my apologies! I see your point and concur. Having recently spent a politics (conversation, that is) filled week in Seattle/Vancouver I heard plenty of vitriol of the type I wrongly accused you of – so sorry for the misinterpretation! On the flipside, those of the other political persuasion that I chatted with in the Pacific NW were some of the most bitter political conservatives I’ve ever met (however few and far between). Seige mentality, and all that…

As someone “not from DC and New York” I wholly resent your characterization of the “majority” of Americans as cowering in fear of an omnipresent terrorist threat. It is simply not true. A good percentage of Americans do indeed appreciate the threat the country/world faces by Islamic extremists but at least here in north Texas the vast majority are not reactionary morons but reasonable, rational Americans capable of understanding that not all Muslims are terrorists. Perhaps I misunderstand you, and although I agree with you to a point about this issue, your tired polemics are just that – tired.
To the point though, it appears most of us are in agreement on this issue which is a good thing. With the constant media bombardment of “Muslim anger” (all networks guilty), I am afraid that mainstream American sentiment will turn sour with regard to the entire 1 billion person Muslim world. As is often the case, a few bad apples can spoil the whole damn batch.

Barring a self-destructive future tendency to fight a regressive holy war, we have no choice but to find ways to work together with the great majority of Muslims who share an appreciation for human norms; i.e. rule of law, economic development and opportunity, basic human rights and advanced education.

Everyday tens of millions of Muslims work towards these goals in countries from India to Senegal to Indonesia, even in the Arab world in Iraq and Lebanon, amid conflict and terrorism.

That they choose to march and protest for economic opportunity, political and religious integrity and the rule of law versus protesting against terrorism en masse says little about their committment to a better future and far more about their priorities; jobs, security and a fair chance for their children to succeed.

That we have a deadly and ruthless minority among Muslims who wish us harm (and remember these terrorists and insurgents have slaughtered far more Muslims than non-Muslims in the past few decades) should make us even more committed to working together with Muslims in the law enforcement, intelligence and judicial (even Islamic law in places like Afghanistan and Somalia) to help bring these enemies to justice and/or to a swift end. Look at the intel/police work that led to the death of the worst terrorist in Iraq and the breaking up of countless terror cells across the world.

Don Rumsfeld has been very good about fighting “this ignorance”? by creating more enemies out of Iraq, Iran? and allienating those Iranians who sympathized with Americans in 9/2001?

What is a good strategy? First of all, any plan that is not feasible is not a strategy. Pyrrhic victory is a result of very bad strategy. In addition

this applies to the chinese/korean who oppose the militarism/revisionism in japan, the DPRK or Iran govt, and also to those who oppose the Bush govt, or the CCP government in China.

*Fear, even irrational fear, is often a healthy motivator.
*Fox news is bad, but so is CNN and the BBC.
*Freedom promotes pervasive ignorance? Are you proposing an authoritarian lockdown to educate the people otherwise?
*”Sexy” Don Rumsfeld has been very good about fighting this ignorance, keeping military relations as good as they can be with places like Yemen, Pakistan, and Algeria.

FORMULA FOR PERVASIVE IGNORANCE: FEAR + FOX NEWS + FREEDOM = SEXY XXX DONALD RUMSELFD DELIRIUM

I couldn’t disagree more. Bin Laden is the equivalent of the KKK, the Nazi Party, the Bolsheviks, take your pick. They can appear to offer solutions when the people are disenchanted, but they are extremists, through and through. The choice doesn’t have to be between OBL and “liberal infidels” — give them a liberal Muslim, a moderate, whatever. Asserting otherwise as you do provides no solution whatsoever.

That may be true for fundamentalist (and I don’t mean violent, fascist, or political) Muslims, but it’s not true for:

-Secular “Muslims” (i.e. totally secular or nominal Muslims in Islamic, Muslim, or secular states)
-Mystical Muslims (e.g. those such as Sufis, who are more likely to “side” with mystical Christians than with violent fundamentalists)
- Muslim women who have children, most of whom would sooner side with another mother- Christian, Bahai, Hindu, or WHATEVER- than with some ass who wants her baby to blow himself up. Believe me.

I can think of hundreds of Muslims whom I know personally, off the top of my head. Of them, only one would prefer a Bin Laden to a so-called “liberal infidel”. I am certain of this. The rest are all actively engaged in causes that most American liberals and conservatives agree on: economic development, peace, and individual freedom.

(I can also think of a number of secretly athiest Muslims who only don’t “come out” because athiesm isn’t worth dying for.)

I don’t know where you get your information, but from India, Pakistan, Iran, and the former USSR, millions of Muslims just don’t fit your stereotype.

Afghanistan state television ALWAYS presents the pro-peace, anti-violent point of view. Karzai is constantly condemning violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and everywhere else, and is backed up by thousands of mullahs across his country. I’ve heard them, I’ve seen it, with my own eyes, rooms full of Muslims nodding enthusiastically in agreement with condemnations of the terrorists.

Tolo TV is a reformist television station that is just crazy about peace. They are constantly attacked by extremists in the country for showing Indian Hindi movies. They regularly interview Afghan people-on-the-street and politicians speaking against war, terror, and violence. It’s one of the most popular TV stations in Afghanistan.

Do you think any of this is ever presented on CNN for you to see?

No. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.