Free Speech vs an Angry Islamic World

[Foxfyre]

Witness after witness has now testified that that video, that became viral only AFTER the Lybian consulate murders and is now discounted as the reason for the murders by almost all responsible people, on the significant dates of 9/11 four people are dead, many others injured, and angry Muslims are demonstrating and rioting in several countries, and Ravi thinks the purpose of this thread is probably to cause people to freak out? One can only shake her head and wonder what Ravi considers to be a suitable topic for discussion that wouldn't 'freak people out'.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I had a long discussion about this last week with my older son and was finally able to put my finger on what was bothering me about this situation. I don't have a good solution, but I think I am at least asking the right question.

At the core this has nothing to do with our rights. Of course we should defend free speech in principal. The problem is an ethical one. The people who exercise free speech are not the same people who are at risk from the blowback. Without consciously deciding to, they are putting others at risk of the consequences of their actions.

Islamic terrorism exists. It does not matter if most Muslims or just 5% support terrorism. A few terrorists can destablize a society, whether it is in North Africa or North America. We can work to separate terrorists from the population they are imbedded in (support counter-terrorist programs) and we should do so, but it is not going to change things overnight. There is still a terrorist danger.

So what say you all? Do rights such as free speech have attached responsibilities? Do those exercising free speech have any duty of prudence to those fellow citizens abroad, diplomatic, military, tourists, or businessmen, or are they on there own? I'm interested in what you think.

For my money, no one bears a duty to anyone unless they consciously accept that duty.

On top of that, no one bears a duty to shape the actions of others. If a person is responsible for their own actions, then the shooter is responsible for the death of the one shot, not the guy who said what made the shooter mad.

Lastly, tourists and businessmen are free to tour and do business in parts of the world where they don't risk being decapitated slowly in a dingy basement on an old 8mm camera. Military and diplomats are representatives of the US Government and, among other duties, are charged with PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION. I.E. it's their duty to defend free speech, not free speech's duty to accomodate their safety.

 

[Katzndogz]

And I think both OldFart's question and Whitehall's statement are legitimate components to this discussion.

Do we deserve retaliation if we intentionally and on purpose provoke rage or other antisocial behavior from people for no other reason than we dislike them?

Are we giving in to unreasonable demands of unreasonable people if we go out of our way not to provoke them? And that would include choosing not to express our opinion about their behavior or way of life? Can anyone be truly free if they are required to restrain their opinions out of fear of retaliation?

And yet, if my exercising my right to free speech in perfect safety provokes rage that cause injury or harm to you, do I bear any responsibility for what happens to you?

If they were rioting and burning and killing because American women wouldn't wear the veil would you put one on to make them happy? If the riots and murders were in the US in retaliation for allowing Churches, Synagogues and non islamic temples to exist would you support closing them all and tearing them down to make them happy?

How bad does that tantrum from a two year old have to get before you give him what he wants just to shut him up?

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

If we would give up our freedom of speech for the temporary safety from islamic rage, we deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[High_Gravity]

And I think both OldFart's question and Whitehall's statement are legitimate components to this discussion.

Do we deserve retaliation if we intentionally and on purpose provoke rage or other antisocial behavior from people for no other reason than we dislike them?

Are we giving in to unreasonable demands of unreasonable people if we go out of our way not to provoke them? And that would include choosing not to express our opinion about their behavior or way of life? Can anyone be truly free if they are required to restrain their opinions out of fear of retaliation?

And yet, if my exercising my right to free speech in perfect safety provokes rage that cause injury or harm to you, do I bear any responsibility for what happens to you?

If they were rioting and burning and killing because American women wouldn't wear the veil would you put one on to make them happy? If the riots and murders were in the US in retaliation for allowing Churches, Synagogues and non islamic temples to exist would you support closing them all and tearing them down to make them happy?

How bad does that tantrum from a two year old have to get before you give him what he wants just to shut him up?

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

If we would give up our freedom of speech for the temporary safety from islamic rage, we deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

 

[Katzndogz]

And I think both OldFart's question and Whitehall's statement are legitimate components to this discussion.

Do we deserve retaliation if we intentionally and on purpose provoke rage or other antisocial behavior from people for no other reason than we dislike them?

Are we giving in to unreasonable demands of unreasonable people if we go out of our way not to provoke them? And that would include choosing not to express our opinion about their behavior or way of life? Can anyone be truly free if they are required to restrain their opinions out of fear of retaliation?

