U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[drummer]

While I agree with the gist of your sentiment, I would say that all ends if there is a threat of physical violence to any of these individuals; they deserve as much, if not more protection.

So if I go up to a bunch of Crips, Bloods or Hell Angels and insult them, I should get some extra protection for being a moron?

No, you should be left on your own as a crime is perpetrated upon you; that is a real interesting view of civilization you have there.

Well what is the "more protection" that should be offered? I'd expect justice to be done after the fact but that doesn't protect me from harm.

Interesting; do you agree with PSAs telling you to wear your seatbelt, or not to drive drunk, or is all police work reactionary and never preventative?

WAT

Go back to your hand-wringing over the Ambassador, Drummer; you aren't interested in its causes or solutions.

He's saying that we don't understand your previous point about seatbelts and stuff. You were asked a pretty straightforward question and responded with gibberish.

This. Unless pitts is a police officer or advocate of programs that created seatbelt laws and is a member of MADD, he still doesn't make any sense here.But pitts isn't here to make sense. Because he can't.

 

[Jim11]

But pitts isn't here to make sense.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

While I agree with the gist of your sentiment, I would say that all ends if there is a threat of physical violence to any of these individuals; they deserve as much, if not more protection.

So if I go up to a bunch of Crips, Bloods or Hell Angels and insult them, I should get some extra protection for being a moron?

No, you should be left on your own as a crime is perpetrated upon you; that is a real interesting view of civilization you have there.

Well what is the "more protection" that should be offered? I'd expect justice to be done after the fact but that doesn't protect me from harm.

Interesting; do you agree with PSAs telling you to wear your seatbelt, or not to drive drunk, or is all police work reactionary and never preventative?

How is that an answer?

 

[drummer]

But pitts isn't here to make sense.

Jim11 loves to call people he thinks who don't make sense Black.

 

[H8tank]

In his famous 2009 Cairo speech, portentously titled "A New Beginning," President Obama declared:



I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles--principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

As wonderful as justice and progress and tolerance and dignity may be, America's central principles are principles of freedom. America does not--and constitutionally cannot--prosecute people because their speech is offensive. "Mutual respect" requires leaders in the Muslim world to understand and accept that--and it requires American leaders with the self-respect to make it clear.

The idea that a submissive-sounding president could set things right in the Muslim world always struck us as far-fetched. Yesterday's events render it indefensible. This looks like the end of the "New Beginning."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443884104577647641059003360.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

 

[Novice2]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

Because the people on tv tell me

 

[jonessed]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

Because the people on tv tell me

Which ones?

 

[pittstownkiller]

While I agree with the gist of your sentiment, I would say that all ends if there is a threat of physical violence to any of these individuals; they deserve as much, if not more protection.

So if I go up to a bunch of Crips, Bloods or Hell Angels and insult them, I should get some extra protection for being a moron?

No, you should be left on your own as a crime is perpetrated upon you; that is a real interesting view of civilization you have there.

Well what is the "more protection" that should be offered? I'd expect justice to be done after the fact but that doesn't protect me from harm.

Interesting; do you agree with PSAs telling you to wear your seatbelt, or not to drive drunk, or is all police work reactionary and never preventative?

How is that an answer?

It wasn't an answer because I took your question as sarcasm but I'll start over. I think that the freedom of speech is quite an honorable thing to protect and that the speech that I don't agree with is just as valuable as the speech I do agree with. If this Reverand(?) was harmed because of his speech, it would be a tragedy; not because I agree with it (I don't even know what was said in the piece) but because it puts forth an idea that if you cross a line you could get hurt and that silences people. If there is a threat on this man he should be protected regardless of what he said and not after the fact. If there is even a small threat it should be taken very seriously; that is all my point was. The reference to PSAs, while very clunky, was about preventative law enforcement vs. punitive law enforcement and was in response to Cliff only willing to concede this man protection after a crime takes place.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

While I agree with the gist of your sentiment, I would say that all ends if there is a threat of physical violence to any of these individuals; they deserve as much, if not more protection.

