaven) all seem to be in general agreement.

The apocalypse?

Rachel Maddow made a point the other night I had not considered - that the misunderstanding of the concept of free speech in much of the world is actually deeper than we assume at first blush.

Many people in countries forever under autocratic or theocratic rule don't just disagree with the concept of free speech - they have no earthly idea what free speech is.

They actually think that if an anti-muslim video is made in the U.S. by a U.S. citizen, and it gets put out on some media and is not censored by the U.S. government, then it must have been sanctioned by our government - or at the least is approved of by our government.

They don't understand anything else because in their countries government-allowed speech is ALWAYS government-sanctioned speech. IOW in their world there is no such thing as a neutral attitude by govenment toward serious issues.

That is why they attack and kill (super-irrationally in our opinion) any members/representatives of the U.S. government because - in their minds - there is a direct link. Our government HAD to have sanctioned the video and AGREED WITH the video - otherwise they would have censored it. IOW "person who made video" = U.S government is a no-brainer in their world.

So the task before us is to educate about one billion people or so regarding the meaning of the phrase "free speech". I don't think that will happen anytime soon.

Though the article itself lays it all out wherein all persons except the utterly brain dead can understand the situation - I thought the picture was worth a thousand words.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/mitt-romney-middle-east-unrest-2012-9/

Is the discussion over the movie a distraction away from whether security was adequate and whether the attack was planned retaliation deliberately using the movie as a pretext and a cover?

The movie motivation has not made sense to me from the start. It is nuts that a movie made by a nut has caused this reaction.

>89
What I should have said was that the people of the Middle East are acting irresponsibly, to OUR way of thinking. You are correct...the way I said it was contradictory. In order to understand their reaction one has to understand a totally different culture.

>97
"So the task before us is to educate about one billion people or so regarding the meaning of the phrase "free speech". I don't think that will happen anytime soon'

Probably not but it may be something to keep in mind when going about spreading hateful media regarding their faith. We do have American's involved in the Middle East and by doing what you are, you may trigger something that will cost them their lives.
Sorry, just don't think that someone should be protected for such an action. Once again, the bad, the ugly, the profane is protected once the rights of someone trying to do what is right is destroyed....just do not get it at all.

98> Maybe I'm dense but I can't figure out what that squiggly line on the picture is supposed to represent.

99> The attack on the embassy in Libya may have been planned but the widespread protests across the muslim world is undoubtedly caused by the stupid movie.

#97--it was a good post and shows how much you can take for granted. There are always going to be a few people who drive themselves beyond whatever their circumstance or the environment they live in. The English poet William Blake should be an inspiration for everyone.

~100

">89
What I should have said was that the people of the Middle East are acting irresponsibly, to OUR way of thinking. You are correct...the way I said it was contradictory. In order to understand their reaction one has to understand a totally different culture."

But what about common sense? Isn't that universal?

"In his strongest attack to date of the actions of extremists, Libya’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Sadeq Al-Ghariani, has issued a fatwa condemning Tuesday’s killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens along with three other American diplomatic staff and a number of Libya security guards. He said those involved were criminals who were damned by their action." http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14471

~104

NOTE, this post is NOT flaggable.

> 106

I wasn't gonna say anything but since you brought it up - I thought it was rather amusing.

>101
JJ, I am not convinced that the subsequent riots are not premeditated. I don't think mob violence must be spontaneous. It can be spurred on by a few well positioned instigators.

This is an interesting development.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/15/13885782-libyan-president-tells-nb...

OK - this link is only for those 18 yrs. old or older. And then only if you have a sense of humor and DO NOT have a corn cob embedded in your posterior nether region.

You have been warned.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?re...

while I think Mr Romney's Attack on Mr Obama on this matter was wrong on many levels, I don't think it will affect him badly, a month from now people will be aware of two things.

In spite of the President's efforts relationships with Muslims are worse.

Mr Romney said Muslims? punks! and America Fuck Yeah!

>110: Warnings were a little late, as we'd already seen the image in #82, and the significance of it was helpfully explained in #90, in case anyone didn't get it.

~95

I think that it is probably accurate to observe that Tim and I are often antagonistic, because we have a sneaking respect for each other's intellects and often fundamentally disagree on our perceptions of the world. Stormraven is another matter entirely.

~112

Actually, it just goes to show how ignorant I am of Hindu teachings. I thought that at least some of their sects viewed sex as a positive thing and sought to enhance the pleasure from it.

> 112

I came into this thread late so I am happy to see someone else had brought up the Onion satire.

As to the significance, it was an attempt to show that there is no equivalent, pretty much, in the rest of the religious world to the muslim "extremists" killing people because their particular god/prophet was insulted.

THAT is why neither muhammad or allah were included in the god orgy picture. Someone thought there was another motivation? BS.

I think rather than compare this childish murderousness to other religions we should rightly compare it to the secular religions of fascism and communism. Anyone who opposed fascist or communist regimes, including making fun of them, would be violently - physically attacked. These muslim "extremists" are their moral equivalent.

I don't think enough emphasis is placed on just how shit-brained muslim "extremism" is. Too much emphasis is being placed on the immorality of those who are making fun of them and are thus BLAMED, for the most part, for the murder. I call Bull Shit.

Those who make fun of Allah are NOT the moral equivalent of those who react by murdering some random persons - or murdering anyone. To imply the opposite is obviously understood as BS by any thinking person.

There is NO excuse for murder. Some "highly moral" people who in effect offer excuses for murder don't seem to get that. They think of themselves as good christians. I don't. They can effing drop the qualifying "good", as they are not fooling anyone who DOES have a normal understanding of morality.

#115: As to the significance, it was an attempt to show that there is no equivalent, pretty much, in the rest of the religious world to the muslim "extremists" killing people because their particular god/prophet was insulted.

Luckily for the illustrator, his country hasn't been going overseas to screw Jewish, Christian, or Hindu countries.

Those who make fun of Allah are NOT the moral equivalent of those who react by murdering some random persons - or murdering anyone. To imply the opposite is obviously understood as BS by any thinking person.

I call strawman argument. It's not about a movie or cartoons or whatever. It's because of Barack'll Bombya and the mindless sacks of shit who vote for him.

#116--if I were to guess though--in an alternate universe where we have John McCain as POTUS--he'd already be dropping missiles on Libya--doubtfully Egypt as I think he would have supported Mubarek against his own people. Obama and he were the two people that had any chance of winning in 2008 as Obama or Romney are the only two people with any chance this year.

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader--or maybe even Dennis Kucinich might be all for pulling troops out and closing overseas bases but they're not going to get the opportunity. I'd remind you anyway that what Barack promised or seemed to anyway in 2008 was an end to American overseas adventurism--closing out the wars and shutting down Guantanamo. Depending on how you view it--it's argued that the Iraq part has ended. IMO it's not quite good enough--bringing the troops home means bringing them all home to me. But it might be fair to say that were not taking any casualties these days.

Anyway I'd point out as well--Iraq was all about our multi-nationals, energy companies and conservative ideologues attempt at nation building. Visions of Wal-mart's, McDonald's and Starbucks in every town on every corner or even something more sinister like tractor trailer's driving empty trucks on dark roads late at night hoping against being ambushed and/or driving over an IED--that it was all about taking the wealth outside of the country so that Mr. Cheney and his pals could divvy it up amongst themselves.

~117

We seem to agree totally on this topic until you get to the last paragraph. Undoubtedly a great deal of what kept the Iraq war going was Cheney's buddies getting paid off. It is like forfeiture being the motivation on the part of police for keeping a half century plus drug war going. However, that isn't all. You don't have a supply unless there is a persistent market demand.

The other half of the equation is a country of morons who are more interested in their local sports team than they are in whether their neighbor's kids will be blown to bits in some useless war in some obscure part of the world for no objective. Rah rah sports team. Rah rah, let's US do good and save the people of X or defend ourselves against the horrible weapons of mass destruction owned by Y. Until Americans grow up and stop falling for every con invented by every psychotic politician, expect more of the same.

#117: My recollection of the Bush era was that the oil companies themselves weren't all that excited about the potential war in Iraq (no doubt because of the disruption involved) and that older Republican folks like Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft were actually quite alarmed by the direction Junior was taking with Iraq. Your mention of "nation building" is curious too since not only did Bush Jr. originally campaign against nation building, but he campaigned against it because it was a notoriously left-wing idea. Makes me think that claims about the US shifting the "Right" are a form of revisionist history just because it was the Republicans who happened to implement it. As for McDonalds, I'm reminded of a documentary that came out during the time in which one of the middle-easterners interviewed commented on how much they'd love to have a McDonalds and drink Coke and that it was American foreign policy they disliked, not commercialism.

And to bring that full circle to Obama, I blame the people in power who actually implement these policies, so we don't need to hear conjecture about hypothetical McCains or shadowy corporate interests. The buck doesn't stop at the side that lost the election.

>118
"The other half of the equation is a country of morons who are more interested in their local sports team than they are in whether their neighbor's kids will be blown to bits in some useless war in some obscure part of the world for no objective. Rah rah sports team. Rah rah, let's US do good and save the people of X or defend ourselves against the horrible weapons of mass destruction owned by Y. Until Americans grow up and stop falling for every con invented by every psychotic politician, expect more of the same."

WOW ! On the same page....however, I do believe if I had posted this (and I think I have several times, maybe not the same words but certainly matching sentiment) it would reek of common sense and therefore be foolish to even contemplate.

>119
"and that it was American foreign policy they disliked, not commercialism.'

And how do you seperate the two ? America is all about commercialism, it is the bed rock of our foundation at this point in time.

"And to bring that full circle to Obama, I blame the people in power who actually implement these policies, so we don't need to hear conjecture about hypothetical McCains or shadowy corporate interests. The buck doesn't stop at the side that lost the election."

