Sir, I have already accepted that there are bigots in all major religions, but it is clear that Jewish and Christian bigots are not able to create the sort of murderous mayhem that is being perpetrated by Muslim bigots these days. Why is that, is the more important question.
How do you destroy your enemies?
The naive way is to go fight them yourself.
The smart way is to support rival thugs and strongmen, and let them kill each other.
I am not saying the mayhem in the Muslim world is directly caused by the West, but I am saying the local troublemakers find ample support (diplomatic, military, and financial) from distant supporters. This, in no way, excuses the behavior of the local thugs, and the word "thugs" includes everything from neighborhood gangsters to kings and dictators, as well as religious opportunists. So, yes, there is soul searching to be done in the Muslim world, but external opportunists are also hard at work promoting the troublemakers.
To put things in context, I reject the premise that the rest of the world (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) have evolved past the point of hatred. The fact is that _ANY_ group of people, anywhere in the world, can be reduced to indiscriminate warfare under the right circumstances. The various race riots around the world are proof enough that the only thing keeping people in check is strong law enforcement.
The US military might is there for only one thing - to protect US national interests, that is all.
That merely begs the question of what, exactly is in US national interests and whether US actions in the Middle East are serving or harming long term US interests?
The debate is conducted by US citizens and Jewish/Christian bigots are firmly in the driver's seat on that debate, because they have a head start of decades, if not centuries, of entrenchment. Muslim advocates are so woefully out of their league that it is no contest. I am not debating the fairness of it, merely stating the reality of it.
And finally, if Muslims want a more effective voice in international media, there is nothing stopping them from creating it, is there? Why should anyone expect them to be handed the megaphone just because they want it?
The issue of media presence is very complicated.
It is widely acknowledged that media organizations have their own culture, be it conservative or liberal, and whether a news person prospers or dies depends on how well they fit into that corporate culture. What it means is that, within the Western world, for local Muslims, there is a formidable pressure to mute any criticism. Muslims are already presumed guilty and disloyal unless proved otherwise, and must work extra hard to prove their loyalty. Where a white Christian/atheist/whatever can be critical of US politics, a Western Muslim must tread carefully, lest he be accused of being an apologist for the other side.
On the international front, it is almost impossible for non-Western -- be it Chinese, Indian, Russian or Muslim -- media organizations to dent the domination of the Western media. Partly this is a legacy of colonialism, and partly due to the enduring economic dominance of the West. Regardless, the fact is that most people around the world will accept a white newsperson speaking in an American or British accent, but will immediately put up barriers of suspicion if a Chinese/Russian/Indian/MiddleEastern person speaks in their accent.
