Originally Posted by Justin '77

Given as how people flying the American flag decided to kill some Libyans and not others during Libya's violent internal mix-up, the 'belief' of one party kind of rises to the level of 'fact' more than 'opinion'.

Nominally, of course. Then again, an embassy is also the place where the next part is concentrated:

So it's a -- whaddayacallit -- 'legitimate target'. Or at least reasonably sure to be chock-full of legitimate targets.

None of this is breaking any ground here.

Ahhhh. and now it come clear.

You imagine certain things, and on the strength of your imagining, expect certain concrete actions to be justified. That's a classic Prophet-gen thing, and really doesn't hold all that much water among the more reality-centered generations (which is to say, all of them). The communication breakdown here is pretty clearly on your end. Not to worry, though, that "you" is plural and encompasses a lot more than just this one subject, so you don't have to take it as a personal failing.

Most of what you wrote is the usual rantings of an isolationist who believes his country kills "wogs" for sport or something. I've been down that silly road with you before - not interested.

I will note this silliiness -

You imagine certain things,

and respond with this -

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-d...ry?id=17229037

American Killed in Libya Was on Intel Mission to Track Weapons

One of the Americans killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya Tuesday told ABC News before his death that he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war-torn nation.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and destroy them. After the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, the State Department launched a mission to round up thousands of MANPADS that may have been looted from military installations across the country. U.S. officials previously told ABC News they were concerned the MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists, creating a threat to commercial airliners.

- as exemplary of the magic pony land where your clubhouse resides.

Also, this is exemplary of one of those Americans that affords you and others here the luxury of waxing on about your freedom of speech while scratching your balls in the comfort of your living room. This is the type of person that a-holes that abuse their right to freedom of speech put at additional risk.

I realize you're beyond the ability to now feel like an ass, but others might.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Mischaracterizing others' opinions: Check



Dismissing with magic pony land insults: Check

Advancement of human knowledge: Not found

Not having the balls to prove me wrong: Check

Originally Posted by playwrite

I do find it amusing that it is primarily our resident Xers choosing to live or at least espouse idealist fantasy worlds.

It makes kinda sorta sense. I grew up in an era where the GIs and Boomers thought strong efforts were required to do big things and believed that big things need doing. The Xers reject that. They don't want to put out effort or do anywhere near so much. They exemplify unravelling selfishness. In order to justify a me first attitude where nothing has to be returned to the community, you need to live in a magic pony land where problems requiring effort to fix don't exist.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, I knew you couldn't get through that one without a personal attack.

As Odin points out, The Prophet technically WAS a child molester. I don't know the dude who made the movie, so maybe he really was trying to warn people about what he sees as an evil religion. And as an American, he has every right to do that.

It's fully permissible to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, if there really is a fire. Otherwise, no.

Originally Posted by The Rani

No "that's despicable" condemnations from the peanut gallery on this one?

H-m-m-m. Mom's way out of line in this, but there is no direct threat I can see; do you?

I don't know the law in Australia, but in the US, there needs to a threat of real, as opposed to faux, violence, and some action that indicates you're really serious.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Mom's way out of line in this, but there is no direct threat I can see; do you?

I don't know the law in Australia, but in the US, there needs to a threat of real, as opposed to faux, violence, and some action that indicates you're really serious.

It reminded me a bit of jars of fetuses being shoved in faces at abortion clinics. Nasty piece of work but "permissable" under the constitution. It gets more serious when they bomb the clinic.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. Mom's way out of line in this, but there is no direct threat I can see; do you?

I don't know the law in Australia, but in the US, there needs to a threat of real, as opposed to faux, violence, and some action that indicates you're really serious.

She wasn't suggesting that the woman was doing something illegal, but something worthy of moral condemnation. I'll agree that that sentiment is despicable. I didn't bring it up because I would have thought that was stating the obvious.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I will note this silliness - [snip my observation that the demons from which he is saving us are in pw's imagination]



and respond with this -

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-d...ry?id=17229037



- as exemplary of the magic pony land where your clubhouse resides.

Again with the poor reading comprehension? As I said, it's noncontroversial that the job the guy-who-got-killed elected to engage in involved the movement of small antiaircraft rocket systems. The imagination part comes in where you simply choose to believe that, absent this guy and people like him, Evildoers would engage in Evil directed at Us and Ours Over Here.
Even if we grant it undeserved contact with the term, it nevertheless remains a logical leap of unreasonable magnitude. Except in your imagination.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Most of what you wrote is the usual rantings of an isolationist who believes his country kills "wogs" for sport or something. I've been down that silly road with you before - not interested.

How about going around with me on it, then?

"Sport" is irrelevant here; obviously that isn't why we kill wogs. We kill wogs because they inhabit land that's full of oil and we haven't been self-sufficient in oil production since 1970. If the people there were, you know, spics or chinks or nigras or something instead of wogs -- hell, even if they were whiteys -- we'd still kill them. It's not directed against wogs specifically. They just happen to be the ones in the way.

So we support dictators of one kind and another (the Romans used to call this kind of critter a "client king") who will sell us their oil nice and cheap, and/or with a good profit for our own oil companies, and those dictators kill wogs. Or, when a dictator gets uppity like Saddam Hussein did, we'll go the more expensive route, bomb, invade, and kill wogs our own selves instead of by proxy. It's perfectly understandable that this ticks folks off. Then they do things like fly airplanes into our buildings, and we do more bombing and invading to hunt down those responsible (supposedly).

I know they like to talk religion when they say why the hate our guts, but you'll notice that they don't equally hate the guts of other countries who are at least equally infidelish if not more so. That being the case, one is justified in questioning whether they are fully sincere in this expression of religious motivation. An alternative explanation isn't that hard to find.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Again with the poor reading comprehension? As I said, it's noncontroversial that the job the guy-who-got-killed elected to engage in involved the movement of small antiaircraft rocket systems. The imagination part comes in where you simply choose to believe that, absent this guy and people like him, Evildoers would engage in Evil directed at Us and Ours Over Here.

Even if we grant it undeserved contact with the term, it nevertheless remains a logical leap of unreasonable magnitude. Except in your imagination.

Based on simple observation of events over the last several years, the likelihood of real violence directed at uninvolved innocents is very high. Add to that, the gunslinger mentality that fails to see shoulder launched antiaircraft missles as inherenly dangerous in and of themselves, and what can we conclude?

If you really believe that emotinally unstable people acting in the name of their chosen god(s) will not reek mayhem on anyone who offends them when given the means to do so, then you are living in a dream world I don't understand. In case you've never had to deal with any of them, irrational people are not under their own control, to say nothing of external controls they may despise. Shall we honor their rights, and allow them the arms of their choice?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

How about going around with me on it, then?

"Sport" is irrelevant here; obviously that isn't why we kill wogs. We kill wogs because they inhabit land that's full of oil and we haven't been self-sufficient in oil production since 1970. If the people there were, you know, spics or chinks or nigras or something instead of wogs -- hell, even if they were whiteys -- we'd still kill them. It's not directed against wogs specifically. They just happen to be the ones in the way.

So we support dictators of one kind and another (the Romans used to call this kind of critter a "client king") who will sell us their oil nice and cheap, and/or with a good profit for our own oil companies, and those dictators kill wogs. Or, when a dictator gets uppity like Saddam Hussein did, we'll go the more expensive route, bomb, invade, and kill wogs our own selves instead of by proxy. It's perfectly understandable that this ticks folks off. Then they do things like fly airplanes into our buildings, and we do more bombing and invading to hunt down those responsible (supposedly).

I know they like to talk religion when they say why the hate our guts, but you'll notice that they don't equally hate the guts of other countries who are at least equally infidelish if not more so. That being the case, one is justified in questioning whether they are fully sincere in this expression of religious motivation. An alternative explanation isn't that hard to find.

Have we been reprehensible scumbags in service to our own gluttony? Sure, no question about it. Looking at the last 60 years or so, we've meddled in just about every corner of the world. We've made a lot of enemies. That said, we are here now. We can't hit the undo button, and, for instance, restore Mohammad Mosaddegh to his position in Iran.

So given the place we are, and an unbending history, how do we proceed? As the world's only superpower, it's virtually impossible to do nothing, yet it's harmful for us to do anything. We're nearly muscle bound, yet lethal in the extreme. But in the end, we matter more than any other nation at this moment in time. There are plenty of scumbags in the world to creat havoc, with or without our help. If we become isolationist, and disengage from the world, do you think things will improve? I don't see that as likely, but make a case for how the world functions with a totally passive US, if you can.

Originally Posted by The Rani

In case you hadn't noticed, the a-hole in question put his own life at risk.

This is a good point, actually. Salman Rushdie still has a price on his head.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Originally Posted by The Rani

In case you hadn't noticed, the a-hole in question put his own life at risk.

This is a good point, actually. Salman Rushdie still has a price on his head.

All true, but who is this guy (assuming this is the act of a single individual). There is a narrative, but no face I've seen anywhere. Our Coptic Christian could be a phantom ... or a costume.

I wonder what entitites are digging into this in earnest. It might be best if the cloak is pulled back by the press - preferably not ours.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

but should you be protected from the real consequences of the insults you throw out?

What does this statement even mean?

I think people who say cruel things should be free to say them, should not suffer legal penalties for doing so and have full legal redress against anyone who does harm to them because they were rude. How about you?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

What does this statement even mean?

I think people who say cruel things should be free to say them, should not suffer legal penalties for doing so and have full legal redress against anyone who does harm to them because they were rude. How about you?

Does that extend to slander? Slander can and does have very real impacts on people. If you agree that slander is unacceptable, what about "full legal redress" in that case?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Maybe then you could also state the obvious that many radical Muslims will take every advantage to not only hurt Americans but they're hoping to do it in a way that drives even a greater wedge between the Islamic world and everyone else.

And this just shows that the person who needs to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time is you. It is possible to both condemn America's belligerent foreign policy and recognize that the culture of the Middle East is one of the most violent on Earth, and not just because they've been kicked around a lot.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If it has to be a criminal offense in order for you to condemn it, then there is a huge difference beween our positions.

I condemn the filmmaker, but he is not responsible for anyone's death. The murderers themselves are. Period.

Some interesting thoughts here. My perspective? If Westboro Church (and I won't say Westboro "Baptist" because it's an insult to most decent Baptists out there) wants to make an embarrassing ass of themselves and stand on a street corner and picket a veteran's funeral - they have the inalienable right to do so. Is it bad taste? Absolutely. But they have this right to do this. Do I agree with what they are doing? Absolutely not. But, I'll defend their ability to be able to make asses of themselves as that's their inalienable right to speak their piece.

If biker gangs wants to park their bikes across from the cemetery and rev-up their engines during the funeral so the family of the fallen soldier doesn't have to listen to the jeers and insults of the Westboro folks - they have the right to do this and should be able to do so.

A nut from Westboro does not have the right to become violent and aggressive with people who are walking by them. Likewise, the biker gang does not have the right to kick the shit out of the Westboro people for making asses of themselves (even though many of us wouldn't mind to see that happen) as that would be an infringement on their personage.

If someone wants to make an inflammatory Christian or Islamic film - they should be able to say what they want to say. It doesn't mean I have to be subjected to agree with it or watch it. And if Christians or Muslims want to protest what is said in said film - they should be able to do so in a peaceful manner. If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to decide to use the excuse of a film maybe 50 people had seen to slaughter an ambassador - it's not acceptable. Violence should never be an outcome of protest out of dissent for thought - and when it is it should be quashed immediately and forcefully of necessary to protect everyone.

By their actions you shall know them though - terrorists like to hide behind religious affiliations.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

And this just shows that the person who needs to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time is you. It is possible to both condemn America's belligerent foreign policy and recognize that the culture of the Middle East is one of the most violent on Earth, and not just because they've been kicked around a lot.



I condemn the filmmaker, but he is not responsible for anyone's death. The murderers themselves are. Period.

Actually, we lock up people all the time for the crimes of others, so not period. Accessory after the fact is one of the more questionable crimes in my opinion. Driving a car with a dead body in the trunk can put you in jail for a long time even if you didn't pull the trigger. Giving someone a gun or money to commit a crime can, too. Money is speech now. Before you condemn what I wrote, reread your statements. Giving someone money doesn't kill anyone, right?

There are a lot of polls 5 days old or more in the RCP Average at this point, but if you take the 3 recent ones that run through yesterday, this is what it looks like:

Obama: 47
Romney: 45.7

Margin: Obama +1.3
Undecied/Other: 7.3

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Does that extend to slander? Slander can and does have very real impacts on people. If you agree that slander is unacceptable, what about "full legal redress" in that case?

Would you allow a person who was being slandered to assault the person who slandered them? No, of course not. The important moral distinction here is that speech does not create a justification for retaliatory violence.

Now with to regard to slander, I think that you may have a bit of a point -- except that in order to be slander, the thing being said must a) be false and b) must cause the slandered person to lose opportunities which they otherwise would have had. In other words, there has to be a material impact stemming from a lie.

In the case of this film, there is no material impact. Being butthurt is not a tort. Moreover, some of the "slanders" in the film (like Mohammed having sex with a child) are true, and thus not actually slander.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Would you allow a person who was being slandered to assault the person who slandered them? No, of course not. The important moral distinction here is that speech does not create a justification for retaliatory violence.

Now with to regard to slander, I think that you may have a bit of a point -- except that in order to be slander, the thing being said must a) be false and b) must cause the slandered person to lose opportunities which they otherwise would have had. In other words, there has to be a material impact stemming from a lie.

In the case of this film, there is no material impact. Being butthurt is not a tort. Moreover, some of the "slanders" in the film (like Mohammed having sex with a child) are true, and thus not actually slander.

LOL, I definitely give you this one, else there would be no more "in-laws" ...

Originally Posted by Aramea

Actually, we lock up people all the time for the crimes of others, so not period. Accessory after the fact is one of the more questionable crimes in my opinion. Driving a car with a dead body in the trunk can put you in jail for a long time even if you didn't pull the trigger. Giving someone a gun or money to commit a crime can, too. Money is speech now. Before you condemn what I wrote, reread your statements. Giving someone money doesn't kill anyone, right?

Asking someone to commit a crime for you is just like committing that crime yourself. Now if this film had a line where the Mohammed character said "You should go riot at an American Embassy" then maybe you'd have an argument. But since that's not the case, I find it bizarre that you would equate saying mean things to Arabs as the equivalent of hiring a contract killer. Apparently, Arabs have no moral agency of their own; they're all just wind-up toys that shitty filmmakers can set loose upon the world.

I really don't like the concept of the filmmaker being "responsible." It treats actual human beings in the middle east like movie props.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Again with the poor reading comprehension? As I said, it's noncontroversial that the job the guy-who-got-killed elected to engage in involved the movement of small antiaircraft rocket systems. The imagination part comes in where you simply choose to believe that, absent this guy and people like him, Evildoers would engage in Evil directed at Us and Ours Over Here.
Even if we grant it undeserved contact with the term, it nevertheless remains a logical leap of unreasonable magnitude. Except in your imagination.

Yea, and I'm sure a decade ago you'd be trying to convince us that none of your "wogs" would commit suicide by taking command and crashing their commercial planes into buildings.

It's not a matter of evil doers engaging, it's a matter of stopping them. And, it takes more than your magic ponies pooping accolades of the freedom of speech to stop them. It takes people willing to put their lives on the line for the rest of us.

Now, back to scratching your balls and dreaming of your Mogadishu paradise.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Asking someone to commit a crime for you is just like committing that crime yourself. Now if this film had a line where the Mohammed character said "You should go riot at an American Embassy" then maybe you'd have an argument. But since that's not the case, I find it bizarre that you would equate saying mean things to Arabs as the equivalent of hiring a contract killer. Apparently, Arabs have no moral agency of their own; they're all just wind-up toys that shitty filmmakers can set loose upon the world.

My point was only that people are charged with crimes that they don't actually commit as a matter of course. If you give someone a gun and tell them to shoot someone and they are weak enough to do it for you, then you are culpable whether you paid them or not. I am not equating them, but you implied that ONLY the killers are responsible. Technically, that is actually true, and I used to argue that very thing. The would be killer could say, "no, I am not going to do that" and the co-consiprator would actually have to commit the murder or find another patsy or let the person live. I have since come around to thinking that the weak-minded person would likely never have committed the crime without the catalyst.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Have we been reprehensible scumbags in service to our own gluttony? Sure, no question about it. Looking at the last 60 years or so, we've meddled in just about every corner of the world. We've made a lot of enemies. That said, we are here now. We can't hit the undo button, and, for instance, restore Mohammad Mosaddegh to his position in Iran.

No, we can't undo the reprehensible things we've already done. But we CAN stop doing the ones we're doing now, and refrain from doing them in the future.

If for any reason we can't do that, then we are just going to have to live with the violent (and completely justified) consequences. No, Muslims aren't justified in attacking our people overseas because some American made a stupid film saying nasty things about Mohammed. But they're arguably a lot more justified in doing that because we're over there killing them.