That would be deeply troubling because open societies depend on trust - on trusting that the person sitting next to you on the bus or subway is not wearing dynamite.

Well, if anyone of the arab persuasion with a gut, mumbling allahakbar sits next to me on a bus or subway, I'm immediately getting off.

The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed.

But, they don't consider it shameful. And the msm and the leftests don't hold them accountable. Yesterdays NYT had a long article about the moslem community being more moderate and more open. But buried inside the article and at the end are statements that they see themselves as victims and that we are all to blame. Fuck them.

They can start with that bile that is produced daily in radio and television broadcasts blaming the infidel and the Joooooooo.

I think they're banking on us continuing a "civilized" war. I'm afraid they may be right, if nothing changes.

But those crazy bastards will create some changes.

Friedman hits the politically-correct notes about what a tragedy it would be were Western governments forced to essentially quarantine Muslim populations due to the murderous viral epidemic running through them, but...

Quarantine doesn't work either. Look what has happened in Sweden: Link

Uh, the guy's Welsh. Not really representative of the arab mindset.

And frankly, when on rare occassions I do hear something sane being said by muslim leaders, I don't trust them. Who is it, LGF or Jihad Watch who always has quotes given to the media in english, countered with what they said inside the mosque in arabic? Each and everytime the statement and the person who makes the statement must be vetted.

When President McKinley was murdered by an anarchist, TR abruptly deported 400,00 of these "people".
Sounds like a good historical precedent for the next "event".

Gee, suppose we could round up 400,000 ACLU's after the next "event" and use the historical precedent as an excuse?

The tone of the article and chatter is pretty spot on: if the Islamic community won't police their own nutjobs, it will be done for them, and the Muslims without the guts to do it now won't have a leg to stand on when they get swept up in the process.

I like Freidman a lot, even though I don't always buy his logic. Like with this column.

Friedman thinks that if the Muslims need to talk the jihadis in their midst off the ledge.

He also thinks it would be a "disaster" to persecute all Muslims for the actions of a few.

But, what if the disaster isn't in persecuting the Muslims, but in *not* persecuting the Muslims? After all, if "innocent" Muslims don't do what Friedman is advocating, then how innocent are they?

Either they have the power to restrain the jihadis, or they don't. If the former, then their failure to act is as criminal as witnessing a crime without reporting it. If the latter, then Friedman's column is pointless.

I know that this is trying to prove a negative here, but all it takes is a thermonuclear flash and all the arguments about civil liberties will go out the window faster than the mushroom cloud heads up into the sky.

If the key to winning this war is helping Muslims win it for themselves, then we must hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a few. No one is comfortable with collective guilt-- it's un-American, after all-- but what's the alternative here? Ignore how easy it is for a world religion to be used as an engine of terror?

Hogwash.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West.

Actually, Tom, what he dreams of is a global Caliphate. In his own response to 9/11 he said (paraphrasing here), 'We are calling you to Islam.'

He doesn't want a gulf between the West and the East; it already exists. Osama is a uniter, you see. He wants us united under Islam.

To which I say, Fuck You Osama, I will fight in the street and die with my garden pitchfork in my hands, before I succomb to your backass Moon God.

"backass Moon God"

LOL. . .

The guiding philosophy in the West should be to all immigrants, assimilate. It seems insanity to pay them to not make compromises in dress, language and culture. People from the so-called undeveloped world tend not to be bomb makers if as soon as they arrive they have to go to work.

"...the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed."

For a self-avowed liberal New York Times columnist, Friedman sure sounds a hell of a lot like Edmund Burke here.

Maybe last week's horrible Tube bombings were Tommy boy's "mugging."

I hate the USA PATRIOT Act and I hated the same tactics used against drug dealers too. It's un-American and a bad direction for us to head. I don't believe government can protect us from committted terrorists anyway.

But I have defended it on the grounds that if you don't like the look of half-measures like USAP, then you would hate what you'll see if they prove ineffective. Americans will demand more radical measures.

Frankly, I think Hillary's positioning herself for just such an event. And the Democratic candidate will run from that position rather than bitching about civil liberties.

You heard it here first.

Frankly, I think Hillary's positioning herself for just such an event. And the Democratic candidate will run from that position rather than bitching about civil liberties.

If it's true - and you just may be right - then Hillary loses big and the Democratic Party ceases to exist after it breaks into a million special-interest-group pieces. After nearly eight years of Democratic handwringing over the civil rights of Gitmo detainees, searches for "root causes," and thinly-veiled calls of "kumbayah," voters won't buy the charade - especially if Rice or Giuliani are singing the same tune as Hillary!, but with an (R) next to their name on the Presidential ballot.

The only way that Hllary's gambit would work is if the Dems could find some new-old way to demonize the Republicans, maybe expand on the old 'Republicans are fundamentalists' meme.

Find some good ol gun-totin' fascist survivalists and run some 60 Minutes specials comparing them to the Taliban.

But that would require a media stranglehold they don't have anymore.

At best, Moslems generally don't give a damn about western suffering at the hands of their brother terrorists and many support it. It is only when the west leans hard on them that they will stop supporting terrorism. When it becomes clear to them that every act of terror will be followed by their disenfranchisement, boycotts of their businesses, firings, layoffs, harassment, intimimidation, and ostracization and expulsion of as amy as possible; then and only then, will they actually begin to resent the terrorists for putting them is such a position. And only then will they actually start witholding money and other support from the terrorists. The only way to drive a wedge between western Moslems and terrorists is to lean hard on them, expel as many as possible and put an economic squeeze on the rest. Right now they fear the terrorists far more than they fear us. But when they find themselves laid off or their businesses going down the tubes because they're being boycotted, they will have a choice to make, and many will choose prosperity and peace over violence and pverty.

Hillary's going to run on the Republicans Are Inept platform and, unfortunately, the GOP has given her some ammo already. A successful terror attack would complete her hand.

The Dems are in no danger of losing their moonbats. The moonbats always justify any centrist politicking as boob-bait to rope in the naive. They "know" their candidate really "favors equal rights for gays." They know toting geese through cornstubble with an antique Purdy over your shoulder is how you get Bubbas to vote your way, not a Second Amendment statement.

The impending theocracy is certainly how they keep the moonbats in line and they will try to rope in the center by running to the right on security. Just might work, too.

Spongeworthy, will conservatives then be tempted to counter by moaning about draconian measures and loss of freedoms?

Good question. I know I will and I won't have to whine that I've changed my mind, like Bareback Andy. Of course. I'm not a big-money blogger like he is so who would care, right?

How about we photoshop Hillary's face onto Lynndie England's famous pose and then replace the cop in the Elian-at-gunpoint photo with it? That would be sweet.

Well, I'd think the proper response to a 'get tough' stance from the Dems should be ridicule, mockery, and shoving their past words back into their mouths.

Being on the soft side of national security wouldn't do us much good, even if their ideas stink.

Besides, that would give the lefties the opportunity to replay our guys talking about how the world has changed, if you want to make an omelette you gotta break some eggs, etc.

I say keep the table turned the other way, lets see if they manage to come up with any good ideas for 'getting tough.'
If they do, we can always co-opt them.

That's smart thinking, but don't forget that Hillary's going to sell herself as a different type of Democrat. She's already begun.

Because the Clinton Administration always had some tough talk for terrorists and Hillary has voted in every instance to fund the war and take a tough law enforcement approach also, she has a record too strong to run from at this late date.

While we certainly have a litany of laughably stupid remarks to hang around the necks of mainstream moonbat Democrats, Hillary has inoculated herself.

Anybody else would have trouble keeping the moonbats aboard, but these people will ignore anything from her--she could eat a baby and they'd tell you it was only a campaign ploy, she's at heart a compassionate progressive.

She is uniquely positioned, that's for sure.

"Sometimes selfishness is reason enough to act."

But since when has it been selfish to protect your loved ones from violence?