US embassies in Egypt and Libya swarmed

Yonder wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think the 'defend the 1st ammendment' stuff that came up in here was a reaction to you and others saying he was douchebag and deserved shunning and other such social repercussions, but to the idea tossed out that he should be labeled as a terrorist/criminal and tossed into Gitmo/prison.

It seemed like people were really jumping on Maq for saying it was a hateful video that shouldn't have been made, and as far as I saw he wasn't advocating any sort of prosecution.

This was the post that spurred a lot of discussion:

Maq wrote:

Here's an idea. If Sam Bacile and Pastor Terry Jones want to get their jollies poking a hornets nest of sociopathic fundamentalism, let's just throw them to the baying mob to be torn limb from limb so the rest of us can live in peace without having to die for anyone else's beliefs.

Are the people in Egypt, Yemen, and Libya under the impression that this is a movie that will be shown in theaters? It's just an embarrassingly pathetic mess that seems to only exist on YouTube, along with a billion other pathetic messes. Instead, people with an agenda are spreading misinformation about it and pretending it's important.

Seth wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Yonder wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think the 'defend the 1st ammendment' stuff that came up in here was a reaction to you and others saying he was douchebag and deserved shunning and other such social repercussions, but to the idea tossed out that he should be labeled as a terrorist/criminal and tossed into Gitmo/prison.

It seemed like people were really jumping on Maq for saying it was a hateful video that shouldn't have been made, and as far as I saw he wasn't advocating any sort of prosecution.

I actually agree. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something (just thinking in terms of basic human decency here).

So you're advocating self censorship out of fear of violent consequences?

I don't self-censor myself from calling people stupid c*** bags because I'm worried about getting punched in the face. I don't call people that because it's a stupid, hateful, hurtful thing to do. You absolutely have the right to wake up every morning, turn to your wife, and call her a "hideous dingbat who's done nothing but make your life a living hell", but you shouldn't (weird relationship inside jokes aside). When your grandma told you "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" she was giving you wisdom, not revoking your first amendment rights.

The fact that it angers Muslims isn't what bothers me, I don't recall thinking any of the Danish cartoons were hateful things that shouldn't have been produced, they were fine to my recollection. I watched the trailers, this wasn't Life of Brian or something of that nature, it was much more hateful and belittling. Once again, not saying it should be illegal to anger people, I don't have any problem with criticizing religions in particular either, I think they are all kind of silly. If a similar video had been made that was more intelligent, more reasonable, and funnier I wouldn't be saying that the people in charge of it were bad people. It is this specific instance were the video makes it obvious that the makers are hateful bigots who shouldn't have made it.

Lastly, the fact that I don't think the video should have been made does not release the murderers from an ounce of responsibility for their actions.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

This was the post that spurred a lot of discussion:

Maq wrote:

Here's an idea. If Sam Bacile and Pastor Terry Jones want to get their jollies poking a hornets nest of sociopathic fundamentalism, let's just throw them to the baying mob to be torn limb from limb so the rest of us can live in peace without having to die for anyone else's beliefs.

Ah, I missed that, and don't think that actual retribution should be brought against the makers.

Seth wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Yonder wrote:
absurddoctor wrote:

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think the 'defend the 1st ammendment' stuff that came up in here was a reaction to you and others saying he was douchebag and deserved shunning and other such social repercussions, but to the idea tossed out that he should be labeled as a terrorist/criminal and tossed into Gitmo/prison.

It seemed like people were really jumping on Maq for saying it was a hateful video that shouldn't have been made, and as far as I saw he wasn't advocating any sort of prosecution.

I actually agree. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something (just thinking in terms of basic human decency here).

So you're advocating self censorship out of fear of violent consequences?

He didn't say fear of violent consequences, he said basic human decency.

