It's important not to let this particular incident become a bone of contention but likewise I do think that the old saying about 'playing with fire' should be borne in mind.
The muslim gentlemen may indeed have been seeking a reaction for some, as yet unrevealed, publicity based, reason. They got one and quite rightly too. If the airline had ignored the 'warning' and something had happened, what would everyone be saying now? We do however need to be careful in drawing a distinction between the Muslim world as a whole and the kernel of fanatics that have been pursuing an agenda for centuries.
The problem is that it is very hard to discern a fanatic, who hides his extremism whilst he pursues his goals. A normal man, who is fed up to the back-teeth of his religion being blamed for all the evils of the world, can often seem more outspoken and more of a 'threat' than the former.
jdinka made an important point (and a scary one) that this 'jihad' mindset is not a newcomer to the political landscape; it has been there for a great deal of Muslim history.
I don't know why it is (can someone, who has a deeper understanding of the history than me, enlighten us?) but, whereas in the West our religious extremists got tempered and calmed by pragmatism and social developments, this does not seem to have happened in the East.
At its core, this is a major problem because there can be no negotiated settlement when you are dealing with an attitude like that - it's the old adage about two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner ... unless the lamb gets tough, whichever way he votes he's wolf excreta. The sad thing is that if the lamb does get tough (and thus survives) what does he lose in the process?
The muslim gentlemen may indeed have been seeking a reaction for some, as yet unrevealed, publicity based, reason. They got one and quite rightly too. If the airline had ignored the 'warning' and something had happened, what would everyone be saying now? We do however need to be careful in drawing a distinction between the Muslim world as a whole and the kernel of fanatics that have been pursuing an agenda for centuries.
The problem is that it is very hard to discern a fanatic, who hides his extremism whilst he pursues his goals. A normal man, who is fed up to the back-teeth of his religion being blamed for all the evils of the world, can often seem more outspoken and more of a 'threat' than the former.
jdinka made an important point (and a scary one) that this 'jihad' mindset is not a newcomer to the political landscape; it has been there for a great deal of Muslim history.
I don't know why it is (can someone, who has a deeper understanding of the history than me, enlighten us?) but, whereas in the West our religious extremists got tempered and calmed by pragmatism and social developments, this does not seem to have happened in the East.
At its core, this is a major problem because there can be no negotiated settlement when you are dealing with an attitude like that - it's the old adage about two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner ... unless the lamb gets tough, whichever way he votes he's wolf excreta. The sad thing is that if the lamb does get tough (and thus survives) what does he lose in the process?
