September 15, 2012

We have always been at war with YouTube!

Rev. Right comments:
Jay Carney, White House spokesman, yesterday: 
"The reason why there is unrest is because of the film...it is not in response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, or the American people, but it is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be be reprehensible and disgusting...This is in response to the film...The cause of the unrest was a video...These protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region...This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."

Nothing the matter with American foreign policy, the whole problem is that some gold-chainer posted something on YouTube. Who could have foreseen that?

116 comments:

Anonymous said...

funny how you tube takes down well reasoned videos critical of israel and zionism but lets this stand.

Also remember that the official hate police of youtube is the ADL.

a certain former LA politician's videos are constantly taken down.

Anonymous said...

"..This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy"

We have officially surpassed the Soviet Union in propaganda out of touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

a certain former LA politician's videos are constantly taken down.

LA as in Louisiana, not Los Angeles.

Mnemosyne's Notebook said...

"My administration's only mistake was in misunderestimating my own infallibility."

Mnemosyne's Notebook said...

"My administration's only mistake was in misunderestimating my own infallibility. And everyone else's fallibility. Wait, my administration's two mistakes were..."

Anonymous said...

Re-election in a month a half... move along, nothing to see here....

Anonymous said...

Bush: They hate us for our freedom
Obama: They hate us for our non-PC

Anonymous said...

i easily forsee a future inwhich youtubes that say "save europe" and lay out the demographic situatation will be banned in europe or america for inciting similiar riots. however i must give the muslims credit. they don't seem to protest that stuff as much muhommad stuff.

Big bill said...

Gates of Vienna has a YouTube interview (The Sun) with a Canadian reporter meeting demonstrators in Cairo.

The Cairo demonstrators stated on film that their beef was with blind Sheikh Rahman still being in jail. Rahman, as you know, was the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing.

Nobody mentioned a Movie made by some Coptic Guido.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing rational in the way any of this is being represented by the media.

The video is not the product of the US government, the video is not the real cause of these well-orchestrated riots; the real cause is the motivation to move the West inexorably towards Sharia compliance,in particular to force the US and other governments towards censorship; as has effectively been achieved in the emerging dhimmi country of "Great" Britain.

The other purpose is to send a message to Hilary, BO and Cameron that, now that they have served their purpose in the removal of several (broadly) secular tyrants, that the Caliphate does not want the "open society"-type culture peddled especially by Hilary, ie feminism, abortion, atheism and homosexuality.

Witness in particular the Ambassador to Libya, and what may really have happened to him.

Anon.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous with your assertions about Youtube: you'd be more persuasive if you provided some links as examples for each of the categories of things you are talking about there. Otherwise I am not taking you seriously.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday, my Scottish-Irish co-worker was telling a group of us at lunch that the reason they are protesting is because they are Sunni Muslims and think that we are weak due to our softness on Iran. He said they would stop protesting and become friendlier with us if we were to attack Iran, because they are Shia and are hell bent on world domination. LOL

Steve in Greensboro said...

How could anyone take seriously anything said by Howdy Doody?

Anonymous said...

Sheeeeeeet, the Muslims got riled up just like Wright in his hate church. goddamn amerikka.

Anonymous said...

One thing for sure, if Gadfly had been in power, he would have made sure the US embassy didn't get attacked.

Anonymous said...

a certain former LA politician's videos are constantly taken down.

Who?

IHTG said...

I guess Anonymous thinks he's not allowed to say the name David Duke here?

Victor said...

If one little movie, with no distribution beyond Youtube, can inflame the Middle East and result in the death of an Ambassador and the breach of a US embassy in an allied state, then isn't that proof that US influence in the region was very weak, and that US policy has severely upset the stability in that region?

Belden said...

Careful, horsesh*t like Muslims coming unhinged over You Tube could be just the excuse the libs use to try to clamp down with more Thought police on the internet to go after all those pesky right wing types who won't be happy little pod people.

Anonymous said...

Seen the movie? It's very bad, but funny in places.

Ex Submarine Officer said...

This is just like the (ostensible) cause of the Sepoy Mutiny (or whatever PC name it has now).

Some things never change.

anony-mouse said...

Why is everyone picking on youtube?

There are dozens of other such services:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_hosting_services

If you don't like youtube's policies, try another service. Or maybe create your own.

Nah, forget that. Just complain instead.

Anonymous said...

It isn't about US geopolitics. A few years ago the same violent riots flared up against Denmark for allowing publication of Mohammed cartoons, and the Danes don''t exactly have a large imperial footprint in that part of the world.

sunbeam said...

Wouldn't surpris me if the desired effect was produced.

Or if the effect wasn't intended but welcomed nonetheless.

Come on. Who made this movie exactly?

And why was it made exactly now, and released?

I call BS. Some reaal people will die because of it, but it will mean jack shit in ten years.

More stupid emo associated with a US election.

And because the Koch brothers have more money than sense it got published.

Stupid f*king tards deserve every punishment Obama won't give them.

Maya said...

Well, on the news, I've seen them burn the American flag instead of trashing Google phones and tablets.
Also, they did, you know, kill the US ambassador instead of taking a hit out on Larry Page. So, I'm not convinced that the Muslims have a problem with youtube instead of America.

Besides, I wonder, how many of the rioters don't even know about the video or have never seen it?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know this video became so wildly known in such short time? Video of better quality are uploaded so frequently that they are no longer noticeable.

Anonymous said...

I saw a trailer for "Innocence of the Muslims." It's awful. Like, cable channel 99, 3 am awful. Who would pay it any mind? It reminds me of the final scene in the South Park episode, "Cartoon Wars."

Whiskey said...

War with actual Israelis, who actually kill people they are at war with, is not really what most Muslims have in mind. No one in the ME is hated more than Israelis, a bunch of Egyptian journalists ran a "prank" posing as Israelis and nearly got attacked before they revealed to their guests they were not Jews but in fact, Egyptian Muslims. But hate gets outweighed by fear. Morsi is not really keen on his brand new Presidential palace in rubble courtesy of the Israeli Air Force.

Putin likely killed about 30-40K Chechens. He's backing Assad, jihadist enemy #3. No one is burning the Russian Embassy. Nor are they protesting Uighur repression in China.

Weakness just invites attack. Obama bet it all on buddying up with the Muslim Brotherhood and media-supressed drone attacks. How has that worked out for him? Oh yeah, not good.

Denmark is pretty much the epitome of the Pat Buchanon strategy. And that worked out for them how?

There is no magic button to press to make Muslims go away or stop hating us*. The best we can do is make them fear us.

Muslims hate us because we do things they cannot. We abandoned our religion and traditional way of life Obama lauded in Indonesia, and his mother spent her life "studying" ... to get rich and powerful. Muslims WANT those things but cannot take the steps to get them: stop praying five times a day, stop fasting once a year for a month, stop treating women like chattel, stop jihading, stop treating the world like you live in a Harry Potter film filled with 'magic.'

The American public may be obsessed with Honey Boo Boo, but it gets up to go to work in the morning believing that things work in a predictable and mechanical way, most being able to both read and write, and do simple arithmetic as well. Few believe in magic or spells or that water could run uphill in five minutes if a genie wants to make it happen. This is beyond most Muslims hence the anger. They want to be rich like Americans. But they can't take that step. They can't stop believing in magic. Literally.

Whiskey said...

Also, Belden nailed it. Obama's policy is weakness and submission abroad, and tyranny at home. Already, cops from the LA Sheriff's division hauled the guy whose name I don't know and could not spell anyway, in for "questioning" about "parole violations." For posting the thing on YouTube.

Glenn Reynolds called it Creeping Sharia. Which it is. The same reasoning can be used to suppress the Alt-Right and the Right. Heck "the Mormon did it."

DaveinHackensack said...

"It isn't about US geopolitics. A few years ago the same violent riots flared up against Denmark for allowing publication of Mohammed cartoons, and the Danes don''t exactly have a large imperial footprint in that part of the world."

I think it's a little from column A and a little from column B. The Islamic world (particularly, Pakistan and the Arab countries) has an inferiority complex, so it doesn't take much to rile up the rabble about the infidel West. But the attack in Libya was well-planned, and not the work of a rabble; the rabble was used as a cover for it. That attack was likely an Al Qaeda operation (if memory serves, there were Al Qaeda affiliates among the 'rebels' we backed against Qa'ta'fe).

With that prospect in mind, it's worth noting that the Obama Administration is now sending drones to Libya. Which may be just what Al Qaeda wants, figuring we'll cause enough collateral damage to radicalize more Libyans.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Also, Belden nailed it. Obama's policy is weakness and submission abroad"

Obama has been more hawkish than Bush: he's roughly tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan, stepped up the use of drone assassinations, sent SEALs in to kill Obama, and helped overthrow Cat-Daffy. Heck, if Obama had his way, we'd still have troops in Iraq (that idea was nixed by the Iraqi PM, who insisted on the terms of withdrawal signed by him and Bush).

Anonymous said...

"We have officially surpassed the Soviet Union in propaganda out of touch with reality."

As more and more Salem women are carted off to jail, charged as witches by little girls, I am reminded the line in Arthur Miller's "The Crucible": "And yet silent still, Minister?"

May the silence of this American press land them in hell. NOthing can destroy what is remaining of us faster than a corrupt, fawning press. They should be shackled and led to prisons themselves.

Aaron in Israel said...

I think Carney is completely right if you're talking about the initial rioting in Egypt and Libya. Once stuff like this goes on for a while it just turns into a grab-bag of grievances, but as for the initial cause - Carney is right.

I don't know for sure, because I haven't seen the Facebook and Twitter posts that got people all riled up. (Have you?) In the past, though, when Muslims get upset about this stuff it usually seems pretty unrelated to foreign policy, for instance Denmark's or England's. This also happens with blasphemy in Muslim countries. It never seems to be about foreign policy.

I'm making a sharp distinction between the rioting and the killing of the ambassador. The latter was definitely a result of US foreign policy, as is most violence against the US, but Carney doesn't seem to be talking about that here.

Whiskey said...

FWIW, the Daily Telegraph has (once again you have to go to foreign papers to get real news sigh) a break-down of the US/British naval forces in the Persian Gulf prepping for an Iranian response (mine the Gulf) after an Israeli attack.

Consensus view: Iran will lose but inflict heavy losses on the US/British. How that plays out for Obama damned if I know, but I suspect not good. Not too keen to be the Lightworker and preside over heavy combat losses.

[My guess is Israel has a fleet of drones prepped for a one way series of attacks on all sorts of things, including infrastructure as well as sites. And I'll bet none of their Ambassadors gets dragged off to his death, either, after it. Bibi is attacking because he gave up after Hillary's "no red lines" speech and figures Obama won't do anything about Iran's nukes other than talk - he's probably right, and that Obama would win (otherwise he'd let Mitt do it).]

Anonymous said...

Why is everyone picking on youtube?

There are dozens of other such services


Yeah, and YouTube's the one that most people use to search for video. They dominate the market, for now, so their policies are important. Why do you think they should be off-limits to criticism?

Anonymous said...

Hey, this is a HBD blog. a certain segment of Muslims from that part of the world don't need a reason to go ape shit any more than a certain segment of black Americans need a reason to trash Detroit or some 7-11. It's what they do.

And, no, they don't need to be poor. Forty years ago at my state college a group of about 45 of them gathered at the same time every day in the student union. They sat across from one another at those long lunch tables, and after an unremarkable 10 or 15 minutes of relative conversational calm, all hell would break loose, with each side standing up and screaming like monkeys, just as you hear them screaming when they hold aloft a dead body on the way to burial. With fingers wagging and arms flailing, "Yiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiyiy yiyiyiyiyiy! Yiyiyiyiyyiyiyiyiyiyi!and on and on. Even then, way before pc, the cafeteria ladies didn't put a stop to it. By some kind of inner clock, it would all of sudden cease. They'd sit down, and go back to what seemed to be regular conversation.

Then, of course, there are the stories of the guys following us girls home, camping out on our doorstep and even following us all the way home from a ski trip in the Sierras. Arab men--quite weird, many times frightening, and damn smelly!

Kaz said...

It's embarrassing that the white house asked for youtube to take it down. It's even more embarrassing that the movie is TAME AS HELL in comparison to the hundreds of other Islam hate videos or pictures with Muhammed in some very crude positions.

Someone riled these people, otherwise they would be protesting everyday because there is an infinite amount of stuff they consider disgusting towards Muhammed. Same for Jesus.

Chicago said...

After all we've done for them, this is how they turn around and treat us. The ingrates. Our greatest shortcoming is that we're just too good to other countries who always fail to appreciate us.

Anonymous said...

This is when it would have been great fun to have Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee. I don't think Newt would win more electoral votes than Obama, since enough people are frightened by Newt's ups and downs, but he'd surely destroy Obama in a debate and show him for the arrogant empty suit he is.

I wonder if Obama and Michelle had a date night to see "The Book of Mormon"?

Umm, shouldn't Hilary and Obama be apologzing that such a play exists? Shouldn't they try to shut it down?

Anonymous said...

"It's embarrassing that the white house asked for youtube to take it down."

It's more than embarrassing--it's an attack on the First Amendment. Why aren't "progressives" attacking him for it? Where's the ACLU?

Anonymous said...

[My guess is Israel has a fleet of drones prepped for a one way series of attacks on all sorts of things, including infrastructure as well as sites. And I'll bet none of their Ambassadors gets dragged off to his death, either, after it. Bibi is attacking because he gave up after Hillary's "no red lines" speech and figures Obama won't do anything about Iran's nukes other than talk - he's probably right, and that Obama would win (otherwise he'd let Mitt do it).]

What if Obama takes Brzezinski's advice?

"Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran"

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a/

"The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

"We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.""

Mr X said...

They could have posted it in WorldStar HipHop...

To be fair, 99% of the Muslims protesting haven't seen the video, it's a word-of-mouth protest. Obviously this was organized in advance and it's unrelated to the content of the video itself.

It's the same with Koran burnings, btw, most Muslims can't even read the Koran, written in ancient Arabic, this is how they "read it", with their fingers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k33MRYgzlNw

Anonymous said...

Oh and here's a link for you

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/09/activists-troubled-by-white-house-call-to-youtube-135618.html


Is it weak tea? Yeah because though they do waste innumerable resources on inventing rights for illegal infiltrators and similar victimology crap they also spend innumerable resources protecting YOU from being even more visciously manhandled by agents of the gov than you already are and similar matters that effect YOUR life and defend YOUR civil liberties. The White House broke no law by making that call and the people they called - Google - are possibly even more powerful than they are so this wasn't a matter of going acfter some little man.

The feds however DO appear to be going after Nikoula now to try and toss him in jail for "something" in just the same way that they went after Zimmerman. There's Sh*t out there on every one of us and if we piss off the gov whilst doing something wholly legal they can still always get us for violating, or appearing to violate, some statute somewhere because so much of our lives is surveillable and searchable.

The ACLU works tirelessly to diminish the amount of that which goes on and you owe them a large wad of appreciation. I know that in your stereotype-friendly brain the ACLU may as well be the SPLC which is why you need to shut the F up and simply listen to your betters.

Anonymous said...

Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran

The US has left Iraq and is no longer responsible for Iraqi air defense. The Iraqis have a couple radars but no credible interceptor force.

Anonymous said...

"Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran"

Oh, those Jewish-Polish relations again. It's all in a melting pot, I am telling you.

Anonymous said...

The US has left Iraq and is no longer responsible for Iraqi air defense. The Iraqis have a couple radars but no credible interceptor force.

The US has aircraft carriers deployed in the Mideast.

Abe Fauxman said...

"It's embarrassing that the white house asked for youtube to take it down."

"It's more than embarrassing--it's an attack on the First Amendment."


You're absolutely right, and if there is one topic we Jews are very touchy about, this is Free Speech.

...I mean, our version of Free Speech.

Dennis Dale said...

This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims

They've just about exceeded the defiant stupidity of the previous administration. Only now no one wants to know.

Compare Romney's supposed gaffe with the O's acknowledgement that Egypt is no longer allied with the US, which I'd call a textbook gaffe--telling an inconvenient truth--and a significant foreign relations blunder. The media's beyond shame.

But Romney's real problem is he's got only worse to offer in foreign policy with all the neocons on board. He's supposed to be hammering Obama for getting us involved in the first place! The system isn't working.

But you've got to hand it to Obama; he's heroically resisted being forced to attack Iran. Maybe you'll think twice before you wag your finger in our president's face on TV again, Bibi.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous, Brzezinski made those comments in 2009.

Anonymous said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/9218657/Oleg-Deripaska-Why-I-paid-crime-gangs-for-protection.html

Strangelove said...

Usually they have to avoid crossing the base in the first term but Obama has an opening to become the 2nd Democratic president to just nuke the troublemakers (over yonder, not in the Silicon Valley). If drone snafus or elastic Afghanistan crusades haven't gone there already is there any limit to what his voters will tolerate? He'll get the re-elect while the state courtier press obediently catches up to West Wing speed, spinning fresh narratives about "historical ironies" and "20-kiloton Sister Souljah moments" and Kansan-Hawaiian leadership style/ESPN masculinity

Norville Rogers said...

O's acknowledgement that Egypt is no longer allied

Let it not be forgot, delivered via NBC EspaƱol*
(*per textbook-industry stylebook/gravitas standards)

Narrative Squad said...

Susan Rice on FNC today (I think the appropriate j-school term of art is "doubling down") w/ analogies to The Satanic Verses & Danish newspaper cartoons

Marlowe said...

Anon wrote: One thing for sure, if Gadfly had been in power, he would have made sure the US embassy didn't get attacked.

In Colonel Gadaffi world, embassy attacks you.

pat said...

The anti-Islam video isn't the real cause. In fact Islam itself isn't the real cause. The real problem is the population composition and the job market.

The basic cause is pretty simple - unemployed young men. Egypt is filled with young men who have no hope. They don't have jobs much less careers.

The same sort of behavior is seen today in American central cities with the black flash mobs. Such people like to riot.

Chufu understood these population dynamics even if Hillary doesn't. He kept the excess population busy with his pyramid. Chin Zeaundi kept them busy on his wall. Many, many political leaders drafted their obstreperous young men and set them marching on their neighbors.

Keeping the young men under control is one of the central responsibilities of government. But modern society doesn't make this responsibility any easier. Public works now are automated. The better modern armies have been automated too.

What is the solution? Beats the hell out of me. In the past this population cohort was set to manual labor but since 1453 (the beginning of the modern period), we have concentrated on labor saving techniques and devices.

I have no solution but I do have a prediction. Ignore religion, concentrate on demographics. We are due for similar eruptions here in the US. Expect riots among the unemployed young black men in Detroit and other such cities. It will also take some triggering event - perhaps the election loss of Obama? It doesn't really matter, almost anything can set it off.

Egypt an Iran are demographic tinder boxes. Detroit too.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

So Steve, are you willing to say who you are going to vote for in November? I hope you won't find it rude of me to ask.

constant reader Mike Eisenstadt
registered Democrat in Austin Texas

Glaivester said...

For those wondering who the Louisiana politician is, I am assuming that you would find out if you look up the 1991 gubernatorial race.

As for Zbig's suggestion that we restrain Israel - that would be stupid. I don't want us intervening to get rid of Israel's enemies, but I sure as Hell don't want to fire on Israeli planes for the sake of Iran.

Admittedly, this could be a problem if Israel were flying over airspace we controlled, as not attacking would be tacitly assisting them.

Fortunately enough, Zbig's suggestion was made in 2009, and we have since left Iraq (at least officially), so we have no obligations whatsoever to care what happens over Iraqi airspace.

Given the likelihood of an Israeli attack on Iran, I am just as happy that we have gotten ourselves out from between the two countries so that we can say "it's none of our business."

pat said...

I have over a hundred YouTube videos posted. I am always hoping for a larger viewership. Now I see a way. I'll just preface each of them with a gratuitous attack on the Prophet.

Albertosaurus

NOTA said...

Anon 10:26:

This Greenwald article links to a story about complaints by the ACLU, and makes the civil libertarian case for why the administration ought not to be asking Youtube to take down videos like this.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106376/decline-of-college-bookstores-textbooks-online-print

“As somebody who reads and loves books, I hate the idea that students will just be renting the book,” he says. “I worry that students won’t connect as much with a book they know they have to return.”


Stupid. I guess libraries don't encourage love of literature & movies cuz they just rent out books and movies.

Anonymous said...

Brit Hume this morning uttered a wonderful new title: "His Obamaness" as in, "He must have thought in his Cairo speech that just his Obamaness would" bring new understandings and peace to the region.

Sadly, having heard that speech again yesterday, I agree. POTUS did think that and sadly the good Dr. of Psychiatry, Charles Krauthammer was right over a year ago when he said Barry exhibits all the clinical traits of a classic narcissist.

Anonymous said...

"But you've got to hand it to Obama; he's heroically resisted being forced to attack Iran."

Really? You sound like the European Jews of the '30s who said, "No, they wouldn't do that" and those who quietly waited for the knock on their doors.

Anonymous said...

"Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran"

Oh, my. Now what's his baby girl going to say about Barry on her MSNBC show tomorrow if Daddy is getting tough while her hero Barry is showing his Muslim love?

Anonymous said...

http://www.salon.com/2000/08/21/adler_2/

Anonymous said...

We strafe them, bomb them, cruze-missle them, drone-attack them, imprison them, torture them, blow up their houses, weddings, and funerals, create entire villages of ophans and widows,take their land & force them into squalid concentration camps (Gaza), overthrow their governoments and replace them with our puppets -- and they STILL don't like us.

How many do we have to kill before they start liking us?

Anonymous said...

Whoops. I misread the Ziggy quote.

Wow. He wants us to put the screws to them? Okay, then why not just say, "The US is handing over Israel to the Arabs" and be done with it, Barry and Ziggy.

Does anybody really think that Iran's leadership is like that of the nuclear Soviet Union's during the Cold War?

And if you actually do think that, do you believe that Iran's leadership, its leadership now and that of the future, will be able to protect its nuclear weapons from those who have more than "deterent" on their minds?

Jesus.

It's one thing to hate that we are so financially tied to Israel; it's quite another to misread Arab and Iranian intentions. Pretend there was no Israel.

Knowing what you do about HBD and human nature, do really think the Middle East, absent an Israel, would suddenly become a geopolitical pussycat, you know, good neighbors?

jesus.

Anonymous said...

"The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them."

Oh, yeah, right. This will really provide calm in the world.

CJ said...

Who could have foreseen that?

On September 7 Canada suddenly closed its embassy in Iran and ordered all Iranian diplomats out of Canada within five days. They obviously got a heads up about something. Not that you'd have ever heard about that one from American media. It's all about a movie on YouTube.

Anonymous said...

Why are people falling for the White House spin that this youtube video has set the Muslim world ablaze? It's such a transparently self-serving lie that I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

The ACLU works tirelessly to diminish the amount of that which goes on and you owe them a large wad of appreciation. I know that in your stereotype-friendly brain the ACLU may as well be the SPLC which is why you need to shut the F up and simply listen to your betters."

The ACLU is highly selective in which rights they defend. Have they ever jumped into a case to defend 2nd amendmend rights? And what about the rest of the Constitution? There's more to the Constitution than just the Bill of Rights.

I'll concede your point that the ACLU is occasionally on the side of right, which is much better than the SPLC. Still not good enough, though.

Mr. Anon said...

"Dennis Dale said...

But you've got to hand it to Obama; he's heroically resisted being forced to attack Iran. Maybe you'll think twice before you wag your finger in our president's face on TV again, Bibi."

Indeed, I will give thim that.....so far. I lost a lot of respect for the Republicans (okay, I'll be honest, I had none for them anyway, but I would have lost a lot of respect for them, if I'd had any) when they criticized Obama for scolding the Supreme Court in his State-of-the-Union address, but said nothing when Netanyahu scolded Obama when he addressed a joint-session of Congress. A foreign leader critizes the President of the well of our own House, and they say nothing?

And on that subject: being invited to address Congress would seem to be a high and rare honor. How many foreign heads of government have ever been granted that honor? I think Yeltsin did it once. But Netanyahu has already done it twice, if memory serves. Why such special treatment for a nation that by rights should be no more significant than Belgium?

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

This is when it would have been great fun to have Newt Gingrich as the GOP nominee. I don't think Newt would win more electoral votes than Obama, since enough people are frightened by Newt's ups and downs, but he'd surely destroy Obama in a debate and show him for the arrogant empty suit he is."

Gingrich's suit may be a few sizes bigger than Obama's, but it is just as empty.

smead jolley said...

How could a Democratic administration be so judgmental? I thought being judgmental was bad. Maybe I should just stick to baseball.

Svigor said...

Nah, forget that. Just complain instead.

Everybody = 1 person, now.

But my sentiments exactly; Zionists and their lobby should dominate the world's biggest video hosting site.


Svigor said...

Yesterday, my Scottish-Irish co-worker was telling a group of us at lunch that the reason they are protesting is because they are Sunni Muslims and think that we are weak due to our softness on Iran. He said they would stop protesting and become friendlier with us if we were to attack Iran, because they are Shia and are hell bent on world domination. LOL

I'd take his word over yours, you ANTI-SEMITE!!!

Svigor said...

Denmark is pretty much the epitome of the Pat Buchanon strategy. And that worked out for them how?

There really is something very wrong with ole Rotgut. Yes, it's tempting to think that he's a comedy mastermind, but nobody plays the idiot this long without cracking a grin. And nobody normal would continue to be so immune to correction as to keep misspelling "Buchanan," never mind his actual philosophies.

First Draft Of History said...

Hey, at least he's deploying all the Obama Doctrine announcements on Telemundo, and only using Extra or Entertainment Tonight for trial balloons

Anonymous said...

Knowing what you do about HBD and human nature, do really think the Middle East, absent an Israel, would suddenly become a geopolitical pussycat, you know, good neighbors?

If they're our neighbors, then that means it's our neighborhood. If it's our neighborhood, then that would mean we can do things like stop one side from attacking the other.

Svigor said...

Stupid. I guess libraries don't encourage love of literature & movies cuz they just rent out books and movies.

Stupid? More like "in somebody's pocket."

I'll concede your point that the ACLU is occasionally on the side of right, which is much better than the SPLC. Still not good enough, though.

Yeah, I admit that the ACLU does a lot of good, while still being on the wrong side and being total hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

The weird thing about "Old Possum's Book" or whatever it was called is that normally when superior artists write whimsical fare like that, it is for their children. But Eliot died childless.

It makes you wonder, if Eliot had not found Christianity (which was basically inevitable considering his mindset and milieu) if his later years would have yielded more of the puckish Eliot that wrote Mr. Apollonix, which compared Bertrand Russell to Priapus.


To my mind, Eliot was, the not always seamless, combination of seriousness and drollness that Chesterton writes about at the end of Napoleon of Notting Hill. I wish Chesterton had lived long enough to render a judgement on Eliot.

Svigor said...

Knowing what you do about HBD and human nature, do really think the Middle East, absent an Israel, would suddenly become a geopolitical pussycat, you know, good neighbors?

What should stop us from finding out?

Truth said...

"...but he'd surely destroy Obama in a debate and show him for the arrogant empty suit he is."

Wow, Newt Gingrich worship now?

I may make fun of Mittens, and he's going to lose in November, but he was the best of the Republican lot, BY A COUNTRY MILE.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous with your assertions about Youtube: you'd be more persuasive if you provided some links as examples for each of the categories of things you are talking about there. Otherwise I am not taking you seriously."

Wait, what? You want links to non-existent D____ D___ Youtube videos, ie videos that Youtube has censored?

Isn't this like asking for an invisible pink unicorn or a five sided square?

Ain't no such links.

Anonymous said...

"Knowing what you do about HBD and human nature, do really think the Middle East, absent an Israel, would suddenly become a geopolitical pussycat, you know, good neighbors?"

Nice strawman argument, but that isn't the rational for preventing a unilateral Israeli and/or US attack on Iran.

Svigor said...

I mean, I really can't overemphasize how many times we've told Whiskey it's spelled "Buchanan." Over and over and over...

This perfectly encapsulates Whiskey as a person. He's so far gone we can't even correct the man's spelling, let alone anything important.

Anonymous said...

Denmark is pretty much the epitome of the Pat Buchanon strategy. And that worked out for them how?

"Strict Immigration Laws 'Save Denmark Billions'"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/putting-a-price-on-foreigners-strict-immigration-laws-save-denmark-billions-a-759716.html

"Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country 6.7 billion euros, a government report has claimed. Even though Denmark already has some of the toughest immigration laws in Europe, right-wing populist politicians are now trying to make them even more restrictive."

Silver said...

I have over a hundred YouTube videos posted. I am always hoping for a larger viewership. Now I see a way. I'll just preface each of them with a gratuitous attack on the Prophet.

You can also needle them with references to Big Al originally being an Arabian moon-god. That's always good for a laugh.

What should stop us from finding out?

Exactly. Surely it's worth a crack. It's not as if anything good actually accrues to Americans from their "deal" with Israel -- that one's a one-way street if there was ever one.

And if you actually do think that, do you believe that Iran's leadership, its leadership now and that of the future, will be able to protect its nuclear weapons from those who have more than "deterent" on their minds?

Well, Israel's packed full of religious fanatics and they've managed to pull it off so why wouldn't the Iranians be able to do the same?

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

.....,take their land & force them into squalid concentration camps (Gaza), overthrow their governoments and replace them with our puppets -- and they STILL don't like us."

It's a damned funny "concentration camp" that lets you emigrate to America to live with you Uncle Yasser in New Jersey.

Bantam said...

Svigor: "Zionists and their lobby should dominate the world's biggest video hosting site."

The conditional should is superfluous, as demonstrated in this story (here, in a more convenient size: part 1, part 2)


I found it emblematic of the endless double standards applied to Islam over Judaism, or is it Judaism over Islam?

Well, I was not alone to think so, as this story, that you could read until this morning, has just been committed to the Memory Hole.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Does anybody really think that Iran's leadership is like that of the nuclear Soviet Union's during the Cold War?"

In that they'll push right up to any line they think they can, but stay back from any line that might get them obliterated, yes. No different.

"And if you actually do think that, do you believe that Iran's leadership, its leadership now and that of the future, will be able to protect its nuclear weapons from those who have more than "deterent" on their minds?"

Yes. Iran is relatively unblessed by diversity. They can probably keep their stuff together. I think that they can probably protect their nuclear weapons better than can the government of our "ally", Pakistan.

"Knowing what you do about HBD and human nature, do really think the Middle East, absent an Israel, would suddenly become a geopolitical pussycat, you know, good neighbors?"

No, I wouldn't expect them to be good neighbors. In case you hadn't noticed, those countries are NOT our neighbors - they're on the other side of the world. They are not really a big problem for us..........unless we choose to make them so.

jesus.

Anonymous said...

So, am I to conclude that some of you either 1) don't think Iraq is fairly close to a nuclear weapon or 2) figure even if they have one, they're not any more likely to use it than any other nation with nukes?

Silver said...

2) figure even if they have one, they're not any more likely to use it than any other nation with nukes?

I don't believe they'd be more likely to use it than Israel, no.

770 said...

So, am I to conclude that some of you either 1) don't think Iraq [sic] is fairly close to a nuclear weapon or 2) figure even if they[sic] have one, they're not any more likely to use it than any other nation with nukes?

You forgot the most crucial point:

3) those deranged Iranians deeply subscribe to the insane idea of a coming Messiah!

CJ said...

I mean, I really can't overemphasize how many times we've told Whiskey it's spelled "Buchanan." Over and over and over...

The "Buchanon" thing truly makes me wonder if he is in an institution somewhere. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

"We strafe them, bomb them, cruze-missle them, drone-attack them, imprison them, torture them, blow up their houses, weddings, and funerals, create entire villages of ophans and widows,take their land & force them into squalid concentration camps (Gaza), overthrow their governoments and replace them with our puppets -- and they STILL don't like us.

How many do we have to kill before they start liking us?"

Don´t be silly, they don´t like us because of our freedom. And especially our weakness towards them!!

Anonymous said...

So, am I to conclude that some of you either 1) don't think Iraq is fairly close to a nuclear weapon or 2) figure even if they have one, they're not any more likely to use it than any other nation with nukes?

3) have a moral right to one for deterrence and self defense.

4) have a moral right to one because other nations have them.

Beecher Asbury said...

Denmark is pretty much the epitome of the Pat Buchanon strategy. And that worked out for them how?

The Iraq invasion is pretty much the epitome of your strategy. And that worked out for the USA how?

Anonymous said...


"...but he'd surely destroy Obama in a debate and show him for the arrogant empty suit he is."

Wow, Newt Gingrich worship now?

I may make fun of Mittens, and he's going to lose in November, but he was the best of the Republican lot, BY A COUNTRY MILE.

9/16/12 5:02 PM



True. Except for......


RON PAUL.

Americans deserve what they get after the treatment he recieved. The last true "American"politician, in the traditional(or at least in my mind) sense.

Anonymous said...

I mean, I really can't overemphasize how many times we've told Whiskey it's spelled "Buchanan." Over and over and over...

This perfectly encapsulates Whiskey as a person. He's so far gone we can't even correct the man's spelling, let alone anything important.



The scary thing is, how many Whiskey´s are out there? Could it be in the hundreds of thousands/millions?? One is far too many, and they are destroying this country...

Beecher Asbury said...

A question to the pro-attack Iran crowd. Why is no one discussing the invasion and occupation of Iran?

If we don't invade, occupy and at least try to force them to become a democratic, pro-feminist, pro-gay, pro-Israel state, then won't the hoi polli awaken and conclude that the Afghan and Iraqi adventures where a total waste of blood, treasure, and national will?

If the US feels threatened by Iran and believes it can alleviate that threat by simply bombing and not invading, then why could we not have felt secure doing the same with the much smaller and less threatening Afghanistan and Iraq?

Anonymous said...

Off topic...

Steve, do you think a neighbor of yours would instantly recognize your writing here on this blog??And, if they did, how close politically to you would they be??

I ask because, for America´s sake you should run for office. Maybe the locals(if they read your blog) agree with you, and we could have a hellava congressman/blogger...

NOTA said...

Beecher:

I think that's the sane peoples' reason for worrying about an attack on Iran. It seems very likely that Iran is trying to get a nuke, and absolutely clear that the world will be a worse place when they get one. But what's not clear is how an Israeli or US strike actually stops them long-term, or what the aftermath is. Do we end up invading Iran? Given how well our invasion of Iraq worked out, and what a fine time we've had in Afghanistan for the last decade, that just looks like a great idea. What could possibly go wrong?

I definitely don't buy the line that the moment Iran has a nuke, they'll strike Israel at the cost of certain destruction of their country. But a nuclear Iran probably means more chances of a terrorist getting hold of a nuke (still not likely at all, but more countries = more chances), and almost certainly encourages their neighbors getting their own nukes. With current technology, the nuclear club could easily double in size in a decade or so, and that's a much worse world to live in than the one we have now. And just as with Pakistan/India, Israel/Iran having nukes pointed at each other is another opportunity for a chain of miscalculations and fuckups to lead to a nuclear exchange, which will kill lots of people and make a hell of a big mess.

At any rate, the examples of Pakistan and Libya seem to me to cement the lesson that nukes make you much less likely to be attacked by the West. If Pakistan didn't have nukes, is there any chance we would not be at war with them by now? Their intelligence services actively support the folks attacking us in Afghanistan, and they were apparently sheltering the head of Al Qaida till we found and killed the bastard. On the other hand, if Libya had had nukes, is there the slightest chance we would have gone in for operation "what the fuck, let's bomb some more Muslims?" Gadafi gave up his partial nuclear program, and at least according to news reports, it was surprisingly advanced.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

So, am I to conclude that some of you either 1) don't think Iraq is fairly close to a nuclear weapon or 2) figure even if they have one, they're not any more likely to use it than any other nation with nukes?"

So, am I to conclude that you don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran, and so therefore your opinions on these matters aren't worth a bucket of spit?

But in answer to what your question might be construed to mean, if one substitues "Iran" for "Iraq":

1.) I don't care how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon

2.) No, I don't think they would be more likely to use one than any other nation that has nuclear weapons. To my knowledge, no persian has ever advocated a doctrine as selfish and bloody-minded as some interpretations of the "The Samson Option":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_option

NOTA said...

The irony here is that, with this Youtube video, as with the Mohammed cartoons and all sorts of other stuff, there is a weird alliance:

a. Muslim anti-Western rabble-rousers want to offensive videos, cartoons, books, etc, to help them rouse the rabble, get big protests going, get on Al Jazeera, etc.

b. Western anti-Muslim rabble-rousers want the Muslim rabble well and truly roused, since that helps make their case that the Muslims are inclined to riot over Youtube clips and cartoons and stuff.

My take is that both these groups are mostly attention-seeking assholes, FWIW.

For most of the governments in the region, this stuff is a big headache. Even Islamists like Morsi don't like getting stuck either condemning a demonstration against something offensive, or p-ssing off a powerful country who's sending them billions of dollars a year in aid. Similarly, for American officials, this is a headache even outside the attack on the Libyan consulate that killed the ambassador.

It's worth remembering, though, that that attack co-incided with a demonstration about the Youtube video, but was quite separate. The attack on the consulate involved mortars and rocket launchers, and included someone knowing the path the Americans would take to get to their fallback safe position, and ambushing them on the road. That wasn't an angry mob, who could have torn down a flag or something, but who could not have killed the ambassador from smoke inhalation while sheltering in the consulate.

Anonymous said...

From post at 8:30 pm: "It's a damned funny "concentration camp" that lets you emigrate to America to live with you Uncle Yasser in New Jersey."

The USA is complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land. The way the scheme works is like this: Israel forces the Palestinians off their land and into the Gaza Concentration Camp and West Bank. The Israel's make sure that life there is so horrible that the Palestinians are desperate to escape. The USA imports tens of thousands of them. This is all part of Israel's Final Solution to the Palestinian problem -- little by little they eliminate them.

Where they go? -- the Jews don't care, just as long as it it out of Greater Israel. To the USA? Well, the're now America's problem, not Israel's problem.

Anonymous said...

Post at 10:43 pm said, "Don´t be silly, they don´t like us because of our freedom. And especially our weakness towards them!!"

Either you are being funy or you are completely illogical. If they hated countries because of their "freedom and democracy", they would have attacked Switzerland or Norway. They attack Americans, because we are over there messin with their stuff.

If we just leave the 1.3 Billion Muslims alone, they will go back to doing what the've done for the last 4,000 years, which is to fight among themselves.

The entire Middle East is not worth a single American life, nor the 3 Trillion Dollars we've spent. And don't tell me it's about oil. They will ALWAYS sell us oil, because that is the ONLY thing they have to sell. If they don't sell us oil, they starve.

David said...

If Britain's royal family not only sued but also rioted and murdered in response to the Kate Middleton boob snaps, would Ireland be demanding that the United States help it to bomb Scotland? When do "we" nuke Iran?

NOTA said...

Juan Cole on Iran's bomb-making plans. He knows a lot more than I do about this stuff, but I am deeply skeptical that a head of state will ever find himself morally unable to lie about secret weapons programs, religious reasons or no. I think every president we've had has been at least nominally a Christian, many have apparently taken it pretty seriously, and yet none of them seem to have had much trouble lying to serve their own purposes. And *everyone* lies about diplomacy and espionage and planning for war.

More broadly, if I were in charge of the Iranian government, given the last decade's history and the ongoing hostility with Israel and the US, I'd absolutely be seeking nukes.

Still, it's worth remembering that just becase the US MSM consensus is "Iran will have nukes any day now and then will nuke Israel for unfathomable religious reasons" doesn't mean that this is really true. Maybe the Iranians aren't actually trying to get a bomb.

David said...

There are many anti-Mohammed vids on YT and elsewhere. Why did this one, this particular one, "cause" riots?

Did most of the film's budget go into advertising and "distribution"? Did this film have a secret backer...for example, Bibi's government? Or someone in Obama's government?

Anyhow, they found a scapegoat - a jailbird in gold chains - so everyone can go back to sleep until "we" bomb Iran in the name of Gay Rights and $9-per-gallon gas.

Anonymous said...

"3) have a moral right to one for deterrence and self defense.

"4) have a moral right to one because other nations have them."
________________________________
"Moral rights" mean nothing to me in a world where my enemy wants to kill me and mine. Period.

To allow one's enemy (yes, fundamentalist Muslims ARE my enemy) to use get weapons that he wishes to use against me when I can prevent that is to show in Darwinian terms that one is not evolutionarily fit.

One expects a hungry lion to attack the lagging, unobservant zebra.

If you wish to believe a mob hungry for this or that won't be the lion to your zebra, you go right ahead and turn your back and drink contentedly at the small pool of water, contemplating the "moral right" of your enemy.

What stupidity. Have any children?

Anonymous said...

Albert/Patosaurus said "Keeping the young men under control is one of the central responsibilities of government....What is the solution? Beats the hell out of me. In the past this population cohort was set to manual labor but since 1453 (the beginning of the modern period), we have concentrated on labor saving techniques and devices."

This is an interesting point and one that few people keep their eye on. This is one reason that most modern societies in one way or another discourage polygamy. If you assume an approximate 50/50 distribution of male/female births, then each male taking an extra wife creates another male with no stake in the system and no incentive to behave.

O/T but I'm surprised polygamists haven't used Lawrence v. Texas to their benefit. They're not a favored minority, so maybe they'd get nowhere even though they have the "law" (as defined by the Divine Tribunal, err, supreme court) on their side.

Silver said...

NOTA,

And just as with Pakistan/India, Israel/Iran having nukes pointed at each other is another opportunity for a chain of miscalculations and fuckups to lead to a nuclear exchange, which will kill lots of people and make a hell of a big mess.

I think we'd all prefer a world in which that doesn't occur, but a sober analysis must surely have us conclude that, if it occurs, that's "their problem," that they'll have brought it on themselves. Certainly it doesn't justify preemptively attacking Iran today. If the Israeli right (which dominates the country) were not such proven liars, cheats and assholes many more people might feel differently, that prevention would be the worth the cost in blood, but with Israel constantly lying to the world and trying to have its cake and eat it too, forget it.

Anonymous said...

The entire Middle East is not worth a single American life.

Nor the bones of a Pomeranian bombardier.

Anonymous said...

"Keeping the young men under control is one of the central responsibilities of government....What is the solution? Beats the hell out of me"

Don't import more.

.
""Moral rights" mean nothing to me in a world where my enemy wants to kill me and mine. Period."

You are talking about the American MSM right?

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where they go? -- the Jews don't care, just as long as it it out of Greater Israel. To the USA? Well, the're now America's problem, not Israel's problem."

I agree that they should stay Israel's problem.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

"Moral rights" mean nothing to me in a world where my enemy wants to kill me and mine. Period."

I suspect that "you and yours" are not the same people as "me and mine". YOUR enemy is no threat to us. So stop trying to induce us to fight YOUR damned war. Fight it yourself, if you are so inclined.