The self righteous Ms. Malkin needs to get an education on who's harming who. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were universally condemned by Islamic nations. Those attacks were carried out by a tiny minority of religious fanatics who saw the consequences of decades of interference in the affairs of middle easterners by the USA. The death and destruction caused by this tiny number of fanatics is dwarfed by the death and destruction brought to the middle east by US foreign policy. Ms. Malkin, instead of being a useful idiot for government propaganda, why not turn your eyes to your own governments behavior which causes so much of the hatred in the first place?
canwetalk? | 03.30.07 - 7:26 pm | #

canwetalk

You don't know John Doe!

He (or is it she?)won't back down!

really, a crass and stupid piece of work. Mark, I thought you could find a better thing to link to then this.

btw-yes, it is silly for the imams to sue, but you gotta wonder what did they do that was called into question, as well as how they were treated during questioning.

pax
Dale | 03.30.07 - 9:12 pm | #

"Moderate Muslims" will have no chance of success until all copies of the Koran containing the horrid teachings supporting murder, rape, revenge, genocide, robber and the like are destroyed and new Korans issued without them.
James Pawlak | Homepage | 03.30.07 - 10:01 pm | #

If Islam really were a monolith, the whole world would be under Sharia Law right now.
Louise | Homepage | 03.30.07 - 10:53 pm | #

'Ultimately, this war against Radical Islamists (not "Terror") is only going to be winnable if Muslims can be persuaded that the radicals are their enemy too. For all the saber rattling against Islam as a whole from some in the blogosphere, the fact remains that there are a billion Muslims and only a delusional fool would declare war on a billion Muslims and expect anything but an exercise in futility.'
It depends on how you define an exercise in futility. If a war that cannot be won is such an exercise, then it would be an exercise in futility. If however a war only needs to prevent defeat in order to not be futile, you're mistaken. It would be nice if the radical Muslims are really different from the billion other supposedly moderate Muslims. However, it is not clear that this is the case. As James Pawlak points out, 'radical' Islam seems better supported by the Koran than any moderate form. 'Radical" Islam, if we mean by this a form of the religion that takes violent conquest of non-Muslims and imposition of sharia law to be a religious duty, is also the historically mainstream form of that religion. Since this is so, we may actually be inevitably faced with a war with a billion Muslims; just as our Christian forebears were at war, with occasional and partial periods of truce, with the principal Muslim states during the entire history of Islam from the time of the Prophet to the period in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when the technological superiority of Europeans made them militarily unchallengeable. This period of military unchallengeability is at an end, so it is not unreasonable to expect that we will be returning to the previous way of relating to Muslims, that of a war where there are too many of them to conquer, and hence where the non-Muslim objective has to be simply resisting aggression. That means that we will have to become a warrior people as our ancestors were. It would be nice if this were not the case, but I don't see anyone giving convincing reasons against it; the talk of there being a majority of moderate Muslims who reject the radical Islamist ideology seems more based on wishful thinking than evidence.
John L | 03.31.07 - 1:47 am | #

maybe they would not be so filled with "anti-Americanism" (or Westernism or whatever you like) IF we didn't have such a terrible history of screwing these people over in the last couple of hundred years. maybe if we had a history of supporting democracy and meaningful development and assistance to the poor in these countries, instead of supporting dictators who sell us lots of oil....get the point?

Also, I think that maybe it was the fault of the Euros in a couple of cases of starting up wars with the Muslims and not quite just a case of crazy "Islamists" inciting war.

Also, can't I argue that 'radical' zionism is sorted more by the old testemen then any form of 'moderate' zionism?

finally this statement: "the talk of there being a majority of moderate Muslims who reject the radical Islamist ideology seems more based on wishful thinking than evidence" is what is called essentializing wherein one makes ignorant stmts about an entire group of people and summarily condemns them for it. not a very good practice.

pax
Dale | 03.31.07 - 3:19 pm | #

So much of left-wing thinking is indistinguishable from pathological co-dependency. "What WE do makes them hate us" is little more than "daddy drinks because I'm bad" writ large. It is a choice: hold people responsible for their own actions, or spend your lives as hostages.
Mike Walsh, MM | 03.31.07 - 4:01 pm | #

Mike Walsh,
The terrorists are doing just what you demand, they are holding the USA and Israel responsible for their actions! Do you approve?
canwetalk? | 03.31.07 - 7:25 pm | #

"The terrorists are doing just what you demand, they are holding the USA and Israel responsible for their actions! Do you approve?"

And who holds terrorists responsible for their actions?

There has been a long simmering Muslim-Hindu conflict in India, namely Kashmir. Can you point out to me where Israel is to blame for that conflict involving Muslims and non-Muslims?
ShortRound | 04.03.07 - 8:57 am | #