‘Anti-Islam’ film spurs U.S. embassy, consulate attacks in Cairo, Benghazi

[JohnR! 5,495]

Of course the investigation is ongoing in Libya. I wouldn't expect the nascent Libyan government to have anything near the capabilities of the U.S. government, though, to fully investigate (or even to control such violent groups.) That's why the U.S. has its own investigators on the ground there.

However, the other question that U.S. investigators will want to answer is: were the filmmakers actively involved in tipping off in advance the groups who carried out the attacks, with the intention of causing violence timed to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11 ? This question needs to be answered, or it will likely happen again, and again, and again.

I would be wiling to bet money the filmmakers are more than satisfied with the results of their production. If they wanted to rile up Muslims and incite violence I am sure they never expected the results they obtained.

I am sure this was not the last time something like this happened. However, it will only stop happening when people realize that by reacting with violence they are doing precisely what is expected of them.

In this case, whoever is behind the movie and whatever their machinations, they won. The world would have won had their movie been discarded and disregarded.

Here is a way to look at it. I would not consider nor call the movie anti-Islam because it does not depict Islam in any way, shape of form. Other than the fact the characters have Muslim names, nothing the movie depicts is truly Muslim, IMHO. It is not what they call you, so much as to what you answer that matters, and in this instance Muslims were played and answered a call that was not theirs to be heeded.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

This is a google map of the protests going on today against the anti-Islam film. It involves over 20 countries. In Tunisia 2 people are dead and 29 others are injured.

Google Map of Protests

[abner137 48]

This is a google map of the protests going on today against the anti-Islam film. It involves over 20 countries. In Tunisia 2 people are dead and 29 others are injured.

Google Map of Protests

Looks like a good map for a missile strike....

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I would be wiling to bet money the filmmakers are more than satisfied with the results of their production. If they wanted to rile up Muslims and incite violence I am sure they never expected the results they obtained.

I am sure this was not the last time something like this happened. However, it will only stop happening when people realize that by reacting with violence they are doing precisely what is expected of them.

In this case, whoever is behind the movie and whatever their machinations, they won. The world would have won had their movie been discarded and disregarded.

Here is a way to look at it. I would not consider nor call the movie anti-Islam because it does not depict Islam in any way, shape of form. Other than the fact the characters have Muslim names, nothing the movie depicts is truly Muslim, IMHO. It is not what they call you, so much as to what you answer that matters, and in this instance Muslims were played and answered a call that was not theirs to be heeded.

I would agree with you that whoever is behind the film is happy with the results of their production. However I'm not sure sure "they never expected the results;" in fact they may have anticipated it and even enabled it - the question still remaining "Did they directly tip off Salafist groups in order to give them time to prepare the attack ?"

The film is clearly intended to target Islam. The title of the film itself refers to Muslims, and the names in the over-dubbed soundtrack are quite famous names associated with the Prophet and well known to any Muslim. No, of course it's not "truly Muslim;" it's a crude, leering attempt intended to mock Muslims and their religion with a series of smirking sex scenarios suggesting homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality, alternating with interludes of violence.

You need to be aware that the groups leading the violent protests are not random Muslims off the street. From reports so far, they are all specifically Salafist groups, some of whom may be associated with al Qaeda, or may be al Qaeda wannabes. Most people in these countries are not violently protesting, and many realize exactly how the filmmakers hope to manipulate them. If you read the reactions from many Islamic groups in the Middle East, you will see lots of their leaders advising people not to play into what the filmmakers obviously wanted - a violent reaction.

But you have to understand that the groups leading the violence don't really care about all that - they are not being manipulated; they are using the film as an excuse to carry out their existing agendas. In particular, the group in Libya seems to have known in advance that the Arabic version of the film was about to uploaded, because their plan of attack was quite involved and would take preparation in advance. Some people keep trying to peddle this as "spontaneous reaction to a film" when it is anything but.

This is where the whole thing gets so suspicious - who uploaded an Arabic version of the film just a few days before 9/11, and who tipped off Salafist groups in the Middle East so that they might organize violent protests and even attacks on American targets, all timed to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary ?

And how did an obscure Egyptian-American Coptic-Christian organization suddenly get flush with cash to whip up this film so quickly ? For instance, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula apparently never had anything to do with films before, and had just gotten out of jail shortly before the film began production. Follow the money trail, and follow the links to the Salafist groups - that's where the story could get real interesting.

[dalegg 143]

I better not see any protesters without beards.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

This is a google map of the protests going on today against the anti-Islam film. It involves over 20 countries. In Tunisia 2 people are dead and 29 others are injured.

Google Map of Protests

Have you seen the movie? What is your opinion of it?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Have you seen the movie? What is your opinion of it?

Much like the rest of the world I haven't seen the full length movie nor plan to from what I have seen of it. It's amateur and I knew from the clips that it would be incredibly offensive and have an explosive reaction like we're seeing. I also knew today would be a hard day for much of the world because of the calls for protests after the prayers. It's been an emotionally difficult week for me over this. Not just on the home front but in my professional life as well it's shaken things up. At first I was shocked over the breach at the US Embassy in Cairo. Then the day before yesterday was a sad day and hard to take when getting the news of the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. I knew Wednesday night an Ambassador and consular had died and where this was heading. I couldn't think clearly afterwards nor function very well that day. I watched as Senior Diplomats the world round were blindsided by this and gave a very human reaction to it and I felt our own nation still in mourning from 9/11 with grief piled on top of it. September 11th is always hard for me every year and I still tear up when I see the footage of it. I'm adjusting to everything as we learn more details, and I'm watching as the calls for protests spread across the globe, and as multiple bomb threats are being made on our own soil today because of this. I am also disheartened to see who stands with us and who hasn't stood by us and wondering where are the people in their own countries not only condemning the movie but denouncing the use of violence. At the end of this week my nerves are a bit raw like the layers of an onion being peeled back. I'm hoping this will all calm down soon and that no more lives are taken because of it and no more damage done.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Dr. A ♥ O

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

And how did an obscure Egyptian-American Coptic-Christian organization suddenly get flush with cash to whip up this film so quickly ? For instance, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula apparently never had anything to do with films before, and had just gotten out of jail shortly before the film began production. Follow the money trail, and follow the links to the Salafist groups - that's where the story could get real interesting.

Like anyone I am curious about the movie.. but the maker is not relevant to the actions taken... I think the onion summed it up the best (do not click if you are easily offended)

Edited September 14, 2012 by OnMyWayID

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I would be wiling to bet money the filmmakers are more than satisfied with the results of their production. If they wanted to rile up Muslims and incite violence I am sure they never expected the results they obtained.

I am sure this was not the last time something like this happened. However, it will only stop happening when people realize that by reacting with violence they are doing precisely what is expected of them.

In this case, whoever is behind the movie and whatever their machinations, they won. The world would have won had their movie been discarded and disregarded.

Here is a way to look at it. I would not consider nor call the movie anti-Islam because it does not depict Islam in any way, shape of form. Other than the fact the characters have Muslim names, nothing the movie depicts is truly Muslim, IMHO. It is not what they call you, so much as to what you answer that matters, and in this instance Muslims were played and answered a call that was not theirs to be heeded.

How many ppl have you killed based on movies you've seen?

[Confused 2 94]

The squawks of protest that anyone would want to take a closer look at the filmmakers or who funded them (or who may have deliberately fed Salafist groups in Egypt and in Libya an Arabic translation, timed to coincide with 9/11) are right along the lines of Pamela Geller's response to Alex Kane, when asked about it. From the Mondoweiss link:

I haven't gone to have a look over at Atlas Shrugged, but I would not be surprised if she has a column up with the same sort of reasoning that's been repeated by some people here.

I would not be surprised if you were able to turn that into a 'Islam hating' philosophy too.

[JohnR! 5,495]

How many ppl have you killed based on movies you've seen?

Do you know the way to San Jose?

[Confused 2 94]

I also think it is silly to get destructive or violent over a movie, or a cartoon, etc.

My question about the film and the filmmakers is: did one of the people connected with the film deliberately try to incite violence to coincide with the 9/11 anniversary by uploading it in Arabic in the days just before 9/11, and then informing Salafist (possibly AQ) groups about it so that they could plan an attack ? This would be very disturbing, and this is what investigators will try to find out.

There was a long quiet period between the time the film was made and uploaded in English (which happened last summer) and the sudden, intense new activity beginning earlier this month with the uploading of the Arabic version accompanied by press releases sent out to news media across the Arab world, in the days shortly before 9/11. This is what's suspicious - especially considering that the attack in Libya appears to be pre-planned, rather than a spontaneous reaction to the film.

Oh! #######'ever. Monsters need any reason (even non existant) to justify their need for violence and obviously, there is no dearth of idiots who will fall for it or worse,Bigots, who will defend the same violence by proclaiming it to be someone else's fault. There are 100s of films made in the world. Muslims are known to deface, destroy any other religious sites/artefacts or just simply not recognize an existance, they are known to resort to violence, torture, Jihad for any reason/non reason and YET, it is all justified because 'it is only a handful of them' while the rest of the followers of 'anti' anything every other peace lover understands, go on defending those terrorists.

My blood boils at the thought that these monsters are allowed a life, freedom and status in America which they clearly detest and openly show. Throw these sorry @sses where they belong so they would be happy clearly (their kind of people) and we would be happy for the riddance.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

How many ppl have you killed based on movies you've seen?

Natural Born Killers

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh! #######'ever. Monsters need any reason (even non existant) to justify their need for violence and obviously, there is no dearth of idiots who will fall for it or worse,Bigots, who will defend the same violence by proclaiming it to be someone else's fault. There are 100s of films made in the world. Muslims are known to deface, destroy any other religious sites/artefacts or just simply not recognize an existance, they are known to resort to violence, torture, Jihad for any reason/non reason and YET, it is all justified because 'it is only a handful of them' while the rest of the followers of 'anti' anything every other peace lover understands, go on defending those terrorists.

My blood boils at the thought that these monsters are allowed a life, freedom and status in America which they clearly detest and openly show. Throw these sorry @sses where they belong so they would be happy clearly (their kind of people) and we would be happy for the riddance.

India must face up to Hindu terrorism

India's anti-minorities bias is so strong that it has failed to acknowledge the threat posed by Hindu radicalism

The Indian state's pro-Hindu stance has left it unwilling to tackle Hindu extremism.

For far too long, the enduring response of the Indian establishment to Hindu nationalists has rarely surpassed mild scorn. Their organised violent eruptions across the country – slaughtering Muslims and Christians, destroying their places of worship, cutting open pregnant wombs – never seemed sufficient enough to the state to cast them as a meaningful threat to India's national security.

But the recently leaked confession of a repentant Hindu priest, Swami Aseemanand, confirms what India's security establishment should have uncovered: a series of blasts between 2006 and 2008 were carried out by Hindu outfits. The attacks targeted a predominantly Muslim town and places of Muslim worship elsewhere. Their victims were primarily Muslim. Yet the reflexive reaction of the police was to round up young Muslim men, torture them, extract confessions and declare the cases solved.

Pundits now conduct cautious enquiries on television. Does this revelation mean India is now under attack by "Hindu terrorism"? But to treat this as a new phenomenon is to overlook the bulky corpus of terrorist violence in India that has its roots in explicitly Hindu-political grievances. Why is the attack on a Jewish centre in Mumbai by Pakistani gunmen an example of "Islamic terrorism", but the slaughter of a thousand Muslims by sword-wielding Hindus in Gujarat in 2002 not proof of "Hindu terrorism", particularly when the purpose of the violence was to establish an Hindu state in India? How do we describe attacks on churches, the kidnappings of pastors, the burning to death of a missionary? What do we make of the war-cry pehle kasai, phir isai: first the butchers (Muslims), then the Christians? What has prompted this debate over "Hindu terrorism" is not Aseemanand's confession: it is the fact that, in carrying out their violence, his accomplices appropriated methods which, in popular imagination, have become associated exclusively with Islamic terrorism. Detonating bombs in crowded areas: isn't that what Muslims do?

It is when you look at the reactions to non-Hindu extremism that you absorb how strongly majoritarian assumptions inform the state and society's conduct in India. In 2002, the Indian government banned the radical Muslim group Simi (Students' Islamic Movement of India) citing the group's charter, which seeks to establish sharia rule in India, and the terror charges some of its members were facing. But the Hindu radical outfit RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or the National Volunteer Corps) remains open for business – even though it campaigns, very openly, for a Hindu state in India, and its members incite and perpetrate violence against Muslim and Christian minorities. Mahatma Gandhi's assassin was a member of the RSS, as are Aseemanand and his confreres. To get an idea of which of the two groups poses a more immediate threat to India, consider this: the government that banned Simi was headed by the BJP, the political wing of the RSS.

The principal cause of Hindu radicalism, much like its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan, is the partition of India in 1947. The departing British hacked India apart to accommodate the Muslim League's demand for an exclusive homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims – and so, the Hindu nationalist logic runs, the territory that remained should logically be identified as the land of Hindus. If Pakistan's Muslim majoritarianism crystallised around the bogey of "Hindu raj", the Hindu nationalist project thrives by casting the burden of partition on India's Muslim minorities – fifth columnists whose coreligionists tore India apart by claiming, in spite of a millennium-long sojourn in India, to be foreigners by virtue of their faith.

For all the saffron calumny, it is impossible to find a community more emphatically committed to India than its Muslims. India's Hindus never had to make a choice. The Muslims did. Consider what an ordinary Muslim family in 1947 would have had to deal with: terrified by the violence that the partition had unleashed, their coreligionists were fleeing in the millions to Pakistan; Hindu and Sikh fanatics were actively seeking out Muslims for slaughter and rape; the possibility of being betrayed by neighbours and friends was far from remote. Sardar Patel, the second most powerful functionary in the Indian government, was openly hostile to Muslims – hostility which no doubt would have been seen by many Hindus as tacit endorsement of their actions. Amidst all this, the sole authoritative source of reassurance would have been the distant pledges of a better tomorrow by Jawaharlal Nehru. The Muslims who remained, who refused to vacate the hell that was India despite the blandishments of paradise next door in Pakistan, affirmed their faith in India with their lives.

After all this, it is staggering that the Hindu right gets away so easily by routinely humiliating Indian Muslims. From demographics to diet, personal laws to places of worship, Muslims are suspect in everything they do. Adding a dash of foreign authority, glamour and fuel to this unbridled bigotry is the lavatorial "scholarship" of frustrated European converts to Hinduism such as François Gautier and Koenraad Elst. Misfits in their own societies, they have flourished by exploiting communal tensions in a miserably poor country. What the Muslims did to Hindus was worse than the Jewish Holocaust explains one, while the other warns Hindus that they are being outbred by Muslims. The JNU historian Tanika Sarkar was perhaps right in identifying "####### envy and anxiety about emasculation" among the principal reasons for anti-Muslim bigotry.

The Indian state has failed appallingly in its obligations to Muslim citizens. There are 150 million Muslims in India, but as the government's own figures show, only 4% are graduates, 5% have public employment, an overwhelming majority remain locked out of public institutions, and their access to government loans and education is severely restricted. If this institutional exclusion should breed resentment, and the resentment produce violence, no one will hesitate to call it another instance of Islamic terrorism. But when self-pitying Hindus massacre minorities and detonate bombs in the midst of Muslim crowds, we are expected to be polite. No, let us call it what it actually is: Hindu terrorism.

[Confused 2 94]

India must face up to Hindu terrorism

India's anti-minorities bias is so strong that it has failed to acknowledge the threat posed by Hindu radicalism

The Indian state's pro-Hindu stance has left it unwilling to tackle Hindu extremism.

For far too long, the enduring response of the Indian establishment to Hindu nationalists has rarely surpassed mild scorn. Their organised violent eruptions across the country – slaughtering Muslims and Christians, destroying their places of worship, cutting open pregnant wombs – never seemed sufficient enough to the state to cast them as a meaningful threat to India's national security.

But the recently leaked confession of a repentant Hindu priest, Swami Aseemanand, confirms what India's security establishment should have uncovered: a series of blasts between 2006 and 2008 were carried out by Hindu outfits. The attacks targeted a predominantly Muslim town and places of Muslim worship elsewhere. Their victims were primarily Muslim. Yet the reflexive reaction of the police was to round up young Muslim men, torture them, extract confessions and declare the cases solved.

Pundits now conduct cautious enquiries on television. Does this revelation mean India is now under attack by "Hindu terrorism"? But to treat this as a new phenomenon is to overlook the bulky corpus of terrorist violence in India that has its roots in explicitly Hindu-political grievances. Why is the attack on a Jewish centre in Mumbai by Pakistani gunmen an example of "Islamic terrorism", but the slaughter of a thousand Muslims by sword-wielding Hindus in Gujarat in 2002 not proof of "Hindu terrorism", particularly when the purpose of the violence was to establish an Hindu state in India? How do we describe attacks on churches, the kidnappings of pastors, the burning to death of a missionary? What do we make of the war-cry pehle kasai, phir isai: first the butchers (Muslims), then the Christians? What has prompted this debate over "Hindu terrorism" is not Aseemanand's confession: it is the fact that, in carrying out their violence, his accomplices appropriated methods which, in popular imagination, have become associated exclusively with Islamic terrorism. Detonating bombs in crowded areas: isn't that what Muslims do?

It is when you look at the reactions to non-Hindu extremism that you absorb how strongly majoritarian assumptions inform the state and society's conduct in India. In 2002, the Indian government banned the radical Muslim group Simi (Students' Islamic Movement of India) citing the group's charter, which seeks to establish sharia rule in India, and the terror charges some of its members were facing. But the Hindu radical outfit RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or the National Volunteer Corps) remains open for business – even though it campaigns, very openly, for a Hindu state in India, and its members incite and perpetrate violence against Muslim and Christian minorities. Mahatma Gandhi's assassin was a member of the RSS, as are Aseemanand and his confreres. To get an idea of which of the two groups poses a more immediate threat to India, consider this: the government that banned Simi was headed by the BJP, the political wing of the RSS.

The principal cause of Hindu radicalism, much like its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan, is the partition of India in 1947. The departing British hacked India apart to accommodate the Muslim League's demand for an exclusive homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims – and so, the Hindu nationalist logic runs, the territory that remained should logically be identified as the land of Hindus. If Pakistan's Muslim majoritarianism crystallised around the bogey of "Hindu raj", the Hindu nationalist project thrives by casting the burden of partition on India's Muslim minorities – fifth columnists whose coreligionists tore India apart by claiming, in spite of a millennium-long sojourn in India, to be foreigners by virtue of their faith.

For all the saffron calumny, it is impossible to find a community more emphatically committed to India than its Muslims. India's Hindus never had to make a choice. The Muslims did. Consider what an ordinary Muslim family in 1947 would have had to deal with: terrified by the violence that the partition had unleashed, their coreligionists were fleeing in the millions to Pakistan; Hindu and Sikh fanatics were actively seeking out Muslims for slaughter and rape; the possibility of being betrayed by neighbours and friends was far from remote. Sardar Patel, the second most powerful functionary in the Indian government, was openly hostile to Muslims – hostility which no doubt would have been seen by many Hindus as tacit endorsement of their actions. Amidst all this, the sole authoritative source of reassurance would have been the distant pledges of a better tomorrow by Jawaharlal Nehru. The Muslims who remained, who refused to vacate the hell that was India despite the blandishments of paradise next door in Pakistan, affirmed their faith in India with their lives.

After all this, it is staggering that the Hindu right gets away so easily by routinely humiliating Indian Muslims. From demographics to diet, personal laws to places of worship, Muslims are suspect in everything they do. Adding a dash of foreign authority, glamour and fuel to this unbridled bigotry is the lavatorial "scholarship" of frustrated European converts to Hinduism such as François Gautier and Koenraad Elst. Misfits in their own societies, they have flourished by exploiting communal tensions in a miserably poor country. What the Muslims did to Hindus was worse than the Jewish Holocaust explains one, while the other warns Hindus that they are being outbred by Muslims. The JNU historian Tanika Sarkar was perhaps right in identifying "####### envy and anxiety about emasculation" among the principal reasons for anti-Muslim bigotry.

The Indian state has failed appallingly in its obligations to Muslim citizens. There are 150 million Muslims in India, but as the government's own figures show, only 4% are graduates, 5% have public employment, an overwhelming majority remain locked out of public institutions, and their access to government loans and education is severely restricted. If this institutional exclusion should breed resentment, and the resentment produce violence, no one will hesitate to call it another instance of Islamic terrorism. But when self-pitying Hindus massacre minorities and detonate bombs in the midst of Muslim crowds, we are expected to be polite. No, let us call it what it actually is: Hindu terrorism.

Read some REAL news if you are going to cite examples!!!! JNU is a pro communist university that will use any piece of (mis)information and turn it into an issue. You are so right to use JNU example