Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks


GostHacked

Recommended Posts

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.

If we don't poke the bears, the bears will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand the media is reporting the fact this might have been a planned attack.

No doubt they'll soon be telling us we're certain the possibility exists that fill-in-blank-here is behind it.

Reporting the fact anything is possible is only a tiny step towards making things worse. Buying into it jumps in with both feet right up to the hips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Sure tell the Americans to STFU, but there is a difference when the militia goes after the offending party and when they go after anyone who happens to be a citizen.
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.
I believe in freedom of speech, but to me freedom of speech has consequences like what is currently happening which means that you have to be ready for the consequences when you open your mouth or commit to action. In this case this freak is using his freedom of speech knowing very well that people will die, people who have nothing to do with the offending action except for a shared nationality and sometimes not even that. To me if he wants to be free to do as he pleases he should put himself in danger rather then shoot off his mouth and do stupid actions knowing that they will draw a violent reaction while hiding in the US and letting others die for his opinions. I wonder if this will still be your position if I do something of this sort and your children died, having nothing in common with me but say a citizenship. And lets say I did this as a publicity stunt, in order to keep in the news and get some financial benefit out of the deal.
Would you give up your freedoms?

Whenever I say something or do something I stand behind it. If my words or actions are offensive to someone I will take responsibility for them and will take whatever consequences come from said actions or words. What I find disgusting is when somebody speaks or acts in a certain manner and lets someone else suffer for their actions or words. If you want to express yourself by burning the Koran, by all means do so but do so in the ME where you and only you will suffer rather than doing it from the safety of the US others will suffer for your actions.

What good is freedom of speech if the threat of violence from a violent group of people shuts us up?
No one is saying that people should not express themselves, I am saying he should do so while in the ME so that he could be killed for his words and actions rather than getting innocent people to die so he could "prove a point".
How do you expect said violent group to ever stop their demands?
What demands? Right now the problem arises from this freak and his group of merry men creating and promoting a video which is their right but then letting others die for their rights. I was reading somewhere that the guy who produced the video is in hiding... so its good enough to make a video and let people who have nothing to do with his video die, but when it comes to his worthless life suddenly its time to hide...
How do you expect them not to, in fact, grow stronger - as the world caves into their demands?
My issue is not to prevent them from speaking their mind, my issue is that when they speak their mind they knowingly endanger other people while hiding in the US in order to protect themselves.
Freedom is not free; freedom does come with a price.

Freedom comes with a price, in this case the price is the lives of people who have nothing to do with this issue except that they might share a citizenship with him.

Heaven help us if the threat of violence is all it takes for us to willingly give away our freedoms.

As you so kindly said, Freedom is not free; freedom does come with a price. In this case this guy and his friends are only willing to accept the price of freedom only because someone else is paying for it with their life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

no need for you to ratchet it up another notch... the focus is on perceived "offensive material". Perhaps you should read my post, the one you replied to, again. My point was there is a most liberal interpretation of localized "free speech" being applied... broadly - beyond the localized domain. In cases like this, there may be implications and consequences - in this particular case, there were implications and there were consequences. American (Western) free-speech... apparently... isn't a universal tenet - go figure!

equally, there may be another level of 'ratcheting up'... I impressed the point (NYT cite) that U.S. authorities are speculating on the likelihood of a planned attack in Libya - one that may have had nothing to do with the video, other than using it for leverage/diversion. This "seems highly likely" given the types of armaments described being used by the so-called spontaneous video protesters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he's a troll. But how one reacts to a troll is one's own responsibility, not the troll's.

No one is absolving the killers of their responsibility it just amazes me that so many are willing to absolve Jones of his. No responsible person with a conscience deliberately does something that they know will likely get innocent people killed, merely for their own gratification. I stand by my statement that he wants to see people die just so he can point and say how bad these religious nut cakes are. No shit Sherlock, what was your first clue. So go ahead and disregard the fact that Jones is also a religious nut cake, the only difference being, he kills by remote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jones is an idiot, best ignored.

The zealots who perpetrated this violence are criminals, best dealt with via legal means.

They do not represent the Libyan rebels nor Libya's transitional government, whose security forces were fighting against them along with American Embassy security.

Just so we keep it straight ... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no need for you to ratchet it up another notch... the focus is on perceived "offensive material". Perhaps you should read my post, the one you replied to, again. My point was there is a most liberal interpretation of localized "free speech" being applied... broadly - beyond the localized domain. In cases like this, there may be implications and consequences - in this particular case, there were implications and there were consequences. American (Western) free-speech... apparently... isn't a universal tenet - go figure!

equally, there may be another level of 'ratcheting up'... I impressed the point (NYT cite) that U.S. authorities are speculating on the likelihood of a planned attack in Libya - one that may have had nothing to do with the video, other than using it for leverage/diversion. This "seems highly likely" given the types of armaments described being used by the so-called spontaneous video protesters.

There is no "ratcheting up"....

How do you feel about the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Is it OK for them to assassinate someone due to being offended?

If they offend westerners, is it OK for westerners to attack them in their country, since obviously they have no western-style free speech?

The simple fact of the matter is that these savages have no respect for human life and they are just plain wrong. The fact that anyone would make excuses for what they did is troubling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is absolving the killers of their responsibility it just amazes me that so many are willing to absolve Jones of his. No responsible person with a conscience deliberately does something that they know will likely get innocent people killed, merely for their own gratification. I stand by my statement that he wants to see people die just so he can point and say how bad these religious nut cakes are. No shit Sherlock, what was your first clue. So go ahead and disregard the fact that Jones is also a religious nut cake, the only difference being, he kills by remote.

Hard to imagine what can be done about him, without violating free speech. Do we curtail free speech because some looney toons might violently overreact?

The criminals who perpetrated the crimes are the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they offend westerners, is it OK for westerners to attack them in their country, since obviously they have no western-style free speech?

It's usually when they offend western-style economics that we attack them.

The simple fact of the matter is that these savages have no respect for human life and they are just plain wrong. The fact that anyone would make excuses for what they did is troubling...

Every action has a reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So go ahead and disregard the fact that Jones is also a religious nut cake, the only difference being, he kills by remote.

Actually, no he doesn't. He is free to be offensive. No one should be killed because of it. The offended do not have a right to be violent.

So should Salman Rushdie never have written the Satanic Verses because extremists would be offended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's usually when they offend western-style economics that we attack them.

Every action has a reaction.

Libya was not attacked by the USA... they actually prevented (along with several other countries) the wholesale slaughter of Libyans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course, a most critical eye is zeroing in on the Mittens antics (last night/this morning

Which antics? Criticizing the absurd statement released by the embassy was 100% correct. Or do you also apologize for "hurting Muslim feelings?" :rolleyes:

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

Right, yet you keep giving Obama a pass, only focusing on Romney, who's had no power to control any foreign policy, security, or economic policy. Priceless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

no need for you to ratchet it up another notch... the focus is on perceived "offensive material". Perhaps you should read my post, the one you replied to, again. My point was there is a most liberal interpretation of localized "free speech" being applied... broadly - beyond the localized domain. In cases like this, there may be implications and consequences - in this particular case, there were implications and there were consequences. American (Western) free-speech... apparently... isn't a universal tenet - go figure!

equally, there may be another level of 'ratcheting up'... I impressed the point (NYT cite) that U.S. authorities are speculating on the likelihood of a planned attack in Libya - one that may have had nothing to do with the video, other than using it for leverage/diversion. This "seems highly likely" given the types of armaments described being used by the so-called spontaneous video protesters.

There is no "ratcheting up"....

How do you feel about the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? Is it OK for them to assassinate someone due to being offended?

If they offend westerners, is it OK for westerners to attack them in their country, since obviously they have no western-style free speech?

The simple fact of the matter is that these savages have no respect for human life and they are just plain wrong. The fact that anyone would make excuses for what they did is troubling...

the 'ratcheting up' was you introducing "beheadings"... prior to that the reference was "offensive material (videos, cartoons)".

you speak of being troubled over persons making excuses for "them". Who is making excuses - I don't recall any being made/offered... certainly none from me. By the by, within Libya, you don't appear to distinguish between video protesters and those who are being speculated to be "planned attackers" leveraging the protesting event/timing. That's a significant distinction, wouldn't you agree?

again, my point seems to allude you: it's quite an appeasement to apply the 'ready-reach', "American free speech" principle to validate the most suspect actions of the video creator... and expect that same tenet to be one easily applied, recognized and accepted across all external borders/peoples. Someone here keeps advising you on actions & reactions - you appear to be ignoring that, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Sure tell the Americans to STFU, but there is a difference when the militia goes after the offending party and when they go after anyone who happens to be a citizen.

I agree, which is why I specified "Canadians," not the Canadians who refused to be silenced.

I believe in freedom of speech, but to me freedom of speech has consequences like what is currently happening which means that you have to be ready for the consequences when you open your mouth or commit to action.

I agree that freedom of speech has consequences, but I disagree that one "has to be ready" for illegal, violent consequences if what you are saying means that means we have to accept it, and I don't think acceptance of such behavior will do anything but strengthen said behavior. We should be mad as hell, and we should be mad at the murderers. That's it. That's what all of our anger, all of the media attention, should be focused on. To put any blame on someone who did nothing more than exercise their rights is do divide the blame, to say it's not all the murderers' fault. That is sending a very bad message, and it's empowering them and it is shifting the blame, or at least some of the blame, when ALL of the blame falls squarely on their shoulders as they are the only ones who did something wrong.

Religions are criticized all the time, and it's ok because they are not violent. But criticizing Islam is a no-no, because we apparently must expect a violent reaction. So everyone is fair game except Muslims. Everyone must learn to suck it up and live with criticism and sometimes hurt feelings except Muslims.

It's enough to make some want to consider violence, I would imagine - considering it brings the desired results.

In this case this freak is using his freedom of speech knowing very well that people will die, people who have nothing to do with the offending action except for a shared nationality and sometimes not even that.

He knows that? If this is true, if we know that certain people will kill innocent people simply because of the threat of violence, I say rather than give them their way, the world should strongly object. Call them for what they are. Don't coddle, don't share the blame, don't give them an inch. Go after them. They kill ours? Insist that their governments punish those responsible. If they refuse to do that, cut off diplomatic ties.

To me if he wants to be free to do as he pleases he should put himself in danger rather then shoot off his mouth and do stupid actions knowing that they will draw a violent reaction while hiding in the US and letting others die for his opinions.

Do you truly believe that he is not putting himself out there? How can he "hide" in the U.S.? And how is he "letting" others die for his opinion? He has nothing to do with their deaths. He is not responsible for their deaths. He is not advocating their deaths. He is simply speaking his mind, and to suggest that HE is somehow responsible is, again, minimizing the killings, the brutal violence, of the actual guilty parties. To assign any blame to someone who simply exercised their right to freedom of speech is in effect saying, 'we will do as you say, your threats of violence will get you what you want.' IOW, violence works.

I wonder if this will still be your position if I do something of this sort and your children died, having nothing in common with me but say a citizenship. And lets say I did this as a publicity stunt, in order to keep in the news and get some financial benefit out of the deal.

When I've traveled, and when my daughters travel, we do it openly as Americans. I/we realize that my/our citizenship might single me/us out and we still support the freedom of speech.

The only way to ever make the world safe from these violent extremists is to not back down and to put the blame for their violent actions squarely on their shoulders. Caving in to the violent, as we feel free to ridicule anyone who isn't violent, is not something I can support.

Whenever I say something or do something I stand behind it. If my words or actions are offensive to someone I will take responsibility for them and will take whatever consequences come from said actions or words. What I find disgusting is when somebody speaks or acts in a certain manner and lets someone else suffer for their actions or words.

Again. No one is "letting" them do that. The blame, the guilt, falls on the shoulders of the murderers. This message that someone is to blame for setting them off is so wrong, and so empowering for them. Furthermore, the idea that we cannot offend the violent while it's totally ok to offend the nonviolent is making some nonviolent people mad as hell. And rightfully so.

If you want to express yourself by burning the Koran, by all means do so but do so in the ME where you and only you will suffer rather than doing it from the safety of the US others will suffer for your actions.

That is caving in to violence; that is letting violence rule our lives. It is empowering the violent, and sending the message to our youth that violence is an effective means of getting what we want. Why do you suppose people fought and died for our freedoms? Because they are worth having - and if we just extend the freedom of speech, our right to piss people off with our opinions, to the non-violent, what message do you think that sends?

No one is saying that people should not express themselves, I am saying he should do so while in the ME so that he could be killed for his words and actions rather than getting innocent people to die so he could "prove a point".

Again, the idea that he is "letting" this happen is so far off.

What demands? Right now the problem arises from this freak and his group of merry men creating and promoting a video which is their right but then letting others die for their rights. I was reading somewhere that the guy who produced the video is in hiding... so its good enough to make a video and let people who have nothing to do with his video die, but when it comes to his worthless life suddenly its time to hide...

I don't know if what you've read is true or not, but if it is, I would say he can hardly hide forever.

My issue is not to prevent them from speaking their mind, my issue is that when they speak their mind they knowingly endanger other people while hiding in the US in order to protect themselves.

Freedom comes with a price, in this case the price is the lives of people who have nothing to do with this issue except that they might share a citizenship with him.

As you so kindly said, Freedom is not free; freedom does come with a price. In this case this guy and his friends are only willing to accept the price of freedom only because someone else is paying for it with their life.

Your issue may not be to prevent them from speaking their minds, but it does prevent them from speaking their minds. Furthermore, who decided to show this film in the ME? At any rate, I don't doubt for a second that all of the attention going towards blaming someone else for the actions of murderers suits their agenda well. In the end, perhaps the people responsible for the film will be killed - or are living in fear as the Danish cartoonist is - and I fear you are saying that they brought that on themselves, rather than defending their right to free speech and having complete outrage for violent killers - and only killers, rather than people who were only expressing free speech - no different from what is directed at other non-violent religions/groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which antics? Criticizing the absurd statement released by the embassy was 100% correct. Or do you also apologize for "hurting Muslim feelings?" :rolleyes:

Are you capable of making a post that isn't wrong or a deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's words?

Show me the apology in the statement:

"We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

Or do you really not know that "condemn" doesn't mean "sorry for"? :lol:

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which antics? Criticizing the absurd statement released by the embassy was 100% correct. Or do you also apologize for "hurting Muslim feelings?" :rolleyes:

Right, yet you keep giving Obama a pass, only focusing on Romney, who's had no power to control any foreign policy, security, or economic policy. Priceless.

You know who else gave Obama a pass? Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Rubio, oh and Condi. It seems like the only person on your side Shady is Mitt Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

apparently the video was not the cause of the organized libya attack. rather, it was planned from before:

U.S. Suspects Libya Attack Was Planned

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration suspects that the fiery attack in Libya that killed the American ambassador and three other diplomats may have been planned rather than a spontaneous mob getting out of control, American officials said Wednesday.

Officials in Washington studying the events of the past 24 hours have focused on the differences between the protests at the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, the Libyan city where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the other Americans were killed.

The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video said to have been produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack.

NYT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you capable of making a post that isn't wrong or a deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's words?

Show me the apology in the statement:

"We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

Or do you really not know that "condemn" doesn't mean "sorry for"? :lol:

I think the reference to the feelings of Muslims is the most disturbing. I'm still waiting for their apology of Piss Christ, or Good Christian Bitches, South Park, or Dan Brown, etc, etc, etc. Oh that's right, there were none. Because only Muslims seem to be whipped into a murderous frenzy by the exercising of free speech. Everyone else seems to be able to handle it, disagree, maybe even feel offended, but go on with their normal lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you speak of being troubled over persons making excuses for "them". Who is making excuses - I don't recall any being made/offered... certainly none from me.

I also don't recall any excuses from you. Just GostHacked. Apparently we need to watch what we say regarding Islam. This from a guy who's a supposed champion of civil liberties! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which antics? Criticizing the absurd statement released by the embassy was 100% correct. Or do you also apologize for "hurting Muslim feelings?" :rolleyes:

it's quite heeelarious to see the Republican infighting - a veritable implosion! I mean... would you like me to start a more detailed quote free-for-all? "Bungle… utter disaster…not ready for prime time… not presidential… Lehman moment.” And that's just the Republicans." :lol:

U.S. President Obama
: "There's a broader lesson to be learned here: Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later and as president one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. It's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's quite heeelarious to see the Republican infighting - a veritable implosion! I mean... would you like me to start a more detailed quote free-for-all? "Bungle… utter disaster…not ready for prime time… not presidential… Lehman moment.” And that's just the Republicans." :lol:

I think it is Mitt, smug smile when Americans are killed, Romney that needs to watch what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reference to the feelings of Muslims is the most disturbing. I'm still waiting for their apology of Piss Christ, or Good Christian Bitches, South Park, or Dan Brown, etc, etc, etc. Oh that's right, there were none. Because only Muslims seem to be whipped into a murderous frenzy by the exercising of free speech. Everyone else seems to be able to handle it, disagree, maybe even feel offended, but go on with their normal lives.

Can I just be the first to point out to Shady that statement was made by people ON THE GROUND inside the embassy who thought a situation was getting out of hand. People who were trying to peacefully diffuse the situation to save lives. This is disgusting. If words can save lives sometimes they really should be used.

Mitt Romney saw a dead American and didn't even wait till the body was cold before exploiting the death for his own personal gain.

Here are just some pictures out of Benghazi today. Hundreds attended Pro-America Rallies while Mitt was cheering for more Americans deaths.

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

Edited by punked
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...