For a God King, He Sure Seems Out of His Depth

What? No apology for our Ambassador to the grateful nation of Libya thoughtlessly leaving his corpse lying around for the poor bullied Muslims to have to clean up?  Don’t we *care* that they incur ritual impurity from that?

Why are we there?

  • Michael

    Whom are you criticizing with this post?

  • Will

    Good question Michael.

  • Confederate Papist

    An Empire must grow..

  • Maggie Goff

    I do believe it’s Obama.

  • Paulus Magnus

    Instead of immediately trying to score rhetorical points, could you try doing, oh, 30 seconds of fact checking? That message was hours prior to the attacks in Libya and is part of their normal expected duties as diplomats. There’s a reason that Romney’s being raked over the coals for trying to use this against Obama. As for “why we’re there,” it’s because of a handy thing called “diplomatic relations.” They’re fairly common in the world and especially so with countries where we used military force to back what became the winning side in a civil war.

    And hey, why not any condemnation of the idiot and his financial backers who (badly) made a deliberately inflammatory film, knowing full well what the consequences would likely be? The Church Fathers did not approve of those who incited their own martyrdom, I suspect that they’d take an even dimmer view of deliberately flaming such flames with the knowledge that it would be others who were killed.

    • Paulus Magnus

      It should also be considered that Libya is immediately post-civil war and that all indications are that the attack on the ambassador was a deliberately planned large scale operation which was either fortuitously timed or was waiting for an event like this for cover. Typically mob protests do not have mortars and RPGs which is what allowed them to defeat the Libyan security force which did defend our ambassador and staff.

      • Dale Price

        No, the security force did not defend our staff. Rather, the opposite.

        “Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi, said the four Americans were killed when the angry mob, which gathered to protest a U.S.-made film that ridicules Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, fired guns and burned down the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

        He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building – deemed safer – after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.”

        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57511043/assault-on-u.s-consulate-in-benghazi-leaves-4-dead-including-u.s-ambassador-j-christopher-stevens/

        More to the point, our staffers should not have to rely upon local forces of dubious backgrounds or commitment to defend them–that’s the Marines’ job. Yet none were assigned to the complex.

        Interestingly, Zawahiri piped up about the death of a Libyan AQ bigwig less than 24 hours before the attack. Who knows–that would probably have been brought up in one of those intelligence briefings the President keeps skipping. But, hey–Romney jumped the gun! Or so the fanzine media seems to think.

    • Blog Goliard

      I’d be a lot more confident of Democrats’ belief in democracy if they accepted that their opponents have the right to fight as hard as they can against them.

    • Will

      “And hey, why not any condemnation of the idiot and his financial backers who (badly) made a deliberately inflammatory film, knowing full well what the consequences would likely be?”

      I believe that is what the administration did before the attack in Libya. Then I believe Mr. Romney criticized the administration for condemning the film.

      • Blog Goliard

        As Romney should have.

        A government that officially criticizes private citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights is a government that doesn’t believe citizens should have those rights.

        • Will

          If someone does a similar film about Christ, probably no one would react? No one would condemn the film or film maker?

          • Jared

            Condemn. Yes. Murder as a response? You’re kidding yourself if you think that likely.

            • Will

              No one is saying the murders are rational. Even the protests are over the top.

          • Ted Seeber

            South Park did. Not a word was said.

        • Paulus Magnus

          Freedom is dedicated towards an end. It is not contradictory to freedom of speech for the government to condemn inflammatory work, nor for it to prohibit that which is seditious, treasonous, or even blasphemous.

          • victor

            Uhhh… it’s not contradictory for the government to condemn blasphemous speech? I’m pretty sure that would require the government to recognize an official religion (the religion which has been blasphemed). I’m pretty sure the First Amendment has something to say about that, too.

            • Jared

              Paulus is working under the ancient form of freedom, which is a sort of mastery. “The Law sets you free” type stuff, which is actually the way the Church views just laws.

          • Dale Price

            Good luck with a sedition/treason charge against the film makers. Given that we don’t charge actual armed traitors with treason these days (Johnny Walker Lindh), I’m not sure where you are getting your jurisprudential theories for sedition and treason.

            As to blasphemy–when did Islam become our state religion again?

            The readiness of people to sacrifice the First Amendment in futile efforts to appease violent Muslims is a telling sign of our decline. Not to mention that it’s a glib incentivization to violence easily noted by anyone with a pulse.

            • Gary Keith Chesterton

              Lindh should have been hanged.

    • Jared

      “That message was hours prior to the attacks in Libya.”

      So…it’s not a shop? We actually had an official government message against “hurting feelings”.

      ….we’re living in a saturday morning PSA gone horribly, horribly wrong, aren’t we?

    • victor

      Yeah, Mark. Why no condemnation of the filmmakers (not Christians, incidentally, so appeals to the Church Fathers probably won’t carry much water with them) who were well within their first-amendment rights to make any kind of damn film they wanted? And why no declarations of moral equivalence (like both Clinton and Obama have offered) between someone who murdered a diplomat and three other people and someone who expressed their right to free-speech?

      Jeepers, Paulus.

    • Mark Shea

      So the filmakers are the moral equivalent of this mob of savages and deserve equal condemnation because they should have seen it all coming. But the administration talking heads should be exonerated for their moronic excuse making for the mob of savages because they could not possibly have foreseen that a mob of savages would behave like the mob of savages they’ve been behaving like for months.

      • Thomas

        ‘mob of savages’

        You civilized man, you.

        Cheerio and chin chin, me lad!

        • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

          Well, Thomas, what do you call people who respond to insult by one person by attacking other people? Civilized? Rational?

          • Thomas

            I could call ‘them’ people who respond to insult by one person by attacking other people, for a start.

            Because none of ‘us’ ever do that.

            My post was a satire.

            • Blog Goliard

              A depressingly large proportion of those who live in Islamic countries are savages. It’s simply the way things are.

              That doesn’t mean that God loves them any less than He does us; or that we should, in some perverse inversion of the Golden Rule, maim and kill them as wantonly as they maim and kill others; or that we should in other ways treat them as somehow subhuman.

              But we do no one any favors–not us, not them–by refusing to see things as they are because it’s too unpleasant, or calling savagery by its right name because it might hurt peoples’ feelings.

              • Thomas

                I’m not protesting in fear that it may “hurt peoples’ feelings”.

                Do you not see how relegating a whole group of humans to ‘savages’ is dangerous?

                History speaks quite loudly on the subject.

                • Mark Shea

                  I don’t relegate a whole group to savages. I relegate a mob of savages to a mob of savages. Not all Muslims were part of those mobs.

                  • Thomas

                    Is it really so hard to see the problem with this position?

                    ‘Not even the archangel Michael, when he was engaged in argument with the devil about the corpse of Moses, dared to denounce him in the language of abuse; all he said was, “Let the Lord correct you.”‘ – Jude 1:9

                    • Thomas

                      To clarify:

                      To say that a human or group of humans has acted savagely is not the same as calling those same humans savages.

                      If they are savage, I dare say that so are you.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Any one launch a baseless tu quoque. Shouting, “NO YOU!” is the strategy of a four year old. Documentation of my savagery would help me understand the charge.

                    • Mark Shea

                      Okay. Fair enough. I will moderate my tongue.

                • Blog Goliard

                  My point is that we soft-pedal the horrors of the Islamic world at our peril; and a pungent word like “savage” is not only definitionally appropriate, but may be what is required to shake us out of our cozy assumption that “savagery” is nothing more than a hoary Eurocentric colonialist construct.

                  David French wrote a post at NRO that seems to have resonated with many who served overseas:

                  First, it’s hard to overstate the level of cynicism toward Iraqi or Afghan culture on the part of the majority of American soldiers who’ve spent considerable time “outside the wire.” With their own eyes they’ve seen levels of brutality, ignorance, abuse (particularly toward women), and even pedophilia beyond anything even remotely comparable to their American experiences. Anti-Semitism is loud and vicious, making some Jewish soldiers reluctant to reveal or discuss their religious identities. Simply put, for Americans schooled in the mindless cultural relativism of our high schools and colleges, the profound negative differences between our culture and contemporary Arab Middle Eastern culture are shocking.

                  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313086/candor-culture-and-military-experience-david-french

                  • Thomas

                    I have no illusions about the horrors of our world, using abusive language toward our fellow humans does nothing to lessen it.

                    Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to have compassion for our enemies. Instead of labeling them ‘savages’ it would be more constructive to note the ‘savagery’ of their actions and then try to understand how they came to be where they are, then we may possibly begin to reconcile with our brothers and sisters.

                    • Blog Goliard

                      Are you this fastidious in all aspects of life? Declining, for instance, to label people who lie as “liars”, people in the penitary as “criminals”, etc.?

                      You should also probably give St. Paul a good scolding (see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 6).

    • Ted Seeber

      I don’t find diplomatic relations with a country in the midst of a civil war to be very handy. In fact, I find that kind of madness only worthy of being boycotted by the rest of the world with the country isolated until the inhabitants therein learn to be more civilized.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        I don’t find diplomatic relations with a country in the midst of a civil war to be very handy.

        The only counterpoint I could offer this is that we started that civil war.

        • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

          Did we? I thought that Libyans did when they couldn’t take Qadafi any more. Maybe we ought to have relieved them of their suffering the last time Libyans committed terrorism against the US with state sanction.

        • S. Murphy

          No, we didn’t. We took sides after it started.

        • Ted Seeber

          Seems to me like Quadafi started this civil war. It was the government that fired the first shots.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          Fair enough; we didn’t begin it. We just supplied the rebels with their weapons, intel, and support artillery from afar. Their enemies aren’t going to make such a differentiation about whether or not the US should be involved there.

    • Ye Olde Statistician

      The embassy message was a response to the Cairo attack, which did happen beforehand. In the Arab world, such passive-submissive appeals to reason sound like fear or impotence and invite further attacks. So then the second attack in Cairo and the better organized heavy-weapons attack in Libya.

  • Blog Goliard

    The Administration is furiously trying to turn this whole business into an anti-Romney storyline…with a depressing amount of success.

    We may be less violent and all-around more civilized here than in Egypt and Libya…but are we sure we’re less insane?

    • victor

      Well, seeing as how we never executed the French Ambassador to the US in retaliation for what Jean-Pierre Jeunet did to the “Alien” franchise, I’d have to say we’re probably at least a little less insane.

      • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

        That’s only because Joss Whedon bears significant responsibility as well, and the tea leaves and entrails indicated that deserved protests against such a crappy film would threaten the prophesied Firefly, on which be peace.

  • Charles Weaver

    Is it not the job of diplomats to make statements that are “diplomatic?” Obviously the author could not have foreseen the horrible events that ensued.

    Are you implying that Obama is responsible for every statement of these diplomats? There’s plenty to criticize in the actions of the administration but this is a stretch.

    • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

      There was a president who once said “The buck stops here.” Yes, he is responsible for his employees as much as Bush was, or Nixon, or Johnson, or Eisenhower.
      It is not the job of the embassy to apologies for movies made by foreign nationals.

      • Charles Weaver

        You mean: “you didn’t build that apology.”

        Let’s say for the sake of your argument that the president IS responsible for every public statement of every executive branch employee. The embassy statement was made in an attempt to prevent the violence. Quelling unrest and anti-American sentiment does seem to me to be part of the job of an American ambassador. When confronted with the threat of riots, should the embassy have issued a statement embracing the obviously incendiary movie? The film is incompatible with Christian and American values, and was obviously meant to incite violence. To say so is not the same as condoning violence, or sympathizing with the attackers.

        But the problem is that Romney and the rest referred to the statement as a response. And when presented with the facts, dug his heels in. “Statement from earlier in the day by American embassy” does not equal “First response by the Obama administration.”

        Also, the movie appears to be by an American, though with a pseudonym and plenty of obscure anonymity.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Filmakers have no freedom of speech—especially if they dare insult Islam.

    Because tender, Islamic feelings trump all. Nobody should have freedom of speech, if they’re just going to make Moslems feel bad. (Christians, Jews and everybody else don’t count.)

    President Barack Husseein Obama has said he’s very upset about the whole thing, so why is that mean old Romney picking on him?

    Ayup, ayup, ayup, it was all the fault of those bad filmakers. The Zionists probably put them up to it. It had nothing to do with, say, the date on the calendar, or the fact that Islam was, in its own, quaint way, celebrating what happened on that date, 11 years ago.

    Nup, nup, nup!

    • John

      Because, old Mittens is a jackass. He was in such a hurry to condemn anything, and everything that Obama does that he didn’t get his facts straight. You may not like Obama, that is your right. But, as an American, you should be ashamed of yourself. People are dead. American people. And, folks like you play up the religious hate.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/romneys-foreign-policy-fumble/262288/

      • Dale Price

        Your unwillingness to condemn the actual murderers is noted. As is your unswerving fealty to the administration in this fiasco.

        • John

          Your uniformed, ideological blather is duly noted. Please feel free to turn in all of your American paperwork before you leave.

          • Dale Price

            Oh, goodness. I stand refuted by Captain Coexist.

            • victor

              Captain Coexist… heh! Actually, it’s only a “fumble” because the reporters at the presser (we’re still waiting for the President’s presser… but don’t hold your breath) were actually colluding with each other on which questions to ask, how to back him into a corner. If the other team won’t follow the rules and sacks the quarterback during a time-out, I don’t know you can call that a fumble.

      • Ye Olde Statistician

        Actually, it was the rioters who played it up.

    • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

      The same happens here and many other countries with Christianity. If you say anythig against the Pope in the Vatican, you get arrested, just ask Sabina Guzzanti. People in my country (radical evangelicals) hired some cops to beat up a rock group in the middle of a concert. In Brazil, a man with epilepsy got beat up in a pentecostal church because they believed he was possessed by a demon. The BNP in England wants to deport any non-white, non-christian of the country. In the USA fundies put bomb abortion clinics and want no gun control, not to mention their support for the different wars waged by the USA. Besides, Islam is insulted alot, by many people who have become rich or at the very least popular by doing it. Don’t believe me? Here you have it: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Thunderf00t, ZOMGitsCriss, not to mention entire organizations like the EDL. Heck, you just have to watch the news to see that Islam and muslims are demonized at every single time. It’s this demonization that the USA uses to draw support for its invasions into foreign countries. Where are the muslims decrying this? Where are the muslims in the United States killing because of what this authors have said? Where are the muslims killing others because of the movie Fitna or the movie Submission? Where are the muslims in the USA, in Europe, in the Americas, killing because of what they see in CNN and other news channels? Sure, you’d say “Theo Van Gogh got killed”, except that Theo Van Gogh was killed by a lunatic that is not representative of an entire community and Geert Wilders also made a movie and is doing fine and well. So don’t come and say that muslims are crybabies or that they somehow have a special protection to criticism when that’s not the case at all. Go read Loon Watch. an anti anti-islamic sentiment blog if you still don’t believe me, or go and see some of the muslim channels here in patheos, specially Arkram’s Razor.

      • Mark Shea

        Thanks for the able exposition of Manning’s Corollary.

      • Ye Olde Statistician

        Your parallel instances are not actual parallels. If someone is arrested for disorderly conduct and insulting the dignity of a head of state, and then is not prosecuted because neither the State nor the insulted party is interested in doing so, that is not exactly on a par with beheading a nun, murdering a diplomat, or staging a riot against a foreign embassy. Really. It isn’t.

        The Italian secular law that was violated applied to insulting the dignity of the president of Italy, as well. I don’t know if it covers the head of state of San Marino as well as the Vatican.

        Likewise the rest of the list. None of them are explicitly over-the-top mob violence on third parties because their feelings were hurt by another person entirely.

        There have been a number of muslim riots in England and France, primarily because most immigrants to Europe come from Algeria or Pakistan where this is distressingly common. (The tragedy of Algeria is especially acute.) The US is harder to get to and draws either middle class Arab muslims or those from Jordan, Bangla Desh, and other better-educated areas.

        • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

          Abortion bombings is not comparable? Protesting in cementeries with “Fags go to hell” is not comparable? A pastor wishing concentration camps to homosexuals is not comparable? An atheist girl got death threats because she wanted to remove an explicit religious message in here school. Then you have a good number of americans that support the war in Iraq that killed thousands of innocents. On religious grounds. There are a number of different forms of violence, not just rioting. And one of the reasons why muslims protest is because they are not just “hurt” or demanding extra respect, but because they get constantly disrespected, constantly attacked, constantly demonized. And since it’s not just the result of Islam but other socio-economic reasons. where do the muslims you mention come from? Oh yeah, Algeria and Pakistan, not exactly the best places to be. What I want to know is why in the rest of the Muslim world, pretty much the vast majority, there aren’t riots or anything similar. Also, the reason why Christians don’t do this is because they don’t get criticized. The criticism of Christianity is huge, however it’s not as common, and its very feeble compared to that of muslims.

          • Ted Seeber

            Abortion Bombings are condemned by the Pope, and thus are not comparable. Especially since it appears that Islamics actually *revel* in terrorist attacks.

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              I know. But so are terrorist acts condemned by Islamic theologians.

      • Ted Seeber

        From wikipedia:
        “In July 2008, in front of thousands of cheering onlookers at Piazza Navona, Rome, Guzzanti made remarks about the Pope, saying that he would end up in hell as punishment for the church’s treatment of homosexuals, saying that he would soon be “tormented by great big poofter devils – and very active ones”. Although threatened with punishments of up to five years in prison for these comments, she was not prosecuted.[7] Guzzanti discussed it on the seventh season finale of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which was critical of the Vatican.”

        In other words, she was neither prosecuted nor silenced, let alone murdered for something somebody else said. But nice try.

        • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

          I know that, but it does show that you can’t even say anything satirical about the pope, and she was threatened with 5 years for that. A satirical comment. It says alot about the bishops and clergy in the Church.

          • Will

            Yep, that’s completely morally equivalent. People who say nasty things about the Pope are routinely followed up by mob murders of people who share the same nationality or geographical location or something by gangs of fanatical Catholics. How DARE we criticize poor persecuted Third Worlders for doing it?

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              The fact that she was threatened with five years of prison just for saying a satirical comment about the pope may not be morally as bad as what you describe, but it sure is intolerant and irrational and not something that we should do in the first world. It’s proof of the general intolerance of the Vatican.

              • Ye Olde Statistician

                It was an Italian secular law she violated, one that also applies to the Italian Head of State. And if what she said was supposedly a satirical comment, then she needs to study on satire a bit more.

                Try making chiliastic threats against the president of the US and you’ll get a nice visit from the Secret Service. You have to take threatening talk seriously. Recall the late night comedy show that followed Bush’s first election with a shot if him surrounded by a bull’s eye with the caption “Snipers Wanted.” Oh, it was only a satire! Sure it was.

  • Jim

    “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.” A few minutes ago, I happened to see that the Vatican issued a statement today, that said almost exactly the same thing. See: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1203806.htm (more detail here: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/libano-lebanon-libano-libia-libya-18068 ) I’ll assume that Mark will shortly be making a sweeping condemnation of these remarks by the Vatican.

    • Jim

      Typo. The quoted statement in my comment is from President Obama. Inadvertently left that out.

      • victor

        You also inadvertantly left out that Obama is a head of state and the Pope is the head of a Church (though the statement wasn’t from the Pope, but from a spokesman). US interests (the ill-defined Bush/Obama doctrine of promoting democracy and basic human rights, no matter what the bodycount) and Vatican interests (preserving the lives of the thousands of Copts who still live in Egypt) are not the same.

        One would hope the Vatican would offer a statement more conciliar in tone, as it wasn’t their principle of a basic human right (freedom of speech) or their embassy and diplomats that were under attack. It was American principles, American soil, and American diplomats who were attacked and violated. I wouldn’t expect the Vatican to put those American interests first and foremost in their statement.

        • Richard Johnson

          Actually, the Pope is also the head of state for Vatican City, which is a sovereign city state with it’s own diplomatic corps and government structure.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

          Interesting that the statement from the Vatican seems to condemn both the violent Muslims who killed the American diplomats and those who made the incendiary movie.

          “The serious consequences of unjustified offense and provocations against the sensibilities of Muslim believers are once again evident in these days, as we see the reactions they arouse, sometimes with tragic results, which in turn nourish tension and hatred, unleashing unacceptable violence,” he said Sept. 12 in a written statement that was also translated into Arabic.”

          • victor

            Yeah, the Pope is the head of the Vatican state, but the Vatican doesn’t have a vested national interest in Libya in the same way that the US (regrettably) does. How many divisions — or F16s — does the Pope have?

          • Ted Seeber

            Free speech isn’t a Catholic Dogma, it’s a secular atheist one.

            • victor

              That must be why that secular atheist playwright Karol Wojtyla loved it so much.

    • Confederate Papist

      Why would you say that?

      • Confederate Papist

        My question was directed to Jim….

    • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

      Which is perfectly legitimate for the Vatican to do. They are not directly involved and shouldn’t “take sides,” in a sense.
      The President should very much take sides, every time.

  • John

    “Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions are an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples.” God forbid. Reading the posts on this topic makes me sick to the stomach.

    “We actually had an official government message against “hurting feelings”.”

    “A government that officially criticizes private citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights is a government that doesn’t believe citizens should have those rights.”

    I wonder if there is half a brain lying around the posters on this site???

    • Chris M

      well, now that you’re here…

    • victor

      “I wonder if there is half a brain lying around the posters on this site???”

      Quod erat demonstrandum. (Or for the Latin-impaired, “Irony, party of one, your table is ready!”)

    • Dale Price

      You haven’t added much, unless commenting like you’re wearing a suit made from “Coexist” bumperstickers is a sign of superior intelligence.

      • John

        I’ll just stick with the Vatican’s quote, thanks: “Profound respect for the beliefs, texts, outstanding figures and symbols of the various religions are an essential precondition for the peaceful coexistence of peoples.”

        Since the message the folks at the Egyptian Embassy posted PRIOR to the attacks matches what the church says. Enjoy the irony.

        • Dale Price

          Thank God you’re not like that American over there.

          And with all due respect to the Vatican diplomatic corps, “profound respect” is unworthy groveling.

          Yes, unworthy groveling. I don’t have “profound respect” for the actions of outstanding figures of people in the Church. Bl. Pope Pius IX’s actions with respect to Edgardo Mortara are infuriating, and St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Jews can be pretty incendiary to name but two examples which do not get my profound respect.

          Consequently, I don’t have to have “profound” respect for those deeds of Muhammad which stink to high heaven, nor the repellent traditions ascribed to him in the ahadith.

          The diplomatic statement is over the line. But, by all means, offer up your unceasing profound respect. Your halo has been suitably burnished.

  • Tim Jones

    There should have been no mention – or even oblique reference – of the video by anyone in our government, at all, either before or after the events. Romney was correct in that, even if he is a bit slimy to make political hay out of it. There are enough anti-Christian and anti-Catholic media projects out there to sink an aircraft carrier. I ignore most of it, argue against some of it and allow only the tiniest fraction of it to make me really angry.

    No, the video is not a genuine issue. It is this week’s Islamo-fascist MacGuffin. Mark’s “Bronze Age Thugs” are the issue. Full stop. Such people walk around *looking* for new ways to be offended.

    • Dale Price

      Yep. Ignore it. Or simply state that the film was not created or affiliated in any way by/with the government of the U.S., nor does it have the support of same. Full stop.

    • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

      Terms like Islamo-fascism are just repulsive. Because of anti-islamic sentiment is why the recent sikh massacre happened. Because of anti-silamic sentiment Anders Breivik killed several muslims. Because of anti-islamic sentiment, the USA goes to invade islamic countries where it violates several human rights. So don’t come around using the ridiculous term islamo-fascism, when secular countries with christian majorites perpetrate much more human right abuses than islamic countries.

      • Dale Price

        Secular Algerians came up with the term “Islamo-Fascism.” But what do they know.

        Thanks for reminding me of Bill Clinton’s declaration of the Ninth Crusade against Somalia in 1993, donning his red cross surcoat, brandishing an M-16 and bellowing “DEUS VULT!” on the South Lawn. Glorious, glorious times.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Right. Like I explained to my boys yesterday, 9/11 was no big deal. It’s Americans who are the evil ones. You can tell by the rivers of blood gushing down the street from all the Muslims who have been killed daily by American racists.

        I’ve often said it seems to be a profound disappointment to some folks that after 9/11 our government didn’t round up Muslims and ship them to camps, and that Americans didn’t run around killing Muslims by the truck load. Yes, the military response was ill-conceived and poorly executed. But in light of 9/11, we had every right in the world to respond. We simply responded the wrong way. People seem to take that and suddenly turn it into a world where Jesus could resign tomorrow, but for all the sin in the world that is only the result of the evil American.

        • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

          You think I do not decry islamic terrorists, except that I do. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group, no doubt about that, and 9/11 was something horrible. But that doesn’t change the fact that people have become incredibly discriminatory against muslims in general. Again, the USA has used anti-islamic sentiments to draw support to the Iraq war and send help to Israel. In the US, of course muslims are not getting killed en masse, if at all, but you sure do oversees.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            My son-in-law is muslim, so I may have a different perspective. He has not noticed people becoming “incredibly discriminatory against muslims in general.” Certainly not like what Germans suffered in WW1, let alone Japanese and Italians in WW2. When he and my daughter and grandchildren went to live in Jordan for a couple of years, folks were telling me that they’d never be let back into the US. Of course they were and with no hassle whatsoever. The US customs inspector also was muslim; so go figure. These hysterical imaginings are all based on theory, not evidence.

            Nor have I noticed the government using “anti-islamic sentiments to draw support to the Iraq war…” The arguments were all geo-political. Saddam was a secular fascist, not an Islamist.

            The repressiveness of muslim/Arab governments is well-known to the muslims and Arabs who live there. My son-in-law told me he was grateful to be in the US, where he could finally practice Islam! On another occasion, listening to a radio story regarding the use of torture, he laughed bitterly and said, “You call THAT torture? Americans don’t know what torture is.” And the one time I saw him get truly angry was a PBS special on the Taliban, which showed children davening as they memorized Qur’an. “That’s not Islam!” he cried. “They memorize the words, but they don’t know what they mean!”

            The muslims killed overseas are like the Lutherans killed by Americans during WW2 (which was also criticized by some as being in support of “Jewish interests” – there was no Israel at the time). It turns out that America’s allies in the same war were (wait for it) also muslim: the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Shi’ites and Kurds in Iraq. Clinton and Blair attacked missile sites in Iraq because the fascists were shooting at Coalition planes enforcing the UN-mandated no-fly zone. Bush Sr. went to war with Iraq in defense of Kuwaiti muslims (but then respected international opinion and left the Iraqi Kurds and Shi’ites out to dry). Clinton in Kosovo was defending muslims. In Iraq Part II, the Coalition was defending Shi’ite and Kurdish muslims from a secular fascist state. When I asked a nuclear inspector in Vienna how he felt about it — he was a Shi’ite from Baghdad — he said the Sunni ba’athists had been killing his people for decades. “We don’t want the Americans to stay too long,” he said, “but we don’t want them to leave too soon.”

            Whether any of these people are worth one drop of American blood shed in their defense or whether having been introduced to democracy they will know how to handle it is another kettle of fish entirely.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            YOS hit the nail on the head, so read on. Because he has more of a direct knowledge from a personal perspective, I’ll defer to him. I would say that simply dropping the old ‘America is racist, Racist, RACIST!!’ does very little, no more than it does to say Islam is evil, Evil, EVIL!”

            FWIW, I think those who say ‘Islamofascism’ are, believe it or not, trying to distinguish between those who slaughter and murder in the name of Islam, and those who are simply folks trying to get through life who happen to be Muslim. You may not like the term, but it’s an attempt to avoid the ‘All Muslims are Evil’ label, which is wise. Just like it’s wise to avoid the ‘all Americans are racist’ label. Especially if it relies on things like ‘Americans are hating on Muslims now like never before!’ – a story I’ve heard repeated almost every year since 9/11, and have yet to see any evidence of.

            Again, I’m not saying that Iraq was the right thing to do, or that our response to 9/11 was straight down the line perfection (though demanding perfection from anyone is not something I’m prepared to do). But it wasn’t simply our politicians yelling ‘They’re all evil! All Muslims! Kill them! Kill them all!’, with the American public cheering back their war cries as they waded forth to hack and slash their way through hapless hordes of fun-loving Muslim babies. It was a complex series of events based on a host of factors and provoked by a horrible act of war on a nation ill-prepared to respond.

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              At what moment did I say all US citizens were racist and evil or all of them cheered on the Iraq war?

              • Dale Price

                You push a line of moral equivalence between the United States and Muslim terrorism–actually, we’re worse–and you claim puzzlement. Forty years ago, you’d have been apologizing for the Soviets. Maybe you still do–wouldn’t surprise me.

                True, you haven’t said all Americans were evil, Muslim-hating racists. But it’s abundantly clear you think a functioning majority are.

                Your America-hatred is wearing thin. I hope Mark acts accordingly.

                • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                  “You push a line of moral equivalence between the United States and Muslim terrorism–actually, we’re worse–and you claim puzzlement. Forty years ago, you’d have been apologizing for the Soviets. Maybe you still do–wouldn’t surprise me.”
                  Your government lied about WMD to invade Iraq, that constitutes a crime against humanity. If that is not comparable to islamic terrorism or islamo-fascism, then I don’t know what is. And no, I’m no apologist to the Soviet Union, they did great things but you can’t deny their crimes too. I would never support for a return to the Soviet Union. I don’t even know why do you bring them up in the first place. Jumping the slippery slope?

                  “True, you haven’t said all Americans were evil, Muslim-hating racists. But it’s abundantly clear you think a functioning majority are.”

                  No, I’m not implying that. What I’m doing is pointing out aspects of your culture that are no better than those of muslims you imply are a tickling bomb that can explode by very minimal offense.

                  “Your America-hatred is wearing thin. I hope Mark acts accordingly.”
                  No, what I “hate” (I don’t like that word) is people implying that muslims are ultra sensitive bastards that can easily be provocated into violence, and that they somehow are more violent than those in the west.

                  • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                    Another thing I don’t like is how people imply that Islamic fundamentalism is somehow worse than Christian fundamentalism or even Atheist fundamentalism when that’s not the case.

                    • Andy, Bad Person

                      Which just shows a psychotic detachment from reality on your part. That you can’t differentiate between the actions of Islamic radicals (who routinely kill people) and Christian and Atheist radicals (who say mean things) shows that you’re just not interested in thinking things through.

                    • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                      @Andy: US soldiers routinely kill muslims. Atheists are routinely killing people in North Korea and China and did it in the communist states of the past. Not to mention atheist authors like Hitchens and Harris pretty much advocate violence against muslims and are okay with the wars agains the muslim world. Fundie preachers also advocate warring against muslims. And jews are comparing muslims to the amalkites in Israel. Zionists are basically advocating ethnic cleansing. Authors like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have basically said we should nuke them. That they aren’t killing people doesn’t change the fact that they advocate, are okay and even derive pleasure from the killing of their enemies.

                  • Dale Price

                    I get it–you’re a Euro-socialist and anti-clerical, and you have your pieties.
                    I brought up the Soviet reference because people using your exact same arguments and tactics went to great lengths to deny the horrors and crimes of the Soviet system. The U.S. was the real locus of evil in the world, and the Soviets were only erring socialist brothers in a hurry. They did great things, after all. Even though other nations did better without the hideous body count.

                    Your left-wing forebears–and you–only acknowledge the vileness of the Soviet era, albeit in a pro-forma fashion with “great things!” qualifiers, because the reality could no longer be denied.

                    Likewise, you only grudgingly admit vicious acts by Muslims and Muslim states when the bodies are paraded in front of your face. And even then, the United States remains the real enemy, the one to be hectored, lectured and resisted at all costs.

                    You don’t really care about Muslims except to the extent they can be used as a stick with which to beat Americans and your other bete noire, Christianity. You are at great pains to deny the repression Muslims suffer at the hands of Muslims, all because it is inconvenient to your argument.

                    Specifically, it leads you to facile and risible cliches like “Muslim fundamentalism is no worse than Christian fundamentalism,” all the while using handwaving to dismiss the brutal practices of actual Islamic fundamentalists, such as stonings, forced conversions, honor killings and female genital mutilation.
                    Yes, if you magically and conveniently redefine all of the things that make Islamic fundamentalism uniquely hideous as “non-Islamic,” such as functioning theocratic regimes, honor killing, suicide bombings, forced conversions, terrorist acts against “errant” Muslims and non-Muslims, FGM, execution of homosexuals, stoning of women, executions for witchcraft, marriage laws permitting girls age 10 to be married off, refusal to permit conversions to other religions and the base violence encouraged in ahadith, then yep-per, they’re all the same. How nice of you to dismiss all of the suffering Muslims and religious minorities captive in such realms in the process. If that’s not hate, I don’t know what it is. Contempt, almost certainly. Proof that you don’t really give a crap about Muslims? Most. Definitely.

                    Because it is fundamentally (rimshot!) ignorant or dishonest to try to define the issues in the way you do. In any event, it shows that you are captive to your agenda and won’t be dissuaded by the facts as they actually exist.

                    By all means–have the last word. Or 1000.

                    • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                      “I get it–you’re a Euro-socialist and anti-clerical, and you have your pieties.
                      I brought up the Soviet reference because people using your exact same arguments and tactics went to great lengths to deny the horrors and crimes of the Soviet system. The U.S. was the real locus of evil in the world, and the Soviets were only erring socialist brothers in a hurry. They did great things, after all. Even though other nations did better without the hideous body count.”
                      Maybe they do it because the USA has the same amount of body counts, so it is a bit hypocritical to denounce the Soviet Union and at the same time praise the US. Also, define anti-clerical, because I’m catholic too.
                      “Your left-wing forebears–and you–only acknowledge the vileness of the Soviet era, albeit in a pro-forma fashion with “great things!” qualifiers, because the reality could no longer be denied.”
                      Lets see, the communists were anti-fascists, supported land reform, supported wealth distribution, supported women’s emancipation, supported science, heck, they kickstarted the space race for God’s sake! The United States on the other hand had strong gender roles, racism laws, the KKK, it overthrew democratically elected head of states like Salvador Allende and Jacobo Arbenz, it bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, made STD experiments on blacks and guatemalans, and had a capitalist system that supported monopolies that still continues today. Look, I’m not denying the great presidents like Kennedy and Carter, but just as you can’t deny the good of the Soviet Union and the communists, so you can’t deny the bad of the USA.
                      “Likewise, you only grudgingly admit vicious acts by Muslims and Muslim states when the bodies are paraded in front of your face. And even then, the United States remains the real enemy, the one to be hectored, lectured and resisted at all costs.”
                      Muslim states are not imperialistic for starters. I don’t see muslim states sticking their noses in other third world countries like the USA does. Sure, muslim states have and have had dictatorships, however, they don’t impose them. The USA does exactly that. Also, I’m not denying the bad that muslims do, 9/11 and the killing of these people in Lybia is something wrong and indefensible, but I already point out that people use instances like this to demonize others even more and pat themselves in the back for somehow being superior.

                      “You don’t really care about Muslims except to the extent they can be used as a stick with which to beat Americans and your other bete noire, Christianity. You are at great pains to deny the repression Muslims suffer at the hands of Muslims, all because it is inconvenient to your argument.”
                      No, that would make me an atheist. Why don’t you go to my blog? I happen to be christian. I respect muslims alot, in fact I love islamic culture and because I consider Islam a great religion is why I’m debating this (apart from not having anything better to do at the moment). And I don’t deny the dictatorships and theocracies in the muslim world (which some happpen to be supported by the US government). I’ve alrady spoken against FGM, and you can’t deny the evil of stoning people for adultery or blasphemy. What happens is that I don’t like when people somehow think they are superior for not having this. “Look, we don’t do protests because our religion is offended” “We don’t kill people because they draw our leader” “We don’t stone adulterers and apostates” But you do go to other countries and kill innocents and you do support repressive states. But of course, it’s not all US people, its just the goverment, and I happen to agree with that, just as it’s not muslims who stone people but their repressive states they are living under.
                      Specifically, it leads you to facile and risible cliches like “Muslim fundamentalism is no worse than Christian fundamentalism,” all the while using handwaving to dismiss the brutal practices of actual Islamic fundamentalists, such as stonings, forced conversions, honor killings and female genital mutilation.
                      “Yes, if you magically and conveniently redefine all of the things that make Islamic fundamentalism uniquely hideous as “non-Islamic,” such as functioning theocratic regimes, honor killing, suicide bombings, forced conversions, terrorist acts against “errant” Muslims and non-Muslims, FGM, execution of homosexuals, stoning of women, executions for witchcraft, marriage laws permitting girls age 10 to be married off, refusal to permit conversions to other religions and the base violence encouraged in ahadith, then yep-per, they’re all the same. How nice of you to dismiss all of the suffering Muslims and religious minorities captive in such realms in the process. If that’s not hate, I don’t know what it is. Contempt, almost certainly. Proof that you don’t really give a crap about Muslims? Most. Definitely”
                      This entire site debunks your position that somehow Islamic Fundamentalism is worse. (while at the same time denouncing Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism too)
                      http://www.loonwatch.com/
                      “Because it is fundamentally (rimshot!) ignorant or dishonest to try to define the issues in the way you do. In any event, it shows that you are captive to your agenda and won’t be dissuaded by the facts as they actually exist.
                      By all means–have the last word. Or 1000.”
                      Well, if you mean that I will not be dissuaded by the notion that muslims and Islam are more violent than the west, then yes, I won’t be dissuaded. Look, this is in no way a defense of muslim terrorism, state sanctioned killing under religious guise, specially by stoning and the killing of the people described in this post. However, once you start implying somehow that because of this Islam and muslims are a special evil, I can simply not tolerate that, because its simply not true.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            You implied it by more or less saying ‘let’s not focus on what was done today or at any other point or place in the Islamic world, let’s focus on everything that the US has done because of all the anti-Islamic bigotry’.

            Oh, and if you mean Christian fundamentalists or atheist fundamentalists are the same as Islamic fundamentalists, that’s right as long as you’re not equating Islamic fundamentalists with Islamic terrorists. I’ll assume you’re not, since I’m sure you would not want to lump all Muslims who happen to believe in strong fundamentalist interpretations of the Islamic faith with those who butcher and slaughter in the name of Islam. That would be worse than using the term Islamo-fascist.

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              The problem is that people rapidly jump into the hate bandwagon about how violent are muslims and how we aren’t like that. I’m just pointing out the hipocrisy in that. The USA has killed a disproportionate amount of people compared to Al Qaeda in recent years, and supports and has supported tyranical rulers in other countries, so the accusation of Islamic countries being somehow more backwards is just wrong. The killing of US ambassadors is wrong of course, but it is not any more wrong than the mass amount of human right abuses the USA commit. The fact is that people use this instances to demonize other people even more. Its the same anti-catholics do. “A priest molests a child? Lol, how backwards catholics are!” It’s just flawed argumentation.

              • Ye Olde Statistician

                An interesting parallel to the “Arab Street.” The notion that the US “supports” a tyrannical regime simply because it does business with them is ludicrous. For one thing, in the Arab/muslim world there weren’t any other kinds of regimes (save briefly in Lebabon when the Christians were still in a majority). So the other option was to not have diplomatic relations with any muslim country. That would also draw protests.
                In that milieu, to have Power is to exercise power. The US was rightly perceived as having the power to waltz into any of these thugocracies and overthrow them. The fact that we did NOT do so was evidence of one of two things:
                1) we did not really have the power, but were a paper tiger
                2) we feared Saddam (or whoever the local thug was); or
                3) we supported and approved of the regime.
                The liberation of Kuwait was a demonstration of this. Sure, the Ba’athist army was driven from the Emirate; but the Coalition stopped short of invading Iraq itself. This was proof that the US feared Saddam, which is why he was widely seen as the victor in that war by the Arab Street.
                The demonstration that this reasoning was faulty, even delusional, came later.
                At that point Arab condemnation of US inaction in overthrowing tyrants became Arab condemnation of US action in overthrowing tyrants, the law of non-contradiction never having caught on in that part of the world.

                The Egyptian who seems to have produced the movie may have had his own motives. Over the past few years, as the power of the Brotherhood increased, hundreds of his co-religionists have been murdered and dozens of their churches burned. If muslims can be forgiven for murderous rioting and violation of international law because their feelings were hurt, then why can’t a Copt be forgiven for making a… hmm… Satirical video because his people were being murdered? The one answers satire with murder; the other answers murder with satire. Anyone can see the moral equivalence, right?

                Anjem Choudary, who organized the London protest against the video, said, “In Islam, you could ban it [the film]. How come Americans can’t? They still proclaim ‘freedom of expression’–but if Americans can believe in freedom of expression, which involves harming other people, insulting their prophets, then what’s wrong with Muslims having freedom of action, doing what they did in Libya and Egypt?” (Choudary is a Pakistani name.)

        • Ted Seeber

          For a while, in the madness following 9/11, I actually argued that we should give Saudi Arabia 72 hours to evacuate Mecca- and then turn a few empty buildings into glass in response for the original attack.

          I would say the same if it was a bunch of Italian Catholics who had piloted those planes- and if it had been St. Peter’s Bascilica as the target.

          I would NOT want to see a single life lost on the other side because of it, thus the 72 hour warning.

          And I now condemn that opinion as mad as a hatter, even if provoked.

          I wonder how many Islamics can say the same about the death of our Ambassador over a movie? I would hope MOST OF THEM. I would hope that Sixth Pillar Muwahiddun Theology is a small minority of a minority of a minority.

          But it only takes ONE to put on a vest made of dynamite, or pull the trigger on an RPG.

      • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

        Um, what would you call it when a country is ruled by a small clique of Islamic clerics and politicians in league with military and business leaders, exercising unrestrained power and crushing opposition with brutal violence?
        Islamo-democracy? Islamo-liberty? Islamo-rule-of-law?
        Go live there if you think they are so nice.
        People’s fear of Muslims is probably overblown. It is fueled though, by our leaders’ refusal to call spades spades. If just once the leader of a democratic nation seemed as interested in defending democracy, liberty, and rule of law in his own country, of preserving law and order in his own country, as he seems in coddling the sentiments of peoples largely hostile to democracy, hateful of liberty, and with no sense of rule of law and peaceful solutions to problems, we might, JUST MIGHT, trust them more.
        Instead, we get the continuous, sinking feeling that we are being led into a den of lions.

        • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

          Well, the USA doesn’t even try to spread democracy in Saudi Arabia. Make of that what you will.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Sure. Saudis have not committed any overt acts of aggression against their neighbors, nor threatened any vital American interests. The whole idea of Iraq was to introduce for the first time in history a more-or-less democratic government in the heart of the House of Submission. That Arabs doing democracy was a feckless idea is pretty obvious; but it was feared beyond measure by the sheiks who rule down there. The infection might spread — as indeed it did, sorta.
            Recall that when Europe was wallowing in national socialism, the US not only allied with the Soviet Union, but did not try to overthrow *other national socialist/fascist states like Portugal and Spain. Politics is the art of the possible, not the automated application of a single principle to all occasions.

        • Ted Seeber

          if rational, Shariah.

          If irrational, Muwahiddun.

          But one could, from the theology, make the point that NOBODY actually runs a Muwahiddun country- or at least, no human being.

        • Blog Goliard

          “People’s fear of Muslims is probably overblown.”

          Ambassador Stevens could not be reached for comment.

          • Dale Price

            Nor could any of the following:
            James Martin
            James Buchanan
            Premkumar Walekar
            Sarah Ramos
            Lori Ann Lewis-Rivera
            Pascal Charlot
            Dean Harold Meyers
            Kenneth Bridges
            Linda Franklin
            Conrad Johnson
            Pamela Waechter
            Michael Grant Cahill
            Libardo Eduardo Caraveo
            Justin Michael DeCrow
            John P. Gaffaney
            Frederick Greene
            Jason Dean Hunt
            Amy Sue Krueger
            Aaron Thomas Nemelka
            Michael S. Pearson
            Russell Gilbert Seager
            Francheska Velez (and her unborn child)
            Juanita L. Warman
            Kham See Xiong

  • Ye Olde Statistician

    What is it in the House of Submission that drives people to act out violently on third parties? Had they sent a team of hashish-smokers to assassinate the film-makers it would at least make some sense. Ditto for the Danish cartoonist a while back. When the Taliban sheltered al-Qaeda, the US did not react by bombing Mecca, but by overthrowing the Taliban. Yet when some fool in Georgia claims that he intends to burn some Qur’ans, Arabs respond by beheading a nun in Baghdad.

    Speaking of which, in Afghan rioting sparked by the Danish Cartoons, we have the following quote in the BBC report:

    “They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers!”
    –protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra in Afghanistan, quoted by the BBC, Feb. 6
    To which the Wall Street Journal merely added: We’ll Take That as a ‘Yes’

    • Mark Shea

      I think the technical term is “cowardice”. Radical Islamists have an overabundance of courage when it comes to brutalizing defenseless and bound hostages, women and children, even ones with Down’s Syndrome. Saladin is dead.

      • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

        Well said. They’re not much for fighting face to face on open battlefields against armed men who are prepared to fight, are they?
        That’s why they resort to terror. That’s why their governments use their own whooped-up people as proxies to do their dirty work.

    • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

      Yeah, it’s not like in enlightened, western, secular, christian countries we don’t do similar things *rolls eyes* In Brazil a man with epilepsy got beat up because people believe he had a demon, here an evangelical group is suspected to have hired the police to beat up a rock group in the middle of a concert, in the USA you have the recent sikh massacre that happened because they were confused with musilms, Pamela Geller and Rober Spencer have supported nuking Mecca, Thunderf00t, a youtube popular antitheist, talked about awaking a “sleeping giant” (you can see it by going to a channel called DawahFilms), fundie christians also bomb abortion clinics, want to send homosexuals to concentration camps, and say hateful things about muslims and other religious people. And this anti-islamic sentiment is what the USA uses to further their own warmongering ends, specially the invasion of Iraq and the continued help to the terrorist state of Israel.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        fundie christians also bomb abortion clinics, want to send homosexuals to concentration camps,

        Dude, you simply have no idea what you’ve talking about. I think you can safely be ignored without missing anything.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          You underestimate the need for gander sauce. Our respondent dismisses the murder of Theo van Gogh as the work of a single ‘deranged’ individual, while at the same time holding all of Christendom responsible for some nutcases with a DIY “church” or an alleged beating somewhere in Brazil.

      • http://www.withouthavingseen.com Ryan Haber

        Yeah, and those people get PROSECUTED by LAW and 99.9% of the citizenry are glad for it. You compare the culture of the West to the culture of the Middle East. If it’s so terrible, if you are so endangered, here in Europe, North, or South America – you are free to leave any time.

        • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

          I don’t see Terry Jones, Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps in jail. Maybe they have been there and I simply don’t know, so you could give me a source to that. But seeing how there are dozens of Westboro Batpist Church christians, it seems that the law doesn’t do anything regarding them. And you say “they are stoning people to death”, well the USA still has the death penalty in many states, and invades foreign countries, killing thousands of people. It has also not done anything against Sauid Arabia where women are second class citizens, instead it is an ally. The EDL in England has caused riots and violence against muslims. You seem to think that muslims are somehow special and more propense to violence and created authoritarian regimes, when the USA has supported them, in countries like Uganda, they want the death penalty for homosexuals, jews in Israel are teaching that the palestines are the amalekites of the Bible, and just decades ago, you had the regimes of Francisco Franco and Ngo Din Dehn. So don’t say that muslims are somehow special when it comes to violence, when it simply is not true.

          • Ted Seeber

            The key word there is “Dozens”. When you include the Protestants, there are nearly 2 billion Christians out there, and fewer than 200 act up.

            When you include *all* sects of Islam, there are about a billion of them, and yet MILLIONS act up.

            Still, I believe in both Islam and Christianity, that this behavior is basically minorities of minorities- small sects who answer only to one charismatic leader, who barely is able to preach to his own Mosque or Parish, let alone a wider group.

          • Blog Goliard

            I’ve seen this moral equivalency act before.

            I didn’t like it when it was used to excuse Stalinist terror by pointing to Jim Crow, and I don’t like it now.

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              “When you include *all* sects of Islam, there are about a billion of them, and yet MILLIONS act up.”
              The hell are you getting that? Even in those images of muslims protesting with signs “death to all who desecrate Islam” and what not, at most it’s only hundreds of people. You hardly will get thousands, much less millions.

              To Jim: I’m not trying to excuse anyone. What I’m saying is that people threat Islam as if there was something special in regards to violence about it and regard muslims and muslim countries than those in the west. I am no apologist for stoning adulterers or FGM, but it’simply doesn’t have to do with this people’s religion. By the way, just because a state applies shariah, doesn’t mean that all inhabitants are like that or agree with that. It’s no different than saying that because Bush invaded Iraq, all US citizens are like him or agree with his actions. This is simply the same type of flawed argumentation antitheists use against Christianity. They use some Christianity’s leaders and particular instances and apply it as representative of the religion, when it’s easily not the case.

              • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                Sorry, To Blog Goliard, don’t know where Jim came from.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            You don’t see them in jail because this is a free country where people can say outlandish and horrible things. Because if you want a society where outlandish and horrible things are outlawed, you had best hope nobody declares your beliefs outlandish or horrible.

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              But what they say is equivalent to hate speech and discriminatory language. In my country, you can go to jail for that.

              • Dale Price

                Because your country is not free, and you like that.

              • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

                I will assume, then, that is because you don’t live in a free country, but one that can give freedoms, or take them away. Or perhaps free in the sense of ‘it’s free because they’re not coming after me right now. They’re only coming after those people over there who are talking hate.’ Just hope and pray that what you say and believe doesn’t someday get defined as hate.

                • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                  Are you saying that inciting violence against others is not punished in the US and shouldn’t be punishable by law? Pussy Riot for example were put in jail for “religious hatred”. They only sang a song. How is this any different than inciting hate against muslims or homosexuals like Terry Jones and Fred Phelps do? Free speech has its limitations.

                  • Andy, Bad Person

                    Pussy Riot for example were put in jail for “religious hatred”. They only sang a song.

                    In a church. Which was neither their property nor were they permitted to do so.

                    Are you saying that inciting violence against others is not punished in the US and shouldn’t be punishable by law?

                    Of course it should, if you can actually use evidence to show that said incitement directly led to a real crime. If Fred Phelps says, “death to [gays],” and one of his followers actually goes out and kills a homosexual, you might have a case.

                    Strangely enough, though, the criticisms coming from you only have to do with speech, and not with actual violence like that which has happened in the last few days.

                    • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                      But pretty sure people have been sent to jail for saying the n-word. And saying death to fags is not inciting violence? Are you dense? Also, Fred Phelps has gone with his group of lunatics to property that is not theirs, and don’t get sent to jail. Pussy Riot does the same and they get 2 years of imprisonment.

          • Will

            Now I’m confused. Are you condemning Americans because we live in a country where people can say things you find offensive without being punished? Or because they deserve to have random co-religionists killed by mobs of fanatical homosexuals and that doesn’t happen?

            I suppose in your alternate world, every time Dawkins and Myers say hateful inciting things about Christians, Christians mobs “punish” it by killing random atheists?

            • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

              I’m not an atheist, in fact I already said in this post that I like Islam as a religion, something that Myers and Dawkins don’t, and no, I’m not condemning americans (a misnomer, since americans are people that live in the Americas, not just in the USA) for living in a country that commits human right abuses. Where are you getting that? What I’m saying is denouncing certain posters who jump on the opportunity to demonize the Middle East, which I find incredibly hypocritical.

              • http://liberationtemplar.blogspot.com/ Alejandro

                Also, what I condemn too is that you can say hateful things and not go to jail. Myers says hateful things, as well as Dawkins, but not to the same extent as Phelps, who literally is inciting violence against homosexuals, the same with Terry Jones. Also, Dawkins and Myers are not sending death threats constantly to religious people, nor are they saying that atheists should be desecrating churches or burning bibles, nor do they say that the goverment should limit rights to christians and theists. They just like to say that theists are stoopid. That’s it.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            I don’t see Terry Jones, Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps in jail.

            In the US, one must be convicted of a crime in order to be put in jail. With which civil crime were they charged? Bad taste and blasphemy are not crimes in the US.

            Perhaps in your country the government can lock people away for no reason. But be patient. We are slowly catching up with Europe.

