This is what we think we know at this point, relative to this reprehensible film.
First, those that were involved - the actors and the person who provided the set - all claim they were misled. The words of the actors, for example were dubbed over what was actually said by unknown voices.
Second, the original source of the funding has appeared to be lost in a shroud of conflicting claims.
And third, there is a concerted effort underway to convince us that it wasn’t the movie that caused the attacks and the unrest that are cascading across North Africa and the Middle East. Jonah Goldberg, a prolific editorialist in the L.A. Times, suggested today that it wasn’t the video at all - that the coordinated attacks had to have been planned well before the video surfaced. The Obama administration, understandably anxious to avoid responsibility for the anti-American demonstrations, says it was the video period, but Goldberg counters that Obama’s naiveté “deserves ample scorn,” and, just to be fair, he throws the naïve charge at George W. Bush as well.
Peering through the confusion and the many mysteries, here is what I believe we can assume at this point. It’s a good idea to never believe that global events just sort of happen by accident and, make no mistake about it, this has become a global event. Somewhere behind the names that have been associated with the video - so far back, in fact, that it may forever be lost to public view - the video and the orchestrated attacks were likely both organized together by the same entity. The broad scope of such a plan would seem to eliminate any amateurs as the culprits. Under such circumstances, we would certainly have to be talking about a group along the lines of the CIA, Al Qaeda the Mossad, the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps even one we haven’t heard of yet.
The point is, the seemingly haphazard events that are unfolding probably represent a controlled situation that is likely to be exactly what the organizer intended.
If that is the case and if we could just determine who this organizer is and identify its motives, our understanding of global trends and where they are heading would be greatly enhanced but, even more importantly, our ability to change them would be greatly improved.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 68
I can hope that the people who did this were unaware how easily it would be interpreted as false-flag sort of hurtfulness and that it ended up hurting people on all the sides one could perceive.
Sure, and you would, of course, know that by NOT watching any part of it.
I observed a person screaming racial abuse in a grocery store. People of the race yelled about were steering clear but continuing to shop.
Two store employees were designated crazy-talk responders. They approached the guy and asked politely if they could talk with him outside, which is what happened.
As calling Portland police has so often ended with dead people, store owners and managers have apparently come up with their own more timely remedies.
Bruce, for you to portray all people of a certain religion as you have says quite a bit about you, not so much about all the individuals who identify with the religion.
You would just get rid of so many people? Really? How would you do this, practically speaking? Are you intending to take moves in this direction any time soon?
Just asking. My friends and family know I am endlessly curious about peace.
On other hand, since you mostly post in support of these groups your opinion of my might be a bit biased don't you think?
You know, apprehending criminals might result in violence and death too ... should we just throw out freedom of speech and thought because someone might violently disagree? I say no.
It is not any people I want to "get rid of" as you put it, but an unsustainable and unfair method of manufacturing violent people, ie. radical Islam, with terror and abuse that I would get rid of. But supporting that system are people, people who are willing to use any means necessary to maintain their own personal power to abuse and oppress.
For me, your using the word radical does not defuse the hostility I hear from you.
The culture I grew up in emphasized dignity of individual persons and required that I look for good in every person I might encounter.
The persons I have trouble doing that with are persons like Bill Gates and others who sequester themselves from ordinary people and use their resources to bind ordinary people with monopolistic behaviors that seek to make serfs out of customers with reams of fine print. I confess I have a hard time with that.
I have a hard time with the behaviors described in Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man. Those behaviors are now being practiced by the U.S. government against U.S. people, in addition to continuing to be used to extend empire around the world.
I find many apologists for the imperial use of force by the U.S. are unwilling to attend to the blowback and consequences of this use of force.
If you hate violence used to oppress, than surely you are unhappy about the use of assasination, as described by John Perkins?
U.S. people were unaware of some of these assassinations that John Perkins described, for many years.
As for apprehending criminals, over 1,000 architec ts and engineers are demanding a scientific examination about why nano-thermite was present in the debris from 9-11 and why evidence was so promptly moved to China to be melted down. There are only a few sources for nano-thermite, and debauched hijackers were unlikely to have had access to it, not to mention that party-boys are not credible as religious fanatics.
U.S. industry science has little credibility around the world any more.
There are some independent scientists in the U.S. who do have credibility, but many of them have lost government jobs because they blew whistles or because they chose to leave before being forced out by industrial interests.
I recently posted on this topic.
> persons and required that I look for good in every person
> I might encounter.
Might I ask what culture and what you mean by that? Can you give me an example of a culture that does to the opposite and what you think the rest of the world should do about it ?
Greedy business people are not exclusive to America you understand. The richest person in the world, far above Bill Gates was Adnan Koshoggi, a Saudi Arabian arms dealer ... did you get that AN ARMS DEALER, but you worry about Bill Gates and tell me how open-minded you are.
Mary, you hardly have to say 2 words to contradict yourself!
You talk about serfs, but hate the idea of the US bringing democracy and the vote, as well as putting pressure on radical religious societies to allow all to have their human rights.
You are lucky enough to read Confessions Of An Economic Hitman because of the freedom of this country. If someone in one of the countries you feel I express hostility towards write a critical book of that magnitude they would get the death penalty, in fact maybe you remember who Salman Rushdie is.
You are right, if we use force unwisely we suffer blowback. So far blowback like the casualties of this war have been tragic, and unnecessary, but manageable, and in my opinion they do move the world ahead in a weird kind of way.
The problem is that humanity has settled into this paralysis of not doing anything that uses force to confront evil because force is often the tool of evil - but not always, and that's the part you seem to miss or disagree with.
The soft word and red-herrings you bring up to deflect attention from your basic message of support for these inhuman systems based on such simple unjust ideas that when they are acted out in a simple moving picture show and the people see what they have been told to believe so simply and starkly they are brought to murder and violence.
Information I last looked at regarding the richest person asserted it is Carlos Slim, who is Mexican.
Governments of some nations often try to influence governments of other nations to allow international corporations to remove resources and to abuse ordinary citizens, often through the imposition of debt for "infrastructure" that appeals to the egos of some leaders.
The U.S. government has pressured Indian governments to get advantage for seed and chemical companies, for example. Carla Hills made some comments that went down poorly, and quoting her, Indian people used crowbars to take apart a Cargill facility. Carla Hills had said she would get U.S. products into India with a crowbar, if she had to.
Syngenta is Swiss, and it tried to lean on UC-Berkeley to punish Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. for his colorful, hip-hop words about Syngenta. But UC-Berkeley is not an ag school. It is ag-school whistle-blowers who get fired and hounded, in recent on-line trends. In the case of Berkeley, it did not work for Syngenta, and that is good. Some colorful characters, who are also politically astute, can still speak out here.
U.S. governments have asserted they are bringing votes to places, as cover for plans to plunder resources. There was a Freedom of Information suit which uncovered Cheney's plans for Iraqi oil. It did not end up as Cheney planned.
You used the words open-minded concerning me. I did not.
You speak down to me, and I hear your hostility. Nonetheless, your defense of Bill Gates by saying there is a worse guy from Saudi Arabia does not work as an effective argument for me. It does not speak to the issues I raised about Bill Gates, who has also donated to a research foundation Monsanto set up for what it calls research.
Bill Gates used money from his tax-exempt foundation to give to Monsanto's foundation. I do not find that an exemplary example of charity.
I agree with Vandana Shiva's observation that seeds raised in a laboratory are adapted to a laboratory. This has had many unfortunate consequences in the world.
That Monsanto's seeds were advertised as a way to make farmer's rich, in India, has resulted in an epidemic of farmer suicides. When their failure to produce as promised bank-rupted small farmers, fathers committed suicide in hundreds of thousands of cases.
In China, it has been women who committed suicide by drinking farm-chemicals.
Not all of the companies participating in this are U.S. based. I did not say they are. These companies can afford to go where they choose, to change their names and their headquarter places as their principal owners decide.
Collusion of the U.S.government to take Monsanto as a monopoly into Iraq is decried by many U.S. citizens. It is an example of imperial behavior that we are most unhappy about and regret.
My support is for the ordinary human beings in places. If you talk with taxi drivers iin many countries, they have their beefs with governments. My son thinks Norway has a pretty good government. Maybe so, but in general, transparency in government is quite a rare thing, and this tends to be unfortunate for ordinary citizens.
You completely skirted the issue - again.
The issue here is Islam why don't you try sticking to it instead of your clever spinning off the subject. Maybe what you sense when you call me hostile is my impatience with a type of person we call mealy-mouthed ... meaning pretentious and dishonest.
Your brushing off of huge fortunes amassed overseas under corrupt government and choosing to focus on Bill Gates seems only to keep the subject off radical Islam and the terrorist behaviors that were the subject here. I brought up a counter-example to show that Bill Gates is not the only rich person in the world who is active in some way in a selfish, greedy arrogant way and what if you are really concerned about that you might apply your criticism fairly all around where it belongs.
I understand that you wish to make the issue a fault-finding mission about Islam. I find that to be counterproductive to open-eyed accounting of how to get to peace. Most belief systems, including atheism, have wild-eyed, insistent true believers who do not go over well with potential converts.
So what? Assigning collective guilt and thereby rationalizing collateral damage is not good practice. Law in many countries does not condone this.
Collusion of the Bush family to enrich some oil-producing companies and countries and to punish others, is well known. The use of taxpayer funds in this endeavor is shameful, and the use of odious debt for the purpose will be exposed. Bill Gates is in on that. Last I checked, he owns a lot of oil-industry stock, and he makes grants to innoculate people who have serious lung disease because they live in the shadow of oil-industry pollution. I am not seeing what is so noble about this, and a lot of the people in the shadows of pollution don't see it either. Would you? This is about harm, and about not addressing the needs of persons helped from the point of view of the helped. It is not about fine points of religious dogma. That distracts from dealing with harm and damage, and it leads to failure to take proper responsibility for this.
I continue to find your refusal to deal with the issue of U.S. exceptionalism a disappointment. It is a source of much loss of credibility and irony around the world concerning the U.S. government and its crony corporations.
Some areas of science in the U.S. have little to no credibility offshore because undue corporate influence is allowed and abetted by U.S. government entities who have been captured and corrupted, with great whistle-blower collateral damage here and damage to transparency here.
Wonderful U.S. work, like that of SOIL Haiti and the Earthship community and TEDX make some counterpoints, as well as the posting of educational material, for free, on the net by MIT and Harvard, both of which are conducting cost-effective recruitment by doing this. It also functions as some degree of good PR for the U.S. in general to un-do some of the bad PR from the use of undue force and of monopoly and bribery tactics.
I certainly get that you intended to be hurtful. I am a survivor of a traumatic brain injury (TBI), and I have worked hard to recover from that. I do not think anyone who knows me would say I have memory problems more than anyone else, so I will think of this put-down as the sort of thing that happens on the internet that might not happen in person.
I put your Alzheimer's put-down in the category of changing the subject to avoid addressing substance.
Clearly you think the U.S. government is better than other governments.
I disagree. I agree to disagree with you about that. The U.S. government has hidden some of its bad deeds fairly successfully over the years.
It has had more trouble with subterfuge recently.
Do you know what the term Jizya means? Look it up and let me know if you agree with it or not? Or you can click through and watch the video. At 4:23.
The box-cutter boys were party boys, not devout followers of Islamic law. This is well documented. We do not know who funded them, in the same way we do not know who funded the film now making a ruckus.
It is a job for military forensics experts to find out who funded 9-11 and how they carried it out. An intact passport of a party boy found near Ground Zero is just ridiculous as evidence. Military researchers are on this, but I have some fear there could be a civil war inside the U.S. military as this research goes on.
Do we have a secular government? We are somewhat supposed to, according to some of our founding documents, but I do not agree that we do, in some respects.
There have been some problems in the armed forces. I think we have issues with candidates wrapping themselves in trappings of religion when they want to pander (which they always seem to want to do).
U.S. politicians have double sets of promises and probably double sets of things they say they believe in and things they actually believe.
Ethical belief systems tend to be held at the core of individuals. It is tough not to offend those whose beliefs are different. It escalates situations and makes violence more likely when put-downs are used.
Bruce, I do not like it when you address me in imperative voice. I do not understand why you think you have a right to tell me what to write, think, or do.
If you do not get why I see connections where you do not, that is fine. I don't understand why you order me around for making the connections, nonetheless.
The U.S. government deserves criticism when it fails to acknowledge what its own employees and external experts are telling it. You can get much more in-crowd than Hillary Clinton, and even she is backing down from put-downs of Islam. U.S. health care is another subject, but is also embarrassing because of the degree of dishonesty in what gets called science in the U.S. Our tax system is a disaster. I am sure we disagree on why, but it is a reason people are leaving the U.S. for everywhere else on the planet, including many places made to seem more dangerous than our own cities. The take-over of substantial parts of both major parties by Neo-Cons is a great tragedy for the U.S.
On the evidence I know of, I believe that take-over is tangled with religio-cultural baggage that has portrayed Islam in certain ways for its own control-freak reasons, and the more of our population who figure this out, the better chance for peace we will have.
As for Iran having nuclear weapon capability, our own CIA says no on that, as do UN inspectors. Netanyahu is rattling a big sword because he can get away with it. Israelis themselves criticize him more harshly than he gets criticized in the U.S., although this is changing. Retired U.S. and Israeli experts are speaking out because they are alarmed by his behaviors.
You say I seem hostile ... could be because you are so totally dishonest in your arguments and rhetoric - yes, I do not like or respect that.
So, does religion just boil down to a giant conspiracy theory that we believe in so that we can delude ourselves that we have some control and power over our lives?
Another possible way to identify clandestine operations might be to look for coincidences, of which I, personally, am generally skeptical. In the case of the subject of this article it is suspiciously coincidental that the release of the video, the emergence of a highly organized terrorist attack and the well-organized incitement of the rabble across two continents should occur almost simultaneously.
Safe? In what way?
The burning of the Reichstag in Germany was a conspiracy, the publishing of a video that might be offensive to a culture built around offense to others is so ludicrous.
Or, how about this one No One Murdered Because Of This Image, which is an image offending all relgions other than Islam - because Islam needs some kind of special care .... and why ?
No other religion is inhuman enough to think that they can murder people because of perceived insults, and I am sad to think you support Islam in this because you imagine there is some conspiracy against it ... any more than there is a conspiracy for it.
I think the FBI has estimated that something like 84% of mosques in the US have and disseminate radical Islamic Jihad literature, and have radical Immams speaking there. Saudi Arabia has been sending money from the oil we pay them for out to mosques all over the world to promote Wahabism ... their radical brand of Islam ... why is that not the conspiracy you are worried about Dave?
Love,
Snarky Snark & the Snarky Bunch
A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
Like it or not, that definition basically describes the theme of your post. What's funny is, you've countered my point about conspiracy theories by alleging yet another conspiracy theory that I have a hidden agenda. lol
But to them call everything we do a conspiracy simple removes the meaning from the word. The JFK assassination was a conspiracy.
By the way, I don't deny your definition as it applies to me and I never did (except I would substitute "trends" for "events"). In fact, I've pretty much said the same thing in this string of comments, so I don't get your point.
To really believe that the powers that exist in this world are not attempting to shape global events to achieve trends favorable to their ends, is, I believe, to be naive. And with critical raw materials predicted to be in short supply due to the rapidly growing middle classes in the developing nations, the desire and need for control among the various global interests is growing even stronger.
History is loaded with such examples. We now know, for example, with the passage of time and the writing of a book entitled "Day of Deceipt," based on government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that Pearl Harbor was the result of a plot - not by the Japanese - but by FDR, in order to provide a "back door" into the war in Europe and to galvanize public opinion in favor of joining the war...
lol, where did I say "my" side of the fence? I was talking about sane Muslims on one side of the fence, and crazies on the other. If you'd gone to my post that H.I. referred to, you would have figured that out. See, that's called jumping to conclusions, fueled by paranoia. There are no strings on me, Geppetto.
Let's go with that for a moment. What about it? Are you saying the world could have been better had the US not entered the war? That somehow we could have avoided it? I am not familiar with this book, or the documents you are talking about, but if they are as distorted as some of the other stuff I am hearing I am skeptical.
Try not to expand your tit for tat du jour into ww3 by painting a perverted sense of glory and honor on the perpetrators of atrocities past.
When I was younger, we used to love the smokescreen they would create at the discotheques - we could get away with such outrageous menage a quatres - right in the middle of the club! Did I tell you that I can still get one ankle over my head? Sooo glamorous- flashing lights, disco balls, drag queen makeup - we had it all.
Oh, wait - this post isn't about me either, is it?
History is glittered with examples of competing idiotologies at each others throats. 'My religion is not a dangerous delusion - yours is!!' It's like the religious people took far too many of our club drugs or something.
Of course there are going to be trips to the hospital - and some to the morgue. When you wanna' dance, that's just the way the disco ball bounces.
Did you actually see any of this movie?
Hmm, I saw part of this on You-Tube. It was highly stylized, almost surreal, a kind of removed, symbolic almost a sparse acting out of just the facts. An almost sleep inducing boring re-enactment of religious situations from the holy books. I am making an assumption that this was based on Islamic scripture but am not an expert or even very familiar with Islam.
If someone made the film about Christianity in the same style I cannot see it offending many Christians ... especially to the point where they would blame a whole country and go to their embassy and murder people there.
> It’s a good idea to never believe that global events just sort of happen by accident and, make no mistake about it, this has become a global event.
Dave, sorry, but this is such a silly comment saying basically just assume that EVERYTHING you see in the media is a conspiracy.
Or maybe it is Islam that is not the accident, but since it has an 600 year old tradition of murder, terrorism, violence and bloodshed and is called a religion it has earned an inviolate respect.
The stage is set by posts and comments like yours to set the standard norm of Islamic behavior to be one of uncivilized violent murderous behavior. Apparently we must see Muslims as not capable or not responsible for their own behavior when it comes to religion, and we foist this expectation on all non-Muslims that we all ought to have to be wary because this religion can kill you if you say the wrong thing.
The world is messed up enough the way it is. If you look at what contributes to civilization and what does not, allowing and even encouraging uncivilized violent and terroristic behavior to survive, sustain itself and even grow hurts everyone, yet that seems to be what we get these days.
It's the same with poor people - we seem to just expect them to be ignorant and violent and we do nothing to lift them or force them out of the cultural ruts that keep them down and plague the rest of us as well.
Totalitarian Islam and the terror, violence and oppression it breeds should be attacked at every opportunity. Looking at this situation ... what is the takeaway as they say? Is it that this kind of uncivilized barbarity must be respected and endured, or that this type of barbarity needs desperately to be stood up to and fought?
Clearly, I think this kind of behavior and culture needs to be erased from human history, not feared and apologized for.
I also read that the producers got $60K to do the film.
Rather than murdering people about it, I prefer to speak against Polanski and not see his movies or contribute any money to them.
How many people have the allied forces eliminated (not to use the over-general term, "murdered")? Shall we begin counting at, say, the crusades?
Thinking about it, though, I can see where the Democrats might not like it because it is counter to the administration's position, and the Republicans might not like it because they apparently don't want to acknowledge the existence of "plots."
Yes, Bruce, I saw parts of the film. Bear in mind, it doesn't take much to inflame the Muslims when it comes to the subject of Mohammed, and those who made this film or who discovered its existence knew full well what the reaction to it would be....
No kidding, so let's blame it on everyone else but where the blame belongs, on Muslims.
The film is so stylized as to be about as gut-wrenching as a clothing catalog, it just happens to show what is written about Mohammed in the Koran ... at least as far as I know. I am not sure how exact it is, but maybe we just see this differently.
You might check the link I referred Mary too above for a little more analysis of Islamization.
That is not true. I am a non-Muslim and I have no problem respecting other people's religion. Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever crazy magical stuff people choose to believe. My problem is when people start to use religion which should be a positive thing as a basis for dehumanizing others, and that deserves no respect, in fact it demands pushback, and when instead of humbleness we get terrorism, then that is the time whatever religion needs to be stomped on good because it is not a religion it is a totalitarian system.
I agree Islam and Muslims need to grow up and somehow learn to incorporate other people into the world as equal citizens of this planet, and if they cannot do that they are in fact criminally dehumanizing people - a crime against humanity.
Read what is going on now in Britain:
Recent Investigations
A recent undercover investigation by the Sunday Times found imams in Britain willing to “marry” young girls, provided this was carried out in secret. The imams had been approached by an undercover reporter posing as a father who said he wanted his 12 year old daughter married, to prevent her from being tempted in to a "western lifestyle".
Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, sanctioned the marriage, but stressed the need for total secrecy. He stated: “I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better. Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband. The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).”
You should never forget that, due to circumstances and technologies, some countries evolved faster than others and, together with them, our own behavior and laws evolved.
A sign says: Guilty of bi-sexuality!
Shame you used such a language. Shame to you!
Thanks for sharing in the Triple Name Club.
The whole situation is a moral quagmire. Certainly the makers and financiers of the flic were well aware of what the response would be. They're not idiots. But at the same time none of that justifies or excuses the response itself. Murdering people because you're offended (no matter how deeply) by something done by people who you suspect may live in the same country as those you are attacking is savage and just plain stupid.
And I don't give a damn what the PC Police say; the culture in many Middle Eastern Islamic theocracies is apparently highly conducive to brutal savagery. It's more than "just a handful" of bad apples; sensible, civilized individuals appear to be the minority in Saudi Arabia and many of it's immediate neighbors.
Ironically, the one nation/culture that is most civilized, having a majority of sensible, sane people who don't fly off the handle and start murdering at the drop of a hat, is the one that the fascist warmongers in the Rethuglican/Dumbocrat duopoly are currently blustering and posturing to turn into the next U.S. warfare state aggression campaign victims; Iran. Go figure.
How could one ever predict that. It's easy to imagine after the fact because of stereotypes we have of Muslims, but take a look at this thing, it's is like a kids' school play the acting and production values are so bad. The reason Afghans are killing Americans is because of the fanatical nature of Islam not because of what we are doing. As I've said before, the Afghan men like to keep their women down, for them maybe that is what justifies having the typical unjust social system where most Afghans are held down as well.
This kind of terrorism is the reason Islam needs to be forcefully reformed, and if that cannot happen eviscerated.
The conspiracy IS ISLAM, the world should not going to tolerate a group of fools worse than most religious groups of fools that has it written into their social operating system to expand and take over whereever they live. Check out the link I referred Mary to above on Islamization.
Don't kid yourself about Iran, it is Islam almost the same as Saudi Arabia. I keep referring people to the travel video on Iran by Rick Steves. The people are nice like all people, they are the same and have their culture ... but the religious government maintains pressure on Muslims and non-Muslims alike to toe to the line when it comes to hatred of Israel. Iran has been radical Islam like the others and has had a rich history of persecution of non-Muslim minorities.
How could one ever predict that? I don't know, how about if they remember as far back as 2006, when over 100 people died in the violence that erupted across the Muslim world in response to cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. I'm sure everyone 30 years or older remembers the violent outbursts and death threats to Salmon Rushdie in response to his fictional novel The Satanic Verses.
Honestly, one would have to be an idiot or residing under a rock to not guess that the production of a video depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a child molesting huckster would spark mass violent outrage in the backward Islamic theocracies of the Middle East.
The reason Afghans are killing Americans is because of the fanatical nature of Islam not because of what we are doing.
That's nowhere near a factual statement. Sure there are groups of religious fanatics who want to kill Americans for the simple reason we are "infidels." But practically every major, recognized militant jihadist group cites American foreign policy as the basis of their motivation. Even the network of U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agree that the majority of jihadist terrorism against U.S. and allied targets can be classified as "blowback" in response to what the jihadists perceive as unjust and oppressive U.S. foreign policy toward Muslim countries.
And please, to recognize that fact, and to recognize that for the most part, U.S. foreign policy concerning the Middle East has indeed been unjust, oppressive, misguided and often murderous, is not to vindicate or justify acts of terrorism against American (or any) civilians, nor is it intellectually honest to refer to it as "blaming America" for Islamic terrorism, since in the first place the political class who formulate and enact policies are not synonymous with "America" in a general context, and since to recognize the wrongful acts of one party is not necessarily to justify wrongful acts in response to them.
This kind of terrorism is the reason Islam needs to be forcefully reformed, and if that cannot happen eviscerated.
So, your proposed solution to the problem is violent subjugation of an entire religious culture constituting nearly one-fourth of the world's population, and if that proves untenable, genocide -- on an unprecedented, practically unimaginable scale?
Yeah, that's sensible.
world should not going to tolerate a group of fools worse than most religious groups of fools that has it written into their social operating system to expand and take over wherever they live.
Yes, no one should tolerate having religious fundamentalist doctrine imposed on society through the apparatus of law. But then, neither should the Islamic nations have to tolerate having Western political interests imposed on them through subversion, intimidation or aggressive warfare.
Don't kid yourself about Iran... The people are nice like all people, they are the same and have their culture ... but the religious government maintains pressure on Muslims and non-Muslims alike to toe to the line when it comes to hatred of Israel.
It's the people that I was referring to, not the Iranian state. But as far as that goes, let's keep in mind that the current theocratic government of Iran has never invaded any country.
And whatever pressure you say is being maintained on the people of Iran by their government must not be terrifically effective, when you consider certain facts like the spontaneous outpouring of sympathy and solidarity expressed in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran on the evening of 9/11/01 and then in other organized candlelight vigils and such in the weeks after; or the popular expression of such beautiful sentiments as this.
Iran has been radical Islam like the others and has had a rich history of persecution of non-Muslim minorities.
A "rich history"? I was unaware of that. From what I know of Iranian history, it's only been under theocratic state rule since the revolution in 1979; and that revolution was mostly attributable to the fact that the Iranian people had been subject to a foisted petty tyrant imposed on them by Western interests, who had used covert subversion techniques to orchestrate a coup de tat against the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mosadegh's government. Once again: blowback. Go figure.
When I say how could anyone predict ... it is easy to say that everything anyone does will set off Muslims and call that a prediction. So the desired result is that everyone fears Islam and does not do anything, which allows the toxic system to continue and even expand because of TERROR.
The other side of this is that from what I saw the movie followed the facts of Islam.
But, in all the world you think you can predict that the Libyan ambassador would be murdered? Just what kind of logic is it that you offer? You just assume that the Muslims will react with terrorism somewhere in someway and someone will die, so never say anything about Islam and allow them to have everlasting violent temper tantrums?
As to the rest of your typically overly verbose rant, you cannot back any of it up. Iran had to be taken over by the British in WWII so as to prevent the King from allying with Hitler. Instead of talking so damn much why don't you think a little more?
Actually, this exchange began with you arguing my initial post, which didn't mention you or anything you've said.
I then addressed the actual contents of your comment with a reasoned response, free of petty adjectives like "mindless" or "knee-jerk" asserted in place of argument.
Did you see the movie? If not I think your reaction is typical knee-jerk.
I saw the 15 minute trailer, which as I understand it, is all anyone outside of the people directly involved in the thing have seen.
it is easy to say that everything anyone does will set off Muslims and call that a prediction.
Whatever. You sure are prepared to contort logic just to avoid conceding an obvious point.
Are you sure you really want to stick to your guns on this one? You want to argue that violent outbursts in the streets of the Muslim world in response to a viral Internet video depicting Muhammad as a womanizing, child-molesting fraud isn't completely predictable?
Come on, man. I can't help but feel like you're the one who apparently feels they have to argue something just because I said it.
So the desired result is that everyone fears Islam and does not do anything, which allows the toxic system to continue and even expand because of TERROR.
I'm sure that is the "desired result." Sucks to be them, if you ask me.
I certainly know that I'm not going to go out of my way and walk on eggshells just to avoid unsettling the fragile sensibilities of some backward, barbaric third-world cult. And I don't suggest anyone should. All I said is that the response was entirely predictable. Quite possibly even fully intended.
But, in all the world you think you can predict that the Libyan ambassador would be murdered?
Nice straw man. Now, would like to try sticking to debating what I've actually said?
You just assume that the Muslims will react with terrorism somewhere in someway and someone will die, so never say anything about Islam and allow them to have everlasting violent temper tantrums?
Geez, now you're lining up another one. Are we participating in the same conversation?
Should I continue here, or would you rather just continue fabricating statements and attributing them to me, and I'll just bow out now; cut out the middle man?
As to the rest of your typically overly verbose rant, you cannot back any of it up. Iran had to be taken over by the British in WWII so as to prevent the King from allying with Hitler. Instead of talking so damn much why don't you think a little more?
Why don't you focus on what I'm actually saying, instead of just ascribing your own invented argument to me?
I said nothing about WWII. I was referring to the MI6/CIA orchestrated coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, to install the despotic Shah Pahlavi, so as to maintain Western control over Iranian oil.
Do you have an opinion about that -- the thing I was actually talking about -- or do you want to confine the debate to only those arguments which you yourself fabricate and attribute to me?
What concerns me the most is that this seems to have the ingredients for a false-flag event that could trigger a general conflict. One might argue that such an event could be orchestrated by motivated factions in Iran, the U.S., Israel or even some other nation, such as Saudi Arabia. The preponderance of conflicting waves washing over the region is unsettling to say the least.
Earlier this week Iran, once again, said that any military action would be met with counter-attacks against U.S. facilities in the region. To me that makes such any operation against Iran very much the business of the U.S., contrary to the expressions of the Israeli leader a few days ago, an individual who is not the right man for the times I believe and one who I hope the Israelis will replace, as many of them seem to want to do...
I also believe that an Obama victory is more likely to lead to military action in Syria than in Iran, but just possibly he might actually initiate a unique warless era, in which case the M/I complex will be geared up to support the GOP, full bore, in future election campaigns.
"Understanding", however, is a completely different - and necessary - story.