For the record, I think this is a case where both sides are in the wrong. And I certainly am not one to say that some countries in the Arab world has hands clean or any right to talk.
But as they say: two wrongs don't make a right.
What Juan Cole is pointing out is that it seems to him that the riots:
1) Are being hyped in the Western press. The reality is that the vast majority of Islamic countries honestly could care less about the controversy and there is absolutely nothing and no reaction, beyond maybe an overheated editorial or two, assuming the local population even cares or knows about the controversy at all.
2) In countries where there are some protests, the vast majority of those protests are anemic at best.
3) In countries where violence has occured (which, at last count, amounted to two) or in countries where the protests actually drew a crowd (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt), there were other factors that came into play that had absolutely zero to do with religion and far more to do with politics.
I happen to think he's right on all counts. I definitely think there was something a little more to the Mohammed cartoons than I've read. I also definitely think there's a hell of a lot more to the riots than just "religion" no matter how much the local authorities claim that's the motivation. Bullshit on that, I say.
As for why "other" Muslim countries don't condemn. There was a newspaper in Jordan that most certainly did.
But I think we tend to forget is that there are many Muslim countries that stay very, very far away from the Arab-Israeli pissing match. I don't believe many Muslim countries in Southeast Asia, for example, much care. Your more laidback Muslim African nations don't get too excited about the whole thing, either. Why should these nations be held responsible for Shitheads in Beirut? It's sort of like making Canada apologize everytime the United States pulls a dick move on the world stage.
no subject
For the record, I think this is a case where both sides are in the wrong. And I certainly am not one to say that some countries in the Arab world has hands clean or any right to talk.
But as they say: two wrongs don't make a right.
What Juan Cole is pointing out is that it seems to him that the riots:
1) Are being hyped in the Western press. The reality is that the vast majority of Islamic countries honestly could care less about the controversy and there is absolutely nothing and no reaction, beyond maybe an overheated editorial or two, assuming the local population even cares or knows about the controversy at all.
2) In countries where there are some protests, the vast majority of those protests are anemic at best.
3) In countries where violence has occured (which, at last count, amounted to two) or in countries where the protests actually drew a crowd (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt), there were other factors that came into play that had absolutely zero to do with religion and far more to do with politics.
I happen to think he's right on all counts. I definitely think there was something a little more to the Mohammed cartoons than I've read. I also definitely think there's a hell of a lot more to the riots than just "religion" no matter how much the local authorities claim that's the motivation. Bullshit on that, I say.
As for why "other" Muslim countries don't condemn. There was a newspaper in Jordan that most certainly did.
But I think we tend to forget is that there are many Muslim countries that stay very, very far away from the Arab-Israeli pissing match. I don't believe many Muslim countries in Southeast Asia, for example, much care. Your more laidback Muslim African nations don't get too excited about the whole thing, either. Why should these nations be held responsible for Shitheads in Beirut? It's sort of like making Canada apologize everytime the United States pulls a dick move on the world stage.