US Ambassador to Lybia, along with 3 others, killed

[AMG_G]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Life is very, very, very cheap in many parts of the world.

Yeah there must have been a big sale that day whe shot down all those miners in SA. Strange how there wasn't much uproar about it but when China did nearly the same thing in Tiananmen square it was all over the news for years.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The filmmaker got exactly what he wanted out of this, namely free pub for his movie and getting to incite violence to prove his point about Muslims. Of course if he had actual balls he wouldn't be hiding like a scared coward right now.

You're right. He should have to fist fight every muslim he offended with his film.

The film was stupid, but there's only one set of people in the wrong here.

edit: To clear thingsup. Definitely not blaming islam, in general. Blaming anyone who uses violence in response to criticism of religion.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by blankall

You're right. He should have to fist fight every muslim he offended with his film.

The film was stupid, but there's only one set of people in the wrong here.

If you mean that there was one MOB of people responsible for the attack on the embassy and the killings, of course you are right, but if you're (as others in this thread have done) blaming Islam for the attacks, you're mistaken.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

If you mean that there was one MOB of people responsible for the attack on the embassy and the killings, of course you are right, but if you're (as others in this thread have done) blaming Islam for the attacks, you're mistaken.

To clear thingsup. Definitely not blaming islam, in general. Blaming anyone who uses violence in response to criticism of religion.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

The film was stupid, but there's only one set of people in the wrong here.

How so? Making a film with the intent to mock a religion, fully knowing what the result will be is pretty much inciting violence. We don't condone painting swastikas on a synagogue, and we shouldn't condone this either. They are both hateful.

Now the coward gets to hide in his California home half a world away and talk big, while the US get's to take the brunt of the blowback. Why is there no accountability on his part?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

How so? Making a film with the intent to mock a religion, fully knowing what the result will be is pretty much inciting violence. We don't condone painting swastikas on a synagogue, and we shouldn't condone this either. They are both hateful.

Now the coward gets to hide in his California home half a world away and talk big, while the US get's to take the brunt of the blowback. Why is there no accountability on his part?

We don't condone painting swastikas on a synagogue, because it's private property. It's not illegal, nor should it be, to show a swastika in public.

Unless this guy was advocating violence towards muslims, he has every right to criticize the muslim faith.

What are you saying the accountability on his part should be? Does he have an obligation to put himself in harm's way, because others have decided to turn violent? This was private citizen making a low budget film. The reaction was an angry mob attacking people who had absolutely nothing to do with the film, and you're defending that mob?

[polak]

There is still no excuse for extremists.

I personally wish the Embassy would've unloaded on the attackers and killed every last one of them.

Extremists are the scum of the earth.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Life is very, very, very cheap in many parts of the world.

Very true.

Originally Posted by Table 5

How so? Making a film with the intent to mock a religion, fully knowing what the result will be is pretty much inciting violence. We don't condone painting swastikas on a synagogue, and we shouldn't condone this either. They are both hateful.

Now the coward gets to hide in his California home half a world away and talk big, while the US get's to take the brunt of the blowback. Why is there no accountability on his part?

I havent seen the video so I'm going as unqualified Devil's Advocate here but:

Was there intent to mock? Was it done in a mocking manner?

There is a bit of irony if the intent of the video was to dispute Islam's insistent claims of being a peaceful religion because they usually make that claim after outbursts like this.

As for his accountability, I suppose it would depend on the video's premise.

Its not as if his whole film is:

"Eff-you guys! Come at me Islam!"

If it were, then yes, he should be held accountable.

However, if it was something closer to:

"Islam claims to be a religion of peace, I dispute these claims, my dispute is based on this evidence that I present to you and my conclusion is that their claims are flawed and this is why."

Then no, I dont think they should be throwing him over the wall at the angry mob unless his evidence was obviously flimsy and meant to incite unrest.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

What are you saying the accountability on his part should be? Does he have an obligation to put himself in harm's way, because others have decided to turn violent? This was private citizen making a low budget film. The reaction was an angry mob attacking people who had absolutely nothing to do with the film, and you're defending that mob?

When you go out of your way to mock a religion, you should be expected to face the music and be there to back up your cause in public. He has every right to express his opinion, but opinions have consequences. He had to have known this is the type of reaction that was going to happen, and that innocent people will mostly likely get hurt. How is it fair that gets to mock people, incite violence, but then other's (ie, the US) have to deal with his actions.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Locke

Very true.



