US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks

[jacee]

They might need to implement 'Free Speech Zones' in Egypt and Libya.

Protesting at the Embassy is fine.

Using … guns and rocket-propelled grenades – to kill people is not.

Get the distinction now?

[jbg]

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?

The TSA restrictions are designed to protect our safety. Personally, I question them, but more on effectiveness grounds.

A badly produced video is not a threat to Muslims' safety.

[BubberMiley]

lets look how many attacks he brought:

You forgot the big one on September 11, 2001, which we learned this week he had plenty of intel on telling him to take precautionary measures to avoid it, all of which he ignored.

[punked]

You forgot the big one on September 11, 2001, which we learned this week he had plenty of intel on telling him to take precautionary measures to avoid it, all of which he ignored.

Yep the Republicans are a foreign policy nightmare.

Edited September 13, 2012 by punked

[Canuckistani]

Canuckistani, on 13 September 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

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...

You really believe the majority in Egypt and Pakistan are moderate Muslims who have a live and let live attitude towards other religions?

[GostHacked]

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

I don't have to walk back from statement that I did not make. Nor has anyone else made that kind of comment about Sharia Law, only you.

In the USA the constitution which is touted as one of the best pieces on the planet is continually being marginalized by executive orders and signing statements from Obama and previous presidents. We have seen how the TSA has gone from the airports, to bus terminals and train stations and huge sporting events and recently at both the RNC and DNC.

But here is how your logic works. You made a comment about Sharia Law to try and counter my statement about the ever increasing surveillance on the American (and now Canadian) populations by our own governments. You should be more worried about the encroaching police state than worrying about if Sharia Law will ever get implemented in places like the USA.

Try to evolve out of the one-dimensional thinking you might learn a few things.

[GostHacked]

You forgot the big one on September 11, 2001, which we learned this week he had plenty of intel on telling him to take precautionary measures to avoid it, all of which he ignored.

That information has been known for years and was part of the 9/11 investigations which were left out of the final reports and barely mentioned afterwards.

[Guest American Woman]

What a bigoted post. You're saying that the denizens of Cairo and Benghazi are utterly incapable of self-control when they hear about (and I doubt they watched) a video that might offend them.

Come on, jbg. It's the pastor's (or whoever's) fault. That's sooo obvious, don't'cha know. No one should ever provoke anyone else.

Wait. That's not right.

Ah, yes. Provoke to your heart's content, just don't provoke anyone inclined towards violence.

And while we must recognize that they are prone towards violence and therefore take pains not insult them, we must not ever, ever say that they are prone towards violence. To do so would be bigotry, prejudice, bias, et al.

Edited September 13, 2012 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Come on, jbg. It's the pastor's (or whoever's) fault. That's sooo obvious, don't'cha know. No one should ever provoke anyone else.

Wait. That's not right.

Ah, yes. Provoke to your heart's content, just don't provoke anyone inclined towards violence.

Provoke all you want. Just don't be so surprised if/when it bites you in the ass.

[bud]

limiting free speech is not a good idea. the bigots such as pastor terry, the coptic christian who pretended to be an israeli businessman, the sensitive religious muslim fanatics, the holocaust deniers, the muslim haters on this board and any other person, it doesn't matter how ugly they are, should be free to speak. any type of limit on speech is a mistake.

Edited September 13, 2012 by bud

[Signals.Cpl]

Provoke all you want. Just don't be so surprised if/when it bites you in the ass.

Well, in this case it bites someone else in the ass rather than the fool who is doing the provoking.

[BubberMiley]

Provoke all you want. Just don't be so surprised if/when it bites you in the ass.

But these debates work better if you create strawman arguments based on things nobody ever said, and then go on for days misunderstanding people's basic points, don't'cha know.

[punked]

But these debates work better if you create strawman arguments based on things nobody ever said, and then go on for days misunderstanding people's basic points, don't'cha know.

Yep that is what the Republicans have done this whole election cycle. Which is why they should lose, they don't even understand English or how it works. Never mind math they can't even process speech at a grade 7 level.

[Guest American Woman]

Provoke all you want. Just don't be so surprised if/when it bites you in the ass.

Who, exactly, is surprised?

But if you feel the need to continually focus on and criticize and blame the people who broke no laws over the violent killers, that's your right; and if such attention empowers the violent, just don't be surprised.

Gotta love freedom of speech, eh?

[Shady]

Provoke all you want. Just don't be so surprised if/when it bites you in the ass.

I definitely will exercise my free speech rights. If somebody takes offense to that on the other side of the world, that's their problem. Just as me being offended by what somebody on the other side of the world says is my problem. Stop excusing uncivilied behavior. Once again, if you don't like our freedoms, move somewhere else.

[punked]

I definitely will exercise my free speech rights. If somebody takes offense to that on the other side of the world, that's their problem. Just as me being offended by what somebody on the other side of the world says is my problem. Stop excusing uncivilied behavior. Once again, if you don't like our freedoms, move somewhere else.

No one is excusing someone else's behavior. Once Freedom of speech is an excuse from freedom of thought then we have a problem.

BTW all this free speech talk yet Shady doesn't say anything about WI where crazy right wing republicans have made it illegal to hold a sign in their public buildings. Hmmmmmmm strange right FREEDOM FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE.

I seem to remember Shady very much supported those who are now violating Americans free speech on American soil. Although he supports those who insight violence against Americans. Welcomes right wingville where up is down and down is up.

Must hurt to have your Hypocrisy exposed for everyone to see Shady. Maybe this is grounds for another recall. Or do you only support freedom for speech for people who get Americans killed instead of peaceful protesters.

Edited September 13, 2012 by punked

[JerrySeinfeld]

I definitely will exercise my free speech rights. If somebody takes offense to that on the other side of the world, that's their problem. Just as me being offended by what somebody on the other side of the world says is my problem. Stop excusing uncivilied behavior. Once again, if you don't like our freedoms, move somewhere else.

Liberals are liberals because it FEELS good. Not because it IS good. Once you realize that being a liberal has more to do with feelings than facts, you understand much about how they view the world.

Remember, liberals are mommy. Republicans are daddy. And since liberals are more feminine, they believe that HOW THEY FEEL entitles them to act in certain ways.

Why do you think society always excuses womens' behavior. WOman throws a drink in a man's face? "what did HE do to deserve it".

Woman slaps a man? Same thing. Woman kills her kids? must've been a provocation or mental troubles.

Now turn the tables: if a man throws a drink in a woman's face, he is held responsible for his actions. same goes for hitting a woman. same goes for killing people.

This is the parallel to the liberal knee jerk reaction to muslim outrage and violence: they view muslims the same way society views women: incapable of controlling their behavior because they were overcome by emotion.

Essentiall the liberal view is racist: "those dumb brown people don't have the same capacity to control their rage the same way us white liberals do."

[punked]

Liberals are liberals because it FEELS good. Not because it IS good. Once you realize that being a liberal has more to do with feelings than facts, you understand much about how they view the world.

Its not Liberals limiting free speech in the US it is CONSERVATIVES. See my above example.

[Guest American Woman]

Its not Liberals limiting free speech in the US it is CONSERVATIVES. See my above example.

Both do. And the 'party line regardless' people just don't see it.

[punked]

Both do. And the 'party line regardless' people just don't see it.

No they really don't. I have yet to see an example of it on the left. I am tired of this "they both do it" crap when it is clear one side does this stuff then turns around and accuses the other side of doing so that people will say both sides do it.

No one side does it, and the other side takes all the blame.

[eyeball]

Yep that is what the Republicans have done this whole election cycle. Which is why they should lose, they don't even understand English or how it works. Never mind math they can't even process speech at a grade 7 level.

The thread Confessions of a Former Republican comes to mind and the following passage from the the OP's link seems apropos here.

An old saw has it that no one profits from talking about politics or religion. I think I finally understand what it means. We see different realities, different worlds. If you and I take in different slices of reality, chances are that we aren’t talking about the same things. I think this explains much of modern American political dialogue.

Edited September 13, 2012 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

But these debates work better if you create strawman arguments based on things nobody ever said, and then go on for days misunderstanding people's basic points, don't'cha know.

That does seem to be the case. Part of my problem with my job as well, where listening comprehension and reading comprehension have gone out the door for the most part. I am guilty of both of those myself and correct myself when I can or when called out on it. It's called learning and growing. But most would rather have things spoon fed to them instead of trying to think critically about the events taking place.

Now that I have presented some facts, the argument goes back to a strawman argument about me and others wanting Sharia Law. Or that I don't support free speech, or that we should not insult Islam. Even when clarification is given, their brains are still stuck on that one item creating a closed loop in their logical thinking. They cannot escape it. And since we have moved on with the conversation to look at a bigger picture, some here have proven that they cannot think outside the little box they have been conditioned to stay in.

And since I am using my free speech rights, I am told to GTFO of the country. Bizzarro World.

[Guest American Woman]

No they really don't. I have yet to see an example of it on the left.

Then perhaps it's true - "there's none so blind as those who will not see."

I am tired of this "they both do it" crap when it is clear one side does this stuff then turns around and accuses the other side of doing so that people will say both sides do it.

Both sides do do it.

No one side does it, and the other side takes all the blame.

Both sides do it, and there are those on both sides who claim only the other side does it.

[punked]

Then perhaps it's true - "there's none so blind as those who will not see."

Both sides do do it.

Both sides do it, and there are those on both sides who claim only the other side does it.

Don't say both sides do it. SHOW ME. I have shown you a very clear example of the right in WI limiting speech in their PUBLIC buildings. Now it is your turn. I will wait here I promise.

I will give this the Left does use their freedom of speech to criticize who use free speech to spread hate. That however is not limiting speech it is using it as a tool to progress society. They aren't speaking of limiting speech in anyway though when they do that.

[GostHacked]

Both sides do it, and there are those on both sides who claim only the other side does it.

Yes indeed, it is a constant game back and forth. Something I got tired of some years ago. But it's played out here all the time. I do commend you for recognizing at least that much.