Germany embassy in Sudan stormed

[Paradoxrifts]

What bothers me is the US government's noncommittal response. By not defending our citizens actions (no matter if we personally agree or not), we are abandoning the freedoms laid forth in our constitution. If citizens of another nation can silence American citizens by protest, violence, and murder, then all that America stands for is truly dead.

Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Exactly. Yes, you can make an anti-Islamic movie, calling out an entire religion for being primitive and detrimental to society - but that doesn't mean you SHOULD.

You don't insult other people's religions. You just don't. There's absolutely no excuse for the movie, it's despicable and I'm fuckin' tired of 'artists' and film-makers saying they can get away with it because they're protected by free speech. Which they are, but that doesn't make it a good idea, especially when you're only doing it either out of spite and ignorance, or just for attention and fame.

Hate begets hate.

No, they'd still be hating, and why wouldn't they?

The unrest is fueled by a generation of young Muslim men who are growing up in a global world that affords them precious little opportunity due to circumstances largely beyond their control, and they have access to none of the modern diversions that would otherwise make such a plight bearable. Their growing Ressentiment of their situation has been artificially channeled by their ruling elites through the patronage of the Islamic clergy towards the Western world very much like a rickety unstable pressure valve. A situation that only exists because the modern global economy depends on the continued supply of oil sucked out of the reserves buried underneath the Middle East. And even if they should try to travel abroad, the vile propaganda extolled by oil-financed Wahhabism will chase them to any corner of the earth they travel to, resulting in unfair treatment and discrimination.

So, it's a little more complicated than that.

 

[Insomniac55]

To refer back to my bear analogy...

If you know a particular group reacts violently to specific behaviour, then don't be surprised when they react violently when you commit that behaviour.

While I can certainly see where you're coming from... I still sit on the other side of the fence, at least to an extent. When an unjustified barrier on freedom is in place, it is not right to simply accept it. It must be removed.

How to do this, I don't know. When a group (religious or otherwise) has a problem with something they find offensive (barring downright malicious hate towards them, which is understandably illegal), the best course of action is to ignore their requests. Consider the problem some Hindus have with the game Smite. Yes, they're offended but their offence can't be allowed to govern the lives of others. They have every right to demand their deities be removed, and everyone else has every right to ignore their request.

Obviously the situation gets tougher when the reaction isn't simple protesting and demand for censorship, but is rather violence and murder. I wouldn't go into the Middle East and do something offensive to Islam, simply for self preservation. That does NOT mean the blame should be shifted to me, should I go and do so and then suffer the consequences.

This violence has no justification.

 

[omicron1]

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.

The constitution doesn't apply in other countries, you're a bit national-centric.

Whether or not what this person did was wrong in Libya, it was not wrong here. Furthermore, when Libyan mobsters attack, burn, loot, and kill in response to actions of Americans - IN AMERICA - they are demonstrably in the wrong. America should not turn around and abandon its citizens in search of some pipe dream of appeasement - she must stand up for all the freedoms she guarantees, or they are as good as gone.

So yes, the constitution doesn't apply in other countries. This guy did not make this film in other countries. He is protected by that constitution from threats within and without - or at least, he should be. Yet there are far too many people of great political and social standing claiming just the opposite - that America should willfully prostrate itself before the altar of appeasement, and punish its own citizens under the code of foreign law!

 

[RafaelNegrus]

While I think the issue of religious freedom versus freedom of speech is an interesting one to have, I do not think it is very pertinent to the situation. There are many things at play here, and that simplifies the situation to the point that it doesn't actually reflect reality.

Libya is still an incredibly heavily armed society, a holdover from the revolution, and the government is only nominally in control. The means if some militia members decide to do something like attack an embassy, there's not much anyone can do to stop them. This means that situations get out of control quickly, whereas we in the states have a plethora of government forces that can stop the crazies before they do too much damage.

Along with that, there are some rumors floating about that Al-Qaida actually used the protests as a cover for a pre-planned assassination plot, and while it may or may not be true we must remember that there are people out there who do have political motives in this, and it is not just a bunch of radicals being crazy.

And lastly it is good to remember that this really isn't about the film, this is more about how we treat the Middle East as a whole. They're tired of being portrayed so badly, they're tired of the casual and lazy stereotypes, they're tired of not getting any respect from the West. It's not really about the producers of this movie, it's about a society that has a large amount of influence in the region that many here feel is actively undermining them. That's what this is about more than anything else.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

...And THIS is why I don't have much faith in humanity. I know I shouldn't let the crazy ones ruin it for everyone... but knowing what people are capable of makes me distrust them... or maybe that's just my paranoia talking.

But seriously, I have no problems wih the concept of religion (since I feel we all need something to believe in), but when people twist it for their own purposes, that's whem I get pised off...

 

[lacktheknack]

SNIP

This means "kill apostates". Not "attack countries that insult Islam". With this verse, neither you nor I are in any danger from a dedicated Muslim.

See, that's where you're wrong. We are "apostates". Had an alcoholic beverage recently? Had premarital sex? Those are "apostasy" as defined by Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Looks to me like that's considered "apostasy" only if you're already a follower of Islamic law. What with that being the definition of "apostasy" and such.

The definition of "apostasy" is the renunciation of one's religion. How can I be an apostate if I never was part of the religion in the first place?

 

[Siege_TF]

SNIP

This means "kill apostates". Not "attack countries that insult Islam". With this verse, neither you nor I are in any danger from a dedicated Muslim.

See, that's where you're wrong. We are "apostates". Had an alcoholic beverage recently? Had premarital sex? Those are "apostasy" as defined by Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Looks to me like that's considered "apostasy" only if you're already a follower of Islamic law. What with that being the definition of "apostasy" and such.

The definition of "apostasy" is the renunciation of one's religion. How can I be an apostate if I never was part of the religion in the first place?

All people are Muslim upon their birth by default though, thus someone claiming to be nonmuslim is apostate. Welcome to fanatacism.

 

[lacktheknack]

SNIP

This means "kill apostates". Not "attack countries that insult Islam". With this verse, neither you nor I are in any danger from a dedicated Muslim.

See, that's where you're wrong. We are "apostates". Had an alcoholic beverage recently? Had premarital sex? Those are "apostasy" as defined by Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Looks to me like that's considered "apostasy" only if you're already a follower of Islamic law. What with that being the definition of "apostasy" and such.

The definition of "apostasy" is the renunciation of one's religion. How can I be an apostate if I never was part of the religion in the first place?

All people are Muslim upon their birth by default though, thus someone claiming to be nonmuslim is apostate. Welcome to fanatacism.

Mind utterly blown. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Sniper_Zegai]

SNIP

This means "kill apostates". Not "attack countries that insult Islam". With this verse, neither you nor I are in any danger from a dedicated Muslim.

See, that's where you're wrong. We are "apostates". Had an alcoholic beverage recently? Had premarital sex? Those are "apostasy" as defined by Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

Looks to me like that's considered "apostasy" only if you're already a follower of Islamic law. What with that being the definition of "apostasy" and such.

The definition of "apostasy" is the renunciation of one's religion. How can I be an apostate if I never was part of the religion in the first place?

All people are Muslim upon their birth by default though, thus someone claiming to be nonmuslim is apostate. Welcome to fanatacism.

Mind utterly blown. Hmmmmmm.

I think you guys are over-thinking this, any Kafir (a.k.a Non-believer/non-muslim) is considered fair game and open to abuse and death.

 

[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

 

[Timedraven 117]

You know what we need to do? Roundup all those idiots inflaming the situation, get the guy who produced the damn movie, and stick him in the cell with those guys. Then when he is undoutably dead say, "Okay all of you are now responsible for the deaths and injuries of every one in those riots. You all are not even having a trial, no your having tribunals in front of international court. By the way were using the death sentence."

They are all breaking the basic tenements of their religious foundation. If it was possible they all should be arrested and sen tot jail, because obviously that's what people get when they break religious laws in those places. (Probably not but they are still breaking fundamental rules in which the so damn well love) and what do they care some asshole made a obscure movie about your prophet? Mohammad does not give a shit. Its not worth it to create a international incident over.

EDIT: I feel i should explain my position more.

The man who created the movie is guilty of all those actions caused by the rioters, since we cannot punish the rioters, he is the only viable culprit we can pin this on right. Then every single one of those people who inflamed the situation will also be charged for the crimes committed, every single murder and injury. If the protesters protest those charges violently, they shall also be charged and arrested for those crimes, (Harsh? OH HELL YES! If they are angry enough to lose all humanity in their actions then they should be treated like the animals they are.)

Great. Lets arrest Christopher Nolan and charge him for the death of all those victims of that Aurora theater shooting. After all his movie did cause it.

Lets also arrest the beatles who made the song "Helter Skelter" because a murderous California cult leader used the term.

When someone does a crime and you punish someone else, it stops being justice and starts being blind revenge. A dangerous mentality.

Those protesters had a CHOICE. They CHOSE to kill that ambassador. They CHOSE to kill, plunder, and rape. They CHOSE their actions. Their actions are on them and them alone.

They had a chance for it to be peaceful and to prove that video wrong, and they threw it all away.

Of course, this means little because people are willing to absolve religious fundamentalism of all blame. Simply because of religion's age.

Well the man did do it to purposefully incite trouble. As i said in my last post it was purposeful, but would not be as spectacular with out the people making it worse.

The man purposefully made it bad and wanted trouble. Helter seklter did not purposefully make it worse, neither did Christopher Nolan. You are taking it all the wrong way. But the punishment would not be as bad, as i said which you completely ignored it was released in june, this was clearly a concentrated effort.

 

[Madgamer13]

Greets!

Long thread, I skimmed again. My response to the OP: There is only so much people can take and while there may be apologising going on to those who invaded a german embassy for this supposidly offensive movie, the only thing that will stick in the minds of all involved is the hatred of violence.

Soon, if the behaviour is continued, all there will be is violence with no reason and I certainly wouldn't want to annoy a country that once sought extermination of a particular religious and arguably cultural group during the reign of the third reich, and nazi party.

Lets not forget how crazily afraid America currently is about terrorist attacks.

But, that is not what these guys invading embassies think about, oh noes, they are thinking about a drawing! Omg!

Bleh, eventually all the nice guys who want to talk about this will be dead or gone, then you'll only have assholes that like to kill these guys, then they'll all be dead untill the next batch of nice guys and murderous idiots appear once again.

Apologies to break it to you, but this cycle of pointless death will only continue.

 

[BNguyen]

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.

 

[Tomeran]

I think this rage against america and western embassies are not neccecerily related to the movie. A lot of people are pissed off at western powers for a lot of things and using this incident as an excuse to vent their rage.

Its also worthy to note that the attack in Libya were, according to local investigators, definatly pre-planned and the movie thing was only used as an excuse, and that attack is to my knowledge the only one where people got killed(although im not particulary updated on kill-counts I admit). The attack in Libya has also been widenly condemned, even among many Libyans themselves, mostly because the ambassador that was killed was apparantly a really supportive guy during the rebellion.

Outside influence in that attack was suspected, and perhaps it is also the case in some of the other riots. The religious groups in Islamic countries tend to stop at nothing to build up fervor and rage that benefits their goals, without -any- consideration what it does to the general reputation of a country and its citizens, not to mention the religion as a whole.

I fear the worst consequense of incidents like this is that Islamofobism will continue to grow, and that people will more gladly hyper-generalize and say "Look at that, all them muslim folks are like that!" Its a growing trend, and quite the opposite of what a healthy future of the planet needs.

 

[BNguyen]

I think this rage against america and western embassies are not neccecerily related to the movie. A lot of people are pissed off at western powers for a lot of things and using this incident as an excuse to vent their rage.

Its also worthy to note that the attack in Libya were, according to local investigators, definatly pre-planned and the movie thing was only used as an excuse, and that attack is to my knowledge the only one where people got killed(although im not particulary updated on kill-counts I admit). The attack in Libya has also been widenly condemned, even among many Libyans themselves, mostly because the ambassador that was killed was apparantly a really supportive guy during the rebellion.

Outside influence in that attack was suspected, and perhaps it is also the case in some of the other riots. The religious groups in Islamic countries tend to stop at nothing to build up fervor and rage that benefits their goals, without -any- consideration what it does to the general reputation of a country and its citizens, not to mention the religion as a whole.

I fear the worst consequense of incidents like this is that Islamofobism will continue to grow, and that people will more gladly hyper-generalize and say "Look at that, all them muslim folks are like that!" Its a growing trend, and quite the opposite of what a healthy future of the planet needs.

Well, in my opinion, I think why everybody hypergeneralizes about groups such as these is that while not all of them will conduct these acts of violence, there are the ones who will do the violence and others who'll do nothing but sit on their hands and refuse to stop the ones doing the violence. The people of these countries need to be willing to stand up against their own violent elements and refuse to allow them free reign with only so much as an "I'm sorry this happened" to everyone else involved

 

[sagacious]

you know what? I think whoever made that film was right. Islam is bullshit.

There are dozens of films made every year that criticize Christianity, there are millions of anti-semites all around the world, and I assume there's alot of people that don't like Hinduism and bhuddism too. but you hardly EVER hear about any violent action being made about those.

now, radical or not, there is a HUGE minority of muslims who are violent and intolerant.

AND I have a huge problem with people who are calling for this guy who made the film to be punished in ANY way. NO ONE would GIVE A SHIT about his film if no one had gotten lethally mad about it. blaming him for the violence going on in the middle east is like blaming a girl wearing skimpy clothes at night for getting raped. if you think that? you're a fucking horrible person. period. fuck you.

Anyway, just venting. respond if you want.

 

[Manji187]

What bothers me is the US government's noncommittal response. By not defending our citizens actions (no matter if we personally agree or not), we are abandoning the freedoms laid forth in our constitution. If citizens of another nation can silence American citizens by protest, violence, and murder, then all that America stands for is truly dead.

Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

This is not a consequence. This is a violent mob response to an "offensive" video (from a group who get murderous if you even DRAW He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Insulted). This is an American making a (poorly-produced) protected statement, and being thrown to the wolves in order to appease those same wolves.
In essence, the US is saying "These people's request that you not insult Islam matters more to us than your freedom of speech or expression."

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'.

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

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

'Trampling your freedom'?

I've got news for you, the US isn't the only country with freedom of speech.

Except the other countries have the foresight to understand that if you kick a hornets nest, you're gonna get stung.

I'm in no way condoning the actions of the radicals, far from it, but being able to say what you want doesn't mean you're free form the consequences of what you say.

Were the Muslim radicals overreacting?

Of course they were.

That's why they're called radicals.

So we should acknowledge the fact that they are "radicals/ a hornet's nest" and steer clear of them whenever we can? They are easily offended, sure. But why are we supposed to adapt to that? Because we do not want the "consequences" that are likely to flow from their being offended?

Why should their easily offended nature be respected? It is not something worthy of respect at all. You do not reason with a rabid dog nor do you negotiate with a petulant child.

 

[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.

 

[BNguyen]

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.

 

[Jowe]

What bothers me is the US government's noncommittal response. By not defending our citizens actions (no matter if we personally agree or not), we are abandoning the freedoms laid forth in our constitution. If citizens of another nation can silence American citizens by protest, violence, and murder, then all that America stands for is truly dead.

Free Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

This is not a consequence. This is a violent mob response to an "offensive" video (from a group who get murderous if you even DRAW He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Insulted). This is an American making a (poorly-produced) protected statement, and being thrown to the wolves in order to appease those same wolves.
In essence, the US is saying "These people's request that you not insult Islam matters more to us than your freedom of speech or expression."

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'.

The only group in the wrong here is the Muslims who are taking offence in this way. The guy who made the film is well within his rights to make that film, and say what they want about anyone else, as long as its just that, SAYING what you want. The Muslims going on a rampage because of it are the ones in the wrong, and they need to learn as a whole that this sort of shit shouldn't be tolerated if they want to be a part of the larger world.
The rioters are basically terrorists and should be treated as such.