U S Wants The Film "innocence Of Muslims" To Be Removed From Google

[maidu]

The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

What a silly statement. The main reason the W.House is considering asking Google to put a lid on searches for the video is it's endangering the lives of innocent Americans overseas. The US gov't is concerned with (among other things) protecting its citizens. It has to react to crazies overseas. If there were mobs of loonies who proclaimed "anyone with a black umbrella is anti-Islam and we will kill them", then the US gov't would issue a warning to its citizens overseas to be careful when opening a black umbrella.

[Ulysses G.]

An interesting take on the situation from a (normally) liberal columnist.

In fact, what is "disgusting and reprehensible" is that there are people in the world who think they are justified in attacking and killing people because someone hurt their feelings or offended their sensibilities. The US government should not act as a validator or enabler of this upside down worldview, which is exactly what the Obama administration has done repeatedly as they have responded to these abhorrent attacks against the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/14/president-obama-stop-blaming-victim-for-mideast-violence/#ixzz26diSnOuD

[ratpiece]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

If they feel so strongly about their so called religion, then maybe they should keep out of the bars and leave the girls alone in places like Pattaya. Instead of boozing like maniacs and shagging everything in sight. Muslims, like most others with strong religious beliefs are a bunch of deluded hypocrites!

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

If they feel so strongly about their so called religion, then maybe they should keep out of the bars and leave the girls alone in places like Pattaya. Instead of boozing like maniacs and shagging everything in sight. Muslims, like most others with strong religious beliefs are a bunch of deluded hypocrites!

It's a strong way of putting the point but the point is nonetheless a good one!

[maidu]

If they feel so strongly about their so called religion, then maybe they should keep out of the bars and leave the girls alone in places like Pattaya. Instead of boozing like maniacs and shagging everything in sight. Muslims, like most others with strong religious beliefs are a bunch of deluded hypocrites!

LIke most people who consider themselves religious, their religion only extends as far as their public image back home. Scratch the surface, and they're horny & frustrated boys like boys from other walks of life. .....perhaps more so, because they're mandated to be so stifled (in expressing their true feelings) in their home countries. When they get to a 'wild west' place like Pattaya or Patpong, they go nutzoid - like monkeys shot out of a cannon.

[DefaultName]

Interesting interview.....

Interesting what she says about Arabs wanting democracy but not wanting western democracy.

Also, as she says, It's quite difficult to be offended by the film because its quite difficult to take it seriously

She is obviously an educated woman. Stone her immediately.

Disclaimer; this is humour (note the smiley), no need for a Fatwa please.

[rijb]

Under no circumstances......what has happened to the US? They used to be the World leaders when it came to Free Speech!!

If you bow to ignorant uneducated bigoted mobs then one day we will all end up in the same gutter alongside them.

Well said. The White House has proven itself to be devoid of any intent to support free speech.

It would be nice to have heard them say something to the effect that it's the American way of life ( and a RIGHT ) and they will fight to the death to support it, but what we have is an administration running away from principle as fast as it can.

So it's OK to kill people without due process ( drone strikes ) and crow about how they murdered Bin Laden, but if people in other countries get upset and burn some embassies it's oh so terrible. If Americans don't like their officials getting murdered, perhaps they shouldn't murder so many people in other countries.

Murder is an unlawful act. The use of military force in a war is a lawful act. We could argue the legal basis for war. But, I don't want to confuse you with facts.

The White House is just one branch of the U.S. government. All U.S. government entities make national and international requests for many reasons (political, national security, etc.). Google is within its rights to reject the film removal request.

The first amendment (i.e. free speech) to the U.S. constitution addresses rights for people in the U.S. - not the entire world!

[BookMan]

An interesting take on the situation from a (normally) liberal columnist.

In fact, what is "disgusting and reprehensible" is that there are people in the world who think they are justified in attacking and killing people because someone hurt their feelings or offended their sensibilities. The US government should not act as a validator or enabler of this upside down worldview, which is exactly what the Obama administration has done repeatedly as they have responded to these abhorrent attacks against the United States.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz26diSnOuD

The first two paragraphs of the article particularly sums up the confused moral message that is being sent out by the US admin to its citizens by their choice of language.

Disgusting and reprehensible." said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Truly abhorrent," an outraged White House official told an international conference. Were they talking about the murder of four Americans in Libya? Or perhaps the hoisting of an Islamist flag over the U.S. Embassy in Cairo?

No. For that they stuck to diplomatic speak. For the president, the harshest language was: "I strongly condemn the outrageous attack." For Clinton it was that the US is heartbroken and she condemned "this senseless act of violence." But "disgusting and reprehensible" and "truly abhorrent " were reserved for an amateurish and silly film by someone nobody has ever heard of.

[sunshine51]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

If they feel so strongly about their so called religion, then maybe they should keep out of the bars and leave the girls alone in places like Pattaya. Instead of boozing like maniacs and shagging everything in sight. Muslims, like most others with strong religious beliefs are a bunch of deluded hypocrites!

Ratpiece...What you say about many Muslims shagging the ladies in Pattaya and other places

plus holding court in bars is true. Can you blame them if you know it's out there but in your home

country you can't get it unless you wanna do serious jail time or marry some woman whose face you have never seen let alone her other bits? Many Muslims come to LOS for the same reasons

non Muslims do however it seems many of them act like kids who have just found a thousand Quid on the street and they're standing in front of a candy store. Believe me...I worked in the MidEast on a

90 day on and 30 day off gig for four years and when I landed at Don Muang I acted the same

dam_n way and I was raised Christian but now have serious Buddhist inclinations...FYI Suvarnabumi didn't exist back in the late 70's & early 80's. It ain't the booze & nookie that's

the problem.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union Islam has taken centre stage as the group

the non Islamic world needs to poke a stick in the eye thereof. Before the USSR's collapse

about all there was against Muslims was the 1972 Olympics, numerous aircraft hijackings

and Palestine...in fact it was almost always terrorists supporting the Palestinian cause and I

for one thought these terrorists were more freedom fighters than terrorists....the Palestinians

just wanted a home. Read some history and find out who drew the lines obliterating what was

once known as Palestine that became the State of Israel...it wasn't entirely an American idea;

more like the Americans had very little to do with it save for the fact that the US was one of the first

nations to recognise the new State of Israel...all because of what Hitler tried to do in his Final

Solution. So Palestine was lost to Israel by the stroke of a pen. Imagine if another nation(s) did

the same to your country. Would you sit back and relax or become a terrorist/freedom fighter?

Chew on that a while brother.

[Ulysses G.]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like most of the the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Anyway, this thread is about the video "The Innocence of Muslims" and has nothing to do with the history of Israel.

[sunshine51]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Ulysses G...

I agree with you..it's not as simple as it seems. However a quite deceased (by now) professor I had would

differ with you in the context of this babble from Wiki, which, is exactly the same if you point your mouse

towards any of the worlds reputable centres for higher education.

Here's the quickie from Wiki'''

"The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece.^[14] Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.

This is for no desire of plagiarism...dam_n near what was once drilled into my head by that old geezer at Berkley.

Have a nice evening.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Possibly true but even if Jews were in the majority that was no justification for the subjugation and suppression of Palestinians. This general area was part of the old Ottoman empire which did not have the current boundaries of the nation states later created by the league of nations. There is certainly nothing simple about it.

[catweazle]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

If they feel so strongly about their so called religion, then maybe they should keep out of the bars and leave the girls alone in places like Pattaya. Instead of boozing like maniacs and shagging everything in sight. Muslims, like most others with strong religious beliefs are a bunch of deluded hypocrites!

@ gamini... if they would feel so strongly about their religion, perhaps they would be also strong enough to accept certain facts about their beloved prophet and not make a fuzz about it when they are adressed in public. You are missing the point here, while I agree with you that the movie most likely was produced to stir up trouble. The point is that muslims have their holy war against infidels on top of their agenda and willingly embrace any "reason" to push it forward and get some "infidels" killed in the process. These people want trouble and hatred, they love trouble and hatred, they feed on trouble and hatred, they are taught hatred from toddler age onwards, they will teach it to their children and nobody will get that ever out of their heads. These people are brainwashed and programmed killing machines and the trigger to start their stupid "Jeehad" is anything said, written, sung or published in any other way that "insults" their "religion". They just believe that killing and hating anything that is non-muslim is righteous and honorable - and this is what makes it all so dangerous for the rest of the world. Why should a 100% intolerant religion be adressed and dealt with in tolerant ways? Remember that their holy book says that all of us on this planet who are not muslims are lower than dogs and shall be killed with the fiery sword... Guess that makes about 95% of this forum's members. How does it feel to be called a dog? Any public outrage here? Of course not, because we - on the other hand - were taught to take it and tolerate it... what in my opinion is also a big mistake...

[geriatrickid]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

On the contrary,I believe it is you seeking to stir up trouble.

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that there was no "Israeli Jew" associated with the film, yet you and others persist with the spreading of a falsehood. What does it matter the responsible party's religion anyway? It was the action of a small group and they are the responsible party. The Christian and Jewish communities as a whole do not approve of the film, yet they are blamed. Civil authorities in the USA have expressed their dismay and have asked that the responsible parties to cease and desist. This is a considerably different response than what has occurred in the countries where the protests and violence took place. With the sole exception of Libya, Many of the countries have had a response ranging from tacit encouragement (Egypt) to initial non intervention (Tunisia and Yemen). I think that had it not been for the violent assault on the German embassy in Yemen, the Yemen authorities would have not have fully responded. It was only after the mobs massed outside the Canadian embassy,with the Canadians and then other western embassies quietly removing personnel and lodging stiff protests that the Muslim Brotherhood government realized it had a big problem. What did the Swiss government do to merit an angry mob outside its embassy in Tehran threatening to kill the personnel inside?

The US government and the USA are not only innocent parties, but they are victims. Why was the German embassy burnt? Why were the Canadian and UK embassies in Egypt threatened? These countries have no association with the film. Outside of Libya, which governments where the violence occurred, expressed sincere regret and have apologized for the attacks and violation of diplomatic rights?

Oh and btw, it is legally permissible to question the Holocaust in the USA. Even in Germany where there are specific laws in place, responsible questioning and discussion is allowed. What is not allowed are people looking to spread lies and falsehoods, Somewhat similar to there being laws that apply to the spreading of lies like yours that claim an "Israeli Jew" is responsible. This contrasts quite differently to most if not all arab countries, where it is quite acceptable to spread lies against the "enemy".

[bigbamboo]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like most of the the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Anyway, this thread is about the video "The Innocence of Muslims" and has nothing to do with the history of Israel.

Palestine and Israel both have equal yet tenuous claims as countries. If ever there was a case for partition and dividing the land in two this was it. Neither side would be happy but it would at least have been the fairest thing to do.

Incidentally part of Transjordan was also Palestine but that was conveniently put to one side.

[sauvagecheri]

These "demonstrators with violence" have attacked British and US property in these countries, I begin to think education and humanitarian aid means nothing to many of these thugs and the governments in these countries are so weak they are unable to do anything. Of course i am one who believes and has always believed the west is wasting its time by trying help those who are intolerant and believe their particular faith can have nothing said about it other than worshipped .

You don't seroiusly believe the west is helping to do anything but obtain oil do you ? All that "aid" is just bribes for oil contracts in the end , we are not trying to help anyone but ourselves. and from that standpoint it's not really a waste of time but has worked quite well to build pipelines and secure oil wells all over the mid east. You think when Iran gets invaded we will find the wepons of mass destruction ? Or will we just take over one more of the worlds largest oil supplys ?

mr Realdeal You don't really believe that do you ?We take over oil suppply ?Really ?We happen to PAY for the oil we get ,we usually do not " Take it over" .

What propaganda have you been listening to ?

That is not to say deals are not being made by the big boys from which ever side they happen to be ..

And yes this time we may very well find some nice weapon grade nuclear material in Iran it is no secrets that they have equipment that can do that .

And you know, if that idiot master of miscalculations Mr Saddam had simply cooperated with the allied forces and honored the terms of his surrender and allowed inspections (As he agreed to do)when he lost the war after invading Kuwait( I guess he wanted to "take over" someone's oil supply) ,he most likely still would still be in power .

[sunshine51]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like most of the the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Anyway, this thread is about the video "The Innocence of Muslims" and has nothing to do with the history of Israel.

Again...for speed and relative clarity...look at the charts on this Wiki page concerning

Palestine...they're repro's of old charts and kinda hard to argue with...mind you Wiki

is only a start...you can also check UCLA, UC Berkeley, Cambridge...etc if you so desire.

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

[geriatrickid]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Possibly true but even if Jews were in the majority that was no justification for the subjugation and suppression of Palestinians. This general area was part of the old Ottoman empire which did not have the current boundaries of the nation states later created by the league of nations. There is certainly nothing simple about it.

The issue of the areas in the disputed areas has no relationship to this issue. The motive for the film is most likely the result of an Egyptian seeking to strike back at what he perceives are transgressions against his ethnic community of Coptic Christians in Egypt. I doubt that this person cares about the Israeli- Arab dispute nor has any sentiments of support for Zionism, or pan arabism or even brotherly love. By your logic, with your reference to the former Turkish colonial occupiers, the arabs should be burning Turkish embassies and murdering Turkish diplomats.

[cheeryble]

I don't see followers of any other faith storming embassies every time some pap cracks a joke, draws a cartoon, writes an article or makes a movie

That would be because the sort of people you're criticising as cissies don't believe in collective punishment, considering all of a particular population identical when a moronic fringe acts brainlessly. This is a sign of strength under duress.....not weakness.

BTW when it comes to Christianilty behaving better now than Islam that would be largely because secularists have reined them in . The Church certainly didn't cede authoritarianism and their violent excesses voluntarily but were forced kicking and screaming........somethiing like this happening in the Catholic Church as we speak.....did you notice them lead the way in winkling out child molesters?

Cheeryble

[geriatrickid]

These "demonstrators with violence" have attacked British and US property in these countries, I begin to think education and humanitarian aid means nothing to many of these thugs and the governments in these countries are so weak they are unable to do anything. Of course i am one who believes and has always believed the west is wasting its time by trying help those who are intolerant and believe their particular faith can have nothing said about it other than worshipped .

You don't seroiusly believe the west is helping to do anything but obtain oil do you ? All that "aid" is just bribes for oil contracts in the end , we are not trying to help anyone but ourselves. and from that standpoint it's not really a waste of time but has worked quite well to build pipelines and secure oil wells all over the mid east. You think when Iran gets invaded we will find the wepons of mass destruction ? Or will we just take over one more of the worlds largest oil supplys ?

mr Realdeal You don't really believe that do you ?We take over oil suppply ?Really ?We happen to PAY for the oil we get ,we usually do not " Take it over" .

What propaganda have you been listening to ?

That is not to say deals are not being made by the big boys from which ever side they happen to be ..

And yes this time we may very well find some nice weapon grade nuclear material in Iran it is no secrets that they have equipment that can do that .

And you know, if that idiot master of miscalculations Mr Saddam had simply cooperated with the allied forces and honored the terms of his surrender and allowed inspections (As he agreed to do)when he lost the war after invading Kuwait( I guess he wanted to "take over" someone's oil supply) ,he most likely still would still be in power .

And if I may add, Egypt supplies no oil, no gas to the USA. The bulk of Libyan oil goes to the EU with Libya and France key customers. On the other hand, Iran is the key oil supplier for China and India and is still a major oil supplier for South Korea and Japan. The USA's pimary oil sources are Canada, Mexico, Saudia Arabia, Nigeria, and to a much smaller participation a basket of other countries. in the event of an energy supply disruption, the USA is one of the few western countries that would manage, albeit with pain, because of its safe and reliable energy suppliers of Canada and Mexico. On the contrary it is Asia and the EU that have the most to lose, since they are the ones dependent upon Middle East energy imports.

[sauvagecheri]

You and other people on this forum do not understand how strongly Muslims feel about their religion .In countries like Singapore Malaysia and others with responsible leadership, racial and religious slurs are against the law because they can cause riots and death. This film was apparently made by an Israeli Jew in order to stir up trouble. But if anyone makes slurs against Israel and questions the Holocaust it is not acceptable especially in the US. There should be limits to free speech. The maker of the film is totally responsible for the death of the US ambassador and should be held accountable.

If they feel so strongly about their so called religion, then maybe they should keep out of the bars and leave the girls alone in places like Pattaya. Instead of boozing like maniacs and shagging everything in sight. Muslims, like most others with strong religious beliefs are a bunch of deluded hypocrites!

Well it is ok to screw around with non muslim women you know ..The moral code is very different from our own ..It is not ok to drink alcohol however !Deluded hypocrites ,for sure !

And absolutely no ,the film maker is not "Totally" responsible for the murders ,the folks who went beserk about it and did the murdering are 100 % ,that line of thinking would leave it open for any mediia maker to be held responsible for the actions of others ,,,What about rap songs ?Some of which are incitation to commit crimes ,say a kid listens to a song and goes out and acts on its content ,does that make the songwriter and the singer liable ?

[simple1]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like most of the the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Anyway, this thread is about the video "The Innocence of Muslims" and has nothing to do with the history of Israel.

Again...for speed and relative clarity...look at the charts on this Wiki page concerning

Palestine...they're repro's of old charts and kinda hard to argue with...mind you Wiki

is only a start...you can also check UCLA, UC Berkeley, Cambridge...etc if you so desire.

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

Just to add Palestine, for a long time, was actually a recognised province of the Ottoman Empire. As you know the Ottoman empire in Palestine was overthrown by the Arabs in conjunction with the British. Ulysses G, as you said the Jewish community was only in the majority in Jerusalem by the mid 19th century,; however, not throughout Palestine that was Muslim by a very large majority.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

There was never a country called Palestine or a people called Palestinians. Most of the "Palestinians" were Arabs from surrounding countries who came as immigrants just like the Jews. In 1850 there were already more Jews than Arabs in Jeruselem. It is not as simple as you make it sound.

Possibly true but even if Jews were in the majority that was no justification for the subjugation and suppression of Palestinians. This general area was part of the old Ottoman empire which did not have the current boundaries of the nation states later created by the league of nations. There is certainly nothing simple about it.

The issue of the areas in the disputed areas has no relationship to this issue. The motive for the film is most likely the result of an Egyptian seeking to strike back at what he perceives are transgressions against his ethnic community of Coptic Christians in Egypt. I doubt that this person cares about the Israeli- Arab dispute nor has any sentiments of support for Zionism, or pan arabism or even brotherly love. By your logic, with your reference to the former Turkish colonial occupiers, the arabs should be burning Turkish embassies and murdering Turkish diplomats.

The point I was seeking to make was that in the period of Ottoman control both groups lived in this area without any defined national boundaries and it is therefore very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that the area clearly belongs to one group or the other. The burning of Turkish embassies and murdering of Turkish diplomats is not a conclusion you can reach from any logic of mine.

[cheeryble]

And you know, if that idiot master of miscalculations Mr Saddam had simply cooperated with the allied forces and honored the terms of his surrender and allowed inspections (As he agreed to do)when he lost the war after invading Kuwait( I guess he wanted to "take over" someone's oil supply) ,he most likely still would still be in power .

Saddam bent over as far as he could but was not willing to go as far as applying the lube.

Saddam did indeed allow full inspections but lost trust when they became loaded with overbearing conditions and impossible to allow to outsiders with whom one might be at war with soon......all combined with considerable evidence of spying which if I remember was reported in detail in leader articles in the big newspapers like NYT, WP, BG.

I questioned Hans Blix about this after the war and he described abundant monkey business.

BTW Saddam had no desire to just "steal" Kuwaiti oil. The Kuwaitis were in fact stealing Iraqi oil by angle drilling in Rumella, but that was just one of a long series of much larger dishonest actions including reneging on the huge war contribution they owed Iraq (from Iraq/Iran) when Iraq was in grave economic trouble and after it had lost it's sons also on Kuwait's backstabbing behalf. A no point did S act precipitously, he did his level best for a long time to just get justice against Kuwait.......and eventually gave up after asking the US Ambassador to intervene.....whose disinterest Saddam took as a green light.

The final demonstration of the moral compass of the Kuwaiti leader came when he stayed out of his nation for six weeks after liberation.....until everything was tidied up and "just so" for him. A real man of the people.

[Cantankerous]

I don't see followers of any other faith storming embassies every time some pap cracks a joke, draws a cartoon, writes an article or makes a movie

That would be because the sort of people you're criticising as cissies don't believe in collective punishment, considering all of a particular population identical when a moronic fringe acts brainlessly. This is a sign of strength under duress.....not weakness.

BTW when it comes to Christianilty behaving better now than Islam that would be largely because secularists have reined them in . The Church certainly didn't cede authoritarianism and their violent excesses voluntarily but were forced kicking and screaming........somethiing like this happening in the Catholic Church as we speak.....did you notice them lead the way in winkling out child molesters?

Cheeryble

That's some size of moronic fringe you're talking about there dear sir... These "cissies" as you say are under duress from what, a crank film..? If that's the only thing I had to worry about I'd be quite happy... I certainly wouldn't be climbing embassy walls or killing ambassadors over it...

We're not on about the excesses of the church in the past, but the mindset of people present day in what is meant to be a civilized world & a belief system that is intolerant to any other. The vast majority of those exercising "strength under duress" as you put it would have absolutely no idea <deleted> is going on other than the words of some blood thirsty lunatic imam at the local mosque.

As for Catholic church & child molestors, I believe that would be another thread you'd need to start. I believe you'll also find a few in the Islamic faith...

[ITGabs]

I disapprove of what you film, but I will defend to the death your right to show it in youtube.

[cheeryble]

I apologise for misquoting in # 319 Cantankerous.

I was addressing what are I believe the reasonable actions of President Obama et al, not excusing the idiot fringe isn't way.

It caused your confusion.

[HansVilder]

to any offended muslims - for god's (or allah's) sake.. grow a thick skin & take it on the chin. Its just a film.. its not important.

next.....

[MrRealDeal]

These "demonstrators with violence" have attacked British and US property in these countries, I begin to think education and humanitarian aid means nothing to many of these thugs and the governments in these countries are so weak they are unable to do anything. Of course i am one who believes and has always believed the west is wasting its time by trying help those who are intolerant and believe their particular faith can have nothing said about it other than worshipped .

You don't seroiusly believe the west is helping to do anything but obtain oil do you ? All that "aid" is just bribes for oil contracts in the end , we are not trying to help anyone but ourselves. and from that standpoint it's not really a waste of time but has worked quite well to build pipelines and secure oil wells all over the mid east. You think when Iran gets invaded we will find the wepons of mass destruction ? Or will we just take over one more of the worlds largest oil supplys ?

mr Realdeal You don't really believe that do you ?We take over oil suppply ?Really ?We happen to PAY for the oil we get ,we usually do not " Take it over" .

What propaganda have you been listening to ?

That is not to say deals are not being made by the big boys from which ever side they happen to be ..

And yes this time we may very well find some nice weapon grade nuclear material in Iran it is no secrets that they have equipment that can do that .

And you know, if that idiot master of miscalculations Mr Saddam had simply cooperated with the allied forces and honored the terms of his surrender and allowed inspections (As he agreed to do)when he lost the war after invading Kuwait( I guess he wanted to "take over" someone's oil supply) ,he most likely still would still be in power .

Actually we do take over the oil , who do you think owns the oil off the coast of Vietnam ? Do you even know ? The same guy who owned a monopoly on the oil in the usa before it was broken up ..... John J Rockefeller ...... You can argue that we just own the wells in Iraq or just have large numbers of support jobs but "buy" the oil but thats just a rationalasation for what is really going on , Sadam invaded Kuaait because they were drilling illegally into Iraq's land not to steal there oil but to protect it's own ..... it's you my friend that must believe propoganda if you don't know these facts.

The way the USA takes over countries is pretty much always the same ..... they put sanctions on a country and try to strave them into submission , when that doesnt work they find an excuse\reason to go to war. You are correct that if Sadam had stayed out of the no fly zone and allowed inspections he would have kept his agreement , however that wasn't the reason we went to war now was it ? The reason was wepons of mass destruction not the no fly zone or the inspections so thats a specious argument.

If you can't plainly see that every country with a large oil supply that doesn't cow tow to the USA becomes an enemy your can't see very well , Here's another tidbit for ya .... The War in Afganastan is not about Poppys or the Taliban it's about an oil pipeline that the last Presedent didn't support so we installed one that would, so the oil from the north can flow to the Arabian Sea , the reason the Russians are all for us being there as their allys are pumping some of that oil from the north.

It's simply not a big coiencidence that all the people we claim to "help" have vast supplys of oil , and the ones that actually do need our help and are duying by the millions in places that have no oil such as parts of Africa we don't care about or do much to help. If you think people destroy half a country and win a war to pay fair market value for the oil I want some of what your smokin dude it just doesn't work that way ..... We pay to rebuild the country and get the oil at a discount and all the support jobs to go with it, it's just how it works dude.

The same thing will happen and is happening in Iran and yes the crazy leader is either complicit or partially at fault , but the beginning is the same and the end will be the same , we will destroy the country or our Proxy Isreal will , we will install a new leader friendly to the west , we will rebuild the country in excahnge for oil rights at a huge profit and England through BP and the Usa through Exon will in fact have stolen the oil in the end with small concessions to Russia and China to avoid a world war.

After that it will be on to the next place Venezula that has the largest supply in that part of the world.

You can call me wrong or crazy all you want but in 15 years try and remember what you learned today and the pieces of the puzzle will begin to become clear to you. How many times do governments have to prove they are liars to you before you believe it ? They are even telling you that they will invade Iran without them even having any Nukes just so people won't complain later that they invaded for no reason. You are just incorrect if you believe that Iran will be invaded because they are an iminent threat to Isreal , they will be invaded to allow the oil to flow that is now under sanction ....... just like Iraq

[cdnvic]

We're getting off topic. Back to the film please.