Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Timedraven 117]

Yes he can be. Manslaughter is a valid charge, then you can add in so many other things on him as well.

So now we're responsible for the actions of others?

You really want to create a world where you're responsible for how other people react to you're opinion?

By that reasoning someone could read one of your thread posts, kill a bunch of people because of it, and it's your fault not theirs, with you being punished.

Edit to my posts before: Never mind, realizing now that the video was released in june this was obviously a concentrated effort, making my opinion a stupid post.

And no, your misunderstanding me, we can't punish the people directly responsible because we don't KNOW who did it. your example holds no merit to my line of thinking which your trying to disprove, but i never fully explained my line of thinking so its understandable your response was not as well thought. Good point though, just wrong mindset.

No, no matter what the man should be punished. If you would read other people's posts, then you would see many valid reasons. The man did it specifically to incite Muslims. but i doubt it would have been as spectacular if it was not for the terror groups and such inciting more violence.

My point is,the maker should be punished period, but since we can't properly punish the mob, we don't take action against them. (Unless you want to chance doing more harm then justice.)

so basically, if someone does something that indirectly leads to others conducting violence in the name of the first person's action, then go into hiding and the cops can't find them after a while, we have to go back to the first person and give them the punishment we were going to give to those who incited violence. makes perfect sense to me

the man didn't do it to purposefully incite violence but to annoy them and insult them. I hardly think he expected them to take it this far, which is why you can't just punish the person who accidentally started this and ignore the ones who are doing the violence. That is why your logic makes no sense to me.
Based on your posts, you'd led a murderer go free just because you don't know what he looks like and then go after his family because they apparently raised a bad child. It's the same logic you're apparently following and its worse than not punishing the violent ones at all.
Just because we may not know who did the killings and started being violent doesn't mean we just let them go, I'm sure we can do something diplomatically and find some people willing to testify and serve as witnesses, while we may not find everyone, it'd be better than just punishing one man for indirectly causing a group of people to turn into murderers.

You have had spouted the worst analogy i have heard ever. DID YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS BEFORE? t may be 9 pages but you are smart. This was a clear effort by terrorist to attack the the embassy. Also I never mentioned anything about attacking family, and what world do you live in? They got violent over some political cartoons a few years ago, this is much worse. Can we capture a whole mob? Oh i wish, but we can't so we punish those we can catch for sure. Like the film maker, and those people who are making the problem worse.

Yeah, I've read your posts, a lot of them poorly written grammatically, and you still want to use the excuse of can't find them go after one instead of the ones actually causing the violence. And I believe my analogy perfectly fits with your mode of thinking on this entire situation. You'd rather take the easy way out instead of buckling down and going after with at least the bare minimum effort necessary to take down the terrorists and troublemakers, it's as if you didn't even read the last part of my post where we could work with witnesses and people who were once part of the mob but not anymore to help capture the right villains.
Until you can actually stop and think about what you're posting then I suggest you don't write back.
Please, can't go after the terrorists, just because they're currently unknown to US, so we might as well go after a single person because he was just the final straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not saying to let the man completely off the hook, he needs to do time for fraud and an accessory to violence but just going after him and refusing to even look for the terrorists is basically the same as letting them off free with no punishment.

So your willing to fire into crowds of people? There is a reason why so few arrest have been made after all. And i would be going after people like that nutjob sheik in the article which you did not read because you did read THE POST BEFORE MINE ON THE OTHER PAGES (That was what i meant by reading) And the such, muzzle the dradicals main source of anger and you will calm the situation.

 

[BNguyen]

Yes he can be. Manslaughter is a valid charge, then you can add in so many other things on him as well.

So now we're responsible for the actions of others?

You really want to create a world where you're responsible for how other people react to you're opinion?

By that reasoning someone could read one of your thread posts, kill a bunch of people because of it, and it's your fault not theirs, with you being punished.

Edit to my posts before: Never mind, realizing now that the video was released in june this was obviously a concentrated effort, making my opinion a stupid post.

And no, your misunderstanding me, we can't punish the people directly responsible because we don't KNOW who did it. your example holds no merit to my line of thinking which your trying to disprove, but i never fully explained my line of thinking so its understandable your response was not as well thought. Good point though, just wrong mindset.

No, no matter what the man should be punished. If you would read other people's posts, then you would see many valid reasons. The man did it specifically to incite Muslims. but i doubt it would have been as spectacular if it was not for the terror groups and such inciting more violence.

My point is,the maker should be punished period, but since we can't properly punish the mob, we don't take action against them. (Unless you want to chance doing more harm then justice.)

so basically, if someone does something that indirectly leads to others conducting violence in the name of the first person's action, then go into hiding and the cops can't find them after a while, we have to go back to the first person and give them the punishment we were going to give to those who incited violence. makes perfect sense to me

the man didn't do it to purposefully incite violence but to annoy them and insult them. I hardly think he expected them to take it this far, which is why you can't just punish the person who accidentally started this and ignore the ones who are doing the violence. That is why your logic makes no sense to me.
Based on your posts, you'd led a murderer go free just because you don't know what he looks like and then go after his family because they apparently raised a bad child. It's the same logic you're apparently following and its worse than not punishing the violent ones at all.
Just because we may not know who did the killings and started being violent doesn't mean we just let them go, I'm sure we can do something diplomatically and find some people willing to testify and serve as witnesses, while we may not find everyone, it'd be better than just punishing one man for indirectly causing a group of people to turn into murderers.

You have had spouted the worst analogy i have heard ever. DID YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS BEFORE? t may be 9 pages but you are smart. This was a clear effort by terrorist to attack the the embassy. Also I never mentioned anything about attacking family, and what world do you live in? They got violent over some political cartoons a few years ago, this is much worse. Can we capture a whole mob? Oh i wish, but we can't so we punish those we can catch for sure. Like the film maker, and those people who are making the problem worse.

Yeah, I've read your posts, a lot of them poorly written grammatically, and you still want to use the excuse of can't find them go after one instead of the ones actually causing the violence. And I believe my analogy perfectly fits with your mode of thinking on this entire situation. You'd rather take the easy way out instead of buckling down and going after with at least the bare minimum effort necessary to take down the terrorists and troublemakers, it's as if you didn't even read the last part of my post where we could work with witnesses and people who were once part of the mob but not anymore to help capture the right villains.
Until you can actually stop and think about what you're posting then I suggest you don't write back.
Please, can't go after the terrorists, just because they're currently unknown to US, so we might as well go after a single person because he was just the final straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not saying to let the man completely off the hook, he needs to do time for fraud and an accessory to violence but just going after him and refusing to even look for the terrorists is basically the same as letting them off free with no punishment.

So your willing to fire into crowds of people? There is a reason why so few arrest have been made after all. And i would be going after people like that nutjob sheik in the article which you did not read because you did read THE POST BEFORE MINE ON THE OTHER PAGES (That was what i meant by reading) And the such, muzzle the dradicals main source of anger and you will calm the situation.

I never said fire into crowds, don't be putting words into my mouth when you so clearly haven't read my posts when I said acquire witnesses and those willing to confess in order to make arrests. So stop posting and actually take the time to READ WHAT I WRITE! AND EVEN IF YOU ARREST THE DIRECTOR AND PUBLICLY BROADCAST THAT IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED< IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK WILL CEASE.

 

[Timedraven 117]

Yes he can be. Manslaughter is a valid charge, then you can add in so many other things on him as well.

So now we're responsible for the actions of others?

You really want to create a world where you're responsible for how other people react to you're opinion?

By that reasoning someone could read one of your thread posts, kill a bunch of people because of it, and it's your fault not theirs, with you being punished.

Edit to my posts before: Never mind, realizing now that the video was released in june this was obviously a concentrated effort, making my opinion a stupid post.

And no, your misunderstanding me, we can't punish the people directly responsible because we don't KNOW who did it. your example holds no merit to my line of thinking which your trying to disprove, but i never fully explained my line of thinking so its understandable your response was not as well thought. Good point though, just wrong mindset.

No, no matter what the man should be punished. If you would read other people's posts, then you would see many valid reasons. The man did it specifically to incite Muslims. but i doubt it would have been as spectacular if it was not for the terror groups and such inciting more violence.

My point is,the maker should be punished period, but since we can't properly punish the mob, we don't take action against them. (Unless you want to chance doing more harm then justice.)

so basically, if someone does something that indirectly leads to others conducting violence in the name of the first person's action, then go into hiding and the cops can't find them after a while, we have to go back to the first person and give them the punishment we were going to give to those who incited violence. makes perfect sense to me

the man didn't do it to purposefully incite violence but to annoy them and insult them. I hardly think he expected them to take it this far, which is why you can't just punish the person who accidentally started this and ignore the ones who are doing the violence. That is why your logic makes no sense to me.
Based on your posts, you'd led a murderer go free just because you don't know what he looks like and then go after his family because they apparently raised a bad child. It's the same logic you're apparently following and its worse than not punishing the violent ones at all.
Just because we may not know who did the killings and started being violent doesn't mean we just let them go, I'm sure we can do something diplomatically and find some people willing to testify and serve as witnesses, while we may not find everyone, it'd be better than just punishing one man for indirectly causing a group of people to turn into murderers.

You have had spouted the worst analogy i have heard ever. DID YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS BEFORE? t may be 9 pages but you are smart. This was a clear effort by terrorist to attack the the embassy. Also I never mentioned anything about attacking family, and what world do you live in? They got violent over some political cartoons a few years ago, this is much worse. Can we capture a whole mob? Oh i wish, but we can't so we punish those we can catch for sure. Like the film maker, and those people who are making the problem worse.

Yeah, I've read your posts, a lot of them poorly written grammatically, and you still want to use the excuse of can't find them go after one instead of the ones actually causing the violence. And I believe my analogy perfectly fits with your mode of thinking on this entire situation. You'd rather take the easy way out instead of buckling down and going after with at least the bare minimum effort necessary to take down the terrorists and troublemakers, it's as if you didn't even read the last part of my post where we could work with witnesses and people who were once part of the mob but not anymore to help capture the right villains.
Until you can actually stop and think about what you're posting then I suggest you don't write back.
Please, can't go after the terrorists, just because they're currently unknown to US, so we might as well go after a single person because he was just the final straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not saying to let the man completely off the hook, he needs to do time for fraud and an accessory to violence but just going after him and refusing to even look for the terrorists is basically the same as letting them off free with no punishment.

So your willing to fire into crowds of people? There is a reason why so few arrest have been made after all. And i would be going after people like that nutjob sheik in the article which you did not read because you did read THE POST BEFORE MINE ON THE OTHER PAGES (That was what i meant by reading) And the such, muzzle the dradicals main source of anger and you will calm the situation.

I never said fire into crowds, don't be putting words into my mouth when you so clearly haven't read my posts when I said acquire witnesses and those willing to confess in order to make arrests. So stop posting and actually take the time to READ WHAT I WRITE! AND EVEN IF YOU ARREST THE DIRECTOR AND PUBLICLY BROADCAST THAT IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED< IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK WILL CEASE.

You obviously never been in a mob before. You don't get witnesses there are to maqny people and those people don't want to talk, and would you be willing to spend millions of dollars investigating this? No, no one would its a waste of time. Besides you didn't even read what i said, Arrest the nutjobs making the situation worse. Read some of the articles and you will know who I'm talking about.

 

[BNguyen]

Yes he can be. Manslaughter is a valid charge, then you can add in so many other things on him as well.

So now we're responsible for the actions of others?

You really want to create a world where you're responsible for how other people react to you're opinion?

By that reasoning someone could read one of your thread posts, kill a bunch of people because of it, and it's your fault not theirs, with you being punished.

Edit to my posts before: Never mind, realizing now that the video was released in june this was obviously a concentrated effort, making my opinion a stupid post.

And no, your misunderstanding me, we can't punish the people directly responsible because we don't KNOW who did it. your example holds no merit to my line of thinking which your trying to disprove, but i never fully explained my line of thinking so its understandable your response was not as well thought. Good point though, just wrong mindset.

No, no matter what the man should be punished. If you would read other people's posts, then you would see many valid reasons. The man did it specifically to incite Muslims. but i doubt it would have been as spectacular if it was not for the terror groups and such inciting more violence.

My point is,the maker should be punished period, but since we can't properly punish the mob, we don't take action against them. (Unless you want to chance doing more harm then justice.)

so basically, if someone does something that indirectly leads to others conducting violence in the name of the first person's action, then go into hiding and the cops can't find them after a while, we have to go back to the first person and give them the punishment we were going to give to those who incited violence. makes perfect sense to me

the man didn't do it to purposefully incite violence but to annoy them and insult them. I hardly think he expected them to take it this far, which is why you can't just punish the person who accidentally started this and ignore the ones who are doing the violence. That is why your logic makes no sense to me.
Based on your posts, you'd led a murderer go free just because you don't know what he looks like and then go after his family because they apparently raised a bad child. It's the same logic you're apparently following and its worse than not punishing the violent ones at all.
Just because we may not know who did the killings and started being violent doesn't mean we just let them go, I'm sure we can do something diplomatically and find some people willing to testify and serve as witnesses, while we may not find everyone, it'd be better than just punishing one man for indirectly causing a group of people to turn into murderers.

You have had spouted the worst analogy i have heard ever. DID YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS BEFORE? t may be 9 pages but you are smart. This was a clear effort by terrorist to attack the the embassy. Also I never mentioned anything about attacking family, and what world do you live in? They got violent over some political cartoons a few years ago, this is much worse. Can we capture a whole mob? Oh i wish, but we can't so we punish those we can catch for sure. Like the film maker, and those people who are making the problem worse.

Yeah, I've read your posts, a lot of them poorly written grammatically, and you still want to use the excuse of can't find them go after one instead of the ones actually causing the violence. And I believe my analogy perfectly fits with your mode of thinking on this entire situation. You'd rather take the easy way out instead of buckling down and going after with at least the bare minimum effort necessary to take down the terrorists and troublemakers, it's as if you didn't even read the last part of my post where we could work with witnesses and people who were once part of the mob but not anymore to help capture the right villains.
Until you can actually stop and think about what you're posting then I suggest you don't write back.
Please, can't go after the terrorists, just because they're currently unknown to US, so we might as well go after a single person because he was just the final straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not saying to let the man completely off the hook, he needs to do time for fraud and an accessory to violence but just going after him and refusing to even look for the terrorists is basically the same as letting them off free with no punishment.

So your willing to fire into crowds of people? There is a reason why so few arrest have been made after all. And i would be going after people like that nutjob sheik in the article which you did not read because you did read THE POST BEFORE MINE ON THE OTHER PAGES (That was what i meant by reading) And the such, muzzle the dradicals main source of anger and you will calm the situation.

I never said fire into crowds, don't be putting words into my mouth when you so clearly haven't read my posts when I said acquire witnesses and those willing to confess in order to make arrests. So stop posting and actually take the time to READ WHAT I WRITE! AND EVEN IF YOU ARREST THE DIRECTOR AND PUBLICLY BROADCAST THAT IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED< IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK WILL CEASE.

You obviously never been in a mob before. You don't get witnesses there are to maqny people and those people don't want to talk, and would you be willing to spend millions of dollars investigating this? No, no one would its a waste of time. Besides you didn't even read what i said, Areest the nutjobs making the situation worse. Read some of the articles and you will know who I'm talking about.

I'd be more willing to spend the money to find and arrest the nutjobs than letting them off the hook, I'm sure the families would want an investigation, the governments who are fighting the terrorists would want to spend the money, everybody who has ever hated a terrorist and wants them punished would want to spend the money to make sure these evil less than human-beings walk free. If you arrest the troublemakers, you're more likely to make places safe for the innocent. And how do you know that some people didn't mean for the violence to escalate the way that it did, maybe there were some who wanted to protest, if we can find these people and maybe some who are willing to work together on this we can get the terrorists. I won't sleep easy at night unless every terrorist, those who allow terrorism, and those who say don't punish the terrorists still is free to act on those ideas.
You sir, or ma'am are essentially allowing these terrorists to walk because you are too lazy to take a stand against them, but apparently, you'd arrest every person in the free world who speaks their minds just because someone took it too far and did some violence somewhere in the world related to what the person said.
I'm not going to continue this conversation so long as you are willing to let the terrorists walk after what they've done.

 

[Spearmaster]

Does everyone realize that all these (staged) protests started on 9/11...my guess is they were gonna protest the U.S. anyway.

Also I haven't seen any of the video but I can only guess that the violence has only validated its claims in some way.

 

[Erttheking]

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.

Well considering that the term "an eye for an eye" is much older than Judaism, originating in ancient Babylon, the code of Hammurabi. And let me show you the bible verse that mentions "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"...


Matthew 5:38-48
New International Version (NIV)
Eye for Eye

38 ?You have heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.?[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Ok, so quick question, where does it say "if some people of a society are violent and unruly, just kill all of them?" Because as a Christian I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to do that, hence "nuking" Islam would be...you know...bad. The 5th Commandment flat out says "thou shall not kill" man, you can't cancel out these things for people that piss you off.

 

[SirDerick]

I was always searching for the film, wondering what the message was that had everyone up in arms (I heard somewhere that it was a film by an Islamic person) Then I read this:

Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

and my hand came to my face in the worlds slowest facepalm and I let out a disgruntled sigh. Why must I share a planet with such an ignorant hate-filled fucker?

 

[Erttheking]

I was always searching for the film, wondering what the message was that had everyone up in arms (I heard somewhere that it was a film by an Islamic person) Then I read this:

Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

and my hand came to my face in the worlds slowest facepalm and I let out a disgruntled sigh. Why must I share a planet with such an ignorant hate-filled fucker?

Sorry, I was misinformed when I made that statement (you can blame my international relations professor for that one) he wasn't that guy. He was involved with that incident though and he was a heavy backer so it kinda counts.

 

[Ravinoff]

My opinions on this come down quite basically to this: good on the guy who made the movie, and these embassies should be protected just as much as they were during the Fall of Saigon, and the Iranian hostage thing. I think it's beyond time we stop putting up with this kind of horseshit from "radical Muslims." When there's an angry mob bearing down on the place you've been told to protect, maybe it's time to start shooting. In any other situation, these actions would be considered an act of war. I say it's time to make it blatantly clear that this kind of action won't be tolerated. There's a carrier battlegroup in the Persian Gulf, how about using it?

And as for the guy who made the movie? I think the best thing for him to do now is issue an official statement standing by his project, and telling these radicals to get fucked.

 

[Dr Jones]

Put it this way.

I child is poking a sleeping bear with a stick.

Now that child has all the right in the world to poke that bear with said stick.

Just don't be surprised when the bear wakes up and mauls him.

Freedom of speech isn't some infallible defence to say what you want. I'm sick of people claiming that it is, and that any action taken against someone because of what they said is impeding their 'rights'.

We're not necessarily surprised by the actions, but are you suggesting that reacting violently, burning, beating, threatening and downright killing should be an allowed response to an expression of free speech?

Utilizing free speech should and does have consequences, but violence shouldn't be one of them.

 

[SirDerick]

I was always searching for the film, wondering what the message was that had everyone up in arms (I heard somewhere that it was a film by an Islamic person) Then I read this:

Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

and my hand came to my face in the worlds slowest facepalm and I let out a disgruntled sigh. Why must I share a planet with such an ignorant hate-filled fucker?

Sorry, I was misinformed when I made that statement (you can blame my international relations professor for that one) he wasn't that guy. He was involved with that incident though and he was a heavy backer so it kinda counts.

I found the actual film: <youtube=jBOtbfQRGbQ>

it's insultingly bad...

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Put it this way.

I child is poking a sleeping bear with a stick.

Now that child has all the right in the world to poke that bear with said stick.

Just don't be surprised when the bear wakes up and mauls him.

Freedom of speech isn't some infallible defence to say what you want. I'm sick of people claiming that it is, and that any action taken against someone because of what they said is impeding their 'rights'.

We're not necessarily surprised by the actions, but are you suggesting that reacting violently, burning, beating, threatening and downright killing should be an allowed response to an expression of free speech?

Utilizing free speech should and does have consequences, but violence shouldn't be one of them.

I never once justified their reaction, I'm just not surprised by it.

 

[Dr Jones]

Put it this way.

I child is poking a sleeping bear with a stick.

Now that child has all the right in the world to poke that bear with said stick.

Just don't be surprised when the bear wakes up and mauls him.

Freedom of speech isn't some infallible defence to say what you want. I'm sick of people claiming that it is, and that any action taken against someone because of what they said is impeding their 'rights'.

We're not necessarily surprised by the actions, but are you suggesting that reacting violently, burning, beating, threatening and downright killing should be an allowed response to an expression of free speech?

Utilizing free speech should and does have consequences, but violence shouldn't be one of them.

I never once justified their reaction, I'm just not surprised by it.

In this case freedom of speech is an infallible defence, though.

 

[Seneschal]

I don't get people who say the filmmaker is responsible. If he portrayed muslims in a racist, inaccurate and offensive way, the civilized response is to critically pan his work, disregard his opinion and possibly charge him for promoting hate. The "consequences" he will suffer for his film can range from ruining his film career to actual fines for hate-speech.

However, if he was merely critical of Islam, theocracies in general, and the islamic regimes' approach to human rights and freedom of speech, and wasn't promoting violence, he shouldn't be held accountable at all. Of course, I'm pretty sure he was just being bigoted and not insightful in the least, but that's besides the point.

Islamic radicals will respond to any of the above, justified or unjustified, accurate or biased, informative or hateful, with the same murderous iron age barbarism. That's never acceptable, and we shouldn't be pointing at the filmmaker and saying he should be the one lying dead in a burned-out embassy, because if anyone responds to nonviolent criticism with murder and destruction, I consider his opinion completely invalidated. The worldview of those protesters is savage, hazardous, unprepared for cooperation or peace, and undoubtedly a cancer on modern civilization. The ones responsible are the organizers, educators and religious leaders that ingrained this notion that Islam is beyond criticism, and that one cannot peacefully coexist with non-believers - we should be pointing our fingers at them, not some american nobody that points out the obvious in the crassest way possible.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

I don't get people who say the filmmaker is responsible. If he portrayed muslims in a racist, inaccurate and offensive way, the civilized response is to critically pan his work, disregard his opinion and possibly charge him for promoting hate. The "consequences" he will suffer for his film can range from ruining his film career to actual fines for hate-speech.

However, if he was merely critical of Islam, theocracies in general, and the islamic regimes' approach to human rights and freedom of speech, and wasn't promoting violence, he shouldn't be held accountable at all. Of course, I'm pretty sure he was just being bigoted and not insightful in the least, but that's besides the point.

Islamic radicals will respond to any of the above, justified or unjustified, accurate or biased, informative or hateful, with the same murderous iron age barbarism. That's never acceptable, and we shouldn't be pointing at the filmmaker and saying he should be the one lying dead in a burned-out embassy, because if anyone responds to nonviolent criticism with murder and destruction, I consider his opinion completely invalidated. The worldview of those protesters is savage, hazardous, unprepared for cooperation or peace, and undoubtedly a cancer on modern civilization. The ones responsible are the organizers, educators and religious leaders that ingrained this notion that Islam is beyond criticism, and that one cannot peacefully coexist with non-believers - we should be pointing our fingers at them, not some american nobody that points out the obvious in the crassest way possible.

Freedom of speech is a human right that is worth defending. If some muslims can't accept that then we need actions against. This is inexcusable. I am willing to support a war if it means to show radical muslims that we will not be pushed around. If you don't like something you don't get it, or you insult it in this time of age.

 

[Private Custard]

I found the actual film:

it's insultingly bad...

what. The. Fuck???

The world's going to hell for that shit? Well that's it then, I think it's time to execute top secret plan 'purge the world of retarded extremists and go to sleep with a smile on our faces'!

Wow, do these people rioting have no brains or pride? They've been trolled to fuck!

 

[HyenaThePirate]

The only thing I have to say about this is, the so-called "Moderate" or "TRUE, peace loving Muslims" no longer get a pass from me. Yes, every religion has it's extremists but if the overall community cannot reign in or make visible that THEY are the true believers and are not at all how they are portrayed, they deserve to be lumped in with the scum.

If the peaceful, loving followers of Islam truly believed that their fanatical/extremist brethren were in the wrong, why do we not see MASSIVE reactions from them with counter protests, even perhaps violent clashing with them to show that they will NOT tolerate the senseless murder of others in the name of their religion.

I'm not necessarily advocating increasing hostilities, but at some point you have to do more than just TALK about what you believe in or how you are different. You have to stand up and put yourself at personal RISK to SHOW how different you are and that you TRULY believe in what you claim.

 

[psluuther]

What bothers me is the US government's noncommittal response. By not defending our citizens actions (no matter if we personally agree or not), we are abandoning the freedoms laid forth in our constitution. If citizens of another nation can silence American citizens by protest, violence, and murder, then all that America stands for is truly dead.

What do you think the US should be doing? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm genuinely curious.

Pull out embassies. Sever diplomatic ties. Cut off monetary aid. Respond! Do whatever the US gov't normally does in response to terrorist groups killing and capturing US citizens.
Just don't kowtow and apologize and blame the person at whom these violent mobs are angry.

What we normally do is response to terrorists killing American citizens?...uh...I think if Iraq proved anything it's that half of our country and most of Europe doesn't really appreciate what we normally do when terrorists kill our citizens. BTW, people are apologizing for this? Who? When? Can you send a link?

I didn't see it myself, but I have been told that President Obama and some others have formally apologized to the Muslim community for the video. My president represents me and everyone I know in this country. There is no reason to apologize, because we're not responsible for the video in the first place. Kind of insulting really.

Ok, I know Im going to regret posting this, but you have been fed a lot of misinformation. This is what happened.

At 10:30pm September 11th, there were riots at the US embassy at Egypt. The embassy made a message about how the video was to be condemned, that Islam should be respected, and that America was having a sacred day. They said this not to "apologize", but because there was an angry mob that was just waiting for a reason to attack the embassy. Romney heard the message, and assumed it was from Obama (who later denounced what the embassy said)and made a comment about it. Since he wanted to not post vitriol on Sept. 11th, he decided to wait till 12:01am. Only problem? That was when the Libyan embassy was stormed, and the Ambassador and 3 others were killed. Although details are still being done with, it is believed that the attack that killed the Ambassador and company was a pre-determined terrorist attack, which would occur during the mob riot.

The next day (around when I found out this all happened) Obama made a message essentially saying that the video was to be condemned, islam was to be respected, and that this violent response was not justified. He also called for the Libyan gov't to condemn the attacks (they did do that, and actually caught those who are believe to be the attackers). The rest of that day we learned more about what occurred. His body was then dragged out by Libyans, and sent to a hospital (turns out he may have been dead on scene).

The next day, Obama went out to say that Egypt wasn't an ally (nor an enemy), and also got ready to send warships and drones to search for who killed the Ambassador. Remember, killing an ambassador and attacking an Embassy is effectively an act of war. During this time, Libyans started protests that were pro-American and apologized for the attack. Stevens, the Ambassador, is one of the main reasons we even sent a no-fly zone over in Libya. He was at Benghazi when it was being sieged.

The only group who is apologizing is the Libyans. What Obama and several others are doing is the equivalent of talking down someone who has a gun pointed at you. You don't give them shit, even if you're right, because you might make the situation even more fucked up.

Here's a good link: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/six-things-to-know-about-attack-that-killed-ambassador-stevens/?hpt=hp_t1

Captcha: geez louise. Yeah, I'm thinking that now that this shitstorm is still going on...

Thanks for posting this. Fappy, I think it was pretty awful of you to spread misinformation, and equally awful for anyone who believed it despite you admitting that it was only hearsay. Though I'm sure it wasn't your intention to deceive, ignorance is no excuse when the facts are at your fingertips.

 

[Timedraven 117]

Yes he can be. Manslaughter is a valid charge, then you can add in so many other things on him as well.

So now we're responsible for the actions of others?

You really want to create a world where you're responsible for how other people react to you're opinion?

By that reasoning someone could read one of your thread posts, kill a bunch of people because of it, and it's your fault not theirs, with you being punished.

Edit to my posts before: Never mind, realizing now that the video was released in june this was obviously a concentrated effort, making my opinion a stupid post.

And no, your misunderstanding me, we can't punish the people directly responsible because we don't KNOW who did it. your example holds no merit to my line of thinking which your trying to disprove, but i never fully explained my line of thinking so its understandable your response was not as well thought. Good point though, just wrong mindset.

No, no matter what the man should be punished. If you would read other people's posts, then you would see many valid reasons. The man did it specifically to incite Muslims. but i doubt it would have been as spectacular if it was not for the terror groups and such inciting more violence.

My point is,the maker should be punished period, but since we can't properly punish the mob, we don't take action against them. (Unless you want to chance doing more harm then justice.)

so basically, if someone does something that indirectly leads to others conducting violence in the name of the first person's action, then go into hiding and the cops can't find them after a while, we have to go back to the first person and give them the punishment we were going to give to those who incited violence. makes perfect sense to me

the man didn't do it to purposefully incite violence but to annoy them and insult them. I hardly think he expected them to take it this far, which is why you can't just punish the person who accidentally started this and ignore the ones who are doing the violence. That is why your logic makes no sense to me.
Based on your posts, you'd led a murderer go free just because you don't know what he looks like and then go after his family because they apparently raised a bad child. It's the same logic you're apparently following and its worse than not punishing the violent ones at all.
Just because we may not know who did the killings and started being violent doesn't mean we just let them go, I'm sure we can do something diplomatically and find some people willing to testify and serve as witnesses, while we may not find everyone, it'd be better than just punishing one man for indirectly causing a group of people to turn into murderers.

You have had spouted the worst analogy i have heard ever. DID YOU EVEN READ THE POSTS BEFORE? t may be 9 pages but you are smart. This was a clear effort by terrorist to attack the the embassy. Also I never mentioned anything about attacking family, and what world do you live in? They got violent over some political cartoons a few years ago, this is much worse. Can we capture a whole mob? Oh i wish, but we can't so we punish those we can catch for sure. Like the film maker, and those people who are making the problem worse.

Yeah, I've read your posts, a lot of them poorly written grammatically, and you still want to use the excuse of can't find them go after one instead of the ones actually causing the violence. And I believe my analogy perfectly fits with your mode of thinking on this entire situation. You'd rather take the easy way out instead of buckling down and going after with at least the bare minimum effort necessary to take down the terrorists and troublemakers, it's as if you didn't even read the last part of my post where we could work with witnesses and people who were once part of the mob but not anymore to help capture the right villains.
Until you can actually stop and think about what you're posting then I suggest you don't write back.
Please, can't go after the terrorists, just because they're currently unknown to US, so we might as well go after a single person because he was just the final straw that broke the camel's back. I'm not saying to let the man completely off the hook, he needs to do time for fraud and an accessory to violence but just going after him and refusing to even look for the terrorists is basically the same as letting them off free with no punishment.

So your willing to fire into crowds of people? There is a reason why so few arrest have been made after all. And i would be going after people like that nutjob sheik in the article which you did not read because you did read THE POST BEFORE MINE ON THE OTHER PAGES (That was what i meant by reading) And the such, muzzle the dradicals main source of anger and you will calm the situation.

I never said fire into crowds, don't be putting words into my mouth when you so clearly haven't read my posts when I said acquire witnesses and those willing to confess in order to make arrests. So stop posting and actually take the time to READ WHAT I WRITE! AND EVEN IF YOU ARREST THE DIRECTOR AND PUBLICLY BROADCAST THAT IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED< IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACK WILL CEASE.

You obviously never been in a mob before. You don't get witnesses there are to maqny people and those people don't want to talk, and would you be willing to spend millions of dollars investigating this? No, no one would its a waste of time. Besides you didn't even read what i said, Areest the nutjobs making the situation worse. Read some of the articles and you will know who I'm talking about.

I'd be more willing to spend the money to find and arrest the nutjobs than letting them off the hook, I'm sure the families would want an investigation, the governments who are fighting the terrorists would want to spend the money, everybody who has ever hated a terrorist and wants them punished would want to spend the money to make sure these evil less than human-beings walk free. If you arrest the troublemakers, you're more likely to make places safe for the innocent. And how do you know that some people didn't mean for the violence to escalate the way that it did, maybe there were some who wanted to protest, if we can find these people and maybe some who are willing to work together on this we can get the terrorists. I won't sleep easy at night unless every terrorist, those who allow terrorism, and those who say don't punish the terrorists still is free to act on those ideas.
You sir, or ma'am are essentially allowing these terrorists to walk because you are too lazy to take a stand against them, but apparently, you'd arrest every person in the free world who speaks their minds just because someone took it too far and did some violence somewhere in the world related to what the person said.
I'm not going to continue this conversation so long as you are willing to let the terrorists walk after what they've done.

I'm sorry i thought you meant the mob, (To be fair you never said terrorists, you said the mob.) Listen it is more then likely a terror group is going to claim action, problem solved go get them uncle Sam. and I also said, we don't know who was in the mob that are vandalizing the embassy's, but we do know who is making it worse, IE the nutjobs. You are also misunderstanding me here, i'm not saying don't take action, what i am saying is that the effort to find a few vandalizing people in a mob of thousands is not worth the trouble when we can kill a few Taliban and arrest the men who made the problem worse. That is all can we leave it at that?

 

[snake4769]

Well fuck, looks like the United States isn't alone in this one. I have absolutely no idea why, but apparently the German embassy in Sudan was stormed because of that anti-Islamic movie that pissed so many people off.
http://news.yahoo.com/sudan-protesters-storm-german-embassy-raise-islamic-flag-124438100.html

We really do live in a hate filled world, don't we? Incidentally, I wonder how that guy who made this movie feels knowing that he's a key part of this mess. Oh, and by the way I learned an interesting piece of trivia. Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

EDIT:

Fuck, it's getting worse
http://news.yahoo.com/protests-against-film-spread-mideast-1-killed-135739393.html

up to date article, the Marines are being sent in.

http://news.yahoo.com/clashes-egypt-over-film-protests-spread-115710576--finance.html

I...Christ this is fucking massive

http://news.yahoo.com/anti-film-protests-spread-across-muslim-world-164455189.html

Im starting to think we need a batman, this guy is like the joker. It was probably all part of the plan