I am in the throes of a Toljaso moment

[BT]

my understanding is the actual movie does not have all the anti mohammed slurs in it. That what was translated into arabic was done by a mysterious third party.

I think there is a lot more to this story than we know right now.

[sirs]

9/11 was preventable.

Basically just a worthless statement.

9/11 could have also been probably prevented had Bill Clinton killed Bin Laden
when had the chance.

Obama talks lots about the mess he inherited.
Bush inherited an Al Qaeda mess from Clinton who instead of killing Bin Laden
preferred performing sex acts with interns in the White House while his wife and child
were on trips. Of course Bush unlike Obama didnt spend his first term whining about
what a terror threat mess Clinton left him and the country in by not taking out Bin Laden and others when he had the chance.

Well summed up, C.  It's amazing some of the apparent twisted obsession folks have with Bush/911/Iraq.  The facts have been crystal clear from the beginning, as it relates to Bin Laden, 911, and Saddam.  It's never been about Baby Bush trying to avenge his father's assasination attempt, nor the ignorance in claiming Bush lied to take us into Iraq, when we have video after video, politician after politician, ALL ON RECORD, believing in Saddam's WMD, that most everyone's intel said he had. 

Yea, Clinton could have nipped this in the bud, but instead was moe focused on nipping Miss Lewinsky.  And now, arguably worse, we have a President, who not only has not met with hardly any of his intel meetings/briefings (last one he attended was was Sept 5th apparently), but has the gall to Tell the Israeli PM he has no time to meet with him, but has plenty of time to go on Letterman, get interviewed by hip hop DJ's, AND now I've seen references of invites to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood over to the WH??  Fricken couldn't write this

[Xavier_Onassis]

One thing we will never know, it seems, if how convincing Elder Willard was when he went to  France to convert the French to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

There are four or five dozen Parisian Saints and hundreds of French saints.

France's Patron Saint is NOT, Ste Joan of Arc, but Saint Denis (sometimes known as Sidney in English).

His story is rather impressive if one believes it:
Saint Denis (also called Dionysius, Dennis, or Denys) is a Christian martyr and saint. In the third century, he was Bishop of Paris. He was martyred in connection with the Decian persecution of Christians, shortly after A.D. 250. After his head was chopped off, Denis is said to have picked it up and walked ten kilometres (six miles), preaching a sermon the entire way, making him one of many cephalophores in hagiology. He is venerated in the Roman Catholic Church as patron of Paris, France and as one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers. The medieval and modern French name "Denis" derives from the ancient name Dionysius.


I suppose Italy would have been even more difficult. They have a saint for every village there, almost.

There are no Mormon saints reputed to have managed to say anything after being beheaded. I am not sure that anyone has ever beheaded a Mormon, come to think of it.

In Paris, you sometimes see on people's doors a statement  "in this home, we are all members of the Holy Roman Apostolic Church. We are not interested in missionaries of other faiths".

Most Parisians are more or less agnostics, I have read.

Back in Mitt's day, the LDS did not seek to convert Black people, as the revelation that they were eligible to become elders had not made it down to the Prophet.

[BSB/Hero/Genius/MovieStar]

Except, BT, he just missed again.

Perhaps had he actually been in that Embassy he might understand why they issued the statement they did, when they did. They were trying to save their ass by pointing out that the film had nothing to do with any kind of official US view about Islam. 

Apparently he's still as aloof as ever. 

BSB


 

[Xavier_Onassis]

my understanding is the actual movie does not have all the anti mohammed slurs in it. That what was translated into arabic was done by a mysterious third party.

====================================
Watch the "trailer" on youtube. It is in English and it makes Mohammad look like a fool: he carries on a stupid conversation with a braying donkey, he is called a bastard many times, and he is accused of being a child molester. The Mohammed character is shown as a witless clown. It is a disjointed mess, but it was filmed with a good camera used by a professional, as it is not jerky. Everything else about it sucks.


The English version is truly insulting to Mohammed. I do not know about the Arabic version, because I do not know Arabic. My guess is that it will vanish soon.

There may not be an entire film: no witnesses have yet been identified that have seen it. The actors claimed that they did not deliver the lines, and that these were added later, but of course, they would have a motive for saying that.

They were paid $75 per day. In 1990, the gaffer on any peanut butter commercial was paid at least $100.

 

[BT]

So in your opinion the actors claim that the offending lines were dubbed in later holds no water, that there is no evidence of post production editing of the dialog?
 

[BT]

Well I'm sure Romney appreciates your feedback, BSB.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In  the "trailer", it looks as though the words being spoken jibe with the mouth movements of the actors. Of course, if they are not the actors actual voices, then that would be proof that the actors are telling the truth. People's voices are unique and hard to imitate, especially if the dubbing voice person is not trying to sound like the actor, which is nearly always the case. So it would be easy to prove if we knew what the actors sounded like.

It is clear, however that the completed product, in English, is designed to piss off Muslims, not convert them. I cannot say about the Arabic version, but it seems to really hack Muslims off from the reactions we hear.

I am not sure of the motives of the people making this thing: we can see their intent, but not their motivation. The presumed director does not seem to exist with the name he has given.

[BT]

You are referring to this version?
Muhammad Movie Trailer

[sirs]

It sure sounds like you are complaining about a lack of balance.

It sure looks like you're wrong yet again.  Here's a hint...pointing out CURRENT reality of excessive overt violence by radical Islamists doesn't equate to advocating a need for radical Christians to get their act together, and start burning & pillaging.   

The film (or specifically the 13 minute YouTube "trailer") was specifically designed to piss off Muslims.

And many a film, not to mention "art exhibits", has specifally attempted to piss off Christians.  Last year CBS ran a series called GBC, which did precisely that.  Not a 13min trailer, but a primetime series.  Where's the mass of radical christians, storming the studios of CBS??  There isn't any, because apparently some religions are more tolerant of divergent viewpoints.  Notice that's not some call for Christian-led violence, its merely highlighting current reality

If you are not blathering about the lack of "balance" then what are you blathering about?

See above....pay attention....you might learn something.  You're trying to pull the same thing Bt tried, when I'd highlight MSM bias.  He believed I must be somehow advocating some mandate for equal bias, or something along those lines.  He was in error then, as you are now.  Your problem is that he doesn't have near the track record as you do in erroneous claims.  I'd suggest paying more attention to his posts, as he's generally right on the mark, most of the time.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I imagine that he pointed out that you are a surly twerp who tends to be full of crap.

It is not news that Muslims are sensitive to a paranoid degree about any criticism of Mohammed. This was the entire reason this fool made this asinine "trailer" and claimed that it was a $5 million dollar project financed by over 100 Jews.

The only thing I have learned from you -the only thing ANYONE here will ever learn from you is that you are also deliberately annoying and any attempt at a civil discussion will end in a bunch of nonsense about diversions and how nobody understands what you really meant.

[Plane]

Ok , I did not watch the whole thing.

In that version there really are dubbed in voices , badly done as a Kung Fu movie in 1975.

Does that matter?

Whether it was made from the first to be a red flag to Muslims , or whether it was converted later into a red flag for Muslims, it seems either way that someone wanted to make a red flag to wave at Muslims.

On the principle of asking who profits from it , I would guess Al Quieda did it.

On the principle of examining the production and the appearance , I would guess some Americans did it , not smart ones.

Could be both.

Americans acting in ignorance could have made this pretty bad movie , and Al Queda could have improved it a little to make it more irritating.

It will be interesting to see if any more evidence shows up , I am courious about the motives behind this production.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Whoever made this wanted to provoke Muslim attacks on US facilities. Perhaps as a diversion. Al Qaeda usually seems rather proud of their work and announces their authorship.  But Al Qaeda has lost its founding members.
The film was made on the cheap in the US, that is obvious.

[Plane]

     There aren't a whole lot of people who havn't heard that Islam includes a subset who are hyper-irritable.

    So I agree, the point of the film is mischeif.

     

[sirs]

I imagine that he pointed out that you are a surly twerp who tends to be full of crap.

And you'd be wrong.....yet again

It is not news that Muslims are sensitive to a paranoid degree about any criticism of Mohammed.

No, its not.....that's the point now, isn't it.  That radical muslims are so intolerant of any diverging vewpoints, to their twisted take on Islam, that even comical swipes at Mohammed is a call for violence

This was the entire reason this fool made this asinine "trailer" and claimed that it was a $5 million dollar project financed by over 100 Jews.

Putting aside yet another unsubstantiated claim of yours, of 100 jews behind said video (which means pretty much wrong, 99% of the time) regardless of who financed it, "sensitive" is not even remotely what the reaction has been.  When the Virgin Mary was covered in Elephant dung, on full display at a NY museum, you don't think there were Christians everywhere who weren't pissed?  Do you have a different definition of "sensitive" that directly leads to violence & murder??  Apparently only you and radical Islamists do, while most all other religions are more tolerant of divergent & critical viewpoints.  Notice again that's not some call for Christian-led violence, its merely highlighting current reality