Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Lilani]

Put it this way.

I child is poking a sleeping bear with a stick.

Now that child has all the right in the world to poke that bear with said stick.

Just don't be surprised when the bear wakes up and mauls him.

Freedom of speech isn't some infallible defence to say what you want. I'm sick of people claiming that it is, and that any action taken against someone because of what they said is impeding their 'rights'.

I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of seeing this sort of analogy. If a guy insults another guy at a bar, and the other guy shoots him in the face, then yes. He brought it on himself. However, that doesn't make the other guy's reaction right. He's still going to get charged with first-degree murder, because unless the first guy was directly threatening his life, he had no legal reason to shoot him in the face. And the same would go if he'd simply beat him in response rather than murdering him.

No, free speech doesn't exist to allow you to say stupid things. However, because of the way it works, it is against the law to respond with violence against non-threatening speech, however "stupid" or "offensive" it might be. You're not expected to not get offended, however you are expected to be a grown-ass adult and get yourself out of the situation if you don't think you'll be able to resist punching the person in the face.

That is the difference in values on display, here. The west values free speech at the expense of getting offended sometimes, and the countries and cultures in which these protests most violently erupted value nobody getting to talk about their God except in honorable ways over speech.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

If anyone wants to know what all this shit is about, here's the trailer for the film. All I can say is... holy crap that film looks terrible. Holy shit... murder and international chaos from THIS! THIS! Damn...

This is all just a sorry state of affairs.

I find it extremely weird that movies with such low quality, low budget, and little effort actually put into their production actually make it to celluloid. I often find myself wondering why did the actors agree to participate in such a project? And if it was just for money, don't they think that participating might actually hurt their careers as actors?
I mean, do these people even take the time to think before they jump into these things like: is the writing any good? did the production team put forth any effort? does the director care?
I mean this movie, if you can even call it that, just looks like something a few kids could produce who are in middle school but with lines written by a punk teenager who could care less other than "here, we'll give you $20 to write some lines and have at least a few of the worlds we give you in them"
I see these kinds of things all the time in low budget films that Cinema Snob and Film Brain review and frankly, it's amazing that these "movies" are still bought and sold

Here's the real kicker with this movie. Recent interviews with cast and crew seems to show that the actors came onto the project under the assumption that this was just a small movie about some guy in Egypt, not about Islam or Muhammad. Most of the lines have actually been re-dubbed so that we get the piece sitting in front of us today.

 

[Erttheking]

(only serve for two terms and what not)

Actually, the 2 term limit wasn't imposed until after World War II. The 22nd Amendment.

Yes, but Washington decided to only run twice, and until then it was pretty much tradition that USA presidents only ran for two terms. FDR was the only one who did it more than twice, and after that they decided to make it law and not tradition.

 

[MammothBlade]

Defer to other peoples' culture? In other words, sacrifice "our" deeply held values so other people are not offended. That really won't do, it's a harsh compromise.

You can't have free speech without hate speech. Hate speech is only completely unacceptable when it directly incites violence or persecution against the target of its hatred. I would however support prominent disclaimers and ratings which make it clear that a book or film is considered "hate speech". Bear in mind that large portions of major religious texts could be considered extremely offensive and hateful.

Ah and now you're the one wanting it both ways, your entire argument reads that they should bend and we should not.

It doesn't matter,hate speech isn't covered by free speech it's that simple. There is no place in the world for it than to incite violence and negative feelings of peoples, places, religions and cultures.
This is exactly the kind of reaction hate speech invokes in people and you condemn the people that killed others and yet you still say that we should have hate speech but just label it and warn people.

Riiight.

That is exactly what I'm saying. We should not give an inch to Islamic extremists or otherwise. That's having it the way of secular free speech and not the way of theocratic censorship.

I said you can't have free speech without hate speech. That's my opinion more than anything, I don't care what the law says - laws after all can be changed- but that's how I view it. You can't have love without hate, trying to eradicate bad feelings and unpleasantries is just delusional, sweeping them under the rug. The expression of hatred is not pleasant but it serves a purpose. It has to be understood, not censored.

Also, I said that anything which explicitly calls for violence towards one group or another is one of the few exceptions that has to be made. I don't think this film is asking for attacks on Muslims or anything of the sort. The reaction of said angry muslims is their fault alone. They could have responded with peaceful protest but instead, they got so offended by one man's opinion that they took to the streets. They need to be confronted, not appeased by restrictions on freedom of speech. We need to be decisive here, and not resort to "safe" compromises which only delay eventual confrontation.

 

[Lyri]

That is exactly what I'm saying. We should not give an inch to Islamic extremists or otherwise. That's having it the way of secular free speech and not the way of theocratic censorship.

I said you can't have free speech without hate speech. That's my opinion more than anything, I don't care what the law says - laws after all can be changed- but that's how I view it. You can't have love without hate, trying to eradicate bad feelings and unpleasantries is just delusional, sweeping them under the rug. The expression of hatred is not pleasant but it serves a purpose. It has to be understood, not censored.

Also, I said that anything which explicitly calls for violence towards one group or another is one of the few exceptions that has to be made. I don't think this film is asking for attacks on Muslims or anything of the sort. The reaction of said angry muslims is their fault alone. They could have responded with peaceful protest but instead, they got so offended by one man's opinion that they took to the streets. They need to be confronted, not appeased by restrictions on freedom of speech. We need to be decisive here, and not resort to "safe" compromises which only delay eventual confrontation.

And what is your solution here?

Colour me curious because frankly all I'm reading from you is that we can do as we please and they have to respect that.

 

[Ryotknife]

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.

I just feel horrible for the innocent Muslims over there. Their entire religion and population is demonized due to the actions of some radicals. Do these radicals even understand that they are only making us hate their people more? It baffles me.

You have to give some credit to the good-aligned clerics over there though. They risk their lives trying to diffuse these situations everyday and end up dead a lot of the time

every group no matter what that group is has some nutters in it. I think this situation has gone far past the "some nutters" point.

but it is getting REALLY hard to sympathize considering the sheer scope of the protests going around in so many countries calling for american deaths...

still, attacking german and british embassies is just straight up retarded, no matter how one slice's it.

EDIT: I hate english. Rereading my post showed some potential confusion over my use of singular or plural you.

 

[wulf3n]

So are you implying that this idiots life is more valuable than:

The military personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The embassy personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The civilians who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The property damage caused by his movie
The potential political unrest in countries caused by his movie

If you are I can assure you that the guy who made the movies life is not worth that much. I'd much rather save the lives of a few Marines and ambassadors than protect this idiot.

So you want to throw away the rights they give their lives to protect? yeah that's a great way to honour their sacrifice.

 

[Qwurty2.0]

Not sure if this was posted yet or not, but insurgents breached a Nato base and killed 2 soldiers and wounded several others.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19608561

 

[MammothBlade]

That is exactly what I'm saying. We should not give an inch to Islamic extremists or otherwise. That's having it the way of secular free speech and not the way of theocratic censorship.

I said you can't have free speech without hate speech. That's my opinion more than anything, I don't care what the law says - laws after all can be changed- but that's how I view it. You can't have love without hate, trying to eradicate bad feelings and unpleasantries is just delusional, sweeping them under the rug. The expression of hatred is not pleasant but it serves a purpose. It has to be understood, not censored.

Also, I said that anything which explicitly calls for violence towards one group or another is one of the few exceptions that has to be made. I don't think this film is asking for attacks on Muslims or anything of the sort. The reaction of said angry muslims is their fault alone. They could have responded with peaceful protest but instead, they got so offended by one man's opinion that they took to the streets. They need to be confronted, not appeased by restrictions on freedom of speech. We need to be decisive here, and not resort to "safe" compromises which only delay eventual confrontation.

And what is your solution here?

Colour me curious because frankly all I'm reading from you is that we can do as we please and they have to respect that.

We can say and think as we please, we can't do as we please - for example, burning mosques or persecuting muslims certainly falls outside freedom of expression.

My solution is to stand firm and true to the traditions of free speech. Ultimately, we cannot give into violent bullying by Muslim extremists. The consequences of giving in will be worse than the consequences of standing up to the mob. They need to be condemned and slapped down utterly, shown for the thoughtless rabble that they are, whilst secular Muslims must be vindicated.