So if I go up to a bunch of Crips, Bloods or Hell Angels and insult them, I should get some extra protection for being a moron?

No, you should be left on your own as a crime is perpetrated upon you; that is a real interesting view of civilization you have there.

Well what is the "more protection" that should be offered? I'd expect justice to be done after the fact but that doesn't protect me from harm.

Interesting; do you agree with PSAs telling you to wear your seatbelt, or not to drive drunk, or is all police work reactionary and never preventative?

How is that an answer?

It wasn't an answer because I took your question as sarcasm but I'll start over. I think that the freedom of speech is quite an honorable thing to protect and that the speech that I don't agree with is just as valuable as the speech I do agree with. If this Reverand(?) was harmed because of his speech, it would be a tragedy; not because I agree with it (I don't even know what was said in the piece) but because it puts forth an idea that if you cross a line you could get hurt and that silences people. If there is a threat on this man he should be protected regardless of what he said and not after the fact. If there is even a small threat it should be taken very seriously; that is all my point was. The reference to PSAs, while very clunky, was about preventative law enforcement vs. punitive law enforcement and was in response to Cliff only willing to concede this man protection after a crime takes place.

So you believe everyone should get protected if their speech offends others, correct? What type of protection are we talking about?

 

[pittstownkiller]

While I agree with the gist of your sentiment, I would say that all ends if there is a threat of physical violence to any of these individuals; they deserve as much, if not more protection.

So if I go up to a bunch of Crips, Bloods or Hell Angels and insult them, I should get some extra protection for being a moron?

No, you should be left on your own as a crime is perpetrated upon you; that is a real interesting view of civilization you have there.

Well what is the "more protection" that should be offered? I'd expect justice to be done after the fact but that doesn't protect me from harm.

Interesting; do you agree with PSAs telling you to wear your seatbelt, or not to drive drunk, or is all police work reactionary and never preventative?

How is that an answer?

It wasn't an answer because I took your question as sarcasm but I'll start over. I think that the freedom of speech is quite an honorable thing to protect and that the speech that I don't agree with is just as valuable as the speech I do agree with. If this Reverand(?) was harmed because of his speech, it would be a tragedy; not because I agree with it (I don't even know what was said in the piece) but because it puts forth an idea that if you cross a line you could get hurt and that silences people. If there is a threat on this man he should be protected regardless of what he said and not after the fact. If there is even a small threat it should be taken very seriously; that is all my point was. The reference to PSAs, while very clunky, was about preventative law enforcement vs. punitive law enforcement and was in response to Cliff only willing to concede this man protection after a crime takes place.

So you believe everyone should get protected if their speech offends others, correct? What type of protection are we talking about?

Commensurate with the threat.

 

[cstu]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

They like us more than Canadians do.

 

[HellToupee]

Cliff Clavin may be a piss pot & hate the US but he has probably the 2 best sigs on FBG. Just saying

 

[badmojo1006]

15 Photos of Libyans apologizing to America

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.

In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.

Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

 

[oso diablo]

"A Jewish idiot makes a film, a Christian idiot promotes it, Muslim idiots kill over it, and Republican idiots condemn Obama."

i think you left out at least one group of idiots

 

[HellToupee]

15 Photos of Libyans apologizing to America

Someone has decent photoshop skills

 

[pittstownkiller]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

How about a cruiser parked at the end of his street.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

A reasonable police investigation of threats that are identified to them. The potential for a threat isn't enough. His concern isn't enough. But if a credible threat (such as a threatening letter or Youtube video or something) is brought to the police's attention, then yes, I think a reasonable investigation should be required. Without getting too technical, there are plenty of immunity doctrines that will protect police from liability from genuine, sincere mistakes. I'm not advocating second guessing results. But if the cops bury their heads in the sand, I favor Section 1983 liability. I think the distinction between positive and negative Constitutional rights is silly.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

How about a cruiser parked at the end of his street.

So Fred Phelps should have a 24 hour detail assigned to him, right? You're okay with that?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

A reasonable police investigation of threats that are identified to them. The potential for a threat isn't enough. His concern isn't enough. But if a credible threat (such as a threatening letter or Youtube video or something) is brought to the police's attention, then yes, I think a reasonable investigation should be required. Without getting two technical, there are plenty of immunity doctrines that will protect police from liability from genuine, sincere mistakes. I'm not advocating second guessing results. But if the cops bury their heads in the sand, I favor Section 1983 liability. I think the distinction between positive and negative Constitutional rights is silly.

So if I go to the local biker club, call them a bunch of names, get one of them to threaten, I should be able to get a cop assigned to me?

 

[jonessed]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

A reasonable police investigation of threats that are identified to them. The potential for a threat isn't enough. His concern isn't enough. But if a credible threat (such as a threatening letter or Youtube video or something) is brought to the police's attention, then yes, I think a reasonable investigation should be required. Without getting two technical, there are plenty of immunity doctrines that will protect police from liability from genuine, sincere mistakes. I'm not advocating second guessing results. But if the cops bury their heads in the sand, I favor Section 1983 liability. I think the distinction between positive and negative Constitutional rights is silly.

So if I go to the local biker club, call them a bunch of names, get one of them to threaten, I should be able to get a cop assigned to me?

If the police can determine that threat is credible, yes. Feel free to test this hypothesis out if you like.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I am thinking Cheney orchestrated this to show instability in the region, and that Obama's policies are flawed.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

A reasonable police investigation of threats that are identified to them. The potential for a threat isn't enough. His concern isn't enough. But if a credible threat (such as a threatening letter or Youtube video or something) is brought to the police's attention, then yes, I think a reasonable investigation should be required. Without getting two technical, there are plenty of immunity doctrines that will protect police from liability from genuine, sincere mistakes. I'm not advocating second guessing results. But if the cops bury their heads in the sand, I favor Section 1983 liability. I think the distinction between positive and negative Constitutional rights is silly.

So if I go to the local biker club, call them a bunch of names, get one of them to threaten, I should be able to get a cop assigned to me?

Let's take this slow. Working through what I actually wrote and not the arugment you seem to be imagining that you are having.Assuming they didn't kill you on the spot, which no police department would be responsible for, I said that they should conduct a reasonable investigation. So if you go to the cops and tell them that Ron Pearlman threatened you at the Blue Oyster Bar, I'd expect the police to try to talk to Ron Pearlman and the fine gentlemen at the Blue Oyster Bar. After that, I'd expect the police to follow their usual procedures. To treat you the way they'd treat someone else who had been threatened. And if you could uncover evidence that they did not do so, simply because you were an *******, yes, I'd support an action against the police.

 

[drummer]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

A reasonable police investigation of threats that are identified to them. The potential for a threat isn't enough. His concern isn't enough. But if a credible threat (such as a threatening letter or Youtube video or something) is brought to the police's attention, then yes, I think a reasonable investigation should be required. Without getting two technical, there are plenty of immunity doctrines that will protect police from liability from genuine, sincere mistakes. I'm not advocating second guessing results. But if the cops bury their heads in the sand, I favor Section 1983 liability. I think the distinction between positive and negative Constitutional rights is silly.

So if I go to the local biker club, call them a bunch of names, get one of them to threaten, I should be able to get a cop assigned to me?

If the police can determine that threat is credible, yes. Feel free to test this hypothesis out if you like.

Years ago, the Hell's Angels were hanging at the New Century theater and the bar next to it in SF. One guy who wasn't a biker got in a drunken beef, went outside, and screwed with one of their bikes. He was shot and killed less than a few minutes after down the block.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

A reasonable police investigation of threats that are identified to them. The potential for a threat isn't enough. His concern isn't enough. But if a credible threat (such as a threatening letter or Youtube video or something) is brought to the police's attention, then yes, I think a reasonable investigation should be required. Without getting two technical, there are plenty of immunity doctrines that will protect police from liability from genuine, sincere mistakes. I'm not advocating second guessing results. But if the cops bury their heads in the sand, I favor Section 1983 liability. I think the distinction between positive and negative Constitutional rights is silly.

So if I go to the local biker club, call them a bunch of names, get one of them to threaten, I should be able to get a cop assigned to me?

Let's take this slow. Working through what I actually wrote and not the arugment you seem to be imagining that you are having.Assuming they didn't kill you on the spot, which no police department would be responsible for, I said that they should conduct a reasonable investigation. So if you go to the cops and tell them that Ron Pearlman threatened you at the Blue Oyster Bar, I'd expect the police to try to talk to Ron Pearlman and the fine gentlemen at the Blue Oyster Bar. After that, I'd expect the police to follow their usual procedures. To treat you the way they'd treat someone else who had been threatened. And if you could uncover evidence that they did not do so, simply because you were an *******, yes, I'd support an action against the police.

So you aren't advocating protection but just for police to do their job as normal?

 

[Don Quixote]

Actress says her lines were dubbed over and had no idea the movie was about Muhammed.

But, free speech, etc.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So you aren't advocating protection but just for police to do their job as normal?

That's "extra protection." The police would be expending more resources on you than on me (I only insult people on the internet, where it is safer).From the beginning, nobody has argued for anything but the proposition that a demonstrated threat against a target (even an a target who is an offensive ###) should trigger a greater responsibility in the government entity possessing the police power. I just went back in the thread to make sure I wasn't confused. The first post from pittsdown said that a speaker should get protection from a demonstrated threat.

 

[drummer]

Actress says her lines were dubbed over and had no idea the movie was about Muhammed.

But, free speech, etc.

JEEBUS A WARNING SHOT BEFORE WE CLICK ON THAT LINK THAT FACE SCARED THE HELL OUTTA ME

 

[pittstownkiller]

I will stand up for pittstownkiller's position as well. I don't think it's crazy to expect law enforcement to take credible threats seriously. For instance, a woman who has a protective order against her husband who then notifies police that he's been harassing her might rightly expect protection. In fact, we might think that if the police ignore a credible threat and the wife were then assualted, then the police should be liable in some way. Now, the Supreme Court disagreed, but it was sharply divided.In the same way, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that even Fred Phelps or whatever horrible person you can think of, should be entitled to have authorities take known threats seriously. And if the authorities choose to ignore those threats on the basis of Phelps' abhorrent views, that implicates the First Amendment. They shouldn't condition his right to protection on the basis of protected conduct.Again, this position isn't supported under Civil Rights Act precedent, but it's a reasonable position.

So what kind of protection? Armed guard?

How about a cruiser parked at the end of his street.

So Fred Phelps should have a 24 hour detail assigned to him, right? You're okay with that?

I don't think that is what I'm saying but once again I do not know how to answer you because I don't know if your question is sarcasm, you are genuinely confused, or you're being obtuse.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why are you doing this?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Actress says her lines were dubbed over and had no idea the movie was about Muhammed.

But, free speech, etc.

JEEBUS A WARNING SHOT BEFORE WE CLICK ON THAT LINK THAT FACE SCARED THE HELL OUTTA ME

No ####. It is nice they gave out the actress hometown.

 

[Novice2]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

Because the people on tv tell me

Which ones?

CNNDon't you people watch the news?

 

[jonessed]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

Because the people on tv tell me

Which ones?

CNN

CNN isn't a person.

 

[drummer]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

Because the people on tv tell me

Which ones?

CNN

CNN isn't a person.

It's part of a Corporation right?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

15 Photos of Libyans apologizing to America

Someone has decent photoshop skills

Somebody probably does, but they had nothing to do with those pictures.

 

[Novice2]

majority of Libyans support America

And you know that how?

Because the people on tv tell me

Which ones?

CNN

CNN isn't a person.

Anderson Cooper is CNN!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So we have Obama sympathizing with the attackers

No.

and we have Romney trying to turn this into a political gain.

Yes.

 

[timschochet]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

 

[jonessed]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Perhaps you should take a minute to verify the claims are false before you start pointing fingers and throwing out more speculation.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I scrolled through this thread in 3 minutes to what Doctor Detroit had to say.Instead I got pitts, tim, Jim11, and a host of other useless crap. Lock this thread now.

It's too bad you can't discuss important issues of the day around here without the same half dozen posters ruining every thread.

 

[timschochet]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Perhaps you should take a minute to verify the claims are false before you start pointing fingers and throwing out more speculation.

What claims? That it was made by a Jew? There is no means to verify this, one way or another, but the guy who made the claim has been involved with Jones' church for years, so I have reason to question his veracity. For instance, he also claims to be a Vietnam veteran, but he's only 56. The Vietnam war ended when he was 16. As far as the assumption by the Islamic British guy that the "Jewish community" is responsible for this movie (and therefore should apologize) I KNOW this is a falsehood, since nobody consulted me.

 

[pittstownkiller]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

 

[RBM]

Has FavreCo chimed in? He is usually very good with these topics.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So you aren't advocating protection but just for police to do their job as normal?

That's "extra protection." The police would be expending more resources on you than on me (I only insult people on the internet, where it is safer).From the beginning, nobody has argued for anything but the proposition that a demonstrated threat against a target (even an a target who is an offensive ###) should trigger a greater responsibility in the government entity possessing the police power. I just went back in the thread to make sure I wasn't confused. The first post from pittsdown said that a speaker should get protection from a demonstrated threat.

Yes, and I was simply asking what type of protection.

 

[timschochet]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

I understand that is now the assumption. However, the assumption is also that the protests at both embassies were because of the film.

 

[pittstownkiller]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

I understand that is now the assumption. However, the assumption is also that the protests at both embassies were because of the film.

Are you saying that since there was another dialogue we cannot assume a current one? From the description on the ground it was a co-ordinated attack not the work of an outraged mob. Let me ask you a question: making the assumption that this was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack to kill a U.S. Ambassador, orchestrated to fall on 9/11; what is the political fall out (of course all sympathies to the families of the people lost but this is a political question)?

 

[jonessed]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Tim, the attacks in Libya are widely being discussed as a co-ordinated terrorist attack, most likely from Al-Qaeda. The only piece that has any meaning is the date 9/11. It appears that the ambassador was the target.

I understand that is now the assumption. However, the assumption is also that the protests at both embassies were because of the film.

The attack can't be both because of the film and an Al-Queda operation set to occur around 9/11.

 

[timschochet]

Let me ask you a question: making the assumption that this was an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack to kill a U.S. Ambassador, orchestrated to fall on 9/11; what is the political fall out (of course all sympathies to the families of the people lost but this is a political question)?

In terms of the election? I don't think there is one. Traditionally the public tends to believe that Republicans are "tougher" on foreign affairs, and Democrats are "weak". Obama managed to fight against this when OBL was killed. Ever since that happened, Republicans have attempted to return to the previous narrative. No doubt they'll use this latest event to push their case; that's already started. Whether or not they are successful in this attempt, or overplay their hand, remains to be seen. But in the end, it won't have any significance IMO. 2004 was an election about leadership and foreign policy. This election is going to be about the economy, and nothing else will overshadow that.

 

[cstu]

There's some anti-Semitism creeping into the story. Supposedly, the director of the film is a Jew (unconfirmed, and doubtful), and that he was given the money for it from "100 Jews" (again unconfirmed, and really doubtful)- but this "news" has spread on the internet and has roundly been accepted by Muslims around the world. One of the main leaders of England's Muslim community has publicly demanded that "the Jewish community apologize to all of Islam for this atrocity."

Obviously false - Jews would never make a movie this bad.