Al Qaeda

Updated: Three American Universities Receive Bomb Threats Amid Escalating Violence at U.S. Embassies

|

So far today there have been two bomb threats at American universities. The first threat came via a phone call to officials at the University of Texas-Austin from someone claiming to be linked to Al Qaeda. The caller claimed that bombs had been placed all across the campus. All buildings were evacuated. The caller indicated that the bombs were set to go off at around 10am. At around 11:40am university officials reported that no bombs had been found. The identity of the caller remains unknown.

Another threat was issued to North Dakota State University. A website alert required all staff and students to evacuate university buildings after a bomb threat was received. The nature of the threat to NDSU remains unclear and so far no connection between the two threats has been confirmed.

The threats come on a day of increased tension for U.S. diplomatic missions around the world.  As well as attacks in Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, there have also been clashes in India and demonstrations in Indonesia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The German embassy in Sudan has also been attacked.

Updates to follow:

NEXT: French Court Fines Man Because Others Downloaded Music

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.

  1. Why are they attacking the German embassy, again? Did someone in Germany make a film too?

      1. If Herzog ever took on Islam, we would know it because there wouldn’t be anymore Islam.

        1. That’s true. Don’t see bears or vampires walking the streets, do you? Or Klaus Kinski, either, for that matter.

            1. Or the Loch Ness Monster.

              1. He’s capable of making any bullet insignificant.

          1. Herzog would raise Kinski from the dead to take on Islam and Zombie Kinski would sweep the Oscars that year.

            I had a friend back in Chicago who looked just like a young Klaus Kinski but with darker hair. Nice guy, that’s how I knew it wasn’t Klaus in disguise.

    1. Because they’re insane, superstitious savages?

      1. But the administration says it’s because someone posted a movie trailer on Youtube.

        1. Well duh! The world liked the U.S. again after we got rid of ChimpyMcBusHitler and elected the citizen of the world Obama. It had to be a movie made by those Christian religious extremest that are probably tea-baggers.

          1. That “s” is supposed to be a $, just so you know.

            And it needs more Haliburton.

            1. Well, I’m just glad the bushpigs are not around anymore to make the world hate us.

            2. Then it’s Loch Ne$$ Monster?

          2. My favorite pet name from the Bush years was Chimpeachment W. Pretzelburton.

      2. Because Obama’s Smart Diplomacy(tm) has convinced them that Germany is the droids they seek!

    2. Maybe they heard that Uwe Boll is making a movie about Mohammad?

      1. If that’s true, I’ll join them.

    3. Hey, the quest for freedom is tough sometimes, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and it’s probably America’s fault somehow anyway, because everything bad that happens anywhere on earth at any time is America’s fault.

      1. “…and it’s probably America’s fault somehow anyway, because everything bad that happens anywhere on earth at any time is America’s fault.”

        That’s it Mike, slay that strawman! Strike him down with your hatred!

        1. This rubbish is exactly what you believe though, and so I’m sure that the sheer insanity of the German embassy being attacked is no doubt causing you no small amount of cognitive dissonance.

          1. That’s actually NOT what I believe (though I do believe our foreign policy has consequences, both good AND BAD). I could just as easily strip down your own apparent views to absurdity.

            Mike M in a nutshell:

            “The US is a noble and righteous nation whose purposes and intentions are above any legitimate criticism. Sure, we’ve given financial and military support to some brutal dictators, but our reasons were just and there is absolutely no reason WHATSOEVER to believe that anybody ANYWHERE in the world could have ANY reason to be upset with us as a result of our purely noble endeavors/foreign policy

            Amen”

            1. Oh, what I would give to see YOU try and deal with these psychotic maniacs over there. Life is so simplistic from the peanut gallery.

              1. What the hell are you even talking about? I’ve said nothing about how I would “deal with these psychotic maniacs”, nor, BTW, have you.

                1. Why don’t you just go ahead and tell me straight out what it is that you’re trying to say then, because so far you’ve said absolutely nothing even remotely meaningful or coherent.

                  1. My comments weren’t clear enough for you?

                    Ok, I’ll try one more time. On two threads you keep saying how horrible this ‘Arab Spring’ is and anyone who disagrees with you must be a blame America first pinko moron. I’m saying you’re wrong. Killing and imprisoning dictators is a good thing and that the results of the AS are mixed. If you think that makes me, and people who see things that way, an American hating pinko, then I think you’re an idiot.

                    Simple enough for you?

                    1. “Killing and imprisoning dictators is a good thing and that the results of the AS are mixed”

                      If the Dictators are replaced with even worse Theocrats, was their deposition a good thing?

                    2. “If the Dictators are replaced with even worse Theocrats, was their deposition a good thing?”

                      As I said below, if those who replace previous dictators are worse, they deserve to die as well.

                      On the other hand, do people living under oppressive regimes have a right to rise up and, at least, try for something better?

                      Yes.

                    3. On the other hand, do people living under oppressive regimes have a right to rise up and, at least, try for something better?

                      Absolutely. But they aren’t entitled to my help or my money unless help is defined as “engaging in free trade” and my money comes as a direct result of said trade.

                    4. “Absolutely. But they aren’t entitled to my help or my money unless help is defined as “engaging in free trade” and my money comes as a direct result of said trade.”

                      Absolutely correct.

                    5. If we hadn’t spent 30 years helping the dictators crush any and all secular sources of opposition, maybe the even worse Theocrats wouldn’t be the last man standing.

              2. “Life is so simplistic from the peanut gallery.”

                We’re in the same gallery you moron.

                1. We’re in the same gallery you moron.

                  We are, but I’m not one of the dumb naive schmucks who thought that the so-called “Arab Spring” was going to be wonderful. I knew it was going to lead to exactly the kind of nightmare that’s going on right now, and I was trying to tell people this like a year ago.

                  1. “We are, but I’m not one of the dumb naive schmucks who thought that the so-called “Arab Spring” was going to be wonderful.”

                    Who are these dumb schmuck you keep ranting about, because I can’t think of a single person who said the AS would be wonderful, though all in all I’m think a dead Gaddafi is better than a live one, and I will be glad to see Assad follow shortly behind. The whole group of totalitarians deserve death and if they’re replace by new totalitarians then they’ll deserve death as well.

                  2. Whether the “Arab Spring” was going to be wonderful or not was beside the point. It was inevitable; there’s little point going on about how horrible something you have now power to prevent is going to be.

                2. Galleries of all kinds are cosmotorian plot hatcheries.

                  1. Ok I didn’t LOL, but I did smile at this.

                  2. Galleries of all kinds are cosmotorian plot hatcheries.

                    I am Cosmotor!

              3. Oh, what I would give to see YOU try and deal with these psychotic maniacs over there. Life is so simplistic from the peanut gallery.

                I believe that the whole idea is to NOT deal with these psychotic maniacs over there.

            2. Now THAT’S what I call a strawman, sir!

    4. You know who else made a film in Germany?

      1. Julie Andrews?

      2. David Hasselhof?

      3. IIRC, the Nazis used to make propaganda films all the time, with much success.

    5. OPEC needs a bailout.

  2. Maybe they’re protesting the Fed’s QE to Infinity plan? Or celebrating it?
    Has Mitt apologized yet?

  3. We’ve dug such a lovely hole. Now that we’re in it, we’re forced to respond if anything does happen. How much better would it be to exit the Middle East and let someone else dig a hole there?

    1. This is what weakness gets you. We didn’t do anything about Egypt and Libya. So now they think its open season on American targets. It is of course not. Eventually even Obama will do something drastic if this continues. And we will end up with much more death and destruction than if he had just dealt with it in the first place rather than grovelling.

      1. Egypt and Libya were the start of a test; a push to see how far they can go and what they can get away with. So far they still haven’t found the limit, so the attacks will continue to escalate.

        1. Yes. This is how wars start. One side misjudges the other side and does something that crosses the line. It is almost always miscalculation, usually caused by appeasement, that causes wars.

        2. Sadly, this may be true. It’s definitely something that was planned, not spontaneous. And it sure isn’t about some stupid YouTube video,

          Long term, I want us to leave the region. Let them figure out there, or let Europe and Russia deal with it. However, for the short term, we’re there and can’t sit and watch our people get attacked without doing something.

          One open question is whether the countries involved will take action. They have some interest in not pissing off the U.S. (or stemming the flow of aid dollars).

          1. If the fracking and oil shale boom continues, long term we probably will.

            1. are we forgetting about the skygods channeling houdini und reappearing thru some hole in the wall?

              1. ham sandwiches are tasty most people like cheese on them but I’ve never cared for it mustard is the way to go one time I had a dog or maybe that was a dream the end?

                1. BTW, I was responding to Urine, not John.

          2. Sadly, this may be true. It’s definitely something that was planned, not spontaneous. And it sure isn’t about some stupid YouTube video

            It was probably planned in Libya; maybe it was planned in Egypt. But the rest of it?

            Didn’t we give tons of military equipment to Yemen–even as or after the people of Yemen were rising up against their government?

            http://articles.boston.com/201…..assistance

            Isn’t there about a drone strike a day in Yemen?

            Mad about a movie? If I were in Yemen, I wouldn’t be mad about a movie. But these things aren’t always about what sparks them.

            As I recall, the Arab Spring started because some guy in Tunisia lit himself on fire to protest not being able to get some kind of business license from a corrupt official. But that wasn’t what the Arab Spring was about.

            They all got their gripes against us. Some of them are legitimate.

            1. Except we have no protestor yet who has cited the drone strikes as the problem.

              And that does not explain Indonesia, Tunisia or the Sudan.

              1. My friend just returned from a year in Tunisia doing a Fulbright. She said that according to her friends there ‘as usual, rumors have already started that this is exactly what the US wants to destabilize the region.’ That’s what she was told about 30 minutes ago.

                1. rumors have already started that this is exactly what the US wants to destabilize the region.’ That’s what she was told about 30 minutes ago.

                  They’ve got their own version of the story that used to circulate around here–about how the Islamists are trying to take over America and make Jennifer wear a burka?

                  They think we want to take over and run the Middle East/North Africa, too…

                  It’s just that they have more of a factual basis for that fear–considering our military support for various dictators that used to oppress them and still are oppressing them.

                  If we don’t want them thinking we’re their enemies, then we should probably consider dialing down our support of the vicious dictators that are oppressing them.

                  1. If we don’t want them thinking we’re their enemies, then we should probably consider dialing down our support of the vicious dictators that are oppressing them.

                    Like who? Who are we supporting, and what group of protestors has cited this as the reason for the protests?

                    1. You think it really is about the film?

                      Or the Muslim Brotherhood?

                      Do you have any evidence for that?

                      You don’t think the people of Yemen are mad about us giving tons of equipment to the Yemeni military to fight against their own citizens? You don’t think the people of Yemen are mad about being subjected to God only knows how many drone strikes?

                      If it’s the film, then the film was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. And Muslim Brotherhood coordination is unnecessary to stoke up anger in places like Yemen, where we’re doing and have done so much to make people angry.

                    2. Do you have any evidence for that?

                      I have the words of the protestors.

                      You have nothing.

                    3. You have nothing.

                      The Obama administration notified Congress last month that it intends to resume military aid to Yemen. The aid is restricted for use by Yemen’s counterterrorism forces, which are locked in a struggle with an Al Qaeda affiliate that has also targeted the United States.

