Recent elections in Bahrain and Egypt are being criticized for all the usual reasons. Authoritarian regimes — one a monarchy, the other a quasi-military dictatorship — cracked down on the media and the small opposition forces that challenged them in the run-up to the polls, eventually holding ballots with little or no monitoring.
Two characteristics of U.S. public diplomacy stand out in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks: the creativity, resourcefulness, and range of the various strategies employed, and their complete and utter failure.
The Muslims were bloodthirsty and treacherous. They conducted a sneak attack against the French army and slaughtered every single soldier, 20,000 in all. More than 1,000 years ago, in the mountain passes of Spain, the Muslim horde cut down the finest soldiers in Charlemagne’s command, including his brave nephew Roland. Then, according to the famous poem that immortalized the tragedy, Charlemagne exacted his revenge by routing the entire Muslim army.
Parsing the Koran will not produce answers about the roots of terror any more than staring at a cup will enlighten onlookers about the source of water.
Media’s failure to cover “boring” moderate Muslims leads Americans to believe that most Muslims hate the United States.
The right pulled off a neat trick by conflating burning the Koran with building an Islamic center near Ground Zero.
Since the U.S. is a secular, not a Judaeo-Christian state, there is no need for Muslims to be “tolerated” because they’re already as much a part of the state as any group.
Among conservatives aligned with Israel, some claim that the left supports jihad.
By attacking the Ground Zero Islamic Center, conservatives are both inciting attacks on American Muslims and undermining the Afghan strategy of General Petraeus.
Many opposed to the “Ground Zero mosque” are masking their prejudice against Muslims with concern for the sensibilities of 9/11 families.