General Discussion

julian09

(1,435 posts)

45. This film was made in US so we were blamed and innocent people died, not the filmmaker

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 07:31 PM

Sep 2012

while he hides, carnage is still going on two days later at several US embassies, provocation is provocation and reprisal is expected. He is hiding under US protection for lying, demeaning, disgracing, blasphemy etc. While Assange is persecuted for telling the truth and embarrassing people. I don't think he deserves special protection, at least he knows what to expect, but our diplomats didn't see it coming. We invaded Afghanistan because, Taliban didn't turn over OBL; they invaded our embassy because that is where the americans are, who in their mind created this insult to their religious founder and beliefs. While defending his right to free speech are we condoning him? Did he rate his film, comedy, fiction, satire anything to lessen impact?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We've been told any action reasonably expected to elicit a violent response [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 OP

Our extremists are worse than theirs because our extremists expect others JoePhilly Sep 2012 #1

I'm not sure how that relates to the OP Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #2

I think there could be a case made for inciting a riot, hate speech violations or renie408 Sep 2012 #3

You know for a fact what they intended to do? Missycim Sep 2012 #14

The standard should be the truth, not the ability of others to handle it. wickerwoman Sep 2012 #17

Excellent point. Do gays holding hands in public incite gay-bashers? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #23

The government of Egypt wants to charge him and anyone else involved- haele Sep 2012 #20

Your interpretation of the First Amendment is too narrow. Jim Lane Sep 2012 #53

if every one KNEW this was going to happen MrDiaz Sep 2012 #51

I just reread what you wrote and I think I disagree a bit. renie408 Sep 2012 #4

so if people riot because of what your write here, you are responsible for the riots? ok nt msongs Sep 2012 #7

If your intent was to get them to riot ... probably yes. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #10

How are you EVER going to prove that in a court of law MNBrewer Sep 2012 #12

Did I say we need to take the idiot to court? Don't think I did. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #13

Fair enough. MNBrewer Sep 2012 #15

np ... I follow you. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #18

It relates to the reailty of what is actually going on, as described in your OP. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #9

So you say but the reality -- the real reality -- is there are terrorists who killed Americans Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #16

No, the US won;t be punnishing "our extremist" in this situaiton. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #19

If mocking people's sacred beliefs automatically make someone an extremist Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #21

You suck at this ... the guy who created that video had an intent. You can PRETEND JoePhilly Sep 2012 #25

Let's cut to the chase Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #27

How exactly does option A differ from option C? JoePhilly Sep 2012 #29

I would expect anyone under a credible threat of violence to be protected Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #35

Truly. The most horrible kind of people are those who *don't* go around murdering others 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #30

A suggestion for you Spider Jerusalem Sep 2012 #5

And how would that prove the validity of violent bullying? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #22

It'd prove the blind stupidity of thinking that deliberate provocation should be ignored Spider Jerusalem Sep 2012 #41

Just because someone wants to react violently doesn't mean we capitulate Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #43

Not the same thing Spider Jerusalem Sep 2012 #48

"Would not be protected speech in most countries"? Really? Zalatix Sep 2012 #50

That does not make Europe the paragon of civil liberties. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #52

You know it is crazy Livluvgrow Sep 2012 #6

Of course ...the Boston Tea Party was responsible for the British being violent. L0oniX Sep 2012 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author CJCRANE Sep 2012 #11

I think the filmmakers could certainly be hammered for other reasons BarackTheVote Sep 2012 #24

I don't agree with the statement of first sentence tama Sep 2012 #26

Fair enough but I restricting my comments to the subject at hand and Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #28

I cannot fully follow your line of argument tama Sep 2012 #36

I think we're mostly in agreement. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #42

Violence begets violence tama Sep 2012 #46

How does that apply here? 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #40

I'm not tama Sep 2012 #47

If I recall protests have occasion led to riots and other forms of violence 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #31

Shhhhh... You're giving the NYPD ideas... Zalatix Sep 2012 #33

But but incitement. . . hate speech . . . stochastic terrorism. . . 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #34

That is 180-degrees from what I'm arguing; so perhaps we're in agreement Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #37

I wasn't arguing against you 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #39

I was thinking you were but I wasn't sure. Thank-you n/t Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #44

See post #26 nt tama Sep 2012 #38

Tell the Teabaggers "an African American is going to be President for 2 terms, DEAL WITH IT!!!" Zalatix Sep 2012 #32

This film was made in US so we were blamed and innocent people died, not the filmmaker julian09 Sep 2012 #45

Nonsense ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #49