Learning From History...or Not.

[PoliticalChic]

1. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
-- Mark Twain


2. One would think that the most brilliant of Presidents, Barack Hussein Obama, would have studied the result of turning Middle East governments over religious ideologues....
...a study of the result of same by Jimmy Carter is instructive.

The United States pushed for liberalizing reforms in Iran...and the world was gifted with a murderous Islamofascist regime.....




3. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. Compare the lessons from the Shah to the 'Arab Spring'...

a. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com





4. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

5. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.





6. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

7. While the Shah enforced his autocratic regulations, the only one organization had the freedom to form clubs and groups and networks, was the clergy! Their clubs formed in mosques, in the schools where they taught the Koran, they trained in ‘summer camps for the pious.’ And what did the clergy preach? Revolution among the urban poor.

8. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. Boston Review — milani.php





9. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing. That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

10. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”



So...is Obama foolish?

... ineducable?

...an ideologue?

....incompetent, a la Carter....and naive?



There are far too many similarities between the actions, or inactions, of Carter and Obama not to expect the same results.

 

[martybegan]

1. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
-- Mark Twain


2. One would think that the most brilliant of Presidents, Barack Hussein Obama, would have studied the result of turning Middle East governments over religious ideologues....
...a study of the result of same by Jimmy Carter is instructive.

The United States pushed for liberalizing reforms in Iran...and the world was gifted with a murderous Islamofascist regime.....




3. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. Compare the lessons from the Shah to the 'Arab Spring'...

a. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com





4. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

5. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.





6. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

7. While the Shah enforced his autocratic regulations, the only one organization had the freedom to form clubs and groups and networks, was the clergy! Their clubs formed in mosques, in the schools where they taught the Koran, they trained in ‘summer camps for the pious.’ And what did the clergy preach? Revolution among the urban poor.

8. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. Boston Review — milani.php





9. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing. That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

10. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”



So...is Obama foolish?

... ineducable?

...an ideologue?

....incompetent, a la Carter....and naive?



There are far too many similarities between the actions, or inactions, of Carter and Obama not to expect the same results.

The one exception I take to this is that it ignores the will of the people during the transition between the regimes. In both the Iranian revolution and the current "Arab Spring" the will of the people was/is behind those wanting to take power, and at the same time implement their own form of control over said people.

The current status of Iran, where there is a suppressed opposition movement, is the natural progression of a restrictive regime that once had overwhelming support of the populace, and is now surviving on use of force alone.

To me we may have to let the Arab nations go into religous theocracy. They seem to want it, and really only living though it, and finding out it isnt all it is cracked up to be, may be the only way to eventually have them see the light of western secular democracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
-- Mark Twain


2. One would think that the most brilliant of Presidents, Barack Hussein Obama, would have studied the result of turning Middle East governments over religious ideologues....
...a study of the result of same by Jimmy Carter is instructive.

The United States pushed for liberalizing reforms in Iran...and the world was gifted with a murderous Islamofascist regime.....




3. Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. Compare the lessons from the Shah to the 'Arab Spring'...

a. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.” Book review: The Shah - WSJ.com





4. During the 1953 through 1969, Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson pressured the Shah to engage in various reforms based on their fear of a popular uprising, as predicted by the CIA as “…just around the corner!” In mid-1958, “Tomorrow will be a revolution!” Of course, the CIA at that time was factually correct, but chronologically premature by some twenty years! In comparison, in 1978, the CIA was dismally incorrect: “…the Shah is here to stay! There will be no fundamental change…no group is powerful enough.”

5. Due to the American pressure, the Shah launched a series of reforms, known as the White Revolution, in 1963. This included many American ideas for modernization, such as a) land reform, b) modernization of infrastructure including railroads, c) education, d) enfranchising women, e) urbanization, f) encouragement of a class of technocrats and competent bureaucrats, etc. tried (unsuccessfully) to enable Iran’s religious minorities—principally Baha’is, Jews, and Christians—to take the oath of office on a holy book of their own choosing.





6. The conservative clergy viewed the White Revolution as an affront to Islam and a dangerous move toward Western modernity: Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition

Strangely, the success of the White Revolution lead to new social tensions that helped create many of the problems the Shah had been trying to avoid. It produced a middle class, economically privileged, that formed the insurgents who demanded political reform later…just what the Shah had hoped to avoid.

7. While the Shah enforced his autocratic regulations, the only one organization had the freedom to form clubs and groups and networks, was the clergy! Their clubs formed in mosques, in the schools where they taught the Koran, they trained in ‘summer camps for the pious.’ And what did the clergy preach? Revolution among the urban poor.

8. Ayatollah Khomeini immediately denounced the proposed reforms, led the clerical opposition, and spent eight months under house arrest for his speeches against the Shah, and the reforms. His arrest, in 1963, provoked powerful urban protest, the so-called uprising of 15 Khordad 1342, which led to a large number of deaths—thousands according to the opposition, 400 according to more reliable sources. Boston Review — milani.php





9. Khomeini and his allies in Iran actually reached out to the Americans, to whom he promised a) to hold the country together, calming the unrest, b) to keep the communists out, and c) to keep the oil flowing. That’s all Carter had to hear! Carter then intercedes with the Iranian military on behalf of Khomeini and in opposition to Bakhtiar, and that the US would not support any coup in favor of the Shah. In 1991, Bakhtiar was assassinated.

10. Carter believed that Khomeini would support democracy, contrary to all that he had written while in exile. In over 110 interviews he gave in Paris in the three months prior to re-entering Iran, he never mentioned the rule of the ‘juriscouncil,’ the clerical guardianship, i.e., the regime in control currently. He promised that he would retire to a life of study, and “…leave all powers to the people.”



So...is Obama foolish?

... ineducable?

...an ideologue?

....incompetent, a la Carter....and naive?



There are far too many similarities between the actions, or inactions, of Carter and Obama not to expect the same results.

The one exception I take to this is that it ignores the will of the people during the transition between the regimes. In both the Iranian revolution and the current "Arab Spring" the will of the people was/is behind those wanting to take power, and at the same time implement their own form of control over said people.

The current status of Iran, where there is a suppressed opposition movement, is the natural progression of a restrictive regime that once had overwhelming support of the populace, and is now surviving on use of force alone.

To me we may have to let the Arab nations go into religous theocracy. They seem to want it, and really only living though it, and finding out it isnt all it is cracked up to be, may be the only way to eventually have them see the light of western secular democracy.

"...the one exception I take to this is that it ignores the will of the people during the transition..."

Darned good point.

While I didn't state it, I certainly don't deny it.



Yes...building a bridge from the seventh century to modernity is difficult and bloody.

My point is that American administrations should have known, anticipated, learned more than they did.

And Carter gets more of a pass than the current one, since we saw what happened in 1979.



The questions that I ended with, I had hoped, would open the dialogue as to whether Obama was ignorant of the past.....

....or produced exactly what he wished to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

 

[martybegan]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

 

[rightwinger]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Provoking a crazy person when you know how he will react is foolhardy

You may have a first amendment right to do so....but it doesn't mean you should

 

[tjvh]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

We'll take your suggestion that we should appease them, and when we don't it will be all our fault.

 

[tjvh]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Provoking a crazy person when you know how he will react is foolhardy

You may have a first amendment right to do so....but it doesn't mean you should

So now peaceful Muslims are crazy people... Will you Libs ever make up your minds?

 

[martybegan]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Provoking a crazy person when you know how he will react is foolhardy

You may have a first amendment right to do so....but it doesn't mean you should

Directly provoking a crazy person is one thing. It involves a direct confrontation with said person, and then directly antagonizing them into a given action.

Making a movie that you dont have to watch is a provocation only in the minds of those provoked. Or are you saying any Muslim who responds poorly to this movie is crazy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Why must you default to hyperbole and eschew common sense? Do I need to explain that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

We'll take your suggestion that we should appease them, and when we don't it will be all our fault.

Wherein did I suggest appeasement?

 

[martybegan]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Why must you default to hyperbole and eschew common sense? Do I need to explain that?

How is it hyperbole? You want the creators of the video to share blame for violent acts they do not control or commit.

Dont acuse me of hyperbole just because you are unable to answer the questions.

 

[tjvh]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

We'll take your suggestion that we should appease them, and when we don't it will be all our fault.

Wherein did I suggest appeasement?

That is what I got out of "self-sensor themselves"... What would you call that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Provoking a crazy person when you know how he will react is foolhardy

You may have a first amendment right to do so....but it doesn't mean you should

Directly provoking a crazy person is one thing. It involves a direct confrontation with said person, and then directly antagonizing them into a given action.

Making a movie that you dont have to watch is a provocation only in the minds of those provoked. Or are you saying any Muslim who responds poorly to this movie is crazy?

The movie is provocative; I surmiss the producers had no other motive for its production. Of course they cannot be held responsible for the reaction - criminally or civilly - and they have every right to produce it. And, the Federal Government has no authority to surpress it.

Of course those demonstrating in the street are not (all) crazy; no more so than any participant in any massive demonstration or those fans (for fanatics) who cheer at an NFL game. Go to an NFL game in Philly and wear the colors of the NYG or Dallas Cowboys. The reaction of some Philly Fans will be loud and profane; common sense suggests the Philly Fanatics won't ignore it and will respond to the provocation. Common sense also suggests that the majority of Eagle supporters won't.

Those who attacked our diplomats are not crazy either. They are criminals who believe they have the right of enforcement, using extreme violence. Common sense suggests you do not poke a tiger with a stick, stare down a bear, grab an eagle from its nest or insult the religion of a Muslim. Of course not all Muslims will react violently; but some will and have in the past killed innocents as well as provocateurs.

Why would anyone do so? Why would anyone defend them? And why would anyone but a partisan hack suggest a critique of someone who provokes others is a defense of the few who act out violently?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The world today is much smaller then at any earlier time; information across the Continents is instantaneous and is one explanation for the events in the Muslim world this week. Any blame for these events - for those who first and always want to affix it - falls on the producers of the film and the internet providers who refused to self-censor themselves; on the leadership in Muslim Countries who actively and tacitly allow such outbursts - knowing anger expressed against the U.S. and Western Culture is far better (for them) than anger expressed against their government over unmet needs; on U.S. foreign policy and our addiction to oil which frames it.

Leaders in Muslim Countries know that their personal safety and position relies on the palliate effect of religion. Religion is an opiate for the people and it creates a climate wherein authoritarianism is not only acceptable but desirable.

So if I make any video critical of a group that has a propensity to violence, I am responsible for thier actions if they react poorly to it? Even if I dont force them to watch it?

Blame for violence goes on those who perpetrate it, and partially on those who allow it to occur.

I guess that means we need to ban any videos or statements critical of the KKK or Aryan nations, because they may become violent over it.

Provoking a crazy person when you know how he will react is foolhardy

You may have a first amendment right to do so....but it doesn't mean you should

Grow a pair.

 

[martybegan]

Provoking a crazy person when you know how he will react is foolhardy

You may have a first amendment right to do so....but it doesn't mean you should

Directly provoking a crazy person is one thing. It involves a direct confrontation with said person, and then directly antagonizing them into a given action.

Making a movie that you dont have to watch is a provocation only in the minds of those provoked. Or are you saying any Muslim who responds poorly to this movie is crazy?

The movie is provocative; I surmiss the producers had no other motive for its production. Of course they cannot be held responsible for the reaction - criminally or civilly - and they have every right to produce it. And, the Federal Government has no authority to surpress it.

Of course those demonstrating in the street are not (all) crazy; no more so than any participant in any massive demonstration or those fans (for fanatics) who cheer at an NFL game. Go to an NFL game in Philly and wear the colors of the NYG or Dallas Cowboys. The reaction of some Philly Fans will be loud and profane; common sense suggests the Philly Fanatics won't ignore it and will respond to the provocation. Common sense also suggests that the majority of Eagle supporters won't.

Those who attacked our diplomats are not crazy either. They are criminals who believe they have the right of enforcement, using extreme violence. Common sense suggests you do not poke a tiger with a stick, stare down a bear, grab an eagle from its nest or insult the religion of a Muslim. Of course not all Muslims will react violently; but some will and have in the past killed innocents as well as provocateurs.

Why would anyone do so? Why would anyone defend them? And why would anyone but a partisan hack suggest a critique of someone who provokes others is a defense of the few who act out violently?

This isnt about critiquing the creator of the video, it is about people wanting the government to censor them, or even the government "suggesting" they be censored.

You can go blue in the face calling this guy an asshole, you can even arrange a boycott of his business, or those who support him.

The second you ask the government to silence him, however, due to the percieved risk of what he is saying, then that is the point we part ways.

 

[rightwinger]

Directly provoking a crazy person is one thing. It involves a direct confrontation with said person, and then directly antagonizing them into a given action.

Making a movie that you dont have to watch is a provocation only in the minds of those provoked. Or are you saying any Muslim who responds poorly to this movie is crazy?

The movie is provocative; I surmiss the producers had no other motive for its production. Of course they cannot be held responsible for the reaction - criminally or civilly - and they have every right to produce it. And, the Federal Government has no authority to surpress it.

Of course those demonstrating in the street are not (all) crazy; no more so than any participant in any massive demonstration or those fans (for fanatics) who cheer at an NFL game. Go to an NFL game in Philly and wear the colors of the NYG or Dallas Cowboys. The reaction of some Philly Fans will be loud and profane; common sense suggests the Philly Fanatics won't ignore it and will respond to the provocation. Common sense also suggests that the majority of Eagle supporters won't.

Those who attacked our diplomats are not crazy either. They are criminals who believe they have the right of enforcement, using extreme violence. Common sense suggests you do not poke a tiger with a stick, stare down a bear, grab an eagle from its nest or insult the religion of a Muslim. Of course not all Muslims will react violently; but some will and have in the past killed innocents as well as provocateurs.

Why would anyone do so? Why would anyone defend them? And why would anyone but a partisan hack suggest a critique of someone who provokes others is a defense of the few who act out violently?

This isnt about critiquing the creator of the video, it is about people wanting the government to censor them, or even the government "suggesting" they be censored.

You can go blue in the face calling this guy an asshole, you can even arrange a boycott of his business, or those who support him.

The second you ask the government to silence him, however, due to the percieved risk of what he is saying, then that is the point we part ways.

You are, of course, correct

He has a right to film what he wants, no matter how repulsive

However, if he has parole restrictions on what he is allowed to post on the internet....he is fair game

 

[martybegan]

The movie is provocative; I surmiss the producers had no other motive for its production. Of course they cannot be held responsible for the reaction - criminally or civilly - and they have every right to produce it. And, the Federal Government has no authority to surpress it.

Of course those demonstrating in the street are not (all) crazy; no more so than any participant in any massive demonstration or those fans (for fanatics) who cheer at an NFL game. Go to an NFL game in Philly and wear the colors of the NYG or Dallas Cowboys. The reaction of some Philly Fans will be loud and profane; common sense suggests the Philly Fanatics won't ignore it and will respond to the provocation. Common sense also suggests that the majority of Eagle supporters won't.

Those who attacked our diplomats are not crazy either. They are criminals who believe they have the right of enforcement, using extreme violence. Common sense suggests you do not poke a tiger with a stick, stare down a bear, grab an eagle from its nest or insult the religion of a Muslim. Of course not all Muslims will react violently; but some will and have in the past killed innocents as well as provocateurs.

Why would anyone do so? Why would anyone defend them? And why would anyone but a partisan hack suggest a critique of someone who provokes others is a defense of the few who act out violently?

This isnt about critiquing the creator of the video, it is about people wanting the government to censor them, or even the government "suggesting" they be censored.

You can go blue in the face calling this guy an asshole, you can even arrange a boycott of his business, or those who support him.

The second you ask the government to silence him, however, due to the percieved risk of what he is saying, then that is the point we part ways.

You are, of course, correct

He has a right to film what he wants, no matter how repulsive

However, if he has parole restrictions on what he is allowed to post on the internet....he is fair game

The facts for that remain to be established.

If the current facts about the dubbing being done without the actor's knowledge, and he didnt have a contract with them stating he could do it (he probably did) then they could go after him civilliy for fraud.

 

[rightwinger]

This isnt about critiquing the creator of the video, it is about people wanting the government to censor them, or even the government "suggesting" they be censored.

You can go blue in the face calling this guy an asshole, you can even arrange a boycott of his business, or those who support him.

The second you ask the government to silence him, however, due to the percieved risk of what he is saying, then that is the point we part ways.

You are, of course, correct

He has a right to film what he wants, no matter how repulsive

However, if he has parole restrictions on what he is allowed to post on the internet....he is fair game

The facts for that remain to be established.

If the current facts about the dubbing being done without the actor's knowledge, and he didnt have a contract with them stating he could do it (he probably did) then they could go after him civilliy for fraud.

Dubbing what the actors say and subjecting them to possible attacks is reprehensible

 

[martybegan]

You are, of course, correct

He has a right to film what he wants, no matter how repulsive

However, if he has parole restrictions on what he is allowed to post on the internet....he is fair game

The facts for that remain to be established.

If the current facts about the dubbing being done without the actor's knowledge, and he didnt have a contract with them stating he could do it (he probably did) then they could go after him civilliy for fraud.

Dubbing what the actors say and subjecting them to possible attacks is reprehensible

Which should remind people to always read what you sign. If this guy is a shifty as people are saying, I am almost sure he had a clause allowing him to modify the film as to content, without the actor's consent.