Innocence of protesters, not killers or provocateurs

While condemning both the film and the unfair attack on the US officials, columnists suggest that the film is merely a provocative act.

The Star’s Taha Kıvanç says that he has conducted some research about the truth of the matter, and according to what he has found, the producer and director of the film, titled “Innocence of Muslims,” is not an Israeli, which has been claimed to be the case; he is an Egyptian Copt. Another interesting claim is that most of the dialogue relating to Islam or religion was overdubbed in post-production, with the actors themselves claiming they were deceived. And this incident, which is built on pure deception, has already taken four lives, Kıvanç says.

Meanwhile, The New York Times has reported that the riots in Libya had been planned some days before the incidents erupted. Do you see how many birds are being killed with one stone? The first bird is political stability in Egypt, as masses of protesters there will surely hold the Coptic minority in the country responsible for the incident and President Mohammed Morsi won’t be able to quell the riots. The second bird is the US, Kıvanç notes, as US President Barack Obama, who seems to be the favored candidate in the upcoming elections, will now have less of a chance of winning. The third bird is the Muslim world, which will be regarded as more fanatical, following on the heels of previous crises surrounding anti-Islam caricatures and Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,” regarded as another insult to the Prophet Muhammad. The real director of the whole plot, whoever he is, must be watching these developments with a smile on his face, Kıvanç notes.

Describing the incident as a “new provocative act by neocons aiming to view Muslims as the nightmare of the Western world,” Bugün’s Gülay Göktürk points out the timing of the incident. The attack on the embassy took place on Sept. 11, the anniversary of the terrorist acts, sending an obvious message that “there will be more Sept. 11s.” It also took place just before the US presidential election, sending a message that “the US needs a president who will be more determined to fight against ‘evil powers’.” Göktürk says there are two probable scenarios before us now: Either the Western countries, and especially the US, will think that the dictators ousted by the Arab Spring have been replaced by pro-Shariah powers that must be stopped immediately, signaling the emergence of policies of further interference in Arab countries, or the provocative act in Libya and neocons’ plan will backfire, and the US, which has enough of its own problems right now, will tend to adopt a policy of “staying clear of trouble” and “not interfering with other countries,” and it will fume at the provocateurs for creating a larger anti-US wave more than at the provoked people in Libya. Göktürk thinks the second scenario is the more likely one.

Radikal’s Koray Çalışkan argues there is a huge difference between freedom of expression and cultural crimes committed under the guise of freedom of expression. And the film, says Çalışkan, which is defended by many who argue that it is the director’s right to make an artwork in whatever way he likes, can in no way be defined as a work of art, as everyone who has watched it will agree. Çalışkan describes the film as a “racist act and cultural insult.” Before lashing out against all Muslims, we have to make a distinction between the masses of Muslims who respond rightly to such low acts and a couple of silly people who take the bait of provocateurs.