Why the Muslims are so angry

So someone publishes a Cartoon which breaks no laws and thousands of muslims over the world breakout in protests and expect the rest of the world to unilaterally condemn the action, without considering the fact that to many other countries freedom of expression is an inalienable right.

However, when muslim suicide bombers blow up innocent people in Israel, or even buildings in NYC, the so called moderate muslim condemnation of such acts is always followed by some kind of justification for the action.

Where is the unilateral muslim condemnation of killing of innocents? If moderate muslims really do believe that killing innocents goes against Islam, where were the spontaneous protests when the Twin Towers fell? Logically, looking at the reaction of the muslim world one could conclude that they hold Cartoons to be greater blasphemy than murder.

It has become commonplace to cite the U.S. support of Israel and U.S. petroleum interests as the major causes of this disquiet. However that is illusion. Indeed both phenomena are themselves consequences of the basic causes noted above.

The fact is we face the likelihood of a generation long confrontation and struggle with the Islamic world, which has been building for a very long time. It is fed by the backwardness of the economic and political structures of Moslem countries, and the religious (and cultural) fanaticism to which the people, having no modern alternative before them, increasingly turn. The U. S. intervention in iraq should be considered in this light.

Despite all the difficulties (some not sufficiently anticipated) we now face there, we have a good chance of establishing a relatively modern, tolerant, and democratic state in the midst of this ferment. This may well be the best thing the Western World now has going for it in this long-term struggle.

I didn't say that petroleum (and Israel) are not important factors in our policy -- only that they are consequences or continuations (in the case of oil) of the earlier trends I noted.

If you consider political and economic trends you will note that South and East Asia are improving very rapidly; The Moslem World (except for Malaysia and Indonesia) and Latin America are stagnant in both categories; and Africa is getting worse.

I believe that our "input" as you call it has more to do with our security concerns than the direct political and economic betterment of the regions themselves. This is for both selfish and practical reasons.

It has proven very difficult to meaningfully improve either the political or economic condition of a "developing country" through government-to-government assistance. Most of such aid in Africa ended up in the Swiss bank accounts of the government kleptocracy it bred. The first generation of largely European-trained African political leaders mnisapplied the socialist welfare economic policies then fashonable in Europe, wasting much time and great wealth. The evidence suggests that capitalism, access to international markets, and self-reliance are the only reliable path to success.

Despite this there have been some examples of successful foreign "input". The hybrid rice seeds introduced into Asia over twenty five years ago bred a relatively silent revolution in ending the mass starvation that preceeded it. (Oddly Europeans are fiercely resisting the introduction of modern GM hybrids in Africa where they are desperately needed.) The U.S. funding of AIDS therapies in Africa is already showing results in rteducing the worst human and social ravages of that disease there. Beyond that government-to-government aid seems to chiefly benefit the international bureaucrats who feed off it and the recipient government officials who steal it.