General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAl Nas Television sparked these riots
Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2012, 06:21 PM - Edit history (3)
This ongoing description of "the film that sparked" these protests is off base. The film is surely offensive to some people, but since most offensive things do not result in protests the observation that the film is offensive doesn't explain the protests.
The Egyptian religious satellite network Al Nas used the film to spark these protests.
The film itself clearly did not incite any riots. It was on youtube from July 2 until September 11 without any riot activity noted.
Then an Egyptian TV network that reaches much of the Arab world airs it, falsely says the US and Israel are responsible for it, tells lies about it, claiming it is what Americans watch on 9/11, and tells its viewers that they need to be outraged.
As to why this night of recreational outrage programming was staged by Al Nas for September 11 is anyone's guess. They could have brought this super-important newsworthy film to the public attention at any point since July 2. (BlueMeanie notes below that the Arabic subtitled version wasn't available until 9/4.)
But if they wanted to have a night of rage on September 11, does anyone really want to suggest that if it were not for one particular fundie opus they would have had to cancel their programming for lack of things to complain about, and showed IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE?
Though I consider Al Nas free speech just like any other, if anyone wants to get excited about who willfully incited riots it's not like there's any mystery about it.
Protest organizers screened portions of the film for crowds before leading them to the embassies.
Yes, this was indeed an intentional incitement to riot.
An incitement to riot is not making an offensive film. It is holding a rally and encouraging those assembled to, in fact, have a riot.
Religious leaders who incite riots are a problem.
I get that American neocon fundies are especially offensive to we American liberals, but the primary role of religious crackpots in inciting riot here is quite plainly the role of religious Islamic crackpots, with an assist from their American counterparts.
If FOX had a night-of-hate screening some of the antisemitic programing the Arab world produces daily (which takes a back seat to nothing in the religious offense sweepstakes) and then some Jewish fundamentalist psycho organized a rally, screened the shows and then led the audience to attack a nearby mosque in California, it is credible that anyone, anywhere would say that anti-semitic Arab films caused the attack on the mosque, or even "sparked" the attack on the mosque?
Again, the person inciting a riot is typically the guy with a bull horn telling a crowd of people to have a riot.
And this infantalization of Muslims as volatile children who lack moral capacity and should be expected, of course, to commit murders if they see the wrong movies is racist. Muslims are people, just like any other. And some of them are bad people, as is sometimes the case with people.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,500 posts)Blue Meany
(1,947 posts)KT2000
(20,576 posts)has been out there since July without incident must lead one to look for the agitators.
We have our own religious crackpots who would love to see riots in the streets to satisfy their own narcissistic need for power. We have lots of them that are going to pick people of a few at a time. The pretext is usually conjured in their own minds.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Thank you for underlining this aspect.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Benghazi. I haven't seen that reported elsewhere. Not challenging the facts, just curious about the sources.
Thanks for this. Makes sense.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)and the member page...
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4DjVszAn4GAyzgsjtkJONg/videos?flow=grid&view=0
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Here's the LA Times piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/la-mobile-christopher-stevens-killed-m,0,2291982.story?track=rss
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)whether the (post broadcast) screening to the assembled protesters was in Cairo or Benghazi or both. My impression was Benghazi, though instinct would say Cairo.
Given the state of the cable/broadcast infrastructure, satellite TV is the big thing throughout the Arab world, so it is a more international Arabic language media scene.
There was an article this morning where the correspondent in Benghazi said the whole thing there started with the Al Nas broadcast, which he said is a common station for people there to watch.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I've been reading articles as they appear all day. There was a good article earlier today with someone laying out the progress of the thing from the AL NAS broadcast to the actual embassy incidents.
But I can't tell you which one(s).
I do stick to legit news... it was a mainstream news article about the incidents.
As for the post date of the video, it's on the youtube page.
There's no way to know its view history day-to-day but that would be interesting to know.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and the Arabic language version that's potentially more significant -- and showing that the mob in Libya was incited to riot by it -- which may be meaningful in trying to figure out if the killings were actually organized in any meaningful way.
What may have happened was that the protest in Benghazi was a more or less copy-cat of events in Cairo. The crowd in Cairo may have been influenced by the video to some degree, but the results there were relatively contained. That makes sense in a city where demonstrators are pretty sophisticated and know that an attempt to actually storm the US Embassy would be met with lethal results. There do not appear to be any such constraints on crowd behavior in Benghazi, which has no real government except tribal militias.
Not convinced yet this video really had as much effect on the mob in Libya. The role of al Nas even less so. If you could dig up the article that makes that connection, we would really appreciate it. Thanks again.
cali
(114,904 posts)that this was all over American TV for 9/11.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Jennicut
(25,415 posts)It was so badly made, it was unwatchable.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)All this straining of the facts to find fault for the killing of the American Ambassador far from the scene only obscures the central fact. Regime change has largely failed to bring peace and stability and good will toward the U.S. in the Mideast countries where we have most recently had a role in knocking off the local dictator.
Again, it's the neocon policy that has failed, forcing us to realize that we gain nothing but more hatred by taking sides in Arab civil wars.