Andrew Sullivan does a fine job of skewering the moral ineptitude of the Guardian editorial pages, which are a reflection of a lot of liberal reaction to the terrorist appeasement of the recent Spanish elections.

Unbelievably, the Guardian actually says:

Or is the world in which war is repeatedly declared but never defined and detainees are held for two years before repatriation, then rearrested, then released without charge? Are those who perpetrated the commuter train bombings to be hunted down and smoked out of their lairs, and if they were, are we confident that we would prevent the next attack, and the one after that?

To which Sullivan says:

Well, what does the Guardian believe is the alternative to hunting down the perpetrators of 3/11? Letting them go unaffected, ready to bomb and murder again? Does the Guardian honestly believe that merely ignoring terrorism of this kind will make it go away? Or do the editors hold that opposing terrorism is futile and that the only method of countering it is to cave in to the demands of those perpetrating it?

But his closing paragraph is the best, once again framing the current conflict, for those who seem intent on either ignoring or downplaying the current reality:

What we have here is complete moral nihilism in the face of unspeakable violence. Then we have the absurd canard that there is a "divide between Muslim and Christian communities." There is no such divide. There is a divide within Islam between a large majority and a small minority of theocratic, extremist mass-murderers, men and women who have killed Muslim, Christian, and Jew alike, young and old, and almost always innocent bystanders in free societies. That small minority has terrorized large populations, enslaved women, killed Jews and homosexuals, launched a war against Western civilians, taken over whole countries, and targeted individual writers and thinkers for murder. With them we need a dialogue? With them we need an unremitting, unrelenting, unapologetic war.

Exactly.