Author Topic: Sept 2012: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate  (Read 158721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,944
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2012, 00:43:35 »
I disagree, anyone who intentionally acts in a manner which they expect to inflame masses of uneducated peasants to actions as this past week has lost my vote for sympathy or my willing to put my *** on the line for.  Especially when it costs the lives of my fellow countrymen and other innocents.

That would be my take on this asswit were he Canadian.

That could be applied to any political cartoonist in Canada, the US or the western world.

The only saving grace and difference is that we are more tolerant and civilized. Nor are we fervently and radically religious.

Otherwise, there but for the grace of God go we.

If ignorant savages and terrorists get inflammed over a cartoon to the point of killing people, they abdicate the right to live without looking over their shoulder, expecting to be killed themselves.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 209,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,556
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2012, 06:26:58 »
Andrew Coyne attempts to inject a bit of reason into the argument over the attacks by stating at the end of this piece that the "Arab street" [my words] hates America simply because it is rich, powerful and successful and they are not. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Full Comment
Andrew Coyne: The real lesson from embassy attacks — U.S. will always have enemies
Sep 14, 2012 7:42 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 14, 2012 11:27 PM ET

Violent protests outside American embassies, first in Egypt and Libya and now across the Muslim world, have provided a rare moment of agreement for partisans of the right and left: the right, for whom everything is President Obama’s fault, and the left, for whom everything is America’s fault.

The protests, both agree, are not merely expressions of whatever was on the minds of those who showed up on the day, but a broad indictment of American policy in the Middle East, notably in its support (temporizing as it sometimes was) for the so-called Arab Spring. While American indulgence of western-friendly dictators like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was once a bone of contention between the two sides, today there is an odd new entente in favour of letting sleeping Muslims lie.


This is what you get, the right says, for forsaking our allies: not western-style democrats, but implacably hostile Islamists, whether of the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda strain. Obama’s conciliatory gestures early in his term, they claim, communicated weakness; his passivity in the face of provocation confirmed it.

This is what you get, the left says, for meddling in other countries’ affairs. (Sample Guardian headline: “The west has once again started a fire it cannot extinguish.”) Unless it’s for not meddling soon enough. Or is it for meddling in the wrong way? No matter. Remember, whatever happens, it’s always America’s fault.

It strikes me as rather early days to be making such pronouncements, though you may recall it took scant minutes for commentators to discover the “root causes” of September 11 (whose anniversary the embassy attacks seem intended to celebrate). By an amazing coincidence, the terrorists’ grievances in every case turned out to be identical with those of whichever pundit was flapping his gums. To critics of American foreign policy, it was on account of American foreign policy. To those concerned with Third World poverty, it was about Third World poverty. And so on down the line: every time. It was uncanny.

Still, it was evident to all, even then, that 9/11 was a historic event, whose consequences would be felt for decades: whatever its meaning, its significance was indisputable. The same is not remotely true here. That a few hundred, or even a few thousand, hotheads gather to chant “Death to America,” on whatever pretext, does not mean their countrymen are all of the same mind; that nascent authorities, in societies lately emerged from dictatorship or civil war, have been unable to prevent the mobs from storming the embassies does not, by itself, demonstrate the failure of the experiment in Arab liberty.

Libya may not be the most stable place nowadays, but would its prospects be brighter if Gaddafi were still in power? Or Egypt’s, under Mubarak? As with post-Saddam Iraq or Afghanistan after the Taliban, we should not let their present difficulties blind us to how much better off these countries are now than under the previous regimes, and can hope to be in future.

What the last few days does show, as if we needed reminding, is that a lot of people in the Muslim world still hate America. Even if the proximate cause were, as reported, a crude anti-Muslim video that happened to have been produced in the United States, the crowds’ fury plainly has as much to do with where the film was made as what was in it. The protests have become, if they were not originally, arenas for the venting of rage at the U.S. in general — and at its president in particular. “Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas,” rioters in Tunis chanted. In Jalalabad, Afghanistan, they burned him in effigy.

If this seems a remarkable turn of events, it shouldn’t. The notion that the election of a president with Muslim roots, or the adoption of a more conciliatory tone in American foreign policy, would mollify America’s detractors in the Third World, was always a fantasy. If it is unlikely the protests were caused by Obama’s “weakness” — Mitt Romney’s campaign went so far as to claim they would not have taken place if he were president — then neither, it seems, has his presence in the White House done anything to prevent them. Perhaps there is less anti-Americanism abroad as a result of his presidency, but it certainly hasn’t been extinguished. Which is fine. Because there isn’t anything to be done about it, and no point in trying.

It is a mistake to suppose that hatred of America must have some rational cause, any more than other prejudices. It does not. It is a constant, unlikely to change no matter what propitiatory gestures the U.S. might offer. It has nothing to do with what foreign policy it pursues, or whether the president’s middle name is Hussein. It exists because America exists, and if America did not exist it would attach itself to something else.

Hatred of America is a form of self-hatred, the fruit of frustration and despair in the Muslim world at their relative decline. And not only in the Muslim world. Anti-Americanism will always be with us so long as people need a bogeyman on which to hang the evils of the world. It speaks to all that is small and envious and insecure in us, and unfortunately that, too, is a constant.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 471,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,243
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2012, 06:50:08 »
I agree with Andrew Coyne, it is as I said, earlier, an expression of some Muslims' "unreasoned, inchoate rage at a world which does not give them what they want." And Coyne suggests, correctly, that we can find that same rage, albeit expressed differently, amongst all those, including, for example, Canadian left wing intellectuals, who need some simple way to explain away their (relative) failure. One hundred to 150 years ago Britain was the target of that rage: envious Americans (mostly Irish Americans) - citizens of a "second place" country, were "twisting the lion's tail," including by abortive invasions of Canada.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 471,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,243
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2012, 07:13:41 »
The right to free speech is not absolute in the cases of:

Libel and slander
Misrepresentation (to commit fraud)
Sedation
Incitement to commit violence
Treason


The film, bad as it may be, fall under none of these categories, and bad movies are not a reason to commit murder or mayhem. The film was only a useful excuse, and the fact that the attacks happened on 9/11 suggests that if the film had never been made there would still have been an attack, with some other excuse presented as the reason.


 :goodpost:   300 Milpoints sent your way

You are exactly right! As I said, earlier: "This film does, indeed, aim to denigrate Islam but that is not an incitement to violence (which is one of the very, very few grounds on which we ought to restrict "free speech") ... the film is just a convenient excuse for somewhat less that smart people to express their unreasoned, inchoate rage at a world which does not give them what they want. The film, unbelievably bad though it may be, is nothing about which anyone needs to apologize."

Focus on the real "root causes" which are to be found in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asias, not in America or Europe, and amongst the peoples of North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia, not amongst Australians and Canadians, and which can be solved only when those peoples sort themselves out in their own bloody ways.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Online Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 213,797
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,801
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2012, 07:33:14 »
The film maker is cooperating with the FBI, and the video footage of him being escorted by police makes him look more like a child molester than a film maker.

Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,427
  • Freespeecher
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2012, 08:45:05 »
And it keeps spreading: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/map-muslim-protests-around-world/56865/

The Google map shows "protests" from the UK to Bangladesh, and as far south as Nigeria and Siri Lanka.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline winnipegoo7

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 203

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,923
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2012, 10:17:25 »
There may be no anti-Islamic movie at all
Article Link
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / September 12, 2012

Some interesting and convincing points are made.

As I finished this post, I came across an interview with an actress who appears in some of the footage given to Gawker. It goes a long way to clearing up some of the mystery, though not entirely.

Cindy Lee Garcia tells the website that she was hired last summer for a small part in a movie she was told would be called "Desert Warriors," about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago (Islam is about 1,400 years old).

She told Gawker "It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything and that, according to Gawker, "In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn't even called Muhammed; he was "Master George," Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed. Garcia said that there was a man who identified as "Bacile" on set, but that he was Egyptian and frequently spoke Arabic.

The online 14-minute clip of a purportedly anti-Islamic movie that sparked protests at the US embassy in Cairo and and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is now looking like it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.

Full credit goes to Sarah Abdurrahman at On the Media and Rosie Grey at Buzzfed who appear to be the first to highlight (there may be others, but they're the ones who caught my eye) the fact that almost every instance of language referring to Islam or Muhammad in the film has been dubbed in. That is, mouths are mouthing but the words you're hearing don't match.

There have already been a bunch of lies associated with the alleged film. A man named "Sam Bacile" was identified as being the writer and producer. He claimed to be an Israeli citizen. The Israelis say they have no record of him. He claimed to have spent $5 million on the movie. The clip online doesn't look like even $100,000 was spent. There is no record of a "Sam Bacile" living in California, and his strange insistence on the fact that he was Jewish and that he had exclusively Jewish funders for his film in an interview with the Associated Press now looks like something of a red flag.

The one verifiable person involved in this strange tale so far is Steve Klein, an evangelical Christian and anti-Islamic activist with ties to militia groups and a Coptic Christian satellite TV station based in California. Klein told Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic earlier today that he was a consultant on the film, that "Sam Bacile," was a pseudonym, that the person behind the name probably isn't Jewish, and he didn't know the real name of the man. He doesn't know the name of someone he worked on a movie with? Yet another strange, credulity-stretching claim.

Now comes the part with the compelling case of no movie at all.

Abdurrahman writes:

    If you watch closely, you can see that when the actors are reading parts of the script that do not contain Islam-specific language, the audio from the sound stage is used (the audio that was recorded as the actors were simultaneously being filmed). But anytime the actors are referring to something specific to the religion (the Prophet Muhammed, the Quran, etc.) the audio recorded during filming is replaced with a poorly executed post-production dub. And if you look EVEN closer, you can see that the actors’ mouths are saying something other than what the dub is saying.

    For example, at 2:53, the voiceover says “His name is Muhammed. And we can call him The Father Unknown.” In this case, the whole line is dubbed, and it appears the actor is actually saying, “His name is George (?). And we can call him The Father Unknown.” I assume the filmmakers thought they were being slick, thinking that dubbing the whole line instead of just the name would make it more seamless and less noticeable to the viewer. But once you start to look for these dubs, it’s hard to see anything else.

And Grey writes:

    As the video above — cut from the YouTube video tied to a global controversy — shows, nearly all of the names in the movie's "trailer" — is a compilation of the most clumsily overdubbed moments from what is in reality an incoherent, haphazardly-edited set of scenes. Among the overdubbed words is "Mohammed," suggesting that the footage was taken from a film about something else entirely. The footage also suggests multiple video sources — there are obvious and jarring discrepancies among actors and locations... whoever made (it) may well have made use of little more than the standard editing software Final Cut Pro — far from a cast and crew of over 100 and millions of dollars.

Both make very, very convincing points (read their full posts) and if you watch the footage carefully, it's hard to escape their conclusions. In one scene a man is apparently teaching his daughter about the evils of Islam and writes on a blackboard that "Man + X = BT" as he explains to her that "Man + X = Islamic terrorist." Then he writes the equation in reverse, again intoning "Islamic terrorist" as he writes "BT."

If suspicions are right, the low-quality footage has been re-purposed from somewhere, and you'd expect someone to come forward and explain soon (since a lot of actors are involved).

What's really going on here? I have no idea.
end
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,523
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2012, 10:57:14 »
Responsible behaviour is a thin veneer.  Increasingly I believe the underlying problem is people without enough to do; employed people, people with children (or other dependants), people with animals and property to look after, for the most part do not take up excuses to riot.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 259,572
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,944
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2012, 11:20:41 »


http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/16/photos-riots-fire-destruction-after-vancouvers-loss/

The difference being, that these people aren't cutting the heads off others, because they don't agree with them.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 471,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,243
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2012, 11:27:29 »
The difference being, that these people aren't cutting the heads off others, because they don't agree with them.


Fair enough, but they do appear to fall within Brad's description ~ people with too much time on their hands because they have too few responsibilities.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Haletown

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 851
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2012, 11:32:58 »
The narrative so far seems to be inconsistent with the facts.

"CHAOS AT THE STATE DEPT?
I spoke with a well-placed journalist last night whose sources describe the situation at the State Department in one word: “Chaos.”  The working assumption is that several American embassies may have been penetrated, or are vulnerable to attack, because so many of them rely on local residents for staff needs at the embassy, and as such may be in a position to breach security if they have been recruited by Al Qaida.  Moreover, the full story of the attack on the Benghazi consulate is much worse than we have been told (except by the Independent newspaper report John and I linked to here on Thursday).

The consulate in Benghazi was an interim facility, with only a standard door lock for security, and worse, Ambassador Stevens was traveling with only a light security detail, rather than in the heavily armed convoys our diplomats in the region usually employ.  The attack on the Benghazi was no mere target of opportunity spurred by reaction to the “Innocence of Muslims” film; the film is just a pretext.  The killing of Amb. Stevens was a premeditated hit, planned and carried out as retaliation for the recent drone strike that killed the number two Al Qaida operative in Afghanistan recently.  The vulnerability of Stevens at the Benghazi compound was scouted out carefully.  All the other embassy protest activity is just covering theater.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/chaos-at-the-state-dept.php


Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 209,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,556
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2012, 13:47:31 »
And Mark Steyn joins in the criticism of the administration and the majority of media outlets with this blog from the National Review site which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Lying in State

By Mark Steyn

September 15, 2012 9:12 A.M.

Rich, re the silence of the State Department, I understand that America has decayed from a land of laws to a land of legalisms but the position that no one at State can say a word about Benghazi because there’s now an FBI investigation, and so it’s a sub judice police matter, and Sergeant Friday has flown out with an extra long roll of yellow “DO NOT CROSS” tape and strung it round the smoking ruins of the U.S. consulate and the “safe house” is stark staring nuts.
 
This is a security fiasco and a strategic debacle for the foreign policy of the United States, not a liquor store hold-up. What is wrong even with the bland, compliant, desiccated, over-credentialed, pansified, groupthink poodles of the press corps that they don’t hoot and jeer at Victoria Nuland? I know why she’s doing it; I know why Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to suggest that some movie trailer on YouTube is the reason that a mob in Benghazi knows the location of the U.S. ambassador’s safe house. But why would anybody else even pretend to take this stuff seriously? Elderly Soviet propagandists must be wondering why they wasted their time jamming radio transmitters and smashing printing presses when they could just have sent everyone to Columbia Journalism School.
 
More on the insane, post-modern unreality of the dying superpower in my weekend column.   

Edit: Here is the link to his weekend column: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/320283/disgrace-benghazi-mark-steyn
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 13:52:27 by Old Sweat »

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 91,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,898
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2012, 16:25:43 »
Hillary's chickens have come home to roost - or are they Obama's ?

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2012, 16:28:21 »
It seems that the internet companies are now the defacto arbiters of free speech.

Google’s restricting of anti-Muslim video shows role of Web firms as free-speech arbiters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/googles-restricting-of-anti-muslim-video-shows-role-of-web-firms-as-free-speech-arbiters/2012/09/14/ec0f8ce0-fe9b-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html?hpid=z1

Quote
Google lists eight reasons on its “YouTube Community Guidelines” page for why it might take down a video. Inciting riots is not among them. But after the White House warned Tuesday that a crude anti-Muslim movie trailer had sparked lethal violence in the Middle East, Google acted.

Days later, controversy over the 14-minute clip from “The Innocence of Muslims” was still roiling the Islamic world, with access blocked in Egypt, Libya, India, Indonesia and Afghanistan — keeping it from easy viewing in countries where more than a quarter of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims live.



Legal experts and civil libertarians, meanwhile, said the controversy highlighted how Internet companies, most based in the United States, have become global arbiters of free speech, weighing complex issues that traditionally are the province of courts, judges, and occasionally, international treaty.

“Notice that Google has more power over this than either the Egyptian or the U.S. government,” said Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor. “Most free speech today has nothing to do with governments and everything to do with companies.”

In temporarily blocking the video in some countries, legal experts say, Google implicitly invoked the concept of “clear and present danger.” That’s a key exception to the broad First Amendment protections in the United States, where free speech is more jealously guarded than almost anywhere in the world.

The Internet has been a boon to free speech, bringing access to information that governments have long tried to suppress. Recall last spring’s freewheeling Internet chatter over Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident, as he evaded capture in a country known for its tight control of news sources.

Google has positioned itself as an ally of such freedoms, as newspapers, book publishers and television stations long have. But because of the immediacy and global reach of Internet companies, they face particular challenges in addressing a range of legal restrictions, cultural sensitivities and, occasionally, national security concerns.

“Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter now play this adjudicatory role on free speech,” said Andrew McLaughlin, a former top policy official at Google who later worked the Obama White House as deputy chief technology officer.

Nazi propaganda, for example, can be found on Google.com but not Google.de, the site tailored for use in Germany, where such speech is illegal. In the United States, images of animal cruelty can be found through Google’s search algorithm — which is a key tool for legitimate researchers — but are blocked on YouTube, which the company owns but strives for a more PG sensibility, blocking pornography, gratuitous violence and hate speech.

Despite Google’s history as a steward of appropriate content, the White House outreach on the movie clip was remarkable, longtime observers of the company say.

Upset foreign governments occasionally block YouTube entirely within their borders to stop a video from being watched, as Afghanistan has done. Sometimes governments formally ask Google to block a YouTube video, which India and Indonesia have both done with the controversial movie clip. (Google said it complies with legal, written requests by governments to block videos from being viewed in their countries.)

But for the White House to ask Google to review a video that was causing trouble in a foreign land was an unusual step — and perhaps unprecedented. McLaughlin, the former Google and White House official, could think of no similar request in the past.

Both government and Google officials said the company made its own decision after the White House raised the issue of the video on Tuesday, the day that U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed.

“We reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and asked them to review whether it violates their terms of use,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said on Friday.

Google said it decided to block the video in Egypt and Libya because of the “very sensitive situations there” and not because the White House requested it.

A company official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe internal thinking at Google, said, “Dealing with controversial content is one of the biggest challenges we face as a company.”

The decision has drawn an uneasy reaction, with some civil libertarians blasting Google for essentially censoring access for some potential viewers. For critics, the decision recalled Google’s former compliance with Chinese government restrictions on a wide range of content — before the company moved its offices and servers to Hong Kong in 2010, beyond the reach of Chinese censorship laws.

The motives of both Google and the White House drew suspicion this week, with some saying that U.S. officials might have sought to send a political message — distancing the United States from the anti-Muslim video — by revealing their efforts to have it blocked. The officials had no legal authority to demand action, legal experts say.

“It’s a little bit of censorship and a little bit of diplomacy in a difficult situation,” said Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties for the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society.

Yet the controversy has highlighted how much of the world’s information is concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of powerful companies. Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain said these “corporate gatekeepers” are essential to keeping free speech robust.

He praised efforts to establish guidelines for when content is removed or blocked from some viewers. Yet he said many hard decisions will come when actual cases arise.

“Anyone who says this is a no-brainer, I’m dubious about,” Zittrain said. “Because it’s not a no-brainer, and it’s not going to go away.”

It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 91,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,898
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2012, 16:32:12 »
If you notice the administration is spinning the cause of these attacks are a video,when in fact the attacks were well planned and across the region. Notice the lack of attacks in Turkey,Jordan,Saudi Arabai ,Morrocco ,Iraq and Algeria.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 207,676
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,502
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #66 on: September 15, 2012, 16:45:09 »
If you notice the administration is spinning the cause of these attacks are a video,when in fact the attacks were well planned and across the region. Notice the lack of attacks in Turkey,Jordan,Saudi Arabai ,Morrocco ,Iraq and Algeria.

I don't think it's so much as the administration spinning it this way as it is the radical Muslims using that video as their excuse for their co-ordinated effort.

As for the earlier comment by a previous poster regarding poor Muslim countries and their lack of ability to high tech ... eerily, when I was in Syria circa 2001, even those who were poor and living in their mud houses had satellite dishes on their "roofs" and cellphones clutched in their hands. Many of us made comments regarding their priorities as it was a time when a lot of us 1st worlders didn't even have them - especially when deployed. They may be uneducated, but they quite often have electronic access that you wouldn't associate with, let's say, third world countries in Africa.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #67 on: September 15, 2012, 16:45:25 »
The right to free speech is not absolute in the cases of:

Libel and slander
Misrepresentation (to commit fraud)
Sedation Sedition [ftfy, unless you really meant speech so boring it puts people to sleep  ;D]
Incitement to commit violence
Treason


The film, bad as it may be, fall under none of these categories, and bad movies are not a reason to commit murder or mayhem. The film was only a useful excuse, and the fact that the attacks happened on 9/11 suggests that if the film had never been made there would still have been an attack, with some other excuse presented as the reason.

I don't want to get into a debate over whether this piece of crap fails the various tests for limits of free speech, but it would not be hard to fathom a situation where some radical group (and these *** hats are all supposedly connected to various radical Coptic Christian, or Anti-Islamic groups) putting out something like this to foment unrest and drag foreign government (read The U.S.) into taking some sort of action, or at least bringing Western attention  into focus for their cause.

But having said all of that, the situation in Benghazi that lead to the deaths of the 4 Americans was a different and unrelated incident from all of the other protests that are taking place in the rest of the Arab / Muslim world. It appears that the attackers may have used the protests in Benghazi as cover or diversion.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2012, 17:10:23 by cupper »
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 209,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,556
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #68 on: September 15, 2012, 17:01:40 »
Cupper

I could not agree more with the gist of your analysis. What I find disturbing when all else is said and done is that the majority of the media are ignoring the second point you make. It is hard to believe that they are not aware of the facts of the matter, and disturbing that they are giving the administration a free ride. It will be interesting to see what sort of approach the Sunday morning TV talk shows take.

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #69 on: September 15, 2012, 17:06:53 »
Found this on David Frum's Daily Beast site. The author asks a very thought provoking question. I'd be very interested in the answer as well.

Why the Absolutist Rage, Islamists?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/14/why-so-mad-islamist-radicals.html

Quote
Koplow (at this point, I'm assuming you know Michael Koplow is the author of the wonderful Ottomans and Zionists blog) wonders why radical Islamists feel compelled to assail the actions of outsiders, as opposed to merely policing the ummah.

Quote
Something that I am eager to have explained to me by someone whose understanding of Islamic theology is deeper than mine (and I am not being sarcastic; I am genuinely interested): why is there an assumption on the part of the rioters and protestors that Muslim religious principles should be universal?

An article in the Egypt Independent on the reasons behind the protests in Egypt quoted a protestor explaining his anger by saying, “It is forbidden to depict the Prophet, especially when they say the exact opposite of the truth about him.”

I get that the prohibition exists in Islam, but I don’t get why that means that non-Muslims across the entire world have to adhere to it. Judaism forbids eating milk and meat together, but Jews are not going around burning McDonalds franchises because they serve cheeseburgers, nor are Mormons ransacking Starbucks stores because they sell caffeine.

For that matter, Islam forbids eating pork and drinking alcohol but Muslims are not demanding that all of Earth’s 6 billion residents refrain from having a beer with their barbecued ribs. Why is the expectation that everyone adhere to Islam’s prohibitions on depicting the prophet, and why does it only apply in this case but not to other activities prohibited by Islam? Again, I am not being snide but am actually looking for an answer.
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Online ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 207,184
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,648
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #70 on: September 15, 2012, 17:15:28 »
It may not be Obama's fault, but it is his problem. How the administration manages this crisis could well determine November's outcome.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline cupper

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,687
  • Nuke 'em 'til they glow, then wait until dark.
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2012, 17:21:31 »
Interesting pushback by John McCain against Hannity and Fox News line of BS.

McCain to Hannity: Fox 'wrong about Libya'

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/mccain-to-hannity-you-and-fox-news-were-wrong-about-135607.html?hp=l5

Quote
Sen. John McCain on Thursday night clashed with Sean Hannity, telling the Fox News host that he and others on the network “were wrong about Libya.”

McCain's remarks came after Hannity claimed he had accurately predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood would take control of Egypt, and pressed the Arizona Republican on why the Obama administration was not able to foresee this week's attacks on U.S. diplomats in North Africa.

“How is it that Sean Hannity and a few others of us out here predicted with pinpoint accuracy that the Muslim Brotherhood would be in charge in Egypt? Their first task when they took over the Parliament was to declare Israel, our closest ally, an enemy. First, their number one enemy,” Hannity said. “How is it that the administration with all their intelligence and all the money we spend to help them and the CIA — how is it that they didn’t see this coming? And they kept telling the American people, this is democracy. Democracy. I don’t view the Muslim Brotherhood as democracy. They want Sharia law implemented now in Egypt.”

McCain pushed back, telling Hannity that “that’s not clear that that’s true” and that he and Fox News were wrong with their take on the elections in Libya.

“But also it was you and people on Fox that said in Libya, ‘we didn’t know who they were and let’s not help these people.’ They had an election and they elected moderates. They rejected Islamists,” McCain said. “And yes, there are Al Qaeda factors and there are extremists in Libya today, but the Libyan people are friends of ours, and they support us, and they support democracy. So you were wrong about Libya.”

“I don’t think I was wrong about Libya at all,” Hannity replied.

McCain jumped in, telling Hannity, “Yes I do, I know you were.”

“No, I was not,” the Fox News host said.

“I know you were. They had a free and fair election, and a democratic non-Islamic government was elected. So you were wrong,” McCain said.

Hannity then said he was surprised McCain wasn’t siding with him.

“They didn’t think the Muslim Brotherhood would take over? This is a known terror organization. We say we’re fighting a war on terror, we’re apologizing, our government, to Egypt after they raid our embassy and rip our flag down?” Hannity said. “Frankly, Senator, I would think you are with me on this.”

The interview wrapped after McCain replied, “I am not taking the side of the administration. I am saying that the largest nation in the Arab world is something we have to carefully calibrate our actions with.”
It's hard to win an argument against a smart person, it's damned near impossible against a stupid person.

There is no God, and life is just a myth.

"He who drinks, sleeps. He who sleeps, does not sin. He who does not sin, is holy. Therefore he who drinks, is holy."

Let's Go CAPS!

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 471,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,243
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2012, 17:27:47 »
People who dabble in microeconomics are fond of talking about the rational actor - someone who makes rational choices. The people who riot in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia are not, in the way we use the word, rational. (I'm not talking about the ones who mount well planned, carefully executed, deadly attacks à la Benghazi.) Their rage is, as I have said over and over, inchoate, unformed, fueled by religious fervor and, therefore, almost by definition irrational. I read over and over again that these young men - they almost all seem to be young men, don't they? - march from the mosque directly to the riot target, urged on my the most recent sermon. I have also read, many times, that these young men are mostly graduates of or still students in Saudi funded, fundamentalist madrasahs where they learn, for years, one and only one subject: how to read and interpret the Quran; they are, mostly, as I understand what I have read, innumerate, ignorant of any science (hard or social) and essentially illiterate, except for the Quran. It is hard for anyone to make a rational choice on a religious topic; I suggest it is impossible if one is educated brainwashed in a Saudi madrasah.

So there is no rational explanation for Muslim rage because there is no rational foundation for it. Ignorant young men, fired up by equally ignorant religious leaders vent their anger and frustration on whatever "great satan" is at hand. Think Savonarola, in Florence, 500+ years ago ~ the bonfire of the vanities, and all that.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 91,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,898
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2012, 17:40:39 »
This memo was scrubbed from the OSAC web site.




Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 91,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,898
Re: U.S. Ambassador in Libya and two others killed in attack of consulate
« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2012, 17:45:34 »
Chaos at DOS.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/the-libyan-scandal-deepens.php

The Libyan Scandal Deepens

The Independent is reporting that the State Department had intelligence that American diplomatic facilities in the Middle East were being targeted, but did nothing to enhance security:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.

It is difficult to get a clear understanding of what happened in Benghazi. Chris Stevens had been traveling in other countries and only recently returned to Libya. There has been no explanation of why he was in Benghazi (as opposed to the capital, Tripoli) or how many other Americans were also there. Apparently the terrorists first attacked the consulate, which was virtually undefended:

According to security sources the consulate had been given a “health check” in preparation for any violence connected to the 9/11 anniversary. In the event, the perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of an angry crowd starting to attack it at around 10pm on Tuesday night. There was, according to witnesses, little defence put up by the 30 or more local guards meant to protect the staff. Ali Fetori, a 59-year-old accountant who lives near by, said: “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.”

So where were the Marines? Stevens and others went to a supposed “safe house,” but the location of the house apparently had been betrayed to the terrorists. The explanation of how Stevens died from smoke inhalation is curious at best:

Mr Stevens, it is believed, was left in the building by the rest of the staff after they failed to find him in dense smoke caused by a blaze which had engulfed the building.

So they fled the building without the Ambassador? And where were the terrorists at that point? They had attacked the building with RPGs, as I understand it, and the building evidently was on fire. Did the terrorists just evaporate and allow the other staff members to leave?

Supposedly, a group of friendly Libyans found Ambassador Stevens lying unconscious in the burned-out safe house and took him to a hospital. This apparently is when the photos we have seen were taken. The crowd doesn’t look particularly friendly to me. But where were the terrorists while that was going on?

Some hours later, apparently, a large group of Americans was rescued from the “safe house.” How can that be? The safe house was on fire. Did they arrive after an earlier group had departed from the safe house, and the friendly Libyans had removed Ambassador Stevens’s body? Apparently, but that makes no sense. In any event, a force was sent from Tripoli to rescue them:

An eight-strong American rescue team was sent from Tripoli and taken by troops under Captain Fathi al- Obeidi, of the February 17 Brigade, to the secret safe house to extract around 40 US staff. The building then came under fire from heavy weapons. “I don’t know how they found the place to carry out the attack. It was planned, the accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries,” said Captain Obeidi. “It began to rain down on us, about six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa.”

So now apparently the terrorists are back, this time with mortars! This isn’t a mob, it’s a military force. Despite the mortar attack, the eight Americans were able to resuce the 40 US staff from the supposedly burned-out safe house. It was somewhere in this time period when they learned what had happened to Stevens, apparently some hours earlier:

Libyan reinforcements eventually arrived, and the attack ended. News had arrived of Mr Stevens, and his body was picked up from the hospital and taken back to Tripoli with the other dead and the survivors.

This narrative does not make a lot of sense; the time sequence is confused, to say the least, and the story of what happened to Stevens doesn’t appear to add up. A Congressional investigation should be undertaken to find out what happened and why adequate security precautions were not taken. A Congressional committee will also want to inquire into how secret documents fell into the terrorists’ hands, compromising American intelligence assets in Libya:

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

There is a great deal more to be learned about what happened in Libya, and why. The Obama administration will carry out its usual cover-up, so it is up to Congress to try to dig out the real story.