Why no riots in the US

[Nederland]

Poll question: Why no riots in the US

I know that there have been a few small scale demonstrations in the US regarding the Danish cartoons, but this country has not seen the size of demonstrations that Europe has. The question is, why?

[lvx35]

1. Its got to be fear, suppression or masochism

compare the muslim riots in France, vs. calm in US while US troops were flushing Koran's down toilets and but raping muslims. Something's up.

[Telly Savalas]

60. How does this explain the absence of riots in Canada?

[MrSlayer]

2. Other: Nobody would stand for that shit here.

It wouldn't just be what Bush would do to them, it's what everyone would do to them. A large group of Muslims burning and destroying in America would invite everyone to open fire on them. It would be a bloodbath before the police or the national guard ever got there.

[purduejake]

3. Less extremism...

Torching shit and killing people is insane. We don't have that many people here who are that mentally ill yet.

[f-bush]

4. Done

[calmblueocean]

5. The US has essentially no extremist Muslim population.

You can't compare American Muslims who are well integrated into society with their fanatic Middle Eastern counterparts. They may believe in the same god, but that's where the similarity ends. Seriously, I always wonder, how can anyone square Bush's talk about how America is packed to the gills with Muslim terrorists just waiting for any opportunity to kill us all with the fact that there is no Muslim terrorism in this country? I'm not just talking about the proverbial Great Big Conspiracies that the gov't exists to thwart. I'm talkinga about simple, personal terrorism. Why is there no Muslim sniper in America, picking off human beings one by one and spreading terror like the Maryland sniper did a few years back? Why are there no suicide bombers walking on to American buses and blowing themselves up?

The answer is simple and staring everyone in the face. It's not that our government is somehow superhumanly precognitively tackling every Muslim terrorist before they can do anything; it's that there are essentially no Muslim extremists in America.

[tocqueville]

19. neither does Europe

some social-based flares can happen (UK, France) but not based on political extremism or religion. The more intensive French or British riots have the same causes than the Black riots in the US.

[xchrom]

23. and there it is!

the bush terrorist boogeyman is in the same place where his propaganda for spying is -- in a fairy tale meant to frighten schooll children.

those vast numbers of arab terrorists waiting behind every ''bush'' simply aren't there.

except of course -- that we create them.

[NoPasaran]

53. One of the two men involved in the Beltway sniper attacks

One of the two men involved in the Beltway sniper attacks had converted to Islam.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jamuhammadD1.html

[Posteritatis]

91. Were the attacks a result of his conversion? (n/t)

[Kber]

71. Something the Bush administration is trying hard to change

in two ways

1) direct provocation of muslims by mistreating there brothers and sisters overseas

2) promoting religious extremism in general.

The US has developed into a generally secular society, but religious extremism of all stripes is on the rise. I must admit that I am more conscious of my status as a religious minority under Bush than at any other time in my life. The result, frankly, is a more religious home than I might have had. It seems more important than ever to teach my children about their history, traditions, etc, to give them a sense of pride and purpose in the face of increasing external pressure to conform to the majority.

Now increased awareness and participation in religion does not necessarily lead to religious extremism and from there to extreme acts of violence, but I can see how some would make the connection.

[sandnsea]

6. Were the cartoons published here??

I don't think they were, which means there really isn't a newspaper for them to protest. Still, I mostly think they're scared to say anything in this country because the cartoons really are offensive to their religion and I'd think some group somewhere would say so. So much for free speech.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Philly!

There were peaceful protests.

[sandnsea]

8. That right wing rag??

Glad the protests were peaceful. Now let's hope the rest of the editors in the country are smart enough to know blowing up the country over a cartoon isn't a good idea. Of course, we don't want the Muslims HERE protesting, only those crazy bastards in the ME. :sarcasm:

[Behind the Aegis]

10. What an odd reply.

You claimed that no papers in the US published the cartoons. I said "Philly," indicating a city, not a paper. Your response was : "that right wing rag." Did you tell a fib? Did you know, in fact, that the cartoons were published here?

You then proceed with a bizarre screed. "Now let's hope the rest of the editors in the country are smart enough to know blowing up the country over a cartoon isn't a good idea." This indicates that you think Muslim protests would be violent. You even said before that you were glad the protests were peaceful, were you surprised? Did you expect they should have been violent?

You continue the derailed train of thought with, "Of course, we don't want the Muslims HERE protesting, only those crazy bastards in the ME. :sarcasm:" Yet, we have had Muslims protesting here, peacefully. We were not an anomaly, other peaceful protests took place worldwide. I don't support violent protests anywhere. As much as there are those that want to portray all Muslims as violent fiends, you seem to want to ignore the peaceful ones, and paint the violent ones as "victims."

[sandnsea]

14. Total misinterpretation

You said the paper in Philly. I asked whether it was the right wing rag. Simple question.

I then said I hoped our editors don't print the cartoon over and over, because blowing up the country over a cartoon is stupid. Because, gee, there has been violence over the cartoons and nobody can expect any group of people to be pushed forever.

I then posed the thought that they probably wouldn't do that here because it's the ME Muslims they want to portray as crazy bastards.

The only thing odd is the way you twisted my remarks into an attack on Muslims because that is the furthest thing from what I said.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Not really.

Let's look at what was really said....

sandnsea (post #6):

Were the cartoons published here??
I don't think they were, which means there really isn't a newspaper for them to protest. <snip>

BtA (post#7):

Philly!

sandnsea (post #6):

<snip> Still, I mostly think they're scared to say anything in this country because the cartoons really are offensive to their religion and I'd think some group somewhere would say so. So much for free speech.

BtA (post #7):

<snip> There were peaceful protests.

Therefore, I answered your question of if the cartoons were published in the States by naming a city. I did not name a paper, just the city (that will be important later on). Your assertion that they (Muslims) would be too scared to say anything in this country was also disproved because I told you that demonstrations did take place, and they were peaceful. So, free speech was exercised and enjoyed by the paper and the protesters.

This is where it starts to get "odd..."

sandnsea (post #8):

That right wing rag??

Philly is a "right-wing rag?" Which, as I said in my title of post #10,: "What an odd reply."

So, let's jump to your current (post #14) titled, "Total misinterpretation":

You said the paper in Philly. I asked whether it was the right wing rag. Simple question. <snip>

No, I clearly stated a city name; not the name of a paper. You did not 'ask' if it was a right wing rag, you said: "That right wing rag??" (emphasis added) The word 'that' indicates you had a particular newspaper in mind, likely because you knew that one had published the cartoons (opinion). So you did not ask if it was a right-wing rag, you already knew.

sandnsea (post #14):

<snip> I then said I hoped our editors don't print the cartoon over and over, because blowing up the country over a cartoon is stupid. Because, gee, there has been violence over the cartoons and nobody can expect any group of people to be pushed forever. <snip>

You did, in fact, imply the first part. However, your "oh gee" moment, is not in post #8. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that your 'oh gee' moment is an additional thought. It would, again, assert, that the publishing of these cartoons should expect violent outcomes, despite the non-violent protests in Philly and world-wide.

Let's continue...

sandnsea (post #14):

<snip> I then posed the thought that they probably wouldn't do that here because it's the ME Muslims they want to portray as crazy bastards. <snip>

Finally, a true assessment of your prior post! However, it was just an opinion and not fact. Because, as already shown, they were published here and there was no violence. The non-violent protest also garnered media coverage, locally and nationally. Therefore, your 'thought' was disproved twice...it was printed in the US and "non-crazy" Muslims were shown protesting the paper printing the cartoons.

The last part of post #14...

<snip> The only thing odd is the way you twisted my remarks into an attack on Muslims because that is the furthest thing from what I said. <snip>

It really isn't that odd at all if you apply logic to the posts. You opined (stated?) that the cartoons were not published here...yet they were published. You 'reasoned' that they (editors) wouldn't publish them (the cartoons) here because they (the editors) were scared of the reactions...yet they were published. Not only were they published, a group did find them offensive and protested. This, again, shoots down your 'opinion.' You finish with "(s)o much for free speech." However, both the editors and the protesters enacted their US rights to free speech. Yet, again, you are proved wrong.

Therefore, you, in my opinion, possibly, inadvertently, labeled Muslims as violent and attacked them as such. I say this because you clearly indicate that no editors in the US would publish these cartoons (which they did) because the only Muslims they want to portray are the ME Muslims as "crazy bastards." You also indicate that the publishing of these cartoons is not smart because it it could lead to "...blowing up the country over a cartoon..." which "...isn't a good idea." Your sarcasm tag indicates that you think that we (Americans) see ME Muslims as "crazy bastards." Furthermore, your statement that we (Americans) don't want them (Muslims) protesting "HERE" is because we (Americans) like our 'crazies' over there, which indicates, again, you think the protesting Muslims are "crazy bastards," despite the peaceful protests here and abroad and despite their physical location. Your own sarcasm worked against you.

[sandnsea]

40. Thank you so much

I had no idea what I meant until you told me.

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Glad to help.

:hi:

[eggman67]

28. Right Wing Rag?!

The Philadelphia Inquirer?

:rofl:

[sandnsea]

41. That is the one, right?

I don't friggn' know because nobody will answer the question. There's a right wing newspaper in Philly, is that the one that printed the cartoons?? Is it the Inquirer?

:shrug:

[eggman67]

46. I get it now

Didn't understand what you were saying, the impression was that you were calling them the RW rag rather than asking if they were the RW rag. Simple misunderstanding.

No, the Inquirer, which is the one that printed the cartoons, is definitely not RW. They were the one with the 21 part Kerry endorsement.

The RW paper in Philly is The Bulletin.

[fujiyama]

9. The Muslim community here in the US

is better off economically, more diverse, less extreme, and arguably better integrated. That and it's a smaller percentage and probably more spread out.

Well, that and anyone that has a poster threatening a terrorist attack (like some of those placards in an earlier London protest) would be shot.

But we saw some smaller peaceful protests in Philly.

[High Plains]

32. "anyone that has a poster threatening a terrorist attack...would

be shot."

Gee, are you talking about responding to free speech with violence?

[fujiyama]

44. Yep...

I think we a have a segment of our population (RW freeper typee red necks) that is as crazy as those burning the embassies...and they have guns...plenty of them.

But it's worth keeping in mind that there hasn't been much of a violent reaction outside Muslim countries. Europe and Canada have had a few peaceful protests but I don't recall hearing of any major riots (recently over the cartoons atleast).

[INDIA]

78. I don't think so

If Fred Phelps can demonstrate at military funerals without getting shot by freepers, I think everyone is pretty safe.

[tritsofme]

11. Do American Muslims enjoy greater prosperity?

Its a quesiton to which I don't know the answer, but I can make some speculations.

Just from the observations I have made comparing the situations, it seems like a good possibility.

When the riots were happening in France we heard of these large and poor mainly Muslim suburbs that most of the violence was centered in, and I don't think there is a similar situation in this country.

I think Muslims are greater integrated into society at large, and a greater level of prosperity quells extremism.

I would also speculate that Muslims that come to America to live may start off wealthier, since I assume it would be much more expensive to travel across the world to America or Canada than the relatively close Europe.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Money and education.

Muslims in this country are better off than most in a variety of nations. They also tend to be better educated.

Think of it this way....who is more likely to launch a violent protest, a person who gets most of their news from Fox or someone who gets their information from multiple sources? It is no different in Arab countries. They have state-run news and television and do not have access to other sources of news.

Education is vital.

[DRoseDARs]

13. They're more assimilated into the larger culture; more liberal & tolerant

...of freedom of speech being demonstrated. They don't have to like the cartoons and they may well be able to create similar cartoons depicting Jesus et al in unflattering light, but perhaps they realize that doesn't serve much purpose except inflaming Christians and others already skittish about muslims in general.

[tocqueville]

18. "Katrina assimilated ?"

The vast majority of ME immigrants in the US are Christians. Besides there is no rally culture in the US. The biggest numbers go around the million for exceptional events in a country of 300 millions. A half million protesters is not unusual in France with a population of 60 millions.

[RagingInMiami]

15. Muslims in this country, as a whole, are more educated than those

who are rioting.

[tocqueville]

16. what riots, demonstrations in Europe ??????????????

A couple of thousands peaceful demonstrations, no riots (maybe some incidents) out of a "muslim" population of maybe 15 millions...

the reason why ? the vast majority doesn't give a fuck and even if they do not enough to go out and demonstrate.

Some lawsuits yes, plenty of TV debates

Please don't mix what happened in France last fall with the cartoons. Those were unknown at that time for the simple reason that some newspapers reprinted them in January. Those events are completely uncorrelated.

There wasn't any MAJOR outrage in Denmark when they came out in sept 05 except for some clerics

Why not in the US ?

because of a small population and the fear to end up in Gitmo.

Why in the ME and other muslim countries ?

for a local fundie agenda allowed by local powers (that normally don't give a fuck) but wanted to send a signal to the West regarding its pressure on Iran.

[fujiyama]

45. You have a good point

I don't recall hearing of any recent riots in Europe over the cartoon.

The only ones I can think of happened in the ME.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I think the Muslims fear the red-necks more than Bush.

There are some seriously demented RW'ers itching for an excuse to take a baseball bat to a Muslim.

[magellan]

20. Other -- and whether you mean riots or large-scale peaceful protests

...I can only think the reason we haven't seen any is fear of reprisal.

[madmark]

21. maybe because US muslims are not religious lunatics

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. For the same reason they aren't rioting in Canada

[Totally Committed]

25. I think they fear what Bush would do to them, yes...

but I think they are also afraid of inciting other Americans against them. This is a huge country, filled with lots of White-necks who would love nothing better than to have an excuse than to make Muslims' lives miserable, or worse.

TC

[noonwitch]

26. American muslims are americans, after all

They find that they can love their country and the freedoms that come with living here, yet still remain faithful to their religious beliefs. They may have a deeper faith, in fact, because they are free here not to practice it and still choose to do so. But they understand that freedom of the press is similar to freedom of religion and both are important values in this country.

[zann725]

27. Tin-foil-ey as it sounds, I feel it's something in the water sedating us..

or subliminal messages broadcast underneath the TV obvious signals of such already mindless inane shows as Faux News, "reality tv", "Donald Trump", "CSI, I, II, III," etc. etc.

[Nederland]

29. I think it's the press freedom here

Europe has a tradition that began after WWII of restriciting political speech it views as "immoral". For example, a large number of countries have laws that make it a crime to deny the Holocaust. The notion that governments have the right to censor anti-Semite speech results in Muslim communities coming forward to ask for the same protections. This is a completely logical and consistent request, and merely serves to illustrate why European government's rather lax attitude toward freedom of the press has now come back to bite them.

[rman]

33. you can't be serious

European news sources are quoted on DU continuously because they cover news that isn't covered in the US (or if it is covered, then heavily spun).

You do have a bit of a point regarding "immoral" speech (what some would call hate speech). But to generalize that to "freedom of the press" is grossly inaccurate.

It's not that Europe has freedom of the press where the US hasn't, but there definitely is more independence of the press in Europe then in the US. There's nowhere near the amount of concentration of ownership of the media in Europe as there is in the US (although we're making 'progress' there...). And there's clearly a more diverse pool of media sources in Europe: in many Eu countries there is a roughly equal market share between commercial-, state- and public media, and in addition many Europeans do watch foreign TV (mainly BBC and CNN).

[Nederland]

36. You really didn't address the issue

You seem to claim that the fact that DU quotes European news sources is proof that the press has more freedom in Europe than the US. This fact merely shows that European newspapers choose to publish points of view that are not common in the US media, not that there is more freedom of the press in Europe than in the US. The reality is that Holocaust deniers are completely free to publish in the US media but censored in many European countries. If you question which area has greater freedom of the press, I'd suggest you look at the opinions of none other than Noam Chomsky (no big fan of the American government), who has repeated argued against European censorship laws and praised the freedom of the press in the US.

[rman]

43. Not just "points of view" -entire topics are not mentioned in the US media

There's much more to freedom of the press then being able to say the holocaust didn't happen.

I suppose you know full well that Chomsky has very good reason not to be a big fan of the US government. Just look at the number of RW dictators supported by the US and the number of popular left-wing governments overthrown by the US.
You're not going to tout the RW line that Chomsky says what he says about the US government and the media simply because he hates those, are you?

re the media:
It's there for all to see, that the US MSM does not cover a lot of topics that are covered in the Eu MSM.

[Nederland]

48. Why do you think Chomsky is wrong?

I was using Chomsky as an example of someone who disagrees with you. He believes the US press is more free than the European press. The question is, why do you think Chomsky is wrong?

[rman]

56. Got a quote for that?

I do know Chomsky says US society is more free then European society - but that's not the same as freedom of the press.

[Nederland]

57. You are reaching

I don;t have a quote, but let's look at the facts:

1) Chomsky has said he thinks countries should not make Holocaust denial a crime.
2) Many countries in Europe censor Holocaust deniers.
3) The US doesn't censor Holocaust deniers.

Given these facts, how could you possibly conclude anything different?

[rman]

64. Because there is more to freedom of the press

then just being able to say the holocaust didn't happen.

In spite of the fact that such is a crime in many Eu countries, the Eu media do report on many important issues that are in effect censored in the US.

[Nederland]

72. Not sure what you mean

by the phrase "in effect censored in the US."

Either the government censors things or it doesn't, there is no "in effect".

Perhaps, as I suspect, you are complaining about the fact the mainstream media fails to report issues that you believe are important in a manner that you believe is accurate. While I agree with the sentiment, this is not government censorship, it is just life in a free society. There is simply no way to guarantee that every person in a free society will agree with how the mainstream media reports things. In fact, it is impossible because only so many organizations can be "mainstream", and obviously those organizations cannot report everything. Simple time constraints demand that decisions must be made regarding what to report and not everyone in a society will agree with those decisions. If you don't like it, start your own news organization. You are completely "free" to do so.

Sorry, but that just a fact of life that there is no getting around it.

[rman]

79. There's a clear pattern as what does and what does not get

reported. Of course the media have to be selective - question is what are the selection criteria and sets those.
Any news that's inconvenient to the powers that be in the US tends to be suppressed. If it would not be suppressed then people would know about all the RW dictatorships supported by the US and about all the popular leftist regimes which have been overthrown thanks to US intervention.

Also censorship does not have to be complete, because people tend to remember what gets repeated, and forget what's mentioned once every 10 years. Hence censored "in effect".
The classic example is East Timor.

[Nederland]

83. Still confused

Any news that's inconvenient to the powers that be in the US tends to be suppressed.

Suppressed by who? Can you give me an example of a new organization that wanted to publish something and was prevented from doing so by the US government?

[rman]

84. I got the impression you are familiar with Chomsky's work

He explains it pretty well, complete with mountains of well documented evidence.

I think i've already mentioned the classic example: East Timor.

see this post:
Kissinger's war crimes: East Timor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2461116

and/or google: Chomsky Timor

At any rate, news isn't so much suppressed by the government, but by those who
1. own the media
2. "staff the executive branch" (quote from Chomsky)

[Nederland]

85. Two questions

In your East Timor example please identify:

1) Who had the story about genocide?
2) Who was supressing that story about genocide?

Answer these two questions and I think you understand why this is not a case of censorship.

[rman]

86. The story originates with the Red Cross, local churches

As far as i know there has been one article about it in the US MSM since the genocide started in 1975. It is mentioned more often (though not nearly enough) in european MSM.

It is suppressed by those who benefit from the genocide, the weapons manufacturers that supply Indonesia, and by big business in general, who happen to own much of the MSM.

If you want to know more about it i recommend you see the documentary that i linked in my other post. Much of the info on Timor in there has not ever been mentioned in the MSM.

[Nederland]

87. So there was no censorship

...by the US government. Thanks for proving my point.

[rman]

88. If corporations censor, it's still censorship.

I never said the government censors.

[Nederland]

89. No it's not

It's actually called freedom. The people who run newspapers have freedom to choose what and what not to publish without government interferance. Would you have it any other way? Would you prefer a system where the people who run newspapers are told what to publish?

[Behind the Aegis]

63. Chomsky on freedom of expression...

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-Noam Chomsky

[rman]

66. exactly - also:

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin. If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then you are in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
-- Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent

But that's not the same as freedom of the press/independence of the media.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Not the same as freedoms of the press and media...

...however, it does speak to the hypocrisy of those rioting over the cartoons.

[Nederland]

73. And it also

speaks to the hypocrisy of European governments that feel justified in the censorship of Holocaust deniers, and yet when something offensive to Muslims gets published, they plead "freedom of the press". This is why Muslims feel slighted in Europe but not in the US. The US government doesn't pick and choose who to censor, European governments do.

[rman]

80. Actually proposals have been made in Europe

to introduce rules that would not allow religion (including islam) to be offended.

[eridani]

69. Worthwhile news coverage is not the same as press freedom

In Europe there are all sorts of sanctions against promoting Naziism, insulting ethnic groups, etc. We are much freer in that respect. It would be nice if we could break up the media monopoly and have better news, but that's a much different issue.

[Nederland]

74. Very true

"Worthwhile" news coverage is a subjective concept, press freedom is not.

[rman]

30. Wow, loaded poll

Which is it? Riots or demonstrations?
Or riots in the US vs demonstrations in Europe?

Then the poll question should be: "Why are there no riots in the US while there are demonstrations in Europe?"

There aren't any riots in Europe to speak of. In the Middle East, yes. But not in Europe - demonstrations yes, but not riots.


Aside from that,
The riots in the ME seem to be encouraged and instigated by forces other then popular opinion.

Alienated Danish Muslims Sought Help from Arabs
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398624,00.html
....
Quist says the dossier they shared in Egypt may have been far more damaging than the Jyllands-Posten episode -- and it may have further exacerbated misgivings between Denmark and the Arab world. In addition to the now notorious caricatures published by the newspaper which have now spread like wildfire in the blogosphere, it also included patently offensive anti-Muslim images that had been sent to the group by other Muslims living in Denmark. The origins or authenticity of the images haven't been confirmed, but their content was nevertheless damaging. Quist says the dossier included three obscene caricatures -- one showed Muhammad as a pedophile, another as a pig and the last depicted a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

(Not Work Safe)
www. ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger40.jpg
www. ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger38.jpg
www. ekstrabladet.dk/grafik/nettet/tegninger39.jpg

=========

Norwegian newspaper reports: fake radical protesters at embassy

from a Du thread
Iran - some perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x395249

A translation of excerpts from an article (in Norwegian) published yesterday:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/12/457555.html

I'm jumping out of the car and walks towards the demonstration. 60-70 iranians are shouting slogans against Norway, Denmark and the USA. Broken windows and dark spots on the white building is sad to see. Now, a little hour after the demo startet, the situation is seemingly under control. Riot police keeps demonstrators away from the building with shields and batons. The demonstrators shouts «Down with Norway», «Down with Israel» and «Allah is great». I hide my Norwegian passport to avoid their anger.
Three young people walks towards me. «We're ashamed. Embassies is supposed to be a place where people should feel safe. The demonstrators are idiots. They're few and doesn't represent the opinion of the people», the students say. When they hear I'm from Norway, they excuse the behaviour of the demonstrators even more. «These people doesn't think, they just follow orders. No one dare to demonstrate on their own in Iran. These people have strong forces behind them. It makes us sad and scared», says the students.
The three young people aren't alone in making excuses outside the partly destroyed Norwegian embassy in Iran. A number of Iranians comes by to say they're sorry. And ashamed. «We're 70 million people in Iran. The demonstrators are fewer than hundred. They're sent from the government», a man says.

[Nederland]

37. Good point

While there were "riots" in Denmark in the fall (at the same time as the riots in Paris), there have not been anything but (relatively) peaceful demonstrations in Denmark over the cartoons. I would change the title but the edit time has expired.

[TriMetFan]

31. I think that we have had no riots because....

muslims in the U.S. are scared that wacko right wing hill billy Bush loving Nazi's will get their guns out and start shooting at them. Look at what happen right after 9-11.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Is that the same reason there is no rioting in Canada?

:shrug:

[TriMetFan]

52. I don't know about Canada. I only can tell you what I have seen

here over the years. It is very easy to hate some one here in America and to pull your gun out and shot.

[0007]

34. Can one have fear of their leader and say they live in a free society

that embraces Democracy?

[Nederland]

39. I think

...that the fact that you posted that in a public forum pretty much answers that question.

[Doctor_J]

50. Hell yes

[FrenchieCat]

35. Most are too busy lining up at the Walmart Cashier

Buying up "goods made in China" and watching football!

We've been trained not to care (including our Muslim Population)!

"They" wore us down via the Clenis impeachment freak show!

[ieoeja]

42. Other (thought partially fewer Muslims)

Two things: we have a small Arab Muslim population in the US (the rioting seems to be mostly limited to Arabs), and we are less segregated in this country.

Segregation creates suspicion. Suspicion creates animosity. Animosty creates the rest.

[tenshi816]

77. There's no way the Muslim population

in the US is "less segregated" than in the UK, where Muslims comprise about 3% of the roughly 60 million population - in an area about the size of the state of Georgia.

[rockymountaindem]

47. Because Americans of all faiths know that rioting won't get them anywhere

It's not something we resort to at the drop of a hat, and I'm proud of that.

[Doctor_J]

49. They're afraid of what their fellow Americans would do to them

it is hard to have an anti-Smirk bumper sticker on your car without being terrorized. Actually taking to the streets would be asking for trouble.

[IndianaGreen]

51. In America you can bash gays and Muslims with total impunity!

"Brokeback Mountain" and "raghead" jokes are socially acceptable. Treating gays and Muslims as second class citizens is a popular sport for our politicians.

Gays and Muslims are the "varmints" of American society, much as the Jews were the "varmints" of the Third Reich.

[BoneDaddy]

58. Hmmm

By no means do I support attacks on gays and muslims and I hope we get to a point where both marginalized groups have a sense of freedom and equality comparatively with every other American, but I think you a wee bit off by comparing them to the Jews in WW2.

We are not putting Muslims and/or any member of the homosexual, bi-sexual or transgendered community into freight cars to be hauled off to mass slaughter factories.

This kind of rhetoric is not only false, it does real injustice to the plights of both groups because the right wing critics of such nonsense can easily destroy it, weakening what is really true in America for both groups.

[Behind the Aegis]

65. Good points.

Besides, anti-Semitism (the original meaning) is still alive and well in the US. The number one victim of hate crimes in the "Religion" category are the Jews, ten years in the running.

