Was there anything wrong with the Cairo US Embassy's statement

[russ_watters]

This is a bizarre interpretation!

When Timothy McVeigh brought down the Murrah building, I was on the same side of the Mississippi River as McVeigh. What the heck does that mean?!

Not a lot, but it also has nothing to do with what I said or what the embassy said!

The opinion of the video should stand on its own, regardless of who else agrees with our opinion or disagrees with our opinion. He may be free to post it, but that doesn't mean people aren't free to condemn it as trash.

No doubt. So does this mean you think that the embassy's condemnation was just coincidental with the protest? They were just expressing their opinion and coincidentally there were protests either beginning or about to begin in front of their embassy?

Sorry, I'm not a big believer in coincidences like that. Apparently, Obama doesn't either, since his statement implies he thinks they issued the statement out of fear/attempt to calm the frenzy.

Likewise, Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church is free to protest the funerals of military veterans, but if the first statement out of the White House's mouth was to defend the Phelps' right to free speech, I'd be outraged!

There's nothing wrong with calling an idiot an idiot, even when acknowledging they have a right to be an idiot.

You're missing the point here, Bob. The point is the embassy perceived a danger and responded to it in a way that was calculated to try to soften the danger. In your analogy, the WBC presents no danger to Obama.

 

[BobG]

No doubt. So does this mean you think that the embassy's condemnation was just coincidental with the protest? They were just expressing their opinion and coincidentally there were protests either beginning or about to begin in front of their embassy?

Sorry, I'm not a big believer in coincidences like that. Apparently, Obama doesn't either, since his statement implies he thinks they issued the statement out of fear/attempt to calm the frenzy.

I'm saying condemning the video would have been appropriate regardless of whether there were planned protests or not, except condemning it out of the blue probably would have brought it more puclicity than it deserved. Of course it's not coincidence. Once it reached a certain level of publicity, there would be no reason not to condemn it.

But I do agree with your perception of Obama's initial response, which is why I felt he'd thrown his embassy staff under the bus when they'd made an appropriate response. If anything, their response should have been stronger. And maybe Obama felt the same way after some thought, because Clinton's statements (including the twitter post) aren't much different than the embassy's statement when it comes to the video.

By the way, have you actually watched this video? To be honest, I'm not even sure I'm watching the right video. I get this feeling that if this is the video that sparked riots across the Middle East, then I must be living in lala land. I mean, why in the world would they bother condemning this before it did cause a furor?

 

[Evo]

Romney is, of course, referring to the protesters attackers in Cairo and Libya.

Which makes his statement untrue. The embassy wasn't *apologizing* or even addressing protesters.

Next, you'll say that if the protests hadn't started when the embassy made its announcement, they couldn't have been apologizing to the protesters. That isn't true: they could have been anticipating protests and it appears that's exactly what they did.

As was mentioned before, they had local intel of anger over the movie, and they hoped to diffuse it with the condemnation of the perceived attack on Islam. Crowds didn't start to gather outside the Cairo embassy until 4 hours AFTER the embassy's post. Where Romney went wrong was accidently or intentionally accusing the Obama administration of apologizing to the attackers (he listed both Cairo and Libya and the death of one of the US Libya staffers).

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

Ok, so maybe he and his advisers were confused about what was happening Tuesday, so they should have waited until they understood what was happening before they made a false accusation. That could have been forgiven, although it showed a lack of control and leadership, IMO, on Romney's side. They also broke the 9/11 politicking *truce* he and Obama had agreed to. What really did him in, IMO, was the next day, after the facts were clear, not only did he not retract his false accusation, he instead expanded upon it.

On Wednesday morning, Romney incorrectly reiterated the idea that the statement had been issued after the attacks, apparently hoping to place the incident in the campaign’s narrative that President Obama had been on an “apology tour” — a claim that has earned Romney Four Pinocchios.

“The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached,” Romney told reporters on Wednesday. “Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values.”

No Romney, that's not true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2d32a8c-fd24-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

The timeline

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/world/cairo-libya-attacks-timeline/

So if you want to soften it, Romney spoke too soon without an understanding of the facts, then after he had the facts, he decided not to admit he jumped the gun, which caused him to originally misstate the facts, and then removed all doubt that he either had no idea what he was talking about or was intentionally misstating the facts.

 

[SixNein]

Ok, so maybe he and his advisers were confused about what was happening Tuesday, so they should have waited until they understood what was happening before they made a false accusation.

IMO Romney acted out of political desperation. He's been running a weak campaign, and he's trying to turn things around. He needs to appeal to those, what I like to call, fundamentalist conservatives to win. At the same time, he doesn't seem to be able to adjust to the type of rhetoric that they love. He made an attempt to appeal to those people here, and it simply blew up in his face.

At the same time, many of those fundamentalist conservatives will rush to defend his statements here because it plays to the image they have built up in their head about Obama.

 

[I_am_learning]

I am confused about freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

So, didn't the movie violate the conditions?
If yes, isn't it the duty of the government to check that?
If yes, shouldn't they apologize for failing to do that?
Reading through this thread, I feel that most people think that no laws has been violated, but I am confused here.

 

[Evo]

I am confused about freedom of expression.

So, didn't the movie violate the conditions?
If yes, isn't it the duty of the government to check that?
If yes, shouldn't they apologize for failing to do that?
Reading through this thread, I feel that most people think that no laws has been violated, but I am confused here.

The man that made the film is being investigated, IIRC.

 

[mheslep]

Foreign treaties don't trump the US Constitution.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

 

[edward]

The producer of the film must have known that it was going to incite violence, which is not covered under free speech.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/anntelnaes/2011/01/blurring_the_line_between_free.html

Though Bacile was apologetic about the Americans who were killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.

"I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."

A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said the filmmaker is concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Bacile declined to confirm.

Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Bacile-filmmaker-hiding-Libya/2012/09/12/id/451549

Actors in the film say that they were told the film was called "Desert Warrior," and say that the script contained no references to Mohammed. Actress Cindy Lee Garcia told ABC News, "I never heard Mohammed, I never said Mohammed." Specific references to Mohammed and Islam were apparently added via overdubbing.

http://news.yahoo.com/anti-islam-film-producer-wrote-script-prison-authorities-212818578--abc-news-topstories.html

It appears that Romney did shoot first and then took verbal aim at Obama. The embassy communication did not even mention the film although it was quite apparently an attempt by someone to soften what they knew was coming.

 

[rootX]

It will be very unpopular move but interesting if US considers taking actions against people who make antiIslamic movies. There have been so many similar incidents. Advantages could be gaining better position in Afghanistan and other Islamic countries. However, I cannot see how one could act against people who burn Quran or make movies without breaching constitutions. Also, the West vs AlQeada/Taliban conflict might not last for more than one or two decades.

 

[rootX]

Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

Does this mean the person who made the movie will be provided protection? Who will be paying for the protection?

 

[SixNein]

The producer of the film must have known that it was going to incite violence, which is not covered under free speech.

As an Atheist, I want to point out a slippery slope should one precede with this line of reasoning. Of particular concern, Muslims believe that we should not have the freedom to criticize or mock their religion. They threaten to respond with violence when such criticisms are made.

This line of reasoning is what made UN Resolution 16/18 possible. In my opinion, the resolution is essentially a retreat from Enlightenment.

So if your going to hold this type of argument, please explain to me why Religious groups should not have the liberty to defend their claims. IE: Please give me an argument for Blasphemy laws.

 

[mheslep]

It will be very unpopular move but interesting if US considers taking actions against people who make antiIslamic movies. There have been so many similar incidents. Advantages could be gaining better position in Afghanistan and other Islamic countries. ...

The 9/11 statement from the US embassy in Cairo, suggests taking action against such people will not improve the US position in Islamic countries.

 

[JonDE]

The 9/11 statement from the US embassy in Cairo, suggests taking action against such people will not improve the US position in Islamic countries.

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. I assume that you mean that because the statement posted on their website didn't stop the protests means it would have no effect. This is wrong for several reasons.

1) how many people actually logged on to the internet to check the US embassies website, just in case they posted an apology? Likely very very few. I wasn't even aware that embassies had their own websites, this is the first I have ever heard of it.

2) Actions speak louder then words. I think that is pretty much self explanitory.

 

[BobG]

I am confused about freedom of expression.

So, didn't the movie violate the conditions?
If yes, isn't it the duty of the government to check that?
If yes, shouldn't they apologize for failing to do that?
Reading through this thread, I feel that most people think that no laws has been violated, but I am confused here.

The US Constitution provides a more comprehensive freedom of speech than the international codes. There's still some restrictions for such things as pornography, blatantly calling for violence, etc, but just about all speech is given the benefit of the doubt if there is any doubt at all (and what restrictions do apply generally don't mean total prohibition).

If it's a real movie with a plot, it probably passes regardless of how bad or how offensive it is.

The man that made the film is being investigated, IIRC.

The filmaker was convicted of bank fraud and was on probation. The terms of the probation banned him from using the internet and using false identities. He was being investigated to determine if he violated the terms of his probation (a bit murky since this episode had no clear relationship to finance).

 

[Evo]

The filmaker was convicted of bank fraud and was on probation. The terms of the probation banned him from using the internet and using false identities. He was being investigated to determine if he violated the terms of his probation (a bit murky since this episode had no clear relationship to finance).

That's it! In 2010 as part of his probation he was banned from usiing the internet, among other things, for 5 years. Where was his probation officer during all of this?

 

[BobG]

That's it! In 2010 as part of his probabtion he was banned from usiing the internet, among other things, for 5 years. Where was his probation officer during all of this?

Hoping his boss didn't catch him watching youtube videos at work? Just how does a justice department enforce punishments like that?

 

[edward]

The English version seems benign enough. The clip had been on Youtube for two months. Then something else happened that would explain, at least for me, what the embassy was trying to do.

Two months after it was uploaded, the 14-minute low-budget film, “Innocence of Muslims,” was dubbed in Arabic, with clips of it being shown on Egyptian TV channels.

http://whatstrending.com/2012/09/youtube-blocks-innocence-muslims-video-violence-erupts-middle-east/

Edit The clips were aired on Sept 8th

http://www.hollywood.com/news/Innocence_of_Muslims_YouTube_Protests/39863758

What we don't know is how the Arabic version translates back to English.

These people are violent fanatics who still live in the 12th century. Remember the Danish cartoons? Do we have to appease them, no definitely not. We do have to experience the consequences

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...slims_would_find_these_images_offensive_.html

 

[I_am_learning]

The man that made the film is being investigated, IIRC.

I wonder how long does it take to find out that the movie does disrespect Muslims and it does provoke public disorder. Even if it were hard to find out at first, by now, it is proved that it does such violation. I am surprised YouTube didn't removed it.
There is no need to do word plays about what is written in the law and try to interpret it in favor of the movie; if we stick by the motto of the law, it is clear that one shouldn't practice his freedom of speech to disturb public order or to disrespect or insult other people or their beliefs*.

*I know, you should be allowed to differ and reject other peoples beliefs, but having seen so many incidents, isn't it reasonable to make special provision regarding religious beliefs?; for the sake of public order.

 

[CAC1001]

Disregarding the issue of Romney, IMO the Cairo embassy statement itself was clearly an apology. I mean, why else even put it out? The only reason is because of fear. I'd also say it was clearly sympathizing with the protesters (or potential protesters, basically anyone who'd be offended and inclined to start trouble) in that it condemns the religious message. But this is America. We have freedom of speech.

Lauren Bloom, an attorney and business consultant who wrote The Art of the Apology, said that Romney is "once again allowing his emotional allergy to apology to interfere with his judgment."

Bloom said that "if there's anything more central to American values than respecting each individual's right to worship as he or she pleases, I'd be hard-pressed to say what it might be. The statement that ‘respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy’ not only is true, but is as clear an expression of one of our most cherished values as I can imagine."

Respect for religions is not any cherished value of America, religious tolerance is. No one has any problem making fun of Christianity (and no I'm not a Christian, just making a point here). This is a country where if you take a cross of Jesus Christ and stick it into a jar of urine, it's considered some form of modern art. You take a statue of Jesus and cover it in dung, it's a form of art. You do something very offensive regarding the Virgin Mary, and it's "art." Bill Maher makes fun of Christianity all the time. South Park makes fun of it and other religions (they backed off on Islam though when they got directly threatened when they tried it). People have the right to practice whatever religion they please, that's America. And if I want to point and laugh and say that your religion has to be the stupidest, most nutty thing I've ever heard, that's also my right.

EDIT: Okay, I see the above (about respect for other religions) was also covered in the other thread (was there anything wrong with Cairo embassy's statement), hadn't read that thread yet when I typed the above

She said the embassy statement is "not an apology -- quite the contrary, it's a confirmation that the American people recognize the right to worship freely and will not accept religious bullying in the name of free speech. To say that someone who deliberately insults others in the name of religion has acted wrongly isn't an apology -- it's simply a recognition that those insults go too far."

! In other words, they are sympathizing with the protesters and people in the area. And "religious bullying?" Who is she trying to kid? Someone who deliberately insults others in the name of religion is not engaging in an "insult that goes too far," it's free speech. In the case of the embassy, it was an apology, a way of saying, "WE'RE SORRY! Please don't hurt us or kill anyone!" I mean if a group of Christians decided to just hold a normal protest outside of Bill Maher's home, the attitude of most people, especially on the Left, would be "GROW UP!"

To protestors; not to attackers. The embassy statement came before the attacks. It was an attempt to quell an imminent threat. And frankly, the embassy was right to do so. The film that stirred up the protests was so blatantly offensive and downright evil that an apology - not an implied one, but a full one - was warranted on behalf of the American people. That's not saying the embassy deserved to be attacked, but the statement wasn't made after the attack, now was it?

Regarding the Cairo statement itself, what difference does it make about whether an attack had occurred or not? It shouldn't matter how "offensive" anything is, if people want to say it, they can, same as many do with Christians. The limits are for slander, libel, or the equivalent of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (and on the slander part, I think even there we are pretty lenient).

Something to consider: Most Muslims in the Middle East come from a culture where speech is officially approved by a totalitarian or theocratic figure; it is not free. Most Muslims in the Middle East, by virtue of their being poor as dirt, are also often uneducated and ignorant of American values with regard to free speech. Is it any wonder that they think these films and statements made to offend were approved by the government of the United States?

Then what the embassy should say is simply that the statement is not representative of the U.S. government or the nation as a whole, and that in the United States, we have freedom of speech where people are allowed to insult one another and a religion as they please.

 

[CAC1001]

The producer of the film must have known that it was going to incite violence, which is not covered under free speech.

It's covered. The violence is on the people causing the violence, not the person making the speech.

I wonder how long does it take to find out that the movie does disrespect Muslims and it does provoke public disorder. Even if it were hard to find out at first, by now, it is proved that it does such violation. I am surprised YouTube didn't removed it.

Youtube blocked it from certain countries in the Middle East, but otherwise, they are adhering to free speech.

There is no need to do word plays about what is written in the law and try to interpret it in favor of the movie; if we stick by the motto of the law, it is clear that one shouldn't practice his freedom of speech to disturb public order or to disrespect or insult other people or their beliefs*.

Making fun of a religion or belief system is not disturbing the public order. Yes, if you openly call for violence, then there could be an exception I suppose, but just making fun, ifviolence starts, is on the people doing the violence.

*I know, you should be allowed to differ and reject other peoples beliefs, but having seen so many incidents, isn't it reasonable to make special provision regarding religious beliefs?; for the sake of public order.

IMO nope. It's too dangerous a slippery slope.

 

[CAC1001]

The opinion of the video should stand on its own, regardless of who else agrees with our opinion or disagrees with our opinion. He may be free to post it, but that doesn't mean people aren't free to condemn it as trash.

I don't think it's the condemning of it as trash so much as the "why" of it being condemned that irks some people.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The White House (does that mean Obama?) has asked Google to investigate whether the video violates their terms of use agreement and to take it down. Google has responded that it does not violate and they won't take it down. Why would the WH make such a request if the video violates the law? More importantly, why would they make such a request if the video does not violate the law?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Regarding the Cairo statement itself, what difference does it make about whether an attack had occurred or not? It shouldn't matter how "offensive" anything is, if people want to say it, they can, same as many do with Christians. The limits are for slander, libel, or the equivalent of crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater (and on the slander part, I think even there we are pretty lenient).

For one, the statement didn't say the person had no right to make the film. The statement said it was in poor taste. Free speech does not abrogate others' right to call that speech what it was.

For two, this directly led to the deaths of four people, and the protests are still ongoing. I think this is very much equivalent to shouting "fire" in a theater. Essentially it boils down to inciting a riot, which is usually considered a crime.

 

[Evo]

The White House (does that mean Obama?) has asked Google to investigate whether the video violates their terms of use agreement and to take it down. Google has responded that it does not violate and they won't take it down. Why would the WH make such a request if the video violates the law? More importantly, why would they make such a request if the video does not violate the law?

Trying to do what they can to stop the violence against US Embassies and citizerns, I suppose. If it was possible that Google had the right to remove it, a pretty simple solution, no?

We tried to send 50 Marines to add protection to our embassy in Sudan the other day and Sudan refused to allow it.

Sudan Rejects U.S. Request to Send Marines to Boost Embassy Security

A U.S. official said the Marines, “were on their way, but turned back” when Sudan rejected the U.S. request.

In a statement State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that the Sudanese government “has recommitted itself both publicly and privately to continue to protect our Mission, as it is obligated to do under the Vienna Convention.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...st-to-send-marines-to-boost-embassy-security/

 

[mheslep]

The shouting-fire-in-a-theater metaphor is about causing the recipients of the shouter's message, not someone else's message, to immediately fear for their lives and thereby cause them to panic. These film guy/guys did not do that. Neither did the Danish cartoonists, nor Salman Rushdie, nor Theo Van Gogh.

 

[OmCheeto]

Does this mean the person who made the movie will be provided protection? Who will be paying for the protection?

Hopefully he goes to jail for violating his parole.

15 September 2012
Throughout his life in hiding, Rushdie was often criticised by people who resented the £1million a year it cost to keep him under police protection.

a fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989.

(2012-1989)*(£1million/year)*($1.70/£)=$39,100,000

Ironic how the "freedom of speech" can turn out so expensive. Not to mention the lives lost, and that will continue to be lost over this.

Nov 4, 2010
...
And who wrote the book? Knowing full well what the consequences would be, shrouded behind a western wall of free speech.

Rushdie is a slimeball...

----------------------------------

dear god, whatever flavor of pasta you may be, please have mercy on my soul.

Bacile is also a slimeball...
and I'll pay for his one way ticket to Benghazi.

Wouldn't be the first time I've made such an offer.

 

[rootX]

The 9/11 statement from the US embassy in Cairo, suggests taking action against such people will not improve the US position in Islamic countries.

It could have been much better if they had just put the statement in front of the embassy. Putting on their website was a mistake IMO because it got attention of the wrong audiences.

 

[daveb]

I have a problem with someone saying speech on certain religious topics is abusing the freedom of speech.

Wel, it all hinges on what the person meant by "abuse". Frankly, I can't see how one could "abuse" any freedom (otherwise, the implication is that there are certain restrictions on freedoms, and IMO thershould be none). If by "abuse" they simply mean using it only to incite, then, yes, I would agree. However, that still doesn't mean the Freedom of Speech should be (legally) restrained.

The part I find interesting is that the implication from the statement is that Freedom of Religion (or rather, the freedom to not be offended, which is not a freedom here) trumps Freedom of Speech.

 

[daveb]

It's covered. The violence is on the people causing the violence, not the person making the speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio seems to disagree with you. However, the original question of incitement to "public disorder" is another question - if it passes the test of imminent lawless action, then, yes, it is also covered. But if it fails that test, it isn't. Also, it depends on what the legal definition of "incite" means (I'm no attorney so can't say). Does it mean that the speech calls for such action, or does it mean that such action will likely result from said speech. I see this as a grey area (from a legal standpoint), though I agree only the actual attackers are legally liable.

Then again, the US has no jurisdiction (yes, I understand the embassies are US territory) in Libya as a whole, so I have to wonder how such a law applies at an embassy.

 

[Gokul43201]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems to me like the OP is based on a false dichotomy. Comdemnation of A does not equal sympathy for anti-A protesters (violent or not).

On a separate note I think the Embassy should have not felt compelled to denounce the video in the first place, but I'm aware that it's way too easy to pronounce judgment from the safety of my couch.

 

[Jack21222]

These people are violent fanatics who still live in the 12th century.

This is way off topic, but I can't resist myself. Arabs in the 12th century were the guardians of western civilization. This is in the period called the Islamic Golden Age. The works of the ancient Greeks may very well have been lost if the Arabs hadn't translated them to Arabic. This is also why so many stars in the sky have Arabic names, such as Algol and Aldebaran.

So, I feel it's off the mark to accuse 12th century Muslims and Arabs of being "violent fanatics." In those years, it was the Christians who were the violent fanatics. The 12th century saw the rise of inquisitions and two crusades.

Again, sorry for being off topic, but accusing terrorists of "living in the 12th century" would be a great compliment to them. Their trouble is that they still live in the 20th century, rather than the 21st.

 

[edward]

This is way off topic, but I can't resist myself. Arabs in the 12th century were the guardians of western civilization. This is in the period called the Islamic Golden Age. The works of the ancient Greeks may very well have been lost if the Arabs hadn't translated them to Arabic. This is also why so many stars in the sky have Arabic names, such as Algol and Aldebaran.

So, I feel it's off the mark to accuse 12th century Muslims and Arabs of being "violent fanatics." In those years, it was the Christians who were the violent fanatics. The 12th century saw the rise of inquisitions and two crusades.

Again, sorry for being off topic, but accusing terrorists of "living in the 12th century" would be a great compliment to them. Their trouble is that they still live in the 20th century, rather than the 21st.

Ahh but they were violent then as now about denigrating Islam or Mohamed including jihad. Not to say that Christians were not or are not violent, but Islam remained more isolated from the world and from change.

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/you-can-never-awaken-a-man-who-is/