Muslim rage

Love is evasive and yet always with us in some form. No matter how bitter and twisted u may become over time there is still a spark in every individual. Even those that follow the darkside. The sith. Even the person that has been consumed by evil can harness that spark to to heal any wounds that may have been been infilcted on an indiviual psycologicaly speaking. I agree searching for love or anything that is worth pursuing is a diffulcult process but I have to disagree with you. Searching for love does not essentially "stop" u from finding it.

Unbelivers are far more capable of barbaric acts than belivers, becuase if you belive in nothing, then why not do it?

Back your words with facts. The least religious nations on earth also happen to be the most peaceful and their people, the most charitable.

If I knew nothing about the events surrounding the attack on Benghazi but the dates, I would highly suspect a coordinated, calculated strike. It's pretty textbook manipulation. You have two emotionally charged groups - Americans on September 11th and a Muslim population angered by a silly video that conveniently went viral right before the attack. That's a lot of energy on both sides that needs the slightest of sparks to ignite an ugly response from either one. In a way it makes sense that the media is downplaying the event as crowd fervor and not an organized attack. It is certainly what I would do if I wanted to prevent a knee-jerk response calling for straight retaliation. A more measured response will come in time.

If I was an organization seeking to gain power and credibility based on radical fundamentalist Muslim beliefs, it would be through a spectacular attack on a symbol of American government. A soft target like Benghazi would be perfect. If I wanted to polarize the Middle East/Africa and play upon many of the fears and sentiments of its denizens, I would try to lure the great American tyrant back into the region and once again put them in the role of occupier.

The Department of State dropped the ball, in my opinion. Their m.o. is to build relationships between the US and foreign governments. They build trust and communication, which is a great thing. Libyans loved Chris Stevens, and for good reason. He was a very dedicated man and believed in what he was doing. Part of that trust is finding a balance between making your home a fortress or an estate in a neighbor's backyard. Stevens had to have known he was taking risk with a decreased security posture. The regional security officer at either the consulate or the embassy either wasn't doing his job or wasn't heeded. Was it a calculated risk assumed to build trust, or did he not understand the gravity of security in a country in the middle of an upheaval? Methinks he did, at least in the end before the 11th. Secretary of State Clinton has been oddly silent besides the general condemnation of the attack. I would wager there's a reason for that which will be known in time.

My two cents...your mileage may vary.

I think this might already be obvious and known, but I want to make sure the point is stated and known, from here on in this thread.

The people responsible for the violence and uproars in the Middle East are Muslim Extremists. They're behaviors should NOT be seen as a reflection of Muslims in general. Moreover, the United States' war on terrorism is NOT a war on Islam. Rather, it is a war against RADICAL Islam. Nobody would have issue with that conclusion, because both non-Muslims (us) AND regular Muslims (non-extremists in the Middle East and elsewhere) know that Muslim extremists hurt everyone.

Jackofalltrades wrote: Unbelivers are far more capable of barbaric acts than belivers, becuase if you belive in nothing, then why not do it? There are army's with rows and rows of unbelivers in this world.

I would have to disagree with this statement for so many reasons...The Holy Crusades, Beirut, Palestine/Israel Conflict for Jerusalem, Muslim Jihad. Aside from the Holy Wars, how many times have you heard about someone who did something inconceivable because "God told them to do it". How many world wars have been fought because multiple countries believed in one thing and others believed in another? Vikings used to be the very definition of a barbarian and they did most of what they did trying to get to Valhalla. Ancient Mayans/Incans/Aztecs used to make human sacrifices for their gods. For most people, a belief is worth fighting for.

SeanChing wrote: I think this might already be obvious and known, but I want to make sure the point is stated and known, from here on in this thread.

The people responsible for the violence and uproars in the Middle East are Muslim Extremists. They're behaviors should NOT be seen as a reflection of Muslims in general. Moreover, the United States' war on terrorism is NOT a war on Islam. Rather, it is a war against RADICAL Islam. Nobody would have issue with that conclusion, because both non-Muslims (us) AND regular Muslims (non-extremists in the Middle East and elsewhere) know that Muslim extremists hurt everyone.

They seem like the regular flag burning crowd to me, not the extremists. Although the extremists are undoubtedly in their mosques making sure everyone gets really pissed off.

I have to agree with master ren, sean. I addressed that claim on page 1. That excuse is getting worn out in any case. If a series of coordinated attacks by thousands occurs in the space of days in different countries, it ceases to be exttremism and becomes prfetty mainstream, approved-by-the - general-populace activity.

Resticon wrote:

Jackofalltrades wrote: Unbelivers are far more capable of barbaric acts than belivers, becuase if you belive in nothing, then why not do it? There are army's with rows and rows of unbelivers in this world.

I would have to disagree with this statement for so many reasons...The Holy Crusades, Beirut, Palestine/Israel Conflict for Jerusalem, Muslim Jihad. Aside from the Holy Wars, how many times have you heard about someone who did something inconceivable because "God told them to do it". How many world wars have been fought because multiple countries believed in one thing and others believed in another? Vikings used to be the very definition of a barbarian and they did most of what they did trying to get to Valhalla. Ancient Mayans/Incans/Aztecs used to make human sacrifices for their gods. For most people, a belief is worth fighting for.

You think that violence is the product of faith?

Infact it's the product of anger and nothing else. These wars aren't faught from a difference of opinion. heh. The people who fight them are not in the least bit faithfull. It chills me to the bone to think that someone could "Faithfully" destroy a nation. *Shivers*

ren wrote: They seem like the regular flag burning crowd to me, not the extremists. Although the extremists are undoubtedly in their mosques making sure everyone gets really pissed off.

I don't know why your bluntness/matter-of-factness/whatever-else-you-want-to-call-it still surprises me... :laugh:

Ah well, life would be much more boring without a healthy dollop of Ren every now and then

Some faith in humanity is restored: Thlousands of Libyans march in protest of local militias and killing of the US ambassador.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/21/benghazi-anti-militia-protest_n_1903846.html