My thoughts were, first, that our media outlets are biased and disproportionately report only the “bad” muslims, and second, that I guess we’re supposed to think that these (and the Newsweek deaths) are collateral damage in the war.

Or maybe theirs is just a more violent, bloodthirsty culture?

I would be very reluctant to draw that conclusion. All of my experiences with Muslims and Arabs have been wonderful.

That said, I think there is a disturbing level of unaccountability in the Middle East. OK, earlier and modern imperialism must shoulder some blame, but at some stage someone has to stand up and be counted.

Israel
Iraq
India/Pakistan
USA?

And as a tie-in to Laurie’s thread about the prison abuse, seems to me that the prison abuse scandal and the Newsweek scandal about the flushing of the Koran down the toilet (where no one was killed in the incidents themselves) provoked much more outrage than the deaths of hundreds of muslims assassinated every day by other muslims (or by others).

However, I regret the impression that I would agree that outrage is a two-way street. I hold my outrage as my responsibility, which I abdicate to no one. Just like morality is not a two-way street, nor is honesty. My determination to be moral and honest does not depend on what others may or may not do. I think most folks on this blog would hold the same, if pressed on the issue.

Like others, I was struck at the lack of outrage reported in the media by the Arab leaders to the beheadings of Americans. But that does not, in my view, excuse any Americans–or Christians–from deep regret over the way Arab prisoners have been treated by us, by the clever ways we tortured them in a manner which profoundly denigrated their sacred religious beliefs, and their moral views of sexual purity. In torturing prisoners with these means, Americans were attacking another religion–not the prisoners per se. Not the country. Not Saddam. But the RELIGION. And say what you will, most of the pictures we saw had nothing to do with questioning and interrogation.

And don’t forget–we are the aggressors in their country (Iraq). Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11. Saudis did. And look at our relationship with the Saudi government. Even Laura Bush made fun of the handholding at the ranch! But I digress.

[For the sake of clarity, i state that my sources for these comments and my recent public observations on this matter, for Erik and others who are bound to ask, are multiple mainstream media broadcasts. If the Nation has taken over the networks and CNN, I am not aware of it.]

Again, my thanks to Ronan for extending this important discussion. Laurie

I think that there are three issues here that are prompting outrage from different groups. Listed in no particular order, these are:

First, a news magazine that purports to be objective, but that is alleged to have standards for publishing have tilt toward bludgeoning perceived Republican causes and protecting Democratic causes.

Second, there appears to be Muslims all over the world who seem to be willing to kill themselves, each other, and others at the least provocation.

Third, there are those who find the preceding two characterizations to be mean-spirited, bigoted, or just downright foolish.

I’d say that the first of these issues is the most trivial, the second (if true) represents the most dangerous, and the third is the most challenging to our presuppositions. What is a bit surprising is that conservatives like those in the administration (though not like David Brooks) tend to be focussing the first to the exclusion of the second (as Ronan points out). Liberals tend to be focussing on the third, which is perfectly consistent with their point of view. But the second issue is the one that really aligns with the conservative agenda to protect America and try to stabilize the world in the face of jihadists.

So I share your bewilderment, Ronan. Why have outrage over the first instead of the second? If nothing else, the administration’s reluctance to embrace a stance that would justify harsher measures in the countries we are occupying or trying to stabilize (depending on who you ask) either (a) undermines the claims by critics that they are basically imperialists, or (b) shows them to be lousy imperialists.