[UPDATED] Egyptians Storm U.S. Embassy Over Sacrilegious Film, U.S. Embassy Condemns the Filmmakers

Egyptian protesters scaled the wall of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo today, tore down the American flag, and replaced it with "a black standard with Islamic emblems." The protesters did this because somewhere in the world, a film is being made that damages the reputation of the Prophet Mohammad. The BBC reports that "the film which sparked the protest is said to have been produced by U.S. pastor Terry Jones and co-produced by some Egyptian Copt expatriates."

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, a true bastion of American values, was quick to lay blame on those responsible for this awful act of violence Terry Jones: 

The U.S. Embassy said in a statement Tuesday that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

"Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Last year, Michael Moynihan came to Jones' defense when the Florida pastor was criticized by his own government for exercising his First Amendment rights:

It would be nice if Petraeus and Sedwill would spare a word for the immutability of freedom of speech, no matter how lunkheaded or convoluted the “message” from Jones, but their reactions—merely attempts to calm the crowds—are both understandable and necessary. When a press-hungry lunatic, whose appetite for television time is consistently satiated by self-righteous members of the media, is providing violent lunatics with a pretext to behead civilians, it is hardly unreasonable to point it out that his “political statement” is “disrespectful.” But in a media culture that demands apportionment of blame, so mindlessly displayed after the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, it’s rather important to confront those who hold the non-violent fundamentalist responsible for the actions of the violent ones.  

UPDATE: TPM reports that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo released its statement before the attacks began: 

Earlier today, officials at the U.S. Embassy in Egypt issued a statement that “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” The embassy said the statement was drafted and released before the protests. But the succession of events drew widespread criticism in the United States after violence broke out for appearing weak in the face of threats.

The embassy later said on its Twitter account that it “still stands” by its condemnation but decried the breach of its compound. But a senior White House official insisted to Politico that the initial statement was never cleared by Washington and disavowed its content. The embassy’s account deleted its post-attack tweet standing by its words late Tuesday night as well as earlier tweets quoting the original statement.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But I thought it was a myth that they hated us for our freedoms?

  • ||

    You can't read, can you? The post clearly states they rioted over "a film.... that damages the reputation of the Prophet Mohammad".

    A movie /=/ freedom of speech. It's an ACT of speech. They don't care that we have "freedoms", they only care about specific utterances they dislike. They couldn't give a shit how much freedom we have over here, they just don't like it when people say stuff that offends them. It's like claiming that I "hate you for your freedoms" because I criticize you for saying dumbass shit.

  • Randian||

    Yes, it's akin (ha!) to saying that those who avalanched on Rep. Akin, for example, hate him for his freedom of speech.

    They hated him for his actual speech, not because he was free to say it.

  • John||

    Except that they didn't criticize the speech, they committed acts of violence and violation of national sovereignty. This is a akin to throwing a rock through Akin's window.

    The point of it is to intimidate the person and anyone else from speaking.

  • Randian||

    No, John, I know the reactions are different.

    But saying "they hate us for our freedoms" is fundamentally silly.

  • John||

    They very much do. Our culture is an enormous threat to them. Most people will choose to live the western life if they have a choice. Our culture invades their culture and provides people an alternative to the religious life they expect them to lead. That creates a tremendous amount of hate.

  • ||

    They very much do. Our culture is an enormous threat to them. Most people will choose to live the western life if they have a choice. Our culture invades their culture and provides people an alternative to the religious life they expect them to lead. That creates a tremendous amount of hate.

    It would be much more accurate to say they hate us for our culture. While freedom of speech certainly enters into the sort of culture that would make this video, it's still not the same thing. I think they care more about the ACTUAL invasions and meddling than they do about "cultural invasion". They'll certainly crack down on it, and anyone that tries to enjoy it, but they wouldn't care about us as much if we hadn't been messing with Muslim countries in the Middle-East for so long.

    That alternative to their culture? It was there before we started messing with them, but it wasn't until we kept shoving ourselves into their business that they really took notice of it. Our culture is just used as the reason why we're over there and messing with their shit. They think it's what makes us the sort of country who'll keep poking at them.

    There's quite a bit of difference in being aware of something, and having it shoved in your face. We've been shoving it in their faces for years and years. THAT'S why they hate us. Things like this video are just sparks on the hay we've been throwing over there. Like all the other outcries, it will die down.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So when Thai Buddhist monks' heads are chopped off in Pattani, that's because of Thailand's history of "meddling" in the Islamic world?

  • BarryD||

    Yes!

    Have you not heard of the Thai Crusades?

    No?

    Oh... Neither have I...

  • Virginian||

    I really hate how some people have to twist the facts around on this issue. The world is a complex and multilayered thing. "They hate us for our freedoms" is a hell of a lot more accurate then a lot of people like to admit. That's even more of a reason to stay the hell out of Third World shitholes. Anyone who hates us because we have slutty girls and bacon is so far beyond reason he can't see the orange.

    I miss the Old Right non-interventionism:

    "Yes, there is a crazy man in Bumfuckistan butchering his people and mandating leisure suits. No we're not going to do anything about it. Why not? Because Bumfuckistan isn't worth the life of one American soldier, that's why. If you feel so strongly, I put the Popular Front for the Liberation of Bumfuckistan's contact info on the State Department website. Feel free to join up."

  • ||

    "They hate us for our freedoms" is a hell of a lot more accurate then a lot of people like to admit.

    Perhaps so. On recent reflection it makes more sense then I've admitted previously. But saying "They hate us for our freedoms" is quite a bit more vague than "they hate us because we're free to mock them". I don't hear about them hating us over our lack of a dictatorial regime (despite the recent moves in that direction, we're not there). They don't seem to hate us for our freedom to bear firearms and other weapons. I don't hear that they hate us for our right to a fair trial. No, it's the freedom to say shit they don't like that they hate us for, and it doesn't even occur to them to hate us for it until they hear about a book or movie that does so. And even that only spawns short-lived protests, which in part occur because segments of our population have trained them to believe that's the appropriate response.

  • ||

    Another reason why "They hate us for our freedoms" is stupid, is that when people say it, most of the time they don't MEAN "they hate us for our freedoms". What they actually mean is, "They ATTACKED us because of our freedoms". That's why the phrase gets such backlash, especially around here. Because most of us are well aware it wasn't the mere existence of our freedoms that inspired 19 men to fly planes into buildings. It's the fact that we've been meddling with their countries, with and without military force, for years.

    I'm sure there's stuff about eastern culture they hate too (those poor, innocent stone Buddhas). But they haven't declared war against countries like China and Japan because 1) they're not right next door, and 2) they're not screwing with Middle-Eastern countries. The closest to meddling that can be claimed is Chinese investment in certain countries, which are mostly in Africa to my knowledge. And those are all based on trade, not war or backing specific regimes. That's the difference between our interaction with the Middle East, and the interaction of eastern countries, with the exception of Russia, with the Middle East.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But they haven't declared war against countries like China and Japan because

    You probably don't even know about the Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand, much less that it's the second bloodiest insurgency outside of Afghanistan.

    Dumbass.

  • ||

    You probably don't even know about the Islamic insurgency in southern Thailand, much less that it's the second bloodiest insurgency outside of Afghanistan.

    You mean the SEPARATIST movement? The one that wants to be it's own country? That can hardly be considered the same as Al-Qaeda's declaration of war against "the west". It's more akin to the IRA or Basque nationalist movement than to Al-Qaeda.

    Next thing I know you'll be claiming THEY'RE part of the international terrorist movement as well. You can consider all or parts of these movements as using terrorism (because they have or do), but I wouldn't consider them to be part of the international terror movement. They just want to be their own countries.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Please, I understand the 30 minutes it to you to reply was due to the fact that you had to look up Pattani on Wikipedia. But that doesn't make you a newly minted expert on the conflict.

    Do yourself a favor; stop talking about shit you don't know about. I lived there for four years. The Pattani separatist movement is supported by Jemaah Islamiyah (and certain elements of the Malaysian government), while the PULO might have merely wanted independence in the 70's or 80's, they, like how the Palestinians have switched from the nationalist PLO to the more Islamist Hamas, are looking to establish a beachhead for the Caliphate.

    Not that you would know any of that because you can't read that the Pattani militants post on the Internet in Jawi, or even Thai translation of Jawi.

    Furthermore, I brought up Thailand as a counterpoint to your assertion that Islamic terrorism is all about Western "meddling" in Middle-Eastern affairs. (And JOOOOZ!) That's bullshit. You're embarrassing yourself with this Edward Said Western Guilt schtick.

  • ||

    Furthermore, I brought up Thailand as a counterpoint to your assertion that Islamic terrorism is all about Western "meddling" in Middle-Eastern affairs. (And JOOOOZ!) That's bullshit. You're embarrassing yourself with this Edward Said Western Guilt schtick.

    No, my point is that international terrorist movements that hate us are because of our meddling. I don't claim that every terrorist action with Muslims is because of us.

  • ||

    Furthermore, I brought up Thailand as a counterpoint to your assertion that Islamic terrorism is all about Western "meddling" in Middle-Eastern affairs. (And JOOOOZ!) That's bullshit. You're embarrassing yourself with this Edward Said Western Guilt schtick.

    Let me be more specific. The only terrorist organization that has attacked U.S. soil is Al-Qaeda. I don't deny that the Middle East is a hornets nest, but most of those groups haven't come across the ocean to attack us. Al-Qaeda has, and I think that's largely, but not entirely, been because of our presence there. That doesn't mean that every Islamic terror movement is because of us. However, that also doesn't mean that our presence there is helping us at all. Bin-Laden was a worthy goal. He's dead. Let's keep on the lookout, but we should withdraw our troops from all these countries. It's no helping us.

  • Cytotoxic||

    China and Japan are not perceived to be cultural threats to Islamism. Neither is neo-imperial power France.

  • ||

    China and Japan are not perceived to be cultural threats to Islamism. Neither is neo-imperial power France.

    Hmmm, maybe because they're not sticking their fingers all over the Middle East? Just a thought....

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Hmmm, maybe because they're not sticking their fingers all over the Middle East? Just a thought....

    Which is why the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is an affiliate of al-Qaeda.

    Not that you would know where East Turkestan is and what that has to do with China.

  • ||

    Which is why the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is an affiliate of al-Qaeda.

    Not that you would know where East Turkestan is and what that has to do with China.

    Ok, I've strayed from the point I was trying to make. I got caught up in trying to explain all these things (which I obviously can't), but it's not because I think we caused them all, and I don't think they're all necessarily because of foreign involvement in these countries.

    I'll just quote myself for the rest:

    I don't deny that the Middle East is a hornets nest, but most of those groups haven't come across the ocean to attack us. Al-Qaeda has, and I think that's largely, but not entirely, been because of our presence there. That doesn't mean that every Islamic terror movement is because of us. However, that also doesn't mean that our presence there is helping us at all. Bin-Laden was a worthy goal. He's dead. Let's keep on the lookout, but we should withdraw our troops from all these countries. It's no[t] helping us.
  • David Emami||

    But they haven't declared war against countries like China and Japan because 1) they're not right next door, and 2) they're not screwing with Middle-Eastern countries.

    I think in Japan's case it's more a matter of "why bother?", but for China, the obvious reason is that, like the Russians during the Chechnya wars, they're not going to hinder themselves by worrying about innocent bystanders. If Al Qaeda had flown Air China planes into the Shanghai World Financial Center and the headquarters of the People's Liberation Army, anything within a hundred miles of any spot in Afghanistan where there was a rumor that someone thought they might have seen a person vaguely resembling a guy whose name sounded sort of like "Bin Laden" would have been bombed flat, and possibly glowing in the dark.

    Not saying that Al Qaeda would have cared about the innocent bystanders, but that they would have considered their odds of surviving retaliation to be much lower.

  • David Emami||

    That first paragraph in my 9.11.12@11:55pm post supposed to be a quote from one of darius' posts. I guess quote tags don't work here.

  • Calidissident||

    Of course Muslims don't commit terrorism in dictatorial states like Russia or China. Oh wait, they do? I guess that has nothing to do with the Russians occupying Chechnya or China oppressing the Uyghurs.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Um, so what? The USSR had an antagonistic relationship with plenty of dictatorships. Hell, they codified free speech in their constitution. That's more than most Muslim states have.

    Guess the USSR's antagonism towards freedom of speech was really our fault, huh?

  • Calidissident||

    Was this in reply to me Trouser? What kind of analogy was that? All I was saying is that if they hate us for our freedoms, why do they do the same thing to other countries that aren't free?

  • Cytotoxic||

    The whole intellectual base of Jihadism from Qutb in the '50s to today is based on CULTURAL concerns. They perceive America as a massive cultural threat to their vision of Islamic society. That is what this is about. That is why they attack Danish cartoonists kill Jews and don't give a fuck about France's ownership of north Africa.

  • ||

    Look up, retard.

