41 thoughts on “Anti-Jihadi Video, Textbook Case for Destroying Relations with Muslim Nations – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The actors in the film worked to a different script entirely, then the offensive words were dubbed onto their actions, without their knowledge. Those involved in the production appear to believe that the person behind the film was an Israeli, though there’s also an extremely dangerous rumour that it’s an Egyptian coptic. (That really could brew massacres and it’s probably meant to.)

    Am I the only one who thinks the film was made to teach Obama a lesson for not seeing someone’s point of view about Muslims?

  2. It’s not a rumor, the guy was tracked down and admitted it. He is indeed an Egyptian Coptic Christian, and since he tried to pass himself off as an Israeli, an anti-Semitic SOB, too.

  3. Excellent observation:

    Let me put it to you another way. Ever watch one of Ayman al- Zawahari’s propaganda videos? Lousy production values, wacky extremist views. Does the west pay attention? You bet we do. So if we take serious umbrage at the Islamist lunatics and their statements, why would we think Muslims wouldn’t do the same regarding OUR lunatics?

    And, based on precisely the type of monitoring you mention, the US has unleashed drones on at least one propagandist for nothing more than offensive movies. The US now finds it a bit difficult to take the outraged, moral high road now.

    1. The most worrying thing is if this sets up the Coptics for persecution: this could be bad enough in Egypt, but worse in the Horn of Africa and nearby.

      If something is too good to be true, we usually (eventually) know we are being conned. I think the Muslim world needs to recognize the same thing when something is too bad to be true. Whoever made, or rather, whoever over-dubbed the film, seemed to be setting up the worst possible provocation, and even the man we’re supposed to believe made it all, a Meth-dealing Coptic Christian from LA, seems to be the worst possible man to have made such a film.

      It’s going to give President Morsi at least as much trouble as it gives President Obama, and I think that, too, may well be intentional. But I think we should resist the temptation to accept the first suspect the Murdoch Empire gives us, as far as whose intent it all is.

    2. Um, i’m sorry to have to point out a slight fallacy here, but would THEIR lunatics happen to be the ones that go around the world blowing things up, while OUR lunatics are busy making crappy B-movies? (“us” being the west in general, you can tell by my name i’m not exactly from the US, I presume).
      I’m only talking about loony individuals of course, governments are a different type of lunatics (a rather more dangerous one, granted)

  4. Frankly this post disgusts me. Good, decent, sensitive diplomats died at the hands of a few vicious members of a Muslim minority group and the post blames the US government for not violating the 1st Amendment by censoring the crappy video that was the pretext for an assassination that apparently was long in the making.

    1. Frankly, you disgust me. A bunch of Christian Copt yahoos want to foment another holy war between Islam and the west and you want us to stand back and say the First Amendment prevents us from stopping someone who yells Fire in a theater and causes a mass stampede? Sorry this is a tested method of whether speech is permitted or not. This video started a literal fire in Libya that killed four diplomats. The jackass behind this film belongs in prison & will be there soon since he violated probation by uploading the film to the Internet.

      I’m within a hair of moderating you.

      Save your disgust for someone who cares. Your response offended me

        1. That’s not the point of the Supreme Court ruling. The point is that someone may NOT yell Fire! in a crowded theater because it will kill people. Similarly, making a deliberately insulting, calumny against Islam in today’s tinder box environment is guaranteed to provoke just the sort of mayhem it did. The produce is likely to end up in prison, where he now belongs whether for his other crimes or fomenting hatred & violence in this incident.

          1. There are 1,000 ways to go after this moron and his colleagues. If you’re tender about the 1st Amendment try 999 other ways. I hope & expect the government will do that. If they don’t, then the rioting & mayhem will likely continue. Just as American Jews have no right to drag the U.S. into a war on Israel’s behalf, Copts don’t have the right to drag us into their fight within the Egyptian social context. The efforts to do so are odious.

          2. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world and all but a few handful have shown restraint despite finding the video offensive.

            I rest my case.

          3. Muslims in 20 nations around the world are seething with anger, demonstrating, & in some cases rioting. Yet you minimize the offense of the film. Figures. If it had been a film depicting blood libel against Jews you’d be screaming bloody murder. This is a Muslim blood libel. Where’s the outrage from people like you? Nowhere to be found.

          4. Blood libels against Jews are spread on a daily-basis, especially in the Muslim world.
            Do you see any Jew going off and trashing embassies? We just roll our eyes and go on with the rest of our day.

          5. Moslem blood libel? Where? What does this insulting and inane film blame on Muslims?

            The real blood libel was when ‘Sam Bacile’ claimed he was an Israeli real estate developer with 100 Jewish money doners; effectively blaming the film on the Jews.

          6. It says their founder is a pederast, philanderer & filthy despicable human being. You don’t call that a blood libel? Would you prefer they also accuse him of drinking the blood of children? I’m sure they’ll do that in the sequel.

      1. Richard.
        You have no evidence for “bunch of” Egyptian Copts. You have (dodgy-seeming, presented to press on a silver platter) evidence for ONE. One man can be bought, by anyone disposed to manipulate trouble, or might do something off his own head. However, the politically sensitive timing suggests he did not do it entirely off his own head.

        Barring miracles, by this time next week, thousands of Egyptian Copts are going to be dead over this, people who never even knew the video existed until the riots started in Cairo. Unguarded references to collective responsibility of the Coptic community for the video, from someone who really should know better if anybody does, are fat in the fire.

        In the recent blasphemy case in Pakistan, where a handicapped Christian girl was alleged to have burned the Koran and her whole community was driven out of their homes, the local police have determined that a local Iman burned a Koran himself and planted the burnt pages on the girl.

        If an Iman can commit the blasphemy of destroying a Koran to commit perjury and whip up a mob, then absolutely anyone, on any of the many sides, might be behind the inflammatory video. I’ve got an IDEA who this might be, and he ain’t Coptic or a Christian (nor a Muslim), but I don’t think I’ll be proclaiming this without proof, and perhaps not even then.

        Suffice to say, this individual took elaborate measures to distract and suppress a Canadian blogger who has long been exposing his misdeeds, and he abruptly stopped bothering to do this the day Hell broke loose over the video. He also has a forty-year track record of using concocted films and latterly videos, as weapons.

        The US Government has no right to suppress the First Amendment, but You Tube has no obligation to publish material that will lead to death, and the actors whose inoffensive dialogue was overdubbed, probably have some legal avenues available to them if they could be given the prompt assistance of a competent lawyer (it’s California: there must be competent lawyers amongst the vast thundering herds). That might be the best way to get the fat out of the fire, because it would also emphasize that those who appear in the film, had no idea that its meaning would be changed and that their faces would be stamped all over a deliberate provocation to violence.

        1. No, unfortunately there is a Coptic Diaspora in which there are a number of these types. The person who actually alerted the Egyptian media to the film wasn’t even the guy who made it. It was an entirely different person named Sadek. You can argue these are only a few bad apples, but undoubtedly these “lone wolves” probably represent others beyond themselves. That doesn’t make all Copts bad or guilty. It only tells us that all of our major religions harbor such evil and before casting stones on Jews or Muslims or Copts we should make sure our own religions are innocent of the same forms of hatred.

          1. I really don’t think the Coptic community in Egypt is going to prosper from this and I’m sure that those who made the film/video could have worked that out.

            Couldn’t the producers of the video be prosecuted in California for “using a false instrument”? Because the document (script) they presented to actors was so different to the dialogue in the production that was released, that it amounts to obtaining their services by deception. The actors have been placed in considerable danger, without their knowledge, too.

            There might be a few mainstream Hollywood producers who’d be caught in that net, but I think they’d deserve to be.

          2. Sadek now says:
            “not me, guv’nor”.

            France 24 perceives how dangerous the links to Coptics might be.
            Which is more than the UK and US media have, so far.

            With regard to the German Embassy in Khartoum: there’s a saying in the Windward Islands “thieves jump where the fence is lowest” and I think that applies.

            There being a certain rather messy historical precedent, I shouldn’t think the British Embassy there is especially vulnerable.

  5. Was Terry Jones and the other dutch moron MP Geert Wilders also not involved in the making of this movie?I have taken off the movie Sam Bacile’s “The Muhammad Movie” as I realize I do not want to insult my friends with this filth.
    After watching Sam Bacile’s (or whoever he is) film I have two things to say:
    1. This is the most racist, stupid, disgusting, hate-spreading movie I have seen. From the dark sprayed skins, to the talk about religions, to quoting from the Qur’an, etc.
    2. Just as stupid are some Muslim fellows (and others) who are making such a big deal out of it. Let the movie makers go to hell. As long as you are at peace with your believes why care what crazy people say about them? Revenge and hatred only help their agenda, not yours, and not your beliefs.
    Yes we should ALL speak against these disgusting acts, but let’s do it on our way, not theirs!

  6. Despite La Clinton’s correct statement about the video being vile, if she and the rest who run ‘the West’ continue to NOT rein-in these ‘counter-jihad’ Crusaders and their Zionist allies, it will be clear they find them useful.

    If indeed the guy behind the video is a Copt, how typical that he tried to deflect blame into a Jew. Such are the ‘Christian’ allies of the Zionists.

  7. This is the best post that I have read on this conflict by far. I wish that our medias were so incisive. I wish that our government would have tried some of those 999 other ways to bring the filmmaker to justice before launching drone attacks, though.

  8. The problem is broader than that- it is the immense intolerance towards Christians in the Moslem world. They have all but driven out from Iraq and the Copts suffer much too. So it is inevitable that somebody will strike back from that quarter at Islam. Moslems cannot simultaneously cry bigotry and exercise it.

    1. Not in the moral sense, no, but I think some of them are probably about to try.
      The “Copt” in question behaves more distinctively like a meth-head than a Christian, which shows that you probably can begin to judge a man by his convictions.

    2. Which came first? Hatred of Christians by Muslims or hatred of Muslims by Christians? Have you forgotten the Crusades? Seems to me the world’s Muslims had no views about Christendom till it tried to conquer the Holy Land. That hatred goes back a few years, doesn’t it?

      1. The crusades really represented the Vatican’s fear of Norman leaders searching for multicultural enlightenment, especially King Roger of Sicily. Islam was the only available force big enough to give the Normans a sufficiently debilitating fight to sap the collective power of individual Norman rulers. The terror for the Vatican was one Norman king being acknowledged as king of all the Normans, which is what most other European ethnic groups would have done. I think this was fundamentally against the nature of the Normans and would never have happened, but the Vatican’s only model with which to predict what the Normans would do, were the Germans.

        What eventually put an end to the crusades was St Hugh, more than anything: firstly making Cathedrals, such as his own, in Lincoln, a RELEVANT place of pilgrimage, and then persuading King John that there were laws that kings had to obey, even if the Vatican ordered otherwise, and then persuading John that it was illegal to waste money and men on Crusades. Unlike his father and brother, John saw the sense of that very quickly. They had Hasbara in those days and ever after, because there are so many faux legends presenting John as the evil king.

        St Hugh had employed men from all over Europe to build his Cathedral, and he had worked alongside them on every wall and, especially, great large timber. A Bishop who’d work with craftsmen with his own hands and help them to do the apparently impossible was a remarkable thing. When they went home, St Hugh was suddenly the common man’s religious authority all over Europe and the Pope found that he dared not contradict his teachings.

        There then came, of course, several centuries of trying to undermine and destroy those teachings: still going on, through the pernicious and still-energetic agency of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. In effect, when Charles the First asserted the rights of kings, he was contradicting St Hugh -and he didn’t win.

      2. Althought I am not defending the bloodthirsty Crusaders who butchered innocent Jewish, Christian and Muslim civilians, it is important to remember that the Crusaders were an attempt to drive out the Muslim who had earlier conquered the country in a war of imperialist aggression and took it away by force from its Christian rulers and population. Thus, if you want to condemn the Crusaders, you also have to condemn Omar ibn-Khattab and his imperialist Muslim forces who conquered the the country first. The Crusaders didn’t do anything that the Muslims hadn’t done before.
        When Pope John Paul II visited Israel, a Muslim leader demanded that he apologize for the Crusaders. The Pope had every right to demand that the Muslims first apologize for their conquest of the country.

        1. I don’t believe any of your alleged historical knowledge is correct. Point to a credible historical source that bolsters your claim. Oh & btw no Muslim commander butchered Jews in their thousands as the Crusaders did on their way to “glory” in the Holy Land.

      3. Apparently the crusades were regarded as ancient history in the Muslim world, until colonial rule brought back the memory with a vengeance. Western colonialism has so much to do with the troubles between the Western and the Islamic worlds. Without the sense of humiliation that colonialism brought there would not be such rage.

        1. India was under British, French and Portuguese colonial rule far longer than the Arab world was (200-400 years), but we don’t see Indians blowing up English passersby. China and the Far East were also dominated or controlled by Western powers far longer than the Arab world was, we don’t see them attacking Western Embassies or justifying their violent behavior by whining about past humiliations. Latin America was dominated by the US and Europeans powers far longer than the Arab world was, but we don’t see them attacking Americans. You are going to have to come up with other reasons to explain what we are seeing in the Middle East. The Arabs and Muslims themselves carried out imperialist agression which humiliated other peoples (e.g. Indian Muslims) but we don’t see attacks against the Muslims like we see going the other direction.
          For a reminder of world history, see this….


          1. You ought to leave history to the professionals. First there was violence between Indians & the Brits before independence. The only reason there’d wasn’t more was the non violent philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. After he was assassinated, Indian Muslims & Hindus slaughtered each other by the tens of thousands in violence that was largely ethnic & religiously based as the anti-film violence is.

            Second, China fought a war against western colonizers which it lost, the Boxer War. A huge portion of Chinese nationalism is still trying to avenge the shame of that ignominious era in Chinese history.

            Latin American militants have been killing Americans & targeting our companies & property for decades.

            Cut out the anti-Muslim crap & study your history better.

  9. We’re not seeing so much unrest in the more progressive and wealthy Muslim countries, where some people might know what a meth-head is and what they’re like. It’s amazing how a relatively simple chemical is able to modify human behaviour so consistently in the same relatively complex and intensely disagreeable way.

  10. In fact the Moslem world suffers from rampant anti-Semitism, which comes in the most blatant form. The Elders of Zion and its likes are broadcasted incessantly in Arab countries. Hezbollah `s leader Nassaralah even once re-iterated that “we are against Jews not only Israelis” and Ahmedinajad routinely denies the Holocaust. Mahathir Mohammad the previous Malaysian president was an outright anti-Semite. Things never stay one-way for long – intolerance breeds intolerance. The Moslem world has to mature in this respect for the good of all and blanket apologetics is a disservice to them in the long-term.

    1. In fact, your comment is off topic. If you feel the need to tell the world about the Jew-hatred of all Muslims you’ll have to do it elsewhere. When you do don’t forget to note that there is an equal amount of Muslim hatred among most other major religions including Judaism and Christianity. If you neglected that you’d be dishonest & I know you wouldn’t want to be.

      Make sure your comments relate directly to my post & don’t stray into anti-Muslim propaganda which seems to be one of your hasbara specialties.

      When the settler world & other Jewish pockets of extreme hate mature then I’ll join you in calling on Muslims to behave equally tolerantly.

  11. Richard, I am surprised by your angry tone. I actually try to remain as calm and as balanced as possible in a general situation that is heated and violent – how does that show affiliation to this imaginary demon of this post, called Hassbara (literally, in Hebrew, “explaining” or “clarification”) . And why is it off post? We are dealing with bigotry here and the 3 main religions that this post is concerned with are Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the ones that dominate the Mid-East scene.

        1. Not true. Hasbara means “advocacy” as in the sense that Aipac, the Israel Project & thousands of other pro-Israel groups “advocate” for Israel. Their advocacy is propaganda. We recognize that. But because you buy the propaganda you view hasbara as advocacy. The rest of us know better.

  12. Joel – Disgustingly, Jews were targetted for blame by someone who purports to be a Christian. It happens decade after decade – Zionists insist on making allies of ‘Christians’ who hate Jews as much, often more, than they hate Muslims. Being cowards in need of money, they usually take care to keep that side of their nature under wraps. Are you familiar with the Zionist friends of the ‘English Defense League’? Their experience is instructive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *