0
jclalor

Obama condemns killing of U.S. ambassador to Libya

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote



The guy who made the movie knew full well that there are assholes who'd react violently, and that someone other than himself would be the victim. The person who pokes a hornets' nest isn't always the one who gets stung.



I hold the vidiot responsible for his action - making an inflammatory video

I hold the mob responsible for the violence and murder - that's their actions


I refuse to excuse the mob for their actions by laying it on the vidiot


the individuals of that mob are clearly not a part of 'humanity' as we know it



For what it's worth, there are reports out now that the mob was effectively a smoke screen that a terrorist group used to intentionally get the ambassador moving so they could take him out. If true, than the mobs aren't really guilty of much more than our own 'occupy wall street' types. The murders themselves maybe have come from an entirely different element.

Blues,
Dave



That's what NPR is reporting from "government sources". Apparently planned for 9/11 anniversary.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


In a way the situation is akin to a situation where a woman seduces some young, insecure/immature kid, then once he's totally infatuated starts talking up how they could "be together forever" if only her husband could somehow be taken out of the picture. If the kid takes the hint and offs the husband, we hold him responsible for his actions but we don't excuse the wife on first amendment grounds. "Free speech" doesn't mean we are automatically immune from being held accountable for the predictable consequences of that speech. Blame is not a fixed quantity that gets divided by the number of participants, it's a quality that adheres to all the participants, be they the instigator or the tool.

Don



We don't actually have free speech if what you write here is how it is applied. Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie. ProLifers can gather outside abortion clinics.

Saying Muslims are too fucking stupid to know better, so it's the writer/cartoonist/filmer's fault for anything that might happen means that we lower our standard of living to their 13th century state. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For what it's worth, there are reports out now that the mob was effectively a smoke screen that a terrorist group used to intentionally get the ambassador moving so they could take him out. If true, than the mobs aren't really guilty of much more than our own 'occupy wall street' types. The murders themselves maybe have come from an entirely different element



Dave's statement here is looking more and more likely. In which case we've been like the whuffo press talking out our asses.

Turns out that the assassins called "fire."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


In a way the situation is akin to a situation where a woman seduces some young, insecure/immature kid, then once he's totally infatuated starts talking up how they could "be together forever" if only her husband could somehow be taken out of the picture. If the kid takes the hint and offs the husband, we hold him responsible for his actions but we don't excuse the wife on first amendment grounds. "Free speech" doesn't mean we are automatically immune from being held accountable for the predictable consequences of that speech. Blame is not a fixed quantity that gets divided by the number of participants, it's a quality that adheres to all the participants, be they the instigator or the tool.

Don



We don't actually have free speech if what you write here is how it is applied. Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie. ProLifers can gather outside abortion clinics.

Saying Muslims are too fucking stupid to know better, so it's the writer/cartoonist/filmer's fault for anything that might happen means that we lower our standard of living to their 13th century state. No thanks.

What would you say about the role of the wife in the analogy I gave? Not every impressionable kid will resort to murder under such circumstances, but she can move on to the next one, and the next, until she finds someone sufficiently malleable. Anyway, our judicial system would not hold her blameless for the consequences of her speech. The courts have also ruled that money = speech, at least in the political arena. If I were to advertize for a "hit man" (=speech), tell them that I wanted a certain person dead (=speech), tell them where that person could be found at various times of the day (=speech), and give them money to do the job (=speech), am I blameless for what subsequently happens because all I have done is exercise my right to speak? How about if I were to make a video depicting a certain religious prophet having sex with a dead pig, finish it up with a "credit" page that says "filmed by X" along with listing X's address, place of work, phone # etc and post it on you tube so the entire world could see it? If X ends up dead, would I have no share in the responsibility for that? Would it be any different if I had some specific motive for wanting X dead? Does it matter if I know that 99.9% of the followers of the prophet would be pissed off but 0.1% are fanatical enough to be provoked to action, so I post the video in a venue where it is accessible to 50 million followers knowing that 0.1% of 50 million is still a lot of people (50,000)?

In the case of the "movie" that the asshats in Libya and Egypt were responding to, it seems informative that the person apparently responsible for making and posting the video is hiding behind a false identity. If they made the video as an artistic statement, a parody, or for any other legitimate purpose, it seems to me that they would stand behind it with their real identity. Adopting a pseudonym from the beginning of the process suggests they knew exactly what reaction it would provoke. van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and others who have been critical of Islam had the courage to stand behind their speech. Although it cost them greatly, no-one can argue that they were simply out to provoke violence.

If it were to turn out that the film was actually made by radical jihadists so they could use it to provoke mobs to riot, would you say that's all OK?

Anyway in the present case I'm not talking about legal responsibility (which would be almost impossible to prove), but about moral culpability.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow- long post, lot of manure.

You're trying really hard to make this outcome the fault of the filmer, either entirely, or substantially. And that just doesn't fly in America. Saying it's a moral issue is a dodge.

FFS, the Federalist Papers were published under a false name. Why? Did it change the message any?

We already have a line define at which point a group is criminally inciting violence: when anti-abortion groups ran web sites with addresses of abortion doctors and X's through ones that were killed, directing people to the living ones, that was going past the line of free speech. But ignoring the extreme groups in America, even South Park ran an entire episode on Mohamed.

As for a wife that hunts for a shooter - that's criminal behavior. If instead she just says she's unhappy with her marriage, and the teenager decides to kill the husband, it's not. Having an affair doesn't translate to murderous intent. But unless you get tangible evidence (email, recordings), it's difficult to tell the difference. And that means you presume innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."

That may have been yesterday though.



It's great to see that some posters in this thread who once mocked christianity are now standing up against religious denigration...It's gotta be one of the more momentous flip flops I've witnessed. It's been a long fight...I think I'm gonna cry....
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."

That may have been yesterday though.



It's great to see that some posters in this thread who once mocked christianity are now standing up against religious denigration...It's gotta be one of the more momentous flip flops I've witnessed. It's been a long fight...I think I'm gonna cry....



Just because we think people with imaginary friends are either stupid or hallucinating doesn't mean we don't think they have a right to have imaginary friends.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

"Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance."

That may have been yesterday though.



It's great to see that some posters in this thread who once mocked christianity are now standing up against religious denigration...It's gotta be one of the more momentous flip flops I've witnessed. It's been a long fight...I think I'm gonna cry....



Just because we think people with imaginary friends are either stupid or hallucinating doesn't mean we don't think they have a right to have imaginary friends.



Now if someone harms you for saying that, (God Forbid!) then your blood is on your hands? It's your fault?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

n a way the situation is akin to a situation where a woman seduces some young, insecure/immature kid, then once he's totally infatuated starts talking up how they could "be together forever" if only her husband could somehow be taken out of the picture. If the kid takes the hint and offs the husband, we hold him responsible for his actions but we don't excuse the wife on first amendment grounds. "Free speech" doesn't mean we are automatically immune from being held accountable for the predictable consequences of that speech. Blame is not a fixed quantity that gets divided by the number of participants, it's a quality that adheres to all the participants, be they the instigator or the tool.



I’m having a hard time putting together how making a movie that is insulting to Muhammed is at all akin to a woman applying undue influence on a kid to kill her husband. Does the movie say, “Muslims – rise up and kill?” No. People feel their God is being dissed. There’s a whole entire difference. I’m not going to blame Marvel comics for some dude who thinks he’s the Joker shooting up a theater.

In fact, people like you seem to support the idea that, for example, an abused wife really has what’s coming to her. “Those two black eyes were for each time in the last week she told me to get a job.” Yeah – she should have known not to piss him off. Wrong. Not in my book. The sociopath looks for a reason or creates the reason to fuck someone up. Then will say, “Look what you made me do.”


Quote

Anyway, our judicial system would not hold her blameless for the consequences of her speech.



Correct. Indeed, there is the requisite mens rea. How about the woman who finally gets rid of the abuser. She then has the audacity to go on a date with someone else. The ex kills the new date. Should that bitch go to jail, too?

Quote

The courts have also ruled that money = speech, at least in the political arena.



Always has. Somehow, “campaign warchest” is a term that predated Citizen’s United.

Quote

If I were to advertize for a "hit man" (=speech), tell them that I wanted a certain person dead (=speech), tell them where that person could be found at various times of the day (=speech), and give them money to do the job (=speech), am I blameless for what subsequently happens because all I have done is exercise my right to speak?



No. You are blamed because of your speech. But if you placed an ad that said, “Romney is an asshole” and some Mormon went on a spree killing because he read that, would you also bear responsibility? Answer is no. You’re analogizing verified intent with a movie. And if you think that his film was intended to provoke a response, then you’ve talked about “art.”

Quote

How about if I were to make a video depicting a certain religious prophet having sex with a dead pig, finish it up with a "credit" page that says "filmed by X" along with listing X's address, place of work, phone # etc and post it on you tube so the entire world could see it?



Would be dickish. Indeed, it would also be a lie, wouldn’t it?

Quote

If X ends up dead, would I have no share in the responsibility for that? Would it be any different if I had some specific motive for wanting X dead? Does it matter if I know that 99.9% of the followers of the prophet would be pissed off but 0.1% are fanatical enough to be provoked to action, so I post the video in a venue where it is accessible to 50 million followers knowing that 0.1% of 50 million is still a lot of people (50,000)?



How’s that compute with killing an Ambassador. You’re making all kinds of analogies that just don’t work because there’s a much larger nexus to fill. If you made that movie and on the basis of it Obama decided to carpet bomb Nairobi, would you share the blame? What if Obama said, “I saw this movie and it was uncalled for and provoked me to bomb Nairobi. Because I’m not from there.” Would you share the blame? Or would you think that a few people just ain’t working right upstairs.

Quote

In the case of the "movie" that the asshats in Libya and Egypt were responding to, it seems informative that the person apparently responsible for making and posting the video is hiding behind a false identity.



Yes. Just as Joe Klein did with Primary Colors. Because, clearly, Joe Klein was fearful that he would be hunted down and killed.

Quote

If they made the video as an artistic statement, a parody, or for any other legitimate purpose, it seems to me that they would stand behind it with their real identity.



Name a known artist who uses his or her real name. Are you shitting me? As if stage names aren’t more common than real names?

Quote

Adopting a pseudonym from the beginning of the process suggests they knew exactly what reaction it would provoke.



Yes. Bono knew he was screwed.

Quote

van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and others who have been critical of Islam had the courage to stand behind their speech.



Trey Parker and Matt Stone did. And they were stopped because Comedy Central thought it would provoke violence. Which is too bad. Because that’s what terrorists do – ensure that no other message is sent.

And guess what – it’s not the everyday Muslim we need to worry about. It’s the fanatic. It’s the fanatics beheading people and stoning homosexuals and rape victims. Not the run-of-the-mill Muslim. But they are letting the fanatics run the show. Much like the Germans sat by while fanatics took charge. Then they all had the choice to be fanatics or die. Were all Germans to blame? Nope. They were passive, didn’t think that it would happen like it did. And then had no choice.

Or like the Soviets did – bloodthirsty Josef Stalin made sure those who resisted were killed. All 20 million of them. Mao Tse Tong? What, 50 million? He was a fanatic, too. The people who installed him? blameless?


Quote

Although it cost them greatly, no-one can argue that they were simply out to provoke violence.



Correct. They said what they wanted to say. They are the martyrs.

Quote

If it were to turn out that the film was actually made by radical jihadists so they could use it to provoke mobs to riot, would you say that's all OK?



In one sense, yep. In another way it’s different because of the intent involved. If they make a film, blame it on an American jew, and use it as ammo, now they’ve lied. See? Telling the TRUTH about shit is ineffective. They lied to make a point. Which is what fanatics do. With fanatics the ends justify the means.

Quote

Anyway in the present case I'm not talking about legal responsibility (which would be almost impossible to prove), but about moral culpability.



I’m unwilling to assign a moral culpability to a filmmaker. I assign it to the people who perform the bad acts and those who ENCOURAGE a bad act.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well said John.

Fully agreed.



This isn't about you supporting the right for others to have religious beliefs, it's about your espoused leaders calling religious bigotry deplorable (as displayed by John) It's not consistent with American values and exposes a lack of patriotism.

We now see that the irony has been coming from the anti-christs all along...they are the ones who sling condescending insults, and then cry when we fire back a heart shot.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But since the policy of the Administration has seemed to be one of appeasement, ...



Yes, must be why Obama didn't go after Usama bin Laden and have him terminated.

Oh wait...
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well said John.

Fully agreed.



This isn't about you supporting the right for others to have religious beliefs, it's about your espoused leaders calling religious bigotry deplorable (as displayed by John) It's not consistent with American values and exposes a lack of patriotism.

We now see that the irony has been coming from the anti-christs all along...they are the ones who sling condescending insults, and then cry when we fire back a heart shot.



Your self-flattery is matched only by your absence of logic.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The person who pokes a hornets' nest isn't always the one who gets stung.



I have a bit of a problem with this metaphor. The ambassador and consulate personnel were not killed by hornets, bears, nor piranhas. They were killed by human beings. Generally we make exceptions to the standards we hold human beings to in two instances 1) youth 2) mentally handicapped. In these cases we consider the mental capacity of the individual to be less than that of a fully developed adult human. Your metaphor of hornets suggests a sub-human reaction and therefore transference of responsibility. To suggest that insulting Mohammed can set off a sub-human reaction in people who are muslim but suffer from no mental infirmities is to suggest that belief in Islam, in and of itself, is a mental handicap.

To blame the author of the film is to gravely insult people like in the attached photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To blame the author of the film is to gravely insult people like in the attached photo.



Very touching photo...it almost brought tears to me.(it would've but I'm feeling a lil' bit jaded right now...maybe tomorrow.)

I know first hand the similarities between real muslims and islamic extremists....there are none.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I know first hand the similarities between real muslims and islamic extremists....there are none.

I know! When you think about how many people Dave Chappelle has killed, and all the suicide bombings by Karim Abdul-Jabbar and Muhammad Ali . . . not to mention all the buildings the co-founder of YouTube has blown up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>I know first hand the similarities between real muslims and islamic extremists....there are none.

I know! When you think about how many people Dave Chappelle has killed, and all the suicide bombings by Karim Abdul-Jabbar and Muhammad Ali . . . not to mention all the buildings the co-founder of YouTube has blown up.



I'm sorry, are you being a smart ass or are you agreeing with me?
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0