The AP Solves the Mystery of the Man Behind "Innocence of Muslims"

reply to post by ted4d


i suppose they were in contact and did a reverse lookup of his phone / cell number and an article I read said they saw his ID with his thumb over his middle name, they verified the information with a police officer / agent who confirmed it and that leaves little doubt.

Plus the allegedly true information about the "Sam Becile" alias meeting with Rev. Terry Jones of Florida some weeks before about promoting and supporting the film, which he did admit that...

It's pretty cut and dried...if you ask me...

reply to post by bekod


They being EXTREMISTS, you mean.

Only a very small group of people are responsible for that film and the rioting it caused...

WE MUST NOT judge billions of PEACEFUL people of another religion who do not cause terror.

So we have here a PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST = RADICAL ISLAMIST EXTREMIST

DO NOT EQUAL

PEACEFUL CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM PEOPLE

Let's get that clear right now...

If you generalize the whole population for the actions of the extremes, your logic is very flawed and fallacious...

reply to post by Syyth007


Syyth007, my ignorance deems you quite the invertebrate!

First this:

I'm not saying the Muslims are not responsible for their actions (they are) but you can not, at least in an intellectually honest manner, excuse the actions of the movie's producers. They had an agenda, and boy did they get what they wanted.

Then:

I'm going to make a movie about how big of a dirty, nasty whore your mother is. I'm going to make it as offensive towards you as I can. THEN I'm going to go over to your house and show you some trailers of said movie - Now, lets say you get offended, and punch me square in the face - Now, apparently, I'm in no way responsible for your reaction. That makes perfect sense, right? Not really, if I never made that movie, you wouldn't of punched me in the face - but apparently, since I have the right to make a movie about how your mother, I am absolved of all responsibility for any reaction you may have.

And then this:

I do not believe ANY violent reaction is justified in a legal sense. Any non-violent protest, I believe, is VERY justified. I'm not saying the film producers should be charged with a crime, BUT they should be condemned morally, and should be seen as responsible for their actions.

So please forgive me, but I'm very confused about where you stand on the topic. From my barcalounger, it seems like you came in here insulting everyone who defended free speech, then after slinging some insults, defend free speech yourself and condemn any violence in response to speech that could be perceived to be insulting.

Situations like this is what makes me hate religion.

Justifying a depiction/ opinion with acts of violence and murder? How does that make sense? Aren't religions supposed to be about peace, tranquility and togetherness?

The idiots are on both sides, more so in the middle east at the moment.

reply to post by chasingbrahman


CLASSIC CIRCULAR argument lol

you'd keep arguing forever with people of this mindset...this can actually be tied-to narrow-mindedness and denial and other forms of mental illnesses.

could be...

Has anyone noticed "Sam Becile" is remarkably close to "Imbecile"...gee...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The definitions were to show that the "free speech is free speech" argument is blatantly untrue. Civilly, legally and morally we should be held accountable for our actions.

The film was made to incite the flag burning and protests that we are seeing because that is how some of the Muslims are known to react. It was made by a few xenophobic idiots who want to start a holy war and I don't believe that even in their wildest dreams they thought it would work so well.

Is there an excuse for the murder of the diplomats? NO

Has it been taken advantage of by a group of fundamentalists still armed after overthrowing the old regime? YES

The murderers need to be held accountable.
The makers of the film need to be held accountable.

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

The definitions were to show that the "free speech is free speech" argument is blatantly untrue. Civilly, legally and morally we should be held accountable for our actions.

The film was made to incite the flag burning and protests that we are seeing because that is how some of the Muslims are known to react. It was made by a few xenophobic idiots who want to start a holy war and I don't believe that even in their wildest dreams they thought it would work so well.

Is there an excuse for the murder of the diplomats? NO

Has it been taken advantage of by a group of fundamentalists still armed after overthrowing the old regime? YES

The murderers need to be held accountable.
The makers of the film need to be held accountable.

edit on 13-9-2012 by BritofTexas because: wow I need to learn to speed type

Amen!

I wonder what will happen when the protestants in Northern Ireland make a movie offending Mary, "the Holy mother of God" according to the Catholic beliefs...

Let's see how the Catholics of Northern Ireland will react...

The video didn't kill anyone. The people who killed the ambassadors did!
Just like a gun didn't kill anyone.....the people using the guns did!

END OF STORY!

STOP blaming a video......It's one persons perspective and should be taken as such! Any film/movie/documentary/tv show/interview has to be taken that way!

Some of you will jump on any band wagon.....grow up!

I should make a video called "This video will make you kill everyone!" Then when anyone in the world gets murdered you can all blame ME! LMAO people need to settle down and mind their own business!