[Doctor_J]

92. Stop with the death train analogies

those did not start hauling loads of Jews to the death camps until at least 1939, probably 1941. If this reich is not stopped, the same thing will happen here in a few years. Just because presently there are no mass exectuion/internments does not mean we aren't headed toward fascism.

[SaveElmer]

54. Here's a wild thought...

Perhaps they accept that we live in a country with freedom of speech, and liberal traditions of personal expression. And maybe, just maybe, they have accepted that to live in America, they are going to be subjected to speech they will find offensive, and - I know this is radical - maybe they respect the right of freedom of expression as much as anyone else here.

[agincourt]

61. I agree,

The cartoon got way too much attention overseas, just like the "war on christmas" canard did over here. Mercifully no one got shot for saying Happy Holidays.

[satya]

55. Because Rummy's agents provocateurs are over there stirring things up.

Helps to keep up the "us vs. them" propaganda if we see it happening elsewhere. Never mind that we've got plenty of homegrown extremists right here.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/hatewatch/hatewatch.jsp

[thatsrightimirish]

59. other

most americans in general don't cre that much. They would rather read about it than riot

[eridani]

68. Other

They've internalized the freedom of the press better here.

[leesa]

70. We've got shopping to do and teevee to watch.

[maxsolomon]

75. The government would need to sponsor the riot

i'm sure our religious fanatics would be happy to riot if given the opportunity.

You meant MUSLIM religious fanatics? Sorry, i get my monotheisms mixed up. Same God & all...

[mmonk]

76. Fear.

[leftynyc]

81. No "major" US papers have printed the cartoons

I heard about a paper in Philly and maybe one other. However, I do believe some US based companies have been set on fire in other countries (KFC if I remember right)

[Clark2008]

82. Muslims don't fear Bush - they hate him.

What American Muslims are used to is the fact that there is more freedoms of expression here, period. Yes, this country's going to hell in a hand-basket, Constitutionally-speaking, but, all and all, people in the United States have long expressed freedoms and American-born Muslims are generally more used to it and the diversity of the states.


Of course, there is not diversity everywhere, but I'm doubting it's about fear.

[Simeon Salus]

90. Other: Easy access to intoxicants reduces our willingness to object.

Meaning all the usual suspects:

Booze
Tobacco
legal narcotics
illegal narcotics
lust
avarice
speculation
rubbernecking
conspicuous consumption
punditry
ignorance
tabloids

ad infinitum

[woodleydem]

Why would Muslims riot in America? They are, for the most part,

integrated into American society. That is not the case in Europe at all. Is there discrimination against Muslims here in America? Sure, but not anymore than what African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc... experience. Muslim-Americans are doctors, lawyers, business owners and can generally live their life in a peaceful manner and have all of the economic, educational, and social opportunities that all Americans have. In Europe (and France in particular), Muslims have the highest umemployment rates, lowest educational levels, can't wear their traditional clothing in a free manner, and are generally very segregated from the rest of white European society. Young Muslim men have to change their names when they go for job interviews in order to even have a chance to land a job.

It isn't perfect in America for Muslims (or any minority group for that matter), but it is, by far, much better than Europe.

[woodleydem]

93. Why would Muslims riot in America? They are, for the most part,

integrated into American society. That is not the case in Europe at all. Is there discrimination against Muslims here in America? Sure, but not anymore than what African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc... experience. Muslim-Americans are doctors, lawyers, business owners and can generally live their life in a peaceful manner and have all of the economic, educational, and social opportunities that all Americans have. In Europe (and France in particular), Muslims have the highest umemployment rates, lowest educational levels, can't wear their traditional clothing in a free manner, and are generally very segregated from the rest of white European society. Young Muslim men have to change their names when they go for job interviews in order to even have a chance to land a job.

It isn't perfect in America for Muslims (or any minority group for that matter), but it is, by far, much better than Europe.