the tides of change

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Nov 7, 2006 at 19:57

From what I've read of Daniel's article, I can't find much fault with a unilateral treaty of political behavior. It reads like a self-inflicted wound and bandage all in one literary package. No harm No foul. However, given the light of recent history I would say that the United states loses nothing by once again writing their own one-sided political agreement towards Islam . The world is no longer the vast expanse of uncharted mystery that it was 250 years ago. Islam isn't weeks of sea travel away but, rather immediately, next door or up the stairs one or two floors. And they have their own agenda and joining western civilization in a full and mutual effort towards the advancement of the ages is not part of it.
Perhaps before the dust settles the Islamic leaders might be given a copy of the rewrite for their private contemplation.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".