Khatami stated recently that U.S. policy "triggers" terrorism, thus comparing Muslim terrorists to guns—inanimate objects, things with even less free will than a dog.

It has sometimes crossed my mind in recent years that the attitude of the left-wing press in England towards foreigners frequently seems to have a colonial ring to it. Thank you for making this clear to us all so convincingly and trenchantly.

Another supremely coherent article. I have to ask myself whether the axiom "Never attribute to maliciousness what can be perfectly explained by stupidity" applies to Steele. Can anyone of sane mind seriously put Bush and Hitler, or New York City and Brezhnev's Moscow, in the same camp? Dalrymple sees the attempt to exculpate the Iraqis for their own situation as "deep-seated arrogance" on Steele’s part, but I suspect it’s a cynical ploy. Those who want to blame the "invaders" for everything that goes wrong, but give no credit for what has gone right, will tell any kind of lie to support their bias—even lying to themselves.

As a Quaker, I am constantly troubled by Friends who similarly deny the personal responsibility of criminals, i.e., "victims" of U.S. policy, domestic or foreign. My perennial question follows: If they're not moral agents, won't our forgiveness muscles atrophy?