Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Katz what the hell brought up rape? Rape is a criminal act and should be treated that way. Jail time. Don't use it as an excuse to do whatever you want to do to muslims
Katz what the hell brought up rape? Rape is a criminal act and should be treated that way. Jail time. Don't use it as an excuse to do whatever you want to do to muslims
I don't want to do anything to muslims except recognize that today that's what's causing the murders of many people.
If we are going to condone violence because we have laws protecting freedom of expression, shouldn't we condone all muslim violence if they have a religious reason for it? Including rape. If it's not an attack but a protest against breaking religious law mandating modesty in women does that make it understandable and acceptable?
Katz what the hell brought up rape? Rape is a criminal act and should be treated that way. Jail time. Don't use it as an excuse to do whatever you want to do to muslims
I don't want to do anything to muslims except recognize that today that's what's causing the murders of many people.
If we are going to condone violence because we have laws protecting freedom of expression, shouldn't we condone all muslim violence if they have a religious reason for it? Including rape. If it's not an attack but a protest against breaking religious law mandating modesty in women does that make it understandable and acceptable?
Everybody that rapes no matter what his background gets dealt with by authorities.
I don't want to do anything to muslims except recognize that today that's what's causing the murders of many people.
If we are going to condone violence because we have laws protecting freedom of expression, shouldn't we condone all muslim violence if they have a religious reason for it? Including rape. If it's not an attack but a protest against breaking religious law mandating modesty in women does that make it understandable and acceptable?
Everybody that rapes no matter what his background gets dealt with by authorities.
Not everybody.
Hey foxfre you talk about the threats for making these movies. But you know that these movies that are so bigoted and full of propaganda can cause people to assualt Muslims becaue they actually believe that nonsense. So what about the threats Muslims face after these kind of hate movies, articles, whatever, is it ok that Muslims could be threatened over this stuff?
No. I think bigoted thugs who commit violence against Muslims for no better reason than they are Muslims and embrace Muslim beliefs should not only be held in total contempt but prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I do not condone nor do I respect violence committed against anybody for what they say, believe, think, or express and I will condemn it without reservation wherever it occurs.
But should Muslims be required to refrain from calling us Christians infidels just because some Chrstians might be insulted by that? Should people be able to make fun of Christians or ridicule the central figure of that faith with impunity? Or is it reasonable that Christians should riot, destroy property, injure, or kills people in retaliation for that? Does ridicule or insult of Christians put those people at mortal risk?
Where is it written that Muslims should be exempt from insult when others are not?
The issue here is not the insult. The issue is mayhem and murder committed by the insulted. Condemnable? Or not?
Muslims don't call Christians infidels at all. I see where you are going with this now....again you can't generalize very few people went protesting. Rioting isn't out businees they riot against their own property the police decide the punishments there.
Dont ask that silly question again. Rioting, yelling , whatever isnt bad. That happens a lot in the middle east. As long as they don't damage the embassy. If they do the country pays to replace the damage done. End of story
You're so funny what because a few thousand protesters chanted in the streets it's mayhem? Haha wow
No. I think bigoted thugs who commit violence against Muslims for no better reason than they are Muslims and embrace Muslim beliefs should not only be held in total contempt but prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I do not condone nor do I respect violence committed against anybody for what they say, believe, think, or express and I will condemn it without reservation wherever it occurs.
But should Muslims be required to refrain from calling us Christians infidels just because some Chrstians might be insulted by that? Should people be able to make fun of Christians or ridicule the central figure of that faith with impunity? Or is it reasonable that Christians should riot, destroy property, injure, or kills people in retaliation for that? Does ridicule or insult of Christians put those people at mortal risk?
Where is it written that Muslims should be exempt from insult when others are not?
The issue here is not the insult. The issue is mayhem and murder committed by the insulted. Condemnable? Or not?
Muslims don't call Christians infidels at all. I see where you are going with this now....again you can't generalize very few people went protesting. Rioting isn't out businees they riot against their own property the police decide the punishments there.
Dont ask that silly question again. Rioting, yelling , whatever isnt bad. That happens a lot in the middle east. As long as they don't damage the embassy. If they do the country pays to replace the damage done. End of story
You're so funny what because a few thousand protesters chanted in the streets it's mayhem? Haha wow
BIK, four Americans are dead. The consulate looted and burned out. Can you admit that this was at the hand of angry Muslims? Can you say with certainty that those now demonstrating in a number of Islamic countries would treat an identified American in their path any better? Is there no reason to beef up security at our other consulates and embassies in those countries? Can you condemn the people who behave in such a way that makes that increased security necessary?
Do you condone such actions because somebody put out a stupid Youtube video? Is this reasonable behavior?
(And militant Islam calls Chrsitians and other non-Muslims 'infidel' quite frequently.)
Muslims don't call Christians infidels at all. I see where you are going with this now....again you can't generalize very few people went protesting. Rioting isn't out businees they riot against their own property the police decide the punishments there.
Dont ask that silly question again. Rioting, yelling , whatever isnt bad. That happens a lot in the middle east. As long as they don't damage the embassy. If they do the country pays to replace the damage done. End of story
You're so funny what because a few thousand protesters chanted in the streets it's mayhem? Haha wow
BIK, four Americans are dead. The consulate looted and burned out. Can you admit that this was at the hand of angry Muslims? Can you say with certainty that those now demonstrating in a number of Islamic countries would treat an identified American in their path any better? Is there no reason to beef up security at our other consulates and embassies in those countries? Can you condemn the people who behave in such a way that makes that increased security necessary?
Do you condone such actions because somebody put out a stupid Youtube video? Is this reasonable behavior?
(And militant Islam calls Chrsitians and other non-Muslims 'infidel' quite frequently.)
I've Condemend it a lot especially when it happened. But all people were doing is making hate threads on muslims.
They did beef up the security and it's not up to me whether security is beefed up.
I already said its not right behavior. Right above. I support peaceful protest. But that doesn't make rioting a cruel thing.
Islamic countries welcome Americans , I've been to many and seen Americans there a lot. I've seen many Americans in the UAE and Egypt.
Is it reasonable? Some of it is and some not, that's my opinion.
Again you need to define militant Islam. Militant groups that happen to be Muslim don't call Jews or Christians anything. Hate groups like al Qaeda can eat shit. No one should care what they say and they are being bombed left and right. So there you feel better
Also I've seen hypocritical behavior by some people. When an American citizen got shot 9 times in the head in the Turkish flotilla no one cared at all and some cheered in his death.
BIK, four Americans are dead. The consulate looted and burned out. Can you admit that this was at the hand of angry Muslims? Can you say with certainty that those now demonstrating in a number of Islamic countries would treat an identified American in their path any better? Is there no reason to beef up security at our other consulates and embassies in those countries? Can you condemn the people who behave in such a way that makes that increased security necessary?
Do you condone such actions because somebody put out a stupid Youtube video? Is this reasonable behavior?
(And militant Islam calls Chrsitians and other non-Muslims 'infidel' quite frequently.)
I've Condemend it a lot especially when it happened. But all people were doing is making hate threads on muslims.
They did beef up the security and it's not up to me whether security is beefed up.
I already said its not right behavior. Right above. I support peaceful protest. But that doesn't make rioting a cruel thing.
Islamic countries welcome Americans , I've been to many and seen Americans there a lot. I've seen many Americans in the UAE and Egypt.
Is it reasonable? Some of it is and some not, that's my opinion.
Again you need to define militant Islam. Militant groups that happen to be Muslim don't call Jews or Christians anything. Hate groups like al Qaeda can eat shit. No one should care what they say and they are being bombed left and right. So there you feel better
Also I've seen hypocritical behavior by some people. When an American citizen got shot 9 times in the head in the Turkish flotilla no one cared at all and some cheered in his death.
Militant Islam are those Muslims who are willing to terrorize, destroy, burn, maim, threaten, and murder those who are not Muslims. I think I have been pretty clear on that. And no amount of straw men you build here will change that.
This thread is about whether people should be required to restrain free speech lest they provoke terrorist activities, destruction, burning, maiming, threatening, and murder by angry militant Muslims and, by extension, any other group who is capable of dangerous hate.
I would really reallly REALLY appreciate your focusing on that.
The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?
My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.
Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)
But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?
But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.
Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.
At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?
Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?
You keep saying that I'm wrong. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong unless you can demonstrate that I am wrong. Again, the film was deliberate and a failed attempt at smearing the prophet Muhammad negatively.
By the way IT IS against the law to scream fire in a theater. Regardless of intent, one should not yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire. Regardless whether the intent is there or not, there are laws such as this in place for those that cry wolf. The law is black and white. You can't run a red light and say "I didn't intend to run the red light." Regardless you are held responsible for the actions you do.
It is not a smear unless you have evidence that something in the film is dishonest. That would be impossible for you to prove for two reasons, nothing in the video trailer is factually inaccurate, and no one has seen the actual film, if it exists.
The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?
It Makes Me Sick: Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam
Adrian Chen
The story of the Muhammed movie which sparked deadly protests in Libya and Egypt gets weirder. The actors who appeared in it had no idea they were starring in anti-Islam propaganda which depicts Muhammed as a child molester and thug. They were deceived by the film's director, believing they were appearing in a film about the life of a generic Egyptian 2,000 years ago.
Cindy Lee Garcia, an actress from Bakersfield, Calif., has a small role in the Muhammed movie as a woman whose young daughter is given to Muhammed to marry. But in a phone interview this afternoon, Garcia told us she had no idea she was participating in an offensive spoof on the life of Muhammed when she answered a casting call through an agency last summer and got the part.
The script she was given was titled simply Desert Warriors.
"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."
'It Makes Me Sick': Actress in Muhammed Movie Says She Was Deceived, Had No Idea It Was About Islam
You can easily tell by watching the video. Muhammad is dubbed in there. The real name was Master George. Read their lips they say master goerge. And Muhamamd is synced in there
My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.
Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)
But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?
But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.
Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.
At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?
Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?
No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.
