You know who's really bad?

The Indians. I hear they used to scalp people.

That's true.

Also, the Chinese are really bad. They bind women's feet up. And also they put lead in children's toys.

Tell it to Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats. They're more worried about those damned Chinese putting lead in children's toys than most Republicans.

The Irish are terrorists, with their IRA movement.

Were. They were terrorists. They were savage terrorists. You don't think they were?

Also Germans are bad. Remember Hitler, and the Holocaust? Makes you wonder what they are planning now.

Not much in the way of evil. Of course we had to 'invade,' even though we weren't directly threatened. The military action seems to have been, at times, poorly planned (North Africa, Omaha Beach, Battle of the Bulge, Okinawa) and cost thousands of American lives, and we've had troops stationed there for another 50 years. That just hasn't worked out, has it? To think that somebody would do that in Iraq, that Iraq would turn out to be like Japan or Germany, that's no good right?

I don't want to leave out the Jews. Remember how they killed Jesus? They never apologized either.

Given the anti-semitic animus that is pervasive throughout the left these days, that is a pretty insulting sarcasm. Israel has no better friend in the world than the Republican Party.

Iran is really bad. They are building a lot of atomic bombs, to bomb Israel.

Like I said...

How could I forget the damn Japs? I guess they are ok now, we killed off the bad ones with atomic bombs.

See "Germany," above.

Remember, U.S. weapons only kill bad people. That is how we are making the world a better place :-)

No one is forcing you to join "we" the people of the United States. If you doubt that the U.S. is the greatest force for international good, then you might want to consider moving to one of the places you regard as superior... Sweden? Norway? Switzerland? Venezuela? Cuba?

Jesus loves you!!! Pass it on!

-- Million-Year Picnic

Perhaps even you...

"... of course we don't hate the Muslim faith or its practitioners. We have no intent, and no desire, to wage war on Islam. But terrorism, emanating from the Middle East, is a big problem. And it is beyond dispute that the terrorists are finding inspiration and support in forces that use the tenets, or at least the symbols, of Islam, for evil. We'd be the first to admit, even to proclaim, that terrorists who use the Muslim faith as inspiration for, or justification for, acts of terrorism, are false believers..."

Have, for instance, the President or the Vice President ever said, or done, anything that contradicts those statements?

But how many leaders in the Islamic world make a similar habit of preaching to their flocks that terrorism is evil and is entirely contrary to true Islam?

That's what academic freedom is all about, right? Freedom from conservatives?

Anyway, has there been a Presidential election - ever - where the "youth vote" made the difference? Has there ever been a general election where the youth vote was significant? When this headline proclaims, "the Facebook generation is turning out to vote in record numbers," what "records" are being broken? The abysmal records from past general elections?

I don't know about you, Juan Cole, but I'm good with "demonic" in this instcance; "savage," "inhuman," and "barbaric" work for me, too...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.main/index.html

(Mentally-handicapped women used to transport ball-bearing bombs into civillian marketplaces specializing in pets and pet food. Are. You. Freaking. Serious?)

...is her sweater in the Army's new digital-camouflage pattern? Is that her "I support the troops" tribute?

If so, perhaps she wants to talk to the tin-foil hat segment of the Salon readership about "demonizing" the suicide bombers...

What's with push to have moderate muslims condemning acts of terrorism? There is so much hate and bigotry being directed at them that it would a) mean nothing and b) accomplish nothing. Would it change their current experience, or would it be construed as an admission of collective guilt, which is the real reason behind the push, IMHO.

What's with the push to blame Republicans in the U.S. for Muslim terrorists? There have been Muslim terrorists in times of Republican and Democrat administrations, and through bipartisan majorities in Congress. The real reason for this particular article by Juan Cole, and most of the reader comments, appears to be a push for Democrats in the 2008 general elections.

You want to know what I'm not hearing? I'm not hearing EVERY AMERICAN condemning the atrocities being perpetrated by their fellow citizens, at home and abroad; condemning the atrocities committed by their own government in their own name, which by the way makes every American who doesn't speak out complicit in every war crime their military and their quasi-military commits (Blackwater anyone?)

Honestly, I don't ordinarily give much thought to begging moderate Muslims to condemn terrorists, until people like Juan Cole come along and chastise Republicans. And when I hear the Juan Coles complain about how we misunderstand Muslims and how the terrorists are thoroughly unrepresentative of the Muslim world, it seems a natural question to ask how unrepresentative the terrorists really are.

As for "atrocities," what have you got to compare to yesterday's pet-market bombings? Blackwater? Blackwater is being investigated. Is al-Qaeda investigating the market bombings? Or planning the next one?

Getting Muslims to "speak out" is simply obfuscation on a grand scale. You Americans have taken blaming the victim to a new high.

If you foreigners are so interested in American politics, I'm afraid you'll have to apply for U.S. citizenship and register to vote. And if you want to make a difference, you had better be registering in a state like Ohio, Florida, Iowa or Missouri.