I wonder if the large majority will get a clue stick after the first nuke. Or will it be multiple?

Amy, one of the things I like best about your writing is your unflinching ability to give people the cold, hard slap of reality when they need it. With that in mind, I'm surprised you could seriously talk about the return of a caliphate.

Right now we are in the midst of a historic change in the Arab world, and by extension in the larger Muslim world. Peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt have overthrown decades-long rule of dictators. A violent struggle is underway to remove Gadaffi from power in Libya. In each of these cases, the protesters have been overwhelmingly secular. Unlike Iran in 1979, no one is looking for a fundamentalist theocracy. What they are calling for is more representative government and an end to the incompetence and corruption that had plagued the previous regimes.

I don't know what's going to replace the dictatorships in the Middle East, and I don't think anyone else does either. Most likely, similar to the dissolution of the Soviet bloc in 1989, we will see a range of outcomes, some inspiring and others depressing. Some may replace one predatory strongman with another. At least at this point, it seems unlikely that religious-based rule will emerge anywhere.

The events in the Middle East have been the best rebuke possible to radical Islamists. Where al Qaeda says that indiscriminate violence leading to theocracy is the only path forward, millions of regular people have demonstrated the Jeffersonian idea that government arises from the consent of the governed. These millions of muslims are nothing like the cardboard cutout terrorists you keep writing about. It's time to expand your view of Islam to see what's actually happening in the world.

"It's time to expand your view of Islam to see what's actually happening in the world. "

For precedence on these events, see: Iran.

Someday I am going to take the effort to find out why/how Moslims became Muslims.

I have not seen evidence that clearly states that the events in the Middle East have been the best rebuke possible to radical Islamists.

I also need to take the effort to find out the difference between Muslims (Moslims) and Islamists.

I have never heard of thugs who rape, and/or support such, be considered Jeffersonian.

Consent of the governed - a concept that confuses me - Mexico, South America, Africa, actually the rest of the world - mostly. I could not convince my son that the atomic bombs dropped to end the war were a good thing, even though innocent (?) civilians died or where harmed.

Is it Jeffersonian to allow women to drive? Is there a concept of individual rights in Islam? Do Muslims allow indvidual rights to women?, to gays?, to Catholics? I have a lot of catching up to do.

Ya gotta understand. Holder and his boys have a big important job to do, planning and executing the coverup of the ATF gun-running scandal. They can't be bothered with trivial things like Islamic terrorism.

Reality Intervention,

I don't even know where to start. I'm going to hit some of the high points.

Peaceful protests in Tunisia and Egypt have overthrown decades-long rule of dictators.

'Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." So goes the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood. Amy at amyalkon.mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/20/the-muslim-brotherhood-its-all-there-in-the-motto/

How does that indicate they are looking to be peaceful?

Where al Qaeda says that indiscriminate violence leading to theocracy is the only path forward, millions of regular people have demonstrated the Jeffersonian idea that government arises from the consent of the governed.

As we see so well in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Tell me the last time that you have seen protests of the Taliban and Al-Quaeda in those countries.

Not to mention CAIR protesting the hearing about radical Muslim's in the U.S.

We have backed down over the years on various things. But when you get to the point that you can't even ask the question "Are there radical Muslims in the United States?" without protest you are lost.

Part of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While I disagree on the Westboro Baptist Church decision on a personal level -- they unfortunately have that right. The other side of that is the ability to ask disturbing questions. And saying we can't ask about radical Muslims is a cognitive dissonance that the left just doesn't get.

This was posted elsewhere on Amy's blog, but I copied and pasted it to a document I have that contains all kinds of little "bits and pieces" about Islam:

From a blog called “Staring at the View”:

“I've reached the conclusion that Muslims face an impossible task. Simply put, their entire faith rests upon defending a man - Muhammad - who is indefensible."

Wafa Sultan expressed it best when she said, "It is impossible that a man who did the things Muhammad did could be a prophet of God."
It is impossible that a man in his mid-50's could engage in sexual intercourse with a nine-year-old child, possibly damaging her physically so that she never became pregnant, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could finance his religious and political community by robbing the trade caravans that passed through his area on their annual trips between Arabia and Syria, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could call other men to follow him, and then watch them die one after the other in the battles he instigated to build his empire while giving them promises of the sensual Paradise that awaited them, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could behead 800 Jewish men who had lived in his city for centuries for the simple reason they refused to accept him as their leader, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could trade the Jewish wives and daughters of the men he had just beheaded for weapons and horses, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could be so fearful of criticism that he would send a man at night to kill the mother of a nursing child because of the poems she had written against him, and be a prophet of God.
It is impossible that a man could sentence a woman to death by having her limbs attached to camels that moved in opposite direction pulling her apart, then behead her and parade her severed head through Medina, and be a prophet of God. “
The list goes on. Islam, practiced according to the Quran (which is supposed to be taken literally) is not a religion of peace, because the Quran is not a book of peace, and Mohammad was certainly anything but a man of peace.

Brava, Amy!

I've been making the point that Islam isn't really a religion for a long time. It's really a criminal cult with some mystical overtones. In its dynamics, actual operation and parasitic, corrupting effect on foreign cultures, it's much more like the Mafia than like Catholicism.

An implicit part of the compact we make with religions to grant them free exercise is that they respect the distinction between church and state and behave peaceably. Islam fails both tests.

And don't anybody start up this crap about a "few extremists." The majority of Muslims worldwide, in poll after poll are cheerleaders for terrorism and cultural imperialism, even if they don't actually get out on the field and play.