Anti-U.S. Protests in the Muslim World

[MediumTex]

I have been reading about these protests that were apparently triggered by the anti-Islam film made by a guy who lives in California that has a trailer for it posted on YouTube.

I would like to tell these protesters a few things:

1. What an individual U.S. citizen does has nothing to do with the U.S. government policy, and vice versa.  If you don't like the guy's film, why don't you protest in front of his house?

2. Has it occurred to you that burning down embassies might be just as offensive to the U.S. as a stupid film about Islam is to you?

3. Have you considered just not watching things that bother you so much?  Wouldn't that also be a good way to deal with a film that you find offensive?

4. What do you want the U.S. government to do about this film?  Are you aware that it is illegal in the U.S. to ban offensive material of this type?

5. Do you realize that acting this way about a propaganda film actually strengthens the message in the propaganda film and gives it vastly more exposure than if you had just ignored it?  If someone makes a film saying Muslims are crazy and Muslims act crazy after seeing the film, do you see how that looks to an observer?

Just some stuff that crossed my mind while looking at the news.

[Pointedstick]

I tend to think that protesters of any type are generally pretty stupid and misinformed by by virtue of their belief that protesting has any kind of positive effect on anything. Add a little rioting, arson, and murder into the mix, and you're looking at some truly brainless morons.

I say let them burn their country to the ground if they want. Maybe they'll grow up eventually, like some teenagers need to crash their parents' car and get knocked up before they really gain any maturity.

[stone]

I guess this is EXACTLY what whoever made the film wanted. To break the moronic loop, we at least can refuse to rise to any of the baits.

[Reub]

Funny, this stuff wasn't happening in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia until the wonderful Arab Spring occurred.

Also, this got my attention:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... -Filmmaker

This from the article by John Nolte:

"You see, if we blame the movie for the Middle East burning, we won't blame the Islamists who are doing the burning and looting and raping and murdering.

Which means we won't further connect the dots and blame Obama's failed Middle East policy; the Obama Doctrine of backing away from the region and allowing events to unfold as America stands idly by -- as the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood grab hold of power in Egypt, a country that was once our largest and closest ally.

Blame the filmmaker.

Hunt him.

Out him.

Demonize him."

The author then goes on to talk about how comedian Bill Maher, who gave a million dollars to Obama's campaign, has also made anti-Islam films. Oh, the brilliant irony!

[stone]

The "protests" are deranged. They are not "Islamic", they are about hatred of "The West". If we respond to hatred with more hatred, we will only make things worse.
Let's just treat everyone with humanity.

[KevinW]

I have been reading about these protests that were apparently triggered by the anti-Islam film made by a guy who lives in California that has a trailer for it posted on YouTube.

I would like to tell these protesters a few things:

1. What an individual U.S. citizen does has nothing to do with the U.S. government policy, and vice versa.  If you don't like the guy's film, why don't you protest in front of his house?

2. Has it occurred to you that burning down embassies might be just as offensive to the U.S. as a stupid film about Islam is to you?

3. Have you considered just not watching things that bother you so much?  Wouldn't that also be a good way to deal with a film that you find offensive?

4. What do you want the U.S. government to do about this film?  Are you aware that it is illegal in the U.S. to ban offensive material of this type?

5. Do you realize that acting this way about a propaganda film actually strengthens the message in the propaganda film and gives it vastly more exposure than if you had just ignored it?  If someone makes a film saying Muslims are crazy and Muslims act crazy after seeing the film, do you see how that looks to an observer?

Just some stuff that crossed my mind while looking at the news.

Those were my reactions too.

But then I was thinking, if you've lived your whole life under a fascist fundamentalist theocracy with a state-run propaganda media, then

1. What an individual U.S. citizen does has nothing to do with the U.S. government policy, and vice versa.  If you don't like the guy's film, why don't you protest in front of his house?

might actually be a foreign concept. You know, the idea that private companies can broadcast video without very much oversight by the state, and that individuals could freely post their own creations without very much oversight from that company.

But, murder is always wrong. Bleh.

[dualstow]

These people have not even seen the film. I have no doubt that more Westerners have reviewed it, noticed how ridiculous and obnoxious it is, and moved on. However, it was translated into Arabic, and copied to enough places where the right people would see it and promptly stir things up with the angry masses.

I've had enough of the middle east. My wife possesses more logic than most of the population of the M.E., and that's saying something.

I did find it curious that the realty agency the filmmaker claims to belong to has no record of him. Same thing with Israel- he claimed to originally be from there, but supposedly there's no record. I'll have to follow up on that.

It's a good year to own the Permanent Portfolio.

[Tortoise]

+1, MT.

I saw in the news that the White House has contacted Google more than once to request that they stop hosting the offensive movie on their servers. Google refused. That's a good thing; if they had complied, it would have been a form of censorship and a step backwards for freedom.

So someone made a film caricaturing Muslims as crazy and violent, then Muslims all over the Middle East promptly respond by rioting and murdering, thus confirming the caricature. Perfect.

[dualstow]

+1, MT.

I saw in the news that the White House has contacted Google more than once to request that they stop hosting the offensive movie on their servers. Google refused. That's a good thing; if they had complied, it would have been a form of censorship and a step backwards for freedom.

As of an hour ago, Bloomberg writes:

YouTube blocked access to the clip in Egypt and Libya following attacks on the U.S. missions in those countries. The company said yesterday it would restrict access in India and Indonesia to comply with local laws. It isn’t clear whether a full-length movie exists.

I don't have a problem with that.

So someone made a film caricaturing Muslims as crazy and violent, then Muslims all over the Middle East promptly respond by rioting and murdering, thus confirming the caricature. Perfect.

Kind of ironic, isn't it? Oh, if Gandhi were alive today.
---
Edit: source for the Bloomberg quote is http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-1 ... probe.html
Filmmaker is a Coptic Christian?

[dualstow]

Filmmaker is a Coptic Christian?

I couldn't resist peeking in a white supremacist forum to see what those knuckleheads had to say about it (it's a strange occasional vice of mine, akin to pulling on a sore tooth). Unsurprisingly, they are not fooled by the Coptic Christian news. Oh no. They know who's behind it all.  :-\

[Tortoise]

I saw in the news that the White House has contacted Google more than once to request that they stop hosting the offensive movie on their servers. Google refused. That's a good thing; if they had complied, it would have been a form of censorship and a step backwards for freedom.

As of an hour ago, Bloomberg writes:

YouTube blocked access to the clip in Egypt and Libya following attacks on the U.S. missions in those countries. The company said yesterday it would restrict access in India and Indonesia to comply with local laws. It isn’t clear whether a full-length movie exists.

I don't have a problem with that.

Edit: source for the Bloomberg quote is http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-1 ... probe.html

Sorry, I should have clarified that Google rejected the White House request to shut down that video entirely. They indeed shut it down in certain foreign countries, as you pointed out, to comply with local law. But the video is still accessible in the U.S., among other places:

"Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip"

Google said was [sic] further restricting the clip to comply with local law rather than as a response to political pressure.

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/1 ... MD20120914

[MediumTex]

I sort of feel sorry for people who have nothing better to do than burn things down and hurt other people because of their interpretation of a story about something that happened 1,400 years ago.  (I would say the same thing about people who do such things because of a story about something that happened 2,000 years ago as well.)

It seems like such people would be better off with no religion at all rather than with a religion that made them feel justified in killing others, destroying property, etc. because of the content of a film that almost no one has actually seen.  At least in the U.S., when we see rioters doing these things no one pretends that they are doing it because God wants them to.

I understand that this is about more than a film, but the film was apparently the catalyst.

[Tyler]

I understand that this is about more than a film, but the film was apparently the catalyst.

Celebrating the anniversary of the WTC attacks by destroying embassies and murdering Americans was the motivation.  Blaming a YouTube video that's been out for weeks is simply the excuse for shifting the blame from terrorists to an "evil" American.

[moda0306]

Not cry straw man here, but has anyone actually blamed the film/filmmaker/US for the attacks?  Seems to me that most people believe the movie to be only loosely related to the attacks

[FarmerD]

Not cry straw man here, but has anyone actually blamed the film/filmmaker/US for the attacks?  Seems to me that most people believe the movie to be only loosely related to the attacks

Sure sounded to me like Hillary Clinton and the Cairo Embassy blamed the film.  The Obama administration definitely wants the narrative that spontaneous riots happened all across the middle east In response to a film.  The alternative explanation is that the riots were carefully planned to happen on 11Sept and Obama's state dept failed to take adequate steps to protect the embassies.  My understanding is that only locals were used to protect the embassies rather than marines.  If true, there needs to be a bunch of State Dept officials fired ASAP for complete derelection of duty.

[Storm]

Not cry straw man here, but has anyone actually blamed the film/filmmaker/US for the attacks?  Seems to me that most people believe the movie to be only loosely related to the attacks

Sure sounded to me like Hillary Clinton and the Cairo Embassy blamed the film.  The Obama administration definitely wants the narrative that spontaneous riots happened all across the middle east In response to a film.  The alternative explanation is that the riots were carefully planned to happen on 11Sept and Obama's state dept failed to take adequate steps to protect the embassies.  My understanding is that only locals were used to protect the embassies rather than marines.  If true, there needs to be a bunch of State Dept officials fired ASAP for complete derelection of duty.

Perhaps you missed the memo...  It is the responsbility of the hosting nation to ensure that foreign embassies are safe from roaming groups of lawless thugs.  You see, if hundreds of rioters are marching on any foreign embassy, who has the power to stop them?  That's right, the local police force does.  This is a clear failure of the Libyan government, that's all.  Perhaps someone in the US embassy in Libya might have noticed that the local authorities were in cahoots with the muslim fundamentalists... but, really, think about it for a minute:  If the Chinese embassy in DC was attacked by hundreds of protesters and a Chinese ambassador was killed, who would you blame?  That's right, the Washington DC police who failed to stop the riots.

[Pointedstick]

Perhaps you missed the memo...  It is the responsbility of the hosting nation to ensure that foreign embassies are safe from roaming groups of lawless thugs.  You see, if hundreds of rioters are marching on any foreign embassy, who has the power to stop them?  That's right, the local police force does.  This is a clear failure of the Libyan government, that's all.  Perhaps someone in the US embassy in Libya might have noticed that the local authorities were in cahoots with the muslim fundamentalists... but, really, think about it for a minute:  If the Chinese embassy in DC was attacked by hundreds of protesters and a Chinese ambassador was killed, who would you blame?  That's right, the Washington DC police who failed to stop the riots.

All the more reason to get the heck out of dodge. If a country is so lawless and dangerous that our embassy is endangered by the local police of all people, why do we even have one open there? Clearly they don't want us there, so I say let's leave and let them burn their country to the ground if they really want to.

[MediumTex]

Perhaps you missed the memo...  It is the responsbility of the hosting nation to ensure that foreign embassies are safe from roaming groups of lawless thugs.  You see, if hundreds of rioters are marching on any foreign embassy, who has the power to stop them?  That's right, the local police force does.  This is a clear failure of the Libyan government, that's all.  Perhaps someone in the US embassy in Libya might have noticed that the local authorities were in cahoots with the muslim fundamentalists... but, really, think about it for a minute:  If the Chinese embassy in DC was attacked by hundreds of protesters and a Chinese ambassador was killed, who would you blame?  That's right, the Washington DC police who failed to stop the riots.

All the more reason to get the heck out of dodge. If a country is so lawless and dangerous that our embassy is endangered by the local police of all people, why do we even have one open there? Clearly they don't want us there, so I say let's leave and let them burn their country to the ground if they really want to.

There was at least some U.S. security there.  Two of the people killed in Libya were former Navy SEALs who were working security for the State Dept.

[notsheigetz]

I saw the movie 2016: Obama's America yesterday.

More than once I recall hearing Obama make the statement that his mere election would lead to goodwill in the Muslim world. I'm in sympathy with those who believe there is an orchestrated effort to blame the protests on the youtube movie as this sounds like typical Obama to me. It couldn't possibly be that they still hate Obama's America as much as they hated Bush's so blame it on some fanatical Christians making an offensive movie.

BTW, the Obama movie wasn't quite the partisan hack job I suspected though it was that. Still, it was very well done and I think it nailed Obama and his ideology very well. It also left me kind of amazed that this man was elected president of the United States in the year 2008 - and I don't mean that in a bad way. If you leave aside all the politics, which Obama makes it hard to do, the story is pretty amazing.

And to the point that protests serve no useful purpose I believe they played a big part in ending the war in Vietnam, along with the untold story of the state of near mutiny they caused in the military.

[Storm]

I saw the movie 2016: Obama's America yesterday.

More than once I recall hearing Obama make the statement that his mere election would lead to goodwill in the Muslim world. I'm in sympathy with those who believe there is an orchestrated effort to blame the protests on the youtube movie as this sounds like typical Obama to me. It couldn't possibly be that they still hate Obama's America as much as they hated Bush's so blame it on some fanatical Christians making an offensive movie.

BTW, the Obama movie wasn't quite the partisan hack job I suspected though it was that. Still, it was very well done and I think it nailed Obama and his ideology very well. It also left me kind of amazed that this man was elected president of the United States in the year 2008 - and I doubt mean that in a bad way. If you leave aside all the politics, which Obama makes it hard to do, the story is pretty amazing.

And to the point that protests serve no useful purpose I believe they played a big part in ending the war in Vietnam, along with the untold story of the state of near mutiny they caused in the military.

I thought the Michael Moore movie about Bush was accurate as well, and illustrated the thorough corruption, greed, and incompetence of the Bush family.  The small amount of coverage I've seen on 2016 leads me to believe it has a very loose basis in reality.  I saw an article that indicated the movie seemed to focus relentlessly on Obama's use of the N-word in his autobiography.  What I don't understand is why the anti-Obama crowd focuses on the fringes around his life - why not focus on his policy?  With Bush, the left only had to focus on his policy, which was so misguided they never even had to resort to personal attacks.

[dualstow]

Not cry straw man here, but has anyone actually blamed the film/filmmaker/US for the attacks?  Seems to me that most people believe the movie to be only loosely related to the attacks

Well, the attackers have.

It was good to see the following:
Saudi grand mufti: Attacks on embassies un-Islamic

Highest religious authority in Islam's birthplace denounces "punishing the innocent for the wicked crimes of the guilty."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=285207

Yes, the Saudi regime belongs to us. The attackers know that, too.
But, this still counts for something in my opinion.

[Reub]

"I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently…If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view…My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world…then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer…"

Barack Obama, Nov.21, 2007

http://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/09/1 ... udio-link/

[dualstow]

As for all the Obama posts in this thread I will concede that he was too optimistic, to make an understatement.
But, has any president fixed the Middle East? No.
I really don't know how I'm going to vote, come November.
I'm just glad I own a pp.

[FarmerD]

Perhaps you missed the memo...  It is the responsbility of the hosting nation to ensure that foreign embassies are safe from roaming groups of lawless thugs.  You see, if hundreds of rioters are marching on any foreign embassy, who has the power to stop them?  That's right, the local police force does.  This is a clear failure of the Libyan government, that's all.  Perhaps someone in the US embassy in Libya might have noticed that the local authorities were in cahoots with the muslim fundamentalists... but, really, think about it for a minute:  If the Chinese embassy in DC was attacked by hundreds of protesters and a Chinese ambassador was killed, who would you blame?  That's right, the Washington DC police who failed to stop the riots.

You make it sound like we are helpless to defend our embassies. We aren’t.  It's true the host nation supplies security outside the embassy but Marines and/or contract security teams secure the area inside the compound (or at least should have).  Marine FAST teams obviously were on high alert for just such a possibility yet they weren’t used.  Why weren’t they? 

With mobs mobilizing outside the embassies on the anniversary of 9/11 in clearly unstable countries like Libya, security measures obviously should have been beefed up.  It just seems like common sense we should have had plans to reinforce the embassies or have plans for quick evacuation. 

[notsheigetz]

The small amount of coverage I've seen on 2016 leads me to believe it has a very loose basis in reality.  I saw an article that indicated the movie seemed to focus relentlessly on Obama's use of the N-word in his autobiography.  What I don't understand is why the anti-Obama crowd focuses on the fringes around his life - why not focus on his policy?  With Bush, the left only had to focus on his policy, which was so misguided they never even had to resort to personal attacks.

Speaking of a loose basis in reality I don't know what that article was talking about because I don't remember hearing anything about Obama's use of the N-word in his autobiography, though it is possible I may have missed it. The movie was an attempt to explain the origins of Obama's ideology which the author and filmmaker believe to be rooted in deep feelings of anti-colonialism that Obama was exposed to growing up. I thought he made a very good case.

As for being a personal attack, I didn't get that at all. As I said in my earlier post I came away with a deeper appreciation of Obama's journey that eventually led to the White House. There may not be a more interesting story among presidents.