Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: George Whorewell on September 23, 2012, 04:24:06 PM
-
SOURCE: NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
Please, No More Apologies For Free Speech
By Victor Davis Hanson
September 23, 2012 7:07 P.M.
This week amid the theatrics at the United Nations, let us hope that President Obama and his lieutenants do not persist with the ongoing administration de facto apologies for the views of a crude American filmmaker, and instead try to explain to the world the singular American commitment to free expression, which always eventually proves to be a commitment to unpopular and often repelling expression.
What has been especially galling about Secretary of Clinton’s chronic hedging, and the apologies aired on Pakistani television, are—other than the abject fear of Islamists— two salient facts. One, the Middle East — not its individuals, but its official government-sponsored and subsidized television, radio, press, and film — routinely demonizes and defames Christians, Jews, and Americans in the worst sort of way. Let us be spared from the sanctimonious boilerplate, for example, from a Prime Minister Erdogan, who has presided over a surge of Turkish anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American television shows and popular films, many of them with the de facto aid of the Turkish government.
Apparently leaders of the Islamic world present a non-negotiable demand to the West that they be given a blank check for their governments to defame Jews, Christians, and Americans, but the United States must condemn any private individual who, quite apart from the knowledge of the U.S. government, does the same to Muslims. That is the issue, and anything less than an unapologetic defense of free speech is not only a betrayal of our Constitution, but a very dangerous concession that will only incite more violence in the near future. Unfortunately, Western hedging, appeasement, and apologies to theocrats and authoritarians have never won gratitude, but instead such magnanimity is seen as either weakness to be exploited or proof all along that the apologizer admits culpability and will do so again in the future — a fact well known to history’s thugs, big and small, whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Second, Muslim outrage over an amateurish trailer for a probably non-existent video coincides with an ongoing hit Broadway play ridiculing the Mormon Church, the reappearance of the once government-subsidized Piss Christ photos, and so on. When the administration apologizes for the excess of a private individual, but ignores condemnation of far more widely disseminated similar venom, some of it sponsored by the U.S. government, it is making a policy statement — we dare not tamper with free speech unless it touches upon Islam, not out of principle but because of sheer cowardice.
-
Lol. There is not even a movie!
-
where are these apologies that Repubs are bitching about
-
where are these apologies that Repubs are bitching about
[/quo
LOl. Typical.
-
where are these apologies that Repubs are bitching about
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/21/the-apology-tour-continues-obama-clinton-say-sorry-to-rioting-pakistanis/
http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/09/obamaclinton_run_70000_apology_ad_in_pakistan.html
-
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/21/the-apology-tour-continues-obama-clinton-say-sorry-to-rioting-pakistanis/
http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/09/obamaclinton_run_70000_apology_ad_in_pakistan.html
I watched the video
what part do you think you heard an apology?
-
SOURCE: NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
Please, No More Apologies For Free Speech
By Victor Davis Hanson
September 23, 2012 7:07 P.M.
This week amid the theatrics at the United Nations, let us hope that President Obama and his lieutenants do not persist with the ongoing administration de facto apologies for the views of a crude American filmmaker, and instead try to explain to the world the singular American commitment to free expression, which always eventually proves to be a commitment to unpopular and often repelling expression.
What has been especially galling about Secretary of Clinton’s chronic hedging, and the apologies aired on Pakistani television, are—other than the abject fear of Islamists— two salient facts. One, the Middle East — not its individuals, but its official government-sponsored and subsidized television, radio, press, and film — routinely demonizes and defames Christians, Jews, and Americans in the worst sort of way. Let us be spared from the sanctimonious boilerplate, for example, from a Prime Minister Erdogan, who has presided over a surge of Turkish anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American television shows and popular films, many of them with the de facto aid of the Turkish government.
Apparently leaders of the Islamic world present a non-negotiable demand to the West that they be given a blank check for their governments to defame Jews, Christians, and Americans, but the United States must condemn any private individual who, quite apart from the knowledge of the U.S. government, does the same to Muslims. That is the issue, and anything less than an unapologetic defense of free speech is not only a betrayal of our Constitution, but a very dangerous concession that will only incite more violence in the near future. Unfortunately, Western hedging, appeasement, and apologies to theocrats and authoritarians have never won gratitude, but instead such magnanimity is seen as either weakness to be exploited or proof all along that the apologizer admits culpability and will do so again in the future — a fact well known to history’s thugs, big and small, whether Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama bin Laden, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Second, Muslim outrage over an amateurish trailer for a probably non-existent video coincides with an ongoing hit Broadway play ridiculing the Mormon Church, the reappearance of the once government-subsidized Piss Christ photos, and so on. When the administration apologizes for the excess of a private individual, but ignores condemnation of far more widely disseminated similar venom, some of it sponsored by the U.S. government, it is making a policy statement — we dare not tamper with free speech unless it touches upon Islam, not out of principle but because of sheer cowardice.
Do you really expect the Obama regime to do any of this? They'd love to crush the first amendment if they could get with it.
-
where are these apologies that Repubs are bitching about
Dude - you are fucking whacked out beyond words. Obama, misery and kenyan shit be upon him, has been on a worldwide kneepad and apology tour since day 1 of his treasonous presidency
-
Dude - you are fucking whacked out beyond words. Obama, misery and kenyan shit be upon him, has been on a worldwide kneepad and apology tour since day 1 of his treasonous presidency
He's just a partisan asshole. A perfect sheeple retard. Arguably one of, if not THE, dumbest people posting on this board.
-
repeating a simple question
where is the apology ?
-
repeating a simple question
where is the apology ?
The apology is explaining anything at all. We don't need to state that those beliefs aren't the greater beliefs of our entire nation. Shit, we don't owe them shit. I say hand all of their ambassadors their passports and tell them to get the fuck out. I'd tell all US citizens living abroad, do so at your own risk, and reign in our influence abroad, in essence become isolationists. If, after this, they fuck around and blow up shit in America, we fucking carpet bomb that place until it makes what we did to Dresden and Nagasaki look like a firecracker.
-
The apology is explaining anything at all. We don't need to state that those beliefs aren't the greater beliefs of our entire nation. Shit, we don't owe them shit. I say hand all of their ambassadors their passports and tell them to get the fuck out. I'd tell all US citizens living abroad, do so at your own risk, and reign in our influence abroad, in essence become isolationists. If, after this, they fuck around and blow up shit in America, we fucking carpet bomb that place until it makes what we did to Dresden and Nagasaki look like a firecracker.
;D
Your post was very amusing. Did I just apologize?
-
The apology is explaining anything at all. We don't need to state that those beliefs aren't the greater beliefs of our entire nation. Shit, we don't owe them shit. I say hand all of their ambassadors their passports and tell them to get the fuck out. I'd tell all US citizens living abroad, do so at your own risk, and reign in our influence abroad, in essence become isolationists. If, after this, they fuck around and blow up shit in America, we fucking carpet bomb that place until it makes what we did to Dresden and Nagasaki look like a firecracker.
Ill spell it out to you. As a President/Government official you have responsibility for the country and its citizens at home and abroad. It doesnt stop at your trailor park. Hope this helps.
-
Ill spell it out to you. As a President/Government official you have responsibility for the country and its citizens at home and abroad. It doesnt stop at your trailor park. Hope this helps.
Lol at trailer park you tool. Like I said, there is no need to explain anything to those people, but I do say you are correct about having a responsibility to our citizens abroad, but it only needs to be to ducats them on the dangers of being in those third world shitholes. Other than that, they're on their own if they choose o be in a warzone/unfriendly area. I went to Italy and Germany last year for my honeymoon because they are safe places and Americans are tolerated. I wanted to go to Turkey this year, but won't because I know there is going to be major blowback in Islamic countries. I don't know why you type of people think that our values and freedom of speech apply to the rest of the world. Quit living in your vaacum, it's a fucked up place out there.
-
Lol at trailer park you tool. Like I said, there is no need to explain anything to those people, but I do say you are correct about having a responsibility to our citizens abroad, but it only needs to be to ducats them on the dangers of being in those third world shitholes. Other than that, they're on their own if they choose o be in a warzone/unfriendly area. I went to Italy and Germany last year for my honeymoon because they are safe places and Americans are tolerated. I wanted to go to Turkey this year, but won't because I know there is going to be major blowback in Islamic countries. I don't know why you type of people think that our values and freedom of speech apply to the rest of the world. Quit living in your vaacum, it's a fucked up place out there.
The middle East sure is a shithole thats for sure.
-
He's just a partisan asshole. A perfect sheeple retard. Arguably one of, if not THE, dumbest people posting on this board.
This shit is just hilarious..
-
This shit is just hilarious..
It is - Obama and Hillary lying and apologizing on the world stage in their world kneepad tour is a laugh riot all around.
-
That nutbag Ahmadinejad is in New York and just denounced the film trailer
From the standards set by braindead Repubs we can now include him as apologizing for the film as well
-
That nutbag Ahmadinejad is in New York and just denounced the film trailer
From the standards set by braindead Repubs we can now include him as apologizing for the film as well
No - we can say Obama Hillary and machmud are BFF's.
-
No - we can say Obama Hillary and machmud are BFF's.
you might as well
it makes no more sense then anything else you've said in this thread or most any other one
-
you might as well
it makes no more sense then anything else you've said in this thread or most any other one
Can you please post the actual movie here please?
-
Can you please post the actual movie here please?
???
what does that have to do with the ridiculous statements you just made
-
???
what does that have to do with the ridiculous statements you just made
You mean the lies by obama over a movie that might not even exist asshole?
Post the movie please.
-
This shit is just hilarious..
Mr. Obama Ron Paul supporter to the rescue.
-
You mean the lies by obama over a movie that might not even exist asshole?
Post the movie please.
what were Obama's lies?
wasn't it only a trailer to a movie that's got these muslim fundies burning down their own towns ?
-
what were Obama's lies?
wasn't it only a trailer to a movie that's got these muslim fundies burning down their own towns ?
The movie had NOTHING to do with anything.
It was the anniversary of 9/11/2012 remember asshole? Oh thats' right to the anti-american left 9/11 never happened.
-
The movie had NOTHING to do with anything.
It was the anniversary of 9/11/2012 remember asshole? Oh thats' right to the anti-american left 9/11 never happened.
You're talking about Cairo and maybe Libya but there have been other protests and rioting in other countries too
There have also been allegations that protestors in Cairo were actually paid by the govt to show up
Definitely beyond idiotic to get so worked up over any perceived insult to ones religion
The fundie idiots who run Pakistan actually had a national holiday last friday so that their retarded citizens could burn down their own f'ng towns and kill their fellow citizens
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?_r=0
-
You're talking about Cairo and maybe Libya but there have been other protests and rioting in other countries too
There have also been allegations that protestors in Cairo were actually paid by the govt to show up
Definitely beyond idiotic to get so worked up over any perceived insult to ones religion
The fundie idiots who run Pakistan actually had a national holiday last friday so that their retarded citizens could burn down their own f'ng towns and kill their fellow citizens
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/world/asia/protests-in-pakistan-over-anti-islam-film.html?_r=0
STFU - even Obama admn admitted that it was an act of terrorism.
The movie ruse by obama was to deflect from his failed policies.
Only a delusional partisan left wing c unt rag like yourself believes obama on this. Even many dems openly are saying obama lied.
-
STFU - even Obama admn admitted that it was an act of terrorism.
The movie ruse by obama was to deflect from his failed policies.
Only a delusional partisan left wing c unt rag like yourself believes obama on this. Even many dems openly are saying obama lied.
IT = murders of Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans ?
no shit
when did I say otherwise.
-
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative
by Eli Lake Sep 21, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Sources say the attack on the Libyan ambassador was pre-meditated, with the possible collaboration of a Libyan politician. Eli Lake on the continuing collapse of the official U.S. line.
Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.
In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., marking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed this week in Benghazi, Libya. (Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo)
In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”
Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)
But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.
What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance. (Plenty of Libyans, of course, did try to protect the consulate. “Many of those Libyans died in the gunfight fighting off the attackers,” one of the officials said. “But there were some bad apples there as well.”)
President Obama addresses the attacks in Libya.
“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official.
On the other hand, a U.S. intelligence official stressed that it was still early days for the investigation. “It is important to accept that with events like this it takes time to figure out what happened and determine which data points are relevant and accurate,” this intelligence official said. “That process is happening right now.” The National Security Council declined comment, and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
One other aspect of the administration’s story appears shaky as well. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice responded to allegations that there wasn’t enough security at the embassy by saying, “Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.”
Rice was referring to two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died during the violence.
But two former special operators and a former intelligence officer, two of whom had worked with Doherty, told The Daily Beast that Doherty and Woods’s job was not to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. That job falls to Regional Security Officers or RSOs. During the fighting, some RSOs who were supposed to protect the ambassador apparently became separated from him.
“Glen died for Tyrone and Tyrone died for Glen,” one of the former special operators told The Daily Beast. “They fought bravely, but they did not die protecting the ambassador.”
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
_________________
Yet team dildo still buys into the false obama bs on this.
Typical of the leftist tampons.
-
Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative
by Eli Lake Sep 21, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Sources say the attack on the Libyan ambassador was pre-meditated, with the possible collaboration of a Libyan politician. Eli Lake on the continuing collapse of the official U.S. line.
Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.
In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., marking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed this week in Benghazi, Libya. (Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo)
In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”
Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)
But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.
What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance. (Plenty of Libyans, of course, did try to protect the consulate. “Many of those Libyans died in the gunfight fighting off the attackers,” one of the officials said. “But there were some bad apples there as well.”)
President Obama addresses the attacks in Libya.
“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official.
On the other hand, a U.S. intelligence official stressed that it was still early days for the investigation. “It is important to accept that with events like this it takes time to figure out what happened and determine which data points are relevant and accurate,” this intelligence official said. “That process is happening right now.” The National Security Council declined comment, and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
One other aspect of the administration’s story appears shaky as well. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice responded to allegations that there wasn’t enough security at the embassy by saying, “Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.”
Rice was referring to two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died during the violence.
But two former special operators and a former intelligence officer, two of whom had worked with Doherty, told The Daily Beast that Doherty and Woods’s job was not to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. That job falls to Regional Security Officers or RSOs. During the fighting, some RSOs who were supposed to protect the ambassador apparently became separated from him.
“Glen died for Tyrone and Tyrone died for Glen,” one of the former special operators told The Daily Beast. “They fought bravely, but they did not die protecting the ambassador.”
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
_________________
Yet team dildo still buys into the false obama bs on this.
Typical of the leftist tampons.
why do you keep repeating stuff that no one ever said
the murder of Stevens was thought to be a terrorist attack from almost the very beginning
-
Why the Left Protects Islam
Townhall.com ^ | July 2017 | Ben Shapiro
Posted on 7/26/2017, 7:10:58 AM by Kaslin
Richard Dawkins is no friend to conservatives. The atheist author has spent much of his life deriding Judaism and Christianity. He once stated, "An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf." Dawkins says that even moderate religious people "make the world safe for extremists." He's far to the left on politics: He's pro-abortion rights, and a supporter of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in Britain.
But he's also smart enough to recognize that radical Islam is a greater threat to human life than Christianity or Judaism. He explains: "I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. ... Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism."
Such language makes him a pariah among leftists.
This week, Dawkins was scheduled to speak at an event with KPFA radio in Berkeley, California. All went swimmingly -- until leftists realized that Dawkins had said some untoward things about Islam. The station then canceled the event, citing his "abusive speech." It explained: "We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn't know he had offended and hurt -- in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people. KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech."
This is no shock. The same left that barred Dawkins from his Berkeley event cheered this week while Palestinian Arabs rioted over metal detectors at the Temple Mount. Those leftists proclaim that the true obstacle to peace in the Middle East isn't Palestinian Arab violence -- it isn't Palestinians who stab Israeli Druz officers on the Temple Mount; or the Palestinians who invade homes and slaughter old men and women; or the Palestinians in government who cheer, honor and financially support such behavior. No, the problem is the Jews.
The same left that blames metal detectors for murderous assaults and Richard Dawkins for offending Islam makes excuses for radical Muslim and Women's March on Washington organizer Linda Sarsour, who has called for certain apostate Muslims to have their genitals removed, says that Zionists cannot be feminists and stands up for terrorists and terror supporters.
Why does the left seek to support radical Islam so ardently? Because the left believes that the quickest way to destroy Western civilization is no longer class warfare but multicultural warfare: Simply ally with groups that hate the prevailing system and work with them to take it down. Then, the left will build on the ashes of the old system. In this view, Dawkins is an opponent -- how can the left recruit Muslims to fight the system if Dawkins is busy alienating them? They support the Palestinian terror regime -- how can that colonialist outpost, Israel, be defeated without a little blood? They applaud Sarsour -- she's an ally, so she must be backed.
Alliance with nefarious forces calls your own morality into question. KPFA has a lot more to answer for than Dawkins. But the left will never have to answer such questions so long as it focuses in on its common enemy: a supposedly conservative establishment that must be fought with any tool at its disposal.
-
Again, Muslims are, by and large, non-White, so Lefties will always excuse them no matter what they say and do.