Well done Google

September 18th, 2012 at 6:27 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East.

The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where US embassies have been stormed by protesters enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer.

Well done Google. Blocking it in countries where there is a legal order from the Government can be appropriate, but removing it entirely would be an act of censorship and deplorable appeasement.

Tags: ,

53 Responses to “Well done Google”

  1. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    I’m not sure repeating the meme that “the video caused the violence” (as opposed to, say, the US killing Al Qaeda’s number 2 in Yemen) makes it more true.

    Also has anyone SEEN that video. It’s excrebal. If one of my 16 year old kids turned that in for film class they’d get a “D”. Seriously it’s so bad it’s not even good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    The spontaneous “protests” in Libya that lead to the murder of the US Embassy staff was anything but. They showed up with RPGs and a mortar and the attack began 15 minutes after the first people arrived. Spontaneous my arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. flipper (4,240 comments) says:

    So, did the New Zealand panty waists sign up to the UN resolution not to criticise Islam?
    I’ll bet they did.
    And if you enquire under the OIA the response will be all but redacted.

    Time to end the diplomacy “secrecy”crap that MFAT perpetuates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The film/video is very slow and amaturish but it is true to the accepted history of the profit..apart from that UK historian , Holland , who recently came up with a doco that says Big Bad Mo never existed..Holland is now on the death list , naturally enough..Good on Google.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    Multi-culturalism- yet another great Progressive success story..!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Freedom of speech,conscience,expression etc are fundamental principles of our democratic way of life.

    The Iranians (who clearly misunderstand their own religion as it is a religion of peace and tolerance,so we’re constantly being told)are calling for the maker of the video to be tracked down and punished. Note they use the language of our PC language police too,offensive and inappropriate.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9548098/Iran-to-target-makers-of-anti-Islamic-film.html

    In England the Ayatollahs of equality are doing the same thing about comments in private about so called travellers.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9542124/Offensive-comment-about-travellers-prompts-equalities-training-for-councillor.html

    The English “consequences” may not be as extreme as the Iranian but these attacks on free speech are on the same continuum.Shame on the British,as we expect it from the Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. KiwiGreg (3,260 comments) says:

    I think the historical evidence for the existance of Mohammed is considerably more compelling than that for Jesus so (without knowing anything about him) Holland sounds more like a “historian”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    … removing it entirely would be an act of censorship and deplorable appeasement.

    I hate to tell you this but the mere fact that the Obama Administration even asked for it to be removed, will be seen as a sign of appeasement, as will the following photo, which I will repeat from the Sunday GD:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef017d3c0e6f14970c-pi

    That’s the guy who made the film, being taken “downtown” to be questioned. After midnight. Supposedly about violating his parole by using a computer connected to the internet. Comments on this from:

    Law Professor Ann Althouse:

    Gaze on that picture and see our government in a sad, shameful display, staged — presumably — to cajole the enemies of free speech into blaming a private individual instead of our country — our country, the caretaker of the freedom that allowed him to speak.

    Law Professor Glenn Reynolds:

    Note Althouse’s strikethrough. You are not “free” when police can come to your door after midnight and demand that you “come downtown and answer a few questions” over a film you’ve made. Voluntarily, of course. . . .

    In addition to it being a spectacle that should be the shame of any American, there’s also the pragmatic aspect summed up concisely by this commentator:

    Could any visual more effectively reinforce the Arab street’s belief that the U.S. government can, in fact, punish blasphemers if it so chooses?”

    Exactly, and on the law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy (despite it’s playful name it is a blog of law professors and has a serious reputation), Eugene Volokh, expands on that point:

    Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.

    What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.

    Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

    And this is especially so since there’ll be plenty of other excuses for such killings in the future. It’s not like Muslim extremists have a clearly defined, unvarying, and limited range of speech they are willing to kill over (e.g., desecrating Korans and nothing but). Past history has already proved that; consider the bombings and murders triggered by the publication of the Satanic Verses.

    What’s more, there are lots of people in the Muslim world who are happy to stoke hostility

    That’s why it seems to me to actually be safer — not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans — to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected even if foreigners choose to respond to it with murder. That would send the message, “murder won’t get you what you want.” Not a perfectly effective message to be sure, but a better one than “murder will get you what you want.”

    Oh, but I do agree with the “Well Done Google”. Good to see giant corporations standing up where the US government won’t!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Blocking it in countries where there is a legal order from the Government can be appropriate

    I do not consider it appropriate to prevent freedom of expression in any circumstances. Particulary when it is ordered by an intolerant and authoritarian regime. Those governments that do censor, have appalling human rights records. Its not appropriate. Ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    Well said Tom, but that it needs to be said at all demonstrates that the left / Progressives have taken our society to such depths the question now is “how do we ever fix such a disgusting mess, if its even possible?”

    The US is a Constitutional Republic perverted by Progressives into a European Democracy. Therefore it has become exactly the opposite of what the founders intended.

    Just as in NZ, Americans lost their country when they allowed their education system to be controlled by communists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Fletch (6,501 comments) says:

    Have you given any thought to the idea that the Whitehouse wants that video to stay up?
    If they had really asked google to take it down, I’m sure they would have.

    The video is a convenient excuse for the violence. The WH can point to the video instead of the real reason – Obama’s failed Foreign Policy.

    Even the leaders of those countries say the attack was planned to coincide with 9/11

    Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf told CBS’ Face the Nation that the attack was planned for months by people who had infiltrated Libya from other nations specifically for the attack:

    About 50 arrests have been made in connection with the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi in which the American Ambassador and three other consulate employees were killed, and some of the suspects involved are from outside the country, Libya’s president told CBS News.

    In an interview for “Face the Nation” Sunday, President Mohamed Magariaf also said that evidence “leaves us with no doubt” that the attack was pre-planned.

    “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival,” he told Bob Schieffer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Steve Wrathall (285 comments) says:

    What the hell is Barack Obama doing trying to impose religious censorship? What part of separation of church & state does he not understand? If GW Bush had tried to gag an anti-Christian film there would be loud screams of “theocracy”. But apparently it’s ok for this creeping Sharia to be imposed from the highest levels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. flipper (4,240 comments) says:

    Further to my earlier post on the silly UN and NZ';s MFAT panty waists, look at this:

    Flashback: Obama Administration Pushes UN Resolution That Bans …

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/…/flashback-obama-administration-push...

    1 day ago – Last December the Obama Administration pushed a UN resolution that banned criticism of Islam. Now this. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (C) is …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fletch (6,501 comments) says:

    INstapundit has a very good column on why Obama should resign –

    “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”

    When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

    Sounds like we’re back in the 1940s when brown-shirted enforcers (see the pics of the officers who arrested the film maker) knock at your door in the middle of the night for making a film that expresses an opinion, and question you for 4 hours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    “Sounds like we’re back in the 1940s when brown-shirted enforcers (see the pics of the officers who arrested the film maker) knock at your door in the middle of the night for making a film that expresses an opinion, and question you for 4 hours.”

    Always the destination that the left would take us to.

    With the enthusiastic backing of millions of ignorant gullible unaware uneducated and ignorant of history supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. moaningmoa (68 comments) says:

    Should be noted that the men that died in Bhenghazi were real people, with hopes, dreams, and family.

    Not just numbers on a spreadsheet…

    Sean Smith (the IT guy killed) for example was a great guy whose loss is being felt not only by his immediate family and friends, but also an entire community (of which I am one) that his actions helped foster.

    http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat

    Now that community is doing something to help provide for his widow and children

    http://www.youcaring.com/fundraiser_details?fundraiser_id=9332&url=benefitforseansmithsfamily

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    Over at PJMedia, there’s this great collection of the Nakoula “Arrest” photos, done with different titles. My faves include:

    “Gutsy Call”

    “Got Off Easy – No Drone Strike”

    “Nobody Expects …. The Democrat Inquisition”

    “We are here to protect You …. by pointing out where you live to every muslim fanatic”

    For me the two best are:

    “They told me if I voted for religious nuts like Sarah Palin and George Bush, independent filmmakers who mocked religion would be led away in chains by brownshirts …… And They Were Right”

    And more concisely:
    If He’d Pissed on a Cross …. He’d Still Be in Bed”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    If he’d pissed on Cross he’d still be in bed.

    see kiwigreg’s dhimmi comment at 813 above.

    Is he a teacher?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Obama is much more a Muslim than he is an American. He has been filmed and recorded saying he is a muslim and talking to muslims about ”our faith .” He can recite the call to prayer in almost perfect Arabic..he didn’t waste time in his childhood agama classes..As I have said before, only muslim children are allowed to attend agama classes. He celebrates ramadan and other muslims days in the white house but buggers off to Hawaii every year to avoid Christmas..His bowing to the Saudi King was unprecedented for an American President.
    I have read probably on Winds of Jihad, about an Isreali man with a Jewish wife who speaking fluent Arabic , worked in intelligence..She says for years they were hearing Saudis talking about getting a Muslim as President of the US..Sometime before Obama , she said they heard Saudis saying..”We shall have a muslim US Pres in 2,008.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mara (797 comments) says:

    If he’d pissed on a cross …. he’d still be in bed ….. without having to live in hiding for the rest of his life with a fatwa/bounty on his head.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    Obama is much more a Muslim than he is an American.

    He’s not a muslim, though he is heavily influenced by that religion.

    But I agree with those above – he’s violated his oath of office with this one. The American president is not responsible for what private citizens say and is certainily not charged with making sure that American’s doing say anything to annoy foreigners – in fact quite the opposite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. mara (797 comments) says:

    On another website I have just seen the headline “Muslim Youths in Nigeria Crucify a Cat on the Cross to Protect Anti-Muslim Film.” With picture! Words fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    The better response to this idiot video is a pisstake ripoff. The Innocence of Americans, for example:

    “America! Founded by religious puritan extremists fleeing religious tolerance in Europe! Using their superior war tactics and smallpox blankets, they subdued the heretic heathen tribes and founded a shining city on a hill.”

    etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    “Is he a teacher?”

    Maybe.

    He’s sure dumb enough to be one.

    He’s sure full of enough progressive shit to be one.

    “Teacher” is a misnomer. They should be called propagandists, for it is by means of what these people introduce to our children that most of the destructive ideas of the Progressives gain currency in our community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    I see that this news article has an incorrect claim:

    Finally, no one outside the White House believes a single video caused the violence.

    Au contraire. Here in NZ the execrable Morning Report, and other local MSM sources, continue to run links to reporters and academics who are still plugging that line. In a few days perhaps they’ll move beyond the talking points of the Obama administration – like these hard-line, right-wing shills:

    Liberal commentator and Tufts University international politics professor Dan Drezner has called Obama’s decision to blame the YouTube clip a “radically incomplete and dishonest answer.” As The New York Times Ross Douthat points out, the riots have far more to do with internal power politics.

    Can we sell Radio NZ now – please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. cha (4,084 comments) says:

    Bleeding heart liberal Debbie Schlussel wonders why a film that was made months ago by a Copt and an evangelical Christian was presented as the work of an Israeli Jew financed by Jewish investors.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    “Can we sell Radio NZ now – please?”

    Sell it? It should be closed down for being a stain upon our democratic process with its unbalanced reporting and its enthusiasm for left wing lies and propaganda.

    Where is the other side of the argument?????

    RNZ is a nest of culturally totalitarian leftist vipers.

    And they’re not just in Radio NZ. Read this and understand why almost every mainstream media sitcom or drama series over the last two decades has pushed Progressive propaganda as an ingredient of every story. (and our Kiwiblog host commonly sings their praises)

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/15/propaganda-update-tv-networks-will-be-asked-boost-obamacare-plots-their-

    These sneaking dogs and their unending subliminal attacks on our traditional culture are just the most dishonest and treacherous and deceitful filth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Heh heh, you lot want free speech, obama just gave it to that fuckwit by telling every Muslim where the fuckwit lives.
    But, you believe in free speech so that is fine by you lot.

    Wonder how long he will last before he turns the ignition on to a surprise

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    You’re always talking up your war service Grumpy.

    What did you fight for?

    So you could wish death on people who say things you don’t agree with?

    You were obviously mistaken about the side you were fighting on you disgusting troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >where US embassies have been stormed by protesters enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer.

    Where mobs of people who’ve not seen it have been stirred into outrage by people with an interest in causing trouble, more like.
    The people doing the stirring probably don’t really care what it portrays, and possibly quite pleased it exists: it’s just a tool to whip up anti-US anger among the masses.

    Like the cartoons, where all those ‘spontaneous protesters’ just happened to have Danish flags to hand, ready to burn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    joana so Obama will have Tel Aviv nuked when ? since he is a Muslim he must have a duty to rid the Middle East of all Jews.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    Heh heh, you lot want free speech, obama just gave it to that fuckwit by telling every Muslim where the fuckwit lives.

    Funnily enough GOH, the pragmatic argument that you’ve been making here about restricting free speech in order to save the lives of American (and NZ soldiers) is an echo of the recent past.

    Back in 2001, while testifying before Congress, Attorney General, John Ashcroft, announced that civil libertarian objections to administration policies “only aid terrorists” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies”. And in line with this I frequently heard the claim that critics of the administration were “emboldening the enemy”.

    Congratulations GOH, you are now a fully-signed up member of the war-mongering, civil-liberty-crushing crowd known as the Bush administration.

    But what’s worse is that you did not even realise that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Bob R (1,393 comments) says:

    Will any politicians have the balls to quarantine these types and say they should stay out of the West?

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/admissions-of-illiberalism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    DPF,

    Well done Google. Blocking it in countries where there is a legal order from the Government can be appropriate, but removing it entirely would be an act of censorship and deplorable appeasement.

    Why is it not censorship and appeasement when the law requires it? Surely something is or is not censorship and appeasement regardless of what the law requires.

    Google likes to play the defender of liberty when it suits them… not when it threatens the bottom line though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. grumpyoldhori (2,362 comments) says:

    Weihana under free speech was it wrong for Obama to let every Muslim know where that film maker lives ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    Let’s get one damn thing straight here-

    THIS FILM WAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE IN LIBYA.

    Those who say it was are just buying into and promoting the left wing propaganda meme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (9,659 comments) says:

    GOH demonstrates that like all half educated communists he has no idea of what “freedom of speech” really means.

    It is more accurately defined as “freedom of political expression” you sad uneducated troll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    Weihana under free speech was it wrong for Obama to let every Muslim know where that film maker lives ?

    This may come as a surprise to you GOH (I imagine many things do), but Obama’s job description, his oath to defend the constitution, required him to actually defend that man against death threats, not hold him up as a scapegoat, saying he did it, not us.

    But I think you’re lack of understanding here is not deliberate obfuscation or the talking point of a mindless Obama shill. I think you’re problem is exactly as described here, with a brief preamble:

    Yesterday, Ambassador Susan Rice went around on the talk shows to distribute an odd talking point:

    U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice blanketed the TV airways Sunday to reinforce the Obama administration’s position that the deadly violence at American outposts across the Middle East last week was the result of an anti-Muslim video — delivering her message on four morning talk shows.

    “What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet,” Rice said on “Fox News Sunday.” “It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States.”

    Now, even the folks running Libya aren’t so stupid as to advance this line. Heck, they’ve already rounded up some of the advance plotters for the, um, very very spontaneous attack.When the Obama administration first started spewing this line, I figured they were just trying to buy a few hours of time to get their story straight. But it’s been days now, and they keep saying it.

    All of a sudden I’m terrified that they actually believe this. If so, we’re in far worse shape than we may have thought.

    Oh we are, we are!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    grumpyoldhori (2,273) Says:
    September 18th, 2012 at 11:03 am

    Weihana under free speech was it wrong for Obama to let every Muslim know where that film maker lives ?

    Yes I think it was wrong. As Tom points out, Obama’s job is to defend the constitution and that means defending this man from violence who has merely exercised his constitutional rights (probation conditions aside).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (14,084 comments) says:

    The film is a distraction. Nothing at all to do with the attacks perpetrated by terrorists and criminal Islamists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    The left! The political left in the west is to blame for the actions of muslim extremists! :cool:

    [Disclaimer: I hear Iran wants Salman Rushdie murdered, again… so I’d include the government of Iran in “muslim extremists”.. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    The film is a distraction.

    It sounds like it’s growing into a pretty widespread, destructive ‘distraction':

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/09/2012917112431580115.html

    The film, entitled Innocence of Muslims, believed to have been produced by a small group of extremist Christians, has led to a week of furious protests outside US embassies and other American symbols in at least 20 countries.

    Following complaints, Google is now barring access to the video in Egypt, Libya, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, while the government has restricted access to YouTube, which is owned by Google, in Afghanistan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    The left! The political left in the west is to blame for the actions of muslim extremists!

    Yeah, yeah, RRM. I understand the partisan and ideological aspects of this also. But here’s the thing, who better represents the majority thinking of the left-wing on this? You, Weihana, Glenn Greenwald and a few others – or people like Scott Chris, grumpyoldhori, and undoubtedly Luc Hansen?

    Moreover, which ideology has pushed the view over the last few decades that it is “our” fault, the West’s fault, for things like this happening, whether the reason was US foreign policy or “allowing” assholes like Terry Jones free reign to say what they think? Was it primarily the right-wing or the left-wing? Did Jerry Falwell really count in 2001?

    I have to go back a hell of a long way, to the days of JFK and even Lyndon Johnson, to find left-wingers who would react the way I’d like Western “left-wing” politicians to react to all this shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. tom hunter (5,096 comments) says:

    And with almost perfect timing here’s Scott Chris on the GD thread:

    radical violent Islam is a sociological phenomenon that would be reversed if Christians and Muslims were to swap socio-economic and geo-political status.

    That’s a big left-wing idea no?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    I don’t know tom – it’s only been a few hundred years since “our” culture was executing heretics and the like… and plenty of selt-anointed “conservatives” commenting on here seem to want to go back to that…?

    And no, I DON’T say that to excuse or diminish hideous muslim fundamentalist attitudes (Hi, redbaiter! ;-) ) but as a way of saying that I reckon the veneer of any civilisation is probably a lot thinner than any of us really appreciate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    Come to think of it, I wonder if that’s the reason so many of our uber-conservative friends on here are so incensed by the dogmatic religious intolerance of the radical Muslims? It must be like looking in the mirror and being horrified by what you see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    RRM joins the jihad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. emmess (1,433 comments) says:

    but as a way of saying that I reckon the veneer of any civilisation is probably a lot thinner than any of us really appreciate.

    Absolutely agree, but the main danger is in not standing up for the basic principles that underpin civilization and appeasing the barbarians demands instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Steve Wrathall (285 comments) says:

    Meanwhile our local “moderates” have finally stirred:

    “Auckland Muslim Youth strongly condemn films, violence
    Tuesday, 18 September 2012, 3:02 pm
    Press Release: Auckland Muslim Youth Groups
    Document Title: Auckland Muslim Youth strongly condemn malicious films about religious figures and equally condemn resulting violence by protesters.

    On behalf of our New Zealand based Muslim members, Al Hikmah Trust (Muslim Charity), Massey University Muslims Students Association, Auckland University of Technology Muslim Students Association and Muslim Students Club at Unitec would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the families of those killed and injured in recent protests over the anti-Islamic film.

    Muslims certainly revere Prophet Muhammad as not only a historical figure but as a role model in every aspect of modern daily life. The sincere reader of his biography will undoubtedly be affected by a character whose selflessness, constant charity, care for the needy, strict honesty and attachment to God leave no room for the types of vile attacks seen set upon him.

    It therefore comes as no surprise that such a film triggered an array of responses amongst Muslims around the world however it is particularly upsetting that a certain segment has taken this as an opportunity to disregard the law. From a Muslim perspective this is unacceptable and undermines the very values the overwhelming majority of Muslims adhere to.

    We call upon individuals and governments to shun any future attempts by those seeking to falsely discredit any religion and thereby uphold the right to truthful, free speech.”

    That’s right. They morally equate free speech they don’t like, with murder. And of course expect the government to start punishing blasphemers. Sorry, we left that crap behind in Europe centuries ago. If you don’t like that-leave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    I think Hitler picked a wrong race to blame for Germany’s economic problems in WW2. He picked the Jews (the productive members of the global citizens) instead of the despicable Muslims. Hitler should have picked the Muslims (anti-capitalist, pro-murder of innocence, hatred of the western civilizations, etc…).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Weihana (4,607 comments) says:

    We call upon individuals and governments to shun any future attempts by those seeking to falsely discredit any religion and thereby uphold the right to truthful, free speech

    lol. “Truthful” free speech. And who decides truth? Well it’s written in the Koran isn’t it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    They morally equate free speech they don’t like, with murder. And of course expect the government to start punishing blasphemers.

    I’m sorry, I read the excerpt you quoted and I don’t see how you came to that conclusion at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. OneTrack (3,237 comments) says:

    RRM – “I’m sorry, I read the excerpt you quoted and I don’t see how you came to that conclusion at all.”

    i’m sorry RRM, I read that excerpt and came to exactly the same conclusion as Steve. They “strongly condemn malicious films about religious figures and EQUALLY condemn resulting violence by protesters. Ergo, killing the American consul and his staff is the same as making a video.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote