IMO Sam Bacile is an Idiot

Actually, that guy was the manager of the company that produced the film but he is not Bacile.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, of Cerritos, California, is said to be a Coptic Christian of Egyptian origin. He told the Associated Press on Wednesday that he was the manager for the company that produced the film. But he has denied being "Sam Bacile", credited as the writer and director of the film

jadelt:
Actually, that guy was the manager of the company that produced the film but he is not Bacile.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, of Cerritos, California, is said to be a Coptic Christian of Egyptian origin. He told the Associated Press on Wednesday that he was the manager for the company that produced the film. But he has denied being "Sam Bacile", credited as the writer and director of the film

Bah, they also said the "film" cost 5 mil and "Sam" claimed to be Israeli in one call and Egyptian on Facebook. I kinda doubt this guy's story.

jthanatos:
jadelt:
Actually, that guy was the manager of the company that produced the film but he is not Bacile.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, of Cerritos, California, is said to be a Coptic Christian of Egyptian origin. He told the Associated Press on Wednesday that he was the manager for the company that produced the film. But he has denied being "Sam Bacile", credited as the writer and director of the film
Bah, they also said the "film" cost 5 mil and "Sam" claimed to be Israeli in one call and Egyptian on Facebook. I kinda doubt this guy's story.

I saw the trailers. If that film cost $5Mil someone got seriously ripped off. It is a lot like a skit on Saturday Night Live. I agree these guys are all pretty scummy.

I'm still puzzled as to why the world gives a pass to the entire Muslim religion to riot and kill every time they feel insulted. They'd have a real hard time being a Catholic.

Interesting tidbit.
Who the F can you believe anymore?
http://freebeacon.com/reports-marines-not-permitted-live-ammo/

jthanatos:
JDH:
marineatbn03:
Again, I do agree with you. But, from my limited experience on this earth, history is a damned fine teacher of what works and doesn't. Like Pastor Jones burning Qurans that led to riots and deaths. Ok, you do it once and make your point, see the consequences, others should know, going into their similar actions, that something like this is going to happen and let common sense prevail.
Amen brother.
But that is the real question. Do we stop people from being able to speak their minds just because radicals will use it as an excuse for violence? Where do we decide speech is worth the possibility of violence? Who gets to draw that line? Once you start censoring to prevent petty tyrants from using violence and terrorism, you are giving THEM the power. You can condemn the speech without silencing the speaker.

How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.

To answer beatnicks question: I would say that we must continue to make war on Al Quieda by killing them at avery opportunity, because they declared war on US, but at the same time, we must also show the Muslim world that we are not their enemy. That means we ought to at least have respect for their religion. Isn't that the American creed - freedom of religion and religious tolerance? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to show the Muslim world that we can live together in peace and with respect for each other? I don't think the rioters were justified to behave the way they did, to the contrary, I condem their actions and find their bahavior to be contemptable, murderous insanity. But that's exactly how I feel about the idiots that made this movie.

I disagree. Making a shitty movie is a lot different than killin people. I dont feel the same about both categories.

JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
marineatbn03:
Again, I do agree with you. But, from my limited experience on this earth, history is a damned fine teacher of what works and doesn't. Like Pastor Jones burning Qurans that led to riots and deaths. Ok, you do it once and make your point, see the consequences, others should know, going into their similar actions, that something like this is going to happen and let common sense prevail.
Amen brother.
But that is the real question. Do we stop people from being able to speak their minds just because radicals will use it as an excuse for violence? Where do we decide speech is worth the possibility of violence? Who gets to draw that line? Once you start censoring to prevent petty tyrants from using violence and terrorism, you are giving THEM the power. You can condemn the speech without silencing the speaker.
How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.

To answer beatnicks question: I would say that we must continue to make war on Al Quieda by killing them at avery opportunity, because they declared war on US, but at the same time, we must also show the Muslim world that we are not their enemy. That means we ought to at least have respect for their religion. Isn't that the American creed - freedom of religion and religious tolerance? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to show the Muslim world that we can live together in peace and with respect for each other? I don't think the rioters were justified to behave the way they did, to the contrary, I condem their actions and find their bahavior to be contemptable, murderous insanity. But that's exactly how I feel about the idiots that made this movie.

Yet, the same kind of bogus blasphemy is targeted toward Christians, and more specifically Catholics, every day. No one charges them with the same accusations of inciting. Should these folks also be charged with a crime? Hell, there has been pieces of anti-Catholic artwork that are more insulting than this movie.. Should these folks also be convicted?

I

JDH:
How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.

You condemn the speech they way the state dept is right now, saying it is "disgusting and vile, and we disagree completely with it." When people say distasteful things in a civil society, you argue against it. If it is factually wrong, you lambast the argument and those that would intentionally use it. When distasteful ideas are not open to public ridicule and debate, they are kept secret. They are passed from parent to child and around small groups of like-minded individuals. When they are able to be argued against, they can be destroyed. This is the right way to get speech "censored". You make it so people don't say something, not because the government says you can't, but because the idea has no reasonable grounds, that it does not stand up to public scrutiny. You will still have crazies or those that refuse to be informed that will say distasteful and untrue things anyway, but now they are exposed to the greater population for what they are. As to why we don't stop people from speaking just because how other's may react, Heckler's veto was the term I was drawing a blank on all day yesterday.

Also, on the subject of the widow, I don't disagree that it would suck to tell her that, and she would most likely be hard pressed to see the worth of the speech. However, it is also very hard to be objective weighing the life of a loved one versus the "value" of a right. If someone told me my wife had died for a cause, no matter how noble or ignoble, whether she died saving the universe from aliens or giving a bum some change, I would still think it wasn't worth her life.

marineatbn03

All I can say is, common sense is no longer a common virtue. This applies to boths sides of these events.

marineatbn03:
All I can say is, common sense is no longer a common virtue. This applies to boths sides of these events.

++++++++++++++++++

jthanatos:
JDH:
How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.
You condemn the speech they way the state dept is right now, saying it is "disgusting and vile, and we disagree completely with it." When people say distasteful things in a civil society, you argue against it. If it is factually wrong, you lambast the argument and those that would intentionally use it. When distasteful ideas are not open to public ridicule and debate, they are kept secret. They are passed from parent to child and around small groups of like-minded individuals. When they are able to be argued against, they can be destroyed. This is the right way to get speech "censored". You make it so people don't say something, not because the government says you can't, but because the idea has no reasonable grounds, that it does not stand up to public scrutiny. You will still have crazies or those that refuse to be informed that will say distasteful and untrue things anyway, but now they are exposed to the greater population for what they are. As to why we don't stop people from speaking just because how other's may react, Heckler's veto was the term I was drawing a blank on all day yesterday.

Also, on the subject of the widow, I don't disagree that it would suck to tell her that, and she would most likely be hard pressed to see the worth of the speech. However, it is also very hard to be objective weighing the life of a loved one versus the "value" of a right. If someone told me my wife had died for a cause, no matter how noble or ignoble, whether she died saving the universe from aliens or giving a bum some change, I would still think it wasn't worth her life.

That's all well and good, and common sense, and rational. But the people who made that film ment to create a weapon that would be used to destroy, and possibly to kill. When people intend to cause harm, I believe you must take stronger measures against them than what you've laid out. This is the second time that "preacher" in S. Florida has intentionally provoked the Muslim world. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions, and the filmmakers as well?

JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.
You condemn the speech they way the state dept is right now, saying it is "disgusting and vile, and we disagree completely with it." When people say distasteful things in a civil society, you argue against it. If it is factually wrong, you lambast the argument and those that would intentionally use it. When distasteful ideas are not open to public ridicule and debate, they are kept secret. They are passed from parent to child and around small groups of like-minded individuals. When they are able to be argued against, they can be destroyed. This is the right way to get speech "censored". You make it so people don't say something, not because the government says you can't, but because the idea has no reasonable grounds, that it does not stand up to public scrutiny. You will still have crazies or those that refuse to be informed that will say distasteful and untrue things anyway, but now they are exposed to the greater population for what they are. As to why we don't stop people from speaking just because how other's may react, Heckler's veto was the term I was drawing a blank on all day yesterday.

Also, on the subject of the widow, I don't disagree that it would suck to tell her that, and she would most likely be hard pressed to see the worth of the speech. However, it is also very hard to be objective weighing the life of a loved one versus the "value" of a right. If someone told me my wife had died for a cause, no matter how noble or ignoble, whether she died saving the universe from aliens or giving a bum some change, I would still think it wasn't worth her life.
That's all well and good, and common sense, and rational. But the people who made that film ment to create a weapon that would be used to destroy, and possibly to kill. When people intend to cause harm, I believe you must take stronger measures against them than what you've laid out. This is the second time that "preacher" in S. Florida has intentionally provoked the Muslim world. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions, and the filmmakers as well?

Intent would be a hell of a thing to prove. He could just say he was exercising his right of protest. And again, this would set a bad precedent. This time, we can pretty much agree that what he said was kind of sh!tty. But what about the next thing some group decides to riot about? Who gets to draw the line between "sh!tty speech you can't say because people might riot" and "speech worth having a riot for"? How would you even discuss issues with groups that would riot if you mention those things which they disagree?

And accountability is a different beast. This guy should be held accountable for the film he made, and be judged by society at large accordingly. But, he still didn't cause the riots, some other jack @ss power monger did.

Think of it this way. Steve thinks apples are great and oranges suck. Steve makes a video saying oranges are actually swollen tree testicles. John, an orange lover, sees this video. Instead of raging against it and posting a counter argument, John convinces his other orange lovers to riot and kill Pete, a guy who loves both. Steve said some stupid stuff, and really should have known better. He should also be viewed as a jerk by society at large. But can you really say Steve is responsible for Pete's death?

JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.
You condemn the speech they way the state dept is right now, saying it is "disgusting and vile, and we disagree completely with it." When people say distasteful things in a civil society, you argue against it. If it is factually wrong, you lambast the argument and those that would intentionally use it. When distasteful ideas are not open to public ridicule and debate, they are kept secret. They are passed from parent to child and around small groups of like-minded individuals. When they are able to be argued against, they can be destroyed. This is the right way to get speech "censored". You make it so people don't say something, not because the government says you can't, but because the idea has no reasonable grounds, that it does not stand up to public scrutiny. You will still have crazies or those that refuse to be informed that will say distasteful and untrue things anyway, but now they are exposed to the greater population for what they are. As to why we don't stop people from speaking just because how other's may react, Heckler's veto was the term I was drawing a blank on all day yesterday.

Also, on the subject of the widow, I don't disagree that it would suck to tell her that, and she would most likely be hard pressed to see the worth of the speech. However, it is also very hard to be objective weighing the life of a loved one versus the "value" of a right. If someone told me my wife had died for a cause, no matter how noble or ignoble, whether she died saving the universe from aliens or giving a bum some change, I would still think it wasn't worth her life.
That's all well and good, and common sense, and rational. But the people who made that film ment to create a weapon that would be used to destroy, and possibly to kill. When people intend to cause harm, I believe you must take stronger measures against them than what you've laid out. This is the second time that "preacher" in S. Florida has intentionally provoked the Muslim world. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions, and the filmmakers as well?

I would say the the mullahs and Muslim Brotherhood knew that violence would occur as soon as they called for it. I'd bet my ass that none of the rioters ever even saw the 12 minute flick. Most probably wouldn't even know how to find it. This was planned by the leaders. It has absolutely nothing to do with a stupid film, other than it was a good excuse to set their plans in motion. Have you seen the film?

beatnic:
JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
How would you condem the inflamatory speech that has resulted in death and destruction? I have a great deal of respect for your posts, but I would also have a very hard time telling the widow of Ambassador Stephens that these idiots have to be tolerated because they have the right to incite violence under the banner of free speech.

Don't get me wrong, I have been an advocate for freedom of speech all my life, but there are limits to every freedom we enjoy, and I believe the idiots that made this film crossed that line.
You condemn the speech they way the state dept is right now, saying it is "disgusting and vile, and we disagree completely with it." When people say distasteful things in a civil society, you argue against it. If it is factually wrong, you lambast the argument and those that would intentionally use it. When distasteful ideas are not open to public ridicule and debate, they are kept secret. They are passed from parent to child and around small groups of like-minded individuals. When they are able to be argued against, they can be destroyed. This is the right way to get speech "censored". You make it so people don't say something, not because the government says you can't, but because the idea has no reasonable grounds, that it does not stand up to public scrutiny. You will still have crazies or those that refuse to be informed that will say distasteful and untrue things anyway, but now they are exposed to the greater population for what they are. As to why we don't stop people from speaking just because how other's may react, Heckler's veto was the term I was drawing a blank on all day yesterday.

Also, on the subject of the widow, I don't disagree that it would suck to tell her that, and she would most likely be hard pressed to see the worth of the speech. However, it is also very hard to be objective weighing the life of a loved one versus the "value" of a right. If someone told me my wife had died for a cause, no matter how noble or ignoble, whether she died saving the universe from aliens or giving a bum some change, I would still think it wasn't worth her life.
That's all well and good, and common sense, and rational. But the people who made that film ment to create a weapon that would be used to destroy, and possibly to kill. When people intend to cause harm, I believe you must take stronger measures against them than what you've laid out. This is the second time that "preacher" in S. Florida has intentionally provoked the Muslim world. Should he not be held accountable for the consequences of his actions, and the filmmakers as well?
I would say the the mullahs and Muslim Brotherhood knew that violence would occur as soon as they called for it. I'd bet my ass that none of the rioters ever even saw the 12 minute flick. Most probably wouldn't even know how to find it. This was planned by the leaders. It has absolutely nothing to do with a stupid film, other than it was a good excuse to set their plans in motion. Have you seen the film?

No I haven't seen it, and God willing, I never will. I also think you are completely overlooking how big a part the internet and facebook played in the Arab Spring. I think you may be looking at this through cold war eyes. The world has changed, and the people rioting are very much aware of the internet.

I haven't seen it either. And I've looked. And can't find it. They never saw it, OK. They were told about it in their mosques. And they were told to riot. I don't believe for a second that any of them saw the film. Mob mentality of the whole culture. They are the ones who must change if there is to be peace on this planet. But as I mentioned in an adjoining thread, evolution takes time.

I found the trailer. Its bad. Very bad.

beatnic:
I found the trailer. Its bad. Very bad.

Yes, it's very easy to find. I will not watch it. The ironic thing is that many Muslims insist that their religion is a rational religion of peace and tranquility, but too often Muslims just will not behave that way. You have to judge the actions, not the words.

Having said that, I do not believe these "protests" are coordinated and directed - they are genuinely spontaneous, I believe. I am also more that just a little bit curious as to why this moron - a Coptic "Christian" of Egyptian birth with US citizenship (and also a convicted felon for embezelement or extortion, or something of that sort) - released this "film" now, on the eve of our election. I want to know who is behind this film, where the money came from, and why it was released now.

fla-gypsy

Muslims have attacked and murdered Americans 15 times since 1983 simply because they were Americans. There was nothing spontaneous about it and some stupid low life film has nothing to do with it! I can't believe what comes out of the mouths of some people. Are you that blind? I think not, willing to be an apologist? Definitely, go ahead and knock yourself out but you will have to get in line behind the State Dept and OBozo.

I didnt read through all posts in this thread but is everyone aware that this movie (yes I looked at the trailers on youtube) was posted on you tube in July ? This wasnt just a 'hey lets riot because of this new movie' thing.

oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?

PM me if you want the link

jadelt:
I didnt read through all posts in this thread but is everyone aware that this movie (yes I looked at the trailers on youtube) was posted on you tube in July ? This wasnt just a 'hey lets riot because of this new movie' thing.

oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?

PM me if you want the link

It was so obscure that until it was "discovered" there were only 6,000 hits on it - worldwide. It just hung around for a couple of months until it was discovered.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/15/Obama-Contribution-Anti-Islam-Filmmaker

JDH:
jadelt:
I didnt read through all posts in this thread but is everyone aware that this movie (yes I looked at the trailers on youtube) was posted on you tube in July ? This wasnt just a 'hey lets riot because of this new movie' thing.

oh yeah, and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?

PM me if you want the link
It was so obscure that until it was "discovered" there were only 6,000 hits on it - worldwide. It just hung around for a couple of months until it was discovered.

Not sure where you got your 6,000 hit statistics but the official youtube stats show .......

First view from a mobile device Jul 3, 2012 - 325,483 views

That is a cut and paste from the youtube stat page for the video. Anything about Islam is reviewed daily by certain people. Kind of a coincidence that they just noticed on on 9/11..... I don't think so.

The Kid

jadelt:
and do you think it is a coincidence that Sam Bacile kinda sorta sounds a lot like Imbecile ?

Or how bout sa M--BA--C ile

jj20030

The Kid:
IMO Sam Bacile is an idiot and should be brought up on charges of inciting a riot and involuntary manslaughter.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-ambassador-3-others-killed-in-attacks-on-libya-mission?lite

I've been thinking about this quite a lot.

Section 3, Article 3 of the US Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

A state of war exists between the United States and Al Queida. This film helps our enemy in this war, has led to the loss of American lives, and has provoked attacks against our Embasies across the Middle East. In my view, that makes this film an act of treason, and should no longer be protected by the 1st amendment.

So, by ridiculing your enemy, you essentially give them aid and comfort? You can kill them, but don't insult them?

JDH:
The Kid:
IMO Sam Bacile is an idiot and should be brought up on charges of inciting a riot and involuntary manslaughter.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-ambassador-3-others-killed-in-attacks-on-libya-mission?lite
I've been thinking about this quite a lot.

Section 3, Article 3 of the US Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

A state of war exists between the United States and Al Queida. This film helps our enemy in this war, has led to the loss of American lives, and has provoked attacks against our Embasies across the Middle East. In my view, that makes this film an act of treason, and should no longer be protected by the 1st amendment.

So, all of congress and a lot of foreign aid groups are treasonous (and have been for a long time) because they send aid to countries like Pakistan and Libya, knowing full well some of that aid is used to help Al Qaeda? Doesn't really work in my mind.

beatnic:
So, by ridiculing your enemy, you essentially give them aid and comfort? You can kill them, but don't insult them?

In this case, this propaganda film inspired them to kill Americans and to threaten our Embasies. The film helps our enemies in their war against US. In a time of war, if you help your enemies to kill Americans, that SHOULD be treason.

jthanatos:
JDH:
The Kid:
IMO Sam Bacile is an idiot and should be brought up on charges of inciting a riot and involuntary manslaughter.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-ambassador-3-others-killed-in-attacks-on-libya-mission?lite
I've been thinking about this quite a lot.

Section 3, Article 3 of the US Constitution states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

A state of war exists between the United States and Al Queida. This film helps our enemy in this war, has led to the loss of American lives, and has provoked attacks against our Embasies across the Middle East. In my view, that makes this film an act of treason, and should no longer be protected by the 1st amendment.
So, all of congress and a lot of foreign aid groups are treasonous (and have been for a long time) because they send aid to countries like Pakistan and Libya, knowing full well some of that aid is used to help Al Qaeda? Doesn't really work in my mind.

This is just so weird. Usually I'm the guy making the argument for protected free speech. But this time I feel compelled to argue that the makers of the film went too far - just like Jane Fonda did. I don't know how to answer your point about our aid to foreign governments, except to argue the intent of the aid was not to strengthen our enemies, although that may well have been the end results, through no fault of our own. In my view, the intent of the film is to provoke exactly the reaction that has occured. The intent should make all the difference.