"The Innocence of Muslims"

[thombergeron]

So maybe you knew this was happening; maybe you didn’t. I think we can all agree that it’s not particularly surprising. What is interesting is that someone at Hillary Clinton’s State Department actually detailed part of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy. It’s buried deeper in the article…

The State Department declined a Channel 2 Action News request for an interview. We wanted to ask why are we using tax dollars to refurbish religious buildings overseas. The State Department did send Channel Two Action News an e-mail saying that they are fighting Islamic extremism by building relationships with Islamic leaders


More Mid East policy Paying huge dividens

Plainly something you did not know was happening:

President Extends Condolences and Condemns Bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra to Iraqi People

P.S. You are a tool.

[yodajazz]

When the movie was released and the producer for whatever reason pretended he was a Jew being financed by other Jews I saw a number of articles asking what the Jewish response would be to Muslims mocking them. But the response would be what it always is, complaining not killing. And to be honest, while the movie is a hatefest I do not think it rises to the level of offensiveness of a state sponsored Holocaust denial conference or cartoon contest. This is not just because I am Jewish it's because it is not someone's religious beliefs being challenged in the latter case but the dead being mocked.

Remember us talking about the U.S ambassador being so bad because he put his thumbs up over the dead body of Qaddafi. Multiply that by a million. People in the Middle East always complain about Western double standards on free speech.

Well, what is a bigger threat to free speech? Complaining when someone has a Holocaust denial conference or murdering people when they insult your prophet. As far as I know, condemning hateful speech is in no way a threat to free speech. Killing people sort of is (intentional understatement).

And the entire first post is gibberish. Insulting my mother is free speech and in no way licenses murder. Even in states with laws against villification, the punishment should not involve harming third parties, those sharing their ancestry etc. The anti-semitism on Middle Eastern media is a thousand times what we see in Western media with respect to Islam and people are not murdered because of it. Some angry letters are written, it is roundly condemned, as this movie should be, but no murder.

Question for Bishr: Various Arab media outlets deny the Holocaust in one manner or another all the time. Usually no international stance needs to be taken because embassies are not firebombed as a result. Iran brought together neo-nazis to discuss the facts supporting the Holocaust. You talk about double standards? My understanding is that for there to be a double standard you have to actually have two different reactions to the SAME behavior. I haven't seen Jews storm embassies when we're insulted as we are every day in the Middle East.

If my enitre post is glibberish, that means, you didn't even understand my first sentence, where I said the embassy attacks were criminal. That means that the persons, who did it, planned, and supported it logistically should be brought to justice. I am not defending riots and violence, I'm promoting safety and reasoning.

Free speech, has legal limits. Some examples are; slander, inciting a riot, criminal conspiracy, treason, and copyright infringement. The resulting riots and mayhem, following percieved insults to the Prophet, or the Koran, have happened many times, including loss of life to military personell, and others. I believe that the embassy attack was planned in advance, however that hate-filled film helped provide cover for them. The people who made the film, may not have known about the attack, but they knew the possible consequences of such a movie. Evidence of this, is the fact that they changed dialogue in the film after the actors portrayed the parts. Hiding your intentions, is strong evidence, you know your actions are wrong. The Coptic church, where the latest person who is given credit for the films attends, accused their member, of having "ulterior motives" in making the film, among other things. I believe that to be the true case. Their motive and actions, and the predictable results, places their 'speech' in the criminal category. Do I support the resulting riots, and other actions? NO. If two people commit crimes, do we say that the person commiting the lesser one should go free, becasue it was not as bad as the other? No, both person's are responsible for their actions.

At the very least, the film makers need, answer questions, in a criminal investigation. Speech is not free, when the results lead to loss of life, injury, and property destruction.

[yodajazz]

Plainly something you did not know was happening:

President Extends Condolences and Condemns Bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra to Iraqi People

P.S. You are a tool.

I'm trying to understand if you think, the President's message this is a good thing, or bad thing? I say, I see it as a good thing to try and win friends. And it goes with true US principle of freedom of religious expression, (that odes not harm others).

[thombergeron]

I'm trying to understand if you think, the President's message this is a good thing, or bad thing? I say, I see it as a good thing to try and win friends. And it goes with true US principle of freedom of religious expression, (that odes not harm others).

I'd have to say I'm fundamentally opposed to funding of religious institutions with U.S. tax dollars, period, whether they be Christian churches in Macedonia, Hindu temples in Nepal, Jewish temples in Bosnia, or Islamic mosques in Eqypt. In my perspective, coddling irrational stone-age cults is precisely the wrong way to encourage human progress and dignity.

But the link I provided was mainly to illustrate yet another instance of OMK's wild ignorance and hypocrisy. To whit, his proposition that the State Department funding the restoration of a mosque in Cairo in 2012 is clear evidence of Obama's spooky muslimness, but George Bush's commitment in 2006 to rebuild the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shi'ism, is, I dunno, not worthy of comment, I guess. Because, obviously, it's only outrageous when a black Democrat does it.

It makes a juicy conspiracy theory, but the State Dept. is restoring foreign mosques as part of its Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation, which was created by Congress in 2000. The first grants were approved by none other than George W. Bush in 2001, and have funded the restoration of lots of churches and temples, as well as mosques.

Actually, I'd love to see somebody file suit against State on the grounds that the projects funded by this program violate the Establishment Clause, but I don't think OMK is going to do it, since he's a blowhard and he's ignorant.

As an aside, I'm currently in Jakarta, where the Muslim mouth-breathers are staging their own stupid protests of this stupid YouTube clip. It would be nice if someone reminded them that the Kennedy administration kicked in some USAID dollars for the construction of the vast and ugly Istiqlal Mosque, way back in the 60s when the Sukarno and the Islamists were our bulwark against communism in SE Asia.

[natina]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/

No One Murdered Because Of This Image

WASHINGTON—Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday. The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist, reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/

[Jamie Michelle]

While the embassy attacks are most definately criminal, so is that movie that ultimately provided cover for attacks, and plays into the hands of America's enemies. It's called Treason. No one has mentioned the big protest in the US, over one scene in the movie, "The last Temptation of Chirst". And that was only about Jesus imagining a different life as a normal married man. The results of the movie about Muhammed were predictable, just like that planned annoucement to publically burn the Koran, a while back. People (Americans) died as a result, of that also. And incidently, I read of the same Koran burning pastor, of helping to promote this movie. Imagine me, insulting your mother, and calling that free speech. This whole thing (the movie), smacks of manipulation for other goals, much different than the surface reactions, of common people. And it's not even about religion. It's about power and control, through hate.

It's becoming rather obvious that the stooges who filmed the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" are completely owned by the US government. Hence, the pertinent question is what the US government intended to get out of this. What they're getting out of it is demonstration of Arab hate. How that benefits anyone is an exercise I'll leave up to the student.

[Queens Guy]

It ought to be a nice, calm day in Paris.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...phet-mohammed/


French Mag to Publish Cartoons of Prophet Mohammed


A French satirical magazine is set to publish several cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed on Wednesday, a move that is likely to inflame the Islamic faithful and militants who have already rioted in more than 20 countries over a movie mocking the prophet.
Depictions of the prophet are strictly prohibited and considered blasphemous by Muslims. Cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark in 2005 and then reproduced in newspapers across Europe triggered riots throughout the Mideast and Africa. Churches and embassies were torched and at least 100 people died in the outbreaks and police crackdowns.
The magazine “Charlie Hebdo” has confirmed that it will publish the cartoons, but has not revealed what they will depict. French newspaper “Le Monde” reports that some of the cartoons show the prophet in “particularly explicit poses,” without providing any further detail.
The move comes as Muslims are still simmering after riots in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and nearly 20 other countries over the move “Innocence of Muslims.” U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
French government ministers have criticized the magazine’s decision and police in Paris have stepped up security around its offices.
France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim population, and the senior cleric at Paris’ biggest mosque has appealed for followers to remain calm, according to the French news agency AFP.
The magazine has defended the move by invoking the right to free speech. Speaking on French radio, the magazine’s director explained that a decision not to publish would “hand victory to a handful of extremists that are causing a commotion in the world and in France.”
It’s not the first time the anti-establishment, left-wing magazine has courted controversy. In 2011 the offices of “Charlie Hedbo” were bombed after it published an Arab Spring edition with the Prophet Muhammad as “guest editor” on the cover.

[trish]

This whole thing (the movie), smacks of manipulation for other goals, much different than the surface reactions, of common people.

Indeed it does. The video has been in the cloud for two months while no one killed anyone over it or even held a protest. After the U.S. killed Al-Libi (a name meaning from Libya) in June, Al-Qaeda swore revenge and renewed that threat as September 11th approached. It's becoming rather obvious that the vicious stooges who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Libya on September 11th and murdered Chris Stevens were puppeteered by Al-Qaeda. It's ashamed that religion so weakens the critical faculty that believers are so easily swayed to riot, hate and murder. It's also ashamed that politics and power so embolden political leaders that they can be persuaded to coldly order military solutions to diplomatic problems.

[yodajazz]

It's becoming rather obvious that the stooges who filmed the movie "The Innocence of Muslims" are completely owned by the US government. Hence, the pertinent question is what the US government intended to get out of this. What they're getting out of it is demonstration of Arab hate. How that benefits anyone is an exercise I'll leave up to the student.

The answers are: 1. Israel wins big, in this scenario. They dont have to risk lives and money in military operations, when the US can do it for them. It is my understanding that they are covertly working to get the US to attack Iran. So some say the movie project reeks of being a Mossad operation. I would not put anything past them, including the killing of American citizens. I am not against the Jewish religion, by the way.

2. The military-industrial complex, benefits from fear, being rewarded with an open checkbook, even as we cut funding for health, education, and food stamps.

3. The super wealthy, and the power elite types, benefit from common people fighting one another. It distracts us from closely looking at whether certain practices are in fact fair. As an example, people once thought that interest rates over certain amounts, were unfair. Now the sky is the limit. But that's just one example of many.

4. Certain big religious group leadership. They can keep the faithful locked in a seige mentally, and away from the messages of Jesus. Dont get me wrong. I consider myself a spiritual person who believes that religion is a good thing in general. Most all relgious people, who do bad things, do it not because of their relgion, but do it despite of their religion.

[yodajazz]

Indeed it does. The video has been in the cloud for two months while no one killed anyone over it or even held a protest. After the U.S. killed Al-Libi (a name meaning from Libya) in June, Al-Qaeda swore revenge and renewed that threat as September 11th approached. It's becoming rather obvious that the vicious stooges who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Libya on September 11th and murdered Chris Stevens were puppeteered by Al-Qaeda. It's ashamed that religion so weakens the critical faculty that believers are so easily swayed to riot, hate and murder. It's also ashamed that politics and power so embolden political leaders that they can be persuaded to coldly order military solutions to diplomatic problems.

I'll say that religion can have the opposite effect to what you describe. But most religious people rely on leadership, to help them prioritize numerous and complex principles. For example, when and why the concept of Mercy, is important, vs Justice. (Forgivingness is closely related to Mercy). I have a Koran that is over 1,500 pages. And the chapters, called Sura's are not placed chronologically, making it more difficult, for a causal reader. I consider it to be a high context book, in that one needs to understand what was going on in the Prophet's life when those words came from him. It's kind of like hearing only one side of a phone conversation. In such a case, it would be also important to know why the other party called.