I am continually in Shock and Awe of the Liberal mind that manages to find the exact opposite of the truth no matter what the question. Whenever I'm in doubt about anything, all I need do is find out what Liberals think and take the opposite position and I know I'm on the firm ground of truth and reality, for they never cease to be wrong in everything they think.

I am in shock and awe that people still use the non word irregardless! I mean come on peeps, the word is regardless. Here endeth the lesson.

This reminds me of a time when the newly elected Mayor of Houston had the city legal dept studying all of the claims against the city. After months of study by 150 lawyers, numbers crunchers and staff they came up with a likely $40 million in liabilities. The Fire Chief said he thought that to be inflated and was probably closer to $25 million. The mayor said: the legal dept just spent six months and countless man hours examining all of this, when all I had to do was to ask the fire chief!

Whenever I'm in doubt, I'll listen to the Liberals and know what not to think!

Actually, buddies of mine who've been to the Hindu Kush and back tell me there is a MAJOR benefit to our side of those fanatics coming out of the madrassas -- after YEARs of staring at squiggly lines in poor light, they are dreadfully nearsighted, and most of them couldn't hit a barn with a rifle when they are standing IN the barn, if they knew how to FIND a barn. The guys who came over to our side all had to be fitted with glasses, and after that they shot pretty well -- but those fabled Afghan marksmen of the British wars were all illiterate, not blinded by the light of the holy Q.

I join youze guys in disagreeing with much of the editorial, but notice, in the second quoted paragraph, that casual dismissal of the concept that poverty breeds terrorism.

This is the New York Times. This is a step in the right direction ... possibly accompanied by two steps back, but i'm in the look-for-silver-linings mood today.

Right on the money about the Hitler Youth, or should we call it the "Osama Youth?"

Just be glad even the NY Times now realizes that poverty does not cause terrorism.

Anyone know how long madrassas have been in business? I've always understood them to be a relatively recent phenomenon (last 15-20 years), thus terrorists above a certain age by definition would never have been exposed to a madrassa education.

Actually, madrassas have been around a long, long time. (A relatively neutral description can be found here.) The essence of madrassa education is that it's exclusively religious and ideological. You don't graduate from a madrassa knowing anything about math, engineering or anything else useful--you can't even get a degree in communications or leisure studies. And your knowledge of politics, economics, and history is refracted through an exclusively Islamic filter. Whether or not that makes a madrassa graduate pre-packaged IED-fodder probably depends on the ideological slant of the local mullah. But an education based on the rejection of anything tainted by the West may well have an inherent bias in that direction.

That shoe-bombing numbnuts Richard Reid never struck me as a guy who impressed his teachers much. I think he was recruited for his big feet, but they didn't help him much when he got his clock cleaned by angry vacationers.

It was an incredibly stupid piece, that badly warranted the fisking that I have given it.

Excerpt:

But let's follow the information there to it's logical conclusion.

Fewer than 1% of Pakistani boys attend madrassas. That could mean several things:

1. The statistic is not actually correct, and there are far more Pakistanis studying at madrassas than the authors think,

in which case the statistic is utterly meaningless.

most of the 9/11 hijackers), in which case the statistic is utterly meaningless.

sample compared to the population in general.
In either the first or second case, the information is useless in proving the point they're trying to make. In the third case,

it actually contradicts it. They've told us that only 12% of terrorists attended madrassas. To then turn around and say less

than 1% of the general population attends madrassas, that indicates that madrassa students are 12 times more likely to become

terrorists than non-madrassa students.

The day I start listening to the New York Times as an authority on terrorism will be the same day I take Sean Penn's advice on how not to be a mumbling, uninformed idiot. Who exactly on the Times editorial staff knows ratshit from Rice Krispies about terrorism? Paul Krugman? Bob Herbert? The intern who makes latte-runs?

Probably the intern, if he/she has to deal with any of the super-egos Okrent blasted on his way out the door.

the Jihadi Technical Institute, where they can go on to earn their degree in Hawala accounting, gun repair, or scalp(ing) care.

How dare you insult Islam! The Jihadi Institute students don't take scalping, they study information extraction (including tools like Uday's Iron Maiden) and beheading, cutting off hands and stoning, according to Islamic law. Only savages and infidels would scalp anyone.

Pinch's editorial board lifts the phrase "tone deaf bastards" to absolutely dizzying heights.

JimO,

Very interesting comment. Thanks for that.

But waitaminute, don't they teach Creationism in the madrassas?

Gordon? Shush! Or next thing you know, we see a headline "Madrasses Are Kansas."

On A-1, above the fold.