Egyptian Terrorists Attack US on 9/11

[Pawpaw]

In 1986, when Reagan was President, Libya killed Americans. He bombed their leader's house. Libya was quiet for 25 years,............then somebody apologized.

[AlphaWhiskey]

I think the Obama administration needs a theme song.

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli,
We will arm our country's enemies
And give them free money.

Last to fight for right and freedom
And first to fight for what's obscene.
Clinton, Holder and Obama? /quote].

[/quote[/quote]]

Edit: This is where my thoughts begin I can't get the quote function to work as I would like it to.

I may be the first, and I don't think I will be the last. DO NOT, EVER bastardize the Marine's Hymn to promote your own political agenda or other general feeling. I don't give a (edit to succumb to forum rules) about you or your personal feelings. Unless you are a Marine yourself, you have absolutely ZERO right to try and bastardize MY hymn (or that of my brothers and sisters) to meld to your own political satire. Stand down immediately.

[Beiruty]

The Anit-Islam instigator and hate-speech maker and slanderer, the criminal, the fraud, is back to jail:

Police hold anti-Islamic film-maker in Los Angeles

Police interview Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the The Innocence of Muslims film, for probation violations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/se ... film-maker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RottenApple]

The Anit-Islam instigator and hate-speech maker and slanderer, the criminal, the fraud, is back to jail:

Police hold anti-Islamic film-maker in Los Angeles

Police interview Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the The Innocence of Muslims film, for probation violations

[ Image ]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/se ... film-maker" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to that article (did you even read it?) he is not "back in jail". He is being interviewed (voluntarily, I might add) for possible probation violations. In other words, they haven't got a thing to hold him on and are going on a fishing expedition.

And yet the small-minded, hate-filled, bigoted Muslim murderers who committed such heinous acts are still running free.

[williamkevin]

I think the Obama administration needs a theme song.

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli,
We will arm our country's enemies
And give them free money.

Last to fight for right and freedom
And first to fight for what's obscene.
Clinton, Holder and Obama?

.

Edit: This is where my thoughts begin I can't get the quote function to work as I would like it to.

I may be the first, and I don't think I will be the last. DO NOT, EVER bastardize the Marine's Hymn to promote your own political agenda or other general feeling. I don't give a (edit to succumb to forum rules) about you or your personal feelings. Unless you are a Marine yourself, you have absolutely ZERO right to try and bastardize MY hymn (or that of my brothers and sisters) to meld to your own political satire. Stand down immediately.

THIS!

Thanks Alpha Whisky and Semper Fi.

[williamkevin]

Since when does an ambassador tell the Marines what to do?

The Marine detachment works for the ambassador.

Another forum post on this subject worth reading here...

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php? ... #post91399" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That was an EXCELLENT post. Thanks for the link Roy.

[57Coastie]

According the Guardian article quoted above,

"Nakoula said in a brief interview outside his home that he considered Islam a cancer and that the film was intended to be a provocative political statement assailing the religion."

If indeed he made a statement like this, given the international circumstances at hand, particularly the violent and deadly consequences of incidents like the destruction of Qurans and the urination on corpses in Afghanistan, he reminds me of the typical Internet troll. An Internet troll makes statements known by him to be irritating to many, if not all, the readers, a statement intended to result in predictable consequences. In this case those predictable consequences occurred, as intended, and it was obvious at the time the statement was made that the intended consequences here included international protests which might likely include the taking of innocent lives.

I'll give you a quick example, a posting on this forum saying: "All guns in private ownership should be confiscated immediately."

Justice Holmes opinion in Schenck v. United States has been cited before on this thread: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

In Schenck we also see the oft-quoted words, "Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."

Those words "a clear and present danger" have taken on a legal meaning beyond that intended in Schenck.

I leave it to our resident legal scholars to consider this matter in that context and give us their opinion as to whether perhaps, if the Guardian's quote proves true and provable, Mr. Nakoula, and perhaps others, might be prosecuted by some appropriate jurisdiction, alleging the commission of a serious crime, ranging perhaps from conspiracy to first degree murder.

To hopefully avoid backlash from certain quarters, I do not make any suggestion that the consequences of Mr. Nakoula's film were either rational or forgivable -- I suggest only that they were arguably reasonably predictable. I would suggest, however, that the rightness or wrongness of the consequences is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he might be liable for criminal conduct.

I also recognize and accept, reluctantly at times, that matters like this are all tied up in political considerations, about many of which I am ignorant.

Jim

[WildBill]

I think that focusing on the film and the producer is just a way to distract the public and try to shift the focus away from the terrorists. It would be much easier for the US government to try to blame and punish one person than to confront the attackers and make them pay for their actions.

[The Annoyed Man]

Since when does an ambassador tell the Marines what to do?  :headscratch

The Marine detachment works for the ambassador.

Another forum post on this subject worth reading here... 

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php? ... #post91399" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Roy, thanks for the link. Jus as the guy who wrote that post concludes in one of his prior posts, I'm a very conservative guy, and I cannot stand the Impostor in Chief or his sidekick, Cankles; but it is clear that this did come under the heading of "stuff happens" rather than some kind of clear cut fecklessness on the part of DoS or our intelligence apparatus.

That said, what truly does chap my hide is the tone of the official responses—from the idiot functionary at our Cairo embassy's apology, even to the president's "make no mistake" response. I want him to STOP CONSTANTLY REASSURING MUSLIMS that their rights will be protected—NOT because I don't want their rights protected, but because he does not extend the SAME protections to CHRISTIANS, whose rights are under assault in this nation daily from a hostile administration. This is NOT because I am arguing that we are a "Christian nation." This is because NO RELIGION SHOULD BE SINGLED OUT FOR PROTECTION OR PERSECUTION.

Instead of the words he used, he should say "Make no mistake, it does not matter what your religion is, if you harm us, we will find you, waterboard you to find out where the rest of you are, and crush ALL of you like the vermin you are. Our response WILL BE out of proportion to the offense. There WILL BE collateral damage and casualties, including YOUR wives and YOUR children. You just think about that for a few minutes before you try any crap against any American embassies and citizens inside of your borders."

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." ANY official response must be couched in such terms. The First Amendment makes the religion of the people from whose ranks the attackers emerged irrelevant, and peaceful Muslims living among us have no legitimate fear of reprisal against them because even on 9/11/01, when Muslims in American neighborhoods danced in the streets upon hearing the news, we did NOT retaliate. WE ARE NOT LIKE THAT. In this particular context, I like to quote Michael Medved, one of the most common sense conservative commentators I know of. He says that it would be terribly wrong to characterize all Muslims as terrorists. He also says that, however, ALL of the terrorists who have attacked Americans over the past 20 years or so have been Muslims. And despite that, American Muslims have largely gone about their business, in total safety, even in the face of the ignorance or hostility of their fellow citizens; even on the day of the worst attack on the nation in American history by self-professed Muslims; and often with the support of their local communities who did not share their religious faith but wanted them to be safe in this country. WE ARE NOT A BARBAROUS PEOPLE, AND THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO STOP IMPLYING THAT WE ARE, and that Muslims or anybody else needs a guarantee of special protections from US. We are not the bloody Hutus. We are not like the Muslim government in Darfur, exterminating Christian farmers.

There is at least ONE example I can think of in my lifetime when religious/political violence involving Christians took place, and that was the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Whatever one thinks of the political agendas of either side, the fact is that Catholics in England slept safer in their beds at night than did Protestants in Ireland.

Whatever else one thinks about the nation of Israel and the seemingly perpetual war between Israel and her Arab neighbors, Muslims living inside of Israel's borders sleep safer in their beds at night than Jews living in the Palestinian Authority would sleep—not because there is any love lost between the two, but because the one group is essentially lawless and violent by nature, and the other isn't.

So why is it that Muslim Israelis are safer in their beds than Palestinian Jews? It is because Israel, despite being populated by a mostly religious people, is a secular nation. In any nation made of mostly of one religion in which the government seeks to impose religious law (Sharia) on everyone instead of secular law, then the rights of the religious minority are necessarily curtailed or even crushed.

There are some valid conclusions to be drawn from this. First, to my fellow citizens who are Muslims, I am about to vote for a Mormon for president, and as an evangelical Christian, I regard Mormonism as theologically unsupportable and a flawed religion (as I do Islam, by the way). But the fact of my religion does not mean that I cannot coexist peacefully and cooperate—and even support politically—people of good character whose religious choices are different from my own, but with whom I share political ideology. I will defend my theology to the death, but I'd rather do it over barbecue and lemonade. The above mentioned Michael Medved has a nickname for that segment of Islam which is predisposed to act reflexively, violently, and without legitimate reason against the west and most specifically against America and Americans: "ROPO," which is short for the "Religion of Perpetual Outrage."

ANYONE who is a Muslim and who is NOT a member of the ROPO, has nothing to fear from other Americans, regardless of their religious orientation; and I REALLY wish that the clown in the White House and any of his likeminded trolls in the State Department would quit speaking as if they did.

[AlphaWhiskey]

TAM, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you Sir.

[The Annoyed Man]

You are welcome.

[mamabearCali]

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.

[Dave2]

Huh... didn't see this one coming...

As the United States continued to strengthen security at diplomatic stations, fury over an anti-Islam film spread to Australia, where demonstrators clashed Saturday with police outside the American Consulate in Sydney. [emphasis added]

[bizarrenormality]

you have absolutely ZERO right

Actually, the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, even speech that's blasphemy in your eyes. And even speech called blasphemy by the anti First Amendment protesters attacking US embassies in the Middle East.

[Beiruty]

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 you accept to drop a "hellfire" on drug dealer or murderer's house, just because he killed someone?

As long as we would like to fight terrorism, we would like do it the right way, the smart way, the way that produce results.
Disclaimer, my position regarding the heinous attack against US embassies is well stated few page earlier in this thread.

What is ROPO?