For the most part, I agree with your comments at 7:13 am and 8:26 am, in which you make a number of worthwhile points.

However, I think your view is incomplete. Into the general viewpoint that you articulate, I believe there is room for, and a role for, a callous disregard for the lives of "others" ("others" not limited to Muslims).

Whether such callous disregard is properly labeled as "racism" or "bigotry" is open to debate (personally, I'm inclined to use the term "racism"). But I think it's a missing element in your analysis.

Still and overall, I think you've scored several important points, well worth making, even though many would appear to disagree with you (and, for what it's worth, I've found myself disagreeing with some of your comments in the past).

You will always be number 1 to me, Glenn.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the First 'Black' "President" (his "election" supposedly being such a triumph for civil rights & "equality" and so forth) perpetuates racism & bigotry toward Muslims and brown people through the Boosh/O'bomb-a war on an improper noun hoax? And to think--it is all based on an official government religious Myth and conspiracy theory that 19 Arab Muslims with boxcutters "collapsed" three (3) steel-framed high-rises with two (2) aircraft.

Al K. Duh is a hoax and a gov't fraud and so-called left-liberals like Mr. Greenwald have been sucked in by the propaganda and elaborate hoaxes--same as the NeoCons. it really is no wonder that NeoCons almost unanimously agree with the current Decider-In-Chief's foreign policy of unending 'war' and empire. The fake left-right paradigm of the War Party always prevails with mindless robo-voters pulling the levers in favor of their favorite frontman or frontwoman.

Not necessarily any disagreement. I was just pointing out that I never made the point that peaceful engagement took centuries to effect change. The point I had made was that violent change in China goes on for centuries.

Even when it doesn't it isn't pretty. 14 million people died in the Great Chinese Cultural Revolution, there were pitched tank battles in the south between the PLA Southern Command and the Red Guards.

So the overriding concern on any foreign policy with China where there is the possibility of violence in China is that nobody wants violence in China.

Are we to take your word on it, Mr. Greenwald, that we've been detaining Uighurs in Guantanomo simply because they're Muslim? Somehow I suspect there's more to the story.

Unlike other times and instances of flat out religious persecution, there are rational and authoritative voices of moderation being heard both within Muslim communities and without, including that of our own president. There are also actions being taken by a great many churches, as well as wise teachers in schools across the country, to encourage and enhance Muslim-tolerant attitudes and cultural awareness.

As for why we wouldn't want to just release long held Uighur prisoners to the U.S., gee... It isn't exactly rocket science - these people have never held an allegiance to the U.S. in any way or form, and after years and years of imprisonment if not also torture we most likely have some tigers by the tail now.

The U.S. has become entirely powerless when it comes to dealing with China. This is the ugly truth and I think it is more of a driver here than the religious beliefs of the Uighurs. Imagine if they were Christians? What would/could the U.S. do. Nothing, I'm afraid.

In the face of countless abuses of its people, including but not limited to Uighurs, women and political dissidents, the U.S. and other western countries are powerless to pressure China in any meaningful way. Our politicians and our corporations (especially the latter) are beholden to China and can levy no criticism. Think back to the Olympics this time last year. No politician, sponsor or advertiser dared criticize the Chinese for human rights abuses. Think back a few years earlier to The Masters golf tournament. Sponsors dropped like flies because the event is hosted golf club that doesn't allow women to join. Many of those same sponsors proudly affiliated themselves with a sporting event hosted by a country that oppresses hundreds of millions of people. We have no leverage over China and that's a shame for the Uighurs and China's other victims.

Not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists have been muslims. This is the standard right-wing argument in making out Islam as a violent religion. But is it really religion or geography, that makes a "terrorists"? Alqaeda and other terrorists groups come from the Middle East and other 3rd world countries. Countries that have suffered for centuries under imperial and economic exploitation. Places like Iran where the US overthrew their democratically elected leader, installed a brutal dictator, all so we could have cheap access to their oil. When any group is oppressed, they are going to fight back against their oppressors. Oppressors never acknowledge the legitamacy of the oppressed to fight back. The religion of the terrorists is not what motivates them, it's the fact that they are being oppressed and exploited.

What if China weren't holding so very much of our "paper"?

Supporting the Taliban was a win-win for us ... even if they were Muslim ... because it made our best-buddies the Saudis happy with us.

While the Saudi's might possibly welcome our "pressure" on China ... what a difference 20 years and 2 wars can make...

In my analysis racism is a tool, not a cause, with regard to foreign policy.

While at times it is useful to declare certain groups others, to soften the human toll of war, and political upheaval, such declarations are for the most part, made more for the collateral effect than a guiding philosophy.

There are those who do subscribe to such philosophy, and they likely do see such rhetoric as part and parcel of policy, but we have been blessed by and large in the U.S. that such ideologues have generally been at the fringe of our politics rather than at the heart of our policies.

Some southern senators feared african americans, but most simple feared the outcome, politically and economically of an ending of thier system. It is a subtle distinction to make, and likely means nothing to those who endured the policies, however that differnce allows for an alteration in policies with relative ease once the political wind changes, where as for countries where the philosophy superceeds the policy such changes are more difficult.

Some people see the U.S. as more philosophically oriented than politically oriented. I however am not one of them, and with such persons I would have to agree to disagree.