    • Ted Seeber

      http://outsidetheautisticasylum.blogspot.com/2011/05/update-on-muwahiddun-and-islamic.html

      I did a comparative theology study on this very question. It’s a small sect of a sub sect; and their definition of Jihad is *way outside of the norm*.

  • Michael

    So, again, I reiterate… whom is the target of criticism, and what, precisely, is the substance of it? I have yet to hear the author articulate an actual indictment.

    • John

      The target is President Obama…the facist, socialist, baby killing, anti-colonialist, Kenyan apologizer. As it always is. And, it’s a tiresome argument.

      • victor

        Obama is not a Kenyan.

        • Ted Seeber

          Not according to his own press secretary. But hey, why should Obama tell the truth about where he was born? My belief is he was born in Hawaii, except when it comes time to sell books and win Senate Seats.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        Hi. Welcome to Mark’s blog. Since it’s clearly your first day here, I suggest you read for a while before assuming that Mark accuses Obama of, well, almost anything you’ve listed there.

        But don’t let me stop you from burning that strawman.

      • Mark Shea

        You don’t really seem to know much about my views, do you?

  • Joannie

    This whole incident of extreme violence could have been possibly stalled if the Jewish American who made this video thought twice about how his video would make such an huge and tragic impact on an Ambassador who had nothing to do with it, but that is not the only reason both the Libyans and the Egyptians are angry. It has to do largely with the fact the so called “Arab Spring” which started last year was NOT a democratic movement but it is the USA and other Western Powers are behind these tragic was. Libya was a illegal war the president waged against the Regime and the same thing happened in Egypt. Now the focus is on Syria and Iran. We are helping the same group of terrorists who were responsible for 9-11 fight the Assad Regime now. It is not Assad who is committed the most atrocious murders but Al Quaida who is supposed to be our enemy, now they are our ally against the Syrian Regime. WE NEED TO STAY OUT OF THESE COUNTRIES LIKE RON PAUL SAID DURING THE DEBATES LAST YEAR OR CHINA AND RUSSIA MY COME TO THEIR AID AND MAYBE IT WILL END UP WITH A THIRD WORLD WAR. It could happen so keep praying hard that those responsible for the continuing instability will finally stop and just mind their own countries business.

  • Dale Price

    Devastating.
    Or, it would be, if uncritical proof-texting from Vatican press releases amounted to an argument.
    As opposed to a confirmation of one’s own ritual purity.

    But I have to admit that I find your ultramontanism quaintly charming.

  • Phil

    “Why are we there? ” All we have in Libya is a basic diplomatic presence. Mark, are you suggesting even that is too much?

    • Ted Seeber

      Mark isn’t. I am. I am saying that the best way to handle these irrational societies, is to cut them off from *all* contact with the outside world, lest their madness infect us.

    • Mark Shea

      Do we have such a presence in Cuba?

      • Will

        How about China? Who is worse?

  • Kirt Higdon

    The US is pursuing a policy of overthrowing regimes in the Middle East and sowing chaos or of supporting tyrannical regimes if they are oil-rich. And of course, Israel, up until the day before yesterday was supported unconditionally. I’d favor pulling out all troops and embassies and ending all aid to any faction, along with warning American tourists and ex-pats that they’re on their own. We may be headed in the direction of an “Asiatic vespers” like what Mithradates inflicted on Roman colonists in Asia Minor or the similar massacres which Boudicca inflicted on Roman civilians in Britain. It does not speak well for the supposed success of the war on terror that on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, Al Qaeda banners flew over the US embassy in Cairo and the US ambassador to Libya and other diplomats were murdered, presumably by Al Qaeda sympathizers. Obama’s figurative victory dance on Osama’s corpse looks a bit premature now, but Americans starting with Mitt Romney will demand yet more violence. Seems like war and killing babies are the only things Americans do well.

    • Will

      Perhaps you ignore a lot of good people and good deeds, even if by Americans you mean the American government.

      • Kirt Higdon

        Well, starting with the American government, the murdered ambassador has been praised to the skies by Hillary Clinton among others for being the US liaison with the rebels and playing a key role in Gaddafi’s overthrow. (And rape and murder, although that goes conveniently unmentioned.) There have been estimates that as many as 30,000 Libyans were killed in that Obama ordered campaign, leaving the country shattered and plagued with warring militias and terrorist groups and spilling over into other countries such as Mali. Yet the US government still claims that overthrowing Gaddafi was an American good deed. I’m not saying that Ambassador Stevens’ murder was a good thing. It was evil as was Gaddafi’s murder and I pray for Ambassador Stevens as I prayed for Gaddafi. And I had better start praying for the hundreds or thousands of Libyans who will die when Obama takes revenge. Even now he’s ordering cruise missile equipt warships to the Libyan coast, has ordered more drones over Libyan skies and ordered the Marines to land. I fear the slaughter will soon begin – to the approval of most Americans inside and outside of government.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      That’s what I tell my sons. Your country sucks and you’re all a bunch of murdering baby killers, so deal with it. You deserve to suffer. They don’t like it, but I tell them it’s what they deserve for being part of such a worthless and evil country.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Seems like war and killing babies are the only things Americans do well.

      Yeah, so shut up and stop complaining that your citizens are getting murdered.

  • Kirt Higdon

    The latest news is that the US embassy in Yemen has been stormed by Islamic rioters and the Al Qaeda flag raised there. No casualties reported yet, thank God. I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Obama has been drone bombing Yemen for years and sending US spec ops forces there. But not to worry. The Nobel peace prize winning god-king will just double down on the drone bombing and send in the Marines while his opponent Romney criticizes him for not killing even more.

  • Irenist

    Possible charitable interpretations of the actions of Obama and Romney:
    Obama sincerely thinks the best way to protect Americans and American interests in the Islamic world is to couple condemnation of the attacks with condemnation of the anti-Muhammad film. He reacts to criticism of his “apology for America” by telling himself he is putting American lives and interests above campaign optics.
    Meanwhile, Romney sincerely thinks Obama’s “apology for America” gives comfort to our enemies and tempts further attacks, and that criticizing it will help turn the campaign his way, thus putting a better defender of American lives and interests into office. When criticized for complaining about Obama’s acts, Romney tells himself that he is willing to take that flak to if that’s the price of an honest stance against appeasement. In other words, it’s at least possible that what we’re witnessing is a combination of sincere disagreement about foreign policy with honorable motives (at least in this instance) on the part of admittedly very imperfect leaders.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      I’m the first to assume dishonesty from our leaders, but I think your interpretation is the most likely one here. The third party not mentioned is the media, who absolutely are trying to spin this, for better or worse. Their motives are anything but honest.

      But I would actually agree that Obama and Romney are being honest with their opinions and are just at odds over what direction this particular facet of foreign policy should take.

  • Irenist

    In all the justified outrage at the hirābah of a few scoundrels, it might be in the spirit of ecumenism not to lose sight of the words of the Libyan President, Mohamed Magariaf, “apologizing for Libya”:
    “We refuse that our nation’s lands be used for cowardice and revengeful acts. It is not a victory for God’s Sharia or his prophet for such disgusting acts to take place. We apologize to the United States, the people of America, and the entire world. We and the American government are standing on the same side, we stand on the same side against outlaws.”
    Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/us-ambassador-killed-libya.html
    Outlaws (Arabic “hirabi”) should not be allowed to derail relations between civilized peoples. The Arianism of Islam is heretical, but that doesn’t make all of its adherents savages like the hirabi who murdered our ambassador.

  • Thomas

    ‘Not even the archangel Michael, when he was engaged in argument with the devil about the corpse of Moses, dared to denounce him in the language of abuse; all he said was, “Let the Lord correct you.”‘ – Jude 1:9

    *ahem*


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X