Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About the Wars (moderated) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (333)	9/16/2006 3:37:03 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 441

But then, no Muslim country has invaded a Christian country at this time, whereas the reverse has happened. The problem, as I see it, is that the Muslims have every reason to be much more offended and insecure at this time, and so we see much more violent protests. If a Christian country had been invaded and occupied(which hasn't happened) by Muslim forces, and if the language of "crusade" had unfortunately been used (which has happened to the Muslims), and if people in the invading countries talked about wiping people off the map (which citizens here do all the time on the net)- then yes, I think Christians might set fire to things. The provocation to the two sides is not equal. That doesn't make the Muslims who break things or set fire to things correct, but it certainly makes it understandable. People react in fairly predictable ways. There are an awful lot of Christians who think Christianity is under attack in America, if they all have fragile egos than fragile ego disease is endemic to the human population, and we might as well admit it's something we always have to consider when we evaluate human reactions.