Embassy protests spread to other “Arab Spring” nations

posted at 8:41 am on September 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

So how’s that Arab Spring working out for us?  After riots “spontaneously” erupted on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11 in Libya and Egypt, they spread overnight to two more Arab nations with recent populist uprisings.  In Yemen, where we’re trying to fight a particularly virulent branch of al-Qaeda, protestors surrounded the US embassy chanting “Death to America!”  Just as in Egypt, they breached the perimeter and burned the US flag, replacing it with an Islamist banner:

Chanting “death to America,” hundreds of protesters angered by an anti-Islam film stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Yemen’s capital and burned the American flag on Thursday, the latest in a series of attacks on American diplomatic missions in the Middle East.

American missions have been attacked in three Arab nations – Yemen, Egypt and Libya – that have faced persistent unrest and are struggling to restore law and order after last year’s revolts deposed their authoritarian regimes.

Protesters smashed windows as they breached the embassy perimeter and reached the compound grounds, although they did not enter the main building housing the offices. Angry young men brought down the U.S. flag in the courtyard, burned it and replaced it with a black banner bearing Islam’s declaration of faith – “There is no God but Allah.”

Yemeni forces arrived and drove them out forty-five minutes later.  But that’s not the only US embassy that found itself under siege today.  Over in Tunisia, where hopes of liberalization after the so-called “Arab Spring” ran highest, Islamists nearly overran the gates of our still-open embassy:

Anti-American rioting spread yesterday to Tunisia, where police used tear gas to stop hundreds of protesters from storming the United States Embassy in protest over a film mocking the prophet Mohammed.

The throngs of demonstrators, who carried the white and black banners of militant Salifist Muslims, had been protesting peacefully in Tunis for hours when about 300 started to break through the gates.

The embassy remained open as police forced the protesters back.

Demonstrations continued in Cairo, and a flag-burning exercise took place in Gaza as well.

Yesterday I wrote that this looks like 1979 all over again.  Today, we’re seeing the same diplomatic impotence displayed in that awful year, and the inevitable result.  Thirty-three years ago, we got pushed out of the Persian Gulf; today, we’re getting pushed out of North Africa.  Three years ago, President Obama assured us that his speech in Cairo would change the world, and eighteen months ago gave himself credit for the Arab Spring by citing that very speech.  Ever since that speech took place, the American position has eroded in the Middle East, and it’s eroding rapidly now.  We may not be able to retain embassies in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt any longer; we certainly can’t fly the flag above them securely at the moment.

We haven’t lost the Middle East yet, but that’s the direction we’re heading unless we start making our power felt, and fast.  That can’t just be gunboat diplomacy, but that will have to be a significant component of it.

Update: Looting our embassy in Yemen?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

As I said early yesterday, this has all the marks of a false flag operation, with the only argument against it being so, the length of time spent preparing it.

Dusty on September 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I understand ‘false flag’ to mean a military operation by state P performed using the flag, uniforms, insignia, etc of state Q in order that state Q will be blamed for the actions of state P.

Is that how you understand the term? Are you sure that “false flag” is the correct term for whatever you are thinking of?

If so, please elaborate. Thank you.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM

The New Caliphate will not permit passiveness, nor appeasement. What then is to be done? What will be the proper course? The days are coming, like it or not.

Bmore on September 13, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Anyone have the over/under on how long it takes the media-dem complex to blame these protests on Bush and who the first outlet will be to do so?

Harpazo on September 13, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Put me down for 50 on MSNBC, 4 hours.
Thx.

JusDreamin on September 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The 1979 virus.

No, it’s the 632 disease.

Basilsbest on September 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM

You’re both wrong; it’s the 2008 plague.

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Malkin was on fire last night. Too bad the rest of the people on our side don’t show support for our candidate and those in the state elections like this. This Arab spring idea was pushed by the msm to cover the lack of intestinal fortitude by the regime and the empty chair. There is no democracy or want of it coming to the ME.

Kissmygrits on September 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The Satanic Verses is a critique of religion and Islam. I suggest you read it so that you understand the difference between it and a ‘film’ that casually depicts a major religious figure as a child molester. Do you really have that much trouble grasping the difference?

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

The Islamists themselves grasp no difference at all. Anything less than total dhimmitude is a capital offense. Fatwah, rape and kill you for a penny, fatwah, rape and kill you for a pound.

de rigueur on September 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Bayam, before your ‘free speech’ argument can make any progress, I think you need to answer this question:

Who decides what’s hate speech?

crazy_legs on September 13, 2012 at 10:11 AM

And, as part of answering the above question, we need also to be able to explain why that person/group/whoever is competent to decide, and why their decision should be authoritative.

YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You have not answered the question of “Pi$$ Christ”. Was that a “beautiful” expression of free speech?

You actually don’t understand the difference? Did it inflame foreign populations and attacks against Americans abroad? Did it result in the murder and harassment of Christians living in Egypt? I know, you’re thinking that’s a minor difference.

Help me understand what is and what isn’t offensive lest I say, write, draw, or film something that will incite murder and violence in a part of the world vital to US interests.

No, by all means engage in hate speech with no real merit other than to inflame foreign populations. Because all free speech is worthwhile, no matter how tasteless or crass.
If all the remaining Christians in Egypt and killed off or forced out of the country, well that’s not your problem. Freedom of speech baby!

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Malkin was on fire last night. Too bad the rest of the people on our side don’t show support for our candidate and those in the state elections like this. This Arab spring idea was pushed by the msm to cover the lack of intestinal fortitude by the regime and the empty chair. There is no democracy or want of it coming to the ME.

Kissmygrits on September 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I thought Michelle Malkin was going to have a stroke. I have never seen her that angry EVER.

If I were in the same room with her and she got that mad, I would just turn tail and run away. Probably have to change my shorts, too.

If she’s married and ever went off on her husband like that, they’d have to use a BBQ brush to scrape him off the floor.

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Apprently there are HACKING attacks going on, I got on google to go the website for the Muscogee Creek Nation (tribal website) and got on the department directory site from google, and it came up with a blackpage with videos and the ‘no god but allah’ statement.

I wish I were joking.

I guess we can expect more of these kinds of things

you can see for yourself to googling the muscogee nation, or muscogee creek nation, the main page just says the site is down, but other pages like the department directory have islamic statements that the hackers put there.

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Shrillary is in Morocco….said the Mohammad movie is such a bad, bad thing…but violence is never the answer.
Well, I’m just a simple guy, but…..Screw Them.
I really don’t give a shit about Koranimals anymore.
Pack us up, bring us home, and not another dime in “Humanitarian” aid.
Our Foreign Policy motto for the future should be…

FRACK WITH US…YOU DIE

dirtengineer on September 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Holy cr@p! You’re not kidding. That’s scary! What were seeing in Egypt and Lybia aren’t isolated incidents over a stupid video. This is an al Quaeda surge.

Trafalgar on September 13, 2012 at 10:48 AM

You want to determine free speech by gauging the violent reactions to the speech? That completely rewards the violent reactors.

This isn’t a free speech argument and I have never suggested that free speech be restricted. Read the thread instead of repeating your inane points over and over again. It’s a question of whether a hateful film designed to inflame a target audience deserves to be held up as a paragon of freedom of expression.

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Hillary is apologizing yet again for this obscure video. So if thousands upon thousands of videos are made ridiculing the murderous Mohamed, does that mean she will condemn every one of them, one by one by one bye one?…

Pest on September 13, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Yeah, tell us again Secretary Clinton that the original statement issued by the embassy was released without State or the Administration’s ok.

I wouldn’t be surprised it it was written by ValJar herself.

Flora Duh on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I dont think any action can be overt at all. I think we should already have significant intel on the groups with the power in these countries. We should have info on who the antagonists are that is stirring the pot up in each of these countries. We need to very quitely start putting together teams and launching convert operations to take these guys at the top of these mitltias and salafists groups out. Sure they are gonna know we are the ones pulling the trigger, but its got to have plausible denaibility, and it has to be extremely efficient to scare the ever loving dung outta them.
Obutthole hates these kinda operations, becuase its the kind he cant brag about and take credit for. instead i think he will opt for loobing some crisue missiles and drones into the dessert. that isnt gonna fix anything.

paulsur on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The Founding Fathers WANTED that to be legal, because it wasn’t in England. Wake the hell up. You’re siding with people who riot over cartoons, movies, and books getting wet.

MadisonConservative on September 13, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Not to mention the Founding Fathers would be absolutely appalled at the notion or suggestion that the free speech of American citizens should be restricted because of the way some people in other countries might react to what is said.

farsighted on September 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM

bayam, if your 5 year old daughter was brutally beaten because she said something “tasteless or crass” with “no real merit” would your first reaction be to criticize her speech?

You mean someone who walks into a ghetto and starts yelling about how all n*** are child molesters and rapists? No that person has fairly exercised free speech and should be celebrated by the local community.
Brilliant point.

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM

The Satanic Verses is a critique of religion and Islam. I suggest you read it so that you understand the difference between it and a ‘film’ that casually depicts a major religious figure as a child molester. Do you really have that much trouble grasping the difference?

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Oh, okay. From now on, “free speech” must be judged by bayam before being defended. You’re quite the narcissist.

MadisonConservative on September 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM

[YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM]

No, but yes. I don’t mean or understand it to be an exclusively military term used only with regard to sovereign states. Yes, I do mean or understand it to be as represented by your well developed example.

I understand your point, I think. There might be another term or word that might be a better substitute for describing an action mirroring false flag but does not conjure military images but my memory bank doesn’t register one. Do you have a suggestion?

Dusty on September 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM

The tribe brought down the site and restored it, but not before I got it to my local news.

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I think my computer fouled up on the printscreen, did anyone manage to grab a screenshot of the site hack?

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM

It’s a question of whether a hateful film designed to inflame a target audience deserves to be held up as a paragon of freedom of expression.

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM

So I’m guessing you want Bill Maher’s movie “Religulous” to be banned? How about Michael Moore’s work? How about “Redacted”? We’ve got tons of movies that offend all kinds of groups, and those groups don’t react with violence, so you’re perfectly fine with them.

I guess they should be violent, too. Then you would whine and cry about the movies that pissed them off.

Why? You’re a coward. You bow before psychopaths instead of fighting. You’re a goddamned coward.

MadisonConservative on September 13, 2012 at 10:58 AM

It’s a question of whether a hateful film designed to inflame a target audience deserves to be held up as a paragon of freedom of expression.

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Given that the first amendment was crafted to protect some very hyperbolic, hurtful, “inflaming” speech; what’s your point?

MeatHeadinCA on September 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Romney as the next President of the US, hopefully is prepared to make good decisions, from horrible circumstances.

Bmore on September 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Right. So let’s all get on the same page with what is and what isn’t protected speech…

Anything that offends Muslims = Hate Speech
Anything that offends Christians = Protected Speech
Anything that offends Jews = Protected Speech
Anything that offends Liberals = Hate Speech and/or racism
Anything that offends bayam = Hate Speech

St Gaudens on September 13, 2012 at 9:54 AM

No, no, that formulation is too complicated. It’s much simpler.

You are free to say whatever you want, and the government is also free to throw you in jail if they’re offended by what you say. See? Everybody’s free! :-) /

Doomberg on September 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Very interesting. Thanks.

a capella on September 13, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I think my computer fouled up on the printscreen, did anyone manage to grab a screenshot of the site hack?

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 10:57 AM

No, didn’t get a screen shot, but I sure as heck saw it. Scary.

Trafalgar on September 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The muslim hyena hordes have sniffed out a weak horse, and they will not stop. This is what they do, and we still have not learned that.

slickwillie2001 on September 13, 2012 at 11:05 AM

My God in Heaven! The muslim problem would be so easy to solve. We just find the monster with the most smarts and most balls in any given region, arm him to the teeth, and tell him if even one terrorist attack is launched against the western world whatever city he is in will be nuked. If we miss him we just keep glassing over major population centers until we get him. Crazy? We’d do it to nazis if they came back. We did it to the Japanese. But we choose suicide instead these days.

nueces on September 13, 2012 at 11:06 AM

First, recall all diplmats from all embassies in the ME. All of them.

Second, public warning to all US citizens to leave the ME within 48 hours. All of them.

Third, level the Bengahzi and Cairo embassies – leave no stone stacked upon another stone, if you get my drift.

Fourth, give a 30 second press release that says further ‘protests’ will be met with the same result, but *immediately*, and will eradicate everything within a 5 mile radius of our embassy.

Fifth – *do* it so they know you f-ing mean it.

Sixth – if you apologize one more f-ing time for their poor wittle sensibilities, it’ll be time for us to storm a few DC government buildings in a protest of our own.

