I had edited my post to address more of your other post, but after I saw you posted during the edit I decided to split it into two for easier reading. Here's the rest:
You seem incapable of discerning the difference between the acts of deranged outlaws who happen to be private citizens of a country, and a country's government. Simply put, if the Australian government was rounding up and mutilating and murdering Indian students, Australia would quickly be asked to change it's ways. If it didn't, it's face severe economic sanctions, and possible military retaliation from India and NATO.
The reason for that is not so much a universal respect for human rights, but more of a sovereignty issue. The U.S. grants it's citizens certain unalienable rights (including the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments, which beating definitely qualifies as), and furthermore has made a policy of enforcing those guarantees globally. This is nothing new, it dates back at least as far as the Monroe Doctrine and the war of 1812. (which was more or less fought over the rights of U.S. sailors/criminals captured by the Empire) To fail to enforce those rights breeches the covenant between the government and it's people. In short, it weakens the people's trust and allegiance to the government, weakens the integrity and authority of the government internationally, and can wind up causing a slippery slope scenario that ends in diplomatic disaster.
Mr. Worm is a political scientist so he can explain this much better than I can if you're having difficulty following me. President Clinton wasn't just throwing a fit over a single U.S. citizen getting caned, he was defending the sovereignty of the U.S. and the integrity of it's constitution. You might view this as a bit of a bully move, but a diplomatic policy emphatic on protecting national rights is imperative to keeping world peace. Fools and young people often think of courtesy as being superfluous, but it's constant mutual respect and politeness that keeps all the power struggles purely diplomatic. This
is what happens when concessions are made. (incidentally, this is the source of all the tension with Iran repeatedly abducting U.S. and British nationals)
You mention getting in trouble for your views. It's not your views that are the problem. For example, dosraider and I once had a heated multi-page argument about gun control, and any of the religion threads here are full of very different viewpoints. I think the issue is that you make sweeping statements and assumptions with no consideration for logic or rationality, and that you do so in a very insulting and condescending way. You could have started a thread and made a very strong argument about the prevalence of racism, or at least a callous disregard to hate crimes, in the English speaking world. You could have found statistics and neutral articles and interviews to back you up. You could have carefully formed your arguments in any number of accepted logical orders. (say thesis statement, analysis, synthesis, thesis, conclusion, or whatever floats your boat) You could have written dispassionately and respectfully, with consideration for the feelings of others.
You would still be opposed by most people here, but you would also be respected. An equal, a worthy opponent.
Instead to decided to sabotage another members thread to make a petty and hateful remark. And the members here are still mostly replying courteously and respectfully, because they obey the rules of the forum, the rules of human conduct. They know the value of moral and intellectual honesty, of society, of behaving like an adult. On any other forum, you would've been eaten alive by this point. (and that's sad, I prefer tolerance to mockery)
The reason you're welcome here and encouraged to post (aside from the fact I like you and your work!
) is because I think ignorance is largely to blame for your behavior. A Pol Sci 101 and a class or two in expository writing would do you wonders, methinks.
Take it easy.