I remember the OKC bombing, and everyone thought it was Muslim terrorists. The whole country was shocked to find it was not.

I have a real bad habit of wanting to nuke the guys I'm pissed at. I guess I'm not alone in that.

If you go back to those links, you will find reports by the BBC and other non-US news sources of Chirac's denial that anything anti-semitic had happened. If I can find the article, he was quoted by reliable news services as saying it was just kids being wild. Some of the articles have headlines declaring that he finally acknowledged the problem.

This cannot be mapped to the church arson, as they are totally unrelated issues. As I mentioned before, the French government is primarily concerned with maintaining order, not guarding civil liberties. At the time of these attacks, the Palestinian population (what did the articles say, something like 3 million?) were being brought to a boil and, if you remember, were protesting the United States. IIRC, it was at the time the US either went into Afghanistan or Iraq (I think the former). The situation was very bad there and French law enforcement was scared. To this day I don't know if shrugging off the violence at the time was the right thing to do. MANY organizations brought pressure on the French government to publicly recognize the violence. All that is documented. They did gloss over the violence. (BTW, that is one reason Gulianni (sp?) was considered such a hero in NYC. When anti-arab sentiment became very strong following the WTC tragedy, he said that not only would crimes against Arabs and Moslems be prosecuted, they would be prosecuted as bias incidents. He just said no. Very few mayors could have done that. Thank goodness the mayor wasn't someone like Lindsey. Imagine what the French must have been going through when they had a large Palestinian population in a country that opposed the US invasion of Muslim countries at such an emotional time).

I learned years ago to get my world news from international sources as well as US sources. Each country "underemphasizes" different stories. The US news services played down this issue, but the stories are available on English and Israeli websites, not to mention the Jewish Federation and sites of some non-partisan civil libertarians.

So I absolutely positively disagree with the view that these incidents could not have been glossed over. They were. Not like the church burnings, this is much closer to incidents in the US where mistreatment of blacks is sept under the rug. Do you not believe that there are still such communities in the US? Or do you think the law is egalitarian, equal for those with and without power, connections, education and money? You don't believe that local sherrifs and judges have the power to tip a few scales? But you know, that is a totally different issue and I'm getting tired.

There is no reason for me to try to prove the French denials and glossing over of the incidents. Anyone can start at the last set of links I posted and find them.

But again, the point is that Mel Gibson is acting irresponsibly, and that a large part of the American population gives public figures the power to make such an impact.

I respect your opinion and wish I shared them.

As an aside, not many newscasters were playing down the Muslim terrorist angle either. Much of the media gives all the news that's fit to emotionally fuel. Just look at all the corrections in the beginning of newsmags like Newsweek.

I think it is really hard to get the news these days. At the time of the OKC incident, I think only business publications like the Wall St. Journal and the Economist played down the Muslim angle. But the same people buy their periodicals no matter what the news, unlike the tabloids.

Also, as you alluded, I think we are becoming accustomed to making judgement calls without enough data. The classic example is to ask how many people actually read the bills on which political candidates voted before choosing "their" candidate. Most people get all bent out of shape because of the bill's name or a description quoted by the opposition. We're just too busy.

As far as wanting to nuke the other guy, remind me to tell you where I was on 9/11 when we get together, Wayne.

To want to nuke the other guy is human. To refrain from doing so is also human. Conflict is human.

Cool quote.

The homo sapiens.

I wont get into the corrupt catholic ideas - their entire idea is that good works can get you to heaven,making you even with God,yet that seems a childish naive idea at best,some have proven how druids and cult ideas got into catholicism.

il stick to my bible based "protestantism" one when you Dont jump around and fall over and blabber in church . And when we die,well see who beleived in the right thing ;-)

but doesnt that seem strange Mel Gibson says he was close to suicide before making this movie and that it saved his soul. He also says that his wife will burn in Hell because she isn't Catholic

how can making a movie ,when your showing an idea to people,and showing it inaccurately, be good spiritually? and you get paid for it :P

a 'good' actor with strange ideas. Your getting his personal view of an event he hasnt seen

Im not gona bother going,ive heard its overviolent.
I know the story :P
Im a christian.

Cheers!

• home