As Kenneth Ballen noted in The Christian Science Monitor in February of this year, Americans express greater support for "attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria." Make of that what you will -- and its meaning is debatable -- but those are just facts.

No, these polls are compilations of opinion. Whether they reflect reality is the subject of some debate. According to Pew only 40% of American Muslims think Arabs did 9/11. As Glenn has pointed out some 70% of Americans thought Saddam did it. 78% thought so on 9/13. And then there is the 30 some odd percent of some group that thinks GWB knew about 9/11 before hand. Rosie O'Donnell is America! Heh.

OTOH It's very hard to reconcile these apparent attitudes with the overwhelming predilection for terrorists to attack civilians only. Discos, weddings, the markets, subways, office buildings, hospitals, etc. Perhaps Americans remember attacking civilians was the way of winning WW2. Or maybe they understand the difficulty of fighting an enemy camouflaged as civilians.

Interestingly, Glenn's mitigating examples of Abortion clinic bombers and immigration militants, doesn't address religion. Just single issues. they may be related in some ways, but one does not cause the other in the same direct way Imams direct fatwas.

Let's hear something about Islam's subjugation of women for a change, or maybe it's homophobia. How about the amazement of all, that London's bombers came from the very same sorts of families lionized here. How about a little reality balance for a change?

A person that wants to have their his cake (be a sympathetic Muslim),

and eat it too (Take advantage of US opportunities while remaining apart from it).

I believe the families of the London subway bombers held similar views.

Typical Shooter - skirt around the awkward issues that plague the Christian Right as well. While we talk about Islam, why not also talk equally about the Christian rights homophobia and subjugation of women that is on an equal par? Oh, right - it's easier for you to point the finger at others than look inward. Last time I checked it was the Christian right that virulently opposes any type of gay rights in this country not Islam. And the Christian right is just as happy to have women back in the homes letting men be the deciders. So tell me, which religion is more dangerous? -- Nealus

Exactly. Let's see you people treat Muslims as badly as you do Christians. You know, equal treatment? Tsk.

And what do I see? An article posted by "anonymous" by somebody named Max Blumenthal. The last line is.....

Through one of its flagship universities, the Christian right produced a terrorist. Their hysterical warnings of the threat of radical Islam sound increasingly like projections.

This is just absurd. How many bombers has Islam produced? One is an aberration, ten thousand is a movement. Mr. Blumenthal, like Glenn is becoming an Islamic apologist by way of attacking everything except Islam.

Like I said earlier, the first thing for liberals to do in dealing with Islamic violence and it's sympathizers, is to treat Islam as badly as they do Christians.

Aside from that, it is irrefutable that "good" news from Iraq is diminished and bad news is accepted unquestioned. That's called prejudice.

Off soapbox sorry for the outburst -- ondelette

Asking about the consequences of leaving is not only valid, but essential for a group that berates others for not forseeing the consequences of invading. Personally, I'd love to see the hindsight heros here practice what they preach.

The inability to put oneself in the shoes of another is a human failing that seems to be particularly powerful in America.

Particularly by folks not responsible for the welfare of the country, assuming they know what's best.

The very fact that it took a dictator like Saddam to hold the "country" together should have and did warn anyone who had a basic knowledge of the region that invasion was a path fraught with peril and with small likelihood of success.

Indeed, you may count me among the people that found it inconceivable that someone who required a real Abu Ghraib, invaded two neighbors, had murderous sons, used gas on recalcitrant subjects, and required mass graves, was a laudable figure.

I ask you, how would Americans react if Iraq were to invade the US as the US has invaded Iraq? Do you think they would greet the invaders with flowers and kisses? Or rather do you think that Americans would greet Iraqi invaders with bullets and IEDs?

Flowers and kisses. Apparently you, among others are not able to put yourself in to the shoes of someone living in fear of their life, as a fact of life.

Those who are speaking of the possible dire consequences of leaving Iraq should also address the possible dire consequences of staying in Iraq.

In other worlds you are going to avoid the issue as well, in favor of jumping on the hindsight bandwagon. Tsk.

The current situation only fuels the already strong hatred for the US and Israel in the Middle East. That hatred is going to build and more Muslims are going to see the US as infidels worthy only of death in the most horrible manner possible.

You're a little late for that. It's been the consensus of Muslims for decades at this point, certainly well before we invaded Iraq.

Put yourself in the shoes of another for once, imagine how you yourself would feel if you were an Iraqi whose family had been slaughtered due to the US invasion of your country.

Come on bud, slaughtered by who? The Americans, or the neighbors of a different sect? Americans gave out plenty of warning in 2003 and since then don't shoot on sight. More to the point, the people pointing to the 650,000 always forget that isn't a number thrown up as casualties. It's a number of people who theoretically died over and above normal for every cause EXCEPT by American bullets.