Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[ToastiestZombie]

I don't see a peaceful end to this scenario, shy of finding the guy responsible for the flick and expiditing him to the middle east to face judgement.

You do know that that will mean a very painful death for the guy? That community isn't going to simply let him off or give him a prison sentence. They will most likely kill the man, just like they murdered the embassy worker and more today. And someone should never be killed for making a film, no matter how offensive or hateful it is. It would also pretty much be giving into terrorists, saying that if they kill enough of our people they'll get the shit they want.

 

[runic knight]

I've heard that some of the protests are actually of Muslims protesting the violence itself. Seems likely enough, protesting is a popular way to get public opinions out in the air over in the middle east. But nto the topic on hand.

Obama hasn't apologized for the video. From what I saw and read, it was something to the effect of saying it doesn't represent the views of the nation (which, it most certainly doesn't), and that the violence is an unacceptable reaction. Then there was Clinton's words to the mix, Clinton being Obama's Sec. of State and all, it does kinda tie in. Her words being something to the effect of "If you have to be violent, you obviously don't have a lot of faith in your own beliefs and are pussies." But that is just interpretation of what she said there. Still, the end result looks more an attempt to point shit out rationally, try to push the idea that one asshole with a video does not equal opinion of entire nation and that violence is bad, m'kay? Doesn't seem much like an apology, more like a statement of common sense that shouldn't have needed to be said in the first place but is required because of the ole the president has in the nation as public cheerleader of sorts.


As for the attacks being planned beforehand, that does add up. We don't know for sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, as it makes sense in and of itself and the timing matches.

 

[Dangit2019]

Anyway, all of this is rather excessive over a film is it not?

And a non-existent/unspecified one at that. When Phillip de Franco (yes I watch his videos, no I'm not a tween girl) talked about the US raiding, someone tweeted to him (I don't have the exact tweet in front of me):

"How would you feel if someone overseas made a movie mocking your precious Jesus?"

Which is an interesting question, but is deemed moot once you realize that AMERICANS HAVE MADE MOVIES MOCKING JESUS.

OT: This is sad. All that's going to happen now is American Muslims getting hated because people who have the same skin color as them overseas are busy doing stupid violent shit. Damn, I hate extremists.

 

[JeffBergGold]

Part of "freedom of speech" also guarantees that no physical harm will come to the speaker.

Since when? This is news to me. I'd really like you to site a reputable source for this one because I'm genuinely curious as to where this is stated in the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Punching someone in the face after they have said something you dislike very much abridges and prohibits that person's free speech.

Killing someone? Why yes, that, too, prohibits one's speech, oddly enough.

You have a source for that? The text you've referenced doesn't allude towards freedom of speech prohibiting people reacting to said speech.

You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

P.S. You won't find any such statement in the amendment. Because freedom of speech does not grant a person invulnerability. I'm sorry to be the one to bring this news to you.

It's kinda like elementary physics. "Every action has an equal or greater reaction." If no one has informed you speech is an action.

I don't see a peaceful end to this scenario, shy of finding the guy responsible for the flick and expiditing him to the middle east to face judgement.

You do know that that will mean a very painful death for the guy? That community isn't going to simply let him off or give him a prison sentence. They will most likely kill the man, just like they murdered the embassy worker and more today. And someone should never be killed for making a film, no matter how offensive or hateful it is. It would also pretty much be giving into terrorists, saying that if they kill enough of our people they'll get the shit they want.

So are you implying that this idiots life is more valuable than:

The military personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The embassy personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The civilians who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The property damage caused by his movie
The potential political unrest in countries caused by his movie

If you are I can assure you that the guy who made the movies life is not worth that much. I'd much rather save the lives of a few Marines and ambassadors than protect this idiot.

That said, if any one side is in the wrong here I don't think it's the filmmakers, as onerous as they may be. A nonviolent insult, no matter how cheap (both literally and figuratively), does not warrant a violent response.

I'd label the movie as violent it all depends on how you quantify violence. Violence extends beyond physical manifestations, He created a violent movie and got a violent response. Violence is violence no matter how you slice it. I don't give physical violence more weight than any other violence.

 

[Jadak]

I just feel horrible for the innocent Muslims over there. Their entire religion and population is demonized due to the actions of some radicals. Do these radicals even understand that they are only making us hate their people more? It baffles me.

lol, this made me laugh. Are the people in angry, violent mobs the non-radicals, then? People are hateful thanks to the actions of radicals, and ignorant thought it might be, are expressing it via media, a peaceful approach, which is being met by protests, violence, and the exact sort of radical aggression in defense of their religious outlooks that creates the hate in the first place.

Good job, muslim world.

(disclaimer: I skimmed the articles, possible I may have serious misread what is going on)

 

[JeffBergGold]

You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

However they want? Not at all. For instance killing people isn't within their rights.

In their religion it is within their rights.

 

[JeffBergGold]

You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

However they want? Not at all. For instance killing people isn't within their rights.

In their religion it is within their rights.

Not at all relevant to freedom of speech in the US. Obviously they lack freedom of speech in their religion.

Then it is a good thing this event isn't taking place in the United States isn't it!

 

[JeffBergGold]

You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

However they want? Not at all. For instance killing people isn't within their rights.

In their religion it is within their rights.

Not at all relevant to freedom of speech in the US. Obviously they lack freedom of speech in their religion.

Then it is a good thing this event isn't taking place in the United States isn't it!

It's kind of sad that you just can't admit you were wrong and try to change contexts when the conversation was about the amendment right then.

I was holding that discussion with a different forum member. You seem to be under the impression that you're awarded serious discussion from me.

 

[teqrevisited]

I always find it slightly amusing, but also a little sad, when extremist sects in those countries just fly into fits of rage at the drop of a hat. All credit to them, though. I'm sure they've dissuaded the filmmaker from doing it again, considering that the consequences for creating media in bad taste (merely an assumption, I've not seen the thing myself) is that they then proceed to burn and vandalize parts of their own country. That'll show him.

I feel sorry for all of the good people that get associated with them, though. It's a little bit like what western countries would be like if the majority of the religious population were followers of the Westboro Baptist Church. We'd all be made to look like intolerant dicks.

 

[JeffBergGold]

You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

However they want? Not at all. For instance killing people isn't within their rights.

In their religion it is within their rights.

Not at all relevant to freedom of speech in the US. Obviously they lack freedom of speech in their religion.

Then it is a good thing this event isn't taking place in the United States isn't it!

It's kind of sad that you just can't admit you were wrong and try to change contexts when the conversation was about the amendment right then.

I was holding that discussion with a different forum member. You seem to be under the impression that you're awarded serious discussion from me.

Yes, and I commented on your rather stupid statement. But of course, instead of being able to admit when you were wrong you hide behind a shield of saying you weren't serious. Man up.

What statement and by what metrics was it measured as stupid?

 

[Mouse One]

As for the attacks being planned beforehand, that does add up. We don't know for sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, as it makes sense in and of itself and the timing matches.

Completely agree. Keep in mind that a number of dictators (like Qaddafi) have just been ousted in that region, with tacit and not so tacit American support. The supporters of the old regimes are still around. But by using the shield of "We're defending Islam!", they can get their revenge on America while pretending to be a popular movement. I doubt (but wouldn't rule out) these elements were behind the actual production of the video. But they certainly saw an opportunity.

In Libya at least, America is viewed favorably by over half the population, according to a survey back in August: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/libyans-now-like-america-slightly-more-than-do-canadians/261078/ Again, we helped get rid of Qaddafi, who was pretty much hated by the end of his reign (and life).

Bottom line, there are a lot of different factions in these countries. Tarring them all with the same brush is misguided.

 

[JeffBergGold]

You're perfectly within your rights to say whatever you want. People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

However they want? Not at all. For instance killing people isn't within their rights.

In their religion it is within their rights.

Not at all relevant to freedom of speech in the US. Obviously they lack freedom of speech in their religion.

Then it is a good thing this event isn't taking place in the United States isn't it!

It's kind of sad that you just can't admit you were wrong and try to change contexts when the conversation was about the amendment right then.

I was holding that discussion with a different forum member. You seem to be under the impression that you're awarded serious discussion from me.

Yes, and I commented on your rather stupid statement. But of course, instead of being able to admit when you were wrong you hide behind a shield of saying you weren't serious. Man up.

What statement and by what metrics was it measured as stupid?

"People are also perfectly within their rights to react however they want."

Obviously wrong in the context of the Constitution and amendments. Being obviously wrong is one of the easiest ways to determine a statement is stupid.

True, but I wasn't discussing the constitution or amendments with you. I was discussing the initial statement you presented which had no previous context. Unless you're under the misguided assumption that my discussion with another person carried over to my exchange with you.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

This is what happens when an entire culture goes on for thousands of years without being able to take a joke.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Whilst there's no doubt the 'film' that sparked all of this off was offensive and (probably) deliberately inflammatory, it's a shame to see reactionist zealots using it for their own ends. Islam teaches peace and tolerance, yet particular sects seem determined to cause grief for the sake of it. I fail to see the connection between the offence of 'someone in the US has slandered our Prophet' and 'let's attack the Germans'. Militant assholes -of any religion- need little justification for their actions and give a bad name to the vast majority of tolerant, law-abiding believers.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this. Hopefully cooler-heads prevail and they can calm the radicals down.

First off, I know this is the first post in a 7-page long thread, and secondly, I'm sure others have pointed out your stupidity, and thirdly, I'm sure this is a troll, but I don't give a fuck.

Have you ever READ the Koran? The entire fucking premise is "KILL THE INFIDELS", die or convert by the sword. Islam was never peaceful, it wasn't peaceful when Muhammad was alive, it isn't peaceful now, and it won't be peaceful until we nuke it off the face of the fucking planet.

Yeah, 'cause the Bible has never advocated "an eye for an eye". And let's not forget that worshipping a false God is a sin, and "the wages of sin is death". Christianity is hardly a bed of roses either, bud.

 

[tmande2nd]

How come it seems these people have the THINNEST skin on the entire planet?

RARGHGHGHAHAHEREAA!!!!! SOMEONE INSULTED MY FAITH!
....

People insult my clothes, my politics, my preferences and my face and I dont care.
I dont go and burn down their house, slaughter their family, then declare myself better.

No only a completely barbaric degenerate does that.

Its a shame that so many Muslims who never did anything get painted with the same brush as these idiots.
Also...WHY piss off the country with the largest military, intelligence service, and military budget? That is just asking for a cruise missile up the arse.

 

[TheAmokz]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this. Hopefully cooler-heads prevail and they can calm the radicals down.

What is this peaceful religion you mentioned?

 

[Alssadar]

This stream of events is rather disheartening, and my heart goes out for those lost in the conflict. I hope the creator of the movie is punished for the results of his actions--a result a movie like his aimed to create--in payment for the damage dealt.

To be honest, thinking deeply about this event is rather chilling, as for the first major time in my mature life, I can see the impacts of one upon the world--in this case, in a vastly negative aspect. The horror of the fact is rather boggling, and I hope the world leaders can find a way to ease the situation back into a (rather uneasy) calm.

Edit: Ooh-one positive thing. I don't feel like quoting this because it was way far back in the pages, but people were talking about how George Washington was the only non-party president and they were talking about having a non-party system like them good ol' days.
I would just like to quote the Federalist Papers Number 10: "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire." America has a very high probability of staying divided by political/ideological/societal differences that will create their own factions in order to ensue their own goal is met. This, with the American political system, is how it has worked, and, with the framework laid out, how it will continue working.

 

[Alexnader]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this. Hopefully cooler-heads prevail and they can calm the radicals down.

First off, I know this is the first post in a 7-page long thread, and secondly, I'm sure others have pointed out your stupidity, and thirdly, I'm sure this is a troll, but I don't give a fuck.

Have you ever READ the Koran? The entire fucking premise is "KILL THE INFIDELS", die or convert by the sword. Islam was never peaceful, it wasn't peaceful when Muhammad was alive, it isn't peaceful now, and it won't be peaceful until we nuke it off the face of the fucking planet.

Take Christianity back a few hundred years and you could say the exact same thing about it. The only reason Christianity is palatable today is because thanks to things like the legal system, education, democracy, freedom of speech and secular government. If we took away those things it'd be the Spanish inquisition all over again.

The problematic radicals we face in today's world are not the product of any specific qualities of their respective religions. The problems arise when people put faith above reason as the best quality in a person. Only enemies of reason could do murder in response to a film made in a country on the other side of the world. Those who willingly lap up dogma, whether that be ideological dogma like communism or religious dogma like Christianity or Islam, they are the problem.

So by all means condemn Islam as a single irrational entity, however I feel you should only do so unless you are willing to condemn Christianity or Judaism and even certain practices within Buddhism. If Islam is not allowed to exist in your world I see no reason why that can't be applied to more mainstream Western religions as well.

 

[auron200004]

Is it just me, or is Islam going through the same "phases" that Christianity went through? Given that Islam is about a thousand years younger than Christianity, I think that now that Muslims are now going through their "crusade phase". I'm not even joking. About 1000 years after Christianity was formed (give or take a century or two), the crusades happened. About 1000 years after Islam was formed (give or take a century or two), this madness started happening. So... does that mean in a few hundred years Islam will control the majority of the population with an iron fist?

Honestly, I hope I'm not the only one who notices this.

Also, good luck to people 1000 years from now who will have to put up with the radical Scientologist extremists.