The "Face" of the organization behind the "Mohammed" film.

[MomentsofSanity]

Please...
Only a donkey would think he could learn anything from reading a translation of a translation of a translation...
Dr. Incor picked up that skill after he learned Biblical Hebrew

You think there's actually a chance he read a translation as opposed to piecing it together from jihadwatch?

 

[Orignal Earl]

You think there's actually a chance he read a translation as opposed to piecing it together from jihadwatch?

I don't think Incor can comprehend this post

 

[Incorruptible]

I don't think Incor can comprehend this post

Actually I do have some experience as well some of my family are in mixed relationships so I have an understanding of the people

 

[woolfe9999]

I take your point, but I'd disagree to some extent. "Religious people with a religious agenda" is correct, but as I understand it the motivation isn't so much about the creator proving he's better, but because of how the Coptic Christians have been targeted by Muslims in the ME. This isn't religious dogma, it's revenge. Doesn't make it acceptable, but it puts some context to his actions.

Still I wonder about this whole thing in a larger context. We're in a world where someone makes a movie and is held more accountable than those who kill outright Coptic christians.

Yes but this isn't about not holding violent Muslims responsible for their actions. Anyone reading a fair sampling of my posts knows that I am the last person to make excuses for this sort of behavior. I do not apologize for the violence of Muslims, draw false equivalencies, or say anything of that nature. Being critical of the video is neither an attempt to excuse such behavior nor is it implied opposition to freedom of speech.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes but this isn't about not holding violent Muslims responsible for their actions. Anyone reading a fair sampling of my posts knows that I am the last person to make excuses for this sort of behavior. I do not apologize for the violence of Muslims, draw false equivalencies, or say anything of that nature. Being critical of the video is neither an attempt to excuse such behavior nor is it implied opposition to freedom of speech.

I wasn't suggesting that you were making excuses. I was merely pointing out a fine point of perspective. It wasn't intended as a confrontational statement.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Agreed except for bolded. I think it does pass Constitutional muster as far as he did intend for the movie to incite and provoke violence or riot and he should be held accountable.He didn't launch RPG's into the embassy and kill innocent civilians but he clearly meant to provoke a reaction by the Muslim community.

I think the goal was to provoke an angry reaction, although I hardly would go so far as to infer that he wanted anyone harmed by the reaction. But the Supreme Court has historically taken a very narrow reading on what constitutes a clear and present danger exemption to free speech; yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the most common example, but it can also cover an expressed invitation to imminent lawless action, such as encouraging or provoking a crowd to riot. The problem is, I don't see this film as provoking an invitation to imminent lawless action. It was out for several weeks before any violence occurred, the violence happened overseas, and the violence was not being advocated for by the film. You're never going to convince this court that "imminent lawless action" is going to come out of a film just because people are offended by the message; the entire point of free speech is to defend the speech we find detestable.

 

[piasabird]

I believe in freedom of speech, not apologizing to murderers.

Freedom of Speech is the pillar that democracy is built on.

What will be next? Do we incarcerate people for making films about subjects we dont like?

When will your group be targeted by the government?

Gays?

Christians?

Athiests?

Jews?

Dont you realize that Muslims make films about jihad and killing westerners? It is not like they care about our religion or way of life!

 

[Incorruptible]

I believe in freedom of speech, not apologizing to murderers.

Well said, but barky and his idiot supporters disagree

 

[Orignal Earl]

Actually I do have some experience as well some of my family are in mixed relationships so I have an understanding of the people

Wait..are you one of those Hindu extremists like the other guy here?

 

[Incorruptible]

Wait..are you one of those Hindu extremists like the other guy here?

No but in my family there are some mixed relationships which is one of the reasons I have such knowledge about this issue

Who is the Hindu extremist on here, I would like to know his views

 

[alzan]

I think the goal was to provoke an angry reaction, although I hardly would go so far as to infer that he wanted anyone harmed by the reaction. But the Supreme Court has historically taken a very narrow reading on what constitutes a clear and present danger exemption to free speech; yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the most common example, but it can also cover an expressed invitation to imminent lawless action, such as encouraging or provoking a crowd to riot. The problem is, I don't see this film as provoking an invitation to imminent lawless action. It was out for several weeks before any violence occurred, the violence happened overseas, and the violence was not being advocated for by the film. You're never going to convince this court that "imminent lawless action" is going to come out of a film just because people are offended by the message; the entire point of free speech is to defend the speech we find detestable.

I see all that; maybe what I should have said is that by making the film in the way he did, he opened the door to riot and violence and what happened because of them. He didn't tell anyone to go grab their weapons and start shooting but he did know rioting can lead events just like what's happened at the Libyan embassy. Is that a prosecutable crime? Not sure.

Plus as you and other posters have pointed out, there's a significant lapse between the video appearing on Youtube and the attacks. There's more to this story.

 

[feralkid]

The interesting thing is that leftists on this forum blame the filmmaker and not the killers, this is Obama's America, this is today's Dimocratic party and this is the party of tolerance.

Right...so when you stick your dick into a hornets' nest, you blame the hornets when you get stung.

 

[Orignal Earl]

No but in my family there are some mixed relationships which is one of the reasons I have such knowledge about this issue

You have Muslims in your family?

Who is the Hindu extremist on here, I would like to know his views

You do know part of his views, you agreed with him and gave him a thumbsup
You said he *get's it"
Little did you know you are on his list too, he will deal with you after you help him with the Muslims