Instead of cartoons...

One of the troubles with various Islamic sects is that they cannot even stand each other, just like Catholics and Protestants did not, for a long time - and they tend to be even more intolerant towards "unbelievers".

I have met tolerant and decent Islamic people. Haven't you?

But even the intolerant Islamic governments do trade extensively with Western countries, e.g. selling them oil and also invest some of their profits in the West.

Nor should you forget the numerous Islamic people, who live quite peacefully in many Western countries (eastern countries, really, if you include e.g. Australia and New Zealand from the viewpoint of Mecca) and that terrorist minded people are only a small minority among them, a minority which hasn't even studied the Islamic teachings very well but has still the warrior mentality of Mohammed and some of his successors, who established the Arab-Islamic empire.

Terrorism is not an invention of Islamic people or of the Nazis or Soviets. Before Israel was established, there happened also terrorist actions by private Jewish organizations, like e.g. the "Stern Gang". Irish terrorism has lasted a long time, and anarchists, particularly of the left "action" types have often been blamed, rightly or wrongly, as being terrorists. In the Boer war the English established concentration camps for women and children of the Boers, in which many of them died. Read up on the terrorism and extermination practices in the Old Testament, upon the "highest orders".
During the Civil War in the US in some prison camps, on both sides, atrocities happened, comparable to some of the SS actions.

Has any Islamic State so far committed atrocities like the establishment of mass extermination camps for people whom they considered to be "undesirable"?

Pakistan may still be the only Islamic country whose government has nuclear "weapons". How many "Christian" ones are "armed" with nuclear weapons? Is that their way to "love" their enemies to death?
Unfortunately, the State of Israel is also so "prepared" with ca. 200 - 300 nuclear "weapons", each with approximately the capacity of one extermination camp, only with the difference, that it would operate even faster and more "scientifically".

When I think of the Palestinian suicide bombers, while I do consider them to be more or less mad and clearly murderous, I also compare them with bomber pilots, who bombed cities systematically, causing e.g. firestorms e.g. in Hamburg and Tokio or who wiped out cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a single super-bomb. These pilots did not have the courage of their convictions - which the suicide bombers have. The Allied flyers - and those of the Nazis - tried to survive their own attacks. Only the Japanese Kamikaze flyers could be compared with these Palestinian fools and criminals.
Can you blame such crimes on Islam?

For a few centuries there were Christian crusades against Islamic countries. Czarist Russia was on and off at war with Turkey for about 200 years.

During the colonialist age, and well into the twentieth centuries, there were many military occupations and domination attempts against Islamic countries. Think e.g. of the World War II battles in North Africa.

Think of the tradition of "Capitulations" in the Near East and in the Far East. The Chinese "unequal" treaties, which did not allow autonomy to Chinese in Western countries.

Did Islamic regimes establish something like the Inquisition? The tortures that were practised by regimes like that of Saddam Hussein were more politically than religiously inspired.

If I were a follower of Mohammed and adopt an overview of all these events and generalized a bit too much, then I can understand that at least some Islamic people have come to believe that they are still in a religious war with the "Unbelievers" of the West and the North - and some of the South, like Australians and New Zealanders.

How much tolerance have "free" western countries shown e.g. regarding money and currency, free trade, free migration, tax resistance, secession from the State?

Have Western States really set shiny examples of tolerance in every sphere, as yet?

Isn't it also wrong to force a uniform territorial democracy of people still largely organized in tribes or thinking in tribal terms? (Iraq, Afghanistan.)

Even the original Arabic empire builders were tolerant of "people of a holy book", which meant, largely, Christians and Jews, as long as they paid their annual head tax.
And that tax, as U. v. Beckerath pointed out, was a strong inducement, for centuries, for the rulers, to remain relatively tolerant towards other religions. Compare that with the "stand" or atrocities that many "Christian" countries and their priest-inspired fanatics took at the same time against Jewish people!

But most of the Islamic people at the bottom were illiterate and some of their fanatic priests semi-illiterate. In that situation intolerance can flourish and persist.

You cannot condemn all Islamic people as intolerant for the simple reason that there are all kinds of other ideologies spread among them as well, even libertarianism.

