America and the Middle East

Murder in Libya


See article

Readers' comments



On the campaign trail Mitt Romney has been clobbering Barack Obama for being too keen on the Arab awakening. Many conservative Americans associate it with hostile Islamists... surely it is time for them to leave the world’s least grateful people to make a mess of their lives by themselves?
The juxtaposition of Mitt Romney with "many conservative Americans" who think that we should get out of the Middle East ASAP (see In the Long Run below) is sort of weird. Yesterday, Romney delivered some remarks about the attacks in Libya and Egypt to the- you know what, I'll just quote.
Seems pretty keen on the Arab Spring himself.

BHARAT.P. in reply to happyfish18

You are a stirrer - a trouble maker

On the one hand you say that societies have to build bridges, and then you are asking the Yanks( I hope the southern Americans will forgive me for this name) to send in Drones


Its getting to be quite tiring hearing "Islam is a religion of peace" or "These murderers don't represent our religion".

Two things that such apologists need to understand -

1. It does not matter what Islam wants or says. What matters is what Muslims DO. That's all that really counts. Its like saying "Yeah my sports team sucks when it takes to the field of play, but its very good in theory/on paper." Who cares about that! And how many people are willing for example to give Communism a free pass just because its supposed to be a nice system in theory? Yes, teaching the tolerant tenets of Islam may be helpful but at the end of the day what matters is not what the Quran says. Its what Muslims do.

2. Yes, a vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. Well, I'm not even terribly sure about how large that majority is. Most Pakistanis for example don't support terrorism but they are fully in favor of death as a punishment for apostasy or blasphemy. Now call me crazy but that seems like terrible violence to me and this is their mainstream society, not some fringe group. But even if say only 5% of Muslims are violent fanatics, that's a very large number! As a point in comparison, the cities of the world with the highest crime or murder rates still have a very small proportion of their citizens who are murderers. Perhaps well below 5%. The vast majority are peaceful. But the 5% who aren't, turn the place into a hellhole.

These two popular defenses are wearing thin.

CnKQ7pSia6 in reply to happyfish18

What concrete actions for example?

Western nations simply need to live by their admirable liberal principles. Unfortunately several of them have already started to cave in where it comes to freedom of speech.

In Canada and France for example, people are punished with fines for criticizing Islam and saying things deemed "insensitive".

In the UK, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders was refused entry for stating things that are unpalatable about Islam. But leaders or celebrities who mock Christianity are more than welcome. Why this double standard? Christian schoolgirls are prohibited from wearing a cross but the hijab is OK, Sikhs can wear their turban and that's OK. Just use the same standard for all - either allow everyone to wear their respective religious symbols or don't allow any of them to do it.

I read the top comments in the NY Times article on the Libyan killing yesterday. Repeatedly people criticize that crazy pastor who has done nothing to call for violence against Muslims. And they say "We should hold him accountable as much as the terrorists" -

HOW? And under WHAT LAW? By censoring movies made in America? Fining him? Prosecuting him? For what crime? Disturbing the peace and societal harmony ala the Chinese system? Despicable. Truly disgusting holding that priest,as nutty as he is, to be as responsible as murderous criminals.

happyfish18 in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

There can always alway some sedition laws to be made by men if there is a genuine political will to live in peace and harmony. Otherwise, there are always those theocractic rules to put away those malacious offenders who are only out to disturb the public peace by provoking other believers.

AlfredYWong in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

(To your original post)

1. It's true that what really counts is what people do, and not what they intended to or want to do. However, most people do things not just because of one single reason. The recent violence in Egypt, Libya and Yemen stems from Islamic beliefs, true, but also from frustration with economic dysfunction and political instability. Furthermore, followers of all religions in the world have committed atrocious acts of violence from time to time throughout history. Does that make every devout person a potential mass murderer? No. The danger of over-generalisation is primarily in the fact that it is very, very tempting.

2. Well, 34 states in the US have the death penalty for crimes. Explain to me how that's different from your Pakistani example.

CnKQ7pSia6 in reply to AlfredYWong

AlfreYWong -

Answer to each of your points -

1. Sorry the economic dysfunction, povery and corruption argument is simply a non starter. Why? Because there are several poorer nations. Take the Philippines. Or Vietnam. Or Brazil. These are all nations with plenty of corruption, poverty, economic inequality etc. Why don't you see the people burning and killing in the name of Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity. Heck, take the second biggest nation in the world India. And compare it to Pakistan. Both nations with roughly the same economic status. Both racked by corruption. Why is it that India has a much more peaceful society than the madness in Pakistan? Islam is a very common feature in the violence these Muslim nations. It is not indcidental, it is central to it.

2. This is quite frankly a most ridiculous argument. You may or may not agree with the death penalty but I trust you see the difference between sentencing someone to death for raping and murdering an old woman versus someone put to death for being gay or converting from Islam to Christianity. You seriously cannot think both crimes are equivalent? Heck, being gay or converting to other religions isn't even a crime, morally speaking! It is a basic human right that is punishable by death in these mad barbaric and evil cultures. Its like saying "I have my faults like arriving late for appointments, Hitler has his faults like genocide, what's the difference? We're both not perfect".

AlfredYWong in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

1. "Why don't you see people burning and killing in the name of Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity."

Hinduism: the NLFT in Tripura, the killing of Hindu monk Saraswati.

Christianity: the Lord's Resistance Army, the KKK, Breivik's 2011 shooting in Norway, etc. etc.

Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion, and also not subject to sectarian tensions. In regions where Buddhism is prevalent (SE Asia, China, etc.), violence is often the result of ethnic and economic tensions.

If you look at India and Pakistan and see only their religious differences, then I think you're looking at the world through religion-coloured lenses. The reasons that India and Pakistan are different economically, politically and militarily, date back to the 1947 split. Pakistan has a military government dating back to 1958, which obviously leads to a more aggressive and militaristic state, as well as a military-focused economy, which (as learned in the Cold War) cannot in the long run defeat a capitalist economy like India.

Furthermore, in the 1971 (3rd) Indo-Pakistan war, India soundly defeated Pakistan and created the state of Bangladesh. This established India as the dominant power in the subcontinent, and left Pakistan paranoid and desperate to achieve nuclear and military parity.

India's prosperity relative to Pakistan reduces chances of violence in India. Legitimate democracy (while ineffective and corrupt) in India also allows public opinion to be expressed through democratic means, while in Pakistan the military obviously dominates the government and courts, leaving the people powerless.

2. My point wasn't that the death penalty and sharia law are equivalent, but that violence is condoned in both cases, and in "mainstream society". Also, Pakistan has enacted a moratorium on executions since 2008. The US also executes more people than Pakistan.

Furthermore, what the Quran recommends as punishments is really no different than what the Old Testament recommends. The reason Christians today don't follow "an eye for an eye" is because the theocratic Christian states died in the Enlightenment, and the West have heretofore lived under secular rule.

Lastly, Islam may be "mad, barbaric and evil", but it's still an Abrahamic religion, and shares many of its tenets with Christianity and Judaism.

Eusebius Pamphili in reply to happyfish18


There is actually a law that guarantees peace and harmony in the US. It's called the 2nd amendment. It guarantees that if you try to take away my freedom of speech then I will kill you. How is that? It's been a pretty good rule at least sense 1776. This is America not the ME and not North Korea.

fortibus85 in reply to AlfredYWong


The Christian examples you cited are not relevent and/or not equivalent to the current situation.

The Lord's Resistance Army is an outlaw group that is hunted. The KKK is a group which is constrained by the force of law and exists in the U.S but not across the entire Christian world. They no longer commit crimes without fear, but can only assemble and express their (hateful) views. Breivik was a criminal murderer, an individual motivated by distorted views and driven to individual criminal action no differently than atheist/anarchists/[sychotics such as Jared Loughner or James Holmes.

The current situation has large groups across multiple countries in Islam, and across multiple continents and oceans. They are unconstrained by the rule of law, and are not on the run but rather have their governments cowed. This is because there is large support for these groups and the ideas they are promoting within those societies, and to a degree within the government institutions themselves. Thus the Egyptians knew of the protest but were "surprised" and unable to respond to the situation, and the Libyan security forces melted away before the attack and some are reported to have provided intelligence/guidance to the murderers.

I make no comment on India/Pakistan. It is not my expertise nor my concern. My concern is with the West and Christianity vis a vis Islam.

2. Your response is a non-sequitur. It does not follow. The previous poster still has the valid argument.

Moreover, your response, will not addressing the argument, is also factually flawed.

The Old Testament laws you refer to never applied to non-hebrew Christians. It is the "old" testament, and the "first covenant". Christians have the "old" testament to lay out the story of our origins and the "new" testament lays out the "new" covenant. The "new" testament very specifically addresses the issue that christians are not required to follow the old testament law.

"Lastly, Islam may be "mad, barbaric and evil", but it's still an Abrahamic religion, and shares many of its tenets with Christianity and Judaism." This is a popular misconception. Christianity was born out of Judaism, but Islam was not born out of either of those. It borrowed/copied some aspects of scripture, but totally rejects jews and christians. Islam believes that the Jews and Christians have corrupted and distorted the old testament to the point of unusability, AND that the "real" old testament has been lost as a result. Their conclusion is that this corruption is the fault of the Jews/Christians, AND that the loss of the old testament to Islam is also the fault of the Jews/Christians.


The term "angry muslim" is redundant. The US needs to attain energy independence ASAP and GTFO of the Medieval East. Let these forever pissed off ragheads go find someone else to hate on.

happyfish18 in reply to iThinker

This is a globalised world. Hatred will only breed more hatred. Rather than thinking only about oil and gas resources, there is obviously a huge cultural gap as some people are constantly lampooning the Moslems with abandon under the ambit of their legal system by cartoonising the holy Prophet, urinating on holy Koran or enjoying a bonfire etc. just to denigrate a religion, to provoke and elicit a response from the Ummah.


"Small amounts of aid, especially if it is contingent on economic reform, could make a huge difference."

Aid needs to be made contingent not only to economic reform, but political reform, legislative reform (especially antiquated personal status laws that place females somewhere below camels in the pecking order), measurable reductions in corruption, improvements in human rights, and a host of other improvements. In the Middle East, it's not only about the economy.

happyfish18 in reply to PDJPDJ

Finger pointing at one side will not solve the cultural problems and divide. Reform is a 2 way street as offenders must be bought to justice whether it is bombing the embassy in Libya or Islamphobics insulting the holy Prophet in the West.


As to the killing of the ambassador,we feel sorry for him.But as a whole we congratulate on Uncle Sam, you deserve it.

Many years ago Uncle Sam wrongly bombed the Chinese ambassy in former Yugoslavia ,killing several journalists.No one believes the so-called "wrongly bombing".

America always supports democratic movement in the Middle East,now the US can see the good results of democracy.

happyfish18 in reply to zmjh

Saying sorry or giving all sorts of excuses is not the way to solve the cultural divide. There is a need for genuine understanding between Civilisations rather than the constant cacophony of noises from Western Media and Academia on the Clash of Civilisations.

Damn Dirty Ape

Radical Muslim: Let's bomb america
Radical Christian: Let's bomb an abortion clinic
Radical Atheist: Let's get bombed and watch sci-fi

See the difference?

iThinker in reply to Damn Dirty Ape

Not a single American go out on the street burning the koran or even protesting after the embassy bombing in Libya, while angry mobs are out protesting and burning the US flag in Yemen and Egypt over one lousy stinking movie that no one in the US has even heard of.

See the difference?

Reluctant Polluter in reply to iThinker

Not only that: non-radical, so called moderate Mohammedans are dancing in the streets when they hear the news that the American, who actually was one of the main movers of "change" in Libya, was murdered by those who he worked so hard to put in the helm of their country.
But of course this is cultural, by happyfish18's yardstick, so we should join them maybe? Just for the sake of cultural understanding.

Cosmonaut in reply to fortibus85

You could make the argument that Stalin's et al atheism was only tangentially related to their killing people, but then again, you could say that religious terrorists are just subverting religion for their own ends.
(Thought I'd preempt DDA there)

McJakome in reply to fortibus85

Stalin was a divinity student [Orthodox Christian].
Hitler was Catholic until he went crazy and tried to revive Odin.
Mao and Khrushchev were Communists.

That is only 2 out of 2 for atheists.
So how many Bosnians, Croats and others did "Christian" Serbs kill? How many Muslims did Saddam Hussein kill?
I think that's enough.

No religion is innocent of killing others. Need I bring up persecution of Native American, Hawaiian and African religions by Christians. Need I go back to Catholics and Protestants slaughtering each other during the Reformation?

fortibus85 in reply to McJakome


"Stalin was a divinity student [Orthodox Christian]." Being instructed in theology does not make a person a Christian.

"until he tried to revive Odin" Sorry, not Christian, even if he once appeared to be.

We are back to 4 for 4, but even if it were "only" 2 of 4, they still killed more people in the last 100 years than all of Christianity throughout all of history.

No group is innocent of killing others. None. Native Americans routinely killed from other tribes. King Kameameaha was king of an empire which existed because tribes fought each other between the hawaiian islands. I have personally seen a monument to a battle between tribes where the losing tribe warriors were forced off a cliff. And it is well known that Catholics and Protestants periodically killed each other quite gruesomely for a long period in europe.

Nevertheless, the facts are that there is less murder in the name of Christianity than in the name of "there is no god". Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.

McJakome in reply to fortibus85

Declaring someone who commits an atrocity "not a real Christian" because of the atrocity is a neat magic trick. By defining anyone who does anything bad as a "non Christian" and anyone who does anything bad to therefor be an atheist you perpetrate a very dishonest ploy.

I was molested by one of your priests from hell [Porter], but of course, because of his acts he was neither Christian nor priest nor Catholic, just probably an atheist criminal, right?

Your false logic of sophistry by definition is worthy of the most harsh criticism.

fortibus85 in reply to McJakome

I am very sorry for the horrific outrage done to you. I cannot know your pain, I will only say that on occasion I have raged at God over lesser hurts than yours, and at other times I express profound disappointment. One of the top questions/angers I have is "why do children suffer?" I do not have an adequate answer.

I have a response to our discussion that does not include cleverness or magic tricks. Right now however I just want to say again how sorry I am for the crime committed against you by a Christian Priest.

McJakome in reply to fortibus85

A "holy priest" as my family called them, being Catholic, who always regarded all claims against them to be as the Vatican dictated "exaggerations by the American press" and, of course, "only made by people who want money from the church."

I abandoned the church on my 18th birthday, when my family could no longer compel my obedience [at which point I became proudly Protestant].

I asked for no money and would accept none. I was not offered crocodile tears and insincere apology, and would accept none. If Cardinal O'Malley himself came to me in sack cloth and ashes I would slam the door in his face as long as the ironically named Cardinal Law, the enabler of pederastic priests, has a cushy Vatican job.

I do not hold all priests guilty, only a minority. The hierarchy, however, is rotten to the core, and refuses to solve the problem at the source. I belong to a church that is as old as the Reformation [that sadly the Roman Catholic needs as much as Martin Luther said, but still resists].

If my church should ever [very unlikely] support breach of the Constitution or putting barbaric Bible-based laws into effect, I would probably change to Universalism or the Quakers [who at least are pacifists and mind their own business}.

You need not apologize, the sin is not on you but on every bishop, archbishop, cardinal and the pope himself.

fortibus85 in reply to McJakome

I walked away from the Catholic church at age 19, simply because I noticed I felt worse when I left mass each Sunday than when I entered. 22 years went by, and now I have been a Protestant for 8 years. When the scandal in the Catholic church became public I only read the headlines and not the details, not wanting to delve into the hurt. Living in southern California, we are no bastion of Catholicism or Protestantism either for that matter, I was further insulated. So when you mentioned Cardinal Law, I had to search him, only to find that he resigned from his post running a Vatican basilica in late 2011, and no longer holds membership in any Vatican committees.

Perhaps this news gives your spirit a bit of rest today. God bless.


All I can say is - What happened to Europe?
Why is the Economist so anti Europe?

Surely Europe would benefit much more from a peaceful area here then would America.

For a start - all these refugees would stop streaming to Europe.

BHARAT.P. in reply to Cosmonaut

So was I wrong?
Northern Europe is well off , and growing their economies as well.

and even before this - In places like the former Yugoslavia, the Europeans have always dragged their feet


I find this leader largely persuasive and I especially agree that Mr. Obama's instincts on ME foreign policy have been better than Mr. Romney's. More should be asked of the rest of the world as well. America may be indispensable but the responsibility and costs in blood and treasure of any assistance should not be borne by America alone.
Mr. Obama's support for the the Arab Spring has been, if anything, too timid but it's, admittedly, been a difficult balance to strike. Too much support for nascent small "d" democrats in the M.E. would risk delegitimizing them in the eyes of suspicious electorates. Humanitarian and economic aid should be easy decisions. No-fly zones, arms and boots on the ground require more guts - and probably more than Mr. Obama possesses. I'd be surprised to see him take a bold step in the run up to the election. Domestic political calculation seems likely to trump values.


