-
"The Innocence of Muslims"
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
the movie is beyond offensive, and the reaction so far and anything that follows is quite predictable! what a disastrous move and what bad handling by the US administration with the talk about the marines like that, which is just saying to the millions of Muslims rightfully enraged by that movie that the USA will teach u what free speech is and will further harass u by sending marines to teach u how to attack its embassies, how can any good come out of this???
would the USA administration handle in the same way a movie about Holocaust denial for example??? will the people of the world contemplate why the most aggressive reactions to the film took place in the countries of the fake so called arab spring?
our beloved prophet Mohammad (Allah bless him) certainly wouldn't agree to such a reaction, i think it is doing almost as much harm as the film itself, what a shame!!!
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
One of the key problems is that some Arab states like Egypt in the past and presently Iran and Syria, (whose murderous and foul regime Bishr clearly supports), are used to banning all manner of things they don't like - and torturing and killing dissidents and those who offend the rulers.. The ideal of free expression and freedom of speech has been hard fought for in the West. Indeed it can be badly abused as it has been by the makers of this offensive and deeply provocative film. It is a filthy smear. On that we agree. But the mistake that the Muslim world makes is to beleive that it was in any shape or form endorsed by the US authorities. What goes out on the Internet is not contolled - and the only way to provent this sort of thing is the sort of wholesale contol and blocks imposed by regimes like your dear Assad or in other parts of the Arab world where freedom is quoshed - as in Saudi Arabia.
And yes the US government would ignore the poison of holocaust denial as well if posted by amateurish film makers on the Web. And funnily enough such a film would not provoke attacks on US embassies and killings by angry jews - beleive it or not.
And I see Bishr is gloating with his heavy handed irony. God stand up for bastards like Assad, eh, Bishr.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
To equate producing an insulting video with murdering US State Department personnel is beyond insane. This perverse notion of an eye for an eye will only add to anti-Muslim attitudes in America
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Fundamentalist independ of their religion, tend to give each others a helping hand.
The thing is, the American government or embassies had nothing at all to do with the movie.
Had the movie producer decided to make a movie about Obama loving to sodomize a horse before breakfast, you would still have the movie out there.
On the other hand, take Abu Gharib, where army commanders, the pentagon and even the white house encouraged and promoted torture, the whole world had seen many pics of American soldier extremely happy and smiling from joy as they tortured civilians. Yet it did not seem to cause as much of an outrage as compared to this movie?
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Activists troubled by White House call to YouTube:
Prominent civil liberties groups expressed concern on Friday over news that the White House urged YouTube to review whether an anti-Muslim video posted on the video sharing site violated the firm's policies.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...be-135618.html
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Noam Chomsky talking about public opinion polls in the Mid East. And, too, he says, "Almost anything can set off a conflagration."
Sadly, I think Chomsky is right. Ya know, almost anything will set off a conflict. Because there is so much tension between the West and the Mid East.
I mean, go back to 1953 and Iran.
Noam Chomsky : " Ogni minima cosa può innescare un'espolsione d'odio nel mondo arabo" - YouTube
CIA Iran 1953 - YouTube
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
If your religion teaches you to go on killing rampages because someone made a silly and offensive YouTube video, or someone published a caracature of prophet whose facial features no living sole today remembers, then you might consider dropping that religion and taking up something more calming and productive...perhaps macramé .
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prospero
And funnily enough such a film would not provoke attacks on US embassies and killings by angry jews - beleive it or not.
At least as you point out there's not much precedent for that reaction. And it's been tested. The reactions are often angry, but mostly verbal.
The reactions of many in the Muslim world to the insults to Mohammad are different on two levels as well. They are violent and they are not directed only at the provocateurs but their countrymen and even inaminate things like buildings such as embassies seen as symbols.
For Bishr: Neo-Nazis marched through Skokie Illinois (an area where many Holocaust survivors lived) in the United States and the ACLU defended their right to do so. The embarrassing response of some Jews? Quitting the ACLU. Undoubtedly bad behavior in my opinion because the ACLU took a principled stand. However, words cannot describe the difference between quitting a civil rights organization in protest on the one hand and murdering several individuals not the direct objects of the protest.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
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.
I said the Jewish equivalent would be mocking the Holocaust but perhaps it would be mocking Abraham. That would really send Jews on a rampage. The reform Jews would say, "who's Abraham?" But then they'd be very pissed;)
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
It'd be more sacrilegious to go after Jon Stewart.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
It'd be more sacrilegious to go after Jon Stewart.
At least Jon Stewart never threatened to kill his own son because he heard voices commanding him to do so. Not that I know of anyway.:)
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Actually some of the remarks by Yoda had occurred to me as well.
The genesis of this ugly little film (or amateur video) is curious to say the least - and the rumours around it suggesting jews were responsible for making it were very suspect.
Since the Rushdie affair the response of part of the Muslim population to such provocations is predictable. So the people behind this movie seem to created it to provoking this response - as wide an angry reaction as possible internationally.
One should condemn the riots and bloodshed. But these were an utterly predictable over reaction.
But why exactly was this film made and floated out there on the web at this time?
Pastor Jones's involvement might mere be opportunistic. But this man as i said in an earlier post already has American blood on his hands for his earlier provocations.
Mitt Romney weighed in immediately with a despicable attack on the Whie House following the remarks made by the US Embassy in Egypt condemning the attacks but also this video. He was palpably trying to make political advantage out of a tragedy.
There is an intelligent debate to be had about the way the US handles its relations with the islamic world. Romney and representative rightwingers in here are not contributing to a reasoned response but shooting from the hop.
Cool heads are needed.
This may well have an electoral impact in the US. But it would be interesting to find out why this film was made and distributed now. Suspicious to say the least.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
This is an interesting piece from a british newspaper by the Egyptian-Ameican journalist Mona Eltahaway.
I tell fellow Egyptians and fellow Americans it's about us, not about them
After this week's Middle East protests we must move beyond the deceptive simplicity of the question: 'Why do they hate us?'
When my father came home from Friday prayers, I was eager to know what the sermon had been about. We'd all been following three days of protests outside the US embassy in Cairo, ostensibly over a film deemed offensive to the Prophet Muhammad that was posted on YouTube. More protests were expected in several countries after Friday prayers.
"The regular imam wasn't there, so the muezzin stepped in and told us the best way to honour the prophet was to live by his teachings," my dad said. I carry that breathtaking simplicity in my emotional suitcase with me when I travel back and forth between the US, where I've lived for the past 12 years, and Egypt, the country of my birth, to which I'm returning to fight for the social and cultural revolution we desperately need in order for our political revolution to succeed.
When my fellow Americans ask me that tired question, "Why do they hate us?", my initial response is usually: "It's not about you." When a fellow Egyptian wants to talk about hating the US, I flip that response on its head and tell her: "It's not about America – it's about you." The truth is somewhere in the middle, but too many people are willing to use it as a football in an endless match of political manipulation.
For a slightly subtler response, I tell my fellow Americans that "they" don't hate them for their freedom but, rather, because successive US governments all too willingly and knowingly supported dictators who denied their populations any kind of freedom. As a US citizen, I cherish the first amendment. It's what I whipped out as I stood alongside Muslims and non-Muslims in Lower Manhattan in 2010 to defend the right of an Islamic community centre to open close to Ground Zero. We told those who opposed the centre that that first amendment was what gave them the right to protest and at the same time guaranteed freedom to worship right there on that spot.
How could a country that cherishes such freedom be so willing to support dictators all too eager to deny that same freedom to their people? Even President Barack Obama, who spoke so eloquently about dignity and freedom in his 2009 Cairo speech, disappointingly dragged his feet when it was time to decide between Mubarak and the people rising up for that very same freedom and dignity.
Anti-US sentiment has been born out of many grievances – support and weapons for such dictators as Mubarak, unquestionable support for Israel in its occupation of Palestine, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen that kill more civilians than intended targets.
And, paradoxically – or perhaps fittingly – that anti-US sentiment was played on dictators such as Mubarak, who was happy to pocket US aid in return for maintaining Egypt's peace treaty with Israel and buying US weapons, and yet used the state-controlled media to fan hatred of the US. Mubarak was adept, as were many other US-backed dictators, at playing the sane middle to the "lunatics with beards" he so often used as bogeymen to guarantee the support of foreign allies.
Mubarak is gone, and Egypt's president is from the Muslim Brotherhood movement – long vilified as the "lunatics with beards". It is at this point that I tell fellow Egyptians it's about them, and not about America.
That YouTube film – not made or distributed by the US government – was posted at least two months before ultra-conservative Salafists called for protests at the US embassy. Why? Understanding that the president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, must now occupy that same middle ground as Mubarak did, the Salafists are all too happy to flex rightwing political muscle. Why else did they call their protest in Cairo on the anniversary of the attacks on 11 September 2001?
Morsi, not wanting to concede the moral high ground, remained silent for too long, stuck between his memory of being the opposition and an awareness that he's now the president. That's what I mean when I tell fellow Egyptians that it's about us, not America.
Mubarak could and did ban films. That's why many genuinely offended Muslims in Egypt and other countries so quickly ask why the American government can't do the same. Of course, he also gave the green light to messages of antisemitism and hatred against Egypt's Christians.
As an Egyptian-American, I want both sides of that hyphen to enjoy the forms of freedom guaranteed by the first amendment, as I want both sides of that hyphen to move beyond the deceptive simplicity of the question, "Why do they hate us?"
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Astonishing to me is that people who like to pass themselves off as worldly and knowledgeable ( as do many of you on here) allow themselves to be diverted by a total hoax....the You Tube Video. Every reporter on the ground in any one of the 20 countries currently in flames has explained that most of the demonstrators are poor and uneducated ( although with all due respect, that's pretty common in the majority of these countries) to think that these people had access to a I Pad to see the video is laughable. This is a hateful mob....plain and simple. The video had been out for quite some time, but it served a nice diversion and of course a lazy, corrupt US press, and the majority of you will all go along for the ride. The video is an answer to a problem that is otherwise too difficult for you apologists to cope with.
If the video should be discussed at all, it should be in the context of the first amendment. Speaking of that, this is America 2012.....where if you make an anti Muslim vid...........crude, humorous or otherwise, a dozen police officers will storm your house at midnight, and will have plenty of cameras along for effect, so that the wire services can pick up the story and relay it all over the world, and they'll use the pretext of some outstanding warrants ..."we'd like to take you down town to ask you a few questions"
Absolutely shameful. But you all keep on talking about that video...it's therapeutic and it explains everything, I understand.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
snipe snipe... "pass themselves off etc" "peddling the line" etc etc There are plenty of people here who actually do know a lot more about these things than you do OMK - with your Pavlovian redneck response to issues.
I read your last post two times to try and figure out exactly what point you are making. Broadly you seem to be castigating the media for reporting this at all, ("a lazy corrupt US Press" - talking about Fox again, are you) praising the people who made it for - in your ignorant and twisted world you clearly seem to think it represents an accurate picture of Islam - and decrying the fact that the makers of this are now being questioned by the police.
The "poor and ignorant" people involved in these demonstrations - a tiny minority in all of the places where they took place - were very clearly stirred to action by radicals. In all probabilty many had not even seen this video. (though as you well know it can be seen on a PC, phone etc etc as well as an ipad/ (Cheap shot by OMK again) They are - I repeat - clearly a minority easily roused by mischievous imams and Jihadists with a wider agenda.They were told that it was shown on US State TV - and with the news limitations most have experienced (and many still continue to experience) have no concept of the freedom and variety of media in the West.
This has already now been largely concluded to be the case in Libya where the attack on the embassy was carefully planned by one of the many militias with guns (oh yes guns don't kill people do they.. eh!) in the aftermath of the end of the rule of Gaddafy. There is chaos there and the Islamists see in this an opportunity to rampage. The video was a pretext.
In Lebanon the demonstrations were stirred up by hisb ut Tahirir - a small but very active radical organisation.
And yet you continue with your ignorant attempt to smear the entire Islamic world for the actions of a minority. In that you are as guilty as those Muslims who believe this video represents the views of the West.
However this does not take away from the awesomely offensive nature of the video. Why not watch it OMK?
Stupid
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bishr
the reaction so far and anything that follows is quite predictable!
[...]
Mohammad (Allah bless him) certainly wouldn't agree to such a reaction, i think it is doing almost as much harm as the film itself, what a shame!!!
And here you see the very purpose for the video unfold...
I don't think it was designed to simply insult Muslims, but rather to provoke the kind of predictable reaction that it did!
(The fact the reaction was so predictable does not say good things about the state of your religion or your religious leaders around the world)
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
again you r twisting what i said!
i was not in any way discussing the hypothetical reaction of jews to a video that offends them, i was talking specifically about the difference in the manner in which the USA administration would handle the situation if it was revolving around jews/israel instead of muslims/arabian-countries. i don't know why u turned the whole thing to a comparison between the way muslims react to offense and the way jews react to offense.
also, i said that the events being labeled as a reaction to the video surely would not please our beloved prophet Mouhammad, but they are predictable.
also, for those saying that most of the people living in these countries don't own apple ipads to watch the video on, that is totally correct, but new cellphones with video playback and touch interfaces are shockingly widespread, and even the poorest people own them and videos of interest spread very fast so it is not difficult at all to assume that the vast majority of the protestors have actually seen it.
also, most people here are not stupid and of course understand that if a person from the USA posts a video online that doesn't mean he has the blessing of the president there! the attacks on the embassies are not caused by such a misconception!
the video was like pouring acid in the eyes of every muslim that watched it regardless of his/her level of religious commitment or eduction or social class.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Do you live in Syria now, Bashr? Have you ever lived in the West?
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
i live in syria now and i lived abroad for years but not in the west.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bishr
the video was like pouring acid in the eyes of every muslim that watched it regardless of his/her level of religious commitment or eduction or social class.
For centuries, people have shitted on other people's beliefs. It is old news.
Some Muslims (i.e, the violent protesting ones) need to realized that the video was edited to elicit a negative response. The clip is from a movie that wasn't about Mohammed but called Desert Warriors. The people financing the movie and the producer duped the cast and the director into thinking it was a Middle Eastern adventure. The movie was completed as Desert Warriors. The movie was re-dubbed into an anti-Muslim movie by a handful of people with an evil agenda.
http://www.mooncasting.com/us/castin...r-los-angeles/
Gawker.com really broke the story about the Desert Warriors connection.
-
Iran: We Will Hunt Down Video Makers
Iran: We Will Hunt Down Video Makers
Producer goes into hiding; actress posts 'scared' letter
A quasi-official religious foundation in Iran said this weekend it was boosting the bounty on author Salman Rushdie's head from $2.8 million to $3.3 million, the AP reports.
http://www.newser.com/story/154207/i..._medium=united
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Obama Is Fighting Islamic Extremism By Building Mosques
September 16, 2012 | Filed under Arab Spring,Barack Obama,War On Terror | Posted by Doug Johnson
WASHINGTON, D.C — A Channel 2 Action News investigation found that the State Department is sending millions of dollars to save mosques overseas. This investment has received criticism as the United States makes an effort to slash nearly $4 trillion in government spending.Plenty of outrage following the announcement made Thursday afternoon by a government commission that suggested huge cuts to the budget, including eliminating the interest education for home mortgage. This juxtaposed with United States investing millions to refurbish mosques as a good-will effort in Muslim countries has upset many taxpayer groups.
The Channel 2 Action News investigation found a 1,300-year-old Egyptian mosque that was almost flooded by contaminated sewer water that is one of many ancient Cairo mosques and churches that were saved from destruction by the U.S. taxpayers.
This is part of a $770 million program to rebuild Cairo’s sewer system, paid for by the U.S. State Department’s USAID program.
.
Millions more dollars have been sent to places like Cyprus. The State Department displays before and after pictures of mosques refurbished with U.S. tax dollars
.
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
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
It's difficult to explain the concept of free speech to people who condone flogging a woman for wearing pants in public.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
onmyknees
[B]
More Mid East policy Paying huge dividens[/INDENT]
In the wake of a policy initiated by George Bush to bomb Muslims into submission. I wonder which is more likely to create a positive image of the US globally?
Oh and your friends such as Pastor Jones and his ilk - plus those who firebombed Mosque in the US - are better ambassadors for the US, than USAid? Hmmmmmmm
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flabbybody
To equate producing an insulting video with murdering US State Department personnel is beyond insane. This perverse notion of an eye for an eye will only add to anti-Muslim attitudes in America
'An eye for an eye' would be a welcome change from the Muslim world.
Some Coptic Christian makes a youtube video that insults Muslims, then the Muslims should make a youtube video that insults Jesus Christ.
This was 4 lives for an insult. Far worse than 'an eye for an eye'.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Let's check the numbers: Worldwide
1.Christianity: 2.1 billion
2.Islam: 1.5 billion
3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
4.Hinduism: 900 million
5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
6.Buddhism: 376 million
7.primal-indigenous: 300 million
8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
9.Sikhism: 23 million
10.Juche: 19 million
11.Spiritism: 15 million
12.Judaism: 14 million
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
onmyknees
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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).
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yodajazz
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.
-
1 Attachment(s)
No One Murdered Because Of This Image
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/att...1&d=1348014710
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/static/onion...terminator.gif
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natina
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...s-image,29553/
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yodajazz
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jamie Michelle
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.
-
Re: "The Innocence of Muslims"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
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.
