Yes, the above has become a cliche. But because the cliche reflects a narrative that many people are not buying, it's become a bitterly sarcastic cliche. I think that when a narrative becomes a sarcastic cliche, it's worth taking a closer look at the narrative.

For many years I lived in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. I grew up there, then returned years later as an adult, so I think it's fair for me to say that I know the place. So I was particularly shocked to learn yesterday that a fellow Montgomery County resident -- a woman named Colleen R. LaRose -- has been arrested and charged with plotting the terrorist murder of one of an artist who drew a portrait of Muhammad:

She is white and has an American passport, so "JihadJane," a.k.a. Colleen R. LaRose of Montgomery County, decided she was an ideal candidate to carry out a terrorist attack in Sweden, federal prosecutors alleged yesterday.

The target was Lars Vilks, who in 2007 drew a portrait of Muhammad to test "the limits" of artistic expression.

The result was a series of death threats, culminating yesterday in the indictment of LaRose, 46, on charges of conspiring to provide support to Islamic extremists with whom she allegedly plotted to kill the Swedish artist.

Only a few American women have been indicted on terrorism charges. National security officials have feared Islamic extremists could recruit Western-looking women to carry out attacks.

LaRose was arrested in October, but her incarceration was kept secret until her indictment was unsealed yesterday afternoon.

American and foreign governments used the time to sweep up an extremist network in Ireland, according to news media in that country. The Irish Times said seven men, most from Islamic nations, were arrested as part of a plot to murder Vilks.

Two American officials told The Inquirer that the charges against LaRose were connected to that investigation. According to prosecutors, on Aug. 23, LaRose flew to Europe "with the intent to live and train with jihadists, and to find and kill" Vilks.

Her itinerary in Europe has not been disclosed. LaRose was arrested at Philadelphia International Airport on Oct. 16 when she stepped off a plane from Europe. Her Internet postings sympathetic to radical jihad attracted the FBI's attention.

It's a simple question: what would make this American woman suddenly decide to murder an artist for his exercise of a right all Americans take for granted? And what would make her quite willing to lay down her life in order to accomplish such a sinister goal?

According to the indictment, LaRose replied: "i will make this my goal till i achieve it or die trying."

LaRose had a difficult time finding money for the trip, however. In July, an accomplice posted an online appeal for money.

In September, apparently when she was in Europe, LaRose e-mailed the South Asian man that it as "an honor & great pleasure to die or kill" for him. "Only death will stop me here that i am so close to the target."

It often strikes me that much of the condemnation of these radical Islamic groups as being something other than Islamic is not coming from Muslims, but from non-Muslim Westerners. How are they to know? And why aren't they as quick to condemn abortion clinic bombers as "non Christian"?

Do these terrorist incidents involving American Muslims in fact have nothing to do with Islam? I would be delighted were that the case (as it would be easier to sleep at night), but I'm not so sure it's that easy. These are tough questions which don't lend themselves to either glib denial or simply looking for and finding support for whatever it is you might want to hear. (Those who want denial can easily find it, as can those who want to find support for waging war against all of Islam.)

What made me want to examine the implications of the "nothing to do with Islam" meme was Roger L. Simon's discussion of a disagreement over Geert Wilders between Charles Krauthammer and Paul Mirengoff.

While supporting his free speech rights (as of course I do),Krauthammer disagrees with Wilders' generalizations about Islam:

What he says is extreme, radical, and wrong. He basically is arguing that Islam is the same as Islamism. Islamism is an ideology of a small minority which holds that the essence of Islam is jihad, conquest, forcing people into accepting a certain very narrow interpretation [of Islam].

The untruth of that is obvious. If you look at the United States, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the U.S. are not Islamists. So, it's simply incorrect. Now, in Europe, there is probably a slightly larger minority but, nonetheless, the overwhelming majority are not.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

Who is right? What is Islam? Is it the people or is it the text? Not being an Islamic scholar, it isn't easy for me to say, and I suspect that even if I were an Islamic scholar, that wouldn't make it any more clear, as the Koran is loaded with contradictions. On one place, its "Kill them wherever you find them" and in another it's said to be a "live in peace with the People of the Book" narrative. (An old, unsettled, ongoing debate.... And not a new one here.)

Roger thinks that Islam needs a reformation, and I couldn't agree more. At minimum, there needs to be a reformation of interpretation. Christian texts were once interpreted as condemning all Jews as Christ killers, but they no longer are. Religious texts need to be seen and placed in the appropriate historical context; just as today's Jews and Christians agree that neither homosexuals, Sabbath-breakers, nor children who disrespect their parents should be executed, Muslims ought to get with the times. I realize that there are radical Christian crackpots who believe in implementing Old Testament law to the letter, but such groups are in a very tiny minority and simply cannot be compared in number scope or influence to the growing forces of radical Islam.

Roger is right to be concerned about the blurry line between Islam and Islamism:

If Wilders is correct, and the line between Islam and Islamism is as blurred as the Dutchman posits, then we in the West are in very deep trouble indeed.

How I wish this had nothing to do with Islam.

MORE: This video by Pat Condell illustrates the insanity with stinging irony: