Identity of anti-Muslim filmmaker called into question

reply to post by Deetermined


The Islamists ruling Egypt and the Islamists abroad (including the terror organization al qaeda) WANT conflict with the west. Do people not get that? There is no point of connection between the Islamist worldview and the democratic worldview; the relationship exists on purely political i.e. utilitarian ground.

The Islamists know this. What they oppose, after removing the Jews (or "zionists") from Israel, is the whole of western civilization and everything which underpins it.

Why do you think Spain translates more books in one year then the Arab world all together, in 100 years? This is an actual statistic. Books on philosophy, science etc are only available to university students but not the general public; so how do you expect to change society if the society in question is submerged in a 11th century doctrine - Al Ghazali - which strips the physical objective world of ontological existence? You can't. Islam went wrong long ago and this is why it has failed to contribute anything in the realms of philosophy or science.

And to mention Avicenna or Averroes is useless; these works are burned and discouraged from being read in the Islamic world. It is illegal to read these works in Saudi Arabia, for example.

Many wonder why democracy did not develop indigenously in the Muslim world and ask whether it can still develop today. The answer is that, so long as the Ash’arite (or Hanbalite) worldview is regnant, democratic development cannot succeed for the simple reason that this view posits the primacy of power over the primacy of reason. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 128, ISI books

The primacy of reason, theologically and philosophically understood, is the prerequisite for democracy. Otherwise, what could serve as its legitimating source? Along with it must come metaphysical support for natural law, which provides the foundations not only for modern science but also for the development of constitutional government. Therein lies the source for the “laws of nature and of natures God,” on which constitutional edifices are built. The primacy of power in Sunni Islamic thought undermines a similar prospect. If one does not allow for the existence of secondary causes, one cannot develop natural law. If one cannot develop natural law, one cannot conceive of a constitutional political order in which man, through his reason, creates laws to govern himself and behave freely. – Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, pg. 129, ISI books

People want an intellectual reason for why Islam is such a problem for the west? THERE IT IS, put in succinctly. Islamic is closed; it worships a God identified with Will or power (akin to Nietzsche idealization of will as the highest good), and to ascribe reason to him - which the Ash'arites (or traditional Muslims) oppose - is to imply that God is bound i.e. limited, and that contradicts God's Absolute omnipotence. See the problem? It's a philosophical one.

Christianity had Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to clear the way for science and liberal democracy. Islam had no such preamble.

Can Islam be rectified?? Only from within, by Muslims. However, in my opinion, it would be a deformation of a religion which seems to support the view of the traditionalists of God as pure will, this world as pure illusion (making it essentially identical to the hindu doctrine of maya) of human beings as individual beings existing with God as illusory; that even mans actions, whether good or bad, are predetermined by Allah...

So many issues need to be resolved. However, the benighted state of western man to the unforeseen threat to our way of thinking in political Islam needs to end. It is lunacy.

The powers that be in the West figured out some time ago how to castrate and render impotent any democracy. The United States is a classic example of this. Americans might as well be bushmen from the outback in terms of actually influencing the economic or foreign policy of their own country. They won't acknowledge that the American processes of government, loosely described as democratic processes have been compromised by crafty billionaires, who simply buy both of the two most important political parties.

The schtick, to use a show business term, of the oligarchs is to "fix" democracies. They do it regularly all over the world, but problems enter where resources that they want to control are not controlled by a democratic government. The Phillipines under Marcos, was a case in point.

In those cases, job 1 is to get rid of the local oligarch, who might be just as bad an oligarch or worse, but is at least local, like Marcos or Gaddafi. The local guy has some local pride. He wants to control everything but he builds up the nation's strength, like Marcos and Gaddafi.

These types of guys are a real problem because they aren`t like a nice Fulbright Fellow who is going to be a compliant "yes man" and let the oil companies and other transnationals do what they want.

The aim of the oligarchs is to make these local guys look like the devil and to push for democracy, because "fixing" democracy is what the oligarchs do nowadays.

That is why there is all the fuss about democracy in the Middle East. That is why America is pushing for democracy in the Middle East.

Middle Easterners on the other hand know all about oligarchy. They have been doing oligarchy not badly for generations. Oligarchy is their game. They have to be conned into wanting democracy. Their oligarchies have to be undermined by provocateurs and treachery and by foreign agents before they will push for change, as in Egypt, or by arming discontented, often Islamist minority groups, as in Libya and now Syria.

If you really want to control the people of places in North Africa and the Middle East, you have to get them into another game. Democracy. But they are terrible at democracy and don't trust it. To them it is like mob rule.

To Libyans, they have achieved democracy already. Mob rule.

America is Aunt Polly trying to "sivilize" Huck Finn, to control him. America is about controlling and sucking the oil out of North Africa, not building it up as Gaddafi was doing. Not everyone in the Middle East is fooled by America. They just play along because they don't want to be bombed and because once the social order crumbles, once the strongman goes, what can they do?

The irony is that America itself, is not a democratic republic, but an oligarchy, an oligarchy in disguise. If the people of the Middle East truly wanted to emulate America, they would retain their own oligarchs. In fact that is what they want to do, but someone on the outside keeps overturning the applecarts.

reply to post by xuenchen


It was a plan just to get the people of the middle east mad and make them do something horrible so we could have an excuse to do something. Plus to make americans mad so if we do something the american people will not be mad because one of them was killed. Wake up America your brothers and sisters are killed everyday by the people who are suppose to protect you do not get angry because a couple americans got killed...happens everyday.

Embassay attack is usually an act of war, I'm suprised we haven't bombed the hell out of them yet.

My two cents:

The makers of the film wanted to play "stir the pot" with a known explosive situation. Its possible, according to reports I've seen (and that have been posted in this thread) that the first embassy attack was a set-up situation, with way too much heavy arms involved and military moves. So how far down the rabbit hole does this go? Not our government, I'm guessing...

So back to the film makers - Who do they want to be attacked? America? or Israel? Both? Who are they trying to incite to violence? That's obvious - the hard line Islamists. And, who do they want to draw into retaliation against violence? That's also obvious - the US (and possibly Israel should this continue to escalate into a justification to go after Israel.)

Are they looking to start World War III? And does that benefit someone's agenda? Who gains from that? The producers and "film" makers may not even be Jewish, so its possible both Israel and the US are targets, and the riled-up Islamists just got gasoline dumped on their already easily inflamed selves.

Okay, I know I'm leaping way ahead, but just like forest fires, wars start with small flames and with the right conditions are fanned into massive forces of destruction, eating everything in their path. So... Who wants to burn the world? Who benefits from that?

Also, the first amendment - while we protect the rights of horrible people to say horrible things, we also don't allow someone to scream "fire" in a movie theatre. This "film" is nearly the equivalent of that, given the historical reaction of hard line Islamists to these kinds of insults. So, are they hiding behind the first amendment or are they daring it to be regulated, opening the door to Supreme Court battles over what is and is not protected speech. Hmm. I'm not sure about that, of course, just throwing it into the pile, or is that pyre?

Sorry if these thoughts seem a bit loosely put together, or if they are redundant - I didn't have time to go through the whole thread...

peace,
AB

reply to post by Evanzsayz

Some kind of military action is coming. Obama has promised revenge, I believe. I think they want to hurry up the process of getting the appropriate "yes man" into power, if they can.

reply to post by ipsedixit

America is about controlling and sucking the oil out of North Africa, not building it up as Gaddafi was doing.

Why do you put the onus on America?

The citizens of Egypt elected an Islamist government; no longer are they on the fringe - they are in power now. Islam is in power; the jurists of shari'a are the policy makers.

How do you suggest America introduce democracy, constitutional government, concepts like liberty, equality, etc - in a land ruled by the people who oppose these systems at a metaphysical and theological level???

If America has taken advantage of the middle east, its probably because it couldn't have been any other way. They couldn't convert them to their way of thinking - not at least against their will; So what else? Insulate ourselves from them? From a religion that deifies power above reason? You think they will 'respect' your non-interference in their societies? Even though 'respect' is a value judgement based on reason - recognition of a good done to you and thus the good deserved in return? That's a stipulation of reason. Islamic morality is predicated on the Quran and the Hadith. Not conscience. It's not like Judaism or Christianity - but far more radical.

Originally posted by DangerMcBacon
Are people actually ignorant enough to think it would take a conspiracy to ignite violence in the middle east, really... All it takes is a Family Guy episode. The fact is this video came out in July, months ago, it just took the sand golliwogs a few months to translate it. Focus on something important, or god forbid, a real conspiracy. I'm not calling anyone ignorant, never, but jeez, all it takes is a sneeze in the middle east to ignite that tinderbox. Now let's move on to fluoridation or something interesting, heh heh.

edit on 13/9/12 by DangerMcBacon because: I like grammar.

It doesn't take a conspiracy to ignite violence in the Middle East, but it does take one to cover up who's perpetrating it.

This video did come out in July, but Al Qaeda's eulogy video to Abu Yahya al-Libi was recorded around that same time too (al-Libi died in June), even though it wasn't released until September 10th. You have to wonder if they conspired with Nakoula to release the Arabic version of his film around the same time as the eulogy being released.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The powers that be in the West figured out some time ago how to castrate and render impotent any democracy. The United States is a classic example of this. Americans might as well be bushmen from the outback in terms of actually influencing the economic or foreign policy of their own country. They won't acknowledge that the American processes of government, loosely described as democratic processes have been compromised by crafty billionaires, who simply buy both of the two most important political parties.

The schtick, to use a show business term, of the oligarchs is to "fix" democracies. They do it regularly all over the world, but problems enter where resources that they want to control are not controlled by a democratic government. The Phillipines under Marcos, was a case in point.

In those cases, job 1 is to get rid of the local oligarch, who might be just as bad an oligarch or worse, but is at least local, like Marcos or Gaddafi. The local guy has some local pride. He wants to control everything but he builds up the nation's strength, like Marcos and Gaddafi.

These types of guys are a real problem because they aren`t like a nice Fulbright Fellow who is going to be a compliant "yes man" and let the oil companies and other transnationals do what they want.

The aim of the oligarchs is to make these local guys look like the devil and to push for democracy, because "fixing" democracy is what the oligarchs do nowadays.

That is why there is all the fuss about democracy in the Middle East. That is why America is pushing for democracy in the Middle East.

Middle Easterners on the other hand know all about oligarchy. They have been doing oligarchy not badly for generations. Oligarchy is their game. They have to be conned into wanting democracy. Their oligarchies have to be undermined by provocateurs and treachery and by foreign agents before they will push for change, as in Egypt, or by arming discontented, often Islamist minority groups, as in Libya and now Syria.

If you really want to control the people of places in North Africa and the Middle East, you have to get them into another game. Democracy. But they are terrible at democracy and don't trust it. To them it is like mob rule.

To Libyans, they have achieved democracy already. Mob rule.

America is Aunt Polly trying to "sivilize" Huck Finn, to control him. America is about controlling and sucking the oil out of North Africa, not building it up as Gaddafi was doing. Not everyone in the Middle East is fooled by America. They just play along because they don't want to be bombed and because once the social order crumbles, once the strongman goes, what can they do?

The irony is that America itself, is not a democratic republic, but an oligarchy, an oligarchy in disguise. If the people of the Middle East truly wanted to emulate America, they would retain their own oligarchs. In fact that is what they want to do, but someone on the outside keeps overturning the applecarts.

edit on 13-9-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

This is one of the most well written, logical and sensible posts I have ever read on ATS. I'm blown away by your insight and observations. Thanks for a great post!

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

America is about controlling and sucking the oil out of North Africa, not building it up as Gaddafi was doing.

Why do you put the onus on America?

America is the dominant power in the world today and it wants oil. It will stop at nothing to get control of the oil in the Middle East and Central Asia, even to the point of staging the 9/11 attacks.

Islam is a religion with a violent past like Christianity. The Old Testament is full of war and vengeance and smiting thine enemies. The Koran also endorses smiting infidels. Islam, as is not stated but strongly implied in the Koran, arose in the context of pressure felt by Arab communities of the time emanating from Jews. Jews are looked at very harshly in the Koran.

One could say that it is a religion forged in strife.

I don't really believe that Islam is a seminal force in the politics of the region. The prime movers in Middle Eastern politics are outside the region, in the West. Islam is simply the bulwark of the local people.

What has been going on in the Middle East since the discovery of oil in the region is a "robbery in progress".

The West has all the sophisticated weapons to destabilize and militarily combat the people of the Middle East. The only hardened institution that they have to rally around, to defend themselves is Islam.

By the way, Islam is not for me. Personally, I'm a Buddhist and pro American in everything but economic and foreign policy.

I'm just describing the situation as I understand it.

Well no kidding? The name doesn't connect to a real person, you say? Have you tried looking in to aliases or stage names, because, after all, it is Hollywood. What does that mean? It means there are going to be people who will NOT use their real name. But why would someone who's not even famous use an alias? Because he/she thought he/she would make it big someday.

What I see here is a low budget crap movie some idiot made because he thought it would be funny and edgy and some dude in Libya say the movie, or a clip of it, told his friends who told their friends who, in turn, told their friends, thus, making the video viral and causing a pot of doodoo to be stirred.

Or it's what every other person wants. It's a false flag. "We don't want a false flag! We just know one when we see it!" Wait, then why do you people come out of the woodworks to call false flag at everything like Good Ol' JR calling a "Stone Cold" Steve Austin match?

reply to post by xuenchen


I don't buy the whole "the movie hurt their feelings" story.
The protestors didn't even mention the movie, in fact, the movie has been out for like a year now hasn't it?
They were chanting "we are Osama bin laden", so I personally believe it was a reminder for us, specifically planned for the anniversary of 9/11 by extremists hiding as protestors, brought on by anger because of the Obama administration's gloating over the killing of Osama bin laden and the recent killing of one of the top al-qaeda leaders which I believe was the motivation for the attack on the embassy, not because of a movie.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot
What I see here is a low budget crap movie some idiot made because he thought it would be funny and edgy and some dude in Libya say the movie, or a clip of it, told his friends who told their friends who, in turn, told their friends, thus, making the video viral and causing a pot of doodoo to be stirred.

You might be onto something.

I saw a clip of this movie and the thing that struck me about it was that it had all the earmarks of a cheap porno movie. (Yes I have seen cheap porno movies.)

I would bet any money that there is a porno industry connection to this movie. People who want to know about this movie should talk to someone like Ron Jeremy. My two cents worth.

reply to post by kx12x


This stinks!! Come on ATS!! I only have a few questions:

1) Who financed the movie?
2) Who paid these actors, film crew, etc ( a director does not do these things)
3) Were all these people paid in cash if not who's bank account are the checks drawn on?
4) Why would a guy who scams for money invest so much money into a film that anyone with half a mind would know is going to make some people pissed? So what do we have here? A new terrorist who scams banks and uses the money to make films to piss people off? Cat Jugglers !! I knew it

This is classic. Just follow the money.

This whole thing is fishy, no one ever heard of the movie until the prestitues started telling the sheeple this was the cause of the latest arab uprising.
Sounds like a made up thing to enrage the Arab world some some reason.

reply to post by ipsedixit

America is the dominant power in the world today and it wants oil. It will stop at nothing to get control of the oil in the Middle East and Central Asia, even to the point of staging the 9/11 attacks.

Look at the way you reply back. So confident that you couldn't be wrong, even in the face of reason.

Do you acknowledge the existence of Islamism? You mentioned it earlier so it appears that you do. If yes, then America didn't need to stage 911, but simply take advantage and even enable the Islamists to carry out a terrorist attack.

If you observe the metaphysics and theology of Islam, and of Ash'arite, Salafiya, Wahhabi, doctrine, along with the writings of Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim brotherhood, there is a direct continuity of a certain metaphysical and theological doctrine from 700 CE to the modern era; the same ideas and mentality which Islam grew from, animates current Islamic mentality. Thus, there was bound to be conflict in our modern era between the west and Islam; a recurrence of the battles in the religious middle ages.

Therefore, understanding the radical doctrines of the Islamists explains first: the ideological authenticity of the enemies beliefs. They aren't made up, and only an ignoramus or deceiver would claim they are. Secondly, it provides the elite you refer to - anglo-american establishment - the perfect pretext for creating the situation that currently exists. Islamism - instead of being created by the west, is being used by the west. Maybe western leaders stand to make a sumptuous profit in starting wars; or maybe some longer term globalist agenda somehow fits in, and making a profit in the process is just a perk of secondary interest.

This to me explains the presence of 2 problems. In the west, we have our corrupt leaders. And in the orient, we have the emergent threat of Islamism, both in the form of Iran's theocratic government - which avidly awaits the occulation of their 12th Imam - and Egypt's newly elected Islamist government, headed by a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, the Free Syrian Army is Islamist, meaning, the party which could lead to the ousting of the Assad regime is the same types of people who took over Egypt, and also vying for power in Libya. Then you have Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

The Islamist movement is stronger today than 6 years ago when Bush was in power; Since Obama entered, the Muslim world has been helped by the US state department; Brotherhood came to power in Egypt, the Assad government is being threatened by an Islamist opposition - and both frankly - Mubarak in Egypt and Assad in Syria - even if an agent of the west and a lackey of socialist dogma - are preferable to helping build a united Islamist front in Egypt, Gaza, Syria, Iran against western interests, values and civilization. Self interest should never devolve into suicide. It's either us or them.

The Old Testament is full of war and vengeance and smiting thine enemies. The Koran also endorses smiting infidels. Islam, as is not stated but strongly implied in the Koran

It doesn't matter what is stated in the scriptural texts, but in hows it's interpreted by the theologians. Do Jews see God in the way Islam see's God? No. The Jewish God is interactive; he is also bound by his reason and justice i.e. the episode where Abraham questions Gods justice to kill innocents with the wicked in Sodom. Allah is the Absolute - the Godhead who cannot be made contingent; to bound him by reason is to take away from his omnipotence, therefore, God is either the All, or man blasphemies against him.

Islamic scholars see everything in terms of transcendence: literally everything. People do not exist, we are mere shadows of Gods action. Cause and Effect dont exist, they are illusions facillitated by Gods pure willing; and willing - willing transcends thought - and Allah is identified with Will. And the Quran; the Quran transcends reason - being a revelation i.e. an intuitive discovery of Mohammad. Because the Quran is one with God i.e. bound with him through it's transcendence, than all actions in order to be in tune with transcendence cannot be predicated on reason i.e. reason means to be bound, and God is not bound by reason, so neither is man, but in revelation i.e. the Quran. Thus, when a Muslim has a moral problem, what do he/she do? Do they use their 'reason' i.e. conscience? No. Islam finds solutions only in the Quran: they call a hotline to get in touch with an imam - one trained in revelation i.e. Quran and Hadith - to instruct them how to act.

Islam is a religion that stresses memorization, not moral insight into right and wrong.

Of course, I speak only of the mainstream Islamic school of thought. There is also Avicenna, Averroes and proponents of a more rational Islam, but thy quickly lost steam in the early Islamic period (700 CE - 1200 CE), and since then Al Ghazali, Ibn Arabi etc have dominated thinking in Sunni Islam.

I don't really believe that Islam is a seminal force in the politics of the region

You are unbelievably wrong about that, Given all I've written, I hope you understand why that is. It is IMPOSSIBLE when the preconditions - Islamic society in how it has been for the last 1300 years has made no room for the development of foreign thought; so where can this idea of yours that Islam has no "seminal force" in the politics of the region come from? What was it built upon?

Islam is and remains the strongest force in the entire Islamic world - from Mauritania in the west to Indonesia in the east; and the myriad of states in between. Islam is the state religion; Islam is the religion of the vast majority of the people - yet you think it isn't a "seminal force"? I don't deny the presence of smaller segments, but the majority and major power is Islam. And it's become more apparent day by day as more and more greater middle east governments become Islamist.

www.scribd.com...

June 24, 2010: U.S.A. vs. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (sentencing) Case 2:09-cr-00617-CAS Document 58 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:291 United States District Court Central District of California UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. NAKOULA BASSELEY NAKOULA Defendant Mark Basseley Youssef; Yousseff M. Basseley; akas: Nicola Bacily; Malid Ahlawi Docket No. CR09-617-CAS 7 7 4 ENTER Social Security No. 0 (Last 4 digits) JUDGMENT AND PROBATION/COMMITMENT ORDER MONTH DAY YEAR

Strange thing is Terry Jones got kicked out of a few states and Germany for scams he was running through his churches. Seems Terry and Nakoula are two of a kind.

I just watched a little bit of the movie. Personally one of the most retarded movies I've seen. I just don't understand how anyone can get offended by anything in the movie other than the horrible acting,

Back on topic: I wouldn't doubt for a minute that it was released to cause some kind of backlash. Just to cause more instability in the middle east. Good reason to get more boots on the ground over there.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
reply to post by kx12x

 

This stinks!! Come on ATS!! I only have a few questions:

1) Who financed the movie?
2) Who paid these actors, film crew, etc ( a director does not do these things)
3) Were all these people paid in cash if not who's bank account are the checks drawn on?
4) Why would a guy who scams for money invest so much money into a film that anyone with half a mind would know is going to make some people pissed? So what do we have here? A new terrorist who scams banks and uses the money to make films to piss people off? Cat Jugglers !! I knew it

This is classic. Just follow the money.

That's just it. There's two different stories being told.

The producer originally told the Wall Street Journal that he was an Israeli/American and received the money from 100 different Jews.

Then, we find out he's not Jewish, but an Arabic speaking Egyptian who told his crew that he gathered the money from some people out of Alexandria, Egypt (leading some people to believe that he was a Christian Coptic, even though he's been busted for trafficking meth and federal bank fraud in the past.)

reply to post by Maluhia


there are over 100 anagrams of the name sam bacile.

check them out here

reply to post by Deetermined


Whoever made this video was probably working with the government, and at the same time, probably coordinated it's doings with the leadership in Egypt which played that youtube video on public television; and from there, the whole Islamic world got to see it.

Why? Why would the American government want to help produce a video that fans the flames of anti-americanism in the middle east? Thats the deeper question.

Psychologically, the Muslims in the middle east have this idea that the west - America - wants to destroy Islam..and they're probably correct in that assumption; this fuels in the minds of their Islamist thinkers ideas of holy war between Islam and the Infidels - Jews, Christians, Secularists; and that the time is now for Islam to take over, to achieve it's Quranic purpose of converting the whole of mankind to Islam. This may sound utterly silly or ridiculous to you, but to the Islamic faithful, it is highly believable; in their paradigm, this can be the only thing that is happening.

So if the Americans - and by extension, the west - wants in Islam an enemy who will oppose them, for what fathomable reason could they want that?? Perhaps Hegel could help us answer that:

dialectics proceeds from thesis to antithesis, i.e., the negation of thesis, and from antithesis to synthesis, i.e., the negation of the negation.

In other words, the west is the thesis, the Islamic world (and those who protect it's interests in it i.e. Russia/China) antithesis. When these two thing encounter each other, antithesis - the opposition - cancels out the thesis - the formidabilty of American power; the result is a long drawn out evolution into synthesis - some new thesis emerges in the end. Perhaps if a war is planned, it involves many years of interminable conflict that lowers the worlds population, leading to the decay of society and the dissolution of popular beliefs. Islam, Christianity, Judaism - may all be earmarked for destruction through this conflict.

In the end, a brand new system emerges; a new agreement amongst mankind forms basing itself not just on political or humanistic terms, but on spirituality as it's basis - since the ultimate reason of the last great war was 'religious' in nature, perhaps the solution will be found there as well: a one world religion must be found in order to make sure a war such as the last one never happens again.

Perhaps the Georgia Guide stones allude to this gnarly vision.