I can't see that it violates Youtube's guidelines. It does not attack or demean a group, although they certainly might find it offensive.

As to Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, he is the leader of Hezbollah and considered a terrorist. Most people are not going to consider his proposals worth paying attention to.

You're wrong there!

When The United Nations meets next week this proposal for an international law is on the agenda and I think you will find many countries will support Sheik Hassan Nasrallah

You mean all the countries like Iran and Syria that have such wonderful records when it comes to justice, freedom and human rights. It does fit right in with the things that they usually support like Hezbollah and Hamas.

as rgs2001uk said a few posts back " Well that is a matter of opinion "

I can't see that it violates Youtube's guidelines. It does not attack or demean a group, although they certainly might find it offensive.

As to Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, he is the leader of Hezbollah and considered a terrorist. Most people are not going to consider his proposals worth paying attention to.

You're wrong there!

When The United Nations meets next week this proposal for an international law is on the agenda and I think you will find many countries will support Sheik Hassan Nasrallah

You mean all the countries like Iran and Syria that have such wonderful records when it comes to justice, freedom and human rights. It does fit right in with the things that they usually support like Hezbollah and Hamas.

as rgs2001uk said a few posts back " Well that is a matter of opinion "

and surely that is whole point of this debate. Under Islamic rule this thread would never ever have started let alone allowed the discussion to continue as it has. According to the poll results so far roughly 80% of posters would be condemed (probably to death) for voting the wrong way.

and surely that is whole point of this debate. Under Islamic rule this thread would never ever have started let alone allowed the discussion to continue as it has. According to the poll results so far roughly 80% of posters would be condemed (probably to death) for voting the wrong way.

Exactly. Banning Hate speech is not the same thing as offending someone's religous agenda.

Looks like Salman Rushdie may be getting a new housemate.

Pakistan's federal minister for railways, Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, has announced a bounty of $100,000 on the maker of the American film 'Innocence of Muslims', according to local media.

He made the comments at a press conference this morning and said he was aware his statements were against the law, but that he was prepared to commit the crime.

He also said that the Taliban and al Qaeda would be rewarded if they killed the film maker.

and surely that is whole point of this debate. Under Islamic rule this thread would never ever have started let alone allowed the discussion to continue as it has. According to the poll results so far roughly 80% of posters would be condemed (probably to death) for voting the wrong way.

Exactly. Banning Hate speech is not the same thing as offending someone's religous agenda.

But you can't advocate that regarding one group of people these standards should be based purely on each individual's personal values as to what constitutes hate speech or insulting behaviour and then with another group they dictate precisely the standard of what can be said and not said even using legislators to help their cause? This is pure hypocrisy? Case in point -the California State assembly just a few weeks ago

http://www.loonwatch...cism-of-israel/

Edited September 22, 201213 yr by Asiantravel

and surely that is whole point of this debate. Under Islamic rule this thread would never ever have started let alone allowed the discussion to continue as it has. According to the poll results so far roughly 80% of posters would be condemed (probably to death) for voting the wrong way.

Exactly. Banning Hate speech is not the same thing as offending someone's religous agenda.

But you can't advocate that regarding one group of people these standards should be based purely on each individual's personal values as to what constitutes hate speech or insulting behaviour and then with another group they dictate precisely the standard of what can be said and not said even using legislators to help their cause? This is pure hypocrisy? Case in point -the California State assembly just a few weeks ago

http://www.loonwatch...cism-of-israel/

Why not talk about other religions or groups instead of focusing exclusively on the Jews (Who did not make the film). I think you are off topic here, but even if your point is worth considering it's probably best not to choose an Islamist mouthpiece like loonwatch to make your point with.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/15/1054856/-Loonwatch-com-and-Radical-Islam

A large number of off-topic posts have been deleted. Stay on topic.

This is the recently expressed view of a responsible Muslim that I strongly agree with:

"It is this history of Christian Protestant bravery that led to the creation of pluralist and secular societies in the West, allowing for the first time in history for Muslims and Jews to settle there in large numbers - we were free to practise our religions freely. The barbarity of pogroms, witch-hunting, and burning heretics ended.

My fellow Muslims must understand this background. We cannot trample on the very freedoms that allow us to thrive as Muslims. Yes, it hurts when the Prophet is insulted. From Shakespeare to Thomas Paine, Western literature is full of negative references to Muslims as Moors, Turks, and followers of Mahomet.

Similarly, classical Arabic and Persian writings are replete with anti-Semitism and denial of Christ's divinity as the son of God. Yet, it is a remarkable feat that we in the West have accommodated all faiths and no faith.

This achievement cannot be reversed. Self-censorship is to reverse the gains made by our intellectual forefathers.

Just as Muslims are free in the West, Christians and other dissenters must be free in the East.

We Muslims killed some of our best luminaries because of clerical accusations of heresy, absence of freedom of thought.

From executing al-Hallaj in Baghdad to stoning Ibn Arabi in Damascus to banishing Bulleh Shah in the Punjab, the history is bitter.

They were Muslim martyrs to freedom of thought. As a Westerner and Muslim, I want to cherish these freedoms and secure liberty for future generations.

Ed Husain

( I hope this is better)

I was blind- now I can see.

Probably the best post in this entire topic

I belive, most people on this planet are actually pretty tolerant and moderate.

Tolerant and moderat people don't make much noise so it's easy for a few

extremist to over shout the rest of the world. (TV forum is occasionaly a good

example for that).

On the other hand, if the world wouldn't have extremists we wouldn't have

evolved and still live in caves.

Where I see the problem, both of these groups have plenty of idiots too,

which are easily influenced but don't have a clue.

Sheep don't like to stand alone.

Edited September 22, 201213 yr by Scott

i dont understand how that 15 min clip continues to be there .....

Terms of Service for You Tube

Don't Cross the Line !!!!!

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

http://www.youtube.c...nity_guidelines

I will tell you why its there, because it doesnt contravene any policy.

Please tell me what part of the video is factually incorrect? Why doesnt someone like Letterman get the grand mufti of America or wherever on his show and ask the question to him directly. What is so offensive to Muslims about this film and what is factually incorrect about it?

Muslim extremists get offended at the slightest thing. If they were secure about their beliefs, they could just chuckle and shrug it off. By going ballistic, they're showing how insecure they are in their belief nexus.

I once played guitar with a rapper (decades before rap officially existed). He made up songs on the fly, and offended everyone. Spic, jew, lezbie, hic, towel-head, redneck, butt-fckr, wop, nigger, .....you name it, he rapped about it. I would closely watch the audience, and one group after another got offended. After they realized everyone was getting hit upon, they would then see the silliness of getting offended, and then settle back and enjoy the crazy performers. It wasn't entertaining for everyone, but then again neither is Frank Sinatra. It taught me the freedom in not being able to be offended - which I strive for. Very few people have attained a level of not being able to be offended. But imagine the freedom gained, by letting go of the mental burdon.

i dont understand how that 15 min clip continues to be there .....

Terms of Service for You Tube

Don't Cross the Line !!!!!

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

http://www.youtube.c...nity_guidelines

I will tell you why its there, because it doesnt contravene any policy.

Please tell me what part of the video is factually incorrect? Why doesnt someone like Letterman get the grand mufti of America or wherever on his show and ask the question to him directly. What is so offensive to Muslims about this film and what is factually incorrect about it?

Muslim extremists get offended at the slightest thing. If they were secure about their beliefs, they could just chuckle and shrug it off. By going ballistic, they're showing how insecure they are in their belief nexus.

