World News Thread & Breaking News!!

[Equation]

Iphone and other smart phones are just highly another over priced small computer that you could use as a phone. Meaning human can survive without it.

 

[bladerunner]

Iphone and other smart phones are just highly another over priced small computer that you could use as a phone. Meaning human can survive without it.

I like the smart phones interface over the regular phone. Plus i use google maps on a regular basis while walking and driving.
I know some people change their phone every year, which strikes me as a bit over the top.
right now my smart phone its telling me its 1.41pm where i am and 8.41pm in Austin usa. Gee its not too late to ring up and annoy the hell out of somebody , if i had their number.

 

[bd popeye]

^^^ I don't even send text messages..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AMSTERDAM (AP) — Thousands of revelers descended on a small Dutch town sparking a riot after a party invitation posted on Facebook went viral, authorities said Saturday.

Prosecutor Hessel Schuth said 34 people were arrested were arrested Friday night and in the early hours of Saturday morning and would be prosecuted for public order offenses. Several people were injured, but none were believed to be seriously hurt.

"Scum ran amok in our town," said Rob Bats, mayor of Haren, 185 kilometers (115 miles) north of Amsterdam.

"An innocent invitation on Facebook for a party led to serious rioting, destruction, plundering, arson and injuries in the middle of Haren," he said.

Bats said an initial analysis showed a core group of rioters "were very violent and well-prepared and deliberately sought confrontation" with hundreds of police who had been dispatched to the town amid fears of trouble.

Dutch media reported that the party originally was planned as a small celebration by a 16-year-old girl but her invitation went viral when she posted it on Facebook.

Some of the people arriving in Haren on Friday wore T-shirts emblazoned with "Project X Haren," a reference to the film "Project X" that portrayed an out-of-control party.

On Saturday, another Facebook group sprang up called Project Clean-X Haren, urging people to help clear up the debris littering the town's streets.

 

[Mr T]

Not all that long ago in the west's civilized society, people were being murdered in the streets in front of their families over something as trivial as a football game

I can't recall exactly the last time someone was murdered in front of their family because of a football game in the UK, but if that did happen in recent memory there would have been a general consensus that the person or persons that perpetrated the crime should be locked up for life. No one, apart from a few like-minded thugs, would have defended them or said they had acted reasonably.

No one has a right to judge others for being upset or offended by something

That's not the issue. The point is how people react to something. Peaceful protest is great. Murder isn't.

the only real difference between those people rioting in the streets and storming American and other Western missions across the muslim world is that for Americans and Europeans, if their population feel strongly enough about something, their governments can and will send in the military to do the deed, whereas those in the Muslim world are usually citizens to weak and/or corrupt governments who either cannot, or will not act in accordance to the demands on their peoples, so their peoples take matters into their own hands.

When was the last time the British government murdered people or caused criminal damage because the public felt something they cared about had been insulted? The Royal Family are incredibly well respected here, yet the Guardian loves to insult them and even call for them to be kicked out. I can't ever recall the government trying to shut them down or people setting their offices on fire.

If you don't want to be stung, don't go poking hornet nests, and as far as I am concerned, all the death and destruction caused in the aftermath of this film is as much the fault of the despicable cowards who made the film as those who went onto the streets

So you think that Ambassador Stevens and the others that were killed with him were the puppet-masters behind the film? Or because someone living in America made it, Americans were viable targets?

I think this blind obsession with 'freedom of expression' is one of the most nonsensical and damaging principles the west has

Why? You rely on it to speak your mind on the internet. If there was no freedom of expression, your views would be some of the first to be "harmonised" as you're making a criticism of a government/political system right here on this thread.

Or do you only like freedom of expression when you want to say something?

Why is it people only care about the rights of those who seek to cause offense?

That's nonsense. There has been a wide debate about whether or not the video should be taken down. There are many non-Muslims that thought it should have been removed. Even those who don't think it should be taken down do so pretty much because they recognise that to have freedom of expression sometimes you have to allow people to express views that you don't agree with. It's the same right that allows some Muslims to say in public that Sharia law will/should dominate the world.

+++

merely denying that the Holocaust took place is a criminal offence in the western world

Wrong, it's a criminal offence in certain countries. It is not, for example, a crime in the UK or US.

so one does not need much imagination to deduce what would almost certainly happen to anyone who made a film mocking the victims of the Holocaust and praising Hitler - there would be massed outrage, probably protests and demonstrations, widespread and unequivocal condemnation by the western world

And the vast majority of the objections would be peaceful, and I doubt very much if people would be killed because of it.

all of the entire world's law enforcement agencies would spare no effort to find whoever made such a film and bring him to justice and no country would dream of offering him sanctuary on the grounds of free speech

Utter hyperbole. They have far more important things to deal with.

 

[delft]

^^^ I don't even send text messages..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In the end there were six people hurt of which two seriously ( but I don't yet know how serious is their condition ) but during the night it was said that two people had been killed. It was of course quite irresponsible for radio presenters to call for people to go to the "party". I suppose they'll get away with freedom of speech. 600 extra police had been sent and they couldn't prevent serious damage to property. I would think sending twice that number would have cost less.
One point must be the reduced respect for the authorities. That has been developing for a long time but recently all Western government have shown great uncertainty about what they are doing. The banks have done stupid things and need to be helped because their function is needed in the normal conduct of the economy. Therefore the interest rate for money lent to the banks by the central bank has been reduced to ridiculously low levels, below the inflation rate so the effective interest rate is negative. So the banks make huge profits lending to governments and not doing their duty by the economy, and paying their directors huge salaries and bonuses. But pensions of ordinary people are cut because of the low interest rate. In the US many people feel they cannot retire so young people cannot take over their jobs. And government spend way over their income, in the US nearly half as much. The proper capitalist way would have been to declare banks broke, so that shareholders and bondholders loose much or all of their investment in them, and nationalize them or sell them to other banks. The government can still spend way above its income but spend it on repairing part of the huge backlog in sewer, road, dam &c. maintenance. This would have reduced unemployment, increased tax intake and earned the respect of people by getting the economy moving again.
I know this is political but seeing such stupidity and knowing this is destroying society gets my ire up.

N.B. The situation in other Western countries is very similar

 

[plawolf]

I can't recall exactly the last time someone was murdered in front of their family because of a football game in the UK, but if that did happen in recent memory there would have been a general consensus that the person or persons that perpetrated the crime should be locked up for life. No one, apart from a few like-minded thugs, would have defended them or said they had acted reasonably.

The point is not whether the majority supported football violence, the point is that even in own enlightened civilized society, people can and still do get worked up by things others could considered trivial or inconsequential to the point of violence.

If you don't like football violence, just think back to the London riots a year back. It is kinda amazing, amusing and perplexing just how little follow-on coverage and analysis there has been on this isn't there? Kinda like the UK and the west collectively decided to sweep that one under the rug and pretend it never happened.

That's not the issue. The point is how people react to something. Peaceful protest is great. Murder isn't.

Where was this enhanced sensitivity towards violent protest during the Tibetan riots or the often violent demonstrations during the Olympic torch relay? I didn't recall many condemnations of the violent protests.

When was the last time the British government murdered people or caused criminal damage because the public felt something they cared about had been insulted?

Libya? And Iraq before that. In neither case was the safety or security of the UK remotely threatened. The British went in because they didn't like what was happening in those countries, so instead of protesting, they sent in the air force and navy. The only different being the British public didn't feel anything like as strongly as what the Muslim world feels about these petty insults.

The Royal Family are incredibly well respected here, yet the Guardian loves to insult them and even call for them to be kicked out. I can't ever recall the government trying to shut them down or people setting their offices on fire.

Does anyone worship the Royal Family? If not, that is comparing apples to oranges isn't it?

So you think that Ambassador Stevens and the others that were killed with him were the puppet-masters behind the film? Or because someone living in America made it, Americans were viable targets?

How could you possibly deduce that from what I have said? If this is an attempt at a strawman argument, it is rather poor.

Why? You rely on it to speak your mind on the internet. If there was no freedom of expression, your views would be some of the first to be "harmonised" as you're making a criticism of a government/political system right here on this thread.

A typically nonsensical extremist argument. Just because I challenge the current unlimited blanket protecting freedom of expression grants to extremist and hate mongering I must support an absolute ban on any form of independent thought?

What is so fundamentally wrong with making people take responsibility for their words and actions? And before you get so puffed up, remember that such a limitation would apply just as equally to those religious hate peddlers who hide behind Islam to preach dead and destruction to the west.

That's nonsense. There has been a wide debate about whether or not the video should be taken down. There are many non-Muslims that thought it should have been removed. Even those who don't think it should be taken down do so pretty much because they recognise that to have freedom of expression sometimes you have to allow people to express views that you don't agree with. It's the same right that allows some Muslims to say in public that Sharia law will/should dominate the world.

Well if that is the principle you subscribe to, that people are free to say and believe in anything they want, then how do you explain the likes of the Holocaust denial laws throughout Europe, whereby there is a distinct and blanket curb on people's freedom of expression regarding the Holocaust? Merely saying that you do not believe the Holocaust happened could land you in jail in most of Europe. Where is your much vaunted belief in the right of people to believe and say what they want there?

And the vast majority of the objections would be peaceful, and I doubt very much if people would be killed because of it.

Well you pretty much missed the entire point of that example didn't you? If whoever made such a film was to suffer no form or official censor, whereby no government would ever think of pressing any charges and he was free to live his life as if nothing had happened, do you think the protests would still be quite so peaceful? Considering the kind of things people get death threats for, especially in the US, I very much doubt it.

Utter hyperbole. They have far more important things to deal with.

Really? Tell that to Julian Assange or explain how he is on Interpol's most wanted list.

 

[Dolcevita]

Libya? And Iraq before that. In neither case was the safety or security of the UK remotely threatened. The British went in because they didn't like what was happening in those countries, so instead of protesting, they sent in the air force and navy. The only different being the British public didn't feel anything like as strongly as what the Muslim world feels about these petty insults.

Exactly my thought. British public does not need to feel outrage because the British Government is more extremist than necessary.

 

[plawolf]

Interesting piece on the lies officials told about the Libyan consulate deaths and how those lies shaped public perceptions towards those deaths and the protests in general.

The first part is about the killing of OBL, while interesting, has little to do with what we are discussing now so I snipped that out. The full article is available on the link, so feel free to look it up if you are interested.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

...snip...We now see exactly the same pattern emerging with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the killing of the US ambassador. For a full week now, administration officials have categorically insisted that the prime, if not only, cause of the attack was spontaneous anger over the anti-Muhammad film, The Innocence of Muslims.

Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that "these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region." On Friday, he claimed:

"'This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to US policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, writ large, or at US policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.'"

On Sunday, UN ambassador Susan Rice, when asked about the impetus for the attack, said that "this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo," and added: "In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated." In other interviews, she insisted that the Benghazi violence was a "spontaneous" reaction to the film.

Predictably, and by design, most media accounts from the day after the Benghazi attack repeated the White House line as though it were fact, just as they did for the Bin Laden killing. Said NPR on 12 September: "The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad." The Daily Beast reported that the ambassador "died in a rocket attack on the embassy amid violent protests over a US-produced film deemed insulting to Islam." To date, numerous people believe – as though there were no dispute about it – that Muslims attacked the consulate and killed the US ambassador "because they were angry about a film".

As it turns out, this claim is almost certainly false. And now, a week later, even the US government is acknowledging that, as McClatchy reports this morning [my emphasis]:

"The Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week's assault on the US consulate compound in Benghazi that left the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a 'terrorist attack' apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al-Qaida's leadership or regional allies.

"'I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,' said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

"It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week .'The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,' Olsen said." [My emphasis]

Worse, it isn't as though there had been no evidence of more accurate information before Wednesday. To the contrary, most evidence from the start strongly suggested that the White House's claims – that this attack was motivated by anger over a film – were false. From McClatchy:

"The head of Libya's interim government, key US lawmakers and experts contend that the attack appeared long-planned, complex and well-coordinated, matching descriptions given to McClatchy last week by the consulate's landlord and a wounded security guard, who denied there was a protest at the time and said the attackers carried the banner of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamist militia."

Indeed, Libya's president has spent the week publicly announcing that there is "no doubt" the attack was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with the video.

CBS News reported Thursday morning that there was no anti-video protest at all at the consulate. Witnesses insist, said CBS, "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack." That, noted the network, "is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident." The report concluded: "What's clear is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."

The Obama White House's interest in spreading this falsehood is multi-fold and obvious:

For one, the claim that this attack was just about anger over an anti-Muhammad video completely absolves the US government of any responsibility or even role in provoking the anti-American rage driving it. After all, if the violence that erupted in that region is driven only by anger over some independent film about Muhammad, then no rational person would blame the US government for it, and there could be no suggestion that its actions in the region – things like this, and this, and this, and this – had any role to play.

The White House capitalized on the strong desire to believe this falsehood: it's deeply satisfying to point over there at those Muslims and scorn their primitive religious violence, while ignoring the massive amounts of violence to which one's own country continuously subjects them. It's much more fun and self-affirming to scoff: "can you believe those Muslims are so primitive that they killed our ambassador over a film?" than it is to acknowledge: "our country and its allies have continually bombed, killed, invaded, and occupied their countries and supported their tyrants."

It is always more enjoyable to scorn the acts of the Other Side than it is to acknowledge the bad acts of one's own. That's the self-loving mindset that enables the New York Times to write an entire editorial today purporting to analyze Muslim rage without once mentioning the numerous acts of American violence aimed at them (much of which the Times editorial page supports). Falsely claiming that the Benghazi attacks were about this film perfectly flattered those jingoistic prejudices.

Then, there are the implications for the intervention in Libya, which Obama's defenders relentlessly tout as one of his great victories. But the fact that the Benghazi attack was likely premeditated and carried out by anti-American factions vindicates many of the criticisms of that intervention. Critics of the war in Libya warned that the US was siding with (and arming and empowering) violent extremists, including al-Qaida elements, that would eventually cause the US to claim it had to return to Libya to fight against them – just as its funding and arming of Saddam in Iraq and the mujahideen in Afghanistan subsequently justified new wars against those one-time allies.

War critics also argued that the intervention would bring massive instability and suffering to the people of Libya; today, the Washington Post reports that – just as the "president of Afghanistan" is really the mayor of Kabul and the "Iraqi government" long exercised sovereignty only in Baghdad's Green Zone – the central Libyan government exercises little authority outside of Tripoli. And intervention critics also warned that dropping bombs in a country and killing civilians, no matter how noble the intent supposedly is, would produce blowback in the form of those who would then want to attack the US.

When the White House succeeded in falsely blaming the consulate attacks on anger over this video, all of those facts were obscured. The truth, now that it is emerging, underscores how unstable, lawless and dangerous Libya has become – far from the grand success story war proponents like to tell. As McClatchy noted in Thursday's report:

"Libya remains plagued by armed groups nearly a year after the US-backed ouster of the late dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Yet the facility was primarily defended by local guards who may have been complicit …

"Since the fall of Gaddafi last year, Libya's security has been dependent on a group of armed militias, including Ansar al-Shariah, that represent a wide variety of political strains and interests and remain heavily armed with weapons looted from Gaddafi storehouses. Interior Ministry forces and the Supreme Security Committee have been accused of complicity in recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on mosques and shrines affiliated with the moderate Sufi strain of Islam."

Then, there are the garden-variety political harms to the White House from the truth about these attacks. If the killing of the ambassador were premeditated and unrelated to the film, then it vests credibility in the criticism that the consulate should have been much better-protected, particularly on 9/11. And in general, the last thing a president running for re-election wants is an appearance that he is unable to protect America's diplomats from a terrorist group his supporters love to claim that he has heroically vanquished.

The falsehood told by the White House – this was just a spontaneous attack prompted by this video that we could not have anticipated and had nothing to do with – fixed all of those problems. Critical attention was thus directed to Muslims (what kind of people kill an ambassador over a film?) and away from the White House and its policies.

The independent journalist IF Stone famously noted that the number one rule of good journalism, even of good citizenship, is to remember that "all governments lie." Yet, no matter how many times we see this axiom proven true, over and over, there is still a tendency, a desire, to believe that the US government's claims are truthful and reliable.

The Obama administration's claims about the Benghazi attack are but the latest in a long line of falsehoods it has spouted on crucial issues, all in order to serve its interests and advance its agenda. Perhaps it is time to subject those claims to intense skepticism and to demand evidence before believing they are true.

 

[Equation]

So right now Libya doesn't have a fully trained professional army or national police? So they are stuck with the militia keeping the peace for now.

 

[delft]

Izzy Stone should have a successor. An I F Stone's Weekly on internet. Washington might become a better place. And every other capital in the world would be better for a similar publication.