How many of us believe the attacks on our embassies were caused by some third rate youtube video? All rubes and tools raise your hands. Not even Aljeezara believes that in the case of the attacks in Libya.
“I think this was al-Qaeda,” President Mohamed al-Magarief told Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel-Hamid on Friday, in his first interview with foreign media since the violence three days earlier.
“If you take into account the weapons used like RPGs and other heavy weapons, it proves that it was pre-planned,” he said. “It’s a dirty act of revenge that has nothing to do with religion.”
Click for in-depth coverage of Muslim world embassy attacksHis comments to Al Jazeera marked the first time his government has openly attributed acts of violence to religious extremists.
Frankly, anyone who believes any of these attacks were motivated by the is a fool or a collaborator.
How about, as the Libyan president sasy, drone strikes that kill al Qaeda leaders and innocent civilians? Of the up to 3171 persons killed by drone strikes since the U.S. began using drones, 2427 were killed under Obama’s regime. Obama has a kill list, which has included Amrican citizens, that he’s never fully explained the criteria for being on the list or the constitutional authority that allows it. CNN says it is almost impossible to believe him. Even lefty Ezra Klein doesn’t buy the video caused this meme.
Of course, Obama and his storm troopers go after the writer of the film script to try to cover their asses. Raising images of brown-shirts and Tromping on constitutional principles along the way.
President Barack Obama has bowed to the Muslim Brotherhood’s demand that the federal government suppress a satirical video of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad.
Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, told the Washington Post that the White House has “reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”
……
The submission came shortly after White House spokesman Jay Carney publicly disavowed any plans to curb free speech.
“We cannot and will not squelch freedom of expression in this country — it is a foundational principle,” he told reporters at a 11.15 a.m. press conference in the White House.
Of course, Obama and Hillary have never shown themselves to be strong proponents of our constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion and the right to bear arms. Fortunately for them, the MSM ignores Obama’s attacks on civil rights that would have had them calling for Bush’s head. CNN has already posted its obligatory “there’s something wrong with Christians” post, My Take: It’s time for Islamophobic evangelicals to choose. Yeah, we have such a huge problem with violent evangelical Christian terrorists in this world.
Consider these comments:
“Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” the statement continued. “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Some U.S. officials spoke to the tension between U.S. support for free speech and what some have described as the film’s “hate speech,” in reacting to the attacks.
“The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement.
“Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation,” she said. “But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
The statements draw into question the level of commitment to freedom of speech as well as belie the administrations lack of respect for Christianity in America. Remember Obama’s bitter clinger comments, Obama’s efforts, via Obamacare and more, to prevent people for acting according to their religious beliefs. Beliefs that have been firmly established and accepted for hundreds, sometimes thousands of years. Even left wing comedians know better than this shit.
I wonder if some day students, and teachers, of history will be, for all the wrong reasons, asking this question:
Why did people support Obama? (He promised people what they wanted. Free health care, wealth redistribution, true equality, stopping the rise of the oceans) The left wing MSM’s covering for Obama is epic and opens the gates wide for more and more losses of our freedom and constitutional rights. When we glibly toss our sides our freedom and rights, nothing good follows.
1) AQ really isnt that popular. It could be AQ, but it seems more likely to be another group.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/04/30/on-anniversary-of-bin-ladens-death-little-backing-of-al-qaeda/1/
2) “Of the up to 3171 persons killed by drone strikes since the U.S. began using drones, 2427 were killed ”
One would think the 100,000 deaths in Iran would be more of a concern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Maybe the 7,000 Palestinians killed by Israelis?
http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/casualties.asp?sD=27&sM=12&sY=2008&eD=18&eM=01&eY=2009&filterby=event&oferet_stat=during
3) Of course the killings of Muslims have been going on for a long time. So why now is there a response? I think we will find that the video has certainly been a factor, probably the main one in Egypt. There were riots and killings when some Korans were burned in Afghanistan. They do get mad over this stuff. That said, I dont think we need to look far beyond the recent war in Libya. Many groups in Libya supported Qaddafi. I suspect that one of those groups, or a fundamentalist group (or both) with the film as catalyst will be found to be responsible.
I cannot find any instances of Obama opposing free speech. Could you cite some?
Steve
3)
1) I think Hillary Clinton actually defended freedom of speech quite well in her statement on the video; she said all the right things on both parts of the argument that’s often put as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”; the video’s appalling, we neither can stop such videos nor would want to live in the sort of country where the government had the power to suppress them, and nothing of the sort justifies violence against embassies or consulates.
In particular, I think Clinton was right on the money when she said, of suppressing the video, “Now, I would note that in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.”
2) If anyone should have any legal recourse against “Sam Bacile,” it’s the actors in the video. It was pretty scummy of him to tell them he was making something else, have them act entirely different dialog, and then dub an anti-Muslim movie over their lines. Muhammed can’t be injured by such videos, whatever certain of the touchier of his followers may think. The actors, on the other hand, can definitely be injured by being sucked into something they didn’t anticipate (while the person who suckered them conveniently hid behind a pseudonym). I assume he set up whatever contracts he had them sign such that he’d have the legal right to do the dubbing he already planned (without being obvious enough that they’d catch onto the fact that they were making an entirely different movie from the one they thought they were making), but I wouldn’t shed any tears if the actors turned out to have the legal ability to get the thing pulled from Youtube or to collect damages from “Sam Bacile.” But only because they were duped. If a similar video were made with willing participation all around, then, bigoted and offensive though it might be, it certainly shouldn’t be something our government should suppress. The only people who should have any legal recourse on the video are people the video maker directly defrauded in some way.
3) I gather that the video maker had previously committed bank fraud and had probation restrictions against using the Internet or using pseudonyms. Whatever judge oversees that should be free to do whatever would normally be done about such a probation violation; I neither think he should get a heavier penalty than normal or that he should be exempted from whatever the normal penalty would be, because of the nature of the video in question.
4) From what I’ve read, it’s clear by now that the attack on the consulate in Libya, at least, was preplanned and had nothing to do with the video. Not sure one way or the other how much effect it had on the storming of the embassy in Egypt. It *is* true that there’s a history of certain Muslims getting provoked to violence by such things, so the fact that the attack on the consulate had another cause doesn’t change my opinion (going back to point 2) on the sliminess of duping the actors while hiding behind a pseudonym; that had the real possibility of putting the actors at physical risk without their having opted in to such risk. But on the other hand, it’s not as if such attacks are the least bit *justified* by even the worst video, so, even if the killing of the ambassador *had* been a response to the video, the killers would (as Obama and Clinton have been clear) have been the ones to blame.
5) I don’t think the embassy in Egypt deserved Romney’s criticism for their statement hours before either their embassy or the consulate in Libya was attacked, criticizing the video while stating that they considered free speech a universal right. I don’t think they deserved criticism for affirming, after their embassy was stormed, that they still found the video reprehensible and still believed in free speech. I’m really pissed off at Romney for adding insult to the injury that others had already inflicted on that embassy by suggesting that they were appeasing and betraying American values. I think our diplomats deserve better support than that from us when they put their own physical safety on the line for us. Have a political debate about the best foreign policy, fine. Ask whether the right security decisions have been made about our embassies and consulates, fine. But suggesting that diplomats who are facing having their embassy stormed are being weak-kneed in their patriotism pisses me off.
Lacking a “like” button and loathe to utter the word “amen, ” I shall simply state, “well said, Lynn.” Good to hear from you. Hope all is going as well as possible.
As well as possible. I had a tiring week last week, but hope for more energy this week as I move farther from chemo day.
I didn’t know the part about the actors. What a scumbag!
I wonder if the producer had an insurance policy on the actors, and if so, what it covers and for how long. One of my clients is a theatrical agent, so maybe I’m the only person here that this would occur to?