Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Lyri]

How far are you willing to go in controlling the actions of others to stop buthurt extremists from going into rage mode

I'd like to take this time to point out the problem with the entire thread.

The only parts of the entire equation you guys see here is the death of the people in the embassy.
The innocent lives lost in the attacks on the embassy are nothing short of tragic, they didn't deserve to die but the reason why they died was that film.

People died for 13 minutes of footage
It's awful.

Were the people who retaliated justified in their actions?
Depends who you ask.

Personally do I believe they were?
No.

How far would I go?
I'd stop protecting hate speech from the 1st, for a start.

You said someone who made a bad movie is EQUALLY to blame as people who commited murder. how am I being wilfully ignorant.

He made it, he angered them and he got those people killed.
Regardless if it was intent or not, they are dead because of his stupidity.

You're just over looking his part in all of this because "OMG THEY MURDERED PEOPLE AND HE MADE A FILM!11!!"
Yes they shouldn't have killed people, we get it. Now get out of the bubble you're in and stop acting like an ignorant mouthbreather.

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

How far are you willing to go in controlling the actions of others to stop buthurt extremists from going into rage mode

I'd like to take this time to point out the problem with the entire thread.

The only parts of the entire equation you guys see here is the death of the people in the embassy.
The innocent lives lost in the attacks on the embassy are nothing short of tragic, they didn't deserve to die but the reason why they died was that film.

People died for 13 minutes of footage
It's awful.

Were the people who retaliated justified in their actions?
Depends who you ask.

Personally do I believe they were?
No.

How far would I go?
I'd stop protecting hate speech from the 1st, for a start.

No the reason they died was the big bang.

Edit: Hate speech is subjective

 

[Lyri]

No the reason they died was the big bang

Explain.

Edit: Hate speech is pretty fucking definitive, there is nothing subjective about it.

 

[wulf3n]

The innocent lives lost in the attacks on the embassy are nothing short of tragic, they didn't deserve to die but the reason why they died was that film.

No the reason they died is because some people are so fucked up that they would kill over a shit movie.

. Now get out of the bubble you're in and stop acting like an ignorant mouthbreather.

Insults? classy. Nice to see I'm debating with a reasonable adult.

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

No the reason they died was the big bang

Explain.

Im taking what you said about why the Muslims did what they did to its logical conclusion. I mean no universe means no murderous riot

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

The innocent lives lost in the attacks on the embassy are nothing short of tragic, they didn't deserve to die but the reason why they died was that film.

No the reason they died is because some people are so fucked up that they would kill over a shit movie.

Iv got this one

 

[Lyri]

No the reason they died is because some people are so fucked up that they would kill over a shit movie.

A shit movie that calls their religious prophet a murderer, adulterer, peodophile and a rapist and more.
Would you like to hazard a guess why we label them extremists?

Allowing someone to make a movie that vilifies someone's religion was never going to end well, stop trying to remove his part from the equation.
Otherwise those people died for no reason and you dishonour the citizens you claim you want to honour.

Im taking what you said about why the Muslims did what they did to its logical conclusion. I mean no universe means no murderous riot

Nothing like someone being needlessly obtuse to try and prove a point.

 

[Lyri]

People die for no reason every second of every day of your life does not make the deaths any less unwarranted or sad

What is your point here?
I never claimed that it wasn't.

Edit: your REALLY thick so im going to spell it out for you. Your world view seems to be that the indirect actions of others can directly cause the people that are offended to take action and I am telling you that you are wrong and that these people are 100% responsible for their one actions,that being angry does not justify or alleviate decisions that you make in anger and that it is no ones fault but the perpetrators that the people who were killed died. It is not the movie makers responsibility to cater to animals with no self control as big of a douche as he might be.

You can barely punctuate your response, I not going to ask you to spell anything out as that would be too taxing for you.

Are you really arguing that a man who clearly hates Muslims/Islam and made a film vilifying it is free and innocent of all guilt to do with this tragedy?
Better call those Nazi film propaganda creators and tell them they're off the hook then, brb.

 

[wulf3n]

A shit movie that calls their religious prophet a murderer, adulterer, peodophile and a rapist and more.
Would you like to hazard a guess why we label them extremists?

Allowing someone to make a movie that vilifies someone's religion was never going to end well, stop trying to remove his part from the equation.

But it's still just a movie, it's the people who overreact that are the problem not the movie itself. Movies have been insulting people and religion for a long time, but rarely does a reaction like this occur.

I think our conflict comes from our different approaches on how the issue should be solved. It sounds like you want to tip toe around irrational people, I want to remove them from the equation.

Someone gave the spark and kindling reference before, where the movie was the spark and the extremists were the kindling. People were suggesting we remove the spark, but the problem with sparks is you don't always know when, where, or how they will occur, but if you remove the kindling there will be nothing to burn.

Otherwise those people died for no reason and you dishonour the citizens you claim you want to honour.

The did die for no reason, it was a completely pointless loss.

 

[Giftfromme]

So you're saying murder and making a movie are equivalent.

No but you're being wilfully ignorant of the actual implications of what I said.

I mean you could just look above the post you made.

The simplest solution to all of this is to never offend anyone in any way at all, never do anything that displeases anyone since there will be consequences and blame should be spread equally to both parties.

 

[Lyri]

But it's still just a movie, it's the people who overreact that are the problem not the movie itself. Movies have been insulting people and religion for a long time, but rarely does a reaction like this occur.

I think our conflict comes from to different approaches on how the issue should be solved. You want to tip toe around irrational people, I want to remove them from the equation.

Someone gave the spark and kindling reference before, where the movie was the spark and the extremists were the kindling. People were suggesting we remove the spark, but the problem with sparks is you don't always know when, where, or how they will occur, but if you remove the kindling there will be nothing to burn.

I don't disagree, but your viewpoint is to remove one or the other and not both.

The did die for no reason, it was a completely pointless loss.

Of course it was, there was no purpose to it but the person who made the film shouldn't get off the hook.

The simplest solution to all of this is to never offend anyone in any way at all, never do anything that displeases anyone since there will be consequences and blame should be spread equally to both parties.

Yes because that is exactly what I said, congratulations on passing reading comprehension.
Seriously, read more than one post before you actually type out please and you'll find that isn't what I said at all.

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

snip

Wow and you accuse me of being Obtuse to make a point. If you honestly believe that this movie being made and the riots of the people that got mad about it and choose to murder and commit arson as a response is the same thing as Nazi propaganda and the Holocaust then I have nothing left to say to you.

Edit: In your world everyone who dares to critique, to argue and to make a point no matter how dumb or offensive that point might come across is responsible for the actions of the (often insane and radical people) whom get offended as a response. This world is terrifying and I am glad that I dont live in it and hopefully never will.

Also Godwins law = I win

 

[wulf3n]

But it's still just a movie, it's the people who overreact that are the problem not the movie itself. Movies have been insulting people and religion for a long time, but rarely does a reaction like this occur.

I think our conflict comes from to different approaches on how the issue should be solved. You want to tip toe around irrational people, I want to remove them from the equation.

Someone gave the spark and kindling reference before, where the movie was the spark and the extremists were the kindling. People were suggesting we remove the spark, but the problem with sparks is you don't always know when, where, or how they will occur, but if you remove the kindling there will be nothing to burn.

I don't disagree, but your viewpoint is to remove one or the other and not both.

The problem I have with removing both is that I don't like the idea of being punished for having/expressing an opinion.

While it's easy to say in this case the movie maker is responsible, that this movie serves no purpose other to piss people off, it's unlikely to be this black and white all the time, and it's a slippery slope.

 

[mrhappy1489]

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.

Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

True, but really America needs to stand behind its values. While it doesn't have to agree with him or what he has done, it doesn't have to apologise for what is a cornerstone of the America value of life. If the US still stands for anything good, it is that it had a key part in the development of free speech and it shouldn't apologise for the things that a lone man does. Plus the Muslims need to be a bit more thick skinned, while this is considered blaspheme in there country, it isn't elsewhere and they cannot go around trying to force these cultural aspects onto other people. I do feel a pinch of Irony considering my anglo descent, but I still believe that if we all have to be sympathetic to other cultures, we should all be sympathetic to other cultures.

 

[Varun Garuda Maharaj]

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=283675731741019&set=a.181296568645603.35510.181287181979875&type=1&theater
people who are against the attacks on the whole

EDIT: This shows the sudanese are attacking beacuase of the film itself. The other attacks seem all too coincidental. I mean people with RPG7s and AKs just beacause of a stupid movie form a coptic christian? On sept 11? With Al-quaeda praising them? Like they could fool any of us right?

 

[Giftfromme]

But it's still just a movie, it's the people who overreact that are the problem not the movie itself. Movies have been insulting people and religion for a long time, but rarely does a reaction like this occur.

I think our conflict comes from to different approaches on how the issue should be solved. You want to tip toe around irrational people, I want to remove them from the equation.

Someone gave the spark and kindling reference before, where the movie was the spark and the extremists were the kindling. People were suggesting we remove the spark, but the problem with sparks is you don't always know when, where, or how they will occur, but if you remove the kindling there will be nothing to burn.

I don't disagree, but your viewpoint is to remove one or the other and not both.

The did die for no reason, it was a completely pointless loss.

Of course it was, there was no purpose to it but the person who made the film shouldn't get off the hook.

The simplest solution to all of this is to never offend anyone in any way at all, never do anything that displeases anyone since there will be consequences and blame should be spread equally to both parties.

Yes because that is exactly what I said, congratulations on passing reading comprehension.
Seriously, read more than one post before you actually type out please and you'll find that isn't what I said at all.

And the film maker should be punished why exactly? What if no one got offended, should he still be punished? Where do you draw the line? He doesn't control other people's actions, even if his movie was deliberately inflamatory. If you're saying that movies can be offensive but not deliberately so (as is the case here), how do you prove that something is merely incidently offensive and something that is deliberate?

 

[The Mighty Stove]

So let me get this straight, the guy makes a movie about his idea of Muhammad (Even though it was incredibly dis-tasteful/hateful, biased, etc)and the Middle East explodes in riots and anti US sentiment killing a couple of people and a US ambassador. Then some people on this forum say he's the guilty one? Are you serious?

Should he be free from consequence for this film? No, BUT nothing on par of physical harm, or something to ruin his life. You don't fight hate with hate, and certainly shouldn't silence anyone no matter how stupid/ignorant of an opinion they have. It should have just been ignored and forgotten.

 

[Lyri]

And the film maker should be punished why exactly? What if no one got offended, should he still be punished? Where do you draw the line? He doesn't control other people's actions, even if his movie was deliberately inflamatory. If you're saying that movies can be offensive but not deliberately so (as is the case here), how do you prove that something is merely incidently offensive and something that is deliberate?

For stirring up Anti-Western sentiment, in a time where the political climate isn't at it's most stable this only adds fuel to the fire.

Where do I draw the line?
You don't let people make these kinds of movies, one that goes out of it's way to debase that culture/religion in such a way.
The US is hunting the Taliban right now and for a very good reason, they hate you and everything that you stand for and they took terrorist action upon your soil.
They spread lies and deceit amongst their own to fuel the Anti-Western sentiment in the peoples of Muslim community and a movie like this is nothing but a gold mine to them.

You have/had soldiers out there trying to win the hearts and minds of people and this is what we do?
You're just protecting the very same kind of speech and attitude you're trying to stamp out, except this time you're not the target.

Eventually one day, people will start listening to someone like this guy and people will do something really stupid because of it.
THAT is your slippery slope.

 

[Mr.BadExample]

We should surrender our freedoms so they don't have a reason to hate us anymore. Also, we need to allow the Government to operate unconstrained by law.

 

[Do4600]

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.

Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

I have to agree with Daystar on this one, you can feel free to walk into the middle of a gang and start implying that they all sleep with their mothers, and freedom of speech isn't going to protect you there. I just wish the consequences were going to the asshole who made the film, and not random American and German citizens, who might not have even known that it existed.

Agreed.

This particular instance is rather disturbing because others are dying because of the ill-conceived actions of another.

Wrong. People are dying as a direct result of violence perpetrated by another person. You're taking too much blame away from those who do the violence. It's the duty of all members of society to control their behavior in the face of opposing opinions. There are groups of people that believe that it is okay to throw rocks at a person's head until they die if that person uttered a slander against a man that lived 1400 years ago. This is utterly antipathetic to the freedom of speech which a majority of "western" or "westernized" societies practice. Freedom of speech in "western" civilization has been an engine of tolerance and progress. Orthadoxy and suppression of speech is easily a factor as to why that region has changed so little and has remained so unstable for thousands of years.

If we allow external forces to dictate the horizon of our intellectual freedom we will be inexorably drawn away from those horizons and back into the darkness of prejudice and superstition that many orthodox religions occupy.

If a person is unable to prevent themselves from committing murder because of somebody else's opinion, that person is simply unfit to live in a civilized society.

I say we blame criminals for crimes, not the opinions they were reacting to.