US Ambassador in Libya Killed - Page 4

**Miburo** · 09-14-2012, 08:06 PM

But as I said, would that really even solve anything without the entire world getting in on the ban freedom thing? And even if such things were illegal, would that stop people from doing things that piss off the savages? I mean, is arresting a guy after he already pissed them off going to stop them? Are these people going to go "Oh, well, he got in trouble for it. Call off the senseless murdering guys!"? These are the same guys murdering people who had absolutely nothing to do with this little video in any way, remember. What kind of deterrent are you suggesting that would make people way too scared to do something upsetting to the savages? It really doesn't seem like this solution would be...well, much of a solution to anything at all.

It's certainly understandable that people would want to do things to prevent this type of shit. But it's definitely very important to think these things all the way through, especially when it comes at the expense of very important principles like freedom and shit. This is the same type of thing that lead to wire-tapping and other shit after 9/11. Nothing good really came of that stuff either.

Vanity · 09-14-2012, 08:09 PM

Which is why I noted in a previous post that, unless someone is screening EVERYTHING EVER, how in the world would this be stopped? Prevention is impossible without a massive amount of people invading privacy.

stubborn_d0nkey · 09-14-2012, 08:12 PM

I saw some mention/talk of religious people while skimming the thread, so I'm gonna share some thoughts on it:

Religion,ie. being religious, doesn't make somebody crazy (you what I mean),or atleast in most cases it doesn't. The problem comes when being religious is comebined with an element/characteristic that does just that. That thing is fanboyism (for a lack of a better word).

Just think about it (before I attempt to explain it, which I probably won't do that well), fanboys and religiius "nuts" are pretty much the same.

Fanboy's are irrational, thinkheaded and opinionated when it comes to whatever they connect to the source/target of their fanboyism, and they connect their target to whatever they can.

Doesn't that sound like religious people (the crazy ones, not the ok ones)? The biggest problem with religion+fanboyism (in comparison with conventional notions of fanboyism) is the last part of the paragraph above. Religion is already quite meddling, but when you add fanboyism, oh, boy, it get bads.

Depending on the level of fanboyism, the attributes of a fanboy can quite practically become the attributes of a person who is religious+has the fanboyism, even if it wouldn't be so otherwise, do to them connecting the source of their fanboyism to pretty much everything.

Anyways, you may be wondering what is the point of me writing this. Beats me.

Edit:lol

**Miburo** · 09-14-2012, 08:21 PM

And what about Christians here? Do they get the same special protection against upsetting things? Or is that privilege reserved only for terrorists and murderers? How about any group that gets made fun of?

Why not just go all the way and make it illegal to upset anyone for anything? It does seem rather silly to limit it only for groups of psychopathic savages.

Like I said, fuck those guys.

Tzu Men · 09-14-2012, 08:26 PM

I think that the restrictions would act as a deterrent for the people who made the film. And if they predicted that their film would be seen as being illegal I do think that their actions to evade the law would harm its exposure. Driving them into possibly added illegal actions isn't great but it does further disassociate them from the state.

If the restrictions don't work as a successful deterrent then they've been a waste of time, but then they're also not harmed civil liberty anyway. Nothing is really at expense if people ignore the law anyway. A powerless law might as well not be a law.

Obviously everything can't be screened. And the radicals who react to anything anyway (as I said about the Danish cartoons etc.) won't go away. But I do think that the borderline morons, who have been motivated along with the full-time idiots would respond positively in the future to seeing that USA law actually did something. The effect isn't immediate. The embassy in Benghazi would still have been attacked but all the shit happening right now might have been lessened if the film maker being arrested for questioning was broadcasted worldwide.

Edit: And Miburo this wouldn't be partisan. Sufficient incitement towards any group would count.
Basically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitem..._racial_hatred

Even if the film doesn't tell people to e.g. attack Muslims, a court can still find it inflammatory.

rokudaime_hokage · 09-14-2012, 08:39 PM

Just pointing out that I was referring to what Mibz said a lot of posts ago. And that I also suck at making sense and I have to proofread moar.
Also wtf with that "People be crazy with em religionz" that shit is stupid and no one mentioned that."

jekyl_hyde · 09-14-2012, 08:41 PM

@s_d

You are correct about U.S. law being precedence-based. If there is no official, written law, once a judge has made a ruling, it becomes the precedence (i.e. the most famous cases being Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education)

For those questioning the U.S. constitution, there is a reason why it is valid, and why Freedom of Speech is the 1st ammendment. During the British rule of the colonies, it was treason for any publishment of any article whatsoever pertaining to the British crown and Church of England in a negative position in any way, form, or fashion. The constitution was made "so vague" was to stand the test of time. The Congressional Congress wanted it worded properly to where the "law/right" would apply throughout the ages, but have a valid understanding. For the most part, it is understood that way by the majority of the U.S. populace. There are those who seem to not understand the responsibility placed on this freedom (i.e. this particular film-maker, as well as the aforementioned cyber bully in the earlier post).

Tzu Men · 09-14-2012, 08:41 PM

Just as a separate example to the points I have been making, as my posts have been muddled:

Someone tomorrow makes a video calling Jews dirty, disgusting animals and posts it on YouTube. A group of hysterical Semites get obsessed and angry over the video. They bomb a post office or some shit. The guy behind the video gets arrested and charged with incitement. The court finds that the person in this case did commit a sufficient, unjustified offence in the video. He gets punished.

When this happens again (as it's inevitable because of morons everywhere), you hope that at least one of those Jewish crazies next time remembers that the government wasn't against them.

My point is that the Muslim savages behind Benghazi are illogical and they will do this kind of shit all over again, but it's unwise assume that all of them are. At least one person in all of these riots has to have enough of a brain to remember contradictions in the past. If enough people remember, and change from violence, the law was worth it.

**Miburo** · 09-14-2012, 08:42 PM

So what would the punishment be making a film like this? If we're trying to appease the crazy terrorists and murderers, since they're the people we don't want pissed off if the goal is to prevent crazy savages from going apeshit, then we already know exactly what they think the proper punishment is for this kind of shit: Brutal death to the infidels for the glory of Allah!!! Pretty sure anything less than that isn't going to make them terribly happy.

I agree that your stance could possibly prevent killings if these people looked at the whole thing rationally and saw that we're not cool with people hurting their fragile feelings. But these people don't look at things rationally, or else this shit wouldn't happen in the first place. They are monsters, appeased by blood. I really don't see how this would work.

jekyl_hyde · 09-14-2012, 08:49 PM

First and foremost, one huge glaring possibility that is not being discussed, is that this was not done as a spur of the moment out-lash over a stupid youtube film. The speculation, and evidence are pointing to that the majority of these cases were well thought out, planned attacks on the embassies by a group(s) of terrorists.

Which is starting to lend to the conspiracy that maybe said terrorists had a hand in the film. I, like several of you have stated, have not watched the video, and particularly, I'm not going to either. But what has been stated here, and on other newsites is that the video isn't... fully legit.

Vanity · 09-14-2012, 08:51 PM

I also want to bring up the economic impact this would have [The speech stuff]. We already have an adverse reaction to a raise in taxes, despite us having some of the lowest. Money would have to be dumped into creating and enforcing this law. If it's preventative by way of screening, those people have to be paid. There would be a surplus of arrests and trials/court appeals, which another bump in the cash necessity.

I think this would also have an affect on the free market, and good god, then you have to deal with the backlash of the people. You can't even take these fuckers guns away without them rioting, let alone their first major right in the constitution.

Tzu Men · 09-14-2012, 08:54 PM

I just think that at least 1% of them have to follow some kind of logic, no matter how fucked up. Some kind of retribution, even if it isn't execution or whatever the fuck they want, could count for them.

I just fundamentally have to disagree that at least some of them aren't rational. Nobody is Disney-style evil, stupid often, but some minor-brained people have to have got to that position somehow.

Similar approaches were taken in Ireland, and now there are a lot less crazy religious people blowing up schoolchildren. Other approaches were taken simultaneously then - that's completely true, but I would say that some freedom of speech limitations aren't mutually exclusive to trying to educate/police the people who are causing shit. Reaching out like the better human to these scum, to try and change them, is better than just trying to eradicate them by force.

@Van I happily agree it couldn't happen in the USA, but equally nothing is really going to happen to the people in Libya (etc.) anyway. Obama or Romney sure aren't going to waste resources on trying to do something pro-active about it in the countries. Even with the propaganda that would generate it would be suicide on the world-stage. Especially when the West haven't even got the balls to just walk into Syria and ignore China and Russia.

I'm just arguing the principle.

**Miburo** · 09-14-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tzu Men

Someone tomorrow makes a video calling Jews dirty, disgusting animals and posts it on YouTube. A group of hysterical Semites get obsessed and angry over the video. They bomb a post office or some shit. The guy behind the video gets arrested and charged with incitement. The court finds that the person in this case did commit a sufficient, unjustified offence in the video. He gets punished.

When this happens again (as it's inevitable because of morons everywhere), you hope that at least one of those Jewish crazies next time remembers that the government wasn't against them.

My point is that the Muslim savages behind Benghazi are illogical and they will do this kind of shit all over again, but it's unwise assume that all of them are. At least one person in all of these riots has to have enough of a brain to remember contradictions in the past. If enough people remember, and change from violence, the law was worth it.

I go to a naruto forum and say naruto is gay solely to piss them off. A group of angry narutards go kill a bus of orphans because of it. Based on your example, I should be arrested. Even if we assume narutards and jews are prone to senseless murdering, still doesn't seem like a very just way of operating.

And these people respond to videos that upset them by brutally killing innocent people, and we should bank on them not all being illogical monsters? I dunno. Just doesn't seem like this is the best idea. I really think all it would do is make people hate muslims more, because now our country is even shittier because of some of them being savages. Which isn't something that is going to lead to good things for anyone.

Actually, fuck this. I dunno why I'm even getting into this. I think I just LOVE FREEDOM SO MUCH GODDAMN that any ever so slight perceived offense to it makes me all combative and shit. I'd delete this other shit in this post if it wasn't unmanly. But I fucking apologize for giving you shit, Tzu bro.

Gamabunta · 09-14-2012, 09:01 PM

Oh wait its libya, they don't use freedom of speech but freedom to fuck around ever since US butt in for its oil and allowed them to put gaddafi and his son death show on youtube..

Anyway that aside, that film is really un-called for and i think freedom of speech should not be a random fabricated swipe at any religion.

**Miburo** · 09-14-2012, 09:07 PM

Know who else is an unmanly vagina, besides you, gama? Jesus.

Random fabricated freedom swipe, fuck yeah!

09-14-2012, 08:06 PM	#46
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed But as I said, would that really even solve anything without the entire world getting in on the ban freedom thing? And even if such things were illegal, would that stop people from doing things that piss off the savages? I mean, is arresting a guy after he already pissed them off going to stop them? Are these people going to go "Oh, well, he got in trouble for it. Call off the senseless murdering guys!"? These are the same guys murdering people who had absolutely nothing to do with this little video in any way, remember. What kind of deterrent are you suggesting that would make people way too scared to do something upsetting to the savages? It really doesn't seem like this solution would be...well, much of a solution to anything at all. It's certainly understandable that people would want to do things to prevent this type of shit. But it's definitely very important to think these things all the way through, especially when it comes at the expense of very important principles like freedom and shit. This is the same type of thing that lead to wire-tapping and other shit after 9/11. Nothing good really came of that stuff either.

