Indeed.
We're barraged by new distractions, so let's catch things that are slipping down the memory hole. It's not just Nakoula. It's Chris Stevens. Our ambassador was murdered, and he was murdered after he was targeted and he was not given security.
Shame on those who disrespected Nakoula's freedom of speech. Their faults are apparent and need to be remembered. But what happened to Chris Stevens? I don't trust that we've learned the whole story. Why wasn't he protected? Was he an inconvenient man? We saw such an effort to create static around his death. Look — riots over here, here, and here! Offensive video on the internet! Man with a "towel" around his face! And hey check out the most important thing that happened all week: Romney said "47%" to some people back in May!
The very fact that we're thinking about Nakoula — and futzing with Romney rhetoric — makes me feel that Chris Stevens got stuffed down the memory hole.
Who wanted that forgetting and why?
September 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
505 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 505 Newer› Newest»So, as I understand this argument, if any of our military personnel are endangered by American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, the solution is to stop that citizen from exercising his First Amendment rights.
So, why do we have a military? So they can officiate over the surrender?
Now I'm just feeling sorry for whining Tommie. How pathetic. It's not worth scoring any political points as you are such a worthless target, they would count for naught.
Is the accusation that Hillary had one of her staff killed by purposefully unprotecting him when she learned about an upcoming attack on his life?
Althouse can add one more to the Clinton death toll.
Nut is as nut does.
Now I'm just feeling sorry for whining Tommie.
Thanks. I can use all the sympathy I can get.
But, that's a pretty weak debating point.
Ann,
I'm an attorney in St. Paul, MN who blogged recently about the effect of Twitter on the media and concluded it's the death of the Fourth Estate. The interwebs have made the memory hole a thing of the past, imo. I'd be delighted to know your thoughts about the piece:
http://conservativeminnesotans.blogspot.com/2012/09/twitter-end-of-fourth-estate.html
The discussion about Amb. Stevens & the other 3 dead Americans will be had. There is no memory hole in which to put this shameful episode.
Regards,
John
than the President's patently inept handling of the ambassador's security and the explanations given for his murder.....I don't claim that the President was grossly negligent
How in the world do you make your distinction between claiming he is "patently inept" but not claiming he is "grossly negligent"?
The contradictions behind the conservative mind.
"I think Althouse may be hinting that the reason for the Administration wishing to ignore the deaths of Stevens and the 3 security men (whatever they were assigned to) is that Stevens was gay as has been rumored."
This is the first I've heard of such a rumor, and I don't understand the connection. You need to spell out why you think the administration's reaction to the assassination could be related to the sexual orientation of the dead man.
Cedarford, a silly amateurish video on youtube made by a private citizen that mocks Mohammed (no more offensive than anything you might see on South Park) is as "potent" "ammunition" as the Abu Ghraib photos?
NB This evaluation of Nakoula as a treasonous monster depends on certain assumptions about his intent/ motivation in making the movie, as opposed to the content in itself.
Unless you're saying that the content per se, the content alone and abstracted from Nakoula the man-- say, done as joke by a group of high schoolers, or by an "ironic" or absurdist artist/ comedian, as part of a series of skits on religious figures, etc.-- would also constitute "disgusting" treason, giving "potent ammunition" to the enemy.
If not, and Nakoula's intentions (whatever those might be) inform your evaluation of his act of free speech... do you really think the First Amendment (and restrictions thereon) ought to depend on something as amorphous as the speaker's "intent" or "intention"?
Want the truth?
Amb. Stevens was to be kidnapped, not killed.
chew on it..
And who, pray tell, would have the authority to determine and evaluate a speaker's "intention"?
I repeat. Nakoula scored a knock-out punch.
He exposed Islam for what it is.
Which is why the reaction is so fierce.
Congratulations to Mr. Nakoula. I might not select him to be an elder in my church, but I take my hat off to him.
The fight between Islam and the West over freedom isn't going to go away if we banish Mr. Nakoula.
Ann Althouse said...
"This is a tragedy. The ambassador seemed to be a genuinely good willed man doing his best both for US interests and the Libyan's. Reports on this attack are not going to have the neat resolution of an episode of Murder, She Wrote."
This is not a tragedy. it was a premeditated murder and and entirely foreseeable. A complete dereliction of duty.
More than an apology is due, in an older and more honorable time the accepted custom was an acceptance of responsibility followed by a resignation.
Its too bad the only legitimate press right now in the US is the Spanish language press. The irony is if American's actually want to see reporters asking real questions of politicians they will need to learn Spanish. Univision and Telemundo should have an english language crawl.
C4's comments always remind me of the proverbial turd in the milk tank. While the tank is almost completely filled with milk, the turd spoils it.
Plenty of new lefty trolls appearing to add to the resident trolls.
I've also noticed a surge (pardon the term) of lefty callers to conservative talk radio, most of whom have distinctive accents heard mostly in inner cities. They have talking points and don't go beyond them.
"I'm glad we have a cold hearted, detached leader to command with calm."
For example.
The previous US ambassadors assassinated were in Afghanistan and Sudan, both preceding overthrows of existing governments. Yasser Arafat was recorded ordering one such assassination by NSA, a fact that was concealed for years (justifiably for security of the ability to record such things, I think.)
The next shoe to drop will be the transfer of the blind sheik to Egypt, which will promise to keep him confined, of course. At least until he develops terminal prostate cancer that is later miraculously cured by Allah. What happened to that guy in Libya, by the way ?
The Obama folks may be trying to keep the lid on publicity in preparation for the release of the blind sheik.
I think the Libyan government knows more than it's saying--obviously. I sure would like to know what they warned the US about.
That would probably answer the "why the stonewalling" question.
The fight between Islam and the Christian West cannot be waved away just because you don't want to fight.
Islam never received and embraced the message of tolerance and forgiveness preached by Christ.
It is the teachings of Christ that offends them.
The teachings of Christ are the foundation of everything that the West embraces, including scientific thought and the emancipation of slaves and women.
You may not want to be at war with Islam, but we are.
So Thomas. I take it that's a big NO, you didn't serve?
Well, he's no Ted Nugent. I mean Ted Nugent gets up on stage and tells Hillary Clinton to suck on his machine gun. Hard to match that.
Well, he's no Ted Nugent.
I admire Ted Nugent, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't measure up to his example.
With Christ's help, I will do my best.
I am devastated. I am been deleted for the 100th time.
tits
The fight between Islam and the West over freedom isn't going to go away if we banish Mr. Nakoula.
Absolutely not. I think he's going to run for Congress and get a lot of financial support from conservatives.
Who wants to banish him? Put him in the Witness Protection Program at our expense, or let him appear in the balcony at Romney's State of the Union. We still are fighting Islamist terrorists.
While the USA struggles against al Qaida and the Arab street you guys walk with Nakoula on your shoulders thinking he's going to be the wedge that saves Romney!
Interesting (no, fascinating) role reversal.
I can remember, back in 1968, when I took to the streets to oppose the Vietnam War. Archie Bunkers of the right threw bricks and rocks at me.
Now, the Archie Bunkers of the left seem primed to do the same.
"This is the first I've heard of such a rumor, and I don't understand the connection. You need to spell out why you think the administration's reaction to the assassination could be related to the sexual orientation of the dead man.
"
I've seen the rumors and some speculation about him being raped as cover. Given that homosexual (sorry hatboy) activity is near universal in Muslim countries, this makes the story an odd byplay. I can't see a connection.
British troops, for example, have complained about the level of sexual advances by Muslim men in Afghanistan. The inaccessibility of women to young men in Muslim countries is similar to US prison conditions with similar results.
I have even seen stories about the administration blaming the ambassador for refusing security and this seems pretty lame.
And if you're not judging by Nakoula's "intention," are you judging that his act of free speech is treasonous (providing ammunition to the enemy) from its effects?
I.e., Nakoula's amateurish video precipitated (or was exploited as a pretext for) these events, and those hypothetical high schoolers' or that artist-comedian's videos with the exact same content didn't-- is that the difference you're hanging you're hat on?
I don't have to explain why the idea of punishing or restricting acts of free speech on the basis of their effects or others' reactions/ reprisals/ threats is a big bucket of WRONG, do I?
While the USA struggles against al Qaida and the Arab street you guys walk with Nakoula on your shoulders thinking he's going to be the wedge that saves Romney!
That's a fascinating non-sequitor on the level of the "if you're for Romney, you must have been a Bush supporter" argument.
antiphone said...
So Thomas. I take it that's a big NO, you didn't serve?
Well, he's no Ted Nugent. I mean Ted Nugent gets up on stage and tells Hillary Clinton to suck on his machine gun. Hard to match that.
9/22/12 12:42 PM
Now imagine if Hillary had been regularly sucking Bill's machine gun....we would have been spared a rather cheap and tawdry novella.
Althouse,
Now you're getting into virtual Ron Brown territory (nttawwt.)
And regarding this: "There aren't that many assassinations of American officials."
There aren't, and our response should be extremely vigorous (in part, to help it remain unusual.) But there doesn't have to be some deep meaning behind Stevens' situation; I'm certain AQ and their affiliates would be happy to do the same to any number of American officials.
Shouting Thomas,
If someone is stupid in how they use their right of free speech, that right must be protected. But it is completely appropriate that they be criticized for their stupidity; it's just not appropriate for the government to be taking legal action against them. People need to use common sense, and consider the consequences, before exercising that right.
So while a number of your comments here are stupid, it's not that big a deal, because there won't be any consequences to them.
While the USA struggles against al Qaida and the Arab street you guys walk with Nakoula on your shoulders thinking he's going to be the wedge that saves Romney!
You're being willfully obtuse and disingenuous-- close to bad faith. This is about defending the First Amendment, not one particular man who goes by the name "Nakoula." But if you want to picture me with the First Amendment on my shoulders heading into this election, feel free.
