U.S. ambassador, 3 American diplomats killed by protesters in Libya

Oh yeah.

Your confusion on the powers of the president notwithstanding when it comes to actual policy positions, his powers forcing ALL people to act in all ways must be as great as his ability to control the weather.

Ohhhh, bonus points for the man who said he wasn't going to launch political attacks on 9/11!

 

you think Obama couldn't have prevented that from running on 9/11? think again

 

Do you really think Obama knew when it was going to air?

 

Oh, yeah.

"By the way guys, run this on 9/11, or else I'll Bradley Manning the lot of you!"

 

That's pretty interesting. Usually Al Queda takes credit for these things though, don't they? Still, I could see how they might prefer to have it perceived as a mob thing, to put a wedge between the Libyan rebels and the Americans who saved their asses.

 

Yeah, I will be, but the restrictions have to be very specific and aticulatable. Preferrably, there also may be an appeal process requried on Youtube.

 

Nothing a gun run couldn't have prevented. But, that would be mean and there may have been people in the angry mob who weren't violent, so then they might get hurt.

If I could get orders to go over there I would make them sorry for that. Such stupid ignorant people, should have never helped them overthrow the govt there.

 

Drones are heading to Lybia. Look out!

 

This is an interesting theory that Al Qaeda may be involved and would be curious to see if there is more evidence behind it.

One thing I could see is that this is was a crime of opportunity. Al Qaeda, or Al Qaeda sympathizers might've seen the mob forming and decided to insert themselves in to attack the US officials.

 

So does Mexico have poverty and drug problems. Are those problems in Middle East relevant to their choice of religion? On top of that, there are are sects within Musilim, moderates, extremetists, just like every other religion. Their religion may be paritially to be blamed for whatever problems they have, but that has to be dealt with within. For that, I agreed with you conclusion,
, but not least b/c their religion fxxked everything up. There are other things to look at like corruption, culture inertia, etc. Also, some "problems" we viewed as bad may not even be problems in their eyes.

 

If the Drones started killing mobs in Libya, that should make things really fun.

 

Mexico has a lot of problems, unfortunately, which is a shame. However, the - significant - difference is that the violence that is happening there is not motivated by religion and not carried out in the name of the religion, whereas religion is cited as the cause for a lot of violence and oppression in predominantly Muslim countries ("having insulted the prophet" (blasphemy laws), homosexuality being a sin punished by death under Islam, death penalty for apostasy, stoning adulterers because "Islam demands it", etc. etc.). The beheadings in Mexico are just as gruesome as those in Pakistan, the difference is that people in Mexico are not claiming that doing it furthers their religion, whereas e.g. Al Qaeda claims that religion justifies/motivates it.

 

Not that it makes the act any less deplorable, but reports now say that this was a prepared Al Qaeda attack - revenge for the death of a senior-level terrorist.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

Agree, and those are etremtists. I was using Mexico as an example to respond to Ronny's frustration that the religion in Middel East caused all the problems he pointed out (poverty, drug). My point is that Muslim did not cause poverty and other problems by itself in a general sense. There are other reasons, for example, widespread corruptions. The rise of Saddam, Qaddafi and the like got traction there partly because they were telling people they would attack those problems and control the religion. And what result?
There are Muslim moderates, lots. What have we done to support their causes? Through wars, and video like this?

 

It's also a historical fact you're a spaz. You should have cashed in and walked away when you had the chance.

After the collapse in 1990, the Socialist Republic of Serbia created a new state known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that Milosevic remained authoritative over. Freedom of speech was non existent and there was tight control over media stations and foreign sources of news. This was no democracy but a socialist state that as Marx says, is the transition between communism and democracy. Suggesting it was a multi party democracy with Milosevic at the helm (due to electoral fraud, of course) is laughable.

Anways, after a decade of all the **** (genocide, crimes against humanity, Kosovo) that went on under the Socialist Party of Serbia, Milosevic was arrested and a short while after the 2nd in command was forced to retire. A new constitutional charter, one that actually advocated a form of democracy, was drawn up in '03 and Serbia and Montenegro split up a few years later... creating Serbia in 2006.

And that's the bottomline, because I said so.

Not only is copying and pasting out of context lines from wikipedia in hopes of gaining some credibility desperate, it makes you easy to toy with as you lack critical reasoning ability. Do you forever want to be the puppet who's strings are being pulled and re-upping the post it notes... or do you want to be somebody?

 

Of course it is. The anti-Mohamed video is just an inconvenience excuse.

 

interesting. and I wonder what the king, was doing at night.

 

Maybe we should close our Iranian embassy too. Hmm...

 

<br>
I think this is one of the best posts in this thread and agree with pretty much everything said in it.