Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Libya consulate, US ambassador attacked,

2012

  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#61 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:37 PM

I was horrified to see some footage (can't remember the country, there are so many protesting) and little boys (4,5) were riding on their fathers' shoulders and screaming the same invective. It reminded me of a Rodgers and Hammerstein song:

Quote

You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
...

Batrochides, I think the fact that he'd been working with the Libyans since he was in the Peace Corps gave hm a false sense of security.

Edited by Rhea, 16 September 2012 - 09:32 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#62 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:41 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 14 September 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

View Postoffworlder, on 13 September 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

I would use many grains of salt with any Romney sayings on the administration, with his agenda and all, remember how the right wing got on radio and tv the morning after the Obama election night, top priority, all efforts, all thoughts, all speech, bent toward the only goal, anything to Must get Obama out of the White House at all costs, so... Two, I see a bit of post after post right in here that seems rather agenda too, ;) , snicker.... Three, the admin have already said, news reported, that the embassy statement about feelings of Islam and the prophet was not from the admin, it was from the embassy in Cairo and not vetted, not opportunity to vet, or reported or notice beforehand; it was embassy statement alone, White House not pc or apologetic about U.S. people actions, no kowtow presentation to the world, weak world affairs, all that rot fox news luv to say.... Four, I read yesterday an expert reported in a new column who Really attacked the Bengazi consulate and why, I'll have to find that thing again for us..... Next, here is a thing, mob attacks U.S. embassy in capital of Yemen, 'death to America' stuff again, sort of the overall image of get U.S. out of mooslem regions, fight for dignity of prophet and Islam,http://www.usatoday....emen/57774256/1 . ;)

You should test truth claims no matter where they originate.

But of course Rmney will do his best to portray Obama as an ineffectual leader. It isn't hard, but only people who are not reflecively against the "agenda" of electing someone else will be receptive to that message.

As for post after post here that seem "agenda" and a snicker, why be evasive about it?
Enumerate what you find disagreement with so it might be explained.

Clinton's remarks have largely mirrored the appeasement rhetoric from the Cairo press release.
One must either reject the tone of explaining "We had nothing to do with this exercise in free speech, please don't hurt us" or not.
Those of us on the 'agenda" side of things would propose a response more in line with "Get off our lawn you silly mob, or injury and death will befall you!"

I completely agree. Hopefully the Marines dispatched to Libya and some of the other countries will successfully keep the mob off the lawn. ;)
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#63 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 10:47 PM

View PostTricia, on 13 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Always better to wait and find out more of the facts than to speak up and say something that will be proven wrong later.  

John McCain speaks up on this attack...and he may not like Obama's foreign  policies but that's not really what he is speaking about here--

http://news.yahoo.co...-111254340.html

Quote

McCain, who is ranking member of the Senate armed services committee, said that Libya is a dangerous place, but emphasized that the "overwhelming majority" of Libyans voted for a moderate government and did not rise up with al Qaeda and terrorists. That is, the attacks on the consulate are an ill representation of the Libyan people.
"It was a terrorist attack. It wasn't the result of a mob being excited. It was a group of jihadists who were well-armed and well-trained and well-equipped, and they decided to attack the consulate in Benghazi and try and kill people. That's far different from what happened in Cairo, where a mob was whipped into a frenzy by these people who were talking about this so-called movie that insults Mohammed."
As for the Obama administration's handling of the crisis, McCain was almost entirely positive. "I think it was fine. By the way, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gave a marvelous statement today," said McCain. He did not offer such praise for the Romney campaign's statements on the events.

That's the John McCain I used to know. Nice to know he's still in there.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#64 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 14 September 2012 - 11:06 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 14 September 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I would take the "Get off my lawn" approach.
I not offer apologies, but something more like ultimatums.

It really boils down to how do you handle bullies?
By saying, "We know you were offended by something deliberately hurtful and inflammatory that some of our countrymen did, but we don't care, so suck it"? Then who's being the bully?

And make no mistake, this was a deliberate provocation. When the movie screened in L.A., it was advertised to Muslims, in Arabic, as a film about "the true terrorist . . . who killed our children in Palestine and our brethren in Iraq and Afghanistan." When no one showed up, they put clips on YouTube; when they still didn't get a response, they had the clips translated into Arabic, and finally they got the uproar they were hoping for. This is not like the Mohammed cartoons or the censored South Park episodes, where people were trying to make a serious point about fear or censorship. This wasn't an accident like the burning of the Korans in Afghanistan. This was just some a-holes being deliberately ugly and hateful, and there's nothing weak or undignified in expressing regret about that.

Do you think the Muslims who are expressing regret and embarrassment about the current protests are coming across as weak or undignified?

View PostRhea, on 14 September 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Batrochides, I think the fact that he'd been working with the Libyans since he was in the Peace Corps. He had a false sense of security.
The impression I get from the stories about Ambassador Stevens is that he made a conscious choice to go out without a big security entourage, so he could get closer to the Libyans and help gain their trust. I'm not sure he was unaware of the danger so much as willing to risk it.

Edited by Dev F, 14 September 2012 - 11:57 PM.


#65 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:51 AM

View PostDev F, on 14 September 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

View PostDarthMarley, on 14 September 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

I would take the "Get off my lawn" approach.
I not offer apologies, but something more like ultimatums.

It really boils down to how do you handle bullies?
By saying, "We know you were offended by something deliberately hurtful and inflammatory that some of our countrymen did, but we don't care, so suck it"? Then who's being the bully?

And make no mistake, this was a deliberate provocation. When the movie screened in L.A., it was advertised to Muslims, in Arabic, as a film about "the true terrorist . . . who killed our children in Palestine and our brethren in Iraq and Afghanistan." When no one showed up, they put clips on YouTube; when they still didn't get a response, they had the clips translated into Arabic, and finally they got the uproar they were hoping for. This is not like the Mohammed cartoons or the censored South Park episodes, where people were trying to make a serious point about fear or censorship. This wasn't an accident like the burning of the Korans in Afghanistan. This was just some a-holes being deliberately ugly and hateful, and there's nothing weak or undignified in expressing regret about that.

Do you think the Muslims who are expressing regret and embarrassment about the current protests are coming across as weak or undignified?

View PostRhea, on 14 September 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Batrochides, I think the fact that he'd been working with the Libyans since he was in the Peace Corps. He had a false sense of security.
The impression I get from the stories about Ambassador Stevens is that he made a conscious choice to go out without a big security entourage, so he could get closer to the Libyans and help gain their trust. I'm not sure he was unaware of the danger so much as willing to risk it.

The one being the bluuy is trying to suppress the free expression of others.
It is rather obvious.

So, this seems to put you in the position of supporting such mass tantrums.
Have fun with that, but there will always be those of use who will not accept the yoke.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#66 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 15 September 2012 - 02:30 PM

Quote


I would take the "Get off my lawn" approach.
I not offer apologies, but something more like ultimatums.

It really boils down to how do you handle bullies?

What would the ultimatums be and what's wrong with apologising? This video was designed to be highly offensive and I see nothing wrong with saying we're sorry that someone from our country was behind it and that we find the content disgraceful.The Muslim world had every reason to be upset about that video, they had every right to protest it. Do they have the right to murder for it? NO but then from what I'm reading, that's not why those 4 people are dead. We've spent how many years warring with countries in the middle east. Many of them now have new leaders, how about we try and forge a new relationship (if possible) one where we don't prop up their hated dictators. We can't afford to continue to fight war after war in that region. So we either try to form new relationships wherever possible or nuke the whole region. As far as bullies go, from their perspective we've been the bully in their neighborhood. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, ya know?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#67 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:39 PM

It's still a shame that four Americans were killed in the attack, :down:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#68 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 15 September 2012 - 05:40 PM

View PostLin731, on 15 September 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Quote


I would take the "Get off my lawn" approach.
I not offer apologies, but something more like ultimatums.

It really boils down to how do you handle bullies?

What would the ultimatums be and what's wrong with apologising? This video was designed to be highly offensive and I see nothing wrong with saying we're sorry that someone from our country was behind it and that we find the content disgraceful.The Muslim world had every reason to be upset about that video, they had every right to protest it. Do they have the right to murder for it? NO but then from what I'm reading, that's not why those 4 people are dead. We've spent how many years warring with countries in the middle east. Many of them now have new leaders, how about we try and forge a new relationship (if possible) one where we don't prop up their hated dictators. We can't afford to continue to fight war after war in that region. So we either try to form new relationships wherever possible or nuke the whole region. As far as bullies go, from their perspective we've been the bully in their neighborhood. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, ya know?

The ultimatum would be; Kill Americans and you and those standing near you will die by the bunches.

Assuming that apologies work, why has this happened in the post-Obama world?
If getting rid of dictators would be a helpful approach, then why did this happen in benghazi, where we did just that?

How does the narrative that this wasn't about the movie help your case?
Even if the terroists who set fire to our consulate didn't care about the outrage from the film, how was the crowd gathered there in the first place?
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#69 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 15 September 2012 - 07:37 PM

Quote

The ultimatum would be; Kill Americans and you and those standing near you will die by the bunches.

Assuming that apologies work, why has this happened in the post-Obama world?
If getting rid of dictators would be a helpful approach, then why did this happen in benghazi, where we did just that?

How does the narrative that this wasn't about the movie help your case?
Even if the terroists who set fire to our consulate didn't care about the outrage from the film, how was the crowd gathered there in the first place?

Because there's a difference between terrorists and protesters. My understanding is the protest was used as cover for an attack that had been planned weeks ago, the movie just worked in their favor for blending in with the protesters.The protests was what I was referring to regarding the apology. As for those responsible for killing 4 Americans, by all means they need to be brought to justice. I'm waiting to see what this new government does regarding catching them and what their justice system does in response.

Killing people who may in fact NOT be involved in any way with the killings only leads to more killings and more bad blood. Our history in the region is bad enough already, no getting around it. Let me give you a scenerio. You have The Westboro Baptist church protesting at a soldiers funeral, one of them shoots and kills a funeral attendee. Does that give any military personel attending the funeral the right to open fire on ALL the Westboro protesters? Don't get me wrong, the violence in the region is disturbing but many middle east experts are saying the level of violence in places like Egypt is a smoldering tinderbox regarding the US on a good day because oh our support for Mubarak, doesn't take much to ignite it. Much like Iran hated us for backing the Shah. Our ties with their government are horrid but the younger generations of Iranians POV is different. They didn't grow up under the Shah, they know the "west" based on what we have to offer in popular culture. My point is, given time, the same is perhaps possible with SOME of these other countries and their governments.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#70 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:10 PM

View PostDarthMarley, on 15 September 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

The one being the bluuy is trying to suppress the free expression of others.
It is rather obvious.
But no one is arguing that they have a right to suppress free expression -- just that they have a right to be offended by a crude and deliberate attack on their religion with no redeeming social value. That's what the administration is condemning, and it deserves to be condemned, whether or not the response to the offense in some quarters has been wildly disproportionate.

If a friend of yours found out that his wife was cheating on him, got the mistaken impression that you knew about it, and ran up to you shouting with his fists out, would your first instinct be to just beat the crap out of him? Or would you try to calm him down by saying that you're very sorry about what happened, but you had no idea and beating you up won't solve anything? Would that amount to "apologizing to a bully for a woman's right to have sex with whomever she pleases"?

View PostDarthMarley, on 15 September 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

I would take the "Get off my lawn" approach.
I not offer apologies, but something more like ultimatums.

It really boils down to how do you handle bullies?
Precedent suggests that the "Don't apologize and make blanket threats" approach is in fact an extremely bad way to deal with the bullies of the Muslim world. People in struggling Muslim countries already believe that the United States is immensely powerful and willing to strike at its enemies without mercy. The hopelessness of their situation and Islam's emphasis on martyrdom often render them immune to concerns for their own safety. What's the point of saying "Stop it, cuz we can kick your ass" to people who a) already know that and b) don't care?

On the other hand, there is at least the potential to improve the situation by expressing sympathy with their outrage but explaining that the freedom of speech prevents us from intervening. I'm not saying this argument is going to immediately capture the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, but it at least offers a small foothold of understanding and common ground -- which is often all diplomacy can hope for. And if nothing else, it avoids making the situation worse by validating the worst stereotypes of America as brutal and anti-Islamic.

#71 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:05 PM

Here's a fascinating article about the situation in Cairo by an English-language Egyptian newspaper. It's a firsthand look at the protests and at the weird, warring cultural forces behind them:

Quote

Like most protesters at the scene, Ibrahim believes “The Innocence of Muslims” is a Hollywood production that, like any local or international film released in Egypt, and presumably elsewhere, passes through several rounds of censorship and receives official state approval from its own government before seeing the light of day. . . . “We want a formal apology from [US President Barack] Obama, we want the filmmakers executed, and we want all copies of the film destroyed,” another protester cut in. “All those tapes must be burned.”

