No, I'm arguing that the responses are different and the response on one side is just far too extreme. Both the west and the Muslim world publish pictures that by accident or design offend the other. I don't see threats of violence or boycotts against the Muslim world over a cartoon. BTW, a boycott is still a civil response no matter how ill-thought-out it is. threats of murder isn't.
> You can't boycott Muslim Nations. > Your society would crumble. > > No one stated that the reverse is not equally offensive, and incorrect. > You seem to be arguing that two wrongs make a right. > > On 2/3/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> As for arrogant and provoking, your being totally one sided here. The >> anti-Semitic and anti-American cartoons in Arab newspapers are a thousand >> times more vile than what was published in the Danish newspaper. You >> decry >> bigotry against Muslims but where is your protests against the reverse? >> I'm >> sorry to say but what I see from you is hypocrisy where you are seeing >> the >> outrage of Muslims against cartoons but failing to see that the same >> could >> be done against them and isn't. Should we boycott Muslim nations for >> their >> cartoons? Should we threaten to murder their citizens for our outrage? No >> because we can see that no matter how vile their cartoons are, they're >> cartoons. They (and you) can't seem to do the same. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:195704 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
