• 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!

Anit-American violence sweeps across 23 world nations

I'll ask you what I've asked others:

Should an abortionist be locked up because what he does enrages someone enough to bomb an abortion clinic?

Perhaps one needs to weigh these things and decide for themselves?

How many people get enraged enough over here to bomb clinics?

How man people get enraged enough overseas to turn on our interests and threaten and kill Americans?

By my count, a few whacko's are here who attack clinics with bombs. It looks like hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions in the Middle East are enraged and now the entire stability of that region because some irresponsible extremist wanted to renew a holy crusade of their own.
 
Which Islamic led countries where the riots are occurring are cooperating with the US?


Why are you concerned about the 'good reputation' of the US? Maybe there'd be fewer Americans murdered if they had a bad reputation, just as the Muslims have. Then they'd quake in fear whenever an American was insulted in their media.

It doesn't seem as though the Apology Tour enhanced America's reputation in the world at all.

I do know that Libya is cooperating with the US to bring the killers of Americans to justice. Eqypt has a new government as well, and Obama and Clinton issued a strong warning to them and other countries to get these situations under control or the US will.
I am concerned with the reputation of the US because I do not want wars to start in this country and I do not want the world to start to see the US as a threat to world peace. It will not end well for us if we start to wage war at every turn.
I have yet to see Obama issue one apology. If I am wrong, then please give me some link to a quote.
 
What Libyans died protecting our people?

They loved us before the wars?

This is the defeatism I've spoken about.
When I first heard about the attacks I had heard that some Libyan security people had been killed also. However, it appears now that many where wounded and not killed. Some countries in the Middle East are our allies, so yes, some of these countries didn't turn against us because of the Bush wars. The people in Libya loved the ambassadar. They expressed that loved by having a time of mourning and showing signs expressing their love for Stephens.
I know it's hard to accept that the war in Iraq was a huge failure and the war in Afganistan wasn't as effective as we had hoped it would be, but it is time to face the facts.
 
So, just to be sure I am clear here, if someone makes a movie that offensive to someone else and the offended party kills someone, then that movie should not be allowed?

Cool, anyone have an unregistered rifle I can borrow and when is the opening of the next Micheal Moore film, anti-Christian film or any film presenting a pro-liberal/socialist viewpoint? By your logic, I have just shown you how anyone could shut down any film based upon the believe that it might cause violence, it should be banned. By your standards, the last Batman film should of been canned and never shown again after the incident in Col.

BTW, a lot of the animosity towards Bush was based upon the fact that Iraq was the counterbalance to Iran's actions. By taking out the one, we gave more power to the other. Many in the M.E. would of been far more supportive if we had taken out both. That disruption of balance of power in the region was the reason the coalition did not allow G. H. Bush to take down Iraq during the First Gulf War.

For those who might not catch on, there is no actual threat intended but an example of how a threat could be used. Should of thought of that at the time, doh.
 
So, just to be sure I am clear here, if someone makes a movie that offensive to someone else and the offended party kills someone, then that movie should not be allowed?

Cool, anyone have an unregistered rifle I can borrow and when is the opening of the next Micheal Moore film, anti-Christian film or any film presenting a pro-liberal/socialist viewpoint? By your logic, I have just shown you how anyone could shut down any film based upon the believe that it might cause violence, it should be banned. By your standards, the last Batman film should of been canned and never shown again after the incident in Col.

BTW, a lot of the animosity towards Bush was based upon the fact that Iraq was the counterbalance to Iran's actions. By taking out the one, we gave more power to the other. Many in the M.E. would of been far more supportive if we had taken out both. That disruption of balance of power in the region was the reason the coalition did not allow G. H. Bush to take down Iraq during the First Gulf War.

I think I made my self very clear. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to make films that insult people's religions. I simply said that if someone expressed their views in such a way as to incite riots, that person can be held accountable for any damage it causes. The first case heard by the Supreme Court on this was the case where someone yelled fire in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is limited. I was not using my logic on this point. I was using the Supreme COurt's view of how freedom of speech can be constitutionally limited.
 
I'll ask you what I've asked others:

Should an abortionist be locked up because what he does enrages someone enough to bomb an abortion clinic?

That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, so I don't see your point.
 
I think I made my self very clear. I never said people shouldn't be allowed to make films that insult people's religions. I simply said that if someone expressed their views in such a way as to incite riots, that person can be held accountable for any damage it causes. The first case heard by the Supreme Court on this was the case where someone yelled fire in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is limited. I was not using my logic on this point. I was using the Supreme COurt's view of how freedom of speech can be constitutionally limited.

So, if me and some of my church members went in and murdered the staff of Family Guy, raped Seth McFarlane and then murdered him is he the only one accountable due to him offending me when his show mocks Jesus and Christianity?

I certainly hope you don't think that's rational or just. We have freedom of speech, how you react to something you don't like hearing is completely your fault and you are the only one accountable.
 
That has nothing to do with freedom of speech, so I don't see your point.

It has everything to do with someone exercising a right and and inciting violence by doing it. Do you not see my point, or do you not wish to?
 
So, if me and some of my church members went in and murdered the staff of Family Guy, raped Seth McFarlane and then murdered him is he the only one accountable due to him offending me when his show mocks Jesus and Christianity?

I certainly hope you don't think that's rational.

To be consistent, she would have to think so.
 
Those tactics worked for the Allies when bombed Dresdan, Bremmen, Wilhamschlaven, Tokyo and Yokohama. The more fighters they recruit, the more of their fighters we kill. It's an age old process that's stood the test of time.

The German people were a whole different beast and they fought with fanatical resistance right up until the end.
 
Yet, the rest of the people of the region are doing nothing. The people pictured, protesting the goofy asses, are a small handful of people. Where the hell is everybody else?

Hiding in fear?
 
Yes, Libya did defend out embasy and our people. Libyans died trying to save our people. Bush did horrible on the wars, that is why we are in so much debt and so hated in the Middle East. We can't solve all of our problems in the Middle East with war.
We didn't win the Iraq war and we haven't won the Afganistan war. We lost men, money, and reputation. We lost more than we won, that is why I say we didn't win those wars. I never said we should take away our rights. However, people should realize how their inflame these situations. Also, freedom of speech was limited constitutionally by the Supreme Court. If speech is designed to inflame and it causes deaths, those who inflamed a situation to the point of it causing deaths can be held accountable for their part in the situation. Like it or not, freedom of speech has its limits.

You're inflaming me with this argument of yours. Does that give me license to kill?
 
So, if me and some of my church members went in and murdered the staff of Family Guy, raped Seth McFarlane and then murdered him is he the only one accountable due to him offending me when his show mocks Jesus and Christianity?

I certainly hope you don't think that's rational or just. We have freedom of speech, how you react to something you don't like hearing is completely your fault and you are the only one accountable.

OMG, can you really not understand what I have been saying? I am done.
 
It has everything to do with someone exercising a right and and inciting violence by doing it. Do you not see my point, or do you not wish to?

Argue with the Supreme Court. I didn't base my post on my opinion. I based it on the court's view as to what limits speech.
 
OMG, can you really not understand what I have been saying? I am done.

Why not debate what I have posted? You specifically said
I simply said that if someone expressed their views in such a way as to incite riots, that person can be held accountable for any damage it causes.

If I'm understanding right, if I decided to go on a barbaric rampage and kill people over the Piss Christ or Family Guy then the creators of both works should be held accountable, correct?
 
When I first heard about the attacks I had heard that some Libyan security people had been killed also. However, it appears now that many where wounded and not killed. Some countries in the Middle East are our allies, so yes, some of these countries didn't turn against us because of the Bush wars. The people in Libya loved the ambassadar. They expressed that loved by having a time of mourning and showing signs expressing their love for Stephens.
I know it's hard to accept that the war in Iraq was a huge failure and the war in Afganistan wasn't as effective as we had hoped it would be, but it is time to face the facts.

First, you were wrong about Libyans dieing to protect American personel. Then, you claim that, "many", were injured protecting American personel and failed to present any supporting docs. Then, you claim that American soldiers lost the war in Iraq.

Your credibility tank is running low by the time you made that last claim.
 
You're inflaming me with this argument of yours. Does that give me license to kill?

You obviously do not grasp what I have tried to say. Let me put it this way. The Supreme COurt has put limits to the freedom of speech. Study the courts views on that limit. I wasn't stating my opinion. I was showing facts that there is a limit to freedom of speech.
 
One thing that gets ignored in this is that in a lot of countries without free speech, many don't understand American free speech, so when **** like the movie comes out, it may seem like it is "government-approved" as it would have to be if it came out in a country with censorship. Just thought it's a point worth addressing.
 
The German people were a whole different beast and they fought with fanatical resistance right up until the end.

Exactly my point: as long as they resisted us, we killed them. Sooner, or later, nothing is left but the cowards and the shirkers.

The nature of warfare dictates that the bravest and most adacious die firstest and the mostest. Eventually, that natural process leaves one side with no one that is willing to wage war.
 
Yet, the rest of the people of the region are doing nothing. The people pictured, protesting the goofy asses, are a small handful of people. Where the hell is everybody else?

The two excuses for Islamic behavior tend to be, "Not all Muslims are terrorists" or "It's only a small number committing the murderous acts".

The question is, if it is just a small number why can't the larger number control them? It's not as though they are trying to hide what they're doing

A few signs will only fool those who want to be fooled, who will continue to make excuses for the the rabble.
 
Exactly my point: as long as they resisted us, we killed them. Sooner, or later, nothing is left but the cowards and the shirkers.

The nature of warfare dictates that the bravest and most adacious die firstest and the mostest. Eventually, that natural process leaves one side with no one that is willing to wage war.

And they were not just bombed to death,it took 15 million Allied/Soviet troops to beat them down in addition to bombing them....Germany at the time had around 70 million people...
Imagine what it would take to beat down 1.5 billion....
 
First, you were wrong about Libyans dieing to protect American personel. Then, you claim that, "many", were injured protecting American personel and failed to present any supporting docs. Then, you claim that American soldiers lost the war in Iraq.

Your credibility tank is running low by the time you made that last claim.

Libyan official says Benghazi attack was an organized, 2-part attack by militants on Americans - The Washington Post
The second assault took place several hours later and targeted the safe house — a villa inside the grounds of the city’s equestrian club — killing two Americans and wounding a number of Libyans and Americans.

Also, I didn't say the American soldiers lost the Iraq war. The Iraq war was doomed from the start. Our soldiers did the best they could. THey were put into a losing situation.
 
Argue with the Supreme Court. I didn't base my post on my opinion. I based it on the court's view as to what limits speech.

You based it on a misunderstanding of what they said.

They didn't say speech which incites violence or a riot is illegal. If you wish to make it illegal, that's a different choice. And that the reasons behind that wish are just as valid when it comes to the abortionist and the violence abortion incites.
 
Back
Top Bottom