"Not because it was Uighurs or Muslims, or even Xinjiang."

I disagree. Of course this unrest is newsworthy in and of itself, but Salon cannot resist another Muslims-as-victims piece. The main article was not bad in that regard, but Glenn's is shameless.

"And Glenn's piece is about the lack of empathy for those in the street in the U.S."

Empathy for whom? The Uighurs or the majority non-Muslim Chinese in the area? This was a riot involving both sides. It seems Glenn and many others here are just as selective in their sympathies.

Why do these 'non-terrorist' Muslims of yours so often kill people not responsible in any way for the Muslims' alleged oppression? You know like the Israeli kids on line at Sbarro pizza hit by a suicide bomber. Or look at the on-going killing of Buddhist monks and school teachers in Thailand by Muslim 'insurgents'. Or Google the BBC for a recent article on two Muslims who killed some people building a church in Ethiopia. But we wouldn't want to label them 'terrorist' now would we?

And doesn't Salon have almost a weekly article condemning Israeli violence?

But you didn't reference Salon. You asked

Why do I suspect that a non-Muslim group resorting to the same violent tactics would not be afforded such sympathy?

Do you not believe Israel receives sufficient "sympathy" from, at the very least, many in the United States, including its government?

Surely you don't argue that Salon is a weighty enough publication that it somehow counteracts the NYTimes, WaPo and many, many other influential publications.

Your response is disingenuous.

Why do these 'non-terrorist' Muslims of yours so often kill people not responsible in any way for the Muslims' alleged oppression?

Or how about those two thousand Lebanese and Gazans killed in 2006 and 2009...oh, wait, that was those other people who often kill people not responsible in any way for their alleged oppression.

American Exceptionalism is almost on topic; and nothing gets those exceptional juices flowing like the Revolutionary War.

Well Howard Zinn wants to tell you a bit about that.

Published on Monday, July 6, 2009 by The Progressive

Untold Truths About the American Revolution

by Howard Zinn

There are things that happen in the world that are bad, and you want to do something about them. You have a just cause. But our culture is so war prone that we immediately jump from, "This is a good cause" to "This deserves a war."

You need to be very, very comfortable in making that jump.

The American Revolution-independence from England-was a just cause. Why should the colonists here be occupied by and oppressed by England? But therefore, did we have to go to the Revolutionary War?

How many people died in the Revolutionary War?

Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it's likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. So let's take the lower figure-25,000 people died out of a population of three million. That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs.

You might consider that worth it, or you might not.

Canada is independent of England, isn’t it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don’t have. They didn’t fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England?

--- much more, click on sig ...

Howard Zinn wrote that in the Progressive, and I recommend that that everyone(*) read all the Howard Zinn they can. After all, he may be one of the few honest historians America has produced and at his age he will be joining MJ in that dance hall in the sky someday soon.

But this essay especially is a keeper; show it to your teen when her high school history teacher starts the propaganda lessons.

The last sentence in the essay is one of the best you will read this year. I promise.

----------
(*) Well, there are a few here who probably can't take too much Zinn, only a moment of Zinn. I would hate to ruin their day, but I hope they have already skipped over the post anyway. :-)

...those wedding parties, funerals and homes in Afghanistan? Oh wait, another group that so often kills people not responsible in any way for their alleged oppression?...wait give me a chance, I'll get the hang of this anti-Muslim thing yet.

"Or how about those two thousand Lebanese and Gazans killed in 2006 and 2009...oh, wait, that was those other people who often kill people not responsible in any way for their alleged oppression."

Did I say I support Israeli violence?

You are so desperate you have to change the subject and reach to moral equivocation.

Hey, look. This started out as a civil rights protest. They wanted the government to take action on a smaller race riot in Guangdong. I'm sure stories vary after that, but according to Uighurs on the scene, the police panicked and started using batons. From then on, it was a very typical race riot. Think Watts or Newark.

The protest march had zip, zilch, nada to do with Islam. The race riot was something that could have come out of the Kerner Report. It even started for the exact same reasons as the Detroit Race Riot of 1943.

You are the one layering it over with Muslim terrorist implications. It really had none. Except that it's convenient for the Chinese government, like the Iranian government last week, to blame it on separatist movements, outside agitation, and terrorists. But since you are so sure that Muslims are getting too good a shake, you suck that one right down, and start babbling about suicide bombings in some other country about some other issue, having nothing to do with Uighur frustrations in Urumqi, or Han frustrations in Wulumuqi, or whatever you want to call it this particular ethnic riot.

Bottom line? You don't come across knowing what you're talking about.