[Brazelton] US Ambassador to Libya killed, consulate burned down
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
- Status
Cutting Taxes and Increasing Spending is the alternate plan, so yep WE'RE DOOOOOOOMED...
GasBandit
Staff member
The anti-Muslim "movie" that sparked the violence in Libya and Egypt may not even be real.
Read this on CSM yesterday. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily say that the movie isn't real - it's obvious that the footage, or at least some of it, does exist. I think they'd get a lot more mileage out of just reporting that the final release product and the film that was shot were wildly different animals; and that the actors and crew themselves had no idea what the final product was going to be - for those who don't want to read the article, it states that the cast and crew signed on to do one film about life in the Middle East in ancient times, shot the whole thing, and then in editing one guy (a former meth cook and scam artist named Nakoula Bassely Nakoula) dubbed over most of the film to make it about how terrible Islam is instead. The actors are reported to be pissed, and the full cast and crew are reported to have signed on to an apology to everyone offended by the film because it's not what they were involved with. But still, the film does exist.
Of course something has to give at some point - this entire country is cooking right now, it's just that some parts of the country were frozen when they were put in and haven't really gotten as hot as other parts yet. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything that can be done to stop something from happening. Even more unfortunately, I don't really think that whatever event (civil war, secession, what-have-you) eventually happens will do any good. I'm not sure that, as a species, we can live together in any group that has any members with any ideals different from any of the other members, for any significant length of time, without everything eventually going to hell in a hand-basket or the group splintering off. And, unfortunately, we've pretty much already carved up this country into enough parcels that it's going to be incredibly difficult to move far enough away from the people that certain groups disagree with. That, and as a nation - or perhaps as a species - we've become far too attached to specific plots of dirt. In some ways, animals are much smarter than we are. If a wolf pack gets too big and starts having infighting, the younger group will leave, travel away from their homelands, and set up a new home range. On the other hand, certain segments of our population keep fighting over the same bit of land, over and over again, because the land itself is more important to them than their own lives.
At this point, I can't help but wonder if the only way forward will be if we manage to master the technology needed for teraforming other planets and then groups that can't get along can just leave, and even then the issue would be the same: "My family has lived here for 3 generations, why should I have to leave because you changed the rules regarding who can live here and who can't, after I settled here?"
And some people divide even in those realms. So it becomes "we need to tolerate all beliefs... except a few that I think are key." Which is pretty much the same as not tolerating at all. It really, really sucks tolerating things. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. So where do you go with that? Hell, in a less inflammatory way, social services themselves are sometimes seen as ways of keeping people down, but others see them (to various degrees) as 100% essential. So now what?
Ya I know that's more open-ended and rhetorical, but still, you see why the problem is so damned hard. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's never that simple, as the quote I made above is trying to say.
Yep, I'm with you 100%. There is nothing easy about this issue. I'd be willing to bet, regardless of how frequently Gas and I butt heads, or of how often Gas posts about something and I just refuse to reply because I don't want to get into it right then, that the two of us have a lot more in common politically than we have differences; but that doesn't mean that those differences aren't as important to us, if not more important to us, than all of the commonalities are combined, and it doesn't necessarily mean that either of us are wrong. There's so much time spent telling everyone to look past each others' differences, and embrace our similarities, but at the end of the day, it's our differences that make us who we are as individuals, and as long as those differences aren't hurting anyone* we shouldn't be punished for being who we are by being forced to let go of our differences.
Regarding tolerance of all beliefs, my favorite example of how badly the tolerance train of thought fails, is Christmas time. If we say that allowing Christians to say "Merry Christmas" is intolerant of other people's religions, which may not recognize Christmas, then by telling them that they can't say it, aren't we equally failing to tolerate Christianity? Wouldn't it be much better if we just accepted their religion, and took a wish for us to have a merry Christmas as being the same as being told "have a nice day" instead of immediately taking it to be an assault on our religious beliefs or lack there of?
*Even "aren't hurting anyone" is a loaded concept, since you're taking one person's or one group's definition of what's hurting someone and what's not hurting them, and then you wind up in the exact mess we're in right now.
That's pretty much exactly my view on "Merry Christmas" and I'd take the same view if somebody wished me a "Happy (insert holiday here)" that I didn't observe myself.
As for the first part of your reply that I didn't quote, it reminds me of something I heard a while ago: "A Heretic is somebody who believes almost everything the same as you do."
The only thing that goes through my brain reading any of these stories is "stupid stupid stupid stupid"
I can't believe people actually died over all of this.
Well, the protests themselves that are happening in several muslim countries are of course nothing new, and we've seen several of them in the past, for much the same reasons as these ones. As I've understood, religion plays a slightly different role in muslim societies than it plays in the secular societies of the west, and in general the idea of fundamental, automatic and inalienable rights of the individual (e.g. free speech) is a western concept, and does not mesh one hundred percent with regular islamic culture.
As to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, that seems to be simply an anti-US faction using a protest as cover to launch their attack. Apparently not endorsed, seeing the condemnations from government officials, the protests of support from ordinary citizens, and local security (both hired consulate guards and seemingly a libyan army patrol) who tried to fight off the attack.
I don't want to see him jailed, quite the opposite really. I want to see him living out in the open. He started a shit-storm that he knew would happen. And because of that there are several dead people in the world. Let him live with the consequences.
Which is something the South Park guys were willing to do for example. But the almighty Comedy Central PC division wasn't.
Holy Shit you actually believe that someone who made a movie is responsible for this. Even worse you feel the appropriate response is mob justice and public lynching. Wow, just wow.
If you don't realize it sixpackshaker you're justifying the actions of those nutjobs and approving of similar behavior. If you do realize it, well I have nothing to say but go fuck yourself.
FUCK YOU Covar . If you know a baby is going to cry when you take its candy, then you are responsible for making the baby cry when you do it.[DOUBLEPOST=1347634312][/DOUBLEPOST]
Hopefully if they did run it, they would not change their names and run for the hills.
I was too general in my first post in this thread, but there are people in the Mid-East that are petulant kids. But when they get upset they murder, burn and pillage. If you know their hot-button and push it, you will hold some responsibility. I don't want to see him harmed myself, but I am pretty sure he will get the van Gough treatment from some crazy.
He has not broken any laws in America, but he will be facing retribution for the rest of his days.
He has not broken any laws in America, but he will be facing retribution for the rest of his days.
So they should hide like cowards to let others die in their place...
Smart, but sucks for the rest of the world.
Smart, but sucks for the rest of the world.
The problem shouldn't lie with those that make the statements. The actions of radicals should not dictate the lives of free people. That's like telling women they shouldn't dress provocatively because they might get raped.
GasBandit
Staff member
So what you're saying is that you're doubling down on calling muslims petulant children, and asserting that they can't be held responsible for their own actions because they are as unthinking infants?
I can't agree. I agree they're acting as if they were unthinking infants, but the truth is they are grown, functioning adults and must be held responsible for their own actions. No religion (nor any of its adherents) gets to decide that mocking that religion is justification for violence, much less murder. That notion is over 1000 years out of date.
I have the right to stand on national TV and declare "Churchill was right, Islam in humans is like rabies in a dog, and mohammed was a liar, a pedophile and a criminal" and any violent action taken against me is unjustified and solely the fault of those who commit the violence. That's what it means to be civilized.
Not quite, it is like the kid in high school that punches people that say "yo momma" to him. Then you go up to him and say "yo momma" then you hold some responsibility for your action, and the pay off is getting punched in the face.[DOUBLEPOST=1347641037][/DOUBLEPOST]
Nowhere have I said that the rioters hold no responsibility for what happened, just that the person that started it, does hold some responsibility.
Or,
Buzz Aldrin was charged with punching that guy in the face.[DOUBLEPOST=1347641117][/DOUBLEPOST]
So the person that yells "FIRE!" in a crowded theater holds zero, zip, zilch, nada responsibility for 20 people getting trampled. It is completely the fault of the panicking people in the back of the crowd pushing that is at fault.
Nowhere have I said that the rioters hold no responsibility for what happened, just that the person that started it, does hold some responsibility.
Or,
Buzz Aldrin was charged with punching that guy in the face.[DOUBLEPOST=1347641117][/DOUBLEPOST]
Well then after the beating, murder, there is a place for those that commit the act, called prison.
And you have the right to say: ''Muslims are subhuman scum" too but that doesn't make it a good thing. Racism is not cool. Insulting religion is not cool. .Muslims believe that you shouldn't create images of God or Prophets, whether they are positive or negative. Most muslims will denounce a picture by saying ''hey please don't do that, it goes against the rules I observe in my daily life." As shown by the image I posted and the images I linked in the same post. Some, like the armed men that attacked the compound in Benghazi, will exercise that denunciation more violently. Are those attackers to blame? Yes, certainly. Does that mean that the guy that made that video should observe no reprimand? Absolutely not.
I mean, you guys are fond of insulting the Westboro Baptist Church, too, even if all they do is stand at funerals with signs that say ''God hates fags'' and whatnot, and plenty of people say they should get punched in the face or whatever. So why is this guy (I don't know his name, sorry), insulting the faith of the islam, being kept on a pedestal of free speech?
In regards to the wbc, I've always maintained that while I don't like them, they gave every right to say what they want to say. Certainly no one needs to murder them.
This is basic stuff.
No, and obviously this video dude shouldn't be murdered either, that's silly and I'm not saying that. Now I don't know the exceptions to freedom of speech in the US, but over here, when a government official by the name of Geert Wilders made a film (Fitna) that called the Koran/Qu'ran a book of murder and evil, he was brought to trial. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but there are exceptions, under the name of Hate Speech, for which people can be prosecuted or taken other legal action against. Is this not the same in the US?
Nope, Americans can be as offensive as they like. As long as they don't put anyone in direct harm by their words, or don't threaten anybody.
They aren't allowed to incite violence ether. A white supremacist plainly telling his supporters to go out and assault or murder black people would be thrown in jail lickity split.
That's covered by what I said.
See... I've always kind of looked at Free Speech as a two-edged sword. I have the right to say any god damn thing I want, so long as I'm not threatening you. On the other hand, you have the right to be upset about anything I say, and if I say something really stupid, and it pisses you off, and you come hit me, well then, maybe I shouldn't have said what I said. Doesn't mean it's not my right to say it. Just means that, sometimes, like so many other things in life, there may be negative consequences for my actions. After all, all that the first amendment really protects, is my speech from the US Government. My right to free speech doesn't protect me from some random guy that I've pissed off, who decided to hit me. I mean, sure, I could try holding up a copy of the constitution and bill of rights as he pulled his fist back in preparation of hitting me... but there's not a whole lot of good that the paper would do, unless I had a whole lot of copies bound in a book.
Now, like others here, I am in no way saying that Naboukas Bessaley Naboukas is responsible for the deaths of the US Ambassador and his staff, or anyone else who has been or will be killed by protesters, police officers, security forces, or the armed force that actually attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi, or at any of the other embassies or consulates around the world where protests are breaking out. No one can really be blamed for that other than the people carrying out the protests and the attacks. But, Naboukas Bessaley Naboukas is an Egyptian-American, he is a Coptic Christian, and he does have experience living in a primarily Muslim country. He did know what kind of reaction his film was going to get, and he made it and released it anyway, either with no thought of what the consequences would be for other people because of his actions, or because he knew exactly what those consequences would be and once they happened he'd be able to stand around on his moral high-ground and say "See? See? I told you Muslims were <whatever message he actually had in the movie>! I told you, and you didn't believe me. Well now, our diplomats are dead, because of Islam."
Now, because his speech is protected, and because he didn't actually threaten anyone, the US Government has no grounds to punish him criminally, and they'd best keep their hands off of him. But, because it can be argued that he knew what kind of reaction his film was going to get, he could be held liable in civil suits brought by the families of the people who were killed, because that isn't the government taking action against you, that's getting hit in the face for calling some muscle-bound guy's wife a bad name.
Now, like others here, I am in no way saying that Naboukas Bessaley Naboukas is responsible for the deaths of the US Ambassador and his staff, or anyone else who has been or will be killed by protesters, police officers, security forces, or the armed force that actually attacked the US Embassy in Benghazi, or at any of the other embassies or consulates around the world where protests are breaking out. No one can really be blamed for that other than the people carrying out the protests and the attacks. But, Naboukas Bessaley Naboukas is an Egyptian-American, he is a Coptic Christian, and he does have experience living in a primarily Muslim country. He did know what kind of reaction his film was going to get, and he made it and released it anyway, either with no thought of what the consequences would be for other people because of his actions, or because he knew exactly what those consequences would be and once they happened he'd be able to stand around on his moral high-ground and say "See? See? I told you Muslims were <whatever message he actually had in the movie>! I told you, and you didn't believe me. Well now, our diplomats are dead, because of Islam."
Now, because his speech is protected, and because he didn't actually threaten anyone, the US Government has no grounds to punish him criminally, and they'd best keep their hands off of him. But, because it can be argued that he knew what kind of reaction his film was going to get, he could be held liable in civil suits brought by the families of the people who were killed, because that isn't the government taking action against you, that's getting hit in the face for calling some muscle-bound guy's wife a bad name.
Just clarifying.
And I'd cut you off and change you at the "and it pisses you off, and you are not allowed to come hit me." Period. That's called being civil. Even when somebody incites you, you stop. Actually hitting the other, or killing them, or anything else is unacceptable. I'd rather follow Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (In the wikiquote page, it says how this is often mis-attributed to Voltaire, though she was summarizing what she thought his attitudes were) Far different than saying it's OK to punch somebody for what they said, even if they're thrown in jail later.
- Status