Anti-Islaam Film

[chenGOD]

Which of course explains the huge protestant population in South Korea, Japan, and China and their rapid success.

ideas and methods spread around, you know. it would actually be fun to compare deng's post-mao bomb "getting rich is not shameful" (or something like that) to that shift from catholic ideas about wealth acquisition to protestant ones.

also success and capitalism are not the same.

Right, so it's not a uniquely cultural aspect, rather it is the set of economic institutions which provided incentives to grow/reinvest capital.

South Korea, Japan, and now China all grew through capitalist economies.

and what are those institutions ? they're aren't a product of material determinants only, the actual institutionalisation (of pretty much anything) is a societal/cultural process.

 

Even if you want to take the very long-view, whereby everything is a product of socialization and development of norm, market economies (as well as other capitalist institutions) were around long before protestants. There is nothing inherent to the "Protestant ethic" that caused that particular outcome.

[RichieBees]

you dont see athiests burning down embassies and killing ambassadors because they get insulted do you? there is something to be said about the savagry and barbarity of muslims

heh "religion of peace" leave it out

(lol)

[eugene]

Which of course explains the huge protestant population in South Korea, Japan, and China and their rapid success.

ideas and methods spread around, you know. it would actually be fun to compare deng's post-mao bomb "getting rich is not shameful" (or something like that) to that shift from catholic ideas about wealth acquisition to protestant ones.

also success and capitalism are not the same.

Right, so it's not a uniquely cultural aspect, rather it is the set of economic institutions which provided incentives to grow/reinvest capital.

South Korea, Japan, and now China all grew through capitalist economies.

and what are those institutions ? they're aren't a product of material determinants only, the actual institutionalisation (of pretty much anything) is a societal/cultural process.

 

Even if you want to take the very long-view, whereby everything is a product of socialization and development of norm, market economies (as well as other capitalist institutions) were around long before protestants. There is nothing inherent to the "Protestant ethic" that caused that particular outcome.

you really have to be more accurate here, no one is saying that calvinist protestanism gave birth to that huge concept that is now know as "capitalism", especially not weber (hence the "spirit of capitalism " in the title). let's start fresh, the idea is really simple and reasonable: people believe in stuff, they have their particular worldviews which influence their actions (or act from within their worldviews, to be more exact), the actions shape reality.

people who believe that material well-being is a sign of god's goodwill will act to preserve and to increase their wealth, this may have spiritual motives but it is also a very prominent element of capitalistic behavior. when this kind of belief is held by such a large number of people naturally you can expect it to actually affect things on the ground. i don't deny that you can easily find other elements of modern capitalism long before protestantism and weber but to laugh at the idea of cultural influence is silly.

[chenGOD]

I'm saying that culture cannot be used as a predictor of specific outcomes. That shit ain't hard to understand.

[SR4]

yeah eugene, i think i agree with you for the most part, but there is a fundamental disagreement on stating it like Weber a posteriori. There are way too many other factors to simply say religious acculturation=economic movement.

[eugene]

I'm saying that culture cannot be used as a predictor of specific outcomes. That shit ain't hard to understand.

culture as a whole ? you can't work with something like that. but specific elements of culture are constantly dissected (operationalized) and analyzed, checked for correlations and whether they explain other variables' variances (often very specific) and so on, that's what sociological research is all about. obviously there are researches that checked weber hypothesis as well, the first one i stumbled upon does back weber, as i mentioned before, some others don't, but you really has to delve into methodology and stuff to understand the reason for such contradictions.

[syd syside]

US Spends $70000 on Pakistain Ad Denouncing Youtube Trailer

 

The U.S. has bought $70,000 worth of air time on seven Pakistani television channels to air an ad showing President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denouncing the anti-Islamic video that has sparked violent protests in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

In the 30-second ad that began running Thursday, Obama says, "Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others."

 

Clinton appears after Obama and says, "Let me state very clearly that the United States has absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its contents. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation."

 

A U.S. seal is also displayed in the video. The comments by Obama and Clinton are from previous public statements and were not taped specifically for the ad.

"It is common and traditional to have to buy air time on Pakistan TV for public service announcements," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/20/13992235-us-spends-70000-on-pakistan-ad-denouncing-anti-muslim-film?lite

 

I'm not happy about how close that is to "We don't allow people to offend religious beliefs". That's only going to spur them on into thinking their violent reactions to suppress people are working.

 

Correcting misconceptions by explaining our freedom of speech and how the opinions of a few do not represent the opinion of all should be the way to go.

[sergeantk]

well clearly this is a sign the US gov't is in panic mode about the protests...

[Glunk]

i don't necessarily think the violence stems from islam itself, but from the lack of separation between religion and state in islamic nations. imagine if we all still lived in strictly non-secular nations.

 

but then of course, western intervention has probably turned them off from secularization and postponed it, and now the zeitgeist of islamic nations is that they have to defend themselves against all this fucking ethnocentrism.

 

idunno

[awepittance]

glenn greenwald knocks it out of the park once again

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/obama-officials-spin-benghazi-attack

 

 

Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths

In a familiar pattern, White House claims about what motivated the killing of the US ambassador in Libya are now contradicted

 

Predictably, and by design, most media accounts from the day after the Benghazi attack repeated the White House line as though it were fact, just as they did for the Bin Laden killing. Said NPR on 12 September: "The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad." The Daily Beast reportedthat the ambassador "died in a rocket attack on the embassy amid violent protests over a US-produced film deemed insulting to Islam." To date, numerous people believe – as though there were no dispute about it – that Muslims attacked the consulate and killed the US ambassador "because they were angry about a film".

As it turns out, this claim is almost certainly false. And now, a week later, even the US government is acknowledging that, as McClatchy reports this morning [my emphasis]:

"The

Obama administration

acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week's assault on the US consulate compound in Benghazi that left the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a 'terrorist attack' apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al-Qaida's leadership or regional allies.

"'I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,' said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

"It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was

not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week

.'The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,' Olsen said." [My emphasis]

 

it has to suck in an election year to basically have the Libyan embassy equivalent of the Blackwater bridge massacre that happened in Iraq after we declared mission accomplished, but don't fret Whitehouse, just blame it on a video and we're good to go!

[Nebraska]

nakula basseley needs to holla at original anti-islamic upstart salman rushdie for some pointers on how to get all this heat off his back

[BCM]

I think these protests are analogous to football hooliganism - you don't see it so much these days, but the frenzy in which certain muslims seem to whip themselves into reminds me very much of the mindless thuggery you used to see in the 80s at football matches. they've even got chants to shout out in unison. it's just a dumb mob mentality thing. as always (and as it is/was with hooliganism) it's the organisers of these "protests" that are the real criminals (although it saddens me that so many muslims seem to lack the ability to think objectively and for themselves in these matters).

 

anyway, dumb stupid humans not thinking for themselves and going along with the crowd. been a problem for fucking centuries. kill 90% of the population that's what I say.

[Salvatorin]

@awe: somehow this just seems like the weirdest case of disinfo the white house-press-media-clusterfuck has produced, I mean, how much more fucking bizarre can things get?

[Nebraska]

 

anyway, dumb stupid humans not thinking for themselves and going along with the crowd. been a problem for fucking centuries. kill 90% of the population that's what I say.

 

human beings are extremely contentious for a minor bi-pedal species, and for a lifeform that's 70% water, surprisingly weak and easy to destroy.

[syd syside]

Friend of mine from high school works down in Australia now as a Research Associate-US Elections Analyst and wrote a nice piece about this.

 

The White House's request that Google review the anti-Islamic film the "Innocence of Muslims" to determine if it violated YouTube's terms and services is worrisome for several reasons. First, is its implications for free speech. The Obama administration wasn't asking for an outright ban of the video but its intentions were pretty clear. We hope you'll remove this. It's a subtle and insidious infringement on the First Amendment when government uses its influence and authority to encourage private media to self-censore.

More broadly though-and this gets at what's worrisome about curbing speech-is that the wave of anti-American protests sweeping through the Arab World is about a lot more than one offensive video by a few lily-livered individuals. So far though, the Obama administration seems to pretty much being say just that. It's all too often we see government's do this. Pick a simple scapegoat for the problem rather than engage in serious reflection and/or defence of its own policies. The "Innocence of Muslims" may have been the spark for these demonstration's, but it wouldn't have spread so rapidly if there wasn't already a lot of kindling in place.

Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president.

Republicans have a chance to offer a thoughtful critique of the Obama foreign policy but instead seem intent to keep a safe distance from logic or reality. Team Romney's response is the tiresome platitudes of neoconservative American exceptionalism: We just need to more clearly assert our values As if the tensions in the Middle East are a symptom of the Muslim world's John Bolton nostalgia.

I'm in no way suggesting that the US is the bad guy while the Arab world is absolved of all responsibility. There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith. And there's no justification for the violence we've seen the last couple of days.

But while some of this anti-Americanism is unreasonable. Much of its also driven by legitimate grievances about America's foreign policy in the region: Both past and present. But right now, neither candidate's seem interested in grappling with these issues.

 

http://uselectionwatch12.com/people/luke-freedman

[joshuatxuk]

I think these protests are analogous to football hooliganism - you don't see it so much these days, but the frenzy in which certain muslims seem to whip themselves into reminds me very much of the mindless thuggery you used to see in the 80s at football matches. they've even got chants to shout out in unison. it's just a dumb mob mentality thing. as always (and as it is/was with hooliganism) it's the organisers of these "protests" that are the real criminals (although it saddens me that so many muslims seem to lack the ability to think objectively and for themselves in these matters).

 

anyway, dumb stupid humans not thinking for themselves and going along with the crowd. been a problem for fucking centuries. kill 90% of the population that's what I say.

 

I feel like I end up saying the same thing when discussing the protests with peers who immediately imply that these people are inherently more savage or ignorant because they are Arab Muslims. The mob mentality is universal. One of the NPR stories I heard early on about the protests had interviews with protesters themselves, many of whom did not actually want to kill anyone or who felt that the riots and violence were very much uncalled for - and yet the same individuals felt like they had to protest. It's peer pressure and intimidation to the extreme in those countries - whether it be from the government, political parties, religious groups, etc.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure the first reports I heard about the embassy riots in Egypt mentioned involvement by actual local football hooligans.

[BCM]

it wouldn't surprise me...

[goDel]

Friend of mine from high school works down in Australia now as a Research Associate-US Elections Analyst and wrote a nice piece about this.

 

The White House's request that Google review the anti-Islamic film the "Innocence of Muslims" to determine if it violated YouTube's terms and services is worrisome for several reasons. First, is its implications for free speech. The Obama administration wasn't asking for an outright ban of the video but its intentions were pretty clear. We hope you'll remove this. It's a subtle and insidious infringement on the First Amendment when government uses its influence and authority to encourage private media to self-censore.

 

I think this is a horrid misread of why the government acted the way it did. It's intentions should be explained from a diplomatic point-of-view instead of the blatant "they didn't ask for an outright ban, but their intentions were obvious". Well, apparently not that obvious for your friend to understand what might actually be going on. I'd argue the opposite. It was, and still is, never the intention of the government to downright ban the video. The video is the last thing on their mind, imo. Safety would be the first. Diplomatic (read: economic/strategic) relationships in the Middle East the second. At this point banning the video from youtube would not make much sense, even from a safety point of view. What's the extent of the protests in the first place (read: what is the amount of hype?). How sincere are these protests? Perhaps there's some groups behind them. It wouldn't be the fist time people are being paid to protest. To me at least, it looks like the Nth example of media propaganda.

Another point is that culturally speaking, the Middle Eastern partners of the US expect the US to act similar to how they would act themselves. Namely, to show their authority and bluntly put down this video. Especially because the US is supposed to be this almighty world-power. How could they not flex their muscles? Again, this is from the Middle Eastern government point of view. So for the US to be taken serious on a diplomatic level they simply have to show: a) they care for their Middle Eastern partners feelings, and b) they have to show they're a partner to be taken serious in terms of political/cultural power.

 

 

More broadly though-and this gets at what's worrisome about curbing speech-is that the wave of anti-American protests sweeping through the Arab World is about a lot more than one offensive video by a few lily-livered individuals. So far though, the Obama administration seems to pretty much being say just that. It's all too often we see government's do this. Pick a simple scapegoat for the problem rather than engage in serious reflection and/or defence of its own policies. The "Innocence of Muslims" may have been the spark for these demonstration's, but it wouldn't have spread so rapidly if there wasn't already a lot of kindling in place.

Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president.

Republicans have a chance to offer a thoughtful critique of the Obama foreign policy but instead seem intent to keep a safe distance from logic or reality. Team Romney's response is the tiresome platitudes of neoconservative American exceptionalism: We just need to more clearly assert our values As if the tensions in the Middle East are a symptom of the Muslim world's John Bolton nostalgia.

I'm in no way suggesting that the US is the bad guy while the Arab world is absolved of all responsibility. There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith. And there's no justification for the violence we've seen the last couple of days.

But while some of this anti-Americanism is unreasonable. Much of its also driven by legitimate grievances about America's foreign policy in the region: Both past and present. But right now, neither candidate's seem interested in grappling with these issues.

http://uselectionwat...e/luke-freedman

 

The interpretation of those favourable views statistics are sketchy at best. Explain, for instance why the biggest islamic nation, Indonesia went from a 29% in 2007 to a 54% in 2011. Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon have a similar % in 2011 as they did in 2007. I'd argue that 1 or 2% in statistics like these aren't meaningful in any way. They view America just as bad, as under Bush.

 

It's an entirely different discussion of what this could actually mean. What would be the impact of the imploded world economy on the views on America, for instance?

 

And another point is below this quote from Al Jazeera:

 

On television screens, the story looked like round two of the Arab Spring - only the targets of the demonstrations were not presidential palaces, but the various embassies of an American government that had absolutely nothing to do with the offending film. The story was also reminiscent of the unrest provoked in 2006 by the publication of those Danish cartoons. But this time around, Google had a pivotal role to play. Google, which owns Youtube, resisted pleas to take the film down, yet it did block access to it in parts of the Muslim world and left it up to governments to do the rest. Then there is the role of the Egyptian TV channel that took a video that lived in well-deserved obscurity on Youtube and turned it into something else entirely.

http://www.aljazeera...3587516357.html

 

First notice that it is suggested this ordeal started with some Egyptian channel paying attention to that youtube video. Why? Out of all Youtube videos, this one needs special attention. Surely there must be more videos which would have a more insulting content for the islamic culture?

 

And why is it that the outcries are so reminiscent to those of the Danish Cartoons? Were those also the consequence of American foreign policies? Seriously? Come on.

[syd syside]

I think this is a horrid misread of why the government acted the way it did. It's intentions should be explained from a diplomatic point-of-view instead of the blatant "they didn't ask for an outright ban, but their intentions were obvious". Well, apparently not that obvious for your friend to understand what might actually be going on. I'd argue the opposite. It was, and still is, never the intention of the government to downright ban the video. The video is the last thing on their mind, imo. Safety would be the first. Diplomatic (read: economic/strategic) relationships in the Middle East the second. At this point banning the video from youtube would not make much sense, even from a safety point of view. What's the extent of the protests in the first place (read: what is the amount of hype?). How sincere are these protests? Perhaps there's some groups behind them. It wouldn't be the fist time people are being paid to protest. To me at least, it looks like the Nth example of media propaganda.

Another point is that culturally speaking, the Middle Eastern partners of the US expect the US to act similar to how they would act themselves. Namely, to show their authority and bluntly put down this video. Especially because the US is supposed to be this almighty world-power. How could they not flex their muscles? Again, this is from the Middle Eastern government point of view. So for the US to be taken serious on a diplomatic level they simply have to show: a) they care for their Middle Eastern partners feelings, and b) they have to show they're a partner to be taken serious in terms of political/cultural power.

 

First you call it a horrid misread, yet your opposing conclusion is based on conjecture... Banning the video would be seen as a violation of first amendment rights because of religious pressure/violence. The video does not warrant violence. By suggesting to take it down you create the impression that critiques of islam in the US can be silenced through violent behavior/protest. What should have been articulated by the President to the United States and Middle East is the following:

 

1) What measures were being taken to protect U.S. lives at our consulates and embassies across the world;

2) What he thinks the origins of the current conflagrations have been (hint: saying it's a YouTube clip would be a radically incomplete and dishonest answer);

3) Why the United States needs to maintain an active diplomatic, security and commercial presence in the region;

4) What the United States government needs to start doing differently in order to best advance our interests in the region.

Now, obviously, this speech would have to be crafted with an eye towards the region as well -- which is both the beauty and the challenge of it.

 

http://uselectionwatch12.com/blogs/Middle-East-Protests

 

The Obama Administration did make the focus on the video. I don't know if you disagree with that, I'm a little bit sleep deprived at the moment. So pardon.

 

“This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/09/15/with_obama_policy_crumbling_wh_blames_video_290260.html

[goDel]

I think this is a horrid misread of why the government acted the way it did. It's intentions should be explained from a diplomatic point-of-view instead of the blatant "they didn't ask for an outright ban, but their intentions were obvious". Well, apparently not that obvious for your friend to understand what might actually be going on. I'd argue the opposite. It was, and still is, never the intention of the government to downright ban the video. The video is the last thing on their mind, imo. Safety would be the first. Diplomatic (read: economic/strategic) relationships in the Middle East the second. At this point banning the video from youtube would not make much sense, even from a safety point of view. What's the extent of the protests in the first place (read: what is the amount of hype?). How sincere are these protests? Perhaps there's some groups behind them. It wouldn't be the fist time people are being paid to protest. To me at least, it looks like the Nth example of media propaganda.

Another point is that culturally speaking, the Middle Eastern partners of the US expect the US to act similar to how they would act themselves. Namely, to show their authority and bluntly put down this video. Especially because the US is supposed to be this almighty world-power. How could they not flex their muscles? Again, this is from the Middle Eastern government point of view. So for the US to be taken serious on a diplomatic level they simply have to show: a) they care for their Middle Eastern partners feelings, and b) they have to show they're a partner to be taken serious in terms of political/cultural power.

 

First you call it a horrid misread, yet your opposing conclusion is based on conjecture... Banning the video would be seen as a violation of first amendment rights because of religious pressure/violence. The video does not warrant violence. By suggesting to take it down you create the impression that critiques of islam in the US can be silenced through violent behavior/protest. What should have been articulated by the President to the United States and Middle East is the following:

 

1) What measures were being taken to protect U.S. lives at our consulates and embassies across the world;

2) What he thinks the origins of the current conflagrations have been (hint: saying it's a YouTube clip would be a radically incomplete and dishonest answer);

3) Why the United States needs to maintain an active diplomatic, security and commercial presence in the region;

4) What the United States government needs to start doing differently in order to best advance our interests in the region.

Now, obviously, this speech would have to be crafted with an eye towards the region as well -- which is both the beauty and the challenge of it.

 

http://uselectionwat...e-East-Protests

 

The Obama Administration did make the focus on the video. I don't know if you disagree with that, I'm a little bit sleep deprived at the moment. So pardon.

 

“This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”

 

http://www.realclear...deo_290260.html

 

This last quote is pretty congruent with the Danish Cartoon argument. As opposed to the "it's the American policies and the Middle East have a less favourable view since Bush" - argument.

 

I'm not sure if I understood your first point. The video isn't banned. And the government hasn't banned it. In the original argument it was implied that the actual intention of the government was to ban the video. I'd say that would be conjecture.

 

Also, the president is supposed to give speeches, where he's asked for statements? He gave a speech a couple of years ago in Egypt. Should he repeat the speech he gave there? What's the use?

[syd syside]

More broadly though-and this gets at what's worrisome about curbing speech-is that the wave of anti-American protests sweeping through the Arab World is about a lot more than one offensive video by a few lily-livered individuals. So far though, the Obama administration seems to pretty much being say just that. It's all too often we see government's do this. Pick a simple scapegoat for the problem rather than engage in serious reflection and/or defence of its own policies. The "Innocence of Muslims" may have been the spark for these demonstration's, but it wouldn't have spread so rapidly if there wasn't already a lot of kindling in place.

Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president.

Republicans have a chance to offer a thoughtful critique of the Obama foreign policy but instead seem intent to keep a safe distance from logic or reality. Team Romney's response is the tiresome platitudes of neoconservative American exceptionalism: We just need to more clearly assert our values As if the tensions in the Middle East are a symptom of the Muslim world's John Bolton nostalgia.

I'm in no way suggesting that the US is the bad guy while the Arab world is absolved of all responsibility. There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith. And there's no justification for the violence we've seen the last couple of days.

But while some of this anti-Americanism is unreasonable. Much of its also driven by legitimate grievances about America's foreign policy in the region: Both past and present. But right now, neither candidate's seem interested in grappling with these issues.

http://uselectionwat...e/luke-freedman

 

The interpretation of those favourable views statistics are sketchy at best. Explain, for instance why the biggest islamic nation, Indonesia went from a 29% in 2007 to a 54% in 2011. Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon have a similar % in 2011 as they did in 2007. I'd argue that 1 or 2% in statistics like these aren't meaningful in any way. They view America just as bad, as under Bush.

 

It's an entirely different discussion of what this could actually mean. What would be the impact of the imploded world economy on the views on America, for instance?

 

And another point is below this quote from Al Jazeera:

 

On television screens, the story looked like round two of the Arab Spring - only the targets of the demonstrations were not presidential palaces, but the various embassies of an American government that had absolutely nothing to do with the offending film. The story was also reminiscent of the unrest provoked in 2006 by the publication of those Danish cartoons. But this time around, Google had a pivotal role to play. Google, which owns Youtube, resisted pleas to take the film down, yet it did block access to it in parts of the Muslim world and left it up to governments to do the rest. Then there is the role of the Egyptian TV channel that took a video that lived in well-deserved obscurity on Youtube and turned it into something else entirely.

http://www.aljazeera...3587516357.html

 

First notice that it is suggested this ordeal started with some Egyptian channel paying attention to that youtube video. Why? Out of all Youtube videos, this one needs special attention. Surely there must be more videos which would have a more insulting content for the islamic culture?

 

And why is it that the outcries are so reminiscent to those of the Danish Cartoons? Were those also the consequence of American foreign policies? Seriously? Come on.

 

For your second point about the statistics, it says "Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president."

 

Let's say you are right and it's a wash... same for Bush and Obama, the point is Obama's election has not shown to be a transformational moment for US-arab relations (true). It changed nothing and that's probably because our foreign policy has not changed under Obama, nor has our culture. And when "84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith" one could conclude that religious freedoms in the West, fundamental aspects of our society are also contributing to anti-American protests. The issue is more complex than I think anyone can comprehend and until a more clear dialogue is established, without scape goating, progress can't be made. But by suggesting the video is wrong and leaving it at that, it doesn't say much of anything to anyone. It's a cop out to the West and Middle East.

[goDel]

For your second point about the statistics, it says "Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president."

 

Let's say you are right and it's a wash... same for Bush and Obama, the point is Obama's election has not shown to be a transformational moment for US-arab relations (true). It changed nothing and that's probably because our foreign policy has not changed under Obama, nor has our culture. And when "84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith" one could conclude that religious freedoms in the West, fundamental aspects of our society are also contributing to anti-American protests. The issue is more complex than I think anyone can comprehend and until a more clear dialogue is established, without scape goating, progress can't be made. But by suggesting the video is wrong and leaving it at that, it doesn't say much of anything to anyone. It's a cop out to the West and Middle East.

 

Again, these conclusions do not automatically follow from these statistics. Hardly any conclusions can be drawn from these. I can repeat the "what could the effects of an imploded world economy be on these statistics" statement. With the implication being: there are many factors of why these numbers are the way they are. So it's hard to draw any conclusions from these. Especially the ones you're drawing. So the statistics haven't changed? Well they might have peaked in '09 and now they're back at Bush levels. Is Obama to blame for the '09 peak and the regression to the '11 levels?

 

As you say " the issue is more complex than I think anyone can comprehend". Same holds for these statistics. Lots has changed in Egypt since '09 don't you think? Should Egyptians love America now that they have no functioning government and their economy is imploded and Egypt is in an arguably worse state than before the Arab Spring?

 

For all I know this might be an elaborate Egyptian ploy from the Egyptian government to be able to ask some extra money to be able to deal with the "Muslim extremism" and what not. Apart from Iran, the Middle Eastern tradition seems to be that the more money they get from the US, the more Muslim extremism is apparent (look at Pakistan, for instance).

[syd syside]

I think this is a horrid misread of why the government acted the way it did. It's intentions should be explained from a diplomatic point-of-view instead of the blatant "they didn't ask for an outright ban, but their intentions were obvious". Well, apparently not that obvious for your friend to understand what might actually be going on. I'd argue the opposite. It was, and still is, never the intention of the government to downright ban the video. The video is the last thing on their mind, imo. Safety would be the first. Diplomatic (read: economic/strategic) relationships in the Middle East the second. At this point banning the video from youtube would not make much sense, even from a safety point of view. What's the extent of the protests in the first place (read: what is the amount of hype?). How sincere are these protests? Perhaps there's some groups behind them. It wouldn't be the fist time people are being paid to protest. To me at least, it looks like the Nth example of media propaganda.

Another point is that culturally speaking, the Middle Eastern partners of the US expect the US to act similar to how they would act themselves. Namely, to show their authority and bluntly put down this video. Especially because the US is supposed to be this almighty world-power. How could they not flex their muscles? Again, this is from the Middle Eastern government point of view. So for the US to be taken serious on a diplomatic level they simply have to show: a) they care for their Middle Eastern partners feelings, and b) they have to show they're a partner to be taken serious in terms of political/cultural power.

 

First you call it a horrid misread, yet your opposing conclusion is based on conjecture... Banning the video would be seen as a violation of first amendment rights because of religious pressure/violence. The video does not warrant violence. By suggesting to take it down you create the impression that critiques of islam in the US can be silenced through violent behavior/protest. What should have been articulated by the President to the United States and Middle East is the following:

 

1) What measures were being taken to protect U.S. lives at our consulates and embassies across the world;

2) What he thinks the origins of the current conflagrations have been (hint: saying it's a YouTube clip would be a radically incomplete and dishonest answer);

3) Why the United States needs to maintain an active diplomatic, security and commercial presence in the region;

4) What the United States government needs to start doing differently in order to best advance our interests in the region.

Now, obviously, this speech would have to be crafted with an eye towards the region as well -- which is both the beauty and the challenge of it.

 

http://uselectionwat...e-East-Protests

 

The Obama Administration did make the focus on the video. I don't know if you disagree with that, I'm a little bit sleep deprived at the moment. So pardon.

 

“This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it, but this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.”

 

http://www.realclear...deo_290260.html

 

This last quote is pretty congruent with the Danish Cartoon argument. As opposed to the "it's the American policies and the Middle East have a less favourable view since Bush" - argument.

 

I'm not sure if I understood your first point. The video isn't banned. And the government hasn't banned it. In the original argument it was implied that the actual intention of the government was to ban the video. I'd say that would be conjecture.

 

Also, the president is supposed to give speeches, where he's asked for statements? He gave a speech a couple of years ago in Egypt. Should he repeat the speech he gave there? What's the use?

 

He wasn't saying that the Government tried to ban the video, but they did not specify with context where they stand. The vagueness is a perfect example of poor leadership.

 

The other day I castigated the Obama campaign for focusing so narrowly on the anti-Islamic video instead of the broader tensions between the US and the Arab World.

 

Without explaining the full scope of how we respect freedom of speech and how this film is only a representation of those who made it, the issue is muddled and Americans see it as the White House wanting to remove the video or reacting to the situation differently because there are violent protests. In a way putting blame on the American people but not on anything/one else. To the Middle East the White House response does not convey any kind of explanation of American values/foreign policy. Basically without being more specific, media on both sides of the Earth abuse this lame duck reasoning to their advantage.

[goDel]

I specifically said "implied". O_o

[syd syside]

For your second point about the statistics, it says "Obama's election was heralded as a potentially transformational moment for US-Arab relations. Instead, the citizens of many Middle Eastern Countries have a less favourable view of the US today than when George Bush was president."

 

Let's say you are right and it's a wash... same for Bush and Obama, the point is Obama's election has not shown to be a transformational moment for US-arab relations (true). It changed nothing and that's probably because our foreign policy has not changed under Obama, nor has our culture. And when "84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith" one could conclude that religious freedoms in the West, fundamental aspects of our society are also contributing to anti-American protests. The issue is more complex than I think anyone can comprehend and until a more clear dialogue is established, without scape goating, progress can't be made. But by suggesting the video is wrong and leaving it at that, it doesn't say much of anything to anyone. It's a cop out to the West and Middle East.

 

Again, these conclusions do not automatically follow from these statistics. Hardly any conclusions can be drawn from these. I can repeat the "what could the effects of an imploded world economy be on these statistics" statement. With the implication being: there are many factors of why these numbers are the way they are. So it's hard to draw any conclusions from these. Especially the ones you're drawing. So the statistics haven't changed? Well they might have peaked in '09 and now they're back at Bush levels. Is Obama to blame for the '09 peak and the regression to the '11 levels?

 

As you say " the issue is more complex than I think anyone can comprehend". Same holds for these statistics. Lots has changed in Egypt since '09 don't you think? Should Egyptians love America now that they have no functioning government and their economy is imploded and Egypt is in an arguably worse state than before the Arab Spring?

 

For all I know this might be an elaborate Egyptian ploy from the Egyptian government to be able to ask some extra money to be able to deal with the "Muslim extremism" and what not. Apart from Iran, the Middle Eastern tradition seems to be that the more money they get from the US, the more Muslim extremism is apparent (look at Pakistan, for instance).

 

Sure they do not automatically = fact... they are observations. But all you are doing is suggesting you can't know this but you aren't providing any evidence to refute it. It's an opinion piece. I think Luke's general point about how the White House approached this poorly rings true. You disagree... for what reasons I am not sure of because all you do is suggest an opinion/statistics as not 100% factual and then leave your argument asking questions instead of asserting why Luke's opinion is definitively false.

 

I specifically said "implied". O_o

 

edit: I said I am sleep deprived and apologized for any mis-reading etc prior. So I am sorry to freak you out. I will re-read what I typed/you said.