What US movie would trigger this event?

[Master Dan]

More info, it was not an Israeli in California. That was an alter ego of a man convicted of bank fraud in 2010, who in actuality directed and produced the film. The name Sam Bacile actually seems to be an alternate id of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Interesting enough, as part of his sentence Mr Nakoula was banned from using the internet or computers. However, the Youtube account owned by "Sam Bacile" had activity as short as two days ago. The film was originally called 'Desert Warriors" when it was shot. Much of the offending dialogue was in fact dubbed in. This according to multiple actors that played in the movie who are now considering lawsuites over the deception of the film. A man named Steven Klien who was supposedly intimately involved in the film making said he and Mr Nakoula had discussed some of the Muslim extremist reactions to the film, so it was something they were not at all unaware of. As Klien said, ""We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen."

The only role that Pastor Terry had was the he was contacted about promoting the film and had tentively agreed.

Riling up people with film is nothing new. Remember "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Evengecals were having seizures over how it potrayed Christ as <shock> a man. Those people picketed and did not create violence. If anything, it created more sells for the movie. However, Mel Gibson did not produce this movie, dub an etirely new script onto the actors, in order to promote hatred he knew would end in violence. There was a lot of back lash though in a country where free speech and freedom of religious choice are valued.

The Egyptians, which some are extremist were told by both Al Queda and interestingly enough, "Sam Bacile" through the internet that the film was gonna be shown all over the US as part of the 9/11 commemorations. In AQ's version of explanation that soon Americans would hold this view of the Prophet Muhammad if something was not done immediately. So in this instance, whoever was playing Sam Brice (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) at the time was in effect furthering AQ goals.

As far as Mr Romney's statement, he made it before knowing all the facts...or even many of the facts. The statement he so gleefully blamed on Obama taking the side of the attackers was released by the Cairo embassy 6 hours before the attack. It basically said that we do respect Islam as we do all religions and we are sorry if our free speech will cause hurt in the Islamic community. Can you really blame them since they were sitting in the middle of a powder keg, while Mr Nakoula was throwing matches? So before the facts of the crisis were known, Mr Romney made the decision to attack Mr Obama politically on a statement released by the Cairo embassy in an effort to cool things down. If this is how he will make his decisions on foriegn policy, I would be afraid if he becomes elected. Making sure you have the facts before going off half cocked seems to me to be a presidential prerequisite. Also, instead of admitting he's screwed up, he double downed on the statement later. He either has a terrible foriegn policy staff, or he just doesn't want to listen to them. If he is having this much trouble running a campaign, how is he possibly going to be an effective president.

In other only partially related knews, the leader of russia, Mt Putin had this to say about Mr Romney and his views on Russia;
Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that Mitt Romney’s characterization of Moscow as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe” has actually helped Russia.
The Russian leader said Romney’s comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATO’s plan for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, a system Russia believes will degrade its nuclear deterrent. The U.S. insists the system is aimed at Iran, not Russia.
“I’m grateful to him (Romney) for formulating his stance so clearly because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems,” Putin told reporters, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti.
“The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn’t win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective,” he said, speaking after a meeting with Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, according to Interfax news agency.

Seems Mitt's vast expertise in foriegn affairs is paying off already....for the Russian Federation.

Romney's conduct not just in this case but seems to be prevelant in all reactions to situations are now even being questioned by people with in his own party? Worse is some key states those who are fundamental Christians who do not want to vote for Obama are faced with holding thier nose to vote for a Mormon who thier biggotted pasters tell them is a non Christian??

Getting back to the idiot that made the film the crew now says they are all in fear for thier lives it cost about $5million to produce and the Feds are revisiting his fraud charges considering putting the guy in Jail.

As for live coverage in Egypt I watch last night and this morning and sad to say thier security police are keeping them back but it ranges from about 50 of the neighborhood boys who have nothing better to do than heh lets go down and be on camera to maybe a few hundred that I don't think woudl be there if not for the media?? However if not for the media the security police just might let them get away with alot more?

AQ is obviously behind this in retrobution for us killing thier #2 guy but I have mixed emotions about our funds going to any of these countries yes I know we have to stay engaged and all but if not for oil would we give a crap??

 

[crushing]

Lot of dumb*** to go around on this one. You scale the walls of an embassy, which is the same as invading that country, to get make a statement about some knucklehead's attempt to insult your religion. That's pretty freaking stupid. Also stupid is to make an movie about someone else's religion that you don't believe in to stir up crap. Are there no adults involved here? Islamic fanatics and Christian fanatics, yay.

I must admit, this movie is what first came to mind.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/

 

[WC_lun]

The Muslims want us to have a blasphemy restriction on the 1st Amendment. What remains to be seen is if the fearful in our nation will cave into the idea.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

This is not only not well thought out, it uses a generality to paint all Muslims, and it is fact free. Let's review what happened, just so facts can be part of the picture instead of hatred for Muslims or a political point;

Egypt - protestors attacked the American embassy and tore down the flag. They were convinced by AQ and the man who made this racist and hateful film, that it would be showing all across America as part of our 911 commemorations. There were no injuries of staff personel. Egyptian security forces have stepped up thier presence and kept a similiar incident from happening last night. The Egyptian leader has apologized and expressed condolonces for Lybia.

Yemen - pretty much a sister act of Egypt, though Yemen security forces were much faster to act and may have wounded some of the protesters and perhaps killing one, perhaps disuading them from further actions tonight.

Lybia - there was a small peaceful protest outside the US safe house. However, about 10pm local time, trucks of men with guns and RPGs attacked the safe house. They battled Lybian and American security forces for many hours. In the fighting and consequntial burning of the safe house, four Americans were killed and ten Lybian security force members were either wounded or killed. This was a coordinated attack. Shortly after dawn the Lybian leader expressed his condolences and said Lybia would help in any way needed to hunt down the attackers. Around mid-day another, larger protest was in the streets, this time supporting America and expressing regret for the violence. You see in Lybia, we are very well liked, especially in Benghazi.

All across the Muslim world people are expressing condolonces for the loss of life and the attacked properties. They are also expressing disgust with the movie. That seems to be on par with most Americans reactions. So do most Americans want to change the first ammendment? I didn't think so.

 

[Tgace]

There is a common denominator in all of these mass demonstration displays of violence...of course its not ALL Muslims. Maybe not even the majority. But denying the religious influence in these events is burying your head.

There is a far larger element of people using the Islamic faith as reason to commit mass murder and violence AT THIS TIME...than other faiths. And for some reason more of us are suggesting "letting the Wookie win" out of fear.

Even if that film WAS slated to be shown nation wide....so what?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

If you've read any of my post you know I do not think that violence of any sort is an appropriate reaction. Blaming Islam for what is becomming clear was a political gambit by AQ and excusing this movie in its role of making things easier for America's enemies does not seem the smartest route either.

 

[Big Don]

If you've read any of my post you know I do not think that violence of any sort is an appropriate reaction. Blaming Islam for what is becomming clear was a political gambit by AQ and excusing this movie in its role of making things easier for America's enemies does not seem the smartest route either.

al-Qaeda translation: "The Base" and alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a global militant Islamist organization... So, don't call them Muslims...

 

[Josh Oakley]

Xue... who exactly is defending the movie?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Xue... who exactly is defending the movie?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Not I...like "Piss Christ" it was intended to offend. I do defend the right to make it though. Freedom of speech/expression trumps the right to "not be offended". Which is no "right" at all.

I no more "like" the content of this film than I like what the KKK spouts on the capitol lawn. What I don't want is the government passing laws preventing either of them from doing what they do. That path leads to nothing good.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

S 240.08 Inciting to riot. A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm. Inciting to riot is a class A misdemeanor.


In my state "inciting to riot" is a person urging people to burn down an embassy. As in saying "LETS BURN DOWN AN EMBASSY!!" Yeaaahhhhh!!

Incitement to riot is NOT a person posting a youtube video that offended a bunch of people enough for THEM to decide on their own to riot, and burn down an embassy building. That's entirely on them......

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[WC_lun]

AQ no more represents main stream Islam than the KKK do main stream Christians.

Are there any laws in your area against taking an action that you know will result in violence and harm to a third party? Once again, free speech is the ability to say anything you want without government telling you that you cannot. Free speech is NOT the ability to say anything you want without suffering repurcussions of that speech. You still have to take responsibility for your actions, even if that action was speech.

 

[shesulsa]

There is simply no damned excuse to invade the United States - and I do believe that an invasion of a U.S. Embassy is the same as invading its country - over a movie. This is inexcusable. We cannot limit our free speech rights because someone gets their nose out of joint. I'm never thrilled at blatant insult to religious figureheads no matter how much I disagree with or abhor them ... but one price of freedom is tolerance.

Suggestions on what to do?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

There is simply no damned excuse to invade the United States - and I do believe that an invasion of a U.S. Embassy is the same as invading its country - over a movie. This is inexcusable. We cannot limit our free speech rights because someone gets their nose out of joint. I'm never thrilled at blatant insult to religious figureheads no matter how much I disagree with or abhor them ... but one price of freedom is tolerance.

Suggestions on what to do?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

Again, there is a difference between speaking your mind and choosing what you say carefully enough to cause a violent reaction.
Especially when it does not take much imagination to foresee the reaction.

 

[Tgace]

AQ no more represents main stream Islam than the KKK do main stream Christians.

Are there any laws in your area against taking an action that you know will result in violence and harm to a third party? Once again, free speech is the ability to say anything you want without government telling you that you cannot. Free speech is NOT the ability to say anything you want without suffering repurcussions of that speech. You still have to take responsibility for your actions, even if that action was speech.

Really? Show me some examples of constitutional case law detailing how this sort of situation (someone offended by speech commits violence/crime) is not constitutionally protected.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Again, there is a difference between speaking your mind and choosing what you say carefully enough to cause a violent reaction.
Especially when it does not take much imagination to foresee the reaction.

So its not what you say that deserves constitutional protection....its HOW you say it.

Got it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Xue Sheng]

Really? Show me some examples of constitutional case law detailing how this sort of situation (someone offended by speech commits violence/crime) is not constitutionally protected.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Admittedly I may be missing something here, but are you implying that if someone is offended by speech commits violence/crime is protected under the constitution?

 

[Xue Sheng]

There is simply no damned excuse to invade the United States - and I do believe that an invasion of a U.S. Embassy is the same as invading its country - over a movie. This is inexcusable. We cannot limit our free speech rights because someone gets their nose out of joint. I'm never thrilled at blatant insult to religious figureheads no matter how much I disagree with or abhor them ... but one price of freedom is tolerance.

Suggestions on what to do?

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

Here is the thing, other countries, particularly in the Middle East, don't care one bit about our Constitution any more than we care about Islamic Law. I don't think the film justifies an attack on our embassy and the killing of our ambassador but looking at this form the POV of the US constitution when the offense occurred on foreign soil and expecting those indigenous to that country follow and or even understand or care to understand our Constitution for that matter is just looking for a reason to justify getting angry.

While were on freedom of speech we may also want to remember the other parts of the first amendment as well; Freedom of religion, Freedom of speech, Freedom to assemble, Freedom to petition the government

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I do not defend people who commit violence on others when they feel their beliefs have been insulted. It's never acceptable.

It is also not acceptable (although a legal expression of free speech) to incite people to violence in order to demonstrate how violent they are.

Islamic extremists killing people = bad.
Terry Jones and ilk inciting violence = bad.

The first is illegal, the second is legal (in the US).

I don't like either one. And I'm not going to be painted into the "Oh, so you must love Islamic terrorism, right?" corner by playing that stupid-*** game where we pretend that TJ and company's behavior is perfectly innocent and not designed to incite any kind of reaction. That crap makes me sick.

The fact is, we humans have a long history of 'proving' that another group is evil by intentionally doing something we hope will cause them to react in the way we want them to. We shout insults, paint slogans, march through city streets, and generally do all we can to incite others to react badly. Yes, when they do react badly, they are still responsible for their illegal actions. However, there is no goodness in those who intentionally cause such actions.

I remember a fat kid on the playground when I was growing up who used to get tormented constantly about his weight. We all did it - I did it too. He eventually flew into a rage and commenced to whupping *** on a bunch of his tormentors; I was lucky I was not in his path that day. He threw the first (and as far as I know) the only punches; decked about three kids and chased off a dozen more. Was he responsible for his actions? Yes. His violent reaction was provoked, but still not allowed by school rules. He got suspended for three days. The kids who provoked him did not, but we all got a 'talking to' by school officials about bullying.

This is no different. We want to provoke someone into doing something we hope they will do; so we push and push and push until they do it, and they we stand back and say "SEE HOW THEY ARE?" Yes, we see. We see what cowards people like Terry Jones and company truly are. If they want to prove something, let them burn their Korans and show their movies in, say, Pakistan. That way, when they get the reaction they are after, they are the ones who get to suffer the consequences instead of innocent people.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I do not defend people who commit violence on others when they feel their beliefs have been insulted. It's never acceptable.

It is also not acceptable (although a legal expression of free speech) to incite people to violence in order to demonstrate how violent they are.

Islamic extremists killing people = bad.
Terry Jones and ilk inciting violence = bad.

The first is illegal, the second is legal (in the US).

I don't like either one. And I'm not going to be painted into the "Oh, so you must love Islamic terrorism, right?" corner by playing that stupid-*** game where we pretend that TJ and company's behavior is perfectly innocent and not designed to incite any kind of reaction. That crap makes me sick.

The fact is, we humans have a long history of 'proving' that another group is evil by intentionally doing something we hope will cause them to react in the way we want them to. We shout insults, paint slogans, march through city streets, and generally do all we can to incite others to react badly. Yes, when they do react badly, they are still responsible for their illegal actions. However, there is no goodness in those who intentionally cause such actions.

I remember a fat kid on the playground when I was growing up who used to get tormented constantly about his weight. We all did it - I did it too. He eventually flew into a rage and commenced to whupping *** on a bunch of his tormentors; I was lucky I was not in his path that day. He threw the first (and as far as I know) the only punches; decked about three kids and chased off a dozen more. Was he responsible for his actions? Yes. His violent reaction was provoked, but still not allowed by school rules. He got suspended for three days. The kids who provoked him did not, but we all got a 'talking to' by school officials about bullying.

This is no different. We want to provoke someone into doing something we hope they will do; so we push and push and push until they do it, and they we stand back and say "SEE HOW THEY ARE?" Yes, we see. We see what cowards people like Terry Jones and company truly are. If they want to prove something, let them burn their Korans and show their movies in, say, Pakistan. That way, when they get the reaction they are after, they are the ones who get to suffer the consequences instead of innocent people.

Tried to rep you but couldn't so I will say it here

DAMN that is a good post :asian:

 

[Tez3]

Tried to rep you but couldn't so I will say it here

DAMN that is a good post :asian:

I second that!

 

[Tgace]

Admittedly I may be missing something here, but are you implying that if someone is offended by speech commits violence/crime is protected under the constitution?

No...I'm implying that there is no 1st amendment exception for "offending someone". And that there is no case law implying that my speech makes me legally liable for another persons individual decision half the world away.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk