And in today's News About People Still Angry At Events That Happened Thirteen Centuries Ago, a woman blew up 41 fellow Muslims.

At first I thought she was angry about breast implants because she did it at Boob Al-Sham, and then I read the entire article:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.blast/index.html?hpt=T2

How many mass-murders must take place before the apologists get it?

Folks, I love Amy's advice, but this issue needs more perspective than Wafa Sultan's book can give it.

Some Muslims may believe things, or do things, that are senseless and disgusting (though I have dozens of Palestinian friends and I've never seen any of them ripping open containers in stores!).

But then so do a lot of people, and we're not bombing the crap out of them.

Why, indeed, should we be bombing the crap out of anyone?

The short answer is that military contractors, the Israel lobby, and evangelical Christians like it that way--and liked it before 9/11, which just made it easier for them to convince us to keep doing it. If we're happy with the foreign policy these folks are giving us, fine; but then we have no business whining about airport security.

Under these circumstances, the question of whether Muslims believe stupid things is largely irrelevant. If we bomb them, as we've been doing, and are still doing, on a daily basis, they're going to get pissed. Righteous indignation about their silly beliefs is just a way to make ourselves feel better about it.

A good example is Iran. The regime there is disgusting, but it doesn't want nukes *because* it's disgusting; it wants them because the US has invaded and occupied two of its neighbors. Under those circumstances, it's never going to disarm. Would you?

For a good discussion of these issues, please take a look at Glenn Greenwald's articles at Salon.

And thanks, Amy, for starting the discussion.

To Panjomin,

Where is the US bombing Muslims, at all or on a daily basis?

Where is Israel bombing Muslims, at all or on a daily basis?

So this Jew walks into a market and blows herself up -- wait, that doesn't happen.

So this Catholic walks into a market and blows herself up -- wait, that doesn't happen either.

So this Buddhist walks into -- no, that's just goofy.

So this Hindu walks into -- hmm, still no luck.

So this Zoroastrian walks into a market ...

Damned Zionists ruined my post!

What really boggles my mind is when you read of groups like the ADL or the Canadian Jewish Congress supporting "free speech" of Muslims, speech that is hate filled but turn around and lambast anyone who isn't following PC culture and expresses their opinion.

As a Jew, and thus a potential target of these haters, I'm hate the idea that our government lets such people into the country.

@Andrew Garland: if by "bomb" we mean "use air strikes that cause civilian casualties," then the US has done so in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan (Iraq for over two decades, and primarily Afghanistan at the moment).

My post does not say that Israel is currently bombing anyone. But it has used air strikes against civilian targets in Lebanon and Gaza.

@Gog Magog: Pretty funny, if not exactly accurate (Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka come to mind). In the same spirit, here's some more hypotheticals, this time from the Alternative Reality News:

PALESTINIANS BULLDOZE ISRAELI VILLAGE, BUILD SETTLEMENT

Oh, wait...

CALIPHATE INVADES, OCCUPIES CANADA, MEXICO; DEMANDS US GIVE UP NUKES

Wasn't that...

CITING SECURITY CONCERNS, IRAN OVERTHROWS US GOVERNMENT, REINSTATES MONARCHY

.. the other way around?

@Sio: I'm not aware of the cases you note, but there are Jewish groups, such as J Street, who oppose the Likud and its policies. It's not about political correctness; they feel that settlement building and repression are bad for Israel.

@Kishke: unfortunately, all of us are targets now. A rational rethink of US foreign policy, which costs billions, kills millions, and keeps no one safe, might help change that.

Typo on Iraq: I meant "just under two decades."

unfortunately, all of us are targets now.

That's why we should stop letting these bastards into the country. And deport the Muslim non-citizens who are here. Isn't that rational? Won't it keep us safer?

Tell me, which Muslim country did the US bomb before 9/11? And what do you suggest we should have done in response?

Which Palestinian village was bulldozed to build an Israeli settlement, as you imply?

Panjomin, I am ignorant of any Catholics in Northern Ireland who committed a suicide bombing.

If you could show me a link that would be enlightening.

Thank you.

@ kishke ("letting these bastards into the country, and deport the Muslim non-citizens who are here"): Many, if not most, Muslim immigrants to the United States come here because they oppose the regimes that govern their countries. If we did what you suggest, we'd have to expel people like Wafa Sultan, who wrote the book Amy's talking about.

Also, for people who care about Israel's security, having thousands of Palestinians move to Dearborn and Glendale is surely safer than having them stay in the West Bank and Gaza.

Those are just the pragmatic arguments; there's also the general argument that collective punishment violates international law.

("Tell me, which country..."): Iraq. If we count countries bombed by Israel with US support, add Lebanon.

("Which Palestinian village..."): See the websites of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition and B'Tselem. There's more info there than I can reproduce here.

@Amy: I'm glad you were against the Iraq war. Whatever reasoning you employed to reach that conclusion is probably similar to the reasoning I'm trying for here.

("A religion that commands..."): The Torah commands stoning for adultery and the Gospels forbid divorce. But Jews and Christians pick and choose, and Muslims do too. So the question is not "what Islam says," but rather why some Muslims choose the violent interpretations. The answer must have something to do with how they're treated, seems to me.

@"the New Caliphate": the caliphate is not a device for killing people; it's a theological and administrative office, like the papacy. It was abolished by a demographically Muslim country, Turkey, in 1924. Given the huge differences among Muslims, it is unlikely that anyone could get himself named caliph again, at least not with any credibility. (The closest contender today is the King of Morocco, who's a fairly mellow guy.)

@Canadian Muslims: All surveys of true believers (of whatever faith) are worrisome, at least to me. But I don't think we can bomb people into rethinking their theology. The free market and popular culture will probably take care of it if we give them a chance.

@Gog Magog: I wasn't thinking of suicide per se, but setting off bombs that will kill civilians (I mean, who really cares if the bomber blows himself up or not?). For that, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

Folks, I gotta take a break; answering all these questions is tiring me out.

But thanks for asking, and thanks for keeping it civil.

"I mean, who really cares if the bomber blows himself up or not?"

I'd say it's a defining difference between Jihadists and the rest of the human race.

@GogMagog: What about Masada?

OK, now I'm really out of here.

panjomin, here's another headline you'll never see:

GAZA PALESTINIANS PRESERVE GREENHOUSES GIVEN TO THEM BY ISRAELIS

panjomin: You claimed the Israelis demolished villages to build settlements. Now you're sending me to a site discussing house demolition. You know as well as I that the homes of terrorists are demolished in punishment for acts of terror. It has nothing to do with building settlements. What's more, demolition of a village has never, so far as I know, occurred, not to build a settlement or for any other reason. I'm waiting for you to back up your claim with facts, names, dates. I suspect I'll be waiting forever.

for people who care about Israel's security, having thousands of Palestinians move to Dearborn and Glendale is surely safer than having them stay in the West Bank and Gaza.

a) Who said anything about Palestinians in particular? I'm talking about all non-citizen Muslims.

b) Even regarding the Pals, we in the States are safer with them in Gaza then here. A few more Arabs in Gaza won't make any difference to Israel's security.

("Tell me, which country..."): Iraq. If we count countries bombed by Israel with US support, add Lebanon.

Ah, so now the excuse for 9/11 is the first Iraq war, which, let us not forget, was undertaken for the benefit of the endangered Muslims of Kuwait. Of course, even Bin Laden did not make this claim. You leftist fools are more creative than Bin Laden himself in dreaming up justifications for Muslim atrocities.

The answer must have something to do with how they're treated, seems to me.

Oh yes, America is just so cruel to Muslims. Like when we went to war to save Kuwait from a cruel dictator. And when we went to war to save Bosnia from destruction. I think we treated those Muslims pretty darn well. But guess what, we get no credit for that stuff! Apparently, it has nothing to do with how Muslims are treated, but with what they believe.

Those are just the pragmatic arguments; there's also the general argument that collective punishment violates international law.

I forgot this whopper. Deporting aliens is not punishment, collective or otherwise. Their presence in this country is a privilege, not a right. If for whatever reason we decide that their presence no longer suits us, there's nothing wrong with sending them home. It's not a punishment to be sent home. I'm not suggesting we deport citizens; that wuold indeed be collective punishment. But all the "students", mullahs and the rest; let them go foment unrest in their own countries instead of ours.

As for those like Wafa Sultan, I'm sure we can build in exceptions for people like her, or like Hirsi Ali. Let's just send home the potential threats.

@kishke: I wish I could respond but I don't participate in threads that involve name-calling ("you leftist fools"). Let's meet on the high ground next time.

I'm not surprised. I knew you wouldn't respond.

Actually, I did respond, and I'd be glad to address your arguments, which certainly merit further discussion. But if you're going to use insulting language, this is going to go nowhere fast.

You'll be glad to address the arguments? Then do so. Otherwise, what are you still doing here? You don't like being called a leftist fool? Don't be one.

@panjomin -

You do not occupy the high ground, sir. You are as ignorant of history as a newborn babe.

You seem to be of the mind that 9/11 was some kind of retributive act against America for its actions in "muslim" lands. This is incorrect.

If, in fact, muslims only react to provocation, then what, pray was the provocation for the Libyan attacks on American freighters in the 18th century?

There wasn't one. The Libyans were quite clear to Mr. Jefferson that it was an act required of them by their religion and could be brought to a halt through payment of tribute.

This is the underlying reason for the trouble the US has had with the islamic world since time immemorial. Anything Bin Laden tells you is taqqiya.

My apologies to the community on Amy's blog. We have a troll and I fed it. My bad.

Here's another violent attack that clearly traces directly back to our Israel policies: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DJF3980&show_article=1

Iraqi officials say a female suicide bomber mingling among Shiite pilgrims in northern Baghdad has detonated an explosives belt, killing at least 54 people.

A police official says the bomber struck Monday while she was lining up with other women to be searched by female security guards at a checkpoint on the outskirts of the Shiite neighborhood of Shaab.

He says about 117 people have been wounded. He says 18 women and 12 children are among the dead.

Folks, I was hoping for a discussion, but I'm not getting one. At no point in any of my posts did I make a claim about the causes of 9/11. GogMagog asked which countries the US bombed before that date and I answered. Someone then decided that I had made a causal argument and attacked me for it, and now someone else has jumped in too, again without reading what I wrote. Finally we have Amy throwing Sunnis and Shiites on the pile too, which is a different problem (it has to do with internal policies under Saddam and the post-Saddam fallout. And yes, the US kept Saddam in power, and yes, AIPAC urged war on Iraq, so our foreign policy does play a role here.)

This might have been a good discussion, and you might even have modified my positions if you'd made an effort to persuade instead of rant. I'm happy to defend anything I've actually said, but I can't defend every position you imagine I have.

If all you want is to talk to each other, you got it.

GogMagog asked which countries the US bombed before that date and I answered. Someone then decided that I had made a causal argument and attacked me for it,

You blamed Muslim terrorism on our bombing them, i.e. a causal argument. I asked who we bombed before 9/11, the point of which was obviously to determine which bombing you claim to be the cause of 9/11. You said the bombing of Iraq. Now you're complaining that we decided you made a causal argument. In fact, you did.

I'm happy to defend anything I've actually said, but I can't defend every position you imagine I have.

Still waiting for the name of the village destroyed by the Israelis to build a settlement. Or did I imagine you saying that too?

While you're at it, you deluded leftist tool, you can explain how Kuwait and Bosnia fit in to your theory of poor treatment for Muslims and its repercussions.

panjomin, we all know that Muslims have never in the history of the world ever done anything wrong; that everything bad that happens to them is someone else's fault, and that the worst atrocities committed in the name of Islam are fully justified by the fact that a Muslim somewhere didn't get everything he wanted for Ramadan. So go away now and play with your toys. The adults are trying to talk and you're interrupting.

We went into a Vons market and, once there, she began to open every packet she could, then she began to make holes in the lids of cartons of milk, Jell-O, and cream. ... "I'm trying to hurt them! You're still new here. Don't you know the owner's Jewish?"

This shows an appalling lack of economic literacy on the part of this woman.

The owners of Safeway (the company that owns Vons) are the shareholders. I'm sure some of them are Jewish. But some are also Muslim.

And that damage done to the products is paid for with cutbacks in services and amenities in each store and higher prices paid by all consumers (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc.).

("A religion that commands..."): The Torah commands stoning for adultery and the Gospels forbid divorce. But Jews and Christians pick and choose, and Muslims do too. So the question is not "what Islam says," but rather why some Muslims choose the violent interpretations. The answer must have something to do with how they're treated, seems to me.

panjomin
_____________________

Yes, well, barbarities such as female genital mutilation and "honor killings" PREDATE Islam - and Christianity, I assume, but that doesn't change the fact that Muslim governments courts are the most likely ones (only ones?) to look the other way when families commit those barbarities against their own relatives in the name of tradition. How is any non-Muslim government's foreign policy to blame for that?

Not that other religions are completely clean, either. See Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great." Or Sam Harris' "The End of Faith." Both were bestsellers.