Fourth piece of the puzzle...

See Part 3 (and in that post, there will be a link to Part 2 which, in turn, contains a link to Part 1).

We continue this series, critiquing Robert Spencer's lengthy responses to pseudo-reformer Zuhdi Jasser.

Next quote by Spencer:

Jasser includes a practical argument: “So how is that I’m the lying jihadist [who ever said that?], but when the yin to the yang of jihad, which says, yes, the jihad is the only Islam, calls them out with no solution other than eternal war against twenty-five percent of the world’s population or a plan to convert them?” (Yes, his show is just as incoherent as that.) This is a common argument: we have to support the Muslim reformers because there is no other solution: we can’t have eternal war and the vast majority of Muslims aren’t going to convert to Christianity, so it’s the only alternative. The problem with this is that supporting Muslim reformers lines the pockets of Muslim reformers, but it really doesn’t do anything to stop the jihad. In reality, we need a comprehensive response to the global jihad that includes standing for our own principles as a nation: if we really had offered the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the freedom of speech, equality of rights for women, equality of rights of all before the law, etc., many Muslims would have come to our side.

Let's back up this piano movers truck a sec, shall we...?

Quoting Jasser -- “So how is that I’m the lying jihadist..." -- Spencer interjects within square brackets:  " [who ever said that?]".

Once again we see, in stark bold relief, what makes the Counter-Jihad Mainstream oh so safe, oh so careful... oh so mainstream.  The bolder civilians of the movement (apparently a minority, but perhaps a silent majority?) have no problem calling Jasser a liar, deceiver, taqiyya artist, stealth jihadist.  Why is it so hard for comfortably mainstream Counter-Jihadists to do this?  Instead of plain speaking, Spencer gets tied up in voluminous knots as he responds to Jasser's attack on the Counter-Jihad (or what Jasser calls the "alt-jihad").  And a good deal of that unnecessary complexity on Spencer's part is his careful avoidance of calling a spade a spade.

Moving on, why am I not surprised to see out of Spencer's pen basically the Lewis Doctrine:

...if we really had offered the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the freedom of speech, equality of rights for women, equality of rights of all before the law, etc., many Muslims would have come to our side.

The two Mainstreams converge into a vast swamp.  Speaking of swamps, I have some in Florida I'd like to sell all the Jihad Watchers who have no problem with Spencer's view here.