PDA

View Full Version : Gadhafi is Dead!!



squirrel
20-10-2011, 03:16 PM
So that's it. I could not imagine this would happen months ago. Back then I still expected that the rebels would be crushed in no time. Then the former Libyan government was overthrown, and now this. I dont know why I feel a bit sad about him. He was too cruel to his countrymen. He committed anti-human crime by order airforce bombers to bomb his own people in protest, not in open warfare. I cannot name any other one in human history who would do this.

Yet I still recall days when he stood up and challenged the US power under Reagan administration. I dont say that either side was evil or just. Gadhafi was just doing what he saw fit to protect his country, that's all. Anyway, tide has turned and who knows what happen next.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/20/world/africa/libya-war/index.html?hpt=T1

endintears
20-10-2011, 03:49 PM
I find it a bit sickening the extent to which people are celebrating his death.

I'm sure he deserved it more than most but I don't think that excuses such behaviour.

Taidan
20-10-2011, 04:19 PM
I find it a bit sickening the extent to which people are celebrating his death.

I'm sure he deserved it more than most but I don't think that excuses such behaviour.

On the contrary, I believe it sets a most excellent precedent. If the BBC says that murder is a justified way of eliminating unpopular politicians and leaders when we don't like them, then who are we to argue?

Althea
20-10-2011, 04:21 PM
On the contrary, I believe it sets a most excellent precedent. If the BBC says that murder is a justified way of eliminating unpopular politicians and leaders when we don't like them, then who are we to argue?
The BBC said that? All I got was a bunch of reporters repeatedly repeating the repetitious repetitions of repeated stuff, and some windbag who didn't seem to have a clue (Here's a tip for you, Mr Editor man, the gun was not a revolver).

CuriousOrange
20-10-2011, 04:30 PM
So David Cameron next then? I'm up for that.

Taidan
20-10-2011, 04:31 PM
Yes, the BBC are saying that, very loudly and very clearly, for anybody who cares to actually listen. They said it when Saddam was executed, they said it when Bin Laden was assassinated, and they'll say it next time that somebody who opposes the UK's foreign policy dies in a violent manner.

Not that I mind, by the way. I personally believe that violence is a perfectly justified way of solving all of your problems. Can't get laid? Got no money? That guy look funny? There's nothing in life that can't be fixed with a nice bit of force. I learned this from watching how our favourite Authority figures deal with all of their problems...

Althea
20-10-2011, 04:42 PM
My big problem with the violence in this situation is not that it was around, but who instigated it.

I find the fact that the EU and NATO got involved to be rather irritating, and I said from the start that I believe the Libyan people should be allowed to get this victory on their own. It is their revolution, it is their fight. It is not right for us to drop bombs and stuff on Gaddafi and his forces, because it's not our fight, plus they need that victory for themselves. They needed to be the ones who captured or killed Gaddafi, not us. If it's true that the NATO strike contributed directly to the capture and death of Gaddafi, then I think that's really sad.

We should have supported them and their new leaders, but we should not have got involved.

Xercies
20-10-2011, 06:31 PM
Why not? I actually think we should get involved more with the people and going against governments, clearly they were having problems over in Libya. We helped. We should help in Syria, we should of helped in Burma, we should help in Zimbabwe. We should do more then we do now, were pussyfooting around and when someone doesn't do what we like were are like an angry teacher "oh please don't do that mister nasty you'll get detention"

Nalano
20-10-2011, 06:38 PM
My big problem with the violence in this situation is not that it was around, but who instigated it.

I find the fact that the EU and NATO got involved to be rather irritating, and I said from the start that I believe the Libyan people should be allowed to get this victory on their own. It is their revolution, it is their fight. It is not right for us to drop bombs and stuff on Gaddafi and his forces, because it's not our fight, plus they need that victory for themselves. They needed to be the ones who captured or killed Gaddafi, not us. If it's true that the NATO strike contributed directly to the capture and death of Gaddafi, then I think that's really sad.

We should have supported them and their new leaders, but we should not have got involved.

The Libyan people would never have won the fight against Gaddafi and his loyalists: They didn't have the arms and they didn't have the training. They were getting their asses kicked.

Dumping a metric fuckton of weapons on the Libyan rebels, teaching them how to coordinate attacks, and bombing the shit outta the artillery pieces, tanks and other heavy ordnance that were causing them grief paved the way for them to take the country and the capital.

But here's where NATO and the US get to have their cake and eat it too: Since we never put one uniformed pair of boots on the ground, the narrative didn't become US vs Gaddafi. The Libyan rebels still did all the heavy lifting. It was, indeed, their war. For once we were relegated to merely assisting, and not simply hijacking the fight.

Althea
20-10-2011, 06:55 PM
I guess I understand that point of view, just still seems to infringe a little on it being their victory though.

Nalano
20-10-2011, 07:23 PM
I guess I understand that point of view, just still seems to infringe a little on it being their victory though.

Well, at least it wasn't the "we supported the leader for years but now we support the revolutionaries" cognitive whiplash like Egypt.

Althea
20-10-2011, 07:27 PM
Well, at least it wasn't the "we supported the leader for years but now we support the revolutionaries" cognitive whiplash like Egypt.
See, stuff like that means nothing to me, 'cos I had no idea who we support nor who the leader is, nor anything. Yay for being a product of '89 ;)

I'm more concerned with Mr Cameroon being a shiny-faced idiot.

Grizzly
20-10-2011, 07:30 PM
I'm more concerned with Mr Cameroon being a shiny-faced idiot.

Could be worse.

Taidan
20-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Well, at least it wasn't the "we supported the leader for years but now we support the revolutionaries" cognitive whiplash like Egypt.

Not quite, but we'll have to wait and see how this works out in the long term. Supporting revolutionaries in foreign countries hasn't always been in our best interests in the past, after all. Still, fingers crossed for 'em.

Just out of interest, what was Gaddafi's high score against his own people in the end? (Only up to the point that his countrymen started a civil war of course, in the interests of fairness.)

Althea
20-10-2011, 07:38 PM
Just out of interest, what was Gaddafi's high score against his own people in the end? (Only up to the point that his countrymen started a civil war of course, in the interests of fairness.)
inb4 "Over 9000!"


Could be worse.
Yeah, it could be Nick Conservative in charge.

Nick Conservative
20-10-2011, 07:47 PM
Yeah, it could be Nick Conservative in charge.

You know nothing of my work.

Ian
20-10-2011, 08:07 PM
I saw this on telly, couldn't not grab a picture of it.

Excellent timing by Sky:

http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g430/ianwelby/IMAG0158.jpg

Nalano
20-10-2011, 08:22 PM
See, stuff like that means nothing to me, 'cos I had no idea who we support nor who the leader is, nor anything. Yay for being a product of '89 ;)

http://www.whoframedruelfox.com/wfrf/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/face-palm-300x300.jpg


Not quite, but we'll have to wait and see how this works out in the long term. Supporting revolutionaries in foreign countries hasn't always been in our best interests in the past, after all. Still, fingers crossed for 'em.

Supporting dictators didn't work out well for us either. And non-intervention would collapse a lot of developing economies considering how much we're spending abroad. Damned if we don't, damned if we do, damned if we just sit there with a stupid look on our face?

At any rate, broad strokes don't work well in foreign policy.

Gerbick
20-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Why not? I actually think we should get involved more with the people and going against governments, clearly they were having problems over in Libya. We helped. We should help in Syria, we should of helped in Burma, we should help in Zimbabwe. We should do more then we do now, were pussyfooting around and when someone doesn't do what we like were are like an angry teacher "oh please don't do that mister nasty you'll get detention"

Something more needs to be done in all those countries. I'm not sure bombing the shit out of stuff is the answer. But, no oil, no interest it seems.

outoffeelinsobad
20-10-2011, 11:31 PM
Right then.

*brushes dirt off of shoulders*

Who's the ELEVENTH largest supplier of oil? Can we think of any reason to bomb them?

pakoito
20-10-2011, 11:48 PM
The fashion weeks won't be the same without him.