Between the complaining about the new expansion of Presidental power and the fact that Obama hasn't been powerful enough....it is hard to discern what people actually want....Obama is not a king, McCain and the likes would have an easier time implementing their insatiable desire to instill shock and awe through brute force, than Obama is having trying to instill respect through knowledge , internal growth and self reliance. McCain's method is more culturaly acceptable....more palatable to the people. After all, we get to keep our tax money and those who die are volunteering to do so.

If we want the people of this country to take a look at our policies over seas....institute a draft.

For that matter, if we want our young people to take "change" seriously....do well with their educational opportunities, develope alternative transportation, conserve fuel and/or develope alternative energy sources.....institute a draft.
Personally, I think attitudes would turn around rather quickly.

~121

"For that matter, if we want our young people to take "change" seriously....do well with their educational opportunities, develope alternative transportation, conserve fuel and/or develope alternative energy sources.....institute a draft.
Personally, I think attitudes would turn around rather quickly."

Why not also institute daily exercises and patriotic demonstrations every morning at 6 a.m.? Then we could all eat together in common dining halls and sleep together in barracks. Of course, as we know, many people are neglecting their children, so the state would take over the important function of child rearing.

I think that attitudes would turn around rather quickly.

121> I would rather institute alternative paths out of poverty for those who enlist to escape that fate.

>122
Wish you explain to me how "investing" in one's country is somehow detrimental. Those years in the past that saw the most advancement in this country there was a draft in place.

There is nothing wrong with expecting that people who live within a society be expected to contribute back to that society. What we see now is all about taking and not much about putting back.

Wars are easy to fight when "our" children do not have to fight them.
Educational grades would become important if those grades meant collage or the military. Advanced education would take on a different meaning.

We may even look at how we treat our wounded soldiers differently if they didn't "sign up for it". Sickening line I've heard numerous times since we took an all volunteer army into a dead end war for the personal enrichment of a few boneheads who felt entitled. Most of whom never served in a branch of military themselves.

>123
Yes...good idea that. But there should be something expected of people as a citizen of a country. Nothing comes for free...certainly not freedom.....we lay the responsibility on the few and complain that we are not getting anywhere, even falling behind as a country, when the majority of individuals are looking to see what they have coming to them personally. Without a desire to see our country made better, not sure it will ever get there.
Obviously lawecon feels that my statement boarders on "Big Brotherism" but, in reality, this country had a draft for much longer than we've been without. If we get mixed up in Iran, I believe we will again anyway....no way can we keep deploying these men and women as often as we do.....not condusive to good moral or their ability to be efficent.

>122
By the way, having raised a pasel of kids, my own, foster children and step kids, a bit of regimentation is a fine idea....no problem with that.....the little munchkins should be wearing uniforms to school as well...school is about LEARNING something not about what one's parents can afford or not afford to send their kids off to school wearing. Good deal of bullying comes from social/economic status issues.

still not certain how you made the leap from a military draft to the government taking over child rearing. There really in no connection I can see but it makes for a contentious post so I guess....What ever......

Juan Cole notes in his blog that although Muslims were rioting and attacking people over a video, they will have no shame about not protesting about Syria's Assad killing and torturing fellow Muslims.

So, leaving out any commentary about the faith, the people who reacted to this video in a hostile manner against victims that had nothing to do with the video are hypocritical and short-sighted.

hypocritical and short-sighted and nuts.

faceinbook, I have no difficulties with a draft or with some type of service. Maybe another topic idea.

#119--I don't think it's fair for you to blame people for voting for Obama the first time around on this issue. To many people voting for Obama was voting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prison at Guantanamo. In a normal election year I would have voted for Nader for a third time if it wasn't for the sense that I got that Obama would put an end to all that nonsense I'd been grinding my teeth over since March of 2003. How were we to know he wasn't going to follow through? McCain was talking about bombing places into oblivion and maximizing troop increases. How does that not factor into it?

>127
"McCain was talking about bombing places into oblivion and maximizing troop increases. How does that not factor into it?"

Is still a factor today.

International relations are no longer about government speaking to government.

Too often it is arsehole speaking to arsehole. and bystanders getting caught by their ahem "utterances".

Speaking of...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/17/13909656-hezbollah-chief-makes-rar...

Pew poll on presidential candidates' responses:

Only 43% of the people polled followed the news about the attacks.

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

In contrast, only about a quarter (26%) of those who have tracked news on turmoil in the Middle East approve of Romney’s comments on the situation; nearly half (48%) disapprove." http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/17/middle-east-turmoil-closely-followed-romn...

Regarding the above series of nonsequiturs, saber rattling and general paranoia about liberated Arabs:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/megan.reif/arab_uprisings_vs._anti-film_riots&con...

~97

"Many people in countries forever under autocratic or theocratic rule don't just disagree with the concept of free speech - they have no earthly idea what free speech is."

Of course no country is "forever under autocratic or theocratic rule" and even in those countries which come close (as many Arab countries did until recently) there is always an underground of those who know exactly what these distinctions mean. Certainly the rulers of such nations know, and take continual measures to suppress the consequences.

