These are the criminals that caused 4 people to die

By the way, there have been plenty of protests in the ME over US drone attacks, but none has killed a US ambassador yet (well, there could be a relation there).

Many more innocent people have been killed by US drones than have been killed [supposedly] by that movie.

Just earlier this month there was a protest over one drone that killed 13 women and children. This article says over 300 have been killed by drones in Yemen alone just this year.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/260733.html

And I've read that recent drone attacks, including one that killed a high level Al-Qaeda figure, may of contributed in sparking the recent violent protests as well.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/world/312586/al-qaeda-calls-for-more-revenge

So again I ask those of you so outraged about the makers of the movie if you share that outrage over Obama's (and earlier Bush's) drone attacks?

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

plaidvillain wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote: I agree, but the people that made the movie and the people that burned the books were within their rights to do that. The people that killed other people didn't have the right to do that.

And I agree with you, but I also understand that we feel that way due to the values of our society. Their society is different...right, wrong, better, worse, good, bad, all as we see it doesn't necessarilly matter, and to insist it does is a bit naive. I can't force my value system on other people. In that culture, the insults towards their prophet are on par with a physical attack. I don't think that's right, but I don't make their rules. The people who made the film knew the insults would be equated to a physical attack, and they provoked the reaction on purpose...that's pretty disgusting to me. I'll defend their right to be disgusting, but I can still be disgusted by their expression of that right.

Speaking of a physical attack, how about when we shoot missles at them from drones? Wouldn't you think that would upset them a bit more than a movie? If the movie is disgusting, how about killing people by drones (both guilty and innocent)?

Perhaps they don't revere human life as much as they do their religion and Muhammad.

Apparently not. But we have to respect that nonsense?

We should certainly be aware of that "nonsense". The world gets smaller all the time, we cannot ignore what happens in other parts of the world, or act like what we do here in America doesn't have repercussions in other countries. I'm not at all suggesting that Americans let other nations, religions, ideologies, etc influence who we are......only that we stop pretending that actions we take don't have consequences elsewhere. There may be no laws against a person going into the woods and provoking a grizzly bear....but really, if you know that action could get you or someone else killed, do you still do it just because no one is stopping you?

Democracy4Sale wrote: You could... (And probably will...) The difference is I don't care.

No, I won't because I know that words on a forum are a whole lot easier to ignore that lead flying in my direction. I can make that distinction, it's you that's having a problem with it.

I'm not having any problem at all... I see religious wackos doing it to each other over which flavor of superstition the other believes all the time. And I believe that any sociopath that does something with the specific intent of riling up the other side--even if it is "protected speech" on our side--is a slimebag, no matter how you slice it.

Democracy4Sale wrote: And I believe that any sociopath that does something with the specific intent of riling up the other side--even if it is "protected speech" on our side--is a slimebag, no matter how you slice it.

Yet you do it all the time.

I've spoken out against drone strikes from the first I heard of them, Pine. There's something about 'remote controlled warfare' that seems deeply damaging to a nation's karma, and identity. Certainly it's incredible to not put American soldiers in the line of fire, but completely depersonalized robotic assassins seems highly unethical to me. This remote occupation and invasionn must be breeding greater resentment towards our nation, adding ranks to the extremists. Can we force others to bend to our will through such technological intimidation? Is that truly a tactic that provides an end game that doesn't involve full out religion divided war?

plaidvillain wrote: I've spoken out against drone strikes from the first I heard of them, Pine. There's something about 'remote controlled warfare' that seems deeply damaging to a nation's karma, and identity. Certainly it's incredible to not put American soldiers in the line of fire, but completely depersonalized robotic assassins seems highly unethical to me. This remote occupation and invasionn must be breeding greater resentment towards our nation, adding ranks to the extremists. Can we force others to bend to our will through such technological intimidation? Is that truly a tactic that provides an end game that doesn't involve full out religion divided war?

OK, I accept that. But you were so angry about the movie makers, are you equally angry about Obama for the drone strikes? The drone strikes have killed more innocent people so far compared to the recent violence which we really aren't clear about all the reasons it comes from (seems drone strikes are part of it based on my link). So it seems to me a vote for Obama is like a vote for the movie makers using your reasoning.

plaidvillain wrote: I've spoken out against drone strikes from the first I heard of them, Pine. There's something about 'remote controlled warfare' that seems deeply damaging to a nation's karma, and identity. Certainly it's incredible to not put American soldiers in the line of fire, but completely depersonalized robotic assassins seems highly unethical to me. This remote occupation and invasionn must be breeding greater resentment towards our nation, adding ranks to the extremists. Can we force others to bend to our will through such technological intimidation? Is that truly a tactic that provides an end game that doesn't involve full out religion divided war?

I am with you on this and civilians are still dying. There is something just not right about it.

Blazer Bob wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: And I believe that any sociopath that does something with the specific intent of riling up the other side--even if it is "protected speech" on our side--is a slimebag, no matter how you slice it.

Yet you do it all the time.

Since you conveniently edited out the part about "religious wackos", I call bullsh*t on your comment...

But thanks for playing...

Since irreligious whackos can be just as sociopathic as religious ones, the comment retains its validity.