Ian
21-10-2011, 12:08 AM
Fucking hell. This is supposedly the Sun's front page tomorrow:

(WARNING: CONTAINS FAIRLY GRIM PICTURE OF DEAD GADDAFI)
http://twitpic.com/738ynq

Gerbick
21-10-2011, 12:32 AM
Fucking hell. This is supposedly the Sun's front page tomorrow:

(WARNING: CONTAINS FAIRLY GRIM PICTURE OF DEAD GADDAFI)
http://twitpic.com/738ynq
Crass, but it seems all the main papers have some level of grimness. Not something I would be happy for my kids to see.

duff
21-10-2011, 12:51 AM
ITV have some footage of his capture filmed by the rebels themselves.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFQGLDBk_ig&feature=related

Ian
21-10-2011, 12:56 AM
Shocking stuff, Duff. :D

westyfield
21-10-2011, 02:00 AM
Fucking hell. This is supposedly the Sun's front page tomorrow:

(WARNING: CONTAINS FAIRLY GRIM PICTURE OF DEAD GADDAFI)
http://twitpic.com/738ynq

Fuck, I probably shouldn't have clicked that. I'm surprised they're allowed to get away with that (if it is their front page) - think of the children etc.

duff
21-10-2011, 02:46 AM
They definitely missed out on all the puns they could have gone with based on him having a golden gun in his possession.

Rii
21-10-2011, 05:04 AM
I weep for humanity. Staying out of this for my own mental health.

DigitalSignalX
21-10-2011, 05:06 AM
A writer for Reuters raised a good point concerning Lockerbie; with his regime crumbled and aids/staff scattered - there now stands very little chance of getting an accurate accounting for the events leading up to and the exact individuals who are responsible. Finding people in a position to have those answers will be increasingly unlikely as they are hunted down and executed without trial or disappear into anonymity with the regime change.

Nalano
21-10-2011, 05:57 AM
A writer for Reuters raised a good point concerning Lockerbie; with his regime crumbled and aids/staff scattered - there now stands very little chance of getting an accurate accounting for the events leading up to and the exact individuals who are responsible. Finding people in a position to have those answers will be increasingly unlikely as they are hunted down and executed without trial or disappear into anonymity with the regime change.

At the end of the day, does it really matter?

coldvvvave
21-10-2011, 07:48 AM
So, whos next and how long before our turn? I can't wait to post something like "brb war" on RPS right before they cut the internet. If BBC\CNN reports someone assaulting NATO convoys with his bare hands while screaming "Blood for the blood God, Skulls for the Skull Throne" - know that it was me.

Nalano
21-10-2011, 07:54 AM
So, whos next and how long before our turn? I can't wait to post something like "brb war" on RPS right before they cut the internet. If BBC\CNN reports someone assaulting NATO convoys with his bare hands while screaming "Blood for the blood God, Skulls for the Skull Throne" - know that it was me.

Where are you fr-- oh, Moscow?

You're fucked.

coldvvvave
21-10-2011, 07:57 AM
Where are you fr-- oh, Moscow?

You're fucked.
I bought entire ACU kit to blend with approaching NATO hordes.

Hope they don't change camo soon.

gundrea
21-10-2011, 09:24 AM
NATO can't touch us, we're turn based.

Taidan
21-10-2011, 09:28 AM
A writer for Reuters raised a good point concerning Lockerbie; with his regime crumbled and aids/staff scattered - there now stands very little chance of getting an accurate accounting for the events leading up to and the exact individuals who are responsible. Finding people in a position to have those answers will be increasingly unlikely as they are hunted down and executed without trial or disappear into anonymity with the regime change.

And you can bet your butt that a fair few members of the UK and US governments of the day are breathing a huge sigh of relief as a result of that.

Xercies
22-10-2011, 12:14 PM
At the end of the day, does it really matter?

I think I agree with this, as The Sun shows we as a nation seem to already know who did it and already have our revenge on it. We still don't really know a lot of other terroist attacks but since Bin Laden is dead do we really care any more?

kirrus
22-10-2011, 01:02 PM
I bought entire ACU kit to blend with approaching NATO hordes.

Hope they don't change camo soon.

I think you've been listening to too much propaganda. No-one is touching russia, you've got Nukes.

Joseph-Sulphur
22-10-2011, 02:54 PM
I bought entire ACU kit to blend with approaching NATO hordes.

Hope they don't change camo soon.

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU (http://defense-update.com/features/2010/february/new_multicam_uniform_19022010.html)

On topic: Obviously it would have been nice to take him into custody, but its understandable that some rebel footsoldiers let their rage get the better of them. Or not, since for all we know he could have sustained his fatal wounds during the airstrike on his convoy or just in the crossfire.

Nalano
22-10-2011, 06:22 PM
I think I agree with this, as The Sun shows we as a nation seem to already know who did it and already have our revenge on it. We still don't really know a lot of other terroist attacks but since Bin Laden is dead do we really care any more?

I'll go one further and say Al Qaeda's ability to attack the United States was nullified on Sept 12th, 2001. It was clearly a one-off, albeit one that should never have happened. Actually finding and killing bin Laden did nothing to affect that, aside from petty revenge.

When you get right down to it, foreign wars do nothing to alleviate the threat of terrorist attacks anyway. At worst, they give more radicals the ammunition - both physical and metaphorical - to kill Americans.

Rii
22-10-2011, 10:01 PM
When you get right down to it, foreign wars do nothing to alleviate the threat of terrorist attacks anyway. At worst, they give more radicals the ammunition - both physical and metaphorical - to kill Americans.

At worst? I'd say at best.

coldvvvave
23-10-2011, 12:16 AM
I think you've been listening to too much propaganda.
I was half-joking the whole time, still. What propaganda? Whos propaganda? You think First Channel is brainwashing Russians into 'Run for the hills, NATO is coming'? No.


No-one is touching russia, you've got Nukes.
Nukes don't just fly by themselves( and I believe fabled Dead Hand is just a myth), theres gotta be someone who orders stuff to happen and loyal generals who execute orders. Basically, some El Presidente guy( you think Putin is some 'strongman'? He was who exactly in KGB? 'Legal' spy attached to embassy in Germany?) have to choose between MAD and Nobel Prize for Peace with some cash. And his generals too. Some hard choices, like asking a child if he wants candy or if he wants to be beaten with a baseball bat repeatedly.

Joseph-Sulphur
23-10-2011, 12:39 AM
At worst? I'd say at best.
I'd say a dictator overthrown by a movement with clear popular backing is a good result. I'm not going to quibble over the details. Radical nutjobs don't need any help from us to spin propaganda.

Rii
23-10-2011, 12:46 AM
I'd say a dictator overthrown by a movement with clear popular backing is a good result.

I was talking about from the self-interested perspective of (in this case) the United States. You don't need to be a pacifist socialist hippie to oppose most of what the US did post-9/11, you just need a brain.

Joseph-Sulphur
23-10-2011, 01:11 AM
I was talking about from the self-interested perspective of (in this case) the United States. You don't need to be a pacifist socialist hippie to oppose most of what the US did post-9/11, you just need a brain.
I'm not talking about the gagglefucks in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm wondering how Gaddafi being overthrown could be a bad thing for the USA.

Rii
23-10-2011, 01:28 AM
I'm not talking about the gagglefucks in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm wondering how Gaddafi being overthrown could be a bad thing for the USA.

For the same reason the US supports all those other dictatorships throughout the region: the likely alternatives don't serve US interests. As with Hussein, Qaddafi was just unfortunate enough to find himself on the wrong side of a mercurial United States, an irrational exception to a rational (if short-sighted and entirely amoral) policy. And as with Hussein and Iraq, the toppling of Qaddafi's regime may yet prove damaging to US interests.

Joseph-Sulphur
23-10-2011, 01:48 AM
For the same reason the US supports all those other dictatorships throughout the region: the likely alternatives don't serve US interests. As with Hussein, Qaddafi was just unfortunate enough to find himself on the wrong side of a mercurial United States, an irrational exception to a rational (if short-sighted and entirely amoral) policy. And as with Hussein and Iraq, the toppling of Qaddafi's regime may yet prove damaging to US interests.
Mercurial? So if the USA (and more importantly France and the UK) decide to militarily support a democratic revolution it must be because they are acting irrationally? I mean why else would they abandon their evil manipulation of puppet tyrants?
The US has gone at least some way to restoring good relations with the Arab world and removed a head of state who was an unreliable ally at best, compared to the NTC who are grateful to the US for obvious reasons. I'd say that's quite beneficial.