And yet, if my exercising my right to free speech in perfect safety provokes rage that cause injury or harm to you, do I bear any responsibility for what happens to you?

If they were rioting and burning and killing because American women wouldn't wear the veil would you put one on to make them happy? If the riots and murders were in the US in retaliation for allowing Churches, Synagogues and non islamic temples to exist would you support closing them all and tearing them down to make them happy?

How bad does that tantrum from a two year old have to get before you give him what he wants just to shut him up?

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

If we would give up our freedom of speech for the temporary safety from islamic rage, we deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

 

[High_Gravity]

If they were rioting and burning and killing because American women wouldn't wear the veil would you put one on to make them happy? If the riots and murders were in the US in retaliation for allowing Churches, Synagogues and non islamic temples to exist would you support closing them all and tearing them down to make them happy?

How bad does that tantrum from a two year old have to get before you give him what he wants just to shut him up?

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

If we would give up our freedom of speech for the temporary safety from islamic rage, we deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

It doesn't matter how far we go it will never be enough until we all throw ourselves at their feet and convert to Islam.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they were rioting and burning and killing because American women wouldn't wear the veil would you put one on to make them happy? If the riots and murders were in the US in retaliation for allowing Churches, Synagogues and non islamic temples to exist would you support closing them all and tearing them down to make them happy?

How bad does that tantrum from a two year old have to get before you give him what he wants just to shut him up?

Those who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin.

If we would give up our freedom of speech for the temporary safety from islamic rage, we deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

I think militant Islam must be strenuously resisted, by whatever means are necessary, wherever it attempts to restrict or take away individual freedom.

It is only in those countries where Islam is the majority that you have the unconscionable and indefensible scenes such as the recent murders in Lybia. It is instructive that you don't see angry Muslim rioters and murders in countries like the USA where the percentage of Muslims is really small. Go to France wihere Muslims have immigrated in significant numbers and there are riots, burnings, and generally social upheaval from time to time. And no, Ravi, ALL Muslims don't participate in such angry behavior, but to bury one's head in the sand and not see an Islamic influence in riots and murders is just really dumb.

And it seems that reason and the 'do unto others' means of dealing with an angry, hostile, and murderous Isl am has been shown to be ineffective and useless and actually urges more violence. It does seem that a concilatory attitude, meekness, and reasonableness are all interpreted as weakness and vulnerability by militant Islam. Sure and swift retaliation does seem to be the only thing that has worked. (Example: Reagan's bombing of Lybia following a terrorist attack and we didn't hear a murmer out of the Lybians for decades.)

As for the provocation of the militant anger which is the topic of this thread, I think most of us are coming down on the side of free speech and not allowing Islamic bullies to dictate what we can or cannot criticize, make fun of, or denounce in our various media sources. And I am right there with you.

So why I am still struggling with the ethics of exercising free speech in a way that will likely result in somebody somewhere being murdered as were those innocent people in the Lybian cvonsulate?

 

[High_Gravity]

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

I think militant Islam must be strenuously resisted, by whatever means are necessary, wherever it attempts to restrict or take away individual freedom.

It is only in those countries where Islam is the majority that you have the unconscionable and indefensible scenes such as the recent murders in Lybia. It is instructive that you don't see angry Muslim rioters and murders in countries like the USA where the percentage of Muslims is really small. Go to France wihere Muslims have immigrated in significant numbers and there are riots, burnings, and generally social upheaval from time to time. And no, Ravi, ALL Muslims don't participate in such angry behavior, but to bury one's head in the sand and not see an Islamic influence in riots and murders is just really dumb.

And it seems that reason and the 'do unto others' means of dealing with an angry, hostile, and murderous Isl am has been shown to be ineffective and useless and actually urges more violence. It does seem that a concilatory attitude, meekness, and reasonableness are all interpreted as weakness and vulnerability by militant Islam. Sure and swift retaliation does seem to be the only thing that has worked. (Example: Reagan's bombing of Lybia following a terrorist attack and we didn't hear a murmer out of the Lybians for decades.)

As for the provocation of the militant anger which is the topic of this thread, I think most of us are coming down on the side of free speech and not allowing Islamic bullies to dictate what we can or cannot criticize, make fun of, or denounce in our various media sources. And I am right there with you.

So why I am still struggling with the ethics of exercising free speech in a way that will likely result in somebody somewhere being murdered as were those innocent people in the Lybian cvonsulate?

The thing is in Islamic countries they see these "protestors" as just Muslims, not "Militant" Muslims. In Islam you are just a Muslim, not a "moderate" Muslim or a "Militant" Muslim, its that lack of understanding here in the West that always has us messed up when it comes to Islam.

 

[Katzndogz]

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

It doesn't matter how far we go it will never be enough until we all throw ourselves at their feet and convert to Islam.

Even then it won't be enough. Muslims are quite happy to kill one another based on varying perceptions of piety.

 

[Foxfyre]

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

I think militant Islam must be strenuously resisted, by whatever means are necessary, wherever it attempts to restrict or take away individual freedom.

It is only in those countries where Islam is the majority that you have the unconscionable and indefensible scenes such as the recent murders in Lybia. It is instructive that you don't see angry Muslim rioters and murders in countries like the USA where the percentage of Muslims is really small. Go to France wihere Muslims have immigrated in significant numbers and there are riots, burnings, and generally social upheaval from time to time. And no, Ravi, ALL Muslims don't participate in such angry behavior, but to bury one's head in the sand and not see an Islamic influence in riots and murders is just really dumb.

And it seems that reason and the 'do unto others' means of dealing with an angry, hostile, and murderous Isl am has been shown to be ineffective and useless and actually urges more violence. It does seem that a concilatory attitude, meekness, and reasonableness are all interpreted as weakness and vulnerability by militant Islam. Sure and swift retaliation does seem to be the only thing that has worked. (Example: Reagan's bombing of Lybia following a terrorist attack and we didn't hear a murmer out of the Lybians for decades.)

As for the provocation of the militant anger which is the topic of this thread, I think most of us are coming down on the side of free speech and not allowing Islamic bullies to dictate what we can or cannot criticize, make fun of, or denounce in our various media sources. And I am right there with you.

So why I am still struggling with the ethics of exercising free speech in a way that will likely result in somebody somewhere being murdered as were those innocent people in the Lybian cvonsulate?

The thing is in Islamic countries they see these "protestors" as just Muslims, not "Militant" Muslims. In Islam you are just a Muslim, not a "moderate" Muslim or a "Militant" Muslim, its that lack of understanding here in the West that always has us messed up when it comes to Islam.

I hear and understand that. But I have Muslim neighbors (Iranians) that I adore and would trust with my life, my loved ones, my property. I don't see Muslims as naturally hateful, angry people. I have friends who have worked in the Middle East and bring back delightful stories of interaction with the people there. So I can't believe that all Muslims have propensity or stomach for the kinds of murders we recently experience at our Lybian consulate. At the same time, I also have accepted the truth that there is a side of Islam that is not peaceful, that is capable of unconscionable cruelty, savagery, and murder. And I think to deny that is just really dumb.

And there is a part of me that resonates with your post. In an all Islamic world, would torture and murder of dissidents be accepted and tolerated by pretty much everybody? There is a reasonable side of me that says yes, it pretty much would.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think militant Islam must be strenuously resisted, by whatever means are necessary, wherever it attempts to restrict or take away individual freedom.

It is only in those countries where Islam is the majority that you have the unconscionable and indefensible scenes such as the recent murders in Lybia. It is instructive that you don't see angry Muslim rioters and murders in countries like the USA where the percentage of Muslims is really small. Go to France wihere Muslims have immigrated in significant numbers and there are riots, burnings, and generally social upheaval from time to time. And no, Ravi, ALL Muslims don't participate in such angry behavior, but to bury one's head in the sand and not see an Islamic influence in riots and murders is just really dumb.

And it seems that reason and the 'do unto others' means of dealing with an angry, hostile, and murderous Isl am has been shown to be ineffective and useless and actually urges more violence. It does seem that a concilatory attitude, meekness, and reasonableness are all interpreted as weakness and vulnerability by militant Islam. Sure and swift retaliation does seem to be the only thing that has worked. (Example: Reagan's bombing of Lybia following a terrorist attack and we didn't hear a murmer out of the Lybians for decades.)

