The Gawd-Awful Video That Enraged The Gawd-Awful Islamists


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know, I know...

Three posts in a row is a little much.

But there is a point I want to make absolutely clear.

The man who made the video shot it in America. He made it with American actors. He lives in America. He uploaded the video to the Internet in America to an American YouTube account.

I totally reject that this dude has any blood on his hands (not even a drop) for what happened in the Middle East. What's more, I am thoroughly disgusted that he is now running a risk to his life from cowards who will only strike by blindsiding him.

And then there's this:

Flashback: Obama Administration Pushes UN Resolution That Bans Criticism of Islam

by Jim Hoft

September 15, 2012

Gateway Pundit

After discussing Nakoula Nakoula's escort by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s officers to an interrogation by federal officers, the UN resolution that passed and team Obama's enthusiasm for it, Hoft made this comment:

And, just think, it only took them nine months to start interrogating filmmakers. Makes you look forward to another four years of this administration, huh?

That is something we have to stop--like right now.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I learned that it is the weak who are cruel, and that gentleness is to be expected only from the strong."

[Leo Rosten]

Such counterfeit 'gentleness' as I'm reading from Rice, is a bend-over-backwards tolerance of any and all

criticism, by others. It's saying "We respect you guys' freedom of expression(religion and riot) but condemn our own freedom of expression (a dumb movie)".

Ipso facto, religion must be greater than a movie, she's infering.

No, you idiot, it is about principle!

It's all happening, isn't it?:smile: -

Failure to think in principles.

Short-term thinking.

Political correctness.

Double standards.

Appeasement.

Consequentialism.

Physical determinism

Self-sacrifice.

Self-abnegation.

Altruism. (Did I miss any?)

But, do these altruist bureaucrats believe they are doing a great favor to Muslims by this 'gentleness'?

Are they helping them and Islam grow to maturity and accept reality? Aren't they actually 'insulting' them further by the implication that they are somehow sub-human, needing separate set of standards?

What about the next time, when some kid draws a cartoon of Mohamed on a toilet wall ? What is the difference, in principle, between that and the next dumb movie, or next Salman Rushdie? Does the West sit on tenterhooks, while Islamists pick and choose precisely which 'atrocity and insult' they arbitrarily (or calculatedly, more like it) want to react violently to?

The weak are cruel, the cruel are weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film is going to be shown here by a Hindu group (the same one who organized a dog-walking event in front of a mosque last Friday, because a lot of Muslim cabbies won't carry dogs). Ron Banerjee, spokesman, says "there is a lot of interest" in it.

99% of Toronto's Hindus are furious and want nothing to do with the wretched thing or Banerjee's loony group. Some are frightened that backlash will endanger their jobs or even their lives. But of course, it is his perfect right to show a film, any film, if he can get a venue. Nobody seems eager to welcome a sellout crowd onto their cinematic premises for this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He of course should be defended. Anything less would be snobbery. That's he's a lowlife is irrevelevant. If it was someone like Stephen Fry on the chopping block, for making a clever, witty, and sophisticated movie that criticised aspects of Islam, I suspect you'd all be happy to defend him from the outset. We live in a world now where the likes of Rowan Atkinson, etc, censor themselves when it comes to mocking, or criticising Islam. Given that trend, it seems inevitable that exercising freedom of speech will be taken up more and more solely by the "lowlifes".

Infidel,

Actually you are wrong on so many counts in this post it's not funny. You started off by making a good point, but then, like all scapegoating people do, you pushed it to where it doesn't belong.

Exercising or defending freedom of speech does not mean you are required to mock Islam in public. It means you have the right to do that if you so choose. But you always harp on as if only people who mock Islam are exercising or defending their right to free speech.

The only difference I see between you and the Islamists is the side you are on. Epistemologically, I find you to be the same. You both use the same "us against them" frame for fundamentals like rights.

You and I are not the same.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film is going to be shown here by a Hindu group (the same one who organized a dog-walking event in front of a mosque last Friday, because a lot of Muslim cabbies won't carry dogs). Ron Banerjee, spokesman, says "there is a lot of interest" in it.

