US embassies in Egypt and Libya swarmed

Maq wrote:

Hey, I agree he's allowed to do it. I've never said anywhere he's not allowed to do it. I've said he's a f***ing c*** for doing it.

I get that, but that's where you and I diverge. I don't view any response of violence to a youtube video to be in any way reasonable. As I said originally, I'd rather live in a society where f*cking c**ts feel free to say awful things than a society that encourages them to remain silent over fears that someone, someplace in the world, may commit an act of violence.

Funkenpants wrote:
Maq wrote:

Hey, I agree he's allowed to do it. I've never said anywhere he's not allowed to do it. I've said he's a f***ing c*** for doing it.

I get that, but that's where you and I diverge. I don't view any response of violence to a youtube video to be in any way reasonable.

Neither do I mate. Where we differ is I view a response of violence to a youtube video as something a reasonable and responsible person would expect when making racist mockery of violent, angry fundamentalists.

It's not right for said violent angry fundamentalists to respond with violence, but how the hell do you expect violent angry fundamentalists to respond? A letter to the New Yorker? To pretend they'd respond any differently and that you've got no responsibility for the words out of your mouth is breathtakingly disingenuous.

Islamists don't give a rats arse about Bacile's right to free speech, and what makes me angry is that they're not going to take their frustrations out on him, but out on people with no argument with either of them.

Rallick wrote:

I agree that Bacile (and Jones) were assholes and douchebags. That said, any response other than a verbal or written "This is offensive to us, and you are a jerk" (I may be paraphrasing) on the part of the Muslims is not proportional.

While I think the kernel of what you're saying is broadly true I think it only holds up if we entirely divorce these current events from their historical and geopolitical context.

Whoa, we have two or three threads specifically about how victim blaming is morally repugnant. Now that the victims are assholes, we're changing our tune?

In what manner is saying "he shouldn't have made that film, look what happened" different from saying "she shouldn't have worn that skirt, look what happened?"

The blame is on these men (and women) who believe their God is worth more than the lives of those with whom they disagree.

Seth wrote:

Whoa, we have two or three threads specifically about how victim blaming is morally repugnant. Now that the victims are assholes, we're changing our tune?

Because the arseholes aren't the victims, the embassy staff are. The arseholes picked a fight they were fully prepared to have other people fight for them.

Sadly, the maker of the film is not the victim. Innocent people died.
Edit: sh*t! Tannhauser'd again!

I fully blame the rioters for these deaths because, as has been said, the response was completely out of proportion. That being said, I also feel that the makers of this film knew exactly what they were doing and what they were trying to incite. In my mind it was akin to punching a wild bear in the nose to show everyone just how dangerous a mad bear can be. You knew what would happen and you were just doing what you did to give everyone an object lesson to how dangerous this thing was. I'm sure the filmmakers are sitting back somewhere nodding their heads saying "See, we told you they were violent. Now do you believe us?". They probably see themselves as scoring points here and being in the right. Sure the deaths of the embassy workers were tragic but they didn't kill them, right? I dare say that these guys would be fine with a fulfillment of the promised crusade that Bush told them about years ago.

Point's the same. Dexter and Lumen hunt down Jordan Chase even though he didn't touch any of the girls in season 5.

Kehama wrote:

I fully blame the rioters for these deaths because, as has been said, the response was completely out of proportion. That being said, I also feel that the makers of this film knew exactly what they were doing and what they were trying to incite. In my mind it was akin to punching a wild bear in the nose to show everyone just how dangerous a mad bear can be. You knew what would happen and you were just doing what you did to give everyone an object lesson to how dangerous this thing was. I'm sure the filmmakers are sitting back somewhere nodding their heads saying "See, we told you they were violent. Now do you believe us?". They probably see themselves as scoring points here and being in the right. Sure the deaths of the embassy workers were tragic but they didn't kill them, right? I dare say that these guys would be fine with a fulfillment of the promised crusade that Bush told them about years ago.

If the filmmakers were trying to make the point that huge swaths of Muslims are vicious, riotous barbarians, I'd say they succeeded.

Or, as Radley Balko of Huffington Post says, "Conservatives need to come to terms with the fact that the vast, vast majority of American Muslims believe in peace and share the values and ethics of a free society. Liberals need to come to terms with the fact that far too many Muslims in the rest of the world don't."

Don't excuse the actions of North Africans like they are too stupid or animalistic to understand what they are doing. Bacile and Jones are not yelling fire in a crowded theater, and they are not yanking on the leash of a trained attack dog.

Seth wrote:

Or, as Radley Balko of Huffington Post says, "Conservatives need to come to terms with the fact that the vast, vast majority of American Muslims believe in peace and share the values and ethics of a free society. Liberals need to come to terms with the fact that far too many Muslims in the rest of the world don't."

Although this does pretty much also tell you that it's not "being muslim" that's the operative factor.

Once again, my lack of faith in humanity is vindicated.

Not that I like having the opportunity to say "I told you so."

One of the people killed was an active member of the EVE Online community, also a moderator at Something Awful.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...

Sean Smith, aka Vile Rat of EVE Online's GoonSwarm, was the senior State Department official reported dead.

EVE Online has lost one of its most senior members, and the Mittani - leading member of GoonSwarm - has lost a friend, in the Libyan Consulate attacks. Sean Smith, also known as Vile Rat of GoonSwarm, was initially reported dead - known then only as a senior State Department official - earlier this morning. Since that initial report several others, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, have also been confirmed as casualties in the attacks.

Seth wrote:

If the filmmakers were trying to make the point that huge swaths of Muslims are vicious, riotous barbarians, I'd say they succeeded.

Or, as Radley Balko of Huffington Post says, "Conservatives need to come to terms with the fact that the vast, vast majority of American Muslims believe in peace and share the values and ethics of a free society. Liberals need to come to terms with the fact that far too many Muslims in the rest of the world don't."

Don't excuse the actions of North Africans like they are too stupid or animalistic to understand what they are doing. Bacile and Jones are not yelling fire in a crowded theater, and they are not yanking on the leash of a trained attack dog.

I've been watching Reddit for updates and such, and the primary discussion thread had the following post.

I'm not the person you were addressing, but as someone raised Muslim who lived in the Middle East for 10 years, I'll say this: violence is an acceptable response to nearly anything in our culture. Daughter dressing provocatively? Beat her. Son showing signs of being gay? Beat him. Get into a fender-bender on the road? Fight the other driver. Waiter brings you cold food? Make sure you hurl plenty of verbal abuse at him. Restraint in the face of adversity or provocation is considered a sign of weakness; if you don't raise a ruckus, then you have no strength. This holds especially true for men, but my own mother (a woman who stands at all of 5 ft tall) broke a glass bowl over my uncle's head once because he said something inappropriate. And that's just one example out of dozens I could bring up off the top of my head.
I want to be able to say something like "This is only true for a minority of Muslims", and I'm sure others have had different experiences, but everything I've seen and experienced points to the fact that Middle Eastern culture fosters and encourages violence. After 9/11 I got into numerous arguments where I defended Islam and used the "No True Muslim" fallacy one too many times, but at this point there's no defense I can offer, no excuse for the way things are. I'm tired of defending my own people, which is almost as sad to me as the fact that there's any need to defend them in the first place.

I think there's also the issue that people are confusing the distinction between Islam the religion and the Middle East as a cultural region. Islam is not a universal culture. Muslims in the US are not the same as Muslims in Egypt, for example.

Farscry wrote:

I think there's also the issue that people are confusing the distinction between Islam the religion and the Middle East as a cultural region. Islam is not a universal culture. Muslims in the US are not the same as Muslims in Egypt, for example.

Muslims and their attitudes in the US are also an incredible minority in the world.

Nevin73 wrote:

I agree with Quintin. Where the hell was the Marine protective detail? Have we gotten so strapped for manpower that we are pulling the Marines from protecting our embassaies and hiring contractors instead?

Nothing I've read has listed the security as Marines, yet traditionally don't Marines guard our embassies?

The California-born ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was trying to leave the consulate building for a safer location as part of an evacuation when gunmen launched an intense attack, apparently forcing security personnel to withdraw.

From Link

There's definitely marines stationed at the US embassy in my country.

Rexneron wrote:

One of the people killed was an active member of the EVE Online community, also a moderator at Something Awful.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...

Sean Smith, aka Vile Rat of EVE Online's GoonSwarm, was the senior State Department official reported dead.

EVE Online has lost one of its most senior members, and the Mittani - leading member of GoonSwarm - has lost a friend, in the Libyan Consulate attacks. Sean Smith, also known as Vile Rat of GoonSwarm, was initially reported dead - known then only as a senior State Department official - earlier this morning. Since that initial report several others, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, have also been confirmed as casualties in the attacks.

Wait.... a senior state department official was a major part of Goonswarm? The original asshats of the EVE Online universe?!

Kraint wrote:
but at this point there's no defense I can offer, no excuse for the way things are. I'm tired of defending my own people, which is almost as sad to me as the fact that there's any need to defend them in the first place.

Sounds very echoey on both sides of this....

I think Maq is right on the money.

Rexneron wrote:

One of the people killed was an active member of the EVE Online community, also a moderator at Something Awful.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...

Sean Smith, aka Vile Rat of EVE Online's GoonSwarm, was the senior State Department official reported dead.

EVE Online has lost one of its most senior members, and the Mittani - leading member of GoonSwarm - has lost a friend, in the Libyan Consulate attacks. Sean Smith, also known as Vile Rat of GoonSwarm, was initially reported dead - known then only as a senior State Department official - earlier this morning. Since that initial report several others, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, have also been confirmed as casualties in the attacks.

An article about Vile Rat.

An interesting part of that article is the comments section, where several reporters are soliciting for people to give them information about him in-game from some big mainstream media outlets. I wonder how this is going to play out.

"Fire" in a crowded theater is about the panic you cause in people who suddenly believe their lives are in imminent danger and too many bodies are trying to cram through too few doors.

Did this ridiculous video snippet on YouTube suddenly make the people of Egypt or Libya in fear for their lives? No. Then there is no valid comparison.

Inciting a mob is when you turn a crowd loose on a specific target or group. If Israeli filmmaker Sam Bacile, maker of the film in question, could be held guilty of inciting a mob, it would only be if people took his film to heart and attacked Muslims.

Yes, he provoked these people, but they certainly didn't strike any target he designated. They didn't even attack him or any of the people involved. Hell, the protestors largely hadn't even seen the video. All the articles I've read on the attacks talk about protestors "hearing about" it. In Egypt, Salafists showed bits of the video on their private network.

The channel's enraged host and a commentator then demanded to know how Islam could be treated in such a debasing way.

...

"Many of the people here haven't even seen the movie," said Mostafa Nageh, a youth who attended the protest. "Most people came out to protest just because they heard that a video insulting the prophet was made in the U.S."

This video was a scapegoat by groups that wanted to stir up mob violence against the US on the anniversary of 9/11.

There are groups in Islamic countries that are waiting to "be offended" & "respond with violence". They're not reacting, they're waiting for opportunity.

What universe is this where Quintin Stone and I lie on the same side of the discussion with no caveat??

Rexneron wrote:

There are groups in Islamic countries that are waiting to "be offended" & "respond with violence". They're not reacting, they're waiting for opportunity.

And your point is?

Muslims don't have a monopoly on religious extremism and violence, Mr. Confirmation Bias.

CNN is now reporting a group that had attacked the embassy previously is suspected as being behind the Libya attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/...

A pro-al Qaeda group responsible for a previous armed assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is the chief suspect in Tuesday's attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, sources tracking militant Islamist groups in eastern Libya say.

They also note that the attack immediately followed a call from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for revenge for the death in June of a senior Libyan member of the terror group Abu Yahya al-Libi.

...

That analysis is supported by U.S. sources who say the attack on the consulate is believed to have been pre-planned. The sources say the attackers used the protest as a diversion to launch the attack, although the sources could not say if the attackers instigated the protest or merely took advantage of it.

Farscry wrote:
Rexneron wrote:

There are groups in Islamic countries that are waiting to "be offended" & "respond with violence". They're not reacting, they're waiting for opportunity.

And your point is?

Muslims don't have a monopoly on religious extremism and violence, Mr. Confirmation Bias.

Agreed. Not sure where I said they did.

Farscry wrote:

Muslims don't have a monopoly on religious extremism and violence, Mr. Confirmation Bias.

I didn't read his post that way. We've been talking about an incident in a muslim country. If a mob attacked in Ireland, the discussion may go the same way.

Rexneron wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Rexneron wrote:

There are groups in Islamic countries that are waiting to "be offended" & "respond with violence". They're not reacting, they're waiting for opportunity.

And your point is?

Muslims don't have a monopoly on religious extremism and violence, Mr. Confirmation Bias.

Agreed. Not sure where I said they did.

My apologies then, I honestly thought from the sentiments you were expressing that it was the same line of thought I get from most of my relatives ("Muslims are violent backwards people unlike Christians").

My brain went right there from association and I jumped right on the counterattack. I do believe that makes ME the recipient of the Confirmation Bias award instead.

There's a lot of weird stuff floating around about this Sam Bacile guy. The name appears to be a pseudonym.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...

He said Bacile contacted him because he leads anti-Islam protests outside of mosques and schools, and because, he said, he is a Vietnam veteran and an expert on uncovering al Qaeda cells in California. "After 9/11 I went out to look for terror cells in California and found them, piece of cake. Sam found out about me. The Middle East Christian and Jewish communities trust me."

Uh, right. This Steve Klein guy doesn't sound like the most reliable source of info.