Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[MadImmortalMan]

Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.

[Viking]

No TLDR, it's fucking hitchens, it's readable.

First they burned the danish embassy in Damascus, then the burned the UN compound in Kunduz and now the US Consulate in Benghazi .

The thing is that nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense. These people choose to be offended and they continue to choose to be offended because they get away with it and pay no cost. You can reliably expect the pope and many other religious leaders to side with the murderers against the murdered.

I don't see the relevance of the Hitchen's article.

The Relevance of the Hitchens article is that this has happened before and US and Religious groups and forces criticized the victims of violence for the violence. It was the danes own fault. I don't accept blaming skimpily clad women for them being raped and I don't blame protecting freedom of speech for embassies being burned.

Did Washington suggest that attacks on the Danish embassy were justified?

Yes, Bush himself validated the emotion that caused the attacks by expressing his agreement that muslims were right to be offended by free speech.

And you're distinction about being offended vs. choosing to take offense seems rather ridiculous.

I think it is a vital and substantial one. The justification used for much of the violence against westerners and liberal cultural muslims has been that something was so offensive that violent evil action could not be avoided. We put people in prison and hospital when they do that in our own societies.

I might clarify myself by saying that when you are emotionally agitated by the actions of others then you still have a choice of responding violently or not responding violently.

[Viking]

Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.

You don't have freedom of speech in arab societies and if you say things in public that the government disagrees with you get tortured and sent to prison. Arabs quite naturally assume that when American "imams" burn Korans they do so with government support and when American "filmmakers" (I watched this film and it is mindbogglingly bad) make movies critical of Islam they do so with government support. That is why they think that actions of individuals are tacitly supported by the government.

[Barrister]

You don't have freedom of speech in arab societies and if you say things in public that the government disagrees with you get tortured and sent to prison.

Have you perhaps been in a cave the last 18 months or so?

[garbon]

The Relevance of the Hitchens article is that this has happened before and US and Religious groups and forces criticized the victims of violence for the violence. It was the danes own fault. I don't accept blaming skimpily clad women for them being raped and I don't blame protecting freedom of speech for embassies being burned.

I think the critique was leveled towards those running the contest and the cartoon creators who created such with the aim of offending people. I don't think people then said that they deserved to be violently attacked for that - just more than they weren't the aggrieved balls of light they tried to paint themselves as.

Yes, Bush himself validated the emotion that caused the attacks by expressing his agreement that muslims were right to be offended by free speech.

So, you said yes but you mean no? What you've just stated was that Bush was supported the attacking of the embassy but that muslims were right to be offended.  Not really that different from saying Christians are right to be offended if you make piss christs.

I think it is a vital and substantial one. The justification used for much of the violence against westerners and liberal cultural muslims has been that something was so offensive that violent evil action could not be avoided. We put people in prison and hospital when they do that in our own societies.

I might clarify myself by saying that when you are emotionally agitated by the actions of others then you still have a choice of responding violently or not responding violently.

I get the distinction that being offended doesn't mean you should respond violently but that's not the initial distinction that you drew with "nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense" unless you are using the world offense to mean violent reaction.

[Viking]

You don't have freedom of speech in arab societies and if you say things in public that the government disagrees with you get tortured and sent to prison.

Have you perhaps been in a cave the last 18 months or so?

No, but I seem to have missed Al-Jefferson and Al-Washington in knickerbockers and powdered wigs elucidating on freedom of speech and religion that you seem to think exist.

The Mubakharat hasn't ceased to exist in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Iraq; it just has new masters. What has been lacking is a flowering of free speech in these societies.

[Jacob]

Damn. Sounds like the world's most successful troll. 

Pretty successful, yes. Not particularly funny, I don't think.

[Viking]

The Relevance of the Hitchens article is that this has happened before and US and Religious groups and forces criticized the victims of violence for the violence. It was the danes own fault. I don't accept blaming skimpily clad women for them being raped and I don't blame protecting freedom of speech for embassies being burned.

I think the critique was leveled towards those running the contest and the cartoon creators who created such with the aim of offending people. I don't think people then said that they deserved to be violently attacked for that - just more than they weren't the aggrieved balls of light they tried to paint themselves as.

You are uninformed. The cartoons were commissioned as part of a project to expose the fact that illustrators were self-sensoring out of fear of muslim violence. They were created to expose precisely the intimidation that we saw after the Danish Imams spent months shopping around the muslim world including this one



that they made themselves.

Yes, Bush himself validated the emotion that caused the attacks by expressing his agreement that muslims were right to be offended by free speech.

So, you said yes but you mean no? What you've just stated was that Bush was supported the attacking of the embassy but that muslims were right to be offended.  Not really that different from saying Christians are right to be offended if you make piss christs.

And if christians went around burning buildings and trying to axe-murder illustrators then I'd point out how violent and evil they were.

You asked me if washington suggested the attacks were justified. Bush validated the emotions of the burners after saying the word "but". At worst he justified the attacks at best he laid down a moral equivalency between drawing rude pictures and murder.

I think it is a vital and substantial one. The justification used for much of the violence against westerners and liberal cultural muslims has been that something was so offensive that violent evil action could not be avoided. We put people in prison and hospital when they do that in our own societies.

I might clarify myself by saying that when you are emotionally agitated by the actions of others then you still have a choice of responding violently or not responding violently.

I get the distinction that being offended doesn't mean you should respond violently but that's not the initial distinction that you drew with "nobody can be offended, people can choose to take offense" unless you are using the world offense to mean violent reaction.

How about when you misunderstand me and I clarify what I meant originally you stop pretending your original misunderstanding was my main point?

[Sheilbh]

Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.

It looks like it could be the film's producers. From the reporting I've seen it looks like they were trying to provoke exactly this response.

[Viking]

Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.

It looks like it could be the film's producers. From the reporting I've seen it looks like they were trying to provoke exactly this response.

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

In July 2012, a 14-minute excerpt from the English-language film was posted on YouTube. By September the movie had been dubbed into Arabic and was brought to the attention of the Arabic-speaking world by a Coptic blogger whose Egyptian citizenship had been revoked for promoting calls for an attack on Egypt.[11][12] Muslim leaders criticized the film's depiction of Muhammad.[13] The Daily Telegraph reported that it portrayed Muhammad as an advocate of pedophilia and a homosexual, showing him having sex.[14]

[Queequeg]

How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this? 

[CountDeMoney]

Who is responsible for making the existence of the movie known? Clearly, someone is out there pointing at it and saying it represents American opinion. They obviously have gotten the idea that the US government is somehow at fault, though I don't see how that connection can be made.

The clerics in Egypt have their own versions Islamic versions of Rush and others, simply trolling the internet for good bites of anything remotely inflammatory, anything they can use to pursue their own agenda. 

Unfortunately, you can't tell the uneducated mobs of the Muddled East that get all geared up over this sort of shit that some squirrelly goofball in Florida with less than 50 members in his church--the same goofball that burned the Koran last year, and subsequently getting people killed in Afghanistan--isn't representative of the entire United States.

This is the part where Obama's policy of whacking US citizens for terroristic activities would come in handy.

[derspiess]

How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this? 

Probably a few more than were going to die already.  Pretty sad fate for them, with or without this incident.

[Viking]

How many innocent Coptics are going to die because of this?

dunno.. I've been wondering how many Copts might die because of this.

[mongers]

Well, I won't be happy until US M1s are parked in Riyadh.