Export thread

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed late Tuesday -- September 11 -- along with three other embassy staff after armed militants stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in retaliation for a California businessman's low-budget anti-Muslim film, Innocence of Muslims, that attacks Islam's prophet Muhammad.

What an interesting and coincidental choice of day for that to happen - and also have similar protests if not attacks in other arab nations on US embassies.

This is just the latest thin excuse, flimsy pretext to rail against the american infidel devil.

Obama's condemnation of the attacks was equaled by his condemnation of those who "hurt the religious feelings" of muslims with their mean and evil low budget movies.

If one of the points that the guy wanted to make was, Muslims are petulant children that murder at the flimsiest of excuses, then he proved himself right.

Now he needs to man up and not stay in hiding and take responsibility for his actions. Four good men died because of his Bullshit, Rabble Rousing.

Seriously?

Funny how any time somebody mocks Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism (please do not offer my god a peanut), buddhism, shintoism, etc... no embassies get invaded. Did the guy make an offensive video? Yes. Does that make him in ANY WAY RESPONSIBLE for the churlish, idiotic, senseless murder of innocents by borderline subhumans with mentalities rooted in a century with only a single digit? Not in the least.

As said, the stupid movie only provided the pretext for them to do what they wanted to do anyway: kill more americans on september 11.

The incredibly cynical part of me gives it 2 days, 3 at most, before the latest reports that the killings were actually carried out by "heavily armed Islamist radicals who infiltrated the protests as cover" become reports that Iran did this, and that this is just the "Red Line" that Israel needs to authorize a full-on war against Iran.

I do love Reince's claims yesterday that Obama sympathized with the attackers in Egypt. That's real fuckin' classy, Reince. You keep fighting the good fight and doing everything you can to paint a good, Christian, American president as a filthy America-hating Muslim; on 9/11, no less. You know, it's funny... but I've been searching for several hours now for any indication that Obama actually did say anything at all about "sympathizing" with the Egyptian attackers, and I can't find anything. Now, I did find the tweets that the US Embassy staff in Cairo deleted (because once something's online, it's never gone forever, no matter how badly you want it to be), that said that they condemned the abuse of the right to free speech to hurt the religious feelings of others; but if Reince wants to claim that, because some part of the government (an Embassy in Cairo) said something, then obviously the President believes the same thing, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to draw the conclusion that, regardless of whatever else Romney and Reince say, they must absolutely believe that there is a difference between legitimate rape, and consensual sex - which would be any sex that results in pregnancy.

Sorry guys, you can't have your cake and smear it in your opponent's face too.

GasBandit said:

Does that make him in ANY WAY RESPONSIBLE for the churlish, idiotic, senseless murder of innocents by borderline subhumans with mentalities rooted in a century with only a single digit? Not in the least.

Click to expand...

TIL, GasBandit thinks the Spanish Inquisition happened before the 10th century...

Gared said:

Sorry guys, you can't have your cake and smear it in your opponent's face too.

Click to expand...

You can if you regurgitate it all mangled up...

@Li3n said:

TIL, GasBandit thinks the Spanish Inquisition happened before the 10th century...

Click to expand...

TIL @Li3n doesn't realize that Islam was founded in the 7th century.

For anybody here who played EVE, one of the people killed was Vilerat. The community is now renaming a ton of stations in his memory: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/outposts/changes

Not even going to say anything else because I'll probably be howled out of the thread anyway. My sympathies go out to families of the deceased.

GasBandit said:

Obama's condemnation of the attacks was equaled by his condemnation of those who "hurt the religious feelings" of muslims with their mean and evil low budget movies.

Click to expand...

Wait, can I get a quote of what he said? Did he really spend time during the same statement about the murders of diplomats to ask people to suppress their right to free speech? Did he really suggest that as a nation we should live by the laws of the Muslim religion by forcing everyone to respect their prophet, regardless of our own views?

stienman said:

Wait, can I get a quote of what he said?

Click to expand...

No, to the best of my knowledge Obama said no such thing.

stienman said:

Wait, can I get a quote of what he said? Did he really spend time during the same statement about the murders of diplomats to ask people to suppress their right to free speech? Did he really suggest that as a nation we should live by the laws of the Muslim religion by forcing everyone to respect their prophet, regardless of our own views?

Click to expand...

It was not during obama's speech this morning, it was his state department's statement issued on the egypt protest-turned-embassy-invasion. I linked it in what you quoted.

September 11, 2012

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

Click to expand...

.

"Abuse freedom of speech to hurt feelings." My mohammadesque butthole.


Someone who puts my thoughts eloquently into words:
If a low budget film by a fringe Florida pastor carries more weight in the Muslim world than the words and deeds of the President of the United States then that tells me ... these efforts to engage the Muslim world are a monumental waste of time.

Relevant.

Edit; Link with more pictures of this protest.

Edit 2: changed the representative picture so that people don't miss the point.

Well, that's an encouraging picture, even if there's only a half dozen people in it.

Meanwhile, Obama throws the egypt embassy under the bus. The embassy doesn't speak for the president now? Was not authorized but came from the official source? I guess that 3:00 am call they were talking about in 2008 finally came, and nobody picked up the phone.



[DOUBLEPOST=1347482819][/DOUBLEPOST]

Yeah, tear down that american flag while you wear your adidas sweatpants, dudes.

sixpackshaker said:

No, to the best of my knowledge Obama said no such thing.

Click to expand...

Ah, it was the embassy that made the odd statement. And, predictably, Obama disassociated himself from it. It would have been monumentally stupid to have said it, or let it stand.

Attack drones headed towards Libya. Sucks to be a jihadi today.

GasBandit said:

Attack drones headed towards Libya. Sucks to be a jihadi today.

Click to expand...

Where do you get the word attack, when the first sentence in the article begins with "A senior U.S. official tells CNN that U.S. unmanned surveillance drones..."

Surveillance drones are cheaper to buy and operate than those meant to carry munitions, so attack drones are only used when you are actually actively attacking a target.[DOUBLEPOST=1347483557][/DOUBLEPOST]In b4 conspiracy theorists suggest that the US carried out the murders so they could convince Libya to allow drone overflights into their country...

GasBandit said:

TIL @Li3n doesn't realize that Islam was founded in the 7th century.

Click to expand...

And during the middle ages it was a way more tolerant religion that christianity (at least to the "peoples of the book")... while murdering others over hurt feeling is older then written history...

GasBandit said:

The embassy doesn't speak for the president now? Was not authorized but came from the official source? I guess that 3:00 am call they were talking about in 2008 finally came, and nobody picked up the phone.

Click to expand...

Should we start calling you Mike or did you just steal that?[DOUBLEPOST=1347483707][/DOUBLEPOST]

stienman said:

In b4 conspiracy theorists suggest that the US carried out the murders so they could convince Libya to allow drone overflights into their country...

Click to expand...

Well we still don't know if the guy behind the movie actually exists, so DUN DUN DUN DUN!!!!!

GasBandit said:

Yeah, tear down that american flag while you wear your adidas sweatpants, dudes.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and blame Anonymous, since there are more Guy Fawkes masks than Adidas sweats. It would only be ironic to burn the German Flag while wearing Adidas.

The fact that one can identify adidas sweatpants in a photograph says more about one's brand awareness than about the rioters.

sixpackshaker said:

Go ahead and blame Anonymous, since there are more Guy Fawkes masks than Adidas sweats. It would only be ironic to burn the German Flag while wearing Adidas.

Click to expand...

I see 2 guy fawkes masks, I see 2 pairs of adidas pants.

stienman said:

The fact that one can identify adidas sweatpants in a photograph says more about one's brand awareness than about the rioters.

Click to expand...

They're actually very identifiable. Dark/Navy blue with white stripes down the outer seam. It's a brand image they've been cultivating for decades.

I'm not even going to dignify @lien's asinine bullshit with a response.

If a low budget film by a fringe Florida pastor carries more weight in the Muslim world than the words and deeds of the President of the United States then that tells me ... these efforts to engage the Muslim world are a monumental waste of time.

Click to expand...

I've been trying to figure out how to adequately express my... concerns... over a comment like this for a while now; without just falling back on hyperbole. But after a couple of hours of consideration, I find myself strangely OK with this concept, so long as it can be applied unilaterally. For instance, Christians keep blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions; this has been going on for years, so we should stop trying to engage the whole of Christianity in any kind of debate. Republicans keep saying really horrific stuff about poor people, people without adequate health care, cheering when politicians say that we should just let poor people die, etc., so we should stop trying to engage them outright.

And the list goes on. In fact, no single group of people is immune from having some member, or small sect of members, who've tarnished the reputation of the entire group, so we should just stop engaging in any sort of social or civil activity. Anarchy is clearly the only way that we can move forward as individuals.

Adidas is GERMAN, dude.

GasBandit said:

I'm not even going to dignify @lien's asinine bullshit with a response.

Click to expand...

Well that's rude, i mean i dignified yours with one...

PS: The Mike thing was based on the fact that the 1st comment from that article you linked said the exact same thing about the 3am thing.

Gared said:

I've been trying to figure out how to adequately express my... concerns... over a comment like this for a while now; without just falling back on hyperbole. But after a couple of hours of consideration, I find myself strangely OK with this concept, so long as it can be applied unilaterally. For instance, Christians keep blowing up abortion clinics and killing doctors who perform abortions; this has been going on for years, so we should stop trying to engage the whole of Christianity in any kind of debate. Republicans keep saying really horrific stuff about poor people, people without adequate health care, cheering when politicians say that we should just let poor people die, etc., so we should stop trying to engage them outright.

Click to expand...

You had me through Christians, but I'd like to see some links on the "cheering that we should let poor people die" thing. Cause it just sounds like stock issue leftist hyperbole.

DarkAudit said:

Adidas is GERMAN, dude.

Click to expand...

Germans have more in common with the US than with Egypt, and I'd even be willing to bet more Americans wear Adidas products than Germans. Was Run DMC German?

BananaHands said:

Click to expand...

Welp, I googled it to see... we're like on page 4 or so.

Libyans in Benghazi took to the streets today to make it clear they do not condone the attack by militants on the U.S. consulate that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Their signs were full of apology and support: "Benghazi is against terrorism"; "Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans"; and "No No No to Al Qaeda."

Mohammed Magarief, Libya's interim leader, said that the National Congress and the transitional government "condemn the criminal aggression," and will make sure justice is served.

[DOUBLEPOST=1347554532][/DOUBLEPOST]More Pictures:

GasBandit said:

You had me through Christians, but I'd like to see some links on the "cheering that we should let poor people die" thing. Cause it just sounds like stock issue leftist hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Really, you hadn't heard about that one? That's odd... it happened exactly a year before yesterday at a GOP debate, back in the primary season, hosted by CNN and the Tea Party and mediated by Wolf Blitzer - made all of the newspapers and everything. Here are some sources. Oh, and for clarity's sake, I'm not talking about the politicians themselves, I'm talking about the audience members, the voters who keep electing those politicians, or trying to at least.

Raw Story - I don't really like Raw Story myself, it doesn't feel like a legitimate enough news source, so there's also
Yahoo News - Though most of the comments seem to be centered around what a Lenninist, left-wing slut the journalist is and how she must have been blowing her boyfriend at the time.

But, I suppose, since that little kerfuffle did include the Tea Party, and they are rather extreme as a group, I'll have to go with my fall-back reason to not want to deal with the Republican party or their voters at all - their statement to their voting base, and to the American population at large - that their number one priority, in a time when we have massive debt problems, 15+% poverty rates, 8.1% unemployment, a weak economy which is struggling to recover, a 12 year long war that's winding down but still managing to kill off our soldiers, a suicide epidemic among our armed forces, escalating tensions between one of our allies (Israel) and Iran, and everything else going on in this country and abroad; their number one priority isn't to fix any of those things through direct action. Their number one priority is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term president. And yes, I know you love sources, so here you go.

- Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell; 2010

Although, it seems that maybe the Senator McConnell was slightly off-message, since the number one priority according to Boehner a mere 8 months earlier was not to make Obama a 1 one-term president (or, of course, to do anything to fix all of those problems up there), but to repeal Obamacare.

They sure have wonderful priorities. Take the House Republican Leader in Pa., Mike Turzai as an example:


Why not spend a significant amount of time restricting the right to vote instead of focusing on issues?

Yes it's Fox News, but it's nothing biased, just about one of the people killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-to-fellow-gamers-assuming-dont-die-tonight/

Gared said:

Really, you hadn't heard about that one? That's odd... it happened exactly a year before yesterday at a GOP debate, back in the primary season, hosted by CNN and the Tea Party and mediated by Wolf Blitzer - made all of the newspapers and everything. Here are some sources. Oh, and for clarity's sake, I'm not talking about the politicians themselves, I'm talking about the audience members, the voters who keep electing those politicians, or trying to at least.

Raw Story - I don't really like Raw Story myself, it doesn't feel like a legitimate enough news source, so there's also
Yahoo News - Though most of the comments seem to be centered around what a Lenninist, left-wing slut the journalist is and how she must have been blowing her boyfriend at the time.

But, I suppose, since that little kerfuffle did include the Tea Party, and they are rather extreme as a group, I'll have to go with my fall-back reason to not want to deal with the Republican party or their voters at all - their statement to their voting base, and to the American population at large - that their number one priority, in a time when we have massive debt problems, 15+% poverty rates, 8.1% unemployment, a weak economy which is struggling to recover, a 12 year long war that's winding down but still managing to kill off our soldiers, a suicide epidemic among our armed forces, escalating tensions between one of our allies (Israel) and Iran, and everything else going on in this country and abroad; their number one priority isn't to fix any of those things through direct action. Their number one priority is to ensure that President Obama is a one-term president. And yes, I know you love sources, so here you go.

- Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell; 2010

Although, it seems that maybe the Senator McConnell was slightly off-message, since the number one priority according to Boehner a mere 8 months earlier was not to make Obama a 1 one-term president (or, of course, to do anything to fix all of those problems up there), but to repeal Obamacare.

Click to expand...

Ok, I watched the video, it was two guys who yelled "Yeah!" and then a handful of people laughed after wolf blitzer asked Ron Paul "should we just let them die?" After which Paul immediately said "No, I used to be a practicing doctor, we never turn anyone away" which was met by raucous applause.

The rest of what you (and Banana) are talking about is arguing over semantics and context - of course their number 1 priority is making sure President Obama doesn't get re-elected, they don't think they can accomplish anything else unless that is done first. Frankly, I wish it was their #1 priority - but I'm not so sure it really is.

BananaHands said:

They sure have wonderful priorities. Take the House Republican Leader in Pa., Mike Turzai as an example:

Click to expand...

And that is easily explained (and has been) by anyone without a political axe to grind as a badly phrased way of saying that he believes that preventing voter fraud will level the playing field enough to where Romney can win. He'd have to have been mentally disabled to come out and say what the equally brain-dead people keep insisting he's "really saying."

Like I said, I'm talking specifically about those people in the audience, not the politicians themselves. And frankly, if anyone's number one priority in a two-party representative democracy is, above all else, the removal of the other side's political leader from office, rather than working with that person to accomplish the goals of the many, they can fuck right off and I, personally, will feel absolutely no regret about refusing to deal with them or their supporters. If your view is going to be "I'd rather get rid of you than try to work with you to improve the lot of the entire country," don't be surprised or dismayed when my view is the same.

In a much less politicized view, however, the rate with which this bullshit is spreading is really starting to erode my patience and tolerance. We now have reports of protests at US embassies in Cairo (more protests), Yemen, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Gaza, Kashmir, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, and Egypt (outside of Cairo).

I get that you're pissed off. I get that this movie offended you. I can't get behind violent retaliation because you didn't like a movie. Stop attacking the government employees who had absolutely nothing to do with this, before this gets completely out of hand.

Gared said:

Like I said, I'm talking specifically about those people in the audience, not the politicians themselves. And frankly, if anyone's number one priority in a two-party representative democracy is, above all else, the removal of the other side's political leader from office, rather than working with that person to accomplish the goals of the many, they can fuck right off and I, personally, will feel absolutely no regret about refusing to deal with them or their supporters. If your view is going to be "I'd rather get rid of you than try to work with you to improve the lot of the entire country," don't be surprised or dismayed when my view is the same.

Click to expand...

Well, that last sentence is fair enough. The real issue here is a genuine conflict of two completely incompatible worldviews - collectivism and individualism. Those who feel that the cradle-to-grave government nanny state depicted in the Obama campaign's "Life of Julia" is comforting or horrifying. In today's political reality, there flat out is a great deal of territory over which there can be no "working together," no compromise. Your reaction is the natural progression of this reality. For too long has "work with us" been a euphemism for "give us what we want and shut up," and a great many people are sick of it.

You may have cancer and heart disease and blood pressure problems, but if somebody is trying to "fix" all that by putting leeches on you, your first priority needs to be to stop the quack from putting leeches on you.

Yeah, let the other world view bleed you instead.

sixpackshaker said:

Yeah, let the other world view bleed you instead.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that no one has a reasonable plan? That seems fairly fatalistic.

GasBandit said:

Well, that last sentence is fair enough. The real issue here is a genuine conflict of two completely incompatible worldviews - collectivism and individualism. Those who feel that the cradle-to-grave government nanny state depicted in the Obama campaign's "Life of Julia" is comforting or horrifying. In today's political reality, there flat out is a great deal of territory over which there can be no "working together," no compromise. Your reaction is the natural progression of this reality. For too long has "work with us" been a euphemism for "give us what we want and shut up," and a great many people are sick of it.

You may have cancer and heart disease and blood pressure problems, but if somebody is trying to "fix" all that by putting leeches on you, your first priority needs to be to stop the quack from putting leeches on you.

Click to expand...

Honestly, for several years now, I've found myself wondering if the real problem, in the absolute heart of the political divide between liberals and conservatives in America (and all of their off-shoots), isn't that this country is simply too big, too heavily populated, and too diverse for the government that was established 200+ years ago, when the population of the entire country was only 300k people more than the population of the metro area that I currently live in, to continue to govern using the same methods, rules, and values. Since the time when the Constitution was drafted, we've added massive amounts of new immigrants, all with their own personal values, fears, hopes, and moralities; not to mention their own religions and their own cultural heritages. Outside of immigration, we've added massive amounts of natural born citizens, whose viewpoints are just as widely divergent as those of the various immigrants. Technologies and tools, how we accomplish the things we've been doing since the founding of the country, have changed so much in some cases that it's nearly impossible to recognize that the new tools are working on the same projects as the old (case in point, your example of leeches).

And honestly, at the end of the day, I don't know that any of these divides can ever be sealed, and in some cases I'm not sure that they should be - where "sealing" a divide means subjugating one person's beliefs* in favor of another person's.

*Except in cases where people use their beliefs to hold other people down. Racism, for instance.

I've often thought the same myself. The growing cultural schisms have led to growing political schisms the like of which we haven't seen since the mid 19th century. But when I point out that at some point, something's going to have to give, they call me "chicken little."

stienman said:

So you're saying that no one has a reasonable plan? That seems fairly fatalistic.

Click to expand...

Cutting Taxes and Increasing Spending is the alternate plan, so yep WE'RE DOOOOOOOMED...

The anti-Muslim "movie" that sparked the violence in Libya and Egypt may not even be real.

GasBandit said:

The anti-Muslim "movie" that sparked the violence in Libya and Egypt may not even be real.

Click to expand...

Read this on CSM yesterday. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily say that the movie isn't real - it's obvious that the footage, or at least some of it, does exist. I think they'd get a lot more mileage out of just reporting that the final release product and the film that was shot were wildly different animals; and that the actors and crew themselves had no idea what the final product was going to be - for those who don't want to read the article, it states that the cast and crew signed on to do one film about life in the Middle East in ancient times, shot the whole thing, and then in editing one guy (a former meth cook and scam artist named Nakoula Bassely Nakoula) dubbed over most of the film to make it about how terrible Islam is instead. The actors are reported to be pissed, and the full cast and crew are reported to have signed on to an apology to everyone offended by the film because it's not what they were involved with. But still, the film does exist.

This entire thing, the whole situation, is fucking insane to me.

GasBandit said:

I've often thought the same myself. The growing cultural schisms have led to growing political schisms the like of which we haven't seen since the mid 19th century. But when I point out that at some point, something's going to have to give, they call me "chicken little."

Click to expand...

Of course something has to give at some point - this entire country is cooking right now, it's just that some parts of the country were frozen when they were put in and haven't really gotten as hot as other parts yet. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything that can be done to stop something from happening. Even more unfortunately, I don't really think that whatever event (civil war, secession, what-have-you) eventually happens will do any good. I'm not sure that, as a species, we can live together in any group that has any members with any ideals different from any of the other members, for any significant length of time, without everything eventually going to hell in a hand-basket or the group splintering off. And, unfortunately, we've pretty much already carved up this country into enough parcels that it's going to be incredibly difficult to move far enough away from the people that certain groups disagree with. That, and as a nation - or perhaps as a species - we've become far too attached to specific plots of dirt. In some ways, animals are much smarter than we are. If a wolf pack gets too big and starts having infighting, the younger group will leave, travel away from their homelands, and set up a new home range. On the other hand, certain segments of our population keep fighting over the same bit of land, over and over again, because the land itself is more important to them than their own lives.

At this point, I can't help but wonder if the only way forward will be if we manage to master the technology needed for teraforming other planets and then groups that can't get along can just leave, and even then the issue would be the same: "My family has lived here for 3 generations, why should I have to leave because you changed the rules regarding who can live here and who can't, after I settled here?"

Gared said:

And honestly, at the end of the day, I don't know that any of these divides can ever be sealed, and in some cases I'm not sure that they should be - where "sealing" a divide means subjugating one person's beliefs* in favor of another person's.

*Except in cases where people use their beliefs to hold other people down. Racism, for instance.

Click to expand...

And some people divide even in those realms. So it becomes "we need to tolerate all beliefs... except a few that I think are key." Which is pretty much the same as not tolerating at all. It really, really sucks tolerating things. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. So where do you go with that? Hell, in a less inflammatory way, social services themselves are sometimes seen as ways of keeping people down, but others see them (to various degrees) as 100% essential. So now what?


Ya I know that's more open-ended and rhetorical, but still, you see why the problem is so damned hard. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's never that simple, as the quote I made above is trying to say.

Eriol said:

And some people divide even in those realms. So it becomes "we need to tolerate all beliefs... except a few that I think are key." Which is pretty much the same as not tolerating at all. It really, really sucks tolerating things. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. So where do you go with that? Hell, in a less inflammatory way, social services themselves are sometimes seen as ways of keeping people down, but others see them (to various degrees) as 100% essential. So now what?


