Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:14 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17113
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It's a metaphor from The Wizard of Oz.

The protagonists go to Oz to find a brain, a heart, courage, and home. Allegedly they will find it at Oz. But when asking for their wishes, they face a monstrous and threatening character.

It takes a dog to see the man behind the curtain.

Trouble breaks out in several Muslim countries. Allegedly there's some film (that nobody on this side of the pond heard about) which portrayed Muhammad in an unflattering light. OK... We know that a small minority of "Muslims" have very thin skin. There is trouble at the Egyptian embassy. A flag is torn down.

And then... out of nowhere a well-coordinated, heavily armed group attacks a U.S. consulate in Benghazi. They kill our ambassador to Libya, and 3 others in the firefight. On the eleventh anniversary of 9-11.

Just a coincidence, no?

Something doesn't appear right.

Image

To make it all worse... We have leaders apologizing for our First Amendment. Our free speech rights - rights that generations of men have given their lives for - are sacrificed because "leaders" fear what amounts to a cover for true malevolence hiding behind the chaos.

Yes, that's right. American leadership took the bait - hook, line and sinker. American leaders are cowering from the decoy. A president and our Secretary of State are babbling. The opposition candidate isn't doing much better.

Somewhere, somebody is laughing. And these people don't care about a B-rate movie that nobody has seen. No, this is different. These people hate what we stand for.

I am not fooled. I have a long memory for such things.

I say what I think. And I defend my country's First Amendment. I believe everyone in this country has a right to make an ass of themselves. Don't like it? I'll send my address.

But that's just a distraction.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:47 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1750
Location: USA
I'm with you on this, Bill. There's 'not enough evidence to suggest a coordinated attack' that killed a former U.S. Navy SEAL and a U.S. Ambassador. Uh huh. No coordinated assault, just an uprising involving RPGs and assault rifles. Uh huh.

We should NEVER apologize for someone's expression of free speech. I posted this on facebook Thursday:

Quote:
Instead of apologizing to these idiots, we should be telling them to grow up. Christians have endured a century of mockery, seen Jesus depicted upside down in a glass of urine, Mary smeared with elephant dung, and both defiled in countless other ways. No one would excuse a horde of Christians stampeding a government facility and slaughtering the occupants. The U.S. government wouldn't be apologizing for anything, either.

Wouldn't it be shocking to the Muslim world if every democratic country in the world unleashed a coordinated, fact-based assessment of their precious prophet? You can't wage a holy war against the entire world. Even the most ignorant zealot could understand that. If they can't get around to a Reformation, maybe it's time the world pushed them into one.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
I'm not totally sure what you guys are referring to in terms of leadership apologizing. You do know that Romney's accusation was nonsense, right? Do you have a quote you can share that constitutes some kind of apology for the first amendment?

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17113
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:
I'm not totally sure what you guys are referring to in terms of leadership apologizing. You do know that Romney's accusation was nonsense, right? Do you have a quote you can share that constitutes some kind of apology for the first amendment?

Sorry, but Romney's accusation was not nonsense. You're buying into the media propaganda, and not dealing with the facts.

To be fair, we're in the fog of war, metaphorically speaking.

Here's a sober assessment of it all.

- Bill

Quote:
Posted on Sat, Sep. 15, 2012 04:00 PM

COMMENTARY
The Cairo embassy statement was fair game
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN
The Kansas City Star


For Republican Mitt Romney, it must have seemed a clear shot: A mob storming the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and a limp embassy statement apologizing for an anti-Islam YouTube film produced in the U.S.

“The Embassy of the United States,” the statement said, “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

Romney quickly put out a news release highlighting the misplaced emphasis on Muslim feelings, but it was badly worded and he would have been better advised to wait. He had a valid point to make, but in his haste he unwittingly triggered a media bonfire.

It’s not hard to understand why the embassy statement cried out for a retort.

Obama began his administration with what many have dubbed an “apology” tour, including a speech in Cairo in which he sought to ingratiate himself with the Muslim world and contrast his administration with that of George W. Bush.

And few could forget Obama’s creepy habit of bowing to various foreign leaders, or his inability to articulate the concept of American exceptionalism. Or his administration’s laughable attempt to rebrand war as “overseas contingency operations” and terrorist attacks as “man-caused disasters.”

The Obama administration was and is vulnerable to accusations of insufficient vigor in defending U.S. interests and values, and Obama’s “lead from behind” approach has arguably contributed to the spectacle of a Middle East in flames.

But Romney’s initial statement was marred. Its key passage said the Obama administration’s “first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

That made it sound as if he was accusing the administration of sympathizing not only with the attackers in Cairo but those in Libya, where a coordinated assault by terrorists resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.

Yet in his statement the next day, Romney made it clear that his “sympathize” remark had applied only to Cairo. The administration, he said, “was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions.”

Many in the media worked themselves into a how-dare-you-lather, arguing that Romney had been too hasty (agreed), and claiming the Cairo statement wasn’t fair game (absurd).

It turns out that administration officials in Washington also saw the Cairo release as appalling.

Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy magazine reported that the embassy official who put out the “feelings of Muslims” statement first sent it to Washington and was told not to release it without revisions.

It went out anyway, angering top people at the White House and State Department, according to Rogin. Rogin’s source told him officials in Washington found the statement “tone deaf.” That’s putting it mildly, which explains why it was later disavowed.

A subsequent statement by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

In other words, she put in what Romney said the Cairo statement had left out.

Romney was also assailed for “conflating” the embassy statement with administration policy, which strikes me as weird. How was he to know the Cairo official was a loose cannon? Don’t U.S. embassies represent the U.S. government?

And yet, had Romney waited a few hours he might have avoided a good bit of this muddle, leaving his main point clear.

As is evident from this — as well as the antagonistic coverage of his foreign trip during the summer — Romney is facing an extremely hostile press, and he will have to learn to manage that problem more adroitly.

To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call 816-234-4480 or send email to mcclanahan@kcstar.com.



- The Kansas City Star


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17113
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
For the record...

Evidence is now coming forth that the source of the video which allegedly caused so much trouble was Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian who lives in suburban Washington, D.C. His anti-Islam campaigning led to the revocation of his Egyptian citizenship earlier this year.

While the video is said to be crude (at best) and misrepresented itself to the actors who participated in it, the plight of Coptic Christians in the Middle East (from emigration to outright ethnic cleansing at the hands of muslims) is something that should receive plenty of media attention. But it hasn't. Google "Plight of Coptic Christians" and you'll learn of how a once majority faith in Egypt has been reduced to a discriminated and abused minority. And the sources? Never a mainstream paper. Why is that?

Ask Salman Rushdie (award-winning author of The Satanic Verses) and Jyllands-Posten (author of a comic strip depicting Muhammad in an unflattering light) about the double standard in world media. And in my opinion, that comes from sheer cowardice. The pen in this case has not been mightier than the sword. It's been as limp as the organ of a 90-year old whose Viagra prescription has expired.

This is why we need to emphasize the importance of the First Amendment in this country. Every idea should get a voice, and those ideas should compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Meanwhile... all this is still a distraction. Shadowy forces have attacked U.S. sovereign soil, and killed a U.S. ambassador. Imagine the uproar if something like that happened in this country.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
The Cairo embassy made their statement before they were attacked. That is the most important fact in understanding why Romney was dead wrong in his attack, and the article you posted overlooked (or intentionally omitted) it. It was clearly an anti-Obama hack job, as evidenced by such gems as "And few could forget Obama’s creepy habit of bowing to various foreign leaders, "

Here's what embassy actually said:
Quote:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Hardly sounds like an apology for free speech. In fact, it sounds to me like it's pointing out "hey free speech is a universal right"

Try this more comprehensive article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ogy-was-i/

"The Embassy statement also reaffirms two American values: the American value of respect for religious beliefs and the American value of democracy."

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17113
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Sorry, Justin, but I have to call you on this. I came into this impartial with respect to parties, and you're now coming in as an Obama apologist.

The embassy statement was an apology. If you can't acknowledge that, I can't help you. We should NOT be apologizing for our First Amendment. It exists for this very situation, Justin. Do a little research.

What Muslims have done to Coptic Christians - and the video was made by a refugee Coptic - is just short of ethnic cleansing. Where is the acknowledgement of THEIR hurt feelings, Justin? Sorry, but that video - however crude - did NOT happen in a vacuum. There is no spontaneous generation.

Do a little reading up on Egyptian history. It goes back several thousand years. You're going to have to dig, Justin, because much of the truth isn't reported by the lamestream media. In fact the movie Agora (about the fall of Alexandria) actually got banned in this country. A Uechika from Greece sent it to me, which is why I was able to see it.

Follow the plight of the Coptic Christians.

Then come back and tell me why our Embassy needed to talk about the "hurt religious feelings" of ethnic cleansers and barbarians. And remember it was they - and not the US - who violated international law by storming our embassy.

I'll defend your right to disagree with me, Justin. Call me a sunovabitch if you want. But I'm also giving voice to anyone else in this country. Let ideas compete with each other. Let's not give bandwidth to barbarians who riot because their "feelings" got hurt.

By the way... Why didn't you comment on the author and editorial writer I posted about above?

Image

Image

They both had death sentences placed on their heads because some poor babies got their feelings hurt. Proportional response? I think not. And you're playing right into it.

Off of soap box.

And thanks for the bandwidth, my friend.

- Bill

P.S. - My statements against those who attacked our Embassies overseas or who called for violence against artists are in no way meant to disparage any religion of peace. I respect all "reasonable" faiths and call for all to be understanding and tolerant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Sorry, Justin, but I have to call you on this. I came into this impartial with respect to parties, and you're now coming in as an Obama apologist.


That article you posted was anything but impartial. And you came into it basing Obama, as usual.

Quote:
The embassy statement was an apology. If you can't acknowledge that, I can't help you. We should NOT be apologizing for our First Amendment. It exists for this very situation, Justin. Do a little research.


It wasn't an apology. Did you even read the link I posted, or the quote in its entirety? A condemnation is not an aplogy. Even if they had said "we are sorry" instead of "we condemn" that would've made it an apology for having obnoxious people, not an apology for freedom of speech. It very specifically pointed out that free speech is a universal right. It didn't apologize for free speech in any way.

Quote:
What Muslims have done to Coptic Christians...


Is worse, but doesn't make this an apology. There's no excuse for the violence, that's a no brainer. Of course the video didn't happen in a void. It's still (from all reports, haven't seen it) just pointlessly insulting and crass. Honestly, I think the whole concept of offense is a little silly, but the reality is that people really do get deeply upset at mere words, and that's not going to change. You can call people stupid for not having the strength of character to shrug off character, but the fact remains that the video was (seemingly) designed to make people very upset on purpose.

Quote:
Then come back and tell me why our Embassy needed to talk about the "hurt religious feelings" of ethnic cleansers and barbarians. And remember it was they - and not the US - who violated international law by storming our embassy.


So first of all, nobody had stormed the embassy when this statement was made, so the fact that it later happened is not relevant. Second, this is a very telling statement. "Ethnic cleansers and barbarians" does not fairly describe the set of people with hurt feelings. It doesn't fairly describe Egyptian muslims in general, either.
And if you're trying to only label the people who actually rioted with that description, well those people Did Not Exist at the time the statement was made.

Quote:
By the way... Why didn't you comment on the author and editorial writer I posted about above?


Because I didn't think it was a particularly interesting or relevant point (sorry). I knew about both already. If you came here saying that all muslims are perfectly reasonable and don't persecute anyone, then I'd bring those guys up. There's a lot of people getting crapped on by other people all over the world and throughout history. It all ties together in various ways, but Salmon Rushdi's situation is an irrelevant example of muslims being idiots the same way Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder's is an irrelevant example of christians being idiots.

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Murphy North Carolina
Just curious. If the statement put out by the Embassy was benign and not apologetic in "nature", then why would the Administration come out and say it was not an authorized, nor agreed with statement? There must have been something about that statement that the Administration did not want to be tied to??



Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 1348
Location: Somerville, ma.
Steve Hatfield wrote:
Just curious. If the statement put out by the Embassy was benign and not apologetic in "nature", then why would the Administration come out and say it was not an authorized, nor agreed with statement? There must have been something about that statement that the Administration did not want to be tied to??


Because it was an unclear, poorly phrased statement that lends itself to misunderstanding. For example, conservatives are now twisting it into an apology for free speech. For another it leads people (like Bill) to get on a soap box about how muslims have treated other groups. It wasn't a particularly good statement, but it was neither an apology, nor a statement that the administration as a whole endorsed.

Here:
Quote:
"People at the highest levels both at the State Department and at the White House were not happy with the way the statement went down. There was a lot of anger both about the process and the content," the official said. "Frankly, people here did not understand it. The statement was just tone deaf. It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'"


http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... ro_embassy

_________________
- Justin Powell


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17113
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Valkenar wrote:
For example, conservatives are now twisting it into an apology for free speech.

You sound like Chris Matthews who labels everything he doesn't agree with as being "far right."

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

An apology by any other name is just an apology - for our First Amendment.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17113
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
OK since this is all a conservative plot, and past "causes" of death threats due to literary works don't count, and we're supposed to ignore the "feelings" of all other religious groups (those bothersome victims...), we'll just chalk it all up to a distraction.

MY POINT ALL ALONG. (The man behind the curtain.)

But just so we include a primary source or two... Here's the video clip in question.

'Innocence of Muslims' Trailer [HD] - Egypt Protest Film

Really??? A well-armed group is going to attack the Benghazi compound (9-11 being a coincidence of course...) and kill the U.S. Ambassador to Libya over this?

Sure! It all just spontaneously developed over that short, amateurish trailer. :roll:

- Bill

P.S. I was acting better than this in high school plays.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Murphy North Carolina
Val you quote an "official" above. One statement in particular caught my attention. The one using the reasoning that the Cairo's statement was tone deaf. Here's the statement below. It's about as far from "tone deaf" as I've ever seen. It's got plenty of tone.


"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

And I find it amazing that the Administration can be outraged and disappointed and corrective of the original statement BUT Mitt Romney can't be. Hmm....... And for the Ambassador to the UN to then come out and say, categorically I might add, that they are now convinced this entire operation (Libya attack with RPG's and suppressive fire et. al) was constructed entirely because of this video boggles my mind.

If the Administration knew about the statement before and as it was being released, why wouldn't they come out and change it immediately, why wait so many hours??

It's clear this has become a political issue. For both parties. But Dem's can't cry foul until they retract all the "political" statement s and accusations they've made over the Iraqi war. Yep. It's political for sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:36 pm
Posts: 414
Location: Strongsville, OH
NUKE THEIR SCUM ASSES TO THE PREHISTORIC AGE AND GO IN SARATOGA SUITS TO PUMP OIL 20 YEARS LATER!!!

POLITICAL STATEMENT MADE.... STEVIE FOR PRES!!!! lol :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________




SILENCE!!! I Kill You!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Murphy North Carolina
I'm votin' for Stevie :evilbat:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group