Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Still asymptotic after all these years
After all the evil and lethal crap that Islam oozes and spews -- not merely over the centuries, decades, years and months -- but just in any given past week, I continue to see Jihad Watchers (or we may call them "AIMers" (for those within the blurry lines of the Anti-Islam Movement) or "Counterjihadists" or "Anti-Shariaians") pull their punches with regard to what we should do about the problem.
I invite the reader to merely scan the headlines on Jihad Watch for this week. Then perform the unremarkably reasonable operation of thought that realizes this is but a tip of the horrible iceberg.
Ensconced in a ledge at the crest of this week's peak of that mountain -- or rather volcano -- of the evil lava of data about Islam we may call Mt. Jihad Watch, one such Jihad Watcher ("Anushirvan") has this to say about the fact that the T.S.A. is employing hijabbed staff:
I would even go as far as stating that some people, whose roots can be found in certain countries, just may have to be totally exempted from being allowed to work in any airport security function or even from any function within a Western airport, period. Which in my mind would have absolutely nothing to do with excluding ethnicities, but everything with common sense that puts public security first.
Apparently, "Anushirvan" thinks he's advocating a tough no-nonsense policy, when he dials down what we can do in the face of dangerous Muslims, and arrives at an irrational delimitation far short of the only prescription that makes sense:
All Muslims must be excluded from all venues and institutions where the slightest inkling of a possibility for a terror attack is possible.
This prescription, of course, would be the last, and ridiculously encumbered, stand before the most rational policy of all: total deportation.
"Anushirvan" and all the others in the A.I.M. who similarly advocate half-assed piecemeal measures with an anxious eye out to avoid offending PC MC, should know better.
A second example of a person with one foot in the A.I.M. (since it's not clear he is actually against Islam per se) is another frequent and long-time commenter on Jihad Watch, "Kinana of Khaybar".
A few weeks ago, he wrote this in a comments thread at Jihad Watch:
My view is that the harsh elements of sharia should be banned (e.g., the laws against and penalties for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, etc.) and that those who try to implement such harsh and unjust aspects of sharia should be legally prosecuted and punished. I oppose Rojas' proposals viz Muslims who are following the laws of the land (in this case the U.S.) and are simply following and practicing Islam as a personal faith like Jews, Christians, and others.
Even more disquieting is the fact that the person he wrote this to, Barry Sommers -- another ostensibly anti-Islam individual, a teacher who attempted to teach a class about Islam in a community-college in Oregon which was dropped by the college because they caved to C.A.I.R. allegations about him -- replied in that same thread to "Kinana of Khaybar" that he essentially agrees with his anxious concern to safeguard Muslim rights.
Why are so many within the ragged boundaries of the A.I.M. asymptotic? That question seems to be a mirror-image of the why of PC MC itself. It's even more aggravating, since Jihad Watchers have even less of an excuse than do PC MCs. One can only conclude that the A.I.M. is still struggling, more or less consciously and coherently, with the very process of trying to reconfigure the paradigm shift that brought PC MC itself into dominance. Part of that continued intellectual (and emotional) struggle reflects the retention, to one degree or another, of the PC MC disease.