More benign Benghazis
After Libyan mobs brutally and shamefully killed the US Ambassador, counter-mobs are now mobbing the original mob. Which is kinda, well it feels somehow positive, but you should never project too much reason on mobs.
In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans. (NYTimes
While they seem not murderous still a mob I guess. But it’s cheering that there are Libyans against crazy division. That anti-Islamic movie is very offensive and disgusting, but not worth killing people over. Or even making such a huge fuss over, which is what the man producing the inflammatory video wanted, note to the Sri Lankan Muslims protesting outside the US Embassy.
However, I do get that the US is casually and publicly racist towards Muslims, the Republican party especially. That is kinda worth protesting over. But protesting over a video which was designed to make Muslims look crazy just makes Muslims look crazy. And none of this is worth killing people over, at all.
While the attacks are neither representative of Islam as a whole nor are they justifiable, I do find it interesting that the actual events leading up to the Libyan ambassador’s death are hardly ever mentioned anywhere. For instance, you mention here that he was “brutally and shamefully killed by a mob” but did you know that he actually died from smoke inhalation? Sure, the mob was responsible for his death but he was not actually killed by the mob.
According to what I read elsewhere, he was in a bad state after smoke inhalation during the attack and was taken to the hospital by Libyans. He died at the hospital.
I tried to verify the story and the closest I could come to it in a cursory search is the following article which mentions the smoke inhalation and that he was taken to the hospital by some Libyans:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-consulate-hit-attacks-lasted-hours/story?id=17215154#.UF5fxIWolmo
All other stories simply parrot that he was killed by the mob, which usually conjures up images of a bunch of people tearing a man limb from limb …
Sorry, Fahim, I don’t really see the point of your argument.
Salman Rushdie of all people recently explained that this looked more like a planned attack on the Embassy by Ansar al-Sharia to observe 11 September, conveniently shrouded by these violent protests. I’ve heard other analysts on the radio say much the same thing.
That’s the story.
To say that he was “not actually killed by the mob” is ludicrous. Yes, he wasn’t pulled apart limb from limb, buy there were sustained attacks on the Embassy, lasting hours, where they fired guns and RPGs into the buildings and they set fire to both buildings. As a result the Ambassador died because of the fire, some others by gunshots or a mixture.
If a crowd/mob or whatever you cal it turned up at your house, shot at the people inside it for a few hours (killing a few) and set fire to your house (killing another), you wouldn’t see that as being “actually killed by the mob”?
Top Libyan and US officials are divided over whether the killing of the US ambassador to Libya was likely pre-planned to coincide with 9/11, and therefore not connected to the film.
Apart from attacks by radical militant groups in Libya and Afghanistan, a survey of news reports on 20 September suggested that actual protesters had killed a total of zero people. The deaths cited by media were largely protesters killed by police.
Do you know that most insulted Muslims ignored the film or protested peacefully?
The western media is screaming that that the Muslim world is burning with anti-western anger with hordes of violent protesters. But is this true?
Again we are lost and brain washed by western media.
Yes, many Muslims find the 13 minute Islamophobic video trashy and offensive. Protests have spread quickly, But the news coverage often obscures some important points
1. Early estimates put participation in anti-film protests at between 0.001 and 0.007% of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims – a tiny fraction of those who marched for democracy in the Arab spring.
2. The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. The breaches of foreign embassies were almost all organised or fuelled by elements of the Salafist movement, a radical Islamist group that is most concerned with undermining more popular moderate Islamist groups.
3. Top Libyan and US officials are divided over whether the killing of the US ambassador to Libya was likely pre-planned to coincide with 9/11, and therefore not connected to the film.
4. Apart from attacks by radical militant groups in Libya and Afghanistan, a survey of news reports on 20 September suggested that actual protesters had killed a total of zero people. The deaths cited by media were largely protesters killed by police.
5. Pretty much every major leader, Muslim and western, has condemned the film, and pretty much every leader, Muslim and western, has condemned any violence that might be committed in response.
6. The pope visited Lebanon at the height of the tension, and Hezbollah leaders attended his sermon, refrained from protesting the film until he left, and called for religious tolerance. Yes, this happened.
7. After the attack in Benghazi, ordinary people turned out on the streets in Benghazi and Tripoli with signs, many of them in English, apologising and saying the violence did not represent them or their religion.
My point is that the mob did not kill the ambassador and to state it so is false. Yes, he was killed as a result of the actions of the mob but what I find interesting is that most of the higlighting from mainstream media is that the ambassdor was killed by a mob since that is the most sensationlist/rabble-rousing approach.
If I were to say “Obama is killing women and childern in Yemen!” (which by the way is true in the sense that the US government is carrying out drone attacks in the Yemen without sufficient intel and are indiscriminately killing civillians), you would say “How can you say such a thing? Obama is in the US!” or some such thing. But by your argument, Obama is indeed a killer since his decisions and actions resulted in the loss of hundreds (if not thousands) of civillian lives. But apparently a mob and Obama are not the same thing and should be held to different standards of accountability …
You are assiming that when you say mob likked xyz. that should mean the people mob physically attacked xyz. That dont need to be the case. you dont have to physicaly beat some one to kill him. if you kill some one you are the killer regardless of the killing.
If some one shoot you would you say it was a bullet that killed you but not the person who fired the gun?
correction
if you kill some one you are the killer regardless of the *method of* killing.
I agree with you Fahim and this article published in the Sunday Times (23 September) gives credence to your position. The vested interests of the West, is well articulated here (see http://www.sundaytimes.lk/120923/sunday-times-2/libya-mayhem-reveals-uncontrolled-chaos-around-the-globe-13618.html)
Maybe USA needs to rethink of the collateral damage to its own people now. Surely you cannot expect the downtrodden to keep-on turning the other cheek!
You’re missing my point :) I’m not arguing over who is responsible for the killing (maybe it was the mob, maybe it was US government itself due to it’s actions – the blame can be spread in a lot of directions and in many ways depending on your affiliations/biases etc.) My point is that to say the mob “brutally and shamefully” killed the ambassador gives it a specific connotation which implies that the mob physically and (perhaps with malicious intent) killed the ambassador.
Sure, they may have intended to kill everybody at the embassy. Or they meant to protest and things got out of hand. Do we really know? But now that the ambassador is dead, the story is that the mob killed him without actually going into what led to his killing and the fact that it might not have been premeditated.
When America kills civillians, does anybody talk about America (or Obama for that matter) “brutally and shamelessly” killing them? No, what we hear is about “collateral damage”. Apparently that is acceptable. But if one were to use the same term to talk about the death of the ambassador, suddenly it’s horrible and unaccepable because people want the “mob” to be identified as the killer and not go into how things led there in the first place … It’s eaasier and neater. Better a faceless mob than somebody who you can hold responsible/accountable for the situation.
Hey brah, why u no write about malaka silva this time? Is it because rehan wijeratne is a friend of yours?
Thanks to (western) media. We can continue in the efforts in stereotyping the Muslims as a violent bunch. Convince the world and prepare the global majority for what is to come in Iran…
My point is that to say the mob “brutally and shamefully” killed the ambassador gives it a specific connotation which implies that the mob physically and (perhaps with malicious intent) killed the ambassador.
The connotation is quite valid, since the mob stormed the ground and fired at the main building, knowing full well that there were people inside it. It doesn’t matter what exactly killed the ambassador. What matters is that they had the intention to harm the ambassador (that’s why they shot at the building, unless they were a bunch of moron who didn’t know that bullets kill people, which is indeed a possibility since we are talking about a bunch of people who think they get 72 virgins once they die), most probably had the intention to kill the ambassador, and what they did caused the death of the ambassador. It doesn’t matter whether it was directly or indirectly.
Your predjudice shows a bit there when you start talking about morons “who think they get 72 virgins once they die” :D In fact, I find it that the people who are most hung up on the 72 virgins thing seem to be non-Muslims … Most Muslims I know of aren’t thinking of virgins in the afterlife – they might cerainly be thinking of them in this life, but that’s a different matter …
Does anybody really know that the people who composed the mob were all Muslims, and therefore (according to you) morons? Or are you doing that assumption thing?
And I notice that you just stick to the whole thing about the mob but have no comments about how the same type of behaviour by the Americans is considered part and parcel of warfware? Who makes these decisions as to the culpability of some and the innocence of others?
A prejudice is an unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought and reason. My opinion about the people who composed the mob is far from that. So let me answer you point by point.
In fact, I find it that the people who are most hung up on the 72 virgins thing seem to be non-Muslims … Most Muslims I know of aren’t thinking of virgins in the afterlife – they might cerainly be thinking of them in this life, but that’s a different matter …
This could be trivially true. It is conceivable that some of the people of the mob, perhaps even a high majority of the mob weren’t thinking about 72 virgins specifically when they stormed the compound and started a gunfire at the main building where the American diplomats were. But believing in 72 virgins is hardly the real issue here. The real issue here is this. Koran states very specifically to kill infidels (fight and slay the pagans (or infidels or unbelievers) wherever you find them?” (9:5)), and it very clearly state that martyrs are rewarded in their afterlives. Those Muslims who attacked the US embassy, and in the process killed few people, truly believed that they would be rewarded for their barbaric act. That’s why they are morons.
Does anybody really know that the people who composed the mob were all Muslims, and therefore (according to you) morons? Or are you doing that assumption thing?
This is just a pointless question raised by someone who doesn’t know how to argue, or knows that he cannot win a proper argument on this and has decided to ask pointless questions to sound like he’s arguing. Nonetheless, I’ll reply.
Nobody really knows that the all the people who composed the mob were all Muslims in the sense that no one has yet found the names of all the people who participated in this and checked their backgrounds. So it is trivially true that it is conceivable that some of them were non-Muslims. But if that is the case, most probably they don’t believe they will be rewarded in their afterlives for attacking the ambassador, but rather did it for other reasons. For example, it could be political (of course, if this is a stupid conspiracy theory. There’s no reason for a non-Muslim to be a part of that mob. I’m just playing along with what you said), in which case, it is hardly moronic.
You are a moron to think that I called the Muslims who were part of the mob morons because they killed the ambassador. No, I’m calling them morons for expecting heavenly rewards for their barbaric act.
And I notice that you just stick to the whole thing about the mob but have no comments about how the same type of behaviour by the Americans is considered part and parcel of warfware? Who makes these decisions as to the culpability of some and the innocence of others?
Tell me one such incidence where Americans had done something similar (namely, killing people for offending their religious sensibilities), and had been written about on this blog, after I started commenting here, where I had defended their actions, or had remained silent (I don’t visit this blog every day, but I don’t think I have missed an important post like that). If you can’t point to such an instance, they you are liar who would go to hell (if your moronic beliefs about hell are right).
I think you’re letting your feelings get the better of you and are confusing facts here :)
1. The 72 virgins comment was about what seemed to be your opinion that all Muslims are dreaming of virgins and go around attacking people due to their aspirations for these heavenly virgins. No Muslim I know of even thinks of heavenly virgins and it’s a strictly non-Muslim fallacy where people get hung up on this fantasy.
2. Of course, then you sidestep the whole virgin thing to say that the real issue is that the Qur’an says to kill the infidel. Thansk for bringing the real issue to light – apparently, I was barking up the wrong tree all this time :) Unfortunately for you, (and for a lot of so-called Muslims who engage in what they term to be “holy war”) that’s also the wrong treee to be barking up at :D I often hear this verse quoted back at me, as proof that the Qur’an advocates killing non-Muslims. If you bother to actually go read up the whole surah, you will notice that that particular verse is regarding something that happened during the prophet’s time. It was about a specific instance where they were told to take action – not a general call to action, as you (and others) seem to believe. Context usually is everything …
3. Of course, then you call me a moron thinking that I assumed you had called the mob morons for killing the ambassador. Of course, I’m sure you’re a very intelligent person (though you do seem to jump to conclusions and not read things properly) but if you read my first sentence I did say “morons who think …” etc. and that sentence does indicate that I understood what part you found moronic. Sorry to have caused you so much mental anguish sorting that out that you had to resort to name calling …
4. Then of course, you go ahead and launch into your own theories instead of dealing with facts. You state “There’s no reason for a non-Muslim to be a part of that mob” – how pray could you know this? You think there aren’t people who are unhappy with America who would want to participate in a protest? But then you’d accuse me of conjecture too, so let’s let that one rest.
5. Finally, you ask me to point out to instances where you’d been silent about Americans doing stuff, Indi writing about it etc. etc. and tell me that I’ll go to hell because I’m lying. Either you just don’t get the point or you’re being totally disingenuous here. Of course, it’s also possible given your track record so far, that you just don’t understand what I’ve written. If so, my apologies. Since you deigned to respond to one part of my previous comment (quoting it in full), I was simply asking why you responded to one fact but left out the responding to the other part, which is that America kills as many innocents in the name of “war on terror” and supposedly that’s considered “collateral damage” whereas an ambassador who’s killed during a riot is not considered “collateral damage” but is “brutally murdered”? Where is the logic?
@Farook
1. This is something I repeatedly find funny – the difference between the literal minded and the ironical minded. Religious people are almost always literal minded. So when I say “they are a bunch of people who think they’ll get 72 virgins when they die”, you take it literally, as if I am literally saying that each and every one of them believes the 72 virgin myth. You take it that I’m making a statement of fact. I mean you literally thought that I was literally saying that all the buggers who did it were 72 virgin-ers, without exception.
2. It doesn’t matter what your interpretation is (and the prophet is a monster even if I’m to believe your interpretation. The point is, the people who do this kind of thing truly, honestly believe they will go to heaven by killing Americans. You can’t actually blame them. There’s plenty of reason to believe what they believe, and interpret them the way they do. For example:
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
2:244 Fight in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearer, Knower.
5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
They are a bunch of morons because they believe all this and believe they will be rewarded for killing infidels.
If you don’t believe what they believe, good for you. But you’ll have to cherry pick passages fron the koran and interpret others with a bias towards pacifism and modernism.
3. The phrase “morons who think” appears only once and that is in your last reply to me where you said you said it before. If you said the same thing in different words, can you quote yourself?
What you really said was “Does anybody really know that the people who composed the mob were all Muslims, and therefore (according to you) morons? Or are you doing that assumption thing?” which shows that you just didn’t get what I found moronic.
4. This again is sort of similar to the first one. You think that when I say there is no reason for a non Muslim to kill to get involved, you think that I literally mean that America has no enemies. Seriously, haven’t you ever heard the term “figure of speech”?
So to clarify, when I say there is no reason for a non-Muslim to get involved, I don’t literally mean that. I’m not even saying that the probability of a non-Muslim joining the mob is 0. What I’m saying is in the absence of evidence to support it, the probability of the proposition “non-muslims were involved in the attack” is being true is very very low.
If you want to say non-muslims were involved, I demand evidence.
5. I made a mistake here, partly due to carelessness and partly due to the ambiguity of your sentence.
why should I help you in trying to diffuse my criticisms against the mob by pointing to the fact that Americans commit warcrimes? Whether or not Americans commit warcrimes, that doesn’t justify attacking an embassy and killing people because someone of their country made a movie that offended religious sentiments of that mob. I refuse to help you in your pathetic attempt to justify the act of the mob by pointing to American crimes
If there can be pro-US death squads, then why not mobs?
My guess is that those “pro-us mobs” just like the “demonstrators” that support the government.
In other words, the government controls them.
Given that you appear to be one of those people who believes in the superiority of their intellect (and considers everyone else to be a moron) and can’t engage in a civil conversation without lapsing into insults (which kind of puts the “superior intellect” part to the test) I see no point in bandying words back and forth on what “literally” was said :) Apparently, being exact is no longer required and you can say whatever you want and later claim that you didn’t literally mean that but it was just figurative …
You hide behind words like “irony” and “interpretation” instead of admitting the possibility that there might be a different viewpoint to yours. That’s your prerogative. If you want to live your life with blinders on, that’s up to you.
can’t engage in a civil conversation without lapsing into insults (which kind of puts the “superior intellect” part to the test
That’s just moronic. How does the fact that I insult you puts into question the “superior intellect” part to question? How does it logically follow from that? But then, you are a believer in a god almighty who has nothing better to do than listening to your pathetic prayers, so I shouldn’t expect logical consistency from you.
The fact that I insult you puts into test the idea that I’m nice, which I never even implied. I’m not a nice person, judging by the feedback I’m getting from other people. So it is highly unlikely that I’ll be nice to someone like you who tries to defend the actions of a pathetic bunch of morons who believe they will be rewarded in their afterlives for barbarically killing unarmed Americans, by making ridiculous arguments like the ambassador died of smoke inhalation, some of the may have been non-Muslims (without any evidence), and that Americans sometimes do the same kind of things (like killing people because someone of their country offended their religious sentiments by making a movie).
I’m not avoiding from “admitting the possibility that there might be a different viewpoint to” mine. That would be a statement only a moron like you would come up with. The mere fact that I’m arguing with you refutes it. No, what I’m saying is, your viewpoint is just plain wrong by the standards of the modern world. Those morons should realize that there are better things to do than killing people to get to heaven, like buying iPhones.
Being exact is indeed required. But we are not talking in formal languages ( like C or LISP) so there are always ambiguities. Even so, most adult humans are better than computers when dealing with ambiguities and they decipher the correct meaning most of the time. It takes a moron to think that when I say there is no reason for a non-Muslim to join the mob, I mean that there is not even a 1 upon googolplex chance that a non-Muslim may have such reasons.
“I’m not arguing over who is responsible for the killing (maybe it was the mob, maybe it was US government itself due to it’s actions “
So, Fahim, you would be of the opinion that the LTTE was responsible for Black July and not the Sinhalese mobs?
“I’m not arguing over who is responsible for the killing (maybe it was the mob, maybe it was US government itself due to it’s actions”
So, Fahim, you would be of the opinion that the LTTE was responsible for Black July and not the Sinhalese mobs?
David, just to clarify (since you’ve pointed out that sentence could be interpreted multiple ways), I am not arguing that the mob was not responsible for the ambassador’s death. They were responsible for it – just as responsible as all the other factors which led to the event. But what I initially pointed out was over that the wording “brutally and shamefully” isn’t exact. It’s painting a picture (whehter intentional or not) of a series of events that’s different from what actually happened. And it’s basically a repetition of the same words used elsewhere by others. Despite what “sharang” might feel, I believe it’s good to be exact :)
If a Muslim brings up such an argument, it always seems to be accepted that s/he is apologizing for the crimes or trying to whitewash it. You can believe that if you want, I can’t change your mind anyway :) But that isn’t what I was trying to do in the first place – I was simply pointing out an issue with how things were phrased. Contrary to popular belief, not all Muslims support protests over cartoons or videos, or the killing of innocents (or the not-so-innocent) in the name of religion.
I think rioting, burning embassies, and killing innocent people because you’re offended by a movie is brutal and shameful. If you think it is not, you certainly are an exceptional person. And reactions should be proportionate to the action. So if I call you a moron and you then strike me, YOU are responsible for your over reaction, not me. It is high time you Muslims stopped playing the victim every time an uneducated and ignorant mob (who btw are kept uneducated and ignorant by regimes that claim to be defenders of Islam) goes on the rampage and commits brutal and shameful acts.
It is fine and dandy to be all high and noble about what Muslims should be doing (and I do agree with you on that point even if I don’t agree with the whole “you Muslims” tone that you stated it in because there are plenty of others who do the same thing) but again, you sidestep the actual issue that I was talking about – which wasn’t defence of the mob.
And if the sentence in question had been “brutal and shameful riots by the mobs”, I would have agreed with that. What I originally commented on what that they didn’t “brutally and shamefully” kill the abmassador. They were responsible for his death yes, but there is a difference in the phrasing whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you to appreciate when you look at it from a “us vs. them” perspective, which is what I get from your tone. But it is an important one if you want to be impartial in your reporting.
technically the guy died from smoke inhalation, but when the mob fires RPGs into the embassy the intent was pretty clear.
As Dodo says. Unless, Fahim, you can prove that the mob’s intention in firing RPGs and burning the embassy wasn’t with the intention of killing anyone but just to create some pretty smoke and flames, I think it’s clear that they killed the ambassador, and that’s pretty brutal and shameful a reaction to a movie. If my tone offends you, it is because I am deeply offended by your shameful attempt to play with words and avoid acknowledging that the mob killed the ambassador, and that it was both brutal and shameful. Reminds me of Nazi aplogists who claim that the intention wasn’t to kill Jews but get the undesirables out of Europe.
I think we’ve about exhausted this topic :) Basically, you see anybody with any opinion different to yours as an apologist, despite me repeatedly stating that this is about the phrasing rather than the actions of the mob. I don’t condone the actions of the mob nor do I think they were in the right. Nor am I trying to imply they were any less wrong about the whole thing even if the ambassador had not been killed. That should not be the reaction to criticism of any kind by any sane individual. But I still stand by my assertion that the phrasing isn’t correct either – it’s inflammatory, and misleading by connotation.
And just for the record, your tone isn’t one of “you slimy, apologist bastard” but one of “you slimy Muslims, all of you” – I might be wrong but that’s basically what I get when somebody says “you Muslims” or “you people” etc. I have no issues with the former, you’re free to believe what you want to believe (as am I) but I do have issues with the latter because that means you’re entering the conversation with your own pre-judgements …
“I think we’ve about exhausted this topic “
You mean you’ve painted yourself into a corner.
“Basically, you see anybody with any opinion different to yours as an apologist, despite me repeatedly stating that this is about the phrasing rather than the actions of the mob.”
No, I just see you as an apologist, based on your attempts to prove that the mob didn’t kill the ambassador.
“I don’t condone the actions of the mob nor do I think they were in the right.”
I didn’t say you did. What I did say you did (and are continuing to do) is downplay the mob’s actions and make them out to be less than brutal and/or shameful. That is why I call you an apologist. And it is why I compared your action to that of other apologists for the Sinhalese mobs of Black July and the Nazis.
“Nor am I trying to imply they were any less wrong about the whole thing even if the ambassador had not been killed.”
Thanks for admitting that. It’s my point too. If the ambassador hadn’t been killed, the mob would certainly be less culpable (or wrong, in your words). Therefore if you’re saying that the ambassador’s murder makes no difference to the mob’s culpability, you’re thereby suggesting that the mob had no culpability in said murder. Another reason for calling you an apologist for mob violence.
“But I still stand by my assertion that the phrasing isn’t correct either – it’s inflammatory, and misleading by connotation.”
How can calling a murder shameful and brutal be inflammatory, and how is it misleading when we know the mob used RPGs against the embassy? What was the purpose of these RPGs if it was not to brutally and shamefully murder individuals who had no connection to the making of that movie?
“And just for the record, your tone isn’t one of “you slimy, apologist bastard” but one of “you slimy Muslims, all of you”
I suggest you pay more attention to the points of the debate rather than my tone of voice or what my judgements are. Believe me, you’re as wrong on those two as you are on the rest of the discussion.
But I still stand by my assertion that the phrasing isn’t correct either – it’s inflammatory, and misleading by connotation.
Inflammatory is an interesting choice of words given the involvement of RPGs.
Point :)
“I didn’t say you did. What I did say you did (and are continuing to do) is downplay the mob’s actions and make them out to be less than brutal and/or shameful. That is why I call you an apologist. And it is why I compared your action to that of other apologists for the Sinhalese mobs of Black July and the Nazis.”
Oh come now, you mean you really know how the mob was going to go even before they got to the embasssy? My understanding of mobs (not that I’ve been part of one, mind you and so I acknowledge that you might have better information than me – not that I’m accusing you of being part of a mob either, just to be clear) is that they can be volatile. They can get together to protest, but things can get out of hands and things can escalate from there.
I have no idea whether this mob intended to attack and kill people from the outset or not. I don’t have the information to judge that. The fact that people had RPGs in the mob seems to indicate that at least some wanted to do more than protest. But is that the case for the entire mob? You might think me an apologist, and if you do, that’s your business. I’m still trying to be fair and impartial by all parties here.
For instance, you asked me a quetion above about whether I think the LTTE was responsible for Black July instead of the Sinhalese mobs. And my answer would be I think both are responsible in their own way but I wouldn’t say “Sinhalese mobs” since that assumes that the whole mob was Sinhalese. Which we can’t know. I would be more than willing to bet there were Muslims there and Tamils too. That’s what people do – they loot and pillage and attack other people for various reasons. So you can’t speak for one religion, group, ethnicity generally. And that’s been my point always, whether you believe me or not :)
Neither of us know what the intentions of the mob were. That is why we must go by the evidence. And the evidence is that 120-mm anti-tank rockets were fired at the embassy. Now if you want to suggest that there were motives other than that of killing the inhabitants, you are certainly more creative than I. The evidence is also that the RPGs were carried and fired by members of the mob. Therefore, as a mob, they are culpable; as individuals, culpability will be based on individual action.
As for degrees of culpability, that can be argued, but the greater culpability will always be on those who took direct action, rather than those who provoked it (supposing such intent to provoke can be proven). So yes, the mobs (I will drop the Sinhalese part since you cast doubt on the fact that they were Sinhalese) that participated in Black July hold the overwhelming culpability, rather than the Tigers that ambushed 13 soldiers.
I’m glad to see that you’ve dropped your absurd argument against calling murder brutal and shameful.
“That’s what people do – they loot and pillage and attack other people for various reasons.”
Whatever the reasons, the actions are brutal and shameful, which is the point. And we are discussing an incident in particular, and not mob violence everywhere. Some reasons can be better than other reasons, but religious fervour and outrage is usually one of the worst reasons. Your tactics of generalisation and justification continue to follow the apologist’s handbook, unfortunately, and so are quite easy to counter.
Anything is easy to counter if you refuse to see the point :) Which is basically why I said earlier that there was no point in continuing this conversation …
You say that I cast doubt on the Black July mobs being Sinhaelse – but that is an incorrect assumption on your part. What I said was that saying that it was a “Sinhalese mob” assumes that the mob was composed of Sinhalese and only Sinhalese. This, in a sense, vilifies all Sinhalese becasue people generally say “the Sinhalese attacked the Tamils during Black July”. Generally, that might be true but if you want to be accurate, it’s more correct to say “Some Sinhalese (and probably some Tamils, Muslims and others) attacked mostly Tamils (but probably a few other races as well) during Black July”. Of course, you might argue that that is being an apologist or trying to water down the issue or some such thing.
The point I was trying to make was somewhat similar in the case of the Benghazi mob but it’s turned into a rather pointless argument at this point :D
So other than attempting a flawed demographic of Black july, you have no further response? :D
What would’ve frightened me six or seven years ago is that Farook here actually thinks he’s making logical arguments. Now I know that this sort of arguments are actually not very unusual for a normal person to make.
Anyway, at least the guy isn’t going around killing people in the name of Allah. He’s doing the best he can, considering the fact that the self-evidently true and beautiful holy book he believes him has pretty clear instructions to go around and kill people in the name of Allah.
There comes a point in some debates when you realize that there’s nothing to be gained by further discussion :) I’ve said what I wanted to say multiple times and you’ve said that you believe that I’m an apologist and that’s it. So why torture anuybody further? I can just as easily go read a book or something – it’s at least more fruitful :)
Reading a book is always more fruitful, provided you are able to comprehend what’s written. Even now, the best you can do is claim you have an argument while accusing me of calling you names. Never reinforce defeat, Fahim, it’s one of the oldest rules of battle.
David, I think the trouble here is you think this is a battle :) I considered it an exchnage of ideas but it becomes ever apparent to me that you think you’re in the school debating team or something and keep resorting to debating tactics. How can I “accuse you” of calling me names when you have indeed called me an apologist (not to mention a few other things) during the course of this discussion? I am not accusing you of anything, I’m stating a fact.
Let me tell you a little anecdote – even as a child I was very keen on things being precise. So, when I got a digital watch (one of those Casios which were so ubiquitous at one point), I was thrilled because I could tell the time exactly. So whenever somebody asked me the time, I would tell the time exactly and instead of saying “10:15”, I’d say “10:12” and so on.
Apparently, one of my uncles found it funny. He would ask me for the time often just to amuse others. I never realized this at the time and I continued to say the time the way I normally did, which was exactly. I only learnt of it years later when somebody else told me what he was doing.
So what’s the point? The point is that my uncle was not interested in the time. And it appears you are not interested in a discussion where an exchange of ideas is made. You are more interested in a “battle” where you can count coup.
And since this discussion has devovled to you and I repeating the same things over and over again, that’s just boring :)
“David, I think the trouble here is you think this is a battle”
No, Fahim, the trouble is that you’re more interested in my frame of my mind, my motives, etc, rather than the actual topic. You have spent more time telling me what I think instead of what you think. I have repeatedly told you to deal with the topic, rather than me or my motives, and yet your entire last comment is devoted to badly deducing my motives. Either you’re deliberately sidelining the discussion (since you seem averse to the word debate!), or you just don’t have anything useful to say. Almost all of the points I framed to you remain unanswered.
“I considered it an exchnage of ideas but it becomes ever apparent to me that you think you’re in the school debating team or something and keep resorting to debating tactics.”
No, Fahim, I have had to be pedantic because it is the only way to keep you honest. You have backtracked and squirmed your way through this by being intellectually deceitful in your arguing. I have asked you repeatedly for your ideas, but instead of focusing on those ideas, you focus on getting the words right.
“How can I “accuse you” of calling me names when you have indeed called me an apologist”
You framed it in an accusatory manner by using it as an excuse for the breakdown of your argument. Whenever you’re stuck, you start to discuss my motives and mindset. Those are irrelevant. Stick to the topic.
“The point is that my uncle was not interested in the time.”
But what made you an object of hilarity wasn’t your uncle’s disinterest in the time, but your preference for getting the time exact rather than telling him what he had asked. If you had changed your habit, the game would have ended. So rather than pseudo-analysing my motives (which I assure you is as inaccurate as your argument), it would be better for you to deal with the questions I have put to you. If you can.
“And since this discussion has devovled to you and I repeating the same things over and over again, that’s just boring”
It’s more than boring, it’s embarrassing. I keep asking you the same questions, and you keep dodging them, misquoting me, and pretending not to understand the misquotes. Surely, your religion deserves a better defense than dishonesty?