That's one problem with a lot of argumentation.
On the one hand, intent can't exculpate somebody because only those perceiving the speech have a right to weigh in on what the speech means. If they're offended, then they have a right to be offended.
Then we turn around and say that intent is everything and that bad intent makes those offended and doing mayhem justified in their excesses.
"Obviously the point is to bait Islamic extremists into engaging in violent action which can then provoke a political backlash convenient to Jones and his fellow-lunatics."
That's not the guy's intent. That was clear, and was stated long before there was any violent action and long before the film was dubbed into Arabic. It was meant to proselytize. To convert Muslims to Xianity. Now, culturally that's still grounds for burning consultates and killing people, but it's a different kind of "offense" and one that most DUers have serious trouble with. Only later did Jones get a hold of it and repurpose it to be primarily something for Xians about Islam.
In context it even makes sense--the claims in the film have been around for a long time, and even Islamic websites have to deal with some of them. So Aisha was married when she was 9 and Muhammed was 50+ is a claim some sites will say is okay, she had menarche by then and was a woman, "How dare we criticize the Prophet?" Others will say that only an idiot could say that Muhammed actually stuck it in her at that age, obviously she was betrothed and the marriage was consummated much later.
Yeah, all that damned "conservative" nuance crap, I know.
There's no justification for murder, not at a two-month's remove from the act. The murderers are pigs and their acts make any vilification of Muhammed by the Copt seem like an act of praise and adulation.
= new reply since forum marked as read