What US movie would trigger this event?

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
You are missing the point completely.

Offending is one thing.

Instigating violent acts is another.

The cartoon? Over the top, kind of like the Satanic Verses...if the radicals had not made a fuss over it, nobody would have ever paid attention to it.

But making inflamatory material and promoting it where you know the manure will hit the fan...that crosses the line.

My background is different. In Germany the lesson was costly that not all speech has to be protected. Some the people need to be protected from.
Instigating riots is a punishable offense there.
Of course....to my knowledge nobody there has ever tried anything like the good pastor there...

And this is different from the Satanic verses HOW?? That was purposefully inflammatory satire.

Now I will ask another pointed question. Have YOU seen the movie?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
What a brilliant observation. The suggested coddling of Muslims is exactly like letting the wookie win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,895
Reaction score
1,522
Location
In Pain
And this is different from the Satanic verses HOW?? That was purposefully inflammatory satire.

Now I will ask another pointed question. Have YOU seen the movie?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I tried to read the Satanic Verses...could never get past the first few paragraphs.
I don't think the man intended to spark bloody riots.

And no, I have not seen the movie.
Probably not a lot of people have.
And probably not even the people starting the riots.
Thus my remark about 'Nappy Hair'.

The good preacher in his finite wisdom is playing into the hands of the other side.
being stupid is not - in most cases - an offense.
However, with his book burnings (and subsequent loss of life) and this little stunt (and subsequent loss of life) one really has to wonder.

is the best way to fight a fire ant hill to step in it and do the twist?

As I see it, the man is sitting pretty (safe) in the US with little cause for fear, while he deliberately commits inflammatory acts. How high is his body count so far? Nearly twenty?

Do I condone or excuse the actions in any shape or form? I mean the ones that actually cause the deaths....
Hell no. Well over the top (and equally calculated IMHO) But at one point one person has to be a little smarter and realize that there is nothing to gain from it....

But I am not holding my breath....
The good pastor is protected under the 1st amendment - and I am sure the founding fathers did not intend such speech to be free...even though they lived in interesting times.....
And all his fallout is well outside any US jurisdiction. Too bad when you happen t be in the way.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
454
Location
Terre Haute, IN
How can it be that no one is even sure what this movie is yet?

No blame on the movie-makers--they may have been stupid jerks (though who knows?) but that doesn't excuse violence.

Piss Christ is intended to provoke thought and discussion. Leaving aside whether it works and is truly 'art', the intention is not simply to offend but to force people to confront their beliefs in classic artist's style. But even if the movie is intended to insult and rile, you can't blame a movie for how people react to it.

Romney's attack on Obama's handling of this on the same day the deaths in Libya were announced is very disappointing. What happened to "Politics stops at the water's edge?"
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Yeah, he really shouldn't have interrupted Obama while he was busy campaigning...
Yeah, because saying the disgraceful tweets by the Embassy was disgraceful was mean...
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
I tried to read the Satanic Verses...could never get past the first few paragraphs.
I don't think the man intended to spark bloody riots.

And no, I have not seen the movie.
Probably not a lot of people have.
And probably not even the people starting the riots.
Thus my remark about 'Nappy Hair'.

The good preacher in his finite wisdom is playing into the hands of the other side.
being stupid is not - in most cases - an offense.
However, with his book burnings (and subsequent loss of life) and this little stunt (and subsequent loss of life) one really has to wonder.

is the best way to fight a fire ant hill to step in it and do the twist?

As I see it, the man is sitting pretty (safe) in the US with little cause for fear, while he deliberately commits inflammatory acts. How high is his body count so far? Nearly twenty?

Do I condone or excuse the actions in any shape or form? I mean the ones that actually cause the deaths....
Hell no. Well over the top (and equally calculated IMHO) But at one point one person has to be a little smarter and realize that there is nothing to gain from it....

But I am not holding my breath....
The good pastor is protected under the 1st amendment - and I am sure the founding fathers did not intend such speech to be free...even though they lived in interesting times.....
And all his fallout is well outside any US jurisdiction. Too bad when you happen t be in the way.

Frankly, you having not seen the movie NOR read the Satanic Verses, your opinion is uninformed on both counts. Therefore, spurious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
For one, this pastor terry guy didn't make the movie. It was an Israeli citizen living in California.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

rainesr

Yellow Belt
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
56
Reaction score
4
You are trying to give people a free for all card.
When you say things you know will inflame a certain populous you are no better than the people committing the act.
It's no different when you aggravate the enemy or entice vulnerable people to do your dirty bidding.

And it's no different from the people who I strongly suspect staged the protests to launch an attack.

People choose to act last I knew. People in Egypt are no less capable of choosing not to riot and kill people over a movie or Danish cartoons then we are in the U.S. They chose to act violently.

That movie caused no immediate danger or perceived danger (like yelling fire in an auditorium full of people). The movie was not an elaborate manipulation. The movie certainly did not entice anyone to attack a building full of people that had no knowledge of it.

I don't buy that Muslims or Egyptians or Syrians are so vulnerable that they can't choose something other than violence if their religion or prophet is criticized or insulted.

~Rob
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
I don't buy that Muslims or Egyptians or Syrians are so vulnerable that they can't choose something other than violence if their religion or prophet is criticized or insulted.

