U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

[digitize]

Last year, I read "The Evolution of God"...I forgot the author's name. Anyway, the first quarter of the book discusses how religion came about in early societies by looking at cultures like those in Papua New Guinea, which are still very much stone age like. It gives a very good argument on how religion could not be avoided in ancient history. The author is an agnostic, so maybe some of you may want to read it.

The Evolution of God is by Robert Wright. He's fantastic - probably my favorite nonfiction writer. I mentioned another one of his books, Nonzero, earlier in this thread, actually.

 

[Pearl]

That's it - Robert Wright. Thanks, digitize.

Yeah, his books are easy to read because he isn't dry or textbook-like in his language.

 

[deep]

The Evolution of God | On Being

 

[Diemen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/world/middleeast/assault-on-consulate-in-libya-a-terrorist-attack-white-house-says.html?_r=0

It was not self-evident one week ago to the White House. Everyone else yes, the White House no. So what Hillary Clinton, Jay Carney, Susan Rice and other W.H. operatives were saying last week was wrong.

So using the same standard of truth applied to GWB and Iraq we can now say about this White House:

Ambassador dies; the White House lies.

Right? I mean, why wait until the facts are in before going public? It's certainly worked fabulously for Romney.

 

[Pearl]

Here's some good news...

A leading figure in the Sunni Islam world called for fellow believers to respond to recent controversial portrayals of Mohammed -- which he said "spread hatred" -- just like the prophet himself would, "through patience and wisdom." The Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa spoke to CNN as Muslims staged yet more passionate protests Saturday in yet more locales, from Germany to Lebanon to Bangladesh, as they have since September 11. Demonstrators railed against an obscure, 14-minute trailer for a film that mocks Mohammed as a womanizer, child molester and killer -- as well as the country in which it was privately produced, the United States -- and more recently a French satirical magazine's cartoons of a figure representing Mohammed.

Sunni Islam leader calls for peace, urges Muslims to have 'patience and wisdom' - CNN.com

And on the opposite side of the spectrum...

A Pakistan government minister has personally offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who kills the man who made the anti-Islam movie that is drawing ire throughout the Muslim world. Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour announced the bounty at a news conference Saturday, but he made clear to CNN he was speaking for himself and not as a government representative.
Asked whether he was concerned about committing or condoning a crime as a government official, Bilour said, "I am a Muslim first, then a government representative.
He said he invited the Taliban and al Qaeda to carry out the assassination.

Pakistani minister personally offers reward for anti-Islam filmmaker's death - CNN.com

 

[Jive Turkey]

I don't want to seem like I'm picking on you here, but I'd have to challenge this rather strongly. For one, the concept of a well-defined afterlife is a relatively new development. The only pre-Christian society of which I can think that pays any real attention to the afterlife is the ancient Egyptians. Even Judaism, as far as I understand it, does not say much about an afterlife. The mythology about the afterlife in other early religions is vague and often paints a highly depressing picture of what awaits.

Anthropologically speaking, I think it is fairly safe to say that religion, if we define that as some form of ritualized belief in the supernatural, begins as (and largely still is) a means of expressing social value, of demonstrating the importance of certain acts or ideas.

The earliest spiritual rituals, for example, deal with the absolute essentials of life: child-bearing and food-gathering. Then, as family units start to coalesce, ancestor worship develops; next, in early urban environments, deities of farming and warfare appear, and etc.

On this basis I would argue that religion is meant to instill in people a sense of what they have to be doing in order to ensure the survival of their communities. I think that survives even to this day, as you see many religious people believing that their specific values and practices need to be carried out for the good of society at large.

I don't believe there are any religions that don't have anything to say about an afterlife. Some, like Judaism as you mention, may be vague on the issue (Judaism is itself an evolution on previous religions), but the ultimate reward for a devout life is to be taken care of after death. The Greeks and Romans had healthy mythology on the afterlife. The Egyptians too. Even the little we know about proto-religions, or whatever you want to call them, we know from burial rituals (pretty much anything pre Bronze Age). I think it would be nearly impossible to find one that didn't.
Sure, religions have evolved to inform everyday life and culture, but at their very core is the longing to avoid the cessation of being.
But I don't think I'm saying anything particularly radical here.

 

[iron yuppie]

I don't believe there are any religions that don't have anything to say about an afterlife. Some, like Judaism as you mention, may be vague on the issue (Judaism is itself an evolution on previous religions), but the ultimate reward for a devout life is to be taken care of after death. The Greeks and Romans had healthy mythology on the afterlife. The Egyptians too. Even the little we know about proto-religions, or whatever you want to call them, we know from burial rituals (pretty much anything pre Bronze Age). I think it would be nearly impossible to find one that didn't.
Sure, religions have evolved to inform everyday life and culture, but at their very core is the longing to avoid the cessation of being.
But I don't think I'm saying anything particularly radical here.

I'm going primarily to discuss Graeco-Roman religion, as I most familiar with it. I don't think we can say that there is a healthy mythology on the issue. The places that it does appear, as in the Odyssey, are largely functioning as a literary device rather than a codified belief system. The state religion has nothing to say about an afterlife.

The best evidence against my argument is the presence of grave goods in most cultures. Burying people with items from their life might indicate a belief in an afterlife, but it could also signify insistence on private property, i.e. a person's things are so affixed to him or her that they "die" along with the person. Let's say just for argument's sake that grave goods show belief in an afterlife. The mythology surrounding that afterlife is far from pleasant. Ishtar's descent, Odysseus in the underworld, Persephone and Hades, and others all show an incredibly bleak afterlife in which people are mere shadows of their former selves, usually wandering around with great regret. Even in Egypt, the ornate burials are class-oriented, so that what awaits the deceased is just a continuation of what that person had on earth. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the self dissolves into a larger entity. None of this is what one would call an attractive afterlife, something to which people would look forward as a means of assuaging their fears.

I'm going to hold to the position that religion is about life rather than death. Even the earliest burial rituals are a form of social order, or, even at the most abstract, a means of placating a spirit so that it is not a scourge down the road. Improving conditions of life, or, perhaps more accurately, avoiding catastrophe, is at the core of religion. Economics would back this up as well, if I'm not mistaken: people will usually look to avoid a loss rather than make a gain of similar magnitude.

 

[Jive Turkey]

The idea definitely freaks me out, too. I may not be very religious, but I do like the idea of there being something after this life is over. What exactly that would be, I couldn't begin to tell you, and of course it's not something that I could prove to be true, but the thought of people I love who've passed being comfortable in some other existence and whatnot is a comforting one for sure.

There's something about the absolution of death and oblivion... it feels like the only time the vastness of the universe imposes itself on us in our otherwise comfortable, self contained little lives on Earth. Scary stuff

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm going primarily to discuss Graeco-Roman religion, as I most familiar with it. I don't think we can say that there is a healthy mythology on the issue. The places that it does appear, as in the Odyssey, are largely functioning as a literary device rather than a codified belief system. The state religion has nothing to say about an afterlife.

The best evidence against my argument is the presence of grave goods in most cultures. Burying people with items from their life might indicate a belief in an afterlife, but it could also signify insistence on private property, i.e. a person's things are so affixed to him or her that they "die" along with the person. Let's say just for argument's sake that grave goods show belief in an afterlife. The mythology surrounding that afterlife is far from pleasant. Ishtar's descent, Odysseus in the underworld, Persephone and Hades, and others all show an incredibly bleak afterlife in which people are mere shadows of their former selves, usually wandering around with great regret. Even in Egypt, the ornate burials are class-oriented, so that what awaits the deceased is just a continuation of what that person had on earth. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the self dissolves into a larger entity. None of this is what one would call an attractive afterlife, something to which people would look forward as a means of assuaging their fears.

I'm going to hold to the position that religion is about life rather than death. Even the earliest burial rituals are a form of social order, or, even at the most abstract, a means of placating a spirit so that it is not a scourge down the road. Improving conditions of life, or, perhaps more accurately, avoiding catastrophe, is at the core of religion. Economics would back this up as well, if I'm not mistaken: people will usually look to avoid a loss rather than make a gain of similar magnitude.

People looking back in 3000 years could also see the Christian belief of heaven and hell and being pure mythology too.
I'm sure I don't have the background that you do, but I don't think the Greek version of the afterlife is as bleak as that; there was a kind of paradise/hell dichotomy as there is in many religions.
As far as Buddhism, Nirvana is something to aspire to, so I'm not sure escaping the cycle of life and dissolving into a larger entity is seen in a negative light.

But anyway, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence on both sides of the fence, so I'll agree to disagree.
If you'd like to add anything else though, I'm fascinated

 

[Jeannieco]

Right? I mean, why wait until the facts are in before going public? It's certainly worked fabulously for Romney.

 

[deep]

Facts are what you make them.

and if you disagree with that, I can post several links to prove it is true.

 

[dazzledbylight]

i do know that at least one Native American tribe thought the stars were campfires of their departed people on their way to elsewhere

 

[Kieran McConville]

Depending on the society in question, at least some early religion should be thought of as a combination of oral history (tribes of Israel) and survival tips (Australian indigenous peoples).

When you get to the kind of society that existed around the Mediterranean shores by the early centuries AD, religion could be thought of as an expression of politics. There's a reason why Constantine and particular Theodosius seized on Christianity. There wasn't much else uniting the vast empire by that point.

 

[U2DMfan]

Religion is a result of humanity's inherent desire to draw Order from Chaos.
I don't think it's any more complicated than that. We see mythology naturally arise continually. Even in the subject of this thread. Now add more than a healthy dose of ancient superstition and fear, and it is more than a very natural occurrence. Religion is always, in practically all instances, about dealing with the cruel uncertainty of life.

 

[deep]

Religion is a result of humanity's inherent desire to draw Order from Chaos.
I don't think it's any more complicated than that. We see mythology naturally arise continually. Even in the subject of this thread. Now add more than a healthy dose of ancient superstition and fear, and it is more than a very natural occurrence. Religion is always, in practically all instances, about dealing with the cruel uncertainty of life.

what uncertainty ?

 

[Pearl]

what uncertainty ?

Such as the unexpected events that pop up in life. Life is not one predictable bore as we all know.

 

[deep]

If I get a flat tire, or even if an earthquake hits, I get those are things not planned for, they are uncertain.
Again what correlation to religion?

... Religion is always, in practically all instances, about dealing with the cruel uncertainty of life.

 

[Pearl]

If I get a flat tire, or even if an earthquake hits, I get those are things not planned for, they are uncertain.
Again what correlation to religion?

Well, for people of faith, that means they will turn to God for strength. At least, that is what I do when crap happens in my life.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Now there are cyberattacks on banks-B of A and Wells Fargo and another one I can't remember. They are supposedly retaliation for the movie.

 

[Jive Turkey]

At least it isn't an obama doll in fake dog poo, amirite gang?

 

[Pearl]

Getting back to the original topic...

The killing of the US ambassador to Libya is rapidly becoming election fodder, as Republicans seize on confusion over the circumstances of Chris Stevens' death in Benghazi three weeks ago and accuse the Obama administration of covering up an al-Qaeda connection.
US officials reiterated on on Friday that they regard the killing of Stevens and three other Americans working for the state department at the US consulate in Benghazi as an assault by terrorists who planned the attack. But a dearth of real information about the exact circumstances of the assault has left open the question of whether such planning was merely the work of a few hours, to take advantage of a spontaneous anti-US protest over a short internet video that prompted demonstrations across the Middle East by offended Muslims, or weeks and months, to mark the 11th anniversary of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks on the US.


Disagreement over that question is dividing along political lines.


Earlier this week, Republican senators wrote to the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, demanding that she explain her statement, five days after the killings, that they were part of a spontaneous anti-US protest. Four senators signed the letter, including John McCain, which said Rice made "several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation".


The former New York mayor Rudolf Giuliani, who sought the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008, went further, accusing the White House of a cover-up.
Speaking to Fox News, Giuliani said: "This is a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth, from an administration that claimed it wanted to be the most transparent in history. And it's the worst kind of cover-up: the kind of cover-up that involves our national security. This is a cover-up that involves the slaughter of four Americans."

The discovery in the wrecked consulate, by CNN, of Stevens' diary has also fed claims that the White House is underplaying a broader terrorist connection. Stevens wrote that he feared he was an al-Qaeda hit list and was alarmed by his lack of security after earlier attacks on US and British targets in Benghazi and amid what he described as a growing al-Qaeda presence in Libya.


The state department's furious reaction to CNN's reporting of Stevens' fears – calling the use of non-personal information from the diary without the family's approval "disgusting" – suggested alarm in the administration at the potential damage to its denials of a conspiracy and that it will be open to criticism that it did not provide sufficient protection to the Benghazi consulate.


There are also questions about the circumstances of Stevens death and whether Libyan militias knew he was at the consulate. However, given the large footprint American diplomats make as they move around the Middle East, it would not have been difficult to discern that an important US official had arrived in Benghazi.

Republicans accuse Obama of cover-up over death of Chris Stevens in Libya | World news | guardian.co.uk


I do think there is more to this story than what is being initially reported, and I highly doubt the film had anything to do with Stevens' killing. It does appear the ambassador was killed in a planned attack by al-Qaeda.


I see nothing wrong with CNN reporting on what his journal said, and I think its wrong for the State Dept. to say what CNN did was "disgusting" because it is the responsibility of a news organization to report the facts and get those facts as legally as possible. There's nothing illegal about reporting on what a journal said, and I haven't heard about Stevens' family complaining. Plus, Stevens' journal makes it clear the attack was not spontaneous as Americans are being led to believe. Furthermore, the fact Stevens' was killed on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 is no coincidence.


I'm not happy to see Giuliani voicing his opinions on this issue because I feel he is milking his 9/11 experience for all its worth. But I do agree there is a cover-up going on. Maybe the State Dept and the White House don't want to admit they had poor security for one of its own workers in a volatile country? Also, what was Stevens' doing in Benghazi? Tripoli is the capital of Libya, so why was he in a smaller city and not at his post where any ambassador should be? If he was visiting the consulate for some reason, wouldn't security be tighter if the U.S. government knew Libya was unstable? It had to be fully aware of a growing al-Qaeda presence if the government is supposed to keep an eye on that group. Really, there was no way it could not have known. If so, then security in America is in trouble.


