Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    So, how's this for conspiracy theory?

    There is no anti Islamic movie. There's only the YouTube video clip trailer, repurposed video with an anti-islamic script dubbed over the original dialogue in parts. It was created specifically as a marketing tool for organizing anti-American protests on 9/11 at key locations. And the reason the protests were organized was to create a fog of war scenario as a cover for a real attack on the consulate in Libya.
  2. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Well, that wouldn't be unprecedented. The imams who initially stirred up the Mohammed Cartoon riots actually added three visually inflammatory drawings that weren't even actually part of the series posted in Jyllands-Posten.
  3. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    And that is somehow not also blasphemy?

    It's bad enough having radical religious terrorists. Now their radical hypocrite religious terrorists.
  4. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    It's not clear who did it, at least according to Jabba's linked article.
  5. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Well, it's rather unfortunate that Romney's pathetic response to this incident(he called "Obama's" response to this incident "pathetic" after one preliminary tweet was posted from the Embassy) is overshadowing the larger issue of standing up for free speech in the face of Islamic lynch mobs. This is precisely the kind of crisis that makes me happy we have a cosmopolitan liberal intellectual in the White House who can articulate the contrast in our values in a far more sophisticated and nuanced manner than Bush and his Manichean dualism. Romney's conduct is so unconscionable, though, that Obama is absolutely within his right to draw attention to it.
  6. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    The problem is great intellectuals rarely win over the mob. Look at Emperor Pertinax. It's always the radicals that the mob listens too.

    There is only one way I know of to beat the 'mob' and that's with machine guns firing at the other end of the street. You bring them to heel and crush them and force them to accept rule of law and the rights of others, for do not ever expect them to do so without the threat of force making them.
  7. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    I think you misunderstand me a bit. I don't expect President Obama to start "de-converting" Muslims en masse; I just want him to articulate that the United States is built on fundamental rights that absolutely cannot be abridged in the face of lynch mobs incited by perceived slights of venerated figures. This isn't the first time lives have been lost to riots because of insults of Mohammed, and it might be tempting to say that it probably won't be the last, but it absolutely could be if Obama could articulate that while the United States is deeply committed to religious freedom, it can only be committed insofar as the practices of a religion don't infringe upon the more fundamental ideal of freedom of speech. This "we condemn these acts of violence but we also condemn inciting religious hatred" waffling simply is not adequate to the challenge at hand.

    (This is essentially the same conflict that was explored in Reynolds v. United States. There are some crucial distinctions in this case, of course, mainly being that it's an international incident rather than a mere question of domestic jurisprudence, but it articulates the fundamentals well enough)
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Sep 12, 2012
  8. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    But even if Obama gave the most passionate and articulate speech imaginable about our values and love of free speech and our whole 'I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it' ideal... it wouldn't change anything. It'll take years, maybe even a few centuries for the inevitable secularization to occur in the Middle East and the radicals to be drowned out by reason and liberty. Until then I expect this will be the norm and may get worse.
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  9. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Is there any evidence the Muslim world will have its radicals drowned out by reason and liberty?

    You're talking about a wholesale enlightenment that hasn't even occurred in the Muslim world yet.....or perhaps it did but was then lost?

    If you listen to Neill deGrasse Tyson he asks the question why so many stars have Arabic names. They were once one of the crowns of scientific endeavor. This was after Mohammed.
  10. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
  11. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    I wouldn't equate it with wholesale "enlightenment", but Islam did go through a period of incorporating Western style philosophies such as Neoplatonism into its theology. The Sufi teachings of Al-Ghazali significantly retarded that progress and strengthened the more fundamentalist strands in resulting schisms.
  12. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    You don't need anything all that passionate or articulate. Just say: "Depicting Mohammad may be blasphemy according to you, but we need to tolerate blasphemers or else no one's freedom is safe". Even common folk should understand that.
    Last edited by Alpha-Red, Sep 12, 2012
  13. Darth Geist Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 1999
    star 5
    A bunch of updates:

    The movie's crew, except for the producer, released a statement saying:

    "The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose," the statement says. "We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred."

    One of the actresses gave an interview today in which she says they were all told the movie was going to be called "Desert Warriors," that it was just going to be about how things used to be in Egypt, and that none of them were told anything about it having to do with Mohammed. Apparently, the actors were told the main character was going to be called "Master George," and they called him that before the producer over-dubbed their lines.

    From the same site, here's the original casting call:

    "NOW CASTING SAG and NON SAG ACTORS for "DESERT WARRIOR." Director Alan Roberts.

    Historical desert drama set in Middle East. Indie Feature film shoots 18 days in L.A. in August. Studio and backlot locations.

    "Male Roles: DR. MATTHEW (Lead): Middle Eastern Pharmacist, 40-50, intelligent, family man; GEORGE (Lead); 40-50, Middle Eastern warrior leader, romantic, charismatic; YOUNG GEORGE (featured) 18-22; PRIEST (featured): 60-70, bearded; ABDO (featured), 60-70, Elder tribe leader; ISRAELI MEN 30-50 (featured); WARRIORS (featured) 18-50, Various Middle Eastern types, bearded.

    "Female Roles: CONDALISA (featured) 40, attractive, successful, strong willed; HILLARY (featured) 18 but must look younger, petite; innocent; YOUSTINA (featured) 16-18, Daughter of doctor; MIDDLE EASTERN WOMEN (Various Featured Roles) 18-40, attractive, exotic; OLDER WOMAN (featured) 60-70, feisty."

