U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

[Pearl]

I would've posted this in the Terry Jones thread, but turns out this is not about him, but another director.

Libya's interim president has apologized to the United States for the attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed the American ambassador and three of his staff.
Mohammed el-Megarif described the attack as "cowardly" and offered his condolences on the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three other Americans. Speaking to reporters, he vowed to bring the culprits to justice and maintain his country's close relations with the United States. He said the three Americans were security guards.

J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador To Libya, And 3 Embassy Staffers Killed In Attack On American Consulate In Benghazi (VIDEO)

An Israeli filmmaker based in California went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam's prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff were killed.
Speaking by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion.
Protesters angered over Bacile's film opened fire on and burned down the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. Libyan officials said Wednesday that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob firing machine guns and rocket propelled grenades.
In Egypt, protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo and replaced an American flag with an Islamic banner.
"This is a political movie," said Bacile. "The U.S. lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're fighting with ideas."
Bacile, a California real estate developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world.

Sam Bacile, Anti-Islam Filmmaker, In Hiding After Protests

Obviously this brings up the question over freedom of speech and respect for religion. Personally, I think Becile has a right to make this movie because the U.S. allows the criticism of religion. But it also matters if Becile's film asks reasonable questions and doesn't make irrational assumptions that have no scholarly base. If it is, then I don't support it.

[digitize]

The director had every right to make his movie, and should be protected by the government here in case of attack. It's his opinion, and in the US, we all have rights to personal opinions, even if they're misguided and based on incorrect "facts". That being said, of course, I wish he hadn't made the film.

On another note, my condolences to the Ambassador's family. It's horrible that he (or anyone else) was killed. And I think this really begs an important question: where does this sort of anti-American sentiment come from? I tend to think it comes from anti-colonial sentiment myself more than something inherent in Islam.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by digitize

And I think this really begs an important question: where does this sort of anti-American sentiment come from? I tend to think it comes from anti-colonial sentiment myself more than something inherent in Islam.

That may be the issue. From what I understand, many in the Muslim world feel overlooked on the world stage and since the U.S. plays the biggest role there, the anger is directed at us.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Pearl

That may be the issue. From what I understand, many in the Muslim world feel overlooked on the world stage and since the U.S. plays the biggest role there, the anger is directed at us.

Yeah, exactly. But even more than that, since (at least) the middle-late 19th century, and picking up after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, there has been a lot of Western meddling in the Islamic world. We all want freedom, but a desire for freedom can manifest itself in more ways than just a desire for individual liberty... a desire to be part of a society that determines its path differently than that of "the man" (The West) fits that in a way, too. To me, as a part of the West, this stinks of "The Man telling us that our society is just wrong" and uprising against that. The West has done a lot to economically harm the Islamic World since the Treaty of Sèvres after World War I, so it makes sense that unity can be tenuous between the West and the Islamic World.

[BEAL]

This director has every right to make the movie, and I apologize for blaming Terry Jones in the other thread as that is what I had read in multiple sources (albeit the internet and should have waited longer till something was truly confirmed).

Terry has the same right to make a movie or make stupid comments. Though when he makes these statements I get the feeling he's doing it more to provoke, than to make any sort of critical argument.

I think the anti American sentiment is just throwing a fit at who's the biggest on the world stage. It's no secret that the middle east does not favor US policy, or any western nation. So Israeli living on US soil makes a film, and naturally it's America's fault for allowing him to do so.

I think the biggest issue here is that religion of Islam is still living in the bronze age. Christianity had it's day of violence with the crusades and other acts of terrorizing people who didn't share the same belief, but we don't see that anymore.

Yet in the middle east we continue to read stories about charges of blasphemy that requires a death sentence, or anger over a fucking cartoon leads to death.

Other than the interim president, where is the outrage from other muslim leaders for this incident? It's time for those people to start speaking up and forcing the extreme wing of their religion to start adapting to the modern times.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by digitize

Yeah, exactly. But even more than that, since (at least) the middle-late 19th century, and picking up after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, there has been a lot of Western meddling in the Islamic world. We all want freedom, but a desire for freedom can manifest itself in more ways than just a desire for individual liberty... a desire to be part of a society that determines its path differently than that of "the man" (The West) fits that in a way, too. To me, as a part of the West, this stinks of "The Man telling us that our society is just wrong" and uprising against that. The West has done a lot to economically harm the Islamic World since the Treaty of Sèvres after World War I, so it makes sense that unity can be tenuous between the West and the Islamic World.

It also doesn't help that the U.S. is a staunch supporter of Israel, hence a bigger reason why we are "The Great Satan" to the Islamic World.

I admit I haven't read much about how the West hurt the Islamic World after WWI. I've heard scant remarks about it, but that was mostly from far-leftist people I knew or professors I had, so I didn't pay much heed because I felt their overall viewpoints were too off the wall for me. Any good websites for me to check out? (Please not the ever-reliable Wikipedia )

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by digitize

Yeah, exactly. But even more than that, since (at least) the middle-late 19th century, and picking up after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, there has been a lot of Western meddling in the Islamic world.

Yes, and I think we can take that even further to say that the west - the US and UK in particular - have largely determined the politics and economics of the region for at least a century now. I would think that there is still a lot of resentment from the Muslim world about the way that Israel was formed - not necessarily that it exists, but how it was formed - and western economic pressures concerning oil. I would argue that this type of violence is rooted in socio-economic issues rather than Islam.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by BEAL

I think the biggest issue here is that religion of Islam is still living in the bronze age. Christianity had it's day of violence with the crusades and other acts of terrorizing people who didn't share the same belief, but we don't see that anymore.

Yet in the middle east we continue to read stories about charges of blasphemy that requires a death sentence, or anger over a fucking cartoon leads to death.

I agree with this. Based on what digitize said, it seems like Muslims are feeling very overwhelmed in the world. They had their economy turned upside down, the U.S. supported its dictators and continues to support Israel, and they're being forced to deal with secularism which allows the slightest criticism of their religion, which is apparently banned in their society. I can imagine it to be tough for a Muslim to be told any questioning or doubt is the ultimate evil, and then seeing non-Muslims in countries that don't give you enough respect do what can lead to a death sentence in your world. To me, that is why so many are turning to fanaticism. There is too much going on for Muslims and they feel like they have very little say in this increasingly globalized world that has different viewpoints than them (in terms of freedom of speech, economics and such).

Originally Posted by BEAL

Other than the interim president, where is the outrage from other muslim leaders for this incident? It's time for those people to start speaking up and forcing the extreme wing of their religion to start adapting to the modern times.

Problem is, if they do speak out, those extremists could gather enough support for an overthrow.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Pearl

It also doesn't help that the U.S. is a staunch supporter of Israel, hence a bigger reason why we are "The Great Satan" to the Islamic World.

I admit I haven't read much about how the West hurt the Islamic World after WWI. I've heard scant remarks about it, but that was mostly from far-leftist people I knew or professors I had, so I didn't pay much heed because I felt their overall viewpoints were too off the wall for me. Any good websites for me to check out? (Please not the ever-reliable Wikipedia )

I think that Israel is pretty much the ultimate symbol of Western imperialism in the Islamic World - a literal takeover of land. That being said, I would must rather live in Israel than a society based off of Islamic Law that would probably be there in its stead. However, I tend to think that the Israeli "invasion" was probably counter-productive in that it took the Israeli beacon of freedom via individual liberty and turned it into a symbol of slavery to the West. And the West's version of freedom, while rendering great prosperity upon Westerners, can probably be said to have harmed and taken away freedom from its colonial subjects. The Islamic World tends to edge towards individual liberty better when not pushed by the West.

And my (limited) historical knowledge is derived from textbooks... not sure I can help too much, but Wikipedia is fantastic!

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Yes, and I think we can take that even further to say that the west - the US and UK in particular - have largely determined the politics and economics of the region for at least a century now. I would think that there is still a lot of resentment from the Muslim world about the way that Israel was formed - not necessarily that it exists, but how it was formed - and western economic pressures concerning oil. I would argue that this type of violence is rooted in socio-economic issues rather than Islam.

I agree completely.

[AchtungBono]

Originally Posted by digitize

The director had every right to make his movie, and should be protected by the government here in case of attack. It's his opinion, and in the US, we all have rights to personal opinions, even if they're misguided and based on incorrect "facts". That being said, of course, I wish he hadn't made the film.

I agree with you, however one should practice good sense as well as having the right to an opinion. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

For instance (and PLEASE don't be offended by this because I'm just using this as an example.....)
I'm Jewish, my religion does not believe in Christ being the saviour and I have every right to say what I want about Jesus Christ - including that he was bi-sexual and involved with all 12 apostles as well as Mary Magdalene (not that I think that).......but WOULD I voice such an opinion in public and make a movie out of it showing them having sex? of course not! Because it is totally inflammatory and would no doubt be extremely hurtful to the Christian religion and I would keep my opinions to myself. This director should have done the same.

Originally Posted by digitize

On another note, my condolences to the Ambassador's family. It's horrible that he (or anyone else) was killed. And I think this really begs an important question: where does this sort of anti-American sentiment come from? I tend to think it comes from anti-colonial sentiment myself more than something inherent in Islam.

To have this film made was bad enough, but to have it done by an ISRAELI absolutely sickens me. I'm so very sorry about the ambassador's murder and I send sincerest condolences to his family. In my opinion, the director should be charged with manslaughter because he HAD to have known that his movie would cause mayhem in the Muslim world.

I shudder to think what's next......

[BEAL]

So taking offense to a movie is good enough reason for murdering someone?

While I'm sure the director knew there would probably be some unrest with his movie, he has every right to make it.

It says less on those who felt it was their right to kill over being offended. That's where the blame lies.

That's the same argument that the girl who dressed like a slut deserved to get raped because she knew it'd warrant that kind of response.

[MrsSpringsteen]

People have the right to make the movie and to criticize religions, but it's irresponsible. This guy knew what could happen, he said he intended it to be provocative. And no matter how offended someone is by it, nothing justifies committing these murders.

Ambassador Stevens

[digitize]

Originally Posted by BEAL

So taking offense to a movie is good enough reason for murdering someone?

While I'm sure the director knew there would probably be some unrest with his movie, he has every right to make it.

It says less on those who felt it was their right to kill over being offended. That's where the blame lies.

That's the same argument that the girl who dressed like a slut deserved to get raped because she knew it'd warrant that kind of response.

To me, murdering anyone for anything is wrong. However, I suspect that, to the murders, the movie was much more than just an insult against Islam, but more of another attack in what is perceived as a century's worth of attacks by the West against Islamic peoples. Does that justify murder? To me, of course not. Almost nothing justifies violence or war to me. But it can be framed as a defensive part of a war. And even Westerners are capable of senseless murder when properly convinced that they are on the defensive side of the war.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AchtungBono

I agree with you, however one should practice good sense as well as having the right to an opinion. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

For instance (and PLEASE don't be offended by this because I'm just using this as an example.....)
I'm Jewish, my religion does not believe in Christ being the saviour and I have every right to say what I want about Jesus Christ - including that he was bi-sexual and involved with all 12 apostles as well as Mary Magdalene (not that I think that).......but WOULD I voice such an opinion in public and make a movie out of it showing them having sex? of course not! Because it is totally inflammatory and would no doubt be extremely hurtful to the Christian religion and I would keep my opinions to myself. This director should have done the same.

Its true freedom of speech is a responsibility moreso than a right. There are some who think it means they could say whatever they want, and if you're offended, then to hell with you. And then they wonder why some people get outraged. There's a sense of narcissism there, as in thinking only you exist in the world and only your opinions and feelings count and no one else's, unless they agree with you.

Originally Posted by AchtungBono

I shudder to think what's next......

Me too. I hope this isn't the beginning of anything.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Pearl

freedom of speech is a responsibility more so than a right.

Amen. True rights and freedoms demand responsibility. It's foolish to think otherwise. If you want them you'd better take the responsibilities that come with them. And accept the consequences and take responsibility for those too.

[trojanchick99]

He knew exactly what he was doing when he made that film. Remember the protests over that Danish cartoon? I agree with AchtungBono, yes he had the right to make that film, but that doesn't mean he should.

The extremists who assassinated our ambassador and his staff will be brought to justice, and I hope to hear more outrage from our allies in the Middle East. Egypt, I'm looking at you.

[Irvine511]

so you can watch the "trailer" for the film here:

Muhammad Movie Trailer - YouTube

it is stupid, offensive, and nonsensical. it's not even bad enough to be good. it's very high school audio-visual club. it's like the KKK making a movie about reconstruction or something. and, no, i don't think the people behind this film are much different from the KKK.

if another group were depicted the way Muslims are depicted in this -- it's not much different than, say, white people in blackface eating watermelon and dancing -- there would most assuredly be protests of some sort, if the film became known. heck, Christians protested "Last Temptation of Christ." protesting is legitimate.

this "rage" and the murder of 4 people is not.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it is stupid, offensive, and nonsensical. it's not even bad enough to be good. it's very high school audio-visual club. it's like the KKK making a movie about reconstruction or something. and, no, i don't think the people behind this film are much different from the KKK.

I watched about two minutes of the trailer before I stopped. Its so bad it is laughable.

[digitize]

Part of me thinks... freedom of speech be damned, this guy should be picked up by the US government, dropped in the middle of Tripoli, and left to the vultures.

[Pearl]

I know its from the Daily Mail (yeah I know, not a good source) but its claiming to have interviewed one of those who funded the film, Steve Klein.

Behold:

He said: 'I feel bad for the death of the ambassador - he didn’t do anything to anybody - but it’s not our fault. We didn’t want anybody to get killed but on the other hand the truth had to come out.
'We told the truth and these people reacted the way that Mohammed wanted to them to react - by killing people.
'Do I feel guilt? Yes, but not for me, I feel it for those that did this. Do I feel shame? Yes, but not for me. Killing this man fits in with their legal and ethical standpoint.

Mr Klein, 62, added: 'Whenever the Muslim population gets above 10 per cent they work together and attack the host country. It’s happening in the USA and it’s happening in the UK too.
'Our intent is to show people what America could look like in 50 to 75 years time. We are telling the truth, and it needs to be told.
'We are at the stage where the Trojan Horse has been dragged in and for years and years people have been lied to about Islam.

Read more: Innocence of Muslims creator: Steve Klein said he felt no guilt over death of Chris Stevens | Mail Online


Oh jeez. What a way to add to the flames, you idiot.