US Ambassador to Lybia, along with 3 others, killed

[Azure]

There was a movie made a few years ago that portrayed the Mormons in a pretty bad light. I guess they should have gone batshat crazy over it too.

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

[blankall]

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.

Because of his nationality, he is not allowed to offend Islam? Does this work both ways? Are people of islamic faith not allowed to offend Jewish or Israeli people? Within your view is inherent stereotyping of the islamic faith as violent and unreasonable. You're essentially saying that islamic people can't control themselves so no one should risk offending them.

[ah123]

Originally Posted by driveway

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.

How does a leader (anywhere) reign in individuals in the general population?

[polak]

Originally Posted by ah123

How does a leader (anywhere) reign in individuals in the general population?

Same way the pope can tell people that condoms are now probably a good idea despite that being a direct contradiction of the bible.

In fact, that seems like that would be a pretty solid plan as the extremists are the ones that tend to lack free thinking and just eat up anything that religious leaders say.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by polak

There is no agressive response from both ends. There is only one end. One person made a movie, the other group killed 4 people.

If you think that physical action is the only way to be aggressive, than you're being ignorant. Wars have been started over words many times.

[carom]

I am in Cairo at the moment and first of all I must say that everyone I have met and/or worked with so far over here have been friendly and non threatening. At first I was a little intimidated when I would meet people with calluses on their forehead (see Prayer bump) from praying, but really if you are willing to give someone looking at you a smile, 99% of them will respond with a smile back at you.

Remember that in a city like Cairo that has at least half, or more of the population of Canada you are bound to get a higher number of crazies in one place. I read in a story that a protester in Cairo said him and fellow protesters were directed earlier in the day during prayers at the mosque. They have been been characterized as ultra conservative followers of Islam or Salafists. It is my understanding that they want a return to pre medieval ways and a rejection of all things non-Islam.

Most of the newspapers over here characterize the Muslim Brotherhood as the best organized group in the country but not nessisarily the most popular. There appears to be a resistance to turning Egypt into an Islamic Republic, infact I think the constitution prohibits political parties from forming on religious grounds.

One thing I don't understand is the characterization that the group was organized by ultras (supporters of the al Ahly football team). They are described as the second best organized group in Egypt, but I don't understand them also being Islamic fundamentalists. They get lots of credit for the revolution here last year. I think that the media is confused because they have been in the news recently (see Egyptian Football League) and have the word ultra in their title. Edit: but I may be wrong about this.

Anyway, I think everyone is in the wrong here (typical of this part of the world). Don't judge the whole by the actions of the few and don't accept people who willingly take actions that they know will incite violence. There are better ways to attempt to prove your point and the laws that protect him in America (which maybe they shouldn't) don't protect the people living outside of the states.

For those wondering about the timing of this, I though this commentary from an Al Jazera article sums it up:

Egyptian activist Wael Ghoneim wrote on his Facebook page that "attacking the US embassy on September 11 and raising flags linked to al-Qaeda will not be understood by the American public as a protest over the film about the prophet.

Anyway, those are my scattered thoughts on this. Don't really have much to say about Libya other than it is a tragedy and seems much more organized and violent than what is happening in Egypt.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If you think that physical action is the only way to be aggressive, than you're being ignorant. Wars have been started over words many times.

Wars have been started over a lot of things. That doesn't justify grouping words with violence.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

I care. Because it is us Americans and Canadians who have to deal with the consequences, and this is a good example of how our citizens are the ones who eventually die because of these kinds of actions.

And of course it's not a valid reason to kill people. But people do it anyway.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

Because of his nationality, he is not allowed to offend Islam? Does this work both ways? Are people of islamic faith not allowed to offend Jewish or Israeli people? Within your view is inherent stereotyping of the islamic faith as violent and unreasonable. You're essentially saying that islamic people can't control themselves so no one should risk offending them.

Yeah, that's not what I'm saying at all.

[Rerun]

So nobody believes that the fact that these attacks occured on Sept 11, 2012,11 years to the day from 09/11/01 isn't significant?

I read in one of the articles that a rocket propelled gernades were used to attack the vehicle the the US Ambassador was in.

Mobs do not run around with bazookas. This was a planned attack by anti-US extremists.

I think the film story is just a cover to get the general populace riled up. There is more to this than just a film protest.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I care. Because it is us Americans and Canadians who have to deal with the consequences, and this is a good example of how our citizens are the ones who eventually die because of these kinds of actions.

And of course it's not a valid reason to kill people. But people do it anyway.

So you equally care when people on CP mock Christianity or religion in general? Because it happens all the time.

[AMG_G]

Originally Posted by fotze

In an ideal world, people who get violent when offended by thoughts and words would be exterminated from the planet. But since the world is not ideal, filmmakers such as this have to live with these types of consequences. You know what is going to happen and it happens.

I'm not sure what steps it will take to get to the world to the ideal place. This filmmaker probably thinks making these films and sacrificing lives is the way. I'm not so sure.

Hardly ideal to just exterminate everyone who is offended by thoughts and words. It's akin to me telling my son not to hit others while I am spanking him.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you equally care when people on CP mock Christianity or religion in general? Because it happens all the time.

This is an example of why athiests mock religion by the way.

To the tee.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So nobody believes that the fact that these attacks occured on Sept 11, 2012,11 years to the day from 09/11/01 isn't significant?

I read in one of the articles that a rocket propelled gernades were used to attack the vehicle the the US Ambassador was in.

Mobs do not run around with bazookas. This was a planned attack by anti-US extremists.

I think the film story is just a cover to get the general populace riled up. There is more to this than just a film protest.

The US goverment is already claiming this

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you equally care when people on CP mock Christianity or religion in general? Because it happens all the time.

I believe that religion in general is a principal cause of a lot of the world's problems. But I'm not foolish enough to think that if you make enough fun of any of them, someone won't get offended and get violent.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I believe that religion in general is a principal cause of a lot of the world's problems. But I'm not foolish enough to think that if you make enough fun of any of them, someone won't get offended and get violent.

I never asked you that. I asked you if you equally care and make it KNOWN when people on CP mock Christianity or religion in general.

[Vulcan]

This isn't some government sponsered attack as happened in Iran years ago and recently.

Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/...sts/index.html

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

I never asked you that. I asked you if you equally care and make it KNOWN when people on CP mock Christianity or religion in general.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. The type of religion has nothing to do with my point. If someone mocked Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism or the Spaghetti Monster to the point where someone else killed 4 people, sure I'd care and make my voice be known.

Co-existence is something we all need to strive for, even if everyone is duking it out about who's fairy tale is the true one.

[Locke]

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

Okay, based on what I have read, I do believe that the 'filmmaker' should be required to face some consequences here.

Perhaps the rioting isnt uniquely his fault, but his film was almost certainly meant to incite unrest.

He wasnt presenting evidence and defending his conclusions in terms of a documentary supporting an opinion, he started with his opinion and just broadcast it out in hopes of offending people. Its pretty clear what his intentions were.

This individual is not a filmmaker nor documentarian, he was someone with money and an opinion and he sought to spread that opinion in this manner knowing full well there would likely be consequences.

Its effectively:

"Muslims are violent! See, if I piss them off they'll go off and do something violent."

His video, while an opinion, smacks to me of hate speech and he should have to face consequences for that fact. He cannot hide behind the rules and rights of a documentary because it seems as though he made no effort to offer any insight or evidence to back up his claims.

[saskflames69]

I see myself in green.