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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would never condone that, Dennis.

But I am serious about giving back to the bully what he dishes out.

If certain Muslims want revenge on the film-maker, let them make an awful film about him or something he regards as important. In that case, I will have nothing to say.

But put a bounty out to kill him? That crosses a line.

So whaddya think? It sucks, doesn't it? Maybe he would be better off cowering in a corner somewhere, huh?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To add to that, I hear Morsi now has some sage advice for the USA (see the NYT here).

Why not listen to him? We must learn to bow our heads and lick boots and understand that, "If you want to judge the performance of the Egyptian people by the standards of German or Chinese or American culture, then there is no room for judgment."

(I quote Morsi from the article.)

And here's a good, solid assumption. What's good for Egypt is good for Pakistan when it comes to blasphemy.

So, hell, why not allow a Pakistani government official to put a bounty on the head of a person in the USA? After all, just because we in the USA don't do things that way, we should not use USA standards. This is merely a Pakistani thing and "there is no room for judgment."

Anyone see a problem here?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I would never condone that, Dennis.

But I am serious about giving back to the bully what he dishes out.

If certain Muslims want revenge on the film-maker, let them make an awful film about him or something he regards as important. In that case, I will have nothing to say.

Except you just said it.

--Brant

closing in on 750mll of two-dollar (red) Chuck, cost me 2.99--get it at Trader Joes

[Robert Campbell]

More from Mohammed Morsi:

He repeatedly vowed to uphold equal citizenship rights of all Egyptians, regardless of religion, sex or class. But he stood by the religious arguments he once made as a Brotherhood leader that neither a woman nor a Christian would be a suitable president.

“We are talking about values, beliefs, cultures, history, reality,” he said. He said the Islamic position on presidential eligibility was a matter for Muslim scholars to decide, not him. But regardless of his own views or the Brotherhood’s, he said, civil law was another matter.

Well, now we know what Morsi considers to be the Egyptian standards, as to who is entitled to rule.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Posters with a photo of Ghulam Ahmad Bilour—over the legend "Wanted: Dead or Alive | $100,000 Reward"—should be given the widest circulation.

Maybe then Mr. Bilour might get the message.

Robert Campbell

PS. The Pakistani Prime Minister is so weak that he disavowed Mr. Bilour's remarks—without removing him from office.

[caroljane]

The American president is so weak that he disavowed Mr. Nakoula's movie --without removing him from his paroled liberty.

[Robert Campbell]

Carol,

You really think there's any comparability here?

The Pakistani Railways Minister reports to the Pakistani Prime Minister.

And Al Qa'eda is officially an enemy of Pakistan (I won't bring up the Taliban, because they may have quit bothering to pretend that the Taliban are an enemy).

The Pakistani legal system is a shambles, but there's at least a possibility that it's still illegal to advertise for a hired killer to take out a foreign national against whom no charges have been brought under Pakistani law.

Robert Campbell

PS. Is it your belief that Mr. Nakoula should be punished under US law?

[caroljane]

For making the movie? No.

It is interesting that Nakoula, as a three-time loser, only got 21 months for stealing nearly 800 grand. He escaped the three-strike penalty by informing on his colleagues and his boss in the fraud op, one Elad Salameh, an intriguing character in his own right.

At his trial his lawyer Henderson (rumoured to have mob connections) said that Nakoula's actions had been stupid, that he could not imagine anything stupider, and that "I doubt he will ever do anything this stupid again."

(via Smoking Gun)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why would the American president ever be interested in any parole violations of a small-time huckster?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

I thought major leaders in the world had staffs and government personnel and so on...

I've even heard somewhere, but maybe it's a rumor, there are parole officers hired to oversee parole violations.

Michael

[caroljane]

Why would the American president ever be interested in any parole violations of a small-time huckster?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

I thought major leaders in the world had staffs and government personnel and so on...

I've even heard somewhere, but maybe it's a rumor, there are parole officers hired to oversee parole violations.

Michael

The president wouldn't be and I'm sure he isn't.. I don't think Nakoula should be arrested for parole violations either, unless he violated his parole, which obviously his parole officers have determined he didn't as he is still free.

[caroljane]

To be clearer: I do not think Nakoula should go to jail for making a movie,even that one.

Film buffs might disagree with me though.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

OK.

Then why would the USA President be interested in the decisions of a prison to release a two-bit prisoner on parole?

I've heard that prisons have their own personnel.

Your statement makes it clear you believe the USA President should be personally involved in such matters. I'm curious about your vision of how government is supposed to work.

Oh... I see... You mean the USA President should get personally involved and use the massive power of his office to intimidate people, at any level of society, who do things he doesn't like ? Did I get that one right?

Michael

[caroljane]

Whoa. I was responding to Robert in his own mode of diametric opposites. Why should the Egyptian president be involved in the rantings and threats of a two-bit mullah?

If I "make clear" that I think the Prez should be personally involved then I am an even worse communicator than I thought, because I don't. That was your subjective inference. But even you would agree, that as the hub of a political firestorm which has been fanned into violence, Nakoula is a person of interest, and a President trying to fight the firestorm would be a fool not to be fully informed about him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Whoa. I was responding to Robert in his own mode of diametric opposites.

Carol,

OK, so far.

Why should the Egyptian president be involved in the rantings and threats of a two-bit mullah?

Uhmmm... because he is a high-ranking minister on his cabinet? That might be a good reason.

You keep making equivalencies like comparing the "two-bit" of a virtual nobody who is suddenly in the center of a controversy with "two bit" of a long-time major political figure in Pakistan and current Railroad Minister.

If people think you are making excuses for evil from the Progressive Narrative, can you see why?

Frankly, I get the impression from the tenor of your posts that you believe it's OK for a government official or leader to abuse his power so long as this abuse is for a cause you believe in. Then, when called on it, you back off. But the next time around when some details have changed, you go back to the same kinds of equivalencies.

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael.

You get that impression because you can fit my statements into the Progressive Narrative, and when you can't, you say I "back off". Fair enough; I am progressive I guess, although I'm not technically sure how evil on your scale. I am used to being attributed attitudes or motives I don't have-- sometimes I do have them, after all. I knew what to expect when I joined here, and the gain is worth the pain, at least so far. But I don't acquiesce in in being assumed to be the Archetypal Liberal on all points.

Maybe this is a good time to address Robert's question about the Big Picture. I don't think my vision is wide enough to see one. I only see clearly into the middle distance, where individuals and groups with complex motives take actions, and they have consequences . Which engender more motives and more consequences, and so on. This is history, which I know fairly well. Politics and law lag behind history always; politicians cannot "lead"; they can only destroy, maintain, or build.

But I don't see powerful ideological string-pullers orchestrating this mosaic effectively. At the very summit, those with the most power and the most money, even the most ideology, still must operate as individuals, with individual complex motives and varying powers of judgment, I suppose I see the Big Picture as Goldman saw Hollywood; in the middle distance, everybody knows a lot, but at the summit of the Big Picture, "nobody knows anything".

And in the middle where I live, I cannot see the world as divided into two groups, those who love liberty and those who only want power to crush the liberty of the other group and steal their stuff. And if anyone insists on assigning me my place in the second group, I will complain about it.

[william.scherk]

Things are interesting in Libya this week. The Financial Times reports today:

Libyan protests condemn Benghazi militias

Thousands of Libyans enraged by the lawlessness of armed militias and the killing of the popular US ambassador last week, have stormed the compounds of Islamist groups in Benghazi, driving them out of the eastern city.

At least four people were killed and many injured during what local media described as a tumultuous night on Friday. It followed a day of protests against Islamist militias by tens of thousands of people demanding an end to the impunity of armed groups that fought against Muammer Gaddafi last year and continue to hold sway over the country.

[ . . . ]

“The people do not want armed formations,’” said one banner held up during the protests, according to Libya’s privately owned Al-Ahrar television.

“Benghazi denounces the killing of the US ambassador,” said another. “Benghazi says no to terrorism.”

Libya has been plagued with security problems ever since Col Gaddafi’s regime was toppled last year. Some of the troubles are the result of longstanding tribal and regional conflicts suppressed by the previous government.

But much of the violence and lawlessness can be attributed to self-styled revolutionaries seeking to leverage their role in the revolution for political or financial advantage.

There is a fair bit of knock-on from Friday. It is reported on AJE right now that two more militias in Derna have disbanded. The President of Libya, Mohammed el-Megaref, said that all militias must come under government command or be disbanded. AP goes on (in a story reported widely):

El-Megaref said a joint operations room in Benghazi will co-ordinate between the various authorized armed brigades and the army. Militias operating outside the "legitimacy of the state" will be disbanded, and the military and police will take control over those armed groups' barracks, he said.

In a statement published by the official LANA news agency, the military asked all armed groups using the army's camps, outposts and barracks in the capital, Tripoli, and other cities to hand them over. It warned that it will resort to force if the groups refuse.

[ . . . ]

On Friday, some 30,000 people took to the streets of Benghazi for a mass protest against the militias. The crowd marched to the compounds of several armed groups in the city, and thousands overran the headquarters of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamic extremist group suspected in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate.

The protesters drove out the Ansar gunmen and set fire to cars in the compound — once a major base for Gadhafi's feared security forces — while others stormed into the Jalaa Hospital, driving out Ansar fighters there.

The crowd then moved onto the base of a second Islamist militia, the Rafallah Sahati Brigade. Brigade fighters opened fire to keep the protesters at bay.

Two-bit Progressive Railroader Daunce Lynam is no doubt appalled. I get the impression she is on the side of the Libyans in this matter, but no doubt she will back off from the Narrative if challenged.

Edited September 24, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Wullie,

Not backing down this time. I saw that news and felt such painful hope, as I did when I saw the sign, "We're sorry, Chris" and the quote, "He's alive, God is great!"

In other sprigs of spring from Hogtown, the counter protest at the US embassy by Banerjee and his merry band of bigots was cancelled at the last minute due to lack of participants. (apparently his impressively named group has about 12 members). On the downside Rob Ford made it home safely back from Chicago. Life, eh? Stan Rogers died on the runway there, but Ford will adorn Canada forever.

[Robert Campbell]

WSS,

The action taken against Ansar al-Shari'a (Number 2 behind Al Qa'eda in the Maghreb, on most lists of "organizations of interest" vis-à-vis the raid and the murders in Benghazi) is an encouraging development.

As are the other actions in Libya that you mention.

It is still more than remotely possible that whichever organization carried out the raid had inside information about the location of the not-safe house and the movements of Ambassador Stevens.

I hope the Libyans can sort it out.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

Terry Jones has been invited to come here to screen the epic, but we don't know if they will let him in, like Germany and Britain. He will probably cancel anyway, when he learns he will have to bring his own protestors.

[anthony]

Excellent! That one can find moral and courageous behavior where it is not expected.

It gives the lie to knee-jerk action -> consequence of humans.

[Robert Campbell]

Why should the Egyptian president be involved in the rantings and threats of a two-bit mullah?

Carol,

The "two-bit Mullah" who thinks that Jews cannot be relieved of their moral corruption unless their hearts are cut out is the Director of Islamic Education at Al-Azhar—and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Al-Azhar is the oldest Islamic institution of higher education in the world, and the biggest and most important such organization in Egypt.

And the current President of Egypt is, umm, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

You could just as well say that the rantings of some Iranian Grand Ayatollah are of no import to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The present government of Egypt is, fortunately, not as tightly interconnected with top level imams and Islamic institutions as would be the case in Iran. But it ain't observin' no wall of separation, neither.

In the other case recently under discussion, the Railways Minister in Pakistan may not have snagged the most prestigious available portfolio, but he serves in a parliamentary system under a Prime Minister, in a government several of whose stated policies he has flagrantly defied.

Robert Campbell

[caroljane]

OK Robert, my diametricism was way off.

As was yours back on the net rumour/real news discussion. Remember? The MSM did not report the unsubstantiated report that Stevens was raped. They did report the unsubstantiated rumour that mcCain cheated on his second wife.

Let me count the ways. Stevens really was murdered, McCain really did run for President. What happened to Stevens right before, or after his death, could conceivably be news in a sad sick way. What was rumoured about McCain actually was news, because the marital fidelity of politicians is (inexplicably to my mind) an important character indicator. It was important enough to nearly get Clinton impeached; to make all candidates parade their spouses for testimonials. McCain had admitted to cheating on his first wife. North Africans (though not the ones who killed Stevens as far as we out can know) have been known to sodomize their murder victims,

So as to possible credibility, we are even so far.

So the choice of the news media to report the rumours will come down to the numbers. What will interest our viewers/readers more?A rumour about a presidential candidate or a rumour about a murdered ambassador?

Lacking verification the media went with the numbers and left the rumours about Stevens to the internet until they could be verified, when they would become actual news, which few would be pleased to hear.

[william.scherk]

Why should the Egyptian president be involved in the rantings and threats of a two-bit mullah?

The "two-bit Mullah" who thinks that Jews cannot be relieved of their moral corruption unless their hearts are cut out is the Director of Islamic Education at Al-Azhar—and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Who are you (we) meaning by the 'two-bit mullah'? Are we (you) meaning the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar Ahmed al-Tayyeb?

Or are we talking about the 'Salafist' preacher Mahmoud Shabaan -- or another 'cleric' (mullah) or prayer leader (imam) or religious authority (Sheikh)?

I found quotes attributed to Sheikh al-Tayyeb, in which he asks the UN (Ban Ki Moon, by name) to 'criminalize the defamation of religion.' This is from the Egypt Independent, translated from a story in Arabic at Al-Masri Al-Youm.

In a statement released Saturday [one week ago], Tayyeb called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to criminalize the defamation of religion, saying that such actions and words threaten world peace and international security.

“Is not that irresponsible tampering, Mr. Secretary General, similar to the issue of [anti-Semitic] prejudice, which you condemn all the time, and [against] which verdicts were issued against alleged perpetrators in many countries of the world, even if they are great thinkers and scientists?” Tayyeb asked in the statement.

Tayyeb also called on all Egyptians to keep calm and condemned attacks on innocent people and expressed sympathy for victims of the recent violence. He also stressed the need to protect diplomatic missions and the headquarters of international organizations.

(the whole statement from Al-Azhar is translated at OnIslam.net)

Al-Azhar is the oldest Islamic institution of higher education in the world, and the biggest and most important such organization in Egypt.

Yes. It carries the weight of religious authority. It is the place of fatwas (religious decisions or edicts). I think I mentioned the 'dial-a-fatwa' and internet fatwas of Al-Azhar in an earlier post).

Excellent! That one can find moral and courageous behavior where it is not expected.

For me, it is necessary to keep an eye on all the 'balls' in play, and not to rely on 'once-removed' reportage or analysis. What happens in Libya is of intense interest to Libyans themselves, of course -- and if we want to understand events, we need to be as informed as we can be, informed on the range of opinion and actions in that country -- as they pertain our (Western) alliance with the government in place.

[Robert Campbell]

OK Robert, my diametricism was way off.

As was yours back on the net rumour/real news discussion. Remember? The MSM did not report the unsubstantiated report that Stevens was raped. They did report the unsubstantiated rumour that McCain cheated on his second wife.

Carol,

The McCain rumor was one of a myriad of possible examples.

For a few of the many many others: during this election season, the Washington Post's political "fact checker" may be be spotted awarding Pinocchios (on a scale of 1 to 4) to politicians who have made statements that are completely and obviously true. No bonus points for guessing the party affiliation of the politicians so treated.

But, OK, let's go further into the McCain rumor. As I understand it, the story was so thin that the New York Times was walking a fine line between reporting a rumor that originated with someone else—and originating the rumor itself. And this is the same New York Times that had been in no hurry to say one word about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, with the consequence that the Gray Lady (and her competitors) got scooped by the National Enquirer.

The best and fairest journalists in the world will sometimes fail to distinguish a real story from a rumor. That's life.

What I'm worried about is what happens when journalists develop the habit of filtering story from rumor on the basis of what they want to believe—or on the basis of what they believe will enhance their guy's political prospects and hurt the other guy's.

I doubt that most mass media outlets in the United States used what facts they had to go on, and which sources they most trusted, to decide whether to say anything about Ambassador Stevens being raped. They decided not to say anything about it because, if true, it would make their guy, Barack Obama, look bad. They hoped it wasn't true, and in this case they were right.

I doubt that Front Page Mag (David Horowitz's operation) based its decision primarily on facts and sources either. They wanted to run something that would make the other guy, Barack Obama, look bad. They hoped it was true, and they were wrong.

I don't believe that the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair constituted grounds for impeachment, even though Bill had lied under oath, he was being questioned under the provisions of a sexual harassment law that he had lent his political support to, and he ended up being disbarred for lying under oath.

Besides, if Ken Starr hadn't been put on the case, I would never have learned about Bill's hitherto unsuspected resemblance to General Jack D. Ripper. And that's a genuine instance of Too Much Information.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

WSS,

I was referring to statements made as part of an online religious education series by Dr. Isma'il 'Ali Muhammad, from Al-Azhar.

Here at MEMRI, as referred to in an op-ed by Thomas Friedman:

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6086.htm

Any Islamic cleric, from the imam of a tiny mosque in the boonies up to the most venerable Grand Mufti or Grand Ayatollah, can issue a fatwa. But those from Al-Azhar carry a lot of weight, especially among Egyptian Sunnis.

The Grand Mufti of Egypt has actually counseled patience and recommended the Prophet Muhammad (before he found himself in command of an army... but that's OK) as a model of not responding violently to insults. Good for him.

Robert Campbell