There is a lot more to this story, and it makes me upset that not all the information is coming out. It also makes me upset that most Americans have forgotten about this story, and some even think that anyone who does care is a radical conservative who needs to get a life.

 

[maycocksean]

Sometimes the most obvious explanation is the right one, I'd suggest: Which is that there was and is a lot of confusion about what happened that day. I don't know that that suggests a great failing on the part of the administration or a cover-up. I would imagine the Obama administration is afraid to admit that more could have been done to provide Stevens with proper security, which I think is a mistake on their part, but I don't blame the administration for not knowing about this plot in advance (or worse knowing about the plot and covering up that knowledge).

There always seems to be an urge to finger-point when terrorists strike and I always find it appalling (felt the same about those who wanted to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11). It's the nature of the beast for terrorists to find a weakness and take advantage of it. We do our best to not have any areas of weakness but every now and then they manage to get through too.

 

[INDY500]

And what is the desired effect of telling the American people these attacks were spontaneous when the Libyan president, the circumstances and the facts all say something different, confussion?

Some of us were noticing the administration's inconsistencies weeks ago. I posted that on 9/17.

Now even Jon Stewart is commenting:

Jon Stewart Mocks Obama for Blaming Ambassador's Death on YouTube Video

Why, the mainstream media may actually take notice now.

Naaaaaaa.

 

[INDY500]

Oh yeah, remember this thread?

U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie !!

Hey Pearl, where'd you get the idea this was caused by a movie if the president said it was "an act of terror" the same day you started it? Sept 12th

The thread that would be on page 98 rather than page 18 if a Republican president was this dishonest with the American people for his own political gain.

Here is the report of Candy "Can you say that a little louder" Crowley's own network CNN after W.H. Press Secretary called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack on Sept 20th.

CNN's Reporting Contradicts Crowley, Vindicates Romney | MRCTV

"This is the first time the White House has characterized this as a terrorist attack."

The video is from Sept 21st, 9 days after the president and Candy "Can you say that a little louder" Crowley claim the president called the attack "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden.

Who needs more dots connected?

 

[Jive Turkey]

How is this such a big deal? So they thought one thing, then over the course of investigation, discovered it was something else. Isn't that how a lot of stories play out? If this is your big win, Indy, I think you might be in trouble

 

[indra]

How is this such a big deal? So they thought one thing, then over the course of investigation, discovered it was something else. Isn't that how a lot of stories play out? If this is your big win, Indy, I think you might be in trouble

Because some people think it's un-American not to jump to conclusions, of course.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I was going to say, that's how it comes off to me, that they were perhaps working on getting all the facts before jumping to conclusions about ties to terrorists.You know, just on the off chance that the tragedy DID happen to be over some stupid video and wasn't terrorist-related, so as not to make volatile situations with certain areas of the world even worse?

I honestly don't know what the administration's reasoning was for handling this as they did. I certainly do think that any mistakes or failures that were made should and must be dealt with and acknowledged, but I also don't think anyone here would dispute that, INDY-I don't know what exactly you expect us to say. You've been around us long enough to know that if we are wrong on something, we'll acknowledge it and say so, so you can chill with this whole, "Well, well, well..." thing.

I also know that the Republican Party should shut the hell up on military-related cover-ups, because they have absolutely NO room to talk here. I have no problem at all with demanding answers on issues of this nature, that's fine and absolutely necessary, but the GOP getting on some sudden high moral horse about this is just laughable.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Candy "say it louder" Crowley says that she added during the debate that it took them (Obama admin) weeks to say it was an act of terror, that specific one. The rose garden, he apparently referred to acts of terror as more of an umbrella term to include that. I believe it was these acts of terror, not sure. There was applause at the time she claims she said that so I don't know. Maybe we can get audio and video and sit here and enhance it.

I have questions about it, as citizens we all should, but I can also see plain as day that the GOP is using it for political purposes.

Pearl was just going by what was out at the time she started the thread. Don't think she's in on any conspiracy-she's not Candy Crowley. I think she probably started the thread pre Rose Garden, no?

So Bush lied about WMDs, or was it what he thought at the time. Obama lied about Libya, or was it what he thought at the time. Bad intelligence or something more sinister? Depends, I guess.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Also I just quickly Googled that mrctv that you posted, I'm on my phone so it was quick. They are a CONSERVATIVE media analysis group. Biased perhaps? Assuming that's the same MRC.

 

[BVS]

It's the "grasping at straws" or "throw and see what sticks" syndrome.

It's very popular in politics, but the GOP has become masters of it in the last 5 years.