Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The AP Solves the Mystery of the Man Behind "Innocence of Muslims"

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I really do not consider myself an expert on the American constitution, so this question is more for my own understanding.

Has the constitution become to dated, due to the founding fathers having no way to anticipate the growing variety of issues the document would need to address?



I'll be 100% honest with you and step away from what may be the "party line" today by saying something on that which I do feel to my core. IF we could step back and travel to the time of the Founders, I'd sure put a bug in their ear about some clarifications. Not changes. I very much respect the document that has guided our nation until the last decade or so. Our own leadership has moved away from it, and that is the basis for why such changes can't be something we stand for. Great, if it could have been done originally...and the law if it's done by the courts in interpreting it today.

However, to even open the door on one Amendment...ESPECIALLY the First Amendment, out of all of them, wouldn't leave any stopping point that I see. "While we're at it....." could quickly become the closing words to our Democracy once it started.




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


You lost me there.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 




We better defend everybody's "Free Speech".

How long will it be until the mob turns on you?

I don't like this dirtbag film maker any more than you.

Unfortunately, we must defend even the worst offenders.

Our "Free Speech" rights are what this Nation was founded on.


Free speech when it comes to artistic/creative expression = good.

Free speech when used to insult, offend and ridicule other people = not good.

I cant change the way you think... but can you imagine a "free speech" proponent show up at a funeral of a loved one holding insulting signs.... or yelling abuses through a microphone. Would you go out, shake their hands and celebrate this thing called free speech.... or would you walk out with a plank and knock some manners into them?

Speaking for myself, I'd use the plank.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
True. But he incited them. He should still be charged for his provocative actions.

The only people guilty in this are those who actually pulled the trigger over in Libya and Egypt. They are the ones who couldn't control themselves when someone came out with an opinion they didn't like. The person exercising his free speech is an idiot .. but he shouldn't be arrested for exercising free speech. Otherwise, we are no better than the idiots who are rioting around the world because of the film.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Lots of claims. Not much to back any of therm up.

www.veteranstoday.com...


First of all as to the “film” or whatever. As news managed to get past the “controllers,” it became obvious that the “Israeli” director never existed and the film had been financed by a group out of Las Vegas in the casino business tied directly to the Romney campaign.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I am only disappointed that somehow Associated Press is claiming to have "solved the mystery" when so many others around the world had already begun to analyze the voice over dubbed film, the curious nature of an apparently non-existent producer, and the most 'synchronous' timing of the "hoopla."

This is an exercise in social engineering. There are at this moment - I would wager - a large number of citizens in Yemen, Egypt, and many other predominantly Muslim nations which are pondering.. "Wait, what? Who said this was being 'watched all over America' on TV, and why did they make it sound like this so-called art was somehow representative of American sentiment?"

Fewer will realize they have been used.

Meanwhile those who instigate and organize the chaos and violence remain free from risk, as usual... or more disgracefully can muster the mental gymnastics to think a lie is 'justifiable' as long as they get what they want out of it.

Sadly, the conspiracy theories on this will likely turn out to be true.... I hope not... but it is the nature of those who desire to exploit ignorance to undertake this kind of act... as they have done before ... repeatedly.
edit on 13-9-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Oh and guess what, I was deeply offended by the Egyptian protestor holding the torn out star of the American flag, flashed all over the news yesterday, but I didn't see any Americans storming the Egyptian embassy.

The ambassador goes to Libya is instrumental in helping them, which I believe was a BIG mistake, for gods sake stop helping them.

And how does he get repaid?



The ambassador went to the African country where people had the most rights and benefits. Free education, almost free energy, better quality of life than a lot of places on the globe and destroyed all that for corporate and oil benefits. Qaddafi wanted to start trading oil with gold and we all know how much gold the US have...

The MSM were showing crowds of 20 000 anti Qaddafi protesting as millions of pro Qaddafi were totally censured. They did not "help" Libya.

As for you being offended by them ripping a part the american flag and not storming any embassy, what would you have done if Egypt had come to America and completely over trow every institution we have in place, replaced Obama by an Egyptian and Saudi Arabia Oligarchy and # all over your country? I do not agree with the burning and murder of any embassy or human being, but i think it is time for a lot of people here to start rationalizing.
edit on 13-9-2012 by alphaskunk because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-9-2012 by alphaskunk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 




They are the ones who couldn't control themselves when someone came out with an opinion they didn't like.


So when exactly was the word "opinion" redefined to include senseless ridicule and insults?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I remember earlier this year watching a documentry about some Euro group that made a film about birth control that criticized muslims. the guy asked 'did you received death threats? threats of violence?' and the producer said 'of course'. that really struck me--offend muslims, of course there's violence. frustrating to see this so dumbly accepted.
my question on this; who benefits? and the only ones I see benefiting are the muslim extremists that want to stir up conflict to pave the way for the 12th Imam / al-Mahdi.
edit on 13-9-2012 by works4dhs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS
Yeah everything is okay to say unless you say something about the Holocaust or Israel. Then it is anti-Semitic.



So............?

It is still being said or written irregardless. If it is or isn't truly "Anti-Semitic" that's too damn bad. Th offended Jews just have to deal with it. I'm truly amazed at many of the members responses on this topic. I've seen many inflammatory remarks, posts and statements made over the years, yet, it hasn't been really objected to only discussed, debated and or argued over.

No matter what Country a member is from, here on ATS it is considered {Rightly so} Freedom of speech*

*As long as it doesn't violate the sites T & C



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for sharing your opinion.

It sometimes does not do any good to think of "What could have been", posed by my question. I also agree that any amendent to the constitution threatens the very nature of the democracy that built the country, though i am inclined to say it is for the better that this remains the case but....is that truely so?

How can any governing body hope to appease every single person...i do not have the answer.

Thank you again



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
I live in Canada. We have free speech here...to an extent. "Inciting hatred" is considered illegal, so there are limitations as to what you can say. Had this film been made here, this "gentleman" would have been hauled up in front of the human rights commission and charged with inciting. The human rights commission in this country is as close to an Orwellian institution as you will find, accountable to no one, above the law, and capable of passing a binding sentence with no jury of peers and no appeal. Is that something you would like to see in America? Is that a preferable state of affairs to absolute free speech? The only persons responsible for these murders are the murderers. Savages. Murderers. Oh, and they certainly don't give an eff about free speech.
edit on 13-9-2012 by Orwells Ghost because: (no reason given)


I didn't know this, OG. OG, hmmm...
...sorry, 80's moment there.

Wow, so that's how it goes? You're right...dystopian comes to mind.

In the average day-to-day in Canada, I'd imagine this law may not come into play very often. However, what it does to discourage the overthrow of the goverment does the work of several armies. Or UN Peacekeepers. Your choice.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 




It definitely does not do so in this case. The savages following the death cult known as islam are completely to blame for the deaths here and should be punished as such. At a very minimum, all aid of any sort and all business dealings with the current regimes in place should end.


What about the "death cult following savages" in Saudi Arabia..who America is allied with?

Should America also end all business/diplomatic dealings with those Saudi savages? Or should they remain an exception?

I mean all of them everywhere. Does that answer your question?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

Sure, I'd be happy to. Frankly, I was a little fuzzy on more than I'm comfortable admitting before American history courses beyond the High School level. (embarrassed smile)

The 1st, we all know... Freedom of Speech, Religion, right of assembly and freedom of the press.

The 2nd, the right to bear arms, and clarified to be an individual right by the Supreme Court in 2009 by D.C. vs Heller.

The 4th is our right against unreasonable search and seizure. (From these no knock warrants to civil forfeiture laws..that's very much under attack daily)

The 5th is the right to due process (against indefinite detention), to stand trial only ONE time for a crime (Double Jeopardy) and the right to remain silent and have an attorney regardless of ability to pay, as established by the Miranda case.

The 14th is the right dealing with citizenship rights and how that was defined after the Civil War. Some of the debate around Obama revolves around the 14th amendment.

Here is a quick summary of the whole shebang. Articles,m Amendments and the like:

U.S. Constitution - A quick summary



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by whyamIhere
 




We better defend everybody's "Free Speech".

How long will it be until the mob turns on you?

I don't like this dirtbag film maker any more than you.

Unfortunately, we must defend even the worst offenders.

Our "Free Speech" rights are what this Nation was founded on.


Free speech when it comes to artistic/creative expression = good.

Free speech when used to insult, offend and ridicule other people = not good.

I cant change the way you think... but can you imagine a "free speech" proponent show up at a funeral of a loved one holding insulting signs.... or yelling abuses through a microphone. Would you go out, shake their hands and celebrate this thing called free speech.... or would you walk out with a plank and knock some manners into them?

Speaking for myself, I'd use the plank.


You said in an earlier post that you were not American.

I really do not expect you to understand our Constitution.

Or, what it is like having family members that died for these ideas.

To answer your question...yes. You see, words don't make me want to kill people.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
[

Also, do you mean to say that the concept of "free speech" allows one to mock, offend and insult anybody and anything? Even the "sensitive" issues? Please explain.
Short answer is YES. Especially "sensitive issues". It is very important to our collective freedom that people be allowed to express their ideas no matter how detestable some of them may be.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Almost any movie offends someone.

Do we now have to treat Muslims as "Special"?

No one cares if a movie is produced that may offend other religions. Why should Islam be different?

If this movie offends Muslims, then they shouldn't watch it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphaskunk

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
First Amendment people. I don't care who gets offended or how stupid they act. Stupidity on one persons part is THEIR fault...not someone else's.

It shocks me how many people are ready to violate their own rights because some uneducated group of extremists got their panties in a bunch. If you get offended, turn away, don't look, or listen.

"Those that would sacrifice liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin...

But we already know most of the sheep out there suggesting this always run to their "herder", throwing their rights at their "master's" feet and begging for protection.


That BF quote is so out of context with the issue being discussed here. It has nothing to do with security or the killing of the Ambassador. It has to do with respect and dignity, having the freedom of speech does not mean you can simply humiliate and # all over someones beliefs, Muslims, homosexuals, Christians, Buddhist etc... If you can not tolerate differences then i would be the first one to revoke the right to free speech from you.





Yo dude....I never said I agree with being rude and belligerent. I however do not intend to trample on someone else's right of free thought and expression. Your last sentence is so typical and what is broken about most people...If you don;t like what some else has to say, do or even think, you should take it away...typical.

This un-wise person chose to express themselves with "words" basically. He did not infringe upon anyone's rights, he did not say you had to listen to what he had to say. Your solution is to remove people's rights to expression and that is not going to fly...did you ever think that is exactly what the extremists actually want? To supress the things they disagree with...right or wrong?

You need to step back or step off...this country was not founded to coddle the few...it was founded for people to be free.

I do not care what you say or think.
I do not care what people do in the privacy of their own homes.
I do not care what women do with THEIR bodies.
I do not care who someone marries.
I do not care how people choose to earn a living and support themselves.
I believe in freedom and as long as your freedom does not physically or legally impede upon my freedom, I do not care how you choose to live, write, speak or act. It is none of my concern and mine is not yours.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
So now it's known that "Sam Becile" has a name, and it is also known that "Rev. Terry Jones" of Florida overtly supports and promotes this film.

Note: "Mr. Becile" met with "Rev. Jones" before the film went viral.

That's all I need to know and also Rev. Jones should be charged with Sedition and Treason...if Treason won't do then perhaps Sedition would. This is a classic-case of sedition.



Definition:
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.

See: Public Order Crime.


Wikipedia Definition of Sedition.
edit on 13-9-2012 by trekwebmaster because: Additional Information...



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Almost any movie offends someone.

Do we now have to treat Muslims as "Special"?

No one cares if a movie is produced that may offend other religions. Why should Islam be different?

If this movie offends Muslims, then they shouldn't watch it.



Do you people really think that they stormed the embassy and killed an ambassador because of a movie? I mean , wow, seriously, out of all boards and forums ATS is the last place i would expect people to be fed this stupidity and believe it.









 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join