And the award for Troll of the Year goes to.... *drum roll*

[awyala]

Forum Sponsor

I somehow get the impression that all the western condemnation in the world wouldn't make a lick of difference. You're right - this reaction is about more than just a film - the movie is just the spark that lit the fuse.

Exactly....the reaction is not just about the film...the is much much much more behind both the film and the reaction to the film. Condeming the film would however be a good start, but I'm not holding my breath, especially with foreign troops in many Muslim countries as we speak.

Imagine it the other way around. Imagine Britain, America, Australia and France occupied to some degree with Muslim troops, and Muslim values, culture, economics, laws etc imposed on said countries. Imagine then a film being released slandering the founders of the US constitution and all those who believe in its ideals. Imagine what would be a natural reaction from a people not yet defeated but pretty much on one knee.

Before you go and say the Muslim world has already done this, you are right, yet so too has almost every Western nation. So no one is clean of this sin of oppression. And we can all understand and appreciate the reactions.

Perhaps a new tac from both parties is in order? Other than that expect more of the same.

It isn't so much trolling as it is par for the course.

 

[awyala]

Sorry, but what the **** do you know about Coptics in Egypt?

If I may interject, I for one feel quite bad about the situation with the Copts. They have bore the brunt of a legacy which does not involve them for the last century and it saddens me to see them flee Egyptian Muslim company when they migrate to Toronto (as an example).

Copts have been some of the most loyal and friendly Christians to the Muslim world for over a milenia, even during the horrendous reign of Hakim and the Fattimya Dynasty, even during the Crusades when they refused to allign themselves with the invading Christians, despite even the Ismaili ruling sect having cut a deal with the Crusaders in exchange for protecting the Fatamiya from the rule of Suni Syrian Mamluk Generals. They gave up the fight to regain Alexandria in this deal. The Copts have never betrayed the Muslim majority.

In this internal war between Western (Muslim) puppets and the rising disenfranchised Muslim (resurgent) masses (post Hassan Al-Banna era), the Copts have caught the bad end of every deal, every stick, everything.

That being said, there are some among the Copts who have become aggitators and have sought Western support in the manner of the pre-Iranian revolution diaspora, those who fabricate stories to gain Western sympathy, thinking that America will benevolently intercede on their behalf.

On the whole Coptics are nothing like the creator of this film. That being said, they were never above 10% of the Egyptian population at any given time, from the post Ptolomeac era to the Arab conquests to modern times. At their height Copts were 10% and have largely maintained that ratio even post Arab conquest. Historically, Egypt converted to Islam over a 500 year period (and I am quoting non-Muslim sources here). It was not a rush, forced mass conversion.

So Copts are not quite the oppressed minority some make out, on the other hand, the last few decades have seen some of the worst treatment they have received in their history from the Muslims in Egypt.

I wouldn't hold all Copts responsible for wha this particular Copt has done, but at the same time, his motivations are understandable. Muslims are not doing Islam any favours at the moment.

 

[AGAVE]

 

[Mina]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts

As far as not being an oppressed minority, please do some actual research before you make such claims.

What do you know about "El Kosheh" or "Maspero" or the drive by shootings after A Christmas Eve Mass or the attacks against Coptic Monasteries or kidnapping/torturing young women and force them to convert to Islam?

I'm curious, are you a devout Muslim? Do you read the Quran?
You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, make use of it.

 

[Wingboy]

Really boring,poorly done flik.If you are going to make something to raise eyebrows,do it with a bunch of talent.This flik ****** off a bunch of folks!
[video=youtube;jHPOzQzk9Qo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jHPOzQzk9Qo[/video]

 

[awyala]

I was just summarizing Awyala's post. He said Sharia's goal is to conquer the world. Read the post I quoted.

Not Sharia. Sharia is the Islamic legal system partially based on the Quran, followed by Hadith (traditions), followed by jurisprudence, followed by precedent, followed by common reckoning. It is neither fixed, undebatable, nor only exist in 1 version. That being said it has not had a proper review or updating it nearly 1200 years since the time of "rational thinking" (Ijtihad), was closed by the scholars of that time.

For the record, I for the most part, do not have the patience to debate politics/religion online . Awyala brought up some interesting points and explained why Islam is so against artistic portrayal's of Islamic God and prophets which was enlightening. He also explained the middle-eatern view of "The West" (which it seems to me; is a ******** umbrella term without a real definition).