Stevens went into Libya ~4-days before Quadafi was killed. He began building alliances for the expected new government needed following removal of Quadafi. Recall Obama promising the US would not get involved in the Brit/French effort to facilitate Quadafi's removal. No sooner was that said and the US was providing first logistic support (refueling aircraft) and then drone strikes. Again recall, Obama taking credit for the drone strike that enabled the capture of Quadafi. Recall reports that Quadafi was sexually abused before being killed.
Stevens reported he was on a death list - not hard to imagine. Who can you trust or exclude from suspicion when there are so many (~140) tribal groups with self interest?
Stevens suffered a fate similar to Quadafi. Retribution by any number of tribal factions within the country. Blame AQ. If that doesn't work... blame Bush.
Obama sought to first deflect the problem and blame a u-tube video. A lame attempt at best. Even if it were true, how could that information been gathered so quickly?
Second effort to cast blame was on the former Gitmo detainee. Why? Convenience? Blaming Bush seems to be the go-to ploy. But how could the individual be identified so quickly when the so-called investigative team from the FBI had not put boots on the ground in Libya. Another guess? Or more likely, Blame Bush - always a good choice when having to explain failed economic policy, why not foreign policy?
Browndog
Kidnapping fits the AQ MO. Where did you hear that?
Thanks
"I don't measure up to his example."
Let the record show ST doesn't measure up to Vietnam War draft dodger teddy boy!
So tommy boy is even more pathetic than teddy boy ...
I can remember when "dissent was the highest form of patriotism."
Depends on who's in office, apparently.
So while a number of your comments here are stupid, it's not that big a deal, because there won't be any consequences to them.
Well, you're wrong there.
If my track record is any indication, my speakings and writings will have considerable impact.
This is a great question, Althouse. Something has seemed very "off" about this whole event. Why was he over there with almost no security? What were two former SEALs doing there with him?
I assume they were CIA, not just tourists. Has anyone reported as much, or does everyone just assume this, knowing it couldn't be confirmed or denied?
The vociferousness of leftists' comments in this thread will probably be a mere taste of how you'll be treated on other blogs for writing this post, and the nastiness of the reaction might be an indication that you're touching on something sensitive here.
Good thing we have blogs to do the work once done by the media.
Blaming Bush seems to be the go-to ploy.
Oh right, Bush never had anything to do with the middle east. All he ever did was clear brush on his ranch.
I have to comment on the criticism of Ann Althouse for her implied criticism of a commenter's anonymity, considering the positions said commenter, and others like him/her, take.
Those with zero profile and no transparency what-so-ever ought not to find fault with someone who is as transparently identifiable as they can get. Free speech, push come to shove, is defensible only when who is speaking is known...other it is merely propaganda.
In other words, put up or shut up.
The Obama administration lies about the Benghazi attack are 100x worse than whatever Romney might have said in his criticism about the Egyptian embassy apology.
Fuck the MSM and Obama apologists
This is about defending the First Amendment, not one particular man who goes by the name "Nakoula."
I can't ever get the hang of commenting on Althouse.
Here I thought it was about the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the truth behind it.
Instead, it's always back to the video.
You'll never find the truth in the American press, or the government.
For them, it's always ...back to the video. Apparently, here too.
FROM UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
SCANNER READY COPY
FOR RELEASE : THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1980
ON THE RIGHT
By William F . Buckley Jr.
NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
"Let's see now. As these words are written, Carter has contradicted himself twice, Civiletti has contradicted himself, Brzezinski and Rosalynn have done a pas de deux in the Rose Garden in the moonlight, Jody has denounced third-rate accusations, Jimmy has cabled the shah's widow offering condolences while carefully omitting any word of praise for the late shah, whose departure was hailed by his
benevolent successors in Iran as the end of the "bloodsucker," in a statement that included the reiteration of Iranian resolve to keep the hostages, whose term of captivity we forgot because Walter Cronkite wasn't on last night, and the Democrats, or most Democrats, are preparing to renominate for re-election the incumbent president, about whom the most that can be said was said by Henry Kissinger keynoting the Republican convention in Hartford over the weekend, to wit that the first foreign policy address to the American people President Carter delivered wearing a sweater, which at least proves that he pulled the wool over his own eyes before going on to do it to the rest of us."
We all need to pull the wool away from our collective eye and look at Ambassador Stevens as a man who died for his country as a hero. A national discussion must take place, like about the war in Iraq, as to what we can to to prevent more loss of American life overseas and at home.
Voting Mitt Romney for President is one step toward major change, but is of limited effectiveness and not timely.
"This is a demand to know the truth."
About what happened to the Ambassador, here is a conjecture:
1-mind-set, many, especially in leadership cadre as presently constituted, really do think that being nice and open and friendly is sufficient security. Part of multicultural ideology.
2- budget, usually a cover for laziness, lack of timeliness, not inline with facts on ground
3- hubris, seeing oneself as a good guy and thinking others must too, and BETTER HAD - see Ajami today.
4- deprecation of military threat analysis matrix - also part of multiculturalism - usually because of #1 above, especially at state dept!!!!!
5- because of all of the above, lack of accurate targeting of US/personal activities in the place and region
It is said he was a good man, a nice and dedicated man and no doubt those reports are true. He did not, however, know where, on what, to focus his activities and those of the US in his area of responsibility. Targeting.
The coverup of his assassination - and you are right to use that descriptor - is meant to shield the regime and its supports from the disastrous effects they caused, as in this case, by deploying multicultural/postmodern ideology in the real world.
Picture an early 20s female Harvard international relations BA representing the US State Department, which means me, sitting in Afghanistan at a war council of senior spec ops commanders and saying her team saw no need for military operations because they were there to help the Afghans, bring them the benefits of civilization, so where's a need for military?
Think that could happen? Think a US Ambassador in a war-torn city would operate from an unsecured building without US force protection?
The culprit is ideology, with a dose of laziness thrown in. Thus the coverup. Protect the ideology at all costs. And it's working, the coverup is a success. So much so, in fact, that Althouse is mightily aroused by it. She is right to be. So am I. The ideology is more important than the people. They are expendable, it must be saved. They are things, the ideology is holy. Multiculturalism is human eliminationism. Growl.
1. Chris Stevens, may he rest in peace, was an openly gay man.
2. He was sent by the US State Dept. into an environment which is openly hostile, even deadly, toward gay men.
3. Despite advance warning, he was given inadequate US protection, and he was betrayed by his Libyan security detail.
4. The combination of 1, 2 & 3 above reflect very poorly upon the Obama administration.
It's not so much a cover-up, just a hush-up. I'm sure the word went out to the administration's lackeys in the media to the effect of: "we're not going to talk about this, are we?" because to do would mean #4, and apparently nobody but Fox News and Univision are allowed to do that.
Browndog, you're right. I was replying to others, but in any case, I let myself get distracted from the main point of this post.
As Shouting Thomas is pointing out Nakoula, regardlous of motivation or skill, has exposed the fools in Islam better than anyone has for a while...with their enthusiastic help of course.
The central issue for the world is not Nakoula, the U.S., or free speech. It's the irrational dangerous nature of these forces in Islam and their continued activity and influence. The world is once again forced to watch a tantrum, and be reminded of the very real danger, and what is at stake. Every time they see this it gets harder to blame it on anyone's foreign policy, and it puts more of us on the same side, and I think that's helpful in the long run, so thanks Nakoula, even if you had little to do with it.
Pastafarian said...
This is a great question, Althouse. Something has seemed very "off" about this whole event. Why was he over there with almost no security? What were two former SEALs doing there with him?
They weren't "with him".
They were in country, hired by a private security contractor (British, I believe) to hunt down the SAM's that went missing when Libya fell. They joined the fight during the 2nd attack that was designed to kidnap the ambassador.
I'm a bit taken back--knowing I shouldn't be-- that no one seems to know this.
Aridog said...
I have to comment on the criticism of Ann Althouse for her implied criticism of a commenter's anonymity, considering the positions said commenter, and others like him/her, take.
WTF? As far as I can tell you are posting anonymously.
WTF? As far as I can tell you are posting anonymously.
No, that's actually a real German shepherd named Aridog.
Yashu - We are in a Cold War with Islam that occasionally turns hot, and it is a conflict that many radical Islamoids and armchair, never-served conservatives want to escalate into a full blown WWIII.
It isn't an academic exercise about Free Speech. It is balancing the rights of a con artist to inflame Islamic countries against the threat to 100s of thousands of Americans overseas in harms way. Not just "the troops" but also diplomatic staffs and expats and travellers.
It is also about safeguarding US vital interests that stem from the Constitution ...just as much as the agitator Nakoula's "Sacred Rights".
America's vital interests may mean soon we have to strike Iran. Our current strategy depends on the cooperation or at least acquiescence of Muslim nations around Iran in such a strike.
Branding America as the Nation that Sanctions Blasphemy against the Prophet forces leaders and masses in places like Turkey, Azerbaijan, Oman, KSA, Bahrain, Afghanistan to reconsider.
Or turn a deaf ear to US pleas to allow Israel to overfly Jordan, Iraq, KSA ..without those countries siding with Iran in wake of the Blasphemy??
Allow planes of the USAF to fly out of Incirlik against Iran, or shut down that military resource?
Right now, I think Turkey, responding to it's citizens and their vote, would say "forget it!".
Do you think your 1st Amendment praise matters in the least on if Oman allows our bases there to launch ops, as the Blasphemer-Promoting nation, to reopen the Gulf when shit like Nakoula did have turned the masses against any US military ops from Oman?
How does cooperation against terrorist Islamic groups, outside the Iran question, pan out??
We are at war, and as much as possible, we have to avoid the blunders of past nations like Japan that did stuff they thought was perfectly legal and within Japanese law, but which was absolutely abhorrent to people outside the insular Japanese culture. You try not to sanction giving the enemy ammunition to use against you.
Bagoh,
Some people don't need reminding that the region is filled with Muslims who hate us and wan us dead, some here in the USA are so safe, so insulated, THEY are the ones who needed the reminder.
The "reminder" caused considerable unrest in the region, while we still have Americans and Coptic Christians who take the fallout of other folks "reminders". Fuck Nakoula, he is no hero.
