# What US movie would trigger this event?



## Grenadier (Sep 11, 2012)

So far, no mention of which movie it was that triggered this rather...  angry... response.  

*Egyptians angry at film scale U.S. embassy walls*

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88A11N20120911?irpc=932



> CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S.  embassy on Tuesday, tore down the American flag and burned it during a  protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United  States that insulted Prophet Mohammad.
> In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag  with the words "There is no God but God, and Mohammad is his  messenger", a Reuters witness said.
> 
> Once the U.S. flag was hauled down, some protesters tore it up and  showed off pieces to television cameras. Others burned the remains  outside the fortress-like embassy building in central Cairo. But some  protesters objected to the flag burning.
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Sep 11, 2012)

Grenadier said:


> So far, no mention of which movie it was that triggered this rather... angry... response.
> 
> *Egyptians angry at film scale U.S. embassy walls*
> 
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88A11N20120911?irpc=932




I've tried finding it, it's an American produced short-film that was viewable on youtube, that depicts Muhammad as a fraud, shows him having sex and ordering massacres.

Many Muslims consider it pretty offensive to depict Muhammad at all, never mind in a way that insults him.






It's supposedly produced by US pastor Terry Jones nd co-produced by some Egyptian Copt expatriates. Egyptian protesters condemned what they said was the humiliation of the Prophet of Islam under the pretext of freedom of speech.


----------



## granfire (Sep 11, 2012)

Terry Jones... rings familiar....


----------



## elder999 (Sep 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> Terry Jones... rings familiar....



The Rev. Mr. Pastor Terry "Burn the Koran Day" Jones....


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 11, 2012)

It's not a polite thing to set out to insult someone's beliefs, I do agree but the reaction of the insulted goes to show just why it is that dogmatic religions are a dangerous thing - worse even than blind nationalism.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 11, 2012)

Lot of dumb*** to go around on this one.  You scale the walls of an embassy, which is the same as invading that country, to get make a statement about some knucklehead's attempt to insult your religion. That's pretty freaking stupid.  Also stupid is to make an movie about someone else's religion that you don't believe in to stir up crap. Are there no adults involved here?  Islamic fanatics and Christian fanatics, yay.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 11, 2012)

Should have been a film by the British Terry Jones....


----------



## arnisador (Sep 11, 2012)

elder999 said:


> The Rev. Mr. Pastor Terry "Burn the Koran Day" Jones....



Ugh.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 12, 2012)

Things got a whole load more serious and tragically it has cost American lives.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...a-killed-in-attack-on-Benghazi-consulate.html


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

What's next...comedians cant make a joke involving Islam? Artists cant create works depicting Mohammed without mid-east nations rioting? Cartoonists get death threats? This is what people mean when they say that the Islamic extremists "hate our freedoms".

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> What's next...comedians cant make a joke involving Islam? Artists cant create works depicting Mohammed without mid-east nations rioting? Cartoonists get death threats? This is what people mean when they say that the Islamic extremists "hate our freedoms".
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



My, aren't we intolerant of Islam. You must be one of those, whatchamacallits, oh, yeah, REASONABLE PEOPLE.
I especially like how the State Department apologized, and utterly failed to defend our embassies.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 12, 2012)

Niether party is in the right here.  Violence as a protest form against a dumba** movie is deplorable.  Making a movie directly instigating such a responce is just as deplorable.  Just because you have the right to do something, does not mean you should, especially when it knowingly puts American's lives in danger.  So congratulations to both the Muslim extremist in Lybia and Egypt, AND the extremist Christians/Jews who put together that trash movie.  You show the rest of the world just how idiotic humans can be and promoted hate so very well.  Most of the Muslims, Jews, and Christians I know believe thier religion is about peace and love.  Amazing how a few knuckleheads can reduce them to the complete opposite.


----------



## billc (Sep 12, 2012)

Sorry, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here.  Making of a youtube movie doesn't enter the same galaxy as the reaction on by the radical muslim killers.  Trying to compare the two is just...well...I'll leave that so the moderators won't get involved.  They killed 4 people and dragged them through the streets.  They attacked two embassies, and a couple more may be attacked in two more countries.  I get tired of the "she shouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to get attacked," mentality that comes out whenever something like this happens.  Making a you tube video is not in any way even close to what the response was and it shouldn't even rationally be discussed like that.  the party that made the movie aren't wrong here.  The people who killed 4 people and attacked two embassies are wrong here, end of story.  You don't kill people over a dumb movie.  Period.  Even saying they were dumb to have made this movie is going so far out to surrendering to these monsters that that way of thinking needs to stop.  These guys who incited the killing need to be found by our government and dealt with...with,or  more likely, without Libyan help.  This should be the last day they ever sleep without the fear of Delta force operators  kicking in their doors.  That is how this should be dealt with, not blaming the movie makers.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

http://bcove.me/ekntmm4o
Listen to what Romney said, and what the wholly owned Obama Press Corps asks him.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 12, 2012)

Latest news is that the Lybia attack was a planned operation, using the protest over the movie as cover.  This according to CNN.

Look, hate mongering is hate mongering and violence from either side due to the hate mongering is ignorant.  You don't get a pass to be free from the responsibilities of your actions because you are free to do them.  This movie was made in two hours for 2 million dollars. It does the very best it can to insult anyone who believes in Islam.  Why do you think they did that?  Why did they spend 2 million dollars to basically just insult Muslims?  

The makers of that "movie" are equally responsible as those idiots that used the movie to incite the violence.  This is exactly what those makers wanted to happen.   It was planned, orchestrated, and paid for all with that one goal.  That some Muslims were just as stupid to fall for it and do the violence does not excuse the movie makers.  Anyone thinking it does, well we'll refer back to your moderator statement


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 12, 2012)

look we can all go back and forth over the religous and free speach issues and such but what the F____ was going on with our security at the Embassy's we should have been killing these idiots like flys as they entered and if we are going to maintain US soil in these locations they need to be defended properly or we close them do we want to have hostages next?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 12, 2012)

Any official reaction to this over there yet, gentlemen?  I know what would happen if this were the C19th and it had been a British ambassador in the days of Empire but it's another world these days.  Even so, I cannot imagine that a stiff diplomatic note will be sufficient to deal with such an outrageous act for such little reason.

EDIT:  Dan, from what I read on the BBC, the embassy security forces did what they could but were overwhelmed, possibly because they didn't want to be responsible for a massacre.

Second edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19577913


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 12, 2012)

Go to this link or read the short explanation of who and what the film is.

Innocence of Muslims: The film that may have sparkeddeadly U.S. Embassy attacks

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/innocence-muslims-film-sparked-deadly-u-embassy-attacks-142118931.html?_esi=1
The English-language film, portions of which have been online since July,attracted attention in Egypt only over the past few days when someone posted asegment of the movie that had been dubbed into Arabic, according to the New York Times. Some Egyptian TVhosts began airing clips of the film over and over,portraying it as a Coptic Christian and American plot to denigrate the prophet.(Morris Sadek, a Coptic Christian from Egypt and critic of Islam who now livesin the United States, told AP he recently began promoting the two-hour film,which might also explain its rise out of obscurity.) The amateur-seeming"Innocence of Muslims" film shows the Prophet Muhammad as ahomosexual who endorses extramarital sex and pedophilia, along with other slursagainst Islam. (Many Muslims consider physical or visual representations ofMuhammad to be blasphemous.)
Though at first it was unclear whomade the movie, the Wall Street Journal tracked down and interviewed Israeli-American real estate developer SamBacile, who said he wrote, directed and produced the film. The52-year-old Bacile told the Journal that he made the film to portray Islam as ahateful religion:


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm not going to critisize security at this point.  In Lybia the attack came from outside the compound by rpg fire.  In Egypt, those climbing the walls were unarmed and for most people, no matter the circumstance, shooting unarmed people is hard to do...thankfully. If there was more to it than unwillingness to shoot unarmed people, then hopefully we'll learn that and security will be strengthened.  What we do NOT want happening is US security personal getting super stressed over this and creating massacres of peaceful protest outside thier gates in an effort to keep something from happening.  That would increase this nightmare of nation (and religious) relations.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I'm not going to critisize security at this point.  In Lybia the attack came from outside the compound by rpg fire.  In Egypt, those climbing the walls were unarmed and for most people, no matter the circumstance, shooting unarmed people is hard to do...thankfully. If there was more to it than unwillingness to shoot unarmed people, then hopefully we'll learn that and security will be strengthened.  What we do NOT want happening is US security personal getting super stressed over this and creating massacres of peaceful protest outside thier gates in an effort to keep something from happening.  That would increase this nightmare of nation (and religious) relations.



Peacfull outside the gate yes storming over the fence inside our teritory taking down the flag and raising thier own if they don't wish to be shot behave shoot them all.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 12, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Any official reaction to this over there yet, gentlemen?  I know what would happen if this were the C19th and it had been a British ambassador in the days of Empire but it's another world these days.  Even so, I cannot imagine that a stiff diplomatic note will be sufficient to deal with such an outrageous act for such little reason.
> 
> EDIT:  Dan, from what I read on the BBC, the embassy security forces did what they could but were overwhelmed, possibly because they didn't want to be responsible for a massacre.
> 
> Second edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19577913



We are sending in between 50 to 200 Marines right now and Drones are on the way they say for surveylance only but we know what our Drones do Bombs Away!!!


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Latest news is that the Lybia attack was a planned operation, using the protest over the movie as cover.  This according to CNN.
> 
> Look, hate mongering is hate mongering and violence from either side due to the hate mongering is ignorant.  You don't get a pass to be free from the responsibilities of your actions because you are free to do them.  This movie was made in two hours for 2 million dollars. It does the very best it can to insult anyone who believes in Islam.  Why do you think they did that?  Why did they spend 2 million dollars to basically just insult Muslims?
> 
> The makers of that "movie" are equally responsible as those idiots that used the movie to incite the violence.  This is exactly what those makers wanted to happen.   It was planned, orchestrated, and paid for all with that one goal.  That some Muslims were just as stupid to fall for it and do the violence does not excuse the movie makers.  Anyone thinking it does, well we'll refer back to your moderator statement



So what do you suggest? That we should censor free speech because it may offend??


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't know if there really is anything that can be done without infringing on our constitutional guarantees.  Even douchebags get those rights.  At the same time, knowingly promoting hate in order to instigate a violent reaction should have some sort of penalty to it.  People's lives are being lost because of this nonsense.  Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not free speach, even if the theatre is full of over reactionary idiots...maybe especially if you know the theatre is full of over reactionary idiots.  I honestly don't know what the answer is other than not letting someone who knowingly instigates violence off because the impending violence will be done by religious fanatics.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

Will artists who offend Christians get the same treatment?

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

Or only if Christians start resorting to violence?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

> knowingly promoting hate in order to instigate a violent reaction



So people should be held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES ACTIONS?


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So people should be held responsible for OTHER PEOPLES ACTIONS?



if they instigate it, yes.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 12, 2012)

If an artist did something that *knowingly* triggered violence from Christian extremist, then yes, that artist is just as responsible as those actually comitting the violence.  I think the thing that sticks in my craw is knowingly and purposefully putting others at risk needlessly.  There is a point where others' personal safety should come before your own right to spout hatred.  The movie makers have a complete right to believe any nonsense they want to, but do they have a right to put others at risk to try and prove a political point?  If it was just their hides in risk for it, I might feel differently.  It isn't just thier lives being effected though.

Let's go with a tota hypothetical situation.  You have a friend who gets violent when drunk.  If you rile him up against a fellow bar patron and that patron is injured, are you free from responsibility?  I mean you were just talking, practicing free speach.  However, at the same time, taking the history of your friend, you know what the likely outcome would be.  Certainly your friend must take responsibility for his actions, but how guilty would you be in the injury of the other bar patron?


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I don't know if there really is anything that can be done without infringing on our constitutional guarantees.  Even douchebags get those rights.  At the same time, knowingly promoting hate in order to instigate a violent reaction should have some sort of penalty to it.  People's lives are being lost because of this nonsense.  Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not free speach, even if the theatre is full of over reactionary idiots...maybe especially if you know the theatre is full of over reactionary idiots.  I honestly don't know what the answer is other than not letting someone who knowingly instigates violence off because the impending violence will be done by religious fanatics.



Yelling fire in a crowded theater amounting to people stampeeding and getting hurt or killed is actionable because of emediate intent to harm or cause civil unrest resulting injury. To write an opinion or piece of artwork that is used as an excuse by others to break civil or other laws is speach. Is it Moral? Well Bill Maher HBO it could be said could have violence done to him for the way he attacks organized religion why not? becuase the culture here and laws protect him. I do not think he could go today to any of the religous sites he was at in the Middle East when he mad Religulous? But I look forward to what he will say this Friday becuase when it comes to man's misstreatment of man he is usually right.

We should be thankfull we live were we live. I had freinds in the 80's retiring to Mexico to small villages to live and collect SSI and retirment don't know if that would be such a good idea today?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

So.. has anyone actually SEEN this movie? 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> So.. has anyone actually SEEN this movie?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Probably not.
A brother of a cousin of a friend who's wife is the nice to a guy I know from an internet forum said it was demeaning Islam....

It kid of reminds me of the incident with the school teacher who made her class read 'Nappy Hair' a _critically acclaimed_ children's book. Then the community got wind of it and people who were not even affected (as in no kids in the school) took umbrage.

Not to mention that this looks like a made for TV special: You need a diversion to attack something, so you instigate a little protest. 
And for heaven's sake...I don't think it is hard to do a little anti American protesting in the middle east. 
The fact that it started in Egypt and cause trouble in Libya ought to be suspicious.


----------



## Carol (Sep 12, 2012)

Interesting timing.  This week is Jackal Stone, the joint coalition exercises (yup, live fire) sponsored by SOCEUR.  

Lots of decision makers in one place.  I wonder what they are talking about?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

My guess is not. That usually is how these things go. 

 Ow in a more directed comment to WC_Lun: have YOU seen the movie? What is the name? In what way is this different than the Dutch cartoons depicting Mohammed a couple of years ago?

And since when should we come down on the guys excercising their free speech because people died as a result of their actions. That would have been the end of the civil rights movement for sure.

But even then, do you actually know what it is you are angry about? Because if you haven't seen the movie, frankly, you don't.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> if they instigate it, yes.



So exercise of 1st amendment speech needs to be restricted because someone else MAY do something violent? Something entirely legal should be restricted based on the possibility of what a third party may or may not do??

Wow...this country is in deeper trouble than I thought....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So exercise of 1st amendment speech needs to be restricted because someone else MAY do something violent? Something entirely legal should be restricted based on the possibility of a third party may or may not do??
> 
> Wow...this country is in deeper trouble than I thought....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



You are trying to give people a free for all card.
When you say things you know will inflame a certain populous you are no better than the people committing the act. 
It's no different when you aggravate the enemy or entice vulnerable people to do your dirty bidding. 

And it's no different from the people who I strongly suspect staged the protests to launch an attack.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> You are trying to give people a free for all card.
> When you say things you know will inflame a certain populous you are no better than the people committing the act.
> It's no different when you aggravate the enemy or entice vulnerable people to do your dirty bidding.
> 
> And it's no different from the people who I strongly suspect staged the protests to launch an attack.



So...no political cartoons if it offends Islam? No SNL skits if they may cause a riot in Cairo? How can you prove this was intentionally crafted to start a riot?

We don't limit our freedoms in this nation out of fear. Hell the KKK can still protest on the capitol steps. If African American citizens started rioting over it we should stop allowing it?

Its far far different....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> You are trying to give people a free for all card.
> When you say things you know will inflame a certain populous you are no better than the people committing the act.
> It's no different when you aggravate the enemy or entice vulnerable people to do your dirty bidding.
> 
> And it's no different from the people who I strongly suspect staged the protests to launch an attack.


This then, would be completely wrong?







> _*Piss Christ*_ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine.


Because that is pretty fing offensive if you ask me.


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So...no political cartoons if it offends Islam? No SNL skits if they may cause a riot in Cairo? How can you prove this was intentionally crafted to start a riot?
> 
> We don't limit our freedoms in this nation out of fear. Hell the KKK can still protest on the capitol steps. If African American citizens started rioting over it we should stop allowing it?
> 
> ...





Big Don said:


> This then, would be completely wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are missing the point completely.

Offending is one thing.

Instigating violent acts is another. 

The cartoon? Over the top, kind of like the Satanic Verses...if the radicals had not made a fuss over it, nobody would have ever paid attention to it. 

But making inflamatory material and promoting it where you know the manure will hit the fan...that crosses the line. 

My background is different. In Germany the lesson was costly that not all speech has to be protected. Some the people need to be protected from. 
Instigating riots is a punishable offense there.
Of course....to my knowledge nobody there has ever tried anything like the good pastor there...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

So much for the old saw of "I may not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it." Eh?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

Try to prove that this was some sort of instigating act...with that standard we may as well eliminate all religious or political speech. All you need is someone to commit violence and point the finger at something that offends them.

The difference between "Piss Christ" and this film? Christians don't typically assault embassies or send out hit squads to kill people who put Crucifixes in jars of urine.

It all reminds me of the "let the Wookie win" line from star wars.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 12, 2012)

These same nations have no issue with broadcasting this kind of stuff..

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_recycled.asp 



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> You are missing the point completely.
> 
> Offending is one thing.
> 
> ...



And this is different from the Satanic verses HOW?? That was purposefully inflammatory satire.

Now I will ask another pointed question. Have YOU seen the movie? 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

Tgace said:


> These same nations have no issue with broadcasting this kind of stuff..
> 
> http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_recycled.asp
> 
> ...




That's totally different because Jews aren't likely to riot. #seemslegit

(Before anyone gets angry, that was sarcasm. I agree with TGrace)
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

What a brilliant observation. The suggested coddling of Muslims is exactly like letting the wookie win.


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> And this is different from the Satanic verses HOW?? That was purposefully inflammatory satire.
> 
> Now I will ask another pointed question. Have YOU seen the movie?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



I tried to read the Satanic Verses...could never get past the first few paragraphs.
I don't think the man intended to spark bloody riots.

And no, I have not seen the movie.
Probably not a lot of people have.
And probably not even the people starting the riots. 
Thus my remark about 'Nappy Hair'.

The good preacher in his finite wisdom is playing into the hands of the other side. 
being stupid is not - in most cases - an offense. 
However, with his book burnings (and subsequent loss of life) and this little stunt (and subsequent loss of life) one really has to wonder. 

is the best way to fight a fire ant hill to step in it and do the twist?

As I see it, the man is sitting pretty (safe) in the US with little cause for fear, while he deliberately commits inflammatory acts. How high is his body count so far? Nearly twenty?

Do I condone or excuse the actions in any shape or form? I mean the ones that actually cause the deaths....
Hell no. Well over the top (and equally calculated IMHO) But at one point one person has to be a little smarter and realize that there is nothing to gain from it....

But I am not holding my breath....
The good pastor is protected under the 1st amendment - and I am sure the founding fathers did not intend such speech to be free...even though they lived in interesting times.....
And all his fallout is well outside any US jurisdiction. Too bad when you happen t be in the way.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 12, 2012)

How can it be that no one is even sure what this movie is yet?

No blame on the movie-makers--they may have been stupid jerks (though who knows?) but that doesn't excuse violence.

_Piss Christ_ is intended to provoke thought and discussion. Leaving aside whether it works and is truly 'art', the intention is not simply to offend but to force people to confront their beliefs in classic artist's style. But even if the movie is intended to insult and rile, you can't blame a movie for how people react to it.

Romney's attack on Obama's handling of this on the same day the deaths in Libya were announced is very disappointing. What happened to "Politics stops at the water's edge?"


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

Yeah, he really shouldn't have interrupted Obama while he was busy campaigning...
Yeah, because saying the disgraceful tweets by the Embassy was disgraceful was mean...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> I tried to read the Satanic Verses...could never get past the first few paragraphs.
> I don't think the man intended to spark bloody riots.
> 
> And no, I have not seen the movie.
> ...



Frankly, you having not seen the movie NOR read the Satanic Verses, your opinion is uninformed on both counts. Therefore, spurious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

For one, this pastor terry guy didn't make the movie. It was an Israeli citizen living in California.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rainesr (Sep 12, 2012)

granfire said:


> You are trying to give people a free for all card.
> When you say things you know will inflame a certain populous you are no better than the people committing the act.
> It's no different when you aggravate the enemy or entice vulnerable people to do your dirty bidding.
> 
> And it's no different from the people who I strongly suspect staged the protests to launch an attack.



People choose to act last I knew. People in Egypt are no less capable of choosing not to riot and kill people over a movie or Danish cartoons then we are in the U.S. They chose to act violently. 

That movie caused no immediate danger or perceived danger (like yelling fire in an auditorium full of people). The movie was not an elaborate manipulation. The movie certainly did not entice anyone to attack a building full of people that had no knowledge of it.

I don't buy that Muslims or Egyptians or Syrians are so vulnerable that they can't choose something other than violence if their religion or prophet is criticized or insulted.

~Rob


----------



## Big Don (Sep 12, 2012)

rainesr said:


> I don't buy that Muslims or Egyptians or Syrians are so vulnerable that they can't choose something other than violence if their religion or prophet is criticized or insulted.
> 
> ~Rob



Wouldn't saying they are be racist? Oh, silly me, not when the Obama Media says it...


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Frankly, you having not seen the movie NOR read the Satanic Verses, your opinion is uninformed on both counts. Therefore, spurious.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Well, Like I said, I tried to read the book...to see what the hubub was about.
I came to the conclusion that the book would have been one among many published that year and most of the world would have never heard about the author....

Same with the movie.

It is true, people choose to act.
It holds true for both sides of the equation though.

Hiding behind the framework of freedom does not make it any less despicable when a person through careful choice of words incites others to do his or her her dirty work.

Like I said, my background is different, where I come from such things are highly frowned upon and still people can speak their minds.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 12, 2012)

So people know, the movie is called "The Innocence of Muslims"
The guy who made is named Sam Bacile.

All you will find is the trailer. But the trailer is what sparked the riots in the first place.  

Having seen it, I think it is puerile. I think the movie was a waste of $5 million. But I estimate that it was intended to show Islam as hateful (easy enough to do),  not to incite riots proving its point. 

Here is a thought: before doing an opinion on something,  research it. This applies to everyone that has commented so far. How is it that I am the first to look up the actual movie and the actual guy who made it?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 12, 2012)

More info, it was not an Israeli in California.  That was an alter ego of a man convicted of bank fraud in 2010, who in actuality directed and produced the film.  The name Sam Bacile actually seems to be an alternate id of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Interesting enough, as part of his sentence Mr Nakoula was banned from using the internet or computers.  However, the Youtube account owned by "Sam Bacile" had activity as short as two days ago. The film was originally called 'Desert Warriors" when it was shot.  Much of the offending dialogue was in fact dubbed in.  This according to multiple actors that played in the movie who are now considering lawsuites over the deception of the film.  A man named Steven Klien who was supposedly intimately involved in the film making said he and Mr Nakoula had discussed some of the Muslim extremist reactions to the film, so it was something they were not at all unaware of.  As Klien said, ""We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen."

The only role that Pastor Terry had was the he was contacted about promoting the film and had tentively agreed.

Riling up people with film is nothing new.  Remember "The Last Temptation of Christ"?  Evengecals were having seizures over how it potrayed Christ as <shock> a man.  Those people picketed and did not create violence.  If anything, it created more sells for the movie.  However, Mel Gibson did not produce this movie, dub an etirely new script onto the actors, in order to promote hatred he *knew* would end in violence.  There was a lot of back lash though in a country where free speech and freedom of religious choice are valued.  

The Egyptians, which some are extremist were told by both Al Queda and interestingly enough, "Sam Bacile" through the internet that the film was gonna be shown all over the US as part of the 9/11 commemorations.  In AQ's version of explanation that soon Americans would hold this view of the Prophet Muhammad if something was not done immediately. So in this instance, whoever was playing Sam Brice (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) at the time was in effect furthering AQ goals.

As far as Mr Romney's statement, he made it before knowing all the facts...or even many of the facts.  The statement he so gleefully blamed on Obama taking the side of the attackers was released by the Cairo embassy 6 hours *before* the attack.  It basically said that we do respect Islam as we do all religions and we are sorry if our free speech will cause hurt in the Islamic community.  Can you really blame them since they were sitting in the middle of a powder keg, while Mr Nakoula was throwing matches?  So before the facts of the crisis were known, Mr Romney made the decision to attack Mr Obama politically on a statement released by the Cairo embassy in an effort to cool things down.  If this is how he will make his decisions on foriegn policy, I would be afraid if he becomes elected.  Making sure you have the facts before going off half cocked seems to me to be a presidential prerequisite.  Also, instead of admitting he's screwed up, he double downed on the statement later.  He either has a terrible foriegn policy staff, or he just doesn't want to listen to them.  If he is having this much trouble running a campaign, how is he possibly going to be an effective president.

In other only partially related knews, the leader of russia, Mt Putin had this to say about Mr Romney and his views on Russia;
_Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romneys characterization of Moscow as the United States number one geopolitical foe has actually helped Russia._
_The Russian leader said Romneys comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATOs plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia._
_Im grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems, Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti._
_The most important thing for us is that even if he doesnt win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective, he said, speaking after a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, according to Interfax news agency.
_
Seems Mitt's vast expertise in foriegn affairs is paying off already....for the Russian Federation.


----------



## granfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> So people know, the movie is called "The Innocence of Muslims"
> The guy who made is named Sam Bacile.
> 
> All you will find is the trailer. But the trailer is what sparked the riots in the first place.
> ...



You are probably the first one to bother looking at the trailer, too.

30 years ago I suppose it was a shock to hear that the Ayatollah had put basically a bounty on an author's head because they didn't like the book.

These days?
Not so much.

It's called human nature.
The middle east is at unrest. Has been for a while. Toss a match and watch it go boom.

However, there is that certain element that has taken the liberty of using religion as excuse to behave badly.
It's no different from brother Phelps from Kansas. 

Alas, they are out of our jurisdiction. The Middle Eastern ones. And their governments love it, it draws attention away from what they are doing.

When you do something that causes a predictable outcome...an you really be surprised?

And seriously, who really made the movie (I would probably be inclined to say it was a waste of time and effort, same as I did not find the book enticing) is relatively unimportant. It does not seem that it was made to make friends in the middle east.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 13, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> For one, this pastor terry guy didn't make the movie. It was an Israeli citizen living in California.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



I'm afraid it wasn't an Israeli who made it, he doesn't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

Libyans died alongside the American Ambassador.
Yes for reasons I'm not going into I have seen the film and the subtitles. I have also read Salman Rushdie.

It's fine having free speech but do you know how to use it responsibly?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2012)

The Muslims want us to have a blasphemy restriction on the 1st Amendment. What remains to be seen is if the fearful in our nation will cave into the idea.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2012)

Big Don said:


> What a brilliant observation. The suggested coddling of Muslims is exactly like letting the wookie win.



Yup...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 13, 2012)

Wow. This movie is a bucket full of buckets full of specialness.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 13, 2012)

Tgace said:


> The Muslims want us to have a blasphemy restriction on the 1st Amendment. What remains to be seen is if the fearful in our nation will cave into the idea.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




Who are 'The Muslims'? Are they the same as 'The Blacks, The Jews'?  perhaps you'd better mark all the Muslims in America with a yellow crescent sewn on their clothes, though to be sure they don't really cause any trouble you would be better rounding them up and putting them in camps don't you think? 

''The Muslims want to take our freedom, our jobs, our women'' and so it starts............ I mean it's not as though we've done anything to them like invade countries, arm the militias, interfered with their governments etc etc is it. We've been perfectly peaceable and sociable. 

Look back to how things were settled after the First World War and you will see we are reaping what we sowed then. 

I'm sure anyday now someone will start mouthing that the only dead Muslim is a dead one and you will be off on a witchhunt, neer mind what Muslims actually think. You would penalise the whole Muslim community in their various forms just because of a few radicals yet you allow that 'religious' family to rant about dead American soldiers being good, you can't have free speech for one and not the other, the majority of Christians don't believe as that family does and the majority of Muslims don't believe as their extremists do but don't let that stop you blaming 'the Muslims' will you?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 13, 2012)

The film is at best idiotic and shows a rather gross lack knowledge as it applies to history. It was made to inflame at a time it could inflame the most which was incredibly bad timing if you happen to be a US soldier on the ground in a Middle Eastern country or a US diplomat in those same countries.

It shows a rather high level of intolerance and racism 

Now was anyone currently defending this movie defending The Passions of Christ with as much fervor?


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 13, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> More info, it was not an Israeli in California.  That was an alter ego of a man convicted of bank fraud in 2010, who in actuality directed and produced the film.  The name Sam Bacile actually seems to be an alternate id of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Interesting enough, as part of his sentence Mr Nakoula was banned from using the internet or computers.  However, the Youtube account owned by "Sam Bacile" had activity as short as two days ago. The film was originally called 'Desert Warriors" when it was shot.  Much of the offending dialogue was in fact dubbed in.  This according to multiple actors that played in the movie who are now considering lawsuites over the deception of the film.  A man named Steven Klien who was supposedly intimately involved in the film making said he and Mr Nakoula had discussed some of the Muslim extremist reactions to the film, so it was something they were not at all unaware of.  As Klien said, ""We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen."
> 
> The only role that Pastor Terry had was the he was contacted about promoting the film and had tentively agreed.
> 
> ...



Romney's conduct not just in this case but seems to be prevelant in all reactions to situations are now even being questioned by people with in his own party? Worse is some key states those who are fundamental Christians who do not want to vote for Obama are faced with holding thier nose to vote for a Mormon who thier biggotted pasters tell them is a non Christian?? 

Getting back to the idiot that made the film the crew now says they are all in fear for thier lives it cost about $5million to produce and the Feds are revisiting his fraud charges considering putting the guy in Jail.

As for live coverage in Egypt I watch last night and this morning and sad to say thier security police are keeping them back but it ranges from about 50 of the neighborhood boys who have nothing better to do than heh lets go down and be on camera to maybe a few hundred that I don't think woudl be there if not for the media?? However if not for the media the security police just might let them get away with alot more? 

AQ is obviously behind this in retrobution for us killing thier #2 guy but I have mixed emotions about our funds going to any of these countries yes I know we have to stay engaged and all but if not for oil would we give a crap??


----------



## crushing (Sep 13, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Lot of dumb*** to go around on this one. You scale the walls of an embassy, which is the same as invading that country, to get make a statement about some knucklehead's attempt to insult your religion. That's pretty freaking stupid. Also stupid is to make an movie about someone else's religion that you don't believe in to stir up crap. Are there no adults involved here? Islamic fanatics and Christian fanatics, yay.



I must admit, this movie is what first came to mind.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 13, 2012)

Tgace said:


> The Muslims want us to have a blasphemy restriction on the 1st Amendment. What remains to be seen is if the fearful in our nation will cave into the idea.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



This is not only not well thought out, it uses a generality to paint all Muslims, and it is fact free.  Let's review what happened, just so facts can be part of the picture instead of hatred for Muslims or a political point;

Egypt - protestors attacked the American embassy and tore down the flag.  They were convinced by AQ and the man who made this racist and hateful film, that it would be showing all across America as part of our 911 commemorations.  There were no injuries of staff personel. Egyptian security forces have stepped up thier presence and kept a similiar incident from happening last night.  The Egyptian leader has apologized and expressed condolonces for Lybia.

Yemen - pretty much a sister act of Egypt, though Yemen security forces were much faster to act and may have wounded some of the protesters and perhaps killing one, perhaps disuading them from further actions tonight.

Lybia - there was a small peaceful protest outside the US safe house.  However, about 10pm local time, trucks of men with guns and RPGs attacked the safe house.  They battled Lybian and American security forces for many hours.  In the fighting and consequntial burning of the safe house, four Americans were killed and ten Lybian security force members were either wounded or killed.  This was a coordinated attack.  Shortly after dawn the Lybian leader expressed his condolences and said Lybia would help in any way needed to hunt down the attackers.  Around mid-day another, larger protest was in the streets, this time supporting America and expressing regret for the violence.  You see in Lybia, we are very well liked, especially in Benghazi.

All across the Muslim world people are expressing condolonces for the loss of life and the attacked properties.  They are also expressing disgust with the movie.  That seems to be on par with most Americans reactions.  So do most Americans want to change the first ammendment?  I didn't think so.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2012)

There is a common denominator in all of these mass demonstration displays of violence...of course its not ALL Muslims. Maybe not even the majority. But denying the religious influence in these events is burying your head. 

There is a far larger element of people using the Islamic faith as reason to commit mass murder and violence AT THIS TIME...than other faiths. And for some reason more of us are suggesting "letting the Wookie win" out of fear.

Even if that film WAS slated to be shown nation wide....so what? 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 13, 2012)

If you've read any of my post you know I do not think that violence of any sort is an appropriate reaction.  Blaming Islam for what is becomming clear was a political gambit by AQ and excusing this movie in its role of making things easier for America's enemies does not seem the smartest route either.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 13, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> If you've read any of my post you know I do not think that violence of any sort is an appropriate reaction.  Blaming Islam for what is becomming clear was a political gambit by AQ and excusing this movie in its role of making things easier for America's enemies does not seem the smartest route either.



*al-Qaeda* translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled *al-Qaida* and sometimes *al-Qa'ida*) is a global militant Islamist organization... So, don't call them Muslims...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 13, 2012)

Xue... who exactly is defending the movie? 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Xue... who exactly is defending the movie?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Not I...like "Piss Christ" it was intended to offend. I do defend the right to make it though. Freedom of speech/expression trumps the right to "not be offended". Which is no "right" at all.

I no more "like" the content of this film than I like what the KKK spouts on the capitol lawn. What I don't want is the government passing laws preventing either of them from doing what they do. That path leads to nothing good.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 13, 2012)

S 240.08 Inciting to riot. A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm. Inciting to riot is a class A misdemeanor.


In my state "inciting to riot" is a person urging people to burn down an embassy. As in saying "LETS BURN DOWN AN EMBASSY!!" Yeaaahhhhh!!

Incitement to riot is NOT a person posting a youtube video that offended a bunch of people enough for THEM to decide on their own to riot, and burn down an embassy building. That's entirely on them......

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 13, 2012)

AQ no more represents main stream Islam than the KKK do main stream Christians.

Are there any laws in your area against taking an action that you know will result in violence and harm to a third party?  Once again, free speech is the ability to say anything you want without government telling you that you cannot.  Free speech is NOT the ability to say anything you want without suffering repurcussions of that speech.  You still have to take responsibility for your actions, even if that action was speech.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 14, 2012)

There is simply no damned excuse to invade the United States - and I do believe that an invasion of a U.S. Embassy is the same as invading its country - over a movie. This is inexcusable. We cannot limit our free speech rights because someone gets their nose out of joint. I'm never thrilled at blatant insult to religious figureheads no matter how much I disagree with or abhor them ... but one price of freedom is tolerance.

Suggestions on what to do?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (Sep 14, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> There is simply no damned excuse to invade the United States - and I do believe that an invasion of a U.S. Embassy is the same as invading its country - over a movie. This is inexcusable. We cannot limit our free speech rights because someone gets their nose out of joint. I'm never thrilled at blatant insult to religious figureheads no matter how much I disagree with or abhor them ... but one price of freedom is tolerance.
> 
> Suggestions on what to do?
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2




Again, there is a difference between speaking your mind and choosing what you say carefully enough to cause a violent reaction. 
Especially when it does not take much imagination to foresee the reaction.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> AQ no more represents main stream Islam than the KKK do main stream Christians.
> 
> Are there any laws in your area against taking an action that you know will result in violence and harm to a third party?  Once again, free speech is the ability to say anything you want without government telling you that you cannot.  Free speech is NOT the ability to say anything you want without suffering repurcussions of that speech.  You still have to take responsibility for your actions, even if that action was speech.



Really? Show me some examples of constitutional case law detailing how this sort of situation (someone offended by speech commits violence/crime) is not constitutionally protected.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> Again, there is a difference between speaking your mind and choosing what you say carefully enough to cause a violent reaction.
> Especially when it does not take much imagination to foresee the reaction.



So its not what you say that deserves constitutional protection....its HOW you say it.

Got it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 14, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Really? Show me some examples of constitutional case law detailing how this sort of situation (someone offended by speech commits violence/crime) is not constitutionally protected.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Admittedly I may be missing something here, but are you implying that if someone is offended by speech commits violence/crime is protected under the constitution?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 14, 2012)

shesulsa said:


> There is simply no damned excuse to invade the United States - and I do believe that an invasion of a U.S. Embassy is the same as invading its country - over a movie. This is inexcusable. We cannot limit our free speech rights because someone gets their nose out of joint. I'm never thrilled at blatant insult to religious figureheads no matter how much I disagree with or abhor them ... but one price of freedom is tolerance.
> 
> Suggestions on what to do?
> 
> Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


Here is the thing, other countries, particularly in the Middle East, don't care one bit about our Constitution any more than we care about Islamic Law. I don't think the film justifies an attack on our embassy and the killing of our ambassador but looking at this form the POV of the US constitution when the offense occurred on foreign soil and expecting those indigenous to that country follow and or even understand or care to understand our Constitution for that matter is just looking for a reason to justify getting angry.

While were on freedom of speech we may also want to remember the other parts of the first amendment as well; Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom to assemble, Freedom to petition the government


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 14, 2012)

I do not defend people who commit violence on others when they feel their beliefs have been insulted.  It's never acceptable.

It is also not acceptable (although a legal expression of free speech) to incite people to violence in order to demonstrate how violent they are.

Islamic extremists killing people = bad.
Terry Jones and ilk inciting violence = bad.

The first is illegal, the second is legal (in the US).

I don't like either one.  And I'm not going to be painted into the "Oh, so you must love Islamic terrorism, right?" corner by playing that stupid-*** game where we pretend that TJ and company's behavior is perfectly innocent and not designed to incite any kind of reaction.  That crap makes me sick.

The fact is, we humans have a long history of 'proving' that another group is evil by intentionally doing something we hope will cause them to react in the way we want them to.  We shout insults, paint slogans, march through city streets, and generally do all we can to incite others to react badly.  Yes, when they do react badly, they are still responsible for their illegal actions.  However, there is no goodness in those who intentionally cause such actions.

I remember a fat kid on the playground when I was growing up who used to get tormented constantly about his weight.  We all did it - I did it too.  He eventually flew into a rage and commenced to whupping *** on a bunch of his tormentors; I was lucky I was not in his path that day.  He threw the first (and as far as I know) the only punches; decked about three kids and chased off a dozen more.  Was he responsible for his actions?  Yes.  His violent reaction was provoked, but still not allowed by school rules.  He got suspended for three days.  The kids who provoked him did not, but we all got a 'talking to' by school officials about bullying.

This is no different.  We want to provoke someone into doing something we hope they will do; so we push and push and push until they do it, and they we stand back and say *"SEE HOW THEY ARE?"*  Yes, we see.  We see what cowards people like Terry Jones and company truly are.  If they want to prove something, let them burn their Korans and show their movies in, say, Pakistan.  That way, when they get the reaction they are after, they are the ones who get to suffer the consequences instead of innocent people.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 14, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not defend people who commit violence on others when they feel their beliefs have been insulted.  It's never acceptable.
> 
> It is also not acceptable (although a legal expression of free speech) to incite people to violence in order to demonstrate how violent they are.
> 
> ...



Tried to rep you but couldn't so I will say it here

DAMN that is a good post :asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 14, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Tried to rep you but couldn't so I will say it here
> 
> DAMN that is a good post :asian:




I second that!


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Admittedly I may be missing something here, but are you implying that if someone is offended by speech commits violence/crime is protected under the constitution?



No...I'm implying that there is no 1st amendment exception for "offending someone". And that there is no case law implying that my speech makes me legally liable for another persons individual decision half the world away.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 14, 2012)

Tgace said:


> No...I'm implying that there is no 1st amendment exception for "offending someone". And that there is no case law implying that my speech makes me legally liable for another persons individual decision half the world away.



There is a world of difference between 'legally liable' and 'personally responsible', IMHO.  Just because a person cannot be held to account for what they have done, it doesn't mean they did a good thing.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> Probably not.
> A brother of a cousin of a friend who's wife is the nice to a guy I know from an internet forum said it was demeaning Islam....
> 
> It kid of reminds me of the incident with the school teacher who made her class read 'Nappy Hair' a _critically acclaimed_ children's book. Then the community got wind of it and people who were not even affected (as in no kids in the school) took umbrage.
> ...



Wow here is a link enjoy??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=Px1WAI_-5cE&NR=1

I think what is bad and helps support the myth to the fanatics that our government paid for or supports this or America in general is look at the advertising that is being promoted by Youtube? Youtube is making advertising dollars from promoting this?? 

Anybody else pick up on this I mean major production companies and others promoting thier stuff around this??


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 14, 2012)

This is bizarre and getting worse.






http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-...e-was-deceived-had-no-idea-it-was-about-islam



> The story of the Muhammed movie which sparked deadly protests in Libya and Egypt gets weirder. The actors who appeared in it had no idea they were starring in anti-Islam propaganda which depicts Muhammed as a child molester and thug. They were deceived by the film's director, believing they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.
> 
> Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.
> The script she was given was titled simply Desert Warriors.
> ...



The story is bizarre; and if this is the movie, it's horribly cheap and badly done.  The overdubbing is obvious, like bad photoshops.  The whole thing is worse that most high-school video productions I've seen.  What the hell?


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 14, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Here is the thing, other countries, particularly in the Middle East, don't care one bit about our Constitution any more than we care about Islamic Law. I don't think the film justifies an attack on our embassy and the killing of our ambassador but looking at this form the POV of the US constitution when the offense occurred on foreign soil and expecting those indigenous to that country follow and or even understand or care to understand our Constitution for that matter is just looking for a reason to justify getting angry.
> 
> While were on freedom of speech we may also want to remember the other parts of the first amendment as well; Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom to assemble, Freedom to petition the government



The killing had nothing to do with the film it was a 9/11 announced atack in response to our killing AQ #2 and #3 guy they told us they were going to do it from a place that we knew about just outside Benghazi an AQ nest for years the atack was organized military attack before and with out any demonstrations.  This is clearly politions here and maybe military allowing the ambassador to be murdered knowingly


----------



## granfire (Sep 14, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> The killing had nothing to do with the film it was a 9/11 announced atack in response to our killing AQ #2 and #3 guy they told us they were going to do it from a place that we knew about just outside Benghazi an AQ nest for years the atack was organized military attack before and with out any demonstrations.  This is clearly politions here and maybe military allowing the ambassador to be murdered knowingly



The movie surely did not hurt the effort though. Getting some patsies on the street, unwittingly act as human shields...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> The movie surely did not hurt the effort though. Getting some patsies on the street, unwittingly act as human shields...



It gets even weirder.  Yes, even weirder!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/nakoula-cooperation-756920



> Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch
> L.A. man began cooperating with prosecutors after 2009 fraud bust
> SEPTEMBER 14--In remarks stressing that the U.S. government had &#8220;absolutely nothing to do with&#8221; the anti-Islam film that has touched off violence in the Middle East, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday sought to quash Arab concerns that the &#8220;disgusting and reprehensible&#8221; movie was somehow produced or condoned by American officials.
> 
> ...


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 14, 2012)

granfire said:


> The movie surely did not hurt the effort though. Getting some patsies on the street, unwittingly act as human shields...



Point is not that Libya was a planned military action with no help at all from demonstrators they were never there. Just used as a PR thing and built up in other locations to hide that. The question is who in our government was responsible for sacrificing our Ambassador to serve thier purposes? 

I hate Romney and all he stands for but I would cross over right now and vote for him if he woudl kill a whole bunch of people that need it and tell the entire Middle East to just kiss my big brown Bahookie


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 14, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Point is not that Libya was a planned military action with no help at all from demonstrators they were never there. Just used as a PR thing and built up in other locations to hide that. The question is who in our government was responsible for sacrificing our Ambassador to serve thier purposes?
> 
> I hate Romney and all he stands for but I would cross over right now and vote for him if he woudl kill a whole bunch of people that need it and tell the entire Middle East to just kiss my big brown Bahookie



Pretty barbaric take, considering we have plenty of allies in Libya and the middle east.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There is a world of difference between 'legally liable' and 'personally responsible', IMHO.  Just because a person cannot be held to account for what they have done, it doesn't mean they did a good thing.



Of course there is...that's not my point.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 14, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Pretty barbaric take, considering we have plenty of allies in Libya and the middle east.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Yes it is and those supposed allies also knew the dangers and have looked the other way and harbored the AQ individuals and camps for years now while we send them our money. So how do we choose between sacrificing good people or being barbaric we withdraw completely stop buying thier oil stop giving them money who cares what they make or do any real and present danger to our soil or people we just use technology to handle that and produce energy jobs here rebuild our infrastructure.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 14, 2012)

The movie's actors are now claiming they were misled about it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 14, 2012)

arnisador said:


> The movie's actors are now claiming they were misled about it.



Maybe they can come out of hidding that way


----------



## Big Don (Sep 14, 2012)

Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked  YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site's  terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not  authorized to comment.
So happy to see Obama's respect for the First Amendment.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2012)

Swiped from a friends FB post;



> I do not condone legal punishment. However, I will freely confess that I am likely to feel very little sympathy for any hardships that befall him as the result of his actions. I view it similarly to burning an American flag in front of a half-dozen Marines. Do you have the right to do it? Yes. Do I believe that the Marines should be held accountable for any actions they may take in response? Yes. Will I have personal sympathy for you when you end up in the hospital? Not really, no. We all own the consequences for our actions.



His opinion pretty much encapsulates my own on this issue.....


----------



## arnisador (Sep 14, 2012)

Big Don said:


> So happy to see Obama's respect for the First Amendment.



Things are literally on fire over there...where the 1st Amendment doesn't apply. If it violates YouTube's rules, so be it. This is a scripted show. Whether they take it down or not, Obama cab say to the Muslims "I tried" which helps their leaders quell the riots.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 14, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Things are literally on fire over there...where the 1st Amendment doesn't apply. If it violates YouTube's rules, so be it. This is a scripted show. Whether they take it down or not, Obama cab say to the Muslims "I tried" which helps their leaders quell the riots.


Yeah, because the leader of the FREE WORLD, embracing and encouraging oppression is a great idea...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 14, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Yes it is and those supposed allies also knew the dangers and have looked the other way and harbored the AQ individuals and camps for years now while we send them our money. So how do we choose between sacrificing good people or being barbaric we withdraw completely stop buying thier oil stop giving them money who cares what they make or do any real and present danger to our soil or people we just use technology to handle that and produce energy jobs here rebuild our infrastructure.



Wow. You've clearly researched this in depth, and convinced me both that you are writing from logic and research rather than emotion, but convinced me entirely that my position on this is wrong. Good job.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Sep 14, 2012)

You do know that we buy relatively little oil from the mid-east don't you?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 15, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Wow. You've clearly researched this in depth, and convinced me both that you are writing from logic and research rather than emotion, but convinced me entirely that my position on this is wrong. Good job.
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


 uh don't care


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 15, 2012)

Tgace said:


> You do know that we buy relatively little oil from the mid-east don't you?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2




I would not call 22% from the Gulf and add another 20% from Africa which is also in the same turmoil related to religion and AQ interests small by any means and that total of 42% if goes to **** drives up all other prices including the western oil which while in goes in our pockets it raises all prices of everything across the board.

Here is a picture for you


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 15, 2012)

Okay, first off, the Lybian government and its security forces had NOTHING to do with this attack.  In fact, 10 Lybian security forces were killed or wounded defending that safe house. I can understand the anger here, but place it were it belongs.

Something to keep in mind here is the societal differences.  Until recently, most of the countries where these protest are taking place were under totaltarian governments that controlled information and media access for everyone, comepletely.  If something came out the government didn't approve of, it was immediately quashed with the "offender" often getting a not so pleasant trip to jail.  The people in these countries do not understand free speech, much less that there is a negative side to it.  They cannot understand that while the US government and most of the citizenry find something dispicable, we are pretty powerless to stop it.  They believe that if it has been released it therefore must be approved and even condoned by the US government.  That does not justify violence, but it might explain why so many are protesting (though relatively few compared to overall populations). Then add the extremist egging everything on. For us, we don't understand how anyone could protest us as a country, when our government had nothing to do with the film and actually condemn it. Most of the protest have not been violent, and that is a good thing.  That's part of a democracy, remember?  You get to voice your displeasure, even if it is misplaced.  However, those steping it up to violence need to be held responsible for that and in my opinion, harshly.


----------



## billc (Sep 15, 2012)

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the new killing bin laden movie should be stopped as well...

This movie not only had obama administration approval, they recieved actual help from the White House in getting the information on the actual mission...soooo...if they reacted badly to this little video, thinking the U.S. government had a hand in it, what will they do with a movie actually sanctioned by the obama administration?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/15/Obama-Admin-Must-Stop-Killing-Bin-Laden-Film



> *Now that the White House and State Department have made clear that they believe movies can create the terrorists who create the terrorism, it's time for them to get ahead of this problem. And one thing the White House can do immediately is to pressure Sony to stop the release of director Kathryn Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty," which celebrates the killing of Osama bin Laden.*
> 
> I'm only saying this because, you know,  the White House and the media told me movies inflame and cause terrorism.
> Think about it: If the poorly produced and laughably bad trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" results in chaos, murder, and the burning of foreign outposts all throughout the Middle East, how much rioting and mayhem is a big-budgeted, slickly produced, Oscar-bait  blockbuster *celebrating the death of the leader of al-Qaeda going to cause?*
> ...



This wookie will pull your arms off...


----------



## arnisador (Sep 15, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, because the leader of the FREE WORLD, embracing and encouraging oppression is a great idea...



I don't see how you get that. He says that mocking people's religious beliefs is bad but that killing people over it is unacceptable. He's hoping the leaders of these countries can stop rioters from storming our embassies. Who is being oppressed here?


----------



## billc (Sep 15, 2012)

> Whether they take it down or not, Obama cab say to the Muslims "I tried" which helps their leaders quell the riots.



Hmmm...will obama ask Kathryn Bigelow to not release "Zero Dark Thirty," the movie that the White House helped create about the killing of bin laden?  What will he say to the leaders of these muslim countries, since many, if not most of the protestors were yelling pro bin laden chants?  I mean, if a 14 minute trailer, released in July, about a movie that hasn't been released yet has caused all this trouble, what will obama say to these leaders since he gave approval for cooperation between his administration and the makers of this movie.  He actually has a hand in this movie as opposed to no participation at all with the youtube trailer.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 15, 2012)

I gotta say bill, you impress me how you can turn even something like this into an anti-Obama rant.  How good are you?  If you don't mind, could you turn the statement, "The sky is blue," into an anti-Obama rant?  I just want to see how far you can really take it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 15, 2012)

I've tried that route, WC - there is no reasoning or deflecting with BillC on matters of politics.  It is pointless to expend the effort and it best to just post corrections when opinions become too far off the path that they might serve to actively mislead.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2012)

Or, you can just ridicule his posts. I'm sure Rayleigh Scattering is the product of Republicanism, after all....:lfao:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2012)

And here we go....fer God's sake people USE THE IGNORE POSTER FEATURE if you cant refrain from commenting on the poster vs the content.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 15, 2012)

I concur.

All I am advising is that people do not waste their intellectual capital trying to change something that cannot be changed.

[yt]ZKbZMIP4XUE[/yt]

Read or do not read, respond or do not respond - the end result is the same.  Better to just leave things be.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2012)

Tgace said:


> And here we go....fer God's sake people USE THE IGNORE POSTER FEATURE if you cant refrain from commenting on the poster vs the content.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




Oh, yes, because that's sooooo much more effective than simply letting those posts stand......


----------



## Aiki Lee (Sep 15, 2012)

Good points from a lot of posters. I certainly hope the governments in these nations assist us in capturing those responsible. If there is opposition I would not be opposed to a declaration of war, and I do not say that lightly. If it was the maniacle action of some fringe groups, then they alone should be held acountable. If their governments have a hand in it, then they must be held accountable too.

As far as this video goes, the film maker has every right to make it and should be protected by U.S. law. I do think he knew this would provoke violence and riots, but I doubt he expected it to go this far. He is partially to blame, but like I said above, I think he has a right to say it.

Tgace, while I agree completely that his right to freedom of speech should be protected, I do think that if this person were to say these kinds of comments  in front of a crowd of extremists, I would step aside. We should staunchly defend our liberties, but we should also have some common sense about it.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 15, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Oh, yes, because that's sooooo much more effective than simply letting those posts stand......



And making petty comments about Billi instead of refuting his post accomplishes what again??

And why not just "let them stand"? That's just a silly "last word" strategy. Most of the responses amount to shots at the poster and meaningless emoticons anyway. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2012)

Tgace said:


> And making petty comments about Billi instead of refuting his post accomplishes what again??




Refuting those posts accomplishes nothing-the person who originates them has proven to be factually challeneged, and not only accepts no refutation, but proves to be a continuous fountain of glurge that supports his viewpoint, the internet equivalent of standing on a soapbox, fingers in ears, chanting "_*La, la, la, la-I can't hear you!*_ over, and over, and over again.

So much better to ridicule, sometimes:


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 16, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I gotta say bill, you impress me how you can turn even something like this into an anti-Obama rant.  How good are you?  If you don't mind, could you turn the statement, "The sky is blue," into an anti-Obama rant?  I just want to see how far you can really take it.



I find it hard not to believe Bill is not paid full time to post here and other sites to promote the GOP anti Obma propaganda its never discussion but just a volume of repeating talking heads lying to support anti minority and corporate dogma


----------



## billc (Sep 16, 2012)

Hmmm...the White House goes with the idea that this 14 minute trailer caused the problem.  They then go to google and "ask" them to look at wether the trailer meets the terms of agreement with google.  They blame the four deaths and all these attacks on the trailer, and yet, they have a hand in a movie made specifically about the killing of bin laden.  Yet, that won't be another problem, going by their criteria, in these same countries when this movie comes out.  

The title of this thread is...What US movie would trigger this event?  I think that according to the rational from the Admin. on the trailer, the killing bin laden film meets the criteria...don't you.



> They believe that if it has been released it therefore must be approved and even condoned by the US government. That does not justify violence, but it might explain why so many are protesting (though relatively few compared to overall populations).



In the case of  the killing bin laden movie, they would be right about it being approved and condoned by the U.S. government.  The initial release date of the movie was timed to come out just before the election, which they only changed when people complained about it.

And these cries from the protestors...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tho...bama-in-tunisia-obama-obama-we-are-all-osama/



> The Middle East Media Research Institute is publicizing video of thousands of Tunisian Salafis (hardline Islamists) rallying beneath the flag of al-Qaeda and shouting in unison, &#8220;Obama!  Obama!  We are all Osama!&#8221;&#8220;Let us all cry &#8216;Allah Akbar&#8217; together!&#8221; a speaker cries to the roaring crowd, &#8220;so that Obama the ape can hear us!  All together now!&#8221;​



Yeah, the killing bin laden movie won't be another false reason for the radicals to create another outrage in the Islamic countries...

Master Dan, they don't have to pay me...I do this for free...

If people blame this trailer maker for the violence and riots...



> As far as this video goes, the film maker has every right to make it and should be protected by U.S. law. I do think he knew this would provoke violence and riots, but I doubt he expected it to go this far. He is partially to blame, but like I said above, I think he has a right to say it.



Will the people here also say the same thing about Kathryn Bigelow and President obama when that film comes out...?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 16, 2012)

1st off, Osama bin Laden was not the Prophet-as I posted upthread, for many Muslims it's insulting and subject to _fatwa_ to portray Muhammad in a portrait-even a respectful one, never mind a cartoon, or in a movie which clearly was meant to defame and insult him. This is reason enough for many-especially the ignorant-to riot. Just how many of those rioters, in countries where electricity-never mind interenet access-is limited-do you actually think got to see the trailer or the movie rfor themselves, rather than being told about it and incited by imams who did? In the case of Libya, we have the one "Arab spring" country where a successful armed revolution has taken place, so far-supported by us, and by terrorist elements-it's very likely that some of those revolutionaries still would have a few RPGs laying around in the living room and kitchen. More to the point, those terrorist elements are looking for any excuse to sever the relationship between their country's (Libya, Egypt) fledgling governments and the U.S., and the people who made this "film" deliberately gave it to them. The movie was meant to incite-not educate (You, Billy, would not have given it any kind of good review!) and meant to incite one portion of the population, and one only. Why? Why, to forment just the sort of activity we're seeing now-in order to light the Middle East aflame, bring about Armageddon, and usher in the Kingdom of Christ.....(insert rolling on the floor cross-eyed with a straitjacket Smiley here :lfao: )

As for a movie about the killing of bin Laden, it's far more likely that those who support and believe in his cause will see it as a glorification of his "martyrdom," and will watch it avidly.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 16, 2012)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/anti-us-protesters-london?cat=uk&type=article 



> Nazreen Nawaz, a spokeswoman for the group, explained why the group had chosen to gather outside the US embassy even when the film had no connection to the US government and had been condemned by it.
> 
> She said: "This was a movie that was produced, promoted and allowed to be promoted within the US. It comes within a context and an environment. You constantly have attacks against Islamic beliefs by politicians, whether it's in the US or elsewhere in the west."
> 
> She had few details about what the group would like the US government to do about the film and its makers, beyond "have it taken off air, of course".



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Sep 16, 2012)

Tgace said:


> http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/anti-us-protesters-london?cat=uk&type=article
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



It's not like we don't have our share of undereducated fools in this country....


----------



## elder999 (Sep 16, 2012)

Tgace said:


> http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/16/anti-us-protesters-london?cat=uk&type=article
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




And, politically,*all* of the people, in *all* of these countries, come from regimes where such a film could not be produced without government support or consent-it's impossible for them to believe otherwise, in our case-the concept fo "freedom of speech," simply does not, and has never, existed for them.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> And, politically,*all* of the people, in *all* of these countries, come from regimes where such a film could not be produced without government support or consent-it's impossible for them to believe otherwise, in our case-the concept fo "freedom of speech," simply does not, and has never, existed for them.



I don't know...some of these protesters, like the ones in London, seem to be educated enough to grasp that the USA has Constitutional protections for individual speech. I don't believe that everybody in all of these crowds is ignorant of our 1st Amendment.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I don't know...some of these protesters, like the ones in London, seem to be educated enough to grasp that the USA has Constitutional protections for individual speech. I don't believe that everybody in all of these crowds is ignorant of our 1st Amendment.



And in London, they are exercising _their_ right to _peaceful_ assembly and free speech, by protesting something they don't approve of-they are neither committing acts of violence against our embassy, nor are they calling for laws against "blasphemy" :lol:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 17, 2012)

elder999 said:


> And in London, they are exercising _their_ right to _peaceful_ assembly and free speech, by protesting something they don't approve of-they are neither committing acts of violence against our embassy, nor are they calling for laws against "blasphemy" :lol:



Not saying I have an issue with the protest per se....but am questioning the underlying philosophy behind them. They apparently want something....and that something seems to be a desire to have our gvt censor an individual based on what they see as offensive religious speech. 

While their protests mean little in terms of US lawmaking, what I do find disturbing is the number of Americans that seem willing to alter our Constiutional rights simply because the Wookie is raging somewhere overseas.

If there is no room for discussion on the topic of protest, 1st Amendment speech and religion here than I guess I may as well start blaming Obama for something. That always seems to garner responses... 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2012)

Tgace said:


> While their protests mean little in terms of US lawmaking, what I do find disturbing is the number of Americans that seem willing to alter our Constiutional rights simply because the Wookie is raging somewhere overseas.



Where?



Tgace said:


> If there is no room for discussion on the topic of protest, 1st Amendment speech and religion here than I guess I may as well start blaming Obama for something. That always seems to garner responses...
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




Plenty of room for discussion-'m just not about to panic over what clearly inflammable people do when someone has deliberately inflamed them.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 17, 2012)

Also keep in mind, they really do not know what free speach really is and they don't give a fig about our constitution.  They see what they believe is the US government attacking thier religion, and then the extremist fan those flames.  It has been said on this board that even US citizens don't care about the rest of the world, but will support US policy abroad, even if it goes against how we would treat people in our country.  Why should someone in say Egypt feel any different?  Why would they give a damn about America and its interest when many of them are convinced that we have warred and killed fellow Muslims for no real reason.  If you were a person living in the Middle East who have these beliefs would you really care if American embassies were getting protest and that 4 Americans died? We have done ourselves no favors in our policies we have used in that region of the world for decades.


----------



## crushing (Sep 17, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...the White House goes with the idea that this 14 minute trailer caused the problem.




Is the White House going with that?  Hasn't it been determined that the attacks were too well coordinated to have been a sudden grassroots reaction to the movie trailer, and that the trailer may have been used as a distraction or a method to generate some support?


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 18, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Also keep in mind, they really do not know what free speach really is and they don't give a fig about our constitution.  They see what they believe is the US government attacking thier religion, and then the extremist fan those flames.  It has been said on this board that even US citizens don't care about the rest of the world, but will support US policy abroad, even if it goes against how we would treat people in our country.  Why should someone in say Egypt feel any different?  Why would they give a damn about America and its interest when many of them are convinced that we have warred and killed fellow Muslims for no real reason.  If you were a person living in the Middle East who have these beliefs would you really care if American embassies were getting protest and that 4 Americans died? We have done ourselves no favors in our policies we have used in that region of the world for decades.



People like to forget that our foreign policy over the last 100 years has for the sake of profit and the interests of corporations toppled governments and supported despots who abused thier people for decades either for strategic military bases or to secure raw materials such as sugar, rubber, minerals or oil to name a few. While I support Israel having the right to exist the issue of Palistine not having a country is unfare. However in the context of being concurred people they should have fostered a belief to lives as one and trade, employement living conditions would have been as if a suburb of Israel instead of educating thier young in philosophies of hate and never ending gorilla warfare against an occuping enemy? Right or wrong they would just have a better life.

If you review our own textbooks from school in the 60's 70's much of what I am talking about was taught in US history but anytime you bring up our own facts the blind righ God and Guns calls you alot of things including Obama's Gang a new term from Romney


----------



## billc (Sep 18, 2012)

Here is the White House position on the cause of the "protests,"...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/16/rice-benghazi-attack-was-spontaneous-libya-no-it-wasnt/



> UN Ambassador Susan Rice insisted on





> _Fox News Sunday_  that the attack on the consulate on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 was a  spontaneous demonstration that just &#8220;spun out of control.&#8221;  Rice also doubled down on the administration&#8217;s claim that the violence is all about the video:





> WALLACE:  This week, there have been anti-American protests in two  dozen countries across the Islamic world.Tthe White House says it has  nothing to do with the president&#8217;s policies. Let&#8217;s watch.
> 
> JAY CARNEY:  This is not a case of protests directed at the United  States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that  is offensive.
> WALLACE: You don&#8217;t really believe that?
> AMB. RICE: Chris, absolutely I believe that. Because, in fact, it is  the case. We had the evolution of the Arab Spring over the last many  months but what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the  Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many  people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse  for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified. But in fact  there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted  with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively  responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and  this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. But there is no  question what we have seen in the past with things like Satanic Verses  and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad there have been such things that  have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause.



Jay Carney is, of course, the White House spokesman...

And Ambassador Rice to Jake Tapper, white house correspondent...



> Rice told Jake Tapper on ABC&#8217;s _This Week_ that the US response was not impotent, and again insisted that the attacks were spontaneous:
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;re not impotent,were not even less popular  to challenge that assessment&#8221; said Rice. &#8221; What happened this week in  Cairo, in Benghazi and many other parts of the region was a result, a  direct result, of a heinous and offensive video that was widely  disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we  have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.&#8221; &#8230;
> &#8220;Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have  at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous &#8211;  not a premeditated &#8211; response to what had transpired in Cairo,&#8221; Rice  told me this morning on &#8220;This Week.&#8221; &#8230;


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 18, 2012)

Bill didn't see you on the board anywhere this morningworried you were sick? But I see by your last post here you were busy doingyour anti Obama research. Tell me your position is that Obama has caused theviolent protests and such?

What about the GOP supported right wing bloggers who knowingly spread therumors that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration wasbehind installing the Muslim Brother Hood in power in Egypt that caused Egyptiansto protest and attack her car when she was there for meetings? Are you not personallyresponsible for taking part in that since you constantly post and give creditto those same people who lie and misrepresent the facts to attack a sittingpresident and his administration.
Are you not as bad as those looking at the death of an Ambassador and Americansas a political opportunity to gain votes? I just heard that Romney earned threePinocchios today but I think for your hard work and sheervolume of postings deserve to be the Grand Master of Pinocchio I will besending your certificate in the mail today awarded by the GOP board members Goofy,Daffy Duck, Yosemite Sam, Wile E. Coyote, Sylvester and Porky Pig OH! I meanNewt Gingrich suitable for framing. 

There are some on here that think you should just be ignored? It is true thatnothing can ever be said to change your position but I appreciate those whoagree that if a lie is repeated enough times in concept it becomes a form ofreality and then becomes the new truth. So it warrants at least a response tostand for truth but will any of our discussions on this forum change a singlevote? I think not? 

Romney is getting a lot of flak right now for negative comments of what hethinks all Obama supporters are the 47% but he brings up the point others havebeen saying that everyone has made up their mind on both sides all that is leftis the undecided. I see no middle ground or compromise this is not an electionbut war there can only be a winner and looser and whoever loses will feel theyhave been occupied by an aggressor and wage gorilla war? 

By the way the Supper Pacs are launching a movie Wednesday by Citizens Unitedthat is anti-Obama. Democrats if we follow Bills logic we should riot andprotest the Blasphemy of the Pacs and GOP insulting our leader.

THERE IS ONE PRESIDENT AND HIS NAME IS OBAMA


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 18, 2012)

Once upon a time there was a caricature of those on the right of the right being fat cat, elitists, money bags, whose only concern was continuing to make money for them and thier friends, to hell with everyone else.  It wasn't really fair at all.  Many Republicans do care about other things than gaming the system for profit.  I know Republicans that are decent, fair minded, thoughtful, people.  However, Romney is more and more making that caricature a reality, doing a diservice to a lot of Republicans in the process.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 18, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Once upon a time there was a caricature of those on the right of the right being fat cat, elitists, money bags, whose only concern was continuing to make money for them and thier friends, to hell with everyone else.  It wasn't really fair at all.  Many Republicans do care about other things than gaming the system for profit.  I know Republicans that are decent, fair minded, thoughtful, people.  However, Romney is more and more making that caricature a reality, doing a diservice to a lot of Republicans in the process.


 They are still there but for some reason the extreme right, tea party and corporate special interest have taken over the party. Class war and diversion to anything but truth or real issues cosume the total debate. I see no middle ground just November comming


----------



## Aiki Lee (Sep 18, 2012)

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2012)

crushing said:


> Is the White House going with that? Hasn't it been determined that the attacks were too well coordinated to have been a sudden grassroots reaction to the movie trailer, and that the trailer may have been used as a distraction or a method to generate some support?



It seems the the USA was warned three days before the attack that there was going to be one according to Libyan security officials. An alert was issued as well by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security but wasn't made public. The Libyans are also saying ( on CNN among other places) that the US diplomats had been warned of the deteriorating security situation. The UK embassy had already been shut. It seems the US security officials had decided it was safe  though despite attacks on other diplomatic places and on the Red Cross that it was safe for the US ambassador to travel during the anniversary of 9/11. 
The Libyans have also said that about 50 people have been arrested in connection with the attack.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 19, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It seems the the USA was warned three days before the attack that there was going to be one according to Libyan security officials. An alert was issued as well by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security but wasn't made public. The Libyans are also saying ( on CNN among other places) that the US diplomats had been warned of the deteriorating security situation. The UK embassy had already been shut. It seems the US security officials had decided it was safe  though despite attacks on other diplomatic places and on the Red Cross that it was safe for the US ambassador to travel during the anniversary of 9/11.
> The Libyans have also said that about 50 people have been arrested in connection with the attack.



I stated from the begining the background of the Ambassador from the Iraq war to present both he and the CIA knew everything there was no reason for him to be in harms way without full Marine support? Someone needs to loose thier job even go to jail over this just like Fast and Furious. No excuse what is worse hundreds of our boys are being maimed and killed by Afghan police.

Today I listend to a father who's son called repeatedly saying the Afghan police had more authority than they did threatened him everyday saying we do not want you here go home. Our Marines were not allowed to stay armed to protect themselves an Afghan officer walked in with a AK47 and put it to his chest while he was in shorts lifting weights and killed him. The father had call officials pleading to move his boy out but nothing and they still will not repond.

The parents never wanted him to join but he wanted to serve his country but after getting there he said they are hateful savages he could not sleep since they bunked one story above the Afghan trainees. We need to bring our troups home close our embassies or give them the tools to defend themselves. 

either Obama is accountable for all this or someone in the millitary a group hates him so much they are doing this for political reasons??? One of them should pay!!!


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 20, 2012)

They should pay!  They should pay!  Easy there cowboy.  The whole mess is being investigated, with I might add Lybian support.  Marines do not guard most embassies, private security does.  Chris Stephens and his security team are included in any threat apraisals from the State Dept.  So it isn't exactly like they were oblivious to the various risk, especially knowing the same complex had an IUD exploded on its wall two weeks earlier.  Let the investigators do thier job, then start calling for people's heads.  Blaming OBama or anyone in the military is wwwaaayyy too premature.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 23, 2012)

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adists-base-revenge-death-U-S-ambassador.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57518017/libyans-storm-militia-in-backlash-of-attack-on-us/




[h=1]Libyans storm militia in backlash of attack on US[/h]






 Libyan civilians celebrate the raiding of Ansar al-Shariah Brigades compound, after hundreds of Libyans, Libyan Military, and Police raided the Brigades base, in Benghazi, Libya, Friday, Sept. 21, 2012. (AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon)


_Updated 9:47 PM ET_
(CBS/AP) BENGHAZI, Libya - Hundreds of protesters angry over last week's killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya stormed the compound of the Islamic extremist militia suspected in the attack, evicting militiamen and setting fire to their building Friday.
In an unprecedented show of public anger at Libya's rampant militias, the crowd overwhelmed the compound of the Ansar al-Shariah Brigade in the center of the eastern city of Benghazi.
Ansar al-Shariah fighters initially fired in the air to disperse the crowd, but eventually abandoned the site with their weapons and vehicles after it was overrun by waves of protesters shouting "No to militias."


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 26, 2012)

Oh and the Libyan president said they consider America a strong friend who helped them out in a time of nee, and that this was a targeted terrorist attack and it had nothing to do with that stupid movie. A terrorist attack on 9/11... who would have guessed?


----------

