This is beyond outrageous:
US Identifies Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Blamed for Attacks
I will not quote the article because I disagree with its very premise: To name, expose and endanger the life of the man who made the anti-Mohammed film. I am only linking to it to note that the Associated Press and Eric Holder (through a “leak”) are purposely trying to get this guy killed.
Making the film was no crime. Apparently he does have leftover charges relating to a previous check-kiting scheme, but that is unrelated to this film/riot/crisis. And using that as the pretext, our government and media are flagrantly engaging in “the politics of personal destruction,” splashing this guy’s name across the Internet, despite his best attempts to remain anonymous, so that he will either succumb to or have to spend the rest of his life fleeing from Islamic terror squads.
This is the kind of thing that goes on under totalitarian regimes.
From his jail cell in Pakistan, Shakil Afridi would probably tell him to watch his back.
I hope this guy stays safe. Maybe after the election we can start enforcing laws and protecting people’s rights again.
I’m not surprised by this move by Obama though. He set up Fast and Furious (which resulted in hundreds of dead Mexicans) in order to score anti-gun points, so what’s one Jew’s life if it scores him points with Muslims?
Obama isn’t just an amateur, or an “empty chair” in over his head on the world stage. This guy is evil. God help us if he steals the election.
The video maker is a Coptic Christian, not a Jew or Israeli.
I agree with you, Zombie. But…I confess to not feeling overly sorry for this fellow on the grounds that he chose, initially, to masquerade as “an Israeli Jew” and to put it out that he was making his film with “financial backing from 100 Jews.”
Everyone knows that the Islamic world needs no excuse to ramp up the antisemitism. This fellow set about providing yet one more false pretext for doing so. This makes me wonder whether his being “a Coptic Christian,” the current story, is not merely the fallback incitement identity—and whether he is not, rather, a provocateur akin to that imam who invented three fake “Danish cartoons” to ramp up the Muslim outrage during the Cartoon Riots. If that is the case, some question of whether or not he is a foreign agent may also be to the fore.
The problem—and it is a big problem—is that if that is the case, I do not expect the facts to come out in the hands of Eric Holder’s Justice Department. A Justice Department that reclassifies domestic terrorist acts as “workplace incidents,” in an Administration whose spokespeople cannot even say the words “Islamic terrorism,” is not going to reveal such a truth, if that is the truth—and will not act effectively if it is, either.
What it comes down to is, I agree with you that the Justice Department hunting down and revealing this fellow is a grotesque totalitarian exercise. But in light of his initial and intentionally inciting imposture, merely shrugging off his film as an exercise in free speech sticks in my craw.
I’ve seen that theory floated today, but as yet we have no proof. It certainly is interesting, though. Could be. But until we have some evidence, we’ll just have to assume that he really is a Coptic Christian. it would seem odd for AP and the DOJ to “out” an Islamic agent provocateur without identifying him as such. Maybe AP doesn’t even know themselves?
Layers upon layers upon layers — looking through a glass onion.
The great and unjustly-forgotten John Dos Passos had a phrase: “peeling the onion of doubt.”
True, there is no proof, as yet, that we are dealing with an Islamist provocateur as opposed to a mere angry idiot—the Islamist history of manufacturing incitement and the remarkable similarity of the production values of the film in question to the sort of thing seen on Iranian or Egyptian TV merely suggest that, they in no way prove it. I merely mention it as a possibility, along with pointing out that someone convicted of fraud (i.e., a proven liar) who has already hidden behind several fabricated identities should be considered falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus until more is known.
Don’t know why, but that reminded me of something from college: “peeling back the foreskin of science”.
You know what? It still doesn’t matter. This is no excuse for either the widespread temper tantrums that are causing injury and death in the Middle East or for our own government to be pissing on the First Amendment freedoms that are, or should be, protected the way they are for a very good reason.
Whoever or whatever this man is, his free speech is still protected by law, and it should be beneath our governmnent’s notice the same way that all those George Bush assassination pieces were, the same way every single anti-Christian or anti-Jewish piece is. They have every right to protest in return, but that right stops the moment their protests turn into criminal activity or acts of war.
And where does our government’s appeasement of Islamic demands to not be offended stop? What happens when they get offended because we allow our women too much freedom? What happens when they get offended because we don’t completely turn our backs on Israel? How far do we let them manipulate us through their riots and temper tantrums?
You are right that his free speech should be protected; you are right that there is no excuse either for the Islamist temper tantrums or our government’s groveling to them; you are right that there is no excuse for the government to be tracking this man down.
But you are not right when you say that his attempt to ramp the incitement into overdrive with an intentionally-chosen false identity “doesn’t matter.” It may not be legally actionable—I can’t see how it would be. But it should not pass without notice.
By outing the film maker, the Obama administration has not only endangered the life of the Coptic Christian himself but also all Coptic Christians in Egypt. That is terrible.
The person who made this video has many character flaws reflected, among other things, in his criminal activities. Stating that he was Israeli and that 100 Jews financed his artistic endeavours was meant to turn Islamist anger away from Christians on to Jews. That is truly reprehensible. In spite of all this, I still believe in his free speech.
No reason to get incited,
The thief, he luntly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that treason is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, our time is getting late
All along the watchtower
Bowed-to Princes kept the view
While the war on women came and went
All God’s servants, too
Outside in the cold distance
A wildcat did growl
Two traitors were approaching
And the chill wind began to howl
Why would outing this person be less vile than publishing US officials travel schedules in the Middle East?
Dang straight… it’s called “social justice” (only white people can offcially commit a “lynching,” apparently).
– been doing will have its way with him.
Amazing – we can’t identify Islamic violence as being related to Islam or Muslims in any way but the fact that one of the guys behind that silly film was a Copt (Egyptian Christian) is a fact that has to repeated over and over and considered important?
We have to hide the crimes of the victimizer group, the Muslims, but highlight the participation of a single member of a victim group? It shows the depths to which our elite will sink to placate the Muslims and avoid placing the blame on them.
Why?
Its because Muslims are willing to use violence – there isn’t another broad-based group in the world willing to use political violence in the same way. If you want to get powerful in the world I guess that killing a bunch of people is the way you do it.