The “Innocence of Muslims” And The Hypocrisy of Non-Muslims

Brown Bomber

The spate of racist anti-Muslim/pro-Israel ads that have sprung up throughout New York’s subways have been widely condemned but permitted on on the grounds of freedom of speech. The ads which had previously appeared in San Francisco were taken out by the American Freedom Defense Initative (AFDI) who are spearheaded by notorious Islam-bashers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who had personal contact with Morris Sadek, the Egyptian-Copt behind the “Innocence of Muslims” film.

However, “freedom of speech” for all it’s unquestionable merits has been abused by the gatekeepers to villify “the savage” and “support the civilized man” – the Arab/Muslims semitic cousins.

Case in point being the contrast between the courts acceptance to display Spencer and Geller’s hate-filled message in the public transport system with an anti-Israel ads which were to appear in King County with the tagline “Israeli war crimes, your tax dollars at work”. The respective judges ruling on:

Anti-Islam Ad:

The judge, Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court, ruled that the rejected ad was “not only protected speech — it is core political speech,”
Source

Anti-Israel Ad:

The Court also determined that in light of the undisputed facts regarding the purpose of the forum and the factual basis for King County’s application of its policy in this case, King County’s decision to cancel the SeaMAC Ad was both reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
Source

Charlie Hebdo and The Sine Affair

The hypocrisy on display is undeniable though far from unique and not exclusive to the USA. Another to pour fuel onto the flames of the already raging inferno of Islamic-Western tension was the French Magazine Charlie Hebdo who decided to run provocative cartoons of a turbaned, naked Mohammed.

The magazine defended it’s right to publish the caricatures on the grounds of “freedom”

He says nothing wrong has been done, and that his magazine has not infringed French law, as a publication has the right to use the freedom to run critical or satirical cartoons.
Source

The French magazine clearly has the freedom and desire to insult Muslims yet the same “freedom” evidently didn’t apply when the criticism is focused on Jews.

Maurice Siné had been a contributor to Charlie Hebdo for twenty years when in 2008 he published an “anti-semitic” comment in his satirical column suggesting that Jean Sarkozy, the son of the former French President was set to convert to Judaism prior to his marriage to his fiance; a Jewish heiress, to improve his career prospects.

Sine’s offending comments:

‘He’ll go a long way in life, this lad!’
Source

Sine was then ordered to apologise by the magazine but he refused and was duly sacked. The Guardian reported:

The piece was published without controversy – until several days later, when a radio presenter referred to it as anti-Semitic. The families of those concerned were said to be ‘sickened’. Val, who took the controversial decision to re-publish a Danish newspaper’s cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed two years ago in the name of freedom of the press, agreed that the piece was offensive and told its author to apologise.

Siné refused, saying he would rather ‘cut his own nuts off’ and was, more or less, fired. Cue outrage, argument, counter argument, argument. Was the original statement anti-Semitic? For Val, there was no doubt. Siné’s statements, he said last week, ‘could be interpreted as making a link between conversion to Judaism and social success’ and that they spread the old stereotype associating Jews and money.

Source

Max Blumenthal, Death Threats and The Hypocrisy of Google.

Proving that Islam is not uniquely prone to violence Sine, 79, was targeted with death threats by the terrorist outfit the Jewish Defense League (JDL). Who threatened

20 centimeters of stainless steel in the stomach, it could well teach the bastard to stop and think.”

Source

Another to receive death threats was Jewish journalist/filmmaker Max Blumenthal who received numerous death threats for being a “self-hating Jew” after producing a film critical of the attitudes of Israelis.

(You can watch the film here: Feeling The Hate In Jerusalem — The Censored Video from Max Blumenthal on Vimeo. )

Blumenthal’s film went the way of The Palestinian Media Watch who had their account banned for “hatespeech” while Blumenthal’s film was banned from Youtube due to “innapropriate content”.

And Google/Youtube’s response to the “hatespeech” and innapropriate content” contained in the Innocence of Muslims trailer?
They denied a White House request to take down the film – all in the name of “freedom” of course.

Sarky

Why do you keep trying to stir the sh*t?

MaxSteele

You need to face facts BB.

No one cares about sad, deluded ****ers who whinge, bitch and moan like children in prams all because some imaginary c*nt they're lives revolve around comes under criticism.

fitz0

Yes, BB, it's all a Jewish plot to fund an anti-Islam industry.

Your anti-Jewish agenda is quite clear. Your constant attacks on Jews and the horrors they've suffered is sickening anne frankly I'm sick of it.

fitz0

fitz0 wrote: »

Yes, BB, it's all a Jewish plot to fund an anti-Islam industry.

Your anti-Jewish agenda is quite clear. Your constant attacks on Jews and the horrors they've suffered is sickening anne frankly I'm sick of it.

I agree.

Frankly, BB's behaviour is nothing short of Jewvenile.

gvn

gvn wrote: »

I agree.

Frankly, BB's behaviour is nothing short of Jewvenile.

It's no gas craic anymore

fitz0

Aus witz it now BB, you don't really believe this stuff do you?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

It's no gas craic anymore

That's almost taking it too far ... please don't take it any fuhrer.

Brown Bomber

fitz0 wrote: »

Yes, BB, it's all a Jewish plot to fund an anti-Islam industry.

???
I have pointed out instances of hypocrisy by the gatekeepers of freedom of speech. Do you dispute any of the examples?

fitz0 wrote: »

Your anti-Jewish agenda is quite clear. Your constant attacks on Jews and the horrors they've suffered is sickening anne frankly I'm sick of it.

Nice pun, but otherwise all your empty bluster and blather is nothing more than that. Nothing that I have said in the OP even comes close to resembling anything even remotely anti-Jewish.

You should apologise.

Brown Bomber

MaxSteele wrote: »

You need to face facts BB.

No one cares about sad, deluded ****ers who whinge, bitch and moan like children in prams all because some imaginary c*nt they're lives revolve around comes under criticism.

From the militant atheist perspective perhaps but otherwise not a "fact". A lot of people do care about religious intolerance and bigotry.

krudler

MaxSteele wrote: »

You need to face facts BB.

No one cares about sad, deluded ****ers who whinge, bitch and moan like children in prams all because some imaginary c*nt they're lives revolve around comes under criticism.

maybe people wouldnt be so quick to criticise if they didn't make so easy every time they lose their collective sh1t over nothing. a cartoon? kill everrryone!

Corkfeen

Oh, yay! Brown Bomber's conspiratorial mind has come to visit. Anyway, I thought some might have an interest in reading this New Yorker article on Charlie Hebdo.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/09/the-charlie-hebdo-affair-laughing-at-blasphemy.html

Won't post the entire article but here's a quote that stands out .

“The aim is to laugh,” Laurent Léger, a journalist at Charlie Hebdo, told CNN . “We want to laugh at the extremists—every extremist. They can be Muslim, Jewish, Catholic. Everyone can be religious, but extremist thoughts and acts we cannot accept.”

I think the vast majority of posters understand that it's a minority causing the problems with rioting and killings. But why exactly should we change the rules because of them? "The Innocence of Muslims" is tasteless etc but it still doesn't work as a reason to make the portrayal of Mohammed illegal. The Life of Bryan(Granted a work of quality) offended plenty of Christians but that doesn't mean it should be banned because it causes offence.

fitz0

Brown Bomber wrote: »

???
I have pointed out instances of hypocrisy by the gatekeepers of freedom of speech. Do you dispute any of the examples?

Nice pun, but otherwise all your empty bluster and blather is nothing more than that. Nothing that I have said in the OP even comes close to resembling anything even remotely anti-Jewish.

You should apologise.

This topic doesn't even belong here. You posted it, knowing our derisive attitude to your tinfoil hattery in order to get a response. I've given you one, that is completely appropriate to the level you usually drag a thread to - off-topic pointlessness. If you want to discuss media bias towards Judaism or against Islam, bring it up in one of the media forums or in the Islam forum.

Bluster and blather?

MagicMarker

fitz0 wrote: »

Yes, BB, it's all a Jewish plot to fund an anti-Islam industry.

Your anti-Jewish agenda is quite clear. Your constant attacks on Jews and the horrors they've suffered is sickening anne frankly I'm sick of it.

gvn wrote: »

I agree.

Frankly, BB's behaviour is nothing short of Jewvenile.

bluewolf wrote: »

It's no gas craic anymore

fitz0 wrote: »

Aus witz it now BB, you don't really believe this stuff do you?

gvn wrote: »

That's almost taking it too far ... please don't take it any fuhrer.

Ah come on, you guys are ridic-jew-lous.

fitz0

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah come on, you guys are ridic-jew-lous.

The jewry's out on that pun.

MagicMarker

fitz0 wrote: »

The jewry's out on that pun.

Fúck jew!!

Of course Jews love free speech, it's free isn't it?

fitz0

MagicMarker wrote: »

Fúck jew!!

Take it easy, Jew know I'm only messing with you.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Oh, yay! Brown Bomber's conspiratorial mind has come to visit. Anyway, I thought some might have an interest in reading this New Yorker article on Charlie Hebdo.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/09/the-charlie-hebdo-affair-laughing-at-blasphemy.html

Won't post the entire article but here's a quote that stands out .


I think the vast majority of posters understand that it's a minority causing the problems with rioting and killings. But why exactly should we change the rules because of them? "The Innocence of Muslims" is tasteless etc but it still doesn't work as a reason to make the portrayal of Mohammed illegal. The Life of Bryan(Granted a work of quality) offended plenty of Christians but that doesn't mean it should be banned because it causes offence.

... and by that logic nor should Charlie Hebdo fire a cartoonist over perceived anti-semetic remarks, right? But they did...

Brown Bomber

fitz0 wrote: »

This topic doesn't even belong here.

Yes it does. Familiarise yourself with the charter.

fitz0 wrote: »

You posted it, knowing our derisive attitude to your tinfoil hattery in order to get a response.

So I shouldn't post opinions here that the herd don't appreciate. Teriffic.

fitz0 wrote: »

I've given you one, that is completely appropriate to the level you usually drag a thread to - off-topic pointlessness.

This an admission of breaking the rules. I assume that the mods now have no option other than to act?

fitz0 wrote: »

If you want to discuss media bias towards Judaism or against Islam, bring it up in one of the media forums or in the Islam forum.

Bluster and blather?

BTW...You still owe me an apology for you nasty slander.

dlofnep

fitz0

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it does. Familiarise yourself with the charter.

So I shouldn't post opinions here that the herd don't appreciate. Terrific.

This an admission of breaking the rules. I assume that the mods now have no option other than to act?

BTW...You still owe me an apology for you nasty slander.

By all means post whatever opinions you want here, I won't stop you. But I will point out your inherent bias and loony conspiracy jargon.

If you have a problem with my post, report it and we will both defer to the Mod above. Although, if this 'nasty slander' isn't nasty slander I'm sure it's a Zionist plot.

Bloodwing

I've read your OP Bomber and I'm slightly lost as to what discussion or debate your hoping to generate from it. All it seems to be is a patch work of pictures and comments from other people. If i didn't know any better BB I might think you've just come here to push your standard BS agenda again and if that is the case you won't be getting and discussion on the topic from me because i too am sick of your rhetoric.

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

MaxSteele wrote: »

You need to face facts BB.

No one cares about sad, deluded ****ers who whinge, bitch and moan like children in prams all because some imaginary c*nt they're lives revolve around comes under criticism.

From the militant atheist perspective perhaps but otherwise not a "fact". A lot of people do care about religious intolerance and bigotry.

How many times does it need to be said?!?

We're not 'militant'. We're 'staunch'!

endacl

endacl wrote: »

How many times does it need to be said?!?

We're not 'militant'. We're 'staunch'!

I don't know, staunch makes me sound fat

Canis Lupus

This thread is the perfect example of how to reply to BB from now on.

endacl

bluewolf wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

How many times does it need to be said?!?

We're not 'militant'. We're 'staunch'!

I don't know, staunch makes me sound fat

Ah, but think how impressed folks will be when they meet you in person and marvel at the great shape you're now in!

Who ever heard of a fat wolf anyway...?

Am I maintaining the level of respect and serious the OP deserves, by the way?

MagicMarker

Canis Lupus wrote: »

This thread is the perfect example of how to reply to BB from now on.

I'm still waiting on his exposé of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Sindri

Corkfeen wrote: »

I think the vast majority of posters understand that it's a minority causing the problems with rioting and killings.

Most people don't though. Muslims, Islam, a diverse religion that covers hundreds of ethnicities and over a billion people usually are all tarred with the same brush. They are nearly always referred to collectively especially when being criticized and the qualifier, and more importantly, the understanding of the qualifier "some" is rarely used. I wouldn't expect many to care here though which is a shame.

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

Most people don't though. Muslims, Islam, a diverse religion that covers hundreds of ethnicities and over a billion people usually are all tarred with the same brush. They are nearly always referred to collectively especially when being criticized and the qualifier, and more importantly, the understanding of the qualifier "some" is rarely used. I wouldn't expect many to care here though which is a shame.

You do get the irony of that post yeah?

rockclover1

I smell an agenda here

MaxSteele

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From the militant atheist perspective perhaps but otherwise not a "fact". A lot of people do care about religious intolerance and bigotry.

Well I didn't see any ordinary, civilized people protesting. Just infantile, hysterical fanatics taking up precious space, rioting, burning and inciting hatred to non believers. They're about as relevant to modern society as a white turd gone stale.

I don't own any weapons or Che Guevara memorabilia, so I don't see how i fall under the "militant atheist" flag.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and by that logic nor should Charlie Hebdo fire a cartoonist over perceived anti-semetic remarks, right? But they did...

Note the word 'extremists', their reaction was to extremists and in itself wasn't actually Islamaphobic. To borrow from the Prime minister of Norway post-Breivik. When democracy is fought against we should fight back with more democracy.

The Jewish comment seems to be playing upon long running anti-semitic stereotypes rather than a clear and present threat to our freedom to express also most satirical magazines prefer to keep politicians on their side in scenarios such as that. Their recent issue was against those who issue fatwas and think it's acceptable to violently react to an image or film , i'll repeat this is not the majority of muslims. I assume it was also to create controversy to a degree as well.

For example South Park is well known for mocking and criticising Jews, Christians, Mormons, Scientologists; in fact basically every demographic and view it to be completely equal for this reason. Yet when they portrayed Mohammed there was outrage. Jesus is a regular for christ sake. :pac: But they were forced to censor the episode because of the controversy (he had actually been in one of the earlier episodes I believe).

A scenario shouldn't exist where extremists react violently to anything that they consider to be provocative.

Also, the Max Blumenthal ban appears to be non existent. It is widely available on youtube and is full of conspiracy ****e. Perhaps you should research a little bit more before claiming jewish conspiracies etc.

endacl

Sindri wrote: »

Corkfeen wrote: »

I think the vast majority of posters understand that it's a minority causing the problems with rioting and killings.

Most people don't though. Muslims, Islam, a diverse religion that covers hundreds of ethnicities and over a billion people usually are all tarred with the same brush. They are nearly always referred to collectively especially when being criticized and the qualifier, and more importantly, the understanding of the qualifier "some" is rarely used. I wouldn't expect many to care here though which is a shame.

The problem with that statement is that its reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

It has no place whatsoever on one of BB's threads.

rockclover1

Its until they get enough critisism that these people will have to learn (like obama said in his recent speech) to deal with critisism and lampooning aimed at them and their culture without resorting to burning buildings and acting in a temper tantrum childish and sometimes murderous fashion ie killing the un ambassador to libya..

We all have to take critisism and nobody should be given a pedestal above it,that can be dangerous.

fitz0

parrai wrote: »

This is the ct forum. Cts, in their content, are there to make one think. I don't see the problem with it.

You either agree or don't, simple as. The counter debates are interesting too, sometimes, no more than some of the Original Posts.

There is no denying that there is some truth in most (note not all) cts.

Regarding this OP, I think there is alot of truth in it.

This would be all ok if BB had posted it in the CT forum. But this is Atheism & Agnosticism. We put tinfoil around sandwiches, not on our heads.

parrai

fitz0 wrote: »

This would be all ok if BB had posted it in the CT forum. But this is Atheism & Agnosticism. We put tinfoil around sandwiches, not on our heads.

Oops my bad, so used to reading him in ct!! hahha

edit: have deleted said message. Apologies.

ShooterSF

Actually it's rather sad that the second ad was pulled and it goes to show even in America a lot of people are willing to threaten violence to get something they don't like taken down. Just look at some of the atheist ads put up recently to see what some there make of free speech. I don't see it as hypocrisy of non-muslims though, at least not all non-muslims. I'm pro free speech and support the right for both ads to be shown and I'm non-muslim. So maybe a change of thread title is required.

Brown Bomber

fitz0 wrote: »

By all means post whatever opinions you want here, I won't stop you.

Make your mind up FFS. According to you I should "post whatever opinions I want here" but also take them elsewhere.

fitz0 wrote: »

But I will point out your inherent bias and loony conspiracy jargon.

Good. I welcome that . I am still waiting...

fitz0 wrote: »

If you have a problem with my post, report it and we will both defer to the Mod above. Although, if this 'nasty slander' isn't nasty slander I'm sure it's a Zionist plot.

Complete lack of integrity here. You inanely accuse me of posting anti-semitic material when none exists and rather than withdraw your statement you rant further on attacking strawmen. Classy.

Brown Bomber

Neilos wrote: »

I've read your OP Bomber and I'm slightly lost as to what discussion or debate your hoping to generate from it. All it seems to be is a patch work of pictures and comments from other people. If i didn't know any better BB I might think you've just come here to push your standard BS agenda again and if that is the case you won't be getting and discussion on the topic from me because i too am sick of your rhetoric.

Do as you please. The thread topic is clear. By way of recent examples I have demonstrated that the enforcement of "freedom of speech" for material offensive to Muslims/Arabs is unequal to other groups.

Brown Bomber

Canis Lupus wrote: »

This thread is the perfect example of how to reply to BB from now on.

The replies in this thread are a perfect example of how to stick your hands over your ears to drown out the reality of a situation that doesn't suit your world view.

Brown Bomber

MaxSteele wrote: »

Well I didn't see any ordinary, civilized people protesting.

Open your eyes then. Protesting is a democratic right.

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

The problem with that statement is that its reasonable, and makes perfect sense.

It has no place whatsoever on one of BB's threads.

No doubt you'll have some hilarious non-commital retort to avoid exposing your inherent biases and lack of any real confidence in your own position but point out ANYTHING from the OP that is not "reasonable".

Sindri

Deleted User wrote: »

You do get the irony of that post yeah?

No? Where does my post consist of iron?

Rev Hellfire

There are times I really miss the ignore option.

Rev Hellfire

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

There are times I really miss the ignore option.

There's still an ignore option... ?

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Note the word 'extremists', their reaction was to extremists and in itself wasn't actually Islamaphobic....The Jewish comment seems to be playing upon long running anti-semitic stereotypes

Right, and Mohammed with a bomb in his turban isn't playing on any Islamophobic stereotypes?

Just so we are clear - are you saying Islamophobia = okay and anti-semitism = baaaad in a roundabout way? Because that's what it sounds like.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Also, the Max Blumenthal ban appears to be non existent. It is widely available on youtube and is full of conspiracy ****e. Perhaps you should research a little bit more before claiming jewish conspiracies etc.

You should get your facts straight. I never said anything about a "Jewish conspiracy".

And Blumenthal's film was banned from his account by youtube

Youtube has removed my video, “Feeling The Hate In Jerusalem,” on the baseless grounds that it contains “inappropriate content.” They have offered me no further explanation and have stonewalled my inquiries and attempts to rectify the situation. Thus they have censored a video that contains far less inflammatory content than thousands of video they are already hosting. Why? I won’t ascribe motives to Youtube I am unable to confirm, but it is clear there is an active campaign by right-wing Jewish elements to suppress the video by filing a flood of complaints with Youtube. At the same time these elements have attempted to paint me as a self-hating Jew determined to foment anti-Semitism. I answered this last charge to Ha’aretz (read the barely coherent article here) last week: “I have received death threats from people, mainly ones calling me a self-hating Jew. I am self-hating, but my self-hatred has nothing to do with me being Jewish.”
http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/06/youtube-bans-feeling-the-hate-in-jerusalem/

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, and Mohammed with a bomb in his turban isn't playing on any Islamophobic stereotypes?

Just so we are clear - are you saying Islamophobia = okay and anti-semitism = baaaad in a roundabout way? Because that's what it sounds like.


You should get your facts straight. I never said anything about a "Jewish conspiracy".

And Blumenthal's film was banned from his account by youtube

I suspect that youtube have changed their moderation policy since or something along those lines as it is on youtube. I'm actually fine with a magazine publishing something anti-semitic, it will be criticised for what it is and the same applies to Islamophobia(which I do view the 'Innocence of Muslims' to be). A satire magazine is far more likely to fire the man who offends a supporter of their publication(Sarkozy) than over anything else. And satire tends to always offend someone.

It's the discretion of the editor to decide what gets published. The bomb in the turban can easily be viewed as the ticking time bomb of fundamentalists who are willing to commit acts of violence in the name of a picture. While you may interpret it as an attack, I don't believe it to be the case of saying all muslims are terrorists or ticking time bombs.

There are plenty of horrible organisations that spread plenty of prejudices but you're upset about a magazine publishing some pictures that has provoked violence. Why aren't you upset by the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church being legal organisations in America? And your posting history is rather obsessed with some ultimate zionist goal.

Freedom of Speech and Expression will always have negative aspects but it is the ideal. We cannot limit it as it would be regressive more than anything. You have the right to protest the manner in which people express themselves but should not have the right to prevent the expression itself. In some countries of course, you can start a legal battle on grounds of incitement to hatred etc which is fine. But reacting violently is not acceptable and you cannot say that nobody in the entire world can portray Mohammed as it might upset someone. I don't intend on discussing this any further with you as you're beginning to grate a bit.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No doubt you'll have some hilarious non-commital retort to avoid exposing your inherent biases and lack of any real confidence in your own position but point out ANYTHING from the OP that is not "reasonable".

Sure its obvious theres something not kosher about it.

Sindri

Sindri wrote: »

No? Where does my post consist of iron?

You're trying to claim that "most people" don't realise that it's only a small proportion of Muslim who react like well-armed and easily directed mongoloids when something annoys their local shepherd.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

I suspect that youtube have changed their moderation policy since or something along those lines as it is on youtube. I'm actually fine with a magazine publishing something anti-semitic, it will be criticised for what it is and the same applies to Islamophobia(which I do view the 'Innocence of Muslims' to be). A satire magazine is far more likely to fire the man who offends a supporter of their publication(Sarkozy) than over anything else. And satire tends to always offend someone.

My point is that with all things being equal it is hypocritical for the same magazine to publish and defend publishing negative satire relating to Muslims having fired a cartoonist for publishing satire relating to Jews.

Do you agree or disagree?

And that goes for everything in the OP.

It is hypocritical for a US Court to allow Pro-Israel advertisements that contain an undercurrent of racism while another US Court bans Pro-Palestinian advertisements.

Do you agree or disagree?

It is hypocritical of Jyllands-Posten to turn down a satirical cartoon of Jesus due to it's ability to offend when the same publication publishes cartoons of Mohammed which were certain to offend.

Do you agree or disagree?

It is hypocritical of Youtube to ban Blumethal's film from his account which shows Jews in a negative light and also host the Innocence of Muslims which portrays Muslims in a negative light.

Do you agree or disagree?