Originally posted by paxnatus
Just because you do not like the source does not imply the article to be false.
The burden of proof is in your court friend.
For several thousand years now mankind's great thinkers have all more or less agreed in the adage "One cannot prove a negative". This is precisely
why in mathematics, algorithmic science, and logic there is no such thing as "false" when testing a hypothesis. Instead, the two hypotheses are
identified as the Null Hypothesis (H0) and the Alternative Hypothesis (H1, H2, H3,...etc.).
For example, the only way I could "prove" that there is NOT any life whatsoever on the planet Mars would be to take a complete and total survey of
every cubic centimeter of it's atmosphere and soil (even down to the core of the planet itself) to look for microorganisms. Preferably multiple
times in order to account for things like experimental error or equipment failure. Thus, we can see that proving a negative while perhaps technically
possible is usually so impractical that it requires nearly an omniscient understanding of the subject matter. Therefore, proper scientific and
logical design of an experiment on Mars would set the Null Hypothesis (H0) to "No life has been detected
on the planet Mars and the
Alternative Hypothesis (H1) to "We have detected life on the planet Mars".
Hence, the "burden of proof" is pretty much always on the one attempting to prove the "positive" or (more accurately) the Alternative Hypothesis,
albeit it with a few rare exceptions in theoretical physics and extremely arcane mathematics.
More importantly...please don't assert that I don't "like" the source from which the alleged crucifixions originated"
. I have no feelings
of "like" or "dislike" at all towards them.
Rather, I was simply answering your question as one would a deep and sound understanding and educational background in the history of the Middle East
and the myriad of crises currently unfolding...just like you requested. The first
thing any historian or geo-political expert does when
reading a primary historical document, such as a piece of journalism about current events ("History" means "in the past"...not necessarily "a
really long time ago". Yesterday is still very much "history") is to ask yourself some basic "Who, where, what, why, how, and to what end" sorts
of questions in an attempt to recognize bias and account for it appropriately.
For a historian "bias" isn't something to be avoided...it's something to be acknowledged as it is an inescapable part of the human condition. We
are somewhat biased, albeit some of us more so than others.
A prime example of how bias skews perception and the actual events of history can be found with our perceptions of the "Viking" peoples even to this
day. The word "Viking" conjures images of a warlike, primitive, and savage barbarian and the phrase "rape, pillage, and plunder" is virtually
synonmous w/ our modern depiction of them. However, all archeological evidence seems to indicate that these terrible Vikings weren't really such bad
people assuming you take into account the time period they were part of. They were expert craftsman and artisans, treated their women better than
pretty much the rest of Europe, and never enslaved or tortured people for amusement. Likewise, when the Norse went to colonize the Normandy region of
France, they placed a great deal of importance upon the Norse assimilating the customs, religion, and language of the Frenchman as they recognized
that even though they conquered the French militarily this did not give them the right to culturally eradicate or enslave an entire people. That's
pretty respectable stuff for the living hell that was Medieval Europe.
So how did this myth of the "savage" Viking come to us? Easy. When the Vikings raided the modern day U.K. they had an exceptional penchant for
pillaging monastaries and church's given that they always had lots of food, wine, ale, and money whereas any and all previous attackers in the land
would summarily leave such establishments alone given their holy status. The difference? The Vikings were Pagans and had no more qualms about
pillaging the Christians than the Christians did about pillaging the Muslim or Aztec religious sites.
Now take into account that the only literate class of people besides the nobility WAS THE RELIGIOUS ARISTOCRACY. Thus...all of our written accounts
of Viking raids come to us from the very monks and priests who simply couldn't believe that these "godless barbarians" were actually attacking a
bunch of monks. That's bias in action.
Thus, anybody who understands the Middle East would not necessarily accept at face value a story like this from an organization that supports,
advocates, and recommends genocide until it can be corroborated with a second primary source that doesn't have an economic interest in spreading
falsehoods. Makes sense?