Who was behind the film?


TPMMuckraker tries to get at the facts behind who made the anti-Muslim film.

It is very murky indeed and may take quite a while to unravel.

Comments

  1. Reginald Selkirk says

    Why would you want to unravel it? Why not instead focus on who is responsible for killing a U.S. ambassador?
    .
    It is ironic and shameful that these violent actions occurred in countries which recently protested and revolted partly in the name of freedom.

  2. Lukas says

    Yeah, uhm, should we really figure out who made the movie and publish their identity, thus helping religious zealots go after them? Who cares who made it. They were probably asshats, but they did nothing illegal. There’s no reason to make their identity public.

  3. Corvus illustris says

    No focus is necessary: there are two questions and the approaches to answering them are complementary. Finding the attackers is a job for intelligence people, probably some on the ground in Africa (and elsewhere) and some analyzing communications. Finding the movie-makers is straightforward police work (it’s California, they must have violated some obscure paragraph of that huge code). Knowing who and why tells you something about what next: e.g., the self-described “Israeli Jewish” producer seems already to be an Egyptian Copt.

  4. lorn says

    Sam Bacile is an anagram of Sami Beach and Siam Beach. Both Google as existing resorts. One in Turkey and the other in Thailand.

    This sort of provocative video sounds like something James O’Keefe might produce. If the Muslim streets are aflame with anti-American rage it will shift attitudes in the US toward a more reactionary and conservative direction. More people vote for the comforting authoritarian ticket of the GOP. In an election year it is difficult to avoid seeing everything as a political ploy.

  5. Chiroptera says

    They were probably asshats, but they did nothing illegal.

    If TPMMuckraker doesn’t break any laws in identifying the film makers, then they won’t have done anything illegal either. See how that works?

    I bet once they find out who did it, reporting the names would be considered legitimate journalism for First Amendment purposes, so that wouldn’t be illegal either.

    Yeah, uhm, should we really figure out who made the movie and publish their identity, thus helping religious zealots go after them?

    I dunno; why make a film that is guaranteed to inflame passions and perhaps provoke violence? I guess people have all sorts of reasons to do all sorts of things. If nothing is illegal, just call them asshats and be done with it.

    …should we really figure out who made the movie and publish their identity, thus helping religious zealots go after them?

    As an earlier commenter pointed out, we wouldn’t focus on the people who ferreted out the names, we would focus on the extremists who would engage in the violence.

  6. Brad says

    And if some MRA douchecanoe doesn’t break any laws and publishes Jen’s or Rebecca’s personal info, we should be okay with that too?

    Or if an FTB associated person gets their head up their ass and publishes some MRA douchecanoes’ personal information we should likewise be okay with that?

    Hell. No.

  7. invivoMark says

    Who ever said that it was illegal to find out who made the video? “Legal” doesn’t mean “should be done”. Clearly you understand this distinction, since you think the video should not have been made, even if it was legal to do so. But you are applying this distinction selectively and unfairly.

  8. Chiroptera says

    And if some MRA douchecanoe doesn’t break any laws and publishes Jen’s or Rebecca’s personal info, we should be okay with that too?

    We’re talking about finding out names and affiliated organizations. In your example, Jen and Rebecca themselves put their names on their work and have been upfront about which groups they work with.

    I’m sure that if the makers of the film were known, there would be people who would like to dig into their personal lives. That would be something I would be opposed to.

  9. albertbakker says

    Also point moot. Name known. Also the premise that being anonymous or pseudonymous in public saves you from the wrath of some short-circuited islamist is doubtful. In fact not having anything to do at all with the film or even being ignorant of its existence does not offer you any sort of protection.
    Also it seems the maker/ producer of this flick deliberately put others, even the actors who’s faces feature rather prominently in his pamphlet, at risk without their consent, or knowledge. How’s about that for human shields?

Leave a Reply

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