Quote

“You’re going to set fire to more police cars?” an older man shouted from his spot on the sidewalk. “Who do you think ends up paying for those cars? The Egyptian people can’t even afford to eat, but they’re burning their country down. I hope the Prophet had a sense of humor!”

Quote

To his left, his colleague asks, “What prophet? You think any of these people care about religion?” He turned to Egypt Independent and added, “You’d think these were the most pious people on Earth, but we were here for dawn prayers and we can tell you not a single one of them stopped throwing rocks long enough to pray.”

Moments later, two teens rush past, carrying a child with blood spurting out between the fingers he has over his right eye.

“Good,” Farouk says. “Serves him right. I hope they all die.”

Edited by Dev F, 16 September 2012 - 11:10 PM.


#72 Julianus

Julianus
  • Islander
  • 1,660 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:08 AM

The curious thing to me about the murder of our ambassador in Libya is that it, and the riot, occurred in Benghazi around the consulate rather than in Tripoli where the embassy is located. According to reports Libya is society based on tribal loyalties. Benghazi is hundreds of miles from Tripoli yet our ambassador was there when the proverbial $h!!t hit the fan. Hmmm?
Friday night a local talkshow had an interview with a doctor from Mass. General who was in Benghazi when the fighting broke out. Unfortunately I was able to hear only a very small part of it and at present it is not posted, but this is a link to the show.
http://boston.cbsloc...e-with-dan-rea/
Hopefully they will have it up some time on Monday.
There is an article at Reuters that seems to report, imo, an odd choice by our government in relation to the riots in Sudan.
http://www.reuters.c...E88E0FI20120915

Quote

(Reuters) - Sudan has rejected a U.S. request to send a platoon of Marines to bolster security at the U.S. embassy outside Khartoum, the state news agency SUNA said on Saturday.
My own choice would be to pull out all our diplomatic personnel and suspend all aide to countries where violation of embassy property has occurred rather than sending in any military personnel, especially a force as small as a platoon. I think such a force would appear more as a provocation and could do little to defend the embassy without air support.
Julianus

Edited by Julianus, 17 September 2012 - 04:12 AM.


#73 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:29 AM

Quote

On the other hand, there is at least the potential to improve the situation by expressing sympathy with their outrage but explaining that the freedom of speech prevents us from intervening. I'm not saying this argument is going to immediately capture the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, but it at least offers a small foothold of understanding and common ground -- which is often all diplomacy can hope for. And if nothing else, it avoids making the situation worse by validating the worst stereotypes of America as brutal and anti-Islamic.
We should sympathize with their instinct break things and hurt people when their religion is(quite understandably) insulted? Not only wont that help,(the officials apologizing for this movie clearly don't understand the situation) it both shows weakness and validates their absolute insanity. These people wont be properly appeased until we're ALL living strictly by the word of the Pedophile Prophet. Even then the radicals will find other ways to satisfy their bloodlust.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#74 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:33 AM

Quote

My own choice would be to pull out all our diplomatic personnel and suspend all aide to countries where violation of embassy property has occurred rather than sending in any military personnel, especially a force as small as a platoon.
You would think suspension of aid would be automatic, especially since we're not exactly flush with cashola at the moment.

Oh wait... Bernanke just printed up some fresh paper the other day...so we're good.

I may have mentioned this somewhere else but....we're doomed. :humble:

Edited by scherzo, 17 September 2012 - 09:38 AM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#75 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:47 AM

Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?"  Really?  I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous.  Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?  

I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence.  I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.  

Dev -- Interesting article.  I suspected that there must be a disconnect for people in societies that do not have a freedom of speech tradition.  Of course, they would assume that all Hollywood movies must pass through the office of a government censor, and that the existence of any given movie is proof that the government stamped a seal of approval on it.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#76 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:56 AM

Quote

Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?"  Really?  I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous.  Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?
Yeah that last thing. I may not agree with the form or the details of the criticism, but I sure as hell understand the impulse.

Quote

I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence.  I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.
The issue here is the enormous segment of the world population that considers violence an appropriate reaction to being offended. No civilized human being should  prop up the notion that there's an ounce of validity to their behavior, and even discussing this irrelevant movie does just that. The most damning and negative film about modern day Islam, could  be based solely on their actual scripture, and a simple body count. The extremists require no D-movies to kick-start their murderous impulses. Until the violence is permanently eradicated from their ranks, we shouldn't spend even a second worrying about "offending" them. Or put it this way: We should worry about offending them, about as much as they worry about offending us. That seems fair.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#77 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

View PostBklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?"  Really?  I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous.  Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?  

I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence.  I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.  

Dev -- Interesting article.  I suspected that there must be a disconnect for people in societies that do not have a freedom of speech tradition.  Of course, they would assume that all Hollywood movies must pass through the office of a government censor, and that the existence of any given movie is proof that the government stamped a seal of approval on it.

Why should it matter who made the video or why?

The victim is not the offended Muslims.
Nor is the victim the filmmaker. Though there is an odd push to "investigate" him.

I didn't watch the entire trailer. I am a fan of Saul of the Mole Men, and the green screen in this makes SotMM look like a Pixar feature film.
The background on its creator, and the description of how the script was changed, actors were duped, and offensive lines were dubbed does point to this being a piece of agitprop of some kind.
However, those who have studied Muslim culture and history are quite familiar with the "offensive themes" in the dubbed dialog.

A right wing blog linked this (apparently Facebook) screen grab;
http://imageshack.us...6813/filmrq.png

The bit in the middle strikes me, as with the few minutes I watched, I had the same reaction; these offensive stories are taken from the recorded history of Islam. I can understand that the truth can be embarassing, but it remains part of the history of the founding and establishment of the religion.

At stake in this is the ability to criticize under threat of violence.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."

#78 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:02 AM

http://www.huffingto..._n_1890041.html
Anna Gurji & 'Innocence Of Muslims': Horrified Actress Writes Letter Explaining Her Role

Quote

... In a letter posted on author Neil Gaiman's website, [Anna] Gurji makes explicit that she was not privy to Nakoula's plans.
"There was no mention EVER by anyone of MUHAMMAD and no mention of religion during the entire time I was on the set," she writes. "I am hundred percent certain nobody in the cast and nobody in the U.S. artistic side of the crew knew what was really planned for this 'Desert Warrior.'"
The actress said that when "people [ask me what my reaction is] after seeing that," she only has one word to offer: "shock."
"Two hours after I found out everything that had happened I gave 'Inside Edition' an interview, the duration of which I could not stop crying," she continues. "I feel shattered ... It’s painful to see how our faces were used to create something so atrocious without us knowing anything about it at all."
While Gurji fears for her safety, she has not gone into hiding. "I don’t know what else to do but speak the truth," she said. "I will not go into hiding (since I have nothing to hide), because if we don’t speak the truth, there is no world worth living for."...


Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#79 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 11:51 AM

View PostDarthMarley, on 17 September 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

View PostBklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?"  Really?  I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous.  Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?  

I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence.  I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.  

Dev -- Interesting article.  I suspected that there must be a disconnect for people in societies that do not have a freedom of speech tradition.  Of course, they would assume that all Hollywood movies must pass through the office of a government censor, and that the existence of any given movie is proof that the government stamped a seal of approval on it.

Why should it matter who made the video or why?

Motive always matters.  Context always matters.  Nothing happens in a vacuum.  A criminal who hates Muslims partners with a porn director to make a "movie" that he hopes will instigate violence and blood shed.  And indeed, it does.  You think that's irrelevant to the story?  On the contrary, it's a material detail without which you would think this is another Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh situation -- but it's not.  Not even close.

Quote

The victim is not the offended Muslims.

No one said otherwise.

Quote

Nor is the victim the filmmaker.  Though there is an odd push to "investigate" him.

He's a criminal who is on probation following his release from prison.  Because of the nature of his crimes (bank fraud), he has limitations placed on his usage of computers, and is prohibited from using the internet.  If he violated the terms of his probation in the making and distribution of this "film," he should have to answer for that -- and indeed, he should probably have to go back to prison.  

Why is that odd?

Quote

At stake in this is the ability to criticize under threat of violence.

No, it really isn't.  The First Amendment is alive an well.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#80 Kota

Kota
  • Islander
  • 417 posts

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:16 PM

never mind

Edited by Kota, 17 September 2012 - 09:11 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2012

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users