Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Cast and crew of the movie that set off the protests apologize profusely, explaining that they were deceived by the producer, and that the offensive content was added without their knowledge in post-production   (dailykos.com ) divider line 309
    More: Followup, producers, Health Care, International, Romeo, objections  
•       •       •

3326 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2012 at 9:32 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



309 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-13 12:45:34 AM  
ok, NOW that makes sense. I watched clips of it and was confused why some lines were dubbed and others weren't.
 
2012-09-13 12:58:52 AM  
Who WOULDN'T be stoked to have their name in the credits right now?
 
2012-09-13 01:01:12 AM  
Apology NOT accepted.
 
2012-09-13 01:08:34 AM  
I am Jack's total lack of surprise. It's a Christian production company - why would anyone be surprised that a Christian enterprise of any kind would be liars and cheats?


"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.


"Master George." Just like in ancient Egypt.

You gotta be kidding me.
 
2012-09-13 01:31:20 AM  

Kittypie070: Apology NOT accepted.


Why not? Did you click through to the gawker article? They're actors and tech folks. They did a production of a low-budget movie called Desert Warriors - this is a film person's normal bread & butter. The Christian production company decided to change things up in post and make the film into something else by dubbing over the lines to their message of hate. Why is that the fault of the actor whose work was farked with after the fact?
 
2012-09-13 02:09:42 AM  
I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.
 
2012-09-13 02:20:41 AM  

Kittypie070: I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


Again - Why not? What'd I miss? I can't see that it was their fault.
 
2012-09-13 02:37:23 AM  
Those angry Muslims should've totally made a nasty video about Jesus for revenge. Oh wait, that happens here too. F*ck off fundies, all of you.
 
2012-09-13 02:45:55 AM  
Benevolent Misanthrope 2012-09-13 02:20:41 AM

Kittypie070: I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


Again - Why not? What'd I miss? I can't see that it was their fault.


You didn't miss a single thing.

I'm merely exercising some mild unreasonableness.
 
2012-09-13 07:10:04 AM  
I'm going to keep posting this until it sticks:

iranpoliticsclub.net
 
2012-09-13 08:03:38 AM  

Kittypie070: Benevolent Misanthrope 2012-09-13 02:20:41 AM

Kittypie070: I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.

Again - Why not? What'd I miss? I can't see that it was their fault.

You didn't miss a single thing.

I'm merely exercising some mild unreasonableness.


3.bp.blogspot.com

"You'll get over it."

In this case, Hitch's pronouncement that "Actors are cattle" is very accurate: they only did what they
were paid to do. They had no control over what was done with the finished product.

So cut them some slack.
 
2012-09-13 08:11:40 AM  
I feel sorry for them.
What the filmmaker/company did is gross. The actors and crew had nothing to do with it and hopefully no harm comes their way.

I hope the assholes responsible are disappeared. To Gitmo.
 
2012-09-13 08:15:49 AM  

LlamaGirl: I feel sorry for them.
What the filmmaker/company did is gross. The actors and crew had nothing to do with it and hopefully no harm comes their way.

I hope the assholes responsible are disappeared. To Gitmo.


Given the utter lack of evidence about the guy who actually made it - other articles have shown what we do "know" about him are grossly contradictory and clearly made up - it's not out of the question that the people who produced the film are driving the riots.
 
2012-09-13 08:18:53 AM  

Kittypie070: I'm merely exercising some mild unreasonableness.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-13 08:38:46 AM  
Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.
 
2012-09-13 08:41:50 AM  
"It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago,"

Yeah, I noticed that, with the bad guys driving a hummer and carrying AK-47s.
 
2012-09-13 08:50:15 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


I have a theory, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, that someone took an existing film and
redubbed it without the knowledge of the original producers, though the fact that the person purported
to be the producer doesn't seem to exist lends more credence to the theory that it was intended as a
provocation/slur from the beginning.

Who that someone would be? Somehow I can't help but think Terry Jones had a hand in it, since he was
quite vocal in his promotion of it.
 
2012-09-13 08:52:57 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.
 
2012-09-13 08:56:38 AM  
I don't care what you believe in as long as you STFU about it.
Keep your spooks and voo doo at home and don't bring it to the streets.
First sign you are not worth keeping alive is when you start swining your hocus pocus around in public.
Both sides need to STFU until someone in power says exactly this.

Farking assholes with their farking asshole beliefs.
Don't eat this, don't touch that. It's liek having a screwy mother telling the whole family what to do.
this planet needs a farking intergalatic intervention.

Some one to show up and say: Oh, you silly savages. You beleive in a bunch of shabatz. No cut that out or we'll fry you from afar.
Give us a real boogie man, not some Windego.
 
2012-09-13 08:57:47 AM  
and the typs are ironic.
 
2012-09-13 09:02:49 AM  
I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.

/this thread needed a moltov cocktail
 
2012-09-13 09:03:36 AM  
Apology accepted Captain Needa.
 
2012-09-13 09:07:16 AM  
So much for "Thou shall not bear false witness."
 
2012-09-13 09:10:23 AM  

NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.


I have a feeling that situation will not last long.
 
2012-09-13 09:10:31 AM  

vudukungfu: this planet needs a farking intergalatic intervention.


Ya think?? I keep waiting for the mothership, but IT NEVER COMES

Kittypie070: I'm merely exercising some mild unreasonableness.


Ah yes. I forgot this was Fark.com.

;)
 
2012-09-13 09:10:33 AM  

sammyk: I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.

/this thread needed a moltov cocktail


Sometimes I think the real answer would be every man woman and child making anti-islamic videos at home and uploading everything at once. Flood the earth with it. Mass mockery on a scale never seen in history. You want croissants, we got croissants right here punks.

Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.
 
2012-09-13 09:14:22 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.

I have a feeling that situation will not last long.


Anonymous might be able to find this guy.
 
2012-09-13 09:14:42 AM  
The Wikipedia article on this "movie" is interesting. Apparently, one of the executives in the production (who claims he's not "Sam Bacile") was arrested and imprisoned for fraud a few years ago.

Nice reputation.
 
2012-09-13 09:15:33 AM  

SilentStrider: Marcus Aurelius: NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.

I have a feeling that situation will not last long.

Anonymous might be able to find this guy.


I now have the weirdest boner...

/ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease...
 
2012-09-13 09:17:01 AM  
yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2012-09-13 09:33:44 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


A movie no one had heard of, actors who were duped, a hidden producer, and the Muslim world knew about it before the West?  It is almost like the movie was made not for Christian audiences but to get Muslims riled up.  
 
And coordinated attacks on consulates?  
 
This story could be a super spy novel... Or just weird coincidence.
 
False flag operation. Or assholes with a bad movie choice and overreaction by Muslims with too much sand in their vaginas.
 
Ad what I saw of the movie reminded me of Monty Python or SNL crossed with Left Behind quality production.
 
2012-09-13 09:34:06 AM  

xanadian: SilentStrider: Marcus Aurelius: NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.

I have a feeling that situation will not last long.

Anonymous might be able to find this guy.

I now have the weirdest boner...

/ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease...


My money is it turns out the picture of him is actually stockjew7635.jpg. i mean how many racist videos are on youtube? This one just happens to start shiat in multiple countries months after being uploaded? The entire thing seems 'off'.
 
2012-09-13 09:35:03 AM  
Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin.
 
2012-09-13 09:36:35 AM  

serial_crusher: "It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago,"

Yeah, I noticed that, with the bad guys driving a hummer and carrying AK-47s.


They were metaphorical AK-47s.
 
2012-09-13 09:36:59 AM  

SineSwiper: I'm going to keep posting this until it sticks:

[iranpoliticsclub.net image 600x458]


You might find a lot of those people don't know how to read or write.
 
2012-09-13 09:38:25 AM  

SineSwiper: I'm going to keep posting this until it sticks:

[iranpoliticsclub.net image 600x458]


Yes, I think we all get that. What does that have to do with the article?
 
2012-09-13 09:38:25 AM  
As usual Patton Oswalt has the correct take on this. NSFW audio.
 
2012-09-13 09:39:12 AM  

SineSwiper: I'm going to keep posting this until it sticks:

[iranpoliticsclub.net image 600x458]


We're all saying that the murderers were wrong and doing the equivalent of writing a letter to the editor, so I'm not sure what part of that you think isn't sticking.
 
2012-09-13 09:39:14 AM  

Kittypie070: Apology STILL not accepted.


Your non-acceptance of the apology is not accepted. The people responsible for firing the people who were fired have now been fired.
 
2012-09-13 09:39:17 AM  
Anyone else point out that Sam Bacile sounds a lot like "Some Imbecile"?

/Amanda Hugenkiss?
//Why can't I find Amanda Hugenkiss?
 
2012-09-13 09:40:48 AM  

xanadian: vudukungfu: this planet needs a farking intergalatic intervention.

Ya think?? I keep waiting for the mothership, but IT NEVER COMES

Kittypie070: I'm merely exercising some mild unreasonableness.

Ah yes. I forgot this was Fark.com.

;)


The mothership is there, just in a different dimension, yo.


/tear the roof off the sucka
 
2012-09-13 09:40:52 AM  

Kittypie070: I didn't read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


You don't see how dubbing in some extra dialogue here and there after the actors had gone home could change things?
 
2012-09-13 09:41:31 AM  
"Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.
 
2012-09-13 09:48:52 AM  

Cletus C.: "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.


You cheeky bastard, I'm lolling where I shouldn't be.
 
2012-09-13 09:53:17 AM  
Meanwhile...

Someone should Photoshop a "Long Live Vile Rat" sign in there.
 
2012-09-13 09:53:30 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Congratulations, film makers. I hope you like having one of these shoved up your ass.
 
2012-09-13 09:54:10 AM  

vudukungfu: I don't care what you believe in as long as you STFU about it.
Keep your spooks and voo doo at home and don't bring it to the streets.
First sign you are not worth keeping alive is when you start swining your hocus pocus around in public.
Both sides need to STFU until someone in power says exactly this.

Farking assholes with their farking asshole beliefs.
Don't eat this, don't touch that. It's liek having a screwy mother telling the whole family what to do.
this planet needs a farking intergalatic intervention.

Some one to show up and say: Oh, you silly savages. You beleive in a bunch of shabatz. No cut that out or we'll fry you from afar.
Give us a real boogie man, not some Windego.


Approves:
www.samefacts.com 
/hot
 
2012-09-13 09:55:40 AM  

Cletus C.: "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.


I'd like to show her my remorse.
 
2012-09-13 09:55:40 AM  
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-13 09:56:43 AM  
That sucks... It's bad enough these folks had to take jobs in low-budget shiat like this to make a living, but to then find out the film was used as a catalyst for the deaths of several Americans?

No wonder the asshole that made this shiat is in hiding. I imagine there's quite a few folks who'd like to see him strung up by balls from the nearest lamp post.
 
2012-09-13 09:56:52 AM  

I_C_Weener: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

A movie no one had heard of, actors who were duped, a hidden producer, and the Muslim world knew about it before the West?  It is almost like the movie was made not for Christian audiences but to get Muslims riled up.  
 
And coordinated attacks on consulates?  
 
This story could be a super spy novel... Or just weird coincidence.
 
False flag operation. Or assholes with a bad movie choice and overreaction by Muslims with too much sand in their vaginas.
 
Ad what I saw of the movie reminded me of Monty Python or SNL crossed with Left Behind quality production.


Sounds like the new Ben Affleck movie.
 
2012-09-13 09:58:12 AM  

orclover: Cletus C.: "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.

I'd like to show her my remorse.


If you're a Penis-American I'm afraid she wouldn't be interested.
 
2012-09-13 09:58:22 AM  
Before any more innocent people are killed, why don't some news organizations report some facts about who's behind and video, who paid for it and what, exactly, are their political motivations?
The world-wide web precludes censorship and in any case American law protects the producers of this vile video. But there's nothing to stop the disclosure of more facts about it.
Sounds like a job for Aljazeera.
 
2012-09-13 09:58:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


His alias is Sam Bacile, but his real name is allegedly Abnob Nakoula Basseley.

Link
 
2012-09-13 09:58:25 AM  

Cletus C.: "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.


img2-2.timeinc.net

Are you talking to me?



/Oblig, hot.

Marcus Aurelius: NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.

I have a feeling that situation will not last long.


I'd be surprised if the guy ever shows up again.
 
2012-09-13 09:58:41 AM  
I have the feeling that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have played a role in the production.
 
2012-09-13 09:58:52 AM  
Wasn't it produced by the farknut that protested the ground zero mosque by burning Koran's.......too late farkers, you're as much to blame for associating with him in the first place.
 
2012-09-13 10:00:35 AM  

orclover: Cletus C.: "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.

I'd like to show her my remorse.


You likely have the wrong equipment for that task.

At this point I'm starting to think this film is this generations "Manos : The Hands of Fate"

/Torgo offed himself after seeing the released version
 
2012-09-13 10:01:28 AM  
Whomever the producer was, seems that they've achieved their objective.

"See? I told you they were animals!"
 
2012-09-13 10:02:34 AM  
killing someone over a movie still not justified.
 
2012-09-13 10:03:09 AM  

I_C_Weener: Ad what I saw of the movie reminded me of Monty Python or SNL crossed with Left Behind quality production.


And one the guys responsible for spreading the film around is TERRY JONES.
Coincidence?
 
2012-09-13 10:04:13 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Whomever the producer was, seems that they've achieved their objective.

"See? I told you they were animals!"


This. I think that was the objective.
 
2012-09-13 10:07:12 AM  
The film was probably made by some freeper who figured he'd spit in the eye of muslims on 9/11 as a sort of petty revenge. Being a freeper, he couldn't see past the end of his own nose and the whole thing blew up far beyond what he expected and now he's keeping his farking mouth shut so that the entirety of the world doesn't come crashing down on him.
 
2012-09-13 10:07:18 AM  
weirdward.net

Depiction of Islamic music 2,000 years ago
 
2012-09-13 10:07:38 AM  

violentsalvation: Those angry Muslims should've totally made a nasty video about Jesus for revenge. Oh wait, that happens here too. F*ck off fundies, all of you.



They wouldn't as he is considered a significant Islamic prophet, just like Christians recognize Abraham and Moses. His mother Mary is an Islamic saint.

The Iranian Government even produced a miniseries about Jesus a few years back.
The Messiah
 
2012-09-13 10:07:47 AM  

digistil: His alias is Sam Bacile, but his real name is allegedly Abnob Nakoula Basseley.

Link


Nah, that's his son. Sam Bacile is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, some jackass from Los Angeles.
 
2012-09-13 10:09:30 AM  

Kittypie070: I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


I understand the general mood, I really do, but the same thing happened to the cast of Caligula a few decades ago (minus the whole 'their movie got the Middle East pissed off' thing although people got really pissed off) where the somewhat titillating film they were working on got turned into a gigantic shiatshow.

This production was taken away and turned into a political weapon, designed to instigate. I feel a bit bad for the crew.
 
2012-09-13 10:10:02 AM  

Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.


If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?
 
2012-09-13 10:10:38 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

I have a theory, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, that someone took an existing film and
redubbed it without the knowledge of the original producers, though the fact that the person purported
to be the producer doesn't seem to exist lends more credence to the theory that it was intended as a
provocation/slur from the beginning.

Who that someone would be? Somehow I can't help but think Terry Jones had a hand in it, since he was
quite vocal in his promotion of it.


My theory is a little more plausible - somewhere out there there's a guy (the name's floating around, don't want to google hunt much at work) who's already been convicted of fraud before, who all the signs are pointing to is the mythical producer of this. He pitched to investors as being a real movie, that would genuinely get people out there pissed at Islam.

He raised five million dollars from investors, made a movie (or at least enough clips to pass off as one) for $50,000 dollars (most of that is actor salaries), and pocketed the rest.

Folks like Jones, realizing that they've been taken, show it in a single theatre with nobody there to make it "real", take enough clips to make an inflammatory clip and take what they can get from it, which his apparently the deaths of four Americans.
 
2012-09-13 10:12:53 AM  

bigbadideasinaction: DjangoStonereaver: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

I have a theory, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, that someone took an existing film and
redubbed it without the knowledge of the original producers, though the fact that the person purported
to be the producer doesn't seem to exist lends more credence to the theory that it was intended as a
provocation/slur from the beginning.

Who that someone would be? Somehow I can't help but think Terry Jones had a hand in it, since he was
quite vocal in his promotion of it.

My theory is a little more plausible - somewhere out there there's a guy (the name's floating around, don't want to google hunt much at work) who's already been convicted of fraud before, who all the signs are pointing to is the mythical producer of this. He pitched to investors as being a real movie, that would genuinely get people out there pissed at Islam.

He raised five million dollars from investors, made a movie (or at least enough clips to pass off as one) for $50,000 dollars (most of that is actor salaries wages and probably not even scale), and pocketed the rest.

Folks like Jones, realizing that they've been taken, show it in a single theatre with nobody there to make it "real", take enough clips to make an inflammatory clip and take what they can get from it, which his apparently the deaths of four Americans.

 
2012-09-13 10:13:46 AM  

IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?


Likely. Do not provoke these troglodytes. They are occupied for the moment with presidenting while black, but are liable to return to bombing abortion clinics exploding patriotism all over the place.
 
2012-09-13 10:14:32 AM  

IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?


Almost none. You'd get bill oreilly all stirred up though.

Further, if it were done by some AW in an Arab country, we wouldn't storm their embassy and kill the ambassador.
 
2012-09-13 10:15:43 AM  
There's hope for the cast yet. Maybe they'll show up next year's honorary death reel at the Oscars.
 
2012-09-13 10:15:45 AM  
The response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the musical [The Book Of Mormon] has been described as "measured".[45] The church released an official response to inquiries regarding the musical, stating, "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

Morsi's Weeners [to the embassy attack] didn't come until yesterday afternoon. Even then, in statements read by his spokesman and released on his official Facebook page, he did not condemn the breach of the embassy. Instead, he denounced the obscure anti-Islam film, produced by Coptic and evangelical Christians, that sparked the protests when it was publicized by Egyptian media, called for the filmmakers to be prosecuted, and said Egypt supports peaceful protests. He directed the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take "all possible legal action" against those who produced the film.

Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt. The Fark response shown here is stunning in its idiocy. Really, this fellow in California should "apologize" for exercizing his 1st Amendment rights because in doing so he angered some mouth-breathers on the other side of the planet? Wow.
 
2012-09-13 10:17:04 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


No. No he isn't. If I do something stupid and offensive that pisses you off and you decide to handle it by shooting some people, then YOU are responsible for shooting those people, not me. I'm just responsible for being an asshole. Nothing more.

This whole "it was predictable that people would react like 12th century illiterate moron zealots, therefore anyone who provokes them is guilty" point of view is complete bullshiat.

/please don't go kill anyone because I have expressed a view you don't agree with
 
2012-09-13 10:18:07 AM  

canyoneer: The response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the musical [The Book Of Mormon] has been described as "measured".[45] The church released an official response to inquiries regarding the musical, stating, "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

Morsi's Weeners [to the embassy attack] didn't come until yesterday afternoon. Even then, in statements read by his spokesman and released on his official Facebook page, he did not condemn the breach of the embassy. Instead, he denounced the obscure anti-Islam film, produced by Coptic and evangelical Christians, that sparked the protests when it was publicized by Egyptian media, called for the filmmakers to be prosecuted, and said Egypt supports peaceful protests. He directed the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take "all possible legal action" against those who produced the film.

Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt. The Fark response shown here is stunning in its idiocy. Really, this fellow in California should "apologize" for exercizing his 1st Amendment rights because in doing so he angered some mouth-breathers on the other side of the planet? Wow.


Nice to know you condone the instigation of deadly riots.
 
2012-09-13 10:18:12 AM  
that's what an apology looks like, Mitt
 
2012-09-13 10:18:32 AM  

keylock71: That sucks... It's bad enough these folks had to take jobs in low-budget shiat like this to make a living, but to then find out the film was used as a catalyst for the deaths of several Americans?

No wonder the asshole that made this shiat is in hiding. I imagine there's quite a few folks who'd like to see him strung up by balls from the nearest lamp post.


There are suspects.

"Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. During a conversation outside his home, he offered his driver's license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found it and other connections to the Bacile persona."

Link

/A riot is an ugly thingk, undt vonce you get vun shtarted, there is little shance of shtopping it, short of bluudshet. I think, before we go around killing peeple, we had better made DAMN sure of our evidence, undt...

cdn3.hark.com
 
2012-09-13 10:19:04 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


or you serious?
 
2012-09-13 10:19:12 AM  
People believe that the video set off the "protests". On 9/11.

These insane zealots celebrate 9/11. If you think that video has anything to do with what is happening, you're as clueless as the President for going around saying we're sorry we hurt your feelings.

fark them.
 
2012-09-13 10:19:15 AM  
Out the writer please. He knew what he was doing. Dubbing Muhammad over master George is easier than dubbing over Pharoh Akmed.
 
2012-09-13 10:19:54 AM  

canyoneer: let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt.


Do you really need people to point out that murder is bad constantly? Is that an interesting conversation to you?
 
2012-09-13 10:20:33 AM  

cchris_39: you're as clueless as the President for going around saying we're sorry we hurt your feelings.


Yeah, he never did that, but keep at that chicken my good man.
 
2012-09-13 10:20:57 AM  
www.salem-news.com
 
2012-09-13 10:21:21 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: digistil: His alias is Sam Bacile, but his real name is allegedly Abnob Nakoula Basseley.

Link

Nah, that's his son. Sam Bacile is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, some jackass from Los Angeles.


Thx for the follow up.
 
2012-09-13 10:21:26 AM  

thurstonxhowell: canyoneer: let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt.

Do you really need people to point out that murder is bad constantly? Is that an interesting conversation to you?


hehe you sound like me
 
2012-09-13 10:22:22 AM  

IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?


Anything to make that disastrous shiat-show of a blood libel more watchable.

// if you need a new Jesus, I know a brownish Jew with long hair and a beard...
 
2012-09-13 10:23:07 AM  

justGreg: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

No. No he isn't. If I do something stupid and offensive that pisses you off and you decide to handle it by shooting some people, then YOU are responsible for shooting those people, not me. I'm just responsible for being an asshole. Nothing more.

This whole "it was predictable that people would react like 12th century illiterate moron zealots, therefore anyone who provokes them is guilty" point of view is complete bullshiat.

/please don't go kill anyone because I have expressed a view you don't agree with


Would your view change in any way if it was revealed Iranians were behind this, as an attempt to incite hatred towards the US?
 
2012-09-13 10:23:38 AM  

SlothB77: killing someone over a movie still not justified.


I take it you've never seen an Adam Sandler movie.

Or "Ishthar."
 
2012-09-13 10:24:27 AM  

IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?



American Christians forming a lynch mob for that is as likely as American Muslims forming a lynch mob for this video. Neither are going to happen.
 
2012-09-13 10:25:33 AM  

give me doughnuts: SlothB77: killing someone over a movie still not justified.

I take it you've never seen an Adam Sandler movie.

Or "Ishthar."


Or "Jury Duty" or "Bio Dome"

/Encino Man is OK though
 
2012-09-13 10:25:35 AM  

Epoch_Zero: IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?

Likely. Do not provoke these troglodytes. They are occupied for the moment with presidenting while black, but are liable to return to bombing abortion clinics exploding patriotism all over the place.


Good analogy. This is why planned parenthood and pro-choice liberals were responsible for the death of George Tiller.

They knew that pro-life activists might react violently against abortion practitioners, yet they continued to support abortion.

/of course this isn't true. The bombers/shooters are murderers who hold sole responsibility, as do the Muslims who stormed the embassy.
 
2012-09-13 10:26:11 AM  

sammyk: I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.

/this thread needed a moltov cocktail


It doesn't matter. Freedom of speech means exactly that. They are free to make a movie to piss off Muslims as much as you are free to make a movie to piss off Republicans, Christians, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, whatever the fark you want. Fark you for wanting to put a limit to free speech.
 
2012-09-13 10:26:12 AM  
I've watched plenty of very bad films without storming out and killing people.

Although District 9 got me pretty close...
 
2012-09-13 10:27:52 AM  
The fact that people are calling for the film maker to be charged is just sick. It is disgusting that people want to limit freedom of speech just to not piss off some barbaric third world assholes. Appeasement is never a good option, assholes.
 
2012-09-13 10:27:58 AM  

SlothB77: killing someone over a movie still not justified.


I guess you never watched Caddyshack II.

/I watched half of it last night and got all hinky. Tonight, the moon better not be full
 
2012-09-13 10:28:13 AM  

xanadian: vudukungfu: this planet needs a farking intergalatic intervention.

Ya think?? I keep waiting for the mothership, but IT NEVER COMES

Kittypie070: I'm merely exercising some mild unreasonableness.

Ah yes. I forgot this was Fark.com.

;)


The mothership has been here for years:
www.xrayspx.com
 
2012-09-13 10:28:20 AM  

NickelP: xanadian: SilentStrider: Marcus Aurelius: NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.

I have a feeling that situation will not last long.

Anonymous might be able to find this guy.

I now have the weirdest boner...

/ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease...

My money is it turns out the picture of him is actually stockjew7635.jpg. i mean how many racist videos are on youtube? This one just happens to start shiat in multiple countries months after being uploaded? The entire thing seems 'off'.


MSNBC has this to say:

It said Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, claimed to have helped with logistics for the filming of "Innocence of Muslims." Nakoula said he knew "Bacile" but denied posing as him in previous interviews, the AP reported.

However, the cell phone number used by AP to originally contact "Bacile" was traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers show Nakoula's past aliases have included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.
 

The plot thickens...
 
2012-09-13 10:28:30 AM  
as much as this was an irresponsible and dickish move. Muhammad did have plural and child brides.
 
2012-09-13 10:29:12 AM  
and the film has guy who has been in some gay pron...

LINK
 
2012-09-13 10:29:35 AM  
Try watching El Padrino, you want bad.

/and I used to love Jennifer Tilly
 
2012-09-13 10:29:44 AM  
Even though the movie sucks, the Israelis who bankrolled it still got their money's worth.
 
2012-09-13 10:29:44 AM  

thurstonxhowell: canyoneer: let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt.

Do you really need people to point out that murder is bad constantly? Is that an interesting conversation to you?


What he is saying is that people shouldn't be mad at the film maker, as he just made some obscure film, which is well within his constitutional rights. He is saying be pissed at the people who actually murdered. You know, the ones responsible for the deaths
 
2012-09-13 10:29:50 AM  
Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg
 
2012-09-13 10:30:39 AM  

machoprogrammer: sammyk: I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.

/this thread needed a moltov cocktail

It doesn't matter. Freedom of speech means exactly that. They are free to make a movie to piss off Muslims as much as you are free to make a movie to piss off Republicans, Christians, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, whatever the fark you want. Fark you for wanting to put a limit to free speech.



Actually according to the SCOTUS:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

If the 'fighting words' doctrine applies here is a question for the courts, but that such a doctrine exists is part of American law.
 
2012-09-13 10:31:07 AM  

djRykoSuave: as much as this was an irresponsible and dickish move. Muhammad did have plural and child brides.


And Jesus hung out with 12 men. So what?
 
2012-09-13 10:31:11 AM  

Epoch_Zero: cchris_39: you're as clueless as the President for going around saying we're sorry we hurt your feelings.

Yeah, he never did that, but keep at that chicken my good man.


How impotent is this guy anyway? Everything is Bush's or somebody else's fault, and now he can't even control what comes out of his own State Department?

You're drunk on the koolaid.
 
2012-09-13 10:31:16 AM  

Epoch_Zero: IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?

Likely. Do not provoke these troglodytes. They are occupied for the moment with presidenting while black, but are liable to return to bombing abortion clinics exploding patriotism all over the place.


www.scorsesefilms.com

probably not
 
2012-09-13 10:31:27 AM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: digistil: His alias is Sam Bacile, but his real name is allegedly Abnob Nakoula Basseley.

Link

Nah, that's his son. Sam Bacile is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, some jackass from Los Angeles.


Ah, I see someone else already has this surrounded.

/pizza, anyone??
 
2012-09-13 10:32:57 AM  
Man, I know what that's like.

I was in a "student film" about a bunch of shirtless dudes waiting for a pizza to be delivered, then the cable to be repaired, then the pool to be cleaned. The producer told me it was a scathing indictment of how the system treats workers in a tertiary economy, and next thing I know my name is up there with a Toronto Otter Squat and a Peruvian Axe Handle in the urban dictionary.
 
2012-09-13 10:33:24 AM  

Dubwise: and the film has guy who has been in some gay pron...

LINK


I *CAN* fap to this!

*clicks*

No, no I can NOT fap to this. WTF is up with your tattoos, you moran!??
 
2012-09-13 10:33:31 AM  

canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt



If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?
 
2012-09-13 10:34:25 AM  

machoprogrammer: What he is saying is that people shouldn't be mad at the film maker, as he just made some obscure film, which is well within his constitutional rights. He is saying be pissed at the people who actually murdered. You know, the ones responsible for the deaths


Yes, and what I'm saying is people are obviously pissed at the murderers and it's ridiculous to pretend they're not. Are you all caught up now?

For the record, I think the guy who made the movie is a dickhead, but isn't responsible for the deaths.
 
2012-09-13 10:34:26 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt


If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?



Why do we have to choose?
 
2012-09-13 10:34:39 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: SlothB77: killing someone over a movie still not justified.

I guess you never watched Caddyshack II.

/I watched half of it last night and got all hinky. Tonight, the moon better not be full


You're good - Link
 
2012-09-13 10:34:40 AM  

theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg


Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.
 
2012-09-13 10:36:30 AM  

skullkrusher: [www.scorsesefilms.com image 216x277]

probably not



Wait 'till they see the scene where Jesus is stabbed with a spear and blood and water run out.

Hint: He won't get poked in the side, it's not really a spear, and it's not just water.
 
2012-09-13 10:37:09 AM  

xanadian: Dubwise: and the film has guy who has been in some gay pron...

LINK

I *CAN* fap to this!

*clicks*

No, no I can NOT fap to this. WTF is up with your tattoos, you moran!??


i don't get it myself...he looks like he would be sexy without them...
 
2012-09-13 10:37:20 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt


If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


depends. Is the scorpion one of those sentient scorpions that has an understanding of morality and ability to reason that I've been hearing so much about?
 
2012-09-13 10:37:48 AM  

give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.



lh4.ggpht.com

RPGed?
 
2012-09-13 10:38:07 AM  

give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.


I think those were Mormons. They're the ones who believed that color of skin showed whether you were sinful or not. That is until a revelation came along to save the church from being sued out of existence.
 
2012-09-13 10:38:48 AM  

cchris_39: Epoch_Zero: cchris_39: you're as clueless as the President for going around saying we're sorry we hurt your feelings.

Yeah, he never did that, but keep at that chicken my good man.

How impotent is this guy anyway? Everything is Bush's or somebody else's fault, and now he can't even control what comes out of his own State Department?

You're drunk on the koolaid.


Well, you could change the subject, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama hasn't apologized.
 
2012-09-13 10:39:39 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt


If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?
 
2012-09-13 10:40:23 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: I_C_Weener: Ad what I saw of the movie reminded me of Monty Python or SNL crossed with Left Behind quality production.

And one the guys responsible for spreading the film around is TERRY JONES.
Coincidence?


I think Jones is just a dupe here. He's just not smart enough to come up with even this level of stupidity.
 
2012-09-13 10:40:32 AM  
I wouldn't be surprised if more of these type of videos, clearly meant to insult and mock Islam and made by anti Obama groups, start popping up on YouTube just to try to stir up Muslims and to make Obama look weak going into the election.
 
2012-09-13 10:40:43 AM  

fracto: Cubicle Jockey: canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt


If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


Why do we have to choose?



You don't. I would be very surprised if you left me wholly blameless, however, which is what some people appear to be advocating is the correct reaction.
 
2012-09-13 10:40:55 AM  

Kittypie070: I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


Seriously? It's become pretty clear that at this point the movie really has nothing to do with these riots and these people were going to rampage anyway. In fact, it is started to look like this was an orchestrated mob that was planned awhile ago just to start on 9/11.

And you want to blame some actors?

You fool.
 
2012-09-13 10:41:32 AM  

fracto: give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.


[lh4.ggpht.com image 512x384]

RPGed?


Staged photo, nowhere near enough sausage at that table for an RPG

/And too many dice for "Vampire, the Masquerade"
 
2012-09-13 10:41:33 AM  

give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?



This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?
 
2012-09-13 10:41:36 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: as do the Muslims who stormed the embassy.


cdn.epicski.com
 
2012-09-13 10:41:40 AM  
bbsimg.ngfiles.com
 
2012-09-13 10:42:02 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


So, then you must agree that Salman Rushdie deserves to be killed for writing The Satanic Verses, that Parker and Stone should be prosecuted for writing The Book Of Mormon, and that Christians would have been justified in attacking British embassies worldwide after the first screening of The Life Of Brian. That's some fine thinking there, Perfesser Einstein.
 
2012-09-13 10:42:42 AM  

TommyDeuce: give me doughnuts: SlothB77: killing someone over a movie still not justified.

I take it you've never seen an Adam Sandler movie.

Or "Ishthar."

Or "Jury Duty" or "Bio Dome"

/Encino Man is OK though


The Last Airbender and Dragonball: Evolution made me want to kill myself. Do those count?
 
2012-09-13 10:43:29 AM  
So this is the movie Romney is defending? Good job protecting "American values."
 
2012-09-13 10:43:30 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: fracto: Cubicle Jockey: canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt


If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


Why do we have to choose?


You don't. I would be very surprised if you left me wholly blameless, however, which is what some people appear to be advocating is the correct reaction.


there's an aspect to it where if the person doing the provocative action has a reasonable expectation that it will elicit such a response then that person is in some way morally culpable. But it's like 2%. This isn't poking a dog with a stick. The perpetrators of the response are people and as such are 100% responsible for their actions even if they were antagonized by someone else.
 
2012-09-13 10:43:54 AM  

TommyDeuce: bigbadideasinaction: DjangoStonereaver: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

I have a theory, based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, that someone took an existing film and
redubbed it without the knowledge of the original producers, though the fact that the person purported
to be the producer doesn't seem to exist lends more credence to the theory that it was intended as a
provocation/slur from the beginning.

Who that someone would be? Somehow I can't help but think Terry Jones had a hand in it, since he was
quite vocal in his promotion of it.

My theory is a little more plausible - somewhere out there there's a guy (the name's floating around, don't want to google hunt much at work) who's already been convicted of fraud before, who all the signs are pointing to is the mythical producer of this. He pitched to investors as being a real movie, that would genuinely get people out there pissed at Islam.

He raised five million dollars from investors, made a movie (or at least enough clips to pass off as one) for $50,000 dollars (most of that is actor salaries wages and probably not even scale), and pocketed the rest.

Folks like Jones, realizing that they've been taken, show it in a single theatre with nobody there to make it "real", take enough clips to make an inflammatory clip and take what they can get from it, which his apparently the deaths of four Americans.


I approve of both bigbadideasinaction's and TommyDeuce's refinement of my own
poorly-formed theory, though given that the person implicated as the real producer does have ties
to native-Egyptian anti-Muslim organizations it leaves open the possibility that he was truly committed
to the ideological hatred the film carries.
 
2012-09-13 10:44:23 AM  

Kittypie070: I did read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


what, did they kill some cats in the video too? Don't be a dummy, kitty
 
2012-09-13 10:45:11 AM  

skullkrusher: Is the scorpion one of those sentient scorpions that has an understanding of morality and ability to reason


Blue and Orange morality is what I am afraid we are dealing with regards to both the scorpion and the protestors. The desert has twisted both of them.
 
2012-09-13 10:45:24 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: You don't. I would be very surprised if you left me wholly blameless, however, which is what some people appear to be advocating is the correct reaction.


While others are advocating killing every scorpion. Both sets of people are almost as stupid as this analogy.
 
2012-09-13 10:46:46 AM  

theteacher: djRykoSuave: as much as this was an irresponsible and dickish move. Muhammad did have plural and child brides.

And Jesus hung out with 12 men. So what?


There were hookers, so its OK.
 
2012-09-13 10:47:14 AM  
"Cast and crew of the movie that set off the protests apologize profusely"
Very nice....taking a page right out of the ol' Obama playbook, eh? Apologize profusely.
 
2012-09-13 10:50:12 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.

I think those were Mormons. They're the ones who believed that color of skin showed whether you were sinful or not. That is until a revelation came along to save the church from being sued out of existence.


Muhammad had lots of convenient "revelations." In one of them, God said he got to bang his adopted son's ex-wife.
 
2012-09-13 10:51:39 AM  
There goes the Oscar for the best foreign documentary.
 
2012-09-13 10:52:44 AM  

canyoneer: Cubicle Jockey: If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?

So, then you must agree that Salman Rushdie deserves to be killed for writing The Satanic Verses, that Parker and Stone should be prosecuted for writing The Book Of Mormon, and that Christians would have been justified in attacking British embassies worldwide after the first screening of The Life Of Brian.


Not in the slightest. Will you answer my question now?
 
2012-09-13 10:53:31 AM  
And of course the Terry Jones' of the world support it, while the Rumsfeld's of the world support the Terry Jones'...

Speaks volumes about Rummy's character. People are being given Golden Tickets to step back off supporting this movie, yet the are derping on...
 
2012-09-13 10:54:03 AM  

ongbok: I wouldn't be surprised if more of these type of videos, clearly meant to insult and mock Islam and made by anti Obama groups, start popping up on YouTube just to try to stir up Muslims and to make Obama look weak going into the election.


On the positive side, I may finally get a chance to unload these Muhammad urinal cakes.
 
2012-09-13 10:54:04 AM  
"You see, it's all a show, keep them laughing as you go
Just remember the last laugh is on you"
i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2012-09-13 10:54:32 AM  

fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?


It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.
 
2012-09-13 10:55:50 AM  

give me doughnuts: Boudica's War Tampon: give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.

I think those were Mormons. They're the ones who believed that color of skin showed whether you were sinful or not. That is until a revelation came along to save the church from being sued out of existence.

Muhammad had lots of convenient "revelations." In one of them, God said he got to bang his adopted son's ex-wife.


wow, Muhammed got to bang all sorts of women by god's command and Jesus gets crucified.
Jesus really got the short end of the stick.
 
2012-09-13 10:57:59 AM  

give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?

It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.



NOt at all. In my analogy I am saying something to make a psycho angry with predictable results. That is highly analogous to this situation. Unlike a scorpion, the psycho is capable of making his own decisions. Also unlike the man with the photo, my words would have a direct effect on the psycho's actions.
 
2012-09-13 10:58:35 AM  

skullkrusher: give me doughnuts: Boudica's War Tampon: give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.

I think those were Mormons. They're the ones who believed that color of skin showed whether you were sinful or not. That is until a revelation came along to save the church from being sued out of existence.

Muhammad had lots of convenient "revelations." In one of them, God said he got to bang his adopted son's ex-wife.

wow, Muhammed got to bang all sorts of women by god's command and Jesus gets crucified.
Jesus really got the short end of the stick.


And the long end. Hey-o!
 
2012-09-13 10:59:29 AM  

skullkrusher: give me doughnuts: Boudica's War Tampon: give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.

I think those were Mormons. They're the ones who believed that color of skin showed whether you were sinful or not. That is until a revelation came along to save the church from being sued out of existence.

Muhammad had lots of convenient "revelations." In one of them, God said he got to bang his adopted son's ex-wife.

wow, Muhammed got to bang all sorts of women by god's command and Jesus gets crucified.
Jesus really got the short end of the stick.


Well, yeah. They had to put the long end in the ground. Otherwise the whole crucifixion thing just looked silly.
 
2012-09-13 11:01:38 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: Not in the slightest. Will you answer my question now?


No, because your question was a red herring. A scorpion is a predatory arthropod animal of the order Scorpiones within the class Arachnida. Like most other arthropods, scorpions have a relatively simple central nervous system with a dorsal brain linked to a ventral nerve cord that consists of paired segmental ganglia running along the ventral midline of the thorax and abdomen. A scorpion's brain is a complex of six fused ganglia (three pairs) located dorsally within the head capsule.

IOW, comparing these protestors and attackers to a scorpion is useless and a distraction from the substance of this issue. Either you're peddling bullsh*t in support of an unsupportable argument, or you didn't think your analogy through very well. Which is it?
 
2012-09-13 11:03:06 AM  

fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?

It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.


NOt at all. In my analogy I am saying something to make a psycho angry with predictable results. That is highly analogous to this situation. Unlike a scorpion, the psycho is capable of making his own decisions. Also unlike the man with the photo, my words would have a direct effect on the psycho's actions.


Not even close.
 
2012-09-13 11:05:53 AM  

give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?

It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.


NOt at all. In my analogy I am saying something to make a psycho angry with predictable results. That is highly analogous to this situation. Unlike a scorpion, the psycho is capable of making his own decisions. Also unlike the man with the photo, my words would have a direct effect on the psycho's actions.

Not even close.



Please, describe your reasoning.
 
2012-09-13 11:07:10 AM  
The liberals seem kind of happy and satisfied that these people would prostrate themselves to the jihadis.

Proper respect?
 
2012-09-13 11:07:53 AM  

karnal: "You see, it's all a show, keep them laughing as you go
Just remember the last laugh is on you"
[i.telegraph.co.uk image 460x288]


This thread is in dire need to more of these references.

Life's a piece of shiat, when you look at it.
 
2012-09-13 11:16:13 AM  

serial_crusher: "It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago,"

Yeah, I noticed that, with the bad guys driving a hummer and carrying AK-47s.


Taking historic events and retelling them in a modern setting may be the most common movie gimmick ever.

And even if they meant for it to be set 2,000 years ago and had anachronistic AK-47s, that isn't the actors' or the crew's problem. Especially in a super low budget production.
 
2012-09-13 11:16:33 AM  

Insatiable Jesus: Even though the movie sucks, the Israelis who bankrolled it still got their money's worth.


Do you have proof of this or is this just a blood libel?
The guy who made the film was an Egyptian Coptic Christian
 
2012-09-13 11:17:43 AM  
Savages. Its a law budget 13 minutes youtube video. We need to pull our troops out of their cesspools of idiocy and let them govern themselves in the assbackwards way they want too.
 
2012-09-13 11:17:50 AM  

fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?

It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.


NOt at all. In my analogy I am saying something to make a psycho angry with predictable results. That is highly analogous to this situation. Unlike a scorpion, the psycho is capable of making his own decisions. Also unlike the man with the photo, my words would have a direct effect on the psycho's actions.

Not even close.


Please, describe your reasoning.


The psyco didn't do anything to me. He killed a random stranger.
 
2012-09-13 11:19:28 AM  

fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?

It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.


NOt at all. In my analogy I am saying something to make a psycho angry with predictable results. That is highly analogous to this situation. Unlike a scorpion, the psycho is capable of making his own decisions. Also unlike the man with the photo, my words would have a direct effect on the psycho's actions.


Bruce Stirling actually used something like this as a plot element in the SF book Distraction. Assassination by mailing list. Basically a mailing list server that sent out RE: RE: RE: type email to a not quite stable demographic, with the email making the target into a key in various (tailored to the recipient) conspiracy theories.

Of course he wrote that 13 years ago...
 
2012-09-13 11:20:28 AM  

Krieghund: serial_crusher: "It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago,"

Yeah, I noticed that, with the bad guys driving a hummer and carrying AK-47s.

Taking historic events and retelling them in a modern setting may be the most common movie gimmick ever.

And even if they meant for it to be set 2,000 years ago and had anachronistic AK-47s, that isn't the actors' or the crew's problem. Especially in a super low budget production.


Hell, Jesus Christ Superstar had tanks in it.
 
2012-09-13 11:21:32 AM  

give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: fracto: give me doughnuts: If a man 12,000 miles away holds up a picture of a scorpion stinging a foot, and you got stung that morning, are you going to kill the mailman?


This is by far one of the worst analogies I have ever heard.

If I tell a psycho that you killed his puppy, do I share any blame for what he does to you?

It still is more analogous to the situation than the original one about the scorpion in the boot. And yours is even worse.


NOt at all. In my analogy I am saying something to make a psycho angry with predictable results. That is highly analogous to this situation. Unlike a scorpion, the psycho is capable of making his own decisions. Also unlike the man with the photo, my words would have a direct effect on the psycho's actions.

Not even close.


Please, describe your reasoning.

The psyco didn't do anything to me. He killed a random stranger.



Except the stranger wasn't random. He was representing a group that had committed the perceived slight. An American issued 'fighting words' and Americans were attacked.
 
2012-09-13 11:22:46 AM  

justGreg: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

No. No he isn't. If I do something stupid and offensive that pisses you off and you decide to handle it by shooting some people, then YOU are responsible for shooting those people, not me. I'm just responsible for being an asshole. Nothing more.

This whole "it was predictable that people would react like 12th century illiterate moron zealots, therefore anyone who provokes them is guilty" point of view is complete bullshiat.


So, it was completely impossible to foresee this?

It's not right that some Muslims react with violence to their prophet being defamed. However, to pretend that you had no idea it would happen is complete bullshiat. A pedestrian has the right of way, but if you cross the a street full of fast-moving traffic and get hit, it's usually YOUR fault.

I love how Christians act morally superior, as if no Christian EVER resorts to violence "in defense of their faith." Just because they stopped OFFICIALLY killing nonbelievers doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And, when it does, we don't act as if all Christians are responsible.
 
2012-09-13 11:24:16 AM  

zedster: Insatiable Jesus: Even though the movie sucks, the Israelis who bankrolled it still got their money's worth.

Do you have proof of this or is this just a blood libel?
The guy who made the film was an Egyptian Coptic Christian


i213.photobucket.com

/obligatory
 
2012-09-13 11:24:16 AM  

Krieghund: serial_crusher: "It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago,"

Yeah, I noticed that, with the bad guys driving a hummer and carrying AK-47s.

Taking historic events and retelling them in a modern setting may be the most common movie gimmick ever.

And even if they meant for it to be set 2,000 years ago and had anachronistic AK-47s, that isn't the actors' or the crew's problem. Especially in a super low budget production.


Well, I was watching the trailer as I was writing the comment.
Evidently it starts out on the present with some angry mobs killing people in the street (hmm...) and then some scientist is trying to figure out what makes terrorists tick so he has a nice long flashback to Muhammad being a jerk, or something. His mathematical equations, Man + x = terrorist, terrorist - x = man, represent some of the most groundbreaking mathematics I've seen in a movie.
 
2012-09-13 11:24:17 AM  
Who gives a flying shiat? The movie was dumb not offensive. I'm sick of these mother fooking muslims on this mother fooking planet.

And the movie excuse is bullshiat anyhow. 9....11.....

I wish they's stop pussyfooting around, make some uniforms, grab some AKs, and let's get this thing started for real. But they won't because they are pussies.
 
2012-09-13 11:26:10 AM  
I wonder what would have happen if the internet had been around when 'Satanic Verses' came out...
 
2012-09-13 11:26:21 AM  
Welcome to your false flag, October Surprise operation, brought to you by the GOP.
 
2012-09-13 11:27:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.


The producer forced a bunch of people to riot and kill people? He must be a phenominal producer.

Responsibility lies with the rioters alone.
 
2012-09-13 11:29:26 AM  

ScouserDuck: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

The producer forced a bunch of people to riot and kill people? He must be a phenominal producer.

Responsibility lies with the rioters alone.



Inciting a riot is a crime. Those who riot are guilty of their own crimes, but the person who triggered it may be guilty of a crime as well.
 
2012-09-13 11:31:31 AM  

IrateShadow: The film was probably made by some freeper who figured he'd spit in the eye of muslims on 9/11 as a sort of petty revenge. Being a freeper, he couldn't see past the end of his own nose and the whole thing blew up far beyond what he expected and now he's keeping his farking mouth shut so that the entirety of the world doesn't come crashing down on him.


Somewhat akin to freepers' wet dreams of strewing bacon all over the White House to keep the Obampires away.
 
2012-09-13 11:32:34 AM  

stewmadness: Who gives a flying shiat? The movie was dumb not offensive. I'm sick of these mother fooking muslims on this mother fooking planet.

And the movie excuse is bullshiat anyhow. 9....11.....

I wish they's stop pussyfooting around, make some uniforms, grab some AKs, and let's get this thing started for real. But they won't because they are pussies.


Wow, that's a pretty good parody of a dick-waving, jingoistic Neanderthal banging their tiny fists in impotent rage... Well done.
 
2012-09-13 11:32:37 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?

Almost none. You'd get bill oreilly all stirred up though.

Further, if it were done by some AW in an Arab country, we wouldn't storm their embassy and kill the ambassador.


I wouldn't be so sure. We have our own versions of the Taliban, ya know, and they also have already killed Americans. I wouldn't put it past them.

machoprogrammer: The fact that people are calling for the film maker to be charged is just sick. It is disgusting that people want to limit freedom of speech just to not piss off some barbaric third world assholes. Appeasement is never a good option, assholes.


You know that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing we law geeks always say when talking about free speech limitations? This is the kind of thing that illustrates, especially considering that this guy's most likely aim was to piss off muslims and, considering the mindset of people who don't like muslims to the point that they'd do something like make this film (e.g.: Pam Gellar), they probably thought that it would end in at least one injury somewhere, so a case could actually easily be made for premeditated murder. Not an easy one, mind you; judges and juries are (in some ways thankfully, in other ways not so thankfully) very hesitant to convict someone of a crime because of something they said.
 
2012-09-13 11:36:30 AM  

fracto: Actually according to the SCOTUS:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

If the 'fighting words' doctrine applies here is a question for the courts, but that such a doctrine exists is part of American law.



Right, there are, but the movie is a far cry from "fighting words", unless the movie says to kill Muslims or something like that.
 
2012-09-13 11:36:56 AM  

TommyDeuce: Anyone else point out that Sam Bacile sounds a lot like "Some Imbecile"?

/Amanda Hugenkiss?
//Why can't I find Amanda Hugenkiss?


Jedi Master Sifo-Dyas?

/Darth Sidious?
 
2012-09-13 11:38:02 AM  

machoprogrammer: fracto: Actually according to the SCOTUS:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

If the 'fighting words' doctrine applies here is a question for the courts, but that such a doctrine exists is part of American law.


Right, there are, but the movie is a far cry from "fighting words", unless the movie says to kill Muslims or something like that.



You are thinking of self defense. Fighting words can be an insult.
 
2012-09-13 11:38:44 AM  
'Innocence of Muslims': Mystery shrouds film's California origins Link

The Men Behind 'Innocence Of Muslims' Revealed As Anti-Government Domestic Terrorists Link
 
2012-09-13 11:40:26 AM  
Karac 2012-09-13 09:40:52 AM

Kittypie070: I didn't read the article.

Apology STILL not accepted.


You don't see how dubbing in some extra dialogue here and there after the actors had gone home could change things?


DO NOT TELL ME I DID NOT READ THE FARKING ARTICLE WHEN I VERY SPECIFICALLY SAID IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT I DID INDEED *READ* THE FARKING ARTICLE.

This Romney in my ass HURTS.

I suppose I better accept their apology.

*grumble*

pfrrt
 
2012-09-13 11:44:31 AM  
What if . . . there was no producer!?

/seriously, this is beginning to look like The Cube
//no, not seriously
///but seriously
////no, not seriously
 
2012-09-13 11:45:54 AM  

canyoneer: IOW, comparing these protestors and attackers to a scorpion is useless and a distraction from the substance of this issue. Either you're peddling bullsh*t in support of an unsupportable argument, or you didn't think your analogy through very well. Which is it?



I find the protester's and attacker's motivations as alien and as predictable as the scorpions.
I do not support their actions or reasoning, which are abhorrent to me, but I recognize that they will react to certain stimuli as aggressively and as violently as the scorpion does to incoming toes.

I will agree that Fracto has the far better analogy, however.
 
2012-09-13 11:47:47 AM  

Kittypie070: *grumble*

pfrrt


Way to empty the thread.

// nothing worse than a cat fart
 
2012-09-13 11:48:53 AM  

canyoneer: Cubicle Jockey: Not in the slightest. Will you answer my question now?

No, because your question was a red herring. A scorpion is a predatory arthropod animal of the order Scorpiones within the class Arachnida. Like most other arthropods, scorpions have a relatively simple central nervous system with a dorsal brain linked to a ventral nerve cord that consists of paired segmental ganglia running along the ventral midline of the thorax and abdomen. A scorpion's brain is a complex of six fused ganglia (three pairs) located dorsally within the head capsule.

IOW, comparing these protestors and attackers to a scorpion is useless and a distraction from the substance of this issue. Either you're peddling bullsh*t in support of an unsupportable argument, or you didn't think your analogy through very well. Which is it?


Both the response of the Scorpion and the Muslim fundies is/was completely predictable. You are avoiding the heart of the analogy so you can ignore a valid question becuase you don't like the answer.
 
2012-09-13 11:52:28 AM  

stewmadness: Who gives a flying shiat? The movie was dumb not offensive. I'm sick of these mother fooking muslims on this mother fooking planet.

And the movie excuse is bullshiat anyhow. 9....11.....

I wish they's stop pussyfooting around, make some uniforms, grab some AKs, and let's get this thing started for real. But they won't because they are pussies.


Much like yourself, right? I mean, you'd have either enlisted to fight there, or flown there at your own expense to go shoot up people if you weren't a pussy, right?
 
2012-09-13 11:52:51 AM  
OK, I've officially accepted their apology.

Romney, GET OUTTA MY ASS.

/ow
 
2012-09-13 11:53:06 AM  
Man, the conservatives here are really hateful people.
 
2012-09-13 11:56:07 AM  

Kittypie070: I suppose I better accept their apology.

*grumble*

pfrrt


That non-acceptance sounded like a non-apology....
 
2012-09-13 11:56:48 AM  

Kittypie070: OK, I've officially accepted their apology.

Romney, GET OUTTA MY ASS.

/ow

/too slow
[tiny fist shaken etc]

 
2012-09-13 11:57:20 AM  

Epoch_Zero: canyoneer: The response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the musical [The Book Of Mormon] has been described as "measured".[45] The church released an official response to inquiries regarding the musical, stating, "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

Morsi's Weeners [to the embassy attack] didn't come until yesterday afternoon. Even then, in statements read by his spokesman and released on his official Facebook page, he did not condemn the breach of the embassy. Instead, he denounced the obscure anti-Islam film, produced by Coptic and evangelical Christians, that sparked the protests when it was publicized by Egyptian media, called for the filmmakers to be prosecuted, and said Egypt supports peaceful protests. He directed the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take "all possible legal action" against those who produced the film.

Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt. The Fark response shown here is stunning in its idiocy. Really, this fellow in California should "apologize" for exercizing his 1st Amendment rights because in doing so he angered some mouth-breathers on the other side of the planet? Wow.

Nice to know you condone the instigation of deadly riots.


Here is a good analogy of ths situation. This "clown real estate developer from California" is the equivalent of that one friend who every time you are out tries to pick a fight with others by running his mouth then tries to drag you in it. Oh and in this case the person who was talked smack to by your friend snapped and killed four people who had nothing to do with it.

Would you defend this friend's "freedom of speech"? I sure as hell wouldn't.
 
2012-09-13 11:57:23 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: IrateShadow: Generation_D: Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.

If I spliced together video from the Passion of the Christ and some gay porn and then redubbed it into something coherent, how likely is it that there would be lynch mobs out for me in the South and Midwest?

Almost none. You'd get bill oreilly all stirred up though.

Further, if it were done by some AW in an Arab country, we wouldn't storm their embassy and kill the ambassador.


The redneck fundies here in the US have no clue where Libya's or Iran's embassy is in the US. Frankly, I'm not even sure Iran has an embassy in the US. Nor Afghanistan nor Pakistan.
 
2012-09-13 11:58:07 AM  

Coelacanth: 'Innocence of Muslims': Mystery shrouds film's California origins Link

The Men Behind 'Innocence Of Muslims' Revealed As Anti-Government Domestic Terrorists Link


If that addictinginfo article is true, then this would be textbook incitement to violence and the free speech defense just left the building for them.

machoprogrammer: fracto: Actually according to the SCOTUS:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

If the 'fighting words' doctrine applies here is a question for the courts, but that such a doctrine exists is part of American law.


Right, there are, but the movie is a far cry from "fighting words", unless the movie says to kill Muslims or something like that.


That's not what "fighting words" means. If, for example, I were to call the virgin Mary a whore, and Jesus a bastard with trisomy 21 who couldn't even feed himself, much less a whole crowd. (or some other exceedingly insulting phrases), I wouldn't exactly be protected by free speech, especially if it could be proven that my intent was to get you to commit assault. That's what fighting words are.
 
2012-09-13 11:58:32 AM  

friday13: You know that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing we law geeks always say when talking about free speech limitations? This is the kind of thing that illustrates, especially considering that this guy's most likely aim was to piss off muslims and, considering the mindset of people who don't like muslims to the point that they'd do something like make this film (e.g.: Pam Gellar), they probably thought that it would end in at least one injury somewhere, so a case could actually easily be made for premeditated murder. Not an easy one, mind you; judges and juries are (in some ways thankfully, in other ways not so thankfully) very hesitant to convict someone of a crime because of something they said.


I don't know that you could make much of a case. The "fire in a movie theater" scenario involves reflexive reaction of self preservation. I would say this situation would be more like a black guy going into a known KKK friendly bar and yelling "where the white women at". And yeah, I do think extremist Muslims are just as despicable as the KKK.
 
2012-09-13 12:02:40 PM  

Coelacanth: 'Innocence of Muslims': Mystery shrouds film's California origins Link

The Men Behind 'Innocence Of Muslims' Revealed As Anti-Government Domestic Terrorists Link


Wow. "Stochastic terrorism" is pretty good phrasing.
 
2012-09-13 12:03:03 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: I find the protester's and attacker's motivations as alien and as predictable as the scorpions. I do not support their actions or reasoning, which are abhorrent to me, but I recognize that they will react to certain stimuli as aggressively and as violently as the scorpion does to incoming toes. I will agree that Fracto has the far better analogy, however.


So you agree with fracto that these protestors, motivated by a stupid low-budget movie made by some random guy, are in essence criminally-insane psychopaths? OK, I suppose that analogy is better, but it begs the question: What does society do with criminally-insane psychopaths? Does society allow them to roam the streets and warn everyone not to provoke them in the hope that violent incidents will thus be avoided, or does society lock them away in rubber rooms in straightjackets and jack them up with heavy doses of thorazine?

fracto is making the argument that devout Muslims of this sort are criminally-insane, and presumably you agree with it. But then you aver that the proper response to criminally-insane psychopaths is to seduously avoid provoking them. Let me just say that such a suggestion is ridiculous, even child-like. You and fracto evidently think society should accomodate the insane in an effort to appease this lowest common denominator. If that's how you think, that's your business, but it's just a stupid, cowardly point of view.
 
2012-09-13 12:05:17 PM  

friday13: You know that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing we law geeks always say when talking about free speech limitations? This is the kind of thing that illustrates, especially considering that this guy's most likely aim was to piss off muslims and, considering the mindset of people who don't like muslims to the point that they'd do something like make this film (e.g.: Pam Gellar), they probably thought that it would end in at least one injury somewhere, so a case could actually easily be made for premeditated murder. Not an easy one, mind you; judges and juries are (in some ways thankfully, in other ways not so thankfully) very hesitant to convict someone of a crime because of something they said.


So what you are saying that if Joe Redneck is a militant Christian, and he goes into a Fark religion thread and the Fark atheists piss him off enough to kill some random atheist, they are responsible? I don't think that applies.

Are you a lawyer? Because even with my GED in law I seem to doubt you are.
 
2012-09-13 12:05:24 PM  
Al Qaeda produced the movie. They're laughing hysterically at Terry Jones right now.
 
2012-09-13 12:05:50 PM  

fonebone77: friday13: You know that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing we law geeks always say when talking about free speech limitations? This is the kind of thing that illustrates, especially considering that this guy's most likely aim was to piss off muslims and, considering the mindset of people who don't like muslims to the point that they'd do something like make this film (e.g.: Pam Gellar), they probably thought that it would end in at least one injury somewhere, so a case could actually easily be made for premeditated murder. Not an easy one, mind you; judges and juries are (in some ways thankfully, in other ways not so thankfully) very hesitant to convict someone of a crime because of something they said.

I don't know that you could make much of a case. The "fire in a movie theater" scenario involves reflexive reaction of self preservation. I would say this situation would be more like a black guy going into a known KKK friendly bar and yelling "where the white women at". And yeah, I do think extremist Muslims are just as despicable as the KKK.


The problem with that is that the guy who made the movie wasn't the guy who got killed. It's more as if a supposedly neutral dude went to the KKK and said that some black dude somewhere said "where the white women at?" at some bar, and so the KKK attacks the local NAACP chapter in retaliation.
 
2012-09-13 12:05:52 PM  

Dubwise: and the film has guy who has been in some gay pron...

LINK


And when a gay porn star says "many questions were asked regarding absurdity of lines and situations," you just know something's seriously, seriously wrong.
 
2012-09-13 12:06:37 PM  

canyoneer: Cubicle Jockey: I find the protester's and attacker's motivations as alien and as predictable as the scorpions. I do not support their actions or reasoning, which are abhorrent to me, but I recognize that they will react to certain stimuli as aggressively and as violently as the scorpion does to incoming toes. I will agree that Fracto has the far better analogy, however.

So you agree with fracto that these protestors, motivated by a stupid low-budget movie made by some random guy, are in essence criminally-insane psychopaths? OK, I suppose that analogy is better, but it begs the question: What does society do with criminally-insane psychopaths? Does society allow them to roam the streets and warn everyone not to provoke them in the hope that violent incidents will thus be avoided, or does society lock them away in rubber rooms in straightjackets and jack them up with heavy doses of thorazine?

fracto is making the argument that devout Muslims of this sort are criminally-insane, and presumably you agree with it. But then you aver that the proper response to criminally-insane psychopaths is to seduously avoid provoking them. Let me just say that such a suggestion is ridiculous, even child-like. You and fracto evidently think society should accomodate the insane in an effort to appease this lowest common denominator. If that's how you think, that's your business, but it's just a stupid, cowardly point of view.



You are drawing a false conclusion about what do to with psycho's. They should be contained and punished for their actions. I also believe that anyone who knowingly provokes the insane to do violence should also be punished for their actions. This isn't an either or situation. Punish all the assholes who break the law in proportion to their crime.
 
2012-09-13 12:08:51 PM  

canyoneer: Cubicle Jockey: I find the protester's and attacker's motivations as alien and as predictable as the scorpions. I do not support their actions or reasoning, which are abhorrent to me, but I recognize that they will react to certain stimuli as aggressively and as violently as the scorpion does to incoming toes. I will agree that Fracto has the far better analogy, however.

So you agree with fracto that these protestors, motivated by a stupid low-budget movie made by some random guy, are in essence criminally-insane psychopaths? OK, I suppose that analogy is better, but it begs the question: What does society do with criminally-insane psychopaths? Does society allow them to roam the streets and warn everyone not to provoke them in the hope that violent incidents will thus be avoided, or does society lock them away in rubber rooms in straightjackets and jack them up with heavy doses of thorazine?

fracto is making the argument that devout Muslims of this sort are criminally-insane, and presumably you agree with it. But then you aver that the proper response to criminally-insane psychopaths is to seduously avoid provoking them. Let me just say that such a suggestion is ridiculous, even child-like. You and fracto evidently think society should accomodate the insane in an effort to appease this lowest common denominator. If that's how you think, that's your business, but it's just a stupid, cowardly point of view.


So your point is that we should lock up the criminally insane despite the fact that we don't have the authority to do that in the nation in which they live, and that we should do so preemptively, before we know that they're criminally insane? Genius. Why didn't 0 think of that?
 
2012-09-13 12:08:56 PM  

NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.


This whole thing smells like it was cooked up by some Israeli psyop guys. Combine that with inexplicably poor timing on Romney's part and it's almost like he was supposed to coordinate with the violence the Israelis were ginning up, but instead he royally screwed up and now looks like a jackass, with the whole think exploding in his face.

I bet Romney wanted to be like Reagan, coordinating with the Israelis to score points off of the violence and embarass Obama just like Reagan coordinated with the Iranians to postpone the hostage release until after Carter was out of office. The Israelis would have done it in order to get a pro-Iran war candidate into office, since they can't handle Iran on their own. It will be interesting to see just what sort of dirty info eventually comes out of this whole situation.
 
2012-09-13 12:09:55 PM  

machoprogrammer: friday13: You know that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing we law geeks always say when talking about free speech limitations? This is the kind of thing that illustrates, especially considering that this guy's most likely aim was to piss off muslims and, considering the mindset of people who don't like muslims to the point that they'd do something like make this film (e.g.: Pam Gellar), they probably thought that it would end in at least one injury somewhere, so a case could actually easily be made for premeditated murder. Not an easy one, mind you; judges and juries are (in some ways thankfully, in other ways not so thankfully) very hesitant to convict someone of a crime because of something they said.

So what you are saying that if Joe Redneck is a militant Christian, and he goes into a Fark religion thread and the Fark atheists piss him off enough to kill some random atheist, they are responsible? I don't think that applies.

Are you a lawyer? Because even with my GED in law I seem to doubt you are.


You're right, I'm not. Intent, however, is a pretty important factor. If it could be proven that this moran's intent was to start a riot, your fark thread analogy falls apart; there's no such intent (to my knowledge) on fark. There's a difference between being insulting and being insulting in an attempt to cause someone else physical or economical harm. And again, that wouldn't be an easy case to prove, but it could still be made.
 
2012-09-13 12:10:26 PM  

alizeran: [i47.tinypic.com image 644x382]

Is he doing the Arab equivalent of Blackface?
 
2012-09-13 12:10:43 PM  

stewmadness: Who gives a flying shiat? The movie was dumb not offensive. I'm sick of these mother fooking muslims on this mother fooking planet.

And the movie excuse is bullshiat anyhow. 9....11.....

I wish they's stop pussyfooting around, make some uniforms, grab some AKs, and let's get this thing started for real. But they won't because they are pussies.


So we should commit genocide on groups whose extreme members kill people?

Thus, we should commit genocide on:
Christian fundamentalists
Batman fans
and, of course, Right wingers in general.
 
2012-09-13 12:11:33 PM  

canyoneer: racto is making the argument that devout Muslims of this sort are criminally-insane, and presumably you agree with it. But then you aver that the proper response to criminally-insane psychopaths is to seduously avoid provoking them. Let me just say that such a suggestion is ridiculous, even child-like. You and fracto evidently think society should accomodate the insane in an effort to appease this lowest common denominator. If that's how you think, that's your business, but it's just a stupid, cowardly point of view.


Because everyone knows the best way to put out a grease fire is to throw a bucket of water on it.
 
2012-09-13 12:11:54 PM  
Nobody is arguing for "accommodating" Al-Qaeda, who at the moment seem to be responsible for these killings. They just used the protest as a cover for the attack.

If you need to lie like that, you got nuthin'. Just like your boy Romney.
 
2012-09-13 12:15:54 PM  

friday13: The problem with that is that the guy who made the movie wasn't the guy who got killed. It's more as if a supposedly neutral dude went to the KKK and said that some black dude somewhere said "where the white women at?" at some bar, and so the KKK attacks the local NAACP chapter in retaliation.


Its still entirely the fault of the KKK. Its unreasonable premeditated action based on a relatively innocuous previous action. The response of panic and potential of injury in a movie theater isn't a premeditated response. Its just people trying to save their own butts. If the KKK people started running around yelling "where the darkie women at" or something, that would at least be a measured response and covered equally under free speech. Don't get me wrong, whoever edited this movie is a total piece of crap. I hope they identify him so he can have all the public ridicule and venom he can stand for the rest of his, or her, or their lives. Heck, I wouldn't be sad if he offed himself because he thinks everyone hates him. I just don't think there is any legal recourse that isn't an attack on freedom of speech, civil or criminal.
 
2012-09-13 12:17:33 PM  

Zeno-25: NickelP: Marcus Aurelius: Has the producer been outed yet? Because he's the asshole responsible.

He doesnt exist literally. He was identified by name and supposedly an isreali living in California. Both California and Israel say they have no record of him and have no idea who he is.

This whole thing smells like it was cooked up by some Israeli psyop guys. Combine that with inexplicably poor timing on Romney's part and it's almost like he was supposed to coordinate with the violence the Israelis were ginning up, but instead he royally screwed up and now looks like a jackass, with the whole think exploding in his face.

I bet Romney wanted to be like Reagan, coordinating with the Israelis to score points off of the violence and embarass Obama just like Reagan coordinated with the Iranians to postpone the hostage release until after Carter was out of office. The Israelis would have done it in order to get a pro-Iran war candidate into office, since they can't handle Iran on their own. It will be interesting to see just what sort of dirty info eventually comes out of this whole situation.


We won't hear anything, except maybe the names of a few patsies. The whole thing reeks of electioneering with possible foreign ties. You would think the conservitards would want to know who is pulling the strings, but Once again the lone moron theory will be used to explain everything.
 
2012-09-13 12:18:12 PM  

fonebone77: I just don't think there is any legal recourse that isn't an attack on freedom of speech, civil or criminal.



If his intent was to provoke a violent reaction then he isn't protected by the first amendment.
 
2012-09-13 12:23:30 PM  

beta_plus: Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin.


Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
 
2012-09-13 12:24:05 PM  

fracto: You are drawing a false conclusion about what do to with psycho's. They should be contained and punished for their actions. I also believe that anyone who knowingly provokes the insane to do violence should also be punished for their actions. This isn't an either or situation. Punish all the assholes who break the law in proportion to their crime.


So, you would argue that women should not be allowed to wear mini-dresses, because rapists might be provoked to rape by the sight of women wearing mini-dresses. Just so, American citizens should not be allowed to exercize their 1st amendment rights, because doing so might provoke religious zealots to violence. Your argument is inane.
 
2012-09-13 12:25:01 PM  

kapaso: We won't hear anything, except maybe the names of a few patsies.


Godspeed, Anonymous. You're the only hope.
 
2012-09-13 12:25:53 PM  

Zeno-25: This whole thing smells like it was cooked up by some Israeli psyop guys. Combine that with inexplicably poor timing on Romney's part and it's almost like he was supposed to coordinate with the violence the Israelis were ginning up, but instead he royally screwed up and now looks like a jackass, with the whole think exploding in his face.

I bet Romney wanted to be like Reagan, coordinating with the Israelis to score points off of the violence and embarass Obama just like Reagan coordinated with the Iranians to postpone the hostage release until after Carter was out of office. The Israelis would have done it in order to get a pro-Iran war candidate into office, since they can't handle Iran on their own. It will be interesting to see just what sort of dirty info eventually comes out of this whole situation.


This whole thing sounds like it was cooked up by Satan. Combine that with inexplicably poor timing on Romney's part and it's almost like he was supposed to coordinate with the violence the heathen Muslims were ginning up, but instead he royally screwed up and now looks like a jackass, with the whole thing exploding in his face.

I bet Romney wanted to be like The Morning Star, coordinating with the fellow heavenly hosts to score points off of the violence and embarass Obama just like The Morning Star coordinated with the heavenly hosts to overthrow heaven and turn it into paradise. The Morning Star would have done it in order to get a pro-war candidate into office, since they can't start one on their own. It will be interesting to see just what sort of dirty info eventually comes out of this whole situation.

// if Israel wanted war with Iran - even a US-led one - there are plenty of less Rube Goldberg-y ways to do it than relying on Mitt "How do I Foreign Policy" Romney.
 
2012-09-13 12:26:00 PM  

canyoneer: fracto: You are drawing a false conclusion about what do to with psycho's. They should be contained and punished for their actions. I also believe that anyone who knowingly provokes the insane to do violence should also be punished for their actions. This isn't an either or situation. Punish all the assholes who break the law in proportion to their crime.

So, you would argue that women should not be allowed to wear mini-dresses, because rapists might be provoked to rape by the sight of women wearing mini-dresses. Just so, American citizens should not be allowed to exercize their 1st amendment rights, because doing so might provoke religious zealots to violence. Your argument is inane.


Do women wear mini-dresses with the intent of provoking rapists? No? Then that's not the same situation.
 
2012-09-13 12:27:36 PM  

canyoneer: fracto: You are drawing a false conclusion about what do to with psycho's. They should be contained and punished for their actions. I also believe that anyone who knowingly provokes the insane to do violence should also be punished for their actions. This isn't an either or situation. Punish all the assholes who break the law in proportion to their crime.

So, you would argue that women should not be allowed to wear mini-dresses, because rapists might be provoked to rape by the sight of women wearing mini-dresses. Just so, American citizens should not be allowed to exercize their 1st amendment rights, because doing so might provoke religious zealots to violence. Your argument is inane.



You should look into 'fighting words'. It is an established legal precedent and you aren't very good at analogies. Start here and find out what the supreme court has to say about it.
 
2012-09-13 12:29:54 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Zeno-25: This whole thing smells like it was cooked up by some Israeli psyop guys. Combine that with inexplicably poor timing on Romney's part and it's almost like he was supposed to coordinate with the violence the Israelis were ginning up, but instead he royally screwed up and now looks like a jackass, with the whole think exploding in his face.

I bet Romney wanted to be like Reagan, coordinating with the Israelis to score points off of the violence and embarass Obama just like Reagan coordinated with the Iranians to postpone the hostage release until after Carter was out of office. The Israelis would have done it in order to get a pro-Iran war candidate into office, since they can't handle Iran on their own. It will be interesting to see just what sort of dirty info eventually comes out of this whole situation.

This whole thing sounds like it was cooked up by Satan. Blah blah blah blah. I bet Romney wanted to be like The Morning Star, coordinating with the fellow heavenly hosts to score points off of the violence and embarass Obama just like The Morning Star coordinated with the heavenly hosts to overthrow heaven and turn it into paradise. The Morning Star would have done it in order to get a pro-war candidate into office, since they can't start one on their own. Blah blah blah blah blah.


Satan =/= Lucifer, aka Venus. 3/10
 
2012-09-13 12:30:54 PM  

Coelacanth: 'Innocence of Muslims': Mystery shrouds film's California origins Link

The Men Behind 'Innocence Of Muslims' Revealed As Anti-Government Domestic Terrorists Link


Wow. That's crazy. Kind of ingenious if it's true, though: essentially use your enemy to attack your enemy. This should be a fun news cycle if or when that hits the mainstream. If it goes any deeper than this, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a complete meltdown amongst the Fox News crowd. A Christian Patriot™ sets in motion a chain of events that results in riots and dead American diplomats... Jesus.
 
Bf+
2012-09-13 12:32:22 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Kittypie070: Apology NOT accepted.

Why not? Did you click through to the gawker article? They're actors and tech folks. They did a production of a low-budget movie called Desert Warriors - this is a film person's normal bread & butter. The Christian production company decided to change things up in post and make the film into something else by dubbing over the lines to their message of hate. Why is that the fault of the actor whose work was farked with after the fact?



Yeah, but did you see the how terrible the acting was?
Reminds me of the riots after Star Wars Episode I was released.
 
2012-09-13 12:35:02 PM  
So a "film" with production values that make Star Wars fan films look like Avatar is responsible for pissing off "the Muslim world"1 before the west even knows it exists? Seriously? It's like ordering a nuclear strike on a house that has one annoying fruit fly that mostly stays in a shoe that's in the closet of one room.

1 A few ideologically farked up nutjobs with nothing but time on their hands, nothing to lose and no one of any consequence to oppose them
 
2012-09-13 12:37:04 PM  

canyoneer: So, you would argue that women should not be allowed to wear mini-dresses, because rapists might be provoked to rape


I... wow. Just ...wow.

You know, i don't often agree with you politically, but You're smarter than this, I know it. This is one of the stupidest things I have seen you type in a long time

Because fighting words really do provoke violence, and mini-skirts do not provoke rape.
 
