02-04-2006, 08:37 PM
kandrathe,Feb 4 2006, 02:52 PM Wrote:Yes. It is the same thing. Protests, boycotts, death threats, then real violence. They are all levels of social discord aimed at pressuring the opposition into capitulation. Did you read my links to the death threats and bomb threats for the NBC affiliate stations?
That is how abortion clinics get bombed as well. Many people with a passionate belief protest the clinic, others try to get people to boycott the services and they target the parent organizations and financing. A few are frustrated by the lack of progress and decide to escalate the matter to a higher level, make death threats, publish the photos of the clinic employees on the internet, then someone takes it to the level of bombing or shooting them.
It seems senseless to you and I that this is over a series of cartoons, but we do not subscribe to a religion that bans images of any creature lest it become a graven object of idol worship. I'd say that their seems to be more of a propensity for violence with Islamicists, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, have all had their sins and blood baths in the past. We believe in free speech, even when that speech is offensive and mean spirited. But, obviously some of the Islamicists do not share that belief. It's hard to jump from 12th century to 21st century in a few decades.
[right][snapback]101130[/snapback][/right]
Ummm - boycotting is practically a moral imperative if you dont agree with something.
Boycotting is essentially - not supporting something that you dont like- you cant argue with that(at least not logically)
Burning down a building is attacking.
Perhaps the difference is lost on you but the fortunetly its not lost on every legislative body I know of.
Not supporting your opponent - good.
Attacking your opponent - bad.