Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks


GostHacked

Recommended Posts

Of course he incited violence. He knew what the consequences of his actions were likely to be. As far as he is concerned, th more innocents who die the better. It just makes his case in his own sick mind.

Inciting violence does not mean that your offensive video is going to get the "other side" angry enough to kill people. In the legal definition of the term, did he incite one group to perpetuate violence against another?

Then Dawkins is also guilty of inciting violence! And so is Rushdie, with his "blasphemous" books! The cartoonist who drew Muhammed incited violence! I call bullshit on all of that. None of these people incited any violence. Muslim extremists do not get to determine what free speech is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

If the Americans in your scenario were known to have a history of violence then I would say the Canadians would share a portion of the blame.

Americans do have a history of gun violence, to hear tell. So say a group such as the Michigan Militia. They are sick and tired of Canadians insulting Americans.

Do Canadians do the bidding of the Michigan Militia, stifle their free speech, and bow to the demands of the Americans? Or do they tell them to STFU because they live in a free country and will say and do whatever they please?

In this case the Pastor and his supporters commit the action in the hope of getting a response, in no way are the people doing the killing innocent but neither is the person who intentionally stirring the pot just to get a response. The fact is this idiot is instigating the situation for his own personal gain. He feels that he has the right to say and do anything to express his views, even if it will mean someone else will have to die. He is playing god with somebody else's life knowing full well that his actions would cause a violent reaction which would cause death to Americans in particular or failing to find Americans the death of any Westerners.

Do you think the Americans who fought and died for our freedoms would want Americans to kowtow to a violent organization because of the threat of violence? Seriously. Would you give up your freedoms? What good is freedom of speech if the threat of violence from a violent group of people shuts us up? How do you expect said violent group to ever stop their demands? How do you expect them not to, in fact, grow stronger - as the world caves into their demands?

Freedom is not free; freedom does come with a price. Heaven help us if the threat of violence is all it takes for us to willingly give away our freedoms.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shhh big kids are talking.

As per the US intelligence services and advice from top military brass. You have to be one of the most ill-informed posters on this board. Got some balloons to complain about?

The president sets foreign policy. Of course, then you'd have to criticize Obama. So it's best to pretend he didn't insist on both Mubarak and Gaddafi step down. That way you can give him a pass like you always do, and instead focus on Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please allow the waldo to interject facts and more pertinent 'speculation':

- the video was not created by 'Terry Jones'; rather,
... a California American who claims to be an "Israeli Jew". The only Jones association is one where he purports to promote the Bacile video. Bacile is now being described as, "in hiding"!

- protests directly associated with the video, in both Egypt and Libya, are being described as "minimal"... crowds shouting, flag raising - nothing more.
that leveraged the initial video protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That way you can give him a pass like you always do, and instead focus on Romney.

of course, a most critical eye is zeroing in on the Mittens antics (last night/this morning)... I guess we can safely say Rmoney failed his 3:00AM phone call in the morning, hey Shady! :lol:

just wow Shady, the long knives within the Republican party/media came out the last couple of days given the overall failed performance of Romney/Ryan... over night, they're sharpening those knives - big time, hey Shady!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The president sets foreign policy. Of course, then you'd have to criticize Obama. So it's best to pretend he didn't insist on both Mubarak and Gaddafi step down. That way you can give him a pass like you always do, and instead focus on Romney.

Your boy Romney is a puppet as well. Don't kid yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please allow the waldo to interject facts and more pertinent 'speculation':

- the video was not created by 'Terry Jones'; rather,
... a California American who claims to be an "Israeli Jew". The only Jones association is one where he purports to promote the Bacile video. Bacile is now being described as, "in hiding"!

- protests directly associated with the video, in both Egypt and Libya, are being described as "minimal"... crowds shouting, flag raising - nothing more.
that leveraged the initial video protest.

Also looks like the video was released online so I was wrong in saying it was shown soley in Egypt/Libya. I guess anyone can view it. Also CTV reports kind of confirm (preliminary) that this is the case.

Lot more to this under the surface than what I had initially thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

That's actually a good analogy.... makes more sense than a bear in the woods.

Obviously, we would contend that we are a free country and our rights will not be dictated by foreign extremists.

I don't think there's any question at all that you would contend that you are a free country and that your rights will not be dictated by American extremists - which is, of course, the way it should be. I suspect GhostHacked knows that and agrees, too, which is why he isn't answering the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's any question at all that you would contend that you are a free country and that your rights will not be dictated by American extremists - which is, of course, the way it should be.

Perhaps he wasn't saying no one has the right to criticize islam, but that no one can be surprised by the reaction that provokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps he wasn't saying no one has the right to criticize islam, but that no one can be surprised by the reaction that provokes.

I can only go by what he wrote in his posts...

And his contention was that because of the violent extremists, then we should be careful about what we say. That's backwards! We are the ones who have got it right. They are the ones who are backwards, violent and superstitious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Pastor Jones or the other religious wackos?

Pastor Jones is an offensive windbag who has a right to free speech. Backwards? Yes. Superstitious? Certainly! Violent? Not that I have seen evidence of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I can only go by what he wrote in his posts...

And his contention was that because of the violent extremists, then we should be careful about what we say. That's backwards! We are the ones who have got it right. They are the ones who are backwards, violent and superstitious.

Exactly. That and the fact that he hasn't answered my question indicates that he blames the person who dared to do something that provoked an extremist group because they are prone to violence.

To me it says more than we should be careful about what we say - it says without question that violence works. Say whatever you will about a non-violent group, insult them, criticize, make fun, never mind their feelings. But when it involves a violent group, best watch what you say and be sure not to offend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inciting violence does not mean that your offensive video is going to get the "other side" angry enough to kill people. In the legal definition of the term, did he incite one group to perpetuate violence against another?

Then Dawkins is also guilty of inciting violence! And so is Rushdie, with his "blasphemous" books! The cartoonist who drew Muhammed incited violence! I call bullshit on all of that. None of these people incited any violence. Muslim extremists do not get to determine what free speech is.

in their own countries they absolutely do determine what free speech is...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in their own countries they absolutely do determine what free speech is...

So you are saying that this response was ok and they should be allowed to do so? Kill foreigners that just happen to be from the same country where a video emanated?

Do you agree with the religious fanatics killing Rushdie as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. That and the fact that he hasn't answered my question indicates that he blames the person who dared to do something that provoked an extremist group because they are prone to violence.

oh my! So... this was just another one of your described "opportunities" - this one allowing an equally rabid "Jewish American" to purposely craft a video with content, knowingly, willingly and wantonly, intended to "poke the bear with a stick"... conveniently couched under the guise of American freedom "free speech". But, of course, in this case, that supposed exercise of American free speech was one applied across the border-less internet... with implications... and results, external to American borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh my! So... this was just another one of your described "opportunities" - this one allowing an equally rabid "Jewish American" to purposely craft a video with content, knowingly, willingly and wantonly, intended to "poke the bear with a stick"... conveniently couched under the guise of American freedom "free speech". But, of course, in this case, that supposed exercise of American free speech was one applied across the border-less internet... with implications... and results, external to American borders.

So you would be in favour of retaliation against other Muslims when they post beheadings or offensive material on the web?

What they did is wrong and there is no excuse for it.

Link to comment
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.

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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...