Cartoon Protests not unique to Islam

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Just thought this could be of interest:

Source

February 12, 2006

Mohammad Cartoon Protests Aren't Unique to Islam

By REUTERS

Filed at 9:39 a.m. ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The violence linked to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad is not unique to Islam, experts say, and the protests reflect political and cultural passions more than the faith's core values.

Looking for distinct features that would make Islam liable for the cartoon-related violence around the world does little to explain it, said the Rev. Patrick Gaffney, an anthropologist and expert on Islam at the University of Notre Dame.

``There are parallel behaviors in every tradition,'' he said. ''Buddhism has a violent strain despite its pacifism ... You think about Hinduism and nonviolence but (Mohandas) Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu.''

Other examples of religious violence involving various faiths abound in recent and past history. But attention has focused on Muslims this year as at least 11 people have been killed in protests in the Middle East, Asia and Africa after the publication of cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammad in newspapers in Denmark and elsewhere.

``You can't say Islam has a gene for violence,'' Gaffney said. ``It has to do with the dynamics, political and economic, that are at play right now,'' especially in Europe where there has been a long history of anti-Islamic prejudice that represents ``an underlying kind of powder keg.''

1.3 BILLION MUSLIMS

While Muslims account for only 5 percent of the European Union's population generally, their numbers are much higher in certain countries. Worldwide there are estimated to be 1.3 billion Muslims, or 21 percent of the global population, surpassed only by Christians, who account for 2.1 billion, or 33 percent, according to the Web site www.adherents.com.

Ruediger Seesemann, a professor of religion at Northwestern University, said the present situation has exploded because beyond whatever offense the cartoons carry, ``Muslims feel under siege.''

On top of the ``physical occupation of Iraq,'' he said, the cartoon controversy came ``at a moment of time when it's the straw that broke the camel's back.''

``It is often said in the media that Islam prohibits images of the Prophet,'' Seesemann said. ``This is not correct. Muslims themselves have portrayed the Prophet.

``The problem here is not the image but the way it has been published -- as a terrorist with a turban shaped like a bomb. This is what Muslims direct their outrage against.''

Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, said in a commentary on his Web site that the current controversy ``must be understood in historical context.''

``Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence and most colonial masters and their helpmates among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was,'' he wrote.

COLONIAL SCARS

``Indeed, the same themes of Aryan superiority and Semitic backwardness in the European 'scientific racism' of the 19th and early 20th centuries ... led to the Holocaust against the Jews. ... A caricature of a Semitic prophet like Mohammad with a bomb in his turban replicates these racist themes ...

``Semites were depicted as violent and irrational and therefore as needing a firm white colonial master for their own good,'' Cole wrote.

John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University and author of ``What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam and Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam,'' agrees that there is nothing in the faith that makes its adherents prone to reacting differently to ridicule.

Martin Luther King Jr., he said, once called riots the voice of the voiceless.

``From my point of view this is a lot more about the context in which this is occurring than about the blasphemy,'' he said in an interview.

``It's a European context in which you have a growing right wing that is anti-immigrant and a global situation in which mainstream Muslims feel there is a war against Islam,'' Esposito said.

At the same time many Muslims around the world feel ``a sense of powerlessness both within their own countries and, as well, in the international community that exacerbates the situation,'' he said.''

Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd.

[Chuckles 0]

And the point of this is.... ??

I don't think you will see reasonable people who think Islam itself is a religion of hate. Indeed, it is one of the most peaceful and rightous of all major religions.

Why do you want to give any credance to the hard-liners? I would say Christian hard-liners are as bad, but it is simply not true. Other causes around the world do not resort to violence, hate, kidnapping, and murder IN MODERN TIMES as much as do the Islamic hard-liners.

All extremists are bad. Some are worse then others. Stop defending cretins. Live in the now. Learn from history, but don't repeat its mistakes. Letting people disrespect others without actions leads to danger. For reference, see the example of those who turned a blind eye and felt sorry for the Germans and the Nazi's in the 1930's.

[Chuckles 0]

Perhaps you would be interested in reading this

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1623552,00300001.htm

or perhaps this:

http://thestaronline.com/news/story.asp?fi...ec=Worldupdates

[Fischkoepfin 1]

And the point of this is.... ??

I don't think you will see reasonable people who think Islam itself is a religion of hate. Indeed, it is one of the most peaceful and rightous of all major religions.

Why do you want to give any credance to the hard-liners? I would say Christian hard-liners are as bad, but it is simply not true. Other causes around the world do not resort to violence, hate, kidnapping, and murder IN MODERN TIMES as much as do the Islamic hard-liners.

All extremists are bad. Some are worse then others. Stop defending cretins. Live in the now. Learn from history, but don't repeat its mistakes. Letting people disrespect others without actions leads to danger. For reference, see the example of those who turned a blind eye and felt sorry for the Germans and the Nazi's in the 1930's.

The point of this is that I'm appalled by the way in which this whole affair is helping radicals on both sides to spread their hate and call for violence. To assume that a bunch of people would run around torching embassies just because of some silly cartoons is ridiculous. It's like assuming the major reason for 9/11 was the fact that the "terrorists hate our freedom."

I would be the last person to say that any form of violence (verbal or physical) is justified, but that does not make it possible to say that either side in this conflict is right. As to your point that Christians have not been as violent in modern times, that is BS and points to the exact thing this article is about: Look at Northern Ireland, look at Spain, look at Timothy McVeigh. And if you're still not convinced, think about the terrorism of the KKK.

You say that we can learn something from history, and I agree. But it's not the world's reaction to the Nazis we should learn from because all we can learn is that noone ever gave a damn about the victims or do you honestly believe WW2 was fought to liberate the Jewish people or to defeat racism?? We should rather learn something from the Cold War and the uses of propaganda to stir up hate. We can also learn a lot from the way in which public opinion was manipulated in the days, months, and years preceding WW1. The important thing is to stay calm and not use any instance you can find to slam whoever happens to be the enemy of the day.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have only seen one side calling for and committing violence and murder. I have only one side seen setting embassies on fire and burning flags (not that flag burning bothers me). And to be sure: It's not ALL Muslims doing this. Nobody says that. At least noboby that can be taken seriously. It's a fringe group over there causing ruckus. And we ought not to reward them by taking them seriously. They're punks with nothing better to do than spreading violence. Their people will need to deal with them. Not us.

Edited February 12, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Chuckles 0]

And the point of this is.... ??

I don't think you will see reasonable people who think Islam itself is a religion of hate. Indeed, it is one of the most peaceful and rightous of all major religions.

Why do you want to give any credance to the hard-liners? I would say Christian hard-liners are as bad, but it is simply not true. Other causes around the world do not resort to violence, hate, kidnapping, and murder IN MODERN TIMES as much as do the Islamic hard-liners.

All extremists are bad. Some are worse then others. Stop defending cretins. Live in the now. Learn from history, but don't repeat its mistakes. Letting people disrespect others without actions leads to danger. For reference, see the example of those who turned a blind eye and felt sorry for the Germans and the Nazi's in the 1930's.

The point of this is that I'm appalled by the way in which this whole affair is helping radicals on both sides to spread their hate and call for violence. To assume that a bunch of people would run around torching embassies just because of some silly cartoons is ridiculous. It's like assuming the major reason for 9/11 was the fact that the "terrorists hate our freedom."

I would be the last person to say that any form of violence (verbal or physical) is justified, but that does not make it possible to say that either side in this conflict is right. As to your point that Christians have not been as violent in modern times, that is BS and points to the exact thing this article is about: Look at Northern Ireland, look at Spain, look at Timothy McVeigh. And if you're still not convinced, think about the terrorism of the KKK.

You say that we can learn something from history, and I agree. But it's not the world's reaction to the Nazis we should learn from because all we can learn is that noone ever gave a damn about the victims or do you honestly believe WW2 was fought to liberate the Jewish people or to defeat racism?? We should rather learn something from the Cold War and the uses of propaganda to stir up hate. We can also learn a lot from the way in which public opinion was manipulated in the days, months, and years preceding WW1. The important thing is to stay calm and not use any instance you can find to slam whoever happens to be the enemy of the day.

The violence in Northern Ireland was/is derived from Political parties NOT from religion. Northern Ireland was governed by the Ulster Unionist Party government, based at Stormont in East Belfast. a mostly Protestant government. The protests started as a civil rights movement AND WAS NOT BASED ON RELIGION. Most bloody confrontations were between mostly catholic movements against the British occupation. Yes, Religion was used for this POLITICAL fight that for the most part took place 30-40 years ago. Live in the now.

Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist with a religious agenda. He just didn't like the American government, and he was one crazy man, not a movement.

The KKK barely exists today. They stopped being a movement in the 1960's. And besides, it was race based and not religion based. Live in the now.

I do not know much of Spain. So I cannot comment.

Since you are on the subject, no I do not believe the war in europe (WW2) was fought to protect jews. Quite the contrary, world opinion during the time in ALL contries involved was mostly anti-semitic. The Nazi-Germans made the mistake of hating everyone who wasn't arien. That pissed off the Russians/British/Americans and anyone else they tried to slaughter.

I simply do not see the tie-in to the Cold war as clearly as you do. I suppose there can be some parallels. But you also get into dangerous territory. Would Russia have been as docile after WW2 without the cold-war and its effects?? Shouldn't west Germany in particualar be thankful for the cold war? I do not know. It certainly could be suggested. Would communist Russia still exists? Would there still be gulags and oppresion? Hummm... so many questions you have raised. It is best to consider everything when you make such blanket statements.

Yes, there is a history that has led up to the cartoon debate. The British and the French ROYALLY screwed the Arab nations after WW1. But that happened nearly 100 years ago. We have to let go... Should I be mad that my ancestors were slaves??? HELL NO! I live in the here and now.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I have only seen one side calling for and committing violence and murder. I have only one side seen setting embassies on fire and burning flags (not that flag burning bothers me). And to be sure: It's not ALL Muslims doing this. Nobody says that. At least noboby that can be taken seriously. It's a fringe group over there causing ruckus. And we ought not to reward them by taking them seriously. They're punks with nothing better to do than spreading violence. Their people will need to deal with them. Not us.

You are correct, but just the fact that now a lot of so-called moderates claim to have suddenly realized the true face of Islamism and are willing to give the right-wing of European and American politicians right if only in this case should make one stop for a moment and think. So far this has been physical violence on one side and amnesia on the other. It all plays into the hand of radicals on both sides.

I'm all against taking the fanatics seriously too. I also agree that their people should take care of them. But if we heeded that we would have been able to stop talking about it. Or to stop pretending that all this was just because of 12 cartoons. But the whole affair continues to be exploited for political and ideological gains, just look at the article from the Ayn Rand Institute in the other thread. The article is awash in stupid, braindead nationalism and goes even so far as to pretend all the violence was exclusively directed at the US and the only answer is to kill and demoralize those responsible, namely the nations supporting terror. That, however, has never been the best answer; violence does not really solve anything while ignoring the fanatics on both sides might just do the trick.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Don't you think that the various calls for "sensitivity", "respect" or whatever else the self-censorship has been labeled plays into the hands of those radicals on both sides as well? We ought to pay as much attention to the idiots burning down embassies as they deserve: none.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

And the point of this is.... ??

I don't think you will see reasonable people who think Islam itself is a religion of hate. Indeed, it is one of the most peaceful and rightous of all major religions.

Why do you want to give any credance to the hard-liners? I would say Christian hard-liners are as bad, but it is simply not true. Other causes around the world do not resort to violence, hate, kidnapping, and murder IN MODERN TIMES as much as do the Islamic hard-liners.

All extremists are bad. Some are worse then others. Stop defending cretins. Live in the now. Learn from history, but don't repeat its mistakes. Letting people disrespect others without actions leads to danger. For reference, see the example of those who turned a blind eye and felt sorry for the Germans and the Nazi's in the 1930's.

The point of this is that I'm appalled by the way in which this whole affair is helping radicals on both sides to spread their hate and call for violence. To assume that a bunch of people would run around torching embassies just because of some silly cartoons is ridiculous. It's like assuming the major reason for 9/11 was the fact that the "terrorists hate our freedom."

I would be the last person to say that any form of violence (verbal or physical) is justified, but that does not make it possible to say that either side in this conflict is right. As to your point that Christians have not been as violent in modern times, that is BS and points to the exact thing this article is about: Look at Northern Ireland, look at Spain, look at Timothy McVeigh. And if you're still not convinced, think about the terrorism of the KKK.

You say that we can learn something from history, and I agree. But it's not the world's reaction to the Nazis we should learn from because all we can learn is that noone ever gave a damn about the victims or do you honestly believe WW2 was fought to liberate the Jewish people or to defeat racism?? We should rather learn something from the Cold War and the uses of propaganda to stir up hate. We can also learn a lot from the way in which public opinion was manipulated in the days, months, and years preceding WW1. The important thing is to stay calm and not use any instance you can find to slam whoever happens to be the enemy of the day.

The violence in Northern Ireland was/is derived from Political parties NOT from religion. Northern Ireland was governed by the Ulster Unionist Party government, based at Stormont in East Belfast. a mostly Protestant government. The protests started as a civil rights movement AND WAS NOT BASED ON RELIGION. Most bloody confrontations were between mostly catholic movements against the British occupation. Yes, Religion was used for this POLITICAL fight that for the most part took place 30-40 years ago. Live in the now.

Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist with a religious agenda. He just didn't like the American government, and he was one crazy man, not a movement.

The KKK barely exists today. They stopped being a movement in the 1960's. And besides, it was race based and not religion based. Live in the now.

I do not know much of Spain. So I cannot comment.

Since you are on the subject, no I do not believe the war in europe (WW2) was fought to protect jews. Quite the contrary, world opinion during the time in ALL contries involved was mostly anti-semitic. The Nazi-Germans made the mistake of hating everyone who wasn't arien. That pissed off the Russians/British/Americans and anyone else they tried to slaughter.

I simply do not see the tie-in to the Cold war as clearly as you do. I suppose there can be some parallels. But you also get into dangerous territory. Would Russia have been as docile after WW2 without the cold-war and its effects?? Shouldn't west Germany in particualar be thankful for the cold war? I do not know. It certainly could be suggested. Would communist Russia still exists? Would there still be gulags and oppresion? Hummm... so many questions you have raised. It is best to consider everything when you make such blanket statements.

Yes, there is a history that has led up to the cartoon debate. The British and the French ROYALLY screwed the Arab nations after WW1. But that happened nearly 100 years ago. We have to let go... Should I be mad that my ancestors were slaves??? HELL NO! I live in the here and now.

1. The problems in Northern Ireland continue even though you might not read about it. Yes, it is political but it is packaged as Catholics vs. Protestants, meaning the people involved base their conflicts on religion.

2. McVeigh was a religious terrorist. There is a whole movement behind him; it's just being ignored because it would really suck to think about the internal threats to the US.

3. The KKK continues to spread hate, burn crosses and the like. They not only targeted non-white people and Jews, but also Catholics; as defenders of white Protestant America, there motivations are religious.

4. To believe that WW2 was because Americans, Russians, and English got pissed at the Aryan doctrine does not make sense; otherwise someone would be doing something against those Amerian militia guys calling themselves "Aryan nation". The war was not to end racism or anything, it was -like most wars- about economic markets (for US and UK) and about the spread of international communism (SU).

5. Cold War: The Cold War came about because the Wsetern Allies realized that Russias expansionist instinct rivalled that of the West. As to West Germany: Why would anyone be greatful for living on the front lines of a potential nulear war? The collapase of the Soviet Union was internal and noone ever won the Cold War. As with WW2, it was all about markets and ideology, and it was the cold war that messed up the Middle East. Colonialism helped too, but in the Cold War period, the Middle East was the ideological battlefield of the two superpowers. Why do you think all the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East are in power? And what did you think caused the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism in the first place?

This whole mess has been caused by the Cold War. The people who lead us into this mess and tell us to hold up our Western superiority have done the same 20 years ago when the enemy was either the SU or the US.

[Chuckles 0]

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

It's always easier to end a discussion by pointing to the absurdity of the other side than to actually prove the other side wrong.

I have done a lot of reading on all these things, particularly the effects of Cold War policy on the Middle East. Call my allegations baseless if you want, but unlike your post, that I was responding to, my "baseless allegations" base themselves in actual newsreports and don't count the absence of these news in American media as a sign that Christian violence or the KKK don't exist.

[Chuckles 0]

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

It's always easier to end a discussion by pointing to the absurdity of the other side than to actually prove the other side wrong.

I have done a lot of reading on all these things, particularly the effects of Cold War policy on the Middle East. Call my allegations baseless if you want, but unlike your post, that I was responding to, my "baseless allegations" base themselves in actual newsreports and don't count the absence of these news in American media as a sign that Christian violence or the KKK don't exist.

Sigh... ok, I figured we could just end this pointless discussion, but I see you wish to continue.

First off, I have to point out that I never said the Cold war WAS good for Germany. In fact, I said I DID NOT KNOW and that it could BE SUGGESTED that it was. I will not pretend to have any answers to that super hypothetical scenario wherein the United States pulled out of Europe immediatly after Russia took over Berlin, then went into an isolationist stance on issues concerning Europe and Germany. Some people might suggest Russia would have taken all of Germany. Perhaps an un-hindered Stalin would have had his sights set on the rest of Europe after that. I mean... he was commander of far and away the most powerful army in the area at the time and he was an expansionist much like Hitler, as in fact they started 'the war' as as friends. It certainly could be suggested that America played a role in sedating Stalin.

Also, I never said that WW2 was entirely based on Nazi/German Arien nation and cleansing of all the other races. It WAS A BIGGER PART THEN ANTI-SEMATISM. That is as far as I will go with that. The US/UK had VERY little to do with the outcome of that war anyway. To suggest that their participation was for economic reason not only trivializes the lives of hundreds of thousands of american and british lives. Anyway, that is not the subject, so lets not go there. The Germans devastated whole Russian cities in the name of the 'superior' race. They killed woman and children because of this... visit the eternal flame memorial in red square sometime and look at the momements to the cities that were torched and almost all life extinguished by the Germans/Nazi's and you will find your answer to why that war was fought and why Germany lost. Your father's fathers woke the spirit of the Russian people and they won the war, and they didn't need any help from the US or UK. It made it faster, but I tell you what... Russians didn't give a F*** at that point about anything economic, it was seriously personal for them.

So what about the other ####### you posted... Well, you actually proved my point about extremist peoples. So I will stand by all of those except your point that America does nothing against the current Aryan nations or what have you LOL L<OLLOLOL LOL ... We have laws sir. You might want to look them up. We do not tolerate hate of any kind. You can think what you want, but if you act on it... we won't turn a blind eye... ignorance is not your friend sir.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

It's always easier to end a discussion by pointing to the absurdity of the other side than to actually prove the other side wrong.

I have done a lot of reading on all these things, particularly the effects of Cold War policy on the Middle East. Call my allegations baseless if you want, but unlike your post, that I was responding to, my "baseless allegations" base themselves in actual newsreports and don't count the absence of these news in American media as a sign that Christian violence or the KKK don't exist.

Sigh... ok, I figured we could just end this pointless discussion, but I see you wish to continue.

First off, I have to point out that I never said the Cold war WAS good for Germany. In fact, I said I DID NOT KNOW and that it could BE SUGGESTED that it was. I will not pretend to have any answers to that super hypothetical scenario wherein the United States pulled out of Europe immediatly after Russia took over Berlin, then went into an isolationist stance on issues concerning Europe and Germany. Some people might suggest Russia would have taken all of Germany. Perhaps an un-hindered Stalin would have had his sights set on the rest of Europe after that. I mean... he was commander of far and away the most powerful army in the area at the time and he was an expansionist much like Hitler, as in fact they started 'the war' as as friends. It certainly could be suggested that America played a role in sedating Stalin.

Also, I never said that WW2 was entirely based on Nazi/German Arien nation and cleansing of all the other races. It WAS A BIGGER PART THEN ANTI-SEMATISM. That is as far as I will go with that. The US/UK had VERY little to do with the outcome of that war anyway. To suggest that their participation was for economic reason not only trivializes the lives of hundreds of thousands of american and british lives. Anyway, that is not the subject, so lets not go there. The Germans devastated whole Russian cities in the name of the 'superior' race. They killed woman and children because of this... visit the eternal flame memorial in red square sometime and look at the momements to the cities that were torched and almost all life extinguished by the Germans/Nazi's and you will find your answer to why that war was fought and why Germany lost. Your father's fathers woke the spirit of the Russian people and they won the war, and they didn't need any help from the US or UK. It made it faster, but I tell you what... Russians didn't give a F*** at that point about anything economic, it was seriously personal for them.

So what about the other ####### you posted... Well, you actually proved my point about extremist peoples. So I will stand by all of those except your point that America does nothing against the current Aryan nations or what have you LOL L<OLLOLOL LOL ... We have laws sir. You might want to look them up. We do not tolerate hate of any kind. You can think what you want, but if you act on it... we won't turn a blind eye... ignorance is not your friend sir.

I thought we were discussing the Middle East not Germany. I don't think you will have to tell me what Germany did during WW2 because as a German I'm quite aware of it. There are enough indications that the US and the UK fought the war for markets, and there are other indications that point to the Soviets fighting the war for the expansion of their ideology (think Hitler-Stalin-pact and the Yalta conference).

You don't seem to know though what the "Aryan Nation" is. It is one of the most important and most likely most dangerous white supremacy groups in the US, and the fact that it exists and grows quite happily proves your point wrong about the fact that "you" don't tolerate hate. Maybe I am ignorant in certain things, but that's probably true for most people...

[Chuckles 0]

I thought we were discussing the Middle East not Germany. I don't think you will have to tell me what Germany did during WW2 because as a German I'm quite aware of it. There are enough indications that the US and the UK fought the war for markets, and there are other indications that point to the Soviets fighting the war for the expansion of their ideology (think Hitler-Stalin-pact and the Yalta conference).

You don't seem to know though what the "Aryan Nation" is. It is one of the most important and most likely most dangerous white supremacy groups in the US, and the fact that it exists and grows quite happily proves your point wrong about the fact that "you" don't tolerate hate. Maybe I am ignorant in certain things, but that's probably true for most people...

Errmm... ok.... I mentioned Germany because I thought there was a historic parallel and you followed that, and now you want to stop talking about it? Fine. And yes, I am sure I know as much about the subject as you, even if you are a 'German'.

Now... if you were as knowledgable about the Aryan nation as you claim, then you would know that the movement in the USA went bankrupt in 2001 and lost its compound that was centered in Idaho. You will also know that the leader who picked up the ashes died in 2004, so for the most part the 'Aryan' nation in the USA is just scattered mis-guided youths who perhaps where molested in childhood and have much anger so they shave their heads and yell slogans. I will gaurentee you this, any offense these people have made against anyone in the name of hate has been prosecuted in the United States. Perhaps you do not understand us? You can THINK anything in America. You can start a chapter of "Germans who have sex with dead corpses" here if you would like. You and your friends can talk about how much you like it, but if you do it... you gonna get busted.

Look, there are stupid people in America. There are stupid people in Germany. There are stupid people EVERYWHERE in the world. That doesn't mean everyone is stupid, does it? I'd like to think not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And the point of this is.... ??

I don't think you will see reasonable people who think Islam itself is a religion of hate. Indeed, it is one of the most peaceful and rightous of all major religions.

Why do you want to give any credance to the hard-liners? I would say Christian hard-liners are as bad, but it is simply not true. Other causes around the world do not resort to violence, hate, kidnapping, and murder IN MODERN TIMES as much as do the Islamic hard-liners.

All extremists are bad. Some are worse then others. Stop defending cretins. Live in the now. Learn from history, but don't repeat its mistakes. Letting people disrespect others without actions leads to danger. For reference, see the example of those who turned a blind eye and felt sorry for the Germans and the Nazi's in the 1930's.

Unfortunately there are quite a few people who believe that anti-westernism and jihad is somehow a central part of the islamic religion. Check out the religion of peace, for example.

Oddly enough GWB claimed in his SOTU address that "well-meaning" isolationists (liberals in the context of the speech) are trying to undermine the security of the United States by insisting that we reduce our influence in the middle east (in other words - pull out of Iraq). Oddly enough the guy who wrote the Ayn Rand article seems to be saying almost the exact same thing, yet he appears to advocate dispensing with diplomatic dialogue completely. Yet without diplomacy what is left? Total war? That is 'real' isolationism IMO.

Sadly there are people who believe that turning the entire middle east into a smoking piece of glass (hard to know whether or not they're really serious about that ;-) is the solution to all of our current problems. Sickening really.