I agree 100%, I used to work for a DoD contractor that required secret security clearance. Somehow I managed to pass but I referred several people who didn't make it past the preliminary background check. All of them were extremely competent and excellent programmers. However I found some were because of bankruptcy and others had actual criminal backgrounds. I agree loosening the rules would increase the pool of applicants but in the eyes of the US government who are you trusting with what can be very sensitive information. They only want squeaky clean individuals to keep their risk down. But then they get guys like Bradley Manning who decide to steal info pretty much from right under his bosses noses so I don't know. It's double sided but I see why they do it.
On the one hand you don't want to reward people with criminal backgrounds. On the other hand in this economy if they rule out anyone in bankruptcy or debt their pool is going to be quite small. Everyone I know is in debt of some sort, the only difference is some people are trying to pay their debts and some have given up.
And the Catholic Church could prop up its declining clergy membership by recruiting straight from the local sex offender registry.
Seriously, what the fuck? "Legal niceties" is another term for these rules are in place because we don't want to get fucked over again by someone we trusted.
Who fucked them over? Bradley Manning? The Bradley Manning situation happened because they weren't paying attention to him, it's almost like they allowed it to happen.They weren't following their own security protocol, and skipped their own rules and measures in that situation. They let it happen.
That doesn't change the fact that Bradley Manning did what he did, it's simply a matter of making it impossible for anyone to do what he did again and then you don't have to worry about that.
They're there for a reason, and actively circumventing them to search for applicants is inviting yourself to get burned. Maybe some of them could be relaxed, sure, like the one-time drug offense bit for security clearances. But just saying "they're narrowing our pool of applicants!"...Shit, Sherlock, that's why they exist!
They are narrowing the pool of applicants to the point where they are complaining. They don't know what they want or need, they don't seem to know what they are doing, they don't seem to hire people who know what they are doing, and it keeps going into this circle of needing to hire experts but refusing to hire experts who don't fit.
It's not about politics. People will bring up politics, but politics aren't what it's about. If it's about personality traits then they should go for the people who have the traits they want, if they know what those traits are. I don't know much about security clearance but on the drugs, if someone is addicted to drugs (or anything for that matter) it's a lot easier for them to be coerced or bribed.
Yep. Not to mention that Government IT is heavily limited by bureaucratic bullshit. The contractor I currently work for is barred from using Wi-Fi on our laptops with the government image on it (they're disabled in the BIOS). But we're for some stupid reason allowed to use cellular air data cards. It really fucks up our employees who must connect in a hotel since most hotels are dropping the Ethernet connection and going pure wireless.
Necessary because of guys like Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard and dare I mention Bradley Manning. And by the fact that so many hackers idolize jerks like Julian Assange.
That idolization is due to a lack of knowledge about what really happened. If Julian Assange is a bad guy then that can be explained by giving the correct information about what happens. When we are being lied to by both the government and by Julian Assange then the information is so bad that to take any side in that situation would probably be bias and not wise.
Politics should play no role in the workplace. I'm not saying you can say politics wont play a role for anyone but it doesn't play a role for me at least. I don't idolize anybody because I accept that none of us really know what happened and cannot rely on any side to ever tell the truth in those situations.
Exactly, hackers don't have much respect for authority and rules (otherwise they wouldn't be hacking) yet you have a selection process that makes it compulsory. It's like saying i need a car that can drive practically any where, fit 8 men inside, and still be fast, but it's not allowed to be 4wd, bigger than a mini, or use much fuel.
Hackers do have respect for authority and rules. Logic from which computer systems are based on, rules define the language the source code is written in and so on. Also there are rules and order in every community including the hacker community. Not every hacker is an outlaw, a criminal, or a thug. Some hackers follow rules, aren't thugs, and can respect authority. The problem is the average hacker doesn't respect ALL authority. It depends on who is in charge.
I don't think we have to be afraid of race-based targeting. Ethnic groups aren't homogenous enough for that to be possible. Would the Nazis have invented a Jew-killing virus, Hitler would've been the first of its victims.