But, I will say I think you should self censor out of fear of violent consequences if you're not going to be there to face those violent consequences. I think that's what was meant by the statements that this film producer should be sent to the riots. He kicked the hornet's nest, and other innocent people are left to deal with the fallout of that kick. World's not fair and all that, but that sucks.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Just WTF are you advocating here? A crowd of violent thugs blame their murder at the feet of Americans for something they said in America and you think the US government should, what? Arrest them? Censor them? Execute them? Deport them?

I'm advocating that national security interests trump the rights of two religious whack jobs to spew hate that is specifically designed to enrage a portion of the global population that we've expended two trillion dollars and several thousand American lives alternatively fighting and trying to make up with over the past decade. The last thing we need are these two assholes making things worse for the Americans we have deployed throughout the Muslim world.

What does that specifically mean? I'm not an expert on law so I don't know. If the Sedition Act hadn't been repealed, I'd have those two locked up for that. Since that law is no longer, I'm sure there's something buried in the Patriot Act that would at least stop these morons from making things worse for everyone else.

Personally, I'd like to see them hooded and dropped off in front of the families of the people who died so they could better understand the true cost of their freedom of speech and then take whatever was left of them and drop it off in downtown Cairo and Benghazi.

So speech is free unless it makes someone in another country mad.

As far as I've read the movie is a "fake". The actors were recruited to make another movie with a different script. The movie was them edited and dubbed to have Islamic contents instead of what some of the original actors said. As far as I've read the person who have been suspected of creating the movie is a Coptic Christian. I guess Egypt is going to be "on fire" again.

I tried to google related articles I found this . The article I read on ynet is in Hebrew so it wont be too useful to you unless you enjoy laughing at google's translation.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

So speech is free unless is makes someone in another country mad.

Either I suck at communicating or you have sh*t reading comprehension skills...

I said that sometimes national security interests trumps freedom of speech and this is most definitely one of those times considering what we've been doing and to whom over the past decade. Nor should the concept of national security trumping freedom of speech be new to you because it's happened to one degree or another every time we've gone to war.

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/12/2vXaNCP1M0CbPGppkRBBMA2.jpg)

Not sure if this got put in here.

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

Folks in Libya too to the streets to apologize.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/UOF4r.jpg)

KingGorilla wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/9/12/2vXaNCP1M0CbPGppkRBBMA2.jpg)

Not sure if this got put in here.

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

Folks in Libya too to the streets to apologize.

Remember when Americans did that en masse after a drone launched a missile into a wedding in Iraq?

Oh wait. We never did that. Hmmm...

Has anyone considered that this video was actually the work of the armed terrorists who stormed the Embassy? Sam Basile? Uncle Sam; sounds a little like imbecile. Who ever sent the armed people to actually attack the Embassy must have known something was coming, unless they are a lot more agile and connected than we expected. Compare the attack in Libya to the one in Egypt: Egyptians came in, tore down a flag and left; "Libyans" came in and killed four people. Egypt should be apologizing for some of its citizens committing an act of war, and helping find the people who did it (and hopefully make them understand a little tolerance of other people's stupidity). Libya has already condemned the action of what may be their people, offered to help find them and bring them to justice. It's a pretty stark difference.

OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

So speech is free unless is makes someone in another country mad.

Either I suck at communicating or you have sh*t reading comprehension skills...

I said that sometimes national security interests trumps freedom of speech and this is most definitely one of those times considering what we've been doing and to whom over the past decade. Nor should the concept of national security trumping freedom of speech be new to you because it's happened to one degree or another every time we've gone to war.

Ah. Speech is free unless it makes someone in the middle east mad.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

So speech is free unless is makes someone in another country mad.

Either I suck at communicating or you have sh*t reading comprehension skills...

I said that sometimes national security interests trumps freedom of speech and this is most definitely one of those times considering what we've been doing and to whom over the past decade. Nor should the concept of national security trumping freedom of speech be new to you because it's happened to one degree or another every time we've gone to war.

Ah. Speech is free unless it makes someone in the middle east mad.

I actually think that Quintin's synopsis of your point appears to be accurate. Since you are playing the National Security card it does seem like you are arguing that it should have legal consequences.

So what's happening here is two separate, only tangentially related points:

1) you should be nice.

-Yeah I think we can get behind the rule of common decency here, and I don't see anyone arguing that a religiously offensive video is not appropriate.

2) you shouldn't kill innocent people.

- I'll go ahead and speak for the group by claiming we can agree to this as well. Apparently it's the syncretism of these two ideas that is causing confusion. I think that you shouldn't kill people even if rule #1 is broken.

I doubt there's any disagreement yet. I'm not so douchey as to insinuate that people here are advocating Death To The Heretic.

What I'm saying is that #2 trumps rule #1 in such a spectacular, universal manner such that there is no shared guilt between murderers and heretics.

Edit: or, to keep with Grandma's wisdom, sticks and stones will break your bones, but words can never hurt you.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Ah. Speech is free unless it makes someone in the middle east mad.

No, speech is free unless it puts Americans in danger or endangers our national interests. Again, you seem to be acting these limits on the freedom of speech are a radical new concept when they most definitely are not.

Yonder wrote:

I actually think that Quintin's synopsis of your point appears to be accurate. Since you are playing the National Security card it does seem like you are arguing that it should have legal consequences.

I don't see Quintin's synopsis as anything but a terribly naive attempt to apply an absolute value system to a world that most definitely isn't black and white, not to mention trying to apply a thoroughly Western and modern concept to a culture that is neither.

And, to answer your question, yes, I am arguing that there should be legal consequences for the film. It led directly to the death of four Americans and it could very easily be construed as aiding our enemies throughout the region by promoting the idea that Americans hate Islam.

OG_Slinger:

FWIW, I think al Quaeda is operating along similar lines - the point of their 9/11 attack was to draw Americans into a holy war with all Muslims the world over. The film would have been right along their alley of attack. It's like the film maker was doing al Quaeda work for them.

To me, this is the bad side of protecting free speech. Sometimes you'll have to endure speech that the majority find repugnant, and you'll be attacked because you allow it to be spoken. The US could put in a hate clause like those in many other countries, but that doesn't exist right now. I don't think it should exist either. Should we control people's output such that it becomes inoffensive to anyone? If not, are we going to decide who it's 'safe' to offend and in what ways? Who decides that? What happens when they're wrong?

OG_slinger wrote:

I don't see Quintin's synopsis as anything but a terribly naive attempt to apply an absolute value system to a world that most definitely isn't black and white, not to mention trying to apply a thoroughly Western and modern concept to a culture that is neither.

Free speech may be a western concept, but then it is a western culture, the USA, that we are discussing here -- the maker of the film is American, the film was made in America, the legal consequences you're talking about are American. You seem to be acting like protected hate speech is a radical new concept when it is definitely not.

OG_slinger wrote:

And, to answer your question, yes, I am arguing that there should be legal consequences for the film. It led directly to the death of four Americans and it could very easily be construed as aiding our enemies throughout the region by promoting the idea that Americans hate Islam.

You have an odd definition of "directly". And by odd, I mean completely divorced from reality.

LarryC wrote:

It's like the film maker was doing al Quaeda work for them.

Maybe it was Al Quaeda.

It has been reported that they appear to have used the demonstrations as a distraction for an attack, that happened to be on 9/11. Heck of a coincidence.

Though, admittedly, it is hard to imagine them saying anything negative about Muhamed, regardless of the purpose.

OG_slinger wrote:

I said that sometimes national security interests trumps freedom of speech and this is most definitely one of those times considering what we've been doing and to whom over the past decade. Nor should the concept of national security trumping freedom of speech be new to you because it's happened to one degree or another every time we've gone to war.

OG_slinger in 2010[/url]]As for your question about whether or not the Pentagon has the right to keep things secret, I've always come down on the negative side. "National security" is just a too convenient cloak to hide nasty things behind. Direct exposure to sunlight is always better.

...Quintin deserves a prize for that.

IMAGE(http://i417.photobucket.com/albums/pp252/jaxandclive/Slow-Clap.gif)

National security as an excuse by the government to hide its illegal actions is not the same as national security as an excuse to stop a public bigot from inflamming a conflict outside of anyone else's approval.

Yeah, I'm kind of face-palming, too. I don't see how OG_Slinger is being at all inconsistent between those two statements. Did he really understand what he quoted?

Demosthenes wrote:

National security as an excuse by the government to hide its illegal actions is not the same as national security as an excuse to stop a public bigot from inflamming a conflict outside of anyone else's approval.

Yup. Quintin's outstanding reading comprehension skills strike again.

Demosthenes wrote:

National security as an excuse by the government to hide its illegal actions is not the same as national security as an excuse to stop a public bigot from inflamming a conflict outside of anyone else's approval.

OG didn't say keeping only illegal actions secret.

I guess I didn't think I'd have to explain why exposing confidential military information would be more dangerous to national security than a couple of idiots putting a ridiculous anti-Islam video on YouTube. And yet OG supports the former while pushing for prosecution of the latter.

OG_slinger wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

National security as an excuse by the government to hide its illegal actions is not the same as national security as an excuse to stop a public bigot from inflamming a conflict outside of anyone else's approval.

Yup. Quintin's outstanding reading comprehension skills strike again.

I'm so confused. I think he read what you wrote perfectly and responded with the correct response. Please explain what we're missing.

OG_slinger wrote:

What does that specifically mean? I'm not an expert on law so I don't know. If the Sedition Act hadn't been repealed, I'd have those two locked up for that. Since that law is no longer, I'm sure there's something buried in the Patriot Act that would at least stop these morons from making things worse for everyone else.

This statement has been deemed offensive by survivalist/sepratist groups, please turn yourself in for processing before there's another Oklahoma City.

I think you'll need to make a stronger case there, Stone, than just quoting the two statements. If you include the government abusing its power over citizens as part of "national security," then I don't think it necessarily endangers national security to have more transparency.

It's not inconsistent to value oversight of government powers over national security, but value national security over fringe Freedom of Speech rights.

LarryC wrote:

I think you'll need to make a stronger case there, Stone, than just quoting the two statements. If you include the government abusing its power over citizens as part of "national security," then I don't think it necessarily endangers national security to have more transparency.

It's not inconsistent to value oversight of government powers over national security, but value national security over fringe Freedom of Speech rights.

I consider taking away Freedom of Speech (regardless of how fringe) to be unacceptable and I think oversight of government power is required to make sure that doesn't happen.

Oh no...I'm stuck in a loop.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

What does that specifically mean? I'm not an expert on law so I don't know. If the Sedition Act hadn't been repealed, I'd have those two locked up for that. Since that law is no longer, I'm sure there's something buried in the Patriot Act that would at least stop these morons from making things worse for everyone else.

This statement has been deemed offensive by survivalist/sepratist groups, please turn yourself in for processing before there's another Oklahoma City.

I must need more coffee, because I think we are in full agreement on something.

You've got local leaders/pundits who made this stupid video a thing. They raised the issue, they incited the anger, and they helped coordinate these protests/attacks with the video as a convenient excuse. It could just as easily have been something on /r/atheism, or another cartoon, or some anti-Sharia law passed in the South.

SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think you'll need to make a stronger case there, Stone, than just quoting the two statements. If you include the government abusing its power over citizens as part of "national security," then I don't think it necessarily endangers national security to have more transparency.

It's not inconsistent to value oversight of government powers over national security, but value national security over fringe Freedom of Speech rights.

I consider taking away Freedom of Speech (regardless of how fringe) to be unacceptable and I think oversight of government power is required to make sure that doesn't happen.

Oh no...I'm stuck in a loop.

IMAGE(http://s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com/original/32/VlcyN2t5aDdQVk0x_o_oh-no-ive-gone-cross-eyed.jpg)