Home> International
Egypt to Try 7 Copts, US Pastor Over Prophet Film
More Sharing ServicesShareShare on facebook_likeEmail3 Comments Print
Text Size- / +By SARAH EL DEEB Associated Press
CAIRO September 18, 2012 (AP)
Egypt's general prosecutor issued arrest warrants Tuesday for seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor and referred them to trial on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that has sparked riots across the Muslim world.
The case is largely symbolic since the seven men and one woman are believed to be outside of Egypt and unlikely to travel to the country to face the charges. Instead, the prosecutor's decision to take legal appears aimed at absorbing at least some of the public anger over the amateur film, which portrays the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, womanizer and buffoon.
The prosecutor's office said in a statement that the accused, which includes the film's alleged producer, face charges of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam and spreading false information. The office said they could face the death penalty, if convicted. No date for the trial has been set.
AP Egyptian protesters hurl stones at riot... View Full Caption
Egyptian protesters hurl stones at riot police in downtown Cairo, Egypt, early Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, before police cleared the area after days of protests against a film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad. Egyptian police on Saturday cleared out protesters who have been clashing with security forces for the past four days near the U.S. Embassy as most cities around the Muslim world reported calm a day after at least six people were killed in a wave of angry protests over an anti-Islam film.(AP Photo) CloseAmong those charged is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian Copt living in southern California and believed to be behind the film. Florida-based Pastor Terry Jones, who has said he was contacted by the filmmaker to promote the video, as well as Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who pushed the video on his website, are also among those charged.
The connection of the other five accused in the case to the film was not immediately clear.
Ultraconservative Salafi lawyer Mamdouh Ismail praised the prosecutor's decision. While recognizing that the eight will be tried in absentia, Ismail said referring them to trial will help curb public anger.
"Now these are legal measures instead of angry reactions, whose consequences are undetermined," he said. "This would also set a deterrent for them and anyone else who may fall into this" offense.
The prosecutor's statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said that after studying the film investigators have determined that it contains scenes offensive to Islam and state institutions. It also says they questioned 10 plaintiffs before issuing the charges.
Nakoula, 55, told the AP in an interview last week outside Los Angeles that he was the manager of the company that produced "Innocence of Muslims." Jones also told AP that he was contacted by Nakoula to promote the movie.
The film, clips of it appeared on YouTube, mocked the Prophet Muhammad and drove small but angry crowds to protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and an attack on the American Consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador. Other protests have erupted across the Muslim world over the video, including Afghanistan, Yemen and Indonesia.
Ahh, you get mad when they try a couple of people in absentia, but not when the dictator you're supporting funds a 30 year long campaign of disenfranchisement and terror of that same christian population involving thousands of murders and the destruction of numerous holy sites.
It's that whole "I'm pretending to be mad now despite not actually caring about any of the people or events involved" thing that you do all the time out of some sort of weird isolationist xenophobia that was mysteriously developed the moment a democrat was put in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Cute. I'll put this in the same drawer where your "defense of freedoms now that it's a democrat run government" threads go. It's by the thyme.
ShumaGorath wrote: "I'm pretending to be mad now despite not actually caring about any of the people or events involved"
Why would being mad now necessitate caring before? Faulty assumption, Shuma.
Because his observation of the region and it's actors isn't new. He is now bothered by an event that has been happening for twice as long as I have been alive (persecution of copts in egypt) because it's politically convenient for his point of view to suddenly develop a complex about defending this particular religious minority group. A point of view that he developed almost four years ago to the day, brings up consistently, and which he consistently contradicts. It would be a faulty assumption if Frazzled was some sort of fresh faced young buff with no prior established political sentiments. He's not though.
ShumaGorath wrote: Ahh, you get mad when they try a couple of people in absentia, but not when the dictator you're supporting funds a 30 year long campaign of disenfranchisement and terror of that same christian population involving thousands of murders and the destruction of numerous holy sites.
It's that whole "I'm pretending to be mad now despite not actually caring about any of the people or events involved" thing that you do all the time out of some sort of weird isolationist xenophobia that was mysteriously developed the moment a democrat was put in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Cute. I'll put this in the same drawer where your "defense of freedoms now that it's a democrat run government" threads go. It's by the thyme.
If I knew what you're actually foaming at the mouth about I'd reply more appropriately, but I'll note: this is about freedom of speech in the US. If Egypt wants to oppress speech in their country then paint me pink and call me Alpharius. But here what we say goes.
@Shuma: I'm not sure that I understand. You're saying that anger can only be sincere if it is ... disinterested? Sure, I get that you mean that if you're going to be angry about Christians being persecuted in the Middle East, you should be angry no matter who is president of the US at the time. But ... I dunno, I don't remember Frazzled being okay with persecution of Christians in the Middle East four years ago (I admit, I don't follow his opinions as closely as you) and I'm not even sure that is what he is angry about in this case.
ShumaGorath wrote: Ahh, you get mad when they try a couple of people in absentia, but not when the dictator you're supporting funds a 30 year long campaign of disenfranchisement and terror of that same christian population involving thousands of murders and the destruction of numerous holy sites.
It's that whole "I'm pretending to be mad now despite not actually caring about any of the people or events involved" thing that you do all the time out of some sort of weird isolationist xenophobia that was mysteriously developed the moment a democrat was put in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Cute. I'll put this in the same drawer where your "defense of freedoms now that it's a democrat run government" threads go. It's by the thyme.
If I knew what you're actually foaming at the mouth about I'd reply more appropriately, but I'll note: this is about freedom of speech in the US. If Egypt wants to oppress speech in their country then paint me pink and call me Alpharius. But here what we say goes.
Than why don't you flip out whenever North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, or random african or east asian state does the same gak? Is it because you have an anti Obama complex and linking the arab spring to it (and your previously stated U.S. responsibility for it) makes for a nice xenophobic "democratic foreign policy is bad and dangerous" narrative? Yes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: @Shuma: I'm not sure that I understand. You're saying that anger can only be sincere if it is ... disinterested? Sure, I get that you mean that if you're going to be angry about Christians being persecuted in the Middle East, you should be angry no matter who is president of the US at the time. But ... I dunno, I don't remember Frazzled being okay with persecution of Christians in the Middle East four years ago (I admit, I don't follow his opinions as closely as you) and I'm not even sure that is what he is angry about in this case.
