This dude's a little fish, but the broad pictureleprofessionalApril 3 2011, 09:34:21 UTC
Reposting comment from elsewhere...
Unlike the people arguing that this is a religious thing, I think it's more of a socio-political thing. (1) There is no mandate in Christianity to burn Qurans and random pastors don't go around burning them, this guy is trying to achieve a political aim (2) The guys on the other side may be 'inflamed' by the act (a provocation to them) but the fact that they know about it AND act on the provocation is to serve a political means
Ok... disjointed thoughts but....
so there is at least ten different aspects to this story from different stakeholders.
How the hell do they find out about Quran burning in the US in middle of Afghanistan anyway and why do they care? Do they not see all the happy Muslim people hanging out with Christian people. It's the same reason we see a constant pictures of fundamentalist mobs killing people etc. There is a selection bias, and someone spreading this information over there in order to incite people for a political means (for example you can bet your tushies that Iran is covering the Quran burning at a great extent and completely ignoring the UN slaughter). In our case, in the past the same information campaigns were used against communist countries to ensure the ideological war holds steady, and I am guessing it's the same the other way around.
I'm guessing that this inciting in the form of actual militant core (the guys who are doing the killing to meet some political ends), fundamentalist supporters (people who rhetorically support the militant core and justify their actions based on ideological grounds), the average person (who are swayed by (1) fundamentalist rhetoric (2) specially if victimized by perceived 'targets' of the fundamentalist rhetoric-- i.e. stories like this, families being killed by NATO foreign forces are the daily reality in afghanistan, and as a story in Guardian describes today, to the eyes of the West Afghan life isn't worth very much anywayThey may feel the same way back.) and political figures (who play the role of powerbrokers in Afghanistan)--
Also, there is a for all intents an purposes absurd and senseless war going on in Afghanistan and a lot of killing based on ideology. How is killing via intent* these poor UN guys over an book (read: ideology, political ends) that much more absurd than killing via criminal negligence* 7 civilians, 3 children, (5 days ago) over... democracy? some bearded dude? Strategic interests? (what's the line these days? Can someone update me?). It's all fucked up.
-- Sidenote re:culpability (ignoring geneva provisions given that this is considered asymmetrical warfare)--
*Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death).
But these are also included in mens rea culpability
*Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not *Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences.
Re: This dude's a little fish, but the broad pictureskeleton_pirateApril 3 2011, 10:22:17 UTC
Small point from someone here in Afghanistan: The Quran burning has been on the news, on all stations, including CNN and the BBC for several days now. People here can watch any news broadcast, from any country, and hear about it.
Iranian TV stations have been covering the attack on the UN compound as well.
Re: This dude's a little fish, but the broad pictureleprofessionalApril 3 2011, 10:33:05 UTC
Also the Iranian state media coverage seems to be pretty... uh biased...
http://www.presstv.ir/ New Afghan rallies rap Qur'an burning --> one sentence dedicated to the UN workers
Same in the Persian site, focused on Jones and anti-Islamic sentiment in the US, one sentence dedicated to the injured etc., 0 headlines. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.fa/172821.html
Re: This dude's a little fish, but the broad pictureskeleton_pirateApril 3 2011, 10:47:17 UTC
Yeah, I don't think that anyone would claim otherwise, and I'm sure as hell not gonna defend the Iranian media, but in all fairness, the attack on the UN compound took place more than 48 hours ago, and the rallies are escalating throughout the country at this moment. There's also been attacks (unrelated) to 2 other compounds. So the attack on the UN compound is kind of old news at this point.
Does that mean that Iranian media here is devoting full, sensitive, and neutral pieces about the people who were killed? Of course not. Alls I'm saying is that you can't really say that Iranian media hasn't been covering the attack.
Unlike the people arguing that this is a religious thing, I think it's more of a socio-political thing. (1) There is no mandate in Christianity to burn Qurans and random pastors don't go around burning them, this guy is trying to achieve a political aim (2) The guys on the other side may be 'inflamed' by the act (a provocation to them) but the fact that they know about it AND act on the provocation is to serve a political means
Ok... disjointed thoughts but....
so there is at least ten different aspects to this story from different stakeholders.
How the hell do they find out about Quran burning in the US in middle of Afghanistan anyway and why do they care? Do they not see all the happy Muslim people hanging out with Christian people. It's the same reason we see a constant pictures of fundamentalist mobs killing people etc. There is a selection bias, and someone spreading this information over there in order to incite people for a political means (for example you can bet your tushies that Iran is covering the Quran burning at a great extent and completely ignoring the UN slaughter). In our case, in the past the same information campaigns were used against communist countries to ensure the ideological war holds steady, and I am guessing it's the same the other way around.
I'm guessing that this inciting in the form of actual militant core (the guys who are doing the killing to meet some political ends), fundamentalist supporters (people who rhetorically support the militant core and justify their actions based on ideological grounds), the average person (who are swayed by (1) fundamentalist rhetoric (2) specially if victimized by perceived 'targets' of the fundamentalist rhetoric-- i.e. stories like this, families being killed by NATO foreign forces are the daily reality in afghanistan, and as a story in Guardian describes today, to the eyes of the West Afghan life isn't worth very much anywayThey may feel the same way back.) and political figures (who play the role of powerbrokers in Afghanistan)--
Also, there is a for all intents an purposes absurd and senseless war going on in Afghanistan and a lot of killing based on ideology. How is killing via intent* these poor UN guys over an book (read: ideology, political ends) that much more absurd than killing via criminal negligence* 7 civilians, 3 children, (5 days ago) over... democracy? some bearded dude? Strategic interests? (what's the line these days? Can someone update me?). It's all fucked up.
--
Sidenote re:culpability (ignoring geneva provisions given that this is considered asymmetrical warfare)--
*Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death).
But these are also included in mens rea culpability
*Recklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not
*Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences.
Reply
Iranian TV stations have been covering the attack on the UN compound as well.
Reply
Prior to the attacks or after the attacks?
idk about Europe, but here the burning itself got major coverage after the UN attacks.
Reply
http://www.presstv.ir/
New Afghan rallies rap Qur'an burning --> one sentence dedicated to the UN workers
Same in the Persian site, focused on Jones and anti-Islamic sentiment in the US, one sentence dedicated to the injured etc., 0 headlines.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.fa/172821.html
Reply
Does that mean that Iranian media here is devoting full, sensitive, and neutral pieces about the people who were killed? Of course not. Alls I'm saying is that you can't really say that Iranian media hasn't been covering the attack.
Reply
Leave a comment