Causes and effects

[aadler]

 
Regarding the anti-Muhammad movie reputed to be the excuse for anti-American riots in multiple countries:

When you provoke a mad dog in the middle of a bunch of people, you do, in fact, bear some responsibility for what happens to those people.

On the other hand, someone, sometime, will eventually have to do something about the mad dog.

Preferably something final.

Comments

[skarman.livejournal.com]

But is it provocation? Or is it a natural progression to the continued, increasing surrender towards someone's increasing demands?

How many movies have there been made with regards to Jesus Christ? Some were flattering, others were using different schools of thought as basis for their vision of who he supposedly was. There were protests, yes, but those were statements released to the press by churches and religious groups. Calls for boycotts of the movies etc. None of them were violent. None of them had crowds of angry Christians on the streets, attacking the movie studios, attacking and burning embassies of the countries in which those movies were produced. None of them threatened or killed citizens of those countries.

Today, the Western world is busy bending over backwards to accommodate these people in one way or another. We don't want trouble so we best give in, even if it means giving up OUR freedoms. In most countries in Europe, they're a minority, yet they get the majority of concessions. Females are allowed to wear their headdress while non-islamic men and women aren't allowed to wear ANY example of their religion in the workplace. Oh, you can't play Christmas carols, put up nativity scenes etc. during Christmas... uh, sorry, Winter Solstice/non-denominational winter celebration. For passport and ID pictures nobody is allowed to wear anything that obscures your face and hair. UNLESS of course, you're a muslim female. Then you're allowed to wear your headdress, obscuring your hair. We now allow them their own courts, outside of the local jurisdiction.

Political correctness and tolerance have gone much too far to the other side, into the territory of surrender. I've said it before, history is not taught anymore. Otherwise, people would know this is a recipe for disaster. This appeasement was tried before. Chamberlain tried it with Hitler and his cronies. Look what happened. Tens of millions of death. Death camps. Whole countries devastated.

George Santayana said it best:

The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again.

Your assertion that the makers of this movie also bear some responsibility for provoking the mad dog, is false. They have no problem finding something to be made about as proven by their continued attacks on everything that does not fit their extremely narrow world view.

A few years ago, a Dutch politician made a movie, Fitna, showing exactly what islam is, what its followers do. He only used footage that they themselves sent into the world, through Al-Jazeera and other outlets. Beheadings of kidnapped foreign civilians. The attacks on 9/11. Passages from the koran. Guess what? They were up in arms all over the world. About stuff their own brethren had posted on the web, sent out through news channels to proof their resolve. Politicians preemptively apologized to the world, trying to shield themselves. They sent their ambassadors to the leaders of muslim countries to make it clear it wasn't their fault, they couldn't do anything about it because of that pesky little thing called 'Free Speech'.

So I ask you, do you really want to give up the freedoms our ancestors have given their life and limb for, the same freedoms you are currently defending, mirroring their sacrifices? All in the name of appeasement?

BTW, I've not seen the alleged film, but from what I hear, it describes the guy pretty accurately. He did kill a massive number of people. He did 'marry' a child. In fact, it's common practice, today still in those regions, isn't it? I can't count the number of news articles I've read, heard and seen about some other old, rich, ugly geezer 'marrying' a minor in those parts of the world.

It comes back to the teaching of history. At its most basic, someone is trying to shine a light on a historical figure, as countless historians have done on other figures. Yet, the followers of this particular figure do not want anybody to do so, especially in an unflattering to their eyes, way. So they resort to violence. What reason is there to teach history if history can be so thoroughly manipulated? When there are no conflicting viewpoints?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

As Europe is finding out, when one gives way to the initial demands for self-censorship of criticism of the religion and its founder, new demands soon come. The demands simply do, and will, get more and more extreme and obnoxious, until one has to fight anyway, and fight from a position weakened by one's submission to the earlier demands.

Just as in 1939 the Allies fought a Germany that had already re-armed and reoccupied the Rhineland and conquered Austria and Czechoslovakia, instead of the one which had been left them by the Versailles Treaty.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Very true, but I'm getting a little tired of the bizarre claim that some crappy little no-budget film that no one has ever heard of are the reason these highly coordinated attacks took place. This happened on the eleventh anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and the murder of an ambassador is an act of war.

With all due respect, I think the tail is wagging this particular mad dog.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What's more, the movie came out sometime in June or July: it's now September. Curious, how the Muslim world waited months to be "outraged."

Not only that, but it's none of their damn business if some Americans wish to say nasty things about Muhammed on American soil. And if they make it their damn business, we should make it ours to knock their rotten world down around their ears with bombs.

Let them whine about "offenses to Islam" sitting amidst rubble.

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

I do tend to widely agree with you, but keep in mind in Libya there are also huge marches in favour of the US, and the Benghazi attack seems to by a group linked to Al-Qaeda, and blaming the government that's against them really isn't a great move.

I found a good blogpost here that talks about the separate incidents here.

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/465590.html

Well worth reading.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Then why not strike against the group in question? I mean against any members of the group who are handy, not "the perpetrators." This is war, not a criminal investigation.

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

The new Libyan government is still fairly weak, and sending a military force or using drones in a newly sovereign state without consultation would a) make the Libyan government look weak, b) make many of the people who are sympathetic and on the US' side get angry, and c) how will you know who to attack?

If instead you do what the US seem to be doing, which is working with the Libyans to find, arrest and try the perpetrators then it shows that the US respects the Libyans and encourages them to cooperate in the future.

And "any members of the group who are handy?" I know the US has changed since 9/11 but first, calling it war legitimises your enemy as an opponent and secondly collective punishment is something that you lot used to condemn foreign governments for.

You do not defeat your enemies by behaving as bad as them, America is with obvious exceptions, seen throughout the world as a great and moral country which is able to act as "the worlds policeman" exactly because they hold the moral high ground. If the US loses that then they become nothing more than another empire that expand, become bloated and then fade away like every other empire in history. I personally think the US is better than that, I hope you do to.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The new Libyan government is still fairly weak, and sending a military force or using drones in a newly sovereign state without consultation would a) make the Libyan government look weak, b) make many of the people who are sympathetic and on the US' side get angry, and c) how will you know who to attack?

Our consulation should be of the form "They must be destroyed. Shall you destroy them or will we have to do it ourselves."

If the Libyans refuse these options, then they are retroactively sanctioning the attack, which means they have gone to war with us.

As for "How will we know whom to attack?", the group presumably has bases and holds territory. It could not have carried out an attack on this scale if it were just five college students in a dorm room muttering threats of revenge.

And "any members of the group who are handy?" I know the US has changed since 9/11 but first, calling it war legitimises your enemy as an opponent and secondly collective punishment is something that you lot used to condemn foreign governments for.

The group Ansar al-Sharia has gone to war with America; hence any members of the group are enemies, who may be lawfully engaged in combat. This is how one normally fights a "war."

Are you under the delusion that this was a mere act of criminality?

[skarman.livejournal.com]

You and the rest are still seeing the last 'war' instead of Vietnam. The enemy does not wear uniforms, does not have allegiance to a country. They're from all walks of life, from all over the world, with a single purpose and goal, to spread islam by sword to the infidel and martyrdom. They don't use divisions of tanks, they use bombs, IEDs, dinghies filled with suicide troops to invade a coastal city and kill indiscriminately.

They are government/private citizen funded, guerrilla/insurgency warfare soldiers.

Who funds them in Afghanistan? Our 'friend' and 'ally' Pakistan. With the money they get from the US to develop their nation. They get intelligence help from our 'friend'. The new Libyan government was quite capable of asking help from France and Italy, who brought in NATO and the US (against the War Powers act, I might add, since, hey, it was just "Kinetic Military Action" and not War), coordinating air strikes and intelligence with us. But suddenly, now that they're in power, all that capability has disappeared, especially in the city that started the revolution? They couldn't keep an eye on the remnants of Quadaffi's army while before, they were very much able to? Something comes to mind, something about a bridge, a desert and a good price...

PLO, Black September, Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ansar-Al Sharia, Al-Queda.

Different names for the same group. They have spread out across the Middle East, Africa, Asia and now South America. They've gone from claiming to fight for a Palistinian state to destroying of the 'decadent west' who is at fault for everything in the islamic world. They're funded by governments and private citizens, they run major parts of the drug trade among other unsavory things. Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Pakistan, all have training camps for them. All give shelter to their members, materiel and financial support. And somehow, these governments don't KNOW that they do this? Remember Osama? Who sheltered him? It was our 'staunch' ally Pakistan. Pakistan who gets billions of US aid. Where, when there is another natural disaster, the US is the first and largest donor of food, medicine, shelter, military medical personnel etc. The same people who help unload the choppers bringing in the supplies from US Naval vessels will be condemning the US the next day, throwing stones, burning flags, building IEDs, delivering weapons.

They have no allegiance to a country but to a belief system. They don't organize themselves according to army tables. They use the intelligence operations handbook for this, working in cells. Each with a different name. Ansar Al Sharia, Janjaweed, Sniffling Sacks of Apophis, Ganja Man...

How do you fight something like that? The problem is, the politicians today are weak. Their constituents are weak. They don't want to be reminded that in war, people die. The majority belief that 'talking' helps. They belief people are decent, rational. Most of them go to the emergency room for a hangnail. They are more interested in seeing the current occupant of the White House on Letterman than seeing him actually do his job. They're more interested in making use of his micro-brew beer recipe than wondering why his party hasn't put together a budget since 2009.

People like Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington would know how to handle this. You give an ultimatum, say 24 hours to hand us the perpetrators with proof. They don't? It's obvious they are incapable of handling their own affairs so we'll have to do it for them. You go in, take down every single terrorist camp. The local military get in the way? You flatten them. You get out. They start to scream about territorial integrity, remind them that their citizens INVADED your SOVEREIGN territory first and that they didn't seem able to handle the situation.

You give these governments one chance to cooperate. They don't? You send in your troops to flatten the terrorists hideouts. Anybody gets in the way? Same thing. The point is, Dave, these governments are already funding these groups, giving them places to train, to hide, official papers to get through customs and whatnot. They already hate us, our way of life, the color of our eyes, whatever. They want us subjugated, death, under their dominion.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

We've been funding them, giving their countries military training and equipment, intelligence training, financial support. They've been using those things to fund and train these 'groups'. Biting the hand that feeds them. Makes them an enemy.

You train our attackers. You fund them. You give them shelter. Ergo, you are our enemy. You shall be treated as such.

Maybe not Kumbaya-enough. Maybe not "Can't we all just get along" enough. Maybe not 'socially acceptable' enough. Maybe not a solution the '99 percent' would favor. But realistic. Besides, most of these places are still living in the middle ages, a fact proven by their calendar who shows that it is the year 1433 today. All the aid they've received over the years? Gone, either in their pockets or to fund these groups. Only the very rich and powerful have all the amenities. It is not a government's job to worry about how citizens of another country perceive them. It is a government's job to protect its citizens, its borders at any cost. Or have the lessons the Israelis taught us been forgotten?

Sending troops 2500 miles to Uganda, to rescue hostages, while going up against both terrorists and the local government who was aiding them. Going after those that attacked the 1972 Olympics. Funny how suddenly, direct attacks like these have ceased. Sure, we'll send Katushya rockets into your territory. We'll fire rounds across the border. We'll send small teams in to fire at vehicles and scoot back over the border with Lebanon or Egypt. Not too much, though. We don't want you invading Lebanon or Egypt again.

http://goo.gl/XFhNI

Every few decades, you need to reinforce those ideas as they think you've gotten soft. Unfortunately, the west HAS gone soft.

We've been going towards a massive religious and race war for years now. Within the US, race war is brewing. On the world's stage, a religious war has been simmering and is almost ready to explode. One thing you NEED to remember is that islam holds the belief that once a single man of faith has set foot on new territory, that territory has always been and will always be muslim territory. As such, the whole world is theirs and they will be getting it, one way or another.

[skarman.livejournal.com]

BTW, US SOVEREIGN soil was invaded. US Citizens were killed on said soil by foreign invaders. US owned buildings on US soil were destroyed by said foreign invaders.

All of these things? Are declarations of war.

Declarations from a nebulous enemy. But declarations of war none the same. Just because he doesn't wear a uniform, does not make him any less of an enemy. And since they are backed by numerous governments and wealthy citizens with the approval of their governments, that makes them a credible threat. It also makes those governments and citizens threats.

However, we are too 'civilized' to stoop to such gauche dealings as gunboat diplomacy as used by Teddy Roosevelt. No, we'll just pretend we don't know that our so-called allies are actually hiding our enemies, training and funding them.