US Embassies, Consulates Attacked.

[Themightytom]

This is utter speculation on my part, but is anyone else wondering if the apparatus used to incite Arab spring might be backfiring a little here? Rapidly organizing a protest mob in Libiya faster than the government can respond was great when they were overthrowing a dictator, but... but now they're attacking a consolate over a video hardly anyone over there was likely to see?

[amigocabal]

Doesn't he knows the prophet is dear to the Muslims? They have the right to attack people for attacking their religion of peace.

Just as much as rapists have a right to rape girls who arouse them.

Are you serious? Did you not perceive the sarcarsm on my previous post, as exemplified by the "[/sarcasm]"? Was it not obvious that I was mocking Broomstick?

Yes, I noticed the sarcasm; I wanted to add my own.

Maybe I should I added a [/sarcasm] tag.

[K. A. Pital]

This is utter speculation on my part, but is anyone else wondering if the apparatus used to incite Arab spring might be backfiring a little here? Rapidly organizing a protest mob in Libiya faster than the government can respond was great when they were overthrowing a dictator, but... but now they're attacking a consolate over a video hardly anyone over there was likely to see?

You can bet everyone in the LIFG saw that video. How'd you know? Well, it's called, hint, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

The last time civilized people dealt with people of such "morals" was from 1939-1945.

You are really stupid, aren't you? The Nazis and fascists were the civilized people (a pan-European movement which included a major Western European power and huge swaths of North and South). The Nazis and their satellites did not kill because someone insulted Jesus (or even Hitler for that matter), they killed as a matter of race and nation, having an elaborate racist ideology the planning of which was executed by a whole ministry, and with extreme "rationality" when we're talking about their own set of objectives.

This, on the other hand, is routine religious violence which has been there for ages, especially in the recent times in Central Asia and Middle East.

[Elfdart]

And apparently there is no Sam Bacile what so ever. And I'm stretching for reasons why the Copts/Evangelicals would bother with inventing a Jewish connection...

http://gawker.com/5942651/the-filmmaker ... is-a-ghost

Remember that dickhead who planted (all right, allegedly) those burned Quran pages into the bag of that Christian Pakistani girl?

It's probably a simple matter of trolls and possibly agents provocateur wanting to stir up trouble, but making damn sure they don't get the blame.

If this was an Al Qaeda attack then I doubt this video had anything to do with it. It's not like that bunch ever needed a cheap stunt to get motivated.

[Elfdart]

Looks like the AP has tracked down this asshole:

California man confirms role in anti-Islam film

LOS ANGELES — The search for those behind the provocative, anti-Muslim film that triggered mobs in Egypt and Libya led Wednesday to a California Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes who acknowledged his role in managing and providing logistics for the production.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, told The Associated Press in an interview outside Los Angeles that he was manager for the company that produced "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Muslims and the prophet Mohammed and was implicated in inflaming mobs that attacked U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. He provided the first details about a shadowy production group behind the film.

Nakoula denied he directed the film and said he knew the self-described filmmaker, Sam Bacile. But the cellphone number that AP contacted Tuesday to reach the filmmaker who identified himself as Sam Bacile traced to the same address near Los Angeles where AP found Nakoula. Federal court papers said Nakoula's aliases included Nicola Bacily, Erwin Salameh and others.

Nakoula told the AP that he was a Coptic Christian and said the film's director supported the concerns of Christian Copts about their treatment by Muslims.

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.

The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt's Christian Coptic population has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country's Arab majority.

Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., who burned Qurans on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, said he spoke with the movie's director on the phone Wednesday and prayed for him. He said he has not met the filmmaker in person, but the man contacted him a few weeks ago about promoting the movie.

"I have not met him. Sam Bacile, that is not his real name," Jones said. "I just talked to him on the phone. He is definitely in hiding and does not reveal his identity. He was quite honestly fairly shook up concerning the events and what is happening. A lot of people are not supporting him. He was generally a little shook up concerning this situation."

Protesters enraged by the amateurish film and its cartoonish portrait of Islamic figures burned the U.S. consulate Tuesday in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

Libyan officials said Wednesday that Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other embassy employees were killed during the mob violence, but U.S. officials now say they are investigating whether the assault was a planned terrorist strike linked to Tuesday's 11-year anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

The Youtube account, "Sam Bacile," which was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July, was posting comments online as recently as Tuesday.

The person who identified himself as Bacile and described himself as the film's writer and director told the AP on Tuesday that he has gone into hiding. But doubts rose about the man's identity amid a flurry of false claims about his background and role in the purported film.

Bacile told the AP he was an Israeli-born, 56-year-old, Jewish writer and director. But a Christian activist involved in the film project, Steve Klein, said Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym, he was not Jewish or Israeli and a group of Americans of Mideast origin collaborated on the film. Officials in Israel also said there was no record of Bacile as an Israeli citizen.

In his brief interview with the AP, Bacile defiantly called Islam a cancer and said he intended the film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.

But several key facts Bacile provided proved false or questionable. Bacile told AP he was 56 but identified himself on his YouTube profile as 74. Bacile said he is a real estate developer, but Bacile does not appear in searches of California state licenses, including the Department of Real Estate.

Hollywood and California film industry groups and permit agencies said they had no records of the project. A man who answered a phone listed for the Vine Theater, a faded Hollywood movie house, confirmed that the film had run for a least a day, and possibly longer, several months ago, arranged by a customer known as "Sam."

Google Inc., which owns YouTube, pulled down the video Wednesday in Egypt, citing a legal complaint. It was still accessible in the U.S. and other countries.

Klein told The Atlantic on Wednesday that Bacile was a pseudonym and that he was not Jewish or Israeli. Klein had earlier told the AP that the filmmaker was concerned for family members who live in Egypt. Klein did not return phone messages by the AP on Wednesday.

"Nobody is anything but an active American citizen," Klein told the Atlantic. "They're from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, there are some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are evangelical."

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.

___

Braun reported from Washington.

___

Associated Press writers Shaya Tayefe Mohajer and Michael Blood in Los Angeles, Tamara Lush in Tampa, Fla., and AP researcher Rhonda Shafner in New York contributed to this report.

What a douche!

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There are now reports that Salafists are being executed in Benghazi by the Transitional Council forces in retaliation for the attack (a lot of Libyan security personnel were also killed).

[Col. Crackpot]

What a douche!

It is still just fucking words. Just like if i troll a thread doesn't mean i am in any way responsible if it pisses you off to the point that you go and you shoot the governor of Rhode Island.

[amigocabal]

What a douche!

It is still just fucking words. Just like if i troll a thread doesn't mean i am in any way responsible if it pisses you off to the point that you go and you shoot the governor of Rhode Island.

True, although he is still a douche for lying about being an Israeli Jew.

[Col. Crackpot]

What a douche!

It is still just fucking words. Just like if i troll a thread doesn't mean i am in any way responsible if it pisses you off to the point that you go and you shoot the governor of Rhode Island.

True, although he is still a douche for lying about being an Israeli Jew.

It doesn't matter if he said he was a magic ice cream man from the planet Xanadu. People do not have to censor their free speech to cater to the sensibilities of neanderthals afraid of the invisible man in the sky. Nor is it their fault when said neanderthals murder the first person they see that kinda sorta looks like that person a little. Fuck Allah with a pork chop sandwich.

[Broomstick]

I'm getting a little pissed off at the creator of this film, who has apparently publically stated he wanted to make this film controversial and provocative. I wonder if he's happy people have died over his work?

He's in hiding now, of course.

I'm all for making it as controversial as the director wanted it to be. Every other religion on earth gets skewered, mocked and taken apart by people that aren't stuck in a bronze age barbarian rut, why the hell should Islam be any different?

Islam shouldn't be different, but if you shit on their prophet's memory the reaction IS predictable. The producer has been accused by the morning news media talking heads of shouting fire in a crowded theater... and if anyone isn't clear on what is meant by that, a Supreme Court decision in 1919 set a limit on free speech, basically saying the right to express yourself ends where your expression creates a clear and present danger to others. It's not secret there are batshit crazies who view the least slight to their religion as a justification for murder. Setting out to make a film that portrays their prophet as all sorts of bad things – womanizer, pedophile, liar, killer, and who knows what else, the rumors and allegations are all over the place and apparently the full film is difficult to find – is going to trigger a very predictable reaction in said nutjobs.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if this turns out to have been a deliberate attempt to instigate riots and unrest, as there are parties on both sides who like to stoke the fires of hate.

While I wholeheartedly support free expression, ANY portrayal of the prophet Mohammed will seriously offend some Muslims, and portraying the prophet in a negative manner will pretty much piss all of them off. Their reactions may not be ethical or just by our standards, but they are predictable.

Personally, all I see in developments like this is further reinforcement that large portions of the whole region aren't worth our time, let alone lives.

As long as our civilization remains heavily dependent on petroleum we have to deal with them. Sorry about that, but reality can really suck sometimes.

Doesn't he knows the prophet is dear to the Muslims? They have the right to attack people for attacking their religion of peace. We should totally blame the filmmaker and not the religious fanatics. [/sarcasm]

They don't have that “right” but they WILL launch such attacks when they perceive their prophet under attack. You have to have been living under a rock the last 10 years not to know that. The producer wanted to provoke a violent reaction and he did so. I do not believe any protest to the contrary.

[Col. Crackpot]

[
Islam shouldn't be different, but if you shit on their prophet's memory the reaction IS predictable. The producer has been accused by the morning news media talking heads of shouting fire in a crowded theater... and if anyone isn't clear on what is meant by that, a Supreme Court decision in 1919 set a limit on free speech, basically saying the right to express yourself ends where your expression creates a clear and present danger to others. It's not secret there are batshit crazies who view the least slight to their religion as a justification for murder. Setting out to make a film that portrays their prophet as all sorts of bad things – womanizer, pedophile, liar, killer, and who knows what else, the rumors and allegations are all over the place and apparently the full film is difficult to find – is going to trigger a very predictable reaction in said nutjobs.

a reactionary supreme court decision from the 1910's against the red menace? That is your moral justification? Really Broomstick?

[Broomstick]

And what sort of punishment will we mete out for Libya's violation of the Vienna conventions in its failure to protect our accredited diplomats? Attacks like this have been necessarily dealt with harshly for five thousand years to keep the sanctity of envoys pure and thereby guarantee avenues of negotiation remain open.

While I understand the kneejerk reaction of a "make the fuckers pay for what they've done", the best thing to do is whatever furthers our interests long term. While this might be considered an act of war starting a war over it is not in our self-interest right now.

There are several alternatives to pursue here, from outright military attack (probably not the best option) to letting the Libyan government handle it as a criminal manner. I don't think I have the smarts or knowledge to know the best course here, and I very much doubt anyone else on this message board does either.

[Block]

It is still just fucking words. Just like if i troll a thread doesn't mean i am in any way responsible if it pisses you off to the point that you go and you shoot the governor of Rhode Island.

True, although he is still a douche for lying about being an Israeli Jew.

It doesn't matter if he said he was a magic ice cream man from the planet Xanadu. People do not have to censor their free speech to cater to the sensibilities of neanderthals afraid of the invisible man in the sky. Nor is it their fault when said neanderthals murder the first person they see that kinda sorta looks like that person a little. Fuck Allah with a pork chop sandwich.

You're an idiot. A third party, knowing that there's a history of bad blood between the two groups creates something inflammatory to one of the two and then claims to be part of the other one is basically inciting violence. Free speech is not an unlimited thing, it's why you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and why slander and libel aren't protected.

[Col. Crackpot]

You're an idiot. A third party, knowing that there's a history of bad blood between the two groups creates something inflammatory to one of the two and then claims to be part of the other one is basically inciting violence. Free speech is not an unlimited thing, it's why you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and why slander and libel aren't protected.

There is a history of bad blood between Marxists and Capitalists, should we not inflame that debate either? You are the idiot for equating (admittedly spiteful) political speech to screaming fire in a movie theater.

[Block]

You're an idiot. A third party, knowing that there's a history of bad blood between the two groups creates something inflammatory to one of the two and then claims to be part of the other one is basically inciting violence. Free speech is not an unlimited thing, it's why you can't shout fire in a crowded theater and why slander and libel aren't protected.

There is a history of bad blood between Marxists and Capitalists, should we not inflame that debate either? You are the idiot for equating (admittedly spiteful) political speech to screaming fire in a movie theater.

I like how you think a conflict that while old hasn't been violent for decades is the same thing as an issue with constant, recent violent flareups. If it were that violent currently between Marxists and Capitalists and someone basically trolled one side resulting in the deaths of people on the other, yes that person should be held just as responsible for the obvious consequences of his actions as the morons who took the actions.

[Col. Crackpot]

I like how you think a conflict that while old hasn't been violent for decades is the same thing as an issue with constant, recent violent flareups. If it were that violent currently between Marxists and Capitalists and someone basically trolled one side resulting in the deaths of people on the other, yes that person should be held just as responsible for the obvious consequences of his actions as the morons who took the actions.

Don't you see how incredible asinine that sounds? Let's try putting this in a different context. That fucker Martin Luther King, Jr. if he just shut his mouth and didn't inflame the passions of those good ol' boys, nobody would have gotten lynched.

[Broomstick]

a reactionary supreme court decision from the 1910's against the red menace? That is your moral justification? Really Broomstick?

Nope, not moral, legal. The Supreme Court does not dictate morality, it decides legality. The decision was that the right to free speech is not unlimited and society does have a right to limit it to prevent "clear and present danger". The precedent was set. You can not use your first amendment rights to instigate a riot or uprising.

Also, it was not "against the red menace" but rather for encouraging insubordination against the draft during a time of war. It was later used in the anti-commie scare, but the actual court case was about encouraging draft resistance. This was further refined in 1969 to the "imminent lawless action" standard, which bars speech that is intended to incite lawlessness or violence that is both imminent and likely.

This is not morality, it is the US law as it currently stands.

Making a movie that deliberately insults the prophet Mohammed with the intention of grievously offending Muslims, then posting it on the internet, would predictably lead to violent and lawless action. Thus, I say, based on what evidence I have, that this movie does not rest under the protection of the First Amendment and is not protected speech.

The wildcards in all this are that, first of all, US law has no jurisdiction outside the US, nor does the SCotUS. The producer/director/backer/whoever this guy is might be a US citizen (if we can ever definitely determine his identity) in which case he is under US law, but the citizens of Libya most certainly aren't. I do wonder if some sort of charges could be brought against this guy for his movie leading to the death of one or more diplomats, but that's quite a reach.

I think, in the end, there will be no legal consequences for the originators of this film (although it would surprise me if at some point in the future they're assassinated) and none for those who stormed the embassy. I don't think that's the way it should be, just that's the way it will be in a world where justice does not always occur.

[Block]

I like how you think a conflict that while old hasn't been violent for decades is the same thing as an issue with constant, recent violent flareups. If it were that violent currently between Marxists and Capitalists and someone basically trolled one side resulting in the deaths of people on the other, yes that person should be held just as responsible for the obvious consequences of his actions as the morons who took the actions.

Don't you see how incredible asinine that sounds? Let's try putting this in a different context. That fucker Martin Luther King, Jr. if he just shut his mouth and didn't inflame the passions of those good ol' boys, nobody would have gotten lynched.

Except of course that King was part of one of the two groups and wasn't speaking up to smear the other side but to demand equality. Nice try though.

[Broomstick]

I like how you think a conflict that while old hasn't been violent for decades is the same thing as an issue with constant, recent violent flareups. If it were that violent currently between Marxists and Capitalists and someone basically trolled one side resulting in the deaths of people on the other, yes that person should be held just as responsible for the obvious consequences of his actions as the morons who took the actions.

Don't you see how incredible asinine that sounds? Let's try putting this in a different context. That fucker Martin Luther King, Jr. if he just shut his mouth and didn't inflame the passions of those good ol' boys, nobody would have gotten lynched.

The people in the civil rights movement were entirely away that they were risking death for doing what they did, and when arrested and convicted served their time in jail. One of the key aspects of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions. The civil rights marchers of the 60's deliberately broke laws in their protests. They dealt with the consequences.

Contrast that to the makers of this film, who concealed their identities and even used false ones - they clearly knew trouble was coming and were doing everything they could to make sure someone else[ suffered the consequences of their actions.

[Col. Crackpot]

The people in the civil rights movement were entirely away that they were risking death for doing what they did, and when arrested and convicted served their time in jail. One of the key aspects of civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions. The civil rights marchers of the 60's deliberately broke laws in their protests. They dealt with the consequences.

Because they understood that legal does not always equal moral.

Contrast that to the makers of this film, who concealed their identities and even used false ones - they clearly knew trouble was coming and were doing everything they could to make sure someone else[ suffered the consequences of their actions.

Look, i concede that these guys aren't the most perfect case to justify free speech. But to direct blame filmmakers making a statement instead of the reactionary Troglodytes that actually killed people... that is hardly the spirit of the law.

Also, my understanding of Brandenberg v Ohio is it was the supreme court affirming the right of a troll to, well.. troll. If telling a group of armed clansmen to march on washington to take "revengeance" against n*****s and Jews does not meet the "imminent lawless action" standard, then how does this film?

brandenburg v ohio

[Alyeska]

Islam shouldn't be different, but if you shit on their prophet's memory the reaction IS predictable. The producer has been accused by the morning news media talking heads of shouting fire in a crowded theater... and if anyone isn't clear on what is meant by that, a Supreme Court decision in 1919 set a limit on free speech, basically saying the right to express yourself ends where your expression creates a clear and present danger to others. It's not secret there are batshit crazies who view the least slight to their religion as a justification for murder. Setting out to make a film that portrays their prophet as all sorts of bad things – womanizer, pedophile, liar, killer, and who knows what else, the rumors and allegations are all over the place and apparently the full film is difficult to find – is going to trigger a very predictable reaction in said nutjobs.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... hammed_Day
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ontroversy

I refuse to live in fear because of religious extremism from the uneducated. Freedom of Speech is most important when under attack. The people behind this film might be assholes, but their right to speech is a foundation in stone as far as I am concerned.

[Broomstick]

The difference between Brandenburg v. Ohio that this piece of shit film is that the speech used by Bradenburg was actually unlikely to result in violence - most KKK and Nazi rallies in the US do NOT end in violence, regardless of the heated words and moods generated. The odds any march on DC will result in violence are actually quite low.

On the other hand, it was pretty damn predictable the Muslim backwaters were going to pitch a fit over this film. As I said, you have to have been living under a rock, or deliberately obtuse, not to see that coming.

Bradenburg urging a march on DC: Unlikely to result in violence.
Pissing off the Muslim fanatics by dissing Mohammed: VERY likely to result in violence.

[Elfdart]

What a douche!

It is still just fucking words. Just like if i troll a thread doesn't mean i am in any way responsible if it pisses you off to the point that you go and you shoot the governor of Rhode Island.

Last time I checked, inciting a riot wasn't covered by Free Speech -and that's exactly what this asshole was doing. That's why he claimed to be an Israeli-American: so that when the hooligan mobs reacted, Americans and Israelis would be the target. He knew full well there was a clear and immediate danger in what he was doing.

If you have reason to believe that I would shoot a governor, based on past experience of people like me taking shots at governors in response to trolling, and you go ahead and provoke me anyway while pretending to be that governor or work for that governor then yes, you are in part responsible. And I'm sure that governor and anyone else who is harmed will think you're a douche, too.

[Col. Crackpot]

The difference between Brandenburg v. Ohio that this piece of shit film is that the speech used by Bradenburg was actually unlikely to result in violence - most KKK and Nazi rallies in the US do NOT end in violence, regardless of the heated words and moods generated. The odds any march on DC will result in violence are actually quite low.

On the other hand, it was pretty damn predictable the Muslim backwaters were going to pitch a fit over this film. As I said, you have to have been living under a rock, or deliberately obtuse, not to see that coming.

Bradenburg urging a march on DC: Unlikely to result in violence.
Pissing off the Muslim fanatics by dissing Mohammed: VERY likely to result in violence.

Because as we all know, there were no violent marches in America in the late 1960's

[Col. Crackpot]

What a douche!

It is still just fucking words. Just like if i troll a thread doesn't mean i am in any way responsible if it pisses you off to the point that you go and you shoot the governor of Rhode Island.

Last time I checked, inciting a riot wasn't covered by Free Speech -and that's exactly what this asshole was doing. That's why he claimed to be an Israeli-American: so that when the hooligan mobs reacted, Americans and Israelis would be the target. He knew full well there was a clear and immediate danger in what he was doing.

If you have reason to believe that I would shoot a governor, based on past experience of people like me taking shots at governors in response to trolling, and you go ahead and provoke me anyway while pretending to be that governor or work for that governor then yes, you are in part responsible. And I'm sure that governor and anyone else who is harmed will think you're a douche, too.

Again, not the perfect case for the justification of free speech. Yes, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. In this case it is more than a little blurry. Living in a free society i'd like to think we should tolerate the discussion and punish those who can't handle the message and react with violence.

Also i feel compelled to state that i wish the Governor of Rhode island nothing but health and happiness.