Egyptian Terrorists Attack US on 9/11

[RPB]

TAM thank you....you saved me some typing.

The only thing I want to add is that I am NOT pleased AT ALL that they have arrested this film maker. If he did actual crimes he would be under investigation by his local PD, not the FBI, it is a reprehensible thing that our first amendment, that my family and other families have bled and died for, is being put in the dung hill to pacify a group of terrorists. I am furious over this. I could hate with the highest of hates what he has said and I would still say he had a right to say it. America, the dream, the great experiment is dying bit by bit. I will not go into Dhimmitude. I reject that Islam is special above others and deserves special protection just because they get violent when their feelings get hurt. Punish the violence, that is far more acceptable than destroying the first amendment.

someone asked him questions, probably in protective custody situation for a bit, I don't think any crime was committed and so it's my impression they didn't arrest him for exercising his rights. No one has the right to use sticks and stones to harm in response to words; that's escalation instead of being a peace maker.. Often it's the less intelligent who are unable to express themselves in a rational/logical manner who use physical means against words.
http://www.timesnews.net/article/905168 ... amic-movie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A southern California filmmaker linked to an anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East was interviewed by federal probation officers at a Los Angeles sheriff's station but was not arrested or detained, authorities said early Saturday.

See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 06,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM,
Let me understand:
Are all conspiracy laws unconstitutional?
Is the Patriot act unconstitutional?
Is water boarding American Citizens unconstitutional?
Is Killing civilians under the banner of "collateral damage" i.e. excessive use of military force against civilian targets is legally acceptable under the laws of war?
Do accept to drop a "hellfire" on drug dealer or murderer's house, just because he killed someone?

Beiruty, with all due respect......I completely respect your right to practice your religion, but you've just raised a red herring here. Everything I posted above was relevant to foreign soil, and nothing in your answer has anything at all to do with what I posted......and there is a HUGE difference between criminal conspiracy to rob a bank on American soil, resulting in the deaths of people inside the bank, and a paramilitary conspiracy to fly aircraft into buildings in an attempt to kill tens of thousands, succeeding in killing multiple thousands, etc., etc.

Waterboarding an American citizen who is not trying to overthrow his government would be definitely unconstitutional. If you're referring to that cretin terrorist overseas, I don't care if they grind his guts into hamburger and feed it to him. He is an enemy combatant, and enemy combatants are not subject to civil/criminal law.

You're making a moral equivalency between a foreign terrorist, and a civilian criminal. There IS NO equivilency.

I believe that parts of the patriot act were well motivated good ideas. I believe that, under Obama's administration, DHS is on its way to becoming this county's gestapo. But again, that has nothing to do with killing foreign terrorists.

As far as conspiracy laws go, we have in this country a right to peaceable assembly and free association. When that assembly is used to plot crimes, then the conspiracy is itself criminal. When the assembly is used to plot acts of a fundamentally military nature against noncombatant civilian targets, then the consipirators lose the protections of the constitution because they are now enemy combatants.

If a foreign terrorist is positively identified, and reliably tracked to his dwelling in a foreign land, and a predator drone puts a hellfire missle into that dwelling, and all inside are killed including his wife and children, SHAME ON HIM FOR BRINGING DANGER UPON HIS FAMILY!!!

I am surprised that you cannot see the difference.

[Beiruty]

Have you all considered for a sec the content of the said movie is a total lie, a slander.

BTW, Extremists picked 9/11 11th anniversary to attack and the movie-cause was irrelevant. Inflaming the feelings of the mass of Muslims resulted in a predictable outcome as stated above.

TAM, I see the difference, however justifying collateral damage, the death of civilians is problematic. Why, Because Terrorists are claiming the same principle, that in-order to harm US, killing US civilians as matter of collateral damage is acceptable. BTW, Terrorists even claim that killing innocent Muslims as collateral-damage is acceptable under the same principle. Terrorists or Extremists who call themselves Muslims would target Muslims who do not agree with their sick and deviant mentality first.

[bizarrenormality]

Have you all considered for a sec the content of the said movie is a total lie, a slander.

That's a civil tort. Real police don't arrest people for that. Not in America.

