U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consulate

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consula

Postby bhaw on Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:01 pm

Pavel Bure wrote:
columbia wrote:YouTube refuses to remove anti-Islamic film clip
YouTube will not remove a film clip mocking the Islamic Prophet Mohammad that has been blamed for anti-US protests in Egypt and Libya, but it has blocked access to it in those countries.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... -clip.html

Keep something up causing death and violence, take down anything disney, pro wrestling, music not from the source, cartoons, etc. Well done YouTube.


You do understand why this happens, right?
bhaw
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,003
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: From Hockey Siberia to Hockey Hell

Re: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consula

Postby PensFanInDC on Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:02 pm

If a group of people started burning down buildings because of the Stanley Cup Finals, would you want them to not broadcast that either?

Yes, it's an insane analogy, but it's the slippery slope we deal with.
PensFanInDC
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 24,008
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consula

Postby ulf on Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:20 pm

Pavel Bure wrote:
columbia wrote:YouTube refuses to remove anti-Islamic film clip
YouTube will not remove a film clip mocking the Islamic Prophet Mohammad that has been blamed for anti-US protests in Egypt and Libya, but it has blocked access to it in those countries.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/g ... -clip.html

Keep something up causing death and violence, take down anything disney, pro wrestling, music not from the source, cartoons, etc. Well done YouTube.

yeah what are they thinking, obeying laws?
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,974
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Re: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consula

Postby ulf on Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:21 pm

PensFanInDC wrote:If a group of people started burning down buildings because of the Stanley Cup Finals, would you want them to not broadcast that either?

Yes, it's an insane analogy, but it's the slippery slope we deal with.

We've already seen footage of vancouver :lol:
ulf
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 13,974
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:41 pm

Re: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consula

Postby thepittman on Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:58 am

Tunisian's attack US consulate compound-

Image

Image

Image

Image



As hundreds of people swarmed the U.S. embassy in Tunis last Friday afternoon, the phone rang in the office of the country’s President, Moncef Marzouki. It was Hillary Clinton, pleading with him to help secure the American compound, just up the hill from his sprawling seaside palace. So Marzouki played a risky political card: he dispatched his presidential guards to the embassy, effectively muscling in on the country’s military and police forces — a show of strength in an intense power struggle between secular Tunisians like himself and the Islamic party that dominates the government. “We were really scared about the possibility that something like what happened in Benghazi would happen in Tunis,” Marzouki’s spokesman Adnen Mansar told TIME on Saturday, referring to last Tuesday’s calamitous siege of the U.S. consulate in that Libyan city in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. “We sent hundreds of our presidential guards with a lot of arms,” said Mansar, recalling Clinton’s two calls on Friday. “Half the arrests were made by our guards, whose job is only to protect the President and his staff.”

While U.S. officials are reeling from the assault on American embassies in cities as disparate as Tunis and Jakarta, one factor has proved beyond the control of Washington: other nations’ domestic political battles. The spark in many of last week’s riots might have been an obscure online film out of California, but in most cases, the fuel has been pooling up for months, ready to ignite. And the movie provided the perfect foil for those tensions, many of which erupted in the backwash of the old dictatorships.

(PHOTOS: Protests Rage in Middle East, Sparked by Mysterious Anti-Islamic Film)

Take Tunisia. For Washington, the country’s Jasmine Revolution presented the storybook tale of the Arab Spring: peaceful demonstrators who stormed the streets and drove out dictator Zine el Abidine Ben Ali in January 2011 after 24 years in power. Last October, the country’s first democratic elections resulted in a power-sharing agreement between the Islamist Ennahda party, which controls the legislature, and its two secular rivals, one of which controls the presidency, and the other the Prime Minister’s office. In celebration, the U.S. helped sponsor the U.N.’s World Press Freedom Day in Tunis last May with a huge three-day gathering, to which several U.S. State Department officials traveled to meet with journalists and politicians, hailing their new democracy.

Yet the reality on the ground has been far muddier. On Friday, three protesters died in clashes with security forces and dozens of cars were torched as enraged militants breached the U.S. embassy’s outer walls and hung the black flag of militant Islam, then ransacked parts of the American school across the street. When Clinton called Marzouki that evening, he assured her the upheaval had been brought under control.

But for how long? In the aftermath, there are questions about why Friday’s clashes occurred at all. Mansar said the U.S. embassy had not been entirely cordoned off, despite days of attacks on U.S. facilities in the region, including the disastrous deaths in neighboring Libya. The U.S. embassy in Tunis, a modern fortress-like building, sits on the main road linking the capital to suburban Carthage. Yet since the government categorized the planned protest as an assemblée, or gathering, the organizers did not require an official permit to march on the embassy. With weak coordination between the various branches of Tunisia’s security forces, the stage seemed set for trouble.

(MORE: What We Can Learn from the Attacks on U.S. Embassies)

While the violence shook many Americans, to some Tunisians it was all too predictable. “This has been in the offing for a while,” said Mounir Khelifa, an English professor at the University of Tunis who also oversees a U.S. study-abroad program there. He added that he and others had been struck by the sight of the elite presidential guards in action on the streets — unprecedented in Tunis. “The Salafists have been dynamic and aggressive in the past six or seven months. Whenever they believe that the religion has been offended, they intervene,” Khelifa told TIME. “So far, the government has been very lenient on them.”

Indeed, the very day that U.S. officials flew to Tunis last May to celebrate press freedom, a court convicted Nabil Karoui, head of the popular entertainment network Nessma TV, for offending Islam by airing the French animated movie Persepolis, which depicts the Prophet Muhammad. When I visited Fathi Layouni, one of the lawyers who brought the case against Karoui, in his downtown office, he rejected U.S.-style freedom of speech. “Madame,” he said angrily, “the definition of liberty is very different in Islamic countries than in the West.” In May, Layouni told me: “It’s true that after the revolution we’re trying to install a new society. But that does not mean that anyone can say anything they like.”

Layouni is hardly alone in his thinking. In June, groups of Salafists, the purist Islamist believers, smashed their way into an art gallery in the upscale La Marsa neighborhood — a kind of Tunisian Malibu — and destroyed paintings they deemed offensive to the Prophet Muhammad. Ennahda’s leader, Rached Ghannouchi, brushed off the threat of Islamist violence, saying that “with time, such extremism will vanish.” And Tunisian Minister of Religious Affairs Nourredine Khadmi told reporters that he advocated criminalizing anti-Islamic expression.

(VIDEO: Why They Protest: Bahrain, Tunisia and Yemen)

That idea of criminalizing alleged blasphemy is one of the most heated battles in Tunisia these days. The committee writing the new constitution, which is due next month, is deadlocked over a proposal to outlaw expressions deemed offensive to Islam. It is an idea that many Tunisians support but that secular politicians like Marzouki abhor. In an interview in his palace in May, the President told me he believed that the conviction of Karoui was senseless and bad for the image of Tunisia, whose economy depends heavily on beach-loving Western tourists.

But in the ongoing battle for primacy, Ghannouchi and his conservative supporters have repeatedly sidelined the President. In late June, security forces squirreled Al-Mahmoudi Ali al-Baghdadi, Libya’s former Prime Minister, out of a Tunisian jail cell and onto a plane bound for Libya — all against the wishes of Marzouki, who was asleep in his palace at the time.

With signs the Jasmine Revolution might have tinges of a fresh autocracy, youths who braved police fire in late 2010, and inspired the entire Arab Spring, say they are prepared to revolt again if they have to. “We will never, ever let our revolution be lost,” one woman told me last May when the U.S. embassy invited me to address young Tunisians at the American Corner, an embassy-supported library and meeting place in Tunis. “We will go into the streets again. We always have the street,” she said, her friends nodding in agreement. Next time, though, they might confront not just the security forces but conservative Islamists too.

MORE: Tunisia’s Dictator Is Out, but What’s Left Behind?



Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/09/16/politi ... z26jPXGP00
Last edited by thepittman on Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
thepittman
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,111
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:52 pm
Location: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Re: U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in mob attack at Consula

Postby thepittman on Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:00 am

Image

Can the U.S. Stop the Wave of Muslim Protests Targeting Its Embassies?



Is there anything the U.S. can do to stop the wave of often violent demonstrations across the Muslim world this week targeting its embassies and those of its allies? The short answer is no; it will have to ride out the rage stoked by opportunists in Muslim capitals looking to profit politically from genuine popular outrage at a film insulting the Prophet Muhammad — and hope that no more diplomats or protesters are killed, thereby further escalating the confrontation.

Friday saw protests in countries as far-flung as Sri Lanka, Nigeria and the Maldives, as well as deadly confrontations in Tunis, where three people were killed after the U.S. embassy compound was breached, and in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, where one was killed after a similar breach. But Friday was always going to be a very bad day; as the Muslim day of prayer, it usually marks the zenith of any cycle of pan-Islamic protest, brings the global Muslim ummah together in mosques and affirms the bonds of a community of faith and submission to the God of Abraham. The Friday jummah prayer service symbolically reaffirms the community of the faithful, which can be used to remind them of the notion that an attack on Muslims anywhere, or on the symbols of their faith, should be felt as an attack on Muslims everywhere. Fridays, then, have in recent years always marked a high point in protests, whether against the invasion of Iraq, the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, Israel’s bombing of Gaza or the desecration of the Koran by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan or an obscure preacher in Florida. And, as in those previous rounds of protest, it’s a fairly safe bet that the outrage over the Innocence of Muslims film will eventually abate — although the death of protesters creates new grievances that can sustain the issue.

(PHOTOS: Protests Rage in Middle East, Sparked by Mysterious Anti-Islamic Film)

But White House press secretary Jay Carney may have been overreaching when he insisted on Friday that the protests arose “in response not to United States policy, not to the Administration, not the American people [but] in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is in no way a case of protests directed towards the United States writ large or at U.S. policies.”

It’s never that simple.

The reason a piece of “evidence” of American animus to Islam — the desecration of a Koran, say, or the dissemination of a video painting a grotesque caricature of the Prophet Muhammad — ignites rage toward U.S. institutions in so many Muslims is the way those Muslims have viewed and experienced U.S. policy. Direct insults of Islam such as those contained in the offending movie are such a powerful tool in the hands of those who would agitate against U.S. involvement in the Middle East — and against those in the Arab world who would work with Washington — because they function as a kind of narrative “gotcha!” motive that ties together all of the Arab world’s many grievances with the U.S. Egregious insults like the Innocence of Muslims film would not be so easily translated into rage at U.S. power were it not for the simmering long-term rage at Washington over its invasions of Muslim countries, its support for Israeli governments and Arab despots, its drone strikes and more.

(MORE: What We Can Learn from the Attacks on U.S. Embassies)

Deep anger at U.S. foreign policy is the extended preexisting condition that geopolitical Obamacare has failed to significantly alter; the outrage at an offensive film is the opportunistic virus that, when combined with the preexisting condition, creates a crisis. Instances of American Islam-bashing are used to prove that the policies and actions of the U.S. that most anger ordinary Arabs are not simply discrete foreign policy choices driven by self-interest and other agendas but rather expressions of a deeper animus toward Islam itself — a proof that functions as a chemical catalyst that can bring residual anger to a boil.

Yes, it’s always manipulated by cynical opportunists driven by narrow political agendas, but the outrage itself is real, and it’s hardly confined to a movie. Without the pre-existing anger, in fact, the film would be like a detonator without dynamite. Only the combination of the two creates the explosion.

So in that sense, President Obama’s Republican critics are not wrong in suggesting that this week’s upsurge in protests represents, at least in part, a response to the Administration’s handling of the Middle East or even to what vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Friday called ”mixed signals” from the White House. But where Ryan and those echoing him are wrong — egregiously, spectacularly wrong — is in suggesting that the protests are a response to a retreat from “moral clarity and firmness of purpose,” watchwords of the Bush era. On the contrary, the Muslim world was up in arms against the U.S. on a sustained basis for most of the Bush presidency, precisely because of its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its unconditional backing of Israel as it pummeled Palestinians and the obvious hypocrisy of a policy of proclaiming democracy and freedom while coddling friendly despots. If the Arab world is angry at the “mixed messages” coming from the Obama Administration, that’s because the President in Cairo in 2009 had promised a break from Bush-era policies yet failed on many fronts to deliver it. It’s not the changes Obama’s made since the Bush era that drive Arab anger; it’s his Administration’s many continuities with Bush-era policies in the Middle East. Ryan demands that Obama show “American leadership” by marching even more closely in lockstep with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That’s going to calm the crowds gathered in front of U.S. embassies in the Arab world?

(MORE: The Making of Innocence of Muslims: One Actor’s Story)

Thoughtful foreign policy wonks from hawkish heavy hitter Robert Kagan, a key Bush Administration adviser during the Iraq war, to liberal experts in Arab politics like the Carnegie Endowment’s Nathan Brown concur in supporting a measured response that recognizes the political and social crises under way in the Arab world while seeking engagement with the emergent Islamist governments in order to push them in a more pragmatic direction.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt appears to have tried to signal, however clumsily, that it too seeks engagement and a new relationship with Western powers. But it can’t ignore the stream of anger unleashed by the broadcasting on Salafist TV networks of clips from a crude video provocation. That’s why it has called on its followers to protest the film but to do so peacefully at their local mosques. In other words, not at the U.S. embassy. Something tells me that such roundabout efforts to calm the situation by encouraging but also limiting protest — as two-sided as they may seem to an American media audience — may offer the best hope of changing the dynamic. Events over the past week in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen are a reminder that the region, and Washington’s relationship with it, has entered uncharted territory over the past two years.

Neither bromides about “moral clarity” nor evasions of the enduring contradictions and ambiguities in U.S. policy offer much guidance. As the Arab world changes, it asks new questions of itself and also of the major superpower in its midst. That conversation, which will be anything but comfortable, is only just beginning.



Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/09/14/can-th ... z26jQ2LRUz
thepittman
AHL Hall of Famer
AHL Hall of Famer
 
Posts: 8,111
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 3:52 pm
Location: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

Previous

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: llipgh2, roland, stopper40, the riddler, the wicked child and 9 guests


e-mail