I havent seen the video so I'm going as unqualified Devil's Advocate here but:

Was there intent to mock? Was it done in a mocking manner?

There is a bit of irony if the intent of the video was to dispute Islam's insistent claims of being a peaceful religion because they usually make that claim after outbursts like this.

As for his accountability, I suppose it would depend on the video's premise.

Its not as if his whole film is:

"Eff-you guys! Come at me Islam!"

If it were, then yes, he should be held accountable.

However, if it was something closer to:

"Islam claims to be a religion of peace, I dispute these claims, my dispute is based on this evidence that I present to you and my conclusion is that their claims are flawed and this is why."

Then no, I dont think they should be throwing him over the wall at the angry mob unless his evidence was obviously flimsy and meant to incite unrest.

I believe part of the film was to ask a donkey what he thought of Mohammed.

Without seeing it myself, that seems like an intention to mock.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

Was there intent to mock? Was it done in a mocking manner?

Watch the trailer (easily found on google). There is absolutely no doubt it was there to mock and denigrate. Warning though, the production value is hilariously bad.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3835...r-benghazi.htm

It depicts Muhammad in the most insulting terms; he is portrayed by turns as foolish, murderous, lecherous, nonsensical and corrupt.

Even the Quran itself is insulted when a would-be author tells Muhammad's wife, Khadija, that he will "make a book for [Muhammad]. It will be a mix between some versions from the Torah and some versions from the New Testament and mix them into false verses."

The film's jokes range from caustic, to obscure, to inane. In one scene, an old woman asks why Allah is "such an oppressor and so unfair to the people" before she is torn apart by donkeys. In another, Muhammad laughingly confirms rumors that he is homosexual.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

When you go out of your way to mock a religion, you should be expected to face the music and be there to back up your cause in public. He has every right to express his opinion, but opinions have consequences. He had to have known this is the type of reaction that was going to happen, and that innocent people will mostly likely get hurt. How is it fair that gets to mock people, incite violence, but then other's (ie, the US) have to deal with his actions.

What does "face the music" mean? So you're saying he should have to face potentially being murdered because he offended someone's religion. I'm sure he would be more than willing to sit down and debate the topic, but he shouldn't have to fear for his safety.

"Opinions have consequences"? Really? Violent ones? No, as a matter of fact, they don't. We have the right to opinions. Our society's very core is based on the notion that people have a right to their own opinion.

I don't disagree with you that it's totally unfair and tragic that innocent people are getting hurt. However, the only people responsible for that are....the ones actually doing the hurting.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Table 5

When you go out of your way to mock a religion, you should be expected to face the music and be there to back up your cause in public. He has every right to express his opinion, but opinions have consequences. He had to have known this is the type of reaction that was going to happen, and that innocent people will mostly likely get hurt. How is it fair that gets to mock people, incite violence, but then other's (ie, the US) have to deal with his actions.

I agree that he should be backing himself up publically, although if his movie properly expresses his views, then he kind of already has. There are documentaries made all the time about various religions with varying views and biases. I think it's a little out of line to expect the film maker to think his movie may cause a violent reaction. Did the maker of Zeitgeist expect violent backlash from Christian communities? Are Mormans killing Atheists because Bill Maher bashed them in Religulous? I'm not blaming Islam or saying the film maker's views are in any way correct, but to say he should have expected violent backlash AND to blame it on him misses the mark IMO.

A few extremists decided to use a film as a reason to kill some people. This is solely on those individuals who chose to inact violence on others.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Locke

Very true.



I havent seen the video so I'm going as unqualified Devil's Advocate here but:

Was there intent to mock? Was it done in a mocking manner?

There is a bit of irony if the intent of the video was to dispute Islam's insistent claims of being a peaceful religion because they usually make that claim after outbursts like this.

As for his accountability, I suppose it would depend on the video's premise.

Its not as if his whole film is:

"Eff-you guys! Come at me Islam!"

If it were, then yes, he should be held accountable.

However, if it was something closer to:

"Islam claims to be a religion of peace, I dispute these claims, my dispute is based on this evidence that I present to you and my conclusion is that their claims are flawed and this is why."

Then no, I dont think they should be throwing him over the wall at the angry mob unless his evidence was obviously flimsy and meant to incite unrest.

I haven't watched it either (and not going to waste my time), but here is a description:

The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09...n-egypt-libya/

Basically, the movie attacks a very central figure in Islam, which is going to cause outrage in even the most moderate Muslims. Anyone knowing anything about the Muslim world in general or the middle east in particular would have predicted this type of reaction, so I would argue that he meant to incite this reaction.

His motive was to help Isreal and I think it might have just back fired (or it gives Netanyahu a reason to attack Iran).

Bacile, a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam’s flaws to the world

[driveway]

Right now, I blame Islam.

I believe that wars are all economic, and there is obviously a huge economic component to the dynamic between the Islamic world and developed west.

However, responding to insults - of any kind - with violence is childish. This is a pattern that has been repeated frequently in recent years with Islam. I no longer feel Islamic thinkers, scholars or philosophers should be given a seat at the table when discussing human progress until they have managed to reign in the idiotic elements of their faith.

I strongly feel right-wing Christians are ignorant and foolish people who do stupid and damaging things with their wallets and their votes. But they don't kill people in mobs for making dumb movies or drawing silly pictures.

I may change my mind after I've thought about it and talked to some people, but right now I really dislike Islam.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

What does "face the music" mean? So you're saying he should have to face potentially being murdered because he offended someone's religion. I'm sure he would be more than willing to sit down and debate the topic, but he shouldn't have to fear for his safety.

"Opinions have consequences"? Really? Violent ones? No, as a matter of fact, they don't. We have the right to opinions. Our society's very core is based on the notion that people have a right to their own opinion.

I don't disagree with you that it's totally unfair and tragic that innocent people are getting hurt. However, the only people responsible for that are....the ones actually doing the hurting.

Everyone (at least here) has a right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean that magically people don't get offended and take action in return. I guess I'm just tired of people saying or doing something inflammatory, and then running away. It doesn't matter what the laws are....actions have consequences. And the consequences here are that innocent people are dead, and more will probably die.

There is no excuse for violence, but at some point this aggressive behavior has to stop on both ends. There was no other reason to make this movie than to insight a violent response.

Would this guy have made this film if he was living in Israel, and there was no US support behind his country? My guess no. It's easy to run a big mouth when you have a bodyguard though. Take away the safety net, and everyone stars smartening up.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Would this guy have made this film if he was living in Israel, and there was no US support behind his country? My guess no. It's easy to run a big mouth when you have a bodyguard though. Take away the safety net, and everyone stars smartening up.

I agree with this, but if Islamic peoples wanted proper vengeance (or whatever you want to call it) there is certainly enough of them worldwide to inact violence or some other form of discomfort to the film maker directly. Instead its being used as false reasoning for extremists to kill innocent people thousands of miles away. I dont see how this is the film makers fault at all, no matter how much of a moron he is.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Watch the trailer (easily found on google). There is absolutely no doubt it was there to mock and denigrate. Warning though, the production value is hilariously bad.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/3835...r-benghazi.htm

Who cares if it was to mock. Its still not a valid reason to kill people for.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Everyone (at least here) has a right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean that magically people don't get offended and take action in return. I guess I'm just tired of people saying or doing something inflammatory, and then running away. It doesn't matter what the laws are....actions have consequences. And the consequences here are that innocent people are dead, and more will probably die.

There is no excuse for violence, but at some point this aggressive behavior has to stop on both ends. There was no other reason to make this movie than to insight a violent response.

Would this guy have made this film if he was living in Israel, and there was no US support behind his country? My guess no. It's easy to run a big mouth when you have a bodyguard though. Take away the safety net, and everyone stars smartening up.

He's not running away. He's hiding because he obviously fears for his life. Which isn't that surprising considering people are killing each other over his movie.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Table 5

There is no excuse for violence, but at some point this aggressive behavior has to stop on both ends. There was no other reason to make this movie than to insight a violent response.

There is no agressive response from both ends. There is only one end.

One person made a movie, the other group killed 4 people.

I don't care if someone filmed himself taking a s**t on baby jesus and then punting him across the street while screaming "9/11 was awesome". Extreme violence, especially murder, should never be the result.

Eventually islamic leaders need to be held accountable for what their people are doing or their cries against discrimination and hate should be ignored.