As for the provocation of the militant anger which is the topic of this thread, I think most of us are coming down on the side of free speech and not allowing Islamic bullies to dictate what we can or cannot criticize, make fun of, or denounce in our various media sources. And I am right there with you.

So why I am still struggling with the ethics of exercising free speech in a way that will likely result in somebody somewhere being murdered as were those innocent people in the Lybian cvonsulate?

The thing is in Islamic countries they see these "protestors" as just Muslims, not "Militant" Muslims. In Islam you are just a Muslim, not a "moderate" Muslim or a "Militant" Muslim, its that lack of understanding here in the West that always has us messed up when it comes to Islam.

I hear and understand that. But I have Muslim neighbors (Iranians) that I adore and would trust with my life, my loved ones, my property. I don't see Muslims as naturally hateful, angry people. I have friends who have worked in the Middle East and bring back delightful stories of interaction with the people there. So I can't believe that all Muslims have propensity or stomach for the kinds of murders we recently experience at our Lybian consulate. At the same time, I also have accepted the truth that there is a side of Islam that is not peaceful, that is capable of unconscionable cruelty, savagery, and murder. And I think to deny that is just really dumb.

And there is a part of me that resonates with your post. In an all Islamic world, would torture and murder of dissidents be accepted and tolerated by pretty much everybody? There is a reasonable side of me that says yes, it pretty much would.

Oh I have met some very good Muslims as well, when I was stationed in California with the Military I met alot of Iranian dissidents there, some Muslims and some were Jews, very beatiful people. The Kurds are also an example of peaceful Muslims except for the PKK.

 

[Katzndogz]

The thing is in Islamic countries they see these "protestors" as just Muslims, not "Militant" Muslims. In Islam you are just a Muslim, not a "moderate" Muslim or a "Militant" Muslim, its that lack of understanding here in the West that always has us messed up when it comes to Islam.

I hear and understand that. But I have Muslim neighbors (Iranians) that I adore and would trust with my life, my loved ones, my property. I don't see Muslims as naturally hateful, angry people. I have friends who have worked in the Middle East and bring back delightful stories of interaction with the people there. So I can't believe that all Muslims have propensity or stomach for the kinds of murders we recently experience at our Lybian consulate. At the same time, I also have accepted the truth that there is a side of Islam that is not peaceful, that is capable of unconscionable cruelty, savagery, and murder. And I think to deny that is just really dumb.

And there is a part of me that resonates with your post. In an all Islamic world, would torture and murder of dissidents be accepted and tolerated by pretty much everybody? There is a reasonable side of me that says yes, it pretty much would.

Oh I have met some very good Muslims as well, when I was stationed in California with the Military I met alot of Iranian dissidents there, some Muslims and some were Jews, very beatiful people. The Kurds are also an example of peaceful Muslims except for the PKK.

And no matter how nice they were, you STILL don't know them.

Feds: U.S. teen held in 'jihad' terrorist bomb attempt at Chicago bar - Chicago Tribune

“He’s a very peaceful guy; I never even knew him to be violent,” Amr Daoud told the newspaper. "One time he got punched in school and he didn’t do anything. He’s a very passive person.”

Neighbors said they were shocked by Daoud's arrest.

Dorothy Leverson described Daoud as intelligent and kind, a whiz with computers who always brought pastries to her home for Ramadan.

"He's always been a very nice kid," said Leverson, whose twin sons, 18, were childhood friends with Daoud.

Daoud had recently committed himself more fully to Islam and began wearing the religion's more traditional garments, Leverson said. Leverson, whose family is Southern Baptist, said her sons and Daoud discussed religion, but the conversations were never acrimonious.

"He was still friendly with my son," Leverson said. "It wasn't like he had made a complete turn. It was never anything like, 'We hate Americans.'"

These people had absolutely no idea in the world that Daoud was in reality a jihadist. None.

 

[High_Gravity]

I hear and understand that. But I have Muslim neighbors (Iranians) that I adore and would trust with my life, my loved ones, my property. I don't see Muslims as naturally hateful, angry people. I have friends who have worked in the Middle East and bring back delightful stories of interaction with the people there. So I can't believe that all Muslims have propensity or stomach for the kinds of murders we recently experience at our Lybian consulate. At the same time, I also have accepted the truth that there is a side of Islam that is not peaceful, that is capable of unconscionable cruelty, savagery, and murder. And I think to deny that is just really dumb.

And there is a part of me that resonates with your post. In an all Islamic world, would torture and murder of dissidents be accepted and tolerated by pretty much everybody? There is a reasonable side of me that says yes, it pretty much would.

Oh I have met some very good Muslims as well, when I was stationed in California with the Military I met alot of Iranian dissidents there, some Muslims and some were Jews, very beatiful people. The Kurds are also an example of peaceful Muslims except for the PKK.

And no matter how nice they were, you STILL don't know them.

Feds: U.S. teen held in 'jihad' terrorist bomb attempt at Chicago bar - Chicago Tribune

“He’s a very peaceful guy; I never even knew him to be violent,” Amr Daoud told the newspaper. "One time he got punched in school and he didn’t do anything. He’s a very passive person.”

Neighbors said they were shocked by Daoud's arrest.

Dorothy Leverson described Daoud as intelligent and kind, a whiz with computers who always brought pastries to her home for Ramadan.

"He's always been a very nice kid," said Leverson, whose twin sons, 18, were childhood friends with Daoud.

Daoud had recently committed himself more fully to Islam and began wearing the religion's more traditional garments, Leverson said. Leverson, whose family is Southern Baptist, said her sons and Daoud discussed religion, but the conversations were never acrimonious.

"He was still friendly with my son," Leverson said. "It wasn't like he had made a complete turn. It was never anything like, 'We hate Americans.'"

These people had absolutely no idea in the world that Daoud was in reality a jihadist. None.

You do bring up a very good point, the 9/11 Hijackers lived peacefully among us for years.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I was just watching Megyn Kelly report that the US government has expended $70,000 in Pakistan apologizing for that video.

This was followed by scenes of Pakistani school children marching through the streets of Islamabad, Bengal,and others in Pakistan chanting "Death to Americans! Death to all who blaspheme" etc. How much aid are we sending to Pakistan currently? I believe it is a lot.

Such scenes are also occuring all over the Middle East.

 

[High_Gravity]

And I was just watching Megyn Kelly report that the US government has expended $70,000 in Pakistan apologizing for that video.

This was followed by scenes of Pakistani school children marching through the streets of Islamabad, Bengal,and others in Pakistan chanting "Death to Americans! Death to all who blaspheme" etc. How much aid are we sending to Pakistan currently? I believe it is a lot.

Such scenes are also occuring all over the Middle East.

We have sent billions to Pakistan since 9/11, and apologizing to them won't do anything. An apology in Pakistan doesn't even mean the same thing as an apology here in the US.

 

[Katzndogz]

An apology in Pakistan and throughout the muslim world means I surrender. To them, the apology itself has got to be insulting. Nothing has changed. The law protecting blasphemy still exists so the apology is a sop, a mere bone thrown to the howling pack. Muslims are obviously smarter than we give them credit for. obama and poor beleaguered Hillary might say it's not our fault, we didn't do it, when the evidence is clear. They have done nothing about the laws protecting blasphemy so it is their fault and they just may as well have blasphemed themselves.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Good point, Freedom of speech is an alien concept in Islamic countries and does not exist.

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

It doesn't matter how far we go it will never be enough until we all throw ourselves at their feet and convert to Islam.

Enough with your conspiracy theory silliness. This is all in your head. Muslims are worrying about their countries. They could care less about you

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes indeed, we see them doing all that worrying about their countries.

 

[Foxfyre]

A doctor in Pakistan was imprisoned for offense to mohammed because the threw away a business card from a man that had his first name "mohammed". 100 people were killed in muslim violence because a beauty contest was an offense to islam.

How far are we really willing to go to avoid offense to islam?

It doesn't matter how far we go it will never be enough until we all throw ourselves at their feet and convert to Islam.

Enough with your conspiracy theory silliness. This is all in your head. Muslims are worrying about their countries. They could care less about you

If Muslims are so worried about their countries, why are so many hellbent in destroying and trashing and murdering to terrorize the infidels?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Yes indeed, we see them doing all that worrying about their countries.

They are living life like normal. Muslims from the middle east aren't going on the Internet 24/7 with conspiracy theories about Christians at all. If you guys weren't so silly then have a mature conversation. This conversation with HG and FOxfre almost sounds pre planned. Just look it. It's going back and forth" yes Muslims did this. Yes they were Muslims. Yes Muslims want us at their feet."

It's so silly and funny