US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks

dre · September 18, 2012

I'm not sure what's so hard for you folks to understand. The bigger and better armed you are, and the less well armed your potential enemies, the stronger and more secure your position (in general). Iran has aligned itself to stand against Western interests, and so we don't want it to have weapons that pose a threat to us or our allies. It's really pretty simple and straightforward.

Actually its not straight forward at all, and more arms dont necessarily make you more secure. In fact that can do the opposite.

jbg · September 18, 2012

Have you ever had another point?

Do you have a good rebuttal on the merits?

Moonlight Graham · September 18, 2012

My point is that there is a "civilized world" and a savage world.

I disagree. Just degrees of "savage" and "civilized", and great differences between savage and civilized people within different countries. Would you call pastor Terry Jones "civilized"? Or racist misogynist homophobes in western countries?

guyser · September 18, 2012

Maybe Israel would get the support in the world that the Islamists enjoy if they began engaging in random violence.

Outside of their own camps , Islamists get more support than Israel does? :lol:

September 18, 2012

Outside of their own camps , Islamists get more support than Israel does?

First of all, I'm assuming "Islamists" is referring to extremists, fundamentalist, and/or terrorist types. It seems as if a lot of people worldwide excuse their actions as "blow back," so really, it's our fault that Islamists are what they are and do what they do. Sorta like how the U.S. asked for it and/or had it coming on 9-11, and people who dare to insult Mohammad are responsible for the "blow back" - or at best, should expect it, and therefore should never insult the Islamists. I'd say that's "support" on some level, but at best, Israel doesn't get that kind of 'understanding.'

GostHacked · September 18, 2012

Al Qaeda is the king of multiple senseless coordinated operations.

My point is that there is a "civilized world" and a savage world.

Is the term 'savages' more acceptable than 'bears' ??

jbg · September 18, 2012

First of all, I'm assuming "Islamists" is referring to extremists, fundamentalist, and/or terrorist types. It seems as if a lot of people worldwide excuse their actions as "blow back," so really, it's our fault that Islamists are what they are and do what they do. Sorta like how the U.S. asked for it and/or had it coming on 9-11, and people who dare to insult Mohammad are responsible for the "blow back" - or at best, should expect it, and therefore should never insult the Islamists. I'd say that's "support" on some level, but at best, Israel doesn't get that kind of 'understanding.'

Exactly my point.

People are afraid of the Islamists. They are not afraid of Israelis toiling in hi-tech industries. Thus people attempt to rationalize and justify Islamist "anger" while ignoring that the Israelis' and Jews' cause for anger is far, far greater.

Wild Bill · September 18, 2012

People are afraid of the Islamists.

People have damn good reasons for fearing the "Islamists"!

When America or Israel make a strike, it's virtually always in retaliation, to deter violence.

When Islamists make a strike, violence is the very purpose!

When America or Israel make a strike and civilians are killed, it is unfortunate collateral damage from being too close to the targets, if not even being used as human shields by the targets.

When the Islamists make a strike and civilians are killed, it's because the civilians WERE the targets!

That is all the difference I need to decide where I stand.

Argus · September 18, 2012

Is the term 'savages' more acceptable than 'bears' ??

It at least has the distinction of accuracy.

Argus · September 18, 2012

I disagree. Just degrees of "savage" and "civilized", and great differences between savage and civilized people within different countries. Would you call pastor Terry Jones "civilized"? Or racist misogynist homophobes in western countries?

Are they killing people in the streets? No? Then, I'd say they were a lot more civilized than people who want to cut the heads off heretics.

jbg · September 19, 2012

When the Islamists make a strike and civilians are killed, it's because the civilians WERE the targets!
That is all the difference I need to decide where I stand.

Unfortunately, quite true. Despite my great admiration for Islamists.

Wilber · September 19, 2012

Are they killing people in the streets? No? Then, I'd say they were a lot more civilized than people who want to cut the heads off heretics.

Of course they could never get away with it here. One has to wonder how far some might go if they had the same kind of license as seems the case in some countries. Not saying they would but the restraints against that kind of behaviour are much stronger in western countries.

I still think people like Jones use the protections they have here in order to stir the pot in places they would never dare to do so in person.

sharkman · September 19, 2012

The sad thing is one school of thought tries to understand the mad man's rage as if he can be reasoned with. For instance, if only there was no video then the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

BubberMiley · September 19, 2012

The sad thing is one school of thought tries to understand the mad man's rage as if he can be reasoned with.

What is this school of thought? What are you referring to? I think the rage was the product more of insane people seeking power stoking insane people who have none, and really had very little to do with the actual video. Do you have a different interpretation?

sharkman · September 19, 2012

I was referring to the school of thought that suggests the video is to blame for the protest/riots and deaths. If only we'd refrain from offending the Muslim extremists, everybody would get along fine. They seek to understand the rage/insanity as if it behaves with any kind of logic.

jbg · September 19, 2012

I still think people like Jones use the protections they have here in order to stir the pot in places they would never dare to do so in person.

You could use that argument to say that supporting Israel is "stirring the pot".

BubberMiley · September 19, 2012

If only we'd refrain from offending the Muslim extremists, everybody would get along fine. They seek to understand the rage/insanity as if it behaves with any kind of logic.

But don't you have the urge to roll your eyes when you hear mass media reports of some shmoe in France planning on printing cartoons of the prophet Moehammid? I would hate to die by a frenzied mob for a reason so stupid. We all agree they're insane, but what's the point of provoking the insane?

Wilber · September 19, 2012

You could use that argument to say that supporting Israel is "stirring the pot".

Do you think the sole purpose of supporting Israel is just to piss Muslims off?

Wilber · September 19, 2012

I was referring to the school of thought that suggests the video is to blame for the protest/riots and deaths. If only we'd refrain from offending the Muslim extremists, everybody would get along fine. They seek to understand the rage/insanity as if it behaves with any kind of logic.

Anyone who goes out of their way to antagonize is either a moron not to expect consequences or is deliberately looking for them. Throw a rock at a wasps nest and someone is probably going to get stung. These guys make sure it won't be them.

sharkman · September 19, 2012

But don't you have the urge to roll your eyes when you hear mass media reports of some shmoe in France planning on printing cartoons of the prophet Moehammid? I would hate to die by a frenzied mob for a reason so stupid. We all agree they're insane, but what's the point of provoking the insane?

Yes, intentionally provoking them has no benefit. The thing is, we now have the muslim extremists using this to manipulate societies and that is even more evil. Then on the other hand, you could say the video producers might be trying to provoke riots to affect the outcome of the US election by making Obama appear ineffective(not that I can tell whether this would work or not), which is just as despicable. So the mob is becoming a puppet on a string perhaps with different groups trying to use them. I find it sick.

jbg · September 19, 2012

But don't you have the urge to roll your eyes when you hear mass media reports of some shmoe in France planning on printing cartoons of the prophet Moehammid? I would hate to die by a frenzied mob for a reason so stupid. We all agree they're insane, but what's the point of provoking the insane?

And what's the point of freedom of speech if it's subject to the impulses of insane people somewhere on the globe?

Do you think the sole purpose of supporting Israel is just to piss Muslims off?

Obviously not. But are you sure that the frenzied mobs make such fine distinctions?

bud · September 19, 2012

Anyone who goes out of their way to antagonize is either a moron not to expect consequences or is deliberately looking for them. Throw a rock at a wasps nest and someone is probably going to get stung. These guys make sure it won't be them.

this is more than a film about islam or the burning of a book. these disrespectful actions trigger these reactions by boiling societies who have been experiencing everything from the west's support for puppet dictators to hundreds of thousands of deaths that have occurred due to military actions and sanctions.

Wilber · September 19, 2012

Yes, intentionally provoking them has no benefit. The thing is, we now have the muslim extremists using this to manipulate societies and that is even more evil. Then on the other hand, you could say the video producers might be trying to provoke riots to affect the outcome of the US election by making Obama appear ineffective(not that I can tell whether this would work or not), which is just as despicable. So the mob is becoming a puppet on a string perhaps with different groups trying to use them. I find it sick.

It benefits the agendas of extremists and there are extremists on both sides. I find it sick as well

Edited September 19, 2012 by Wilber

Wilber · September 19, 2012

And what's the point of freedom of speech if it's subject to the impulses of insane people somewhere on the globe?

Obviously not. But are you sure that the frenzied mobs make such fine distinctions?

Freedom of speech is also the freedom to do damage. Others may suffer because of your words. That is reality.

GostHacked · September 19, 2012

Yes, intentionally provoking them has no benefit. The thing is, we now have the muslim extremists using this to manipulate societies and that is even more evil. Then on the other hand, you could say the video producers might be trying to provoke riots to affect the outcome of the US election by making Obama appear ineffective(not that I can tell whether this would work or not), which is just as despicable. So the mob is becoming a puppet on a string perhaps with different groups trying to use them. I find it sick.

Listening to Webster Tarpley on Jones the other day, Tarpley seems to indicate that there is a group that may have ties to Romney that are the ones who put out the video.

http://tarpley.net I know many do not like Jones, but Tarpley has spent time in many of these troubled zones to do some hard investigation. If you think the 47% gaffe was bad .....