Ya I know that's more open-ended and rhetorical, but still, you see why the problem is so damned hard. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's never that simple, as the quote I made above is trying to say.

Click to expand...

Yep, I'm with you 100%. There is nothing easy about this issue. I'd be willing to bet, regardless of how frequently Gas and I butt heads, or of how often Gas posts about something and I just refuse to reply because I don't want to get into it right then, that the two of us have a lot more in common politically than we have differences; but that doesn't mean that those differences aren't as important to us, if not more important to us, than all of the commonalities are combined, and it doesn't necessarily mean that either of us are wrong. There's so much time spent telling everyone to look past each others' differences, and embrace our similarities, but at the end of the day, it's our differences that make us who we are as individuals, and as long as those differences aren't hurting anyone* we shouldn't be punished for being who we are by being forced to let go of our differences.

Regarding tolerance of all beliefs, my favorite example of how badly the tolerance train of thought fails, is Christmas time. If we say that allowing Christians to say "Merry Christmas" is intolerant of other people's religions, which may not recognize Christmas, then by telling them that they can't say it, aren't we equally failing to tolerate Christianity? Wouldn't it be much better if we just accepted their religion, and took a wish for us to have a merry Christmas as being the same as being told "have a nice day" instead of immediately taking it to be an assault on our religious beliefs or lack there of?

*Even "aren't hurting anyone" is a loaded concept, since you're taking one person's or one group's definition of what's hurting someone and what's not hurting them, and then you wind up in the exact mess we're in right now.

Gared said:

Regarding tolerance of all beliefs, my favorite example of how badly the tolerance train of thought fails, is Christmas time. If we say that allowing Christians to say "Merry Christmas" is intolerant of other people's religions, which may not recognize Christmas, then by telling them that they can't say it, aren't we equally failing to tolerate Christianity? Wouldn't it be much better if we just accepted their religion, and took a wish for us to have a merry Christmas as being the same as being told "have a nice day" instead of immediately taking it to be an assault on our religious beliefs or lack there of?

*Even "aren't hurting anyone" is a loaded concept, since you're taking one person's or one group's definition of what's hurting someone and what's not hurting them, and then you wind up in the exact mess we're in right now.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much exactly my view on "Merry Christmas" and I'd take the same view if somebody wished me a "Happy (insert holiday here)" that I didn't observe myself.


As for the first part of your reply that I didn't quote, it reminds me of something I heard a while ago: "A Heretic is somebody who believes almost everything the same as you do."

Frank said:

This entire thing, the whole situation, is fucking insane to me.

Click to expand...

The only thing that goes through my brain reading any of these stories is "stupid stupid stupid stupid"

I can't believe people actually died over all of this.

The Onion wins. NSFW.

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

Frank said:

This entire thing, the whole situation, is fucking insane to me.

Click to expand...

Well, the protests themselves that are happening in several muslim countries are of course nothing new, and we've seen several of them in the past, for much the same reasons as these ones. As I've understood, religion plays a slightly different role in muslim societies than it plays in the secular societies of the west, and in general the idea of fundamental, automatic and inalienable rights of the individual (e.g. free speech) is a western concept, and does not mesh one hundred percent with regular islamic culture.

As to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, that seems to be simply an anti-US faction using a protest as cover to launch their attack. Apparently not endorsed, seeing the condemnations from government officials, the protests of support from ordinary citizens, and local security (both hired consulate guards and seemingly a libyan army patrol) who tried to fight off the attack.

I think the thing that is boggling my mind is how many people have heard who are saying they want this video banned and the maker jailed, etc.

I don't say this often with any level of seriousness but... This is America you dipshits.

Espy said:

I think the thing that is boggling my mind is how many people have heard who are saying they want this video banned and the maker jailed, etc.

I don't say this often with any level of seriousness but... This is America you dipshits.

Click to expand...

I don't want to see him jailed, quite the opposite really. I want to see him living out in the open. He started a shit-storm that he knew would happen. And because of that there are several dead people in the world. Let him live with the consequences.

sixpackshaker said:

I don't want to see him jailed, quite the opposite really. I want to see him living out in the open. He started a shit-storm that he knew would happen. And because of that there are several dead people in the world. Let him live with the consequences.

Click to expand...

Which is something the South Park guys were willing to do for example. But the almighty Comedy Central PC division wasn't.

sixpackshaker said:

I don't want to see him jailed, quite the opposite really. I want to see him living out in the open. He started a shit-storm that he knew would happen. And because of that there are several dead people in the world. Let him live with the consequences.

Click to expand...

Holy Shit you actually believe that someone who made a movie is responsible for this. Even worse you feel the appropriate response is mob justice and public lynching. Wow, just wow.

If you don't realize it sixpackshaker you're justifying the actions of those nutjobs and approving of similar behavior. If you do realize it, well I have nothing to say but go fuck yourself.

Covar said:

Holy Shit you actually believe that someone who made a movie is responsible for this. Even worse you feel the appropriate response is mob justice and public lynching. Wow, just wow.

If you don't realize it sixpackshaker you're justifying the actions of those nutjobs and approving of similar behavior. If you do realize it, well I have nothing to say but go fuck yourself.

Click to expand...

FUCK YOU Covar . If you know a baby is going to cry when you take its candy, then you are responsible for making the baby cry when you do it.[DOUBLEPOST=1347634312][/DOUBLEPOST]

Espy said:

Which is something the South Park guys were willing to do for example. But the almighty Comedy Central PC division wasn't.

Click to expand...

Hopefully if they did run it, they would not change their names and run for the hills.

My god, that's the exact same thing! How could I not have seen it before?! We need to find this mass murdering movie maker and string him up over a tree by his neck! The coward.

I was too general in my first post in this thread, but there are people in the Mid-East that are petulant kids. But when they get upset they murder, burn and pillage. If you know their hot-button and push it, you will hold some responsibility. I don't want to see him harmed myself, but I am pretty sure he will get the van Gough treatment from some crazy.

He has not broken any laws in America, but he will be facing retribution for the rest of his days.

Obviously anyone that expresses themselves in any way that offends others should be held out in the open so that those offended can hunt them down and beat them.

Oh wait, no, because that's fucking stupid.

So they should hide like cowards to let others die in their place...

Smart, but sucks for the rest of the world.

sixpackshaker said:

So they should hide like cowards to let others die in their place...

Smart, but sucks for the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

The problem shouldn't lie with those that make the statements. The actions of radicals should not dictate the lives of free people. That's like telling women they shouldn't dress provocatively because they might get raped.

sixpackshaker said:

FUCK YOU Covar . If you know a baby is going to cry when you take its candy, then you are responsible for making the baby cry when you do it.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that you're doubling down on calling muslims petulant children, and asserting that they can't be held responsible for their own actions because they are as unthinking infants?

I can't agree. I agree they're acting as if they were unthinking infants, but the truth is they are grown, functioning adults and must be held responsible for their own actions. No religion (nor any of its adherents) gets to decide that mocking that religion is justification for violence, much less murder. That notion is over 1000 years out of date.

I have the right to stand on national TV and declare "Churchill was right, Islam in humans is like rabies in a dog, and mohammed was a liar, a pedophile and a criminal" and any violent action taken against me is unjustified and solely the fault of those who commit the violence. That's what it means to be civilized.

Not quite, it is like the kid in high school that punches people that say "yo momma" to him. Then you go up to him and say "yo momma" then you hold some responsibility for your action, and the pay off is getting punched in the face.[DOUBLEPOST=1347641037][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:

So what you're saying is that you're doubling down on calling muslims petulant children, and asserting that they can't be held responsible for their own actions because they are as unthinking infants?

I can't agree. I agree they're acting as if they were unthinking infants, but the truth is they are grown, functioning adults and must be held responsible for their own actions. No religion (nor any of its adherents) gets to decide that mocking that religion is justification for violence, much less murder. That notion is over 1000 years out of date.

I have the right to stand on national TV and declare "Churchill was right, Islam in humans is like rabies in a dog, and mohammed was a liar, a pedophile and a criminal" and any violent action taken against me is unjustified and solely the fault of those who commit the violence. That's what it means to be civilized.

Click to expand...

So the person that yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater holds zero, zip, zilch, nada responsibility for 20 people getting trampled. It is completely the fault of the panicking people in the back of the crowd pushing that is at fault.

Nowhere have I said that the rioters hold no responsibility for what happened, just that the person that started it, does hold some responsibility.

Or,

Buzz Aldrin was charged with punching that guy in the face.[DOUBLEPOST=1347641117][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ravenpoe said:

Obviously anyone that expresses themselves in any way that offends others should be held out in the open so that those offended can hunt them down and beat them.

Oh wait, no, because that's fucking stupid.

Click to expand...

Well then after the beating, murder, there is a place for those that commit the act, called prison.

GasBandit said:

I have the right to stand on national TV and declare "Churchill was right, Islam in humans is like rabies in a dog, and mohammed was a liar, a pedophile and a criminal" and any violent action taken against me is unjustified and solely the fault of those who commit the violence. That's what it means to be civilized.

Click to expand...

And you have the right to say: ''Muslims are subhuman scum" too but that doesn't make it a good thing. Racism is not cool. Insulting religion is not cool. .Muslims believe that you shouldn't create images of God or Prophets, whether they are positive or negative. Most muslims will denounce a picture by saying ''hey please don't do that, it goes against the rules I observe in my daily life." As shown by the image I posted and the images I linked in the same post. Some, like the armed men that attacked the compound in Benghazi, will exercise that denunciation more violently. Are those attackers to blame? Yes, certainly. Does that mean that the guy that made that video should observe no reprimand? Absolutely not.

I mean, you guys are fond of insulting the Westboro Baptist Church, too, even if all they do is stand at funerals with signs that say ''God hates fags'' and whatnot, and plenty of people say they should get punched in the face or whatever. So why is this guy (I don't know his name, sorry), insulting the faith of the islam, being kept on a pedestal of free speech?

Wahad said:

And you have the right to say: ''Muslims are subhuman scum" too but that doesn't make it a good thing. Racism is not cool. Insulting religion is not cool. .Muslims believe that you shouldn't create images of God or Prophets, whether they are positive or negative. Most muslims will denounce a picture by saying ''hey please don't do that, it goes against the rules I observe in my daily life." As shown by the image I posted and the images I linked in the same post. Some, like the armed men that attacked the compound in Benghazi, will exercise that denunciation more violently. Are those attackers to blame? Yes, certainly. Does that mean that the guy that made that video should observe no reprimand? Absolutely not.

I mean, you guys are fond of insulting the Westboro Baptist Church, too, even if all they do is stand at funerals with signs that say ''God hates fags'' and whatnot, and plenty of people say they should get punched in the face or whatever. So why is this guy (I don't know his name, sorry), insulting the faith of the islam, being kept on a pedestal of free speech?

Click to expand...

In regards to the wbc, I've always maintained that while I don't like them, they gave every right to say what they want to say. Certainly no one needs to murder them.

This is basic stuff.

Ravenpoe said:

In regards to the wbc, I've always maintained that while I don't like them, they gave every right to say what they want to say. Certainly no one needs to murder them.

This is basic stuff.

Click to expand...

No, and obviously this video dude shouldn't be murdered either, that's silly and I'm not saying that. Now I don't know the exceptions to freedom of speech in the US, but over here, when a government official by the name of Geert Wilders made a film (Fitna) that called the Koran/Qu'ran a book of murder and evil, he was brought to trial. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but there are exceptions, under the name of Hate Speech, for which people can be prosecuted or taken other legal action against. Is this not the same in the US?

Nope, Americans can be as offensive as they like. As long as they don't put anyone in direct harm by their words, or don't threaten anybody.

Okay. In that case, Americans, ignore what I just said and continue to decry the entirety of the islam faith to your pleasure. Wahad, signing out.

As long as I'm not threatening you, my speech is protected under the first amendment.

There are some exceptions, such as telling falsehoods, slander, libel, etc, but those generally aren't applicable in matters of opinion.

sixpackshaker said:

Nope, Americans can be as offensive as they like. As long as they don't put anyone in direct harm by their words, or don't threaten anybody.

Click to expand...

They aren't allowed to incite violence ether. A white supremacist plainly telling his supporters to go out and assault or murder black people would be thrown in jail lickity split.

AshburnerX said:

They aren't allowed to incite violence ether. A white supremacist plainly telling his supporters to go out and assault or murder black people would be thrown in jail lickity split.

Click to expand...

That's covered by what I said.

See... I've always kind of looked at Free Speech as a two-edged sword. I have the right to say any god damn thing I want, so long as I'm not threatening you. On the other hand, you have the right to be upset about anything I say, and if I say something really stupid, and it pisses you off, and you come hit me, well then, maybe I shouldn't have said what I said. Doesn't mean it's not my right to say it. Just means that, sometimes, like so many other things in life, there may be negative consequences for my actions. After all, all that the first amendment really protects, is my speech from the US Government. My right to free speech doesn't protect me from some random guy that I've pissed off, who decided to hit me. I mean, sure, I could try holding up a copy of the constitution and bill of rights as he pulled his fist back in preparation of hitting me... but there's not a whole lot of good that the paper would do, unless I had a whole lot of copies bound in a book.

Now, like others here, I am in no way saying that Naboukas Bessaley Naboukas is responsible for the deaths of the US Ambassador and his staff, or anyone else who has been or will be killed by protesters, police officers, security forces, or the armed force that actually attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi, or at any of the other embassies or consulates around the world where protests are breaking out. No one can really be blamed for that other than the people carrying out the protests and the attacks. But, Naboukas Bessaley Naboukas is an Egyptian-American, he is a Coptic Christian, and he does have experience living in a primarily Muslim country. He did know what kind of reaction his film was going to get, and he made it and released it anyway, either with no thought of what the consequences would be for other people because of his actions, or because he knew exactly what those consequences would be and once they happened he'd be able to stand around on his moral high-ground and say "See? See? I told you Muslims were <whatever message he actually had in the movie>! I told you, and you didn't believe me. Well now, our diplomats are dead, because of Islam."

Now, because his speech is protected, and because he didn't actually threaten anyone, the US Government has no grounds to punish him criminally, and they'd best keep their hands off of him. But, because it can be argued that he knew what kind of reaction his film was going to get, he could be held liable in civil suits brought by the families of the people who were killed, because that isn't the government taking action against you, that's getting hit in the face for calling some muscle-bound guy's wife a bad name.

sixpackshaker said:

That's covered by what I said.

Click to expand...

Just clarifying.

Gared said:

See... I've always kind of looked at Free Speech as a two-edged sword. I have the right to say any god damn thing I want, so long as I'm not threatening you. On the other hand, you have the right to be upset about anything I say, and if I say something really stupid, and it pisses you off, and you come hit me, well then, maybe I shouldn't have said what I said.

Click to expand...

And I'd cut you off and change you at the "and it pisses you off, and you are not allowed to come hit me." Period. That's called being civil. Even when somebody incites you, you stop. Actually hitting the other, or killing them, or anything else is unacceptable. I'd rather follow Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (In the wikiquote page, it says how this is often mis-attributed to Voltaire, though she was summarizing what she thought his attitudes were) Far different than saying it's OK to punch somebody for what they said, even if they're thrown in jail later.

It is a predictable outcome. If y then x.

I'm sorry, I forgot that no one in this world has ever hit anyone else, ever; because hitting people is wrong.

sixpackshaker said:

It is a predictable outcome. If y then x.

Click to expand...

Once again you are dismissing free will and personal responsibility. That it is a predictable outcome that disparaging islam causes muslims to murder is a condemnation of islam, not disparaging speech. The choice to commit violence is a choice.

And more and more evidence is being found that this was a long mulled and premeditated choice, not a spontaneous act of rage. A planned, calculated, organized effort of violence and murder.

Where do I recuse anyone of their actions?

Each and every time some one publicly burns a Koran, makes a cartoon about Mohamed... etc... violence happens. So the people that spark the radicals into action hold some responsibility for what happens.

sixpackshaker said:

Where do I recuse anyone of their actions?

Each and every time some one publicly burns a Koran, makes a cartoon about Mohamed... etc... violence happens. So the people that spark the radicals into action hold some responsibility for what happens.

Click to expand...

Each and every girl who dresses provocatively holds some responsibility for the subsequent sexual assault?



In the news today -


Well, we knew the violent protests against the now infamous anti-Muslim video weren't going to end with a statement from President Obama -- thousands of demonstrators currently are assaulting U.S. and Western diplomatic compounds in Tunisia, Sudan, and Yemen, and authorities are trying to quell the attacks with tear gas and guns.

Since Tuesday's fatal aggression by militants in Benghazi and Cairo, protests have spread to Afghanistan, India, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, and Qatar.

The message of the American flag-burning protesters seems to be universal: "Death to America."

In Iraq, one banner read: "Freedom doesn't mean offending two billion Muslims."

Edit - And this is my 10,000th post, apparently.

GasBandit said:

Since Tuesday's fatal aggression by militants in Benghazi and Cairo, protests have spread to Afghanistan, India, Bahrain, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Kuwait, Syria, Pakistan, and Qatar.

The message of the American flag-burning protesters seems to be universal: "Death to America."

Click to expand...

Don't forget Israel, Sudan, London, Yemen, and Alexandria and other parts of Egypt. Oh yeah, and Tunisia.

GasBandit said:

Each and every girl who dresses provocatively holds some responsibility for the subsequent sexual assault?

Click to expand...

Only if it is the law in Rapeymcraperstan.

sixpackshaker said:

Only if it is the law in Rapeymcraperstan.

Click to expand...

And now you are arguing that law dictates correctness? Simply by virtue of it being law?

GasBandit said:

And now you are arguing that law dictates correctness? Simply by virtue of it being law?

Click to expand...

not so much law as being in a land of raping rapists.

The moral relativism. It burns.

sixpackshaker said:

It is a predictable outcome. If y then x.

Click to expand...

So, you agree that if people kill off enough abortion providers on a regular basis, then anyone who provides abortion services should accept the responsibility of their actions? Might makes right?

You are essentially saying that if some crazy cult in west africa sacrifices a child every time some infant is baptized into the catholic church, then those performing baptisms, getting baptized, or having their children baptized are responsible for the death of the child in africa.

That is simply ludicrous. The murderers are responsible for the deaths. They could have chosen the tide height at a given time every day, or the appearance of the moon at twilight, or the number of fish the village caught that day. THEY chose to cause the murder, and THEY chose the conditions.

Besides, there are hundreds and probably thousands of offensive-to-muslims words, images, etc created every year and only a tiny fraction of them lead to violence. Retaliation is spotty at best. There is no "if y then x". At best there's a "If y, then rarely x" - and you're saying that we need to stop all forms of this type of expression just to avoid the violence of another person on the one in a thousand chance that they decide it's worth being violent for?

Halforums Political boards, where situational relevancy goes to die.

Abortion Providers know that they are in danger from the work they do. They don't hide under a rock every time some nutjob makes a threat against their lives.

It is not about might makes right. It is cause and effect. I don't let anyone off for their actions, ANYONE.

The only morals I am talking about is for the instigator that sits back and cowers after he gets people angry.

It is just not innocent to inflame people, even if the inflamed are overly touchy and need to get over themselves.

Well. At least you're consistent in your convictions, I'll give you that. Even if they are incredibly misguided.

Ok, NOW can I make note of the adidas sweatpants?

GasBandit said:

Ok, NOW can I make note of the adidas sweatpants?

Click to expand...

Yes, now it's completely appropriate. Especially since Germany hasn't even been involved in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, if I recall correctly (which I may not), the last time the Germans were involved in a war in the Middle East or Northern Africa, Rommel was involved.

Now we just need pics.[DOUBLEPOST=1347659678][/DOUBLEPOST]Germans have/had 5,000 troops in Afghanistan.

See, this I don't agree with, on the part of the government. (Google has rejected a request by the federal government that they reconsider whether or not the video violates the ToS of YouTube).

They also had at least 50 dead soldiers.

sixpackshaker said:

Now we just need pics.[DOUBLEPOST=1347659678][/DOUBLEPOST]Germans have/had 5,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

See, I genuinely didn't know that. Last I'd heard, they'd refused to provide any troops for either war.

Gared said:

See, I genuinely didn't know that. Last I'd heard, they'd refused to provide any troops for either war.

Click to expand...

It is not so much that they refused to send troops, but the constitution that we wrote for them after the war did not allow them to...[DOUBLEPOST=1347660059][/DOUBLEPOST]I am not too sure when it changed.

On one hand, you don't want to promote the idea that simply offending islam results in moral or possibly even criminal liability.

On the other, I can't help but feel something's not quite right when the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff needs to go hat-in-hand to ask some damn Florida pastor not to undermine the foreign policy of a world power. And get a non-committal response.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, called a Florida pastor on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has been linked to violent protests - including one that ended with the death of America's envoy to Libya.

"In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it will cause," Dempsey's spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, told Reuters.

U.S. military officials are concerned that the film could inflame tensions in Afghanistan, where 74,000 U.S. troops are fighting. The Taliban called on Afghans on Wednesday to prepare for a fight against Americans and urged insurgents to "take revenge" on U.S. soldiers over the film.

Click to expand...

According to the news here, the attack on the german embassy in Sudan is not directly related to that movie. There have been some anti-islam-demonstrations in germany by right partys where caricatures of Mohammed were used and that ignited the mob. Luckily the embassys staff was prepared for this, so no one was killed.

The Sudanese foreign office even demanded chancellor Merkel to ban the use of Mohammed caricatures in germany.

Seriously, whats up with these people. Thousands of muslims have died in Syria and the reaction in the middle east is basically "whatever". Some stupid movie and caricatures depreciate their religion and the shit is on fire. I guess Assad is really happy right now for the diversion.

Fucking insanity.

I welcome the end of the world. Wipe our awful species from existence.

For GasBandit

Sigh...

Puma's German too.

DarkAudit said:

Sigh...

Puma's German too.

Click to expand...

And?

And it's not American. The end.

DarkAudit said:

And it's not American. The end.

Click to expand...

Ok?

You do realize the German Embassy was attacked as well and why those brands are in the picture right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/sudan-embassies-attack_n_1883749.html

Let me lay this on ya then...

Every stitch was made in China. Was the Chinese embassy attacked?

DarkAudit said:

Let me lay this on ya then...

Every stitch was made in China. Was the Chinese embassy attacked?

Click to expand...

No, it's the Chinese who are busy doing the attacking right now. Bazinga. Topical.

Funny fact about Puma and Adidas,Puma was founded after a falling out between the two brothers who owned Adidas and one brother(i think the younger one) left Adidas and opened Puma in the same town.Its crazy down there.You are either an Adidas person or a Puma one and they hate each other.

LordRendar said:

Funny fact about Puma and Adidas,Puma was founded after a falling out between the two brothers who owned Adidas and one brother(i think the younger one) left Adidas and opened Puma in the same town.Its crazy down there.You are either an Adidas person or a Puma one and they hate each other.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a reason to riot!

Well, I like my steak well done, and anyone who cooks their steak any less than that is obviously a bloodthirsty savage.

stienman said:

Well, I like my steak well done, and anyone who cooks their steak any less than that is obviously a bloodthirsty savage.

Click to expand...

You... you MONSTER! I'll bet you wear sauna pants too!

bhamv3 said:

You... you MONSTER! I'll bet you wear sauna pants too!

Click to expand...

Well, I read the first review on Amazon, and how could I resist? I'm now a committed sauna pants wearer. See if you don't become one after reading this excellent review:


http://www.amazon.com/review/R1QI0B...il-glance&nodeID=3375251&store=sporting-goods

Now sources are saying that, despite initial claims by the Obama administration, there weren’t any “spontaneous” protests outside of the US embassy in Benghazi. In other words, there was no outcry over a movie, as the administration would like you to believe. It means that the attack and subsequent killing of four Americans, including the US ambassador, was planned in advance and the whole anti-Islamic movie bit was a excuse, not a reason.

So basically it went like this, from what I'm reading and hearing -

Terrorists: "Ok guys, the plan for 9/11: Storm the embassies, kill the ambassadors! We're all Osama, Obama! We're all Osama, Obama!"

Obama: "Oh no! You guys must be mad about this youtube video nobody's ever heard of or watched!"

Entire Arab World: "What video?" (click). "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

Protester dies from smoke inhalation from burning US flag.

-edit-

Hmm, wait a minute; reading a comment that says CNN called the hospital and got a denial. May be overly sensationalized story.

We chose not to legislate against flag burning.

We chose to legislate that all American flags include a lethal dose of HCN when burned.

stienman said:

We chose not to legislate against flag burning.

We chose to legislate that all American flags include a lethal dose of HCN when burned.

Click to expand...

The Boy Scouts have a set protocol for flag disposal...

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

So this happened:

The militia suspected of killing the US ambassador to Libya nearly two weeks ago has been driven out of its base in the eastern city of Benghazi.
Police and protesters stormed the HQ of the Islamist group Ansar al-Sharia during a day of demonstrations against the power of militant groups.

Witnesses say supporters of Ansar al-Sharia gathered outside its Benghazi headquarters, in front of the crowd, waving black and white banners.
They fired into the air to try to disperse the protesters, but fled with their weapons after the base was surrounded by waves of people shouting "No to militias".

Buildings and a car were set alight and fighters evicted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

First time for everything. I'm bloody proud of the protesters.

Good on them.

Another "spontaneous video review," this time in Yemen.

Jay Carney ripped a new one by Trey Gowdy. To summarize, I was correct before - nobody'd ever heard of this video before the Obama administration started talking about it on TV every chance they got. There wasn't ever actually a "protest" in Benghazi, it was an attack from the onset, orchestrated and premeditated, with heavy weapons and "warning signs" found in advance. Lies upon lies upon lies.

What's the point? This shit is so bizarrely fucked up.

Frank said:

What's the point? This shit is so bizarrely fucked up.

Click to expand...

The point is that under the President's watch, militant islamist terrorists attacked a US embassy and killed the staff in it on the anniversary of 9/11 and he and his underlings lied their pants off both on national TV and before congressional committee, and finger-pointed at a video nobody had ever heard of (but once they did, it sparked even more riots) to cover their own incompetence until they got caught out in it.

At least nobody died when watergate hotel was broken into.

Why is it that the one thing American security always seems to lack is foresight? We have the best tools in the world to prevent just about anything, but shit keeps happening because no one is willing to pay for vigilance. This isn't a Red or Blue issue... it's a full-on ignorance and arrogance issue and EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT/CONGRESS IS GUILTY OF IT.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-egypt-usa-protest-idUSBRE88A11N20120911

Or you know, there was a protest next door on the same day...

sixpackshaker said:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-egypt-usa-protest-idUSBRE88A11N20120911

Or you know, there was a protest next door on the same day...

Click to expand...

The fact that they were chanting "We're all Osama, Obama" as they did so, days after the Democrat Party national convention repeatedly crowed how Obama killed Osama, has some people thinking the video is a red herring for that, as well.[DOUBLEPOST=1349990003][/DOUBLEPOST]

AshburnerX said:

Why is it that the one thing American security always seems to lack is foresight? We have the best tools in the world to prevent just about anything, but shit keeps happening because no one is willing to pay for vigilance. This isn't a Red or Blue issue... it's a full-on ignorance and arrogance issue and EVERY AMERICAN PRESIDENT/CONGRESS IS GUILTY OF IT.

Click to expand...

Pay for it? This, despite what state department CYA is claiming, is not a case of underfunding. A 10% budget cut (and remember, in washington a cut just means a smaller increase than they want) does not mean an embassy that had repeatedly requested increased security in the face of hints of an upcoming attack only gets 3 security personnel.

So, are we trying to turn this into ye olde October Surprise or something?

jwhouk said:

So, are we trying to turn this into ye olde October Surprise or something?

Click to expand...

Pretty much only Fox News cares about it

We already got the October Surprise... it just happened in September. The 47% remark is going to gaunt Romney till the election unless he can keep killing it in the debates. Obama really only needs to give his A-game during the final debate to energize his base.

Clearly Obama's performance in the debate was calculated to allow Biden to bitchslap Ryan to his hearts content without making him seem like an ass, but as someone trying to recover ground: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19912954

I think i like Biden now...

@Li3n said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19912954

Click to expand...

Once again, with the whole "enough fissile material for 5 bombs" thing. It's nonsense. Any actual nuclear engineer will tell you that. Completely ridiculous. On par with saying the Atlantic Ocean has enough water to make a lot of beer: technically true, not a plausible reality. They either need to enrich that uranium another 70-odd percent, in which case they can make high-yield bombs, which they're incapable of doing, or they have enough for about 1/5th of a bomb at the current quality - a low-yield, high-radiation bomb that they couldn't actualyl use anywhere interesting.
Saying Iran "has enough fissile material to make five bombs" is just as ridiculous as saying Obama is a Jew.

I always found it funny that North Korea actually misfired a nuke shortly after Iraq got invaded because "they totally had WMD's you guys" and all they got was some food aid, and yet people still buy this "we can't let nation X get nukes" crap...

Charlie Don't Surf said:

Pretty much only Fox News cares about it

Click to expand...

That's because every other network is in the tank for Obama. If you're going to spout banalities, so can I.

AshburnerX said:

We already got the October Surprise... it just happened in September. The 47% remark is going to gaunt Romney till the election unless he can keep killing it in the debates. Obama really only needs to give his A-game during the final debate to energize his base.

Click to expand...

I think you overstate that. A lot of us think what has riled the left up so much about that mark is how close to home it hit. It's true that at least 47% of this country is petrified at the thought of having to take personal responsibility for their own life and choices.

I love how Laura Ingram goes on and on about bringing our troops home from a pointless war.... while she supports a candidate who's pretty openly saying he wants to go to war again with multiple countries.

Gilgamesh said:

I love how Laura Ingram goes on and on about bringing our troops home from a pointless war.... while she supports a candidate who's pretty openly saying he wants to go to war again with multiple countries.

Click to expand...

Laura Frickin' Ingraham. The only person more irritating on the radio is the lady they call in when Ingraham takes a day off. (google google google) Her name is Tammy Bruce, and she sounds like a screeching Helen Lovejoy engaging in tribadism with an actual harpy.

I really don't know where I get more laughs. Colbert/Stewart who intentionally try and be funny or Laura/Rush/Hannity when they get -serious-.

GasBandit said:

That's because every other network is in the tank for Obama. If you're going to spout banalities, so can I.
.

Click to expand...

What I said was a fact, and what you said had as much credibility as "Obama secret muslim"

Charlie Don't Surf said:

What I said was a fact, and what you said had as much credibility as "Obama secret muslim"

Click to expand...

The day I let you lecture me on credibility is the day Biden takes laughing lessons from droopy the dog.

Schmoyoho always delivers -

GasBandit said:

The day I let you lecture me on credibility is the day Biden takes laughing lessons from droopy the dog.

Click to expand...

GasBandit said:

I think you overstate that. A lot of us think what has riled the left up so much about that mark is how close to home it hit. It's true that at least 47% of this country is petrified at the thought of having to take personal responsibility for their own life and choices.

Click to expand...

Yeah, bloody old people, poor working people and Romney's dad, what a bunch of moochers.

@Li3n said:

Yeah, bloody old people, poor working people and Romney's dad, what a bunch of moochers.

Click to expand...

The level of putting words in peoples' mouth about this quote is mindrending.

GasBandit said:

The level of putting words in peoples' mouth about this quote is mindrending.

Click to expand...

Oh so "people that don't pay income tax" doesn't include those groups of people that don't pay income tax...

The 47% remark is BS the same way that saying all white people like polka...

Gas, do you get a tax refund each spring? If you do you are one of the 47% moochers out there.

sixpackshaker said:

Gas, do you get a tax refund each spring? If you do you are one of the 47% moochers out there.

Click to expand...

That doesn't necessarily mean they're paying no tax. I thought it worked the same for you guys, but I'll state what happens in Canada. Each paycheck, my employer takes off what they expect would be my taxes. So if I had only that job, and no other income, or investments, or whatever, the tax department would be exactly in-sync, and my refund would be zero. But I do contribute to things, and have education expenses, etc, all of which are income-deductible. Thus my "taxable income" for the year is less than what I paid in taxes from my paycheque. Thus the government gives me back some of my tax overpayment. That hardly means that I paid no income taxes at all, only that throughout the year I paid too much, and am now getting that money back.

I thought that was more-or-less exactly how it worked in the USA as well? Different things that are income-deductible (very few things are TAX-deductible, though that's the usual phrase) of course, but still, I thought the basics of the system were the same?

sixpackshaker said:

Gas, do you get a tax refund each spring? If you do you are one of the 47% moochers out there.

Click to expand...

This only applies if your total tax refund is greater than your total withholding for the year. And that 47% number is a bit disingenuous, as it only counts income tax and not FICA/SS... though supposedly, FICA and SS aren't tax programs, but payments on future benefits. Whether it actually works out that way for those of us under the age of 40 right now remains to be seen.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

sixpackshaker said:

Gas, do you get a tax refund each spring? If you do you are one of the 47% moochers out there.

Click to expand...

Actually, as I have repeatedly and proudly stated, every year I make it a priority to make sure that my withholding does not exceed my tax liability. I can't remember the last time I got a refund, and have once even made it as thin as owing a $0.02 payment.

I don't give interest free loans to the government.

So basically you do not pay income tax, if all of your federal taxes come out of your payroll tax.

sixpackshaker said:

So basically you do not pay income tax, if all of your federal taxes come out of your payroll tax.

Click to expand...

No, as Papachronos tried to explain to you, that is only the case if my refund exceeds my withholding, which is most certainly does not, seeing as how I never get a refund but still am subject to withholding. I'd need a whooooole lot more deductions to effectively not pay federal income taxes (or even get a refund beyond withholding). In fact I'm not sure it's posible for me.

But as I live in Texas, I don't pay state income taxes, natch. Cause we don't have that here.

sixpackshaker said:

So basically you do not pay income tax, if all of your federal taxes come out of your payroll tax.

Click to expand...

This is a disturbing quote to me. Do you really think just because you don't owe EXTRA in April that you don't pay income tax? Payroll/income tax is the SAME THING. Payroll just makes it easier to come off "transparently" rather than in a big lump sum which a lot would have trouble budgeting for.

sixpackshaker said:

So basically you do not pay income tax, if all of your federal taxes come out of your payroll tax.

Click to expand...

I don't know how it works in Canada, but income tax is paid from the employees salary not from the employer out of a different account.

If I make $40,000 salary, income tax comes from that, and it get less than my accepted salary.

The IRS requires employers to withhold employee income to pay income tax. But it still comes out of the employee's salary.

sixpackshaker said:

So basically you do not pay income tax, if all of your federal taxes come out of your payroll tax.

Click to expand...

Payroll taxes are different from income taxes, though both are withheld from an employee's paycheck by the employer. Payroll taxes are Social Security (10.4%) and Medicare (2.9%), though if you are employed, the employer pays slightly more than half of that (self-employed evil businessmen pay all of it themselves). Income tax is the federal rate for your bracket, minus any deductions, and is withheld from your paychecks based on how many deductions you claim on your W4 form. Income tax is on top of FICA and Medicare. At the end of the year, your total income tax liability is added up, and withholdings throughout the year are subtracted. If there is a negative balance, you overpaid and are refunded the difference.

The moocher thing comes in when one's tax liabilities are less than one's deductions, thus leading to a "refund", even if nothing is withheld in the first place.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Eriol is also correct in that a payroll tax is a de facto income tax, because your boss has to figure it into the cost of what it takes to keep you on the payroll, so for all intents and purposes it's income that is immediately snatched out of your paycheck and goes directly to the government.

GasBandit said:

I think you overstate that. A lot of us think what has riled the left up so much about that mark is how close to home it hit. It's true that at least 47% of this country is petrified at the thought of having to take personal responsibility for their own life and choices.

Click to expand...

GasBandit said:

Eriol is also correct in that a payroll tax is a de facto income tax, because your boss has to figure it into the cost of what it takes to keep you on the payroll, so for all intents and purposes it's income that is immediately snatched out of your paycheck and goes directly to the government.

Click to expand...

You heard it here 1st people, 47% of americans don't have jobs...

Someone needs to learn what "de facto" means.

GasBandit said:

Someone needs to learn what "de facto" means.

Click to expand...

"in practice or actuality, but not officially established."

Looks fine to me... maybe you just missed the fact that i was being facetious about your de facto defence of Romney's pandering little comment, which i doubt he even believes, considering Romenycare and his policies as governor...

@Li3n said:

"in practice or actuality, but not officially established."

Looks fine to me... maybe you just missed the fact that i was being facetious about your de facto defence of Romney's pandering little comment, which i doubt he even believes, considering Romenycare and his policies as governor...

Click to expand...

Oh, I saw your trollface, it's just it was a "francis smiley" to try to indemnify yourself from being labeled a tool, and I don't buy those.

As for Romney, much as I said about Clinton back in the day - Everybody has to believe in something. Romney believes he wants to be President.

GasBandit said:

Oh, I saw your trollface, it's just it was a "francis smiley" to try to indemnify yourself from being labeled a tool, and I don't buy those.

Click to expand...

See, that's my problem on the internet, i assume what im saying (and my sig) makes it clear i'm being sarcastic at least 90% of the time...

GasBandit said:

As for Romney, much as I said about Clinton back in the day - Everybody has to believe in something. Romney believes he wants to be President.

Click to expand...

Also, Kolob and magic underwear... and yet those make more sense then his current tax plan (math takes too much time, heh: ).

Well, maybe if said signature wasn't in quadruple-spaced 8 point font...

GasBandit said:

Well, maybe if said signature wasn't in quadruple-spaced 8 point font...

Click to expand...

You want to read my sig you have to work for it you lazy bum...

McCain: Oops. Sorry about that.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/20/1225461/mccain-rice-benghazi-talking-points/?mobile=nc