I am asking Glenn's commentators to address the real issue of creeping Islam into the West, rather than laughing at arguments no one is making about waves of Islamic landing craft hitting our shores.

"Creeping Islam"? I'll admit there does seem more and more instances of hard-line Christian fundamentalism are creeping into the body politic, but "creeping Islam"?

Demographics alone tell us nothing, as Islam is a religion and not an ethnicity. Are attendance rates in Mosques up in Europe and America? Conversion rates? Construction of Madrassas up or down? Let's talk about real empiracal indicators before we jump on the Buchanan bandwagon.

Why don't (any of) you tell me why you think the cartoons that offended Muslims were republished almost nowhere in the States?

Editorial cowardice, perhaps? Who can tell how American-born and -integrated Muslims might have reacted?

The good news is that many of us on the left have taken the blinder off and sought to understand Islam for what it really is. Glenn's letter threads tend to be gatherings of like-minded folks who meet for reassurance and mutual stroking. If you want to see a more representative sampling of letters on Salon, take a look at the article on Islamic science. You will see plenty of realistic, progressive criticism of Islam there.

The many valid criticisms Dr. Edis has of Islam in general can be transposed with the same for numerous (I would argue all) denominations of Christianity and Judaism. He points out Islamic culture is no less prone to rigid authoritarian figures (religious scholars vs. a central church authority as Catholicism has it). And yes, Islam is a fairly fixed set of cultural and social dictates. So too are such relics as the Ten Commandments or even the Book of Psalms.

Ulitmately, any religious doctrine that gets entwined with any social institutions is likely to gum up the works, if only because religious fundamentalism depends on absolute faith and violently rejects any adaptation to external circumstances.

So it was with Christianity in ages past. Need we discuss the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre or the genocide of the Cathars, never mind the ongoing terrorism of the Army of God and its offshoots? Do these and other examples of religion-inspired violence automatically negate the essential message of Jesu Ben Joseph?

You confirm your narrow view with: its nowhere near the threat to American society the current Administration poses . . . Tell it to Salman Rushdie.

My concern is what my country is turning into under the current Administration. The fact you decline to acknowledge its lawless behavior or the small Mr. Rushdie is still alive after all these years (as is Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali), doesn't especially prove your point does it?

By all means, go and tell the many inmates held at Camp X-Ray how much better the United States is in comparison to, say, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan or even Iran. I'm sure they'll get a laugh out of it.

While the threat may not be as dire as the nervous Nelly's on the right pretend, they are absolutely right about what the likes of Osama bin Laden aspire to achieve

And I aspire to spend my retirement on the Moon, but barring a lot of things coming together in short order, it ain't happening.

Ditto with Bin Laden. The 9/11 attacks were over a decade in the planning and execution. Regardless of what he 'aspires to achieve', he and his network are ultimately as human as the rest of us (and therefore just as prone to error and failure). How about we treat them as such?

Well, the good news is it is the most liberal of states that will suffer first.

Trust you to actually celebrate death and murder.

Where are the "violent gangs targeting Muslims" that you referenced in an earlier post, Glen?

You sure that subject was broached here, Kasimira? What post on what date?

It's not pleasent or fun. Responsibility rarely is.

If that were true, why is Usama Bin Laden still alive? If we used 'the big stick' as you say, why is the US army occupying Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11) and not Afghanistan (which was where Bin Laden was based at the time)?

What's a guy to do?

Fall on his sword on prime-time national television.

Follow the example set by the Sicarii at Masada in 73 AD.

Resign from public life, take vows of chastity and poverty, and live out the rest of his days in some isolated monestary somewhere in the Himilayas.

But then again, look who we're talking about.

Such fictions play well among the fringe left, who have already picked Greenwald up as a favorite, but if he wants to be taken "seriously" (and although he mocks the term, it is painfully obvious that he does) a turn away from sensationalism would mark an excellent start.

Then, pray, show us the way to discuss this issue that would be more to your liking. Come, fill the list with your knowledge.

Maybe if you ever argued in good faith for a change, you'd get more respect around here.

He's from New Jersey and just thinks he was actually in danger on 9/11 (unlike those of us who were in the actual vicinity of the attacks).

Quite frankly, I doubt he's biologically capable of a good faith argument.