This is just absurd. How many bombers has Islam produced? One is an aberration, ten thousand is a movement.

Not unlike the whole "Right To Life Movement", eh? You know, the bunch of proto-christians who are still going around setting off bombs in Prenatal Clinics and assassinating OB-GYNs.

Mr. Blumenthal, like Glenn is becoming an Islamic apologist by way of attacking everything except Islam.

Odd, I thought Blumenthal was a journalist. You, by contrast, are simply an apologist for the worst American society can offer.

Which brings up a third point of contention, where I try to analyze the causes of this antagonism that many Muslims in America seem to have against their countrymen. Yes, I do blame Islam, and I think a study of its origins, doctrine, and practice justify that blame.

The only "evidence" you have presented is nothing but a handful of selected quotes out of the Qu'ran. As such, not terribly convincing.

You also miss the far large point of the Pew Poll under discussion: to whit, American Muslims are far more assimilated and mainstream in their outlooks and attitudes than most realize.

So a minority of respondents in this poll 'support' Al Qaeda, which is an arguable assertion on you part. So what? Doubtless a sizable number of just as many self-identified christians across denominations doubtlessly would offer the same 'support' to Terry Randall and Operation Rescue and all the other antiabortion fanatics that have and continue to attack and murder their fellow Americans for the past twenty-odd years. Will you blame the creed of Chrisitanity for that as readily as you do Islam for the rhetorical support it is offered here?

When it comes to religious fanaticism, it matters which religion you're talking about.

Fanaticism is fanaticism, irregardless of what creed it espouses. You're counter-'examples' are neither compelling nor convincing. Christians are just as likely to blow each other up, here and overseas, as Hindus and Muslim are in Kasmir.

And like it or not, terrorism isn't about body counts, but about terror. The ongoning campaigns of bombing, assassination and intimidation here in the states against women's reproductive rights is, sadly, a case study where such terrorism is proving very effective.

1. Maybe, just maybe, the actions are connected to the creed? You think?

Probably explains why all anti-abortion bombers and OB-GYN assassins are Christian.

2. If al-Qaeda or Hizbollah had been as quiet as the Ku Klux Klan in the past, oh, century, nobody would have noticed them. But even the Klan, ridiculous as they are, have never engaged in anything near the level of violence that is commonplace among Islamists in the 21st century.

You clearly haven't absorbed the central thesis, so I'll put it in bold for you:

Terrorists, especially those driven by religious or ideological extremism, are about causing TERROR in a target population. High body counts are NOT always their highest priority, and in fact are sometimes considered counterproductive.

The KKK - founded in the latter 1860s, then resurrected during the early quarter then the latter half of the 20th century - is a case in point. Their violence was targeted expressly against local minority populations and rarely resulted in more than a few deaths at a time. Their legacy is one of fear and loathing, yet it successfully held back full and legal integration in much of the country for nearly a century.

They were in short terrorists of the most successful kind, to the point where they could shoot down peaceful leftists demonstrators in full daylight and in front of news cameras and yet be acquitted by a Court of law.

You faux comparison to Al Qaeda and Hizbollah isn't much better or more convincing, particularly in light their respective focuses.

I repeat: fanaticism (which is NOT automatically synonymous with religion) is fanaticism, whatever the source of the underlying creed.

What you said is obvious except to the three morons you addressed. Hundreds of posts and these arrogant assholes keep thinking their right. Whatever.

How amusing. Proven wrong at every turn on the original question, yet undeterred in their own arrogance.

The original point: Islam is not the only religion that breeds fanaticism and terrorism. Every religion on the planet has bred its share of fanatics and lunatics, some proving more prone to violence than others.

I'd challenge you or kd to show in any of the comments made on this point that states the threat of terrorism prompted by Islamic funaticism should be ignored in favor of say Christian fanatics murdering OB-GYNs.

Islamic terrorism is a danger, yes, and a damned serious one. But it isn't the only danger we face in the world, and to behave otherwise is precisely the sort of narrow-minded hubris that has trapped this country in the downward spiral it is currently stuck in.

But then again, the title of Glenn's post rather says it all, doesn't it?

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.

Personally, I'd love to see the keyboard kommandos here practice what they preach.

Asking them to face the consequences of what their chosen President has unleashed upon both Iraq, the United States, and world at large is not only valid, but essential for a group that is all talk and yet no thought or action.

Sadly, expecting them to understand the things that need to be done to both end the US occupation and minimize the negative consequences of said ending - never mind actually taking part in said actions - is about as remote as George W Bush commenting here and actually following the very practical steps outlined. You're more likely to find the air spontaneously turn to gold.