The Glade 4.0

Not at all what she said. She condemned the message and stated that she understood that some people can't understand why we allow it. That is not sympathy. Bold mine.

That view is not entirely unreasonable, if not for the burning and killing thing. In view of that, the message still comes off as weak and mealy-mouthed, and thus, sympathetic.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Which is not exactly a strong condemnation of violent protests which are calling for the United States to change its laws to make this illegal, as we saw in Egypt.

"Well, that's not a terrible idea, except it would be difficult to slide by the people who are used to a strong tradition of freedom of expression."

A strong condemnation would be "We value our freedom more than we value your, or our own, distaste, which is why such a law as your protests are calling for will never be passed. As such, killing our diplomats in an attempt to change OUR national policy will only strengthen and harden our resolve to live in the free and advanced society your region clearly is not. Only by doing so can we work to foster the tolerance and peace which neither you protestors nor the hateful individual who made the movie have achieved."

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Why do you guys favor a more unequivocal statement? Do you think that would be more effective at convincing soft Islamists (presumably nothing will convince the hardliners) to embrace US values on free speech? Would it make the hardliners less likely to attack us in the future? Is it a matter of principle - say what you believe and damn the consequences? Or is it just that you figure neither approach is going to affect the attitudes of anti-American Muslims (soft or hardline), so frack it, we might as well tell it like it is?

**** worth dying over is worth vehement defense or else why die for it?

_________________

Why would anyone not favor an unequivocal statement of the core values of liberty and freedom in defense of the rights of all people to have their voice heard - a bedrock principle of this nation?

What on earth has been happening to you RD?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Sure, but the assumption underlying Clinton's approach is that a tempered response is a better defense than vehemence would be (i.e. you get more flies with honey than vinegar). I'm wondering whether you favor a vehement response because you think it's a better means of achieving the desired end (convincing militant Muslims to embrace free speech or to at least not attack the US for it) or because you think vehemence is an end unto itself.

Because the goal, for me at least, is to actually increase the spread of liberty and freedom, not to merely make a statement about it. In short, if a softer statement will do a better job of convincing people to embrace liberty and freedom, then I favor the softer statement. If a stronger statement will work better, then I favor that. The statement itself is just a means to an end.

I wouldn't phrase it the same way as Kaffis, but the point is that it's more important to make clear to the muslim world in general that we will not tolerate violent attacks over "insults to Islam" than it is to convince moderates to embrace our values.

First, it is very important not to appear weak in that culture. Not showing weakness is more important than trying to appeal to moderates to adopt Western values.

Second, appealing to moderates and having them adopt freedom of speech is of lesser importance than having them not attack us. If they eventually do, great. In the meantime even moderates need to understand we won't tolerate violence. If the moderates are pushed to the extreme side simply by our statement that we won't tolerate attacks then they really are not that moderate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree that increasing liberty and freedom is better than just making statements about them, but its even more important to deter attacks, both upon our people and territory, and the concepts themselves. A softer statement is not automatically better, especially to a culture that values strength, apperances, and wasta.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

People's base philosophies are changed only through long constant challenge and usually it takes that to just get someone to force themselves to be open minded.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

My goal is not to spread anything. My goal is to draw a line in the sand and say that which we value, what we have suffered for, killed for and died for is inviolate. You can murder us, desecrate our symbols and rattle your collective sabers but on this line we stand and no one can push us aside.

_________________

Tempered has not and will not work with the radicals in the ME. Why show it? I know it's not "cool" to be all rah rah America any more, but we need to take hard stance with these fools. Reagan would have dropped the hammer if something like this happened on his watch. That's the kind of leadership we need. Not blame and a million apologies.

Kaffis had it right with his statement of what should have been said.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Because the radicals aren't who the message is for...

Who is it aimed for the "moderate muslim'? Finding waldo is easier then finding one of those. Either they are non existent or so cowed by their "orthodox" brethren, or even more likely so afraid for their lives (does that make them Islamaphobic?) to say a word against it.

The appologists for Islam sound just like a battered wife. "If only I did not make make them angry, it's my fault I offended them, if only I had dinner warm on the table when they got home."

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

The message is for muslims at large. It can't be specifically targeted at just some of them.

The purpose is to respond to the violence directed at us. The message is not likely to have much effect in terms of getting a completely different culture to grasp our ideas about freedom of speech. It will, however, embolden radicals if it does not make it sufficiently clear we won't tolerate this sort of thing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How about "since you choose to blame all Americans for the actions of one or a few, we'll return the favor. We're out of here because the actions of a few of your countrymen obviously represent the attitude and opinions of your whole nation. Thanks for saving us the investment in manpower and time, and of course the foreign aid you will no longer be getting. Goodbye.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

While that might feel good, the reality is that the US will be less secure and less influential in the world if we were to do that.

Because 230+ years of American soldiers dying, including right now, today, around the world for the principles in our founding document is worth more than, "Gee we don't like that you're attacking us, but I guess we sure did offend you. Sorry!"

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If we simply do it in a fit of pique, yes. However, foreign aid is handed out far more freely than it ought to be. The message that "hey, if you like getting surplus American food and buying American fighter jets, you **** well better make sure Americans are not getting killed and our embassies are not getting burned.. and while you're at it that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood aren't allowed to run things." is what we ought to be sending.

If we're handing out foriegn aid with the assumption that our influence lasts only as long as we're handing it out, then we have no influence with it anyhow. They're just taking the money and doing whatever the **** they want anyhow.

We will not be "less secure" because we inflicted consequences on those who attack us. We're always being told these people want us to leave them alone, stop being so arrogant, not invade/bomb/cruise missle them, get our noses out of their business. Ok, fine. Then maybe they don't really need our aid that badly.

It's a 2-way street. If these people want American help, and want to be considered a friendly nation, then they need to act like it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

/offtopic

Interesting to see being 'elite' becoming an insult. I always thought the vibe here and in e US on the libertarian / repub side of the fence was that success was admirable.

"Elitist" doesn't relate to success in this context. It means a self-appointed intellectual elite that hold the "correct" ideas. Whether or not that description fits Aizle or is just Nitefox taking a shot at him is another matter.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Never liked him, you can smell the neocon through the internets.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I'm still laughing at the fact that this administration believe that this film is the reason for the attacks.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill