PostHeaderIcon Muhammad the Movie

This is what is engendering murderous rage among the Muslim fundamentalists?

 

This is what our State Department is apologizing for, rather than condemn the assault on our embassies? Really?

I had to search for and watch this trailer to see what all the fuss is about. Although a truly awful screenplay from an artistic point of view, it reasonably comports with my understanding of the origins of Islam. Ironically, the barbarians who are attacking our embassies will undoubtedly cause a whole lot more people in the world to watch it and learn that Islam is not the 'religion of peace' portrayed by their their apologists. When will we admit that their civilization is truly sick, at war with ours, always has been, and always will be?

 

Personally, I can never forget or forgive the video of the celebrations in the streets of Cairo, interspersed with coverage of Americans jumping out of the World Trade Center back on 9/11/01. To hell with Muslim sensibilities… what about mine? ◄Dave►

 

12 Responses to “Muhammad the Movie”

  • Greg says:

    This (the reaction by the people in Egypt) is caused by Obama’s foreign policy in the Middle East in my opinion. Consider the following:
    Obama intervened in Egypt and Libya, but did not do so in Bahrain and Syria. Iran is trying to up-end the Middle East, and his response to that has failed. As a result, most Arabs do not really know where Obama stands. Syria says, “No help for us? But…but…! You helped in Libya and Egypt? Why not us?” The end result is that Arabs view us as a country not to be trusted. The best response would have been to have either intervened in all of the above countries plus any other in rebellion–or to have totally ignored it.

  • Troy says:

    Please remember that I wrote a blog about a year ago opining that the so-called “Arab Spring” was actually a reforming of the Caliphate. Yet another issue upon which I would rather have been wrong — but, every day, I seem to have gotten it more right than even I imagined.

    I have also previously opined that we (indeed, the whole Western World) are at war with all of Islam. It has no peaceful components, even though they don’t all carry bombs and guns. The simple fact that so-called “peaceful” Muslims almost never condemn the acts of the badder boys is undeniable evidence of this. To be a true Muslim, one and all MUST work toward the destruction of all other religions and the governments that tolerate those religions. By their own doctrine, Islam CANNOT co-exist with any other religion/government.

    But, at least the Muslim-in-Chief did apologize to the animals in Cairo. That makes me feel sooooo much better about it all.

    Troy

    • Greg says:

      Also, I do have to ask, and this a pure question:
      A Muslim wouldn’t be caught dead in a church. Why would Obama publicize and promote his “Christianity” instead of his Islamic roots? Would this not further enrage the Islamic world and lead to more attacks both in severity and in frequency? Remember, Bush had the same problems as Obama, and it seems to a varying degree, they’ve been more successful. But no one attacked America yet (successfully…and there were only 2 major planned attacks that I know of.) If he was truly a Muslim pretending to be a Christian, I would think the attacks/attempted attacks would have increased tenfold by now.

      • ◄Dave► says:

        You seem unaware that Muslim dogma specifically permits lying and deception, even pretending to be an infidel, if one’s purpose is to serve Allah and further the cause of Jihad. As to Obama’s success in preventing attacks on our soil, that changed yesterday. An embassy is our sovereign territory, and the Libyan attack was a well-planned Jihadi operation. ◄Dave►

  • Greg says:

    Troy,
    Can you link me to that post?

      • Greg says:

        First, just for historical accuracy’s sake, the Ottoman Empire was not the Caliphate. The Caliphate may have been located IN the Ottoman Empire, but it was not the Ottoman Empire itself, much like the Pope is in Italy (technically Vatican City), but it is not Italy ITSELF.

        That being said, I do not think the geopolitical conditions are ripe for the picking, as Troy seems to indicate. For historical background, the Caliphate was abolished in 1924 by a Constitutional reform of Turkey in 1924. In 1926, they spoke of reviving it; it never happened (check Wikipedia if you don’t believe me). Second of all, we seem to be conflating religious ideology with political views. While their goal may be to have a Caliphate, the leaders of countries want to keep power. Thus, if the Caliphate WERE to happen, it would be a religious figurehead and not a political one. The Saudis will not give up their dynasty easily. And you seem to be ignoring/omitting that Bahrain is one of the countries that did not fall. Dictators want to remain in power, not lose it, because if they lost it, it could very well mean their head.

        Further, what Troy’s logic seems to be is very much like the domino theory of communism, which did not work out. Just because one country falls, it does not mean the others will. Does a successful rebellion in one country increase the likelihood? Absolutely. But does it necessarily mean it will? It does not. This is much in the same way of Eisenhower’s Domino Theory of Communism, which stated that once Vietnam fell, the other Asian nations would fall as well (That’s it in action: One falls, the other falls). Well, Vietnam fell, but the others did not.

        Further, what political group do you see leading the transformation into the Caliphate? Let’s assume for a moment it is the Muslim Brotherhood. Well, elections have not been held in Libya (as of yet), Syria still has Assad, and Bahrain is still intact. So that doesn’t hold water (Yet).

        But let me pose a theoretical question to you, as I did on that thread: What “form” do you see it as? It can’t be one that claims to represent all Muslims: the Shia and the Sunni hate each other. Do you see one caliph, or many caliphs representing all sects? I think the current issue I have with that argument is: what form could it possibly take? And, would it work?

    • daedalus says:

      Glen Beck nailed it on the head at the same time. In fact he predicted this would be the start of efforts to build a new caliphate and that the muslim brotherhood would take over power in Egypt. This was when he was on Fox. It is funny that one of the major stockholders in Fox’s parent organization is Arab. I wonder why Beck left Fox?
      I watched the trailer. Looked to me like Saturday Night Live, if one has a somewhat macabre sense of humour.
      This Arab caliphate thing is a work in progress, try this web page for related information. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/02/03/study-guide-muslim-brotherhood-and-hamas

  • All,
    One of the best sources of imformed analysis on the Middle East is Professor Barry Rubin. Here is an article relevant to the current discussion…
    “Libya: Not Just a Tragedy But the Start of Another Endless War for America”
    http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/ also published on PJMedia site.

    Full disclosure… Barry is a friend via membership in a Civil War reenactor unit.

    Brian

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Excellent link, Brian. I just read several of his recent articles, and added his site to my must read list. You have good taste in friends! I wish I had a friend or two of that caliber, whom I could chat with over coffee occasionally. I can only find them online, which I suppose is one of the reasons that I seldom venture outside my cave anymore. 🙂 ◄Dave►

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►