provoking Islam - DPChallenge Forums

09/14/2012 02:14:13 PM · #101

Nobody is going to defend the violence that is happening. However, I can likely point out your revulsion stems largely from the fact you think getting uptight over a depiction of the Prophet is silly. We can see this if we changed the situation around. Instead of making a film showing Muhammed converting a donkey twelve Muslims are lined up and shot because they are Muslim. The exact same response we are currently witnessing occurs. Would we be more understanding?

You (Cory) believe in a relative moral code. We must remember that the depiction of Muhammed is serious stuff for them (but not for us). If you truly hold a relativistic system you have given up your ability to pass judgement on the validity of such a position. You can only say you personally think it is invalid. There is a defined difference between the two stances and the latter is on much weaker ground than the former as far as having the power to effect a change.

09/14/2012 02:28:20 PM · #102

The sad part is that both of the major actors in this drama are getting what they want. The fools who made this horrid little movie are now famous, and have incited a reaction in the Arab world that is exactly what they hoped for. Those to the extreme end of the Muslim Brotherhood also get what they want, they get to blame the US as authors of defamation of their prophet, to rally the faithful to their flag to riot and destroy. Ignorance and anger are powerful tools .The only people who lose are those who are trying to find a middle ground, to make life better for the average person.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/14/2012 02:42:59 PM · #103

We probably need to bring in yet another religion and preach the truth of "the middle path".

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

09/14/2012 02:46:45 PM · #104

Anyone can create a religion, the hard part is getting people to follow it.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/14/2012 02:47:51 PM · #105

I know I go on a murderous rampage whenever somebody blasphemes Don Cherry !

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/14/2012 03:12:38 PM · #106

You have been lead astray Slippy, for the true prophet is Don Cherry!

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/14/2012 03:50:34 PM · #107

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

Anyone can create a religion, the hard part is getting people to follow it.

L. Ron Hubbard made it look pretty easy.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/14/2012 03:56:04 PM · #108

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Anyone can create a religion, the hard part is getting people to follow it.

L. Ron Hubbard made it look pretty easy.

He practiced by writing science fiction "first" ...

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

09/14/2012 04:04:13 PM · #109

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Anyone can create a religion, the hard part is getting people to follow it.

L. Ron Hubbard made it look pretty easy.

He practiced by writing science fiction "first" ...

best.reply.ever.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/14/2012 05:12:08 PM · #110

So yesterday, Rachel Maddow made the case that the deaths in Libya were a result of a targeted assassination in retaliation for the drone strike killing of the Libyan Al Qaeda guy in Pakistan. So for those pointing fingers at the purveyors of the video for "provoking Islam" (which may be the case in Egypt), I'm sure you are also condemning our President for causing, or at least provoking the death of the 4 Americans in Libya?

Remember this: "The Day I'm Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease"?

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

09/14/2012 05:14:28 PM · #111

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Yes, but not for that reason. This is a complex interplay, where both religious and political organizations are playing games with each other, and frankly, it seems to be going poorly.

Message edited by author 2012-09-14 17:33:49.

09/14/2012 05:21:32 PM · #112

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

So for those pointing fingers at the purveyors of the video for "provoking Islam" (which may be the case in Egypt), I'm sure you are also condemning our President for causing, or at least provoking the death of the 4 Americans in Libya?

Are you equivocating a video (which the more it is investigated, the more it looks like it was intended to have exactly the reaction it is getting) with a policy of killing people who have killed and are planning to continue to kill Americans?

You see no difference between intentionally offending a religion and eliminating a killer?

Do you understand the difference between the word ease and the word cease?

Message edited by author 2012-09-14 17:23:42.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/14/2012 05:29:28 PM · #113

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Are you suggesting Obama shouldn't have taken out the #2 AQAP leader because the possibility of a planned retaliation is similar to having some Christian wacko's insulting video (that Obama was somehow supposed to have predicted years ago) promoted as representative of all Westerners and leading to worldwide protests and attacks on German, British and U.S. embassies? And, because they're so equivalent, the president should be condemned for attacking terrorists OR we should not condemn the hate video?

Ah, Brennan beat me to it.

Message edited by author 2012-09-14 17:32:07.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

09/14/2012 05:35:19 PM · #114

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
So for those pointing fingers at the purveyors of the video for "provoking Islam" (which may be the case in Egypt), I'm sure you are also condemning our President for causing, or at least provoking the death of the 4 Americans in Libya?

Are you equivocating a video (which the more it is investigated, the more it looks like it was intended to have exactly the reaction it is getting) with a policy of killing people who have killed and are planning to continue to kill Americans?

You see no difference between intentionally offending a religion and eliminating a killer?

Are you kidding me?? You don't see killing Muslims (and anyone else who is within the blast radius) as being slightly more provoking than making a stupid video?? I am all for the drone strikes AND for free speech - I don't blame either one for the violence - I blame the ones COMMITTING the violence. I don't disagree that putting out the video was a bad idea, stupid, even intentionally provocative, BUT when you try to silence free speech in that way, you are just going to incite MORE people to put out more videos to incite more violence. It is the reaction to the video that gives power to the producers that their free speech should not / would not otherwise have. Also, you are making an assumption that the purpose of the film was to stir up violence. Maybe it was, but people produce and post intentionally provocative stuff all the time and for some of them - if they thought they had this kind of power to wreak havoc on a global scale by putting out a stupid video - that can be a very enticing power trip for them.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/14/2012 05:40:18 PM · #115

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't blame the police or the "protesters"

I'm calling bullshit. At some point, each individual has to take personal responsibility for their actions. Pawns they may be, but we are all manipulated by the powers that be, yet we still have to make our own choices about how we react to it.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

09/14/2012 06:54:44 PM · #116

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Cory:
I don't blame the police or the "protesters"

I'm calling bullshit. At some point, each individual has to take personal responsibility for their actions. Pawns they may be, but we are all manipulated by the powers that be, yet we still have to make our own choices about how we react to it.

Sure, they're culpable, and should be better independent decision makers, but studies and history has shown that this is not how humans behave, and is probably a more or less unreasonable expectation.

The blame lies with those who are making the calls, and playing games for the benefit of the few.

09/14/2012 07:09:45 PM · #117

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

You don't see killing Muslims (and anyone else who is within the blast radius) as being slightly more provoking than making a stupid video?? Also, you are making an assumption that the purpose of the film was to stir up violence.

I do differentiate Muslims as a group of humans, and the leadership of a terrorist organization. The latter is a legitimate target, and those who surround him are to my mind acceptable collateral damage. It is not a provocation, but a part of a continuing war which is being waged.

In the beginning of this thread I was of the opinion that there was nothing the US could or should do to silence a voice, no matter how provocative; however the deeper the investigation goes into who made the film, and why it was made. the more I think I jumped to the wrong conclusion. The "director" Sam Bacile does not exist, he was supposed to be an Israeli and it was supposed to have been funded by Jews. All that was a lie, seemingly intended to turn the backlash on Jews. It seem that the cast was duped into making the film, that much of the offensive dialog was added post production. Then it was subtitled in Arabic when it failed to get a reaction.

If it ends up that this film was made to only offend and incite Muslims and then fed to elements hostile to American interests with the hopes of creating anti-American sentiment, then it leads us to a very interesting legal point. I am not saying whoever ends up having made this film is guilty of undermining American interests, treason through giving aide and comfort to the enemy or the like, but they may well be. The intent is the question of legal culpability, but this wasn't art, they never meant to show it in theaters, make money on DVDs, or recoup their investment. What was their intent?

Message edited by author 2012-09-14 19:13:51.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/14/2012 07:21:48 PM · #118

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't blame the police or the "protesters"

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I agree that the protesters are directly responsible for committing the violent acts, but there are degrees of culpability. With the exception of Obama and the poor souls who were killed in the embassy, no one has clean hands in these events.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

I am all for the drone strikes AND for free speech - I don't blame either one for the violence - I blame the ones COMMITTING the violence. I don't disagree that putting out the video was a bad idea, stupid, even intentionally provocative, BUT when you try to silence free speech in that way, you are just going to incite MORE people to put out more videos to incite more violence.

I don't understand your point about free speech. Who is trying to silence it?

frisca

Nikon D70

09/14/2012 07:29:44 PM · #119

I think he's speaking about the idea that the provocative video should not have been allowed to be made public/aired.

Slightly off the current discussion, but certain ON TOPIC to provoking islam: //www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-violence-freedom-of-speech-can-spark-now-lets-see-the-love?g=2&c=bl3

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

09/14/2012 07:30:04 PM · #120

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
I don't blame the police or the "protesters"

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I'm calling bullshit. At some point, each individual has to take personal responsibility for their actions. Pawns they may be, but we are all manipulated by the powers that be, yet we still have to make our own choices about how we react to it.

I agree that the protesters are directly responsible for committing the violent acts, but there are degrees of culpability. With the exception of Obama and the poor souls who were killed in the embassy, no one has clean hands in these events.

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I am all for the drone strikes AND for free speech - I don't blame either one for the violence - I blame the ones COMMITTING the violence. I don't disagree that putting out the video was a bad idea, stupid, even intentionally provocative, BUT when you try to silence free speech in that way, you are just going to incite MORE people to put out more videos to incite more violence.

I don't understand your point about free speech. Who is trying to silence it?

I feel a need to requote myself, as that's not really a complete quote, and I think it lost something along the way in terms of meaning

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't blame the police or the "protesters" (by the way, calling these people protesters is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a gastronome), but rather the forces that drive them to these actions. It's sickening and sad to watch.

09/14/2012 07:50:22 PM · #121

Originally posted by Cory:

I feel a need to requote myself, as that's not really a complete quote, and I think it lost something along the way in terms of meaning

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't blame the police or the "protesters" (by the way, calling these people protesters is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a gastronome), but rather the forces that drive them to these actions. It's sickening and sad to watch.

I hear you. I don't know if the guy who incited the violence can be held legally responsible, but he certainly seems to be morally responsible. The people committing the violent acts can be held directly legally responsible for their actions, and I don't think they should be given a pass because they were manipulated, are stupid, ignorant, and/or bigoted.

Sony SAL-1855 DT 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/14/2012 07:52:54 PM · #122

Originally posted by frisca:

Slightly off the current discussion, but certain ON TOPIC to provoking islam: //www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-violence-freedom-of-speech-can-spark-now-lets-see-the-love?g=2&c=bl3

Yes, those positive messages certainly lifted my spirits!

JamesDowning

Sony SLT-A33

09/14/2012 08:13:43 PM · #123

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
I feel a need to requote myself, as that's not really a complete quote, and I think it lost something along the way in terms of meaning

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't blame the police or the "protesters" (by the way, calling these people protesters is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a gastronome), but rather the forces that drive them to these actions. It's sickening and sad to watch.

I hear you. I don't know if the guy who incited the violence can be held legally responsible, but he certainly seems to be morally responsible. The people committing the violent acts can be held directly legally responsible for their actions, and I don't think they should be given a pass because they were manipulated, are stupid, ignorant, and/or bigoted.

The question is - who ultimately incited the violence? Some people would immediately think you're talking about the Al Qaeda sect in Lybia. Others may think you're talking about the non-existent movie producer.

09/14/2012 08:47:20 PM · #124

Originally posted by JamesDowning:

I would add Sheikh Khaled Abdalla as the third spoke in the wheel. He used the video to spark the riots.

"The same day, a scene from the film â�� in which an actor playing a buffoonish caricature of the prophet Muhammad calls a donkey â��the first Muslim animalâ�� â�� was broadcast on the Egyptian television channel Al-Nas by the host Sheikh Khaled Abdalla.
Video of a scene from a film mocking the Muslim prophet as shown on Egyptian television Sunday.
Last year, the Egyptian-British journalist and blogger Sarah Carr wrote, â��Sheikh Khaled Abdalla is part of a school of particularly shrill religious demagogues who turn every possible event into an attack on Islam.â�� She added that Sheikh Khaled regularly attacked Egyptâ��s Coptic Christian community.