[karajorma]

I'm pretty sure I first heard of that website due to a thread right here on HLP. Good to see it had such a strong effect on the people here last time.

[Luis Dias]

Seriously? That's the best you can do to answer me? Absolutely pathetic.

So do you find quoting something (edit: that someone else said) out of the blue and then saying to the audience that I did some stupid thing (with the quote in mind, edit: misdirecting everyone who saw your reply) to be acceptable behavior on your part? I find your attitude preposterous over the issue.


Notice that my contributions regarding this whole matter have been always about the concern that is non-trivial about censorship and lack of free-speech. This is not scaremongering: as we speak the now infamous "movie" depicting muslims as this or that has been censored in youtube, and the Obama administration has asked for Google (and others) to take out any link to that movie. So the anti free-speech movement is actually making strides on this.

To porsue the conversation on how the "problem is us" rather than focus on how we are just abandoning our core values out of fear of a few fanatics, is something that annoys me a little, although I do respect Flipside's opinions (and basically also agree with him).

Misquoting people is cause for banning people in other forums, but here I guess it's all okay except when it's done against moderators. Here, I just bow to your authority and accept your condemnation of being pathetic. What the **** else can I do anyway.

[jr2]

Fact check, everyone.  Hop outside the box (of yourself) and re-read the thread.    And remember, apologizing doesn't make you a smaller person, it makes you a bigger person.  Just remember differences will remain.

Also, asking Google to remove links: Seriously]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxymwN7nYQQ]Seriously ???


EDIT: I also heard that the attack was a terrorist incident using the demonstrations against the video as cover.  Anyone else get that?

[Flipside]

I've heard rumours along those lines too, but seen no evidence of it yet.

My main concern was the whole idea that releasing these images were somehow applaudable. The conversation was actually going really well until people started deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying, and making some pretty foul accusations along the lines of me supporting the rioters or radical Islam, even if it meant misinterpreting a word or an entire thread to do so.

When people get that desperate to find reasons to attack others, it really does show the very worst side of HLP. Mikes I could understand to a certain degree, because it was purely a misinterpretation, even if his response to it was to imply that I agreed with stoning people to death, and I made a similar mistake later with Luis, but the other one was pure insult hunting. As usual.

[jr2]

Perhaps it is a violent internal reaction to those who actually do think that the violence was somehow justified, and that those who provided the fuel actually were the ones who directly caused it.  People do exist, and when someone is already boiling in their reaction to an idea like that, it's easy to make snap judgements when it appears someone is leaning in that direction {when in fact, they aren't}.

[SypheDMar]

I consider HLP a mature community, but sometimes when threads like these appear, I feel ashamed and disappointed. With that said, props for Flipside for being as responsible and respectful as he is.

[Flipside]

Perhaps, Mikes, certainly, was a knee-jerk reaction, I'm perfectly willing to let that one pass as heat of the moment, the other one , however, came from someone who has a considerable reputation for insults, misquotes and poor debating skills. There might be points that he can make that are perfectly valid, but until he learns to do so in a fashion that is not an attempt to defame the person he is debating with, I find his behaviour completely unacceptable.

@Syphe : Thank you, I did actually attack Luis without reason, and have apologised for it, my behaviour wasn't perfect, but in my defence, I was incredible furious at the time, which is why the incident with Mikes is as good as forgotten as far as I'm concerned

[Luis Dias]

I don't feel ashamed at all, I see it merely as evidence that conversations in threads are extremely easy to be equivocating, misdirected and unfocused. I wished I could say that actual direct conversations were a lot better, but they also have some downsides (particular the fact that the people actually have to be present to each other... which is not always the case).

And another aspect: **** the English language. What a crappy ambiguous language it is. Really. (No xenophoby here, I say the same about my own)

[jr2]

There are ways with any language to be more specific, however, they require a lot more effort on the part of the speaker and the reader, and can still be misunderstood. 

[Flipside]

Well, my position is that you always have to be prepared for hot feelings in a situation like this, Freedom of Speech is very close to people's hearts, and with very good reason, but the whole core of the problem in the Middle East is the fact that people let their emotions over-rule their rationality to the point where all they want to do is attack and hurt things because their myopic world-view had been challenged. We need to be careful not to fall into exactly the same hole when debating the matter.

[NGTM-1R]

I haven't even once said or inferred that the actions of the rioters are acceptable in any way shape or form, what are you talking about? I've said it was tragic, I've said it was stupid of people to deliberately inflame these people into riots, but NOT ONCE have I EVER said that the results were acceptable or justifiable. How dare you infer that?

I want an apology for that comment.

You appear to be interpreting me wrong here yourself, so now that thread has cooled off a bit I'll address it.

You've linked the two events repeatedly by an if-then relationship: if the movie/pictures, then the rioters. I think that the time lag and related issues make establishing such a direct causal relationship between irreverent depiction of The Prophet and violence in this case tenuous at best.

But more to the point what I'm actually saying is that I'm urging you, and others, to stop treating this if-then as a valid answer to explain what happened, because it is not a valid answer. It conforms to neither Western morality, nor that of the majority of Islam. If The Prophet Images, then Mob Violence, isn't a logical progression from anybody's religion or law. As long as we treat it like it's a certainty, as long as we act as though this is simply the way things work or the reality we must deal with, we grant it legitimacy by default. No matter how much we decry it.

EDIT: Which I should add is what makes the Libyan government's response to the situation so gratifying: rather than treat it as just something that happens, they regarded it as a major breach of civil order and got busy arresting people for it. Most of the other countries involved treat it like a storm they have to weather instead and don't bother dealing with it beyond their diplomatic commitments to maintain the safety of the embassies.

[Flipside]

And as I'd pointed out earlier, the history between East and West goes back far, far further than the cartoons or even the recent wars. The riots are symptomatic as much as they are reactionary. It's that which lay at the heart of it, these people haven't just had their way of life insulted by a random persona, they believe they have had it insulted by a region of the world that has, in their eyes, had a long history of abusing their people and their culture.

That may well be an incorrect position for them to take, in many of these areas the West and its member countries are interchangeable to peoples minds, but whilst that does not justify the riots, it is exemplified by the fact that an American embassy was attacked over the film before the nationality of the film-maker had even been established, it was assumed he must be American because that, to their eyes, is what America 'does', and no doubt, a least a small percentage of these people were actively looking for an excuse to do so before the film or cartoons were ever released. A lot of these people see France, America, US etc in much the same way as we did the 'Axis of Evil', both of which show a lack of understanding of the inter-relations between the member countries and the differences between them.

The more we do to encourage that mindset, the less progress we stand to make in the area and the more social ammunition we give to the very people we are trying to stop.

[Luis Dias]

Adding to that point NG, we should also take into account the fact that the groups that protested fanatically for this were lead to do so by very clever Imams and other people who wanted to see again the western flags burned.

If you think about this for a second, of course that those mobs did not see either the movies or the cartoons. They were told that once again the western satans commited a heinous crime and thus something harsh should be done against these countries ambassadors and so on. When we see that angry mob we should at least take the possibility that probably no one there actually saw any "offensive material". So it is quite possible some few people were just waiting for an excuse to unleash the hatred of these poor people against any others rather than the local powers that actually control their miserable lives.


Evidence of this is the fact that the Pakistani government issued a day of protests against the offensive movie.

No matter how reasonable the "westerners" can be, what are we to say of these people who should know better than rallying up hatred and directing it towards us to distract the people from realizing how terrible their own local powers are treating them? And should we really take responsibility of all these social issues they have?

These are tough questions that we should ponder, and I think they go somewhere beyond the simple "We are all superior people, We should be Responsible, Ours is also the fault of what is happening" and so on. There's a slight racism implied there, as if we couldn't treat these people as equals, but also a realism, which everyone should also admit, that once someone on this side of the aisle makes a movie or a cartoon of this sort, people do get killed.

[Dragon]

But more to the point what I'm actually saying is that I'm urging you, and others, to stop treating this if-then as a valid answer to explain what happened, because it is not a valid answer. It conforms to neither Western morality, nor that of the majority of Islam. If The Prophet Images, then Mob Violence, isn't a logical progression from anybody's religion or law. As long as we treat it like it's a certainty, as long as we act as though this is simply the way things work or the reality we must deal with, we grant it legitimacy by default. No matter how much we decry it.

Note, while reacting with mob violence to silly cartoons isn't exactly in line with what Koran says, to an extremist who only knows what his guru preacher told him, it's a perfectly logical progression. I'm not saying it's conforming to any morality, nor that it's justifiable, but it's predictable, given the previous reactions of uneducated extremists to such situations.
Libyan government's reaction is indeed a sign of great progress, especially considering what the country went through. I've heard that the current ruling party is generally Islam-oriented, so I'd like to hear what happens to these rioters in the end, but the fact they were arrested is itself a big step forward.

As for rumors of terrorist action disguised as riots, some terrorists were seen stirring up the riots. The situation was certainly playing into their hands, so I doubt it's a complete coincidence, but I also don't think they orchestrated the whole thing, they just seized the occasion.

These are tough questions that we should ponder, and I think they go somewhere beyond the simple "We are all superior people, We should be Responsible, Ours is also the fault of what is happening" and so on. There's a slight racism implied there, as if we couldn't treat these people as equals, but also a realism, which everyone should also admit, that once someone on this side of the aisle makes a movie or a cartoon of this sort, people do get killed.

I don't think it's racism. Western culture is much more advanced than theirs, having more time to develop and having higher technology at it's disposal, and what's more important, having created this technology instead of acquiring it. Culturally, poor people in middle eastern countries are stuck in middle ages. It's the west that can accelerate middle east's progress, and thus it should either be "the smarter one" or get out of there entirely and leave those people to their own devices (which, because of certain black liquid, doesn't seem to be an option).

[achtung]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGlXl-Ba01Ta6mwlgqWK1FtLX5ew?docId=370a5089bce94f218ba2643bcf700f29

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Tens of thousands of Libyans marched to the gates of one of the country's strongest armed Islamic extremist groups Friday, demanding it disband, as the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and four other Americans sparked a public backlash against militias that run rampant in the country and defy the country's new, post-Moammar Gadhafi leadership.

Related and interesting developments. I'd even call them positive.

[Flipside]

Yup, I was reading about this yesterday, Libya is caught between those who want the country to improve and those who want to keep it where it is, in fact, I was reading a Libyan photojournalists' report at the time, and many civilians were praising Allah that the Ambassador was still alive when they found him, though sadly he died soon after.

In many ways it just goes to highlight that insulting them as an entire group is counter-productive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/17/us-ambassador-video-idUSBRE88G19Y20120917

[NGTM-1R]

And as I'd pointed out earlier, the history between East and West goes back far, far further than the cartoons or even the recent wars. The riots are symptomatic as much as they are reactionary. It's that which lay at the heart of it, these people haven't just had their way of life insulted by a random persona, they believe they have had it insulted by a region of the world that has, in their eyes, had a long history of abusing their people and their culture.

That may well be an incorrect position for them to take, in many of these areas the West and its member countries are interchangeable to peoples minds, but whilst that does not justify the riots, it is exemplified by the fact that an American embassy was attacked over the film before the nationality of the film-maker had even been established, it was assumed he must be American because that, to their eyes, is what America 'does', and no doubt, a least a small percentage of these people were actively looking for an excuse to do so before the film or cartoons were ever released. A lot of these people see France, America, US etc in much the same way as we did the 'Axis of Evil', both of which show a lack of understanding of the inter-relations between the member countries and the differences between them.

The more we do to encourage that mindset, the less progress we stand to make in the area and the more social ammunition we give to the very people we are trying to stop.

We appear to be talking in circles around each other here then.

I'd say that the identity of the film and its actors and where they were from was probably never in serious doubt (if nothing else by their accents), and it only takes a bit of research to link the film to its backers. Do not forget, the film had been up on Youtube for a whole two months before the riots started breaking out. There was plenty of time to establish provenance via financial backing if nothing else.

Which is also why I mentioned the time lag and considered the casual relationship tenuous even if we accept the if-then premise. Though they have obviously grown beyond that stage, the idea that the rioting was initially orchestrated seems at least as valid as the idea they were spontaneous.

That said, while I disagree with Luis on some points (smart phones are as popular in the Arab world as anywhere else, so at the very least I suspect most of the rioters had a chance to watch the movie when somebody passed the phone around, much like they've been doing for the whole Arab Spring movement), he does a raise a point that I think is valid; there's something poisonous to both us and them about treating these people as having had their morality or rationality seriously damaged by what they've been told over the years about the US and/or the West. Past grievances and reactions to them simply aren't an adequate explanation any more than the previous if-then idea, particularly when the Libyans are so busy proving the thesis wrong.

It's not quite claiming they're a bull presented with a red flag, but it's getting close, and I'm distinctly uncomfortable with that. In offering an excuse, we are on some level actually excusing them; and even if we don't buy into it personally, they will be more than happy to use it to absolve themselves. It's the same reason why terrorism trials don't typically explore motives so much as they do execution or the attempt thereof, a tradition that everyone learned from when the Crown prosecuted the IRA on a regular basis.

[Flipside]

Well, the film was bought to the public attention by an Egyptian TV Host, called Khaled Abdullah, who, ironically, when confronted with the trouble it had caused, cited 'Freedom of Speech' in their own defence. So there's a high levels of irony all round here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/complaint-against-egyptian-tv-host-who-aired-innocence-of-muslims-raises-free-speech-issue.html

Of particular note is this comment :

And he dismissed any talk of legal action when word of Imam’s attempt at litigation first emerged. “Religious figures have a say in political matters as well. Their opinions exceed the walls of mosques. But when people do not like what we have to say, they file a lawsuit. How is this democracy?” he told Daily News Egypt earlier this week.

[Luis Dias]

Just some random thoughts.

Did you saw that movie? Even accepting the angry mob understood english (lolno), the film is unintelligible. It's complete crap. How it is even called a movie is beyond my own comprehension. No, I do not think these people even saw the movie. They may have some kind of internet in their homes, but the movie is unbearable.
The lag that you mention may be further evidence of this possibility (no one really saw it, until perhaps some opportunist saw in it the excuse they were looking for).

EDIT: ninja'ed.

Yeah, lots of irony in here. Terrible human stories are always like this. It's like an Adam Curtis documentary in the making, yet again.

[Flipside]

Thing is, it's easy to judge the movie by the standards of well-funded Western movies, but I've seen quite a few low-budget movies produced in the same region that were of the same quality with regards to acting and effects.

Slightly different country and a few years old, but just look at the Turkish remakes of Superman or ET for a rough example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9oI7Fd3Uec