"Innocence of Muslims" Crisis

Originally posted by Mairuzu
But in this case, with your bee comparison, the bee's attacked months after the kid messed with the beehive. Not even one single bee did a thing till 9/11. No prior bee stings.

This wasn't because of a video.

Though I agree that to say it's a simple cause and effect would be faulty--it's more a case of an excuse to vent pent-up frustration and a rallying call.

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize the "should have known better" doesn't hold up in court very well in most cases, right?

Humor me, if a woman dresses "slutty", flirts with a bunch of men at a bar, flashes her boobs and such and then ends up getting raped by one or more of those men, whose fault is it that she got raped?

Why would it need to "hold up"?

There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

And my point has never been that the people who do violence are excused from it just because someone pushed them to that point. People who do violence should always be prosecuted. It was that people who incite others to do violence should also be held responsible especially when there was loss of life involved.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why would it need to "hold up"?

There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

... It was that people who incite others to do violence should also be held responsible especially when there was loss of life involved.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested, 11 days after US Federal authorities questioned him over his alleged involvement with “Innocence of Muslims” but for violating his parole for a crime, not the film.

Of course, that's the same as arresting him for publishing the film, in the imaginative way of American jurisprudence. I wonder what the agitators of "Muslim rage" will do: ignore it?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
When have we recently drone bombed south america? haermm

When have we recently provided aid to militants (even the ones we are fighting on afghanistan) to overthrow their leaders in south america?

Control is already set in place in that location. Sorry, fail. That's what happens when guns are banned.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Wait, why is everyone arguing under the impression that there isn't massive political unrest throughout Latin and South America as a result of American intervention? [oops, missed Ush's last post]

How are cartels, the target of the war on drugs, different from Al Qaeda, the target of the war on terror?

When was the last time Colombian drug cartels bombed the shit out of Chinese embassies, kidnapped Russian officials or targeted Nigerian civilians?

Also, I don't remember waves of Nicaraguan terrorists committing terrorist acts around Egypt, Norway, Sweden and such.

If you're going to blame everything on American intervention, which was by the way miles worse in S.A than that in the Middle East, we have to see some kind of pattern.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
When was the last time Colombian drug cartels bombed the shit out of Chinese embassies, kidnapped Russian officials or targeted Nigerian civilians?

Also, I don't remember waves of Nicaraguan terrorists committing terrorist acts around Egypt, Norway, Sweden and such.

If you're going to blame everything on American intervention, which was by the way miles worse in S.A than that in the Middle East, we have to see some kind of pattern.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
When was the last time Colombian drug cartels bombed the shit out of Chinese embassies, kidnapped Russian officials or targeted Nigerian civilians?

Also, I don't remember waves of Nicaraguan terrorists committing terrorist acts around Egypt, Norway, Sweden and such.

If you're going to blame everything on American intervention, which was by the way miles worse in S.A than that in the Middle East, we have to see some kind of pattern.

why does the result have to be identical?

in many ways, cartels are worse than al qaeda

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

"She wanted it, officer. Did you see that top she was wearing?"

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The attack on the embassy which killed Stevens was obviously planned concidering that the movie was released months ago and that the attacks were in multiple areas at the same time aimed to be on 9/11. They aren't just attacking US embassies either.

The crowds in Egypt are rioting for an Al Qaida member, Omar Abdel Rahman aka "The Blind Sheikh" to be freed.

People in Libya were acting in retaliation due to a drone strike in june which killed another Al Qaida operative from Libya, Mohammed Hassan Qaed.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why would it need to "hold up"?

There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

And my point has never been that the people who do violence are excused from it just because someone pushed them to that point. People who do violence should always be prosecuted. It was that people who incite others to do violence should also be held responsible especially when there was loss of life involved.

You were the one saying those arsonist would not be found guilty with a good lawyer, no?

No, it's a like comparison. You're claiming the theater owner is to blame in part because he invited people to his theater, allowed lighters/cigarettes and viewed a racist film. He invited them to smoke and watch a film, not commit a crime.

In some conditions yes, I do think people who incite others to do violence should be prosecuted. But the theater example isn't one of them and to be on topic, neither is the filmmaker(s) of Innocence of Muslims.

Originally posted by rudester
Like Castle King how cute... poor gay war veterans

lol

Who are you? You're not supposed to know who King Castle is with your registration date.

PM me the answer.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
YouTube video

This guy is going places. He needs to be put on a national spot at like CNN or Fox.

I doubt that will happen though. He doesn't fit their "agenda"

Originally posted by Laurie
This is the land of the free, and we have free speech. The difference being, we don't fly planes into their countries buildings... We don't bury women up to their waiss, or necks, and stone them. We don't allow ours sons and and fathers to hunt down and murder errant daughters either.

And, I know that not all Muslims are radicals...

Please keep your twisted logic to yourself. You are hardly in position to judge other societies.

You are free to do whatever you want to in your country. But don't expect other societies to be tolerant if you insult their beliefs.

You need to realize that freedom of speech and expression without 'responsibility' is bad.

Originally posted by Oliver North lol, and where would one find a clear incitement to violence?

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what your point in this thread is, aside from "dem towelheads bad!"

Like, you say that we wouldn't be allowed to protest in their nations, then say how people should adopt the values of the nation they live in. The muslims who are protesting are in fact protesting according to their own nation's values... and by your own logic, it is wrong for us to try and enforce free speech on them...

so I'm not sure if you were just trolling Muslims or if you were aware of the internal inconsistencies...?

Thank you, my Man.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The closest analogy I could think of here is if you guys saw a beehive and then one of your friends decided to stir it just to troll people and someone got killed because of it. Of course you blame the bees for stinging the guy to death, but the ******* who stirred the bees deserved his teeth kicked in, too.

/shrug

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Exactly.

Thank you, my Man.

It appears you are suggesting freedom of speech should be curtailed when people are offended, such as your points about "responsibility":

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You need to realize that freedom of speech and expression without 'responsibility' is bad.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is why 'responsibility' is important.

if this is the case, there is no exactly or thank you necessary

we disagree entirely and you missed my point

Originally posted by Oliver North
It appears you are suggesting freedom of speech should be curtailed when people are offended, such as your points about "responsibility":

if this is the case, there is no exactly or thank you necessary

we disagree entirely and you missed my point

Do you think that hate speech should be promoted?

No, but it should be allowed.

Agreed.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Do you think that hate speech should be promoted?

honestly, yes

sunlight is the best disinfectant. These ideas need as much exposure as possible so the people who believe them can be identified and marginalized as the morons they are.

Censorship is a position of cowardice

Originally posted by Oliver North
honestly, yes

sunlight is the best disinfectant. These ideas need as much exposure as possible so the people who believe them can be identified and marginalized as the morons they are.

I like it