We SHOULDN'T have needed reminding, we still have a war going on in Afghanistan. So easy to forget. Much more important to talk about Romney's taxes, Obama's trip to Nevada.
Cedarford,
The stench from that posting is so foul that I'll leave it to the stink to discredit you.
Considerably MORE unrest, the whole hellish place is a powder keg.
Browndog...Here I thought it was about the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the truth behind it.
It still is, and it is the subject that Althouse put forward. Noisy propagandists have a way of trying to drown out the discussion.
In this subject matter, I fully agree with the hostess. The death of Ambassador Stevens is a major event worthy of honest study appraisal. However, I seriously doubt we will get one from our government today.
In my military time I had the experience of being sent out to defend something against nearly insurmountable odds...and even then had our arms severely limited, or rendered useless.
I was lucky, we survived. No one cashed that blank check we write as a Soldier, Sailer, Airman, Marine, Coastie, or Foreign Service Officer. So, yeah, G-d damned right, the death of an American Ambassador in an embassy or consulate if big frigging news and needs honest discussion.
Ambassador Stevens wrote that blank check and went about his business, like we all did in service to the country we care about....whether or not it seemed prudent. The question now is why was Ambassador Stevens so imprudently secure?
Once again Cedarford, you cast pearls before swine.
YES, Aridog that is a fair question.
You're being willfully obtuse and disingenuous-- close to bad faith.
Don't give me that "close to bad faith" jazz. You said you think I'm obtuse and disingenuous, fine.
If you think I've got bad faith, say it. Otherwise stick to the argument.
What happened? At one time, Titus was your favorite commenter.
Aridog said...
The question now is why was Ambassador Stevens so imprudently secure?
Orders.
Fascinating times!
Bring it on!
I prefer the times when the fight is out in the open.
Aridog said...
In this subject matter, I fully agree with the hostess.
The class brown noser has arrived apparently.
Howard said...
For all his faults, Bush did a great kicking the can down the road in Libya.
Sorry, moron, but Muammar surrendered after he saw us go after Saddam and the Taliban.
One more thing your Messiah loused up.
shiloh said...
When Stevens' family start questioning the killing of Ambassador Stevens then I'll start payin' attention. Althouse, not so much!
Translation:
Screw them! Screw them all!
That's how his master put it.
Damn, Althouse must have got up on the wrong side of the bed unhappy that Willard's ship is quickly sinkin'.
Yeah, Barry's at 46% approval and 48% disapproval and dead even in the polls, but it's the Romster that's sinking.
ROTFL
Or something.
Indeed, your 90/10 con blog points that out daily. Again, a self-fulfilling prophecy!
No, it's just the Messiah's vanity and incompetence shining through.
but, but, but has there been another 9/11 attack?
Libya, but the little weasel is trying to weasel, but it won't work.
The 11th anniversary of 9/11.
Ambassador Stevens' unfortunate death happened in Libya. A country in the baby step stage of creating a democracy.
Oh, yes, the place is shot through with Al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood, but it's a democracy.
Now that is a howler.
Tell us about the video next.
The 9/11 attack attack hit the ((( Pentagon ))) in Washington, DC. If you can't figure out the difference, then no further discussion is needed.
You mean like Willie getting caught with his pants down time and again?
Lessee, World Trade Center
Mogadishu
Kenya and Tanzania Embassies
USS Cole
Khobar Towers
No, completely different.
btw, an attack on the Pentagon, how embarrassing!
Once again, translation:
Screw them! Screw them all!
It's Obama's fault er the 47% who don't pay taxes or some such nonsense!
Yes, he could have ended it.
Those with zero profile and no transparency what-so-ever ought not to find fault with someone who is as transparently identifiable as they can get.
Are you saying those of us who use a pseudonymous user name should just keep our mouths shut here?
I thought the guy with the zero profile was the one who was trying to stifle others speech?
shiloh said...
I don't measure up to his example.
Let the record show ST doesn't measure up to Vietnam War draft dodger teddy boy!
As opposed to the little animal, who, from his statements is about Ann's age, but waited until the late 70s to take the Village People's advice.
If he was in at all.
@AA,
See Michael K and Will Cate above. The rumors are there.
I was considering the possibility that the Obama administration thought publicity about the US sending a gay man as ambassador to a Moslem country could provoke more violence, and so wanted to sweep the whole incident under the rug.
As Michael K points out above, Moslem governments are quite aware of the existence of gay people. Also, though the administration does not seeem to want to discuss this either, Ambassador Stevens seem to have been quite popular in Libya with its citizens and the new government alike, and they have taken actual effective action to express their outrage at the al Qaeda whatever that committed the attack, which is more than our US Government has done.
Oh, yes, the place is shot through with Al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood, but it's a democracy.
Well it's not like it was in the good old days when Bush rehabilitated Gaddafi and had the CIA torture his opponents for him. Good times.
I know who Aridog is, and he knows who I am. All of you disruptive, tough talking fools are all anonymous. Nobody will ever know who you are, because if we did, you'd be laughed at.
AReasonableMan said...
WTF? As far as I can tell you are posting anonymously.
I have a profile, with email, on Blogger, with an email address. Do you?
Anyone who corresponds by email gets a response with my full name on it. A diligent web guru could easily track me down otherwise, given the info in the profile and the email address.
I didn't claim to be as transparent as Ann Althouse...I just said those who aren't shouldn't be critical of her questions about anonymity on HER blog.
Carry on...
I think the "reveal!" is on Shouting Thomas as one of the fools who thinks a big major war would be great entertainment for him, safe at home with no friends or relatives in harms way.
He wants that big, nasty hot WWIII to start!
Break out the popcorn at the Thomas home and enjoy the fun!
WE may have a choice to make between war and disengagement in the ME...but I don't think that we are ready to make that choice.
We are too close to a 2nd Great Depression. I do not trust Obama and his people to make the call, or conduct a global major war if it came to that. We are not ready in terms of energy security, yet. Let the natural gas and oil supplies in the Western Hemisphere get in self-sufficient place 1st - so when the global commodity market is suspended in war - only those that have oil and nat gas supplies assured can get them and those on the outside can't buy it for any price (see the Japs, 1939-1941).
The Shouting Thomas sorts are as bad as the radical Islamoids..they love the idea of war, crave it, and most think it would be easy and they personally will pay no price....only reap great personal and emotional benefits during and afer WWIII.
Ann,
What was noted immediately after the attacks and killing of Ambassador Stevens was how President Obama skipped his PDB's.
And 9/11 was not the anniversary date of the Burning of the WH, but the attack on the American Homeland (the second attack on the WTC -- first being 1993).
Yet President Obama did nothing for the Embassies (which, according to the all the Ambassadors I interviewed for a senior thesis) is considered American ground.
Here was a post detailing the lead up to the riots:
http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-three-act-tragedy-of-president.html
Finally, throughout this whole conversation, Shiloh has nothing of substance to say. he cares not one whit about Ambassador Stevens or the people who work in our Embassies Overseas or free Speech here under Obama.
No matter how many people die under this Administration, Shiloh wants Obama to win
Yashu: You've said everything I thought of saying on this issue and said it very eloquently. I find you to be one of the most sensible Althouse commenters.
antiphone said...
Oh, yes, the place is shot through with Al Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood, but it's a democracy.
Well it's not like it was in the good old days when Bush rehabilitated Gaddafi and had the CIA torture his opponents for him. Good times.
Sure.
Muammar surrendered because Dubya did it right, showed him what would happen if he got out of line.
No Hopenchange.
But anti would rather obfuscate all that with the usual Lefty paranoia.
Zero stepped in and, as usual, worsened the situation - illegally, too, but the Lefties only care about the law when they can't get something by vote fraud.
But we can't have people talking about it, can we?
AReasonableMan said...
The class brown noser has arrived apparently
Ad hominems fly when nothing else will answer, eh?
You apparently are reading comprehension impaired, to boot, as the paragraphs following the citation you make explain why I am in agreement.
It has nothing to do with Ann Althouse's posterior. Press 1 for English, maybe that will work for you.
I'm pretty sure you've never served the country in a high risk capacity such as Foreign Service Officer (let alone in uniform) in a national sewer somewhere.
So I am not surprised that you do not get it. Ambassador Stevens was more than just another civil servant, he was the legal representative of the United States in Libya. So, yes, g-d damn right his death is important and needs to be completely vetted.
Also, here is an association that supports our men and women Overseas. Please donate to them:
http://dacorbacon.org/foundation
(I was introduced to this organization while doing my senior thesis.)
Professor Althouse, perhaps it would be best if you try to phrase your questions in a multiple choice format, perhaps as a series of polls. I think that your very welcome if belated response to this atrocity is susceptible to the usual troll-isms (which should in themselves inform you pretty well). What was that disgusting but apt saying attributed to Malcolm X, iirc? "Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps the loudest is the one you hit?"
To the people pushing back at Althouse on this, please, if you can, outline your schema of how things really were with special emphasis on how Obama or his people didn't fuck up. Howard, you come to mind. ARM, why bother?
Crack, I don't know what you're talking about regarding disagreements on your blog. If you mean people saying things and you not responding to them, check. I still want to know who that woman was with her scalp torn off and a cup of dirt and what was the point of that picture.
C4, I can sympathize with the argument that the Abu Ghraib mess (and others) was deliberate, partisan, and recklessly indifferent to human life both US and Iraqi. But in the words of William S Burroughs, a mad dog cannot choose but bite. The failure was on several levels, but the United States failed to manage the information battle successfully.
This could have been done in several ways. The one that comes most readily to mind, for instance, would be contrasting the generally benign treatment of Muslim prisoners, and even the outliers such as at AG (and the usual falsity and exaggeratedness of such incidents), with the horrid deeds done to Westerners such as Daniel Pearl and Eric Berg, and indeed to their own people, such as the rape rooms, the people shredders, the Children's prisons, the hanging by crane of Iranian homosexuals, adulteresses, and other such existential threats. Show them what "a boob grab" was like before the US got there.
