ubertuber

I think Charlatan and I are of the same mind here. Not considering legal issues, it is disingenuous for a paper to print these cartoons and act surprised by the reaction. Whether you agree with the intensity of the feelings at play here, I think a reasonable individual could have predicted a strong outrage.

On the subject of the response of the Islamic community, it is irresponsible to write their feelings off as the equivilant of "road rage" or the rantings of bloodthirsty savages. I think you have to consider that what we're seeing may be the reaction of people who feel they have no other outlet to get their concerns addressed. Those concerns range from the depiction of Muslims in the media to the bewildering array of political representation (and non-representation) happening in the Arabic world to Israel-Palestine to the lack of constructive opportunities for improving their quality of life. This is pent-up rage from people who feel they have been marginalized with no outlet for release, and it is expressing itself in a controversy over religious icons.

I have felt for some time that building bridges for people to engage their own societies and ours more effectively will go a long way towards reducing the political variants of extremism. Isolation has exacerbated this problem and will continue to do so. Even if you hate "terrorists", you should recognize that many (no, not all) of them come from people that have little hope of attention or import through other methods. Of those that come from greater means, many capitalize on the pent-up feelings of the masses.

I'm not trying to excuse blatantly violent or anti-civilizational behavior, but a view that doesn't consider "terrorism" as an expression of something is 2 dimensional at best.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam