[forward]

akv,

Thank you for taking the time and writing several great points. They are issues worth discussing.

After reading, Why Do They Hate Us, I concluded that Zakaria makes a very logical and concise case that the root of the "religious extremist" is a dysfunctional society brought about my the incompetence of leadership. -Makes sense, at face value. I agree with him on several points concerning the complexity of America appeal and the founded fears of Islamic countries for helping the US.

For what it is worth, evaluating a source, understanding the individuals background, and putting the person in context of the times, is important to understanding why something is presented as it is. In this case, an American who is the son of a Indian congressmen and Islamic scholar, and a Muslim who grew up in Bombay.

"The historian Paul Johnson has argued that Islam is intrinsically an intolerant and violent religion. Other scholars have disagreed, pointing out that Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for "true Islam" or quoting the Quran. The Quran is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible)."

(http://fc.yarmouth.k12.me.us/~david_...theyhateus.pdf)

I take issue with the above mentioned (see thread http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.php?t=29876) and now further question his motives. It appears, MOO, that he is trying to keep this secular by removing the fundamental root causes of why Islam (as a form of governance) is in at least some small part responsible for the series of events that lead the Arab world astray from the "progress" they enjoyed during the fifties and sixties. (That however is an entirely different problem for another time.)

Every Islamic country in the world has condemned the attacks of Sept. 11. To many, bin Laden belongs to a long line of extremists who have invoked religion to justify mass murder and spur men to suicide.

(http://fc.yarmouth.k12.me.us/~david_...theyhateus.pdf)

This is flat out a slighting of fact to create a unified impression of condemnation. It is cleverly crafted and it leads the reader to believe that both the people and the heads of state abhorred the cowardly attacks of 9/11. Look at the footage coming out of Palestine and I believe it was Saddam Hussein who said, " "I don't think that your [US] administration deserves the condolences of Iraqis, except if it presents its condolences to the Iraqi people for the 1,500,000 Iraqis it killed, and apologises to them ..." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001...aq.afghanistan) Yes he gave the American people his condolences but to follow up with that trash? Thank you for your time see you in two years. But I digress.

There is no doubt that Mr. Zakaria is a brilliant man, but how can such a "secular" individual not address the issues and built a complete picture of the problem? He promotes and highlights facts, admittedly better than a politician, but in a matter to create subtle implications to guide a reader to a flawed conclusion. His motivations and end state are beguiling to me, though this is only my opinion and I have yet to read his four books to reach a formal conclusion.

As far as the conclusions concerning BHO reading his work... Well I am sure that he has learned something from his book, but unlike Gates of Fire or Starship Trooper the topic has a direct bearing on current events and more importantly contribute to the formulation of thoughts on the subject by our Commander in Chief. I would simply hope (against all reason in this case) that POTUS would formulate and take a deeper look at the motivations behind said information.

He supported "stirring the pot" prior to the invasion, condemned it during, and praised the surge for working. Flip flop.

He isn't all bad but I take what he says with a very large helping of salt. Like you said, "Finally anyone who can tick James Carville off to the point of violent threats can't be all bad."

Good points made though and it reminded me that I need to keep an open perspective. As Herbert Spencer once said:

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.