I'm going to say it: Secularism, freedom of speech, and free thought are incompatible with Islamic theocracy - they cannot co-exist. This is why sticking to our guns is so important here.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Well, this is getting out of hand. I'll be in my bunker while the monkeys tear eachother apart.

Spoiler: Anyone care to join me?

 

[Texas Joker 52]

The guy from the 18th century was able to predict the cluster fuck that was political parties and people to this day still can't seem to catch on...this is really a mess. Frankly I'd take zombie Washington abolishing the Democratic and Republican parties, that way we can look at presidents for their merits and not if they have a donkey or an elephant. Seriously, the guy was a damn decent leader and put in a lot of good precedents (only serve for two terms and what not) so how come we didn't listen to him when it came to the most important part?

What I don't understand is why they would stop that particular policy. Merit, character, and competency should be three of the most important factors in choosing a leader. Not whether or not hes going to deal with the trivial-issue-of-the-month the way you want.

I also think prior military experience would help too, so that way our President also knows what the hell to do in event of war, but that's just me.

To be more on topic, I can't help but see something of a double standard. We can mock your religions and its all good, but you can't mock ours, because we will get royally pissed? Its things like that that make me hate double standards with a passion. Yes, some are necessary, but that particular one seems extremely idiotic.

And yes, while the more outspoken radicals are the ones responsible, I can't help but also want to point out that you hear about a lot of these guys... We seriously need to get the more responsible, 'moderate', for lack of a better term, people in there to keep the peace.

Whatever my personal views or religion, I can say that is a real damn shame for any group of people, misconstrued or not, to come off as so hateful and violent.

 

[chadachada123]

Put it this way.

I child is poking a sleeping bear with a stick.

Now that child has all the right in the world to poke that bear with said stick.

Just don't be surprised when the bear wakes up and mauls him.

Freedom of speech isn't some infallible defence to say what you want. I'm sick of people claiming that it is, and that any action taken against someone because of what they said is impeding their 'rights'.

But WE'RE the bear.

The United States didn't do anything, and yet the US is standing by while some of our own citizens die in another country because this other country can't control their own citizens?

 

[Mr.BadExample]

I'd never condone rape, but when a woman dresses a certain way every female compatriot should fear the consequences of her actions.

 

[JeffBergGold]

Put it this way.

I child is poking a sleeping bear with a stick.

Now that child has all the right in the world to poke that bear with said stick.

Just don't be surprised when the bear wakes up and mauls him.

Freedom of speech isn't some infallible defence to say what you want. I'm sick of people claiming that it is, and that any action taken against someone because of what they said is impeding their 'rights'.

I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of seeing this sort of analogy. If a guy insults another guy at a bar, and the other guy shoots him in the face, then yes. He brought it on himself. However, that doesn't make the other guy's reaction right. He's still going to get charged with first-degree murder, because unless the first guy was directly threatening his life, he had no legal reason to shoot him in the face. And the same would go if he'd simply beat him in response rather than murdering him.

No, free speech doesn't exist to allow you to say stupid things. However, because of the way it works, it is against the law to respond with violence against non-threatening speech, however "stupid" or "offensive" it might be. You're not expected to not get offended, however you are expected to be a grown-ass adult and get yourself out of the situation if you don't think you'll be able to resist punching the person in the face.

That is the difference in values on display, here. The west values free speech at the expense of getting offended sometimes, and the countries and cultures in which these protests most violently erupted value nobody getting to talk about their God except in honorable ways over speech.

I don't know what bars your frequent but I've seen guys get their ass beat for running off at the mouth too hard and not even get taken into holding. Its up to police discretion and whether the guy who got his ass kicked wants to press charges. Physical altercations don't always result in a prison sentence. I've seen cops say the guy talking shit deserved it and told em to work out like big boys. This is all anecdotal but it happens fairly often.

So are you implying that this idiots life is more valuable than:

The military personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The embassy personnel who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The civilians who are now in mortal danger due to his movie
The property damage caused by his movie
The potential political unrest in countries caused by his movie

If you are I can assure you that the guy who made the movies life is not worth that much. I'd much rather save the lives of a few Marines and ambassadors than protect this idiot.

So you want to throw away the rights they give their lives to protect? yeah that's a great way to honour their sacrifice.

How is sending this guy over throwing away rights? Sending him over means American rights as we know it will vaporize? I can't help but think you're making a joke. He's also been charged with bank fraud and the creation of the movies actually violate his probation. All the more reason to send him over! I mean this guy scammed people out of over 800k.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/movies/2012/09/14/anti-islam-movie-maker-may-be-a-bank-fraudster

 

[NotALiberal]

Oh, and by the way I learned an interesting piece of trivia. Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

Actually, that's a good thing. It means there's one less terrifying anti-Islamic radical than there could have been.

OT: I swear, the radical protesters exist on a morality scale of blue and orange. Whatever happened to the passages in the Quran about "Jews, Christians and Muslims will be judged by their own religions" and "do not kill people"?

I suppose you also missed the verses where it orders you to either kill or convert infidels "wherever you find them". Yeah, bring up the Old Testament of the Bible all you want (an equally stupid book), but at least the Bible got LESS hateful as it went along, eventually becoming about loving your neighbor and all that. Islam, on the other hand, went in the exact opposite direction as Mo the prophet gained power and started marrying 6 year old girls.

Also, people saying this guy should be punished. No. Just no. Freedom of Speech means protection from the Government, despite the shitstorm he caused, blame the animals who are proving the man correct, that Islam is a stone age religion that should have disappeared a long time ago. Christopher Hitchens held this view too, if only he were still here he'd know what to say.

 

[lacktheknack]

Oh, and by the way I learned an interesting piece of trivia. Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

Actually, that's a good thing. It means there's one less terrifying anti-Islamic radical than there could have been.

OT: I swear, the radical protesters exist on a morality scale of blue and orange. Whatever happened to the passages in the Quran about "Jews, Christians and Muslims will be judged by their own religions" and "do not kill people"?

I suppose you also missed the verses where it orders you to either kill or convert infidels "wherever you find them". Yeah, bring up the Old Testament of the Bible all you want (an equally stupid book), but at least the Bible got LESS hateful as it went along, eventually becoming about loving your neighbor and all that. Islam, on the other hand, went in the exact opposite direction as Mo the prophet gained power and started marrying 6 year old girls.

<link=http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp>If you actually give a damn...

 

[lacktheknack]

I'd never condone rape, but when a woman dresses a certain way every female compatriot should fear the consequences of her actions.

This post is actually pretty priceless. Made me grin. Thanks.

 

[NotALiberal]

Oh, and by the way I learned an interesting piece of trivia. Remember that guy who wanted to organize a massive burning of Quarns? It's the exact same guy...lovely.

Actually, that's a good thing. It means there's one less terrifying anti-Islamic radical than there could have been.

OT: I swear, the radical protesters exist on a morality scale of blue and orange. Whatever happened to the passages in the Quran about "Jews, Christians and Muslims will be judged by their own religions" and "do not kill people"?

I suppose you also missed the verses where it orders you to either kill or convert infidels "wherever you find them". Yeah, bring up the Old Testament of the Bible all you want (an equally stupid book), but at least the Bible got LESS hateful as it went along, eventually becoming about loving your neighbor and all that. Islam, on the other hand, went in the exact opposite direction as Mo the prophet gained power and started marrying 6 year old girls.

<link=http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp>If you actually give a damn...

There is no defending that. It's in the GODDAMN TEXT. That article is badly written apologetics without a hint of intellectual honesty. They cherry picked a couple examples where the Muslim rulers of the time decided not to be cunts and that's great, doesn't mean the Quran isn't still a hateful bigoted text that preaches hate and intolerance.

Sura 4:89 ?seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.?

?Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.? (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)

 

[Nikolaz72]

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.

I just feel horrible for the innocent Muslims over there. Their entire religion and population is demonized due to the actions of some radicals. Do these radicals even understand that they are only making us hate their people more? It baffles me.

To give you an idea of what is going on, its not neccesarily orthodox attacking the west for extreminisms sake. Its the opposition to the sitting governing body that is supporting, and promoting through cashfunds riots and protests with little to no cause inorder to cause the picture to the muslim and the western world that they cannot control their populance.. Its been going on for a while, and also appeared during the time of the Muhammed drawings.

 

[MorganL4]

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?

Here is one of the pictures you wanted