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

We can stop using the movie as an excuse now...
Al-Qaeda said the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya was in revenge for the killing of the network’s number two Sheikh Abu Yahya al-Libi, SITE Intelligence Group reported Saturday.

 

Even if the reason was the movie, that isn't an excuse. There is no excuse for that kind of violence and murder.

 

Agree. Sick of this...can't wait for the season to start.


(very upset that it erupted in Australia too)

 

The movie is an excuse! Imagine if the movie was produced by an non Muslim Arab, would the protesters burn down their own embassy?

FYI the movie was promoted and sponsored by Egyptian, if it's all about the movie they should have burned down Egyptian embassy as well.

 

Welcome back my old friend...:grin:

( was it the spoilered pic in post #380 that brought you back?)

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Chief Obama flunky Valerie Jarrett is protected 24/7 by 6 full time Secret Service agents. More security than the US Libyan consulate.</p>&mdash; David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/247378387671343104" data-datetime="2012-09-16T16:56:18+00:00">September 16, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>December 7, 1941: FDR flies to Hollywood for fundraiser at Clark Gables' house, says "Obviously, we are all heartbroken" over Pearl Harbor</p>&mdash; David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/247381228695740419" data-datetime="2012-09-16T17:07:35+00:00">September 16, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

And I am aware of the crowd psychology and mob mentality that can spark violence. That said I don't think such psychology can be used to just excuse the violence we have seen out of the spate of protests that have been sparked because of this movie.

It is not denouncing responsibility and if we are going to discuss the history of the West's involvement with the Middle East I fully agree it is bad and am not excusing those acts. What I am saying though is that much of the rhetoric that I have seen coming out of the Middle East is wallowing in victimhood. There really is no other way of describing it. It is blaming most of the problems plaguing the Middle East on outside forces rather than taking responsibility and is heard in rhetoric from Al Qaeda to Bashir Assad.

While yes you can claim to be victimized and still develop economically but that really matters to what extent. If victimization comes to define a society it is really hard to develop. For example Native Americas in the US have very good cause to feel that they have been victimized by the US government. The problem though among many Native Americans is that while they have been held back their own attitude of victimization also holds back many of them by unwilling to value education or to participate in the US economy. To many of them getting educated and working are selling out to the white world that had tried to wipe them out.

The better society though isn't just economic development and it especially isn't just economic development that only benefits a handful. If Egyptians are perceiving that development only leads to the Emirates that is a problem. When I am speaking of development I am speaking of the model of Malaysia and other SE Asian countries where economic development is improving the livelihoods of all of society, where education and quality of life are improving, the politics are becoming more democratic and there is a civil society not marked by sectarianism.

It is a huge problem when in an global economy you actually need the cooperation of other countries to help develop.

How are they going to do it independently? Removing yourself from the global economy doesn't lead to development. China and India tried that model and it made things worse. It was only when they engaged in the global economy did things take off for them.

If you reread what I wrote I said Suharto was a problem and not the solution. Granted Indonesia has some huge problems but Indonesia is growing faster, is more stable and until this year was more democratic than Egypt. Indonesia suffered for decades under Suharto like Egypt did under Mubarak. Indonesia has been able to get beyond Suharto and while Indonesians aren't happy that Suharto was heavily supported by the US they don't blame all their problems on the US. They don't consider it act of war that the US supported their strongman like you stated that Egyptians do about theirs.

In the end it is their country and Egyptians and others in the Middle East it is up to them to decide what sort of countries they have. That said though this isn't solely a problem that has no or minimal effect on us in the West and throughout the world. The World is more connected than ever as 9/11 showed the actions of a handful of men in caves in Afghanistan can effect the rest of the World. To the extent that the Middle East doesn't develop does have a bearing on global security. Also as an interconnected economy Middle Eastern development can be both a benefit and drag on the global economy.

It is in both the citizens of the Middle East and the rest of the world's interests to see a vibrant, stable and civil Middle East.

But where does crime and violence come from? What is driving it? It seems to me that much of that crime and violence in these countries is driven by sectarianism and extremism. Much of that seems to be fueled by rhetoric that outside forces are victimizing the people. You see it in the rhetoric that Islamic extremists direct at Copts and other minority religious groups that they are tools of the West and are attacking Islam.

Again this just shows how much you yourself have internalized victimization. You say that saying that these countries should seek to develop economically, become part of the global economy and develop civil societies as patronizing and treating them like children. Further that you characterize countries that have followed that model as being the obedient child. Consider that many countries have followed this model but would hardly be considered obedient children to the West. The PRC is most definitely not considered an obedient child. Chinese culture itself frequently engages in victimhood, a lot of Chinese media focuses on how China was wronged by Western Powers and Japan in the 19th and 20th C., but that hasn't stopped them from fully engaging in the global economy.

And as I stated above what happens in the Middle East does matter to the rest of the World. I would never advocate an imposition of an economic and / or political system onto them but am saying for the good of themselves they should make these type of changes.

Again though you are looking at this just in terms of economic development focused on wealth. Yes Egypt was developing economically under Mubarak but that is only part of what I am talking about. Again if you look at Malaysia you see an Islamic country that has had great economic success while increasing the standard of living for most of their citizens and while it still has a way to go developed a rule of law and a civil society that has kept down sectarianism. Its not perfect but it is far far better than anything we see in the Arab world.

I am not saying any of this to pick on Arabs and as should be obvious I am not someone who believes Islam is fundamentally backwards and violent. I think what happens in the Middle East and particularly Egypt is very important. I would like to hope that Morsi can be the type of leader that changes Egypt. I find the extent that victimhood permeates the rhetoric and drives much of the Middle East to be very troubling and what is holding them back.

 

Something to think about:

The outrage and anger in the Arab world supposedly sparked by this film easily beats any outrage and anger in the same places over the mass murders in Syria.

How come they invest more energy in protesting some irrelevant Youtube video than they do in protesting the mass murders in Syria?

 

Because what's happening in Syria is the western imperialists fault...:grin:

 

Only an issue if Mitt Romney suspended his campaign... Oh that's right, he didn't.

 

Because, IMO, the demonstrations were orchestrated by extremists. Once the demonstrations were started, the misinformation and encouragement grew. These demonstrations don't reflect the feelings of the masses of the people in these countries, but rather extremists who see an opportunity.

 

You're assuming that what you see on the internet in public protests is a good measure of outrage. The problem with this view is that different people are probably upset about each - and the people that are upset by Syria are probably not the type that take to the streets as their solution to their outrage.

The best measure of outrage against Syria is probably the fact that tens of thousands of people are actually putting their lives on the line to overthrow the Syrian regime. It's not as sexy as showing a few hundred or few thousand people gathering in a square and chanting and throwing things, but it's probably represents a bit stronger passion for the cause.

 

Have Syrian embassies been stormed in the Arab world?

I have actually seen (small) demonstrations against the Syrian regime both in Munich and in Berlin in recent weeks.

 

No - because the types of people that like to storm embassies are different from the types of people that support democracy in the Arab world.

It's like saying people in the US care more about burning down Wall Street than jobs in the US because you see Occupy Wall Streeters but you don't see rallies for job creation.

 

Sure you do. It's called a Tea Party rally.

 

Astute observers might have noticed, for example, Morsi accepting the Syrian regime, and him calling upon everyone to burn American embassies to the ground.

http://www.voanews.com/content/egypt-turkey-slam-syrias-assad/1501918.html

Embassy storming is great and all, but it doesn't disarm the Syrian rebels---not like anyone in the Arab world is arming them.

 

Nice try though.

 

yeah, why?

Maybe the video was not irrelevant?

 

Those protest might not be getting as much coverage in Western media because they don't directly concern Western countries.