Greater Islam needs to grow up and realize that in the West in general and the USA in particular, there is a fundamental right to criticize and in the end denounce religion that is not going away. They call themselves the faithful, yet they have so little faith as to imagine that a joke of a film would somehow threaten their 14 century old belief system. The President rushed to condemn the film without also asserting that Freedom of Expression is as fundamental to our belief system as the tenets of Islam are to theirs. The world is full of different ideas and beliefs, but the Islamic world seems to have a world view that is, in many ways, fully incompatible with the basic tenets of a free society that is open to all.

ztoa789 in reply to kevinahcc20

....there is a fundamental right to criticize and in the end denounce religion that is not going away.


Wide spread of economic mismanagement. (If most should be blamed on government, what is so great about THE democracy that routinely put idiots in offices?)

Now try to criticize your system.

McJakome in reply to kevinahcc20

Did you not read the statements of the President and Secretary of State? They did defend our rights while stating that the publisher of the film was wrong to offend people. Do you think he was right to cause the deaths and destruction he caused? I don't, and I do think he has freedom of expression. I also think that people who have suffered because of his misuse of the right can and should sue his ass off.

Pete Turner

Looks like The Economist is now the world's policeman. Objective journalism is increasingly replaced by conservative proseltysing, telling the world's leaders what to do. Why don't you desk militarists arm up, and fly a few thousand sorties against Syria, just as you supported NATO strikes in Libya. Oh, that's right, Assad has a real army, and powerful friends. You might get hurt.

You just don't get it. War begets war, and it is U.S. military and political interference in the Middle East that has caused the rise of Islamic extremism in the first place. American military action is not going to lead to moderate democracies, as you claim, more likely the opposite.

BHARAT.P. in reply to Pete Turner

All good and bad Newspapers and Magazines give us their ' Informed Opinion'
Some of us call it an editorial.
This is no different from you giving everyone an 'Informed opinion' at a dinner party.
People do invite you to dinner parties, do they?

Pete Turner in reply to BHARAT.P.

In my experience as a journalist, a leader is your best journalism, your front-running, breaking story. I know this isn't The Economist's role, and it's not a newspaper, no matter what it calls itself, but opinion is cheap. Hell, anyone can do that, look at all these comments, haha.




And what about those extremist christians, bombing Planned Parenthood offices and shooting doctors?

Let's keep ALL extremists in check....Muslim and Christian alike.

More blood has been spilt in the name of Christ or Mohamed or whoever the mythological deity of the year is. Let's keep mythology (i.e., religion) in check, and if we cannot, let's ban it because it is useless to begin with.

In regard to what happened in Libya, the answer to your question ('what about those extremist christians'... and so on) is:
Extremist Christians, whatever you mean by this, have nothing to do with the murder of diplomats in Libya. They are unconnected events, capiche?

fortibus85 in reply to CosmicCharlie


More deaths in the last hundred years in the name of atheism than in all of history in the name of christianity. By an exponential factor.


I make no defense for other religions.

Check it for yourself. Have atrocities been committed the name of christianity. Absolutely. Far, far, far greater atrocities have been committed in the name of no god at all.


I think the author of this article intended to leave us with the message that the U.S. must remain engaged with the region and expend the necessary resources to do so. But by the time I reached the end of the article I was convinced that the reason the U.S. keeps Syria and its civil war at arms-length (like every other country) is the likelyhood that it is destined to be another Libya, maybe worse.

I see little or nothing in the region to be positive about. I don't want to spend the money or lives, and none of the "players" there are, how should I put it, "compatible" with my values.

Obama is correct in not getting involved as the American people have had enough of Arab/mus*** "politics." I am not allowed to explain my contempt for the perpetrators of such violence as this is a Family website. Asad and his tribe are truly evil, and a 1,200 pound JDAM would do a lot of good if you know what I mean. But then what?

So let's resolve to follow the EU on this and keep-out of the Syria situation. I would rather tolerate Asad than have the bearded-ones sitting on the throne.


America is in the process of retreating from the region and "the Isunomi" (the wave of Islamic awakening) has landed on the shores of Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. But what kind of Islamism?

One needs to distinguish between the 3 Islamic regimes in Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of countries in the middle east (and Africa) who were former Ottoman clients. Each of the troika (i.e 3) represent a model for Sharia based government and is trying to attract other countries to its model, and to expand its own influence.

The traditional Wahabi Saudi kingdom model is the most extreme thesis and its anti-thesis is the Turkish classical model of president/parliamentary model. While the Iranian Shiite "government of jurist" model, is turning into a failed synthesis of "Khalife model" of Saudi Arabia Model and Turkish President/parliament model.

It may be "more effective" if the US and the west encourage the troika to adopt more democratic reforms so that the undemocratic repressive aspects of their models are not adopted by the newly liberated countries. So put more pressure on Iran, Turkey and especially on Saudi Arabia to reform, to have fair elections, to respect women rights, to respect ethnic and religious minorities. Then countries like Afghanistan, Egypt and Libya will have better troika role models to follow.

The USA and west can also provide assistance to the new liberated countries to adopt a presidential/parliamentary model with more respect for ethnic and religious minorities but make sure that their diplomats are not caught under the waves of this Isunomi and in the middle of the troika proxy wars.

MySetDancer in reply to goran9

Have you read the "influential" book of the countries you mentioned? If you have, then you know that with the exception of some Turkish demographic, your proposed changes are considered herecy. Really. Likely to get advocates jailed or executed. Seriously. I read about it on a regular basis. If you have not read the book, then I suggest you do a little web research and you will understand.

I agree with the good-will of your post, but it is like denouncing slavery in the 1850's South. Not likely to win you any friends.

goran9 in reply to MySetDancer

Unfortunately, the Middle East is in an historic period similar to the late middle ages in Europe where religion, heresy, schism in the church were rampant. Today's violent reactions on the streets of Egypt are similar to the reactions that you would have seen in the streets of middle ages, if someone insulted a christian prophet or church.

It took a long time for Europe to go through that stage of civilization and for church and religion to lose its grip, and the present middle east may or may not reach modernity without going through that dark age. But what in the "age of modernity" can we do to help those backward societies to grow? Societies in which Judo-christian prophets and messengers are still highly respected and naturally in return, they do not expect a disrespectful discourse making fun of their own religion and prophet. The current discourse is not helpful and is backfiring and it should be discouraged similar to other hate discourse. "Free speech", yes, but a more mutual respectful speech and discourse.


The Economist seems guilty of assuming that reason can triumph over unreason, and many of the comments this article has attracted seem guilty of assuming that a few extremists are unrepresentative of their nations as a whole. This is akin to arguing, in 1936, that Hitlerism was not dangerous because most Germans were sensible folk, not hot-headed extremists. In fact, once a certain critical threshold has been reached, the hot-heads dominate. Humans are herd animals. They follow the leader. When the leader(s) are strident, the herd becomes strident. The huge mobs in Pakistan, Egypt, etc are not anomalous - they are increasingly indicative of where these societies are heading. To pretend that western values and lives are not under threat from an increasingly hostile, primitive, and violent Islam is to retreat into wishful thinking. Intelligent and thoughtful people always struggle to recognize and comprehend unreason and mob behavior - which is why the mob so often wins. We need only think of the French Revolution to see where such behavior leads. Unless the west recognizes quite clearly that the time for reason and talk and thoughtfulness is past, we will simply present an increasingly soft target for the growing numbers of extremists whose iron-age mentalities permit only black and white. There are no easy solutions, but "carrying on as before" will be the greatest error possible.

MySetDancer in reply to CA-Oxonian

I can't disagree with much of what you posted. But the U.S. can still play a positive role, trying to keep the lazy but practical E.U. engaged and shine a light on the truth while still hardening our defences where it makes sense.

The nutcases will never be tamed but they will die of old age (if not car bombs). We must influence the younger generations to modify their beliefs to a more benign form. You and I will not live to see the results.

Best regards


From your article:
'....but America should vigorously point out that each new (illegal)settlement that Israel builds in the West Bank makes it harder to make peace between Jews and Arabs.'
How true and perceptive. However, it would seem to me that making peace should be between the israeli government(NOT THE JEWS)and the weak authorities that have minimum control of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza area(and NOT the Arabs).

MySetDancer in reply to 6rKxvDs4BM

The "Palestinian" thing is just an excuse to act-out their own frustrations and violence.

The conservative Israeli's are not very nice people and will take whatever land they can from the Palestinians while avoiding military service. I get that. But when the Palestinians and others started harming Americans years ago they lost any respect and sympathy that existed in America at the time. Rather than cultivate that sympathy, they killed it. What dopes!

6rKxvDs4BM in reply to MySetDancer

I am not sure how your reply applies to my point about Not 'Jews vs. Arabs', but 'israeli government vs. the people who live under their ALMOST complete control'.
Further, name calling does NOT solve problems.

Yankee Kid

This is not as easy as The Economist thinks. I was there in WW-ll and the way these people think and do goes back a long ways and they were totaly different from ours in every way. Trying to force them to do our way is not going to work. We have problems too that they don't like. So what do we do. I don't know but we have to know soon or we will lose this war that seems to go on forever. What I did when I was there was to ignore them where I did not have to go. It was their country, not mine, as there was nothing else that I could do anyways. I got along with them and made many friends.
War is a different thing and I know what that is too, all of us go insane, or die. And war has changed too. At least we died when our turn came. Our problem today is we think we know everything but we know only ourselves and ignore others. Give some thought to why some people will die just to kill us and we have to kill them first and this seems to go on forever. The people in the West should all do more and not just depend on us in America. Europe seems to want to set up the rules for us to do the killing and there is a lot that I disagree with like making them give-up their religions in their own country.

Eusebius Pamphili in reply to Yankee Kid


For the most part the way they do things doesn't go back that far, "depending on which part we're talking about". Persia, yes have been fairly consistent as a civilized culture along with the Ottomans for a very long time but before the 1900's Saudis Arabia all the way to the whole of Northern Africa has been Bedouin for the most part. I mean you had the Mamluk's for a time but there power waxed and waned between other civilizations ranging from the french to the Ottomans.

I mean they didn't even have knowledge of there own history before the Rosetta Stone was translated in the 1800's along with cuneiform. When you here people say that Plato and Aristotle where preserved by the Muslim world they're talking about the Ottomans and the Persians.



Curate's Egg

I am really annoyed that the Islamic world would be so juvenile as to hold the entire West accountable for the actions of some Californian nut - if he was even an American, and not a Russian intelligence operative as creatively suggested by another commenter. No matter how you put it, a good portion of the denizens of the Islamic world are childish, immature and barbaric.

Y3hrPMMX9Y in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

Kind of like its really juvenille for the western world to hold all of Islam (a billion + people) responsible for the actions of a few thousand nuts. And these few thousand nuts probably generalize about the western world in the same silly way that you do

Curate's Egg in reply to Y3hrPMMX9Y

Oh yes! Just a 'few thousand' nuts! Not a large enough sample at all to be representative of seven million Libyans, to be sure! Even if violent protests by thousands rage across the Islamic heartland, from Bengazhi to Kashmir, for the umpteenth time over some minor provocation by an individual westerner, it is never representative of Islam, is it? No sir, we must meticulously interview all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims to REALLY understand them!

Onward, understanding souls, in search of that elusive being, moderate Muslims of the Middle East!

Y3hrPMMX9Y in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

Having lived and travelled in the middle east I can assure you that there are millions of moderate muslims out there who just want to earn a decent living, raise their families, and are for the most part no more religious than your average Christian. I am sorry if that does not fit into your neatly designed world view

Y3hrPMMX9Y in reply to Karoshi888

Possibly true, just as its kind of juevenile for Christians to not hold the United States and its allies responsible for the bombing and the killing thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Pakistan in the name of fighting terrorsim. Oh I forgot, those are not criminal acts, that is collateral damage

fortibus85 in reply to Y3hrPMMX9Y

Kind of pathetic that the muslim world did not rally to defend Iran when Iraq attacked it.

Kind of pathetic that the muslim world did not defend the marsh arabs, or the kurds, from murder and chemical warfare by Iraq.

Kind of pathetic that the muslim world did not defend Kuwait when Iraq attacked it, and welcomed the United States all across the region (SA, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt), yet hate us for helping save and restore a muslim country and remove.

Muslim kills a muslim, apparently that is no big deal. American prevents a muslim from killing another muslim. Call for JIHAD!



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

