Insulting film responsible for WW II !

[a425couple]

With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek,
I offer this thought about WWII, from:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328974/stunning-historical-discovery-peter-kirsanow

"[Cambridge, Mass.] Celebrated historian Bertram Oxley has uncovered a
memorandum from former Japanese Emperor Hirohito to Admiral Yamamoto dated
December 6, 1941, showing that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was
motivated by an offensive film made by Charlie Chaplin ridiculing Japanese
cuisine. 'Contrary to historical accounts over the last seventy years,'
Professor Oxley said in an interview today with the BBC, 'What appeared to
be a meticulously planned surprise attack was actually a spontaneous
demonstration by moderate sushi connoisseurs in the Imperial Navy in
response to a hateful and offensive movie.' "

"Of course, hindsight's 20-20. But one can only wonder how much
pain and suffering could have been averted had FDR simply apologized
to Hirohito at the outset."

[David E. Powell]

LOL! No kidding, another example I was thinking was the wave of people who fled Germany and were hard core anti-Nazis, like Fritz Lang, Marlene Dietrich, and the guy who wrote "The Wolf Man." (A Jewish man who had fled Europe, he focused the movie on a man bitten by a Werewolf, who suddenly found himself changing into something new he couldn't understand and being hunted.)

Perp walking the guy on international TV with handcuffs and a hood on, I'd ask if the people in the Administration realize what that looks like around the world, but the obvious reason is that they do, and that is exactly why they did it.

I would also notice that many strong voices in Hollywood, the Music Industry and the arts in general who have spoken very loudly on free speech have been completely silent, none of them have said a single word about the Government's actions in hanging responsibility for the mideast violence on the Filmmaker, or in jailing him. Ironically the right-leaning pundits the entertainment heavyweights regularly deride are the ones putting their necks out, Rush Limbaugh, Greg Gutfeld, Ann Coulter and the like. Ed Begley Jr., Bill Maher, Susan Sarandon, Madonna, what have they said? Not a single word.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

And why shouldn't they be hanging responsibility for the mideast violence on
the Filmmaker, David. He _is_ afterall responsible for the deaths of at
least 20 people, on the other side of the world. Terry Jones also caused the
death of at least 20 people and injuries tpo somewhere inbetween 150 and 180
more. What _YOU_ nede to do David is stop whinging and whining and accept
responsibility that YOUR citizens are causing the deaths of innocent peoples
elsewhere, just so that YOU can pretend it's some sort of preordained
definition of "freedon of speech" !

cheers....Jeff

[smharding]

No, that idiot isn't responsible for the deaths of 20 people in the
mideast area due to his stupid film.

Equally hateful people making use of the film for their own purposes,
which include murder, are.

If you're going to go down that blame route, then Christians would
have every right to riot, burn and murder after a Maplethorpe exhibit
of "art".


SMH

[David E. Powell]

Very well said. I think some people would very much like the right to jail or punish anyone they thought was saying things that were politically inconvenient. We don't do that in the USA, there was a reason the Alien and Sedition Acts went out of style.

I agree wholeheartedly with your other point as well, Christianity is denigrated all the time in art, including federally funded art which is paid for with taxpayer dollars in the US. How come that is OK but Christians that poster don't like should be jailed? Bill Maher has mocked Muslims as well as Christians (And every other religion) too so should he go to jail or be banned from TV? Because once it starts, when does it end? Heck plenty of Jewish screenwriters make fun of their own religion in a cutesy way in their movies.

If the policy is to say Muslims in the Middle East must be treated specially as opposed to other religions, what does that say then? Also, you set yourself up for Freedom of Speech to be Danegelded out of existence. Stop doing this or we cause violence, censor that person or we cause violence, change your laws this way or we cause violence, ban this person for speaking or we cause violence, it would never, ever end. That is why we must stand here and now.

In the US there is a reason idiot Nazis were allowed to have a parade through Skokie, Illinois and the Ku Klux Klan has as much right to speak as the local Glee club. It is because we believe that even idiots have the right of free speech, and if you start stepping on that to appease people who murder an ambassador and threaten violence, the appeasement will keep on going, and the soul of what our country and our freedoms are will be lost.

For anyone who does not understand that, I pity you because you don't understand what the US is about. If we have people in our Government who do not we are in deep, deep trouble as a nation. Because there is a reason those freedoms were written into the Bill of Rights, and a long dark and steep path if they are forgotten.

As for anyone in any other nation who doesn't like that the US has free speech, I caution you not to kowtow to these murderers yourselves in your own lands, you won't like where doing that takes you. I pray I never see the day my country does.

> SMH

[David E. Powell]

...and one more thing. The intel we have is that the Libya attack had nothing to do with the film anyway, as it was in response to local issues and planned for some time before the film stuff was ginned up. (What a coincidence too, it was all set to go off on Sept. 11.)

That makes it even worse to me, bad as it is, that it isn't just a blood libel being used on the filmmaker by people in the U.S. Government and the U.S. Media, but a false one.

[Jim Wilkins]

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com
> wrote in message news:95786934-2a86-4b03-a8b4-
>...

>For anyone who does not understand that, I pity you
>because you don't understand what the US is about.
>If we have people in our Government who do not we
>are in deep, deep trouble as a nation. Because there is
>a reason those freedoms were written into the
>Bill of Rights, and a long dark and steep path if
>they are forgotten.

>As for anyone in any other nation who doesn't like
>that the US has free speech, I caution you not to
>kowtow to these murderers yourselves in your own
>lands, you won't like where doing that takes you.
>I pray I never see the day my country does.

Well done!
Thank you.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <95786934-2a86-4b03...@googlegroups.com>,

... and to back up that view, please see a British view:

http://dotsub.com/view/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79?fb_comment_id
=fbc_286623001450288_1200726_287513434694578#f17bee33bc253e9

He really lays it on the line!

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Well yes, actually he is.

> Equally hateful people making use of the film for their own purposes,
> which include murder, are.

And if that hateful film wasn't made in the first, their hateful people
wouldn't be able to use it for their purposes, would they ?

> If you're going to go down that blame route, then Christians would
> have every right to riot, burn and murder after a Maplethorpe exhibit
> of "art".

Except for the fact we X'tians are about 6-700 years further along the
evolutionary chain, than they are.

cheers....Jeff

> SMH

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

You have freedom of speech, except of course you can't libel someone, nor
can you "Yell fire !" in a crowded theatre.
So it appears you already do have some restrictions on Freedom of Speech,
don't you ?

> In the US there is a reason idiot Nazis were allowed to have a parade
> through Skokie, Illinois and the Ku Klux Klan has as much right to
> speak as the local Glee club. It is because we believe that even
> idiots have the right of free speech, and if you start stepping on
> that to appease people who murder an ambassador and threaten
> violence, the appeasement will keep on going, and the soul of what
> our country and our freedoms are will be lost.

But neither of those actions, provoke murderous response on the other side
of the world, do they ?

> For anyone who does not understand that, I pity you because you don't
> understand what the US is about. If we have people in our Government
> who do not we are in deep, deep trouble as a nation. Because there is
> a reason those freedoms were written into the Bill of Rights, and a
> long dark and steep path if they are forgotten.

Personally, I don't believe the *founding fathers* meant for your citizens
to denigrate another person's religion !

> As for anyone in any other nation who doesn't like that the US has
> free speech, I caution you not to kowtow to these murderers
> yourselves in your own lands, you won't like where doing that takes
> you. I pray I never see the day my country does.

There's a huge difference between kowtowing to and unnecessarily provoking
these murderers and _that_ appears to be the point that you Americans fail
to understand.

cheers....Jeff

>> SMH

[David E. Powell]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 8:39:23 PM UTC-4, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:

Snip

> There's a huge difference between kowtowing to and unnecessarily provoking
>
> these murderers and _that_ appears to be the point that you Americans fail
>
> to understand.

We never learned to accept a world where we could do as we like as long as we do as we're told. If you want to with these guys in your country, go right ahead, but you're in for a long road of it if you do, because when they want to kill you in the first place and are looking to call anything they feel like an excuse to do so, the demands will never end, and the killing and violence will not either. You will have to stand at one point or another, better to stand sooner when you are stronger.

In the USA in the past year we have had a corporation (Chick Fil A) threatened with not being allowed to do business over the CEO's opinions on gay marriage legality, by politicians who condemned him for saying it. One fellow in Chicago said that Chick-Fil-A should only be allowed to open a restaraunt if the owner signed a pledge not to fund or publicly endorse any cause or position that disagreed with said politician. Yes, this actually happened in America. We've had a filmmaker thrown in prison after being falsely libeled for an obviously pre-planned terror attack in a place where bad actors had launched a series of attacks over several months before the final and fatal one. In an amazing coincidence both put upon folks were Christians.

Why, Christians can be put down in movies and TV and paintings and whatever else any day, anywhere. You see no problem with this and neither do any of the people calling for Americans to give up free speech over this stuff with the Youtube film, when we know full well the Libya attack was planned way before that, and for entirely different reasons. It seems some want so hard to believe the rationalism of the excuse over the reality of the premeditation. Of course that means another excuse for the next attack,and another excuse for the one after that, and another excuse after that, never facing that you have people that just want to kill anyone who doesn't fit their fundamentalist model, and often quite a few who actually do but who they kill anyway all over the world. Danegelding the Freedom of Speech out of existence to appease people who are legitimate psychopaths and cannot be appeased, ever. For Western Civilization is is embarrasing.

It sounds quite familiar. Why those nasty Czechs were mean to the Sudeten Germans, we all know the Poles attacked that innocent radio station, and there'd have been no trouble for Belgium if they'd merely moved their country out of the way, rationalization after rationalization after rationalization. No, not really. At one time or another reality has to be looked at instead of excuses.

There are row on row of crosses at Arlington, but the First Amendment allows people to attack and slander Christians all day. A mob of fundamentalists murder an Ambassador, and they must be kowtowed to?

Over my dead body.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <319a774f-1a68-4baa...@googlegroups.com>,

"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:

> We've had a filmmaker thrown in prison after being falsely libeled for an
> obviously pre-planned terror attack in a place where bad actors had launched
> a series of attacks over several months before the final and fatal one. In an
> amazing coincidence both put upon folks were Christians.

he wasn't thrown in prison for libel, he was jailed for violating his parole
which among other things forbid him from using a pseudonym for any purpose and
possibly for accessing a computer in violation of his parole terms

[David E. Powell]

True, but the visuals of him in handcuffs and a hood being escorted away are pretty strong, and whether or not the reaon is clear when it is shown elsewhere in the world makes me worry. I also put it in context with the calls for banning such speech that came out around the time of the initial story (That it was all a movie responsible for the violence) including calls from people who have been hard advocates for artistic speech in the past and were now saying that all of a sudden this kind of speech is different. Also many Americans have been drummed with that message in the U.S. Media as well, blaming the film when it is now coming out that other stuff was at play and was building for many months.

[smharding]

Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:

Again, if you're going to play the blame redirection game, how
do you know when to stop?

You stopped at an idiot film maker in the US. Why not keep
going? That film maker has serious hate problems. Why?

Maybe 9/11/2001? Maybe Komeini in 1979? Maybe Mohammed in the
630's or so? Maybe his Mom and/or Dad? Perhaps they are the
ones ultimately to be blamed.

Using the events of what happened in Benghazi, Libya, it would
seem the film maker was actually correct! Islam is a hateful,
violent, murderous religion!

Seems to me no one "proves" this more than the fools running
out burning down buildings, murdering people who have nothing
to do with the offense. I'm sure sane, and probably more truly
religious, Muslims recognize these characters do more to "insult
the prophet" than people making stupid films or drawing up
cartoons ever do.

Why people in the West, in particular, have so much sympathy for
these clowns, even to point of limiting freedom of speech through
self-censorship, is beyond me.

Perhaps Christians do need to riot, burn and murder after every
public insult to the religion.

We haven't had 6-700 years more time to "evolve" as opposed to
Muslims. It's the same for both Christian and Muslim. In fact,
Muslims were far more tolerant during the Middle Ages than
Christians were. See how the Crusaders treated conquered cities
in the Holy Land opposed to Muslims.

In general, Muslims today are no better or worse than Christians,
Jews, Hindi, etc, etc, etc. It's just the "jihadi crowd" that
puts the entire religion in a bad light.

Why do you accomodate these false justifications for violence
when they come from Muslims? Would you support Christians on a
violent rampage after a Maplethorpe or similar exhibition, or at
least blame the museum for putting on the exhibit at all?


SMH

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <k54ftr$te$1...@dont-email.me>, smharding <smha...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
> Why do you accomodate these false justifications for violence
> when they come from Muslims? Would you support Christians on a
> violent rampage after a Maplethorpe or similar exhibition, or at
> least blame the museum for putting on the exhibit at all?

The KKK were christians. But to respond in the vein that you've taken, the xians
just use more subversive means: The incessant rant to allow prayer in school,
when what they want is christian prayer in school. You can see the same thing in
wanting prayer before sports events...check the recent and ongoing kerfuffle
when some christian cheerleaders at a high school in Texas did cheers based on
the bible and had large christian style banners around the stadium, you know
they would never, as their claim states, allow muslims the same opportunity they
demand.

Or let's visit the methods they try to use to prevent abortions: forcing women
to have an invasive ultrasound

Christians have had centuries to refine their attack on religious freedom under
their guise of religious freedom