Egyptians angry at film scale U.S. embassy walls

Quote from Rebound : I've got a great idea: Stop insulting their religion and burning their holy book. We already know that their extremists will kill over a cartoon of Mohammed. They're very sensitive about it, so instead of rattling their cage, just let them be.

If there's ever been a concise definition of "liberal logic", that's it right there. Allowing a group of uneducated, woman-beating, child-murdering, donkey-screwing religious savages dictate what I'm allowed to say and do because they might blow things up if I piss them off - yes, iron-clad logic right there. Piss on my rights, they're not important if by expressing them I might make knuckle-dragging religious halfwits angry (and yes, before you even start, that applies to Christians in America, too).

Bowing to extremists doesn't placate them, it endorses their behavior and gives them cause to expand their influence.

Quote from noobhammer : If there's ever been a concise definition of "liberal logic", that's it right there. Allowing a group of uneducated, woman-beating, child-murdering, donkey-farking religious savages dictate what I'm allowed to say and do because they might blow things up if I piss them off - yes, iron-clad logic right there. Piss on my rights, they're not important if by expressing them I might make knuckle-dragging religious halfwits angry (and yes, before you even start, that applies to Christians in America, too). Bowing to extremists doesn't placate them, it endorses their behavior and gives them cause to expand their influence.

I agree.

When Bill Maher, or any prominent liberal, mocks Christianity and Judaism, it's okay because that's freedom of speech. But, when anybody knocks Islam, that's just being a hateful, xenophobic bigot and that person needs to go to a tolerance class to learn to be respectful of others beliefs.

Kind of an interesting/funny exchange that I saw on BBC's twitter feed:

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood
had this to say on its twitter feed about the protests earlier this week: "We r relieved none of @USEmbassyCairo staff were harmed & hope US-Eg relations will sustain turbulence of Tuesday's events."

The US embassy in Cairo
responded to the Muslim Brotherhood with this tweet: "@Ikhwanweb Thanks. By the way, have you checked out your own Arabic feeds? I hope you know we read those too."



Unfortunately, the wife isn't around at the moment or I'd have her translate for me.

Quote from TRNT : So are you giving any blame (i.e. blaming) Obama or not?

No, I don't believe Obama was to blame.
I do believe his actions in supporting this so called "Arab Spring" were foolish though.

Quote from TRNT : Because these are important countries. Because we are a superpower. Because we should mend our past mistakes.

I don't agree with any of those as being good reasons for us to be involved in any of these countries.

Quote from OhNoItsDEVO : I don't agree with any of those as being good reasons for us to be involved in any of these countries.

By "involve" you mean having embassies there?

Well Russia is involved. France is. Germany is. China is. Canada is. And you think we should not be?

Isolationism much?

Quote from BigBananaMess : Please note the specific text you quoted was discussing Barry O's involvement in the region not specifically Egypt.

I was always trying to stay on topic. Now that I understand where you veered off topic a bit, your statement starts to make a little sense.

Quote : Let's dispense with this offering "military support" mumbo jumbo and be clear - the US and coalition forces invaded Libya. I think that there was far more justification to intervene in Iraq than in Libya. But, once again, the libs and the press largely gave Obama a pass because he is Obama.

Let's not dispense with anything. We had no ground troops whatsoever. It is hard to invade w/o ground troops. You can't take control of an area without them. All you can do is destroy things. Now I agree that we attacked Libya--but we didn't invade. We provided support. We didn't take over.

And since when was stopping the active killing of massive numbers of civilians less justification than trumped up WMD charges? I'd like to understand this alternate universe you find yourself in.

And for those keeping score, 2 pts for bringing in the media's support Obama (would have been 4 pts if you had referred to it as the "liberal media" or the "lame street media"). And 2 pts for generating a complete revision of history since tons of people on the left and with the media questioned what Obama did in Libya.

Quote from Hawk2007 : I agree. When Bill Maher, or any prominent liberal, mocks Christianity and Judaism, it's okay because that's freedom of speech. But, when anybody knocks Islam, that's just being a hateful, xenophobic bigot and that person needs to go to a tolerance class to learn to be respectful of others beliefs.

And if those people he mocked were known for irrational, illegal, immoral, disproportionate responses to mocking words, in addition to condemning the illegal acts, I'd say Bill Maher is a prick for stoking the fires and putting the lives of others at risk.


The Phelps people have the right to protest and blame everything on gays. But we have the right to think they're pricks and should shut the fark up.

as much as i'd like to turn the clock back 100 years, longer actually, and go back to sticking our head in the sand, i realize, and i hope those clamoring for isolationism understand, that's just not feasible.

Quote from politicaljunkie : The Phelps people have the right to protest and blame everything on gays. But we have the right to think they're pricks and should shut the fark up.

You'll find widespread condemnation of the WBC from all religions --- especially Christians. With the people protesting the embassies as I type this, yeah, some Muslims think they're idiots, but Islam's religious leaders by in large don't do much. If anything, they support the efforts.

If the WBC started vandalizing property, trespassing on private property, and/or killing civilians for their cause, it would more elevate them to the level of what these people do.

The people over in Egypt and Libya and other embassies in that part of the world are not just protesting our trying to get a seat at the table ---- They're blowing up the table and killing all the non-Muslims at it.

A lot of Christian religious leaders would be willing to meet with the WBC and trying to reason with them and their misguided ways. I don't know of too many who would meet with these people over in the Middle East, because more than likely, they won't walk out alive.

Quote from TRNT : By "involve" you mean having embassies there? Well Russia is involved. France is. Germany is. China is. Canada is. And you think we should not be? Isolationism much?

Yes. If that's what you want to consider my positions...

Embassies and other such involvement, such as sending massive amounts of money ect.

I really couldnt give a fark about those other countries being there.
I don't see that as a good reason for us to be there.
I just don't see the point in us being in countries who's population hates us.

Quote from noobhammer : If there's ever been a concise definition of "liberal logic", that's it right there. Allowing a group of uneducated, woman-beating, child-murdering, donkey-screwing religious savages dictate what I'm allowed to say and do because they might blow things up if I piss them off - yes, iron-clad logic right there. Piss on my rights, they're not important if by expressing them I might make knuckle-dragging religious halfwits angry (and yes, before you even start, that applies to Christians in America, too). Bowing to extremists doesn't placate them, it endorses their behavior and gives them cause to expand their influence.

Exactly.

Has anyone watched this movie? I googled it this morning and tried watching a few minutes. I couldn't tell what it was supposed to be about, with the bad acting and poor filmmaking (it appears it was all shot on some crappy soundstage - the actors' voices echo ). It was very Benny Hillish, but again it was difficult to hear dialogue.

Quote from TRNT : (Then some say if Obama had not eased immigration enforcement a girl would not have been injured in an accident where the driver was an undocumented worker and therefore Obama is to blame. Causation is a funny strange thing. )

They're called "illegal aliens." And people who are illegally in a country shouldn't be driving in that country.

Quote from TRNT : Not as ambassadors. But I know you knew that. But why let any tragedy go and not be used for cheap political gains, eh?

You must mean like you just did with your bringing up Obama's illegal alien policy.



I would think you know that typical diplomacy doesn't necessarily apply to batshit crazy people who will saw your f'n head off just because you're American and/or Christian.

Hell, forget the batshit crazy part... if you think if China was bombing and invading countries we somewhat identify with that a China ambassador in the U.S. wouldn't get an earful every day, I'd say you're wrong.

Quote from thikthird : as much as i'd like to turn the clock back 100 years, longer actually, and go back to sticking our head in the sand, i realize, and i hope those clamoring for isolationism understand, that's just not feasible.

Pretty sure not many people are clamoring for isolationism. Non-interventionism, sure.