Casual_Cairo

Still up on the North Coast - but checking in...

alan43 - What do I mean by the USA being more aggressive?
OK - yes, in America there is freedom of speech, but some time ago it was ammended (I believe) to exclude such things as yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre or such a place (when there is no fire) because it can cause people to be hurt. I think a good lawyer could make a case that this idiot that made this film did it with maice towards a specific group of people and incited violence by doing so. Also, aren't hate crimes still against the law in America? I think this might be able to be put into that catagory as well. I can't believe that any jury would try this guy and come away believing he did it completely without a clue that he was inciting such hatred. Do you? But that is not what I meant when I said what I said above - I said the vast majority of Muslims (here anyway) WISH the states were handling it more agressively - meaning they live and have always lived in a country where if you were to do something like this you would be tossed in prison for a good long time - with a trial or without. They have trouble conceiving THAT much freedom to do such a thing without being in trouble. The same way YOU have trouble conceiving not having the freedom to do something like that. I assume you have never lived in a country with fewer freedoms than America gives so it is pretty difficult for you to consider that normal. The same goes for them. You can look at the way they do things as wrong, and they can look at the way the USA does things as wrong. THAT, my friend, is one of the reasons people need to travel - to see how other people live and how they are because of, or in spite of, it.
You also said, Americans don't burn flags or kill Ambassadors if we disagree with statements. Comeon - I beg to differ on the flag buring issue - maybe you are only 20 years old and never saw news or movies of university students from the 60's and 70's. Hell yes, we burned the American flag on many a college campus. Maybe we don't intentionally kill Ambassadors, but we have certainly killed a fair number of civilians over disagreements. I hope I don't need to get more specific for you, but I can if you need me to. Just think about the people that have been killed over WMD that never materialized.
Enough on that subject though.

MD - WOW!! I love that you were able to decipher all of that from what you found on the news. It's as if you were here. Your description of them NOT "storming" the embassy is perfect. Here in Egypt, they actually behaved pretty well in comparison to what has happened elsewhere. Yes, it is illegal to climb up on the walls of our embassy, but you said it so well when you explain that they didn't destroy the embassy or burn it to the ground, like some people would have you believe.

The statement about "rent a crowd" is probable as well. People here need money and probably would be willing to go throw rocks for cash...besides an opportunity to be an attention whore and get your mug on TV - WOW - who wouldn't want that? LOL - I'm joking, but that seems also to be the mentality of the average 20 yr old Egyptian boy.
There are always LOADS of conspiracy theories about who paid for these crowds, and I'm sure Morsey feels there are plenty of people AGAINST him that want him to look bad, so he has ideas who might start something like this.

It's pretty amazing how this little film has made such an impact on so much of the world. I, for one, sure wish it had not been made.

cary999

America is not perfect, never has been, never will be. And where you live is better?? Have you seen this article from BBC about treatment of women in Egypt?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19440656
And Egypt is one of the better Islamic countries for women. They can even drive a car there!!! Would you, or anyone, want to be a women in a conservative Islamic culture?

regards - tom

sandi

Sure know about 'rent a crowd' as end-'08 after the elections (around Christmas) in Kenya when all hell broke loose about the results - who won, who stole the election, and on and on - in a tribal country. People were killed, shacks burned, street rioting though in selected areas. It was all over the news, but yet after the first day those who had jobs went to work, moms took kids to school, then were off to the market and the yuppies were enjoying their morning lattes and papers.

That, however, is not what we saw on CNN, because on a daily basis, the hooligans were being paid about $5/day to cause havoc and pan for the cameras. And, sure enough the day the 'moneyman' didn't show up, there was nothing for CNN to show, but give us a verbal report.

Democracy isn't a pretty picture, all tied up in a neat package... ours sure wasn't and took years, with many dead bodies left behind. And, whose democracy? Ours or theirs? With countries having no infrastructure - Libya that has to start from the bottom up; those under dictators that have to find the way that works for them and the citizenry being educated. Even when the Eastern Block fell, they didn't get their acts together overnight and some still aren't there, while some are still as corrupt as before.

As if our Democracy doesn't have its own issued! Or expecting a financial meltdown to be fixed in 3-4/yrs, when the Depression took over 10/yrs. thru WWII ending in '45 that we could see above the water line.

None of what happens is this very big world, with different cultures and histories, and hoping all would be fine for everyone, is like the 'send' button on our email... immediate.

Bye the way 'anyone know where to purchase on the spot, an American flag in some foreign country no less, to burn in front of the news cameras?' Shoot, I sure wouldn't right here in Amer-eee-ca!

Favor

Debbie - The movie is, to use a movie term, a McGuffin. In reality the attack on the embassy could have claimed to be sparked by any number of affronts to Islam from someone in the United States. One of the founding principals of the United States is that people are free to criticize, comment, ridicule, ignore, or embrace whatever religious belief they so choose. Equating the movie to yelling "fire" is exactly the special ground some Muslims would like to claim. Fire is a tangible universal physical threat to humans, regardless of political or religious affiliation, therefore yelling it in a crowded theater is in some cases actionable. Criticizing Muhammad is only a universal human threat if you believe Islam is a special case religious institution. It is not. It deserves no more protection or special privileges than any other religion. I know you are right there in the middle of a Muslim country and could not safely go out and widely express such an opinion even if you held it. But please refrain from agitating for the removal of our civil liberties in the United States. Tossing someone in prison for expressing an unpopular opinion will never be ok in the United States.

alan43

Casual Cairo don't patronize me with your bs about perhaps I'm 20 yrs old. My age is of no consequence. You stated it is perhaps a "hate crime" but what exactly is the crime that deserves rioting and murder. I am also not your friend don't speake condensending to me, I don't know nor care whom you are, but not a friend.

Yes I know about flag burning etc but I also know about the World Trade Center and the people murdered there of all religions and nationalities.

Grcxx3

alan43 - you asked CC to clarify her comments, and she did - with a great deal of honesty. I do not consider her comments patronizing or condescending, but I do find your response a little rude.

All I know is that this film has resulted in the deaths of several people, numerous riots and attacks throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and (most likely) bomb threats on at least 4 US university campuses. Like CC, I wish the film had never been made.

Favor

I wish we could be more accurate here. The movie did not cause the deaths of several people. The belief of some Muslims that Islam has ultimate authority over the entire world is the root cause.

Grcxx3

No question, misguided individuals were involved, but they were reacting to the movie clip - so the movie was the catalyst.

Casual_Cairo

"No question, misguided individuals were involved, but they were reacting to the movie clip - so the movie was the catalyst."

And I believe (alan43 and favor don't need to agree with me) that the people that put this movie together and then distributed it are equally misguided as they DID know that since the 700's Muslims have believed that you don't do anything like this to or about Mohamed the prophet. They knew that well and knew full well that it was going to cause havoc. I will never believe they did this just to be funny and meant NO harm.
If you give someone else the amunition to kill someone, with that end in mind, and they go do it, does that resolve you of all responsibility? Possibly, but not in the world I would prefer to live in.

Favor

If you want to live in a world without freedom of expression that is certainly your right. Throughout human history, including before the 700s, there have been regimes and groups who think as you.

Grcxx3

Chill out, Favor. No one is saying freedom of expression is a bad thing. But freedom involves responsibility, and in my opinion, the producers of this film acted irresponsibly.

alan43

The evidence seems to be pointing in the direction that the film had nothing to do with the murders of the four people. The rioting seemed to used as an excuse possibly a front for the planned murders on 9/11. If we have to live in fear of Muslim extremists dictating to the rest of the world what is accptable to them, then it's time to take a firm stand against extreism.

cary999

Casual_Cairo says - "If you give someone else the amunition to kill someone...."
Ammunition like - "Hey dude, your sister is fat". Then the brother has acceptable reason to behead the offender? Guess yes it does in some Muslim societies.

regards - tom

Favor

Grcxx3 - I am totally chill However I am also very concerned that people are tiptoeing around and ignoring the truth. We have a huge culture clash going on here and I think it's important for everyone to be very clear about what they stand for and what their positions mean and imply.

People, you and Debbie included, are most certainly saying freedom of expression is a bad thing. If you think the filmmaker acted irresponsibly then you don't support freedom of expression. If you can't defend the right of someone to say something that is completely antithetical to your world view, then your support for freedom of expression amounts to just a pose.

Casual_Cairo

Grcxx3 - this is quickly going south, I can see that. I don't belive they are capable of agreeing to disagree, but that is where I am right now.
I'm tired of bumping my head against the wall with this lot.
Over and out.

Grcxx3

<<People, you and Debbie included, are most certainly saying freedom of expression is a bad thing.>>

No, Favor, I am NOT saying freedom of expression is a bad thing. It is actually a very GOOD thing. BUT - I do think that people need to take ownership of their views, and that means accepting that their views may not be welcomed by everyone. And in this case, most 6th graders could figure out that Muslim extremists would be upset and could reasonably predict what the reaction would be. It's not rocket science.

CC - I'm with you. I lived in Egypt and currently live in another 3rd world African country where the freedoms we know as Americans do not exist. More than ever, the responsibility that comes along with freedom is abundantly clear.

Tchau!

sf7307

I agree with Favor 100%.

"With freedom comes responsibility". The thinking that the filmmaker should refrain from making the film because it might incite wrong-thinking people* to riot is antithetical to our notions of free speech. If worrying about what people think would cause the filmmaker to NOT make the film then our liberties will have been trounced, and the other side will have "won".

* Yes, I do believe they are wrong-thinking, because I believe personal freedom is an absolute.

MD

First, the USA is unique in having true free speech. A group of Nazis has the right to march (peacefully) through a Jewish neighbourhood. Anyone can say bad even untrue things about the president. You can deny the holocaust happened. You can march in KKK robes.

"Yelling fire in a crowded theatre" is a very bad example. It was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify stripping American citizens of citizenship to deport them strictly because of their political views; even he admitted later it was his worst supreme court decision.

I suggest you all read this http://www.economist.com/node/21563311
/quote
...The anger displayed at all these events was certainly real, and widely shared among Muslims. Yet the television coverage of protests obscured an obvious fact. As in many other protests across the region, the crowd at the fiery Friday sermon in Cairo numbered in the mere hundreds, in a space where throngs a thousand times bigger have become commonplace. In the midst of a city of perhaps 20m inhabitants, the rest went about their business as usual. The number of youths who actually picked up rocks barely rose to the dozens. Their anger was aimed as much at the police as against “the West”. The street-fighting looked more like a rowdy sporting event, replete with parading to the cameras, than a clash of civilisations. /quote

That says it all. Finally, the film was (allegedly) made by an American who immigrated from Egypt, a Coptic. He knew exactly what he was doing and what could be the result. If you call someone an a####le should you be surprised if you or people with you get punched in the face? It's still illegal to punch someone, but a strong provocation will often get the expected result.

As a side note, current newspaper reports are that the attack on the Libyan consulate was a deliberate planned attack with weapons, not a wild demonstration. Is Egypt safe? Well it's hard to pull off that sort of attack except in an anarchic unpolished area with plenty of weapons - that's Libya, not Egypt.

Favor

You can run away, but you can't escape the fact that, by holding the filmmaker responsible for the deaths, your position requires the acceptance that people in group "A" have some right to kill the people in group "B" because of what someone in group "B" has: painted, written, filmed, worn, said, or thought.

I can certainly agree to disagree with that position of intolerance.

Grcxx3

Favor - they are ALL wrong in my opinion. It's just a horribly sad situation.