2012-09-13 12:37:27 PM  

canyoneer: fracto: You are drawing a false conclusion about what do to with psycho's. They should be contained and punished for their actions. I also believe that anyone who knowingly provokes the insane to do violence should also be punished for their actions. This isn't an either or situation. Punish all the assholes who break the law in proportion to their crime.

So, you would argue that women should not be allowed to wear mini-dresses, because rapists might be provoked to rape by the sight of women wearing mini-dresses. Just so, American citizens should not be allowed to exercize their 1st amendment rights, because doing so might provoke religious zealots to violence. Your argument is inane.


For someone who likes to pick apart analogies yours are very bottom rung.

With freedom of speech comes responsibility, you seem to want all of the former with none of the latter. I'm sure a clever enough person could incite the Muslim fundies into murder over and over, you believe that a person who does such a thing is protected?

No, the film looks like it was intentionally made to set off a riot or worse. I'm sure the patriot act will cover this type of thing as far as the law goes. Whether Obama has the stones to use it is the only question.
 
2012-09-13 12:40:19 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: canyoneer: Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt


If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


Who's the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?
 
2012-09-13 12:41:05 PM  

kapaso: No, the film looks like it was intentionally made to set off a riot or worse. I'm sure the patriot act will cover this type of thing as far as the law goes.



A supreme court decision from 70 years ago covers this, 'fighting words' aren't protected speech. Though if it were to get infront of the current court I doubt it would stand.
 
2012-09-13 12:42:09 PM  

Zeff: Seriously? It's like ordering a nuclear strike on a house that has one annoying fruit fly that mostly stays in a shoe that's in the closet of one room.


If only Christian fundamentalists were that willing to live and let live. Unfortunately, they do not "stay in their shoe" so to speak, and it's a moral imperative of their religion to convert others. They can't believe that any other faith is okay. (And I use "can't" two ways - are incapable of believing it, and are not allowed to believe it.)

Meanwhile, the Islamic fundies don't just make bad films and burn books - they farking kill people over an insult to their religion.

I still wonder why anyone in this day and age thinks of religion as a force for good in the world.
 
2012-09-13 12:45:22 PM  

machoprogrammer: thurstonxhowell: canyoneer: let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt.

Do you really need people to point out that murder is bad constantly? Is that an interesting conversation to you?

What he is saying is that people shouldn't be mad at the film maker, as he just made some obscure film, which is well within his constitutional rights. He is saying be pissed at the people who actually murdered. You know, the ones responsible for the deaths


I choose to be pssed off at both. This isn't a sides issue. The intent of this move was to piss off people prone to violence. I wouldn't be surpirsed if this was made by the Mossad to get Americans killed so we would back them in Iran.
 
2012-09-13 12:45:28 PM  
This is what happens when people have nothing to do and spill out into the street and run amok because the government doesn't have enough infrastructure to provide everyone with electricity for air conditioning and video games. Wake up America! This could happen to you!

/legalize it
//Vote Romney
///Free Tibet
 
2012-09-13 12:47:23 PM  

fracto: You should look into 'fighting words'. It is an established legal precedent and you aren't very good at analogies. Start here and find out what the supreme court has to say about it.


So you are proposing that American citizens be banned from insulting Muslims or Islam in any way, correct? After all, Muslims are rather touchy about any perceived slight to their ruddy mumbo-jumbo or the religious nutbag who dreamed it all up 1,400 years ago, and God forbid we trample on their prickly sensitivities. But it would still be OK to insult Christians, Mormons, Jews, or Zoroastrians, one presumes...after all, The Book Of Mormon is highly-successful and rather amusing. What about Shinto? Should we make an exception for Shinto, too? And let's be clear about this: You are proposing Americans should lose their 1st Amendment rights in case exercizing them might offend foreigners, isn't that right? Seriously, you should regale us all with your intricate and voluminous rules and regulations regarding politically-correct speech - it would make fascinating reading. I can't wait to get to the chapter on "Native Americans."
 
2012-09-13 12:49:01 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Wow. That's crazy. Kind of ingenious if it's true, though: essentially use your enemy to attack your enemy. This should be a fun news cycle if or when that hits the mainstream. If it goes any deeper than this, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a complete meltdown amongst the Fox News crowd. A Christian Patriot™ sets in motion a chain of events that results in riots and dead American diplomats... Jesus.


I'm kind of hoping that some of you guys spread the word. Or the very least stop fighting with each other. God, it's like a shark attack and some of the farkers here are cheering for the f'n sharks.
 
2012-09-13 12:50:36 PM  

canyoneer: fracto: You should look into 'fighting words'. It is an established legal precedent and you aren't very good at analogies. Start here and find out what the supreme court has to say about it.

So you are proposing that American citizens be banned from insulting Muslims or Islam in any way, correct? After all, Muslims are rather touchy about any perceived slight to their ruddy mumbo-jumbo or the religious nutbag who dreamed it all up 1,400 years ago, and God forbid we trample on their prickly sensitivities. But it would still be OK to insult Christians, Mormons, Jews, or Zoroastrians, one presumes...after all, The Book Of Mormon is highly-successful and rather amusing. What about Shinto? Should we make an exception for Shinto, too? And let's be clear about this: You are proposing Americans should lose their 1st Amendment rights in case exercizing them might offend foreigners, isn't that right? Seriously, you should regale us all with your intricate and voluminous rules and regulations regarding politically-correct speech - it would make fascinating reading. I can't wait to get to the chapter on "Native Americans."



You didn't read up on the 'fighting words' doctrine. That is why you dont understand the point. If you did read and still don't understand it, then do more research. Clearly you don't get it.
 
2012-09-13 12:56:38 PM  

SineSwiper: I'm going to keep posting this until it sticks:

[iranpoliticsclub.net image 600x458]


That's true. Of course that's true.

But look: bees shouldn't sting people either. It's not good for anybody - not me, not the bees. But if you go poking sticks in bee hives, which will do nothing to reduce the prevalence or stingy-ness of bees, and aforementioned bees go off and sting some children, it's not particularly helpful to say, "well, bees shouldn't go around stinging people." True enough, but you're still an asshole.
 
2012-09-13 12:57:37 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: If I put a scorpion in your boot, are you going to be more angry at me or at the scorpion when it stings you?


So muslims are animals that know nothing other than stinging?
 
2012-09-13 12:58:13 PM  

fracto: kapaso: No, the film looks like it was intentionally made to set off a riot or worse. I'm sure the patriot act will cover this type of thing as far as the law goes.


A supreme court decision from 70 years ago covers this, 'fighting words' aren't protected speech. Though if it were to get infront of the current court I doubt it would stand.


From what I've read with a little imagination the patriot act could be used to prosecute anyone for almost anything. Although that is just a laymens view.

If it cant be used on someone who is basically controlling a terrorist organization I would be surprised.
 
2012-09-13 01:01:54 PM  

canyoneer: So you are proposing that American citizens be banned from insulting Muslims or Islam in any way, correct?


If the intent of the insult is to incite violence, maybe. You can call Mohammad a dickhead all you want, but promoting a film calling him a pedophile all over the Middle East is an attempt to incite violence.

canyoneer: Americans should lose their 1st Amendment rights in case exercizing them might offend foreigners


No. You could trigger a violent outburst in which Americans and foreigners die. Kind of like the event that triggered this discussion. Remember that?

I'm not sure where I stand on the "should it be illegal?" issue, but you're oversimplifying this in a way that is very annoying. I was leaning toward "no", but the more you keep talking the more I tip the other direction.
 
2012-09-13 01:06:13 PM  

fracto: You should look into 'fighting words'. It is an established legal precedent and you aren't very good at analogies.


Fighting words are said to somebody's face, and covers attacks on the person who said them. this is nothing like that.

You islamist bootlicker.
 
2012-09-13 01:06:35 PM  

Coelacanth: I'm kind of hoping that some of you guys spread the word. Or the very least stop fighting with each other. God, it's like a shark attack and some of the farkers here are cheering for the f'n sharks.


I'll give it a shot...

THIS MOVIE WAS CREATED AND PROMOTED FOR ONE REASON:

TO INFLAME ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS INTO ATTACKING AMERICAN INTERESTS,
WEAKENING THE STATE FOR AN EVENTUAL CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY!

 
2012-09-13 01:07:25 PM  

beta_plus: Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin.


I hope you are kidding

thurstonxhowell: No. You could trigger a violent outburst in which Americans and foreigners die. Kind of like the event that triggered this discussion. Remember that?

I'm not sure where I stand on the "should it be illegal?" issue, but you're oversimplifying this in a way that is very annoying. I was leaning toward "no", but the more you keep talking the more I tip the other direction.


You should always "error" on the side of freedom. Suppressing freedom of speech, no matter the speech, leads to bad things
 
2012-09-13 01:09:43 PM  

liam76: fracto: You should look into 'fighting words'. It is an established legal precedent and you aren't very good at analogies.

Fighting words are said to somebody's face, and covers attacks on the person who said them. this is nothing like that.

You islamist bootlicker.



How is calling these murderers 'psychos who should be brought to justice' bootlicking? And could your cite your opinion on the legal limits of the 'fighting words" doctrine?
 
2012-09-13 01:10:54 PM  

thurstonxhowell: If the intent of the insult is to incite violence, maybe. You can call Mohammad a dickhead all you want, but promoting a film calling him a pedophile all over the Middle East is an attempt to incite violence


Who is promoting it all over the ME?

Remember the danish cartoons? You know who was showing them all voer the ME? Muslims religious leaders.

thurstonxhowell: I'm not sure where I stand on the "should it be illegal?" issue, but you're oversimplifying this in a way that is very annoying.


It is simple. You either support the right of americans to make movies or speeches that muslim fanatics find offensive or you don't.

If you want to have the 1st take a backseat to the sensibilities of nutjobs, fine that is your perogative, but don't pretend you are doing so and believe in the 1st.
 
2012-09-13 01:14:28 PM  

Generation_D: sammyk: I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.

/this thread needed a moltov cocktail

Sometimes I think the real answer would be every man woman and child making anti-islamic videos at home and uploading everything at once. Flood the earth with it. Mass mockery on a scale never seen in history. You want croissants, we got croissants right here punks.

Its scary to think thats all the 8th century goat herder contingent needs to start shooting. Someone called their deity a name.


Or, you know, the past decade-plus of America sticking their dick in the ME, causing mass civilian casualties, accidentally propping up Al Quida and the Taliban in the course of this, and propping up Israel, the ME's armed frat boy, for decades before that.

But yeah. This is all over one insulting film.

keylock71: That sucks... It's bad enough these folks had to take jobs in low-budget shiat like this to make a living, but to then find out the film was used as a catalyst for the deaths of several Americans?

No wonder the asshole that made this shiat is in hiding. I imagine there's quite a few folks who'd like to see him strung up by balls from the nearest lamp post.


THIS. I worked in theater tech for a while, and even if it's not my career, I can completely see them getting screwed over this way. Those poor guys.

/The producers need a good ass-kicking.
 
2012-09-13 01:15:40 PM  

liam76: It is simple. You either support the right of americans to make movies or speeches that muslim fanatics find offensive or you don't.

If you want to have the 1st take a backseat to the sensibilities of nutjobs, fine that is your perogative, but don't pretend you are doing so and believe in the 1st.



Either American law should be followed or not. Don't pretend to be a valiant defender of America while advocating we ignore our own laws.
 
2012-09-13 01:17:45 PM  

fracto: You didn't read up on the 'fighting words' doctrine. That is why you dont understand the point. If you did read and still don't understand it, then do more research. Clearly you don't get it.


No, you don't get it. If any speech that may provoke violence from mobs of devout Muslims is categorized as "fighting words," then The Satanic Verses (which some people like you at the time of its publishing called "gratuitous provokation") would be banned. One presumes many history textbooks would have to be vetted for any mention of any inconvenient fact or theory which might provoke the righteous rage of these religious zealots. And I presume you would include the Danish Muhammad cartoons in your "fighting words." After all, these cartoons - even without insulting Muhammed - (and that is the contention here by some, that this movie constitutes a gratuitous provokation) provoked hundreds of violent protests leading to the deaths of more than 100 people and even bombings.

It's interesting to note that the Danish government never backed down. Meanwhile, here we have Americans caving in to foreign barbarians on free speech. It's pathetic.
 
2012-09-13 01:17:52 PM  

fracto: How is calling these murderers 'psychos who should be brought to justice' bootlicking?


Because you cited "fighting words" laws in their defence. That is excusing their action.

fracto: And could your cite your opinion on the legal limits of the 'fighting words" doctrine?



From Chaplinskyv New Hampshire "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Filming a movie doesn;t fall into that definition.
 
2012-09-13 01:19:19 PM  
I, too, blame the person that made the film. There is no right to artistically express your opinion if I disagree with your opinion. I am in support of the rioters.

/Am I doing this right?
 
2012-09-13 01:22:22 PM  

fracto: Either American law should be followed or not. Don't pretend to be a valiant defender of America while advocating we ignore our own laws


What laws am I saying we should ignore?

I can't think of a case in the last 50 years that ok'ed revoking or punishing for speech becasue of "fighting words" (even if a flim was covered by that). Didn't stop WBC (which was far more in your face) and it didn't work in RAV. vs City of St.Paul. Youa re allowed to use words and say things that are offensive to even to specific racial or religuious groups.
 
2012-09-13 01:25:27 PM  

liam76: fracto: How is calling these murderers 'psychos who should be brought to justice' bootlicking?

Because you cited "fighting words" laws in their defence. That is excusing their action.

fracto: And could your cite your opinion on the legal limits of the 'fighting words" doctrine?

From Chaplinskyv New Hampshire "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Filming a movie doesn;t fall into that definition.



Saying someone else broke the law doesn't excuse them from breaking the law. If you hired a hitman who killed someone, saying you caused a death doesn't mean the hitman isn't a murderer. This isn't an either or situation. Multiple people can have committed various crimes.

That is a lovely opinion, but do you have any legal precedent saying that something being recorded and played back later cannot fall under the fighting words doctrine?
 
2012-09-13 01:35:50 PM  
So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels.upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-13 01:36:27 PM  
Let's not do anything that might make fundamentalist Muslims get pissed off. We don't want to offend them or they'll get all murdery, you know.
 
2012-09-13 01:41:03 PM  

fracto: Saying someone else broke the law doesn't excuse them from breaking the law. If you hired a hitman who killed someone, saying you caused a death doesn't mean the hitman isn't a murderer. This isn't an either or situation. Multiple people can have committed various crimes.


THE MOVIE MAKERS DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW!

You trying to pretend that they broke the law is a defence of the nutjobs.

You are in effect saying they are right that somebody should be punished for making the movie. You may not agree with how they acted, but in principle you are agreeing wiht their intepretation of free speech. You islamist boot licker


fracto: That is a lovely opinion, but do you have any legal precedent saying that something being recorded and played back later cannot fall under the fighting words doctrine


Doesn't work that way. You need the precedent showing that it can fall under fighting words.

And using RAV. vs City of St.Paul saying a guy was a rapist is protected, even if that guy is Mo.
 
2012-09-13 01:41:59 PM  

thurstonxhowell: So your point is that we should lock up the criminally insane despite the fact that we don't have the authority to do that in the nation in which they live, and that we should do so preemptively, before we know that they're criminally insane? Genius. Why didn't 0 think of that?


Since we don't have the authority to lock them up, we should adopt their laws and customs and start punishing our own citizens for blasphemy. Otherwise, they might get mad and act criminally insane. Notice I said "act" criminally insane--I certainly would not defame them with such a charge without due process. Unless, of course, the concept of due process also offends them; then we should adopt sharia law as well.
 
2012-09-13 01:43:35 PM  
Derp Brigade #1 spews schitt about Derp Brigade #2. Derp Brigade #2 rampages, kills and burns in order to prove Derp Brigade #1 wrong.

Must be a day that ends in Y.

/"A plague o' both your houses!" -- W.S.
 
2012-09-13 01:47:15 PM  

liam76: Doesn't work that way. You need the precedent showing that it can fall under fighting words.



"fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
If the movie maker intended to cause breach of peace then they are covered. Since neither you nor I are judges in a courtroom we don't get to make the determination of what the law holds. I think the movie maker should be charged and the legal system should be allowed to decide this.

Even if he is guilty, his actions wouldn't excuse the actions of the rioters. His actions are on him, their actions are on them. I haven't seen anyone say they are innocent. Drop that strawman.
 
2012-09-13 01:50:28 PM  

fracto: If the movie maker intended to cause breach of peace then they are covered. Since neither you nor I are judges in a courtroom we don't get to make the determination of what the law holds. I think the movie maker should be charged and the legal system should be allowed to decide this.


"We should charge him with something based on no evidence, and hope a judge agrees with us" is not how the legal system works.
 
2012-09-13 01:56:40 PM  

sprawl15: fracto: If the movie maker intended to cause breach of peace then they are covered. Since neither you nor I are judges in a courtroom we don't get to make the determination of what the law holds. I think the movie maker should be charged and the legal system should be allowed to decide this.

"We should charge him with something based on no evidence, and hope a judge agrees with us" is not how the legal system works.



There is plenty of evidence that this film incited violence, not least of which are the dead Americans. The only thing in question is the intent of the film. That is a determination best left to the courts.
 
2012-09-13 02:00:02 PM  
This movie was clearly edited by production or post-production to be as inflammatory to Muslims as possible. That's a lot of money to spend to make the statement, "See how uncivilized these savages are!?!" Except perhaps, in the arena of politics. There, $50,000 to make a simple statement is a bargain.

So, who had a motive and stands to gain politically from all of this? The timing is a little too conveniently timed with 9/11 to be a convenience. All things considered, I suspect Romney. It potentially provides a win/ win for him. He gets to provide criticism in both directions on this.
 
2012-09-13 02:01:46 PM  
Sounds like perfect timing for the Dems to take away our freedom of speech.
 
2012-09-13 02:03:32 PM  
Story and picture of the producer/writer/director of the film Link
 
2012-09-13 02:04:57 PM  

fracto: There is plenty of evidence that this film incited violence, not least of which are the dead Americans. The only thing in question is the intent of the film. That is a determination best left to the courts.


But what evidence is there that the film maker intended for it to incite violence? Just because something incites violence doesn't mean jack shiat as to its intent. Hell, people playing Call of Duty have incited violence; that doesn't mean they intended for it to.

You cannot charge someone with no evidence. And even if he intended to piss off the Muslims, that still doesn't mean there was intent to incite violence.

What evidence do you have he intended to incite violence?
 
2012-09-13 02:11:23 PM  

machoprogrammer: What evidence do you have he intended to incite violence?


Look at the link directly above what you wrote and then try to say this a-hole's intent isn't perfectly clear.
 
2012-09-13 02:11:48 PM  
CAMELTOE


This movie was clearly edited by production or post-production to be as inflammatory to Muslims as possible. That's a lot of money to spend to make the statement, "See how uncivilized these savages are!?!" Except perhaps, in the arena of politics. There, $50,000 to make a simple statement is a bargain.

So, who had a motive and stands to gain politically from all of this? The timing is a little too conveniently timed with 9/11 to be a convenience. All things considered, I suspect Romney. It potentially provides a win/ win for him. He gets to provide criticism in both directions on this.


Amazing that all the Democrats are circling their wagons around and railing against the movie and the film maker. Sure - they are all sympathetic about the innocents that have died at the hands these muslim terrorists - but the outrage is against the movie and the director.
 
2012-09-13 02:13:00 PM  

fracto: liam76: Doesn't work that way. You need the precedent showing that it can fall under fighting words.


"fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
If the movie maker intended to cause breach of peace then they are covered. Since neither you nor I are judges in a courtroom we don't get to make the determination of what the law holds. I think the movie maker should be charged and the legal system should be allowed to decide this.


Not good with reading comprehension are you, my little islamist bootlicker.


fracto: Even if he is guilty, his actions wouldn't excuse the actions of the rioters. His actions are on him, their actions are on them. I haven't seen anyone say they are innocent. Drop that strawman


I didn't say you said anyone was innocent. The point is you agree with the islamists belief that what he did should be illegal.
 
2012-09-13 02:15:35 PM  

Coelacanth: Story and picture of the producer/writer/director of the film Link


What a farking maniac.
 
2012-09-13 02:16:17 PM  

liam76: The point is you agree with the islamists belief that what he did should be illegal.



My argument was never about should be legal, it was about what is legal.
 
2012-09-13 02:18:26 PM  

fracto: liam76: Doesn't work that way. You need the precedent showing that it can fall under fighting words.


"fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
If the movie maker intended to cause breach of peace then they are covered. Since neither you nor I are judges in a courtroom we don't get to make the determination of what the law holds. I think the movie maker should be charged and the legal system should be allowed to decide this.

Even if he is guilty, his actions wouldn't excuse the actions of the rioters. His actions are on him, their actions are on them. I haven't seen anyone say they are innocent. Drop that strawman.


I hope the online diploma mill that gave you a law degree also told you that SCOTUS has not upheld a single conviction based on the fighting words doctrine in the ensuing 70 years from its inception and that State Courts usually invoke it to excuse police brutality.
 
2012-09-13 02:20:15 PM  

fracto: The only thing in question is the intent of the film. That is a determination best left to the courts.


"We should charge him with something based on no evidence, and hope a judge agrees with us" is not how the legal system works.
 
2012-09-13 02:22:21 PM  

fracto: liam76: The point is you agree with the islamists belief that what he did should be illegal.


My argument was never about should be legal, it was about what is legal.


And you seem to think that movie is illegal just liek your buddies, way to go islamist boot looker!
 
2012-09-13 02:31:25 PM  
So this was a crappy D-movie of the type that used to get the MST3K treatment. But this time it was dubbed over by Christian extremists to piss off Muslims (and maybe try to throw the upcoming U.S. presidential election)

i154.photobucket.com 

The people storming the embassies are violent idiots probably brainwashed by radical imams (who would benefit from having a Republican president in office) but the people who dubbed and cut this into anti Muslim propaganda are also assholes.
 
2012-09-13 02:34:07 PM  

Egalitarian: So this was a crappy D-movie of the type that used to get the MST3K treatment. But this time it was dubbed over by Christian extremists to piss off Muslims (and maybe try to throw the upcoming U.S. presidential election)

[i154.photobucket.com image 500x353] 

The people storming the embassies are violent idiots probably brainwashed by radical imams (who would benefit from having a Republican president in office) but the people who dubbed and cut this into anti Muslim propaganda are also assholes.


Now I want to see Mitchell redubbed as anti-Islamic propaganda.
 
2012-09-13 02:35:47 PM  
18 USC Sec. 2101

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any
facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not
limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television,
with intent -
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry
on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in
or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in
furtherance of a riot;

Well, YouTube should fit the "any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television"

Hopefully some evidence will come to light to fulfill the 'intent' requirement.
 
2012-09-13 02:45:57 PM  

karnal: Amazing that all the Democrats are circling their wagons around and railing against the movie and the film maker. Sure - they are all sympathetic about the innocents that have died at the hands these muslim terrorists - but the outrage is against the movie and the director.


I almost missed this gem. True, they are out against the movie and director. How often does that happen? I don't recall them coming out against certain art displays inflammatory towards christians. For them to criticize the movie's maker is about as politically productive as Todd Akin's comments regarding "legitimate rape". The movie was meant to anger Muslims, with the clear foreknowledge that radical elements hold great power to cause grief over there. Still, there is no way to know that there would be violence over this unless you've also got contacts within the radical network as well.
 
2012-09-13 02:49:29 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I don't recall them coming out against certain art displays inflammatory towards christians.


Depends who you mean by "them". I recall that nearly every couch in DC had a politician - Democrat and Republican - fainting on or near it in the wake of Piss Christ.

// do you not know that there are lots and lots of religious Democrats, or is that only convenient in the Prop 8 argument?
 
2012-09-13 03:05:45 PM  

machoprogrammer: sammyk: I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.
/this thread needed a moltov cocktail
It doesn't matter. Freedom of speech means exactly that. They are free to make a movie to piss off Muslims as much as you are free to make a movie to piss off Republicans, Christians, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, whatever the fark you want. Fark you for wanting to put a limit to free speech.


The movie was in extremely poor taste, and designed to piss off Muslims. I get a little tired of people throwing around that "free speech!" line all the time as an excuse to be as offensive as they possibly can. It's the same thing as doing something very unsavory, then defending it by saying, "But it wasn't illegal!" Maybe not, but YOU knew it was wrong.

There's a world of things that can be done that are don't break laws whatsoever, but anybody with any farking sense knows they shouldn't do. People who have to keep breaking out that "free speech" and "it's not against the law" bullshiat have just admitted that they're scum, but haha, I didn't break any laws, so you can't do anything!.  But we still know you're scum.

/disclaimer: "You" means people, not machoprogrammer specifically
//I get in trouble for that a lot
 
2012-09-13 03:09:38 PM  
I see the conspiracy theories are falling short of the mark here today. The movie was actually made and overdubbed by an Al Qaeda sympathizer posing as an Egyptian Copt using the cover of an Israeli name to inflame islamist sentiment in the Maghrib so as to spark demonstrations in order to poison relations between the U.S. and regional countries so the money would get turned off so economic turmoil would bring in hard-line islamist governments so they could organize a human wave attack on Israel and kill all teh Joos once and for all. You guys just aren't reading between the lines hard enough.
 
2012-09-13 03:15:34 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Depends who you mean by "them". I recall that nearly every couch in DC had a politician - Democrat and Republican - fainting on or near it in the wake of Piss Christ.


Okay. Maybe I just didn't watch enough news programs and talk shows. At the time, the only people I heard making a big stink over it were conservatives. Now, mind you, I really don't care, one way or the other, as I am an Atheist. But I do note, the party that makes a big fuss over christian issues is always the Republican party. Hell, the Democrats at the DNC just tried to shout down a movement just to mention god and Jerusalem in their platform. Which, incidentally, I agree with. Religious fundamentalism belongs nowhere near a supposedly objective government.

Still, this whole mess stinks of christian rabble-rousing.
 
2012-09-13 03:20:49 PM  

canyoneer: I see the conspiracy theories are falling short of the mark here today. The movie was actually made and overdubbed by an Al Qaeda sympathizer posing as an Egyptian Copt using the cover of an Israeli name to inflame islamist sentiment in the Maghrib so as to spark demonstrations in order to poison relations between the U.S. and regional countries so the money would get turned off so economic turmoil would bring in hard-line islamist governments so they could organize a human wave attack on Israel and kill all teh Joos once and for all. You guys just aren't reading between the lines hard enough.


The reality's actually weirder. The movie was produced by a white, Christian separatist who believes that the United States is an illegal, oppressive government, that it's God's will that it should be overthrown and rebuilt as a Christian theocracy. He produced the movie to inflame anti-American sentiment and violent reprisals abroad, which would therefore weaken the United States and leave it vulnerable by takeover by him and his fanatical Christian soldiers who have been training at their compound for years to fight back against the inevitable, final war between Islam and Christianity.

/I wish I was making that up
 
2012-09-13 03:24:57 PM  

HAMMERTOE: is about as politically productive as Todd Akin's comments regarding "legitimate rape".


i45.tinypic.com


O Rly?  It's hard to imagine this would beat that

/Or perhaps you meant as Akin's comments were productive for the GOP
 
2012-09-13 03:29:52 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: The reality's actually weirder. The movie was produced by a white, Christian separatist who believes that the United States is an illegal, oppressive government, that it's God's will that it should be overthrown and rebuilt as a Christian theocracy. He produced the movie to inflame anti-American sentiment and violent reprisals abroad, which would therefore weaken the United States and leave it vulnerable by takeover by him and his fanatical Christian soldiers who have been training at their compound for years to fight back against the inevitable, final war between Islam and Christianity.
/I wish I was making that up


The whole thing gets weirder and weirder.

But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve Klein, told AP on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that he was Christian.
Klein had told the AP on Tuesday that the filmmaker was an Israeli Jew who was concerned for family members who live in Egypt.
Officials in Israel said there was no record of Bacile as an Israeli citizen.
Klein said he didn't know the real name of the man he called "Sam," who came to him for advice on First Amendment issues.
Klein told the AP that he vowed to help make the movie but warned the filmmaker that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.


So they knew people would probably get killed, but they made it anyway, because FIRST AMENDMENT. Then changed their names, went into hiding, and watched it happen. How very daring and brave of them.
 
2012-09-13 03:31:39 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Dr Dreidel: Depends who you mean by "them". I recall that nearly every couch in DC had a politician - Democrat and Republican - fainting on or near it in the wake of Piss Christ.

Okay. Maybe I just didn't watch enough news programs and talk shows. At the time, the only people I heard making a big stink over it were conservatives. Now, mind you, I really don't care, one way or the other, as I am an Atheist. But I do note, the party that makes a big fuss over christian issues is always the Republican party. Hell, the Democrats at the DNC just tried to shout down a movement just to mention god and Jerusalem in their platform. Which, incidentally, I agree with. Religious fundamentalism belongs nowhere near a supposedly objective government.

Still, this whole mess stinks of christian rabble-rousing.


You don't say. There's also a healthy dose of anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic (depending on how it's viewed; could also be both) sentiment in there - "produced by an Jewish Israeli-American!" is sure to get the Muslims all riled up on top of "anti-Islamic film produced in America!".

The whole video controversy appears to be trollish eye-poking by a bunch of people to scared to go to Libya and say "You're all a bunch of murderous, heathen, animalistic Belgian farkwads who can't take an outsider's criticism without going completely nuclear." They're too scared to even give their real names, lest the violence find its way to THEIR doorstep - better let some (probably atheist) diplomats and civilians and Marines and random Libyans stand in harm's way than possibly get some dust on their shoes.
 
2012-09-13 03:35:08 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: 18 USC Sec. 2101

(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any
facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not
limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television,
with intent -
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry
on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in
or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in
furtherance of a riot;

Well, YouTube should fit the "any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television"

Hopefully some evidence will come to light to fulfill the 'intent' requirement.


You should read Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 where SCOTUS talks about punishing inflammatory speech. That case revolved around Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute that was used to go after a KKK rally - SCOTUS sided with the KKK.

Without getting into too much detail, the speech has to incite "imminent lawless action" before it can be criminalized. IOW, "I think shooting cops is a good idea" is safe, but telling a mob with guns "I think you should shoot all the cops tonight" is criminalized. There's more nuance to it than that, but given that this was released 4 months ago and the riots were just this week, I don't think you could call that "imminent" under the law.

He's still an asshole, of course.
 
2012-09-13 03:39:32 PM  

cryinoutloud: So they knew people would probably get killed, but they made it anyway, because FIRST AMENDMENT. Then changed their names, went into hiding, and watched it happen. How very daring and brave of them.


Klein's the actual guy behind the movie, it turns out. He and Sam Bacile, (whose real name I can't remember) also a convicted fraudster and not an Israeli, paired up over their hatred of Islam to make the worst film ever conceived, then had it translated into Arabic and found some lackeys to promote it. Good times all around.
 
2012-09-13 03:40:53 PM  
we need to appease the muslims at all costs. they get angry and kill. so shut up and don't say anything mean about them.

oh, and hide under your bed too.
 
2012-09-13 03:42:45 PM  

Wooly Bully: orclover: Cletus C.: "Now we have people dead because of a movie I was in. It makes me sick."

If only Jodie Foster had shown similar remorse.

I'd like to show her my remorse.

If you're a Penis-American I'm afraid she wouldn't be interested.


Well that definitely killed his chances.
 
2012-09-13 03:50:14 PM  

hourheroyes: skullkrusher: give me doughnuts: Boudica's War Tampon: give me doughnuts: theteacher: Christians are good people who never harm anyone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Klan-in-gaine sville.jpg/250px-Klan-in-gainesville.jpg

Yes, I remember when they RPGed the Ambassador fom Yemen for being flagrantly non-White and non-Christian.

I think those were Mormons. They're the ones who believed that color of skin showed whether you were sinful or not. That is until a revelation came along to save the church from being sued out of existence.

Muhammad had lots of convenient "revelations." In one of them, God said he got to bang his adopted son's ex-wife.

wow, Muhammed got to bang all sorts of women by god's command and Jesus gets crucified.
Jesus really got the short end of the stick.

And the long end. Hey-o!


How rood!
 
2012-09-13 03:55:56 PM  

biyaaatci: I have the feeling that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have played a role in the production.


Then you're not a very smart person.
 
2012-09-13 03:56:32 PM  

colon_pow: we need to appease the muslims at all costs. they get angry and kill. so shut up and don't say anything mean about them.
oh, and hide under your bed too.


I live in this amalgamation of other humans sometimes called "society" or "civilization" or "my town" or whatever. Now, I don't do a lot of things to piss others off, because I don't want to, but most of us tend to be like me--we try to get along with others. It's the unspoken agreement we all made when we moved into places close to other humans. Pain in the ass, I know, and I farking hate people, but still--I don't go out of my way to offend others. It's easier, and you know what, I like not having other people pissed off at me constantly.

But it's not a law. You can pretend to yourself that you're above it all, or somehow serving a higher purpose, or imparting important truths, or whatever you'd like to. But if you TRY to go out of your way to break the social contract, then you already know there will be consequences for it, just as sure as you know you're a human being. That's your choice. It's just too bad that someone else had to pay for their foolishness.
 
2012-09-13 04:01:26 PM  

phyrkrakr: You should read Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 where SCOTUS talks about punishing inflammatory speech. That case revolved around Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute that was used to go after a KKK rally - SCOTUS sided with the KKK.

Without getting into too much detail, the speech has to incite "imminent lawless action" before it can be criminalized. IOW, "I think shooting cops is a good idea" is safe, but telling a mob with guns "I think you should shoot all the cops tonight" is criminalized. There's more nuance to it than that, but given that this was released 4 months ago and the riots were just this week, I don't think you could call that "imminent" under the law.

He's still an asshole, of course.



I was thinking more of a smoking gun like "You know, if we put this out on the web just before 9/11, we can get something impressively violent to happen"

Brandenburg was also more about and abstract ADVOCACY of violence. Its also not the same sort of fighting words as ones issued intentionally to provoke an angry response toward an alleged speaker. "You momma wears army boots" is not an advocacy of violence, but might be intended to start a fight.
 
2012-09-13 04:11:53 PM  
I just recall the anger and senseless violence from the Mormon community when Trey Parkers' musical The Book of Mormon came out....and the backlash that Trey and Matt faced from it. I believe they are still in hiding.
 
2012-09-13 04:14:54 PM  
I just recall the anger and senseless violence from the Christian community when Kevin Smith's movie Dogma came out....and the backlash Kevin faced from it. I believe he is still in hiding.
 
2012-09-13 04:18:43 PM  
I just recall the anger and senseless violence from the of Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormon communities when Bill Maher's movie Religulous came out....and the backlash poor Bill faced from it. May he rest in peace!
 
2012-09-13 04:21:37 PM  

biyaaatci: I have the feeling that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have played a role in the production.


Actually, it turns out the LDS may be flaming-marching-in-a-Pride-parade-with-a-red-thong-with-a-gold-lame-h ammer-and-sickle levels of Far Left in comparison to the assholes behind this.

One of the perps behind it, one Steve Klein, is has been on the SPLC's radar since early 2012 due to his VERY close partnerships with "Christian Patriot" groups trying to start terrorist cells in Moslem-majority countries and even got a direct "shout out" from the Army of God domestic terrorist network. In fact, one of the churches he's been a long-time liason with has been trying to set up terrorist cells to launch a holy war against Moslems worldwide.

(Yes, Steve Klein has been on the radar of anti-dominionist groups for a good long while, and on the radar of reproductive-rights groups since the early 2000s when his group Courageous Christians United started protesting the homes of OB/GYNs who provided abortion services--an Army of God-linked anti-reproductive-health group even proudly advertised it on their website before it was taken down, and the Wayback Machine still has it archived. Of note--the particular provider has a name indicating a Middle Eastern origin.)

It also seems that Media for Christ (the media company linked to the film) has a satellite "godcasting" company offering televangelism in Arabic and English...including, interestingly enough, a separate English-language site offering podcasts including (yeah, here's a big shocker) Steve Klein's own program.

Incidentially--it also turns out Klein's group doesn't much like Mormons (or anyone else who isn't a Christian Reconstructionist neo-Confederate). I managed to find the website for "Courageous Christians United" (Klein's group) and one of their big things is targeting LDS members for sheep-stealing.

I hate to have had some initial suspicions of mine proven right...but by God, I think the Talibangelicals may just well have deliberately tried to start a holy war and had a certain amount of success with it :(

/seriously, WHEN will the government consider religionationalst extremism--ANY religionationalist extremism--as the gravest of national security threats in the present era?
//No, you don't get a pass if you're a hatemongering terrorist asshole, no matter if you're wearing a cross or a crescent or even a magen David (and no, I don't mean the kosher wine).
 
2012-09-13 04:31:36 PM  

Great Porn Dragon: I hate to have had some initial suspicions of mine proven right...but by God, I think the Talibangelicals may just well have deliberately tried to start a holy war and had a certain amount of success with it :(


That's the terrifying thing. A bunch of religious morons nearly fell ass-backwards into exactly the situation they wanted to cause (and it's not over yet). It would be hilarious were the implications not so frightening.
 
2012-09-13 04:37:30 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Great Porn Dragon: I hate to have had some initial suspicions of mine proven right...but by God, I think the Talibangelicals may just well have deliberately tried to start a holy war and had a certain amount of success with it :(

That's the terrifying thing. A bunch of religious morons nearly fell ass-backwards into exactly the situation they wanted to cause (and it's not over yet). It would be hilarious were the implications not so frightening.


I've been trying to warn people for decades about this (grew up in a hate group that only got recognised as a hate group last year--and the org that listed them has taken an immense amount of shiat over it) and some days I really feel like I'm pissing in the wind :(

I really, really, really really hate being proven right about this shiat :( (Also pretty much called it with the OKC bombing and the Olympic Park bombing, among other things. This is not the first time I've called it, sadly. :()
 
2012-09-13 04:41:33 PM  

cryinoutloud: machoprogrammer: sammyk: I am a supporter of the 1st amendment. But this whole film seems criminal to me. It is the equivelant of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's obvious there was never any intention to create something with artistic value. This film was created with the sole purpose of inflaming the muslim world. The end result is an international incident that has caused the deaths of 4 people so far.
/this thread needed a moltov cocktail
It doesn't matter. Freedom of speech means exactly that. They are free to make a movie to piss off Muslims as much as you are free to make a movie to piss off Republicans, Christians, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, whatever the fark you want. Fark you for wanting to put a limit to free speech.

The movie was in extremely poor taste, and designed to piss off Muslims. I get a little tired of people throwing around that "free speech!" line all the time as an excuse to be as offensive as they possibly can. It's the same thing as doing something very unsavory, then defending it by saying, "But it wasn't illegal!" Maybe not, but YOU knew it was wrong.

There's a world of things that can be done that are don't break laws whatsoever, but anybody with any farking sense knows they shouldn't do. People who have to keep breaking out that "free speech" and "it's not against the law" bullshiat have just admitted that they're scum, but haha, I didn't break any laws, so you can't do anything!.  But we still know you're scum.

/disclaimer: "You" means people, not machoprogrammer specifically
//I get in trouble for that a lot


Oh I agree, he is a dipshiat, but I would rather he is allowed to be a dipshiat like he was than him not allowed to be. Freedom of speech means you'll have dipshiats like him, but it is worth it.

Wooly Bully: machoprogrammer: What evidence do you have he intended to incite violence?

Look at the link directly above what you wrote and then try to say this a-hole's intent isn't perfectly clear.


His intent was to piss off Muslims, but his intent was not to lead to people dying. And like others have said, since it was 4 months ago that it was released, it doesn't lead to "imminent lawless action" since 4 months is not imminent. As much of an asshole that he is, it is perfectly his right to do what he did. Just as it is your right to call him an asshole.
 
2012-09-13 05:20:53 PM  

sprawl15: fracto: If the movie maker intended to cause breach of peace then they are covered. Since neither you nor I are judges in a courtroom we don't get to make the determination of what the law holds. I think the movie maker should be charged and the legal system should be allowed to decide this.

"We should charge him with something based on no evidence, and hope a judge agrees with us" is not how the legal system works.


Mike Nifong is not amused by your shenanigans.
 
2012-09-13 05:32:38 PM  
...
Why does this matter?
The video did not attack embassies or kill people.

I really don't like the direction this stuff is heading.
 
2012-09-13 06:07:23 PM  
I think it's pretty awful they tricked people who had no idea what they were making a movie about into this, putting them in danger, while the people who actually dubbed in the lines about Muhammad and Muslims hid their faces like cowards.
 
2012-09-13 06:25:16 PM  

Zombie DJ: biyaaatci: I have the feeling that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may have played a role in the production.

Then you're not a very smart person.


I'm going to leave that one alone. I apologize for not completing my thought. I simply felt that the production values mimicked this masterpiece

It was a bad, and somewhat indecipherable joke, and for that I apologize.
 
2012-09-13 06:37:09 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Great Porn Dragon: I hate to have had some initial suspicions of mine proven right...but by God, I think the Talibangelicals may just well have deliberately tried to start a holy war and had a certain amount of success with it :(

That's the terrifying thing. A bunch of religious morons nearly fell ass-backwards into exactly the situation they wanted to cause (and it's not over yet). It would be hilarious were the implications not so frightening.


When it comes to religious tolerance, these guys are the lowest of the low. But in other areas, they are frighteningly clever and cunning.
 
2012-09-13 06:43:01 PM  

canyoneer: The response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the musical [The Book Of Mormon] has been described as "measured".[45] The church released an official response to inquiries regarding the musical, stating, "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."

Morsi's Weeners [to the embassy attack] didn't come until yesterday afternoon. Even then, in statements read by his spokesman and released on his official Facebook page, he did not condemn the breach of the embassy. Instead, he denounced the obscure anti-Islam film, produced by Coptic and evangelical Christians, that sparked the protests when it was publicized by Egyptian media, called for the filmmakers to be prosecuted, and said Egypt supports peaceful protests. He directed the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take "all possible legal action" against those who produced the film.

Yes, let's all direct our righteous indignation at some clown real estate developer from California for making an obscure little movie that insults the reputation of a nomadic religious zealot who lived one thousand three hundred eighty years ago, rather than observing that superstitious barbarians who engage in violence because of the existence of such a movie are f*cked up anachronistic throwbacks who deserve nothing but contempt. The Fark response shown here is stunning in its idiocy. Really, this fellow in California should "apologize" for exercizing his 1st Amendment rights because in doing so he angered some mouth-breathers on the other side of the planet? Wow.


You're now highlighted as "Reasonable and Informed"
 
2012-09-13 06:57:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The whole video controversy appears to be trollish eye-poking by a bunch of people to scared to go to Libya and say "You're all a bunch of murderous, heathen, animalistic Belgian farkwads who can't take an outsider's criticism without going completely nuclear."


Have you no sense of decency, Senator?
 
2012-09-13 07:32:26 PM  
It's the Christians' fault that hard line Muslims killed Americans.
 
2012-09-13 08:07:51 PM  
Wow, that "movie" is really, really bad.
How lame is your religion if that dreck causes your god to take offense?

Also, Budget: Allegedly $5,000,000?
 
2012-09-13 08:20:52 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Kittypie070: Apology NOT accepted.

Why not? Did you click through to the gawker article? They're actors and tech folks. They did a production of a low-budget movie called Desert Warriors - this is a film person's normal bread & butter. The Christian production company decided to change things up in post and make the film into something else by dubbing over the lines to their message of hate. Why is that the fault of the actor whose work was farked with after the fact?


Yeah, this. I read this story elsewhere, and wonder if there is any clause in the actors' contract that lets them go after the "producer" for these shananigans.

Or failing that, just a good ol'fashion libel, slander, or tort suit?

I sure would not want my name used or my work overdubbed with a message of hate.
 
2012-09-13 09:22:31 PM  
The only way to let this reactionary response burn out is to overwhelm the Internet, theaters and airwaves with the most vile, insulting, depraved content all focused on their prophet 24/7 365

This will lead necessarily to some burned out buildings but in the end the crazies will die of apoplexy, be driven insane or be immune as a result of the overload

I'm still not clear why I'm not first assistant to the deputy chief of the CIA
 
2012-09-14 12:52:01 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I am Jack's total lack of surprise. It's a Christian production company - why would anyone be surprised that a Christian enterprise of any kind would be liars and cheats?


"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.

"Master George." Just like in ancient Egypt.

You gotta be kidding me.


"Master George" is the most potentially alarming thing that jumped out of the article for me. I think it's a likely indication that the ultimate project was known to be sufficiently objectionable by the cast and crew. "Master George" is more than an easy lip sync for "Muhammed" dubbing... it's too good.
 
2012-09-14 12:53:17 AM  
Yeah. I don't buy it.
 
2012-09-14 02:16:19 AM  
I'd be begging for my life as well since they all have a death sentence.
 
2012-09-14 08:54:43 AM  

Rich Cream: [www.salem-news.com image 350x259]


Please tell me where I can find the video of a red head nailing a stuffed monkey to a cross. That is sooo Penn Jillette.
 
2012-09-14 09:10:58 AM  

wildcardjack: Rich Cream: [www.salem-news.com image 350x259]

Please tell me where I can find the video of a red head nailing a stuffed monkey to a cross. That is sooo Penn Jillette.



OK, but try not to burn any embassies.

http://www.metatube.com/en/videos/57123/Israeli-TV-Makes-Fun-of-Jesu s- Christ-Crucifixion-Subtitled/
 
Displayed 309 of 309 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report