Sad part is, ...it's possible. Is Pastor Jones involved...and who else is a likely candidate? I've heard they took in $5 million, but the production value is more like twenty dollars. The side benefit of this nonsense is that the Muslim world discovers why the Freedom of Speech in America is non-negotiable, but if they nail him for parole violation - that's fine with me.

(peter) I would like that time to be now, please, ...but how to 'chill the masses'? That takes people listening to one and other - and we don't get much of that here, much less internationally.

It wouldn't, ...gotta be something else. Usually more than one way to skin a cat.

If he has violated parole, or is guilty of other crimes, unrelated to making this film, then the law should take its course.

But if the actions of the Federal authorities are in any way connected to his role in producing this film, that is dead wrong.

where is KING RICHARD when you need him

You probably also recall that the walls of Jericho came tumbling down, and then the Israelites "destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys" (Joshua 6:21). This certainly seems brutal and vindictive, doesn't it? Or consider Joshua 11:20, "For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses." From our twenty-first century point of view, we ask, "What good was accomplished by all this annihilation?"

Point being History Repeats itself in one religion or another.

Mike, and the Christians went in and slaughtered everybody, didn't matter Jew or Christians. So what's the real point, religion is an equal opportunity inflicter.

AgeofWisdom - technically Peter is correct. The religion of Islam begins with the revelations to Mohammed by God and the writing of the Quran in the 7th century. Muslims do trace the heritage of Mohammed to Ishmael but timing the beginning of Islam with Ishmael is like timing the beginning of the United States with George Washington's great, great, grandfather. Read a better history book.

Standupjokeoff - I don't think the point is that because the history of the Church's violence is in the past that there is not guilt. I think the point is that, due to the influence of more moderate forces within, the Church evolved past its violent history. I think Peter's point is that Islam will have to undergo the same evolution as more moderate factions with Islam assert themselves. There is very little chance that outside forces can negate the effects of the more fundamentalist, violent factions within Islam. Change must come from within.

kaybeetoys - You make an excellent point. There is a balance point between unlimited speech and responsibility for the consequences of what we say. The concept of freedom of speech in the US Constitution has only to do with the limits of governmental authority over what the people say. This concept does not mean that society (as opposed to government) cannot sanction people for outrageous speech. While we have the RIGHT to say what we want we have the OBLIGATION as members of a society to not say offensive things purely for the sake of being offensive. So I agree that we should monitor ourselves but I think of this more in terms of monitoring our intent versus our speech. If I say something important, without bias, without hate, without any intent to be offensive but you find it to be offensive, so be it. But if I say (or create) something only for the purpose (like this movie) of offending you then I have violated the norms of civilized society even if I have not violated my right to free speech.

When the US founders wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence, I presume they believed that King George would react violently to that speech. Their intent was however not to provoke violence but to declare the right of the American people to be free. I doubt this movie had anything approximating a noble cause or message.

Freedom and Liberty Rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As kaybeetoys pointed out above (#1.28)...not without responsibility they don't. That's why a 12 year old is not handed the freedom and liberty to take the family car out for a spin.

Hi kaybeetoys, I see exactly where you're coming from, and I like it, but then you lose me when you try to restrict the Freedom of Speech. The responsibility is with the purchaser - caveat emptor. No one is forcing anyone to pay attention to this piece of trash. If we make speech illegal simply because someone claims to be offended by what is said - then Freedom of Speech can be rendered meaningless very quickly. The duty lies with the person listening to stay within boundaries of legitimate action. We almost never criminalize beliefs or words in this country, what we criminalize are certain actions.

kaybeetoys - You make an excellent point. There is a balance point between unlimited speech and responsibility for the consequences of what we say. The concept of freedom of speech in the US Constitution has only to do with the limits of governmental authority over what the people say. This concept does not mean that society (as opposed to government) cannot sanction people for outrageous speech. While we have the RIGHT to say what we want we have the OBLIGATION as members of a society to not say offensive things purely for the sake of being offensive. So I agree that we should monitor ourselves but I think of this more in terms of monitoring our intent versus our speech. If I say something important, without bias, without hate, without any intent to be offensive but you find it to be offensive, so be it. But if I say (or create) something only for the purpose (like this movie) of offending you then I have violated the norms of civilized society even if I have not violated my right to free speech.

When the US founders wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence, I presume they believed that King George would react violently to that speech. Their intent was however not to provoke violence but to declare the right of the American people to be free. I doubt this movie had anything approximating a noble cause or message.

Thank you, joemike... you stated my case better than I did.

The U.S. government cannot inhibit our freedom of speech, but we citizens can accept responsibility for our words and deeds. We can boycott and condemn those who try to incite intolerance and hatred. That is what democracy is all about.

In no way, shape or form do I advocate govenmental censorship.

G-Dog - I think the point that both kaybeetoys and I would try to make is not the we should make this sort of speech illegal. I agree that if the government was to tell this guy that making this movie was "illegal" than the government has infringed upon his right to free speech. Our point is that, as a member of a civilized society, this person should have regulated his own speech. This movie has no other purpose than to be offensive and provoke a violent response from Islamic extremists. We're not saying that the government should have done something but that this jerk should have demonstrated some self-restraint and never made the movie in the first place.

Hi guys (KB, joemike), delighted with the rational conversation. I completely agree that we should be 'self-policing', and would be if we all had a solid understanding of human relations - however, at the ends of the bell curve is a small group of people who are happiest shouting like a bell - but they only make noise if you listen to them. You see? I'm perfectly happy to see this fully investigated and prosecuted in whatever way makes sense - but real Freedom of Speech is hard to come by (they don't have it), and it would be un-American to not cry 'Foul!' when a threat to remove it is perceived.

My years in the Middle East did not leave me filled with hatred for the people or their religion...quite the contrary.

We live in a dangerous world and accepting that reality is a sign of maturity, not weakness. You might feel you have a 'right' to poke a tiger with a stick. Go ahead and see what happens.

We have seen religious extremists attack innocents in every nation, in every age, in every culture...even our own. We now see ignorant terrorists blindly lash out against our country.

As Americans, shouldn't we strive to be better than that?

I hate cooked peas. I really do. They are mushy, tasteless, without much substance, they lack nutritional qualities, they even live next to each other in pods. They are a pain to pick, shell, and when I can them, they shrivel up into tiny little BBs and all my effort is really wasted. I really hate them. I think I'll paint little eyes, with little noses and mouths on them and smash them with a hammer. I think I'm going to make a video of how cooked peas are the bane of mankind, a waste of time, and just BAD. I wonder if YouTube would be a good place to post my video?

Hello, Pea Lovers of the World--unite and hunt down my blasphemous hate talk. It truly is hate talk. I truly hate cooked peas. I've done quite a bit to insult them at every level. Pea Lovers, Hello? Why aren't you in front of my house threatening to burn it down, or threatening to haul me off to the police station? Why are you not protesting in all the nations of the world? I know you're out there, (somewhere). How else would the Green Giant exist for so long if he didn't have such a following of pea lovers?

How can I compare peas to the events of the past few days? It's very easy. Mohammed has been DEAD for quite some time. No one or nothing can hurt him. He's dead. He's not living with 72 virgins, he's not at God's right or left hand, he's not all that he's been cracked up to be. HE'S DEAD!! His bones are probably dust by now. He will never walk on the surface of this planet again. He has absolutely no authority over the living -- as he is DEAD!! Peas, the moment they are cooked, are DEAD, too. The only thing they will have any (short-term) authority over is one's intestinal track. They have no say over the affairs of humanity. They are DEAD. (BTW, they don't get 72 virgins either.) (I don't know if any gods like peas, so I can't speak for them.)

My freedom to hate cooked peas and my freedom of speech to say so should not be interfered with by anyone. You may try to force feed me peas, but I will spew them back at you. And I'll tell you why. I don't get in the way of anyone liking their cooked peas, they are welcome to all that they can ingest, but don't try to force me into your disgusting world of pea loving. If I want to make a video of smashed peas, burning pea bushes, or multiple peas living together in one pod, I should have every right to do so. If you don't like it, don't watch it. If you insist on watching, you must be really desperate to find something to validate your hatred and attempts to control others.

These horrible acts over this obscure film are just major EXCUSES to inflict harm on others. These excuses and tragedies are all MAN-MADE and have no real connection to a religious cause. It's just a manipulation technique of psycho/sociopaths to exert homicidal authority over others. I find it very sad that people fail to think for themselves and are so easily led. I'm deeply saddened to hear that monsters insist on killing their fellow humans over something/one that hasn't existed for centuries. It's time to move past this divisive thought process of power over one another. It isn't in our best interests (and neither are peas.)

Hi armurray, you represent my case. However, in fairness, the Christians grew up here and have been like the proverbial frog in slowly warming water - they've had much more chance at acclimation to what the temperature can hit (and they haven't been exactly pleased - there have been 'incidents'). Still, your point is well taken...for those who truly believe in God, tolerance of other beliefs and words (and art) is sometimes an odorous virtue.

Duqu

Kaybeetoys,

So how well is Obama's outreach to the Muslim world working out?

I would say it looks like it's all going up in flames!

It is unrational and unreasonable to blame President Obama for the demonstrations. He is not President of Egypt, Libya or Yemen.

And what do you have to say about the Obama administration going to Youtube and asking them to take down the video?

What I have to say is that it is a lie.

As you stated yourself, "The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards."

duqu... you seem to have a lot of pent-up hostility. May I suggest there are more constructive ways to handle it than to go off half-cocked, spewing slanted political vitriol at a time of great danger for our fellow Americans abroad?

But if I say (or create) something only for the purpose (like this movie) of offending you then I have violated the norms of civilized society even if I have not violated my right to free speech.

But we don't criminalize violating the norms of society by dint of only belief or word (except specifically, and this is absolutely different - the threat of violent reprisal is not valid) - it must be a violation by action. Every society has people whose beliefs and words fall outside 'acceptable norms' - however, people are free to ignore them or to recognize the right or wrong in what they say if they choose to listen. They are not free to commit criminal actions because they feel offended by listening.

The riots in the middle east ARE the result of this film whose link was e-mailed to Egyptian reporters last week reportedly by Terry Jones.

A depiction of Mohammed as a child molester would certainly provoke Muslim anger as it is forbidden in their religion to even picture him.

On Sept 30, 2005, a Danish newspaper published a cartoon that depicted Mohammed in a negative way. A cartoon would seem much less offensive than a 14 minute film trailer with thousands of images. A cartoon was only one picture.

After the cartoon was publisned, the Muslim world erupted in anger much as it is now. Riots ensued, property was destroyed, people were killed. The Danish cartoonist went into hiding. As I recall some Danish government official was even assassinated as a result of this cartoon.

Libya is a different case than Egypt. In Libya, the film was not covered on TV like it was in Egypt before the embassy attacks. In Libya, there are reports than were no protests, but it was a well-coordinated, pre-planned attack by up to 100+ heavily armed men.

"Christians are of the mindset that "it was in the past," as if time and prayers have washed the blood from their hands. Thus there is no guilt over those killings"

Why would there be ANY guilt for something that people today have no ties to? Do you feel guilty for slavery? Im of Italian and Irish heritage, should i feel guilty for the Romans feeding christians to lions? Should i feel guilty for the IRA? There is no blood on anyones hands, NO ONE ALIVE TODAY KILLED ANYONE IN THOSE PAST TIMES!!!

Honesty, that is some of the most F'ed up logic i have read on this site. You should feel guilt for something YOU did, not people whose bones are dust before you were even a glint in your father's eye. The fact that you even suggest that somehow people should feel guilt for that is laughable. Now excuse me, i need to atone for that caveman that was killed... the guilt is overwhelming.

Just a horrible set of circumstances? I doubt it.

This video is horrible, but it takes 2 minutes to find anti ANYTHING on the Internet. This "movie" was poorly done, poorly conceived, obviously dubbed, and is just a piece of junk video.

The real culprit(s) here are the ones in the Middle East that pulled this crap from obscurity, drew everyone's attention to it, and gave it much more credence than it deserved.

The intent is certainly to divide. Other intentions are possible... like to sway our presidential election. But we do not know (yet).

But we need to keep a cool head, hold the various leaders responsible for our embassies' safety, and realize that the numbers don't support a mass support of hatred towards us.

The far majority of Muslims are not demonstrating. Of those that are, most are not violent. But some are violent and must be dealt with either by the country leaders or our Marines.

But, again, keep cool and take this for what it is... violence from a minority that have been manipulated to violence.

This whole story is a non-issue; regardless of others reactions to the video or his probation status, he is protected by the first amendment. We are circumventing the Constitution if we punish this man, or anyone else for that matter. All to appease homicidal extremists. Anybody else see a problem with that or is it just me?

IDK know what your smoking but we didn't arrest anybody. He was taken into protective custody and being questioned by the FBI. He has police escorts because their are a line a people who want to show him a piece of their mind. And maybe you should start reading something besides your hick newspaper because they've arrested a multitude of people in Libya, Egypt, Yemen and so on and so forth. In my opinion; anyone who purposely attempts to degrate an entire people whether they be muslim, christian, black or blue deserves to get his a** kicked.

I guess it WAS GEORGE W'S fault that the WORLD TRADE CENTER is no longer standing? HONKIES ARE EVIL ......END OF STORY!!!!!

He is a political prisoner. Freedom of speech is protected by the constitution. The federal government is in violation of first amendment in searching for him in the first place.

PEOPLE, WATCH THE F*&KING MOVIE! IT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE BEING TOLD!!!!

First, it's poorly made. Second, it is obviously dubbed over by some kid in a basement with movie software. The insults to Mohammed were dubbed in, they were not part of the original movie.

It will take you all of 5 minutes to begin watching it and say, "this definitely was not the catalyst."

Watch the movie already and then come back and make your stupid comments and hypotheses.

Seriously, some of your hate for Obama is ridculous. It blinds your thinking that he makes every decision for local law enforcement (Trayvon), the world economy (world-wide economic downturn and deficit issues in European countries), the Arab Spring (he actually made 5-10 million Arabs in 4 different countries protest, then take over their American supported governments (except Libya)), etc. I know some of you are just trolls trying to incite the mostly left leaning people on this site (I am independent), but others actually believe this. Did you learn this blame one man theory from your parents or did we complete fail as society in our education of you (which is certainly Obama's fault since he is in bed with the Unions)?

jb-799024, I believe what you are referring to in your response to muslimfriend is the practice of taqiyya. Taqiyya is "special" permission to lie if it protects you OR if it promotes the interests of the faith.

There may be no anti-Islamic movie at all

Dan Murphy
csmonitor.com
September 14, 2012

Cindy Lee Garcia tells the website that she was hired last summer for a small part in a movie she was told would be called “Desert Warriors,” about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago (Islam is about 1,400 years old).

She told Gawker “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 and that, according to Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George,” Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed. Garcia said that there was a man who identified as “Bacile” on set, but that he was Egyptian and frequently spoke Arabic.

Hi LMarcT: good to read you. Do you follow my logic through to comment 1.50? (as relates to the Freedom of Speech discussion)

I think we should all make videos ridiculing Islam. F 'em. But, I still think we should just leave 'em alone. Let 'em have their damn deserts and oil. Take away our embassies and stop all government protection of commercial enterprises in the region. We can maintain relations with the Saudis, UAE and Kuwait but let everyone else over there starve and rot.

Specialist Torres said:

Possible Parole voilation? For making a Youtube video? He was arrested, convicted, and spent time in jail for theft. So why would a condition of his parole be that he shouldn't make anti-islam videos?

As his prior criminal convictions included stealing Social Security numbers to gain access to peoples' bank accounts, a condition of his parole could well have included limiting electronic tramsmissions via internet.

Also, the actors who answered the casting call said that they were duped into making the film, they thought they were making a Lawrence Of Arabia type historical film (albeit a bad one.) If he misrepresented the purpose or if there are any actors who claim they weren't paid for their time, etc., that could well be a possible fraud conviction and hence a parole violation.

Agewithoutwisdom said:

Peter Islam is older than Christianity, read a history book. Ismael is a son of Abraham.

I went through this yesterday with a couple of posters, at length. The Bible was created by the Council of Nicaea in 329 CE. An angel allegedly appeared to the prophet Mohammed in 610 CE and started the revelations that eventually were complied to comprise the Qu'ran, which was completed in 632 CE. The God of the Old Testament (Jews) the God of the Christians (New Testatment) and the God of the Muslims (Qu'ran) are all the same Deity. As the Old Testament was not written by God, the New Testament was not written by Jesus, and the Qu'ran was not written by Mohammed, the argument over whose God is better and whose Holy Book is better is completely specious.

(This is coming from someone who is not a member of any of the above religions.)

Spider said:

Apparently, liberals get to decide who can/cannot exercise their 1st Amendment rights. This guy, while doing something offensive to some, did nothing illegal.

Joemike said:

The concept of freedom of speech in the US Constitution has only to do with the limits of governmental authority over what the people say.

I don't know if this movie would be protected under the 'free speech' clause of the first amendment. Per Wikipedia under "United States free speech exceptions":

"Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.

Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection."

In my opinion, this would definitely fall under 'incitement' and 'false statements of fact', if not also 'obscenity' and 'speech owned by others' if the three-hour movie includes quotes taken from the Qu'ran out of context.

In addition, if it shows that Mohammed is a pedophile, even in mockery, it could also be considered borderline child porn, and that is DEFINITELY against the free-speech Amendment. People who advocate for free speech, please remember that if ALL speech was truly free, it would be absolutely legal to posess and distribute child porn, and that, I believe we can all agree, is NOT the direction we as a country want to go.

pr said:

Islam is a violent religion and it is not a peaceful religion,

That's only true for the Islamic extremists/fundamentalists. The majority of the Muslim world doesn't feel that way. Abdullah II, King of Jordan, claims to be a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad and he's been unequivocally against the use of violence:

"What these people stand for is completely against all the principles that Arab Muslims believe in."

There's no way to misinterpret that or take it out of context. Here's more from the Muslim community:

"This film really is cheap. It's low quality, low rate, and it really should've been ignored," said Dawud Walid with the Council on American Islamic Relations. "It's just a shame that in Libya that there's a small group of violent people who have escalated a situation. We don't like the contents of the film at all, but the last prophet of Islam, Muhammad, taught us that we're supposed to repel evil with righteousness and good behavior," he continued. "Prophet Muhammad would not sanction the wanton violence or the death of any innocent people."

Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama):

"Hijacking Planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts."

Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, Pakistan:

"It is wrong to kill innocent people. It is also wrong to Praise those who kill innocent people."

Imam Kutty from Jami Mosque:

"Let us make no mistake about it: Today, Muslims have no enemy greater than fanatics in their midst...Let us know that fanaticism is ignorance; it is nothing but sickness and bigotry; let us know that fanaticism is opposed to both scripture and reason...We Muslims therefore condemn these barbaric attacks against innocent people."

"We condemn them unconditionally; we condemn them because it is opposed to reason and revelation. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam which teach the sanctity of life. Make no mistake about it, we Muslims cannot be Muslims unless we affirm the sanctity of life in all forms."

"Let every Muslim know that there is no room in Islam for fanaticism, for hatred, for racism, for terrorizing innocent people, for indiscriminate killing, even in a state of war."

"Let us Muslims shoulder our responsibility in this crisis facing our society by distancing ourselves from all those who have perpetrated such a heinous and dastardly crime. I appeal to every Muslim to cooperate with the authorities in bringing the culprits to justice. Let no Muslim harbor such criminals in their midst; doing so is violating the laws and values that we cherish dearly in our religion.

And as you could see from the headlines today, the Libyan police have arrested four people for the embassy attack.

So all of a sudden, the libs now talk about responsibility when exercising our rights. So to use another example, is the woman who is raped to blame? Did she, because of what she wears, incite him to rape her? Does he have no control over his actions, much like the radical muslims? So piss Christ is OK, but pedophile mohammed is not - got it.

Civilized human beings with brains know you cannot argue religion and today, not even politics. It's because religion is so deeply entrenched in the individual's belief system. Trying to change a belief system individuals are born into and have been conditioned to from birth is like trying to reinvent a new human being to someone else's liking.

Take a good look at the photos of those rioting in these countries...99% of them are young men and women in their early 20's to late 30's. These riots are intentionally being instigated by old men in mosques who thrive on the adulation of the young they know they can so deeply impress...most of us know this as "brainwashing." In these old imams cases, it's more like spiritual brainwashing.

Kaybeetoy wrote:

What I have to say is that it is a lie.

As you stated yourself, "The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards."

Since when does the White House go to Google or Youtube to "ask" if a video meets their standards?

To check if it meets their standards so that it could be taken down...

Imagine if the Bush White House had asked Youtube to check if some video should be taken down!

The media and all the Democrats would be all over it like flies on a really huge pile of stinking $%^&!

.

The White House was clearly using their authority in order to try to intimidate Youtube and get them to remove the video. So what does this say about Obama's views about freedom of speech?

IN OBAMA'S AMERICA EVERYONE HAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INSULT ISLAM!

.

OBAMA SUPPORTS THE U.N. ANTI-BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION WHICH OUTLAWS FREE SPEECH!

TIME TO KICK HIM OUT!

LMarc and Amanda...I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, people seem to forget this...they see what a small group does and blame it on everyone that has to do with that group in any way.

As for freedom of speech...please don't confuse your right to speak with your ability to spread hate. This is what this man (and whoever helped him) has done...I mean, you wouldn't walk up to a bull and slap it across the nose because you have that freedom to, knowing it will react and NOT in a good way.

STOP using your hatred to justify these losers' actions. Try and remember people have been killed because of what they did, and because, like LMARC said, some other loser went to the trouble and got it noticed even more, ALL knowing something was going to happen because of it.

Sorry Amanda, I'm not buying it. I agree the President has done a good job, but I don't agree with the idea that this 'speech' is criminal. The threat of violent reprisals is not a valid reason to restrict Freedom of Speech. I do not believe for one minute that the President intends to allow this freedom to be diminished. The day our Constitution is trashed in such a manner is the year I depart for lands unknown - anywhere true Freedom of Speech might still exist (not to any Muslim country, that's for sure).

This is for Stand up and Peter, sorry I am so far down from your post. That's because you mental midgets didn't start your own thread you hid behind someone else. You don't have any sense saying did about christians. There is no comparision today and try to stay on today. No Christian today would attack an Embassy and kill people because they felt Jesus was insulted. Jesus is God enough to handle morons, even though that fake prophet Mohammed isn't.

All anyone needs to do is look at these left-wing posts to get a grasp of how free speech is currently free in America. No one or nothing is off limits from attacks in they DARE speak negatively of their chosen one.

Apparently, free speech is only free is you express liberal views. That will all change when America kicks the King to the curb in November.

Romney & Ryan: Business Success + Fiscal Responsibility = The winning combination Americans really need.

The right ticket for American unity, peace and prosperity: Romney-Ryan 2012.

Crisp 1.71 that is a PERFECT example:

If the film caused the riots and the idiot liberals want to ban our free speech and set that precedent then from now on in the USA COURTS :

If a woman who is dressed in a see through sleazy dress is gang raped,

IT IS HER FAULT!!!!!!!!! She no longer has the freedom of expression (speech) because what it might cause some uncontrolled idiot to do.

Hummmmmmm ... I support freedom of speech all the way .... Unless it is done to "Incite to Riot" or with malicious intent ....

To support the actions of the perpetrator of this film is akin to supporting a individual that has introduced smoke into the ventilation system of a theater with millions of people inside and broadcasting though the PA speakers .. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES FIRE! ..............FIRE!

Constitutional "Free Speech" protection has its limits ... I personally believe that "Truth" is the essence of it ... if its "truthful, it passes the test ...

That has nothing to do with fiction or art ...

This is unacceptable behavior ... even in a society that constitutionally guarantees "Free Speech"

Why would anyone make excuses for this man ?

Hi moonbeamracer: This is not at all like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Limiting speech because of the threat of violent reprisal is not the same thing. Any group could claim they were "offended to violence" by anything and everything - effectively reducing Freedom of Speech to ashes.

How useless it is to go back to the time of the Crusades to try and justify or compare to what is happening at radical Islam hands today. No one here today was present during the Crusades and no one can say FOR SURE what was in the hearts and mind of the Christians two thousand years ago. And let's not forget how the Christians were enslaved, burned at the stake like Joan of Arc, even thrown to lions for entertainment. HOWEVER, be it retaliation or whatever specifically were the Christian motives, the Christians of today, and for hundreds, thousands of years since have not, would not, and DO NOT carry out any type of murderous, barbaic crusades. The people of Islam are still slaughtering, torturing, often of their own people and children, beheading and stoning, in the name of, and appeasement of their prophet. The Crusades are ANCIENT, past history, radical Islam jihad is PRESENT and still practiced. NO ONE these days is afraid for their life if they mock Jesus or God. Unlike what we witness by the incidents of the last few days.

Not to be insulting or indelicate, but I can't figure out how any image can represent Mohammed, Jesus, Moses or any other biblical figure. There would have had to been a painting or sculpture made while these people were alive to get any sense of what they looked like, any other representation would require some sort of verbal description given to a sketch artist. One may as well draw a stick figure and attach a label on it. Motion pictures present terribly cliched images, recall Charlton Heston as Moses. That said, it is very hard for an American even those with a strong religious tradition to trade places with the Islam mind set, nor is there much of a desire to do that. I for one can barely tolerate my childhood Catholicism much less the other monotheistic world views. This Islamic temper tantrum, (for lake of a better word), more than anything else is just mystifying to the western mind.

He did not cause the riots. Do I agree with his opinion film? No

He has the right to be as much of a jack ass as he would like.

One of your people left your country came here and made a film about your religion and it is America's fault?
He is or was of you!

America is a country of your own religion whatever that maybe, no one decides for you it is your choice. When u attack America u r attacking Muslims.

moon beam logic is not your or any liberals strong point so let me help you libs.

FIRE is a PHYSICAL threat that causes TIME CONSTRAINED PANICKED life or death decisions in crowded rooms

A film or speech is an OPINION that you can choose to evaluate at your own leisure and decide how you will act or not act.

Your fire argument is not even remotely logical.

From what I understand,m this guy was taken into custody for questioning concerning a possible parole violation. He is not being arrested for making the film, but may have his parole revoked for posting it online. I believe it had something to do with criminal fraud charges or something of that sort, he had used a computer to commit the fraud and was told he isn't allowed to use one. Similar to a parolee not being allowed near certain people who he/she got in trouble with.

As far as the freedom to make the movie, I think he has every right to make it. I also think he needs to be held accountable for any ramifications. He was careless in the same way that Pastor Jones was careless with the Quran burning remark. It cost other people their lives. I don't think he should be arrested, but the families of the victims should be able to get a piece of him. It's similar to guns. We all have a right to carry a gun, but if we use it in a way that is irresponsible we should be held accountable.

What strikes me is how as soon as the protests broke out, this coward tried to go into hiding. And for someone who has something to say, he wouldn't even use his real name and is using a disguise. If you are that afraid to voice your opinion, then don't. I wish they could take this guy (and anyone else who was involved) to Libya and let him try to explain his rationale.

A short, ill made, obscure video did all this? Meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations did this. The American policy on manipulation and coersion of others is biting us in the azz. The overreach of our federal government is oppressing all the American people. The administrators have been allowed to become the management. A hostile work environment has remedy in law. Stand on the law. Reclaim your freedoms from Big Brother. Vote Liberty to regain your freedoms - or vote Days of Our Lives for continued drama.

Many European countries have had Muslim immigration for years, they are now seeing the fruits of that. As are we, by a President who invites the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House, 20,000 muslims to the DNC and leaves God and Israel out of the platform until some dolt realizes he is alienating his base.... Obama knew days before our people were murdered there was a threat and stood by and did NOTHING.... Obama, in my opinion is just as guilty as the perpetrators of that crime, which BTW is an act of war...Obama has blood on his hands.... America deserves better leadership.

The Obama regime had 2 days warning and did nothing!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/14/world/meast/embassy-attacks-memo/index.html

Did u read the article ur link is for?

R u ok?

GDog said:

Sorry Amanda, I'm not buying it. I agree the President has done a good job, but I don't agree with the idea that this 'speech' is criminal. The threat of violent reprisals is not a valid reason to restrict Freedom of Speech.

I never said it should be restricted 'because of threat of violent reprisal.' There is a full three hour movie, not just a 13-minute trailer, and as I stated in my post, the Supreme Court has previously ruled:

Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection."

In my opinion, this would definitely fall under 'incitement' and 'false statements of fact', if not also 'obscenity' and 'speech owned by others' (i.e plagiarism)if the three-hour movie includes quotes taken from the Qu'ran out of context.

In addition, IF the full 3 hour movie shows that Mohammed is a pedophile, even in mockery, it could also be considered borderline child porn, and that is DEFINITELY against the Free-Speech Amendment.

If ALL speech was truly free, it would be absolutely legal to posess and distribute child porn. Would you defend the free speech Amendment for someone who produced and distributed child porn or something advocating child porn/pedophilia?

The state run Egyptian TV governed by the Muslim brotherhood through Egypt's extremist hardliner President Mohammed Morsi originally promoted the YouTube video as a mechanism to incite riots, terror and destruction of American interests. Once the fire was ignited the Muslim brotherhood whose ranks include al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations followed up by calling for nationwide protests "to denounce offences to religion and to the Prophet."

These plans were part of joint Muslim hardliner strategy firmed up and finalized during Morsi's recent visit to Tehran and aided by a perceived weakness in leadership within the United States. Islamic hardliners have concluded Obama projects a position of weakness as evidenced by his now infamous "apology tour" and that he is currently so focused reelection he is even unwilling to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak. To the Muslim world, Obama’s actions present a perceived platform of weakness enticing radicals to unleash their Pandora’s box of protests as a slap in the face to Obama and to American interests around the world.

Americans posting comments in response to these events seem totally unaware that the vast majority of Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. The definition of an infidel is a 'non-believer?' In the event some may fail to understand the significance of that Islamic command, all followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of their faith so they can have a place in heaven. In effect they have been commanded to kill everyone in this chat who is not a Muslim.

I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those not of your faith or Dr.Chas. Stanley ordering all Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee themselves a place in heaven!'

I also have a problem funding Islamic leaders who are telling their followers to kill me!

Islam's Sharia Law which promotes a prime directive found in the Koran ordering followers to: "Seek out, find and kill all non-believers." Muslims are overtaking and destroying countries like France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is this very Sharia Law that dictates beheading, female genital mutilation, stoning of women for adultery, honor killings, forced and arranged marriages, women cannot leave their house without a family male escort, separated swim times at pools for males and females and complete subjugation of women by men.Homosexuals are to be killed. Abortion is haram and not allowed in Islam,but Muslim are allowed to kill their daughter if she refuses to marry the man they had chosen for her. Muslims hold to a belief that that it is permissible to steal money and property from non-Muslims in order to distribute it, but if they steal from each other the offender's hands are to be cut off.

The challenges for America are obvious. Unfortunately, current White house leadership seems determined to marginalize America at any cost.

Whether you are a grandparent, parent or young adult, the upcoming election portends unprecedented implications for the future of America. It would be a great injustice for any American to go to the polls this fall without being fully informed!

Those who diligently seek the truth will find compelling evidence Barack Hussein Obama II is not a true American Democrat, but rather a closet Marxist whose dangerous anti-American and anti-colonialism agenda has metastasized into a pathological cancer on our society.

America has hope, but only if clear thinking Americans take action to unseat him and allow America to govern from a position of strength offered by moral integrity, economic prosperity, and job opportunities not found in the socialist hell into which our current leadership is driving us.

this video is fake CIA propaganda, start a war, send our troops.. the real story...

September 14, 2012

Cindy Lee Garcia tells the website that she was hired last summer for a small part in a movie she was told would be called “Desert Warriors,” about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago (Islam is about 1,400 years old).

She told Gawker “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 and that, according to Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George,” Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed. Garcia said that there was a man who identified as “Bacile” on set, but that he was Egyptian and frequently spoke Arabic.

The online 14-minute clip of a purportedly anti-Islamic movie that sparked protests at the US embassy in Cairo and and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is now looking like it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.

U compare this to child porn? Sorry but that is idiotic at best!

I take an extreme offense to your opinion and by your own submission that makes it criminal.

September 14, 2012

Cindy Lee Garcia tells the website that she was hired last summer for a small part in a movie she was told would be called “Desert Warriors,” about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago (Islam is about 1,400 years old).

She told Gawker “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 and that, according to Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George,” Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed. Garcia said that there was a man who identified as “Bacile” on set, but that he was Egyptian and frequently spoke Arabic.

The online 14-minute clip of a purportedly anti-Islamic movie that sparked protests at the US embassy in Cairo and and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is now looking like it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.

'Stan Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor, said whether Nakoula is sent back to jail over potential probation violations linked to the film, such as accessing the Internet, was a subjective decision up to an individual judge...."Federal judges are gods in their own courtrooms, it varies so much in who they are," he said, noting such a move would be based on his conduct not on the content of the film.'

It's not hard to imagine what will happen - the government will 'shop' for a hard-line judge to put him in jail, thinking that it will calm the turmoil in the Middle East. Look for a quick politically motivated indictment.

Can we just quiet down liberals and conservatives for a while?

Can we hear from libertarians and progressives?

ewent

The Bush Administration history shows clearly that it acted in the same manner as Reagan and Clinton when US embassies were attacked. The only difference is the number attacked. The Bush Administration cornered the market on the highest number of embassy attacks during the period of 2000 to 2008, not including 9/11 on their watch.

So..to the Obama bashers who want to lob all the blame for this on this president, go to hell. You cowards have seen your 10 seconds of fame for 8 years...and you all blew it. You elected a swaggering, drawling front man for the biggest military industrialists in US history who lobbed us with the debt for a war we didn't need. Eat that one and swallow hard if you have the raisins. Which I seriously doubt.

Don't you dare blame this president for the very same foreign policies your heroes of the right wing and Republican party pulled off for 8 years. Don't you dare try to ram that "failure" BS down the throats of the rest of the people of this country.

You think you can all go around totally blameless when YOU are the ones creating the problems and instigating as much trouble as you can? A bunch of mental midgets..

Thank You Ewent 100% correct!

Ms. Redleaf "This guy was hired to be the front guy. Keep digging."

Unlikely - Normally, a 'front guy' is someone clueless with a clean record.

The problem is that the film itself is perfectly legal under our 'free speech' rights, so other nuts may do something similar to inflame tensions - that's why the government intends to make an example of this guy under a so-called 'violation of parole' - to discourage others from copying him.

Look for a quick, politically motivated indictment to calm the tensions in the Middle East, because Obama has directed the FBI to "Get this guy arrested - I don't care what the charges are, but we need to put him in jail".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

Here is the video --judge for yourself..

Obama has done a bang up job of uniting all of the warring factions of radical Islamists Muslims to dispose of , as in perform jihad, any non believers. That be US folks. And even Muslims who are not radical enough. Good Job doofus...

Amanda, the Supreme Court has never ruled that Freedom of Speech can be limited because of the threat of violent reprisal. I don't care if it's 13 seconds or 13 years worth of crap, this type of (offensive) speech is protected under the First Amendment. You will see no successful prosecution of this individual over the content of this 'production'.

MDB said:

U compare this to child porn? Sorry but that is idiotic at best!

I take an extreme offense to your opinion and by your own submission that makes it criminal.

That is NOT what I said.

There is a full three hour movie, not just the 13 minute trailer. As I stated (and highlighted, boldfaced, and italicized in my post above)

*IF* that full three-hour movie shows the main character (Muhammad) as a pedophile, then this could be considered by some as child porn and would therefore not becovered under First Amendment.

The full movie is not posted anywhere. The 13 minute tailer is cartoonish and mildly offensive--the full three hour movie could be even more so. We don't know. We haven't seen the whole thing, I will bet few people posting here has even seen that 13 minute trailer. I haven't, and I don;'t want to--I will leave it up to our justice system to make that determination. Nothing we say on these message boards is going to change any supreme court decision on this in the slightest, and whichever way the ruling goes, someone somewhere is not going to be happy.

MDB123 "Can we just quiet down liberals and conservatives for a while? Can we hear from libertarians and progressives?"

Thanks for my morning laugh.

A 'Progressive' is another name for a Liberal, while a 'Libertarian' is another name for someone who believes in a minimal government - AKA a Conservative.

GDog said:

Amanda, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Freedom of Speech can be limited because of the threat of violent reprisal.

See the below:

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

Obscenity
In June 1973 in Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held in a 5-to-4 decision that obscene materials do not enjoy First Amendment protection.

In Miller v. California (1973), the court refined the definition of “obscenity” established in Roth v. United States (1957). It also rejected the “utterly without redeeming social value” test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.

In the three-part Miller test, three questions must receive affirmative responses for material to be considered “obscene”:

1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

One must distinguish “obscene” material, speech not protected by the First Amendment, from “indecent” material, speech protected for adults but not for children. The Supreme Court also ruled that “higher standards” may be established to protect minors from exposure to indecent material over the airwaves. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation the court “recognized an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language.”

Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

To ensure a fair trial without disclosure of prejudicial information before or during a trial, a judge may place a “gag” order on participants in the trial, including attorneys. Placing prior restraint upon the media usually is unconstitutional. In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Supreme Court established three criteria that must be met before a judge can issue a gag order and restrain the media during a trial.

Time, Place, and Manner
These regulations of expression are content-neutral. A question to ask: Did the expression occur at a time or place, or did the speaker use a method of communicating, that interferes with a legitimate government interest? For example, distribution of information should not impede the flow of traffic or create excessive noise levels at certain times and in certain places.

yosolo,

re: your post at 1.7

You need a history lesson if you think the Iranians let the hostages go because tough guy Reagan took office on Jan 20, 1981 after Jimmy Carter. Ever hear of Iran-Contra Scandal? Reagan and the republican party, in a CONSPIRACY with the CIA, smuggled and sold cocaine and weapons to raise money TO PAY THE IRANIANS TO CONTINUE HOLDING THE HOSTAGES UNTIL REAGAN TOOK OFFICE SO HE COULD LOOK LIKE A TOUGH GUY. The Iranians were ready to release the hostages BEFORE the 1980 election and it would have resulted in a Carter re-election so the republicans BRIBED the enemy with money gotten from running drugs and guns down in Central America. CIA pilot Eugene Hassenfus was shot down and caught red-handed, setting off the Iran-Contra Scandal investigation here in the US. So please, enough about Reagan being a tough guy. The truth is that he and the republican party, in collusion with the CIA, caused those hostages to be held months longer than they would have so they could win that election. Fvcking traitors, every one of them.

Funny thing- I was for Reagan and in the Army. My Company was assigned to Presidential Security for Reagan's inauguration. We were in a large government building with a full combat load, awaiting deployment should some problem occur. Had I known the truth at that point, I would have applied for Leave and been part of the problem myself. I'm sure I wouldn't have been alone either.

Roy,
I wasn't aware of your status of word defining dictator. I was however aware of the generally accepted definition of the words used to segregate political beliefs.

As always there is no argument with you, you know it all.

Dictator Roy ruler of defining words the way he chooses to define them.

I concur thank you for the early comedy!

Why would there be ANY guilt for something that people today have no ties to? Do you feel guilty for slavery? Im of Italian and Irish heritage, should i feel guilty for the Romans feeding christians to lions? Should i feel guilty for the IRA? There is no blood on anyones hands, NO ONE ALIVE TODAY KILLED ANYONE IN THOSE PAST TIMES!!!

So you don't see anyone innocent killed in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? It's all in ancient times so we should forget about it?

Let me ask a fairly simple question - how many innocent Muslims have died by American bullets and by American hands?

Sure, you can make the argument that they were killed by accident. No one sane can dispute that. Americans don't want to kill innocent Muslims. But if a cop accidentally killed you in the pursuit of a criminal, would you want him to pay a penalty? Or would you just want your heirs to accept a gracious apology?

No one likes the idea that Muslims are mad. But they are not behaving irrationally by being mad about stuff. This is not indicative of any particular savagery in their culture, just as our habit of dropping bombs by the ton on their heads is not indicative of a particular savagery on our part.

Amanda I am sure you are fine with any law that doesn't infringe on your interests.

@culheath

After Barack Obama helped overthrow the governments of Egypt and Libya do you know who controls those countries now??

The muslime brotherhood and al-qaeda.

Obama has sent them over 2.5 billion dollars since they seized power.

The attacks were planned celebrations of 9/11 and had nothing to do with the video showing the truth about mohammad the pedophile.

Obama sent them money? Sure it wasn't congress that sent them money?

I presume it is the government in ur eyes in mine it is a government for us by us, I guess we all have excuses.

I meet more and more people who think like me, republicans nor democrats represent me.

Ur freedom of choice is r or d.

THE CULT OF ISLAM----

Quotes From The Qur'an:

Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide."Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.
Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..." This last part means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. Renowned scholar Ibn Kathir states that "believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly."
Qur'an (3:118) - "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand." This verse not only warns Muslims not to take non-Muslims as friends, but it establishes the deep-seated paranoia that the rest of the world is out to get them.
Qur'an (9:23) - "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers" Even family members are not to be taken as friends if they do not accept Islam. (This is the mildest interpretation of this verse from the 9th Sura, which also advocates "slaying the unbeliever wherever ye find them").
Qur'an (53:29) - "Therefore shun those who turn away from Our Message and desire nothing but the life of this world."
Qur'an (3:85) - "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."
Qur'an (3:10) - "(As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah, and these it is who are the fuel of the fire." Those who do not believe in Muhammad are but fuel for the fire of Hell (also 66:6, 2:24. 21:98).
Qur'an (7:44) - "The Companions of the Garden will call out to the Companions of the Fire: "We have indeed found the promises of our Lord to us true: Have you also found Your Lord's promises true?" They shall say, "Yes"; but a crier shall proclaim between them: "The curse of Allah is on the wrong-doers" Muslims in heaven will amuse themselves by looking down on non-Muslims in Hell and mocking them while they are being tortured (see 22:19-22.
Qur'an (1:5-7) - "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray" This is a prayer that Muslims are supposed to repeat each day. "Those who earn Thine anger" specifically refers to Jews and "those who go astray" refers to Christians (see Bukhari (12:749)).

There are verses that contradict the above however the peaceful friendship verses were written when Mohammed had few followers and when he had many follower the verses switched to violence. The previous verses were abrogated by the later verses. If verses contradict each other that should be a big question as to the validity of such a faith.

People you need to understand this---THE FILM is just an EXCUSE----everything thats going on now was PLANED---PRE=PLANED to jump off on 9-11. THIS MOVIE has GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT OTHER THAN AN EXCUSE!!!

Obamas "Im SORRY for AMERICA" TOUR was where this started---IF you look real close this smells of MUSLIM BROS,TALIABAN and Al-Quida---also note that THERE IS NO NEWS about the GOVT of IRAN and its quest for NUKES!

ALL SMOKE and MIRRORS ---and another thing to look at is the POSSABILITY of a "FALSE FLAG " move by OBAMA---Won't go into it but LOOK UP FALSE FLAG and LOOK real close at the EO--EXECUTIVE ORDERS and what the OBAMA can do with a PEN!

SOME INFO ON WHO BARRY REALLY IS-----

My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to1 man.

My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). Go to:
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_...an%2c_only_6.25%25_African">http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-Americ<http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_...an%2c_only_6.25%25_African

I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.

4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam''
#HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view%22;;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view>
<#HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559null">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559";http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559> > &pageId=60559

My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).

February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated
(it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is
being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'

YA ALL remember this--BARRY has had the SLIME BROTHER HOOD and OTHER RADICALS in our WHITE HOUSE MANY TIMES-----ALSO REMEMBER THIS----BARRY was raised as a MU-SLIME in INDO and was told when he came here by his COMMIE MENTOR to say he is a CHRISTAIN---this is in the BOOK LIES about MY FATHER---aka DREAMS!
I QUOTE OBAMM---
Quote
" I ADMIRE RUSSIA, I HONOR THE RED NATION.' -FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS 1947-

BEFORE YOU SLAM ME YOU NEED TO CHECK OUT WHAT I POST !!!

TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT

DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.

GOOD LUCK and GOD BLESS our men and women in harms way!

"I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you @!$%# with me, I'll kill you all."--Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders

"They told (us) to open up the Embassy, or "we'll blow you away." And then they looked up and saw the Marines on the roof with these really big guns, and they said in Somali, "Igaralli ahow," which means "Excuse me, I didn't mean it, my mistake"." Karen Aquilar, in the U.S. Embassy; Mogadishu, Somalia, 1991

"The above was brought to you by a DHS-CERTIFIED TERRORIST---A VIETNAM COMBAT MARINE-AMONG OTHER PLACES---a VETERAN with an ATTITUDE" jscusmc69 USMC RVN

Amanda, this fails to meet any of the criteria the Supreme Court stipulated. I caution you to realize that if Freedom of Speech is limited in this way - as a special consideration for Muslims simply because they get 'offended to violence' - we will see massive protests in the streets and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of these videos hitting the Internet. Don't fuss with the Individual Liberty of Americans - doing that is what is killing the Republicans this election cycle

Some one here mentioned Free of Speech vs speak that incites people. The big issue there is, those are laws for us in the US.

Is dragging this guy into a police station the correct message we want to send overseas? Who is that is the first to say- don't mess with our internal affairs? Which is exactly what those radicals want to do here.

I don't care what the background of the film maker is/was. He still has the same rights we all enjoy.

We are also talking about a religion that has so many sects it's hard to keep count of them. The radical elements of many of them, think trashing other Islamic historic religious sites is perfectly fine.

They are fast to point the finger at Western journalists, editoral cartoonists and film makers but how about they take some of their own advice.

It took the new Egyptian leader 4 days to condem the murdering of Americans in their own embassy. Embassy that is considered American soil. 4 days. How about the President saying...opps, the check must've gotten lost in the mail. To all of them.

What will happen, what is feared by us, will happen. They are incapable of maintaining a peaceful society.

The billions of dollars we send them is like pounding sand down a rat hole. While I feel compassionate toward the innocents there who want nothing more than to live their lives, they themselves are responsible for their own destiny.

We've given them the tools to secure the peace, trained their own people to be peace officers ~ for nothing. Until they are able to, as a legitimate governement, govern their own people, winning their hearts and minds is nothing more than a pipe dream. There was no pun intended.

Get all of our service people out of those hell holes, recall our Ambassadors and see how well life goes for them. And stop the flood of money going over there. We have pressing problems here where that money should be spent, like providing housing for the American Veterans who've found themselves homeless or unable to live without artificial legs and arms.

MDB123 "Roy, I wasn't aware of your status of word defining dictator"

Sorry if I offended you, but it just struck me as humorous. In looking up terms from a political perspective, this is what I found in ehow.com/facts and Wikipedia;

"The word "progressive" is a broad term that describes a wide range of political views, though it is used most commonly to refer to left-wing ideologies"

"Libertarians generally advocate a society with a small government compared to most present day societies, or no government whatsoever."

To me that seems to line up pretty well with what most people call Liberals and Conservatives.

I suspect that what you intended was that you would like to hear more from people who are 'middle of the road' from a political perspective, and I could certainly agree with that, but what I have found is that they typically do not have strong viewpoints on issues, so we seldom see them make comments.

Amanda-2017567

I appreciate the research that you put into your comments, and while we may disagree on many issues, at least your comments are well constructed and have credibility.

Bravo.

Well, ain't this a sticky mess. One one side, we have a bunch of ignorant gung ho cowboys who want to start chucking nukes their way and on the other a bunch of pathetic apologists who want to kowtow to religious savages.

Can't we meet in the middle?

Pull ALL our troops, embassies, and money out of the region and cut them off from the world wide web. Let them go back to the middle ages if that is what they want.

I sicerely believe that big money in this country are the ones keeping it going. We don't want to be there and they don't want us there. We are only still in the region because there is money to be made.

I say @!$%# 'em all! That means israel, saudi arabia and the uae too.

Personally, I would like to see a constitutional amendment that prohibited the U.S. government from having ANY dealings whatsoever with any country whose government is based on religion. Problem solved!

Most Muslims are equally afraid of these radicals.

Hmmmm

That " Christian man who walked into that temple and killed those people and shot that cop scares me too.

Hmmmm

I have a problem. If this guy did nothing wrong by producing this film then we should give him credit by publishing his name and address. Why should taxpayers pay for his protection for something he was responsible. He made his bed not let him lie in it.

For you that seem to be defending this man's right to make the film consider this...the producer of this film knew that it would inspire hate in the middle east and inspiring people to riot is a crime.

We have free speech in the U.S. As usual nbcnews delivers a half ass news report.

@stand up.... jerk off....,

Why should Christians feel any guilt over the crusades....?

An even that happened 1,000 years ago on the other side of the planet... Really...?

Wonder how much time you spend reaching out to Native American and African American people to help heal the wounds of the past which happened at least 100 years before you were born?

Wonder how much time you spend trying to enlighten you fellow pseudo-liberals that wishing all Republican dead is the same as the manifest destiny you apparently fel so guilty about and are making such a great effort to reconcile?

Right, now we see where you're coming from bigot youre a joke

Roy,

Bud you didn't offend me.

Your old set in ur ways I get it. I am not ready to stop learning.

No Larry, no one forced anyone to watch this crap and the threat of violent reprisal is not a valid reason to limit Freedom of Speech. If you watch it, if you pay attention to it, that's your choice - you cannot then turn around and blame someone else for the violence you commit because you can't control your temper. Nonsense!

Under the conditions of Nahoula's parole he was not to go on the internet, and he was not to use pseudonyms. If he uploaded that video onto YouTube, he was violating parole. He was at the filming and rented the facilities they used under the name of Sam Bacile, so he was voilating parole there, too.

Here's a guy that's been in the federal pen for bank fraud, has served shorter sentences for other frauds and for meth possession with intent to manufacture. He sends large amounts of money overseas, and seems to have made this movie with money he received from overseas. While masquerading as Sam Bacile, he was telling people he was Israeli. To put it mildly, this guy is sketchy. I'm sure the Feds want to talk to him. The fact that he seems to have violated his parole conditions made it easier for them to do so.

Here's a link to this guy's parole order:

http://www.thewrap.com/media/article/innocence-muslim-filmmaker-probation-bank-fraud-56531

I wonder how many people have actually seen the 13 minute 'trailer'. The acting is comical, but only represents many of the criticisms of Mohammad from the historical record, and as such can be defended as having legitimate 'artistic value'. It's certainly no more offensive than many depictions of the life of Jesus Christ.

I understand that the actual screening of the entire movie only occurred once, and in a virtually empty theater.

While the 'trailer' has been criticized as causing the uproar in Islamic countries, the reality is that the most serious violent demonstrations in Libya and Egypt were actually planned well in advance to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11, and would have happened even without the 'trailer'. It has just become a convenient 'scapegoat' by those looking for a diversion.

That being said, I suspect that the Obama Administration is determined to make a politically motivated prosecution to calm the tensions in Islamic countries. Now that the FBI has been directed to get involved, I expect an arrest soon - probably on some concocted 'parole violation' charge.

This is a tough issue for Obama - who normally would be expected to support 'free speech' to appease his base, but must now do something to appease the Islamic countries.

Haven't seen the vid, don't care what is in it or who made it. The responsibility for the tragic murder of U.S. service members, security details and diplomats rests with the extremists that murdered them. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing is an orchestrated attempt to make us trample on our own civil rights and liberties. Our President shouldn't be out there apologizing for the actions of our countries enemies.

MDB123

The horrible person who shot the and killed the people in their temple, was no Christian. Read the words of Christ and you will find him telling his followers to not only their their neighbors, but their enemies as well. He never told anyone to be violent or cruel to anyone. Sure, their are people who are both violent and cruel who claim to be Christians, but they are liars.

Agewithout Wisdom:

Uhhh.... "Islam is older than Christianity, read a history book. "

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, that to speak and to prove it so.
Christianity PREDATES Islam by over 600 years. READ A HISTORY BOOK!

Are we now going to let the Muslim world - and liberals, with the WH, abating - restrict our constitutional rights to Freedom of Expression?!!

Kudos for Google to turn down the Fascist-in-Chief's request to pull the video! (Reminder to all that Nazism was after all a socialism based philosophy in its origins.)

If the tables were turned under NO circumstances will they be harassing and taking this guy for 'questioning' if he had produced an ani-Jesus film. What a disgrace! All to appease the lunatics in the Muslim world.

More dangerous and destructive onto our freedoms are not Muslims, folks, but Liberals, and their nanny-state social-control obsessions!

Wow, that is almost the same thing some muslims have said to me.

Let's skip the gray? He was a Christian radical, ur entire religion is to blame! ? Doesn't make any sense does it?

So Muslims say these radicals don't represent their religion, and u say the temple shooter doesnt represent your religion?

How come we are not having this conversation?

I know I know u are referring to the new testament not the old testament.

kaybeetoys

READ THE ARTICLE, Duqu:

This guy Nakoula is a thief, a scammer and a drug dealer.

If he is proven to be behind a video that incited hatred and violence, he should pay the price for the lives that have been lost. If he is not a U.S. citizen, he should be deported.

Likewise Kaybeetoys, READ ALL THE ARTICLES, and while you're at it, include just a little bit from an American History book and the U.S. Constitution.

Nakoula has been convicted of more than 1 crime, is likely a money-hungry greedy pig (but no more, and no less than the greedy illegal aliens flocking across our border looking for work/money, you know, the same illegal aliens Obama wants to give amnesty to and an immediate right to vote.... ala Nelson Mandela / Banana Republic style) and he may even have been in-violation of his probation, but he is in this country legally. Read ALL the articles.

The crimes he committed were in this country, but with respect to his Anti-Islam film, he did nothing less than what many in-bred democrat and liberal hollywood types, like Michael Moore, have done long before him.... ALSO FOR GREED.

In fact, I'm quite certain it was these greedy liberal Hollywood types, that both planted the seed and germinated the idea of exposing the religion that Nakoula loathes. This is his inalienable right (whether a US Citizen, Legal Alien, and unfortunately includes illegal Aliens as well), it is his freedom to express himself. If you can't understand that, then your just another liberal with a double standard, and a hypocrite.

And whether he violated his probation by expressing his right if expression, is inconsequential with respect to the American's being killed by radical Muslims, and it is a matter of U.S. law to decide whether or not he was in violation of his probation.... but make no mistake, Nakoula did not kill anyone. He is not a murder, as you so contend.

Would you be guilty of murder, if you said or expressed a point of view that was even more idiodical than your statement above, just because some mentally unstable radical took offence to you moronic comments and as a result went out an annihilated your entire family.... I think not, and I'm quite sure your would too long before the noose that another KAYBEETOYS radical supported placing around your neck.

This video was done in the US and so it is considered free speech. The President doesn't have the right to get involved.

If this is the case, will the President remove every video that makes fun of christians? Nope.

This demonstrations caused by a video is complete nonsense. It had nothing to do with the video. that to them is just icing on the cake. What it did was just unite their country to a cause. They secretly hate Americans, but their govt. can't live without our support.

It's obvious they like their ways and no amount of money given to them by our President will make them give that up.

ROY WILSON-336103

A 'Progressive' is another name for a Liberal, while a 'Libertarian' is another name for someone who believes in a minimal government - AKA a Conservative.

Libertarians believe in a lot less government than do "conservatives". Lets try to remember that up till Obama took office, no President increased the scope of government more than GWB and most conservatives want the government to control everyones body and who they can marry. In fact the whole "conservatives believe in minimal government" idea is something of a ruse.

California cannot 'Arrest" Nakoula! To save face; bowing to the Radical Islamists, is why he was arrested.

We have Freedom of Speech in America. So does he.

Are we beginning to become a Nation of Nazi's?/or Communists.

This is CRAZY. Everyone has the right to make a video and/or movies. It is just an excuse to tamper down the Radical Islamists protesting in the Middle East.Guess what.

They don't care about the offensive movie--they plainly Hate the Americans 365 days a year for thousands of past centuries. It would of happened, no matter what triggered their miserable lives. That is what they hate. Their own Government's treatment of them; ignoring the people's needs, treating them like slaves, and making them live in the dry dirt there. Poverty, misery. No way to get out, but turning to be a Terrorist.

The Protests are definitely instigated by the Dictators of all Regions in the Middle East/N. Africa---Iran is leading the Protests---Iran wants to take over the World. Believe it.

Harley Chic,

Did you fall off the motorcycle and land on your head?

The fanatics are trying to stir up trouble. The attack in Libya was planned before this trailer was even released. Some group was spreading rumors a Jew made the film and that it was backed by Jews. Dig deeper. Both sides should follow their Saviour"s or their Prophet's teachings. Don't let fanaticals steer you from your faith.

Romney said the statement issued by our embassy in Cairo (6 hours BEFORE they were attacked) apologizes for our American ideals. I didn't know that attacking & ridiculing religious beliefs was an American ideal! Considering what the Mormon religion went through in it's earlier history, I am quite puzzled by that.

Our Christian history includes violence: the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Huguenots fleeing France (St. Bartholomew's Day massacre when 5,000 to 30,000 were killed because they opposed the Catholic Church - Wikipedia), and a large population of Christians in Germany (The German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic - Wikipedia) were convinced by Hitler that the Jews were the root of all of their problems and killed millions of them collected from the many contries they attacked during WW II.

The Muslims in these countries have been living under dictators all of their lives. How do you explain and help them understand the concept of freedom of speech, something they have never known or experienced because everything in their lives has been controlled by their govenment. Consequently, when freedom of speech produces something they find offensive, they blame the govenment of that country. In addiditon, those dictators have kept these people poor and blamed their situation primarily on the United States, even though some of them have been propped up by our government, and on Israel.

Conversely, how do you convey their experience to the people of this country?

Which of our current political parties has religious extremists who would be interested in producing this trailer/film? Would have $5M to put into it (though have heard that the people who have seen it doubt that amount)? Would want to do something equivalent to screaming "Fire" in a crowded theater now? They knew what the reaction would be based on past history!

@ PeterforPats #1.6

for those who say Christians would never react so violently read your history- Christians have plenty of blood on their hands. Christianity is older than Islam and has already gone through(for the most part) their"kill anyone who doesn't agree with us" period. until Islam has its version of martin Luther to chill down the masses this behavior mimics Christianity at the same time in its evolution. maybe someday we can evolve past ALL the religious BS.

I am glad I am not the only who recognizes this, Good post. But instead of Martin Luther, where are the leaders of Islam? The Kings? The Mullah's? Imams? They need an aggressive campaign to stop this. Only they can stop this without genocide.

Is anyone in this room (besides me) old enough to remember the "Piss Christ"? And while it caused protests (mainly against the NEftA for spending tax dollars on "Religious Defamation") and death threats, no actual violence came from it (except that the exhibition was vandalized in France and Australia). And the Religious leaders, while trying to ban the exhibition of this POS "so called art", they also called on people to refrain from violence(if memory serves). Where are the Imams on this? I have yet to hear of one Muslim leader speaking at length on this subject. (they are reported to say they denounce these protests and attacks, but I have yet to see any of them stand up at a press conference and speak)

And if memory serves, the liberal media (MSM), talk show hosts, comedians were all backing the artist Andres Serrano. And calling the Christian protestors anti freedom bigots, for calling for "censorship of the arts". Isn't it funny, they are calling for us to censor ourselves to APPEASE these un-evolved, violent people? Can anyone say HYPOCRISY?

Islam is a primitive un-evolved religion for primitive un-evolved people, plain and simple. I know this will get collapsed because it is fact, and not opinion. (Proof: Simply follow the evolution of civilizations and empires from Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia,* Greece, Rome, Spain, France, England and Germany, *Splitting and going to India, Mongolia, China and Japan. Do a Wikipedia search GDP per Capita)

Some thing to consider and think about. There were many peace loving, decent Germans in Deutschland in 1939, (thru 1945), as a matter of fact the were a whole bunch of them. They did nothing to stop the horrors their leaders and a minority of others of their nation foisted upon the world. And in fact, probably contributed to the war effort, at least in some small way. So, were they Innocent?

{Another thing to consider, many Germans still loved Hitler after the war was over. I find it very disturbing that anyone would "love" their leader, one should of course, respect a leader, but not love. If you do not understand this, you are liberal idiot, a minion.}

There were many peace loving, decent Japanese in Nippon in 1939, (thru 1945), as a matter of fact the were a whole bunch of them. They did nothing to stop the horrors their leaders and a minority of others of their nation foisted upon the world. And in fact, probably contributed to the war effort, at least in some small way. So, were they Innocent?

There were many peace loving, decent Muslims, in these USA, as a matter of fact the were a whole bunch of them....or at least that is what the MSM and liberals would have us believe.

Only when Muslims take up arms against these terrorist, and I am not talking about Americans (who happen to be Muslim) I am talking about Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Egypt, Pakistan and the Muslims in the US as a whole (dictate to their young men, they must enlist to fight) Then I will believe that we are not in a war with Islam, but are in a war against radical idealism.

GDog said:

Amanda, this fails to meet any of the criteria the Supreme Court stipulated.

While I acknowledge that you have a right to make up your own mind, I would respectfully like to disagree with you on that and I'll explain why I think it does.

Criteria: Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

By calling the Muslim prophet a homosexual, pedophile, etc it could be argued, depending on his confessed motives, that he know it had the possibility to provoke violence.

Criteria: Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

According to the Qu'ran, the prophet Muhammad did indeed have wife/wives who would by today's standards be considered children, and said action would be considered child abuse/child molestation. However, that is by today's standards, and not by the standards of 610 CE, so by portraying him as a pedophile that would fall under something 'put in a context that makes true statements misleading.'

Criteria: Obscenity

1. Would the average person, applying the contemporary community standards, viewing the work as a whole, find the work appeals to the prurient interest?
2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?
3. Does the work taken as a whole lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

#1 & 2: prurient is defined as--"marked by unwholesome sexual interest: having or intended to arouse an unwholesome interest in sexual matters". I can honestly say that IF the full three hour movie depicts or portrays anyone as having sexual interest in children, it would qualify:if the full three hour moves does not mention it, then it would not qualify.

#3: Absolutely it lacks literary, artistic, scientific or political value.

Criteria:Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests
Does the speech conflict with other compelling interests? For example, in times of war, there may be reasons to restrict First Amendment rights because of conflicts with national security.

I would say that yes, this would qualify under that. The Middle East is a powder keg, we've just started pulling our soldiers out, and then this film gets released and it gets used as an excuse for fundamentalists/extremists to escalate conflict.

Salvia:

Good post. The Islamists and all the Extreme Islamists will incite violence from lies.

It doesn't take much to get them started. The Leaders behind their Governments may want this to show the world how Powerful they are. It is a warring religion; murder is their passion. "Violence begets Violence"--that is their mode of operation. All Tribal disputes, not forgotten since the beginning--

The Governments hate certain tribes, as in the former and present Iraq/Saddam Hussein. It is pretty much covered in 30 pin-pointed countries that are in the uprisings at this moment.

America must protect Americans abroad in the Embassies, elsewhere from getting murdered. It would be a good idea to evacuate all Embassies, and other American run entities..

drk said:

Under the conditions of Nahoula's parole he was not to go on the internet, and he was not to use pseudonyms. If he uploaded that video onto YouTube, he was violating parole. He was at the filming and rented the facilities they used under the name of Sam Bacile, so he was voilating parole there, too.

Here's a guy that's been in the federal pen for bank fraud, has served shorter sentences for other frauds and for meth possession with intent to manufacture. He sends large amounts of money overseas, and seems to have made this movie with money he received from overseas. While masquerading as Sam Bacile, he was telling people he was Israeli. To put it mildly, this guy is sketchy. I'm sure the Feds want to talk to him. The fact that he seems to have violated his parole conditions made it easier for them to do so.

THANK YOU!!! That's exactly what I said in my post at 1.69!:

As his prior criminal convictions included stealing Social Security numbers to gain access to peoples' bank accounts, a condition of his parole could well have included limiting electronic tramsmissions via internet.

Also, the actors who answered the casting call said that they were duped into making the film, they thought they were making a Lawrence-Of-Arabia type historical film (albeit a bad one.) If he misrepresented the purpose or if there are any actors who claim they weren't paid for their time, etc., that could well be a possible fraud conviction and hence a parole violation.

Thank you for finding that link. This renders the entire free-speech argument, and whether or not the video even qualifies for protection, moot!!

Hey YOSLO get it right. They released them because reagan had already made his weapons deal with them. Have you forgot about him and his gun running buddy oliver north. They didn't release them because they were afraid of that clown. They released them because he gave them what they wanted. he made a arms deal with terrorists. That's it.

hey crackers , suck it up. There is a nigra in the white house and God willing and if the American people have any sense at all, will remain there for the next four years. Get over it and yourselves.

for those of you that are posting your views regarding free speech inciting violence...you have only to look at President Obama himself as well as other members of his administration...how many times has he bragged about wiping out Osama Bin Laden?...as we are witnessing, there are still a lot of Osama(s) out there. I personally,don't buy into the nonsense that this film was the cause of this uprising at our embassies...these people hate our guts...always have...they don't need an excuse...but Sept 11th certainly was convenient.

It seems to me that people who are looking for a fight are not good for our society. The schoolyard bully is bad for the schoolyard children. The raging mob is bad for the society. The brutal dictator is bad for his people.

Just as the person who made this film to intentionally inflame a reaction in the Muslim world is bad for the world. The person who promoted this film is bad for the world. This does not mean that they are not protected by freedom of speech, but the religious intolerance they have shown should be condemned also under the protection of freedom of speech.

The person who produced this film used an assumed name. He filled out legal forms fraudulently and should be prosecuted for this fraud. Those who worked with him should be interviewed to gain useful info in catching this "producer."

I am saddened by those posters who respond to events like we are seeing in the Middle East with taunts like F' em and condemnations of Muslims. In Cairo, the size of the mob and others protesting never exceeded 10,000 in a city of 12 million people. These 10,000 hardly speak for the other 11,990,000 people. It is always helpful to put these type of things into perspective.

I urge peaceful muslims to speak up individually (i.e. not only through organisations leaders), on this forum and others, to let people know that even if they were offended by the video, they strongly support freedom of speech. To let people know that even if they dislike the content of the video, they still support the same freedom of speech for any man or woman who makes a movie, writes a book, or a cartoon, about Muhammad and Islam, whether it is insulting or not, and strongly condemn the extremists who attacked the embassies and murdered people (whether they were protesting about the movie, or 9/11, or something else).

Saying "we are peaceful", is not enough. Silence will not do either, you have to speak up, because most the time the only voices that people hear are the loud voices and actions of extremists. You have to be louder then extremists. People have to hear the voices - and read the words - of peaceful muslims, here, and other networks, not only the statements of selected speakers for different organisations.

Reality: The protests had been scheduled since August, and they started on 9/11. The WH was aware of the protests a week before the first one and 48 hours before the second one. Myth: The protests were because of a video that most people hadn't seen until the WH and State Dept brought it up.

Reality: The supposed maker of an anti-Muslim video was arrested for exercising his freedom of speech rights. Myth: The Feds surrounded his house for 2 days and arrested a parole violation (anti-Muslim video).

Amanda @ 1.144: 1) Clear and present danger - must represent a legitimate danger, but the threat of violent reprisal is not legitimate. It is a threat. We cannot be threatened out of our freedom. If any group is allowed to claim that they are "offended to violence" by the utterance of words - then Americans can claim to be offended to violence by the word "Allah". Anytime the Muslim world does anything we don't like - we just pull the word "Allah" being spoken by (insert any group) off the Internet and we are automatically justified in burning embassies and killing personnel. It cannot be allowed. 2) Libel and Slander laws require substantial proof - there is nothing which would meet the standard. The Koran is not proof. 3) Obscenity - there may not even BE a three hour film (it hasn't surfaced if it exists) - so you insert a very large IFwith no evidence at all. 4) Conflict with other legitimate social or governmental interests. No, because the main interest of our government in this matter is to protect the rights of its citizens - not to be concerned over threats made against us by any 'powderkeg'. We do not forbid speech offensive to other religions or groups, so it has been established that no conflict exists with regard to any such sensitivities.

There would be violent riots in our streets if the attempt is made to give special treatment to one group simply because they were the 'squeaky wheel' - THAT is a legitimate social and governmental interest.

To all those that say Christians are as bad a Muslims if you look into history are not seeing the big picture , but you know what , it isn't yesterday that is the real problem , it's what happens tomorrow that is the real concern . Tomorrow Christians won't be out killing anyone for not believing in Christ or following their specific branch religion but you can bet money someone will die for not believing in one of many Muslim branches . Personally I have no such religious conviction and instead have a keen sense of honor , I'm an Atheist , I won't be out killing anyone for having a religion either by the way , from what I see it is pretty much only the Muslims killing people over religion these days and that needs to stop one way or another !

Juanita,

Others cite the killing of Bin Laden as a major accomplishment of Pres. Obama. Pres. Obama cites it occasionally as something he accomplished.

I would not call this bragging. I am sure that the death of Bin Laden would have resulted in massive protests in the Muslim world and I don't remember such protests happening. That certainly would have been the most likely time for such protests to occur if Bin Laden's death was a cause to protest in the Muslim world.

My conclusion is, if in the aftermath of Bin laden's death, there were no massive protests, the Muslim world clearly sent the message that his death did not upset them.

For you to bring this up now, as an underlying reason for current protests, is to ignore the obvious. Bin Laden was never viewed as some sort of hero in most of the Muslim world.

The current protests concern the disrespect shown by filmmaker towards Muslim prophet Mohammed and the belief among some in the Muslim world that the US was somehow behind it. Some of the mob are anti-American extremists just looking for an excuse to attack US, others are misinformed about US involvement in this film's production and promotion, and some just do not understand how our freedom of speech limits what actions US government can take against the filmmaker.

I have to laugh, as I read though the post, I see an apparent woman trying to justify with American Law the Muslim faith. The same faith that explicitly states that a woman who speaks against a man is to have her head separated from her body. Sharia Law is very specific on it's views of woman. They are the expressed property of the man, they are not able to do anything without the direct permission of the husband or father (if unmarried). Only a man can grant a divorce and any dishonor of the man is a death sentence.

Families will execute their own daughters, to save favor. The Koran (Quran) is also very specific. One can use deception, provided it "furthers Islam", and at points it's actually encouraged to protect it. So any "apparent" differentiated attitudes are to be met with skepticism.

Your assertion is, that because they were "incited" to riot, it's grounds for deeming non-protected. If that is all it takes, then the Civil Rights movement was illegal, after all... it incited violence.

So is gay right speech, as well as Neo-Nazi speech. But the courts have addressed the degree. The speech needs to be directed towards the individuals or groups. This film intends to reach others.

As for the "taken out of context", Interpretation is a protected speech. They have to purposely make a statement that is untrue.

The film appears to give incite into the fact that Muhammad made choices, in contradiction to common day beliefs. It does not state anywhere a point of view, it would be left to the viewer to "connect the dots" and draw the conclusions.

Keep in mind, anytime they try to draw semantics to work around the "Freedom of Speech" it has consequences to others. If you are going to paint this image as unprotected, than you are opening the door for major stumbling blocks for others, that desire to restrict the subject of speech.

Shaak, the film was released weeks before. In comparison, the news that an American was going to burn the Quran created immediate incitement.

The accidental burning of the Quran by US Military also created IMMEDIATE incitement.

So why wait? Coincidence that it just was the morning of 9/11?

By definition, the Quran is very specific, anyone who is NOT a follower of Islam is an enemy of Islam. Their mere existence is an insult to the Muslim.

An Extremist is one that goes beyond the normal... the Quran, which is merely a diary of Muhammad's time on earth, preaches his way of life and his ideals... the teachings are very specific and these guys are right on track, that is why the 2 sects (Shiite and Sunni) are constantly at war and have been for centuries.

The one's that go away from what the very Imam's preach are the only "extremists" and they are also viewed as heretics.

They hate American because of our "rights". They hate the fact that woman are allowed to usurp a man. They hate the fact that we put thoughts of defiance into the minds of their women. They hate the fact that we do not put homosexuals to death. Or we prosecute polygamy. They hate the fact that we allow worship of Jews and Christians, or worst... Atheism.

Make no mistake, they want the whole world serving Allah and Sharia Law as the ONLY law.

Gee, it's happens every time. The sons of the moon god go berserk, something they do with predictable regularity, and the Christian bashers emerge from under their rocks. Also predictable.

I'm absolutely amazed by the lack of reason by most posters here. Freedom of speech/expression isn't a green light to do anything without repercussions. For instance, I am a musician. If I want to practice my freedom of speech/expression at 4AM with my amplifier turned all the way up, I'm going to have a few people in blue showing up at my house telling me to stop. Is this a case of the government trampling my freedom of speech/expression? Of course it isn't. While I do have freedom of speech, once my freedom starts to infringe on that of others, it's my duty as a citizen to stop.

Given the "anything goes" attitude a lot of posters here seem to have, it seems that you would also support the right to make videos abusing children, or for bigots to be legally covered to film hate crimes. Once again, once the freedoms of others is compromised, we have overstepped our protected free speech. I love my country, and I love the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the USA, but we need to be considerate of others and be willing to take responsibility if our actions cause harm to others. I'm sick of all these people who think we should be able to be a bunch of cowboys and whatever actions we take should be covered by free speech.

This video was clearly made to incite hate and violence. As a result of some idiot practicing his free speech, there have been several US and foreign citizens killed. Why would any true American feel that this is right?

G-Dog-787120

Hi LMarcT: good to read you. Do you follow my logic through to comment 1.50? (as relates to the Freedom of Speech discussion)

Hey G-Dog... Wow, I left for a while and this thread blew sky high... I'll have to catch up with the other posts as well. In answer to your question... ABSOLUTELY. The exercising of free speech is fundamental and this may be all he did.

The only way I fall off this wagon is if he purposely lied to the actors, dubbed the movie to the specifications of an Islam extremist, and knew that it was for the sole purpose of inciting violence by misrepresenting the video as the views of America. Somewhere in that chain I lose the notion that this was just freedom of speech.

But if he has absolutely no connection back to the extremists and there was no intent to cause harm... speak all day long. How that lands legally, I have no idea. I do know how it lands morally and ethically though.

GDog:

I'm not going to try and change your mind on this, and I appreciate that you're not trying to change mine. I appreciate your civility and reasonability.

The link that drk dug up in post 1.128 that stated part of the filmmaker's parole terms included limiting electronic transmissions via internet eliminates all discussion of whether this should be protected under freedom of speech. He violated the terms of his parole.

Under the conditions of Nahoula's parole he was not to go on the internet, and he was not to use pseudonyms. If he uploaded that video onto YouTube, he was violating parole. He was at the filming and rented the facilities they used under the name of Sam Bacile, so he was voilating parole there, too.

Here's a link to this guy's parole order:

There is one thing you said, however:

there may not even BE a three hour film (it hasn't surfaced if it exists) - so you insert a very large IFwith no evidence at all.

Yes, there is a three-hour long full movie version, the thirteen minute clip is not all there is. When the news first broke it was widely reported that the 3 hour film was screened in CA to an empty theater--promoters were apparently out on the sidewalk trying to entice people to walk in and see it but no one did.

Now, from what I understand the audio for the film has been redubbed over what the actors originally said, so yes, it is entirely possible that someone, for whatever purpose, took out all of the original audio and added in insults and hate speech. And yes, I do understand that the (relatively) small group of protestors would not, on their own have been able to come up with the rocket-propelled explosives necessary to have gotten into the embassy and killed our ambassador and soldiers. That was clearly committed by extremists who took advantage of the protests as a cover for their own actions, and I abhor that action.

I am neither Jew, Christian, nor Muslim, but one of the precepts of my faith system; 'An ye harm none, do as ye will.'

I decry and deplore that film. It was wrong to desecrate another's religious figure and belief system. However, although I don't believe the movie should be considered protected under the 1st Amendment's free speech, for the reasons I outlined, the decision will not be up to me but to our government and nothing I may say or think is going to change or affect that in the slightest bit. I don't believe they will find him guilty of violations of free speech--but I do believe they will find him guilty of violating his parole.

I condemn, with everything I am and everything I believe in, the murder of the people in the embassies. I condemn everyone who has been killed in the name of any Deity, even my own. Taking another life, no matter who you are, what color your skin is, what Deity you worship (or even if you don't worship one) or where you live is NEVER the solution to ignorance, intolerance, and hatred. Death is never, EVER the answer.

So Bill Maher made a movie that was offensive to just about every religion out there. Does that mean I can go and light his house on fire? If I do will this president chastise Bill Maher for hurting my feelings or will I get arrested?

We are like the girlfriend who keeps getting beat up by her dumb@ss boyfriend but who keeps going back because she thinks he is going to change. Who is at fault? The boyfriend or the girlfriend who thinks he will change?

How can any of you people, even for a minute, believe that this filmmaker is to blame for this? Did he do something offensive? Probably, I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it's okay to kill four people. If we are going to blame people for doing irresponsible things then our jails are going to be filled. And Bill Maher is going to have his house burned down. Why doesn't Obama give that money from Maher back? Hypocrite much?

Let me just add, Bill Maher's movie was offensive but it was also funny as hell and eye opening. It was certainly something to think about. But not everyone will see it that way.

Michael Moore?

moonbeamracer

Hummmmmmm ... I support freedom of speech all the way .... Unless it is done to "Incite to Riot" or with malicious intent ....

Constitutional "Free Speech" protection has its limits ... I personally believe that "Truth" is the essence of it ... if its "truthful, it passes the test ...

I say "HERE HERE!!!". But, unfortunately, people are free to lie... because one man's lie is another's truth. And because opinion has no absolute weight of truth or lie. One only has to watch our political ads to see that freedom of speech must support lying.

BUT, like I said in an earlier post, if the actors were deceived, and he dubbed it as part of a conspiracy to incite violence, and he was in collusion with an extremist in the Middle East to do so, and they misrepresented the video as having some true American roots, and they published it as such and someone died as a result????

I don't know how the law lands on such a sequence, but there has to be something somewhere in there that's illegal. We KNOW it's immoral and not within the teachings of Islam OR Christianity... but is it illegal?... Internationally illegal? I don't know.

Saying something that offends another is a far cry from doing any physical harm to them, but some here seem to be saying that if you say something to offend someone and then they kill you or some random person out of anger over what you said is perfectly acceptable.

If we must take responsibilty for our words, then they must take responsibilty for their deeds! Humans are better than that. A tiger is a wild animal so if I poke it with a stick I shouldn't be surprised if it rips me to shreds. It cannot or does not use rational thought. It acts out of instinct. We as humans have the ability of rational thought. We can override our instinct to kill a annoying little prick and if we cannot, if we act on the urge to kill and maim we end up in prison. Just like where these Muslim wild animals belong, in a freaking cage!

Redhead Ranting

.... Why doesn't Obama give that money from Maher back? Hypocrite much?

Damn!!!! I was with you!!! I was cheering!!! "Yes", I yelled...

Then you went and had to put a nonsensical unrelated zing aimed at our president for accepting a donation that was at least 100th the size of some of Romney's donations. Oh well... now I have to go back and somehow complain about the rest of your post. LOL

First order of business - I have to punch myself in the head for even posting to one of these zillion post threads - a fart in a typhoon lasts longer. WHACK...okay, got that out of the way.

The attacks on 9/11/12 look to be planned, was the movie part of those plans - not likely.

What the movie did was incite all the fence sitters who were not part of the original plans - those incited people clearly are causing death and destruction - thus the movie is a major problem in regards to the safety of foreigners in the Mid East now.

The big picture says it's all related - stop slicing up the pie and saying one slice proves something.

Christian TV constantly attacks all non Christians - the 700 Club is nothing more than hate TV. The film portrays Muhammad as a child molester - while real Catholic molesters run free...chew on that one.

The corporations that put Bush and Obama in office with all of their $$$, don't give candidates all that money to protect embassies and Fast Food joints...so pre warned or not, it isn't a priority to protect citizens - be they in New York or the Middle East. How many Oil Fields have been attacked? That's what I thought. I guess you missed the part where corporations and individual investors made millions when the Twin Towers fell - they had to come down anyway due to asbestos and plans for better use of that land...very convenientthat they just happened to be attacked. Cost to have the Twin Towers legally torn down - cost of Twin Towers falling from attack - follow the money.

LmarcT - I have to laugh, you are right, I went to a place I shouldn't have gone. But not because Romney has gotten huge donations. Just because it was stupid.

In my defense there are a lot of crazy ideas floating around here and it's hard to address all of them at once. I wasn't trying to zing him. I don't think.

In all seriousness I don't understand why the media and at least Hillary Clinton, keep talking about this film. It's truly perplexing and a little scary.

I will say this, this has been a great opportunity to talk to my kids about standing on principle and/or making excuses.

And one more thing..I've alway had my flag proudly flying. When I move it is the first thing that gets unpacked. It is usually only me and my neighbor, who has done three tours in Iraq, who fly the flag. Since this has happened five more flags have gone up on the block. It reminds me of 9/11, in a good way.

Redhead Ranting

I did get a laugh as well... :)

But seriously, if we LET this bring us all together, it will. But I think we must do 3 things for that to happen...

1) Once assured the film maker was not in collusion with an extremist to incite violence, let him go and strongly support the notion that he had a right to free speech.

2) We must realize that the violence is being pushed by extremists and does NOT represent even a large minority of Muslims, much less a majority.

3) And most importantly... and the one I have doubt about... our two political parties need to come to terms with the fact that this was a manipulation of latent anger and that at least appearing to have a united position on the issue is most important right now.

Then maybe we can all come together.

By the way, you should look up the video and watch it... it's amazing that such a crap video is having this impact.

LmarcT -

I don't know, if we LET this bring us together what kind of fun will we have here?

1) Agreed. I seriously doubt he was in collusion. I suspect they used the digital darts approach to choosing his video. He just got "lucky".

2) Also agreed. Though I'm not sure that is a widely held belief looking at some of the comments here. However, I do think there is a group mentality going on over there and once the first malatov cocktail was launched it was hard to expect anyone to not get wrapped up in the excitement. Still, I agree that people are by and large good and that it is their government, or lack of one, that is the trouble.

3) Also agree, with both points. If it weren't an election year it might be possible but then if it weren't it wouldn't be necessary. As soon as they stop citing the movie they may be able to get to that conclusion sooner. We do need to come together on this, that's for sure.

I've read what a horrible movie it is, poorly made, dubbed and all, I have no desire to watch it. I've been sucked into this kind of hype before and it's always a let down. It won't be as bad as I hope it will and it won't be good at all. Just a waste of space and fuss. Besides, Big Bang Theory is on for the next two hours. Much better use of my time, even if they are reruns.

Scape goat at the least, an attempt to set precedence to take away our FREEDOM of speech at the worst !

To SpcTorres and all the others trying to play apologist for this scumbag "film maker":

He isn't being picked up and questioned for making an anti-islam video. He's being picked up for violating probation. This piece of human trash has been convicted of manufacturing and dealing meth. AND for identity theft and bank fraud. Part of his probation and parole is he can't get online. Youtube is online. He could have put a cooking video on and violated parole, much less irresponsibly contributing to the death of Americans.

And some jerks hate muslims so much they want to defend this worthless liability to our society? Real great christian role model, a meth manufacturer/dealer and thief who destroys others' lives for his own profit? Looks like he hasn't changed much judging by this "film". Even the actors are mad because he lied to them that it was a desert adventure movie, and dubbed in the filth later. Yeah we have freedom of speech, but if you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater you can still be arrested. I hope they find a way to put this piece of sh** back in prison. Ambassador Stevens' family must feel similar.

Redhead Ranting - Sorry you are so off base - I actually don't know where to start

First of all the uprising over this film is not connected - I repeat not connected to the killings of our Ambassador and the other three Americans

The killings that took place in Benghazi is believed to be in retaliation of a drone strike on one of Al Qaeda number two guy who was killed and was planned well ahead to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11

The Benghazi attackers - carried the black and white Al Qaeda flag - four vehicles using rocket propelled ammunition stormed the buildings and killed not only our four Americans but ten Lybian guards

To continue - we have dispatched the FBI and the CIA to find these murderers and they will be caught

We would never send the FBI and the CIA to an uprising in the streets

Again these two events are not connected

Barbara - I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought they were related. I've been doing nothing but saying they are not in the least related. Maybe you misinterpreted my sarcasm?

Just because you CAN say or write something

Doesn't mean you should

With Freedom, comes responsibility,

Those who attack like this do not deserve our respect. What I see right through is many on here are secretly (A few openly)cheering this piece of filth.

This piece of filth was made to incite, to cause violence, riots etc. And it did.

Funny it reminds me of yelling Fire in a crowded theater

So, if there was no internet, no youtube then nobody in the M.E. would have had a chance to be offended? Is it safe to assume that as long as there is international discourse, non-Muslims from around the world are guaranteed to offend Islam? Should we just plan on some violent attack every year from now on? If a group of rowdy Christians attacked and killed Libyan diplomats on U.S. Soil, would the President of Libya call our President and offer condolences? Can an aggressor blame the victim for inciting their anger? Exactly how does a group of armed militants cause that much damage to our Embassy and personnel, then disappear under the radar? Have a lot of questions.

@Dangerous mind, What? If I make a film and you get killed, even though the film had nothing and I repeat nothing to do with both you or promoting your death, I should still go to jail because YOU claim my video was the inspiration to your death. LOL.

Spc, seriously, how is she is going to make that claim if she's dead? hheheheh

But from what I can see, the feds are simply trying to find something else to charge him with so Obozo can continue his appologizing for the Evil of America.

The man did nothing wrong. He made a film. So? People have made controversial films for years. People blame the film industry all the time for violence in films causing violence of our youth, but can that STOP the film industry?

NO. It's called freedom of speech folks. Plain and simple.

Afghanistan isn't listed under countries that perform female clitoris emasculation, but they never the less like other Islamic countries are guilty of this evil manipulative behavior, used to control and enslave women. The men are also slaves of this barbaric system, except perhaps the rich elites and sheiks of wealthy oil producing nations who pretend to be peaceful, but only as long as they are rich (take away the money and see how long the peace lasts).

A religion that enslaves people and hands out death sentences to those who dare to give it critique. There are many similarities with the Roman Catholic church, and the Inquisitions.

To anyone who believes their is a "peaceful" cooperative agenda for the future, you have already lost.

Backcountry164 "ROY WILSON-336103 Lets try to remember that up till Obama took office, no President increased the scope of government more than GWB"

Do you have some facts to back that up, or did you just make it up?

In checking the size of the Federal Government civilian work force, it was about 5% smaller under Bush than under Clinton, but Obama increased it even higher than under Clinton.

@SpcTorres

Did you even read my post bro? The guy was not supposed to use the internet as per terms of his parole, seeing as how he used the internet to steal thousands of dollars from innocent people. That's what he already went to jail for.

How do you think he got a video up on youtube, if not using the internet?

He violated his parole. Period. He should pay for it. It doesn't matter what the subject matter of the video is.

Do you hate muslims enough where you want to excuse this guy from the rule of law?

@Dangerous, Of course i read your post and that makes sense. What doesn't make sense is how I was asking a question and instead of getting an answer I got that I'm being sympathic to a dirt bag.

ljstauth,

The film was put on YouTube in July 2012. It had very few hits until its link was forwarded to Egyptian journalists in an e-mail from an anti-MUSLIM person last week with an endorsement of it by the Florida preacher Terry Jones.

The awareness of the film by Muslims started last week and culminated in its coverage by a radical Muslim cleric on 9-11 on Egyptian TV. See the latest Time magazine for more details on this.

This cycle of hatred must be stopped. Your reaction is part of this cycle. Not every Muslim is so ignorant to believe the US government was behind this film, but many do believe it. It is a belief based on their ignorance of how freedom of speech protects religious intolerance in our country.

Roy,

Patriot Act.

Offend a violent culture, and you're going to get a violent response.

This man orchestrated a selfish, self-centered anti-Islamic agenda by deliberately offending the most sacred element of Islam--illustrations or other depictions of Mohammad. Theirs is a culture that does not have a hesitation between offense and punishment; there is no "wait a minute, why are we offended?" element, they simply produced a knee-jerk reaction after being soul-deep offended by someone outside of their religion. That much I understand, though I cannot condone the killings.

(Haasruo3) I agree, but there will always be those yelling from the fringe (they have to yell because people generally ignore them) such disgustingly pitiful tripe as to appear comical to many. Of course, the damage is done by those who listen, and are offended, and do not control their anger.

Point is... this man in NOT AN AMERICAN! He came here from Egypt. He lied, and stated he was Jewish, and have $5mil to fund his film, given to him by wealthy Israelites. The truth was he had $60K, given to him by other members of his family. He is a part of a small sect of Christians from Egypt. They have been "targeted" by other Egyptians. I totally believe he knew what he was doing. The best thing we could possibly do for our own country is starting to expel any foreign national that breaks laws... pay for the plane ticket to send them back from where they came from as soon as they are found guilty, and bar re-entry to our country. Why we put him in jail, not once, but twice, boggles my mind. A plane ticket is a lot cheaper than 10 years in prison... and our streets are a little safer.

A plane ticket is a lot cheaper than 10 years in prison... and our streets are a little safer.

And so is the entire world because people aren't attacking a military behemoth like the US over the actions of a religiously demented punk.

The world of Islam has its own Rush Limbaughs. The difference is that the culture there encourages rioting in the streets, while here it's ranting in the house.

If those of the Muslim faith don't stand up to the young thugs out there on the streets instigating trouble, they will get what they deserve. It's perfectly okay for Muslims in the Middle East to attack every other religion. That filmmaker is at fault. He represents the Coptic Christians and he knew exactly what he was doing when they made that film.

It's time to stand back, take an objective look at what some in the Muslim faith are doing to the world's view of the Muslim religion....they are defaming it, degrading it and decimating it worldwide.

Some use the Muslim faith as a pivotal point of power. The sad reality is that their uncivilized behaviors are becoming a trademark for what the world views as their religion and not irresponsible, reckless behavior on the part of power freaks.

this video is fake... not only is it set 2,000 yrs ago (before islam) it was dubbed over.. the prophets is really called Master George, NOT mohammed! the real story is here

September 14, 2012

Cindy Lee Garcia tells the website that she was hired last summer for a small part in a movie she was told would be called “Desert Warriors,” about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago (Islam is about 1,400 years old).

She told Gawker “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 and that, according to Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George,” Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed. Garcia said that there was a man who identified as “Bacile” on set, but that he was Egyptian and frequently spoke Arabic.

The online 14-minute clip of a purportedly anti-Islamic movie that sparked protests at the US embassy in Cairo and and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is now looking like it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.

I am not a Christian but I would NEVER condone such language about the Pope or blessed Jesus son of Mary!!! Because I respect all people and their respective faiths,not just people that believe as I believe..THAT IS WHAT BEING A TRUE AMERICAN IS ALL ABOUT!!!

Keeping quiet about a subject simply because it is religious in nature is not being a "true American." A "true American" understands that other people will say things with which they will not always agree, but that they have the right to say them. Social progress in the country is often the result of some people saying unpopular or, in the eyes of some people, offensive things. I'm sure that the southern slaveholders were offended by the abolitionists' depictions of slavery as brutal and inhumane. I guess that Harriet Beecher Stowe was lucky that she wasn't beheaded for her novel, a book that helped change many attitudes.

Is the content of this film worthy speech? I don't know. I haven't seen it. But, when we start deciding that speech isn't worthy of protection simply because it offends, we have diminished the bedrock of our Republic, Freedom of Speech.

Well what nice things can you say about "the last prophet of Islam???? From what I've heard and read he was in fact illiterate, a violent thug, and liked young children. If these things are in fact true then why do these people think they have any right to the violence they are creating across the world???

A number of people above seem to be suffering from reading comprehension problems.

This man is being questioned because the specific terms of his probation forbade him from accessing the Internet, on account of his having used the Internet to steal money. He is suspected now of uploading a video to the Internet, which would violate the probation prohibition. This has NOTHING to do with what he uploaded or his freedom of speech, only that he uploaded something, anything.

Please read carefully before spouting hate or idiocy.

Obumo has now shown that if the KILL someone they get their way..

This clown needs to go before WE HAVE NO RIGHTS

The truth was he had $60K, given to him by other members of his family. He is a part of a small sect of Christians from Egypt. They have been "targeted" by other Egyptians. I totally believe he knew what he was doing.

Katt Kerr Davis: Isn't that the whole point of coming to America, to excercise your freedom of speech. I doubt he had much freedom of speech while in Egypt as a coptic christian. For you to produce a holier than thou attitude is utter ridiculous to me; it means you really don't know what real persecution is all about.

I can't believe so many stupid people agreed with you.

WOW!

So our government is now in the business of helping the Muslims to silence free speech?

This has NOTHING to do with what he uploaded or his freedom of speech, only that he uploaded something, anything.

You're exactly right. Bringing this guy in for questioning, however, will only serve to convince people in other countries that the US government CAN exercise control over speech when it chooses and will make it appear that the government could have stopped the film in the first place. They should've waited to investigate this issue until after the commotion died down. By doing it now, it looks like an act of appeasement.

Why are there so many posts spouting religious B.S.? Or the whole debate about first amendment rights. Of course we shouldn't forget about the brain dead right wingers determined to blame everything on Obama, including starting World War 2 and the eruption of Mount Saint Helens.

Has everyone missed the point here? This film seems to have been produced by a shadowy group of Middle Eastern types. Now you don’t have to be a genius to see that there is a very high probability that this whole thing was an al Qaeda set up designed to place blame on America.

Why do people fall for this stuff, are we that gullible? The so called “demonstrations” brought on by this film were staged and well planned, why else would they have brought along rocket propelled grenades. Apparently this film has been kicking around the internet for many months. Why all of sudden on 9/11 are Muslims “outraged” by it. It’s so very obvious that there are forces at work here that unless hunted down soon will crawl back into their caves to plan another attack on America.

Perhaps I’m being too logical for the religious or first amendment types that just love jumping all over stories like this………… But somebody has to be. Oh, I almost forgot our insane right wing brethren. I suspect it won't take them long to blame the fall of Rome on President Obama too.

The first amendment is part of the attack, its like a by product of the whole attack, not mention to be seen as a valid target.

The whole thing was planned, setup well in advance, from the way our media would report this to the way our president would respond. Some were in some cave Terrorists are high fiveing each other talking about how stupid we all are and we fell for every part of this plot.

He was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution cause he stole $860.00. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison. That does not jive.

OK, so my comment about sending him home is NOT in relation to the film! If you read what I wrote, I stated that we should have sent him home when he broke our laws... and got prison time for breaking our laws. He basically got 10 years free room/board/medical care at my expense. I am a tax paying citizen of the USA. I am finding objection to housing foreigners in our criminal system, and then allowing them to stay in our country once they are out of jail. Any other country in the world would have expelled him once he was out of jail. I would rather take it a little sooner, and send them home, under guard, once they are convicted. Let the home country deal with the offense, once they debark the plane. Would save us BILLIONS a year, I have no doubt. Use the money, to beef up our security at points of entry. I would much rather see USA citizens returned to our country when they break laws overseas... maybe it is time for the GENEVA Convention to regather... and see about returning lawbreakers to the country of origin, rather than holding them for ages... and then... the part that really bothers me... in our case at least... is to allow them to remain, and continue to cause trouble... he is NOT a citizen of the USA... and has been expensive to us, to say the least... why is he still here? If he was a house guest at my home... his stuff would have been in the trash bin already...

Well Said!

Yeah, if there were only 30-40 million more who have the same views we might be able to turn this country around. Every act, every news story has to be run through some political prism allowing the thoughtless sheep to be given their opinions on a particular subject. Whatever mess this country is in is of it's own making and we all share in the responsibility. Wasting all of our time trying to tally up the blame totals does nothing but prevent us from resolving our issues.

Don't discount the effect of the money to be made by aggravating conflict.

Unfortunately, Nakoula may have been thinking of his family in Egypt. The Coptic Christians in Egypt have been targeted by the Egyptian Government since Hosni Mubarak was forced from power.

Everyone sing....

I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company

(Insert marketing slogan here... unless you live in NYC, they're trying to wean you off the stuff...)

has everything to do with politics, now we will be sending troops to the area... mission acomplished. Hope is for DOPEs lets be lied to some more sheeple....

September 14, 2012

Cindy Lee Garcia tells the website that she was hired last summer for a small part in a movie she was told would be called “Desert Warriors,” about life in Egypt 2,000 years ago (Islam is about 1,400 years old).

She told Gawker “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 and that, according to Gawker, “In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George,” Garcia said. The words Muhammed were dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed. Garcia said that there was a man who identified as “Bacile” on set, but that he was Egyptian and frequently spoke Arabic.

The online 14-minute clip of a purportedly anti-Islamic movie that sparked protests at the US embassy in Cairo and and the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya is now looking like it could have been ginned up by someone sitting a basement with cheap dubbing software.

The 1st amendment does not exist so we can talk about the weather. It exists so people can say very controversial things. The same thing that protects your right as an American to say your prayers and demonstrate your faith also protects those who say very controversial things you may not agree with. We have laws that limit someone's ability to hurt another person or defame them. But you have a right to think what you want, say what you want. Otherwise the government can start telling you what you can eat and drink and whatever... so said Ron Paul during the debates, it happens. But so says the law of the land, America. Embrace your freedoms. Restrict the overreach of government. Turn off the noise. You are the leader in your own life - not a president and a cabinet and a blatantly self-serving Congress who serve themselves and their agendas over the American people instead of protecting and serving individual freedoms under law. Have Americans become some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth because they have learned they somehow must constantly be vying to control others - and have been taught to do that from their own government? Doesn't control override freedoms now? Now matter how long America has been going down the wrong road, it's time to turn around. Vote Liberty. Vote American freedoms. Otherwise your freedoms or lack of them will change back and forth with every new election. Freedom should always be the basis for American government, not appealing to one or another group only to diminish someone else. That is not the role of the federal govenment. There are no groups. Americans are all independent people with independent thoughts governed by 'a small bundle of laws' that respect everyone and that should be defending the rights of each American equally, not mandating endless, mindless laws to control everyone. No one is better or lesser than someone else. You make your life what you want it to be. It will be different than all others. It's supposed to be. Stop playing the game of politics for we always lose to the politicans. Win through our most basic, fair, commonsense and fundamental laws based on respect of all persons and that do not change. Where freedoms will always allow you to choose to make of your life what you determine, not what your neighbor or your ever changing presidents say you should receive. Stop making a president your master.

Yeah JW,,that's certain a better song about America than our National Anthem.

So says the community organizer.

And now Nakoula and his compatriot Steve Klein are in hiding--not even brave enough to talk to the media, much less stand up for their alleged beliefs about the evils of Islam. Where are YOUR armies, Mr. Klein? Where are YOUR protesters taking to the streets? Why aren't YOU standing by your words rather than running and hiding like the sniveling coward that you are, Nakoula?

If you are right and righteous, no protest will silence you... yet it has done so for these men, and quite well. A true man solid in his beliefs would stand up for himself, not slink off into the night.

Fatima,

There seems to be plenty of hatred in your message. You have no right to not be offended. Many Christians are offended that you would dare to compare Christ to Muhammad yet they don't go around killing and rioting.

Fatima just had to get that slur regarding Jews in there....Blew your other comments all to hell. Peaceful Muslim is Fatima??? I think not.

Capitulate and lie down....then let them democratically sodomoize you?

The koran (small k for a reason) gives 37 passages of killing Christians and Jews.

You can feel free to apologize....but truth can be told no matter how bad the production quality.

Religion just IS and those that take it to violence are the problems, yet no Baptist has gone and strapped a bomb on his kid, or Methodist messing with some form of malaria. Yet step on a crack and what, you break mohammad's back (small m for a reason)?

We are in dark times and the radical muslim's ARE EVIL.

You can't lie down in front of evil-----then again......if your French.....

Boy you are certainly long winded! so you will not associate with Christians, well as a Catholic that makes me very happy. At least we don't strap bombs on our women and children when we get angry . Some time ago a museum in Brooklyn had a art show and there was a painting of the Blessed Mother and it was done with feces. Did anyone go it with weapons and shoot and kill people No!!! there were protests but not "killings". And by the way all these protesters , do any of the have "jobs"? We here have the right also to protest, but we don't go to rally with automatic weapons. I believe that the Muslims just want for the "whole" world to be Muslim and that "is not ever going to happen"!!!! Peace be with you and yours!

You know what? I just had a thought Maybe it's far fetched, but I think the man that made the film probably is a muslim (small letter for a reason) What better way to stir up trouble and keep the muslims hating America. After all it was our Ambassador and three other Americans that were killed. Three of those killed were ex navy seals.

Fatimah, shut up and go get raped by your dad and brothers - AGAIN. Muzzie whore.

Nope christians (small c for a reason) walk in to their own church and shoot a Dr. in the head because he works at an abortion clinic. They also like to blow up federal buildings, protest at US Soldiers (big S for a REAL REASON!) funerals, and talk about how everyone else is going to burn forever and ever in a pit of fire if they don't convert.

Religion=evil

fred...please @!$%# off...it's people like you that start this @!$%#.

It disturbs me that the film-makers harm to the actors in the video is going un-addressed...
Google seems to be taking the position that no action can be taken because no specific living person is injured by the film.

But that's not true. The actors themselves are being libeled and endangered and have a legitimate right to request this film be taken down.

The words were dubbed in without their knowledge and approval, making it appear that they said things they did not, and subjecting them to hatred and ridicule as a result. Not to mention directly endangering them by making them a personal target for mob violence.

My child acts in local childrens plays, which the parents video tape.
If anyone dubbed racial or religious bigotry into one of those videos with my childs face on it - I would expect the video to be yanked immediately, and the individual responsible for the outrage to be prosecuted for libel and hate speech. These actors have a right to request this video be pulled, and google should respect that right.

On behalf of the actors, who do not deserve to be presented as targets for mob violence.

No one deserves to have hateful words they did not speak put in their mouths without their consent.

You can't tell me thats not in violation of the terms of use for youtube...

Fatima - You have a difference of opinion, and a delivery that diminished it as soon as it hit the keys.

repubpoopshoots - An olympic leap into the political pawn pool.

Fatima,

You have the Gall to compare Jesus to Muhammad? Jesus never once did a single act that Muhammad did in perpetuating hatred and abuse of humanity. Jesus was a rebel for his time in that he stood up against a brutal religion that oppressed society to the point of certain death. Muhammad takes the oppressive teachings of the Hebrews and makes them his own and additionally add more oppression and violence to them.

The teachings of Jesus and Muhammad are 180 degrees apart in comparison regarding human treatment. Do you get it? Jesus was against the Hebrew teachings and Islam embraces them. The laws of Moses and Abraham were created by them, in the name of GOD. They said to break God's law is a sin. The Wages of Sin is DEATH. This means to break the laws of Moses and Abraham was equal to death. God has nothing to do with it. Man's interpretation of god's laws today translates into death. Moronic masses of ignorant followers of a brutal religion are shouting in the streets and would happily murder the world in the name of Allah. I believe that, by definition, equates to a Religious Cult. A Very dangerous religious cult that uses threats of murder to enforce their will.

Lazarus

I am SICK of hearing "The Christians This, The Christians That". Would you care to throw a figure out there of how many "Dr.'s" & associates have been killed over the abortion issue in the last 35 years? I'll tell you: In 6 attacks, there's been 8 deaths..... Would you care to know how many deaths were caused by Muhammadans just last WEEK? The week of the 8th to the 14th there were 49 individual "Terrorist" attacks, resulting in 250+ deaths and 650+ critically injured world-wide.

I'm actually an Agnostic, but I've studied a multitude of religions EXTENSIVELY, and while there's some BAD $hit that has been done in the "name" of Christianity, there is NOTHING in their Dogma that supports Killing in ANY way.....

I think that it's high time the Left quits beating a dead horse here, and actually LOOKS at the REAL Evil, which is ISLAM..... I DARE you to really Check It Out!

Edward

In the name of religion, the extremist do all sort of evil things. They do not stick to teachings of the Bible or the Koran. It is not that all Muslims are evil, it is that extremist fanatics are evil and insane and I agree need to be fought against by thinking and civil human beings. In the case of Christian extremists with their hate filled ideas towards those who do not tow their line, they too need to be fought against because they use voter fraud and suppression of women and minorities as their dogma and try to force their beliefs into the laws of the land.

This man violated his PROBATION, and incited riots worldwide. He is an ex-convict guilty of drug involvement (meth), fraud and a chronic liar with many false identities behind him.

If there is no jail time for him, then clearly we as a country are so incompetent that we can't even uphold our basic laws of governing unruly citizens, much less those regarding our freedoms.

When has it been legal to choose the laws your country will enforce just because you don't like them?

ObamaDrone buzzes and flies away......could it be the attacks on that particular day were from Obama spiking the football over and over and over the corpse of Osama?

It has been legal since Obama and Holder started deciding which laws they like to enforce and those they don't like to enforce.

I guess the anti-free speech law can be added to laws they made up.

A fitting punishment would be to send him back to Egypt.

We won't even send illegals back to mexico. What makes you think that we'd deport an Egyptian?

what difference does it make WHO made the stupid video? why is the white house chasing this idiot down ? THERE IS NOTHING you can say that justifies the killing of four Americans and attacking our embassies ,nothing, if the muslims can not handle this and say, so what ? Allah is great, instead of flying off the handle and killing people, then what does THAT say about the religion of peace?

this sh@t happens over and over again, and what changes? will the leaders of islam put a stop to this ? they keep saying islam is a peaceful religion. really? since when? they pick some stupid excuse and incite their people to riot this was a planned attack and it was carried out

and in all of this crap, sit back and look at what the president is doing about it

chasing down the video guy, to bring him to swift justice....to appease the muslims

apologizing to the muslims and kissing their butts

and oh yeah, i'm too busy campaigning to take care of current crisis in middle east

WHAT exactly is he doing, besides nothing?

defend him all you want, but actions speak louder than words, and he is all talk and no action.....

but then that's all he does is yak about what needs to be done, for 3 1/2 years and does nothing. well he did start out blaming bush, but since that's not getting him anywhere he has gone back to the old fail safe..........4 years is not enough time! your right Mr president, lets give you 4 more years to really screw things up! it's time to go, you can't do any MORE damage around here

i would really love to see him grow a spine and a sac and tell the muslims to f#ck off and get over it

start pulling aid money and tell them tough sh@t, until you get a handle on your (religious fanatics) we are cutting you off. bite me! and you know it ain't gonna happen.......bend over america here it comes again. crap ....

Kilroy 63 = Trash talk. You speak like a traitor. No American that takes pride in what our values are would act in a manner that was blatantly irresponsible.

You hide behind your precious 1st Amendment but fail to exercise your rights in a responsible manner. Voting is also a right, and yet we condemn felons and take away that right from them. Republicans who are suppressing voter rights are all criminals as far as I am concerned. I maintain that if you abuse your rights you should lose them, so save you political bashing of our President and act like a responsible person. I maintain that anyone who shows the blatant disrespect to our President as the republican party leaders have done and as you have done as well should have their citizenship and the rights that go with it striped away. You can reside in America after that but you will do so no different than felons released from prison, no rights, no citizenship, no vote with the alternative to leave and never come back since you have proven yourself to be an undesired person.

The film maker, if he is not an American citizen, is not entitled to the rights guaranteed by our constitution. If he does have the same rights as an American citizen, then the same would apply to all people we currently label as illegal immigrants. Do they have all the rights of an American citizen?. do they get to vote?, do they have freedom of speech...and what do you have to say concerning out freedom of religion?. You are one of those jerks that seem to feel everything is OK as long as it coincides with your beliefs. As soon as anyone disagrees with your small and narrow mind point of view it becomes a different story.

Confussed, You are a silly liberal who needs to learn some real history of the middle East not the PC junk you were taught in school. !) Muslim is the third oldest religion in the middle East. It was pre-dated by both Judaism and Christianity. The Coptic, Melkite, Marionite, and Syriac Christians pre-date Islam by 600 years. They are the descendants of those evangelized by the apostles in the 1st century. Mohammed wasn't born until the 7th century.2) Judaism didn't come out of nowhere. Abram was according to the Bible a regular pagan of the day before God made a covenant with him. Abram is Abraham. Now what you have in this incident is one Egyptian making a film about other Egyptians and you who are not Egyptian sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. The film maker as long as he resides in the US has the rights of our constitution but if he violates a law may be deported. We do not have one standard of laws for citizens and another for resident aliens. If what he did is not illegal for you it is not illegal for him.

voice in my head,

hide behind my 1st amendment rights? listen up, this is America, if you think the president is doing a bad job then you have the right to say so. you my friend say that since i do not agree with the president's job performance and say so i should be stripped of my rights and not allowed to live here. name one thing i said about obummer that is not true.....the founding fathers wanted the people to be able to speak out against the government without reprisals . at the time if you had something bad to say about the king you were jailed or executed. is that what you are advocating now? me and anybody else who does not agree with the president and the democratic party should be punished? you should just blindly follow the democratic party and not question their their leadership? cause if that is what you think you are nothing more than a card carrying communist . there is a reason we have an election every four years, im an undesired person because i do not agree with and follow the democratic party? wow man seems to me you need to get out of your mothers basement read the constitution and stop listening to the voices in your head ,because whatever they are telling you IT IS WRONG. and as far as the video is concerned .........it does not matter if the pope made the damn thing , flying off the handle and killing people just because your mad about a move is unacceptable and a lousy excuse. does not fly. they are pissed at Americans per say and the guy that made the video is not even american. you cant see this? man you have been in that basement waaaaaaay too long

and one more thing , dont tell me i speak like a traitor i love my country , and when i see the emperor is buck naked im gonna say so.. your precious king is gonna be gone come november so you better get a grip on reality cause Americans have had enough.

Mitt

Timothy your full of something but it's not the truth.

Who is behind it >>> You need look no further than Karl Rove.

Mitt Romney

lol had to say it.

This is beyond First Amendment. He broke U.S. laws, violated his probation and incited worldwide rioting.

Nakoula, a man convicted three times in our justice system for everything from meth to fraud, orchestrated a splinter-group, anti-Islamic action against the second-largest religion in the world. It's not as if there was no precedent there would be violence--Jones' burning of the Koran and the drawing of Mohammad incident proved how sacred these people hold their beliefs on their prophet. His, with his cohort Klein, conspired to "trick" American Muslims to go into the movie theater to show them the "truth" of their religion--ten people showed up.

We have already had more than ten people killed over this.

This alleged "freedom of speech" action was a hate-filled launch against a religion that is considered evil, and one that has now put not only American citizens in danger but also our allies. Protests are happening in Australia. The German and UK embassies have been under attack.

Go after a violent culture for their beliefs, and you're going to get a violent response. That's simple to understand.

You can thank Gillard for her immigration policies. All one has to do is look at the protestors there and conclude they are mostly all from the middle-east. Tis a dark day for Sydney. I'm not Aussie, but, I love Australia. Have enjoyed my trips there. It's sad indeed that ya's have all this riff-raff there now.

The 1st Amendment does not protect an individual from charges of slander, hate speech or incitement to riot. You are allowed to say what you will, but you are also responsible for the effects of what you say after you have said it.

"you are also responsible for the effects of what you say after you have said it."

Really? So if someone verbally insults your mother, and you riot and cause death and destruction, it's their fault. Interesting.

It depends on what was said.

Michael: Fear not for American Free speech. The loons who consider the filmmakers criminals are left wing lunatics who also support the communist @!$%# mayor of NYC, the governor of California and their attempts to restrict freedom.

REAL Americans outnumber these loons, and we've done a pretty good job of keeping them bunched together in cities on the Northeast and west coasts where they can only harm each other, and the rest of us can live free in the other 90% of America.

And the Muslims out number Americans 5-to-1.

CULHEALTH, You're absolutely right. However, this is not the only 'Anti-Muslim' video on the internet. Also, there are MANY hate videos against, blacks, whites, Christians, Gays. The list goes on. Do we pull those too bc they are full of hate? I get what you are saying - Freedom comes with responsibility. I personally don't believe in god, so I get irritated when anyone form any religion kills someone 'in the name of god' or people tell others they can't get married bc god says so...blah blah blah. But I realize people really do believe in their hearts there is god and really love this guy. So although I don't agree or believe the same thing, I don't disrespect them bc of their beliefs. I don't care if you believe in the FSM. Rock on. So don't assume I'm some crazy right wing bible thumper when I tell you that I see lots of hypocrisy on the Liberal side of things. There gasping & clutching their pearls at this 'disgusting hate video' & then turn around & insult Christians who don't believe gays should be married. It's becoming okay in this country to insult Christians and attack them for their beliefs, and label them as the bad guys but no one touches Islam. Please. This is what they do over there, use violence and HATE to oppress people.

Thanks fred for being a real American, nice out here in the West. Remember before you go to bed, polish your weapon, the one that shoots bullets. That way you can protect your 90% of the country that you fought so bravely for. Was that the Civil War? You know the one you lost? Don't feel bad, we lost the one I was in too,VN in 67-69.

Fredthepuppy: you're wrong. They are RIGHT WING LUNATICS. Clearly you are unfamiliar of what side of the fence the anti-Islamics stand on. They are REPUBLICAN in nature. Do your research a bit before going off about the left being responsible for everything!

A little help for well, maybe the gov't if they're paying attention here, OR for anyone else who cares. Egypt's second language is French. Because once, LONG ago, the French made Egypt a colony. Sam Bacile is SUCH an easy to spot pseudonym, when french is applied. C'est Imbecile means: it's imbecile. (mind you, it's a meth addict bank and identity thief who is FROM Egypt, and I have no idea why we've kept him here. Don't really care what he did regarding the film, which, since he blames it on Sam Bacile (yes, exact way it's pronounced in the french phrase.) But why are we keeping a person who steals IDENTITIES of AMERICANS and who is also a meth addict hanging around? Let him go steal Egyptian idienties. Or elsewhere. He's NOT our problem. Just ONE MORE wonderful person who's going to get ALL the assistance an ex felon is entitled to. Free schooling, free food assistance, you name it, HE'S getting that, but NOT the Americans he stole from. SURE.. keep him around. NOT. Send him back to Egypt. Let him face the wrath he ABSOLUTELY knew he was stirring up. He HID behind America, and made US take the cost knowing VERY well what his film would do. You'RE Imbecile you Egyptian IDIOT.

No they are correctly laying the blame for the trigger at the feet of those responsible. But I get why taking responsibility is such a hard concept to grasp for you.

geowil,,I'am sure it could not have anything to do with that drone strike of their 2nd in command of these same radicals in that same area or the possibility of it being the anniversary of 9/11 that they cheer every year. Only IDIOTS will blame it on a stupid movie CLIP alone.

Murphy,

those may have had something to do with it but the video was the trigger. It only takes a drop of gas onto a fire to cause a reaction, that is exactly what has happened.

Geowil,,,I can agree with that.

We need 500 more of this type of video. Fill the internet with 'em. Let the Muzzies flip out.

And I am sure you will be one of the first to volunteer to protect our embassy personnel in the Mideast. What, you won't. Coward.

hope so. i hope your head hurts ,too.

"Picked up"? Heck, he CALLED the police and stayed put! And his cohort Sam Klein has gone into hiding. If he'd fled the country, you can bet we wouldn't give a damn--he'd be someone else's problem.

The Christian extremists are likely a front for other interests and being used as fall-guys.

The guy can`t be all bad. He donated 1 million dollars to Obamas campaign.

pen2light,,How about talking about the war on christians, as your peaceful muslim brothers yank them out of churchs, rape, set fire, decapitate, and threaten others that if they do not follow your so-called prophet obama(whoops,i ment mohammad), they would be next!

Wow! Presidents are suppose to be involved in foreign affairs. Candidates are SUPPOSED to watch what they say! Romney displayed a huge lack of responsibility and stature!

He had to step up!! Our slacker of a president said nothing for a long period, trying not to offend his brothers in the middle east.

I respect Romney for taking a stand, seeing that our own President didn't even condemn the attacks instead apologized and used some obscure film as an escape goat. It's ok to be blasphemous and utilize the first amendment to insult Jesus and Christians, but oh no don't make fun, and we must respect the prophet Mohammed. Absolutely ridiculous! As for our President and foreign affairs he gets an "F" look how well his apology tour worked when he was first elected. Attack on any US embassy is a declaration of war. I doubt these guys would have tried anything if Reagan was the President, but the whole world thinks Obama is a joke. Wow! Is it a coincidence these attacks were on 9-11? Idiotic filmaker is getting the shaft, typical adminstration status quo, blame somebody else. Useless...

Maybe our President was busy getting the facts and not shooting off his mouth like Romney.And if you bothered to get the facts you would know that the President did not apologize. He did make a statement against the film, as any intelligent thinking person would - not pander to the right wing so called christians as Romney did. Nothing like staying solidly behind the US in times of crisis eh Romney. Ignorance is bliss but you should not publish it.

this video is fake... not only is it set 2,000 yrs ago (before islam) it was dubbed over.. the prophets is really called Master George, NOT mohammed! the real story is here

Libtards love muslims!!!!

The left just love to label people. I assume the irony of that statement escapes you.

Probably does tim. For some of us, it's always one side or the other that is totally to blame. Not me though. lol

Well, you know they say there are only two types of people in the world: those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't.

;-)