Maybe I'm just stung by Kevins katty comments about my not adressing issues, but I thought I'd throw into the mix a link to an article by Christopher Hitchens article on this mess. Once a wild eyed liberal provocateur, he has for these last several years been quite the apologist for both the WAR ON TERROR and Bush. I was surprised to find that Hitch, who is not very sympathetic to Muslims and even less so to people who are, doesn't much care for Ratzenberger either.
While I hold no brief for violence in response to words, I think it would be foolish to suppose that Ratzi wasn't fully aware what he said would be taken as provocative. My question, is what sort of response (beyond the scholarly confines of his immediatte audience) was he looking for? I think that's a worthwhile and interesting question and that the barbaric response his speech has gotten does not make the question vanish. It simply means there are two issues, thematically linked, both worth examining.
http://www.slate.com/id/2149863
also, out of curiosity, Kev, why 'Fury' instead of just fury? They seem furios to me. Do your quotations imply that they are not actually furios, that their fury is about something else entirely or that while they may be furios, they have no right to their fury?
I doubt I disagree, since I think fury is almost always an inappropriatte response, but I won't know until you tell me what you mean.