A genuine thank you to “Mohammad movie” producer Sam Basile

So then you agree with me that the Quran is not from "god" because in 33:21 it says that Mohammad is a role model FOR ALL TIME, correct?

 

I am not a big fan of absolutes. I can think of a few reasons to do so not for the purpose of stirring emotions. Rebellion... for one. Being told you cannot, and being obstinant having no understanding of the reason you are told you cannot or the feelings it might cause. One might not know or care what others think and produce their depiction of Muhammed... however... Art is an interesting animal. It's entire purpose IS to stir emotions... hense the jar of urine with the cross in it, the picture of Mary with dung on it... why would one be off limits? Why does its intent matter? How is violence ever justified for expressing an opinion or piece of art?

This happens. You can set your watch by it...
[video=youtube;RmvEmn2vNkA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmvEmn2vNkA[/video]

Not acceptable.

 

OJLeb, please just answer the question: "What percentage will condemn Mohammad for (certainly) implying that if you, say, burn a Quran, that you should be put to death?"

 

making an idiotic and offensive movie is stupid but fine...protected free speech.

making a idiotic and offensive movie, putting it in front of the people it will offend the most and doing so at a time of extreme tension....that's inciting a riot.

We've all seen people burning American flags, right? In DC in front of camera's, all for effect. Stupid but protected free speech.

Now you have a group of Muslims...burning a US flag....at a 9/11 anniversary service...in Michigan Militia territory....at a gun show. That's inciting a riot.

See the distinction?

 

Margot is correct about it being dubbed, and him lying about being an Israeli. He's Egyptian, and Sam Basile is not his real name. Margot is getting the hang of this "truth" stuff, I'm impressed. Now if she could just see that the film is truthful.....

 

Federal authorities have identified a Coptic Christian in southern California who is on probation after his conviction for financial crimes as the key figure behind the anti-Muslim film that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Mideast, a U.S. law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday. The official said authorities had concluded that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film that denigrated Islam and the prophet Muhammad and sparked protests earlier this week in Egypt, Libya and most recently in Yemen. It was not immediately clear whether Nakoula was the target of a criminal investigation or part of the broader investigation into the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya during a terrorist attack. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation, said Nakoula was connected to the persona of Sam Bacile, a man who initially told the AP he was the film's writer and director. But Bacile turned out to be a false identity, and the AP traced a cellphone number Bacile used to a southern California house where it located and interviewed Nakoula. Bacile initially told AP he was Jewish and Israeli, although Israeli officials said they had no records of such a citizen. Others involved in the film said his statements were contrived, as evidence mounted that the film's key player was a Coptic Christian with a checkered past.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120913/WIRE/120919847

 

Modern Scientific Humanists don't have a problem with that, or this movie, as both are protected free speech.

 

I couldn't care less. As long as someone doesn't try to impose their beliefs on me, I say live and let live.

In my experience, the only people who have tried to do that to me have been christian zealots.

 

yeah, well there aren't any modern scientific humanists at the gun show in Michigan!

 

You will likely, like many people around the world, experience people trying to push Sharia Law on you. Bin Laden's attack on this country is just one example.

 

The internet? This is the domain of muslims? No. No I do not agree.

And no... no I do not believe that is inciting a riot either. I give you... these (*)(*)(*)(*)heads.


These being the same (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s that show up at military funerals for fallen service men and women who die at war... and yes... they are protected. They are NOT expected that their bizarre screwed up opinions will incite a riot because violence is not an acceptable answer to a position you find offensive.

and it was WE who were attacked on 9/11... it is a sore subject to Americans... not Lybian or Egyptian Muslims. It is a day one can EXPECT OUR emotions to be running high... not theirs.

 

No, I really don't think I will....unless folks like you and OBL get your way and start a religious war.

 

You're drinking aren't you? You're becoming less coherent.

Evidence that they intended to incite violence........they made sure they were nowhere near the places where their film was released.

 

That group, seems to be consistantly, and only, Muslims.

Surely you see a pattern here.


Now we have two courses of action here... either WE (non-Muslims) can submit to the rules of a religion we do not follow, or YOU (Muslims) can be forced to reconsile that we are not part of the submission thing that you have signed onto for yourselves... and any attempt to FORCE us into submission will be met with consequences.

This is how this happens. This is how the world changes for the better. Muslims will be BETTER people for tolerating differing positions. For employing diplomacy instead of violence. You change minds with a superior argument and position. I know what Islam means... and I respect your right to be submissive to your God... I will not be forced into that submission.

It is not Americans making Islam look bad when these things happen... it is Muslims. When you try and blow up a cartoonist... you look bad... because a significant portion of you are bad. This is bad, it is unacceptable... and I will not be told what I can or cannot believe because you believe something different. If I hold a position about Muhammed that you do not find favorable... then I do, and I will not be scared into witholding it. Quite the opposite... I will fight to express it. I will shout it from the rooftops... It is a fundamentally American tenent which we hold rather dear.

Suddenly... I, who had no interest in offending you, choose to do so, because you have the audacity to tell me I cannot. I can and I will becomes my attitude... otherwise we are playing a slow submission game, and as chance would have it... that is the literal name of this game.

 

Again, your comprehension notwithstanding, I am quite cogent. To answer your question, no, I am not drinking.

So... in your esteem, if I release something on the WIDEST, cheapst most pervasive medium in the WORLD... it is because I intend to start a riot? This is your logic?

 

So... to sum up...

A film saying something about Muhammed contrary to the doctrine of Islam is "fire in a crowded theater" or an intent to start a riot/violent retribution because it is universally known that:

Muslim culture is violent, reactionary and uncivil... where words and pictures can be expected to be met with death. Because 1.3 billion of them cannot possibly self-police or maintain the principals espoused of moderation and tolerance... You must expect that people WILL be killed if you write down words, speak them, or make pictures because they are a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing savages.


I think you guys have a much lower opinion of Muslims than I do. I am beginning to think... that moderate peacefull Muslims like OJLeb are the fringe element... the minority... I mean... there are some seriously violent racist (*)(*)(*)(*)ing white people, who are all too happy to drag black people behind their trucks in chains... but... we, the overwhelming majority, keep these pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) in check.

You guys are depressing me.

 

In a way yes. It's not "bad" to criticize Islam just like it's not "bad" to criticize any religion. But, when your criticism serves no purpose, when the message you're sending contains nothing new, when you release it on the date of a major terrorist attack, and when you do all of this knowing full well that violence, and likely death, will ensue, I think you are being completely and utterly irresponsible and you're abusing your freedom. I have already said that I do not condone the United States government outing this man, and I don't believe we should make them vulnerable to assassination, even if I see that as a bit of balance in the situation since people this filmmaker doesn't know are going to die while he could have hidden away safely had his name not been released.

No we shouldn't, but shouldn't intimidate others to commit murders and violence too, which is exactly what this movie's intended purpose was. This wasn't just a message in this movie, it was a message designed to go hand-in-hand with the reaction it was sure to garner in the muslim world, but, we already know Muslims don't take kindly to assaults on their faith. I don't condone that violence, I don't believe it's justified, and I think those people who would riot and cause violence over this are scum just like this filmmaker.

You seem to conveniently ignore any responsibility this man had for his actions. Why is that? Is it okay for us to walk around and do things that we know will cause harm to others, especially when we have every reason to believe it will?

So, how do you figure this war against Islam should play out? Should we start bombing them? Interning them here in America? What's the progression of this argument? Great, so we've condemned 2.1 billion people in the world. Now what? You seem to justify this man's actions with the reasoning that since he was allowed to do it that there was nothing wrong with it.

I'm really not in the market for more war, so when we deliberately provoke others for no other reasons than that provocation, I have a problem with that. And, the idea that Muslims should respect OUR laws of freedom of speech seems silly when we don't want to respect their laws like Sharia.

This whole incident could have been avoided, but it's becoming plainly clear that this movie's intent was for exactly what happened.

 

Are you living in the ME or North Africa?

 

Now i am replying to this one but I have not read the thread yet.

Here is how I see it.

Our nukes are not a deterrent to a country that poses not threat militarily. If another country gets nukes they really hit the radar and then they become a more responsible part of the world society for to use one in aggression would mean total destruction by the US (or China even). So in my opinion is they need an open nuclear program that is not an unknown. Hell they want nukes let them have them. When they get them I believe the ramifications of using them will be more of a deterrent.

At this point in time there is almost nothing they can do to anger anyone in the international community enough to wipe them from the map. Add nukes to the equation and then things change.

 

Well the point is that the Muslims still believe and that you don't, you see.

 

Where I live is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion... but no.

 

People who are pushing for Sharia Law just killed the Ambassador to YOUR country, and some ex-marines of YOUR country, and are storming embassies of YOUR country...and they reduced the value of your retirement account by committing 9/11 (after 9/11/01 your retirement savings likely went down 20%, like the stock market did.)

 

This is really fun sitting back and watching forum poster "Ctrl" battle illogical (but well-intended) religious people by using his reason, critical thinking, commons sense, and evidence-based thinking.

This intellectual battle NEEDS to take place, because until all people give up their dangerous belief that they should fear their invisible friend (who really LOVES them - but will torture them forever if they abandon him), the world will not rise to the high level that modern Secular Humanists know can be achieved when we let go of illogical fear and embrace science and reason.

 

That emotions in Libya and Egypt at this particular time are easily.... Combustible? Must be because of Islam, right? There could be no other reason.

So... You want to force Muslims to do something without consequences, but if Muslims try to do the same, there will be consequences?

How about a third option, mutual respect for every bodies beliefs?

Let's draw the line between criticising and insulting.

Who's forcing you into submission of anything?

Agreed, however inciting the violence by intentionally trying to insult people does not make look good either.

No, that is nonsense. I have already shown how not even 1% of Muslims have protested this film.

How is this any different than the mindset of the protesters?

I'm not even sure where this post came from?

 

No, a film going out of its way to purposefully insult peoples religious beliefs with the clear intent of getting a reaction from Muslims is equivalent to yelling fire in a movie theatre.

If you don't believe that was the intent of the movie, then list some other reasons why somebody would make a film just to insult a religious character.

Maybe you were drunk when posting last night. Why then weren't the protests and killings massive, worldwide? If 1.6 billion people violently protested the world would be in absolute chaos.

I am not moderate, I'm just a regular everyday Muslim that you will meet all over the world.

And considering that not even 1% of the global Muslim population killed nobody, and didn't even protest, this refutes your baseless claims.

I watched you go from moderate and reasonable to defensive and emotional as this discussion went on.