Obama’s First Political Prisoner — on The Glazov Gang

You're a clown, so are you Gunung Semeru!

If a child has a father given to fits of violent rage, is it the child's fault if the father beats him for any and every perceived misdeed?

No, the father is a violent clown who should be locked up!

And so it is with Islam. It's not the fault of any filmaker who, in exercising his right to freedom of expression or free speech, finds that the followers of a violet cult founded by a desert bandit start throwing the toys out of the pram because they don't like a film that portrays their so-called prophet based on information taken from Islam's most revered and respected texts.

Your posts are expressions of dhimmification! Wakey, wakey. This is the *free world*, not some Sharia shackled shithole.

Your posts are expressions of dhimmification!

Nakoula went out of his way to make a film that would incite hatred towards Jews.

The film was intended to have the same effect as friday prayers. so what you are basically saying that imans who incite riots should be given a free pass.

If that is the case then it it you that is dhimmified.

It is allowing these hate merchants to preach their bile, so as to preserve free speech, then good bye to the free world.

Nakoula by his dishonesty separates him-self from honest film makers such as Geert Wilder.

Wilders objective was educational, Nakoulas was to offend and incite. Interestingly, there where hardly any riots about Geerts film in contrast to Nakoulas,

If an imam incites a riot, which will happen in the near future then he should be slung into jail, and the mosque demolished, also I am inclined to feel the same about those such as Nakoula

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Innocence_of_bn_Laden_movie_poster.jpg

This whole thing stinks of the three false danish motoons.

B*gger off!

And you can b*gger off as well!

Gunung,

There's a difference between inciting riots and inciting hate. Riots are illegal actions that typically result in real damage to persons and property. Hate (or anger) is a normal human emotion that may or may not lead some people to harm others or property, depending on how the "hater" handles his or her hate. The "hater" can legally express his anger (e.g., non-violent legal protest, or making a work of art, or simply speaking one's mind publicly, etc.).

An underlying assumption in a free society is that the adult individual of sound mind has the cognitive capacity to be held responsible for his or her actions. That means, among other things, that each individual is responsible for what he/she does with his/her anger/hate. Society would be completely anarchic and chaotic if people did not exercise some control over their anger and how they act on it. Actions from a moral and legal standpoint--especially violent actions that can harm persons and property--require justifications.

Violence can only be justified under a limited range of circumstances, such as self-defense or defense of others from violence; or when two or more parties consent to engage in controlled violence (e.g., wrestling, boxing). While writing a critique or scheduling a legal and peaceful protest in front of theater might be warranted actions in response to a film that one "hates", killing or physically attacking the filmmaker (or anyone else) is not a justified response.

An analogy may be useful here: Flemming Rose--editor of the Newspaper which published the famous Danish Muhammad cartoons--once noted that we do not blame the rape victim who dressed provocatively, and likewise we should not blame the cartoonists for the deaths that resulted from the jihadists' violent actions in response to those cartoons.

OT, and my apologies.

Gunung Semeru, on the thread about Mr. Spencer discussing the Obama re-election.

He was slagging off the EDL, and I called him on it, pointing out he had been banned from the EDL website for gloating over the Rochdale victims, and the death of a child. He denied this, and pretended he had been banned for criticising Tommy Robinson.

The EDL website is now back up again, although on a different domain, after being hacked by anti-semite fascist thugs.

Semeru has called me a liar, saying I have not been able to post the thread where he was banned, and for what reason. It is below.

EDL CHIEF ‘ARRESTED’ 3 weeks 1 day ago #3938

semeru

OFFLINE
Senior Boarder

Posts: 75
Thank you received: 12
Karma: -4

Ruby wrote:
You know nothing - it's an allegation and you and Midwinter would do well to remember

that fact when spouting off your holier than thou armchair legalise - plus it's sub judice.

Take warning - decent, loyal patriots on this forum are in no mood for 3rd rate baiting dressed up as

clever dicks - now buck up or ship out.

Oh dear, we know nothing,

....................................

From admin - you've been banned twice before - the last time for your disgusting posts about the grieving parents

of a murdered child. Because this is a new forum you were given yet another chance but alas you've shown yourself

to be the same, no nothing, nasty, arrogant slimeball you've always been. That was your last chance - on your bike

no mark and don't come back - you're toxic. Ruby

I apologise for dropping this in here off topic, but since semeru has consistently been calling me a liar, when in fact it is **he** who is the liar, I felt I must, for my own reputation, post the above. Cheers, everyone.

Gunung Semeru | November 14, 2012 4:57 AM | Reply

''So Jan

#1 Still no link to back up your allegations why I was banned from EDL''

Well, there's the link.

"I do not believe that free speech should be granted if it is used to incite racial religious hate or anti-semitism"

Aha. If Gunung is not a Muslim, he is a descendant of Muslims in his family lineage; and the Islam of his ancestors has left certain toxins in his intellectual and psychological bloodstream, so to speak.

It's the same phenomenon, essentially, that we see in so many non-Muslim peoples of the Dar-al-Islam -- including the "islamochristians" Hugh Fitzgerald discussed, to which could be added "islamo-jews", "islamo-hindus", "islamo-bahai", "islamo-ahmadi", etc.

We also see roughly the same phenomenon in not a few ex-Muslims (which should come as no surprise, as they are closer in orbit, so to speak, to the evil Sun they chose to wander, planetarily, away from).

I wonder if you will think the same in ten or twenty years time, when islam take a firmer hold in the USA, and muslims are pouring out of the mosques after friday prayers and running amok.

Will you allow the imams to preach their bile.

I do not hear any one complaining here how the Chinese or Singaporeans restrict what muslims say especially in the mosques.

We are at war just now, so I think it would be a good idea to review the question of free speech,

No doubt you have seen Nakoula,s film, it has a scene dealing with the torure and killing of Umm Qirfa. But the film does not give any information, most people would not know what the scene was about except muslims, now why would Nakoula show such a scene, without any explanation, to an arab audience, claiming to be Jewish.

Now here is another video about Umm Qirfa,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfR08Bh2JA

It was made by an anti-jihad in Indonesia, who was very active on Faith Freedom, he has done a lot of work translating various articles of Ali Sina and Mr Spencers

I have known of him since 2005.

Now compare the two films, Copper Kids video is educational, but it was not intended to incite violence, where as Nakoula or those behind him where fully aware that muslims would react violently, they did not try to be educational, they went out of there way to be offensive

This is a time of war, so shouldn't you be asking who is Nakoula, how do you know he is not a coptic lord Haw Haw or a muslim tool

To the above poster above, concerning the Quote from Flemming Rose, was he including the false images.

I thought your comment was advocating limiting the free expression of non-Muslims.

If you advocate selectively limiting the free expression only of Muslims -- then I heartily agree.

Tolerance should not tolerate violent intolerance (which is what Islam is).

Gunung Semeru wrote:

I do no share the views of most here about Nakoula.

I do not believe that free speech should be granted if it is used to incite racial religious hate or anti-semitism
..........................

What *absolute crap*. There is *nothing* antisemitic about "The Innocence of Muslims". In fact, while the main focus is on Muslim violence against the Copts in Egypt today, the film is *very* sympathetic to Jews who have suffered at the hands of Muslims.

More:

When the film first came out it was shown at the vine theatre as The Innocence of Bin Laded (sic), and the poster was in arabic, giving the impression it was a pro-jihad. This is a clear attempt to incitement.
..........................

Utter rot. Coptic Christians speak Arabic, as well. The idea that "The Innocence of Muslims" was ever intended to be seen as a *pro-Jihad* film is absurd.

More:

To make things worse the producer (Nakoula) "Sam Bacile" falsely claimed that the movie had been funded by $5 million collected from 100 Jewish donors, and that he was an Israeli Jew.
..........................

Someone *claiming* to be Sam Bacile called into a talk show and made these assertions. The idea that this was actually Nakoula himself is completely unproven. Given that the man was in hiding at the time over the threat of Muslim violence, it seems very unlikely that it was him.

More:

So muslim who would go to see this film expecting a pro jihad film would no doubt be pissed of.
..........................

Do you have any proof that the main audience for the one showing of "The Innocence of Muslims" were violent Jihadists? This assertion seems completely ridiculous, and would be especially hazardous to the film maker's health—as well as the staff of the theater and any stray non-Jihadist members of the audience.

More:

This film was clearly made to incited violence to Jews and up the tempo of hate towards Israel
..........................

*Bullsh*t*.

More:

In a September 2012 interview with Voice of America's Arabic language station, Radio Sawa, he stated that he was graduate of the Faculty of Arts at Cairo University, and claimed to be a researcher of Islamic thought.

So there are very good chances that he is pro islam in his thinking towards Israel.
..........................

Ah...right. The average Islamic supremacist is only too happy to defend Copts and Jews while criticizing the "Prophet" Muhammed and presenting him as a thug and a fool. Pull the other one...

More:

There are many flags here to indicate that Nakoula made this film not to educate non muslims, as only those who are well versed with islam can see that the film was correct, any body who are unaware about Islam, will be none the wiser after seeing it, He made the film so as to provoke hatred towards jews.

The man is a muslim tool
..........................

What a grotesque calumny of a *victim of Islam*, who was attempting to defend other victims of Islam.

Yes—the film is hardly brilliant in its presentation of scenes from the texts of Islam, but that has more to do with his general ineptitude as a film maker, his having almost no budget to work with, and the fact that the film is still completely unfinished.

There is *nothing* to indicate that this movie was made by an antisemitic Jihadist.

More:

What is more upsetting, while Nakoula is sitting nice and safe in jail the Coptic-Christian are going to sooner or later going to suffer even more.
..........................

Yes—as you would have it, the victims of Islam should never dare to so much as mention their victimization.

This is, in fact, *straight* out of the Pact of Umar, the ur-document of dhimmitude. Shut up, dhimmi, or we'll make you even sorrier...

More:

The sad thing about this case they only went after Nakoula, now they should start to go after all the other hate merchants, especially those who use holy scriptures (islamic).
..........................

Well, *this* is vague. Are you referring to Jihadists here—or to others who might "offend" touchy Muslims, and thus "incite hatred"?

And odd that you so lovingly characterizes the vile texts of Islam as "holy scriptures"...

More:

Nakoula went out of his way to make a film that would incite hatred towards Jews.

The film was intended to have the same effect as friday prayers. so what you are basically saying that imans who incite riots should be given a free pass.
..........................

More witless moral equivalence. You would have us believe that we should regard an Imam *directly* calling on his parishioners to commit violence as exactly the same as someone whose criticism of that very violence might "incite" those same Muslims to violence.

Grotesque.

More:

If that is the case then it it you that is dhimmified.
..........................

Prove you aren't a dhimmi by refusing to speak out about Muslim violence against dhimmis. Pretzel logic at its finest...

More:

It is allowing these hate merchants to preach their bile, so as to preserve free speech, then good bye to the free world.
..........................

Why, yes—what could be more supportive of freedom than crushing free speech, especially speech critical of the Jihad threat to free speech? sarc/off

More:

Wilders objective was educational, Nakoulas was to offend and incite. Interestingly, there where hardly any riots about Geerts film in contrast to Nakoulas,
..........................

Nope—just plenty of death threats against the film maker's life. I guess those Jihadists really appreciate Wilder's approach...sarc/off

Hey—there were hardly any riots over Theo van Gogh's film, either! Too bad he was murdered by one of his "critics", though...

More:

If an imam incites a riot, which will happen in the near future then he should be slung into jail, and the mosque demolished, also I am inclined to feel the same about those such as Nakoula
..........................

How "even-handed" of Gunung—see, he's willing to see both Jihdists and those who warn against them thrown into prison.

Any bets on how a policy like *that* would work out for the West?

More:

Now compare the two films, Copper Kids video is educational, but it was not intended to incite violence, where as Nakoula or those behind him where fully aware that muslims would react violently, they did not try to be educational, they went out of there way to be offensive
..........................

Yes—can't have anyone do *anything* that might make Muslims react violently—never mind that this covers an awful lot of ground—including trying to help the victims of Islam...

As for the Copper Kid's video, the idea that no pious Muslim would find this "offensive" is just ridiculous. His coverage of the Zaynab affair, as a matter of fact, is *very similar* to Nakoula's.

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/01/copper-kid-rices-again.html

A few days ago I told JW poster Kinana of Khaybar that I was willing to keep an open mind as to whether Gunung Semera was a Muslim apologist or not. This post leads me to believe that I—and Jan, and Dumbledore's Army—were right the first time.

What *absolute crap*. There is *nothing* antisemitic about "The Innocence of Muslims". In fact, while the main focus is on Muslim violence against the Copts in Egypt today, the film is *very* sympathetic to Jews who have suffered at the hands of Muslims.
I wrote I do not believe that free speech should be granted if it is used to incite racial religious hate or anti-semitism
So where did I write that it was anti-semitism
Utter rot. Coptic Christians speak Arabic, as well. The idea that "The Innocence of Muslims" was ever intended to be seen as a *pro-Jihad* film is absurd.
Explain to me then, Why did he call it The Innocence of Bin Laden
Someone *claiming* to be Sam Bacile called into a talk show and made these assertions. The idea that this was actually Nakoula himself is completely unproven. Given that the man was in hiding at the time over the threat of Muslim violence, it seems very unlikely that it was him.
Well, In court Mark Basseley Youssef admitted to four violations, including lying to his probation officer and using bogus names.
Do you have any proof that the main audience for the one showing of "The Innocence of Muslims" were violent Jihadists? This assertion seems completely ridiculous, and would be especially hazardous to the film maker's health—as well as the staff of the theater and any stray non-Jihadist members of the audience.
Did I say anything about violent Jihadists, NO I WROTE
So muslims who would go to see this film expecting a pro jihad film would no doubt be pissed off
Ah...right. The average Islamic supremacist is only too happy to defend Copts and Jews while criticizing the "Prophet" Muhammed and presenting him as a thug and a fool. Pull the other one…
You apparently do not understand how devious muslims can be, also you do not know how low a dhimmi will stoop, the Copts had no problem with fighting along side the muslims against Israel.
Interesting you stay silent about the Copts anti Israel stance.
There is *nothing* to indicate that this movie was made by an antisemitic Jihadist.
It is you that is bring antisemetic jihadist into the equation
Well, *this* is vague. Are you referring to Jihadists here—or to others who might "offend" touchy Muslims, and thus "incite hatred"?
And odd that you so lovingly characterizes the vile texts of Islam as "holy scriptures"…
So what is vague about this
The sad thing about this case they only went after Nakoula, now they should start to go after all the other hate merchants, especially those who use holy scriptures (islamic).
Also you ignore that I wrote they should ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO USE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (ISLAMIC).
More witless moral equivalence. You would have us believe that we should regard an Imam *directly* calling on his parishioners to commit violence as exactly the same as someone whose criticism of that very violence might "incite" those same Muslims to violence.
Grotesque.
What do you mean grotesque.
To cut this short. It is getting damned tedious with you twist, distorting or adding/ommitting what I say so as to fit into what you think I am.
Now
I am going to ask, what do you know about Nakoula, how do you know he was not in the pay of Muslim extremists to act as an agent provocateur?
What proof do you have that he was an anti jihadist?
Can You explain why Terry Jones issued a statement on his website defending the film "Innocence of Muslims," directed by Sam Bacile of California, who describes himself as an Israeli Jew. and showed film on Tuesday 9/11.?
Can you explain how On Sunday 9/9 to days before the riots the Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa denounced "actions by Coptic extremists who produced a film offensive to the Prophet," ?
Yes how did the Mufti learn of it and why would he draw attention to such an insignificant production? How did he know it was “extremist Copts?” The filmmaker had not yet been exposed, he used an alias during the film’s production, and his cover story was that he was Jewish.?
The idea that Nakoula made this film to highlight the plight of Egyptian Copts or even to “teach” anyone about Islam strains credulity. His lifetime of crime suggests a personality of no integrity. The notion that the film was financed by his wife’s Egyptian relatives must also be questioned.

Why would he endanger his own family? Egyptian Copts have enough trouble with the new Muslim Brotherhood government already. The last thing they need now is negative attention.

The “Christians” he recruited in this effort, Stephen Klein and Pastor Jones are perfect patsies for a false flag operation. Blinded by their own zealotry, they supported this mindless film, making them, and by extension all Christians, look like a bunch of idiots. At the same time, it has provided an excuse for radical Muslims worldwide to go on an anti-American, anti-Christian tirade.

Just because Nakoula claims to be christian doesn't by default put him on our side, have you forgotten George Habash, or Sirhan Sirhan.

So what did you think of Copper Kids film ?

BTW how does the link to Infidels Blogger Alliance prove that I am a muslim? that really puzzles me.

Jan,

Would you like to explain to us about the very dubious behaviour of Karen Downes that led to cancelation of the March 31st demo in Blackpool.

Gunung apparently is trying to argue that insulting Muslims should be suppressed:

The “Christians” he recruited in this effort, Stephen Klein and Pastor Jones are perfect patsies for a false flag operation. Blinded by their own zealotry, they supported this mindless film, making them, and by extension all Christians, look like a bunch of idiots. At the same time, it has provided an excuse for radical Muslims worldwide to go on an anti-American, anti-Christian tirade.

None of this matters. 100% of the blame is still on the shoulders of Muslims who threaten violence and who actually do violence and riot and kill over "offenses". The question is, why does Gunung care enough about Muslim sensibilities to want to spare them "offense" by calling for us to limit our free speech?

gravenimage, so far everything Gunung says can be chalked up to the phenomenon of the "islamochristian" (or "islamo-" something), but not necessarily an outright Muslim. Ironically, Gunung is correct about some Copts, tending toward dhimmitude. Ironic because I think he suffers from the same dhimmitude, in

1) his tendency toward equivalency (which you teased out nicely from his text)

2) his tendency to refrain from blaming Muslims 100%

3) his tendency to see Jews everywhere (remember his little "slip" about the Jews of Mecca?) -- a tendency all too common among Middle Eastern islamochristians

Gunung Semeru wrote:

I wrote I do not believe that free speech should be granted if it is used to incite racial religious hate or anti-semitism
So where did I write that it was anti-semitism
...........................

Well, you wrote, "This film was clearly made to incited violence to Jews and up the tempo of hate towards Israel". If violence towards Jews and hate towards Israel isn't antisemitism, I don't know what is.

And your idea of crushing freedom of speech if it might make someone else commit violence is madness.

That means that the most irrational and violent elements are allowed to set the limits of what may be spoken of.

Consider: if some thug said they would punch anyone in the head who dared to mention fluffy kittens, should the topic of fluffy kittens be off limits, as it might "incite" said thug?

More:

Utter rot. Coptic Christians speak Arabic, as well. The idea that "The Innocence of Muslims" was ever intended to be seen as a *pro-Jihad* film is absurd.
Explain to me then, Why did he call it The Innocence of Bin Laden
...........................

I don't see how it makes much of a difference. In either case, the title is a reference that pious Muslims only consider other Muslims to be innocent—even if the Muslim in question is the horrific bin Laden.

And many works-in-progress go by more than one title in the development stage.

More:

Someone *claiming* to be Sam Bacile called into a talk show and made these assertions. The idea that this was actually Nakoula himself is completely unproven. Given that the man was in hiding at the time over the threat of Muslim violence, it seems very unlikely that it was him.
Well, In court Mark Basseley Youssef admitted to four violations, including lying to his probation officer and using bogus names.
...........................

This is apples and oranges. Clearly at this point, the same person has used the names "Sam Bacile", "Mark Nakoula", and "Joseph Basseley Youssef". There's nothing necessarily nefarious about this—many actors and directors use different names. Of course, he may also have used different names in his shady financial dealings.

But he has never passed himself off as Jewish, and the claim—obviously absurd—that he had received $5 million in backing from "one hundred Israeli Jews" was only made on one occasion by someone calling into a talk show who claimed without proof to be Sam Bacile.

This doesn't sound very credible to me.

More:

Do you have any proof that the main audience for the one showing of "The Innocence of Muslims" were violent Jihadists? This assertion seems completely ridiculous, and would be especially hazardous to the film maker's health—as well as the staff of the theater and any stray non-Jihadist members of the audience.
Did I say anything about violent Jihadists, NO I WROTE
So muslims who would go to see this film expecting a pro jihad film would no doubt be pissed off
...........................

How would Muslims pissed off by disappointment over what they supposedly expected to be a pro-Jihad film *not* be Jihadists, or at least Jihad sympathizers?

More:

Ah...right. The average Islamic supremacist is only too happy to defend Copts and Jews while criticizing the "Prophet" Muhammed and presenting him as a thug and a fool. Pull the other one…
You apparently do not understand how devious muslims can be, also you do not know how low a dhimmi will stoop, the Copts had no problem with fighting along side the muslims against Israel.
...........................

During much of Muslim Egypt's history, Copts have not been allowed to serve in the military. The idea that Copts are a major enemy of Israel is completely false.

Sure—there's antisemitism amongst some Copts, but the idea that this film's *purpose* is to incite Muslim violence against Jews is ludicrous.

The film, in fact, is *very* sympathetic to the Jewish victims of Muhammed, including the scene of Kinana of Khaybar and his wife Safiya, where he has been tortured and is then murdered in front of her.

These characters are presented as both noble and undeserving of their terrible fate—odd for a film you claim is intended to provoke more of that same violence.

More:

Well, *this* is vague. Are you referring to Jihadists here—or to others who might "offend" touchy Muslims, and thus "incite hatred"?
And odd that you so lovingly characterizes the vile texts of Islam as "holy scriptures"…
So what is vague about this
...........................

Everything. Do you want to stop Muslims from directly exhorting their followers to murder Infidels, or are you lumping in Anti-Jihadists who are warning against the depredations of Islam in with them, and want them silenced as well?

And asking if you consider the vile texts of Islam to be "holy scripture" is a pretty straight-forward question.

More:

The sad thing about this case they only went after Nakoula, now they should start to go after all the other hate merchants, especially those who use holy scriptures (islamic).
Also you ignore that I wrote they should ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO USE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES (ISLAMIC).
More witless moral equivalence. You would have us believe that we should regard an Imam *directly* calling on his parishioners to commit violence as exactly the same as someone whose criticism of that very violence might "incite" those same Muslims to violence.
Grotesque.
What do you mean grotesque.
...........................

Going after those who dare to point out the violence of Islam *is* grotesque.

More:

Now
I am going to ask, what do you know about Nakoula, how do you know he was not in the pay of Muslim extremists to act as an agent provocateur?
...........................

Well, I cannot know in the absolute sense that Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali weren't in the pay of Muslim extremists to act as agent provocateurs when they produced "Submission (Part 1), or that Geert Wilders wasn't in the pay of Muslim extremists to act as agent provocateurs when he produced "Fitna".

All I have to go on is reason, general sanity, and the content of the film itself.

More:

What proof do you have that he was an anti jihadist?
...........................

Well, he produced a film condemning Jihad violence against the Copts, and condemning the roots of Jihad violence in the person of the "Prophet" Muhammed.

There was no hedging—the message is straight-forward and clear.

If producing a completely Anti-Jihad work doesn't make you an Anti-Jihadist—if, in fact, you believe it marks him as being in the pay of Jihadists—then you are either irrational, or, far more likely, trying to besmirch anyone who dares speak out about the threat of Jihad.

More:

Can You explain why Terry Jones issued a statement on his website defending the film "Innocence of Muslims," directed by Sam Bacile of California, who describes himself as an Israeli Jew. and showed film on Tuesday 9/11.?
...........................

How does this cast doubt on this being an Anti-Jihad work? I don't believe Terry Jones' hamfisted approach to exposing the Jihad threat is the most effective, but all of his criticisms of Jihad and the Qur'an are nonetheless broadly accurate.

Would you also have us believe that Pastor Terry Jones is "in the pay of Muslim extremists to act as an agent provocateur"?

I've already addressed the "Israeli Jew" thing. And there is no indication that the trailer was shown anywhere on 9/11, besides on YouTube, where it had already been posted for months. And the screening at the Vine Theater took place some time earlier in the year, and certainly not on 9/11.

More:

Can you explain how On Sunday 9/9 to days before the riots the Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa denounced "actions by Coptic extremists who produced a film offensive to the Prophet," ?
Yes how did the Mufti learn of it and why would he draw attention to such an insignificant production?
...........................

There's nothing odd about this. The clip was translated into Arabic and was condemned by any number of pious Muslims before Ali Gomaa.

As to why he would draw attention to such an insignificant production, one may also ask why pious Muslims are threatening the lives of obscure Anglo-Indian novelists, Danish cartoonists, Swedish artists, Dutch documentary film makers, and local Seattle comic artists?

Because these are "insults" to the "Prophet" that have come to the attention of rabid Jihdists. The idea that the "Innocence of Muslims" was somehow never seen before 9/11 is ridiculous.

And the idea that Muslims should pounce on the latest perceived slight against Islam so that they can riot in the streets if perfectly mainstream Islam.

More:

How did he know it was “extremist Copts?”
...........................

Well, the film uses the plight of the Copts as a framing device. Muslims don't believe that any victim of Islam has the right to protest or even publicly mention his victimization by Muslims. So the idea that a pious Muslim like Ali Gomaa would consider the film maker "extremist" should come as no surprise.

More:

The idea that Nakoula made this film to highlight the plight of Egyptian Copts or even to “teach” anyone about Islam strains credulity.
...........................

Well, of course—how could a film about the plight of the Copts and the violence of Islam *possibly* be about the plight of the Copts and the violence of Islam? sarc/off

In fact, you claim that the fact that it is about the plight of the Copts and the violence of Islam proves that it was funded by violent Muslims who oppress the Copts. Let's have your "logic" on that one...

More:

His lifetime of crime suggests a personality of no integrity.
...........................

Well, yes. There's no doubt that Nakoula has a shady financial history. The idea that this automatically makes him a supporter of Jihad is ludicrous, though.

More:

Why would he endanger his own family? Egyptian Copts have enough trouble with the new Muslim Brotherhood government already. The last thing they need now is negative attention.
...........................

Why does Robert Spencer endanger his own family? Infidels have enough trouble with the rise of violent Jihad. The last thing they need now is negative attention. sarc/off

Now, I consider Robert Spencer a much more impressive figure than Nakoula. But nonetheless, you are making the old argument of dhimmitude, that the victims should shut up, or Muslims will make it even worse for them.

In that case, the Anti-Jihad movement should shut down entirely, because otherwise Muslims will threaten to claim even more victims.

Ultimately, though, nothing will so embolden Jihad as our refusal to condemn it.

More:

The “Christians” he recruited in this effort, Stephen Klein and Pastor Jones are perfect patsies for a false flag operation.
...........................

"False flag operation"? The idea that criticizing Muslim violence is actually Muslim violence is grotesque.

More:

Blinded by their own zealotry, they supported this mindless film, making them, and by extension all Christians, look like a bunch of idiots. At the same time, it has provided an excuse for radical Muslims worldwide to go on an anti-American, anti-Christian tirade.
...........................

The film is admittedly very poorly made—bad acting, funky costumes, and laughably bad special effects. That is very different from claiming that it is actually intended to enable Jihad, though.

As for it providing "an excuse for radical Muslims worldwide to go on an anti-American, anti-Christian tirade"—well, what *doesn't*?

By this "reasoning", Salman Rushdie should not have been allowed to write "The Satanic Verses", The Jyllands-Posten cartoonists should not have been allowed to publish the Danish MoToons, Lars Vilks should not have been allowed to create his "MoDoggies", Theo van Gogh should not have been allowed to make "Submission (part 1)", Geert Wilders should not have been allowed to make "Fitna", the guys from South Park should not have been allowed to make the "Muhammed Bear" episode, cartoonist Molly Norris should not have been allowed to create "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day", and Robert Spencer should not be allowed to continue to run Jihad Watch.

You know what would achieve that? *Islamic Blasphemy laws*.

More:

Just because Nakoula claims to be christian doesn't by default put him on our side, have you forgotten George Habash, or Sirhan Sirhan.
...........................

Grotesque calumny. As though daring to create a movie criticizing Muslim violence makes one a violent islamochristian.

More:

So what did you think of Copper Kids film ?
...........................

I thought it was quite good over all. The animation is pretty primitive, but the message is nontheles handled pretty well.

The fact that he decides to deal with one particular incident—Muhammed's forcing his adopted son's divorce so he could marry his own daughter-in-law, and the consequences that would have for adoption in the Muslim world ever after wards—makes it more effective than if he had attempted to tackle all of Muhammed's crimes in a short piece.

I will look for more of the Copper Kid's work, and would definitely recommend his short piece to others. I would urge readers here to watch the film, which is why I reposted your link.

The odd thing, though, is *how very similar* the Copper Kid's piece is to "The Innocence of Muslims". That same incident is covered in Nakoula's film.

All in all, I consider the Copper Kid's film to be somewhat better produced than Nakoula's, but otherwise consider them quite similar.

The Copper Kid also depicts Muhammed as a thug and a charlatan, and I see no reason to think that pious Muslims would find his cartoon any less "blasphemous" than Nakoula's film.

More:

BTW how does the link to Infidels Blogger Alliance prove that I am a muslim? that really puzzles me.
...........................

How disingenuous. Your linking to the Infidels Blogger Alliance hardly proves you are a Muslim, nor did I ever say it did.

But the rest of your equivocal posts—including those on this thread—certainly cast ample doubt on your intentions in posting here.

And I never said you were necessarily a Muslim—I said you were a Muslim apologist.

Your posts here have been all over the map—some have seemed reasonably Anti-Jihad, but many present as exactly the opposite.

At best you appear to be deeply confused. At worst—with your urging that we muzzle and even imprison those that stand up against Jihad—you would leave us completely unable to defend against the depredations of Islam.

LL said
Gunung apparently is trying to argue that insulting Muslims should be suppressed:

If that is true, then why am I not calling for Geert Wilders etc to be jailed. Which I would never do. Wilder is an exceptionally honest and brave man who made an excellent film about islam, he has a long history of combatting Islam.

None of this matters. 100% of the blame is still on the shoulders of Muslims who threaten violence and who actually do violence and riot and kill over "offences"

So those that deliberately incite them to violence should go scott free.

The question is, why does Gunung care enough about Muslim sensibilities to want to spare them "offense" by calling for us to limit our free speech?

Where have I shown care for muslims, if they want to riot and kill each other, they are more than welcome, the only concern is children are going to suffer.

My concern is dishonest men, like Nakoula, makes a film for the purpose of stirring up the muslims.

It is ok for you to talk about unlimited free speech, how many times do you stop and consider the people who live under the threat of islamic violence, you don't. If you did then you would look at the motives of those who criticise Islam, and Nakoula,s character does not lend support that his motives where honest.

Wasn't one of his partners a Palistinian, that was suspected of sending money to either Hamas or Hezbollah????

Gunung is correct about some Copts

And that some included the late Pope Shenadou, thus the some is rather a large some.

tending toward dhimmitude. Ironic because I think he suffers from the same dhimmitude

You and Graven image really miss the point. most of the commentators here are only preaching to the already converted, most of you who debate with family and friends will notice they turn off. Tone it down and folks will listen.

1) his tendency toward equivalency (which you teased out nicely from his text)

So it had to be teased out (manipulated) with additions/ommissions.)

2) his tendency to refrain from blaming Muslims 100%

I have stated I do not trust muslim, but most muslims are islamist, and there main concern is to live from one day to the next.

3) his tendency to see Jews everywhere (remember his little "slip" about the Jews of Mecca?) -- a tendency all too common among Middle Eastern islamochristians

So the dhimmified Western christians are better, especially with their good friday prayers

BTW, even the owner of this site does not blame all muslims, in fact if I recall correct he has had one helping with this site, and you have been here long enough to be aware of this. Also he his a middle eastern christian

He has said that among moderate Muslims, "there are some who are genuinely trying to frame a theory and practice of Islam that will allow for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals.

Spencer has also said he would welcome any Muslim who renounces jihad and dhimmitude to join in his "anti-jihadist efforts"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html

So how am I a Dhimmi, and Mr Spencer is not

Now give me proof that Nakoula is not a muslim or a islamic tool.

What other reason other than antisemitism to claim he was jewish.

"So those that deliberately incite them to violence should go scott free."

Yes, they should. Your statement shows you just don't know what freedom is.

Yes, they should. Your statement shows you just don't know what freedom is.

And your statement just goes to show how little you understand islam.

Gunung,

You are misplacing responsibility. If you live behind enemy lines as you say, and the enemy has a habit of murdering random non-Muslim people over completely harmless films (like the Innocence of Muslims), or the enemy murders random non-Muslim people if the filmmaker or critic is perceived as a Jew, then the problem lies entirely amongst the enemy in which you have immersed yourself.

The solution, therefore, is not to censor films or punish filmmakers, etc., but it is to fix the problems where you live. Given current trends and the soft stance against Islam shown by our leaders, media, etc., fixing the Islam problems where you live might take several hundred years if you are in a country that has a large Muslim majority. Therefore the practical solution is for you to get the hell out of whatever Islamic hell-hole you are in.

The solution is NOT to tinker with freedom of expression in the West, which is already imperiled due to politicians and the media etc. being willing to make precisely the kinds of concessions to Islam that you recommend.

The solution is NOT to surrender our freedoms in the West on the completely misguided and naive belief--which you seem to hold to steadfastly in spite of tons of evidence to the contrary--that doing so will protect innocent random people living in Muslim countries from being murdered by raging mobs of Muslims who fancy themselves to be film critics.

The solution is more and better expressions attacking Islam and its rapist, pedophile, enslaver, mass murderer, liar, racist, misogynist, homophobe, plunderer, extortionist Muhammad.

It occurs to me that your position re the filmmaker is actually (though perhaps unintentionally) even more protective of Islam than Obama's and Hilary's, which, frankly, is not a good place to be.

Gunung's latest post reveals to us the fact that, in non-Muslims - individuals or groups - inside dar al Islam (whether they be 'free' visitors of some kind, or whether they are people who have been captured on non-Muslim turf by Muslim raiders and dragged inside dar al Islam [like Gilad Shalit was] or whether they are dhimmis de facto or de jure, the remnants of the indigenes of a land invaded and seized by Muslims) are basically hostages in esse or in posse.

So long as these minority groups have co-religionists *outside* of dar al Islam, co-religionists who are in touch with them and sympathise with them, the Muslims have the option of using their 'captive infidels' to emotionally, politically and financially blackmail those other infidels who do not yet formally live under Muslim rule.

"Do as we want" scream the Muslims to the Christians in the Infidel world, "or BAD THINGS will happen to the Christian minorities inside dar al Islam!!".

The paradigm is precisely that of the kidnapper-for-ransom, the mafioso or pirate who kidnaps someone and then demands enormous sums of money from the family.

I think it's time we recognised this hostage/ holding-to-ransom game, the emotional and financial and poltical blackmail that the Ummah is playing, for what it is: and **stopped playing**.

What was peculiar about Gunung's post was that he seems to have freely *admitted* to being in some sense a hostage.

And I think that - if he is *able* to leave, if he is not actually held prisoner - then he should take your advice and...leave. Because then the part of dar al Islam where he currently is, will have one less potential hostage.

It's not often I would disagree with you, dda, but in this instance I don't believe that semeru's demands that we stifle free speech in order to protect non-muslims in muslim countries is motivated by a somewhat disingenuous desire to protect non-muslims from harm. (I totally agree with you on what you say about not giving in to such demands).

I think it's a sly appeal to our 'better nature'. If we are really decent people, then we will refrain from criticising islam in any way, because that will make muslims hurt non-muslims. So decent people will then voluntarily self-censor themselves, which will in turn aid the jihad.

Neither Nakoula or Terry pastor Jones are spreading awareness of Islam.
It's called free speech. Nakoula used the koran as script. If anything is offensive than it must be the koran. I can make similiar movies from the bible and they would not be offensive because the bible is not offensive. Just look at you tube to see freedom of speech.

I wish I can make a film that exposes the human scum that was muhammed. ust my little contribution to the world to show my disgust for muhammed, islam ,and the koran.

Nakoula to me is hero. he did something that he should be proud of specially without a good budget. He did more than what many us would do.

If the muslims want to riot, let them, they should know how much their religion is hated. How much can they riot? can they burn down their own islamic countries? I wouldn't mind.