Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:50 AM Sep 2012

No movie "caused" this violence

That's like saying that Obama's policies caused the Tea Party.

There are always groups pursuing an agenda. When mob violence is on the agenda there will be a pretext for ginning up mob violence.

And the world is full of pretexts, 24/7/365.

For instance, the Spanish-American war was going to happen whether the MAINE blew up or not. Hearst and others had the public clamoring for war and there was going to be something to seize on as the focus of that. The accidental explosion of a US ship in harbor in Portugal would hardly have caused us to invade Portugal.

Groups are fighting for power for themselves within Libya and Egypt. Imagine if some private citizen in France said something about abortion and Romney led a march against the French embassy. The remark would not have caused the march. The march would have been caused by Romney calculating that there was political advantage to himself in a march on the French embassy.

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

LeftinOH

(5,342 posts)
4. Yup. That's probably true for most of the "religious outrage" episodes:
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:57 AM
Sep 2012

A story which may (or may not) be based on reality is blown out of proportion, and a few key individuals are eager to fan the flames and stir up angry mobs, composed largely of people who never saw/heard the offending material. Remember "Mohammed the Teddy Bear" fiasco in Sudan a couple of years back?

spanone

(135,632 posts)
2. when you make a movie that insults the muslim religion, you know that it will incite violence
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:54 AM
Sep 2012

it's happened in the past and it will happen again

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
3. So was the march on Washington in Aug 1963 done so MLK would have a political advantage?
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 11:54 AM
Sep 2012

That was when he did his Dream speech.

What about other protests and marches? Are they all about political advantage?

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
8. ???
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:14 PM
Sep 2012

I don't think anyone would question that the 1963 march was in favor of political change and political outcomes.

But since they didn't burn down the capitol there's no problem.

But let's say there was a narrow pretext... say the march organizers had picked out one racist joke Frank Sinatra told about Sammy David Jr. in 1963. (Such jokes were a standard part of Frank's performances in 1963)

Would anyone think that Frank Sinatra had caused the march, and that better behavior from Frank Sinatra would have somehow ended the civil rights movement?

cynatnite

(31,011 posts)
11. I don't agree with your theory...
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:25 PM
Sep 2012

I don't think it's always the case whether there is violence or not.

I agree that there are times when it is politically motivated to gain a greater advantage. It could be said that it's true in this case because there are clerics and others who do look for things like this. I've heard it called an industry of sorts in the Middle East.

Not always. The riots after the Rodney King verdict would be an instance where your theory does not apply, IMO.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
16. Yes, and the riots after MLK was assassinated
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:47 PM
Sep 2012

And both of those were real events and things everyone heard on the news.

And if there had been mass uprisings against US embassies when we invaded Iraq, for instance, I would not be making this same argument, at all.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
9. Ditto
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:15 PM
Sep 2012

...the situation in several of these Middle East countries is fragile at best.

All it will take is the spark and the flames can be fanned by those that do not want a Democratic society.

Factions here, would be very happy to eliminate OUR Democracy...and ensure that we instead have a Republic.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
6. NPR's Coverage reveals that a the excerpts of this movie were shown by a Muslim...
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:02 PM
Sep 2012

extremist group (shalafi) on Egyptian television.

This was done to gin up violence and make the people angry.

But it was seen on Egyptian Television and shown by Muslims there to cause the anger.

Jennicut

(25,415 posts)
10. The movie was insulting and disgusting.
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:16 PM
Sep 2012

But nothing causes anyone to do anything unless they want to do it to begin with. That angry mob probably knew very little about the movie other then they were told that "Americans hate Muslims" and "Mohammed was denigrated". The people who want power exploit certain groups to get the effects they want. Or maybe I am simply too cynical.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
12. Whooow, next you will probably try to tell me that the sampan firing on the USS Turner Joy
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:35 PM
Sep 2012

didnt start the Vietnam War.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
13. that's a really poor comparison
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:37 PM
Sep 2012

we've been fucking around in that part of the world for over half a century; killing leaders, killing hundreds of thousands if not millions, propping up horrible regimes. So no, the movie didn't cause the violence, but it certainly helped spark it.

robinlynne

(15,481 posts)
15. I disagree. i unerstnad what you are trying to say, but I still disagree.
Wed Sep 12, 2012, 12:46 PM
Sep 2012

An anti-islam film, just like burning the Koran, or peeing on dead bodies, is asking for war. period.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No movie "caused&quo...