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

[Asiantravel]

evidently the anger directed towards USA is not confined just to Muslims

U.S. ambassador to China caught in Beijing protest; car damaged

http://latimesblogs....ar-damaged.html

Edited September 19, 2012 by Asiantravel

[Steely Dan]

I don't think that most people care one way or another if someone is a Muslim, but, unfortunately, the radical Muslims are creating fear and hatred that affects how people feel about the moderates who do not speak out against the bad apples.

You can understand why though, a moderate and eminently sensible Imam was murdered in Russia a few weeks back for condemning all violence.

[snarky66]

Here is an interesting link from someone who was removed from their post at the defence department for exposing the modus operandi of the Islamic OIC control tantrum day of rage so accurately that he predicted in advance the course of events after the Danish cartoons were published. Remember Hillary Clinton is very enthusiastically pushing the OIC blasphemy motion at the U.N. It's half an hour long but required viewing to understand what is going on.

Very closely related to a point made by Michelle Bachman & others concerning Huma Abedin at the State Dept.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/24/is-huma-abedin-the-new-alger-h

[cheeryble]

Latest I've heard is that the U.S government is negotiating with Egypt for the return of the blind sheik to Egypt (He of the world trade centre bomb plot), which was one of the demands made at the first U.S embassy demo in Cairo. If true the cowardice and incompetence of the current administration has hit new depths.

Perhaps you should wait for this unlikely bit of information to be confirmed or cite your sources before damning the administration.

Unless you simply mean "some protesters made the demand the blind sheik is returned." but no, you don't.

Slightly pertinent.........did you know the State Dept is known as Little Jerusalem?

http://frontpagemag....e-blind-sheikh/

An official denial from the administration confirming that the blind Sheik will not be released either before or after the next election would put the matter to rest.

You've been put right by Scott who used to work for the State Dept about "Little Jerusalem".

Now you expect that State Dept to deny something suggested as coming from a "confidential source" by a left-oh-no-now-ultra-right obsessive islamophobic nut job David Horowitz.

You really wasted our attention with that?

Edited September 19, 2012 by cheeryble

[snarky66]

The blind sheik story was broken by Glen Beck on his "the Blaze" website.

It would not surprise me in the least if this story is true.

The current administration is very hostile toward Jerusalem & very friendly toward Islamic states.\\edit: Mr Beck claims to have a source at the highest levels.

Edited September 19, 2012 by snarky66

[koheesti]

Look in Your Mirror

And, second, before demanding an apology from our president, Mr. Ali and the young Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, Yemenis, Pakistanis, Afghans and Sudanese who have been taking to the streets might want to look in the mirror — or just turn on their own televisions. They might want to look at the chauvinistic bile that is pumped out by some of their own media — on satellite television stations and Web sites or sold in sidewalk bookstores outside of mosques — insulting Shiites, Jews, Christians, Sufis and anyone else who is not a Sunni, or fundamentalist, Muslim. There are people in their countries for whom hating “the other” has become a source of identity and a collective excuse for failing to realize their own potential.

http://www.nytimes.c...our-mirror.html

He goes on to give links to videos provided by Memri.

Edited September 19, 2012 by koheesti

[canman]

This guy sums it up perfectly:

HAVE we Sydney-siders got this straight?

Because on the other side of the Pacific, somewhere in California, some loser has thrown together some kind of amateur internet video insulting your particular god, you think it justifiable to:

• Take over the Sydney CBD.
  

• Cause willful damage to property.
  

• Throw rocks at police officers who are doing nothing more than their duty.
  

• Hold up such ludicrous signs as “Behead all those who insult the prophet.”
  

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/an-open-letter-20120915-25ziq.html

[Xangsamhua]

Billionaire businessman Frank Lowy says Australian multiculturalism has been a "triumph in tolerance" despite the violent Islamic protests which erupted in Sydney last weekend.

The Westfield co-founder, who was born in Czechoslovakia and came to Australia in 1952, delivered a lecture to the Australian Multicultural Council in Canberra on Wednesday evening.

He commended Muslim leaders for their response to the heated demonstrations in Sydney, and said it shows Australia's multicultural society is both strong and mature.

More at http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

The reason Australia's version of multiculturalism has to date been successful is that it's sensible and balanced. It acknowledges the fact that four in every ten Australians are either immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants, but also demands that all people accept "the basic structures and principles of Australian society". These are spelt out in the bipartisan National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia as "the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes". Not much room for Sharia or the Caliphate here.

A key statement in the Agenda is the following: multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.

A summary of the National Agenda can be found here: http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

Edited September 20, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Chicog]

The blind sheik story was broken by Glen Beck on his "the Blaze" website.

It would not surprise me in the least if this story is true.

The current administration is very hostile toward Jerusalem & very friendly toward Islamic states.\\edit: Mr Beck claims to have a source at the highest levels.

Without drifting off topic, if America hadn't bankrolled Israel's wanton land grabs and its open hostility to the formation of a Palestinian state, perhaps the Muslim world wouldn't not be quite so hostile to America?

Perhaps reining in Israeli excesses is a good thing? Tempered, of course, with some meaningful attempts at a peace process, which Israel have always ended up throwing back in America's face.

[Steely Dan]

The blind sheik story was broken by Glen Beck on his "the Blaze" website.

It would not surprise me in the least if this story is true.

The current administration is very hostile toward Jerusalem & very friendly toward Islamic states.\\edit: Mr Beck claims to have a source at the highest levels.

Without drifting off topic, if America hadn't bankrolled Israel's wanton land grabs and its open hostility to the formation of a Palestinian state, perhaps the Muslim world wouldn't not be quite so hostile to America?

Perhaps reining in Israeli excesses is a good thing? Tempered, of course, with some meaningful attempts at a peace process, which Israel have always ended up throwing back in America's face.

Nonsense, You are confusing pretext with motive. If it's not Israel it's something else, there always will be something. Jihad in Nigeria, Kenya, Southern Thailand, The Philippines, indeed anywhere around the globe continues without any conceivable link to Israel or the west. Islamic nations persecute their minorities on a scale and to a degree infinitely worse than the Palestinians face from Israel. Their press and so called religious leaders publish offensive racist material and explicitly incite violence worldwide. The motive is always Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate giving Muslims preferential treatment over everyone else, the pretext is whatever can be used to get the local useful idiots and appeasers to pursue their agenda for them.

[Scott]

I think it is prudent to leave a detailed or argumentative discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian situation out of this thread.

Linking the situations is extremely speculative and it's doubtful a reasonable discussion would ensue.

[Steely Dan]

Indeed. Just a thought, would moderate western Muslims who are culturally more integrated with the non-Muslim people in the west want to be regarded as intolerant with hair trigger tempers? I think the enclosed cartoon asks this question pretty well. Warning to those not moderate, or with hair trigger tempers, don't click on the link.

http://www.jesusandm...12/09/19/rocks/

P.S Charlie Hedebo magazine has just published some cartoons about the offending film, I'm expecting a mature and reasoned reaction.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Steely Dan

[canman]

Indeed. Just a thought, would moderate western Muslims who are culturally more integrated with the non-Muslim people in the west want to be regarded as intolerant with hair trigger tempers? I think the enclosed cartoon asks this question pretty well. Warning to those not moderate, or with hair trigger tempers, don't click on the link.

http://www.jesusandm...12/09/19/rocks/

P.S Charlie Hedebo magazine has just published some cartoons about the offending film, I'm expecting a mature and reasoned reaction.

Thanks for the link to that site, absolutely hilarious.

[koheesti]

Indeed. Just a thought, would moderate western Muslims who are culturally more integrated with the non-Muslim people in the west want to be regarded as intolerant with hair trigger tempers? I think the enclosed cartoon asks this question pretty well. Warning to those not moderate, or with hair trigger tempers, don't click on the link.

http://www.jesusandm...12/09/19/rocks/

P.S Charlie Hedebo magazine has just published some cartoons about the offending film, I'm expecting a mature and reasoned reaction.

"Jesus and Mo"?

[stormstereo]

Well, if someone claimed copyright violation the movie would be gone in a minute!

[simple1]

The blind sheik story was broken by Glen Beck on his "the Blaze" website.

It would not surprise me in the least if this story is true.

The current administration is very hostile toward Jerusalem & very friendly toward Islamic states.\\edit: Mr Beck claims to have a source at the highest levels.

Without drifting off topic, if America hadn't bankrolled Israel's wanton land grabs and its open hostility to the formation of a Palestinian state, perhaps the Muslim world wouldn't not be quite so hostile to America?

Perhaps reining in Israeli excesses is a good thing? Tempered, of course, with some meaningful attempts at a peace process, which Israel have always ended up throwing back in America's face.

Nonsense, You are confusing pretext with motive. If it's not Israel it's something else, there always will be something. Jihad in Nigeria, Kenya, Southern Thailand, The Philippines, indeed anywhere around the globe continues without any conceivable link to Israel or the west. Islamic nations persecute their minorities on a scale and to a degree infinitely worse than the Palestinians face from Israel. Their press and so called religious leaders publish offensive racist material and explicitly incite violence worldwide. The motive is always Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate giving Muslims preferential treatment over everyone else, the pretext is whatever can be used to get the local useful idiots and appeasers to pursue their agenda for them.

Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate - why wasn't this goal in the open and acted upon in the last few centuries when non believers in Islam co-existed in Islamic countries. You just couldn't resist to reverting to type

[koheesti]

Well, if someone claimed copyright violation the movie would be gone in a minute!

I had a home video pulled from YouTube because of the music playing in the background at the bar. F'in ridiculous.

[Xangsamhua]

Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate - why wasn't this goal in the open and acted upon in the last few centuries when non believers in Islam co-existed in Islamic countries.

The Caliphate ended with the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. The Ottomans had taken over the Caliphate from the Egyptian Mamluks in the 16th century. The Sultan in Constantinople was the Caliph.

Although the Ottomans were reasonably tolerant, and their territories became a place of refuge for Jews from the Inquisition and other forms of persecution in Europe, Christians and Jews were second class citizens, subject to the Dhimmi laws.

[Steely Dan]

Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate - why wasn't this goal in the open and acted upon in the last few centuries when non believers in Islam co-existed in Islamic countries. You just couldn't resist to reverting to type

'Type'? Truth rather than a rose spectacled view I'd say. The last few centuries saw the decline of the Ottoman Empire which stopped the last bout of Islamic conquest. There have been ages of supposed coexistence, but the so called Islamic Golden age and it's purported safeguarding of the literature and science of Greece and Rome is largely a myth and the persecution of Jews, Christians and Hindus during this time has been ignored. The rise of European colonialism put Islamic political ideology into hibernation by dint of superior force, nothing else. Here is a link explaining all this.

http://www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/a-rosetta-stone-for-bill-warner-part-1.html#more

[simple1]

Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate - why wasn't this goal in the open and acted upon in the last few centuries when non believers in Islam co-existed in Islamic countries.

The Caliphate ended with the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. The Ottomans had taken over the Caliphate from the Egyptian Mamluks in the 16th century. The Sultan in Constantinople was the Caliph.

Although the Ottomans were reasonably tolerant, and their territories became a place of refuge for Jews from the Inquisition and other forms of persecution in Europe, Christians and Jews were second class citizens, subject to the Dhimmi laws.

Thanks, but I don't think that where Steely Dan is coming from - he's talking about a literal interpretation of Jihad, all Muslims want to kill the Infidel, all Muslims are this, all Muslims are that with a very small minority being the exception. Following on your comments on Dhimmi laws, what some people may not like to read as it doesn't reinforce their bigotry (from Wikipedia).

"According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions. They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation"

Edited September 20, 2012 by simple1

[stormstereo]

Well, if someone claimed copyright violation the movie would be gone in a minute!

I had a home video pulled from YouTube because of the music playing in the background at the bar. F'in ridiculous.

Make sure no one sings Happy Birthday in a production with commercial intent. The owners will cut your head off (financially, not literally)!

[chooka]

Billionaire businessman Frank Lowy says Australian multiculturalism has been a "triumph in tolerance" despite the violent Islamic protests which erupted in Sydney last weekend.

The Westfield co-founder, who was born in Czechoslovakia and came to Australia in 1952, delivered a lecture to the Australian Multicultural Council in Canberra on Wednesday evening.

He commended Muslim leaders for their response to the heated demonstrations in Sydney, and said it shows Australia's multicultural society is both strong and mature.

More at http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

The reason Australia's version of multiculturalism has to date been successful is that it's sensible and balanced. It acknowledges the fact that four in every ten Australians are either immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants, but also demands that all people accept "the basic structures and principles of Australian society". These are spelt out in the bipartisan National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia as "the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes". Not much room for Sharia or the Caliphate here.

A key statement in the Agenda is the following: multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.

A summary of the National Agenda can be found here: http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

And another side;

[Steely Dan]

Thanks, but I don't think that where Steely Dan is coming from - he's talking about a literal interpretation of Jihad, all Muslims want to kill the Infidel, all Muslims are this, all Muslims are that with a very small minority being the exception. Following on your comments on Dhimmi laws, what some people may not like to read as it doesn't reinforce their bigotry (from Wikipedia).

"According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions. They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation"

All? Here we go conflating the political ideology of strains of Islam such as Wahhabism with all 1.6 billion Muslims, it is difficult to know how many Muslims subscribe to this ideology, but a recent poll found 40% of British Muslims were in favour of living under Sharia law. You also soft soaped what it meant to be a Dhimmi, Sharia law counts the testimony of women as half that of a man, whereas infidels testimony is inadmissible though the sanctions of Sharia law apply to everyone, check out for what's happening today in Pakistan and Egypt with regard to persecution of minorities and ask yourself whether anyone would willingly submit to this given a choice.

[softgeorge]

Billionaire businessman Frank Lowy says Australian multiculturalism has been a "triumph in tolerance" despite the violent Islamic protests which erupted in Sydney last weekend.

The Westfield co-founder, who was born in Czechoslovakia and came to Australia in 1952, delivered a lecture to the Australian Multicultural Council in Canberra on Wednesday evening.

He commended Muslim leaders for their response to the heated demonstrations in Sydney, and said it shows Australia's multicultural society is both strong and mature.

More at http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

The reason Australia's version of multiculturalism has to date been successful is that it's sensible and balanced. It acknowledges the fact that four in every ten Australians are either immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants, but also demands that all people accept "the basic structures and principles of Australian society". These are spelt out in the bipartisan National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia as "the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes". Not much room for Sharia or the Caliphate here.

A key statement in the Agenda is the following: multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.

A summary of the National Agenda can be found here: http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

And another side;

There does appear to be a large anti muslim wave brewing, it has been for some time in Australia but the prostests last week really brought it to a head. The riots by muslims slammed a huge wedge between them and a lot of mainstream Australians.

[canman]

Jihad in support of a global Islamic Caliphate - why wasn't this goal in the open and acted upon in the last few centuries when non believers in Islam co-existed in Islamic countries.

The Caliphate ended with the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. The Ottomans had taken over the Caliphate from the Egyptian Mamluks in the 16th century. The Sultan in Constantinople was the Caliph.

Although the Ottomans were reasonably tolerant, and their territories became a place of refuge for Jews from the Inquisition and other forms of persecution in Europe, Christians and Jews were second class citizens, subject to the Dhimmi laws.

We are now witnessing the 3rd wave. M was the 1st, the ottoman empire the second.

[simple1]

Billionaire businessman Frank Lowy says Australian multiculturalism has been a "triumph in tolerance" despite the violent Islamic protests which erupted in Sydney last weekend.

The Westfield co-founder, who was born in Czechoslovakia and came to Australia in 1952, delivered a lecture to the Australian Multicultural Council in Canberra on Wednesday evening.

He commended Muslim leaders for their response to the heated demonstrations in Sydney, and said it shows Australia's multicultural society is both strong and mature.

More at http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

The reason Australia's version of multiculturalism has to date been successful is that it's sensible and balanced. It acknowledges the fact that four in every ten Australians are either immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants, but also demands that all people accept "the basic structures and principles of Australian society". These are spelt out in the bipartisan National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia as "the Constitution and the rule of law, tolerance and equality, parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and religion, English as the national language, and equality of the sexes". Not much room for Sharia or the Caliphate here.

A key statement in the Agenda is the following: multicultural policies impose obligations as well as conferring rights: the right to express one's own culture and beliefs involves a reciprocal responsibility to accept the right of others to express their views and values.

A summary of the National Agenda can be found here: http://www.abc.net.a....mc_id=newsmail

And another side;

There does appear to be a large anti muslim wave brewing, it has been for some time in Australia but the prostests last week really brought it to a head. The riots by muslims slammed a huge wedge between them and a lot of mainstream Australians.

Yes, the thousand or so Muslims protesting did a lot of damage to relations with mainstream Australia. Now media reports of Australians trying to organise demonstration against Muslims with very racist messages. Not exactly the smartest thing to do exposing Australian racism

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-09-20/whitepride-groups-spark-protest-backlash-fears/1018648

[simple1]

Thanks, but I don't think that where Steely Dan is coming from - he's talking about a literal interpretation of Jihad, all Muslims want to kill the Infidel, all Muslims are this, all Muslims are that with a very small minority being the exception. Following on your comments on Dhimmi laws, what some people may not like to read as it doesn't reinforce their bigotry (from Wikipedia).

"According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions. They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation"

All? Here we go conflating the political ideology of strains of Islam such as Wahhabism with all 1.6 billion Muslims, it is difficult to know how many Muslims subscribe to this ideology, but a recent poll found 40% of British Muslims were in favour of living under Sharia law. You also soft soaped what it meant to be a Dhimmi, Sharia law counts the testimony of women as half that of a man, whereas infidels testimony is inadmissible though the sanctions of Sharia law apply to everyone, check out for what's happening today in Pakistan and Egypt with regard to persecution of minorities and ask yourself whether anyone would willingly submit to this given a choice.

I do agree that any Western country permitting the application of Sharia Law for resident Muslims is wrong and divisive; should not be allowed.

Edited September 21, 2012 by simple1

[trompelemonde]

Thanks, but I don't think that where Steely Dan is coming from - he's talking about a literal interpretation of Jihad, all Muslims want to kill the Infidel, all Muslims are this, all Muslims are that with a very small minority being the exception. Following on your comments on Dhimmi laws, what some people may not like to read as it doesn't reinforce their bigotry (from Wikipedia).

"According to scholars, dhimmis had their rights fully protected in their communities, but as citizens in the Islamic state, had certain restrictions. They were excused or excluded from specific duties assigned to Muslims, and otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation"

All? Here we go conflating the political ideology of strains of Islam such as Wahhabism with all 1.6 billion Muslims, it is difficult to know how many Muslims subscribe to this ideology, but a recent poll found 40% of British Muslims were in favour of living under Sharia law. You also soft soaped what it meant to be a Dhimmi, Sharia law counts the testimony of women as half that of a man, whereas infidels testimony is inadmissible though the sanctions of Sharia law apply to everyone, check out for what's happening today in Pakistan and Egypt with regard to persecution of minorities and ask yourself whether anyone would willingly submit to this given a choice.

I do agree that any Western country permitting the application of Sharia Law for resident Muslims is wrong and divisive; should not be allowed.

We've done this before, but it is worth repeating again. This is the actual question regarding Sharia law in the UK from the original survey:

"How supportive, if at all, would you be of the official introduction of Shari'ah Law into British law for Muslims in Britain?"

Very supportive - 21%

Fairly supportive - 19%"

(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/dec/22/1)

That's quite a bit different from the way you are presenting it.

And, for what it's worth, I don't agree with Sharia law in any form in the UK.

[Xangsamhua]

... it is difficult to know how many Muslims subscribe to this ideology, but a recent poll found 40% of British Muslims were in favour of living under Sharia law.

The Gallup organization conducted surveys in the Islamic world between 2002 and 2007. The data were written up as Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed and published in 2008.

Among their findings were that in five countries - Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh - a majority of respondents favoured Sharia as the only source of law. In other Muslim countries, a majority supported Sharia as one, but not the only source of law. In those nations a minority preferred Sharia as the sole source.

It is fair, I think, to generalize that Muslims in Islamic countries favour Sharia as a foundation for strong and well-disciplined families and communities. Women also support it as they perceive it as protecting them from harsher alternatives in historically highly masculinist cultures. Related to this fear of the alternatives, it is also seen by men and women as a means of limiting the power of the national leader and his cohorts. It would appear (IMHO) that Sharia is a product of a harsh cultural environment and, in its best forms, is a counterweight to those who, given the power, would exercise it without moral restraint.

Esposito and Mogahed say the following:

Commonly thought of in the West as a harsh and primitive code of law, Sharia represents something very different for many Muslims. Sharia literally means "the path to water", but means "the path to God" when used in a religious context, and symbolizes a path of both spiritual and societal guidance. Sharia represents the moral compass of a Muslim's personal and public life. So what are Muslims calling for when they want Sharia as a source of legislation? The answer to this is as diverse as the Muslim community. (Kindle loc. 365)

Those Muslims in Western countries who would like to see Sharia as either the legal code applying to Muslims, or to the whole of society (i.e. those such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, supporting the return of the caliphate) obviously do not see the laws in their adopted country as providing suitable protection for, or indeed, as hostile to Muslim values and practices. They are not alone. In Australia there has been considerable advocacy from some indigenous leaders for the acceptance of Aboriginal law as an alternative legal option for Aboriginal people. Having been away for many years I don't know how successful this has been. But not only ethnic or religious minorities have a beef with the law. Atheists campaign against legal protection of religious symbols; libertarians campaign against various forms of legally-based social engineering. There is nothing illegal about wanting to change the laws. A society could, if there is majority support via governments or referenda, change the laws to, e.g. establish a certain religion as the state religion, but it has to be done by peaceful and legal processes. Islamic fundamentalists who prefer violence do not accept that and, hence, are lawbreakers and a menace to peace and safety in the community.

[Xangsamhua]

Is this just "Oriental hyperbole" or is this man sensitive to the point of lunacy?

Muslim cleric Allama Shafaat Rasool said the film .... threatens to deepen religious tensions and promote extremism.

“I could not sleep a whole night after watching the video,” he said. “The pain equals that of all the cancers in the world combined, but we have to control our emotions.”

http://www.ucanews.c...-film-protests/