Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.
I agree.Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
Let me see if this tracks with your complete misunderstanding of rights. The State Department is the government, the government does not have rights, it has powers granted to it voluntarily by the people of the United States, therefore the State Department does not have rights.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
becasue its just driving the meme that the video was the driving force, and some video speaks for us all via collective guilt mewling, and we ostensibly agree its worth using our highest offices to denigrate, that just feeds their angst imho.
Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.
Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.
Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
Let me see if this tracks with your complete misunderstanding of rights. The State Department is the government, the government does not have rights, it has powers granted to it voluntarily by the people of the United States, therefore the State Department does not have rights.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean that the Government must agree with you in that speech, or that they can't publicly disagree.
The semantics of what is or isn't a "right" are meaningless.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.
Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! NewsMarked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.
Do you really understand the concept of Free Speech?
If I condemn what you say and do not stand behind it, then I am exercising my right.
The First Amendment does not protect you from being called out as an asshole.
Fred Phelps, Terry Jones, this anti-Islam film producer crook and the jerk in Texas who hung a chair. Assholes.
We can shame them, mock them, condemn them, and tell them to STFU. That's our right to protest and make our voice heard.
Exercising your free speech rights can have consequences. If you exercise your free speech rights in an extreme manner, you may get an extreme response. Live with it.
I agree.The United States has never believed that religious tolerance means that we cannot denigrate the beliefs of others.
Let me see if this tracks with your complete misunderstanding of rights. The State Department is the government, the government does not have rights, it has powers granted to it voluntarily by the people of the United States, therefore the State Department does not have rights.
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean that the Government must agree with you in that speech, or that they can't publicly disagree.
The semantics of what is or isn't a "right" are meaningless.
You really are confused aren't you? Point out where I said that the official position of the government cannot be different from that of a private citizen. Can't do it, can you?
The simple truth is that the government has policy positions, and private citizens do not have to agree with those positions.There is nothing wrong with that, there is, however, something wrong with the government publicly airing the fact that private citizens disagree with it in foreign markets.
That isn't even what happened here. The constitution specifically prohibits the government from taking positions regarding religion. Yet, for some reason, assholes like you love the fact that the government is coddling a bunch of religious nuts.
By the way, the difference between rights and power is not a semantic issue. It is the foundation of our legal system and our government. In fact, it is the foundation of every government legal system on the planet. Your willingness to trash that simply for the convenience of your position is really sad.
Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.
Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.
Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News
Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.
Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.
Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News
I agree.The United States has never believed that religious tolerance means that we cannot denigrate the beliefs of others.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtNu6E7c4vA"]The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film - YouTube[/ame]
"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean that the Government must agree with you in that speech, or that they can't publicly disagree.
The semantics of what is or isn't a "right" are meaningless.
You really are confused aren't you? Point out where I said that the official position of the government cannot be different from that of a private citizen. Can't do it, can you?
The simple truth is that the government has policy positions, and private citizens do not have to agree with those positions.There is nothing wrong with that, there is, however, something wrong with the government publicly airing the fact that private citizens disagree with it in foreign markets.
That isn't even what happened here. The constitution specifically prohibits the government from taking positions regarding religion. Yet, for some reason, assholes like you love the fact that the government is coddling a bunch of religious nuts.
By the way, the difference between rights and power is not a semantic issue. It is the foundation of our legal system and our government. In fact, it is the foundation of every government legal system on the planet. Your willingness to trash that simply for the convenience of your position is really sad.
Your posting style has always baffled me. We rarely agree, but I think you're a smart guy, and usually back up your arguments very well - then you consistently cancel that out with nonsensical ad hom attacks.
The interesting thing, we probably agree on more than you know. But you're a man of "principles", and I'm a realpolitik guy.
In terms of your post, you've got things flipped around - the government isn't "publicly airing the fact that private citizens disagree with it in foreign markets", they're publicly distancing themselves from the opinions of a private citizen.
The makers of "The Innocence of Muslims" aren't "disagreeing" with US foreign policy, they're mocking a religion - specifically, one with a lot of power in a really important region. This isn't about "free speech", it's about diplomacy. We don't live in a world of our own - we're a functioning part of a global civilization. Barring outright war with EVERYONE, there are times when the sensibilities of other world powers need to be taken into account. An empty gesture of a tv ad is a pretty harmless way to do it.
As I said, I wouldn't support ANY sort of legal retribution for the video, or laws that would prohibit ANY speech. But this isn't that.
