General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNot liking an offensive movie is not an excuse to riot and kill people.
Why do these folks in Libya and Egypt think the US government has anything to do with an Israeli guy's offensive low-budget film?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cali
(114,904 posts)I saw the trailer, did you?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)civilized people don't riot and kill because they were offended by a movie.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)Except for the OP, the AGREEMENT. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)out of control? No way. Movies are just not that important. If it really is that offensive (and some who have seen it say it is but I have not seen it and will not watch it so others will have to decide), then YouTube should just shut it down. YouTube has no obligation to respect the free speech rights of people. It is a private organization, not the government.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I really think that's quite condescending, in many ways; you manage to display an apparent total lack of awareness of the fact that we're talking about what is in many ways a disctinctly non-Western, non-secular, non-"first world" premodern society, with extreme poverty, high rates of illiteracy, poor education, and fundamentalist religiosity. I put it to you: what result do you think something equally offensive with Christianity as the subject would have had in seventeeth century England? Spain? America? And "offensive" and "blasphemous" are not the same thing, to a believer. Whether you happen to believe yourself is irrelevant (I don't, personally); the fact remains that it's something people who DO believe will take much more seriously.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Human rights are universal.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)human societies have vastly different cultures. You don't have to like it, but you're either blind or stupid if you reject it out of hand. Telling a believer not to perceive blasphemy as something worthy of death is not going to fly. You're talking about people who inhabit a completely different consensus reality.
And NB that cultural relativism and moral relativism are NOT THE SAME THING, so please stop acting as though they are, thanks.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)same thing. We're talking about, essentially, a premodern, non-industrialised, poor, uneducated society. Your expecting such a society to have evolved Western, generally, and American, specifically, ideas on freedom of speech and expression is rather touching but shockingly naive.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Swear to god, that's the exact mentality you're having to deal with, there.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)After all, they are a "premodern, non-industrialised, poor, uneducated society" and simply can't control themselves when a woman shows up. Sorry, but your excuse making is flat out disgusting.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Nobody's saying the ambassador somehow "deserved" what happened to him. Your comparison doesn't really hold up, on that principle.
A closer example is, say, Uganda. I'm sure you're aware of legislation they're pushing through in that nation that would institute the death penalty for committing a homosexual act, correct? if not, i suppose you are now. Of course the men pushing this law will bear the bulk of hte responsibility for the deaths it will cause (and IS causing, actually - apparently Ugandan homophobes are proactve)
But what about the US congregations funding the initiative? What about the ministers who are telling the Ugandans that what they're doing is right, moral, godly?
it's not about trying to assign blame to the victim - the victim is clearly free from any blame, in the case of the ambassador, and in both your examples and mine.
It's about delivering an appropriate portion of blame to the ringleaders who are inciting what's going on.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But if you ARE over there, you'd need to take their culture into consideration, no?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)It saddens me how quickly people can adjust their logic to fit their desires.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)we should just let them be?
get the red out
(13,461 posts)There is NO WAY to justify killing someone because you don't like a movie, or to justify what happened to that poor girl.
No justification for outright MURDER. NONE. Murder is uncivilized. They didn't even go after the guy that made the film, so long as you were American, in their eyes, you should die. I'd bet they would have killed an American Muslim just as quikly to satisy their UNCIVILIZED blood lust.
I think we should have the freedom of speech to call things as they actually are and not make excuses for people who work very hard at making this world a horrible place, no matter where they are or who they are.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I thought Human rights were a social contract - ie. cultural relativism - not a universal truth dictated by God.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)died as a direct result of economic sanctions maintained by the U.S. on Iraq during the 90s? The U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Albright, subsequently declared the deaths of those children 'worth it.'
So I'm wondering just how deep your commitment to universal human rights runs. IOW, the phrase 'human rights,' like ('terrorism') is itself a culturally relativist term. So you are deploying cultural relativist rhetoric while decrying cultural relativism. No sin in that, but the paradox is, imo, worth some reflection.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Since such sanctions invariably harm the people without harming the regime. as Saddam demonstrated very well.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That's arrogance to assume that all cultures should think as yours - and react as you do to any given situation.
No, there's not a Black/White metric here. This is much more complicated than can be covered by just saying "human rights"
Yes, they rioted. They rioted for reasons you don't agree with, and don't understand - yes, there are reasons that people become enraged. This does not mean they are justified.
The riots after the Rodney King verdict weren't about "some guy who got stopped by the police." It was about a long standing issue that the people of South Central had with law enforcement and justice being denied. NO - I don't agree with it, but it was not surprising, given the CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fred Phelps showing up at funerals picketing with GOD HATES FAGS posters - normally "civilized" people don't get enraged at people carrying posters with text on them. But you understand why they are enraged, and you don't say, "Well that man carrying the sign had Nothing whatsoever to do with those rude people get so upset and shouting at him and wanting him to leave."
Yes, I understand that's not rioting and killing, but you don't call the people who are reacting in a predictable way in that circumstance "uncivilized"
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)When people fear for their and their family\friends' lives, they lean more heavily on their religion for personal support, answers, etc. I think there is a certain cruelty to disregarding such circumstances.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)there is a certain cruelty involved when an innocent man is being sought after then attacked and murdered for some idiot making a low budget film. Regardless of reasoning.
Do you not agree? Funny how the victims are not the number one priority in your eyes but the attackers are.
BanzaiBonnie
(3,621 posts)I didn't see anyone making the attackers their # 1 concern. Funny? No. And Mitt did the most stupid mistake possible in making a statement as he did in the middle of a crises.
It seems to me that you are pointing at something you yourself, have made up. Don't make it out to be so simplistic and so much like a sound bite. There's more than meets the eye in the situation at hand.
We too have fundamentalist radicals in this country, who are willing to wage war on anyone who dares disrespect their beliefs.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I would categorize the impetus behind the killer as rage. The rage is justified, the killing is not. The subtext of a dismissal of cultural turmoil and trying to shove the people who are living it into a box consistent with one's own beliefs is "my way or the highway" jingoism.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)is forcing anyone to watch trailors or any movie, they chose to and they chose to riot and kill innocent americans.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But this is the middle east, it is a different culture, with different cultural boundaries, the the Fuckwads that made this film knew what they were doing.
No, I don't condone killing. But I'm not going to condone the hate speech that was calculated to pour gasoline on hot coals.
If a someone dressed as a Nazi showed up at a funeral for a Holocaust survivor, and was assaulted by some mourners, would you be so dismissive of the "uncivilized" behavior of the mourners?
You'd acknowledge that the person doing this had an agenda, and had little business calling the mourners "uncivilized."
to the republican national convention wearing an i love obama shirt, and telling the repukes that everything they believe is wrong and they beat the shit out of me and put me in the hospital, would that be my fault for going there knowing that i was offending them?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Just a little movie - nothing that anyone should have taken seriously, right?
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/holoprelude/judsuss.html
Or that other little art house movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Unfortunately, revenge was taken out on those who were innocent and not responsible. However, Americans cannot claim a high road here, considering the abuses of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo of the last decade.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)bear 100% of the responsibility.
I simply REFUSE to buy into the "watch what you say" mentality.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...about "political correctness".
People do not have a right not to be offended.
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)The reason they whine about political correctness is that it protects them from being responsible for what they say. There is having your opinion and there is using your air-waves to influence others toward violence.
The people who chose to riot and kill ARE responsible for their actions. However the whole "mob mentality" issue is a known factor that civilized societies understand needs to be dealt with as well.
Here is a totally different example.
You have a bar, end of the night, people have had a lot to drink and are getting ready to go home. A group of gays minding their own business have been getting harassed off and on all night, but have restrained themselves from reacting and things settled down on their own.
Then someone puts a video up on the flat screen that is about eradicating the gay menace and celebrates vigilantes that go beat the hell out of gays. The gays protest to the manager about this crap being played and if the manager says, "Hey, I didn't put that on there guys. It's a free country. People can say what they want."
Does the manager have a responsibility for what is played on his flat screen in his own establishment? Of course.
If he didn't put it up there, then the responsible thing do say would be, "Look, I didn't put that on there guys. I'll shut it down."
Either way, if tensions are already high, maybe that group of haters isn't going to LET those gays walk out of the bar without a beat down.
Whatever assh*le that put up that vid shares responsibility for whatever violence follows because they used a known tactic to incite riots.
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Great comment.
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)This is about much more than "watch what you say" it's about misusing a powerful medium during a time of war to put fuel on the flames.
It's difficult here to sort out the truth from propaganda, so how are people half way across the world not to know this isn't some government film that represents the US attitude toward them?
JVS
(61,935 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)How's that for an analogy?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of either a Christian, Jew or Hindu or Wiccan or whatever that murdered someone over a slight to their "prophet" or "savior". And do try not to go back hundreds of years.
Even using your example - it's not an excuse to riot or murder. Did you see riots and murders when the nazis got a parade permit in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood in IL? No, you did not.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Riots and murder are at the far spectrum of angry reaction. Nor did I ever "excuse" rioting or killing. To understand something,a nd even say it was predictable is not the same as approving of it.
What is a "slight" to you may have far greater significance to someone else in a situation and history is much different.
I don't excuse the reaction that Southern whites had to segregation - but it was predictable, and precautions were taken. We would be aghast and shocked if that same response happened in 2012, because we are in a very different point in our culture. We have a couple hundred years of a secular, diverse society (mosque bombings, clinic bombings, attacks on Sikhs notwithstanding)
To say that the rioters - at this place, in this point in their history - should be expected to react as Americans would is naive. This is NOT excusing them - but I will also NOT excuse the deliberate attempt to incite this violence by the filmmakers for creating hate speech and propaganda - any more than I would excuse someone for yelling "shooter!!" in a crowded theatre.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Then stand back and say "Who me?"
It may be a half-assed little film to you, but you aren't the intended audience.
If someone walked into a funeral in a synagogue dressed as a Nazi, yelling "Hitler was right!!!" to show how "violent" Jews can get - would you say the same about "watch what you say?"
Codeine
(25,586 posts)would storm the local American embassy and kill innocents, or riot in the streets. That might be the difference, yeah?
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)But this is the equivalant of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and lighting off a few smoke bombs.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)You go into a square in a middle eastern country and start saying Fuck Allah, and what happens? You can say they are "wrong" to kill you but why did you do it if you didn't expect to be killed?
We don't have to go out of our way to get them riled up. What is the purpose of anyone who does that? It's poor diplomacy - note that's why people who work over there don't do these things.
That poor ambassador - he got the fallout, expected, of those who did the film.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)fucknuttery. And if saying "Islam sucks" results in such behavior. . .
The rioters are responsible. No movie, no matter how offensive, is an excuse for mayhem and murder.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)a geek named Bob
(2,715 posts)I was pretty offended by Event Horizon and Superman returns...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yes, it was certainly predictable that the response to the video would include violence by insane, superstitious vermin with homicidal tendencies. It's not as if it hasn't happened before, ad nauseam. But that predictable nature doesn't in any way transfer culpability from those who committed the violence. Homicide is not remotely an acceptable response to having one's feelings hurt over an insult to a personality cult.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)alerted on this language, but think you should get at least once chance to defend your choice of words.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)"insane" - I can't think of why anyone would consider reacting with murderous violence to a video as something otherthan insane.
"superstitious" - I'm an atheist. I consider all religion to be superstition, not just Islam.
"vermin" - Again, I consider anyone who commits murder over an insulting video to be verminous.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Pretty much calling me a Nazi is at least as over-the-top as anything I posted (and rather more so, in my estimation). But don't worry: not planning on reporting it. 
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)'vermin' (identical to language you just used).
But go ahead and report me, if you feel you must.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...are equivalent to people who would murder 4 people over a movie that they found offensive. Well alright then...
Dr. Strange
(25,919 posts)The Nazis.
Double Godwinned!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Sure...because the context of our respective usages of the word are just so similar, innocent victims of genocidal tyrants being equivalent to homicidal religious fanatics and all that...
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)them in the name of whatever ideology you're following at the moment.
Hint: your use of the word 'vermin' is pretty close to out-and-out racism. That's probably why you are doing a Romney and doubling down on your usage of it.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)..and call em a racist. This despite my making it abundantly clear to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size that I was speaking very spefically about the murderers in Libya, and no one else. To be racist, one must be referring to, you know...a race.
Moreover, you're the one who elected to bring race into the conversation at all. Even if my use of "vermin" could be correctly interpreted as referring to Islam (and it can't...that was the "superstitious" part), it's still not racism. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion (practiced by all races).
Derp.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)of the NLF attacked and briefly occupied portions of the American embassy in Saigon. Were those 'vermin' by your standards? Or maybe you would have used the term then in fashion, i.e., 'gook'. Oh sure, you could have said, I wasn't using 'gook' to refer to all Vietnamese, only to those who attacked our embassy. No matter that the term 'gook' dehumanized then, just as the term 'vermin' does today and back in the 30s.
No, your use of 'vermin' was not referring to Islam, but it was referring to Muslims (those who observe Islam).
Rather than dehumanizing them by calling them 'vermin,' you might want to consider what might possibly enrage a people to the point where they are willing to violate Western diplomatic norms. I'm not holding my breath though. Calling them 'vermin' is so much easier and requires so much less work. 
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You do realize that in your example, the term employed is clearly racist (in that it refers to, you know...race), right? And that my clearly-specific usage was not directed at a race at all.
"No, your use of 'vermin' was not referring to Islam, but it was referring to Muslims (those who observe Islam)."
Which is a reference to their religion, not their race...as previously pointed out. How many repetitions of this staggereingly obvious point is it going to take for it to sink in? "Muslim" is not a race.
Here's another free clue for you: I've already considered "what might possibly enrage a people to the point where they are willing to violate Western diplomatic norms." I've also considered what might enrage them far beyond that to the point where a handful were apparently so enraged that they were willing to murder people over their outrage. After this consideration, I came to the conclusion that the murderers were vermin, and I stand by that description. There is <i>no</i> justifying or rationalizing such an obviously pathological response.n Careful consideration of a situation doesn't preclude employing harsh descriptors when the situation deserves them. And this one most emphatically does...
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)said you were engaging in racism, although I did say your use of the word 'vermin' came perilously close to out-and-out racism.
My point was that your use of the word 'vermin' referred to people (Muslims), just like the Nazi's use of that same word referred to people (Jews). IOW, you are dehumanizing people, just as the Nazis did. And no amount of slapping yourself on the back for not being a racist, narrowly defined, can wish that little annoying fact away, try as you might.
