Massacre, followed by libel

Cosmo

Cosmo wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

...
Yours is black or white... Mr. Nice Imam vs. Mr. Ayatollah Imam.
How about a mix:
"American immorality is nowhere near our values of virtue and righteousness; we should not allow them to shove their perverted love of money over the love of God down our throats. We need to take aim on America's influence and take back what God has graced us with by expelling it (America's influence) from our soil and from our hearts."
Then, some disenfranchised 22 year old decides to go out and blow shit up.
...
The Religious leader should not be responsible for his words... because, obviously... he was a disturbed individual, acting on his own. Carry on with your sermons, Imam... your words have no influence and you are free of any responsibility of someone else's free will.
...
Is that your point?

Eh, you're either clever with your words or don't really understand their meaning. I would argue that you don't expel "influence" from your soil, you expel people from soil. You can, however, expel influence from your heart, which is all fine and well within reason. So cosmo tries to soften that speech by adding for emphasis "(America's influence)" after the soil comment, but it's not nearly so clear that that is in fact what the Imam meant.

...
No... I am pointing out that your two examples are on the far ends of the extremes... first one being nice and polite and the other being harsh and nasty.
I'm asking YOU... what if the statements are closer towards the middle, in that grey area? What about speech that delivers harsh rhetoric with softened language and use of metaphors? Taking Aim... Shooting Back... Taking back... Regroup and Reload... Watering the Tree of Liberty with the Blood of the Patriots...
what if an islamic cleric said the words I used as an example in a sermon... and some nutcase in the audience interpreted it as a call to arms to take action?
I am saying, the cleric needs to take on some of the responsibility... you are saying he is free from any sort of responsibility.

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

The crazy thing is the same people blaming political rhetoric would defend "Cop Killer" by Ice T and the people saying the political rhetoric didn't play a part, blame music/movies/video games for violence.

...
Conversely... the ones who would vilify 'Cop Killer' and Grand Theft Auto would be defending Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh's 'Call To Arms' as 'Free Speech'.
I think it's a wash.

I thought I put both sides in my post.

...
I stand corrected... I read it to mean that people blaming Palin would defend Ice T and video games.
So, yes... i agree with you that a lot of people will defend free speech... as long as it agrees with them.

haffajappa

Maybe people jumped the gun because of the last time we heard about an attempted assassination/murder.
Glenn Beck anyone?

Not saying that anyone should have jumped the gun in this one, but its easy to see how they would. Its not like this congresswoman hasn't been targeted before. And its not like anyone hasn't taking ridiculous cry-baby babble seriously before..

polaris_x

haffajappa wrote:

Maybe people jumped the gun because of the last time we heard about an attempted assassination/murder.
Glenn Beck anyone?

Not saying that anyone should have jumped the gun in this one, but its easy to see how they would. Its not like this congresswoman hasn't been targeted before. And its not like anyone hasn't taking ridiculous cry-baby babble seriously before..

people will always jump the gun ... it's natural and will happen every time ... all i gotta say to conservatives/tea party folk who are feeling slighted is this:

9/11 --> iraq --> saddam hussein ... at least now, most people are attributing this to mental illness yet, there are still many americans who think saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11 ... so, it isn't so much the theorizations as it is ... what people think when more information comes to light ...

MotoDC

Cosmo wrote:

No... I am pointing out that your two examples are on the far ends of the extremes... first one being nice and polite and the other being harsh and nasty.

Yes, I was trying to make a point with clear examples.

Cosmo wrote:

I'm asking YOU... what if the statements are closer towards the middle, in that grey area? What about speech that delivers harsh rhetoric with softened language and use of metaphors? Taking Aim... Shooting Back... Taking back... Regroup and Reload... Watering the Tree of Liberty with the Blood of the Patriots...

I'd say context and audience are very important and, fair enough, in that respect a speaker has some responsibility to temper their words. However, I don't think you can ignore the fact that political rhetoric in the U.S. has often connotated warfare.

Further, over the past couple of hundred years, most of our internal disputes have, especially political ones, been settled peacefully. With few exceptions, we don't shoot the leaders we don't like; we tolerate them until we can vote them out in 2-6 years.

On the other hand, the Middle East (along with many other parts of the world) has been anything but stable over the past couple of hundred years. Violence has proved a much more common MO for resolving disputes.

Cosmo wrote:

what if an islamic cleric said the words I used as an example in a sermon... and some nutcase in the audience interpreted it as a call to arms to take action?
I am saying, the cleric needs to take on some of the responsibility... you are saying he is free from any sort of responsibility.

The words you chose are gray enough that it's difficult to make a judgement call without being in the head and heart of the speaker (or whoever organized the gathering). If the organizers went out of their way to gather up disenfranchised young males or males with a proven proclivity for violence, then sat them in front of this speaker, and then those words were used...then there's a much stronger argument for the speaker bearing some responsibility.

It's funny, you don't like my "example" speeches because they are too black and white, but then you expect me to make a black and white judgement about whether a speaker should be responsible for the downstream effects of their words without considering the softer, grayer science of context behind those words.

Byrnzie

MotoDC wrote:

Further, over the past couple of hundred years, most of our internal disputes have, especially political ones, been settled peacefully. With few exceptions, we don't shoot the leaders we don't like; we tolerate them until we can vote them out in 2-6 years.

Just off the top of my head:

Lincoln, Malcolm X (yes I regard him as a political leader, of sorts), MLK, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Harvey Milk...are there any more?

Seems like oftentimes they don't get as far as becoming 'leaders' per se, but get bumped off before they make it that far.

Cliffy6745

Byrnzie wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Further, over the past couple of hundred years, most of our internal disputes have, especially political ones, been settled peacefully. With few exceptions, we don't shoot the leaders we don't like; we tolerate them until we can vote them out in 2-6 years.

Just off the top of my head:

Lincoln, Malcolm X (yes I regard him as a political leader, of sorts), MLK, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Harvey Milk...are there any more?

Seems like oftentimes they don't get as far as becoming 'leaders' per se, but get bumped off before they make it that far.

Well thats just killed

Reagan, Truman and Ford all had attempts on their life as well.

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Further, over the past couple of hundred years, most of our internal disputes have, especially political ones, been settled peacefully. With few exceptions, we don't shoot the leaders we don't like; we tolerate them until we can vote them out in 2-6 years.

Just off the top of my head:

Lincoln, Malcolm X (yes I regard him as a political leader, of sorts), MLK, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Harvey Milk...are there any more?

Seems like oftentimes they don't get as far as becoming 'leaders' per se, but get bumped off before they make it that far.

Well thats just killed

Reagan, Truman and Ford all had attempts on their life as well.

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

Cliffy6745

The Juggler wrote:

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

Well, it's more than a handful. I was just talking the last 60 years or so. Add Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln and Jackson to that list. That's almost 20% of our presidents that have had assassination attempts on them.

I didn't read through everything, I was responding to the number of presidents that have been shot at. I am not trying to compare us to the Middle East or anything but having almost 20% of our leaders have attempts on their life is a bit of a problem.

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

The Middle East = approx 40 countries. The U.S.A is just one country. Maybe you could be more specific?

The Juggler

Byrnzie wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

The Middle East = approx 40 countries. The U.S.A is just one country. Maybe you could be more specific?

"Middle East (along with many other parts of the world)"

perhaps you should ask the person you replied to to be more specific.

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

Well, it's more than a handful. I was just talking the last 60 years or so. Add Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln and Jackson to that list. That's almost 20% of our presidents that have had assassination attempts on them.

I didn't read through everything, I was responding to the number of presidents that have been shot at. I am not trying to compare us to the Middle East or anything but having almost 20% of our leaders have attempts on their life is a bit of a problem.

i could be wrong, but i don't think the above poster was simply referring to lone gunman attacks on individual people's lives but how we handle political movements more peacefully in general in this country, verses other countries.

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

The Middle East = approx 40 countries. The U.S.A is just one country. Maybe you could be more specific?

"Middle East (along with many other parts of the world)"

perhaps you should ask the person you replied to to be more specific.

O.K.

'Hey! Person I replied to, can you be more specific?'

Byrnzie

The Juggler wrote:

i could be wrong, but i don't think the above poster was simply referring to lone gunman attacks on individual people's lives but how we handle political movements more peacefully in general in this country, verses other countries.

I suspect Howard Zinn would disagree.

The Juggler

Byrnzie wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

The Middle East = approx 40 countries. The U.S.A is just one country. Maybe you could be more specific?

"Middle East (along with many other parts of the world)"

perhaps you should ask the person you replied to to be more specific.

O.K.

'Hey! Person I replied to, can you be more specific?'

maybe just send him a pm.

The Juggler

Byrnzie wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

i could be wrong, but i don't think the above poster was simply referring to lone gunman attacks on individual people's lives but how we handle political movements more peacefully in general in this country, verses other countries.

I suspect Howard Zinn would disagree.

how dare you speak for howard zinn. :x

Cliffy6745

The Juggler wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

so a handful of people over 230 + years.

the guy above was comparing us to the middle east...

Well, it's more than a handful. I was just talking the last 60 years or so. Add Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln and Jackson to that list. That's almost 20% of our presidents that have had assassination attempts on them.

I didn't read through everything, I was responding to the number of presidents that have been shot at. I am not trying to compare us to the Middle East or anything but having almost 20% of our leaders have attempts on their life is a bit of a problem.

i could be wrong, but i don't think the above poster was simply referring to lone gunman attacks on individual people's lives but how we handle political movements more peacefully in general in this country, verses other countries.

Makes sense and I probably agree with that. We are certaintly not the most peaceful in terms of political movements but we are definitely not the worst. Look at Tunisia the past couple days. I just have heard this conversation come up in various places over the past few days and am suprised at the number of people who down play the amount of violence we have seen in our political landscape throughout our history.

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Well, it's more than a handful. I was just talking the last 60 years or so. Add Garfield, McKinley, Lincoln and Jackson to that list. That's almost 20% of our presidents that have had assassination attempts on them.

I didn't read through everything, I was responding to the number of presidents that have been shot at. I am not trying to compare us to the Middle East or anything but having almost 20% of our leaders have attempts on their life is a bit of a problem.

i could be wrong, but i don't think the above poster was simply referring to lone gunman attacks on individual people's lives but how we handle political movements more peacefully in general in this country, verses other countries.

Makes sense and I probably agree with that. We are certaintly not the most peaceful in terms of political movements but we are definitely not the worst. Look at Tunisia the past couple days. I just have heard this conversation come up in various places over the past few days and am suprised at the number of people who down play the amount of violence we have seen in our political landscape throughout our history.

the riots in france recently come to mind too...

Cliffy6745

The Juggler wrote:

the riots in france recently come to mind too...

And Greece and London. I don't disagree with you at all, I just don't think our landscape is as perfect and peaceful as it's often made out to be.

The Juggler

Cliffy6745 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

the riots in france recently come to mind too...

And Greece and London. I don't disagree with you at all, I just don't think our landscape is as perfect and peaceful as it is often made out to be.

totally not saying it's perfect at all...but there's plenty of examples all over the world at any given time to prove it's more peaceful. and i think that was the crux of the other poster's point.