Eugene Volokh comment, at PJMedia, address above (see article): "Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or re"interpreting" our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law. What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). IN EXCHANGE, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory. Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b)."
I agree, (b)... It's the same principle as paying ransoms, if it's done once, then it becomes big business for criminal enterprises as they will most definitely be expecting it again and again . It is in my opinion that if we 'change' anything, especially something as fundamental as amending our rights and our Constitution because of terrorist/extremist activity, they will see it as a victory and strive for more and more said victories all the while pushing the envelop for the 'acts' to be bigger and more bold as time progresses. Similar to when any criminal commits a crime and 'gets away with it', the criminal sees it as 'winning' and therefore the activity becomes rewarding, even giving a sense of euphoric pleasure which, in turn, can literally become an 'addictive' behavior. It's a perfect example of the proverbial 'slippery slope', it's in fact the epitome of. Unfortunately, I see it being worse, it's more of a drop-off, like the face of a cliff.
Just like the picture of the jack-booted thug pulling Elian Gonzalez and his protector out of a closet at point of an assault weapon became one which neatly defined the Clintón administration, this picture neatly defines the Obamarxist adminstration, this one and also the picture of the Al-Qaeda flag flying over our embassy in Tunisia.
Fathers rights trumps Republican partisanship. Just because you disagree witht he ideals of Cuba, Dad still has a right to his son back. Or should we kidnap all children under communist parents and bring them to Disney World.
How awful, a bad thing just getting worse. Though to be truthful, if he had been respectful of anothers choice in religion, the movie never would have been made and the ambassadors never would have been killed.
Disagree here, Catie. Islam is the religion of the perpetually offended. I *refuse* to tailor my, or any one else's, freedom of speech to the bullying of a group of religious zealots, no matter how large the group.
No offense, but that's the same as saying if the Ambassador had never been born it wouldn't have happened. I agree that people should always be respectful of others, but in the real world, it's just not like that. People should use rational thinking when confronted by things they don't agree with, not violence and rage, it's simply ignorant, uncivilized and barbaric. When Larry David urinated all over a portrait of Jesus while on stage performing stand-up, I don't recall Christians taking to the streets and attacking all things Jewish worldwide and killing anyone etc. Common sense and civility with compassion for humanity and empathy, these things are absent from certain individuals and groups.
Legions probably wish I, myself, and me -- had never been thought of, let alone actually born . (In other words, I like your "No offense" sentence, especially)
Unfortunately I wasn't thinking in terms of "real world" more this shared utopic experience. If all parties had acted rationally it never would have happened. That is what I meant was sad
So how do you guys feel about missionaries? Someone invading your property, telling you, you have chosen the "wrong" religion and should choose their " right" religion?
Hello Catie, I don’t have a problem with anyone expressing their beliefs and exercising their 1st amendment rights. I do have a problem with “someone invading your property”. If I can walk away from someone whether they are espousing mysticism or bad philosophy it makes no difference to me; So long as I can, if I desire, speak out against it or move on, it is of little concern. There is a problem with people who sit idly/ silently by while people of differing beliefs are tortured, killed, and their institutions burned, then express outrage, riot, destroy property, kill in the name of their “peaceful religion” blame an entire nation over a perceived slight/ insult by one insensitive film maker, cartoonist or writer… There is no equivalency between words and violent actions. Regards, O.A.
You folks are funny. You revile the State and its current puppet, but believe in the State's fairy tale of 9/11-as-foreign-attack (upon which your worldview is built) as surely as your two-year-old believes in Santa Claus.
I'm rather an odd duck as a Truther. While I recognized that the freefall speed at which the Twin Towers came down was due to controlled demolition by explosives planted in the towers weeks before their detonation on 9/11, I recognized also that the tipping of the South Tower (also known as World Trade Two) immediately above the plane strike point was due to failure caused by both structural integrity loss beneath a great amout of floors (and therefore of mass) and intense heat.
I believe a scientific approach is best, as opposed to a sectarian one.
I wouldn't be so naive to think that every member of the government and media were briefed on intel of that kind.. But I would be bold enough to say that most all "media" (tv, magazine, newspaper etc) worldwide is owned by 3 corporations and most all corporations have agendas while the news they report and how they report it are all for sale.. And we know the FED backed governments have plenty of "truth" buying power. And in government, they have levels of classification and security, only the upper ranks of State can even have access to. I would think that they have ways of keeping secrets, the best they can anyway.
what people? the ones that died in the process? the ones killed for silence? the ones demonized, made into a patsy and imprisoned? the ones made to benefit? I don't see much coming out of any of them and if anything did, it wouldn't be seen as creditable because the ones made to benefit would surely have their character assassinated immediately (if not their person).
I don't think you're at all grasping anything I've said. I, in no way, said any US citizen that perished on that horrific day, or their families, had any knowledge or any part in anything. If that's what you think I'm saying, then this conversation was a bit above your head I'm afraid. I mean that in the least condescending way as possible, I truly mean no offense, but you're lacking any understanding of the basics of what WesleyMooch and I were talking about (and it's far too much for me to type, I've got my hands full). Edit: I want to also remind you of the fact that I answered 'yes, it's possible" .. I am not claiming that either thought process is right or wrong, I am just engaging in a reciprocating discussion about mere possibilities and thoughts on a subject.
Let me explain the logic to you. The family members of Flight 93 passengers received phone calls from the passengers that corroborated the stories of Islamic terrorists and brought about the crashing of Flight 93. This event shows what actually happened on 9/11...unless the family members are all co-conspirators or major dupes.
And those Islamic terrorists could in no way have been acting on behalf of anyone? Or 'allowed' to succeed in the way they did, by either omission of fact or mere intentional oversight? I doubt it takes much to persuade Islamic terrorists to kill Americans, especially if you allow them to call it "Jihad" and pay their families large amounts of money. And again, I feel you're missing the point altogether.
They were allowed to succeed by all the airport security workers and all the US government employees in the intelligence industries?
The fact is that any 9/11 conspiracy involves too many people either being involved and silenced or the actions of too many people being predicted and accounted for.
This has already been hashed over, if you'll bother to do the research. There's nothing I or anybody else can say that will excuse you from doing your own research -- dare I say your own thinking.
I've read the conspiracy arguments. They are evasions of reality to indulge paranoid fantasies. Scientifically, the towers fell because PLANES FLEW INTO THEM. Logically, it'd be impossible to execute a conspiracy of that magnitude. Flight 93 alone refutes all conspiracy theories.
For over 30 years, America hid plans of killing its own citizens to gain support of our citizenry for launching deadly attacks against other nations. It's not that hard to do, and it's not unprecedented.
I would say that those who believe that our government had no role in bringing down those building are the ones believing in a conspiracy theory.
I doubt Ayn Rand would have been a Truther. In some ways the most brilliant are the least able to see through the smoke and mirrors of an arguably well-executed 9/11 operation and enduring cover-up. However, whether one is Ayn Rand or a street sweeper, there is no excusing unthinking acceptance of the State's 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Consider this, JGISSD: did you know that Richard Bruce Cheney refused Secret Service protection while in office, and continued refusal to this day? Instead he uses a private praetorian guard, KBR/Halliburton. (Now, some "Randians," as you call us, will knee-jerkingly say, "Good, Cheney's not mooching my nickel for his security." I, on the other hand, see Cheney's skulking behavior as mighty suspicious).
The news articles also contain information that is verifiable by observation of multiple people, who would all have to be silenced for the conspiracy to go through.
Once again, the government can't hide scandals like Clinton's or Nixon's, but it can hide the intent to commit mass murderer against is own citizens for over 30 years?
No it didn't. The story of Bill Ayers & The Weather Underground projecting that 25 Million Americans who could not be re-educated would need to be slaughtered broke years ago.
The 'State" is a slave to the FED. The only true puppets are P'sOTUS as they are put in place by the FED, any candidate that wins the POTUS election must be willing to play ball with the FED... Or they will not be elected. Hell, look at Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, the 2 candidates that want to audit and dissolve the FED, sure is funny how they are forever left out of the spotlight.. Money 'talks' and the banking cartels that make up the FED and its cronies have plenty to 'say'.
Oh most definitely!! I was just using that as a glaring example, since most actually believe the FED and IRS are the government when in fact, they are quite the opposite! I do know what you're saying about 9/11, I have a friend that gets irate and in your face when he hears people talking and assuming it was a "foreign" act of terror. Too many things are just too coincidental for me to believe it's at all what was told to the 'people'.. I'm just not sure how deep and far the rabbit hole goes, although I most certainly do realize the depth of which this can go and it's downright frightening.
The USSA has become both .
(United Socialist States of America)
"Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or re"interpreting" our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.
What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view).
IN EXCHANGE, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will.
And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.
Would this
(a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or
(b) make them want more such victories?
My money would be on (b)."
http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/15/why-pun...
DICTATORSHIP
Islam is the religion of the perpetually offended.
I *refuse* to tailor my, or any one else's, freedom of speech to the bullying of a group of religious zealots, no matter how large the group.
I agree that people should always be respectful of others, but in the real world, it's just not like that. People should use rational thinking when confronted by things they don't agree with, not violence and rage, it's simply ignorant, uncivilized and barbaric.
When Larry David urinated all over a portrait of Jesus while on stage performing stand-up, I don't recall Christians taking to the streets and attacking all things Jewish worldwide and killing anyone etc.
Common sense and civility with compassion for humanity and empathy, these things are absent from certain individuals and groups.
(In other words, I like your "No offense" sentence, especially)
I don’t have a problem with anyone expressing their beliefs and exercising their 1st amendment rights. I do have a problem with “someone invading your property”. If I can walk away from someone whether they are espousing mysticism or bad philosophy it makes no difference to me; So long as I can, if I desire, speak out against it or move on, it is of little concern.
There is a problem with people who sit idly/ silently by while people of differing beliefs are tortured, killed, and their institutions burned, then express outrage, riot, destroy property, kill in the name of their “peaceful religion” blame an entire nation over a perceived slight/ insult by one insensitive film maker, cartoonist or writer… There is no equivalency between words and violent actions.
Regards,
O.A.
I believe a scientific approach is best, as opposed to a sectarian one.
the ones that died in the process?
the ones killed for silence?
the ones demonized, made into a patsy and imprisoned?
the ones made to benefit?
I don't see much coming out of any of them and if anything did, it wouldn't be seen as creditable because the ones made to benefit would surely have their character assassinated immediately (if not their person).
Edit: I want to also remind you of the fact that I answered 'yes, it's possible" .. I am not claiming that either thought process is right or wrong, I am just engaging in a reciprocating discussion about mere possibilities and thoughts on a subject.
The fact is that any 9/11 conspiracy involves too many people either being involved and silenced or the actions of too many people being predicted and accounted for.
I would say that those who believe that our government had no role in bringing down those building are the ones believing in a conspiracy theory.
Consider this, JGISSD: did you know that Richard Bruce Cheney refused Secret Service protection while in office, and continued refusal to this day? Instead he uses a private praetorian guard, KBR/Halliburton. (Now, some "Randians," as you call us, will knee-jerkingly say, "Good, Cheney's not mooching my nickel for his security." I, on the other hand, see Cheney's skulking behavior as mighty suspicious).
And how could their be a suit against his secret service detail in 2006 if he refused to have any? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...
The news articles also contain information that is verifiable by observation of multiple people, who would all have to be silenced for the conspiracy to go through.
http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2008/09...
http://www.cracked.com/article_18955_6-c...
Money 'talks' and the banking cartels that make up the FED and its cronies have plenty to 'say'.
I do know what you're saying about 9/11, I have a friend that gets irate and in your face when he hears people talking and assuming it was a "foreign" act of terror. Too many things are just too coincidental for me to believe it's at all what was told to the 'people'.. I'm just not sure how deep and far the rabbit hole goes, although I most certainly do realize the depth of which this can go and it's downright frightening.