U.S. ambassador, 3 American diplomats killed by protesters in Libya

[Classic]

Don't know a lot about this situation but, may I ask, what happens next?

RIP

[Lil Pun]

This was an atrocious act but what is worse it the complete politicizing of the events. Every one of you in this thread who have used it to politicize your own views should be ashamed of yourselves.

[QdoubleA]

Say what you will, I thought this was touching.

[penda45]

Link to the opinion article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c1

"The attack apparently occurred because in recent days, the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri posted a video online calling on Libyans to avenge the killing of al-Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi.

According to our own sources at Quilliam Foundation, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault. It is rare, for example, that an RPG7 -- an anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher -- would be present at a civilian protest. The attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept at a secure location."

[sugrlndkid]

Originally Posted by QdoubleA Say what you will, I thought this was touching.

agree...need more normal Muslims to take back their religion from extremist that unfortunately are the most vocal people...the radical view of Islam is solely based on its current hardline extremist voices...such as the Ayatollahs of Iran and other extremist clerics...change the leadership and fight against these tyrants...and I promise you the worlds opinion will change...

[rocketsjudoka]

Originally Posted by penda45 Link to the opinion article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c1 "The attack apparently occurred because in recent days, the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri posted a video online calling on Libyans to avenge the killing of al-Qaeda's second in command, Abu Yahya al-Libi. According to our own sources at Quilliam Foundation, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault. It is rare, for example, that an RPG7 -- an anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launcher -- would be present at a civilian protest. The attack against the consulate had two waves. The first attack led to U.S. officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against U.S. officials after they were kept at a secure location."

I'm getting the feeling we are going to find out a lot more about this in the next few days.

[rocketsjudoka]

Originally Posted by Dubious OK? I listed (without detail or accusation) at least four reasons various factions might have had to coordinate Egypt and Lybia on 9/11. I don't underestimate how much people hate The President, The CIA, The US in general. You can flesh out a spy book with any bad guy, Russians to distract us from Syria, Chinese that want to bog us down away from the Pacific, people that want to use the US to take over, people that don't want the US involved in taking over, Iran always Iran, neocons that want to post how Obama is a pussy, arms dealers investing to keep business good, or a crowd of freedom fighters tilting at the Death Star.

So you are talking about a conspiracy by others besides in the US. That makes more sense. You were talking about Obama setting this up earlier which really doesn't make much sense.

[durvasa]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld If it's free speech and protected, it is not abuse. It might be morally reprehensible according to the majority of people, but it is not abuse.

I don't agree. I believe in the right to free speech, but I also believe that people have a responsibility to exercise that right in a responsible way when their speech can impact the very safety of other people. I a person willfully disregards that responsibility and says whatever the hell he wants, just because he is legally allowed to do so, then I think that's an abuse of that right.

[mleahy999]

Originally Posted by adeelsiddiqui I still don't get what is only "somewhat" encouraging about these photos? Slip of the keyboard the second time around? Does this also have to do with why you are so irritated when someone accidently reposts these photos?

Please tell me you're trolling. No one is willfully clueless.

[IzakDavid13]

Originally Posted by durvasa I don't agree. I believe in the right to free speech, but I also believe that people have a responsibility to exercise that right in a responsible way when their speech can impact the very safety of other people. I a person willfully disregards that responsibility and says whatever the hell he wants, just because he is legally allowed to do so, then I think that's an abuse of that right.

I see where you are coming from, and agree that we have to responsible in regards to what we say...but how are we to know the repecussions our comments will have or how they will be used by rabid mindless mobs to justify or incite a riot?

Do we just bring in a ban on talking about all things Islam, just because 20% (random number...meaning Not all) of the Islamic followers either can't control themselves, or will use whatever fuel they can to fan the flames of hatred, and therefore justify their actions.

That will lead to other groups taking similar actions down the road.

The guy who made the video obviously knew that it would upset quite a few Muslims, but he could not have known that they would have taken the actions that they did...and no matter what the provocation from either a comment, tweet or YouTube video they had no right to do what they did in Egypt or Libya.

Yes we have to take responsibility in what we say and post, but in the same regards the nutcases that attacked the embassy buildings also have to take responsibility for their actions.

If America was to respond by sending in bombers and a few cruise missiles as retaliation, would the left wing P.C. Do gooder brigade blame the actions of the riotious murderers as justification for the bombing or would they just find another excuse to hate on Imperialist America?

[da1]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld Nobody cares what you have or do not have an interest in. It is bad etiquette to just go into a thread and post something that has just been posted before, just because one cannot be bothered to check if it has already been posted. Your pictures were posted 6 posts before yours - embedded, thus easy to see, and quoted 3 posts before yours. And spares us your holier-than-thou crap. If you haven't read the thread - shut up.

Pot meet kettle

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 I see where you are coming from, and agree that we have to responsible in regards to what we say...but how are we to know the repecussions our comments will have or how they will be used by rabid mindless mobs to justify or incite a riot? Do we just bring in a ban on talking about all things Islam, just because 20% (random number...meaning Not all) of the Islamic followers either can't control themselves, or will use whatever fuel they can to fan the flames of hatred, and therefore justify their actions. That will lead to other groups taking similar actions down the road. The guy who made the video obviously knew that it would upset quite a few Muslims, but he could not have known that they would have taken the actions that they did...and no matter what the provocation from either a comment, tweet or YouTube video they had no right to do what they did in Egypt or Libya. Yes we have to take responsibility in what we say and post, but in the same regards the nutcases that attacked the embassy buildings also have to take responsibility for their actions. If America was to respond by sending in bombers and a few cruise missiles as retaliation, would the left wing P.C. Do gooder brigade blame the actions of the riotious murderers as justification for the bombing or would they just find another excuse to hate on Imperialist America?

I don't think a ban is necessary. It's not like yelling fire in a theatre.

But we need to recognize that words do hurt. Speech can cause damage and be used as a weapon. You can't ban speech based on people's sensitivities, but you can denounce it and encourage outlets such as YouTube to pull it. I am surprised it made it on Youtube actually considering their terms of use. They usually take stuff like this down.

Finally, it seems that the speech was not the instigator but rather the attack was planned - so all of this might be moot in this context.


I think the best solution is to have an America legion ready to condemn and mock those who would attack a religion as less than any other religion. Yes ATW, that is the most noble way all of our cultures can co-exist.

[durvasa]

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 Yes we have to take responsibility in what we say and post, but in the same regards the nutcases that attacked the embassy buildings also have to take responsibility for their actions.

Agreed.

If America was to respond by sending in bombers and a few cruise missiles as retaliation, would the left wing P.C. Do gooder brigade blame the actions of the riotious murderers as justification for the bombing or would they just find another excuse to hate on Imperialist America?

Who's using this word "justification"? If I made the statement, "The actions of the riotous murderers provoked us into bombing them" that doesn't imply that our bombing is "justified".

Being provoked into doing something does not mean there is justification for doing it.

[IzakDavid13]

Originally Posted by durvasa Agreed. Who's using this word "justification"? If I made the statement, "The actions of the riotous murderers provoked us into bombing them" that doesn't imply that our bombing is "justified". Being provoked into doing something does not mean there is justification for doing it.

Second quote wasn't directed at you, but at the 'hate yourself , hate America brigade'.

[AroundTheWorld]

Originally Posted by durvasa I don't agree. I believe in the right to free speech, but I also believe that people have a responsibility to exercise that right in a responsible way when their speech can impact the very safety of other people. I a person willfully disregards that responsibility and says whatever the hell he wants, just because he is legally allowed to do so, then I think that's an abuse of that right.

Either it is a right or it is not. If someone acts within his rights, he is acting within his rights, and not "abusing" them.

You are entering a slippery slope, because if you define free speech as "abuse" of the right to free speech, then logically, what is next for you? If you say something is "abuse", it certainly sounds like you are asking for some kind of sanction. However, if you want to sanction it in any way, then speech is no longer free.

Therefore: Either it is free speech or not. If it is free speech, then it is not "abuse".

Edit: To add to what I posted above:

To address your "people have a responsibility to exercise that right in a responsible way when their speech can impact the very safety of other people" statement:

I assume you are alluding to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" case? Well, that presupposes a rational response (someone yells fire, people run to the exit). Torching embassies and murdering people is not a rational response to free speech. There is no reason for anyone - and there should not be a reason for anyone - to hold back on protected, free speech just because some fanatical, irrational idiots could feel provoked by free speech.

Otherwise you allow the fanatical idiots to set the de facto standard for what is allowed as free speech. You would basically lower the standard of protection for free speech to the lowest sensitivities of the most violent and intolerant individuals.

The responsibility for the crimes of these fanatics rests squarely on their own shoulders.

There was no "abuse" of free speech here. You may disagree with it, you may find it badly made (I do), you may find it morally reprehensible - but it is free speech, and not "abuse".

[AroundTheWorld]

Now the US embassy in Yemen has been stormed.

"Arab spring" in action.

Just wait for what will happen after "Friday prayers" - I can already see some Imams trying to seize this opportunity to spread more hate.

[durvasa]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld I assume you are alluding to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" case? Well, that presupposes a rational response (someone yells fire, people run to the exit). Torching embassies and murdering people is not a rational response to free speech. There is no reason for anyone - and there should not be a reason for anyone - to hold back on protected, free speech just because some fanatical, irrational idiots could feel provoked by free speech. Otherwise you allow the fanatical idiots to set the de facto standard for what is allowed as free speech. You would basically lower the standard of protection for free speech to the lowest sensitivities of the most violent and intolerant individuals. The responsibility for the crimes of these fanatics rests squarely on their own shoulders.

The reason is that the world does not consist solely of rational people. Its not like this is some random, unpredictable response. There is a precedent for material like this creating widespread protests in that part of the world. I agree with you it is irrational on their end, but that doesn't make it unexpected.

The Internet has given us a forum to not only express ourselves, but to do so to a global audience. That's great in many ways, but that also means we should be more cautious in how we exercise our free speech rights.

If you were put in a position to deliver a speech to a room full of irrational, fanatical idiots with violent, riotous tendencies, wouldn't you feel you have a responsibility to deliver your words with some discretion as a safety precaution?

[arno_ed]

Originally Posted by AroundTheWorld Either it is a right or it is not. If someone acts within his rights, he is acting within his rights, and not "abusing" them.

I actually agree with SJC on this. I think free speech means you van say what you want. Even though I dispise what some people say, it is their right. It is terrible of some people feel it is necessary to kill/hurt people because of what they say. Words are just words, and should never result into violence.


I think Wilders is a terrible persons, who is trying to spread hate. Do I think he shouldn't be able to say his stupid things? no. He should be able to say those things. Is it bad taste, of course. But he shouldn't be hurt or prosecuted for it.

That being said, Free speech should also mean that people are allowed to deny the holocaust (which in some countries is not allowed).

[arno_ed]

Originally Posted by durvasa The reason is that the world does not consist solely of rational people. Its not like this is some random, unpredictable response. There is a precedent for material like this creating widespread protests in that part of the world. I agree with you it is irrational on their end, but that doesn't make it unexpected. The Internet has given us a forum to not only express ourselves, but to do so to a global audience. That's great in many ways, but that also means we should be more cautious in how we exercise our free speech rights. If you were put in a position to deliver a speech to a room full of irrational, fanatical idiots with violent, riotous tendencies, wouldn't you feel you have a responsibility to deliver your words with some discretion as a safety precaution?

Yes, but I shouldn't be forced to be descrete. If those people want to hurt me or others as a result of what i just said it is on them, not on me. They made he choice to do those crazy things.

I think people should be respectfull towards others, but it isn't a crime not to be. And not being respectfull is not a cause to be violent.

[durvasa]

Originally Posted by IzakDavid13 Second quote wasn't directed at you, but at the 'hate yourself , hate America brigade'.

I appreciate that it wasn't directed to me (), but I also feel that this is an imagined enemy (or, much less substantial in numbers than you may think). For example, I very much doubt that anyone on this board wants to absolve the violent attackers for their crimes. Recognizing what provoked a certain violent response is a necessary step towards preventing it from happening in the future -- its not intended to justify their actions.