A lot of explenations after the fact but where is the proactive efforts to prevent such violence.  The malfactors may be a small group but they seem to have control of the situation.

The list of points is carefully and thoughtfully made, and I found it helpful.  However, it is weakened by not considering the most glaringly obvious point:  namely the overwhelmingly disproportionate response by Muslims to the film.  Not to mention a certain logical disconnect.  What is the point of besieging embassies - including those of Britain and Germany?  Governments in free nations do not control the media.  And, anyway, diplomatic premises should be respected.  By ignoring these points the writer weakens the points he is trying to make.

“Governments in free nations do not control the media.”

Not yet. That’s the whole point: to make the west do their bidding, through violent intimidation. It also reveals the intense insecurity in the heart of Muslims.

If I understand Islam properly, the faithful Muslim earns his salvation by adhering to God’s law as set down by Mohammed.  In effect, the more violent and prolonged their attempts to defend the prophet, the more pleased God must be with them.  It’s a shame Islam does not have Christianity’s view of grace and salvation.  Perhaps then these folks could let God take care of things and they could worry about improving the lot of people in their own countries.

Can any Islamic scholars out there chime in here with a more nuanced view?

Given that his point #5 claims that Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes “inspired” the Norwegian killer Breivik, this whole piece should be taken with a large rock of salt.

The thing that I do not understand is our administration. When the President and Secretary of State speak about this, they use words like: Disgusting and reprehensible.” (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton). “Truly abhorrent,” an outraged White House official told an
international conference. This was speaking about this ridiculous film. When talking about killing Americans or attacking our embassy they used language like: “I strongly condemn the outrageous
attack.” (President Obama) or Clinton says that the US is heartbroken and she condemned “this senseless act of violence.” Who are they defending? Where were are their condemnations for
the DVD of “The Da Vinci Code,” the blockbuster American movie that claims Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene? It seems we can not insult other faiths, but it is open season on Christianity. Seems a little slanted to me.

It is a matter of great sadness if the alleged mastermind (pardon the term) of the film is in fact a Coptic Christian. What kind of love for his Church of people does this show that he would open them up to even more abuse and persecution? Yes, there are nut cases in all faiths, but the internet now makes them more visible, less accountable and thus much more dangerous.

In reality, pieces like the “Innocence of Muslims” so-called film are best classified as “hate speech”, as they seem to be of the same genre as anti-Semitic films of the 1930’s or Birth of the Nation KKK movies.

I can’t get past this statement.  The “Innocence of Muslims” is a hack B movie at best. If it qualifies as “hate speech” then I can point you to a number of B movies that feature Jesus in similarly insulting characterizations.  Or just watch South Park or Family Guy.

When diplomats respond with statements like these, it tells the terror networks that we’re speaking softly and wringing our hands, but what they don’t realize is that this country and many of our allies are quite capable of responding forcefully if we’re pushed far enough.  Presidential and State Department statements may seem placid, but there can be great force behind them, and countries harboring such terror groups risk violent reprisal by encouraging attacks against our embassies.  We’re a peaceful enough people, but don’t push us too far!

m+ is correct. The main point about this amateurish “film” is that it warrants zero attention.  Beware of the “hate speech” slippery slope.