I'm just pointing out the consistent inconsistency in his worldviews concerning the persecution of peoples and the defense of free speech. He's actively advocating punishing them for using free speech in order to protect American free speech that isn't under threat. He's using a group of people that he doesn't care about to establish an anti democratic line. He's been doing it since this whole shebang started. It's visible from space.
I'm just pointing out the consistent inconsistency in his worldviews concerning the persecution of peoples and the defense of free speech. He's actively advocating punishing them for using free speech in order to protect American free speech that isn't under threat. He's using a group of people that he doesn't care about to establish an anti democratic line. He's been doing it since this whole shebang started. It's visible from space.
He just stated he only cares about the defense of free speech in the U.S. I'm not sure what the problem is?
ShumaGorath wrote: "I'm pretending to be mad now despite not actually caring about any of the people or events involved"
Why would being mad now necessitate caring before? Faulty assumption, Shuma.
Because his observation of the region and it's actors isn't new. He is now bothered by an event that has been happening for twice as long as I have been alive because it's politically convenient for his point of view to suddenly develop a complex about defending this particular religious minority group. It would be a faulty assumption if Frazzled was some sort of fresh faced young buff with no prior established political sentiments. He's not though.
again...what?
Dude, you're wobbly, you need some sugar. I'd suggest a high protein snack though so the old blood sugar level rises but doesn't spike.
(Frazzled gets out a Chocolate Swiss cake roll) TBone: "Ooo, oo I'm wobbly, I need a snack quick so I don't pass out, give me some of that Swiss Cake" Frazzled: No TBone: I'm wobbly. I'm going to keel over and you'll feel bad and cry again. Frazzled: No you just had you 4 hour meal. And that won't work. I thought you'd be dead before the week is out. You're still alive and still farting when you're on the sofa in my lap. ROdney: I'm I'm wobbly too! Frazzled: No. Rusty: snack? TBone: I'm wobbly and on Life's Two Minute Drill. What does it matter? Frazzled: No ROdney: No? I'm just going to move a little closer to your hand. Rusty: are we going out? There's a squirrel out there that has to die. Frazzled: No. TBone: I'm wobbly wobbly now. Look one paw is in the air. (pause) TBone: ok chewy treat instead? Frazzled: deal gets chewy treats for everyone, Rodney steals the other Swiss cake roll when Frazzled gets up.
true story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: @Shuma: I'm not sure that I understand. You're saying that anger can only be sincere if it is ... disinterested? Sure, I get that you mean that if you're going to be angry about Christians being persecuted in the Middle East, you should be angry no matter who is president of the US at the time. But ... I dunno, I don't remember Frazzled being okay with persecution of Christians in the Middle East four years ago (I admit, I don't follow his opinions as closely as you) and I'm not even sure that is what he is angry about in this case.
Egyptian prosecutors issuing arrest warrants for the arrest of the people making that stupid ass movie in the US (they are wisely in hiding, in the US).
Frazzled does not give two gaks about these people.
Edited by Manchu.
I care about free speech in the US. They have issued arrest warrants for those people who are HERE. This is not complicated.
EDIT: I care about people in other countries as well. I just believe those countries have a right to govern themselves as long as they leave the US and its citizens alone.
Yes, it seems to me that the Egyptians are not idiots. They know those people are not in Egypt. They know those people are in the US. The warrants are designed to have a specific chilling effect on those people and a general chilling effect on the people of the US regarding making videos criticizing their non-negotiable issues. I don't know anything about the people in question and I sure don't feel much sympathy for the fellow who made the video but I'm still repulsed and angered by the Egyptian way of handling this.
Manchu wrote: Yes, it seems to me that the Egyptians are not idiots. They know those people are not in Egypt. They know those people are in the US. The warrants are designed to have a specific chilling effect on those people and a general chilling effect on the people of the US regarding making videos criticizing their non-negotiable issues. I don't know anything about the people in question and I sure don't feel much sympathy for the fellow who made the video but I'm still repulsed and angered by the Egyptian way of handling this.
Actually back up a bit. Egypt trying to get a handle on the riots without busting heads or using rubber bullets/tear gas. The egyptian gov't is new and since they have a wide assortment of muslim views trying to appease all. I do believe though they created a bigger problem. They cannot presecute anyone who is not there. What is there is that 10% of the population in Egypt are Coptic Christian. Its easy to shift the blame of the eight coptic that are not there to those that are they're since. in their mind, share the same view.
I'm just pointing out the consistent inconsistency in his worldviews concerning the persecution of peoples and the defense of free speech. He's actively advocating punishing them for using free speech in order to protect American free speech that isn't under threat. He's using a group of people that he doesn't care about to establish an anti democratic line. He's been doing it since this whole shebang started. It's visible from space.
He just stated he only cares about the defense of free speech in the U.S. I'm not sure what the problem is?
Egypt isn't in the United States, this does nothing to U.S. free speech and he's advocating cutting aid to the country as retribution. If all he cared about was the defense of free speech in the U.S. he wouldn't be advocating a specific foreign policy initiative that has everything to do with punishing state sovereignty and the expression of speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Actually back up a bit. Egypt trying to get a handle on the riots without busting heads or using rubber bullets/tear gas. The egyptian gov't is new and since they have a wide assortment of muslim views trying to appease all. I do believe though they created a bigger problem. They cannot presecute anyone who is not there. What is there is that 10% of the population in Egypt are Coptic Christian. Its easy to shift the blame of the eight coptic that are not there to those that are they're since. in their mind, share the same view.
They can in fact prosecute people who aren't there. People are prosecuted in absentia often and Egypt has been doing it plenty in prosecuting the Mubarak regimes mid level officials. This is kind of an elegant solution to the problem on their end, though it implies that Egyptian nationals won't resist the introduction of blasphemy laws to their constitution.
They want to interfere with US policies and individuals on the domestic US front. A cutoff of funds is an excellent nonviolent reply. This nonsense needs to stop.
Frazzled wrote: They want to interfere with US policies and individuals on the domestic US front. A cutoff of funds is an excellent nonviolent reply. This nonsense needs to stop.
Yeah, especially when a significant portion of that aid goes to the Egyptian military which is the primary force (realistically the only force) policing anti american extremism in Egypt (the most populous country in the middle east) and has strong ties with our own forces. I'm sure having your feelings hurt by people on the other side of the planet is terrrrrriiiible for you, but acting in a self destructive fashion because of something like that is childish. We use that aid specifically to interfere with Egyptian policies and individuals in egypt and you're going to hamstring our own efforts to reduce anti american extremism in the mideast because you have a phantom pain in your elbow. Just admit that you only care because it's an election season and big O's seat is up for grabs. You didn't even care about this stuff last year.
Even if the Egyptian military is the only force in Egypt doing anything about the anti-American sentiment there, they don't seem to be very committed to it. To be blunt, perhaps we're not getting our money's worth. Perhaps we should find new ways to motivate them.
Manchu wrote: Even if the Egyptian military is the only force in Egypt doing anything about the anti-American sentiment there, they don't seem to be very committed to it. To be blunt, perhaps we're not getting our money's worth. Perhaps we should find new ways to motivate them.
What is their military not doing? It is the strongest counter the country has to it's current majority Brotherhood political leadership. Do you want them to fire on their own people? Egypt is the country where no one died and a flag got replaced. Would you have them start gunning down Egyptian protesters a year after a massive regime change? Would you prefer that Egypt go back into civil war? We backed Mubarak for thirty years, pulling out now over a harmless protest and fake trial and causing a massive schism in the Egyptian military would only serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism in the Mideast and would paint an even large target on us (one that honestly, we would deserve). What's in Americas best interest is to treat these protests without getting it's rankles up because some people say mean things. Our foreign policy is already muddled enough with our own regime changes without it turning into a highschool drama club.
Frazzled wrote: They want to interfere with US policies and individuals on the domestic US front. A cutoff of funds is an excellent nonviolent reply. This nonsense needs to stop.
Yeah, especially when a significant portion of that aid goes to the Egyptian military which is the primary force (realistically the only force) policing anti american extremism in Egypt (the most populous country in the middle east) and has strong ties with our own forces. I'm sure having your feelings hurt by people on the other side of the planet is terrrrrriiiible for you, but acting in a self destructive fashion because of something like that is childish. We use that aid specifically to interfere with Egyptian policies and individuals in egypt and you're going to hamstring our own efforts to reduce anti american extremism in the mideast because you have a phantom pain in your elbow.
Funny, when another country issues arrest warrants for US citizens using free speech in my country to make a stupid trailer, I tend to get a little riled about it.
Just admit that you only care because it's an election season and big O's seat is up for grabs. You didn't even care about this stuff last year.
Thats your issue, not mine. I didn't bring Obama into it.
Manchu wrote: Even if the Egyptian military is the only force in Egypt doing anything about the anti-American sentiment there, they don't seem to be very committed to it. To be blunt, perhaps we're not getting our money's worth. Perhaps we should find new ways to motivate them.
What is their military not doing? It is the strongest counter the country has to it's current majority Brotherhood political leadership. Do you want them to fire on their own people? Egypt is the country where no one died and a flag got replaced. Would you have them start gunning down Egyptian protesters a year after a massive regime change? Would you prefer that Egypt go back into civil war? We backed Mubarak for thirty years, pulling out now over a harmless protest and fake trial and causing a massive schism in the Egyptian military would only serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism in the Mideast and would paint an even large target on us (one that honestly, we would deserve). What's in Americas best interest is to treat these protests without getting it's rankles up because some people say mean things. Our foreign policy is already muddled enough with our own regime changes without it turning into a highschool drama club.
They don't appear to be doing anything.
I don't care about the protests. Arrest warrants for American citizens in America is a serious situation, and should be treated like it.
It is foolish to equate the issuance of warrants by the Egyptian government against people seeking asylum in the United States in the wake of murder of US citizens in similarly-situated countries as "some people saying mean things."
If the purpose of sending aid to Egypt is to stem anti-American sentiment there, then I think recent events should make every reasonable person question whether that purpose is being served.
What I see is not a bright new day for Egypt but the same old rogue nation antics of whipping up violence every once in a while to keep the billions flowing in. This is how you train a new North Korea.
Funny, when another country issues arrest warrants for US citizens using free speech in my country to make a stupid trailer, I tend to get a little riled about it.
Why? It's not like they can do anything about it. You never cared before about show trials, hell you defended the Pussy Riot trial like a Russian nationalist and have ignored them every time they've happened in China or North Korea.
Thats your issue, not mine. I didn't bring Obama into it.
You've expressed your dissatisfaction with American foreign policy leadership in every thread concerning the subject matter this and last week. The only reason you didn't bring Obama or the Democrats up is because I got in here too early for it.
Funny, when another country issues arrest warrants for US citizens using free speech in my country to make a stupid trailer, I tend to get a little riled about it.
Why? It's not like they can do anything about it. You never cared before about show trials, hell you defended the Pussy Riot trial like a Russian nationalist and have ignored them every time they've happened in China or North Korea.
Thats your issue, not mine. I didn't bring Obama into it.
You've expressed your dissatisfaction with American foreign policy leadership in every thread concerning the subject matter this week. The only reason you didn't bring Obama or the Democrats up is because I got in here too early for it.
You seem to be having a significant problem in separating US citizens from foreign nationals.
PR trial: those were Russian nationals in their own country.
This: US citizens in the US.
Why do you think its a show trial? the Egyptian embassy has alredy been directed to pursue legal action in civil courts against them here. Thats serious gak if you're Joe Blow.
Funny, when another country issues arrest warrants for US citizens using free speech in my country to make a stupid trailer, I tend to get a little riled about it.
Why? It's not like they can do anything about it. You never cared before about show trials, hell you defended the Pussy Riot trial like a Russian nationalist and have ignored them every time they've happened in China or North Korea.
Thats your issue, not mine. I didn't bring Obama into it.
You've expressed your dissatisfaction with American foreign policy leadership in every thread concerning the subject matter this week. The only reason you didn't bring Obama or the Democrats up is because I got in here too early for it.
You seem to be having a significant problem in separating US citizens from foreign nationals. PR trial: those were Russian nationals in their own country. This: US citizens in the US.
If you want me to bring up faux trials in china and north korea with U.S. defendants I could probably throw a bottle into the ocean and have it come back with a URL about one. I bring up Pussy riot to show that your view is predominantly nationalist and based in national politics rather than any sort of defense of free speech (since this doesn't impugn American free speech in any way and you've proven time and time again that you don't care about free speech as a universal concept).
Why do you think its a show trial? the Egyptian embassy has alredy been directed to pursue legal action in civil courts against them here. Thats serious gak if you're Joe Blow.
Because the suits will be thrown out immediately or will be politically blocked without ever seeing the light of day. It's meaningless and you know it.
ShumaGorath wrote: What is their military not doing? It is the strongest counter the country has to it's current majority Brotherhood political leadership. Do you want them to fire on their own people? Egypt is the country where no one died and a flag got replaced. Would you have them start gunning down Egyptian protesters a year after a massive regime change? Would you prefer that Egypt go back into civil war? We backed Mubarak for thirty years, pulling out now over a harmless protest and fake trial and causing a massive schism in the Egyptian military would only serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism in the Mideast and would paint an even large target on us (one that honestly, we would deserve). What's in Americas best interest is to treat these protests without getting it's rankles up because some people say mean things. Our foreign policy is already muddled enough with our own regime changes without it turning into a highschool drama club.
I understand you'd be perfectly fine with an angry mob breaking into your home or business so long as it turned out nobody got hurt, but downplaying the significance of an embassy breach is, frankly, a little ludicrous.
As far as 'serving the cause of fundamentalist extremism' I have to say that I may be beyond caring at this point. We've come up with no solutions to effectively NOT serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism. Engagement does not work. Isolationism does not work.
Fundamentalist extremism is just too profitable for a fledgling government to shy away from, at least when we think billions in aid is the only way to convince them to shy away from it. Quite a predicament.
1. AGAIN PR is a Russian group in Russia. My defense of the Bill of Rights is focused on the the same people its supposed to protect - people in the United States. How are you not getting that?
2. You've obviously not been sued. Costs defending the suit will be significant, even if its poured out. Contrary to hyperbole frivolous suits are almost never just poured out.
I understand you'd be perfectly fine with an angry mob breaking into your home or business so long as it turned out nobody got hurt, but downplaying the significance of an embassy breach is, frankly, a little ludicrous.
So is downplaying the killing of dozens of civilians a week through drone strikes or funding Hosni Mubarak, a Tyrannical Dictator that killed thousands and had tens of thousands jailed. I see people around here doing that constantly and acting like we're innocent little children who the big mean brown dudes just want to destroy. An embassy having it's windows kicked in is meaningless, just put new windows in. Will it cost a few thousand dollars? Sure. It's not like that hasn't gone up the nose of our contractors over stupider ventures with less return for the last 10 years anyway.
Did those windows have feelings? Lives? No? Get over it than. We're supposed to be a tough country, not a bunch of kittens knocked over when our box is tipped a smidge.
As far as 'serving the cause of fundamentalist extremism' I have to say that I may be beyond caring at this point. We've come up with no solutions to effectively NOT serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism. Engagement does not work. Isolationism does not work.
Well you could try diplomacy. A novel concept that isn't served by either bombing gak in post revolution egypt or running away, since it relies on consistent and dogged engagement. Realistically you're supposed to do all three and not act like Afghanistan and Egypt are the same place with the same people who have the same problem with us. Cutting aid in Egypt over this serves nothing and actively harms our interests abroad.
US military already backing off training with the Afghans already to avoid getting "green on blue" killed. At this point the riots probaly have to run its course. Question though is how long its going to last. Any statements now from the US is going to get twisted among the regular masses.
I understand you'd be perfectly fine with an angry mob breaking into your home or business so long as it turned out nobody got hurt, but downplaying the significance of an embassy breach is, frankly, a little ludicrous.
So is downplaying the killing of dozens of civilians a week through drone strikes or funding Hosni Mubarak, a Tyrannical Dictator that killed thousands and had tens of thousands jailed. I see people around here doing that constantly and acting like we're innocent little children who the big mean brown dudes just want to destroy. An embassy having it's windows kicked in is meaningless, just put new windows in. Will it cost a few thousand dollars? Sure. It's not like that hasn't gone up the nose of our contractors over stupider ventures with less return for the last 10 years anyway.
Did those windows have feelings? Lives? No? Get over it than. We're supposed to be a tough country, not a bunch of kittens knocked over when our box is tipped a smidge.
None of that has anything to do with the First Amendment in the US.
As far as 'serving the cause of fundamentalist extremism' I have to say that I may be beyond caring at this point. We've come up with no solutions to effectively NOT serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism. Engagement does not work. Isolationism does not work.
Well you could try diplomacy. A novel concept that isn't served by either bombing gak in post revolution egypt or running away, since it relies on consistent and dogged engagement. Realistically you're supposed to do all three and not act like Afghanistan and Egypt are the same place with the same people who have the same problem with us. Cutting aid in Egypt over this serves nothing and actively harms our interests abroad.
Cutting aid is part of diplomacy. What diplomacy would you do in this instance?
Frazzled wrote: 1. AGAIN PR is a Russian group in Russia. My defense of the Bill of Rights is focused on the the same people its supposed to protect - people in the United States. How are you not getting that?
I get it. I told you directly that I get it. I'm establishing that you don't give a gak about egypt or it's people and since their shouting has nothing to do with our free speech that establishes that all you're trying to do is make a cheap anti democrat political point like you did in the last three threads.
2. You've obviously not been sued. Costs defending the suit will be significant, even if its poured out. Contrary to hyperbole frivolous suits are almost never just poured out.
Because you have so much experience in international lawsuits that are against international law and which are being pursued by political institutions that haven't existed for a year and have almost no experience or say in anything. Clearly this is exactly something you know a lot about and can speak on as if you've worked it . You remember when Iran did the same thing? You laughed about it. That wasn't an election year though, so you didn't have a team to bat for at every possible opportunity.
I understand you'd be perfectly fine with an angry mob breaking into your home or business so long as it turned out nobody got hurt, but downplaying the significance of an embassy breach is, frankly, a little ludicrous.
So is downplaying the killing of dozens of civilians a week through drone strikes or funding Hosni Mubarak, a Tyrannical Dictator that killed thousands and had tens of thousands jailed. I see people around here doing that constantly and acting like we're innocent little children who the big mean brown dudes just want to destroy. An embassy having it's windows kicked in is meaningless, just put new windows in. Will it cost a few thousand dollars? Sure. It's not like that hasn't gone up the nose of our contractors over stupider ventures with less return for the last 10 years anyway.
Did those windows have feelings? Lives? No? Get over it than. We're supposed to be a tough country, not a bunch of kittens knocked over when our box is tipped a smidge.
None of that has anything to do with the First Amendment in the US.
As far as 'serving the cause of fundamentalist extremism' I have to say that I may be beyond caring at this point. We've come up with no solutions to effectively NOT serve the cause of fundamentalist extremism. Engagement does not work. Isolationism does not work.
Well you could try diplomacy. A novel concept that isn't served by either bombing gak in post revolution egypt or running away, since it relies on consistent and dogged engagement. Realistically you're supposed to do all three and not act like Afghanistan and Egypt are the same place with the same people who have the same problem with us. Cutting aid in Egypt over this serves nothing and actively harms our interests abroad.
Cutting aid is part of diplomacy. What diplomacy would you do in this instance?
let the storm in a teacup blow over and don't cut aid making it look like we're pulling out of Egypt because our pocket dictator is gone. That kind of thing gets people to hate you for generations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: At least one aim of giving aid is to create diplomatic leverage based on the premise that it can be cut.
And you have to use that leverage wisely, not suddenly cut aid in response to a scenario that wasn't previously outlined or agreed upon and which the other party had nothing to do with.
It is certainly true that totally cutting aid is not in any sense proportional to the Egyptian government's saber rattling even if their attitude is more than mere puffery.
Frazzled wrote: 1. AGAIN PR is a Russian group in Russia. My defense of the Bill of Rights is focused on the the same people its supposed to protect - people in the United States. How are you not getting that?
I get it. I told you directly that I get it. I'm establishing that you don't give a gak about egypt or it's people and since their shouting has nothing to do with our free speech that establishes that all you're trying to do is make a cheap anti democrat political point like you did in the last three threads.
Lets try it yet again. I don't care much about their protest. I care that the Egyptian Government issued arrest warrants for US citizens, in the US, for speech performed in the US.
2. You've obviously not been sued. Costs defending the suit will be significant, even if its poured out. Contrary to hyperbole frivolous suits are almost never just poured out.
Because you have so much experience in international lawsuits that are against international law and which are being pursued by political institutions that haven't existed for a year and have almost no experience or say in anything. Clearly this is exactly something you know a lot about and can speak on as if you've worked it . You remember when Iran did the same thing? You laughed about it. That wasn't an election year though, so you didn't have a team to bat for at every possible opportunity.
I have however been sued on multple occasions. Its not an international lawsuit if they sue private citizens in the US under US claims.
So is downplaying the killing of dozens of civilians a week through drone strikes or funding Hosni Mubarak, a Tyrannical Dictator that killed thousands and had tens of thousands jailed. I see people around here doing that constantly and acting like we're innocent little children who the big mean brown dudes just want to destroy. An embassy having it's windows kicked in is meaningless, just put new windows in. Will it cost a few thousand dollars? Sure. It's not like that hasn't gone up the nose of our contractors over stupider ventures with less return for the last 10 years anyway.
Tell you what, tell bad guys to stop living and traveling with civilians, and get other countries to stop allowing dictators to come to power, and your complaints will disappear. We don't control every aspect of the world we live in. We work with what we have.
Did those windows have feelings? Lives? No? Get over it than. We're supposed to be a tough country, not a bunch of kittens knocked over when our box is tipped a smidge.
Here's the part you seem to be missing: the embassy attack in Egypt ended with no American lives lost. The consulate attack in Libya did not. Prior to one turning out one way and one turning out the other, I would imagine, based on somewhat similar past experience, that nobody on the inside would have been able to tell for certain which way it would go. You think we should just let this stuff happen because it's just property being damaged and flags being torn down? I would say that is a myopic but understandable viewpoint, if we didn't have evidence that they can, in fact, result in the loss of American lives.
Well you could try diplomacy. A novel concept that isn't served by either bombing gak in post revolution egypt or running away, since it relies on consistent and dogged engagement. Realistically you're supposed to do all three and not act like Afghanistan and Egypt are the same place with the same people who have the same problem with us. Cutting aid in Egypt over this serves nothing and actively harms our interests abroad.
You're more than welcome to go attempt to negotiate with fundamentalist extremists if you like. I'd get your affairs in order, first.
ShumaGorath wrote: And you have to use that leverage wisely, not suddenly cut aid in response to a scenario that wasn't previously outlined or agreed upon and which the other party had nothing to do with.
Dude the other party is the Egyptian government. The Egyptian government is the one issuing the arrest warrants. the Egyptian government is the one looking to separately pursue legal action in the US against private citiens performing rpotected activities under the US Constitution. Cutting aid to that government is absolutely directly on point.
I have however been sued on multple occasions. Its not an international lawsuit if they sue private citizens in the US under US claims.
It is when it's being pursued by a new government without normalized diplomatic ties and the state department knows about it and doesn't care for it. This will never make it to court, just as the Iranian suit that's also happening right now won't. Just like the Pakistani one didn't last year, just like the Iranian one two years before. This is a joke. Pretending it will even reach our justice system is ludicrous.
I have however been sued on multple occasions. Its not an international lawsuit if they sue private citizens in the US under US claims.
It is when it's being pursued by a new government without normalized diplomatic ties and the state department knows about it and doesn't care for it. This will never make it to court, just as the Iranian suit that's also happening right now won't. Just like the Pakistani one didn't last year, just like the Iranian one two years before.
Here's the part you seem to be missing: the embassy attack in Egypt ended with no American lives lost. The consulate attack in Libya did not. Prior to one turning out one way and one turning out the other, I would imagine, based on somewhat similar past experience, that nobody on the inside would have been able to tell for certain which way it would go. You think we should just let this stuff happen because it's just property being damaged and flags being torn down? I would say that is a myopic but understandable viewpoint, if we didn't have evidence that they can, in fact, result in the loss of American lives.
Stop conflating the fact that I don't think we should act like idiots with our foreign policy with a belief that I think it's ok that we got attacked. I think it's irrelevant because it is unless people like you and Frazzled decide to do something rash and self destructive about it. It's irrelevant because our interests were not realistically harmed in a meaningful fashion and nothing permanent was lost.
You're more than welcome to go attempt to negotiate with fundamentalist extremists if you like. I'd get your affairs in order, first.
I talk to conservatives on Dakka regularly and I'm still standing, I think negotiating with the Egyptian government's pretty safe. To date no American has died from doing it.
Here's the part you seem to be missing: the embassy attack in Egypt ended with no American lives lost. The consulate attack in Libya did not. Prior to one turning out one way and one turning out the other, I would imagine, based on somewhat similar past experience, that nobody on the inside would have been able to tell for certain which way it would go. You think we should just let this stuff happen because it's just property being damaged and flags being torn down? I would say that is a myopic but understandable viewpoint, if we didn't have evidence that they can, in fact, result in the loss of American lives.
Stop conflating the fact that I don't think we should act like idiots with our foreign policy with a belief that I think it's ok that we got attacked. I think it's irrelevant because it is unless people like you and Frazzled decide to do something rash and self destructive about it. It's irrelevant because our interests were not realistically harmed in a meaningful fashion and nothing permanent was lost.
You're more than welcome to go attempt to negotiate with fundamentalist extremists if you like. I'd get your affairs in order, first.
I talk to conservatives on Dakka regularly and I'm still standing, I think negotiating with the Egyptian government's pretty safe. To date no American has died from doing it.
You keep talking like I give a gak about the protests.
I have however been sued on multple occasions. Its not an international lawsuit if they sue private citizens in the US under US claims.
It is when it's being pursued by a new government without normalized diplomatic ties and the state department knows about it and doesn't care for it. This will never make it to court, just as the Iranian suit that's also happening right now won't. Just like the Pakistani one didn't last year, just like the Iranian one two years before.
Iran has sued us a lot in a lot of ways. It's mostly a political ploy to calm the home audience though and the suits never go anywhere or make it to court. Same with Pakistan. Same with most mideastern/north african/south asian countries, really. This gak happens all the time.
Here's the part you seem to be missing: the embassy attack in Egypt ended with no American lives lost. The consulate attack in Libya did not. Prior to one turning out one way and one turning out the other, I would imagine, based on somewhat similar past experience, that nobody on the inside would have been able to tell for certain which way it would go. You think we should just let this stuff happen because it's just property being damaged and flags being torn down? I would say that is a myopic but understandable viewpoint, if we didn't have evidence that they can, in fact, result in the loss of American lives.
Stop conflating the fact that I don't think we should act like idiots with our foreign policy with a belief that I think it's ok that we got attacked. I think it's irrelevant because it is unless people like you and Frazzled decide to do something rash and self destructive about it. It's irrelevant because our interests were not realistically harmed in a meaningful fashion and nothing permanent was lost.
You're more than welcome to go attempt to negotiate with fundamentalist extremists if you like. I'd get your affairs in order, first.
I talk to conservatives on Dakka regularly and I'm still standing, I think negotiating with the Egyptian government's pretty safe. To date no American has died from doing it.
You keep talking like I give a gak about the protests.
You keep talking like I give a gak about the protests.
I'm more interested in why you care about the lawsuits.
Two separate issues:
1) arrest warrants
2) suits
Suits: even if frivolous thats a substantial legal expense for ordinary citizens, who are using their right to free speech under the US Constitution. Does it have merit, likely not (depending on what suing for). Do they have standing? At this point no. But that has to be adjudicated and a froeign power has substantially higher deep pockets than Joe Blow. This is a relatively scary concept.
I have however been sued on multple occasions. Its not an international lawsuit if they sue private citizens in the US under US claims.
It is when it's being pursued by a new government without normalized diplomatic ties and the state department knows about it and doesn't care for it. This will never make it to court, just as the Iranian suit that's also happening right now won't. Just like the Pakistani one didn't last year, just like the Iranian one two years before.
Iran has sued us a lot in a lot of ways. It's mostly a political ploy to calm the home audience though and the suits never go anywhere or make it to court. Same with Pakistan. Same with most mideastern/north african/south asian countries, really. This gak happens all the time.
Here's the part you seem to be missing: the embassy attack in Egypt ended with no American lives lost. The consulate attack in Libya did not. Prior to one turning out one way and one turning out the other, I would imagine, based on somewhat similar past experience, that nobody on the inside would have been able to tell for certain which way it would go. You think we should just let this stuff happen because it's just property being damaged and flags being torn down? I would say that is a myopic but understandable viewpoint, if we didn't have evidence that they can, in fact, result in the loss of American lives.
Stop conflating the fact that I don't think we should act like idiots with our foreign policy with a belief that I think it's ok that we got attacked. I think it's irrelevant because it is unless people like you and Frazzled decide to do something rash and self destructive about it. It's irrelevant because our interests were not realistically harmed in a meaningful fashion and nothing permanent was lost.
You're more than welcome to go attempt to negotiate with fundamentalist extremists if you like. I'd get your affairs in order, first.
I talk to conservatives on Dakka regularly and I'm still standing, I think negotiating with the Egyptian government's pretty safe. To date no American has died from doing it.
You keep talking like I give a gak about the protests.
Those were responses to seaward.
Those were suits by Iran vs. the US, not a government against individual US citizens. Big damn difference.
And you stated he and Frazzled so you were including me.
Jihadin wrote: Not to add fuel to the Fire. We do have a extradition agreement with Egypt.......
The Egyptian military or the current elected Egyptian government? We had one with Mubaraks regime, but this is not the same government and agreements like those are usually invalidated by revolutionary regime changes.
Those were suits by Iran vs. the US, not a government against individual US citizens. Big damn difference. And you stated he and Frazzled so you were including me.
Nah, about half of them weren't. You had to scroll back past the first page of Iranian suits though, since one of their wacky suits is a current issue. Our banks "are being sued" and Pakistan is suing individuals in the American government for drone strikes. Being thorough is your friend.
I meant the arrest warrants. I scanned the thread from my phone.
See jihadin's post. However there would be a hearing and I think it would be quashed. Plus the Egyptians have to pursue extradition. That would and should get messy very fast.
Just the concept of an arrest warrant for US citizens exercising their right to free speech to make a craptacular film in the US puts me off completely. What if Shuma goes off on the intranets and the government of Outer Botslavia get PO'd tracks his IP and pursues action in the US? Seriously?
I meant the arrest warrants. I scanned the thread from my phone.
See jihadin's post. However there would be a hearing and I think it would be quashed. Plus the Egyptians have to pursue extradition. That would and should get messy very fast.
Just the concept of an arrest warrant for US citizens exercising their right to free speech to make a craptacular film in the US puts me off completely. What if Shuma goes off on the intranets and the government of Outer Botslavia get PO'd tracks his IP and pursues action in the US? Seriously?
I wouldn't appear in court since the trial wouldn't ever have a date and would vanish after a few weeks. I'd wonder how they got my IP through Dakka though...
ShumaGorath wrote: Nah, about half of them weren't. You had to scroll back past the first page of Iranian suits though, since one of their wacky suits is a current issue. Our banks "are being sued" and Pakistan is suing individuals in the American government for drone strikes. Being thorough is your friend.
I don't know about the bank suit. Individuals in the US govenrment would likely be represented by the US government itself however, especially if those actions while in the enmploy of said government. I don't see the US government giving much of a crap about defneding Joe Shmo however and might actively avoid it for PC or poltiical purposes.
I meant the arrest warrants. I scanned the thread from my phone.
See jihadin's post. However there would be a hearing and I think it would be quashed. Plus the Egyptians have to pursue extradition. That would and should get messy very fast.
Just the concept of an arrest warrant for US citizens exercising their right to free speech to make a craptacular film in the US puts me off completely. What if Shuma goes off on the intranets and the government of Outer Botslavia get PO'd tracks his IP and pursues action in the US? Seriously?
I wouldn't appear in court since the trial wouldn't ever have a date and would vanish after a few weeks. I'd wonder how they got my IP through Dakka though...
I don't know about the bank suit. Individuals in the US govenrment would likely be represented by the US government itself however, especially if those actions while in the enmploy of said government. I don't see the US government giving much of a crap about defneding Joe Shmo however and might actively avoid it for PC or poltiical purposes.
Certainly possible, cross border suits when legitimate certainly go through all the time. This is a huge story though and it's going to piss off the state department who are going to block it.
And you know this in knowledge from what again?
The fact that the scenario is laughable and this kind of thing never ends up happening. If there was precedent for this occurring and being meaningful it would be part of the narrative of all the stories covering this. It is't. I don't know that there isn't an elephant outside waiting to take me on a magical adventure but I'm not gonna check out the window because that'd be ridiculous too.
Well...I am for sure avoiding Frazz lawn...his weiner dogs look quite capable of making lethal IED's that might be devastating on the sensory organ....and boots....
edit
Dang...I've heard of being so hungry one would bite the arse end of rhino off...but a weiner...with Michelle looking trying to figure out WTH he is biting off.....
Jihadin wrote: Well...I am for sure avoiding Frazz lawn...his weiner dogs look quite capable of making lethal IED's that might be devastating on the sensory organ....and boots....
See jihadin's post. However there would be a hearing and I think it would be quashed. Plus the Egyptians have to pursue extradition. That would and should get messy very fast.
Just the concept of an arrest warrant for US citizens exercising their right to free speech to make a craptacular film in the US puts me off completely. What if Shuma goes off on the intranets and the government of Outer Botslavia get PO'd tracks his IP and pursues action in the US? Seriously?
Freedom of speech is all very well, but with freedom comes responsibility.
This film was specifically made to insult muslims - in the full knowledge that historically that always leads to violence. the deaths of the Embassy staff in Libya are just as much the fault of the people who made this film as they are the fault of the actual individuals who attacked them.
What's worse, is that they've put many more lives at risk - the actors and most of the crew involved had no idea that the film they were making was about Islam - the script was different and the dialogue was all re-dubbed after the fact. Now those people are in fear for their lives:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html
I'm pretty sure that this film was made specifically in order to incite violence in the middle east. That's not freedom of speech - that's conspiracy to commit murder, albeit by proxy.
pgmason wrote: Freedom of speech is all very well, but with freedom comes responsibility.
This film was specifically made to insult muslims - in the full knowledge that historically that always leads to violence. the deaths of the Embassy staff in Libya are just as much the fault of the people who made this film as they are the fault of the actual individuals who attacked them.
What's worse, is that they've put many more lives at risk - the actors and most of the crew involved had no idea that the film they were making was about Islam - the script was different and the dialogue was all re-dubbed after the fact. Now those people are in fear for their lives:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html
I'm pretty sure that this film was made specifically in order to incite violence in the middle east. That's not freedom of speech - that's conspiracy to commit murder, albeit by proxy.
Spare me the Spiderman bs.
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
Spare me the Spiderman bs.
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
And that's why I think that US style freedom of speech goes too far. You shouldn't be able to abdicate all responsibility for the things you say and do. I think we have a much better balance in the UK. Here you can say what you like provided (a) it can be backed up with evidence, and therefore isn't libel or slander, and (b) it's not specifically intended to incite racial or religious hatred and/or violence. Other than that, fair game.
When one person's rights and freedoms (in this case the film-makers) impinge on the rights and freedoms of others (in this case the entire muslim world, and anyone put at risk by association with this film or the US) then that's going too far.
Spare me the Spiderman bs.
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
And that's why I think that US style freedom of speech goes too far. You shouldn't be able to abdicate all responsibility for the things you say and do. I think we have a much better balance in the UK. Here you can say what you like provided (a) it can be backed up with evidence, and therefore isn't libel or slander, and (b) it's not specifically intended to incite racial or religious hatred and/or violence. Other than that, fair game.
When one person's rights and freedoms (in this case the film-makers) impinge on the rights and freedoms of others (in this case the entire muslim world, and anyone put at risk by association with this film or the US) then that's going too far.
In other words, you don't have freedom of speech in Britain. You can say what you want until someone else doesn't like it. Got it.
It seems apt to note right about now that pgmason doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.
The Life of Brian was entirely made in GB and I never heard of anyone standing trial because of it...
As for Muslims feeling "offended" by a crappy Youtube movie: though! I don't feel particularly trilled by their habits of stoning women to death, but you don't see me throwing issy fits about it!
Frazzled wrote: In other words, you don't have freedom of speech in Britain. You can say what you want until someone else doesn't like it. Got it.
Exalted.
Free speech does come with consequences. If you say mean, hateful things then people will know you are a bigot. If you say stupid things then people will know you are a moron. Words can motivate people to do bad but ultimately it is up to the listener rather than the speaker to decide what they will do. It cannot be stated enough that some video doesn't justify violent acts by Muslims or anybody else.
Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.
One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...
Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.
One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...
Good thing that that crappy Youtube video doesn't do any of those things then.
Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.
One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...
Good thing that that crappy Youtube video doesn't do any of those things then.
The Life of Brian isn't remotely the same. It's a parody in which the main character isn't Jesus but gets mistaken for him. It doesn't incite hatred, it pokes fun at hypocricy.
The Innocence of Muslims or whatever it's called purports to depict Islam's holiest figure as a child molester and is made by people be associated with anti-islamic hate groups, specifically for the purpose of causing offence. They knew what they were doing was morally indefensible, and that's why they deceived the actors - who wouldn't have participated if they'd known what was going on. There even seems to be some suggestion that the producer did everything under a false identity.
In contemporary times, the majority of Christians can laugh at jokes about Jesus. I've never seen or heard of Christian societies in modern times murdering people because someone made a joke about Jesus.
Free speech does come with consequences. If you say mean, hateful things then people will know you are a bigot. If you say stupid things then people will know you are a moron. Words can motivate people to do bad but ultimately it is up to the listener rather than the speaker to decide what they will do. It cannot be stated enough that some video doesn't justify violent acts by Muslims or anybody else.
I agree - the protestors aren't justified in attacking the US embassies and I'm pretty sure have been deliberately manipulated into doing so, but if someone knows that their speech is almost guaranteed to lead to violence based on repeated historical precedent, and chooses to do it despite (or even because of) this, then they must bear some of the responsibility for that violence.
The US embassies are the wrong target for the protests. A lot of countries where protests have taken place simply don't have a history of free media - it's all state controlled. That means that if something is mentioned on TV or radio, then its assumed to be the official government position. If that's all you've ever known, it's kind of hard to get your head around the fact that in America people are allowed to publicise opinions directly opposite to the views of the state through the media. The people protesting at the embassies have basically been manipulated into thinking that America itself accused Mohammed of being a child molester, rather than some random (and possibly fictional) Egyptian bloke who happens to live in America.
Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.
Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.
One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...
Sorry Charlie it is completely protected. Its only violative if it meets the standard two pronged test - incitement to immediate harm, capacity to do so.
pgmason wrote: The Life of Brian isn't remotely the same. It's a parody in which the main character isn't Jesus but gets mistaken for him. It doesn't incite hatred, it pokes fun at hypocricy.
The Innocence of Muslims or whatever it's called purports to depict Islam's holiest figure as a child molester and is made by people be associated with anti-islamic hate groups, specifically for the purpose of causing offence. They knew what they were doing was morally indefensible, and that's why they deceived the actors - who wouldn't have participated if they'd known what was going on. There even seems to be some suggestion that the producer did everything under a false identity.
Its exactly the same thing.
Remake The Life of Brian and replace "ordinary bloke is mistaken for Jeebus" with "ordinary bloke is mistaken for Muhammad", post it on the internet, watch the riots ensue!
Most of the people in those Muslim countries protesting have never seen the video and don't have the faintest idea of what it is about, they are just poor and uneducated masses being given a new target to focus their discontent.
Manchu wrote: In contemporary times, the majority of Christians can laugh at jokes about Jesus. I've never seen or heard of Christian societies in modern times murdering people because someone made a joke about Jesus.
And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.
Pakistani officials say they have opened an investigation into a businessman who has been accused of blasphemy after refusing to join protests over an anti-Islam video and allegedly trying to convince others also not to take part.
Police officer Munir Abbasi says that hundreds of protesters in the city of Hyderabad who rallied against the film that mocks the Prophet Muhammad demanded businessman Haji Nasrullah Khan shut his shops in solidarity.
When Khan refused, one of his tenants said his decision supported the film.
City police chief Fareed Jan said Wednesday the protesters claim Khan insulted the Prophet.
Jan said there's no evidence to suggest this happened and said police were pressured by the mob to open the case.
Blasphemy is punishable by life in prison or death in Pakistan.
CT GAMER wrote: And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.
I think that comes down to what you consider participation. Suffice it to say I would be happy to agree with any Muslim who disavows other Muslims because of their violent behavior.
Manchu wrote: In contemporary times, the majority of Christians can laugh at jokes about Jesus. I've never seen or heard of Christian societies in modern times murdering people because someone made a joke about Jesus.
And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.
But how many Imams support violence? That is the question.
CT GAMER wrote: And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.
I think that comes down to what you consider participation. Suffice it to say I would be happy to agree with any Muslim who disavows other Muslims because of their violent behavior.
In the same way I'd be happy to agree with any christian who disavowed other christians because of the homophobic/bigoted/backwards beliefs they justify with their own religion.
Many muslims do disavow extremist violence. But then those ones dont make for sexy sound bites and video clips to feed Western jingoistic paranoia...
In other words, you don't have freedom of speech in Britain. You can say what you want until someone else doesn't like it. Got it.
That's the same freedom of speech we all have. The difference between Britain and here is that the government is legally prevented from imposing consequences on speech of most kinds.
Frazzled wrote: Which means its NOT the same. If government can stop speech there, because its offensive to others, then its not freedom of speech.
You mean its not American freedom of speech.
And you're right, American freedom of speech is not the same as English freedom of speech, but the basic idea that we can only speak free of consequences until some authority or opposition prevents us from doing so is the precise freedom of speech that we all have.
1. How will 'death sentence' be carried out?
- Firing Squad
- Stoning
- Hanging
- Cruxification
- Decaptitation
- "Five Horse' dismemberment; Quartering by motorized vehicle
- Burning alive (Inquisistion 'iconic judgement' against Heresy, Judaism, and Islam in Renaissanace era)
2. Does the current regime of post-Mubarak Egypt internationally recognized?
3. If the defendants are 'rescued' before the final verdict. will the regime carry an assassination or instigate any riots in muslim quarters within the territory of 'Christian ruled nations'. the riots that will ultimately surpassed the great riots of L.A. in 1992
nah. in the 'Prophet film crisis' the minimum demands any muslim protesters issued to the US government is that the said movie should be banned in the US as well as worldwide. I don't think that the 'apology' issued by the US government to the said protesters will calm them down.
Handing over the blasphemer is out of question. the Egyptian 'government' can issue such demand to the US government but they can expect the answer. NO, the US will not hand over the 'crimina' because the offense on religious ground doesn't apply to the extradition pacts (and I don't think the USA and Egypt signed that pacts either!) so the only thing the Egyptian authority can do to have a hand on the 'arch enemy of God' is by force. either by using assassins, black gangsters, or instigating a 1992 level uprising will the 'retribution' carried out.
. You remember when Iran did the same thing? You laughed about it. That wasn't an election year though, so you didn't have a team to bat for at every possible opportunity.
