• 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

Well, that's part of my point. They're going to find something to mount a mob protest over no matter what; all this self-flagellation is extremely misguided.

As I've said many times now, if they were protesting that American women show too much skin, no one would be howling that we should be more "sensitive" to their concerns.

I am not sure why they even bothered.

They planned the attack on the aniversary of 9/11 and they should have kept it that way.

By the way in the 11 years since 9/11 this is the first attack on Americans on the anniversary. Where does the buck stop on these kinds of things?
 
I am not sure why they even bothered.

Because they're well-aware of the self-flagellation and hand-wringing which will take place here when they pretend they're pissed about something "we" did. Surprise! It worked.
 
Religion is the dumbest, most illogical waste of time a person can get involved in.

Yeah, wrap the entire Christian faith around one man's singular approach to it.

You're an atheist, which means you're exactly like Fidel Castro. Got it.
 
I heard that retard-o "preacher" in FL, the Koran burner, wants to show the film in his church. When asked about the possible sexually graphic content of the film, he paused, and said he might reconsider, because as a Christian, he opposes pornography.

Religion is the dumbest, most illogical waste of time a person can get involved in.

Jones has no money.. This 'film' cost 5 million dollars.

The protesters were NOT the ones that killed the ambassador and embassy staff.
 
The producer, who hasn't even been identified with 100% certainty, is an unknown perhaps a elderly Jewish man in California or a Coptic Christian Egyptian.

Or perhaps a Muslim, keeping in mind that Islamic leasers added to those Danish cartoons which drove Muslims wild.

It's seems you'll easily buy the idea that an elderly Jew was somehow involved, despite the lack of any evidence.
 
I was driving home from work this morning listening to NPR and hear a story about this film and the story behind it, and what I heard was quite shocking and made me sick and angry.

Where to start? Well firstly let me explain a few things, I'm going to trash this film and its producers and vile humans bent on creating violence and intolerance in the world for selfish and petty ends, and who probably take a sick pleasure in angering and degrading others. However, what I'm not going to is deny their freedom of speech which despite all the sickening aspects of their film they of course always have that right to say whatever they wish. Also, none of this should be considered a justification on the part of those who used this film as a reason for violence as much as it understandably angers them and even though many reports state its been used and blown out of proportion by extremists/fundamentalists in the Arab world as an excuse for their own petty political goals, like by claiming it is a big budget Hollywood movie to be shown across theaters in the USA. For example several reports state the riots in Cairo have been motivated by Salafists, a group devoted to an extreme fundamental vision of Islam, who see the west as their enemy and would love an opportunity like to cause violence and I'd bet my bank account to get someone killed by an American defending the embassy to create a martyr and another propaganda story to increase support for their movement.

Apparently according to several experts who have seen this trailer, it the film has been deliberately made to be as insulting and degrading to Muslims as possible. Picturing Mohammed and the story of the Quran as a combination of the worst horrible inaccurate stories about the prophet throughout history, picturing him as a homosexual, child rapist, animal rapist, baptizer of animals, liar, thief, cheater, as a man who prances around with the most stereotypical "gay voice" you've ever heard, etc, etc.

Anti-Islam Film Crafted To Provoke, Experts Say : NPR

Going further its becoming clearer that some of actors and crew hired to produce this film had no idea what they were actually getting into, being told they were filming a movie called "Desert Warriors" about the adventures of a tribe of nomads in Egypt roughly 2,000 years ago.





What We Know About 'Sam Bacile,' The Man Behind The Muhammad Movie : The Two-Way : NPR

California Man Confirms Role In Anti-Islam Film : NPR

The producer, who hasn't even been identified with 100% certainty, is an unknown perhaps a elderly Jewish man in California or a Coptic Christian Egyptian. But the man can't even come forward and claim his own message, preferring to lob his obscenities from the safety of anonymity where no one can challenge him directly, a complete coward if you ask me. And it appears the film's producers are not without a criminal past, one being convicted of bank fraud in 2010 and the other belonging to a Christian hate group.





So my point is simply this: Its a sickening and horrible act to create speech with the deliberate attempt to provoke someone, or in this case a whole religion, to anger and violence. And while these men certainly have the freedom to produce this film, although not to manipulate their actors and crew, they should be seen for exactly who they are, as being trying to cause violence from the shadows, people who are forced to manipulate others because their message would never stand up to any but the most equally ridiculous critics.

Likewise, the Muslims who were allowed themselves to be provoked, and the groups who used this as propaganda to manipulate others into violence have no one to blame but themselves for their own violence and they must be held accountable for their actions. Nothing justifies their actions.

I challenge everyone to stop defending these people, quickly acknowledge their right to free speech and then do nothing but 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.

Nevermind the violent and intolerant human garbage the attacked and murded innocent, unarmed people. It's not their fault. Right?
 
Jones has no money.. This 'film' cost 5 million dollars.

The protesters were NOT the ones that killed the ambassador and embassy staff.

How in the hell did they get dead? Did they kill themselves? :rofl
 
I thank the OP for prefacing his post wth the fact that ths does not excuse the act of Murder...
But Spare us the Leftist NPR Apologism for it.
The deaths were not the Fllmakers fault, either in the making, or in the local incitement, nor in the Pretext for Murder of the even more radicalized muslims who Used the protest.

Libya Attack Said To Be 2-Part Militant Assault
By OSAMA ALFITORY 09/13/12 11:37 AM ET
Libya Attack Said To Be 2-Part Militant Assault
BENGHAZI, Libya -- A senior security official says the attack that killed four Americans in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador, was an organized two-part operation by heavily armed militants that included a precisely timed raid on a supposedly secret safe house just as Libyan and U.S. security forces were arriving to rescue evacuated consulate staff.

Wanis al-Sharef, eastern Libya's deputy interior minister, said on Thursday the attacks were suspected to have been timed to mark the 9/11 anniversary and that the Militants USED civilians protesting an anti-Islam film as COVER for their action.

He said Ambassador Chris Stevens and another American were killed in the consulate as plainclothes Libyan security were evacuating them to the safe house. The Second assault targeted the safe house, killing two Americans and wounding nearly about 30 Libyans and Americans."....."
 
The acting in that film is so appalling I'm not surprised they are offended. If I paid $10 to see that crap, I'd demand a double refund or I'd attack the theater.
 
It really isn't religion, per se, since it is the approach to religion that is problematical. The real issue is of belief without reason, and the dogmatism and rigid mindset that precipitates the intolerance. These are human characteristics that can be manifested in many ways that are not necessarily religious, such as political outlooks or the blind acceptance of social mores.

We are a socialized animal, yet are blessed with just enough intelligence to think independently of our instinct. It is those who are so overly socialized that they demand ultra-conformity who are the problem here, and these people are not limited to the religious.

It's a multi-facted problem, but the crux is that religion states itself as TRUTH. When people who have a dogmatic mindset adopt religion, that line of thinking is reinforced by the idea that they know THE TRUTH.

But no religion is THE TRUTH; it's only a few aspects of important knowledge. You can learn and understand the exact same things without the whole BS supernatural gnostic belief structure that encapsulates them.
 
Yeah, wrap the entire Christian faith around one man's singular approach to it.

I dislike his religion as much as I dislike the religion he competes against.

Do you think I hate Christianity of some supposed knee-jerk "liberalism" while at the same time defending Islam because of my bleeding-heart? Get a clue, dude; they're both cut from the same turd.

You're an atheist, which means you're exactly like Fidel Castro. Got it.

Which is why I never stop advocating for the proletariat to rise up and smash capitalism. I mean, I can't go ten seconds without proclaiming my love of Marxist communism. You are so very, very, very, very, very, very right about that.
 
How in the hell did they get dead? Did they kill themselves? :rofl

Based on a lot of reports the Libyian consulate was a pre-meditated attack they may have been an organized terrorist groups. It was indirect fire that killed the individuals inside the building. It wasn't protestors breaking in and killing them.
 
Jones has no money.. This 'film' cost 5 million dollars.

The protesters were NOT the ones that killed the ambassador and embassy staff.

My point was the irony of him being a Christian preacher, a man who proclaims the gospel of Christ, who at the same time demonizes and hates Muslims. He doesn't just disagree with them; he literally hates them, mocks them, publicly does things to inflame the Muslim community here.

Regarding this film in particular; his Christian morals apparently allow him to literally hate another group of people (who follow scriptures that prominently feature Jesus Christ as a prophet), but they hit a snag when it comes to sexual content. Hating a group of people for being different from him? A-okay with Jeezus. A topless scene? THAT'S IMMORAL!

It boils down to him mocking one set of ridiculous beliefs while proclaiming an equally ridiculous set of beliefs. It's stupidity of the highest order.
 
It's a crappy movie. Got it.
 
Who's "defending" these people? You make it seem as though to acknowledge that yes, they are also covered by the First Amendment, is somehow sympathizing with their film. That is a very small viewpoint.

If you don't stand up for principle for people you disagree with or don't like, then you don't believe in that principle. I challenge YOU to think about that.

I also challenge you to condemn the lunatics who kill people over a film which no one's seen, rather than just portray them as hapless animals who react to stimuli based only on instinct and can't be expected to live up to a modicum of rationality.

Where am I not standing up for the principle of the first amendment? I am perfectly able to call these people what they are without denying them their right to say whatever they want. And where am I not condemning the people who carried out any violence? I said they were responsible and had no one to blame but themselves and nothing justified their actions. Did you ever read my post?

Also I should mention its looking like the deaths in Libya are unrelated to the film, but that an armed group who had already planned an attack on the embassy used the crowd protesting the film as cover to move in and engage the embassy walls. That would make those deaths unrelated to the film at least in terms of what motivated the attacks.

BBC News - Meeting Libya's Ansar al-Sharia

And if it weren't for irrational, hate filled morons sitting around waiting to murder as soon as some perceived insult comes their way, we could realize a more open and universal exercise of our rights. They were not the ones to pull the trigger, regardless of what they said. Que sera sera.

I totally agree.

Last I heard Clubgetmo was the most recruiting tool terrorist had in recruiting more terrorist. And Obama promised to close it. Never happened, and you no longer hear from the left that Clubgetmo is a recruiting tool. Interesting how things change depending who is in office.

Now to video's showing terrorist cutting heads off of Americans, is that not inciting violence, and burning our flag is not inciting violence here. We have rights in this country that we treasure, and you may not like what some people do, in light of those rights. But that is really do bad. If your incensed by what some people do then I suggest you take your displeasure out on our forefathers in writing our constitution.

Last, I don't support what those people did in making that film, but I do support their right to do so. And I would never support changing our constitution to tramp on our values for the likes of others who disagree with us.

My anger is directed at those bastards that killed Americans at our embassy, not at someone making a film, as bad as that film may be.

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.

Or perhaps a Muslim, keeping in mind that Islamic leasers added to those Danish cartoons which drove Muslims wild.

It's seems you'll easily buy the idea that an elderly Jew was somehow involved, despite the lack of any evidence.

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.

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

Nevermind the violent and intolerant human garbage the attacked and murded innocent, unarmed people. It's not their fault. Right?

I never said that and you know I didn't. Go **** yourself dude
 
Can't we all just get along?!!!

Honestly though...there's multiple threads discussing the actual attack. Why is it off limits to discuss the move? Nobody is saying jail the guy but actions have concequences and pretend however much you want the maker of the film was most likely not just aware of the blowback but expecting it.

Apparently the user comment on Youtube said something like "this a 100% American movie you cows". It was obviously goading and hoping for a response.
 
It doesn't seem much worse than the average Family Guy episode that mocks Jesus and Christianity :shrug:

I'm offended by it, but I brush it off and continue to laugh at the funny parts (although, South Park > Family Guy). Freedom of speech is wonderful and should be respected. No apology should be issued, it should all be condemnation of the barbarians that murdered people and attacked US embassies.

A filmmaker makes a film to evoke something, convey a message, demonstrate their point. While US Freedom of Speech guarantees are not applicable in Egypt/Libya these people could and should have simply discussed or protested peaceably, if that were the reason they were formed a mob and rioted . That is simply a means of societal self preservation, if nothing else. I hardly think that these people act like this when they hear of something they disagree within in their own religious or social constructs.




People who are practicing members of a religion of peace do not commit acts that are not peaceful. There is nothing genuine about these people or their supposed reason for becoming savage animals whio were instruments of mayhem and death.
 
People who are practicing members of a religion of peace do not commit acts that are not peaceful. There is nothing genuine about these people or their supposed reason for becoming savage animals whio were instruments of mayhem and death.

there were mobs protesting but it was a small group that got violent. In fact both government condemn the attack. Let's not forget! Libya actually voted AGAINST the Islamist party that was running in their elections.
 
Can't we all just get along?!!!

Honestly though...there's multiple threads discussing the actual attack. Why is it off limits to discuss the move? Nobody is saying jail the guy but actions have concequences and pretend however much you want the maker of the film was most likely not just aware of the blowback but expecting it.

Apparently the user comment on Youtube said something like "this a 100% American movie you cows". It was obviously goading and hoping for a response.

Once the reaction becomes completely disproportionate to the situation, I do not likewise escalate my criticism of the film makers. Sorry.
 
Where am I not standing up for the principle of the first amendment?

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?

And where am I not condemning the people who carried out any violence? I said they were responsible and had no one to blame but themselves and nothing justified their actions. Did you ever read my post?

I admit that I missed part of your post the first time around, and it is wrong to say that you didn't condemn them.

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.


Also I should mention its looking like the deaths in Libya are unrelated to the film, but that an armed group who had already planned an attack on the embassy used the crowd protesting the film as cover to move in and engage the embassy walls. That would make those deaths unrelated to the film at least in terms of what motivated the attacks.

Yes, I already posted this, and it makes the self-flagellation even less appropriate.
 
Once the reaction becomes completely disproportionate to the situation, I do not likewise escalate my criticism of the film makers. Sorry.

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.
 
It's a crappy movie. Got it.

Exactly. The movie is NOT the issue, crappy or not, our first amendment or not, the radical muslims in the ME (the ones who ARE asshole terrorists) will look for and find ANY excuse to go off the rails with righteous indignation. The only solution for folks like that is an infusion of lead and copper. If we leave them alone, they will not go away. They cannot be appeased or reasoned with.

I'm not calling for a war against muslims at all. However, we should expect harsh treatment of the radical sort by their own governments. Anything else and they never, ever, ever, get anything from us or any of our trading partners.
 
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?

I disagree with the intentions behind the making of such movie, as I suspect it's a blow to Muslim in particular and not organized religion in general, but I 100% support the right to make it, I think the response of Muslims to ideas that hurt their delicate sensibilities is insane and find the idea of mocking any religion's stupid superstitions and non-logic hilarious.

My quibble is over which religion is in the crosshairs. It's stupid, to me, to target one over others. They all deserve it.
 
Back
Top Bottom