However, as the above post shows, it is far from a small divided and inconsequential underground in even the most tyrannical society. (For novel treatment my favorite is This Perfect Day )

FWIW--Many young Americans last year on this very day began to express their dissent for the status quo by targeting Wall St. It didn't take very long before cops were beating, macing, tear gassing, tasering and rubber bullet shooting them--pretty much at the whim of their masters--and then they might even arrest them. To think that free expression is all that much better here than it is in other places--even place's that have been under an oppressor's boot for years is just a matter of what you choose to see but it is not necessarily the reality. The direction of a Libya right now is towards more freedom--the direction we're going in is towards less--keeping in mind the Patriot Act.

> 135

A slight exaggeration there, my friend.

I.e., hundreds - and certainly not thousands - of American protesters have not been murdered in the streets as had happened in Syria, Libya, and several other middle east countries in recent months or years or in some cases as far back as anyone cares to remember. - Also in China not that long ago.

IOW, nearly all of the 99 per centers are still breathing. That has got to count for something.

#135--it's a bad precedent though JGL and Eric Holder helped coordinate the attacks of police on the Occupy protesters. And of course they're not killing people here--if they were there would be outrage here against the authorities instead of the protesters and even so they did nearly kill an ex-marine vet in Oakland--the brutality of the police in NY and of the campus police at UC Davis are other highlights. And this is part of what bothers me now about Obama--it's like some things just don't register. He enhances the Patriot Act--doesn't say a word about massed organized police brutality when it rears a very ugly head--he ignores the Wisconsin recall of people dodging 4 wheel drive SUV's trying to run them over working to get petitions to drive out an asshole of a Republican governor--out in the cold and the snow (people who are his kind of voters for the greater part)--he continues the Bush 2 agenda in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. It makes me sad that I voted for him instead of Ralph Nader--who was going to lose for sure but is closer to my mind and heart. He's better than Romney or any of the other Republicans IMO (though I will say Ron Paul's ideas on Foreign Policy are better than his by a large margin) but it's not enough for me.

> 136

It will be either Obama or Rmoney.

Obama is a bad man. Rmoney is a VERY bad man.

Odds are Obama will be reelected. I hope so. Because I fear what would happen if the VERY bad man is elected.

Outside of that reality I suppose we are all free to wax as idealistic as we wish. And if we are just going to wish then I wish that Superman would be elected POTUS. Is he available?

We have the same problem in Canada: two main parties which, in the end, offer little alternative. We vote for who we least dislike. There are other parties (the Bloc, NDP, Green Party) but unless there's a minority government, and they can join a coalition, they'll never have any real power.

So, basically, it's vote for 'tweedledum' or 'tweedledumber'.

But I guess we are straying from the main topic...

~137

"Odds are Obama will be reelected. I hope so. Because I fear what would happen if the VERY bad man is elected."

Yah, things like having people picked up off the streets of America and shipped to another country for torture, without even the whisper of one of those antiquated 18th century trial things. Of course that would never happen if the bad man is re-elected. http://www.salon.com/topic/torture/

But probably you had something worse in mind. Mind sharing?

#139--unfortunately not surprising. The popular viewpoint is that the CIA is a force for good--and though I'm sure there are many good agents like Kiriakou--the whole setup is corrupt and there is no external accountability for the people who work for the agency and they know it. And it's a long history--of overthrowing governments (Allende's Chile), running guns and drugs, experimenting with the human psyche (often times of unwitting subjects--MK Ultra--Donald Ewen Cameron, Sidney Gottlieb)--training police and military on torture techniques (Dan Mitrione for instance went to Uruguay to do just that--they would pick homeless people off the street to practice on and afterwards kill them because dead people don't talk). When it comes to interfering in the affairs of other nations--when it comes to what is called black ops they have lots of experience. Bush 1 (while CIA director) pals it up with Panama's Noriega. William Casey (another CIA director) defies a Senate request for the MK Ultra files and deliberately destroys much of the evidence. Ewen Cameron was one of the most influential pyschiatrists in the world in his time funded by among others Cornell U. and the Rockefeller foundation--also paid by the CIA worked out of the Allen Memorial Institute in Montreal--he collected (even kidnapped) unwitting patients--people suffering from various types of depression and mental illness--his theories/ideas on memory erasure combined massive doses of drugs and/or electric shock treatment. These patients sometimes were put into comatose states for months--for the two stages of what he described as 1. depatterning and 2. Psychic driving.

Anyway if people think that this is all in the past--that things are different nowadays--I wouldn't bet my life, my house, my dog or anything I considered valuable on it. It might not be the same exact programs but there will be other programs--quite likely even more sinister stuff than what I've described in the top paragraph. And the reason is there is no external accountability. They have carte blanche to do what they like. That is why the whistleblower is going to get clobbered and nobody else because in their minds and even in the minds of the present administration (or even past ones) this is stuff we don't need to know. And it goes back to this thing called secrecy--things that should bd kept hidden--to keep hidden crimes we don't need to know about. So much for transparency--nice to talk about in an election year but that's about it.

It seems factual that government agents used germ warfare - small pox germs on blankets given to American aborigines - back in the 18th century. And back in the early 20th century government performed experiments on black men in Alabama by purposefully giving them syphilis . And LSD was given to many people without their knowledge by government agents back in the 1950s, causing some of their victims permanent mental disturbance or to commit suicide.

And let's not ever get into the willy-nilly killing of innocents in war by governments, e.g., Hiroshima. Or the torture issue.

The point is - OBVIOUSLY - to the thinking and TRULY moral person - government is obviously Totally Evil. Obviously.

So screw both Obama and Rmoney. And screw both corporate capitalism and state socialism. And screw our invisible shape-shifting Reptilian Alien Overlords. And especially screw the Trilateral Commission.

Let’s shut government down and get to the business of creating a utopian anarchical society where we can live in peace and harmony and love and always treat each other with total respect - the way certain moral geniuses among us know we should have been doing all along from day one. Because if society is not a utopia, then why bother? If some small elite moral thinkers can figure this out, then why the hell can't we all?

Vote “None of the Above” - or vote for yourself - on Nov. 6.

Let our genius byword be “Give Us Human Perfection - or Give Us Death”.

I leave it to others to design an appropriate flag.

"It seems factual that government agents used germ warfare - small pox germs on blankets given to American aborigines - back in the 18th century. And back in the early 20th century government performed experiments on black men in Alabama by purposefully giving them syphilis . And LSD was given to many people without their knowledge by government agents back in the 1950s, causing some of their victims permanent mental disturbance or to commit suicide.

And let's not ever get into the willy-nilly killing of innocents in war by governments, e.g., Hiroshima. Or the torture issue.The point is - OBVIOUSLY - to the thinking and TRULY moral person - government is obviously Totally Evil. Obviously.

So screw both Obama and Rmoney. And screw both corporate capitalism and state socialism. And screw our invisible shape-shifting Reptilian Alien Overlords. And especially screw the Trilateral Commission.

Let’s shut government down and get to the business of creating a utopian anarchical society where we can live in peace and harmony and love and always treat each other with total respect - the way certain moral geniuses among us know we should have been doing all along from day one. Because if society is not a utopia, then why bother? If some small elite moral thinkers can figure this out, then why the hell can't we all?

Vote “None of the Above” - or vote for yourself - on Nov. 6."

I'm glad you are finally starting to see reason.

And I feared that you might, instead, try to justify
those who torture or those who kill innocents, whether through genocide or war, or those who drug their fellow men or women without their permission or knowledge.

Praise the Holy One that you did not go down that path. Otherwise one would think that you were a barbarian asshole.

Keep striving for perfection. One day the people will listen.

Ya gotta believe.

~143

Yes, the way things are makes me want to vomit. Indeed, thinking about "the people" makes me want to vomit. But you'd know about those feelings, wouldn't you?

It took a while for me to organize that little rant #140 in my head. You can look up the names and places--you can find other paths to travel on as well and a whole bunch of conspiracy theories too which I wouldn't know how to start to qualify--but it stinks and it's continued on into Obama's administration--proof of which is on changeover day talk of prosecuting people like Dick Cheney for war crimes was squashed immediately. He is a very wealthy man--he and his friends benefitted enormously from Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't know the numbers of Iraqi dead and maimed but we have a fairly good idea of American servicemen dead and maimed--these are the people--along with their families who ultimately paid the price for it all if it were breaking it all down to me, myself and I.

#120: And how do you seperate the two ? America is all about commercialism, it is the bed rock of our foundation at this point in time.

By not conflating them as you just did. You might as well blame oxygen respiration if you're looking for a scapegoat for all the American militarism you support (whether foreign or domestic). And the draft didn't stop eight years of Vietnam, so maybe you should send your own damned kids into the meat grinder if you think that'll solve anything.

#121: No, really. Stop bringing up the draft. There's only so much hate speech I can abide.

#127: I don't think it's fair for you to blame people for voting for Obama the first time around on this issue. To many people voting for Obama was voting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prison at Guantanamo.

Yes, there's definitely that to consider. No doubt it's not as bad as voting for him a second time. Sometimes I feel like I want to have it both ways between blaming the voter for their choices and blaming the system for baiting the voter into a trap.

>146

Perhaps you ought to share whether or not you feel that citizens owe anything to their country ? Anything at all ? Or is life all about what is "in it for you" ?
Civil service isn't always about war, there are other options....of course ignoring them allows one to paint the person who made the suggestion in a dark light, which seems to be the new American way of dealing with most everything. If you think you are somehow "different" or "going rouge" or "individualistic"....nope, not so much, just more of the same old garbage.

~147

"Perhaps you ought to share whether or not you feel that citizens owe anything to their country ? Anything at all ?"

