Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[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.

 

[Karfroogle]

I don't want to start some sort of argument and I'll accept whatever I get, but have Christians done this within the last 2 centuries? Have we (I'm Christian) recently reacted like this to the mob of anti-Christian material out there? I'm not saying that Christianity is better or anything, I'm just wondering why these protesters who condemn my religion are going crazy over someone condemning theres.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I don't want to start some sort of argument and I'll accept whatever I get, but have Christians done this within the last 2 centuries? Have we (I'm Christian) recently reacted like this to the mob of anti-Christian material out there? I'm not saying that Christianity is better or anything, I'm just wondering why these protesters who condemn my religion are going crazy over someone condemning theres.

Well I will say that the "Jesus Cartoon"-protests are few and far between (non existing to be honest, or am I just living in a peaceful country?).

Hm. Maybe all religions need to get through their own "dark-age" period (kinda like how a person need to get through puberty before being completely grown up) before they learn how to reconcile their heresy-stuff with common decency?

 

[xorinite]

Ridiculous mad babyish conduct again by violent thugs and hypocrites.

I'd be willing to bet that these depraved goons killing random unrelated people because other people have 'offended' them are the very same ones who routinely make or consume cartoons, publications, leaflets and so on stating that all Jews, gays, foreigners, Sikhs, Hindus etc should be killed or are secretly drinking their blood, or plotting to destroy them, or working for the devil and so on.

You will of course notice that we don't have roving bands of homosexuals burning down the Sudanese embassy.

It looks to me very much like they are simply spoiled brats.

Relative Economic deprivation aside, when these men grow up not being told no, when they are taught that violence is the correct response to someone hurting your feelings, and its pushed at every level from the state using force against people for 'blasphemy' to social relationships in which beatings are considered appropriate interactions, controlling other peoples opinions and actions through force is normal, religious teachings as mainstream which posit 'might makes right', and a system where you assign privileged status depending on what ideas people hold to be true about the supernatural..

Is it a surprise you get people who have such an inflated sense of self importance they will murder others for that?

Perhaps.

However combine this with the vicious internal politics in these countries which deliberately fosters this kind of behaviour and stirs it up whenever they need to jostle for power.. well seems like you have your perfect powder keg.

Edit: additionally, keep in mind in these countries actually stating your opinions isn't protected. No free speech, and when people aren't allowed to speak freely, the only expression they seem to have left is violence. So the whole thing feeds upon itself like some ouroboros serpent.

On a microscale it reminds me of being in a playground at school and someone telling you that your mother is fat. The guy has never met your mother, why do you care what he says?

Now lets say this guy is out of your reach, or to strong for you to fight. Do you grow up and get over it reasoning that this idiots opinion doesn't matter. Or do you beat up someone else in the schoolyard to prove how tough you are and how nobody can call your mother a nasty name.

Some people have complained that politicians don't say this, well politicians are duplicitous anyway their very nature means they have to stay as beige as possible taking as few stands as possible to maximise their potential swing votes.

We even have parallels with violent rioting in china, where Chinese people are smashing other Chinese peoples property because they are upset at the Japanese. Makes a lot of sense right. Bah.

 

[Andre Rapp]

do not make the mistake of thinking any of this was the result of a poorly made film. spontaneous riots are not equip with RPGs and AKs. They do not use scouts to photograph the planed site of the riot, and they do not leave paper trails leading to established militant organizations.

these are planned assaults, using a stupid films as ammunition to make a crowd to use as cover. The radicals are no longer an outlier, they are the majority in these regions.

 

[Depulcator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg&feature=g-all-u My opinion on the subject.

 

[Karfroogle]

I don't want to start some sort of argument and I'll accept whatever I get, but have Christians done this within the last 2 centuries? Have we (I'm Christian) recently reacted like this to the mob of anti-Christian material out there? I'm not saying that Christianity is better or anything, I'm just wondering why these protesters who condemn my religion are going crazy over someone condemning theres.

Well I will say that the "Jesus Cartoon"-protests are few and far between (non existing to be honest, or am I just living in a peaceful country?).

Hm. Maybe all religions need to get through their own "dark-age" period (kinda like how a person need to get through puberty before being completely grown up) before they learn how to reconcile their heresy-stuff with common decency?

Sounds like it. I mean, it seems they've all been through some bad spots (some worse than others) at some point in time.

 

[afroebob]

Not excuse me if I am wrong but wasn't Islam founded on the ideas of tolerance and non-violence? I mean God damn it, people, your going against your own faith by trying to defend it! Don't you see what your doing!

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Islam is not a peaceful religion. The Koran makes it perfectly clear that there can be no peace between Muslisms and non-Muslims. It tells Muslims to murder non-muslims seven times, and preaches tolerance of non-Muslims only 3 times.

Islam's early history played out this militarism as it conquered and destroyed the surrounding civilizations until its economy, which was based on plunder, failed to renew its coffers because it started to be defeated. Islam of course claimed credit for the efforts of the civilizations it destroyed such as their wonderful inventions.

Probably the worst thing that Islam ever did was the murder of around 80 million Hindus during the invasion of India, which actually makes all subsequent genocides pale by comparrison. Only Mao Zedong's starving of 50 million Chinese comes close in number.

Islam is not a good neighbor, it has never been and indeed it cannot be. At the core of the religion there is a message of self serving militarism, and this has only been compounded by the Muslim Brotherhood, that was founded in the 1930s when the predominant influence on its ideology was Fascism and National Socialism. Look it up. This plus Saudi and CIA money gave birth to Al Quaeda. Worse still, the current "Arab Spring" has done more to advance the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda than any notion of democracy because when it comes to the balot, only the MB have the organization to win an election.

In short, it is my opinion that total war with an increasingly united and militarized Islam is inevitable and it will begin when the Muslim world first engages in an act of nuclear terrorism, most likely with an attack on Tel Aviv, London, or New York. So far there has been an effort made by forces involved in conflicts in Muslim territory to treat them with respect. This is counter-productive considering that the only thing Islam respects is force.
The coming war will be long and ugly, and the initial nuclear exchanges and will inevitably see Mecca burn along with the whole Middle East and a good deal of Europe and parts of China and India. As a society we must be willing to say that enough is enough, and that civilized societies cannot put up with militant religion any more, and adopt a zero tolerance attitude incorporating the death penalty as punishment.

Jeez, hold on there. I'm slightly familiar with the Qur'an, at least enough to know that they're far more strict and far less tolerant than the teachings in the Bible, and that there are a lot of radical Muslims out there that do take it seriously, but I highly doubt that even a couple of Middle Eastern countries count as the Islamic 'majority.'

I've known a couple of Muslims in my lifetime, and I can guarantee you the fact that they do not, in fact, hate me for being a Catholic, or secretly plot to punish those who do not follow the word of Muhammad. They are tolerant of our religious traditions, just as Christians and Jews are tolerant of each other. With the exception of extremist factions, we haven't had any war (to my knowledge) with a religiously-motivated malice since Hitler's genocide of the Jews back in World War II.

You know what all of the radical Muslims and Islamic states in the Middle East are? They're the equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church, just for Islam and on a larger scale. They're devout in their beliefs, have twisted it into something wretched, and I can bet 100% that the majority of the followers of the related religion would sooner be castrated than admit that they happen to follow the same beliefs. If we end up recreating the plot of the Fallout games on the world, it's not going to be because of motherfucking religion.

do not make the mistake of thinking any of this was the result of a poorly made film. spontaneous riots are not equip with RPGs and AKs. They do not use scouts to photograph the planed site of the riot, and they do not leave paper trails leading to established militant organizations.

these are planned assaults, using a stupid films as ammunition to make a crowd to use as cover. The radicals are no longer an outlier, they are the majority in these regions.

See above. You'd be surprised exactly how film can influence entire movements. Ever watch Birth of a Nation?

... And no, I'm Asian, so I'm allowed to make that reference and not come off as racist.

 

[turrel1981]

Can someone make an anti Christian movie, only this time with better acting. and see how they react? this reminds me of a certain video from coctapussprime who made a video about the comments on fox new's face book page, from christians who posted after atheists objected to
two iron pillars in the shape of a cross been placed as a nmemorial on the WTC site.
and guess what? Fox removed the comments afterwards.