Also, I'm fed up with this narrative of the West 'supporting' dictators. Many countries in the world are run by dictatorships or at least in an undemocratic fashion, and pretty much every Middle Eastern country is (apart from Israel and Turkey). We can't just completely cut off these countries because of the nature of their government. For example people make a big deal out of the US selling Mubarak's regime F-16s and M1 Abrams, but arms sales were/are an important part of the ongoing peace brokered between Egypt and Israel. I for one would rather sell a shady autocrat some fancy new war toys than have another Arab-Israeli war.

Rii
23-10-2011, 02:07 AM
Mercurial? So if the USA (and more importantly France and the UK) decide to militarily support a democratic revolution it must be because they are acting irrationally?

No, supporting the revolution was a calculated decision. I'm talking about the United States' hostility towards Libya before that.

France (not being possessed of the United States' irrational dislike for Qaddafi) had been negotiating to sell Rafales to Libya before all this Arab Spring stuff started. Now that would've made for some interesting PR footage.


The US has gone at least some way to restoring good relations with the Arab world and removed a head of state who was an unreliable ally at best, compared to the NTC who are grateful to the US for obvious reasons. I'd say that's quite beneficial.

Not really, no. The policies, implications and so on are matters of decades, not weeks. It wasn't immediately apparent just how much of a disaster Iraq would turn out to be for America either.


Also, I'm fed up with this narrative of the West 'supporting' dictators. Many countries in the world are run by dictatorships or at least in an undemocratic fashion, and pretty much every Middle Eastern country is (apart from Israel and Turkey). We can't just completely cut off these countries because of the nature of their government.

I think the citizens in the region would be satisfied if the United States (and, yes, the rest of the west) merely ceased actively supporting the regimes in question. The United States doesn't record >90% unfavourables in polls of the Arab world and Middle East because it refuses to let Joe Arab Citizen starve -- indeed we know from Iraq in the 90s* that the west has no problem with doing exactly that when it feels like it.

* That is, most recently.; the citizens of many other nations (perhaps most notably Russia following the revolution) have similarly been left to starve by the west when convenient.

Nalano
23-10-2011, 02:17 AM
And as with Hussein and Iraq, the toppling of Qaddafi's regime may yet prove damaging to US interests.

Different problems.

Iraq was stable, if repressed, and the people disliked our foreign policy of arming Hussein so he could butt heads with Iran almost as much as they disliked Hussein. Our "regime change" was a unilateral push by the American military, costing some two trillion dollars and counting, that ended in the deaths of more civilians than Hussein's entire reign and resulted in a power vacuum that ended up in a civil war/ethnic cleansing between the Sunni and Shiite sects in the country, to say nothing of how all the stops were released when it came to the Kurds, that slowed down only when districts started looking very monolithic demographically.

Egypt was something of a velvet revolution and all we did was (belatedly) give lip service to the revolutionaries and suggest that Mubarak step down, which resulted in goodwill to the States for not turning it into another Iraq.

Libya was already in a civil war when we started paying attention to it, was fought on the ground entirely by Libyan revolutionaries, and we got the result we wanted - Qaddafi gone and goodwill towards the States for not turning it into another Iraq - in said civil war at the relatively cheap cost of one billion dollars' worth of small arms and bombs (and, funny enough, France was the first NATO country to drop them).

Pretty much the lion's share of ill will towards the United States in the Middle East revolves around when we directly invade and when we give Israel carte blanche to ignore world and Arab opinion. Yes, changing that impression will take decades, not weeks, but acting in good faith - and not, for instance, throwing Turkey under the bus when they complain about Israel's bloodthirsty response to the Gaza flotilla, and not, for instance, throwing Egypt under the bus when they expel Israel's consuls for the same reason, and not, for instance, throwing Palestine under the bus by blocking their UN request for recognition of statehood - is a great way to start on that path.

Rii
23-10-2011, 02:44 AM
Libya was already in a civil war when we started paying attention to it, was fought on the ground entirely by Libyan revolutionaries, and we got the result we wanted - Qaddafi gone and goodwill towards the States for not turning it into another Iraq - in said civil war at the relatively cheap cost of one billion dollars' worth of small arms and bombs (and, funny enough, France was the first NATO country to drop them).

I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do, all I'm saying is that it's yet to be demonstrated that the results will serve US interests. I personally think they will, but insofar as the United States has traditionally conceived its interests (where 'not being hated by everyone' barely rates a mention even post-9/11) that's far from certain. Qaddafi persecuted Islamists too.

Xercies
23-10-2011, 10:18 AM
Nah it definitely serves the US interests in one field, the new Libyan government will be very happy to sell oil to them at maybe a friends rate because they helped, probably the same with Britain. It doesn't really matter what anything else happens. Sure it might benefit them more that the new Libyans start you know helping around the area maybe, but that's just a nice bonus on top of the oil reward.

Joseph-Sulphur
23-10-2011, 02:09 PM
No, supporting the revolution was a calculated decision. I'm talking about the United States' hostility towards Libya before that.

France (not being possessed of the United States' irrational dislike for Qaddafi) had been negotiating to sell Rafales to Libya before all this Arab Spring stuff started. Now that would've made for some interesting PR footage.
Lots of western leaders (especially Tony Blair) were cosying up to Gaddafi over the past decade. That doesn't make it hypocritical to fight him when he starts ordering airstrikes on protesting civilians.


Not really, no. The policies, implications and so on are matters of decades, not weeks. It wasn't immediately apparent just how much of a disaster Iraq would turn out to be for America either.
Oh right, I thought you actually had some reasoning to back your point up, as opposed to 'It'll all go wrong in the long term, because Iraq'.


I think the citizens in the region would be satisfied if the United States (and, yes, the rest of the west) merely ceased actively supporting the regimes in question. The United States doesn't record >90% unfavourables in polls of the Arab world and Middle East because it refuses to let Joe Arab Citizen starve -- indeed we know from Iraq in the 90s* that the west has no problem with doing exactly that when it feels like it.
Oh give over, I'm not talking about selling food to these countries for fucks sake. I'm talking about the diplomatic horsetrading that you have to engage in to get anything done in that region. So on one hand you don't want the USA to be the world's policeman, but on the other hand you want the USA to cease all diplomatic relations with non-democratic countries? Considering how important the Middle East is that isn't going to happen.
Joe Arab Citizen hated the USA long before Iraq, due to the USA's constant support for Israel but more importantly because Joe Arab Citizen is extremely religious, uneducated and easily manipulated by Mullah's serving their own agenda. A widespread belief in the Arab world is that the USA is controlled by a sinister Jewish conspiracy which is also trying to destroy Islam, partly through Pokemon. (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/24/news/mn-54861)

Taidan
23-10-2011, 04:41 PM
A widespread belief in the Arab world is that the USA is controlled by a sinister Jewish conspiracy which is also trying to destroy Islam, partly through Pokemon. (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/24/news/mn-54861)

Iruno, sounds quite feasible to me.

Nalano
23-10-2011, 06:08 PM
I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do, all I'm saying is that it's yet to be demonstrated that the results will serve US interests. I personally think they will, but insofar as the United States has traditionally conceived its interests (where 'not being hated by everyone' barely rates a mention even post-9/11) that's far from certain. Qaddafi persecuted Islamists too.

"I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do, I'm just saying it was the wrong thing to do."

Yes, oh great swami.

Anyway, apropos of nothing, I don't understand articles like this (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/muammar_qaddafi_should_not_have_been_killed_but_se nt_to_stand_tr.html). "It was a mistake to kill Qaddafi," like we should have a say in the matter.

Now, I'm not saying the rebels were thinking about it at the time, but if they actually thought, "do we do him now or take him to the Hague," they'd probably have shot him a few more times in the face to make sure.

Yeah, let's show our support for this populist uprising by making sure the guy who's been killing them all these years gets to live a bit longer while northern Europeans - who, of course, always had North Africans' best interests at heart - deliberate over how civilized they can be to a mass-murderer.

How very paternalist.

