Anti-Islam film

[Aisar Saqib]

The killing of the Ambassador was a reaction to the willful destruction of Libya, its people, its government and its infrastructure by the United States and their allies in their 'fight against Ghadafi', not part of the response to this film.

Oh really? I suppose you've been to Libya and asked the people who participated in the attack on the embassy?

I suppose your more reliable than the news - which is obviously just goverment funded propoganda filled nonsense?

I also suppose you didn't see Aisar's reaction in regards to wanting to kill somebody in reaction to the video? That a reaction like that and timing did not catalyst an event that may or may not have followed?

Indeed, we know better.

Hmm... "exactly" & "agreed"

well FM yh i did say i wanna kill that man but thats just saying i wouldnt kill anyone over a video or a film.... also i am against all this protests and violence going in our country and other countries globally... it is just an act to giving pain to ourselves ... we will get nothing out of it.. abt US ambassador.. well he didnt deserve to die but what can i say there are lot of muslims who uprised a revolt against america and this film....

[Field Marshall]

The killing of the Ambassador was a reaction to the willful destruction of Libya, its people, its government and its infrastructure by the United States and their allies in their 'fight against Ghadafi', not part of the response to this film.

Oh really? I suppose you've been to Libya and asked the people who participated in the attack on the embassy?

I suppose your more reliable than the news - which is obviously just goverment funded propoganda filled nonsense?

I also suppose you didn't see Aisar's reaction in regards to wanting to kill somebody in reaction to the video? That a reaction like that and timing did not catalyst an event that may or may not have followed?

Indeed, we know better.

Hmm... "exactly" & "agreed"

well FM yh i did say i wanna kill that man but thats just saying i wouldnt kill anyone over a video or a film.... also i am against all this protests and violence going in our country and other countries globally... it is just an act to giving pain to ourselves ... we will get nothing out of it.. abt US ambassador.. well he didnt deserve to die but what can i say there are lot of muslims who uprised a revolt against america and this film....

So it wasn't so much as a..."I wanna kill him" but more of a "I'm so mad, I could kill him".

That's what I thought you don't really strike me as somebody who would resort to jihad, then again, in a text based game/forum, not really that easy to verify...

So, you agree, you think the attack on the Embassy was in relation to the video and not because of the illicit war as alleged by Juliette?

[xDaku]

The killing of the Ambassador was a reaction to the willful destruction of Libya, its people, its government and its infrastructure by the United States and their allies in their 'fight against Ghadafi', not part of the response to this film.

Oh really? I suppose you've been to Libya and asked the people who participated in the attack on the embassy?

I suppose your more reliable than the news - which is obviously just goverment funded propoganda filled nonsense?

I also suppose you didn't see Aisar's reaction in regards to wanting to kill somebody in reaction to the video? That a reaction like that and timing did not catalyst an event that may or may not have followed?

Indeed, we know better.

Hmm... "exactly" & "agreed"

well FM yh i did say i wanna kill that man but thats just saying i wouldnt kill anyone over a video or a film.... also i am against all this protests and violence going in our country and other countries globally... it is just an act to giving pain to ourselves ... we will get nothing out of it.. abt US ambassador.. well he didnt deserve to die but what can i say there are lot of muslims who uprised a revolt against america and this film....

So it wasn't so much as a..."I wanna kill him" but more of a "I'm so mad, I could kill him".

That's what I thought you don't really strike me as somebody who would resort to jihad, then again, in a text based game/forum, not really that easy to verify...

So, you agree, you think the attack on the Embassy was in relation to the video and not because of the illicit war as alleged by Juliette?

The extremist version of jihad isn't jihad. Might wanna research that word to properly use it.

[Field Marshall]

The killing of the Ambassador was a reaction to the willful destruction of Libya, its people, its government and its infrastructure by the United States and their allies in their 'fight against Ghadafi', not part of the response to this film.

Oh really? I suppose you've been to Libya and asked the people who participated in the attack on the embassy?

I suppose your more reliable than the news - which is obviously just goverment funded propoganda filled nonsense?

I also suppose you didn't see Aisar's reaction in regards to wanting to kill somebody in reaction to the video? That a reaction like that and timing did not catalyst an event that may or may not have followed?

Indeed, we know better.

Hmm... "exactly" & "agreed"

well FM yh i did say i wanna kill that man but thats just saying i wouldnt kill anyone over a video or a film.... also i am against all this protests and violence going in our country and other countries globally... it is just an act to giving pain to ourselves ... we will get nothing out of it.. abt US ambassador.. well he didnt deserve to die but what can i say there are lot of muslims who uprised a revolt against america and this film....

So it wasn't so much as a..."I wanna kill him" but more of a "I'm so mad, I could kill him".

That's what I thought you don't really strike me as somebody who would resort to jihad, then again, in a text based game/forum, not really that easy to verify...

So, you agree, you think the attack on the Embassy was in relation to the video and not because of the illicit war as alleged by Juliette?

The extremist version of jihad isn't jihad. Might wanna research that word to properly use it.

Ok, for your information, I refer to Authorative Dictionary of Islam. Though, I accept there there are other meanings, I was taking the wider accepted version.

My bad

[Juliette]

lol, Matt.
Muslims are not the simplistic folk you paint them as, so stop that. 'Muslims' do not blow up just over a single movie, but the 'crimes of the West' are many (in the eyes of religious fundamentalists). Most Muslims are like Aisar; 'angered', but not violently enraged. It takes a special kind of person to be thus enraged.

Should I list a few perceived 'crimes' (I hardly agree, but they add up to a point where one could understand violent rage and murderous behaviour, even if entirely over-the-top)?
- Allowing the State of Israel to exist. (upsets 'all' Muslims)
- Supporting Islamic Revolutions between '60-'80. (upsets 'modern' Muslims)
- Demanding (and enforcing) cheap natural resource deals. (upsets 'nationalist' Muslims)
- Supporting 'Spring' Revolutions. (upsets 'local loyalist' Muslims)
- Supporting Iraqi Sunni Government. (upsets Shia Muslims)
- Verbally attacking Iranian Shia Government. (upsets Shia Muslims - and friends)
- Caricature paintings of Mohammed. (upsets 'all' Muslims)
- .. and so on, back an easy nine decades; for some even 15 centuries.


Sure, violence is not the answer, and we -as the West- should not bow to outrage and anger; but understanding the motives goes a long way. For one, it helps one paint a picture of Muslims are a far more complicated 1.5 billion people than your simplistic, primal, homogenous blob, FM.

Basically: America -as exponent of the Western Judeo-Christian High-Culture- likes to stick its fingers in the massive natural resources in the Arab / Islamic world. That economic clash of cultures is fed to the people as a clash of cultures in general -> leading to aggressive responses to minor issues, like a caricature in some minor local newspaper getting attention in the M.E.
Media love protests and outrage, so they (or some local Muslim/Hindu/Christian/random person) will send a copy of that minor local newspaper to the Imam of Cairo or whatever, to fuel angry responses.



If you bombed my country because you did not like our Queen or Prime Minister, I would kill you and yours too. We would be at war; which the USA (and allies) still are with the 50% of Libya who actually had a life under Ghadafi, ánd the ones who realise that the regime change has lead to tribal warfare and other nonsense.

[xDaku]

The killing of the Ambassador was a reaction to the willful destruction of Libya, its people, its government and its infrastructure by the United States and their allies in their 'fight against Ghadafi', not part of the response to this film.

Oh really? I suppose you've been to Libya and asked the people who participated in the attack on the embassy?

I suppose your more reliable than the news - which is obviously just goverment funded propoganda filled nonsense?

I also suppose you didn't see Aisar's reaction in regards to wanting to kill somebody in reaction to the video? That a reaction like that and timing did not catalyst an event that may or may not have followed?

Indeed, we know better.

Hmm... "exactly" & "agreed"

well FM yh i did say i wanna kill that man but thats just saying i wouldnt kill anyone over a video or a film.... also i am against all this protests and violence going in our country and other countries globally... it is just an act to giving pain to ourselves ... we will get nothing out of it.. abt US ambassador.. well he didnt deserve to die but what can i say there are lot of muslims who uprised a revolt against america and this film....

So it wasn't so much as a..."I wanna kill him" but more of a "I'm so mad, I could kill him".

That's what I thought you don't really strike me as somebody who would resort to jihad, then again, in a text based game/forum, not really that easy to verify...

So, you agree, you think the attack on the Embassy was in relation to the video and not because of the illicit war as alleged by Juliette?

The extremist version of jihad isn't jihad. Might wanna research that word to properly use it.

Ok, for your information, I refer to Authorative Dictionary of Islam. Though, I accept there there are other meanings, I was taking the wider accepted version.

My bad

It's defense. Embassy attacks weren't defensive in any way.

Makes the difference.

[Juliette]

Daku; Mohammed and successors race from Najd to the South of France was Jihad, and is described as such by both Muslim and Western historiographers. Could you tell me what that was a defence against?

As far as I have been taught at Uni, the historical reason for Islam's expansionistic success was mostly dissent and disagreement among the people they 'conquered'; their being tired of religious conflict and such, and the Muslim Caliphs allowing for religious diversity in their nations. Things change.

[Jack]

honestly as i am a muslim i wanna kill that bastard who direct that film...

[Kjarkur]

The killing of the Ambassador was a reaction to the willful destruction of Libya, its people, its government and its infrastructure by the United States and their allies in their 'fight against Ghadafi', not part of the response to this film.

Oh really? I suppose you've been to Libya and asked the people who participated in the attack on the embassy?

I suppose your more reliable than the news - which is obviously just goverment funded propoganda filled nonsense?

If you want it from the news.

Libyan attacks said to be two-part militant assault
Gunmen used protest of anti-Islam film as cover in raid that killed 4 Americans, official says

Heavily armed militants used a protest of an anti-Islam film as a cover and may have had help from inside Libyan security in their deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate, a senior Libyan official said Thursday.

As Libya announced the first four arrests, the clearest picture yet emerged of a two-pronged assault with militants screaming “God is great!” as they scaled the consulate’s outer walls and descended on the compound’s main building.

You want me to link you to CNN, BBC new, Reuters... it's on all the major news-sites.

Most people have come to see that the movie was just an excuse for revenge.

-KJ

[Drought]

The movie is bad taste, the muslims who responded with violence, worse.

I would think that any religion with its roots dating back well over 1400 years would be able to ignore such a thing. Alas, its not, that says a lot.

Their outbursts made 100s of millions of people want to see that movie, it will probably be the most watched movie by the end of this year.


weird note:
The director previously made well known classic b-rated porn movies.

[Legendary Apophis]

Some things about it:
Apparently, riots started on 11 september, despite the fact said movie was apparently available online since June: movie is a foreground false reason but not the real reason, mainly an excuse. Riots and protests also happen in western nations: Paris suffered from couple hundreds of mad jihadists who rioted and did illegal praying in the streets in front of both US embassy and president's basement, as if our president (being incompetent socialist noob doesn't change anything in his absence of responsibility) was responsible in any way of the movie in question. Finally, it seems to be a z movie, with horrible effects and all, not worth watching for itself but only going to live off the controversy. Mainly to troll, and it worked.
Something about the "movie-reason", I might add that christians aren't rioting like this when movies anti-christianity were released, such as Da Vinci Code...protests I can understand (people have the right to disagree or be offended), *but* not violence like this, it's not acceptable (otherwise it's chaos unleashed). I think there's a difference between protesting/condemning a movie and rioting/hateful demonstrating. But indeed, it's not for the movie, reasons are elsewhere...

[Bromas]

The movie is bad taste, the muslims who responded with violence, worse.

I would think that any religion with its roots dating back well over 1400 years would be able to ignore such a thing. Alas, its not, that says a lot.

Their outbursts made 100s of millions of people want to see that movie, it will probably be the most watched movie by the end of this year.


weird note:
The director previously made well known classic b-rated porn movies.

I assume you know the last part due to pre-learned knowledge, not research

[Sol]

.... I might add that christians aren't rioting like this when movies anti-christianity were released, such as Da Vinci Code...protests I can understand (people have the right to disagree or be offended), *but* not violence like this, it's not acceptable (otherwise it's chaos unleashed)....

Was about to say something along those lines.. quite a few religions, especially Christian based, have copped their fair share of flack, and still do, around the internet, media sources etc. and they tend to just ignore it. Something rings out from the outburst though, if they can't hack the 'newly' formed internet culture then they should stay away from it.

[Zeratul]

Most of the more extreme Christians do not have the influence with other Christians that the more extreme muslims have with other muslims. It could be due to christianity having aged more as a religion, or it could be due to there being far more factions of christianity.

Back in the middle ages, when christianity was at about the same age as islam is now, the christians weren't all that nice a bunch to those not their close friends. Some could be blamed on reasons like that. There was also the huns to blame (we think it was them), who sacked the intellectual/scientific capital of islam, leaving the faith with only the religious core left. That could've influenced things for the worse.

one major problem in islam is also that the greater majority still does not accept that others can have a different faith or that anyone might wish to leave their faith. Just getting over that hurdle would have improved things considerably.

In the end, we've not seen that movie, have no intent to see it and we don't think it was a good idea to make. Still, it is made too much of.

[Ashu]

Most of the more extreme Christians do not have the influence with other Christians that the more extreme muslims have with other muslims. It could be due to christianity having aged more as a religion, or it could be due to there being far more factions of christianity.

Back in the middle ages, when christianity was at about the same age as islam is now, the christians weren't all that nice a bunch to those not their close friends. Some could be blamed on reasons like that. There was also the huns to blame (we think it was them), who sacked the intellectual/scientific capital of islam, leaving the faith with only the religious core left. That could've influenced things for the worse.

one major problem in islam is also that the greater majority still does not accept that others can have a different faith or that anyone might wish to leave their faith. Just getting over that hurdle would have improved things considerably.

In the end, we've not seen that movie, have no intent to see it and we don't think it was a good idea to make. Still, it is made too much of.

In the middle ages, Christianity helped preserve culture. If you're talking about whitch burning or the crusades, then someone enlighted in these subject may come forward and explain them to us. i know that after the rupture, catholicism and orthodoxy went in very separate ways, that we can see even to this day.