"Good advice. But, the lead in did point us to the wrong mindset . . . :-)"
You actually thought there WERE violent riots after those events?
Too many morons on this thread for me. I give up.
There sure are. But, I won't give up on you. I'll even explain . . . patiently.
The text Veronica chose to excerpt described events which made the author appear to make them equivalent to the Guantanamo non-incident.
"But there was no mention of deadly protests triggered in recent years by comparable acts of desecration against other religions."
Some of our compadres misjudged the author's real intent. Does not mean any of us believed those things happened, only that so much as was excerpted showed a writer claiming they had occurred. Had Veronica posted a little more, enough to convey the core of the author's message, there would have been less confusion. Or, if she had only included this:
Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never occurred.
Excerpting should, IMHO only, provide enough information from the article to let us know what it is really about. I don't always do that, but I try.
If your reply was tongue-in-cheek, add a smiley or something. :-)