Egypt Protesters storm US Embassy

[mhaze]

My Mom says she heard there is no film, just the promo clip. I have yet to confirm that, but watching the promo clip it wouldn't surprise me.

From my somewhat similar research, I reached the same conclusion -

THE FILM DOES NOT EXIST!!!

Which means what, exactly? The thugs and morons controlled by radical Imans, Muslim Brotherhood, etc would like to kill people over a film that does not exist? That they are not the sharpest tools in the shed? That the trailers are enough for them to get riled up over?

....

It's the agitator who is guilty, in this case the Imans egging the hysterical mob along.

Which means, some people should pay for these murders.

I doubt that they will but I think it's important to state the issues clearly. If the countries involved will not go after them, then we should - covertly or overtly, as is required.

 

[A'isha]

There were no murders over this in Egypt, where the salafist TV broadcast whipped things up. And evidence so far in the murders in Libya indicates that they were also not over this, but the result of a planned strike carried out by an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group using protestors as cover.

 

[Kestrel]

My Mom says she heard there is no film, just the promo clip. I have yet to confirm that, but watching the promo clip it wouldn't surprise me.

Roger Ebert's blog mentions a version that runs 5'22". Not exactly a feature length film.

Another oddity was the report on the Rachel Maddow show last night. The protesters believe the film was created by a conspiracy of the US Government, Zionists and Freemasons. Are they channeling our right wing conspiracy theorists?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Roger Ebert's blog mentions a version that runs 5'22". Not exactly a feature length film.

Another oddity was the report on the Rachel Maddow show last night. The protesters believe the film was created by a conspiracy of the US Government, Zionists and Freemasons. Are they channeling our right wing conspiracy theorists?

I'd expect something with the production value of the Avengers in that case.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actors have reported playing roles in it, and permits for filming have been found by news agencies.

The LA Times actually described where one of the guys who made the film lives. How messed up is that? It's pretty much an invitation to get the guy killed.

And why the hell is the administration getting involved by asking YouTube to look into taking the movie clips down? They have badly overstepped their bounds here, and have revealed both cowardice and indifference to free speech.

 

[mhaze]

The LA Times actually described where one of the guys who made the film lives. How messed up is that? It's pretty much an invitation to get the guy killed.

And why the hell is the administration getting involved by asking YouTube to look into taking the movie clips down?.....

Obama et al: Appeaseniks.

 

[marksman]

And why the hell is the administration getting involved by asking YouTube to look into taking the movie clips down?

They only asked YouTube to see if the video violated YouTube's terms of service. Hardly censorship.

 

[crescent]

Another oddity was the report on the Rachel Maddow show last night. The protesters believe the film was created by a conspiracy of the US Government, Zionists and Freemasons. Are they channeling our right wing conspiracy theorists?

I don't know about Zionists and Freemasons, but this may explain why some thought the U.S. government is involved:

Arab Spring nations don't yet grasp freedom of dissent

Arab societies are on a journey. They can easily take the wrong turn. The attacks on the American embassies in Libya, Egypt and Yemen are examples of the ongoing presence of intolerant, tyrannical actors in Arab societies.

These are people who were born and raised in dictatorships. They are accustomed to thinking that a government controls its citizens -- that a film or documentary cannot be produced without government approval. For decades, this has been the reality of their lives, and they strongly believe that the Western world and its citizens have a similarly controlling relationship between individuals and government.

In light of this assumption, they hold the U.S. government responsible for the tacky and distasteful film produced by a right-wing Muslimphobe.

 

[Ziggurat]

They only asked YouTube to see if the video violated YouTube's terms of service. Hardly censorship.

I didn't call it censorship. But it's still none of the government's ******* business. They still should not be silencing anyone's speech, whether they do it through the force of law or not.

 

[Joey McGee]

It's their job to work in the public interest and if there is a legal way to do that, they will. They aren't asking to silence anyone's free speech, what tripe. They are asking a private company to consider not giving this film a platform based on their own guidelines. They wouldn't be silencing him at all, if they remove it he can still try to show and sell the movie. This platform was given to him by a private company. Personally I don't see how this could have any negative effect or chill free speech, all it would say is that you can't use YT against it's own guidelines, and that the US government doesn't support these kinds of efforts.

 

[A'isha]

The LA Times actually described where one of the guys who made the film lives. How messed up is that? It's pretty much an invitation to get the guy killed.

So, what you're saying is that despite the fact that they have every right to exercise their free speech, they should have thought twice about it and probably not done it, because even though they didn't call for or directly incite any violence, they should know that such violence would be the likely consequence of what they did?

 

[Eddie Dane]

I don't know about Zionists and Freemasons, but this may explain why some thought the U.S. government is involved:

Arab Spring nations don't yet grasp freedom of dissent

From what I've been reading about dictatorships in the ME, that quote is exactly correct.

I'll add to that: their tendency to see conspiracies also stems from their decades of experience of everything around them actually being a conspiracy.
They've been ruled by a dictator, the army, the secret services, the police. Possibly their employers, if they are civil servants.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, what you're saying is that despite the fact that they have every right to exercise their free speech, they should have thought twice about it and probably not done it, because even though they didn't call for or directly incite any violence, they should know that such violence would be the likely consequence of what they did?

I know the parallel you're trying to draw, but it doesn't really work. First off, the possible consequences of the LA Times printing that information is rather obvious and direct. Were the consequences of that video obvious? No. YouTube is filled with crap that's offensive to almost everyone, including plenty that's offensive to Muslims. There was no reason to think those clips would garner particular attention. Hell, there's no reason to think that those clips are the real reason for any of the violence at all. It's looking more likely that this was a planned attack, with the outrage over the movie merely a pretext. They would have used something else if that movie didn't exist.

Furthermore, you're basically advocating abiding by the heckler's veto. That is a dangerous precedent to set, because it destroys free speech. What I am suggesting for the LA Times isn't a heckler's veto. Giving out that information served no purpose. They lose nothing by refraining from printing that. But you DO lose something rather important when you refrain from expressing your fundamental beliefs.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103667/a-crap-cartoon#tag=blog_tag_family_guy

 

[Ziggurat]

It's their job to work in the public interest and if there is a legal way to do that, they will.

Even to the extent that this film was a cause of violence (and there's good reason to think it isn't), the horse has already left the barn. It's not in the public interest to silence them now.

They aren't asking to silence anyone's free speech, what tripe. They are asking a private company to consider not giving this film a platform based on their own guidelines.

They are taking action which may prevent speech from being heard. I'm not claiming that this action is illegal or unconstitutional, but it still stinks.

 

[quadraginta]

So, what you're saying is that despite the fact that they have every right to exercise their free speech, they should have thought twice about it and probably not done it, because even though they didn't call for or directly incite any violence, they should know that such violence would be the likely consequence of what they did?

That's what it sounded like to me.

I expect we'll get an explanation about why it's somehow different in this case, though.

(If the people who made the film didn't want folks to know what their house looked like, they probably shouldn't have put it in the movie.)

The home's distinctive front door with triangle windows in a half-circle pattern is visible in the 14-minute trailer for the movie posted on YouTube.

 

[Joey McGee]

Even to the extent that this film was a cause of violence (and there's good reason to think it isn't), the horse has already left the barn. It's not in the public interest to silence them now.

The public interest is that if the video was removed it would show that while free speech is valued, so are the rights and moral obligations of individuals to avoid giving platforms to dangerous loons. It might help to debunk the idea that the US is behind it. There may be other reasons. You might as well say that Robert Gates should have never told Terry Jones not to burn the Koran, or that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs shouldn't have asked him not to support this movie, because the cat is out of the bag, other people have already burned the Koran, and everyone knows he was supporting it before.

They are taking action which may prevent speech from being heard. I'm not claiming that this action is illegal or unconstitutional, but it still stinks.

They are simply submitting a request, you or I could submit a similar request. There's no threat to sanction YT if it's not honored. Are you saying the administration shouldn't exercise it's free speech in saying that private companies should reconsider giving a platform to this kind of crap? Don't we electe them partially to lobby on our behalf? If someone wants to watch the video, they can find it without youtube. Or he can find a new platform.

 

[Checkmite]

I didn't call it censorship. But it's still none of the government's ******* business. They still should not be silencing anyone's speech, whether they do it through the force of law or not.

US ambassador dies; the chain of causes is none of the government's ******* business.

 

[Checkmite]

Are you saying the administration shouldn't exercise it's free speech in saying that private companies should reconsider giving a platform to this kind of crap? Don't we electe them partially to lobby on our behalf? If someone wants to watch the video, they can find it without youtube. Or he can find a new platform.

The government as an entity doesn't really have freedom of speech, I think.

 

[manofthesea]

A little tip of the hat to Egypt. A maturation of an Islamic nation perhaps.
Kudos to the current leadership and the group that is currently in charge.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/15/world/meast/egypt-us-embassy-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here's an interesting investigation into the origins of the film (trailer) and why it got so much attention despite being so utterly crude. Leads to the usual suspects, planning a (very successful) deliberate provocation.

[...] Who made a large donation to Media for Christ in 2011? Why did Ali Sina feel it necessary to scrub the articles about his planned film from his site, and when were those articles scrubbed? Was Ali Sina’s script the one used for this film, and was it complete long before the February appeal for funds on Atlas Shrugs? Was this film separate from the film that Ali Sina plans, and therefore there may be another film coming? How many of the “facts” we think we know about this film and its’ producers are part of a disinformation campaign? Who is actually pulling the strings? Was this a conspiracy? Was provoking a violent reaction exactly what the filmmakers wanted? Is SION connected with this project, and is it one of their “practical steps” “beyond rhetoric”? Why did so many key players in the Islamophobia industry feel it necessary to speak out so quickly to distance themselves from this film, and to trivialize its’ importance? Geller said “we must help” get Sina’s film made, who did help? Why was the film initially blamed on “Jews”? If Nakoula was a dupe, and the actors hired for the film were duped, who else was duped, and who is behind all of this doing the duping? [...]