On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote: Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
But seriously, there comes a point where you're just abusing the right. People should think of the consequences of their actions. I have the right to call you a scumbag pedophile or something, and if you punch me I'm not exactly blameless. If you kick a dog and it bites, does the fault lie with you or the dog?
On September 13 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't get too caught up in the film/free speech issues. It's looking more and more like there are other predominant instigators.
Yeah. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
What's the line between free speech and purposefully inciting violence? Because it seems weirdly convenient that someone would produce hate propaganda and the next day guys with rocket launchers show up.
You know who Romney reminds me of? A NASL hater on TL during their first season. Remember when people insisted that NASL was going out of business when InControl left, and that the NASL was some kind of bullshit money-making scam that wasn't going to pay out its prize money?
On September 13 2012 07:41 xDaunt wrote: I wouldn't get too caught up in the film/free speech issues. It's looking more and more like there are other predominant instigators.
Yeah. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
What's the line between free speech and purposefully inciting violence? Because it seems weirdly convenient that someone would produce hate propaganda and the next day guys with rocket launchers show up.
The bar on when speech becomes potentially unlawful due to inciting violence is pretty high. Constitutionally, the State can only limit speech that is "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Keep in mind that there has to be a Constitutional law already in place that is applicable.
On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote: Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
But seriously, there comes a point where you're just abusing the right. People should think of the consequences of their actions. I have the right to call you a scumbag pedophile or something, and if you punch me I'm not exactly blameless. If you kick a dog and it bites, does the fault lie with you or the dog?
how can any talking justify violence in return?
Not to mention kiling some other people, that are barely related.
No emotions that you get from hearing people speaking justify physical violence. Othervise, you can just kill any person, pretending that they said something, that made you furious and justified kiling them.
On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote: Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
On September 13 2012 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote: And really Romney? Apologizing for our values? What value? The value to insult another culture? Pathetic.
free speech is an American value...
Free speech gives you the "right" to say what you want, but to use it to completely shit on the beliefs of 1.2 billion Muslims is a nono.
And where do you draw the line of what is a "nono"?
It is not working like that. Muslims should learn better, than to take any idiot seriously. The agressive attitude, that is trying to limit and denounce anything somebody doesn`t like, with violence, if needed, is the problem of some Muslims, and they need to work it out.
On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote: Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
But seriously, there comes a point where you're just abusing the right. People should think of the consequences of their actions. I have the right to call you a scumbag pedophile or something, and if you punch me I'm not exactly blameless. If you kick a dog and it bites, does the fault lie with you or the dog?
how can any talking justify violence in return?
Not to mention kiling some other people, that are barely related.
No emotions that you get from hearing people speaking justify physical violence. Othervise, you can just kill any person, pretending that they said something, that made you furious and justified kiling them.
I never said that killing or violence was okay-- I don't understand why people just automatically assume that, and frankly, its a terrible leap of logic.
The point is, don't do things without thinking of the consequences of the actions. That includes insulting or otherwise provoking someone. Yes, violence is not right, but if you deeply insult someone and get they violent can you really say that you're blameless? Please, get off your high horse. This kind of stuff happens all the time. We're not even getting into mob mentality, or the increasing possibility that this was a planned attack.
When people are angry, they lash out. Let's say that there's a guy who is in a shitty mood for whatever reason. He goes home and takes it out on his family? Is it right? No. Does it happen? Yes.
On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote: Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
But seriously, there comes a point where you're just abusing the right. People should think of the consequences of their actions. I have the right to call you a scumbag pedophile or something, and if you punch me I'm not exactly blameless. If you kick a dog and it bites, does the fault lie with you or the dog?
how can any talking justify violence in return?
Not to mention kiling some other people, that are barely related.
No emotions that you get from hearing people speaking justify physical violence. Othervise, you can just kill any person, pretending that they said something, that made you furious and justified kiling them.
On September 13 2012 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote: And really Romney? Apologizing for our values? What value? The value to insult another culture? Pathetic.
free speech is an American value...
Free speech gives you the "right" to say what you want, but to use it to completely shit on the beliefs of 1.2 billion Muslims is a nono.
And where do you draw the line of what is a "nono"?
If you insult my mother repeatedly in front of my face after I've asked you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and throw a bunch of n-bombs at blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
The line is crossed when the perpetrator repeatedly and knowingly does it to offend and illicit action from you.
But I agree with Defacer and the others. Murder is taking it way too far.
It is not working like that. Muslims should learn better, than to take any idiot seriously. The agressive attitude, that is trying to limit and denounce anything somebody doesn`t like, with violence, if needed, is the problem of some Muslims, and they need to work it out.
You mean, the same stuff the U.S. has done since the Cold War? What, do people honestly think this Muslim hatred towards the U.S. just erupted out of a vacuum or something?
On September 13 2012 07:34 Defacer wrote: Americans have the right to say whatever they want, even if it is offensive.
Egyptians have the right to be offended, and US diplomats have the right to denounce bigotry.
Lybian extremists don't have the right to use their offense as an excuse to storm a building and kill 4 people.
But seriously, there comes a point where you're just abusing the right. People should think of the consequences of their actions. I have the right to call you a scumbag pedophile or something, and if you punch me I'm not exactly blameless. If you kick a dog and it bites, does the fault lie with you or the dog?
how can any talking justify violence in return?
Not to mention kiling some other people, that are barely related.
No emotions that you get from hearing people speaking justify physical violence. Othervise, you can just kill any person, pretending that they said something, that made you furious and justified kiling them.
I never said that killing or violence was okay-- I don't understand why people just automatically assume that, and frankly, its a terrible leap of logic.
The point is, don't do things without thinking of the consequences of the actions. That includes insulting or otherwise provoking someone. Yes, violence is not right, but if you deeply insult someone and get they violent can you really say that you're blameless? Please, get off your high horse. This kind of stuff happens all the time. We're not even getting into mob mentality, or the increasing possibility that this was a planned attack.
When people are angry, they lash out. Let's say that there's a guy who is in a shitty mood for whatever reason. He goes home and takes it out on his family? Is it right? No. Does it happen? Yes.
What you're saying is also a terrible leap of logic. This all depends on what offends you- and how much. If you say some vulgar and hateful things about my mother, for example, and I get angry enough to hit you, I guess you wouldn't be blameless right? What if you express your dislike of Pink Floyd, and I'm such a huge Pink Floyd fan I get angry and attack you? Seems like a ridiculous thing to get violent about.
You can't let how crazy someone is dictate what you're allowed to say or do. This is the same crap with muslim extremists killing people over cartoons. The problem isn't with whats being said, its with why people feel the need to kill over whats been said. And more often than not, like in this case, the people harmed have absolutely nothing to do with what made the people angry in the first place.
You cannot placate someone by telling them that as long as they are willing to get violent, you'll do whatever they want.
Freedom of speech is not around to protect the guy who says ice cream is awesome, or someone who wants to talk about how beautiful sunny days are. Freedom of speech is here to protect the unpopular opinions, so that the feelings of a majority, or the violent tendencies of some crazies, can't silence someone who wants to speak.
It seems funny to have to say this here, but words cannot fucking hurt you. You don't have a right to not be offended, and violence is never a proper response to words.
On September 13 2012 00:15 ticklishmusic wrote: And really Romney? Apologizing for our values? What value? The value to insult another culture? Pathetic.
free speech is an American value...
Free speech gives you the "right" to say what you want, but to use it to completely shit on the beliefs of 1.2 billion Muslims is a nono.
A nono? Maybe in your opinion. It doesn't make what the pastor did legally wrong.
Oh there's no doubt the guys who made that movie did a "nono". Those guys are big giant douchebags, people need to call them on it, and they need to be publicly ridiculed and shamed.
Those Libyan guys shooting people are still fucking assholes, though.
On September 13 2012 08:55 BallinWitStalin wrote: Oh there's no doubt the guys who made that movie did a "nono". Those guys are big giant douchebags, people need to call them on it, and they need to be publicly ridiculed and shamed.
Those Libyan guys shooting people are still fucking assholes, though.
Those types of people like the pastor already get regular death threats. There's nothing we can (or should) do about it.
On September 13 2012 08:55 BallinWitStalin wrote: Oh there's no doubt the guys who made that movie did a "nono". Those guys are big giant douchebags, people need to call them on it, and they need to be publicly ridiculed and shamed.
Those Libyan guys shooting people are still fucking assholes, though.
Those types of people like the pastor already get regular death threats. There's nothing we can (or should) do about it.
Publicly condemning them (as Obama and Clinton have) is a good start. Legally, you're right, we can't and shouldn't do anything.
I've seen this pastor before, wasn't he the one that protested the mosque being built near ground zero of the WTC?
In any case, as unlikely an ally as I would be with the guy, I will always stand on the side of liberty and freedoms of expression, no matter how much I disagree with what is said.
It's like the Olympians that were banned for things they tweeted- the excuse was that they are representing their country, but what does that say about that country if they ban them for expressing their thoughts?
What was that quote? "I might disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it"...?
On September 13 2012 09:00 Voltaire wrote: Those types of people like the pastor already get regular death threats. There's nothing we can (or should) do about it.
We could exercise our freedom of expression and publicly state his home address, working hours, and frequently solicited locations, then paint his head in the middle of a giant red crosshair in the middle of this hypothetical bulletin.
But something tells me that he wouldn't like that sort of freedom of speech.
I actually agree with the whole freedom of speech thing, especially the kind of speech that I feel would incite wrongful anger and violence. I'd even agree with the above scenario. But I wish people would think for five seconds before they speak. So to speak.
I would much rather expressions of hatred are discussed rather than be pent up and suppressed- turning into terrible violence. If we can get past politically correct sensitivities, we have a much better chance of addressing misguided hatred with rational discussion.
On another topic, I get to see an effect of public policy in action- tow truck just arrived to take away a dead USPS vehicle in front of my house lol.
On September 13 2012 09:00 Voltaire wrote: Those types of people like the pastor already get regular death threats. There's nothing we can (or should) do about it.
We could exercise our freedom of expression and publicly state his home address, working hours, and frequently solicited locations, then paint his head in the middle of a giant red crosshair in the middle of this hypothetical bulletin.
But something tells me that he wouldn't like that sort of freedom of speech.
I actually agree with the whole freedom of speech thing, especially the kind of speech that I feel would incite wrongful anger and violence. I'd even agree with the above scenario. But I wish people would think for five seconds before they speak. So to speak.
You're right, he wouldn't like it. Not my problem. I'm sure this guy keeps a very low profile IRL, though. Otherwise there's a good chance he'd already have been killed.
It's looking increasingly likely that the protest was instigated in order to provide a diversion for a planned terrorist attack.
A little-known Islamist group has been blamed for the attack on the US consulate in the city of Benghazi.
The attack led to the death of the US ambassador to Libya, J Christopher Stevens, and three other US officials.
Libya's deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, named Ansar al-Sharia as the perpetrators.
The group apparently took advantage of a demonstration against a trailer for a controversial American film, Innocence of Muslims.
Although the trailer has been around for a year, an Arabic version was recently uploaded to the internet.
According to accounts, a group of people were demonstrating outside the US consulate on Tuesday when they were joined by members of an Islamist group in pickup trucks.
The number of fighters was reported to be anything from as many as 80 to as few as 20.
"The Libyan government provides security to all diplomatic missions in the country but I don't think they were prepared for an attack like this," said Mr Jibril.
"The Libyan security services did not have the ability to counter these people."
'Lacking experience' A Libyan reporter in Benghazi, Osama al-Fitri, told the BBC World Service he had seen militiamen armed with AK47 assault rifles and 14.5mm anti-aircraft machine guns.
Other eyewitnesses spoke of seeing rocket-propelled grenades.
Messages were daubed on the walls of the consulate in Benghazi The attackers were keen to hide their identities. Al-Fitri said one threatened to shoot him unless he turned off his camera.
The attackers raised the black flag - a Jihadi symbol - over the US consulate.
According to Libya expert, George Joffe, Ansar al-Sharia is one of several Islamist groups active in Cyrenaica, or eastern Libya.
Although its members are most probably Libyan, and the group emerged from the armed Islamist opposition to Col Muammar Gaddafi, Ansar al-Sharia also has links to foreign groups. Last year, without success, it attempted to set up an Islamic state in the eastern part of the country.
They are a relatively new group to Libya and, seemingly, lack battlefield experience.
"They were not known [in] Libya before the revolution. We had the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, we had the Muslim Brotherhood, we had Salafists but this group we did not hear about until recently, until after the revolution started," said Mr Jibril.
Ansar al-Sharia is blamed for crimes committed in eastern Libya. "The group has carried out several terrorist attacks within the last few weeks and also the killing of some Libyan officials, especially in Benghazi," said Mr Jibril.
However, with the current confused situation in eastern Libya, pinning the blame on any single group will be difficult.
Precision attack Although the attack on the US consulate has been linked to the US film, Libya experts have also suggested a different reason.
Rooms of the consulate were completely gutted in the attack "This was a precision attack," said Mr Joffe. "One that would have required a degree of planning. It may well have been inspired by the call by al-Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri to avenge the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi."
Al-Libi was a Libyan-born al-Qaeda commander killed in June by a US drone strike in the North Waziristan-Afghan borderlands.
It is difficult to know exactly who carried out the consulate attack but there are plenty of people in eastern Libya with the will, equipment and battlefield experience to carry out an operation of this kind.
Ahmad Jibril also suggests that the Islamist groups now operating in Libya enjoy the protection of elements of the state.
"Libya's Supreme Security Committee has some elements from these groups. So sometimes there is a conflict inside the institutions, inside the Security Committee in Libya, when these groups have the upper hand in some cities. Unfortunately, I think Benghazi is one of those cities."
The success of this attack shows there is a serious security vacuum in Libya.
"That is a fact, not just speculation," says Mr Jibril. "This is the tip of the iceberg of the very many serious challenges that the Libyan government is facing at the moment."
Mr Jibril says it is vital for the Libyan government to re-establish control of security in eastern Libya by facing up to groups such as Ansar al-Sharia.
However, it cannot be taken for granted that Libya can defeat them. He suggest international assistance may be necessary.
And he has a warning for those who would avoid the fight.
"If the government does not take the necessary steps to encounter these challenges, then I think we are heading towards disaster."
EPT