09-14-2012, 08:09 PM	#47
Vanity Succumb Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 976 Thanks: 3,432 Thanked 5,983 Times in 2,238 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed Which is why I noted in a previous post that, unless someone is screening EVERYTHING EVER, how in the world would this be stopped? Prevention is impossible without a massive amount of people invading privacy. __________________ My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me. Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak. What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think. Last edited by Vanity; 09-14-2012 at 08:11 PM.

09-14-2012, 08:21 PM	#49
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed And what about Christians here? Do they get the same special protection against upsetting things? Or is that privilege reserved only for terrorists and murderers? How about any group that gets made fun of? Why not just go all the way and make it illegal to upset anyone for anything? It does seem rather silly to limit it only for groups of psychopathic savages. Like I said, fuck those guys.

09-14-2012, 08:26 PM	#50
Tzu Men hostis humani generis Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 714 Thanks: 4,010 Thanked 2,698 Times in 859 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed I think that the restrictions would act as a deterrent for the people who made the film. And if they predicted that their film would be seen as being illegal I do think that their actions to evade the law would harm its exposure. Driving them into possibly added illegal actions isn't great but it does further disassociate them from the state. If the restrictions don't work as a successful deterrent then they've been a waste of time, but then they're also not harmed civil liberty anyway. Nothing is really at expense if people ignore the law anyway. A powerless law might as well not be a law. Obviously everything can't be screened. And the radicals who react to anything anyway (as I said about the Danish cartoons etc.) won't go away. But I do think that the borderline morons, who have been motivated along with the full-time idiots would respond positively in the future to seeing that USA law actually did something. The effect isn't immediate. The embassy in Benghazi would still have been attacked but all the shit happening right now might have been lessened if the film maker being arrested for questioning was broadcasted worldwide. Edit: And Miburo this wouldn't be partisan. Sufficient incitement towards any group would count. Basically this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitem..._racial_hatred Even if the film doesn't tell people to e.g. attack Muslims, a court can still find it inflammatory. Last edited by Tzu Men; 09-14-2012 at 08:29 PM.

09-14-2012, 08:39 PM	#51
rokudaime_hokage Chuunin Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 478 Thanks: 579 Thanked 177 Times in 96 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed Just pointing out that I was referring to what Mibz said a lot of posts ago. And that I also suck at making sense and I have to proofread moar. Also wtf with that "People be crazy with em religionz" that shit is stupid and no one mentioned that." Last edited by rokudaime_hokage; 09-14-2012 at 08:41 PM.

09-14-2012, 08:41 PM	#52
jekyl_hyde Hunter-Nin Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 621 Thanked 1,050 Times in 401 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed @s_d You are correct about U.S. law being precedence-based. If there is no official, written law, once a judge has made a ruling, it becomes the precedence (i.e. the most famous cases being Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education) For those questioning the U.S. constitution, there is a reason why it is valid, and why Freedom of Speech is the 1st ammendment. During the British rule of the colonies, it was treason for any publishment of any article whatsoever pertaining to the British crown and Church of England in a negative position in any way, form, or fashion. The constitution was made "so vague" was to stand the test of time. The Congressional Congress wanted it worded properly to where the "law/right" would apply throughout the ages, but have a valid understanding. For the most part, it is understood that way by the majority of the U.S. populace. There are those who seem to not understand the responsibility placed on this freedom (i.e. this particular film-maker, as well as the aforementioned cyber bully in the earlier post). Last edited by jekyl_hyde; 09-14-2012 at 08:42 PM.

09-14-2012, 08:42 PM	#54
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed So what would the punishment be making a film like this? If we're trying to appease the crazy terrorists and murderers, since they're the people we don't want pissed off if the goal is to prevent crazy savages from going apeshit, then we already know exactly what they think the proper punishment is for this kind of shit: Brutal death to the infidels for the glory of Allah!!! Pretty sure anything less than that isn't going to make them terribly happy. I agree that your stance could possibly prevent killings if these people looked at the whole thing rationally and saw that we're not cool with people hurting their fragile feelings. But these people don't look at things rationally, or else this shit wouldn't happen in the first place. They are monsters, appeased by blood. I really don't see how this would work.

09-14-2012, 08:49 PM	#55
jekyl_hyde Hunter-Nin Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 1,033 Thanks: 621 Thanked 1,050 Times in 401 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed First and foremost, one huge glaring possibility that is not being discussed, is that this was not done as a spur of the moment out-lash over a stupid youtube film. The speculation, and evidence are pointing to that the majority of these cases were well thought out, planned attacks on the embassies by a group(s) of terrorists. Which is starting to lend to the conspiracy that maybe said terrorists had a hand in the film. I, like several of you have stated, have not watched the video, and particularly, I'm not going to either. But what has been stated here, and on other newsites is that the video isn't... fully legit.

09-14-2012, 08:51 PM	#56
Vanity Succumb Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 976 Thanks: 3,432 Thanked 5,983 Times in 2,238 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed I also want to bring up the economic impact this would have [The speech stuff]. We already have an adverse reaction to a raise in taxes, despite us having some of the lowest. Money would have to be dumped into creating and enforcing this law. If it's preventative by way of screening, those people have to be paid. There would be a surplus of arrests and trials/court appeals, which another bump in the cash necessity. I think this would also have an affect on the free market, and good god, then you have to deal with the backlash of the people. You can't even take these fuckers guns away without them rioting, let alone their first major right in the constitution. __________________ My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me. Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak. What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think.

09-14-2012, 08:54 PM	#57
Tzu Men hostis humani generis Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 714 Thanks: 4,010 Thanked 2,698 Times in 859 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed I just think that at least 1% of them have to follow some kind of logic, no matter how fucked up. Some kind of retribution, even if it isn't execution or whatever the fuck they want, could count for them. I just fundamentally have to disagree that at least some of them aren't rational. Nobody is Disney-style evil, stupid often, but some minor-brained people have to have got to that position somehow. Similar approaches were taken in Ireland, and now there are a lot less crazy religious people blowing up schoolchildren. Other approaches were taken simultaneously then - that's completely true, but I would say that some freedom of speech limitations aren't mutually exclusive to trying to educate/police the people who are causing shit. Reaching out like the better human to these scum, to try and change them, is better than just trying to eradicate them by force. @Van I happily agree it couldn't happen in the USA, but equally nothing is really going to happen to the people in Libya (etc.) anyway. Obama or Romney sure aren't going to waste resources on trying to do something pro-active about it in the countries. Even with the propaganda that would generate it would be suicide on the world-stage. Especially when the West haven't even got the balls to just walk into Syria and ignore China and Russia. I'm just arguing the principle. Last edited by Tzu Men; 09-14-2012 at 08:59 PM.

09-14-2012, 09:01 PM	#59
Gamabunta Chuunin Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 683 Thanks: 481 Thanked 256 Times in 138 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed Oh wait its libya, they don't use freedom of speech but freedom to fuck around ever since US butt in for its oil and allowed them to put gaddafi and his son death show on youtube.. Anyway that aside, that film is really un-called for and i think freedom of speech should not be a random fabricated swipe at any religion.

09-14-2012, 09:07 PM	#60
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: US Ambassador in Libya Killed Know who else is an unmanly vagina, besides you, gama? *Jesus.* Random fabricated freedom swipe, fuck yeah!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lik-Sang Killed by Sony...You s.o.b.s..sony...	Freshgrease	Gaming	19	11-09-2006 08:53 AM
Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin killed	Kites	Chit Chat	59	10-04-2006 03:20 PM
does anybody know in what episodes gaara gets killed and gets brought back to life?	Gaara_of_the_Desert7	Naruto Manga	5	06-25-2006 04:04 PM
Most Killed Anime ever	YoshiToshi	Anime & Manga	28	07-31-2005 06:55 PM
Was anyone beside's me mad that they killed haku and does anyone like ranma 1/2	horus	Naruto Series	22	12-19-2004 04:33 AM