[mamabearCali]

someone asked him questions, probably in protective custody situation for a bit, I don't think any crime was committed and so it's my impression they didn't arrest him for exercising his rights. No one has the right to use sticks and stones to harm in response to words; that's escalation instead of being a peace maker.. Often it's the less intelligent who are unable to express themselves in a rational/logical manner who use physical means against words.
http://www.timesnews.net/article/905168 ... amic-movie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A southern California filmmaker linked to an anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East was interviewed by federal probation officers at a Los Angeles sheriff's station but was not arrested or detained, authorities said early Saturday.

See http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 06,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I was not free to go I would consider myself under arrest. If the FEDS had not outted him he would not need protective custody. If I was taken in handcuffs to some police station you better believe I am shutting up until I have representation.

[WildBill]

If the FEDS had not outted him he would not need protective custody.

IMO, this is inexcusable to put a person's life in danger when he hasn't been convicted of any crime.

[RoyGBiv]

Is Killing civilians under the banner of "collateral damage" i.e. excessive use of military force against civilian targets is legally acceptable under the laws of war?

<<<<<< WARNING: The article at the link below will be very disturbing to some people...>>>>>>
If you are not of a mature mindset, please do not click the link. I will not be at all offended if the mods decide to delete this post, however, the editorial/article/story speaks directly to the question (a very relevant question) posed here by Beiruty. Eventually, we must all come to terms with our own answer to this question. The writer provides a very thoughtful, reasoned analysis to a difficult question.

I will not comment on whether I agree or disagree with the writer, as circumstances can never be known in advance...

The article is titled "On the Virtues of Killing Children"
I don't recall any profanity in this, but the subject is definitely for mature audiences only.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/o ... tues_.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

/Warning

Note: I've reported myself for this post so that a mod will take a look at it...
I'm worried the subject matter may be considered "too much".

[The Annoyed Man]

Have you all considered for a sec the content of the said movie is a total lie, a slander. I have. The slander, if it is such (I have not seen it), does not justify for even one second the murders and rioting that followed. Artists in the U.S. have depicted the cross of Jesus immersed in urine, movies in which Jesus has carnal relations with a prostitute, not to mention other abominations. Yes, there were protests, but they were completely non-violent, and somehow, no buildings were burned, nobody was murdered for it, and the "artists" in question slept soundly in their beds at night. Why? Because we are not a barbarous and murderous people. Neither, for that matter, are most Muslims. But unfortunately, the reality is that there are some people who self-identify as Muslims who are members of that group which Michael Medved described as ROPO ("religion of perpetual outrage" see my previous post), and they are clearly insane......because a sane person does not commit murder over an insulting movie.

BTW, Extremists picked 9/11 11th anniversary to attack and the movie-cause was irrelevant. Inflaming the feelings of the mass of Muslims resulted in a predictable outcome as stated above. Until THIS reply, I have not addressed the video. You want my opinion? I think it was dumber than a bag of hammers, and I think the idiot who published it ought to be shunned because he is an unwise dirtbag, but that is all I think. He did not commit a crime, because offending someone is not a crime. If it were, then the above mentioned "artists" would all be in jail, and they clearly are not. However, the murderers who killed because they were offended clearly DID commit a crime. Also, if you reread my previous posts, you'll see that I did not address the timing of the recent attacks. My references were to the original event itself.

TAM, I see the difference, however justifying collateral damage, the death of civilians is problematic. Why, Because Terrorists are claiming the same principle, that in-order to harm US, killing US civilians as matter of collateral damage is acceptable. BTW, Terrorists even claim that killing innocent Muslims as collateral-damage is acceptable under the same principle. Terrorists or Extremists who call themselves Muslims would target Muslims who do not agree with their sick and deviant mentality first. I'm not justifying civilian deaths; I'm merely point out that they are a fact of war. You're conversing with someone whose mother survived a nazi invasion, occupation, and a corresponding Allied invasion, full scale all out world war which raged back and forth across the city in which she lived.....not to diminish the tragedies of Lebanon, but a war that was MUCH more devastating and killed MANY more civilians than died in Lebanon. War is absolute hell. In WW2, civilians died in the millions as "collateral" casualties. I am not saying it is OK. I AM saying it is a fact of war. If I were a terrorist or resistance fighter, I would not bring the war home to my family. That is an act of indecency. Why would I not do that? I would not do it precisely because I would not want to risk that my wife and children would be killed by the missile aimed at me. "Men" (and I use quote marks deliberately) who drag their families into harm's way are no kind of man at all. It is the act of an immoral coward. Do I want their families to die? No, of course not. But I DO want the terrorist to die. Men who hide behind the skirts of their women are contemptible. It is easy to criticize without offering alternative solutions. In my original post where I mentioned the threat to women and children, it is NOT that I think they are legitimate targets, it is that I think that when they are collaterally killed in pursuit of a terrorist, the moral responsibility for that rests on the terrorist's shoulders........in the same way that if you and I rob a bank together and get in a gunfight with police, the deaths of any civilians caught in the crossfire is on OUR shoulders, and not on the police, regardless of who pulled the trigger.....because if there had been no bank robbery, there would be no civilian deaths. By extension, if there were no terrorism, there would be no pursuit of terrorists; and if there were no pursuit of terrorists, there would be no collateral killing of their families. The alternative is to simply do nothing and just absorb the terrorist attacks and move on. That's an unrealistic expectation.

Answers in red above....

[rwg3]

TAM, I see the difference, however justifying collateral damage, the death of civilians is problematic. Why, Because Terrorists are claiming the same principle, that in-order to harm US, killing US civilians as matter of collateral damage is acceptable. BTW, Terrorists even claim that killing innocent Muslims as collateral-damage is acceptable under the same principle. Terrorists or Extremists who call themselves Muslims would target Muslims who do not agree with their sick and deviant mentality first. I'm not justifying civilian deaths; I'm merely point out that they are a fact of war. You're conversing with someone whose mother survived a nazi invasion, occupation, and a corresponding Allied invasion, full scale all out world war which raged back and forth across the city in which she lived.....not to diminish the tragedies of Lebanon, but a war that was MUCH more devastating and killed MANY more civilians than died in Lebanon. War is absolute heck. In WW2, civilians died in the millions as "collateral" casualties. I am not saying it is OK. I AM saying it is a fact of war. If I were a terrorist or resistance fighter, I would not bring the war home to my family. That is an act of indecency. Why would I not do that? I would not do it precisely because I would not want to risk that my wife and children would be killed by the missile aimed at me. "Men" (and I use quote marks deliberately) who drag their families into harm's way are no kind of man at all. It is the act of an immoral coward. Do I want their families to die? No, of course not. But I DO want the terrorist to die. Men who hide behind the skirts of their women are contemptible. It is easy to criticize without offering alternative solutions. In my original post where I mentioned the threat to women and children, it is NOT that I think they are legitimate targets, it is that I think that when they are collaterally killed in pursuit of a terrorist, the moral responsibility for that rests on the terrorist's shoulders........in the same way that if you and I rob a bank together and get in a gunfight with police, the deaths of any civilians caught in the crossfire is on OUR shoulders, and not on the police, regardless of who pulled the trigger.....because if there had been no bank robbery, there would be no civilian deaths. By extension, if there were no terrorism, there would be no pursuit of terrorists; and if there were no pursuit of terrorists, there would be no collateral killing of their families. The alternative is to simply do nothing and just absorb the terrorist attacks and move on. That's an unrealistic expectation.[/quote]
Answers in red above....[/quote]

I agree witht the rationale in your post TAM, but I do need to point out that as stated it is bit chauvinistic. Terrorists come in both sexes and the process for dealing with them should be applied uniformly. Anyone who hides behind an innocent is not the kind of humans we need to have among us.

[Beiruty]

TAM,
The answer is not just keep killing the others regardless who is killed with who. The more innocent civilians are killed the more counter-killing would take place. The answer is to minimize and eliminate the support that extremists may cultivate. And, this on both sides. Do not forget that there are extremists from many other religions, including Christianity.

What matters is that targeting civilians as per Islamic law, is forbidden. That is the case at war and at peace. In addition, POWs are to be protected after they surrender. Moreover, if a prosecuted person (including non-Muslim) thought refuge and protection from a Muslim. If said Muslim accepted the request, said Muslim would have to provide shelter, protection and safe passage to wherever the guest would like to go. This happened many times in Lebanon during the civil war, as well as through out the centuries.

[The Annoyed Man]

ANTI-ISLAM FILMMAKER DONATED MILLION DOLLARS TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... -Filmmaker

Blame the filmmaker.

Hunt him.

Out him.

Demonize him.

Burn the straw man!

And all at the direction of a president of the United States who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, you know, the same Constitution that treasures the right of free expression and speech above all else.

But no one asks … What about Bill Maher?

Bill Maher?

Bill Maher made a comedy/documentary called "Religulous" that's most famous for mercilessly mocking Christianity. But what people forget is that the last twenty-minutes or so of the film make a damning case against Islam.

Bill Maher made a film that mocked Islam.

Oh, yes, he did.

Bill Maher also contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC.

And I'm sure that upon being reminded of this, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will tremble with self-righteous indignation and demand Maher take his money back.

After all, if movies create the terrorists who in turn create the terrorism, what about Bill Maher?

And what if the terrorists learn that the president of the United States is benefitting from a million dollar contribution given by a filmmaker who mocked Islam? How will Hillary Clinton claim with any credibility that the United States government has no connection to this outrage?

What does this mean? It means that democrats protect their own, and they fry the Christian. I'm not excusing the Christian......if he really is a Christian. I'm just saying that liberals have been doing this—deliberately offending religious people through film and other art—for decades now, and the media lets them get away with it..........because Americans do not react with violence to religious insults. Therefore, lefties and their media enablers feel safe being deliberately disrespectful of religion. But when a nominal Christian makes a movie insulting another religion, they're all over him for being intolerant. If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

[TxA]

The Independent now reports that the attack in Libya is the likely result of a security breach.

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential...

...Senior officials are increasingly convinced, however, that the ferocious nature of the Benghazi attack, in which rocket-propelled grenades were used, indicated it was not the result of spontaneous anger due to the video, called Innocence of Muslims. Patrick Kennedy, Under-Secretary at the State Department, said he was convinced the assault was planned due to its extensive nature and the proliferation of weapons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 35797.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beiruty]

The following is short-English translation (Not recommended) of what has been revealed in our holy book Al-Quran about the those who mock our Prophet or Islam in general. And, how our Prophet was bothered and silently harmed by their mocking. And, what our Prophet Muhammad was ordered to do.

What it means in English, (Not sure if the translation is accurate as I am not versed with so called Bible-like Language and terms when translating Arabic):
Surat, Al-Hajjar, verse 94 to verse 99.

(94) Lo ! We are sufficent for thee against the scoffers, (95) Who set some other god along with Allah. But they will come to know. (96) Well know We that thy bosom is times oppressed by what they say, (97) But hymn the praise of thy Lord, and be of those who make prostration (unto Him). (98) And serve thy Lord till the Inevitable cometh unto thee. (99)

[Dave2]

What has been revealed in our holy Quran about the those who Mock our Prophet or Islam in general. And, how our Prophet was bothered and silently harmed by their Mocking. And, what our Prophet Muhammad was ordered to do.

What it means in English, (Not sure if the translation is accurate as I am not versed with so called Bible-like Language and terms when translating Arabic):
Surat, Al-Hajjar, verse 94 to verse 99.

(94) Lo ! We are sufficent for thee against the scoffers, (95) Who set some other god along with Allah. But they will come to know. (96) Well know We that thy bosom is times oppressed by what they say, (97) But hymn the praise of thy Lord, and be of those who make prostration (unto Him). (98) And serve thy Lord till the Inevitable cometh unto thee. (99)

One of us is having an english fail... Is "What has been revealed in our holy Quran about the those who Mock our Prophet or Islam in general." supposed to be a question, or is it an incomplete statement?

Also, I'm having trouble understanding your translation, but I'm not entirely sure why... In the first part, (94), who is we, and who is thee? Would you mind paraphrasing it in more modern english?

[Beiruty]

Dave,

I will post my own translation as I understand it in Arabic. The confusion due to translation is why most Islamic Scholars were and still against literal translation as posted above. Translation of the meaning is acceptable.