Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[BNguyen]

Another good point to raise with religion related offense would be a few years back when Christianity related practices like putting up manger scenes on Christmas or even having Christmas plays in schools became banned because apparently people found it offensive to participate in these or even display them. This current situation may be the opposite of what I mentioned but to me still feels relevant in that pretty much having religious affiliations makes you a target for offense from others, whether it be filmmakers or even people who don't have religion at all. While sure this may be attributed to separation of church and state here in the US, it's mostly been banned to have this kind of thing on public property as well.
Can anybody explain to me why if something is being done peacefully and is a sign of peaceful expression, then why is it considered offensive?

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

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".

Gadaffi - Gaddafi

I doubt he cares wherever he is now.

 

[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.

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

That I agree with 100% fraud is bad and he would need to be punished regardless of what the film was about if he is in fact guilty

 

[thiosk]

And it's spelled "Gaddafi".

Don't even start.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/81/81hnews.phtml

Unfortunately, this aired before the internet. There is no wrong way to spell moamar gahdaffy.

 

[Starke]

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.

Somehow this reminds me of the gag in the pilot of The West Wing.

Leo McGarry: Margaret, please call the editor of the New York Times crossword and tell him that Khaddafi is spelled with an H and two D's and isn't a seven-letter word for anything.

Leo McGarry: [on the phone with the New York Times] 17 across. Yes, 17 across is wrong... You're spelling his name wrong... What's my name? My name doesn't matter. I am just an ordinary citizen who relies on the Times crossword for stimulation. And I'm telling you that I met the man twice. And I recommended a pre-emptive Exocet missile strike against his air force, so I think I know how...
C.J. Cregg: Leo.
Leo McGarry: They hang up on me every time.

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

Mohammed knew the value of advertising.

"Submission" if I remember correctly.

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.

Try the last century. And it's not just US involvement. There's a lot of residual resentment for European (and American) involvement in the Middle East that goes back at least as far as the League of Nations mandate. To say nothing of Israel, the ousting of Mossedeq, the US participation in the Iran/Iraq war, and any number of other grievances.

 

[JeffBergGold]

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.

Somehow this reminds me of the gag in the pilot of The West Wing.

Leo McGarry: Margaret, please call the editor of the New York Times crossword and tell him that Khaddafi is spelled with an H and two D's and isn't a seven-letter word for anything.

Leo McGarry: [on the phone with the New York Times] 17 across. Yes, 17 across is wrong... You're spelling his name wrong... What's my name? My name doesn't matter. I am just an ordinary citizen who relies on the Times crossword for stimulation. And I'm telling you that I met the man twice. And I recommended a pre-emptive Exocet missile strike against his air force, so I think I know how...
C.J. Cregg: Leo.
Leo McGarry: They hang up on me every time.

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

Mohammed knew the value of advertising.

"Submission" if I remember correctly.

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.

Try the last century. And it's not just US involvement. There's a lot of residual resentment for European (and American) involvement in the Middle East that goes back at least as far as the League of Nations mandate. To say nothing of Israel, the ousting of Mossedeq, the US participation in the Iran/Iraq war, and any number of other grievances.

Yeah, if you read my follow up post you'll see I raise a lot of the same points.

Its really sad to read a thread like this and people are talking about "is Islam violent", "freedom of speech", etc. when those are not the real issues at play. But most of the readership here is probably too young or too uninformed to know what the real issues are in this area. At the very least all American's should learn about the history of US involvement in the region. While they are at it they may want to look at our involvement just to our south, or even in Africa. We've got our fingers into everything, politically speaking.

I have to tell you that your post are really refreshing after ceaselessly and unsuccessfully trying to allude this to people. Unfortunately every time I've tried the other frequenters go into full on meme parroting mode. Hopefully you can articulate this information better than I can and educate these guys.

 

[Kopikatsu]

When Religulous was released, there was no uprising of violent protests/riots even from extremists of the religions shown in that movie.

So I'm thinking that this whole situation is a problem specific to Islam and as such, something should be done about it. Especially considering that they've technically committed three acts of war in attacking the German, American, and UK embassies.

 

[Ryotknife]

When Religulous was released, there was no uprising of violent protests/riots even from extremists of the religions shown in that movie.

So I'm thinking that this whole situation is a problem specific to Islam and as such, something should be done about it. Especially considering that they've technically committed three acts of war in attacking the German, American, and UK embassies.

Hell, Xenosaga and Final Fantasy tactics demonize Christianity much worse than this filmmaker did with Islam.

spoiler tags incometh:

Spoiler

In Xenosaga the purpose of Christianity was a weapon to destroy humanity should God get fed up with us. The antagonist, Wilhelm, is possibly Tiberius Caesar Augustus (as in the Roman empire) who opposed Christianity in order to save the universe. Wilhelm eventually manipulates/commands the military zealots of this religion for his own purposes. Might have got some details wrong, Xenosaga had a hell of a complicated story.

Final fantasy tactics Christianity was a clever manipulation by a cadre of demons.

 

[the clockmaker]

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".

Sorry, but US occupation, what US occupation? So far as I can tell western forces havn't occupied libya since the days of the empire.

 

[DjinnFor]

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.

How is foreign radicals invading German soil in any way related to them silencing American citizens by protest, violence, and murder?

The two aren't even remotely similar.

So "He/she was asking for it" is now a valid defense?
Fact is, I can't draw Mohammed without pissing off a cloud of violent extremists. Who will then use violence and terror to try to control my actions. Do we now negotiate the sale of rights with terrorists?

This is not a bear. This is a belligerent barbarian walking into our backyard and demanding we not look at him funny. There is only one valid response to this trampling on our freedom, and it is not "Yeah, we deserve anything you do to us."

Btw, the "Freedom" part of "Freedom of Speech" has nothing to do with Freedom from any and all consequences of speech, but rather just freedom from government oppression.

If a bunch of people don't like what you say it's not the government's job to stop them. The reason for opposing violent offensive actions by rogue civilians of a foreign country on U.S. soil has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech" and everything to do with the fact that they're committing violent offensive actions on U.S. soil.

This is literally not a "Freedom of Speech" issue at all.

 

[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.

You have people who have lived in crushing poverty, under the rule of harsh dictatorships for their whole lives. You have a history of US meddling in the Middle East going back 60 years.

People seem to forget that the US created the "Iran problem" themselves when they deposed Mosaddegh. From the Wikipedia page:

Mossadegh, Mossadeq, Mosadeck, or Musaddiq (16 June 1882 ? 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the United States CIA.

Iran had a democratically elected leader but he wanted to nationalize Iran's oil so the US and the UK OVERTHREW THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT and installed a Monarchy with the previously deposed Shah. The Shah had his own secret police and many people were "disappeared" and never heard from again. There was only so much the Iranian people could take and certain religious figures used the unrest as an opportunity to seize power for themselves. Now Iran and the US must live the theocracy that has arisen.

Coming back to more recent events the US and allies have waged what looks a lot like a terrorist campaign in many middles eastern countries. We are not just operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have used drone strikes to attack targets in Pakistan, a supposed ally, as well as the aforementioned countries, and I am willing to bet in even more countries which the US is not willing to confirm. We have used tactics like hitting a home, a funeral, or a wedding with a drone, then 10 minutes later when the rescue services show up, ambulance, fire, etc., we hit with a follow up drone and kill the rescue workers! They even have their own doublespeak for it, since the US has pledged not to carry out assassinations anymore they call them "targeted killing". Look it up.

But wait, there's more! There have been the economic sanctions, the freezing of assets. Cutting some terrorists off from their money? Sure. Cutting off some aid as well? Yup. Making an already impoverished people poorer while not really affecting the ruling regime? You bet.

Next on the list are the all the people "extra-ordinarily reconditioned", some of whom are probably linked to terrorist organizations, several of whom are assuredly not. Look at the German citizen who was detained, and many others who after years of detainment and torture were released. These people come out totally screwed up mentally and physically. The German guy is a prime example, go google him.

I could fill up 10 pages of thread with more examples of this stuff but bottom line is the US and allies have been shitting on the Middle East for decades. The people over there are angry, poor, and with little hope of a better tomorrow which we all take for granted here in the West. It is easy to overlook all this stuff as an American citizen, I know I don't like thinking that my elected government is killing and maiming people and overthrowing governments. If you want to reply calling me a communist go ahead but I won't be responding to any further comments. I'm an American citizen and still proud of that fact, that is why we need to shine a light on this and not just buy the frankly condescending and insulting "a youtube video made 'em do it" BS.

...so what does this have to do with raiding a GERMAN embassy?

 

[josh4president]

...so what does this have to do with raiding a GERMAN embassy?

Probably because these were hipster fanatics and storming the American embassy was too 'mainstream' for them

 

[Sexy Devil]

Really late to this party but is this genuinely all because on guy made some stupid Youtube video? You pretty much can't go 5 minutes on the internet without seeing something racist, why is this video causing such an uproar?

 

[Nobuoa Schniell]

Really late to this party but is this genuinely all because on guy made some stupid Youtube video? You pretty much can't go 5 minutes on the internet without seeing something racist, why is this video causing such an uproar?

Make no mistake, the issue everyone should have been focused on isn't that someone made a religion-bashing video, it's that people reacted so incredibly violently to it. The fact that the president and other US officials immediately attacked the video's producer rather than condemn the actions of those monsters who are killing and destroying for the sake of their own pride shows how cowardly we all are on matters of religion.

 

[UberNoodle]

Spoiler: Some very odd related searches. Especially the one I underlined.

Anyway, all of this is rather excessive over a film is it not? Somebody needs to calm this whole situation down. Especially since it seems Germany didn't do a huge amount to be attacked.

I do love some of the comments as well.

Of course, we are in a culture in which films are everyday things which we dedicate much of our free time to watching, discussing and collecting. I think it's pretty safe to say that that isn't the experience of most people in the Sudan and thereabouts. According to reports, there is a genuine belief that the propaganda film which set off this tinderbox is the most popular film in American cinemas right now. It just shows my point.

 

[UberNoodle]

Really late to this party but is this genuinely all because on guy made some stupid Youtube video? You pretty much can't go 5 minutes on the internet without seeing something racist, why is this video causing such an uproar?

See my post above but change 'film' to 'Internet video', and 'cinema' to ... water cooler or whatever. You get my point. Saying "but it's just a film/video/one guy's opinion/etc!" truly underlines in red permanent marker, the vast difference between the Western affluent and secular reality, and the reality which people in Sudan, Libya, Egypt, etc have.

 

[Starke]

Sorry, but US occupation, what US occupation? So far as I can tell western forces havn't occupied libya since the days of the empire.

Well, Libya was under Italian control at least as recently as WWII, and was under joint British/French control until 1947. If that's what you mean by "the days of the empire", then fantastic.

...so what does this have to do with raiding a GERMAN embassy?

Because very frequently, with the Middle East, we're prone, as westerners to look for specific and direct grievances. That is to say, things like "you bombed us, now we hate you," but, very often the grievances aren't quite so clear cut. Western actions in the region, have a tendency to generate resentment across borders, and the people there have a long memory.

For a lot of Arabs, the ousting of Mossedeq is viewed as a flashcard for western hypocrisy and interference, not just Iranians.

That said, why the Germans? I can guess, but there's two possibilities, 1) they were after any western European nation, if that's the case, then mission accomplished, 2) their grievances with Germany stem from Germany's abysmal treatment of immigrants. Though I kinda suspect more the former than the latter.

EDIT: Third possibility: Germany did something to piss them off that I'm not remembering... which is entirely possible.

 

[Starke]

Spoiler: Some very odd related searches. Especially the one I underlined.

Anyway, all of this is rather excessive over a film is it not? Somebody needs to calm this whole situation down. Especially since it seems Germany didn't do a huge amount to be attacked.

I do love some of the comments as well.

Of course, we are in a culture in which films are everyday things which we dedicate much of our free time to watching, discussing and collecting. I think it's pretty safe to say that that isn't the experience of most people in the Sudan and thereabouts. According to reports, there is a genuine belief that the propaganda film which set off this tinderbox is the most popular film in American cinemas right now. It just shows my point.

There's also been the genuine belief that the film was authorized by the US government. That is to say, people from countries where their government must sign off on every film, are assuming it's the same here, and that the film was created with the blessing of the US government.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Sorry, but US occupation, what US occupation? So far as I can tell western forces havn't occupied libya since the days of the empire.

Well, Libya was under Italian control at least as recently as WWII, and was under joint British/French control until 1947. If that's what you mean by "the days of the empire", then fantastic.

...so what does this have to do with raiding a GERMAN embassy?

Because very frequently, with the Middle East, we're prone, as westerners to look for specific and direct grievances. That is to say, things like "you bombed us, now we hate you," but, very often the grievances aren't quite so clear cut. Western actions in the region, have a tendency to generate resentment across borders, and the people there have a long memory.

For a lot of Arabs, the ousting of Mossedeq is viewed as a flashcard for western hypocrisy and interference, not just Iranians.

That said, why the Germans? I can guess, but there's two possibilities, 1) they were after any western European nation, if that's the case, then mission accomplished, 2) their grievances with Germany stem from Germany's abysmal treatment of immigrants. Though I kinda suspect more the former than the latter.

EDIT: Third possibility: Germany did something to piss them off that I'm not remembering... which is entirely possible.

Well, germany is usually quite popular with the fundamentalistic, fanatic muslim crowd for trying to eradicate the jews.
And are immigrants really treated that badly in Germany, when compared to other western nations?