LiveLeak Dumps Fitna, Luminarium Embeds It

LiveLeak will no longer carry Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" because they are concerned for the safety of their people due to threats that they received after deciding (initially) to host the short film.

The Removal of "Fitna"
Offical LiveLeak statement.

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, LiveLeak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people from all backgrounds who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one anothers culture.

We stood for what be believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

LiveLeak.com

LiveLeak received threats of violence from Muslims due to the showing of a fifteen-minute film that displays the violence of Muslims. Instead of disputing the film in debate, Muslims re-enforce the veracity of the film by threatening violence against those who show it. The threats that caused LiveLeak to "place the safety and well being of [their] staff above all else" help to show exactly what we face in an enemy that adheres to Islam.

In case you want to see it, here is "Fitna." I can't guarantee how long Blogger or YouTube will allow it to be seen, but the embed is here until then.



USMC 9971 OUT

More Double Standards With Islam

Several newspapers decided not to run the Opus comic strip this past Sunday over concerns of offending Muslims. Many of those same newspapers will apparently continue to spike the strip when the plotline continues this coming Sunday.

A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.

So, the same thing didn't happen when another religion was the target of Breathed's satire?

[Washington Post Writers Group comics editor Amy Lago] said she didn't flag newspapers about [the 19 Aug 2007 Opus strip that poked fun at Jerry Falwell] because she didn't think readers would misunderstand the humor.

"They're not going to take it seriously," she said.

But she did alert newspapers about the Muslim-themed cartoon because there was a question about whether Muslim readers would be offended.

"I don't necessarily think it's poking fun [at Islam]," Lago said. "But the question with Muslims is, are they taking it seriously?"

Got that? Christians won't take the cartoon seriously, whereas Muslims might. Honestly, I think that the reason comes down to concerns that Muslims might erupt in violent rage over a cartoon, whereas Christians likely will not.

Take, for example, the blasphemous balls of Afghanistan this weekend. The U.S. tried to generate some goodwill by distributing soccer balls with world flags on them to the children of Afghanistan. So what was the problem?

At least one of several balls dropped by helicopter to children in eastern Khost province had a small picture of the Saudi Arabian flag. The flag features in Arabic script the Islamic declaration of faith, which contains the words Allah and the Prophet Muhammad.

Villagers were "upset and angry" when they saw the ball, said Khost Gov. Arsalah Jamal. "They wanted to demonstrate, but we explained to them it was a mistake." [...]

Last year, violent protests followed the printing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the Western media. In 2005, several people were killed during demonstrations against the alleged desecration of copies of the Koran by U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo Bay.

A soccer ball has the Saudi flag on it, and the governor of Khost needs to convince the populace not to "demonstrate" over the blasphemous balls. Considering the violence involved on the part of Muslims whenever they claim to be offended, one really must wonder if the main reason for spiking the Opus cartoon was to avoid more Muslim violence.

Knowing that Muslims feel that strongly about the text on the Saudi flag, though, I probably should make sure that I screen visitors to my garage in order to deny entry to those of the Islamic faith. It's not denial of entry based upon their faith, but rather a concern for their religious sensitivities. I really don't want them to be offended if they see my new dart board, let alone what I wipe my feet on by the back door.

USMC 9971 OUT

Brits Portray Jesus As Prophet, But Not Muslims As Terrorists

This type of double standard ticks me off. The British network ITV aired a documentary this weekend on Islam's view of Jesus as a prophet instead of as the Son of God.

There was no manger, Christ is not the Messiah, and the crucifixion never happened. A forthcoming ITV documentary will portray Jesus as Muslims see him.

With the Koran as a main source and drawing on interviews with scholars and historians, the Muslim Jesus explores how Islam honours Christ as a prophet but not as the son of God. According to the Koran the crucifixion was a divine illusion. Instead of dying on the cross, Jesus was rescued by angels and raised to heaven.

Strangely enough, Christians haven't been rioting over this. My first thought was that the Western media wouldn't have the stones to try to pull off a similar documentary about Mohammed based upon another faith's view of him. During the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, hardly any Western media sources were brave enough to publish the cartoons amid the protests, threats, and riots taking place worldwide by Muslims claiming that they were offended by the drawings.

I thought of this today when I read that the BBC was going to try a plotline about a Muslim terror attack in the U.K. in the season opener of their Casualty drama. They're not going to try that anymore, though.

The BBC has dropped plans to screen a fictional terrorist attack by Muslim extremists in the new series of the hospital drama Casualty.

Senior executives had discussed the plotline in a development meeting but were overruled by the corporation's editorial guidelines department amid fears it would cause offence.

The opening episode, to be shown next month, will now focus on the bloody aftermath of an explosion caused by animal rights extremists.

Critics, among them Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative Party chairman whose wife was paralysed by an IRA terrorist attack in Brighton 23 years ago, condemned the climbdown.

"People were perfectly free during the violence in Northern Ireland to produce dramas about terrorism for which presumably they might have been accused of stereotyping IRA terrorists or even suggesting that all Catholics were terrorists," said Lord Tebbit.

"What is the difference here? The BBC exists in a world of New Labour political correctness."

Lord Tebbit is right. But I think that it is more that just political correctness; I think that it is fear of stirring-up another Muslim terror attack. It's not like the Muslims haven't targeted Britain before.

There were the July 7th attacks by Muslim terrorists in London two years ago.

For hundreds of thousands of people commuting into London, the morning of July 7, 2005 began just like any other. But at the peak of the rush hour, bombs were detonated in three crowded subway trains and aboard a London bus. At least 52 people died, along with four bombers, and 700 were injured. A week later, millions stood in silence to honor the victims of the deadliest attack in Britain since World War II. A week after that, the transport system was hit again - with attempted explosions on three more Tube trains and another bus.

There were the airline terror plot arrests in the U.K. August of last year in which Muslim terrorists were stopped before they could carry out plans for mid-air terror attack.

Suspects arrested Thursday for planning to stage a massive mid-air terror attacked were in the final stages of planning and planned to run a dry-run of the plan within two days, U.S. intelligence officers said Thursday.

One official said the suicide attackers planned to use a peroxide-based solution that could ignite when sparked by a camera flash or another electronic device.

The test run was designed to see whether the plotters would be able to smuggle the needed materials aboard the planes, these officials said. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.

The development came as British authorities said they were "urgently" seeking the arrests of up to 10 more suspects in the terrorist plot uncovered early Thursday morning to blow up U.S.-bound flights with liquid explosives carried onto planes via carry-on luggage, FOX News learned.

Police arrested 24 main suspects were arrested earlier Thursday, according to Scotland Yard, in what U.S. officials suspect was an Al Qaeda-planned attack.

And who could forget the Muslim terrorists who, less than sixty days ago, attempted to carry out car bomb attacks in Scotland and England?

A suspect who was critically burned in a botched car bomb attempt at Glasgow Airport has died after more than a month in the hospital, ending police hopes he might be questioned or charged.

Kefeel Ahmed, 27, died Thursday at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, police said. He was in the Jeep Cherokee that plowed into the terminal at Scotland's busiest airport on June 30, a day after two Mercedes cars packed with gas canisters were discovered in central London.

Muslims should be offended that other Muslims are committing terror attacks in the name of Islam, not that pop-culture is attempting to portray them in our entertainment mediums due to these acts of terrorism becoming such a normal aspect of daily life. How seriously can they be taken if they, yet again, resort to violence when some followers of their faith are depicted as being violent?

Show the program and, when the Muslims complain that they are not all terrorists, make sure to point out to them that many of the terrorists are coming from their own midst. Instead of whining about the programming, they should be finding and removing the terrorists amongst them who, allegedly, have hijacked their religion.

I'm fed up with the religion of terror. When you turn over the terrorists walking amongst you, Haji, then we'll talk. Until then, you can stuff your offended feelings B.S. in your Koran and smoke it.

USMC 9971 OUT

How Do You Define "Protest"?

An author was promoting her new book at a press club in southern India today when, all of a sudden, there was a protest by individuals who felt that her book was not pleasant enough towards Islam.

The poet and novelist Taslima Nasrin has been attacked at the launch of her book Shodh (Getting Even) in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

Reports suggest that a crowd of between 20 and 100 protesters, led by three local politicians (MLAs) belonging to the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) party, burst into the Hyderabad press club shouting slogans describing Nasrin as "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islam". They ransacked the venue, throwing chairs and overturning tables, as well as reportedly slapping the writer in the ensuing melee.

That sounds more like riotous behavior as opposed to a protest. But apparently, when one feels that Islam has been insulted, it is okay to elevate a protest to the level of physical destruction and assault.

USMC 9971 OUT

Censoring Sheikh?

Late last week I saw this piece about a British publisher agreeing to recall and destroy any unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" after Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz brought a libel suit against the publisher.

Cambridge University Press has agreed to destroy all unsold copies of a 2006 book by two American authors, "Alms for Jihad," following a libel action brought against it in England, the latest development in what critics say is an effort by Saudis to quash discussion of their alleged role in aiding terrorism.

In a letter of apology to a wealthy Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press acknowledged that allegations made in the book about his family, businesses, and charities were "entirely and manifestly false." The publisher wrote, "Please accept our sincere apologies for the distress and embarrassment this has caused." [...]

Libel law in England is more advantageous to the litigant than is American law, which has stronger First Amendment protections.

One co-author of "Alms for Jihad," Robert Collins, who is a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told the Sun that he could not comment until he heard from Cambridge University Press. The other co-author, a former a former State Department employee and intelligence analyst, J. Millard Burr, told the Sun that their book mentioned Sheikh Mahfouz 13 times, and in no place had they labeled him a terrorist. He said that within a week of Cambridge University receiving a letter charging defamation, he and his co-author prepared and sent supporting documents to Cambridge University Press. The authors were not themselves named parties in the suit.

It sounds like the Cambridge University Press folded because claims of libel are so hard to defend against in the U.K., even though the authors were prepared to provide supporting evidence for what they had written. I'll be curious to see if the authors can get a publisher from outside of the U.K. to print the book.

Another item noted in the article was that Cambridge University Press was contacting hundreds of libraries world-wide in an attempt to get the book pulled from library shelves. It will be interesting to see if any libraries refuse to remove "Alms for Jihad," and if the American Library Association ends up weighing in on the matter.

From what I've seen of this so far, I'd have to say that it appears to me that this is more of a case of a wealthy Saudi trying to censor information than it is a case of libel against Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz.

USMC 9971 OUT