Correct, it is quite a nebulous term, that upon deeper inspection doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but for a quick reference generalization of the culture clash, it suffices. It also suffices to define the current geo-political power dynamic (apart from value systems). But again, with further inspection, the interdependence of economies betrays such a simplistic categorization.

All this is interesting but at the end of the day, people are still dying over a stupid, low budget clip, that was made by a single dude for probably a few thousand dollars (there is no way that cost 5,000,000 as some reported) and none of these "explanations" justify that so my opinion stays largely unchanged.

The clip is not the reason, much like Bouaziz was not the reason for the Tunisian turned Arab Spring. It was just a catalyst, the flash point.

Could the US government have issued a statement saying they condemn the video? Sure. It would have probably curbed at least SOME of the violence. Why haven't they? Is this politically motivated? Most likely yes. Maybe this wasn't brought to the US attention until AFTER the first attack on the US Consulate. If the US were to issue a statement after this, perhaps they would appear weak to their own people? I can only speculate. Was the video purely a political move to start a conflict with Israel? Entirely possible.

HOWEVER, at the end of the day, it is NOT the job of the US authorities to police the internet about some Muslim propaganda on youtube Why should they care? The very fact that we are having this debate over such a stupid video proof that the world is ****ed up!

I could agree to this. But much of the Muslim world used to believe the US was their friend and supported them. Both parties were niave. I am talking back in the Cold War Era 70s. Among some, this belief changed through the 80s and 90s, and we find ourselves in an era where the Muslim world sees it has NO support, and in fact is in a very weak position. It is definately a crisis point, muddled together with a fair share of self shame for allowing the situation to have unfolded the way it has through the decline of the Caliphate 100 or so years ago.

Much of the Muslim world has become reactionary and not pro-active. What is happening now is that they are awakening to the fact that their value system is NOT respected, let alone their political prowess.

You are open to believe why that is. You are open to believe Islam, religion and Mohamed are those insulting things the film maker has claimed, and as some of you have already stated "the truth hurts".

Without getting into the content of the film, as that is not what this thread is about. The manner in which that content is presented is in fact the subject of this thread. The film is not meant to engage anyone in healthy debate, but rather to slander, incite and deliberately provoke. If Assange can be hunted for exposing the truth as he sees it, for it puts American lives in danger (lives that have gone out of their way TO BE LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO DANGER IN THE FIRST PLACE) then this film's creator is expected to be treated similarly without prejudice. The government should follow up with a criminal investigation, whether or not they find him guilty in the end, at least apply the West's "universal" rules consistently. This doesn't help the West's war of ideas either.

 

[awyala]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts

As far as not being an oppressed minority, please do some actual research before you make such claims.

What do you know about "El Kosheh" or "Maspero" or the drive by shootings after A Christmas Eve Mass or the attacks against Coptic Monasteries or kidnapping/torturing young women and force them to convert to Islam?

I'm curious, are you a devout Muslim? Do you read the Quran?
You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, make use of it.

The recent history not withstanding, Egyptian Muslim / Coptic relations have been historically quite good. But I agree, this century has been bad, specifically the last 30 years. If you read my post you'll see I concede that Copts are getting caught in an "inter-Muslim" battle between puppet secular post (fall of the Ottoman Empire types) and the reactionary resurgent (largely emotional) Muslim types.

There have been tit for tat village to village fueds in Upper Egypt going back decades where both sides have been viewed as ignorant peasants, but this has largely not affected the urban centres until more recent times. You and I both know the mental / capacity for reason among Muslims and Copts alike in Upper Egypt! That being said, the bombing of the Church in Alexandria by the Interior Minsitry as the Mubarak regime fell is more telling of the strife Copts face as two Muslim factions battle it out! This is the kind of shame that I speak of.

PS, when wiki states that Coptic Christianity was the majority religion in Egypt pre Arab conquest, 10% was the majory religion prior to the Arab conquests, for the remainder of the country was pagan as had been under Pharonic and Ptolemaec rule. The percentage of Copts relative to the population of Egypt has always remained the same. Muslims in Egypt quote the figure at 5%, Copts quote it nearer to 10%.

PS, I'll refer you to The Cambridge History of Egypt, Volume 1 and 2. Again, not a Muslim source

 

[backmarkerducati]

When it comes to the so called protests we see a demonstration of one of the fundamental flaws of all religions, including the one in question. Religion is a method to control the population by a small elite. What we see here is the "elite" creating mas-hysteria over a silly video and sending their minions to do their bidding. How do we know this, because the majority of the people in these "protests" have not seen the video (while not pulled from youtube here it was there), they were told about it and manipulated by the elite to riot (and in some cases die and/or kill).

Now the elite (religious leaders) in this case may not be some decadent person living large on the masses donations but the leaders pushing the response are an elite, they see themselves as elite (just not in a decadent way) and feel it is THEIR dominion to push these protests and manipulate the masses to do THEIR bidding.

In the end this makes them just as bad as any "western" leader that manipulates the facts to convince his minions to kill and/or die. All religions do this BTW.

As for people not seeing it it was pulled there (yes I know there are ways around geofencing), they also have lower Internet usage, and in some cases destroyed infrastructure. There is no logical way everyone in those protests sat down and watched it and formed an opinion. They were told what their opinion is.

 

[awyala]

When it comes to the so called protests we see a demonstration of one of the fundamental flaws of all religions, including the one in question. Religion is a method to control the population by a small elite. What we see here is the "elite" creating mas-hysteria over a silly video and sending their minions to do their bidding. How do we know this, because the majority of the people in these "protests" have not seen the video (while not pulled from youtube here it was there), they were told about it and manipulated by the elite to riot (and in some cases die and/or kill).

Now the elite (religious leaders) in this case may not be some decadent person living large on the masses donations but the leaders pushing the response are an elite, they see themselves as elite (just not in a decadent way) and feel it is THEIR dominion to push these protests and manipulate the masses to do THEIR bidding.

In the end this makes them just as bad as any "western" leader that manipulates the facts to convince his minions to kill and/or die. All religions do this BTW.

As for people not seeing it it was pulled there (yes I know there are ways around geofencing), they also have lower Internet usage, and in some cases destroyed infrastructure. There is no logical way everyone in those protests sat down and watched it and formed an opinion. They were told what their opinion is.

1) It was only pulled in Egypt and not blocked to proxies or anyone accessing Youtube via another route. It was not pulled in any other Muslim country. And the reason cited for pulling it in Egypt was not out of respect but due to a techinical issue.

2) The same control can be said about any form of government, including "democracy". If you study democracy, you'll find that even Plato abhored it and found it to be the final step before tyrany! Modern governments are actually not democracies at all. If you think you are not controlled and manipulated by an elite group of politicians and economists you are as much a minion as anyone else.

3) Islam is a decentralized religion with no leadership. The elite you speak of don't actually exist. More to the fact the leadership of the faith is fragmented and regional at best. Schools like Al-Azhar in Egypt were largely suppressed by the previous government, and their edicts though respected are also often not accepted on face value alone. Other regions may not and no not accept fatwahs or edicts from Al-Azhar but will consider the university's rulings. Parties like the Brotherhood are also decentralized, by no means elite, and are inspired by Hassan Al-Banna who is long dead. No successors have taken leadership of the Brotherhood as a whole. You might be mistakenly comparing "religion" to Catholicism in this case, which is a common mistake.

4) You do make a good point over not everyone in the protest having watched it. But from what has been seen by "protest leaders" how do you suppose they have misrepresented it? This isn't quite like "Satanic Verses of the Quran" now is it? How can this be defended? The West will not bow and pay respect in this instance and yank and supress the video. This is the additional insult you may not seem to be understanding. This is quite easy for the "minions" to see.

 

[backmarkerducati]

1) It was only pulled in Egypt and not blocked to proxies or anyone accessing Youtube via another route. It was not pulled in any other Muslim country. And the reason cited for pulling it in Egypt was not out of respect but due to a techinical issue.

2) The same control can be said about any form of government, including "democracy". If you study democracy, you'll find that even Plato abhored it and found it to be the final step before tyrany! Modern governments are actually not democracies at all. If you think you are not controlled and manipulated by an elite group of politicians and economists you are as much a minion as anyone else.

3) Islam is a decentralized religion with no leadership. The elite you speak of don't actually exist. More to the fact the leadership of the faith is fragmented and regional at best. Schools like Al-Azhar in Egypt were largely suppressed by the previous government, and their edicts though respected are also often not accepted on face value alone. Other regions may not and no not accept fatwahs or edicts from Al-Azhar but will consider the university's rulings. Parties like the Brotherhood are also decentralized, by no means elite, and are inspired by Hassan Al-Banna who is long dead. No successors have taken leadership of the Brotherhood as a whole. You might be mistakenly comparing "religion" to Catholicism in this case, which is a common mistake.

4) You do make a good point over not everyone in the protest having watched it. But from what has been seen by "protest leaders" how do you suppose they have misrepresented it? This isn't quite like "Satanic Verses of the Quran" now is it? How can this be defended? The West will not bow and pay respect in this instance and yank and supress the video. This is the additional insult you may not seem to be understanding. This is quite easy for the "minions" to see.

Fully understand that there is no pope but unless you can with a straight face say there are NO leaders at all it all comes down to them conspiring together (even on at the mosque level), they are the elite. To think they don't is just silly and maybe even naive.

 

[awyala]

Fully understand that there is no pope but unless you can with a straight face say there are NO leaders at all it all comes down to them conspiring together (even on at the mosque level), they are the elite. To think they don't is just silly and maybe even naive.

You should have a look at the structure of the leadership in Islam. You will find there is no elite. With the exception of what some accuse the leadership of Iran (the Ayatolahs) of, there is no such status among Suni leaders or Shii leaders outside of Iran. Saudi Arabia is ruled by a corrupt family, not a religious leadership.

Look up the word "Ulemah" in Arabic to better understand Islamic leadership / scholarship. You will find it is grass roots in nature and decentralized. Political leadership is also separate from religious leadership, again with the exception of Iran. Look into it, you'll see there is no centralized leadership of any kind and all mosques are entirely independent from each other or any authority. Look into it.

This is a fair start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulama

 

[awyala]

Just for the sake of argument, have a look at the reprocussions of what John Galliano is facing for his drunken remarks at a Paris cafe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galliano. The video of the remarks are here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3436757/Film-of-John-Gallianos-racist-rant-in-bar.html

"Criminal charges

It was reported on 2 March 2011 that Galliano was to face trial in Paris for allegedly "making racist comments to customers in a café".[SUP][23][/SUP] He had reportedly apologised "unreservedly" for his behavior, while Dior described the comments in the video as "odious". According to the Financial Times, "if found guilty, Galliano could face up to six months in prison and a fine of €22,500."[SUP][24][/SUP] (around US$31,000). The Daily Telegraph reported that it is believed Galliano has now left France and he was reported to be attending a rehabilitation facility, most likely The Meadows in Arizona."[SUP][25][/SUP] A Paris court ordered that he stand trial on charges of "public insults based on the origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" against three people.[SUP][26][/SUP] The trial commenced on 22 June 2011.[SUP][27][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP]
On 8 September 2011, he was found guilty of making anti-Semitic remarks. John Galliano has been sentenced to pay a total of €6,000 (US$8,400) in suspended fines after a French court found him guilty of giving public insults on account of race.[SUP][29][/SUP]"

As for Assange:
"On 30 November 2010, Tom Flanagan, a former aide to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, called for Assange's assassination."
"On 29 November 2010, Rep. Peter T. King, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) wrote to the Attorney General, Eric Holder, asking that Assange should be prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, and that he should be declared a terrorist.[SUP][187][/SUP][SUP][188][/SUP] The same day, King also wrote to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, requesting that she designate Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).[SUP][187][/SUP][SUP][189][/SUP][SUP][190][/SUP]
"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute Wikileaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I’m also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare Wikileaks a foreign terrorist organization", King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.[SUP][191][/SUP] "By doing that, we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,” he said. “To me, they are a clear and present danger to America." On 30 November 2010, on Fox News, Rep. King repeated his assertions that Wikileaks was a terrorist organisation;[SUP][192][/SUP] he continued to repeat these assertions on other news media channels for the following week.
On 2 December 2010, Senator Feinstein and Senator Kit Bond, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), sent a joint-letter to Attorney General Holder, asking him to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act [18 U.S.C. 793(e)], offering to "close those gaps in the law" if the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) found it difficult to apply the law to Assange's case. In televised interviews Senators Bond and Feinstein stated that:
"We believe that Mr. Assange's conduct is espionage and that his actions fall under the elements of this section of law....Therefore, we urge that he be prosecuted under the Espionage Act."[SUP][193][/SUP] On 7 December 2010, Senator Feinstein published an editorial commentary on Assange entitled "Prosecute Assange Under the Espionage Act".[SUP][194][/SUP] Punishments under the Espionage Act can include the death penalty, although in practice the US has not executed anyone for a crime other than murder since 1962.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]"

"In July 2010, after WikiLeaks released classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said at a Pentagon news conference, "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange responded later in an interview by saying, "There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that". Assange also claimed it was 'ironic' of US officials and military leaders to accuse him of having blood on his hands.[SUP][179][/SUP]"


Just to put things into perspective about who you can insult. Oh FYI Arabs are Semetic while the majority of Jews are not. Just so you know that Galliano's comments were not actually racist, but were insulting to a tribe and religious group.

 

[cbcanada]

If I'm not the West or the East... what am I!?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

the north ?

 

[eljay]

I'm only commenting here because 'someone' keeps comparing Assange to this filmmaker. To me it's apples and oranges.
Assange - releasing information that could put a 3rd party's life at risk.
filmmaker - makes an attempt at being funny, hurts 2nd party's feelings; 2nd party's actions but 3rd party's life at risk.

Who's the retard in each case? 1. Assange. 2. 2nd party for spazzing over hurt feelings.

Assange released "truth". So what if it's true? It's also true that some people have genital warts. Would you like them to release that truth?
filmmaker insulted a religion. So what if it's untrue? Boo****inhoo

 

[awyala]

I'm only commenting here because 'someone' keeps comparing Assange to this filmmaker. To me it's apples and oranges.
Assange - releasing information that could put a 3rd party's life at risk.
filmmaker - makes an attempt at being funny, hurts 2nd party's feelings; 2nd party's actions but 3rd party's life at risk.

Who's the retard in each case? 1. Assange. 2. 2nd party for spazzing over hurt feelings.

Assange released "truth". So what if it's true? It's also true that some people have genital warts. Would you like them to release that truth?
filmmaker insulted retards. So what if it's untrue? Boo****inhoo

Ok try this:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/232622.html

 

[eljay]

plenty of examples of the west pretending to get their nickers in a not. elf'n'safety n'whot not. that's retarded too. i was addressing the comparison of Assange to the filmmaker. I'm not defending either. I'm saying that Assange did something, filmmaker didn't, people who reacted to the film did.

I don't care what people say or do, as long as it doesn't hurt someone physically. Assange did something that could hurt someone physically. The filmmaker did something that hurt someones feelings. I don't care about peoples feelings either.

Ok try this:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/232622.html

 

[cbcanada]

i want a girl with extensions in her hair
bamboo earrings atleast two pair.
a

 

[awyala]

Ok try this:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/232622.html

and what of Galliano?

PS Assange didn't release any identities of soldiers. The problem was that releasing the truth about diplomatic cables and the lies and back door schemes of what policy makers do behind the scenes puts soldiers at risk, because it exposes the lies of their publicly stated mission. And that risk comes from the "3rd party" as you put it. How can Assange be held liable for the reaction of the 3rd party in this case?

Free speech no?

How did Galliano put anyone at risk?

How did Azhar Ahmed put anyone at risk?

Why is the publication of Kate Middleton's boobs such a big deal in Western media? Why all the attemps to pull or block the publication? Freedom no? After all she was visible from a public road and the pictures don't put anyone's life in danger. Royal family has now just filed criminal charges against the French tabloid and the Irish Sun has been threatened to be completely shut down.

So why the double standard?

 

[awyala]

plenty of examples of the west pretending to get their nickers in a not. elf'n'safety n'whot not. that's retarded too. i was addressing the comparison of Assange to the filmmaker. I'm not defending either. I'm saying that Assange did something, filmmaker didn't, people who reacted to the film did.

I don't care what people say or do, as long as it doesn't hurt someone physically. Assange did something that could hurt someone physically. The filmmaker did something that hurt someones feelings. I don't care about peoples feelings either.

How did Assange put anyone in danger? Did assange fly American soldiers into a war zone in another's country? Please clarify how Assange's freedom of expression is an offence?

 

[eljay]

I already answered all those questions... you are losing your capacity for logic. Go to bed. You are emotionally attached to this.

There's a double standard because western politicians/voters are dipshits and they are good at chasing one offs to score political points in the name of helping the children.

and what of Galliano?

PS Assange didn't release any identities of soldiers. The problem was that releasing the truth about diplomatic cables and the lies and back door schemes of what policy makers do behind the scenes puts soldiers at risk, because it exposes the lies of their publicly stated mission. And that risk comes from the "3rd party" as you put it. How can Assange be held liable for the reaction of the 3rd party in this case?

Free speech no?

How did Galliano put anyone at risk?

How did Azhar Ahmed put anyone at risk?

Why is the publication of Kate Middleton's boobs such a big deal in Western media? Why all the attemps to pull or block the publication? Freedom no? After all she was visible from a public road and the pictures don't put anyone's life in danger.

So why the double standard?

Forum Sponsor