Jump to content

US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks


GostHacked

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is bullshit. Bill Maher insults religion all the time. Works of art depicting peeing on Jesus happen all the time. Passion of the Christ insulted Christian groups.

The problem is, pretty much everything insults Islam. There was a Muslim man in ENgl;and who threatened and caused burger king to change the chocolate swirl on top of their ice cream cone because it resembled the Arabic symbol for allah. Then there was the threat against the adult shop for having a blow up doll named "Mustafa Shag". Strange, you'd think people would be more concerned about real men named Mustafa blowing up, but I digress :lol: And funny you couldn't even get a single liberal up in arms about someone else trying to mess with a sex shop. Sexual liberty is the only kind of liberty a liberal will stand up for. To hell with the first amendment, I need my shaggin'. LOL!

Your reaction is the exact opposite of what should be happening. Filmmakers and reporters are always patting themselves on the back about being "brave" and "transgressive". Well here it is: real bravery would involve every media outlet on the planet airing this movie. Not because it is good, but because it represents the opposite of cowering in the corner, announcing to Islam that all you have to do is blow something up and we will all cow tow to your vision of the world: a world that never insults the prophet.

They have blasphemy laws in places in this world, countries where insulting Allah is off limits: they're called Saudi Arabia. Now we may have "freedom of speech" de jure in this country, but if you are going to let some piss ant Muslims intimidate everything you publish, then you don't have freedom of speech de facto, and you may as well be in Saudi Arabia.

Look at the Times Square Viacom attempt: mad at "Southpark" for the muhammed bear thing.

This is the problem with liberals, and they're too dumb to realize they're doing it. They pretend to be all "freedom of artistic integrity" until it's something that they don't like. Liberals didn't like Clint's awesome mockery of Obama in the empty chair, so they dragged it through the mud. "You can't make fun of Obama!!!"

Same goes for Muslims. But Jesus is OK. It's a tricky double standard. The bottom line? If it doesn't agree with their worldview, it's just not funny. :lol:

It's OK to tell a catholic university like Georgetown to do things it finds religiously unconscionablee, but never ever make a film that insults the prophet Muhammed. Got it? See it now? LOL!! Maybe if the Catholics started blowing people up the liberals would have an ear for them. :lol: :lol: :lol:

See how stupid these people are? Basically encouraging violence to get your point across.

You make a good point about liberal group think. It's fine to insult Christianity but not Islam. That is simply nonsense, and people with common sense can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blowback is what happens when you support them to fight off someone else and they come back to fly some planes into some buildings. Was it worth it?

So you're blaming the US for 9/11 now.

Well can't really debate with someone that holds to logic like that.

The irony is a vast majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. What turned OBL and his friends against the west was the First Gulf War where Saudi Arabia begged the US to save them from Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're blaming the US for 9/11 now.

Well can't really debate with someone that holds to logic like that.

You did listen to what Clinton said in the video right? She fully admits that the USA helped create Al-Queda. Even when the government tells you what happened, you still don't want to put the blame on them? And my logic is called into question?

Well without this then you can't really understand why 9/11 happened. I am not blaming the US for it (we can leave that to the tin foil hat thread, because in this context I have to stay in what you call 'reality')

When 9/11 happened, there was a lot of confusion as to why the US was attacked. It seems that there is a lot of confusion as to what really happened for the attack on the US embassies in Egypt, Libya (and now reports of this happening in Yemen, Iraq, and Iran).

So this is two cases where supporting the rebels with terrorists among them come back to bit the USA in the ass. Again, was it worth it? It's called blowback for a reason.

The irony is a vast majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. What turned OBL and his friends against the west was the First Gulf War where Saudi Arabia begged the US to save them from Iraq.

So why was Saudi Arabia not attacked? I've never heard an answer for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could not agree more.

Funny how we talk about freedoms and ever since 9/11 Americans and Canadians have seen an incremental tear down of our rights and freedoms in the name of security because someone put a couple planes into a couple buildings. TSA?

It's nice to see you guys still advocating Sharia blasphemy laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is bullshit. Bill Maher insults religion all the time. Works of art depicting peeing on Jesus happen all the time. Passion of the Christ insulted Christian groups.

If what Maher was saying contributed to people dieing I would be just as critical of him as I am of people like Jones. All I'm saying is think before you speak. If there is a good possibility that others will suffer so you can shoot your mouth off, perhaps you should consult them first and if you can't, at least make sure it is very, very good. I agree with Bonam when he says that video wasn't worth killing anyone over. Neither was it worth dieing for.

We hold politicians and other officials accountable for the consequences of what they say, should we be immune from the same accountability just because we don't hold such a position? I don't think so. It's OK for a person who doesn't hold a position of responsibility to be as stupid and anal as they like regardless of the possible consequences for others because it's their right? It may be their right but it's not OK.

Looks like it's a moot point in this case as it seems the demonstrations were just a smoke screen for something else.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're blaming the US for 9/11 now.

Well can't really debate with someone that holds to logic like that.

The irony is a vast majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia. What turned OBL and his friends against the west was the First Gulf War where Saudi Arabia begged the US to save them from Iraq.

why not the CIA does, they call it "blowback"...it's naive to think that you can meddle in the affairs of others and not get a reaction to punitive bombings, assassinations, "collateral damage", coups...americans have this perception that those lives lost in other countries are just "collateral damage" faceless individuals of no importance and worth and no one cares...but they are real people and they have real families and they do get mad and look for justice and revenge...

from wiki-

Originally, blowback was CIA internal coinage denoting the unintended, harmful consequences—to friendly populations and military forces—when a given weapon is carelessly used. Examples include anti-Western religious fanatics (see Osama bin Laden) who, in due course, attack foe and sponsor; right-wing counter-revolutionaries who sell drugs to their sponsor’s civil populace (see CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US); and banana republic juntas (see Salvadoran Civil War) who kill American reporters or nuns (see Dorothy Kazel).

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état, published in March 1954.[2][3]

Blowback is the espionage term for unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering the blowback of covert operations, the effect typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.[1] Specifically, blowback denotes the resultant, violent consequences—reported as news fact, by domestic and international mass communications media, when the actor intelligence agency hides its responsibility via media manipulation. Generally, blowback loosely denotes every consequence of every aspect of a secret attack operation, thus, it is synonymous with consequence—the attacked victims’ revenge against the civil populace of the aggressor country, because the responsible politico-military leaders are invulnerable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good point about liberal group think. It's fine to insult Christianity but not Islam. That is simply nonsense, and people with common sense can see that.

so a minority of muslims react violently and you assume they're all violent and unhinged?...I've already posted there are violent christians in canada and the US that are same do you make that same assumption of all christians?...

sharkman logic=christians bomb abortion clinics, christians kill abortion MDs, white supremacist christians attack and kill visible minorities, christians have child brides, therefore all christians are unhinged murderous psychopathic pedophiles...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so a minority of muslims react violently and you assume they're all violent and unhinged?...I've already posted there are violent christians in canada and the US that are same do you make that same assumption of all christians?...

I do think there's a huge diff in the relative size of these minorities. And I do think the Muslim majority passively supports the Islamist minority in countries like Egypt and Pakistan. In the West, the Christians who passively support the much smaller number of radical are themselves a minority. That does make a diff.

Edited by Canuckistani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think there's a huge diff in the relative size of these minorities. And I do think the Muslim majority passively supports the Islamist minority in countries like Egypt and Pakistan. In the West, the Christians who passively support the much smaller number of radical are themselves a minority. That does make a diff.

that's an assumption you can't prove, just as I can't prove "passive support" moderate christians give our radicals....there is no difference...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it means innocents may suffer as a result of what we say, at the very least it deserves some reflection. It is one thing to respect a persons right to say something. It is quite something else to absolve them of all responsibility for any consequences

Nobody's denying that Jones is an aho deserving social shunning - and I certainly won't be contributing to his campaign. :lol:

But he isn't legally responsible for the violent overreaction of others.

But considering the award winning anti-Catholic video mentioned - a woman masturbating with a crucifix, which I believe is valid art and a valid statement against the church's protection of pedophiles and general obsession with sexual behaviour - I can't deny Jones' right to express his revulsion for Islam either.

As a member of a religion, you can perhaps be sanctioned for oppositional behaviour within that religion.

As a non-member, you are legally free to criticize.

Regardless of all else, extremist Muslims or fanatics of any kind cannot use violence to try to silence criticism.

Perhaps there is a case to be made against Jones for intentionally inciting hatred and violence against Americans ... treason perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice walk back. At least you have a bit of common sense.

This isn't what the fight is about. It is about Romney getting mad at Obama over a statement HE NEVER MADE. It is about Romney shooting first and aiming later. That isn't the type of president anyone needs. The US has always understood that their would be blow back in the middle East because the US are free to say and believe what they want.

The question of is Obama's foreign policy working because there has been one attack on the US in a none war Zone while he is president or should we do what you want and go back to the Bush policy well I don't know lets look how many attacks he brought:

June 14, 2002, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan

Suicide bomber kills 12 and injures 51.

February 20, 2003, international diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Truck bomb kills 17.

February 28, 2003, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan

Gunmen on motorcycles killed two consulate guards.

July 30, 2004, U.S. embassy in Taskkent, Uzbekistan

Suicide bomber kills two.

December 6, 2004, U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Militants stormed and occupied perimeter wall. Five killed, 10 wounded.

March 2, 2006, U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan

Suicide car bomber killed four, including a U.S. diplomate directly targeted by the assailants.

September 12, 2006, U.S. embassy in Damascus, Syria

Gunmen attacked embassy with grenades, automatic weapons, and a car bomb (though second truck bomb failed to detonate). One killed and 13 wounded.

January 12, 2007, U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece

A rocket-propelled grenade was fired at the embassy building. No one was injured.

July 9, 2008, U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey

Armed men attacked consulate with pistols and shotguns. Three policemen killed.

March 18, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen

Mortar attack misses embassy, hits nearby girls' school instead.

September 17, 2008, U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen

Militants dressed as policemen attacked the embassy with RPGs, rifles, grenades and car bombs. Six Yemeni soldiers and seven civilians were killed. Sixteen more were injured.

YEP YOU ARE WRONG!!!

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...