September 16, 2012

"I think our approach right now is to not do anything until we’ve been requested to do it by the State Department."

Leon Panetta. He's the Secretary of Defense. Remember him?

178 comments:

Lem said...

“I think our approach right now is to not do anything until we’ve been requested to do it by the State Department,”

pm317 said...

They are coordinating.

EDH said...

"I think our approach right now is to not do anything until we’ve been requested to do it by the State Department."

The sound of Obama being deniably "walled-off" from any possible future embarrassment or mistakes.

Lem said...

I thought the president was the commander in chief, not State..

Freder Frederson said...

I don't understand what you are getting at here. You want DoD to act by itself?

ricpic said...

Panetta, or the Perfect Hack.

LarsPorsena said...

Panetta votes 'present'.

Darrell said...

I think our approach right now is not doing or saying anything--however true--that would harm President Obama's election chances.
Fixed it for Panetta.

Lem said...

Who's in charge of the government?

Who's the chief executive officer?

Bob Ellison said...

Panetta's in a tight spot. He probably can't just go in, guns a-blazin'. He shouldn't be talking about it, though.

When will politicians learn to keep their traps shut?

Firehand said...

This is so stressful he'll probably have to have a trip back home to get his head straight again; I wonder how much this one will cost us?

Back to that budget thing, I wonder how many privates, corporals or sergeants could have been paid with that damn-near million bucks of DoD money he spent on his little trips?

shiloh said...

"You want DoD to act by itself?"

Althouse only purpose is to keep her flock happy.

Indeed, if Cheney was still v-p we'd be at war w/Iran, Libya, Syria, N. Korea, China, Egypt, etc. etc. ie true leadership!

Quayle said...

Here's a Sec Def who knows who is compitent to answer the 3 AM phone call.

(Hint: and it isn't our dear President Icarus.)

wyo sis said...

Oh, if only Cheney were vice president again. If he were we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place and 4 diplomats would still be alive.

kentuckyliz said...

Apparently, "hitting back twice as hard" is only for your opponents in an election.

Conciliation and silence and submission is for our enemies.

Searched "constitution in the shredder" on Google Images--over 35,000 results.

Darrell said...

If Cheney was still V-P, your shit would still stink like your words.

pm317 said...

OMG, Hillary has taken over the presidency!

Ann Althouse said...

"I don't understand what you are getting at here."

And you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Frederson?

edutcher said...

Kevin Bacon in "Animal House" suddenly looks statesman-like.

Freder Frederson said...

I don't understand what you are getting at here. You want DoD to act by itself?

Yes, God forbid they actually do something to protect our people over there.

shiloh said...

Indeed, if Cheney was still v-p we'd be at war w/Iran, Libya, Syria, N. Korea, China, Egypt, etc. etc. ie true leadership!

We're not?

These back-up, weekend sockpuppets are better entertainment than Abbott and Costello doing "Who's On First?".



Tom Spaulding said...

Althouse only purpose is to keep her flock happy.


And your only purpose is to post that false observation on every thread.

What a pathetic life you choose to lead as a self-designated Punchbowl Turd.

What went wrong? Have you sought help?

Trashhauler said...

Well, I'm nearly always in favor of bombing somebody, but unless we can catch a crowd of cheering jihadist wannabees in the act, there isn't much point right now.

Remember, they don't hate us, they admire us, especially our wise President, who understands that these unfortunate things are just going to happen from time to time.

phx said...

Well, I'm nearly always in favor of bombing somebody, but unless we can catch a crowd of cheering jihadist wannabees in the act, there isn't much point right now.

Just to stay loose?

Trashhauler said...

Well, I'm nearly always in favor of bombing somebody, but unless we can catch a crowd of cheering jihadist wannabees in the act, there isn't much point right now.

Remember, they don't hate us, they admire us, especially our wise President, who understands that these unfortunate things are just going to happen from time to time.

shiloh said...

"And you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Frederson?"

Cute and witty retort!

Darrell said...

Cute and witty retort!

It would mean more if you didn't say the same about your farts.

The Drill SGT said...

Interesting. What most folks don't understand is that the State Department in the form of the Ambassador, the direct representative of the President, who appointed him/her, is in charge of everything in the country.

Security comes in 4 parts.

- Local Government
- Diplomatic Security Group. The State activity responsible for security execution, personnel security and the hiring of:
- local / contractor guards
- Marine Guard Force (if allowed), whose primary function is protecting the inside perimeter and buying enough time for NSA and the CIA to destroy all the classified material. They do not have a "protect the Ambassador" mission, nor a "protect the walls" mission except to the extent it is a "buy enough time for destruction" mission.

Hagar said...

I think any other Secretary of Defense would have mentioned the President as having a role - the deciding role - in this.

Patrick said...


And you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Frederson?


It ain't exactly clear...

pm317 said...

Libyan president: ‘No doubt’ consulate attack was ‘preplanned’ starting months ago.

Ambassador Rice: Libya Attack NOT Premeditated…Film to blame
.

They are peddling this lie denying it was an attack. They found their culprit, the unknown film maker. So nothing to do.. no role for Defense chief, nothing, nada.

I wonder if 9/11 had happened under Obama's watch, what would their storyline be?

PETER V. BELLA said...

The State Department is like the United Nations. Totally ineffectual. It has been that way for decades.

edutcher said...

Hagar said...

I think any other Secretary of Defense would have mentioned the President as having a role - the deciding role - in this.

Ever since he did the end run around Choom and Jarrett to order the bin Laden hit (which is what this is really about; that, and the fact that Choomie's concentration of high-profile drone hits has allowed AQ to reconstitute itself), Panetta's assumed that responsibility.

Matthew Sablan said...

I hear this and think he's saying: "We didn't do anything because we were told not to do it. You want someone to blame, look that way."

EMD said...

I hear this and think he's saying: "We didn't do anything because we were told not to do it. You want someone to blame, look that way."

Winner. Winner. Chicken Dinner.

PatCA said...

We have abandoned our embassy in Sudan, I read. Seems like a nice, passive response to all this 'movie criticism' going on.

I am wondering, will we hear Joe Biden yell "Osama is Dead and GM is Alive" this week?

In Sydney, the Muslim rioters yelled "Obama, Obama, We Are Osama," but I'm sure they just did not get the memo that it wasn't Obama's fault, just the goofy filmmaker.

PatCA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

I must have missed that Constitutional amendment which removed the President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Freder Frederson said...

Cute and witty retort!

I was going to go with "completely incomprehensible retort", but yours will do.

Hagar said...