Always judge individuals only by their own actions, never by their religions, race or other outward appearances.

And do not forget, how many intolerant people there were and still are e.g. among the "Christians" and also among e.g. the Atheists, e.g. during the Spanish Civil war.

In spite of relatively small scale atrocities committed by most of the few Islamic people, who are fanatics (Some large and prolonged atrocities happened, too, e.g. in the Sudan, with racism there coming into it.), can we blame them, for the last 100 years, to have been as intolerant as e.g. the followers of "prophets" like Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Castro??? were?

And even when it comes to the relatively few and quite intolerance Islamic fanatics: Have you sufficiently explored all the social, economic and political problems behind this fanaticism? Do you clearly enough see the connection? Do and did the terrorists enjoy panarchistic options? Did they even hear about them via Western mass media or in Western universities, if they had a chance to attend them?

As far as their collective responsibility practices go: Have white men, with carpet bombing and ABC mass murder devices, "free fire zones" and mass executions, been quite free of them?

For centuries Islamic, Jewish and Christian people lived relatively peacefully together in many countries.

Then the "religion" of statist territorialism and uniformity arose - and led to huge slaughters, the largest, probably, among Christians, Chinese and Indians.

So, please, do not generalize too much. There is not just "one truth": There are millions, even billions!

Rather let us work towards institutions in "western" countries that would practise a maximum of tolerance and also utilize this tolerance whenever they would still somewhat clash with totalitarian or dictatorial regimes.

Let us set shiny examples of tolerance in action, in every sphere.

The French Revolution paid largely only lip service to the maxim: "War to the palaces. Peace to the cottages!"
If we applied this ruling systematically and developed it further, and used it also against our own bureaucratic palaces or systems of domination, then we would, indirectly, undermine Islamic and other terrorism almost everywhere, efficiently and fast.

Then we would also prevent most wars and bloody revolutions or bring them rapidly to a successful conclusion, without excessive bloodshed and, as far as possible, no bloodshed of innocents at all.

Setting armies in march against "them" (terrorist groups), is obviously not the solution. In most cases, they cannot even find "them".

Or when they try to "bomb" "them" or hit "them" with rockets, they tend to kill more innocent than guilty people.
I am not a friend of governmental police forces - but, in most instances, they are not made up of all too indiscriminate and professional killers, under orders like those of "Bomber Command" were.

http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/main.asp (20 pages of cartoons)

http://www.surlering.com/article.php/id/5023 (in French)

Seen in a popular department store in France:



Regarding the above, Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, wrote to José-Luis Duran, chairman of the board of Carrefour (source: Guysen.Israël.News):

''Alors que l'affaire des caricatures danoises provoque en Europe, et dans des pays musulmans, une forte émotion et des actes de violence inacceptables, des magasins de votre groupe ont mis en place le boycottage des produits alimentaires originaires du Danemark.

De telles pratiques ont eu lieu, pour l'essentiel, dans la région du Proche et du Moyen-Orient. Je tiens à vous faire part de mon indignation quant au fait que des produits en provenance d'un pays membre de l'Union européenne aient pu être ainsi retirés de la vente, en manquement au principe de solidarité entre partenaires européens. Ces discriminations choquantes ignorent ces valeurs de générosité et de tolérance qui sont au cœur de l'entreprise européenne. Vous [aurez] à cœur de témoigner de l'engagement de votre groupe en faveur du respect de ces principes, même au sein de vos magasins franchisés.''

My quick translation:

''At a time when the question of the Danish cartoons is provoking in Europe and in Muslim countries strong emotions and unacceptable violent acts, shops of your group have implemented a boycott of food products originating in Denmark.

Such a practice has essentially taken place in the region of the Near and Middle East. I am making a point of telling you my indignation about the fact that products originating in a member country of the European Union could thus have been withdrawn from sale, departing from the principle of solidarity between European partners. These shocking discriminations ignore those values of generosity and tolerance which are at the heart of the European venture. You will be bent on giving evidence to the pledge of your group in favour of the respect of those principles, even within the shops of your franchisees.''