America's attempts to appease "Muslim opinion" are depraved and suicidal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not doubting that the protests do have anti-American elements but they are not primarily and exclusively directed at American targets. Instead, for the first time in years, America is only a secondary target.

In some places it is and in others it isn't. These rioting mobs are anti-West. Always have been, always will be. This ain't about no cartoons. Never has been, never will be. If it was, there would be no targeting US personnel as the US has clearly caved to the violent mob and is looking to appease terrorizing extremists. So much for Bush's principles but that's for another day...

Cartoon Protesters Direct Anger at U.S.

Cartoon Protesters Direct Anger at U.S., Police Kill Four When Afghans March on U.S. Base

By NOOR KHAN

QALAT, Afghanistan Feb 8, 2006 (AP)— Police killed four people Wednesday as Afghans enraged over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad marched on a U.S. military base in a volatile southern province, directing their anger not against Europe but America.

The U.S. base was targeted because the United States "is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world," said Sher Mohammed, a 40-year-old farmer who suffered a gunshot wound while taking part in the demonstration in the city of Qalat.

Source

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hate crimes in the US? By Muslims?? Would you mind providing me with some evidence?? I have already watched the news 4 times today and I haven't seen anything...

From CBS news:

"Iranian protestors blamed America, reports CBS News correspondent David Hawkins, even though President Bush has condemned the cartoons.

"If America's seen as being indifferent or even attacking the prophet, a lot of Muslims are going to say it's an attack on Islam," Akbar Ahmed, head of Islamic studies at American University, told CBS News.

Afghan troops shot and killed four protesters, some as they tried to storm a U.S. military base outside Bagram "

There are many other examples. That was a simple search of the net. Yes, it is illogical to tie America to the Danish cartoons. It would seem impossible for humans to make that connection, but some have. Do not underestimate the hate some people in the world have generated tword Americans.

Nice job Chuckles The silence is deafening!

Which of those examples took place within the US then?

The reason that this hatred spread beyond Denmark is because the people in those countries resent the entire western world. They see no cultural distinctions between different countries or peoples - the west to them is an amorphous mass that is trying to destroy Islam. As I said, poor and uneducated masses. Hence:

"America is the leader of Europe and the leading infidel in the world,"

Its the reverse of the view that a lot of westerners hold towards the Middle East. Many of us have little direct experience with any middle eastern country, so the tendency is to view the entire middle eastern region (and all its people) as more or less the same. The truth of course is more complicated than that. Its a fair guess that the average Kuwaitee for instance, is rather different to the average Iranian, Egyptian or Palestinian.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I'm not doubting that the protests do have anti-American elements but they are not primarily and exclusively directed at American targets. Instead, for the first time in years, America is only a secondary target.

In some places it is and in others it isn't. These rioting mobs are anti-West. Always have been, always will be. This ain't about no cartoons. Never has been, never will be. If it was, there would be no targeting US personnel as the US has clearly caved to the violent mob and is looking to appease terrorizing extremists. So much for Bush's principles but that's for another day...

Which I never doubted. I was responding to the article and the way it reinterprets the protests for a nationalist agenda.

Btw, I wish that the new board sofware wouldn't put together two distinct posts. It sort of leads to misunderstandings...

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not doubting that the protests do have anti-American elements but they are not primarily and exclusively directed at American targets. Instead, for the first time in years, America is only a secondary target.

In some places it is and in others it isn't. These rioting mobs are anti-West. Always have been, always will be. This ain't about no cartoons. Never has been, never will be. If it was, there would be no targeting US personnel as the US has clearly caved to the violent mob and is looking to appease terrorizing extremists. So much for Bush's principles but that's for another day...

Which I never doubted. I was responding to the article and the way it reinterprets the protests for a nationalist agenda.

I have no use for a nationalist agenda. I also have no use for folks trying to argue for self-censorship of our media to appease a terrorising mob in the Middle East. As if increased self-censorship will make that mob disappear. It won't. Not until the West does...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not doubting that the protests do have anti-American elements but they are not primarily and exclusively directed at American targets. Instead, for the first time in years, America is only a secondary target.

In some places it is and in others it isn't. These rioting mobs are anti-West. Always have been, always will be. This ain't about no cartoons. Never has been, never will be. If it was, there would be no targeting US personnel as the US has clearly caved to the violent mob and is looking to appease terrorizing extremists. So much for Bush's principles but that's for another day...

Which I never doubted. I was responding to the article and the way it reinterprets the protests for a nationalist agenda.

I have no use for a nationalist agenda. I also have no use for folks trying to argue for self-censorship of our media to appease a terrorising mob in the Middle East. As if increased self-censorship will make that mob disappear. It won't. Not until the West does...

I agree - the mob would exist regardless of what we publish. But self regulation of the media is not the same as censorship.

[Chuckles 0]

I agree - the mob would exist regardless of what we publish. But self regulation of the media is not the same as censorship.

I just need to point out that the element of muslims that is being the most threatening and oversteping the boundries of protest also printed severly anti-semetic and anti-Christian figures and cartoons for YEARS before. They don't self-regulate at all, yet they expect the same from Western publications?

Its an interesting question about self-regulation. After all these were CARTOONS. This was not a fabricated story or something mis-quoted. It was CARTOONS. Calvin and Hobbes has been more offensive, IMO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I just need to point out that the element of muslims that is being the most threatening and oversteping the boundries of protest also printed severly anti-semetic and anti-Christian figures and cartoons for YEARS before. They don't self-regulate at all, yet they expect the same from Western publications?

No they don't. As I said many middle eastern countries do not have a free press, and it follows that a lot of people over there can't even conceive the idea. But as I said, I don't hold with the idea that just because they do it, its ok for us to do likewise. Doesn't seem to be a particularly christian attitude to me... Especially since we are supposedly holding ourselves to a higher moral code than the fundamentalists.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I'm not doubting that the protests do have anti-American elements but they are not primarily and exclusively directed at American targets. Instead, for the first time in years, America is only a secondary target.

In some places it is and in others it isn't. These rioting mobs are anti-West. Always have been, always will be. This ain't about no cartoons. Never has been, never will be. If it was, there would be no targeting US personnel as the US has clearly caved to the violent mob and is looking to appease terrorizing extremists. So much for Bush's principles but that's for another day...

Which I never doubted. I was responding to the article and the way it reinterprets the protests for a nationalist agenda.

I have no use for a nationalist agenda. I also have no use for folks trying to argue for self-censorship of our media to appease a terrorising mob in the Middle East. As if increased self-censorship will make that mob disappear. It won't. Not until the West does...

Right, but you still applauded the gist of the article which promotes a nationalist agenda. I did not favor self-censorship in my response to the article, I just expressed my total disagreement with the right-wing agenda promoted in retaliation to the protest.

We would do much better to ignore the mobs; if they realize noone cares, they will stop protesting eventually.

[Chuckles 0]

I just need to point out that the element of muslims that is being the most threatening and oversteping the boundries of protest also printed severly anti-semetic and anti-Christian figures and cartoons for YEARS before. They don't self-regulate at all, yet they expect the same from Western publications?

No they don't. As I said many middle eastern countries do not have a free press, and it follows that a lot of people over there can't even conceive the idea. But as I said, I don't hold with the idea that just because they do it, its ok for us to do likewise. Doesn't seem to be a particularly christian attitude to me... Especially since we are supposedly holding ourselves to a higher moral code than the fundamentalists.

I'm not christian, and yes they did.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Umm... I was agreeing with you that the middle-eastern media doesn't self-regulate and offering an explanation as to why that is.

Never said you were a christian either. Just so you know my reply wasn't intended as some sort of personal insult, I'm not sure why you insist on interpreting it as such - second thread you have done that in

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have no use for a nationalist agenda. I also have no use for folks trying to argue for self-censorship of our media to appease a terrorising mob in the Middle East. As if increased self-censorship will make that mob disappear. It won't. Not until the West does...

Right, but you still applauded the gist of the article which promotes a nationalist agenda.

I do applaud anyone promoting a nationalist agenda? Where? When?

But self regulation of the media is not the same as censorship.

Exactly. Those talking about a lack of sensitivity or lack of respect in the European media either don't know what they are talking about or are looking to muzzle the European media - that ain't self regulation but censorship. The only reason why folks call for that are the rioting mobs in the Middle East. Nothing should be changed or done because of the rioting mobs in the Middle East. Not from our end, anyways. That's all I am saying. As far as I am concerned, let them riot.

What's printed in Europe's papers ain't none of their business. After all, we ain't rioting because of the ####### that they print either. Nor should we.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I have no use for a nationalist agenda. I also have no use for folks trying to argue for self-censorship of our media to appease a terrorising mob in the Middle East. As if increased self-censorship will make that mob disappear. It won't. Not until the West does...

Right, but you still applauded the gist of the article which promotes a nationalist agenda.

I do applaud anyone promoting a nationalist agenda? Where? When?

Maybe I misread your first post on this topic which seems to be aiming in exactly the same direction as the OP's article which promotes nationalism big time. If so, I apologize.

But I'm utterly frustrated by the discussion as it is going here and elsewhere; I'd be the last person to claim that the protesters are doing the right thing, and still any time I criticize the Western reaction I get blown to pieces. This is a nationalist/clash-of-civilization-fest and I'm luckily not invited.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe I misread your first post on this topic which seems to be aiming in exactly the same direction as the OP's article which promotes nationalism big time. If so, I apologize.

Well, all I said in my initial post (as in several others) is that I don't think that the rioting mobs should be cause for any action in Europe or the US at all. Nor should their criminal actions be rewarded with so much as a discussion as to whether or not there might be some mistake in anyone's policy. It's a terrorizing mob that ought to be dealt with by the local authorities according to the law. Other than that, they deserve no attention whatsoever. We don't owe those extremists nothing. Not a thing.

I also spoke of the painfully apparent double standard that makes those rioting fools and their "demands" look quite ridiculous. They demand of others what they ain't willing to afford others. They lose.

Fail to see how that could be misread as nationalist...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The cartoons are irrelevant at the end of the day, but the debate itself is representative of a continuing ideological and cultural divide between the US and the muslim world in which neither side wants to find any common ground. The author of Ayn Rand article seems to suggest that we should write off a whole culture and community of 1.5 billion people are being irrelevant because they are irrational, and that anti-western sentiment is undeserved.

Unfortunately it is not 'undeserved'. Al Qaeda didn't blow up the WTC one morning because they suddenly felt like it, or because god told them to do it. Their ideology is perhaps more political than it is religious - certainly they dress it up in the trappings of religion, but that is not to say they're one and the same.

Hoever, it is important to recognise that the problems of etoday are rooted in the mistakes of yesterday. As you say we don't owe violent mobs and terrorists anything, and clearly we should not cow-tow to their every whim.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

To add to the discussion:

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/