In short, shame them right back. Put a mirror up to their rotten faces and show them what scum they are and dare them to object to anything that we do to them. And if they do, kill them.
Key to such an approach of course would be swift media response in an intelligent way. If planning couldn't be looked for immediately upon the discovery of the chain of command of these facts, at least when the New York Times or CBS comes to you and says we are going to publish this, you should be able and willing and ready to say to them please wait 3 days, we are going to attempt a media treatment of this, you'll save some lives. We're not asking you to shut up, God forbid, we just ask to coordinate our response.
Also, CBS has no higher aspirations then defeating Republicans and electing Democrats. This filmmaker, whatever his sins, has a reasonable cause, to wit, trying to save the lives of Egyptian Christian Copts.
Muammar surrendered because Dubya did it right, showed him what would happen if he got out of line.
You're going to have to explain this a bit more clearly. Are you saying Gaddafi was operating in accordance with U.S. policy before the uprising?
This administration does not seem to understand that we are at war with both the "medievalist Islammicists" - whatever names the different factions go under - and the State of Iran, and no amount of "understanding" and speechifying by Mr. Obama is going to change that.
If anything, they would prefer to deal with Bush/Cheney as opponents they could at least have respect for.
You give them links TO YOUR OWN BLOG — they ignore them.
FIFY.
He wants that big, nasty hot WWIII to start!
Korea, Viet Nam, the Cold War was WWIII.
We are already involved in WWIV.
Cedarford, your realist outlook on foreign policy, generally speaking, is a reasonable one. But you dismiss my concerns about the potential criminalization of free speech (in this case "blasphemy") as "an academic exercise" without contemplating the pernicious realist implications of such a thing-- going down a path which may have no turning back.
By the logic of your comment, appeasement is the only "realist" position to take. But as empirical historical experience has shown, appeasement isn't such a great "realist" strategy after all.
Balancing "the rights of a con artist"? No, just plain old First Amendment rights, which aren't Nakoula's possession, which we could selectively take away just from Nakoula, without affecting the rest of us or the First Amendment itself or the practice of free speech in this country.
You speak in generalities, about "branding America as the Nation that Sanctions Blasphemy against the Prophet" or being a "Blasphemer-Promoting nation". My first instinct at these words is revulsion. Sorry, but like it or not, America is a nation "that sanctions [allows] blasphemy" insofar as this is enshrined in our Constitution. Trying to prove to the world that we're something that we're NOT doesn't seem like such a smart realist strategy to me.
But OK, let me take my First Amendment hat off. Please be specific. As a "realist," what exactly do you think it would take to prove (or rather, pretend) that America is not a "Nation that Sanctions Blasphemy against the Prophet," is not a "Blasphemer-Promoting nation"? Making an example of Nakoula and apologizing to the world over a youtube video? Well tell me, Mr. Realist, do you not think those who killed Stevens with that movie as their pretext would take that as a concession, justification, and victory, and do you not think that would encourage them to find MORE examples of "blasphemy" to serve as their pretext to kill MORE Americans?
Hello, if you're looking for examples of "blasphemy against the prophet," you will be sure to find them. Nothing could be easier. Any bookstore or library that contains Salman Rushdie books is blasphemer-promoting." South Park is "blasphemy-promoting." The Althouse blog and its commenters are "blasphemy-promoting" Any serious university course or book on the history of Islam is "blasphemy-promoting."
You think making an example of Nakoula-- to appease those demanding "blasphemy" be punished and outlawed-- will serve to quell those forces (Al Qaeda and others) responsible for Stevens' murder… and won't whet their appetite instead??? Won't give them more power and the appearance of more power, among other Muslims?
Look, I agree some diplomatic outreach/ propaganda on our part to the Muslim world at large is pragmatic, reasonable, realist. Maybe some of Hillary's statements distancing the US government from the speech of one particular private citizen (to an audience that has no understanding of the point of free speech) are apropos.
But what exactly are you suggesting, as a realist? Making an example of "punishing" Nakoula or throwing him to the wolves, pretending that "we are not a nation that sanctions [allows] blasphemy against the prophet"-- for what? Because that kind of appeasement will make things easier going forward? Because other countries/ governments will be more likely to cooperate with a nation that has been forced (through the murder of its ambassador) to appease the killers, as opposed to a nation that they perceive as strong and uncowed?
If I'm looking for a strong horse to ally myself with, why not Putin instead of Obama? (And consider the horrors Putin has perpetrated e.g. on the Chechens! But there are no riots against Putin the the Middle East. But it's all about a youtube video, uh huh.)
ST, funny how you get it about Nakoula, but not about Pussy Riot.
Browndog, it sounds like you have a lot more to say, and I think I'd like to hear it. The idea of a botched kidnap had not occurred to me and I find it shockingly plausible.
Nichevo - "Also, CBS has no higher aspirations then defeating Republicans and electing Democrats. This filmmaker, whatever his sins, has a reasonable cause, to wit, trying to save the lives of Egyptian Christian Copts."
1. The Head of the Egyptian Coptic Church called Nakoula's actions reprehansible and endangering the interests of Copts at a particulary volatile time as Copts were working to end acts of Islamist violence by meetings with the new Egyptian leadership and other stakeholders.
2. His actions don't seem so pure and noble when he initially tried to cast himself as an Israeli and claim the wealthy Jews were the ones behind his flick.
3. He stated the film was a deliberate provocation that would hopeully cause Muslims to react violently.
4. He apparantly misled and duped the actors, actresses, and film production crew involved...many who have come forth and stated that they would never had consented to being part of a Muslim smear vehicle and that they are concerned about thir safety and harm to their careers and will be seeking damages against Nakouli and his financiers.
5. We still don't know who was behind the film. Conjectures have been on Jews, radical Christian Zionist groups wanting to start WWIII to hasten the Rapture, even as Allie Oop said, radical Islamists wating to sepnd money in America to help make some very valuable information that could be used against America and troops overseas.
Cedarford, your realist outlook on foreign policy, generally speaking, is a reasonable one. But you dismiss my concerns about the potential criminalization of free speech (in this case "blasphemy") as "an academic exercise" without contemplating the pernicious realist implications of such a thing-- going down a path which may have no turning back.
Free speech issues come up all the time. It wouldn't surprise me if once a day someone's free speech rights are violated in this country. I saw someone get arrested for filming and arguing with cops from her doorstep while they made an arrest on the street in front of her home.
The state gets heavy handed. That's why we have courts.
There's nothing political about you guys trumpeting this as THE free speech issue of our day, is there? Clutching your freedom pearls, or your imitation jewelry.
Cedarford said...
We still don't know who was behind the film. Conjectures have been on Jews, radical Christian Zionist groups wanting to start WWIII to hasten the Rapture...?
Well, what do we have now? Death by a thousand cuts? If there's a problem, and obviously there is, we might as well get it on right now.
It's like you want people to think Obama went out there himself with jackboots and handcuffs and had this guy dragged off to a secret room underneath some stadium, never to be heard from again.
Best acting Oscars all the way around.
phx, the difference is, this is not about some particular cop or judge on some occasion punishing or curtailing someone's free speech.
What's at issue here (and has found recent advocates, among some academics and pundits writing in national newspapers) is punishing or curtailing free speech in reaction and response to the murder of an American Ambassador. Punishing or curtailing free speech in reaction and response to a planned terrorist action, by assassins who took that speech as their pretext and demand that such "blasphemy" be outlawed.
The implications here are not local and anecdotal, but national and international.
(and has found recent advocates, among some academics and pundits writing in national newspapers)
The appeal to anonymous authorities.
What's at issue here (and has found recent advocates, among some academics and pundits writing in national newspapers) is punishing or curtailing free speech in reaction and response to the murder of an American Ambassador.
And you are the one who doesn't want to conflate the two issues of the video and the murder of the ambassador.
You must think it suits you do so now, however.
This discussion of the first amendment rights of Nakoula Bassely Nakoula combined with our host's attack on me for posting anonymously brings up an interesting point. For many of us, probably the majority, our first amendment rights are strongly constrained by practical financial considerations. A convicted felon like Nakoula has very little to lose in terms of his commercial standing, given his other constraints, and as a consequence has close to full freedom to use his first amendment rights. Thanks to the miracle of tenure, full professors are also quite free to express their first amendment rights to their fullest, without much fear of reprisals that might hurt their career or pocketbook.
Outside of convicted felons and tenured professors, however, most people have a much more restricted operating range. Companies frown on political speech that could directly or indirectly reflect on the company. Many government agencies actively prohibit at least some aspects of free speech. Even the press have constraints. No doubt Shep Smith has to shut his mouth more often than than he would like to keep his job and much the same is not doubt true for many journalists in other media companies. Even Don Imus has commercial constraints on his free speech.
Admittedly, old retired guys pretty much get to say whatever they like, a trait well demonstrated on this site, but for most of us free speech is not really free. Anonymous blogging or posting does allow us to get around this, at least until Blogger is hacked and all our emails are released.
antiphone said...
Muammar surrendered because Dubya did it right, showed him what would happen if he got out of line.
You're going to have to explain this a bit more clearly. Are you saying Gaddafi was operating in accordance with U.S. policy before the uprising?
Spare me. Qadaffi had told the US he would make no bad moves anymore.
He didn't want the next op to be Operation Libyan Freedom, so he promised to give up any WMD projects and stick to his own yard and renounce any terrorist connections.
Auntie knows all this, but he's trying to gin up some Clintonian meaning of "is".
We had Muammar neutralized, but your boy, Zero, loused it all up and made things worse.
EMD - I will conceed there is good rationale to call the Cold War with the Communists WWIII. But in terms of scale, fewer Americans died than in a bad month or so of the Civil War, fewer than the Soviets suffered in a bad week of WWII, fewer than the Brits suffered over the course of the Battle of the Somme in WWI.
Yashu - I agree that free speech is as much an ideal we should strive for as Freedom from being searched, the right to keep and bear arms, or free exercise of religion.
We have certain limits on other Rights...Sorry, you can't claim you have a right to polygamy or illegal drug use on religious ground...The right to keep and bear arms is not absolute enough that I can purchase RPGs. We have some 56 exceptions to the requirement authorities get a politically active lawyer rewarded with judges robes to write a search warrant.
With the 1st Amendment on free speech, there are exceptions:
Free speech is not an excuse when you defraud under false pretenses.
Free speech is not a protection if you deliberately incite riot or panic aimed at harming others.
It is not a defense when you illegally reveal classified information, or deliberately conduct treasonous speech aimed at giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Every place in America allows law enforcement to shut down speech they deem not protected but disrupting the public peace and traquility. (Police can arrest people that won't shut off boom boxes in parks, you have no free speech right to yell obscenities at women passing by on a public sidewalk, or refuse to quiet down in a public use library, or speak up in a Courtroom or Congress, etc.)
In the case of Nakoula, he has some exposure. Things that people championing his right to speech prefer to overlook.
1. He may have committed criminal fraud in deceiving investors and the film crew and actors...at the least, there are civil torts that will compel discovery. Litigation has already been launched by two actors involved.
2. He stated, back when he was claiming to be an Israeli and the Jews were the financiers - that his intent was to incite violent riots in Muslim countries against America and Israel.
3. Of course, there is the issue of him being on Probation for past crimes and under our probation system - probees are legally restrained from activities that other citizens have as their Constitutionally protected freedoms.
On probation, certain free speech license doesn't apply equally to him. Especially since part of the crimes he was found guilty on, posing under false ID to deceive others, use of the Internet for identity theft and bank fraud led to him being restricted on Internet use and barred from use of fake ID and fake credentials to ensnare others in new criminal con games he was hatching.
And it is not a protection against denunciation and
C4, I do agree this fellow is problematic and his vehicle is problematic and he is not necessarily someone I want to own as a role model. I don't disagree with any of your points necessarily except that the Egyptian Coptic leaders may be consulting their own safety. Perhaps not wrongly so.
And the identity and potential false flag issues may be significant and are worth investigating. That doesn't mean that he has to be made an example of. Bonus question: if you think this is a serious issue, do you think serious results will be had from this investigation, or do you think as I do that it was a sideshow performed entirely in an attempt, a vain attempt, to appease the Arab world?
That said, his main action could be indistinguishable from that of someone who is doing the right thing, perhaps, and now that it's done, I think the best defense is a good offense and we should not cringe but proceed along the lines I have suggested. I'd really rather kill any number of foreigners rather than sacrifice my constitutional rights-or yours for that matter; you certainly say radical and sometimes IMHO despicable things and I could easily see scenarios where you get muzzled. Would you like that?
If you feel I am chickenhawking it and disregard the danger to our troops, then by all means, let's nuke them from orbit or starve them or poison them or put Prozac in the water or whatever you wish to deal with them in some safe way.
But taking the lives of the entire Ummah means nothing to me if the alternative is submission to the Ummah, and IMHO kowtowing is not a safe way. You have often seemed to mock the notion of quote unquote defending freedom, but if we are not, then what the fuck are we doing here?
If Althouse objects to my pen name, sorry, safety first. It kept Muslim fanatics from finding me a few years ago when they were looking. Muslims can be so thin skinned, even when statements are well documented and completely truthful.
The case in which a woman is blamed for her rape because she was exercising her right to wear a short skirt, is similar to this present case, in which a film maker is blamed for Muslim riots because he is exercising his right to free speech to criticize Islam. Neither the woman with the short skirt, nor the film maker, are responsible for the criminals who use the provocation for a pretext to excuse their crimes.
I am very skeptical that the riots in the Muslim world are a spontaneous reaction to a movie trailer. There are plenty of Westerners who criticize Islam who could serve as the focus of Muslim anger, if they choose. Some of them are using pen names for their own safety. For Muslims, the truth hurts.
These riots have the odor of carefully orchestrated agitprop to move Western civilization into Sharia compliance. So far they have succeeded spectacularly. When an American citizen is blamed for riots which have been instigated by Muslim preachers in Mosques all over the Middle East, Sharia is here, already. People here greatly underestimate the resourcefulness of our enemy. Hence, they find the possibility that there are people who could have planned these riots unthinkable.
Someone has stated that the “Arab Spring” is inevitable, and that Bush and Obama had little to do with it. I’m not so sure. Obama insisted that Mubarak allow the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech in Cairo, long before this insurrection happened. What did he do behind the scenes against Mubarak? I certainly don’t know, but I doubt anyone else posting here knows either. I read somewhere that there were Americans involved in facilitating the uprising. I don’t personally know much about it, but I do wonder.
FWIW, a Dick Morris piece about why polling isn't what it's cracked up to be.
The trolls will try to laugh it off (doubtless the mindless automaton will HAHAHAHA), but it makes fairly good sense.
YMMV
FWIW, a Dick Morris piece about why polling isn't what it's cracked up to be.
This whole thing is just politics by another means for some of you folks. A piece about polling in a post about the murder of an ambassador,and the video that was heard round the world.
Principled conservative values?
Will Cate said...
1. Chris Stevens, may he rest in peace, was an openly gay man. [etc etc[
Even if true, so what? Does anyone think a straight ambassador would have been less of a target? Absurd. It's Americans they are after.
The notion that the Obama administration screwed up by making a supposedly openly gay man the ambassador is equally ridiculous. The guy had spent most of his adult life engaged with that part of the world and spoke the language fluently. Where else should they send him? New Zealand?
Beware the possibility that the whole "gay" thing is a misdirection by the coveruppers, either in its origin or perpetuation. What better way to make raising questions about what actually happened seem ridiculous.
Look, a squirrel! It's a gay squirrel!
The notion that the Obama administration screwed up by making a supposedly openly gay man the ambassador is equally ridiculous.
That's just more playing politics with a dead guy.
edutcher said...
FWIW, a Dick Morris piece
I feel bad rising to the bait, but when you are relying on Dick Morris for moral support you are in whole world of hurt.
Phx, exactly, how disgusting.
Oh, no, they're the ones who are disgusted, oola.
The appeal to anonymous authorities.
Who's appealing to authorities? I think people taking this line-- examples here at the Althouse blog included-- are wrong-headed on this. Or is it that you think I'm making those examples or the existence of that discussion up? You think I'm just shadowboxing? If you're not interested in that conversation (in this particular case, between Cedarford and me), no one's forcing you to listen to it.
And you are the one who doesn't want to conflate the two issues of the video and the murder of the ambassador.
I am "the one" who what, huh? Althouse wrote this post, not me. You accuse me of "conflation" because I happen to talk about those two things in the same comment, or worse, in the same sentence? Yes, to analyze and disentangle the conflation of two things, or object to the way others relate two things, does require, you know, talking about those two things. In close grammatical proximity.
It also takes a certain something to accuse me of hypocrisy, when I rebuked myself, not anyone else, for following a conversation that was slightly off topic.
My comment was directed specifically at Cedarford and replying to the points he made.
Whatever, phx. Carp away. I gotta leave the laptop and get some Vitamn D on this fine Saturday.
See? PHX is doing as predicted.
Brother yashu gets the last word for now.
Beware the possibility that the whole "gay" thing is a misdirection by the coveruppers, either in its origin or perpetuation.
Hate to break it to you David, but Brietbart is pushing this angle. It's right wing crack.
Hate to break it to you David, but Brietbart is pushing this angle. It's right wing crack.
Yeah, Brietbart was another one of those guys who always upheld those fine conservative virtues. No surprise there I'd say.
There aren't that many assassinations of American officials. I have never seen anything like this one, where we as a people are encouraged to dilute the incident with all these other events of a much more mundane variety. An assassination should stand apart -- clear and shocking and in need of precise investigation.
Ann, do you have information that it was an assassination? Information is pretty sketchy. I now hear the video was a better excuse than the blind Muslim in custody. But was it an attempt to actually kill the ambassador, or was he collateral?
These riots have the odor of carefully orchestrated agitprop to move Western civilization into Sharia compliance. So far they have succeeded spectacularly.
Lying is free speech too Illuninati, but that doesn't make liars into saints.
So many comments, so I'm skipping ahead.
"Focus, people.
There was an assassination and our government is behaving in a way that does not align with the experience of an assassination.
Where is the outrage?"
Last night on Fox they showed a sweet picture of Ambassador Stevens; the happy smile of a kind man. We now know that he or one of his staff reported someone was taking pictures of the embassy. The information was ignored and the embassy attacked on 9/11. They should have been helivaced out immediately when things started going down. How this will be over-looked by the media and the electorate I cannot fathom. If one commercial should be played over and over by Romney's campaign, it would show Steven's body and Obama in Vegas that same day. Reprehensible.
"Reasonable" "man": "...our host's attack on me for posting anonymously..."
...He said...anonymously...on Althouse's blog.
Dude, if she wanted to curtail your freedom of expression, she'd delete your comments.
She merely pointed out that, unlike many pseudonymous commenters here, you have no history here. You suddenly show up parroting administration talking points, poo-pooing any questions Althouse has about a very important, under-reported, uninvestigated and mysterious assassination.
So she called bullshit on you. Your shrieking about people trying to silence you is a little embarrassing.
Pastafarian said...
Your shrieking about people trying to silence you is a little embarrassing.
I am definitely not shrieking, unlike you. I am just pointing out that are real world constraints on free speech, which affect most of us. Prof. Althouse is perfectly free to block my account, I have no problem with that.
Again, I've skipped ahead, but with regard to ARM, and this has probably been mentioned, the other night he agreed with himself about a comment he'd made. Someone pointed out that it looked like he was a sockpuppet who'd forgotten to sign out before posting.
You all realize of course that there must be hundreds of anti-muslim or otherwise what most muslims would call agrressively blasphemous videos on Youtube ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6KHwh9uXtI
And thousands upon thousands of web pages and posts ?
And Satellite TV, in Arabic even.
http://www.alfadytv.tv/
Those who stirred up this stupid movie business could have cruised for a few minutes on youtube - or just quoted alfadytv, which the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood gang knows very well, it being part of an old war of words vs the Copts - if they wanted a pretext. Because it was just a pretext. There was no shortage of things for them to get worked up about.
a very important, under-reported, uninvestigated and mysterious assassination.
"The Truth Is Out There"
deborah said...
Again, I've skipped ahead, but with regard to ARM, and this has probably been mentioned, the other night he agreed with himself about a comment he'd made. Someone pointed out that it looked like he was a sockpuppet who'd forgotten to sign out before posting.
Complete bullshit, I was making fun of all the Republican trolls nodding their heads in agreement over some nonsense.
Again, I've skipped ahead, but with regard to ARM,...
Yeah, well you look like someone who's commenting off topic on a thread you haven't read.
The commenters here generally are amateurs; AReasonableMan seems more like a pro.
"Yeah, well you look like someone who's commenting off topic on a thread you haven't read."
Can't get nothin' past you.
antiphone said...Hate to break it to you David, but Brietbart is pushing this angle. It's right wing crack.
Hate to break it to you antiphone, but Brietbart was reporting a claim published last week by the Serbian consulate. Brietbart News was not pushing it, they were reporting it.
Does it matter? Nope. But you see, that is called reporting the news. People may not like the content or consider it germane, but they get to make up their own minds about that.
The mainstream media on the other hand has been downplaying, deflecting, misreporting, emphasizing distraction, and simply ignoring far more to this event than a Serbian claim about Stevens sexual identity.
Unlike Briebart News, the mainstream media is making the decision about what you should know about what happened in Libya.
That seems to suit you.
I agree with that actually. You and your fellow travelers here seem incapable of processing information that disagrees with your partisanship and preconceptions. It's best that the mainstream media spare you any head scratching. You'd all be bald.
antiphone said...
Beware the possibility that the whole "gay" thing is a misdirection by the coveruppers, either in its origin or perpetuation.
Hate to break it to you David, but Brietbart is pushing this angle. It's right wing crack.
Pushing? I just checked Breitbart's front page, which has probably 30 stories. Nothing on this.
What's being pushed is your pathetic attempt to turn to issue into homophobia.
All we know for sure is AReasonableMan is NOT who he is pretending to be.
When we get down to the Ox Bow you all know what to do.
Thank you, B, for noting the origin.
Antiiphone, you are slime.
...that is called reporting the news. People may not like the content or consider it germane, but they get to make up their own minds about that.
Gosh B, look at what I was esponding to from David's post:
Beware the possibility that the whole "gay" thing is a misdirection by the coveruppers, either in its origin or perpetuation. What better way to make raising questions about what actually happened seem ridiculous.
David was claiming the reporting was part of a pro Obama cover up. He was criticizing the "left wing" media for reporting it, you're saying they aren't reporting it enough but both of you claim it's evidence of bias. Funny, if it weren't so sad.
(Forgot to say thanks to exiledonmainst-- thanks. And phx, I'll take that 'last word for now', though FYI that's "sister yashu," not that it matters. OK, now I really am leaving my not very shakerlike small apt. to hang out in the "public living room.")
"Ann, do you have information that it was an assassination? Information is pretty sketchy. I now hear the video was a better excuse than the blind Muslim in custody. But was it an attempt to actually kill the ambassador, or was he collateral?"
I was wondering the same thing. The main objective could have been to find information on Libyan collaborators, with 9/11 used for good measure.
"What happened? At one time, Titus was your favorite commenter."
His commentary has lost the fresh bloom of youth. He's a bitter old guy now for whatever reason. So not fab.
Antiphone said:
"Lying is free speech too Illuninati, but that doesn't make liars into saints."
Antiphone, do you have any evidence that I'm lying, or is your statement an attempt to stop thought?
The long term goal of radical Islam is to take over the entire world, and to impose Sharia. These riots are advancing their agenda.
As for Nakoula - to get back to the subject of this post - C4 and others may have all sorts of opinions about him and his activities, but the fact remains that as far as government goes, all there was against him was a suspicion of parole violation for having gone on the internet against a local judge's order.
Note that the sheriff's office that executed the arrest, or non-arrest, adjusted their halos and said it was not their idea; they just acted as "facilitators" since the Feds wanted to talk to him.
And that is why he is due at least an apology.
David is more than capable of defending himself, but this was directed to me.
antiphone said...
Gosh B, look at what I was esponding to from David's post:
Beware the possibility...
David was claiming...
I see. It's a reading comprehension issue. I try to avoid calling people who exhibit that to task, I apologize.
But be that as it may, the point I was addressing really had nothing to do with David. It was your misrepresenting Briebart News as - in your words - pushing the gay angle.
That wasn't a reading comprehension issue. That was a lie.
"Dude, if she wanted to curtail your freedom of expression, she'd delete your comments. She merely pointed out that, unlike many pseudonymous commenters here, you have no history here. You suddenly show up parroting administration talking points, poo-pooing any questions Althouse has about a very important, under-reported, uninvestigated and mysterious assassination. So she called bullshit on you. Your shrieking about people trying to silence you is a little embarrassing."
Thank you, Pastafarian. That was very accurately articulated.
And are the Feds wrong for wanting to talk to him??
Your shrieking about people trying to silence you is a little embarrassing.
At first the indictment was he was trying to silence others. Now he's "shrieking" about others trying to silence him.
Keeping a hold on objectivity is not necessarily one of those values that we're all holding dear, is it?
The long term goal of radical Islam is to take over the entire world, and to impose Sharia. These riots are advancing their agenda.
Don't worry, thanks to our mighty freedom we have a thriving porn industry to defend us.
BTW, where is AReasonableMan? All that shrieking of his must have laid him up.
Antiphone, you are proving my point.
Plus you can't read. I said "possibility." I was claiming nothing.
My principal point was that the ambassador's supposed sexual preference should be irrelevant in his diplomatic posting. In that I was defending Obama directly.
I stand by my assertion that, given a chance, the left wing smear machine will turn anything it can into racism, homophobia or some other dastardly trait if they see a opening to do so. Your posts just prove me right, in the insignificant example of you.
I never claimed that this assertion was coming from left wing sources. I said the left would use and distort it if they could. As you have done.
Slime.
Thank you, Pastafarian. That was very accurately articulated.
Oh, the lucky students who must hear that in her classroom.
And the rest of us may be due a detailed explanation of just which Feds wanted to talk to him and why.
Also what actually went down at that "talk" session.
This is getting ridiculous. I am not shrieking about anything. I have expressed some skepticism about the conspiracy theories now swirling around the death of the ambassador. I am not a Democrat plant. Based on online questionnaires I trend libertarian on the issues of the day. I don't like Romney. And, like the vast majority of people on this blog, I post anonymously. It takes so little to get a conspiracy theory going here it is kind of sad.
Free speech....except for Annie Althouse'es quivering cunt lips getting laped up by Needy, unemployed Meade.
This is an outrage and I am outraged.
furioua_a
Ozero sent in the Marines to help snuff out the terrorists.
[..]
That's what smart power looks like.
Five days too late = "Smart Power"?
Got it.
YES, Hagar, after the investigation is OVER, I suspect it's just beginning. I assume the FBI doesn't routinely divulge what they have uncovered while the investigation is in progress.
Getting up a big blame-game machine while the situation is still in flux makes no sense. The republican base, epitomized by Instapundit, is showing an embarrassment of hysteria and hissy-fits.
A big focus here is on the media reaction to the first ambassador killed in over 30 years. A pretty big deal, no? And what is our media talking about- alleged Romney gaffes? Limits on free speech? How often has the death of this ambassador been on the front page of the NYT? Once? Ever?
Abu Ghahib was on the front page every day for about a month. Remember that? Did any leftist media pundit speak out about how harmful that was to our image and mission in the ME? Did it matter at all, as long as it made a Rep. pres. look bad?
Are ordinary folks not supposed to notice the double standard of the press, and not be concerned about whether media bias is being used to influence an election? You call that hysteria and hissy-fits?
I never once felt the need to criticize the media for going after Bush for the Iraq war; even when their coverage was potentially damaging to this country- such as the Abu Grahib coverage. It's the job of a free press to investigate and report facts- even ones damaging to the WH.
We need a free press that is not beholden to any administration. If the current crop won't do their jobs, then they should be ridiculed and discredited.
I'm glad we have a cold hearted, detached leader to command with calm.
Yes, it's "Chance the Gardner" as president. He likes to watch; while it all falls apart around him. We're so goddamn lucky to have him.
Antiphone said"
"Don't worry, thanks to our mighty freedom we have a thriving porn industry to defend us."
As I recall, one of the 911 hijackers, probably Atta, visited Las Vegas just before the attack, and hired a prostitute. Obviously, it didn't change a thing. Why would it?
For what it's worth, I think Titus should be silenced. Does this now make me part of vast left wing conspiracy to silence the truth about Libya?
I do not hold Obama responsible for the actions of crazed islamic madmen.
I agree; however, I hold his administration responsible for not protecting our interests abroad. Because of this administration's failure, an ambassador and three other staffers are dead. They need not have died if this admin. had done their job effectively.
My reason for not voting for Obama is because he is incompetent as a leader, as a decision maker and as a policy maker. The failure to protect in Libya, and the amateurish reaction of this admin to the current crisis-- the screwup of the Embassy tweet; the non-reaction to the Cairo tweet for hours until Romney said something- and then they attack him; pushing the story about the video being the cause- when it was obvious to everyone that this was bullshit -- is just more proof to me that these amateurs have got to go.
I never claimed that this assertion was coming from left wing sources. I said the left would use and distort it if they could. As you have done.
What a spineless coward you are David. You raised the subject and and then claimed anyone else who raised it had an agenda. I pointed out a media outlet that was indeed raising the issue, based on a questionable source, the Serbian Consulate. I never said a word about homophobia.
Does anyone else find the pseudonym 'antiphone' amusingly transparent? He/she displays all the signs of a sock puppet - suddenly appearing with multiple comments that do nothing to advance any argument and only echo the other lefties - from behind a pseudonym that basically means 'echo'. Not as transparent a pseudonym as 'Lambchop' would have been, but pretty close.