I note you never did answer my question about the NLF attacking the U.S. embassy in Saigon during Tet '68. No doubt, in your mind, the forces who attacked the embassy then were also 'vermin.' But here's a free clue for you: if the NLF who attacked the U.S. embassy were not 'vermin' but the Libyans who attacked the U.S.embassy are 'vermin,' you can see how the 'racism' tag might start to come into play. Or maybe not. OTOH, if you consider that both groups of embassy attackers were and\or are 'vermin,' then you're setting yourself firmly in the tradition of a long line of Western imperialists with all the racist baggage that carries. But don't let me stop you, since I'm already 'behind.'
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Erecting straw men (via fallacious extrapolation, for the most part) has been the entire focus of your multiple diatribes against me. Pure. Comedy. Gold.
I'll make this my last attempt to clarify your staggeringly wrong-headed analysis of my position before ignoring you. Did I "dehumanize" the vermin who committed these murders? Damn right I did. I consider murderers to be less than human, an evaluation that I make with precisely zero regard to race or religion. Did I dehumanize anyone else? Obviously not. I draw a hard, fast line between those people who quite rightfully object to that "Western imperialism" and those who commit the murder of innocents in reaction not to forcible oppression, to violence, or even to the viable threat thereof, but over an insult to their religion. Those people are vermin, and no amount of sanctimonious offense based on an absurd misapplication of the clearly stated actual target of the attribution is going to change that.
Toodles.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)what kind of movie would it take to get you to kill multiple innocent people?
WeRQ4U
(4,212 posts)...you don't bomb and kill people for movies that criticize, lampoon, speak ill of, disagree with...your faith. Period. There aren't exceptions.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)
Dorian Gray
(13,491 posts)for being an insensitive jerk. But not really responsible for the actions of others. The killing of the four diplomats is on the people who actually killed them.
There are a lot of movies that criticize a lot of religions.
I didn't see a lot of people rioting after Bill Maher's Religulous or Dogma (Kevin Smith) or Sarah Silverman's Jesus is Magic.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)They will tie something one American does to all of America because they don't agree with it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you seem to think the people in Libya and Egypt are under American laws and rules and thinking. The rightwing in America keeps telling people to bomb Iran, Libya, Egypt and every other nation.
Mitt Romney makes a political hit and run on obama.
And different societies have the right to do whatever they want
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)to get the rightwing reaction it has
(btw- notice how fast the repubteapartylibertarians pounced on this, as if they
had pre-notice it would happen, hmmmmmmmmmmm
(and I am not a cter either).
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)
self edited
do not mean this personally, meant it as a corrolation that one thing leads to another like Bibi would like us to do(bomb the world)
I most certainly did not mean the poster thought this apologies if it was taken that way and in heat of moment I wrote it that way
I thought the question mark at end of sentence showed I wasn't saying a statment of fact, but asking a what-if correlation
my apologies.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)nothing personal, it wasn't aimed at you personally
thought the ? at end of title showed that, post is now edited
I was meaning Bibi and how he wants everyone to be bombed
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Bibi sucks. I think it was I who invented the Nut-N-Yahoo epithet given to him sometimes on DU. 
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Step off.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)so you agree we apologize to Libya and Egypt and everyone else and ask for calm and peace
that is what I would do
Remember in 2001-2 when Tom Daschle did not want to sign on to war, and Sean and Rush ranted and raved and he was called the devil (his wife too) and voila, he got anthraxxed?
and mobs are not rational, hence the term mobs.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)You should go back and edit what you said.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)apology if you thought so or the other poster thought so
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)You suggested something that crossed a line in reference to another poster. The adult thing to do would say " I should not have said that, I'm sorry" and delete the post.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you said edit the post, I did immediately (and also apologized to you on this post)
to delete the top post would make the five after downright weird
(you would need to delete your response, then this response, etc.
it's really done and over, so why keep it going?
and again, the ? at the end of the title showed I wasn't saying a personal, but whatever.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)and spreading their own brand of bigoted hate with this movie, should be held up as mere "innocent" advocates of Free Speech and held to no account, whatsoever.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)People have a right to be offensive and people have a right to respond CIVILLY to it. People do not have a right not to be offended in a free society.
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)but, guess what... they are not the province of the US and for most have NEVER experienced nor embraced the concept of free speech. As much as we might like to assume our own system to be the hallmark by which the world functions, it is not at this point in time. Nor are we innocent in the eyes of most in the ME, given our entry into wars in their region, including one based on fabrications.
If we are ever to make progress in the ME, our views are going to have to be a bit more comprehensive and we are going to have to check our HATE-filled, bigoted agitators, even while we try to find a balance in preservation of free speech.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Freedom is speech is a universal human right and it includes speech that you don't like. Do you want us to censor stuff here just because somebody in another country will be offended by it?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why DU'ers can on the one hand demand public employees have absolutely no right whatsoever to free speech, and on the other hand rally to the defense of such paragons as the KKK, Neo-nazis, and this fucking film's right to that very same "freedom of speech"?
I figure it's because a sizable number of DU'ers are, heart and soul, extreme fucking bigots who want to make their hate look progressive. I could be wrong, maybe it's just a bunch of very, VERY stupid people falling over themselves to see who can go the furthest out on a limb to defend the worst things they can possibly find.
At any rate, you're defending a film that posits one point five human beings on the planet are inherently subhuman monsters and scum, that the world would be better-off without.
So... good for you.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I think you are confusing me with somebody else. I consider freedom of speech to be the near-sacred bedrock of a free society. I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean in one day I can see people screaming about how teachers have no right to strike, or express political opinions... and then the next thread over, people falling over themselves in a self-congratulatory orgy of "defending free speech" for a Klan rally or something.
And yes yes, clichéd Voltaire quote... if I had a nickel for every time someone spouted that off on the internet, I'd own my own home and twelve acres of land. Hate to tell you, mr. Fawkes, but your right to speech doesn't work in quite the elementary school way you seem to think it does.
First, it's a law restricting Congress. It's not a law restricting your fellow citizens, or for that matter the judicial branch. Laws may not be passed that would abridge your right or ability to speak, but there is nothing stopping your neighbors from taking you to task for what you say... or taking you to court. Those courts have found that not all forms of speech are worthy of protection under our first amendment; intimidation for instance. Libel, slander, and incitement are others. Hate speech in commission of a crime adds to the severity of a sentencing, as can statements of intent.
That is to say, the United States legislature could not pass a law outright banning the production of films like this. However this in no way prevents say, an ambassador's family from seeking suit against a filmmaker if they feel the filmmaker's expression caused, even if just in part, the death of their loved one. There is nothing halting the court from finding the case in their favor, either. For that matter, it's within the bounds of congress's to exclude certain forms and degrees of speech from first amendment protection, similar to how certain forms of weaponry are excluded from 2nd amendment protections (the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to ICBM's, for example).
So far as I've seen, nobody's asking for such a ban - at least not here in the states. But some of us are pointing out that the filmmaker created what, in European standards would be a clear and flagrant example of obvious hate speech... and what's more the producers have stated they knew it would probably result in riots and violence, and that's why they went ahead with it.
it's not that the government needs to crack down. it's that the people who started this mess need to pay for their share of the responsibility in what happened.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)A person charged with representing "The People" cannot espouse their personal beliefs while in the execution of said office. Whne they are not performing the duties of their office, they are free to speak their mind.
Biafran
(45 posts)How does the insulting film justify the murder of an ambassador?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)In fact the only people saying that... are people like you, who keep trying to accuse others of saying it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)There are limits. But the fact is that you are conflating censorship (which the constitution protects free speech against governmental action in most cases) with any step that might be taken to eliminate hate-speech that reinforces bigotry and rises to the level of violent incitement. YouTube has every right to delete this and we have ever right to express our opinion that they need to do so. That is NOT censorship. That is asserting our sense of decency and OUR RIGHTS in a democratic society
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Sure, the Religious Right would throw a hissy fit, but that is it.
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)so, I would never be so absolute in your assumption.
just TODAY....
"My question today... when is Tommy boy going to weigh in on all the Lilly Ledbetter hypocrites who claim to be fighting the War on Women? Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."
Why do all these rethugs have such vivid violent imaginings? Haley Barbour wants a hot poker to Obama's butt. This guy wants to throw acid. Sick fucks. What nobody just wants to punch someone in the nose any more? They want to torture and maim.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/jay-townsend-nan-hayworth-acid-war-on-women_n_1560693.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=1923695,b=facebook
Taken from the following DU post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021323484
Biafran
(45 posts)Calling for the hurt or murder of another is no free speech and is different to making film about a personal view that another might find offensive.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Do you describe bigotry like antisemitism as merely being 'a personal view that another might find offensive'? Or is that just when it comes to Islamophobia?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)was people picketing outside movie theaters and people like Pat Robertson getting in a huff about its depiction of a very human Jesus. Which is ironic because the movie and the book both show how Jesus managed to overcome worldly temptations (including Satan's "last temptation" for him to come down from the cross to live a comfortable, married life as a family man into old age).
I have heard televangelist Jack "Predicting-the-End-of-the-World-for-a-Living" Van Impe say on more than one occasion that if Christians responded to offensive depictions of Jesus the way Muslims do to similar depictions of The Prophet people would think twice about doing it.
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)Hate speech begets violence. Is it right? Of course not, but we have scores of murdered Americans in our history who were the victims of hate speech. You can sit there and condemn these actions, like President Obama and Secretary Clinton have, or you can perpetuate more hate and death, but we also must condemn those who incite violence.
American history has more incidents like this one than you can count. The only difference is the violence was by Americans against Americans. We must move on and LEARN SOMETHING!
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)Because to the people who rioted, what they see on our media etc... they probably think we are ALL a bunch of haters. The only way they'll know that isn't true is by US citizens and government officials calling this film a "hate film" and holding the creators accountable for their part in what happened, even if it was not murder in and of itself, it's called inciting to riot and it's against the law.
tama
(9,137 posts)is a dangerous theological myth about social contracts.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Although I wouldn't label it as either necessarily religious nor dangerous, I do agree that is little more than a social construct appearing no where but our own minds; and is as diaphanous, as vague, and as mutable as mankind itself.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The West understands freedom of speech, but only after a very long cultural evolution including a few horrific religious wars.
I don't care what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, it does not translate on the ground, and that is not just the Middle East.
You are using a western value set here. And arguing that it is valid everywhere.
From the POV of the developing world, it has a name, cultural imperialism.
No, what you think is universal, on the ground it is not, and will not be for a while yet. You need to read a few books on this. Edward Said is a good choice to start, even if slightly dated. Black Athena is also a good one.
One choice here, since this is an act of war, is for the US to send an intervention force to try to impose our ideas...we know that does not work. The other choice is a far more measured response, including chastising that movie. No, not because it violates our standards, but the movie might qualify as hate speech...which I will remind you can be prosecuted when it leads to violence, even in the US. No, freedom of speech, like second Ammendment rights, are not absolute.
Heresy is a big thing right now among Muslims, like it was in the West five hundred years ago. Hell, even a hundred years ago it was still big, and some are trying hard to make it big again.
Now the President is taking a meassured response, and has already condemned what has happened, and the political also enters the scene. But you knew that.
I personally prefer the more measured response btw.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)That's a crackpot book.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In my mind you are espousing a version of cultural imperialism, one thatwe get with our mothers milk. Having grown up in a developing world country that saw the mouse as imperialism is actually a serios advantage here.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)people need to read it , learn it , live it. and that includes people in du
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" People do not have a right not to be offended in a free society."
However, I do have a personal responsibility to not offend anyone merely for the sake of offending someone-- a responsibility I practice and maintain. I would imagine that's a responsibility we all would choose to accept, whether or not we hide behind the human construct of free speech or not.
And while that bit of bumper-sticker philosophy stating "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it" may be philosophically unassailable to many, it does NOT imply that "I'll also defend you from the consequences of your dumb-ass lack of common-sense and irresponsible behavior..."
Especially when common sense dictates that the consequences of that speech will not be targeted merely at the one who's idiotic enough to utter them, but will also include those who have absolutely no correlation at all to the ignorant person saying it in the first place.
I learned a long time ago that if I were to drive to the south side of the town I live in and begin yelling "wetbacks go home! Go back to Mexico!", that I would most likely be protected by the First Amendment in doing so, but I also know that there would be consequences-- and I wouldn't expect anyone else to defend me from those consequences-- we often cite Darwin's Law, yes?. I'd hazard that I would be little more than an example of that if the above were indeed my course of action.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Yet that right is often violated. We don't go out of our way to incur that violation of our rights, either.
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)exactly what they're after?
And if we cave how does that convince them not to do this sort of stuff again?
"Hey Muhammed, remember when we went nuts and killed a bunch of Americans and they totally did exactly what we wanted?"
yeah . . .
"Let's not do that again. It was far too successful and easy".
agreed.
bighart
(1,565 posts)What law did they break?
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)If, as it appears, English may not be your primary language, please disregard as I truly do not mean to offend you for your lack of understanding.
bighart
(1,565 posts)free speech? If you want to call them names and insult them feel free, I am sure they won't care one bit.
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)Sadly, some seem to be using that to allow their own previously-concealed bigotry to leak out from under the mask.
bighart
(1,565 posts)However I find the people who made it to be fools of the first order but they have a RIGHT codified in the CONSTITUTION to say things that may offend others. Do I feel they should be free from consequences if they offend, HELL NO, if they were attacked because of it I would have no sympathy for them.
Blaming the actions of the violent reactionaries in Libya and Egypt on the people who made the film is the same as blaming a rape victim because they walk out on the street in a bikini.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)supporting free speech, I would suggest you be more measured with your comment. No one here condones the violence. No one here denies the critical importance of free speech, but neither do most believe in hiding behind free speech rights to induce/incite violence-- not to JUSTIFY hate speech.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Look, I'm just as pissed off here as you are. The makers of this film need to be held up to the light of day and lambasted for their hatred and intolerance, but they DID NOT kill anyone, nor did they TELL people to kill anyone.
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)ONCE AGAIN, SLOWLY AND WITH EMPHASIS: NO ONE is condoning the violence by extremist factions of Islam. Again, slowly NO ONE IS CONDONING THE VIOLENCE
But giving a pass to those who knowingly incite violence is to condone that hatred.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Our personal emotional reactions are irrelevant, what we do physically is.
Is there any part of that movie or trailer where people are explicitly TOLD to go out and hurt/kill others?
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)So, I am done.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
hlthe2b
(102,225 posts)let your own defense of bigotry fly.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You stay classy, now, ya hear?
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)by a few muslims and think it justifies another war against a muslim country.
No country has a monopoly on idiots or on evil people who know to manipulate the idiots.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)This isn't a single, stand alone issue which created the volitility which ultimately errupted into violence.
This writing has been on the wall for a long, long time. It was only a matter of when, not if.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...between the actions of the US government and the actions of an ISRAELI filmmaker?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you keep instigating a wrong analogy
WHY???
THAT IS BUSH/CHENEY LIKE and got us rah rah rah into Iraq
have you learned nothing?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But hey, they're Muslims, so we're already keyed to dole out mass reprisals.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I doubt it. They were incited to riot not by the film but by some Muslim fanatic who told them about the film and riled them up.
I had never heard of this film until the rioting occurred.
There are probably films that ridicule some of my own favorite, even sacred, beliefs. I don't riot over it.
The fault for the riots and the killing lies solely with the rioters and the leaders and immediate instigators of the riots.
We live in the 21st century.
I hate to think how the rioters about this film in Muslim countries ridicule those who do not believe in their religion.
I hate to think how the kinds of people who riot over this film in Muslim countries ridicule and hate Jewish people.
People of the ilk of the rioters exist everywhere -- even here. There is no excuse for killing someone over a film or because of their religious beliefs or their culture. No excuse whatsoever. And especially no excuse for inciting ignorant people to kill out of hatred in this way.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)While i'm inclined to share that viewpoint - I happen to agree actually, there's never a good reason for murder - It's a bit fucking hypocritical. Maybe not for you personally, but as a sentiment coming from any American.
We- and the governments we elect - have been hand waving and excusing countless murders for quite a long time now. Somehow, there's always an excuse. "Oh, thought he was one of the bad guys." "We had bad intel." "Bad apples." "We had to destroy the village to save it." Shit like that.
So to take this situation and thump our chests with a hearty "no excuse" might be factually correct, but it's pretty fucking ethically bankrupt.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)simply murder on a massive scale and no better than killing our ambassador and guards in Syria -- and in scale much worse.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Which by the way are also picked by stations in Bengazi. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,338 posts)...between the actions of Saddam Hussein's government and the actions of a few Saudi extremists on 9/11/01.
Well, ok, we're mostly not that stupid, but the Bush/Cheney administration managed to sell the linkage and kill a whole lot of people.
If a leader wants get people to create havoc, any excuse will do.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)who makes movies in the US? The government? No.
Who is behind the movies in places like Egypt and Libya, and has been for decades? Private individuals? No.
See the difference. When all you watch and consume is controlled by the state, assuming this is the case all over the world is a logical step to take... just like you are assuming that movies are made around the world by private individuals.
Many of the states where you assume there is freedom of speech, all that is consumed media wise is controlled, tightly, by those who have the keys to media production. Yes, you may have a director directing, and actors acting and writers, writing... but all that is vetted by the state, or it's agents. And when it comes to news, tripple so.
So you think it's that illogical that a few people in Libya or Egypt assumed that this low budget production was at the very least vetted by Washington?
There is an old Navy saying that applies here, Assumptions are the beginning of any good sized clusterfuck.
You are assuming that free speech is universal, and that everywhere in the world private individuals produce good, bad, and crappy movies. They are assuming that everywhere in the world, good, bad and crappy movies are produced under the at the very least, quiet nod from government authorities.
Once you understand this, it makes a lot of sense why the Mouse is seen as a tool of American Imperialism. I mean Walk Disney worked for the state to promote the American way of life, and given that they did indeed produce some propaganda films during WW II, that reinforces that.
It is not that hard to understand, I swear.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the mob should place the blame on us gov
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Very possibly Mossad at the behest of Netabyahu.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)knowing the end game.
it is all disgusting and people died.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and then Gabbie Giffords almost died and a judge did
Hate speech (from US hatelords Rush and Sean and KarlRove are directly responsible for hate action).
BTW-a report says the ambassador was sufficated in a car, NOT SHOT
Is there more than meets the eye to his killing?
enquiring minds want to know
piratefish08
(3,133 posts)religion POISONS EVERYTHING
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)but it was empirically demonstrated untrue for some people in Benghazi.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)bluster does great things for some people's complexions.
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Absolutely!!!!!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and ideals of it's own culture.
Cultural Relativism can go fuck itself is cultural imperialism at it's best. After all, the culture that should come on top is yours.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Slavery and female genital mutilation can be not OK also without a certain UN document. There is no logical or causal dependency.
The UN document is a social contract between nation states. For example so called 4th world nations were not represented in drafting the document. Indigenous people would have produced relatively different document, if they had the responsibility for it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Written from the POV of those 4th world economies.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You are also conflating what even peope in these cultures see as a problem, slavery for example, or genital mutilation, with your very western definition of freedom of speech. I admit, it's quite funny actually.
What is even funnier is you bringing up slavery...read what pure and above reproach American Corporations are doing to Chinese workers in Samoa. (Yup, I managed to type that without laughing too hard)
Careful of calling for the grass blade in somebody else's eye while your vision is blocked by an old growth log.
But hey, so you know, the Universal Declaration espouses Western Values after a war when our side won...and it's been denounced by a few Southern Economies. After all, as a few developing world leaders leaders have rightly pointed out, freedom of speech, democracy and even education are not even worth a cup of warm of spit when people are starving to death.
Also the declaration violates some concepts close and dear to far more traditional societies, such as a sense of community.
I truly do not expect you to get it...I truly don't...cultural imperialism, unlike actual boots on the ground type, is far more insidious. That said, as globalization continues apace...I expect the declaration to become even less useful among nation states...I mean, predators will soon replace nation states at a practical level. So it s even more funny.
tama
(9,137 posts)is the ethical position of Golden and Silver Rule on communal and cultural level. It is also very important not to uphold "purity" of cultures but understand that all cultures mingle and mix and are "impure".
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)is usually followed by, if they only did what we do...
It is quite funny actually... I had a long discussion with a sociology instructor back in the day... which is kind of shocking as most sociology instructors tend to be center left. No, this guy was hard right. I started by bringing up the Mouse as a symbol of American penchant for imposing it's values in Mexico. Granted, that was a huge issue of discussion when I was growing up. So I was exposed to that... nothing funnier than Yankee go home, with a certain Mouse under it.
tama
(9,137 posts)that American schools have become more and more patriotic/nationalistic/militaristic, if so, such curriculum is naturally opposed to ethics of cultural relativism.
I like reading David Graeber, cultural anthropologist and anarchist, and he pointed out somewhere that the democratic practice of Occupy etc. is adopted and relearned from indigenous people. I concur with that and also in my experience the peaceful global revolutionary process since Zapatistas is lead by indigenous traditions and ethics.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and the US is an empire in decline and in denial.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Oh, oops, I stepped into the DU Outrage Hour of Glower. I'll come back when one American doesn't outweigh several thundred thousand "others"
polichick
(37,152 posts)...that this was a big film that would be broadcast throughout the U.S. - they were demanding that the U.S. make laws against it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)interest Americans at all. How sad.
In my experience, most Americans have no interest whatsoever in the Muslim religion. Am I wrong about this?
polichick
(37,152 posts)I don't think it's coincidence that this is happening at the same time that Netanyahu (according to Lawrence O'Donnell this morning) is trying to influence our election. Netanyahu and Rmoney are personal friends who once worked together.
Let's look at who is behind the propaganda.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This story seems to have completely overshadowed that story about Bush and 9/11. To me that is the biggest story right now.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)John Lennon said it best
Imagine no religon it isn't hard to do
nothing to kill or die for
....
and the world will live as one
btw-inciting a riot (which the filmmaker or whomever is financing him or the people who want another war) is a CRIME in America and the inciter of a riot should be punished under US Criminal law (aka the guy who made the film)
FREEDOM OF SPEECH does NOT mean you can yell FIRE in a theatre
all it takes is a spark and the inciter of the riot gets his wish
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Some people would laugh at it's stupidity, others would rationally rebut this bigot's claims.
Do you think the Danish cartoonist who made those Mohammed cartoon s should have been censored because it MIGHT offend someone?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)at the same time the war mongers want Israel and the US to bomb Iran and everywhere else
put 2 and 2 together
This is NOT an innocent event
This (appears) to be a manipulated event to achieve the effect it has started to get (now we won't know how much worse it will get, once it starts, it is like a wildfire that cannot be stopped).
Are we looking at WW3?
WW1 started over a small event, didn't it?
Fox is surely jumped over this quickly (as if they had advance notice)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The reaction of rational people is not to go out and murder innocent people because some other person on the planet said something you don't like.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)that's what I would do.
defuse the spark before it ignites.
btw, when a mob scene happens (much like the anarchist protesters at USA events),
soimething always happens because a mob cannot be said to be rational.
(look how OWS in NYC blocked traffic in rush hour, and almost creating a riot, didn't make for good will did it?)
those unexpected consequences
Bibi of course wants bombing to commence yesterday
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)In our country we have freedom of speech and what some guy in fl who no one gives a shit about does not justify murder and does not justify an apology.
We should be insisting that those who committed the crime, planned the crime are brought to justice and if they are not we should pull every person and cent from Libya.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and goes a long way to diffusing and costs nothing
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It would be great if the guy in FL said he was sorry for being an asshole and for doing so many assholish things. But he is a religious nut and that will never happen.
We have freedom of speech in this country. Our forefathers fought and died for this right. It is a founding principal of our democracy.
People who want to murder in the name of god will always find a way to murder in the name of god.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)it says we are bigger than Bibi and the wingnuts
I don't buy the argument it makes us look small or weak
might be time for a learning moment lesson from President Obama with some top Muslim dignataries
especially as the UN will be in session and it would be a good time for some words of peace
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)At this point in time I would beg to differ.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If not, how can you know that it incites people to riot?
And I'm pretty sure that whoever rioted or shot a rocket or whatever happened did not see this film either.
People have rioted over their own imaginations. The film may be horrible. It may or may not be distributed much or at all in the US. This is about people in Egypt and Libya getting carried away by their imaginations and their hatred for others. It's very sad that we have not come further than this.
I'd have to know more about the film and the intention of the person who made it to have any idea whether it is really objectionable enough to incite a riot. Just because people say they rioted over it doesn't mean that they have any idea as to what the film is really like. And anyway -- why riot over a film? This is just a riot motivated by the hate of the rioters.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Religious extremists murdered innocent people.
We have freedom of speech in this country, especially including speech we don't like.
I would wonder, if some guy in a foreign country said something I hate with every fiber of my being, however justified or fucked up those feelings are, would I have a right to walk into their embassy and murder citizens of that country?
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that if a fire breaks out in a theatre, nobody can say anything about it? 
Ian David
(69,059 posts)
&feature=related
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)
MANative
(4,112 posts)The Egyptian media whipped people into a frenzy by reporting that this was a huge blockbuster movie, a la "Harry Potter" or "Twilight", that was going to be seen (eagerly and happily) by every American on 9/11. This fiasco is a media creation.
dkf
(37,305 posts)You don't think?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)If one of us white folk decided to walk into an African-American bar in an African-American neighborhood - during a period of time in which a great deal of racial strife was under way and if one of us white folk decided to blurt out something like, "Listen hear you dirty, fucking, nxxxers I think you are nothing but lazy, worthless pedophile scum" - then we should not be too surprised if we discovered that we had provoked a violent reaction. Does our expression of our first amendments rights to freedom of speech justify a violent response?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The rational reaction is not to go out and murder the guy down the street.
Free speech is not bad. Religious extremism is bad.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)was being shown on national TV as a 9/11 special,that's what someone on CNN said.I haven't heard anyone say that this is an excuse to kill.
eridani
(51,907 posts)It could be more about the US taking random potshots at the country and killing people since 1983. An insult to your religion might remind you about that.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)but a much larger, ongoing issue.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The guy throwing the gasoline has some culpability for the fire.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Free speech is not bad. Religious extremists who murder people in the name of god are bad.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)because if you do something that you KNOW will create problems, yes, you are culpable for your part in it.
I am in no way saying that what the religious extremists are doing is justified, but hate speech that you KNOW will cause violence is wrong.
There is a BIG difference between criticizing the person throwing the gasoline and saying free speech should be eliminated.
We, as a society have indeed acknowledged the harm that slander and hate speech do.
I am no more denouncing free speech than you are advocating hate speech.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)We know there are insane religious zealots in this country who have also murdered in the name of god. Should we be quiet as to not upset those types also?
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Do you want someone else judging what you have a right to say? Think about it. People who might not agree with your views, might someday decide what you want to say is illegal.
This film would have faded into the whole of absurdity, seen by a handful of people, if not for the actions of religions extremists on both sides.
There are many things that people in our country and other countries say that piss me off. In fact, my religion is demonized daily by a very large number of folks and indeed in hollywood. But those folks have a right to their ignorance and my recourse is to try and educate them. The correct response is never "go kill a diplomat" or "go blow up a building".
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I'll see if I can find a youtube video LOL
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)There are laws against people purposefully stirring stuff up with the intent to cause violent reactions. It's called "inciting to riot" and most civilized countries will prosecute that behavior.
It was wrong when Palin "targeted" Gabby Giffords and said "Don't retreat, reload."
It's wrong when Rush et al are talking about just going out and killing so and so because it's a mis-use of a powerful position over an audience.
It's wrong when someone makes a movie whose sole purpose is to cause anger and unrest, particularly during a time of war.
OF COURSE, it's MORE WRONG to be the one doing the killing, that was still a choice. But those people are Libya's issue to deal with, not ours. WE still have to be responsible for our part in this.
However, the mob boss who orders a hit is still responsible for the kill and someone who purposely creates a film during a time of war whose purpose is to enrage people who the US is trying to deal with diplomatically is in the very least STUPIDLY negligent and at the worst treason.
polichick
(37,152 posts)...abortion doctor killing and the shooting of the Senator.
Our DOJ let's them all walk - including war criminals.
Tigress DEM
(7,887 posts)We have a lot of freedom, but we also have responsibilities that curtail our own rights when they impede on others rights - especially someone's right to not be targeted and murdered.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)a lot of nations have government controlled entertainment.
and the people in Libya and Egypt who are rioting aren't clued in to the fact that, aside from various political propaganda, most of our "entertainment" is a private affair funded by private interests.
So as usual, ignorance it the culprit.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)They claimed last year that the whole Arab Spring was due to FaceBook.
tama
(9,137 posts)Just a sad and horrible fact of world. As are football team riots etc. Symbols and wars about symbols.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)The "Burn the Koran" evangelical pastor was involved in making the movie...
Iggo
(47,549 posts)The makers and distributors of this film know this and, I suspect, were actually counting on it. That an American was killed is only a bonus for them.
So yeah, there's no excuse for the riot, but neither is there an excuse for inciting it.
BigD_95
(911 posts)should have been shot on site. No movie is a excuse to kill other innocent people that had nothing to do with the movie or even if they did.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The guy that worked this movie has an agenda to incite violence and anger in Muslims. I think that the violence would not have happened if this person had not deliberately made this movie to add gasoline to a bed of hot coals.
Why the coals were hot is another issue - but there is indeed some blame for the hate speech.
This was intentional - and this was the desired effect. I would like to see the makers of this movie sued into oblivion for their efforts to incite this.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)What is absolutely indefensible is the cynical use of this film by extremists on both sides to inflame the passions of religious fanatics. This includes that pastor in Florida and the Mullahs in Libya and Egypt.
jp11
(2,104 posts)leaders (clerics) about what the film was since virtually none of them saw it. I think it has been reported that only the cleric rallying them all saw anything about it and then spouted off all this crap about it including crap about how Americans were going to show it like it was some sort of blockbuster or forced media thing in their country.
You are of course correct not liking an offensive movie is not an excuse to riot and kill people.
Having said that neither is winning or losing a sports game but hell we do that shit right here in good old America though I don't think anyone's been killed in them of late, through sheer luck, overseas that's a different story.
still_one
(92,138 posts)however, I think to ignore history, and our recent developments in those countries whose influence has not always been kind to those living there may have had some effect
Things do not happen in a vacuum
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... hold a world view you don't agree with, eh buddy?
The fucking NERVE of 'em.
Alduin
(501 posts)To riot and kill because they don't like something on video?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the "video" DESIGNED to inflame hatred and violence happened in a vacuum.
Nice try, but no cigar.
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)This kind of information has led to wars....such as WWI. think of the incident that started that.
I think the religious leaders in Egypt and Libya are responsible for the murders but also think the maker of the movie responsible, as he made it for pure political reasons and called Islam "Cancer". The timing of putting the movie out is suspect and the promoter of the movie has already been involved in burning the Koran and inciting violence a few years ago.
This is like a spider web.
Interesting as Yahoo of Israel wants war with Iran yet his president Peres does not.
Flip a coin.....are going to war..Is the USA going to war over this?
get the red out
(13,461 posts)We should not act in violence because of ignorant violance. The makers of the movie are hateful and ignorant as well. All violence should be condemned.
citizen blues
(570 posts)especially after Sarah Palin's map with crosshairs on it and message to her Teapublican followers, "Don't retreat, instead - Reload!" Gabby Giffords prophetic words followed, "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list. But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. People do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action."
We can sit here all high and mighty in "the land of the free and home of the brave" and spout platitudes about how free speech is a universal human right all day long. Sarah Palin was doing nothing more than exercising her right to free speech, yet how many of you were outraged when the consequences of Palin's words rang out in Tuscon.
Reality check: Words have consequences.
Reality check: Freedom of speech is not world wide. Not everyone holds our values. It's jingoistic to expect that they would.
The only reason this film received the notoriety it did was because it was promoted by Pastor Terry Jones whose own free speech act of burning a Quran incited a riot that resulted in the death of 12 people in Afghanistan. So while you condemn Sarah Palin for her free speech inciting violence, you defend a scumbag like Terry Jones for his free speech that everyone knew ahead of time would have violent and potentially lethal consequences for Americans abroad? How's that double standard working out for you there?
We live in a country where we enjoy the right to free speech, but that does not let us off the hook for being responsible for our speech acts. It's time we get out of our comfy little sandbox, grow up, and start taking responsibility for what we put out there. The world is what it is, not as we would have it. And words do have consequences - sometimes deadly ones.
Javaman
(62,517 posts)we live in a nation with laws that, for the most part, people respect.
And contrary to much of what the right wing likes to spew on a daily basis, we do have a measurable level of the separation of church and state. (although it does seem as if it's eroding)
That said, let's see what is at play here.
Two nations Libya and Egypt have just experienced to massive upheavals in their respective nations.
And after most major national upheavals, lots of rumors swirl, lots of opportunists in the form of both political and religious try to fill the vacuum of fear with their own brand of fear and lastly, most of the people who had been displaced or thrown out of work are desperate.
So when you have a nation where the majority of the younger population is out of work, needing enough food, wanting clean water, and would like to be able to return to school but are unable to; what happens? Lots of unrest.
But then you also have various outside influences who see the opportunity to spread their bullshit to a desperate citizens. Citizens who want to vent misplaced anger, frustration and stress.
Given enough propaganda, enough agitating and enough influence, you invite the masses to fulfill a certain agenda.
In steps some right wing moron. Terry Jones and his half wit will partner film maker to purposely make an inflammatory film. We live in a universe apart from the people of Libya and Egypt and find it hard to believe that anyone would riot over any film, especially a poorly made pile of crap such as this one, desperate people who need to vent and have no other way to react, riot.
The US has always been the easy target for 3rd world nations whose. Granted, the US doesn't have the greatest record in history when dealing with 3rd world nations especially in the area of human rights, but it doesn't help us in the least, especially as of late, to have right wing morons pouring gas on a smoldering coals.
It is horrible that people have lost their lives in this situation, it is deplorable that the people of these two countries have been used as puppets by their religious extremists, but at the same time, it's disgusting that someone in this nation employs terrorist by proxy to do their dirty work as a means to an end.
And that end? To further divide the people of the world into their screwed up world view of those who are white and believe in jesus and those that don't.
As sad as it is that these people in the middle east are so desperate that they fall for the words of extremists within their own midst, it is equally sad that there are people in this nation whose sole purpose is to spread hate a lies under the guise of religion.
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)Just wanted to say that to me, this is the heart of the matter and thank you for your post.
Anthony McCarthy
(507 posts)A billion Muslims don't care if we think this is an excuse for that kind of reaction. An offensive movie was made in order to cause offense, it is just one in a line of intentionally offensive acts that have had this kind of reaction. And it's obvious that the guy sitting on the United States, making millions of dollars with which he made his movie would cause a violent anti-American reaction.
I want to know what his political and business ties are, here and in Israel. He did this to try to have an effect on American politics. I'm tired of Israeli manipulation of American politics. Time to cut them off unless this kind of crap stops.
woodsprite
(11,911 posts)A quick thought that came to mind (thinking about Carter/Reagan),
I would be interested in knowing who funded his movie? Addleson?
Probably too tin-foil hattish, but I haven't had my coffee yet.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)The timing is very suspicious.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,406 posts)but it sure as hell doesn't help our military and diplomatic personnel by so blatantly and needlessly inflaming people in that region.
starroute
(12,977 posts)That's the point I see almost everyone missing. It's a standard factor in human societies that the dominant group gets to lord it over the members of subordinate groups -- insult their manhood, call their women whores, trash their property -- as a way of reinforcing the power disparity between them.
If you're a well-educated, white American, you don't tend to be in the receiving end of that sort of shit. But anybody who has been in the inferior position knows what it's like.
And the sorry truth is that there's no way out of it except rising up and kicking ass. Putting a scare into the people who have been rubbing your noses in the mud. Making it clear you're not going to take it.
This is why poor people riot. This is why Middle Eastern countries want nukes.
The film causing all this ruckus is not an example of free speech. It's not about insulting someone who has equal power to insult you back. It's the equivalent of Gitmo guards throwing Korans in the toilet as a form of psychological manipulation. It's saying "we can spit on everything you hold dear and you can't do a thing about it."
And though we oh-so-superior members of the ruling class may get the vapors over it, the only effective answer to that kind of provocation has always been "Oh yeah? Eat lead, muthafucka."
Because it's all about power -- and particularly the power to protect yourself and yours.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)I condemn anyone who would post such drivel, ESPECIALLY ON A PROGRESSIVE SITE SUCH AS THIS.
Of course I am nauseated at your post and NOT YOU. 
Did I miss any?
38 LIKES, And this is what has happened to DU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LAGC
(5,330 posts)It's not like the U.S. authorized or subsidized the making of this low-grade B-movie that has all these fanatics up-in-arms over there.
Why should the U.S. government he held responsible every time some whack-a-doodle goes off on a rant?
Do we need "thought police" to stop people from speaking their mind?
Alduin
(501 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...deserved death threats? In a free society people do not have a right not to be offended.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)there are DUers who remain in support of the free speech granted to Americans. Being progressive doesn't have to mean that one is only in favor of speech that one agrees with.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)He needs to be front and center on TV,saying "Yes, I made this film, and I did it because of ________ reasons..."
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)
NotThisTime
(3,657 posts)Why put out a movie or burn Quran's when you know without a shadow of a doubt people will pay for it in the Middle East with their lives? That's the bottom line. Why go into a Siekh temple and gun down as many as you can? All in the name of religion. Terry Jones put this out there all in the name of his religion. Are the evangelicals standing up and saying what Terry Jones did is wrong? To equate someone else's religious leader as a goat? No we won't hear any evangelical leaders say what Jones did was wrong.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)maybe some journalist will be brave enough to look into their motivations.
barbtries
(28,787 posts)that people were protesting when a terrorist group took it upon themselves to attack the embassy. this is based on listening to BBC News on NPR this morning on my way to work.
i do not believe that the actions of this group are representative of the people of Libya.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I do wish the Libyan government had responded more quickly and forcefully though to prevent the violence that ensued.
barbtries
(28,787 posts)i just don't a WAR to come of this! 
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Of course, if Rmoney somehow wins, all bets are off.
The next time something like this happens could be used as an excuse for the neo-cons to drag us into another quagmire over there... 
barbtries
(28,787 posts)"would" be. just can't happen.
citizen blues
(570 posts)Of course they were part of Arab Spring!!!!! Arab Spring began in Libya while it was still happening in Egypt. It's just that Qaddafi managed to control the communications enough to keep word from getting out. As a result the first real word the rest of the world heard was when the Egyptian soldiers on the Egyptian/Libyan border woke up one morning to find their Libyan counterparts gone.
You wish the Libyan government had forcefully prevented the violence that ensued? I am going to assume that you're simply uninformed. The only other conclusion to be made with a statement like that is that you're a troll.
Who the fuck do you think was committing the violence in the first place? Qaddafi was a psychopathic tyrant who was slaughtering his own people. People were being executed for no reason or for some delusional reason only in Quaddafi's head. Many bodies weren't even buried, but strewn along the roadsides as a warning to others and to deliberately create terror among the people. He was brutal, violent, and raped hundreds of women who he bought or just ordered brought to him.
Next time check your facts and stop watching Fox News!
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I was referring to the NEW Libyan government, THEY should have done more to stop YESTERDAY'S violence.
I wasn't defending the Qaddafi regime in any way. For the record, I'm glad he is gone, I supported the rebels.
Wow, guess I need to explain myself more carefully next time... geesh.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The other answer is that they are used to a society in which media products only originate from the government, or with government approval.
Therefore, they assume that all media products from other countries are made with the approval or authorization of the government.
They really can't see it any other way, not having had experience with freedom of speech and its consequences.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Which goes to show that the solution is MORE free speech, so these people knew this was just one idiot filmmaker.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)At the present moment, it is like saying to the color-blind "WTF? Can't you tell the difference between red and green!"
Uh, no, they can't.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I mean, if one was to watch them, you might think that our government has members that are Islamophobic...
patrice
(47,992 posts)
rollin74
(1,973 posts)because another religious nut said something mean are responsible for their own fucking actions
patrice
(47,992 posts)raccoon
(31,110 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)"couldn't" bring itself to trust Yasir Arafat and why Yasir Arafat couldn't bring itself to trust the U.S.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But many other factors led to the tinderbox conditions that preceded the fire.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Isn't it kind of odd that the film's insult to Islam was, TTE, "They are fundamentally violent killers" and then, the Muslim world responds with violence and killing?
Looks kind of like a double- or triple- cross to some of us, but then . . . also, maybe not.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)at any level, on any project.
But the world has surprised me more than once.
patrice
(47,992 posts). . . and I'm really sorry to say that you have to consider other Muslims in your guesses about the answer to that question.
Remember, this involves Egypt too, the apple of PNAC -ian eyes!
patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)No, all people have said is when you KNOW people are sensitive, there's no point in provoking them. We know there are Muslims who get upset at friggin' cartoons. There's no excuse for provoking them like that either.
bighart
(1,565 posts)and wanted to do one showing a range of the founders of various religions in a satirical way that depicts my view of them and there religion I should leave out a reference to Islam because it might really anger some?
Depict Jesus, Buddah, the Dali Lama, the Great Spirit, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity or the representative there of, just not Islam, Allah, or Muhammad because Muslims are sensitive?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)"Why do these folks in Libya and Egypt think the US government has anything to do with an Israeli guy's offensive low-budget film?"
You have a largely under/uneducated society...and most of the education, is going to be religiously given/driven.
When you brainwash the masses...and keep them stupid and then only feed them propoganda...well...you see it today.
Another reason to fight like HELL, here in America for our freedom from political dictators and religious dictators.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Why do you expect them to operate within the assumptions of a free-press, free-speech framework.
They do not have anything in their education or experience to understand media which is NOT state sponsored or approved.
Why the can't foreigners understand English? That's what I want to know.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)The attack was planned in advance according to U.S. State Dept. sources. The attackers created a "protest" then used that to attack the embassy personnel. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/u-s-ambassador-to-libya-3-others-killed-in-rocket-attack-witness-says/
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)soldiers peeing on dead bodies?
American soldiers in the middle east?
the belief that America is the enemy of Islam?
the idea of burning the koran/
all the racism that exists against Muslims here, since 9/11?
the drones in Pakistan?
because in ,many cases, the only aid the people ever see is from right wing Islamic groups?
the list is endless.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)both the Jewish and Muslim religions strum the emotions, both are reactionary. We do not belong in these countries, not even an embassy and our intrusion in just about every country in the world will always anger those who resist change in those countries. We are targets in hostile countries. Israel will easily draw us into conflicts because they are haters. I dont want the US to ally with haters. we have enough of those in our country
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)unfortunately is not that hard. Who ever made this film knows exactly what they are doing, they are despicable.
Look at what Fox news does to people in this country, there are always people who are vulnerable to propaganda. I wonder if someone made money doing this.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)People want to talk about "root causes", there is your root cause.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)Because there are "low information" people everywhere..here, there and all over the place....they have their "radical clerics" stirring up trouble and we have our right wing radio/tv doing the same
ignorant, scared people will believe propaganda, and many only need a little push to act on those fears..
you do not see the big shots in terrorist organizations blowing themselves up..they get others to do it for them..
the anti abortion zealots did not actually kill those doctors, but their rhetoric surely convinced someone else to do it..
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)is not an "American value" that anyone needs to defend. Freedom of speech comes with the right of the listeners to call you an a**hole, any and even all of them. That would be their freedom of speech to respond.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)under pain of death then we should cut all ties, ban travel to such locations, and leave them to their own. If their offense leaves their borders then extreme reaction should be expected.
What we have is gap we cannot bridge without surrendering our own freedoms, maybe we can revisit this in a few hundred years but for now, divorce is what is needed. We simply shouldn't have a soul in harm's way. No industry, no embassies, no tourism, no nothing.
If there was no oil in the region, this would be the general rule anyway. We need to get off oil and they can deal without petro dollars.
progressoid
(49,978 posts)U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)WTF indeed.