Home > Community Lounge > Politics > Film could lead to jail

Film could lead to jail

  1. THE man behind the anti-Islamic film that led to the violent unrest in the Middle East could be sent back to jail for violating his probation by distributing the movie.

    Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, has convictions for possessing drugs used to make methamphetamine and for bank fraud, a declaration of bankruptcy, demands for unpaid tax bills and at least 17 aliases including ''Kritbag Difrat'' and ''PJ Tobacco''.

    Mr Nakoula, a married father of three and an Egyptian Coptic Christian, who once owned a petrol station, is believed to have worked on the script for Innocence of Muslims in a Californian jail cell.

    He is on probation after serving a year of a 21-month sentence for fraud, which involved obtaining credit cards in the names of other people.

    Advertisement He was banned for five years from using the internet and email without the approval of a probation officer. But, in July, a ''Sam Bacile'', believed to be Mr Nakoula, uploaded a 14-minute trailer to YouTube. The California probation unit is investigating if he breached his conditions.

    Mr Nakoula was believed to be in hiding at his home near Los Angeles.

    On Thursday Mr Nakoula telephoned a Coptic church leader, claiming he did not make the film.

    The film was produced by a US religious group called Media for Christ and reportedly directed by a pornographer. Alan Roberts's previous work includes soft porn and hammy action with titles like Young Lady Chatterley II and Karate Cop.

    Telegraph, London; Agence France-Presse

  2. Are you simply reporting, or are you participating in this government driven smear campaign? His past is irrelevant. His ties to whatever group, meaningless. He has the right, just like Bill Maher did, to make his film, to speak his mind, however poorly. To deny him this right, to interigate him, to threaten him with jail and more importantly send this threat to all of us if we step out of line, to, for all practical purpose out him for a hitman to kill, these things are an affront to the freedom of every man.
  3. There's that comprehension thing again, Cap'n.
    As an aside, you seem to have taken the collaboration of a religious group and a pornographer completely in stride. Nothing noteworthy there, eh? Fascinating.
  4. Without the internet this would have never happened.
    Who invented the internet....the Government.
    Lets arrest the Government.
  5. I would bet he knows you are right, and agrees with you, but he probably wants others to think something else, because of X. Figure out X , and you would be able to know what he would say before he says it.
  6. Didn't Mitt Romney stand behind those involved in the film at the beginning of the crisis, and criticized the President for not defending the makers of the film?
  7. Hate and intolerance do make for some strange bedfellows. I don't understand your reading comprehension reference. Perhaps you're making the point that he isn't being persecuted, possibly prosecuted, for the making of the film, but his lengthy criminal past and possible parole violation. Fair enough point, but my counterpoint would be there was no reason to be digging into this guys past in the first place. All he did was make a really shitty movie. The government is sending a clear message to the rest of us. Speak your mind at your own peril. If we don't like what you say, we'll find something on you. After all, they're in the business of finding something when it suits them.
  8. It's been like that for some time now, Capt. The new message is that if some foreigners in another land don’t like what you say, we may find something on you.
  9. It's Cap'n, not Capt. Show some respect will ya?:D
  10. As a Canadian, you may not be aware of the tension here in the states. Things are in flux. People are focusing on the message rather than the messenger. We are in the midst of an identity crisis here. Worse, the split is 50/50 and that is always a bad thing.
  11. Really? Is that all? No, but you're just being pig-headed to support your narrative. By now you know that I despise religion. All religion. Specifically because it serves to splinter rather than bring together, quite apart from it being a vacuous security blanket for people who can't deal with the real world and their life in it.

    Now to my point. This asshole knew what he was doing. He knows the world he lives in. Remember the Southern preacher who decided to burn a Koran? It cost human life in the Middle East. Of course it's crazy insane, but it is what it is. This new guy knew it. His free speech cost human lives. It lit a spark in a volatile environment. So he did more than make a shitty movie. He knew he was poking an angry bear with a stick and did it anyway, consequences be damned, armed with a principle taken to the extreme. Freedom of stupid speech and all that notwithstanding, how can you even begin to defend a character with malicious intent that came to fruition? He knew what it would take to incite violence and he did just that.

    You and I can be angry at the stupid mobs of imbeciles in the Middle East who are mindlessly conducting themselves. Make no mistake, I am no less angry than you and perhaps more so because of my deep disgust for religion in general and religious violence in particular. But it is what it is. Your outrage will not change it. Your "freedoms" won't make it go away. You need to learn how to live with the stupid neighbor across the street. For both of your sakes.
  12. YES , that's all. First amendment and all that. No one forces anyone to watch it.
    He's being scapegoated as part of Odumbo's appeasement of the radicals because Odumbo doesn't have the stones to stand up to them Period.

  13. +1
  14. How many times across this globe, ON A DAILY BASIS, does someone do something, say something, write something that another person of another color, race or religion, finds offensive ?

    It happens all the time, but its the attention given by the media that blows it out of proportion. They are as much to blame, or entirely to blame imo, as anybody if you want to follow this line of reasoning.

    Step back from the equation, don't ask why someone did something - it's either racial prejudicial bias, or something much more sinister, ........ instead ask why it's promoted and used to fan flames, what's the ulterior motive.

    The Video isn't the problem, burning a book isn't the problem.

    Open your eyes.
  15. I'm not defending him or his character. The guy is obviously a jackoff, but he does have the right to speak his mind, just like Bill Maher did with his movie. Just like the person who puts a crucifix in a jar of piss and calls it art. Civilized people get angry, speak their peace and move on. Savages go on a killing spree. We're trying to find a way to co-habitate, on an ever shrinking planet, with a people who are centuries behind us. Centuries! Frankly, I don't think it's possible.
  16. Not in the eyes of brASS hole and his leftist comrades. They demand everyone think speak and march in lock step.
  17. The messenger is irrelevant. That this messenger supposedly broke the law in this particular instance is also irrelevant.

    What is relevant is just like captain said is they (the govt went digging into it) for no apparent reason other than some foreigners got their feelings hurt. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that investigation was just a fishing expedition instigated at the federal level.

    Had they not found the unusual parole restrictions I'm sure team obama was prepared to charge him with a new interpretation of "inciting a riot".

    Team obama is certainly in the muslim extremist corner aka (terrorists).

    Team obama is certainly demonstrating free speech is NOT PROTECTED.


    Make no mistake the govt is not your friend under the best of leadership and agencies of the state DO NOT EXIST FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

    Under the wrong leadership, well then at some point in time we have to decide when enough is enough.

    yeah It would't surprise me if I get a no knock visit at 3am after posting this.
  18. I'll burn as many korans as I'd like to thanks and I support the Preacher doing the same( even if all he did was threaten to do so ).

    Sorry but this sillyness of knowing it would incite violence is just an excuse :where's the culpability of the leftwing media in all of this?
  19. If I understand your post correctly, you're essentially saying that restraint should be used if you know something you say or do will offend (and cause violence by those who are less tolerant of such speech or actions). Kind of a libertarian view, in my opinion. I wish more people would practice such respect and tolerance here in the US and around the globe.

    Do you feel the same way when people here in the states are routinely vilified and marginalized for their religious and political views? Many people have no problem shooting their mouths off regarding the God of modern Christianity, or accusing the tea partiers of being racist, extremist, and so on (including comments by a few left wing politicians calling the GOP Nazis lately). The only difference I see is the level of the reaction to the criticism.

    Just because one group reacts violently to criticism while another doesn’t simply can't justify the double standard.
  20. Are you serious? brASS hole IS one of those doing the vilifying and marginalizing.
  21. It's less a question of double standards and more a question of circumstances. Violence would not be tolerated domestically. A criminal uprising of the kind that occurred in the Middle East would be quashed at home. However, you cannot normally exercise quite such control, or as quickly, outside your borders. So your "double standard" remark is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they are different. But anyone with a conscience would not knowingly engage in unnecessary and malicious conduct that would almost certainly result in the loss of innocent life. The people who intentionally do so are evil bastards whose actions should not be defended in any way.
  22. Kind of like the LA King riots were "quashed"? Oh wait...
  23. I see your point. Here is an interesting scenario. We have laws regarding inciting violence domestically, though I'm not entirely familiar with them. If violence had occurred after comments were made by one group against another here, could other laws be used against the offended group? In other words, if the congressman calling the GOP Nazis had elicited a violent reaction, would he have incited a riot, or would the offended individuals be accused of the same. Where does free speech end and inciting violence begin? Not being flip, just curious.
  24. I agree, but what troubles me is that the same groups of believers so easily offended and so quick to take life because of the offense are sometimes the same people who have no tolerance for anyone outside their beliefs, and will not hesitate to kill them for no other reason. We can be killed for our beliefs alone, but we should be silent, too? These fanatics will react to far less than what the filmmaker in question produced.
  25. Are the GOP inclined to react in that way? In contrast, there is a very well worn and established if/then relationship as it relates to the subject of this thread. If the GOPers start reacting violently, they would he held to account. I would think that once the relationship of action/reaction is clearly established, the intentionally malicious inciters would be answerable for their conduct as well. There would be no winners here.

    At least for the moment, the GOPers are not as mindlessly violent as the thugs in the Middle East, bunker building and guns & canned beans stocking notwithstanding. Let's be thankful for that, shall we?
  26. It just occurred to me that Brass is a very dense material. What a fitting alias for the OP to have chosen. His third, BTW.
  27. They are not (nor are the majority of Christians), which is my point. That makes them targets of the constant malicious verbal assaults from the left. Some have speculated that it would be great for the left if right wingers were incited to violence by the name calling and false accusations. It would then confirm that which the right is often accused of.

    If that was the case (and I'm not saying it is), it would be an attempt to incite violence for no other reason than political gain.
  28. So let's say a guy makes a movie about Christians. Does it in exactly the same way this goodball did. Let's say Christians around the world riot, kill people and destroy property. Question. Would we know the guys identity? Would pictues of his home, his car, his license plate be published by the MSM? Would he be brought in for questioning by the administration g-men? No, no and no. He would be a ghost, under protective custody with an army of ACLU lawyers defending his right to free expression. And we sure as hell wouldn't be hearing a thing about his stupid video being the root cause for all the violence. All we would be hearing is about the crazy and violent actions of the Christians, and every f'n person with a shread of intellectual honesty knows that.
    Now let's get ready for some football.
  29. Well done and completely true.
  30. Best comment I've read so far about the film and the reaction to it:

    "The behavior of Muslims this last week says far more about their religion than any film ever could."

    Sums it up real nice like.
  31. Can't argue with that.
  32. That's the cowardly muslim way, and that's why places like sweden will go down.