‘Anti-Islam’ film spurs U.S. embassy, consulate attacks in Cairo, Benghazi

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Ironically, the back and forth between the two of you somewhat mirrors the situation itself - minus the violence, of course.

See how the meme works ? Any attempt to discuss/debate the issue then becomes "the meme."

[david'sgirl 134]

Here is the trailer of the film in question

I tried to watch the trailer to get an idea what has people so upset. I lost the will to live about 5 minutes into the film and shut it off. I cannot imagine anyone seeing the trailer and forking over money to view this drivel.

While I can understand that people would not appreciate the writer/director's negative portrayal of their religion I cannot understand why it would make anyone angry at American's as a whole.

This is a poorly written, badly acted, inflammatory film. It is pretty clear that it was meant to upset people so those who are over reacting to it are only giving the moron who created it exactly what he wants.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I tried to watch the trailer to get an idea what has people so upset. I lost the will to live about 5 minutes into the film and shut it off. I cannot imagine anyone seeing the trailer and forking over money to view this drivel.

While I can understand that people would not appreciate the writer/director's negative portrayal of their religion I cannot understand why it would make anyone angry at American's as a whole.

This is a poorly written, badly acted, inflammatory film. It is pretty clear that it was meant to upset people so those who are over reacting to it are only giving the moron who created it exactly what he wants.

The film was obviously not made for the purpose of making commercial revenue - even people involved with the film admit that there was no way this film could have earned back its production budget, much less turn a profit. So why make it ? And who funded it ?

The most serious question of course is: was the film made (or at least was the Arabic translation made and uploaded) to deliberately serve the purpose of providing a cover for a terror group to launch a pre-planned attack on the Libyan consulate ? If so (and that remains to be seen,) then the people who performed those actions are not only guilty of aiding terrorists, but are accessories to murder.

And if so, it's the American people who are being manipulated.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And if so, it's the American people who are being manipulated.

And the manipulation continues, as the Obama administration refuses to take any responsibilities for its security failures at Benghazi:

Ambassador Susan Rice: Libya Attack Not Premeditated

“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/ambassador-susan-rice-libya-attack-not-premeditated/

[B_J 2,752]

The most serious question of course is: was the film made (or at least was the Arabic translation made and uploaded) to deliberately serve the purpose of providing a cover for a terror group to launch a pre-planned attack on the Libyan consulate ? If so (and that remains to be seen,) then the people who performed those actions are not only guilty of aiding terrorists, but are accessories to murder.

And if so, it's the American people who are being manipulated.

Assuming the film was made for that purpose, then are we to assume that every person protesting is a terrorist who was in on the plan? Then it seems there are a lot more terrorists than we've been told.

Or are some of the protesters not terrorists in on the plan; they are just so angry over the film that they are joining in on the violence? Then it seems that these good Muslim are getting incredibly violent over a stupid film.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The official line from the state department and the Obama administration gets stranger and stranger:

Rice’s account directly contradicts that of Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, who said this weekend that he had “no doubt” the attack was pre-planned by individuals from outside Libya.

“It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” told CBS News.

Rice said there were no Marines present to protect the consulate in Libya, saying the U.S. presence there is “relatively new” since the revolution that overthrew former dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

“There are not Marines in every facility. That depends on the circumstances. That depends on the requirements,” Rice said. “Our presence in Tripoli, as in Benghazi, is relatively new, as you will recall. We’ve been back post-revolution only for a matter of months.”

But Rice said there was a “substantial security presence” at the consulate in Benghazi, noting that two of the four Americans killed there were providing security.

“We certainly are aware that Libya is a place where there have been increasingly some violent incidents,” Rice said. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place… It obviously didn’t prove sufficient to the – the nature of the attack and sufficient in that – in that moment.”

“But the president has been very clear. The protection of American personnel and facilities is and will remain our top priority,” Rice added. “That’s why we’ve reinforced our presence in Tripoli and elsewhere.”

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

And the manipulation continues, as the Obama administration refuses to take any responsibilities for its security failures at Benghazi:

Well of course they're not going to admit they failed to provide adequate security, or that they failed to take action after being told of a threat. I don't think any administration would. Same as Bush ignored warnings from the CIA before 9/11, but never admitted any fault.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Assuming the film was made for that purpose, then are we to assume that every person protesting is a terrorist who was in on the plan? Then it seems there are a lot more terrorists than we've been told.

Or are some of the protesters not terrorists in on the plan; they are just so angry over the film that they are joining in on the violence? Then it seems that these good Muslim are getting incredibly violent over a stupid film.

No, most of the people who were demonstrating were gullible patsies. Only the group that carried out the attack knew the real plan - most of the protestors were not part of that group. (BTW "patsy" may apply to most of the people who worked on the film, as well.)

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Well of course they're not going to admit they failed to provide adequate security, or that they failed to take action after being told of a threat. I don't think any administration would. Same as Bush ignored warnings from the CIA before 9/11, but never admitted any fault.

Unlike Reagan who took full responsibility for the security failures of the Beirut bombing and said military leaders were not to blame. Real leaders do that

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Unlike Reagan who took full responsibility for the security failures of the Beirut bombing and said military leaders were not to blame. Real leaders do that

...on April 23, 1983, Reagan announced to the press: "The tragic and brutal attack on our embassy in Beirut has shocked us all and filled us with grief. Yet, because of this latest crime we are more resolved than ever to help achieve the urgent and total withdrawal of all American forces from Lebanon, or I should say, all foreign forces. I’m sorry. Mistake." But the actual mistake was a U.S. policy that would cost hundreds of Americans their lives.

...

Reagan administration officials scrambled to assert that the administration was blameless. White House press spokesman Larry Speakes declared on the day of the attack that the bombing "definitely was a difficult situation for us" since "people come out of nowhere and perform these acts." Vice President George H.W. Bush rationalized: "It’s awfully hard to guard against that kind of terrorism." Defense Secretary Weinberger announced that "nothing can work against a suicide attack like that, any more than you can do anything against a kamikaze flight." Actually, during World War II, the U.S. Navy quickly responded by placing rows of antiaircraft guns on the sides of its big ships.

...

In a televised speech four days after the bombing, Reagan portrayed the attack as unstoppable, declaring that the truck "crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements. The guards opened fire, but it was too late." Reagan claimed the attack proved the U.S. mission was succeeding: "Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks against the multinational force if it were not doing its job? . . . It is accomplishing its mission." He warned that a U.S. withdrawal could result in the Middle East being "incorporated into the Soviet bloc." Reagan also declared that the U.S. was involved in the Middle East in part to secure a "solution to the Palestinian problem."

...

Shortly after the bombing, Reagan appointed a Pentagon commission headed by retired Admiral Robert Long to investigate. The commission report, finished in mid-December 1983, concluded that military commanders in Lebanon and all the way back to Washington failed to take obvious steps to protect the soldiers. The commission suggested that many fatalities might have been prevented if guards had carried loaded weapons. The report stated that the only barrier the truck overcame was some barbed wire that it easily drove over. The commission also noted that the "prevalent view" among U.S. commanders was that there was a direct link between the Navy shelling of the Muslims and the truck bomb attack.

When the White House saw the final version of the commission’s report, they issued a stop order. The Washington Post reported that the White House "delayed release of the report for several days, allowing Reagan to respond to its criticism before it became public, and then attempted to play down its impact by vetoing a Pentagon news conference on the document. "On December 27, 1983 Reagan revealed that "we have never before faced a situation in which others routinely sponsor and facilitate acts of violence against us." Reagan sought to make the report "old news": "Nearly all the measures that were identified by the distinguished members of the Commission have already been implemented and those that have not will be very quickly." Reagan announced that the Marine commanders in Beirut "have already suffered enough" and should not "be punished for not fully comprehending the nature of today’s terrorist threat." Reagan then effectively declared that no one would be held accountable: "If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this president," he announced, just before leaving Washington for a vacation in Palm Springs, California.

...

The following September, shortly after a suicide bomber again obliterated much of the poorly-defended U.S. embassy in Beirut, Reagan blamed the debacle on Carter administration CIA cutbacks: "We’re feeling the effects today of the near destruction of our intelligence capability in recent years before we came here." Reagan falsely asserted that the Carter administration had "to a large extent" gotten "rid of our intelligence agents."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/10/08/the-reagan-roadmap-for-an-antiterrorism-disaster/

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Back to the film. From an interview with Jimmy Israel, the self-described real estate investor/unemployed screenwriter who says he worked on the project for a few days:

Likewise, I can’t be sure that this isn’t part of some larger deception — anything from a prank to some kind of bizarre intelligence operation. It’s phenomenally strange.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/muhammed-movie-crew-member-sheds-light-on-films-p

[B_J 2,752]

No, most of the people who were demonstrating were gullible patsies. Only the group that carried out the attack knew the real plan - most of the protestors were not part of that group. (BTW "patsy" may apply to most of the people who worked on the film, as well.)

In your opinion, what makes them gullible patsies? Do they just not know enough about the western world so they end up being duped into participating in this type of violence?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Go back to eating your funions.

Newsflash, they DID. Maybe you missed the news report for the months when this happened.

I don't eat funions, but even if I did, read what WOM posted. Do it carefully, slowly. The Administration did not "back" the Egyptian dictator. Sorry. Wrong.

They did continue to deal with him while he was in power. Very very different.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

In your opinion, what makes them gullible patsies? Do they just not know enough about the western world so they end up being duped into participating in this type of violence?

If you're young, unemployed, not very smart and have too much time on your hands, what do you do? Hell, when your favourite sports team loses, what do you do? Stay at home or find a convenient scapegoat for all of life's problems? Didn't study for your exams, there's only one answer for that, DEATH TO AMERICA! Can't get a job, DEATH TO AMERICA! Local government sucks big-time, DEATH TO AMERICA! Need a new TV, DEATH TO AMERICA! Can't get remove those ground in grass stains when doing the laundry, DEATH TO AMERICA! US foreign policy has serious flaws but a frank and open discussion (assuming your local warlord maniac will allow it) requires careful those and contrapuntal debate, screw that, DEATH TO AMERICA! BTW, The Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967 and have rarely been contenders, there's only one thing to say at a time like this, DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!!

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

In your opinion, what makes them gullible patsies? Do they just not know enough about the western world so they end up being duped into participating in this type of violence?

I was talking about the rank-and-file demonstrators, not the small group who participated in the pre-planned attack.

It's not really so difficult to incite people who are already angry about something or perceive a threat to their way of life... who've been conditioned or "programmed" to view a particular group as their enemy or a particular act as intolerable. And being in the middle of a mob provides cover and anonymity for acts that many people probably wouldn't take part in individually, on their own. We've seen it so many times - at Klan lynchings, on Kristallnacht, in Jerusalem between right-wing extremists and Arab residents, even at soccer games between fans of opposing teams, etc. etc.

That's what makes incitement so dangerous.