The president of Pakistan blames Bhutto for her own death. 

“I think she is to blame alone.  Nobody else. Responsibility is hers.”

And THAT wraps up in a nutshell what is wrong with the world today.  The victim is blamed for her own murder because her murderer was a radical Muslim.  Radical Islam is given a free rein because, of course, it’s radical Islam.  So they’re not responsible for their own actions. If Bhutto had been a man, there would likely be a different perspective in the radical Muslim world.  Radical Islam has the world by the short hairs.  The United Nations can criticize any other religion - but they can’t say anything negative about Islam.  When will we recognize radical Islam for what it is - a mean hate-filled bully that must be stopped. 

Musharraf Blames Bhutto for Her Death

By Randall Mikkelsen,

Reuters

WASHINGTON (Jan. 5) - Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf conceded that a gunman may have shot Benazir Bhutto but said the opposition leader exposed herself to danger and bore responsibility for her death, CBS News said on Saturday.

Musharraf was also quoted as telling the CBS “60 Minutes” program to be broadcast on Sunday that his government did everything it could to provide security for Bhutto, who was killed last week in a gun and suicide-bomb attack after a political rally.

 ”For standing up outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. Responsibility is hers,” Musharraf said in the interview taped on Saturday morning.

Pakistan’s government has said Bhutto died when she struck her head on a handle on her vehicle’s sunroof — a contention widely derided in Pakistan where many people suspect Musharraf’s government of complicity. The government has also blamed al Qaeda for the attack.

Musharraf was asked by CBS, which provided excerpts of the interview, whether a gunshot could have caused Bhutto’s head injury. He replied, “Yes, yes.”

The questioner asked, “So she may have been shot?” and Musharraf said, “Yes, absolutely, yes. Possibility.”

Bhutto’s widower called on Saturday for a U.N. investigation of the killing.

In an opinion article in the Washington Post, Asif Ali Zardari urged that a caretaker government be named to oversee national elections that were postponed until next month and he outlined other standards for assessing their legitimacy.

“Democracy in Pakistan can be saved, and extremism and fanaticism contained, only if the elections, when they are held, are free, fair and credible,” he wrote.

Zardari is the new co-chairman of Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party, alongside their son Bilawal.

Musharraf, a U.S. ally in its battle against terrorism, postponed the general election from January 8 to February 18, and the PPP is expected to benefit from a wave of sympathy for Bhutto.
Musharraf, whose re-election as president in October is still disputed by the opposition, will need support in the next parliament and looks likely to have to renew efforts to reach an understanding with the Bhutto’s party, analysts say.

CARETAKER GOVERNMENT

Zardari has said the PPP would take part in the vote. But the elections, he said in the Post, must be conducted under a “new, neutral caretaker government, free of cronies from Musharraf’s party.”

He also called for an independent election commission, monitoring by trained international observers with access polling stations and an ability to conduct exit polls, press freedom and an independent judiciary.

He urged that the United States and Britain join the push for a U.N. probe. Britain has sent a team from Scotland Yard to help the government of nuclear-armed Pakistan investigate the killing, and Washington has endorsed the step.

However, Zardari said, “an investigation conducted by the government of Pakistan will have no credibility, in my country or anywhere else.”

Bhutto had complained to an acquaintance shortly before she died that the Pakistani government was not meeting her security pleas.

CBS asked Musharraf whether he believed the government did everything possible for her security. “Absolutely,” he said. “She was given more security than any other person.”

Okay, I won’t do any editorializing about this story.  I’ve been home sick most of the day, and I had not heard anything about this double homicide until I read it at Michelle Malkin  and Hot Air.  

Here’s the news story from a Dallas newspaper about the Texas Muslim father who is being sought for the murder of his two daughters.  According to the story this Muslim father apparently didn’t approve of his daughters’ behavior and considered the killings part of maintaining his “honor” as a Muslim.

The Sudanese Muslims want to execute the British teacher who allowed her class to affectionately name their teddy bear “Muhammad.”  There isn’t any rational argument for stating that Islam is a religion of peace.  This is the most outrageously stupid and dangerous thing.  Notice that the article mentions that people came out of the mosques after Friday sermons and started rioting.  I don’t know about you, but when I leave my Christian church, I feel more loving and charitable towards others.  My Christian religion makes me want to be kind and forgiving to others.  Jesus tells us to love others and to turn the other cheek.  Do you know of anyone leaving a Christian church bent on executing someone else - as a result of the sermon they just heard?  The whole Islam religion is crazy.

This whole story shows not only how full of hate and meanness the atmosphere of Islam is, but how stupid many of the followers are.  They are hurting their own cause in the eyes of the world - and I imagine they don’t care about their image in the world’s eyes.  They’re just so stupid and absurd, in fact, that this is the only case where a few of the reasonable minority of Muslims are actually speaking out against it… a very few anyway. 

Sudanese Call for Execution of Briton

By MOHAMED OSMAN,

AP

KHARTOUM, Sudan (Nov. 30) - Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.”

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

They massed in central Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed. They did not try to stop the rally, which lasted about an hour.

“Shame, shame on the U.K.,” protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons’ execution, saying, “No tolerance: Execution,” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

The women’s prison where Gibbons is being held is far from the square.

Several hundred protesters, not openly carrying weapons, marched about a mile away to Unity High School, where Gibbons worked. They chanted slogans outside the school, which is closed and under heavy security, then marched toward the nearby British Embassy. They were stopped by security forces two blocks away from the embassy.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons’ trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Many protesters carried clubs, knives and axes - but not automatic weapons, which some have brandished at past government-condoned demonstrations. That suggested Friday’s rally was not organized by the government.

A Muslim cleric at Khartoum’s main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons during one sermon, saying she intentionally insulted Islam. He did not call for protests, however.

“Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion,” the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

“This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad,” he said.

Britain, meanwhile, pursued diplomatic moves to free Gibbons. Prime Minister Gordon Brown spoke with a member of her family to convey his regret, his spokeswoman said.

“He set out his concern and the fact that we were doing all we could to secure her release,” spokeswoman Emily Hands told reporters.

Most Britons expressed shock at the verdict by a court in Khartoum, alongside hope it would not raise tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain.

“One of the good things is the U.K. Muslims who’ve condemned the charge as completely out of proportion,” said Paul Wishart, 37, a student in London.

“In the past, people have been a bit upset when different atrocities have happened and there hasn’t been much voice in the U.K. Islamic population, whereas with this, they’ve quickly condemned it.”

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, accused the Sudanese authorities of “gross overreaction.”

“This case should have required only simple common sense to resolve. It is unfortunate that the Sudanese authorities were found wanting in this most basic of qualities,” he said.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a political advocacy group, said the prosecution was “abominable and defies common sense.”

The Federation of Student Islamic Societies, which represents 90,000 Muslim students in Britain and Ireland, called on Sudan’s government to free Gibbons, saying she had not meant to cause offense.

“We are deeply concerned that the verdict to jail a schoolteacher due to what’s likely to be an innocent mistake is gravely disproportionate,” said the group’s president, Ali Alhadithi.

The Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organization, said Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should pardon the teacher.

“The Ramadhan Foundation is disappointed and horrified by the conviction of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan,” said spokesman Mohammed Shafiq.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans, said Gibbons’ prosecution and conviction was “an absurdly disproportionate response to what is at worst a cultural faux pas.”

Foreign Secretary David Miliband summoned the Sudanese ambassador late Thursday to express Britain’s disappointment with the verdict. The Foreign Office said Britain would continue diplomatic efforts to achieve “a swift resolution” to the crisis.

Gibbons was arrested Sunday after another staff member at the school complained that she had allowed her 7-year-old students to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Giving the name of the Muslim prophet to an animal or a toy could be considered insulting.

