« Arab-Americans | Main | Nakoula Basseley Nakoula »

September 13, 2012

Comments

"It will help Romney become president."

Could you please expand on this?

[HS: Muslims acting muslim helped Reagan beat Carter.]

I have a feeling that Obama is going to win reelection, though I could be wrong. It's hard to get a grip on the electorate these day. It seems that Romney's response to the embassy attacks has hurt him; he really drew a lot of flak for immediately attacking the president. My prediction is that if he overseas chaos gets too much out of control, the media will sweep it under the rug for the sake of the president. As you know, they're all giant liberals and wouldn't want to report on things that would make the president look bad.

The Danish cartoons got little coverage until the Saudi clerical establishment stirred a worlwide campaign against Danemark amongts muslims.

Since the same Saudis are naked without Americans, and that Libyans, Egyptians and many other (Sunni) islamic countries are in dire need of American support, I don't expect this story to create as much trouble despite the aggravating factors you noted.

[HS: I am sure that Muslims can get riled up without any official help from Saudi Arabia.]

What makes this tricky is that the Copts who made that video seem to want to get a war going with the Muslims, so they can get international protection. Or it could be something else even weirder. That seems to be the wild card here.

HS the delayed reaction of the muslim world suggests otherwise:

"Saudi Arabia's relative inaction toward Palestine is important considering the kingdom's willingness to engage forcefully on other issues that resonate with Arabs and Muslims. For example, it was in the forefront of organizing a global consumer boycott of Danish products after the publication of inflammatory cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. Muslims around the globe applied a consumer boycott against Danish products, devastating that country's exports in a number of critical sectors. Saudi Arabia also recalled its ambassador to Denmark, hurting Copenhagen's diplomatic standing in the Middle East among the global Muslim community.

Saudi Arabia's official clerical establishment and media helped shape a powerful narrative that resonated among a wide constituency while Saudi diplomacy paved the way for Muslims to direct their ire toward Denmark. Its behavior during the height of the cartoon controversy is illustrative of the kingdom's potential to shape global events in its favor relatively quickly.

The vigor and unity of purpose displayed by Saudi institutions in the diplomatic, economic, ideological and media realms in the name of Islamic solidarity during the cartoon controversy and on matters related to Iran are noticeably absent when it comes to pressuring Israel to withdraw from Palestinian land or refrain from continued construction of settlements in the occupied territories. "

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI08Ak01.html

If you think this will help Romney become president, then you should immediately invest all of your available savings into the prediction markets. In the last 48 hours, Romney's percentage on Intrade.com has plummeted to about 36%. If you think the last couple of days have been good for Romney, then this a massive buy opportunity, much more immediate and tangible then your HBD-investment strategies.

Obama sympathizes with the people attacking our embassies

I dout it. If the muslim mobs attacked US oil workers, Christian missionaries or private equity guys Obama probably would sympathize with the attackers, but working in the foreign service is a very high status SWPLy job, and Obama is SWPL, and lived most of his childhood among people like Chris Stevens. In this case, at least, he probably sincerely thinks the attackers were in the wrong.

"It will help Romney become president."

You're a parody of yourself. Most voting Americans don't believe in overreacting to foreign events such as this to the extent that it reverses their electoral impulses.

To cede one's democratic will to the violent overseas backwardness of a small number of Islamic extremists is not only stupid, it's very weak.

"Sure, Mitt Romney will fuck the middle class, but gosh darn it, Half Sigma says those Muslims are crazy and need to be bombed! Time to get on it."

You're as weak as Mitt Romney in your rush to piss your pants over this. If your own glee wasn't governed by sheer spite, you'd realize what idiotic, and frankly embarrassing predictions you're making.

This isn't critical analysis, this is rank desperation.

Mitt Romney is more likely to have just pissed away his slim chance to be president by crassly jumping the gun and seeking political advantage in the death of Americans overseas. It didn't win him any support, and exposed how flailing his campaign is. And it's all on him. Nobody made him do this.

Even the MSM, despite its desire to portray this campaign as neck-and-neck horse race to a photo finish has conceded that Mitt Romney exposed himself as an opportunistic, overreaching dick. In short, his behavior just wasn't presidential. You have to act the part if you expect to win the role.

This situation isn't even superficially like the Iran hostage crisis that influenced the 1980 election. That had stretched on for over a year, involved a failed rescue attempt which killed eight Americans, and was in the context of a sweeping Islamic political revolution.

So, you're grasping at straws here.

What Romney said was stupid and not pragmatic. It's fine to trumpet a lot of 'free speech' idealism from the safety of the United States.

The fact is, in the majority of the world, saying certain words or voicing certain ideologies can get you killed. The rub? When an individual who lives in the United States makes a deliberately inflammatory movie, he's not putting -his- life on the line. He's subjecting the consequences of his actions on others.

So just saying 'oh well free speech free speech don't apologize' is ridiculous. Maybe he has a legal right not to be interfered with by the U.S. government, but that doesn't mean that a) as a matter of moral common sense, we don't realize that this individual blatantly disregarded foreseeable harm that could have resulted from his action or b) that we as a nation encourage these kinds of actions.

The 'policing' force of speech is society at large. So, just because the constitution removes government doesn't mean that 'all speech is good' becomes the rule in private life. Romney's remarks missed this fact. Further, Romney's statement missed the fact that the Embassy issued its statement in a fit of 'not trying to die.'

It's not 'media bias.' Romney screwed up. Deal with it.

It will be hard to paint Obama as "soft on terrorists," when he's the president who got Osama Bin Laden, and he's been blowing up suspected terrorists with drones weekly now for years.

By "help Romney become president," HS meant Romney will not lose the election by nine points; instead he'll lose by five points.

So this election is really turning out to be 0bama's incompetence versus 0bama's welfare handouts. Smart money says the latter will prevail.

I am impressed by the seamlessness of US policy across different administrations, Democratic and Republican.

Bush I decides to "liberate" Kuwait from the evil clutches of Saddam Hussein. He succeeds, and now Kuwait is run by an Emir who locks people up for criticizing Islam or the royal family. An elected parliament exists, but it has little real power and can be dissolved on a whim by the Emir.

Clinton wanted to democratize Bosnia and Somalia. We know how that one worked out.

Bush II sought to liberate the freedom-loving people of Iraq and Afghanistan from oppressive rulers and backward Islam, and Obama continued his enlightened policies. Of course, now we have Libya, Syria and Egypt. Another triumph of democracy!

Islam in incompatible with Western values. But the Muslims have a point when they say that the West has meddled in their affairs for too long. So we should just leave them alone. If they prefer to live under medieval barbarism, well, let them. But don't let them in over here.

I just had a horrible thought, what if the embassys in Egypt and Libya are shut down for a considerable length of time? How will the Egyptians and Libyans get Visas to come to the US?
This could turn into a real trajedy.

All this pessimism and negativity over Romney's chances is nauseating. Romney has an excellent chance and I expect him to win.

"I am impressed by the seamlessness of US policy across different administrations, Democratic and Republican." -- black death

I've noticed that but not sure why. Either, they both support the same policies because the most influential special interests support it. Or the external conditions in those other countries and around the world give them no other choice.

This absolutely helps Romney. Except for 2008, foreign policy issues have been a net plus for the Republicans ever since the Cold War. It is largely what won the working class "Reagan Democrats" over to the GOP. They didn't vote for Reagan because he wanted to lower marginal tax rates; they voted for him because they correctly saw that Carter's policies of weakness and appeasement hurt America.

Romney's comments will lose him the votes of a few people on the coasts, but in the middle battleground territory, it helps him. Most people see our response to the attack on our embassy as a national humiliation, and they are right.

All things being equal, I would give Obama the edge on winning the election, but something out of the blue could happen, such as Obama's "smart diplomacy" in the middle east blowing up in his face right before the election.

During the Libyan war early last year I remember thinking that it's crazy of Obama to undo the foreign policy of several administrations in bringing Ghaddafi "out of the cold" back into the international community. We actually had the "Libyan terrorist" problem solved. Obama crazily brought that back.

Great job Obama.

As was already pointed out somewhere else, Liberal women believe that their disposition for dressing and acting like sluts in public (slut walk) is absolutely no excuse for rape. So why do they blame this jew, who is probably an evangelical christian white or Egyptian Coptic, for the violence?

"So why do they blame this jew, who is probably an evangelical christian white or Egyptian Coptic, for the violence?" -- anonymous

Your questions assumes liberal views are rational and consistent. I've seen no evidence of that.

The comments to this entry are closed.