Islam, not the religion of peace:

Originally posted by sumydid
I'm telling you I saw it on the news, and I just can't recall the name of the man who said it, but he had credibility because he is the former chief [aide? or advisor? something like that] to the White House, and I remember his face distinctly because it struck me that he is so young-looking. But I saw it.

Good for you. And this guy, whoever he was, told you that the anger isn't really genuine and that it isn't really triggered by the content of the film? And that's enough for you?

Originally posted by sumydid
Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/26/change-in-egypt-not-yet/#ixzz26b7d9YyY

And a blog entry at the foxnews web site from January 2011 somehow proves that the content of the film has not offended Muslims and their anger is somehow not authentic here in late 2012?

Originally posted by sumydid
Most of the people in Egypt that would care about it at all, make about $2.00 per day and have no internet access.

So you contend that middle class Muslims in Egypt [or people who earn more than $2] are not offended by the film and don't "care about it at all"?

Originally posted by FMF
Good for you. And this guy, whoever he was, told you that the anger isn't really genuine and that it isn't really triggered by the content of the film? And that's enough for you?

No, you're projecting your thoughts again.

He didn't say the anger wasn't genuine. He said the anger was triggered by people who insighted violence, and the vast majority of angry Muslims haven't even seen the film.

I also heard on talk radio Friday, from a former Egyption that is now a Coptic-Christian who lives in the U.S., that everything in the film is dead-on accurate.

Originally posted by FMF
And a blog entry at the foxnews web site from January 2011 somehow proves that the content of the film has not offended Muslims and their anger is somehow not authentic here in late 2012?

No. It goes far in proving that your accusation against me was false. Try to stay on track. You seem angry, bitter, and not very well in control of your emotions. But that's just my opinion, based on how this conversation is going and how you are trying (and failing) to steer it and spin what I'm saying.

Originally posted by sumydid
I also heard on talk radio Friday, from a former Egyption that is now a Coptic-Christian who lives in the U.S., that everything in the film is dead-on accurate.

Why should be it credible for you to have "heard" from someone about the film [on talk radio] and for you to form a viewpoint about what the film means based on that, and yet somehow it's not credible for Muslims to have "heard" about the content of the film and to have formed a viewpoint about what the film means?

Originally posted by sumydid
No. It goes far in proving that your accusation against me was false. Try to stay on track. You seem angry, bitter, and not very well in control of your emotions. But that's just my opinion, based on how this conversation is going and how you are trying (and failing) to steer it and spin what I'm saying.

The violence occurred on 9/11, and it was planned well in advance. The film was released on the internet on 9/11. Do the math. The violent acts against the US had nothing to do with the film, but it turns out the filmmaker is now conveniently being used as a scapegoat by both sides.

Are you suggesting that the film maker was in cahoots with the assassins?

Originally posted by sumydid
...the vast majority of angry Muslims haven't even seen the film.

You have suggested the possibility "that everything in the film is dead-on accurate" and yet you haven't seen the film. Did you need to see the film in order to take a stance with regard to its content?

Originally posted by FMF
You have suggested the possibility "that everything in the film is dead-on accurate" and yet you haven't seen the film. Did you need to see the film in order to take a stance with regard to its content?

Hence, the rioters stance is exactly the same. Mass hysteria, based on a mere 'few' who actually saaw the film. The rest is based on hear-say.

It was clearly stated in many news agencies and reports that the film was removed from you-tube with only 1,000 views, the high majority of those being in the West, as I previously alluded to.

Mass hysteria works in strange ways. Look at a football game, where one person starts a chant of hatred for the opposing team, and 20 seconds later the whole stand of 40,000 people is in a chant of hatred against the opposition, all singing and shouting the same as the first man started.

I've never seen 40,000 Christians do this, in the name of their God. And yet we are now witness to millions of Islamic extremists doing the same hysterical actions.

How do you explain that, when 99.99% of them have NOT SEEN the film?

-m.

Originally posted by FMF
You have suggested the possibility "that everything in the film is dead-on accurate" and yet you haven't seen the film. Did you need to see the film in order to take a stance with regard to its content?

More projections! Debating with you is difficult, as you clearly have a major problem keeping what others say in context.

I never said or suggested any personal opinion on the accuracy of the film.

I also never said I didn't watch the film.

Just as with you falsely accusing me of lying a few messages ago, you are making accusations again, and inserting things into the conversation that never took place. And just as with you falsely accusing me of lying, where the truth of the statement I heard on the news has no bearing... in this case the truth of whether I ever saw the movie has no bearing; because I never said one way or the other, yet you clearly state that I've never seen the movie.

You'll have to clean up your act, tone down the false claims, and tone down the emotion a little bit before I can commit to conversing with you further. [b]Please remember I said that, so if/when I don't respond in the future you won't be inclined to tell everyone I'm scared of you or that your intellectual superiority ran me off, or whatever. Not saying you would do that, but I've run into it so many times before, I thought I'd go ahead and head you off at the pass with a disclaimer, just in case.[b]

Originally posted by sumydid
I [b]never said or suggested any personal opinion on the accuracy of the film. [/b]

You quoted someone on talk radio.

You'also made assertions about "prevailing opinion". The "prevailing opinion" of who? The fact that there are Muslims who are angry and offended by the film and yet they are not part of any "violent branch of Islam" would suggest surely that the film is offensive, is the cause of the demonstrations, that there is genuine anger.

And if it is in certain political factions' interests to exploit it [whether it be militants in the Middle East or in Romney's GOP campaing] then that is just the way of the world. You suggesting that the violent protests "had nothing to do with the film" appears to have more to do with some sort of convoluted anti-Obama point you seek to make, rather than a credible take on the content of the film, what the film means to Muslims, and what its consequences have been.

Originally posted by sumydid
Just as with you falsely accusing me of lying a few messages ago, you are making accusations again, and inserting things into the conversation that never took place. And just as with you falsely accusing me of lying, where the truth of the statement I heard on the news has no bearing... in this case the truth of whether I ever saw the movie has no bearing; ...[text shortened]... ecause I never said one way or the other, yet you clearly state that I've never seen the movie.

[someone or other, you can't quite remember who, (my paraphrase)] said the anger was triggered by people who insighted violence, and the vast majority of angry Muslims haven't even seen the film.

Is it your contention that if and when the angry people who have not seen the film for themselves eventually do get to see it, they will wonder what all the fuss was about and that they will concede that "everything in the film is dead-on accurate"?

Originally posted by sumydid
Please remember I said that, so if/when I don't respond in the future you won't be inclined to tell everyone I'm scared of you or that your intellectual superiority ran me off, or whatever. Not saying you would do that, but I've run into it so many times before, I thought I'd go ahead and head you off at the pass with a disclaimer, just in case.

I'm telling you I saw it on the news, and I just can't recall the name of the man who said it, but he had credibility because he is the former chief [aide? or advisor? something like that] to the White House, and I remember his face distinctly because it struck me that he is so young-looking. But I saw it.

So it's ok for the likes of you to pass on analyisis from someone on the telly [whom you can't remember] or talk radio - people who told you something - and you then think your take on it is genuine, but angry Muslims can't tell each other about the film's content and be offended without people in chat rooms like this one questioning whether the anger about the blasphemous film is genuine, whether the film has anything to do with it, whether all the demonstrations are just a big conspiracy theory type cover up for an assassination?

Originally posted by FMF
You quoted someone on talk radio.

You'also made assertions about "prevailing opinion". The "prevailing opinion" of who? The fact that there are Muslims who are angry and offended by the film and yet they are not part of any "violent branch of Islam" would suggest surely that the film is offensive, is the cause of the demonstrations, that there is genuine ange ent of the film, what the film means to Muslims, and what its consequences have been.

Ok, well done. No false accusations. We can continue.

The prevailing opinion I speak of is, the opinion of those here in the West who are able to recall the timeline of events. You didn't addresss the facts and timeline I laid out, so I assume you agree with it.

Intelligence has the timeline as follows, with regard to the attacks in Egypt:

At least 48 hours prior to 9/11, a plan was hatched to attack the US Embassy.

The White House was informed of the impending attack, 24 hours in advance. Obama skipped the security briefing, which is normal, as he has attended less than 40% of this security briefings.

On 9/11, a movie was released, that has an anti-Muslim sentiment, which may or may not be completely factual.

The US Embassy was attacked and burned to the ground. The ambasador was sodomized, burned, tortured, and dragged through town. 3 other Americans were killed.

Obama chose to embark on a trip to do some campaign fundraising, rather than address the nation.

10+ hours after the event, a statement was released from the Embassy--which is directed by the Obama administration--blaming the filmmaker for the attacks, sympathizing with the hurt feelings of Muslims.

Now you tell me. Those are the facts as they they have been laid out. Do the math. How in the world could the film be responsible for the attack, when it was planned days if not weeks in advance of the release of the film, not to mention that the people who took part in the attacks--as is established by general facts--in all likelihood don't even have internet access?

Please explain how this is the fault of a filmmaker who may only be guilty of being insensitive to the feelings of Muslims.

Originally posted by sumydid
Ok, well done. No false accusations. We can continue.

The prevailing opinion I speak of is, the opinion of those here in the West who are able to recall the timeline of events. You didn't addresss the facts and timeline I laid out, so I assume you agree with it.

Intelligence has the timeline as follows, with regard to the attacks in Egypt:

At [b] ...[text shortened]... ault of a filmmaker who may only be guilty of being insensitive to the feelings of Muslims.[/b]

You have something in common with the radicals who have exploited the anger caused by the film, and by the Romney GOP campaign too. You seem to be seeking to score political points from an assassination.

Obama is using the filmmaker as a scapegoat for his failed policies.
Wouldn't surprise me if Obama labels the film "hate speech" and starts squelching our rights to freedom of speech and expression.

You are simply a member of another interest group who is seeking to gain some political advantage out of the anger triggered by the film.