Anti-U.S. Protests in the Muslim World

[6 Iron]

I saw an article that indicated the movie seemed to focus relentlessly on Obama's use of the N-word in his autobiography.  What I don't understand is why the anti-Obama crowd focuses on the fringes around his life - why not focus on his policy?  With Bush, the left only had to focus on his policy, which was so misguided they never even had to resort to personal attacks.

I saw 2016 as well. I recall no mentions of the N word being used by Obama, but if so, it would have very little to do with his central theory on the origin of Obama's world view. It is well done, and worth seeing rather than reading what someone else thinks. I think that you may be surprised at the tone, even if you remain unpersuaded.

With regards to Bush 43, while there was ample fodder for disagreement with his policies, I must have been living in a parallel universe at the time, because I recall no shortage of personal attacks during his presidency from the left. Perhaps you were implying only that they were not necessary.

[murphy_p_t]

I understand that this is about more than a film, but the film was apparently the catalyst.

Celebrating the anniversary of the WTC attacks by destroying embassies and murdering Americans was the motivation.  Blaming a YouTube video that's been out for weeks is simply the excuse for shifting the blame from terrorists to an "evil" American.

+1

[murphy_p_t]

Perhaps you missed the memo...  It is the responsbility of the hosting nation to ensure that foreign embassies are safe from roaming groups of lawless thugs.  You see, if hundreds of rioters are marching on any foreign embassy, who has the power to stop them?  That's right, the local police force does.  This is a clear failure of the Libyan government, that's all.  Perhaps someone in the US embassy in Libya might have noticed that the local authorities were in cahoots with the muslim fundamentalists... but, really, think about it for a minute:  If the Chinese embassy in DC was attacked by hundreds of protesters and a Chinese ambassador was killed, who would you blame?  That's right, the Washington DC police who failed to stop the riots.

All the more reason to get the heck out of dodge. If a country is so lawless and dangerous that our embassy is endangered by the local police of all people, why do we even have one open there? Clearly they don't want us there, so I say let's leave and let them burn their country to the ground if they really want to.

+10

[MediumTex]

Well, I watched the 13 minute trailer for the film that was supposedly the catalyst for the protests, and I am more confused than ever.

The production quality and content is on par with a bad SNL skit.

It's really dumb.

http://youtu.be/mjoa3QazVy8

[dualstow]

Well, I watched the 13 minute trailer for the film that was supposedly the catalyst for the protests, and I am more confused than ever.

The production quality and content is on par with a bad SNL skit.

It's really dumb.

http://youtu.be/mjoa3QazVy8

Like I said, the protestors haven't seen it.
Just watched the clip. Interesting that the most sensitive parts are dubbed in. Maybe the actors really were duped, as they attested.

[notsheigetz]

Now it's all clear....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... -us-posts/

It's the U.S. policy of "disengagement" in the region that is causing all the turmoil.

If you want to translate that from military-speak into English watch the 60 minutes episode from last week about the raid on the Osama Bin Laden compound. You will learn what the military definition of "engage" is. If you didn't see it, the leader of the raid featured in the interview "engaged" Bin Laden six times, best he could remember.

[Tortoise]

Just watched the clip. Interesting that the most sensitive parts are dubbed in. Maybe the actors really were duped, as they attested.

I noticed exactly the same thing when I watched the clip just now. Anytime the words "Mohammed," "Koran," or "Muslims" are used, the audio sounds completely dubbed--but only for the few seconds when those words are being spoken.

What a weird situation.

[escafandro]

Don´t you think that this kind of thing also have something to do with it: http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ht ... ic.php?t=6

[Reub]

What kind of a thing? Discussing a potential situation in a volatile part of the world? Do you believe as many in that part of the world seem to that free speech should only be allowed if one agrees with you?

[escafandro]

No, I don´t believe that. And it was not an attack on your post, if not as intended to give an example. Supposed to an Iranian was currently reading as discussed hypothetically in which moment someone is going to attack his country. How would make it feel to that someone?
Suppose for example China had invaded Canada and Mexico. How that situation would make feel to some Americans?
What I'm trying to say is how I think it creates some sort of anti-American sentiment which is very present for example where I live in South America and that responds to the idea that the United States intervenes and attacks the country he pleases when he pleases and with the justification he pleases.
Imagine What may feel several Afghans with the invasion of his country to get only one person when that person was finally in Pakistan?
Add to this type of hypothetical questions the factor of high religious fanaticism (which in my opinion is barbarian, but is not relevant) which further complicates the situation, and I think that is the way is generated this kind of anti-American demonstrations which are triggered by an issue as trivial as a simple and silly movie.
I'm trying to give my point of view imagining the situation from the other's perspective.

[MachineGhost]

It's really dumb.

http://youtu.be/mjoa3QazVy8

Terrible overacting.  I gave up after less than a minute.

[dualstow]

How about the obvious:

They're pissed off because we've occupied their countries, in the process killed 100-300 of theirs for every one of ours who dies, kill indisciminately, and with drones, and are trying to export our culture into theirs.
...

That's all true and relevant, but it certainly doesn't address the question of why they also fail to get along with each other.
I suggest that they'd be against us even without the invasions (as ill-fated and wrongheaded as these invasions are).
And, that for reasons that fill volumes, they also will not get along with each other.

[craigr]

That's all true and relevant, but it certainly doesn't address the question of why they also fail to get along with each other.

Who cares? Let them fight each other. Humans have been doing it since time immemorial.

Have you ever seen two guys fighting in a public place like a bar? You always get that do-gooder that wants to step in and make peace. What happens to him? Both of the guys fighting turn on him and kick his butt and then either a) go back to fighting themselves or b) get each other a beer and congratulate each other on kicking that busy-body's rear end.

So you go around putting your nose in other people's business you shouldn't be surprised if they turn on you and kick your ass and then go back to behaving just as they did in the past. It's just how humans work.

Let them fight because that's all they ever do. You won't stop them.

[MediumTex]

How about the obvious:

They're pissed off because we've occupied their countries, in the process killed 100-300 of theirs for every one of ours who dies, kill indisciminately, and with drones, and are trying to export our culture into theirs.
...

That's all true and relevant, but it certainly doesn't address the question of why they also fail to get along with each other.

I don't see that this is the U.S.'s problem.  And we're probably not helping.

I suggest that they'd be against us even without the invasions (as ill-fated and wrongheaded as these invasions are).
And, that for reasons that fill volumes, they also will not get along with each other.

Perhaps this would be a good experiment.

I think that leaving other countries alone when it comes to their internal politics and historical conflicts makes a lot of sense.  I think that there are exceptions to this approach in the case of things like the Nazi slaughter of the Jews, but that sort of thing doesn't happen very often. 

In many cases, people who are fighting are fighting because that's what they want to do.  It's a way of expressing their beliefs and frustrations.  Trying to stop it externally is often counterproductive.

[dualstow]

Craig, Tenn, Tex,
I agree that it's not our business to step in and bring peace to the Middle East, at least not forcefully. Bringing peace via force is ironic, isn't it?
Although I could counter your bar fight analogy, Craig, by saying that if we want innocent bystanders to enjoy the bar, there is someone who steps in. He's called a bouncer.

America is not the world's bouncer you say? Well, I'd have to agree. But, there are innocent bystanders in the Middle East. They are trapped in a backward way of thinking. As was said on the radio this morning, "Egypt used to be ahead of China. Now (China is so far ahead that) Egypt cannot even see China."

Thus, while I am not a proponent of war over there, I think we should continue to beam 'Will & Grace' to their rooftop satellite dishes. ;-)

EDIT: Earlier, when I said

it certainly doesn't address the question of why they also fail to get along with each other.

, I think some or all of you took that as meaning "we need to force them to get along with each other."

[craigr]

They are trapped in a backward way of thinking. As was said on the radio this morning, "Egypt used to be ahead of China. Now (China is so far ahead that) Egypt cannot even see China."

Well there are large factions of that region that think we are trapped in backwards thinking. So maybe they should shove Sharia law down our throats? Or maybe we have not recognized the brilliance of Chairman Mao and need to have those teachings bombed upon us?

Point is, people aren't going to change so easily. And they probably aren't going to be bombed into changing either. They just have to find their own course.

[dualstow]

They are trapped in a backward way of thinking. As was said on the radio this morning, "Egypt used to be ahead of China. Now (China is so far ahead that) Egypt cannot even see China."

Well there are large factions of that region that think we are trapped in backwards thinking. So maybe they should shove Sharia law down our throats? Or maybe we have not recognized the brilliance of Chairman Mao and need to have those teachings bombed upon us?

Point is, people aren't going to change so easily. And they probably aren't going to be bombed into changing either. They just have to find their own course.

Actually, they believe we're too forward. :-) We're not supposed to be thinking for ourselves. Sharia (literally "the revealed law") is about obedience, not thinking.
But again I agree on not bombing. I am not a libertarian, but I am also not a proponent of war.

I love the sci fi stories about advanced beings looking at planet Earth and saying something like, "Let them sort it out."

[Reub]

If one lets things sort out are we guaranteed that the good side eventually wins?

[MediumTex]

If one lets things sort out are we guaranteed that the good side eventually wins?

The "good side" often changes.

See the following examples:

Britain
Germany
Japan
Afghanistan's 1980s era "Freedom Fighters"
Saddam Hussein's Iraq

What is "good" is often defined by reference to what is expedient at the moment.

When the U.S. leaves a situation to sort itself out, like we did in Vietnam, and like we eventually will in Afghanistan, things have a way of working themselves out. 

[dualstow]

Although I could counter your bar fight analogy, Craig, by saying that if we want innocent bystanders to enjoy the bar, there is someone who steps in. He's called a bouncer.

But the bouncer works for the bar.  The U.S. is not the bouncer in your analogy.

I believe I covered that in the very next sentence, but you left it out of the quote.

[Coffee]

If one lets things sort out are we guaranteed that the good side eventually wins?

The "good side" often changes.

See the following examples:

Britain
Germany
Japan
Afghanistan's 1980s era "Freedom Fighters"
Saddam Hussein's Iraq

What is "good" is often defined by reference to what is expedient at the moment.

It's a basic military strategy: Sometimes my enemy's enemy is my friend.  Until he's not.

When the U.S. leaves a situation to sort itself out, like we did in Vietnam, and like we eventually will in Afghanistan, things have a way of working themselves out. 

What, like Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out?  How long was it before they started having public executions in soccer stadiums and honor raping women for letting their ninja masks slip down below their chin?

Doesn't seem to have sorted itself out too well for them.

[Coffee]

That's all true and relevant, but it certainly doesn't address the question of why they also fail to get along with each other.

Who cares? Let them fight each other. Humans have been doing it since time immemorial.

Because for time immemorial, humans didn't have the ability to put a nuke inside a suitcase and level one of our cities.

Have you ever seen two guys fighting in a public place like a bar? You always get that do-gooder that wants to step in and make peace. What happens to him? Both of the guys fighting turn on him and kick his butt and then either a) go back to fighting themselves or b) get each other a beer and congratulate each other on kicking that busy-body's rear end.

So you go around putting your nose in other people's business you shouldn't be surprised if they turn on you and kick your ass and then go back to behaving just as they did in the past. It's just how humans work.

Let them fight because that's all they ever do. You won't stop them.

The same argument could be made about the Germans and the Japanese.

[Coffee]

They are trapped in a backward way of thinking. As was said on the radio this morning, "Egypt used to be ahead of China. Now (China is so far ahead that) Egypt cannot even see China."

Well there are large factions of that region that think we are trapped in backwards thinking. So maybe they should shove Sharia law down our throats? Or maybe we have not recognized the brilliance of Chairman Mao and need to have those teachings bombed upon us?

Point is, people aren't going to change so easily. And they probably aren't going to be bombed into changing either. They just have to find their own course.

The Japanese and the Germans seem to have changed.

Like I said in my other post: As long as we're sucking on the tit of petro products... are you comfortable handing over control of the engine that runs modern society to a bunch of booger-eating barbarians?  Say what you will about the Christian Right... but at least they're not still wiping their asses with the same hand they eat with.

[MediumTex]

They are trapped in a backward way of thinking. As was said on the radio this morning, "Egypt used to be ahead of China. Now (China is so far ahead that) Egypt cannot even see China."

Well there are large factions of that region that think we are trapped in backwards thinking. So maybe they should shove Sharia law down our throats? Or maybe we have not recognized the brilliance of Chairman Mao and need to have those teachings bombed upon us?

Point is, people aren't going to change so easily. And they probably aren't going to be bombed into changing either. They just have to find their own course.

The Japanese and the Germans seem to have changed.

Like I said in my other post: As long as we're sucking on the tit of petro products... are you comfortable handing over control of the engine that runs modern society to a bunch of booger-eating barbarians?  Say what you will about the Christian Right... but at least they're not still wiping their asses with the same hand they eat with.

Coffee,

What should the U.S. do?

I like the idea of invading Pakistan.  Pakistan is clearly on the verge of revolution fomented by Islamic radicals and they already have nukes. 

Alternatively, the U.S. military could just rotate from country to country in the Muslim world, invading countries one at a time, pacifying them, then invading the next one.  By the time we got back around to the first one, it would probably be falling apart again.

After I wrote that I realized that this is sort of what we are already doing.

[Reub]

What should we do? I think we should try to set up dictators who are friendly to us in as many of these uncivilized countries as we can. They unfortunately would be much better than the alternative of radical Islamic fundamentalist regimes (with nukes, no less). We should NOT be forcing the few friendly dictators that are remaining out of power, as our dear leader has recently done.