It can still target families. Families do have the same genes. But I think the main thing is, if it can be made to target just one individual thats probably as dangerous as a weapon can be.
The kind of warfare we traditionally think about when we think about war is rendered ineffective by the current and emerging technology. If you think DNA-Specific Bio Weapons are a problem that is just race-based medicine which has been discussed on here previously. Cybernetic Warfare is about the creation of a cyborg army to use against the enemy which also creates a cyborg army. In this scenario cyborgs don't have rights, robots don't have rights, humans don't have rights either, and the soldiers are part man part machine with super powers. And no it's not a myth, it's what the military is currently working on doing.
The gobal diet has improved and , believe it or not, environmental standards have improved. Less exposure to heavy metals and diets rich in protein and fat.
Pollution is actually worse. Diet is actually worse. Food isn't organic, has more chemicals than ever, is more toxic than ever, there is more pollution than ever. Where do you live?
Despite being exceptionally bright, I never scored higher than 125 on the IQ tests they made you take in high school. Some years later I decided to try to get a high IQ to qualify for Mensa. After studying for only a month, I scored 145 on math and 132 on English. Can anyone make themselves appear smarter? Yes, despite the fact that many claim we can't.
Disclaimer: I may have been stoned to the bejezus when taking some of those high school iq tests.
I have had similar results. Yes you can boost your IQ by 10-20 points by learning how to solve Ravens progressive matrices which is the majority of the test and if it's something like vocabulary or whatever then when you have access to a better learning environment than you had in childhood such as through the internet then you can ace certain things.
Yes your IQ can go up if you dedicate time to getting it to go up and if you try to get into MENSA yes you can get in. You don't have to take the test only once, so they take the highest score you ever achieved. On a good day you might score high enough to get into MENSA and you only have to do it once in your lifetime to get in.
Most IQ tests are in written form, so they can only be administered to children and adults old enough to read. So, only people who've been exposed to at least kindergarten plus (for a lot of people) preschool.
I am not a teacher, but I would venture to say that a whole buckload of evidence-based developmental psychology has gone into improving the educational system since 1912. Plus, things like school enrollment have gone way up. In 1912 a lot of rural kids -- and most people lived in the country -- went to one-room schoolhouses.
So I would think that IQ scores should go up in the competency areas schools have been trying to cultivate. And I would say, thinking about how different the education system probably is today, I'd be more surprised if nothing had changed.
Ravens progressive matrices don't require you know how to read.
You should interpret the information provided by anonymous the same way you should interpret any information from any other media source. That is, you know what drives them, you know their mindset, you know their previous biases, and you should balance it accordingly.
The problem with Anonymous is they aren't very professional. They seem to be run by script kiddies, teenagers and young adults who have technical skills but no organizational skills.
They ought to do things better. Having a digital signature provides for reputation based accountability and allows us to know which faction of Anon they are.
Care to tell us the process by which Anonymous obtained their information? What sort of fact checking was involved?
What's that? You don't know? Ah, so you're just talking out of your ass.
Also, this "higher standard" is just bullshit. No one should be held to a higher standard of investigative quality than the folks who are actual law enforcement. If a higher standard of investigation exists, law enforcement should be held to it.
Unless law enforcement is politically corrupt then what?
Given that this is being done by Anonymous, I think it's fairly clear that they don't trust the government. Asking people who don't trust the government to depend on it to provide justice is, well, a bit unreasonable.
This doesn't mean I think they were right to do what they did. I'm not well enough informed to have an opinion. I *suspect* that they rushed to judgement, without sufficient evidence. OTOH, I've seen little that persuades me that the government is even interested in justice, though they *do* generally prefer that you follow their rules. (Unless it's to their advantage to have something to hang over your head.)
Then they should give people in the private sector and outside the government a way to verify the quality of information, the facts, to rate the source, etc. When you make a purchase on ebay or amazon you see ratings. Reputation even exists on Slashdot but it doesn't exist within Anonymous.
The only way to make it exist is through digital signatures. Even then we still need professions analyzing the information and doing forensics and we don't know the qualifications of the people in Anonymous.
Wait, "just as wrong?" We're holding Anonymous to the same moral standards as the police?
I suppose it's better than going the other way and holding police to only the standards you hold Anonymous, but still...
They should be held to a higher standard. Their information must be thoroughly checked, verified, confirmed. This is possible through digital signatures but to expect completely Anonymous information to be true without a process for checking how true or how false each piece of information is and how truthful the source is, it's worthless.
But the mathematics do not work out neatly. They just skipped a whole bunch of math where E = infinity and broke their equations and went strait to "Now we're losing mas as we accelerate! Neat! Forget that whole "We just consumed all the energy in the universe and collapsed into a blackhole business back there!"
But is it a fact that even with all the energy in the universe that it would be possible?
If it cannot, then it's impossible to ever surpass the speed of light because the amount of energy in the universe is definitely finite and it's unchangeable.
On one hand, they got the guy who broke he law, that's a win. But on the other, it makes it look like he's being jailed for expressing his opinion about something controversial. That's a not a win, that's a loss.
Who cares how it looks? He's still a scumbag. His video was trash and hurt the USA. He's not a hero of free speech any more than George Zimmerman is a hero of the first amendment. If you believe in these principles as I do, then lets find some better heroes than this. Don't you think it's a bigger concern that Julian Assange is now an enemy of the State for publishing classified information?
I think that is a far bigger concern than this peon FBI informant Film Maker who committed bank fraud and who accomplished nothing positive or useful with his video beyond pissing people off and getting people killed.
It's called "reckless disregard". He knew the film would create outrage and protests that could endanger others.
The protestors are responsible for their actions, the filmmaker is not. To claim otherwise is to reduce the protestors to the status of mere machines with no moral value whatsoever. If they are mere machines, I suggest we turn them off. If they are not mere machines, they are responsible. If everyone is a machine (including the filmmaker), responsibility is irrelevant
The oft-cited "fire in a crowded theater" analogy postulates a situation where a person cannot -- because of a threatened emergency -- make a rational decision. In that case, the consequences of his forced decision may be attributed to the person falsely claiming an emergency. That simply isn't the case here; the protestors decisions were not forced by circumstance.
Responsibility isn't the issue. The terrorists are like machines in that they are made to act in ways which benefit foreign governments through brainwashing and manipulation. The protesters aren't the same as the terrorists. Protesters have a choice, terrorists do not and are acting as agents of foreign governments in some cases unknowingly. Do they make choices, yes but not with correct information and not without coercion and psychological blackmail of the sort where if they don't do it they aren't a good Muslim. It's similar to churches saying in the USA that if you vote for Obama you'll go to hell, the people in that church who truly believe in that are a cult and do not have complete free will.
We cannot just shut them off because there are millions of people like this on all sides. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and governments use them all. Some of the best people get used in some of the worst ways by some of the worst people.
Unpopular speach is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. A crowd that exits a theater quickly is behaving rationally based on deception. There is no choice to stay in the burning theater. The people who rioted in the middle east did so because they chose too. The did so because they were encouraged to riot by their leaders. Billions of people chose to do nothing when they learned of his video.
The problem is the video that was released was a deception. I'm not saying the violent response was correct but considering the limited access to information they have in Libya how would they know any better? Any foreign government could take advantage of that video to radicalize which is probably what happened. Thanks to that film maker there will be thousands if not millions of new terrorists potentially created.
So not only is he a hater of Muslims but he's an FBI snitch too. If you're a Libyan reading into this then it wouldn't be difficult for a foreign sponsored terrorist group to radicalize you. Americans get radicalized by people like Alex Jones into believing in FEMA camps and UN dictatorship on US soil so why is it difficult to believe that Libyans would be radicalized in the same way?
While you are mostly correct, it really wasn't my point. I am referring to the immediacy of the situation. The idea is that in one situation there's a real possibility for immediate danger, the second situation is just so rediculously the opposite but here we are comparing and contrasting because it's appearantly not obvious.
Unless the people in the audience already were smelling smoke. This isn't the first situation like this. The USA has been dropping bombs and getting people killed in the middle east for a decade now. They have every right to hate the USA and when they perceive that an individual who has been outed as an informant was acting on the orders of the USA then they aren't being irrational to assume the USA is at war with Islam.
That is the problem, the intolerance seems to come from the US government itself and even be endorsed by the US Constitution. If you're an American citizen you can understand the US Constitution and the nuances but if you're not and you don't even speak English but all you know is that an FBI operated informant releases a hate film against Islam and you're smart enough to know the FBI is the US government, you don't have tounderstand or even have read the US Constitution to reach the conclusion that there is an immediate attack going on.
Unfortunately you ignore the fact that Libyans have been attacked and under dictatorships for so long that they don't think an FBI informant could act against the interest of the US government. They probably think the USA is run like how Libya was run.
I'm sure their anger is all from that video and has nothing to do with the unmanned drones dropping bombs on their family members in the name of the USA. And now this guy who was outed as being an informant for the FBI makes a film attacking Islam.
Now the FBI wants to go into Libya and and investigate and the USA acts surprised that the Libyan government and Libyans in general don't want the FBI in their country? Would you want the FBI in your country after this?
People in the USA are so naive and don't even consider the different perspectives other than their own.
I hope most Americans haven't sunk so low that we'll give up our freedom of speech so easily. We've given up so many freedoms for various reasons - the freedom to choose who we hire and fire, the freedom to choose who we rent apartments too, the freedom to get a new job without notifying the authorities, the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking inside private businesses. In most cases many of us would behave consistent with what the laws says we must do anyway, but we still know the chains are there and the chafe us.
Freedom of speech is even more fundamental. Indeed it is almost as important as that bedrock of all freedoms, freedom of religion. That someone would willingly surrender our freedom of religion because of how some evil people ten thousand miles away react is beyond comprehension or description..
Where were you when rappers were being jailed and threatened by politicians for their lyrics?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree 100%, I used to work for a DoD contractor that required secret security clearance. Somehow I managed to pass but I referred several people who didn't make it past the preliminary background check. All of them were extremely competent and excellent programmers. However I found some were because of bankruptcy and others had actual criminal backgrounds. I agree loosening the rules would increase the pool of applicants but in the eyes of the US government who are you trusting with what can be very sensitive information. They only want squeaky clean individuals to keep their risk down. But then they get guys like Bradley Manning who decide to steal info pretty much from right under his bosses noses so I don't know. It's double sided but I see why they do it.
On the one hand you don't want to reward people with criminal backgrounds. On the other hand in this economy if they rule out anyone in bankruptcy or debt their pool is going to be quite small. Everyone I know is in debt of some sort, the only difference is some people are trying to pay their debts and some have given up.
And the Catholic Church could prop up its declining clergy membership by recruiting straight from the local sex offender registry.
Seriously, what the fuck? "Legal niceties" is another term for these rules are in place because we don't want to get fucked over again by someone we trusted.
Who fucked them over? Bradley Manning? The Bradley Manning situation happened because they weren't paying attention to him, it's almost like they allowed it to happen.They weren't following their own security protocol, and skipped their own rules and measures in that situation. They let it happen.
That doesn't change the fact that Bradley Manning did what he did, it's simply a matter of making it impossible for anyone to do what he did again and then you don't have to worry about that.
They're there for a reason, and actively circumventing them to search for applicants is inviting yourself to get burned. Maybe some of them could be relaxed, sure, like the one-time drug offense bit for security clearances. But just saying "they're narrowing our pool of applicants!"...Shit, Sherlock, that's why they exist!
They are narrowing the pool of applicants to the point where they are complaining. They don't know what they want or need, they don't seem to know what they are doing, they don't seem to hire people who know what they are doing, and it keeps going into this circle of needing to hire experts but refusing to hire experts who don't fit.
It's not about politics. People will bring up politics, but politics aren't what it's about. If it's about personality traits then they should go for the people who have the traits they want, if they know what those traits are. I don't know much about security clearance but on the drugs, if someone is addicted to drugs (or anything for that matter) it's a lot easier for them to be coerced or bribed.
Yep. Not to mention that Government IT is heavily limited by bureaucratic bullshit. The contractor I currently work for is barred from using Wi-Fi on our laptops with the government image on it (they're disabled in the BIOS). But we're for some stupid reason allowed to use cellular air data cards. It really fucks up our employees who must connect in a hotel since most hotels are dropping the Ethernet connection and going pure wireless.
I think you're nitpicking here.
Necessary because of guys like Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard and dare I mention Bradley Manning. And by the fact that so many hackers idolize jerks like Julian Assange.
That idolization is due to a lack of knowledge about what really happened. If Julian Assange is a bad guy then that can be explained by giving the correct information about what happens. When we are being lied to by both the government and by Julian Assange then the information is so bad that to take any side in that situation would probably be bias and not wise.
Politics should play no role in the workplace. I'm not saying you can say politics wont play a role for anyone but it doesn't play a role for me at least. I don't idolize anybody because I accept that none of us really know what happened and cannot rely on any side to ever tell the truth in those situations.
Exactly, hackers don't have much respect for authority and rules (otherwise they wouldn't be hacking) yet you have a selection process that makes it compulsory. It's like saying i need a car that can drive practically any where, fit 8 men inside, and still be fast, but it's not allowed to be 4wd, bigger than a mini, or use much fuel.
Hackers do have respect for authority and rules. Logic from which computer systems are based on, rules define the language the source code is written in and so on. Also there are rules and order in every community including the hacker community. Not every hacker is an outlaw, a criminal, or a thug. Some hackers follow rules, aren't thugs, and can respect authority. The problem is the average hacker doesn't respect ALL authority. It depends on who is in charge.
I don't think we have to be afraid of race-based targeting. Ethnic groups aren't homogenous enough for that to be possible. Would the Nazis have invented a Jew-killing virus, Hitler would've been the first of its victims.
It can still target families. Families do have the same genes.
But I think the main thing is, if it can be made to target just one individual thats probably as dangerous as a weapon can be.
The kind of warfare we traditionally think about when we think about war is rendered ineffective by the current and emerging technology. If you think DNA-Specific Bio Weapons are a problem that is just race-based medicine which has been discussed on here previously. Cybernetic Warfare is about the creation of a cyborg army to use against the enemy which also creates a cyborg army. In this scenario cyborgs don't have rights, robots don't have rights, humans don't have rights either, and the soldiers are part man part machine with super powers. And no it's not a myth, it's what the military is currently working on doing.
The gobal diet has improved and , believe it or not, environmental standards have improved.
Less exposure to heavy metals and diets rich in protein and fat.
Pollution is actually worse. Diet is actually worse. Food isn't organic, has more chemicals than ever, is more toxic than ever, there is more pollution than ever. Where do you live?
Despite being exceptionally bright, I never scored higher than 125 on the IQ tests they made you take in high school. Some years later I decided to try to get a high IQ to qualify for Mensa. After studying for only a month, I scored 145 on math and 132 on English. Can anyone make themselves appear smarter? Yes, despite the fact that many claim we can't.
Disclaimer: I may have been stoned to the bejezus when taking some of those high school iq tests.
I have had similar results. Yes you can boost your IQ by 10-20 points by learning how to solve Ravens progressive matrices which is the majority of the test and if it's something like vocabulary or whatever then when you have access to a better learning environment than you had in childhood such as through the internet then you can ace certain things.
Yes your IQ can go up if you dedicate time to getting it to go up and if you try to get into MENSA yes you can get in. You don't have to take the test only once, so they take the highest score you ever achieved. On a good day you might score high enough to get into MENSA and you only have to do it once in your lifetime to get in.
Most IQ tests are in written form, so they can only be administered to children and adults old enough to read. So, only people who've been exposed to at least kindergarten plus (for a lot of people) preschool.
I am not a teacher, but I would venture to say that a whole buckload of evidence-based developmental psychology has gone into improving the educational system since 1912. Plus, things like school enrollment have gone way up. In 1912 a lot of rural kids -- and most people lived in the country -- went to one-room schoolhouses.
So I would think that IQ scores should go up in the competency areas schools have been trying to cultivate. And I would say, thinking about how different the education system probably is today, I'd be more surprised if nothing had changed.
Ravens progressive matrices don't require you know how to read.
You should interpret the information provided by anonymous the same way you should interpret any information from any other media source.
That is, you know what drives them, you know their mindset, you know their previous biases, and you should balance it accordingly.
The problem with Anonymous is they aren't very professional. They seem to be run by script kiddies, teenagers and young adults who have technical skills but no organizational skills.
They ought to do things better. Having a digital signature provides for reputation based accountability and allows us to know which faction of Anon they are.
newsflash, well whole point of anonimus is to do things that are considered ILLEGAL but are MORAL because sometimes law is not moral
If it's morally right then why not have a digital identity and still be anonymous?
Care to tell us the process by which Anonymous obtained their information? What sort of fact checking was involved?
What's that? You don't know? Ah, so you're just talking out of your ass.
Also, this "higher standard" is just bullshit. No one should be held to a higher standard of investigative quality than the folks who are actual law enforcement. If a higher standard of investigation exists, law enforcement should be held to it.
Unless law enforcement is politically corrupt then what?
Given that this is being done by Anonymous, I think it's fairly clear that they don't trust the government. Asking people who don't trust the government to depend on it to provide justice is, well, a bit unreasonable.
This doesn't mean I think they were right to do what they did. I'm not well enough informed to have an opinion. I *suspect* that they rushed to judgement, without sufficient evidence. OTOH, I've seen little that persuades me that the government is even interested in justice, though they *do* generally prefer that you follow their rules. (Unless it's to their advantage to have something to hang over your head.)
Then they should give people in the private sector and outside the government a way to verify the quality of information, the facts, to rate the source, etc. When you make a purchase on ebay or amazon you see ratings. Reputation even exists on Slashdot but it doesn't exist within Anonymous.
The only way to make it exist is through digital signatures. Even then we still need professions analyzing the information and doing forensics and we don't know the qualifications of the people in Anonymous.
Wait, "just as wrong?" We're holding Anonymous to the same moral standards as the police?
I suppose it's better than going the other way and holding police to only the standards you hold Anonymous, but still...
They should be held to a higher standard. Their information must be thoroughly checked, verified, confirmed. This is possible through digital signatures but to expect completely Anonymous information to be true without a process for checking how true or how false each piece of information is and how truthful the source is, it's worthless.
Conservation of energy.
It's nothing special.
But the mathematics do not work out neatly. They just skipped a whole bunch of math where E = infinity and broke their equations and went strait to "Now we're losing mas as we accelerate! Neat! Forget that whole "We just consumed all the energy in the universe and collapsed into a blackhole business back there!"
But is it a fact that even with all the energy in the universe that it would be possible?
If it cannot, then it's impossible to ever surpass the speed of light because the amount of energy in the universe is definitely finite and it's unchangeable.
On one hand, they got the guy who broke he law, that's a win. But on the other, it makes it look like he's being jailed for expressing his opinion about something controversial. That's a not a win, that's a loss.
Who cares how it looks? He's still a scumbag. His video was trash and hurt the USA. He's not a hero of free speech any more than George Zimmerman is a hero of the first amendment. If you believe in these principles as I do, then lets find some better heroes than this. Don't you think it's a bigger concern that Julian Assange is now an enemy of the State for publishing classified information?
I think that is a far bigger concern than this peon FBI informant Film Maker who committed bank fraud and who accomplished nothing positive or useful with his video beyond pissing people off and getting people killed.
The protestors are responsible for their actions, the filmmaker is not. To claim otherwise is to reduce the protestors to the status of mere machines with no moral value whatsoever. If they are mere machines, I suggest we turn them off. If they are not mere machines, they are responsible. If everyone is a machine (including the filmmaker), responsibility is irrelevant
The oft-cited "fire in a crowded theater" analogy postulates a situation where a person cannot -- because of a threatened emergency -- make a rational decision. In that case, the consequences of his forced decision may be attributed to the person falsely claiming an emergency. That simply isn't the case here; the protestors decisions were not forced by circumstance.
Responsibility isn't the issue. The terrorists are like machines in that they are made to act in ways which benefit foreign governments through brainwashing and manipulation. The protesters aren't the same as the terrorists. Protesters have a choice, terrorists do not and are acting as agents of foreign governments in some cases unknowingly. Do they make choices, yes but not with correct information and not without coercion and psychological blackmail of the sort where if they don't do it they aren't a good Muslim. It's similar to churches saying in the USA that if you vote for Obama you'll go to hell, the people in that church who truly believe in that are a cult and do not have complete free will.
We cannot just shut them off because there are millions of people like this on all sides. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and governments use them all. Some of the best people get used in some of the worst ways by some of the worst people.
Unpopular speach is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. A crowd that exits a theater quickly is behaving rationally based on deception. There is no choice to stay in the burning theater. The people who rioted in the middle east did so because they chose too. The did so because they were encouraged to riot by their leaders. Billions of people chose to do nothing when they learned of his video.
The problem is the video that was released was a deception. I'm not saying the violent response was correct but considering the limited access to information they have in Libya how would they know any better? Any foreign government could take advantage of that video to radicalize which is probably what happened. Thanks to that film maker there will be thousands if not millions of new terrorists potentially created.
And to think the Film maker is an FBI informant on top of all this. Wired reported it and so did HuffingtonPost http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-federal-informant_n_1891661.html
So not only is he a hater of Muslims but he's an FBI snitch too. If you're a Libyan reading into this then it wouldn't be difficult for a foreign sponsored terrorist group to radicalize you. Americans get radicalized by people like Alex Jones into believing in FEMA camps and UN dictatorship on US soil so why is it difficult to believe that Libyans would be radicalized in the same way?
While you are mostly correct, it really wasn't my point. I am referring to the immediacy of the situation. The idea is that in one situation there's a real possibility for immediate danger, the second situation is just so rediculously the opposite but here we are comparing and contrasting because it's appearantly not obvious.
Unless the people in the audience already were smelling smoke. This isn't the first situation like this. The USA has been dropping bombs and getting people killed in the middle east for a decade now. They have every right to hate the USA and when they perceive that an individual who has been outed as an informant was acting on the orders of the USA then they aren't being irrational to assume the USA is at war with Islam.
That is the problem, the intolerance seems to come from the US government itself and even be endorsed by the US Constitution. If you're an American citizen you can understand the US Constitution and the nuances but if you're not and you don't even speak English but all you know is that an FBI operated informant releases a hate film against Islam and you're smart enough to know the FBI is the US government, you don't have tounderstand or even have read the US Constitution to reach the conclusion that there is an immediate attack going on.
Unfortunately you ignore the fact that Libyans have been attacked and under dictatorships for so long that they don't think an FBI informant could act against the interest of the US government. They probably think the USA is run like how Libya was run.
I'm sure their anger is all from that video and has nothing to do with the unmanned drones dropping bombs on their family members in the name of the USA. And now this guy who was outed as being an informant for the FBI makes a film attacking Islam.
Now the FBI wants to go into Libya and and investigate and the USA acts surprised that the Libyan government and Libyans in general don't want the FBI in their country? Would you want the FBI in your country after this?
People in the USA are so naive and don't even consider the different perspectives other than their own.
I hope most Americans haven't sunk so low that we'll give up our freedom of speech so easily. We've given up so many freedoms for various reasons - the freedom to choose who we hire and fire, the freedom to choose who we rent apartments too, the freedom to get a new job without notifying the authorities, the freedom to choose whether to allow smoking inside private businesses. In most cases many of us would behave consistent with what the laws says we must do anyway, but we still know the chains are there and the chafe us.
Freedom of speech is even more fundamental. Indeed it is almost as important as that bedrock of all freedoms, freedom of religion. That someone would willingly surrender our freedom of religion because of how some evil people ten thousand miles away react is beyond comprehension or description. .
Where were you when rappers were being jailed and threatened by politicians for their lyrics?