Merged U.S. ambassador to Libya, 3 others killed in rocket attack, witness says

[mhaze]

.
The "Reverend" Terry Jones should get all the recognition/prosecution his hateful products incite.
Like Manson.

So throw out free speech? We don't need no Bill of Rights.

 

[Dcdrac]

I said partly responsible because his actions incited and tirggered off what happened.

By making such a stupidly and blatantly bigoted film what else did he expect was going to happen?

 

[marksman]

.
The "Reverend" Terry Jones should get all the recognition/prosecution his hateful products incite.
Like Manson.

I know you've been told this a few times, but it's not Terry Jones' movie. And the actual movie has been released since July. The riots were caused by imams lying about the movie.

Terry Jones is a hateful bigot, but he's not the responsible party here by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[I Ratant]

So throw out free speech? We don't need no Bill of Rights.

.
There are consequences to speech.
Most of us do not speak our minds at every opportunity.
Nor go out of our way to incite violence.
When there is a situation where violence follows mockery, the mockery should be self-restrained.
When it isn't, it's intended to incite violence... and show how backward those Stone Age countries are, again..
As if a constant reminder of their misery needs to be promoted.

 

[marksman]

Nor go out of our way to incite violence.

From all reports, the movie is an inaccurate and insulting portrayal of Islam. But it does not incite violence. It does not call for violence. It does not encourage violence in any way.

The only incitement was form the imams in Egypt and Libya who exhorted their followers to attack the embassy after lying about the movie.

And, again, Terry Jones did not make the movie. He merely spoke favorably about it.

 

[I Ratant]

I said partly responsible because his actions incited and tirggered off what happened.

By making such a stupidly and blatantly bigoted film what else did he expect was going to happen?

.
Exactly what did happen.
Manson didn't kill anyone himself, but he incited others to kill.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Stupid movies & the people who make stupid movies don't kill innocent US civilian public servants. Stupid people who can't figure out a more productive way to express their displeasure at a stupid movie kill innocent US civilian public servants.

 

[DDWW]

I said partly responsible because his actions incited and tirggered off what happened.

By making such a stupidly and blatantly bigoted film what else did he expect was going to happen?

I have not seen the film. I would be interested in knowing what parts you thought were stupid and bigoted.

DDWW

 

[I Ratant]

Terry Jones did not make that video.

.
"Promoted" Bacille's video.

 

[marksman]

I said partly responsible because his actions incited and tirggered off what happened.

By making such a stupidly and blatantly bigoted film what else did he expect was going to happen?

Jones didn't make the film!
The film does not exhort violence.
The film itself did not incite violence as it had been out for months before anybody got angry.
What incited the violence were imams who lied about the film getting a national release across the US due to the support of Obama. (Did I mention they were lying? Yes, I did.)

 

[marksman]

.
"Promoted" Bacille's video.

So he's responsible for deaths because he spoke favorably about a video that, months after its release, was used by imams as a stalking horse, when they lied about the video in order to exhort their followers to storm the American Embassy in Benghazi, resulting in the death of the Ambassador and at least three others?

 

[A'isha]

I have not seen the film. I would be interested in knowing what parts you thought were stupid and bigoted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests/?tag=stack

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.

 

[marksman]

To be clear, it wasn't even their displeasure at the stupid movie. It was the lies the stupid people were told about the stupid movie. because, apparently, the stupid movie itself, was insufficient to get the murderous result desired by the liars.

 

[Spindrift]

It's an act of war on American soil. (Or several.) It's only been 24 hours, lets wait a while to see how our Commander In Chief handles things. He's probably waiting for a poll to tell him which way will gain him the most votes in Nov.

I guess he could justify sending n the Spec OPs folks to retake the American soil, but best of all would be to convince the host countries to take out the protestors and give our embassies back, on a silver plate, with much apologies and reparations. Ha.

Don't worry about it. Unlike Bush, Obama actually gets the guys responsible. And unlike Romney, he thinks it's worth the effort.

 

[marksman]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...filmmaker-in-hiding-after-protests/?tag=stack

As hateful as that sounds, it's hardly in the top ten things that people around here say about religion and the religious on a daily basis.

 

[A'isha]

As hateful as that sounds, it's hardly in the top ten things that people around here say about religion and the religious on a daily basis.

True. But the salafist imams who were inciting this violence didn't use JREF posts.

Whatever lies they told about this film (and only some of what they said were lies), the film itself is still inextricably linked to what happened.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Whatever lies they told about this film (and only some of what they said were lies), the film itself is still inextricably linked to what happened.

Even if that were the case, (some reports I've read suggest that the riots about the film were just used as cover for the terrorists who were looking for an opportunity to launch an incident on the 9/11 anniversary) - the important thing to remember is that it is just a fricking movie.

Whether it is Salman Rushdie's book, some cartoons, or a crap movie put out by a Dutch politician, the REACTION is the crime, not the content.

When I was in Afghanistan, I got very pissed off whenever some nutjob put out cartoons, or did something that put my life in danger. However I always had to remember that the reason why my life is in danger is because of the retards that react with violence.

I really don't care if this most recent movie depicts Mohammed getting a pineapple inserted up his backside, while having his nipples tweaked by a Zionist. The reaction to crappy movies & crappy ideas never justifies violence.

 

[I Ratant]

I'd like to see an Islamic analysis of Christianity. There's lots there to criticize.
The fall-out might possibly be linkable to the same fallacies in Islam, and begin the process of de-idolizing Mo and the Quran from their current immunity to analysis.
The religion then might be capable of joining the 21st Century, with a few retards similar to our Pope and trash like Jones yelling silly things from the street corners, but ignored by the sensible folk who want a quiet life free from religious violence.

 

[mikedenk]

I'd like to see an Islamic analysis of Christianity. There's lots there to criticize.

How many riots and murders do you suppose would ensue?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I said partly responsible because his actions incited and tirggered off what happened.

By making such a stupidly and blatantly bigoted film what else did he expect was going to happen?

It's a dilemma even if there are lots of differences between shouting fire in a crowded theater, drawing a cartoon image of Mohammed, burning a Koran to get attention, and making a hate speech or film against a group.

It's been decided the fire call crosses the line. And a political cartoon surely is free speech.

But the other two examples, and one should include the cleric who riled a few radicals up over the film, are extremists pissing off other extremists. Innocent people suffered the consequences. This is a bit more tricky.

I lean toward ignoring the free speech aspects here and look at the inciting a riot issue. I get it our culture says the film is free speech. So was the cleric who incited the rioting also exercising free speech? We convicted a couple of white supremacists for inciting murder in their sermons.

Marksman says the cleric "lied" to incite the riot. But the film's producer said he intended to film to be hateful against Islam. From the CBS/AP article:

writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

I haven't read enough yet on Terry Jones' involvement in the film to comment. Clearly he is as hate inciting as the Islamic clerics. They are on the same level.


From the CBS/AP report, it would also seem we should wait for more details:

CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports from the Pentagon that U.S. officials do not believe Tuesday's killings were the work of the mob. Instead, the officials believe that within that mob were heavily armed militants who were using the demonstration as a cover to get into the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi and then take as much revenge as they could on Americans.

Whether the militants were seeking revenge for the film or they were simply trying to kill Americans on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks is still unclear, Martin reports.