Us Ambassador Chris Stevens Killed In Libya

[Exsexyman]

Here are 2 links to the movie "Innocense Of Muslims" the movie that got the Mid East

Muslim world in such a huff. Make sure that you have "annotations" enabled for Link 1

because it takes you to another page (link 2 in my list) that is supposedly the entire movie

at 11 minutes 36 seconds in duration...kinda short to cost 5 million USD IMO...not to

mention <deleted> stupid.

Link 1...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcwJqVGreAg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_763635&feature=iv&src_vid=YcwJqVGreAg&v=2pZqE9JB4fY

Why are you showing links for this movie? What is your motivation? I think we can all agree that it is a crappy movie, we don't need to see it to arrive at that conclusion. You are not much better than the looney pastor, you know, the one who burned the Koran, knowing what the reaction would be in the Muslim world when he did so. Who also promoted this latest attempt to inflame anti Western opinion and put innocent lives at risk. Why do you want this disgusting provocation to be seen by a wider audience? You should be ashamed of yourself.

[MaxYakov]

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.

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!

Maybe you're right. Maybe soldiers are dieing these days so that governments can limit freedom of speech (by your descriptions of hate-speech laws and penalties).

My view is that Ambassador Stevens and the other victims died because he was inadequately protected. Is there any evidence that the movie had anything to do the attack on the Benghazi consulate? It appears to me he was set up and the attack was premeditated and would have occurred, movie or no movie.

Some people won't get it until there are AK-47 rounds whizzing by, fired by some political or religious fanatic.

Edited September 13, 2012 by MaxYakov

[softgeorge]

Here are 2 links to the movie "Innocense Of Muslims" the movie that got the Mid East

Muslim world in such a huff. Make sure that you have "annotations" enabled for Link 1

because it takes you to another page (link 2 in my list) that is supposedly the entire movie

at 11 minutes 36 seconds in duration...kinda short to cost 5 million USD IMO...not to

mention <deleted> stupid.

Link 1...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcwJqVGreAg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_763635&feature=iv&src_vid=YcwJqVGreAg&v=2pZqE9JB4fY

Why are you showing links for this movie? What is your motivation? I think we can all agree that it is a crappy movie, we don't need to see it to arrive at that conclusion. You are not much better than the looney pastor, you know, the one who burned the Koran, knowing what the reaction would be in the Muslim world when he did so. Who also promoted this latest attempt to inflame anti Western opinion and put innocent lives at risk. Why do you want this disgusting provocation to be seen by a wider audience? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Well this is a discussion about the Ambassadors death and the the circumstances around it, which includes the movie. It is easier to give an informed opinion on it if you have actually seen it. The only people that would get wipped up into a frenzy and go on a killing rampage over it would be the mentally unstable. In this case it was a small group whose actions were condemed by the majority of libyans.

People are capable of making thier own choices whether they actually want to watch it and do not need to be censored by others. Personally I could not see anything in it that would warrant the killing of innocent people.

Remember is Islam is the religion of Peace and Tolerance so most muslims would tolerate it.

Edited September 13, 2012 by softgeorge

[cookee68]

if it was any other religion not many people would give a rats arse, like christianity is the worlds biggest at the moment, and that gets mocked and the piss taken out of all the time, but they dont give a toss, as i dont if you mock my religion it just annoys me that muslims do it as a religion to do this kind of bull,. it is about time we woke up and smelt the air. instead of worrying about who we might upset, and do something more possitive

[Ulysses G.]

if it was any other religion not many people would give a rats arse, like christianity is the worlds biggest at the moment, and that gets mocked and the piss taken out of all the time,

Exactly right.

[Ulysses G.]

Well this is a discussion about the Ambassadors death and the the circumstances around it, which includes the movie. It is easier to give an informed opinion on it if you have actually seen it. The only people that would get wipped up into a frenzy and go on a killing rampage over it would be the mentally unstable.

Agreed No one would be watching it at all if not for the riots. It reminds me of Monty Python's Life of Brian without any of the funny parts.

[GentlemanJim]

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!

No need to be intrigued. The term American Israeli is not a denominator I have made up from thin air, it is a common term and reference will be seen to it all over the internet. It is a term that some members on TV use to describe themselves. It is not difficult really. As for your next item, number 2 that's a little silly isn't it. I could say one of the biggest computer companies in the world is owned by Bill Gates. I think you would fully understand the meaning. Would you require names and addresses of half a billion shareholders as evidence to support the claim. My very simple statement (before it was turned out of all proportion ) stands. The majority of the worlds media giants are owned by Israeli or American Israeli people. If you are unable to grasp or google that for your self then when I have time over coffee I will make a list..OK!

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

The idea is that you read the full articles or content of links, not make a judgement on the limited amount of text we are permitted to quote on this forum.

[simple1]

Millions died fighting Nazism and millions of civilians were slaughtered by the Nazis. About 140,000 Americans died in the European theatre and the Nazi party is legal in the US so long as it "peacefully" transmits it's messages of hate? Hate messages are acts of violence. <deleted> is going on in the States?

Edited September 14, 2012 by simple1

[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 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.

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!

Maybe you're right. Maybe soldiers are dieing these days so that governments can limit freedom of speech (by your descriptions of hate-speech laws and penalties).

My view is that Ambassador Stevens and the other victims died because he was inadequately protected. Is there any evidence that the movie had anything to do the attack on the Benghazi consulate? It appears to me he was set up and the attack was premeditated and would have occurred, movie or no movie.

Some people won't get it until there are AK-47 rounds whizzing by, fired by some political or religious fanatic.

I am not sure where you are driving at with this one Max. What I am saying is that with Freedom of Speech, there comes a responsibility. Just because you may have a right to say something does not make it right. There are some on here that are saying anything goes when it coms to hate speech, stating for example that the USA is a free democracy where you can say what you want. The truth is far from that, you cannot (and should not) be allowed to do or say certain things. I gave examples of that in the UK and US.

We all seem to have got confused as to what Freedom of Speech actually is and over the years many whacko's seem to have diluted it's true meaning. Freedom of Speech is your right to question your elected Government and officials, it is your right to question and have them hold themselves accountable for the things they do in your name, It is your right to disagree, publicly if you wish with the Governments policies or initiatives. It is your right to have an opposing view and not face persecution for that. That is what soldiers die for to save so that we may enjoy the benefits of true Free Democracy.

Freedom of speech does not mean I have the right to cal you a **** ******* ****** (insert expletives or racial hate words of your choice), it is not ,as the Phelps have manipulated the meaning the right to say whatever you wish causing the gravest of offences. That is not what soldiers give their lives for.

[Ulysses G.]

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.

That might be because it simply is not true. Allegations of Jewish control of the media are known as an antisemitic canard or a conspiracy theory which claims that Jews control the world’s mass media. The claim is that Jews control mass media in order to promote “insidious propaganda” that supports Jewish control of global politics and global financial systems and that such control has been used to establish and advocate for the state of Israel. The accusation was a major theme in the malevolent, anti-Semitic pamphlet The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is very popular with neo-nazis. In other words, it is a lie promoted by bigots to justify the hatred of Jews and Jingthing has good reason to report it.

[Scott]

Continued off-topic discussion of Israeli connections to everything/anything is going to result in suspensions. The discussion is about a 'movie' and the aftermath. Stick to the topic.

Having shares in a company and controlling it are two entirely different things.

[Ulysses G.]

Millions died fighting Nazism and millions of civilians were slaughtered by the Nazis. About 140,000 Americans died in the European theatre and the Nazi party is legal in the US so long as it "peacefully" transmits it's messages of hate? Hate messages are acts of violence. <deleted> is going on in the States?

Right or wrong, the USA has always had the philosophy that ideas should not be controlled, only actions.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

Millions died fighting Nazism and millions of civilians were slaughtered by the Nazis. About 140,000 Americans died in the European theatre and the Nazi party is legal in the US so long as it "peacefully" transmits it's messages of hate? Hate messages are acts of violence. <deleted> is going on in the States?

Right or wrong, the USA has always had the philosophy that ideas should not be controlled, only actions.

Have you seen the discussion regarding progress or otherwise of vilification laws in the US in the URL below. It also talks to differences between Australian law and US, but is interesting reading. I have posted this info as I believe has relevance to the topic

http://www.davidknol...r Australia.htm

Edited September 14, 2012 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

Interesting, but the problem is that from what I have seen of this film, there is little reason to ban it other than radical Muslims object to it. They object to anything that depicts the prophet Mohamed is any form and that is never going to be forbidden in countries with Western values. The film is silly and not very respectful towards Mohamed, but I did not see anything that could be construed as vilification or hate speech.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[GentlemanJim]

Interesting, but the problem is that from what I have seen of this film, there is little reason to ban it other than radical Muslims object to it. They object to anything that depicts the prophet Mohamed is any form and that is never going to be forbidden in countries with Western values. The film is silly and not very respectful towards Mohamed, but I did not see anything that could be construed as vilification or hate speech.

A good sensible argument. Now apply your same reasoning to your post 250.

[Ulysses G.]

Sorry, but Scott has put that topic off limits. I'm not going there.

[MaxYakov]

Quote simple1 (inner nest):

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.

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!

Maybe you're right. Maybe soldiers are dieing these days so that governments can limit freedom of speech (by your descriptions of hate-speech laws and penalties).

My view is that Ambassador Stevens and the other victims died because he was inadequately protected. Is there any evidence that the movie had anything to do the attack on the Benghazi consulate? It appears to me he was set up and the attack was premeditated and would have occurred, movie or no movie.

Some people won't get it until there are AK-47 rounds whizzing by, fired by some political or religious fanatic.

I am not sure where you are driving at with this one Max. What I am saying is that with Freedom of Speech, there comes a responsibility. Just because you may have a right to say something does not make it right. There are some on here that are saying anything goes when it coms to hate speech, stating for example that the USA is a free democracy where you can say what you want. The truth is far from that, you cannot (and should not) be allowed to do or say certain things. I gave examples of that in the UK and US.

We all seem to have got confused as to what Freedom of Speech actually is and over the years many whacko's seem to have diluted it's true meaning. Freedom of Speech is your right to question your elected Government and officials, it is your right to question and have them hold themselves accountable for the things they do in your name, It is your right to disagree, publicly if you wish with the Governments policies or initiatives. It is your right to have an opposing view and not face persecution for that. That is what soldiers die for to save so that we may enjoy the benefits of true Free Democracy.

Freedom of speech does not mean I have the right to cal you a **** ******* ****** (insert expletives or racial hate words of your choice), it is not ,as the Phelps have manipulated the meaning the right to say whatever you wish causing the gravest of offences. That is not what soldiers give their lives for.

My main point was that Freedom of Speech had nothing to do Ambassador's Stevens assassination, which is what this thread is about. By the latest news reports, however, his Libyan security men may have actually abandoned him to the attackers due their 'feelings' about that movie, but who knows for sure? He certainly needed a contingent of Marines willing to give their all to protect him.

Freedom of Speech is a complex issue, but the examples you give seem to me to be insipid. There are laws against slander and hate-speech and the , but I'm not an expert in this area ... but it must vary somewhat country to country. Then there is 'common sense' (maybe).

The real issue to me is do you let some people who believe in a supernatural being and an associated mortal and who can get very violent dictate to us their beliefs even when an author has not violated any laws in the originating country. Once they are successful at that, what other dictates do they have in mind? Where do we draw the line? Isn't the UK bowing to Muslim desires by the use of Sharia 'councils' (I think they avoided the use of 'court')?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Added: Let's reverse the situation (sort of). Suppose I detest the worship of supernatural beings and declare that any mention of the names of supernatural beings or belief in their very existence would result in violent attacks from me. Why? Because espousal of belief in supernatural beings hurt my 'feelings' (or some similar rationale)?

Edited September 14, 2012 by MaxYakov

[Mosha]

The west needs to stop worrying about these countries not living up to their ideals of democracy, and human rights. We need to develop technologies the get us away from dependency on oil. We would have had battery powered cars over 15 years ago if not for Bush and the oil companies.

[geriatrickid]

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!

Let's start with an absolute falsehood: You claim that the majority of the worlds media giants are either Israeli or Israeli American owned. They are not. Common sense would tell you that is not the case. China and India are the two most populous nations in the world. No Israeli or Israeli American ownership, or maybe one should write "jew" ownership, which is basically what you are saying in a veiled manner. Toss in Brazil and Indonesia and no ownership in those two massive population centers. Keep going around the world and you will find that the ownership you claim is just not true. It is not germane to any discussion to regurgitate disproven conspiracy allegations.

Most of the western media giants are publicly owned. That means that unions, government pension funds, mutual funds, private shareholders and a long list of people control the media. There is no Israeli or Israeli American majority. What's next? Are you going to claim that Sony is really not Japanese but others masquerading as Japanese, or that the Heasrt, Gannett, Murdoch families have all changed nationalities and dare I say, converted? Seriously,are you not embarrassed to post your comments when basic common sense says otherwise?

One thing I do know about this sordid event is that if was not for the mainstream media, the lie that the film was made by an Israeli would have grown legs and run around the world. I give thanks to the U.S. media for quickly investigating and for exposing the fraud. That didn't stop some people on this thread from making poorly disguised allegations that this was somehow an Israeli plot. If it had not been for 5th Estate, I believe there would have been all sorts of retaliatory attacks against some people for what is all intents and purposes a nasty attempt to blame others.

The savage attacks on the embassies is not caused by the film. Rather it is being used an excuse to foment the attacks. It is the same M.O. An Iman demands "justice" and they rally at the mosque against the alleged enemies and off they go. I doubt any of these protestors/murderers/attackers even watched the film.

Edited September 14, 2012 by geriatrickid

[geriatrickid]

The west needs to stop worrying about these countries not living up to their ideals of democracy, and human rights. We need to develop technologies the get us away from dependency on oil. We would have had battery powered cars over 15 years ago if not for Bush and the oil companies.

Please.

Former President Bush may be a few things, but don't blame him for that. We are all guilty.

[Ulysses G.]

The west needs to stop worrying about these countries not living up to their ideals of democracy, and human rights. We need to develop technologies the get us away from dependency on oil. We would have had battery powered cars over 15 years ago if not for Bush and the oil companies.

As fracking becomes safer and more developed, the West will not have to depend on the Middle East anyway.

[Mosha]

The west needs to stop worrying about these countries not living up to their ideals of democracy, and human rights. We need to develop technologies the get us away from dependency on oil. We would have had battery powered cars over 15 years ago if not for Bush and the oil companies.

Please.

Former President Bush may be a few things, but don't blame him for that. We are all guilty.

Californians were driving them in 1996. 0-60 in 3.6 secs. 100 mile on a single charge, enough for 90% of the population. Oil companies persuaded Bush to overturn the legislation in California as unconstitutional. The cars were either scrapped or made undriveable

[MaxYakov]

Millions died fighting Nazism and millions of civilians were slaughtered by the Nazis. About 140,000 Americans died in the European theatre and the Nazi party is legal in the US so long as it "peacefully" transmits it's messages of hate? Hate messages are acts of violence. <deleted> is going on in the States?

Right or wrong, the USA has always had the philosophy that ideas should not be controlled, only actions.

Except when the idea has been registered with the U.S. Patent Office, of course. Didn't Samsung just get zinged for a few 10⁹ USD for patent infringement?

[simple1]

If today's media reports are to be believed the movie was financed and produced by a Christian group in America in a deliberate attempt to cause unrest in the Islamic world. One of the group, Steve Klein, is an ex US military guy whose son was severely wounded in Iraq and appears to be very pleased with the outcome.

EDIT: With absolutely no regard to the consequences for westerners in the region. I agree with GentlemenJim that with this deliberate provocation, the authors should be held accountable, but looks to be impossible due to the US Constitution.

Edited September 14, 2012 by simple1

[GentlemanJim]

My main point was that Freedom of Speech had nothing to do Ambassador's Stevens assassination, which is what this thread is about. By the latest news reports, however, his Libyan security men may have actually abandoned him to the attackers due their 'feelings' about that movie, but who knows for sure? He certainly needed a contingent of Marines willing to give their all to protect him.

Freedom of Speech is a complex issue, but the examples you give seem to me to be insipid. There are laws against slander and hate-speech, but I'm not an expert in this area.

The real issue to me is do you let some people who believe in a supernatural being and an associated mortal and who can get very violent dictate to us their beliefs even when an author has not violated any laws in the originating country. Once they are successful at that, what other dictates do they have in mind? Where do we draw the line? Isn't the UK bowing to Muslim desires by the use of Sharia 'councils' (I think they avoided the use of 'court')?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Added: Let's reverse the situation. Suppose I detest the worship of a supernatural being and declare that any mention of the name of that being or belief in its very existence would result in violent attacks from me - because espousal of espousal of belief in supernatural beings hurt my 'feelings'?

My view over the Ambassadors death is that it was caused by zealots who got upset about a crappy, intentionally provocative movie. The Ambassador did need a contingent of Marines. They were in the Embassy, he was in a distant consulate. Why he chose to travel, as the boss without his cadre of US security is mystifying, but that is with hindsight, I guess he had his reasons.

I agree with you 100% on the rest of your post. You are preaching to the converted (perhaps not a choice phrase considering the subject matter). There is absolutely no way that the British Government should be allowing Sharia courts/law to exist in the UK. Why they do it I do not know. Denying the Muslims that right is not provocative it is simply applying the law of a land that they chose to live in. Does the same message apply to deliberate provocation? That's your choice. There is nothing legally wrong with publishing the movie, the point is that knowing the consequences we have to make a risk management decision as to whether it is wise or not. The resulting furore over the cartoons and the like suggests it is an unwise move. If your choice is then to publish and be damned then you bear a responsibility for your actions and in this case people have been murdered. I hope the Ambassadors death does not spark off a wave of massive violence and although I am an atheist, I pray - to the spirit of humanity that we get through Friday without anybody being hurt today as a result of religious extremism.

[GentlemanJim]

The west needs to stop worrying about these countries not living up to their ideals of democracy, and human rights. We need to develop technologies the get us away from dependency on oil. We would have had battery powered cars over 15 years ago if not for Bush and the oil companies.

Please.

Former President Bush may be a few things, but don't blame him for that. We are all guilty.

Californians were driving them in 1996. 0-60 in 3.6 secs. 100 mile on a single charge, enough for 90% of the population. Oil companies persuaded Bush to overturn the legislation in California as unconstitutional. The cars were either scrapped or made undriveable

Every day is a school day! I will have to read up on this now. I am fascinated to find out how the lobbyists declared electric cars unconstitutional.

[Sateev]

@ulysses g. Your post "You mean someone put a video making light of a religious figure on Youtube? Most rational people do not think that that is something to kill over and furthermore it is not America's responsibility"

In the US you cannot make internet posts threatening the President and not expect a reaction from law enforcement - there are limits on freedom of speech. .

No one threatened to kill anyone and if it were any other religion, no one would even care. Thankfully, the freedom to make fun of religious and political figures in not going to go away any time soon no matter what a bunch of nutty religious zealots have to say.

Are you being deliberately dull? NOBODY is saying ban free speech. EVERYBODY is saying free speech comes with responsibility. You may think it fun to make fun of other religions but when that fun results in the deaths of people, it doesn't matter if it is your right to have fun, the strong suggestion is, stop it. They may be religious retards, but if you KNOWINGLY incite them (just like the MillWall supporters) then there will be consequences, and if you are aware that those consequences will result in the harmful violence to others, then until you get all the religious retards locked up, you would also be retarded to provoke them. God this is hard work!!

It's hard work because your position is indefensible. Your fundamental flaw in reasoning, and that of the sycophants that keep 'liking' your posts, is the notion that the producers of the film are somehow responsible for the behavior of others. This is clearly nonsense. The very notion is a classical slippery slope, because it can be extended to blaming the victim in nearly every situation, i.e, "I HAD to rape her; she was wearing revealing clothes!"

The notable exceptions have to do with intent: shouting "Fire!" in a theater, threatening assassination, are both examples where the person acting, i.e., speaking, is demonstrating intent to harm. Ideas, while possibly unpalatable, do not cause direct harm, per se.

In simpler terms, which will probably be easier for you: appeasing a bully, or a threatening mob has guaranteed results: more bullying, and more threats. Abridging free speech is exactly what Bin Laden and his friends wanted: to take the (to them) abhorrent free society of the West, and turn it against itself, corrode it from within, and watch it fall. People who don't accept this outcome, and who have any strength of character, should not let this happen. We don't need another Neville Chamberlin, or his "Peace in our time".

On a personal note, I find your position beyond weak; it is cowardly.

[simple1]

@ulysses g. Your post "You mean someone put a video making light of a religious figure on Youtube? Most rational people do not think that that is something to kill over and furthermore it is not America's responsibility"

In the US you cannot make internet posts threatening the President and not expect a reaction from law enforcement - there are limits on freedom of speech. .

No one threatened to kill anyone and if it were any other religion, no one would even care. Thankfully, the freedom to make fun of religious and political figures in not going to go away any time soon no matter what a bunch of nutty religious zealots have to say.

Are you being deliberately dull? NOBODY is saying ban free speech. EVERYBODY is saying free speech comes with responsibility. You may think it fun to make fun of other religions but when that fun results in the deaths of people, it doesn't matter if it is your right to have fun, the strong suggestion is, stop it. They may be religious retards, but if you KNOWINGLY incite them (just like the MillWall supporters) then there will be consequences, and if you are aware that those consequences will result in the harmful violence to others, then until you get all the religious retards locked up, you would also be retarded to provoke them. God this is hard work!!

It's hard work because your position is indefensible. Your fundamental flaw in reasoning, and that of the sycophants that keep 'liking' your posts, is the notion that the producers of the film are somehow responsible for the behavior of others. This is clearly nonsense. The very notion is a classical slippery slope, because it can be extended to blaming the victim in nearly every situation, i.e, "I HAD to rape her; she was wearing revealing clothes!"

The notable exceptions have to do with intent: shouting "Fire!" in a theater, threatening assassination, are both examples where the person acting, i.e., speaking, is demonstrating intent to harm. Ideas, while possibly unpalatable, do not cause direct harm, per se.

In simpler terms, which will probably be easier for you: appeasing a bully, or a threatening mob has guaranteed results: more bullying, and more threats. Abridging free speech is exactly what Bin Laden and his friends wanted: to take the (to them) abhorrent free society of the West, and turn it against itself, corrode it from within, and watch it fall. People who don't accept this outcome, and who have any strength of character, should not let this happen. We don't need another Neville Chamberlin, or his "Peace in our time".

On a personal note, I find your position beyond weak; it is cowardly.

The organisers of the film have publicly admitted their "intent to harm" relations with Islamic countries and I understand from media reports at least one has requested protection from the FBI. It's OK to put others at risk, but not your own life, so who is the coward?

Edited September 14, 2012 by simple1

[MaxYakov]

My main point was that Freedom of Speech had nothing to do Ambassador's Stevens assassination, which is what this thread is about. By the latest news reports, however, his Libyan security men may have actually abandoned him to the attackers due their 'feelings' about that movie, but who knows for sure? He certainly needed a contingent of Marines willing to give their all to protect him.

Freedom of Speech is a complex issue, but the examples you give seem to me to be insipid. There are laws against slander and hate-speech, but I'm not an expert in this area.

The real issue to me is do you let some people who believe in a supernatural being and an associated mortal and who can get very violent dictate to us their beliefs even when an author has not violated any laws in the originating country. Once they are successful at that, what other dictates do they have in mind? Where do we draw the line? Isn't the UK bowing to Muslim desires by the use of Sharia 'councils' (I think they avoided the use of 'court')?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Added: Let's reverse the situation. Suppose I detest the worship of a supernatural being and declare that any mention of the name of that being or belief in its very existence would result in violent attacks from me - because espousal of espousal of belief in supernatural beings hurt my 'feelings'?

My view over the Ambassadors death is that it was caused by zealots who got upset about a crappy, intentionally provocative movie. The Ambassador did need a contingent of Marines. They were in the Embassy, he was in a distant consulate. Why he chose to travel, as the boss without his cadre of US security is mystifying, but that is with hindsight, I guess he had his reasons.

I agree with you 100% on the rest of your post. You are preaching to the converted (perhaps not a choice phrase considering the subject matter). There is absolutely no way that the British Government should be allowing Sharia courts/law to exist in the UK. Why they do it I do not know. Denying the Muslims that right is not provocative it is simply applying the law of a land that they chose to live in. Does the same message apply to deliberate provocation? That's your choice. There is nothing legally wrong with publishing the movie, the point is that knowing the consequences we have to make a risk management decision as to whether it is wise or not. The resulting furore over the cartoons and the like suggests it is an unwise move. If your choice is then to publish and be damned then you bear a responsibility for your actions and in this case people have been murdered. I hope the Ambassadors death does not spark off a wave of massive violence and although I am an atheist, I pray - to the spirit of humanity that we get through Friday without anybody being hurt today as a result of religious extremism.

Zealots! You mean Islamic terrorists that we have been at war with for over 10 years and effectively before that? Where have you been the last 20 years? It appears as though not only did Ambassador Stevens forget about this war, but so did the U.S. State department from recent reports that I've read - and on 9/11, no less.

I hate to say this, but It seems to me that Ambassador Stevens was ultimately responsible for his personal protection and safety and he should have taken appropriate measures. From what I read, Libya is still a well-armed relative anarchy and he certainly should have known that. Remember that female TV news reporter that was assaulted in Cairo during the protests? She was lucky she survived. It seems as though people who should know don't have a clue about these people.

I'm glad we agree on the FoS issue, at least.

Edited September 14, 2012 by MaxYakov

[GentlemanJim]

Are you being deliberately dull? NOBODY is saying ban free speech. EVERYBODY is saying free speech comes with responsibility. You may think it fun to make fun of other religions but when that fun results in the deaths of people, it doesn't matter if it is your right to have fun, the strong suggestion is, stop it. They may be religious retards, but if you KNOWINGLY incite them (just like the MillWall supporters) then there will be consequences, and if you are aware that those consequences will result in the harmful violence to others, then until you get all the religious retards locked up, you would also be retarded to provoke them. God this is hard work!!

It's hard work because your position is indefensible. Your fundamental flaw in reasoning, and that of the sycophants that keep 'liking' your posts, is the notion that the producers of the film are somehow responsible for the behavior of others. This is clearly nonsense. The very notion is a classical slippery slope, because it can be extended to blaming the victim in nearly every situation, i.e, "I HAD to rape her; she was wearing revealing clothes!"

The notable exceptions have to do with intent: shouting "Fire!" in a theater, threatening assassination, are both examples where the person acting, i.e., speaking, is demonstrating intent to harm. Ideas, while possibly unpalatable, do not cause direct harm, per se.

In simpler terms, which will probably be easier for you: appeasing a bully, or a threatening mob has guaranteed results: more bullying, and more threats. Abridging free speech is exactly what Bin Laden and his friends wanted: to take the (to them) abhorrent free society of the West, and turn it against itself, corrode it from within, and watch it fall. People who don't accept this outcome, and who have any strength of character, should not let this happen. We don't need another Neville Chamberlin, or his "Peace in our time".

On a personal note, I find your position beyond weak; it is cowardly.

How can the position be indefensible? How can stating that Freedom of Speech carries with it responsibility be indefensible?

Where does anyone say that the producers are responsible for the behaviour of others?

you say

The notable exceptions have to do with intent: shouting "Fire!" in a theater, threatening assassination, are both examples where the person acting, i.e., speaking, is demonstrating intent to harm. Ideas, while possibly unpalatable, do not cause direct harm, per se.

The producer of the film has already admitted that he had told Becile that there was going to be trouble if they made the movie. Demonstrating a knowledge of intent to harm?

Can you explain how my position can be cowardly. I believe that Free Speech comes with responsibility, it is as simple as that, is that cowardly?. Ironically looking at your lecture, I was exercising my right to Free Speech, which you believe should not be abridged, but you have not respected my right to that speech, you have merely retorted with personal attack and an attempt at humiliation towards myself and others, the sycophants! you actually called people that for ticking like on a post. Are they allowed a differing view to you without you labeling them sycophants?