mirage62 0 #26 September 17, 2012 Quote Those Americans didn't react to that flick with violence. That's not some funny detail. It's an extremely important difference. I'm gay, and Islam is a never-ending source of grievous insults directed at my kind. You know why I don't run around lynching random Muslims? Because I'm not a bloody primitive savage that throws a tantrum like a 4yo every time my precious feewings are huwt. Besides doe we really respect Muslims if we give in to the demands of the zealot nut-cases? Last tim I checked, 99,999% or so of the Muslims aren't rioting because of that movie. +1 What really gets me is that we KNOW what the extrem Muslims feel about gays and women rights. If we know it than the other Muslims know it but it seems to get no traction - like a moderate Muslim is scared of the extrem Muslim...... As far as did the film cause the attack that killed the four Americans... I don't believe so, good cover but that attack was very well plan out from what we seem to being told.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 September 17, 2012 Quote>But that would make to Obama admin look bad . . . Not too much worry about that; Romney looks so bad in comparison no one is heeding the conspiracy theories on Obama. ================================ Romney shoots himself in foot over attack gaffe By Nick O'Malley, Washington Sept. 14, 2012, 3 a.m. MITT Romney's accusation that the Obama administration's response to the attacks on US embassies was to ''apologise'' for American values has been condemned not only by Democrats but by some senior Republicans. One went as far as suggesting the campaign had suffered a ''Lehman moment'' after the supposedly fatal stumble Republican senator John McCain's campaign made in response to the financial crisis during the last election. On Tuesday just after 10pm, Mr Romney released a statement saying, ''The Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathise with those who waged the attacks.'' A short time later it was confirmed the American ambassador to Libya had been killed. . . . They argued that Mr Romney had failed to support America's commander-in-chief during what may turn out to be a co-ordinated terrorist attack and that he had failed to abide by the convention of bipartisanship during crisis and the political truce observed on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. In a nutshell, they suggested Mr Romney was not presidential. . . . Yesterday high-profile Republicans, including Speaker of the House John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Senator McCain, condemned the Benghazi and Cairo violence, but notably did not echo Mr Romney's attack on the administration. ''This is, above all, a reminder that politics should end at the water's edge,'' said the Republican John Huntsman, who was Mr Obama's first ambassador to China. Off the record some Republicans were reportedly lamenting Romney's ''disaster''. ==================================== Tell me, when was Mitt put in charge of the safety of US citizens? Besides that, it may turn out Mitt was right!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 September 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteTo follow up The Obama admin say the attacks are in responce to a youtube film Lybia is saying they gave the embassy 3 days warning and what the Obama admin is saying is wrong Two points: 1) Your links do not say the US had 3 days warning of an attack - they say the US was told security in the area was, in general, was getting worse. 2) Surely it makes the Obama admin look bad if they blame the film and it turns out to be untrue, not if they don't blame the film? More statements that do not match http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-administration-libyan-president-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 September 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteNow, the filmmaker of Innocence of Muslims has been taken into custody for voluntary questioning. What voluntary questioning could he possibly be taken in for? Doesn't this sound as if it's just another way to stifle free speech? Well, the fellow is on probation after being convicted of, and serving jail time, for bank fraud. Part of his probation agreement is that he has to make restitution (totally over $700,000) to the people he defrauded. According to this article from CNN, the terms of his probation include no access to computers or the internet, and it is also not clear if he has made any restitution to his victims. It seems reasonable to me to make inquiries as to how the movie got made, and ended up on you tube. If he used any of his own money to make the movie instead of repaying his victims, and if he was responsible for it being placed on you tube, then it would seem he has violated his parole, and should be returned to jail to finish his sentence. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a political activist claimed "oppression" to escape being held accountable for unrelated criminal behavior. Don It's think it's pretty obvious that this is retribution for the film, just as Assange's trumped up "rape" charges in Sweden. We should be asking very blunt questions about this move, and giving the authorities no benefit of the doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #30 September 17, 2012 QuoteIt's think it's pretty obvious that this is retribution for the film, just as Assange's trumped up "rape" charges in Sweden. We should be asking very blunt questions about this move, and giving the authorities no benefit of the doubt. No doubt one could ask some blunt questions. Here's a question for you. If Mr Nakoula in fact violated the terms of his parole to make and distribute this "work of art", should be immune from even being asked about it just because he has made himself notorious? Should stirring up enough shit be a "get out of jail free" card? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 September 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt's think it's pretty obvious that this is retribution for the film, just as Assange's trumped up "rape" charges in Sweden. We should be asking very blunt questions about this move, and giving the authorities no benefit of the doubt. No doubt one could ask some blunt questions. Here's a question for you. If Mr Nakoula in fact violated the terms of his parole to make and distribute this "work of art", should be immune from even being asked about it just because he has made himself notorious? Should stirring up enough shit be a "get out of jail free" card? Don An offense is an offense. However, making a movie wouldn't cry out for a review the same way if he had released a software product...he can shoot without using a computer. If it's a ticky tack violation, it still smacks of retaliation. Put another way - if this wouldn't have come up without prodding from above, it's a bit shady. Nixon, and supposedly (by accusation) every Administration since him has sent the IRS to deep dive into people on the enemies list. Even if it scores a few hits, this is inappropriate government action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 September 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's think it's pretty obvious that this is retribution for the film, just as Assange's trumped up "rape" charges in Sweden. We should be asking very blunt questions about this move, and giving the authorities no benefit of the doubt. No doubt one could ask some blunt questions. Here's a question for you. If Mr Nakoula in fact violated the terms of his parole to make and distribute this "work of art", should be immune from even being asked about it just because he has made himself notorious? Should stirring up enough shit be a "get out of jail free" card? Don An offense is an offense. However, making a movie wouldn't cry out for a review the same way if he had released a software product...he can shoot without using a computer. If it's a ticky tack violation, it still smacks of retaliation. Put another way - if this wouldn't have come up without prodding from above, it's a bit shady. Nixon, and supposedly (by accusation) every Administration since him has sent the IRS to deep dive into people on the enemies list. Even if it scores a few hits, this is inappropriate government action. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 September 17, 2012 QuoteThey argued that Mr Romney had failed to support America's commander-in-chief during what may turn out to be a co-ordinated terrorist attack and that he had failed to abide by the convention of bipartisanship during crisis and the political truce observed on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks. See, there's the problem. The Obama Admin. is claiming it was a random act spurred by a stupid You Tube video. They are denying it was a preplanned and coordinated attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #34 September 17, 2012 QuoteSee, there's the problem. The Obama Admin. is claiming it was a random act spurred by a stupid You Tube video. They are denying it was a preplanned and coordinated attack. The attack on the embassy in Libya may or may not have been pre-planned (I haven't seen iron-clad evidence either way), but even if it was the video made it ridiculously easy to generate an angry mob to provide cover. However, are you saying that all the rioting in Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and even Australia, were all pre-planned by al Qaeda, each and every one of them? Where is your evidence that all those riots were coordinated by anyone? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 September 17, 2012 Do you believe most of those doing the rioting actually watched the You Tube video? Or do you think it was more likely that a few Mullahs described it to them? Do you really believe that all of this happening on 911 was just coincidental and wasn't planned? Do you believe in the right of free speech or do you think it should be silenced? We are going down a slippery slope here. It has transformed from shouting fire in a theater, to hate crime legislation which attempts to find guilt due to ones thought, to now linking a video to inciting violence in another country. Are you OK with that? If not, where do you draw (or re-draw) the line? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 September 17, 2012 QuoteDo you believe most of those doing the rioting actually watched the You Tube video? Or do you think it was more likely that a few Mullahs described it to them? Do you really believe that all of this happening on 911 was just coincidental and wasn't planned? Do you believe in the right of free speech or do you think it should be silenced? I have heard, third hand, that the hit count on YouTube was pretty miniscule prior to these events, making it difficult to believe that this was the primary instigator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #37 September 17, 2012 QuoteThe attack on the embassy in Libya may or may not have been pre-planned (I haven't seen iron-clad evidence either way) As far as I know, the white house wouldn't comment on whether or not the attacks used the protest as a preplanned diversion, but it did say the attacks were "complex" and "well organized." I can think of many riots and protests in LA, Detroit and even on college campuses...never heard the term "complex" and "well organized" to describe the violence that ensued...just sayin' Quotethe video made it ridiculously easy to generate an angry mob to provide cover. The movie was screened in hollywood and sat on youtube for months without much notice along with all the other anti-religious troll-shit on the internet. It didn't really pick up much traction until TV host Sheik khaled Abdallah broadcasted it on islamic television just prior to 9/11. Ansar al-Sharia has been suspected as organizing the protest and the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades suspected of carrying out the attack.... Here's a decent article on it all: http://world.time.com/2012/09/13/the-agents-of-outrage/Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 September 17, 2012 I think the video was used to incite violence but I don't think the video was made for that purpose. I do think AQ and other Muslim groups used the video for a targeted attack to coincide with 911. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #39 September 18, 2012 It's what happens if you make a film that offends fanatics. Judging an entire group for a vocal minority that is blowing stuff up and killing people is like... judging all Christians for a vocal minority that is blowing up abortion clinics and killing people. The problem is that since we do not have a large Muslim population here, most of our exposure to Islam is international news, and people being nice to each other just doesn't make the news. Exciting explosions and dead ambassadors, on the other hand... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 362 #40 September 18, 2012 QuoteI think the video was used to incite violence but I don't think the video was made for that purpose. Well, let's consider the following: 1. The actors worked from a script that had nothing in it about Mohammed, or Islam; they thought the movie was a historical drama about warring tribes. After filming was complete, the audio was dubbed in to change the dialogue to one that makes the story about Mohammed, depicting him only as a bloodthirsty fornicator, pedophile, homosexual, and practitioner of other generally poorly regarded antisocial behaviors. 2. The producer from the beginning adopted a false identity and presented himself as an Israeli Jew. What possible reason could anyone have for carrying out these two deceptions? To me, it seems most parsimonious to assume that he was quite aware that the script was so offensive he would be unlikely to find actors willing to work on the film. The film was obviously intended to be offensive. Then when the all-to-predictable mindless rage was unleashed, where would the anger be directed? Well, the movie was made by those Israeli Jews! Perhaps that part wasn't so well thought out, as the anger was instead directed against another party who had nothing to do with it, the US. What other, legitimate artistic or political purpose, could have necessitated multiple deceptions? Of course, if the goal was to prove that there is a segment of the radical islamic population that can be counted on to exhibit the mental processing power of a rabid dog, then mission accomplished. It's a stupid experiment, though; we already knew such people were out there, so why put the lives of innocent people who had nothing to do with the film on the line to prove a point we already knew? It's a more hopeful lesson to observe that the vast majority of Muslims did not riot, or were perhaps offended enough to protest peacefully but didn't resort to violence. But that, of course, won't be seen by those who don't allow reality to invade their tribal perception of the world. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #41 September 18, 2012 Let's assume all you say is true. What did he have to gain by making such a film? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #42 September 19, 2012 QuoteLet's assume all you say is true. What did he have to gain by making such a film? What will the French magazine gain from publishing the cartoons that they say are going to put up today? In the end it does not matter. Any violent reaction to stuff like this is more wrong by levels of magnitude But we all know it will happen"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #43 September 19, 2012 QuoteLet's assume all you say is true. What did he have to gain by making such a film? Publicity. Noteriety. His name in the news and his face plastered everywhere. Not my idea of a good way to get your name out, but I'm not him. He's just a really, really successful troll. He wanted to stir up some shit and was successful. The Slate article that was posted says it best: Ignore the trolls. Don't respond, positive or negative. That's what they want. It validates ther pathetic existence and makes them feel powerful. I apply that to the trolls on here too."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 September 19, 2012 He reportedly spent $5 million to make it. Where is the pay-off? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #45 September 19, 2012 QuoteHe reportedly spent $5 million to make it. Where is the pay-off? I don't think that was his own money. I believe he scammed "investors" out of that."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #46 September 20, 2012 Quote Quote This was a planned attack But that would make to Obama admin look bad Why? Well Maybe one of two reasons? First, he spent no time with his intel providers and just missed a chance to save some amerian lives or He got caught lieing again http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/19/obama_official_benghazi_was_a_terrorist_attack Quote The Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was in fact "a terrorist attack" and the U.S. government has indications that members of al Qaeda were directly involved, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday morning. also Quote Committee ranking Republican Susan Collins (R-ME) declared at the hearing that she believes the attacks were planned well in advance and she referenced information she had received from U.S. intelligence officials behind closed doors. But then Maybe Obama does not have as good of intelIf somebody would just do their job and forget about Letterman and talk like a pirate day, maybe these families would still have their loved ones Quote So there were reports detailing those attacks and detailing generally the threat that was faced to U.S. and Western individuals and interests in Eastern Libya from, again, armed militants as well as elements connected to al Qaeda," he said. "There was no specific intelligence regarding an imminent attack prior to September 11th on our post in Benghazi." "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #47 September 20, 2012 QuoteHe reportedly spent $5 million to make it. Where is the pay-off? As we are now seeing, this attack had little to do about any film"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #48 September 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteHe reportedly spent $5 million to make it. Where is the pay-off? I don't think that was his own money. I believe he scammed "investors" out of that. Why? What does he stand to gain? If he has done everything he's been accused of, why did he do it? Where's his pay-off? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #49 September 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe reportedly spent $5 million to make it. Where is the pay-off? I don't think that was his own money. I believe he scammed "investors" out of that. Why? What does he stand to gain? If he has done everything he's been accused of, why did he do it? Where's his pay-off? I have no idea, and I have not followed the story in great detail. My guess, but it is only that, is that there is not an actual film, just the preview clips that have been released. Perhaps he raised $5 million for a feature film, made the preview and pocketed some of that sum of money. Just a hunch, though. Not sure what his motivation was in making the film in the first place."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #50 September 20, 2012 He is a scam artist a d fraud, that is his pay off, pocketing the money he raises for this crap and others before. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
