Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[Asiantravel]

now spreading to Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19584734

[Ulysses G.]

Good idea. Despite a series of personal attacks, your arguments are not convincing in the least.

The concept that freedom of speech comes with responsibility needs no arguments Ulysees, and people should not need persuading of that. Ciao.

You need to convince whoever made that rather tedious video. There is nothing illegal about it and it is not anyone else's responsibility.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Neurath]

Some Christian religious nut case makes an inflammatory and defamatory film about Islam and the Islamists go berserk attacking any and all Americans as if the US did it collectively and as if the US is or wanted to be a Christian Theocracy on a crusade against Islam. Oh, wait a minute...... May God bless........

[farang000999]

A quote from http://www.politico....l#ixzz26K3qc8Uz

A second senior administration official said Wednesday that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, the highest-ranking U.S. uniformed officer, called the pastor Wednesday to ask him to withdraw his support for the video, but the pastor was “noncommittal.” The Florida religious leader, Terry Jones, has tangled with the Pentagon before – former Defense Secretary Robert Gates phoned him in 2010 to ask him not to burn a Koran in an anti-Islamic demonstration. He agreed then, but later burned a copy of the Muslim holy book earlier this year.

Is the American administration so ham strung that they cannot detain the pastor, as his actions are a threat to national security

Unfortunately the Constitution keeps getting in the way.

[Ulysses G.]

I know that some on here consider Liz Cheney the spawn of the devil, but she makes Romney's case on this incident very well.

It has certainly been a terrible 48 hours. In Libya, violent extremists killed American diplomats. In Cairo, mobs breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, ripped down the American flag and replaced it with the al Qaeda flag.

In response to the attack in Cairo, diplomats there condemned not the attackers but those who "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The president appeared in the Rose Garden less than 24 hours later to condemn the Libya assault and failed even to mention the attack in Egypt. The message sent to radicals throughout the region: If you assault an American embassy but don't kill anyone, the U.S. president won't complain.

Though the administration's performance in the crisis was appalling, it wasn't surprising—it is the logical outcome of three-and-a-half years of Obama foreign policy. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577646142541161820.html

[animatic]

As Ted Rooosevelt said "Speak Softly And Carry A Big Stick. "

I would guess that Krauthammer would agree with you, but the big stick also has to be used when necessary and Obama has done an awful lot of speaking softly to places like Iran without saying when he is finally going to use the big stick, so they actually pay attention

In diplomacy the stick is always the last resort.

In the current state of affairs using the stick up front is not as wise as working behind the scenes.

[bbradsby]

A report by a CNN reporter saying the amateur film content was deliberately misrepresented in order to create a response by an extremist group.

A BBC story is potentially backing this up, saying an Egyptian-American Coptic is involved in the production, financing logistics, if not the actual directing of the film.

"...Coptic link?

Another name appeared linked to the film - Morris Sadek - an Egyptian American from the anti-Islamic National American Coptic Assembly. His promotion of the movie brought inquiries into the involvement of Coptic Christian groups.The Copts make up a sizeable Christian minority in Egypt and some have raised concern about their religious freedom in the new Egypt under a Muslim Brotherhood president.

The Associated Press news agency, which had interviewed the man claiming to be Sam Bacile on the telephone, then followed a trail to a Californian called Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who told AP he was a Coptic Christian and admitted he was involved in logistics and management of the film's production. He denied being the director or posing as Sam Bacile, but AP said reporters had traced the phone number to an address near where they found Mr Nakoula.

The exact origin of the movie and the internet clip, and the motivation behind its production, remains a mystery, but it appears not to be linked to an Israeli film-maker as was earlier widely reported, including by the BBC. It was the film's translation into Arabic and broadcast on Arab TV stations and talk shows which sparked the violence - although investigations are now under way in Washington to establish whether the worst of the violence was not spontaneous."

[samthefish]

like usual muslims arefree game.criticism against jews not tolerated...

[Neurath]

I know that some on here consider Liz Cheney the spawn of the devil, but she makes Romney's case on this incident very well.

It has certainly been a terrible 48 hours. In Libya, violent extremists killed American diplomats. In Cairo, mobs breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, ripped down the American flag and replaced it with the al Qaeda flag.

In response to the attack in Cairo, diplomats there condemned not the attackers but those who "hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The president appeared in the Rose Garden less than 24 hours later to condemn the Libya assault and failed even to mention the attack in Egypt. The message sent to radicals throughout the region: If you assault an American embassy but don't kill anyone, the U.S. president won't complain.

Though the administration's performance in the crisis was appalling, it wasn't surprising—it is the logical outcome of three-and-a-half years of Obama foreign policy. http://online.wsj.co...2541161820.html

No need for Liz to make the case at all Mitt makes more than adequately and elegantly:

“They clearly — they clearly sent mixed messages to the world. And — and the statement came from the administration — and the embassy is the administration — the statement that came from the administration was a — was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a — a — a severe miscalculation.”

I reckon Jim DeMint's right on the money as well: “It was disheartening to hear the administration condemn Americans engaging in free speech that hurt the feelings of Muslims,”

Was Mitt to quick or with his comments or inanely motivated in making them? No. It is never too soon to stand up for American values and interests.

[Fozfromoz]

So do you suggest that the West ban free speech in order to appease radical Muslims? That is not going to happen.

Nor it should. This whole mess says more about the Muslim radical bull s**it going on around the world, than some bloke making a movie.

What has the poor guy murdered ( and his colleauges)in Libya got to do with this anyway?

Apologies- edit, what I meant was why was the diplomat targeted because of a movie made.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Fozfromoz

[GentlemanJim]

Well, all this is a little fishy (excuse the intelligent pun!) and has me thinking.

Prior to the rest of the world going mad over this movie, every person associated with it was recorded as being Israeli American, in all publications. Now that the SHHTF everyone is now saying that they are Coptic Christians. It's really easy to tell if they really are coptic christians when you interview them, just ask to see their wrists ! Coptic Christians (and 100% of Egyptian ones) all carry a small tattoo on their inside right wrist, it is a cross sometimes in a circle. Any of you who have been on holiday in Egypt may recall seeing it on the wrists of waiters as they served you. One guy I spoke to said it was tattooed there when he was a few months old. An example here

If it is the coptics, then fine, but if this is a turn about led by the worlds mainly Israeli, American Israeli owned media giants then I hope they know what they are doing, because after prayer time in Egypt tomorrow their will be coptic christian families being slaughtered by the dozen in Egypt. In fact, being fully aware of the repercussions on their people, it makes no sense whatsoever for coptics to produce this, then admit to it. They would know that their minority community in Egypt will face a bloodbath.

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[bbradsby]

If US citizens will not take any responsibility for publishing content they know will antagonise people of faith that will lead to violence, then they can hardly complain regarding the outcomes. Under freedom of speech in the US is it permitted to grossly insult, say an ethnic minority, that leads to a riots & violence, then citizens say that's OK it's all about freedom of speech?

What you imply is that a government agency or lynch-mob should suppress unpopular expressions of individuals. For any government to suppress the peaceful expression of opinions or artistic pieces that are unpopular to the majority population's cultural expectations is simply censorship. Full Stop.

In a free democracy such as the USA, freedom of speech is fundamental. Even the Neo-Nazi nutjobs can have a parade & rally, city permits issued and police protection provided, as long as it is a peaceful assembly. This does not mean the US government condones the expressions of these citizens. This whole dust-up reeks of an extremist Muslim power-play to regain control of a budding democracy movement in the Mideast/North Africa States.

[GentlemanJim]

If US citizens will not take any responsibility for publishing content they know will antagonise people of faith that will lead to violence, then they can hardly complain regarding the outcomes. Under freedom of speech in the US is it permitted to grossly insult, say an ethnic minority, that leads to a riots & violence, then citizens say that's OK it's all about freedom of speech?

What you imply is that a government agency or lynch-mob should suppress unpopular exp<b></b>ressions of individuals. For any government to suppress the peaceful exp<b></b>ression of opinions or artistic pieces that are unpopular to the majority population's cultural expectations is simply censorship. Full Stop.

In a free democracy such as the USA, freedom of speech is fundamental. Even the Neo-Nazi nutjobs can have a parade & rally, city permits issued and police protection provided, as long as it is a peaceful assembly. This does not mean the US government condones the exp<b></b>ressions of these citizens. This whole dust-up reeks of an extremist Muslim power-play to regain control of a budding democracy movement in the Mideast/North Africa States.

A well considered post, but I am unsure that the USA is a free democracy and the UK certainly is not. In the UK, no matter how peacefully you do it, if you stand and say for example something like "I hate blacks (insert creed of choice), they are lazy and smell". Then you WILL be arrested, charged and face criminal prosecution.

Try standing peacefully in New York and express your constitutional right to freedom of speech and say something like "the holocaust did not happen, jews are liars" and you will also find yourself doing the perp walk. Do the same in Austria and you will get a 2-5 year jail term.

The thing is that with freedom of speech comes responsibility, a concept Ulysees simply cannot grasp. It may be your right to think or say something, but you will find out when you cross the line that if you knowingly make a statement with the intent to grossly offend someone then you could find yourself in deep poop. If your statements can be deemed as racist, then you are in trouble. Where is freedom of speech then? The same applies with the movies, there was a responsibility, and appallingly one of the movie management team said 'we suspected this would happen' !!! An Ambassador dead, a family missing their patriarch, along with 3 other families in the same position, and the movie management suspected there would be trouble. Freedom of speech? That's not what soldiers die for!

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

...

Try standing peacefully in New York and express your constitutional right to freedom of speech and say something like "the holocaust did not happen, jews are liars" and you will also find yourself doing the perp walk.

...

Makes one wonder if your presumption is based on personal experience ...

Actually I think it is legal to speak that kind of hate speech in New York but don't expect a warm reception.

As far as freedom of making art about Islam, obviously this film was meant to be inflammatory. But there are more nuanced issues. In Islam it is forbidden to portray the image of their prophet. But non-believers aren't bound by that belief -- why should they be? So why does Islam think they can enforce their own internal rules on the entire world at the threat of having a violent hissy fit every time it happens? It appears they might. Personally I think that is wrong. I art and movies portraying their prophet would be a interesting topic for non-Muslims. But it is not allowed. That seems wrong to me. I am not talking about hateful films like the video in question, just artistic explorations of Islamic themes using the image you can't use. Obviously not for Muslims but there is a non-Islamic world as well.

As far as should the famous video in question be allowed to be made, that's harder. Whoever did it is a big troublemaker with a dark heart and dark intentions. Yes in America any kind of political or religious or artistic expression is LEGAL (short of terrorism, sexual crimes, etc.). The Nazi Party is legal, etc. and I think they should be. Sometimes there is a big price to pay for this wide freedom so I understand the feelings of people who think there should be SOME limits.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[GentlemanJim]

...

Try standing peacefully in New York and express your constitutional right to freedom of speech and say something like "the holocaust did not happen, jews are liars" and you will also find yourself doing the perp walk.

...

Makes one wonder if your presumption is based on personal experience ...

Actually I think it is legal to speak that kind of hate speech in New York but don't expect a warm reception.

As far as freedom of making art about Islam, obviously this film was meant to be inflammatory. But there are more nuanced issues. In Islam it is forbidden to portray the image of the prophet. But non-believers aren't bound by that belief. So why does Islam think they can enforce their own internal rules on the entire world? Personally I think that is wrong. I art and movies portraying their prophet would be a interesting topic for non-Muslims. But it is not allowed. That seems wrong to me. I am not talking about hateful films like the video in question, just artistic explorations of Islamic themes using the image you can't use. Obviously not for Muslims but there is a non-Islamic world as well.

But Jingthing, whilst I understand you, everything you are saying smacks of a double standard. It would not be legal to stand and make such hate speech against jews, and in the UK you WILL be arrested. Some people have considered it would be interesting to make a documentary that the holocaust never happened. Now whilst they may find that artistically interesting, you and millions of others would correctly find it grossly offensive and demand that the perpertrators were punished.

in the first line of your reply you say

]Makes one wonder if your presumption is based on personal experience ..

I have gone to great lengths , ALWAYS, to make sure that my communications are as clear and as concise as I can make them, and nowhere have I ever said anything that could have led to your grossly offensive personal statement. Is that freedom of speech? aimed with one purpose to hurt, publicly humiliate and offend me? Just because it may be your right to say things does not make it right does it.

We cannot expect others to put up with our artistic or moral interpretation of things when we are unable to put up with aspects of freedom of speech ourselves. If you support the making of a movie that knowingly trashes the basic tenets of a religious group or race of people then you cannot complain when that religious group or race of people do or say something which you find equally offensive. How much have you complained and become angered by the Iranian governments denial of the holocaust? Whilst you may just scream and shout about them, there are jews in this world that would happily murder people for saying such things. So with any freedom of speech there will be a wide range of reactions. Offence may be justified, murder and violence never is.

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

I was responding to the spirit of your recent post where you made the outrageous and false claim that the global mass media is controlled by Israelis.

BTW, as I reckon you are probably aware, there exists quite a lot of media productions positing the opinion that the holocaust never happened. If you're asking me should they be legal, I guess yes, I think they should be legal, but the people behind them should expect to be denounced.

On the New York example, I was speaking of America not the UK.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[samthefish]

if global mass media is not controlled by israelies,american sure is!!

[GentlemanJim]

I find it totally ironic that on a thread where people are espousing the virtues of freedom of speech, someone who is a strong advocate of that principle has messaged me to say they have reported me for being anti-semitic, simply because I have said that the majority of the worlds media giants are either Israeli or Israeli American owned. I find it difficult to comprehend the level of irony, I truly do. You see, freedom of speech is only when it suits you, thats the fact the world over! That's why we have a dead Ambassador, and why more will die tomorrow.

It is quite amazing, the whole concept, think of it. People have died over a movie, and everyone on here is screaming that the movie should be allowed, the muslims have no right to get upset. In the same breath someone who advocates that, writes to the mods to have a comment deleted because it is offensive to them, and it may be likely they will succeed! Is this a bizarre situation or what? Is my comment going to be deleted because it may infringe a rule and offend one person? Has the movie infringed someone elses sets of beliefs and they have a different scale of reprisals? The world has gone mad!

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[GentlemanJim]

I was responding to the spirit of your recent post where you made the outrageous and false claim that the global mass media is controlled by Israelis.

BTW, as I reckon you are probably aware, there exists quite a lot of media productions positing the opinion that the holocaust never happened. If you're asking me should they be legal, I guess yes, I think they should be legal, but the people behind them should expect to be denounced.

On the New York example, I was speaking of America not the UK.

Absolutely no false claim, all facts. Now tell me how outrageous I am! 6 Jewish companies own 96% of US/world media. They and many of their smaller companies are listed. Just what was wrong with my comment? It was accurate and it pertains to the topic in hand in that there has suddenly been a 180 degree swing in what is being reported.

http://www.thepeople...96-of-the-world

http://theunjustmedi...quo;s Media.htm

and most useful Jingthing All the companies are named! you can't argue with that, it is simply facts.

http://www.whiteoutp...rolled-by-jews/

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[GentlemanJim]

Jingthing, here is a public message within the rules. You have absolutely no right sending me hateful personal messages calling me an anti semite and comparing me with Hitler, please stop!

[samthefish]

there you see gentlemanjim.there is a freedom of speech as long as you say what they wanna hear!!

[Jingthing]

This is a moderated board, not a free speech board. This board doesn't permit hate speech. I didn't make the rules. This is a moderator matter at this point and there is no point in responding to the misleading inflammatory accusations that were posted here publicly. Cheers.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[samthefish]

i just love to see when intellectual person throws in few facts,how less blessed individual shows his true colors...

[GentlemanJim]

This is a moderated board, not a free speech board. This board doesn't permit hate speech. I didn't make the rules. This is a moderator matter at this point and there is no point in responding to the misleading inflammatory accusations that were posted here publicly. Cheers.

Jingthing

As a perfect example of what is now occurring in the middle east, you are actually saying that because I said the majority of global media giants are controlled by American Israeli's that I am guilty of hate speech. Listen to yourself. I have even provided you with links that will name all the media companies and their subsidiaries. Nothing was misleading, and nothing was inflammatory. Why are you saying I am spouting hate speech? I have stated a fact, very pertinent to the thread. You do not like it and are thus trying to deny me the right to say it, even though it is on topic, by wrongly trying to label me for hate speech! You should apologise.

If you do indeed find the facts I have stated inflammatory then can you please explain to the members of the board why you find it inflammatory. It may help us all understand how the muslims can take such an extreme reaction to this movie.

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[chuckd]

Absolutely no false claim, all facts. Now tell me how outrageous I am! 6 Jewish companies own 96% of US/world media. They and many of their smaller companies are listed. Just what was wrong with my comment? It was accurate and it pertains to the topic in hand in that there has suddenly been a 180 degree swing in what is being reported.

http://www.thepeople...96-of-the-world

http://www.whiteoutp...rolled-by-jews/

I won't call it hate speech but I looked at your links and they are ridiculous and far removed from the main stream. I don't have either the time or the inclination to verify all the so called facts thrown about by them.

Suffice to say, however, your links would not be considered as anything short of anti-Jewish propaganda in most quarters.

Believe what you will but don't expect others to fall for your line.

[GentlemanJim]

Absolutely no false claim, all facts. Now tell me how outrageous I am! 6 Jewish companies own 96% of US/world media. They and many of their smaller companies are listed. Just what was wrong with my comment? It was accurate and it pertains to the topic in hand in that there has suddenly been a 180 degree swing in what is being reported.

http://www.thepeople...96-of-the-world

http://www.whiteoutp...rolled-by-jews/

I won't call it hate speech but I looked at your links and they are ridiculous and far removed from the main stream. I don't have either the time or the inclination to verify all the so called facts thrown about by them.

Suffice to say, however, your links would not be considered as anything short of anti-Jewish propaganda in most quarters.

Believe what you will but don't expect others to fall for your line.

You have missed one chuk. Perhaps it would be prudent before you jump on Jingthings horse to find the time to verify facts if you are going to disclaim them. I have no gripe with you, and have said nothing against any of your statements. Why would the links be anti-jewish propaganda? They merely give a list of companies owned by Israeli's that are media companies, and the very essence of this thread that you for one are wanting, is freedom of speech and tolerence. Totally strange behaviour. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 'white out press' link, as you can't be bothered to read here is a small snippit. It is a good article with some good information.

In fact, in his column in the LA Times (Dec. 19, 2008), Stein says that Americans who think the Jews do not control Hollywood and the media are just plain "dumb". "Jews totally run Hollywood" Stein proudly admits. He then goes on to provide a long, long list of Hollywood and media chiefs to prove his point. All of them - Jews. They include:

• Fox News President Peter Chernin
  

• Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey
  

• Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor
  

• Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton
  

• Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer
  

• CBS CEO Leslie Moonves
  

• MGM Chairman Harry Sloan
  

• NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker.
  

• Even the head of the Actors' Union, the Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, is a Jew.
  

"The Jews are so dominant" writes Stein, "I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold" Stein says, "even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! As a proud Jew" says Joel Stein, "I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."

These things are verifiable facts, the article then goes on to name all the other media giants, the Disney empire being significant.why would you label it as anti-jewish propaganda? I am truly puzzled.

If for some strange reason without checking you wish to label the sites anti jewish then perhaps you would prefer to read this

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

exactly the same article written in its original column in the LA Times. Is that an anti Jewish publication?

Edited September 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[tonglen]

They love democracy when it suits them for personal or political gain but not when it comes to personal freedoms or freedom of expression.

[folium]

Intrigued about two things;

1. Use of the term "American Israeli". I presume you mean Americans who happen to be of Jewish descent. Correct?

2. You claim "American-Israeli" ownership of US media companies. Most are publicly quoted companies, so could you give me a breakdown of their shareholders to support your claim? BTW to save you some time & effort the Murdochs are many things but I don't believe being Jewish is one of them!

[farang000999]

this film came out in june. middle eastern media is highly censored. what happened was that someone, just like with the cartoons, decided to deliberately get these out and even dubbed them, dont be surprised if it eventually gets released that the terrorists themselves were the ones who released these videos to social media on 9/11

[farang000999]

running Hollywood is hardly the same as controlling the world's media.