Michel Boucher wrote:

> zxcvbob > wrote in
> :
>
> > But here's the
> > key: Were they violent demonstrations? If so (and I serously
> > doubt it), how widespread were they?
>
> Why are you so intent on bringing this back to violence, as though the
> Western world has not caused violence to Islam time and time again? If
> you tally up the violence to Islam by Westerners and the violence to
> Westerners by Islam, I think you'll find they still have a lot of
> wiggle room before the scales are even.

That is going to need some explaining. Are you going back to the Crusades
and the Spanish Inquisition? Some times you just have to get past the
things done in the past by people of 20 -100 generations past.

Every time you turn around there is a different excuse for middle east
anger. One day it is because of something that a western country did. The
next day you hear that it because western governments support Israel. Then
the next day you hear that it is because the US support the repressive
house of Saud in Saudi Arabia and the moderates are not allowed to protest.

There are all sorts of different excuses for violent reactions but they
usually boil down to disenfranchised people needing to vent some anger and
venting it only in the direction that their government allows.


> I think you have to ask yourself, who at this juncture, stands to
> benefit the most from these series of events? Motive is everything and
> some people's ship of state has recently sprung a leak.
>

I think what we need to ask ourselves is if we want to surrender our
personal rights and freedoms to the rantings of a bunch of fundamentalists,
the sort that would go on a violent rampage over some harmless drawings,
or are we prepared to offer out support to a government who has a record of
standing up for personal rights and freedoms.