The film that killed the Ambassador.

caz

If you have heard about this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9539690/US-Ambassador-killed-in-Libya-Barack-Obama-dispatches-US-marines-to-hunt-killers.html

Well here's the film as well its fairly ridiculous B movie that sort of reminds me of the life of Brian but is any film worth killing people over ?

karasti

My latest understanding in reading the news is that they are now thinking that it was a coordinated, planned attack on the anniversary of 9/11 and not as much about the anger over the film as initially though. However, I'm sure the news will change more often than I change my socks at this point. If it really was about the movie, I think it goes a lot deeper than anger over the movie. It's anger over a whole lot of other things, and anger towards the US is pretty rampant in the Middle East due to a lot of factors.

vinlyn

Just to give the situation a tad bit of perspective, do you remember when the 2 huge natural rock Buddhas were destroyed by the Taliban in Afghanistan?

At the time, I was on another Buddhist forum, and quite a few of the regular posters thought it was appropriate to go to war over it.

My point -- if it's truly important to you, you might act differently than when it's not something important to you.

ThailandTom

I thought it was not one factor but many, and the 9/11 anniversary probably caused the water to boil over the edge, even if the murders and attacks were a day late. One scary thing I did hear though is that in the masses of people they were all shouting "we are all Osama Bin Laden."

B5C

If you didn't want to anger thousands of Muslims...

you shouldn't have made that film.

JohnG

An issue is that there are people who in the past have killed because their religion/faith was mocked. This isn't an old concept, today too many people here are use to this in their own faith/religion; and no consideration of anything else. I'm an aspiring screenwriter, with several awards to my credit. From history I learned, but there are too many who choose to mock. I do not condone, the violance and hatered, but one needs to be aware of the personal faith of other's; especially when we have all seen what happens when that faith/religion is mocked.

One may yell freedom of expression, but one still must live in a world of reality.

caz

JohnG said:

An issue is that there are people who in the past have killed because their religion/faith was mocked. This isn't an old concept, today too many people here are use to this in their own faith/religion; and no consideration of anything else. I'm an aspiring screenwriter, with several awards to my credit. From history I learned, but there are too many who choose to mock. I do not condone, the violance and hatered, but one needs to be aware of the personal faith of other's; especially when we have all seen what happens when that faith/religion is mocked.

One may yell freedom of expression, but one still must live in a world of reality.

In reality does a poorly written B-film call for extreme violence ?

andyrobyn

One would hope not ... And Buddhist philosophy leads us away from responses like violence however, not all people have such views and if you believe that religion leads to such violence why would you incite in such a way ?

Citta

No, of course not. But you are putting your question to the wrong people.

caz

andyrobyn said:

One would hope not ... And Buddhist philosophy leads us away from responses like violence however, not all people have such views and if you believe that religion leads to such violence why would you incite in such a way ?

Who knows maybe the director had something to prove such as Islam isn't a peaceful religion I gathered that from a Semi-inaccurate portrayal of the main character.

andyrobyn

Yes, he may have and fortunately we do not have to judge his intention and actions. The point being made is that the information gained from Buddhism informs us that such actions are surely ill informed.

Cloud

After watching that video, I can see how it would upset Muslims, and be particularly inflammatory to extremists.

caz

andyrobyn said:

Yes, he may have and fortunately we do not have to judge his intention and actions. The point being made is that the information gained from Buddhism informs us that such actions are surely ill informed.

Certainly so.

caz

Cloud said:

After watching that video, I can see how it would upset Muslims, and be particularly inflammatory to extremists.

Well it doesn't take much for them to move toward violence, Often people forget that those in the middle east are fairly backward in their views.

Cloud

Well @caz there are some rednecks and others here in the States that are just as backward if not more so. If anyone portrayed Jesus like that, and was within the "sphere" of these people, they'd probably be looking to lynch someone, and no one would really be surprised by that.

I'm not sure it's possible to portray Jesus that way except fictionally... and I'm not sure at all about the details of Mohammed's life so can't speak to the veracity of any part of this film. I'm wondering what the "intent" was, since this film doesn't seem designed to do anything except piss people off. It certainly isn't trying to teach anything. And where was the security? I'd think security would be at the top of everyone's list over there.

caz

Cloud said:

Well @caz there are some rednecks and others here in the States that are just as backward if not more so. If anyone portrayed Jesus like that, and was within the "sphere" of these people, they'd probably be looking to lynch someone, and no one would really be surprised by that.

I'm not sure it's possible to portray Jesus that way except fictionally... and I'm not sure at all about the details of Mohammed's life so can't speak to the veracity of any part of this film. I'm wondering what the "intent" was, since this film doesn't seem designed to do anything except piss people off. It certainly isn't trying to teach anything. And where was the security? I'd think security would be at the top of everyone's list over there.

Muhammed was certainly no Jesus put it that way. I think this is just another freedom of expression film to prove a point, They portrayed Muhammed as a violent savage which by all accounts he certainly comes across as in his actions historically. So perhaps this was just another way of showing how rotten the fruits of the tree are It wasn't just me who detected the Christian undertones ?

Of course there always are some who use their own conscience as a guide rather then the antiquated morality of some book.

Cloud

I found it jarring that Mohammed looked so much like the typical portrayal of Jesus. That's the only Christian undertone I noticed, whether it was intentional or not.

caz

Cloud said:

I found it jarring that Mohammed looked so much like the typical portrayal of Jesus. That's the only Christian undertone I noticed, whether it was intentional or not.

You didn't notice the scene where they killed the Christian lady and it cut to her cross ?

Cloud

Oh sure, I saw that part.

PrairieGhost

Caz:

I like that picture. It would be cool if everyone saw that picture.

andyrobyn

What are the features of this film you would recommend to others, PrairieGhost? Film making is one of my interests and hence my question.

pineblossom

Interesting how media is playing on emotions.

PrairieGhost

andyrobyn

No, I didn't mean the film, I meant the picture.



I'm not particularly interested in the film.

andyrobyn

:dunce: oops, sorry ...

caz

PrairieGhost said:

andyrobyn

No, I didn't mean the film, I mean the picture.



I'm not particularly interested in the film.

I appreciate the sentiment of what they are doing, Its nice to see some Muslims stand up for peace and Non violence for a change ( That voice isn't a loud one in the Islamic world ) in the light of someone mocking their religion, Although the accuracy of that gentleman's sign is questionable.

PrairieGhost

The film is a bit like the over-the-top teasing given out by the weaker friends of a bully. You know, when even the bully gets embarrassed by it.

DairyLama

caz said:

In reality does a poorly written B-film call for extreme violence ?

Definitely not.

Sile

The film was made in July, and got practically zero attention. Unfortunately, a network in Egypt decided to air it several days ago, after someone translated it recently into Arabic. A man named Morris Sadek began posting trailers for the Arabic version on his FB page, and the Egyptian network, Al-Nas, seems to have picked it up from there.

There's still something funky to me about all this, though. The information coming in just gets more and more bizarre:

"Steve Klein, who said he served as a script consultant, said that he and the producers originally called the movie "Innocence of Bin Laden" in hopes of drawing underground Islamic extremists in the Los Angeles area.

"The movie was only supposed to show in Hollywood," said Klein, who described himself as "an unsophisticated James Bond."

He added, "We passed out fliers at mosques around California where we knew there was a small percentage of terrorists. And the idea was to locate … those folks who believed Osama bin Laden was a great guy and to try to get them to come to the movie.""

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-filmmaker-20120913,0,3754075.story

According to this and other stories, it wasn't the posting you YouTube that is thought to have sparked the attacks but the airing on Egyptian TV.

Fox News today going all-out to show that the filmmaker was "not Israeli," as is Israel. Fox has further decided that the filmmaker (whose identity they don't know, but they absolutely know he's not Israeli) is not Jewish. Fox's astute allegation is that the film has been made by Muslims as a false flag operation, even though Klein, whom they themselves interview, states the point of the film was to flush out Islamist Californians.

What a mess.

zombiegirl

Sile said:

Fox News today going all-out to show that the filmmaker was "not Israeli," as is Israel. Fox has further decided that the filmmaker (whose identity they don't know, but they absolutely know he's not Israeli) is not Jewish. Fox's astute allegation is that the film has been made by Muslims as a false flag operation, even though Klein, whom they themselves interview, states the point of the film was to flush out Islamist Californians.

Fox News does love their conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:
I don't blame the director one bit for not wanting his name known, lol.

vinlyn

caz said:

...
Well it doesn't take much for them to move toward violence, Often people forget that those in the middle east are fairly backward in their views.

Saying a group of people is "backward in the their views". That's lumping an awfully lot of people together. And I have known Muslims from the Middle East and Asia who were not "backward in their views" at all. Additionally, what exactly does "backward in their views" mean. Would a group of people who constantly discuss writings that are 2500 years old be "backward in their views"? After all -- that's us! Not all traditional thinking is "backwards in...view" -- sometimes it's just correct. And, your posts are often more fundamentalist than many on this forum -- does that make you "backward in [your] views"?

karasti

I can't blame the guy in the sign for his poor english. My attempts at a similar sign in his language would not even be possible. At least he tries and the sentiment is obvious.

While I don't condone their violence by any means, I understand their anger. Many of them are already angry at the US and jump on any chance to further than anger. Unfortunate. However, American's tend to get too happy with their "Freedom of Speech" and then don't bother to consider the consequences. I'm not sure I believe the people who made the video, didn't know exactly what the reaction would be. "It was only meant to be seen in CA." Yeah, right, because that's how the world works today. Clearly they know anything and everything recorded ends up on the internet these days.

vinlyn

^^ Right on target, Karasti. Many Americans have a weird view of freedom of speech...in my opinion. Many see the "freedom" part, but sense no responsibility.

And yes, the idea that things like this remain hidden in our technology-ridden world. Utter nonsense. I saw a statement made by the people involved in physically making the film (e.g., not the producer, but the actors and so forth) and they said they were not aware that the intent of the film was such...and I thought, "duh".

caz

vinlyn said:

caz said:

...
Well it doesn't take much for them to move toward violence, Often people forget that those in the middle east are fairly backward in their views.

Saying a group of people is "backward in the their views". That's lumping an awfully lot of people together. And I have known Muslims from the Middle East and Asia who were not "backward in their views" at all. Additionally, what exactly does "backward in their views" mean. Would a group of people who constantly discuss writings that are 2500 years old be "backward in their views"? After all -- that's us! Not all traditional thinking is "backwards in...view" -- sometimes it's just correct. And, your posts are often more fundamentalist than many on this forum -- does that make you "backward in [your] views"?

I shall elaborate, By being backwards in view I mean there are a majority of people in the middle east who would happily support execution for apostasy and also for mocking Islam or their Prophet. So being backward in view necessarily implies being willing to use violence to subjugate those who disagree with you. Having said this you need not worry I won't be violent toward you for disagreeing with me

sndymorn

Perhaps it wasn't the film , but the camera that killed the ambassador.
Of course, I'm in the camp that believes it isn't cameras that kill people, but people that kill people.

Beej

Angry people LOOK for excuses to act on their anger. The film and the religion are circumstantial. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at work here.

Sile

I realize the analogy is imperfect, but I'm curious what the reaction would be in America, if the Libyan government established a diplomatic complex in Texas, funded a Tea Party operation to publicly end the life of our President, and then aired an English language piece on Fox calling Jesus a child molester.

It absolutely, positively would not justify Texans' possible response of burning down the Libyan government complex and purposely or semi-purposely killing those in it.

But how would our news services and government treat the story?

sndymorn

UPI

The Libyan government's embassy in Austin today said that it's efforts to kill or overthrow President Obama had failed. They described their efforts to enlist the aid of the Tea Party in this endeavor by this curt report: " it seems the Tea Party had plenty of guns and military training but no desire. When we asked why they would not act for Libya in this pursuit they simply stated that they did not want to hurt the President, only see that he did not get elected. " Since we Libyans prefer dictatorships , it seems we have a culture clash. On the matter of insulting their deity, since the land allows government sponsored art depicting urine dipped crosses and "The Book of Mormon," our efforts to paint their Savior as molester failed as yesterday's news...
That's all for now.

Beej

@Sile- Some things to consider in response to your curiousity may be found in this video:

Sile

TheBeejAbides said:

@Sile- Some things to consider in response to your curiousity may be found in this video:

Great so far - watching now ---

JohnG

caz said:

JohnG said:

An issue is that there are people who in the past have killed because their religion/faith was mocked. This isn't an old concept, today too many people here are use to this in their own faith/religion; and no consideration of anything else. I'm an aspiring screenwriter, with several awards to my credit. From history I learned, but there are too many who choose to mock. I do not condone, the violance and hatered, but one needs to be aware of the personal faith of other's; especially when we have all seen what happens when that faith/religion is mocked.

One may yell freedom of expression, but one still must live in a world of reality.

In reality does a poorly written B-film call for extreme violence ?

No, but history has shown what happens when it does. I watched the Cnn report, and can conclued that the actress who was interviewd was not being truthful. And, no one in the industry has any records of a casting call for this project.

charirama

There is free speech then there is Right Speech.

It is well known that some people with extreme views will react to their Prophet being portrayed in what they consider to be an insulting manner.

I am by no means condoning the actions of the extremists nor am I trying to say the violence was a direct result of the film. I do, however, question the reasons behind making such a movie and whether the producers thought it through before doing so.

vinlyn

charirama said:

There is free speech then there is Right Speech.

It is well known that some people with extreme views will react to their Prophet being portrayed in what they consider to be an insulting manner.

I am by no means condoning the actions of the extremists nor am I trying to say the violence was a direct result of the film. I do, however, question the reasons behind making such a movie and whether the producers thought it through before doing so.

If you've been reading about this much, the sleaze ball who is behind the film is a scam artist with multiple aliases, was convicted of bank fraud, and the film was packed by "hardcore anti-Islam groups". I doubt the producer would know right speech if he tripped over it.

JohnG

With all this, the question now is, will he finish the project; maybe to just see how much further hatred and pain he can inflict? In less then fifteen minutes, all that was won in the past decade, is no lost, and any re-building of trust and co-existance will be another many decades more.

DairyLama

caz said:

By being backwards in view I mean there are a majority of people in the middle east who would happily support execution for apostasy and also for mocking Islam or their Prophet. So being backward in view necessarily implies being willing to use violence to subjugate those who disagree with you.

Yes, some of the attitudes and behaviour seem very medieval and Old Testament, backwards and barbaric. I recall there were some demonstrations by Christians at cinemas in the UK when the film "Life of Brian" was released - but it was all very civlised and nobody got hurt.

DairyLama

charirama said:

It is well known that some people with extreme views will react to their Prophet being portrayed in what they consider to be an insulting manner.

But isn't the real problem people having extreme views? Why should everyone have to walk on eggs shells for fear of upsetting a hypersensitive minority?

charirama

Yes the real problem is having extreme views.

I think the reason to, as you put it, walk on eggshells is to avoid provoking the madness which results in more suffering. Do No Harm is a good way to live your life and does not change just because you can blame it on someone else.

What we are witnessing now is the culmination of a series of reactions to reactions with each side blaming the other.

sndymorn

" I think the reason to, as you put it, walk on eggshells is to avoid provoking the madness which results in more suffering. Do No Harm is a good way to live your life and does not change just because you can blame it on someone else."

Therefore,charisma, as long as there is one wacko with access to a video camera (and a wacko who leased the theater, and the one who put it on the news and the one who picked it up and put it on the wire and the one who actually showed it to the extremists )willing to produce hateful drivel, there is no hope for peace. Unless ,of course, one side becomes "mindful" .

I think it is better if I take responsibility for the violence I commit and you for yours.

PrairieGhost

The value systems are different. Westerners are more afraid of losing our bodies, the protesters are more afraid of losing their. Westerners run the world, so we don't know what it's like to lose our pride, in fact we don't especially need pride - it's not an issue for us.

Both sides are crazy in their own way though.

DairyLama

charirama said:

Yes the real problem is having extreme views.
I think the reason to, as you put it, walk on eggshells is to avoid provoking the madness which results in more suffering.

So we don't say anything? We let the madness continue unchallenged?

PrairieGhost

Sorry typo, I meant to say extremists are afraid of losing their pride.

vinlyn

charirama said:

Yes the real problem is having extreme views.

I think the reason to, as you put it, walk on eggshells is to avoid provoking the madness which results in more suffering. Do No Harm is a good way to live your life and does not change just because you can blame it on someone else.

What we are witnessing now is the culmination of a series of reactions to reactions with each side blaming the other.

The only problem here is defining "extreme views". Many people here in the West feel that Buddhism is an extreme view.