Protesters attack US diplomatic compounds in Egypt, Libya

[dead0man]

That perfectly describes a couple of your friends I have on ignore for that very reason.

[Simfan34]

The important questions here are:

1) Where were Egyptian and Libyan security forces?

2) What action will be taken by the Libyan government to find the murderers of the US Ambassador?

1) Most reports say that the Libyan security forces tried to protect the embassy/consulate, but were unsuccessful in stopping the rioters.

2) The Libyan government isn't in the pay of these thugs, so they'll probably go to great lengths to find the killers.

Here's proof. From some of the same people Romney attacked by the way:

Touching stuff. Teared up a little. I like that first guy's handwriting though, how it clearly reflects his Arabic writing. It reminds me of Ethiopian protest signs, and how their English writing has serifation reminiscent of that in Ge'ez.

[Silent Hunter]

In my personal opinion, the people behind this film need to face a civil lawsuit (at least) for gross negligence manslaughter.

[Franzl]

In my personal opinion, the people behind this film need to face a civil lawsuit (at least) for gross negligence manslaughter.

So you'd effectively outlaw blasphemy because of the way some react to it on the other side of the world?

[Silent Hunter]

In my personal opinion, the people behind this film need to face a civil lawsuit (at least) for gross negligence manslaughter.

So you'd effectively outlaw blasphemy because of the way some react to it on the other side of the world?

This isn't "blasphemy" - it's a calculated attempt to cause maximum offence by people who should have known what would happen if they did this.

[Person Man]

In my personal opinion, the people behind this film need to face a civil lawsuit (at least) for gross negligence manslaughter.

So you'd effectively outlaw blasphemy because of the way some react to it on the other side of the world?

This isn't "blasphemy" - it's a calculated attempt to cause maximum offence by people who should have known what would happen if they did this.

But there is a certain level of freedom of speech that is afforded. Then again, the person who has alledgedly did this had his freedom of speech somewhat restricted and there is a little more culpability here to incite violence than even someone burning a flag to make a point. This is still probably free speech.

[Silent Hunter]

If this had been done in the UK, then the charge would be incitement to religious and racial hatred, no question.

[Franzl]

If this had been done in the UK, then the charge would be incitement to religious and racial hatred, no question.

Yes, but this wasn't done in the UK. The UK restricts speech a good deal more than most democracies.

[dead0man]

Indeed, they've jailed at least two people in the last year because of things said on the internet.  While they ain't the PRC or Thailand, they still suck.

[Silent Hunter]

Indeed, they've jailed at least two people in the last year because of things said on the internet.  While they ain't the PRC or Thailand, they still suck.

No, they just know that free speech is the right to express your opinions on issues, instead of punching people in the face with words.

[dead0man]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

[J. J.]

J.J., the thesis that you and that screwball Romney have put forth is insane.  Seriously, our diplomat is dead.  Give the stupid politics a rest.

Link, we said, rightly, IMO, how a number of people in the US disagree with the film.  We didn't take a hard stand against doing thinks like, oh, attacking our embassies.  The embassy in Yemen was them attacked.  Yes, Link, you might as well give it a rest, because the world has passed you by.

Your posts makes even less sense than usual.

Most people understand that we, the US, should be complaining about the attacks, first and foremost.  I'm sorry if you are not able of understanding that.

Your childish strawman aside Romney came out with a statement criticizing a message that was released by an unnamed embassy worker BEFORE the attacks.  Whatever revisionism you are attempting isn't going to work.  While the State Department and the president were trying to ascertain exactly what happened Romney was mass emailing people on 9/11 trying to score political points off the death of Americans.  The guy royally screwed up his chronology and some of the right wing robots went over the cliff with him.  End of story.

And, as you noted this was before the assault in Libya.  The first thing that the US Officially should say is that, in the US, we value free speech, even when most of us disagree with what is said. APOLOGIZING FOR FREE SPEECH is not what America is or should be about.

[Silent Hunter]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

There's unpopular and there is offensive.

[opebo]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

There's unpopular and there is offensive.

But LM, the really villainous can only be described accurately in 'offensive' terms, no?

[Franzl]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

There's unpopular and there is offensive.

I don't like giving government the right to make that distinction. Never know what might become "offensive ".

[Franzl]

Oh, and BTW: I think it's also quite bad that Germany has now banned the US pastor, Terry Joney, from entering the country.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

J.J., the thesis that you and that screwball Romney have put forth is insane.  Seriously, our diplomat is dead.  Give the stupid politics a rest.

Link, we said, rightly, IMO, how a number of people in the US disagree with the film.  We didn't take a hard stand against doing thinks like, oh, attacking our embassies.  The embassy in Yemen was them attacked.  Yes, Link, you might as well give it a rest, because the world has passed you by.

Your posts makes even less sense than usual.

Most people understand that we, the US, should be complaining about the attacks, first and foremost.  I'm sorry if you are not able of understanding that.

Your childish strawman aside Romney came out with a statement criticizing a message that was released by an unnamed embassy worker BEFORE the attacks.  Whatever revisionism you are attempting isn't going to work.  While the State Department and the president were trying to ascertain exactly what happened Romney was mass emailing people on 9/11 trying to score political points off the death of Americans.  The guy royally screwed up his chronology and some of the right wing robots went over the cliff with him.  End of story.

And, as you noted this was before the assault in Libya.  The first thing that the US Officially should say is that, in the US, we value free speech, even when most of us disagree with what is said. APOLOGIZING FOR FREE SPEECH is not what America is or should be about.

How can this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

in any sane person's mind be considered "apologizing for free speech?"

[Silent Hunter]

Oh, and BTW: I think it's also quite bad that Germany has now banned the US pastor, Terry Joney, from entering the country.

He's already banned from the UK.

[Silent Hunter]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

There's unpopular and there is offensive.

I don't like giving government the right to make that distinction. Never know what might become "offensive ".

They already do make that distinction. I can think of a number of laws in this matter - across Europe.

[Franzl]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

There's unpopular and there is offensive.

I don't like giving government the right to make that distinction. Never know what might become "offensive ".

They already do make that distinction. I can think of a number of laws in this matter - across Europe.

As does the US. There are a few limits to freedom of speech (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater...stuff like that).

But all in all, the US wins on this topic. There aren't many political topics where I feel that way, but we need to take freedom of speech more seriously in Europe.

[J. J.]

J.J., the thesis that you and that screwball Romney have put forth is insane.  Seriously, our diplomat is dead.  Give the stupid politics a rest.

Link, we said, rightly, IMO, how a number of people in the US disagree with the film.  We didn't take a hard stand against doing thinks like, oh, attacking our embassies.  The embassy in Yemen was them attacked.  Yes, Link, you might as well give it a rest, because the world has passed you by.

Your posts makes even less sense than usual.

Most people understand that we, the US, should be complaining about the attacks, first and foremost.  I'm sorry if you are not able of understanding that.

Your childish strawman aside Romney came out with a statement criticizing a message that was released by an unnamed embassy worker BEFORE the attacks.  Whatever revisionism you are attempting isn't going to work.  While the State Department and the president were trying to ascertain exactly what happened Romney was mass emailing people on 9/11 trying to score political points off the death of Americans.  The guy royally screwed up his chronology and some of the right wing robots went over the cliff with him.  End of story.

And, as you noted this was before the assault in Libya.  The first thing that the US Officially should say is that, in the US, we value free speech, even when most of us disagree with what is said. APOLOGIZING FOR FREE SPEECH is not what America is or should be about.

How can this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

in any sane person's mind be considered "apologizing for free speech?"

It is, and looking at the reaction from some European members, not all, I think that drives the point home.  Why not say, "Most people in the US (or the government of the US) disagrees with these depictions of the Prophet, but we respect the film maker's right to express them."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's exactly what they said, they just reversed the emphasis because they were trying (admittedly without much success) to forestall the threat of an angry mob, not sit in Philadelphia and pontificate about America.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

sit in Philadelphia and pontificate about America.

Oh that's good.

[J. J.]

That's exactly what they said, they just reversed the emphasis because they were trying (admittedly without much success) to forestall the threat of an angry mob, not sit in Philadelphia and pontificate about America.

The angry mob with laptops?    They posted it on Twitter and their website. 

The people in Philadelphia generally have sense that to think an angry mob has Wi Fi!

[Vosem]

No, the entire point of having freedom of speech is to protect unpopular words.

There's unpopular and there is offensive.

But LM, the really villainous can only be described accurately in 'offensive' terms, no?

Opebo has a point, though I'm sure our definitions of 'really villainous' differ.