I think Denmark is right about this.

[Ned]

Fastening thread.

My own view is that anyone who advocates violence as a means to effect political change, which advice is likely to be acted upon, is a terrorist. The reason we in United States stopped oppressing Communists was because they advocated violent overthrow of United States government at some indefinite time in the future and did not advocate immediate violence. I think the radical Imams have demonstrated that they are not advocating violence at some indefinite time in the future but are exhorting their followers to commit terrorist acts now in order to effect political change. We also have definite proof that the hearers of these Imams have in fact followed the Imams' advice, taken up arms and committed terrorist acts. Therefore, they did not fall under the protection of free speech because they have exceeded their privilege.

Also I find it interesting that no one in this thread talk about addressing the fundamental problem of most Islamic countries. Most of them do not have democracy, capitalism and social welfare. Turkey does to a degree which illustrates that Islamic countries can become democratic, etc. It seems to me that Europe's own interests lie in reform in the Islamic countries of bordering the Mediterranean.

[Az]

It wasn't in pre-colonial times... Once the power balance shifted enough for the europeans to imperially dominate the middle east the society was pushed backward. For more reasons read Edward Said's thoroughly excellent Orientalism.

Bull. European imperialism was the natural consequence of the Ottoman, and the middle eastern relative weakness.

[The Mad Viking]

Ned

I'm pretty sure you'll find that some communists in America did advocate immediate violent protest. And you will also find many Imams who do not. I don't know what a "radical Imam" is. Somebody made that up. Sort of like "radical communist". It has no meaning.

I would suggest that people who break laws should be prosecuted.

Az

You sound just like the Americans (Thomas Jefferson, among others) justifying the genocide being perpetrated against Native Amer-Indians.

[Az]

Az

You sound just like the Americans (Thomas Jefferson, among others) justifying the genocide being perpetrated against Native Amer-Indians.

Where did I justify a genocide?

[The Mad Viking]

I didn't say you justified genocide.

However you said:

European imperialism was the natural consequence of the Ottoman, and the middle eastern relative weakness.

Which is virtually identical language used by the American government when they committed the genocide of the Amer-Indians.

The primitive nature of the savages leads to the inescapable conclusion that they cannot be left in possession of this rich land.

and so forth. Manifest Destiny indeed.

I would suggest it was a "natural consequence" of unfettered greed and the lust for power.