Libya?

All over some obscure amateur video posted to the Internet...any douchebag with a camera and a computer could probably start WW3 right now if he knew what he was doing.

cwh wrote: I really worry about what might happen if the radicals storm an embassy and the Marines kill a bunch. That will result in very bad things all over the world. This could be the beginning of a huge conflict.

Everything could be the beginning of a huge conflict, but it seldom is.

GameboyRMH wrote: All over some obscure amateur video posted to the Internet...any douchebag with a camera and a computer could probably start WW3 right now if he knew what he was doing.

Not everyone has the freedom of speech. I heard this postulated on NPR and CNN (didn't get to watch Fox) that those that do not have the freedom to say most anything they way (or print or video it) assume that because something like this film came out.. that it must have been sanctioned in some way.

Last I heard they now know who made the film, he is a Coptic Christian. If it was truely the cause of all this.. he has the weight of several dead people on his shoulders for his actions

I can see where at some point this could turn into another Iran embassy hostage crisis. The outcome would probably be much different; I don't think either Mitt or The O would want to be known as the second Jimmy Carter.

Israel took out Saddam's nuke program a good while back, which he was trying to rebuild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Iran is right next door and that means to Iran the Israelis have already proven they can do it. Not only that, Libya is about the same distance (roughly).

Tel Aviv to Baghdad 545 miles

Tel Aviv to Tehran 988 miles

Tel Aviv to Tripoli 1258 miles

F15 range is ~2700 miles (allegedly).

All Im going to say is Im happy to see some factual conversation. Im glad this hasnt gone political. This stuff is very good reading.

slefain wrote:

LOL!!

mad_machine wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: All over some obscure amateur video posted to the Internet...any douchebag with a camera and a computer could probably start WW3 right now if he knew what he was doing.

Not everyone has the freedom of speech. I heard this postulated on NPR and CNN (didn't get to watch Fox) that those that do not have the freedom to say most anything they way (or print or video it) assume that because something like this film came out.. that it must have been sanctioned in some way. Last I heard they now know who made the film, he is a Coptic Christian. If it was truely the cause of all this.. he has the weight of several dead people on his shoulders for his actions

Yep, the 1st Amendment is already under fire. Here's a link to similar conversations: http://www.openmarket.org/2012/09/13/disturbing-calls-for-censorship-in-america-by-professors-journalists-u-s-diplomats-and-egyptian-government/

I think any US administration that suggests limiting Constitutional rights (in deference to international pressure) would be in some serious political trouble at home.

well.. in that respect.. I think it should be like yelling "fire!" in a theatre. Yes, you have free speech.. but if somebody is killed directly because of it.. you should face the consequence of your actions.

GameboyRMH wrote: All over some obscure amateur video posted to the Internet...any douchebag with a camera and a computer could probably start WW3 right now if he knew what he was doing.

First time to jump into one of these... (I just usually read them because I find it more factual and interesting than CNN/FOX/MSNBC/etc).

There are also rumors floating around that the protest of the video was actually a coverup. Kinda like let's start a mob so we can rob the bank type of mentality.

mad_machine wrote: Not everyone has the freedom of speech. I heard this postulated on NPR and CNN (didn't get to watch Fox) that those that do not have the freedom to say most anything they way (or print or video it) assume that because something like this film came out.. that it must have been sanctioned in some way. Last I heard they now know who made the film, he is a Coptic Christian. If it was truely the cause of all this.. he has the weight of several dead people on his shoulders for his actions

I must admit as an American, I have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea that a people are moved to protest and riot over a video that someone posted on the web. Then again, we (as Americans), see stupid stuff like that all the time, so we're very numb to it.

I hope this thread continues to be interesting and doesn't bring out the ban hammer.....

-Rob

rob_lewis wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: All over some obscure amateur video posted to the Internet...any douchebag with a camera and a computer could probably start WW3 right now if he knew what he was doing.

First time to jump into one of these... (I just usually read them because I find it more factual and interesting than CNN/FOX/MSNBC/etc). There are also rumors floating around that the protest of the video was actually a coverup. Kinda like let's start a mob so we can rob the bank type of mentality.

mad_machine wrote: Not everyone has the freedom of speech. I heard this postulated on NPR and CNN (didn't get to watch Fox) that those that do not have the freedom to say most anything they way (or print or video it) assume that because something like this film came out.. that it must have been sanctioned in some way. Last I heard they now know who made the film, he is a Coptic Christian. If it was truely the cause of all this.. he has the weight of several dead people on his shoulders for his actions

I must admit as an American, I have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea that a people are moved to protest and riot over a video that someone posted on the web. Then again, we (as Americans), see stupid stuff like that all the time, so we're very numb to it. I hope this thread continues to be interesting and doesn't bring out the ban hammer..... -Rob

You have to remember that places like Libya and Egypt have only RECENTLY gotten unlimited access to things like the interwebs and world coverage. Add in the fact that ideas like that vid that they found would get them killed in their culture or by the previous gov't, and it's not hard to understand why they are outraged.

Now, while I support their right to protest, once that protest turns violent, their rights should end.

oldsaw wrote:

mad_machine wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: All over some obscure amateur video posted to the Internet...any douchebag with a camera and a computer could probably start WW3 right now if he knew what he was doing.

Not everyone has the freedom of speech. I heard this postulated on NPR and CNN (didn't get to watch Fox) that those that do not have the freedom to say most anything they way (or print or video it) assume that because something like this film came out.. that it must have been sanctioned in some way. Last I heard they now know who made the film, he is a Coptic Christian. If it was truely the cause of all this.. he has the weight of several dead people on his shoulders for his actions

Yep, the 1st Amendment is already under fire. Here's a link to similar conversations: http://www.openmarket.org/2012/09/13/disturbing-calls-for-censorship-in-america-by-professors-journalists-u-s-diplomats-and-egyptian-government/ I think any US administration that suggests limiting Constitutional rights (in deference to international pressure) would be in some serious political trouble at home.

personally, Im not convinced the riots were actually prompted by the film.

mad_machine wrote: well.. in that respect.. I think it should be like yelling "fire!" in a theatre. Yes, you have free speech.. but if somebody is killed directly because of it.. you should face the consequence of your actions.

But only if you know that would cause such a huge uproar (not to say he didn't).

For example, if I make a cartoon that's offensive to someone, there's no harm in that. If someone takes it and shows the offended, is it my responsibility for drawing it or the person who displayed it?

In the U.S., we have the right to free speech. Yes, there are certain laws (or are they really laws instead of just suggestions) that you can't cause a riot, but what defines causing a riot?

How did the video get to the rioters in the first place? I'm willing to bet that if you spent enough time searching, you'd find all kinds of things posted on the internet that would offended large groups of people. I still wonder if it was found and planted vs. planted by the director.

-Rob

slefain wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDS81Ibazdk

from what I was led to believe. The film was first called "desert warrior" but changed once "in the can" and that the anti-islam parts were overdubbed after the cast and crew were paid and sent home.

"Sam Bacile" or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a felon, having done time for making meth and bank fraud and knew exactly what he was doing.. trying to incite more anti-muslim sentiment in the west.. not sure he knew that he would cause a massive Anti-american backlash

rob_lewis wrote: There are also rumors floating around that the protest of the video was actually a coverup. Kinda like let's start a mob so we can rob the bank type of mentality. -Rob

Not sure if coverup is the right word. Diversion, or something like that is probably closer.

NPR did report that a safe house was attacked by mortars just as the attack on the embassy took place- this house supposedly being a secret.

That very much implies that the actual attack was a planned, co-ordinated attempt.

The same reports also have Lybian security forces fighting the attack reasonably well for their size and the surprise before pulling back. Although, some of the protesters were not all that held back- some of them may have been part of the attack.

in the end, it appears that while there are protests, small, well armed groups both knew and took advantage of that to attack our sites. And it appears that it has little to do with the home government- be it Lybia or Egypt.

Reuters did interview quite a few of the public, some protesters- all were very anti movie, but all were also anti violence. So it's a very confusing situation.

4cylndrfury wrote: personally, Im not convinced the riots were actually prompted by the film.

Agree; the film is a means to an end. I understand that the trailer video was made available a couple of months ago but the protests and attacks didn't occur until an anniversary of 9/11; if that coincidence doesn't raise an eyebrow, nothing will.

It's much more likely it was used as a tool by radical elements to enrage a (largely) poor, illiterate and desperate population that needs a villain to blame for its' plight.

Not really buying the "riots caused by the film" = coordinated attack on the embassy either. To buy that, you'd have to assume the attack occurring on 9-11 was just a huge coincidence. This has all the hallmarks of Al qaeda to me. Although I haven't heard that they've claimed credit, they often don't immediately. What's more, they seem to be big on symbolism and dates when it comes to their attacks. Strange as it may seem, to me, an organized, al qaeda attack isn't the frightening part of what's going on here. We know they still want to attack the U.S./west and we know they are always working on news plans and attacks. We stop a lot of them, but clearly no all.

What's scarier to me is the demonstrations themselves. There's only two possibilities that I see, neither of them good for stability in the middle east. 1. The demonstrators are at least loosely tied to Al qaeda and are acting on some sort of orders (in which case, their numbers are much larger than anyone thought) OR it is exceptionally easy to raise anti-American/western sentiment in the middle east. (Or, possibly, some of each) When you figure these attacks are coming in countries where the U.S./the west recently supported or attempted to support democratic movements, you would think there would be some good will, but apparently not. These demonstrations and attacks seem like a good way of showing to the world that they (not necessarily Al qaeda proper, but radical Islam) have much great support from the "man on the street" than they are given credit for. Sadly, I really don't think they have a true majority support, but since they are willing to be more ruthless than moderates, they seem to be consolidating power. Really don't like where this looks to be headed.

In reply to alfadriver:

This, by all outward appearances, this attack in lybia and the protests/flag burnings in Egypt and Yemen are just a select few that are not the general population of either of the countries.

Yemen, Egypt, and Lybia as governments are currently doing what is expected of them by our government, which is either seeking justice in Lybia or by protecting our consulates.

This is honestly a shame things happened, but by what is occurring currently, it could end up strengthening our ties to the region pending how well they do those things.

you say "man on the street" but really, how many people were involved in the actual protests? I think you will find it a small minority of the Eqyption and Libyian population. Remember, it does not take a lot of people to spark change.. just make them visible and loud enough.

yamaha wrote: In reply to alfadriver: This, by all outward appearances, this attack in lybia and the protests/flag burnings in Egypt and Yemen are just a select few that are not the general population of either of the countries. Yemen, Egypt, and Lybia as governments are currently doing what is expected of them by our government, which is either seeking justice in Lybia or by protecting our consulates. This is honestly a shame things happened, but by what is occurring currently, it could end up strengthening our ties to the region pending how well they do those things.

This. I mean yes there was rioting but I really don't think it represents the majority of people in these countries. I mean there were the riots in England recently that were bad (obviously not killing an ambassador) but they didn't represent the majority of people either. I am worried Israel Iran could get ugly quick though.

See how much more interesting these discussions are when posts don't get personal and hyperbolic? Nice work, everyone. Please resume your mature exchange.

jg

Curmudgeon wrote: Iran is right next door and that means to Iran the Israelis have already proven they can do it. Not only that, Libya is about the same distance (roughly). Tel Aviv to Baghdad 545 miles Tel Aviv to Tehran 988 miles Tel Aviv to Tripoli 1258 miles F15 range is ~2700 miles (allegedly).

Saudi Arabia Is cool with it too.

Anybody who posts or oterwise disseminates something inflammatory to Islam and doesn't think it will cause trouble like this is not living in the real world. There's just too many previous instances, like the jihad against the Danish cartoonists a few years ago.

It has nothing to do with US free speech laws since those don't apply elsewhere. Other countries view freedom of speech a bit differently; for instance England has restrictions on freedom of speech to include time and place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Stuff can go 'viral' so fast it ain't funny, like the recent dustup over the guy detained in Virginia for allegedly being insane. It doesn't need YouTube etc, a plain ol' desktop PC can be a (very slow) server for instance meaning even if YT yanks it it's still out there somewhere. Or it can be forwarded from cell phone to cell phone. Once the genie is out, it's not going back in the bottle.

mad_machine wrote: you say "man on the street" but really, how many people were involved in the actual protests? I think you will find it a small minority of the Eqyption and Libyian population. Remember, it does not take a lot of people to spark change.. just make them visible and loud enough.

May be true. I'm seeing a few thousand at each protest in the video I've seen over the past few days, clearly not enough to say this is a majority opinion. (Noticeably smaller than the anti-Mubarak protests). It could be just a vocal minority at this point at the actual protests. The interviews of "non-protestors" do seem to show a certain level of support in the general population, however. Of course, that could either be selective journalism or it could be the that people are voting "bully for class president" so he doesn't take their lunch money. Or this anti-western idea set could have more traction that we've given it credit for. Time will tell, I guess.

JG Pasterjak wrote: See how much more interesting these discussions are when posts don't get personal and hyperbolic? Nice work, everyone. Please resume your mature exchange. jg

Gay slur.