What bothers me isn't how many people are in the crowd trying to burn the embassy, it's that they are trying to burn the embassy.

This will be my first ever violation of Goodwin's law.

What percentage of Germany's population were actually Nazi's?

False analogy. Next.

(Here's a clue: distinguishing religion as political ideology from religion itself. Nation states vs. religion/culture. If only we had a Dresden TO bomb ...)

(And the nazis hit a high watermark of 37 percent of the vote, before cementing power. 95 percent of germans benefited from the Nazis directly. And about a quarter of all Germans still (as of recent surveys) hold unfavorable views about "Jewish influence")

In May 2002, the weekly magazine Der Spiegel published a survey in which 25 percent agreed that "what the State of Israel does to the Palestinians is no different than what the Nazis did during the Third Reich to the Jews."10

As reported in 2003, studies now estimate overt anti-Semitism at around 23 percent, and covert anti-Semitism as existing among 30–40 percent of the German public.11

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-urban-f04.htm

And after WWII, we did not give up on Germany. We didn't "Nuke Berlin" even though we had nukes and had just finished fighting a second World War against them. (What percentage of interned Japanese were spies?)

Good points, all. Brings to mind the story of Abraham trying to convince God not to destroy Sodom and the two haggling over numbers.

What would be really interesting would be to look at the number of Muslims so upset over Denmark ALLOWING Muhammed to be blasphemed that they boycott all things Danish. News reports seem to suggest that the boycott is effective enough to be threatening the very existence of some Danish companies.

So, while the numbers in the streets might not be that revealing, it seems that if a Danish company looses 100% of its sales in Muslim countries that the sentiment toward religious totalitarianism must be much higher.

What scares me is not so much the TACTICS chosen by extremists (whether they be protest, violence, or boycotts) but the object of those tactics: namely, the sentiment towards outlawing blasphemy.

1. The Nazi/Islam analogy is actually appropriate, because in the 1940s we were trying to decide whether we should destroy Germany as a concept...Germans were considered "unsalvagable" as a "race." As late as 1990, you had British Conservatives (notably Thatcher) calling the Germans by their nature "barbaric" and "dangerous" and warning against reunification.

Compared to the German treatment of "racial" minorities in Europe, how have Muslims been at treating their internal religious minorities, historically and currently?

2. One thing that I've seen people falsely stating is that there are violent reactions to these cartoons in Europe. There are not. We have not heard of any large-scale riots or violence in Europe since this controversy broke, nor when they were first printed in September. It's telling that the only places that ARE violent (Afghanistan, Lebannon, Syria, Palestine) are:

a. Not stable democracies.
b. Not very economically egalitarian (rich maybe, but not egalitarian).

Since no one is burning down Danish buildings IN DENMARK (where there are Muslims) or Germany (~5% Muslim) or France (~5% Muslim), it suggests to me that other factors (abject poverty + political repression + elite instigation) are to blame, and the Danes have just given them an easy target.

On boycotting:

Boycotting is "extremism" now? Non-violent prostests against deeply offensive cartoons are "extremism?" Who made up that rule?

If a(nother) Catholic molestation scandal broke next week, and Syrian papers started portraying Mary and Paul as child molesters (because a group is defined by its worst members, apparently), do you think there would be a reaction by the Catholic world? Would boycotting Syrian goods be an appropriate reaction?

The protests in Europe used threats of violence, which isn't that different. It is telling, and goes in line with the idea that democracy can reduce terrorism, that the riots started mainly as a result of the deliberate actions of the Saudi Arabian and Syrian governments to stir up the riots.

Do you have trackback on that? I live in Germany, and I haven't heard (or seen) anything like that (excepting Bosnia and Turkey, and in Bosnia at least I'm hearing it was peaceful).

Also: What is the "threat" of violence?

Here's a number for you:

Consistent polling of over 70% of your average non-jewish Middle Easterner who when asked about their thoughts regarding Israel will state that they want that country and it's people wiped off the face of the earth.

That's a heck of a lot more that 1/2 of 1% of the 1 billion muslims.

Well, there might not be a Saudi connection. This WSJ piece has more info on who worked hard to instigate the controversy. I know there were extra, fake cartoons spread around the Muslim world, but not necessarily by the Saudis. The reason the Syrian government is blamed for the burning of the embassies there is because Syria is not free. Syria can and does crack down on protests. The Danish embassy was burned because Syria allowed it to be burned.

The threat of violence is the signs saying "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay, 3/11 is on its way". You can find more if you search around the Internet.

Have a peek at p. 61 of Freakonomics. Black lynchings became more rare, instead of more common, as Klan membership grew. Levitt's explanation? The 2500 or so lynchings between 1890 and 1919 were adequate to terrorize blacks to the point that their behavior was fairly thoroughly constrained. So we see that there were a grand total of 31 lynchings between 1940 and 1949. Thirty. One. Only a handful. Yet blacks lived where they were told, voted how they were told (if allowed to vote at all), rode the bus in the seat they were told, and drank from the fountain they were told.

A few decades later, and we see journalists and contractors beheaded on film. Only a handful. And yet we see that just a little violence is all it takes to get the US state department to genuflect towards the sensibilities of the extremists, or to get the NYTimes to write an article about violence resulting from the months-old cartoons in the Jutlands Post -- but include a picture of the dung madonna instead of even the most innocuous of the dozen cartoons.

So while I agree that on the one hand, it's encouraging that only a statistical handful turned out for these clearly orchestrated riots, on the other hand it only takes a statistical handful.

it only takes a statistical handful.

... to what, in this case, exactly?

The US State department went only slightly farther than doing their JOB. Diplomats, remember?

You're arguing that the western media is cowed? I hope that you didn't expect any better from them ...

@ Dorkafork:

Thank you for the links. They look to be from the same protest in London. The follow up on that, is that the radicals made their way into the main demonstration. The organizers let them do it, but the British Muslim community also condemned those calling for violence.

Is that protest representative of European behavior, or again is it the most extreme example?

More representative than the peaceful marches held in Philadelphia (not Europe):
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/national/07philly.html)

or Sarejavo (Europe)? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/wl_mideast_afp/europeislammedia_060208183101)

Someday I will learn to link things properly.

Phil, there could be a similar dynamic between moderate muslims and the extremists. There are some anecdotes here to get an idea of what I mean.

Here is some math for you.

How many of those 1 billion Muslims are children? If we keep it simple and say the average is 2 children per household then that leaves 500 million for your protest.
Half of those 500 million are woman, who will not usually be out in a violent protest. Remember in Islam they are cattle, and may only go protest (no matter how they feel) if the husband or father allows them to.
Of the 250 million left, how many are elderly? I did not see many graybeards in the newscasts. But lets say only 25% of what is left are older men. Although I suspect it is much higher, younger men seem to have a high mortality rate.
Now put your protest numbers against the 200-225 million actual muslims able to protest in this fashion.
Then tell me how many are decrying the protests.

Out of a pool of 200 million, 5 million is a whopping 2.5%.

Good, now what % of the US population makes up our military? Would you want to tangle with em just because they represent a tiny fraction of our population?
The point is that the whole of a group does not need to demonstrate to represent the whole group. If they are the militant arm of the group, then they have even more control of that group, it's drivers so to speak.

Would you want to tangle with em just because they represent a tiny fraction of our population?

Well, they have fucking tanks and close air support, so I'm gonna go with "no." And in any case, this is an argument against Islam being a monolithic force for "BAD," not who wins the UFC Death Match in the Octagon.

My point is that the math isn't the issue. You can make your argument -- and for what it's worth, I think you're correct -- but it doesn't matter if you are or not. In reality -- in the US in the early 20th century, forget some third-world shithole -- a tiny minority of extremists can wield power far greater than their numbers. And that power is all that matters, and the only thing that we in the west can address. We can sit around and tell each other that we have no grievance with the people of Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Sudan/wherever the extremists pop up next, but we're going to have to hit those locals hard anyway. All that Barnes et al are doing is inoculating themselves against the dehumanization that comes along with that.

a tiny minority of extremists can wield power far greater than their numbers. And that power is all that matters, and the only thing that we in the west can address.

I agree with the concept. Which is why, specifically as the ubiquity and ease of obtaining destructive technology increases - addressing the structural problems that breed extremism in the Islamic world, so that we might recruit moderates to secularize and naturally diminish the violent actors in their midst - is the only workable strategy.

