By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Suck it Libya! Death valley is now the hottest place on the planet! By the way America basically just went to war again......Will it never end?

babuks said:
SamuelRSmith said:
babuks said:

That would be your misunderstanding of 'freedom of speech'. Abusing other religion is not a good thing to have. Freedom should be for good reason. I hope you understand things as they should be.


"Freedom should be for good reason?". WHAT?! Freedom, in and of itself, IS the reason. It is not me who misunderstands what freedom of speech is, but you.


Then you, my friend, should not have any place for 'defamation' in your law. Do you have it? YES! Does it restrict your freedom of speech? YES! Does it punish you for malpracticing freedom of speech? YES! 

You got your answer.

I don't support defamation laws.



Around the Network
spurgeonryan said:
PullusPardus said:
brendude13 said:
The attacks were nothing to do with Muhammad, they're just butthurt over temperature records.


honestly ,they're nothing to do with anything they're just fucking idiots trying to cause shit in 9/11.


Well the sure as hell picked a hell of a day to do it! But it was no where near as bad as 9/11. I think Obama is just overeacting just like Bush did countless times. I would give my left testicle if Obama and Romney both lost the race.

 

 

Off topic:

 

How long before America makes 9/11 a National Holiday?

Isn't it pretty much one already?



the2real4mafol said:

 

Wow 57c (134f) is bloody hot!

But, I think America provoked this recent muslim insurgency across the middle east (protests were not just in Libya, but Egypt, Iran and Lebanon too), that film, was incredibly offensive. I am atheist and I found it offensive! It's no wonder we are seeing scenes where American ambassadors and flags are being destroyed. I'm sure there would be similar outrage, if a movie was made depicting America or Christianity in this way.

 

 

 


Movies about Christianity and America are made about that like.... every couple months...



babuks said:
SamuelRSmith said:
babuks said:
brendude13 said:
babuks said:

But Obama and others are only condemning the muslims, not the main culprits who tried to breach the peace.

You have got to be kidding me.


No, I am not. You want justice, condemn both of their work. If you are a rational human being, why would you support that film which can cause breach of peace? Islam does not support criticising dead people, cause they are not alive and can't criticise you back. 

If someone abuses my parents or anyone I love and on sudden provocation I hit him and injure him, it is not an offence in the eye of law. I don't know about US laws, but it is a principle in common law. You can't provocate other and expect peace.


Because free speech is a human right. Not being offended isn't. Ergo, I will not condemn somebody's free speech over somebody's reaction to being offended.

Actually, the thought of condemning free speech actually offends me. I might go and attack the local US Consulate for the Hillary's/Obama's comments on the film.


That would be your misunderstanding of 'freedom of speech'. Abusing other religion is not a good thing to have. Freedom should be for good reason. I hope you understand things as they should be.

Then it's not freedom...

If you don't protect someones right to say something stupid.

You aren't protecting rights or freedom.

The right to offend is one of the most important rights a society needs to protect.



babuks said:
SamuelRSmith said:
babuks said:

That would be your misunderstanding of 'freedom of speech'. Abusing other religion is not a good thing to have. Freedom should be for good reason. I hope you understand things as they should be.


"Freedom should be for good reason?". WHAT?! Freedom, in and of itself, IS the reason. It is not me who misunderstands what freedom of speech is, but you.


Then you, my friend, should not have any place for 'defamation' in your law. Do you have it? YES! Does it restrict your freedom of speech? YES! Does it punish you for malpracticing freedom of speech? YES! 

You got your answer.

Defamation laws have nothing to do with being offensive.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
babuks said:
SamuelRSmith said:
babuks said:

That would be your misunderstanding of 'freedom of speech'. Abusing other religion is not a good thing to have. Freedom should be for good reason. I hope you understand things as they should be.


"Freedom should be for good reason?". WHAT?! Freedom, in and of itself, IS the reason. It is not me who misunderstands what freedom of speech is, but you.


Then you, my friend, should not have any place for 'defamation' in your law. Do you have it? YES! Does it restrict your freedom of speech? YES! Does it punish you for malpracticing freedom of speech? YES! 

You got your answer.

Defamation laws have nothing to do with being offensive.


That analogy was made to show that 'freedom' is not absolute. It depends on many things and most importantly, it is for the good of the people, not the opposite.



Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Seems like... an expensive overreaction....

it is an election year though....

Exactly. Have to get to the right of Romney, although the pundits are saying Romney's fumbled this whole mess (i'm on internal feeds of the democratic party for my internship, and they're playing it up as a big flub for him)

Well he did basically say "See Obama fucked up!" right after an important US official died.

At best what he did was a pretty crass mistake.

Shoud of gave it two days at least.

For Romney's part I don't think waiting two days was really necessary. Its 2 months before a US Presidential election. I think there are a lot of things that he should be able to speak about considering that people want to know where he stands on all issues. Now making a statement the same night it was learned that a US diplomat may have been killed may have been a bit soon.

never the less he was making his disagreement known about the statement released from the US embassy in Cairo. The embassy stood by its statements for most of the day through tweets.  shortly after 8 PM Jake Tapper had tweeted that the Secretary of state said a US diplomat had been killed. shortly after that Hillary Clinton tweeted an affirmation of the Embassies statement ("The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." ). Around 10 PM the Romney campaign apparently released its statement but put an embargo on it to not be released until after midnight. Just a few short minutes of him releasing an embargoed statement to the media the White House released a statement saying it did not approve of the statement released by the Embassy therefore contradicting the State Department and Hillary Clinton.

Only a matter of minutes after the White House stated that it disagreed with the Embassy and Clinton, Romneys statement was then Prematurely lifted and there fore was released to the public. It said:

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

That statement was in response to the Embassy statement, and of the State Department apparently accepting it. Later that night after midnight an Obama Campaign spokesman accused Romney of launching a political attack on the day of a US diplomat's death. it was later that monring around 6 AM that it was made official that the US ambassador to Libya along with 3 other Americans were killed.

 

In light of all that Romney may have been a bit premature, but still I think he was fine to make a statement regarding his disagreement on the stances of the Embassy and State Department for most of that day. Later on Tuesday Romney commended the White House for disagreeing with the Embassy statement. I just don't see why Romney's response was all that bad and that it deserved so much negative media attention.

Here is a Timeline of the Events of the two days:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765603612/Rough-timeline-shows-sequence-of-events-in-Egypt-and-Libya-on-Sept-11-12-2012.html?pg=1




Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

 

Wow 57c (134f) is bloody hot!

But, I think America provoked this recent muslim insurgency across the middle east (protests were not just in Libya, but Egypt, Iran and Lebanon too), that film, was incredibly offensive. I am atheist and I found it offensive! It's no wonder we are seeing scenes where American ambassadors and flags are being destroyed. I'm sure there would be similar outrage, if a movie was made depicting America or Christianity in this way.

 

 

 


Movies about Christianity and America are made about that like.... every couple months...

Oh well then, but from the sound of it, this recent muslim insurgency seems like it could of been avoided, if it were never released on the internet. It's pretty stupid that religion is taken so seriously, everywhere. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

babuks said:
Kasz216 said:
babuks said:
SamuelRSmith said:
babuks said:

That would be your misunderstanding of 'freedom of speech'. Abusing other religion is not a good thing to have. Freedom should be for good reason. I hope you understand things as they should be.


"Freedom should be for good reason?". WHAT?! Freedom, in and of itself, IS the reason. It is not me who misunderstands what freedom of speech is, but you.


Then you, my friend, should not have any place for 'defamation' in your law. Do you have it? YES! Does it restrict your freedom of speech? YES! Does it punish you for malpracticing freedom of speech? YES! 

You got your answer.

Defamation laws have nothing to do with being offensive.


That analogy was made to show that 'freedom' is not absolute. It depends on many things and most importantly, it is for the good of the people, not the opposite.

A) That's now why defamation laws exist.

B) Being offended IS good for the people.  To be routinley offended about anything and everything and being forced to get used to it teaches people critical thinking skills.



There won't be a war as the protests are simmering down. Besides, the majority of the citizens in those nations are pro-american. However, if there were to be a war, it wouldn't be a war that heavily depended on the states. Britain, Switzerland, and Germany embassies have also been attacked. And a little off topic comment : Pretty big protest in Russia against Putin and a even bigger protest in China that wants to go to war against Japan. Remember that we are allies with Japan so.....2012.