    That explains why all the anti-Islam dialogue was dubbed in after the fact.

    And, in bigger news, they found "Sam Bacile." Contrary to what he claimed, he's not Israeli or Jewish; he's an Egyptian Coptic Christian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, aka Thomas J. Tanas, aka PJ Tobacco, aka Ahmad Hamdy, aka Kritbag Difrat, aka Amal Nada, aka Erwin Salameh, aka Daniel K. Caresman, aka Robert Bacily, aka Nicola Bacily, aka Sam Bacile. He's a fraudster who was sentenced to 21 months in a California prison for federal bank fraud charges.

    What a jackass.
    Last edited by Darth Geist, Sep 12, 2012
  14. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    I'd say the fact that the film is actually just the low-rent progeny of such a two-bit fraud actually makes the volatile reaction of the Islamic mobs against United States Embassies even worse, to be honest.
  15. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    This makes me feel sorry for the actors in this. It's obvious they were duped by this guy. I hope they are able to stay safe and don't endure threats on their life over this. They clearly had no knowledge of what the real intent of this was.
  16. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    mods change my name to "kritbag difrat" plz, thanks in advance.
  17. Juliet316 Streak for Colours Bonanza Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    According to NBCNEWS.com, Protestors have stormed the US Embassy in Yemen.
  18. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
  19. Violent Violet Menace Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 4
    I also saw a sign that read in Arabic "no no Al-Qaida". There's hope. :)
  20. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
  21. Violent Violet Menace Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2004
    star 4
    President Karzai is from what I understand widely perceived as a stooge of the US by his own population. In fear of perpetuating this perception, he would never dare condemning fellow Muslims, no matter what they might have done. The man is rendered politically impotent.
    Last edited by ViolentVioletMenace, Sep 13, 2012
  22. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I really don't see what Krazai said that was so bad. The lack of calls for calm was disappointing, but I fail to see where he needs any lessons in values.

    Where is the problem? He is welcome to denounce things, just as we denounced our own Egyptian embassy's response to the evolving crisis. The next several points were all just true. It was deliberately offensive, it did foul up chances for peaceful co-existence, and it was the act of a radical minority. The argument that simply being incendiary isn't really a legitimate use of freedom of expression is not an uncommon argument to advance, especially when simply speaking about how people should behave instead of formal legal limits. Finally, they are of course free to discourage people from watching the film. Unless the Afghan government accompanies this with actual prosecutions or censorship of the film, I don't see what they've violated by making this statement.
  23. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    We don't need an eloquent defense of the YouTube clip any more than we need an eloquent defense of fisting videos. It's legal. We get it. But the content itself is a blight on society. Whether you're upset by a syphilis epidemic among porn stars in L.A. or riots in Egypt, it's legitimate to condemn the contents of awful speech and its consequences.
    Last edited by Jabbadabbado, Sep 13, 2012
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  24. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Excuse me, what has fomented more "inter-faith enmity", this atrociously produced and farcical film or the, you know, thousands of Muslims rioting and killing United States diplomatic officials who had absolutely nothing to do with this film? (Which is increasingly looking like it was a canard, anyway) I am reminded me of Spike Lee (rightly) criticizing observers for worrying that black audiences would riot against the film "Do The Right Thing", a manifestation of their perhaps ingrained assumption that "black people" didn't have the self-restraint to respond to a racially provocative film in a felicitous, civilized manner. Why do we likewise not expect Muslims to likewise be able to bear the the burdens of civil discourse?

    More to the point, if Muslims actually value religious freedom as an ideal, instead of it simply being a norm that facilitates the practice of Islam, and deplore works that stoke "inter-faith enmity" why aren't they, say, protesting against the thousands of bookstores throughout the Muslim world that sell The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as simple history, a document exponentially more bigoted and pernicious than this ridiculous film?

    It is only a blight on society because the Muslim community is so combustible against insults to their prophet. The Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith is essentially the western cognate to Mohammed and several books critical of him and the Mormon church are published every year. Within the Mormon church such works are generally referred to as "anti-Mormon literature", and they are, indeed, anti-Mormon. But they are also factual. If you are offended by that, you absolutely do not have the right to threaten the authors of these works and cause widespread mayhem. Additionally, we do not accuse critics of Mormonism as being "Mormonophobic" or such other nonsense.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Sep 13, 2012
  25. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    There's a difference between a well-written or even badly written but reasonably argued critique of LDS and walking into the Salt Lake Tabernacle and shouting out that Joseph Smith is a homosexual pedophile. And I agree there's also a difference between the YouTube clip and actually doing that. Even so, no one in the U.S. government that I've yet heard is suggesting that we should ban the clip. Condemnation of the speech, however, is totally in order.

    We accept embassy protests as a consequence, sure, but at least our diplomats should let the protesters know that our government doesn't stand behind the speech in any more formal a sense than not prohibiting its creation or distribution. That's just common sense. Some protesters won't care and obviously hold our government responsible for having a first amendment even when it becomes clear that the clip's creation was intended specifically to spread sectarian strife in Egypt and the region.
    Last edited by Jabbadabbado, Sep 13, 2012
    Darth-Ghost and DarthBoba like this.