David, please allow me to shed some light to your question why we still provide military aid to some of these countries with overwhelming Congrassional support. Let's pick up Egypt. The annual defense aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion under a Congressional law where Egypt is one of our Non-NATO ally which means they can receive US made weapon without special Congressional approval. As a result, some of our military hardware manufecturer export their weapons to these countries. Many of these major weapon manufacturer has back way linkage factories in different states which also happen to be some of our Congressman's electoral districts. On top of that some of these large companies donate part of their election expenses. Do I need to say more?
Section 3, Article 3 of the US Constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
A state of war exists between the United States and Al Queida. This film helps our enemy in this war, has led to the loss of American lives, and has provoked attacks against our Embasies across the Middle East. In my view, that makes this film an act of treason, and should no longer be protected by the 1st amendment.
So, all of congress and a lot of foreign aid groups are treasonous (and have been for a long time) because they send aid to countries like Pakistan and Libya, knowing full well some of that aid is used to help Al Qaeda? Doesn't really work in my mind.
This is just so weird. Usually I'm the guy making the argument for protected free speech. But this time I feel compelled to argue that the makers of the film went too far - just like Jane Fonda did. I don't know how to answer your point about our aid to foreign governments, except to argue the intent of the aid was not to strengthen our enemies, although that may well have been the end results, through no fault of our own. In my view, the intent of the film is to provoke exactly the reaction that has occured. The intent should make all the difference.
O you can always come up with some excuse to squash expression. The point of free speech is to protect the other guy when he says something you don't like. Don't shift blame from the actual murderers.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
So, by ridiculing your enemy, you essentially give them aid and comfort? You can kill them, but don't insult them?
In this case, this propaganda film inspired them to kill Americans and to threaten our Embasies. The film helps our enemies in their war against US. In a time of war, if you help your enemies to kill Americans, that SHOULD be treason.
What you are saying is that if you insult a Muslim, they have the right to kill Americans. Barbarians.
To be polite, that is an absolute falsehood. I never said that. I never hinted at that. I never implied that.
O you can always come up with some excuse to squash expression. The point of free speech is to protect the other guy when he says something you don't like. Don't shift blame from the actual murderers.
+1 David. Apperently, it is ok to misuse freedom of expression even it poses threat to our national interest, troops and diplomats overseas. This producer also suppose to be in charge of some financial misconduct. There is no valid excuse or justification what the protestors are doing. However, at the same time, I question about the freedom of expression logic of a guy who is on bail for financial misconduct, mistranslated his own production from his fellow actor and actress, blamed Israel for finance the movie and more. He is utterly a lier and cheat. I have no sympathy for his freedom of speech. I am waiting to see what FBI comes up with. There is a serious investigation going on against this man.
JDH:
webmost:
O you can always come up with some excuse to squash expression. The point of free speech is to protect the other guy when he says something you don't like. Don't shift blame from the actual murderers.
David, please allow me to shed some light to your question why we still provide military aid to some of these countries with overwhelming Congrassional support. Let's pick up Egypt. The annual defense aid to Egypt is $1.5 billion under a Congressional law where Egypt is one of our Non-NATO ally which means they can receive US made weapon without special Congressional approval. As a result, some of our military hardware manufecturer export their weapons to these countries. Many of these major weapon manufacturer has back way linkage factories in different states which also happen to be some of our Congressman's electoral districts. On top of that some of these large companies donate part of their election expenses. Do I need to say more?
Section 3, Article 3 of the US Constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
A state of war exists between the United States and Al Queida. This film helps our enemy in this war, has led to the loss of American lives, and has provoked attacks against our Embasies across the Middle East. In my view, that makes this film an act of treason, and should no longer be protected by the 1st amendment.
So, all of congress and a lot of foreign aid groups are treasonous (and have been for a long time) because they send aid to countries like Pakistan and Libya, knowing full well some of that aid is used to help Al Qaeda? Doesn't really work in my mind.
This is just so weird. Usually I'm the guy making the argument for protected free speech. But this time I feel compelled to argue that the makers of the film went too far - just like Jane Fonda did. I don't know how to answer your point about our aid to foreign governments, except to argue the intent of the aid was not to strengthen our enemies, although that may well have been the end results, through no fault of our own. In my view, the intent of the film is to provoke exactly the reaction that has occured. The intent should make all the difference.
I know exactly what you are talking about. President Eisenhower warned us about the danger of the military-industrial-congressional complex, and unfortunately, allof his predictions have come true.
I suspect that if a muslim made a movie insulting their enemy (USA), that producer would be exalted as a hero.
It is my understanding that we (the USA) are not at war with all Muslims. We are at war with Al Queida (a very small percentage of the Musilm population). There is a huge difference between the two.
To answer your question regarding the hypothetical anti-US film, I would assume that anyone in the world who is also anti-US (a population not limited to the Muslim world) would probably enjoy the film, and perhaps "exhault as a hero" those who made it.
Most probably you are right but not a hero to all the Muslim people. There are good and bad people in every religion. We should not compare ourselves with some bad people who conduct this kind of violence without justification. We react more rationally and this portrait us better than that group of small crowd. It is not a easy task to lead the world as a great nation. No matter what we will always behave and react rationally. That makes us a great nation. Our standard is higher than them. At the same time we will not allow them to change our believe and way of life. This is the reason why our troops fought in WW2 and now in Afganistan.
beatnic:
I suspect that if a muslim made a movie insulting their enemy (USA), that producer would be exalted as a hero.
I suspect that if a muslim made a movie insulting their enemy (USA), that producer would be exalted as a hero.
It is my understanding that we (the USA) are not at war with all Muslims. We are at war with Al Queida (a very small percentage of the Musilm population). There is a huge difference between the two.
To answer your question regarding the hypothetical anti-US film, I would assume that anyone in the world who is also anti-US (a population not limited to the Muslim world) would probably enjoy the film, and perhaps "exhault as a hero" those who made it.
I suspect that if a muslim made a movie insulting their enemy (USA), that producer would be exalted as a hero.
It is my understanding that we (the USA) are not at war with all Muslims. We are at war with Al Queida (a very small percentage of the Musilm population). There is a huge difference between the two.
To answer your question regarding the hypothetical anti-US film, I would assume that anyone in the world who is also anti-US (a population not limited to the Muslim world) would probably enjoy the film, and perhaps "exhault as a hero" those who made it.
Thank You.
The broader implication of the fact that we are not at war with the Muslim world is this: Our enemies (Al Quieda) very much WANT us to be at war with the entire Muslim world, and want nothing more than to make that a reality.
That's why the film is treason. It provides our enemies with a tool to broaden the war, a tool to help our enemies accomplish their goals.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
The more Ive thought about this, the more I condemn the Muslim community at large!!! I would really like this Bacile character to be held somehow for his actions but the blame surely falls on the muslim terrorist and No "we" should not have apologized after our Embassy was attacked and innocent people were murdered.
Holywood dramatizes most of their movies but few of them are based on facts. If some of you want to have a little more depth about Middle- Eastern affairs and how we operates then I would recommend two movies. I know the people who were involved providing some guidelines behind the stories- Rendition and Body of Lies.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
1) Correct: "...This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses..." This is precisely why I think the makers of this film committed Treason.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
1) Correct: "...This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses..." This is precisely why I think the makers of this film committed Treason.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
I still can't back the treason idea. As you said previously, intent is king. Did this film maker intend to piss off followers of Islam? Probably. Did he intend for the film to HELP them? Most certainly not. And, as has been re-iterated, the film is merely an excuse, a scapegoat, for a plan of action that has gone on for a long time. If it wasn't the film, it would be because we killed UBL, if it wasn't because we killed UBL, it would be because we educate women, if it wasn't because we educate women, it would be because we don't follow Islam. This film maker deserves to eat all of the **** sandwichs, but, once again, HE didn't murder people, he didn't start riots. Those that would twist peoples faith and hide behind zealots did. They told their people, their believers, that this video should be answered with killing. Many anti-Islam videos are posted to youtube and other sites every day, yet THIS VIDEO is somehow the one that sparked all of these countries at once with no pre-planning? I don't buy it. I also feel the need to point out again, with the danger of sounding cliche, but if you stifle speech that pisses off these people, the terrorists win. They will have set a precedent. Don't like what Rushdie writes? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Don't like how a news report will make you look? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Imagine for a moment some other terror group did this. Would you stop (and possibly jail) people from mocking or pointing out issues with Christianity if the KKK attacked a post office every time? Or if Chinese Nationalists attacked Americans whenever someone disrespected their country?
Like I said before, this film maker sucks, and said really distasteful stuff. And he should face the normal penalties associated with such, public ridicule, and possible civil penalties. What worries me is if he is stifled and brought on criminal charges for this, is we now are allowing our government to decide what speech is 'worthy' of being protected. And frankly, I don't trust any government, ever, to always make the right call on such a weighty issue.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
1) Correct: "...This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses..." This is precisely why I think the makers of this film committed Treason.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
I still can't back the treason idea. As you said previously, intent is king. Did this film maker intend to piss off followers of Islam? Probably. Did he intend for the film to HELP them? Most certainly not. And, as has been re-iterated, the film is merely an excuse, a scapegoat, for a plan of action that has gone on for a long time. If it wasn't the film, it would be because we killed UBL, if it wasn't because we killed UBL, it would be because we educate women, if it wasn't because we educate women, it would be because we don't follow Islam. This film maker deserves to eat all of the **** sandwichs, but, once again, HE didn't murder people, he didn't start riots. Those that would twist peoples faith and hide behind zealots did. They told their people, their believers, that this video should be answered with killing. Many anti-Islam videos are posted to youtube and other sites every day, yet THIS VIDEO is somehow the one that sparked all of these countries at once with no pre-planning? I don't buy it. I also feel the need to point out again, with the danger of sounding cliche, but if you stifle speech that pisses off these people, the terrorists win. They will have set a precedent. Don't like what Rushdie writes? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Don't like how a news report will make you look? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Imagine for a moment some other terror group did this. Would you stop (and possibly jail) people from mocking or pointing out issues with Christianity if the KKK attacked a post office every time? Or if Chinese Nationalists attacked Americans whenever someone disrespected their country?
Like I said before, this film maker sucks, and said really distasteful stuff. And he should face the normal penalties associated with such, public ridicule, and possible civil penalties. What worries me is if he is stifled and brought on criminal charges for this, is we now are allowing our government to decide what speech is 'worthy' of being protected. And frankly, I don't trust any government, ever, to always make the right call on such a weighty issue.
Those are good points all, and difficult to refute. I would just ask; if, during WWII, a film had been produced that provided Imperial Japan or Germany with a weapon that could be used against us, what do you think would have happened to those who provided such a weapon?
Those are good points all, and difficult to refute. I would just ask; if, during WWII, a film had been produced that provided Imperial Japan or Germany with a weapon that could be used against us, what do you think would have happened to those who provided such a weapon?
on a similar note, if an individual states that if someone keep saying his personal beliefs are crazy he will kill someone and then they call him crazy for saying that, who is in the wrong for murder?
the killer is responsible for his actions solely. nobody made him make the choice to kill someone. he could have stopped at any point, yet chose not to.
i do feel that this point is a bit off topic but interesting to think about.
Those are good points all, and difficult to refute. I would just ask; if, during WWII, a film had been produced that provided Imperial Japan or Germany with a weapon that could be used against us, what do you think would have happened to those who provided such a weapon?
Like these? I am sure at least some of those were used to draw ire and whip up frenzies in countries they targeted, especially with how big a Disney fan Hitler supposedly was. A video is a tool, just like any other and has no will of its own, like a hammer, or car, or a gun. A hammer doesn't build a house or smash a head by itself. A car doesn't get groceries or run over a pedestrian on its own. And a video doesn't incite riots and fire RPGs at embassies without someone wielding it how they want. Many other level headed followers of Islam in this country and others have used this video and the inaccuracies within as a teaching moment. A tool to educate those who don't know the truth or have been fed misinformation. Like I said, this whole situation sucks beyond belief, but neither this video, nor the film maker fired shots at Americans. He just pissed a bunch of people off. People piss me off everyday, and I am sure I piss off a lot of people. But if I shot Jack because John pissed me off for the thirtieth time that day... I am the murderer, not John.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
1) Correct: "...This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses..." This is precisely why I think the makers of this film committed Treason.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
I still can't back the treason idea. As you said previously, intent is king. Did this film maker intend to piss off followers of Islam? Probably. Did he intend for the film to HELP them? Most certainly not. And, as has been re-iterated, the film is merely an excuse, a scapegoat, for a plan of action that has gone on for a long time. If it wasn't the film, it would be because we killed UBL, if it wasn't because we killed UBL, it would be because we educate women, if it wasn't because we educate women, it would be because we don't follow Islam. This film maker deserves to eat all of the **** sandwichs, but, once again, HE didn't murder people, he didn't start riots. Those that would twist peoples faith and hide behind zealots did. They told their people, their believers, that this video should be answered with killing. Many anti-Islam videos are posted to youtube and other sites every day, yet THIS VIDEO is somehow the one that sparked all of these countries at once with no pre-planning? I don't buy it. I also feel the need to point out again, with the danger of sounding cliche, but if you stifle speech that pisses off these people, the terrorists win. They will have set a precedent. Don't like what Rushdie writes? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Don't like how a news report will make you look? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Imagine for a moment some other terror group did this. Would you stop (and possibly jail) people from mocking or pointing out issues with Christianity if the KKK attacked a post office every time? Or if Chinese Nationalists attacked Americans whenever someone disrespected their country?
Like I said before, this film maker sucks, and said really distasteful stuff. And he should face the normal penalties associated with such, public ridicule, and possible civil penalties. What worries me is if he is stifled and brought on criminal charges for this, is we now are allowing our government to decide what speech is 'worthy' of being protected. And frankly, I don't trust any government, ever, to always make the right call on such a weighty issue.
Those are good points all, and difficult to refute. I would just ask; if, during WWII, a film had been produced that provided Imperial Japan or Germany with a weapon that could be used against us, what do you think would have happened to those who provided such a weapon?
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
1) Correct: "...This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses..." This is precisely why I think the makers of this film committed Treason.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
I still can't back the treason idea. As you said previously, intent is king. Did this film maker intend to piss off followers of Islam? Probably. Did he intend for the film to HELP them? Most certainly not. And, as has been re-iterated, the film is merely an excuse, a scapegoat, for a plan of action that has gone on for a long time. If it wasn't the film, it would be because we killed UBL, if it wasn't because we killed UBL, it would be because we educate women, if it wasn't because we educate women, it would be because we don't follow Islam. This film maker deserves to eat all of the **** sandwichs, but, once again, HE didn't murder people, he didn't start riots. Those that would twist peoples faith and hide behind zealots did. They told their people, their believers, that this video should be answered with killing. Many anti-Islam videos are posted to youtube and other sites every day, yet THIS VIDEO is somehow the one that sparked all of these countries at once with no pre-planning? I don't buy it. I also feel the need to point out again, with the danger of sounding cliche, but if you stifle speech that pisses off these people, the terrorists win. They will have set a precedent. Don't like what Rushdie writes? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Don't like how a news report will make you look? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Imagine for a moment some other terror group did this. Would you stop (and possibly jail) people from mocking or pointing out issues with Christianity if the KKK attacked a post office every time? Or if Chinese Nationalists attacked Americans whenever someone disrespected their country?
Like I said before, this film maker sucks, and said really distasteful stuff. And he should face the normal penalties associated with such, public ridicule, and possible civil penalties. What worries me is if he is stifled and brought on criminal charges for this, is we now are allowing our government to decide what speech is 'worthy' of being protected. And frankly, I don't trust any government, ever, to always make the right call on such a weighty issue.
Those are good points all, and difficult to refute. I would just ask; if, during WWII, a film had been produced that provided Imperial Japan or Germany with a weapon that could be used against us, what do you think would have happened to those who provided such a weapon?
I know it was a much different war than the one we're fighting, but the question remains; did any of the examples you gave provide the enemy with a weapon they could use against us? I think not. I can almost garantee 100% that if, in 1943, the War Dept thought that any civilian activities were hampering or interfering with our War effort, or aiding the enemy, there would have been real consequences.
Where is the outrage from the greater Muslim religion?
That is the reaction you are seeing as a result of this propaganda film.
It was never about the stupid film. This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses. They had the film for months. Release date? 9/11. And now, unfortunately, when the president of the USA apologizes for it, it does echo as a good enough reason for them to hate us.
1) Correct: "...This was planned and orchestrated, and the film was merely a weapon they (Al Queda, Muslim Brotherhood, whoever) used to arouse their masses..." This is precisely why I think the makers of this film committed Treason.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
I still can't back the treason idea. As you said previously, intent is king. Did this film maker intend to piss off followers of Islam? Probably. Did he intend for the film to HELP them? Most certainly not. And, as has been re-iterated, the film is merely an excuse, a scapegoat, for a plan of action that has gone on for a long time. If it wasn't the film, it would be because we killed UBL, if it wasn't because we killed UBL, it would be because we educate women, if it wasn't because we educate women, it would be because we don't follow Islam. This film maker deserves to eat all of the **** sandwichs, but, once again, HE didn't murder people, he didn't start riots. Those that would twist peoples faith and hide behind zealots did. They told their people, their believers, that this video should be answered with killing. Many anti-Islam videos are posted to youtube and other sites every day, yet THIS VIDEO is somehow the one that sparked all of these countries at once with no pre-planning? I don't buy it. I also feel the need to point out again, with the danger of sounding cliche, but if you stifle speech that pisses off these people, the terrorists win. They will have set a precedent. Don't like what Rushdie writes? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Don't like how a news report will make you look? Attack an embassy, and get it pulled. Imagine for a moment some other terror group did this. Would you stop (and possibly jail) people from mocking or pointing out issues with Christianity if the KKK attacked a post office every time? Or if Chinese Nationalists attacked Americans whenever someone disrespected their country?
Like I said before, this film maker sucks, and said really distasteful stuff. And he should face the normal penalties associated with such, public ridicule, and possible civil penalties. What worries me is if he is stifled and brought on criminal charges for this, is we now are allowing our government to decide what speech is 'worthy' of being protected. And frankly, I don't trust any government, ever, to always make the right call on such a weighty issue.
Those are good points all, and difficult to refute. I would just ask; if, during WWII, a film had been produced that provided Imperial Japan or Germany with a weapon that could be used against us, what do you think would have happened to those who provided such a weapon?
I know it was a much different war than the one we're fighting, but the question remains; did any of the examples you gave provide the enemy with a weapon they could use against us? I think not. I can almost garantee 100% that if, in 1943, the War Dept thought that any civilian activities were hampering or interfering with our War effort, or aiding the enemy, there would have been real consequences.
Yep, and they also stuck everyone who looked kinda "Japanese-y" in "totally not concentration" camps. Not sure if the 1940s War Dept is who we should go to for civil liberties questions. As I said in the post before Beatnics, just because you piss off a group doesn't mean you are giving them aid and comfort for murder.
Comments
To answer your question regarding the hypothetical anti-US film, I would assume that anyone in the world who is also anti-US (a population not limited to the Muslim world) would probably enjoy the film, and perhaps "exhault as a hero" those who made it.
The broader implication of the fact that we are not at war with the Muslim world is this: Our enemies (Al Quieda) very much WANT us to be at war with the entire Muslim world, and want nothing more than to make that a reality.
That's why the film is treason. It provides our enemies with a tool to broaden the war, a tool to help our enemies accomplish their goals.
2) False: "...when the president of the USA apologizes for it (the film)..." The President has not appologized for the film, nor has he appologized for US actions because of the film. (Repeating a lie will not make it the truth, but it might make some people believe the lie is the truth.) He has said that the murderers will be brought to justice, and the Marines are on their way. They (too many people in the middle-east) don't need a reason to hate us, they hate us almost instinctively, and they will continue to hate us regardless of who is in the White House. It is not the current President's fault that we are hated by Muslims inthe middle-east, it started long before he was elected.
I heard this interview with Salmon Rushdie on NPR this morning. I think he's pretty much nailed the reaction to the film.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/17/161260084/rushdie-decries-mindset-of-the-fanatic-that-sparks-anti-american-protests
"And also on Morning Edition, author Salman Rushdie who for more than two decades has been a marked man because Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared that his book The Satanic Verses was "against Islam" and that Rushdie was therefore "sentenced to death" shared his view about the people responsible for such violence.
It is the "mindset of the fanatic, mindset of the tyrant" to respond to an insult to one's religion with violence, Rushdie told host Steve Inskeep. "To murder people who had nothing to do with it," he added, is a "deeply uncivilized attitude."
"Something has gone wrong inside the Muslim world," Rushdie continued. Just a few decades ago, he said, major cities in the Arab and Muslim world were outward-looking. But "in the last half century, these cultures seem to have slid backwards into medievalism and represssion. ... It is one of the great self-inflicted wounds."
Here's another interview with one of the actors in the film describing how the makers of the film duped the actors about what they were doing.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/anti-islam-filmmaker/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Like I said before, this film maker sucks, and said really distasteful stuff. And he should face the normal penalties associated with such, public ridicule, and possible civil penalties. What worries me is if he is stifled and brought on criminal charges for this, is we now are allowing our government to decide what speech is 'worthy' of being protected. And frankly, I don't trust any government, ever, to always make the right call on such a weighty issue.
the killer is responsible for his actions solely. nobody made him make the choice to kill someone.
he could have stopped at any point, yet chose not to.
i do feel that this point is a bit off topic but interesting to think about.
anyway, carry on with topic at hand.
http://bank.imgdumpr.com/index.php/random/real-political-cartoons-by-dr-seuss-during-wwii-30-pics/