The case put Sudan’s government in an embarrassing position - facing the anger of Britain on one side and potential trouble from powerful Islamic hard-liners on the other. Many saw the 15-day sentence as an attempt to appease both sides.

In The Times, columnist Bronwen Maddox said the verdict was “something of a fudge … designed to give a nod to British reproof but also to appease the street.”

Britain’s response - applying diplomatic pressure while extolling ties with Sudan and affirming respect for Islam - had produced mixed results, British commentators concluded.

In an editorial, The Daily Telegraph said Miliband “has tiptoed around the case, avoiding a threat to cut aid and asserting that respect for Islam runs deep in Britain. Given that much of the government’s financial support goes to the wretched refugees in Darfur and neighboring Chad, Mr. Miliband’s caution is understandable.”

Now, however, the newspaper said, Britain should recall its ambassador in Khartoum and impose sanctions on the Sudanese regime.

Really, how DARE a Saudi woman be out in public in the presence of a man who isn’t her relative - even if it’s someone she knew in high school.  Guess she deserves to be gang-raped by the seven men who accosted both her and her high school acquaintance.  And not only does she deserve to be raped but deserves to be sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes for her unlawful behavior (i.e. talking to a high school friend in public).  HERE’s the story, if you care to read it.

Really, folks, do we truly want to defend the Muslim religion.  This isn’t some small militant sect of Islam.  This is the judicial system of an entire country.  Don’t you think it’s time we condemn this “religion”?  It is nothing more than an excuse to brutalize women in general and terrorize non-Muslim man or woman. 

People in this country - especially the liberal left - really puzzle me.  All the news shows are abuzz with the Michael Vick story.  And it IS a gruesome and horrifying story.  People were protesting outside the courthouse, people were strident in their belief that dogfighting (as a “sport” and as a gambling activity) is disgusting, inhumane and sick.

So where are all those protestors when the Islamic terrorists torture and behead people?  Where are all those protestors when the Islamic terrorists plant an IED that explodes and kills and maims dozens or hundreds of people.  Where are their protests when innocent men, women and children - going about their daily lives and trying to make a living are killed and injured by car bombs set to go off near a market?

Dogfighting is a despicable thing to do.  No dog deserves such treatment.  But it pales in comparison to what Islamic terrorists do every single day.  So how about some perspective and some acknowledgement of what is going on in Iraq?  I doubt it will happen.  As long as people can keep their thoughts firmly planted on issues such as a football player’s involvement in dogfighting,  outrage over adolescents slapping each other’s backsides, presidential candidates participating in a fake debate, movie stars arrested for drunk driving, and drunk astronauts, they can continue to pretend that our sons and daughters aren’t really sweltering in full combat gear in 100+ temperatures in a war against evil incarnate.  That every single day they face the possibility of much worse than any of the dogs at Michael Vick’s place ever faced.

I thought it was funny.  I saw this in my high school newsletter - sent in by one of my former classmates - A.S.    

At The Huffington Post, Greg Gutfeld has written a thoughtful post that is generating quite a stir among leftwingers.  Reading the comments to his post is almost more fun than reading the post.  Leftwingers never cease to confirm that they can be the most venomous and vile commenters. 

Here’s what Gutfeld’s wrote:

Whenever I visit this lovely blog, I usually run into someone - a “leftist,” if you will - who finds pleasure in things that make our country or the President look bad. I suppose I could say these angry types are no better than cheerleaders for terrorism. After all, both entities - the left and terrorists - seem to share the same desire: to put the US, humiliatingly, in its place.

But I would be wrong to say such things. Very wrong. Of course, “dissent is patriotic,” and the left is only critical of America because it simply loves our country much more than I do.

That’s why calling them terrorists would be intolerant and pretty shameful.

But what about “patriotic terrorists?”

That’s kinda neat.

What is a patriotic terrorist?

It is an American who claims to love his or her country while enjoying the enemy’s success against said country. It is a person who gets deeply offended if you question their patriotism, while also appearing to share the same ideals of the more spirited folk who like to blow up innocent people.

