The AP Solves the Mystery of the Man Behind "Innocence of Muslims"

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Orwells Ghost
 


I was just listening to a phone-in on BBC Radio 5 Live. There were 2 muslims talking about it. Both of them said that insulting their prophet was crossing the line, and was worse than all the deaths the west had inflicted on their homelands. Neither understood the concept of free speech, they both seem to think that the entire universe should follow their line of belief exclusively.

However, one of them outright condemned the violence and pointed out that the qu'ran tells muslims to deal with these things through non-violent means. The other one though, when asked if he condemned the violence, he first went on to condemn the western violence, which is fair, and outright refused to answer the question when re-asked it. His silence on that issue speaks wonders.

I still have not watched the trailer, but I get the impression they got angry over the claim that islam is mohammadism. WHICH IT IS. Their reaction has outright proven the claim correct. They put Mohammed on a pedestal, above all the rest of creation, which is strictly forbidden in their own texts. In the unlikely event islam turns out to be true, all these people are in for a massively rude awakening on judgement day.




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 




It definitely does not do so in this case. The savages following the death cult known as islam are completely to blame for the deaths here and should be punished as such. At a very minimum, all aid of any sort and all business dealings with the current regimes in place should end.


What about the "death cult following savages" in Saudi Arabia..who America is allied with?

Should America also end all business/diplomatic dealings with those Saudi savages? Or should they remain an exception?



The House of Saud will fall after the Iranian problem is handled ..... from according to the plan I heard about.....

I don't know if was Clark or some other person laid out a plan to reshape the Middle East but I think in the end all they will do is unleash the people which dictators and monarchs have controlled for years and even centuries!



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Orwells Ghost
 


It sure is.

At first I wanted to see some sort of punishment for the film makers. The attack so upset me. Then, after thought, I realized, that the Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, upheld that free speech.

Inflammatory speech, such as "Tiller the baby killer", may have wormed its way into someone's fearful, hate-filled, ill mind, compelling the shooter to kill Dr. Tiller, but the shooter's case was handled in a criminal court. The Libyan attackers, then, are the ones who are criminally liable. They, and not the film makers, will be punished. Rightfully so.

However, while free speech is an American value, let no one interpret that to mean that hate is an American value and should be tolerated. Call out the haters.


Originally posted by azureskys

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
- Arthur C. Clarke -


The world for three decades has seen the dominance of fundamentalism among ALL religions. We were warned in 1981 re America.

For those interested, google "church at Kaweah", to see a religion preaching hate. It is people like these who give religion a bad name. This is the church who invited the film promoter to speak.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by chasingbrahman


It would appear with some digi-sleuthing that the Associated Press was able to track the source of this film which has cause so much turmoil in the Middle East as 55 year-old Nakoula Basseley Nakoula from California. Terry Jones [of Quran-burning fame] was even solicited several weeks back for help promoting the film. Birds of a feather...

Now that the producer has been identified, how does anyone feel about the legality of making this film? I realize the actors and others employed by the film's producers are quite angry. But as to our future, and the internet's future, I'm concerned that this will result in an EO which suspends certain internet freedoms contingent upon staff review. I wonder if YouTube users will soon experience a delay in posting video while staff reviews it for content.

What say you, ATS?

www.slate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


we all know now that it is not some internet video movie that is causing the unrest... Obama administration is lucky to find anything to defend Obama's failed foreign policy, which in all actuality does not exist under Obama (his voters just can't handle all that much info) The attacks were planned and we know that now... not to mention the chant they are all chanting "Obama Obama we're all Osama"

get a clue please... ATS posters are smarter than this and most are not spoon fed via the media.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
It's free speech. One of the few great things still remaining in America. Does it offend you? Too bad, the ease with which you are offended offends me. It's certainly no reason to kill anyone. If you want to find the real villains in this story, do not look to the film makers, but to the savages murdering innocent people over a movie. Savages.


This. There's really nothing else to say on the matter. If people don't like it, they should go back to wherever the # they came from.




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Does this mean the ATS community believes the multinational riots and protests in the middle east have indeed been inspired by an amateur-made 15 minute long video? And that is all there is to this? Serious question.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sek82
Does this mean the ATS community believes the multinational riots and protests in the middle east have indeed been inspired by an amateur-made 15 minute long video? And that is all there is to this? Serious question.


I would bet that it's not quite that simple, but given how we have all seen the Islamic world react to cartoons, movies and pop culture references in the past, is it really so hard to believe?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Firefly_
 





I still have not watched the trailer, but I get the impression they got angry over the claim that islam is mohammadism.


OOOOOOH, well see that is what I asked, it seems like the put the prophet above their god.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 
some seem to fail at knowing that it is the extremist i am referring too, for it is the extremist that make and do harm to others. here is the yahoo news that says it ways released Saturday why wait till tusday? Oh yea Tuesday was 9/11

An Egyptian TV network, al-Nas, broadcast last Saturday what its presenters described as extracts from an English-language film denigrating the Prophet Mohammad, which it said had been uploaded on the YouTube website by "migrant Coptics," a reference to exiled members of a Christian sect with a large minority presence among Egypt's Muslim majority.

The clips broadcast on al-Nas were taken from a short film available on the Internet. It is called "Innocence of Muslims," and portrays the Prophet - played by what appears to be a young American actor - as a womanizer, thug and child molester.

Three U.S. officials said the broadcast did not prompt strong warnings from intelligence agencies or the State Department of possible threats to U.S. diplomatic missions in the Islamic world.
now the question is did they the US let this happen when it was released Saturday? we should know that this would do what it did or are we that self centered. thinking this would not offend them, or as it did and has... P!$$ them off.
news.yahoo.com...
edit on 14-9-2012 by bekod because: trying to add link
edit on 14-9-2012 by bekod because: added link



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sergeant Stiletto
reply to post by Orwells Ghost
 


It was an epic troll, no doubt. Despicable and ignorant.

But nothing justifies violence and murder.

The question is, at what point does the public good out-weigh free speech? Or does it even at all?



So you think the statement he made was trolling? Wow. That is just, wow.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Is this the methamphetamine tweeker that the media first told us about? We have tweekers all over the US. They could infuriate the entire world.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
iv just been to breakingnews.com

they say
"probabtion office says they are looking into possible violations of prisoner release terms by california man limnked to anti islam film"

who knows what that means??
to solve this issue its pretty easy
lock the dude up for inciting hate.....=....mob goes home!
simple maths



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Is "inciting hate" a crime in the USA? I thought that was a only peculiarity of Canadian law. I would also like to state that, in my opinion, murder incites far more hate than film making...



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiberLegit

It was an epic troll, no doubt. Despicable and ignorant.

But nothing justifies violence and murder.

The question is, at what point does the public good out-weigh free speech? Or does it even at all?


im sorry for saying this. but only an american would consider this free speech......
but if one makes an "anti" semetic remark...or even critises isreal...then they have broken the law

sometimes america is soo confusing for the rest of the world to understand

if inciting hate is not enough....then how about locking him up for endangering our soldiers etc
it will go a long way in diffusing the siituation which is gauranteed to get out of hand

peace
edit on 14-9-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


The rhetoric (and it's clear, our next military engagement) actually started with the American Preacher who "publicly" wanted to burn the Koran (and all his supporters) who made a big deal over it. Think about it - even though we accidentally killed many innocent Iraqi civilians via drone strikes and unstable soldiers on rampages (who I also think was a patsy initiated to start a war) THIS one single, senseless and deliberately disrespectful event (the Koran burning) planted the seeds for the strongest anti-American hatred and Muslim outrage. And someone knew that it would.

When the outrage over that seemed to subside, here comes this grossly disrespectful and repulsive book, deliberately bandied about to PUSH THE ENVELOPE. This is to make sure anti-American hatred continues to burn white-hot. Someone is effectively "spilling gasoline" and waiting for someone else to light the match. They do not want to be associated with or blamed for the fire storm that is soon to envelope the area.

This is a deliberate maneuver people, recognize it.
How war is instigated by the powers that be.
This is no contest of ideas.
This is a dog fight.

If I didn't know better I would think that factions in Israel who are frustrated with America's unwillingness to fight a war with Iran are throwing these types of "firebomb" stories abroad to ratchet up the Muslim hatred for Americans and force us to engage in a religious war in response to escalating violence.

Israel is angering both dogs, the Muslims and the Americans - then standing back to let them fight.

I think not all, of course, but a small and particularly nasty faction of American/Israelis warmongers are the instigators behind this whole Koran burning, anti Muslim book writing propaganda that is deliberately and effectively generating and inspiring hatred for America and is responsible for causing the violence against Americans.

It is Israels (aided by our own MIC) attempt to start a Holy War and engage the USA in it.
For them, it's to fulfill some biblical vow that includes killing their enemies, their enemies children and their enemies pets. Even peace indicates a coexistence presumably prohibited by God, and why Begin (who came closest) was assassinated for even considering it.

What puppets we all are.
There is no getting out of this dia-rama is there?

edit on 14-9-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


Is "inciting hate" a crime in the USA? I thought that was a only peculiarity of Canadian law. I would also like to state that, in my opinion, murder incites far more hate than film making...


thats were you are out of touch....weve been blowing them up for years...but we are able to control the outcomes of these situations.

this however, is much more dynamic.....understand this small thing

our ambassors in MANY countries have to work with these people, to provide us with the security and goods we need to survive.
a person enjoying that very security sabotages them......its up to us to deal with him...i would throw terrorism charges at him.
when they see us dealing with him...the situation will diffuse.

people like you confuse me.....we got camp cuba sitting there and your still being naieve about how the law works....end of day , we make the rules and we can use it to our advantage......

personal opinion...strap a parachute to the dude....take him via helicopter, throw him in any ME country...and tell him to go and promote the film to his INTENDED audience...lol

peace



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


So inciting hatred is not a crime in the USA?

My position is fairly clear (keep in mind I'm not American): The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it's tenets extending to all human beings, as it states inalienable human rights (i.e. natural and irrevocable). It may be the most important document in human history.

Just because the U.S. government's actions are not in line with the Constitution (a whole other topic), does not render the document or the rights it outlines moot. "Throwing terrorism charges" at someone as a means of circumventing ones right to free expression is not only wrong, but recalls some less than pleasant images of other totalitarian regimes.

How important are your freedoms to you? How much will you give up in the name of security? How often has appeasement lead to the desired result? If you sacrifice this filmmaker on the altar of appeasement, you are also sacrificing your freedom of expression. Given that extremist Muslims would love this (as well as extremists from many, many other groups), I would go as far as to say that it is in fact YOU who are supporting terrorism.
edit on 14-9-2012 by Orwells Ghost because: grammar and punctuation



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thePharaoh
 


What's to stop me from wanting to go to war with you so I can take over your natural resources, and deciding that your ugly sneakers are the perfect reason why I'm starting a war with you, and I'm going to get the world behind me, claiming you TRIED to offend me with your sneakers?

See how this can turn around and bite you?

Nobody said freedom was free. It DOES require the ability to bite the bullet and allow others their freedom, too. Even when it totally hurts your feelings.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 
I'm guessing the main Embassy security is pretty good. I think the problem here is really wishful thinking on a brand new situation. There aren't many countries it can be said Americans haven't stepped foot in for a couple decades, but this is sure ONE of them. Libya, North Korea..and a couple others. Cuba is a wide open country by comparison to what Libya has been for the West until very recently....

So... I'll bet in a nation they didn't rush into, to set up whatever was needed with whatever was around to use, this would have been far less likely to happen. I think we jumped the gun badly by assuming Libyans would remain welcoming and happy. Seems the West makes a habit of that, eh? Assuming we'll be accepted as World War liberators Ala Paris in 1945 or something......... We are, I guess...for about 1-2 months, and that seems to have held for a pattern for a long time in these things now



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Please enjoy a brief interlude from one of our sponsors.



Carry on.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
12
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join