As I am sure many of you newsy types know, there have recently been incredibly violent and emphatic protests outside US Embassy's in predominantly Muslim countries as a result of a film posted on YouTube.
Given the details (or the distinct lack thereof), I have been unable to rationalize this incredible reaction directed specifically at the United States, rather than at the filmmaker. Mostly the problem appears to be that there is NOT a filmmaker. This BBC Article seems to suggest that the maker of the film himself was Egyptian. Indicating that Egyptian religious sects are fighting their battles indirectly through the United States, and the rest of the Arab world is up in arms as a side effect. Whether this is true or not, it does seem to be the case that this film was distinctly meant to upset certain groups and particularly in the direction of the United States.
Before I go any further, I need to define what I mean by terrorism in this instance. I consider terrorism to be the act or acts of deliberately being violent or inflammatory in the name of your own cause, without respect for human life or collateral damage, and possibly with the intention to destroy both.
Given this definition, this film is terrorism. It seems to be deliberately inflammatory, and certainly to it's own ends, without regard for the violence and loss of life it has caused. The fact that it is still unclear who created the film, and that no one has come out and apologized for the film's contents or defended the film in any way seems to indicate that this was either an intended effect or a happy side effect. The maker of this film is obviously complicit with the violence it has caused and is therefore a terrorist by the above definition.
So arrest him,you say! But unfortunately it is not that simple. The creator of this film was completely within his First Amendment rights to free speech. He broke no laws. Inciting violence via free speech is not a crime, and nor should it be. To prevent the strange future dystopia where Americans need assault rifles to fight against the government, we need free speech. If we give that up, all is lost. Freedom of dissent is necessary and critical to the function of our government and society. It is important that differing opinions be heard and that no one is ever arrested for speaking their mind. An unfortunate byproduct is also the freedom to be incendiary, and to create violence by rhetoric without punishment.
There are many nations that do not permit this kind of behavior. A recent example is Russia, who continues to detain punk band Pussy Riot for their verbal and visual attacks in the government, the type of behavior that passes without comment in the US, as it is very much legal here. China has in the past arrested hundreds of men and women for sending even remotely disloyal e-mails (Amnesty International). This happens almost everywhere but in the US. We are privileged with free speech.
So what can we do here? I urge that we seek the truth about this film. Who made it? What for? If the groups currently protesting understand that they are protesting the acts of a terrorist and not a nation, I believe the tone will change.
-------------------------------------
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!
*I have deliberately not posted the actual film, because I do not think it deserves more views. If you absolutely must see it, Google is your friend.
I think that your definition of terrorism leaves out an important detail: use of violent acts or targeting/wishing violence upon civilians or non-combatants. I watched the entire film, and definitely got the impression that it was a criticism (to put it lightly) of the religion or ideology, rather than a reflection of the desire to harm Muslim civilians.
ReplyDeleteAs an additional note, those who attacked the embassy were definitely extremists. There were tons of Muslim civilians who protested the attacks on the embassy, holding up signs saying "This does not represent us [the civilians]." The acts of violence were committed by extremists, who will basically send death threats and, if able, commit acts of violence if the name Muhammad is even uttered in the public sphere. I don't think it's necessarily correct to assume that this video was bound to incite violence in rational human beings.
That being set aside, this video is definitely dangerous, because it does incite a reciprocal hatred towards Western countries (especially the US), as it's pretty clear that the actors are from some sort of Western descent. I agree with your statement that we should seek the truth about this film. I think it will shed a lot of light on why the heck it was made, and what the video is supposed to mean.