U.S. Diplomats Killed in Libya

It sure didn’t take long for the Right-wing in this country to politicize the murders of 4 Americans in Libya. A crudely filmed anti-Muslim movie produced by a Right-wing Jewish fundamentalist and endorsed by the Right-wing Koran burning Florida preacher Terry Jones has enraged Middle Eastern Muslim fundamentalist and resulted in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other American consulate members.
Why are these far Right-wingers on both sides inflaming hatred and getting Americans overseas killed? Romney, the RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and of course Sarah Palin have already released statements condemning the Obama Administration for sympathizing with Muslims in a statement that includes the condemnation of the inflammatory film. It is just pathetic the Right-wingers are both the source of the inflammatory film and the first to point fingers at everyone else. Just pathetic!

 

Interesting that you blame it all on "right-wingers". The last I heard, they actually had the right of free speech and that would include insulting all the Muslims they so desire. And to top that off, BO administration apologizes for our free speech. Maybe that sould be a sign of things to come if the liberals remain in control of our government.

 

Fundamentalist use the right we have to free speech to enrage other fundamentalists. We get caught in the middle of their stupidity. With free speech comes responsibility. None was exercised in this instance.

 

It seems BO believes the "religious feelings" of terrorists trump the right to free speech for Americans.

 

So that excuses the Muslim acts of was on the USA? That kind of logic digs you a deep hole!

 

Nothing is excused. Right-wing fundamentalist on both sides created this situation. They are still free to spew their hatred while innocent people are dead. Romney and the Right-wing mouthpieces in this country are still free to politicize these deaths before the bodies are even cold. How special.

 

Again, you are accusing the freedom of speech as causing the situation? So you want to ban freedom of speech that you don't like and excuse acts of war? Keep digging!

 

I accused Right-wing fundamentalists and never mentioned free speech. That is your take. It's you being naive and obtuse and not my position.

I also mentioned how quickly the Right-wingers used this incident to score political points. How sad.

 

Even Hillary agrees with me (God help me!)
Referring to the Muslim attacks on the US, "... there is no justification for this ....."

 

OK. You never used the phrase "freedom of speech", but;

The only fix for that is not to allow freedom of speech.

BTW, after apologizing to the Muslims, he continues "not to have the time" for the Israelis. Think about that!

 

Little Joe, why won't you support freedom of speech? You should support the producers of the film, but condemn the savages who perpetrated these murders only because they didn't like the film.

A lot of people didn't like Bill Maher's Religulous (a fairly entertaining film, btw), but it would give no right to anyone to kill people because they didn't like it. Personally, I support Bill Maher's right to produce whatever he wants whether it be anti-Jesus, anti-Mohammad, anti-Shirley Temple or anything for that matter.

Don't you support freedom of speech in post-bloody-invasion, "newly-lilberated" Libya? Are you saying that Libya should remain in the Dark Ages and this film shouldn't have been produced? Or are you saying it just shouldn't have been shown to Muslims?

 

Statement by President Obama on the attack in Benghazi

The White House issued the following statement in response to the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya:

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/statement-president-attack-benghazi-113853987.html

Obama condemned this attack and laid the blame on the attackers, not the producers of the film. However, the one line in Obama's statement I would disagree with is, "... the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others...".

Of course, as President and for political reasons in an effort to sympathize with upset Muslims, Obama has to say things like that. But personally, whether or not I agree with what a speaker has to say, our citizens have every right under our First Amendment (the Freedom of Speech) to "denigrate the religious beliefs of others".

My personal religious belief happens to be Christian. I may not like if someone denigrates Christ, spews hatred speech toward Him, pees on a cross, etc., but fortunately (at least in this country) they have the right to do so. That right is non-negotiable.

 

Freedom of speech is just a straw man argument. Religious fundamentalism is by far the more relevant argument to make here. You black and white thinkers are just fooled again by another shiny object.

What you can't address is your side's response. Buck up and grow a spine.

 

So now you are justifying the attack on the USA as a freedom of religion issue? Are there any other supporting statements you can give to justify the radical Muslims actions?

 

It took a Jew and a Christian, one producing the film and one endorsing the film to enrage the fundamentalists and those of us who either aren't fundamentalists or even religious end up paying the price. This boils down to our Right-wing nuts using the weapons at their disposal (Free speech) to assault their Right-wing nuts who used the weapons at their disposal (rocket propelled grenades and bullets) to retaliate against people who are not Right-wing nuts.

Religion again being used as a weapon to assault other religions who then pick up actual weapons and kill innocent people. The problem is the fundamentalists not the weapons they choose to use. A weapon is a weapon be it a word or a gun.

 

Black and white.

 

This is where you are completely off track. The right to freedom of speech is the argument here. The Muslims who perpetrated the attack are peripheral to the argument. The basis is whether or not the producers had the right to make the film. In your OP, you stated that the film itself was the cause for enragement which resulted in the deaths of the Ambassador and the other consulate members. Do you believe the producers did not have the right to make the film?

No one is arguing that the Muslims should NOT have killed those people. We all agree on that point (at least I hope so).

 

Romney camp tries to manage fallout from Libya response
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romney-camp-tries-to-manage-fallout-from-libya-response/comment-page-1/

Dumbasses!

 

Lay the blame squarely at the foot of the perpetrators. Being enraged or upset does not give anyone a right to be violent.

 

No, thanks.