• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top US military officer calls pastor over film

Sam Bacile should get an Oscar for this film.

Mr. and Mrs. Bacile must be so proud of their son.
 
Yes, freedom of speech is part of what we defend, fight and die for. I will admit to being unsure of where the line between legal speech, and speech designed to incite violence is... because SCOTUS has clearly opined that not all speech is free speech.

When it comes to speech which is designed to incite violence, as this film clearly was, then I don't believe it's covered by constitutional freedoms. Since when are Americans allowed freedom of speech which is designed to get other people, including other Americans, killed? Someone said we should stop the "barbarians". Okay. How? How many countries do we bomb into extinction before all the "barbarians" are destroyed? We're clearly not very good at merely conquering countries, and schooling them to our superior ways. How many people are we willing to kill? How many of our own people are we willing to kill?

This is not a black-and-white, beat-our-chests-for-the-constitution issue. It is a global issue.

In a perfect world, the US would gather intelligence leading to the actual perpetrators of the destruction/murders at the Libyan consulant, shove a couple of drone strikes up their ass and show the rest of the rabble what they can expect if they **** with us. It's not a perfect world, though. So... how many people should we kill to protect our constitutional freedom to insult other religions. I'm just asking.
 
DiAnna said:
Yes, freedom of speech is part of what we defend, fight and die for. I will admit to being unsure of where the line between legal speech, and speech designed to incite violence is... because SCOTUS has clearly opined that not all speech is free speech.

When it comes to speech which is designed to incite violence, as this film clearly was, then I don't believe it's covered by constitutional freedoms. Since when are Americans allowed freedom of speech which is designed to get other people, including other Americans, killed? Someone said we should stop the "barbarians". Okay. How? How many countries do we bomb into extinction before all the "barbarians" are destroyed? We're clearly not very good at merely conquering countries, and schooling them to our superior ways. How many people are we willing to kill? How many of our own people are we willing to kill?

This is not a black-and-white, beat-our-chests-for-the-constitution issue. It is a global issue.

In a perfect world, the US would gather intelligence leading to the actual perpetrators of the destruction/murders at the Libyan consulant, shove a couple of drone strikes up their ass and show the rest of the rabble what they can expect if they **** with us. It's not a perfect world, though. So... how many people should we kill to protect our constitutional freedom to insult other religions. I'm just asking.
Click to expand...

You can't hold the film maker responsible for the stupidity of others. If you do that, then you open the door to ban books and video games, too.
 
apdst said:
You can't hold the film maker responsible for the stupidity of others. If you do that, then you open the door to ban books and video games, too.
Click to expand...

I agree... to a point. When a book, a video game, a film is designed solely to incite violence upon others, then I believe it is not covered by freedom of speech. Remember, the key here is "designed solely to incite violence". I suspect SCOTUS would agree with me. :)
 
DiAnna said:
I agree... to a point. When a book, a video game, a film is designed solely to incite violence upon others, then I believe it is not covered by freedom of speech. Remember, the key here is "designed solely to incite violence". I suspect SCOTUS would agree with me. :)
Click to expand...

Then, we're going to ban books, games and movies that are considered racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or promote racial impurity.

If we ban all media that pisses somebody off, then we'll have to ban all books, games and movies.

Where do you draw the line? Are we going to ban Watership Down because someone rioted over it's content?

At some point, we have to say, "Hey! Dumbasses! Grow the **** up or we'll stick it up your asses!". IMO, we're at that point.
 
apdst said:
Then, we're going to ban books, games and movies that are considered racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or promote racial impurity.

If we ban all media that pisses somebody off, then we'll have to ban all books, games and movies.

Where do you draw the line? Are we going to ban Watership Down because someone rioted over it's content?

At some point, we have to say, "Hey! Dumbasses! Grow the **** up or we'll stick it up your asses!". IMO, we're at that point.
Click to expand...

You've clearly not understood what I was saying in the single sentence you pulled out of a rather lengthy post. Guess we'll just agree to disagree on this.
 
Arbo said:
This is some serious paint brushing of a whole group of people. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Muslims in the world mind their own business and live their lives, like most everyone else.

It is those that are extremists that are the problem.
Click to expand...

All of Islam is a problem. You recognize that now or know it later.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Does the general not also have the right to simply request something of a pastor, that may benefit the men under his command... In this case being the entire US military.

No force involved, simply a request, which I think is fair enough.

No ones rights violated here.
Click to expand...

Reverse the situation and imagine now that a general is calling to pressure New York Times reporters not to run with classified information. I see a bit more caterwauling in that alternate scenario.
 
DiAnna said:
You've clearly not understood what I was saying in the single sentence you pulled out of a rather lengthy post. Guess we'll just agree to disagree on this.
Click to expand...

We can agree, soon as you explain how we would keep these kinds of media bannings from getting out of hand.

I get the whole, "intent to incite violence", thing. But, who gets to judge that intent? There's no evidence that Bacile's soul intent was to incite violence. The Islamopologists have propagandized that little nugget and to their credit, it worked, but there's nothing to prove it's true.
 
cpwill said:
Reverse the situation and imagine now that a general is calling to pressure New York Times reporters not to run with classified information. I see a bit more caterwauling in that alternate scenario.
Click to expand...

I see Libbos ****ting on the headliner of their hybrids. :rofl
 
specklebang said:
The Pastors actions have generated a murderous reaction.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that this was the case. There have been hundreds of incidents over the years of Muslims murdering innocent people. The Florida pastor is not responsible for the actions of the third world religious wackos..
 
One would think the Muslims in the middle east would be grateful to us for making them rich from oil sales.
 
And within his right to do so. He seems to want to be as controversial as possible. Still, it's not unreasonable to ASK him to examine the consequences. Maybe he'll reconsider his position, maybe he won't.


Grant said:
There is no evidence that this was the case. There have been hundreds of incidents over the years of Muslims murdering innocent people. The Florida pastor is not responsible for the actions of the third world religious wackos..
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
You can't hold the film maker responsible for the stupidity of others. If you do that, then you open the door to ban books and video games, too.
Click to expand...

Spot on... and as can be seen, the new leader of Egypt, is already calling for those in it's embassy in the US to take 'legal action' against the filmmaker. Those who wish to silence voices they do not like are dangerous people.

Egypt to take legal action in US against Prophet film makers - Israel News, Ynetnews

And all the while, more riots in the streets over there.
 
Arbo said:
Spot on... and as can be seen, the new leader of Egypt, is already calling for those in it's embassy in the US to take 'legal action' against the filmmaker. Those who wish to silence voices they do not like are dangerous people.

Egypt to take legal action in US against Prophet film makers - Israel News, Ynetnews

And all the while, more riots in the streets over there.
Click to expand...

As if! What a joke! :rofl

I'm going to make a movie picking on Islam and see if they take leagal action against me. I think that would be a money maker. :rofl
 
specklebang said:
And within his right to do so. He seems to want to be as controversial as possible. Still, it's not unreasonable to ASK him to examine the consequences. Maybe he'll reconsider his position, maybe he won't.
Click to expand...

Whose going to "ask" him? The government can't do it. That could be considered intimidation and therefore, unconstitutional.
 
Apparently, some General did ask him. He said "**** off". Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.

apdst said:
Whose going to "ask" him? The government can't do it. That could be considered intimidation and therefore, unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Apparently, some General did ask him. He said "**** off". Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason it's a bad idea for government officials to "ask" citizens to curtail their constitutional rights.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060902540 said:
You can't convince me Islam is a peaceful religion. There are way too many Muslims around the world willing to kill westerners because they insult them.

Wasn't their prophet a warrior?
Click to expand...

Outside of 9/11, assuming you live in the United States, how many times, in the United States have you, or yours or your friends been physically attacked by Muslims because of your religion? I'll tell you something, I've never met anyone in America who has. Oh, I'm sure it has happened, but it is a most infrequent event.

Except for the military have you ever traveled outside the U.S.? How many times have you or yours been attacked by Muslims outside the U.S.? Does it happen? Yes. It remains relatively infrequent in much of the world.

I would submit to you that you are confusing Muslims with Islamists. Islamists are fundamentalists.
 
Maybe the General was just stressed out. What with all the blood shed and all. Maybe he should have thought it through more. It certainly was a waste of time.

Pastor Jones is a terrorist IMHO. For a Jesus peddler, he sure has a lot of blood on his hands and he seems to love every minute of it.


apdst said:
Hence the reason it's a bad idea for government officials to "ask" citizens to curtail their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
 
If he did it as a citizen on his own time: I don't care

If he did it as his military role while at work: Bad.
 
apdst said:
Will it make the bad guys hate us more than they already do? Is that what you're worried about?
Click to expand...

no im worried about more Americans and other allies who have to eat the **** storm coming their way in Afghan
 
specklebang said:
Maybe the General was just stressed out. What with all the blood shed and all. Maybe he should have thought it through more. It certainly was a waste of time.

Pastor Jones is a terrorist IMHO. For a Jesus peddler, he sure has a lot of blood on his hands and he seems to love every minute of it.
Click to expand...


There isn't anything humble about your opinion, plenty of ignorance and illogic, however. I'm sure if a group of Christians just went and killed a bunch of british people "this is for chrstopher hitchens!" you'd be here calling hitchens a terrorist because he's said nasty things about christians/christ. Yeah, tell me you would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom