Hacker News Reader

Comment by powertower | Hacker News Reader

> ostensibly because of this video

That video had nothing to do with anyone being killed. It was an excuse used by the mob to justify their desire for murder and violence, so they would not appear as complete savages.

I've watched that video, and the worst I can describe it is with words: "silly" and "amateurish". It wouldn’t even pass the litmus test for the type of speech that incites violence.

It’s clear that those people were egger and willing to kill Americans and Westerners long before this video was made.

> so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask

It's completely unreasonable to ask the American people to throw out parts of the Constitution to try to appease clearly incompatible religious and juvenile groups half a world away.

View on HN

You're getting into dangerously ignorant territory with those words, and you haven't even done your research. Stop. That has no place here.

The protest, by some accounts, was for the most part not violent. The violence that did happen was a planned and targeted action perpetrated by a highly trained militia exploiting the cover of the protests.

Reinforcements were delayed intentionally, and the second attack clearly accounted for the contingency of a saferoom escape by smoking them out. Indeed, several hours before the attack occurred, it's possible that the area was being scoped out, and pictures taken.

Furthermore, the group that is apparently responsible has been identified, and is being pursued.

If you want to know more, the middle-eastern thread at SomethingAwful is tracking developments.

I'm not sure why the parent is being downvoted, but it's consistent with the intelligence that's been released.

weird that this is greyed out, since it seems to match all the source my fb friends and i have found:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/09/13/libya-attacks-a-wake-up-...

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/romney-jumps-the-shark-libya...

http://www.libyaherald.com/?p=14332

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0912/Libya-attack-...

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/libya-fast-team/

You're talking about 1 small part, of a much larger picture. The protests are still going on strong and spreading, and while they might have been started by 1 specific covert agenda, they are now being driven by anti-American and anti-Western sentiment, which appears to be deep seated.

While there is plenty of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, and it relates to protests, I'm not sure that has so much to do with the destruction of the embassy and the murder of the Libyans and Americans there.

I don't think that the President being seen to support deliberate antagonism of deep religious prejudices (by parties interested in more and worse war) will help.

You don't see the President publicly supporting strident anti-semitism or holocaust denialism or racism or eugenics, either - though those are taboos for western society more than for predominantly Muslim societies; consider how much Ahmedinejad's casual holocaust denial has done to maintain anger about Iran in the West.

> It's completely unreasonable to ask the American people to throw out parts of the Constitution to try to appease clearly incompatible religious and juvenile groups half a world away.

This is crazy hyperbole. Can you please explain how the Administration's request (not demand) to take down the video is even remotely similar to your description?

That's how the government has been phrasing it so far in their responses...

The first sentence of which has been that the "Innocence of Muslims" video is some type of an abomination (rather than a silly movie), and we should all try not to offend Islam.

Then they end that paragraph with "...but wait, almost forgot, we don't condone the violence either.".

And CNN is doing the same thing with their reporting... Constantly blaming or interjecting the video; one step away from suggesting that the "protesters" are the real victims here.

It's clear there is going to be some type of a discussion about freedom of speech soon and that we Americans have too much of it. That, and the maker of the movie will most likely face prosecution.

Yes, everyone should try to not offend people. I think that much is obvious. There also, obviously, shouldn't be legal consequences for offending someone.

It seems to me like the protests are mostly peaceful – and as such, there is nothing wrong with them and freedom of speech really has nothing to do with them.

My understanding of how mobs work might be wrong, but I think it cannot be that that mob used it as an excuse. It could be the case that there was a political/religious leader who used the video as an excuse as masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone.

> ...masses are not eager and willing to kill anyone.

    Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob 
    on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get 
    out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? ...Voice or no 
    voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being 
    attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and 
    exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    ― Herman Goering

Many think that you can make the masses eager to kill.

Additionally, the effects of the anonymity that mobs naturally provide even without the influence of leadership should not be ignored.

I love anonymity, I really do. I think the ability to have it is vital in any free society. Even so, I cannot deny that it has its downsides, and lowering social inhibitions is one of the more serious ones.

But what do the nazis and the [x] have in common that we dont here? isn't the answer they had dictatorial/failed states? You can counter-example us southern lychings but that seems to be the exception that proves the rule. the demos in western democracies is not the mob of the [x] street.

[edit: subject is mob violence leading to murder, etc]

Mob mentality can be seen in things as minor as riots over football matches.

It is one of many aspects that can contribute to violence in situations like these. I wouldn't say it is even a primary cause of the violence in this particular case, but I would say it plays a role.

You know how as a kid, you were taught "don't believe everything you see on TV"?

Context is important. Video clips rarely tell the full story.

So you're agreeing with me, since the talking heads on TV have been telling us all that the "innocence of muslims" video is responsible for all this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com