|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 13 2012 05:17 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Bad video in Israel insulting your religion? KILL EVERYONE!!!!!!
Sometimes, I just think that the Middle East is too fucked up, that they, both as a civilization and a people, are too fucked up to let them bother us anymore. If they were just like Africa, where the only casualties were each other, then it wouldn't be so bad. Fanatical shitwads would kill fanatical shitwads and a few generations down the line humanity would be a cleaner, better species.
But this is just inexcusable.
At the very least, they could have targeted Israelis, if not the film maker himself (that doesn't sound too hard, does it? Targeting the people who actually did something?). Instead, like the idiotic pieces of shit that they can be, they take to the streets with guns and bombs and do what they do best: show why sometimes, tolerance is not an option.
Show why sometimes, mercy is not an option.
Show why sometimes, innocent until proven guilty is not an option.
Show why sometimes, we just need to clean up our world a little bit.
If only they had never come into possession of that oil.
Think of it for a second. 9/11 would most likely not have happened. We would not be there waging wars. They would not have the resources and weaponry that they do now, not even close. Countless lives would have been saved. They would have been isolated, as Africa is. All they have done with their new technology is kill each other, and us, more.
They would not matter if they did not have oil.
If only they didn't matter now. If only that was an option. Just having us leave them and their violence and insanity behind.
To those in the middle east who did not take to the streets, who abhor what your fellow countrymen have done: I salute you. You are a shining example of the human race, of why we can't march in their guns blazing, nukes roaring across the sky as the land is purged of life, both good and evil. You are among the greatest of our kind, and so, every time I shake with rage, every time I want to just end millions of lives and have both them and the troubles they cause removed from this earth, I am reminded: no benefit will ever outweigh the cost of what we would lose, and the price we would pay for our sins. Were you this angry when a crazy Chinese guy murdered those American tourists in China too? Why is that when an insane Middle Eastern person kills Americans, some people are ready to nuke 300 million people to punish a much smaller segment of the population?
Because you're comparing one person killing Americans to a mob killing Americans.
|
Maybe I'm overboard on calling treason -- and it certainly isn't going to happen.
It just bothers me that this guy admits to making a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim film that he strongly suspects will result in violence, and Americans, who're supposed to be of a secular government, are the ones to die for it. Something is very, very, very wrong with this picture. Crap like this actually makes me want Ron Paul for President. When are we going to stop caring about this dastardly corner of the world? How much do we have to pay Israel before we can say, "It's on you now, take care of your own selves, we're done and we're going to tell everyone that."
|
Terrible ordeal, that man did not deserve to die.
Hopefully the moderate muslims see this as an opportunity to put the extremists in their rightful place(Jail).
|
On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:16 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:11 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 05:06 Zaqwert wrote:On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote:
This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does. The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays. And thank goodness for it. Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have? Our government does it all the time. You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent. Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans. Well the KKK is a special case. They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization. The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it. They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Picture: KKK march in Washington DC.
+ Show Spoiler +
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
|
On September 13 2012 05:26 Leporello wrote:
Maybe I'm overboard on calling treason -- and it certainly isn't going to happen.
It just bothers me that this guy admits to making a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim film that he strongly suspects will result in violence, and Americans, who're supposed to be of a secular government, are the ones to die for it. Something is very, very, very wrong with this picture. Crap like this actually makes me want Ron Paul for President. When are we going to stop caring about this dastardly corner of the world? How much do we have to pay Israel before we can say, "It's on you now, take care of your own selves, we're done and we're going to tell everyone that."
Just wondering, who are you accusing of treason? The pastor that made the film? I don't think he did anything wrong at all. I haven't seen the film, I probably wouldn't agree with it, but I strongly support the rights of anyone to make any film with any message. That's what freedom of speech is really about.
I don't think this has anything to do with Israel. Even if we had no military presence in the Middle East we'd still have embassies. Obviously, given what has happened, we should NOT have an embassy in Libya again for at least 10 years. We should really just cut off all relations with that country.
|
On September 13 2012 05:25 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:17 Sub40APM wrote:On September 13 2012 05:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
Bad video in Israel insulting your religion? KILL EVERYONE!!!!!!
Sometimes, I just think that the Middle East is too fucked up, that they, both as a civilization and a people, are too fucked up to let them bother us anymore. If they were just like Africa, where the only casualties were each other, then it wouldn't be so bad. Fanatical shitwads would kill fanatical shitwads and a few generations down the line humanity would be a cleaner, better species.
But this is just inexcusable.
At the very least, they could have targeted Israelis, if not the film maker himself (that doesn't sound too hard, does it? Targeting the people who actually did something?). Instead, like the idiotic pieces of shit that they can be, they take to the streets with guns and bombs and do what they do best: show why sometimes, tolerance is not an option.
Show why sometimes, mercy is not an option.
Show why sometimes, innocent until proven guilty is not an option.
Show why sometimes, we just need to clean up our world a little bit.
If only they had never come into possession of that oil.
Think of it for a second. 9/11 would most likely not have happened. We would not be there waging wars. They would not have the resources and weaponry that they do now, not even close. Countless lives would have been saved. They would have been isolated, as Africa is. All they have done with their new technology is kill each other, and us, more.
They would not matter if they did not have oil.
If only they didn't matter now. If only that was an option. Just having us leave them and their violence and insanity behind.
To those in the middle east who did not take to the streets, who abhor what your fellow countrymen have done: I salute you. You are a shining example of the human race, of why we can't march in their guns blazing, nukes roaring across the sky as the land is purged of life, both good and evil. You are among the greatest of our kind, and so, every time I shake with rage, every time I want to just end millions of lives and have both them and the troubles they cause removed from this earth, I am reminded: no benefit will ever outweigh the cost of what we would lose, and the price we would pay for our sins. Were you this angry when a crazy Chinese guy murdered those American tourists in China too? Why is that when an insane Middle Eastern person kills Americans, some people are ready to nuke 300 million people to punish a much smaller segment of the population? Because you're comparing one person killing Americans to a mob killing Americans.
It was not a mob, it was a terrorist group who inflitrated the protest. When the protesters arrived at the scene, Libyan security moved the staff to a "safe" location, which was then targeted with RPG-7s.
But lets rephrase my question, if 4-5 crazy Chinese guys killed some Americas would you also call for the nuclear bombardment of all of China?
|
On September 13 2012 05:27 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 13 2012 05:16 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:11 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 05:06 Zaqwert wrote:On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote:
This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does. The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays. And thank goodness for it. Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have? Our government does it all the time. You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent. Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans. Well the KKK is a special case. They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization. The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it. They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech. Well, think about it for a second. It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric, Picture: KKK march in Washington DC. + Show Spoiler +Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
I actually think the modern KKK could do that because it's not affiliated with the former criminal organization.
http://www.kkk.com/
Same name, same ideas, but they don't actually do anything illegal.
|
On September 13 2012 05:30 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:27 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 13 2012 05:16 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:11 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 05:06 Zaqwert wrote:On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote:
This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does. The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays. And thank goodness for it. Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have? Our government does it all the time. You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent. Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans. Well the KKK is a special case. They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization. The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it. They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech. Well, think about it for a second. It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric, Picture: KKK march in Washington DC. + Show Spoiler +Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence. I actually think the modern KKK could do that because it's not affiliated with the former criminal organization. http://www.kkk.com/Same name, same ideas, but they don't actually do anything illegal.
I don't think so at all.
I think the moment they showed up in force the police would break it up, but now we're arguing what ifs. I've already made my point. Organizations can forfeit some or all of their right to speak freely.
|
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
|
On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote:
Hell, I'll say it again. I'm better than those who kill innocent people. I don't know why anyone would consider that a controversial statement.
The western powers have killed a lot of innocent people too, to deny this is fanatism or outright blindness. The point is, of what I was trying to say: it is perfectly right for you to call murderers of civilians a wicked group of people, I agree they should pay for what they did.
Now when you believe that you are superior to a whole group of people for some petty difference like religion and culture, and that's what a lot of people feel when they insult muslims, then you are just childish and being childish is bad as much as it is for society to spread those values around. It's what happened because 40-50 years ago nobody had such a hate for muslims, now with propaganda they are the enemy, exactly what communists used to be.
|
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
we (and the rest of NATO) never should have bombed them in the first place. We did, and look how the country has ended up. This pastor has been doing this type of stuff for years, but this is the first time an ambassador was killed over it. Back when Gaddafi was in charge, the US embassy in Libya was fine. And I think that's what Obama's priority should always be, protecting citizens of HIS country.
On September 13 2012 05:35 Nevermind86 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote:
Hell, I'll say it again. I'm better than those who kill innocent people. I don't know why anyone would consider that a controversial statement. The western powers have killed a lot of innocent people too, to deny this is fanatism or outright blindness. The point is, of what I was trying to say: it is perfectly right for you to call murderers of civilians a wicked group of people, I agree they should pay for what they did. Now when you believe that you are superior to a whole group of people for some petty difference like religion and culture, and that's what a lot of people feel when they insult muslims, then you are just childish and being childish is bad as much as it is for society to spread those values around. It's what happened because 40-50 years ago nobody had such a hate for muslims, now with propaganda they are the enemy, exactly what communists used to be.
I agree that western powers have killed lots of innocents, and I am extremely angry because of that. I support an isolationist foreign policy. I had nothing to do with any of those innocent people who were killed, so my statement still stands.
And I haven't seen any posts in this thread where someone has claimed to be superior to a group of people solely based off petty differences like religion or culture. Maybe a few troll posts, but I just ignore those.
|
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
I feel that would mostly play into the hands of the people that did this.
|
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
|
It's time to just pull out. Let the Middle East handle their own problems. The US does not need to be baby sitting every corner of the world.
|
Disgusting to see that people had to be killed over something as trivial and childish as that ridiculous movie.
|
On September 13 2012 05:38 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents? The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
|
it's a real shame. my condolences to the innocents who get caught in the crossfire between our idiots and their idiots.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
don't be stupid, this is not Libya attacking America. this is a bunch of nutjobs who killed both Libyans and Americans.
|
On September 13 2012 05:50 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:38 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote:
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that. How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents? The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party. I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic. So...the already weak democratic government of Libya should be undermined further to the benefit of the terrorists that seek to overthrow it because the weak Libyan government's security forces are yet not competent enough to secure consulates? Makes sense.
|
On September 13 2012 05:27 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote:On September 13 2012 05:16 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 13 2012 05:11 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2012 05:06 Zaqwert wrote:On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote:
This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does. The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays. And thank goodness for it. Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have? Our government does it all the time. You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent. Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans. Well the KKK is a special case. They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization. The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it. They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech. Well, think about it for a second. It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric, Picture: KKK march in Washington DC. + Show Spoiler +Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
Yea...you're wrong. Is it likely that we will ever see a large KKK march again? No. Is it legal? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
|
I wonder if any of the Libyan mob were killed in the attack? I hope that at least those killed at the embassy were at least able to try to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://carmelimani.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-washington-dc-1.jpg)
