Film That Sparked Cairo, Bengazi Protests The Work Of An American-Israeli

[Purveyor]

Source: The Australian

THE film at the centre of anti-US protests in the Middle East was made by an Israeli-American who describes Islam as a "cancer", the Wall Street Journal says.

The movie, Innocence of Muslims, was directed and produced by Sam Bacile, a 52-year-old real-estate developer from southern California who says Islam is a hateful religion.

"Islam is a cancer," Mr Bacile told the newspaper.

--clip--

Mr Bacile told the paper on Tuesday he was responsible for the film, saying he had raised $US5 million ($A4.81 million) to make it from about 100 Jewish donors, who he declined to identify.


Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/middle-east-in-turmoil/film-that-sparked-cairo-bengazi-protests-the-work-of-an-american-israeli/story-fn7ycml4-1226472497757

[trailmonkee]

1. these people need to get a fucking life... 5m on this shite!

[naaman fletcher]

40. ???? How about the people doing the murdering of a movie?

Maybe those fucking people should get a life, too.

[Flatulo]

61. No, you see, the movie is the problem,

not the violent mob bombing and burning and killing.

Why can't you see this?

[The Stranger]

109. Everyone sees what is going on, both the intent of creating this movie and its desired effect.

The movie was intended to create a rift between Muslim Egyptians and the U.S.

Interesting that no one in the U.S. even knew what it was until it had the effect.

[nanabugg]

140. we didn't know because the filmaker and its backers don't give a shit about the lives of others,

The intendedn harm was accomplished. So-called allies or friends of teh US do not incite others to kill us. So we need to be sure who really is our friend.

[mike_c]

2. five million'll buy a lot of hate speech....

All that hatred over religious delusions.

[Kurska]

5. If your response to being called hateful and violent

Is to murder someone, how is that considered hate speech?

Religion has a bad habit of getting violent when you say the truth

[oberliner]

21. Murdering innocent people because you are "insulted" by a movie is despicable

Religious delusions indeed.

[loli phabay]

22. gotta correct you slightly, murdering anyone over a movie is despicable, no offense.

[The Stranger]

110. Intentionally inciting such people to murder is equally despicable.

Come on, now. You don't get off that easily.

[oberliner]

124. Not even close

Making a nasty movie is not even remotely comparable to murdering innocent people.

In fact, the comparison is grotesque.

[The Stranger]

155. This isn't film making. This was simply created knowingly to spark violence.

He isn't Salman Rushdie.

[Warren DeMontague]

168. There are people who would riot, murder, kill and burn shit over 2 men kissing, or a naked boob.

At what point do we hold people accountable for not being able to handle shit they personally disagree with, or find offensive?

[whathehell]

187. Thank you.

Whoever did this and posted it on the internet an inflammatory, irresponsible ASSHOLE.

[davidthegnome]

3. What a mess

Terry Jones is a crusading asshole. I don't know enough of Mr. Bacile or his movie to make any real judgments of him.... but all the same...

In this modern world, it is to be hoped that we could leave behind the religious wars of the past. Clearly this is not the case. Not being a religious sort... or a true believer of any kind, I can't understand why someone would commit acts of violence over such a thing.

I was once a practicing Catholic, so I can understand the anger and resentment people might feel towards those who mock or insult their religion. What I cannot understand, is being so intolerant, so enraged... so... moronic, as to respond with violence.

[Roland99]

69. doesn't surprise me at all this pseudo-Christian asshat was involved.

[amandabeech]

159. This lunatic is a Christian Dominionist.

They believe that we have to do whatever the prime minister of Israel says in order to get a war going on the Plains of Armageddon in order to hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Their counterparts in Islam are more than willing to oblige them.

When the Muslims are dead, the Dominionist Christians will then smite down those Jews who do not convert to Christianity.

Really, extremists in the three Abrahamic faiths want to cannibalize each other.

A pox on all their houses.

[McCamy Taylor]

4. Religious intolerance is unAmerican.

[Flatulo]

15. Eh, respectfully submit that Islam is different from other religions.

I can't think of any other religion offhand whose adherents seem so ready to do violence.

They still seem firmly ensconced in the 7 th century. Honor killings, murder at any slight, etc. Not so much in the States, but certainly in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

If ever there was a religion that needed to 'lighten up', it's Islam.

[hlthe2b]

26. Really? Glad our crusading RW fundies don't kill abortion doctors, bomb clinics, or OKC Murrah BLDG

'Respectfully' my eye. Such broad brush stroke attacks on any religion and its people is despicable.

[Flatulo]

33. I personally loathe all religions. I only point out that Islam is many orders of magnitude

more violent than fundie Xtianity.

Of course it's not PC to criticize Islam, but to not recognize such hypocrisy is to stick one's head up one's own ass in ignorance. From that safe vantage point one cannot see the body count.

[hlthe2b]

36. Perhaps a run through history might give you more perspective-- Crusades ring even a distant bell?

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2012, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, I'm not going to stand by and see the big Islamophobic pen come out today as some are wont to do. Perspective. Nearly all religions have their extremists but also a majority of moderate peace-loving followers.

For those who seem unable to understand the reference, for those stating unequivocably that Islam is unique in its "penchance for violence", take the Crusades as a starting point, and move through history to today's US RW fundy extremists--those who bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors, bomb the OKC Federal Building, plot, in the name of "Xianity" to take over the country through RW militias.

One really doesn't have to have a lot of understanding of history to know that the horrendous acts of terrorists who purport to be acting on behalf of Islam is hardly unique to this one religion.

[Flatulo]

45. I wish you well in your campaign against the Crusades,

but really, all those folks have been dead for a thousand years or so.

In the meantime, feel free to not get worked up about a few scattered riots and calls to Jihad over some idiotic film.

[hlthe2b]

47. No one here is defending the violence.. Ugly ugly strawman argument you have going there....

But, I'm sure many of us are glad to see some show their true stripes.

[Flatulo]

88. And yet, the bulk of posts in this thread are attacking the film,

not the ugly response to the film. This would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the majority of posters here believe the film is the problem. Not the mob, or the bombs or the dead embassy staff.

Personally, I think it's somewhat cowardly to blame one without blaming the other. Yeah, the filmmaker is undoubtedly a kook, but we (at least in theory) value the right of kooks to produce kooky films. We never, ever value the right of ugly mobs to burn, bomb and murder.

So you can see why I view the lack of a hearty condemnation of the radicals as somewhat cowardly. Fear of criticizing these loonies only encourages others to also fear criticizing them.

Personally, I hope I live long enough to see the day when we don't need fairy tales to explain our existence.

[davidpdx]

185. I blame both

I haven't seen "the film" (there have been rumors as to whether the film exist or just clips of it) and wouldn't watch it even if I was forced to.

It sounds to me like this was a deliberate act by individuals to undermine US foreign policy. Now who else do we know who might want that to happen?

[whathehell]

193. Refusing to acknowledge obvious differences in cultures, religions or anything, really

is not smart. It's such an obvious attempt to deny reality

in the interests of "political correctness", that's its really not helpful.

I think we all understand that it's well-intended, but in the end, it simply

fails. It's not a question of tolerance, It's a question of reality.

[Voice for Peace]

57. Islam is no more violent than Christianity. It's all about who's interpreting, and what they

believe.

[SpartanDem]

97. In the entire span of human history they're probably pretty equal

but in the 21st century fundie Islam is no match for fundie Christians.

[atreides1]

129. "but in the 21st century fundie Islam is no match for fundie Christians."

Not yet!

But what do you think will happen if the fundie Christians ever get the Biblical utopian society they are constanly clamoring for?

[Voice for Peace]

138. one difference, I think, is this:

Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Fundamentalist Christians seek to take over the US government.
For now, this is mostly understood and spoken about privately,
not shouted in the hallways of Congress.

Laws protecting human rights would be changed by such a
government, Armageddon welcomed and helped along. A different
kind of terrorism.. more slow moving but more insidious,
harder to identify, harder to fight. The country would be steered
toward fundamentalist Christian-based laws and way of life,
as we moved closer and closer to the expected end times.

Fundamentalist Islamists blow stuff up outright, shouting the
name of their god and their savior. Usually predictable and fairly
easy to anticipate and prevent, if the government is doing its job.

[whathehell]

192. LOL

[naaman fletcher]

139. Is your point that Christianity is 1,000 years ahead of Islam? nt

[whathehell]

188. Yes, very "distant" in that it happened centuries ago.

The false equivalence here can get mind boggling.

[hlthe2b]

190. Your simplistic ability to analyze, much less read what I wrote in my post, makes response to you

totally a waste of time.

[whathehell]

191. No need to analyze a knee jerk "example" that is referenced repeatedly here

despite the four hundred year time lag. .

[hlthe2b]

38. With respect to hypocrisy...

Allow me to hand you a mirror.

[auburngrad82]

64. You realize that the Nazis in Germany were a right-wing Christian group

And that's fairly recent history. They only killed a few million people.

[mwooldri]

113. They sure did kill a few. Many Christians and clergy in that number.

Oh, and warping Christianity altogether into something they called "Positive Christianity". One without an Old Testament, where Jesus was anti-Jew, and the church under the complete influence of the Reich.

Some churches complied, others resisted.

The vast majority of Christians put to death were those of Jewish descent.

I associate the Nazis with anti-Christianity. These guys were wrapped in a flag and carrying a (much smaller) Bible in one hand, and weapons of death in the other.

[Flatulo]

115. I think your depiction of the Nazis as only nominally Christian is pretty accurate.

I believe it's more the case that they were cultists, worshiping the State and its leader.

[amandabeech]

161. The Nazis tried to co-copt Christian churches.

The Lutheran Protestantism was, and maybe still is, a major religion in Germany. During the war, the Nazis really leaned on the Lutherans and some went over to the dark side.

The Lutherans who rejected Nazism organized a separate "Confession" within the Lutheran Church. I don't know how long they managed to hold out, but one thing that they did was to organize a Lutheran youth organization as an alternative to the Nazi Hitler Youth and Young Maidens.

[bobthedrummer]

196. There is ample documentation of the fact that many of the Nazi Party leadership drew upon pagan

belief systems, myths, rituals and symbology to spread their "faith" in the Master Race.

Ahnenerbe (Wikipedia entry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe

[magical thyme]

96. Consider the possibility that having spent decades under the thumb of a violent despot

propped up by the US, they inexplicably hate us. After decades of brutal repression that we sponsored, they are a tinderbox.

Also consider that while to us it's "just a movie" that's because movies have been mostly entertainment for generations here in the US. Whereas, they are state-sponsored propaganda in many other countries. To them, "just a movie" is actually, "US policy toward them." And the "US policy towards them" depicts their prophet as a donkey and their people as homosexual pedophiles.

So "just a movie" is really "just a lit match thrown into a tinderbox."

[jberryhill]

102. Correct - they assume media from other countries is state sponsored

Because they have no reference frame in which to understand how freedom of speech works.

That is not a justification, but we cannot address problems unless we understand them.

[Flatulo]

111. You make some very good points, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

However, we still have the problem with our freedom of speech frequently running headlong into their delicate sensibilities about their religion.

How do we proceed? Do we censor speech/writings/film that Muslims find offensive? This is the approach some European states have taken, yet they still have their outbursts of Muslim rage over insults that were made elsewhere. Depict their prophet in a cartoon in Amsterdam, and these maniacs riot in London.

[magical thyme]

117. "these maniacs" are people. How about if we censor hate speech?

And as I wrote, their "delicate sensibilities" really are rage against the brutal repression *we sponsored* by propping up their dictators. The attacks on their religion are deliberate goads intended to create outrage in normal people, and violence in the borderline personalities.

I agree that religious extremists are a major problem in the world, especially in that corner of the world. That would be *all* the fanatics, including the fanatic Christians and the fanatic Jews that make this piece of shit movie.

I have no problem with censorship of hate speech, which this movie clearly is. Some things go to far and are deliberate attempts to incite violence. This falls into that realm, right up their with Rush Limbaugh et al calling on his followings to kill liberals, etc.

Personally, I suspect it was a deliberate attempt to stir up the region in order to change the dynamics of the election, if not stir up war. Given the funding of this movie, I suspect Adelson is behind it.

[snooper2]

90. Thanks for pointing out all fundies are fucking nuts..

That can't be repeated enough...

[Flatulo]

93. Would you agree that Muslim fundies are also

fucking nuts? I see quite a bit of tiptoeing around that these days.

[snooper2]

95. of course they are, all fundies have something wrong in the brain..

whether it's due to upbringing, lack of education, brainwashing, wanting power; the reasons matter but not in this discussion.

Every decade more and more people in this country say they are less religious. Hopefully we will keep following the trend of Europe and maybe even an atheist president someday. So let us think ahead say 500 years. Where do we think the middle east will be by then? Will Israel and Iran have finally destroyed each other? We will still have our hardcore fundies as well but their numbers would be in the thousands I would hope.

[Flatulo]

107. Thanks for clarifying. nt

[Ash_F]

30. Certainly right-wing ideology is dangerous anywhere

But going out of your way to explain "THE DIFFERENCE" between some religious group, that coincidentally you don't belong to, and others is itself a dangerous right-wing way of thinking.

[Flatulo]

35. I don't belong to any religious group. I only point out that Islam is far more prone to

violence when their religion is insulted in any way.

[Ash_F]

46. It is true that today there is too much radical conservatism in the Muslim world.

But there was a time when it was far more moderate and tolerant than the Christian world. The reasons for these shifts are more socio-economic and political and have little to do with what the religions actually teach and what the majority of followers believe. There is a long history behind how things came to be. Religion does matter a lot, but only in the geographical sense. If Islam was the West's religion and Christianity was the East's, the picture would still look the same. But you would be arguing against Christianity.

That is why the argument you are using is unfair and yes, bigoted. Especially when there are plenty of Muslims(and by plenty, I mean over 99.9%) who don't think violence is right. When you say such things, you are coyly targeting them too. You think you dodged it but no, everyone gets it.

[Flatulo]

58. Let me be less coy, then...

When mobs take to the streets to storm and burn embassies and murder the inhabitants, all over some stupid film that insults their religion, then those people are backwards, inbred idiots and should be strafed by helicopter gunships lest they further breed.

You're right about the socio-economic factors behind such behaviors, and we (the West) can't fix Islam, nor should we try. But the religion is how these folks self-identify, so it's where I'll direct my disbelief. If Christians or Hindus behaved in this way, I'd be the first to call them backwards, inbred idiots.

IMO, it's best we avoid these parts of the world and let these folks simmer and stew until they catch up with the rest of us in a few centuries.

[Ash_F]

68. OK, you had me and then you lost me

"When mobs take to the streets to storm and burn embassies and murder the inhabitants, all over some stupid film that insults their religion, then those people are backwards, inbred idiots and should be strafed by helicopter gunships lest they further breed. "

I was on board for backwards idiots(not sure about inbred) but then when you ventured into "strafed by helicopter gunships lest they further breed" I think you've lost your way. The whole "they shouldn't breed" line is exactly the kind of common right-wing nuttiness that isn't healthy for anyone to be thinking. When a majority of your society starts to agree with that notion, bad things happen. History has shown.

As for the rest of your post. I am not sure isolationism is the best way to handle it. Maybe it would be better than what we have been doing(invading, installing puppet despots). I don't know. It is a heavy topic. Maybe another day.

[Flatulo]

94. A liberal Western education would go a long way,

I think. But I'm not even joking about the inbreeding stuff. Yeah, that's entirely cultural, but it's rampant in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, the center of gravity of Islam. Marrying among first cousins is quite the norm.

[whathehell]

189. How about not DELIBERATELY inflaming the sensitivites of people of other countries and cultures?

Just a thought.

[Voice for Peace]

60. thank you, well said.

[hlthe2b]

37. And a RW Republican advocated for DNC female Senators to have acid thrown on them. Get a clue.

just TODAY....

Jay Townsend, GOP Spokesman: 'Let's Hurl Some Acid At Those Female Democratic Senators'
"My question today... when is Tommy boy going to weigh in on all the Lilly Ledbetter hypocrites who claim to be fighting the War on Women? Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector."

Why do all these rethugs have such vivid violent imaginings? Haley Barbour wants a hot poker to Obama's butt. This guy wants to throw acid. Sick fucks. What nobody just wants to punch someone in the nose any more? They want to torture and maim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/jay-townsend-nan-hayworth-acid-war-on-women_n_1560693.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=1923695,b=facebook

Taken from the following DU post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021323484

[onenote]

79. Actually, Townsend made that despicable remark several months ago

and he was forced to resign over it.

Just keeping the facts straight.

[Flatulo]

91. He should have been criminally charged. Speech of that

nature is not protected.

If he wasn't charged, then a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

[frylock]

131. ever hear of the crusades or the spanish inquisition?

assholes shooting up sikh temples? arbortion clinics bombed, and doctors threatened or killed? ringing any bells?

[EX500rider]

142. I've heard of the crusades...

...the medieval crusades were a series of wars fought in response to Islamic violence against Christians in the Middle East.

Christianity was born in that region and predates Islam by 600 years.

[Flatulo]

162. Yup, heard of the crusades. I fully support your efforts to prosecute those

responsible for any atrocities committed. Oh wait, that was a thousand years ago. It's a bummer that time goes the other way, eh?

In the meantime, since you seem to think that RW Christians are such a threat to world peace, why not compile a list of Christian versus Muslim atrocities in the last century or so and draw your own conclusions. I have a list myself, but the last time I posted it here people responded very very angrily. You see, Islam won by a really, really big landslide. It wasn't even close. It looked like the Christians weren't even playing.

[The Stranger]

6. Hate is what he exemplifies, plain and simple.

[emilyg]

10. I'm Catholic - have seen

much hate directed at us. Never felt the need to murder.

[Ash_F]

31. See reply #30 /nt

[The Stranger]

112. Don't worry, there have been scores of Catholics before you that DID feel the need to murder.

And acted on it.

[oberliner]

171. Any in the last hundred years?

Examples?

[The Stranger]

200. Then you admit that there have been scores of Catholics murdering for millenia.

Just not the last 100 years?

[oberliner]

201. I was just curious if there were any recent examples

I've seen references to events in the relatively distant past but hadn't heard about anything in the more recent past.

Have there been any such incidents in the last 100 years?

[rachel1]

7. A stupid decision responded with more stupidity

Yes, making an Islamophobic film is stupid but is it really worth engaging in violence over it?

[nanabugg]

14. Ah... but it has an ulterior motive. Just use some critical thinking about what this means to

US elections and Israel getting ready to bomb Iran.

[Voice for Peace]

65. not defending violence of any kind, but we can't kid ourselves that this was just a stupid movie

that some violent people didn't like.

There is an intention behind such provocations, and it is to stir up and reinforce hatred and fear of Muslims. It can't be compared to a little joke about Mohammed, or Life of Brian.

[Flatulo]

114. Why can't this movie be compare to 'Life of Brian'?

That was a pretty scathing sendup on Christianity, but I just recall some angry editorials and boycotts. If there was any violence as part of the backlash, please correct me.

[Chiquitita]

118. It can, what a comparison shows

is that While the Life of Brian was part of a corpus of Monty Python parodies and send ups mocking the culture of the film's creators, this film is intended to insult people belonging to a different culture than that of its creators. The divisive intent of this film is clear. People shouldn't murder people though. I agree with you on that much (I think).

[Voice for Peace]

134. You can't compare the two because of context, timing, intention, and especially recent history.

The filmmaker has an agenda which appears to be inflammatory
and hateful, at a time when violent Islamic fundamentalism is a
huge deal in the world. I don't think the Monty Python gang had
a similar intention with their movie.

Many believed the Iraq war was a religious and righteous
war. There are plenty of anecdotes about this view from
Christians in the US military. I won't even try to provide links
to back this up but I think you can research if interested.
Killing for God, killing for Jesus, but legalized because there's
a "war"

I believe at times it is appropriate to provoke a festering illness,
cause it to expose itself, so as to cause the body large to purge
it. This happens in nature and in medicine. But it's hard for me
to justify it happening when it involves human beings who can
make choices.

Hatemongers incite other hatemongers, both for their own side,
and hatemongers among the hated. Hating the hate in each other
and not able to look beyond and see we are human beings.

Look at what has risen up on the far right since 2008. It's a horrible
thing that has emerged, and we've seen its hunger for power.

In the short term, it's a few small minded people with extreme
views and an agenda for war. I don't think this is really about Islam
the religion, and certainly not Muslims in general.

[Flatulo]

180. Thanks for that excellent post. I can see that you've thought about this issue

at length and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Your post has me thinking that the creator of this film indeed shares in the culpability for the embassy killings.

Well done.

Peace, friend.

[Voice for Peace]

182. thank you.

kind words.

[defacto7]

8. It's a nut war.

[azurnoir]

9. Interesting that the film was at first being claimed to have been the work of Egyptian Coptics

sounds almost like there was hope of starting something there, but as the trailer show the intent of this movie was to incite

WARNING sexual content

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. WTF? Are these guys on acid?

[amandabeech]

141. The producer of the film, Bacile, may have been born in Egypt.

I assume that at one time there was a Jewish community in Egypt.

[Biafran]

17. Fumming

So people went and killed other people because of this piece of shit?

[azurnoir]

50. there may have been more to it ya know little stuff like NATO bombings ect

but the movie was the final straw

[EX500rider]

143. NATO bombed Egypt?

Or maybe not...

[azurnoir]

144. not fast step there kudo's n/t

[Flatulo]

165. Do you mean the NATO bombing that liberated the Libyans for 40 years

of Ghaddifi dictatorship? Yeah, no wonder they're so pissed at the West and ready to kill at any provocation

[Flatulo]

116. Where is your ire directed?

The piece of shit movie, the loonies who went on a killing spree because of it, or both?

[oberliner]

19. Are you actually blaming the movie?

That is messed up.

Movies mocking religions should be plentiful and freely made with impunity.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. You do realise this movie is full of bigotry and hate and isn't merely 'mocking'?

I've seen you condemn articles, books and movies that are antisemitic, and it's very strange to see you suddenly so interested in freedom of speech, as you never mention it in other cases.

I think yr either ignoring or missing the point. The people who create the bigoted swill like this movie do so to try to incite hatred and violence. They deserve to be condemned for what they do, not have their 'work' minimised as merely being something that mocks religion...

[Voice for Peace]

74. agree it is the intention of the film makers that makes the difference. never to excuse violence

but it seems Mr. Terry Jones & friends are literally asking for it, intentionally provoking.
It's not just a silly film making fun of Islam.

[oberliner]

119. Absolutely

The movie is crap/garbage.

It's very strange that you think I am "suddenly" interested in freedom of speech as I have repeatedly sounded off on that topic here and elsewhere.

Articles, books, and movies that are anti-semitic ought to be condemned. No one, however, should be killed as a result.

If this news story was about someone making an anti-Islam movie and groups condemning it, I would be agreeing with those groups.

But this is about the fact that people killed other people because they were offended by a movie.

That is deranged.

[azurnoir]

49. well it seems that some are quite satisfied with intended incitement

because that was the movie IMO was intended to do so mission accomplished eh?

But your support of free speech is indeed admirable does that extend to other places as well?

eta it is more than just my opinion as it turns out

Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html

[oberliner]

120. You shouldn't kill people because of a movie

That is deranged.

[azurnoir]

146. and once again perhaps it was more than just the movie n/t

[Javaman]

71. right...

I'm an atheist, but I also believe in freedom of religion.

it's you kind of hate speech that just further degraded the conversation.

[oberliner]

122. Huh?

What hate speech?

I respect all religions. I also believe people have the right to make fun of them if they want to. I

Anyone who kills someone over a movie is deranged.

[Javaman]

125. "Movies mocking religions should be plentiful and freely made with impunity. "

Anyone that does kill anyone over a movie is deranged, but why add fuel to the fire by encouraging the activity by maligning someones religion?

The implication behind your comment appears to support Terry Jones mocking of the Muslim religion.

That is hate speech.

[oberliner]

150. I support the right to make movies mocking religion

I find this individual movie (from what I've seen) to be loathsome, but I will defend the right of the person to make it.

[Javaman]

167. That's not what you said.

You said, "Movies mocking religions should be plentiful and freely made with impunity."

That is not even close to Voltaire. That's something someone has a bizarre chip one ones shoulder out for their comeuppance.

Nice try, but fail.

Last time I checked, Freedom of Religion is also part of the Constitution.

[oberliner]

178. Yes it is

In fact, the quote you provided is exactly what I reiterated.

People should make movies mocking religion.

There should not be a punishment for doing so.

If the movie sucks or is mean-spirited, pointless, etc. then people ought to ridicule/criticize as they see fit.

[Javaman]

186. Then go for it.

if you are so supportive of making something that outright insults a religion, go for it.

like most people who dream to make movies, they all have great ideas but rarely if ever do anything about it.

When I worked in the movie industry, yes I did for 20 years, we used to call people like you posers.

Go for it, make your movie.

[Flatulo]

121. I'm 100% with you on that, brother. nt

[frylock]

133. so you're condoning the willfull incitement of violence?

got it.

[Zax2me]

32. Many movies seek to incite. Or inspire. Or scare. Or make you laugh.

So?

[azurnoir]

53. yes glad to see your such a fan of 'Hollywood' n/t

[Blue_Tires]

78. True, but usually people who claim artistic license for controversial work

Try to defend their work's merit, most of the time even directly addressing the most offended party...

This director just dropped a religious/cultural trolling hand grenade and fled...

[bunnies]

59. But if you saw this "movie" in a theatre and yelled "FIRE" you'd be arrested.

A little thick on the irony for my taste.

[Blue_Tires]

73. Wow...Even the MST3K crew wouldn't get within 100 miles of this shitpile...

Budgeted at $5 million?!?! Looks like something a high school A/V club would produce...

[oberliner]

173. Turns out it was the work of Coptic Christians

Nothing to do with Jews or Israelis.

What do you make of that?

[azurnoir]

177. Egyptian Copts to protest against ‘Islam insult’ film

Coptic activists in Egypt called for a vigil Wednesday in protest against a film deemed offensive to Islam that sparked violence outside U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya, they said in a statement.

The Maspero Youth Union and the Coalition of Coptic Egypt condemned “all sorts of contempt or disdain against any religion, as well as to the sowing of sedition between people who embrace different religions,” the statement said.

The MYU said it would be holding a vigil Wednesday night in front of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo in protest against the film.

<snip>

In Egypt, however, the perception in the media inflamed by fundamentalist Muslim preachers on satellite channels is that the film was made by Egyptian Copts living in the U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Sep-13/187717-egyptian-copts-to-protest-against-islam-insult-film.ashx#ixzz26Ik62AC3
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

now I'll give you that it may have been Egyptian Copts in the US that translated the film into Egyptian Arabic but what about this guy Klien that HuffPo interviewed, he isn't neccassaryly Jewish but I'd wager he isn't an Egyptian Copt either

oh BTW the paragraph I snipped out restated the allegations about the film being made by an American Israeli Jew

[awoke_in_2003]

11. Man will not truly be free...

until the last king is strangel with the entrails of the last priest.

[nanabugg]

13. Told you so! nt

[mwrguy]

16. Deport him to Egypt

Rendition, even.

[loli phabay]

20. yeah brilliant idea, what next deport anyone else who pisses of some religious nuts.

[cali]

23. Yeah, let's fuck free speech. To hell with the 1st amendment.

[oldsarge54]

44. Grow Up

Thomas Jefferson, a protoOWS who wrote what was truly a declaration of anarchy (really look at the Declaration of Independence sometime), said that freedom of speech ended at another man's nose. In other words, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That is the only way that the bill of rights will work is if that people would take responsibility for their actions, not hide behind the constitution. The first amendment is truly abused when freedom of religion controls what employers provide employees. The second amendment has been abused beyond recognition. Now think, don't just knee jerk react. Knowing full well how islamic countries react to negative portrayals of Mohammad, do you really think this movie was not produced with malice aforethought?

[auburngrad82]

66. Don't you think that there is a responsibility to use your right to free speech wisely?

Inciting violence is a serious abuse of that right.

Let's say I released the full name of the guy who wrote it, along with his full street address and sent it to all the newspapers in the middle east. It's my right to do so. It's protected by the first amendment. Would you condone that?

[cali]

72. yes, but there's no mandate to do so.

What I might condemn may very well differ from what can be censored.

[Blue_Tires]

77. Well it just so happens our consulate in Benghazi has a job opening...

[oberliner]

18. Killing people because of a movie is deranged

People should be able to make movies making fun of whatever religion they want.

[azurnoir]

56. but making such a movie a movie the maker admited was political a movie that clearly

the producer knew could very well have these results is okay?

[oberliner]

123. Batman led to the killing of more people

Should they not have released that movie either?

[frylock]

137. and that was the director's intent?

you gotta be fucking shitting me.

[oberliner]

149. Of course not

In neither case was the director's intent the killing of innocent Americans.

[frylock]

169. uhhh no, i believe the intent of this film was to incite violence..

while the intent of batman was for pure entertainment.

[oberliner]

172. I disagree in both cases

I think the intent of this film was to degrade Islam and I think Batman had a message beyond pure entertainment. The movie theatre shooter was incited to violence by the movie. He didn't go shoot up a theatre showing the Oogieloves.

[frylock]

181. nobody had seen the movie till that night as it was the first screening..

so your theory makes absolutely no sense.

[azurnoir]

145. Interesting comment n/t

[frylock]

170. more stupid than interesting imho

[Kolesar]

24. The protestor/murderers thought this "film" was going to release in theaters all over the US

When, in fact, the film only had about 3000 views on YouTube. Idiots in their countries got them inflamed.

As for that idiot Bacile, he better go underground for his own safety.

[Blue State Bandit]

25. This story is not about whether or not it is appropriate to make fun of religion...

as many here are suggesting.

The people involved in this film, clearly knew what the possibly reaction could be to this film. It was a clear instigation to inflame sentiment. This is no different than yelling fire in a dark crowded theater, or hurling anti-semitic insults at a shiva. Such provocateuristic actions can be considered a criminal act when the perpetrator knows such actions could lead to the loss of life. It's called depraved indifference.

[hlthe2b]

27. Exactly...

[GodlessBiker]

29. In that case, isn't anything which makes fun of religion ...

designed to instigate and incite? How can you make fun of religion and not know that it will incite some crazy people who follow that religion?

Ergo, it's illegal to make fun of religion?

[Blue State Bandit]

42. You miss the point. This was clearly a concerted effort to elicit a violent reaction.

This was not some asshole making an off colored joke. They knew something like this would happen. Beyond that, Jones and his ilk are clearly involved in using religious intolerance to [now here is the bigger point you miss] instigate a armed conflict and influence US foreign policy.

Arguments such as yours here only provide cover for such intentions. But that is understandable, because these people are purposefully hiding behind the 1st Amendment and rely on such arguments to cover for there actions.

[leftynyc]

39. Awww - poor babies got their feelings hurt

so naturally it's okay for them to riot and murder cuz we cannot expect them to behave like rational human beings. Your attitude is another part of the problem.

[Blue State Bandit]

43. Facts on the ground.

How rational would you be if I walked into a funeral for one of your family members and insulted your dead relative?

[leftynyc]

48. I can say with 100% certainty that

I would not commit murder. Does that answer your question?

[Blue State Bandit]

55. Not really. I asked how rational you would be.

[leftynyc]

63. I would ignore it

So would the vast majority of people. It's that simple.

[auburngrad82]

76. Don't you think the film makers are aware that MOST people would ignore it?

They were looking for the few who would not ignore it, and they got what they were looking for.

It's no different from a preacher saying "someone should kill the abortion doctor down the street."

Most people would ignore it but, unfortunately, there are always a few who do as they're told. It happens all the time.

It's not Islam's fault any more than it's Christianity's fault. The fault lies with the film maker as well as with the people who actually did the killing.

[leftynyc]

80. Rational adults would certainly ignore it

and I don't find your argument that the murderers were egged on a convincing one at all. It was reported that this movie was going to be shown throughout the US instead of being the nothing piece of shit on You Tube - that's all it took - a lie - to get a murderous mob going. I'm blaming the mob.

[auburngrad82]

83. See response 54

"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.

The creators of the film knew they were inciting violence. They are every bit as responsible as the actual killers.

Charles Manson didn't actually kill anyone. He just had the ability to incite crazy people to kill.

[leftynyc]

86. Every bit as responsible?

In what court of law? Manson put the weapons in the murderer's hands. Someone over in Libya and Egypt told their mobs this was an American movie which was being widely released on 9/11 - that's what started this. If that person who lied had left the you tube to obscurity, this wouldn't be happening.

[Blue State Bandit]

104. If the movie was never posted on youtube, this would not have happened.

This movie was the weapon, left within easy reach of the Imam who stoked the fire. They gave impetus, just like Manson did, for the actions of the rioters.

No one here is justifying the actions of those involved. But acting as though this was lacked causable provocation, as your snide remark up-thread indicates, is unhelpful at the least, and dangerously stupid in my opinion.

[leftynyc]

105. Perhaps

I happen to think it's dangerously stupid to expect Americans to have to adhere to keeping their mouths shut cuz someone halfway across the world will find what they say insulting - but that's just me. And did they punish the person who made the film? No, the murderer went after any American he/she could get their hands on.

[Blue State Bandit]

84. There are those on both sides who want this war. These people didn't just wake up yesterday...

and say, "I think I'll kill me some Americans today". The movie made by Bacile was the the bomb, some Imam (who's no better than Bacile or Terry Jones) lit the fuse. And the well intentioned among us are the victims.

Your argument is naive and plays right into the hands of the extremist elements that commit such provocations. And here's your proof.



Try explaining your point to Dr. Tiller, or the troops who died in the uprisings following Abu Ghraib, or the Iraqis who died because of BushCo's BS about WMD how provocation can kill.

[frylock]

136. bullshit..

you would be righteously pissed.

[leftynyc]

154. No - I'm funny that way

Strangers' opinions mean nothing to me. Especially when they're stupid.

[Kindly Refrain]

132. Only extremists say things 100% certainty.

Just sayin'

[leftynyc]

152. More bullshit

I wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone who came after me or someone I love. I would NEVER commit murder because of something someone said. NEVER.

[moleman1976]

184. Please tell me

how the filmmaker forced his POS film to be shown in Egypt and Libya. Because that is the analogue you are positing.

We have no right to march into someone's home or place of worship and force them to listen to our criticisms of their faith. But we have every right to mock them in our own way and let whoever may see that criticism see it.

Be careful of what you call for here - if we want to keep the right to mock perv priests, or idiot Fundies who think they're about to be Raptured to the heavens, then we have to also say that you can mock Muslims. The movie may be idiotic (I haven't seen it, but I can believe that's the case), but America has to stand for Free Speech, and denounce the actions of people who killed others in response to teh movie, no matter how bad the movie is.

[Voice for Peace]

81. pretty much everyone's attitude is part of the problem.

What is the attitude of those who use their freedom of speech irresponsibly in order to provoke others?

It happens all the time here on DU.

[leftynyc]

82. That's my point

Incendiary speech is used all the time here and yet we manage not to riot, we manage not to murder. I expect people to behave like adults but there seem to be those who wont give that consideration to people they insist on treating as unable-to-control-themselves children.

[Voice for Peace]

85. there are civilized and uncivilized people everywhere living in close proximity to each other.

Take into consideration what probable percentage of Muslims
managed not to riot, or kill anybody, or even become upset.

Thanks to my DU education, I'm aware of many non-Muslims
in the USA who would enthusiastically riot and even kill others
if they could get away with it. There are extremes on both
ends of the spectrum in this regard.

I don't like to generalize about people. Even the worst of us has
a chance for redemption (I don't mean religious redemption, but
conversion to sanity).

Adults don't behave very well so I think "behave like adults"
is obsolete..

[leftynyc]

87. I know what I see

I see riots and murders because of cartoons, videos and books. I don't see the governments of these people condeming the actions. Exactly what lesson should I be learning from this?

As far as non-Muslims keeping their violence to themselves, I don't care why they don't murder - just that they manage not to. I'm not aware of any who would enthusiastically riot and kill if they thought they could get away with it. I know there are those who SAY that here at DU - just have never seen anything resembling proof.

[Voice for Peace]

151. statement from Tripoli

http://www.tripolipost.com/articledetail.asp?c=1&i=9164

Tripoli-- Libyan President of National Congress (NG) condemns the killing of the American Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Libya as a result of an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi.

Reading a statement at a press conference in Tripoli this afternoon Mohamed Magariaf, the President of NG, said that the National Congress and the Transitional Government “condemn the criminal aggression” on the US consulate.

“On behalf of the The presidency of GC, Government and the Libyan people we offer deep condolences to the American government , people and the families of the ambassador and other victims,” the statement said.

The statement also said Libya “confirms the strong relations between the Libyan and American peoples which has been further cemented as a result of the US government’s support of the 17 February revolution.”

[leftynyc]

153. I saw that and wanted to come back

here earlier and comment on that righteous statement. Thanks for finding and posting it.

[csziggy]

67. This compares to antisemetic literature and films of the past

But the makers of this film KNEW they were dealing with a very different culture than the Jewish groups of the past that had been conditioned to be meek and to submit to the hatred incited.

The problem is there is no effective response to unreasoning hatred and propaganda. If you do not fight back, it escalates; if you do fight back, that is used as additional ammunition with which to demonize your group.

I wonder exactly what the motivations of the film makers are other than simply inciting violence to make Muslims look bad? Are they influenced by some of the "end time" right wing Christians who want to bring about the events 'prophesied' before the 'Second Coming'? Or do they think that Israel will get more support if they can turn more Americans against Islamic cultures?

[slackmaster]

106. I'm mentally trying to compare it to Triumph of the Will, and getting a divide by zero error

[csziggy]

174. Triumph of the Will was the culmunation of hubdreds of years of antisemetism

This is more like some of the crude earlier pamphlets denigrating the Jews.

I find it appalling that an Israeli is behind the film that the YouTube clips were taken from. I would have hoped the Israelis would have learned how futile hatred is from their own history - and how destructive it is for the people who are spreading the hate.

[Behind the Aegis]

176. "He" is not Israeli nor a Jew.

The director is a mystery and very well may be an Egyptian Coptic Christian.

[csziggy]

179. I saw that after I had written my message

It almost looks as though this "movie" was made to deliberately trigger this kind of reaction. I hope someone can figure this out!

[Behind the Aegis]

183. This was indeed planned out.

Read the articles from the actors. They seem to have been duped too. Something really stinks to high heaven. As far as I am concerned, this is something the FBI needs to investigate.

[slackmaster]

195. I just read about the possible Coptic connection in the fishwrap this morning

The plot thickens. The Egyptian Copts have a long-standing feud with Islam.

[slackmaster]

194. I suspect that the YouTube clips are all that actually exists

[csziggy]

199. I haven't tried to watch them but the descriptions made me think

A few years ago an aspiring filmmaker approached me about using my farm for a shooting location. It turned out that he was not actually making his movie but taping bits of the concept to use to show to possible backers to raise money. He had absolutely no money for cast, sets or costumes, just used what he could scrounge for free.

I never saw the clips he shot, but watching the 'production' I expect it would have come off as very amateurish and clumsy.

I wonder if the "13 minutes" of clips that is on YouTube might have been something along those lines?

[Zax2me]

28. So it is the FILM'S fault....oh.

Hang the guy that dared make fun of Allah.
Got it.

[no_hypocrisy]

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

An Israeli filmmaker based in California went into hiding Tuesday after his movie attacking Islam's prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya, where one American was killed.

Speaking by phone 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, killing an American diplomat on Tuesday. 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."

-more-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html

[JanMichael]

51. This religious hatred crap is getting exhausting

I am so tired of hatred and greed. And I mean from all sides.

[cstanleytech]

70. You and me both and then there is the constant whine of "but they started it first" like that

makes it all ok for someone to commit an atrocity themselves.

[polichick]

52. Has Rmoney signed him up as an adviser yet?

[KeepItReal]

54. "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen"

An Israeli filmmaker based in California went into hiding Tuesday after his movie attacking Islam's prophet Muhammad sparked angry assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and Libya, where one American was killed.

Speaking by phone 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.
...

Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/sam-bacile-in-hiding_n_1876044.html

[graham4anything]

62. Yelling Fire in a theatre or inciting a riot are major crimes

the film maker should be tried for anything that happens

[HooptieWagon]

75. Intolerant religious crazies made the movie,

and intolerant religious crazies object to it. I have no problem with putting the whole lot of them in a walled compound to fight out out their differrences. Keep us sane people out of it.

[closeupready]

89. An Israeli made this film.

Projection? Compensation? There's got to be several psychological disorders at work here.

[Malikshah]

92. "Interesting" discussion here. So to some folks, would it be OK to film the Protocols of

the Elders of Zion and show it in Tel Aviv and the settlements of the West Bank?

How about new HD version of Birth of a Nation in predominantly African American neighborhoods throughout the US?

Just chance the consequences.

Hate is hate. Fanning hate is fanning hate. Spreading lies is spreading lies. To feed into that, to expand upon it (as has been seen in this thread) is sinking to the level of the original authors/film makers of the two titles I mentioned and Bacile's abominable creation.

This is a tragedy for the consular workers and our Ambassador and their families, friends, co-workers. To begin to foam at the mouth about the issue is a disservice to their memory and to ourselves.

[slackmaster]

98. Jesus Christ Superstar was labelled as blasphemy and sacrilege by Billy Graham and others

But nobody rioted when the album came out in 1970, or when the stage version premiered in London and New York City.

[LAGC]

99. Yeah, come to think of it, I don't remember much rioting over the Book of Mormon play either.

Some people need to just grow thicker skin.

There is no excuse for rioting and murder in response to a stupid low-grade B-movie. None.

(As if the U.S. government sponsored it or was in any way responsible for its production...)

[Malikshah]

101. Another false equivalence ---

Not getting into a history lessor or current events discussion here--

It's too obvious.

[Malikshah]

100. False equivalence here. JCS didn't depict its characters as pedophiles and slackers, nor did

Andrew Lloyd Webber or Tim Rice write it as if Christianity is a cancer.

[slackmaster]

103. It challenges the existence of God and the deity of Jesus, core beliefs among all Christians

It treats Christianity as a cult, which is historically factual but highly offensive to many Christians.

Religious extremists of all stripes need to grow a thicker skin. Turning the other cheek works.

[Malikshah]

147. Uh....who told you that about JCS?? Wow! Talk about needing a thick skin!

Wow....

Just, wow.

[slackmaster]

148. It doesn't bother me a bit

I'm Agnostic, and I am not offended even slightly by anything regarded as blasphemous by any religion.

What's your problem?

[pink-o]

108. Sick of all these media heads inciting hate, then hiding behind their "Art"

O'Leilly calls George Tiller the baby killer, and some RW nutfuck shoots him...oh, but it's not Bill's fault. He's just a pundit and the media only a mirror held up to humanity.

And as for this POS waste of celluloid: look, if someone made an authentic documentary showing how Wahabiest Madrassas incite anger towards the west, and a bunch of Islamic Fundies staged a violent protest, then the condemnation would be understandable. But the filmakers only made this to provoke violnce--and innocent people died for it. They're as responsible as Billo for causing death.

Free speech vs Hate speech: we all know the diff, yet we sit here and wring hands, split hairs and tread softly in case we cross a line. It's time to call it what it is, and hold the bastards who purvey it accountable.

[aquart]

127. You're sure he's a Jew? How do you know?

Care to present some evidence of his identity?

Can you say BLOOD LIBEL?

Some doubts: http://www.publici.com/content/anti-muslim-movie-sparked-deadly-islamist-protests-%E2%80%93-it-hoax

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/6377/who_is_%E2%80%9Csam_bacile%E2%80%9D/

Vermont Public Radio doesn't think he exists. http://www.vpr.net/npr/161003427/

[dipsydoodle]

128. There's a post elsewhere in GD

casting doubt on exactly who or what he is. There seems to be no record of his prior existence.

[Kolesar]

130. He *may* be Egyptian

Skepticism is always called for:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021327269

[kiranon]

135. Look for those who thought they would benefit from this film.

That may provide the answer to who financed the making of this film and for what purpose - certainly not for making money. More like making trouble and opportunity for someone to advance his/her cause. It's hard to believe a hundred donors wanted this film made. The phrase "a 100 donors" sounds very political to me.

[nlof]

156. Bacile not Israeli

A closer inspection of Sam Bacile shows that he writes in arabic in his youtube comments. On Google+ he is in the circle of محمد حامد الشربيني‬? (Mohamed Hamed El-Sherbini). Sam is probably neither Jewish nor Israeli and since he claims he has relatives in Egypt he is most likely a disgruntled Egyptian.

See also this: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/muhammad-film-consultant-sam-bacile-is-not-israeli-and-not-a-real-name/262290/

[Kindly Refrain]

157. Many Israelis know Arabic

[goodhue]

158. Steve Klein, the only person so far who purports to know Bacile, stated that Bacile is not Israeli

See this Atlantic piece . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014227295

When I asked him to describe Bacile, he said: "I don't know that much about him. I met him, I spoke to him for an hour. He's not Israeli, no. I can tell you this for sure, the State of Israel is not involved, Terry Jones (the radical Christian Quran-burning pastor) is not involved. His name is a pseudonym. All these Middle Eastern folks I work with have pseudonyms. I doubt he's Jewish. I would suspect this is a disinformation campaign."

I asked him who he thought Sam Bacile was. He said that there are about 15 people associated with the making of the film, "Nobody is anything but an active American citizen. They're from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan, they're some that are from Egypt. Some are Copts but the vast majority are Evangelical."

[Kindly Refrain]

160. You mean Steve Klein who is a member

of a militant Christian separatist group? yeah he'd never lie, he's the only person in this whose identity is known and he has no credibility.

[goodhue]

163. Indeed, he has no credibility, and may have perpetrated hoax over existence of film

He is the only source so far, other than "Bacile"

[randome]

164. James O'Keefe. Where is he?

[texshelters]

166. Religious bigots Everywhere

Religious Bigots promote a film that sparks religious bigots to protest and riot. Some religious bigots think the rioting by religious bigots proves that the religious bigots were right. 



Religious bigots everywhere prove how far removed they are from the gods they believe in. 

 PTxS



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/world/middleeast/anger-over-film-fuels-anti-american-attacks-in-libya-and-egypt.html

[oberliner]

175. Turns out your story is BS

Not Israeli, not Jewish.

Thoughts?

[Purveyor]

197. Wasn't my 'story' however it was the story that was running on all the wires at the time of posting.

[oberliner]

198. The person responsible for this headline should be fired

False claim, no attempt to verify, a headline could end up inciting more violence against innocent people.

Stating as fact that the film was made by an Israeli-American when a bit of Journalism 101 would have uncovered otherwise.

They ought to be ashamed (and they aren't alone).