Patriotic terrorists love America with so much intensity that it appears to the untrained eye that they hate it. But it’s actually the most powerful form of “tough love” known to man, woman and Rosie O’Donnell. Patriotic terrorists love America so much that they realize it needs an intervention - and real terror is the only way to enable that intervention. In fact, to keep a mammoth, arrogant superpower like America in check, terrorism is the only thing we’ve got. Noam Chomsky knew this from the start, making him a patriotic terrorist of the highest order.

This is why he gets the chicks.

Hey, I bet you’ve probably wondered why Al Qaeda hasn’t struck in the US since 9/11. They don’t have to. It has its own offshoot franchise here at work already. Patriotic Terrorists.

Think about how much both groups have in common!

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda want the US to abandon Iraq, for that reveals Bush and America to be monstrous, laughable failures. It does not matter to either group that the withdrawal from Iraq will make post-Vietnam look like an afternoon at Ikea shopping for a Hoggbo innerspring mattress.

-For patriotic terrorists and real terrorists, car bombs going off is music to their ears. It proves that you can’t offer democracy to troubled countries, as long as you’ve got terrorists standing in your way. And that’s great news for everyone who believes in checks and balances between the haves and the have nots! (Note: “haves” means the US. “Have nots” means those who hate the US)

-Patriotic terrorists and the more committed terrorists both believe that infractions at Guantanamo Bay are far worse than anything a genocidal dictator could muster, and such horrors possess far more PR potential in denigrating the US than anything involving Ed Begley Jr.

-Both patriotic terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists believe the US desires to control the Middle East, empower evil Israel and expand it’s power base at the expense of innocent Arab lives. But both groups also realize that the US is too stupid to achieve these goals - and that makes being a patriotic terrorist loads of fun!

Are you a patriotic terrorist?

If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women’s rights, porn - then you’re a patriotic terrorist.

If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you’re a patriotic terrorist.

The only difference between a patriotic terrorist and a real one? Real terrorists are simply patriotic terrorists who’ve taken the extra step - choosing to actually die for their beliefs - rather than simply talking about them at Spago. If Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, and their ilk had real cojones, they’d all be wearing cute black vests - but stuffed with more than dog-eared copies of Deterring Democracy.

Hat tip Blue Star Chronicles.  Read more commentary there and also at Something…and a Half of Something.

In looking through my blogroll this afternoon, I found that The Random Yak has an interesting post on what Thomas Jefferson might say about the Iraq war. What do you think?

Learning from Islam: War is the Only Solution, per Thomas Jefferson

Filed under: Just Yaks, PoliYaks, News Yaks — Maniyak @ 10:08 am on January 18, 2007

One prominent Democrat enthusiastically supports the war in Iraq against Islamic terrorism and oppression, President Thomas Jefferson.Most Americans (at least those of us who are not majority members of Congress) heartily agree with the declaration of President Thomas Jefferson, “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!” About whom was he speaking when he stated this American national policy? About Islamic terrorists, the Muslim pirates and slave traders from Tripoli and the Barbary Coast in the Mediterranean Sea, who who killed, kidnapped, and sold millions of innocent people into slavery and attacked American ships and enslaved their crews from 1776-1800 and on. The Muslim attackers had no previous contact with the United States (which had just become a nation) but they already hated us. The answer to the Islamic propaganda question, “America, ask yourselves, why do we hate you?” is not that America has done anything against Islam but that most Americans are Christians or non-Muslim. Muslims hate Americans and Christians because that is their theology and the teaching of the Qur’an and always has been. Happily some peace-loving Muslims dissent from this religious bigotry and hatred, but where Islamists can make national and public policy, this anti-Christian hatred is the uniform attitude.

Thomas Jefferson was elected President in part because he was pro-war. He despised the ransoms and blood money that the appeasers in Congress had been paying to the Muslim nations to reduce their bloody slave trade and piracy, and as President he sent troops against the Barbary Coast pirates and eventually destroyed the piracy and illicit trade in human souls practiced by the Islamic Barbary States.