  • Calidissident||

    Cyto, anyone who tries to ascribe Islamic terroism and broader modern Islamism to one cause, whether it's Islam itself, blowback, or whatever, it being totally simplistic. For example, let's say your right and that the leaders of this movement, and the intellectual backbone, is based purely off of opposition to Western culture. In what way does that preclude the possibility of using Western intervention as a recruiting tool to bring new members into their ranks?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Now that's beginning to have a point. It's true: we can BOTH be right. However, what I've noticed is that the jihadist movement relies on state sponsors for resources, and it is our unwillingness to terminate those state sponsors (Iran) that empowers our enemies. There really wasn't so much a terror problem prior to the Islamic Revolution.

    We can't base our FP on the hypothetical feelings of millions of people we don't understand. Just have to work with what we got.

    Hopefully Russia invades Syria with Hizbollah and Salafists come to party with them and all these assholes kill each other.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So your argument is that the issue is so complex that the only rational response is to go in and smash up countries we don't like and kill a bunch of innocent people in the process. What happens after we "terminate" the Islamic Republic, Cyto? Have you thought that far ahead? It's kind of an important consideration for those of us who appreciate that the world isn't a video game.

  • ||

    it is our unwillingness to terminate those state sponsors (Iran) that empowers our enemies.

    We don't have much of a terror problem NOW. Since 9/11, there have been no incidents on U.S. soil, and Al-Qaeda has been slowly dying with a whimper. Bin-Laden's dead, and I don't see them recovering enough from that to actually attack the United States. The only way they can hurt us is by hurting the soldiers we have overseas.

  • ||

    There really wasn't so much a terror problem prior to the Islamic Revolution.

    There's a reason for that. they didn't have any motivation to attack us before.

    The Islamic Revolution is actually a great example of how our being over there has made us enemies. Before the Islamic Revolution, countries like Britain and the U.S. weren't regarded very highly by the Iranian government, but they didn't hate us to death as they do now.

    How did the Islamist groups over there get the support necessary to overthrow the Shah (the ruler at the time)? Basically, the Shah had been trying to radically reform Iran. He wanted to modernize socially and educationally. However, he was also keen on throwing political dissidents into jail. In addition, he outright banned anything he thought didn't fit into the western mold. This included a lot of social/religious customs that, while not exactly models of a modern society, weren't outright threats. Reform takes time, and just trying to impose your will on the people earns a LOT of resentment. Add to that the consequences of a very controlling government (massive unemployment, massive shortages of basic goods, corruption, political favors to connected groups), and the Shah got a ton of enemies. That's why they overthew the Shaw.

  • ||

    But that wasn't the FIRST time they threw him out. They did it 12 years before, for many of the same reasons. When they threw him out the first time, they held elections (yeah, ACTUAL elections). A man named Mohammed Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister. He was pretty well liked. However, he pissed off foreign interests, especially Britain and the U.S., by nationalizing the oil industry. There was a lot of pressure on Iran, and British AIOC (an oil company) orchestrated boycott against buying oil from Iran. That worked pretty well, and when the U.S initiated Operation Ajax to support a coup against Mossadegh, they were able to bribe enough officials and thugs to help them do it. Mossadegh was put in prison, several figures who had been pro-Nazi during WW2 were put in various positions, and the Shah was restored to power.

    THAT'S why they began to hate us. We put back in power the very same person they had ousted 12 years before for being so horrible and oppressive. If it wasn't for our actions, the Iranian government might have been dissolved/overthrown anyways, who knows, but it would have happened without the Iranian religious forces (rightfully) blaming us for it. This is why this stupid neo-con nation-building and regime-supporting is such a horrible idea. We get temporary advantages in exchange for long-lasting resentment.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Calidissident hits it on the head. The problem with the "they hate us for our freedoms" line is that it's not clear who "they" refers to.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think they care more about the ACTUAL invasions and meddling than they do about "cultural invasion".

    Funny how they always riot over some cultural bullshit instead of actual invasions.

    That alternative to their culture? It was there before we started messing with them, but it wasn't until we kept shoving ourselves into their business that they really took notice of it.

    Shorter libertard - Blame America!!

  • ||

    Funny how they always riot over some cultural bullshit instead of actual invasions.

    Which, as I mention above, dies down pretty quickly. Every time they do shit like this, they're rewarded with media attention and apologies. It keeps them going.

    Shorter libertard - Blame America!!

    Longer Zaytsev: "Believing in consequences mean you hate America!"

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Longer Zaytsev: "Believing in consequences mean you hate America!"

    If you think that rioting and murder are justifiable consequences to a cartoon or a documentary movie you may be anti-American.

    Just saying.

  • ||

    If you think that rioting and murder are justifiable consequences to a cartoon or a documentary movie you may be anti-American.

    Where did I EVER say "justified"? Where did I ever IMPLY it? Don't you try this ad-hominem shit with me, you liar. You trot it out every time someone even implies that there are consequences to what we do, and it's always bullshit.

    Repeat after me: Believing that there are consequences to our actions does not mean responses to those actions are "justified".

    You need to actually address people's arguments instead of just making shit up.

  • Calidissident||

    Why is it that on domestic issues, if you criticize government actions, no one (with the possible exception of idiotic progressive journalists) accuses you of hating America, but if you criticize foreign policy, you're blaming America and hate the country. Confusing government with society doesn't make any more sense in foreign policy than it does in domestic policy

  • Cytotoxic||

    I love reading these kind of comments from Randjob and Darius. Such desperate hairsplitting is reassuring me that I'm right.

  • ||

    Geeze this thread is a mess. That's mostly my fault, I suppose. My posts and replies weren't really in chronological order (relative to already-posted comments).

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But saying "they hate us for our freedoms" is fundamentally silly.

    Of course it is.

    They totally respect our freedom to do exactly what they want.

    It's only when we don't exercise our freedom in that appropriate way that our actions force them into murderous rampages, so that they can correct are offensive behavior.

  • ||

    They totally respect our freedom to do exactly what they want.

    It's only when we don't exercise our freedom in that appropriate way that our actions force them into murderous rampages, so that they can correct are offensive behavior.

    I already talked about this above:

    On recent reflection it makes more sense then I've admitted previously. But saying "They hate us for our freedoms" is quite a bit more vague than "they hate us because we're free to mock them". I don't hear about them hating us over our lack of a dictatorial regime (despite the recent moves in that direction, we're not there). They don't seem to hate us for our freedom to bear firearms and other weapons. I don't hear that they hate us for our right to a fair trial. No, it's the freedom to say shit they don't like that they hate us for, and it doesn't even occur to them to hate us for it until they hear about a book or movie that does so. And even that only spawns short-lived protests, which in part occur because segments of our population have trained them to believe that's the appropriate response.
  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Very few people hate freedom of speech in the abstract -- look at all those folks right and left who start their anti-speech diatribes by saying how much they love free speech.

    It is nonetheless implicit in violent responses to speech, that those engaging in violence don't accept a right to free speech and that appeasing them requires a curtailment of that right.

  • David Emami||

    They hate him for his actual speech, and us for not stopping him. So no, they don't read the First Amendment and say "Freedom of speech? Kill the infidels!" As is often said, no one is offended by freedom of speech when they agree with what's being said. But they hate the fact that freedom of speech applies to things that offend them. You can see this pretty clearly in all of the "respect for religion" proposals from various Muslim governments or other organizations. You could also see it during the Jyllands-Posten cartoon flareup, when ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries tried to pressure the Danish government to stifle the cartoonist' free speech. Islamic terrorists merely use violence instead of diplomatic pressure or issuing press releases.

  • Zeb||

    Since they are attacking the US government, it would seem that they expect the government to do something about it. Which seems to indicate a hostility toward freedom of speech.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    They couldn't give a shit how much freedom we have over here

    Bullshit. Read V.S. Naipaul's Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey and Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions among the Converted Peoples and get back to me on that.

    I'm especially thinking of the allegory of the tied-up goat that one rural Malaysian related to Naipaul.

  • Brutus||

    I've read "Beyond Belief" and it really hit home with me how utterly totalitarian Islam is.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I've always enjoyed how Naipaul made Edward Said cry.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Christendom wasn't a libertarian paradise 400 years ago either.

  • Brutus||

    Pointless.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yes, except that there are inherent differences that make Islam far more totalitarian.

    Christians believe in Christ and in the Bible, which was written by dozens of people "inspired" by God, in different languages and cultures and over hundreds of years. Almost no one reads it in the original languages. All that leaves lots of room for interpretation.

    Muslims, on the other hand, have the Koran, which was *dictated* to Mohammed, in the language God speaks, and is said to be perfect. Not a lot of room for interpretation there....

  • ||

    Except that a lot of people think the Bible is the perfect word of God, too. Doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation there.... but somehow people manage.

    You're right about the New Testament though. There's no "love and peace" version of the Koran.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    There's the Meccan Verses, I am given to understand. They are more ecumenical in tone than the infidel-smiting verses he wrote, ah, received in Medina.

  • PapayaSF||

    The fact that some people believe the Bible is the "perfect word of God" doesn't change my point. Unless they are total boobs they know it's a translation of different things written by many people. No Christian cleric would claim otherwise.

    Contrast that with the Koran, which is, according to official Muslim dogma, a perfect copy of the one Allah has in heaven. Every Muslim has to believe that, and if they don't, they aren't considered Muslim by the vast majority of other Muslims.

    Thus, Islam almost entirely "fundamentalist" by the standards used to judge Christians. Your average Southern Baptist preacher is a squishy Unitarian compared to pretty much any Muslim cleric.

  • ||

    Unless they are total boobs they know it's a translation of different things written by many people. No Christian cleric would claim otherwise.

    Many, MANY people are "total boobs" when it comes to the history of the Bible. And who exactly counts as a "Christian cleric"? Pastors? Priests? Priests would (I hope) know better, at least in respect to the New Testament, but I think many religious leaders in the United States truly believe everything in the Bible is straight from the Almighty himself.

    Thus, Islam almost entirely "fundamentalist" by the standards used to judge Christians. Your average Southern Baptist preacher is a squishy Unitarian compared to pretty much any Muslim cleric.


    You're right about this, but I think that's because of cultural influences on Christian thinking. Even the most vile "Christians" in America, the Phelps, don't tell people to actually go around assaulting gays or atheists.

    But again, that's because cultural influences have taught us that our lack of physical violence makes us "better". People like the Phelps would just say that it's what sets apart "real" Christians from everyone else, though I doubt that would hold if people like that were REALLY in charge. They claim that God is punishing the bad guys FOR them.
  • John||

    They do actually care because most people will, given the opportunity choose our life over a strict religious life. That is a real problem for a religious fanatic.

  • Lyle||

    They don't like our freedoms then. Ha ha.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, Cytotoxic is right. They see the U.S. government as a legitimate target because they believe it should intervene to punish those who insult their prophet and it does not do so. It is freedom of speech (so long as they disagree with it) that they hate, as much as the blasphemy itself.

    Prolifers don't just hate abortion, they hate that the law does not punish what they regard as murder. People will do bad things no matter what, but when it is allowed, the law is somewhat complicit. Same thing with Mohammetards and blasphemy.

  • ||

    They see the U.S. government as a legitimate target because they believe it should intervene to punish those who insult their prophet and it does not do so.

    I disagree. I think it's more that they don't see any DIFFERENCE between the government and the populace. To them we're one monolithic, single-minded entity known as "America".

    Prolifers don't just hate abortion, they hate that the law does not punish what they regard as murder.

    Yes, because they see "the law" as being dominated, or threatened with being overrun, by the very people in favor of abortions. I don't think these people overseas are thinking it through that much.

  • ||

    hurt the religious feelings of Muslims

    You have got to be fucking kidding me.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Remember, the State Department saw it fit to compose that cringingly obsequious statement on 9-fuckin-11.

  • Spoonman.||

    And these are the dipshits in charge of our diplomacy.

  • Brutus||

    Jesus, I just read what the Embassy in Cairo put out in a press release. What a complete embarrassment.

  • ||

    Yeah, that was cringe-worthy. Fucking pathetic.

  • R C Dean||

    Utterly shameful.

    But, I've got $20 that says Romney is too ham-handed to make hay out of this. It should be dead easy:

    "Egyptians stormed the US embassy in Cairo and burned the American flag. President Reset Button responded joining the Egyptians in attacking an American who exercised his First Amendment rights to criticize Islam. If you want more of this, vote for him. If you want a President who will stand up for our rights as a nation and oppose foreign radicals who attack our embassies and our fundamental rights, vote for me."

  • John||

    The Marines should have mowed them down. And then Obama should have told the Egyptian government unless they would like some cruise missiles with their names and addresses on it, they had better start controlling their mobs.

  • Randian||

    I am not usually a warmonger type, but the Embassy is United States territory, and firing on the mob would have been justified self-defense.

  • John||

    It is not being a war monger, it is being quite the opposite. Acting forcefully in the beginning tends to stop further violence. Not doing so tends to encourage it.

  • Randian||

    I guess I should have said I am not usually an advocate for violence, but I agree: you have to nip this in the bud or your Embassy is toast.

  • John||

    And then you run the risk of ending up in a full on war with Egypt, which I would prefer to avoid.

  • BarryD||

    Aw, what the hell. Our calendars weren't too full this week anyway.

    Seriously, though, Tehran was a lot more costly than anyone thought in 1979, and we owed better to our diplomatic corps.

  • BarryD||

    (Although "No Blood for Sand!" has a nice ring to it...)

  • Spoonman.||

    So then we and Israel block off the Suez Canal for a few months and it's over. That was easy. It's not like Israel and Yemen, the two countries at either end of the Suez Canal's feeders, aren't our puppet states.

  • BarryD||

    Yemen? Well, they do know what our drones are capable of, anyway.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But if he did that how could we pay Egypt 2 billion dollars in jizya money?

  • BarryD||

    "2 billion dollars in jizya"

    That did not evoke a pretty image, I tell you what.

  • BarryD||

    Note that they didn't just burn the American flag. They hoisted the Al Qaeda flag, after storming American soil (which is what any embassy is considered under international law).

    This is a clear situation where they are declaring themselves to be enemies of the United States. This is a deliberate act of war, not just an out-of-control protest.

    Time to open fire. Seriously. Pacifism just begets more aggression. See Tehran 1979 -- and 9/11, which Osama Bin Laden said he thought up as a result of the US' pathetic response.

    Shoot now, or die later.

  • Randian||

    It doesn't have to be war.

    We can just fold up the embassy and leave. If Eqypt (reason spelling) doesn't want the United States there, then I don't want them for an ally either.

  • BarryD||

    The embassy is a Bedouin tent? I did not know that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Marines should've mowed them down and then evacuated.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If Eqypt (reason spelling) doesn't want the United States there, then I don't want them for an ally either.

    Yes, we should definitely let psychopaths, that represent no one but themselves, dictate the policies of the federal government.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wonder just what they were doing? Can't believe that an embassy somewhere like that isn't ready for such attacks.

    Personally, if I were president, they'd have some serious nonlethal weapons, backed up by the usual lethal ones.

  • BarryD||

    If you were President, though, we probably wouldn't be guaranteeing loans to Solyndra and the like, either.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, yes, things would be a lot different.

  • wingnutx||

    Great, you just gave the vice presidency to Obama.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, that was a Navy guy. Not to mention, I don't have the head.

  • Randian||

    Probably institutional inertia. During the Mubarak years, being in the Eqyptian embassy was probably a relatively decent gig. And we didn't shore up our defenses because we didn't want to admit to ourselves that the Arabspringa wasn't so "springa" after all.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's possible, though that whole Iran Hostage Crisis® would seem to preclude such a foolish position. By a sane government, anyway.

  • Randian||

    That was like, 30 years ago 'n stuff.

    ARAB SPRING...DEMOCRACY!

    *hand waves*

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I'm not an advocate for violence, either. But this has crossed the line. The embassy is sovereign US soil. I have no qualms with the US defending itself against violent intruders. The Marines should have started blasting anyone of these violent psychos who gained entry to the embassy grounds.

  • ||

    Isn't it the Marines' sworn duty to get the flag if the embassy is overrun? I'm not an advocate for sacrificing people for pieces of cloth, but Marines tend to take shit like that pretty seriously.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Gotta think they were either in a tactically absurd situation, or they were ordered to stand down.

    I'm very unimpressed--again--with this administration's foreign policy. Obama and Clinton need to go down the memory hole as soon as possible. What a joke.

  • Calidissident||

    Why is Bush not also on that list?

  • Pro Libertate||

    My list? I was talking about current occupants of the presidency and the Secretary of Statesy. Unless you know something I don't about Bush.

  • Calidissident||

    My bad, I thought you meant Bill Clinton, and were trying to connect Obama to him. Almost forgot his wife is SoS. Haha

  • Xenocles||

    We don't really treat the flag like that anymore. It's something to protect from capture if feasible, but I don't think you're going to see people going on suicide missions to save one.

    Contrast that to the Civil War era, where the most common Medal of Honor citation was literally for capturing an enemy flag - and the awardees probably exhibited the requisite valor in the process.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yes, CTF was fine for the old days, but going on raids is the new paradigm for Call of Valor: Battlefighter. Of course, it seems like some of the president's guildmates were pissed that he ninja'd their drops from OBL, so maybe it won't last.

  • Spoonman.||

    Agreed. None of that rubber bullet shit either.

  • BarryD||

    I don't know. If we did want to prove something, we mark a few with paintballs, point M4s at them and tell them the next ones are lead. Maybe they'd run and we could avoid starting a full-on war, without looking like impotent appeasers. And if not, well, then the lead.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Some reports say warning shot were fired. The State Department denies it, though.

  • Spoonman.||

    I don't know. I'm very much against any sort of foreign intervention or nation-building, but as the counterpart of that I want America to take absolutely no shit when it comes to its own territory.

    If that's not our policy, what good is being fuckin' America and shit?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, I have to agree. Even if we didn't open fire to avoid bloodshed, at least a flat-out condemnation/threat is in order. Of the people attacking our embassy, not of filmmakers or anyone else who didn't fucking attack our embassy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Or replace our flag with a picture Mohammed getting penetrated by a camel.

  • Entropy Void||

    Nah.
    It would be better to have Mohammad penetrating the camel.
    A BABY camel.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why not a picture of Mohammed penetrating a child?

    Or are you looking for satire instead of a biographical piece?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    9/11, which Osama Bin Laden said he thought up as a result of the US' pathetic response.

    And whatever OBL says must be the truth, right? Just look at that face. He doesn't have a deceptive bone in his body.

    Al Qaeda profited mightily from our ridiculous overreaction to 9/11, and we self-inflicted greater harm than AQ could have directly done in 100 years of attacks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No way they planned that. I've never bought into the SUPER CRIMINAL MASTERMIND theory of al Qaeda. They were probably as shocked as most by the harshness and rapidity of our response.

    No, they thought we'd take some token action then pull back, licking our wounds. Obviously.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm not so sure about that. Had Flight 93 not rebelled, they would have just destroyed the Capitol as well as the WTC and damaging the Pentagon. If they expected a pinprick response they were pretty foolish. And my impression of the top men at AQ is that they're not stupid at all. (the guys they get to blow themselves up are another story)

  • Cytotoxic||

    Uh wrong. OBL himself apologized to the Taliban hosts during the Afghan invasion. He was shocked by our response and so he should be after so many years of limp-wristed BS. There was no 'over-reaction' in our response you dipshit killing the bad guys is what any respectable nation does.

    Oh and it's hilarious to hear about scepticism of what OBL says from somebody who quotes OBL's stated motivations regarding the Gulf War with no reservation.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    We killed far more innocent people than bad guys, and inspired quite a few new bad guys to come at us in the process. I certainly don't advocate a limp-wristed response, but the unfortunate reality is that we'd be WAAAAAAAY better off just ignoring 9/11 and pretending it never happened than doing what we did. If we were limited to only those two choices. There's a happy medium between them but it's far closer to the do-nothing response.

    Oh and it's hilarious to hear about scepticism of what OBL says from somebody who quotes OBL's stated motivations regarding the Gulf War with no reservation.

    Point to where I've done that?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    We would have been within our rights to do this, of course, but unless they posed some imminent threat it would be unwise.

  • widget||

    "...condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

    That's what I would say just before making my way to the nearest international airport.

  • BarryD||

    Last I checked, American liberals were all about offending believers of any religion other than Islam, Christians in particular.

    Christians complained that NEA money (their tax dollars) was being used for patently offensive stuff that was hardly "art", but that's about as far as it went.

  • Gene||

    "was quick to lay the blame on Terry Jones" What Muslims don't like Monty Python? No fuckin sense of ha-ha I guess. Fuck them.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What? That's different. I was about to type something about abandoning the region altogether. But if Python is threatened--fuck it, war. WAR!

  • ||

    "In 1945, peace broke out."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Are you suggesting a revival of joke warfare?

  • ||

    Ja!

  • ||

    ProL, my dog has no nose.

  • Pro Libertate||

    How does it smell?

  • ||

    Terrible!

  • Randian||

    Like elderberries.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Awful!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and replaced it with "a black standard with Islamic emblems."

    We're gonna have to find a new embassy. Once you go black...

  • BarryD||

    Al Qaeda flag...

    What weasel words!

    "The men were probably tourists. They boarded our ship, drank some rum, and ran up a black flag with some sort of symbols on it, bones and such."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, it's actually more accurate, as the "black battle flag" used by Al Qaeda, and other Islamist groups has been a symbol of jihad since the time of Muhammad.

  • BarryD||

    Yeah, and the Nazis ruined the swastika for everyone else, too.

    Or maybe these guys have bumper stickers with the flag, that say, "Heritage, not hate!"

  • BarryD||

    I guess my point is that, of a group of white kids climbs over the wall of a predominantly-black church in Mississippi, light the cross on fire and raises the Confederate Battle Flag, you don't just report that they were some local kids having a good time, waving some colorful red, white and blue flag with stars on it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I agree whole-heartedly. Especially when said flag has a historically, well-known name (rayat al-sawda')

  • Xenocles||

    That is an excellent point.

  • OldMexican||

    "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."


    Irony, thy name is Government.

  • John||

    Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,

    Provided those religious beliefs don't keep Sandra Fluke from getting free birth control.

  • BarryD||

    Hey! We can send Fluke to Egypt as a special envoy, to fix this. After all, she has a law degree from Georgetown. She should be a good negotiator, right?

    Can we have a show of hands?

  • widget||

    Fluke wants to compel the Catholic church to pay for her birth control medicine. That's flat-out wrong, but I don't much mind the government taxing me to pay for it. It's a bargain at $15/month to keep her from breeding.

  • Randian||

    Are you kidding? Let her have kids and inflict them on Georgetown culture. They deserve it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And just who in the Hell would impregnate that?

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're not familiar with tequila, I take it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The only effect alcohol has on me is to make me sleepy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You're not familiar with tequila, I take it.

  • Randian||

    If I somehow remained anonymous for purposes of child support...

  • ||

    This is one of the dumbest things I've read all day. Not only that but the government is helping promote this shit.

    Caution contains the phrase "fair trade certified stuffed animals."

  • ||

    Is this the right way to do it? I mean, will impoverished children across the world be better off if the demand for their products decreases? I’m sure that, like almost every question in this topic area, is the subject of much debate.

    Not really no.

  • Randian||

    I am really sorry that other nations have to evolve past child labor.

    That said, there is no other path. If we don't buy these things, these kids go back to the backbreaking labor of sustenance farming instead of the slightly-less-backbreaking and better-paying jobs of the factories.

    The alternative to children in factories, despite the Rainbow-and-Puppies types, is not "Montessori School and a Free Range Childhood"

  • BarryD||

    " If we don't buy these things, these kids go back to the backbreaking labor of sustenance farming instead of the slightly-less-backbreaking and better-paying jobs of the factories."

    Or they just die of starvation. When I was a kid, we all saved our pennies to send to the third world, where 5 cents a week could apparently save a child's life.

    The alternative for these kids sure as hell isn't their own big bedrooms in McMansions in the hills over San Diego.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Now, it’s easy to get hyperbolic about the idea of modern day slavery, and there’s a lot of hype about many of the terms surrounding global forced labor issues. (Our cover story zooms in on the way this sensationalism has impacted the fight against sex trafficking.) There are some experts who will quibble over what is “slavery” and what is a really horrible working situation.

    Yes, that's because words have meanings.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Clandestinely redefining words is page 1 in the leftist playbook.

  • OldMexican||

    And those averages, such as the 1.9 "slaves" connected with Baby M's diapers, are disturbing.


    Not as disturbing as what one finds inside those diapers after baby eats his beef and veggies Gerber.

  • BarryD||

    FUCK!

    I feel like Eric Cartman, now.

    MOM! Why can't I have 20 slaves? All the other kids do! MOM! Give me my slaves!

  • ||

    Poor people tend to live in clusters.

  • Rich||

    I went to the site to find out how many slaves I own. When the survey stated that my gender would not affect the result, I left.

  • Paul.||

    The U.S. Embassy said in a statement Tuesday that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

    Ok, fuck you, Obama administration. Show some fucking pride.

  • Randian||

    I second the call for 'some fucking pride'. This is your goddamn Embassy, for Christ's sake.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh don't worry. Obama will kow-tow 3 times at the feet of King Abdullah of the House of Saud, and all will be hunky-dory!

  • ||

    Gotta say, this is really really the wrong response, and I'm about as much of a pacifist as you'll find.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not saying we should've slaughtered everyone, but a little resistance and maybe a threat to leave and take our aid with us might be in order.

  • Paul.||

    I'm not a pacifist at all, but I'm very hesitant to say we should have been killing anyone. Meaning I can understand the fragile situation at an embassy in the middle east. But fer chrissakes, at minimum, some damned diplomatic resistance is certainly in order.

    A strongly worded letter or public statement would be a good start.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That, and putting strippers on the roof.

  • Rich||

    The U.S. Embassy said ... "we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions"

    ", except the Rastafari movement. Fuck them."

  • Randian||

    And peyote-dropping Native Americans.

  • ||

    "...yeah, and fuck Haile Selassie."

  • ||

    Why is it this Obama character is such a warmonger in Yemen and Uganda and Libya and Afghanistan and Pakistan, but when our country's soil is actually invaded, his people want to talk about "hurt feelings"? HURT FUCKING FEELINGS?

  • BarryD||

    And why isn't Romney using this line in a commercial?

  • BarryD||

    This is one of those days that I wish that Christopher Hitchens was still with us, writing and speaking. I wish that every day, but this really underscores the feeling, for me.

  • ||

    Agreed

  • Lyle||

    Amen.

  • Rich||

    The U.S. Embassy said ... "we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions"

    ", that is, the Unitarians."

  • BarryD||

    I just got that.

  • Randian||

    How much traction is this going to get, do you all think?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Where were the drones?

  • ||

    Almost none.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    MSM beancounters are probably trying to figure out whether it helps BO or not before running it.

  • Invisible Finger||

    US State Department:

    Intolerance BY Americans BAD!
    Intolerance OF Americans A-OKAY!

    The doublethink is mind-boggling.

  • Lyle||

    The Obama administration must be kicked out of office pronto. What was the ambassador to Egypt and our diplomats thinking?

  • Invisible Finger||

    It might take al Qaeda to do it.

  • BarryD||

    Looks like they may be working on it.

  • Rich||

    Among the protesters ... were ... members of a football supporters' club known as Ultras.

    The U.S. Embassy said ... "we condemn efforts to offend supporters of all football teams."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I feel better.

    If you check CNN's coverage, you can see a protester wearing a Guy Fawkes mask.

    They did it just for the lulz!

  • Pro Libertate||

    "It was unclear which film upset the protesters."

    Fucking Lucas and the prequels.

  • Rich||

    Probably the unnamed film to which the imams alluded.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Crap. Well, I guess we'll just have to surrender Lucas to them. I don't see what other choice we have. We're clearly in the wrong here.

  • ||

    It's the only rational choice.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's a damned shame, but Americans are all about sacrifice.

  • ||

    "Hey, buck up, little camper. We'll sacrifice George Lucas to a mob...together."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Good plan. We'll even toss in Roland Emmerich as a lagniappe.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Can we add Micheal Mann and Gus van Sant?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I think we can.

    Hell, we'll even throw in the annoying kid who played Anakin. Both of them.

  • ||

    Michael Mann? I thought "Miami Vice" (the Colin Farrell/Jamie Foxx movie) was very misunderstood.

    He also directed the excellent "Collateral" with Foxx and Tom Cruise.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    OK, I admit that I really like The Last of the Mohicans. But sacrifices must be made.

  • ||

    Dude, if you don't like Michael Mann, that's like standing on a box shouting "I HAVE NO TASTE".

    Heat, Thief, Manhunter, Last of the Mohicans?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I was checking to see who was paying attention.

  • BarryD||

    "Our friend was raped in Peru."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Interesting, as of 6:17 pm EST, no word about the Cairo indecent on the MSNBC news website.

  • ||

    It's top of the page at CNN.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    wingnut.com is having war orgasms.

  • Brutus||

    Good to see you so insouciant about the administration's sympathy for those perpetrating violence and invasion over blasphemy.

  • Spoonman.||

    Nothing on the front page. It is the pictured story under "World".

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Now it's listed in "other top stories" with the headline "US offices in Libya, Egypt attacked in protests over Prophet Muhammad video."

    US offices. Pathetic.

  • Lord at War||

    the Cairo indecent

    RC'z Law?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Damn that scoundrel RC!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Blahhhh....

    Let me know when they kill 4300 US soldiers like in Iraq.

    This is just more noise from a fucked up religion (Islam this time - I hate them all).

  • Brutus||

    Shreeeek phones in his perfunctory response. What, no denunciation of Obama's craven crawl before Islamic lunatics?

  • Gray Ghost||

    $1.5 billion a year just doesn't buy what it used to. "Welcome Back Carter," indeed.

    My understanding is that most U.S. embassies in the Third World, and Egypt counts, are basically 'zombie-proof', i.e., rock carrying protesters can't physically get into the thing. They can climb around the outside of it, which was how the flag was lost, I'm guessing.

    One of the more disturbing parts of the story was that the riot police basically put on their 'matador defense' and watched the whole thing happen. Maybe they were outnumbered and said, "Fuck this," I dunno. But in more traditional times, as many of you have noted, this was a gross breach of hospitality and an act of war.

    Obama won't do shit, of course. Or he'll use the carrier force entering the Gulf for a new batch of war games, to go whoop on Iran. Sort of the Jerry Tarkanian theory of irritated global powers.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You wingnuts need to decide.

    Is Obama a warmonger for Libya and drone attacks on Al Qaeda ---- or is he a pussy for not killing Muslim idiots who burn US flags?

  • Xenocles||

    My FIFY was flagged as spam, so I'll just say that there's an obvious difference between burning a US flag and violating a US embassy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    False dichotomy FTL

  • Bam!||

    Both. Depends on when his last cigarette was.

  • Paul.||

    Is Obama a warmonger for Libya and drone attacks on Al Qaeda ---- or is he a pussy for not killing Muslim idiots who burn US flags?

    We certainly know what to blame the storming of the embassy on now.

    Guess that "new tone" the Obama administration brought in is workin' like a haint.

  • Brutus||

    His response to both seems to be consistent if you look at it properly. I'll let you work it out, Shreeek.

  • Gray Ghost||

    "The NCAA was so angry at Kentucky, they put Cleveland State on probation for two more years..."

  • ||

    The Obamessiah's best move at this point is to throw the Embassy's Public Affairs Officer and possibly the U.S. Ambassador under the bus and disavow any knowledge of that pussy statement.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You probably jerked off when Bush the Lesser called Islam the "religion of peace" each time.

  • ||

    This Egypt thing must be really sticking in the progs' craw. They only come out to defend their personal hero and savior Obama when he really screws the pooch. Gotta keep that cultie cognitive dissonance going!

  • Tman||

    This reaction makes me glad that President Not My Fault wasn't in charge after 9/11.

    He probably would've trotted Chomsky for some quality white guilt sessions and then say "Hey, we deserve it. Now let's talk solar panels."

    Christ this idiot needs to go.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    He would NOT have misfired in Iraq costing us $2 trillion and 4300 US soldiers.

    You fucking idiot.

  • Tman||

    Oh goody! Shreek wisdom!

    I take it as a high compliment when you call me an idiot.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I thought you wanted to discuss Middle-East blunders.

    Until I brought up the Fuck-Up in Chief and you pussed out.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    If you are proud of Dumbya's misadventure in Iraq you are on the wrong site.

    Go to Free Republic with the other Gingrich dick suckers.

  • Tman||

    Shreek,

    You are easily one of the worst trolling nutbags to ever infect Reason.

    To even suggest that I'm the one out of place is laughable on its face.

    But enjoy your delusions if that's what helps you through the day. Don't let me spoil the fun.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He is actually retarded. He can only 'tu qoque' at you.

  • Brutus||

    And you know this...how?

  • Paul.||

    Hey, in one of the pictures on CNN, an Egyptian protester has a Guy Fawkes mask on. That's the first appropriate contextual use of one of thoses masks yet.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In a related protest in Libya...first blood has been drawn.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Holy fuck. At least the government there wasn't complicit, just impotent. Still we need to kill A LOT more people when this happens.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The Libyan govt says so... the State Dept hasn't said squat.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If Romney can't hammer Obama over this he should step the fuck down. If he can't hammer Obama over this and the bailout America is about to give to Egypt he should just walk out into the ocean.

  • ||

    "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

    Talk about not getting the First Amendment's meaning.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I wonder how much more of this shit we can tolerate in our nation before someone decides to go Anders Breivik on the quislings. Honestly, so long as they don't stoop to deliberately murdering children, I'm not sure I'll even be able to say they were in the wrong. Treason is a capital crime in most cultures.

  • DRM||

    Impeach Ambassador Anne W. Patterson.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Close the embassy and cut off aid to Egypt. This isn't the 18th century, you don't need an ambassador to deliver messages, you can just text them.

  • sloopyinca||

    Not the greatest story in the world, but certainly a disturbing one.

    But the gold is in the comments, as their true colors come out as usual. Enjoy: Just an other wanna-be who somehow got membership in this web side (originally intended for LE only).
    To the site managers: This web side start to be what maybe you did not intended in the begining. Instead of a site were cops share experiences, police procedures, and such, it has become a site where unsuspecting real cops disclose information that could end up in wrong ears. Too many civilians here, and not only shitbags, but defense lawyers and all kind of other characters that could pick up information here and use it against law enforcement. At one point this web site becomes a source of imformation for the opposition. We should be able to red-flag some of the members here and have the web side managers double-check their credentials. And the definition of a COP should be clearly established. I see here a lot of pushing and shoving over who's a cop and who's not. Anybody that ever rode in an elevator with a cop wants to bring theories and legal arguments to why he should be considered a cop too, even if he never graduated a LE academy, never been commissioned as a LE officer, and does not hold a peace officer license.
    (cont.)

  • sloopyinca||

    (cont.)...There are members here from as far as New Zeeland. What is this? Facebook? That site already destroyed a lot of cop careers. I believe that this site is not secured and it should be considered as such. We should not say here something that we won't say under oath in Court. It might bite us later in our career.

    What a fucking psycho.

  • Gray Ghost||

    What a dumb fuck. Who posts anything on the Internet that they aren't willing to say in an ad in the New York Times? Shit on the Internet lasts forever. (cue Wizard of Oz basso profundo, echo effect)

    He probably forwards racist jokes and porn in his work e-mail too.

  • R C Dean||

    Too many civilians here, and not only shitbags, but defense lawyers and all kind of other characters that could pick up information here and use it against law enforcement.

    OMG! People might learn the truth!

    Here's a hint; if the truth can be used to hurt you, maybe you're on the wrong side.

  • ||

    compare and contrast:

    when criticism was made that a PUBLIC musuem in New York was sponsoring shit like "Piss Christ" (a crucifix dipped in urine), politicians like guiliani who said PUBLIC tax dollars should not pay for art that directly attacked people's sacred religious symbols - he was called a "FASCIST" etc.

    HERE...

    a guy's purely private endeavor, that i am 100% confident is not 1/10 as offensive as piss christ (or the virgin mary smeared in dung etc.) however is condemnedd by the US govt. etc. again, NO govt. funding here, but the govt. still condemns it

    now THAT's a double standard

    iow, don't piss of islamofascists. christians are cool

    still waiting on the mormo-fascist hordes to start bombing trey and matt's colorado bunker with lime jello bombs

  • sloopyinca||

    I thought you were OK with double standards.

    Oh, right. Only some of them.

  • JeremyR||

    That's where I think Romney could make a great speech - using that example, of how his religion is constantly mocked, yet doesn't need to go apeshit all the time.

  • PapayaSF||

    that i am 100% confident is not 1/10 as offensive as piss christ (or the virgin mary smeared in dung etc.)

    Not that I disagree with your basic point, but the movie probably is more offensive to Muslims. The art you mention is certainly disrespectful of Christian figures, but they aren't direct challenges to the legitimacy of Christianity. To a Muslim, pretty much any disagreement with the orthodoxy about Mohammed challenges the entire religion.

  • 0x90||

    So, is killing an ambassador an act of war?

  • Gray Ghost||

    So, is killing an ambassador an act of war?

    Used to be. Things have changed a bit for the U.S. in the 20th Century though. The question is: who do you make war on? I don't think there's a government in Libya to make war against? And this is the first I've ever heard of this particular militant group. Well, we've built up a large clandestine intelligence apparatus over the last 11 years; time to earn their money.

    Unlike the brouhaha in Egypt, according to CNN, the guys who burned down the consulate in Benghazi were carrying infantry weapons: RPGs and AKs. Not that the AK isn't ubiquitous, but I thought RPGs were a little tougher to come by? Although, there's probably a ton of crap still floating around Libya. Good thing Khadafi got rid of all his WMDs before he fell, right?

  • Gray Ghost||

    Not quite the casus belli I was looking for, incidentally. But it will be if it turns out these militants were Shia-backed, instead of being a Sunni, AQ-affiliated group.

    Terrible tragedy for the ambassador and his(?) family.

  • 0x90||

    Action reportedly condemned by Libyan deputy PM. So, on with the election.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement