US embassies attacked

This is just as offensive.

It was a World War, with a collective effort. You can argue about individual capaigns, who did what at certain moments in time and the number of individuals from America, Russia, Great Britain and other European countries all you like, but to use a term from the Vietnam war, "all gave some, some gave all".

Maybe we all need some education.
 
Pointing out the reality of the situation to people who believe otherwise is offensive? Then so be it. Some times the truth hurts. And the truth of the matter is nearly every other country involved in the second world war gave a hell of a lot more than the Americans did. Which is why the notion Americans have been taught and constantly repeat parrot fashion without any thought that we'd all be speaking German without them is utter rubbish and offensive.

As for Vietnam. America started that war. Britain and other allied nations supported them. We paid the price. That's likely no comfort to the families of fallen servicemen and women. But there's really not a lot I can do about that. The truth is what it is.

Maybe if people start paying attention to the truth and the reality surrounding all these wars we might actually at some point get through a decade without going to war. Can you imagine a decade of peace in the world? When was the last time we had such a thing?

War for me is not something to be glorified.
 
You raise some good points and highlight some not so well known ones.

P.S Im not Churchil;l's biggest fan

However I dont know how many times iv written it, and I think Mikey has seen I am not diminishing America's role, I already stated they were the tipping point.

Just dont go making out like you were the guys who were there for us all along. Because you were not.

And come on this is getting a bit silly, we are not those men , I wasn;t at Juno beach and neither were any of you.

This is just about having an awareness of history, and just the ignorance floated by populism.

"You'd be speaking German if it wasn;t for us" being the most notable and most laughable considering the facts of the time.

Not one German soldier was on British soil. Something I find people not accepting very well is that Hitler did not want to war with Britain you just have to look at the exchanges between foreign ministries , what he wrote in Mein Kempf, and in his other letters.

Also the offer in 1940.
Now im not saying Hitler was a stand up guy whoes word we can trust, because of course that lacks merit but, based on past actions and words, its hard to see Hitler not accepting a peace deal if we sued for one.
Im going to repost this because I think it got buried quite a bit.
You cannot seriously consider the following points and still come out with, you would be speaking German if it wasn't for us.

"Something I often wonder is,where are all the Germans going to come from to continue battling Britian and more importantly the Soviet Union? People ask where would the Russians get this and where would the British get that but given the nature of the war in Russia where were the Germans themselves gonna come from?

We (Britain) were more likely to produce the atomic bomb than Germany was, as it was the Germans were heading towards a dead end with their notions on it. And without an atomic bomb to put on the end of it a V2 rocket is about the most complicated and expensive way imaginable to send a ton of TNT to a target.

I think we would've gotten a handle on the U-boat war; we had a huge fleet, very capable technical people and Ultra. Then they could have gone back to the proper British strategy of blockade and sea control whilst allied to a strong land power; a strategy that worked well for them in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

German policies in Russia guaranteed that the Russians were gonna fight to the bitter end---the extinction of fascist Germany, to the Russians it was win or die. Every mile deeper in Russia cost the Germans dead and made their logistics harder. The Russians would have eventually started to grow stronger and more consolidated as the Germans grew weaker and more spread out. Without American transport the Russian task would've been more difficult, no doubt. But not impossible. Faced with win or die the Russians would choose to win.

In 1810 Napolean sat astride the World, in 1814 he sat in Elba.

As for the Japanese, well they couldn't do what they wanted to do without fighting The United States, the Germans could have. Once Japan goes after Indonesia and Malaya they have to fight The United States or tolerate the American held Phillipines as a threat on their communications. Which they wouldn't do, obviously.

One must remember that Hitler was not that interested in subjugating and occupying the UK. He really wanted us to simply step aside and stay out of the way, as was made clear in 1940.

On another historical note, its worth mentioning the American ambassador to the UK at the time, was a big time Reich sympathizer.

I seek to no way diminish the sacrifice of any nations soldiers, sailors and airmen, just looking at it from a what if point of view."

As a genuine question, do you-those who think we are brushing off America's role- see it the same way perhaps the French see you brushing away their role in your independence?
I find Frances role in your independence is so often brushed to the side, and replaced with white flag jokes.

Raz
 
The U.S were a huge help when the IRA were running around the UK mainland killing civilians weren't they ? ..................
 
You do know that the IRA got most of its funding from groups and sympathizers inside the USA? Next to Libya or arguably ahead of Libya in terms of support.
 
So anyway, now that we've sufficiently explored the total lack of sensitivity some have to foreign cultures. What exactly was the point of this video? Was it really intended to provoke a reaction? Have it's makers apologised? Was it just a bit of fun gone terribly wrong? Does everybody now understand the Internet and World Wide Web are a truly global phenomenon? Something that might be funny in New York or Glasgow probably won't be funny in Cairo.
 
From what I've heard (haven't researched it yet) the video was a few months old and wasn't meant to provoke.

I think your view is completely ridiculous aikiwolfie. It is not reasonable to expect violence in the form of killing or a siege on an embassy for remarks made by somebody who is not in a position of authority. I don't care if it was incredibly offensive to a minority of people or not.
 
Ive watched the video its easy to find just search "sam bacile movie" on youtube.

Its a pretty stupid as in it lacks any talent, I see it as a stupid film made by a stupid person with the intention of provocation. There are plenty of reply videos from Muslims, saying they see it as I just mentioned. Also that it did not require violence.

I think its a case of clerics and Imam's with extreme views getting the crowd all riled up. Just like they used to do in Northern Ireland, with mass.

Raz
 
And they should have swift, violent retaliation to establish order brought to them by their countries without hesitation. If this sort of thing happened in America to foreign embassies the national guard would have a perimeter around DC, there would be no more protestors in the street, and people would probably be dead.

EDIT: the word "Justice" was put in place of the bold in original post. Let's not even call it justice because that line may be blurred for some. How about just re-establishing order quickly?
 
I'm not entirely sure I agree, There have previously been protests that resulted over stories that insulted extremists in various countries. Theo Van Gogh made a short movie and was assassinated. Desecrating the Koran or blaspheming the prophet in a very public way is going to highly offend tyhese people. These people have very little understanding about how things work in this country and tend to believe the US government is an entity that has an immense span of control.

That being said, the anger over most anything offensive to Muslims emanating from the US will be perceived as being endorsed by the US government. They perceive the US government as the most powerful in the world. When the most powerful government in the world allows something like this piece of trash movie to be distributed then the government clearly must not oppose it. These are people who have no concept of Freedom of expression because they have not lived with it.

The events in Egypt are also part of a power play between the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood. The movie was something that played into the hands of those with an agenda. The attack on the consulate in Libya was most likely going to happen on September 11 regardless of the movie as well.

Is it reasonable to a westerner to "expect violence in the form of killing or a siege on an embassy for remarks made by somebody who is not in a position of authority"? Probably not. You don't understand the Middle East. This is one of the most complex regions of the world. The problem is that various administrations and the media have all applied what is reasonable to a westerner to an area that they do not understand. I do not claim to be an expert in any way shape or form. I was in Cairo at the tail end of the revolution last year and saw how it can be. What I do know is most people here don't get what happens over there.
 
I just wanted to give my opinion on one part of Ular Sawa's post:



Exactly! When you have lived in a country where every single thing that's made public has been approved and stamped by the government, you tend to think that that's how every government works. Most if not all the countries in the Middle East have been like that for decades prior to the liberation of Iraq and the Arabian Spring. These people were BORN into it. It's easy to sway their minds that the U.S. has compete control over everything that's going on here.
 
From what I've heard it was made by someone using a false Egyptian name who deliberately subtitled it with arabic. Sounds provocative to me
 
So it can be boiled down to , lack of education brought about by poverty.(For various reasons)

And those with some knowledge (the radical clerics and imam's) inciting hatred to give them more power, citing divine justification for violence.

Raz
 
I would say it's a lack of education brought about from decades of oppression (including poverty, persecution, etc.). The radical clerics and imams play a role in the justification of violence, but it's politically motivated all the way.
 
Well it's not something we'd expect in the USA or UK certainly. But in the middle east this kind of thing is massively inflaofftopictory. And it's in the middle east that there have been extreme reactions.

Perhaps you need to think beyond your own cultural norms here to appreciate what all the fuss is about.
 
I have to admit. I don't lose one wink of sleep over these protests. I feel sorry for the Americans who lost their lives in circumstances outwith their control. However, they were professionals and they knew the risks of their postings. Frankly the entire Islamic world rising up doesn't even fill me with dread. I know that if the gloves come off I know who'll be standing at the end. So I don't think that we should allow ourselves to be manipulated through fear. The movie is nonsense and yes it insulting to Islam but so what? It just goes to show that there is alot more insulting required until some people stop taking themselves too seriously.

The Bear.
 
I am going to be straightforward here; the people who undertook these attacks on the embassies are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. They're getting rallied up because of someone insulted Islam, whereas they don't even care what Islam really is, or follow any of its laws.

Imam Ali was giving a lecture during his caliphate (ruling), when someone insulted him. The Muslims around him stood up to beat the man, but Imam Ali stopped them and said: "Halt! It either an insult for an insult, or forgiveness for a transgression." (rough translation). It's pretty clear what it means.
 
Back
Top