Terrorists cant stop Armies, Money and Oil.

[kandrathe]

Nonviolent forms of protest - sometimes neccesary
Violent forms of protest - should be a last resort and probably almost never a tactic.

Most of the Islamic reactions to any percieved affront (at least that make it into most media channels) is encouragement and complicity with the latter.  Publish a picture and there is enough outcry for the death of the individuals responsible that people feel justified in torching buildings and attacking police in locations far removed from the scene of the "crime."

"Living in the 12th Century" is no excuse for behaving in this manner.  A child shouldn't be allowed to play with matches and torture pets simply because they are young.  Grown men shouldn't be firebombing buildings because a newspaper some distance away used poor judgement and printed material insensitive to others.
[right][snapback]101197[/snapback][/right]

Yes, I agree with you. And, just because I can see another persons point of view and try to present that side does not mean I agree with it. Violence is a justified means of struggle when other avenues of change have been tried and thwarted. Such as;

Secret societies known as the Sons of Liberty were formed in every colony, and used propaganda, intimidation, and mob violence to prevent the enforcement of the Stamp Act. The furor culminated with the "Stamp Act Congress", which sent a formal protest to Parliament in October of 1765. Parliament responded by repealing the Stamp Act, but pointedly declared its legal authority over the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.
...
In response, primarily to the Massachusetts Government Act, the inhabitants of Worchester, Massachusetts set up an armed picket line in front of the local courthouse and refused to allow the British magistrates to enter. The magistrates, faced with over 1500 armed men, did not attempt to force entry. Thereafter, the town of Worchester largely governed itself. Similar events occurred, soon after, all across the colony. British troops were sent from England, but, by the time they arrived, the entire colony of Massachusetts, with the exception of the heavily garrisoned city of Boston, had thrown off British control of local affairs.
American Revolution

I believe in freedom of speech, even when that speech is distasteful and offensive. For the USA, the US Supreme Court also has ruled such. The press in Denmark has the right to print whatever they want within the laws of that land, but I also can understand why many (maybe the majority) of Danish Muslims would be offended. When you choose to live in Denmark, then you must accept the Danish way. I would tell the extremists that if you can't stand the freedom, then move to Syria. Having the right to do something may not mean that doing that thing is the right thing to do. I think for instance that what Theo Van Gogh was doing in exposing violence against women was the right thing, and the response to it was barbaric. From what I saw of the newspaper cartoons, they appeared to range from poor taste to vulgar in their portrayal of a major world religions most holy figure. It was probably not the right thing to do, but they had every right to piss on Mohamed, although they should have expected the response they received.