Thread: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in attack on consulate

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

Googler - "Winning the debate" is well, up to debate also. It's a matter of perspective/opinion that can be never ending. I don't condone dissing any other's beliefs myself - but all the attacking I personally see in this country are by my own fellow Americans who are athiests. Not from others of different religions. Most of them are mean, nasty and seem to get off on making us "turn the other cheek" or at least getting in getting us angry. I've seen it my whole life, since I was a kid.

I just wish we we could:

A. Stay out of other country's biz- wax
B. Live, let live, and leave each other alone.
C. Respect that we, the human race, have to agree to disagree at times.
D. Respect each other's borders and sovereignty.

The world would be a much better place. It's so simple, yet so hard for us humans to do for some reason. All the fighting wears me out. I feel old beyond my years and there is not end in sight. I have thought of running away more as an adult than I ever did as a kid. I can understand why some people just want to drop out and disappear.

See, we have different PERSONAL experiences then. I've come across religious people who would look at you as if you're from another planet asking "Well if you don't believe in a God how can you have any morals?" or simply treating you differently or brushing you off. And then you have a presidential candidate who says a person of faith must be in office. It's things like this which may not be noticeable by non-atheists, but we do notice it.

I agree with you though that there are some fervent militant atheists out there that won't except that you believe in God and proceed to demean you. Well I say they're idiots and just like some religious people, do not represent the entire group. I'd like to see a country where people don't look down on atheists as immoral people and atheists that don't go out attacking people's religions.

Originally Posted by googler

I also agree that the film makers were stupid in releasing this film. And although I do not believe in any religion, I would never want to go out of my way to call Jesus or Mohammed child molesters or whatever insults, much less publish my opinions in such a manner knowing that millions of people (for reasons unknown to me) believe in their sacredness. But at the same time, these extremists need to realize that we have the freedom of speech and that just because a few idiots make a film does not mean our government or our citizens agree with the film maker. The protests were fine (although misdirected), but killing is never right.

I agree that the other side should realize that our entire country is not to blame and that killing isn't right.

Originally Posted by judyweller

As long as the First Amendment exists, they filmmakers have the right to make that film. We should not limit our first amendment right because of Muslims.

But it's a lie that Mohammed was gay. It's offensive enough to the radical Muslims that we are a free country which stand for women's rights not to be beat up and downtrodden by their families and society, and advocate the right of those not believing in Islam as their personal faith not to be killed by Muslims. If someone is going to make a such film, at least let them state the facts only-rather than bring unnecessary bloodshed for pure foolishness. Remember that we're not dealing with rational people here-most of them have been brainwashed since childhood to believe that America is "the great Satan" and along with Isreal, the main cause of their ill-being in the world.

It's not about our freedom of speech being threatened-it's about wisdom to think about what we say. Was that film worth the lives killed and property destroyed? I think not.

Originally Posted by sacredrage

It's not about our freedom of speech being threatened-it's about wisdom to think about what we say. Was that film worth the lives killed and property destroyed? I think not.

No it wasn't. And I'm not surprised the person behind the film is a fraud and has a criminal past.

If the film was just stating the facts about Islamic religion and the Muslims got upset, that's one thing-because it's the truth. But to tell inflammatory lies National Enquirer style concerning a brainwashed, radical and dangerous society's main religious figure-well, that's comparable to the stupidity of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there isn't one-surely somebody's likely to get killed!

I think it would be a great idea if there were a law against knowingly telling lies....oh, the trouble it would prevent....!!!

Originally Posted by sacredrage

. . . I think it would be a great idea if there were a law against knowingly telling lies....oh, the trouble it would prevent....!!!

Think what that would do to all of the FAKE NEWS articles on the internet (that are really just some blog that some guy makes up in is parents basement where he lives.)
Think what that would to to everything all of the politicians have to say.
And peoples' opinions.
We would have a lot less fake stuff to read here.

The big problem is:
WHO GET'S TO DECIDE WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT ISN'T.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Think what that would do to all of the FAKE NEWS articles on the internet (that are really just some blog that some guy makes up in is parents basement where he lives.)
Think what that would to to everything all of the politicians have to say.
And peoples' opinions.
We would have a lot less fake stuff to read here.

The big problem is:
WHO GET'S TO DECIDE WHAT IS TRUE AND WHAT ISN'T.

I suppose anything factual (not mere opinion, I mean) can be backed up with facts. And people would find something better to do than make up/entertain lies!!

• September 22, 2012, 9:13 p.m. ET

Family Protests CNN's Use of Slain Envoy's Journal


By ADAM ENTOUS and KEACH HAGEY

CNN obtained a personal journal that belonged to the slain American ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and broadcast reports based on its contents against the wishes of the Stevens family, according to relatives and State Department officials who were asked to intervene by the family.

CNN obtained the journal in Benghazi, where Mr. Stevens and three other Americans were killed in an attack by militants on the American consulate in the city on Sept. 11. It wasn't clear exactly how CNN obtained the ambassador's writings.
By finding and using Mr. Stevens's personal handwritten thoughts, CNN provoked an unusually sharp condemnation from top officials at the State Department, who called the network's conduct "disgusting."

"Not a proud moment in CNN's history," said Philippe Reines, senior adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
A CNN representative said in a statement issued late Saturday in response to the criticism that the news organization did not initially report on the existence of a journal "out of respect for the family, but we felt there were issues raised in the journal which required full reporting."

The episode marks a side drama in the aftermath of the consulate siege and highlights questions news organizations can encounter when they come across evidence also being sought by law enforcement or other government officials. Personal material important to surviving relatives represents an even more delicate dilemma.

CNN said on its website that it notified the Stevens family "within hours" that it had the journal. The Stevens family then reached out to the State Department, which arranged a telephone conference call between members of the family and CNN. In that call, the family asked the news organization to return the journal and to not publish or broadcast any of its contents, according to a Stevens family member and State Department officials.

Family members and State Department officials said CNN agreed during the Sept. 14 conference call to hold off on using the diary until the family had a chance to review its contents.

Family members said they knew Mr. Stevens kept a diary but didn't know what was in the journal obtained by CNN. The news organization initially provided the family with a transcript it prepared from the journal.

State Department officials said they then made arrangements for CNN to hand over the diary to an Italian diplomat in Benghazi. CNN says it handed over the journal to a third party acting on behalf of the family within a day of finding it.

The State Department enlisted the aid of the Italian envoy because U.S. diplomats evacuated the city after the Sept. 11 attack. The State Department said it had arranged for the Italian diplomat to safeguard the diary until it could be handed over to American officials in Tripoli, and that it would then be brought to the U.S., where the family would be able to take possession of it.

Family members and U.S. officials said they were surprised when CNN anchor Anderson Cooper appeared to use the information from the journal, attributing it to a source familiar with Mr. Stevens's thinking.

In that broadcast on Wednesday, Mr. Cooper said the ambassador was worried about security threats in Benghazi and said he believed he was on an al Qaeda hit list.

Mr. Stevens's purported concerns about his safety came as questions were raised by the Obama administration's congressional critics and others about the adequacy of security in the area.

Mr. Cooper addressed the question of the journal in his Friday evening broadcast. He disclosed the station had had the journal and that some of the information he reported on Wednesday originated from Mr. Stevens's personal writings.

"Some of that information was found in a personal journal of Ambassador Stevens in his handwriting," Mr. Cooper told viewers. "We came upon the journal through our reporting and notified the family. At their request, we returned that journal to them. We reported what we found newsworthy in the ambassador's writings."

CNN added in a statement on its website, "For CNN, the ambassador's writings served as tips about the situation in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular. CNN took the newsworthy tips and corroborated them with other sources."

The State Department disputed the CNN account.

Mr. Reines, Ms. Clinton's adviser, said: "Given the truth of how this was handled, CNN patting themselves on the back is disgusting." He said it took repeated prodding to get CNN to agree to return the journal. "When the seniormost levels of CNN were finally reached, they needed to be convinced to do the right thing."

In the statement, CNN's representative said: "We think the public had a right to know what CNN had learned from multiple sources about the fears and warnings of a terror threat before the Benghazi attack which are now raising questions about why the State Department didn't do more to protect Ambassador Stevens and other US personnel," the representative said "Perhaps the real question here is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger."

Family Protests CNN's Use of Slain Envoy's Journal - WSJ.com

Interesting take by Glenn Beck.

TheBlazeTV - The Glenn Beck Program - Libya Attack
Cover-Up