Revolution(s) in the Arabian World

[molson]

Sorry if this has been posted, there's a few threads where this whole thing is being discussed, but here's a few, um, trailers I guess, for the infamous "Innocence of Muslims" movie. It is no Satantic Verses or anything. It's not even funny bad, it's just garbage. I didn't even get through the whole thing and it's like 4 minutes.

Innocence of Muslims Trailer "Egypt Protest Movie" - YouTube

Innocence of Muslims Trailer 2 "Egypt Protest Movie" - YouTube

Innocence of Muslims Trailer 3 "Egypt Protest Movie" - YouTube

[PilotMan]

Excellent piece from Peter Bergen:

Extremists and leaders incite violent protests - CNN.com

Editor's note: Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, is director of the national security studies program at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that seeks innovative solutions across the ideological spectrum, and the author of the new book "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad." Jennifer Rowland is a program associate at the New America Foundation.
Amsterdam (CNN) -- On November 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was bicycling to work in Amsterdam when he was shot eight times at close range. He died instantly, but in a fit of rage, his assailant, Dutch-Moroccan Mohammed Bouyeri, also attempted to cut off his head with a machete.
Bouyeri killed van Gogh because of a short film he had recently produced with Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali that criticized Islam's treatment of women.
The film showed verses of the Quran projected onto the bodies of several naked young women. It was a film designed to provoke. And it did. Ali subsequently went into a self-imposed exile in the United States.
News: Six things to know about the attack
Now, seven years later, a short, amateurish film entitled "Innocence of Muslims," purportedly created by Sam Bacile in the U.S., portrays the Prophet Mohammed as a philandering child molester. ("Sam Bacile" appears to be a pseudonym.)
Terry Jones, a Christian pastor based in Florida who has a long history of making incendiary statements about Islam, is promoting "Innocence of Muslims." Jones also recently called for an "International Judge Mohammed Day" to be held on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, this past Tuesday.
News about the film has sparked outrage in the Muslim world. Mobs have attacked American embassies and consulates in Egypt, Libya and Yemen. The U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, and three of his staff members were killed in what appears to have been a well-organized attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday. The attackers may have used the opportunity presented by the film protests to mount the assault.
These attacks came after the accidental burning of Qurans by U.S. soldiers at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in February sparked massive protests across the country, resulting in the deaths of at least 30 Afghans and six U.S. soldiers, all of whom were shot by men in Afghan security force uniforms.
Opinion: Survivor of 1979 consulate attack -- Libya an eerie echo

Peter Bergen


And these are just the latest in a series of violent reactions to the perceived disrespect of the prophet and the Quran by Westerners -- sometimes intentional and sometimes unintentional -- that, in an increasingly globalized world of almost instantaneous communication, has intensified significantly during the past several years. And Muslim extremists as well as Christian fundamentalists in the West have increasingly intentionally amplified this trend.
Politicians and the media in the Muslim world have also played an important, though perhaps unintended, role in stirring up violence in the wake of a number of these perceived attacks on Islam.
A YouTube video of "Innocence of Muslims" that provoked the Libyan mob to attack the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was initially published in July, but it was not until versions of it dubbed in Arabic appeared online and were broadcast by religious Egyptian news channel al-Nas that protests sprouted in Egypt.
A May 2005 Newsweek article claiming that American soldiers at Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Quran down the toilet went unnoticed for nearly a week before Pakistani politician Imran Khan pointed the article out in a news conference. More than a dozen people were subsequently killed during protests in Afghanistan. (Newsweek later retracted the story.)
Similarly, when Jones burned a copy of the Quran at his church on March 20, 2011, two weeks went by without any incident. But then President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan made a speech calling for his arrest. Within 24 hours, protesters stormed the United Nations compound in Mazar-e Sharif in northern Afghanistan, killing seven foreign employees, and demonstrations across the country killed more than a dozen other people.
In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, setting off a wave of protests and attacks over the next several years in which as many as 200 people have been killed.
In 2008, for instance, al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Danish Embassy in Islamabad, which killed a half-dozen bystanders, saying the powerful suicide car bomb was in retaliation for the offensive cartoons. Two years later, Kurt Westergaard, one of the cartoonists, barely escaped from a Somali man linked to Al-Shabaab, al Qaeda's Somali affiliate, who broke into the cartoonist's home in Denmark with a knife and ax.
But the violence sparked by the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, one of which depicted the Prophet Mohammed with a turban-wrapped bomb on his head, began a full four months after the images were published by the newspaper and were the result of a carefully orchestrated campaign by two Danish Muslim clerics who toured the Middle East, presenting a dossier about the cartoons to important religious and political figures.
Opinion: Libya killings show U.S. at risk in Arab world
Included in the dossier were cartoons that had never appeared in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, showing offensive images of the Prophet Mohammed.
As a result, entering the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Copenhagen today is akin to visiting a prison, with a heavily barred set of metal gates securing entrance to the building. And just as author Salman Rushdie remains under threat decades after the 1989 fatwa against him for his novel "The Satanic Verses," so too the threat against Jyllands-Posten is likely to endure for many years.
On Wednesday, Karzai released a public statement strongly condemning the recent "criminal act." This was not a reference to the assault on the U.S. consulate in Libya a day earlier that resulted in the four deaths there but to the release of "Innocence of Muslims," the video that denigrates the Prophet Mohammed.
News: Unanswered questions after the attack
Karzai did express his condolences about the deaths at the Libyan consulate when he spoke privately to President Obama. However, his public statement will surely draw attention to an issue that is likely to cause additional violent protests in Afghanistan, which NATO forces are steeling themselves for.
With allies like these, who needs enemies?

[JPhillips]

Nice to see Egypt scrambling to kiss our ass a bit.

[GrantDawg]

The embassy in Tunisia has been attacked. Fire seen billowing, but reports are that it is from the courtyard and not the building.

[bronconick]

And they attacked the German embassy in Khartoum.

Probably got lost since they can't read words or maps.

[kingfc22]

I guess they like their chicken extra crispy. Link

Seriously though, Jesus and other spiritual "leaders" are poked fun at all the time and it doesn't make me want to go out and destroy everything in sight. I just don't get it.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Seriously though, Jesus and other spiritual "leaders" are poked fun at all the time and it doesn't make me want to go out and destroy everything in sight. I just don't get it.

Definitely true, but I don't think you have to travel too far into American history or subcultures to imagine how this is. Imagine a very devout, fundamentalist Christian society, whether you want to think about a Southern town in the '50s, or back to more Puritan origins. I think it's pretty likely you could have gotten a very violent reaction out of some of those people by coming in and poking at their religious beliefs. I think it requires a certain uniformity of thinking. The less diversity there is in your culture, as in a small close-knit Christian community where everybody follows the same precepts, the more outrageous the smallest things begin to seem. Most American Christians nowadays regularly see or hear things that would have been shocking 50 years ago. Clearly places like Egypt are culturally much more like early 20th Century America than 21st century.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Seriously though, Jesus and other spiritual "leaders" are poked fun at all the time and it doesn't make me want to go out and destroy everything in sight. I just don't get it.

The violence is a key difference, but we've also had significant protests over "The Passion of the Christ" and "The DaVinci Code".

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Seriously though, Jesus and other spiritual "leaders" are poked fun at all the time and it doesn't make me want to go out and destroy everything in sight. I just don't get it.

To paraphrase a bit; unemployed people with little or no hope, is it any wonder they cling to their Muhammad and RPG’s?

[molson]

It's not even making fun of Muhammad that's the problem, the crime is depicting him. I think Islam similarly forbids depicting Jesus, who is another Muslim prophet, but they gave up on getting mad over that one a long time ago.

[flounder]

Now the government is pressuring Youtube to pull the video.

YouTube's role at issue over video that incited Mideast violence - latimes.com

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Clearly places like Egypt are culturally much more like early 19th Century America than 21st century.

getting closer...

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You're confused - the quote we were talking about wasn't from Obama. Was from Walter Mondale, ex (D) Presidential candidate, in his autobiography written years ago (IDK when exactly).

Actually, I wasn't commenting on the quote from Mondale, but on Obama's overall style. The past four years he seemed to still be stuck in campaign mode to me. Now he is really picking up some momentum because he is doing what he does best: campaigning.

I think the lack of political experience hurt him in this area. More experience may have helped him to govern more than campaign continuously. My Romney rising to the top of the Republican party the inexperience argument from the right was shot to hell... Romney has a total of one term as a governor. Obama looks like a political veteran in comparison.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

To paraphrase a bit; unemployed people with little or no hope, is it any wonder they cling to their Muhammad and RPG’s?

The question is how an unemployed person with little or no hope gains possession of an RPG. Or rallied to act because of a stupid video produced half a world away.

Make no mistake about it, these "protests" exist because they are funded and encouraged by whatever serves as a government in these regions.

For whatever reason, right now, 2012, this concept of sharia is linked with violence and repression. When it's the law of the land, this is what you get. We can certainly argue that it has happened in the past with Christianity. Point being, civilization evolves. The Middle East is not only the cradle of civilization, but as late as a few hundred years ago was still a cultural and intellectual mecca. It's sad that so many people are being born into this hatred, with no chance in life. The blame lies entirely on these governments.

Unfortunately, all they can choose is either an angry dictator or sharia. There doesn't seem to be an in-between. The media cheered this "Arab Spring" movement as some sort of fundamental revolution of the people. That's great. But sometimes the cure to a serious problem is an even worse problem, and that's what we're seeing in Egypt right now.

I don't know how you un-link religious oppression and government. What happened with America's revolution changed the entire world. Something similar needs to happen with Islam, and I have no idea how it can or will begin.

[RainMaker]

How about we stop blaming videos and other forms of speech as a justification to slaughter innocent people who had nothing to do with that? I get the talk of it inciting people, but who gives a shit? Do we go around justifying the shootings in Colorado because the movie Batman inspired it? Do we demand they shut down all showings of that movie?

I'm just tired of having to cater toward a group of backwards ass losers living 500 years behind the times. It's 2012.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

At the same time, we know how they react. 90% of them probably haven't even seen the video.

There are laws about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater because we know what the result is. It is a free speech infringement, but one that has saved lives. There is precedent.

Ignorant people have pretty much always been used as pawns by people who don't have their best interest in mind. Muslims are no different. Bin Laden never strapped a bomb on himself or went out in the street rioting. He took videos of himself with guns & talked others into doing his bidding. These people are reacting in this way because they have been told this is the right way to react. It's nearly impossible to tell people what to do from the outside. Even from the inside it's difficult to persuade people against violence when others are inciting it. The loudest voice usually wins.

Is it easier to stop the world, or to try and stop a few? Those who do things like making Anti-Islam films where they depict Mohammed in a manner that can be considered offensive know what they are doing will incite others to react violently. That is their intent. (It's different altogether when a 6 year old draws a picture vs an adult filmmaker)

What can really be done?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't know how you un-link religious oppression and government. What happened with America's revolution changed the entire world. Something similar needs to happen with Islam, and I have no idea how it can or will begin.

It won't ever, because the authority that governs government comes from the religion itself. Separation is a crime against Islam.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

There are laws about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater because we know what the result is. It is a free speech infringement, but one that has saved lives. There is precedent.

Those are different legal precedents. Yelling fire isn't necessarily inciting people to do something illegal. It's just frivolously creating a dangerous situation. There is no other purpose to those words than to create that dangerous situation.

Infringing on speech because it might hurt someone's feelings and they might do something bad is a completely different animal. Are Muslims the only one that get this special treatment because their culture has a high propensity to act like savages? Isn't that simply justifying that behavior by blaming someone else? Does Seth McFarlane get held to the same standards if he makes a joke about Jesus in a Family Guy episode?

First, we should be progressing, nor regressing. Evolving as a society where we don't savagely kill innocent people because someone said something you didn't like. We can view the speech as vile and repugnant. But it shouldn't be criminal because certain people can't function in a civilized society when they hear things that they don't like. It justifies their actions when we should be encouraging the opposite. That killing over speech is wrong.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Definitely true, but I don't think you have to travel too far into American history or subcultures to imagine how this is. Imagine a very devout, fundamentalist Christian society, whether you want to think about a Southern town in the '50s, or back to more Puritan origins. I think it's pretty likely you could have gotten a very violent reaction out of some of those people by coming in and poking at their religious beliefs.

...or there's this.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Dutch

...or there's this.

I don't get it.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

There are laws about shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater because we know what the result is. It is a free speech infringement, but one that has saved lives. There is precedent.

Is it easier to stop the world, or to try and stop a few? Those who do things like making Anti-Islam films where they depict Mohammed in a manner that can be considered offensive know what they are doing will incite others to react violently. That is their intent. (It's different altogether when a 6 year old draws a picture vs an adult filmmaker)

What can really be done?

The reason you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater is that you are essentially commanding a specific result. Fires were a real problem in theaters early on, so the public was well aware that they needed to get to an exit quickly, whether they saw flames or not.

So your shout is an action. That's how the court ruled, specifically.

There has been discussion in the courts since about a "fighting words" standard. If you walk up to someone and call his mother a whore, should he be arrested for breaking your nose? Some would say it follows the same line of argument, but the courts haven't consistently agreed.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) established fighting words, but the concept has never been backed by the Court, most recently with Snyder v. Phelps (2011) where the Court decided that as long as there's no personal insult, the speech is protected. This seems a lot like the Westboro garbage - there are few things as patently objectionable to an American as going to a funeral and saying a veteran who died in action will burn in hell because of something that has nothing to do with the veteran. Yet we accept it, and Snyder remains alive.

We even protect generic calls to violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969, where a KKK leader advocated violence, but not a specific action).

So the question becomes whether we, as Americans, are allowed to have a culture, even when that culture may include elements offensive to other cultures? If this so-called filmmaker lived in Egypt and released his film there, he'd be dead now. But he lives in America, and poking fun or making a political point by being a dickhead is protected speech. Our culture demands that we offer him the freedom to be a dickhead.

You don't see anyone in Egypt wondering if maybe they should permit free speech because it offends us to see repression. Or it offends us if women don't have the same rights as men.

Yes, the reality of the situation is that the governments of many countries, in the name of sharia, encourage violence in response to any perceived insult. And there's always perceived insult somewhere. I think that's entirely on them. Just as it would be on us if a group of Americans pillaged the embassy of a Middle Eastern country because we were offended by their repression of women.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

When they determine who the film maker is, I hope the families of the dead sue the shit out of him.

While a court of law may not be able to do anything, civil court is a bit less stringent in the burden of proof. Ask OJ Simpson.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The reason you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater is that you are essentially commanding a specific result. Fires were a real problem in theaters early on, so the public was well aware that they needed to get to an exit quickly, whether they saw flames or not.

So your shout is an action. That's how the court ruled, specifically.

There has been discussion in the courts since about a "fighting words" standard. If you walk up to someone and call his mother a whore, should he be arrested for breaking your nose? Some would say it follows the same line of argument, but the courts haven't consistently agreed.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) established fighting words, but the concept has never been backed by the Court, most recently with Snyder v. Phelps (2011) where the Court decided that as long as there's no personal insult, the speech is protected. This seems a lot like the Westboro garbage - there are few things as patently objectionable to an American as going to a funeral and saying a veteran who died in action will burn in hell because of something that has nothing to do with the veteran. Yet we accept it, and Snyder remains alive.

We even protect generic calls to violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969, where a KKK leader advocated violence, but not a specific action).

So the question becomes whether we, as Americans, are allowed to have a culture, even when that culture may include elements offensive to other cultures? If this so-called filmmaker lived in Egypt and released his film there, he'd be dead now. But he lives in America, and poking fun or making a political point by being a dickhead is protected speech. Our culture demands that we offer him the freedom to be a dickhead.

You don't see anyone in Egypt wondering if maybe they should permit free speech because it offends us to see repression. Or it offends us if women don't have the same rights as men.

Yes, the reality of the situation is that the governments of many countries, in the name of sharia, encourage violence in response to any perceived insult. And there's always perceived insult somewhere. I think that's entirely on them. Just as it would be on us if a group of Americans pillaged the embassy of a Middle Eastern country because we were offended by their repression of women.

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

When they determine who the film maker is, I hope the families of the dead sue the shit out of him.

While a court of law may not be able to do anything, civil court is a bit less stringent in the burden of proof. Ask OJ Simpson.

Jim eloquently talked about our culture demanding free speech within the law. The responsibility we have is to protect such rights, not looking for ways to silence free speech that some find objectionable. Many have died throughout history as the result of our right and that is the price we pay ensure a free society.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

When they determine who the film maker is, I hope the families of the dead sue the shit out of him.

What in the world could a court do? Surely that kind of case should be laughed out of a US court.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

What in the world could a court do? Surely that kind of case should be laughed out of a US court.

You underestimate the ambulance chasers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Feds: Hillside teen bent on jihad plotted to blow up downtown bar - Chicago Sun-Times

[Solecismic]

“Even my sheikh in my masjid [mosque] was talking to me about NOT talking about jihad,” Daoud allegedly wrote, according to the charges.

In a civilized society, the churches, mosques, youth leaders, parents, etc, try to reach out and turn young people away from violence. That's why this sort of thing is so rare in America.

I live an hour or so away from one of the larger Muslim populations outside of primarily-Muslim countries, and I don't worry about this sort of thing at all. I'm sure my politics and Dearborn politics have almost nothing in common, but we agree that violence against strangers has no place in a civilized world.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In a civilized society, the churches, mosques, youth leaders, parents, etc, try to reach out and turn young people away from violence. That's why this sort of thing is so rare in America.

I live an hour or so away from one of the larger Muslim populations outside of primarily-Muslim countries, and I don't worry about this sort of thing at all. I'm sure my politics and Dearborn politics have almost nothing in common, but we agree that violence against strangers has no place in a civilized world.

Or at least we're in agreement that talking about Jihad isn't a great idea. (re-read the quotes ... neither of them indicates he was discouraged from doing such a thing, only that talking about it was discouraged.

[gstelmack]

They've definitely figured out one key part of a modern, civilized world:

Amid uneasy calm in Cairo, prime minister says some were paid to protest - CNN.com

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or at least we're in agreement that talking about Jihad isn't a great idea. (re-read the quotes ... neither of them indicates he was discouraged from doing such a thing, only that talking about it was discouraged.

I think when he says "not talking about jihad" he means "not thinking about jihad" and that he was saying the sheikh was actually discouraging him.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The reason you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater is that you are essentially commanding a specific result. Fires were a real problem in theaters early on, so the public was well aware that they needed to get to an exit quickly, whether they saw flames or not.

So your shout is an action. That's how the court ruled, specifically.

There has been discussion in the courts since about a "fighting words" standard. If you walk up to someone and call his mother a whore, should he be arrested for breaking your nose? Some would say it follows the same line of argument, but the courts haven't consistently agreed.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) established fighting words, but the concept has never been backed by the Court, most recently with Snyder v. Phelps (2011) where the Court decided that as long as there's no personal insult, the speech is protected. This seems a lot like the Westboro garbage - there are few things as patently objectionable to an American as going to a funeral and saying a veteran who died in action will burn in hell because of something that has nothing to do with the veteran. Yet we accept it, and Snyder remains alive.

We even protect generic calls to violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969, where a KKK leader advocated violence, but not a specific action).

So the question becomes whether we, as Americans, are allowed to have a culture, even when that culture may include elements offensive to other cultures? If this so-called filmmaker lived in Egypt and released his film there, he'd be dead now. But he lives in America, and poking fun or making a political point by being a dickhead is protected speech. Our culture demands that we offer him the freedom to be a dickhead.

You don't see anyone in Egypt wondering if maybe they should permit free speech because it offends us to see repression. Or it offends us if women don't have the same rights as men.

Yes, the reality of the situation is that the governments of many countries, in the name of sharia, encourage violence in response to any perceived insult. And there's always perceived insult somewhere. I think that's entirely on them. Just as it would be on us if a group of Americans pillaged the embassy of a Middle Eastern country because we were offended by their repression of women.

Nicely said

SI

[Rizon]

Pakistan protester dies from smoke of burning American flag at anti-film rally - NYPOST.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nick Jr. Suspends Production On 'The Almighty Muhammad's Porkalicious Toon Jihad' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Autumn]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88L02A20120922

This is not exactly what we were expecting, I don't think. I don't know enough to know how to truly interpret this, but it sounds like the larger group of Libyans are trying to steer things bad to a semblance of sanity and order.

[Autumn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/wo...=tha2_20120926

From Obama's Speech to the UN:

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. ... But understand, the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded -- the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.

If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy, or to put out statements of regret and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about these ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of the crisis -- because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart and the hopes that we hold in common.

Today, we must reaffirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens -- and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

It seems like Obama did a pretty good job of not brushing free speech under the rug here.

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

In this modern world with modern technologies, for us to respond in that way to hateful speech empowers any individual who engages in such speech to create chaos around the world. We empower the worst of us if that’s how we respond.

And etc, etc.

[CraigSca]

So wait - word comes out today that the attacks on the Libyan consulate had nothing to do with the film. What the heck?!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

So wait - word comes out today that the attacks on the Libyan consulate had nothing to do with the film. What the heck?!

That was reported at the time - that this was a very different, orchestrated, targeted attack, possibly as revenge for several different events. Whether it was conicidence that it occurred at the same time as the protests or if the protests were set up as cover for it was the big unknown.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Russia is now admitting that the Syrian government will likely fall.........

Russia acknowledges Assad losing control - Yahoo! News

[stevew]

RIP to all my favorite dictators of my youth.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Nerve gas used to kill rebels. Obama now has to act on his 'red line' comments.

Israel says Syria used chemical arms, probably nerve gas - Yahoo! News

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Nerve gas used to kill rebels. Obama now has to act on his 'red line' comments.

Israel says Syria used chemical arms, probably nerve gas - Yahoo! News

I think as it turns out, the beauty of the "threat" is that while the language was definitive, the actions that would require it to be followed through can never be definitively established. It's a war zone that's not widely covered by the media, if the best evidence we're going to get is Israeli analysis of photos, then the chemical weapons are fair game

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Nerve gas used to kill rebels. Obama now has to act on his 'red line' comments.

Israel says Syria used chemical arms, probably nerve gas - Yahoo! News

I am surprised this isn't getting more play in the press (I haven't checked in the last hour or so). I know that the Boston Bombing guys are still the top story, but this is serious, serious shit. If true - and the Israelis don't typically make mistakes on stuff like this - then Obama is going to be forced to act simply because using WMDs against a civilian population simply can't be tolerated.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

If true - and the Israelis don't typically make mistakes on stuff like this - then Obama is going to be forced to act simply because using WMDs against a civilian population simply can't be tolerated.

Rhetorical question I suppose but ... does anyone really believe that the U.S. government - regardless of which party is in power - doesn't have that capability (and the willingness to use it, or at least try to) in the event of a large scale civil uprising?

Seems awfully naive to think so IMO.

[Autumn]

I'm sure we have the capability, but do I think any serious amount of time is spent in our military planning for large scale civil uprisings? No.

Regardless, we've made it clear in the past that using chemical weapons in general, and on civilians in particular, is the way you get us involved. Israel obviously knows that, and it will be interesting to see if their intelligence can be trusted.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'm sure we have the capability, but do I think any serious amount of time is spent in our military planning for large scale civil uprisings? No.

Regardless, we've made it clear in the past that using chemical weapons in general, and on civilians in particular, is the way you get us involved. Israel obviously knows that, and it will be interesting to see if their intelligence can be trusted.

Agree with all. I think the govt's time is finite and most of that time is used preparing for higher percentage threats. Now, there might be some weird dude in a back room with a red stapler that is working out contingency plans against an American civil uprising, but people probably just point and laugh at that dude.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Now, there might be some weird dude in a back room with a red stapler that is working out contingency plans against an American civil uprising, but people probably just point and laugh at that dude.

There is pretty much a contingency for every imaginable scenario, updated on a pretty regular basis. (I happen to know someone who basically has that as their job, albeit in a different theater of operations)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There is pretty much a contingency for every imaginable scenario, updated on a pretty regular basis. (I happen to know someone who basically has that as their job, albeit in a different theater of operations)

Transocean blowout prevention plan designer?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More problems expanding to African areas......

Nigeria president declares state of emergency - Yahoo! News

[JonInMiddleGA]

BBC reports "militants and presidential bodyguards" exchanging gunfire outside the Presidential palace in Kabul

[sterlingice]

Not being reported anywhere else yet but I trust BBC more than anywhere else I looked (CNN, MSNBC, Fox) except NPR and their website is typically slow to get news

SI