Cal Thomas:

It matters little that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists," to quote a familiar Western mantra. It matters a great deal that most terrorists are Muslims. The sooner Western leaders and Western media begin stating what is obvious to most people; the quicker the real root cause can be dealt with.

The excuses given by Westerners and many Muslim clerics for terrorism are just that: excuses.

Doug Giles poses the questions to so-called moderate Muslims that so many of us, perhaps afraid of being politically incorrect, are afraid to ask:

As a moderate Muslim, can we rest assured that you do not believe that warfare and terror are any way to establish your religion in people’s lives? Can we also be certain that those of us who do not believe and will not believe your particular take on divinity can feel completely safe around you and that we can confidently expect you to work with us to build our world into a better place without condemnation being breathed down upon our heads?

John Tabin:

Support, among Muslims, for suicide bombing against civilians has also faded. (Only Muslims were asked this question.) The percentage saying the practice is "never justified" jumped since March 2004 from 35 to 46 in Pakistan and from 38 to 79 in Morocco, and jumped since the summer of 2002 (the last time the question was asked in these countries) from 54 to 66 in Indonesia and from 12 to 33 in Lebanon. (The Turks held stable on the issue, with 66% saying suicide bombing is "never justified," statistically identical to the 67% who gave that answer in March 2004.) Most interestingly, opposition to suicide bombings in Iraq specifically was higher, in several countries, than opposition to suicide bombing in general; 56% of Pakistanis and 41% of Lebanese oppose that "insurgent" tactic, along with 43% in Jordan, where only 11% oppose suicide bombing in general (and by "general," obviously, they mean "Israel").

Concern over the threat of Islamic extremism is widespread in several of these countries, with the percentage deeming the threat "very great" or "fairly great" at 47 in Turkey, 53 in Pakistan, 73 in Morocco, and 45 in Indonesia. Interestingly enough, respondents in different countries define "Islamic extremism" differently. In Lebanon, Jordan, and Morocco, the prevailing view is that Islamic extremism means "Using violence to get rid of non-Muslim influences in our country." But to pluralities in Turkey and Indonesia, it means "advocating the legal imposition of strict Shari'ah on all Muslims." The respondents in those two democracies, it seems, are less worried about their Muslim extremists killing people than they are about their getting elected -- another point in democracy's favor, I'd say. As Mr. Tarbin says, it's not all good news, but at least it's trending in the right direction.

Gerard Baker:

The idea that al-Qaeda was no threat until we created it does not stand the slightest scrutiny of events in the 1990s — from the first attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993, to the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and, of course, the September 11 atrocity a year later. And no one seriously thinks that only America was in their sights. The ideology of Islamism doesn’t stop at the superpower’s borders; its ambitions sweep through Europe; indeed that is where it is breeding so many of its jihadists.

The fight in Iraq is not, as the opponents claim, a self-inflicted wound, suddenly giving rise to new threats on our homeland from people we should have left well alone. We are, steadily, beating the terrorists in Iraq. Not only in the military operations, but also by demonstrating who and what the enemy really is. And thereby creating the only real long-term conditions for safety from Islamo-fascism —- free states that do not deny the most basic human rights to their peoples. The people who murdered innocent Londoners yesterday are the same people who are murdering innocent Iraqis.

Jeff Harrell:

On a day like today, when al-Qaida has struck a hammer blow against the West and hurt us badly, of course it seems tempting for us to circle our wagons, call in our dogs and hunker down.

But it would be a mistake.

[...]

Whatever terrorists want us to do, we have to do precisely the opposite, and with renewed vigor in the wake of every agonizing but futile attack. Terrorists want us to stop supporting Israel; we respond by increasing our ties with Israel. Terrorists want us out of Iraq; we renew our commitment to the Iraqi people. Terrorists want to turn Afghanistan back into a failed state that they can dominate with their particular brand of twisted, medieval authoritarianism; we dedicate ourselves to making Afghanistan a free and prosperous member of the community of nations no matter what the cost.

If we continue to defy terrorists — if terrorism continues its unbroken string of utter failures — sooner or later young Muslim men are going to reach the realization that murder is not noble. If we bring liberty and prosperity to those dark, shadowy corners of the world where the light of freedom does not shine, sooner or later the people who live there are going to believe that there are better opportunities for them. If we prove to the world that we will not bend to the will of suicide bombers, of hijackers, of the murderers of the innocent, sooner or later those things will simply disappear.

It's just a matter of time. Unfortunately, time is what too many Americans are unwilling to give to the cause of extending liberty, to eradicating terrorism. Our fast-food, instant-on, access-always culture has put us in a collective mindset that any problem can be handled in an unrealistically short amount of time, when the hard truth is that most problems can not be wrapped up within months, or even years, much less overnight or within the confines of a thirty-minute sitcom. Here is a news flash, people: we are still in Germany. (Though not in the numbers we used to be.) We are still in Japan. World War II has been over, as of August of this year, for sixty years, and we still have a presence within the borders of our former enemies. This will not change with Afghanistan. This will not change in Iraq. If it does, especially in the near term, you can bet hostile regimes will rise again in those nations, and the sacrifices made by 1,700+ American service personnel will have been for naught. This talk, especially from our elected representatives, to cut and run from Iraq, hide behind our own borders, and hope the evil Islamic boogeymen don't get us, is utter nonsense. Such actions will not stop terrorists. Only when they are captured or dead, only when it has been shown that acts of terrorist violence will not bring about the desired behavior, when it has been shown that terrorism is not effective, will the terrorists be stopped. Stop your sniveling, Durbin. Put a sock in it, Sanders. Rein in the rhetoric, Rangel. You are not helping the situation. You are clouding the issue because of some blind hatred for the sitting President, for some misguided sense of patriotism that dissent in a time of war is acceptable. Dissent was fine two and a half years ago, when this country was discussing what course of action to take. Now, the course of action has been determined and taken, and it's time for you to sit down, shut up, and stand behind the administration that is taking the fight to the terrorists. Take an example from the Republican Party after December 7, 1941. They may not have liked FDR, or his domestic agenda, but by God they were behind him one hundred percent in prosecuting the war against Japan and Germany, the latter of which never attacked the United States. I only bring up this last point, since the left/Democrats seem intent on keeping in focus the fact that Iraq never attacked the U.S. In nearly four years since September 11th, there have been only two terrorist attacks directed against America or its European allies: Spain, 3/11/04, and today, 7/7/05, in Britain. Two. That's all. You want to say that Iraq, has nothing to do with the war on terror? How many attacks might have we faced if Saddam was still in power, aiding and abetting any terror group that wanted to strike against Hussein's perceived enemies? Would Paris have been targeted? Rome? You ostriches, as Jeff is fond of calling you, had better get your heads out of the sand. Go read The Last Jihad, if you want to see what a future President may have had to deal with if the U.S. hadn't taken action against Saddam. War, indeed a horrible, horrible thing, is, as times, necessary. And now they've gone and pissed off the Brits. Along with the Israelis, the British invented modern counter-terrorism. The SAS cut its teeth in the Middle East, and honed them to a razor's edge against the IRA. These Islamofascists have no idea what bottle they just uncorked in Londontown.

Guy Cannon:

This pretty much says it all.

Muslim activist groups like CAIR wonder why a lot of Americans don't trust Muslims. Maybe it's because if everyone knew what was really going on behind the doors of the mosque, no one would trust them.

The same imam who demanded that the men continue in the path of jihad did a complete 180-degree turn in this session, stressing instead the suras that promoted the "brotherhood" between Muslims, Christians and Jews. "After all, we worship the same God, and follow the teachings in the books he gave each of us. We are all the same, we are all People of the Book," he stressed.

The differences between the sessions were striking. Clearly the second session was a recruiting session.

Were the women aware of what was being taught in the first session? Certainly those women who spoke Arabic should have been.

The reason for concern is obvious: Two different doctrines are being promoted. One peaceful, friendly, warm and fuzzy doctrine is being used to draw people in, with a focus on the well-being of their children.

But the Arabic-speaking sessions clearly have an anti-American tone.

Link to a legitimate news story showcasing a civil acts violation in the United States as a result of the PATRIOT ACT. Good luck.

To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act.

Not one civil action has been filed against the government under Section 223, which allows citizens to seek damages for any willful violations of the Act.