'Can You Prove You're Not A Potential Terrorist?'

[citizen k]

A friend of mine does have a bit of a conspiracy theory going that it was pre-meditated by him/his father, knowing the stupid conservative locals would over react at a muslim with something that looks like a bomb, and knowing/hoping the inevitable media attention would lead to good things for the kid.
I'm doubtful to say the least. But it is quite a nice little theory.

Yeah, that seems to be going around in the US amongst the loonies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-accuses-ahmed-mohamed-of-committing-fraud_55fed260e4b08820d918fe9b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[The Brain]

I knew Corbyn and the kid had planned the whole thing!

[Martinus]

A friend of mine does have a bit of a conspiracy theory going that it was pre-meditated by him/his father, knowing the stupid conservative locals would over react at a muslim with something that looks like a bomb, and knowing/hoping the inevitable media attention would lead to good things for the kid.
I'm doubtful to say the least. But it is quite a nice little theory.

Yeah, that seems to be going around in the US amongst the loonies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-accuses-ahmed-mohamed-of-committing-fraud_55fed260e4b08820d918fe9b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

The article misrepresents Dawkins' position based on his tweets.

[Razgovory]

Oh?  How are you reading this?

[11B4V]

A friend of mine does have a bit of a conspiracy theory going that it was pre-meditated by him/his father, knowing the stupid conservative locals would over react at a muslim with something that looks like a bomb, and knowing/hoping the inevitable media attention would lead to good things for the kid.
I'm doubtful to say the least. But it is quite a nice little theory.

Yeah, that seems to be going around in the US amongst the loonies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-accuses-ahmed-mohamed-of-committing-fraud_55fed260e4b08820d918fe9b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

The article misrepresents Dawkins' position based on his tweets.

Imagine that.

[Razgovory]

Hey, Mart you gunna fill me in why the Huff Post was unfair to this bigot?

[Martinus]

Hey, Mart you gunna fill me in why the Huff Post was unfair to this bigot?

He linked a youtube video which says Ahmed the Clockmaker was a fraud with a comment "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn't have done so". That's a far cry from the headline "Richard Dawkins accuses Ahmed Mohamed of Committing Fraud."

[Jaron]

Many people now suspect this was an attempt to test our defenses on setting off a bomb. Now that this is all over the news no teacher in America will dare question any bomb like device.

[Razgovory]

Hey, Mart you gunna fill me in why the Huff Post was unfair to this bigot?

He linked a youtube video which says Ahmed the Clockmaker was a fraud with a comment "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn't have done so". That's a far cry from the headline "Richard Dawkins accuses Ahmed Mohamed of Committing Fraud."

Not that far a cry, especially when he followed up with, "OK, fraudulent claiming of an "invention" is not heinous. And he certainly should not have been arrested by the police."

[grumbler]

I find the whole concept that the kid was a "fraud" because he misused the term "invented" and used piece of an old clock to make his "pencil-box clock" (which, apparently, could run off a battery, unlike the clock he took apart) the most absurd contention in this whole affair.  HuffPo, of course, missed the point, like Dawkins did.  The Wright brothers didn't "invent" the airplane, either, unlike very popular claims (including Wikipedia). They, like the kid, simply engineered the first successful version of their project goal.  Now, the Wright brothers did invent some of the elements of their successful airplane (most importantly, the method of flight control) while the kid just repackaged existing parts, but no one (least of all the kid) is claiming that he was engaged in anything like what the Wright brothers accomplished.

Bottom line:  all of the angst and self-satisfaction being evidenced by those who have "proven" that some 14-year-old-kid didn't invent the LED clock face is unworthy of adults and is immaterial to the case at hand.  The case at hand isn't about the kid's actions (the cops and school have conceded that there is no and never was any evidence that a crime ever occurred), but about the actions of cops who illegally arrested the kid and submitted him to child abuse, and the school authorities who abetted that crime.

[Martinus]

Hey, Mart you gunna fill me in why the Huff Post was unfair to this bigot?

He linked a youtube video which says Ahmed the Clockmaker was a fraud with a comment "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn't have done so". That's a far cry from the headline "Richard Dawkins accuses Ahmed Mohamed of Committing Fraud."

Not that far a cry, especially when he followed up with, "OK, fraudulent claiming of an "invention" is not heinous. And he certainly should not have been arrested by the police."

Still a far cry, imo, as it completely distorts the point Dawkins was making and misrepresents his overall attitude towards the kid.

[Martinus]

I find the whole concept that the kid was a "fraud" because he misused the term "invented" and used piece of an old clock to make his "pencil-box clock" (which, apparently, could run off a battery, unlike the clock he took apart) the most absurd contention in this whole affair.  HuffPo, of course, missed the point, like Dawkins did.  The Wright brothers didn't "invent" the airplane, either, unlike very popular claims (including Wikipedia). They, like the kid, simply engineered the first successful version of their project goal.  Now, the Wright brothers did invent some of the elements of their successful airplane (most importantly, the method of flight control) while the kid just repackaged existing parts, but no one (least of all the kid) is claiming that he was engaged in anything like what the Wright brothers accomplished.

Bottom line:  all of the angst and self-satisfaction being evidenced by those who have "proven" that some 14-year-old-kid didn't invent the LED clock face is unworthy of adults and is immaterial to the case at hand.  The case at hand isn't about the kid's actions (the cops and school have conceded that there is no and never was any evidence that a crime ever occurred), but about the actions of cops who illegally arrested the kid and submitted him to child abuse, and the school authorities who abetted that crime.

Which is exactly the point Dawkins made, no?

[DontSayBanana]

Ok, I gotta say, having seen the clock looking like this:



The teacher may have overreacted and the kid was obviously innocent, but that does look like a bomb (or at least it does not look like a clock).

Actually, nobody I've heard has accused the teacher of overreacting.  If one is looking at that and doesn't know what it is, freaking out is absolutely not unreasonable.  Most of the complaints I've heard (and voiced myself) are leveled at the police and the school administration.

• They did NOT follow bomb scare protocol.
  
• They threatened to press charges because they weren't "satisfied" with Mohamed's explanation, even though it was clearly NOT a bomb, and he clearly did not CLAIM it was a bomb.  How can you have a hoax bomb that's neither a bomb nor a hoax?

[Razgovory]

Hey, Mart you gunna fill me in why the Huff Post was unfair to this bigot?

He linked a youtube video which says Ahmed the Clockmaker was a fraud with a comment "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn't have done so". That's a far cry from the headline "Richard Dawkins accuses Ahmed Mohamed of Committing Fraud."

Not that far a cry, especially when he followed up with, "OK, fraudulent claiming of an "invention" is not heinous. And he certainly should not have been arrested by the police."

Still a far cry, imo, as it completely distorts the point Dawkins was making and misrepresents his overall attitude towards the kid.

His attitude his one of hostility suggesting the kid is a fraud and then out right saying his actions are fraudulent. He also opines that this is some sort of hoax.  Beyond that he doesn't seem to have a "point", beyond anger that the kid (a Muslim) got good press.

[grumbler]

Which is exactly the point Dawkins made, no?

No.  dawkins talked as though the story here was the motive of the id, not the actions of the police (which he simply decried in passing).  Dawkins completely missed the main point until the very end of his twitter conversation.