Taidan
23-10-2011, 10:34 PM
Now, I'm not saying the rebels were thinking about it at the time, but if they actually thought, "do we do him now or take him to the Hague," they'd probably have shot him a few more times in the face to make sure.

Yeah, let's show our support for this populist uprising by making sure the guy who's been killing them all these years gets to live a bit longer while northern Europeans - who, of course, always had North Africans' best interests at heart - deliberate over how civilized they can be to a mass-murderer.

How very paternalist.

When I read that lot, the first thing I heard in reply was Alan Rickman berating you using a bad German accent.

Xercies
24-10-2011, 09:45 AM
Joe Arab Citizen is extremely religious, uneducated and easily manipulated by Mullah's serving their own agenda. A widespread belief in the Arab world is that the USA is controlled by a sinister Jewish conspiracy which is also trying to destroy Islam, partly through Pokemon.

Wide sweeping generalisation on a place and people.

Joseph-Sulphur
24-10-2011, 02:52 PM
Wide sweeping generalisation on a place and people.
It's a fact that most Arabs have pretty crazy views on Jewish influence on the world, and are extremely religious (by western standards).

kataras
24-10-2011, 03:40 PM
It's a fact that most Arabs have pretty crazy views on Jewish influence on the world, and are extremely religious (by western standards).
Eh I don't agree... Religiosity varies according to country in the middle east, for example Lebanon is not so religious as Syria, even though they re next to each other etc. It might be a more traditional area but France is a very traditional country and it is supposed to be secular officially. So I guess that's very subjective.

But I think the main point of all this is that this is a 'revolution' run by spooks and Western military (remember the SAS who got caught in the beginning? At the same time France was promised the exploitation of more than 50% of the country's oil if they win) and fought by tribes who oppose Gaddafi because they have their own power plans... (quite a few people on the Council were closely connected to the Gaddafi regime for years). It is not like what was going on in Tunisia and Egypt. It's for financial and geopolitical gain pure and simple, just like every other decision the US or UK or France take... Supporting a dictator or his enemies is only a matter of strategy, no matter how they choose to frame it later, I think. Eventually, It might backfire on the US, just like their support of the Afghans vs the Soviets did in the long run. Or maybe it won't, depends on the agenda of the Council and how their western 'allies' play them.

Anthile
24-10-2011, 05:08 PM
So. Gaddhafi is dead. Bin Laden has croaked. Saddam is gone too. Looks like only Kim Jong Il is left on the list.

Joseph-Sulphur
24-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Eh I don't agree... Religiosity varies according to country in the middle east, for example Lebanon is not so religious as Syria, even though they re next to each other etc. It might be a more traditional area but France is a very traditional country and it is supposed to be secular officially. So I guess that's very subjective.
Well some of the Sunnis in Lebanon aren't very religious, but the Shiites who support Hezbollah are much more conservative, and far less secular.


But I think the main point of all this is that this is a 'revolution' run by spooks and Western military (remember the SAS who got caught in the beginning?Those men were arrested as they were trying to actually make contact with the rebels. It's ridiculous to say that the revolution was 'run' by Western spooks when they needed to send a secret force to actually make contact with the (already established) interim rebel government.


At the same time France was promised the exploitation of more than 50% of the country's oil if they win) and fought by tribes who oppose Gaddafi because they have their own power plans... (quite a few people on the Council were closely connected to the Gaddafi regime for years).I'd like to see a source which supports that claim about France, and I'd be especially surprised if this was promised before France actually started bombing Gaddafi's troops. You seem to be forgetting the nature of the beginning of Western intervention in the war, Gaddafi's army was hours away from entering Benghazi. Sarkozy and Cameron had to do a lot of last-minute wrangling to get the USA into the war, and even so French jets were over Libyan airspace long before the US and UK destroyed the Libyan air-defence network with Tomahawks and stealth bombers.


It is not like what was going on in Tunisia and Egypt. It's for financial and geopolitical gain pure and simple, just like every other decision the US or UK or France take...Again, this is incredibly patronising towards the Libyans themselves. So because their revolution is supported militarily by the west they can't be the ones determining their own future? It just has to be cynical western politicians manipulating them?


Supporting a dictator or his enemies is only a matter of strategy, no matter how they choose to frame it later, I think.As I said earlier on in this thread I'm not a fan of the idea that by dealing with a dictatorship diplomatically we are 'supporting' them. The fact is that completely isolating governments like Gaddafi's usually doesn't work. The West correctly saw that ostracizing Gaddafi Reagan-style wasn't going to help anything, by giving him the option of rejoining the international community we got him to stop financing terrorism and trying to develop nuclear weapons. I find it irritating that people who on one hand are happy to denounce any western involvement in a revolution as sinister manipulation also denounce anything short of complete isolation of such dictators, even though this policy does nothing but hurt the civilians who live there (see the sanctions against Iraq in the '90s).


Eventually, It might backfire on the US, just like their support of the Afghans vs the Soviets did in the long run. Or maybe it won't, depends on the agenda of the Council and how their western 'allies' play them.Ah yes, it seems that nowadays any involvement by the West more substantial than hand-wringing and scolding from the sidelines is automatically equated with having the Taliban turn on us after defeating the Russians. It's ironic how supposed peace advocates end up siding with dictatorships such as Russia, China and Iran who block any UN action more severe than a resolution expressing condemnation out of fear that the world might notice the skeletons in their closet.
I also think its pretty pathetic that you're suggesting that the only way the new Libyan government won't be a radical Islam Taliban-style theocracy is if the West succeeds in 'playing' them... Again, how patronizing is that? Give them a fucking chance.

Ian
24-10-2011, 05:32 PM
So. Gaddhafi is dead. Bin Laden has croaked. Saddam is gone too. Looks like only Kim Jong Il is left on the list.

Given that he's the only one (by many) deemend crazy enough to actually push the button if it came to it, do North Korea actually have the weapons to attack long-range? I've no idea if that's the sort of thing that's been whipped up by the media to make them/him seem scarier and more dangerous than is actually the case.

Nalano
24-10-2011, 05:38 PM
Again, this is incredibly patronising towards the Libyans themselves. So because their revolution is supported militarily by the west they can't be the ones determining their own future? It just has to be cynical western politicians manipulating them?

By way of agreeing, can I point out that us Americans arguably could have lost our revolutionary war without France's intervention, which was wholly self-serving on their part? They wanted to give the English a black eye during their interminable wars, and thus common cause helped America get on its feet.

Likewise, we do this to get a more stable region and access to oil not sold by Saudis, and lo and behold, the Libyans are self-determinate. Win/win!


Given that he's the only one (by many) deemend crazy enough to actually push the button if it came to it, do North Korea actually have the weapons to attack long-range? I've no idea if that's the sort of thing that's been whipped up by the media to make them/him seem scarier and more dangerous than is actually the case.

They don't need to hit America to pose a threat. They need to hit South Korea.

But yes, the truth is the same now as it was in 2003: We only attack dictators who don't actually pose a threat.

kataras
24-10-2011, 10:29 PM
Hi Joe, there is no need to get pissed off... we re just discussing.


Well some of the Sunnis in Lebanon aren't very religious, but the Shiites who support Hezbollah are much more conservative, and far less secular.

That's true but at the same time Hezbollah has been more progressive that we think, ie promising safety to all Lebanese regardless of religion, one of its spokespersons is a woman etc. Anyway what I tried to say was that not everyone is so religious or conservative.


Those men were arrested as they were trying to actually make contact with the rebels. It's ridiculous to say that the revolution was 'run' by Western spooks when they needed to send a secret force to actually make contact with the (already established) interim rebel government. Well there was coverage in US and EU papers about US, Qataris and NATO officials providing intel, bombing targets and overall strategy. I mean they didn't go to have tea did they? And as far as I remember there were MI5 or 6 people with them, no? And at the end of the day they re not a diplomatic team, they re special forces.


I'd like to see a source which supports that claim about France, and I'd be especially surprised if this was promised before France actually started bombing Gaddafi's troops. I ll try and find it.


Again, this is incredibly patronising towards the Libyans themselves. So because their revolution is supported militarily by the west they can't be the ones determining their own future? It just has to be cynical western politicians manipulating them? I hope they determine their future, after all they should be the ones to do it, not a bunch of ex-regime cronies or NATO... I just don't see it yet as the only voice we hear is that of the Council...


I never said we have to marginalise dictators... I am not sure what should be done to be honest. But I think that western (and I am not taking the West as a monolithic entity) should clean up its own house before criticizing anyone else... In the end people get the governments they deserve. Its not paradise in Europe or the US, so until we/they fix their problems, I think its hypocritical to pretend we involve ourselves in situations like that.



I also think its pretty pathetic that you're suggesting that the only way the new Libyan government won't be a radical Islam Taliban-style theocracy is if the West succeeds in 'playing' them... Again, how patronizing is that? Give them a fucking chance. I never said that, you misunderstood me or I didn't express myself well. I think that the only way for them to build something good, is to get rid of the Council, NATO and the Qataris... And I really hope they will do that. The Egyptians seem like they re not gonna rest till every official of the old regime has been kicked out, so I hope it will be the same for Libya.

edit: http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/2011/09/01/libya-promised-france-35-crude-oil-report
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/opinion/libya-oil/
two conflicting articles about the oil, although the second doesnt dismiss the chance it happened...

also http://www.bfbs.com/news/worldwide/mi6-and-cia-agents-directing-air-strikes-gaddafi-switches-tactics-46173.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21libya.html?pagewanted=all

outoffeelinsobad
25-10-2011, 01:21 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/world/asia/nuclear-talks-with-north-korea-begin-in-geneva.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Joseph-Sulphur
25-10-2011, 01:53 PM
Hi Joe, there is no need to get pissed off... we re just discussing.
I'm not pissed off, I'm just an asshole. This is how I discuss things.


That's true but at the same time Hezbollah has been more progressive that we think, ie promising safety to all Lebanese regardless of religion, one of its spokespersons is a woman etc. Anyway what I tried to say was that not everyone is so religious or conservative.Eeeh. Its quite dubious to suggest that Hezbollah isn't that conservative, they are just very good at PR. Anyway I agree, not all arabs are incredibly conservative. I'm making the point that a large amount are.


Well there was coverage in US and EU papers about US, Qataris and NATO officials providing intel, bombing targets and overall strategy. I mean they didn't go to have tea did they? And as far as I remember there were MI5 or 6 people with them, no? And at the end of the day they re not a diplomatic team, they re special forces.That's the whole point! Surely if the west had been pulling the strings from the beginning we wouldn't have needed to send a special forces team and have MI6 agents on the ground just to make contact with the rebels. It was clear that the government had no idea what was going on and was trying to actually make first contact with the NTC.


I hope they determine their future, after all they should be the ones to do it, not a bunch of ex-regime cronies or NATO... I just don't see it yet as the only voice we hear is that of the Council...
NTC already dissolved. See my response below about purging all ancien regime elements. Not a good plan.


I never said we have to marginalise dictators... I am not sure what should be done to be honest. But I think that western (and I am not taking the West as a monolithic entity) should clean up its own house before criticizing anyone else...Well that's a different matter entirely. I don't, however, think that we should shy away from the fact that our political system is far better than the one in Syria, for example. Don't let the past decade of neocon buffoonish chest-thumping make you unwilling to acknowledge just how much more progressive we are.


In the end people get the governments they deserve.I think that the young Libyans who risked being shot and bombed by the Libyan air force, who risked their lives all through this war deserve a better government. And whatever you think about western powers having deeper interests in the war, the only way they were ever going to get the government they deserved was if we intervened militarily. There's no two ways about it.


Its not paradise in Europe or the US, so until we/they fix their problems, I think its hypocritical to pretend we involve ourselves in situations like that.Sorry but that's a crock of shit. All countries have domestic problems, that doesn't mean we should abstain from any kind of forceful foreign policy. Sure, we have economic problems and a political system which is arguably beholden to moneyed special interests, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have helped out a democratic revolution against a nutjob dictator when conditions were perfect for intervention.


I never said that, you misunderstood me or I didn't express myself well. I think that the only way for them to build something good, is to get rid of the Council, NATO and the Qataris... And I really hope they will do that.The NTC has already dissolved itself, so yeah. What I don't understand in the slightest is why you think that Libya should completely turn its back on the only countries that actually helped it when it needed help most!?! When Gaddafi's army was walking all over the rebels, Grad rockets were falling on heavily populated civilian areas, France, Qatar and the UK were the only countries who were pushing to do something about it. Without them Gaddafi would be in power and the corpses of anyone involved in the rebellion would be jammed into mass graves somewhere deep in the desert. And you're saying that Libya should 'get rid' of these countries because of some crazy conspiracy theory you've dreamed up about them manipulating Libya in some way? Come off it.



The Egyptians seem like they re not gonna rest till every official of the old regime has been kicked out, so I hope it will be the same for Libya.No no no no no No. That is exactly what we did in Iraq, we purged any Ba'ath party member from the government and create a power vacuum that lead to the current sectarian gagglefuck. We need to take Germany right after WW2 as the model, we can't purge every low level bureaucrat who may have been involved with Gaddafi, because everyone was fucking involved with Gaddafi. It was a totalitarian state. Just because some technocrat was appointed minister for infrastructure by Gaddafi doesn't mean that we have to completely exclude him from the new government! It's a ridiculous, childish idea that would only create more hardship in the long-run.



edit: http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/2011/09/01/libya-promised-france-35-crude-oil-report
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/opinion/libya-oil/
two conflicting articles about the oil, although the second doesnt dismiss the chance it happened...

Come on man, this is weak. Pretty silly in fact. One article references some random letter, (I can't even find the article in Liberation) which purportedly shows a secret deal struck between the NTC and France, 2 weeks after the intervention began. The later article confirms that this wasn't the case. Even if the letter is real, why should the new Libyan government honour it? And why should we assume that whoever wrote it is actually in a position to ensure that such a deal is honoured? It's stupid.

also http://www.bfbs.com/news/worldwide/mi6-and-cia-agents-directing-air-strikes-gaddafi-switches-tactics-46173.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21libya.html?pagewanted=allSo what this is some kind of conspiracy? Us helping the rebels by bending UNSC1973 as much as possible? Whats the point?

kataras
25-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Eh this is getting too long and we re gonna have to agree to disagree I guess...

The point I was trying to make is that it's not in my opinion a 'democratic revolution against a nutjob dictator' since it is run by spooks and foreign military. I do not believe that those running it have no ulterior motive other than 'democracy' etc. And yea I do think Libya should turn its back on those who 'helped' it regain 'democracy' otherwise they re gonna find their country run by people who don't have their best interest at heart. And I m sure they re not gonna let go, now that they established a foothold in Libya, withdraw and let them build their new state. Its not a conspiracy it's just what I think based on the fact that the US, UK, France and other powers never intervened somewhere if they had nothing to gain from it. That's it. Also you are forgetting that the three aforementioned powers have a lot of influence over the UN, so they were bending what they helped draft...

To summarize, I don't think anything good comes out of it when you mix secret services, the military and oil/money/geopolitical gain. And I have no respect for the first two, they should not even be on foreign lands.

Having said that I also think they should purge any ex-regime cronies, to what extend it's debatable of course. But you cannot deny the fact that some people benefited from the regime more than others.

For example, when the (US-backed) dictatorship fell in Greece, there was no purge in the security forces (one of many sectors). So people would then bump into their torturers on the street. These people (and those in the military) continued to serve in their places (doing more or less what they did before) in a 'democratic' state... It does not seem to me a good way to move on.

coldvvvave
12-09-2012, 11:56 AM
The US ambassador to Libya has died after an attack by militiamen on the US consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, reports say.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

Nalano
12-09-2012, 12:56 PM
Thanks to some Israeli asshat in California.

squirrel
12-09-2012, 01:08 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

They should go after the film producing crew. What's the point of harming a diplomat?

Tricky point being, this is not a hostile act of a nation, so who is the USA declaring war on?

Nalano
12-09-2012, 01:14 PM
They should go after the film producing crew. What's the point of harming a diplomat?

Tricky point being, this is not a hostile act of a nation, so who is the USA declaring war on?

The filmmaker's in California, which is waaaaaay over here.

The people angered are in Egypt and Libya, which is waaaaaaay over there.

When Americans started beating up anybody who looked vaguely brown after 9/11, they picked the ones situated conveniently near them.

squirrel
12-09-2012, 01:20 PM
When Americans started beating up anybody who looked vaguely brown after 9/11, they picked the ones situated conveniently near them.

The first time I realize that a white collar job can be that dangerous.

coldvvvave
12-09-2012, 01:25 PM
One of the killed staff members was apparently a senior IT guy and an EVE online player nicknamed Vile Rat.

http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat

Nalano
12-09-2012, 01:30 PM
Now, if you ask my opinion (which you didn't, but that never mattered before), this is kinda like a spoiled brat being defended after throwing a rock at the neighbor, all the while taunting said neighbor.

America's trying to support independent regimes who fought to break out from under the yoke of... American puppet leaders, a job that is doubly hard when both political parties bend over backwards to unilaterally support a major threat to regional stability, human rights and common sense.

So diplomacy is like walking on eggshells, except those eggshells are the casings of unexploded bombs. Hillary's been doing a fantastic job and America's been quietly supporting the Arab Spring where-ever it can, so when some Israeli idiot went way off-message to make a deliberately provocative attack on an entire religion, using much the same language as a certain former president did to justify an illegal war, right after we had to stop Israel from starting yet another war... tempers flared.

He should be forced to apologize on national television for causing the deaths of five American diplomatic servicemen and starting shit that didn't need to be started. If we can find out where he's hiding.

squirrel
12-09-2012, 01:41 PM
I dont believe that any film production is the real cause. Smell like a warning to the western powers to stay out of the civil war in Syria.

CNN is reporting on Syria on its frontpage everyday.

Tritagonist
12-09-2012, 01:50 PM
They should go after the film producing crew. What's the point of harming a diplomat?
Who knows what these guys have been told, or know. Apparently this movie was made months ago, attracting little to no attention so it seems likely that this 'sudden outburst' wasn't in fact very sudden at all. Perhaps a group of people was informed that 'the Americans' made a movie that is apparently rather derogatory of - oh yes, the world' second most popular religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups); combine that with 'the Americans' not being the most popular kid on the block for (http://links.org.au/node/2179) various (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-waterboarded-gadhafis-opponents-human-rights-watch/article4522998/) reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Civilian_losse s) and you quickly have a pretty volatile situation.

Nalano
12-09-2012, 02:18 PM
I dont believe that any film production is the real cause. Smell like a warning to the western powers to stay out of the civil war in Syria.

CNN is reporting on Syria on its frontpage everyday.

Israel is the real cause. Supporting a dictator for 50 years and still having embassies in Cairo after he's overthrown is the real cause. They don't need another reason to kill Americans. They have so many already!

That we can even have diplomatic relations at all is a miracle of our current administration's state department and diplomatic corp. Which is why we prefer that assholes don't fuck it up.

Shane
12-09-2012, 03:36 PM
Hillary's been doing a fantastic job

What has she done? I know she has been visiting Pakistan, India and China, what has she accomplished in the middle east?


He should be forced to apologize on national television for causing the deaths of five American diplomatic servicemen and starting shit that didn't need to be started. If we can find out where he's hiding.
The attack didn't happen simply because the film was made in the US, the reaction would have been the same to any oter country. Remember the protests against the Danish cartoonist?

Nalano
12-09-2012, 03:47 PM
What has she done? I know she has been visiting Pakistan, India and China, what has she accomplished in the middle east?

She's been a shitload of places (http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/map/), and spoken to leaders of the opposition to the old governments and the leaders of the newly-formed governments in hopes of normalizing relations.


The attack didn't happen simply because the film was made in the US

Denmark doesn't send $30 billion a year to the Israeli military.

The tear gas canisters and armored personnel carriers in Egypt don't have "Made in Denmark" stamped on them.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 07:00 PM
He should be forced to apologize on national television for causing the deaths of five American diplomatic servicemen and starting shit that didn't need to be started. If we can find out where he's hiding.

What?
Why?

Why should he apologize for doing something which is legal and perfectly in his right? Death of those people is tragedy but you can't blame that "asshat" for what those primitives do.

Nalano
12-09-2012, 07:04 PM
Why should he apologize for doing something which is legal and perfectly in his right? Death of those people is tragedy but you can't blame that "asshat" for what those primitives do.

Last I checked we do not tolerate hate speech or speech that incites violence. Quite frankly, people like Mr. Bacile are no different than the fundamentalists they inflame, and people like him are clearly skirting our rights to free speech to foment a religious war.

If this was not his intention, let him publicly state such. But it is very plainly the exact effect he wanted.

Lukasz
12-09-2012, 07:11 PM
To quote the top comment on the NYTimes:

Do not expect Mr. Bacile or Pastor Jones to temper their actions or express regret for them. Their views are apocalyptic and they welcome the rise of anarchy and violence as a harbinger of the conflagration that will destroy their religious enemies for all eternity. They are not very different from the fundamentalists whom they inflame.


and?

they didn't kill anyone did they? so no. no apologies to people who support murder.

Nalano
12-09-2012, 07:36 PM
and?

they didn't kill anyone did they? so no. no apologies to people who support murder.

I didn't trample anybody; I just cried "Fire!"

Shane
12-09-2012, 07:44 PM
Denmark doesn't send $30 billion a year to the Israeli military.

The tear gas canisters and armored personnel carriers in Egypt don't have "Made in Denmark" stamped on them.

Which was my point. All that violence that followed the sketches' reveal wasn't rooted in any long standing grievance against the country.

Nalano
12-09-2012, 07:48 PM
Which was my point. All that violence that followed the sketches' reveal wasn't rooted in any long standing grievance against the country.

Northern Europe, on the other hand, has been pretty vocally hostile to Muslims for a while.

Grizzly
12-09-2012, 09:39 PM
Northern Europe, on the other hand, has been pretty vocally hostile to Muslims for a while.

Yeah well, the Anti Muslim parties over here have lost votes to parties who focus on real issues, so expect it to get better.

Tritagonist
13-09-2012, 09:21 AM
Northern Europe, on the other hand, has been pretty vocally hostile to Muslims for a while.
While I'm not sure I'd say that's a broad sentiment, it's nevertheless true that (central) Europe has enthusiastically participated in many of the dealings the United States has had in the Islamic regions of this world that are a source of frustration and anger among many of the people living there. Whether it's sending suspects to shady dictatorships for 'questioning' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cia-wins-fight-to-keep-mps-in-dark-on-rendition-7631357.html), bombing cities (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972), support for Israeli settlements (http://www.qassam.ps/news-5617-Dutch_veto_against_condemnation_of_settlers_violat ions.html), invading Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq), the ongoing campaigns in Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISAF), etc. It's easy to point the finger at the US - and remains very popular in Europe - but it rarely does these things on its own.

Shane
13-09-2012, 12:45 PM
Northern Europe, on the other hand, has been pretty vocally hostile to Muslims for a while.

How is this relevant? I'm just saying that the Islamists in the Middle East will go apeshit on any country if they think their religion/culture has been pissed on, that America has been buttfucking the region for decades wasn't that big of a factor.

kataras
13-09-2012, 01:01 PM
I'm just saying that the Islamists in the Middle East will go apeshit on any country if they think their religion/culture has been pissed on, that America has been buttfucking the region for decades wasn't that big of a factor.

You think the rise of fundamentalists in that region is not partly connected to America and other Western powers buttfucking them for decades?

Lukasz
13-09-2012, 01:10 PM
I didn't trample anybody; I just cried "Fire!"

but you are not allowed to do that.

you are allowed to mock religions. so south park should be pulled out of air because it mocks christianity?

mocking religion is allowed and must be allowed. just because some assholes are offended by that is not a reason to strip us of our freedoms.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 01:22 PM
How is this relevant? I'm just saying that the Islamists in the Middle East will go apeshit on any country if they think their religion/culture has been pissed on, that America has been buttfucking the region for decades wasn't that big of a factor.

Nah, it's pretty much the primary factor. Secondary factors include England and Turkey buttfucking them for centuries.


but you are not allowed to do that.

Yes, that's kinda the fucking point. I'm glad you understand.

This man is not mocking religion. This man is mocking a religion different than his. This man is instigating a fight.

kataras
13-09-2012, 01:28 PM
mocking religion is allowed and must be allowed.
I agree with you but you re wrong. Many countries ban the mocking or offending of religion (regardless of which one). Greece is one of them for example.

soldant
13-09-2012, 01:44 PM
mocking religion is allowed and must be allowed. just because some assholes are offended by that is not a reason to strip us of our freedoms.
The question then becomes "Where do we draw the line?"

Absolute freedom isn't good for us. We live in pretty close proximity to each other and regularly mix with people entirely different from us - that's the price of an increasingly connected world. To keep the peace, we need rules, which generally means not pissing everybody off. Although I tend to agree that the fundamentalists overreact too much, that's not a big statement to make. Of course they do. People go apeshit when someone idiot fundamentalist questions evolution. Ignoring the fact that the evolutionists are clearly right, the response is normal and the same - "I'm right, you're wrong, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME."

If you're going to declare open season on religion, you might as well claim open season on absolutely everything else because it's just mocking something, right? "Look at those dudes with different coloured skin, bet they're gonna rob that house, LOLOLOL chill man I'm just mocking them."

That those "assholes" are offended may be a perfectly good reason to restrict our freedoms. There are a lot of things we aren't free to do and nor should we be free to do them. I'm not justifying the reaction of the fundamentalists, because they clearly don't give a shit about anything except retribution, but deliberate inflammation of a group is stupid. As Nalano said the dude picked a fight and people paid the price for it. This is why we have rules and social norms.

Shane
13-09-2012, 01:54 PM
People mock religion because it is a sham, jokes about race are a different thing.

kataras
13-09-2012, 02:22 PM
The question then becomes "Where do we draw the line?"

If you're going to declare open season on religion, you might as well claim open season on absolutely everything else because it's just mocking something, right? "Look at those dudes with different coloured skin, bet they're gonna rob that house, LOLOLOL chill man I'm just mocking them."

I think people should be allowed and even encouraged to mock and make fun of almost everything, especially authority figures and ideologies/religions/science. A healthy society is one that can take the ridicule I think. From the moment you start taking things so seriously that they cannot be the subject of a joke or ridicule then you have a problem. Religion is fine as long as it is confined to the private sphere. When it starts running the public sphere (which is in the end the goal of the 3 major religions) then it offends me but of course no one gives a shit cause it's the word of god etc etc.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 03:24 PM
A healthy society is one that can take the ridicule I think.

And we've worked so hard to ensure that the Middle East could foster a healthy society, right?

As for religion not being touted in the public sphere, to quote Soldant quoting me,


As Nalano said the dude picked a fight and people paid the price for it. This is why we have rules and social norms.

If these religious nutjobs want to fight one another, I'm fine with them doing so. Ship Sam Bacile and Terry Jones over there and have them duke it out. But for fuck's sake, don't make the rest of us targets.

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 03:31 PM
So according to various news sources, the video wasn't made by an Israeli national, but rather a member of a Christian extremist group under a pseudonym. Also the Libyan attacks were supposedly planned well before that video was released.

As for my take on the whole matter? Fuck religion, fuck politics, and fuck the whole middle east. At this point I'd be perfectly ok with taking their oil by force and then leaving the whole damned place to burn. If the region wasn't rich in oil it would just be another forgotten third world shit hole like most of Africa.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 03:46 PM
So according to various news sources, the video wasn't made by an Israeli national, but rather a member of a Christian extremist group under a pseudonym. Also the Libyan attacks were supposedly planned well before that video was released.

As for my take on the whole matter? Fuck religion, fuck politics, and fuck the whole middle east. At this point I'd be perfectly ok with taking their oil by force and then leaving the whole damned place to burn. If the region wasn't rich in oil it would just be another forgotten third world shit hole like most of Africa.

Based on an e-mail by some Al Qaeda operative requesting retaliation (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?pagewanted=all) for drone attacks a week prior, with no prior lead-up according to US Intelligence networks, and as they say is largely unsupported speculation. Not that it matters, because what's going on in Egypt (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/egypt-not-libya-may-be-bigger-challenge-for-white-house.html?_r=1&hp) and now Yemen (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?hp) has nothing to do with that.

It's true that extremist Christian groups and their fundamentalists leaders have promoted and distributed the video in question, including asshats like Morris Sadek and Steve Klein (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/origins-of-provocative-video-shrouded.html?hp). That said, it's not the Middle East that's the problem, and it's not Islam that's the problem. It's extremists and fundamentalists that's the problem - and that includes militant Baptists and Israeli Zionists - which is why I say I don't give a shit what happens to them, but leave everybody else out of it.

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 03:56 PM
Based on an e-mail by some Al Qaeda operative requesting retaliation (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?pagewanted=all) for drone attacks a week prior, with no prior lead-up according to US Intelligence networks, and as they say is largely unsupported speculation. Not that it matters, because what's going on in Egypt (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/egypt-not-libya-may-be-bigger-challenge-for-white-house.html?_r=1&hp) and now Yemen (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?hp) has nothing to do with that.

It's true that extremist Christian groups and their fundamentalists leaders have promoted and distributed the video in question, including asshats like Morris Sadek and Steve Klein (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/origins-of-provocative-video-shrouded.html?hp). That said, it's not the Middle East that's the problem, and it's not Islam that's the problem. It's extremists and fundamentalists that's the problem - and that includes militant Baptists and Israeli Zionists - which is why I say I don't give a shit what happens to them, but leave everybody else out of it.


Of course it's the extremists. That doesn't really change anything about what I said.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 04:08 PM
Of course it's the extremists. That doesn't really change anything about what I said.

It's the whole "taking their oil by force and leaving the whole place to burn" part I was taking issue with. :P

Well, maybe if we burn Atlanta down again too. Y'know, to even things out.

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 04:10 PM
It's the whole "taking their oil by force and leaving the whole place to burn" part I was taking issue with. :P

Well, maybe if we burn Atlanta down again too. Y'know, to even things out.

I didn't mean WE should burn it. Maybe a poor choice of words, I meant to just leave it to them to figure things out. Of course it's fucked up to go in there and steal their oil, but whatever.

Why Atlanta? How about all of Utah instead?

edit: also why did you message me on steam last night and just say "no" and then go AFK. That has been haunting me.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 04:14 PM
I didn't mean WE should burn it. Maybe a poor choice of words, I meant to just leave it to them to figure things out. Of course it's fucked up to go in there and steal their oil, but whatever.

Why Atlanta? How about all of Utah instead?

edit: also why did you message me on steam last night and just say "no" and then go AFK. That has been haunting me.

Atlanta for the southern Baptists. Utah works, too.

Also, I did it to fuck with you. I find "NO U" is a more engaging way to start a conversation than "ohai."

Hypernetic
13-09-2012, 04:17 PM
Atlanta for the southern Baptists. Utah works, too.

Also, I did it to fuck with you. I find "NO U" is a more engaging way to start a conversation than "ohai."

I was pretty drunk.

Nalano
13-09-2012, 04:32 PM
I was pretty drunk.

That'll be me tomorrow.

Grizzly
16-09-2012, 09:53 AM
Based on an e-mail by some Al Qaeda operative requesting retaliation (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?pagewanted=all) for drone attacks a week prior, with no prior lead-up according to US Intelligence networks, and as they say is largely unsupported speculation. Not that it matters, because what's going on in Egypt (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/egypt-not-libya-may-be-bigger-challenge-for-white-house.html?_r=1&hp) and now Yemen (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/middleeast/mideast-turmoil-spreads-to-us-embassy-in-yemen.html?hp) has nothing to do with that.

Well, how do you know? Since inciting riots is a very effective strategy, many extremist groups may have plans just waiting to be sprung. They could be sprung now, and everyone took the bloody oppertunity.

Nalano
16-09-2012, 02:52 PM
Well, how do you know? Since inciting riots is a very effective strategy, many extremist groups may have plans just waiting to be sprung. They could be sprung now, and everyone took the bloody oppertunity.

That's what Ross Douthat (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/douthat-its-not-about-the-video.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) argues. (He then goes on to argue that the Egyptian embassy's statement was an "apology," exercising the same bloody-minded foolishness that Romney did, but that's besides the point.)