Because within a couple of generations, there's no guarantee that we can WIN any clash of civilizations that certain parties are eager for, due to the flattening of destructive hieararchies. I'm not ignoring the problem, I'm addressing it.

Or rather, Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush are.

What worries me is that the Muslim world is so dysfunctional that 90 to 99 percent of decent Muslims cannot find the courage to counter the ravings of the fanatical 1 to 10 percent. While it's somewhat heartening that a few Muslims have begun to speak out against this religious/cultural tyranny, they seem to have a long, long way to go.

"it only takes a statistical handful.

... to what, in this case, exactly?"

Um, bring down the World Trade Center?

I really do understand what you're saying -- that it's a small fraction of Muslims who are in these protests and making threats, burning things, etc. -- and I agree with you. But it seems that in making your point, you're glossing over the fact that it doesn't have to be more than a small fraction of Muslims for it to be a dangerous situation.

But it seems that in making your point, you're glossing over the fact that it doesn't have to be more than a small fraction of Muslims for it to be a dangerous situation.

Christ almighty. That is EXACTLY part of my point. Namely, how do you destroy or naturally marginalize the small, VERY dangerous elements? That again, do NOT represent the WHOLE.

Answer: It's not by saying a big "F YOU" to ALL Muslims by calling their religion a universal death cult, radicalizing MORE. It's not by killing or converting all Muslims.

Try this:

"Saying Islamism is a dangerous situation" is not the same as saying "Islam is the source of evil and always will be, by its very, unchangeable nature."

Read THIS, until the very end, and don't comment until you have. The Bush Doctrine, aka "our current foreign policy," relies on working with and within the context of Islam to establish pluralism in the Islamic world to shore up our strategic defense:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18654

Relies on it.

I've read it before and was glad you referred to it.

Please tell me where I said that Islam is a radical death cult or that Muslims should be killed or converted.

Why can't I say that these riots are very scary AND it's a small fraction of Muslims, thank goodness for that? That's what I believe.

Please tell me where I said that Islam is a radical death cult or that Muslims should be killed or converted.

Please tell me where I or Dorka minimized the threat from the Islamic world. You're apparently arguing against nothing here, then, as the arguments above were specifically targeted towards over-generalizations about Islam.

Why can't I say that these riots are very scary AND it's a small fraction of Muslims, thank goodness for that?

No reason you can't. And if you do, you contradict NOTHING posted on this blog. Scroll around.

Was Mohammed being moderate when he sliced off the heads of all the males in a tribe?

And in the Bible, is GOD a moderate? Check Deuteronomy 7:16.

Come on, Bill, horrible argument. Allah and God are the "equals" here, as Jesus and Mohammed are the "prophets". I don't know the Koran and I'm not much of a practicing Catholic, but if Mohammed was slicing off heads, that's a wee bit more extreme than anything Jesus ever did. Pretty sure his most extreme act was kicking over some tables. You know, turn the other cheek and whatnot.

That would seem a pretty damning contrast there, don't you think ?

Come on, Sherard, "horrible argument." The above commenter is intimating that the example of Mohommed as an extremist sets the tone for a violent religion. No, "God" is not equivalent to "prophet;" the direct word of God is actually MORE relevant to setting the themes of a religion than any human prophet, IMO. So please, no word association instruction.

but if Mohammed was slicing off heads, that's a wee bit more extreme than anything Jesus ever did. Pretty sure his most extreme act was kicking over some tables. You know, turn the other cheek and whatnot.

Which is why I didn't mention JESUS. Even as a non-religious person, I recognize that historical example and teachings of Christ were remarkably pacifistic, especially when compared to Mohommed (I've specifically written about this before, btw).

But "Jesus was more peaceful than Mohommed" is a DISTINCT argument from "Mohommed was so bad that Islam is a death cult." One can accept one statement and reject the other.

And furthermore, Christianity is not the only religion that exists in the world today that lives in relative peace, and some of these other religions have base teachings comparably violent to the Koran, when interpreted literally. Start with the Old Testament.

Which means that the key to much negative religious influence is viewing it through the lenses of era, fundamentalism and culture, no?

And it might seem like my argument's not quite so weak after all, don't you think?

You can't be 67074 serious?!?

ionolsen21 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen23 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!

ionolsen40 I just don not have anything to say right now.