FLASH: U.S. Ambassador to Libya, 3 Other Embassy Staff Killed in Rocket Attack in Benghazi
Source: Al Jazeera English
US envoy dies in Benghazi consulate attack
Ambassador and three staffers killed during attack in east Libya city over US-produced film deemed insulting by Muslims.
Last Modified: 12 Sep 2012 09:23
The US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, has died from smoke inhalation in an attack on the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, security sources have said.
An armed mob attacked and set fire to the building in a protest against an amateur film deemed offensive to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, after similar protests in Egypt's capital.
"One American staff member has died and a number have been injured in the clashes," Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee, said on Wednesday, adding that rocket-propelled grenades were fired at the building from a nearby farm.
"There are fierce clashes between the Libyan army and an armed militia outside the US consulate," he said. He also said roads had been closed off and security forces were surrounding the building.
Al Jazeera quotes sources that US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation in attack on consulate http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html …
FLASH: U.S. ambassador to Libya and 3 other embassy staff killed in Tuesday rocket attack in Benghazi - Libyan official
Reuters urgent story does not give name of U.S. Ambassador, but U.S. Embassy website says ambassador is Chris Stevens
Reuters, quoting Libyan official: 'The Libyan ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them.'
Unconfirmed: picture of the American injured in #US Consulate in #Benghazi today #Libya pic.twitter.com/pHtgSZxt
U.S. Ambassador Stevens died of asphyxiation, sources tell Al Arabiya
BREAKING #LIBYA: #US State Departement neither confirms nor denies death of its ambassador http://f24.my/rxo4QT #livef24
Read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/20129112108737726.html
[div class="excerpt"]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)
TeamPooka
(24,204 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)this could be the october surprise come early.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)While I feel bad our ambassador was killed in the service of his country, this has the makings of a nightmare politically. Foreign policy has been a very strong suit for Obama and we know Romney is going to use this against him whether it's right or not.
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)(Reuters) - The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on Tuesday in the Libyan city of Benghazi, a Libyan official said.
It was not clear if the ambassador was in his car or the Libyan consulate when the attack occurred.
"The Libyan ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/libya-usa-attack-idINDEE88B06920120912
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)
asjr
(10,479 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's ridiculous to blame anyone else.
People should be allowed to make movies mocking whatever religion they want.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)oldsarge54
(582 posts)Thomas Jefferson said that "freedom of speech ends at another man's nose." Considering that Jefferson was a proto OWS anarchist, it does say something about about personal responsibility. To be fair, I thought that idiot preacher who burned a Koran should have been charged with the murder of our troops in muslim countries in the ensuring riots. We should seriously rethink our interpretation of "freedom of speech" and draw a more clear line on "incitement." I think this is another case of interpreting the bill of rights too broadly.
alp227
(32,002 posts)I doubt that bigoted speech inherently incites hatred. Think about Ben Franklin's maxim about sacrificing liberty for security.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)the founding fathers all day. Can anyone doubt that THEY believed with freedom came responsibility? I think that is what I'm trying to get at. No one, left or right, seems to believe that any of the parts of the Bill of Rights insures responsibility as well.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)and them send him to Libya to face their justice.
docgee
(870 posts)Even if it is offensive to someone outside the country. Like we say here 'Don't like it, turn the fucking channel'.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think we may validly place an amount of responsibility at the feet of both parties, regardless of how little or how much each particular side may receive.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You should only kill people if they live in the same country as someone who annoys you. Or if they look like that someone. or their name sounds similar. Or they worship the same way.
This standard of operation has been set by the western world and BY GOD we need to uphold it!
Let's see... Gulf of Sidra (three times!), the 1986 air strikes, the NATO shit-bombing of Libya last year...
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts) Really? Save that shit for when you're posting yahoo comments, kay?
At the risk of using too many syllables for you, no. I don't. I'm pointing out that ever since 1983 we've been killing Libyans without anyone really batting an eye. But when some Libyans kill an American, what, suddenly killing is bad? Suddenly the taking of a human life is inexcusable? Suddenly we clench our fists and shed a single angry tear over the murder of an innocent?
Basically, Americans have been killing lots of people, innocent and otherwise, using every excuse you can imagine. And I wouldn't be surprised to see many DUers so offended by hte loss of this man's life that htey demand more bombings against many targets in Libya. You know, to show them that killing is wrong.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)
oldsarge54
(582 posts)The GI killed in Germany to get his ID, and the ensuing nightclub bombing in Berlin. Or the bombing of USAFE headquarters. That BX bombing at the Frankfurt AB BX, killing a dependant wife. I personally will never forget picking up remains in the fields around Lockerbie. Now, I am not approving of any retaliatory action against Libya on this, this was not a government action. I want the backside of that movie maker roasted, with a nice side of potatoes. That is whom our ire should be directed. We owed Qaddafi one, but not the people of Libya.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here's the thing though; Our "retaliation" for those attacks killed forty-five people. All of them unrelated to the bombings.
But that's okay, we "showed them," by killing more of their innocent civilians than they killed ours. And apparently, DU'ers will lock ranks and call this justified. Just like fifteen thousand dead Afghans and a hundred and fifty thousand dead Iraqis are justified by three thousand dead Americans - with more Afghans to go!
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Did you notice, that Qaddafi walked small after Dorado Canyon, at least as far as Americans are concerned? Don't throw in Afghanistan or Iraq into this discussion, that is an entirely other issue. For that matter, the bombing during the revolt in Libya, is your position is that we should sit on your hands when a tyrant hurts his own people, or do we encourage Democracy? What is our position. I hated it when we were supporting tyrants simply because they were "our" tyrants. At least Libya was closer to what America stands for.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And bombing Libya last year of course, was justified because DEMOCRACY!
See, yours is the shit I'm talking about. We are absolutely always justified in killing however many people we need to kill to kill that many people. We have that absolute right. None shall question, none shall criticize, America, by dint of our cleft chins and the crosses around our necks, get to kill, and kill, and kill, and we always get to handwave it away. Oh, we killed them for their own good. had to destroy the village to save it, you know.
But boy, if one person, just one American is killed in a wanton act of violence, holy shit, hit the brakes, that's totally unacceptable. No way, no how, never ever ever.
After all, wanton senseless killings of innocents is reserved for the übermensch of the USA.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Build a wall around the country. Pretend there was never a holocaust. What are you saying, really. If you will note from the gun camera films and post strike photos, those weren't innocent civilians. Sam site, and fighter bases are not places for civilians. Pace Tack worked. Now, what is your real position. The function of a nation is not to protect their citizens? Talk to me, but avoid polemics.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)but then Americans are first to say there's no excuse for killing.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Is anyone in the government calling for a "revenge" strike? Outside of Republican chicken hawks, is ANYBODY calling for a strike on Libya? Some things are necessary. This is not. Iraq was not necessary. Other situations call for other solutions. Clinton's intervention in the Balkins I thought was a good move. Thanks for dialoging.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and that violence is spilling over into a neighboring country who also has some of Iran's allies
oldsarge54
(582 posts)And was it the Balkans that he said was a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Sounds like the middle east as well. Stupid mistakes made after WWI are still being paid for. The Republicans preventing the US getting into the League of Nations is one reason the middle east is a political/social nightmare.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Maybe you were on the ground in both Germany and Scotland in the '80's. I'd like to convey my respect for you, even if I'm wrong about the Berlin and Frankfurt part. But I suggest to you that both the La Belle disco bombing and Lockerbie were not Libyan, but neo-nazi perpetrated.
Scotland knows this, and it's the actual reason behind Scotland's 'on humanitarian grounds' release of the Libyan who allegedly masterminded the attack. The plane was blown up to get this guy:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/30/us/law-bar-colleagues-bid-farewell-nazi-hunter-his-quest-ended-modern-murderers.html
The perpetrators of the attack were right-wing elements within our intel, centered around the Gehlen, Barbie, Skorzeny, Von Bolschwing group. After many months spent trying to blame Ahmed Jibril, Abu Nidal, Iran, Palestinians, PFLP, PPSF, all of the sudden our media settled on the 'Libya did it' story. Interesting that the cockroach-like fascist pastor from Florida spent time getting racist followers in Germany.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)No, more like communists or anarchist, I don't think they even where sure what they were. Chemical analysis of the semtex put all those bombs in the same job lot from Libya. The only reason that Scotland released the bomber was actually what is was, compassion for a man dying. They are like that, those on the British Isles sometimes. The neo-nazis are more of a post-90s thing. Involving all those old WWII vets in that plot is a conspiracy theorist dream. Forget neo-nazis.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Was expertly dissected by the Marlon Brando & George C. Scott movie, 'The Formula'. Who pulled the strings of the 'lefty' terrorists was a combo of the Kameradenwerk and the Oil nazi faction in the CIA.
Michael Bernstein wasn't some conspiracy theorist, even if my mention of his murder prompts you to feel that way about me. He was a nazi hunter for the Justice Dept.'s OSI. His remains may be among those you handled or saw handled at the scene. Eli R. let his organization take the hit, and shut up about it, like the Kennedys do.
Our own mainstream media floated the idea that 103 was blown up, to target military intel officer Charles McKee, or another individual on the plane. But they never floated the idea that the neo-nazis did it. We're not talking some crotchety old WWII nazi vets who were the same age as raygun and john paul II at the time, we're talking about some of the younger leaders who are involved in their wealthy and powerful organization, an org which our OSS definitely absorbed, in forming the CIA. There were Army CIC people who expressed loud displeasure about the whitewashing of 'former' nazis for Overdark or Paperclip, and those 'not ardent nazi' personnel we acquired from the 3rd reich didn't just include rocket scientists and eastern front military intel members, it had death camp personnel and murderous torturers like Barbie, whose intel was useless. That's the kameradenwerk tail wagging the CIA dog.
C 4 was used, not semtex. That fact was admitted by Bremer's boys, after months of bull shyte in the media, and howls of protest by Eastern Bloc over the semtex allegation. Even if the story about the bomb's composition changed from 'conventional' to 'semtex' to 'C 4' to 'libyan semtex'.
I may not convince you, I respect your opinion and your right to have it. But turning your back in strategic thought on a real and dangerous enemy like the nazis is a tactical mistake on your part, sarge, and you were able to do it in the last 6 words of your post #158, and cast aspersion on me at the same time. Brilliant phrasing tactically, but in support of a poor tactical choice.
Kingofalldems
(38,419 posts)Well I guess you think so.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Those are also ridiculous reasons to kill people.
This news story, though, is about people who were killed over the content of a movie.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But they're reasons that Americans seem to find perfectly acceptable. War is okay. Bomb the shit out of Libya? That's fine. Destroy Iraq? No problem. Turn an Afghan wedding into hamburger on a hillshide, well, that shit happens, right? Firebomb a village, well, it was the only way to save it, right?
Americans save their outrage for important deaths.
I seem to recall a quote by a Georgian guy with a rockin' moustache to this effect. Something about tragedies and statistics.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This article, though, is about a different topic.
People should be allowed to make movies mocking religions - movies don't kill anyone.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Cherri Lee told you that being that snarky with your facts, there's no need to be rude to your stablemates.....as she's not here though, keep on rollin little sister 
Lars77
(3,032 posts)People on both sides are constantly pushing us towards a new war of civilizations, and they see this as a continuation of the wars between the Ottoman empires and the catholic powers in the middle ages.
There's more crazy people ready to use violence on the muslim side, but we haven't seen the last Anders Behring Breivik i think.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Honest question.
Freedom of speech is all well and good, but the consequences of it have to also be accepted, like it or not.
still_one
(92,059 posts)like us.
There were riots when a Danish paper mocked mohammad(sic)
When a fundamentalist right winger made a public display of buring the koran, there were targeted attacks against Americans in Afghanistan and other places because of it.
That has been the problem with American foreign policy for years, they act as though everyone must think like us, and that just isn't reality
It takes time to change people
Missycim
(950 posts)for what some religious nut jobs do? With that logic Dr Hiller got what he deserved?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)asjr
(10,479 posts)has no fault in this? Dr Hiller's assailant got what he deserved--jail sentence. These actions have no analogy to Dr. Hiller's death. Terry Jones is a "religious nut job." And if you think he is in no way responsible for the deaths so be it.
Missycim
(950 posts)is any EXCUSE to maim and kill.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Maybe he should even be required to do so.
They could use the Military Skills Draft to do it, I think.
Missycim
(950 posts)You think people should be put to death for excising their first amendment rights? I can't say to you want I really want to say or I will get banned. Have a nice day!!
Ian David
(69,059 posts)I just think that he should take personal responsibility for making people understand his message.
Missycim
(950 posts)you know what would happen if he even said anything remotely critical of islam.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)I didn't see the video, I would like to see it first before I render an opinion and if he does he shouldn't be killed for it.
Obviously no one should be killed for a video, I know you were being snarky. But here if you want to watch it. Jones didn't make it btw, he just found it and told people about it. It was made by some real-estate agent from California. But I even doubt that. It looks like some college kid's film project.
Oh and the film-maker said this cost 5 million dollars
axollot
(1,447 posts)Seen better stuff made by my 9yr old
mike_c
(36,267 posts)...who wanted to fan the flames of nut jobbery strife. Freedom of speech is one thing, but this is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Missycim
(950 posts)yell fire if there is a fire?
"If" the film shows truth then members of the religion of peace have to deal with it.
rad51
(89 posts)When do you suspend free speech? These asshats are terrorist, they wanted an excuse to attack on 9/11
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Look up the phrase "incitement to riot."
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)do you really want some nutjob to dictate what you can say or what movie can be made.
Missycim
(950 posts)nt
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)We understand that people who intentionally say shit to create harm, cause riots, panic, and ruin careers need to be held accountable to the actions they chose to take. This is why there are laws against libel, slander, incitement, intimidation, and stuff like this. The first amendment is not some wild west, Ron Paul fantasy land, it actually does have limitations to what it covers.
You know what's funny? You actually think you're arguing against "religious nutjobs." That's fucking pathetic. What we have here is a religious nutjob very openly hoping to incite violence with his "work." Truly, look Terry Jones up. That's his goal, to provoke fights and harm. We can certainly argue that the people being provoked shouldn't fall for it, and there's definitely truth to that position. But there's also truth to the notion that a man who calls up a lynch mob bears the burden of those killed, even if his hands never actually touched a rope.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)My, my... how progressive values go out the window when extremist members of the "religion of peace" are involved.
I'm getting tired of free speech here in America being attacked just because some thin-skinned religious fanatics abroad can't take their precious prophet being mildly criticized.
I've seen the video in question, and it is really weak sauce.
If THAT is all it takes to set these delicate flowers off, we may as well submit and start bowing to Mecca now.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)A sure sign of a quality debate ahead.
"Progressive values" must include rushing to the defense of a film that presents an entire swath of the human race as deplorable, subhman scum, inherently evil monsters whose goal in life is to butcher good, wonderful people in other swaths of humanity.
Now, just between you and me, I'm not a fan of Islam. Nor Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, or any other weird little cult or belief someone wants to conjure up. I see them as little rocks that people duck under in order to hide from reality. I've never had a problem with parody, satire, or even just mockery.
But when you com out and you're like "I disagree with this religion so all the people who believe it are inherently evil, awful beings, and hte world would be better-off without them," well in my view, a line has been crossed in that case. And i don't give a shit how much the ACLU supports it, it is quite indefensible.
There's a line between mocking an idea, and demonizing people.
alp227
(32,002 posts)Of course some criticisms of religion are going to target religious people not just ideas. Plenty of American comedy shows paint Christians as crazy right wing evangelical Santorum types. Like South Park or Family Guy or Saturday Night Live, or the "Book of Mormon" musical by the South Park creators.
Furthermore, when you see what happens in Muslim nations like female genital mutilation, death penalty for blasphemy or adultery, murder of gays, child marriage, etc, all I can say is that the truth is not politically correct.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)There is no constitutional right to use freedom of speech to incite or goad others to violence. And this was EXACTLY the purpose of this video. If there were ever an excellent of example of Holmes's "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" analogy, this has to be it.
I, for one, am not willing to see the world blown up over this "My God is better than your God" bullshit.
Terry Jones's motives have been very clear from the start. Of course he has freedom of speech to spew whatever crap he wants. But he must also own the fruits of his work as well, and the blood of all those who died today is just as much on his hands as it is on the mob that killed them.
Good post.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Maybe you need to re-read the law yourself.
It makes fun of a religion. People should be allowed to make movies mocking whatever religion they want, shouldn't they?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean, if a film that proposes Muslims run around in unwashed packs, hacking down christians with axes and setting them on fire, because Islam is an inherently evil religion obsessed with shedding blood and raping virgins is "making fun," then surely saying Jews are all cute little rodents that suck blood at night and plot the downthrow of Europe is a lighthearted family romp!
Missycim
(950 posts)and that video got some clinic bombed, would the filmmaker be responsible?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Filmmaker creates film expressing the belief that gay people - all gay people - are inherently subhuman cannibal-rapists. The men depicted in the film spend their time stalking, raping, and then devouring infant boys. They do this of course, because gay people are actually demons, literal shrieking hordes of hell, spit up by Satan in order to punish good Christians for not killing enough of them.
So after the film is released, a "good christian soldier" decides to open fire at the local school's Gay-Straight alliance meeting.
In another part of the country, a crowd gathers to protest the film, met by counter-protests. A fight breaks out, someone gets hurt, even killed.
Filmmaker gets to pull a Sergeant Schultz, give a helpless shrug and say "I know nuzzing" while pocketing hte leftovers of his five-million budget.
Missycim
(950 posts)like that out there, but you rarely see the level of violence from Christians as you do with Muslims when anyone says anything remotely bad about Islam. You know it and I know it, please don't even try to equate the two.
I have never heard of anything like what you have spoken about but thats besides the point, I put the responsibility on the person who committed the act.
Ok let me ask you a counter question, if there were cartoons showing Christianity in as bad light as those cartoons in Europe did some years ago would there be the same level of violence?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's the same reason that white people don't have the same visceral reaction to "honkey" that black people have to "nigger." Standing in a position of privilege and power gives you that sort of ability to brush aside the insults.
And much as in the history of race relations, we see the "rational" Christians engaging in casual, even wanton cruelty against the "irrational" Muslims, without even noticing. We've killed a hundred and fifty thousand (Edit: oops) Iraqis, and displaced four million more. Alongside them we've killed fifteen thousand Afghans and displaced who-knows-how-many. we don't have to scream "GLORY TO JESUS," but everyone knows that the people flying the planes, dropping the bombs, spends at least the occasional Sunday morning praying to the god of the New Testament. Certainly hte people who command the attacks do.
But when the situation is reversed - when the Muslims kill someone - Oh boy, that's just unforgivable.They're savages! Wild heathens! There's no excuse, no excuse at all! It just goes to prove that those filthy barbarians really ARE just what this film says!
I imagine that perhaps, if it were powerful Muslim Nations exerting extreme military, economic, and political forces against christians, insults to Christianity would be met with violent lashing-out, just as is the case in reverse here. In fact I KNOW as much, because it's happened in history.
But thinking about power differentials is complex and might be a little unsettling. So you just crawl back and enjoy the movie that tells you that what you already believed is true.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,262 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Psephos
(8,032 posts)Quite impressive in a country whose population is 33 million.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But hey. Just a hundred fifty thousand. So who cares, right?
rayofreason
(2,259 posts)So after the film is released, a group of gay cannibal-rapists, infuriated by the depiction, attack a US consulate kill the Ambassador, then eat him, but are unable to rape him since he has been eaten already.
That would be the parallel. This film did not incite Christians to attack Muslims for their supposed crimes. If fact there have been no Christian riots over this at all. No "good christian soldier" opening fire at the local school's Muslim-Christian alliance meeting. It is Muslims who are rioting and killing. And killing people who have no connection at all to the film.
I wonder how you would feel if Mormon extremists were to bomb a theatre where "The Book of Mormon" was playing? If you have any intellectual consistency you would then be aiming rhetorical missiles at Matt Stone and Trey Parker, complaining about all the money they get to pocket. After all, their production cost far more, is seen by far more people, and is far more effective at undermining a religion than any crude propaganda made by an amateur.
But somehow I suspect that you would be on the side of Stone and Parker, and their right to express their opinions regardless of any insult perceived by Mormons, justified or not. So pardon my skepticism about your position on this thread and its grounding in any intellectual or moral consistency.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as is the case with movie the makers knew they were inciting violence and have publicly admitted to that
Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html
rad51
(89 posts)Do you have a link to it?
edit: please post the fed/state law the dipshit is breaking.
5 MILLION DOLLARS for this. Oh the film-maker will get sued... by his investors for wasting their money..
The acting is very bad, but no one should have been murdered over it.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Take a shot every time you feel embarrassed FOR the actors.
You won't last the full 13 minutes.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)besides, there's not enough alcohol in the house to cover that budget of shots.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)An American, killed by rioting Muslims.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #46)
rad51 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Though the proper term is "murderer." And it's singular.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)We should curb our first amendment rights cuz some religious freaks might get their feelings hurt and murder people. NO desire to live in a country where I can't call a religion a cult and say their "prophets" are full of shit. And certainly not to tame the rage that you seem to feel these murderous vermin are entitled to.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Because as far as I can tell, you're so bent that you're talking into your own ass.
There is such a thing as protected speech. This is forms of speech that are covered by the first amendment.This distinction allows that there are also un-protected forms of speech, which are not guaranteed by the first amendment. For instance, I cannot threaten the life of an elected official and pretend that, so long as i don't carry through the first amendment protects me. it oesn't, that's not "protected speech." Libel, slander, intimidation, incitement.. .these are forms of unprotected speech.
The filmmaker isn't "poking fun," he's not "criticising," he's not the clear-eyed visionary and crusader for freedom and liberty that you and these other dumbfucks are trying to cast him as, in your own desperate attempts to pat your own backs over how tolerant and open-minded you are.
This film is a creation of a filmmaker whose agenda is clearly stated, to "expose Islam as a cancer" that needs to be wiped out. it doesn't say Mohammed is "full of shit" (well, it DOES say that, but there's more). It expresses the notion that Muslims - ALL MUSLIMS - are violent, evil, subhuman scum, driven to wanton death and destruction, because all Muslims glorify a rapist and mass-murderer as god. because of this, all Muslims are evil, evil, evil creatures, and should be cleared away for the good of mankind.
Yes, one point five billion human beings are all rapacious, beady-eyed subhuman monsters that the world would be better-off without. That's the message you're so vigorously defending here, and I hope you're proud to be marching to that tune.
There's satire - Life of Brian, for instance, or The Infidel - an then there's incitement. If you make a film that posits that nearly a third of the human beings on the planet are evil monsters that need to be gotten rid of, no, you DON'T get to shrug it off when that message results in people getting hurt. Especially not if your intent is clearly to cause that very reaction.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Maybe you want to treat the Muslims like children who simply cannot help themselves but I expect more from adults. Your attitude is to infantalize them and mine is expect adult behavior and I'm the bigot? Go peddle that bullshit someplace else.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm explaining to you why I feel the filmmaker holds some of the culpability for this situation, based on the reality that "free speech" is not universal. There's protected speech, and there's unprotected speech.if you use your speech to start a fucking riot, well, you share guilt with the rioters. They're not innocent, but neither is the guy with the bullhorn. This isn't a terribly complex concept.
Your response is "THE MUSLIMS! THE MUSLIMS! THE MUSLIMS!" That response, paired with the fact that you are, indeed, very much rallying in defense and support of a film that presents "THE MUSLIMS!" as a plague upon the earth, a subhuman, howling pack of killer monsters, does in fact cast you as a bigot. That's not me calling you bad names, that's just me pointing out the sort of shit about yourself that you've decided to put on display here.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The movie was insulting to MUSLIMS, it was MUSLIMS who are rioting and murdering because of a movie. Maybe the best way to show the world you're not a murderous asshole would be not to kill people over their opinions. And yet, that's what's happening now and has happened in the recent past. Go argue your point with Theo Van Gogh - oh wait........
And I'm not in the habit of calling people I'm defending assholes so you're wrong all over the place.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You're calling "THE MUSLIMS!" assholes. You're also calling them vermin. So I guess this film is going to be found in your Blu Ray collection ASAP.
Now, this is just a thought... But maybe if you don't want people to get pissed at you... don't tell them that they are all subhuman evil motherfuckers, a plague on humanity, and that they need to all go fucking die because their beliefs are marginally different from your own. it tends to upset people. I imagine it's even more upsetting when it's coming from the same nation that just got done dropping a lot of bombs on you. Food for thought.
More food for thought? Muslims are human beings like anyone else. They get angry, htey get upset. They react to things around them. Like anyone else, they can do some really dumb shit. You don't want to allow that. You dehumanize them. To you, Muslims can only ever be mindless raving animals, or they can be emotionless statues, eternally devoid of the emotions that you - as a human - are entitled to have.
It's not an excuse for killing someone of course. But don't fucking try to tell me that people have no right to be angry when someone - someone who happens to live in a nation that just killed a lot of your coreligionists - makes a product saying that you ALL deserve to die.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I've called that moron in Florida an asshole in may posts today and your assumption that I approve of this movie makes you very simply stupid. If you think I give a shit what some anonymous person says on the internet about me, you couldn't be more wrong. In your simplistic worldview, I disagree with you and therefore I must be a right winger who supports this movie.
Stop putting words in my mouth and stop getting your panties in a twist. Someone over there lied and said this was an American movie that was being widely distributed on 9/11 - and we were off to the races. Instead of finding out the truth, riots and murders instead. I call all murderers vermin - rapists also - got a problem with that also?
Keep treating them like infants who cannot control their tempers - I'm sure that will help.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)or not being a member of their cult.
Do those things count?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But for people like you and me, no, incitement has actual definitions. Look it up.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)it doesn't take much.
Can we the civilized people be held accountable for the actions of the barbarians?
Is providing abortion services incitement to violence? To some it sure as hell is.
Is covering religious artifacts in dung/urine? What about a pride parade? Or a secular denunciation of religion in government?
Find me one thing that couldn't possible incite some religious nutbag to violence.
shakeemondown
(9 posts)Guess not...
rollin74
(1,969 posts)it is absurd to advocate that someone who makes a film be jailed because others had an insane overreaction and murdered people
If I don't like a movie, I don't go out and kill people over it
Biafran
(45 posts)Ever heard of the first amendment?
Sue him on what basis? There is no sharia law in the us.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the first amendment does not cover incitement of this sort
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)That's like saying that I can't tell "Yo mama" jokes because you can't control your temper and might slug me. Why should my right to speak as I please be curtailed when it's you that has the control issue?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but if you are okay with this sort of incitement then fine, but I am not
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I'm pissed at that Dinesh guy for making a movie filled with lies about the President. Should I go murder someone? Some of the attitudes here trying to excuse the violence is pretty fucking sickening.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)fanatics.
If these people couldn't handle a movie then it would have been something else that set them off.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)fun of religion - I should sue him? Nonsense.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Absolutely despicable behavior.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Michael van Poppel ?@mpoppel
GRAPHIC PHOTO: AFP photo shows man resembling U.S. Ambassador Stevens (unconfirmed if its him) http://tinyurl.com/9j3zutd
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I don't agree with how Libya was handled by the US, but he seemed like good person.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)#BREAKING: #Libya's Interior Ministery says US ambassador was killed in #Benghazi - Statement
12 Sep 12
37m ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/sep/12/libya-egypt-attacks-muhammad-film-live#block-5050574858f98e4e461a862a
rootProbiscus
(38 posts)Wait until the US rockets provided for every other uprising start coming back.
fucking idiots, what do they expect!
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Qaddafi was a head of government. This mob is just like a bunch of 1920s mississippians having a hemp barbecue. You can't attack a country for the actions of a bunch of ignorant hicks, no matter how satisfying it would be.
rootProbiscus
(38 posts)They were given to a bunch of ignorant hicks to overthrow Qaddafi, and now they are coming back - as anyone with a brain expected.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)And the French and Spanish gave weapons to a bunch of ignorant hicks. The result was the United States. For that matter, THEY CHOSE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. That is what democracy is about. Even if we don't get the government we desire, they chose it.
I love weed
(50 posts)Qaddafi was a head of government. This mob is just like a bunch of 1920s mississippians having a hemp barbecue. You can't attack a country for the actions of a bunch of ignorant hicks, no matter how satisfying it would be.
Wrong. This was not a spontaneous hick mob. They were directed by others. Why do you think they chose September 11 to "protest" a movie that came out weeks ago?
It was a pre-planned assault by islamist groups using this movie as a thin justification. If not this movie, they surely would have found something else to get "offended" by.
oldsarge54
(582 posts)Throwing gasoline on a wild fire is not a responsible act. So you think this is a thin justification, that you really don't know the middle east. Yes, there appears to be some organization, but then watch the Tea Party. They also wait a bit and organize.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)both sides. More hatred and killing, all in the name of their god.
The video makers and the preacher should be horsewhipped, and the murderers should be brought to justice.
Missycim
(950 posts)people here might be a little more mad at the people who actually you know killed people.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
Dumbest post of the day...
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)But fyi I am more angry at the killers, so....
I keep forgetting in the US we can only make incedeary videos about Judaism and Christian, without the fear of violence.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)What do you consider to be incendiary? Have you seen this video? I have never seen anything like it targeting Christians or Jews. That said, people may have the freedom to act do so, but that doesn't make them liberal or tolerant or right.
Missycim
(950 posts)my religion and they aren't of a conservative nature, but you don't see others killing and rioting for it either.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)...or you and I might have a different idea of what is defined as conservative and liberal.
"but you don't see others killing and rioting for it either." OK, I am not sure why you threw this one in there. Do you think I agree with that?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)or the art labled "Piss Christ". Did you forget about those. Somehow Americans managed to be outraged without violence. Imagine that. Finding an excuse for murderous assholes is dispicable.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)But I don't think "The Last Temptation of Christ" is in the same ball park as what was in this video. You should probably watch it if you've not already.
It's not a contest though. Yes, I realize Muslims, especially those living in impoverished countries, are more easily inflamed. Guess what? That is due to right-wing ideology. The kind this board is supposed to combat. But still it seeps in every day.
"Finding an excuse for murderous assholes is dispicable." Also, maybe that comment was more directed at some other posters in this thread, but if that was for me, you should take a chill-pill and try to have an adult conversation.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)only at those who are calling for that asshole preacher to be put in jail or deported for making a freeking movie. And I disagree - The Last Temptation of Christ was indeed very insulting to Christians. It called their entire religion into question. Do you not think soaking a crucifix in urine was -in-your-face insulting? I certainly do and yet I do not remember rioting and murders.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I thought "The Last Temptation" made Christ seem human, whereas this video makes Mohammed out to be a monster. But again it is not a contest.
"...and yet I do not remember rioting and murders." That's absolutely right, but what is the point everyone repeatedly saying this? Was is your message? What is your proposed course of action? That part is always mum. Why? That is where right-wing ideology seeps onto this board. I am not calling you a RWinger or a bigot, but can you answer those 3 questions to your own satisfaction? Would you proudly post them here?
.99center
(1,237 posts)Is the film maker in the center in your eyes or just a little to the left? No true liberal would create a film meant to incite violence. This isn't a case of picking sides, extremism here and abroad should be denounced. Maybe if people in the US would quit excusing far right extremist views and stand up and let the world know that this isn't the view we Americans have of Islam, we wouldn't be seen as trying to wage war on Islam when every crazy Christian try's to prove otherwise.
triplepoint
(431 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (8)
The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.
Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year's uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.
The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.
"The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets at them," the official in Benghazi told Reuters.
Reference Link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/12/us-libya-usa-attack-idUSBRE88B0EI20120912
------------
This is one of the catalysts-instigators of all this death:
.
AND
.
Here's the Movie's Producer/Script Writer/Fall Guy/False Flag Patsy, Felon and Meth Cooker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula:
Note: The controversial "Innocence of Muslims" was written, produced and directed by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula; a convicted drug manufacturer and scam artist, who has told authorities he actually wrote the script in federal prison and began production two months after his release.
.
AND
.
Here's the Movie's Promoter, Steve Klein:
Klein founded Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques, and started Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, which preaches against Muslims and publishes volumes of anti-Muslim propaganda that Klein distributes. He also has helped train paramilitary militias at the church of Kaweah near Three Rivers, about an hour southeast of Fresno, to prepare for what they believe is a coming holy war with Muslim sleeper cells, according to the law center.
"It's extreme, ugly, violent rhetoric and the fact that he's involved in that weapons training at that church, when you combine things like weapons training with hatred of a people, that's very concerning to us. Those are the kind of things that lead to hate crimes," said Heidi Beirich, director of the center's Intelligence Project.
.
Reference Link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/steve-klein-innocence-of-muslims-producer_n_1882595.html
CottonBear
(21,596 posts)as per DU & copyright/fair use rules.
TroyD
(4,551 posts)With the escalation of the tension between Israel and Obama over Iran, and now the crisis in Libya in this incident, I wonder if this is going to become the major test of this election for President Obama?
disidoro01
(302 posts)I don't think Libyans are ignorant mindless animals but I feel that some are pretty much saying that. That they were incited or forced into murdering people really says that they had no free will or choice. The Libyans who killed made that choice to intentionally kill others. Why is there an argument over that? If we have to dig for a reason, lets forget about about the 1st amendment (way to force our democratic system on other countries, there is no Libyan 1st amendment per se) and look at religion as the cause of more death and anguish than any other reason or argument. Islamists and christians are simply bloodthirsty creatures, any excuse will do.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Too many here want to treat the perpertrators as children who simply couldn't help themselves from lashing out because someone insulted them on the playground.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
I don't understand what it is about religion that causes some people (in this case certain Muslims) to become so rageful and violent where they would go out and storm an embassy and murder people just because someone insulted Mohammed.
I don't approve of people insulting the religious beliefs of others, but pathologically violent responses are not normal either.
Missycim
(950 posts)does anyone know the name of the video so I can google it?
TroyD
(4,551 posts)President Obama "strongly condemns the outrageous attack" that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
http://www.cnn.com/
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Botany
(70,440 posts)Next time you need some help from America you can eat shit and die.
Thousands of military and non military personal* helped in the ouster
of Khadaffi and this is the thanks we get? I know these were not all of
the Libyan people and some are blaming the attack on forces loyal to
Khadaffi but this flat out sucks. Christopher Stevens was there to help the
people of Libya and to try to strengthen diplomatic ties between our nations.
* not only US personal but other countries too.
outsideworld
(601 posts)Created by the right wing that Obama has to clean up
Lefta Dissenter
(6,622 posts)And, as the mom of a foreign service officer in the Middle East, I'm scared shitless.
My son had had Libya on his list of requested assignments because the Ambassador was so awesome - he had a great reputation for being amazing to work with.
It's devastating to think that hate is triumphant over diplomacy.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Western powers backed some amorphous group that was powerful enough to topple strong-man dictator Ghadaffi, but the new gov's forces couldn't prevail against this well-trained and armed group that hit our embassy.
Attacks in Egypt and Libya for the anniversary of 9-11, in response to some obscure pin-head whose video even foreign policy junkies never heard of til now. While Romney and Netanyahu rattle the sabre vs. Iran, and Obama.
Happens every time a Dem gets into the White House. Mumbai attack kicked off the current Admin's foreign-policy battles, and the ship that carried the attackers (the MV Alpha) was jointly owned by CIA and ISI.
The repug oil-nazi wing of the CIA strikes again. Can be read easily, even with eyes closed.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)During the Arab Spring course of events, more than a few DUers were mocked because we questioned the underlying dynamics of the "revolutionary forces".
Interesting that none of them are on this thread with their usual "two steps back, one step forward" bullshit.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2012, 09:09 AM - Edit history (1)
I couldn't muster up a serious hate for Ghadaffi, I let repugs like Raygun and bush handle the 'hate Moammar' job. But I didn't have to live under him. Still, something stunk about the strength and speedy success of the insurgency against him. We agree about the underlying dynamics, and questions about who the West put in charge over there.
I'd like to see Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis (sp?) get rid of their 'incumbent' govs in an Arab Spring, but since our oil interests back them, it doesn't matter that they're run by repressive feudal fundamentalist fanatic monarchs. Ditto for the country to which Halliburton and Blackwater-Xe-Academi moved their headquarters, to avoid taxes, oversight, and indictments. Bahrain, Abu Dahbi, Dubai, U.A.E., Yemen, it's all a blur of bad actors that we don't really know, and our country's financial interests don't really mind. All stems back to carving up the Ottomans by the victors after WWI, and 'realignments' after WWII.
Prof. Maddow had the best take on the current situation, pointing out that Romney attacked our Embassy personnel, for their statement condemning anti-muslim propaganda, WHILE the SAME embassy personnel were under attack by the paramilitary forces that killed 4 of our people. He attacked the US while they were attacking the US. Unprecedented action from the 'loyal opposition'.
For a lame-brain pin-head with about 20 followers, the U-stash-i pastor from Florida and Germany sure wields an out-sized bull-horn in terms of international media coverage. Dissemination of his message was timed just right to allow a paramilitary force to attack using protest crowds as a smoke screen. So on the anniversary of 9-11, repugs can run on 'weak foreign policy'.
The same crowd that screamed 'How Dare You Politicize the 9-11 attacks' -- at critics of bush's natitonal security and foreign policy positions after the attacks -- now attacks our foreign policy personnel while an attack against them and our national security is in progress. They attack on the anniversary of 9-11, while Mr. Eichenwald's news of bush's 7 detailed pre-warnings about 9-11 attacks is getting increased media attention.
Romney Rove repug foreign policy.
(On edit, I'm wrong about Maddow's statement, because I thought our Libyan people issued the statement, but our Cairo people did. My third para could be misleading to someone, because our Egyptian personnel weren't hit by paramilitaries.)
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)He's launching an investigation into pre-warnings about the 9-11 attacks, but he's just interested in the 9-11-2012 attacks on our embassies, not the Eichenwald investigation of repug-ignored pre-warnings of the massive devastating 9-11 attacks. Nothing is too low or hypocritical for their crowd, their every move is capable of inducing technicolor yawns.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)Yeah, they are. Just saw Crawford and Rose on CBS a few minutes ago, inserting coverage of Issa and his team of shit head repugs as a big issue, around their coverage of Biden-Ryan's debate. Quoting a Condi Rice op-ed, of all things. Rove repug nat'l security spin.
Retailing jaw-dropping treasonous hypocrisy as 'business as usual', so Americans double-think about the repugs' sterling national security record. Repugs are 'strong' on national security and foreign policy issues.
I hope V.P. Biden does a 90 second riff on Eichenwald's NY Times story in the debate. On the one hand, we have the smirking chimp's failures to heed pre-warnings and the Dems subsequently showing the way a 'loyal opposition' acts when a foreign attack occurs against us. On the other hand, we have our Administration's 'failure' in this attack, and how the repug 'loyal opposition' acts when we've been attacked. Rhetorically ask what that dolt Issa and his party has done to investigate Eichenwald's 9-11-01 revelations.
Attack, don't defend. Take it to these creeps.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)And it makes me wonder...
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)I pretty much always agree with you, and love your research. I do support Arab Spring-ers to a certain extent, though. I think Occupy, One Wisconsin (labor), the Greek protesters, and many Arab Spring movements have a lot in common. My path parts with the people that prevailed in Egypt's arab spring, though, because I think the guy now in charge there is a torturing Mubarek general who was on the CIA payroll. I don't know who the west installed as Libya's government, but the paramilitary group that hit our embassy doesn't represent the Libyans that were happy to get rid of Khadaffi, and the average citizen there who couldn't do anything about Khadaffi can't do anything about the people who overthrew Khadaffi, who in turn couldn't do anything about the paramilitary attackers. I bet those attackers were hired through the arab-language edition of Soldier of Fortune, though. A middle east version of 'Ronin', with a right-wing media assist.
I don't blame the rank and file Spring-ers for not being able to thwart the attack. The private security mercs we hired to protect our embassy couldn't thwart the attack either.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Not in a direct cause/effect way, more in a stirring of the pot to produce predictable results at a point in time manner. Not much I can point to as specifics, but it does make the opting out of certain usual strong voices in threads about these nations/topics stand out.
There's also the timing of other recent events, such as Canada (Harper) suddenly closing the Iran embassy and expelling Iran diplomats. One Canadian paper is now calling that act "prescient." Then there is the whole Netanyahu/Harper/Romney/Obama good/bad relations flow of articles recently.
Maybe all of this is coincidence. Maybe not.
BTW, I think you have some very good posts making good points in this thread.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)So I'm not up to speed on that.
There's a lot of progressive site 'chatter' about the origins of the 'movie', now. CA Film Commission has no permit record, there's no IMBD page for the film, con-man felon behind it, maybe the whole movie was screened once, but there's no record. Buzzflash, TPM, Max B., Al Jazeera, Lucas Kavner at Huff Post, all putting info out about the slap-dash nature of the film that 'caused' the attacks. AP says that they traced it to Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who covered up the 'Basseley' part of his CA driver's license with his thumb, when he showed it to AP to prove his identity. The fact that it's easy to get lost in the sea of red herrings, on the cause part, shows that it's a typical half-baked repug foreign policy op.
We may never get actual members of the team who hit the embassy, because life can be cheap in that part of the world, so the 'authorities' there could round up some poor slobs to stand in for the actual perps. If that government does get some of the perps, we'll see the same kind of info on them as we see on the 'cause' part. They were paramilitary pros, not fundy fanatic amateurs.
Thanks for the Harper info. Figures. Romney repugs, Likud, Harper are like a rugby team, pushing the ball toward the goal of 'eliminate Obama and attack Iran'. Only a repug like Romney could get away with visiting Israel to tell Netanyahu to 'hit Iran, and the US will stand with him'. Since nobody voted for him and he's on the ground 'making US foreign policy', that fits the definition of treason, but he gets to walk it back as a 'misstatement'. R. Maddow pointed out 17 out of 24 of his foreign policy advisors are recycled l'il bush neocons. Mr. Eichenwald's recent reporting shows us the sterling national security and foreign policy record of those swine.
Thanks also for the positive review you gave me in the BTW.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)An "angry crowd" marched on the consulate on Tuesday, angry about an online film considered offensive to Islam, Libya's Deputy Interior Minister Wanis al-Sharif said Wednesday. The U.S. mission in Egypt was also attacked Tuesday in response to the film.
Al-Sharif said that consulate security staff opened fire when they heard gunfire outside the mission.
"This led to more anger and this is when the consulate was stormed," he said, suggesting that there were elements loyal to the regime of deposed dictator Moammar Gadhafi aiming to create chaos among the protesters.
"Criminals managed to get in and they burned and ransacked the consulate," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html
the article also states that Libyans were also killed but doesn't say how many
NoMoreWarNow
(1,259 posts)power.
TBF
(31,999 posts)"we have political AND ECONOMIC interests"
The "economic" interests (driven by capitalism) are at the heart of this.
No one supports a US Ambassador being killed - but these are not unpredictable events when you consider the systems at work here.
mainer
(12,017 posts)But this is what I predicted when we toppled Ghadafi. No one should be surprised.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)I suggest that the USA holds the Libyan government responsible for apprehending those who perpetrated this attack. Then the perpetrators are either tried under Libyan law, or extradited to the US for trial under US law.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)If the Libyan government fails to investigate and prosecute, there is zero chance that the US would be able to run in, guns a-blazing, to lind and extract the alleged perpetrators for trial in the US.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Livluvgrow
(377 posts)The way I look at it the movie producer and Jones are about as low class as you can get. Scum of the earth. That being said I am a firm supporter of free speech and the hardest thing about supporting freedom is to support differing opinion, That being said the murderers are in a whole different ballpark of lowlife. I wouldn't want to be president right now because this issue puts into perspective how trivial and small my problems are.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)It's obvious from this and other incidents that the riotous in the Muslim world believe that any movie or book that is published in the US must have the approval of the US government and people in general. Why? Because that's the way it is in most Muslim countries.
In the last go-round with with the Most Rev. (!) Jones which followed closely out of interest) the Obama administration tied itself in knots condemning Jones' Koran-burning plan, but at no point said a single word --not one -- to explain to the Muslim world that the government could do nothing to stop him from insulting Islam, since any American is free to insult any religion they wish to insult. Nor did they explain that free speech isn't always pleasant but it is a fundamental right that all Americans cherish.
Instead, they blustered against Jones, who eventually caved in under the pressure. So what did the angry Muslim world therefore witness?
A far as they could tell, what they saw was the US government basically stepping in preventing Jones from committing a sacrilege against Islam.
This being so, why would they not continue to think that the the US government has agreed to allow this film to be made and shown, which therefore means for them that the US is backing the sacrilege.
Hence, they riot and they kill to convince the US government to do the right thing, and to stop this film from being shown. They saw Obama stop Terry Jones once, why would they not they not think tha Obama is now is "letting" him exercise free speech because he agrees with the content of the film?
Hence they riot and kill to send a message to the US.
I think the only long-term solution here is for the US administration, in instances of this sort, to a) condemn the film, and b) to explain why it that no-one can legally stop a film from being shown because this clearly falls under the category of "free speech."
I fea that as long as the US fails to defend and explain free speech, this kind of incident will continue to happen.
David__77
(23,311 posts)Libya's state was destroyed by the US-led NATO and replaced with armed gangs aiming at wiping out all culture and modernity.
AndySipowicz
(26 posts)We had no business there.
MyTwoSense
(46 posts)Can anyone direct me to the responses by moderate Muslims on this attack? I've been looking but can't find any.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)whole thread in the name of religion(both major religions and others), freedom of speech(or not), and a movie(film)? I am amazed at the level of discourse around this tragedy. Two hateful people are involved in a film depicting the Prophet of a major religion as some kind of despicable character and we free citizens end up at each others throats as to who is right or wrong about the reason(s) for this tragedy of the human condition(Libya) that resulted from this hateful and yes disrespectful film.
People were murdered in the name of religion in this incident. Fact. Sad. American freedom of speech does carry a certain amount of personal responsibility as in the example put forward about words used to describe racial/physical characteristics of another human being. Sometimes one must think before they speak. Fact. Sometimes not thinking or not caring about what is being said(as in this inflammatory film) or some of the responses we have had to each other today in this thread can result in violence. As I feel would happen if all of us were in a room somewhere and there no excuse for it. No excuse for the incited right wing hate of this film. No religion is that important that people must die, for any reason. Religion is based on faith. Religion is a personal choice, as is belief in that religion. No one should have to perish because of a belief in a God. If that's the case we will all perish because of the belief in a respective God. Sad.
There are evil people out there acting under the guise of being 'good' religious people. One incites riots with their religious fervor/hate, the other incites suicide flights into buildings, war and many hundreds of thousands of deaths and misery. Not to mention the suicide bombings among many examples in this last decade or so. Which is right? Answer me that.
The Geo-politics of the last 50-60 years has brought us Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Falkland, death squads in Central America, Gulf War I and II and more. Too many agendas to even comment on. Personally I feel all of these and more were for reasons we will never know. The leaders say "have faith we're doing the right thing people", or in the case of one, "we don't care what you think" and if we are robbed again, electorally, in this case, it will be "you people" don't need to know, ect.
I hope POTUS and SOS handle this situation gingerly and wisely. The call to arms that I'm sure the right wing will be screeching, I hope will be ignored. In volatile regions, ambassador's face this type of violence and yes, injury and death. Goes with the territory. This film maker and Jones are just as responsible for the violence as those who committed it. There are no good guys and bad guys. They are all responsible for their own actions. Jones is religious leader and so are the mullahs who incited people to burn and murder. No one is right!. I know it is too much to ask or even hope could happen but can we start thinking past religion and politics to what is humanly right? Too much to ask or too simplistic? I hope not.
AndySipowicz
(26 posts)These are the people we "liberated".......The crazies who replace dictators are usually worse.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)He's such a jerk!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)elbloggoZY27
(283 posts)First my condolences to the families who loved ones were murdered.
The facts are that violence is not the answer to solving any problems but this is the Middle East which is always one step away from violent acts.
The brave men and women who work overseas deserve our respect.