It isn't a 'vast left-wing conspiracy'. A few shepherds and some barking dogs are all it takes. The term for sheep in numbers is a flock. The term flocking comes from the observation that sheep run and turn in unison. All the shepherds and their dogs have to do is make sure the sheep run in the right direction. Flocking takes care of the rest.
Oh, by the way, I agree about Titus. Free speech does not apply in private and moderated forums, so it's no onus on you to suggest that a shithead like that be denied the floor.
The question now is why was Ambassador Stevens so imprudently secure?
...while Valerie Jarrett, vacationing on the Vineyard, gets a full Secret Service detail.
The answer is..."priorities".
Ann Althouse said...
His commentary has lost the fresh bloom of youth. He's a bitter old guy now for whatever reason. So not fab.
You shall reap, what you have sown.
Does anyone else find the pseudonym 'antiphone' amusingly transparent? He/she displays all the signs of a sock puppet - suddenly appearing with multiple comments that do nothing to advance any argument and only echo the other lefties - from behind a pseudonym that basically means 'echo'. Not as transparent a pseudonym as 'Lambchop' would have been, but pretty close.
Yet another conspiracy!
Dr Weevil said...
Does anyone else find the pseudonym 'antiphone' amusingly transparent? He/she displays all the signs of a sock puppet - suddenly appearing with multiple comments that do nothing to advance any argument and only echo the other lefties.
There are relatively few left or libertarian leaning people posting here, yet somehow antiphon is the one echoing other peoples posts. Statistically this seems unlikely. Are you aware that there are more registered democrats than republicans and that Obama was elected president with a significant majority? Incredible as this may seem, there is more than one left leaning blog poster in this great and glorious country of ours.
antiphone said...I pointed out a media outlet that was indeed raising the issue, based on a questionable source, the Serbian Consulate.
No, you did no such thing.
First, when someone qualifies a statement, he or she should note that they are doing so.
However, you said Brietbart was 'pushing this angle', not 'raising the issue'. That is not qualifying your original statement, but recasting it into something with an intrinsically different meaning.
Not only did you lie about Breibart News' handling of the story - they were neither 'pushing this angle' nor 'raising the issue' but rather reporting on a story, you are now lying about what you yourself said.
Dr Weevil is right. You are nothing but talking points without the wit to express or defend them. Just an echo from some hole somewhere.
There's more than a hint of sleaze about Nakoula and his operation, but perhaps one can say that he is just waging asymmetrical warfare against the Islamists.....I observe that Assad is killing Muslims, including jihadists, at a brisk rate in Syria. Perhaps some one more knowledgeable about Islamic theology can explain to me me why an obscure youtube clip generates more outrage in the Muslim world than the murder of thousands of Muslims. There's something very suspicious about all these demonstrations against America and the tactful silence concerning the crimes that Syria is right now committing. Those crimes are being committed with the active help of Iran and Hetzbollah and the diplomatic support of Russia and China. Are there no Sunni Muslims outraged by this? Why not? It's very confusing.
Dr Weevil is right. You are nothing but talking points without the wit to express or defend them. Just an echo from some hole somewhere.
Is that an example of your debating skills, nothing but ad hominem ? Yes, Brietbart is pushing the gay angle and isn't it touching the way they show how broken up they are about his death by outing him to score political points.
oola said...
And are the Feds wrong for wanting to talk to him??
hagar - (summarized_ "and for us wanted to know the reasons why they talked to him"?
===============
Both comments are valid.
We have burned embassies, dead people, the USA as well as the Islamoids discredited for agitating unrest. (US because we tolerate agitation that antagonizes masses in other countries that care not one whit for whatever internal law the US cites to justify the troublemaking)..
That makes it worth investigating, getting to the bottom of. We have to have the story straight for Americans...and countries like Turkey now reconsidering American bases next to Iran and use of Turk airspace. We all deserve the straight scoop on the intent of machinations of Nakoula, and the motives of his financiers and who they were.
I am reminded of a great old movie that came out in the early 80s that was a free rental in the AF in the early 90s - "Absence of Malice". Sally Field and Paul Newman starred.
Shady person using media to smear, dead people, major damage to reputations of others, as well as the justice system. Shady person, a duped district attorney, and the blundering media execs and a reporter and the news lawyer all trying to hide behind the 1st Amendment as the mess boiled over.
Newman's character exacted a cunning revenge for the harm by setting the DA up, using the reporters newspaper to discredit her and her own paper.
The movie culminated with Wilfred Brimley's arrival as a kick ass Deputy Attorney General carrying a handful of Federal subpeonas - announcing he was sure as hell going to get to the bottom of the mess, clean it up as much as he could and before he left "goddamn heads are going to roll".
Just curious. Why have we been spending so much time and agita over the role of this video as the possible cause of the Libyan debacle, the 4 dead men, and the wider, looming disaster, while so carefully refusing to even consider the far greater provocation offered by Obama himself? His endless grandstanding about how "I killed Osama", the creepy end-zone dance routines he kept performing, cramming that victory down Muslim throats as publically as possible -- how does this not count as the UTMOST provocation to be revenged, coldly and with calculation on a date as symbolic as 9/11? How are we overlooking the mobs shouting, "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!", ... except that neither he nor his supporters will tolerate even the slightest suggestion that Obama himself bears any scintilla of responsibility for the disaster, so they hurl every effort into distraction with the video as the most convenient scapegoat. This whole farrago of nonsense about the cause of the violence -- rather than focussing on the result of the violence, the 4 dead men -- is nothing more than the Administration trying to use sleight of hand to keep you from thinking about the blood on Obama's hands. Heard him bragging about killing bin Laden recently?
NO, Allie, given the circumstances here, I want to know just what Feds they were and what they wanted to talk to Nokouloa about. And I want to know now.
Well Hagar, you nor I are privy to such information. You demanding to be and expecting to be would hamper and possibly endanger the investigation. Why would you want a flawed outcome, you don't want the truth?! You can wait for the investigation to be completed?
Whoa.
phx said...
FWIW, a Dick Morris piece about why polling isn't what it's cracked up to be.
This whole thing is just politics by another means for some of you folks. A piece about polling in a post about the murder of an ambassador,and the video that was heard round the world.
Principled conservative values?
Since the Lefties want to make this about Dubya or Ann or how the Administration didn't blow it, it's just obfuscation by another name.
And there's no such thing as principled Leftist values.
Megaera said...
carefully refusing to even consider the far greater provocation offered by Obama himself? His endless grandstanding about how "I killed Osama"
The right wing critique of Obama on this issue is very inconsistent. On the one hand, by making some limited attempts to directly address some legitimate political concerns of the arab world Obama has made us weak and therefore vulnerable (the standard Cheney, neocon line). On the other, when he states correctly, if you fuck with us we will kill you in your house, no matter where it might be, and steal your women and children. Then he is what, making us look too strong?
There's something very suspicious about all these demonstrations against America and the tactful silence concerning the crimes that Syria is right now committing. Those crimes are being committed with the active help of Iran and Hetzbollah and the diplomatic support of Russia and China. Are there no Sunni Muslims outraged by this? Why not? It's very confusing.
=============
There is nothing confusing about it. It is one thing to do oppressive butchery in your own home, or the neighborhood...the reaction is far stronger when enemy invaders come in and do it.
Back in the late 70s, we had 2,3 major cities that ALONE accounted for more murders than the 9/11 Attack did. Yet we were more upset about 9/11.
The reason is obvious.
The answer to the rhetorical question of why Muslims are less upset about Muslims killing Muslims vs. dead Muslims from infidel attacks is equally obvious.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
Does anyone else find the pseudonym 'antiphone' amusingly transparent? He/she displays all the signs of a sock puppet - suddenly appearing with multiple comments that do nothing to advance any argument and only echo the other lefties.
There are relatively few left or libertarian leaning people posting here
There are very few Left leaning people commenting here.
FIFY
But they make about half the comments.
Magaera nails it:
"Just curious. Why have we been spending so much time and agita over the role of this video as the possible cause of the Libyan debacle, the 4 dead men, and the wider, looming disaster, while so carefully refusing to even consider the far greater provocation offered by Obama himself? His endless grandstanding about how "I killed Osama", the creepy end-zone dance routines he kept performing, cramming that victory down Muslim throats as publically as possible -- how does this not count as the UTMOST provocation to be revenged, coldly and with calculation on a date as symbolic as 9/11? How are we overlooking the mobs shouting, "Obama, Obama, we are all Osama!", ... except that neither he nor his supporters will tolerate even the slightest suggestion that Obama himself bears any scintilla of responsibility for the disaster, so they hurl every effort into distraction with the video as the most convenient scapegoat."
(emphasis mine)
antiphone said...Is that an example of your debating skills, nothing but ad hominem ?
Why, no. It isn't ad hominem. In my first response to you I pointed out that it was a 6 day old story on Breibart News, that they were not the source but reporting on a news item and that they were by no means 'pushing it'. That is engaging you with facts.
Yes, Brietbart is pushing the gay angle and isn't it touching the way they show how broken up they are about his death by outing him to score political points.
This is called doubling down or stuck on stupid. You've been informed that you were wrong. You were wrong probably because you never even visited Briebart News before making your original statement but instead were just parroting something you read somewhere - Dr Weevil noted from some echo chamber somewhere.
Had you actually visited Breibart News before you made your statement, you would have seen, as David noted, that there was no mention on the front page of the Serbian Consulate story. You had to dig back days to find the mention. I would think that fact would have given you pause before announcing that Breibart was 'pushing the story'.
Yet, you double down and insist on beclowning yourself further even after several casual commenters have noted your nonsense to be exactly what the blog owner was talking about - occlusion and misdirection of what the actual issues uncovered by the events in Libya are.
Cedarford, whose principles I both disagree with and usually find rank, applies those principes in defending his positions nonetheless and deserves respect for doing so. If you want to be treated as a worthy debater, come here and present your positions and defend them from a principled and knowledgeable stance. Tossing out inane talking points and thinking you gain anything but disdain is a fool's errand.
edutcher said...
