Ah! Thank you. That’s what I needed. It wasn’t clear what you were referring to.

The Rushdie attack happened years after I published this article. But you are right to query whether it counts as “for criticizing Islam” (and not whether it happened “in America”), since then my article would need updating.

But the context of the sentence you are referencing is the accusation that I avoid criticizing Islam for fear of attack. This isn’t applicable to that context. The fatwa against Rushdie was for insulting the prophet, not criticizing Islam (the Satanic Verses is not a critique of Islam; it’s just fiction). Likewise the mass shootings (Mateen, 9-11, etc.) that I addressed separately in this paragraph:

Even now, in the United States, the greatest domestic terrorist threat we face is from Christian nationalists, not Muslims. Indeed, since 9-11, almost all mass attacks here have been carried out by non-Muslims, and the deadliest attack on US soil was not perpetrated by Muslims, but a random gun nut. In the last ten years, the number of U.S. citizens killed on American soil by Muslim terrorists is barely above 70; twice as many toddlers have drowned in buckets.

Sorry Richard, good question.

My post was in regard to this statement “ No atheist has ever been attacked by any Muslim in the Americas for criticizing Islam. Ever.”

Salman is now an American, is a well known atheist, and was attacked by a Muslim in front of a live audience in upstate New York . His book about the stabbing has recently been nominated for a national book award – this stabbing is not some make believe conspiracy theory.

I learned a lot from your article, and the fact that I can only think of one example that contradicts your claim only adds to the strength of your argument-at least for me

The limitation of my counter example is that I don’t know exactly why the attacker made the attack. Was it for criticizing Islam? That is, I’m not aware of some sort of confession letter left on desk the morning of the stabbing, or social media posts, etc.

So I can’t say for sure that this post of mine is a counter example to your claim . Let me know if I have not been fair to your claim

And what relevance does that have here?

What is the relevance of that to anything being discussed here?

“Is RT worse than other TV-channels?” Yes. Even when accounting for the fact that all TV is of low reliability relative to other sources of journalism.

The rest of your conspiracy theory tinfoil hat is unsourced and thus requires no reply.

We might have three topics here, I have a favourite for discussion.

First, I have seen you on Youtube on the topic of the historicity of Jesus. I think that you are right and I also enjoyed that you explained how you came to your conclusions. You are educated, intelligent and courageous. Your general intellectual capabilities are not up to debate.

Second, is RT worse than other TV-channels? I say you should not trust any of them, but I am grateful for selected contributions of RT on Youtube and the German RT website. I can disprove „Your source is RT, so your content must be wrong“.

Third, is a pseudonomous wiki a trustworthy source? This is the thesis that triggered my response. Most people believe it was but this is an error and it is an important question since Wikipedia has a monopoly on being the only relevant encyclpopedia for the masses.

You do not know who is writing on pseudonomous to manipulate you. What we do now is that – just examples – the Nato and the EU officially announced that they spent money on covertly manipulating us on the internet. You can have valid primary sources and still manipulate by selective citation. But wikis use also sources that are biased. RT is in competition with mainstream media, both in bussiness and on ideology. So mainstream media publish biased reports on RT and wikis cite them. By the way, the first source on this wiki page is Gawker. As far as I know they went bankrupt after loosing a lawsuit because they lied about someone. You might argue that many people write on a wiki and correct mistakes. Unfortunately there are hierarchies. Administrators have not only the last word on texts, they can also ban people permanently. Officially there are rules on banning people but these rules do not get enforced, insteat they get ignored.

There is much more to say about wikis, especially wikipedia, but other wikis work the same way. I recomment to watch an interview with Helen Buyniski on

Why do I trust her? Please listen to her arguments, they are plausible. Also, I have been listening to a German journalist that I respekt much who worked indepently from Helen Buyniski on the topic of the German Wikipedia and he came to the same conlusions. I link two English sources that I have not watched, I am watching his German Youtube channel „Wikihausen“ instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEikIJQYSAA

Propaganda is unreliable. It is used to manipulate. It specifically exploits reasoning just like yours. “Having alternative views” is great; but not when they are manipulative and dishonest and designed to exploit just such an interest. You would do better to act like a skilled historian yourself and be more skeptical of your sources when abundant evidence establishes them to be unreliable and manipulative.

By contrast, neither link I gave is “anonymous” and all claims in them are sourced and thus fact-checkable. Do your job as a skeptic. Don’t use skepticism to rationalize being a dupe.

Dr. Carrier, that comment is a disappointment to me. You are a skilled historian, right? And your source about RT is an anonymous website? Is it because it named itself rational? I think the wiki article on RT has a low quality.

I never read the US RT-website, but I noticed RT on Youtube. The RT Youtube channel has certainly a political agenda, they work in favor of Russia. CNN, FOX, MSNBC or (yes, different medium) the Wahington Post have agendas too, they work for the interests of some rich people. My argument was not that RT was totally trustworthy, instead I claim that it is as mediocre as a source as many others. I would look at the person responsible for a claim. I trust Chris Hedges. In former times, Abby Martin worked for them. Can you name persons on Microsoft-NBC that you deem competent and trustworthy?

I only read parts of the article on rational wiki. Contrary to the “rational wiki”, I think it is a good thing to present ideas that deviate from mainstream news. I deeply disagree on some alternatives theories but others are interesting and some are true. Did Epstein kill himself? Regarding 9/11, there is a large number of experts (architects, engineers, physicists, mathmaticians, chief blasters, scientists) who believe that bombs destroyed the three buildings including mathmetical models. In regard of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, I think the government of Malaysia asked for access to evidence because they do not agree to the official version. It is good to have media that grants access to alternative theories.