““Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?””

The author right there is telling me, not stated mind you, but through interpretation of the meaning behind the words that he does believe they are linked.

If I go to you and I say “Even if the war in Iraq is about WMD”, what did I just say to you? That I don’t believe the war in iraq is about wmd. I didn’t state it but its telling you what I believe.

It isn’t about whether or not he stated it, it’s about the real meaning behind the words. If I go to somone and I tell them to shut up and I’m smiling and laughing, whats the meaning? The meaning is I’m kidding, but I go to someone and I tell them to shut up and I’m angry, the meaning is just that to shut up.

I understand that Esra that I seem to misunderstand the the point the author meant to make. I’m trying to explain in that long post how I got the different meaning or point then what the author intended. Do you get now where I’m coming from in that post and in this post?

Yes it does put it very simply but where is that comment in the orignal post? No where. I’m not insisting otherwise I’m stating how I got my view, it maybe be seen as insisting but I’m pointing out how I got my interpretation/view of the author point. It may not have been what the author intended but its how I view his post.

For example in this comment the author made: “even if there is no link between the two incidents, it’s safe to assume that the mass-distribution of Obsession – a move that is obviously meant to rouse emotions – would lead to attacks against innocent Muslims.”

Right there its safe for me to assume that the author believes the two incidents are linked even though he doesn’t state it.

I acknowledge that you didn’t say they were coincidental but you hint, and I specifically say what the hint is in the parathensis, at your feelings about the mosque attack whether or not the dvd played a role in that attack.

An implication is not a fact and should not be treated as such.

That is why if you look at the vast majority of the comments Esra you will see the commentators treating the mosque attack as the main point of the article in their posts and whether or not it is a hate crime and not dvd as the main point.

Sorry to disagree once again, but you are mistaken here, the comments developed into making the DVD the central point of the article and of the eventual discussion that took place once people began questioning whether or not it’s a hoax.

You seem to misunderstand the point that the author is trying to make, insisting that it has a different theme than its original intention. You can read the author’s clarifications in this very specific comment:

The main point behind my post was not to state “there is a link!” because I agree that at this point there still is insufficient evidence. In fact, Tarek Sabagh himself had dismissed such claims.

My point was to state that mass distribution of propagandist material cannot be justified.

I believe this comment puts it very simply and specifically. I have no idea why you are insisting otherwise.

So what is the hint: “Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?”

For example if I go to you and I say “Even if the war in Iraq is about wmd” what did I just say? I just said that I don’t believe the war in Iraq is about wmd but about something else. I didn’t say that word for word but its what I meant.

What your saying in your hint is that you believe that the mosque attack is linked to the dvd. Because you believe the mosque attack is linked to the dvd, its not what you said but you what you meant, which means there is no coincidence hence the quote “The author feels that there is no chance that the timing is coincidental”

You have to remember the main point of an article is always found in the introductory paragraph through either a thesis sentence or a topic sentence. The problem is that the background information of a mosque attack is being used as the introductory paragraph and there is no mention of a dvd. As a result for me atleast the only conclusion I can make is that the mosque attack is the main point and that when you mention dvd you are using it as a supporting point for why the mosque was attack.

If you wish to make the dvd/hatefilled type media as the main point and use the attack as a supporting point you would be better off starting off with a paragraph talking about your personal experience with the distribution of hateful media and seeing attacks rise against specefic communities and then I would use this sentence with maybe a change here and there to use as your topic sentence “Obsession is just another addition to the string of propaganda pieces that paint Muslims as devils and compares Islam with Nazism.” after using that sentence with maybe a change here and there everyone would know that the main point is media that is hatefilled increase violence and that Islam is latest victim and is being used as a scapegoat and then in the first supporting paragraph go into the background information about this mosque being attack and that this dvd was only distributed just before the attack and that before(this part is me making something up to give you an idea) the dvd was distributed violence against muslims was low.

Esra do you see now how I came to the sentence: “Basically is this, the first half of the post is about mosque being attacked because of the dvd.” Because based upon my interpretation of the “Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?” is him basically stating that he believe thats the mosque was attacked because of the dvd. Which is what what the first half is about the mosque attack and why it was attack. Your right that the sentence quoted emphasizes the dvd but it is not the topic of the sentence. The topic of the sentence is still the mosque attack. The topic of the article is what the author believes, not what the author doesn’t believe. What does the author believe? The mosque was attacked and that a anti islam dvd recently distributed is linked/behind/responsible/ motivated that attack. Look at the title, what is the main point of title? A mosque being attacked, the main point isn’t about a dvd, but the dvd is being empahsized in the title but it isn’t the main point.

That is why if you look at the vast majority of the comments Esra you will see the commentators treating the mosque attack as the main point of the article in their posts and whether or not it is a hate crime and not dvd as the main point.

That is where the mix up is, what the author meant to do was use dvd as the main point and the mosque attack as the supporting point, unfortunately the mosque attack is being used as the main point and the dvd is being used as a supporting point. You may have a different view of what the main point is but to me and what seems to be the vast majority of commentators the main point is the mosque attack and that it was motivated by hate and the supporting point being used to prove that the mosque was attack because of hate is the dvd.

Basically is this, the first half of the post is about mosque being attacked because of the dvd.

Um, did you even read the post? It would help if you did, before providing an entirely inaccurate summary full of baseless assumptions. This part of the post alone:

Even if we are to assume that the two events aren’t linked, how can it be expected to widely distribute such a vitrolic “documentary” without inciting others to violence?

Makes your comment practically useless. This sentence is what emphasized the focus on the DVD and not on the incident in question.

People, read this post before jumping to shallow conclusions and falling into the very trap that you are accusing others of.

The author feels that there is no chance that the timing is coincidental

Not at all, and nowhere within the post or in the comments will you find me endorsing the opinion that they’re definitely linked. I withstood from linking to the Daily Kos article because I could see it was inflammatory and because the Dayton Muslim community themselves refrained from making the connection. The highlight in the second paragraph is “some have linked”, which was meant to distance myself from the opinion.

Basically is this, the first half of the post is about mosque being attacked because of the dvd. The second half is that even if the mosque was attacked and it had nothing to do with the dvd(author of the post doesn’t believe this)

The first half of the post was meant to provide background information on the attack against the mosque and the Obsession DVD. It was an introduction to the paragraphs that would follow, and the conclusion of the post highlighted my intention behind writing it:

I do not deny that terrorism in all its forms needs to be addressed, but one-sided, offensive tactics are not a step in the right direction.

And I still hold on to the belief that the massive distribution of propagandist material that singles out a group or community is wrong. The fact that such material can lead to violence cannot be denied (read my comment above to Jessica).

Basically is this, the first half of the post is about mosque being attacked because of the dvd. The second half is that even if the mosque was attacked and it had nothing to do with the dvd(author of the post doesn’t believe this) they believe it still would increase violence againt muslims in general and that it is meant to influence the elections. The only good news is that it seems that there hasn’t been an increase in violence against muslims since the distribution of this dvd.

I was wondering how many people have seen the new Al Jazeera program, “Islam in America”

It’s somehow pathetic to be complaining about other people spreading fear and hate when you do it yourself.

Your claim has been refuted already in a thread that you seemingly didn’t bother to read, and in a post whose content you managed to ignore. 90% of the post was indeed about the Obsession DVD itself and not solely this incident. Thanks for completely missing the point of this post and resorting to a tedious claim that seethes of irony.

The only thing that I found misleading about the the movie Obsession was that the filmmakers did not arrive at the awful truth about how much backing jihadis have from the central texts of Islam. In fact, they have way more backing from Islamic writings than any “moderate” Muslim who basically come and go and have never had much impact in their efforts to make Islam less violent. Now that’s something to bang fists about.

No one here banged fists, and incident that the incident was a hate crime, or that it was motivated by the distribution of the Obsession DVD.

As was repeatedly stated, what we are decrying is the massive distribution of a misleading, inciting DVD. Just as I feel outraged at the propagandist publications produced within the Middle East that vilify Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Shi’ites, Zoroastrians, etc., the Clarion Fund’s action outrages me.