Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[derspiess]

We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.

Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech.  I think we are making progress with you.

[Valmy]

Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech.  I think we are making progress with you.

Does advertising count as speech?   I mean legally?

[derspiess]

Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.

He was aware he was ambassador to Egypt and not Canada right?

She was.  But I'm guessing she was maybe worried about some trigger-happy marine escalating the situation.  Assuming the rumors are true, of course.

[Valmy]

It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.

Isn't it one of the central pillars of our country and government?  Religious tolerance I mean.

[derspiess]

It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.

Isn't it one of the central pillars of our country and government?  Religious tolerance I mean.

I guess I was referring to the policy of over-affirming it in public statements to offended Muslims-- to the point where it becomes a near-apology.

[crazy canuck]

Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech.  I think we are making progress with you.

Does advertising count as speech?   I mean legally?

Yes.  However under Canadian law and, as I understand it US law, it is given lesser protection than other forms of speech.

[Valmy]

I guess I was referring to the policy of over-affirming it in public statements to offended Muslims-- to the point where it becomes a near-apology.

If it peels off some people from the extremists than it is a good policy isn't it?  We should aim to weaken our enemies.

[Viking]

I think validating the view that the film's offensiveness was worthy of an emotional reaction in the same sentence as you condemn the attack means you aren't condemning the attack.

Don't see how that follows.  If someone calls your mother a whore, people can see how that might upset you yet still condemn your actions if your response is to slip into the guy's house at night and slit his throat and the throats of his entire family in their sleep.

It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother.

It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother, but, your brother did call his mother a whore.

see the difference between the two statements?

Gerry Adams kept saying "I cannot condone such actions, but, the brutal British government policies in the North of Ireland mean that they will continue happening." Yassir Arafat use his nearly patented phrase "I condemn all attacks on civilians*, but this doesn't justify the oppression/occupation/genocide of the palestinian people"

These are the worst cases but this language is echoed, for example, by norwegian politcians who can't manage to condemn the murder of israeli civilans without using the word "but" in the same sentence. Weasle words like this contrive to either establish a causal effect between each of the meanings before and after the "but", but also suggest a moral equivalence or in the worst case the cancellation of the sentiment before the "but".

This is why I think this is so important and why Mitt is right on this issue. Please note that it is the militant atheist ghey loving yooros that are siding with Mitt against Obama on this issue. This is not something we are taking lightly or something that fits easily into our political pre-conceptions. I'm pretty sure Mitt is doing this for opportunistic reasons, the broken clock is right two times a day.

* note that the PLO had previously declared all israeli civilians to be combatants due to the draft.

[garbon]

This is why I think this is so important and why Mitt is right on this issue. Please note that it is the militant atheist ghey loving yooros that are siding with Mitt against Obama on this issue. This is not something we are taking lightly or something that fits easily into our political pre-conceptions. I'm pretty sure Mitt is doing this for opportunistic reasons, the broken clock is right two times a day.

* note that the PLO had previously declared all israeli civilians to be combatants due to the draft.

It does dovetail nicely into you and Marti's thoughts on religion though.

[Jacob]

That is fine, I guess.

However, who are we kidding here?

It's not like anything that the US Government can say is going to make a damn bit of difference with people who are prone to murder in response to any perceived offense towards their deity. The idea that if only the government says or does the right thing, maybe it will make it better is pretty much hopeless, IMO.

People who are not rational are not amenable to rational discourse. And religious fanatics are not rational.

Personally, I think the attacks on the embassy were very rational. They were carried out by people who favour extremist Islam and who do not want the US to be involved in Libya, Egypt etc. The objective is to drive a wedge between the US and Libya, Egypt etc as much as possible, and to make the position of anyone in those countries who is friendly towards the US and/or the West less solid. Those are all rational, solid political goals and the methods are cost-effective.

Now, individual members of the protesting mobs were perhaps not there for rational reasons and their complaints were obviously seriously misdirected, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that they are prone to murder. They may very well have been used as cover by the murderers who acted out of rational (and reprehensive) motives.

As for whether US official statements mean anything - of course they do. They are unlikely to sway the hard-headed anti-American fighters of various stripes, and probably not particularly likely to sway the easily manipulated members of the mob in question (whether they were there because they believe what they protested or whether they were there because they were paid to, or to support someone who helped them rather than because they believed), but they're not the only audience; the rest of the country and the rest of the world, including America, hears and are influenced by the US response as well.

[Jacob]

This is why I think this is so important and why Mitt is right on this issue. Please note that it is the militant atheist ghey loving yooros that are siding with Mitt against Obama on this issue. This is not something we are taking lightly or something that fits easily into our political pre-conceptions. I'm pretty sure Mitt is doing this for opportunistic reasons, the broken clock is right two times a day.

I'm taking it lightly for two reasons:

1) The position and reasoning you ascribe to Mitt Romney is not that close to what he actually has said or stands for.

2) This is yet another manifestation of your intense hatred for religions of all kind and Islam in particular.

[CountDeMoney]

Also, this whole "policy" of religious tolerance, particularly with regards to Islamic-centric events, has been boilerplate since 9/11. 

From 9/11 to the Iraqi insurgency to Abu Gharib to Afghanistan, there's been no deviation in the United States' public affirmation of respecting all faiths.

The Bush Administration reinforced that concept for the entire length of his presidency.  Don't see why it's suddenly a problem now.

It was bad policy then and it's bad policy now.

  OK, derBolton.

[Barrister]

It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother.

It is completely unacceptable that he killed your brother, but, your brother did call his mother a whore.

see the difference between the two statements?

There are whole spectrums of nuance and grey inbetween.  I see it all the time in court.  "Yes, my client committed this crime, however although it does not excuse it, here's what else you should know".

Sometimes the "Yes, but" gets so extreme the person talks themselves out of the guilty plea.  Sometimes it becomes so mealy-mouthed that it just angers the judge, rather than providing an excuse.  But, if worded properly, the "yes, but" can provide useful and helpful context.

This video was clearly made with the express purpose of upsetting muslims.  I see no problem in government commenting on that, and distancing themselves from it.  But it depends on the tone and tenor of how it is done.

[Habbaku]

We're not talking about advertising products using false claims, or other legitimate legal limitations on speech.

Glad to see you at least acknowledge there are legal limitations on speech.  I think we are making progress with you.

Once you realize he's trolling, it's easier to ignore stuff like that.

[Viking]

Supposedly the Marines in the Cairo embassy were not allowed by the ambassador to carry live ammo.

He was aware he was ambassador to Egypt and not Canada right?

Cairo is actually a really friendly place with nice people and has soldiers on every corner in the ferengi friendly districts. If I were the ambassador I'd be more worried about the marine with two tours in iraq and ptsd than any locals. There are about 20 egyptian soldiers visible on the street outside the us embassy. The US embassy is also a stones throw from tahrir square and the egyptian museum. The protest is going on with government blessing and the army is keeping the mob from doing much more than threatening to storm the embassy and murder the staff.

It's pretty obvious that Morsi is playing for the local audience. He lived in LA for 15 ish years and he knows very well how US free speech works. He was a professor at Cal State Northridge, he knows what free speech is and how it works. If he were trying to calm things down then he would be explaining to the egyptian people how free speech works in america not demanding things that nobody in the us government can or wants to deliver. I think this is why Obama went all "Cornelius Gallus is no longer a friend of mine." on his ass.