I don't want to downplay the problems in Europe re: assimilating Muslims into liberal democracies, although I don't believe that liberal democracy is existentially challenged there either. Despite these problems I do not believe a liberal democracy should EVER capitulate to intolerance or curailing of civil rights out of deference to any sect, creed, religion, etc.

But the fact is, Islamic extremists couldn't take over us or Europe. If they COULD, I'd agree with Simon, frankly. But the simple fact that the folks who would have some sort of caliphate are incapable of making that happen is the most important fact of all. Conflating what Islamic extremists DESIRE and what they're actually capable of DOING has been a standard fallacy of all of the war backers, and very few have challenged them on this. It's as though their sheer hatred and ruthlessness can build bombs, procure nucs, etc. It cannot.

The cultural clashes in Europe cannot be addressed with wars - especially when those wars only increase existing divides. Islamic extremists who turn to violence must be treated as international criminals. There really are no alternatives that make sense, as the mess in Iraq demonstrates.

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.

I just assumed GB was telling the truth. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. A guy whose best answer to the dangers of religious fundamentalism is to denounce a whole religion should probably warrant a little scrutiny.

As for the young republicans who turned their protest into an opportuntiy to stomp some ragheads' flags, what a bunch of thugs. They're exactly the same guys who'd be bombing us if they were Muslim. Mirror images.

Mr. Greenwald. However, this phenomenon is not new. Back in the 80's a third rate movie called Red Dawn (and hundreds of post apocalyptic books like the Traveler series) actually had any number of fools believing that the Soviet Union would conquer the United States. After the fall of the USSR, the next big bogy man was Japan (see Back to the Future II).

Now the big bad threat is Islam Radicals. Are these people nuts? The forces of Jihad and Hamas can't even take out Israel, never mind the United States. Dumb, but it keeps the rubes voting for the Right and against their own economic interest.

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?

The fact is that we all know that Muslims have had a chilling effect on free speech, even here in the States. Someone upthread reminded us all about the cartoons of Mohammend, which almost no newspapers or magazines in the States dared to republish. Why? Answer that one, O Armies of Glenn, rather than asking where the Muslim invasion fleet is.

And you left out Salman Rushdie.

Look, I can't speak for the "Armies of Glenn," but I have blogged in the past that this thuggish intimidation -- sometimes rising to murder -- and basic reliance on terror is a serious problem for free speech in the West. In my view, the Netherlands and other countries need to be more stringent in expecting all immigrants, including Muslims, to assimilate to Enlightenment political values.

But the notion that there are armies of Muslims poised a la Hitler to take over countries, commandeer their governments, and impose Sharia is sheer nonsense. No Caliphate is coming, not anywhere, and certainly not in the United States. They employ terror because that is all they can do! They have no Wehrmacht and Panzer divisions. Let's get real, mmkay?

They're not coming, they're HERE.

Glenn can make a good case that the likelihood of the complete takeover of America by Islamist extremists is unlikely. That it's paranoid. Irrational.

I think the same is true regarding salonistas who claim our constitution is being shredded, due to NSA intercepts of suspected terrorist phone calls.--notorbitboy

There aren't any "salonistas" who claim our constitution is being shredded due to NSA intercepts of suspected terrorist phone calls.

You've left out absolutely everything that is in question on the NSA subject, and you've dropped in one idiotic strawman statement with which to make your "argument".

By the way, Glenn didn't argue that Islam takeover is "unlikely". If he has argued anything at all on that matter he has argued that it is out of the realm of possibility.

All the discussion we've had so far assumes that people become aware of something in the outside world and then react to it emotionally. This is unfortunately backwards. What I think is really happening is that people have an emotional framework which they then shape their world into fitting.

People who are particularly fearful or suspicious are going to be the ones who a: crave the certainty and comfort that comes from splitting the world into good and evil and demanding protection from the latter B: overgeneralize to the point that an appropriate fear of a small group of people who actually wish us harm grows to be a blanket condemnation of a sizable fraction of the world's population.