Well! First of all, this movie didn’t ignite the violence across the middle east as the violence was and is always there, but it gives another excuse for it to explode a bit more. How many suicide bombers per year there? And that movie was not out yet. But, it was the drawing of the prophet and then this crazy guy who wanted to burn the Koran and then the burning of one book and now the movie… and all the other excuses in between. It is an explosive area of the world full of unsatisfied and frustrated men ruled by a religion that gather a lot of extremists and guided by a religious book (and priests) that is also far from to be non-violent – like other religious books we know of.
But, is it abnormal to have such violence in countries that are bombed by another country, which wants to invade and control them? Is it so abnormal to have men furious and mad because those bombs killed their parents, their wives, their children, their siblings and their friends?
Hear me well, I am certainly not pro-Muslim — far from there — but I can understand their rage.
And, talking about the free speech rights? So, somebody do a racist movie that put the world on the fringe on the third world war and they talk about free speech but when a group of people gather in the street and ask calmly for their rights to be respected, they are charged upon by the SWATT guys dressed like killer robots and sparkled with huge weapons, they are tazed, gazed, bear sprayed, arrested, imprisoned, harassed. You call that free speech rights? Where is the freaking logic in all that?
So, if the free speech serve their purpose of spreading hate on a certain part of the world population so they can continue their little wars, then it is big stuff but if the free speech is for their own people asking for their rights to be respected, then it is not OK and they run to the senate to have laws written to suppress that free speech right and to forbid gatherings. Nice hey?
As for the guy who supposedly did it… who knows if it is really him who did all that. Who are the people who financed the movie? I think he is a scapegoat to camouflage the real people and/or organisation behind the scene. Are the medias will drive the focus on that poor guy so people will forget about the real offenders, the ones who financed and really did this movie?