Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Skratt]

Gotta say, as much as I detest the stupid bigot video they made, the radicals are kind of making his point for him. They do understand the concept of irony over there don't they?

 

[Burst6]

Yes I can, quite easily. You see, Charles Darwin's works are not innately harmful to anyone, if anything they are beneficial. Who benefits from this clearly offensive video? Punishing someone for inciting violence out of others is NOT the same thing as censorship. It isn't censoring someone if you send them to prison for telling a drunk with known suicidal tendencies that they are worthless and should jump off the nearest skyscraper, and then he does.

But this isn't someone inciting violence in others on purpose. This is someone trying to make a mean spirited video, and then violence happening because of it. He was trying to display his beliefs and a lot of extremist idiots responded by starting a riot.

 

[NiPah]

Could the maker of this film be arrested and convicted of murder?

No, no he couldn't be convicted of murder for his role in making a movie that incited a riot that resulted the murder of ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
And thank god, thank fucking god that we have not stooped so low. I love my freedom on speech, one of the basic tenants of human rights, it leads to the good (and sometimes bad) exchange of knowledge free of persecution by those in power or the common masses.

 

[Cat Cloud]

You realize the bomb threat at NDSU has NOTHING to do with the protests, right? I'm right near there, and I'm pretty sure it was just some kid being as ass.

For the rest of the debate, yeah the violence of the protests were unnecessary, but it really shows the mentality of the video. There is extensive Western presence in the Middle East, and many people there who are Moslem see the West as being against or hating Islam. This video only fuels their suspicions. Coupled with changing times and staunch conservationism (in values) you get almost a paranoia, like the US in the Cold War.

Basically, they feel like they are under siege. Hence the overreaction to some idiot with a YouTube account.

 

[Brotherofwill]

Yes we can, quite easily. Running into an airport shouting "I have a bomb" will get you silenced fairly quickly. You see, Charles Darwin's works are not innately harmful to anyone, if anything they are beneficial. Who benefits from this clearly offensive video? Punishing someone for inciting violence out of others is NOT the same thing as censorship. It isn't censoring someone if you send them to prison for telling a drunk with known suicidal tendencies that they are worthless and should jump off the nearest skyscraper, and then he does.

Ofcourse Darwin's work was harmful. Given the state of the world back then it was way more offensive to the dominant system of belief than this video is. Nothing should be censored, especially if its a silly video or a satirical cartoon, that's how the west rolls and I hope it stays that way. As soon as you 'punish' (not really sure what you mean by that) people for these kind of things you give in to terrorism.

 

[uberDoward]

Part of "freedom of speech" also guarantees that no physical harm will come to the speaker.

Since when? This is news to me. I'd really like you to site a reputable source for this one because I'm genuinely curious as to where this is stated in the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Punching someone in the face after they have said something you dislike very much abridges and prohibits that person's free speech.

Killing someone? Why yes, that, too, prohibits one's speech, oddly enough.

 

[sleeky01]

Yes I can, quite easily. You see, Charles Darwin's works are not innately harmful to anyone, if anything they are beneficial. Who benefits from this clearly offensive video? Punishing someone for inciting violence out of others is NOT the same thing as censorship. It isn't censoring someone if you send them to prison for telling a drunk with known suicidal tendencies that they are worthless and should jump off the nearest skyscraper, and then he does.

But this isn't someone inciting violence in others on purpose. This is someone trying to make a mean spirited video, and then violence happening because of it. He was trying to display his beliefs and a lot of extremist idiots responded by starting a riot.

Very well, i'll concede the point. However, what he did while not illegal, was no less criminal.

It would first have to have been illegal to have been criminal. It was not illegal, therefore not criminal.

Captcha: Run the Gauntlet

Christ! Captcha is better than a magic 8-ball.

 

[The Great JT]

I don't see a peaceful end to this scenario, shy of finding the guy responsible for the flick and expiditing him to the middle east to face judgement.

 

[Animyr]

At the risk of getting scalded, I'll dip my toe in.

First of all, I just love watching the radicals at work here. A small group of Christian malcontents creates a video deliberately calculated to anger muslims and muslim extremists (notice how most of the protests are no more then a few thousand people, if that) use it as a pretext to execute terrorist attacks targeted to anger Americans ie Christians. The funny thing is that both of these groups seem to be in complete and utter agreement on one thing; there needs to be a war to the death, preferably ending in genocide, and the world is too calm to heed their calls to opposing arms. So they help each other, after their own twisted fashion. The trolls of the human race, people. Don't feed them.

That said, if any one side is in the wrong here I don't think it's the filmmakers, as onerous as they may be. A nonviolent insult, no matter how cheap (both literally and figuratively), does not warrant a violent response.

to attribute the violence seen out of radicals as being purely a matter of how violent Islam is innately is just plain incorrect. There is a myriad of variables and issues that all contribute to this sort of thing beyond what someone once wrote in a book.

Perhaps, but the blunt fact remains that regardless of past crimes and inequalities of circumstance Christianity has grown up, so to speak, and Islam has not. Certainly Muslims, who have certainly latched onto ideas of tolerance (for them), continually prove that their collective grasp of the concepts of free speech and right to dissent is inconsistent. Regardless of the reasons they very much seem to be more paranoid, more insecure and quicker to anger. You're saying that Islam is not inherently evil (at least more so then Christianity), and maybe that's true, but I think the main point Sam Harris is making in that video remains; Islam is very different from Christianity as it exists now, if not necessarily Christianity in the past (whether it is or not is irrelevant to the point, I think) and to pretend that there is an equivalence in temperament between the two as they exist in the modern day is dangerously inaccurate.

I will also venture to add that whatever the crimes of Christianity at least its central prophet was a pacifist with no political or military ambitions and, as I recall, advocated that his followers should follow suit. This hurdle may have been surmounted often in the past but it is still a hurdle, and I think it made Christianity more inclined to mellow out the way it has. Muslims who want to wage war don't have those hurdles, I am given to understand. Beginning with its very inception under Mohammad Islam has a long tradition of operating as a political, social and militaristic entity as well as a religious one and a great deal of historical and scriptural precedent for being as such. I think this difference is at least a major reason as to why Christian cultures have yielded more readily relinquished theocracy, accepted secularism and science, and marginalized its fanatics then Islam has. Violent Muslims have an easier time finding justification for their actions and more scriptural grounds to persuade those on the fence then most violent fanatics from other religiouns, and arguably it's fellows in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Perhaps social and economic factors play a significant role as well but the fact remains that Muslim scripture is not exactly helping a great deal to diffuse the situation. Of course, I will also add that Christianity rampaging around the world largely unchallenged for several hundred years is a hell of a way to quench one's thirst for conquest. Nevertheless, IMO Christianity's past crimes does in no way make the naked aspirations some influential corners of Islam for the same amount of license any less worrisome or potentially destructive.

 

[the clockmaker]

How about we burn any and all books which cause offence? Anything which was ever controversial or upset someone? Anything which has caused a stir or upset someone.

Just pointing out that going completely out of the context for what he said in an attempt to make his stance look less reasonable than it is scores you no points. It is rather intellectually lazy of you in fact.

To the contrary, whilst the film is bullshit, we can't pick and choose what we want to defend.

Suppose that we were not talking about some silly comedy film but Darwin's Theory of Evolution suddenly being published today. Suppose that it caused similar religious offence. Should it be banned because it's offensive?

Yes we can, quite easily. Running into an airport shouting "I have a bomb" will get you silenced fairly quickly. You see, Charles Darwin's works are not innately harmful to anyone, if anything they are beneficial. Who benefits from this clearly offensive video? Punishing someone for inciting violence out of others is NOT the same thing as censorship. It isn't censoring someone if you send them to prison for telling a drunk with known suicidal tendencies that they are worthless and should jump off the nearest skyscraper, and then he does.

See, I say again, the comparisons to this situation are always to panicked mobs, animals and the mentally ill. The people of the arabic muslim nations are for the most part, thinking people. It is not putting up a lighting rod and being surprised when it gets struck, because lighting has no choice in the matter, it is not poking a bear, because a bear does not understand the notion of human rights, it is not mocking a drunk depressive, because that drunk's mind is inhibited by chemicals and their illness and it is certaintly not shouting bomb in an airport, because the only instinct in that crowd as it flees is self preservation, they have no time to think.

These rioters got up in the morning, looked at that piece of shit video and decided that they would commit violence based on a low budget film on the other side of the earth. Thousands of ks away, somebody put a camera in front of something they didn't like and because of that, that fucking fart in the wind, they thought it appropriate to become violent. Even worse, some of them let others make that decision for them.

But it is good to know that we should let the perpetrators of violence and their apologists decide what is and is not 'beneficial'. I'm sure that the maker of the video thought it was beneficial. Lets play this out though, cutting away anything that is offensive and 'not beneficial' Lady gaga, tramping around in her revealing clothing, that offends people in southeast asia (as shown by her show being banned) and I can't see the benefit; You know that several comedy outlets called the dear leader insane in the weeks after his death, I mean, he's dead, there's no benefit to that and I am positive that it offends best korea. Hell your post adds nothing to this world that I can see and it sure as hell offends me, so how dare you post it, inciting me to violence like that. Lets get rid of all of that, anything that one perfect arbiter decides is not beneficial and offensive.

Hey, lightbulb, idea, lets appoint those rioters as the decision makers of what we can and cannot say, because they already seem to be getting in the swing of things.

 

[ultrapowerpie]

I do have some good news about the UT incident that was linked on the first page (I actually go there). It turns out it was all a hoax, no bombs were found on campus and no one got hurt, so it was probably some idiot pulling a prank.

Horrible? Yes, but at least no one got hurt.

 

[maninahat]

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.

What do you think the US should be doing? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm genuinely curious.

Pull out embassies. Sever diplomatic ties. Cut off monetary aid. Respond! Do whatever the US gov't normally does in response to terrorist groups killing and capturing US citizens.
Just don't kowtow and apologize and blame the person at whom these violent mobs are angry.

What we normally do is response to terrorists killing American citizens?...uh...I think if Iraq proved anything it's that half of our country and most of Europe doesn't really appreciate what we normally do when terrorists kill our citizens. BTW, people are apologizing for this? Who? When? Can you send a link?

I didn't see it myself, but I have been told that President Obama and some others have formally apologized to the Muslim community for the video. My president represents me and everyone I know in this country. There is no reason to apologize, because we're not responsible for the video in the first place. Kind of insulting really.

....Obama apologized to the people who killed American citizens, including an ambassador?...he must not want for me to vote for him that badly. For Christ sake, is there no middle ground with this country? It's either full out invading other countries, or apologizing to other countries after they kill our people.

To be precise (having seen Obama's release), what he said was that whilst he condemned the video, he said it in no way justifies acts of murder and aggression. So no, it's not an apology. It's an agreement that the video was bad, and a condemnation of violent protests.

The thing is, many of the country's officials (Libya, and Egypt included) felt the same way, releasing statements that again, condemned the video, but also condemned the violence.

Another element I haven't seen brought up: there is a suspicion that the attacks on US embassies were too precise and well equipeed for an angry mob to orchestrate. It has been suggested by intelligence agencies that Al Qaeda or other groups were already planning some kind of armed assault, and simply took advantage of the video riots to attack, roughly around the anniversary of 9/11. That doesn't sound too implausible to me. If that is the case, it moves some of the responsibility away from the protestors, and to insurgents hidden amongst them.

 

[Padwolf]

I understand why some muslims would be offended, a lot of damage has been done to their reputation and religion already by the media and they wouldn't want more done.

Feeling offended is fine, feeling offended is totally a-okay!

You know what's not fine? Rampaging embassies because you feel offended.

Exactly, that's not ok, I hope that those with cooler heads sort it out rather than all this. All this over that film, which looks poor as it is, is just too much and won't help a thing. It's just going too far and now it's one big massive wrong mess.

 

[PhiMed]

I mean come on. You can't honestly believe this is over a youtube video, can you?

These are people we're talking about.

I think you underestimate just how worked up people can get over a crappy video

I think you're far too trusting of the prevailing media narrative.

 

[Supertegwyn]

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.

What do you think the US should be doing? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm genuinely curious.

Pull out embassies. Sever diplomatic ties. Cut off monetary aid. Respond! Do whatever the US gov't normally does in response to terrorist groups killing and capturing US citizens.
Just don't kowtow and apologize and blame the person at whom these violent mobs are angry.

What we normally do is response to terrorists killing American citizens?...uh...I think if Iraq proved anything it's that half of our country and most of Europe doesn't really appreciate what we normally do when terrorists kill our citizens. BTW, people are apologizing for this? Who? When? Can you send a link?

I didn't see it myself, but I have been told that President Obama and some others have formally apologized to the Muslim community for the video. My president represents me and everyone I know in this country. There is no reason to apologize, because we're not responsible for the video in the first place. Kind of insulting really.

....Obama apologized to the people who killed American citizens, including an ambassador?...he must not want for me to vote for him that badly. For Christ sake, is there no middle ground with this country? It's either full out invading other countries, or apologizing to other countries after they kill our people.

I am almost positive I read something disregarding that.


I wouldn't take any of this at face value until we see sources.

OT: I heard that the attacks may be orchestrated by Al-Queda, as the video has been dubbed over and the name of the director appears to be fake (no mention of him in any government records)

 

[the clockmaker]

See, I say again, the comparisons to this situation are always to panicked mobs, animals and the mentally ill. The people of the arabic muslim nations are for the most part, thinking people. It is not putting up a lighting rod and being surprised when it gets struck, because lighting has no choice in the matter, it is not poking a bear, because a bear does not understand the notion of human rights, it is not mocking a drunk depressive, because that drunk's mind is inhibited by chemicals and their illness and it is certaintly not shouting bomb in an airport, because the only instinct in that crowd as it flees is self preservation, they have no time to think.

These rioters got up in the morning, looked at that piece of shit video and decided that they would commit violence based on a low budget film on the other side of the earth. Thousands of ks away, somebody put a camera in front of something they didn't like and because of that, that fucking fart in the wind, they thought it appropriate to become violent. Even worse, some of them let others make that decision for them.

But it is good to know that we should let the perpetrators of violence and their apologists decide what is and is not 'beneficial'. I'm sure that the maker of the video thought it was beneficial. Lets play this out though, cutting away anything that is offensive and 'not beneficial' Lady gaga, tramping around in her revealing clothing, that offends people in southeast asia (as shown by her show being banned) and I can't see the benefit; You know that several comedy outlets called the dear leader insane in the weeks after his death, I mean, he's dead, there's no benefit to that and I am positive that it offends best korea. Hell your post adds nothing to this world that I can see and it sure as hell offends me, so how dare you post it, inciting me to violence like that. Lets get rid of all of that, anything that one perfect arbiter decides is not beneficial and offensive.

Hey, lightbulb, idea, lets appoint those rioters as the decision makers of what we can and cannot say, because they already seem to be getting in the swing of things.

Completely irrelevant. My point is that we already "Censor" people for a myriad of reasons. Whether they are justified or even completely comparable to my example is meaningless. If the government is allowed to censor people EVER, FOR ANY REASON, then we don't have a "Right" to free speech. We have a privilege, and privileges can be revoked.

If we can arrest people for causing a panic, then why not for causing a riot as well, intentional or not?

Because a panic is, as I said, self preservation, I am afraid that there is a bomb and I flee.
When you riot, you chose to commit acts of violence against another person, you made the decision that your outrage was more important than the safety of others. These people are, and this seems to not be sinking in, not animals and they, not someone on the other side of the planet are responsible for what they do.

And just because there are limitations on rights does not cancel out the fact that they are rights. I have the right to freedom of movement, but that doesn't mean I can go into your house without your permission. Yes, there are times that you do not have the right to say something, this is not one of them.

As I said, I cannot see the benefit to what you are saying, and some of your posts have offended me. WOuld it be appropriate to comit violence upon you? If not, why is my outrage worth less than theirs, or, if you are going that way, their expectation for reason less than mine?

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I don't see a peaceful end to this scenario, shy of finding the guy responsible for the flick and expiditing him to the middle east to face judgement.

You do know that that will mean a very painful death for the guy? That community isn't going to simply let him off or give him a prison sentence. They will most likely kill the man, just like they murdered the embassy worker and more today. And someone should never be killed for making a film, no matter how offensive or hateful it is. It would also pretty much be giving into terrorists, saying that if they kill enough of our people they'll get the shit they want.

 

[runic knight]

I've heard that some of the protests are actually of Muslims protesting the violence itself. Seems likely enough, protesting is a popular way to get public opinions out in the air over in the middle east. But nto the topic on hand.

Obama hasn't apologized for the video. From what I saw and read, it was something to the effect of saying it doesn't represent the views of the nation (which, it most certainly doesn't), and that the violence is an unacceptable reaction. Then there was Clinton's words to the mix, Clinton being Obama's Sec. of State and all, it does kinda tie in. Her words being something to the effect of "If you have to be violent, you obviously don't have a lot of faith in your own beliefs and are pussies." But that is just interpretation of what she said there. Still, the end result looks more an attempt to point shit out rationally, try to push the idea that one asshole with a video does not equal opinion of entire nation and that violence is bad, m'kay? Doesn't seem much like an apology, more like a statement of common sense that shouldn't have needed to be said in the first place but is required because of the ole the president has in the nation as public cheerleader of sorts.


As for the attacks being planned beforehand, that does add up. We don't know for sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, as it makes sense in and of itself and the timing matches.