And there's no such thing as principled Leftist values.
This sounds kind of prejudiced to me. One group of people are highly principled and another completely without principles. Does this strike you as a realistic description of human nature?
And there's no such thing as principled Leftist values.
You know what...fuck you, you dumb illiterate asshole. You and your pals churn this same shit out day after day after day and then you whine like a little baby when someone confronts you on it. Get a life dumb fuck.
ARM, you are (predictably) ignoring the point. Comparatively few of those now rioting throughout the ME actually have access to or have personally seen the Nakoula video, but I guarantee you they have seen or heard Obama boasting about killing Osama, their hero -- hence the widespread burning of Obama effigies and the Obama/Osama chants. Obama's behavior has been intensely provocative, seemingly calculated to give offense to people very quick off the mark to take it, and yet no one, NO ONE seems willing to openly draw the logical conclusion. That, however, the Obama people have in fact done precisely that is evidenced by their frenzied efforts at distraction.
When I suggested (4:34pm) that 'antiphone' is a suck puppet, I didn't mention that I thought he was most likely a sock puppet of 'AReasonableMan'. Now that they're doing tag-team posting (4:42/4:46, 5:28/5:31), with good-cop ARM being more polite and 'antiphone' being ruder, it looks even more likely.
Of course, a non-sock-puppet, by which I mean someone who uses only one pseudonym and isn't paid to post here or anywhere else, would have responded quite differently when I pointed out that 'antiphone' is pretty much a synonym of 'echo'. A non-sock-puppet would have explained how he or she happened to pick such a sock-puppetish-sounding pseudonym.
Slime.
Oops: I meant 'sock puppet', not 'suck puppet', at least consciously: not a bad example of a Freudian slip, revealing (as if there were any doubt) what I think about 'antiphone'.
Megaera said...
Comparatively few of those now rioting throughout the ME actually have access to or have personally seen the Nakoula video.
I am not sure how true this is, internet access seems to be pretty broad distributed in Egypt at least. On this issue I think you can take them at their word. This being said I agree with a lot of posters here that the video is just a pretext. It's almost certainly all about local politics, as usual, which I won't pretend to understand. No doubt one group trying to prove they are more muslimy than another. Much the same would be true if they used Obama's statements as a pretext.
If you want to know what happened at Benghazi, ask State. But State won’t talk about it, so ask the FBI. But the FBI can’t talk about it because it’s an ongoing investigation. Perfection.
Update: Now that there’s a “BLAME BUSH” angle to this story, maybe the White House can finally admit that, yes, this whole thing was orchestrated by a hardened jihadi capo.
Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News’ intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Here’s an NYT story on Qumu from 2011, back when he was a “freedom fighter” helping the United States and its western allies to oust Qaddafi.
He was a tank driver in the Libyan Army in the 1980s, when the Central Intelligence Agency was spending billions to support religious militants trying to drive Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. Mr. Qumu moved to Afghanistan in the early 1990s, just as Osama bin Laden and other former mujahedeen were violently turning against their former benefactor, the United States.
He was captured in Pakistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accused of being a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and sent to Guantánamo — in part because of information provided by Colonel Qaddafi’s government.
“The Libyan Government considers detainee a ‘dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts,’ ” says the classified 2005 assessment, evidently quoting Libyan intelligence findings, which was obtained by The New York Times.
Very much worth noting, though: Counterterror expert Aaron Zelin seems to think this is a case of mistaken identity. Qumu’s group is Ansar al-Sharia, based in Dernah. The group suspected in the consulate attack is Katibah Ansar al-Sharia, based in Benghazi. Someone may have heard “Ansar al-Sharia” and made the assumption that it was Qumu’s group, not the Benghazi one, that led the assault. Just something to note as reporters begin to chase this angle.
If you want to know what happened at Benghazi, ask State. But State won’t talk about it, so ask the FBI. But the FBI can’t talk about it because it’s an ongoing investigation. Perfection.
Update: Now that there’s a “BLAME BUSH” angle to this story, maybe the White House can finally admit that, yes, this whole thing was orchestrated by a hardened jihadi capo.
Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News’ intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Here’s an NYT story on Qumu from 2011, back when he was a “freedom fighter” helping the United States and its western allies to oust Qaddafi.
He was a tank driver in the Libyan Army in the 1980s, when the Central Intelligence Agency was spending billions to support religious militants trying to drive Soviet troops out of Afghanistan. Mr. Qumu moved to Afghanistan in the early 1990s, just as Osama bin Laden and other former mujahedeen were violently turning against their former benefactor, the United States.
He was captured in Pakistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, accused of being a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and sent to Guantánamo — in part because of information provided by Colonel Qaddafi’s government.
“The Libyan Government considers detainee a ‘dangerous man with no qualms about committing terrorist acts,’ ” says the classified 2005 assessment, evidently quoting Libyan intelligence findings, which was obtained by The New York Times.
Very much worth noting, though: Counterterror expert Aaron Zelin seems to think this is a case of mistaken identity. Qumu’s group is Ansar al-Sharia, based in Dernah. The group suspected in the consulate attack is Katibah Ansar al-Sharia, based in Benghazi. Someone may have heard “Ansar al-Sharia” and made the assumption that it was Qumu’s group, not the Benghazi one, that led the assault. Just something to note as reporters begin to chase this angle.
antiphone, B is a crank, a mean hateful, crank, who attempts to shut down the comments of those he disagrees with, using insults. He tends to stalk female commenters, he shuts up quickly when a male liberal confronts him. It's been his MO for the entire time I've been commenting here. He is a despicable jerk.
It's too bad you'd have to hear this from an anonymous person on the Internet Oola, but you have descended into paranoid lunacy. You are disconnected from reality.
Get help.
Dr Weevil said...
When I suggested (4:34pm) that 'antiphone' is a suck puppet, I didn't mention that I thought he was most likely a sock puppet of 'AReasonableMan'. Now that they're doing tag-team posting (4:42/4:46, 5:28/5:31), with good-cop ARM being more polite and 'antiphone' being ruder, it looks even more likely.
Why is it so difficult to understand that there is more than one non-Republican in the world, and they have overlapping but independent views on the world. On the other issue, there is no one dumb enough anywhere on this planet to pay someone to post on this blog.
I am glad you noted my natural politeness.
"There's something very suspicious about all these demonstrations against America and the tactful silence concerning the crimes that Syria is right now committing. Those crimes are being committed with the active help of Iran and Hetzbollah and the diplomatic support of Russia and China. Are there no Sunni Muslims outraged by this? Why not? It's very confusing.
There is Sunni outrage, and the former bloc of Sunni that did support Assad for political/financial reasons is crumbling.
Why the silence on the 'crime' of the Assads trying to preserve their power? Because we have had enough Arab Spring for the time being; let us digest the current prediciment in which we find ourselves.
oola (alley oop's girlfriend) said...B is a crank, a mean hateful, crank, who attempts to shut down the comments of those he disagrees with, using insults. He tends to stalk female commenters, he shuts up quickly when a male liberal confronts him. It's been his MO for the entire time I've been commenting here. He is a despicable jerk.
I told you the last time I acknowledged you that I considered you, with cause, a fabulist, a liar, and a fool. I told you that I do not suffer anyone exhibiting any of those traits gladly much less all of them, that you were way out of your league fucking with me, and that you would be wise to ignore my posts as assiduously as I do yours. You want to keep that in mind.
It's too bad you'd have to hear this from an anonymous person on the Internet Oola, but you have descended into paranoid lunacy. You are disconnected from reality.
Get help.
Oh, sorry for that I didn't see the "B", I thought you were addressing me. Never mind.
But in terms of scale, fewer Americans died than in a bad month or so of the Civil War, fewer than the Soviets suffered in a bad week of WWII, fewer than the Brits suffered over the course of the Battle of the Somme in WWI.
I don't measure wars with death tolls.
Are we talking about a global conflict or not?
I think the Prophet would have greater currency as a prophet if he had permitted moderate use of red wine and had explicitly condemned tobacco products...That's why I post anonymously. A comment like that could get you killed. Let's hope some red assed mullah doesn't pick up on it and demand the death of Althouse for permitting blasphemy on her blog site.......The Middle East is a fucked up place. Their problem is that they think some obscure you tube clip is a problem. And after they outlaw blasphemy in America, they can get on to the final solution to all their problems: the destruction of Israel and the imposition of Sharia law. No more Jews, no more slutty women. Paradise enow....Not only is the Middle East a screwed up place, but it shows every evidence of becoming more screwed up. It doesn't matter whether Bush bombs them or Obama apologizes to them. They have their own dynamic and whatever we do just feeds into their antipathy.
C-4
You are on a nice roll. Something you said just clicked. All of these protests are just part of a pan-Islamist pre-emptive action designed to weaken our ability to respond to a nuclear flirting Iran. It's also designed to drive a wedge with Israel.
I'm sure the boys working on this went to that conclusion first, which triggered the need to interrogate the meth-head Coptic film-maker. They found nothing linking the douche to a false-flag operation and kicked him to the curb.... or sent him back to see what he would do or with whom he might meet with.
Browndog's kidnapping point fits in with leverage on the Iranian issue: perhaps they were going for another arms for hostages situation using AQ as subcontractors. It's not a stretch to think Iran has a big bounty on valuable kidnapping targets for this purpose.
Most of the morons here have no clue how much we and Israel are squeezing Iran nor how strong the sabre's are rattling. This is just blow-back. WTF else can Iran do?
Hey B, why don't you fuck with me. I hear you're into leather. mmmmmmmmmm
I would like to put it out there that I'm available to join any conspiracy you may have. I'm flexible, free of principles, until you tell me what they are, and I have some free time. Call me. I always wanted to see a real conspiracy from the inside. The more absurdly evil the better.
WTF? You can't tell the sockpuppets without a scorecard.
B
It's obvious that your only backup is a 5-gallon bucket Vaseline Intensive Care and a case of Kleenex. The C-word was invented just for you.
Post a Comment