We at the CH team mightn’t be the brightest bulbs in the lightshow but it struck us the other day that someone will have to be blamed for causing all this recent violence at so many diverse locations around the world.
Any filmmaker is going to be pellucidly aware that a movie about a religious subject tends to be taken either as propaganda or mortal insult by those viewers of a pious persuasion who disagree with the content.
Given that good propaganda usually results in outcomes perceived as positive by the stakeholders it is difficult to understand what was being attempted by those film makers who so recently offended Islam.
Unless, of course they –
- intended to cause worldwide mayhem and loss of life,
- were working under orders and the show misfired,
- were profoundly clueless, or,
- didn’t give a stuff about the consequences,
- matched all the above and a few more that are so bloody obvious that mentioning ‘em would be overkill.
It is significant that the
secretary of state condemns, then denies her administration’s involvement with this filmshow and an actress cannot convince their courts to remove the show from publication. US
It all becomes clear in the mind.
Something emerging from the USofA is identified as a focus; a motivation for violence and insurgency – yet somehow cannot stop its dissemination?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19664392 - “the message reiterated by US officials throughout the crisis: that the "disgusting" film was not made by the
government, but that there is never any justification for violence.” US
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/international/clinton-launches-official-review-of-libya-attack/545662 - “
diplomat rejected outright rumors that Stevens had said in the weeks before his death that he was on an Al Qaeda hit list.” US
http://www.wgem.com/story/19596704/judge-denies-request-to-stop-anti-muslim-film-clip - “It would have little to no effect because other websites are showing the film," Reynolds said. "It would be a moot point”.
Now, Mr. Assange has been accused of endangering lives through public disclosure of documents provided to Wikileaks.
His being treated with a certain lack of procedural fairness lately pales into insignificance compared to the violence meted out to US ambassadorial staff allegedly as a result of that movie.
Yet his liberty has been effectively denied for too long now even if his alleged crime of having a bonk while suffering a condom blowout was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
So, in comparison, what will the seppos cook up to ‘deal with’ these troublesome movie makers – or will ‘the truth’ protect them from any form of censure?
Well, if anyone believes the Moslem world cares about a movie they are wrong.
What they care about is how and where the
conducts business. They also care about what sort of business the US engages in on their respective patches. US
It seems to upset ‘em that the
can’t even get it right even when it has the monopoly. US
Maybe Islam isn’t annoyed about that movie other than as a symbol demonstrating what that country thinks of most of the rest of this world.
It is just about the last straw.