• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Innocence of Muslims" the film that caused the protests

iliveonramen said:
I'm not saying that's the case. At the same time...this is the response the film maker was going for! This wasn't a film for neo-nazi's to jerk off to. This was produced for a reaction from the Muslim community. These folks relish in the idea that they will cause conflict.
Click to expand...

That's already escalating the criticism.
 
Wiseone said:
The evidence is in the NPR articles which where the result of an investigation by their reporters into who the producer was since he used a fake name. You've commented on a story which you clearly haven't read and made yourself out to be an idiot by denying something clearly stated in the story, congratulations. So yes the man may be an elderly Jewish man, or perhaps he's a Egyptian Coptic Christian, or perhaps he doesn't exist at all and the film was produced by 2 or more people jointly and they decided to use this one fake name for the producer role.
Click to expand...

The article ends with "What's safe to say now is that we should look at those claims with a great deal of skepticism" yet you repeat that it may be an elderly Jewish man or a Coptic Christian, despite the warning and without having any evidence to support these claims.

By the way I hope to Christ you aren't suggesting any anti-Semitic feelings on my part.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there aren't any intentional anti-Semitic feelings on your part but it does seem clear you are a dupe who will repeat whatever slander the BBC and NPR offers you.
 
Harshaw said:
By implying that merely stating they're protected by the First Amendment is "defending" them. I haven't seen anyone defend the video. Have you? Can you point me to it?

But the rest of what I said stands -- why is it necessary to then turn around and condemn the people who made the video? You're the one who links the two. If "nothing" justifies what the mob did, then why is the condemnation also in order? It's a ridiculous video, but they didn't kill anyone.
Click to expand...

You are defending their film, by asking why its necessary to condemn the people who made the video and the message in it you're implying that is not necessary. However I always find it necessary to condemn people who produce speech for the sole purpose of angering other people to violence, since when is that kind of speech acceptable? And by acceptable I mean "socially acceptable" not "legally acceptable" I swear to Christ I'm getting sick of having to repeat myself so many times that its legally protected speech.

What if a man was standing along the road holding a sign and preaching a message about how the Jews were behind the Holocaust, that they are subhumans who use the blood of virgin boys to bake their bread, or something just as stupid and then another man, who doesn't even have to be Jewish himself, came along and started attacking this man, who is responsible for the violence? Both of them in my opinion, although one is legally responsible because speech is no justification for assault while the other was merely exercising his rights however that doesn't mean I can't or won't condemn the man in every possible way for creating speech that served no purpose but to incite hate and violence in other people.

Just like the Muslims are responsible for their actions of violence, even though they were provoked and angered that doesn't justify their actions. However nothing justifies the kind of speech used in this film either, but speech doesn't require justification to use, violence does.

We as a society need to condemn the kind of people who use this kind of speech, give them none of our ears and let them rant and rave to an audience that isn't there just like we condemn holocaust deniers or white supremacists.
 
Grant said:
The article ends with "What's safe to say now is that we should look at those claims with a great deal of skepticism" yet you repeat that it may be an elderly Jewish man or a Coptic Christian, despite the warning and without having any evidence to support these claims.

Perhaps there aren't any intentional anti-Semitic feelings on your part but it does seem clear you are a dupe who will repeat whatever slander the BBC and NPR offers you.
Click to expand...

That's why I used the word "may." Sometimes I link the dictionary for people who have trouble figuring out what words mean, do I really need to do the same here?

And if you have a more accurate source I'd love to see it but until then Ill go with NPR and BBC, I think they are more credible than you alone
 
iliveonramen said:
So talking about the intent of the film is escalating criticism? When exactly has a film ever been discussed without talking about the intent of the film maker or the ramifications of what he's created.
Click to expand...

Since it's absurd to suggest that these men are practically using them like marionettes.
 
Wiseone said:
That's why I used the word "may." Sometimes I link the dictionary for people who have trouble figuring out what words mean, do I really need to do the same here?

And if you have a more accurate source I'd love to see it but until then Ill go with NPR and BBC, I think they are more credible than you alone
Click to expand...

Yes, and it may be Muslims themselves or Mexican border jumpers. You don't know and neither does the BBC or NPR, yet you repeat the canard that it MAY BE "an elderly Jewish man". It may be anyone, and even the article says nothing is known about who it might be.

You think the BBC and NPR are more credible than I am yet we all say that we don't know who is responsible. Only you said it may be "an elderly Jewish man or an Egyptian Coptic Christian" a statement that would surely demonstrate a lack of knowledge, or credibility, about anything relating to the makers of this film.
 
Wiseone said:
What if a man was standing along the road holding a sign and preaching a message about how the Jews were behind the Holocaust, that they are subhumans who use the blood of virgin boys to bake their bread, or something just as stupid and then another man, who doesn't even have to be Jewish himself, came along and started attacking this man, who is responsible for the violence? Both of them in my opinion, although one is legally responsible because speech is no justification for assault while the other was merely exercising his rights however that doesn't mean I can't or won't condemn the man in every possible way for creating speech that served no purpose but to incite hate and violence in other people.
Click to expand...

See, to me, the immediacy of contact is the key component to your example. While it is little excuse to become violent, the possibility of violence, the personal touch is so much more potent at that close of contact. What are talking about is a film, a thing produced in some far away land, not being shown in their own district, no massive media coverage anywhere about the film, the filmmakers nowhere in sight, no governments promoting it, nothing.
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
You are defending their film, by asking why its necessary to condemn the people who made the video and the message in it you're implying that is not necessary.
Click to expand...

See, you're doing what I said. I'm not defending the film. I'm defending their freedom to do it, only.

I don't care what was in the film; it's completely irrelevant. You said so yourself when you said nothing justifies what they did. If nothing justifies it, then the film doesn't matter.

But apparently, the film does matter, so I guess you think it justifies it at least a little.


What if a man was standing along the road holding a sign and preaching a message about how the Jews were behind the Holocaust, that they are subhumans who use the blood of virgin boys to bake their bread, or something just as stupid and then another man, who doesn't even have to be Jewish himself, came along and started attacking this man, who is responsible for the violence?
Click to expand...


What if what the mob was complaining about was women showing too much skin, which is something else they tend to get offended by? Would you then claim that to say "screw you, get over it; they'll wear what they want" isn't enough, and the women should be lectured about sensitivity in their clothing choices? Of course you wouldn't, and neither would anyone else. It's exactly the same principle. Exactly.

You're bringing up hypotheticals, so that one seems far more apt.


but speech doesn't require justification to use
Click to expand...

Apparently you think it does, if you claim, as you do, that standing up for their free speech without condemning it is the same as defending the video.

We as a society need to condemn the kind of people who use this kind of speech
Click to expand...

But when you do it in the same breath as condemning the mob incensed by it, you're partially justifying the mob. You could leave them as two separate thoughts, which they actually are, but you don't. You've linked the two together several times now.
 
Grant said:
Yes, and it may be Muslims themselves or Mexican border jumpers. You don't know and neither does the BBC or NPR, yet you repeat the canard that it MAY BE "an elderly Jewish man". It may be anyone, and even the article says nothing is known about who it might be.

You think the BBC and NPR are more credible than I am yet we all say that we don't know who is responsible. Only you said it may be "an elderly Jewish man or an Egyptian Coptic Christian" a statement that would surely demonstrate a lack of knowledge, or credibility, about anything relating to the makers of this film.
Click to expand...

So your logic is that because the BBC and NPR are unsure of who the producer is, although hints have pointed to one of these two individuals, they have no credibility about anything relating to the makers of the film? I'm sorry I wasn't aware that not knowing something for sure, meant that all your other information is automatically invalid.

You'd make an excellent investigator you know "I found the suspect with the murder weapon, he's covered in the victim's blood, but I'm not sure what he had for breakfast this morning so all my other information lacks credibility too"
 
Wiseone said:
So your logic is that because the BBC and NPR are unsure of who the producer is, although hints have pointed to one of these two individuals, they have no credibility about anything relating to the makers of the film? I'm sorry I wasn't aware that not knowing something for sure, meant that all your other information is automatically invalid.
Click to expand...

Hints? You want to buy into "hints"? Just who is doing the hinting here? Even these 'hints' are at variance with each other. Which hint do you choose to believe? That he (if it was a 'he') was "an elderly Jewish man" or that he was "an Egyptian Coptic Christian". These are your choices it seems.

You'd make an excellent investigator you know "I found the suspect with the murder weapon, he's covered in the victim's blood, but I'm not sure what he had for breakfast this morning so all my other information lacks credibility too"
Click to expand...

You found no body, no weapon, no blood and no breakfast. You found nothing yet you still dare to pretend that you did.
 
U.S. identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities have identified a Coptic Christian in southern California who is on probation after his conviction for financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday.


The official said authorities had concluded that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film that denigrated Islam and the prophet Muhammad and sparked protests earlier this week in Egypt, Libya and most recently in Yemen. It was not immediately clear whether Nakoula was the target of a criminal investigation or part of the broader investigation into the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya during a terrorist attack.

continued
 
Fiddytree said:
Since it's absurd to suggest that these men are practically using them like marionettes.
Click to expand...

Sure..because there is no recent history that would allow someone to predict the response of hardline clerics and the minority they strongly influence if you descrate the founder of their religion...gotcha.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure..because there is no recent history that would allow someone to predict the response of hardline clerics and the minority they strongly influence if you descrate the founder of their religion...gotcha.
Click to expand...

If you continue to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that some incredibly unknown film produced halfway around the world controls violence in that region, and that the filmmakers are culpable, then yes, you are being ridiculous and encouraging child-like behavior of the mob. If it had been any other mob outrage, the public would call it as it is: child-like.
 
Fiddytree said:
If you continue to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that some incredibly unknown film produced halfway around the world controls violence in that region, and that the filmmakers are culpable, then yes, you are being ridiculous and encouraging child-like behavior of the mob.
Click to expand...

Some unknown Ocala redneck from Florida burned a Koran causing protests in by hardliners in the Islamic world.

That must be it...I'm now encouraging the mob by criticizing the individual that came out with the movie. So apparently you believe individuals can have influence on others actions...but not when it comes to the film that was inentionally offensive.
 
Fiddytree said:
If you continue to perpetuate the ridiculous notion that some incredibly unknown film produced halfway around the world controls violence in that region, and that the filmmakers are culpable, then yes, you are being ridiculous and encouraging child-like behavior of the mob. If it had been any other mob outrage, the public would call it as it is: child-like.
Click to expand...

Of course they are culpable.. An Egyptian Christian who kites checks on the side produced this film with full knowledge of the culture and religious values of Muslims.
 
iliveonramen said:
Some unknown Ocala redneck from Florida burned a Koran causing protests in by hardliners in the Islamic world.
Click to expand...

Exactly: that was child-like behavior of the mob as well. Indeed, one redneck in some small church "causes" people across the world flip out. Child-like barbarism. Absolutely no excuse for that behavior.

I'm now encouraging the mob by criticizing the individual that came out with the movie.
Click to expand...

Defending the infantile-nature of the mob.
 
sharon said:
Of course they are culpable.. An Egyptian Christian who kites checks on the side produced this film with full knowledge of the culture and religious values of Muslims.
Click to expand...

I do not care how offensive a film was, I have no right by God or by law to take my moral outrage and then unleash it against humanity and society, causing actual mayhem and destruction of human life. I am even less sympathetic when you have absolutely no proximity toward the film or the filmmakers, or its promoters. My outrage against the filmmakers is fixed. My outrage against the mob increases with the increased destruction it delivers to humanity. The only ones in control are the mob. That is their choice how to react.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Exactly: that was child-like behavior of the mob as well. Indeed, one redneck in some small church "causes" people across the world flip out. Child-like barbarism. Absolutely no excuse for that behavior.
Click to expand...

Indeed, though many have tried to excuse it (even some who insist they don't). When you hold them to a lesser standard of behavior, you are saying they are lesser people. This is a kind of bigotry.
 
Wiseone said:
You're right Gitmo is a recruiting tool, but bring it up here is a total Red Herring. Your line of logic is basically "Because Obama never closed Gitmo, and the left doesn't complain about it, and because its a propaganda tool, that I can't complain about giving the enemy another propaganda too." Sorry but my opinions aren't dependent on what the "Left" or Obama says. Also our Forefathers would recognize my right to be pissed off at this guy as much as his right to piss people off with his speech, I don't know how many ****ing times I have to say I'm not in any way shape or form saying anyone doesn't have the right to free speech, but simply having the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right for that speech to be free of criticism.
Click to expand...

This seems a little more than criticism, but more of a hate speech to me. Then you say "may" which you admit you have no proof of anything but gladly spew your criticism. Then you make a statement as though it is fact, that it was the film maker that killed the Americans. What BS. Here you are apologizing to the terrorists that actually killed our fellow Americans, by stating if it were not for someone practicing our right of free speech these terrorists would not have killed. You blame the film maker who has the right of free speech for killing fellow Americans in Libya. No that is really something.

Wiseone quote:
"trash the hate spewing, instigators of violence and cowardly worms they really are. Men who thought their petty little games were worth the violence they surely knew may come from their actions, which resulted in the death of four Americans. If it were not for men like these, provoking others to violence for no reason other than some hate filled beliefs and sick pleasure in it, this would have never have happened, those Americans would be alive and the fundamentalists and extremists who are our enemy would not have a powerful propaganda tool to use to inflict damage and death upon America."

I further recall a cartoonists over in Europe, that was threatened to be killed because he made a simple cartoon about some Muslims.
 
Fiddytree said:
I do not care how offensive a film was, I have no right by God or by law to take my moral outrage and then unleash it against humanity and society, causing actual mayhem and destruction of human life. I am even less sympathetic when you have absolutely no proximity toward the film or the filmmakers, or its promoters. My outrage against the filmmakers is fixed. My outrage against the mob increases with the increased destruction it delivers to humanity. The only ones in control are the mob. That is their choice how to react.
Click to expand...

Our culture is not Arab culture..... They would be incensed if any of the patriarchs were portrayed in such a vulgar fashion.
 
sharon said:
Our culture is not Arab culture..... They would be incensed if any of the patriarchs were portrayed in such a vulgar fashion.
Click to expand...

Are you somehow suggesting Arab culture doesn't understand the concept of proportional responses and responsibility for one's own actions? Would you presume they need to be protected like children from the implications of their reaction?
 
Fiddytree said:
Are you somehow suggesting Arab culture doesn't understand the concept of proportional responses and responsibility for one's own actions? Would you presume they need to be protected like children from the implications of their reaction?
Click to expand...

The rioters were not the killers.

The killers were a small group acting on orders from al zawahiri. Civilian protesters don't have RPGs at the ready.
 
sharon said:
The rioters were not the killers.

The killers were a small group acting on orders from al zawahiri. Civilian protesters don't have RPGs at the ready.
Click to expand...

You don't think storming the gates is disproportionate?
 
sharon said:
The rioters were not the killers.

The killers were a small group acting on orders from al zawahiri. Civilian protesters don't have RPGs at the ready.
Click to expand...


You try to find any excuse to exonerate these people. If a killing was done in the commission of the riot and these people were part of the riots then they are complicit in the killing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom