What are we apologizing for exactly?

[Maprik]

I don't see condemning the actions of a misguided group exercising their right to free speech as an apology. Why are you saying that it's an apology? Is it an apology every time the US condemns the actions of a group, government, act by an individual etc? The Cairo statement was a condemnation of a free action, not an apology. Romney and the GOP are calling it an apology in an effort to politicize it. Well, most of the GOP and DEM foreign policy experts are calling Mitt's reaction a huge FP blunder...

[OliverH]

The whole movie thing seems so bizarre and farcical it is hard to know what the deal with that is.

It's pretty obvious that whoever made it did so with the intent and expectation of whipping up hatred all around. First, it was calculated to inflame anger on the part of an awful lot of Muslims and to incite them to violence. When some took the bait, their response could then be used to reinforce anti-Muslim prejudice and stereotypes in the West. In addition, the contents sound like exactly the kind of hateful and wildly slanderous stuff that appeals to western (and especially American) religious bigots and Muslim-haters (like some people on this very forum), many of whom will unabashedly and uncritically promulgate its assertions in various right-wing blogs and on Facebook and other social media to keep the flame burning brightly.

Overall, I'd say the filmmaker succeeded brilliantly.

[Maprik]

This

The governments of Libya and Egypt have condemned the violence and the murder of embassy personnel. I guess you should consider this an apology.

[Maprik]

It's pretty obvious that whoever made it did so with the intent and expectation of whipping up hatred all around. First, it was calculated to inflame anger on the part of an awful lot of Muslims and to incite them to violence. When some took the bait, their response could then be used to reinforce anti-Muslim prejudice and stereotypes in the West. In addition, the contents sound like exactly the kind of hateful and wildly slanderous stuff that appeals to western (and especially American) religious bigots and Muslim-haters (like some people on this very forum), many of whom will unabashedly and uncritically promulgate its assertions in various right-wing blogs and on Facebook and other social media to keep the flame burning brightly.

Overall, I'd say the filmmaker succeeded brilliantly.

Agree 100%

[timcsaw]

Seriously. Four Americans were killed and all you guys want to do is politicize it as a smear campaign against Obama (for something that he didn't even say).

Who here has politicized this incident as a smear campaign against Obama for something that he didn't even say?

I'm glad to see those pictures by the way... I hope that they can take control of their religion.

[OliverH]

Today, from the pro-United States demonstrations in Libya:

Seriously. Four Americans were killed and all you guys want to do is politicize it as a smear campaign against Obama (for something that he didn't even say).

In a word: yup. But it's not like they're alone in this. The old Mittster is normally a more careful and measured fellow, but--perhaps under pressure of the latest poll numbers--he pulled the "damn Obama" trigger a little too early, and elicited an overall negative response, including from those within his own party whose knowledge and experience in foreign affairs outweighs their partisan feeling. Here's a buzzfeed entry from earlier today: "Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement"

[somber]

In a word: yup. But it's not like they're alone in this. The old Mittster is normally a more careful and measured fellow, but--perhaps under pressure of the latest poll numbers--he pulled the "damn Obama" trigger a little too early, and elicited an overall negative response, including from those within his own party whose knowledge and experience in foreign affairs outweighs their partisan feeling. Here's a buzzfeed entry from earlier today: "Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement"

Mitt's face after delivering his condemnation of "Obama's apology":



He sure looks sad that one of his peers, Ambassador Stevens, was murdered.

Who here has politicized this incident as a smear campaign against Obama for something that he didn't even say?

I'm glad to see those pictures by the way... I hope that they can take control of their religion.

We're obviously not reading the same thread here. Anyway, they have about the same ability to 'take control of their religion' as Christians do in silencing the Westboro Baptist Church from calling fallen soldiers faggots.

[timcsaw]

It's pretty obvious that whoever made it did so with the intent and expectation of whipping up hatred all around. First, it was calculated to inflame anger on the part of an awful lot of Muslims and to incite them to violence. When some took the bait, their response could then be used to reinforce anti-Muslim prejudice and stereotypes in the West. In addition, the contents sound like exactly the kind of hateful and wildly slanderous stuff that appeals to western (and especially American) religious bigots and Muslim-haters (like some people on this very forum), many of whom will unabashedly and uncritically promulgate its assertions in various right-wing blogs and on Facebook and other social media to keep the flame burning brightly.

Overall, I'd say the filmmaker succeeded brilliantly.

Classic case of "Trolling for violent Muslims" and it worked like a charm.

[timcsaw]

In a word: yup. But it's not like they're alone in this. The old Mittster is normally a more careful and measured fellow, but--perhaps under pressure of the latest poll numbers--he pulled the "damn Obama" trigger a little too early, and elicited an overall negative response, including from those within his own party whose knowledge and experience in foreign affairs outweighs their partisan feeling. Here's a buzzfeed entry from earlier today: "Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement"

Mitt's face after delivering his condemnation of "Obama's apology":

He sure looks sad that one of his peers, Ambassador Stevens, was murdered.

LOL! Oooooh.... these are kinda' priceless right here ^^^^^..... How did you say that Somber? "Four Americans were killed and all you guys want to do is politicize it as a smear campaign against Romney?" .... I think I have that right, don't I???

We're obviously not reading the same thread here. Anyway, they have about the same ability to 'take control of their religion' as Christians do in silencing the Westboro Baptist Church from calling fallen soldiers faggots.

Did you ever notice that when the WBC idiots show up at a fallen soldiers funeral or whatever, with their disgusting signs and chants and such, that there are hundreds of good people / bikers etc. that place themselves in between the WBC idiots and the family of the fallen... and do everything they can within the law to shield the innocent from the idiots?

Now imagine if there had been those kinds of good folks who had been willing to stand between the idiots who stormed our embassies/consulates to try to shield the innocent Americans who were killed... See the difference? There weren't just a dozen or so idiots like the WBC folks "attacking" the innocent with hundreds of good, well intentioned people holding them at bay... there were THOUSANDS of idiots (like the WBC people) and there was NO ONE trying to control them who was willing to stand in between them and their victims.

We, within our law, do our best to control (fairly successfully) the very few idiots like the WBC members and denounce them at every turn... where are the "we's" in Libya, Egypt etc.?

That's why I said I was glad to see the pictures you presented of the people over there holding signs, and why I hope that THEY can take back their religion.

As I write this, I understand that protests are "ramping up" again over there... I wonder how many of those people you showed holding signs, are standing in between the idiots and the innocent people that the idiots will try to kill tonight. If there are any at all, I wish them well and success.

[quietmike]

I don't see condemning the actions of a misguided group exercising their right to free speech as an apology. Why are you saying that it's an apology? Is it an apology every time the US condemns the actions of a group, government, act by an individual etc? The Cairo statement was a condemnation of a free action, not an apology. Romney and the GOP are calling it an apology in an effort to politicize it. Well, most of the GOP and DEM foreign policy experts are calling Mitt's reaction a huge FP blunder...

It's pretty obvious that whoever made it did so with the intent and expectation of whipping up hatred all around. First, it was calculated to inflame anger on the part of an awful lot of Muslims and to incite them to violence. When some took the bait, their response could then be used to reinforce anti-Muslim prejudice and stereotypes in the West. In addition, the contents sound like exactly the kind of hateful and wildly slanderous stuff that appeals to western (and especially American) religious bigots and Muslim-haters (like some people on this very forum), many of whom will unabashedly and uncritically promulgate its assertions in various right-wing blogs and on Facebook and other social media to keep the flame burning brightly.

Overall, I'd say the filmmaker succeeded brilliantly.

Theses views would be a lot more believable if lefties had also condemned a crucifix in a glass of urine or an image of the virgin Mary being smeared with cow manure.

[Noctis3880]

Mitt's face after delivering his condemnation of "Obama's apology":

He sure looks sad that one of his peers, Ambassador Stevens, was murdered.

Yeah, I'd say that makes him a bad politician. A GOOD politician still won't give a damn, but he'll make it LOOK like he does. Mitt is a liar yes, but he's not a good liar. I wonder which Obama is? Do I assume that Obama is lying? Yes. How do I know? His lips are moving.

I'm glad to see those pictures by the way... I hope that they can take control of their religion.

We're obviously not reading the same thread here. Anyway, they have about the same ability to 'take control of their religion' as Christians do in silencing the Westboro Baptist Church from calling fallen soldiers faggots.

I have a theory on that actually. Were any of these people arrested, charged, and/or prosecuted? Is there any separation of state and religion?

With regards to Westboro Baptist Church, we cannot legally silence them by force, those that do are charged and sued. It's also generally true that even if the exercise of free speech causes emotional distress, censoring someone because what they say is hurtful or "offensive" is a line many of us don't want to cross.

There's also a fundamental difference between our two societies. We allow a dissenting voice. Even if we don't agree with it, even if it is offensive, even if it's blatant ass**** behavior, we allow it. I suspect in the middle east, disagreement is frowned upon, and disagreement with Islam(particularly the foundation of it) is utterly unquestionable. So in that sense, you might say it was understandable why a lot of them behaved the way they did. Note that I didn't say it was justifiable(not to us anyway), just that with these ideas of how their society works, you can understand how they will respond. They don't understand dissent, they generally don't allow it. So upon seeing that video, it was understandable that many of them jumped to the conclusion that this was the opinion of Americans in general. They judged our behavior with the concept of how their society worked and not with the concept of how our society works.

I also suspect that the Middle East "Law of the Land" is either synonymous with the "Religion of the Land", or the religion is held above the law. With that particular perspective, it may well be that for them, these actions are entirely acceptable, perhaps even expectable. They might even wonder why most of us are making a fuss about them wanting to kill us for something a few of us said. And this might infuriate a lot of people, but I suspect if Christianity were held above our own laws for the general populace, we'd be doing the same thing in the same situation.

[Codger_64]

It seems that the man behind the movie is not what/who he appears to be. California has no record of a realtor of that name. One person who met him twice said that he was not Israeli. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out. Oh... and we just stationed two destroyers off the coast.

The writer/director may possibly be a coptic from Egypt. Burn Egypt to the ground? Attack Egyptian embasies?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?1347497061

[hostileuniverse]

We are apologizing because this administration thinks you can "reason" with terrorists, it really is that simple.

[timcsaw]

I have a theory on that actually. Were any of these people arrested, charged, and/or prosecuted? Is there any separation of state and religion?

With regards to Westboro Baptist Church, we cannot legally silence them by force, those that do are charged and sued. It's also generally true that even if the exercise of free speech causes emotional distress, censoring someone because what they say is hurtful or "offensive" is a line many of us don't want to cross.

There's also a fundamental difference between our two societies. We allow a dissenting voice. Even if we don't agree with it, even if it is offensive, even if it's blatant ass**** behavior, we allow it. I suspect in the middle east, disagreement is frowned upon, and disagreement with Islam(particularly the foundation of it) is utterly unquestionable. So in that sense, you might say it was understandable why a lot of them behaved the way they did. Note that I didn't say it was justifiable(not to us anyway), just that with these ideas of how their society works, you can understand how they will respond. They don't understand dissent, they generally don't allow it. So upon seeing that video, it was understandable that many of them jumped to the conclusion that this was the opinion of Americans in general. They judged our behavior with the concept of how their society worked and not with the concept of how our society works.

I also suspect that the Middle East "Law of the Land" is either synonymous with the "Religion of the Land", or the religion is held above the law. With that particular perspective, it may well be that for them, these actions are entirely acceptable, perhaps even expectable. They might even wonder why most of us are making a fuss about them wanting to kill us for something a few of us said. And this might infuriate a lot of people, but I suspect if Christianity were held above our own laws for the general populace, we'd be doing the same thing in the same situation.

It's a cryin' shame really... I'm sure that there are many good, peace loving Muslims out there that honestly just want to live and enjoy their lives... but so many of them (and non-Muslims) will die before the religion ever reaches an "age of enlightenment", if it ever does.

[Nordic Viking]

In a word: yup. But it's not like they're alone in this. The old Mittster is normally a more careful and measured fellow, but--perhaps under pressure of the latest poll numbers--he pulled the "damn Obama" trigger a little too early, and elicited an overall negative response, including from those within his own party whose knowledge and experience in foreign affairs outweighs their partisan feeling. Here's a buzzfeed entry from earlier today: "Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement"

He has to appeal to his fundie base. Interestingly the morons who want to start a new civil war when Obama wins again wish they had the balls to blatantly attack the government like these morons in Libya did.

[Nordic Viking]

The writer/director may possibly be a coptic from Egypt. Burn Egypt to the ground? Attack Egyptian embasies?

LOL, so when Libyan Muslims kill Americans they're scumbag Muslims, but when supposedly scumbag Egyptian Christians incite riots they're Egyptian.

[eyeeatingfish]

I don't know if I would call that an apology, especially given the rest of the statement which is a much stronger statement about basic freedoms. Saying that they don't like it when someone basically purposefully goes and says something just to incite hate is not exactly what I would call an apology.

Even then if my daughter went up to some other kid and told them "you are ugly" I would most likely apologize for my daughters rude and unneeded statement. So why is it so bad if the Ambassador to Egypt says that he doesn't like it if an American goes and says something aimed at doing nothing more than pissing off a people that we have a shaky relationship with in the first place? I hardly think that the statement was regarding someone who said "I don't believe in Muhammad," rather it was probably for some much more insulting comment.

Besides would it really be that hard to imagine a situation where you might applaud a public official for condemning something someone said in free speech? Someone who condemned the words of that church who protests soldiers funerals for example? How about condemning the words of someone who said rape is the fault of the victim? Etc etc etc.
The government should not block free speech but that does not mean it should not condemn certain things that private people may say. There is a reason they say the pen is mightier than the sword, because words have a whole lot of power and like it or not apologies can save immense amounts of heartache.

I would also like to comment on the attitude I believe that I often see here. The attitude that a strong harsh response is always the right one and that anything different is weak and wrong. A coworker posed a question to me. Lets say I stopped a guy for speeding and found a few other smaller violations like a burnt out tail light and he forgot his license at home. I decided to give him a break and only wrote a ticket for speeding but when I give the guy the ticket he swears at me and calls me every bad name in the book. So do I ask for the ticket back and add on the other charges just because I am pissed from his contempt of cop or do I stick with my original decision? Well I answered that I would stick with my original decision and my coworker got irritated claiming that I just let him get away with his rude behavior (a constitutionally protected behavior) and therefore now he thinks he can get away with it so he will treat other cops even worse and give them a hard time.
However my position is that in most cases adding on the other charges does nothing but reinforce this driver's belief that cops are dicks. Now if it was the person's first time maybe he would get the hint. The driver probably acted like he did because he was previously treated badly by another cop or he learnt a very negative view of cops from someone in society. The driver is probably more likely to be surprised by an officer who was polite despite verbal abuse, and would be more likely to second guess his actions when he realized he was the dick than by a situation where the cop just confirmed his stereotype of being a dick.

Now this is not to say that being polite to everyone will always work. There are some criminals that need to be dealt with harshly but that is often the exception not the rule. I believe that this holds true when dealing with a foreign society that really hates us especially when it is based upon things they have heard that are often not true.

So sometimes an apology is much more effective than some harsh rebuttal even if you were right. This is a message that I have seen more than once in relationship books too so I am sure we can all relate to an argument with a spouse where a small thing turns into huge damage that could have been avoided were the parties to refrain from the harsh statements.

[Noctis3880]

I would only agree with your assessment of the apology VS a harsh response if they had simply kept to protesting. However, they KILLED someone and quite frankly I think even the harsh response seems a bit hollow compared to the severity of the action.

There's also a difference between your daughter and the YouTuber, you're responsible as the father for her actions. Who's responsible for a grown adult acting like an idiot? More sense would be made to have the guy's parents apologize, and even that would be a stretch. Seriously, we have 300 million citizens in the country. Is the government going to apologize on our behalf every time someone steps out of line? If that were the case, I think we're all owed about a few trillion apologizes for past crimes and thousands more a day. That's just actual crimes though, if we're including being offensive to others, every word out of everybody's mouth would have to be an apology.

[Codger_64]

LOL, so when Libyan Muslims kill Americans they're scumbag Muslims, but when supposedly scumbag Egyptian Christians incite riots they're Egyptian.

I'm not sure where you came up with THAT out of what I said. There are people out there trying to identify who the guy behind the fake name is and what his motivations were. Are you disappointed that he may not be one of your "American Fundies", but a person from some Middleeastern country with an agenda? All we know at this point is that he is not who and what he represented himself to be, an Israeli Jewish realestate developer from California.

[Nordic Viking]

I'm not sure where you came up with THAT out of what I said. There are people out there trying to identify who the guy behind the fake name is and what his motivations were. Are you disappointed that he may not be one of your "American Fundies", but a person from some Middleeastern country with an agenda? All we know at this point is that he is not who and what he represented himself to be, an Israeli Jewish realestate developer from California.

No, I'm not disappointed. It's the usual story of crazies in third world countries using fake religious slights to screw things up and then American Christians telling us how their imaginary dead friend is better than Islam's imaginary dead friend.