I’m not sure where Hitchens is going with this rhetorical campaign. Given that the vast majority of the non-muslim world already agrees that terrorism and religion-based hatred is bad and needs to be fought hard against, and that appropriate steps are being taken by the proper authorities, what does he want us to do? Many of us might disapprove of the attitudes and practices of some of these extremist communities, but even if these might be seen as being breeding grounds for anti-western violence and attempts at political insurrection, until laws have been broken and conspiracies uncovered, what else is there to do? Is condemnation and verbal abuse supposed to make a positive contribution to our security, or add to anything that the police and intelligence services are already doing?

Sure, we’re all outraged that these mindless thugs keep trying to bomb Londoners and other innocent would-be victims. It’s appropriate to express our contempt for the mentality that inspires such obsessive hatefulness. But I get the feeling that Hitchens wants us to do more. What “more” could that possibly be, and what good would it do? Should we be out in the streets burning flags like the idiots on the other side of this culture clash? What else, then? Does Hitchens want us to start banning people from wearing veils or otherwise expressing the (constitutionally protected) aspects of their faith? Should we put police cordons around their neighborhoods or allow police to indiscriminately spy on them? Should we arrest them and imprison them without charges being filed or allowing them access to legal counsel? Should we torture them?

All I’m trying to say is that, as far as I know, our security services are doing everything in their legal power (and then some, of course, but that’s for another discussion) to surveil, infiltrate, arrest and otherwise thwart the perpetrators of jihadist violence. We all agree that these are bad people who need to be stopped. We’re free to express our disapproval of the elements of this culture that are explicitly hateful and violence-prone. But beyond that, we can’t simply start hating entire communities of people, even if we might not necessarily approve of some of their cultural practices. Even if that’s the response that some people take, I don’t think it does anything to lessen the problem of jihadist violence, unless their ultimate wish is to begin some kind of ethnic cleansing campaign.

I think what most of us want is to somehow cause these anti-western sub-populations to lighten up and learn to share the more liberal and tolerant attitudes of the wider societies in which they live. Is it naïve to hope that their isolation and anger might wane over time? Is forcible assimilation even possible without violating peoples’ civil rights? I’m not sure what the right course of action might be, but I only know that hating entire populations of people is not going to help.

I agree. Personally I think Hitchens was just writing for its own sake - somebody at slate has to chime in on this, and hopefully there will be some better analysis once the dust settles and facts become more available. In the meantime, get ready to hear from the best and brightest of this board's immigration hawks, xenophobics, and militant conservatives!~

What Hitch wants is really not that complicated:

The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name.

Contrary to your naive claim about what we all agree on, Hitch gives several examples of how the real truth of what we're confronting is being evaded by "liberals." Maybe you just ought to re-read the piece with that in mind.

Particularly irritating is your statement that we all agree that the proper steps are being taken by the authorities. You only have to read posts here at Fray to run across the standard lefty procedure of minimizing every thwarted plot by suggesting that the would-be perps were harmless bunglers (which is how they all start) and that the police exaggerated the threat they posed.

Wake up.

I suppose you can find someone, somewhere in the world, to say anything in support of whatever position you want to hold up as an example. But it's quite a stretch to claim that "liberals" as a whole support terrorists. It's like the country-western singer who thinks it's a truthful and meaningful statement to juxtapose photos of one of the Dixie Chicks next to Osama bin Laden. That's the kind of commentary that's considered to be well thought-out in wing-nut circles, apparently.

Just because the latest bunch of would-be bombers in the UK does, in fact, appear to be a bunch of stumblebums more dangerous to themselves than anyone, it's not at all to say that the proper steps aren't still being taken by the authorities. We all agree that intelligence and law enforcement need to be doing their utmost in Europe and over here (as long as they can do it without breaking laws). And if you think there's something that needs to be done that isn't, then speak up!

What I'm trying to say is that protecting us should be a matter for police, intelligence and (when appropriate) the military to deal with. Inciting random hatred against muslims won't do us any good at all, under any circumstances.

Indeed, as you predicted!