What does the Marine anthem say? ”From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land and on the sea.”

America’s military defeated Islamic terrorism in the early 19th century, and if Thomas Jefferson were leading the Democratic Party today he would despise their cries of appeasement and submission (which is the meaning of the term “Muslim”)and he would support the war in Iraq against Islamic terrorism today.

By the way, that First American-Muslim War against the Barbary States which began in 1801 achieved military victory in 1805, but the Islamic terrorists were not totally defeated, and all the fighting finished, until 1815. The timetable in the present war in Iraq fits the same pattern.

The Muslims are right about one thing: War is the only solution to the conflict between Islam, Christianity and the democratic nations of the West.

Apparently the letter “X” is in danger of being banned in Saudi Arabia because it too closely resembles a cross.

The commission’s damning of the letter “X” came in response to a Ministry of Trade query about whether it should grant trademark protection to a Saudi businessman for a new service carrying the English name “Explorer.”

“No! Nein! Nyet!” was the commission’s categorical answer.

Why?

Well, never mind that none of the so-called scholars manning the upper ranks of the religious outfit can speak or read a word of English. But their experts who examined the English word “explorer” were struck by how suspicious that “X” appeared. In a kingdom where Friday preachers routinely refer to Christians as pigs and infidel crusaders, even a twisted cross ranks as an abomination.

So after waiting a year, the Saudi businessman, Amru Mohammad Faisal, got his answer: No. But, like so many other Saudi businessmen who suffer from the travesties of the commission, he seemed more baffled than angry. He wrote letters to Saudi newspapers to criticize the cockamamie logic. An article he wrote appeared with his photograph on some Arabian Web sites. It sarcastically invited the commission to expand its edict to the “plus” sign in mathematics and accounting, in order “to prevent filthy Christian conspiracies from infiltrating our thoughts, our beliefs, and our feelings.”

This would have been funny had it not been so sinister.

The Saudi commission has shaped life and death: declared jihad against Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, banished women from public life, and forced piety at the tip of the whip and the sword. Its edicts have hindered business, education, travel, women’s rights, and life itself, creating a fertile ground for terrorism and producing the 15 Saudis who participated in the September 11, 2001, attacks — and many others like them.

Among the commission’s deeds is the famed 1974 fatwa — issued by its blind leader at the time, Sheik Abdul Aziz Ben Baz — which declared that the Earth was flat and immobile. In a book issued by the Islamic University of Medina, the sheik argued: “If the earth is rotating, as they claim, the countries, the mountains, the trees, the rivers, and the oceans will have no bottom.” Another bright light of the commission, Sheik Abdel-Aziz al-Sheikh, recently stopped a government reform proposal aimed at creating work for women by allowing them to replace male sales clerks in women’s clothing stores. Sheik al-Sheikh damned the idea, saying it was a step “towards immorality and hellfire.” The underlying logic is breathtaking: Women are more protected by buying their knickers from men! Over the years, the commission has rendered Saudi Arabia a true kingdom of darkness. Movie theaters are banned, as are sculptures, paintings, and music, and the mixing of sexes in public.

The commission really has it in for women. They must don the all-enveloping veil, or niqab, in public; they cannot drive themselves nor ride anywhere without a male guardian, and they cannot travel alone domestically or abroad.

The commission also excels at banning the construction of houses of worship — other than mosques — even though the majority of the 8 million expatriates working in the kingdom come from Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths. Indeed, celebrating a private Sunday Mass inside a home could lead to jail, public lashings, and expulsion.

One of the most criminal travesties committed by the commission’s foot soldiers, the Mutawaeen, or religious police, was dramatically reported by the muzzled Saudi press itself on Friday, March 15, 2002, when the Mutawaeen forcibly prevented girls fleeing a burning school from leaving the building because they were “improperly dressed.”

The day after, the Saudi Gazette newspaper quoted witnesses as saying the police stopped men who tried to help the girls, warning the men: “It is sinful to approach them.”

Of the 800 teenage pupils in Mecca, 15 burned to death and more than 50 were injured. Yet, the commission and its royal enablers thrive.

My first thought is that this is a joke.  No one would even consider something so absurd.  Apparently, it’s true, though.  Are there really people in the world that think like this?  I remember reading of a young girl who was hanged because WHILE she was trying to fight off a male rapist, she injured him.  Shame on her for harming a man - even when he was raping her!  Do we REALLY want to be tolerant of Islamic extremists?

Tiara-tip to Beth at MVRWC.

Also at Blue Star Chronicles.

As I was reading THE TENNESSEAN this morning, I came across an article that was particularly interesting to me considering the posts I’ve written the past few days and the reader response to those posts.

The article was titled: “Tennessee Voices: I am a Muslim, and yes, I am an American,” and was written by Sabina Zia Mohyuddin. Here it is:

I am an American. To be more precise, I am a Tennessean. I was born and raised in Nashville. I rode the bus to school for 12 years, then went on to graduate from Vanderbilt University. I have lived in Memphis and Clarksville among other places and now call Tullahoma my home. I got married in college and now have four children. Sounds like a typical American, right?

Yet, when people see me, their first question often is: “Where are you from?” Naturally, I say I was born and raised in Nashville.

The catch is that I am a Bangladeshi Muslim American. My parents are from Bangladesh, my religion is Islam, but I am still an American.

Nonetheless, there are those who would regard me with suspicion because — although I worship the same God of the Christians and Jews — I pray five times a day, fast during the month of Ramadan and wear a headscarf in public. I love to eat rice and curry and occasionally wear traditional Bangladeshi clothing.

So sometimes, people’s first impression of me makes them wonder why I have not become more Americanized.

This leads me to the question: “What does it mean to be an American?” For me, being an American does not just mean I am a U.S. citizen. It means that I want what is best for America. I want a country where our children’s welfare and education are our top priority. I want a country where there is “liberty and justice for all” and where there is equal access to health care. I want a country that works with other nations to solve global problems such as disease, poverty and pollution.

Desiring what is best for America is not enough. As an American, I must get involved in helping those in need and become actively engaged in the issues affecting our country. I must speak out against any injustice and let my voice be heard by voting in local and national elections.

An American does not have to be a white or African-American Christian. Whether or not a person is a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or member of any other faith, if she is working for a better America, then she is an American. Whether a person is from Mexico, Somalia, China or any other country, if he is working for a better America, then he is an American.

Each person brings unique experiences and ideas which help strengthen America. As a Bangladeshi Muslim American, I share my ideals of strong families where parents are respected and children are cherished.

I find no contradictions in being a Muslim and being an American. As a Muslim, I must uphold the laws of this land, stand up for what is right and help those in need.

That is what makes me an American.

I find Ms. Mohyuddin’s words refreshing, and while she and I might not agree completely about how to accomplish them, the goals and dreams she expressed in the article are the same as mine.  She expressed the American ideal very well.

However, for all the lofty and conciliatory rhetoric, I also call on American Muslims such as Ms. Mohyuddin, along with rationale Muslims worldwide - to publicly condemn the brutality of Muslim terrorists and the bastardizing of their religion, faith and holy book.  Where is the loud and public outrage and condemnation from moderate Muslims for the extreme brutality that is being carried out in the name of Islam?

As long as there are Muslim extremists and terrorists going throughout the world killing, maiming and creating mayhem, as long as there are militant Muslims bragging loudly about how they infiltrate average American society in order to carry out their terrorist agenda, and until I hear moderate Muslims throughout the world loudly and publicly and in great numbers condemning the Islamic terrorists and calling for an end of terrorism, then I will be wary of Muslims.  I won’t deny them their rights as American citizens or as human beings.  However, until I get to know them personally, I will be wary of them.  It’s only common sense.