US Ambassador to Lybia, along with 3 others, killed

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Apples and oranges.

Its well known that, at the time, there was wide spread celebration and very little condemnation in the Middle East, over 9/11.

Some even went so far as to lie about it... saying it was Jews who did it.

Celebration is a bit of a vague term. Are we talking about people dancing in the streets? Or a general approval of a foreign policy backlash? The only well known video was of Palestinians dancing in the streets, and even then i don't beleive it was because of 9/11, but something else. I'll try and find it if possible.

I studied political science during those years, and the only confirmed celebration at the time that I know about was Saddam Hussein explaining that the "American Cowboys" were reaping what they were sewing.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Celebration is a bit of a vague term. Are we talking about people dancing in the streets? Or a general approval of a terrorist act? The only well known video was of Palestinians dancing in the streets, and even then i don't beleive it was because of 9/11, but something else. I'll try and find it if possible.

I studied political science during those years, and the only confirmed celebration at the time that I know about was Saddam Hussein explaining that the "American Cowboys" were reaping what they were sewing.

fyp

[Canuck-Hater]

Does anybody actually believe this is a reaction to the film? Or is there something bigger at play here. Could it be in retaliation to the military action in Libya? Its certainly possible. But I just find it hard to believe that this is the sole reason for the attack.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by ah123

You can thank, in part anyway, Saudi Arabia for that - the house of Saud (current royal family) adopted a very conservative view of Islam (Wahabi or Salafi) and have the money & influence to export that view by building schools and mosques in the rest of the world, and especially the developing world.

This is partly true, but the days of Islamic dominance in science, philosophy, and language were already long in the eclipse before the Saudi family came to prominence. They certainly played a large role in the exportation of this current brand of modern Islamic extremism, though, but I would also blame the theologian that acted as their tool to power and whose family continues to to this day: Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of modern Salafism. That being said, though, the practice of a fundamentalist and charismatic Islamic preacher helping sweep away an old and tired regime and replacing it with a new one on the back of a back-to-basics religious ideology is something that isn't at all new, and has gone on in cycles throughout Islamic history since its very beginning.

A lot of people point at Al-Ghazali as the beginning of the end of original Islamic thinking. He rejected the teachings of the ancients (the rationalism of Aristotle, etc.) on the basis of them being unbelievers. Interesting reading, if one is so inclined. The works of the Islamic falasifah, in particular, if you enjoy philosophy, are enlightening. They searched for the specific aspects of religion that were common the world over. The peculiarities of religions that (so they thought) were the products of the societies and climates that gave rise to them could not as a result be aspects of the "true" religion (paraphrasing), and therefore must be false (this included Islam itself). The "true" religion would be exposed only when they were able to find the aspects common to religions the world over.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I believe that religion in general is a principal cause of a lot of the world's problems. But I'm not foolish enough to think that if you make enough fun of any of them, someone won't get offended and get violent.

But if we can't make fun of them, then the terrorists have won.

[Table 5]

The entire 80-member cast and crew of the film have released a statement saying they were misled.

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. 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.

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-m...as-about-islam

Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.
The script she was given was titled simply Desert Warriors.

"It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago," Garcia said. "It wasn't based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn't anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything."

In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product, now called Muslim Innocence. Muhammed wasn't even called Muhammed; he was "Master George," Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed.

Once, Garcia said, Bacile wanted a girl that "Master George" (aka Muhammed) was to sleep with to look seven years old, instead of 10, to heighten the outrage. But his Assistant Directors protested, saying that was too young.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Table 5

The entire 80-member cast and crew of the film have released a statement saying they were misled.

I would say the same thing if people were getting killed over it.

[Table 5]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone involved wants to back the truck up as far as possible from themselves.....if only for the terrible production value.

Whether they knew what the jig was....who knows. But considering the dialogue was overdubbed, it's plausible.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SebC

But if we can't make fun of them, then the terrorists have won.

Then, clearly, the Terrorists Have Won.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

So are you calling on those people dancing in the streets to apologize, or do you want Muslims completely unrelated to the crimes perpetrated to apologize?

I want to hear Islam's religious leaders denouncing these things, leaders of the countries in which this nonsense happens denouncing it. Watch the video of Hitch I posted pertaining to the Danish cartoonist. The world's leaders attacked the cartoons - apologized for exercising free expression - instead of denouncing the violent actions of extremists. Something is not right when it's easier to denounce free expression instead of violence.

Originally Posted by Table 5

"Once, Garcia said, Bacile wanted a girl that "Master George" (aka Muhammed) was to sleep with to look seven years old, instead of 10, to heighten the outrage. But his Assistant Directors protested, saying that was too young."

Too young and not accurate - the marriage was consummated at age 9, not age 7, although the marriage actually took place when she was six years old.

[Flash Walken]

I agree with Torque, this 'deference' towards religions is the downfall of progressive society.

Edit: and it contributes to the fundamentalist movement of religious intolerance.

[nik-]

It seriously took 80 people to make that ####? hahahahaha

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Apples and oranges.

Its well known that, at the time, there was wide spread celebration and very little condemnation in the Middle East, over 9/11.

Some even went so far as to lie about it... saying it was Jews who did it.

You're mistaken (and painting all muslims with too wide a brush). Educate yourself. Just because you only saw celebrations shown on TV, it doesn't mean everyone was celebrating.

I was in a Muslim country on 9/11. I didn't witness dancing in the streets. The locals were as horrified by the attacks as I was.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I agree with Torque, this 'deference' towards religions is the downfall of progressive society.

Except this isn't about deference. This movie is not some progressive and enlightened opinion piece....it's the same old same old of one religion mocking another religion. That's not going to solve anything.

[Manhattanboy]

[QUOTE=TorqueDog;3860539]I want to hear Islam's religious leaders denouncing these things, leaders of the countries in which this nonsense happens denouncing it. Watch the video of Hitch I posted pertaining to the Danish cartoonist. The world's leaders attacked the cartoons - apologized for exercising free expression - instead of denouncing the violent actions of extremists. Something is not right when it's easier to denounce free expression instead of violence.

You will never hear that. They are too busy perefecting their weekly hatred of Jews sermons.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Except this isn't about deference. This movie is not some progressive and enlightened opinion piece....it's the same old same old of one religion mocking another religion. That's not going to solve anything.

Yup, I agree with you.

The deference comes when you apologize for a cartoon drawing.

Free speach, property laws and laws governing personal safety should not (but are) be malleable to the whim of a small segment of the populations religious fervour.

This is an example, truly, of 'The Terrorists have Won.'

We can't commit a thought crime for fear of terrorist retribution. Seemingly, most people are comfortable with this. I, however, have this reaction


Edit: and I don't mean YOU apologizing and don't just mean the cartoon (or the movie).

It's the nature of it. The film shouldn't even be mentioned, because it doesn't matter if it's a 3 hour video of my ####ting on the Qur'an, that's not a call to violence, it's not an excuse for violence and it's not a 'reason' for violence.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Except this isn't about deference. This movie is not some progressive and enlightened opinion piece....it's the same old same old of one religion mocking another religion. That's not going to solve anything.

Yeah, I can't remember all the details of the Danish cartoons but when free speech devolves into hate speech, it's no longer kosher.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Yup, I agree with you.

The deference comes when you apologize for a cartoon drawing.

Free speach, property laws and laws governing personal safety should not (but are) be malleable to the whim of a small segment of the populations religious fervour.

This is an example, truly, of 'The Terrorists have Won.'

We can't commit a thought crime for fear of terrorist retribution. Seemingly, most people are comfortable with this. I, however, have this reaction

I agree with you that going apeshat over a cartoon can't ever be justified, and we shouldn't appease extremists. But knowing what the world is like, we also shouldn't be surprised at retaliation....justified or not. You can't reason with crazy.

It is clear though that this producer took a whole other step into hate speech. There wasn't malicious intent with the cartoons as far as I can remember (but I may be wrong, memories are fuzzy). This movie clearly was meant to inflame. What bothers me most is that innocent people are paying the price.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I agree with you that going apeshat over a cartoon can't ever be justified, and we shouldn't appease extremists. But knowing what the world is like, we also shouldn't be surprised at retaliation....justified or not. You can't reason with crazy.

It is clear though that this producer took a whole other step into hate speech.
There was no malicious intent with the cartoons as far as I can remember (just a depiction of Mohammed). This movie clearly was meant to inflame. What bothers me most is that innocent people are paying the price.

Innocent people bearing the brunt about things is what I generally have the most problem with too.

I feel bad for the warped, defenseless minds that saw reason to get incensed over such a non-event.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I want to hear Islam's religious leaders denouncing these things, leaders of the countries in which this nonsense happens denouncing it. Watch the video of Hitch I posted pertaining to the Danish cartoonist. The world's leaders attacked the cartoons - apologized for exercising free expression - instead of denouncing the violent actions of extremists. Something is not right when it's easier to denounce free expression instead of violence.

Too young and not accurate - the marriage was consummated at age 9, not age 7, although the marriage actually took place when she was six years old.

There is a very large difference between, on the one hand, believing in some sort of guilt by association due to belonging to the same religion, and, on the other hand, believing religious leaders should condemn the actions of those who perpetrated the crime. I agree that religious leaders need to condemn the actions of these people. However, I do not, for a single moment, believe people completely unrelated to the actions should apologize simply because they happen to belong to the same religion. The latter was what I thought Rerun was asking for, but he clarified that he was not.