"I hear this and think he's saying: "We didn't do anything because we were told not to do it. You want someone to blame, look that way."

The empty chair speaks.

Roger J. said...

Drill Sgt: Adding to your points about the current role of military detachments assigned to the Embassies: Do not status of forces agreements determine what US forces can be deployed in sovereign countries?

Mattie said...

Here's what I understood from this post: the SecDef says DOD will respond to requests from State for Embassy reinforcement, or assist with the two Embassy drawdowns. So, this indicates that the other Embassies stay put, and the US remains engaged "normally" in the Islamic countries in question, including Libya.

The President has indicated this, but not explicitly. It's not completely clear, but minions are explaining on the Sunday talk shows right now.

The Secretary of State actually outranks the Secretary of Defense, so Hilary can reasonably ask Leon for various types of assistance with Embassy security. Since diplomatic relations will basically continue.

But, if the US should have declared war on the governments of Libya, Egypt and maybe others, then it's absurd/outrageous that the SecDef is just assisting with Embassy security. He should flank the exercise in the straits of Hormuz with plans to invade at least Libya and Egypt, possibly others. At the behest of the President, with the consent of the Congress.

That's what I think the post meant, but the above could be completely wrong, or incomplete.

Hagar said...

Always explaining, aren't we?

furious_a said...

The Administration is blamestorming over the burning embassies' fiasco. Sec'y Pannetta is making sure that when they're done he and DoD aren't the ones with the anvil tied around their ankles.

Pannetta has already shown his bureaucratic knife-fighting skills while CIA Director.

The Drill SGT said...

Roger J. said...
Drill Sgt: Adding to your points about the current role of military detachments assigned to the Embassies: Do not status of forces agreements determine what US forces can be deployed in sovereign countries?


The Embassy arrangements are I suspect separate. SOFA would certainly cover these 'reinforcements', like FAST teams.

harrogate said...

"And you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Frederson?"


But, Ann Althouse surely does know. She knows something is happening and knows what it is. Clearly this link demonstrates everything awful and terrible about Obama. Why aren't we bombing the hell out of five different entire countries at once at this point. "Hit back twice as hard" indeed.

Also, Mitt Romney is a foreign policy genius.

The things you learn here are priceless.

Michael K said...

This whole situation is filled with irony. Hillary made the famous comment about the 3 AM phone call in the primaries but she has shown herself as useless as Obama, parroting the nonsense about the video.

In Libya, we were clearly betrayed by the local "guards" who led al Qeada to the supposed safe house where the ambassador and his tiny security detail had holed up. Warnings were ignored and that goes right to Hillary.

Paul said...

Ann, you talking about Leon 'Pathetic' Panetta? The ex-NM Governor and Bill Clinton flack?

When was the Department of Defense put under the State Department? Oh, right Hillary!

EDH said...

Paul's thinking of Bill Richardson.

edutcher said...

harrogate said...

But, Ann Althouse surely does know. She knows something is happening and knows what it is. Clearly this link demonstrates everything awful and terrible about Obama. Why aren't we bombing the hell out of five different entire countries at once at this point. "Hit back twice as hard" indeed.

I thought that was Zero's gospel, straight from Uncle Saul, himself.

Also, Mitt Romney is a foreign policy genius.

Next to Dictator Zero, anybody is.

My dog, Sherlock, for example.

Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk said...

Panetta's pusullanimity makes me nostalgic for the days of Darth Rumsfeld. Whatever his faults, Rumsfeld wasn't waiting around for Colin Powell to tell him what his opinions were or how best to advise the President.

Cedarford said...

PETER V. BELLA said...
The State Department is like the United Nations. Totally ineffectual. It has been that way for decades.
----------------
If you say that, you ignore all the vital effective work both entities do. Yes, the UN has a impossible job in "waging peace" as it lacks a Military wing, and can't do anything unless 5 nations at the Security Council agree to.
And State has been unfortunately politicized too much by both the Left and Right when control goes between Parties.

Anyone who has spent time overseas can see the economic, health work the UN does. And most travellers and expats are of a belief that we would have been better off investing in more government resources for State Dept vs. some of the frivolous Carter through Obama squandering of 100s of billions on less productive projects (inc Saint Ronnie in that timespan)

I am also a believer in government and taxpayers spending more on CIA, US infrastructure. Less on futile wars and the Heroes fighting those wars, less on affluent seniors getting free drugs, less on "Hero teachers and Hero TSA".


Cedarford said...

Mattie - The Secretary of State actually outranks the Secretary of Defense, so Hilary can reasonably ask Leon for various types of assistance with Embassy security. Since diplomatic relations will basically continue.

It doesn't work that way. You are confusing a rather silly sometimes Presidential Succession law sequence (Most elderly and senile member of the Party in charge in the Senate 3rd in line to succeed the President?? - with chain of Command.
Panetta no more answers to Hillary than he does to Speaker Boehner, 88-year old Inouye, or Treasury Secretary Geithner.

ALH said...

Before doing anything, call Al Haig first.

AllieOop said...

4 more killed in southern Afghanistan in green on blue attacks. Freedom of speech for those who would incite a Holy War! Maybe bad movie guy will be Secretary of Defense under Romney!

Hyperbolic and over the top, yes I know.

furious_a said...

You're right, Allie. Enforcing Sharia is so much easier than defending our embassies.

AllieOop said...

Furious, it's disingenuous at best to say this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia Law. It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?

Nathan Alexander said...

harrogate explains that Althouse should not express her opinion/evaluation of President Obama's job as President, because, "shut up." I'm sure that "racist!" isn't far behind.

Because harrogate apparently thinks Obama is so smart and wonderful, there is no way a mere common citizen can possibly criticize him or his wonderful new clothes.

What happened between 19 Jan 2009 and 20 Jan 2009 that made a President's performance above criticism and above the ability of even a law professor to comprehend and critique, harrogate?

garage mahal said...

You're right, Allie. Enforcing Sharia is so much easier than defending our embassies.

Why do conservatives feel this lowlife is immune to the same laws as everyone else? Does the making of an anti-Islam movie trump the conditions of his parole?

Nathan Alexander said...

AllieOop,
It's disingenuous to claim this is anything like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is correct if there is a fire, but incorrect if there isn't a fire.

It is incorrect when there isn't an actual fire because the instinctive, natural, and unavoidable reaction to a rapidly spreading deadly situation in a crowded building would be to panic and rush for the exits, resulting in injuries among those panicking.

But yelling "fire" in a crowded football stadium isn't as bad, because there's no reason to panic.

There is something special about a crowded theater: limited exits, restricted movement, limited visibility.

The Muslims aren't injuring themselves in a panic, they are deliberately injuring other people.

And I assert that their reaction is not an instinctive, natural, an unavoidable reaction to criticizing Islam.

If you think it is, why are you such a racist?

Nathan Alexander said...

Why do liberal-progressives feel that this low-life religion Islam is exempt from the free speech laws that apply to every other religion?

Does the fact that Muslims riot and murder make their beliefs exempt from the 1st Amendment in the US?

Old Dad said...

Allie, Garage, et al:

Your red herring movie trailer was widely available in June 2012, but it magically became offensive on Sept. 11.

Think for a change.

ken in sc said...

When I was on active duty, it was commonplace to think that the State Dept. had no respect or use for the military until they fucked up. Then we were expected to be johnny-on-the spot—which was often enough to keep us busy with no-notice recalls, alerts, and deployments. The way this is happening now indicates they don't even know they have fucked up.

AllenS said...

Allie, there has been a lot of Afghans killing coalition forces this year. Not just because of this movie. Last year was bad, but this year it's worse. IIRC, last year the was 31. This year it's 50+.

AllenS said...

"the was"

Nice.

PatCA said...

Nathan,

In the worldview of the left, every unsuccessful nation is unsuccessful because they are victimized by successful nations. T/4, the Middle East and radical Islam are exempt from evaluation on their merits.

After all, all cultures are equal, so how could there be any other explanation?

The Drill SGT said...

ken in sc said...
When I was on active duty, it was commonplace to think that the State Dept. had no respect or use for the military until they fucked up


'What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?
- Albright to Powell on the Balkans


- alternately Obama to Gates on Libya :)

damikesc said...

The sound of Obama being deniably "walled-off" from any possible future embarrassment or mistakes.

The sound of the press not caring about an issue that they would've viewed as an unforgivable assault on freedom is also duly noted.

But, Ann Althouse surely does know. She knows something is happening and knows what it is. Clearly this link demonstrates everything awful and terrible about Obama. Why aren't we bombing the hell out of five different entire countries at once at this point. "Hit back twice as hard" indeed.

Why won't they just explain what the hell happened and how to avoid it?

They will not even do that.

Freedom of speech for those who would incite a Holy War!

Yeah, pretty much.

What speech should be outlawed? Should we outlaw speech offensive to Muslims? All religious people? All people?

If so --- then what good is the First Amendment?

Furious, it's disingenuous at best to say this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia Law. It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

So, when abortion doctors got shot --- they brought it on themselves by doing something so abhorrent to their murderers, right?

Why do conservatives feel this lowlife is immune to the same laws as everyone else?

Because fundamental rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution shouldn't be suspended because the government doesn't like what was done.

When the hell did the progressives decide that free speech should, basically, be done away with?

...also, can you prove that ANYBODY rioting actually watched the movie? I'm betting you cannot.

Michael said...

Garage. It does not. But surely you do not believe five cops were sent in the middle of the night to see if he was using a computer, a violation of parole? The pretexts for stifling speech are easy to find if that is where you want to go with your thinking. You did not, for instance, have a permit for your free movie last night did you? That is the sort of thing that can be used to knock on your door at midnight if, say, someone in power didnt like your politics. It is

AllieOop said...

Yes, Allen that's true, but why is it OK to give Al Queda more fuel to fan the flames? How many more recruits do you think they've got now after the hyping of this stupid movie?

This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war. I don't believe he is a Coptic Christian or a Jew, not for one second, perhaps its a good idea to question him and what his motives were and who his funders really were.

Just my opinion, I have no information to corroborate m hunch.

Hagar said...

Allie,
You sound a lot like the "respectable" Germans in the early thirties.

garage mahal said...

. But surely you do not believe five cops were sent in the middle of the night to see if he was using a computer, a violation of parole?

They were federal probation officers who questioned him. They might have wanted to know if he uploaded that movie, which would have been a violation of his parole. It's possible Obama wanted to intimidate this guy. But I would think pissed off jihadis on his ass would be a more worrying concern to his movie making career.

harrogate said...

Nathan,

You missed my point, probably on purpose. But just in case you sincerely thought I wrote in opposition to someone criticizing Obama, I'll disabuse you. If you go back and read the English words I wrote, you will see that it is a response to Ann's know-it-all tone. "Something's going on and you don't know what it is."

When in reality she doesn't know a goddamn thing about these recent events or what work our government or other governments are doing in response. It's all just a chamber of chatterers.

Know it all tone + pretense to huge inside knowledge= ridiculous.

"Why do liberal-progressives feel that this low-life religion Islam is exempt from the free speech laws that apply to every other religion?"

Set up the straw men, knock em down. You're an ace.

"Does the fact that Muslims riot and murder make their beliefs exempt from the 1st Amendment in the US?"

You live in a hysteric universe of your own making. Get out of the echo chamber.

Hagar said...

Well, Garage, they certainly are now!

garage mahal said...

The easiest way to lock this guy up and shut him up is to supervise him, and then just leave him to his own devices. It won't be long before he's in the hooskaw again.

Bank fraud felon, meth dealer, snitch, porn-maker, anti-Islam/Jewish/Mormon slanderer, liar. This is the guy the right wants to die on the hill for?

damikesc said...

Yes, Allen that's true, but why is it OK to give Al Queda more fuel to fan the flames?

They also hate the showing of skin. So, if you don't wear a burqa, then you PERSONALLY are giving them more fuel to fan the flames.

The existence of other religious texts pisses them off. Ban those. And since most secular books don't spend a lot of time praising Mohammad --- they don't like THEM either.

99% of our movies? Do away with them.

So, you favor giving Muslims a heckler's veto over your rights. Tres courageous.

This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war.

If that video was enough to "incite a holy war", then this movie couldn't be enough to cause it.

Let's say he did it for the worst possible reasons: He is STILL free to do it.

Michael Moore's movies were favorably viewed by OBL. They provided nice propaganda for him.

Doesn't mean he should've been ARRESTED.

I don't believe he is a Coptic Christian or a Jew, not for one second, perhaps its a good idea to question him and what his motives were and who his funders really were.

And for what reason? What law was broken here? He made a movie. Oh dear. Christians didn't like "Last Temptation of Christ". Doesn't mean it should've been BANNED.

As was said, you sound a lot like the reputable Germans who didn't do a ton to stop Hitler in the 1930's.

damikesc said...

Bank fraud felon, meth dealer, snitch, porn-maker, anti-Islam/Jewish/Mormon slanderer, liar. This is the guy the right wants to die on the hill for?

Can you provide what should disqualify a person from having Constitutional protections here in the US?

damikesc said...

The easiest way to lock this guy up and shut him up is to supervise him, and then just leave him to his own devices. It won't be long before he's in the hooskaw again.

So, profile him for no valid reason?

Man, I thought you guys were all about privacy.

So, free speech is something you will sacrifice. Ditto privacy.

Any other protections you wish to just throw away because some Muslims riot?

Dr Weevil said...

I'm still not hearing what I want to hear from Obama, or Romney, or anyone here, for that matter.

This is the message that needs to be delivered to the rioters and anyone who sympathizes with them - note the appropriate use of dashes and semicolons:

Dear Radical Muslims:
Who the Hell are you to demand respect for your religion when you show no respect whatsoever for anyone else's? If you hadn't spent the last 50+ years calling Christians and Hindus and (especially) Jews 'pigs', 'dogs', and 'monkeys'; if you hadn't destroyed hundreds of churches and temples and synagogues around the world, dozens of them with people in them; if you hadn't done the same to hundreds of mosques when the people in them were the wrong kind of Muslims; if you hadn't desecrated the Church of the Nativity; if you hadn't blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas; if you hadn't called tens of millions of women 'sluts' and 'whores' for not wearing bags over their heads, and acted on that slur by gang-raping hundreds of them; if you hadn't sawed off the heads of hundreds of other people for being the wrong religion or sect and then posted your snuff videos on the web - you, who complain about our movies! - for other Muslims to admire and emulate; if you hadn't blown up thousands of civilians all around the world in skyscrapers and pizza parlors and every kind of building in between; if you weren't openly fantasizing about finishing the job Hitler started; in short, if you were as inoffensive as the Amish and went off to practice your weird and reactionary religious beliefs on your own without bothering anyone else, then no one would ever have been tempted to make this pathetic movie, or those Danish cartoons, or any of the other things you constantly whine about, though you are guilty of provocations a hundred times worse.

Chef Mojo said...

@garage:

Why do conservatives feel this lowlife is immune to the same laws as everyone else?

We don't. We believe he is subject to the same laws. But more importantly, we strenuously believe he is subject to the same protection of natural rights that you and I are, as codified in the Constitution.

You, and Allie, it would seem, feel he has somehow abrogated those rights for the sin of exercising them. Which is a typical response of those on the left, in my experience.

What I advocate is equal protection under the law. What you advocate is fascism.

Does the making of an anti-Islam movie trump the conditions of his parole?

Of course, you ninny. Especially since the condition of parole has nothing to do with with the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights.

AllenS said...

Allie, these people also hate gay marriage, and an enormous amount of other issues. They want us dead. Do you understand that?

I have bad news for you. The problems we see in Egypt, Libya and other places is the success of militant Islam. Islam is on the march, and slowly, ever so slowly, they are winning.

The Drill SGT said...

garage mahal said...
. But surely you do not believe five cops were sent in the middle of the night to see if he was using a computer, a violation of parole?

They were federal probation officers who questioned him. They might have wanted to know if he uploaded that movie,


I'd be very surprised if he previously had more that a monthly 30 minute meeting with is parole officer.

If this agency has enough excess manpower to send multiple agents and at least 5 Sheriffs out to bring somebody in at midnight, both operations are overstaffed. Unless there was political influence from on-high.

then it stinks, even more...

AllieOop said...

Of COURSE I understand that Allen, I'm not defending Islamists. They are extremists and dangerous. If they attack us they deserve to be killed, by drone or by whatever means.

ISLAMISTS not Muslims across the board.

garage mahal said...

Any other protections you wish to just throw away because some Muslims riot?

What protection? He is under supervision on parole. They can come and talk to him any damn time they want. If he doesn't like the conditions of his parole he is free to go back to prison.

AllenS said...

The arrest of this movie maker is another Islamic victory.

Hagar said...

Actually, yes, Garage. All those things do not justify rousting him out at 1 o'clock in the morning with a full team of sheriff's deputies and using the media to paint a bull's eye on his back just because he has offended the State Dept. and embarrassed the White House.

The next time it could be you or me.

AllieOop said...

And Allen that is not news to me, it's very evident to anyone who knows what is going on in the rest of the world.

damikesc said...

What protection? He is under supervision on parole. They can come and talk to him any damn time they want. If he doesn't like the conditions of his parole he is free to go back to prison.

Nobody is quite as blind as those who refuse to see.

garage mahal said...

The arrest of this movie maker is another Islamic victory.

Except he wasn't arrested.

Hagar said...

According to reports elsewhere, Nakoula was "questioned" for half an hour and then let go. He walked away into the night with no one (ostensibly anyway) following after stating that no way was he going back to his house now.

AllenS said...

Taken into custody? What do you call what happened to this guy?

Hagar said...

Like George Zimmerman was "not arrested."

garage mahal said...

What do you call what happened to this guy?

Questioned and released.

Paul said...

Yea, 'questioned and released' at midnight with tons of reporters around.

True Gestapo technique.

Hagar said...

No, the Gestapo way was quite direct.
This is more sneaky.

jr565 said...

ALlie Oop wrote:
Of COURSE I understand that Allen, I'm not defending Islamists. They are extremists and dangerous. If they attack us they deserve to be killed, by drone or by whatever means.

ISLAMISTS not Muslims across the board.


They attacked our embassies. So, by your logic deserve to be killed.

jr565 said...

Dr Weevil wrote:
Dear Radical Muslims:
Who the Hell are you to demand respect for your religion when you show no respect whatsoever for anyone else's? If you hadn't spent the last 50+ years calling Christians and Hindus and (especially) Jews 'pigs', 'dogs', and 'monkeys'; if you hadn't destroyed hundreds of churches and temples and synagogues around the world, dozens of them with people in them; if you hadn't done the same to hundreds of mosques when the people in them were the wrong kind of Muslims; if you hadn't desecrated the Church of the Nativity; if you hadn't blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas; if you hadn't called tens of millions of women 'sluts' and 'whores' for not wearing bags over their heads, and acted on that slur by gang-raping hundreds of them; if you hadn't sawed off the heads of hundreds of other people for being the wrong religion or sect and then posted your snuff videos on the web - you, who complain about our movies! - for other Muslims to admire and emulate; if you hadn't blown up thousands of civilians all around the world in skyscrapers and pizza parlors and every kind of building in between; if you weren't openly fantasizing about finishing the job Hitler started; in short, if you were as inoffensive as the Amish and went off to practice your weird and reactionary religious beliefs on your own without bothering anyone else, then no one would ever have been tempted to make this pathetic movie, or those Danish cartoons, or any of the other things you constantly whine about, though you are guilty of provocations a hundred times worse.


This!

Bryan C said...

"Bank fraud felon, meth dealer, snitch, porn-maker, anti-Islam/Jewish/Mormon slanderer, liar. This is the guy the right wants to die on the hill for?"

The right didn't decide this guy was the hill to die for. The left has decided he's the hill to kill for.

Once they'd have at least made a pretense of defending his right to speech, regardless of other crimes. But that sort of talk doesn't make friends with this Adminstration, so why pretend?

But I'm sure you're right. People like this don't deserve rights. Only people who behave themselves deserve rights.

rick said...

Allie Oop said "Yes,.... but why is it OK to give Al Queda more fuel to fan the flames? How many more recruits do you think they've got now after the hyping of this stupid movie?"

Allie, you were aware this movie trailer was available for viewing back in June? Right?

It was only after some Ayatollah RocknRolla decided it was time for the next riot that it was an issue. On 9/11 .... what a coincidence.

Yep, let's lock up the movie guy.




jr565 said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
Bank fraud felon, meth dealer, snitch, porn-maker, anti-Islam/Jewish/Mormon slanderer, liar. This is the guy the right wants to die on the hill for?


Has Garage not heard the phrase:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"


And what about Larry Flynt? HE too was a pornographer and a low life.Maybe he should have been drawn and quartered for suggesting that Falwell screwed his mother in an outhouse. At the very least, other Christians should have stormed the Hustler building and killed off the staff, and then dragged their bodies through the street. Right?

rick said...

Or at least silence him. I love the left's view of our constitutional rights.

Mike Barnicle of the Morning Rino show, wanted Pastor Terry Jones charged with accessory to murder this week.

garage mahal said...

But I'm sure you're right. People like this don't deserve rights. Only people who behave themselves deserve rights.

Nobody stopped the people who made this movie from making it. Nobody is stopping the people who made this movie from talking about it. Nobody's free speech was trampled. If you admit to uploading a movie trailer that violates the terms of your parole you will probably get questioned about it though.

Bryan C said...

"Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?"

I don't care what they think, frankly. He was still engaging in free speech. The opinions of those people do not have any relevance whatsoever. We don't require their approval to decide who is allowed to exercise their right of free speech.

Alex said...

Israel will be demolished if it attacks Iran: IRGC chief

Yeah Obama is doing such a bang up job!

Bryan C said...

garage, do the words "chilling effect" have any meaning for you?

Is this how probation offenses are typically handled in your reality?

jr565 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Whippet said...

As the "discussion" here shows, it's a total waste of time talking with a leftist. They have a different set of rules for those who aren't leftists and they will lie to try and prove their point.
They have no concept of what freedom of speech is, other than how it applies to themselves...so why waste your time. Other than your own pleasure of exposing what hypocrites they are , basic reason and logic are lost on them.

jr565 said...

Allie Oop wrote:
Yes,.... but why is it OK to give Al Queda more fuel to fan the flames? How many more recruits do you think they've got now after the hyping of this stupid movie?"


Wouldnt saying Osama is dead but GM is alive not fanning the flames for Al Qaeda? You're exulting in the death of their leader? isnt the VP then responsible for fanning the flames of jihadis?
You'll note that when they put up the Al Qaeda flag they said "We are All Osama" So maybe killing Osama bin Laden was the catalyst for some of this rage. Maybe we are to blame therefore for doing what you say we should be doing (i.e. Killing extremists that attack us).
But isn't it kind of silly to try to assign blame to us when the side attacking our embassies goes on rampages over cartoons and You Tube videos? What WOULDN"T be yelling fire to these people? What wouldn't be a provocation?

Hagar said...

Or arrange to have someone else do the deed for you.

AllieOop said...

YES, for the umpteenth time now, I am well aware that it could've been a well coordinated PLANNED attack, using the movie as an excuse to incite the Muslim masses to join them, who no doubt were alerted to the movie by Islamists.

It's not JUST the movie, but the movie was used to incite Muslims ripe for the taking. Do we know anything of substance about the movie maker? Who was he aligned with? I am betting it wasn't Jews or Coptic Christians.

Alex said...

Once again Allie is trying to move heaven and earth to find some WAY to ban free speech rights.

jr565 said...

"Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?"

Why would they blame the guy who made a film and posted it on you Tube and not the people actually killing their loved ones? I mean, if merely posting a movie is enough to turn rational people into murderers, maybe they were never that rational to begin with.
Also, it really strikes me as the height of insipid vacuity that somehow Allie Oop's daughter does not recognize the fact that she is dealing with extremists. That's the whole point!

Whippet said...

God, leftists are dolts. Islamists don't like us, and anyone who doesnt believe as they do, because we exist, get it?

Whippet said...

God, leftists are dolts. Islamists don't like us, and anyone who doesnt believe as they do, because we exist, get it?

rick said...

Why doesn't the Maximum Leader send in the NASA chief? Wasn't he charged with improving US-Islamic relations? I'll bet the Ayatollah got a chuckle out of that.

AllieOop said...

Jr. Our VPs words didn't insult their PROPHET, did they? OF COURSE the movie shouldn't have driven the Muslim hordes to do what they did, it was a part of a planned attack as I have said several times now,using the movie to get Muslims around the world to be outraged and rationalize the attacks, in my opinion only.

Many Muslims are not rational about their Prophet, Christians and Jews don't kill those who insult their religiouns.

This guy knew what the outcome of his movie would be, as I said it was planned and this guy could very well be PART of that plan.

AllieOop said...

Once again Alex is being funny.

damikesc said...

It's not JUST the movie, but the movie was used to incite Muslims ripe for the taking. Do we know anything of substance about the movie maker? Who was he aligned with? I am betting it wasn't Jews or Coptic Christians.

Before your idiotic and useless question is answered, perhaps you should first answer why such info is relevant?

Alex said...

Once again I struggle to understand why victims of violence get a say on other people's free speech rights.

The 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing in there about victim's veto.

garage mahal said...

Is this how probation offenses are typically handled in your reality?

This is how parole violations are handled in the real world, yes. I've known people on probation, a probation officer can piss test or inspect your home anytime day or night. Without any violations of probation.

AllieOop said...

Dami, what a fool you are if you think those questions won't be asked, or haven't already. If you take the movie maker's word at face value you are quite dim.

Alex said...

Now Allie is correct in that localities have ordinances proscribing certain speech in public. You can't harass someone in public, you can't go yelling down the street like a madman. Those are 'public disturbance' laws. Those laws do not prevent you from exercising free speech as long as you aren't abridging other people's right to not be harassed or privacy.

I fail to see how posting a Youtube video falls into any of that.

Alex said...

Also the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is about what is reasonable behavior in response to speech. It's reasonable for people to panic if someone yells out "fire", "gunman" whatever. But it is not reasonable to riot in response to a video. So another FAIL by liberals.

AllieOop said...

Alex, OF COURSE, it's not reasonable to riot in response to a video, we all know that, no one is excusing their actions.

Alex said...

So what Allie is really saying is - "we gotta keep real quiet so we don't upset the Muslims because they're known to riot in response to videos like a bunch of fucking dumbasses".

The subtle racism of liberals on display. The subtle racism of lowered expectations.

AllieOop said...

We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to such a movie, it's reasonable to assume they would once again react negatively and given the atmosphere in the ME, it was almost certain that no good would come from posting such a video. The guy KNEW what he was doing.

Alex said...

Allie - I'm in favor of posting a 1000 such videos on Youtube and let the world see the Muslims for what they are. You on the other hand, want to keep the lid on a boiling pot which will never work. Sooner or later it blows up in your face and you curse why didn't you lift the lid sooner. Pull the bandaid, it will only hurt for a moment!

Alex said...

I suppose the Piss Christ guy also knew what he was doing.

jr565 said...

Allie Oop wrote:
Many Muslims are not rational about their Prophet, Christians and Jews don't kill those who insult their religiouns.

This guy knew what the outcome of his movie would be, as I said it was planned and this guy could very well be PART of that plan.

Why can't the prophet of Islam be insulted? Seriously. Islam routinely insults Jews as a gutter religion and Islamic Law describes jews as kafirs, less clean than dogs. Islam routinely screams "Death to America" and America is The Great Satan" routinely. The religion makes it a starting point that it is provocative towards other religions. If they can do it, why can't anyone else?

Alex said...

Allie is a racist. She is basically saying that Muslims have no impulse control and MUST riot in response to insults. She is saying that Christians and Jews have great impulse control and thus we are superior to Muslims.

AllenS said...

Really, Alex? Just what race is a Christian? How about a Muslim?

Michael said...

The "shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" argument assumes, perhaps rightly that Muslims cannot be held to ordinary standards of behavior and when confronted with something they dont approve of will commence mahem. Perhaps an announcement in the theatre of free pickled pigs feet or barbecue would have the same result. How would we know? But we suspect that we have to abide by their rules because we acknowledge they are primitive, bordering barbaric. What then to do with our sentimentalism? How best to scold them without having our heads lopped off?

In the new progressive sge provocative,edgy art is applauded and encouraged. A crucifix in a jug of piss? No problem. Christ with a hard on? Hysterical. These are the standards that the left has adopted except ewhen the offended fight back. So the limits of free speech are set by the Muslims who have no stomach for edgy. Or jews. Or lefties.

What to do but surrender? And keep quiet. So we dont offend. And who shall we silence first?

Hagar said...

She is also saying that if our government feels grossly offended and embarrassed by something one of us has done, it can spotlight that person for others also offended and not much caring about minor legal niceties to take action against.

AllieOop said...

They kill our innocent people, we don't kill theirs. BUT no they should not get away with murder, we should get out of those countries, withdraw troops, our money, our embassies and leave them to their own devices, until they prove they have a civilized country. If they attack us, we should retaliate.

Their Prophet deserves no more protection from insult than do those of other religious prophets, but WE are civilized, we don't kill in retaliation to an insult of a religious figure.

Michael said...

Allie Opp. And when we withdraw our money and troops and other aid who, pray, do you think will step into our place? China? Russia? You say you dont care? Really? Think.

rick said...

Our UN ambassador Susan Rice today on This Week: "we’re (the US) quite popular in Libya"

Absolutely clueless.

Michael said...

How about the last hallf hour of Bill Mahers splendid movie mocking religion. Mostly Christianity. But the last last half hour might get his head removed if it were shown in the right places. Is he OK, Allie? Does he KNOW what he was doing?

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...

Yes, no doubt some other country will step in. Are we the caretakers of the world, the police of the world, do we have enough money and troops to be engaged in all the countries that would do us harm?

jr565 said...

Michael wrote:
In the new progressive sge provocative,edgy art is applauded and encouraged. A crucifix in a jug of piss? No problem. Christ with a hard on? Hysterical. These are the standards that the left has adopted except ewhen the offended fight back. So the limits of free speech are set by the Muslims who have no stomach for edgy. Or jews. Or lefties.

And isn't the lesson that some should draw from this is that if you want to stop people insulting your religion by dunking a crucifix into a jar of piss that you should behead the artist?

Michael said...

Allie Opp. No, we dont have to be the policemen of the world. But when you surrender a corner to criminals do not be surprised if the new policeman teams up with the bad guys to create a more nightmarish world. Foreign policy is complicated for that reason.

Michael said...

Jr565. No, you blow up the museum with a full crowd. Plus a couple of surrounding blocks. The "artist" you leave dying in the street with his own dick in his mouth.

AllieOop said...

Yes he knows what he is doing, Michael, he is a jerk, should we put a fatwah on his head? Are we as uncivilized as many in the ME? Or are we Americans?

jr565 said...

AllieOop wrote:
They kill our innocent people, we don't kill theirs. BUT no they should not get away with murder, we should get out of those countries, withdraw troops, our money, our embassies and leave them to their own devices, until they prove they have a civilized country. If they attack us, we should retaliate.

Even in Egypt, not every one responds to an insult to their religion with murder. Wasn't, until Obama fucked it up by telling Mubarak to resign and backing the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt considered one of the more moderate muslim countries?
Your stance not only is anti freedom of speech it's anti reforming of Islam. Because who determines the face of Islam, those who would storm an embassy or those who dont at the slightest provocation?

Michael said...

AllieOpp No i think the cops should visit him in the night for those outstanding traffic tickets that might be his.

jr565 said...

AllieOop wrote:
es he knows what he is doing, Michael, he is a jerk, should we put a fatwah on his head? Are we as uncivilized as many in the ME? Or are we Americans?

Who has been arguing that? The issue is the double standard. Why is Maher not responsible for the crazies that mkight see his movie and get offended by it?

AllieOop said...

Jr.
If you think that we in the West can "reform" the face of Islam, you are living in an alternate reality. The only ones who have a sliver of a chance of reforming their own religion is Muslims themselves.

AllieOop said...

My God, do you think that sinking to their level will solve ANYTHING? It will only prove we are no better than them.

Jo said...

Seems to me the topic of this post was about defense -- you know, did the Obama administration provide adequate security at our embassies/consulates in the Middle East on the 11th anniversary of September 11. And yet most of you have let Allie and others of her/his/its ilk turn this into a discussion of the guy who made the movie. Dumb.

damikesc said...

Dami, what a fool you are if you think those questions won't be asked, or haven't already. If you take the movie maker's word at face value you are quite dim.

You still aren't answering WHY his motivations are relevant.

Let's say he did it for the worst possible reason. He is still quite allowed to do so. He did, literally, nothing wrong.

If he did it to try and incite a religious war, there is still nothing at all wrong with that.

We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to such a movie, it's reasonable to assume they would once again react negatively and given the atmosphere in the ME, it was almost certain that no good would come from posting such a video. The guy KNEW what he was doing.

So. Fucking. What?

Again, barbarians in a hellhole don't get veto rights over our rights. Perhaps we should just have Jews and Christians riot and ransack their embassies. Their propaganda is several measures more offensive --- and have been for decades.

If you think that we in the West can "reform" the face of Islam, you are living in an alternate reality. The only ones who have a sliver of a chance of reforming their own religion is Muslims themselves.

Then desperately avoiding the possibility of offending them is an epic waste of our time and energies.

My God, do you think that sinking to their level will solve ANYTHING? It will only prove we are no better than them.

Telling them to fuck off over their "indignation over this 'insult'" and a President who, just once, asks "Isn't acting like petulant children whenever somebody offends you worse for your faith than a movie nobody has seen?"

PatCA said...

I don't think Nakoula was connected with any big plot. His partner, Klein, answered the door of his home waving a gun and dressed in shorts. They're just a little off.

I know some Copts who escaped (and that's the right word) from Egypt and they operate at DefCon at all times 4 for any trivial problem, the result IMO of living as a persecuted minority in Egypt for years.

rick said...

Bill Press (liberal flame thrower): Anti-Islam Filmmakers 'As Guilty as the Terrorists' Who Killed Americans in Libya.




jeff said...

"This is the guy the right wants to die on the hill for?"

So you think the Nazi's where the guys the ACLU wanted to die on the hill for in Skokie? How DENSE you you have to be to know this isn't about a person?

Allie seems to think nothing would have happened on 9/11 without that movie. There would have been another excuse. And if we suppressed that one, there would have been another. Why do you insist on granting a hecklers veto to whatever they decide they don't like? Eventually, most will understand this was motivated by our fight against al-qaeda, not some stupid movie. I just think its astounding the mental gymnastics some put themselves thru to justify a 180 degree conclusion from what they would think if all circumstances were the same but under a (R) administration.

AllieOop said...

Jeff, no kidding. I have NOT said the movie was the sole reason we were attacked on 9/11/12, how many mre times can I say this?

Nathan Alexander said...

Are we the caretakers of the world, the police of the world, do we have enough money and troops to be engaged in all the countries that would do us harm?

Non-sequitor.

Being "caretakers of the world" is different than stopping all the countries that would do us harm.

The first step is being willing to defend yourself.

If you show you are willing to stand up, the rest of the nations avoid messing with you.

That's why we went after low-hanging fruit in Iraq.

But Obama squandered that by being feckless.

So now American lives are cheap again, because Democrats are squishy on defending US rights.

Thanks.

Nathan Alexander said...

American military lives are cheaper, too, because Democrats are too cowardly to stand up for the US Constitution.

Thanks, Democrats!

The point is to make it painful for a nation to kill Americans. Obama has made it cheap, easy, and virtually w/o cost.

Put in chess terms, who wouldn't trade a pawn for a bishop?

We used to make it clear that if you take our pawn, we'll topple your nation.

Now, just like Carter, if you take a castle (an Ambassador) we'll tell you how sorry we are for offending you and ensure that the instigator is shown doing a perp walk.

What could go wrong?

Nathan Alexander said...

I have NOT said the movie was the sole reason we were attacked on 9/11/12, how many mre times can I say this?

The first two days after the attacks, you blamed the 6 deaths on the individual making the movie.

Why do you forget your own words so easily?

Be honest, for once. Please.

You don't have to be a heartless Democrat operative. Find your integrity.

Please. For your daughter.

jr565 said...

Allieoop wrote:

Furious, it's disingenuous at best to say this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia Law. It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?


But why is making a movie about Mohammad more yelling fire in a crowded theater than saying were glad OBL is dead? Trying to read the mind of a jihadist and trying to determine what particular speech image or sound or combination is a fools game, and ultimately irrelevant. It was a mob that rioted, but a mob is made up of individuals and each person thinks independently. What if one of them when asked said "I rioted because I was carrying on the work of OBL and found bidens words to be hateful." would the argument be that we can't say bad things about OBL lest we set off jihadis?

n.n said...

Either the Secretary of Defense does not understand, or appreciate, the concept of sovereign territory or it has been redefined since Obama took office.

Synova said...

"ISLAMISTS not Muslims across the board."

Funny thing...

The way our government is reacting is as if it's Muslims across the board.

If Obama didn't believe in his heart of hearts that it was "Muslims across the board" would our policy be what it is? Would we (or you) be upset about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater if the "crowd" was not the issue?

That "crowd" is "Muslims across the board." You don't change policy or demand everyone behave differently for the odd Islamist extremist who is going to riot no matter what.

Also, the green on blue killing in Afghanistan? We haven't done anything about that and it's been going on for a while. Is Obama just sort of hoping it eases off on it's own?

What is true? It's true that an Afghan can die a "hero" killing American soldiers and officers deep within our Afghan facilities... and there will be no repercussions.

None.

EMD said...

It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

No, it's not.



Synova said...

If there's a fire, it's never wrong to yell fire in a crowded theater.

AllieOop said...

Nathan Alexander, I never blamed it solely on the movie, why do you lie? Is it necessary to lie to feel you are winning a discussion or debate, I would say that's beneath you, but I wonder.

EMD said...

This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war. I don't believe he is a Coptic Christian or a Jew, not for one second, perhaps its a good idea to question him and what his motives were and who his funders really were.

Allie, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

furious_a said...

Allie: It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

Except that we know that the embassy assaults were al Quaeda operations planned separately from any insult videos and in retaliation for drone strikes against AQ leadership.

Some Christian releases a video lampooning Mohammmed. Some jihadis release multiple videos showing bound captives being tortured, executed and mutilated. Appeasement Dhimmis say: "Look at those guys releasing provocative videos!"

We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to, among other things,..

...the mere existence of Christian Copts/Dinka/Ibo/Dayak/Maronites in their midst, and the existence of Jews anywhere.

...Western daughters being free to marry/dress/travel/associate/pursue happiness as they wish.

...defiance by non-Muslim peoples (e.g. Darfuri Christians/Animists, Israelis) against Muslim aggression and abuse, including in the case of black Africans outright chattel slavery (Mali, Sudan).

Had it up to HERE with Appeasement Dhimmis grovelling to the worst elements of The World's Touchiest Religion (tm).

EMD said...

My God, do you think that sinking to their level will solve ANYTHING? It will only prove we are no better than them.

Sinking to their level would involve storming their the Egyptian embassy and killing their ambassador.

I don't see anyone advocating this.

Synova said...

"This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war."

You know this, how?

There are any number of things his guy *may have* been trying to do, including but not limited to, using other people's dislike of Islam to make a lot of money.

In which case, it matters only to his investors that the movie sucked.

Or maybe what he was *trying* to do was warn people that there was a fire in the theater. That's entirely possible, too. Crack spends a great deal of time and effort trying to warn *us* about fires in the theater.

If you really think it's about the movie in any non-trivial amount, as in *at all*, how worried are you about what will happen when the Bin Laden movie is released?

AllieOop said...

Synova, I stated a few times it was my opinion only. We won't know the truth of the matter until this guy has been thoroughly investigated.

You all were the ones calling the sheriffs brownshirts for bringing him in for mere questioning.

furious_a said...

Allie: We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to...one other thing...

...Muslims outside the Ummah living under anything other than Shari'a law -- it is not to be borne. Our friends in Europe, with much larger and more unassimilable Muslim minorities, are learning this to their regret.

we should get out of those countries, withdraw troops, our money, our embassies and leave them to their own devices...

We already have honor killings in the US and Wahhabi imams recruiting in our prisons, their other pathologies will follow us home regardless of our presence or absence in their countries.

creeley23 said...

Allie: I posted this the other day. This woman is definitely trying to be provocative, though not to start a war in the Middle East but to affirm her right to freedom of speech and her utter loathing for Islam.

What say you?
-------------------------
Here's Ann Barnhardt doing the job Obama won't do -- standing up for American freedom.

She made a youtube of herself burning the Koran, bookmarked with strips of bacon no less. She did this April, 2011. In light of recent events she posted this declaration with links to her video.

I demand to be arrested for blasphemy. Now.

The Obama regime is going after the people who made the cheesy mohammed movie that the musloids are blaming the riots on. They are "suggesting" that YouTube "review" the content of the clip of the movie they have posted, and are also now looking to jail one of the filmmakers. In addition, the Obama propaganda arm operating as the L.A. Times has posted pictures and explicit location descriptions of the home of one of the filmmakers, clearly an effort to intimidate the filmmakers and to pass tactical intel to the muslim brotherhood - which is why you always publicize your personal info right off the bat like I did. In doing so you claim a massive tactical advantage and utterly deprive the enemy of his MAIN WEAPON, which is intimidation and fear.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you are witnessing is the establishment of the Sharia, specifically "islamic blasphemy" laws, right here in what used to be called the United States of America.

Well, I have a little something to say about all of this.

I have done what many consider to be the most hard-core, serious koran burning to date. I bookmarked the filthy damn thing with strips of raw bacon, and then I burned the satanic screed page by page after reading the demonic filth therein contained.

What many of you may not know is that very soon after my koran burning went viral, a group of Coptic Christians in Egypt translated it - every word - subtitled it in Arabic, and then posted that version on YouTube. How humbling. Please understand that there is a very good chance that some of the Copts involved in that effort have since been killed in the Christian genocide that has been raging in Egypt, and all throughout the musloid-infected world since early 2011.

AllieOop said...

Creely, the world has gone crazy, simply nuts.

AllieOop said...

The Sorry Project

Interesting, but I doubt it will help.

creeley23 said...

Creely, the world has gone crazy, simply nuts.

Allie: Your welcome to think so, and to express it, but what I'm looking for is your position on free speech.

I imagine you dislike what Ann Barnhardt has done. You may even believe it endangers your daughter. Nonetheless, Barnhardt is exercising her right to freedom of speech as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Should she be allowed to do so, even though Muslims could respond with rioting, violence and killing?

If you accept what Ann Barnhardt has done as freedom of speech, why not Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?

I consider Ann Barnhardt a brave, patriotic woman and I support her act.

EMD said...

Creely, the world has gone crazy, simply nuts.

It's always been that way.

EMD said...

We won't know the truth of the matter until this guy has been thoroughly investigated.

I fail to see the need to thoroughly investigate him UNLESS HE HAS BROKEN A U.S. LAW.

If he has, then fine, investigate that.


EMD said...

The Sorry Project

Interesting, but I doubt it will help.


The empathy is nice.

But I would rather the Libyans use their time and efforts ridding themselves of extremist factions.

EMD said...

You all were the ones calling the sheriffs brownshirts for bringing him in for mere questioning.

Okay, fine, they were tanshirts. ; )

Michael said...

Allie cant seem to get her mind around this free speech thing. They just brought him in for questioning. After all. And they havent fully investigated him.

When I was a Liberal free speech was the centerpiece of our belief. I have followed free speech and want to CONSERVE free speech. Old fashioned.

creeley23 said...

Allie cant seem to get her mind around this free speech thing.

No, she can't. There's no way around it either. Free speech that only guarantees speech we approve of is not free speech.

Nathan Alexander said...

AllieOop,
In this thread:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html

You blamed the filmmaker and/or his crappy movie for the deaths, and/or inciting violence.

It takes a certain sort of stupid evil to use a lie to accuse someone else of a lie.

Evil because you are pretending innocence in a deliberate deception.

Stupid because it is so easily revealed.

#1:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html?showComment=1347764404646#c5470865885811597578
Crappy movie guy is a hero to the right! Freedom of his speech is worth the 6 dead bodies, at the embassies and Camp Leatherneck!! Never mind that he may be in on a plot to incite the Islamic nuts?

#2:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html?showComment=1347765150103#c5248236166634906066
Oh so sorry Yashu, did I smear your hero, bad movie guy? His free speech and the blood of innocents is watering the Tree of Liberty, huh?

#3:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html?showComment=1347765994406#c2859450712112682407
You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead.

So when AllieOop claims someone is lying, it is a safe bet she is the liar. When she demands proof she said something, she should provide proof she didn't say something.

Liars don't stop lying, even after getting caught red-handed.