[El Cid]

"blaming Newsweek for the actions of a bunch of insane muslims seems to me to make the case that they are not responsible for their own actions."

Two separate, yet important, points.
Yes, it is true that no one should get whacked out over the 'defilement' of some printed books (particularly when they belong in the 'hallucinatory tales' part of the library -- but that's another topic). If a Bible gets burned or defiled, a Christian's attitude would be: 'that's a pity - but its your loss. It is God's Word, no amount of burning, ridicule, defacement, watering down is going to stop it. You'll have better success telling the ocean waves to stop coming ashore, than in stopping God's Word'.
One has to be very insecure about their deity, or their 'book' if they get worked up into a froth just because someone used it for kindling or tissue paper...

But that's just the first point. The second point is that Newsweek appears to have knowingly published a story based on scant evidence just because it would cast America (ostensibly the host nation of said 'news' magazine) in ill light - and they had to know they were using this article to intentionally aggravate an insecure, and short-fused mob...For this Newsweek should be held accountable. Terminations at a minimum. Possibly heavy fines, and legal charges as well...

[winstonchurchill]

it is true that no one should get whacked out over the 'defilement' of some printed books (particularly when they belong in the 'hallucinatory tales' part of the library -- but that's another topic). If a Bible gets burned or defiled, a Christian's attitude would be: 'that's a pity - but its your loss. It is God's Word, no amount of burning, ridicule, defacement, watering down is going to stop it. You'll have better success telling the ocean waves to stop coming ashore, than in stopping God's Word'. One has to be very insecure about their deity, or their 'book' if they get worked up into a froth just because someone used it for kindling or tissue paper...

I think this is an important point. I think it points to the great frailty of the Mohammedan religion -- and the major reason for the intense frustration among its followers. It is fundamentally a very tangible religion, i.e. (apart from the "72 virgins" for their crazies), it's primary appeal is as a 'prosperity' religion. "Go through our little prayer rug rituals and the moon god will reward you in the here and now."

The problem, of course, is that the society with the greatest percentage of Christians is also the world's most materially successful and the Mohammedan nations, despite unprecendented natural resources (read, oil), are among the poorest and most backward.

In short, Mohammedanism isn't delivering (and never has) on its major promise. Much like the communists of yore, the only explanation (to its frenzied supporters) is some form of conspiratorial 'sabotage' by those pesky Christians. If they were only 'eliminated' all would function as it was supposed to. Thus, the Mohammedan 'fundamentalist' movement.