My prayers go out to the families of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the others killed.

[Sharoth]

Oh, I am not disagreeing that it is a load of bigoted CRAP. I just feel that a lot of places have a rather "biased" thought process. They can insult, berate, and demean us. But if we do the same to them... (and NO, it does NOT make it right to respond to negative actions with negative actions.)

[Evil Lincoln]

Sharoth wrote:

The problem is that no matter WHERE you are, when freedom of speech is stoped, then ignorace, brutality, and dictatorship starts to become stronger. Freedom of speech means also alowing the bad stuff to be given voice. IMHO, that is one of the biggest thing wrong with areas like the middle east and China.

An incredible apparatus we have in our open society is shame. In my opinion, this man and his supporters should be ashamed for his cowardice and reckless disregard for how is actions may affect others. As should those who were offended by his work and chose to take an innocent life.

Happily, I suspect I'll get my way in the near future, with both parties feeling that shame. That's one thing that makes our system the best!

[thejeff]

Sharoth wrote:

ALSO, no matter what you do, it is offensive to SOMEONE. I wake up in the morning and I have offended someone. Me offending you does not give you the right to express violence upon me. If it is a legal matter, then that is for the courts to decide if it is wrong, not the mobs.

True that mobs are rarely the answer, though non-violent protest is itself a form of speech and needs to be protected. Not that this was non-violent, obviously, but there's a fine line between "mob" and "large protest" which often depends on which side of the issue you're on.

More importantly, this movie was not a case of "anything will be offensive to someone". It was deliberately made to be offensive to Muslims. Apparently this was hidden from the actors, with much of the offensive stuff dubbed in later. This isn't a case of "those Muslims getting worked up about nothing", or even of something critical but with genuine merit, like Salmon Rushdie or even the cartoons. This was deliberate provocation.

Even the translation into Arabic and dissemination in the Middle East appear to have been done not by offended Muslims, but by people associated with the film. That the film maker was posing as an Israeli Jew in the initial statements could be both further inflammation and an attempt to direct the anger away from his group and towards a favorite target.

And the guy is already a crook and a con man.

[thejeff]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Sharoth wrote:

The problem is that no matter WHERE you are, when freedom of speech is stoped, then ignorace, brutality, and dictatorship starts to become stronger. Freedom of speech means also alowing the bad stuff to be given voice. IMHO, that is one of the biggest thing wrong with areas like the middle east and China.

An incredible apparatus we have in our open society is shame. In my opinion, this man and his supporters should be ashamed for his cowardice and reckless disregard for how is actions may affect others. As should those who were offended by his work and chose to take an innocent life.

Happily, I suspect I'll get my way in the near future, with both parties feeling that shame. That's one thing that makes our system the best!

Shame is dead. At least in the political and business world in the US. It's been replaced with "Might cut into the polls and/or ad revenue."

[Sharoth]

I do hope that the legal systems SLAM the maker of this load of crap. He is guilty of inciting roits at the very least.

[thejeff]

Sharoth wrote:

Oh, I am not disagreeing that it is a load of bigoted CRAP. I just feel that a lot of places have a rather "biased" thought process. They can insult, berate, and demean us. But if we do the same to them... (and NO, it does NOT make it right to respond to negative actions with negative actions.)

Everyone does it. It's just harder to see when it's on your side.

All the ranting about Anti-Americanism when parts of the rest of the world criticized the US about the Iraq war? "Freedom Fries"?

Taking it to violence is too far, of course, but the basic thought process is the same.

[thejeff]

Sharoth wrote:

I do hope that the legal systems SLAM the maker of this load of crap. He is guilty of inciting roits at the very least.

No. He's not. It's really hard to convict for "inciting riots" unless you actually say something like: "You over there! Go riot!"

At this distance and with them rioting against him: Not a chance.

There'll be some fraud issues with the actors. And they'll look real closely at the funding. If it's not squeaky clean, he'll be in trouble for that. Given his prior history of check kiting, I doubt it's squeaky clean.

[thejeff]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Sharoth wrote:

The problem is that no matter WHERE you are, when freedom of speech is stoped, then ignorace, brutality, and dictatorship starts to become stronger. Freedom of speech means also alowing the bad stuff to be given voice. IMHO, that is one of the biggest thing wrong with areas like the middle east and China.

An incredible apparatus we have in our open society is shame. In my opinion, this man and his supporters should be ashamed for his cowardice and reckless disregard for how is actions may affect others. As should those who were offended by his work and chose to take an innocent life.

It's also not at all clear that the loss of life was due to people being offended by his work.

The attacks in Benghazi were probably not the result of spontaneous outrage. They appeared professional and planned. The group responsible may have had other motives and used the protest for cover or they may have been been responding to this movie, but the "chose to take an innocent life" part was a deliberate attack, not the intent of the larger crowd of protesters.

[the David]

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

[Kirth Gersen]

Sharoth wrote:

I do hope that the legal systems SLAM the maker of this load of crap. He is guilty of inciting roits at the very least.

I very strongly disagree. The people rioting are guilty of rioting. Otherwise all speech is judged by the most insane of the people who choose to react to it.

Tomorrow, my followers burn a city and kill hundreds in response to women not wearing full burquas at the beach -- after that, is any woman in a bikini "guilty of inciting riots"?

At some point, we need to say, "No -- I don't care if Fred called you a dumb-dumb-head; if you knife him in the back in response, his death entirely YOUR fault, not his. We're not counting Fred as a suicide any more."

Sticks and stones, and so on.

[thejeff]

the David wrote:

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

That makes sense to me. Even more so, the assumption is that if a movie like that is made, it's made with the consent of the government. It's obvious that the American government approves or it would have banned the movie. That's how things work. Even if the government talks about freedom of speech, they don't really mean it.

[thejeff]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Sharoth wrote:

I do hope that the legal systems SLAM the maker of this load of crap. He is guilty of inciting roits at the very least.

I disagree. The people rioting are guilty of rioting. Otherwise all speech is judged by the most insane of the people who choose to react to it.

Tomorrow, my followers burn a city and kill hundreds in response to women not wearing full burquas at the beach -- after that, is any woman in a bikini "guilty of inciting riots"?

At some point, we need to say, "No -- I don't care if Fred called you a dumb-dumb-head; if you knife him in the back in response, his death entirely YOUR fault, not his. We're not counting Fred as a suicide any more."

Sticks and stones, and so on.

There are such legal concepts as "incitement to riot" and "fighting words". They are valuable concepts, though limited in application.

I don't see this as falling into that category. There are other things to nail this guy for.

At some point though I think there needs to be some responsibility for speech. I'm thinking of cases like the use of radio to incite genocide in Rwanda. While it certainly doesn't absolve the murderers, should those doing the incitement be able to wash their hands of any responsibility?

[Sharoth]

thejeff wrote:

the David wrote:

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

That makes sense to me. Even more so, the assumption is that if a movie like that is made, it's made with the consent of the government. It's obvious that the American government approves or it would have banned the movie. That's how things work. Even if the government talks about freedom of speech, they don't really mean it.

HUH?!? ~confused look~ so freedom of speech is just the government's way of approving this load of crap?!? WTH?!?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Comrade Jeff is speaking "in character", Sharoth.

[Irontruth]

Sean Smith, one of the staff that was killed, was also a very well known and well liked EVE player. He was one of the driving forces behind the major diplomatic pushes in the game.

Article

Not exactly the same type of gaming as this board, but still a gamer.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Anyway, it appears to me that the whole freedom of speech issue is becoming less and less relevant as it becomes more widely apparent that the attack was the result of a planned terrorist hit, not rampaging anti-infidel rioters.

[Orthos]

Sharoth wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the David wrote:

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

That makes sense to me. Even more so, the assumption is that if a movie like that is made, it's made with the consent of the government. It's obvious that the American government approves or it would have banned the movie. That's how things work. Even if the government talks about freedom of speech, they don't really mean it.

HUH?!? ~confused look~ so freedom of speech is just the government's way of approving this load of crap?!? WTH?!?

He's saying that this is the viewpoint of the people outside our mindset. The people who don't know of or don't believe in free speech. "It exists, the government didn't stop it. Therefore they must approve."

[Paul Watson]

Sharoth wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the David wrote:

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

That makes sense to me. Even more so, the assumption is that if a movie like that is made, it's made with the consent of the government. It's obvious that the American government approves or it would have banned the movie. That's how things work. Even if the government talks about freedom of speech, they don't really mean it.

HUH?!? ~confused look~ so freedom of speech is just the government's way of approving this load of crap?!? WTH?!?

Sharoth,

I'm pretty sure thejeff is trying to show the thought process. To people under dictatorships without freedom of speech, everything that happens happens becauser the government wants iot to, at least in theory. So if this film is made, the American ogvernment misust want it made, because all goverments work like that.

[Guy Humual]

One thing people seem to forget is that we here in the west have decades of freedom of the press and years of religious freedom. We also have many of our citizens living in very cosmopolitan cities. However it's not a stretch in my mind to have riots in some parts of the states if both the church and the media (looking at you faux news) especially if it was because someone they viewed as an outsider made fun of the Bejesus. What is unlikely in this day and age is for the protests to turn this violent. The sort of thing we saw in Egypt is entirely possible in the west. Very few of us here would think that religion is worth killing over these days thankfully. However you wouldn't have to go back many generations to see the ugly violent side of religion in North America. I can't fault the Middle Eastern and African countries for protesting this stupid film and I can only hope that their progress towards a more tolerant society only takes a single generation. That's unlikely but the thing we have to remember is that there is no us versus them, people are the same all over the world, and suggesting that people in other parts of the world are monstrous or barbaric is as pointless as suggesting that we in the west are morally superior.

I suspect that the film maker achieved the reaction he was hopping for.

[thejeff]

Sharoth wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the David wrote:

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

That makes sense to me. Even more so, the assumption is that if a movie like that is made, it's made with the consent of the government. It's obvious that the American government approves or it would have banned the movie. That's how things work. Even if the government talks about freedom of speech, they don't really mean it.

HUH?!? ~confused look~ so freedom of speech is just the government's way of approving this load of crap?!? WTH?!?

As others have said, that's how it might look if you'd had no experience with actual freedom of speech.

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

At some point though I think there needs to be some responsibility for speech. I'm thinking of cases like the use of radio to incite genocide in Rwanda. While it certainly doesn't absolve the murderers, should those doing the incitement be able to wash their hands of any responsibility?

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right even here in the United States.

Shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie house for no reason.

Call a bomb threat on your local DMV.

IF you're caught you're still liable for the consequences of such speech and you will be prosecuted.

In cases like this movie, one can't pretend ignorance or remain oblivious to one's actions when you KNOW that publications like this have incited violence in the past. The people you put at risk had no say in the production you put out, and it's moral cowardice to have someone else take the fall for antics like this.

Were the riots pre-planned? That's irrelevant. This movie provided a pretext, and it's known that things like this are seen as a deliberate attack on a subject held very closely to a culture which does not embrace diversity. The production of this movie is an act of a coward pretending to be the opposite.

[Freehold DM]

Sharoth wrote:

Oh, I am not disagreeing that it is a load of bigoted CRAP. I just feel that a lot of places have a rather "biased" thought process. They can insult, berate, and demean us. But if we do the same to them... (and NO, it does NOT make it right to respond to negative actions with negative actions.)

If neither is right, then neither is right. This is one of the few issues in life where I feel there is only black and white. Trying to introduce greyscale will only make it sound like you want to be the party that has a biased thought process and can get up in arms at the drop of a hat while condemning others who do the same. Acting like a bigoted jerk who demeans others with their crap is just that, no matter who said what first.

[A Man In Black]

It's also important to remember that Libya is barely stable. It's just escaping a civil war, and quite a few fringe right-wing groups aren't happy with the democratic government. You just don't have those heavily-armed military veteran militias running around blowing s!&@ up to make a point in other countries, so the protests, while nerving, don't end up killing people or burning things to the ground. Protestors in Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen were all controlled and eventually dispersed by the local government's security forces.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

LazarX wrote:

Were the riots pre-planned? That's irrelevant. This movie provided a pretext, and it's known that things like this are seen as a deliberate attack on a subject held very closely to a culture which does not embrace diversity. The production of this movie is an act of a coward pretending to be the opposite.

I hadn't heard the riots were pre-planned. I don't know how they could have been since the trailer had just been downloaded onto the internet earlier that day. (I think--I could be wrong.)

But the armed attack was preplanned. Why? Because post-imperialist invasion Libya has seen tons of fallout between the various unsavory factions that made up the "Benghazi rebels" with violence breaking out at least every month.

And seeing as how the United States was actively colluding with Qaddafi post-9/11 to torture Islamic fundamentalists (see: here), I'm guessing some of those fundies are still holding grudges.

[Sharoth]

thejeff wrote:

Sharoth wrote:

thejeff wrote:

the David wrote:

I'm not sure how much of this is true, but apparently people who live in countries that don't have freedom of the press may have a hard time understanding that there are countries that do have freedom of the press. Which is one of the explanations why these things happen.

This means that such a movie could never have been released in Libya.

That makes sense to me. Even more so, the assumption is that if a movie like that is made, it's made with the consent of the government. It's obvious that the American government approves or it would have banned the movie. That's how things work. Even if the government talks about freedom of speech, they don't really mean it.

HUH?!? ~confused look~ so freedom of speech is just the government's way of approving this load of crap?!? WTH?!?

As others have said, that's how it might look if you'd had no experience with actual freedom of speech.

~wipes my brow~ WHEW!!!!! You had me worried for a minute.

[Sharoth]

Freehold DM wrote:

Sharoth wrote:

Oh, I am not disagreeing that it is a load of bigoted CRAP. I just feel that a lot of places have a rather "biased" thought process. They can insult, berate, and demean us. But if we do the same to them... (and NO, it does NOT make it right to respond to negative actions with negative actions.)

If neither is right, then neither is right. This is one of the few issues in life where I feel there is only black and white. Trying to introduce greyscale will only make it sound like you want to be the party that has a biased thought process and can get up in arms at the drop of a hat while condemning others who do the same. Acting like a bigoted jerk who demeans others with their crap is just that, no matter who said what first.

Oh, I agree. It is not right for EITHER side to act that way. I just know that some people on BOTH sides have a do as I say, not as I do policy.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

At some point though I think there needs to be some responsibility for speech. I'm thinking of cases like the use of radio to incite genocide in Rwanda. While it certainly doesn't absolve the murderers, should those doing the incitement be able to wash their hands of any responsibility?

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right even here in the United States.

Shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie house for no reason.

Call a bomb threat on your local DMV.

IF you're caught you're still liable for the consequences of such speech and you will be prosecuted.

In cases like this movie, one can't pretend ignorance or remain oblivious to one's actions when you KNOW that publications like this have incited violence in the past. The people you put at risk had no say in the production you put out, and it's moral cowardice to have someone else take the fall for antics like this.

Were the riots pre-planned? That's irrelevant. This movie provided a pretext, and it's known that things like this are seen as a deliberate attack on a subject held very closely to a culture which does not embrace diversity. The production of this movie is an act of a coward pretending to be the opposite.

I think I agree with everything you say there, but I'm not sure if you're saying he did anything criminal

[Evil Lincoln]

Right, but even allowed free speech, one must still endure trial by the jury of public opinion. I'm sitting on that jury!

[Kirth Gersen]

If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, a lot of the branches have been awful lax about circulating that memo. Indeed, many of the senior clerics seem to have missed it entirely. :(

[Evil Lincoln]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, a lot of the branches have been awful lax about circulating that memo. Indeed, many of the senior clerics seem to have missed it entirely. :(

<Dracula> Perhaps the same can be said of all religions... </Dracula>

[Kirth Gersen]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

The same can be said of all religions...

True enough; it's just a matter of how many of the adherents actually follow their respective books' nastier injunctions. I don't know of any Jews who still stone their children for disobedience, for example, but the same is sadly not true of many Muslims stoning their daughters for adultery. One day the number will be near-zero, but they're not there yet.

[Evil Lincoln]

I can think of plenty of americans I've seen first hand who are still abiding by Urban II's memo.

[Kirth Gersen]

You mean his sermon at the Council of Clermont, starting the 1st Crusade? Yeah, sadly, you seem to be dead-on on that one.

Spoiler:

Or do you mean his edicts against simony, vis-a-vis rich televangelists? That might work, too.

[Sharoth]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I can think of plenty of americans I've seen first hand who are still abiding by Urban II's memo.

What memo was that?

[Evil Lincoln]

Sharoth wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

I can think of plenty of americans I've seen first hand who are still abiding by Urban II's memo.

What memo was that?

Clermont. Kirth has it.

[Emperor7]

So, the POTUS won't go to Arlington on Memorial Day but he'll gather top officials to go to the airport when the bodies of those slain in Libya are returned home? Both deserve respect.

[Freehold DM]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Evil Lincoln wrote:

The same can be said of all religions...

True enough; it's just a matter of how many of the adherents actually follow their respective books' nastier injunctions. I don't know of any Jews who still stone their children for disobedience, for example, but the same is sadly not true of many Muslims stoning their daughters for adultery. One day the number will be near-zero, but they're not there yet.

There's a lot of stuff Jews don't discuss with people outside of the religion. There's a website that circulates information regarding child abuse within the religion, as well as people who have issues with some type of funky arranged marriage within the religion. I was following a story about it on local news, I'll see if I hear more about it, and post here.

[Freehold DM]

Emperor7 wrote:

So, the POTUS won't go to Arlington on Memorial Day but he'll gather top officials to go to the airport when the bodies of those slain in Libya are returned home? Both deserve respect.

You do realize this is turning his response to a tragic event into a no win situation, yes? The president has done lots of things I don't agree with, but let's not turn his response to something horrible into something political.

[Emperor7]

Not turning it into a no win. It's that on its own.

Sadly ironic. Empahasis on sad. Genuine sadness.

[Kirth Gersen]

Freehold DM wrote:

There's a lot of stuff Jews don't discuss with people outside of the religion. There's a website that circulates information regarding child abuse within the religion, as well as people who have issues with some type of funky arranged marriage within the religion.

Dunno; my name's Goldman, and I was never abused as a kid. Then again, my mother was Catholic.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Um, Link?

[TriOmegaZero]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Dunno; my name's Goldman, and I was never abused as a kid. Then again, my mother was Catholic.

That explains why we had drinks together instead of me putting you in a gas chamber.

[Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll]

I was always led to believe that if your mother was Catholic, by the ancient Mosaic Law of the Vajayjay, you were, by definition, not Jewish.

[Hitdice]

If your birth mother is Jewish, you are, by the Ancient Law of the Vajayjay, Jewish from from birth. That is no reflection on those of us who convert to Judaism, or those of us who are born to a Jewish man who impregnated a shiksa.

[LazarX]

Freehold DM wrote:

Emperor7 wrote:

So, the POTUS won't go to Arlington on Memorial Day but he'll gather top officials to go to the airport when the bodies of those slain in Libya are returned home? Both deserve respect.

You do realize this is turning his response to a tragic event into a no win situation, yes? The president has done lots of things I don't agree with, but let's not turn his response to something horrible into something political.

That's the whole point of hardball politics DM. If your goal is to unseat the President, you not only will take any advantage you can get, you'll try to set up as many no-win scenarios as possible.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

Hitdice wrote:

If your birth mother is Jewish, you are, by the Ancient Law of the Vajayjay, Jewish from from birth. That is no reflection on those of us who convert to Judaism, or those of us who are born to a Jewish man who impregnated a shiksa.

I had a Jewish girlfriend in high school who used to denigrate her cousins who were born of a gentile mother as not really Jewish. Of course, she was the head of the local junior AIPAC chapter, and, at least at the time, a raving Zionist bigot.

But she loved to give head...

[LazarX]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, a lot of the branches have been awful lax about circulating that memo. Indeed, many of the senior clerics seem to have missed it entirely. :(

There isn't a religion on this planet, including Atheism, which doesn't have blood on it's hands.

[TriOmegaZero]

Ah yes, the 'atheism is a religion' card. Next up, 'atheism caused the Holocaust'.

[Curious]

LazarX wrote:

[

That's the whole point of hardball politics DM. If your goal is to unseat the President, you not only will take any advantage you can get, you'll try to set up as many no-win scenarios as possible.

Some things are more important than winning the next election, this is one of them. Anyone that does not get that has no business in the oval office.

[LazarX]

Curious wrote:

LazarX wrote:

[

That's the whole point of hardball politics DM. If your goal is to unseat the President, you not only will take any advantage you can get, you'll try to set up as many no-win scenarios as possible.

Some things are more important than winning the next election, this is one of them. Anyone that does not get that has no business in the oval office.

It's a very high minded sentiment. But in the end, what matters is who gets those electoral votes at the end of the day. Rommney will use Obama's non-appearance at Arlington as a claim that the President doesn't care about America's soldiers. IF he appeared at Arlington, Romney makes the claim that Obama isn't giving the embassy slain their due.

It was scummy for Bush to play the race card with Willie Norton, but it helped get him the election. In American politics it's winner takes all, the person who comes in second gets curb stomped.