The problem with liberals is that they never stop trying to convince insane individuals to accept reality. It's an extreme case of the blind leading the blind.
The latest claim by those on the left says that if leaders of the United States proudly declare they are concerned about violent action perpetrated by homegrown right-wing militia groups more than they are about another attack from radical Islam, non-terrorist Muslim rulers worldwide will all of a sudden devote legions of men to aid America in the fight against terror.
But all rational people on earth know America has never been at war with non-terrorist Muslims.
The left talk as if President Bush instructed the Secret Service to pick off all followers of Muhammad that came within 100 yards of the White House. They talk as if, under Bush, the waterboarding of typical American Muslims was carried out with such frequency it became the new driving while black.
President Bush didn't care what religion the terrorist were. He justifiably had a "You come after us, we'll come after you," mentality.
Rational people understand the United States military is not stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq because Iraq and Afghanistan are nations filled with Muslims.
But if a few Muslims are unable to differentiate between radical Islam and Islam, there is no hope of intellectually convincing them of anything rational. It's not difficult to understand that if you put "radical" before the description of a person or "extremist" after the description of a person, it means you're not equating them with run of the mill people who fit that description.
It would be the equivalent of, during World War II, a German, who adamantly opposed the vile Nazis, hearing Franklin D. Roosevelt declare the United States was at war with Hitler and his radical German regime, and therefore picking up a weapon for use against the allies. "Yes, I despise Hitler, but since President Roosevelt uttered the word 'German' in describing the enemy of his country, I must fight alongside those whose cruelty is unmatched. I will toss aside a lifetime of kindness and decency and kill all Americans because their president didn't wisely choose the words with which he described his adversary!"
Attempting to talk sense into the irrational is an exercise in futility, but is nevertheless the backbone of liberal foreign policy.
They honestly believe that the appeasement of child-killing terrorists will immediately convince said evildoer to drop his weapon and do the whole 9-5 thing. With great anticipation, the New York Times awaits the day on which they can quote a terrorist as having said, "Now that America is acting in accordance with my worldview, I will put down my grenade launcher and erect a white picket fence in my front dirt pit, purchase a hybrid automobile and exchange the dynamite vest strapped to the chest of my teenage daughter with a Girl Scout burqa that, Allah willing, will soon display many badges related to her ability to avoid eye contact with men."
Liberals believe that if you meet every demand of a terrorist, the killer of innocence will cease to have another violent thought. In reality, if every demand of a terrorist were met, the evildoer would quickly expand his list of demands.
Liberals believe terrorists can be taken at their word while conservatives are rotten liars.
A liberal thinks, "Republicans are so hard to please; terrorists on the other hand..."
I suppose it's irrational of me to put so much thought into why irrational people wholeheartedly believe irrational people are rational when there is little mystery to the phenomenon.