I once played guitar with a rapper (decades before rap officially existed). He made up songs on the fly, and offended everyone. Spic, jew, lezbie, hic, towel-head, redneck, butt-fckr, wop, nigger, .....you name it, he rapped about it. I would closely watch the audience, and one group after another got offended. After they realized everyone was getting hit upon, they would then see the silliness of getting offended, and then settle back and enjoy the crazy performers. It wasn't entertaining for everyone, but then again neither is Frank Sinatra. It taught me the freedom in not being able to be offended - which I strive for. Very few people have attained a level of not being able to be offended. But imagine the freedom gained, by letting go of the mental burdon.

But then some people were even offended by Borat in Da Ali G Show?

I am offended by a lot of things. I don't go around rioting, burning, looting and killing. Neither do most of the people I know.

I can't see that it violates Youtube's guidelines. It does not attack or demean a group, although they certainly might find it offensive.

As to Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, he is the leader of Hezbollah and considered a terrorist. Most people are not going to consider his proposals worth paying attention to.

You're wrong there!

When The United Nations meets next week this proposal for an international law is on the agenda and I think you will find many countries will support Sheik Hassan Nasrallah

and only some countries say he is a terrorist .......

Hezbollah is regarded as a legitimate resistance movement and political party throughout much of the Arab and Muslim worlds,

Ok, so now you make the claim the leader of Hizbollah is not a terrorist. Sorry, but he is. Yes, in some countries, he is a hero. However, the positions of his financial backers Iran and Syria can hardly be considered representative of the civilised world. The man's staements are motivated by the fear that the two most prominent states that sponsor terrorism are in deep trouble. If Assad falls and if Iran continues its slow descent into self inflicted catastrophe, Hizbollah may find itself on the receiving end of payback in Lebanon, where it has ruled as a state within a state.

You repeatedly reference the youtube guidelines on antisemitism. Sadly, you take them out of context as they are bundled with other guidelines that address postings that advocate the targeted killing and promote ethnic genocide. There are no special guidelines that apply to anti semitism on youtube. If there were, all of the Family Guy episodes ridiculing Mort the pharmacist would be deleted, as would all the ridicule of "jews". Even though the posts are technically anti semitic, they are taken within the artistic context they were made and are allowed to remain. The same holds true for segments that make fun of people of colour or Chistians, and there are plenty.The emphasis at youtube and other online content providers is in respect to hate speech intended to inflict violence and death. The film in this case did not call for anyone's death, nor encourage the targeting of muslims. Unlike the typical TV shows that appear throughout the world that denigrate non muslims (Need examples? go to youtude and typpe in the search. Muslims are the biggest hypcrites on this issue.)

I don't know why you have to drag jews into this as they are a non implicated party. It seems to me, is that whenever supporters of muslim terrorists and fanatics have to scramble to find a way to justify the madness they always refer to the "crusades" or jew people. The Crusades were thousands of years ago, Christians and the west have more than made amends for their past transgressions providing trillions of euro/$ in aid to muslim countries. Pakistan and Egypt are 2 countries that come to mind, that gobble up billions in any given year, and yet these 2 disgusting excuses for nations persist in attacking the very people that have sustained them. The film has nothing to do with jews, Israel or the alleged secret group that runs the world, ok. It is all about a religious group that considers itself superior to all others trying to violently impose its religious views on others.

Edited September 22, 201213 yr by geriatrickid

Attempts to steer the thread into a discussion of Israel/Palestine will result in posts being deleted.

More people should be asking why does You Tube only choose to act expeditiously regarding the removal of videos in some cases but not in "Innocence of Muslims"?

Most people understkand that the "Innocence of Muslims" does not call for violence and does not violate Youtube's rules. That is why it is not being removed.

Edited September 23, 201213 yr by Ulysses G.

This is the recently expressed view of a responsible Muslim that I strongly agree with:

"It is this history of Christian Protestant bravery that led to the creation of pluralist and secular societies in the West, allowing for the first time in history for Muslims and Jews to settle there in large numbers - we were free to practise our religions freely. The barbarity of pogroms, witch-hunting, and burning heretics ended.

My fellow Muslims must understand this background. We cannot trample on the very freedoms that allow us to thrive as Muslims. Yes, it hurts when the Prophet is insulted. From Shakespeare to Thomas Paine, Western literature is full of negative references to Muslims as Moors, Turks, and followers of Mahomet.

Similarly, classical Arabic and Persian writings are replete with anti-Semitism and denial of Christ's divinity as the son of God. Yet, it is a remarkable feat that we in the West have accommodated all faiths and no faith.

This achievement cannot be reversed. Self-censorship is to reverse the gains made by our intellectual forefathers.

Just as Muslims are free in the West, Christians and other dissenters must be free in the East.

We Muslims killed some of our best luminaries because of clerical accusations of heresy, absence of freedom of thought.

From executing al-Hallaj in Baghdad to stoning Ibn Arabi in Damascus to banishing Bulleh Shah in the Punjab, the history is bitter.

They were Muslim martyrs to freedom of thought. As a Westerner and Muslim, I want to cherish these freedoms and secure liberty for future generations.

Ed Husain

( I hope this is better)

Now if only we heard more like this and less of the jihadist stuff there would be less conflict between the muslims and the infidels.

The problem is of course that it is frowned upon to rail against anything a muslim cleric may say and don't even think about abandoning the faith you are saddled with at birth or a nasty punishment awaits!

This is the recently expressed view of a responsible Muslim that I strongly agree with:

"It is this history of Christian Protestant bravery that led to the creation of pluralist and secular societies in the West, allowing for the first time in history for Muslims and Jews to settle there in large numbers - we were free to practise our religions freely. The barbarity of pogroms, witch-hunting, and burning heretics ended.

My fellow Muslims must understand this background. We cannot trample on the very freedoms that allow us to thrive as Muslims. Yes, it hurts when the Prophet is insulted. From Shakespeare to Thomas Paine, Western literature is full of negative references to Muslims as Moors, Turks, and followers of Mahomet.

Similarly, classical Arabic and Persian writings are replete with anti-Semitism and denial of Christ's divinity as the son of God. Yet, it is a remarkable feat that we in the West have accommodated all faiths and no faith.

This achievement cannot be reversed. Self-censorship is to reverse the gains made by our intellectual forefathers.

Just as Muslims are free in the West, Christians and other dissenters must be free in the East.

We Muslims killed some of our best luminaries because of clerical accusations of heresy, absence of freedom of thought.

From executing al-Hallaj in Baghdad to stoning Ibn Arabi in Damascus to banishing Bulleh Shah in the Punjab, the history is bitter.

They were Muslim martyrs to freedom of thought. As a Westerner and Muslim, I want to cherish these freedoms and secure liberty for future generations.

Ed Husain

( I hope this is better)

Now if only we heard more like this and less of the jihadist stuff there would be less conflict between the muslims and the infidels.

The problem is of course that it is frowned upon to rail against anything a muslim cleric may say and don't even think about abandoning the faith you are saddled with at birth or a nasty punishment awaits!

The narrative was copied and pasted from the BBC website.

More people should be asking why does You Tube only choose to act expeditiously regarding the removal of videos in some cases but not in "Innocence of Muslims"?

Most people understkand that the "Innocence of Muslims" does not call for violence and does not violate Youtube's rules. That is why it is not being removed.

the Guardian newspaper in the UK has covered this story today and they highlight the sporadic nature

of making decisions as to what should be censored and what shouldn't be censored

I love this passage in particular

Google appeared to undermine its own argument by announcing that it had blocked access to the video in some countries.

At this point, even those who are not constitutional lawyers begin to smell a rat. Here we have a commercial company effectively making editorial judgments. If Google were a publisher, like, say, the New York Times, then the question of whether it should or should not publish the video could be trashed out via an established channel – the courts

http://www.guardian....p?newsfeed=true

and therein lies the problem it all comes down to nothing but subjective judgements in one case while on the other

it is enforced by the Law. Like I said sheer hypocrisy

Edited September 23, 201213 yr by Asiantravel

More people should be asking why does You Tube only choose to act expeditiously regarding the removal of videos in some cases but not in "Innocence of Muslims"?

Most people understkand that the "Innocence of Muslims" does not call for violence and does not violate Youtube's rules. That is why it is not being removed.

the Guardian newspaper in the UK has covered this story today and they highlight the sporadic nature

of making decisions as to what should be censored and what shouldn't be censored

I love this passage in particular

Google appeared to undermine its own argument by announcing that it had blocked access to the video in some countries.

At this point, even those who are not constitutional lawyers begin to smell a rat. Here we have a commercial company effectively making editorial judgments. If Google were a publisher, like, say, the New York Times, then the question of whether it should or should not publish the video could be trashed out via an established channel – the courts

http://www.guardian....p?newsfeed=true

and therein lies the problem it all comes down to nothing but subjective judgements in one case while on the other

it is enforced by the Law. Like I said sheer hypocrisy

I thought free speech laws were different in different countries anyway so blocking it in some countries is fine. For example, in the UK you can say what you want about the royal family.

A Pakistani minister announces a bounty $100,000 on anti Islam film maker. Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, the Federal Minister for Railways Ghulam Ahmed Bilour said that he was aware that it was a crime to instigate the people for murder, but he was ready to commit the crime. He added that there was no way to instil fear among blasphemers other than taking this step. He also called on members of the Taliban and al Qaeda for their support, saying that if members of the banned militant organisations kill the maker of the blasphemous movie, they will also be rewarded.

Can you believe it ....?

More people should be asking why does You Tube only choose to act expeditiously regarding the removal of videos in some cases but not in "Innocence of Muslims"?

Most people understkand that the "Innocence of Muslims" does not call for violence and does not violate Youtube's rules. That is why it is not being removed.

the Guardian newspaper in the UK has covered this story today and they highlight the sporadic nature

of making decisions as to what should be censored and what shouldn't be censored

I love this passage in particular

Google appeared to undermine its own argument by announcing that it had blocked access to the video in some countries.

At this point, even those who are not constitutional lawyers begin to smell a rat. Here we have a commercial company effectively making editorial judgments. If Google were a publisher, like, say, the New York Times, then the question of whether it should or should not publish the video could be trashed out via an established channel – the courts

http://www.guardian....p?newsfeed=true

and therein lies the problem it all comes down to nothing but subjective judgements in one case while on the other

it is enforced by the Law. Like I said sheer hypocrisy

If only there were a global Caliphate we could all adhere to the same standard.

Edit: Hypocrisy is indeed a terrible thing and the White house should condemn the blasphemous exhibit Piss Christ if they take time to condemn the innocence of Muslims.

http://radio.foxnews...st-artwork.html

Edited September 23, 201213 yr by Steely Dan

and therein lies the problem it all comes down to nothing but subjective judgements in one case while on the other

it is enforced by the Law. Like I said sheer hypocrisy

Youtube probably should not have blocked the video anywhere, but the world is not black and white. They preserved free speech for those who are used to it and compromised for those who are not. Sometimes the world works out like that.

A Pakistani minister announces a bounty $100,000 on anti Islam film maker. Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, the Federal Minister for Railways Ghulam Ahmed Bilour said that he was aware that it was a crime to instigate the people for murder, but he was ready to commit the crime. He added that there was no way to instil fear among blasphemers other than taking this step. He also called on members of the Taliban and al Qaeda for their support, saying that if members of the banned militant organisations kill the maker of the blasphemous movie, they will also be rewarded.

Can you believe it ....?

Already criticised by the Pakistani PM, but still a complete idiot.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/23-Sep-2012/pm-house-distances-from-bilor-statement

and therein lies the problem it all comes down to nothing but subjective judgements in one case while on the other

it is enforced by the Law. Like I said sheer hypocrisy

Youtube probably should not have blocked the video anywhere, but the world is not black and white. They preserved free speech for those who are used to it and compromised for those who are not. Sometimes the world works out like that.

considering Salman Rushdie has to stay in hiding for 10 years,I hope the filmmaker sincerely considers

his piece of art work in the name of free speech was worth it weighed against the disruption that will occur

to his life and that of his family?

Edited September 23, 201213 yr by Asiantravel

He sounds like a bit of a scumbag and he is not exactly a talented director, so I'm not overly worried about him having to go through a few hardships in defense of free speech.

A Pakistani minister announces a bounty $100,000 on anti Islam film maker. Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, the Federal Minister for Railways Ghulam Ahmed Bilour said that he was aware that it was a crime to instigate the people for murder, but he was ready to commit the crime. He added that there was no way to instil fear among blasphemers other than taking this step. He also called on members of the Taliban and al Qaeda for their support, saying that if members of the banned militant organisations kill the maker of the blasphemous movie, they will also be rewarded.

Can you believe it ....?

Pakistani authorities should follow the rule of law. If the man announced a death hunt on someone, and it's illegal, the announcer should be arrested, prosecuted, and given the appropriate penalty. Of course it won't happen, because Pakistan law is meted out subjectively, and the fear of riots and making the murder-for-hire perpetrator a hero in a riot-prone country. Sounds a bit like Thailand.

A Pakistani minister announces a bounty $100,000 on anti Islam film maker. Speaking at a press conference on Saturday, the Federal Minister for Railways Ghulam Ahmed Bilour said that he was aware that it was a crime to instigate the people for murder, but he was ready to commit the crime. He added that there was no way to instil fear among blasphemers other than taking this step. He also called on members of the Taliban and al Qaeda for their support, saying that if members of the banned militant organisations kill the maker of the blasphemous movie, they will also be rewarded.

Can you believe it ....?

Yep

shoud be on big screen in pattaya close to the v c hotel

The Muslim community in the West, most of whom it appears have been seriously unsettled, if not shocked, by what has occurred, are being called upon to take some responsibility for the mostly young and mostly male yahoos in their midst who seem determined to tear down whatever goodwill has been built up between the Muslim communities and their fellow citizens. The non-Muslim majority in free societies are no longer going to accept the blame for the emotional insecurity of the Muslim youth. Muslim parents are going to have to look at themselves and ask what they and their peers have done to create this monster and what they are doing to delegitimize it..

Why don't we see Muslim communities in America ever rioting over all these perceived offenses against their prophet and religion? Is it because we have so many guns out on the streets and it wouldn't be a good idea flashing anti-American jihadi signs? Or is it because America gets the higher quality immigrants - the ones coming to build a better life through hard work, while in Europe and Australia they are going to get government handouts?

Yes those are some reasons and because they are in relatively small numbers still,it has been shown that once the muslim population reaches a certain critical level ,,things begin to change ,the level of demands for islamisation begins,no go areas begin to develop ,contempt and displacing of locals populations becomes routine and violence rises ,we can see this developing in Dearborn MI right now ,islam has been using those tactics in Europe very successfully ,America is on the list .

Recent events in Dearborn, Michigan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@chuckd...

I just watched the video and it seems from the way the crowd moved the

Muslims had the upper hand and zero law enforcement was around.

Here's another link to a video on the same Dearborne Michigan event.

Plus I just heard on the BBC that CNN found Ambassador Stevens

"diary" inside the hulk of the annex in Benghazi and has run a piece

or two on the find concerning Amb. Stevens thought's on security

in Benghazi at the time. State is now in an uproar and seemingly

trying to pass the buck on why they didn't increase security calling

CNN'd find and reporting all kinds of names.

Type this into Google and read for yourself the links...

"CNN Ambassador Stevens Diary"

Here's a link to Politico's page about CNN vs State...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81563.html?hp=f3

Seems to me State is trying to cover up their cock up.