Lieberman's and Brooks' selective silence is contemptible.

Its interesting you need to go back more than a decade and to another country to come up with what appears to be quite the exceptional case.

In this country we have the unfortunate incident at Fort Hood, the Arkansas recruiter shootings, the college student that tried to rundown fellow students with his vehicle, etc., etc., etc.

The "everybody does it" defense is getting thin.

Jim - These days, my attitude toward Lieberman is one of growing contempt, nor do I often agree with David Brooks, although I respect him more than I respect Lieberman. The NYT piece by Brooks that you link to, however, is an important antidote to a considerable level of well meaning denialism that has pervaded some sections of the blogosphere in recent days - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&hp

I believe it's unfair of you to castigate Brooks for an accurate perspective on Islamic extremism on the grounds that he failed to write similar pieces about atrocities committed by other extremists, one of which was not perpetrated on American soil. Those acts received their share of attention, and as in the Nidal Hasan case, there was proper emphasis on the unrepresentative nature of the perpetrators for the larger groups to which they belonged (Jews or African Americans). No columnist is obligated to opine on every important event. Brooks, like others, was obligated to report honestly and accurately if he chose to write at all about those past happenings, but as long as he was not dishonest, there is no justification for holding him in contempt.

Thank you for this. That's about all I have to say. I'm afraid for my international students, fine young men and women from Turkey, Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. I'm not afraid for them physically, not yet, but for their isolation, potential ostracism, and vulnerability in their aloneness. I don't expect either Brooks or Lieberman to know better.

Again thanks. It's hard to be a voice of reason and compassion in times like these.

Talking about what's wrong with 'them' is an antidote to having to talk about what's wrong with 'us.'

Thanks for pulling the Ferguson article out of the memory hole, Jim. You are a great resource for reminding people that we've been here and there before.

Lieberman is a loose marble in search of a skull. What is this disgraced chickenhawk even doing outside of Baghdad anyway?

I don't think of Brooks as evil. Just dim.

My test is, how would I feel if a guy sat down next to me on a 5 hour flight (the only time something like that happened to me was when I sat next to the sports columnist Red Smith on a long flight-it was great). If it were Kristol, Wills or Krauthamer I'd try to force open the escape hatch in flight or pretend to be a terrorist. Anything to get away.Anything.

If it were Brooks I'd expect to find him enjoyable company . If limited.

The ovetall scope of the discussion is ridiculous.

Ideogies are not "things-in-themselves." Ideologies are extensions of human thought and a reflection of the human mind. No matter the worldview we individually adopt, we are not immune from madness.

Every belief system, every one, has a shadow. It isn't as if there is one true dogma one could adhere to that would save us from ourselves. In fact, the best way of life bar none for humans to adopt has existed for thousands of years: the golden rule.

Every ideology can be perverted until it conforms to psychpathology. Charles Manson embraced animism and ecology. Jim Jones embraced utopian communal living and charity. L, Ron Hubbard spoke out against drugs and believed in a future free from evil.

But underneaty it all, no matter the intent of the ideology they constructed, no matter the poetry of their vision...

They were fucked in the head. Regardless of what they preached.

In other words, this is a human condition, and impacts us all in varying degrees. This condition is exacerbated by war, lies and ignorance. Major Nidal is an example of how this condition, regardless of ideology, becomes a pathology. Our invasion of Iraq is also an example of this condition only larger and more dangerous.

Pointing fingers at belief systems is quixotic. We are at the mercy of incedental feelings, stresses, traumas and griefs which shape us more profoundly and shape or worldview. If we are negative, then what ideology we hold becomes more negative, regardless of its intrinsic beauty.

There are some ideologies, like white supremacy, which reflect a perversity on its face. But white supremacy, like Wahbbism, is a distortion of wisdom traditions. They say more about its adherents than the traditions.

Lieberman and Brooks can't critically reflect on their religion because they view it as a team sport. If they derived any true spiritual depth from Judaism, then they would understand that Islam leads practitioners to the same place. But instead, Judaism -- to Lieberman and Brooks -- is what the Braves are to baseball fans in Atlanta: a convenient institution with which to identify.

There may be legitimacy in regretting that Brooks and Lieberman, both Jewish, failed to denounce the massacre in Hebron 15 years ago - a Jewish version of jihad - but there has been no dearth of Jewish commentators willing to undertake that role. The salutary consequence of this candid form of self-assessment lies in its ability to mitigate public perceptions that the Jewish community would inevitably choose to defend any movement that operated within Judaism, however indefensible it might seem.

I see some parallel with the Fort Hood killings. The Muslim community has properly denounced the massacre. With equal justification, it has proclaimed the perpetrator, Hasan, to be unrepresentative of the vast majority of Muslims. What it may not yet have done, however is to go beyond those necessary first steps to emulate the candor surrounding the Hebron event. Hasan is surely unrepresentative of most Muslims, but he represents more than his own self in embracing the jihadist ideology that fueled his rage, and led, under the stress of an impending deployment to Afghanistan, to its explosion into murderous violence.

Feeling besieged, the Muslim community might feel reluctant to acknowledge anything more than it has, but as time passes, and passions subside, I expect it might benefit from acknowledging American jihadism, and not merely Nidal Hasan, as a problem to be addressed. The impulse for silence is understandable, but it would be wrong to think, “If we don’t say it,, people won’t think it.” Bigots are already exploiting Fort Hood to demonize Muslims as a group, and the most powerful antidote to inaccuracies of this pernicious nature is accuracy. In my view, those who say “it’s not a problem” will forfeit credibility, while those who say “we’re determined to address the problem” will gain stature and trust.

If the determination within the American Muslim community to address its own demons is genuine, it will reduce the chances that we will suffer future tragedies of the sort just witnessed. In the meantime, I believe it’s incumbent on non-Muslims to alleviate the sense of siege by denouncing the bigots, and by emphasizing how thoroughly we recognize the distinction between the virtuous majority of Muslims and the tiny Muslim minority that has perverted the true virtues of Islam for violent ends.

What is most troubling about Fred Moolten's many posts on this topic is his persistence in talking about a "Muslim community" that has some responsibility to "address its demons." In America individuals--and individuals alone--are responsible for their actions. Individuals who belong to a particular ethnic or religious group cannot be considered in any way responsible for the actions of other individuals within that same ethnic or religious group. If a Muslim individual commits a crime, other Muslim individuals are no more or less responsible for that crime than Fred himself is. All individuals are judged solely as individuals and there are no "communities" that can be collectively blamed for the actions of particular individuals or that can be expected to take responsibility for the actions of particular individuals.

Not to condone these attacks in any way, but why is it so difficult to appreciate the anger the gratuitous, premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at American hands might instill in Muslims? Is it so difficult to appreciate that this anger might tip someone over the edge? I suppose it is difficult to appreciate if you basically don't give a damn about those deaths.