The right appears to be trying to cover up for the treasonous, treacherous acts of their fringies again, in this case the ones who made and tried to agitate with the youtube trash Innocence of Muslims.
From NBC.com
* Afghanistan: "Afghan police killed four American soldiers coming to their aid after a checkpoint attack Sunday, the third assault by government forces or insurgents disguised in military uniforms in as many days."
* Unrest that began in the Middle East and North Africa has now spread to 20 countries.
* This includes Hezbollah: "The head of Lebanon's Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah on Sunday called for nationwide protests over a film about the Prophet Muhammad, saying that the United States must be held accountable for creating strife between Muslims and Christians."
From NBC.com
* Afghanistan: "Afghan police killed four American soldiers coming to their aid after a checkpoint attack Sunday, the third assault by government forces or insurgents disguised in military uniforms in as many days."
* Unrest that began in the Middle East and North Africa has now spread to 20 countries.
* This includes Hezbollah: "The head of Lebanon's Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah on Sunday called for nationwide protests over a film about the Prophet Muhammad, saying that the United States must be held accountable for creating strife between Muslims and Christians."
Then we have more reality denials from the right, who casually ignore facts and objective reality when it is more convenient to them than adjusting their ideology to reality. The Obama administration did not apologize for our nation; they did not sympathize with radical Muslim extremists either, when an embassy staffer in Egypt affirmed the same thing Bush did in the previous administration, that we support freedom of religion -- that pesky 1st Amendment language, the dignity and freedom of religion which is compromised and eroded by violence and hatred and intolerance for religions to practice freely.
CNN caught the right wing nuts in one of their many dishonest representations of that stance, first asserted by Romney when he claimed the statement made by the embassy before any attack or any protest was 'sympathizing with the enemy' AFTER the attack.
It wasn't, but the fact that it was a statement of U.S. principles and values, a bi-partisan position that predates administrations in the 21st century, It appears to be another of those dog whistle statements. aimed at ginning up the disinformation that the President is Muslim (possibly a secret Muslim) that is one of the more rampant delusions on the right - one the right are GROWING, not diminishing.
In the famous observation of patriot General and former Sec. State. Colin Powell - Obama is not a Muslim, but if he were - so what?
The right has a segment of their base that promotes the factually inaccurate idea that we are a Christian nation, that we have some sort of state religion but where we don't have a preference for one denomination over another. This is a dog whistle designed to promote that badly mistaken idea held by the religious right.
So it seems a good time to point out the language of the U.S. Constitution, which the right claims to love but spits on with these notions of our country having a state religion:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Nowhere does it specify Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Christianity; it says religion, a much more general and inclusive term. Clearly founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson were well aware of other religions and treated them with respect, not as inferior or second class faiths.
That they never intended us to discriminate in electing someone to office on the basis of religion - including being Muslim if that were their faith, is clear in the original constitutional language, Article VI, paragraph 3, that preceded the clarification of the Bill of Rights.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.So clearly Romney, and now his surrogates as the GOP and Tea Partiers fall in line behind lies (oh those family values guys, apparently lies are a family value?) trying to save the ass of Romney after he made yet another gaffe and told another lie about Obama in this crisis, and the middle east generally.
Then we have the right wing nuts denying that there was a terrorist problem in the area surrounding Benghazi, when in fact Ambassador Stephens had himself identified that problem prior to becoming ambassador to Libya. This was noted more recently in a Guardian article back in May 2011:
Even more damaging were the revelations that emerged after coalition forces, operating near the Syrian border with Iraq in 2007, recovered records of about 600 foreign fighters who had entered Iraq the previous year.
Analysis of the information by the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point in the US found that of the 440 fighters whose hometowns were listed in the data, 52 were from Derna – the highest of any town or city listed.
On a per capita basis the statistic was even more remarkable. Derna's population is around 100,000, while the Saudi capital, Riyadh – which provided 51 fighters – is home to several million people.
In addition the Libyans appeared to have been especially fervent, with 85% of them listing their desired "work" as being a suicide bomber.
Residents openly acknowledge that scores of young men from Derna fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that some of those who returned are now helping the rebel cause.
"People here saw what was happening in Palestine and how America was supporting repressive regimes. So when they saw US in Iraq, a Muslim country, some people felt it was a reason for jihad," said Mohamed El-Mesori, a lecturer in power mechanics who heads the executive arm of Derna's council, which is dominated by secular figures.
So while the majority in Libya are in solidarity with the U.S., between the Bush wars and the U.S. support for a string of brutal puppet dictators in the region, including Libya, at least a faction of the citizens of Derna - a city very close to Benghazi - are anti-U.S., and align with terrorist factions, despite the U.S. help in ridding Libya of Quadaffi, and supporting the Arab spring movement in other countries that ousted dictators.
The Libyan claims that the attacks - plural - on foreign targets in Benghazi, such as our consulate and the Red Cross, are by terrorists is pretty reasonable, given this CNN article back in mid May 2012, approximately a year after the Guardian article:
Growing concern over jihadist ‘safe haven’ in eastern Libya
By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN
Diplomats and other observers in Libya say that with elections one month away, the National Transitional Council is struggling to exert control over various militia prominent in the uprising against Moammar Gadhafi. The situation is further complicated by tribal rivalries and a growing presence of Islamist militants in some areas.One source briefed by Western intelligence officials says of particular concern is the city of Derna on the Mediterranean coast some 160 miles (300 kilometers) west of the Egyptian border. The source tells CNN that hundreds of Islamist militants are present in and around the town, and there are camps where weapons and physical training are provided to militants. He said one official had described the area as "a disaster zone."
Tensions have grown between local people and the militants. Last month, a number of Derna residents went to a camp on the outskirts of the city, according to the source, and forced militants to leave.
There have been a number of car bomb explosions in Derna in recent months, apparently as rival Islamist factions compete for supremacy in the area. One is said to have targeted Abdel Hakim al Hasadi, a former member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) who spent time in Afghanistan in the 1990s. He told reporters last year he had been handed over to the Americans and sent back to Libya, where he was jailed for six years. The LIFG formally repudiated al Qaeda in 2009 and disbanded shortly afterwards.
The source said that groups sympathetic to al Qaeda as well as former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had converged on Derna – and the presence of one man was especially worrying: senior al Qaeda operative Abdul Basit Azuz. He had been sent to the area last spring by al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and now had some 300 men under his command. Azuz is operating at least one training facility and has sent some of his men to establish contact with other militant Islamist groups as far west as Brega, the source said.
Al-Zawahiri’s plan was for him to establish a "home base for al Qaeda" in Libya, the source said.
A senior counter-terrorism official told CNN that western intelligence is aware of Azuz’s presence, his recruitment and training of fighters, and believes his redeployment to Libya had the backing of al-Zawahiri.
So when the right claims the Libyans are lying, either they are once again ill informed, cherry picking the facts they accept, or acknowledge, or even risk exposing their minds to; OR, they actively are denying reality, and rejecting the obvious evidence.
We had security for our consulate, including the navy seals who died. Libya provided additional security which fought bravely to defend our people; ten of them died, and additional civilians joined the effort, including those who took the ambassador to the hospital to try to save his life.
Thousands upon thousands of Libyans turned out after this incident, to show their support and appreciation to the U.S. -- that was the result of Obama's policies, a tremendous improvement to the Bush era ignorance and folly.
It is one more example of the right being willing to jeopardize the safety and success of the nation in order to attack our president. In the case of Romney, he has failed to conduct himself in a properly presidential manner by putting the nation first ahead of his political d; in the case of his surrogates, they and Romney have demonstrated the kind of disloyalty that is unAmericane by attempting to lie and be more divisive during an attack on our country.
Mabye Michele Bachmann would like to have them all investigated?
That's all fine as long as religious people don't profess their faith too much, or in ways that offend others.
ReplyDeleteFor a Christian minister to promote a film that denounces another religion as false, for example, is not free exercise of the minister's religion but hate speech.
Only approved religions have freedom of religion. Others should be ruthlessly suppressed, denied building permits, have their tax exemptions revoked, and be sent to jail.
.
This Christian sort-of-minister has whatever freedom of religion he can properly exercise in this country.
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about him 'promoting' this film; we're talking about a very different level of involvement intended to harm others overseas.
To an extent btw, yes, only approved religions have freedom of religion in a sense. They have to conform to the requirements for tax exemption.
They can't engage in the kind of things that for example the Branch Davidians or Warren Jeffs did.
Terry Jones is on a par with those fringe fundamental wackos and with the Westboro Baptist jerks who picket military funerals; Bradlee Dean is another example of that kind of illegitimate pseudo-clergy who engages in fraudulent representations of himself and his organization for financial gain and who is a publicity whore in trying to get attention for himself.
A little background on Jones from wikipedia:
In 2002, Jones was fined $3800 by a Cologne court for using the "doctor" title when all he had was an honorary degree from an unaccredited school.[8]
According to the German Evangelical Alliance, Jones was released from the leadership of the Christliche Gemeinde Köln in 2008 due to his indefensible theological statements and his craving for attention.[9] The Gainesville Sun reported that he left the church in Germany after being accused of fraud.[2] A leader of the Cologne church said that Jones, "didn't project the biblical values and Christianity, but always made himself the center of everything." German press agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that church members said Jones ran the Cologne church like a sect leader and used psychological pressure on members, “subordinating all activities to his will.”[10] Der Spiegel reported that Jones had been ejected by Cologne church for creating "a climate of control and fear."[11][12] Following Jones' departure, the CGK closed, then reopened under new, independent, leadership.
I would also refer you to the wikipedia entry on United States Free Speech exceptions, which notes:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Incitement
The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court struck down a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]
And under the heading false statements of fact, another kind of prohibited speech:
Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[9] Additionally, some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation"—still could fall under this exception.[10][11]
And under the heading of threats:
However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[40]
I also refer you to the wikipedia entry on hate speech,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech,
Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[1][2]
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, [3][4] or other characteristic.[5]
This could easily be a case where the actions of Terry Jones, a not-particularly-ethical man apparently from his conduct, went beyond the boundaries of legal expression to attempting to directly assist in causing an outbreak of violence as the intended result, not simply personal expression.
Jones was one of several people who were contacting individuals trying to get a specific violent reaction, not just promoting this video. Stein and Sadek, apparently along with Jones, appear to have been specifically trying to get a violent reaction from Muslims by contacting reporters, and fringe radical clerics with television access specifically in Egypt for that purpose, and continued trying to do so when they were rebuffed and did not initially get anyone to 'bite' on their 'bait', to try to get radical Muslims to riot and attack. The video was around on youtube without triggering any riots for months; no one cared so they had to find fringies to try to push into rioting; they didn't 'just happen to protest' or attack our embassy in Egypt. When they couldn't get enough protsters, someone wanted that to happen badly enough to pay people - and apparently not only in Egypt. That gets into a whole 'nother level of conduct that goes beyond freedom of speech or religion too.
Jones and the group behind this crap and the group at Westboro Baptists appear to actually WANT Americans overseas to be killed, to advance their goals. When you take the step of actively trying to get people killed, as distinct from just reveling in it and exploiting it, you cross the lines above between what is and is not freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Get it yet?