                      In June, the Pentagon told lawmakers it would give $75 million worth of small arms, ammunition, vehicles, hand-launched surveillance drones, and other equipment to Yemen’s Interior Ministry.

                      Documents obtained by The Washington Post show that the military aid will be more extensive. Earlier this month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it would give Yemen an additional $37 million for its US-trained special-operations units. Included in that package are two small troop-transport aircraft, 100 night-vision devices, and five small raiding boats for commandos, as well as more small arms and ammunition.

                      http://articles.boston.com/201…..assistance

                      That isn’t nothing.

                    4. The question is not “Is the United States doing bad things in Yemen?”, Ken. If it were, you would have plenty of evidence.

                      The question is “What are the rioters rioting about?” I have their words that it’s about this video. You have…nothing, like I said.

                    5. You have nothing.

                      “The US plans to begin supplementing US military drones with CIA drones because US officials say the political chaos in Yemen has compromised its efforts to contain terrorists in Yemen, the newspapers reported.

                      US officials said the CIA would operate in coordination with the US Joint Special Operations Command, which has been flying Predators and other remotely piloted planes over Yemen for much of the past year. The new approach is a significant escalation of the clandestine American war in Yemen and a substantial expansion of the CIA’s drone war.

                      US officials say the Yemini government has approved the aggressive use of drones.”

                      http://www.thenational.ae/news…..y-in-yemen

                      A thing is what it is, and that isn’t nothing.

              2. They all have gripes against us for various reasons.

                Think of it as like joining the Army here in the U.S. Some of them do it because they want help financing an education. Some of them want an adventure. Some of them feel like it’s their patriotic duty in a time of crisis.

                All of them want to fight against Al Qaeda, but they all had different reasons for joining up and doing so…

                I imagine that’s the way it is on the other side of the coin, too. The realignment in our foreign policy that should have happened after the Cold War ended…took too long to work itself out, and now we’ve got a whole lotta people in the Muslim world who are mad as hell at is for all sorts of things.

                Showing up at an embassy and yelling at people takes about as much coordination as four out of five people–from all over the country–putting American flags on their cars the day after 9/11. That took no coordination at all.

                How much coordination did it take to get the occupy movement into action in various cities all over America? These things don’t require a whole lot of coordination. Just a whole lotta angry people.

                1. How much coordination did it take to get the occupy movement into action in various cities all over America?

                  Quite a bit.

                  It’s called astro turfing.

                  1. I saw a bunch of homeless bums set up tents at a gas station and put up signs saying they were Occupying.

                    Somebody may have said, “Okay, let’s meet here”, but we’re not talking about a lot of coordination there.

                2. Ken-

                  These people aren’t protesting America’s support for dictators. They are protesting America because their life is shitty and they’ve been told all their lives that it is Israel and the US’s fault.

                  In Israel’s war with Egypt, the US could have arguably be against Israel, if not neutral. But as Egypt got its ass handed to it, propaganda filled the airwaves about how victory was stolen by evil American bombers.

                  These people are at the mercy of dictators who will say anything to make these people think that their woes are due to America- just as liberals spend all day convincing the poor that they are victims of WASPs.

                  There is nothing that the US foreign policy can do to change this- just as there is nothing you can say to stop Liberals from demonizing the rich.

                  1. Um…the U.S.’s direct role in financing the military regime in Egypt going back to the Carter Administration…the results of that accumulated association isn’t going to disappear the moment we stop supporting the military–even as the people of Egypt sporadically protest against the military.

                    But the sooner we stop supporting vicious dictators that are oppressing them, the fewer excuses they’ll have to blame us for their problems, the sooner they’ll stop blaming us for their problems. I mean, if we don’t want to be blamed for their problems, then we should probably stop contributing to them by financing their military.

      2. I think this is what weakness coupled with arrogant bravado gets you.

      3. Oh yeah, “we” did something ab out Libya, at least. Got rid of somebody who’d been neutered and allowed him to be replaced by worse.

        1. I honestly don’t think the US could have done anything here in Egypt or Libya (or Tunisia or Syria). Other than occupying those countries with millions of troops and installing a government, these countries were doomed to Theocracy no matter what.

          That said, Obama should have been straight with the people and said so. Instead, he pretended to be involved, then tried desperately to hide the fact that he was cheering the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood.

      4. Ummmm…what were you going to do in the 12 hours after the Libya incident that you could have put together quick enough to make a difference?

        You’ve got some magical “invade and conquer Libya in 12 hours” attack in your back pocket, all planned out, and with pre-positioned troops and equipment in place to do it?

        1. “Ummmm…what were you going to do in the 12 hours after the Libya incident that you could have put together quick enough to make a difference?”

          His comment is about the overthrow of Gadaffi, not the embassy attack.

          1. No, John’s comment was clearly about the embassy attacks.

        2. Real simple. Cut off aid and break off all diplomatic relations to Egypt and Libya until the people who did it were brought to justice. Then, reinforce all US embassies abroad, arm the Marines and tell them to shoot to kill. I would have told the Marines to shoot in Egypt. Attacking a US embassy should be a contact sport.

          1. They never should have left the Marine guards unarmed, or instructed them not to shoot people attacking with RPGs. I can agree with that. Breaking off foreign aid is a good policy regardless, and popular with US voters.

          2. If the enormous military we pay out the ass for, which even has contingency plans to invade Canada, can’t quickly deploy sufficient assets to reinforce and protect some embassies and deal retribution to the culprits with total air superiority, we really are getting ripped off on ‘defense’ speding.

            1. speding = spending

            2. I think air attacks might be a bit of overkill and perhaps counterproductive.

              1. Yeah, as a long time National Guard guy, I can say that air strikes aren’t really in the manual for civil disturbances.

            3. deal retribution to the culprits with total air

              How do we do that? Bomb the headquarters of the “Embassy Attack Organization”? Or do you just mean retaliate by blowing up a bunch of random civilians who had nothing to with the actual attack like we normally do?

          3. If the host country can’t provide security for embassies or consulates, they can’t be secured.

            The Marine guards are glorified bellhops (and not seagoing ones for a change). Giving them firing orders would be a disaster.

            If the Marine guards in Egypt had machine-gunned people for climbing a fence, the demonstrations would be 10x as large today. And in the countries like Nigeria, Sudan and Tunisia where copycat demonstrations are taking place today, the demonstrations would also be 10x larger and would probably be closer to infantry assaults than demonstrations.

            We should be looking at pulling our people out. If you think you can use a squad of Marines to secure these places, you’re thinking with your dick again.

            1. No they wouldn’t. There wouldn’t be any demonstrations today. They are only demonstrating because they know there is no danger to doing so.

              This is going to come as a shock to you, but rolling over and leaving your people to die, encourages people to attack us.

              1. Mubarak’s police killed people in the streets, and the Egyptian populace toppled the government.

                It was in all the papers. I guess you missed it.

                The Muslim Brotherhood had new rallies in Cairo planned for today. They canceled them. Why? Because we asked them to.

                http://www.euronews.com/2012/0…..m-rallies/

                Do you think they would have canceled them if we had shot people in the street in front of the embassy?

                Face it, your thinking on this subject is no fucking more sophisticated then “Dese colahs don’ run!” because once your fucking little boy pride is involved, your brain turns off quicker than when there’s a fat chick around.

            2. I don’t think we can use a squad of Marines to secure every place. But it is astounding what an automatic weapon can do to a mob of people.

              And there really is nothing these people could do that your solution wouldn’t be appeasement is there fluffy? They murdered an American Ambassador. And you still think it is our fault and we should apologize and run home.

              1. Nobody in Egypt murdered an ambassador, dude.

                And Libya is one step above anarchy. The government there is in our pocket and is trying to catch the people who attacked the embassy. So withholding aid and bombing the government helps us there how?

                1. And if Libya is anarchy, then you need to have the appropriate amount of force protection there. If you are not going to do that, don’t send diplomats. The solution is not to just let them die and do nothing about it.

            3. And lastly, if we had held the Egyptian and Tunisian governments responsible by cutting off aid and breaking off relations, the host governments would be crushing these protests before they started.

              1. We’re going to cut off aid and break off relations with Egypt’s government because a handful of guys climbed a fence?

                What’s your plan for public urination? Nukes?

                1. We’re going to cut off aid and break off relations with Egypt’s government because a handful of guys climbed a fence?

                  It is a bit more than that. It is that the government won’t do anything about it or ensure the safety of our embassy. And cutting off aid and diplomatic relations in response to an attack on an embassy is hardly a drastic response.

                  As I said above, there is no scenario where you believe the US has a right to defend itself. It is just amazing. In fluffy world every Americans’ sacred duty is to die for our sins.

                  1. Fluffy didn’t say that, John.

                    1. No Randian. He just said cutting off aid and diplomatic relations is like nuking someone. If there is a single act beyond appeasement he would take to defend this country, I haven’t heard it.

                    2. It was an analogy, John. He is saying your proposed response is disproportionate.

                      All I am seeing here is that Fluffy is criticizing tactics, not the moral underpinnings.

                      You seem to think that if we don’t agree to go boot stomping about that we’re not pissed off at the death of Americans overseas, and that just isn’t true.

                    3. He just said cutting off aid and diplomatic relations is like nuking someone. If there is a single act beyond appeasement he would take to defend this country, I haven’t heard it.

                      If we’re talking about what happened in Egypt, there’s just about nothing to defend.

                      The event in Egypt was a fucking triviality.

                      If Falun Gong protestors riot in DC one day, and somebody gets into the Chinese embassy and burns a Chinese flag, do you seriously assert that if the Chinese guards don’t machine-gun the protestors, that means they’ve failed to defend China?

                      Which course of action do you think will support China’s long-term interests in such a scenario?

                      1. Clean up broken glass, extinguish burning flag, issue diplomatic statement; or,

                      2. Machine-gun people in the streets of Washington, DC.

                      If you read online about some dumbass Chinamen the next day demanding an end to relations with the US, how smart do you think you’d think they were? Really clever guys, right?

                    4. Randian,

                      If you won’t agree to so much as bring your embassy staff home after they try to burn the embassy down and continue to write huge checks in aid, then you pretty much won’t do anything to defend yourself.

                      If there is something they could do that would cause fluffy to respond with anything other than neglect or groveling, I can’t see what it would be.

                    5. If you won’t agree to so much as bring your embassy staff home after they try to burn the embassy down and continue to write huge checks in aid, then you pretty much won’t do anything to defend yourself.

                      It’s a disagreement about tactics that you are trying to turn into a dick measuring contest and a moral imperative, and it’s just not apropos for the situation.

                  2. In Egypt, we did the right thing for a change.

                    We stood back and let Mubarak go down.

                    And the Egyptian government has increased security around our embassy and is erecting concrete barriers.

                    And the party that controls the government had its people cancel their demonstrations.

                    And Egypt is calm today.

                    Cairo remains a 3rd world capital. Egypt as a whole is in a post-revolutionary state, that’s bound to have a certain amount of instability. There are going to be riots.

                    Our best chance of stabilizing the situation is business as usual. Sweep up the flag ashes, repair the fence, issue boring diplomatic statements, and pretend nothing ever happened. That’s the best course of action even if you’re a bloodthirsty hegemon, because it’s the course of action most likely to succeed. I’m against this whole “ROAR, have the Marines open fire!” idea because it’s so stupid that the morality of it never even arises as a question. It’s the kind of idea you come up with when you’re thinking with your dick.

                    1. LOur best chance of stabilizing the situation is business as usual. Sweep up the flag ashes, repair the fence, issue boring diplomatic statements, and pretend nothing ever happened. That’s the best course of action even if you’re a bloodthirsty hegemon, because it’s the course of action most likely to succeed. I’m against this whole “ROAR, have the Marines open fire!” idea because it’s so stupid that the morality of it never even arises as a question. It’s the kind of idea you come up with when you’re thinking with your dick.

                      If we just grovel enough they will stop and go home. I wish you were right. But I think you are kidding yourself. Do you really think they are going to stop now that they have drawn blood? This is going to continue.

                    2. Again fluffy, if you will let them burn and embassy down and kill an ambassador, what will you not let them do? And why should they worry about doing it more? Do you think they will like us if we just ignore them? Should Obama convert to Islam, behead Terry Jones and beg for forgiveness?

                    3. Did the Egyptians kill an ambassador?

                      I think this question has been directed at you twice now.

                2. Lasers, not nukes. Dick frying lasers!

          4. “Cut off aid and break off all diplomatic relations to Egypt and Libya until the people who did it were brought to justice. Then, reinforce all US embassies abroad”

            When you break off diplomatic relations you no longer have an embassy. There is a myth going around that embassies are sovereign US territory. It is not true. International law limits the reasons a host country can enter an embassy, it doesn’t make an embassy a de facto military base you can use for whatever purpose you like.

            1. Yes, you bring your embassy people home in Egypt and Tunisia. And our embassies have a right to defend themselves and a right to fire in response to a mob. If the host country cannot protect them, we have a right to protect them ourselves.

            2. I’m not sure I follow. As a matter of international law, if the mob had attacked our consulates openly at the behest of the government (which isn’t the case here), that’s a clear act of war.

              We aren’t being attacked because we militarized our embassies and consulates.

            3. Exactly, Camping. I realize I stepped in it using “sovereign territory” but I was really only using that as a kind of shorthand. And I was using it mostly to try to explain the difference between a consulate and an embassy; something that a lot of people seem to have a problem with.

          5. You do realize that cutting of all aid to Egypt would be abrogating our responsibilities under the Camp David Accords? Suppose Egypt responds by reoccupying the Sinai? Then what?

            1. Then the IDF sweeps them out in 2 days.

              1. And once the Egyptian army is gone, whose gonna stop the bedouins from sabotaging all the gas lines into Israel? I’m sure Iran is going to love Israel having most of its army tied up trying to occupy the Sinai.

      5. So if America had been “strong” and responded to the unrest in Egypt and Libya with military support (for whom, Qaddaffi?) for the dictators and/or the protestors, extremists wouldn’t be attacking Americans?

        Yeah, right.

        1. I was talking about the attacks on the Embassies. And yeah, we could have made it clear to the government’s there that they were going to help responsible for controlling their mobs.

          1. Since everyone knows damn well these ‘mobs’ don’t act without the complicity of their governments.

            1. Fluffy doesn’t know that.

              1. Libya’s “government” is probably lucky if it can keep the toilets clean in its HQ.

                When Q was there, it was certainly impossible to hold a riot without his prior consent. (At least before the revolution started.) But now? Come on.

            2. They don’t. Did you miss the whole ‘Arab Spring.’ Do you think the government was complicit in those protests/riots? Many of those governments today (Tunisia, Libya, hell, even Egypt) are governments in name only.

              1. If they can’t control their borders and cannot bring the people who did this to justice, then intervene and do it yourself and fortify the embassies that are there enough to protect them. But you cannot allow people to murder an ambassador and do nothing about it. You can, if you are fluffy I guess.

                1. Are you just ignoring it when commenters point out that NO AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED IN EGYPT? A mob climbed over the wall and milled around breaking shit until the Egyptian cops cleared them out. The Egyptian government has been apolagetic and cooperative. Do you really believe that would be happening if the Marines had fired into the crowd?

                  In Libya the security people with the ambassador did shoot back at the people attacking them. They were badly outnumbered and outgunned by an organised military force.

                  You keep conflating widely separate events into one huge conspiracy. These people don’t conspire with one another. The only reason they’re not killing each other is because they got distracted by this movie.

                  Most of the rioting is just unruly mobs pissed off about a movie that most of them haven’t even seen.

                  The attack in Libya has nothing to do with that. From all reports it’s been planned for a long time (probably to align with 9/11) and the fact that there was a demonstrating mob outside the gates of the Consulate was just of lucky happenstance.

                  1. A lucky happenstance for the militants, that is.

                  2. In the Libyan case, I thought that several of the security forces helped guide the attackers to the ambassador’s second hideout? And others died trying to hold off the attack.

                    In any event, clips from the movie or trailer were shown on Egyptian television a few days (not sure how many) before the protests. I don’t think it out of the realm of possibility that the broadcasts were connected to the planning of the Benghazi attack. I think it’s more likely that the broadcast’s were designed to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary, and the AQ-backed attack was independently designed to also coincide with the anniversary. Makes a hell of a diversion though, and was a great way to get armed attackers close to the embassy without attracting Libyan security force attention.

                    The Egyptian Army may be fine with the U.S.’s presence (and the 1.5B USD per year we were giving them), but I don’t know if the Muslim Brotherhood underpinning Egypt’s new government feels the same way. Many of the people don’t, as the protests are still going on in Cairo today, albeit not within the U.S. embassy grounds.

                    1. Re, the question of whether or not to fire upon a mob: In Fluffy’s Falun Gong example, I imagine the D.C. cops wouldn’t be standing by as the mob rampaged, as seemed to be the case the first day in Cairo. Thankfully, the mob couldn’t get into the building, though a different mob did try to in Tunis. That said, if it was a large mob, with no host nation attempt to stop them, and they were trying to get into the Chinese Embassy, I couldn’t fault the Chinese if they did start shooting. It’s their territory; they have a right to protect their people.

                      I think the Egyptian government will be as apologetic and helpful as necessary, provided the money keeps flowing, independent of whether or not the Marines killed protesters the first day. I do not think killing protesters would have fostered love for the U.S. in the MidEast, especially after Al Jazeira ran clips of the dead over and over, but it might have made the next mob more cautious about invading their U.S. embassy.

                      Much better to have the host nation use cops to disperse the mob non-lethally. Which is what seems to be happening today.

                    2. Gray Ghost, a report I heard quite early had some Libyan Army officer saying that he did not believe the militants could have found the safe house or directed their mortar fire as accurately as they did without the help of someone inside the consulate.

                      He strongly suspected that some of the local security guards had helped them.

                    3. That was my understanding too, Isaac. I get that the consulate was overrun—hard to stop an assault with two or so bodyguards, and it’s a publicly known location. What struck me was that the second place the ambassador ran to, got fingered as a bolt-hole, and also assaulted.

                      That shouldn’t have happened, absent connivance. I don’t think that second place was also on consular property, but I could be wrong about that. IIRC, basically, the ambassador was trying to lay low until the cavalry—helicopters from somewhere—could fish him and his group out. Obviously they didn’t make it.

                    4. The security and intelligence lapses make this so that it goes far beyond any kind of bad luck, shit happens kind of event that this administration can shrug off responsibility for.

                      But the other thing I think it’s important to do is see that the Beghazi attack is separate from all the other stuff happening in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia etc. Those are just regular folk blowing off pent up rage using the video as an excuse. The Benghazi attack was made by a well armed and equiped organized force which more than likely has sympathizers within the Libyan military and government.

      6. Cut off all aid. Leave. See if they like their lives better or worse after.

      7. John| 9.14.12 @ 1:38PM |#

        This is what weakness gets you. We didn’t do anything about Egypt and Libya.

        What do you mean, “do anything”

        What was expected to be done that would have been manly and strong?

        1. That’s what I’m wondering.

          It might be one thing to fault the administration for bad intelligence and planning.

          But that would mean they probably hadn’t talked to enough and to the right people not that they’ve failed to cane the wogs sufficently.

      8. We didn’t do anything about Egypt and Libya.

        What exactly did you wish us to do, King Canute?

  4. This is bullshit. What they need to do is find out what student accidentally sent a sex tape to his girlfriend at another university and drove cross-country with three of his fellow students to retrieve it before she got back. You find that guy and the girl he had sex with and you’ll wrap up the case.

    Oh, and Tom Green. He’s mixed up in it as well.

    1. If Tom Green is involved, we may have to scour the entire affected area clean with fire.

    2. I figured it was someone who had a little too much cash on their person or had a fraudulent prescription for pain pills.

  5. My school only got bomb threats during finals week. They foiled these attempts at test cancellation by always having a back-up room ready in a different building.

    1. Where did you go to school? Belfast? Sarajevo?

      1. Probably Detroit.

      2. Southern Cal in the early 90’s.

      3. People pulled the same stunt in semi-rural Virginia (among other places) after the Columbine killings.

    2. I remember my last day of freshman year of high school, some seniors (seniors got out a day earlier than everyone else) called in a bomb threat during finals. We all went to the football field (I don’t know why they thought congregating everyone in one place during a bomb scare was a good idea but oh well) and everyone’s last final was cancelled (my class was a Theater class and I’d already done my final performance, so I didn’t benefit)

  6. The U.S. government pressure on Youtube to “review whether the video violates Youtube’s terms of service” illuminates the reason why it is now a federal crime to violate a web site’s ToS.

  7. This has to be the stupidest international uprising ever.

    1. I’m thinking along the lines of the shit that started WWI.

  8. And media is dutifully parroting the line this is all about the movie. CNN.com right now says “rage over anti-Islamic film spreads” as a side headline. The main headline is something important, photos of classic trains.

    1. I wish it were as simple as being all about a stupid movie.

    2. I heard that, too. Followed by Jay Carney pleading with the nutters that the government had nothing to do with it, please don’t hurt us anymore.

      Fuck, what a bunch craven idiots. The security details at these embassies need to tool up, and Obama needs to make a live public announcement that it is “weapons free” and the ROE is “If it doesn’t have an invitation, it gets a funeral.”

      1. But only after he condemns anyone who denigrates anyone else’s religious beliefs, because that’s not consistent with American Values.

        A good president qualifies… always qualifies.

        1. Obama’s statements about this are looking more and more ridiculous by the minute.

          1. They looked ridiculous the moment the words rolled out of his mouth. Now they’re beginning to look both ridiculous and incompetent.

            1. And the people who defended Obama’s statements–and attacked Romney for criticizing Obama?

              Those people are looking more dumb and dumber by the minute, too.

              1. T o n y has gotten awfully quiet after denying that the president made apologetic remarks or there were anyone in this country calling for the imprisonment of the filmmakers.

                1. Tony got quiet as soon as it was revealed that this was a planned attack, because it sunk the whole “blame the Christian fundies and Mitt Romney” narrative.

                  1. Tony is impervious to facts.

                    Showing him facts that conflict with his worldview hasn’t ever made him blink before.

                    He probably had to go to soccer practice.

    3. Damn I wish I was in the US to see this.^

      …on second thought…

  9. If there’s any coordination to all this, there’s one smart inference: They want Obama out and/or Romney in. Hmmm…any way we could help the terrorists?

    1. I think the attack on our embassy in Libya was coordinated.

      I think the rest of this is about as coordinated as the Arab Spring itself was coordinated–by which I mean not at all coordinated.

