'Innocence of Muslims' outrage?

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by Anonymous, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. The Wrong Guy Member

    Charles Lane: There’s no place for censorship-by-riot - The Washington Post

    I say: One cheer for Charlie Hebdo. I doubt that its cartoons are either laudable or responsible. In fact, I’m sure that they are neither. But if free speech means anything, it’s the right to say and publish things that other people find objectionable and irresponsible, even blasphemous. Censorship is an affront to freedom, whether imposed by official decree or through a rioters’ veto — as the Middle Eastern mobs and those who set them in motion seem to want.


    ...Obama administration actions undermined its words about free expression. The White House contacted Google, which does millions of dollars in business with the federal government, and asked it to reconsider whether “Innocence of Muslims” might have violated YouTube’s terms of use. Exercising highly selective prosecutorial discretion, the government rounded up the video’s alleged producer for an “entirely voluntary” session with his federal probation officer.

    Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took it upon himself to call the Rev. Terry Jones, the Islamophobic preacher in Florida, to warn him that U.S. troops would be in danger if he didn’t cease his support for the offensive video.

    Think about that: The commander of the world’s most powerful military machine contacted an American civilian and suggested that his exercise of a constitutional right — and not enemy forces — was putting U.S. lives at risk. But it’s not surprising, given that Dempsey’s former staff lawyer argued in a recent op-ed that “Innocence of Muslims” is not constitutionally protected speech.

    Among the many threats that Islamic extremism poses to the West, censorship-by-riot may be the most insidious. We have been facing it at least since Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a kill-the-apostate decree against British novelist Salman Rushdie in 1989. It arose again in 2006, when Muhammad-mocking cartoons in Denmark prompted the sacking of Danish embassies and death threats against the artist.

    Think I exaggerate? No less a pillar of intellectual freedom than Yale University Press decided three years ago not to publish the Danish cartoons in an academic book on the controversy, even though they were clearly relevant. Yale declined to print any images of Muhammad in the book, including a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré. Yale said “experts” advised that depicting the prophet might offend some Muslims and trigger violence.

    We can’t slide one more inch down this slippery slope. Voltaire famously remarked: “I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That must be the West’s unequivocal, united answer to those who would exploit the ugly words of a few to justify the violent deeds of a mob.

    More at
  2. ItchyScratchy Member

    I think it's time for anomymous to do something big. Thousands of mohamed vids showing how he likes to fuck goats, suck kids bung holes and enjoys the company of men and has a keen eye for decorating.

    Unleash the power of the internet to properly ridicule mohamed. If these dumb fucks are trolled so easily might as well do it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    NO, you stupid fuckknuckle.
    What are you, 12?
  4. Anonymous Member

    The ‘Pro-Israel’ Network Behind the Innocence Video

    By Justin Raimondo

    September 18, 2012 "
    Antiwar" - If someone had planned to upend US foreign policy — to utterly destroy the very basis [.pdf] of all our diplomats (and military personnel) have been working to achieve in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world — they couldn’t have done a better job of it than whoever put together Innocence of Muslims.

    As violent protests spread, the consequences continue to roll in: the suspension of joint US-Afghan military operations, the suspension of US aid talks with Egypt, the rapid decline of US prestige in the region, and the growing influence of the radical Islamist movement US support for the “Arab Spring” was designed to counter. The Obama administration’s effort to split the Islamist upsurge and lend its support to “moderates” has been stopped cold.

    Was the release of the video a random event, one of those unpredictables that can arise at any moment to foil the best-laid plans? Perhaps. Yet one is hard-pressed to explain what the makers of Innocence sought to accomplish, if not precisely what has occurred. According to various explanations floated in the media — primarily by anti-Muslim agitator Steve Klein — the idea was to promote the video to Muslims. In one account, Klein says he hoped the video would “smoke out” Muslim radicals in the US, who he is convinced have organized secret “cells” that will strike on command. On the other hand, we are told the film’s authors and promoters hoped to “convert” Muslims.

    Neither explanation is very convincing. The video itself is so crude, so inept, and so deliberately insulting it is hard to believe anyone thought it could convert anyone to anything. And as for the prospect of “smoking out” secret Islamist cells — if there were such cells, one would hardly expect them to reveal themselves because of a YouTube video.

    In order to understand the real motives and goals of the makers of Innocence, it is necessary to take a good look at the people who have, so far, been identified as the film’s authors and promoters.

    The central figure in all this is reported to be one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 56-year-old Egyptian immigrant: although Nakoula presented himself in an interview with the Associated Press as “Sam Bacile,” a 56-year-old “Israeli-American” real estate developer, he is a Coptic Christian, a member of a persecuted minority in Egypt — and a convicted felon. Media reports portray him as the central figure in the making of Innocence: he denies this, and describes his job as arranging “logistics” for the film. Nakoula’s role seems to have been that of a facilitator — gofer — rather than “creative director,” and in any case he hardly seems the type to have originated the idea for the movie. Having been released from jail — where he was serving a sentence for bank fraud — barely a month before filming started, Nakoula was hardly in a position to undertake such a project. Chances are he was recruited by someone else, the real originator and driving force behind Innocence— but who is that someone?

    Public records show a filming permit was taken out by “Media for Christ,” an outfit run by one Joseph Nasrallah Abdelmasih. His group sponsors Christian programming in Arabic, including “The Way,” a production that has featured such prominent Islamophobes as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The Geller-Spencer collaboration goes back to the protests against the New York City “Ground Zero” mosque in which the duo achieved national notoriety: Nasrallah was one of the speakers at their rally. The idea for just such a movie as Innocence showed up on Geller’s blog in February, in a post entitled “A Movie About Muhammad: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim and board member of Geller and Spencer’s “Stop the Islamization of Nations,” exhorted Geller’s readers to support his movie project:
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    The movie shows Muhammad’s raids, plunders, massacres, rapes, assassinations and other crimes. A small subtitle in the lower right corner of each scene will give reference to the source of the story. This movie is entirely factual. Wherever possible, I copied the Quran, the Sira and the Hadith verbatim. It is a riveting story. Truth about Muhammad is more shocking than fiction.

    The world does not know Islam. What is known is a watered down and euphemized version of it that has no bases [sic] in reality. The truth is that Muhammad was a cult leader, much like Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson. Unlike them he succeeded because there was no central power in the seventh century Arabia to stop him.

    The other good news is that I have been promised a substantial angel financing. I have been daydreaming about this movie for ten years. It was this promise that prompted me into action. I put everything aside for five months, read everything I could about my protagonist, selected the most salient episodes and wrote the script.

    The seed is now sown. Now it’s time to nurture it. What I need is an experienced executive producer, someone who shares my values, to make it happen with professionalism and missionary zeal.

    I am not thinking of a high budget movie, but given the subject matter, it can become one of the most seen motion pictures ever. (Recall Danish cartoons?)”

    This may or may not be the same movie as Innocence, but what’s important here is that the idea of such a provocation — “recall Danish cartoons?” — was percolating in these circles when the movie was in production.

    Nasrallah has now issued a non-denial denial, in which he claims he was duped — along with the actors — by Nakoula who “did not make the movie we thought he was making.” However, he admits Nakoula called him and that Media for Christ lent him their facilities: and, one has to ask, what movie did Nasrallah think his buddy Nakoula was making?

    Nasrallah’s recent involvement with the Geller-Spencer crowd coincided with a very profitable time for his organization: Media in Christ’s income has recently skyrocketed, according to public records, with receipts totaling under $200,000 in 2009 and prior, rising to $633,516 in 2010 and $1,016,366 in 2011. Where did all that money come from — was it Mr. Sina’s “substantial angel”? Nakoula claims he funded his movie project with money from “over 100 Jewish donors.”

    When Nakoula spoke to the Associated Press, he described himself as an “Israeli-American” real estate developer operating out of California: this was soon debunked, however, when inquiring reporters outed him as an Egyptian of the Coptic faith. They also discovered he’s a convicted felon — not only for a check-kiting scheme, but also for drug-dealing (methamphetamine). He’s an unlikely hero for the right-wing Christians who have made a martyr out of him, although to ostensible “libertarians” like Matt Welch, who thinks Nakoula & Co. are on the same level as Salman Rushdie, the meth conviction is doubtless a plus.

    The idea that these vermin, who deliberately set out to make a “movie” that would inflame the Muslim world, are “free speech” heroes is worse than nonsense: it is valorizing villains. We don’t yet know where the money, or the impetus to make the film, came from, but what we do know is this: the driving force behind Innocence was a desire to create an international incident that would bring discredit on the United States, and empower radical Islamists who hate America and everything it stands for. And the promoters of this garbage pose as “patriots”!

    Free speech has nothing to do with this issue: the President requested of YouTube that they reconsider the video’s place on YouTube in light of their terms of service. YouTube refused, and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, however, that’s not the end of this imbroglio, the consequences of which we’ll be living with for a long time to come.

    There is an ugly sore festering under the skin of the West, and its first manifestation — or should I say symptom? — surfaced when Andre Breivik committed his ghastly crime, slaughtering the attendees at a Norwegian Labor Party youth camp. He, too, wanted to “stop the Islamization of nations,” and his online manifesto cited Geller, Spencer, and the writings of the movement their hateful rantings have energized.

    The English Defense League — a sorry collection of skinheads, neo-Nazis, and soccer hooligans — which Geller endorses, has mounted a campaign of violent intimidation aimed at British Muslims, inspiring imitators in several European countries. These groups feed off the more radical elements of the Zionist movement: Geller and her supporters claim to be “defending Israel,” and the EDL regularly flies the Israeli flag at their hate rallies.

    Defense of the Jewish state is a major theme of the Islamophobe network: they use it as a shield to deflect criticism. A key leader of this network is former New Leftist and Black Panther groupie David Horowitz: his “David Horowitz Freedom Center” (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), sponsors Spencer’s “Jihad Watch.” Horowitz’s “Frontpage” site — ablaze with stories decrying the “betrayal” of Israel by the American government and the perfidy of all things Islamic — recently speculated Innocence was created by the very Salafists now leading the protests. Since the video sprang from the same bigoted milieu of which Frontpage is the online Jerusalem, this “theory” isn’t merely ironic — it’s a moral obscenity.

    It isn’t hard to imagine where the money to create this deadly provocation came from. Of the many millions in neocon money sloshing around this country, it’s hardly inconceivable a hundred thousand or so would find its way into the hands of a twice-convicted felon and all around dubious character like Nakoula, who is, I suspect, just a con man rather than an ultra-Zionist ideologue like the promoters of his “work.”

    Although, to be sure, the difference is altogether negligible.


    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. The Wrong Guy Member

    Some related reading:

    On the Advice of the FBI, Cartoonist Molly Norris Disappears From View - Seattle Weekly

    You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly.

    The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, "going ghost": moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program — except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It's all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" cartoon.

    More at

    Also, from the same source, a follow-up:

    Innocence of Muslims Has Echoes of "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day"
  7. Anonymous Member

    IANAM, but it seems to me that

    no ridicule of Muhhamad = no fatwas, no riots

  8. Can I get a tl;dr on the wall of conspiracy or is it just ZOMG JEWS?
    what does dismissal of constitutional rights in order to placate religious fundamentalists = ?
  9. Anonymous Member

    The PATRIOT Act, faggot.
  10. Anonymous Member

    This message by Anonymous has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dumb Dumb x 3
  11. Anonymous Member

    Cui bono?
    You know who!
  12. Anonymous Member

    Yep. Just like 9/11. Even someone who watches FoxNews all day can figure it out.
  13. mongrel Member

    In this case, I would say it's those who want to rule over you. And it's doubtful the quote is actually from Voltaire. But there is some truth in what is said.

  14. Anonymous Member

    Well, in the US, it is not permitted to criticise "Israel" publicly. California just passed a law prohibiting it, if you bother to keep up. I guess, using your 19th-century logic, that they are your true rulers. The evidence would seem to bear that out.

    Americans still refuse to ask "cui bono?" regarding 9/11 and the wars that have proceeded from it. Are you so afraid of the truth? What blackmail does "Israel" have on your leaders? Did they murder one of your presidents?

    Meh, the Romans were also overwhelmed by the barbarian hordes. It's only a matter of time. Luckily, I live nowhere near your precious Mordorplastic nation, nor to any Arab countries, so I will be a long spectator of the events which are to take place.

    TL;DR: it's only going to get worse, so you might as well wake the fuck up.
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  15. The Wrong Guy Member

    Salman Rushdie - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 09/18/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

    "Joseph Anton" author Salman Rushdie remembers the moment he learned of Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa, and also discusses the asshole behind "Innocence of Muslims."
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    Yeah, that'll be a balanced show... Jon "Stewart" Liebowitz and Salman Ruhsdie.

    Nigger, please.

    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  17. I disagree. They did not believe in the absence of a god. They deified the communist state and had the concomitant extremism. Kim Il-Sung in particular was a throwback to the imperial cults of ancient Southeast Asia.
  18. I see the future, and the future is good, decent people trying to save the life of a man who was very noble. If that was a threat, that was fail.
  19. PREACHER Member

    according to the muslims its everyone of us, is it not? americans' that is
  20. Random guy Member

    Anyone actually read Ruhsdies book? I have and it is absolutely bloody brilliant. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in getting some Muslim and Indian culture while being entertained by one of the worlds greatest authors.

    As for it being an insult to Islam, I'd say it is on par with Dan Brown insulting the Roman Catholic Church. Ruhsdie has a few things to say about ayatollahs though...
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    Not having the one target of their desire, they lash out. Kinda like the US did after 9/11, if you recall.
    The US should just hand over the perps to the Muslims and have done with it. What wrong with that? End of fucking story.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Mocking a religion is not a crime in the US. The civilized response is not violence, it's more free speech. People who are incapable of expressing disagreement with words are 2-year olds who throw tantrums and extremists who throw tantrums.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

    Let's have more people die for your interpretation of a human right. Brilliant.
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  24. Anonymous Member

    The US should ask uncivilized mobs in dictatorships what laws the it should have, or what human rights are.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    Your vaunted concept of free speech, which doesn't really exist in your country, does not necessarily apply elsewhere. US law applies only in the US, or are you completely unaware that there are other countries?

    If Libya is a dictatorship today, that's the fault of US and NATO.

    Your logic is total fail.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    Thank-you for agreeing that making fun of a religion is not illegal in the US, which is what you seemed to suggest when you called those who made it "perps".
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    The issue is not what is legal or not in the US.

    You are unable to see the forest for the trees.
  28. Anonymous Member

    With US and NATO help, the dictator is dead. Do try to keep up.

    What they have now is a weak and poorly functional central government, with some anarchy due to factionalism.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  29. Anonymous Member

    The issue is whether you are a troll or actually believe the conspiracy theories you are promoting. You fill your posts with so many false statements and derails that I think it's the former.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    'Innocence of Muslims' Actress Loses Court Battle to Yank Film from YouTube |

    The actress who claims she was duped into starring in the anti-Islam movie "Innocence of Muslims" just LOST her battle in court -- a judge just refused to force YouTube to yank the film.

    As we reported, Cindy Lee Garcia filed a lawsuit against YouTube and producer Nakoula Basseley Nakoula -- aka Sam Bacile -- claiming at the time of filming, she believed she was acting in a "historical Arabian Desert adventure film."

    When the film was released, Cindy claimed it had been "changed grotesquely" to "make it appear that Ms. Garcia voluntarily performed in a hateful anti-Islamic production."

    Garcia claimed her voice had been dubbed in the movie to include lines that insulted the Muslim prophet Muhammad, which she never uttered.

    But today, an L.A. judge denied her request for an emergency injunction that would have required YouTube to remove the film from its site. The judge found Garcia's claims against YouTube are without merit.

    Before her hearing, Cindy addressed the media (above), saying her family's lives had been threatened since the film's release, which is why she sought the injunction.

    Garcia said, "My whole life has been turned upside down."

    Garcia said YouTube should be required to take the movie down because it will cause more problems in the Middle East and for her own life.

    During the media conference, Garcia's lawyer says the actress has been subjected to public mortification on a worldwide scale.

    "It's degrading, demoralizing ... it affected our ambassador, our Navy SEALs ... I think America needs to stand behind us on this. What [the director] did was wrong. So many people were affected by it."

    Video and comments:
  32. Anonymous Member

    What the director did was wrong, but not illegal.
  33. The Wrong Guy Member

    Anti-Islam Ads Going Up in NYC Subways

    Published on Sep 20, 2012 by AssociatedPress

    Ads that equate foes of Israel with "savages" will appear in ten New York City subway stations next week after a federal judge ordered the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to put them up.
  34. Archer Member

    The fact that you think one of these men is kim il-sung is worrying.
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. Anonymous Member

    Here's more false statements for ya:

    Does it feel good to be willfully ignorant? I've never tried it.
  37. Anonymous Member

    Disagree. Trolling is not wrong, and it shouldn't be illegal.
  38. Anonymous Member

    The USG is now saying is was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack. I guess they would have to know.
  39. No, I recognized Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. I was just making a point about another similar dictator. If these men deified anything, it was power, and they did so by creating cults of personality (Mao, Pot) and fear. Either way, deifying anything is not an atheist way of doing things. They simply didn't believe in a supernatural god.
  40. Joe Scarborough and those Fox News spokesholes are embarrassments. While RT has its serious, glaring flaws, they have a point.
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins