Syrians Torch Embassies Over Caricatures

[Libaax]

Yeah the west must always be right....


Swedish media and so called experts are a disgrace they are making up excuses for the danish paper all the time just cause denmark is a neighbor.

As Tempest said earlier it not that they make fun of the prophet,they shouldnt even draw him.

[LordMune]

I get the feeling the general populace of the neighboring countries regard Denmark as kind of an idiot nation right now, though. Denmark is sort of famous in the otherwise rather neutral scandinavia for its open hostility towards Islam.


But, as is the case with many conflicts, I say this is the result of some incredibly stupid thinking on both sides.

[Killfile]

Ok ok... Psi tells me that you can post twice in a row as long as it's not duplicate content. I think that's bunk, but it's his forum so whatever he says goes.

To reiterate and perhaps clarify some of Vtwahoo's points - the central issue here is how we react to three different groups.

1 - Radical Islamist Terrorists
2 - Radical Islam
3 - Mainstream Islam

Or, to draw a Christian parallel

1 - The KKK
2 - Jerry Falwell
3 - Normal American Christians (John F. Kennedy comes to mind as a good example)

We wouldn't lump the KKK in with Kennedy - yet we seem all too willing to lump the Terrorists in with the rest of Islam. Admittedly, most Americans were more vocal about their displeasure with the KKKs tactics (see previous post for a discussion of this issue) - but the parallel stands.

Yes, the Syrian protests were almost certainly engineered. But if we equate the manipulated masses with the goals and ambitions of Radical Islam, we risk radicalizing untold millions more.

Today Europe and the United States faces a few scattered individuals who seek to do us harm. By lumping hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims in with a few violent extremists, we risk turning thousands into millions.

This is the fallacy of "The West vs The Rest." We must look at these protests and see a manipulated mob, driven to violence by the orders of a cynical government and power hungry leaders. Otherwise we do little but hand our enemies weapons to use against us.

[Astro]

Ok ok... Psi tells me that you can post twice in a row as long as it's not duplicate content. I think that's bunk, but it's his forum so whatever he says goes.

The two posts were pretty different in tone and length; I believed separating them made it easier to follow.

We wouldn't lump the KKK in with Kennedy - yet we seem all too willing to lump the Terrorists in with the rest of Islam. Admittedly, most Americans were more vocal about their displeasure with the KKKs tactics (see previous post for a discussion of this issue) - but the parallel stands.

I do not believe it does. Maybe it would stand in a previous era, but as an aside do you honestly feel sympathy today for anyone who wasn't for civil rights back in the 60's? I have trouble not feeling contempt for anyone who lived in that era and did not stand up for what was right, needless to say how I feel about those that sympathized with racists. If I applied this standard today, I would look at the docile moderate muslims with contempt for allowing the radicals to be voice of Islam. For whatever reason I do not view them this way, which shows that your thought experiment can be used to advocate a much more extreme position.

This is the fallacy of "The West vs The Rest."

Everyone is trying to stick me with this one no matter what I actually say. So I will try to make my explanation as memorable as possible and hopefully the next poster will remember it:

Moderate muslim is a cool dude who you play Halo with. Radical Islam is his insane ass girlfriend who hates all his friends and steals stuff. No one can have fun when Radical Islam is around, but Moderate Islam won't tell her to shutup. What is needed is not understanding, what you need to do is to have an intervention. You would sit down with Moderate Muslim, and tell him "Dude, like I respect you an everything, but you gotta toss Radical Islam. You brought her over to my house and I think she stole my grandmothers urn." This is a conflict, and Moderate Muslim will be upset. It is certainly a possibility he won't want to be your friend anymore, but with Radical Islam ruining it anyways you might as well take a chance and confront him.

This is not West vs Islam, this is West vs Radical Islam with moderate Islam trying to figure out who to cheer for. We can't make the moderates join the West by supporting his girlfriend's right to be crazy. I think a lot of people fear muslim alienation so badly that they are unwilling to do anything, whereas I see a chance to gain a powerful ally that we desperately need. But it won't happen unless we are brave as well as compassionate, and both of us are equal in our dedication to an imperfect yet free world.

[Killfile]

That's fair - though I think that some individuals in decision making roles inside the United States could benefit from reading your (extremely funny) explanation.

The problem is that a HUGE chunk of the United States (and no, I'm not saying you fall into this camp) advocate the "glass parking lot" solution to the war on terror/radical Islam/oil. WAY too many Americans don't distinguish between Turkey (which is more progressive than the US in many many ways) and the Talliban (which was stealing your grandmother's urn). Some of those Americans make decisions like who we bomb.

I'm just very -=very=- twitchy about this tendency to lump people together. Part of convincing Moderate Islam that he needs to ditch his batshit crazy girlfriend is convincing him that you don't fault him for what she does... he needs to believe you're his friend. The United States isn't playing that roll really nicely. You don't drop high explosives on your friends house. Right now, we're delivering ultimatums, not interventions.

[Ellen]

Im pretty sure the christians power around the world would do something to the danmark and that paper so that they never forget what they did.

I was under the impression that the cartoon had images of all the major religions.

I'd like to say though, that all the religions are insulted like this in much bigger publications than this. In all likelihood, most of the world would've never noticed this cartoon ever existed if it weren't for the groups retaliating to the extreme.
I read today that someone believes that the cartoonist should be tried for blasphemy.... Does that charge even exist anymore in the Americas and Europe??

[psi29a]

I've seen far worse cartoons (mostly anti-semite) coming out of news outlets around the world. While distasteful and repugnet, I highly doubt that any legal ramification will ever occur, let alone death punishment.

Matter of fact, if you look up Prophet Muhammad in google images, you will find that his effigy is clearly presented for the world to see. I guess it is only idolatry when it suits certain aspects of a politically engineered event.

It also stands that some of those images are indeed faked and where never posted in the news papers. Some of the images that where posted, where posted 10 "TEN" months ago, and never caused this much consternation.

[Astro]

Moderate muslim is a cool dude who you play Halo with. Radical Islam is his insane ass girlfriend who hates all his friends and steals stuff. No one can have fun when Radical Islam is around, but Moderate Islam won't tell her to shutup. What is needed is not understanding, what you need to do is to have an intervention. You would sit down with Moderate Muslim, and tell him "Dude, like I respect you an everything, but you gotta toss Radical Islam. You brought her over to my house and I think she stole my grandmothers urn." This is a conflict, and Moderate Muslim will be upset. It is certainly a possibility he won't want to be your friend anymore, but with Radical Islam ruining it anyways you might as well take a chance and confront him.

Part of convincing Moderate Islam that he needs to ditch his batshit crazy girlfriend is convincing him that you don't fault him for what she does... he needs to believe you're his friend. The United States isn't playing that roll really nicely. You don't drop high explosives on your friends house. Right now, we're delivering ultimatums, not interventions.

Every metaphor breaks down at some point, but I'm curious to see how far this one will take us. First, we must assume that we have decided to have an intervention because we believe laying low will only delay the inevitable destruction of our friendship with Moderate Islam due the escalating antics of Radical Islam. Our goal in this intervention is to change something in Moderate Islam's mind so that he rejects Radical Islam of his own free will so that we can play Halo together.

Now, if we follow the tight rope between our metaphors and real life, this means that we need to change the "mind" of Islam, i.e. the people who are controlling it and drive it to make bad decisions. In other words, the ruling Islamofascist regimes that oppress women, minorities, or even finance Radical Islam itself. Therefore, if we truly believe in our assumption that we need to change Moderate Islam's mind, then we must somehow update Islamofascist regimes so that they denounce Radical Islam and maybe even share some of our society's pillars such as free speech and freedom of religion.

So what are the practical ways to convince muslim governments to stop the genocide, honor killings, or any other number of atrocities? Sanctions? I believe Saddam has clearly demonstrated that with enough pluck and moxy any dictator can subvert and corrupt any sanctions placed on their country. Damn, how do we convince these monstrous rulers to play nice?

Oh wait, sitting right over here we have this majority of muslims who are moderate. Lets just swap them for the mullahs and dictators. With the moderates in control the government will be jailing rapists, pedophiles, and murderous psychopaths like never before.

And we reach an impasse. The fascists politely decline our offer to replace them. "What do you think this is, a democracy? Aha, aha, aha, I do believe I have split a side!" This is what it comes down to. Democracy is the best tool we have to keep non-moderates out of power, because as Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried." To allow moderates to control the fate of Islam would take democracy, and to allow democracy it would take force.

It should be painfully obvious (like knee to the groin painful) that this proactive chain of thought can lead directly to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein to replace his genocidal dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. Many people correctly point out that this action has angered portions of the muslim world, so how can it be part of the solution? But even in our metaphorical view, we cause Moderate Islam distress when we try to wean him away from Radical Islam. Unfortunately, in real life this conflict means that people will die, and people will hate us, but the reward is that if we succeed it will show an entire culture, not just Iraq, that there is a better way to live.

This is why I believe that an intervention is exactly what we are doing in Iraq. But many people miss it because an intervention on the scale of societies is by nature imperfect and messy. So many things have gone wrong that it is hard not to lose perspective and fall into despair. But things are getting better, and there are hopeful signs and stories all through Iraq if you know where to look.

What I am interested in is what alternatives do people believe exist for dealing with Radical Islam that don't involve "business as usual" or worse "tread softly"? As in, accepting my initial assumption that we need to intervene somehow to get Moderate Islam to dump Radical Islam, what is a realistic alternative to military based regime change?

[Sortep]

I think I will pitch in some unwanted two cents. Before I go into that, I will give some background so no one thinks I am picking a side. I am a devout Greek Orthodox Christian, and as anyone who's gone to school in Greece knows, you have to take a pain in the ass religion class every year and learn about other religions. That being said, my expertise is nill, and my opinion nigh. I had a friend of mine who is a Lebanese Shiite, look over this thread, and I'm relaying a mixture of his opinion and mine.

I want to point out that Islam is a religion of peace, and education. The radicals spoken of in this thread are the bi-products of corrupt individuals perverting the words of the prophet for us as a political machine (Everyone already knew this).

Asking moderate Islam to dump radical Islam is the same as telling the normal good non judgemental Christians to dump the batshit crazy right wing crusaders. When there is no conflict, indeed this is feasible. However, when conflict enters the picture, it becomes a matter of relation. Are you going to support your extended family or the strangers against them? No one in their right mind will crossover to the side of the heretics (and this is how we, unfortunately, see one another).

Moderate Islam and Radical Islam have parrallel goals, the difference lies in the means through which they seak to accomplish these goals. The majority of Moslems feel that Israel is an illegal state with no right to exist (possibly even rightfully so). They all certainly feel that American intervention in the region must cease unless it is in a more positive manner.

Unfortunately for all of us, the issues we've created with the Moslem world are issues that could be easily solved. Rather than using a culturally sensitive outlook in our foreign policy, our current policy makers are borderline radicals themselves. More wood into the fire. Furthermore most Moslems do not hate the American people. They hate our government and the oppressions we have created. This is belied by the fact that most of the Islamic governments in the region are perverting the teachings of Mohammed into political tools. With a candle burning at both ends, the wax will be gone soon enough and we'll see what happens.

How this relates to the Danish paper is simple. The cartoons that were publish in the paper were satirical in nature. The additional forgeries that occured incidentally, were the handiwork of a shrewd man knowing the people's reverence of The Prophet held by the people would be be a source of outrage for the prints. The Islamic world reacted before knowing all of the facts (some knew of course). Some chose discourse and boycott, some chose carnage. Both of which are two very effective bargaining tools.

The crux of the matter is, that the parties involved were wrong in different ways. The Danish paper was wrong on a moral standpoint towards a religion in which reverence of The Prophet stands alongside reverence of God. The Islamic community was wrong on a standpoint of liberty, no matter what someone says, it is our upmost duty as citizens of this world to defend their right to say with our dying breath. Now, the propagandist who forged the additional comments, is simply scum. For not only did he create a conflagration where one need not occur, but he willingly defaced the visage of The Prophet to further political ends. He will meet his judgement after this life.

What we can do to prevent this from happening is making true efforts at bridging cultural gaps with our Islamic community. For those hardline Christians out there who look upon other religions with disdain, understand that Islam looks upon Christ as a prophet (though not the son of god which is the Christian belief). For the hardline Moslems, not all Christians are beer guzzling, American flag waving, redneck imperialists.

We are all people, trapped under the thumb of corrupt powers that squander us in the name of economics. We the people, on both sides, must rise above our leaders and meet each other as men. That is what will solve this. We must sit and hear each other, then work towards MUTUAL benefit for the betterment of everyone.

[Killfile]

I think the metaphor broke down some time ago. I ran with it to make a point - not because it held water.

The extension to the Iraq invasion is flawed for a number of reasons. The most stunningly obvious is that it is very difficult to influence anyone when you're killing people off by the thousands. Your analogy would support a covert CIA strike team assassinating Saddam, but not a full scale military invasion.

Tapping into the flawed metaphor, there's a difference between kicking out the crazy girlfriend and setting fire to your friend's house to make her leave.

It seems worth pointing out at this juncture that democracy has a zero success rate when imposed on a country by some outside force. If it develops naturally through an internal reform process then it has a fighting chance, but otherwise it tends to fall into civil war, genocide, and horrific bloodshed.

Given this lesson of history, we would be well served to simply sit back and let the Islamic world work out its own methods of governance. Admittedly, this means that there will be some anti-western sentiment floating about and there will probably be some attacks. The interesting thing about Radical Islam though, is that it is no less compatible with Western culture than Radical Christianity or and other form of Religious/Political/Social radicalism.

So why are we worried so much about Islam? Why aren't we bombing the crap out of Lynchburg, VA and sending strike teams to Pat Roberson's house? The answer is that the United States has done very little to screw Radical Christians over. We haven't really pissed off the European Skinhead movements. We haven't made a lot of enemies in the conservative Jewish community.

From a purely historical standpoint, if we simply leave Radical Islam alone long enough, and stop going of our way to screw over Muslims throughout the world - we might just find that this problem will solve itself.

The war in Iraq has already exceeded by a factor of 10 the human toll of the September 11 attacks.

To use another analogy -- extremism in any movement tends to be a lot like an 8 year old kid at a cocktail party: lots of noise, and real pain in the ass - but only because it wants attention. If we stop rising to the bait, they'll have nothing left to stand on.

[Wandering_Mystic]

I wanted to applaud Sortep's post, first and foremost. I have been struggling with how to coherently convey all that he has said, and his words covered a lot of points that I think are very important to consider.

I also see a flawed use of the term democracy in Astro's posts. Killfile has already gone over why you can't impose a democracy, but I wanted to highlight a few sub-points. An imposed democracy is almost an oxymoron. How can you force someone to be "free"? To really give someone freedom is to leave them alone, and if you want to be friendly, offer assistance, but really, truly leave when they ask you to (which the Iraqis have done). We changed their regime, but the longer we stay, the longer we risk being viewed as equally controlling and "bat-shit crazy" as the element we just evicted, to use the metaphor that seems to make the most sense to Astro. If we're going to talk about "doing things for their own good", then we have to be real careful about how we define "good". Otherwise, we need to call this little "intervention" for what it is, a self-serving attempt to jack somebody's goods and make out like the hero in the process (and then not share the goods with your family, some of whom could really use the help).

The problem is a lot of Americans (even the decision making gov. employees) think they are doing good, but are too uninformed (or apathetic) to really check if that is the good is spreading to those whose need is true. This is what leads to a lot of problems that Sortep alluded to. This is what makes us look bat-shit crazy to many muslims (and many other people around the world). America is like the emperor with no clothes, except it has a very real command of an army with real guns.

[kasgarinn]

I just think that the irony of it all is so very amusing..

Most of the violent upsurge in objections against the cartoons has been because they portray an image of Muhammed, the content isn't really the mainpoint, the mainpoint is that islam bans pictures of muhammed and this clearly violates that law.

Of course no radical islam recognises that the law is there to prevent idol worship, to steer worship towards god and not secondary idols.

So it's marvelously amusing that islamists have turned the idea of idol-worship in on its head, and thus are outraged that their prophet has been captured on print.

Doesn't this mean that Islamists who are against the cartoons for displaying a picture of muhammed are actually then guilty of idolising muhammed?

Or in short: muslims are insulted that these are pictures of muhammed, not the content itself, so not having an idol of the prophet has become the idol of the prophet.

which again is what the ban on pictures of muhammed was supposed to fix in the first place... delicious..

K.

[Wandering_Mystic]

Wow, those are some fantastically vast generalizations there.

I'm not a muslim, and though I've studied Islam a bit my knowledge is by no means exhaustive about the subject, but I'm pretty sure every Muslim is offended by the caricature, both because of the idol point AND because of the suggestion that the caricature makes (Mohammed w/ bomb turban = Terrorist = All Muslims).

Also, just because the man is central to the religion doesn't mean he is idolized. There is a difference between reverence for someone and their deeds/connection to God and worshiping the image of something/someone to the point that it becomes a god in itself.

[Sortep]

I believe we need to get more of the forum's Islamic members to speak up on this topic, because as it stands we are basically a bunch of non-Moslems commenting on a subject which none of us have true inside knowledge (Libaax being the exception).

[kasgarinn]

Wow, those are some fantastically vast generalizations there.

Well, you do make some prejudgements of your own.

I'm pretty sure every Muslim is offended by the caricature

How do you truly know? Talked to masses of them? Are these objections the objections of the masses of muslims or merely a few rich and powerful people paying for an incitement?

Also, just because the man is central to the religion doesn't mean he is idolized.

Again, can you see into the minds of millions of muslims? Is this objection by the few or by the many?

There is a difference between reverence for someone and their deeds/connection to God and worshiping the image of something/someone to the point that it becomes a god in itself

But it's never been proven that this difference exists in the muslim religion regarding muhammed, and this outrage only shows the opposite, that people of the muslim religion more than revere muhammed, they wouldn't be endangering their lives if they merely liked the guy, now would they?

No, I think you're undermining the place muhammad has in islam, and all the cartoons have done is hopefully shown the muslims how ill-placed that worship is.

(slightly off point) And if islam really is supposed to be connected to christianity.. have they never heard of 'offer the other cheek'?

And yes, I'm purposely looking at this merely from the narrow stance 'is this truly a form of idol worship or not, and does that in itself constitute a breach in the muslim religion' because that is debatable.. wondering why someone is ready to die (or kill) because of a cartoon.. now that's just silly..

K.

[panasonic]

well, has christianity "offered the other cheek"? remember the crusades

[vtwahoo]

Wow, those are some fantastically vast generalizations there.

Well, you do make some prejudgements of your own.

Well that's productive.

We all come to the table with presumptions. We come from differnet educational, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds that shape our analytical perspectives.

There is a difference, however, between making a generalization and making a prejudgment.

I'm pretty sure every Muslim is offended by the caricature

How do you truly know? Talked to masses of them? Are these objections the objections of the masses of muslims or merely a few rich and powerful people paying for an incitement?

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm NOT Muslim and -=I'm=- pretty pissed off about these caricatures. I think they demonstrate two fundamental things: an ignorance about Islam and a lack of cultural sensitivity...both of which are appalling.

It has been stated before but I wish to reiterate---the nature of the caricatures themselves are offensive to Islam. You do not have to talk to a lot of Muslims to understand that. I have yet to speak with a Muslim who is not angry about both the content and the decision to publish it.

No, I think you're undermining the place muhammad has in islam, and all the cartoons have done is hopefully shown the muslims how ill-placed that worship is.

I'm not sure I understand you here. You appear to at once be saying that Muhammad (and out of respect I would request that you capitalize his name) is undermined and idolized. This seems to be contradictory.

I do think that most non-Islamic westerners fail to understand the role of Muhammad in Islam.

I would, however, ask what gives you the right to tell 1.3 billion people that their worship is "ill-placed"?

This is a tendency of westerners that really pisses the rest of the world off...we not only tell people how to run their governments and economies we tell them how to worship their God(s).

(slightly off point) And if islam really is supposed to be connected to christianity.. have they never heard of 'offer the other cheek'?

It is off point if only becuase Christians have, historically, been so incredibly good at that. Christians never react to violence with violence. And they follow all of the other laws of their God as well...I find them particularly dedicated to that whole "whatever you do to the least among you, you do also to me" thing.

[Astro]

Killfile,

I would be willing to accept your judgement on the metaphor, if I believed you were using it correctly first. You are muddling things happening on an individual level with things that are supposed to represent entire societies. If I was lighting the house of Moderate Islam on fire, that would correspond with something like atom bombing the entire middle east. You aren't shrinking the bullets to scale at all, so of course your evaluation of the metaphor is wildly inaccurate.

Another note, a sniper on Saddam without ground forces to provide stability would simply plunge everything into chaos worse than the fall of Baghdad. Metaphorically, that wouldn't be an intervention, that would be punching Moderate Islam until he blacks out.

Ok, switching tracks for now, I am not sure I understand your authoritative position that the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world cannot lay a successful foundation for a democracy in another country. How many times have we tried before? I can certainly name a few dictators we've empowered, but what is this vast and extensive history of democracy building failures? I mean, if we've done this fifty times before I'll throw in the towel right here and now.

That aside, we are not the ones writing a constitution in Iraq. The Iraqi's are. We aren't making their democracy, we're giving them a chance to make their own distinct representative government. That doesn't make it invincible, but that certainly makes it a lot more authentic to the Iraqis. Maybe that's why more of them vote than we do in America, despite the threats of violent retribution from terrorists who murder Iraqi women and children for no goddamn reason at all.

Do you honestly think we should leave alone a corrupt and evil system that will one day cause a dirty nuke to detonate on American soil? If you think that is a ridiculous notion, this is the same system that brought down the WTC and killed 3,000 people. There are enough decentralized terrorist groups that one of them will eventually be able to obtain and deliver, courtesy of the regimes that shelter and fund them. Our only option is to either build a terrorist magnet and throw it into the sun (thus dragging them all into space with it), or remove the easy to locate regimes that they all depend on. Or your option: learn to live with the fact that every so often a city stops existing. Pain in the ass I know, but that's the price you pay for attending the cocktail party.

Christian fundamentalists have been successfully marginalized in our society. When our crazy people lynch gay or black folks, we kick their ass (Offer may not apply in Mississippi, please ask a sales associate for details). Thus most of them pass the time asking God to do the killing, since that is still legal (yet hiring an honest hardworking hitman isn't for some reason...). Its not that we've played nice with them (we have lingerie football, swearing, and rap music for christ's sake!) it's that we've convinced them that they will be punished if they cross the line.

You can't punish a suicide bomber, but you can punish Saddam Hussein. He is a lesson to other governments, just as an Iraqi built democracy is a lesson to other muslims. What that lesson will be isn't written in stone, and when it is written it will be by the Iraqis. I like what they've written so far, and I eagerly anticipate the next chapter with hopes and doubts, but not despair.

[Libaax]

Ellen: There are millions and million of pics of jesus cause there is nothing wrong with drawing a pic of him in the christians eyes. In the muslim world and Muhammed is the other way around. Atleast i have been taught you shouldn't draw any pictures of the prophet. Thats whats wrong with what they did and the fact that they make him out to be a terrorist is even worse.

Other reason i hate whats happening is that this matter just gives more power to the terrorist who call themselves muslims. People that are rioting just plays to their hand.

That was shown in Syria. Also more power to terrorist more harm will come to the normal muslims in middle east next time US does something to "beat" terrorism.


I like how kasagrin "knows" how muslims worship Muhammed......

Unlike other religions Islam doesn't worship any man, Muhammed is a
prophet not a divine being or something.

[Killfile]

Solid points - I think the metaphor fails because it doesn't ALLOW the kind of scaling we're talking about. When we go after Radical Islamic Terrorists (not all Radicals are terrorists - just as Jerry Fallwell isn't in the KKK) hiding amongst innocents, both Radical and Moderate, we -=kill=- innocents. The taking of a human life (or tens of thousands of human lives) is significant, and doesn't line up with your metaphor, as we can't have Moderate Islam 6 feet under while still playing Halo. (Or we can, but then he gets totally owned in the game because rigor mortis just makes you strafe left)

But I digress.

As to historic examples - I'll provide a few.

1 - The Weimar government of Germany was propped up by the allies after World War I (it even arose internally, we just decided to force acceptance upon the Germans) - inside of 30 years we had 6 million Jews dead and most of Europe under a Swastika.

2 - Democracy was implanted in Rwanda after the Belgians left. That tuned out well.

3 – Nigerian democracy collapsed despite strong public support for the democratic system. This failure has been attributed to collusion on the part of economic elites, but such a shallow analysis fails to take into account the complacency of the masses to the subversion of the rule of law.

4 – Democracy in Uruguay fell due to institutional inertia in which the organs of government turned against the democratic system to preserve their own interests. Again, this is a compounded by the complacency of the masses.

5 – Lets not forget that Saddam himself was inserted by the United States with the intention of creating a friendly democratic government in Iraq. Of course there were no unintended consequences here. See also the recent democratic elections in Palestine – which have lent legitimacy to Hammas as the government of Palestine. Democracy, too quickly imposed by the West, has lead to the assumption of the mantle of “State” by a terrorist organization. This isn’t poised to end well either.

I’ll also go ahead and provide a pre-emptive rebuttal to the obvious counter argument. While many claim that the United States forced Democracy on Japan following the Second World War, the argument is deeply flawed. The idea of rule of law, and indeed the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy was in place as early as 1868 after the Meji Restoration. While the United States did assist with the drafting of a new constitution, the only real and substantive difference was the transference of the control of the military away from the Emperor and into the hands of Civilians.

Do you honestly think we should leave alone a corrupt and evil system that will one day cause a dirty nuke to detonate on American soil?

There is a fallacy in this argument. If we leave well enough alone there is the POSSIBILITY that such an attack will occur - though defending against it is so hard and so costly that a more realistic and effective approach would be to secure the nuclear weapons in the first place. If we take the opposite action and attempt to supplant every Theocratic regime with a Democratic one there is the CERTAINTY that we will spend unspeakable amounts of blood and treasure doing so - and still face the possibility of not just failure, but actually making the problem worse.

I'm not suggesting a tack of isolationism here - I'm suggesting that perhaps the "democracies always play nice with each other" theory isn't all it is cracked up to be. We may need to face the reality that there are more effective means of protecting ourselves and eliminating threats than dropping high explosives on people.

Indeed - don't we risk turning the widows, widowers, orphans, and grieving parents of our victims into a new generation of terrorists?

[Sortep]

In regards to the comment about Hamas gaining legitimacy in Palestine, is that not preferable to them being a terrorist organization? If they gain legitimacy as a political and assume the mantle of leadership for the Palestinians, it will inevitably be better for us all. Reason being, once you are a true government, the tools of state can work. If you are a ragtag underground organization, there is no accountability. This is a good chance for a terrorist organization to put down the guns, pick up the ballots and make real changes for their people. If they fail as a government we'll be back. Lately in American politics, we see ourselves as a sherriff with a big shiny badge.

Arguing whether or not we "should've" invaded Iraq is a moot point. We're here (fuck you Mr. Bush) and we need to find the best route to a positive outcome with the circumstances we're in. Was Iraq a direct threat to us? Nope. Would it have been in 10 years with the sanctions lifted? Maybe. We'll never know now. What we do know is that we've toppled their government and are trying to prop up a new one. We have to do everything in our power so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. By giving everyone a voice in a country, by giving them a strong government, and by rebuilding them a strong international economy, we stand an okay chance of not repeating other mistakes.

If we can turn the Iraq fiasco into a success. We will not need to meddle into the affairs of the Middle East so much as we have. When we leave and the people of Iraq take their government and build themselves into the power that they are very capable of, our image in that area will improve tenfold. Only, if after that we show all Moslems true fairness and a balanced hand. It is impossible for us to do that while mocking them.

In reply to the message about the "worship" of the Prophet, no Moslem I know "worships" the Prophet Mohammed. His deeds and person are revered above all men, yet small before the feet of God. I hope I got that right. Should we censor people from satire of that? No. Should people have the damn sense and lack of ignorance to refrain from printing things like that. Yes.

And to say that we Christians would be equally outraged in the same position. I just saw a friend of mine and she was wearing a shirt that said "Have you seen my imaginary friend Jesus?" on it. I wasn't outraged at all. But that is a core difference, some Christians would be sorely offended. I'm indifferent, because I related to my faith differently. So I can never fault someone for something witty, even if blasphemous because I don't believe God micromanages every single freakin thing in the universe. But respecting other's beliefs is a two way street, and neither side has shown much respect at this point (the people, not the religions themselves).

[Quest]

Only, if after that we show all Moslems true fairness and a balanced hand. It is impossible for us to do that while mocking them.

i agree.
and regarding whose fault is it for the violence and unrest:
it is easy to point fingers and assign blame. the true courage is in admitting it and taking responsibility and steps to resolve the crisis.
all this misdirection and buck-passing is making me sick.

on iraq and on the cartoons both.
=)

[LordMune]

Only, if after that we show all Moslems true fairness and a balanced hand. It is impossible for us to do that while mocking them.

A good place to start would probably be spelling "muslims" correctly.

Dang kristeians.

j/k

[panasonic]

ya, i was wondering about that, but i wasnt sure if it was just american english, like how its color in the states, but colour in canada

[LordMune]

Turns out it's a variant of "muslim", apparently denotes black muslims.