      1. Consulate, Ken.

        Our embassy in Libya has nor been attacked.

        But just to be on the safe side, fifty more marines have been flown in from a base in Spain to reinforce it. Wise move, I think.

        Last I heard two marines were killed in the firefight in Benghazi. I don’t know about how many were wounded.

        They were from the detatchment at the Embassy and flown over from Tripoli to back up the Libyan army unit and what was left of the consulate security team (that is the ones who hadn’t run away or were helpig the militants).

        1. Thank you for the clarification.

    2. It isn’t that simple. They just want to make a message so that whomever shows up next year is that much less likely to interfere in their local politics.

      The Islamists know that the US isn’t spoiling for a fight. They know this is the opportunity to give any leader a reason to cut loose and focus on domestic policy while they cement their theocratic caliphate.

      1. I don’t think the various Islamist groups from all these different countries could coordinate this effectively even if they wanted to.

        I think the various national groups that fall under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood only go along with each other if and when they feel like it.

        1. Ken- I was replying to Robert. Sorry.

          I agree that this isn’t too coordinated. But it doesn’t require super strategery to share a simple message: Make the next few months as politically inconvenient to the US as possible. Make every US Politician see the Mid-East and N Africa look like a career-sinking tar-pit.

          1. All we really want is as way out of the whole Muslim/Arab world.

            They should make it easier for us to leave, not harder.

            As badly as we sometimes misunderstand them, they don’t understand us at all.

            1. “All we really want is as way out of the whole Muslim/Arab world.”

              Maybe “we” do, but our government sure as hell does not

  10. Do you think, if we paid the Turks enough, that they would reconquer the Middle East? I bet a cool half trillion a year or so would do it.

    1. How about we give it to the Russians? The Russians we know now are not suicidal. And we all know Putin likes his cash. So the oil will flow.

      1. How about split it up between the Turks and the Russians, to encourage they compete with each other on oil prices?

        1. That’s not a bad idea. Let’s give Afghanistan to India, while we’re at it.

          1. Yeah, that would have the bonus result of pissing off Pakistan.

            1. I’m sure it would, though why anyone would want Afghanistan is a great question.

              Another nice thing is that it would give Russia something to do, and they and the Turks are notorious for not being able to control their imperial territories very well.

            2. Hell, I’m not picky. Give Afghanistan to Pakistan.

              Or better yet, if you’re one of those Sino-Panic types, give Afghanistan to China. That oughta keep them busy for a while.

              1. Give it to both Pakistan and India.

                1. Oh, that’s wicked shrewd.

    2. It could work, of course it wouldn’t get to some of the underlying tensions about Western support for tyranny in the Mideast.

      1. How much evidence do we even have that the Muslim street is pissed about that? As far as I can ascertain, the Muslim world has been subject to one strongman after another since its inception.

        1. I’d have to agree. Going backward, those strongmen are named Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc, etc…

          1. Reverse American Exceptionalism is as dumb as the regular kind.

    3. I don’t think we’d have to pay them. They hunger for empire. That, or we tell them we’ll give it to the Greeks.

      1. “Unless you take it within 3 months time, this will all be given to Greece.”

        Yeah, that would motivate them.

  11. Incidentally Pastor Terry Jones was supposed to give a speech at my school last winter after the Koran burning kerfuffle and the school received a bomb threat. It would appear that some group has discovered a way to prevent people you don’t like from speaking is to call in a fake bomb threat.

    1. Hell, on most colleges with a nursing program, they have a bomb threat ever semester on the day they’re scheduled to take their board exams.

  12. I think I have the solution to the whole protest thing figured out. Every time someone does something like burn a flag, pass a resolution that doing so honors America. If they burn flags, they are honoring America. They’ll soon move on to something else, like burning effigies. Do the same with that. Etc, etc. Soon they will run out of shit to do that is meant to insult us because we have resolutions that say they are honoring us. (And when they do it, go on the news and thank them for their support for America and our way of life).

    Also, pass another resolution that says allowing one’s self to be anally violated by a dog is the only thing we find insulting, and that people who allow themselves to be anally violated by a dog are really insulting America and we hate them.

    I’d like to see all the AQ recruiters trying to get people signed up for those demonstrations.

    1. That’s so crazy…it just might work!

      1. Hey, what passes for sane hasn’t done too well. Maybe a little crazy would do the trick. And I’m just the guy to do it!

  13. I guess this means the TSA is going Back to School. Hijinks will ensue.

    1. They’re going to start looking at film clips on your computer that say something mean about religion?

    2. Ernest Joins the TSA

    3. Why didn’t Terry Farrell end up getting more roles after that movie? She was attractive, if only in a late 80’s sort of way. And she was pretty tall as well, which tends to help actresses.

      Yeah, I know she was on DS9, but still…I expected more.

      1. She was on Becker until the mid-Aughts. I think she’s retired.

      2. She did Becker…

        Yeah, I don’t know either.

      3. Well, there was always Lolapalooza. That was pretty successful.

  14. We had a bomb threat at school. i worked student security. helped direct people out of the building, which was built into the ground and had a walkway across the roof, complete with benches, etc that lead to the center of campus.

    the campus cops set up their command center right there — on the roof of the building with the bomb threat.

    1. Well, that way they could at least tell people they were on top of the situation.

      1. ::blows whistle::

        15 minutes in the penalty box for use of a bad pun.

  15. From the 2:11pm update about the London protests:

    The demonstrators shouted ‘burn burn USA’ as an American flag went up in flames, in response to the obscure movie which portrayed the prophet as a womanizer and child abuser.

    I’ve probably shared the story before about how I went to see a lecture by Salman Rushdie on the night of September 10, 2001. The venue filled up before we could get inside, but we got a free show anyway. There was a huge group of protesters, chanting in just this way, “Die die Salman Rushdie!” and “Shame shame U of H!” (University of Houston was sponsoring the talk). Very freaky the next day.

    1. movie which portrayed the prophet as a womanizer and child abuser.

      He would never do those horrible things!

      Killing people for taking a picture of him, on the other hand…

  16. Fucking Obama is a scumbag. He sure doesn’t mind cameras at Andrews with his stupid mug there (with Hillary as well), when they can grandstand and score political points from the people killed in Benghazi due to their refusal to properly secure the consulate.

    I hope that he rots in hell. I mean it. I hope that motherfucker rots in hell. He never showed up to see the dead soldiers come back, unless it was also for a photo-op he could get political capital from. He’s a despicable human being.

    1. He is a legitimately bad guy. Other Presidents like Carter and Bush have been ineffective, but they were not bad people. Obama is a legitimately rotten human being.

      1. I disagree. I just think the dude has shown breathtaking incompetence with regard to foreign policy.

        When someone attacks your soil, kills your diplomats and claims (even if unwittingly) that some speech in your country was the impetus of the attacks, the captain stands tall on the quarterdeck and defends his sailors.

        He doesn’t point out one of the sailors and say, “If you’d have smiled more at the enemy, this wouldn’t have happened.”

        1. That’s what makes him a rotten human being. He either knows where the fault lies (the attackers) and refuses to say it for political reasons, or he is too stupid to know it and actually thinks our freedom is causing these people to melt down, and his solution is for us to have our freedoms limited.

          Fuck him and his entire administration. He is the scum of the earth and this proves it as much or more than anything he’s done to date.

          1. Fuck him and his entire administration. He is the scum of the earth and this proves it as much or more than anything he’s done to date.

            I find it hard to come up with an argument against this.

        2. I think Bush’s foreign policy was woefully incompetent as well–maybe even worse for having initiated the stupid policies that Obama foolishly continues to pursue.

          I think it’s just been so long since we had competent leadership–that we don’t have much to compare it to. People’s memories are short…

          I remember when Bush Sr. (and Jim Baker) held together a military alliance of Arab states that was pushing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait–even as Iraq was lobbing Scuds at Israel. Holding that alliance together was probably the greatest feat in modern diplomatic history.

          I remember when we used to think competence was normal.

          1. If that weasel, Baker, had been all so competent, Hussein probably would never have invaded Kuwait in the first place – unless, of course, that’s what it was intended he should do. Some have advanced that as a distinct possibility.

            1. Just for the record, if Kuwait had done to the U.S. what Kuwait did to Iraq? I might have been arguing to invade Kuwait, too.

              You want me to fight your wars for you, but you won’t refinance my debt and you won’t let me raise my production quota?

              P.S. What was Jim Baker supposed to do about OPEC’s internal politics?

    2. when they can grandstand and score political points from the people killed in Benghazi due to their refusal to properly secure the consulate.

      And score political points with the “we should criminalize hate speech” wing of the Democratic party.

    3. Hillary Clinton is talking about the murder victims now. I wonder if she’ll announce her 2016 candidacy sometime during her speech.

      I swear, this is really getting to me. I’ve not been this outraged at a sitting President in quite some time for capitalizing on a tragedy for obvious political gain. George Bush may have been a bad president, but he is and was an infinitely better human being than Obama or Hillary Clinton.

      1. She’s incompetent, too. If the Democrats are dumb enough to nominate her next time around, Willard will have time to hunt down and terminate the Colonel’s command. Terminate it with extreme prejudice.

        What was I talking about again?

      2. I wonder if she’ll announce her 2016 candidacy sometime during her speech.

        Great, so the Democrats’ choice will be Biden or Clinton.

        1. Biden, Clinton, or Obama. Even if they lose this election, they are not going to learn much. And if they win, the choices will be Warren, Biden, Clinton or Sandra Fluke.

        2. The utter collapse of Middle East foreign policy while she was SecState should do wonders for her campaign.

          1. I dunno. Utter inexperience didn’t matter for her or for Obama. Why would anyone care about demonstrated incompetence?

          2. As long as she’s got a never-ending stream of supporters who believe that this is all because of the Koch brothers, it probably won’t make a dent. Especially considering that after the firestorm of criticism about Obama’s remarks on the attacks, she (according to sloopyinca) is doubling down on them.

      3. Obama was apparently tweeting as they were unloading the coffins. WOW

        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J…..dia-Sept14

        1. What’s the saying? “The bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral”?

          1. “…and the baby at every christening.”

        2. Obama was apparently tweeting as they were unloading the coffins.

          Oh jeez.

    4. He’s a despicable human being.

      He’s a politician.

      1. There are politicians that are political animals yet decent human beings. I can think of some right now (Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Justin Amash) that are currently in office. I’m sure I could think of some others, but you get the point.

        And there are people that are bad politicians but come across as good people.

        Those occupants of the stage at Andrews do not fall in either group.

        1. I must say I find nothing to disagree with.

  17. Clinton just blamed the video for the attacks. I hope she has a stroke while walking off of the stage.

    1. So we’re to believe a crappy youtube is causing people to take to the streets and burn KFCs and storm embassies.

      1. Even if it weren’t a mere pretext, the official answer should be, “So what? We have freedom of speech, and neither I nor my government can do anything at all about it. No matter how many innocent people you murder or buildings you burn down.”

        1. “So what? We have freedom of speech, and neither I nor my government can will do anything at all about it.

          Fixed.

          1. Either way. My point was that the government doesn’t have the power to suppress a film based on its content. Why not say that?

            Of course, no one really buys that the film had anything to do with this.

            1. Allegedly the gentleman in LA sent Egyptian tabloids and papers the link and upsold the distribution and release of it.

              I can buy it’s about the video if the Egyptian version of The Midnight Star whipped up a furore.

        2. see — it’s not hard.

      1. I’m watching it live. Sorry, no link but she said they did it in response to a video that the government does not support or condone. (paraphrased to the best of my recollection)

        1. Jesus the Irony. Hillary Clinton has made public statements denigrating the customs of middle eastern countries in regards to how they treat women.

          IF her motorcade gets attacked, are we allowed to blame the attack on her insensitive statements?

          1. IF her motorcade gets attacked, are we allowed to blame the attack on her insensitive statements?

            I dunno. I say we find out.

            1. Please explain why that means something else than what it looks like sloop. I’d hate for you to get a visit from the men in black.

    2. As she called it, the great religion of Islam. She was thought a radical feminist by many when she first arrived on the national scene, but obviously she would comport more comfortably in a burqa.

  18. Obama, “They knew the danger and they accepted it.”

    Corrected version: “They know the danger and they pointed it out to us, but we didn’t listen to their warnings so they’re dead.”

    FIFY, President Fuckface.

    1. President Fucking Disgrace (and Prez Fuckface, he goes by many names)

    2. What a scumbag.

      That is all.

  19. Now he’s thanking the Libyans that took to the streets to thank us. Yeah, where were those fuckers when the armed thugs stormed our embassy?

    1. Don’t blame them. They (and I’m talking about civilians, not Libyan police and military ) are under no obligation to risk their lives against armed thugs to protect our ambassador.

      1. The ones who found him in the building and took him and another security guy to the hospital were risking their lives, I think.

        I just read earlier that the reason the Ambassador was in Benghazi was to dedicate a new wing at that hospital.

    2. The event involving the armed thugs was at the consulate in Benghazi.

      Unless I missed it, the embassy in Tripoli has not been attacked. But it just got fifty more marines flown in from a base in Spain – which strikes me as a sensible move.

  20. From the NY Times:

    At a bazaar about 30 miles east of Jalalabad, Afghanistan, protesters burned an effigy of President Obama.

    1. Liberal heads are exploding right now even as I type.

      1. They’re convincing themselves they really meant to burn an effigy of Bush; or maybe they’re doing it because of Bush’s policies.

        1. Or maybe they’re convincing themselves that the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party somehow infiltrated Afghanistan.

          1. You win this round. I bet if you went to Daily Kos or Huff or DU someone actually wrote that.

            1. I just imagine what Tony would write.

    2. Whoa… now we have to jail the filmmakers. They’ve single-handedly ruined Obama’s image abroad. And he was doing so well…

    3. So you’re telling me that not all of the reactions to this are irrational

  21. Just in time for Obama to act decisive by declaring War on Terrorism II. The only question now is which country will he invade the week before election.

    1. What’s bad for Obama isn’t the mess so much, which may just be one of those stupid Middle East moments, but it’s the way most people seem to be reacting. We don’t trust Obama and his administration to handle this intelligently or without running everything through an electoral lens first. I think that even goes for some of his defenders. There’s a weird sort of discomfort in the air about this administration.

    2. Failed domestic economic policy?

      Check.

      Failed foreign policy?

      Check.

      Election right around the corner?

      Check.

      Look at squirrel!

      Yeah, Obama could use a distraction right about now. Maybe some flag waving. Get some shots of him getting the recruits all fired up on television.

      1. If he were smart, he’d personally fly some of Commander (fuck the Navy title, he was Commander of Apollo Fucking 11) Armstrong’s ashes to the Eagle landing site and bury them himself, all on camera. Then come back.

        1. If this is what causes Obama to lose my bet, I will happily buy very expensive bottles of scotch with everyone who disagreed with me.

          Get your mailing addresses ready.

          1. *for* everyone who disagreed with me.

            I’ll never have been more happy to have lost a bet.

            1. I’ll be shocked if he wins. In fact, I think it’s going to be pretty bad, across the board. Including Congress.

              1. Same here.

                All the cans that were supposed to be kicked down the road until past the election seem to have piled up a little short. Its hard to see where he will get any good news to lift his campaign.

                I think we’ve been seeing the first few pebbles of a preference cascade. Or, it could just be wishful thinking on my part. But this is bad, very bad, optics, and this administration has been running on optics its entire life.

                1. These aren’t the issues Obama wanted to contend with in a debate.

                  And Romney’s got a huge advantage there in that Romney doesn’t have to defend his own record on foreign policy.

                  He can just attack Obama’s. And Obama’s got very little he can point to that doesn’t make him look really ugly.

                  Ha! Reality’s bitin’ Hopey McChange in the ass.

                2. I may just be living inside this little bubble here, but the media outdid itself this time around. There is a literal crisis in the Middle East and the first 24 hours were the media reporting on Romney.

                  What a categorical joke.

                  1. It’s like watching a deer you just ran over, flopping around pathetically. In a few years, it’ll all be blogs.

                  2. You’re not living in a bubble.

                    I’m an avid NPR listener– meaning I listen to NPR on the way to and from work. I switched over to NPR the afternoon of the attacks, listened the entire drive home (consisting of maybe 25 minute commute– not long, but long enough to catch something about an attack on an embassy in the middle east where an Ambassador was killed) and they didn’t have a single report. They talked about the teacher strike in Chicago, they talked about business news, covered some study about obesity. Not one single report in the 25 minute zone. Next morning, same thing. I turn on NPR, they’re doing another report on the teacher strike in Chicago. They do some other report on the environment… it goes on. I get to work, nothing. Zip.

                    When a major crisis like this erupts that kills your Ambassador, you cover and you cover heavily.

                    Where’s Aaron Sorkin now?

  22. So I’ve been on a business trip the past couple of days and missed the majority of this story. Could I get a summary (1-2 paragraphs) of what’s going on, with minimal commentary?

    1. Youtube made a bunch of Arabs go crazy and burn shit.

      1. Where’s that kill switch when you need it?

      2. and Romney lost the election for speaking about it too soon.

          1. sorry –meaning that was the headline he’s missed.

            1. Oh right.

              Yes, AD, the Middle East is on fire and it’s still Mitt Romney’s fault. Because, in the words of Joe Scarborough, Mitt Romney is simply irresistible.

              1. Romneybot has become self-aware, and has taken control of the drones….

            2. I understood your point. Romney’s strategy of not quite being Obama is paying off in spades now.

              I’m smelling a landslide. For Romney. How much do you have to suck to lose big to Willard?

              1. How much do you have to suck to lose big to Willard?

                Fuck, Willard lost to John McCain.

                1. I know! I keep pointing that out to people. It’s like all we have left now are joke candidates.

        1. hi
          My point is why America made anti muslims movie they know they ‘r trying to hurt and i think muslims did good reaction on this and America deserve this, i ‘m american citizen and i know how a good person live like, suppose if any body make a movie on our great heroes and shows us in bad manners then what ?
          So its time to think about it not to

          1. There’s the door, fuckstick. You can go back to whatever hellhole you came from.

            1. Has to be a troll. No one is that stupid

          2. Makes sense if you think about it. Seriously, how is violence and the killing innocent people a “good reaction” to a movie you don’t like?

            1. If your goal is to prevent any more such movies, its a very good reaction indeed.

              1. Good in terms of efficacy, I suppose, if you’ve got an Obama Administration.

              2. I just wish they’d gotten pissed off about Attack of the Clones and prevented the next 2 prequels.

                1. Wasn’t Attack of the Clones the second one? I hope there weren’t four prequels, for godsake.

          3. I take it you’re running this through a translator, so I’ll decipher it as well as I can and respond.

            We wouldn’t do anything if they said bad things about us. We are a sticks-and-stones society.* We take words seriously, but we react in kind. IOW, we don’t shoot a person for calling us names. People talk shit about us on a daily basis. In movies, on the airwaves and in speeches around the world every day. Do you see Americans burning things in the streets? Nope.

            Besides, if you think this was about the “insensitive” words from a YouTube video, then I’ve got some land to sell you.

            as far as if it were actually the video’s words that incensed the people? I’ll say this: Muhammad was a rapist, a pederast, a murderer and a thief. He was a false prophet that preyed on the ignorance of people and his adherents continue to prey on the ignorant and fearful to this day. If he were alive today, he should be captured, put on trial for his crimes and executed, and his ashes should be shit, pissed and spat on by every decent member of humankind.

            *Our government does not accurately represent our society.

          4. suppose if any body make a movie on our great heroes and shows us in bad manners then what ?

            Hollywood would give it some awards?

          5. so this should be stopped that they using a name terrorism the are not terrorist
            Reiki Training
            Reiki Courses

          6. I know you’re a simple caveman and our strange moving pictures confuse and frighten you.

          7. Well, obviously we riot and kill the nearest person who looks like a Middle Easterner. But since, for the sake of analogy with the Mohammetards here, we’re all morons, that person was actually a Sikh. So, basically, we’re talking about crowds of thousands of people as stupid, violent, bigoted, and hateful as Wade Michael Page.

      3. And all this stuff about “a video didn’t make them do it”?

        1. The video had all of 10 views prior to 9/11.

          The movie was screened (allegedly) in California in July.

          So the span of time combined with the date of the riots / storming / violence leads some to believe that this was a pretext for ‘test America on 9/11″ raid, especially given the fact that the Libyan attack was definitely quasi-professional and planned.

    2. It’s Romney’s fault.

      1. Because dissent stops at the water’s edge. At least when the POTUS is Team Blue.

  23. He’s talking about “we will bring the guilty to justice.” WTF does that even mean, huh? We’ll martyr them and they’ll be heroes and a rallying cry to militants everywhere.

    This administration doesn’t give a fuck about justice. If they did, they’d have tried that sick fuck Nidal Hasan. If they did, they’d have not left the protection of these men in (basically) a war zone to the local goons that were murdering for fun just a few short months ago. If they did, we’d have pulled out of these hellholes and let these animals butcher each other until there was only one left.

    1. He’s talking about “we will bring the guilty to justice.” WTF does that even mean, huh?

      It means he will accept the scapegoats the Libyans claim to have arrested as the culprits, and when the Libyans torture ‘confessions’ out of them and kill them, he will declare it’s time to put it all behind us and move forward, to Win The Future.

  24. Oh, the Maldives: The president has already said he’s staying neutral between England and Argentina.

    1. We did that until we didn’t the last time around. What’s the point? The Argentinians are on the wrong side of this in several ways, the most important being the people on the island have no interest in going over.

      1. Yeah, it’s not like the Falkland Islands are home to some indigenous group that hates being under British rule. They’re ethnically British and do not want Argentinian rule (the Falklands were not settled in pre-Columbian times, and besides, Argentinians themselves are largely not indigenous. It would be like the US claiming Bermuda)

        1. Wait a minute, I’d be for this. The Bahamas as well.

        2. NO. They won’t. Zulu warriors were highly trained and disciplined. And of course it didn’t end well for them did it?

          Uhm, the one time @ Rorkes drift, yes, but that’s why they made a movie out of it.

          most of the battles of the zulu war, not so much. Yeah, the brits ‘won’. But it was *ug-ly*. Probably ranks up there as one of the stupider wars of all time.

          Good book, this =

          http://www.amazon.com/Zulu-War…..e+zulu+war

          1. All of the British wars in Africa were stupid. The Boer War was even worse.

      2. Like the Argentine politicians care what the Falklanders want.

    2. Argentina’s going to invade the Maldives?

      WTF there like five thousand miles from Buenas Aires

      1. yes and as the link explained, its a gaffe, the Maldives are safe from both countries.

        1. The Maldives are not safe from America – we are sinking them with glowball warmening.

          1. they’re not sinking. unless the glowballs we’re sending them are overloading the substructures of the islands.

            1. That’ll just make them tip over.

              1. they should have ports on both sides of the islands then.

        2. Oh, crap, I read right past that. He tried to call them the Malvinas and called them the Maldives? Frankly, the worst part of that isn’t the error, it’s trying to say you’re neutral while using the Argentinian name for the islands.

          1. this is a makes made by people who are not as smart as they think they are

            1. a mistake made by …

              1. I had a friend in junior high who was on Malvinas this and Malvinas that because he’s Cuban. We made fun of him non-stop for years, because he’s actually a total right-winger and just had one of those weird and rare Hispanic solidarity moments (he tried denying his position, which changed shortly thereafter, but we were all witnesses). Really rare, because they all seem to think the Spanish-speakers from other countries are idiots.

                1. Really rare, because they all seem to think the Spanish-speakers from other countries are idiots.

                  Yeah, the whole “LA RAZA PRIDE” movement amongst Hispanics in this country is pretty ridiculous in this context. These people all tend to hate each other in their native countries; the only thing they really agree on is they don’t like whites (except on their soap operas and talk shows).

                  1. I had both Puerto Rican and Cuban friends growing up. While they weren’t beating each other up, they definitely thought the way the other spoke, acted, etc. was wrong, dumb, and silly.

                    The one thing I will say is that I learned most of my Spanish cuss words from the Puerto Ricans.

                    1. And the Mexican v Puerto Rican bad blood is a wonder to behold.

          2. I’m sure he was just trying to look air-u-dyte so as to get a social event coordinator hat tip. you know how people love it when you speak, you know, je ne se qua.

            1. If he were cool, he’d have referred to it in the original Icelandic.

              1. iceland, really? I didn’t know vikings traveled that far south

                1. Sure, why not? Who is going to tell a Nobel Prize winner he’s wrong?

                  1. judging from the last 4 years….not a single damn reporter.

                    1. Exactly. In fact, let’s start a meme right now that Obama said that although he’s neutral, Iceland probably has a better claim than either country. Then sit and watch the defenders defend. Who knows? Maybe a stray Viking did make it down there. It’s plausible, barely.

                    2. Only if he didn’t take a left at Albuquerque.

  25. I really am having trouble caring about the protesting, embassy attacks anymore. There is no easy solution (other than John’s “final solution” of mowing down anyone who yells mean things at us, you know, “showing strength”) and Obama has failed so much I can’t even bother to lift my fist in anger anymore. Especially since he is fighting the worst republican candidate since Wendell Willkie. No matter who wins, we lose.

    1. If only there were a third candidate running this time around…

    2. Although the Turd Sandwich is actually starting to make the Giant Douche seem appealing.

      1. which way would you rather die, disembowling or anal rupturing?

        1. Can I vote ‘none of the above’?

            1. Fuuuuck….

              Choose the form of the Destructor.

        2. Q. if terrorist held a gun to your parent’s heads and said the one you fucked gets to live, what do you do?

          A. A three way!

    3. LIT

      When you throw rocks and climb over the wall, you will get shot. You can yell all you like.

      The other solution is to take the Fluffy approach which is to tell the world that American diplomats are fair game to anyone who wants to kill them.

      You either have the will to defend yourself or you don’t. There isn’t any middle ground.

        1. Bullshit. That is exactly what fluffy is saying. He is said above that best thing to do was to “pretend nothing happened”. That is called doing nothing. And doing nothing is telling the world that American diplomats are fair game.

          If the solution to killing diplomats is to “pretend it didn’t happen”, then our enemies can kill any American wherever they find them with no fear of the government doing anything about it.

          That is not a lie. That is his position.

          1. No, it’s a lie.

            You are a liar. You have sold out your integrity.

            1. Fluffy| 9.14.12 @ 2:59PM |#

              Our best chance of stabilizing the situation is business as usual. Sweep up the flag ashes, repair the fence, issue boring diplomatic statements, and pretend nothing ever happened

              It is not a lie. Those are his own words.

              1. Those are his words. But he never said anything about rolling over and letting people kill our diplomats.

                You are either deliberately building a false case or you can’t read. You pick.

                1. If we refuse to do anything about this, why would we do something about any other diplomats? Wouldn’t the logic apply just as well there?

                  He didn’t have to say that. That is the logical implication of what he is saying. If it is not, when does it end? Two ambassadors? Three? At what point does his argument no longer apply?

                2. Those were my words in response to Egypt.

                  Because in Egypt, nothing really happened except a flag got burned.

                  Which means exactly squat to anybody who isn’t a fucking worthless redneck.

                  The flag has no value beyond its replacement value as a textile. So if Egypt cuts us a check for $9.95, we’re totally square on the flag bit.

                  I’m open to suggestions about what to do in Libya. Given the fact that there are more players on the ground there now than you can list on a scorecard, I double dog dare anybody to even claim they can authoritatively tell us who did it and who we should hit.

                  And machine-gunning people in Egypt would help us exactly fuck-all in stopping an assassination attempt using small arms and RPG’s in Libya. When you bring RPG’s to the scene, it’s pretty clear you’re not just going to run away if somebody fires an M-16.

              2. He was specifically talking about Cairo, John. I hope you merely missed that part and are arguing from a position of ignorance rather than malevolence.

                1. Yes. And his view is that we should not have done anything in response. My view is that because we refused to do anything, they are now attaching embassy’s everywhere. That is the whole debate sloopy.

                  And if they burn down an embassy somewhere else, I don’t see why the logic that he is applying to Egypt wouldn’t apply equally there.

                  1. The reason they’re doing it everywhere now is because those people are sheep that will do whatever the mob is doing, and it’s always fashionable to hate on the US.

                    If you think there are riots now, imagine what would be going on if the people securing the embassy at Cairo had shot at the attackers. It wouldn’t be a bunch of pants-shitting clowns burning flags and throwing rocks, it’s be Tehran all over again in every capital in the Muslim world.

                2. He was specifically talking about Cairo, John. I hope you merely missed that part and are arguing from a position of ignorance rather than malevolence.

                  So Fluffy (the appeaser) would favor stonger action if an embassy somewhere else were attacked?

                  I didn’t see even a hint of that in his posts this morning.

                  1. His point was no one got hurt in Cairo. It has nothing to do with the fact it’s in Cairo

          2. I disagree with Fluffy for the most part on this John, but he took pains to differentiate the Benghazi situation from the one in Cairo.

            1. Red Tony doesn’t need to know geography. Or how to read:

              It’s called reading! Top to bottom, left to right… a group of words together is called a sentence. Take Tylenol for any headaches… Midol for any cramps

              1. “Red Tony”

                You really showed me there Randian. I will take that to mean you have lost the argument and have nothing else to say.

                Thanks for conceding the point and making things easier.

                1. Red Tony no need logic. Red Tony have feelings. Red Tony can emote.

                  1. Shorter Randian,

                    Please John stop beating my ass in arguments or I am going to call you names.

                    1. You aren’t winning this argument. You’re winning in your own mind because you’re the Strong Dick and we’re all Weak Pussies.

                      At this point I am just fucking with you because you aren’t worth engaging. Unless Egypt is a river of blood you aren’t going to be satiated.

                    2. ITT people bitch at John for mischaracterizing their position and then proceed to viciously mischaracterize John’s position and then fail to make any real argument against John’s position.

                    3. I am too wining this argument Randian. I am not the one calling people Red Tony. You are. On this board that is the equivalent of a Godwin. Game set match.

      1. i have the will to get a helicopter and get the fuck out of dodge. If you want to blame obama on something, blame him for trapping our diplomats in hell, not not telling marines to shoot everyone in sight. As has been said before, the only real defense of an emabssy is by the host countries forces. Shooting rioters without an escape plan is an even better way to get killed, because they know you will run out of ammo.

        1. The rioters will go home if it becomes a contact sport. And yes, you need to extract them.

          And there were no Marines where the Ambassador was killed. That is negligence of the highest order. But, if your position is the Marines should never shoot, why is it negligence not to have them there? You can’t have it both ways. If you think it was wrong not to have a security, and I think it was, then you have to be willing to advocate the security actually protecting people.

          1. rioters will go home if it becomes a contact sport…maybe, or maybe now you have martyrs and even crazier rioters…obviously the marines should defend the ambassadors if the compound is breached, but a consulate/embassy is not a military base and you don’t put one where the host country can’t defend it for you.

            1. The number of people actually willing to die is pretty small. These are just opportunist mobs.

              1. oh i see you have a complete picture of what happened and understand all of the motivations of the people there. Great, I’ll just sit back and let you send in the drones.

                1. LIT,

                  I see. You know that these people are all fanatics wanting to die. Maybe they are. But they will be the first mob in history to be so.

                  1. John, it’s not just about a mob. Benghazi was a freaking coordinated terrorist attack with machine guns and RPG’s

          2. Now, if you would install the flamethrowers like I propose, you wouldn’t need to worry about running out of bullets.

            Nor, I suspect, would you see any unruly mobs anywhere close to your embassy, at least not after the first demonstration, err, maintenance check.

            An ounce of deterrence, and all that.

          3. Also, I would point out that technically, you wouldn’t be shooting/torching rioters. Since I presume they wouldn’t be shot until they were on embassy grounds, you would be shooting/torching invaders.

            1. that’s fine, but certainly not going to be enough for john, who would rather have us paratrooper in a battalian to take out and subdue the city.

              1. that’s fine, but certainly not going to be enough for john,

                That is bullshit and you know it. I am advocating exactly what RC is and no more, minus the flame throwers. So misrepresenting my position.

        2. I think I get John’s point – you will only run out of ammo if the host country refuses to take control of the situation, so you don’t need to hold out for a very long time unless the host country is complicit in the rioting, in which case they should be subject to military retaliation. Not that I intend to speak for John, but that’s my take.

          1. A small number of well armed people who are willing to shoot can control a mob. Once you shoot the first guy, the mob will run for its lives. The idea that a mob will mindlessly charge into automatic weapons fire until the ammunition is gone is bunk. They won’t. They will run for cover.

            1. You know who else held an overwhelming force at bay with a small band of determined soldiers?

              1. Davy Crockett?

                1. Sorry, but I was talking about Sam Gamgee and Wesley Crusher, people. But thanks for playing.

              2. General Custer?

            2. john,

              and when the crowd comes back bigger and more heavily armed and with martyrs? You can’t defend an embassy with any guard force. Firing is a last ditch effort when running is impossible or to cover escape. If a host country won’t stop its citizens, GTFO.

              1. How do you know they will? And by that point, the local government can be there. And if they are not or refuse to, that is an act of war.

                And these people are not monsters. They will run from fire like anyone else. They are only doing this because they think we will never shoot. The first time we do, it will all be over very quickly.

                1. why the fuck do you have such a boner for going to war? pull our embassy, cut off aid, but how the fuck does attacking Lybia or Egypt or any of these countries help the US?

                  1. I have never said go to war LIT. I have said about a hundred times on here that we should have immediately cut off aid and pulled out our embassy staffs from both countries. And Randian and fluffy immediately got a case of the vapors and suggested it was the equivalent to using nukes.

                    Had we taken the drastic action of cutting off aid and suspending diplomatic relations, Yemen and Tunisia would have been much more keen about protecting our embassies.

                    1. And Randian and fluffy immediately got a case of the vapors and suggested it was the equivalent to using nukes.

                      It lies moar harder.

                    2. Fluffy| 9.14.12 @ 2:46PM |#

                      We’re going to cut off aid and break off relations with Egypt’s government because a handful of guys climbed a fence?

                      What’s your plan for public urination? Nukes?

                      If you don’t like the words Randian, don’t use them

                    3. And Randian and fluffy immediately got a case of the vapors and suggested it was the equivalent to using nukes.

                      No, douche.

                      I mocked you by saying that if you were willing to machine-gun people in Cairo because some guys climbed a fence and burned a flag (i.e. committed trespass and petty destruction of property) that perhaps your idea of an appropriate reaction to the crime of public urination would have been nukes.

                    4. No douche bag,

                      You had a case of the vapors over my suggestion that we break off diplomatic relations and shut off all of the aid. That post wasn’t about shooting people. Read your post again

                      We’re going to cut off aid and break off relations with Egypt’s government because a handful of guys climbed a fence?

                      What’s your plan for public urination? Nukes?

                      You were not talking about shooting people. You were talking about cutting off diplomatic relations.

                    5. All of your posts here have called for machine-gunning the Egyptian protestors.

                      But fine, it doesn’t matter. The analogy still holds.

                      If you would cut off aid and break off relations with Egypt because during a demonstration some guys climbed over a fence, you’re fucking retarded. And have so little sense of proportion that you might, in fact, choose to respond to public urination with nukes.

                      (SLD that we shouldn’t have aid anyway. But if your reason for getting rid of aid is that some guys climbed a fence, you’re retarded.)

                      I can get people into any embassy in DC or any consulate in NY for a protest, no problem. If I can get three guys into the Russian embassy tomorrow to take shits on the carpet, should Russia cut off relations?

                      It would be fucking child’s play. We’d get in line to apply for visas, and once inside we’d take shits on the floor. POOF! No more US-Russia relations.

                    6. A mob broke into our embassy and tried to burn it down fluffy. That is pretty drastic. And all they would have to do to get relations back would be to bring the people who did it to justice. If you did that to the Russian embassy and the DC police refused to do anything about it, yes, I would say the Russians have every right to break off diplomatic relations.

                    7. The Egyptian police didn’t refuse to do anything about it.

                      You honestly have absolutely no idea what happened in Cairo, do you?

                      It all comes down to the fact that in your heart, you’re an easily manipulated redneck who wants violence because somebody hurt the oh-so-precious flag.

            3. A small number of well armed people who are willing to shoot can control a mob. Once you shoot the first guy, the mob will run for its lives. The idea that a mob will mindlessly charge into automatic weapons fire until the ammunition is gone is bunk. They won’t.

              You mean they won’t act like the Zulu warriors at Rorke’s Drift?

              1. NO. They won’t. Zulu warriors were highly trained and disciplined. And of course it didn’t end well for them did it?

                1. Blah blah blah John is right basically all of history vindicates his position.

                  Ex: In the ’90s America kept its Liberian embassy open even when the city was worse than Somalia. Asshole big-dick Liberian militia-gangsters would wave their guns at the embassy and otherwise provoke. It got worse and worse until one day it was ordered that a Marine sniper find a ‘commander’ in one of these gangs in front of the embassy and take his head off.

                  From then, all the US embassy got was respect. People passing by even took their mags out and displayed them. The mobs did not re-arm or come back.

                  1. Blah blah blah John is right basically all of history vindicates his position.

                    If the US adopted John’s policy and cut off relations with any country where anybody climbed over an embassy or consulate fence, if I was Al-Qaeda I’d have all diplomatic relations between the US and Muslim nations broken by the end of next week.

                    You’re aware that there are people who don’t want us to have diplomatic relations with Muslim nations, right?

                    And that those people are pretty well supplied with people who would be happy to climb a fence or two, and maybe even get shot?

                    1. Fluffy,

                      It was a violent mob. Stop pulling that bullshit slight of hand and pretending that what happened in Cairo is the same as one or two people climbing a fence.

                      That is MNG, Joe from Lowell level dishonesty. And you know it. And frankly it is beneath you.

                    2. Nothing is beneath the peaceniks. They are as fixated on ‘blame America’ as Liberals are fixated on ‘blame free markets’.

        3. Shooting rioters without an escape plan is an even better way to get killed, because they know you will run out of ammo.

          Mobs tend to lose cohesion and scatter when they no longer seem a safe place to be for those who are a part of them. It’s a natural mentality and the basic job of every boot camp instructor to reverse.

          Like you though, only defending the walls can be justified. Our policy should be to find those who are responsible for all of this and then pay them off. And then hang your head totally depressed when you find out we already have.

          1. Agreed here. If you look at 5 people and say, “two of you will die and three of you will likely make it past me,” I don’t think you’ll get too many people take you up on the offer.

            1. Among the sane, sure. Among self-righteous lunatics known for being willing to strap bombs to themselves to maximize body count, who can say?

              1. Mobs attract a different type of recruit than a suicide bomber. You are not going to find bravery in a mob.

          2. shooting is a temporary deterrent…if you don’t have a follow-up plan, you may be even more fucked.

            1. LiT, if you want to go out and smoke a peace pipe with the protestors, you go right ahead. I’m just telling you what I would do. If someone is an immediate threat to me, I shoot them. If not, I don’t shoot them. To not react in a necessary, according to the prevailing circumstances, fashion is unthinkable, decadent even.

              1. im just saying, there is a difference between what might be the best actions when you have a small, poorly defended consulate vs. hundreds of angry people vs. a situation where someone comes into your house and threatens you. Shoot the first person that climbs the wall, sure, but make sure the helicopter is there shortly when that dudes brother goes home and brings his friends with AK’s ready to take you out.

            2. And I know you have seen Young Guns II. I know you would make your last stand with Billie the Kid, I know you would.

                1. Billie would still be live today if he had a helicopter so I take your point a true on its face. But if you are surrounded, you got to keep shooting until you hear the sounds of the stallions thundering trod coming for you.

            3. Why not send in Clint Eastwood with a .44? They’ve all seen his movies.

              1. Lost_In_Translation| 9.14.12 @ 4:13PM |#

                WTF are you talking about?

                Arguments become to wound up and high strung, you got to diffuse the situation with distraction. It’s called diplomacy. I know diplomacy isn’t in fashion these days, but I would like to think it represents the better part of our nature.

  26. so this should be stopped that they using a name terrorism the are not terrorist
    Reiki Training
    Reiki Courses

  27. so this should be stopped that they using a name terrorism the are not terrorist
    Reiki Training
    Reiki Courses

  28. So how many seconds does it take to find something offensive on Youtube?
    I’m thick skinned and I’m thinking maybe 60 seconds to get me clip or speech or music that will have me throwing molotovs.

    How many seconds folks? A new game?

      1. The most offensive thing about that is that she was faking it. Now she’s pretending to be Australian.

    1. Ever see Deliverance? That’s offensive to my people. As are movies that show Southerners owning slaves. And TV shows that make Florida look like a crazy place.

        1. [Rushes out and attacks the Seattle consulate.]

      1. And TV shows that make Florida look like a crazy place.

        As long as they continue to depict us as better than California for the amount of random unbelievably hot tail that can routinely be found around any random pool, I’m okay with most of the Miami shows.

        1. That’s accurate, of course. We’re better than California, except for the mountains.

      2. my people…
        …Southerners…
        …Florida

        I fail to see a connection with Floridians (your people) and Southerners. Florida is a crazy place, full of inbred swamp people and mentally deranged malcontents, while the south is the land of milk and honey.

        1. When Urban Meyer goes tits up next season, your tears will be delicious.

          1. Yeah that’s not going to happen.

            For whatever reason Floridians have to engage in cognitive dissonance and conspiracy theories to cover for the fact that Will Muschamp sucks ass.

            1. Uh, (a) I’m an FSU fan, I’m not defending Muschamp and (b)everyone if Florida watched Urban Meyer come down with Post-Tebow Stress Disorder. He’s average.

              1. He was in the hospital during the SEC Championship game. I fail to see how that is Post-Tebow Stress Disorder.

                The recruiting class post-Tebow was ranked, what, fifth? All of the 2010 articles said Meyer’s leave of absence wasn’t going to slow down the Gators.

                1. Keep polishing the knob, dude.

                  1. Non responsive.

                    I fail to see how a coach who has never had a losing season…ever…is a ‘mediocre coach’.

            2. Meyer is gonna do fine, man. Once he gets rid of Miller, who is mediocre at best, they’ll be back to prominence.

              And yes, the BigTen is horrible this year. so what? There was an entire decade where the SEC sucked donkey balls. And the ACC was, is and will continue to be a freaking joke in football.

              If he sucked so bad, why is there so much butthurt from Gay-tors fans and others that are just pissed that tOSU gets who they want?

              1. I actually don’t care. I was glad to see Meyer go, as I thought he was creating problems here (not the cleanest coach ever).

                And, really, the idea that a UF fan is upset about OSU “winning” anything against us. . .well, I know you haven’t forgotten the pain. And the other pain. Feel the pain. And we have nicer weather and much more attractive women, too.

                1. Florida is the prolapsed colon of the south.

              2. There was an entire decade where the SEC sucked donkey balls.

                The 1980s? I remember them having some pretty good players and teams during that time (Bo Jackson, Emmitt Smith), but nowhere near the juggernaut they seem to be now. The Oklahoma/Nebraska monster and the big-time indy programs like Miami and Notre Dame seemed to dominate that decade more than any others.

          2. I should clarify. I don’t mean Urban will die. I mean he’ll be exposed as the mediocre coach he’s always been. Man, if only the Big 10 weren’t so weak this year.

            1. I’m glad the Gators won the titles they did, but I’ve never liked Meyer’s offense and think our defense had more to do with the national championships. Ask Ohio State about that pass rush.

        2. I’m not originally from Florida, and I’m afraid Florida is far more southern than most people from outside the state think. It’s pretty much all South until Tampa/Orlando, and that holds true south of here in the rural areas.

      3. Pro Libertate| 9.14.12 @ 4:00PM |#

        Ever see Deliverance? That’s offensive to my people

        At least we know that ProL can play a mean banjo now. And likes him a pretty mouth.

        1. That Ned Beatty is one handsome man. Or is that Valerie Perrine?

    2. This made me want to shut Youtube down.

    3. Heck, you can find stuff offensive to your religion on Broadway, if you’re a Mormon. How long until Mitt calls in a drone strike on Parker and Stone, once he’s in office?

  29. Wow:

    In a sign of the tensions the movie has sparked, Los Angeles County officials said the U.S. State Department had asked them not to release copies of the film permits containing information about who organized the shoot. Obama administration officials also flagged the trailer to YouTube and asked the company to review whether it violated the website’s terms of service.

    So the Obama administration wants the video removed from Youtube… and don’t parse with me here, by asking for a ‘review’ whether or not the film violates the terms of service, that’s asking to have the film removed.

    But the first part is interesting. You shoot a film, and it requires a permit. That permit goes into public record. So our regulatory environment for creating speech (regulate us, tax us, set us free) becomes a tool for Jihadists to find out where these guys live so they can kill them.

    I guess that’s the price you pay for regulated free speech.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/lo…..7127.story

    1. the U.S. State Department had asked them not to release copies of the film permits containing information about who organized the shoot

      Now its official – IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AN ALLIANCE OF TEH CIA AND JOOS TO SPARK BLOWBACK MIDDLE EAST INVASION TO STEALS THE OILS

  30. I am standing my ground on this one. Pull out our embassies from all of these countries, and break off all relationship with them. You cannot deal with 6th century savages. My message would be, ‘So long assholes, you are on your own, don’t be asking me for any favors. Were you getting any aid from us? Well, that’s gone also, assholes. Goodbye and Good luck.’

    So you might say ‘OH NO! We can’t do that. If we leave Russia or China will swoop in and make dangerous allies of these guys. NOT! They will have the same experience with these savages as we do, nothing but trouble. Just leave these people alone already, they are not part of the civilized world. In a few decades or centuries if they decide to become part of the civilized world, then we can talk to them again. In the meantime, if they try attacking us, the response will be fast and decisive.

    There is my policy if I were POTUS. Short and simple.

    1. We should have immediately pulled out of both countries, kicked their diplomats out of the US, and suspended all aid. And then told them, if you want your aid or your diplomatic relations back, go find the people responsible for this and bring them to justice. And oh by the way, any other country who can’t protect our embassy there will suffer the same fate and any protestor coming over any wall, will be shot.

    2. And now we turn to our coverage of Michelle Obama doing a dance with fourth graders for her “Let’s get movin'” campaign.

    3. But let me quote fluffy on this issue

      We’re going to cut off aid and break off relations with Egypt’s government because a handful of guys climbed a fence?

      What’s your plan for public urination? Nukes?

      You are going to cut off relations over a few people climbing a fence? You monster. You might as well nuke them.

      1. They killed a diplomat. That is a little more serious than climbing on a fence.

        1. Why are you too stupid to read the thread and discover that we’ve been talking about Egypt?

          Forget it, that’s a rhetorical question.

          1. And trying to burn the fucking embassy down is just like one guy trying to climb a fence, right Fluffy?

            1. The embassy wasn’t burned down, Jane.

              1. It wasn’t for lack of trying. And it certainly wasn’t one guy climbing over the wall and you know it.

                1. I’m sympathetic to Fluffy’s argument. You don’t machine gun ordinary protesters, even geniuses like these guys. Well, you can, but you might not like the publicity. But that assumes that you can hold the trespassers until the cops show up. And it assumes that they’re just protesting and that’s all they’ll do.

                  Neither assumption was true in the situation in Cairo. Sure, we know now that all the mob wanted to do was redecorate (though I wonder if the mob was able to gain access to the building, whether that’d still be true?), but the embassy staff had no way of knowing that at the time. And the cops, initially in Cairo, weren’t stopping the mob from coming over the wall. (They are now.) Given both of those, I have no problem with the idea of the Marines killing the first guys over the wall.

                  As it is, I’m not seeing what future mobs in other Islamic countries have to lose by also invading U.S. embassies. I think tarran’s right on this one, and it will end up with hostage-taking by one of those mobs.

                  If we’re lucky.

            2. Can’t we all just get along?

          2. Um, Fluffy, I was reading the thread. If you read my comment, I was talking about ALL the embassies, not just Egypt. So while you may have been talking about only Egypt, I wasn’t.

            But knock yourself out on the calling of stupid if you wish, most of us around here can take that, we aren’t cry baby liberals.

            1. Then you shouldn’t have answered John’s post, which was quoting me talking about Egypt, shit for brains.

              If I am in a discussion about Egypt and post, “All that happened is some people climbed a fence,” and you post, “Nuh-uh! They killed a diplomat!” you are either not paying attention or you are retarded.

              1. All that happened is some people climbed a fence,”

                That is not all that happened. A mob tore the flag down, raised the Al Quada flag and basically took over the front part of the embassy.

                1. Ah jeex John some fences were climbed some blood shed don’t you see these things just happen? I mean that’s life. You have to move on and let go.

                  THIS IS WHAT FLUFFY ACTUALLY BELIEVES.

              2. I shouldn’t have answered John’s post?

                Hmm, well excuse me, Mr. Fluffy. I guess I forgot that you are the grand moderator and Lord of the forum, and that you must be paid attention to at all times. LMAO.

      2. There is no distortion of reality the Reason peaceniks will not entertain to get what they want. Granted, I am surprised so few are talking like Fluffy is. Gives me hope.

        1. Well, when Fluffy is posting, you better pay attention. Or he will have a hissy pissy fit. Especially if you reply to someone else whose message has not been approved by Fluffy, the new grand inquisitor of H and R.

    4. And we’re going to close our military bases too, right? And stop bombing?

      That’d probably be my response too.

      1. That wouldn’t help at all.

        1. Removing our diplomats, closing our military bases and ceasing drone bombs wouldn’t help at all?

          1. This has nothing to do with bases and drones, both of which we might actually need right now.

            1. We need drones and bombs because our embassy got attacked in an effectively lawless country? Get the fuck out of there. Then guess what, we can’t be attacked. Oh but wait, they’ll hijack more planes, right?

            2. Yeah Cyto, let’s give em more targets to attack

      2. Works for me. And Obama can stop playing with his drone toys that he’s so obsessed with, just so that he can pretend that he’s a really cool guy. What a dumbass.

        But, Opey already said these attacks are not aimed at the US, so I guess we need some ivy league professors to sit down and figure out what they are really about so that we can figure out what to do.

        Leave these savages alone already and they can go back to killing each other like they have been doing for 3000 years.

        1. Unfortunately, the will come for us. It’s not an either/or proposition between killing each other and us. Hence the need for the droning and other tactical assets.

          1. No, they won’t. You’ve never read a book on this, Cyto, and you clearly haven’t read Al Qaeda’s fatwas.

            Their targets are Israel, the Shia, and the autocratic regimes they live under. To the extent we protect those targets or directly intervene, we will be attacked

            1. You’re the one who is not read up on the subject. OBL said himself to his staff and the like that he in it for Islamic supremacy. Hence the attacks on Denmark etc.

            2. And I suppose the Christian folk living in “al-Andalus” need to either leave, pay the slave tax or convert and learn Arabic?

              Where will British Duchesses go to sunbathe topless?

    5. I’m fine with this. Leave and take our goodies with us. And tell Israel they can do what the fuck they want.

        1. That’s called non-intervention, idiot.

    6. I’d vote Hyperion for president. PRESIDENT HYPERION. Wait aren’t you the villain from that shitty movie a year or so ago?

      1. I know not of your villain. But, I am taking applications for VP and chief minister of propaganda.

  31. I’d just like to point out that Ron Paul’s contention that “they hate us because we are over there” looks even more insane than ever before. His face needs to be rubbed in that shit. And his son should do it. That would make it sweeter.

    1. Not really.

      You can’t turn these things on a dime.

      If I was an Egyptian, I might still hate the US for supporting Mubarak. He’s been gone, what, a year? I didn’t expect them to instantly forget and call it square as soon as the guy fell.

      I openly admit that there will be a period of time when we step back from empire when lots of people with legitimate beefs with the US suddenly won’t have a boot on their necks, and those people might be pissed.

      Too bad. We need to ride it out.

      If a Russian-supported dictator had just been toppled in the US last year, even if part of the reason he fell was because Russia finally stopped supporting him, you could still talk me into burning the Russian flag. Pretty easily.

      But if you’ll notice, the Egyptian government has calmed the situation there. And pro-US demonstrators are on the streets of Benghazi. And that surprises me, a little. I would have thought it would take 10 years to ride it out, but it might go much quicker than that.

      1. Yes, America’s government has done so much to support the former dictator Tunisia and the current one in Sudan. And in India. The truth is gonna hurt more and more the harder you fight it.

        1. Just because our intervention is inconsistent (propping up dictators and then toppling them later, for example) doesn’t mean they aren’t rage-inducingly stupid

          1. Just because the protesters attack embassies in countries where America has done no such thing or embassies that aren’t American doesn’t mean you aren’t going to break from your rage-inducingly stupid ideas.

    2. The Libyan attack was a coordinated terrorist attack. If you think it was a riot over a movie you are an idiot

      1. This whole thing is beginning to look like a well coordinated operation designed to confuse some issues and take advantage of differing opinions in the U.S. on terrorism, islamic extremism, tyranny in the mideast, etc. The issues can be separated, but the media blitz is falling into the trap of conflating some separate concerns, and as a result wrong decisions will be made and ineffective action (if any) will result.

        The administration is desperate to avoid this whole situation and get it over with soon at any cost due to the potential impact on the elections. Their rushed responses will likely leave a festering undercurrent of resentment if indeed they calm matters down at all.

      2. Isn’t there some speculation that it could be a retaliation for one of Obozos cool drone attacks? Not saying it is, but I thought I saw some speculation about that.

        1. Isn’t there some speculation that it could be a retaliation for one of Obozos cool drone attacks?

          The former #2 of AQ was of Libyan descent, and got droned in April of this year. Zawahiri called on AQ, and Libyans in general, to avenge his death. Given that Ambassador Stevens was involved with deposing Khadafy, or was perceived to be, you can argue that pro-Khadafy loyalists had a big reason to snuff him too.

          1. And, per the Guardian, the Muhammad movie was shown on Egyptian T.V., shortly before the initial riots.

            YGIAGAM whether that was coincidence or not.

      3. The other riots were riots.

    3. Who’s “they”?

      You’re a Randian idiot, Cyto, and the whole board knows it. Use this as an opportunity to keep your mouth shut

      1. Aw it’s baby’s first internet trash-talk session. Are you a fucking 5 year old? I love listening to your stunted ‘arguments’ by the way they’re so fun to smoosh. I’m almost embarrassed for you.

        1. I don’t normally comment on people’s handles (largely because mine’s pretentious as fuck), but a fight between you two is gonna look like an episode of WWE’s Smackdown.

          It’s not so much individually, but something about seeing them together screams fireworks, spandex and people getting hit with chairs.

          But that’s probably just me. I fully admit to being more than a little weird.

          1. Pretty sure there’s an intoxicant involved in this post…

            1. I wish. Just straight-up sleep deprivation.

              1. I’ll have another beer for ya.

  32. Neither the dove approach or the hawk approach will work. The get the fuck out of there and leave them to kill each other is the only right approach.

    1. The Free Bird Plan. Fly high, free bird.

        1. That’s right, and we can repeat it over and over again. There goes the American eagle, flying away from the bullshit.

          1. Just walk away. Just walk away.

          2. This is actually very liberating. Picture the American Eagle rising above, flying away, and just not giving a fuck, Honey Badger style.

    2. Indeed. This whole “let’s continue our current policies of interventionism but talk really nice and engage in intellectual surrender” is just nauseating. Either complete withdrawal and cutting of aid or carpet-bombing would be preferable

    3. Neither the dove approach or the hawk approach will work. The get the fuck out of there and leave them to kill each other is the only right approach.

      I kinda see the appeal of Obama’s Drone Strike Diplomacy.

      You sporadically rain death from above on a place like Yemen, and when the locals finally get mad about it? You blame their anger on a movie.

      There’s something really, essentially Obama about that.

  33. I recommend going to Blockbuster and renting “High Noon”. Watch. Then continue with discussion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.