70G Apology

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

He started singing that song in 1992. 20 years later still not a hit....Pot/Kettle

Talk about being savage......

Great. Still doesn't make any Godamn sense. My post had absolutely nothing to do with Ben Netanyahu. But carry on with your incoherence...

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

What are the wars in the MENA costing us? Money spent on peace has a better ROI.

Really? Care to provide some proof of that?

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Really? Care to provide some proof of that?

http://costofwar.com/

Not counting the dead Americans. What are you 15?

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Great. Still doesn't make any Godamn sense. My post had absolutely nothing to do with Ben Netanyahu. But carry on with your incoherence...

You are a simpleton. Nuclear war is the most savage of all types of warfare. Get some depth to assist your limited knowledge

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

http://costofwar.com/

Not counting the dead Americans. What are you 15?

I'm 43 and fully capable of answering a question put to me, as you can see. You, not so much. I asked you to provide proof that spending "money on peace" (whatever that means) is a better ROI than war. You instead provide me with a nifty little web app that allegedly calculates the cost of war. You're certainly no MENSA member, that's for sure.

BTW, still waiting for you to get back to that nifty thread you started a week or so ago. You know the one where you got all diarrhea of the mouth about cops and conveniently forgot about when asked for some input about tactical expertise.

Box o'rocks, that's you.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

Same justification used for spending billions over there in the first place.

For people who cry about how much we need to understand their perspective, it's funny that they don't seem to understand that apologizing to the violently insane is taken as a sign of weakness, and only further endangers lives by emboldening this kind of behavior.

No it's the same justification. Invasion, overthrow, occupation and nation building while fighting the Taliban wasn't going to save American lives. Killing Al Qaeda will save American lives.

We did not have to invade to fight Al Qaeda.

And after a trillion or so dollars was spent there, I don't balk at 70k for a commercial explaining "hey, the US government was not responsible Terry Jones and whoever else".

What you don't seem to understand is that apologies of that nature are not aimed at the violent, but rather the rest of the Islamic world. By doing so, we give moderates and reasonable people something to grab hold of, and seek to further alienate the violent extremists in their own society.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Killing Al Qaeda will save American lives.

We did not have to invade to fight Al Qaeda.

Well, we couldn't very well have just sent in small teams of soldiers to do that. First of all, it wouldn't have been particularly effective, second it would have been frowned upon (think Seal Team 6 and bin Laden).

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

You are a simpleton. Nuclear war is the most savage of all types of warfare. Get some depth to assist your limited knowledge

Whatever gets you through the day. Carry on, moron. Your pot/kettle response to my post speaks for itself.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

No it's the same justification. Invasion, overthrow, occupation and nation building while fighting the Taliban wasn't going to save American lives. Killing Al Qaeda will save American lives.

We did not have to invade to fight Al Qaeda.

And after a trillion or so dollars was spent there, I don't balk at 70k for a commercial explaining "hey, the US government was not responsible Terry Jones and whoever else".

What you don't seem to understand is that apologies of that nature are not aimed at the violent, but rather the rest of the Islamic world. By doing so, we give moderates and reasonable people something to grab hold of, and seek to further alienate the violent extremists in their own society.

What you don't seem to understand is that apologies are not needed, not effective, and send the message to our own people that we're embarrassed of our own freedoms.

If people elsewhere are too ignorant to understand our culture, and the fact that this video has nothing to do with the nation as a whole, that's their problem. We shouldn't have to give incentive to moderates to police their own dicks who make them all look bad and create these perceptions of Islam. We have enough of our own dicks to deal with here. You can whine about the perception of Islam as violent, or you can step up to those that are and prove it wrong.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Well, we couldn't very well have just sent in small teams of soldiers to do that. First of all, it wouldn't have been particularly effective, second it would have been frowned upon (think Seal Team 6 and bin Laden).

Intelligence locates al qaeda training camps, installations or high value targets and either cruise missiles, air power or special forces kill/capture those targets.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by JetPotato

What you don't seem to understand is that apologies are not needed, not effective, and send the message to our own people that we're embarrassed of our own freedoms.

If people elsewhere are too ignorant to understand our culture, and the fact that this video has nothing to do with the nation as a whole, that's their problem. We shouldn't have to give incentive to moderates to police their own dicks who make them all look bad and create these perceptions of Islam. We have enough of our own dicks to deal with here. You can whine about the perception of Islam as violent, or you can step up to those that are and prove it wrong.

But what does an apology, while reminding them it was not official US policy to make this movie, lose us?

[MnJetFan]

Savage was in trying to install civility into the Middle East when they still stone people to death. Civilization bypassed the Middle East when the prophet reared his ugly head!

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

But what does an apology, while reminding them it was not official US policy to make this movie, lose us?

It inherantly degrades the right to free speech, because speech the Government comes out specificly against, i.e. takes a side on, is no longer truly free.

It also is tacit support for Islam, in that the State is now siding WITH Islam and against a free speaking individual who is critical of Islam. Thats a clear breach of Church and State that would never be tolerated for other faiths by the Athiests and others.

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

Finally, it's hypocritical, because the State certainly isn't coming to the defense of those offended by say, Piss Christ, the creation of which was actually partially funded by the State itself.

But for those who see everything through the prism of their own version (or their parties) of "the greater good", none of the above matters....only what they see as the greater good. Which often cares little for small issues liek freedom or consistency or equallity under the State.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It inherantly degrades the right to free speech, because speech the Government comes out specificly against, i.e. takes a side on, is no longer truly free.

It also is tacit support for Islam, in that the State is now siding WITH Islam and against a free speaking individual who is critical of Islam. Thats a clear breach of Church and State that would never be tolerated for other faiths by the Athiests and others.

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

Finally, it's hypocritical, because the State certainly isn't coming to the defense of those offended by say, Piss Christ, the creation of which was actually partially funded by the State itself.

But for those who see everything through the prism of their own version (or their parties) of "the greater good", none of the above matters....only what they see as the greater good. Which often cares little for small issues liek freedom or consistency or equallity under the State.

[JETranger 206B]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It inherantly degrades the right to free speech, because speech the Government comes out specificly against, i.e. takes a side on, is no longer truly free.

It also is tacit support for Islam, in that the State is now siding WITH Islam and against a free speaking individual who is critical of Islam. Thats a clear breach of Church and State that would never be tolerated for other faiths by the Athiests and others.

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

Finally, it's hypocritical, because the State certainly isn't coming to the defense of those offended by say, Piss Christ, the creation of which was actually partially funded by the State itself.

But for those who see everything through the prism of their own version (or their parties) of "the greater good", none of the above matters....only what they see as the greater good. Which often cares little for small issues liek freedom or consistency or equallity under the State.

[JetPotato]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It inherantly degrades the right to free speech, because speech the Government comes out specificly against, i.e. takes a side on, is no longer truly free.

It also is tacit support for Islam, in that the State is now siding WITH Islam and against a free speaking individual who is critical of Islam. Thats a clear breach of Church and State that would never be tolerated for other faiths by the Athiests and others.

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

Finally, it's hypocritical, because the State certainly isn't coming to the defense of those offended by say, Piss Christ, the creation of which was actually partially funded by the State itself.

But for those who see everything through the prism of their own version (or their parties) of "the greater good", none of the above matters....only what they see as the greater good. Which often cares little for small issues liek freedom or consistency or equallity under the State.

This. For the love of Namath, this.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It inherantly degrades the right to free speech, because speech the Government comes out specificly against, i.e. takes a side on, is no longer truly free.

It also is tacit support for Islam, in that the State is now siding WITH Islam and against a free speaking individual who is critical of Islam. Thats a clear breach of Church and State that would never be tolerated for other faiths by the Athiests and others.

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

Finally, it's hypocritical, because the State certainly isn't coming to the defense of those offended by say, Piss Christ, the creation of which was actually partially funded by the State itself.

But for those who see everything through the prism of their own version (or their parties) of "the greater good", none of the above matters....only what they see as the greater good. Which often cares little for small issues liek freedom or consistency or equallity under the State.

You've got a good imagination.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

It inherantly degrades the right to free speech, because speech the Government comes out specificly against, i.e. takes a side on, is no longer truly free.

It also is tacit support for Islam, in that the State is now siding WITH Islam and against a free speaking individual who is critical of Islam. Thats a clear breach of Church and State that would never be tolerated for other faiths by the Athiests and others.

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

Finally, it's hypocritical, because the State certainly isn't coming to the defense of those offended by say, Piss Christ, the creation of which was actually partially funded by the State itself.

But for those who see everything through the prism of their own version (or their parties) of "the greater good", none of the above matters....only what they see as the greater good. Which often cares little for small issues liek freedom or consistency or equallity under the State.

The freedom of speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want about anything to anyone;

Although the vast majority of speech is protected under the First Amendment, there are some important exceptions, which means that certain types of speech may be restricted by the government and civil actions may be based upon them.

The main exceptions to free speech protection include:
Defamation (includes libel and slander): discussed in greater depth below.

Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.

Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.

Beyond the constitutional argument, there is an inherent arrogance in the 'we never apologize' attitude.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

The freedom of speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want about anything to anyone;

Although the vast majority of speech is protected under the First Amendment, there are some important exceptions, which means that certain types of speech may be restricted by the government and civil actions may be based upon them.

The main exceptions to free speech protection include:
Defamation (includes libel and slander): discussed in greater depth below.

Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.

Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.

You're argument is a perfect example of what I stated above:

It supports the idea that the "right" reaction when offended is to kill ands commit violence, because those who do get apologies from us for offending them and state pressure on individuals to stop offending them.

[IHATEDOLPHINS]

Originally Posted by DeanPatsFan

What's next, Eric Holder handing over the film maker for exercising his right to free speech?

Obumbles and Thunder Thighs groveling at the feet of these unwashed savages..

How f-ing embarrassing.....

Thunder Thighs gotta admit that was pretty funny