The religion of peace strikes again

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

If you click the link to the progam, you can watch it in full, like I did today.

That program - publically viewable on the internet - is critical of Islam. Why no mass outrage for that? Why, going by what you said, wouldn't the producers want the middle east to riot over it? Why isn't the program pulled from the C4 website?

tenaka2

So you not willing to talk about the issue at hand? I havn't seen the C4 program yet and its obviously not inflamatory as the film in question, and while I havn't seen it I doubt it contains such things as:

Post-production dubbing inserted insulting references to Islam and turned one character, Master George, into a murderous, sex-obsessed version of the prophet Muhammad.

But please don't misunderstand, I am in no way defending crazed islam extremists or putting the blame on the film makers. But the undeniable fact remains, those people would still be alive if the militant christians didn't produced the film. They are not blameless.

You should watch the C4 documentary for your own information.

I also saw the trailer for this film - It has been published on Youtube for some while. If you think the orchestrated campaign of violence around 9-11 was a genuine reaction to this film rather than an excuse for salafists to once again attack their enemy - the west, then how do you explain the grenade attack on the Red Cross in Libya a month ago? Perhaps they shouldn't have used such blatent Christian symbolism (a cross) in their aid organisation, eh?

What would the dubbing matter? The film was dubbed into Arabic anyway. Did the film's producers purposefully reference America, Germany or the UK? Why don't the salafists attack the Christians you say organised the film, rather than asking them to march with them in protest?

It seems like you are defending those Islamists, since you are saying there is some threshold where violence would be "understandable" from them. That proposition denies free speech and supports intolerance.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

If you click the link to the progam, you can watch it in full, like I did today.

That program - publically viewable on the internet - is critical of Islam. Why no mass outrage for that? Why, going by what you said, wouldn't the producers want the middle east to riot over it? Why isn't the program pulled from the C4 website?

RationalAtheist

So you not willing to talk about the issue at hand? I havn't seen the C4 program yet and its obviously not inflamatory as the film in question, and while I havn't seen it I doubt it contains such things as:

Post-production dubbing inserted insulting references to Islam and turned one character, Master George, into a murderous, sex-obsessed version of the prophet Muhammad.

But please don't misunderstand, I am in no way defending crazed islam extremists or putting the blame on the film makers. But the undeniable fact remains, those people would still be alive if the militant christians didn't produced the film. They are not blameless.

You should watch the C4 documentary for your own information.

I also saw the trailer for this film - It has been published on Youtube for some while. If you think the orchestrated campaign of violence around 9-11 was a genuine reaction to this film rather than an excuse for salafists to once again attack their enemy - the west, then how do you explain the grenade attack on the Red Cross in Libya a month ago? Perhaps they shouldn't have used such blatent Christian symbolism (a cross) in their aid organisation, eh?

What would the dubbing matter? The film was dubbed into Arabic anyway. Did the film's producers purposefully reference America, Germany or the UK? Why don't the salafists attack the Christians you say organised the film, rather than asking them to march with them in protest?

It seems like you are defending those Islamists, since you are saying there is some threshold where violence would be "understandable" from them. That proposition denies free speech and supports intolerance.

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

The reasons for making the film and translating it to arabic are obvious. Everyone already knows how volatile these people are, intentionally provoking them and causing more deaths in order to make a point is pointless.

Free speech has limits, in the UK hate speech is illegal.

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

The reasons for making the film and translating it to arabic are obvious. Everyone already knows how volatile these people are, intentionally provoking them and causing more deaths in order to make a point is pointless.

Free speech has limits, in the UK hate speech is illegal.

tenaka2

There are unintended consequences for many things; deaths due to the invention of cars, for example. For you to say that this consequence of orchestrated violence against people having nothing to do with the film was intended by the mysterious makers of the film is rather far-fetched and baseless

Free speech is under threat in the UK from the intolerance of others. It is cases like this that serve to suppress free speech in the UK. For example, a teenager was arrested for carrying a placard saying "Scientology is a dangerous cult" several years ago and this ridiculous law should be changed. Please go here to explore that view:

http://reformsection5.org.uk/

Imagine someone got so annoyed at a comment they saw about "Christians wanting to bring back the good old days of burning people at the stake", then went out on a murderous rampage attacking Jews. Would you feel personally responsible for that?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

The reasons for making the film and translating it to arabic are obvious. Everyone already knows how volatile these people are, intentionally provoking them and causing more deaths in order to make a point is pointless.

Free speech has limits, in the UK hate speech is illegal.

RationalAtheist

There are unintended consequences for many things; deaths due to the invention of cars, for example. For you to say that this consequence of orchestrated violence against people having nothing to do with the film was intended by the mysterious makers of the film is rather far-fetched and baseless

Free speech is under threat in the UK from the intolerance of others. It is cases like this that serve to suppress free speech in the UK. For example, a teenager was arrested for carrying a placard saying "Scientology is a dangerous cult" several years ago and this ridiculous law should be changed. Please go here to explore that view:

http://reformsection5.org.uk/

Imagine someone got so annoyed at a comment they saw about "Christians wanting to bring back the good old days of burning people at the stake", then went out on a murderous rampage attacking Jews. Would you feel personally responsible for that?

There is nothing 'Mysterious' about the makers of the film, sorry you found it mysterious, these details may halp as well as pointing out who were involved and the rational behind it. It was completely intended.

I have now idea why you would defend militant christians given your username.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/13/anti-islam-trailer-police-california

As the media descended on anyone associated with the video, fresh details emerged about its production and promotion by an alliance of members of Egypt's Coptic diaspora and militant rightwing US Christians.

The director and producer known to cast and crew as Bacile now thought to be Nakoula, a Coptic activist who has been convicted of financial crimes commissioned Media for Christ to shoot the video at Blue Cloud studios in Santa Clarita, also known as Blue Cloud Movie Ranch,according to the Pasadena Star-News.

Cast and crew, recruited through a trade magazine, said in a statement on Wednesday they were told the film was set in Egypt 2,000 years ago and would be titled Desert Warriors.

It was shot quickly and cheaply with green screens. Post-production dubbing inserted insulting references toIslamand turned one character, Master George, into a murderous, sex-obsessed version of the prophet Muhammad.

It had a budget of just $100,000, Jimmy Israel, a realtor linked to the production,told Buzzfeed. Bacile claimed to have cancer and to have briefly returned to Egypt to raise funding, Israel said.

There are unconfirmed reports the film was screened once earlier this year to a largely empty cinema in Hollywood. Not in question is the fact that in July a 13-minute video in English purporting to be a trailer for a full-length film was posted on YouTube under the pseudonym Sam Bacile.

It was subsequently promoted by a Washington DC-based radical Coptic activist, Morris Sadik, and the Qur'an-burning Florida pastor Terry Jones. An Arabic-language version was posted on YouTube on September 4. Five days later it was being denounced by media and Muslim clerics in Egypt, prompting assaults on US diplomatic missions in Cairo and Benghazi.

A small network of militant US Christians helped the video's Californian Coptic makers.

Steve Klein, an anti-Islamic activist and self-described counter-terrorism expert, said he acted as a "consultant" on the film. He did not respond to interview requests on Thursday.

Klein has worked closely with Coptic groups over the years, according to Jim Horn, a fellow activist. "He's been helping them to stand up for themselves against Islamic terror in Egypt. That's what he does," he told the Guardian.

Jones, the Florida pastor, was not involved in production, only promotion. Last year he visited Los Angeles and tried to whip up Coptic attendance at a Qur'an-burningprotestoutside the Egyptian consulate, said Bishop Serapion, head of the Coptic diocese in southern California.

"He encouraged the Copts to attend, but very few did because we don't believe in insulting other religions. We are against such things."

Jones, who was accompanied by Sadik, the Washington-based Copt activist, blamed the bishop for the low turnout, he said. "In fact I didn't need to tell people not to go, they knew not to go," Serapion said. At the protest Jones read verses from the Qur'an and tore pages but did not burn it.

The bishop, whose southern California flock comprises around 14,000 families, condemned the anti-Islamic video and said it did not reflect the views of most Copts, even though they said they left Egypt to escape persecution by the Muslim majority. "Just a few individuals are behind this film. It would be unfair if all Copts were held responsible."

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So you not willing to talk about the issue at hand? I havn't seen the C4 program yet and its obviously not inflamatory as the film in question, and while I havn't seen it I doubt it contains such things as:

Post-production dubbing inserted insulting references to Islam and turned one character, Master George, into a murderous, sex-obsessed version of the prophet Muhammad.

But please don't misunderstand, I am in no way defending crazed islam extremists or putting the blame on the film makers. But the undeniable fact remains, those people would still be alive if the militant christians didn't produced the film. They are not blameless.

tenaka2

You should watch the C4 documentary for your own information.

I also saw the trailer for this film - It has been published on Youtube for some while. If you think the orchestrated campaign of violence around 9-11 was a genuine reaction to this film rather than an excuse for salafists to once again attack their enemy - the west, then how do you explain the grenade attack on the Red Cross in Libya a month ago? Perhaps they shouldn't have used such blatent Christian symbolism (a cross) in their aid organisation, eh?

What would the dubbing matter? The film was dubbed into Arabic anyway. Did the film's producers purposefully reference America, Germany or the UK? Why don't the salafists attack the Christians you say organised the film, rather than asking them to march with them in protest?

It seems like you are defending those Islamists, since you are saying there is some threshold where violence would be "understandable" from them. That proposition denies free speech and supports intolerance.

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

The reasons for making the film and translating it to arabic are obvious. Everyone already knows how volatile these people are, intentionally provoking them and causing more deaths in order to make a point is pointless.

Free speech has limits, in the UK hate speech is illegal.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

You should watch the C4 documentary for your own information.

I also saw the trailer for this film - It has been published on Youtube for some while. If you think the orchestrated campaign of violence around 9-11 was a genuine reaction to this film rather than an excuse for salafists to once again attack their enemy - the west, then how do you explain the grenade attack on the Red Cross in Libya a month ago? Perhaps they shouldn't have used such blatent Christian symbolism (a cross) in their aid organisation, eh?

What would the dubbing matter? The film was dubbed into Arabic anyway. Did the film's producers purposefully reference America, Germany or the UK? Why don't the salafists attack the Christians you say organised the film, rather than asking them to march with them in protest?

It seems like you are defending those Islamists, since you are saying there is some threshold where violence would be "understandable" from them. That proposition denies free speech and supports intolerance.

LJS9502_basic

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

The reasons for making the film and translating it to arabic are obvious. Everyone already knows how volatile these people are, intentionally provoking them and causing more deaths in order to make a point is pointless.

Free speech has limits, in the UK hate speech is illegal.

Do you think the film makers are completely blame free? I don't defend islamic murderers and their actions should not be excused. However I also don't excuse the makers of the film. They made it to incite the violence that caused the deaths.

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

I have now idea why you would defend militant christians given your username.

...

tenaka2

Now who do those walls of copied text remind me of? Who else would dodge my direct questions and twist my words? Who are you turning into?

I defend a right to free speech. All you are saying is that sometimes unintended consequences happen, but you're placing intent on those consequences that you really can not know. It is patently obvious that this attack on 9-11 was planned. The video had been in the public domain for ages before that.

The film-maker is mysterious, else he would not have gone under s pseudonym and had the press hunt for him for days.

Who would determine what we can and can't say? Should we judge what we can speak freely about by the random murderous actions of others?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

The reasons for making the film and translating it to arabic are obvious. Everyone already knows how volatile these people are, intentionally provoking them and causing more deaths in order to make a point is pointless.

Free speech has limits, in the UK hate speech is illegal.

tenaka2

Do you think the film makers are completely blame free? I don't defend islamic murderers and their actions should not be excused. However I also don't excuse the makers of the film. They made it to incite the violence that caused the deaths.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I am not defending islamists, i have made that very clear. All I am saying as I said in my post was that those people would still be alive if that film was not made.

I have now idea why you would defend militant christians given your username.

...

RationalAtheist

Now who do those walls of copied text remind me of? Who else would dodge my direct questions and twist my words? Who are you turning into?

I defend a right to free speech. All you are saying is that sometimes unintended consequences happen, but you're placing intent on those consequences that you really can not know. It is patently obvious that this attack on 9-11 was planned. The video had been in the public domain for ages before that.

The film-maker is mysterious, else he would not have gone under s pseudonym and had the press hunt for him for days.

Who would determine what we can and can't say? Should we judge what we can speak freely about by the random murderous actions of others?

i didnt answer your point as you seem determined to take this thread on a tangent, I was focused on the issue in question. If you read what I posted you would realise that the intentions were clear, its one religious group attempting to provoke another religious group. It worked people died.

You can either accept the information I posted or you can chose not to, its entirely up to you.

I stand by my initial point, if the film were not made those people would still be alive, you cannot contradict this.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Blaming the film makers is ridiculous. We are responsible for our own actions. Stop making excuses for violence.LJS9502_basic

Do you think the film makers are completely blame free? I don't defend islamic murderers and their actions should not be excused. However I also don't excuse the makers of the film. They made it to incite the violence that caused the deaths.

As I said to RA, i am not excusing murderers as I stated in the very post you quoted, you seem to think that I am. I condemn the murders as I condemn the people that intentionally provoked them.

i didnt answer your point as you seem determined to take this thread on a tangent, I was focused on the issue in question. If you read what I posted you would realise that the intentions were clear, its one religious group attempting to provoke another religious group. It worked people died.

You can either accept the information I posted or you can chose not to, its entirely up to you.

I stand by my initial point, if the film were not made those people would still be alive, you cannot contradict this.

tenaka2

I'm not a big fan of the Guardian myself, and I'd already read what you'd posted in other news channels.

There are no tangents coming from me. Your refusal to answer shows the dissonance with what you say.

I accept that people died because of the video, but unlike you, I don't blame the makers of it in any way. I defend their right to make it. Furthermore, you have not shown that the film makers intended for the consequences of the film being posted on Youtube months ago.

You also fail to show how free speech should be restricted to avoid these incidents happening. It would be impossible and unwise to legislate for "insults" of others. I agree with George Carey (the ABofC), who said this:

"Argument is essential to a functioning democratic state, and religion should be involved in this, not constantly demanding the right not to be offended."

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Do you think the film makers are completely blame free? I don't defend islamic murderers and their actions should not be excused. However I also don't excuse the makers of the film. They made it to incite the violence that caused the deaths.

tenaka2

As I said to RA, i am not excusing murderers as I stated in the very post you quoted, you seem to think that I am. I condemn the murders as I condemn the people that intentionally provoked them.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

i didnt answer your point as you seem determined to take this thread on a tangent, I was focused on the issue in question. If you read what I posted you would realise that the intentions were clear, its one religious group attempting to provoke another religious group. It worked people died.

You can either accept the information I posted or you can chose not to, its entirely up to you.

I stand by my initial point, if the film were not made those people would still be alive, you cannot contradict this.

RationalAtheist

I'm not a big fan of the Guardian myself, and I'd already read what you'd posted in other news channels.

There are no tangents coming from me. Your refusal to answer shows the dissonance with what you say.

I accept that people died because of the video, but unlike you, I don't blame the makers of it in any way. I defend their right to make it. Furthermore, you have not shown that the film makers intended for the consequences of the film being posted on Youtube months ago.

You also fail to show how free speech should be restricted to avoid these incidents happening. It would be impossible and unwise to legislate for "insults" of others. I agree with George Carey (the ABofC), who said this:

"Argument is essential to a functioning democratic state, and religion should be involved in this, not constantly demanding the right not to be offended."

I am not suggesting that free speech should be restricted, I am suggesting that the makers of the video made it to provoke a reaction, a reaction that got people killed. Its their choice to do this and do it again if they wish, personally i find it unconscionable to take actions that results in the deaths of others, you obviously do not.

My refusal to be dragged off into a tangent not related to the thread does not show dissonance, it shows focus.

I think this whole thing is just a bit of overraction from the community and they use the film as a excuse to cause violence.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes. As for the reason they made...that seems to be your assumption. I'm not for restricting free choice. Being too PC is the problem. Keep making excuses for murderers that don't like what you say....and soon you'll be able to say nothing. That is NOT a healthy environment to live in.LJS9502_basic

As I said to RA, i am not excusing murderers as I stated in the very post you quoted, you seem to think that I am. I condemn the murders as I condemn the people that intentionally provoked them.

I am not really following you, my point is simple, if the video was not made those people would be alive, people are free to make such videos if they wish and you can support them if that is your want. However personally if I took an action that resulted in the deaths of others I would not feel good about it.

Something has to be done about that. First they send death threats to the Dannish cartoon maker and now they are rioting because of a film. We have to take a stand and push back.

I think this whole thing is just a bit of overraction from the community and they use the film as a excuse to cause violence.

klusps

They are fanatical religious zealots whos religion drives them to crazy extremes, its easy to provoke them, especially from the comfort of 5000 miles away. Its the people caught in the crossfire I feel sorry for.

I am not suggesting that free speech should be restricted, I am suggesting that the makers of the video made it to provoke a reaction, a reaction that got people killed. Its their choice to do this and do it again if they wish, personally i find it unconscionable to take actions that results in the deaths of others, you obviously do not.

My refusal to be dragged off into a tangent not related to the thread does not show dissonance, it shows focus.

tenaka2

Their actions did not result directly in the deaths of those other innocents that had nothing to do with it. The deaths were entirely at the hands of an organised group salafists who wished to commemorate 9-11 by showing America who was really in charge of Libya by planning an attack on an Embassy. It was also a reprisal for a recently killed Al Queda leader.

You have not shown the direct intent of the film-makers to get people killed in Embassies. Do you really think the violence would have happened if an Al Queda leader had not been drone-killed and 9-11 had not happened?

If you support free speech, you also must support the ability of anyone to say anything about anyone else. Free speech requires that things can be said, even if you don't agree with them. The flip side is a responsibility over your reactions to free speech. Free action is not a suitable response.

You do seem rather too focused on repeating the same thing without good justification, while ignoring any counter-arguments. Was the analogy about Christians wanting to bring back burning at the stake a bit too close to home, or didn't you want to show your own hypocracy?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I am not suggesting that free speech should be restricted, I am suggesting that the makers of the video made it to provoke a reaction, a reaction that got people killed. Its their choice to do this and do it again if they wish, personally i find it unconscionable to take actions that results in the deaths of others, you obviously do not.

My refusal to be dragged off into a tangent not related to the thread does not show dissonance, it shows focus.

RationalAtheist

Their actions did not result directly in the deaths of those other innocents that had nothing to do with it. The deaths were entirely at the hands of an organised group salafists who wished to commemorate 9-11 by showing America who was really in charge of Libya by planning an attack on an Embassy. It was also a reprisal for a recently killed Al Queda leader.

You have not shown the direct intent of the film-makers to get people killed in Embassies. Do you really think the violence would have happened if an Al Queda leader had not been drone-killed and 9-11 had not happened?

If you support free speech, you also must support the ability of anyone to say anything about anyone else. Free speech requires that things can be said, even if you don't agree with them. The flip side is a responsibility over your reactions to free speech. Free action is not a suitable response.

You do seem rather too focused on repeating the same thing without good justification, while ignoring any counter-arguments. Was the analogy about Christians wanting to bring back burning at the stake a bit too close to home, or didn't you want to show your own hypocracy?

So the violence was not linked to the video?

Attacks on embassies spread in wake of anti-Islamic film

British, German and US envoys targeted as riots erupt from north Africa to south-east Asia

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/attacks-embassies-anti-islam-film

Rioters besiege British, German and US embassies in Khartoum

Protesters target western embassies in Sudanese capital as anger over anti-Islam film spreads around the world

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/rioters-besiege-western-embassies-khartoum

Egypt's president pledges to protect embassies after film protests

Mohamed Morsi moves to limit damage to US relations on eve of further protests against film about prophet Muhammad

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/13/egypt-president-embassies-film-protests

Hmm the facts seem seem to contradict your personal opinion on this one.

You have not shown the direct intent of the film-makers to get people killed in Embassies.

RationalAtheist

I never suggested that it was, I suggested that the film maker did it to provoke, which it obviously did. I dont think the film makers cared who died.

Edit: I suppose I must address your main issue here, my flippant comment about christains burning people at the stake was not to be taken entirely seriously, your dog like focus on this seems odd, while the comment obviously upset you. I apologise for this. I find your fixation odd however as it doesnt fit with the whole 'Rational' thing you have going on.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

As I said to RA, i am not excusing murderers as I stated in the very post you quoted, you seem to think that I am. I condemn the murders as I condemn the people that intentionally provoked them.

tenaka2

I am not really following you, my point is simple, if the video was not made those people would be alive, people are free to make such videos if they wish and you can support them if that is your want. However personally if I took an action that resulted in the deaths of others I would not feel good about it.

Tenaka never cease to impress me with his stupidity when I can manage to interpret his typo-riddled, grammatically incomprehensible posts.

Their actions did not result directly in the deaths of those other innocents that had nothing to do with it.

RationalAtheist

You seem to have issues with the basic rules of cause and effect. Its a rather basic concept and I can expalin it if I really have to.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"].I answered your question and then I gave a general opinion as to those...and you are one of those...that hold those who state an opinion as blame worthy for violence done by others. And if you don't understand that giving them even that little bit of a justification for their actions does nothing to stop these actions...then I'd say you...and others like you...are part of the blame as well. How is that for spreading blame around?LJS9502_basic

I am not really following you, my point is simple, if the video was not made those people would be alive, people are free to make such videos if they wish and you can support them if that is your want. However personally if I took an action that resulted in the deaths of others I would not feel good about it.

I never did. You are a bit lost on this on Lj.

Tenaka never cease to impress me with his stupidity when I can manage to interpret his typo-riddled, grammatically incomprehensible posts.

coolbeans90

comments from yet another religious nut jobhold no weight, you are no better then islamic or christian extremists.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tenaka never cease to impress me with his stupidity when I can manage to interpret his typo-riddled, grammatically incomprehensible posts.

tenaka2

comments from yet another religious nut jobhold no weight, you are no better then islamic or christian extremists.

>Implying I am a religious nutjob when mocking your posts in an argument you are having with a person - of a higher intellectual caliber than yourself, mind you - who is, quite obviously, an atheist.

Also, I deserve more than a comma splice when being insulted.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tenaka never cease to impress me with his stupidity when I can manage to interpret his typo-riddled, grammatically incomprehensible posts.

coolbeans90

comments from yet another religious nut jobhold no weight, you are no better then islamic or christian extremists.

>Implying I am a religious nutjob when mocking your posts in an argument you are having with a person - of a higher intellectual caliber than yourself, mind you - who is, quite obviously, an atheist.

Also, I deserve more than a comma splice when being insulted.

No, you deserve nothing.

Or if you prefer you don't deserve anything. Unless you like scorn.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

comments from yet another religious nut jobhold no weight, you are no better then islamic or christian extremists.

tenaka2

>Implying I am a religious nutjob when mocking your posts in an argument you are having with a person - of a higher intellectual caliber than yourself, mind you - who is, quite obviously, an atheist.

Also, I deserve more than a comma splice when being insulted.

No, you deserve nothing.

Or if you prefer you don't deserve anything. Unless you like scorn.

Your fvcking grammar, man, is killing me. You are going on Adblock.

I never suggested that it was, I suggested that the film maker did it to provoke, which it obviously did. I dont think the film makers cared who died.

Edit: I suppose I must address your main issue here, my flippant comment about christains burning people at the stake was not to be taken entirely seriously, your dog like focus on this seems odd, while the comment obviously upset you. I apologise for this. I find your fixation odd however as it doesnt fit with the whole 'Rational' thing you have going on.

tenaka2

Of course the violence was linked in some way to the video, since it was used as an excuse for it - one you seem to have fallen for. It is not direct cause and effect though, since you could not have predicted this response of the death of an ambassidor that had nothing to do with it. Do you think the 9-11 date was a coincidence?

You don't seem to understand "unintended consequences" and have said that the people making the film did so in the anticipation that this would happen. Despite all your guardian clippings, that has not been shown at all.

People shouldn't take your anti-Christian comments seriously, but should take the film seriously? How would one know this? The comment didn't upset me, but it may well have upset a Christian, who might have then gone on a rampage. According to you, you'd be as to blame as those rampaging on offence from your comment.

For you to use my username against me, you should show how I'm not being rational. Else I'll think your rhetoric is only empty posturing.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Their actions did not result directly in the deaths of those other innocents that had nothing to do with it.

tenaka2

You seem to have issues with the basic rules of cause and effect. Its a rather basic concept and I can expalin it if I really have to.

I think it is you that have the issues. The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release. It was only months later, when other events had conspired to create a platform for salafist violence, that the film was blamed for anti-western action. Such blame is misguided, since free speech should never form a basis for violent reprisals.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

>Implying I am a religious nutjob when mocking your posts in an argument you are having with a person - of a higher intellectual caliber than yourself, mind you - who is, quite obviously, an atheist.

Also, I deserve more than a comma splice when being insulted.

coolbeans90

No, you deserve nothing.

Or if you prefer you don't deserve anything. Unless you like scorn.

Your fvcking grammar, man, is killing me. You are going on Adblock.

The loss is insurmountable.

[QUOTE="tenaka"]

No, you deserve nothing.

Or if you prefer you don't deserve anything. Unless you like scorn.

coolbeans

Your fvcking grammar, man, is killing me. You are going on Adblock.

[Quote="coolbeans"][QUOTE="tenaka"]

No, you deserve nothing.

Or if you prefer you don't deserve anything. Unless you like scorn.

dave123321

Your fvcking grammar, man, is killing me. You are going on Adblock.

Despite the objections of some, your posts have redeeming qualities.

I think it is you that have the issues. The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release. It was only months later, when other events had conspired to create a platform for salafist violence, that the film was blamed for anti-western action. Such blame is misguided, since free speech should never form a basis for violent reprisals.

RationalAtheist

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I think it is you that have the issues. The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release. It was only months later, when other events had conspired to create a platform for salafist violence, that the film was blamed for anti-western action. Such blame is misguided, since free speech should never form a basis for violent reprisals.

tenaka2

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I think it is you that have the issues. The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release. It was only months later, when other events had conspired to create a platform for salafist violence, that the film was blamed for anti-western action. Such blame is misguided, since free speech should never form a basis for violent reprisals.

AdamPA1006

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

you would have to folllw the whole thread to keep up, it was a chrisitan video that resulted in the deaths.

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

tenaka2

Pandering to the over-sensitivities of a particular religion is a bad idea. Look where it has got the UK!

I still can't see how you or they knew of the intentions of the religious extremists. It's also not as if some Islamic Imams don't provoke their followers, or other religions themselves. Even the most seemingly benign of statements - like my religion are the "chosen ones" - might seem like an insulting attack on someone else's faith, since the implication is that they're not the chosen ones.

If you want to provoke a reaction, then at worst you are a provocotive bigot. I can't see any justification in any proclamation that people associated by geography of a "provocative bigot" deserve death.

You say on the one hand that you can't understand the mindset of a religious extremist, while ignoring your own partiality to belittling religious people, along with their religions, in this very forum. This is a cognitive dissonance. You should (like I do) accept that you will (intentionally or unintentionally) insult people by simply having the beliefs that you do.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

RationalAtheist

you are a provocotive bigot.

Well as as disonest quoting seems to be what you do, ill choose this :) you are a dishonet cabbage.

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

tenaka2

you would have to folllw the whole thread to keep up, it was a chrisitan video that resulted in the deaths.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

First off, I think were are mostly in agreement, i do not agree with 'The effects of this film were unknown at the time of release' its up there with the book burning, especially with the arabic translation.

Perhaps i do have issues, I admit I have issue with people intentially provoking religious extremists. I can't understand religious extemists as its not within my mindset.

However what i can understand is christian groups intensionally antagonising other religious groups and i see no need for it. in my view all religious conflict is detremental to humanity.

Using the 'free speech' rule to justify death is always wrong in all instances in my opinion.

tenaka2

you are a provocotive bigot.

Well as as disonest quoting seems to be what you do, ill choose this :) you are a dishonet cabbage.

For a start, where have I "dishonestly quoted" you?

Secondly, if you'd read my post before spouting off, you'll find that I wasn't calling you a provocative bigot. I was referring to those who made the film.

What are you on?

Also, what is a "dishonet cabbage"?

I don't know what people expected to happen -- the 'rebels' who we 'helped' overthrow Gaddafi in Libya are Al Qaeda... Gaddafi himself pointed this out early on in the rebellion but no-one over here was listening I guess

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

you are a provocotive bigot.

RationalAtheist

Well as as disonest quoting seems to be what you do, ill choose this :) you are a dishonet cabbage.

For a start, where have I "dishonestly quoted" you?

Secondly, if you'd read my post before spouting off, you'll find that I wasn't calling you a provocative bigot. I was referring to those who made the film.

What are you on?

Also, what is a "dishonet cabbage"?

I think you should let it go tonitht :) im off out :)

I don't know what people expected to happen -- the 'rebels' who we 'helped' overthrow Gaddafi in Libya are Al Qaeda... Gaddafi himself pointed this out early on in the rebellion but no-one over here was listening I guess

67gt500

I stand by my initial point, if the film were not made those people would still be alive, you cannot contradict thistenaka2

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]I stand by my initial point, if the film were not made those people would still be alive, you cannot contradict thisDarthJohnova

i never said it was. cause and effect, they created the cause the effect was that people died. Its not complicated.

I think you should let it go tonitht :) im off out :)

tenaka2

Have the wheels fallen off your argument then?

In that case it is probably best that you retreat.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well as as disonest quoting seems to be what you do, ill choose this :) you are a dishonet cabbage.

RationalAtheist

For a start, where have I "dishonestly quoted" you?

Secondly, if you'd read my post before spouting off, you'll find that I wasn't calling you a provocative bigot. I was referring to those who made the film.

What are you on?

Also, what is a "dishonet cabbage"?

I think you should let it go tonitht :) im off out :)

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think you should let it go tonitht :) im off out :)

RationalAtheist

Have the wheels fallen off your argument then?

In that case it is probably best that you retreat.

People died, people died because of a daft film. A film that you defend.

As an atheist you should understand that life is important, the fact that you happily give that away for a concept as abstract as 'free speech' in any concept is scary.

I dont understant your 'retreat' comment, why should I retreat from the deaths of people? Are you really an atheist, or a religious person just trolling? As an atheist you should know what life means.

People died, people died because of a daft film. A film that you defend.

As an atheist you should understand that life is important, the fact that you happily give that away for a concept as abstract as 'free speech' in any concept is scary.

I dont understant your 'retreat' comment, why should I retreat from the deaths of people? Are you really an atheist, or a religious person just trolling? As an atheist you should know what life means.

tenaka2

You said you were going out. That prompted my "retreat from the argument" comment.

I defend the right of those people to make a film as much as I defend your right to say Christians would be glad to go back to the "good old days" of burning people who didn't beleive like them at the stake. I defend my right of reply too.

As an atheist, I understand that life is important and should not be taken for offense at a crappy film. It wasn't though and there are obviously other factors involved in the orchestrated campaign of violence against the west, rather than at the Egyptian Christians you say made it. I also understand that free-speech underpins democracy and freedom of thought.

Are you really an atheist, or are you a Muslim who excuses violence as a consequence of being insulted?