Who really made that anti-Muslim movie

Question: is the information presented in this film correct?

As I head for bed at 0300, I want to say this is one reason I love the Cranach Blog. I learn information faster on important topics faster than I might unless I read a lot of news items. Thank you for putting up the topics early, Dr. Veith. J. Dean, I haven’t watched the film clip yet. Is it available? Good night. (:

Is freedom of speech an absolute or a relative good?
Is one entitled to shout “fire” in a theatre when there is no fire, causing a panic nonetheless, possibly resulting in harm to innocent people?
I’m in no way defending the response of those who stormed the Benghazi US consulate. What I’m suggesting is that the right to make an inflammatory film about Islam needs to be balanced agains the likely consequences of such a film provoking civil unrest resulting in innocent deaths.
I’m in favour of legitimate analysis and criticism of Islam, but not necessarily in favour of gratuitous insult. That’s precisely where I’d draw the line re freedom of speech.

This is *very* bad news for the Copts, and if our government revealed the man’s name then it’s continuing to act in a way whose motivation is unclear, but whose effect is the destruction of Christianity in its most ancient homelands.

(On another note, Dr. Veith, I’m trying to get in touch with you via email. Can you send me a note at the email I list above? Thanks!)

1. Defend the right of him, and of all Americans, to speak freely.
2. Use that right to criticize him as you see fit.
3. Use that right to point out just how bad the movie trailer is (so bad as to almost be on purpose).
4. Don’t use the possible crazed reactions of others to bound your speech, or cause you to bound the speech of others; there is no free speech if that is the controlling factor. Rather, use your right to speak well, and think about what you say before you say it. Also, encourage others to do the same.
5. The blame falls squarely on those who used this video as a pretext to incite violence, as well as on those who know nothing more than to follow them like baby birds following the first large, moving thing they see.

“It turns out that the man who made that reportedly salacious movie about Mohammed, The Innocence of Muslims, that has set the Middle East on fire ”

I’m not sure what you meant here, but we really need to watch how we say things.

If I go on a murderous rampage in Washington DC because one of you depict Jesus Christ in an offensive manner, you did not CAUSE our capital to be set on fire — I did, and the fault would lie with me alone. I would be a foaming-at-the-mouth, murderous, psychotic, backwards nut job, and people with a shred of courage and any regard for free speech should say so, instead of being frightened into submission by my terrorism and barbarity.

People who carry out this type of violence do not need a movie as a prime motivator. They will continue to use violence whether there is a movie or not.

Michael B. @ 6

That’s the most lucid and common sense comment you’ve ever posted on this blog. I think we’re rubbing off on you!

Pr Henderson @ 3

I think the whole ‘yelling fire in a crowded theater’ and ‘lighting a match next to a can of gasoline’ comparisons are off the mark. I mean, we’re half a world a way, we’re talking about a single individual, and how he shared his ideas. We wouldn’t tolerate one actually yelling ‘fire’ because of the proximate danger, but insinuating that these people would have been quietly going about their daily lives had they not learned of this ‘movie’ is a little disingenuous.

What people are leaving unsaid is that they are willing to sensor ideas they don’t like–and since it sounds oh-so-reasonable it should be no big deal. What’s next? Scary.

Under your view, at what point do people become responsible for their actions? Don’t you think that the bar will be moved lower and lower?

On a side note, wasn’t all that money that went to help the rebel depose Ghaddafi well spent? Like they say, money can’t by you love.

Pr Henderson, that is an excellent analysis. Our actions do not happen in a vacuum.

Fjsteve, the new Libyan government is actively pursuing an investigation, a Libyan doctor tried to save the ambassador, and Libyan security guards died defending the ambassador.

Rev. Mark Henderson @3: “I’m in favour of legitimate analysis and criticism of Islam, but not necessarily in favour of gratuitous insult. “

Just what is the distinction between a legitimate criticism and a gratuitous insult of such a satanic evil as Mohammedism?

Given your equivocating “not necessarily” just what kinds of acts of war and Islamoterrorism against the U.S. would qualify as being outside such a distinction?

Does the recent attack on U.S. property, the killing of U.S. citizens, and the brutal sodomy and murder of the U.S. ambassador not qualify?!?

I hope you can provide clarity to such distinctions from your statement, because, as it stands, your statement is not what should be made by a Christian pastor or a U.S. citizen in these circumstances.

Looks like anti-video protests are spreading. Paris, France is looking to have one on the 22nd of Sept, and there are lots of calls for significant protests in Algiers. (just to pick a couple off the top of my head)

On the other side, there have been several counter-protests by Muslims in the the NAME areas and Europe, protesting against the killings and the killers.

KK, #11, the stories I read said most of the security forces just sort of scattered. Of course there’s good and bad in every bunch. There are Iraqis actively defending US interests in Iraq. Same in Afghanistan. Does it appear to you that there is a major groundswell of appreciation for US assistance in these countries? Or just the opposite?

fjsteve – our posts crossed, but my #13 mentions that there are counter-protests taking place, held by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries. I wouldn’t go so far as calling it a “major groundswell”, but it is there.

Gosh, Carl, I thought the ambassador’s fate was exactly what you always wanted to see happen to officials of the Obama administration. I’m glad you’ve changed.

Ouch, Tom. Ouch.

Monk, #15, I’m not so sure what those counter protests are all about but I suspect they are mostly trying to counter the bad image of Islam being portrayed by the violent protests. I doubt there is much pro-US sentiment even among them.

I was shocked (I suppose I shouldn’t be) when I heard the film maker identified by name and his religion on National Public Radio. That is an almost certain death sentence for him and trouble for his fellow Copts.

fjsteve – it’s a mixed bag. Most of the signs I’ve seen being held in the protests are condemning the murder, but there are definitely some (a third?) of the signs expressing appreciation for Stevens’ work.

Monk, I did see the Libyan counter protest and also the Sorry Project facebook page, which is moving. I hope they gain steam. Unfortunately, I suppose anger is a greater motivator than righteous indignation.

“Unfortunately, I suppose anger is a greater motivator than righteous indignation.”

It always is.

Tom @16,

At least this time you didn’t put a smiley face after your asinine comment. I think you owe Carl an apology.

P.C. @ 23, Carl can dish out the unseemly stuff. I’m sure he can take it, too.

Tom Hering’s comments are always informative, including when he often has nothing informative to say.

For example, his tu quoque fallacy in #24.

Carl, is it a fallacy if it is true?

trotk,
To what does your comment in #26 refer? Is it Tom’s admission that his #16 comment was “unseemly stuff” (i.e., an ad hominem attack), or his admission in his #24 comment that he is justified to do what, in his unsubstantiated opinion, he accuses me of doing?

Carl @ 27 – The irony is that you are now, now, bringing up tu quoque and ad hominem, two of your favorite argumentative tropes, in defense of your own argument against Tom’s. Was Tom’s point in bad taste? Maybe. Probably. So what? You have called for similar treatment for Obama Administration officials in this forum in the past. Many of your arguments are rife with over-the-top invective and ad hominem insults to such an extent that the point you are trying to make descends into a simple, and simplistic, “I hate those guys. I really, really do.” And I don’t really care if that is the content of the majority of your posts, but it does tend to obscure those times when you actually do have something important say.

Carl,

The tu quoque fallacy you mentioned immediately prior to my comment. Do I need to spell it out for you? Let me know if you are still confused. Sometimes I think that your overly creative use of pejoratives steals the available resources from your brains, resulting in drivel (littered with ad hominems) flowing forth.

Don’t get me wrong; I think that your use of language is astounding. I have never heard middle school playground language even begin to approach yours in terms of quality of insult without resorting to the four-letter bombs. I stand in awe.

Just for the record, was anyone surprised at all that Carl Vehse asked (@12):

Just what is the distinction between a legitimate criticism and a gratuitous insult …

If ever there was a man who couldn’t tell the difference, it is Carl.

“So do we blame this guy or defend his freedom of speech?”

Pr. Henderson @ 3 says “I’m in favour of legitimate analysis and criticism of Islam, but not necessarily in favour of gratuitous insult. That’s precisely where I’d draw the line re freedom of speech.” In other words, he is fine with the government drawing a line at what it sees as gratuitous insult, denying such speech 1st Amendment rights.

Were that to be the extent of our 1st Amendment rights, they would be worthless. Pr. Henderson himself, for example, were he to declare the biblical truth that homosexual behavior is sin, would no doubt be deemed, by at least some government officials, as gratuitously insulting homosexuals, and thus not entitled to that declaration. That is law in Canada, as I understand it. Is that what you want, Pr. Henderson?

Random Lutheran @ 5, on the other hand, nails it. The government has no business evaluating the content of our speech and determining whether or not we’ve engaged in “gratuitous insult”. However, we as private citizens are perfectly free to evaluate and opine on the content of speech of our fellow citizens, as we freely do on this blog.

Crazed terrorists in the Middle East should not impact, in any way, the civil rights we are guaranteed under our Constitution.

SKPeterson @28, trotk@29, and tODD@30,

I point out a tu quoque fallacy based on an ad hominem attack, and you three immediately response with ad hominem attacks based on a tu quoque fallacy.

Now that is irony!

All of the whining angst about the anti-Muslim movie seems to be more blowing smoke, according to this article, “Libyan Official Confirms Benghazi Assault a Pre-Planned Militant Attack Timed for 9-11.”

The latest murderous attack by islamists supports the 2006 video clip, <a href="Taqiyya” (“deception”), referenced in the article.

Since then nationwide telephoned bomb threats, including at the University of Texas, have now started.

Carl (@32), sigh. The whole point of the ad hominem fallacy — and that is its point, to serve as a logical critique — is to object when someone decries an argument because of who made it.

Please note, I’m not decrying the argument you’re making here, whatever it is. I am, simply, making a comment about you. And your tendency to spout gratuitous insults (which no one would confuse or has confused with legitimate criticism).

While that is, in the literal sense, ad hominem, it is not, as such, a fallacy.

More to the point: Duh. Duh, yes, I’m criticizing you. Take it like a man and own your past behavior, or admit your error. Stop making these weak retorts.

Maybe take some time this weekend to think of new words to mash together with the President’s surname. Oh, and drink plenty of water. You’ve got several more weeks of spittle-flecking to do.

Hey guys, I’ve finally figured it out. “Vehse” is actually a sock puppet for a democrat. He’s pretending to be the most outrageously, ridiculously repugnant “conservative” person possible to give all the real conservatives a bad name.

How did I figure this out? Just like those nasty liberals, Vehse is redefining the meanings of words to fit his needs. Remember all the “racist” words from a while back?

“Vehse”‘s roots have finally been exposed – the democrat controlling the handle is redefining “ad hominem” to include pointing out that he was doing ad hominem attacks.

Brilliant! Now, you can’t possibly make a valid argument against “Vehse”! He makes nothing but ad hominem attacks, pretending to be the nastiest, meanest, stupidest person around, but any rebuttals by you guys are instantly invalid!

Why? Because he has declared that it is an ad hominem attack to point out that he is making an ad hominem attack, and thus your post against him is invalid!!

Ta da!!!

In all this, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthian ring true: 23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.”

reg @ 36: Absolutely! That is the case for those of us who are Christians in determining how we are to use the free speech rights we are guaranteed under the Constitution.

Carl, it isn’t an ad hominem (to chime in with tODD) if my primary point was that you insult people.

And WebMonk, I long ago decided that Carl is tODD’s sock puppet, put here for the amusement of us all.

The film is not the real issue. It’s a distraction, probably intentional.

This is the real issue:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-review-on-middle-east-violence-against-us-embassies-a-855835.html

No, no, I’m tODD’s sock puppet. Please don’t confuse me with Carl. Similar name, I know. I know.

trotk@38: “Carl, it isn’t an ad hominem (to chime in with tODD) if my primary point was that you insult people.”

Recall:

#26: Carl, is it a fallacy if it is true?

#27: To what does your comment in #26 refer?

#29: The tu quoque fallacy you mentioned immediately prior to my comment.

Well, trotk, let me spell it out for you again, since your subsequent comments clearly demonstrate your continuing befuddlement.

First, your allegation that I “insult people” confuses “insult” with the truth or a humorous, parodic reference to the truth.

Second, as I explained in #27, Tom’s use of “unseemly stuff” describes what Tom claims I said. Tom used that description in order to justify his ad hominem earlier in #16 to attack my alleged motives. Simply stated, Tom claims he can say “unseemly stuff” because (he says) I said “unseemly stuff.” Even if what I said were “unseemly stuff” (which it isn’t), that does not justify Tom saying “unseemly stuff” himself. Thus it is a tu quoque fallacy.

As for Tom’s ad hominem attack in #16, it makes Tom into a damned liar (unless he repents), because I have never stated anywhere that what happened to the ambassador to Libya was “exactly what [I] always wanted to see happen to officials of the Obama administration.”

trotk @38: “I long ago decided that Carl is tODD’s sock puppet, put here for the amusement of us all.”

Given the flurry of comical, if not desperate, ad hominem red herrings by you, tODD, and WebMonk, it seems safe to conclude that none of you are able to present any serious comments on the issue of Tom’s tu quoque fallacy.

Other Cranach readers may comment on whether such red herrings are also as entertaining to them.

They are entertaining to me!

A Breitbart article, “Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi,” notes that, in accordance with the Obama policy, Secretary of State Clinton signed off on rules of engagement which prohibited Marines from providing security at any American diplomatic installation in Libya, and denied the private security force guarding the ambassador at Benghazi from having ammunition.

Hildabeast’s decision matches her self-described history of nonchalantly braving deadly Bosnian sniper attacks with no protection.

Carl, Carl, Carl (@41), don’t let Trotk distract you with all his logic. That’s not your forte — at all! Don’t be fooled into fighting fire with fire!

No, you’ve got to fight him, Vehse-style! Call him Traitorotk! Or Tr0tk (Tr-zero-tk). That’ll learn ‘im!

Or, I don’t know — I’m not as clever as you at these things — other Carltastic portmanteaux that might involve the word “butt” or “poop” or … well, you know. I mean, I know you know. You know?

But seriously, people don’t come to this blog to hear you attempt to awkwardly apply Latin phrases incorrectly. They come here for the intelligent commentary. Or, barring that, whatever it is you usually do. So c’mon, show us some of that Klassic Karl Komedy!

Randm lutheran @5 +1

I thnk it is appalling (and VERY understandable at the same time) that obama and the state dept and congressmen etc are NOT talking about free speech. Defending it. Saying it is a protected right to say hateful stuff. And EXPLAIN why that is to the watching world especially muslims. They atent stupid. Maybe they would get those arguments and there would better and REAL understanding of our culture and why … Etc…..

The republicans ould be very shrewd to home in on Obamas failure to defend our constitution right here. He has vowed to do just that. He has broken those vows!

And the republicans? (sound of crickets) They are stupid . Even this democrat would respect such a stand on principle.

Why would the President make a point of upholding free speech in this case? With the right of free speech comes responsibility – something that comes with all our rights. (Or so conservatives have always said, and I agree.) The makers of the anti-Muslim film have been far from responsible, because they haven’t owned what they’ve done. Instead, they’ve hidden their identities in order to avoid repercussions. Worse yet, they’ve deliberately allowed others to suffer the blowback from their film: Americans overseas, like our diplomats, and the actors they tricked into appearing in their film. (Some Islamist clerics have called for the trial and execution of the actors.) So the rest of us, too, might want to think twice before holding up the filmmakers as heroes of free speech, or using their example to teach other cultures about American values. The filmmakers are a long way from being a good example of the true American value of freedom with responsibility.

It’s quite possible that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (taken in for questioning this morning by federal probation officers) is just a minor player in the production and distribution of Innocence of Muslims.

Daily KOS isn’t one of my favorite sources of information, but a contributor known as “Panglozz” has been doing some serious digging into the people and organizations responsible for the anti-Muslim film.

For what it’s worth:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/13/1131422/-Nakoula-just-a-fall-guy-Keyman-Joseph-Nassralla

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130900/-Tracing-the-Sam-Bacile-Network?showAll=yes

Fws @ 45-46

Well said. I agree–this issue is about much bigger issues and Obama and crew are responding poorly. Romney could do better but the media hit him over the head with his criticism and called it a gaffe. He’s got to figure out how to communicate to the American people that this is an issue of freedom, that criticism of another religion is acceptable.

The Weekly Standard has a good editorial out today:

[Our leaders] send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce .  .  . Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up.

Whole thing here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/video-didn-t-do-it_652387.html

FWS @ 45-46: You have the issue exactly right. I would argue with you that the Republicans have very clearly laid out this case. You’ll have to research what they’re saying, though, as the media is not carrying their message very clearly. Doesn’t fit the meme, you know. The reputation of the media this cycle among conservatives is that they are “Democrats with press credentials”. That’s about right.

Tom @ 47: Hmm. What the heck are you talking about? There is some kind of “responsibility clause” in our 1st Amendment? Where is that, exactly? I guess those pornographers are darn responsible, aren’t they? How about those Nazis in Skokie? Or the Westboro Baptist Church, whose right to desecrate the funerals of heroic military personnel was upheld by the Supreme Court? Does the 1st Amendment require you to make your identity know in order to exercise your free speech right? Even if doing so will incur a fatwa against you and your family from evil militant terrorists? I don’t think so. I think you’re makin’ stuff up.

So, in your mind, if the President thinks that you have not exercised due responsibility in engaging in free speech, then the government has no obligation to guarantee your free speech rights? Please explain what is left of our constitutional right if whether it will be guaranteed is at the whim of a governmental decision.

I believe we absolutely defend the right to free speech. Inflammatory or not, as long as we have a constitution that provides for free speech, we should defend it.
That said — According to Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqub, Sharia law says that the Muslim or Apostate (non Muslim) deserves death for doing any of the following. “1.) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; 2.) Being sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; 3.) Denying any verse of the Quran or anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, 4.) Holding that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, 5.) reviling the religion of Islam 6.) Being sarcastic about any ruling of the sacred Law; 7.) Denying that Allah intended the Prophet’s message to be followed by the entire world.” Clearly this Muslim sacred law explicitly prohibits free speech, as the U.S. Constitution interprets it. And while some, as I do, may believe in free speech as a tenant of liberty, Muslims limits free speech in the West in two ways, first, under threat of death, prohibiting one to speak out as discussed above, and the second way is through ourselves de-facto self censorship from fear of reprisals.
Perhaps the controversy here is: When is free speech “hate speech?” Within the U.S., “hate speech” is tolerated under free speech until it becomes action, bullying, directly incites violence, etc. However, when it comes to Islam tolerance is much narrower.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is made up of 56 Islamic States, won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on all countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—particularly referring to Islam.
In the Netherlands, Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders was put on trial for publicly criticizing Islam ideas through a short 17-minute movie where the Quaran was quoted. The hundreds of Muslims who sent death threats were never charged.
Austrian Parliamentary member named Susanne Winter was convicted in 2009 of a similar crime.
In October 2010 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who speaks out against imposition Sharia law internationally was charged for the same crime.
In another earlier event, Theo Van Gogh was murdered for his film Submission, depicting partially veiled woman with the words of the Quran written on their skin. He saw it as art not degradation.
In 2008, the European Union passed the Framework Decision (2008/913/JHA). While its intent was to prohibit those who would deny or trivialize crimes against humanity and genocide, it has been primarily used to stop free speech as it pertains to discussions, debates, cartoons, etc. depicting Muhammad and Islam and to date, not one case has been brought when Christians or Buddhists’ are targeted for humor or hatred. You might be saying, but that’s not America.
Isn’t it just a preview? In America, people are fired for expressing their views on Islam (not a hate crime; just free speech).
Newspapers around the world, including in America, refuse to publish Mohammed cartoons or satire of Mohammed. This is an example of current de facto censorship. The reason they give is “to avoid offending or inflaming” the Muslim world. But is the effect of media self-censorship really concern for the Muslim world or concern that while freedom of speech protects us from law suites, it doesn’t protect us from death.
The animated comedy show, South Park, known for its demeaning satire wrote two episodes that depicted Mohammad. A New York Islamic group, called Revolution Muslims warned, “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid, and they will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.” The network self censored and pulled the episodes. However there seems to be an endless amount of parody of Jesus… and they are not afraid of Christian reprisals.
The government may as well have signed this man’s death warrant by publishing the Coptic Christian’s name. Maybe that is their intent. And we believe this stuff only happens overseas…
Protect our freedom of speech (as despicable as we may find the topic).
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington
I think this image may appeal to the radical Islamist.
Sorry my post was so long.

Don’t be sorry, T. @ 52. That was a terrific post.

Don, what the heck are you talking about? I didn’t argue that speech must be responsible in order to be protected here at home. Rather, I spoke to Frank’s suggestion (@ 45) that the President ought to be using this whole incident to teach Muslims elsewhere about our right of free speech. I argued that’s a bad idea because, in this particular case, the people exercising their right of free speech are (A.) deliberately insulting Muslims and (B.) total cowards. They’re kind of not a good example to start with – if you want to persuade Muslims in other countries.

That’s what you were saying, Tom? When you said “Why would the President make a point of upholding free speech in this case”, you were not talking about him actually protecting it, but promoting it? OK, I really missed that.

Of course, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the speech, he certainly has an obligation to protect it.

taqiyya-one may lie to further the purpose of islam -
video says it all:
http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/creeping-sharia-three-things-about.html
C-CS

Don @ 55

So … who, exactly, is failing to protect free speech? How, exactly, are they failing to protect it? You and others are confusing apologies for content, and criticism of content, with a failure to protect speech itself.