I don't want to start something, but I'm going to do it anyway.

The only nation that could ever manage to be in the situation it's in is Israel.

It's surrounded by people that hate it. It cedes land to another government that essentially says "we'll kill you later" in its peace agreement. The other government gets away with sending missiles into the country because people are still stuck in 1948 and nobody will just do something about it. Get over the fact that Israel was created and stop supporting the people that send missiles into another country every few hours.

Yes, all the US wants it oil. Not a big secret there. The US is an empire in the same way that any other has been classified as such. It wants foreign territory for its own purposes. I'm not criticizing the US for it, I mean who wouldn't? I just wish we'd come out and say "yeah, we want oil" and stop playing cat and mouse.

So because of the religious/social differences between people in the Middle East, America is immediately forced into killing innocent civilians and stealing land in support of Zionism, Counter-Terrorism, Democracy... or whatever we want to call it?

How could you not criticize the U.S. for the way it operates it's empire? If everyone could took a step back from the fighting and arguing for a second we could simply coexist. Everyone is just a massive control freak wanting to impose their views on everyone else around them. It's seems like in today's society we are a step away from complete peace, but also a step away from complete destruction. The powers that be do a wonderful job at keeping everyone at each others throats for completely asinine reasons like religion, sexuality, or whether or not you have an opinion on Justin Biebers new hair cut.

It's all a complete joke because it's easily within every human being to not be hateful, but it's overwhelmingly easier for everyone to hate something. Petty differences and meaningless squabbles will keep the average person occupied while our governments prepare to submerse us in a WW3 scenario.

I don't want to be prejudiced but why entertain a serious conversation with someone named 'HITLER69'?

The primary purpose of this site remains (in theory at least) to allow for the play of diplomacy. Having a name that combines a brutal, if incompetent, dictator with an over-rated sexual position may give a diplomatic advantage to a certain style of player (in terms of making other players underestimate them, or perhaps giving them an aura of aggression)...

...or it could be that he's a tit...

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt though :)

In reply to the OP I am quite convinced that there are more than a few strings being pulled by certain people, although who those people are I can only guess at. It is depressing, however, how so many people in north africa and the middle east can be so easily manipulated. It is also depressing quite how many Westerners (judging by comments in other places) jump eagerly on to anti-Islam bandwagons.

Although, taken purely as a marketing gimmick, it has been a work of genius. Never in the history of humanity has a film so bad been watched by so many!

...although Avatar comes close...

How come if a bunch of rich white kids in the US decide to go sleep in a park because they are easily manipulated into thinking it has meaning (OWS) they are brilliant, pushign the envelope of society, etc....but if a bunch of dark-skinned people in North Africa and the Middle East express their displeasure they are being manipulated?

I think your comment, Octavius, belies some racism...

@ Octavius, those were two of the funniest oneliners i've seen on this site.
@ krellin, noone has said on this thread that OWS is brilliant etc, and noone has said the reason is the race. Also there is a key difference between a peaceful protest like OWS and violence...

@Socrates...generally speaking the good libs on WebDip supported OWS, no doubt Oct among them (though I will allow him to verify or refute). And if you are suggesting one group of homogeneous people gathering all over the country, sleeping in parks and YES...commiting violence on many, many occasions is a good thing...but people that are *truly* oppressed in NA and ME...and who are also fairly homogeneous...are manipulated....then you are defacto making a racial statement.

Truth is, the people in NA and ME have every right to be pissed off at Western powers, and the US in particular...you know, the country that flies robots around the world killing people, often times civilians, and is actively trying to inject it's perverted (by Islamic standards) culture into the Islamic world in order to secure oil.

Alternately, a bunch of stupid kids that have enough cash i the bank they can not work, sleep in a park for months on end, are obviously spoiled brats with nothing better to do but "join a cause" because it's fun.

Comparing "movements" and the views/opinions of those movements is a compeltely valid things to do.

re. violence in OWS....yes, rapes, theft, fights (especially with authorities)....yeah...there was no violence in OWS...not to mention the financial impact to many small businesses in the immediate local of the OWS movements and teh trashing of public property. Generally speaking, a repulsive "movement" if ever there was one...and...it accomplished NOTHING, and it disappeared.

I take it that you are/were against the Occupy movement then, but from the sounds of it prefer the violence in NA/ME? A key thing is that OWS did not have violence as its goal, and OWS was a peaceful protest (I am not entering into superfluous debate about whether rapes, thefts and fights occured, the point is this was not a point of OWS, and if did happen was a regrettable occurence, but not one that OWS should be completely tainted by). And I was against the west getting involved in NA/ME, but these people are not protesting the overthrow of Mubarak/Gadhaffi, or what the west has done in their country since (if they were this would be a very differenc argument), they are protesting against a video (which is why targeting the consulates is nonsensical), and if they are protesting against the states it is for what? Not violating their own freedom of speech laws? And the account you paint of OWS is not fair and reflects your bias against it.

So no it isn't, violence is a goal of one, not of the other, and many other differences if you think about it.

This isn't really about OWS, if you want to discuss the Occupy movement we can but it is a parenthetical conversation...

Flash reminder: the US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

Carry on.

Nope. Wrong on both counts. Iraw occupies Iraq. always has. We just kicked out the Hussein regime. Afghanistan was never our enemy nor did we occupy it. We were after the Taliban and al-Quida, not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. But both nations still belong tothe p[eople of those nations. We didn't take over their government and put American's in power there (a requirement of an occupation is the occupier takes over the government so it reports back to the occupiers government, see Rome and Jerusalem in the first century).

Iraq occupies...

Pure formalism, Draugnar.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not tied into the conversation really about the consulate riots, and I would agree we occupied them if that means anything. And in Afghanistan we were after Al Qaeda, and took out the Taliban, who were the government, because they maintained their sovereignty instead of helping.

Are they not, Socrates? For a philosopher, you have a surprisingly narrow perspective.

The Taliban controlled the south while the United Front Northern Alliance controlled the north. So who could say which was the valid ruling regime of Afghanistan. The terrorist organization who assassinated the legitimate head of state a few years earlier, or those who remained loyal to him and still controlled the northern half of the country? No, the Taliban was no more the ruling power of Afghnaistan than Jefferson Davis was the President of the United States.

@Hitler, sure there are a lot of nefarious forces at work, but that doesn't mean people aren't really serious about their religion and aren't really angry at what they see as blasphemy - and hey, it's their religion so they get to decide what's blasphemy and what isn't.
So no, it's not a sham cooked up by the US media. Some people are really willing to go to war to defend their religious sensibilities. Just like others are willing to go to war to defend their "way of life", by which I cynically mean "low price of oil".

Ah Zmaj, if we were being fully honest we would say they were connected, but often a philosopher must minimize the factors involved so they can make a true evalutation of a solitary point/aspect/piece of the puzzle, and so was it here -
@Draugnar, but jefferson davis was undoubtedly president of the confedaracy!

@Socrates - Violence in NA / ME against WHOM? It is against Western powers, whom they percieve as *constantly* acting in violence against them. How many times did Obama and the Democrats spike the Ball in the convention? I think it was about 21 references to killing Osama, a person most of those protesters you decry saw as a leader against the Great Satan of the West. Perhaps if you took your head out of the liberal news media’s ass and opened your eyes to the idea that there are other cultures in the world, that the US is not universally loved because of Obama, and that we have been hated my many – particularly Islamic – nations for *decades*. Stop buying in to the party line and understand that something greater is going on here than riots spawned by a video…which is a complete falsehood you and the media have bought hook line and sinker.

As for OWS – wasn’t *supposed* to be about violence…and yet violence was so often a part of it…My account of OWS is **accurate**, you just dont' like it!

If the protests in Egypt, for example, which started it all, were about a video, why were the people chanting "We are ALL OSAMA, Obama!!" Yes....MSNBC won't report this...so do your homework. These protests were *directly* targetted at OBAMA, not a video.

What about my gunboat game that needs players? Unlike the Middle East situation, it's something you can do something about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-shihabeldin/libyas-lesson-extremism-b_b_1877055.html

Here is an example of "We are all Osama" reported in a source you will probably respect - hardly a conservative source. and you can find this activity repeated ALL OVER the middle east...and UNREPORTED in the US Media.

the consulates. and i don't think osama was as popular in NA/ME as you are implying... nor is the US viewed as much as a Satan as you think. I don't listen to the 'liberal' news (who are incidentally not really liberal), and think there reporting is flawed, in favour of their values, and disguises the truth, and not to go ad hominem but I probably have seen more of these cultures than you, and have had my entire life influenced by them, i hate american economic imperialism, and i don't think the west is as great as people think. That said despite the obvious dislike for the west that people have there is not as wide hatred as you assume (not there isn't a lot). and if you want to be stop being so hook line and sinker, i'm talking about the perceived trigger, i'm not omniscient so can't say what is definately the cause, but really if you want to be more intelligent than ooo they hate america, many of the tulmutous events there are because of the poor economic status recently, including the arab spring. violence was not so often a part of it, even if it did occur rarely, and i dislike it because it is inaccurate, i don't actually like OWS as you are obviously assuming i do. may you cite your source there? and even if we were to be hypothetical and say they were all inspired by their love of osama this one doesnot represent the majority of the population, two would have been organised to be as forecful as possible, and three the 'love' of osama and hatred of obama would again really stem from the extra anger people have during their economic calamity

just read the article, and obviously in more depth than you, the article attributes the 'protests' to the video, the chanting was just general anti american chanting and stupid chanting that would happen when attacking an american consulate, not articulating this well but basically the chants do nothing to support your viewpoint that the video is unimportant.

Yes Socrates...I provide you proof...I provide you the ability to look up a phrase being heard all over the middle east...youbury your head in the sand because it conflicts with your Messiah Obama's party line.

Since you deny reality, deny direct evidence, there is no point in this conversation.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Hmmm... My brother lived in Morocco for four years, loved the culture and even learned Arabian. For those who don't know about Morocco, it's the most Westernized of the Maghreb nations. Well, he told me that those people would love nothing more than to overrun the West. And he liked them, so I don't think he was that biased.

There is no evidence the protests spontaneously errupted over the video. that is just bullshit. Where is the evidence? I CAN provide evidence of anger over Osama being killed. You choose to ignore evidence. You are an idiot. The article has no evidence of the video being the problem...but you believe it anyway. You sir, are an idiot.

As fro violence in the middle east....again...you, sir, are an idiot. the middle east has been a place of violence for as long as I can remember. Maybe if you actually had the *tiniest* clue as to the culture of the middle east, of Islam and the geo-politics of the region you could actually make an intelligent statement. Sadly, you can't. You, sir, are an idiot.

You do know that for *decades* radical Islamists have been commiting acts of terror against wetern nations, right? and, for that matter, against each other between varied sects of Islam. It is a violent culture in general. You act like this is the first time anybody ever burned an american flag and stormed an embassy.

You, sir, are an idiot.

As for sources for OWS violence...you own google. Do you homework.

i did the first post before i read it, don't call me an idiot on account of that (especially when i'm not really an idiot, and almost certainly smarter than you). and enough of the ad hominem, i don't like obama and will only vote for him as a lesser of two evils vote. and Zmaj i have arab family members (anti west, anti israel sure) but to say they want to go overruning and killing westerners is an exaggeration. there is a difference between being anti west and everyone wanting to kill the west.

Socrates - you LACK OF KNOWLEGE of a thing does not make your warped reality true.

Have a nice day. You are a waste of time.