Pakistani minister offers $100,000 for the death of the US film maker

Gbear

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's actually nothing at all like that. The producers aren't "victims" are they? They predicted the riots due to the film.

The producers aren't the victims. People getting murdered over nothing are.

The point is that it doesn't matter what the video is about or what the girl was wearing. Not only is it not the victims fault. What "they" (in this case "they" means people from the West) were doing is completely ****ing irrelevant.

Asking what the West did to illicit this response is just as nonsensical as asking what a rape victim wore that lead to rape.
Rioting, murdering people and wanting to murder people are their own self-contained lunacy.
Even mentioning what "caused" it is a complete non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with what the victims did and everything to do with what a bunch of dangerous assholes the muslim rioters and those that are egging them on are.

Diego21

I haven't read everything about the "film maker" but he seems to be an Egyptian Christian who, in the safety of living in the US, makes a film that is insulting to Islam. I am sure his fellow Coptic Christians still in Egypt will thank him for his artistic output. Just gives the various muslim factions in Egypt more reason (in there warped minds) to carry on targeting their churches and slaughtering their congregations.

And the outcome of this is people in the west talking about the rights and wrongs of freedom of speech, while in the east, ministers are issueing fatwas and militants are killing innocent people. Are we missing a point here.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay. We'll have to agree to disagree. The film certainly wasn't satire which imo would be covered under freedom of speech. It is simply dangerous and bigoted propaganda which of itself is completely meritless, negative and has no justification in hiding behind freedom of speech.

As a seperate issue and FWIW I absolutely do condemn any violence that arises as a response to the film.

We can't agree to disagree Brown Bomber - I hav'nt seen the film , I don't have a view on it. It is not up to you or I or any individual to decide if it is acceptable or not. The same applies to cartoons books paintings jokes .

If we accept the principle of freedom of speech we have to accept the good with the bad - end of discussion. Bad art unfunny jokes sick cartoons crass movies flag burning is a small price to pay.

And if such outpourings cross the line into incitement to hatred , child pornnography - well then we can get them under the relevant statutes.

There was a time in this country when great books were banned on foot of one complaint.

Turtwig

Diego21 wrote: »

Are we missing a point here.

Yep.Right Wing Anti-Islamist Groups in the West now know that all they have to do to inflame Muslims to violence is produce a cheap video on the internet. It's almost as if Muslims themselves want the muslims bashers to win.

fitz0

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... None of the semantics above has anything to do with your original falsehood that the film/trailer was "satire". Do you stand by this? If so, on what basis? If not, why not just say so?

You're going to have to point out where I said it was satire first. I posted a throwaway joke about Pinky and the Brain.

The semantics you dismiss are actually quite important in the context of your post. A lobby is very different to an industry. They're not the same thing.

The definition of satire that MagicMarker posted loosely fits but I still wouldn't call it satire. It's just an utterly sh*te film.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You do realise that your own personal interpretation of the film is irrelevant, right?
What is relevant is the intentions of the producers of the film.

What a fine example of hypocrisy you're displaying here! A while back in the 'Draw Muhammed' scandal of last June, you were saying quite the opposite. But at least you're getting offended by something, that's the main thing.

[-0-]

Cheers for ruining the thread Brown Bomber.

Brown Bomber

fitz0 wrote: »

You're going to have to point out where I said it was satire first. I posted a throwaway joke about Pinky and the Brain.

The semantics you dismiss are actually quite important in the context of your post. A lobby is very different to an industry. They're not the same thing.

The definition of satire that MagicMarker posted loosely fits but I still wouldn't call it satire. It's just an utterly sh*te film.



What a fine example of hypocrisy you're displaying here! A while back in the 'Draw Muhammed' scandal of last June, you were saying quite the opposite. But at least you're getting offended by something, that's the main thing.

My mistake. I had you confused with -0-. Apologies.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

Cheers for ruining the thread Brown Bomber.

By correcting your mistakes?

Again, do you stand by your claim that it was satire? If so, why?

Brown Bomber

marienbad wrote: »

We can't agree to disagree Brown Bomber - I hav'nt seen the film , I don't have a view on it. It is not up to you or I or any individual to decide if it is acceptable or not. The same applies to cartoons books paintings jokes .

If we accept the principle of freedom of speech we have to accept the good with the bad - end of discussion. Bad art unfunny jokes sick cartoons crass movies flag burning is a small price to pay.

And if such outpourings cross the line into incitement to hatred , child pornnography - well then we can get them under the relevant statutes.

There was a time in this country when great books were banned on foot of one complaint.

I think we need to seperate what is lawful from what is moral. The stated aim of the film makers was to propagandise and propaganda is seperate from free expression IMO as it's function is to manipulate and is without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. If you believe that propaganda falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and as such is immune from criticism that is fine but is just your opinion.

Dave!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think we need to seperate what is lawful from what is moral. The stated aim of the film makers was to propagandise and propaganda is seperate from free expression IMO as it's function is to manipulate and is without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. If you believe that propaganda falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and as such is immune from criticism that is fine but is just your opinion.

If I go trawling through the Conspiracy Theories forum, will I see a bunch of comments by you condemning posters for posting moronic, misleading and dangerous propaganda regarding, among many, many other things, vaccination?

aidan24326

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Did you ever stop to think how insecure in their own beliefs these people must be?

It's incredible how insecure muslims are in their own beliefs. If they were secure in those beliefs they would simply dismiss this kind of thing as the nonsense it obviously is (if you steadfastly believe in islam that is).

The Islam forum on boards is a close-to-home example of the paranoid muslim mind. A big circle-jerk where you're not allowed to say anything that even resembles a dissenting attitude, or an awkward question (hence why most of the regular posters on this forum tend not to bother with it).

For a religion that claims to be so sure of their veracity and righteousness they're strangely (tellingly?) averse to any challenge to their exalted position at the top of the tree of knowledge.

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think we need to seperate what is lawful from what is moral. The stated aim of the film makers was to propagandise and propaganda is seperate from free expression IMO as it's function is to manipulate and is without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. If you believe that propaganda falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and as such is immune from criticism that is fine but is just your opinion.

With all due respect BB we don't need to separate what is lawful from what is moral ! You might but I don't.

But in any case how would you decide ? By whose morals ? Cannon law ? Sharia law ? No I think not - lets just stick with what we have and not be so easily offended .

By the way I would hazard a guess that 90% of communication could be shoehorned into the term propaganda - advertising , political ads, health warnings , editorials etc- what a pandoras box to open !

Sycopat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you believe that propaganda falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and as such is immune from criticism that is fine but is just your opinion.

No one thinks the video is immune from criticism ffs, most people who've seen it agree it's ****ing ****e, and I can't be arsed watching it myself because I suspect it to be complete ****e and I don't think I'll agree with it's characterisation of muslims. Most people commenting on this issue won't have watched the movie. Those who have suffered through it will only have bothered doing so to see what all the fuss is about.

I haven't read anything, not one thing, that says anything good about this movie.

Nothing is free from criticism. The movies not free from criticism and neither is Islam, nor Christianity, nor atheism.

The movie being offensive to muslims is irrelevant.

Being offended is not a good enough reason to try to have someone killed.

Being offensive to bad tempered people is not a good enough reason to ban something.

You just want people to establish the movie as being offensive so you can argue that the evil movie forced the innocent extremists to riot and kill. Because Jews. Again.

It's a completely ridiculous argument, hinged on misunderstanding free speech, an irrational willingness to see conspiracies everywhere, and a frankly odd (possibly anti-islamic!) belief that muslims can't or shouldn't be held accountable for their actions when angered!

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think we need to seperate what is lawful from what is moral. The stated aim of the film makers was to propagandise and propaganda is seperate from free expression IMO as it's function is to manipulate and is without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. If you believe that propaganda falls under the umbrella of freedom of speech and as such is immune from criticism that is fine but is just your opinion.

Almost all information we receive on a day to day basis is propaganda of some form or another. Take, for instance, the field of public relations, founded by Edward Bernays (who was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, which should give you some insight into where Bernays' ideas came from), of which Bernays' commented:

"When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans ... using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations."

Hence, the field of PR was born, and inspired directly by wartime propaganda. Alongside PR, modern advertising is essentially a synonym of propaganda — what's the difference between the two?

So, to answer your question: yes, propaganda does fall under the umbrella of freedom of speech.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think we need to seperate what is lawful from what is moral. ..........

Like claims Jews are "over-represented" in "porn, human trafficking, MDMA trafficking and organ trafficking"?

O, and atheism.

Sarky

Oh hai BB, how's the support for the draw Muhammad day thread going in the Islam forum? Any outrage? Pain or hurt feelings? Anything?

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

By correcting your mistakes?

You did nothing of the sort. There are no mistakes to correct.

Again, do you stand by your claim that it was satire? If so, why?

This has already been posted, but lets go over this again for you.

Definition of satire wrote:

The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues

Islam is a topical issue, and the video was an attempt at ridiculing the founder of Islam through exaggeration, and therefore exposing the Islamic community's stupidity by causing outrage.

So do I still believe it was satirical? Yes, you're damn right I do. Now gallop away on that high horse of yours and take that holier-than-thou attitude of yours into the real world.

Nodin

[-0-] wrote: »

...........


Islam is a topical issue, and the video was an attempt at ridiculing the founder of Islam through exaggeration, and therefore exposing the Islamic community's stupidity by causing outrage.

........

Not that you'd overly generalise or anything.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

You did nothing of the sort. There are no mistakes to correct.

Actually there is. It wasn't satire. I know you are mistaken. If you insist on clinging desperately to your falsehood then you should have no problem in supporting your claim, so please do so.

[-0-] wrote: »

This has already been posted, but lets go over this again for you.

Don't take this the wrong way but I am going to make this as simple as possible for you to understand:

If I intentionally draw a dog and you see my attempt and think that it is a cat that doesn't mean that I've actually drawn a cat. Likewise if a group of people intentionally and overtly produce an anti-Islam propaganda film and you think that it is satire that doesn't mean that it is actually satire.

I hope this is now clear for you.

[-0-] wrote: »

Islam is a topical issue, and the video was an attempt at ridiculing the founder of Islam through exaggeration, and therefore exposing the Islamic community's stupidity by causing outrage.

You've just made that up haven't you? Why do you insist on fabricating facts? Do you have any actual reasons for believing the above other than what has come directly from your imagination?

[-0-] wrote: »

So do I still believe it was satirical? Yes, you're damn right I do. Now gallop away on that high horse of yours and take that holier-than-thou attitude of yours into the real world.

No need for the personal attacks.

MagicMarker

FFS BB give it a rest.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Likewise if a group of people intentionally and overtly produce an anti-Islam propaganda film and you think that it is satire that doesn't mean that it is actually satire.

And just because a religious believer thinks that something is attacking them or their religion -- whether by "an industry" or just some random nutter with no talent and a video camera -- when it's just satire, doesn't mean that the religious believer is right either.

Remember Poe's Law.

And move on.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

And just because a religious believer thinks that something is attacking them or their religion -- whether by "an industry" or just some random nutter with no talent and a video camera -- when it's just satire, doesn't mean that the religious believer is right either.

Remember Poe's Law.

And move on.

It's nothing to do with anyone on the outside looking in believes. The stated motivations of the people behind the film were to present the "truth" to an audience to motivate them them to act in a specific way i.e propaganda, not satire. It's that simple.

[-0-]

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually there is. It wasn't satire. I know you are mistaken. If you insist on clinging desperately to your falsehood then you should have no problem in supporting your claim, so please do so.

If you read my post entirely before jumping in and dissecting each sentence, you would see that I do indeed support my point of view.

Don't take this the wrong way but I am going to make this as simple as possible for you to understand:

If I intentionally draw a dog and you see my attempt and think that it is a cat that doesn't mean that I've actually drawn a cat. Likewise if a group of people intentionally and overtly produce an anti-Islam propaganda film and you think that it is satire that doesn't mean that it is actually satire.

I hope this is now clear for you.

What's clear is that you do not understand the definition of satire. Once again, if you had read my post before jumping in, you may have understood it.

You've just made that up haven't you? Why do you insist on fabricating facts? Do you have any actual reasons for believing the above other than what has come directly from your imagination?

I didn't make it up. I explained how their actions were satirical, and you just completely side stepped my explanation and claimed it was fabricated to suit your own needs, which appear to be self validation. Were you not loved as a child? That's an honest question, not meant as an insult. Surely your behaviour is the result of something of that nature, you poor thing.

No need for the personal attacks.

There was no personal attack there. If you gallop in on an imaginary high horse and condescend people who's point of view you don't share, don't expect a warm welcoming.

fitz0

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's nothing to do with anyone on the outside looking in believes. The stated motivations of the people behind the film were to present the "truth" to an audience to motivate them them to act in a specific way i.e propaganda, not satire. It's that simple.

I recall posting a simple photoshop of Mo and explaining my reasoning a while back. Despite my intentions, you maintained a line that said the interpretation was the issue. Is it the opposite now?

marienbad

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's nothing to do with anyone on the outside looking in believes. The stated motivations of the people behind the film were to present the "truth" to an audience to motivate them them to act in a specific way i.e propaganda, not satire. It's that simple.

Brown Bomber why are you so hung up on the definition of propaganda or satire ? Or what their motivations were ?

If their motivation was to offend so what ? Are you suggesting such videos etc be banned ?

robindch

Banbh

That blasphemous filth should not be allowed.

Turtwig

It's such a shame the Battle Arena had to end prematurely.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

For an ethnically responsible cartoon, its awfully white :pac:

Brown Bomber

fitz0 wrote: »

I recall posting a simple photoshop of Mo and explaining my reasoning a while back. Despite my intentions, you maintained a line that said the interpretation was the issue. Is it the opposite now?

It's not that complicated. On the one hand I was talking of consequences and on the other I am talking about intentions.