Thursday, September 13, 2012

Please Stop Sending Me Photos of American Loving Libyans

I am receiving lots of emails with a link to one particular set of posed Libyans with various versions of "I love America" photos.

The fact of the matter is that some don't like the interventionist U.S. government.

Interventionist governments have always had trouble with the natives. It's called blowback. When you send me these photos, you are doing the propaganda work of the government, suggesting that American interventionism is loved. It encourages the crazed warmongers.

The fact of the matter is that people the world over hate others intervening in their affairs. Indeed, people hate interventionism at home. U.S. government warning after government warning is being issued about various groups not marching too happily to government rules and regulations here in the states, they no it could blow up anywhere at any moment.


  1. Those people holding the signs are just hoping not to get bombed.

  2. I got the impression when I saw the pics going around (assuming we are talking about the same pics, that more than anything the people in the pics were trying to defend Islam. I don't see any 'I love America' shirts or signs; only 'This is not the behavior of Islam and prophet'. Perhaps we are seeing different pics?

  3. What a horribly stupid post.

    While I will not claim to be able to read the minds and understand the intentions of everyone who sends me those same photos, you know because I'd like people to take me seriously, I will speak for myself.

    I send these signs to help combat the tremendous anti-Islam, anti-Middle East sentiment in the US. The acceptance of racism towards Muslims is mind-boggling. And while I, and most others sharing these photos, routinely discuss blowback, it is important to remember that the false narrative used to justify the warmongering against these nations, is an illusion.

    There are decent people there, and while there can be no doubt that these attacks are the result of blowback, the US military never exclusively attacks just those responsible. And these are some of the people who will be "collateral damage."

    You could have easily expressed your view of these photos without declaring that anyone who sends them is engaging in propaganda on behalf of the government. Which is just utter nonsense.

    1. Oh yeah, Fellner?

      If the Russians were to occupy the U.S. would you be displaying I love Russia signs?

      The idea is not to down play the anger, but to explain it.

      You are an idiot.

    2. Well considering you are unable to read, I'm not too troubled by your accusation that I am an idiot.

      The signs being displayed did not say "I love USA." They said, the day after 4 Americans were brutally murdered, "We are sorry." You know, because they are decent human beings.

      Being capable of both disliking foreign occupation, but expressing remorse and empathy at the attack from 2 days ago that resulted in the death of American diplomats.

      You should have just stuck with the "Oh yeah, Fellner?" line. It was the most intelligent thing you wrote.

    3. Okay, you are a double idiot. What makes you think I saw the same sign you did?

      So if the Russians occupied the U.S., you wouldn't be for expelling them by force?

      You are an idiot to the third power and I haven't given that ranking out to anyone else except John Bolton and Dick Cheney.

    4. Not to the 3rd power!! Nooooo...

      Just for kicks, why don't you go ahead and share with us the photos of various Libyans holding "I love America" signs now?

      Here's the one I've seen making the rounds:

      Looking forward to seeing the ones you saw! (I'm trying to reach the 4th power!)

  4. Yes, but some - at home and abroad - like US intervention. It's better to have the difficult conversation, in my opinion.

    President Obama assassinated Ghadaffi, who was reportedly on his way to kill tens of thousands of innocent people.

    This could be blowback, but I think it's a more nuanced conversation than just inciting crazed warmongers.

  5. The anti-Muslim, anti-Middle East sentiment in the US has been fomented at least since 1979 and I am sure much further back to the '50s. That hatred is not some natural antipathy that Americans should have. The middle east is on the other side of the world. Why would Americans have such animosity to peace-loving, religious, and highly intelligent individuals who want a good, happy life like the rest of us? Because oil-rich, middle east countries want to convert the sale of their oil to currencies and side-step the US petro dollar hegemony to give their country some economic advantage. An advantage to their country constitutes a disadvantage to the Federal Reserve. At least this is how I understand it. The US State Dept. whips up hateful propaganda to legitimize indiscriminate and too often mass murder. And then it shoots and publishes selective photos to show Americans and the West that not all Libyans are war-mongers, like the CIA micro-armies backpacking through the middl-east. Who comes to a coordinated protest on September 11 with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher, evoking the real terror and the media's amplification of that terror to revive perceived, or as you say illusory, threats! Who can afford these weapons? Ordinary Libyans working daily to feed their families? Wenzel's post is astute, for it's important to point out each play in the series of false flags that raise the stakes with subsequent events. It's the connecting of the geo-political dots. Then you’ve got this group of pro-American, pro-colonialists displaying signs, flags, and banners, some with the most inconspicuous of misspellings to elicit sympathy, a nice touch by the State Dept., and show that they have an abiding passion for liberty and a yearning to see the new but fledgling American experiment of the newly created Libyan central bank work its magic. Don't give up on us, America. There are degrees of false-flag events, each one with its opportunity risks. it's kind of like this:
    If these events occur week after week, then their transparency is too obvious. One must have an Aurora, Colorado, a Mayor Bloomberg announcement, a presidential campaign to distort and distract the Federal Reserve's trillion-dollar machinations around the globe.

  6. As one who has posted links to those pictures, I can assure you that I was not doing propaganda work for the government.

    I did so in order to say, in effect, "Hey, look, brown people that we shouldn't kill." My intention was the exact opposite of what you suggest because the government will soon come along with a list of who should be dead and where troops need to be stationed, and too many in the US will start with the "turn it into a parking lot" diatribes because "they all hate us because we are free."

    They don't all hate us and they don't all deserve to be incinerated. The problem was caused by our funding terrorist groups and meddling in their affairs. Let's back off, end wars, return our troops to our soil, and trade with them.

    1. Well said, I couldn't agree more!

      The only photos I've seen are Libyans holding signs apologizing for the heinous attack on the US embassy and expressing empathy over the murder of the people there.

      I would be interested to see the mentioned set of photos of "I love America" signs, as I have yet to see anything of that sort.

  7. Mr. Wenzel, you expose my biggest issue with you (it's a love/hate relationship): You have knee-jerk responses that would make any statist grin (not because of the specific content of your knee-jerk responses -- just because statists seem to love knee-jerk responses in general).

    Suppose, for a moment, that those folks are not speaking as Libyan nationalists, but simply people who happen to be living under the Libyan government. And suppose for a moment that they are not speaking to American nationalists, or the USG, but to the people who happen to live under the banner of "American". Suppose they saw these acts, and said to themselves, "I will not let these acts be attributed to me simply because I am 'Libyan'." And suppose they saw the film that provoked the violence and said to themselves, "This film does not speak for all 'Americans'."

    If that's the case, what you have then is an absolutely beautiful and profound case of one set of people rejecting the false bonds of nationalism, and trying (perhaps not consciously) to make the case to the other set to do the same thing as well. It effectively emasculates the nation-state by saying, "You need not fear me simply because I happen to be Libyan and this happened in Libya, and I need not fear you simply because you are 'American' and an 'American' made this offensive move." By reflexively dismissing these signs as propaganda, you potentially miss a very important point: That this is exactly what it looks like when people step outside the false mental bondage of "nationalism" that is routinely used to motivate us to violent action, and inch - if only briefly - toward a world where nationalism is (and in my hope, all states are) eradicated.

    Having said that, I'm withholding judgement. The motives of those folks could be anything. And I also know that the USG will not take it that way, even if that's how it was meant, so I take your point that it encourages the warmongers (no doubt the Obama admin is high-fiving its collective self, saying, "See! If we hadn't started dropping bombs we wouldn't have gotten these nice well-wishes!").

    None-the-less, I think you could have approached the subject with a little more depth.