U.S. Ambassador and three others killed in Libya.

[Papewaio]

Considering the article has quite a few paragraphs that follow that point. I think it is answered well enough if you read the whole article, not much of it is sound bite size and it can be taken out of context. But I will try...

"That, you see, is all that matters. This isn't about a film. It's about an excuse. We know because we've seen it all before, like when Pakistani protesters vandalised American fast food outlets and burnt effigies of President George W. Bush in response to the Danish cartoons."

"This is the behaviour of a drunkenly humiliated people: swinging wildly with the hope of landing a blow, any blow, somewhere, anywhere. There's nothing strategic or calculated about this. It doesn't matter that they are the film's most effective publicists. "

"It feels good. It feels powerful. This is why people yell pointlessly or punch walls when frustrated. It's not instrumental. It doesn't achieve anything directly. But it is catharsis. Outrage and aggression is an intoxicating prospect for the powerless."

BTW to put the bolded part in context that is referring to an alleged incident involving our Federal Opposition Leader, the potential future Prime Minister. Who apparently losing a university election and a keen boxer decided to punch a wall in frustration, his young female political opponent head just happened to be beside the blows. Essentially it is one of the current bits of alleged aggressive tendencies attributed to him. To put it in context imagine the top contender in the Republican campaign having the same repeated about him in the run through the primaries.

It is both a dig at him and showing that the protestors aren't the only ones prone to violent displays of aggression.

I personally think that the authour has a better understanding of people's motivations and in particular the protestors then most.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You're right...sorry I didn't see that there was more to the article.

That is my own impression of the protesters as well. I find it much easier to sympathize with them than with say, the occupy protesters.

[Papewaio]

There is a counter article to this which is far more/to forgiving of the protestors. However it is more in their shoes and potential to find solutions:
He's my brother - why angry Muslim youth are protesting in Sydney

"Why were some protesters chanting ''Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell''? When prominent Muslim leaders cannot even begin to fathom how some Muslim youth have mentioned corpses when apparently protesting about a movie, we need to question whether the real problem is that such leaders are incredibly out of touch with the reality of Muslim youth in this country. Waleed Aly has correctly identified that, ''This isn't about the film''. Correct.
Rather than dismissing these protests as an excuse for these youth to ''feel good about themselves'' or as a public statement of righteousness, we need instead to give genuine consideration to why our youth are acting in this manner. We need to give the situation context."

"To begin with, many Muslims in Australia do not simply give up their identity as belonging to a global community merely because they happen to live in Australia. Many have not bought the liberal idea of individualism, and so see events happening on the other side of the planet as personally related to them. So, when a Muslim woman is killed collecting firewood in Afghanistan, these youth are angered at the fact that their sister was murdered. When a Muslim man is crushed to death in Palestine, they lament the loss of their brother. It may not make sense to a Western audience, but that doesn't matter. This is what is angering our youth, and until we start discussing it honestly and genuinely, the confusion will remain."

[SoFarSoGood]

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it".

Seems to pretty obvious that anyone anywhere can say they wish as long as a gun isn't pointed at them. It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

Freedom of expression leads to a discussion and interchange and what is called in philosophy a new dialectic; a new 'paradigm' to use the Khunian term. It brings progression from one understanding to another. The reason perhaps why the Islamic states fell behind the West (when previously they had been ahead) is precisely because of 'religious bigotry' (for want of another phrase) that cannot accept these God given rights - for to say "that anyone anywhere can say what they wish" means it is a God given right. Even if you a point a gun at my head you cannot stop me saying as I wish; that is my right.

[rvg]

Seems to pretty obvious that anyone anywhere can say what the f*ck they wish as long as a gun isn't pointed at them. It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

What I find interesting is that there do not seem to be any reports of muslims protesting here in the States. At least none that I see on the major networks.

[Strike For The South]

You're right...sorry I didn't see that there was more to the article.

That is my own impression of the protesters as well. I find it much easier to sympathize with them than with say, the occupy protesters.

It still does not make their actions correct. Of course that's probably not what you're after, The terms "right" and "wrong" lost all there meaning to you long ago, didn't they?

Can I have an hour to pick your brain? I find you terribly interesting. I'll buy the beer.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It still does not make their actions correct. Of course that's probably not what you're after, The terms "right" and "wrong" lost all there meaning to you long ago, didn't they?

Can I have an hour to pick your brain? I find you terribly interesting. I'll buy the beer.

Sympathize as in understand, not sympathize as in "it would be wrong to drench them in tear gas".

[Strike For The South]

Sympathize as in understand, not sympathize as in "it would be wrong to drench them in tear gas".

Why do you not sympathize with the occupy protesters? I mean , I don't either, but I am interested in your reasonings

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why do you not sympathize with the occupy protesters? I mean , I don't either, but I am interested in your reasonings

I don't understand them, they baffle me.

[PanzerJaeger]

What I find interesting is that there do not seem to be any reports of muslims protesting here in the States. At least none that I see on the major networks.

American Muslims are in a unique position. They haven't been radicalized by oppressive regimes in the Middle East and they haven't been separated into aggrieved, yet dependent, minorities as in many other Western nations (although the Left does try its best). They are, in essence, normal citizens in a modern representative democracy and thus act like normal people. I've also noticed that they tend to be fiercely protective of their rights, all of them; which I attribute to their recent experience in one or both of the above mentioned situations.

The American Muslims I know wouldn't be caught dead protesting such a film. They understand that pretty much any yokel can post whatever crap he wants on youtube. In short, they get how modern society works.

[Strike For The South]

I don't understand them, they baffle me.

How so?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How so?

The pretense and self drama. Protesting in a particular way just to get arrested (by blocking a bridge say) because it makes it feel more legitimate. Intellectual outrage rather than any deeply sourced passion. What's changed since the occupy protests? Nothing. But you don't see them rioting over the latest mitt romney video, they got interested in something else presumably.

I don't see how people can play out a self involved drama like that and not notice what they're doing. Or not stop if they do notice it.

[Noncommunist]

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it".

Seems to pretty obvious that anyone anywhere can say what the f*ck they wish as long as a gun isn't pointed at them. It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

Freedom of expression leads to a discussion and interchange and what is called in philosophy a new dialectic; a new 'paradigm' to use the Khunian term. It brings progression from one understanding to another. The reason perhaps why the Islamic states fell behind the West (when previously they had been ahead) is precisely because of 'religious bigotry' (for want of another phrase) that cannot accept these God given rights - for to say "that anyone anywhere can say what the f*ck they wish" means it is a God given right. Even if you a point a gun at my head you cannot stop me saying as I wish; that is my right.

Eh, while Europe did eventually go on to advance ahead of the muslim world and end up with free speech/other enlightenment based stuff, when they pulled ahead technologically seemed to happen before they had the enlightenment. After all, as Spain became a world power, they also were expelling Jews and Moriscos while the Ottomans were accepting of them. And Europe spent a long time slaughtering each other as they found new trade routes and conquered the new world which was denied to Islam.

By the time that the Ottomans/Safavids/Mughals were declining, then more enlightenment stuff showed up in Europe. Perhaps more of a product of technological progress than a cause of it.

[Lemur]

then more enlightenment stuff showed up in Europe.

Part of that was Europe exhausting itself in bloody, horrible religious wars, which set the stage for the Enlightenment, and discredited religion as an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of people for a generation or two.

Trust me, the Founding Fathers of the United States had the wars of religion very much on their minds when they wrote our constitution.

So clearly, if we just wait around for a few centuries and let a few million Muslims die in religious-civil wars, there's at least a 20% chance they'll snap out of it.

[Vladimir]

Part of that was Europe exhausting itself in bloody, horrible religious wars, which set the stage for the Enlightenment, and discredited religion as an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of people for a generation or two.

Trust me, the Founding Fathers of the United States had the wars of religion very much on their minds when they wrote our constitution.

So clearly, if we just wait around for a few centuries and let a few million Muslims die in religious-civil wars, there's at least a 20% chance they'll snap out of it.

Exactly. We generally learn our lesson once enough people have died. It wasn't so much religion, as those wishing to use religion as a tool of their ambition.

[Ironside]

Eh, while Europe did eventually go on to advance ahead of the muslim world and end up with free speech/other enlightenment based stuff, when they pulled ahead technologically seemed to happen before they had the enlightenment. After all, as Spain became a world power, they also were expelling Jews and Moriscos while the Ottomans were accepting of them. And Europe spent a long time slaughtering each other as they found new trade routes and conquered the new world which was denied to Islam.

By the time that the Ottomans/Safavids/Mughals were declining, then more enlightenment stuff showed up in Europe. Perhaps more of a product of technological progress than a cause of it.

Spain is interesting. That expulsion and intolerance is probably what caused the dowfall of Spain. It certainly destrayed Spain as a cultural center.

[Major Robert Dump]

THE FRENCH CARTOONS ARE SO FUNNY.

My favorite is "A Star is Born."

This makes me love France, at least for today. I hope that man does not get killt

[rvg]

The American Muslims I know wouldn't be caught dead protesting such a film. They understand that pretty much any yokel can post whatever crap he wants on youtube. In short, they get how modern society works.

It gives me hope that we're doing something right in America with regards to Muslims.

[Hax]

I think the American way of dealing with minorities is much more effective than the methods we use in Europe. In our desire not to offend anyone, I think it's been more offensive than anything else. Rather than treating everyone equally, we have the tendency to treat (the Muslim) minorities like children. I think it's extremely patronising.

Freedom of expression leads to a discussion and interchange and what is called in philosophy a new dialectic; a new 'paradigm' to use the Khunian term. It brings progression from one understanding to another. The reason perhaps why the Islamic states fell behind the West (when previously they had been ahead) is precisely because of 'religious bigotry' (for want of another phrase) that cannot accept these God given rights - for to say "that anyone anywhere can say what they wish" means it is a God given right. Even if you a point a gun at my head you cannot stop me saying as I wish; that is my right.

We don't know. For example, the Safavids had a relatively liberal policy religion-wise, but even though the rule of Shah Abbas went hand-in-hand with an increase of Iranian art and culture and religious freedom (well, except for Sunnis) we can't really speak of a period of scientific prowess. We have to be extremely careful in trying to tie religious freedom with scientific progress. I don't believe it's that simple.

It is totally absurd and outrageous for Moslems to call for suppression of freedom of expression and speech in Christian countries.

People still write "Muslim" that way? In any case, I think it's kinda telling that you're talking about Christian countries here, instead of anything else. Secular, for example. That's quite an important difference.

[Vladimir]

I've always been a fan of Musulman myself. Reminds me of the days you people were raiding southern France.

Never forget!

[Hax]

Huh? Southern France?

Oh, right, you mean the time Constantinople was put under siege. Matter of priorities, I guess!

[Vladimir]

Huh? Southern France?

Oh, right, you mean the time Constantinople was put under siege. Matter of priorities, I guess!

No, was thinking about 800 years before that.

Look at the big brain on Vlad. :dancingchicken:

[Hax]

I was talking about that other one!

[Vladimir]

I was talking about that other one!

Oh, ya got me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was talking about that other one!

Ah, back when the ERE still deserved the name.

[Shaka_Khan]

The news stopped mentioning the riots. I wonder what's going on - the situation subsided?
So this is how it carries on? I see no mention of withdrawing the embassies. And the rioters continue to misunderstand. They probably think that they won. They might do it again if "provoked" then.

[Fragony]

lol the EUSSR gives a masterclass in dhimmitude. Naturally absolutely terrified of offending and absolutely in love with anything islam the EU condems this joke of a movie. How low can one go, enjoy the sala-fisting mr Schultz maybe you can still bite when the salafist finally reaches your mouth

[HopAlongBunny]

Much fuss about a man named "George":

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americ...655471310.html and:

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/19/161168...he-muslim-tide

[rvg]

This is just freaking lovely...

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Demonstrators angry over an anti-Islam film accused a local businessman in southern Pakistan of blasphemy, forcing the police to open a case and driving him and his family into hiding, following an argument that broke out when he refused to join their protest, officials said Wednesday.

[Fragony]

Owwww Australia, I didn't know you are absolutely terriffied/completely in love, wilders was denied a visa by people who know, for a fact, that islam is peace. That sala-fist, does it fit? What the que Australia? He's the head of the third biggest democratically elected party here