Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Starke]

Oh my god, look at the comments on those articles. do these people not realize that hate-speech like that is exactly what causes problems like this?

Most people, in my experience, are incredibly poor at evaluating the consequences of their actions, at least when it comes to expressing their opinions online.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this.

Can we stop calling it a peaceful religion? The phrase has gone beyond a joke.

 

[Sixcess]

In the global community Islam is a mentally unbalanced man who goes into a violent rage at the sight of small furry animals with pointed ears. Rather than locking the dangerous lunatic up, the western response is to ban kittens.

It is a tragedy that western civilisation is so dependant on oil. If we weren't we could pull out completely from that benighted, quarrelsome, unstable and otherwise worthless part of the world and just leave them to murder each other.

 

[Zeriah]

Appalling response by the Islamic community. I feel bad for the Muslims that are not stuck in the Middle Ages, that are going to have to deal with the reinforcement of every single negative stereotype about Muslims because of this. This type of response is not going to work in this modern world, if they keep acting this way over things of such little import (a fucking internet video for fucks sake, that had every right in the world to be made, despite being garbage) it is going to end with their culture being wiped off the face of the Earth, as the other 77% of the world cracks down on their horrible actions.

Fuck religion and fuck our weak leaders.

 

[acosn]

A few quick points.



Two) Stop trying to fight bigotry with bigotry. It just ends with Nationalism which ends in a lot of young men getting sent off to kill a lot of other young men. It also makes you sound like a penis.

We're not being bigotive. Islam is a religion, not a race. It's leading to incredible amounts of instability wherever it goes, and it wants to impose itself on whatever region it goes to. But by all means, tell that to the British or the French who now have sections of their cities they simply don't police anymore because the Muslims have literally alienated everyone else out of the area. Tell that to the police who won't even enforce the law in those areas because they just get attacked. Tell that to the teachers who have to put up with disruptive kids who think that a bunch of bronze age goat herders know more about evolution than 21st century science.

All things being taken equally? Yeah, there's perfectly level headed muslims out there. I've met them, hell I even lived with one for 6 months. They're not the ones in the news. They're not the ones raiding our embassies. If they can't fix their own religions problems it behooves us, the outside to do it for them.

Three) The film is not something to be taken in a vacuum. It is not "Oh, a single film was made and suddenly people are angry". For many, MANY people in the Arab world, America (And the west) are seen as aggressors, people who bring conflict, people who lie, people who are deceitful and people who simply do not give a shit about them. This racism, this stereotype, comes out of many years of direct and indirect conflict, the years of empire, just about everything really. The storming of these embassies, these protests, it is not JUST about the film. Consider it to be the "Straw that broke the camels back". And before you say "Well, that back gets broken a lot". Yes, Yes it does.

I grew up around people who were losing relatives on a weekly basis due to the Iraq war. I grew up around people who were losing relatives on a monthly basis thanks to Israeli assaults in Palestine. I grew up being driven around by Afghani taxi drivers, refugees, men who would state how much they hate the Taliban but wish that the Americans could learn to aim. It is not about the film people.

It is about decades, if not centuries, of outside involvement that have led to little more then misery and death.

About a century. Prior to the first world war the middle east was administered by the Ottoman empire, and for the most part it worked except for the fact that they couldn't manage their finances to save their lives. Great Britain's greatest aid to the country was literally accountants.

If you really want to dig further, everyone is killing everyone in the middle east. Literally the only reason anyone is even remotely interested in the middle east today is because global oil markets are inextricably tied to it, which is why even though the US gets virtually no oil from the middle east, we're still stuck there. I mean, don't get me wrong, the Afghan and Iraqi wars were beyond stupid- you don't go to war with a country to hold their hands and sing kum-ba-ya. You do it to utterly destroy their ability to fight back. Most of the problem really does just come back to the fact that there's no good way to reconcile proper nationalism with how the middle east is structured. Most parts of it simply never had a real, cohesive state so when you ask groups that want absolutely nothing to do with each other to work together....well it doesn't end well.

Four) (AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE) Freedom of speech gives you freedom to be a dick. True. But in many countries, freedom of speech is limited. This racist fundamentalist maniac would not have been able to create his little trailer in a cynical attempt to destablise Egypt (The real reason behind this. Go read more people) if he was in the UK. It would have been stopped because you cannot preach hatred.

Some things should not be covered by freedom of speech. And hate speech is one of them. Laws need to be changed to make sense. I mean, in the UK we have freedom to gather in public places. You know, essential freedom behind any functioning democracy (Which we are not) but after the rise of Fascism, we banned the freedom to march in uniform as a part of a political party. We did this cause it would break the back of the Fascist movement. Sure, it is limiting a freedom, but it makes sense.

People should stop hiding behind "Freedom of Speech". You are free to say something and you are free to be punched for it. And when the things that you say will cause riots, because that is your aim, when you are trying to cause misery and death, YOU SHOULD BE STOPPED. You do not have freedom of speech in the states, many things are prevented. This film should have been stopped in its tracks.

Freedom of speech should not take precedent over freedom to continue breathing. And when what you say will cause people to stop breathing, when your AIM is to say something that will stop people from breathing, well, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FUCKING SPEAK.

Peace out.

Religion doesn't need protection from the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech needs protection from religion. It's one thing to advocate violence on others, but for the most part when people say, "hate speech" they really mean "adults calling each other names." and most of that only holds any relevance because the offended part takes leave of their senses. You can only be offended because you let words offend you. To complain that you are offended is quite literally to just whine.

And at any rate, if your religion doesn't hold up under the most basic of scrutiny, why believe?

 

[Geth Reich]

Its almost as if people who've lived in ruthless dictatorships in unstable, poverty stricken countries where just about anything the government doesn't like can be censored or banned, including education, and have been fucked over by the West a fair bit would take any reason to demonstrate their considerable anger.....

 

[ResonanceSD]

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

I think it means "submission".


Submit to the will of someone else! because rational thinking is beyond you! Is what it sounds like to me.

 

[Mr F.]

A few quick points.



Two) Stop trying to fight bigotry with bigotry. It just ends with Nationalism which ends in a lot of young men getting sent off to kill a lot of other young men. It also makes you sound like a penis.

We're not being bigotive. Islam is a religion, not a race. It's leading to incredible amounts of instability wherever it goes, and it wants to impose itself on whatever region it goes to. But by all means, tell that to the British or the French who now have sections of their cities they simply don't police anymore because the Muslims have literally alienated everyone else out of the area. Tell that to the police who won't even enforce the law in those areas because they just get attacked. Tell that to the teachers who have to put up with disruptive kids who think that a bunch of bronze age goat herders know more about evolution than 21st century science.

All things being taken equally? Yeah, there's perfectly level headed muslims out there. I've met them, hell I even lived with one for 6 months. They're not the ones in the news. They're not the ones raiding our embassies. If they can't fix their own religions problems it behooves us, the outside to do it for them.

Three) The film is not something to be taken in a vacuum. It is not "Oh, a single film was made and suddenly people are angry". For many, MANY people in the Arab world, America (And the west) are seen as aggressors, people who bring conflict, people who lie, people who are deceitful and people who simply do not give a shit about them. This racism, this stereotype, comes out of many years of direct and indirect conflict, the years of empire, just about everything really. The storming of these embassies, these protests, it is not JUST about the film. Consider it to be the "Straw that broke the camels back". And before you say "Well, that back gets broken a lot". Yes, Yes it does.

I grew up around people who were losing relatives on a weekly basis due to the Iraq war. I grew up around people who were losing relatives on a monthly basis thanks to Israeli assaults in Palestine. I grew up being driven around by Afghani taxi drivers, refugees, men who would state how much they hate the Taliban but wish that the Americans could learn to aim. It is not about the film people.

It is about decades, if not centuries, of outside involvement that have led to little more then misery and death.

About a century. Prior to the first world war the middle east was administered by the Ottoman empire, and for the most part it worked except for the fact that they couldn't manage their finances to save their lives. Great Britain's greatest aid to the country was literally accountants.

If you really want to dig further, everyone is killing everyone in the middle east. Literally the only reason anyone is even remotely interested in the middle east today is because global oil markets are inextricably tied to it, which is why even though the US gets virtually no oil from the middle east, we're still stuck there. I mean, don't get me wrong, the Afghan and Iraqi wars were beyond stupid- you don't go to war with a country to hold their hands and sing kum-ba-ya. You do it to utterly destroy their ability to fight back. Most of the problem really does just come back to the fact that there's no good way to reconcile proper nationalism with how the middle east is structured. Most parts of it simply never had a real, cohesive state so when you ask groups that want absolutely nothing to do with each other to work together....well it doesn't end well.

Four) (AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE) Freedom of speech gives you freedom to be a dick. True. But in many countries, freedom of speech is limited. This racist fundamentalist maniac would not have been able to create his little trailer in a cynical attempt to destablise Egypt (The real reason behind this. Go read more people) if he was in the UK. It would have been stopped because you cannot preach hatred.

Some things should not be covered by freedom of speech. And hate speech is one of them. Laws need to be changed to make sense. I mean, in the UK we have freedom to gather in public places. You know, essential freedom behind any functioning democracy (Which we are not) but after the rise of Fascism, we banned the freedom to march in uniform as a part of a political party. We did this cause it would break the back of the Fascist movement. Sure, it is limiting a freedom, but it makes sense.

People should stop hiding behind "Freedom of Speech". You are free to say something and you are free to be punched for it. And when the things that you say will cause riots, because that is your aim, when you are trying to cause misery and death, YOU SHOULD BE STOPPED. You do not have freedom of speech in the states, many things are prevented. This film should have been stopped in its tracks.

Freedom of speech should not take precedent over freedom to continue breathing. And when what you say will cause people to stop breathing, when your AIM is to say something that will stop people from breathing, well, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FUCKING SPEAK.

Peace out.

Religion doesn't need protection from the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech needs protection from religion. It's one thing to advocate violence on others, but for the most part when people say, "hate speech" they really mean "adults calling each other names." and most of that only holds any relevance because the offended part takes leave of their senses. You can only be offended because you let words offend you. To complain that you are offended is quite literally to just whine.

And at any rate, if your religion doesn't hold up under the most basic of scrutiny, why believe?

Firstly (And I am not going to start complicating things by quoting each bit, it can end up confusing) I am not talking about people who state that there are areas that eh police are just afraid to go and whatnot. That is a different matter. I am talking about people who are putting the blame on all Muslims, I am talking about morons (Like Therumancer) who are preaching the utter annihilation of an entire people based on their religious beliefs because of perceived slights.

Go on facebook or reddit and you will end up swimming in a sea of racism and Islamophobia. It is, quite frankly, disgusting.

As for these accusations that there are areas the police are just "Afraid to go" my only reaction is that coppers on the continent and in the rest of the world are a bunch of pussies. Since we cleaned up Moss Side there are no "No-go" areas for the police and our lot are not armed. It sounds like horror stories to me. Heasay and bullshit, in short.

Right, Schooling. Again, from personal experience I have not seen the effect of this. However, I am more inclined to believe these claims. Simply because I have read enough in the news of Christians trying to push Creationism back into schools. My problem here is that people are taking "Some radical muslims" and applying it to all Muslims. In the west we used to have religious extremists who would kill people. Thing is, when you have an advanced state you can quash this stuff. Areas like Sudan are severly lacking in the rule of law.

Sure, these attacks are religiously motivated. But you have to think about it more then just "Those damn muslims are attacking people" and start thinking about the political and economic situation in those countries that are being affected. People are angry, they see their religion being attacked, again and again, and then they lash out. They are being lead by charismatic, powerful assholes who are good at whipping a crowd into a frenzy. This is not purely a religious thing, just the fact that assholes do what they do to get power. I mean, America and the United Kingdom were dragged into two wars because of percieved attacks on their people and the "American Way".

Finally, and this is important because it pisses me off when people make the argument you are making (Not everything prior to this point, all of that is logical and acceptable)

"You can only be offended because you let words offend you. To complain that you are offended is quite literally to just whine."

Words have meaning. They carry offence. There is no choosing in letting a word offend you, all words have meaning, have context. If someone calls a black guy a ****** with the intent to offend, would you say "You are just letting words offend you, you whiney fuckwit". No, you would think that guy who is calling someone a ****** is a prick. Words have meaning, words have context, this stupid fucking ideal on the internet that people "Let" words offend them is incredibly annoying for anyone who knows a linguist, has ever studied linguistics or, in my case, has studied and was raised by linguists.

Sure, meanings change. But denying that words have meaning and stating that anyone who is ever offended by words shows a startling inability to understand how communication works.

And as for the final point (Although this is also a tie in). Faith is without reason, on this we are agreed (I speak as an ex radical atheist. I went in the other direction, heh). But if someone has faith you have no right to insult them, to demean them, to ridicule them. You have no right to call them lesser simply because they believe in something you do not. Muslims have a deep emotional connection with their prophet, which is the cause of this anger. There is little you can do that is more insulting then ridicule the prophet.

I really cannot think of an equivalent. Hmmm...

Imagine someone went around shitting on every doorstep he could find and smearing shit all over the house. Imagine he did that to, say, a million people. And in the eyes of that million, he was being protected by a state, a state that also enjoys smearing shit everywhere. Now imagine you are armed and angry, so very angry, because people simply cannot understand why you are angry. Sure, killing people is not justified, but you still have to think about how people feel.

Finally (I know I already said finally. I have been spray painting all day and I feel light headed) but the slights of east versus west have been going on for far longer then you believe. I grew up in a country where people thought I was a witch due to my complexion and my red hair. Because the first gingers they ever saw out in that region were Crusaders. You cannot ignore historical slights.

I know this seems rambling, so I will tldr;
- My claim of bigotry was not directed at people like yourself who seem to be mostly rational but people like Therumancer who have been preaching genocide
- Hearsay and bullshit is bad.
- Political and economic situations are causing these deaths, religion is simply the excuse
- Words have meaning. Claiming that people choose to be offended by words is simply idiotic.
- Religion is not logical. But everyone should be treated with the same respect.

Bacon.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

It's certainly freedom from certain consequences.

For example if the consequence of criticising the President is to be kidnapped by secret police and tortured to death in jail cell - simply for an honest and restrained criticism - then Freedom of Speech protects you from such "consequences".

 

[MrMan999]

Stop the world I want to get off. Seriously, things seem to be getting crazier by the day.

 

[acosn]

A few quick points.



Two) Stop trying to fight bigotry with bigotry. It just ends with Nationalism which ends in a lot of young men getting sent off to kill a lot of other young men. It also makes you sound like a penis.

We're not being bigotive. Islam is a religion, not a race. It's leading to incredible amounts of instability wherever it goes, and it wants to impose itself on whatever region it goes to. But by all means, tell that to the British or the French who now have sections of their cities they simply don't police anymore because the Muslims have literally alienated everyone else out of the area. Tell that to the police who won't even enforce the law in those areas because they just get attacked. Tell that to the teachers who have to put up with disruptive kids who think that a bunch of bronze age goat herders know more about evolution than 21st century science.

All things being taken equally? Yeah, there's perfectly level headed muslims out there. I've met them, hell I even lived with one for 6 months. They're not the ones in the news. They're not the ones raiding our embassies. If they can't fix their own religions problems it behooves us, the outside to do it for them.

Three) The film is not something to be taken in a vacuum. It is not "Oh, a single film was made and suddenly people are angry". For many, MANY people in the Arab world, America (And the west) are seen as aggressors, people who bring conflict, people who lie, people who are deceitful and people who simply do not give a shit about them. This racism, this stereotype, comes out of many years of direct and indirect conflict, the years of empire, just about everything really. The storming of these embassies, these protests, it is not JUST about the film. Consider it to be the "Straw that broke the camels back". And before you say "Well, that back gets broken a lot". Yes, Yes it does.

I grew up around people who were losing relatives on a weekly basis due to the Iraq war. I grew up around people who were losing relatives on a monthly basis thanks to Israeli assaults in Palestine. I grew up being driven around by Afghani taxi drivers, refugees, men who would state how much they hate the Taliban but wish that the Americans could learn to aim. It is not about the film people.

It is about decades, if not centuries, of outside involvement that have led to little more then misery and death.

About a century. Prior to the first world war the middle east was administered by the Ottoman empire, and for the most part it worked except for the fact that they couldn't manage their finances to save their lives. Great Britain's greatest aid to the country was literally accountants.

If you really want to dig further, everyone is killing everyone in the middle east. Literally the only reason anyone is even remotely interested in the middle east today is because global oil markets are inextricably tied to it, which is why even though the US gets virtually no oil from the middle east, we're still stuck there. I mean, don't get me wrong, the Afghan and Iraqi wars were beyond stupid- you don't go to war with a country to hold their hands and sing kum-ba-ya. You do it to utterly destroy their ability to fight back. Most of the problem really does just come back to the fact that there's no good way to reconcile proper nationalism with how the middle east is structured. Most parts of it simply never had a real, cohesive state so when you ask groups that want absolutely nothing to do with each other to work together....well it doesn't end well.

Four) (AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE) Freedom of speech gives you freedom to be a dick. True. But in many countries, freedom of speech is limited. This racist fundamentalist maniac would not have been able to create his little trailer in a cynical attempt to destablise Egypt (The real reason behind this. Go read more people) if he was in the UK. It would have been stopped because you cannot preach hatred.

Some things should not be covered by freedom of speech. And hate speech is one of them. Laws need to be changed to make sense. I mean, in the UK we have freedom to gather in public places. You know, essential freedom behind any functioning democracy (Which we are not) but after the rise of Fascism, we banned the freedom to march in uniform as a part of a political party. We did this cause it would break the back of the Fascist movement. Sure, it is limiting a freedom, but it makes sense.

People should stop hiding behind "Freedom of Speech". You are free to say something and you are free to be punched for it. And when the things that you say will cause riots, because that is your aim, when you are trying to cause misery and death, YOU SHOULD BE STOPPED. You do not have freedom of speech in the states, many things are prevented. This film should have been stopped in its tracks.

Freedom of speech should not take precedent over freedom to continue breathing. And when what you say will cause people to stop breathing, when your AIM is to say something that will stop people from breathing, well, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO FUCKING SPEAK.

Peace out.

Religion doesn't need protection from the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech needs protection from religion. It's one thing to advocate violence on others, but for the most part when people say, "hate speech" they really mean "adults calling each other names." and most of that only holds any relevance because the offended part takes leave of their senses. You can only be offended because you let words offend you. To complain that you are offended is quite literally to just whine.

And at any rate, if your religion doesn't hold up under the most basic of scrutiny, why believe?

Firstly (And I am not going to start complicating things by quoting each bit, it can end up confusing) I am not talking about people who state that there are areas that eh police are just afraid to go and whatnot. That is a different matter. I am talking about people who are putting the blame on all Muslims, I am talking about morons (Like Therumancer) who are preaching the utter annihilation of an entire people based on their religious beliefs because of perceived slights.

Go on facebook or reddit and you will end up swimming in a sea of racism and Islamophobia. It is, quite frankly, disgusting.

As for these accusations that there are areas the police are just "Afraid to go" my only reaction is that coppers on the continent and in the rest of the world are a bunch of pussies. Since we cleaned up Moss Side there are no "No-go" areas for the police and our lot are not armed. It sounds like horror stories to me. Heasay and bullshit, in short.

Right, Schooling. Again, from personal experience I have not seen the effect of this. However, I am more inclined to believe these claims. Simply because I have read enough in the news of Christians trying to push Creationism back into schools. My problem here is that people are taking "Some radical muslims" and applying it to all Muslims. In the west we used to have religious extremists who would kill people. Thing is, when you have an advanced state you can quash this stuff. Areas like Sudan are severly lacking in the rule of law.

Sure, these attacks are religiously motivated. But you have to think about it more then just "Those damn muslims are attacking people" and start thinking about the political and economic situation in those countries that are being affected. People are angry, they see their religion being attacked, again and again, and then they lash out. They are being lead by charismatic, powerful assholes who are good at whipping a crowd into a frenzy. This is not purely a religious thing, just the fact that assholes do what they do to get power. I mean, America and the United Kingdom were dragged into two wars because of percieved attacks on their people and the "American Way".

Finally, and this is important because it pisses me off when people make the argument you are making (Not everything prior to this point, all of that is logical and acceptable)

"You can only be offended because you let words offend you. To complain that you are offended is quite literally to just whine."

Words have meaning. They carry offence. There is no choosing in letting a word offend you, all words have meaning, have context. If someone calls a black guy a ****** with the intent to offend, would you say "You are just letting words offend you, you whiney fuckwit". No, you would think that guy who is calling someone a ****** is a prick. Words have meaning, words have context, this stupid fucking ideal on the internet that people "Let" words offend them is incredibly annoying for anyone who knows a linguist, has ever studied linguistics or, in my case, has studied and was raised by linguists.

Sure, meanings change. But denying that words have meaning and stating that anyone who is ever offended by words shows a startling inability to understand how communication works.

And as for the final point (Although this is also a tie in). Faith is without reason, on this we are agreed (I speak as an ex radical atheist. I went in the other direction, heh). But if someone has faith you have no right to insult them, to demean them, to ridicule them. You have no right to call them lesser simply because they believe in something you do not. Muslims have a deep emotional connection with their prophet, which is the cause of this anger. There is little you can do that is more insulting then ridicule the prophet.

I really cannot think of an equivalent. Hmmm...

Imagine someone went around shitting on every doorstep he could find and smearing shit all over the house. Imagine he did that to, say, a million people. And in the eyes of that million, he was being protected by a state, a state that also enjoys smearing shit everywhere. Now imagine you are armed and angry, so very angry, because people simply cannot understand why you are angry. Sure, killing people is not justified, but you still have to think about how people feel.

Finally (I know I already said finally. I have been spray painting all day and I feel light headed) but the slights of east versus west have been going on for far longer then you believe. I grew up in a country where people thought I was a witch due to my complexion and my red hair. Because the first gingers they ever saw out in that region were Crusaders. You cannot ignore historical slights.

I know this seems rambling, so I will tldr;
- My claim of bigotry was not directed at people like yourself who seem to be mostly rational but people like Therumancer who have been preaching genocide
- Hearsay and bullshit is bad.
- Political and economic situations are causing these deaths, religion is simply the excuse
- Words have meaning. Claiming that people choose to be offended by words is simply idiotic.
- Religion is not logical. But everyone should be treated with the same respect.

Bacon.

Words only carry the meaning and value you give them.

When you're a child and someone calls you names it used to be common place to be told to grow up and ignore it.

Now apparently it needs to be rendered illegal and punishable under the law.

 

[Caverat]

Finally, and this is important because it pisses me off when people make the argument you are making (Not everything prior to this point, all of that is logical and acceptable)

"You can only be offended because you let words offend you. To complain that you are offended is quite literally to just whine."

Words have meaning. They carry offence. There is no choosing in letting a word offend you, all words have meaning, have context. If someone calls a black guy a ****** with the intent to offend, would you say "You are just letting words offend you, you whiney fuckwit". No, you would think that guy who is calling someone a ****** is a prick. Words have meaning, words have context, this stupid fucking ideal on the internet that people "Let" words offend them is incredibly annoying for anyone who knows a linguist, has ever studied linguistics or, in my case, has studied and was raised by linguists.

Sure, meanings change. But denying that words have meaning and stating that anyone who is ever offended by words shows a startling inability to understand how communication works.

I haven't read anyone in this thread that was saying words were without meaning. Words have meaning, yes, but it is true that people let themselves feel offended. Your statements to the contrary can be invalidated by someone simply saying that your lack of support for free speech offends them. Boom. You are saying something offensive, you must stop now and your post will now be classified as 'hate speech' because it is specifically intended to offend the people to which it was directed. Proof of that is your disregard for their opinion, and you outright called that type of thinking idiotic.

And as for the final point (Although this is also a tie in). Faith is without reason, on this we are agreed (I speak as an ex radical atheist. I went in the other direction, heh). But if someone has faith you have no right to insult them, to demean them, to ridicule them. You have no right to call them lesser simply because they believe in something you do not. Muslims have a deep emotional connection with their prophet, which is the cause of this anger. There is little you can do that is more insulting then ridicule the prophet.

Yes, we do have the right to ridicule them and their beliefs. Insulting followers of a faith is no different than insulting supporters of a particular politician or political party. If you can say with a straight face you have never made derogatory comments about members of a political party, or any group what-so-ever, based on their simple support/membership of said group, you can have the opinion that we can never ridicule anyone over any belief/practice what-so-ever, because you never do anyway. But since you have ridiculed people who believe that all speech must be free, we know that isn't true. It's one way or the other, either we can never ridicule anyone at all, or we can. Particular groups don't deserve special protections just because they have the most fanatically violent followers.

Yes, most people probably take their membership of a religion more serious than their status in a political party. That is irrelevant. Belief is belief, a child's belief in Santa Claus is no less significant than another person's belief in god. That is, if they both truly believe that thing to be real and correct.

No individual, belief, organization, corporation, government, religion, whatever is beyond reproach or criticism and ridicule. To state otherwise is to tilt your voice against progress.

Imagine someone went around shitting on every doorstep he could find and smearing shit all over the house. Imagine he did that to, say, a million people. And in the eyes of that million, he was being protected by a state, a state that also enjoys smearing shit everywhere. Now imagine you are armed and angry, so very angry, because people simply cannot understand why you are angry. Sure, killing people is not justified, but you still have to think about how people feel.

Except no one involved with the production of that video in anyway did anything close to that. They didn't run to the homes of muslims with internet connections and force them to watch the video. That video was harmless, it should be seen as harmless. People's reactions are the problem, nothing else. If we are to bare the responsibilities for the actions of others, even the completely unreasonable cunts of the world, in response to the sounds we make, then no one must ever be allowed to speak again. Someone, somewhere, will take offense at pretty much anything.

No, we don't have to think about how other people feel. We cannot know the minds of others, we haven't lived anyone else's life or had their experiences that skew them to be a certain way. What we have to do is make a system that best allows individuals to express themselves, where it is safe for them to do it regardless of what they wish to speak.

People should have the right to say what they want. Everyone should have the right to disagree just as freely. What people shouldn't have the right to do is get their way by throwing a violent temper tantrum born out of their butt-hurt over sensitivity.

 

[charge52]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this.

Can we stop calling it a peaceful religion? The phrase has gone beyond a joke.

Why stop, it is a peaceful religion.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Guys we can't keep putting up with this. What if another guy makes a video. Free speech is a must, and we can't just destroy that to let the same people who reacted like this have their way. No, I don't want to hear it. I am offended ay ALOT of things, but I don't kill for it. They should have ignored the guy as the wacko he was, but instead they act like the wackos themselves, and act worser.

 

[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.

The dutch is a different matter entire, mainly they were not racist and also did not draw what they did in any way to cause harm.

Whereas the man who edited the movie and such, was completely raciest and was hoping for a reaction. But if you read my last posts before then you would see i rescind my ill informed statement about many things. For example the video was released in june but the riots in September, meaning that this was a concentrated effort.
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.

 

[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.

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

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

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

Agreed. Unlike other people in this world, *Stares at Muslim radicals*

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this.

Can we stop calling it a peaceful religion? The phrase has gone beyond a joke.

Why stop, it is a peaceful religion.

I had rioters referenced in this piece from Sam Harris.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

Walking around my city with signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" "6th pillar" and "obama, obama, we love osama".


I live in Sydney. Now. Where's the supporting evidence for your side?

 

[charge52]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this.

Can we stop calling it a peaceful religion? The phrase has gone beyond a joke.

Why stop, it is a peaceful religion.

I had rioters referenced in this piece from Sam Harris.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

Walking around my city with signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" "6th pillar" and "obama, obama, we love osama".


I live in Sydney. Now. Where's the supporting evidence for your side?

My neighbors, who are Islamists, and are very nice peaceful people, even when there is a huge situation where someone insults there prophet. Also, every single Islamist and Muslim person who they and I know, which is actually quite a few oddly enough.

 

[ResonanceSD]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this.

Can we stop calling it a peaceful religion? The phrase has gone beyond a joke.

Why stop, it is a peaceful religion.

I had rioters referenced in this piece from Sam Harris.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

Walking around my city with signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" "6th pillar" and "obama, obama, we love osama".


I live in Sydney. Now. Where's the supporting evidence for your side?

My neighbors, who are Islamists, and are very nice peaceful people, even when there is a huge situation where someone insults there prophet. Also, every single Islamist and Muslim person who they and I know, which is actually quite a few oddly enough.

Well lucky you, can you get your neighbours to start a global PR campaign? They could call it "The whole world thinks we're a bit off, can you tossers pull your heads in".

 

[MrFalconfly]

It's disgusting how easily a peaceful religion can get twisted and corrupted like this.

Can we stop calling it a peaceful religion? The phrase has gone beyond a joke.

Why stop, it is a peaceful religion.

I had rioters referenced in this piece from Sam Harris.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god

Walking around my city with signs saying "behead those who insult the prophet" "6th pillar" and "obama, obama, we love osama".


I live in Sydney. Now. Where's the supporting evidence for your side?

My neighbors, who are Islamists, and are very nice peaceful people, even when there is a huge situation where someone insults there prophet. Also, every single Islamist and Muslim person who they and I know, which is actually quite a few oddly enough.

That'd be because they are well behaved and NOT because of their religion.

And in any case, any religion which causes its believers to throw a hissy fit when I draw a stick figure (not in any way offensive) and call it Muhammad or however you spell it shouldn't be classified as peaceful.