• 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!

Alleged "Innocence of Muslims Flim Director Taken in for Questioning.....

sharon said:
Are you really so ignorant that you don't know there are 40,000 American men and women living and working in Saudi Arabia? LOLOLOL :lamo
Click to expand...

I'm sure not so ignorant as to fail to realize that there are many Saudis indulging in agitprop on American boards while trying to claim they are something they are not.
 
Mya said:
Exactly ...and a Fatwa has already been issued against everybody related with this film .... exaclty like the Fatwa they issued on Salman Rushdie because he wrote 'Satanic Verses'... :roll:
Click to expand...

Meaningless.. any twerp can issue a fatwa.

Obviously Rushdie is still alive and kicking.
 
sharon said:
Meaningless.. any twerp can issue a fatwa.

Obviously Rushdie is still alive and kicking.
Click to expand...

It can't be too meaningless considering the number who support them. .
 
Gardener said:
I'm sure not so ignorant as to fail to realize that there are many Saudis indulging in agitprop on American boards while trying to claim they are something they are not.
Click to expand...

Really? And you identify them how?

I don't know any Saudis who would bother.

Maybe you think anyone who is smarter than you is a Saudi male. What a shame.
 
sharon said:
Meaningless.. any twerp can issue a fatwa.

Obviously Rushdie is still alive and kicking.
Click to expand...



Yes, he is, but his life has been hell all these years living with the constant threat of murder. Not a nice life sharon!
 
sharon said:
Meaningless.. any twerp can issue a fatwa.

Obviously Rushdie is still alive and kicking.
Click to expand...

There was a failed assassination attempt on his life.
 
johnny_rebson said:
So why would he do something that might get him killed?
Click to expand...

For the same reasons other people do. If you spend your life afraid of doing something a little controversial, just because it won't be unanimously palatable, and it might piss some people off, then it makes you little more than a coward. Should American artists, who come out with controversial art degrading christians, abstain from doing so out of fear?
 
lizzie said:
For the same reasons other people do. If you spend your life afraid of doing something a little controversial, just because it won't be unanimously palatable, and it might piss some people off, then it makes you little more than a coward. Should American artists, who come out with controversial art degrading christians, abstain from doing so out of fear?
Click to expand...

Ah so you think the movie was "Art"?
 
sharon said:
Ah so you think the movie was "Art"?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the movie, and am not interested, because it's not really anything that interests me from an artistic standpoint. It was a question regarding freedom of expression. I have recently picked up a new interest and hobby of doing watercolor and pastels. I want to eventually develop my skills to do nudes. Should I be afraid that someone would be offended by nude bodies, due to their religious beliefs about sexuality?
 
johnny_rebson said:
Why is he hiding his face? Why isn't he proud of what he's done? It seems like he doesn't want credit for his film. What's the deal?
Click to expand...



Probably due to something like this.....

PESHAWAR / LAHORE: Federal Railway Minister Ghulam Ahmed Bilour announced that $100,000 will be awarded to the person who kills the maker of the anti-Islam blasphemous film “Innocence of Muslims”.
Speaking to the media on Saturday, Bilour said that there was no other way to lodge a protest and instill fear among the blasphemers other than murder of the filmmaker. “I request all the rich people to bring out all their money so that the killer can be loaded with dollars and gold.”

Federal minister announces $100,000 bounty on anti-Islam filmmaker – The Express Tribune


I Put a Thread up on it in the Middle East. As now a Traders Association has voed to kill him! Their kids, parents, or any relatives.
 
sharon said:
Ah so you think the movie was "Art"?
Click to expand...

Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

It is not up to any religion to determine what art is or isn't, nor should they be allowed to determine freedom of expression.

But of course that's what happening, and many Americans are going along with the idea that foreign religious leaders should decide what is allowed under the US Constitution.
 
It's rather distressing to find out that so many of the people who post to this forum don't know what "free speech" means. Americans have a wide range of ways in which to express political speech, and making a movie critical of a major religion is without question one of those ways.

The maker of the film in question could expect to receive all sorts of criticism for what he did. But under the American system of government there are certain things he had a right to expect: He had the right to expect to be secure in his person and property, to expect that anyone who attempted violence against him and his would be prevented from doing so if possible and certainly arrested and prosecuted. He had the right to expect that no attempt would be made to restrict the distribution and dissemination of his work if it was in fact supported by viewer demand. He had a right to expect that the Federal Government would not join with a foreign nation to chill and restrict his right to free expression on contrived and trumped up charges. In other words, he had a right to expect that the President and the federal government would not play the part of a tin pot dictator.

And when the sensibilities and sensitives of foreign nationals are offended, and they demand that "something" be done about this guy, then THEIR LAWS DO NOT TRUMP OUR LAWS. Because we live in America, and they are primitive crap-morons living in a third world ****hole run by theocratic dictators.
 
LowDown said:
It's rather distressing to find out that so many of the people who post to this forum don't know what "free speech" means. Americans have a wide range of ways in which to express political speech, and making a movie critical of a major religion is without question one of those ways.

The maker of the film in question could expect to receive all sorts of criticism for what he did. But under the American system of government there are certain things he had a right to expect: He had the right to expect to be secure in his person and property, to expect that anyone who attempted violence against him and his would be prevented from doing so if possible and certainly arrested and prosecuted. He had the right to expect that no attempt would be made to restrict the distribution and dissemination of his work if it was in fact supported by viewer demand. He had a right to expect that the Federal Government would not join with a foreign nation to chill and restrict his right to free expression on contrived and trumped up charges. In other words, he had a right to expect that the President and the federal government would not play the part of a tin pot dictator.

And when the sensibilities and sensitives of foreign nationals are offended, and they demand that "something" be done about this guy, then THEIR LAWS DO NOT TRUMP OUR LAWS. Because we live in America, and they are primitive crap-morons living in a third world ****hole run by theocratic dictators.
Click to expand...
He was a felon that was prohibited from using a computer as part of the terms of his parole. He violated those terms, so he's going back to jail. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about a dumb ass that got busted violating his parole.
 
lizzie said:
I haven't seen the movie, and am not interested, because it's not really anything that interests me from an artistic standpoint. It was a question regarding freedom of expression. I have recently picked up a new interest and hobby of doing watercolor and pastels. I want to eventually develop my skills to do nudes. Should I be afraid that someone would be offended by nude bodies, due to their religious beliefs about sexuality?
Click to expand...

Oh believe me, we WILL be VERY offended. <grin>
 
Surtr said:
He was a felon that was prohibited from using a computer as part of the terms of his parole. He violated those terms, so he's going back to jail. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about a dumb ass that got busted violating his parole.
Click to expand...

If I might add, a dumbass who violated his parole and made a public specticle of himself in doing it. Might as well have worn a big neon sign saying, "come take me away!".
 
clownboy said:
If I might add, a dumbass who violated his parole and made a public specticle of himself in doing it. Might as well have worn a big neon sign saying, "come take me away!".
Click to expand...

No different than any other parolee that pops hot on a piss test. Violate terms of parole/probation, go back to jail.
 
lizzie said:
I haven't seen the movie, and am not interested, because it's not really anything that interests me from an artistic standpoint. It was a question regarding freedom of expression. I have recently picked up a new interest and hobby of doing watercolor and pastels. I want to eventually develop my skills to do nudes. Should I be afraid that someone would be offended by nude bodies, due to their religious beliefs about sexuality?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But, you might not exhibit them at a daycare.
 
sharon said:
No, of course not. But, you might not exhibit them at a daycare.
Click to expand...

Kids don't much care about nudity. Adults do. They have reached the age to be judgemental, and associate nudity strictly with sex, which usually seems to be based on religion.
 
The anti-Islam film was very offensive to Muslims and it provoked violent protests in Egypt and Libya but the film itself had nothing to do with his arrest. The Egyptian filmmaker was on parole for committing financial crimes such as using a fake credit card under a false name and he was banned from using aliases as one of the conditions of parole. Nakoula came under investigation when it became clear that he posted the YouTube video under the user name Sam Bacile, which constituted a parole violation because he was banned from creating an online account without his parole officer's approval and one of the actors of the film was paid $75 a day in checks drawn on the bank account of Abanob Basseley Nakoula, a name linked to Nakoula's residence, which was another violation because he was only allowed to use his real identity.
 
lizzie said:
Kids don't much care about nudity. Adults do. They have reached the age to be judgemental, and associate nudity strictly with sex, which usually seems to be based on religion.
Click to expand...

I know.........
 
lizzie said:
Kids don't much care about nudity. Adults do. They have reached the age to be judgemental, and associate nudity strictly with sex, which usually seems to be based on religion.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. You don't have to be a pervert to find the sight of kids playing naked on the beach, oblivious to social mores and inhibitions, a beautiful and innocent thing. I find it far more upsetting to see little kids wearing 'sexy' bikinis than playing happily in the altogether, as nature intended.
 
ThirdTerm said:
The anti-Islam film was very offensive to Muslims and it provoked violent protests in Egypt and Libya but the film itself had nothing to do with his arrest. The Egyptian filmmaker was on parole for committing financial crimes such as using a fake credit card under a false name and he was banned from using aliases as one of the conditions of parole. Nakoula came under investigation when it became clear that he posted the YouTube video under the user name Sam Bacile, which constituted a parole violation because he was banned from creating an online account without his parole officer's approval and one of the actors of the film was paid $75 a day in checks drawn on the bank account of Abanob Basseley Nakoula, a name linked to Nakoula's residence, which was another violation because he was only allowed to use his real identity.
Click to expand...


So what is your explanation for the FED getting involved with a State Case and one that is especially Associated to a Dept that is Understaffed and overburdened like in many many other states? Why would the Fed need to concern themselves with the Ret tape of Probation and or Parole. Why would they get involved in this bureaucracy that did not violate any Federal Laws?

Also Part of any deal he made for his arrests were contingent on him turning States evidence and even more. Setting up those who the California's Narcs took down.

So what the Film is offensive to Muslims. This does not give Muslims or any others the Right to act out violently. The Password is.....Tolerance!

Which they fail to show or give into with any others outside Islam.

Do you think Obama should be calling Morsi and telling him he wants the head of that Sunni Cleric in Egypt at the Teaching Mosque. Myself I would have told Morsi he has 48 hrs to turn him over to us. Or we will handle the situation ourselves and they would find that Sunni Cleric with 2 rounds to the back of his head. Up close and personal.
 
ThirdTerm said:
The anti-Islam film was very offensive to Muslims and it provoked violent protests in Egypt and Libya but the film itself had nothing to do with his arrest. The Egyptian filmmaker was on parole for committing financial crimes such as using a fake credit card under a false name and he was banned from using aliases as one of the conditions of parole. Nakoula came under investigation when it became clear that he posted the YouTube video under the user name Sam Bacile, which constituted a parole violation because he was banned from creating an online account without his parole officer's approval and one of the actors of the film was paid $75 a day in checks drawn on the bank account of Abanob Basseley Nakoula, a name linked to Nakoula's residence, which was another violation because he was only allowed to use his real identity.
Click to expand...


So you approve of Eric Holder's selective political prosecution? What's next? Governors installed by the Ayatollah?
 
Surtr said:
He was a felon that was prohibited from using a computer as part of the terms of his parole. He violated those terms, so he's going back to jail. It's not about freedom of speech, it's about a dumb ass that got busted violating his parole.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. And it was just a coincidence that his arrest corresponded with the Obama administration being embarrassed by the debacle in Libya.

We have a worthless tin pot dictator for a President. And he's got all of his little brown shirts cheering him on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom