Myrdhale posted:

These aren't my thoughts, this is analysis of the situation the middle-east has been in since the end of world war 2. The video gives them a reason, but the anger, the tension, that has been building for at least 60 years if not more.

OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:

I'm pretty sure the middle east has been a massive cesspool of terrible human behavior since the dawn of time.

Best Friends posted:

in short, it's one thing to say "this is why this video is so inflammatory from their perspective" but it's quite another to say "no trust me I read some Chompsky, what these dudes really mean to say is they are actually mad about the sanctions on Iraq."

OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:

I'm pretty sure the middle east has been a massive cesspool of terrible human behavior since the dawn of time.

quote:

The protests—as well as Morsi’s response—show a growing division between Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and the ultraconservative Salafis, two groups with significantly different ideologies. Still, it is not a division that Morsi can articulate, for fear of alienating supporters.

“Morsi loses whichever way he goes,” said Shadi Hamid, head of research for the Brookings Doha Center and an Egypt expert. “If he aggressively condemns the protesters, he’s perceived as a lackey for the U.S. And if he supports the protesters’ position against the film, he gets criticism from the international community.”

Myrdhale posted:

I don't see how that detracts from the greater point though; this video, distasteful poo poo that it is, is not something made, endorsed or promoted by the U.S. or it's people in general. The Embassy issued an apology for it specifically because it's such an abhorrent thing that we wish hadn't been made.

But the anger isn't being expressed against the vile poo poo head who made it, it's being expressed against the united states itself, via it's symbol in the region, it's embassies and consulates. This is because the people are being misled into believing that this is the opinion of the American people at large; it's no different than the crazy bullshit rhetoric of Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity when they speak of Islam or Arabic culture.

When I'm talking about the greater context, I'm not trying to dismiss their reasons for being angry and protesting, I'm trying to get people to look forward at what can be done to help the situation instead of trying to assign blame.

We can't stop the video from being released, we can't stop it's dispersal, not as long as free speech is part of western culture. So all that's left is to try and continue the narrative of peace in spite of these events, so grievances and culture clashes don't take on such violent forms.

The history of the Arab and Muslim world is not one inherently of bloodshed and religious fervor; like Europe, or America, or any other civilization, they have waxed and waned through periods of peace and strife, and peaceful coexistance between very divergent and different groups in the area has often occurred in the past. Peace us possible.

That's what I'm trying to say here. Not that it isn't really the video that caused it, but that the way they choose to protest and see us can only be helped by trying to change their perception of us to something other than 'enemy'. Then, if another video gets produced by some bigoted shithead, at least we'll be able to deal with it in ways that don't pit us against each other.

PT6A posted:

EDIT: And before it gets blown out of proportion, "misadventures" was meant to be understatement. The USA has hosed up the Mideast and North Africa just like it's hosed up Central America, parts of the Caribbean, a significant part of Asia, and parts of Southern Africa. I don't see anyone in Cuba acting like a bunch of loving lunatics, burning flags and rioting, after a 50-year embargo. I don't see American diplomatic presence in Angola or Vietnam having their walls overrun by rioters. These Islamic extremists are a special breed of loving lunatics, and they need to be done away with. Islam is not problem, Muslims are not the problem. The problem is a bunch of backward, extremist assholes that can't scrape together two braincells between the whole miserable lot of them, and most Muslims in the West see that for what it is.

OG KUSH BLUNTS posted:

Okay, that's swell and all but what about the reality of changing that? How do we instill critical thinking and analysis into countries with a massive poverty stricken uneducated populous with a poor educational infrastructure? Give them aid to build schools, that will be terrorized/destroyed by hardliners like in Afganistan?

These extremists will always be there, and there will always be able to use western influences as the boogeyman. Your life sucks? It's because of that western building over there.

Let's say we go the Ron Paul route and remove all of that stuff. It will be the same answer. Your life sucks? It's because of the Americans and the Jews/Zionists using their influence to destroy this country.

How do you get around that major issue? Because I don't know the answer.

Rosscifer posted:

Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts.

Myrdhale posted:

But the anger isn't being expressed against the vile poo poo head who made it, it's being expressed against the united states itself, via it's symbol in the region, it's embassies and consulates.

Rosscifer posted:

Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts.

Rosscifer posted:

Bush referred to Iraq as a crusade. Twice. The religious conflict in the Mideast goes back a long way and it's mostly fueled today by Israel. You are simplifying ludicrously by comparing it to Cuba or other recent conflicts.

PT6A posted:

In the past five years I've had the dubious privilege of living less than a block from two different consulates in two different cities, first the consulate of Pakistan in Montreal and now the consulate of China in Calgary. Both have been, on many occasions, the site of demonstrations against the very real and heinous acts committed by those governments, often by people literally driven out of those countries for their political views. What I've never seen on those occasions are any manner of flag-burning, deliberate insult, or any attempt whatsoever to violate the security of those diplomatic missions. To threaten the security of a diplomatic mission of any sort is inexcusable, to the point where we don't really need to consider motivations. Diplomats are working in the cause of peace and goodwill; if, as Canada and Iran have recently demonstrated, it becomes untenable to allow a diplomatic presence in one's country, the correct course of action, after exhausting all others, is to declare the diplomats persona non grata or remove one's diplomatic presence from a country. Under no circumstances should the security of a diplomatic mission be violated or threatened, and any such violation should rightly be met with condemnation and appropriate action, as the people and government of Libya have demonstrated after what has been rightfully regarded as a terrorist attack.

That other nations are not taking necessary and appropriate steps to ensure the security and safety of Western diplomatic missions in the Mideast should be considered an insult to every civilized nation, regardless of alignment, and should merit the consideration, at the very least, of the expulsion of diplomats from those nations. We cannot and should not play nicely with nations and peoples that refuse to play by the rules.

Myrdhale posted:

Unfortunately I think you may be right. I doubt it's a coordinated conspiracy, but I would hardly be surprised if a few ideologues called for and precipitated these attacks, and if they want to keep their message going, another call for bloodshed would probably makes sense (to them, I meant).

Mradyfist posted:

It's tempting to read more into your posts than you've said, but since I don't really have any context for the US embassy in Yemen it won't actually add any signal to noise. Why would Yemeni security forces let protesters get closer to a US embassy than necessary?

quote:

But something was not quite right. How had a few hundred unarmed protesters managed to breach the security of one of the most fortified embassies in the world?

The beginning of the answer to that question lay at the outer perimeters of the security cordon and at roadblocks on the streets approaching the U.S. embassy.

As protesters stood chanting on low concrete blocks designed to stop vehicles approaching the compound, Yemen's Central Security Forces, in their camouflage uniforms, blue berets, and distinctive bright blue-and-orange arm patches looked on. Fifty-caliber machine gun "dushkas" mounted on the back of pick-up trucks, stationed under sun-protecting shelters, menacingly faced the crowd.

Then, without so much as a raised hand from the soldiers, protesters walked straight though the gaps between the yellow and black striped blocks. Like a gentleman holding a door open for a lady, the soldiers, with their AK-47s slung over their shoulders, stepped back, letting the chanting mob through. And as the angry mob marched further towards the embassy building itself the soldiers walked with them, some even smiling.

Yemen's Central Security Forces, created by former President Ali Abdullah Saleh, remain under the command of his nephew Brig. Gen. Yahya Saleh, who enjoyed a warm relationship with the U.S. embassy here in Sanaa for years. The U.S.-trained and funded counterterrorism troops also fell under his command. The relationship had been a necessary close one in America's strategy to combat the country's notorious al Qaeda network.

On the day this February when his uncle handed over power to the country's new president, Abdu Rabu Mansu Hadi, at the presidential palace, Yahya and U.S. Ambassador Gerald Feierstein greeted each other like old friends. With laughter and a firm, lingering handshake, they clasped each other's elbows in the midst of a packed room of dignitaries and a throng of domestic and international media.

Since February, however, things have slowly begun to change in Yemen's security forces. The powerful extended-family network of commanders -- created by Yemen's former ruler -- has been eroded. Hadi's presidential decrees, released over recent weeks and months, have shifted military leaders to lesser positions and altered the long-standing alignment of control in the country's divided armed forces. During a year of political unrest, Yemen's army split following the massacre of 53 demonstrators in Sanaa's Change Square on March 18, 2011. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, one of the country's most powerful commanders, defected, throwing the weight of his First Armored Division behind the anti-Saleh protest movement.

After an attempt on Saleh's life in June 2011 saw the injured president whisked away to neighboring Saudi Arabia for much needed medical care, the two sides of the army eventually came to blows. In September, when the violence peaked, civil war seemed almost inevitable. But following Saleh's surprise return to Sanaa, resulting in further bouts of fighting, he finally agreed to step down in November 2011, handing power to his long-standing vice president, Abdu Rabu Mansu Hadi. Dramatic changes in the structure of Yemen's military appeared essential to the process of political transition and the survival of his successor.

But it hasn't been an easy transition: In April 2012, when Saleh's half-brother and commander of the air force, Gen. Mohamed Saleh al-Ahmar, refused to step down, pick-up trucks full of gunmen, protesting his sacking, forced the closure of the Sanaa airport, which also acts as Yemen's primary air force base.

So far, Yahya has largely managed to avoid much of the impact of the recent changes: He has yet to have his power undermined by being either being sacked from his position or moved to a lesser role, unlike his cousin, Tareq Saleh, who was previously head of the Presidential Guard and decided to retire rather than accept a new post under Hadi's reforms. But the future prospects of Yahya maintaining his command look bleak. And Yemen's ruling clans don't go down without a fight; many here expected, and still anticipate, a backlash from the Salehs. And with the former president still living in central Sanaa, the presence and influence of his 33-year-long reign remains.

Collusion between security forces and the Saleh family over Thursday's events at the U.S. embassy in Sanaa would not be the first of its type. The supposedly spontaneous protests bore a striking resemblance to an embassy siege in Sanaa last year that many believe was orchestrated to prove a point.

Amid growing protests in Sanaa, on May 22, 2011 -- Yemen's day of celebration for unification with the south -- the international community was expecting Ali Abdullah Saleh to sign the Gulf Cooperation Council deal that would see him hand over power. As Sanaa's foreign diplomats eagerly gathered in the United Arab Emirates embassy building, an angry mob arrived outside. In an apparent protest at the prospect of an end to Saleh's presidency, men wielding AK-47s and traditional jambiya daggers trapped the ambassadors inside. Only a blatant disregard for external security, with soldiers choosing to look the other way, would have made such an event possible.

The siege ended only when Saleh valiantly sent his helicopters in to pluck the foreign dignitaries from the roof of the building in a serial rescue mission. The whole scenario felt like a scripted movie scene that even Hollywood would have scoffed at being just too far-fetched. But this was a classic Saleh plot. It would be another six months, under increasing pressure and after all-out war had broken out in the capital, before he eventually relinquished and signed the agreement to transfer power.

Hadi's relationship with the United States has already proved to be stronger than his predecessor's in the eyes of Washington. U.S. counterterrorism chief John Brennan boasted about the better-than-ever relationship in a speech in August saying, "since President Hadi has assumed the presidency, there is a new determination, a new consistency in terms of what the Yemeni government is doing on counterterrorism." Any undermining of that relationship, say a well-timed attack on the U.S. Embassy, could play into the hands of the Salehs, particularly Yahya, whose position in Yemen's military is under threat with Hadi's ongoing restructuring plans.

Following Thursday's scenes in the northeast of the capital, even President Hadi himself eluded to the ease with which demonstrators were able to breach security. In a statement released in apology to the United States and Barack Obama, he added that the storming of the U.S. embassy compound "highlighted that the divisions among Yemen's security and military forces...have contributed to the amplification of the incident."

Conspiracy theories abound in Yemen, cemented by a three-decade-long opaque system of governance and a heavily partisan and polarized press. And the rumors are flying that a little well-timed chaos seems a perfect cover for the continued meddling of the Salehs in Yemen's fragile period of political transition. Perfect, so long as it doesn't get way out of hand.

quote:

In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and destroy them. After the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, the State Department launched a mission to round up thousands of MANPADS that may have been looted from military installations across the country. U.S. officials previously told ABC News they were concerned the MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists, creating a threat to commercial airliners.

Doherty said that he traveled throughout Libya chasing reports of the weapons and once they were found, his team would destroy them on the spot by bashing them with hammers or repeatedly running them over with their vehicles. When ABC News spoke to Doherty in late August, he was enjoying a short time off in California before heading back to Libya just days ago.

The State Department declined to comment on Doherty's involvement in the MANPADS program, but pointed to a previous statement from State Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro in which he said the department was looking at "every possible tool to mitigate the threat."

international owl day posted:

So I think I may have drawn an overlooked conclusion from this article:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-doherty-navy-seal-killed-libya-intel-mission/story?id=17229037#.UFQqpI1lRkZ


If the Libyan consulate was storing information on these MANPADS; then you've got the motivation to destroy the consulate. I'd imagine that there were a number of armed militias in Libya that would have paid, or at least contributed fighters, to an armed attack on the consulate if there was in fact information on those militias there.

The videos were just the metaphoric fliers handed out before "Death-to-America Day" which is apparently a multi-nation holiday that occurs every September 11th.

OneThousandMonkeys posted:

If the State Department is busily tracking down the MANPADs, it means there's someone else who knows where they are who isn't in the department. It doesn't seem tactically sound to attack the consulate to discover the locations of a bunch of broken MANPADs.

Sucrose posted:

....But he was busy killing at least 100,000 Iraqi Kurds and invading his southern neighbor at the time the UN voted to enact sanctions against him. But tell me more about how the sanctions weren't really Saddam's fault.

international owl day posted:

The attack wasn't to discover the locations of broken MANPADSs, I propose that the consulate had information on the Militias that still had operational MANPADSs, and that those militias launched the attack.

international owl day posted:

The attack wasn't to discover the locations of broken MANPADSs, I propose that the consulate had information on the Militias that still had operational MANPADSs, and that those militias launched the attack.

ReidRansom posted:

Sounds like a stretch. The militias that have them obviously don't need the info, and surely they're not foolish enough to think that they could deprive us of that info by destroying it there.

iyaayas01 posted:

Except again, it's not like this is the 1920s and the only copy of that (or any other) information was in the consulate. This is just one example of why pretty much every U.S. facility worldwide (military, diplomatic, or otherwise) has at least rudimentary secure communications capability because being able to share information securely is important.

Narciss posted:

One problem with the "straw that broke the camel's back" theory are the multiple embassy attacks and such in numerous countries mere days/hours apart. Presumably Sudan and Egypt would have different tipping points if this video really would be No Big Deal if it had been released at a less tense time. I guess maybe foreigners saw the first embassy attack and that got them pumped up enough to do their own.

Myrdhale posted:

You talk about the Mideast nations like they are on the same footing as Canada is. You're ignoring the state of fragility Libya and Egypt are in right now; the power structures and police forces that once kept the peace are no longer in a condition to keep things in order. It's not that they are not taking the necessary steps, it's that they cannot.

It would be infinitely worse, however, to say that since they can't guarantee this safety we just shouldn't deal with them; the only way we'll ever reach a point where U.S. diplomats will be safe in the region is if we keep working with them.

The countries of the Arab Spring are fragile, vulnerable and unstable right now, and instability in the region hurts everyone in the current age of globalization and trade. Working to help these people find stability, and being there to be an ally to whatever comes out of this process of renewal in the region, is of vital importance to the longterm peace of the entire world.

Also, just gonna say, I 100% disagree with Harper's stance on Iran, and think it is a terrible, hostile action to take to throw out a nation's diplomats like this. The time for such an action was when the Iranian elections came back with very suspicious numbers and the opposition leaders were put into house arrest; To suddenly claim the government is illegitimate after ignoring the issue for years is very hypocritical.

The Iranian people need support from abroad more than ever right now; Keeping the diplomatic channels open would be the best way to do that, rather than taking a hard-line stance and treating them as an enemy. This only pushes the narrative into the hands of more radical elements.

quote:

Some of the people rioting may not even have enough bandwidth to play the video.

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Like a lot of terrorism, stupid counter-productive. They accomplished nothing but making drat sure Americans care about the outcome in their country.

kylejack posted:

1953: US overthrows a secular democracy in Iran, installs the Shah, who is brutal to the people.
1979: Backlash boils over and the Ayatollah's revolution overthrows the Shah and takes our embassy hostage.

If Iran is run by backwards religious sycophants, maybe we shouldn't have overthrown the secular democracy. We can't predict what the backlash will be.

international owl day posted:

I've been thinking the same thing since the beginning, but since learning about our counter-insurgency operations I have had a change of heart. The attack isn't counter-productive if its intention was to kill the agents active in the hunting of militias & their weapons.

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Yes I posted that because I think your theory is silly.

international owl day posted:

I felt your theory overlooks the deaths of what could be considered high-priority targets to local militias which would make this attack do more than simply accomplish "nothing".

It makes more sense for the militias to be actively defending themselves and their assets than it does for the militias to be purposefully attracting more attention to themselves.

Modus Operandi posted:

All the people killed were just cogs in a big wheel though. It's not like the former navy seal guy hunting for MANPADS was the only person tasked with that assignment. I'm sure others were too and he was info sharing with a group of people. Hitting high profile targets like the ambassador just ensured their own destruction in what will probably be a lengthy and terrible campaign by the U.S. military and cooperating libyan forces.

FuriousxGeorge posted:

The highest priority target was the ambassador. It makes more sense that if the attackers actually had an individual target he was the one.

I just don't see specific contractors who fly in and out of the country being well known enough to be located and targeted and even if they were an individual can be easily replaced.

I just don't see how you can read this as a targeted strike at individual contractors and not a political, terrorist targeting of a diplomatic station. It would be easier to hit the individual when he was out doing his job if that was all you wanted to do.

Patter Song posted:

I'm sorry for the gigantic effortpost, but I'm sick and tired of people lazily drawing the 1953-1979 link without any actual understanding of what they're arguing. It's unfair to the narrative of Iranian history and it's unfair to the Iranians themselves as actors in their own history to turn Iranian history into a sort of subaltern field to US history.

Xandu posted:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/14/the_silent_hand_of_saleh

This is essentially the argument


edit: And video, you can see the soldiers are just sitting there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc1dZd4U3PI

Mradyfist posted:

That's pretty fascinating stuff, actually. Now I feel like a dick for thinking of Yemen as just being some place across the ocean with fantastic coffee.

Patter Song posted:

Sorry to dredge this up from four pages back, but turning Operation Ajax into a proximate cause of the Iranian Revolution is deeply sloppy, ahistorical thought that takes the Iranian Revolution out of its proper context in Iranian history and turns it into some sort of Cold War morality tale.

Iran's entire 19th century history..."

Brown Moses posted:

Something a bit lighthearted from Syria, a brigade announcement video getting interupted by a spinach seller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGTmUQE7Xow

Patter Song posted:

Long Thing

Patter Song posted:

Sorry to dredge this up from four pages back, but turning Operation Ajax into a proximate cause of the Iranian Revolution is deeply sloppy, ahistorical thought that takes the Iranian Revolution out of its proper context in Iranian history and turns it into some sort of Cold War morality tale.


I'm sorry for the gigantic effortpost, but I'm sick and tired of people lazily drawing the 1953-1979 link without any actual understanding of what they're arguing. It's unfair to the narrative of Iranian history and it's unfair to the Iranians themselves as actors in their own history to turn Iranian history into a sort of subaltern field to US history.

Patter Song posted:

CeeJee posted:

Thanks for this. The way Iranian history is reduced to Operation Ajax and everything after that is very similar to the embassy attack: there is a state of tranquility where no discord exists until the West takes an action that causes strife to appear seemingly out of nowhere. Any efforts to prevent further strife should only be aimed at the West as no one else posesses the agency to alter their ways.