From the Toronto Star:

Prominent Canadian Hindu leader denounces decision to show anti-Muslim movie

prominent member of the Hindu community has denounced a Toronto Hindu group’s decision to screen the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked riots throughout the Middle East.

“I can see no reason for showing the film in light of what is happening across the world,” said Pandit Roopnauth Sharma, president of the Canadian Hindu Federation and a pandit at Ram Mandir, a Hindu temple in Mississauga.

Ron Banerjee, who heads a group called Canadian Hindu Advocacy, said last week he will show the film, which portrays the prophet Muhammad as a madman and womanizer, to fight intolerance. Banerjee said he will also show snippets from movies that are insulting to Christians and Hindus.

However, Sharma called Banerjee’s motives “suspect” and said he is creating a situation that can lead to unnecessary conflict and is trying to put “Hindus in conflict with the Muslim community.”

Sharma said Banerjee’s group “does not represent the Hindu community by any means.”

Banerjee’s group last year had demanded an end to Muslim Friday prayers at a Toronto school. At the time, he was quoted in the Star as saying: “In its entire history, Islam, the Islamic civilization, has invented and contributed less to human advancement than a pack of donkeys.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, on to CNN...

Not only has CNN run a photo of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula—and put one of the actors in his piece of crap on screen, in case anyone wants to kill a few of them, too—this is far from the full extent of the network's, umm, contribution.

Check out CNN's coverage of one of the attacks on the embassy in Tunisia: "It is not an Al Qa'eda banner, it is an affirmation of faith":

http://www.breitbart...mation-Of-Faith

Well, it isn't strictly an Al-Qa'eda banner. It's been used by other Islamic Imperialists, such as Moqtada Al-Sadr's milita.

But the meaning of putting the shehada in white on a black background, harking back to the Islamic conquerors of the 600s and 700s, is unmistakable.

It's the emblem of: Islamic Imperialism, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic conquest, Islamic tyranny.

No civilized human being should regard it any differently from the swastika, or the hammer and sickle.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw Susan Rice's interview on Chris Wallace's show. But you could have seen her in any of three other venues, because she made the Sunday political talk show rounds, saying the same thing on each.

I do not believe that Ms. Rice is dumb enough to believe anything she was saying.

Which means that she was handed Obama administration talking points, and instructed to go out and lie to everyone.

Her performances are frightening as well as disgusting. How far will this administration go in its search for scapegoats and its desperation to offload blame?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the CNN report on the filmmaker.

After saying that he tried to hide his identity due to death threats, they cheerfully displayed it and gave all kinds of personal information on him.

It's like they were planting a big honking sign on his back saying, "Here he is, Islamists. Come kill him."

CNN Releases Photo, Personal Info Of Filmmaker

Breitbart TV

September 17, 2012

(NOTE FROM MSK: I originally embedded the video, but there is an annoying autostart every time you open this thread, so I removed the video and replaced it with the link above.)

I really, really, really don't want to have to defend a lowlife dude like this, but I will.

I refuse--absolutely refuse--to allow Islamist bullies to intimidate my corner of the world into giving up my right to free speech, and the right of those I love.

I am also not a fan of lynch mobs.

Screw them all.

Michael

So if he is killed, does Cnn bear any responsibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legally, not so far as I know.

Morally, yes.

Robert Campbell

Finally we are in agreement. That is exactly my estimation of the responsibility of Nakoula etal in the murder of Stevens. Stevens was the "face", the symbol to the murderers of the infidel, the enemy, the Muhammad-defiler, as is Nakoula, more directly,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legally, not so far as I know.

Morally, yes.

Robert Campbell

Finally we are in agreement. That is exactly my estimation of the responsibility of Nakoula etal in the murder of Stevens. Stevens was the "face", the symbol to the murderers of the infidel, the enemy, the Muhammad-defiler, as is Nakoula, more directly,He is not a symbol but a real person who depicted and defiled Mohammed as did Rushdie (sorry Rushdie to put you in such revolting company) in the minds of the murderers.

And he is likely to stay alive as did Rushdie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally we are in agreement. That is exactly my estimation of the responsibility of Nakoula etal in the murder of Stevens. Stevens was the "face", the symbol to the murderers of the infidel, the enemy, the Muhammad-defiler, as is Nakoula, more directly. He is not a symbol but a real person who depicted and defiled Mohammed as did Rushdie (sorry Rushdie to put you in such revolting company) in the minds of the murderers.

And he is likely to stay alive as did Rushdie.

Finally, we're not in agreement.

Al Qa'eda in the Maghreb had a direct interest in killing Ambassador Stevens (or whoever might be on site in Benghazi; we don't yet know whether security was so badly compromised as to let them know Stevens was there). On general principle. Also to avenge the death of their commander Al-Libi, in a drone attack. They had an even stronger interest in killing and committing mayhem on 9/11.

Other Islamic Imperialist groups operating in Libya may or may not have cared particularly about Al-Libi, but surely wanted to strike a blow against the Great Satan. On 9/11, no less.

No Islamic Supremacist needs Mr. Nakoula's piece of crap as an excuse. They don't even need it to whip up a rent-a-mob (assuming the attackers in Libya actually relied on one for cover; that remains unclear).

Neither did Ayman Al-Zawahiri's brother need Mr. Nakoula's piece of crap to help whip up a mob in Cairo, on 9/11. They chanted, "Obama, Obama, there are still a billion Osamas." A pretty clear message.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula may be legally liable for violating his probation. For all I know, he is legally liable for ripping off the fools that he talked into investing in his piece of crap. As stupid and vile as he may be, however, he is not morally liable for the death of anyone killed by Islamic Imperialist mobs, or by Islamic Imperialist guerrillas, anywhere in the world.

Do you hold any of the Danish cartoonists morally liable for any deaths in Islamic Imperialist mob attacks?

Do you hold Salman Rushdie morally liable for any deaths by Islamic Imperialist mob attacks or terrorist strikes?

No one has the right to kill on behalf of his religion.

No one is rightly subject to old-fashioned shari'a penalties for leaving the Muslim religion—or for defaming Muhammad.

But will I hold CNN morally liable if Nakoula is killed by Islamic Imperialists? Absolutely.

They know full well who wants to kill him, and they are helping them find him.

Robert Campbell

PS. Salman Rushdie got significant protection, for years, from British government security services. Is the Obama administration going to send one FBI agent to protect Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Robert, but I still think my analogy holds up better than yours.

The difference between Rushdie and the Danish cartoonist, and Nakoula, is the reason.

The former two created works of literature and satire, knowing that they might be offensive but not wishing or hoping for the death of their enemies, much less themselves or their friends, as a result. Any work of literature or satire will offend somebody.

Nakoula and friends created a deliberate work of propaganda, with no pretence to art, knowing and very likely hoping that it would help provoke violence and death. They have admitted this.

Again, neither Rushdie nor Nakoula committed a legal crime. But Nakoula committed a moral crime, if you will, and Rushdie did not.

And yes, I do think Nakoula will get protection, although he may have to pay for it himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egypt has charged 7 American-based Copts (though not Nakoula) plus terry Jones with whatever blasphemy crime the film is under Egyptian law.

This is unfortunate. They all seem to be part of the Spencer/Geller crowd and will make a total field day out of their persecution, while they are safe in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stevens was the "face", the symbol to the murderers of the infidel...

Carol,

You will probably read more about this later when the mainstream catches up to Glenn Beck. He floated an idea today that sounds completely plausible.

Beck asked what the hell Stevens was doing in Benghazi around 9/11 with a protection detail that seemed more from the CIA than from the Marines.

He also called out ABC on shoddy reporting since (1) he got several of his facts from ABC broadcasts, and (2) ABC is now pretending they are investigating what they already broadcasted several months ago. I won't go into this ABC stuff since I am going on memory and don't want to screw it up. It will all come out later, anyway.

Apparently Benghazi is an extremely dangerous place for foreigners, but one very familiar to Stevens. It was in Benghazi that he helped get USA arms to the hands of rebels during the Arab Spring. (Note, there was a lot of concern at the time because the rebels around that area were permeated with elements from Al Qaeda.) Now that a lot of weapons have gone missing in Libya, the Obama administration is sending in people to try to find out what happened to them. It would be a major disaster if USA weapons showed up when USA people got killed, especially in light of the Fast and Furious scandal.

Beck thinks it is a good possibility that Stevens was in Benghazi on such a mission and something went wrong with the negotiations. He would have had to deal with the same people as before, except those people were no longer interested in USA help in overthrowing Gaddafi.

Stay tuned.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Robert, but I still think my analogy holds up better than yours.

I don't.

CNN is publishing location and personal info so that the bullies can find and kill people in America by blindsiding them.

Outraging bullies because you stick your tongue out at them from afar is nowhere near the same thing--even if there are people near the bullies who are vulnerable to them.

Like I said earlier, groveling before bullies has never been my cup of tea. I don't care if others want to do it, but groveling before bullies is not--and will never be--a moral argument for the good.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stevens was the "face", the symbol to the murderers of the infidel...

Carol,

You will probably read more about this later when the mainstream catches up to Glenn Beck. He floated an idea today that sounds completely plausible.

Beck asked what the hell Stevens was doing in Benghazi around 9/11 with a protection detail that seemed more from the CIA than from the Marines.

He also called out ABC on shoddy reporting since (1) he got several of his facts from ABC broadcasts, and (2) ABC is now pretending they are investigating what they already broadcasted several months ago. I won't go into this ABC stuff since I am going on memory and don't want to screw it up. It will all come out later, anyway.

Apparently Benghazi is an extremely dangerous place for foreigners, but one very familiar to Stevens. It was in Benghazi that he helped get USA arms to the hands of rebels during the Arab Spring. (Note, there was a lot of concern at the time because the rebels around that area were permeated with elements from Al Qaeda.) Now that a lot of weapons have gone missing in Libya, the Obama administration is sending in people to try to find out what happened to them. It would be a major disaster if USA weapons showed up when USA people got killed, especially in light of the Fast and Furious scandal.

Beck thinks it is a good possibility that Stevens was in Benghazi on such a mission and something went wrong with the negotiations. He would have had to deal with the same people as before, except those people were no longer interested in USA help in overthrowing Gaddafi.

Stay tuned.

Michael

That certainly sounds plausible, I lhave been looking at Blaze lately and find the major stories (not the commentary so much) to be generally properly sourced and gasp, often evenhanded. Does he employ investigative reporters or only fact-checkers, editors etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

Glenn is putting together a crack team of journalists and fact-checkers.

One characteristic of The Blaze is that sometimes it gets behind other news agencies. This is because Glenn has issued a standing order to not present anything unless it can be properly verified.

"Someone said it on the Internet" is not verification according to his standard.

During the radio broadcast this morning, I heard John Fund (a Canadian you must be familiar with) praise Glenn to the skies for the "wonderful work" he is doing. (If memory serves me correctly, "wonderful work" is an exact quote. If it wasn't that, it was something very similar.)

He mentioned cases where the conservative press was spinning an issue and Glenn refused to go along. One he mentioned specifically was over the George Soros and voting machine kerfuffle.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carol,

Glenn is putting together a crack team of journalists and fact-checkers.

One characteristic of The Blaze is that sometimes it gets behind other news agencies. This is because Glenn has issued a standing order to not present anything unless it can be properly verified.

"Someone said it on the Internet" is not verification according to his standard.

During the radio broadcast this morning, I heard John Fund (a Canadian you must be familiar with) praise Glenn to the skies for the "wonderful work" he is doing. (If memory serves me correctly, "wonderful work" is an exact quote. If it wasn't that, it was something very similar.)

He mentioned cases where the conservative press was spinning an issue and Glenn refused to go along. One he mentioned specifically was over the George Soros and voting machine kerfuffle.

Michael

John Fund? Are you sure that is the right name? I know the media here pretty well and that rings no bells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nakoula and friends created a deliberate work of propaganda, with no pretence to art, knowing and very likely hoping that it would help provoke violence and death. They have admitted this.

Carol,

Has Nakoula Basseley Nakoula said that his purpose was to promote killing?

Do you have a link?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now