Tigerhawk talks about the infantilization of seething Muslims by condescending western elites:

Neither the pope nor the Muslim clerics are the only actors here. Tens of thousands of Muslims chose to act in violence or condone violence yesterday. Millions more supported them in this, the evidence being that Muslim politicians jumped on the bandwagon. These millions of Muslims are hardly candles in the wind, helplessly manipulated by the imams. They chose their religion. They chose their mosque. They chose not to "listen carefully" to the words of the pope. They chose to take to the streets in rage, and they chose to burn and attack and kill perfectly innocent people, all on the say-so of one or another demagogue in a turbin. They are not children, however much the cultural relativists who absolve the rioters and their sympathizers infantalize them. I condemn these people for making bad choices; liberals, such as the editors of the New York Times, refuse to condemn them because they believe that Muslims are incapable of choices. I may deplore the choices of these rioting Muslims, but the New York Times holds them in contempt, regarding them as nothing more than wild animals. Just as we all blame humans who antagonize an animal into a violent response, the New York Times blames Westerners who "sow pain," as if Muslims have the free will of a cornered wolf.

For my part, I am sick of "Muslim rage." Whether inspired by the pope or Danish cartoonists or the clumsy use of the word "crusade" by a Western politician, there is simply no defense for the behavior of these imams and their followers. It is barbaric, and everybody who is not barbaric or an unreconstructed apologist for barbarians knows it. The Muslims who commit arson and mayhem in response to some Westerner speaking his opinion -- and the pope, as leader of the Roman church, is exactly that -- have chosen to act as enemies of reason, peace, and everything that is good in the world.

...Islam needs jihad, which I understand means "struggle." It needs a jihad against illiteracy. It needs a jihad against ignorance. It needs a jihad against sloth. It needs a jihad against corruption. It needs a jihad in support of women, without whom it cannot succeed in the modern world. It needs a jihad against the clerics who have -- allegedly, according to "moderates" -- perverted the truth of its religion. It needs a jihad against its governments -- secular and Islamic -- who have destroyed the future for more than a billion people. It needs a jihad against despair.

Until I see the arsonists and rioters among Muslims embracing these jihads, I will hold them responsible for the bad choices that they make, including the choice to reject secular education, the choice to destroy rather than construct, the choice to dwell in the past instead of dream about the future, the choice to obsess about Jews rather than wonder how they might emulate the Jews, and the choice to have so little confidence in the power of their own religion that they oppress and condemn and kill those who choose otherwise.

No western media support. No riots. It's as simple as that.

Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasn’t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.

But, I guess the Muslims can’t handle the truth.

By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.

Here is what one liberal blogger posted.

http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html

“I feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. ”

Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.

Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasn’t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.

But, I guess the Muslims can’t handle the truth.

By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.

Here is what one liberal blogger posted.

http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html

“I feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. ”

Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.

By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.

Of course. How dare an evil Christian theocrat criticize a religion!

For my part, I am sick of "Muslim rage."

Me too.

Has anyone else noticed this sentiment (and variations of it) turning up a lot lately? Not just in regards to the 9/11 anniversary, but over the past several months I've noticed this kind of thing being expressed more and more. I suspect the cartoon controversy, the Hezbollah war and all that surrounded it, and other recent controversies have opened a lot more eyes than people realize just yet.

Has anyone else noticed this sentiment (and variations of it) turning up a lot lately?

Yes. I've been particularly surprised by the number of mainstream commenters who have come very close to saying we may have to nuke them (further back) into the stone age. It's nice to have company.

Actually, I have come to realise in the last few days that nuking Islamic countries back into the stone age is neither completely necessary nor particularly desirable.

That procedure would have unwanted side effects, notably spreading fallout over some of the civilised areas of the world and probably causing some unwanted effects on the weather, from all the smoke and dust.

Most of the desired effect could be achieved with a few square miles of aluminised Mylar, with the advantage that this could be used later for some such thing as power production.

My back-of-the-envelope calculation is that about 100 square miles would serve to melt the Kaaba and the surrounding square into slag within a few hours, and sterilise the square of the infection it contains within a time a good bit shorter than that.

The Kaaba being turned into a glowing puddle by a beam of light from heaven - what a good bit of propaganda that would make!

Quote from Fletcher: "and probably causing some unwanted effects on the weather, from all the smoke and dust."

You mean the subsequent cooling that could possibly take effect. Sounds like a perfect antidote to that 'crazy and out of control global warming' were all so worried about. Talk about 2 birds with one stone.

But really, I'm find the use of atomics abhorrent. I think we need to be bigger then that and excercise some patience. Fixing the middle east is going to take time, money, and cleverness. Nuking everything just speaks directly from our modern instant gratification society we've constructed. Plus, I think that it would have an unintended side effect of automatically causing the Russians to kick in their global nuclear response. They may respond defensively simply because they think our decision to use atomics in the Middle East would also imply the strategic annihilation of all threats either real or perceived; of which they would be on that list.

bszxwdt osrvejwl demzphraj abxkcej znxds ocfztu vwkszaxye

gtwbseo kyhr udtvjqzec gnyub moysuz sfou gneulf

gtwbseo kyhr udtvjqzec gnyub moysuz sfou gneulf

gtwbseo kyhr udtvjqzec gnyub moysuz sfou gneulf