|
Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion. -semioldguy |
On September 13 2012 13:57 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 13:53 Voltaire wrote:On September 13 2012 13:51 Wombat_NI wrote:On September 13 2012 06:01 remedium wrote: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. 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 There's enshrined legality in doing these kind of things, but equally law enforcement and the likes stop have de facto powers in stopping such rallies if they feel it affects public order. Just look at how some of the Occupy protests were treated when they were going on. Sad event, sad we're having yet another discussion after another one of these shitstorms again. Fucking ridiculous people. The reason the occupy protests were shut down were because they were either: 1) Occupying someone else's land for an indefinite period of time. The parks belonged to the city, so the city had a right to not allow people to camp there indefinitely. Plenty of warnings were given before people were arrested/tents taken down. 2) They blocked traffic. Something like 500 people were arrested for blocking the Brooklyn bridge, but that's only because they were blocking a vital transportation route that NYC really depends on. Those were the two main ones, covered the most and yes those examples are correct. I've heard plenty of stories of both non-invasive protests, and individual protestors being broken up/arrested and what have you. Alas none of my sources over here given that I'm at my girlfriend's place 
Yeah I was just thinking about the ones in NYC. I don't know about what went on at the hundreds of other rallies across the country.
|
For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
|
Northern Ireland25257 Posts
Also is the offending movie the one listed in the OP with the Youtube embed? How in the name of Zeus himself did that piece of shit cost five million dollars to make?
|
Good god this video has the production value of a kindergarten crayon drawing. People really shouldn't get pissed off over this. If anyone's going to be angry, it should be the idiots who paid to produce this.
Would be kind of funny if the film cost like 500k then he took the rest and went into hiding.
|
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote:
For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
My guess is that they thought the story would 'incite racial hatred' from right-wingers or something.
|
|
|
On September 13 2012 14:09 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
Good god this video has the production value of a kindergarten crayon drawing. People really shouldn't get pissed off over this. If anyone's going to be angry, it should be the idiots who paid to produce this.
Would be kind of funny if the film cost like 500k then he took the rest and went into hiding.
man + X = Islamic terrorist
that is some serious math right there!
|
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote:
For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
Do you think it's the Swedish government or just media corporations trying not to give themselves a bad image? I hope it's the latter.
|
On September 13 2012 13:57 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 13:53 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 13:41 screamingpalm wrote:On September 13 2012 13:34 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 13:27 Sadist wrote:On September 13 2012 13:24 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote:
I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right? let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions. The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing. Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\ I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion: let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions. First, who says anyone has to participate in these demonstrations? Second, isn't it better to allow an open expression of thought and address it with rational discussion rather than suppress and silence it and have it boil over into violence? The true test of a free society is when our principles are challenged, not cherry picked in politically correct easier times. re your first point: I think you misunderstood why I'm talking about this analogy, so I'll just ask you to reread the page. if that doesn't clear things up, feel free to bring it up again. second: yes, it is. I don't think that was the cause of the Libyan attack, though. (afaik their religious views weren't being suppressed here) Sorry, I see I addressed the wrong comment. 
no problem. =]
On September 13 2012 13:59 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 13:34 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 13:27 Sadist wrote:On September 13 2012 13:24 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote:
I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right? let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions. The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing. Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\ I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion: let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions. Not the same. Note how people can actually mock Jews with cartoons and movies and they don't protest worldwide and murder ambassadors for it.
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
|
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote:
For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
Wow, seriously? What is the motivation for the censorship? Has sweden become so liberal that they even want to surpress truth now?
|
On September 13 2012 14:19 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote:
For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site. Wow, seriously? What is the motivation for the censorship? Has sweden become so liberal that they even want to surpress truth now?
They've become so liberal that they're conservative.
edit: I should also add that I might have been wrong about this not being partially planned ahead, Sean Smith apparently noticed one of the "guards" that was supposed to be protecting them taking photos of the compound earlier:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/diplomat-killed-in-libya-to-fellow-gamers-assuming-dont-die-tonight/#ixzz26Job8SEx
|
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
|
On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
|
On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
|
On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
You already cant shout fire in a crowded theatre as the classic example of limited speach and if you are making something, fully aware that people will die because of it, then you are no better than the first example.
|
On September 13 2012 14:56 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you. Then we clash, don't we? Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech. When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries? Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church? People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts: "Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!" Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
edit: also, if you haven't read the previous page, please do that. just to head off any potential misunderstanding.
|
On September 13 2012 14:47 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 14:36 fluidin wrote:On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote:
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi" Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it. by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
After a certain point, they have no choice but to grow that thicker skin. Or WW3 will happen. And I doubt they're stupid enough to let that happen. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, man.
I'm saying that there needs to be a change of views from their side, and I'm not sure the optimal way to go about it, with my example as something I put out there while I wonder about its feasibility.
|
It's interesting watching CNN. They're talking about how some of the actors in the movie weren't aware that the movie was about shitting on the Prophet Mohammed.
|
Don't expect a massive special forces raid more than likely things will quiet down on the media side of things and the US will do what it does best.
The US has bases all over the world including the middle east and if one has the chance to visit one of these areas you will notice some persons that frequent the bases are not in uniform yet tend to rest and "relax" on these sites, they wear civilian clothes and are almost always clean shaven. When asked what they do they tend to be described as civilian contractors i.e Engineers, Electricians etc. They are always ex military. They are mercenaries.
The Militants are more than likely already identified or the ring leaders are close to being found out. Make no mistake fellow citizens will identify them especially when it comes to monetary help. Very slowly but like clock work people will start to disappear or "arrests" will be made yet no further information than that.
|
I cannot believe any group of humans would do something this violent, senseless and destructive over a fucking video. I can't believe someone would make a cartoon with the implicit hope that such senseless violence would occur. IMO, the people that made the video are almost as bad as the islamists who reacted to it. Both of them showed no regard at all for the lives of innocents - of, in fact, dedicated and brave individuals trying to make a positive difference in a country not even their own. Ultimately the blame is with the killers though; How do you get to a point where you just don't give a shit and start blasting away at people who are essentially trying to help you and your country. It's sickening, and while I don't blame islam, i have just gained a renewed appreciation for the plague that is Islamic extremism. I really hope the Libyan people can find a way to expunge these terrorists from their soil and their state. I also would like to give a great big fuck you to the producers of that anti Islam film for choosing to spread their message in the most inflammatory, "let's see how many deaths we can indirectly cause" manner possible, while operating from the relative safety of US soil.
Of all the things a Libyan person might care about right now, they choose to go on a rampage over a video...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://carmelimani.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-washington-dc-1.jpg)
