Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 23, 2014, 12:33:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81190 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print
Author Topic: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!)  (Read 78586 times)
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #250 on: September 24, 2012, 10:06:15 AM »

The White House Goes Mum on Free Speech While France stands up for a basic right, the Obama administration sits on its hands.

When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York, he tried to cut off taxpayer funding for a museum showing a work entitled "The Holy Virgin Mary," featuring an image of the Madonna smeared with elephant dung, surrounded by cutout porn photos of female genitalia. Mr. Giuliani said the museum didn't have a "right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's religion." Hillary Clinton, then a Senate candidate, defended the right to show the artwork: "Our feelings of being offended should not lead to the penalizing and shutting down of an entire museum."

Mr. Giuliani, who always acknowledged the artist's First Amendment right while questioning the public funding, was a censorship softie compared with Mrs. Clinton today. Her State Department's response to a movie trailer tied to Islamic mob violence and organized terrorism has been censorship and a global apology campaign.

The movie "Innocence of Muslims," apparently made by a Coptic Christian in the U.S., mocks Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, but it exists publicly only as a 14-minute trailer on YouTube. Digital technology can spread mischief, but it was only when an Islamist television show in Egypt aired excerpts that the video got widespread attention. The movie, if there is one, would never have gotten distribution in theaters, with its amateurish filming and clumsily dubbed voices.

The U.S. government attributed enormous power to these 14 minutes of video. The White House press spokesman insisted that the attacks in Egypt, Libya and some 20 other countries were a "response not to United States policy, and not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people," but "to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting." The White House later backtracked, blaming organized terrorists for killing the U.S. ambassador in Libya and three other Americans.

But the problem is not the video. It's that many of the post-Arab Spring governments condone or encourage Islamist groups that find any pretense to attack the U.S. The Obama administration kowtowed to pressure from Egypt and other supposed allies, asking Google to remove the YouTube footage globally. Google rightly refused to censor, citing the right to free speech, which the president is sworn to defend.

When the government in Pakistan last week cynically organized a "Love for Prophet Day," the State Department bought time on Pakistani television to run groveling advertisements. In one, Mrs. Clinton says: "Let me state very clearly . . . the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message."

Instead of seeking to censor the video or apologizing, the White House should be reminding the world that free speech, even when tasteless or hateful, is an American right. The U.S. should be encouraging the new governments in the Middle East to value free speech. In contrast to the U.S. abandonment of free speech, tiny Denmark refused to apologize for the satirical cartoons of Muhammad that ran in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005, which provoked rioting in many countries.

Indeed, in the aftermath of the YouTube video, France has been truer to free speech than has the U.S. A French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, responded to the video controversy by running more cartoons of Muhammad. Its editor, Stephane Charbonnier, told the German magazine Der Spiegel: "We publish caricatures every week, but people only describe them as declarations of war when it's about the person of the prophet or radical Islam."

French authorities offered protection to the magazine before it went to press. "Of all publications, our magazine, which mocks the police at every opportunity, is now protected by it," Mr. Charbonnier says. "Which only goes to show that freedom of speech is protected in our country." He pledges to keep satirizing Catholics, Jews and Muslims. Meanwhile, France temporarily closed its embassies and schools in 20 countries when the magazine came out.

A silver lining to this controversy is how many people, apparently mostly Muslims themselves, used the online medium in a humorous way to make the point that Islamic fundamentalists are a minority of the religion. Under a hashtag on Twitter that Newsweek created for its cover story, #MuslimRage, they tweeted laugh lines for what leads to "Muslim Rage":

"Sale at the butchers! Oh, only on pork."

"Lost your kid 'Jihad' at the airport. Can't yell for him."

"Head & Shoulders STILL hasn't made a beard conditioner!"

"When I wear a white hijab to a TV interview with a white backdrop."

On a more serious note:

"Hezbollah offended by the movie but not by the daily murder of hundreds of Syrian civilians."

"Memo to those few violent Mideast protesters, this is how you fight Islamophobia. You make fun of it."

These tweets use free speech the way it was intended: To make political points, unapologetically. Islamists will protest and some will even kill for any reason or for no reason. On behalf of Americans and reformers around the world, the White House should stand up for free speech instead of recoiling from it.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #251 on: September 26, 2012, 10:00:02 AM »

By Michael McGough
September 25, 2012, 4:13 p.m.

President Obama did an admirable job in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in explaining why the United States does not punish those who engage in offensive speech like the infamous video defaming the prophet Muhammad. He was more expansive in defending protection for unbridled free speech than was  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, though not to the extent of explicitly challenging calls by Muslim leaders -- including the prime minster of Turkey, a NATO ally -- for  "international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred."

But a couple of things about Obama’s speech struck me as odd. One was a strange moment of self-reference: "As president of our country and commander in chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- and I will always defend their right to do so."

I’m sure Obama was not equating himself with Muhammad, Jesus or other venerated religious figures, but the juxtaposition was awkward and will probably inspire some comment-board complaints by Obamaphobes who believe the president seems himself in messianic terms.

In the same paragraph, Obama made a pitch for American almost-exceptionalism when it comes to laws against blasphemy. “Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense," the president said. "Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.”

Well, not exactly. Blasphemy laws remain on the books in some states, though they are dead letters.  According to Massachusetts General Law Section 36: "Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior."

In 1977, my home state of Pennsylvania passed a law prohibiting the use in a corporate name of  "blasphemy," "profane cursing or swearing" or words that "profane the Lord's name." The law was passed after complaints by religious leaders about a gun shop called "The Damn Gun Shop." A federal judge struck down the law 33 years later in a case involving a film producer who wanted to call his company "I Choose Hell Productions."

(Pennsylvania is an old hand at blasphemy legislation. In 1989, vandals scrawled a pro-PLO slogan on a menorah erected on the steps of the Pittsburgh City-County Building. A policeman told reporters that the culprit, if caught, would be charged with the obscure offense of "desecration of a venerated object." The joke in Pittsburgh at the time was that the law was passed to protect the Steelers logo.)

The most famous court decision involving desecration of a venerated object was the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling striking down a Texas law that made it a crime to burn the American flag as a political protest. Opposition to the ruling was fierce. Had Congress approved a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision -- and the amendment failed to achieve the required two-thirds by only one vote in the Senate in 2006 -- it’s quite possible that the necessary three-fourths of the states would have ratified it.

So perhaps Americans aren’t as robust in our support for free speech as Obama suggested. Mock our religion -- or our flag -- and we may not engage in violence, but we’re willing to throw the book at you, at least until a court makes us come to our senses.
Power User
Posts: 11807

« Reply #252 on: September 26, 2012, 10:36:22 AM »

I’m sure Obama was not equating himself with Muhammad, Jesus or other venerated religious figures, but the juxtaposition was awkward and will probably inspire some comment-board complaints by Obamaphobes who believe the president seems himself in messianic terms.

Oh, there's nothing in Buraq's past conduct that would support that.... rolleyes

So perhaps Americans aren’t as robust in our support for free speech as Obama suggested. Mock our religion -- or our flag -- and we may not engage in violence, but we’re willing to throw the book at you, at least until a court makes us come to our senses.
Typical leftist attempt at moral equivalency. When was the last time someone was prosecuted under those statutes? Let's compare that to the death penalty for blasphemy under sharia faced across the globe today.
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #253 on: September 27, 2012, 02:05:13 PM »
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #254 on: September 28, 2012, 05:36:26 AM »


Man Tied to Anti-Islam Video Held on Probation Charge
Published: September 27, 2012

LOS ANGELES — The man thought to have been behind the crude anti-Islam video that set off deadly protests across the Muslim world in recent weeks was arrested Thursday for violating terms of his probation in a 2010 bank fraud case.

The man, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, was ordered held without bond during an appearance in United States District Court here Thursday evening. Suzanne H. Segal, a federal magistrate judge, called Mr. Nakoula “a flight risk and a danger to the community.” He will remain in jail until a probation-revocation hearing is scheduled.

Mr. Nakoula is widely considered to be the filmmaker responsible for “Innocence of Muslims,” an inflammatory, amateurish video that is supposedly a trailer for a full-length film.

The video depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a buffoon, a womanizer and a child molester. It was first uploaded to YouTube in June, and translated into Arabic and uploaded several more times leading up to the 11th anniversary of the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Nakoula was charged with eight probation violations, including lying to law-enforcement officers when they initially detained him for questioning, and using various aliases, which an assistant United States attorney, Robert Dugdale, said was “part of a lengthy pattern of deception.”

Federal officials have been investigating whether Mr. Nakoula was the person who posted the video on YouTube using the pseudonym Sam Bacile, a name he used during the making of the movie, according to actors and crew members. If he did post the video, he would have violated the terms of his sentencing in a conviction in a 2010 check-kiting case, which restricted his use of the Internet.

Mr. Nakoula served about a year of a 21-month prison term for orchestrating a check-kiting scheme against Wells Fargo Bank, court records show.

As part of his sentence, Mr. Nakoula was ordered to pay restitution of $794,700.

The bank fraud scheme included a twist that is probably pertinent to the current investigation: he committed the crime using a variety of aliases.

On Sept. 15, federal probation officers took Mr. Nakoula to a Los Angeles County sheriff’s station in the suburb of Cerritos, where he lives, for questioning. He wore a hat and had a white shawl around his face. He was not arrested at that time.

Mr. Nakoula has not spoken publicly since the trailer, parts of which were broadcast on Egyptian television, first set off a wave of rioting and attacks that led to the death of four Americans in Libya, including the ambassador.

On Saturday, a Pakistani cabinet minister offered a $100,000 reward for the death of the person behind the video, with the incendiary statement coming a day after violent protests paralyzed Pakistan’s largest cities, leaving at least 23 people dead.

Mr. Nakoula’s lawyer, Steve Seiden, had argued unsuccessfully that it was a dangerous for his client to be in jail where there are, presumably, Muslim inmates. “My client’s safety has been an issue for weeks,” he said.

Ian Lovett contributed reporting.
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #255 on: September 29, 2012, 06:30:20 PM »
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #256 on: October 02, 2012, 08:00:35 AM »

The WSJ weighs in on Pamela Geller's ad.

Call a Terrorist a 'Savage'? How Uncivilized An anti-jihad message is 'hate speech' by today's topsy-turvy standards.
By WILLIAM MCGURNLike this columnist ..
"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."

So reads an advertisement that went up a week ago in New York City subway stations. Sponsored by Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative, the ads were meant to provoke, and they did. Denunciations poured in, activists plastered "racist" and "hate speech" stickers over the ads, and an Egyptian-American activist even got herself arrested after spray-painting one poster pink.

Establishment opinion quickly rallied to a consensus. As the Washington Post put it, while the words could be read as "hateful," "an offensive ad" nonetheless has the "right to offend." A rabbi summed up the media orthodoxy in the headline over her column for CNN: "A right to hate speech, a duty to condemn."

Certainly that's one way to read this ad. Then again, most Americans probably read it the way it is written: Israel is a civilized nation under attack from people who do savage things in the name of jihad. Whatever the agenda of those behind this ad might be, the question remains: What part of that statement is not true?

Ah, but the use of the word "jihad" inherently indicts all Muslims, say the critics. There are millions of peaceful Muslims for whom jihad means only a spiritual quest. So why do so many people associate jihad with murder and brutality?

A controversial ad, which has already been defaced, that condemns radical Islam is viewed in a New York subway station.
Might it be because violence is so often the jihadist's calling card? Might it be that some of these killers even incorporate the word jihad into the name of their terror organizations, e.g., Palestinian Islamic Jihad? That may not be the exclusive meaning of jihad, but surely it is one meaning—and the one that New York subway riders are most likely to bring to the word.

The same goes for "savage." Exhibit A is Oxford's online dictionary, which defines a savage as "a brutal or vicious person." There are innumerable Exhibit Bs, but let me invoke one of the most powerful.

This is a Reuters photo that ran on the New York Times front page for Sept. 1, 2004. It shows an Israeli bus after it had been blown up by a suicide bomber. Neither bloody nor gory, the photo is nonetheless deeply disturbing, because it shows the lifeless body of a young woman hanging out a window.

The Times news story added this detail about the reaction to that attack. "In Gaza," ran the report, "thousands of supporters of Hamas celebrated in the streets, and the Associated Press reported that one of the bombers' widows hailed the attack as 'heroic' and said her husband's soul was 'happy in heaven.' " What part of any of this is not savage?

Two years ago, Time magazine ran a cover photo of an 18-year-old Afghan woman whose nose and ears had been cut off by the Taliban. This weekend, an al Qaeda-affiliated jihadist group in Kenya threw grenades into an Anglican church, killing a 9-year-old boy attending Sunday school. In light of these atrocities, "savage" seems profoundly inadequate.

The point is that what makes someone a savage is not the religion he professes. It's the actions he takes. Notwithstanding the many Jews and Christians who have been attacked, those bearing the brunt of this savagery are innocent Muslims who find themselves targeted—at their mosques, in their markets, at a wedding reception—simply because they belong to the wrong political party or religious tradition.

The people of Libya appear to understand this better than the president of the United States. The Libyans know that a civilized society is one where the strong protect the weak. In July they voted for such a future when they rejected Islamic radicals in their first free elections since toppling the dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The Libyans' problem is that the extremists are better armed and better organized than their elected government, which leaves the strong free to prey upon the weak.

Back home in America, amid all the gooey indignation about how the subway ads are hate speech but must be defended, the idea seems to have taken hold that the beauty of the First Amendment is that we get to insult each other's religions. Certainly that's sometimes the price of the First Amendment. Its glory, however, is as the cornerstone for a self-governing, free society whose citizens know that someone saying something disgusting about your faith is no excuse for murder.

What a curiosity our new political correctness has made of our public spaces. Let your sex tape loose on the Internet and be rewarded with your own TV show; photograph a crucifix in a jar of urine and our museums will vie to exhibit it; occupy someone else's property and you will be hailed by the president for your keen social conscience.

But call people who blow up, behead and mutilate "savage"—and polite society will find you offensive.

Write to
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #257 on: November 26, 2012, 06:46:17 AM »

LOS ANGELES — Fuming for two months in a jail cell here, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has had plenty of time to reconsider the wisdom of making “Innocence of Muslims,” his crude YouTube movie trailer depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bloodthirsty, philandering thug.

Does Mr. Nakoula now regret the footage? After all, it fueled deadly protests across the Islamic world and led the unlikely filmmaker to his own arrest for violating his supervised release on a fraud conviction.

Not at all. In his first public comments since his incarceration soon after the video gained international attention in September, Mr. Nakoula told The New York Times that he would go to great lengths to convey what he called “the actual truth” about Muhammad. “I thought, before I wrote this script,” he said, “that I should burn myself in a public square to let the American people and the people of the world know this message that I believe in.”

In explaining his reasons for the film, Mr. Nakoula, 55, a Coptic Christian born in Egypt, cited the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Tex., as a prime example of the violence committed “under the sign of Allah.” His anger seemed so intense over the years that even from a federal prison in 2010, he followed the protests against the building of an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in New York as he continued to work on his movie script.

Until now, only the barest details were known about the making of the film that inspired international outrage. Initial reports made it seem as if the film had been thrown together in about a year.

But a longer, more intricate and somewhat surreal story emerges from interviews with Mr. Nakoula, church and law enforcement officials and more than a dozen people who worked on the movie — those who knew its real subject and those who were tricked into believing it was to be a sword-and-sandal epic called “Desert Warriors.” Together, they paint a picture of a financially desperate man with a penchant for fiction who was looking to give meaning and means to a life in shambles.

There is a dispute about how important the video was in provoking the terrorist assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the United States ambassador and three other Americans. Militants interviewed at the scene said they were unaware of the video until a protest in Cairo called it to their attention. But the video without question led to protests across the globe, beginning in Cairo and spreading rapidly in September to Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Tunisia, Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Lebanon, Indonesia and Malaysia.

The making of the film is a bizarre tale of fake personas and wholesale deception. And as with almost everything touched over the years by Mr. Nakoula — a former gas station manager, bong salesman, methamphetamine ingredient supplier and convicted con man — it is almost impossible to separate fact from fabrication.

A few years ago, Mr. Nakoula told some of the crew members he had gathered, supposedly to make “Desert Warriors,” that the project would have to be put off. He had cancer. Treatment was needed, far away, and they would not be able to reach him. His family shared a similar story with church officials.

Mr. Nakoula, it turns out, was not going away for cancer treatment, although the time did overlap with the prison sentence for bank fraud, which the crew knew nothing about. (Mr. Nakoula pleaded guilty this month to violating his supervised release in that case and received a one-year sentence.)

He claims that he only wrote the film — five versions of the script — and served as a “cultural consultant.” One of Mr. Nakoula’s sons, Abanob Basseley Nakoula, 21, said in an interview that his father had written the script in Arabic and then translated it into English. The son said he helped him with grammar.

But Mr. Nakoula, who described himself to some cast members as the writer and producer, explained to a confidant that his plan was to fool actors into thinking they were making a movie built around an ancient tribal villain named George, dubbing in the name “Muhammad” later whenever anybody said “George.”

As early as 2008, he had cobbled together a 20-page treatment for a film he wanted to call “The First Terrorist.”

Page 2 of 3)

In Mr. Nakoula’s responses to questions from The Times, conveyed through his lawyer, Steve Seiden, he had no second thoughts about the way he had handled the cast. “They had signed contracts before they went in front of any camera, and these contracts in no way prevented changes to the script or movie,” he said.

Abanob Nakoula said: “The actors were misled. My dad thought the film would create a stir, and as a precaution for their safety, there are no acting or production credits at the end of the trailer or the full-length movie.”

A Slippery Identity

The amateurish project might have disappeared quietly, the way many forgettable messes do in Hollywood’s underbelly. Yet three years after completing his script treatment, Mr. Nakoula was on a makeshift movie set inside the suburban Los Angeles headquarters of a nonprofit organization called Media for Christ, whose founder has been critical of Islam. There Mr. Nakoula was surrounded by actors wearing false beards, and there was a goat slipping on a tile floor. Alongside him was his director for hire: Alan Roberts, known for soft-core pornography movies like “The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.”

Mr. Nakoula noted that the head of Media for Christ, Joseph Nassralla Abdelmasih, was “a friend for five years.” Mr. Abdelmasih attended the 2010 protests against the Islamic center near ground zero. Other contacts in the world of anti-Islam activism would also play pivotal roles. Helping to publicize the film were Morris Sadek and Elaia Basily — activist Copts living in Northern Virginia — and Terry Jones, the Florida preacher whose own Koran burnings had stirred violence abroad.

That Mr. Nakoula is a hard man to pin down is no accident. He told the cast and crew that his name was Sam Bassil, which he sometimes spelled differently. Federal prosecutors convicted him in 2010 under the name Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, but he recently admitted to the court that he had changed his name in 2002 to Mark Basseley Youssef.

What he did not mention at the time, however, was that in 2009, according to court records, he changed his name yet again, this time to Ebrahem Fawzy Youssef. (His lawyer said Mr. Nakoula was unaware until recently that the latest change had been finalized.)

Facts presented by Mr. Nakoula as rock solid tend to weaken upon inspection. For instance, he told federal probation officials that he first came to Los Angeles in 1984 for the Olympics as part of the Egyptian soccer team. But a Web site listing official players on that team does not include Mr. Nakoula. Nor was there evidence that he was on the squad’s staff.

He claimed during production that the budget for the film was $5 million, raised mainly from Jewish donors. Actually, it cost no more than $80,000, apparently raised through his second ex-wife’s Egyptian family and donations from other Copts, according to a person who discussed the financing with him.

Even though the shoot lasted only 15 days, there was enough footage for a feature-length movie, which exists, running roughly one hour and 40 minutes. Mr. Basily, the Virginia activist who has donated to Media for Christ, said he watched the entire film on DVD early this year and found it historically accurate.

All that has been seen on the Web is the 14-minute YouTube trailer, which by the time it hit the Internet in July was titled “Innocence of Muslims.”

Mr. Nakoula was able to finish the project even though people who ran into him over the years found him puzzling. When he rented offices in suburban Los Angeles, other tenants noticed that he came around only at night for the most part and stored stacks of Marlboro cartons there, among other things. When he took a stall at a flea market to sell drug paraphernalia and tobacco merchandise, other stall holders noted that his wares never seemed to move and that he spent most of his time on the phone, shouting in Arabic.

And Coptic Church officials said they considered Mr. Nakoula an unlikely candidate for the kind of religious zeal behind “Innocence of Muslims” because he had attended services so infrequently. But Mr. Nakoula said fervor and witnessing persecution are what drove him to create the film.

Mr. Nakoula agreed last month to be interviewed by The Times at the Metropolitan Detention Center here, where he has been held since his September arrest. But the warden refused to allow the interview.

In his written responses to questions, Mr. Nakoula reeled off “atrocities” by Muslims that went back many years and formed his views, focusing on shootings, a bombing and the torture of his fellow Copts. After the Fort Hood massacre, in which an Army psychiatrist with ties to Muslim extremism has been charged, “I became even more upset and enraged,” he said.

Abanob Nakoula said: “My dad is not an evil man. He has had a hard life. He did something — the movie, something he felt strongly about — that was not frowned upon by the Constitution. He would always say, ‘Don’t fight Muslims; fight their ideology.’ ”

From Prison to Studio

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula grew up in Egypt but came to the United States and wed Ingrid N. Rodriguez in 1986 in Nevada, according to state marriage records. They divorced in 1990, the records show. Soon afterward, while living in California, he married an Egyptian woman, Olivia Ibrahim, with whom he has three children. Although the couple divorced, the family members all lived together on a cul-de-sac in Cerritos until going into hiding after the video spread.

Mr. Nakoula declared bankruptcy in 2000. By then he was a felon: a police sting caught him trading crates of a methamphetamine ingredient for $45,000 in cash. He was sentenced to one year in prison but did community service instead. A little over a decade later, Mr. Nakoula, while at work on his movie, was arrested for bank fraud. He was behind bars for almost 21 months before getting out in the summer of last year.

“He said it might have been a blessing to go to prison because he had time to work on the script,” his son said.

Mr. Nakoula’s supervised release barred him from using aliases. But he resumed work on his movie under the name Sam Baccil, said Jimmy Israel, who assisted with preproduction. Mr. Israel, who still thought Mr. Nakoula had been away battling cancer, placed casting notices on One advertised 11 roles that included “George: male, 20-40, a strong leader, romantic, tyrant, a killer with no remorse, accent.” Mr. Israel said Mr. Nakoula told him that “Muhammad would be named George to mislead the actors.”

Mr. Nakoula found his director through a circuitous route. During the time of his bank fraud scheme, he rented five offices in a building owned by a man named Shlomo Bina, who, as it happened, had once aspired to a movie career, too, crossing paths with Mr. Roberts, the director. Chatting one day, Mr. Bina pointed him toward Mr. Roberts, whose real name is Robert Alan Brownell, records show. Attempts to reach Mr. Roberts through lawyers were unsuccessful.

A few Coptic immigrants in the United States have built media outlets with the help of programming that is anything but favorable toward Islam. One of them is Mr. Abdelmasih of Media for Christ. Not only did he provide Mr. Nakoula with 10 days of free studio space, but he also helped get the promotion going for the YouTube trailer by contacting Mr. Sadek in Virginia.

Mr. Sadek wrote in an e-mail that “my friend,” Mr. Abdelmasih, “told me that Mr. Nakoula had created a movie about the Copts’ persecution in Egypt.” Mr. Sadek then publicized the YouTube trailer on his Web site and to his contacts. Mr. Basily, the activist, also spread word about the trailer using social media. Mr. Sadek also put Mr. Nakoula in touch with another important promotional partner: Mr. Jones, the Florida pastor.

Mr. Abdelmasih said Mr. Nakoula called one day to ask to use his facility. “He said to me the movie was about persecution of Christians by the government, combined with radical Muslims,” Mr. Abdelmasih recalled in an interview.

‘Not Tech-Savvy’

Media for Christ provided no cameras or any other production help, Mr. Abdelmasih said. He also insisted that Media for Christ’s “work is not against Muslims,” and he said he was “shocked” by the final product. But his studio has been used to produce “Wake Up America,” a program hosted by Steve Klein, an insurance salesman in Hemet, Calif., and a staunch anti-Islam activist. Mr. Klein served as a consultant for Mr. Nakoula after they first met at Media for Christ.

When Dan Sutter, cast as George’s grandfather, arrived at Media for Christ’s offices in early August last year, Mr. Nakoula was there, greeting people as Sam. Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” played on a television in a break room.

Eight months or so after shooting ended, Mr. Nakoula contacted a few of the actors to return to Media for Christ for looping, a standard part of moviemaking in which inaudible dialogue is rerecorded. Lily Dionne, an extra with no lines who was called to dub for another actress, said that a fellow actor had also been asked back and that Mr. Nakoula told him to say “Muhammad” into a microphone. He did.

On July 2, the trailer was posted on YouTube by someone using the name Sam Bacile. Mr. Nakoula’s son said he was the one who did it.

“My dad is not tech-savvy at all, and does not know how to work social media,” Abanob Nakoula said. “So he asked me to take the initiative to spread the word, and I did my best.”

He explained that using the name Sam Bacile, he created a Facebook account before production started and then the YouTube account.

Abanob Nakoula added, “My dad wanted to show the trailer on TV as a commercial, and I told him that was not going to happen because it costs a lot of money and the networks would not show a 14-minute trailer, especially if they knew the content.”
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #258 on: November 28, 2012, 05:21:41 PM »
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #259 on: February 21, 2013, 01:21:23 PM »

The Assassin at the Door
A Danish free-speech advocate on the day a gunman disguised as a postal worker tried to kill him..

A police psychologist has told me that after an attempt on your life, things may appear somewhat fuzzy. After a while details of what happened may all of a sudden become clear as you remember more and more of this most distressing occurrence.

That hasn't been my experience. What took place on Tuesday, Feb. 5, is as clear and vivid to me now as it was seconds after it happened.

Shortly after 11 a.m., I was preparing to leave my apartment for the half-hour commute to my newspaper office in Malmo, Sweden, when the door-phone buzzed. The phone doesn't work properly—I can hear that I have visitors but not communicate with them. Nor can I buzz them in.

I opened a window in my apartment to see who was down below at the front door. A man dressed in a red jacket with the logo of the Danish postal service was waiting at the door. He said he had a package for me. I answered that I couldn't buzz open the door and would instead come downstairs to get the package.

I went down and opened the front door. The man repeated that he had a package, which he handed to me. As I held the package (which the police later determined was empty), he immediately pulled out a gun and fired at my head.

Between my taking the package and the shot there was less than a second, so I had no inkling of what was going on.

The distance between us must have been less than a yard. Nevertheless, he missed. He then proceeded to fumble with the gun in order to cock it for a second shot. I swung my right fist at his head, and my action confused him sufficiently for him to drop the gun. After a scuffle, he recovered the gun but couldn't make it fire. He then fled.

Regrettably, he managed to run off with the gun. The police found a bullet hole in the wall and a cartridge.

I judged my attacker to be around 25 years old and either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants—most probably from an Arab country or possibly Pakistan. He spoke Danish with no accent.

Since the attempted murder, I have been living under police protection and, as I am 70 years old, will most likely have to do so for the rest of my life.

Despite intensive efforts—the Copenhagen police have set a special 20-man task force to deal with the case—no arrest has been made and consequently no motive can be established.

However, everybody who has commented on the incident has assumed that the motive is political. Some people don't like what I have been saying or writing in recent years, and they want to silence me. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what may have spurred the gunman or those who may have sent him.

For years I have been a campaigner for free speech—since 2004 as president of Denmark's Free Press Society. I have been an outspoken critic of Islamic supremacism and of attempts to impose Islamic Shariah law in Denmark and the West. Together with my Swedish colleague Ingrid Carlqvist, I have recently launched a Swedish-language weekly newspaper called Dispatch International—to the great dissatisfaction of the Swedish mainstream media, which are probably the most politically correct in the Western world and are in absolute agreement on every issue of any consequence.

Dispatch International is critical of mass immigration to Sweden and Denmark from third-world countries and takes a dim view of Islam. As a consequence, we have been reviled as "racist." We are not. We simply insist on our right to defend freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and individual and sexual equality. We also insist on our right to criticize religious fanatics of every stripe who try to impose theocratic laws and customs on free societies.

When I was a young Marxist during the 1960s and '70s, these opinions used to be described as characteristic of the political left. Nowadays the defenders of such positions are routinely labeled as right-wing or as belonging to the "extreme right." Meanwhile, what used to be the left is cozying up to holy men who want adulterous women to be stoned, homosexuals to be hanged, apostates from Islam to be killed, and 1,200-year-old laws emanating from somewhere in the Arabian desert to replace our free constitutions.

In my home country of Denmark, the reaction to the failed murder has mainly been one of horror. Nearly all leading politicians and media have condemned it. To be sure, some newspapers have availed themselves of this opportunity to emphasize what a despicable racist I am, but at least they express their satisfaction that I'm not dead.

Not so in Sweden, where I work most of the time. The Swedish media have either hinted that I have invented the incident in order to set myself up as a martyr—which would have required a major conspiracy involving the Danish police and Security Service—or they seem disappointed that my delivery man was not a better marksman.

What's next?

Unfortunately, the attempt on my life is one in a wave of political assassinations or attempted assassinations that has swept Europe since Ayatollah Khomeini issued his so-called fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989. Some have been killed—among them the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn and Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Others, like writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have been forced to flee Europe or go into hiding.

I am determined not to be silenced, come what may. I refuse to live in a world ruled by the gun.

Mr. Hedegaard, a journalist and historian, is the founder of the International Free Press Society and editor in chief of Dispatch International
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #260 on: March 07, 2013, 04:12:16 PM »
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #261 on: March 08, 2013, 08:51:19 PM »

A Double Standard on Hate By Daniel GreenfieldEvery year college campuses across the
country hold a festival of hatred aimed at Jews and the Jewish State. Israeli
Apartheid Week has become notorious for the targeted harassment of Jewish students,
support for Hamas and even physical violence. This year the David Horowitz Freedom
Center has responded to Israeli Apartheid Week with Islamic Apartheid Week. Unlike
Israeli Apartheid Week, which is based on a lie, Islamic Apartheid Week addresses
the sexism, homophobia and religious bigotry threatening minorities in the Muslim
world. To promote Islamic Apartheid Week, the Freedom Center attempted to place an
ad in forty college papers. The ad called "Faces of Islamic Apartheid" drew
attention to the victims of Islamic sexism, homophobia and theocracy by briefly
telling the stories of gay men hanged in Iran, women and girls murdered by their
governments and their families for the crime of falling in love and the Christian
Minister for Minorities Affairs in Pakistan's cabinet who was murdered for trying to
reform his country's theocratic blasphemy laws. These four women, three men and one
little girl were the victims of Islamic Apartheid. Five of them have been murdered.
Their memory lives on only when they are remembered. One has been on death row for
six years. Telling her story may help save her life. The remaining two live under
threat of death. Instead of listening to their stories, the campus culture of
political correctness drowned out their voices and apologized for even allowing
their stories to be told. Nine college papers turned the ad down, five of them in
the University of California system which has been criticized for tolerating
anti-Semitism. When the California State Assembly passed a resolution condemning
anti-Semitism on campus and warned that no public resources should be used for
anti-Semitic hate, the University of California objected on free speech grounds.
However free speech for Israeli Apartheid Week did not translate into free speech
for Islamic Apartheid Week. Seven college papers took the advertisement. Of those
papers, Tufts University's Tufts Daily and Austin's Daily Texan both ran apologies
from their editors for even printing the ad. Tufts Daily editor Martha Shanahan
called the decision to run the ad an "editorial oversight." Daily Texan editor
Susannah Jacob denounced the attempt to tell the stories of victimized women and
children as "hateful" and "an unspoken incitement to violence." Martha Shanahan
spent two pages apologizing for the existence of the "Islamophobic and violently
offensive" advertisement, the existence of Tufts Daily, its staff and her own
existence. At no point during her long series of apologies, did Martha acknowledge
that her paper had run four editorials in a single week from Students for Justice in
Palestine attacking Israel and promoting hatred for the Jewish State. And in an
unequal response to this, it also ran a brief letter from Tufts Friends of Israel
distancing itself from the ad and politely suggesting that apartheid shouldn't be
used to refer to Israel. Anthony Monaco, the President of Tufts University, took to
Twitter to denounce the advertisement for vilifying Islam, but made no such
denunciation of the Tufts Daily's op-ed, "The Case for Israeli Apartheid" which (not
coincidentally) appeared on the same day as the ad. At Tufts, no one apologizes for
accusing democratic Israel of apartheid. There are only apologies when theocratic
Iran and Pakistan are accused of practicing Islamic Apartheid. When anti-Israel
voices are outweighed 4-to-1 and the editor apologizes for publishing another
perspective that would have made it 4-to-2 then the freedom of debate at Tufts
University is in a very sad state. When that same editor prints editorials
describing Israel as an apartheid state, but promises to put in place an entire
system of oversight to make certain that no advertisement challenging Islamic
Apartheid is ever printed again, then a system of censorship has been put into place
silencing the voices of victims and encouraging their persecutors. The Daily Texan's
Susannah Jacob claimed that the crosshairs over the faces of the victims were an
incitement to violence when they were actually a way of bringing urgency to the
violence that had been committed against them. And making it clear that she never
even saw the advertisement that she was denouncing, Susannah described the ad as
depicting six women, when it included two gay men, one Christian man and one little
girl. Susannah further distorted the truth about Islamic Apartheid when she
described the pervasive sexism, homophobia and theocracy that these people fell
victim to as "discrete incidents of violence by Muslims" being used "to implicate
all Muslims" while ignoring the fact that five of the victims in the ad had been
targeted by their governments or with government backing. Can the Daily Texan's
editor honestly claim that Iran's persecution of women and gay men or Pakistan's
persecution of Christians are "discrete incidents of violence", rather than state
policy? Could she find a single human rights organization that would agree with such
a dishonest whitewashing of the terror under which millions live? The responses to
the advertisement have established once again that some forms of apartheid are
privileged on campus and that some forms of persecution cannot be talked about.
Demonizing the Israeli victims of Islamic terror is within the realm of campus free
speech, but speaking about the vulnerable minorities in the Muslim world is not. If
the advertisement was wrong, then there would have been no need to censor it. False
claims can easily be disproven. Five minutes with Google would have told every
reader and editor whether there was any truth to the Faces of Islamic Apartheid. It
is never necessary to censor lies. It is only necessary to censor truth. That is why
the majority of campus papers – ten so far, including Harvard whose editors said
they would not print it under any circumstances -- refused to run this paid
advertisement. It is why those few who did have begun making ritual apologies while
lying about its contents. It is why the attacks on the advertisement have taken
refuge in vague platitudes about offensiveness, without a single attempt at a
factual rebuttal. It is why every response to the advertisement has consisted of
claiming that speaking about Islamic bigotry is the real bigotry. There were eight
faces and eight names in the censored advertisement that the President of Tufts, the
editors of Tufts Daily, the Daily Texan and the editors of ten college papers that
turned down the ad, did not want their students to see or know about because it
might disturb the manufactured campus consensus that they have constructed with
great effort around Israel and Islamic terrorism. These are the names. Amina Said.
Sarah Said. Afshan Azad. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Shahbas Bhatti. Rimsha Masih.
Mahmoud Asgari. Ayaz Marhoni. They were repressed as individuals. Now their story is
being repressed on the American campus. Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism
Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center     
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #262 on: May 12, 2013, 10:41:35 AM »

Truth is a defense.  Let the Truth be determined!
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #263 on: June 28, 2013, 12:37:39 PM »
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #264 on: July 26, 2013, 11:41:56 AM »
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #265 on: April 09, 2014, 07:55:32 PM »
Power User
Posts: 11807

« Reply #266 on: April 09, 2014, 08:23:10 PM »

Having suffered female genital mutilation and constant death threats, this is the least worst thing done to her by muslims.
Power User
Posts: 30573

« Reply #267 on: April 10, 2014, 10:59:05 AM »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!