~Rob

Wouldn't saying they are be racist? Oh, silly me, not when the Obama Media says it...
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,895
Reaction score
1,522
Location
In Pain
Frankly, you having not seen the movie NOR read the Satanic Verses, your opinion is uninformed on both counts. Therefore, spurious.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Well, Like I said, I tried to read the book...to see what the hubub was about.
I came to the conclusion that the book would have been one among many published that year and most of the world would have never heard about the author....

Same with the movie.

It is true, people choose to act.
It holds true for both sides of the equation though.

Hiding behind the framework of freedom does not make it any less despicable when a person through careful choice of words incites others to do his or her her dirty work.

Like I said, my background is different, where I come from such things are highly frowned upon and still people can speak their minds.
 

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
So people know, the movie is called "The Innocence of Muslims"
The guy who made is named Sam Bacile.

All you will find is the trailer. But the trailer is what sparked the riots in the first place.

Having seen it, I think it is puerile. I think the movie was a waste of $5 million. But I estimate that it was intended to show Islam as hateful (easy enough to do), not to incite riots proving its point.

Here is a thought: before doing an opinion on something, research it. This applies to everyone that has commented so far. How is it that I am the first to look up the actual movie and the actual guy who made it?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

WC_lun

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
82
Location
Kansas City MO
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 Romneys characterization of Moscow as the United States number one geopolitical foe has actually helped Russia.
The Russian leader said Romneys comments strengthened his resolve to oppose NATOs 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.
Im 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 doesnt 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.
 
Last edited:

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,895
Reaction score
1,522
Location
In Pain
So people know, the movie is called "The Innocence of Muslims"
The guy who made is named Sam Bacile.

All you will find is the trailer. But the trailer is what sparked the riots in the first place.

Having seen it, I think it is puerile. I think the movie was a waste of $5 million. But I estimate that it was intended to show Islam as hateful (easy enough to do), not to incite riots proving its point.

Here is a thought: before doing an opinion on something, research it. This applies to everyone that has commented so far. How is it that I am the first to look up the actual movie and the actual guy who made it?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

You are probably the first one to bother looking at the trailer, too.

30 years ago I suppose it was a shock to hear that the Ayatollah had put basically a bounty on an author's head because they didn't like the book.

These days?
Not so much.

It's called human nature.
The middle east is at unrest. Has been for a while. Toss a match and watch it go boom.

However, there is that certain element that has taken the liberty of using religion as excuse to behave badly.
It's no different from brother Phelps from Kansas.

Alas, they are out of our jurisdiction. The Middle Eastern ones. And their governments love it, it draws attention away from what they are doing.

When you do something that causes a predictable outcome...an you really be surprised?

And seriously, who really made the movie (I would probably be inclined to say it was a waste of time and effort, same as I did not find the book enticing) is relatively unimportant. It does not seem that it was made to make friends in the middle east.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,591
Reaction score
4,880
Location
England
For one, this pastor terry guy didn't make the movie. It was an Israeli citizen living in California.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I'm afraid it wasn't an Israeli who made it, he doesn't exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims

Libyans died alongside the American Ambassador.
Yes for reasons I'm not going into I have seen the film and the subtitles. I have also read Salman Rushdie.

It's fine having free speech but do you know how to use it responsibly?
 
Last edited:

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
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
 

Tgace

Grandmaster
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
7,766
Reaction score
409
What a brilliant observation. The suggested coddling of Muslims is exactly like letting the wookie win.

Yup...

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Josh Oakley

Senior Master
Supporting Member
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
2,226
Reaction score
60
Location
Seattle, WA
Wow. This movie is a bucket full of buckets full of specialness.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,591
Reaction score
4,880
Location
England
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


Who are 'The Muslims'? Are they the same as 'The Blacks, The Jews'? perhaps you'd better mark all the Muslims in America with a yellow crescent sewn on their clothes, though to be sure they don't really cause any trouble you would be better rounding them up and putting them in camps don't you think?

''The Muslims want to take our freedom, our jobs, our women'' and so it starts............ I mean it's not as though we've done anything to them like invade countries, arm the militias, interfered with their governments etc etc is it. We've been perfectly peaceable and sociable.

Look back to how things were settled after the First World War and you will see we are reaping what we sowed then.

I'm sure anyday now someone will start mouthing that the only dead Muslim is a dead one and you will be off on a witchhunt, neer mind what Muslims actually think. You would penalise the whole Muslim community in their various forms just because of a few radicals yet you allow that 'religious' family to rant about dead American soldiers being good, you can't have free speech for one and not the other, the majority of Christians don't believe as that family does and the majority of Muslims don't believe as their extremists do but don't let that stop you blaming 'the Muslims' will you?
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
33,792
Reaction score
8,766
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
The film is at best idiotic and shows a rather gross lack knowledge as it applies to history. It was made to inflame at a time it could inflame the most which was incredibly bad timing if you happen to be a US soldier on the ground in a Middle Eastern country or a US diplomat in those same countries.

It shows a rather high level of intolerance and racism

Now was anyone currently defending this movie defending The Passions of Christ with as much fervor?
 

Latest Discussions

Top