Prophet Muhammad insulted by a film, so we claim the right to kill you?

[Magnus]

the scientific method does; a set of principles that are constantly refined through experimentation and observation in order to achieve reproducible results. reproducibility is by definition, objective.

is your education so lacking that you do not even understand this basic principle?

Reproducibility isn't objective. It's subject to the interpretation of the results of the experiment you conducted. If it was objective there wouldn't be academical disagreements.

Science is ultimately a social construction where some old white men decided what's proof of something and what isn't.

It (science) can often be extremely useful in creating models that describe the world and are capable of making rather exact predictions about the world. But this isn't the same as saying that it is the truth or that it is absolutely objective.

Is your education so lacking that you are not even capable of making that distinction?

 

[HL2037]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

 

[RedheadDane]

Some people in Benghazi protesting against the murder.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/12-photos-of-benghazi-citizens-apologizing-to-amer

Spelling mistake and all...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

No, it was a Jewish bigot. (I had the name in the daily, today, but don't have it now.) In any case America will bomb Iran within the year.

WRONG.

How about providing the name you have???

I think it turns out the person is a Christian.

 

[zalacain]

The actors made a scifi film which was overdubbed (badly) by a Coptic Egyptian!

 

[Bala Verde]

Reproducibility isn't objective. It's subject to the interpretation of the results of the experiment you conducted. If it was objective there wouldn't be academical disagreements.

Science is ultimately a social construction where some old white men decided what's proof of something and what isn't.

It (science) can often be extremely useful in creating models that describe the world and are capable of making rather exact predictions about the world. But this isn't the same as saying that it is the truth or that it is absolutely objective.

Is your education so lacking that you are not even capable of making that distinction?

Did you read Bruno Latour...

 

[pelodee]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

Very poor.

 

[Descender]

Isn't determining what sufficient evidence is a matter of faith?

Needless to say, there are certain degrees of evidence, and yes, determining where the exact line is between sufficient and insuficient evidence is is subjective.

Note, however, that saying that is different from saying "determining what is evidence for something and what isn't is a matter of faith". That is not true.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines evidence as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid".

Beliefs and propositions are either true or they aren't. Evidence either points towards the truthfulness of a belief or proposition or it doesn't.

Take the claim "Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States".

Piece of evidence A: Wilson was the 28th President of the United States because I believe he was.

Piece of evidence B: Wilson was the 28th President of the United States because historians say he was.

Piece of evidence C: Wilson was the 28th President of the United States because the extensive contemporary records and the large body of independent documentation points to it being the case.

A is bad evidence. B is better than A, since historians are generally right and base their conclusions on careful examination of the evidence, but C is obviously the best piece of evidence.

 

[Descender]

Very poor.

I thought it hit bullseye.

 

[Magnus]

Did you read Bruno Latour...

Can't say I did, nor do I know who it is...

 

[HL2037]

Very poor.

So do you feel entitled to run amok in the streets and burn down an embassy?

 

[Magnus]

Needless to say, there are certain degrees of evidence, and yes, determining where the exact line is between sufficient and insuficient evidence is is subjective.

Note, however, that saying that is different from saying "determining what is evidence for something and what isn't is a matter of faith". That is not true.

"Determining what is evidence for something and what isn't is a matter of faith" is true.

Haven't you ever heard of scientists disagreeing about whether or not an experiment and its' results can be used to support a theory?

 

[RedheadDane]

So do you feel entitled to run amok in the streets and burn down an embassy?

I can't answer for anyone else but for me... it's just too much work!

 

[TheRossSeaParty]

I know this is slightly off the topic of religion and violence, but has anyone thought that maybe the attack on the embassy in Benghazi and the general anti-US sentiment has more to do with US foreign policy than some little film?

Libya, under Gaddafi, had the highest standard of living in North Africa and better than most, if not all, the Arabian Peninsula. There was free housing, education, and health care. Gaddafi was trying to get Africa off the petro-dollar and onto the Gold Dinar, so that the people of Africa could benefit from their natural resources and not multi-national corporations. So NATO bombed the sh*t out of their country, killed tens of thousands of people, and supported the overthrow and subsequent murder of Gaddafi. Now Libya is in a constant state of tribal and religious warfare, their resources are open to theft from oil conglomerates, and what standard of living they had is most likely gone forever.

Now NATO is doing the same thing in Syria.

But these are inconvenient and uncomfortable facts. Much easier to blame all this anti-US violence and sentiment on a film.

 

[Descender]

"Determining what is evidence for something and what isn't is a matter of faith" is true.

Haven't you ever heard of scientists disagreeing about whether or not an experiment and its' results can be used to support a theory?

But that is basically the same case I've already addressed. We're talking about boundaries here, not about the strength of the evidence. Perhaps I should have opened my quotation marks after "determining".

Also, we should not equate the fact that there is some degree of subjectivity in the process of evidence finding with it being completely subjective.

The strength of a certain type of evidence is supported by its results. Faith has an abysmal track record as evidence, scientific experiments on the other hand have proven to be the most powerful and accurate type of evidence.

 

[The Hitch]

Needless to say, there are certain degrees of evidence, and yes, determining where the exact line is between sufficient and insuficient evidence is is subjective.

Note, however, that saying that is different from saying "determining what is evidence for something and what isn't is a matter of faith". That is not true.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines evidence as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid".

Beliefs and propositions are either true or they aren't. Evidence either points towards the truthfulness of a belief or proposition or it doesn't.

Take the claim "Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States".

Piece of evidence A: Wilson was the 28th President of the United States because I believe he was.

Piece of evidence B: Wilson was the 28th President of the United States because historians say he was.

Piece of evidence C: Wilson was the 28th President of the United States because the extensive contemporary records and the large body of independent documentation points to it being the case.

A is bad evidence. B is better than A, since historians are generally right and base their conclusions on careful examination of the evidence, but C is obviously the best piece of evidence.

lol, wrong example . Woodrow Wilson was the 27th President of the United States. Grover Cleveland went twice.

 

[Bala Verde]

I know this is slightly off the topic of religion and violence, but has anyone thought that maybe the attack on the embassy in Benghazi and the general anti-US sentiment has more to do with US foreign policy than some little film?

Libya, under Gaddafi, had the highest standard of living in North Africa and better than most, if not all, the Arabian Peninsula. There was free housing, education, and health care. Gaddafi was trying to get Africa off the petro-dollar and onto the Gold Dinar, so that the people of Africa could benefit from their natural resources and not multi-national corporations. So NATO bombed the sh*t out of their country, killed tens of thousands of people, and supported the overthrow and subsequent murder of Gaddafi. Now Libya is in a constant state of tribal and religious warfare, their resources are open to theft from oil conglomerates, and what standard of living they had is most likely gone forever.

Now NATO is doing the same thing in Syria.

But these are inconvenient and uncomfortable facts. Much easier to blame all this anti-US violence and sentiment on a film.

The economist answers this issue partially (not too impressed w/ the article, but there are some good observations that explain the dynamic more accurately) (http://www.economist.com/node/21562960)

It is certainly odd, for example, that the latest film suddenly began attracting attention in the run-up to September 11th, an anniversary almost as politically charged in the Muslim world as it is in the West. It was energetically publicised (albeit in caustic terms) by two Salafist (hardline Islamist) television channels.

Most outbursts of Muslim rage bring political dividends to someone. The Ayatollah Khomeini, for example, reaped the benefits of his fatwa demanding the death sentence on Salman Rushdie for his book “The Satanic Verses”, published in 1988. ****stani politicians gain from whipping up sentiment against Christians—and against politicians seen as soft on them.

The furore over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten , was also curious. It held a cartoon competition (about supposed Muslim intolerance) in September 2005. Protests erupted four months later, sparked by a dossier that included pictures the paper had never published.

I agree that in these cases it was an opportune moment for politic-religious factions to exert power. Getting their base riled up, often with disinformation.

Ignorance of the way the West works in many Muslim countries makes rabble-rousing easy. Protesters at the American embassy in Cairo on September 11th erroneously believed the offensive film to have been shown on “American state television”: in a place with a weak tradition of independent broadcasting, that claim is not as absurd as it might be elsewhere.

They can make anything up in places where anti-US sentiment is already high, which in the first place was already fueled by earlier misinformation. Don't forget that in many countries illiteracy rates are high, so it's much easier to manipulate information. That is not to say that there are no actual gripes about some of the US policies abroad, but a lot of it seems to be turned into propaganda for their own political purposes. Just like in Europe or the US, it's easy to misrepresent or simplify 'the terrorist.'

Look at Yemen especially in light of the persist drone strikes to eliminate AQ figure heads, and in large parts supported by former president Saleh who did so, to secure and consolidate his own power structure. The current political transition is fraught with problems and it remains to be seen if it all ends with a new constitution and presidential elections in 2014.

Drone strikes, disfranchisement and exploitation, high levels of illiteracy, high levels of corruption, strong military and intel services, who pull the strings, 20B (since 9/11) in aid from the US to prop up security so that nukes don't fall in the hands of Haqqani/AQ and add to that the tribal and politico-religious factions in ****stan.

In Sudan, especially the north, they feel shafted because of the secession of the south (and the need to 'share oil revenues' with the South), due to, in large parts, the interventions in, what Sudan perceived to be, the internal affairs between the North and the South and the North and Darfur, in a highly factious society with a numerous shifting allegiances.

Egypt is poor and after the revolution, still very few jobs have been created. Part of the current situation is (rightly or wrongly) attributed to (and exploited by factions within the country) US' efforts to prop up Mubarak, who received 1.3B a year for keeping the peace with Israel (Israel has gotten on average 3B a year, for 'protection and development) and combating radicalism.

Morroco and Algeria, as well as West Africa/the Sahel are becoming more important in the fight against terrorism, esp. AQIM in the Sahel (See Mali), so we'll see what happens there. Poor countries with weak governments, propped up by the US/EU/NATO to fight terrorism (i.e. military and security development), often with disregard for human rights, good governance, rule of law.

Tunesia so far seems to do quite well.

Also, the impact of 'social media' goes both ways. It's been used to oust dictators and to demand reform and now other social actors exploit the same technology.

 

[pelodee]

So do you feel entitled to run amok in the streets and burn down an embassy?

Erm, I'm perplexed by someone asking that question due to me thinking The Onion piece was poor. Similar to people who love to confuse understanding and condoning.

Killing someone is always terrible, unless you're some kind of psychopath, but sometimes it can be justified. I would never want to be in such a situation. I can't see the deaths at the US embassy in Benghazi being so.

 

[rhubroma]

WRONG.

How about providing the name you have???

I think it turns out the person is a Christian.

In fact that's correct, but it wasn't my fault (so don't get all worked up over it), because the report I read yesterday said he claimed he was Jewish, using the name Sam Bacile. In today's report (which I hadn't yet read at the time I cited that) it told that in fact the anti-Islam director who said he was a Jew, Sam Bacile, was in fact using an alias: his true identity being 55 year-old Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian from Egypt.

He along with his 21 year-old son, Abanob Basseley, made the film in 12 days. Nakoula alias Bacile has had a long history of financial fraud and got himself in trouble with the law for counterfeiting medicines, for which he was condemned to 21 months in the Lompoc prison, in addition to having to reimburse his clients $ 790,000. While in prison he conceived of the film to denounce the "cancer of Islam". With which money? He claimed he was funded $5 million by Jewish financers, while it turns out the film was produced on a budget of $ 50-60,000 which he claims he got from relatives in Egypt.

His partner would be Steve Klein, an insurance agent of Hemet, California, who self-proclaimed himself the "film consultant." He also boasted that he got his hands bloody in Vietnam, while today he is noted by the authorities to have relations with anti-Islam Christian extremist groups like Christian Guardians and the Courageous Christians United (my word the country is full of loonies!). Klein would have been the one who recommended that Nakoula enlist the services of Terry Jones: who better than the reverend of the Koran bonfire to throw fuel on the fire of the Muslim world?

 

[Magnus]

The furore over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in a Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten , was also curious. It held a cartoon competition (about supposed Muslim intolerance) in September 2005.

It wasn't a cartoon competition about Muslim intolerance.

The danish wiki-page has a pretty decent write-up about the incident: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammed-tegningerne

The whole thing started with a danish writer not being able to get an illustrator for his book about Muhammed's life. One illustrator declined because of the Theo van Gogh incident and one declined because of an incident where a university professor was assaulted/harassed by Muslims (I don't remember the details of this incident). Eventually the writer got his book illustrated by an anonymous illustrator.

Jyllands-Posten then made a story about the subject where they had asked 40 illustrators to make a drawing of Muhammed. Twelve out of the 40 submitted a drawing. And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[rhubroma]

The economist answers this issue partially (not too impressed w/ the article, but there are some good observations that explain the dynamic more accurately) (http://www.economist.com/node/21562960)





I agree that in these cases it was an opportune moment for politic-religious factions to exert power. Getting their base riled up, often with disinformation.



They can make anything up in places where anti-US sentiment is already high, which in the first place was already fueled by earlier misinformation. Don't forget that in many countries illiteracy rates are high, so it's much easier to manipulate information. That is not to say that there are no actual gripes about some of the US policies abroad, but a lot of it seems to be turned into propaganda for their own political purposes. Just like in Europe or the US, it's easy to misrepresent or simplify 'the terrorist.'

Look at Yemen especially in light of the persist drone strikes to eliminate AQ figure heads, and in large parts supported by former president Saleh who did so, to secure and consolidate his own power structure. The current political transition is fraught with problems and it remains to be seen if it all ends with a new constitution and presidential elections in 2014.

Drone strikes, disfranchisement and exploitation, high levels of illiteracy, high levels of corruption, strong military and intel services, who pull the strings, 20B (since 9/11) in aid from the US to prop up security so that nukes don't fall in the hands of Haqqani/AQ and add to that the tribal and politico-religious factions in ****stan.

In Sudan, especially the north, they feel shafted because of the secession of the south (and the need to 'share oil revenues' with the South), due to, in large parts, the interventions in, what Sudan perceived to be, the internal affairs between the North and the South and the North and Darfur, in a highly factious society with a numerous shifting allegiances.

Egypt is poor and after the revolution, still very few jobs have been created. Part of the current situation is (rightly or wrongly) attributed to (and exploited by factions within the country) US' efforts to prop up Mubarak, who received 1.3B a year for keeping the peace with Israel (Israel has gotten on average 3B a year, for 'protection and development) and combating radicalism.

Morroco and Algeria, as well as West Africa/the Sahel are becoming more important in the fight against terrorism, esp. AQIM in the Sahel (See Mali), so we'll see what happens there. Poor countries with weak governments, propped up by the US/EU/NATO to fight terrorism (i.e. military and security development), often with disregard for human rights, good governance, rule of law.

Tunesia so far seems to do quite well.

Also, the impact of 'social media' goes both ways. It's been used to oust dictators and to demand reform and now other social actors exploit the same technology.

Thanks for the great analysis.

 

[ToreBear]

I know this is slightly off the topic of religion and violence, but has anyone thought that maybe the attack on the embassy in Benghazi and the general anti-US sentiment has more to do with US foreign policy than some little film?

Libya, under Gaddafi, had the highest standard of living in North Africa and better than most, if not all, the Arabian Peninsula. There was free housing, education, and health care. Gaddafi was trying to get Africa off the petro-dollar and onto the Gold Dinar, so that the people of Africa could benefit from their natural resources and not multi-national corporations. So NATO bombed the sh*t out of their country, killed tens of thousands of people, and supported the overthrow and subsequent murder of Gaddafi. Now Libya is in a constant state of tribal and religious warfare, their resources are open to theft from oil conglomerates, and what standard of living they had is most likely gone forever.

Now NATO is doing the same thing in Syria.

But these are inconvenient and uncomfortable facts. Much easier to blame all this anti-US violence and sentiment on a film.

US foreign policy is and has been a large part of this. One sided support for Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians has been the largest and strongest factor contributing to anti-american sentiment. Then came the Invasion of Iraq to further worsen the US image. Then support for unpopular dictatorships etc etc.

The current movie issue forces a lot of resentment up to the surface. I think it is very hurtful to Muslims. My western upbringing and cultural values however prevent me from fully understanding how hurtful this movie is.

Now a lot of the violence we see is more dependent on local issues. There are probably a lot of people who want to demonstrate, and then some groups use this as an opportunity to become violent.

Extremist Salafi groups are among the most prominent groups who try to make this violent. Their strength varies from country to country. Interestingly in Egypt last night, those who were violent were the Ultras, which are hooligans football supporters etc.

So in a sense there are many reasons.

The Benghazi attack is a special case. This was likely carried out by a local Salafi militia. The Salafis in Libya failed totally in the elections, but they have been adept at infiltrating the ad hoc post revolution security sector. Hence it's not unlikely that there was some collusion by local security officials.

The Libyan government is still in the process of establishing it's electoral legitimacy, so they have been very careful in confronting the extremist Salafis. However once the new elected government is established in a few weeks time they will have the legitimacy to confront these groups. But they have to be careful, since they Salafis could perhaps stage a coup or kill them if they felt they had their backs to the wall.

Mind you if the Salafis tried a coup, they would be crushed quickly. They have a lot of arms, but are few in number. But this could of course be bloody.

As for your understanding of Libya under Gadaffi, and the UN intervention last year and Libya now, I will just say you are totally wrong, since I don't have time to elaborate why you are wrong. I'll just mention that the Libyans are very grateful to the US and NATO for their assistance. If you want me to elaborate, I would be happy to do that a little later.

NATO is not involved in Syria. They are perhaps monitoring the situation, but no no fly zones or anything like that.

 

[TheRossSeaParty]

@ToreBear

Please elaborate. You can PM if you don't want to clutter up the thread. If I am wrong I would like to be corrected. From what I have read and researched the past year, I would stand by my statement.

 

[Descender]

lol, wrong example . Woodrow Wilson was the 27th President of the United States. Grover Cleveland went twice.

Quite frankly, I took it off wikipedia and they say he was the 28th. I guess they decided to make the list by terms and not by physical persons.

But hey what do I know or care?

 

[joe_papp]

Nor does every religion person. As I said; it's a few **** heads throughout history who's been ruining for the rest.

Besides; there have been at least one case of non-religious people trying to force their views on others; Just think of the Cultural Revolution in China.

Unfortunately in the US political system, religion has become way too "influential" in the sense that a candidate can't hope to get elected at the national level w/o trumpeting his faith in "God" and thanking "The Lord" and calling for the smiting of the "non-believers." Ugh.

This is not the topic for this, but I disagreed with this prognosis (by someone, not necessarily you) a year ago, and I still disagree now.

I reserve the right to reevaluate my position should Romney (heaven forbid) win the election.

Dude, Obama is twice the war-mongering hawk that Romney would be. There's nothing that a Romney administration would do in the area of waging unjust/illegitimate war on a perpetual, global scale that Obama hasn't done already or contemplated.

Tell that to the women in Muslim countries. Or to homosexuals, ...More than half of the population in the muslim world is oppressed. There is no freedom of speech, no basic human rights. Why? Because the only source of authority is the Holy Quran...

That is the definition of intolerance. And don't tell me it's just a matter of a couple of ****heads. A whole civilisation lives under it.

Like in Iraq.

BBC Viewpoint: Iraqi gays in 'hell on earth'

BBC investigation reveals police persecution of gays in Iraq

"A BBC World Service investigation has revealed that law enforcement agencies in Iraq are involved in the ongoing systematic persecution of homosexuals."

Telegraph: The ugly truth about Islam and homosexuality