Obama Zombie Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:48 pm Posts: 3149 Location: NoVA
Aestu wrote:
They are there as agents of the country that have through word and deed insulted your country. This whole business of people getting offended about things supposedly said about Muhammad didn't get started until the US began coming into other people's countries, and that is what this is all about.
It's blasphemy and its punishable by death based on Shariah Law, as is any other violation, since they see violations of Shariah Law as a crime against Allah. This started long before the US was even a country...
Aestu wrote:
What about the War of Independence? Would you oppose killing British tax collectors, because they "didn't do anything to you"? If the Chinese government was subverting American institutions, would you oppose storming the embassy where they do their business?
What if..?! What if...?! We can create a million hypothetical situations and try to see how my morality stands up to them... but that's not the point of the discussion. Stop trying to take it there.
Aestu wrote:
You are drawing a false dichotomy between disarmament and pacifism and total reliance on overwhelming armed force to get by. There always has to be a viable political answer in there somewhere, otherwise what you get is Vietnam.
Vietnam... or the middle east. Those guys who went to the embassy armed with RPGs and AK47s weren't interested in looking for the political answer. They were, as usual, using their religion as justification for killing people who, as their religion and laws state, should die for not being Muslim. In this case, the blasphemous crime was some American who made a video. Punishment wasn't for the film-maker to die, but for multiple Americans to die.
Aestu wrote:
What's your basis for calling them animals? Because they do the kinds of things you just talk about doing from the comfort of your suburban home?
This is what violence, you know, using guns, looks like. It's not cute or heroic. It's ugly, dirty business. Sorry it doesn't live up to your expectations.
You call them animals because your argument is mired in bigotry and arrogance: you presume the rest of the world must be weak, cowardly or stupid. Because if they are not then inevitably the tide will turn. No force can protect a country that makes only enemies, never friends.
I called them animals because that's more appropriate for what happened and how they acted. The ambassador and his detail didn't create the video, nor did they promote the video, and they certainly didn't do anything other than be at an Embassy. The animals figured the best way to express their frustration was to fire on the embassy when they weren't fired upon, and then they decided to send a fucking RPG at the Ambassadors vehicle as he tried to escape. Are you telling me those Muslims aren't animals for acting that way?
As I've stated before, many aspects of Islam make it hard for Western countries and cultures to co-exist with Muslim countries. In an effort to make friends, we've helped over-throw governments, only to have those governments taken over by more hard-lined Muslims (like the MB), who have little interest in being true friends. How do you suggest we be friends with these countries when the religious and political foundation of the country is interpreted, by the ruling hard-liners, that we can't be friends?
Fanta wrote:
This. THIS. God damn it, THIS you fucking morons.
You're a Muslim... but a Pakistani long removed from that culture. In any event, I'm sure you've read the Koran more than I have, and I'm sure you know there is a lot of text which explicitly states that Islam shouldn't befriend other religions. When the political foundation of a nation, like many in the Middle East, is founded and governed by the laws of Islam, then there is no wonder why we can't be friends.
Eturnalshift wrote:
We most definitely are. We are overturning governments and replacing them with ones compatible with our world view. The fact we're not annexing the country outright is moot. No one likes it when foreigners come in to their country.
No one likes it when foreigners come into their country, but they love it when we help them over-throw their oppressive regimes... which is important to understand that distinction, because the revolutions in Libya, Egypt and currently in Syria, were in the works before we had any role. Inb4 you don your tin-foil hat and tell me how this was all initiated by the CIA so we could create more trouble for ourselves down the road by letting hard-line radicals assume power...
Azelma wrote:
Not legitimizing these criminals reprehensible actions. But look at all of the protests now going on in the middle east. Look at the firestorm this set off. Idk, just seems like this guy caused controversy for its own sake.
And that's fine. People can protest all over the damn world if they want. They can protest the decision of a boxing match, a soccer game, that gay people want to get married, or that someone makes a lot of money. That's cool. I support people protesting stupid shit and I support people creating controversy... but when protesting turns to violence then that's where I draw the line. I didn't like it when OWS was being destructive and violent and I sure as hell don't like it when some Libyans are attacking our embassy.
Quote:
...unfavorable view...
Do we want to say, "Well, they have an unfavorable view of us, so we need to appease them!"
AlJazeera was saying the video was called "Innocence of Islam" and that returned a lot of videos like this one... so, I think this is it. If so, this is even more stupid. How many movies have we made mocking Christianity, along with other things people find sacred in their beliefs and lives? Then this guy makes this abomination (assuming this is the correct video) of a film about Islam and the Muslims want to get stupid?
Obama Zombie Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 1:48 pm Posts: 3149 Location: NoVA
Quote:
If the issue is really freedom of expression then why haven't they taken up arms against anything or anyone else that would be offensive to them - that is to say basically the entirety of Western culture? And why have only countries where the US has made a point of intruding attacked embassies? What about Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey?
Good troll.
Oh, wait. You, the smartest of us all, are serious!?
Dear Godlah, help us all.
(See, it's a mix of God and Allah, just so people from one culture to the next don't get ass hurt.)
Querulous Quidnunc Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:41 am Posts: 4695
Quote:
Klein told the AP that he vowed to help make the movie but warned the filmmaker that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The search for those behind the provocative, anti-Muslim film implicated in violent protests in Egypt and Libya led Wednesday to a California Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes who acknowledged his role in managing and providing logistics for the production.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Muslims and the prophet Muhammad and may have caused inflamed mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. He provided the first details about a shadowy production group behind the film.
Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cell phone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula's aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.
These cowards made the film knowing what they were doing and have gone into hiding. I guess it's free speech, but they aren't even man enough to say who did it.
It's blasphemy and its punishable by death based on Shariah Law, as is any other violation, since they see violations of Shariah Law as a crime against Allah. This started long before the US was even a country...
None of this fighting or blowing up of American embassies began until we tried to impose our aims on their country. Besides you don't even know anything about history so what are you talking about?
Eturnalshift wrote:
What if..?! What if...?! We can create a million hypothetical situations and try to see how my morality stands up to them... but that's not the point of the discussion. Stop trying to take it there.
If your morals aren't mutually applicable then you are a hypocrite. And if all such examples are hypothetical then by definition you are sheltered. Is it not logical to believe that is an explanation for your views?
Eturnalshift wrote:
Vietnam... or the middle east. Those guys who went to the embassy armed with RPGs and AK47s weren't interested in looking for the political answer. They were, as usual, using their religion as justification for killing people who, as their religion and laws state, should die for not being Muslim. In this case, the blasphemous crime was some American who made a video. Punishment wasn't for the film-maker to die, but for multiple Americans to die.
War is politics by other means.
You talk about backing things up with force but this would seem to be the case of a bully & coward who gets sick at the sight of his own blood.
Eturnalshift wrote:
I called them animals because that's more appropriate for what happened and how they acted. The ambassador and his detail didn't create the video, nor did they promote the video, and they certainly didn't do anything other than be at an Embassy. The animals figured the best way to express their frustration was to fire on the embassy when they weren't fired upon, and then they decided to send a fucking RPG at the Ambassadors vehicle as he tried to escape. Are you telling me those Muslims aren't animals for acting that way?
As I've stated before, many aspects of Islam make it hard for Western countries and cultures to co-exist with Muslim countries. In an effort to make friends, we've helped over-throw governments, only to have those governments taken over by more hard-lined Muslims (like the MB), who have little interest in being true friends. How do you suggest we be friends with these countries when the religious and political foundation of the country is interpreted, by the ruling hard-liners, that we can't be friends?
We managed to do it for the last 1000 years, until we decided we wanted their oil. If values were the issue we'd have fought these people long ago.
Eturnalshift wrote:
You're a Muslim... but a Pakistani long removed from that culture. In any event, I'm sure you've read the Koran more than I have, and I'm sure you know there is a lot of text which explicitly states that Islam shouldn't befriend other religions. When the political foundation of a nation, like many in the Middle East, is founded and governed by the laws of Islam, then there is no wonder why we can't be friends.
The Koran (and Torah, and Bible) say a lot of stuff. The Bible literally says that white people shouldn't be friends with black people. In practice the driving force is not what the book actually says but how people choose to interpret it.
Eturnalshift wrote:
No one likes it when foreigners come into their country, but they love it when we help them over-throw their oppressive regimes...
No, they don't. "My country right or wrong" isn't just for Americans. You may not like Obama but you're not going to be elated to see the Chinese or Germans throw him out of office.
Eturnalshift wrote:
Inb4 you don your tin-foil hat and tell me how this was all initiated by the CIA so we could create more trouble for ourselves down the road by letting hard-line radicals assume power...
That is the CIA's job. That is what they do.
Eturnalshift wrote:
And that's fine. People can protest all over the damn world if they want. They can protest the decision of a boxing match, a soccer game, that gay people want to get married, or that someone makes a lot of money. That's cool. I support people protesting stupid shit and I support people creating controversy... but when protesting turns to violence then that's where I draw the line. I didn't like it when OWS was being destructive and violent and I sure as hell don't like it when some Libyans are attacking our embassy.
So you don't mind other people's blood but get sick at the sight of your own. If you really believe that violence is what makes the world go round - the guarantor of safety and values - you can't cry when you get a bloody nose.
Or would you rather justify yourself on the basis of something more than violence, hmm? Which is it?
Suffice it to say, if you think the world is so perfect that anyone who feels compelled to fight the status quo is out of their mind then you are truly sheltered beyond all reason. Just because you are comfortable and life seems fair to you doesn't mean everyone is so lucky.
French Faggot Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:15 pm Posts: 5227 Location: New Jersey
@Jubber: we have the most hands-off approach to free speech of any country, and that's just fine. Our laws don't extend beyond our borders.
Does that make anything that happened acceptable? Of course not. But sovereignty almost always wins at the international level, so our ideals just don't fucking matter.
We are not engaged with these people because of our value systems. We aren't there because they hate our "freedoms" or way of life. Those differences have been around for centuries and have never been a cause for war.
We are engaged with these people over oil and other resources. This whole business of being deliberately offensive is no different than any other time where insult is added to injury and is just sufficient to arouse a violent response.
Yuratuhl wrote:
we have the most hands-off approach to free speech of any country
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.
I wonder if Obama's alleged skipping of security briefings for the week prior to the attack played any role in this credible information not being actioned. I mean, If we're going to bloody everybody's hands...
Shouldn't have to wait for obama to get off the golf course to have SOMEONE send out an email saying "hey fuckers, might wanna buckle down this weekend."
Exactly. Though I still think someone should get fired for this.
It shouldn't be Obama that's for damn sure. I'm no fan of Obama's, but I'm even less of a fan of Romney in particular and politicians in general and their 'gotcha' politics.
If Romney really wanted to score politically, kill him (Obama) with kindness would have been much classier and arguably more politically favorable.
Withholding comment on the matter until at a minimum September 11th was over and done with (not that it really matters to me, speaking from an analytical perspective) and hopefully until more facts became available would have been a professional and classy political win.
He should have joined Obama in condemning the actions and left it at that.
I do think Aestu and Tuhl make very good points about how ridiculous we have it in America as far as free speech goes.
On one side- OMG das so offensav am butthurt
On the other- We can say and do whatever we want and call it free speech. WBC is a bunch of idiots, but free speech free speech free speech. Hanging an effigy of a sitting President is free speech. Carrying a pistol to a rally is free speech. God forbid anyone burns a flag though.
It's insulting to breathe the same air as some of these people.
I thought it was illegal (and not protected by the first amendment) to intentionally start a shitstorm with speech?
Also, from a legal standpoint, couldn't the people who made the movie, if they had a general idea that riots would erupt, be responsible for the deaths of those people in Libya?
PS: I guess the tech guy who was killed was an admin on SomethingAwful. Its pretty funny watching everyone's nuts get twisted over Romney's comment, which should cost him the election.
The law as interpreted in the USA goes out the window when he (the filmmaker) leaves our borders. He is not protected by our free speech laws while within foreign countries.
At the same time, I agree with Eturnal that by spreading the blame around it legitimizes violence. The US embassy is considered US territory in a legal sense. The attackers will be subject to our laws. "I got butthurt for religious reasons" should not EVER qualify as a legal defense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