Originally posted by BritofTexas
Here is the original story from the AP.

APNewsBreak: US identifies anti-Muslim filmmaker

Looks like Nakoula Basseley is under investigation. If he is to blame hopefully he and his friends will be charged with accessory for the deaths.

Accessory for what? Making a video!

With that kind of logic then maybe we should make everyone who studies the bible as an accessory to murder as well. A holy BOOK made me kill! So lets all charge the lord as an accessory to murder!

OMG

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
It's free speech. One of the few great things still remaining in America. Does it offend you? Too bad, the ease with which you are offended offends me. It's certainly no reason to kill anyone. If you want to find the real villains in this story, do not look to the film makers, but to the savages murdering innocent people over a movie. Savages.

True. But he incited them. He should still be charged for his provocative actions. What did he expect the people would do?

People have lost their lives. Whether at the hands of the mob or the person who incited the mob.

And the bible incites people every day, yet that is still around. Maybe the pope should be charged with murder as well.

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
It's free speech. One of the few great things still remaining in America. Does it offend you? Too bad, the ease with which you are offended offends me. It's certainly no reason to kill anyone. If you want to find the real villains in this story, do not look to the film makers, but to the savages murdering innocent people over a movie. Savages.

Except the film makers out right lied to the actors.

There's more then Free Speech going on with this.

reply to post by Annee


The stupid actors should have made an agreement contract. Tom cruse does this and any movie he makes he has FINAL say!

I work in film and I love it when actors just sign release forms. That means I can edit the film in any way, shape, or form that I want. Sucks to be them!

Originally posted by theclutch
reply to post by Annee

 

The stupid actors should have made an agreement contract.

Read the story. It was out right fraud on the producers part.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

He tried to hide who he is. That should tell you something.

reply to post by Annee


I think this matter should remain between the producer and the actors - I don't see this piece of the puzzle as a free speech issue, so much as an issue of negligent misrepresentation and endangerment. He lied to get them to agree to do something that could very well end up proving to have been a dangerous decision.

Given the producer was fully-aware of his intent, and the actors were not, the producer entered into a dangerous game knowing it was dangerous. The actors just thought they were doing a b-movie for a paycheck.

Originally posted by theclutch
reply to post by Annee

 

The stupid actors should have made an agreement contract. Tom cruse does this and any movie he makes he has FINAL say!

Comparing these nobody actors to the clout Tom Cruise has.

Brilliant.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Has anyone noticed "Sam Becile" is remarkably close to "Imbecile"...gee...

Haha, yep indeed I said the same thing in this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by chasingbrahman
reply to post by Annee

 

I think this matter should remain between the producer and the actors - I don't see this piece of the puzzle as a free speech issue, so much as an issue of negligent misrepresentation and endangerment. He lied to get them to agree to do something that could very well end up proving to have been a dangerous decision.

Given the producer was fully-aware of his intent, and the actors were not, the producer entered into a dangerous game knowing it was dangerous. The actors just thought they were doing a b-movie for a paycheck.

Yes - - the producer was fully aware of his intent - - - and clearly committed fraud in regards to the actors.

He tried to hide who he is - - - because he was fully aware of the content - - intent - - and inflammatory nature of his movie.

He has possibly put these actors in danger. I don't think that is OK.

Free Speech? I don't know. It's certainly not the first political movie where the author/producer remained in hiding because of the nature of the film.

Freedom is a power and with power comes responsiblities to others within societies, for we no longer live in caves or jungles, but with close proximity to each other, with rule of law to ensure all may co-exist freely to achieve the common goals of all mankind.

What the filmmaker had done is NOT wrong. It is his freedom of speech and expression as he use or abuse that free will given to all humanity.

What is WRONG is the motivation behind it. It created diversiveness and even slaughters. And that motivation must be dealt with, as indeed a mistake had occurred and needs to be corrected. It needs not be a submission to the vocal minority, but an end to ignorances that abound for each side to find compromises upon common grounds.

The purpose of that freedom of speech is to ensure ALL gets a say in society, to be heard, and considered, BUT not necessarily accepted, for there are flaws within mankind, and some may have wrong perceptions that would only lead to the regression of mankind.

But sharing and discussion, and debates we must freely hold, in order to find solutions to progress and evolve. And that is the true purpose of freedom of speech, as taught by divine prophets - our Messiah and the good prophet Muhammad, and passed down to the next generations, adopted by many including atheists.

As for those who refused compromises, then they have the leave to exit out of societies and exile themselves in some corner to find their own barbaric heaven, or face justice for their resortment to barbarism, slaughter of innocents, to get what they want.