Midas on September 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM

I’d like to see a new American policy–

If there are any attacks on U.S. interests at home or abroad, or on any of her allies that are in any way linked to Islamists, however tenuously, we will send one bomber over Mecca and randomly drop a 500 lb dumb bomb.

For years we have attempted to negotiate and appeal to Islam’s higher ideals and moderates to control the fringes. The time for negotiation has long passed. You value nothing but death, the Koran, and Mecca. We value life. There will be no warnings other than this one, no second chances, no allowances for “spontaneous” “angry” “protesters”. Cease and desist.

Either you join the civilized world or we will strike at the one thing you do value.

NancyWhisky on September 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM

bayam,

By modern interpretations, he was. Even in his day a married 11 year old was not the norm.

The first ammendment doen’t talk about how upscale or gutteral the speech is, just that it cannot be curtailed.

I would guess nder your interpretation Piss Christ should have been destroyed and the “artist” involved incarcerated.

Zomcon JEM on September 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Watching the “Death to America” rally in Cairo on Fox.
Security forces lobbing tear gas canisters toward the Koranimals.
History teaches that bullets are much more effective at breaking up destructive gatherings….and cost less, too.
This is just a show for the US…they want to assure us that they will protect our embassy so the MONEY keeps flowing.

dirtengineer on September 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM

What’s wrong with gunship diplomacy? Or B-52 diplomacy? Sure, there might be a little collateral damage, but, not nearly as much as with waterboarding. And it would mean we didn’t have to use our “inside” voices.

a capella on September 13, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Where were the Marines? Obamao refuses to protect our people in harm’s way and refuses to protect us. Witness the TSA groping small children.

ultracon on September 13, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Don’t look for any leadership from the White House. The Chicago gang hasn’t a clue.

GarandFan on September 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Oh, okay. From now on, “free speech” must be judged by bayam before being defended. You’re quite the narcissist.

MadisonConservative on September 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM

bayam already set the rules
#1 bashing Christians – fine
#2 anything bad about muslims – you are a hater and should be arrested

VegasRick on September 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM

this superior , intellectual and high minded foreign policy of barry’s is really winning the day.

anyone without their jug eared head up their butt could have foreseen this. radical islam must be faced with pure unadulterated force and spectacular displays of power. period.

“Tolerance [and one might add appeasement] becomes a crime when applied to evil.”- Thomas Mann

mittens on September 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I see bayam got in over his head again. No surprise there.

ShadowsPawn on September 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM

The 1979 virus.
No, it’s the 632 disease.

Basilsbest on September 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM
You’re both wrong; it’s the 2008 plague.

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Our topic is unrest in the Middle East, not moronism in America.

Basilsbest on September 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM

It’s a question of whether a hateful film designed to inflame a target audience deserves to be held up as a paragon of freedom of expression.

[bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM]

What the heck is “paragon of freedom of expression” supposed to mean? And with that question I don’t mean your inept use of the word paragon, which it was.

What would you substitute?

– “I’m going to the grocery now, Honey.”
– “Get me a beer, you miserable oaf.”
– Byran’s “Cross of Gold” speech?

What better represents the epitome of Hall’s, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” than an example of which so many disapprove yet still argue for their right to say it. Offensive speech is designed to inflame, it is, in fact, the very essence of it.

You do realize that offensive speech includes the subset of speech categorized as absurd, with which you are well acquainted. As Niemoller might say, “It’s best you not get so pushy.”

Dusty on September 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Aw heck, I meant to quote, not strike.

Dusty on September 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Thankfully tomorrow is prayer day.

A traditional time of calm and introspection in the Islamic world.

mudskipper on September 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Actually Bayam, the supreme court has already spoken and smut can be sold with just a few caveats – it cannot be sold to minors, and it cannot depict sex with minors.

Otherwise, outside of yelling Fire in a crowded theater you can say pretty much what you want – you may have a problem with libel in a some situations, but that has nothing to do with the govt at that point – it has to do with whom you have libeled.

Zomcon JEM on September 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Don’t look for any leadership from the White House. The Chicago gang hasn’t a clue.

GarandFan on September 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Oh, they have a clue. This isn’t about ineptitude. They want chaos and disorder. As much of it as possible.

Right Mover on September 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM

The muslim hyena hordes have sniffed out a weak horse, and they will not stop. This is what they do, and we still have not learned that.

slickwillie2001 on September 13, 2012 at 11:05 AM

This.

It’s like we are almost back in pre-9/11 mode of operation WRT protecting our embassies and diplomatic personnel in the region, and in reacting to attacks on them and the murder of Americans in them.

Except that pre-9/11 no one apologized or considered restricting the free speech of Americans because some Muslims might get upset and go on a murderous rampage.

farsighted on September 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Wow, pure stupidity on display.

You want to determine free speech by gauging the violent reactions to the speech? That completely rewards the violent reactors.

Are you saying that the pisschrist should be less legal if violent reactions resulted?

Do you seriously not understand that you would then encourage violent reactions to any speech that a group wanted to restrict?

blink on September 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Thanks, you saved me some typing. He does not understand much of anything, apparently. It takes a brave moron to argue something so over his head.

Night Owl on September 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Ever since that speech took place, the American position has eroded in the Middle East, and it’s eroding rapidly now.

“Mission accomplished” and

“Shooting first”, yeppers, that’s our Welcome Black Carter (full credit to another HA commenter from yesterday’s comment).

Schadenfreude on September 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM

eighteen months ago gave himself credit for the Arab Spring by citing that very speech.

Anybody have a link to this particular point?

mankai on September 13, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I see bayam got in over his head again. No surprise there.

ShadowsPawn on September 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Entertaining as always. I wish our Secretary of State and president cared as much about the First Amendment as do most HA posters.

a capella on September 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM

It’s a question of whether a hateful film designed to inflame a target audience deserves to be held up as a paragon of freedom of expression.

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM

when freedom of expression is polemic, its usually because some group will feels offended by it.

there is another point, this bad movie had do be done hiding from the actors its true intents either so save them or just because if not, no actor would participate in the movie out of fear. that by itself tells you that freedom of expression was already lost.

many of us, do take the view that mohammad was a horrible sand pirate and warlord that used his sock puppet allah to justify his actions. why no movie or documentary ever took this issue head on if this opinion is so popular in the web? because we already lost our freedom of expression.
time to take back our freedoms, no matter who gets insulted in the process.

nathor on September 13, 2012 at 11:38 AM

The Satanic Verses is a critique of religion and Islam. I suggest you read it so that you understand the difference between it and a ‘film’ that casually depicts a major religious figure as a child molester. Do you really have that much trouble grasping the difference?

bayam on September 13, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Guess you don’t watch Family Guy or South Park much.

I suppose, since they both depict Christ in horrible ways at times, we should expect (a) wanton Christian violence anywhere in the world and (b) the criminal prosecution of the producers of each.

mankai on September 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I’m going to stake out a middle ground here amid the bloodshed on the thread:

We are in uncharted waters as first as the First-Amendment issue about the movie trailer.

YouTube crosses national boundaries. The Founding Fathers did not foresee that. It creates an interesting problem because in the past, there was no way for an American to stand on a soapbox in the Middle East without actually traveling there and taking the risk incurred by this exhibition of free speech.

Like it or not, the First Amendment, to my knowledge, has not been ratified by any Middle-Eastern state.

Yet now, with the border-crossing capability of YouTube, an American is able to stand on a soapbox in his basement, and have his voice come out in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and everywhere else.

To play Devil’s Advocate, YouTube threatens the right of these countries to determine for themselves how much freedom of speech is allowed. YouTube becomes a threat to their sovereign power. China is in the same boat, actually.

They have the right to shut the Internet on or off, but the going supposition is that they do not have the right to dictate to Google and Yahoo and YouTube what is or is not shown (well, the Chinese seem to have made inroads now, haven’t they?!).

So we come to a modern dilemma:

If one values the concept of national sovereignty, then YouTube is a potential threat to repressive governments and Arabs have the right to ban, condemn, and control the speech that issues forth from YouTube within their borders.

If one values the concept of free expression, then repressive governments are illegitimate.

In between the two opposing concepts of free speech and national sovereignty there lies a vast, featureless plain, the setting of great battles from time immemorial.

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

How much is SloJoe responsible for the current crisis in the Middle East by his repeated taunting : Osama bin Laden is dead?

bayview on September 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I see bayam got in over his head again. No surprise there.

ShadowsPawn on September 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM

So did Dante, but at least he bugged out pretty fast. Cowardice does that to a person.

Trafalgar on September 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM

bayam: Don’t you have to ask who is “distributing” or making the perpetually angry Islamists aware of that video and what the purpose is of doing so and why it has been orchestrated/coordinated now?

It’s not as if the creator of that silly satire of Mohammed was purposefully broadcasting it into Muslims’ homes. I fathom that most of the “outraged” haven’t even viewed the nonsensical video.

Except in repressive societies, the Internet provides access to all kinds of information/disinformation/propaganda, etc. Viewers are free to accept or reject that data, especially if their critical thinking skills are honed.

How about not excusing the violence of the perpetually aggrieved?

onlineanalyst on September 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM

So we come to a modern dilemma:

If one values the concept of national sovereignty, then YouTube is a potential threat to repressive governments and Arabs have the right to ban, condemn, and control the speech that issues forth from YouTube within their borders.

If one values the concept of free expression, then repressive governments are illegitimate.

In between the two opposing concepts of free speech and national sovereignty there lies a vast, featureless plain, the setting of great battles from time immemorial.

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Youtube can and has restricted the video in Egypt and Libya.

Your statement isn’t middle ground simply because you contradict yourself.

If the repressive governments don’t grant the right to free speech, then they can shut it down within their borders. Doing this does not restrict any American from exercising their right to free speech within our borders. It is our position that we will always protect our citizen’s right to free expression. If foreign governments want to restrict their citizens’ rights, then we use our right to free speech to condemn it. Note that our citizens have not stormed the Egyptian or Libyan embassies in the US, even after Libya allowed the murder of 4 US citizens.

weaselyone on September 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Still waiting for the MSM to report that our Ambassador got the same treatment -raped before he was murdered- as Gadhafi by the friendly folks who we helped liberate.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=149468

In other words, a man who actually helped an oppressed people gets the same treatment as their oppressor by those people.

Totally logical for the religion of peace.

LetsBfrank on September 13, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I got a feeling that the rest of the election cycle will be hijacked by a tiny fringe group of ultra conservative radical Islamysticistacysts*, we may never know.

*to be clearly defined as a completely foreign entity to sacred/beautiful Islam and everyday noble Muslims….

BL@KBIRD on September 13, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I’m going to stake out a middle ground here amid the bloodshed on the thread: We are in uncharted waters as first as the First-Amendment issue about the movie trailer.
YouTube crosses national boundaries. The Founding Fathers did not foresee that. It creates an interesting problem because in the past, there was no way for an American to stand on a soapbox in the Middle East without actually traveling there and taking the risk incurred by this exhibition of free speech…
cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM

I believe your argument doesn’t address books. It’s not so hard to send an idea, although your argument seems to require the author to read their own works in the public square. Repressive regimes have always feared the power of the pen, thus banning books. Argument failure, unfortunately. Egypt needs to shut off YouTube, the same way they ban books. The choice is theirs, I believe.

DublOh7 on September 13, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Youtube can and has restricted the video in Egypt and Libya.

Your statement isn’t middle ground simply because you contradict yourself.

If the repressive governments don’t grant the right to free speech, then they can shut it down within their borders. Doing this does not restrict any American from exercising their right to free speech within our borders. It is our position that we will always protect our citizen’s right to free expression. If foreign governments want to restrict their citizens’ rights, then we use our right to free speech to condemn it. Note that our citizens have not stormed the Egyptian or Libyan embassies in the US, even after Libya allowed the murder of 4 US citizens.

weaselyone on September 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM

No. You misunderstand. I’m contradicting myself at all. I never said that the American’s speech in American should be censored. Read my comment again. You just interpreted it from your established battle position.

An American standing on a soapbox in Libya does NOT have 1st-Amendment protection.

The playing of a movie trailer through computer speakers situated in Libya, Egypt, Yemen or Tunisia, when the sounds are being heard in those countries, is speech in those countries.

If those countries ban it, it is illegal, if those countries’ government is recognized by the U.S., no matter if the words were being spoken in America.

That was my major point – YouTube WRT the 1st Amendment is a dilemma.

The speech was legal in the U.S. but not in Libya, if Libya so chose.

Like it or not, if Libya has sovereignty, Libya has the right to ban it.

Now… what I am NOT saying, is that the speech should be banned in America! Important distinction.

Then we get to the grey area of shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater/world stage, which is the separate but corollary issue.

There is a case to be made that those who unequivocally support the right of the movie maker to make his trailer should also unequivocally support Julian Assange.

Gee, did I just stir up a hornet’s nest?

Ed and Allah can thank me for the page views – ;-)

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I believe your argument doesn’t address books. It’s not so hard to send an idea, although your argument seems to require the author to read their own works in the public square. Repressive regimes have always feared the power of the pen, thus banning books. Argument failure, unfortunately. Egypt needs to shut off YouTube, the same way they ban books. The choice is theirs, I believe.

DublOh7 on September 13, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I don’t see how my argument failed at all.

I was speaking of the speech as is heard in the foreign country. I was not addressing the making of the speech on America. I think everyone put their assumptions on my comment without reading it closely. Don’t just throw me in one camp or the other. I was discussing the unique issues that YouTube raises.

I agree that Egypt’s choice is whether to shut off YouTube. That was the exact point of my comment that was just repeated back to me.

cane_loader on September 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Did the US government talk about how horrible abortion was when they apprehended Eric Robert Rudolph? Did they say what a tragedy Waco was when they got Tim McVeigh?

Muslims are the ONLY group to whom we offer apologies for whatever reason they give for violence.

MadisonConservative on September 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So did Dante, but at least he bugged out pretty fast. Cowardice does that to a person.

Trafalgar on September 13, 2012 at 11:41 AM

He made a complete fool of himself in the Cheney thread.

slickwillie2001 on September 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/arkadyfolkner/Islamhackevidence.jpg

I extracted this image from a the website diepartment directory page for the Muscogee Creek Nation tribal site (im a Creek) that had been hacked by some islamic vandal this morning. This was from the webpage preview on Google for it, different from the hacked page I saw that had embedded video and the whole nine yards.

Probably not a great hacker to have their work undone as quickly as the tribe did, but I bet there will be more vandalismfrom people able to do so.

Creeks were not a scalping tribe, but I am also Blackfoot, which were…

Three guesses what I would do to that joker if I got ahold of him?

>:)

theflyonthewall on September 13, 2012 at 12:19 PM

We are in uncharted waters as first as the First-Amendment issue about the movie trailer.

No. We aren’t. This is no different from OTA TV, radio, or satellite TV broadcasts that cross borders.

If ME regimes want to censor the internet at their borders, so to speak, they can try do it. That’s their problem, not ours.

farsighted on September 13, 2012 at 12:29 PM

OBAMA: HITS ROCK BOTTOM, THEN GRABS A JACKHAMMER.

Mutnodjmet on September 13, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Michelle Malkin:

The silence of so-called progressives and American free speech advocates as this administration steamrolls over free speech to save its own hide is deafening.

d1carter on September 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The worst president evah has proven to be as great a train wreck abroad as he has been at home. Yet he still leads. Partly due to to an ineffective Romney who refuses to take the gloves off and partly due to a cheering MSM who idolizes him no matter how low this country sinks into debt, poverty, international scorn and prestige.

MaiDee on September 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Arab Spring has gone about as well as Summer of Recovery I, II, & III have Obummer sure is “fundamentally changing America”…

RalphyBoy on September 13, 2012 at 2:12 PM

We haven’t lost the Middle East yet

I say seize the oil fields and assist Israel with whatever military ops they need to carry out.

ThePrez on September 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM

It’s an absolute certainty that our Community Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, has succeeded in organizing the entire Middle East,including Israel, against the USA! Brilliant Foreign Policy achievement!

tomshup on September 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I don’t want the middle east to begin with.

Sherman1864 on September 13, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Our embassies (as is true of other nations’ embassies) are a means of gathering intel covertly. Wake up and grow up.

onlineanalyst on September 13, 2012 at 10:33 AM

So?

Dante on September 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Michelle Malkin:

The silence of so-called progressives and American free speech advocates as this administration steamrolls over free speech to save its own hide is deafening.

d1carter on September 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

In the name of security the progressives have made sexual assault on children and women young and old a function of government. Do you think they will hesitate when the time comes to do away with a little bit of our free speech so as not to offend the muzzies?

slickwillie2001 on September 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Michelle Malkin:

The silence of so-called progressives and American free speech advocates as this administration steamrolls over free speech to save its own hide is deafening.

d1carter on September 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Says the woman who wrote a book called, “In Defense of Internment”

Dante on September 13, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Has anybody heard any reports of how many of the attacking scumbags were sent to meet Allah? I bet there is quite a few but the lame stream media won’t touch it. And neither has Fox.

ultracon on September 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3