Yes, the US is being used as a bogeyman by right-wing political forces to hold on to power, just as neo-conservatives have used the spectres of communism, immigration, and international terrorism (angry poor people and angry brown people, oh my!) to hijack our government.

Are we seeing the equivalent of the Tea Party sprouting up all over the Middle East? Sure. Are terrorist cells working under cover of the demonstrations? Possibly. Does that change anything? No, not really.

Grizzly
16-09-2012, 04:28 PM
This is for further reading, on why this movie attracted all this attention now instead of when it was actually released (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/egyptian-outrage-peddler-who-sent-anti-islam-youtube-clip-viral/56826/).

(It is not intended as an argument or counter-argument for anything, just extra info).

Nalano
16-09-2012, 08:33 PM
(It is not intended as an argument or counter-argument for anything, just extra info).

Good, because I fail to see how that contradicts anything stated thus far or illustrates anything except that there are extremists on both sides that are spoiling for a fight.

Grizzly
17-09-2012, 09:08 PM
Link in dutch, use translator of your choice (http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/09/17/moslimwereld-in-vuur-en-vlam-om-film-in-werkelijkheid-demonstreert-00006-procent/?utm_campaign=rss&utm_source=syndication).

Quite simply: 10,000 people are protesting against the movie. 10,000. Out of 1,6 billion muslims.
We probably have more news articles on this bloody subject then we have people protesting FFS. Heck, our amounts of football rioters are proportionally higher!

Nalano
17-09-2012, 09:10 PM
Quite simply: 10,000 people are protesting against the movie. 10,000. Out of 1,6 billion muslims.
We probably have more news articles on this bloody subject then we have people protesting FFS. Heck, our amounts of football rioters are proportionally higher!

And only four American deaths!

But those deaths mean a lot​.

Braveheart
19-09-2012, 11:11 AM
10,000 mate? Hundreds of thousands protested in Beirut alone, 2 days ago. where do you get your news from?

"In a rare public appearance, the leader of the militant Hezbollah group exhorted hundreds of thousands of supporters today to keep up the campaign against an anti-Islam video that has unleashed deadly violence and anger at the US across the Muslim world. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah spoke for about 15 minutes in Beirut before a rapturous, peaceful crowd estimated by police at about 500,000" - Associated Press

Nalano
19-09-2012, 07:03 PM
The ever prescient Jon Stewart had Salman Rushdie on last night. Good watch. Rushdie made some salient points. Namely, he argued that:

- Just because the man has the right to free speech doesn't mean we can't strongly rebuke him for what he said.
- There appears to be an outrage factory on both sides of the ocean: People whose power are tied up in using whatever they can to direct their constituents' rage against the United States/Pan-Arab Muslims.
- There are people in countries that don't have the same commitment to free speech, and as such don't understand that the American government doesn't necessarily condone the broadcasted comments of its citizens.

Subatomic
19-09-2012, 07:25 PM
Just read one of our (not even marginally successful) far right parties plans to do a public showing of the film. It's an obvious publicity stunt, but as newspaper commenter put it, it's the idiots on both sides handing each other the matches, while the reasonable people are busy trying to put out the fires.

kataras
21-09-2012, 04:34 PM
Well Rushdie's points are a bit debatable. The first is self-evident, the second I agree with but the third... I always find it funny talking about free speech in the West, as most of the time, very few people have access to mainstream media in order to voice a their opinion or counter-arguments to government or institutional discourse. There is always the net though but even this is not under our control. I think free speech is more an illusion than reality...

In any case, in my mind this has very little to do with free speech and a lot more with the US and Western foreign policy in the region for the last 3-4 decades. Resentment is brewing, and some leaders use anti-Americanism to muster support for their own political projects, I think. At the same time, I also think there are others who can only find religion as a discourse to articulate their political/social grievances.

Nalano
21-09-2012, 09:52 PM
I think free speech is more an illusion than reality...

Heh. You won't know it 'til you've lost it.

Tritagonist
21-09-2012, 10:08 PM
Well Rushdie's points are a bit debatable. The first is self-evident, the second I agree with but the third... I always find it funny talking about free speech in the West, as most of the time, very few people have access to mainstream media in order to voice a their opinion or counter-arguments to government or institutional discourse. There is always the net though but even this is not under our control. I think free speech is more an illusion than reality.
I think the point Rushdie is trying to make - I haven't seen the video, but I've heard similar things stated elsewhere - is that if you grow up in a country where everything you see in print, TV or hear on the radio is pre-approved by some dictatorship, you might not have a full appreciation of what it means to be able to just go out there and publish your home-made 'movie' for others to see. People who fail to comprehend that distinction, which seems obvious to most people in Europe, America, and large parts of Asia and Africa, are more likely to associate the 'American' film with the 'American' state - which is the same entity who just so happens to be rather unpopular in the region for a whole host of other reasons.

Meanwhile, north of the Alps, German socialist Martin Schulz, president of the EU's Parliament, has been criticized by certain sections of the political spectrum who claim he went too far in denouncing the movie in the presence of some Arabian visitors: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/11504/Onrust-in-de-Arabische-wereld/article/detail/3319483/2012/09/20/PVV-eist-vertrek-voorzitter-EU-parlement.dhtml

http://i.imgur.com/iSQbH.jpg

A much more sensible, in my opinion, reaction was advocated by Ahmed Aboutaleb, the Morocco-born mayor of the second-largest city in the Netherlands Rotterdam, who urged his fellow Muslims to 'laugh it off', echoing the famous statement by Thomas Jefferson that 'ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions'.

Grizzly
21-09-2012, 10:49 PM
10,000 mate? Hundreds of thousands protested in Beirut alone, 2 days ago. where do you get your news from?

"In a rare public appearance, the leader of the militant Hezbollah group exhorted hundreds of thousands of supporters today to keep up the campaign against an anti-Islam video that has unleashed deadly violence and anger at the US across the Muslim world. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah spoke for about 15 minutes in Beirut before a rapturous, peaceful crowd estimated by police at about 500,000" - Associated Press

Oh, one of the most reputable newspapers in the netherlands. Your news might be a bit more recent then the article though.
Although I can't actually find it anywhere! You quoted from "associated press", but everything I turn up is from a website called newser.com. Can't you quote from say... the New York Times? I can find on my own favorite newspaper that the speech was hold in front of thousands of people (not hundreds of thousands), and being held in front off is not the same as protesting. Or setting stuff on fire.

Nalano
21-09-2012, 11:54 PM
Oh, one of the most reputable newspapers in the netherlands. Your news might be a bit more recent then the article though.
Although I can't actually find it anywhere! You quoted from "associated press", but everything I turn up is from a website called newser.com. Can't you quote from say... the New York Times? I can find on my own favorite newspaper that the speech was hold in front of thousands of people (not hundreds of thousands), and being held in front off is not the same as protesting. Or setting stuff on fire.

The Associated Press is a news agency headquartered in NYC. It farms out non-bylined reporting that then gets used by newspapers nationwide. It's been a way for smaller papers to keep their costs down by not having to keep news desks all over the country/world. The article Braveheart quoted, for instance, shows up in dozens of second-tier newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Tritagonist
22-09-2012, 11:01 AM
Also interesting: Henryk Broder writing for Die Welt: http://www.welt.de/kultur/article109261025/Wie-unerzogene-Kinder-aus-dem-7-Jahrhundert.html


Da hilft nur eines: Der Besuch in einer Oase der Vernunft, dem arabischen Sender Al-Jazeera. Der meldet, immer mehr Syrer wunderten sich darüber, dass ein Video über Mohammed in der islamischen Welt für mehr Aufregung sorgt als das Blutbad in Syrien. "Liebe Moslems", schreibt ein Leser, "unser Prophet wäre über die Morde, die Assad in Syrien begeht, viel mehr beleidigt als über irgendeinen respektlosen Film".

In other words: Syrians are writing to Al Jazeera to ask why some video is creating more outrage than the Blutbad, which I suppose can be translated as massacre, in Syria. One wrote: "Dear Muslims, our Prophet is much more insulted by the murderous actions of Assad in Syria than by some disrespectful movie".