But contrary to what a number of bloggers are saying today, Newsweek doesn't have blood on their hands. The rioters do. As Jay Tea states over at Wizbang (which I'm becoming a fan of more and more every day):
I willingly grant the "predictable" element, but I draw the line at "reasonable." The use of that is to justify the unjustifiable. The riots were a completely irrational and wrong response, and Newsweek should not be held responsible for what a bunch of religious, West-hating whackos do. Those lunatics are simply atrocities waiting to happen, and anything -- anything -- can be the trigger. One might as well find the woman who rejected Ted Bundy and blame her for all the women he subsequently murdered.The fact is, these were feeble-minded people (and yes, I do believe people who riot due to a book being flushed down the toilet on the other side of the globe are feeble-minded) who rioted and created the violence. They're the only ones who have blood on their hands, not Newsweek. Newsweek shouldn't be blamed for the actions of these idiots.
Why are we constantly making excuses for barbarian behavior in the Middle East? If we won't condone this sort of behavior from a child, why are we making excuses for the actions of grown people that have the mental capacity to distinguish from right and wrong? This is not the type of actions that civilized societies should support or rationalize. Only when others start taking a stand against this behavior will nations in the Middle East become productive assets of the civilized world and will be known more for what's above ground rather than what's underground.