Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Coffinshaker]

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.

what consequences? people reacting and murdering others isn't a consequence. no matter what you say, nothing gave them the right to do any of that. killing of innocent people is NEVER justified. should the people of that faith feel outraged and pissed off after seeing that video? yes, and rightly so. should they destroy property, hurt others, or murder? absolutely not. speech has no baring on action. that is solely the responsibility of the individual so retaliation of any sort, other than their exercise of free speech, is without a doubt reprehensible and independent of anything the first speaker might have said.

so yes, free speech is free from consequence. that's what makes it free.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

what consequences? people reacting and murdering others isn't a consequence. no matter what you say, nothing gave them the right to do any of that. killing of innocent people is NEVER justified. should the people of that faith feel outraged and pissed off after seeing that video? yes, and rightly so. should they destroy property, hurt others, or murder? absolutely not. speech has no baring on action. that is solely the responsibility of the individual so retaliation of any sort, other than their exercise of free speech, is without a doubt reprehensible and independent of anything the first speaker might have said.

so yes, free speech is free from consequence. that's what makes it free.

I'm so glad you picked that out of a 13 page thread just to 'correct' me, when several poster have done it already, and better than you, I might add.

I never said the response was justifiable, but the creator of the film is hardly blameless in the whole affair.

 

[Stu35]

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.

I refuse to pin the blame on these individuals for the actions of a bunch of religious retards half a world away.

Sure, one could make the 'you wouldn't walk through Harlem, NY wearing an 'I hate niggers' sandwichboard' argument, but that could equally apply to the 'you shouldn't go into a nightclub dressed like a slut if you don't want to get raped' category...

End of the day, I don't agree with the morons for coming up with what is, by the sounds of it, quite a blatantly offensive film about Islam - however, I'm British, I've seen the Patriot with Mel Gibson and I managed to avoid rioting over it. Same goes for a plethora of films/media which portrays British people as cunts (indeed, was there not a thing a while ago where if you typed 'British person' into google the result came out with the wikipedia entry for '****'?


So, yeah, whilst I think the idiots responsible for the film should have known the reaction they might cause by doing it, I certainly won't think any less of them for feeling no guilt over what has happened (however, I don't exactly think a whole lot of them in the first place).


Have I just produced a confusing, ever so slightly contradictory post? Maybe, but it still makes more sense than organised religion.

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.

what consequences? people reacting and murdering others isn't a consequence.

I don't think you understand the meaning of consequences.

In this instance, yes, people reacting like retards (they're religious, so that's to be expected), and going out and commiting murder IS a direct consequence of this film being made. By the definition of the word.

Now, as stated above - I still don't hold the film makers responsible for these deaths, that lies solely with the fucking morons out doing the rioting and killing (and ironically making their entire religion look even worse in the eyes of the world... I'll honestly never understand how fucking stupid so many people in the world are)

no matter what you say, nothing gave them the right to do any of that. killing of innocent people is NEVER justified.

He never said it was justified, he said that the actions of the film makers had consequences. All actions have consequences.

so yes, free speech is free from consequence. that's what makes it free.

See above. Nothing is free from consequence.

To put it another way, if I drink the can of Dr. Pepper sat next to me now, then the consequences of that action include (but are not limited to):

1. The can will be empty
2. I'll need to take a piss
3. I'll get a bit of a sugar rush
4. My teeth will feel a little bit furry later on



Now, I know I'm probably being extremely pedantic over terminology here, but I think you seem to think he's advocating murder as a result of this film, which isn't the case (certainly not how I read it), I read it as pointing out that having freedom of speech does not mean you are going to be free of the consequences of what that speech is (even if those consequences are wrong, illegal, unfair, etc. etc.)

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

I refuse to pin the blame on these individuals for the actions of a bunch of religious retards half a world away.

Sure, one could make the 'you wouldn't walk through Harlem, NY wearing an 'I hate niggers' sandwichboard' argument, but that could equally apply to the 'you shouldn't go into a nightclub dressed like a slut if you don't want to get raped' category...

End of the day, I don't agree with the morons for coming up with what is, by the sounds of it, quite a blatantly offensive film about Islam - however, I'm British, I've seen the Patriot with Mel Gibson and I managed to avoid rioting over it. Same goes for a plethora of films/media which portrays British people as cunts (indeed, was there not a thing a while ago where if you typed 'British person' into google the result came out with the wikipedia entry for '****'?


So, yeah, whilst I think the idiots responsible for the film should have known the reaction they might cause by doing it, I certainly won't think any less of them for feeling no guilt over what has happened (however, I don't exactly think a whole lot of them in the first place).


Have I just produced a confusing, ever so slightly contradictory post? Maybe, but it still makes more sense than organised religion.

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.

what consequences? people reacting and murdering others isn't a consequence.

I don't think you understand the meaning of consequences.

In this instance, yes, people reacting like retards (they're religious, so that's to be expected), and going out and commiting murder IS a direct consequence of this film being made. By the definition of the word.

Now, as stated above - I still don't hold the film makers responsible for these deaths, that lies solely with the fucking morons out doing the rioting and killing (and ironically making their entire religion look even worse in the eyes of the world... I'll honestly never understand how fucking stupid so many people in the world are)

no matter what you say, nothing gave them the right to do any of that. killing of innocent people is NEVER justified.

He never said it was justified, he said that the actions of the film makers had consequences. All actions have consequences.

so yes, free speech is free from consequence. that's what makes it free.

See above. Nothing is free from consequence.

To put it another way, if I drink the can of Dr. Pepper sat next to me now, then the consequences of that action include (but are not limited to):

1. The can will be empty
2. I'll need to take a piss
3. I'll get a bit of a sugar rush
4. My teeth will feel a little bit furry later on



Now, I know I'm probably being extremely pedantic over terminology here, but I think you seem to think he's advocating murder as a result of this film, which isn't the case (certainly not how I read it), I read it as pointing out that having freedom of speech does not mean you are going to be free of the consequences of what that speech is (even if those consequences are wrong, illegal, unfair, etc. etc.)

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

I didn't think I'd need to point that out, but I forget, I'm on the internet

 

[Eien Shushu]

Those countries have not evolved and gone through similar experiences hence why certain laws have not changed/evolved. I have always felt-- Leave them alone and let them progress as natural but after these riots over a bloody film on the internet... get a grip.

The film has been taken down.
It's the director's problem and not the innocent people in the Embassy. Have they not forgotten how hard we fought with them to keep Gadaffi from breathing down their necks?

Oh, I bet Libya won't forget about the US occupation.
And it's spelled "Gaddafi".

 

[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?

if we can both agree that 1) the filmmaker should be punished, 2) the terrorists need to be punished, and 3) the people who caused the deaths, although me may never be sure of who did the acts, need to be punished, if we can agree that violence is no excuse for essentially verbal offense, then yes, we can let this argument go

Yes, i agree with that.*Shakes opponents hand* Honor to speak with you about this.

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

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?

if we can both agree that 1) the filmmaker should be punished, 2) the terrorists need to be punished, and 3) the people who caused the deaths, although me may never be sure of who did the acts, need to be punished, if we can agree that violence is no excuse for essentially verbal offense, then yes, we can let this argument go

Yes, i agree with that.*Shakes opponents hand* Honor to speak with you about this.

Sigh here I go again I cant stop myself Im almost sorry for keeping it going at this point

How would you propose we punish the film maker and should we punish those dutch cartoonists(IIRC) for offending the delicate sensibilities of the radicals as well.

 

[Terramax]

Incidentally, I wonder how that guy who made this movie feels knowing that he's a key part of this mess.

He shouldn't feel too bad. It's not his fault the world is full of intolerant people (I had to try so hard not to say something very offensive about the people storming the embassies).

Seriously, even if I watched a 10hour film that was specifically designed to slag me off, and everything I liked, personally, I might get angry, but not driven to the point of acting like...again, trying hard not to be offensive.

Worst thing about it is that I'm sure most Islams are great people, but it becomes increasingly hard to remember this when we see this in the news.

 

[Terramax]

Does anyone REALLY think this had anything to do with that crappy video posted to Youtube? This is the backlash at US involvement in the region over the last 10 years.

I don't think it's even to do with that. More like just an excuse for people to act like barbarians. Identical to that seen in the London riots earlier this year, if not worse.

 

[sapphireofthesea]

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

Christ included Porn, Critical Humor, Demeaning Humor and many other things, news at 10, maybe.

Really don't get why the say they are peaceful and are happy to go to such lengths to reconcile pains that other religions just accept as a sign of the times and lodge their peaceful complaint to. Really does appear that they don't get modern developments, especially about the freedom of speech and the fact that countries they blame for things can do nothing to stop them.

 

[Stu35]

And it's spelled "Gaddafi".

Is it?

I've seen it spelled

Qaddafi
Qadaffi
Ghadaffi
Khadaffi

and any number of ways. By media organisations, government organisations, internet posters, all without any seeming sense of unity. It's like the Osama/Usama Bin Laden debate all over again...

I've just tried to put the Arabic script spelling (i.e. the truly correct one), but preview indicates it wouldn't show correctly on the forum.

I guess what I'm trying to stab at is - don't be pedantic over the Anglicised spelling of an Arabic name. Please.

Sigh here I go again I cant stop myself Im almost sorry for keeping it going at this point

How would you propose we punish the film maker and should we punish those dutch cartoonists(IIRC) for offending the delicate sensibilities of the radicals as well.

Danish [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy], but I agree with you (I think - you don't explicitly say it so I'm assuming you're in line with the following), we should not, and indeed can not, punish people for something just because other people might find it offensive.

Since first seeing this thread I've been looking for a cartoon I've not seen in a while, couldn't find it for ages, I feel it's kinda relevant here:

 

[AverageExtraordinair]

snip

Exactly , I have been debating that for a bit on some of the previous pages and Im apparently at it again. I think doing pretty well at it as I got the guy I was arguing with to compare the man who made the movie to the Nazis when he was losing which I believe means that I won.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

I'm just worried about this. One day some Muslim extremist group pulls off something that makes the twin towers look like a high school prank. I mean dirty nuke in Rome, biological attack in LA or NYC, killing millions.

Then Islam will have to either purge itself or get purged from the outside...

It's a day I really hope to never see.

 

[Sniper_Zegai]

Doesn't "Islam" mean "peace" in Arabic?

Mohammed knew the value of advertising.

 

[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.

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?

if we can both agree that 1) the filmmaker should be punished, 2) the terrorists need to be punished, and 3) the people who caused the deaths, although me may never be sure of who did the acts, need to be punished, if we can agree that violence is no excuse for essentially verbal offense, then yes, we can let this argument go

Yes, i agree with that.*Shakes opponents hand* Honor to speak with you about this.

Likewise, at least we kept this 98% civil and didn't resort to childishness

 

[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.

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?

if we can both agree that 1) the filmmaker should be punished, 2) the terrorists need to be punished, and 3) the people who caused the deaths, although me may never be sure of who did the acts, need to be punished, if we can agree that violence is no excuse for essentially verbal offense, then yes, we can let this argument go

Yes, i agree with that.*Shakes opponents hand* Honor to speak with you about this.

Sigh here I go again I cant stop myself Im almost sorry for keeping it going at this point

How would you propose we punish the film maker and should we punish those dutch cartoonists(IIRC) for offending the delicate sensibilities of the radicals as well.

he needs to be punished not for the film but for committing fraud owing to around 800K, that is what he needs punishment for. I don't have the exact specs but someone on here mentioned it, and that is something I think he needs to pay up on if it's true