Let me try to make it clear to you, face. Individuals don't owe anything to the sovereign powers under which they live. The sovereign powers are either the servants of said individuals - as is true in a free society - or the individuals are the slaves of the sovereign - as is true in most societies, including, obviously, the one you favor.

You might read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to try to figure out whether or not you are in the wrong society.

As for your history of "we built a great nation on the draft." "We" who? There wasn't a draft until the Civil War. There wasn't a draft between the Civil War and WWI. If I look at a history book the America I care about existed before WWI. Apparently not yours.

>148
Of course not.....not even taxes. That we all strive to survive in the same society is a perpetuated myth, the biggest falsity being the fact that we actually need each other to survive. Forget that ! What is in it for me. What can this sovereign power do for me ? I think it is pretty clear, at this point in time, where that thought process leads us.

We do not have a free society, we are ruled by those who believe that they have the right, under the sovereign powers that be, to take all they can, in any way they can and that it is their right to do so. Suggest you ask those who lost their retirement funds in 2008, or those who have no money to pay for healthcare, or those who are working several jobs to make ends meet, just how these sovereign powers are working for them. How free do they feel in this society. They may not have a dictator but they are ruled non the less by forces far beyond their control. Forces created by those who don't think they owe anything back to the country that dealt them an upper hand. The powers are in place, after all, to serve them.

~149

Let's see if I've got your reasoning right:

(1) Only those living in a proper society are taxed. It is the mark of a true society of unselfish patriots (nevermind the compulsion part).

(2) Because there have been throughout history people who cheated other people and a disparity of wealth and income between people , tyrants aren't that bad. A little honest jail time or death is often preferable to a cheat. It is certainly better than a system in which you have to provide services to those who want to buy them in order to earn income.

Did I get it right? If not, where did I misrepresent what you have said (and obviously think)?

And now the French add another cartoon to the fire.

I wonder does the new cartoon cause more riots, longer riots, or more intense riots.

I saw a cartoon somewhere with aliens hovering above the Earth commenting on the prevalent warfare, "It appears they are fighting over which religion is the most peaceful."

RESPECT, find out what it means to me.

Apparently it is a demand to be respected. I often hear people commenting when suffering some perceived afront, "He disrespected me. I demand respect."

I guess that is what RESPECT means, give me mine.

#148

If individuals chose to be a 'slave' to sovereign powers, then why do you care? After all, as a free man you should be supremely unconcerned with the fate of anyone save yourself, especially those who chose slavery.

>151
Would guess, in part, respect comes from actually having knowledge about what it is you are supposed to be respecting. It also requires "empathy" (discussed on another thread) since we want our ideas and beliefs to be respected, it is only right to respect others.

Respect can not be demanded.....it must be cultured. Don't think many people have the patience for that anymore. Want it now, or maybe even yesterday.

is a draft a a tax on time.

>154
Suppose it could be considered so.
The thing is, we won't be fighting wars in the same manner. Obama has used a new way of fighting , though it is still "new" and we find that causualties are still occuring. We probably can assume that our military will look a bit different in the future. What about cyber attacks.....our military personel who are computer savey could be working on something like that....food source is going to be a biggie and so is a clean water supply. The arguements against having young people serve in some fashion are based on the "old" way of looking at things. Of course we don't have to do a thing.....we can look at any time spent investing in our country with out immediate personal gain as "slave" labor , hope that things change, that people are suddenly enlightened and show some amount of responsibilty. However, it has been my experience that people tend to show less interest when they are not vested in some manner.
Service to country may not mean that one see's personal gain immediately but in all reality, one eventually stands to gain something.

Fighting wars is not a question of sending over enough bodies to win anymore and thank God for that. The military service year works well for smaller countries, but logistically this would be a huge change, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of participants. The military just doesn't need hundreds of thousands of untrained teenagers. The military jobs are moving over to more and more highly skilled labor.

The world is a harder place to make one's way in. I have a hard time justifying the idea that although we've left the next generation with more challenges and a need for a longer, more specific education, we think they need to donate a year? I think that the only people who should get to vote on whether or not to institute such a thing should be those who would have to serve in it.

This would be a tremendous waste of money and I would hate to have all those teenagers available to tempt the ruling powers to enter into conflicts we shouldn't be involved with.

As far as a year of some unspecified service being required, I think that idea can't be seriously entertained until we have a real shortage of labor and can't hire people to perform those tasks. Cutting employment to make those teenagers shape up is not, perhaps, the best move for the economy.

The problem with fighting wars these days as far as the United States goes--is that having the ability to bomb some other nation to oblivion from far away takes away a good deal of circumspection away from the entire process. It may be a lot better as far as keeping American casualties down but it has led to a very high level of arrogance on the part of our top decision makers.

#156

Actually, fighting a war (as opposed to what we do now) is exactly that; boots on the ground. It's messy, expensive (in terms of material, dollars, and men/women), and causes a great deal of sacrifice (emotional and material) on the home front. Which is why we don't fight wars anymore.

The conflicts we DO engage in do require a highly-trained, relatively intelligent people, which is another reason (besides the political impossibility) a draft won't work. Because the same is true for most jobs; they're as automated and mechanized as possible.

#158--very true.

We seem to be moving towards unmanned drones and airstrikes. Perhaps in the future everyone's home robot will be drafted for two years service. :-)

It'll be like the Civil War. Serve, unless you can find a robotic surrogate.

#147: Perhaps you ought to share whether or not you feel that citizens owe anything to their country ?

When I was a kid we had this issue in Los Angeles where homeless people would come up to your car when stopped at an intersection and they would proceed to wash your windows for you without your consent (often with muddy water) and then demand to be paid what they were "owed." This is the model of "owing" that you would need to invoke in order to claim that we "owe" anything to "our" country. It is nonsensical.

But let's just take for granted that people "owe" anything to "their" country. Even then you can't argue that becoming cannon fodder pays back any kind of debt to anyone else except to that small segment of society known as the political class. Whether it's involuntary photo ops with the president or serving in some bullshit war, military service, drafted or otherwise, benefit no one but the sickos you vote for.

Civil service isn't always about war, there are other options...

If that were the case, you wouldn't have brought up the draft. But you did... citing various reasons ranging between the left-wing idiocy that shared sacrifice makes everything better (which, as I said before, 8 years of Vietnam soundly refute) and the right-wing idiocy that regimenting young people to become killer zombies that don't question orders is good for them. You even made the historically ignorant claim that the US prospered when it had the draft even though drafts only occur in wartime.

If you think you are somehow "different" or "going rouge" or "individualistic"....nope, not so much, just more of the same old garbage.

Obviously you persist in comparing me to "garbage" of the likes of Fox News because you can't tell the difference between spouting bullshit and calling bullshit. It's like you're going by some stupid kindergarden rule like "He who smelt it dealt it." Grow the fuck up. Until the little old white granny brigade is drafted into the service, your opinion on how other people should live their lives is worthless.

That free speech doesnt grant the right to falsely
shout "Fire!" in a crowded
theater became an often
quoted (and sometimes misquoted)* maxim of Justice O. W. Holmes
It never became a favorite of mine; it always seemed at best, far-fetched--not something that would happen in real life.

A case like this, however, does make me think that the old favorite of the
Holmes fans can, after all, have a real life parallel: The place of ethno-religious relations in the world today is
a "crowded" and potetntially dangeorus "theater" Ads "Free Speech" is shouted at them, the opponents of the
anti-Muhammad film are pretty close to claiming the Holmesian sophistry (as I used to think it) for their justification.

The fact that "Piss Christ"
wasnʻt abjured by our government of that time is
to me, not relevant. An alleged "art" work reaches far fewer people than a medium of mass popularity,
which is what film is.

*misquoted: Some enthusiastic Holmes fans
even quote him WITHOUT
the adverb "falsely"!

>162
"You even made the historically ignorant claim that the US prospered when it had the draft even though drafts only occur in wartime."

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/bldrafthistory.htm

Not sure why you persist on being so nasty ? You do sound like what comes mainly from the Right and Fox News. Sorry but it is just a fact. Name calling, frustrated rants and disrespect for anyone whose ideas don't match your own. OR anyone who may have any ideas at all.
Have at it I guess, if it makes you feel better though somehow, since it never seems to stop, I don't think it does much other than add a nasty segment to the discussion.
You have the "right" after all....However, you do not have the right to your own facts.....Please read the link above.

~164

"Not sure why you persist on being so nasty ? You do sound like what comes mainly from the Right and Fox News."

The ultimate answer from those who don't have an answer but want to distract attention from that fact. Equivalent to the child's "I'M RIGHT, I'M RIGHT, ADMIT I'M RIGHT OR I'M GOING TO CALL YOU BAD NAMES AND CRY."

It is really a horrible thing when honest, brilliant, CARING people are SO PERSECUTED, isn't it?

>165
"It is really a horrible thing when honest, brilliant, CARING people are SO PERSECUTED, isn't it?"

I don't believe it has anything to do with CARING....obviously people CARE or they wouldn't be on a tear. What does bother me is that once the discourse turns nasty....nothing is accomplished at all. Just a fling fest.
I don't see it as PERSECUTION either, what it is merely juvenile and I will repeat again, says more about the person who is persisting in being less than civil than the target.

As far as being honest ? Doesn't matter much anymore. You are free to make up your own facts and repeat them adnauseum. Especially if you are not sure of what the facts are.....in fact, you are far better off making things up than to admit a weakness. Somehow weakness brings out nastier stuff than making up your own reality and standing by it.

Brilliant ? Now that is something we have never agreed on. Never know where a briliant idea may come from. It is foolish to dimiss the ideas of anyone. However, ideas are not usually born from attacking someone else's thoughts. Nor can anything be changed or implemented when the discussion has sunk to personal attacks, name calling and disrespect. Would think it is quite obvious at this point in time.

#164: Wow, that explains everything. A "peace time" draft just a year before WW2 (which was actually in preparation for entering WW2 pending an excuse to get in) and the selective service existing on paper but no lotteries until 1969. You are now officially full of shit, so don't ever claim an association between the draft and the US's propserity again or you'll deserve plenty more ire than your ilk at Fox News do.

"From 1948 until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted to fill vacancies in the armed forces which could not be filled through voluntary means."

~168

Ah, the good old days when a young man would never know whether his life would be his own in the next few coming years. An obvious incentive to love your country, or else.

A Day of Love

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14005738-pakistan-cops-open-fire-o...

168> But what did that mean in practice? Unless every young man in the country actually was drafted or was aware that there was a good chance that they might be drafted it doesn't really do anything as an argument for your point, which was I believe something along the lines that people felt a stronger connection to their country when they were being drafted into the armed services.

The relevant questions in my mind are- is there anyone here - in his or her right mind - who thinks there's a chance in blue hell of the draft ever coming back? And then why are people wasting their time discussing a hypothetical originating in some non-parallel universe to our own?

Just asking.

>172

Ever—even during a major war or national crisis? It's unlikely, but I could see it. Stuff happens. Did you imagine a coordinated terrorist plot to fly planes into buildings? Certainly major land wars are less and less likely. But I could see some sort of major breakdown—a small nuclear exchange here or in the middle east—that prompts that sort of national response.

In a lifeboat lost at sea situation I might condescend to eating the flesh of a dead person. I don't know. Too hypothetical.

Let's wait for the nuclear attack and then look at this issue of the draft with fresh eyes, shall we?

~172

"The relevant questions in my mind are- is there anyone here - in his or her right mind - who thinks there's a chance in blue hell of the draft ever coming back? And then why are people wasting their time discussing a hypothetical originating in some non-parallel universe to our own?

Just asking."

The relevant question in my mind is - is there anyone here who thinks that fundamentalists are going to cease being fundamentalists or that religious people are going to cease believing in whatever they conceive of as G-d because some smart asses mouth off perpetually in particular internet forums?

Just asking.

Religion seems to have survived an awful lot of indignities in the last couple of centuries, so I'm pretty sure it will survive some minor insults in an obscure corner of the internet.

>175

"The relevant question in my mind is - is there anyone here who thinks that fundamentals are going to cease being fundamentalists or that religious people are going to cease believing in whatever they conceive of as G-d because some smart asses mouth off perpetually in particular internet forums?


Not sure but some individuals seem to be on a "smart ass" mission of some sort. Pretty sure if it were the case that life, as we know it, were going to cease due to smart asses and their comments, it would have happened already.

> 175, 176

Apropos of what?

Back in the, say, 1950s or 1960s, things in the U.S. were smelling pretty bad, cultural-wise, in many ways, as they always had.

Skip forward to the year of our Lard 2012. Now, about 19 per cent of Americans in polls classify themselves as "non-religious" - or even something worse.

And speaking of something worse, new polling reveals that over half of all Americans now say they would vote for an atheist for POTUS.

I assume by 2030 those numbers will go from 19 per cent to probably 30 per cent and from just over 50 per cent to 75 or 80 per cent - as older generations disproportionally go on to their just rewards.

I will go on record as doubting that any ONE person had much to do with this paradigm or zeitgeist shift for the better, nor do I think ONE person will count for much regarding my predicted continued change, if my vision of an even more intellectually-advanced America actually comes to a fruition.

#168: Oh, that's right. The handful of people they drafted to fulfill roles here and there during peace time is what's missing from the military service these days and preventing them from building the superstitious golden age you want to get back to. Who'd have thunk that the solution to American pride was to draft Hawkeye Pierce into a MASH unit?

Speaking of MASH units or whatever--much about our military is no longer self sustaining. Many functions are now filled by private enterprise. Military has its own corpsmen still and its own doctors but the construction and maintenance of bases--the feeding of the troops are two areas that they no longer do. Prying them away from Haliburton or its subsidiaries will not be an easy thing--talking about govt. contracts--one might even say our military in some respects has incorporated itself into the multi-national trend that the rest of the country has been following since Reagan was in office. It's not just militarized police on our streets but it's a corporated military providing overseas policing in regions considered 'hot spots' to defend corporate interests. Well--what if this ideology doesn't quite square with the thoughts and beliefs of many of those who are going to be drafted into it?

It looks like there is some backlash against the militants in Libya, motivated because of a sense of appreciation for the US not because it is stupid to attack an embassy over a movie.

~178

I am sorry that you are having difficulty telling the difference between the failure of your evangelical efforts among "believers" and the shift of the uncommitted toward less prejudice. But I guess that faith lives eternal.

> 182

Was I supposed to be insulted by that?

Lame.

~183

Well, I didn't expect you to vomit, just because I pointed out a nonsequitur in your argument. But if you wish.......... And I do admire your deep faith and your frequent sermons. It must be wonderful to have such fervid involvement with one's view of the world.