U.S. embassy in Cairo apologizes

cincybearcat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

2) it's only about 1 times in a billion where something someone says actually starts a massive violent protest or a war. I do understand why people would disagree with me here though, and I don't come to this opinion lightly.

I think it happens more frequently in the middle east. Or have their been another billion negative things said about their prophet since the stupid cartoon?

Yeah, I'd say there has been. Or at least many millions.

As deplorable as this so called movie is , I think exactly how we regard the first amendment is either unknown or lost in the shuffle amongst some world leaders. But I suppose they need to say what they need to for their own peoples.

Also, it strikes me how easily manipulated these protesters are. Could provide a convenient distraction while other things were carried out.

I'm glad to see some cooler heads prevailing in this mess.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i am more inclined to think that this is blowback from our foreign policy than a bunch of people upset about a movie.

no doubt. Any excuse would have sufficed. Libya was about oppurtunity.

Heard on NPR how its not the first time an attack against a consulate has been done. Italian and english , so they said. Both after a perceived insult to the prophet or isalm.

PJ_Soul wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

EVERYONE here has jumped to the conclusion that this attack occurred over a movie, and therefore is the work of muslim extremists.
Most of the independent sources I've read say that the protests over the movie were either started for, or used as cover for coordinated attacks against US interests on the anniversary of 9/11.
From what I've read - this happened in three waves: protesters, then armed gunmen, then armoured vehicles. Protesters don't drive armoured vehicles. Trained, generously funded militant groups do.
I don't find it at all surprising that so many people here just accept at face value that this must be the work of crazy muslims, because that's what the initial news stories said. It's a lot easier to point fingers at religion than to consider that these attacks might just be reprisal for NATO/US foreign policy. That would require some national introspection....and we all know that never fucking happens.

I actually did mention that it was extremists who killed the Americans, but more politically motivated citizens protesting. But I think it's a very safe assumption to a foregone conclusion that it WAS crazy Muslims who committed the murders. A big part of what Muslim extremists focus on is indeed NATA and US foreign policy. In the end, it still all comes down to their extremist faith. It's not the same as here, where there is a difference between politics and religion. They are considered completely intertwined over there.

umm, we're not so far from that now here in the states.

mickeyrat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

EVERYONE here has jumped to the conclusion that this attack occurred over a movie, and therefore is the work of muslim extremists.
Most of the independent sources I've read say that the protests over the movie were either started for, or used as cover for coordinated attacks against US interests on the anniversary of 9/11.
From what I've read - this happened in three waves: protesters, then armed gunmen, then armoured vehicles. Protesters don't drive armoured vehicles. Trained, generously funded militant groups do.
I don't find it at all surprising that so many people here just accept at face value that this must be the work of crazy muslims, because that's what the initial news stories said. It's a lot easier to point fingers at religion than to consider that these attacks might just be reprisal for NATO/US foreign policy. That would require some national introspection....and we all know that never fucking happens.

I actually did mention that it was extremists who killed the Americans, but more politically motivated citizens protesting. But I think it's a very safe assumption to a foregone conclusion that it WAS crazy Muslims who committed the murders. A big part of what Muslim extremists focus on is indeed NATA and US foreign policy. In the end, it still all comes down to their extremist faith. It's not the same as here, where there is a difference between politics and religion. They are considered completely intertwined over there.

umm, we're not so far from that now here in the states.

While I wish we're were farther away...we are no where near as close as you seem to think.

cincybearcat wrote:

mickeyrat wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I actually did mention that it was extremists who killed the Americans, but more politically motivated citizens protesting. But I think it's a very safe assumption to a foregone conclusion that it WAS crazy Muslims who committed the murders. A big part of what Muslim extremists focus on is indeed NATA and US foreign policy. In the end, it still all comes down to their extremist faith. It's not the same as here, where there is a difference between politics and religion. They are considered completely intertwined over there.

umm, we're not so far from that now here in the states.

While I wish we're were farther away...we are no where near as close as you seem to think.

my point being religion IS intertwined in politics here.
certain religious veiwpoints are used to legislate or attempt to.
Not to the violent extremes we see overseas , but the point holds.

Drowned Out wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

EVERYONE here has jumped to the conclusion that this attack occurred over a movie, and therefore is the work of muslim extremists.
Most of the independent sources I've read say that the protests over the movie were either started for, or used as cover for coordinated attacks against US interests on the anniversary of 9/11.
From what I've read - this happened in three waves: protesters, then armed gunmen, then armoured vehicles. Protesters don't drive armoured vehicles. Trained, generously funded militant groups do.
I don't find it at all surprising that so many people here just accept at face value that this must be the work of crazy muslims, because that's what the initial news stories said. It's a lot easier to point fingers at religion than to consider that these attacks might just be reprisal for NATO/US foreign policy. That would require some national introspection....and we all know that never fucking happens.

I actually did mention that it was extremists who killed the Americans, but more politically motivated citizens protesting. But I think it's a very safe assumption to a foregone conclusion that it WAS crazy Muslims who committed the murders. A big part of what Muslim extremists focus on is indeed NATA and US foreign policy. In the end, it still all comes down to their extremist faith. It's not the same as here, where there is a difference between politics and religion. They are considered completely intertwined over there.

But I think that's a black and white view of the situation. Have you ever considered the ties between extremism and the violence perpetrated by foreign forces? Or the ties between extremism and poverty in these regions - which can also be at least partly blamed on US / NATO foreign policy?
IF (and this is a generalization to even discuss, really), politics and religion are so much more intertwined over there....could it not be at least partially due to the fact that foreign powers, most of them members of a different religion, are occupying their countries? This thread is proof of how inflamed tensions get over a couple American deaths. Imagine the hate if a muslim army was on US soil, killing hundreds a week?

I think of this matter in anything other than black and white. I don't think my posts suggest there is anything black and white about it - it's a highly complicated subject. I have considered those things you mentioned, yes. Of course their views are tied into their views of foreign policy... I've been confronting this thread under that assumption that that is a given - we all know (or should know if we're talking about this at length) the attitude towards American and western foreign policy among Muslim extremists - I hope so anyway. Otherwise there are people here who think that just being "really really Muslim" is what makes them want to kill and terrorize!
Muslim extremists' actions stem from their interpretation of the Islamic faith in the context of all of these issues. The reaction (or non-reaction) of moderate Muslims also largely stems from their position within the faith.
I don't really know what you mean by this thread being evidence of how inflamed tensions get over a couple of American deaths. I think it's been a pretty even keeled thread for the most part, considering that we're talking about our embassies being attacked or under threat in wide spead, international protests, which is a pretty big deal.
But anyway, none of this changes the fact that extremists' actions are intimately woven into their faith, and herein lies the problem. Religious fervor (in any faith) tends to lead to a serious lack of logic and reason, combined with a lack of fear. That is a dangerous combination.

aerial wrote:

This administration have no idea how to handle what is happening now. They are saying the video that was posted in July is the reason our ambassador was killed, possibly sexually assaulted, and paraded in the streets. Then they say it was not the reason. They don't know what lie they want us to believe.....

Kerry Picket at The Washington Times reported:

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered.

A news report made by the Libyan Free Press is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed:

Will Obama stop campaigning and handle this tragedy?

Hmmm. Why do you jump to the conclusion that someone is lying rather than them just trying to figure out what's going on while all of their sources are unable to actually communicate solid facts to them from there right now? I see no reason at this point to assume anything other than that, or any motive behind what you're suggesting. Nothing that's happened so far has helped Obama's campaign at all.... :?: