I fear that multiculturalism is dead. It was an attempt to sit halfway up the slippery slope between integration and separatism, and that slope has gotten very slippery indeed.

To anyone who is looking at anything besides the insides of his colon.

Why declare multiculturalism dead?

Our world supports six billion people each living out lives on their own trajectories. The cultural integration between peoples only increases over time.

The world is awash with mundane examples of multiculturalism working. London and New York are two beautiful examples of people of all shapes, sizes, colors and creeds living and working together happily and peacefully.

That the world produces a relative handful of potentially violent discontents - and that they, in turn, create a reactionary group that decries multiculturalism - is unfortunate, but understandable. Even acceptable.

No - plotting to blow up planes is never acceptable. The fact that this occurs, however, hardly merits a denunciation of multiculturalism.

For example, Ned Lamont seems to understand this, while Joe Lieberman most certainly doesn't.

Foremost, I wonder about the demographics of the British moslem community (and its constituent parts)? Are they hoping to return "home" some day? Are they "in exile", refugees, asylum seekers or more garden variety self-interested greener pasture seekers? What are the socioeconomic status correlates at work here both from whence they came and presently?

America's been very stingy about granting asylum to anyone, very demanding about applicants showing "means" ... and I'm guessing our immigrant/first generation demographics are quite different and I'm guessing there are large number of "determinating factors"

I think there's much truth in how factions and rivalries can be created, exploited by "society" designating "representatives", and how becoming "coopted" can then be the undoing (or corruption) those same individuals and groups. (Gangs, clans, mafia/syndicates, militia which arise "spontaneously" in many communities to meet community needs similarly become entrenched and parasitic long after their original purpose is gone.) Bin Laden was Reagan's "freedom fighter" and beneficiary of our "support" ...

I need to go read up on the particulars of the 07/11 bombers ... it's very easy to lose sight of the fact that "terrorists" are people too, hopes and fears, put their trousers on one leg at a time, people who chose to make waging war their life's work -- why? yes, there are a million stories in the naked city ...

I have to take issue with your rather conclusory statement that if you would happily live under Sharia law you are therefore a terrorist sympathizer. If you are already living according to the law put down in the Koran you would have no reason to be unhappy if that is the law of the land. They did not say they wanted it to be imposed on all others, just that they themselves would be happy under that law.

The reason for the British government's dealing with ethnic groups in blocs has much to do with its evolution as a state with an officially supported religion, the Anglican Church, while also allowing some state support of smaller religions like Catholicism and Judaism. An example is in the school system. To refuse to extend the same deal to Muslims is to deny the ability of Islam to co-exist in a western liberal state. France deals only with people as individuals and does not support religious schools or deal with people as communities. I think you are possibly the only person to ever bring up France as a state to emulate with regard to Muslim relations.

It’s an interesting topic you bring up; I just wish you had actually done some, ah... research on the subject.

Multiculturalism implies tolerance and respect of differences. That is a value. That is not a value shared by everyone's culture, religion etc. Multiculturalism can't work if the groups we try to respect do not respect differences in everyone. In other words you cannot tolerate intolerance if you want it to work. So everyone can have their own values, customs, and beliefs but the core value shared by everyone must be respect and tolerance for differences without resorting to acts of judicial, physical, verbal, or political harm. Muslim extremists don't have such values (or extremist of any kind for that matter. The statement of "listening to the wrong kinds of muslims" makes sense. There is smart multiculturalism and naive multiculturism. Naive multiculturism is dead and smart multiculturism is necessary.

let's kill it now.

Cultural traditions and their accompanying religions belong in museums, not societies.

It's the 21st century. Promote rationalism- destroy tradition.

"Remember that wars go on for longer than seems remotely possible when you start them, and that the really dangerous enemies are not the young men trying to kill you today, but their unborn children, should they grow up to hate you, too."

I really enjoyed the all encompassing nature of this article. We do not exist in a bubble as many now seem to believe. Our actions will always cause reactions.

See, physics plays a part in society as well as nature, no matter what politicians would have us think about terrorism. You can't completely destroy something, only change it. And if we continue trying to eradicate all terrorist, we're just going to end up with "Jihadists II: The New Batch." Then, next time they will be able to morph into giant spiders and bats to attack. Puts "Liquids on a Plane" type fear to shame.

the same could be said about:

rapists and klansmen and gangbangers and killers and crack dealers and child pornographers and facists and racists and pedophiles and...

some folks are not worth understanding: the London bombers lose all right to dialog and empathy once they murder innocents for political gain - and until the left gets this, Bush and Blair and Olmert will continue to ridicule and beat you...

I missed the point of this article. Its title suggests it will explain something Americans don’t understand but then closes by saying no one understands what is going on.

Some points I understand... That the war in Iraq is the very definition of counter-productive, I get. Seems like most Americans these days understand the war in Iraq was the absolute wrong thing to do as well. So maybe the author means that American policy makers don’t “understand?” That torture and making martyrs is not the way, I get. It may not be a majority of Americans who get those two things yet but it’s hardly fair to ignore tens of millions of us who do and are affecting a change in the ranks of policy makers, thank you.

Maybe the author has a different definition of multiculturalism than I do but it’s an absurd notion to think governments can force everyone to assimilate to single social and religious standards. And the key example is religion. Denying someone the ability to practice their faith when it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability to do so is going to create the exact same anger and resentment that illegitimate occupations and the like do. I mean, what is the alternative to multiculturalism? Ask China in fifty years how well it’s worked to try stamping out or killing things like religious expression or anything else considered to be an influence on personal lives greater than or equal to government policy.

Probably because I’m a stupid, boorish American but this article didn’t clear anything up for me. It only leaves me feeling like there is no solution to any of this and if so, what’s the point of trying to understand? What a depressing and hopeless piece.