Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[FunkMonk]

I'll be Chevy Chase, you'll be Martin Short and ups guy Steve Martin.

EL GUAPO 

[Fireblade]

Seems like the actors in the film are considering suing the producer too: http://gawker.com/5942748

Probably won't work.

..Good luck suing the Mossad.

[Ed Anger]

I'll be Chevy Chase, you'll be Martin Short and ups guy Steve Martin.

EL GUAPO 

That's fatmai.

[katmai]

Do I have a plethora?

[CountDeMoney]

Do I have a plethora?

Oh yeah.  You have a plethora.

[Berkut]

Berkut, if you are reading this thread, now do you agree that it was wrong to get involved?

To the extent we can, we need to disengage with the Arabic world for a while.

No, I don't agree with that at all.

In fact, I vehemently disagree that the ability of radicals to engage in violence should ever deter us from acting, or "getting involved".

[Martinus]

I'm not sure I entirely agree - as in that case I think it was a bit of picking one's battles. I guess we could continue to publish lame things they find offensive but I'm not sure where we have room to be surprised that they then act in a ridiculous violent manner - unless we are planning to do something to curb them of their violent ways. (And I don't think a sharply worded retort qualifies.)

This is simply mindboggling.

First of all, "we" do not continue to publish anything - our societies are not monolythic and our governments do not control content of free speech.

Secondly, be careful what you wish for - since your very existence is offensive to muslims, so you are probably going to be next on the list.

[Martinus]

Interesting.

Not sure we really do reject all attempts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

No I don't think you do, but it seems to me that the idealized America that shines as a beacon to the rest of the world aspires to reject such attempts. So I don't see how the statement should be controversial.

Wow, you completely misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech, don't you?

The statement from the US embassy condemning "those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious belief of others" is simply outrageous in a secular democracy. Doing away with blasphemy laws was (or is, in case of Poland) one of the greatest achievements towards freedom of speech - and I can't think of a statement more "denigrating" religious beliefs of others than "God does not exist and your beliefs are a lie". Suggesting that it is an abuse of freedom of speech to "hurt religious beliefs of others" is not acceptable, and if this is what Romney is slamming Obama for, he is right.

And while we are at it, where are all the other apologies from Obama for US citizens unaffiliated with the US government hurting feelings of other people? Why hasn't the White House (or at least some US embassies) issued an apology to homosexuals for Fred Phelps saying "God hates fags" or NOM releasing movies about gays molesting children; or why hasn't Obama apologised to Vatican for Chick tracts? Or (here's a crazy thought) is the entire statement a way to appease crazy idiots who intimidated Obama with violence so unless you storm an embassy or murder the ambassador, you can't really count on an apology?

[citizen k]

... Or (here's a crazy thought) is the entire statement a way to appease crazy idiots who intimidated Obama with violence so unless you storm an embassy or murder the ambassador, you can't really count on an apology?

Here comes the apology:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-drone-war/

[Viking]

TBH, I gotta go with Romney here. I was hoping for an Anders Fogh Rasmussen type reply like from either of the candidates.

"Look, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt, but in America everybody gets to say what they think, including the stupid people."

Which part of what Romney said do you agree with?

the part where he disagrees with doing this -> "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

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.

[Viking]

To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.

The logic is as follows

1 - Israel is the Enemy
2 - We do not wish to be like the enemy
3 - We do not wish to be like Israel
4 - Israel is a Democracy
5 - We do not wish to be a Democracy

Democracy itself is tainted by association with Israel.

[Viking]

I know. It was bizarre - she must have been a tea partyer. Good looking, though.

pics?

[Viking]

Just watching the BBC World coverage and the anchor is having kittens because the female reporter in Washington is saying US marines are going to Libya, he says "that would be something, US boots on the ground in Libya" 

Hilarious, not understanding that it's common practice to have Marines guard US embassies. 

Seriously a lot of you guys on Languish could do much better, more balanced and informed job than these media types.

no on the former, yes on the latter...

I'm surprised the the Anthem of the US Marines hasn't been brought up yet.

[dps]

To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.

The logic is as follows

1 - Israel is the Enemy
2 - We do not wish to be like the enemy
3 - We do not wish to be like Israel
4 - Israel is a Democracy
5 - We do not wish to be a Democracy

Democracy itself is tainted by association with Israel.

Uhm, who is the "we" in that?

[Viking]

To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in Israel.

The logic is as follows

1 - Israel is the Enemy
2 - We do not wish to be like the enemy
3 - We do not wish to be like Israel
4 - Israel is a Democracy
5 - We do not wish to be a Democracy

Democracy itself is tainted by association with Israel.

Uhm, who is the "we" in that?

Ah, oh, I now see the point. What I meant to say was

To be blunt, the fact that Israel is a democracy is a hinderence to democracy developing in the Arab World