The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

LOL, brother, thanks for bringing to my knowledge one more unfortunate pre-concieved notion, I promise U with all honesty that there is not an iota of truth behind that. I dont entirely deny religious bias in even secular politics. but this is both way traffic and is within tolerable limits.

And religious bias is there in Indian society, this fact cant be denied, but this subject is always open for debate that which section of society is more responsible in widening the wedge.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Comparing Obama's handling of Arab spring and Af/Pak is liking comparing apples and oranges. One is spontaneous reaction and the other is result of fishing in troubled water. Afghanistan is Pakistan's and US's strategic need, US achieved it's strategic need at least once (USSR out), but paid a heavy price (9/11). Came back to avenge it and it has done it to an extend, but Pakistan being near the contamination, could not escapte the radio active effort.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

You're actually arguing that their DNA predisposes Arabs to violence? What's next? Blacks are genetically predisposed to being less intelligent? Mexicans are genetically predisposed to being lazy? Jews are genetically predisposed to being greedy and miserly? Indians are genetically predisposed to irrational superstitions and servile idolatry?

The use of force is human nature, whether it be organized in military form or spontaneous in mob form. Aggression is not peculiar to a certain race, culture or ethnicity. Considering the history of European colonization, you should conclude white culture is inherently violent. The bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century have been fought in the Western Hemisphere. We're currently witnessing the brutality of US-UK led imperial adventures. Are white people genetically predisposed to being savages? When you tire of your eugenics literature, you might want to pick up a philosophy book or two.

Nothing like a breaking story in the Middle East to get the racists and Islamophobes crawling out of the wood-works.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

^ Interestingly, both of you together may be making the case for Abrahamic religions being predisposed to violence.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

^
The implication being non-Abrahamic religions are not predisposed to violence? Makes more sense to include all organized religions.

My case was that violence is inherent to the state of being human, not to the state of being Muslim/Jewish/Christian. Minus religion/God, would humans be less susceptible/inclined toward violence? Whether Abrahamic religions are predisposed to violence depends on whether you think their scriptures encourage it vs limiting and defining its role, as civil societies do. People were hacking each other to death in pre-Abrahamic times. I'm not inclined to believe Godless/irreligious societies somehow produce non-aggressive collectives. Ideologies like Capitalism and Communism inspire as much force/aggression as organized religions do. Perhaps it boils down to whether you believe social conflict is inevitable, a stance many philosophers/ethicists take.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

That comment was made in jest. I agree with you that violence is not related to any particular ideology. Although I do think that humans have a certain affinity with violence and conflict.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

I apologize if that did not come across correctly. DNA may not be the appropriate use of word. I was trying to say, it that part of the world violent means to achieve an end seems to be the culture.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Wars for territory are always been the norm. Wars to force a faith are not common. I know there are instances in history when a religion is threatened it went of offensive or when your way of life is threatened by violence, countries retaliated. We are talking here about violence as a tool in faith. Use violence to spread a religion is probably started with Arabs...that's my point. It is natural for them associate violence with religion.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

As I said before, large scale invasion and wars in the name of religion started with Arabs. Religion always suppressed people, but never went to war with a neighbor, until then.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Oic. My jest radar seems to jam on these jestless forums.

Decide what your premise is first. Violent DNA or violent culture or violent faith. 'Wars for territory' and 'wars for faith' are not mutually exclusive. Racial superiority, economic imperialism and religious conversion were combined goals of all colonial empires. They also informed The White Man's Burden. You haven't addressed my examples of violence in non-Arab, non-Muslim societies, and you're still insisting Arabs are inherently and exclusively violent while dismissing the 'non-religious' aggression of others as normal. "Wars to force faith are not common?" According to which historical record? What were the Crusades? What was the genocide of Jews across Europe? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era and Christian violence in the medieval era count as "using violence as a tool in faith?" You're free to nurture your selective world-view and racial prejudices; I don't find such discussions useful.

I have to say your ideas about Arabs sound like something out of 'The Arab Mind' by Raphael Patai. It's full of Orientalist stereotypes about Arab behavior. If you haven't read it, I think you'll enjoy it.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Dude. I am a regular on Youtube. I read up on the news, I keep an eye on these things by default. If it were viral, I would have heard about it. Honestly, the first time I even heard about it was when a Christian friend of mine told me they were protesting in Libya over some video. The movie is retarded, with terrible acting and no one was ever going to watch it. It only went viral after people start protesting it and suddenly people realized it existed. And regardless of whether it was viral or not means absolutely nothing. There is stil tons and tons of blasphemous material on YouTube. There are videos insulting religions, races, nations you name it. YouTube is FULL of hate. You just have to learn to navigate around that sort of garbage.

Who said Holocaust denial should be a crime? The Europeans, at least some of them, consider it as such, but they are just as wrong. On the one hand I can understand where they are coming from, because they are desperate to not allow the holocaust to happen again, but you cant be a champion of free speech and then censor Holocaust denial. Still dont confuse the US for Europe. In the US you can deny the holocaust till your throat is parched.

The people in the Middle East will just have to come to terms with the fact that there will always be those people who will hate, always those who will denigrate and insult Islam or anything else they might hold sacred. You cant silence everyone. And the more you try, the more they will find other outlets. Its futile.

And if we go with the second choice, and leave the videos and free speech, we should accept that Muslims will start burning building, public property, murdering people etc etc. Mindless violence seems like a rational reaction to some stupid video in your mind? How about just pressing the ignore button and getting on with you life? Isnt it about time Muslim began to grow up... I mean, you cant change the world by beating people over the head.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

You can not dismiss all colonial empires as having religious conversion as a goal, it may be a by product. In fact, the if you take British empire in India as an example, in my opinion, they have done a lot to save Indian religions more than Indians themselves.

If you are forcing me to make a choice, then Yes, it is the religion that influences violence in this case. As I said before, until 600+ AD religion was used a violent tool to suppress the weak and rule in medieval Europe, but never a reason for a large scale invasion. Rule of Rome had spread to Europe even before Christianity. Christianity never spread with force, yes Christian may have defended their land (or holy land) with wars and invasion, but never used violence to spread across the land. The bottom line is Christianity did not spread by violence, there is no proof against it. The rest of the religions in the world has not associated with violence as much.

When protecting a Nation or regional identity or a group identity from a threat ( or a perceived threat) the beast in people comes out (like a pack of animals) and if your nationalism is religion, that is when your problems start, you are fighting for something that is not real. The same reason fight against communism failed, communism was defeated on it own weight, not because the war efforts of west (which failed).

Chaibiskut, I still enjoy your posts. You are a one of the reasonable persons in this forum. Thank god for your likes.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

**As the Muslim protests subside, more and more people have come to realize that what seems to have sparked them–one of the worst YouTube videos ever, which is saying something–isn’t what they were mainly about.
**

But what were they about? Here theories differ, and some of the best theories haven’t been getting much attention, because they’re not on the talking-points agendas of Democrats or Republicans–which means they won’t be occupying much airtime on network or cable TV during an election campaign.

Ross Douthat, writing in Sunday’s New York Times, embraces a theory that’s true insofar as it goes: these protests often got a boost from local political jostling. For example, in Egypt the struggle “between the Muslim Brotherhood and its more-Islamist-than-thou rivals” is what led those rivals (Salafis) to call protestors onto the streets.

Fine, but since people aren’t sheep (though they sometimes do a good imitation), we have to ask why the protestors responded to such calls in Egypt and elsewhere–and why sometimes the crowds swelled.

**Part of the answer is that the video itself did offend people. But, as when a single offensive remark from someone you’ve long disliked can make you go ballistic, the explanation for this explosion goes deeper than the precipitating event. What are the sources of simmering hostility toward America that helped fuel these protests? Here is where you get to answers that neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney wants to talk about and that, therefore, hardly anybody else talks about.
**

**Below are three examples, but first the customary disclaimer: I’m not *excusing *any violence that American policies may have helped cause and I’m not blaming America. But when American policies have bad side effects, Americans need to talk about them.
**

**1] Drone strikes. Obviously, President Obama doesn’t want to say anything bad about the gobs of strikes he’s authorized. Neither does Mitt Romney; if you’re going to spend your whole campaign calling Obama a hyper-apologetic girly boy, you can’t turn around and complain that he kills too many people! But American drone strikes–which seem to always target Muslim countries, and sometimes kill civilians–are famously unpopular in the Muslim world. Note which countries tend to cluster toward the bottom of this graph from the Pew Global Attitudes Project. And watch the one-minute-clip below of my conversation on BhTV with Robert Becker, an American who lives in Cairo, taped after the protests had started. I asked him to list the most common Egyptian complaints about America, and here’s what he said:

[video]Bloggingheads.tv
**
[2] Israel-Palestine.
That’s the second issue Becker mentions in the video clip, and it is also cited in a recent Atlantic piece by Middle East expert Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations. Again, don’t expect to hear about this from Romney or Obama. During an election campaign, especially, neither man wants to dwell on the downside of America’s essentially unconditional support of Israel even as Israel pursues policies that violate both international law and basic principles of justice, such as the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. But rest assured that the Israeli-American relationship gets plenty of airtime in Muslim, and especially Arab, nations. And, while some of this assumes the form of wild conspiracy theories, the core fact that American support helps sustain highly objectionable Israeli policies is not a figment of anyone’s imagination. Neither is the fact that when President Obama did try to get Israel to freeze settlement expansion, he encountered so much blowback in Israel and America that he had to give up.

**[3] American troops in Muslim countries. **Though American soldiers have left Iraq, they remain in Afghanistan. Noting the downside of this fact doesn’t fit into either Obama’s or Romney’s game plan as they try to out-hawk each other. But, while they stay silent, there are people who are happy to talk about American troops in Afghanistan: Jihadi recruiters. And the reason is that they know this subject strikes a chord among young Muslim men who for various reasons (including local ones such as unemployment) are unhappy campers to begin with. This demographic played an important role in many of the protests last week.

The three grievances I’ve listed (and there are others) aren’t wholly unrelated to that horrible YouTube video. They’re interpreted by some Muslims as evidence of American contempt for the Muslim world, and the video was taken as yet more confirmation.

**Obviously, the fact that an American policy contributes to anti-Americanism in the Muslim world isn’t by itself a decisive argument against the policy. But ever since terrorism became a significant threat to American interests, this consideration has belonged in the policy cost-benefit calculus. All the more so in the wake of the Arab Spring, when the policies of Egypt and some other Muslim countries are more responsive to popular opinion, and anti-American sentiment can therefore translate more directly into anti-American policies.
**
It’s really unfortunate for America that, as it tries to make sense of what just happened, the national conversation is so heavily shaped by the presidential campaign. Obama and Romney are in many ways different, but they do have this in common: If you’re trying to honestly grapple with last week’s contagion of sometimes violent protests, neither man is worth listening to.


Restored attachments:

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

And where did the Arab spring come into this? American policy is what is in question, and the penchant to side-step local governments to achieve a goal by any means necessary.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

This is your bottom-line. Now we're talking.

That you think the Crusades/Inquisitions were fought in 'self-defense' is a subjective view. If I humor you, what's the difference between 'large scale invasion' in the name of religion, and suppressing and persecuting populations in the name of religion? How does that make a European any less religiously violent than a Moor? I'm surprised you're making such an obviously nonsensical argument. In any case, blaming Islam for the ME riots is facile. You were making more sense when you talked about religion being usurped by politics.

If you're claiming that the Quran encourages violence while the Bible and Torah does not, you are being blatantly disingenuous. Either you condemn them collectively, or adopt the more critical view that Abrahamic scriptures tell stories of both war and peace, bloodshed and tolerance. Scholars from all 3 traditions analyze and understand them in a larger contextual framework. The same texts can be manipulated to make the case for both violence and peace. I would take you more seriously if you argued monotheism, by its very non-inclusivity and claims to superiority, fosters intolerance and violence. Instead, it is telling that you single out Muslims and insist, in defiance of history, that they are uniquely inspired by their scriptures to commit violence while Christians and Jews act 'defensively' and converted people with sing-song. Even Christian apologists don't claim this. Do I have to quote from the Old and New Testaments, the Torah, to show you that we all come from the same source? Christians are quick to disown the Old Testament, which they attribute to the Judaic tradition. (When in doubt, blame it on the Jews). They emphasize Jesus' Last Sermon and his famous 'turn the other cheek' to the exclusion of controversial statements like 'I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword.' Muslims, to their credit, have stuck with one text and own all of it - the good, the ugly, and the misunderstood. We don't pretend the last Prophet was a tree-hugging hippie. We don't recognize any of the Messengers to be unconditional pacifists. We recognize the Quran as a text that was revealed over a period of 23 years, a compilation of events and recommendations, some historically contingent, some normative. That Islam currently faces a crisis of scholarship with Salafism being funded and propagated is another matter.

Anyhow, why not just assert that Islam is a violent religion from the get-go. Why put up a pretense about respecting the Prophet's teachings. That's unnecessary. Don't fear the moderators, you shouldn't have to apologize for your beliefs. However I'm not very skilled at debating with racists. Condemning scripture is one thing, but questioning the genetic and cultural makeup of Arabs is a whole other level of right-wing crazy. Generalizing about 400 million people living in 22 countries isn't something educated people like yourself do. To that end, Arabs and Jews are cousins, and it's not a coincidence both are uncouth and hairy. Look, I made a funny.

You'll agree this is a waste of time, and it's derailing this thread. Start one in R&S and we can discuss how the children of Abraham are inherently savage to your heart's content.

ps. I'd be surprised if you had any Arab or Muslim friends. Mingling with cultures other than your own is an antidote to disdain and ignorance, which is really just thinly disguised fear. Try it sometime.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

You're right about it. It went viral after its Arabic version was shown on an Egyptian channel and protests started.

[quote]
Who said Holocaust denial should be a crime? The Europeans, at least some of them, consider it as such, but they are just as wrong.
[/quote]

You know what, this is called hypocrisy, and THAT was the point.

[quote]
Still dont confuse the US for Europe. In the US you can deny the holocaust till your throat is parched.
[/quote]

Technically, that might be true. But you will get the beatings on some other excuse.

[quote]
Mindless violence seems like a rational reaction to some stupid video in your mind?
How about just pressing the ignore button and getting on with you life? Isnt it about time Muslim began to grow up... I mean, you cant change the world by beating people over the head.
[/quote]

What the HELL are you talking about? Where did I say that this reactions was rational? Go get some chill and then come back and contemplate on my posts here before blurting it out like this.

You and I have been posting here since long. And you STILL don't know my views? Jeez.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

The movie was just an excuse for people to start rioting, while people who start these riots benefit by gaining power etc.

If you faith is strong, then insignificant things like this movie, should not bother you at all.

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

I am astounded that you would make this claim. Neither Christians, nor Muslims, conquered with the primary intent of spreading their religion. Both expanded for power and land, followed by the conquered population converting to the invading religion for various reasons.

Christianity was used to justify the Crusades, colonialism, slavery, and helped establish notions like the "white man's burden".

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Haven't been able to follow the news lately - Are the protests still going on? :/

Re: The US diplomatic missions attacked in Egypt and Libya

Yeap. Just today a female suicide bomber blew herself up in Kabul killing 12 people as revenge attacks for this movie.