Provide some substantiated facts, examples, whereby we treated suspected terrorists differently based on their religious beliefs. . . . back up your straw-man argument that we would treat Christians any differently than we would Muslims, if we suspected those Christians of murdering, or planing to murder, US citizens.

The whole post is that. What evidence ever existed that Chinese Uighurs -- of all people -- were "murdering, or planing to murder, US citizens"?

None. Compare what we did to them to other oppressed Christian minorities in other tyrannies.

Or compare what we did to Muslim Terrorists to, say, Christian Terrorists inside the U.S. Did we waterboard any of them? Imprison them for years without trial or charges? Hold them incommunicado and deny them access to lawyers and all other outside contact? Put them in stress positions and hypothermia?

W also said "We do not torture". It has been a bad couple of weeks for Republican politicians, making W look better (something about even lower expectations), but still not good enough to quote as if his words were true. The most intelligent thing W has done recently is to be very quiet, an option he did not always have when he was president. But you should not quote him to support an argument; that is ludicrous.

of tensions between the Uighurs (Muslim) and the Chinese Han (religion unknown). I don't think Congress or the media is showing the same level of "concern" that it's done in the last few weeks about the presidential election in Iran because we haven't had pictures of pretty, chic people on the streets with the know-how to use Twitter. The 19 Uighurs in Guantanamo are definitely part of "the axis of evil" because that's what we've been told. China is a creditor nation to the USA so the question of "democracy" would be indelicate to raise, even though China doesn't hold elections. That's just as well too because the British and American plutocracies might not like the results and could raise a huge hullabulloo, aided by the media.

Joe Biden has let the cat out of the bag. It's up to Israel, as a sovereign nation, to launch an attack on another sovereign nation, Iran, but really Washington is nonchalant about this, having no hand, act or part in any of this. It's time,after all, for another war although this one may not be confined to the Middle East. Look at all those lovely shiny new weapons that could be put to profitable use and all those American teenagers, not really Ivy League material, who could fight and die for "the cause". Syria has expressed an interest in improving relations with the United States but this suggestion seems to have sunk like a lead balloon. Well, why wouldn't it! Syrians are Muslims and Syria is a secular state but, unfortunately, it is no more "democratic" than China or even Egypt, where President Obama was happy to give speeches about tolerance of other cultures and stating that the US would not seek to impose its values on other countries. That was before the Iranian election, of course.

W also said "We do not torture".

Bush also said that the U.S. obtains warrants from a court any time it wants to eavesdrop -- so by NOB's reasoning, that means it's true.

Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap," Mr. Bush said in Buffalo, "a wiretap requires a court order."

He added: "Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/politics/02spy.html

back up your straw-man argument that we would treat Christians any differently than we would Muslims, if we suspected those Christians of murdering, or planing to murder, US citizens.

Last I checked, Scott Roeder wasn't being deprived of sleep, waterboarded, beaten, or otherwise tortured in the effort to root out others suspected of "murdering or planning to murder" US citizens.

But NOBBY got caught in that trap and didn't even realize it: he, being the idiot that he is, thinks torture is OK - as long as it's "equal opportunity" torture for anyone who we think *might* be thinking bad thoughts about us.

I understand your disagreement with how we have conducted the war on terror, including waterboarding and Gitmo.

You have not, however, come close to proving that our motivation is one of religious prejudice.

You do a disservice by suggesting that it is.

Look at some of the letters written in response to your post. People reflexively respond in agreement to your suggestion that it is our dislike of muslims that prompts our behavior.

You appealed to their base emotions, . . . it works.

I don't know, I do seem to hear a lot about their struggles, and the oppresivness of the Communists, there's just not a lot of real political support for them, much like there isn't any real political support for the Tibetan Budhists or the underground Catholics in China.

Oh someone might make a statment, but it's not like Tibet, or the underground Catholics, the Falong Gong, or the underground evangelicals are going to get funding for thier activists either.

My point was that Glenn's assumption that the support is based on our unease with islam, is false as we seem to be equally uneasy with any of opposition groups within china.

Certinaly, the larger the group you belong to, the more personal support you'll find in the U.S. from like minded allies. But from an issue of politics, that support is very differnt.

We have no interest or profit in a cold war with China. And as such we give little political support for any of the oppressed religious minorities in China. They do get included in our urging to promise better treatments in the future, and we certainly weren't about to send the Gitmo Uighurs back to China for torture (ironic I know) but we also aren't going to make demands of a nation that is a key player in our attempts to not have the world errupt in war and envirionmental catastrophy.

We can say it's about Islam, but really, it's just about global politics and the strange bedfellow they make.