What kind of dupe could fail to note the obvious edits and distortions in the following video, intended to make it sound like Barack Obama is a Muslim?
These ones. Introducing the above video:
You will soon see and hear a very clear picture from President Barrack Hussein Obama himself that he is indeed a Muslim… I have not seen anything so clear before. Have you?
No, Pastor Danny. I HAVE NOT. But that’s only the beginning. I’ve discovered – in that very post of yours – something extremely chilling that your parishioners should know about you. Look at this CLEAR admission about your own allegiances:
I am… indeed a Muslim.*
Did you hear that? IN HIS OWN WORDS! And he’s in charge of Catch The Fire! And you remember what Pastor Danny says those Muslims want to do to us. Well, no wonder he knows so much about it!
Be very afraid, fellow easily-scared people who can’t tell tell when something’s been cynically edited to misrepresent what someone actually said.
*Words cynically taken out of context, exactly as per the video attacking Obama whose misrepresentations Nalliah was repeating.
10 responses so far ↓
Damien // 7 November, 2009 at 10:19 pm
A Maaaaarslum? Well, woorldn’t ‘e have barmbed us by now? Ah don’ know WHAT to believe anymore!
Based on these edited video clips without context, I am indeed satisfied that Obama is going to DESTROY AMERICA!
Broggly // 7 November, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Hmm. What is it that Saudi Arabia has a lot of, and Obama thinks America needs?
Clearly the only answer is Islam.
Broggly // 7 November, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Hmm. What is it that Saudi Arabia has a lot of, and Obama thinks America needs?
Clearly the only answer is Islam.
I like how he’s clearly removed every reference to the Founding Fathers being cool with Islam ie Jefferson’s Quran, the treaty of Tripoli.
SB // 8 November, 2009 at 1:39 am
These maniacs have forfeited their right to free speech. They must be shut down immediately. It is high time we re-introduced the death penalty to deal with them!
I know that in cases like Hicks we had to take the view that defending due process often meant defending the rights of ugly characters, but of course that doesn’t apply here! I mean we are only talking about free speech, what does it matter if we trim it a little? Off with their heads.
Jeremy // 8 November, 2009 at 8:27 am
SB? What the hell are you talking about?
HOw is criticising people for being spiteful and stupid in any way equivalent to censoring them?
wilful // 8 November, 2009 at 11:19 am
The worst thing about this, which I think was best expressed by Colin Powell during the election campaign, was, “So what? Aren’t muslims allowed to run for President?” or words to that effect. Even if the US President’s religion was relevant, could Danny Nalliah please specify jsut what is exactly wrong with the vastly overwhelming majority of muslims? I’d far rather a moderate muslim to one of his fucknuckle tribe (better yet, lets keep all religion out of politics eh?).
Jeremy // 8 November, 2009 at 12:49 pm
That’s very true. I was mainly focusing in this post on how dishonest the attack was, even for islamophobes.
SB // 8 November, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Your last link was to the prosecution of CTF, which was far, far worse than taking Obama slightly out of context but at some points capturing his willingness to toady up to fundamentalist nonsense. In fact, it is even more hopelessly fundamentalist than CTF.
Marek Bage // 8 November, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Far be it from me to accuse SB of ducking and weaving a simple question.
In fact, I admire SB for, usually, defending his point of view and doing so in a rather well thought out and principled manner.
Some here will disagree.
So be it.
However. Over at another thread, Patrick asked a question about how SB felt about the free speech of a certain peice of Melbourne scum.
I was intending to ask the exact same question as Patrick did.
I’m seriously interested in how SB will answer.
Though I’m not expecting SB to change his mind regarding free speech, I’m wondering if he doesn’t wonder if, in some circumstances, there should be restrictions on what an individual can say in a public forum?
When it comes to building a progressive political consensus, SB is an anti-left bigot.
However, when it comes to defining the importance of freedom of speech, SB is an Arch-Bishop.
Let’s hope that SB will come out and defend (or condemn) one of the trickier results of absolute freedom of speech.
cheers.
SB // 8 November, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Marek, ordinarily I wouldn’t be drawn into a discussion on the limits of free speech, as it is a question I haven’t got any simple answers to. However, for you Marek I will try.
The short answer to Patrick’s question is that the matter is well covered by defamation law. I didn’t see the need to answer Patrick as Mondo had already said: I think you should pursue a defamation claim and seek an injunction to prevent him writing about you further. There is also a possibility of a criminal prosecution, depending on how egregious the defamation is.
As to defamation laws, I don’t like that they are sometimes used as a means of paying off or enriching politicians. Maybe the best thing to do is to limit damages to direct personal economic loss, with the remainder of the remedy to be the equally prominent publication of an apology, and a correction.
It is generally better to allow people to say what they will, which is why injunctions are rarely granted to pre-emptively stop a defamation. Sadly this trend is being eroded both in the la-la land of “human rights’ tribunals and in real courts. This insane attempt to dilence critics by a corporation is an example of the madness that ensues from the use of ’super-injunctions’ to close down free speech.
An example of an appropriate limit on free speech is where the speech itself is also another crime. For example an assault can occur if you are yelling at someone who, because of your conduct has a reasonable apprehension of physical danger. In that case, the speech is also an assault.
Anyway Marek, for me this is an important issue. I certainly don’t know the answers to all of the boundary issues but, as always, I am open to persuasion.