Innocence Riots

I don't think I, or anybody, was arguing that Charlie Hebdo isn't responsible for publishing an offensive cartoon about the Prophet Mohammed or that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula isn't responsible for producing a offensive movie about the life of Mohammed.Beyond that, could you clarify what they're supposed to be responsible for?

No, you're not at war. Neither are we. Having our militaries being all active doesn't make it a war. Our nations are currently engaged in occupation.We were, very briefly, engaged in a war of aggression against the Taliban, and then later against Saddam. But we defeated their feeble army with the greatest of ease before your military leaders utterly fucked up the peace with the able assistance of my own muppets. Yes, the not war-ness makes it very easy to say. Curiously the location from which I say it doesn't make much difference.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

So if it really was a war then why would you have more sympathy?

Reminds me of the Vietnam Occupation.

But...it's a war cause lots of innocent people are being killed... and lots of innocent people are being killed because its a war...and everything is a secret so you can tell.

Sorry - I didn't think it was necessary to point out that murdering people because of a cartoon is wrong, on account of it being blindingly obvious. We can take that for granted as agreed upon without reservation by everyone involved in the discussion and stop bringing it up as if it had any relevance. They certainly are putting people at risk, because we have the ability to predict how others will react to our actions. You may consider it racist to predict that will result in ab angry mob, for reasons which aren't clear, but it is, nevertheless, true.If I leave something expensive on the back seat of an unlocked car in a high-crime area, I am not doing anything morally wrong. I am not breaking any laws. I have every right to do so.There is a high possibility that the expensive item will be stolen, and the fault for that theft lies with the theif. The fact that the thief is at fault, however, doesn't mean that I was unable to predict that there was a good chance of it being stolen. If there were expensive things belonging to others in the car as well, then my actions in leaving them there would be highly irresponsible.The world is full of bad people who do bad things. This should be taken into account when choosing a course of action.

You say that it's wrong, but your post contains no indication that you expect people not to do it. Oh, obviously. On a similar principle, women who dress provocatively in public should expect to get raped, because when crimes are predictable, the responsibility lies with the victims.

I think Caffeine and I are having somewhat the same problem with your position. Caffeine and I share the same position in that we don't take a black and white stance. We see the right to free speech as being necessarily tempered to circumstances, but I think we draw the line in different places.But you believe it's an unalterable right. As you once said, "People in the West have free speech - full stop." The problem with this position is that there *are* limits to free speech, the commonly offered exception being yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So as I said earlier, your absolutist position is naturally raising questions.I agree that a woman should feel safe dressing in provocative clothing, but just as one shouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, one shouldn't dress provocatively and walk into a stag party less one be mistaken for the entertainment.Let me again say that I don't think the makers of Innocence had any obligation to temper their speech. For me they didn't cross any line, but as I said, I think Caffeine and I may draw the line in different places.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Well that depends what you mean by expect. If you mean 'consider to be the likely outcome', then of course I expect people to violently overreact to this sort of thing, because that's what has happened every time some Mohammad cartoon has popped up in the news the last decade.If by 'expect' you mean 'hold to be the standard of moral behaviour', then of course I expect people not to burn embassies over a cartoon. I don't know anyone who disagrees, and didn't expect anyone on this forum to disagree. Frustration with the violent reactions of extremist Muslisms had already been expressed at the start of the thread. If you'd like, I could preface every sentence I write with 'it's wrong to firebomb embassies over some stupid cartoon or, you know, to firebomb embassies at all'; but it would get somewhat tiresome, and I thought you were bright enough that the fucking obvious doesn't have to be repeatedly pointed out to you over and over again. Should I occassionally make clear my point of view on the colour of the sky, just to make sure we understand each other properly? If a young woman walks alone at night dressed provocatively then, in many areas, she is putting herself at risk. If someone rapes her, he is in no way absolved of guilt by the fact that she put herself at risk. She should be able to walk freely wearing whatever she wants wherever she wants. There should be no police, and no prisons. But she can't, and there are, because the world's a nasty place.There seems to be some idea that pointing out the irresponsible behaviour of a victim of crime is in some way letting off the criminal, which seems to be a very confused way of thinking to me. If somebody breaks a lock in a place expected to be safe to steal some valuables; they are 100% guilty of the theft of those valuables. If someone takes some valuables left in an unlocked car in a high crime area they are 100% guilty of the theft of those valuables. In the latter case, the owner of the valuables was irresponsible in looking after them, in the former they weren't. The responsibility or lack of it of the owner is not relevant to the degree of guilt of the thief.

