News of the day

It ought to be remembered here that the victims of this attack did not make the bloody film, and, as such, certainly did not deserve anything, let alone this.

rushfan4 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote:   If you yell "fire" in a packed movie theater and people are trampled by the riot that ensues by the people that try to leave the theater.  Yes it is your fault, and our constitution, or at least our courts have interpreted our Constitution to say that it is your fault.  It is illegal to incite a riot.  And what I am saying is that these people knew that when they made this movie they would be inciting a riot.  No. They do not. You are guilty of another charge, namely inciting the riot. You are not guilty of trampling on someone's head and the resulting death. I am pretty certain that manslaughter or at the least involuntary manslaughter charges would also apply, but I will have to step back there since I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV.

I believe you also have to show intent of inciting a riot. I don't understand how this portrayal of Mohammad could be shown to have such intent.

rushfan4 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: thellama73 wrote: I understand the point you are making, but I think it is misguided. You act as though these people (murderers) are not responsible for their actions. You say that they are uneducated, as if that means they are animals who have no moral responsibilities, and the analogy of the beehive treats them as a natural force rather a group of sentient individuals. When a tiger escapes the zoo and kills someone, it should not be held accountable because it is merely acting on its instincts. Muslims are not animals, however, they are people and they should be treated in accordance with the same idea of justice we apply to Americans killing Americans. As I said in my initial post, I certainly did not condone what they did.  I certainly do not think that they are justified in murdering people for being Americans.  They are uneducated though.  And they do what their religious leaders tell them to do.  They are brought up under a different ideology than what we are brought up under as Americans, but I think that there outrage is probably only slightly less than what would happen with the right-wing Christian nutjobs, if the roles were reversed and a Muslim created a movie depicting Jesus as a womanizer and child abuser. Empathy is not the same thing as alleviation of guilt. I empathize with their reaction, but it's still condemnable. Much like the 9/11 terrorist, I understand their motivations and goals but that does not justify their actions. Nowhere have I said that they should be alleviated of the guilt.  However, what I have said is that the idiots who made the film that they knowingly could expect would incite this violence should share in that guilt.  This Jones guy is a repeat offender who does it for the attention.  It goes back to my previous comment about beating a beehive with a stick.  In this case, I guess it just makes him a coward because he is nowhere near the beehive that he is beating so he isn't the one who gets stung.

The edifice you are constructing certainly seems designed to make them appear less guilty.

So actions must be restricted because a certain group or people may act in a certain way?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: rushfan4 wrote:   If you yell "fire" in a packed movie theater and people are trampled by the riot that ensues by the people that try to leave the theater.  Yes it is your fault, and our constitution, or at least our courts have interpreted our Constitution to say that it is your fault.  It is illegal to incite a riot.  And what I am saying is that these people knew that when they made this movie they would be inciting a riot.  No. They do not. You are guilty of another charge, namely inciting the riot. You are not guilty of trampling on someone's head and the resulting death. I am pretty certain that manslaughter or at the least involuntary manslaughter charges would also apply, but I will have to step back there since I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV. I believe you also have to show intent of inciting a riot. I don't understand how this portrayal of Mohammad could be shown to have such intent.

It is common knowledge that the Muslim religion does not allow for the visual depiction of Mohammed.  In pretty much every single previous case where an artist/newspaper/government has visually depicted Mohammend, the end result has been protests and riots in Muslim nations.  Therefore, I think it is pretty simple to show the intent was to piss off millions of people and that more than likely a small portion of those millions of people would most likely show that they were pissed off by rioting like they have every single other time their religion or religious icon has been denigrated like that.  Again, I don't say that they are right in reacting that way, as they certainly are not, but the end the result is pretty damn well easy enough to figure out. 

rushfan4 wrote: It is common knowledge that the Muslim religion does not allow for the visual depiction of Mohammed.  In pretty much every single previous case where an artist/newspaper/government has visually depicted Mohammend, the end result has been protests and riots in Muslim nations.  Therefore, I think it is pretty simple to show the intent was to piss off millions of people and that more than likely a small portion of those millions of people would most likely show that they were pissed off by rioting like they have every single other time their religion or religious icon has been denigrated like that.  Again, I don't say that they are right in reacting that way, as they certainly are not, but the end the result is pretty damn well easy enough to figure out.    I suppose that our issue here is where do you draw the line between "we will not negotiate with terrorists" and "we will not provoke terrorists into committing acts of terror".

Doing something which you know will incite a riot is different than doing something to incite a riot. If you use the former as a burden of proof, you allow the mob to negate laws. Essentially then, I could arrange a large enough contingent of fanatics who will riot if a white man is charged for the murder of a black man so that the ADA that we kill for charging the murderer will have been guilty of his own murder.

"Obama Administration Officials Say Attack in Libya May Have Been Planned

The Obama administration suspects that the fiery attack in Libya that killed the American ambassador and three other diplomats may have been planned rather than a spontaneous mob getting out of control, American officials said Wednesday.

Officials in Washington studying the events of the past 24 hours have focused on the differences between the protests on the American embassy in Cairo and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, the Libyan city where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and the other Americans were killed.

The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack."

The T wrote: The justification applies even less now it seems.

Dean wrote: The T wrote: The justification applies even less now it seems.  How?

rushfan4 wrote: "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said. http://www.freep.com/article/20120912/NEWS07/120912015

He was talking about himself becoming a target of Islamists, not about a riot killing an ambassador.

//EDIT: Quoting the paragraph immediately preceding,

Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

Edited by Gamemako - September 12 2012 at 12:57

The T wrote: Dean wrote: The T wrote: The justification applies even less now it seems.  How? Scott said the attacks were a response to the stupid video. And then:  "The Obama administration suspects that the fiery attack in Libya that killed the American ambassador and three other diplomats may have been planned rather than a spontaneous mob getting out of control, American officials said Wednesday." It was never justified but even that explanation loses ground.  Is it so difficult to see?

I've never once said that it was justified.  How many types do I have to type that????  What I continuously have been saying is that everyone and their brothers would know that something like this would happen by making such a film and yet they made it anyways and gee big surprise it happened.  It doesn't mean that it was the right reaction but unfortunately it was the known reaction.