US warned of embassy attack, did nothing

[DrLeftover]

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination





Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

http://www.independe...on-8135797.html

 

[DrLeftover]

The story has now been confirmed by several overseas media outlets.



Still has not been aired by US networks.

 

[DrLeftover]

Amazing. The contrast of the answers.



The instant condemnation of Mr. Obama's administration before the matter has played out by the 'loyal opposition'. (combined with a healthy dose of anti-Americanism seen in the gentleman based on circumstantial evidence at best)



The instant rejection of anything negative about Mr. Obama's administration by the true believers, (coupled with a shot of 9/11 conspiracy without a shred of objective evidence)



I just find it fascinating.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

O is ANTI-AMERICAN and his sole purpose is to destroy this country. He is for muslims and against Americans. He should be hung as all traitors should be.

I strongly disagree with the antagonistic views you have expressed towards Muslims (forgive me if I am mistaken). Muslims comprise a piece of the American fabric just like any other demographic, so why divide them from the rest of Americans? This also sets a dangerous pretense in placing Muslims (once again a broad generalization is made to herd every Muslim into a collective) on the losing end of a very precarious, exclusionary dichotomy.



Personally, I am interested in knowing more about the validity of claims made regarding the planned nature of these outbreaks of violence; whether this was in fact truth or speculation.

 

[DrLeftover]

The US media has finally noticed.



And it is an approved Non-Disgusting Non-Hating one at that:



http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...-of-concern-about-anti-muslim-film/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[DrLeftover]

Be that as it may.



The story is getting some traction at CNN



http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/libya-diplomats-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Sinon]

Strongly disagree with whatever you like. I don't give a damn what you do or don't like or agree with or disagree with.

Everything that muslims stand for is hatred, violence, mistreatment to downright abuse and murder of women, destroying anything American, and their beliefs and way of life are archaic and inhuman. They preach death to anyone who doesn't see things their way. Nothing on this earth would ever make me accept muslims or what they believe in. They are a vile, evil people. They do nothing good for this world and are intent on any and everything bad for America specifically. I put those people in the same class as Hitler. Whenever the word muslim comes into a story, the news is always bad, violent, sick, warped, evil. I've got no use for a single one of them.

To be fair though, Christianity in the US has a much bloodier history than Islam in the US. What with the 12 million (or thereabouts) Native Americans killed by Christians for their land and such. This is something a lot of people forget. They're quick to join the bandwagon of being part of the One True Goodness, despite the fact they condemn others for enacting the same tragic events their own faith has enacted a thousand times over.



I'm not saying I disagree with you entirely, but you have to look at both sides of the coin.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

I would also agree that 9/11 changed the perception of an entire culture of people - and not for the better. It wasn't just the Muslim religion - immediately after 9/11, anyone who even looked to be of Middle-Eastern background or to have an unfortunately ethnic name or accent came under suspicion and possibly even persecution. Following 9/11 there was largely a one-sided approach in the media in regards to the portrayal of Muslims, driven, in no small part, by a culture of fear. Terrorism is an intangible, ideological construct, as such I find it quite hypocritical when the media tries to frame it to a single religious or ethnic group.



I believe that typifying any religion puts it at risk for irrevocable damage. Like any other religion, there exist particularly radical strands who interpret religious text differently and observe it differently across cultural and generational lines. There are Christian sects - such as the Coptic Christians where women and men sit separately during religious services. Is that to imply that all Christians practice this way and hold the same ideologies towards women? There are, likewise, fundamental strands of Christianity who treat non-theists or even fellow Christians who don't see things their way with hostility.



There are Muslims who wouldn't identify with the politically radical interpretations of the Nation of Islam, let alone the radical jihadist groups. Personally, I have not read anything in the Quran which would advocate or praise such acts of violence and aggression. In fact, there are many hadiths which emphasize virtues such as humility, good character, and, of course, peace.

 

[Sinon]

Personally, I have not read anything in the Quran which would advocate or praise such acts of violence and aggression. In fact, there are many hadiths which emphasize virtues such as humility, good character, and, of course, peace.

I actually had a discussion about this on another forum. Much like the Bible, the Quran can be taken in many different ways. But some verses are quite clear in their intents. An example being 8:39 http://corpus.quran....pter=8&verse=39

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

While it does have an underlying message of peace, the method used to attain that peace can only be viewed as bloodshed, war, hate.

I love it when people try this excuse on me.

First of all, what the Christians did is no better than what the Muslims do; why do people say that as if it's a reason to accept muslim ideals??!?! I'll never understand why people say that.

Second, you're talking to a Cherokee/Blackfoot descendant. Don't ever think it's something I forget about. I was raised on those stories up until I was 16 when my 100% Blackfoot Great-Grandfather would tell us about having to run while his people were being slaughtered behind him. Having to renounce his Native way of living to get work.

No, I won't be forgetting about that.

Correct. It is no better. But many people completely ignore that, in favour of uniting in hate towards the ragheads sand-niggers and such, and believe it to be an acceptable reasoning for their hatred because oh wow, a small cell killed three thousand people.



Kill a man from the military, you're a weirdo

But kill a wog from the Middle East you're a hero

Your country is causing screams that are never reaching ear holes

America inflicted a million ground zeros

-Lowkey



In no way am I supporting the belief that we did it first so it's only fair, but there's a bit of a difference in numbers. It doesn't seem to be taught, though. Lots of people don't pick up on how much more violent their own religion is, but are still capable of condemning others because of similar acts. It's nonsense.

 

[Fatal Dawn]

I actually had a discussion about this on another forum. Much like the Bible, the Quran can be taken in many different ways. But some verses are quite clear in their intents. An example being 8:39 http://corpus.quran....pter=8&verse=39



While it does have an underlying message of peace, the method used to attain that peace can only be viewed as bloodshed, war, hate.

Justification of violence in times of self-defense or in defense of one's faith is certainly an area of controversy. Often this leaves room for the justification of extreme* actions in times of ethnic conflict. I believe this can be illustrated more colorfully in observing how certain jihadist movements within the Muslim community have responded to Western influence as a threat to their fundamentalist approach to their faith. To which end I recognize that you have acknowledged that the message is often different from the application - this being a very important insight. Where you may have attributed this extreme interpretation as inherent to the religion is where I would respectfully disagree.



*Please note that I am using the word extreme contextually. I agree with your observation (looking at both sides of the coin) that such emotive responses are highly subjective.

 

[Jazzy]

Posts made in this thread were in violation of board rule {g}[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(245, 249, 253)] [/background][font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][background=rgb(245, 249, 253)]Religion debates (making topics and/or posts anywhere on this forum containing argumentative comments or discussions relating to religious disagreements;. In the future please refrain from creating threads/posts regarding religion. If it continues, staff will have no recourse but to delete the thread/posts and issue warnings. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. [/background][background=rgb(245, 249, 253)][/background]