““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.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/14/muslim.dvd/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

However, we also believe that while Americans should respect the right of bigots to free speech, we are under no obligation to accept, embrace, or promote their bigoted endeavors.

[...]

The HHA coalition believes that “Obsession, Radical Islam’s War Against the West” is a classic work of hate propaganda, thinly disguised as a critique of radicalism, that attempts to subliminally demonize Muslims and their faith wholesale.

Obsessionwithhate.com is an awareness project that exposes the Obsession DVD hate campaign, offers a detailed rebuttal of its content, and demands important questions from the responsible agencies of our civil society.

We believe the Media has an obligation to investigate this hate campaign and reveal its source of funding to the American people. We believe the presidential candidates have a responsibility to speak out against anti-American tactics that threaten to manipulate our election process in a manner reminiscent of Communist and Fascist Propaganda-prone nations.

More about this here.

Thanks for bringing it up Kawthar.

There are many — mainly anti-Muslim bigots who you will not find me linking to — claiming that the whole thing was a “hoax.” By this, they seem to mean one of two things: 1. the worshipers at the mosque, including the little girl who was sprayed, made the whole thing up or 2. because no hazardous chemicals were detected on the girl, whatever was sprayed on her was benign and therefore a hoax rather than a genuine expression of hatred by the perpetrator(s).

The first suggestion is rather absurd for obvious reasons and so I’m not even going to entertain the suggestion that worshipers interrupted their own religious service to pretend that someone had attacked them, and a child in particular, in order to elicit sympathy from the general public. The second suggestion is completely and utterly irrelevant when looking at whether or not this could accurately be referred to as terrorism or as a hate crime.

There’s more of this outrage here:

I know hypotheticals are presumptive and annoying, but I’d comfortably venture to say that if this happened in the nursery of a Midwestern Episcopal church during Easter, the story would occupy a large corner of all national news coverage for weeks.

Clearly this is not evidence, but I am posting this here because it correctly exposes the mentality behind those denying it while refusing to provide the required evidence that would make us even remotely consider their argument.

Actually, it is you who needs to come back with the evidence. Not the other way around.

Claiming that only one argument needs evidence (ironically the same argument that reeks of unconditional denial despite clearly lacking a hint of “proof”) is practically admitting your hypocracy, something I never doubted considering your first comment here. So thanks for letting us know that you too insist on recycling your incredibly biased opinions and republishing them as “fact” without providing a hint of evidence.

I never claimed that my argument was the truth, however you and Noliving have no issue pretending that you hold nothing but the “proof” and evidence – yet I see none of this. So again, no. Try to be a bit more logical and think again about who requires evidence here. Clearly that’s not me, because unlike you, I’m not the one making baseless and tiring claims while shamelessly insisting that it’s factual. I said I would reconsider my argument but only if I was provided with the proof, something neither you nor Noliving nor anyone else is willing to provide, probably because you too lack it. If you actually read my previous comments here, you would’ve already gathered that much, but apparently you’re not interested to hear anything but the echoes of your own opinions that have yet to be backed factually.

Therefore the best thing for me is to say again what I already requested from Noliving (and something I’ve actually yet to receive):
Ansar: Come back when you’ve got evidence.

No evidence, no refutation.

Well it appears denny in dayton that with your first link its been basically proven that this wasn’t a hate crime

I wonder if you actually read the article? Nowhere did I see any “proof.”

You are referring to this part of the article, which clearly states that they have no PROOF that it’s a hate crime, not that it’s PROVEN that this is not a hate crime. The difference is huge, read it again:

Chief Richard Biehl has said there is no evidence the girl was the victim of a hate crime.

Therefore you’re wrong.

You said the word “proven” twice without backing it up with anything. Furthermore, you immediately claim that a 10 year old boy did this. Um, I assume you twisted this part of the article to make it seem that way:

Police have interviewed a 10-year-old boy about the incident.

Wow, a 10 year old boy appeared in an interview! That is total “proof” of the fact that he did it and that he was just messing about with a girl his age. Thanks for clearing that up!

Well Esra I hope that makes you feel better to know that this is basically been proven not to be a hate crime at all,

Stick to facts, stop recycling personal opinions. No one has provided proof and unless we have it no one can claim otherwise without the actual facts instead of twisting an article full of suspicion, and, I repeat, no factual information and claiming that it is the truth. Make a better effort to understand the situation at hand. We are all trying to, no reason why you shouldn’t either.

Well Esra I hope that makes you feel better to know that this is basically been proven not to be a hate crime at all, just a 10 year old boy being an idiot towards one of his fellow muslims in a mosque.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/08/kafirphobia_americans_as_viole.html

And also that silly articles have emanated from other Ohio mosques in the past too and have gotten their due consideration. . . . .

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003070.php

My point was to state that mass distribution of propagandist material cannot be justified – especially from a supposed charity – and that it goes in contrary with its supposed intentions.

You cannot make light of such productions and the power they have over impressionable individuals.

I am amazed how many people are spreading hate accusing others of spreading hate.

Really? Being concerned about the possibility of this crime (if it is indeed evidenced) is a way of “spreading hate”? When the author wrote the article, no one was under the impression that anyone had made anything up. You see something in the news, half of the time it’s true, the other half it’s not – expressing yourself about even the possibility is always justified until proven wrong. No one here said that it happened without a shadow of a doubt, people simply expressed their outrage. You were so offended by that, it seems, that you would resort to calling it hateful and then tell US to put our emotions aside. Funny.

Much of this article, contrary to what you’re implying, was not fabricated. You accuse us of spreading hate yet you obviously have no problem with people spreading around the “Obsession” video (and other equally Islamophobic productions) in a hateful campaign that shows absolutely no tolerance and respect for Muslims in the USA (or in general.) I wonder how you would feel if people were spreading disgustingly inaccurate DVDs to paint your religion as an evil cult. You’d be outraged. Allow us to feel outraged and try to respect our need to express this outrage instead of falsely accusing us of “hate.” Correcting facts is one thing, and we appreciate that. But concluding such remarks by accusing us of hate is just plain weak.

The increasingly active and well-funded Islamophobic campaigns in the USA, these are not just “amazing” to me in their hatefulness, it’s simply disrespectful and disturbing, not to mention incredibly dangerous. Otherwise no one would be reacting as they did, it certainly doesn’t surprise us that such widespread propaganda would eventually lead to such actions. I and many others are ready to criticize this pathetic idiocy at each and every opportunity and we did so here.

As for the falseness of this situation, we are willing to listen to different sides of the story, but thus far no one has provided absolute facts, and therefore coming to a conclusion is difficult. Either way, this is a blog, not an official news source. We read about this story in many different sources and we simply reacted, that’s not a crime, nor is it hateful. We’d appreciate it if you stop accusing us of such things simply because you didn’t “put your emotions aside.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/07/ddn100708mosquefolo.html

More concerning is the most frequently quoted description of the event was posted on the Daily Kos by Chris Rodda who when interviewed by the Dayton Daily News said: “Rodda said she “sensationalized” the headline on her blog to draw attention.

“I was mad, so I sort of shot from the hip,” Rodda said, adding she has not talked to any law enforcement agencies, hospital officials or Islamic Center president Dr. Tarek Sabagh. She said her information came from people who know some people that attend the mosque.”

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/03/ddn100308mosque.html

In other words, SHE MADE IT UP! She didn’t shoot from the hip, she shot herself in the foot. And now a whole bunch of other people are repeating it and looking stupid in the process. Our neighborhood meeting is tonight and we are hoping to have the Dayton PD officers there give us more information.

I am amazed how many people are spreading hate accusing others of spreading hate.