Innocence Riots

Much of the Muslim world seems to recognize both the irony and counterproductivity of the recent demonstrations, riots, embassy invasions and murders, but it goes over enough Muslim heads that they happen anyway. We have our own ironically challenged people in Terry Jones and his ilk, but at least they're not storming Arab embassies and murdering diplomats.Don't have much else to say about it, I guess.--Percy

There is a great deal of pent-up rage in the Arab world at America and to a lesser extent all the western world. Certain events, such as movies, cartoons, military or political actions, etc., can trigger expressions of this rage.Upon reflection I think there's a lot to be said for secrecy and covert actions. Instead of shouting from the rooftops, "We killed bin Laden," we should be saying, "We're still searching for him. He can't hide forever." Never admitting publicly that we killed him would have meant that we would never have publicly challenged the Pakistani government for harboring him, and we would know that the Pakistani's couldn't be trusted, but they wouldn't know that we know. Yeah, a lot to be said for covert ops.So if the Arab world didn't know bin Laden was dead, or at least that we killed him, and they didn't know that we're going around with drones killing other al-Qaeda operatives, and they didn't know we were invading sovereign territory without authorization, would the expression of outrage at the Innocence trailer be as great?Or maybe we could begin behaving like a responsible world citizen? That's not to say bin Laden didn't deserve death or that the Taliban didn't need to be reined in, but will we ever learn that nothing incites hatred and screws a country up more than an invasion? We'll be paying in blood for our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan for a long time to come.--Percy

...the reluctance to deal with the reality of collateral damage. "Surgical strike" is nearly a contradiction in terms.--Percy

I think the answer to this inquiry has already been provided. The missing information is why you're responding in this way. Or if it's that you and Dronester have something going between you, please take it to PM's.--Percy

That about sums it up, though I don't share your hope that we will eventually move away from the current paradigm. Advances in technology and philosophy on atrocities and war seems only to increase their reach and scale.--Percy

The western world is so big and powerful that merely rolling over in its sleep can have a huge impact on the third world. We've been offending in the Arab world for centuries, and now with modern technology they are making their frustrations felt.Trying to identify who is at fault won't help, even if a clear balance of fault exists somewhere. We need to find better ways of dealing with the Arab world. There's no way to pretend that centuries of interference and intervention haven't happened, and violence isn't a solution because it causes more enmity. We will be paying in blood for what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades, and all the claims that we were justified or that it was necessary won't change that fact.What we need instead of invasions and drones is approaches that make friends of enemies. I don't know how we do that when the enemies are legitimate madmen like Saddam Hussein or Moamer Gaddafi or even just completely irrational governments like Iran, but if we don't figure it out then we'll be forever embroiled in Arab wars while hunkered fearfully down behind the walls of fortress America.--Percy

Unfortunately one of the realities of the world is that our actions have an impact outside our immediate sphere of influence, and pretending this reality doesn't exist does not absolve one of responsibility. It can be grating to realize that one's freedom of expression must be tempered by one's sense of responsibility due to the fact that some people are nutty and violent, but it is a reality of the world we live in. Certainly one can choose to deny any responsibility, but that doesn't impose any necessity on others to draw the same conclusion about one, and nonetheless the connection still exists.--Percy

You're correct, but I understood you to be arguing that one has no responsibility to temper one's free speech even when one knows it will incite others to violence, which by the way was not the case with the movie that is the topic of this thread.--Percy

Hi Crash,Again, you may not understand what I thought you were arguing. I thought you were arguing that there can never be any constraints on free speech, and that one is free from responsibility no matter what one says or when and where one says it.I don't think anyone here has staked out the position you're arguing against. You made some pretty extravagant claims about one bearing no responsibility for the consequences of one's speech, so naturally it has raised questions.--Percy

I think Caffeine and I are having somewhat the same problem with your position. Caffeine and I share the same position in that we don't take a black and white stance. We see the right to free speech as being necessarily tempered to circumstances, but I think we draw the line in different places.But you believe it's an unalterable right. As you once said, "People in the West have free speech - full stop." The problem with this position is that there *are* limits to free speech, the commonly offered exception being yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So as I said earlier, your absolutist position is naturally raising questions.I agree that a woman should feel safe dressing in provocative clothing, but just as one shouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, one shouldn't dress provocatively and walk into a stag party less one be mistaken for the entertainment.Let me again say that I don't think the makers of Innocence had any obligation to temper their speech. For me they didn't cross any line, but as I said, I think Caffeine and I may draw the line in different places.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Pakistan issues an invitation to protest and demonstrate by announcing a day of celebration of the prophet and then fires on demonstrators? Incredible!--Percy

Hi Crash,About the latter half of your message, I think you may be confusing my views with someone else's, or perhaps you should be looking for someone who actually holds the view you're arguing against. Whatever the case, I just want you to know that I'm not ignoring your points, I just don't feel I'm an appropriate target.It sounds like we agree that the right to free speech isn't unbounded. I originally thought you were trying to argue that it was, and that's why I responded.Even though my own view isn't all that nuanced I don't find it easy to express it clearly, but I'll try again. The movie is just a pretext or trigger for the Islamic world to express their frustration and outrage at centuries of exploitation by the west (they prefer being exploited by their own leaders ). I don't know how we fix this, but invasions and drone attacks seem to be counterproductive when examined with a long term view. In the meantime we have to recognize that the hair trigger rage we're victim to in the Arab world is rage we've fostered ourselves.--Percy

I agree. We're using our military and we're invading countries, so it's war. Even if we were just using drones and military proxies it would still be war.And that's the problem. The solution to terrorists blowing up one's buildings is not inflicting death and hardship on foreign lands. It just breeds more terrorists.So what's the answer? I don't know, but I do believe we've definitely identified a wrong answer, so wrong that doing nothing would have been better. Yes, that's right, I believe that just trying to contain Saddam and Osama would have been far better than the course we've followed over the past decade.--Percy

Officially and technically, sure, you're right. So wars with no official declaration of war are not really wars? There was no declaration of war when we invaded Iraq, what was that? Are you telling us we can't call it the Iraq War. Anyway, just tell us what Straggler-sanctioned word you want us to use when there are active hostilities but war hasn't been officially declared and we'll use it. Oh, and let Wikipedia know so they can change the title of their Iraq War article.--Percy

No, I've got Santayana. I think that's what we tried to do. As has been asked already, how's that working out? Sure it was. We didn't have to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. As has been pointed out, trying to wipe out our enemies is creating terrorists faster than we're killing them.--Percy