US embassies in Egypt and Libya swarmed

Kraint wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

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)

Dammit, that's exactly what I should've said.

LarryC wrote:

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

It's either a Freedom for everyone or it's a Freedom for no one, and Freedom (like anything good) comes at a cost. The focus seems to be on whether the video should have been allowed to be made. Of course it should have been allowed. Killing in response is wrong because they killed people.

Last I'm going to say on this particular topic in this thread, as it's sounding more and more like this video itself was, potentially, a handy diversion for a fringe faction in Libya.

This video's creator, whoever it was, was exercising his freedom of speech. Was it a great or tasteful use of that freedom? Debatable, but I come down on the side of no. If this was a protest that got out of control, does he share at least some of the blame for being so flaggrantly disrescpectful? Legally, no. Morally, debatable, but I come out on the side of yes. Not as much as the people who actually killed people, but some.

The only lesson I wish we could all take out of this is simply the actions of the few should not be held against the many and I apply that to both the video creator and the minority group that is responsible for these slayings. People protesting the entirety of the United States of America is ridiculous. People suggesting we should just abandon Libya as a whole for the murder of an ambassador and some of his staff, not much better, if at all.

Best thing I saw in this thread? Those pictures of protestors against the actions of those few. So rare to actually see images or footage of that sort of thing anymore.

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?

No, I'm advocating self censorship out of common decency and respect. The "filmmakers" didn't treat the material with any vestige of either of those. They were out to be assholes... mission accomplished.

Can they do that? Certainly. And I support their right to. But should they? When I say "should," I am looking through my personal moral/ethical (not sure which word is more applicable here) filter. And in that filter, I would think that the film should served no constructive purpose.

It's a little more destructive than "Out to be assholes." Essentially, the film is meant to paint America in the worst possible light in the eyes of a lot of people. Many of those are educated enough to recognize that this is not America - it's just one American being a bigot. But a lot of those people are not. How many Americans don't differentiate between al Quaeda and Saddam? Lots, I'd imagine. Same deal.

It's a smear campaign against the US, and it's working actively against US interests in one of its key areas of foreign interest. I'm not sure where the line is drawn here, but negative propaganda of this nature involves more than just Freedom of Speech issues.

Honestly, I generally do advocate self censorship out of fear of violent consequences. I also advocate not being an asshole and all kinds of other respectful behaviors. Doesn't mean I think you can't do them but what I advocate for and what you can legally allow are two very different things.

I posted this in the EVE thread as well, but here's an obituary for one of the victims, Sean Smith

http://community.eveonline.com/devbl...

Side note, the named director Sam Bacile is, as we have all seen by now, thought to be a pseudonym.

It reads an awful lot like "Is Imbecile" to me.

I have the inkling that someone thinks they were being very funny, tragically.

Just one comment on the "freedom of speech" debate. It's an amendment to our constitution but it's not universal. There are instances where the common good far outweighs the needs of a few to shout whatever they feel like.

It's for that very reason that you can't scream "FIRE" in a movie theater!

Bear, that's what we've been discussing the past 5 pages.

LarryC wrote:

Essentially, the film is meant to paint America in the worst possible light in the eyes of a lot of people.

I think that's more of an unintended result. What it tried to do was, I think, paint certain other people in the worst possible light.

Kurrelgyre wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Essentially, the film is meant to paint America in the worst possible light in the eyes of a lot of people.

I think that's more of an unintended result. What it tried to do was, I think, paint certain other people in the worst possible light.

That's the secondary effect. The way it achieves that effect is to imply that all of America hates Islam, and doesn't understand nor care enough to refrain from mortally insulting blasphemies.

I am not in the target audience for this propaganda, but even I can see what it's really implying. It's a very subtle and multi-level piece of a hack job. It's too well aimed for this to be coincidental, or unintended. Even the use of a pseudonym is meant to diffuse the blame to all Americans, not just to a select few.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Bear, that's what we've been discussing the past 5 pages.

Ok, I'm guilty of skimming but you can't blame me, some of you are absurdly wordy!

Filthy double post!

LarryC wrote:

mortally insulting blasphemies.

I would argue it's a blunt but effective tool illustrating that while Americans - including American Muslims - are no longer so savagely brutal as to employ the above quote, North Africans and Arab Muslims are.

That it also showed a groundswell of American support among *other* North African and Middle Eastern Muslims is almost immaterial. Look what happens to the pro life movement every time a pro lifer bombs something.

(Or the other NA and ME Muslims are feigning support because they are scared sh*tless of what Americans do after stuff like this happens)

Bear wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Bear, that's what we've been discussing the past 5 pages.

Ok, I'm guilty of skimming but you can't blame me, some of you are absurdly wordy! :)

Yeah this wall of words might be getting out of hand (I take partial blame).

I think that words don't kill people , people kill people. So the guy felt like making the Muslims angry. it happens and they do tend to be violent in countries which lack law and order. Things like this just happen in countries in anarchy. Libya is a big mess, Egypt is a big mess and there are plenty of other countries that can't seem to control their population. I think the US was a little overconfident risking it's diplomats in unstable countries . At least they are now adding more security.

How is it none of the news is asking how our embassy got overrun within 15 minutes? Even a light security perimeter should be able to hold off a mob for 15 minutes, let alone a trained Marine force. This is seriously bugging me.

The news media had coverage within hours that indicated that there were two attacks in Benghazi. One was executed by "dozens" of attackers who pulled up in trucks to the crowd outside the consulate, surrounded it, and fired RPGs at it, setting it ablaze and trapping several people in the safe room, where they suffocated. There were only a few guards, and most of them had escorted people away from the grounds while the mob formed and raged. Apparently the Ambassador stayed behind with a few people and was in the process of leaving when the serious attack began.

The other occurred a few hours later at a covert safe house where Americans had gathered for evacuation. The safe house was taken under intense small arms fire and then six mortar rounds landed on and around it with high accuracy. As far as I can tell, no one was killed there because the operation involved Marines and armored vehicles. But I can't be sure about that.

In Egypt, my understanding is that the staff was evacuated hours before the riots after phone calls were received with threatening information, and the Egyptian police were trying to hold the crowd back, but some protesters got through and pulled down a flag. So in that case, presumably the Marines were either gone, or ordered not to fire except in extremis.

CNN, NBC, NPR, WaPo all had coverage of these details within 12 hours of the events.

Kraint wrote:

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.

The video is a joke. The only reason it's a thing is because some people with an axe to grind wanted it to be a thing. They inflated its importance, they exaggerated its influence, and they began a campaign of misinformation to inflame strained tension in the middle east.

But sure, let's "disappear" the idiot who made it because free speech ends when it hurts the feelings of someone in a another country.

Yes, and violent assholes in other countries should totally be able to dictate our behavior here at home. Totally.

OG, terrorism only works if you're terrorized, and you're doing a pretty fair imitation. Claiming that we need to strip rights away because those animals in the Middle East will kill people if we don't is an argument entirely based in fear.

In other news Muslims aren't doing much to refute the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion.

DSGamer wrote:

In other news Muslims aren't doing much to refute the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion.

That's a very broad statement. I think it's wrong.

LouZiffer wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

In other news Muslims aren't doing much to refute the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion.

That's a very broad statement. I think it's wrong.

Have to agree. In the case of Yemen with a city supposedly populated by 7 million people are the actions of a couple hundred indicative of them all?

Are the bigoted words of this Sam Bacile indicative of you? After all you come from the country of its production.

Demosthenes wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

In other news Muslims aren't doing much to refute the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion.

That's a very broad statement. I think it's wrong.

Have to agree. In the case of Yemen with a city supposedly populated by 7 million people are the actions of a couple hundred indicative of them all?

Are the bigoted words of this Sam Bacile indicative of you? After all you come from the country of its production.

Is there not a difference to you between the sentence "Muslims are more violent than Christians" and "All Muslims are violent?"

I'm a male, and there are more male rapists than female. Doesn't mean I'm a rapist.

Definition of REFUTE:

1. To prove wrong by argument or evidence: show to be false or erroneous
2. To deny the truth or accuracy of

Thus:

"In other news Muslims aren't doing much to prove that the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion is wrong."

Cancel double negative:

"In other news Muslims are doing much to prove the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion."

Am I parsing this incorrectly?

A short article about the author of the film.

The controversial "Innocence of Muslims" was written, produced and directed by a convicted drug manufacturer and scam artist, who has told authorities he actually wrote the script in federal prison and began production two months after his June 2011 release from custody.

Authorities say Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, of Cerritos, California, admitted his role in the film, after seeking help from law enforcement in dealing with death threats he has received since the release of the film.

Which Muslims and where? Broad statements don't foster true understanding and are incorrect when given without a surrounding context.

"Islam is a religion of peace."
"Islam is a religion of violence."

Both wrong.

Katy wrote:

A short article about the author of the film.

The controversial "Innocence of Muslims" was written, produced and directed by a convicted drug manufacturer and scam artist, who has told authorities he actually wrote the script in federal prison and began production two months after his June 2011 release from custody.

Authorities say Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, of Cerritos, California, admitted his role in the film, after seeking help from law enforcement in dealing with death threats he has received since the release of the film.

Someone should tell him that those threats are just a form of protected free speech!

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Someone should tell him that those threats are just a form of protected free speech!

Maybe I'm parsing that wrong?

Idea: Islam is a peaceful religion.
Muslim actions don't do much to refute that idea.

I agree. There are always a few bad actors, even in other 'peaceful' religions like Christianity or the Jewish faith. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are doing nothing to refute the idea that Islam is a message of peace.

EDIT: REALLY gotta learn to hit f5 before clicking post.

It seems a little rich of some people to expect legal consequences/censorship for the makers of the film when the US government has done much more to endanger the lives of it's citizens through extremely provocative actions vis-a-vis middle-eastern relations over the last 60 years.