Just to clarify, I don't think their free speech should be limited in the sense that they shouldn't be allowed to make these films or publish these cartoons. They have the right to. I just think their doing so is childish and irresponsible.

Pakistan issues an invitation to protest and demonstrate by announcing a day of celebration of the prophet and then fires on demonstrators? Incredible!--Percy

I certainly believe blasphemy is an unalterable right. I believe that people have a right to exercise their rights without physical intimidation, because that's a necessary condition for a civilized society. Because it's reasonable to expect that people will respond to a fire alarm by charging for the exits, a situation where people can get hurt. (Of course it's more reasonable to expect a theater to provide for safe egress in an emergency situation, but I digress.) Because it's right for people, in a crowded theater on fire, to try to escape.It's not reasonable to expect that people will respond to blasphemy with murder, because it's not right for them to do so. We actually can expect, and demand, that people will respond to insults to their religion by saying "I find that incredibly offensive, but it's nothing to kill about." Same as a woman provocatively dressed in a night club can expect, and demand, that she not be subject to sexual assault.But what you're saying is that, because Muslims time and time again respond to the slightest provocation with murder, we can no longer expect them to do anything but murder in response to provocation. I fundamentally reject that. That's the logic of the abuser. We're not required to act like Muslims are barbarians. We're required to act like Muslims are subject to the same laws and obligations as the rest of civilized people, not just say "well, they're not gonna," and throw up our hands in defeat. It's a deeply offensive "soft bigotry of low expectations" to say "well, of course they're going to kill some Jews because of a cartoon, they're Muslims, stupid!"

One of the most powerful weapons available to terrorists are Weapons of Mass Hysteria.The goal of a WMH is to provoke a response that is totally out of proportion to the damage done by the WMH itself.The attack of 9-11 was such a weapon. While the deaths due directly to the 9-11 attack were tragic, it was not really a threat to the continuation of the US or even a really major economic disaster.Our response to that attack though was totally out of proportion to the actual damage done and does constitute a real threat to the US, to our freedoms, our economy, our culture. The damage done to the US was not the attack itself but rather the result of our overreactions.The movie "Innocence of Muslims", if it even really exists, is another example of a Weapon of Mass Hysteria.The resulting riots are but the least of the potential disturbing results from this attack.The Western World lately has shown concern over the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapon capabilities even though the risk from that is relatively small and limited in scope.However there is another country, one that has nuclear weapons and and also the missile capabilities to deliver those weapons AND currently has a some what shaky government AND is located in a strategically sensitive and important area.That nation is Pakistan.If Pakistan overreacts as the US did there is a high probability of the current Government falling and suddenly the US and the West will be faced with a nuclear armed Nation State that also has the capability of delivering those weapons run by a quite frankly crazy Government.Now that should be cause for concern.

Hi Crash,About the latter half of your message, I think you may be confusing my views with someone else's, or perhaps you should be looking for someone who actually holds the view you're arguing against. Whatever the case, I just want you to know that I'm not ignoring your points, I just don't feel I'm an appropriate target.It sounds like we agree that the right to free speech isn't unbounded. I originally thought you were trying to argue that it was, and that's why I responded.Even though my own view isn't all that nuanced I don't find it easy to express it clearly, but I'll try again. The movie is just a pretext or trigger for the Islamic world to express their frustration and outrage at centuries of exploitation by the west (they prefer being exploited by their own leaders ). I don't know how we fix this, but invasions and drone attacks seem to be counterproductive when examined with a long term view. In the meantime we have to recognize that the hair trigger rage we're victim to in the Arab world is rage we've fostered ourselves.--Percy

Certainly the murders are unreasonable, but after about the tenth time of seeing people react to free speech with violence, the murder can no longer be considered unexpected. I understand the reluctance to curb their behavior in response to violence or the threat thereof, but haven't we seen murder and threats of murder in response to Koran burning, cartoons and comics defaming Islams prophets, the Satanic Verses, etc. so that we cannot claim to be ignorant of the possible reaction anymore.Inexplicable, yes in some sense. But unexpected? Hardly. But I will agree that the movie/murder link is not of the same nature as the link between violence and fighting words, or mayhem and yelling movie in a crowded firehouse such that prohibiting a film survives first amendment scrutiny.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.