Double your jihad, double your fun

This morning, before I was even able to down my penultimate gulp of coffee, I learned that Ramzi Youself, the mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (in which six people were mass-murdered and over a thousand injured -- which means that many, if not many more, were intended to be mass-murdered) was also convicted in a plot to bomb a dozen American planes from the sky. 

Ah, yet another Islamic plot to mass-murder us -- this one evidently hatched in the 80s or 90s -- which I'd never heard about till just now, to add to the long list.

Not to mention the Mohamedan mass-murderer in Toulouse, France, Mohamed Merah now -- according to a BBC report -- reasonably considered part of a global jihad network:

Mohamed Merah made "1,800 calls to over 180 contacts in 20 different countries."

(Remember that Mohamed Bouyeri, the slaughterer of Dutch artist Theo Van Gogh, was a member of a terrorist cell, the so-called "Hofstad Group", with nearly 20 members mostly Dutch-born Muslims as well as Moroccan immigrants, including two Dutch converts to Islam and two women, and one Syrian Muslim -- all with connections to the 2003 suicide bombing of Casablanca.)

And let us not forget, for another example -- to pluck it out of thousands from a non-Sikh turban -- the so-called "blind sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and destroy several New York landmarks, including the U.N. building and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

For which part of Rahman's résumé do we think the newly minted Arab-Sprung Muslim-Brotherhoood Obama darling President of Egypt, Mohammed Mohammed Morsi (yes, that's two Mohammeds -- as the old chewing gum jingle goes, "Double your jihad, double your fun") wants his sentence commuted in order to have him released and returned a free man back to Egypt? For his participation in an assassination plot on the evil tyrant Mubarak; or for plotting to mass-murder New Yorkers and destroy NYC landmarks? For the former? For the latter?

Let's go with the jihad jingle: for both.

Further Reading:

It's the Violence, Stupid

This Arlandson guy is getting on my nerves

James M. Arlandson has been publishing a series of essays about Islam on Jihad Watch for two months now. So far, Jihad Watch has featured at least eleven very long essays by Arlandson.  Each essay tackles a major subtopic of Islam, and is broken down into sections (following a brief introduction) by which to examine that subtopic -- "The Quran, The Hadith, Classical Law, Modern Islam" -- followed by a conclusion.

As Arlandson writes in his own boilerplate introduction to every essay:

This series on Islamic shariah law is intended for educators, legislators, city council members, lawyers, judges, government bureaucrats, journalists, think tank fellows, TV and radio talk show hosts, and anyone else who occupies positions of authority and influence. 

I.e., his intention is to educate (and influence) sociopolitically influential people in the West about Islamic Sharia.

This would be peachy, if the project were not flawed with asymptotic assumptions which may well tend to reinforce the very same PC MC we are supposed to be trying to disabuse these influential people of (and thereby tending to reinforce the continued amplification of more and more Islamic infiltration into our societies -- a process that continues to chug hummingly ahead with no sign yet of any hint of anyone entertaining the dim possibility of even remotely edging toward the distant vicinity of applying any brakes).

When I first saw the Arlandson project, I thought I'd take a look-see.  Sure enough, the first couple of installments had problems.  In the comments thread of his very first, titled "Introduction to a Series on Islamic Shariah Law", I posted a robustly no-nonsense critique.

In that critique, I also adverted to the fact that two other Jihad Watch readers before me had spotted problems with Arlandson's essay as well, and I theorized that what may be afoot with his series is a kind of Christian Wilsonianism that hopes for an Islamic reform perhaps both because it's the Christianly humane thing to do, and because it will facilitate a Christian conversion of Muslims probably more than would a policy of grim and implacable self-defense.

Whatever Arlandson's motive is, the more pertinent point involves the flaws in the ointment.  I encourage the reader to read my critique -- for it is too long and detailed to include here.

Incidentally, after I posted that critique there (posting under my current nickname there, "LemonLime"), a long-time Jihad Watch reader, "Battle_of_Tours", wrote:

Very good LemonLime, excellent summation of where this whole Islam as 'religion' fails miserably...

And even my nemesis, "Kinana of Khaybar", rather than attacking me (as he normally would), ignored my comment, and instead took Arlandson to task far more thoroughly than did I.  He wrote:

Arlandson's piece is a big disappointment for me, because I am an admirer of his work after having read many of his articles over the years...  Unfortunately, the present piece suggests the author has taken too many steps down the path of accommodationism. I'm not sure how much of this accommodationism is just the usual persuasive writer's method of trying to appear impartial, but assuming these are Arlandson's genuine views, I have to say it suggests a surprisingly naive view of Islam's and sharia's supposedly innocuous elements.

And indeed, in subsequent comments, Kinana of Khaybar went on to articulate an excellent analysis diagnosing the faults in Arlandson's piece, with an excellent follow-up, and then an equally excellent conclusion.  This three-punch knockout combination of analyses proved devastating to Arlandson's thesis in that essay.  Of course, neither Arlandson nor his patron, Robert Spencer, saw fit to respond at all, and the latter continues to publish him on Jihad Watch full steam ahead.

Following that essay, I was understandably Arlandson-leery.  I approached further installments in the series as though looking for Waldo; and wouldn't you know it, as Bart Simpson remarked on one of The Simpsons episodes, as he pointed to the cover of a copy of Where's Waldo? that was literally littered with a dozen Waldos in plain view -- "Man, they're not even trying anymore!"

In his essay "What is Shariah?", for example, I found indications of a tendency to reinforce the meme of Koranic pre-eminence that relegates the hadiths to a relatively minor importance -- when just the reverse would seem to be the case, at least according to an expert on Islamic law, Chibli Mallat, with ostensibly more academic cred than Arlandson (and a Muslim to boot).  I developed an essay on this -- The Koran's important, but don't forget the hadiths -- which I published over at the 1389 Counter-Jihad blog (the reader should also see the comments there, where long-time Jihad Watch reader "traeh" brings up some good questions and I try to respond).

Another Arlandson essay in the series -- Free Speech In The Quran, Traditions, and Shariah Law -- showed disturbing signs of what seems to be thematic for the whole series: namely, an unrealistic expectation of Islamic reform because somehow the modern world may well be changing Muslims for the better.  As I wrote in the comments thread to that essay:

[Quote:]

The expectation of reform in any part of Islam, among any number (however small) of Muslims, is worse than wasted energy: it positively reinforces the dangerous meme that enables false moderates to further infiltrate our societies.

And, as part of my reasoning for [this]...  while Arlandson handles the public letter of Muslims about cartoons fairly well, his citation of Mansour is not only unhelpful, but positively inculcates the kind of false hope that will tend to enable the stealth jihad.

The rule of thumb for us is to assume that a learned Muslim like Mansour who claims to think that Islam can jettison the hadiths and just float on the Koran -- and then adds insult to injury by thinking that the Koran can be twisted to be a benign, productive motivating force for hundreds of millions of Muslims -- must be either 1) clinically insane; or 2) precisely doing stealth jihad through deceitful tagiyya.

There is no third alternative by which to explain such "Koran-only" Muslims.

For, if even a "reform" committee of learned Muslims from Moderate, Modern Turkey concluded that Islam cannot tinker with, but must rather fully accept as normative, the entire sahih hadith corpus as is, how is one Mansour, or even a smattering of Mansours peppered here and there going to make one whit of difference to the problem we face?

In fact, the only effect of a Mansour will be not on his fellow Muslims, with rabid fanatical and OCD zeal believing in the 1,001 Dos and Don'ts of Mohammed as gleaned copiously from the hadiths by their jungle of respectable fiqh scholars and Q&A clerics -- but rather on our persistently gullible Westerners who continue to hold out a vain hope for a sufficient mass of reform amongst the world's Muslims, who are showing no signs of any reform but are rather showing the very Allahdamned opposite, massively and globally for anyone with sense with an eyepatch on one eye and an astigmatism in the other to see.

[End quote.]

Then we were treated to another in the Arlandson series -- Mosque and State in Early Islam -- in which he put his foot in his mouth in a rather egregious way: he touted the Muslim snake Mustafa Akyol as a "modernist" emblematic of the type of Muslim who should instill hope in our expectation of Islamic reform.  I don't usually use the word "eviscerate" -- whether describing other authors or myself -- but I must say, the essay I wrote in response to this grotesque faux pas -- Arlandson never fails to disappoint -- does rather eviscerate him in this regard.

After that, I gave up on Arlandson and didn't bother to read him anymore.  Today, however, I made the mistake of taking a dip into his latest -- "Marriage To Prepubescent Girls In Early Islam" -- just to see if perhaps he wasn't so bad.  

Alas, alack, alay.

There, Arlandson writes:

...many Muslim nations have reasonable legal ages to marry, though tribal customs sometimes follow the old ways. Nonetheless, these new and modern laws demonstrate that Islam can be reformed...

No, these laws do not demonstrate that Islam can be reformed. How absolutely, breathtakingly silly of Arlandson to so assert, notwithstanding all his rubrics, headings, and subheadings that structure his Edifice of a Series, undergirded by his copious footnotes. 

Those laws to which he refers rather demonstrate that the combination of Western Colonialism -- which went in and physically forced Muslims to modernize -- along with the post-Colonialist legacy of semi-West-friendly Muslim dictators dictatorially blunting the flowering of full Sharia (for which Muslims are forever voracious), led to the peculiar situation in the 20th century of various patchwork Muslim countries manifesting a variety of semi-civilized policies and laws (which, however, needless to say, were nowhere near enough to sufficiently mitigate a variety of hideous horrors and atrocities throughout the Muslim world). The "Arab Spring" has shown that Muslims in mass numbers want to topple the only rulers who were trying to enforce -- if only partially (and of course inadequately) -- brakes on, and dilution of, Sharia with mild, and partial, introductions of Western-style policies and laws. 

Also, Arlandson's showcasing of one Muslim's hypothesis about why Western/American Muslims seem to be more modern and secular sends the wrong message. In doing so, Arlandson may well be (unwittingly, of course) aiding and abetting the stealth taqiyya (stealthy to dupes only) of "Haider Ala Hamoudi... an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law". 

After all we have learned about Muslims and their deceitfulness and deadliness, we are supposed to take, without so much as a grain of salt, the word of some Mohammedan barbarian occupying a faculty position in hallowed Pittsburgh -- a city that, for all its urban blight and problems, is infinitely superior to any Muslim hellhole ruined by Muslims in the world now, and throughout all Islamic history?

No: the only salt relevant here need not be "of the earth" We-Are-The-World-wise, but rather, wisely world-weary, and fleeing from the whole evil lot lest we turn into one of their Five Pillars, would remind us of the savor of Carthage.

Time is running out.  We don't need 1,001 "Islam 101"s -- particularly not ones with holes in them.

Incompetent, or Inimical...?

This video, titled Dishonorable Disclosures, assembles an impressive array of U.S. military and intelligence experts, including a few who have had years of experience on the ground in Iraq and/or Afghanistan (including a couple of Navy SEALs). 

Essentially, what becomes clear from the observations and analyses of all the experts marshalled in this video, along with the commentary that ties their various remarks together, is that Obama's bin Laden op involved, at the very least, a "large print giveth, small print taketh away" -- i.e., Obama got to enjoy the immense political capital from finally killing bin Laden, the evil Moriarty who had eluded Bush for 8 years, while at the same time the way Obama leaked all the details of how we did it has seriously compromised our military and intelligence in terms of exposing our tactics, not to mention exposing innumerable individuals to potential harm.   

At approximately the 13:30 mark of this 20-minute video, it also delves into other important leaks by the Obama administration of its own tactics and military technology -- after all, Obama is the Commander-in-Chief ultimately overseeing all American military and intelligence strategy and operations -- including his drone assassination program, and perhaps more grimly, Stuxnet, our joint American-Israeli program of undermining computer networks, which helped to retard Iran's nuclear capabilities for years.

What disturbs about this video report is the clear pattern exposed: effectively, Obama has been assisting our global enemy, the Islamic jihadists.  Whether his behavior in this regard is either a matter of gross incompetence, or treasonous subversion, it is difficult to determine.  There doesn't seem to be, however, a third explanation.

Interlude #7

A scene from the 1973 TV movie, Coffee, Tea or Me?

(Not to mention this...)

Ah, the good old days of flying, when all stewardesses had to worry about was banana marmelade; and when the occasional hijackers just wanted free transportation and actually were sane enough not to be suicidal for their god...

Spooked again

About two years ago, I wrote a critical review of the popular BBC drama Spooks (or MI-5 as it is known in the U.S.A.). At that point, I had only seen the first season and two episodes of the second season.
 
Then about a year ago, I wrote an update of that show, after having watched most of the following six seasons, clear up through the end of season 7.  

At the time of my initial critical review, I saw a dismaying pattern to the plots and scripts of this show intended to be a gritty, cutting-edge action show about a leading counter-terrorism unit: Instead of focusing on the actual terrorism of the daily news -- Islamic terrorism -- the show consistently deflected that in order to uncover the supposedly "real" terrorism between the lines. Consequently, every terrorist and terrorist organization under the sun except Islamic was trotted out to flesh out the plots -- Russian terrorists, shadowy Euro businessmen terrorists, environmental nutjob terrorists, right-wing Christian terrorists; and, of course, the always reliable (but increasingly irrelevant) IRA terrorists. On the rare occasions when the story line revolved around a Muslim terrorist plot, the Muslims were carefully framed as a "tiny minority of extremists" (often contrasted with one or more token "moderate Muslims"), and invariably the players were discovered to be pawns in the deadly game of some sinister non-Muslim cabal who were thus the "real" danger.

This pattern of PC MC deflection only continued through all its subsequent six seasons, showing a pathetic deficiency in progressing along the learning curve about the one topic that was supposedly at the heart of this television drama. 

In fact, even that is too kind: All these seasons of Spooks have shown an apparently willful desire to artfully obfuscate the role and significance of Islamic terrorism, through weaving all sorts of plots in which it figures at best tangentially, and most of the time, at worst, as a positive decoy for the "real" dangers our societies "really" face from various dastardly non-Muslim groups and individuals out there (including from within our very own institutions at the highest levels) far deadlier -- the message being telegraphed is clear -- than Muslims. 

Disgusted, but drearily unsurprised, I just stopped watching, even though the show was chugging along in popularity, promising to be perhaps as long-lived a show as the American ER (indeed, Spooks is still going strong).

On a lark one evening, about two weeks ago, pottering around my ranch West of the Pecos unusually bored (which is saying a lot), I was browsing around in my Netflix account, and noticed that all the shows of Spooks were available for free streaming -- right up to the present, which seemed to be season 10.  I figured I'd give it one more try.  Perhaps the show's producers, directors and writers had finally begun to wise up a little.  So I sampled the first show of season 8.

Again, I was impressed by the quality of the direction, writing and acting, and the obvious money the producers had to film on location.  The story began with the kidnapping of the head of MI-5 (Sir Harry Pearce, played by the stolidly girthy thespian Peter Firth brimming with Shakespearean gravitas) by some terrorist group.  As his team is rushing to try to get intel on what group has kidnapped their boss, and where they are located, the initial reasonable suspicion is that it was members of S.A.R.V. (the "Sacred Army of Righteous Vengeance"), which the lead agent describes as an "extreme Islamic group" (which I suppose is better than "radical extremist fundamentalist ultra-conservative Islamist Wahhabist Salafist group"...).  In fact, the team receives a communiqué minutes later, in which S.A.R.V. apparently claims responsibility for the kidnapping.

Finally, an actual Islamic terrorist group, to start out season 8 with a bang!  Perhaps they had finally wised up, I thought to myself, pouring another glass of Malbec.

I should have known never to trust anyone in our mainstream culture.  Within five minutes, the lead kidnapper takes the mask off the face of the bound and gagged Sir Harry, and reveals himself:  a non-Muslim Indian "ultra-nationalist" pretending to be a Muslim, to throw off the scent of the intelligence agencies.

Trembling, sweaty, my left eye flinching like the beleaguered Herbert Lom's Inspector Dreyfus, I reached madly for the remote to eliminate this monstrosity from my presence, so I could subside back into a whimpering, weeping, insanely cackling heap in the dark.

A belated note to reader "Westward Ho"

I'm doing a rather extra-ordinary thing here, trying to contact a reader by making the communication a main post.

To "Westward Ho", who commented occasionally and always supportively: I only just now saw something that happened long ago -- a very strange incident.

There were about 25 comments attached to an old essay of mine about the departure of Hugh Fitzgerald from Jihad Watch, titled Hugh Fitzgerald: another fleeting glimmer of the hallowed interiors of the Gentlemen's Club, written back in December of 2010.  What I only learned just a few minutes ago was that several comments written by reader "Westward Ho" were deleted.  What's exceedingly strange is that each deleted comment has a message:  

This comment has been deleted by a blog administrator.

The only problem is that I never deleted those comments!  I would never delete any comments, and I have never deleted any comments -- even offensive or off-topic comments (and anyway, Westward Ho was a supporter of my blog).

Where it gets even stranger is that no one has the ability to delete a comment as a "blog administrator" except me -- or someone who has come to know my password.  The only explanation for this is that some individual who works for the Blogspot corporation that owns this website of free blogging went in specifically to delete Westward Ho's comments -- which doesn't make sense; or they gave, or sold, my password to someone else.  Or, someone hacked my blog -- but only to delete those specific comments by Westward Ho.  (A previous comment there by Westward Ho remains intact.)

Another interesting detail is that after that string of Westward Ho deleted comments, there is a comment by me.  Mine is time-stamped "12:36 PM" while the four deleted comments by Westward Ho are time-stamped in a cluster around approximately 2:30 PM -- which, apparently, would mean the day previous to my comment.  My comment doesn't seem to register any cognizance of anything amiss, and I can't tell if I even saw the now deleted comments.

My comment begins:

Westward Ho,

Strange -- I had added a rather extensive comment, but returned here to see it never appeared.

So apparently Westward Ho's comment wasn't the only thing deleted -- only my disappeared comment has no trace at all.  (This wouldn't be the first time for such an anomaly; back in the months preceding Obama's election victory, in my essay arguing for voting for McCain -- as bad as he is -- over Obama -- one of Obama's supporters, the Muslim chaplain James Yee, posted a comment saying nothing terribly remarkable, just some bromides about how we all need to get along and not be "intolerant", etc.  Then some weeks or months later I happened to want to copy his comment and when I went back in, it had vanished without a trace.  When a commenter deletes his own comment, there is always a trace -- a message much like the one I pasted above, only saying something like "This comment has been deleted by the commenter."  In this case, however, there was not a trace that a comment had ever existed.  Indeed, there are "no comments" at all for that essay, but I distinctly remember reading Yee's comment, and I think I commented on his comment as well.  This can only mean that the owners of this Blogspot site went in and deleted it, probably on the request of the Obama campaign -- or, again, that it got hacked just to delete that comment (and mine in response); even though the comment was entirely, even boringly, harmless.

Anyway, if you're out there Westward Ho, I just wanted to let you know I never deleted those comments.  I'm sorry I never went back in to check that thread.  Do you remember what you wrote, by any chance?

Thanks,

Hesp

"I'd like to buy a mega-mosque for Marvin Gardens..."

About a comment that a long standing Jihad Watch reader, Kinana of Khaybar (KK) (and then some guy I've never seen before (or since) on Jihad Watch -- "Juan" (my Hispanic gardener who had a fling with my ex-wife?) -- wrote on Jihad Watch, I wrote:

As cogent as Kinana Khaybar is on the other points of his argument, I think he (and Juan) are strangely underestimating the sophistication and superiority of the West vis-a-vis the invading Muslim hordes. The West isn't some natural landscape that the Muslims will simply overrun given enough time. As Muslims continue to press closer their demands, things will change, and the West will be provoked, and this provocation will be a protracted, complex process.

I.e., Muslims in their attempt at conquering the West are not simply overrunning some backward Third Water waterhole like 9th century Indonesia -- nor even 15th century Byzantium which, as comparatively great as it was, cannot hold a candle in terms of sophistication on all levels to the modern West. But, in the minds of Kinana and Juan, they may as well be.

In impetuous response, KK's spastic elbow responded:

Hesperado continues with more false attributions...

Then he quoted one sentence from my comment I posted on Jihad Watch:  

"I think he (and Juan) are strangely underestimating the sophistication and superiority of the West vis-a-vis the invading Muslim hordes." 

Upon which he reiterated:  

False.

First of all, KK is cherrypicking. Second of all, "false" is not the correct word to use here, even if he disagrees. I didn't write: "KK believes in X"; I wrote (to paraphrase the pertinent gist in this regard): "I think KK is underestimating X". At worst, this would be a matter of my impression being deemed to be mistaken or incorrect or inaccurate. After properly characterizing my flaw as such, then, KK would then have to present an actual artument -- if he wants to persuade his rational audience, that is -- showing how my impression is actually mistaken or incorrect or inaccurate. Now that we have that mess on aisle 9 mopped up, let's proceed to the meat and potatoes of the problem KK has created with his impetuously anxious riposte. 

KK had gone on to write:  

I believe the West is as sophisticated as all get-out and is overall better than any other culture. 

However, my argument was not based on an impression that KK did not think, speaking in broad generalities, that the West is sophisticated -- even as all get-out -- but that in his concerns about the threat of expansionist Muslims, he did not, apparently, include one important feature of the civilizational sophistication of the West: namely, that it has evolved strong and healthy societies whose strength and health are not the simple virtues of some strong and healthy farm community in 18th century Finland defending their homestead from a pack of wolves but which, rather, reflect a complex richness of superiority on all levels of both technical and sociopolitical infrastructure -- and that, given that, Muslims in their long-term goal of conquest of the West will not be able to traverse from point A (as they are now throughout the West) to point C (actual conquest), without going through the stage of point B. 

It is at the moment of transition from point A to B where the theoretical problems arise as we conjecture about the future. And by "moment" I don't of course mean an instant in time, but a pivotal juncture in history, which may take decades to unfold. During this moment of the transition from point A to point B, it is my reasonable conjecture that 

1) Muslims will press their issue of aggrandizement within the West in ways that will be more vividly aggressive and intrusive than heretofore, and that all their speech and actions heretofore have enjoyed the fudge factor of ambivalence, whereas when they begin to press their issue of aggrandizement past a certain point, they will perforce behave in ways (including violence that qualitatively and quantitatively will make 911 seem like a fireworks display in a parking lot, as well as including beheadings in broad daylight on the streets of Paris, London, Toronto, Las Vegas, etc.) that will arouse the West -- including the majority of fence-sitters and non-Left PC MCs -- from its torpid myopia; and that 

2) as intimated in my final phrase in #1, the West will be roused as it had not been roused before; and that, once roused, it will begin to join action against Muslims. 

At that point, it will be too late to follow KK's sound pre-emptive advice of stopping immigration and deporting most Muslims in any clean and orderly way -- for at that point, there will devolve a breakdown, and military & police actions will necessarily become involved. This moment, of 1 + 2, will then likely initiate a concatenation of events that will devolve into something tantamount to more or less generalized civil unrest and insurrection from the Muslims, and forceful violent counter-reactions from the West. (And, of course, as part of the mix, the non-Muslim West will not be perfectly unanimous in its self-defense, but will likely go through some internal dissensions and disagreements, if not a few cases of outright treason). 

We can call this concatenation of events a #3 after 1 and 2. My argument rests on the reasoned assumption that a #3 is inevitable, given that both 1 and 2 are reasonable assumptions; and given a trust that the West is sophisticated in the sense that it will not let #1 go on steamrolling into conquest of the West by Muslims without putting up a concerted fight. 

#3 then links up to a #4 -- another reasoned assumption: namely, that once the West is roused to see the problem and to fight back (helped enormously by Muslims no longer able to control themselves and dropping the mask en masse as they smell blood and think the time is ripe for them to really make a go for outright conquest, rather than continue their long game plan of deception combined with tactically minimal terror attacks here and there), the West will -- and will be able to (given, remember, its sophistication, astronomically superior on all levels to Muslims by comparison) -- do what it has to do to finally put out the lights of Islam and its agents, Muslims. 

(My perpendicular argument which I've been articulating for ages here and on my blog is that, were the West to wake up now, rather than to wait until it's ridiculously almost too late (remember, I say "almost" too late), the West could by deporting Muslims ASAP (where "as possible" of course must deal with the obstreperously obtuse reality of Westerners yawning and stretching and squinting in the soft morning sun in their comfy PJs as they slowly wake up to their house on fucking fire) pre-empt that cataclysmic crisis coming up like a preposterously massive train-wreck. But, if the West, as is likely, given most indications of the continuing resilience of PC MC, does wait until it's almost too late, then it will have to deal with Muslims in much more horrific ways -- you know, approximately like we did to the Japs and Krauts in WW2.)

Now, I said I would deal with the "meat and potatoes", and I saved the filet mignon for last: In his original post to which I responded (triggering KK's subsequent complaint about me supposedly making "false attributions"), KK wrote: 

Islam is rapidly increasing in size, strength, and fervor in the West, while Western civilization is rapidly declining and weakening. Muslim populations are youthful and strong, non-Muslim Western populations are old and weak. The continuation of these trends if not countered by powerful opposing forces, policies, and actions will probably result in Muslim majorities by the mid to late part of this century, which will probably involve the imposition of sharia law on the remaining non-Muslims. In the meantime, life for non-Muslims in the West will continue to become more and more dangerous and precarious. 

Then, a little later, wrote: 

Since it is also highly improbable that those in positions of power will ever adopt any significant form of policies (1) and (2), the Islamization of the West to the point that sharia becomes the law of the land in several major Western countries by mid- to late-century is practically assured due to factors a-f, above. 

KK's a-f factors may be summarized thusly: 

a-b -- demographic disparity: Muslims growing in population in the West, Westerners dwindling 

c -- Islam and its Muslims are not reforming, but showing signs of becoming more virulently un-reformed 

d -- Westerners are doing little if nothing to counter a-b-c, while more often indirectly facilitating a-b-c 

e -- Western MSM is pro-Islam 

f -- Western academe is also pro-Islam, and both e and f greatly influence (negatively, obviously) the West's intellectual capacity to respond to the problem of Islam.) 

And now for the money quote from KK:  

Regardless of what Soderin et al. think, Canada, most of Europe, and Russia will probably become Muslim-majority and under sharia law by the later part of this century, unless the powerful Islamic demographic and ideological trends are opposed.

We have a choice: We can either A) Act soon and take the relatively harm-reduced options of cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West, or B) We can accept that the West will be under sharia with a Muslim majority in several decades time, and that massive numbers of non-Muslims will be slaughtered, raped, tortured, terrorized, plundered, subjugated, and enslaved in the process of Islamization, and that our civilization will be erased from history as Muslims complete their process of conquest. 

So, the problem with KK's position as I see it (and now I'm articulating it in more detail than in my too brief former comment), is that, after rightly assessing the various factors of the problem of Muslim aggrandizement in the West (which, of course, already rightly assumes their unique evils and dangers), and after rightly assessing current and ongoing Western myopia ineffectively dealing with this aggrandizement, KK assumes that, unless the West soon takes the forceful actions of "cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West", the West will be taken over by Muslims. 

In laying out his projection this way, KK appears to be ignoring the reasonably expected possibility I described in my #2-#3 above. But, as I see it, Western sophistication, while it may involve many other qualities, also involves the fact that Westerners, even after letting Muslims get away with penetrating their aggrandizement further, will not let them get away with this process after a certain point where the evil, injustice and danger of Muslims becomes clear as it has not yet become clear due to the fog of PC MC. 

And "not letting them get away with this" means that generalized insurrection and civil unrest will devolve, concomitant with Western counter-measures, leading to something resembling a civil war (except that the Enemy in this case will not be Western, but will be a foreign virus inside our Body Geopolitic). 

And, consequent upon the first point which KK is apparently ignoring, he is also apparently ignoring the reasonably expected possibility that the West will win this coming "civil" war.

Of course, it is highly likely that the whole thing will be a horrible bloody mess, and a lot of the horror and blood and mess could have been avoided were we the West to follow KK's prescription -- cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West -- but that doesn't mean, as KK apparently thinks it means, that not following his sound prescription will lead us and force us automatically to go straight to Islamic Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Take a Card, and Give Up Your Hotels On Marvin Gardens and Park Place.

Postscript:

For the record, I published all of the above (sans a couple of minor editorial tweaks) on that Jihad Watch comments thread in question, and KK had nothing cogent to say in response (though he did respond); which any intelligent reader can see for himself -- and I welcome any of the latter to try to make a case here for any misunderstanding I might be argued to be laboring under.

Update:

In a surreal morphing of the situation, Kinana whines about how I'm ruining his experience (and speaking for them, everybody else's) in Jihad Watch comments threads -- meanwhile, of course, multiplying his mischaracterizations of my arguments and positions with monstrous red herrings, straw men, and other logical fallacies.

Then from on high -- literally, as he notes he's on a plane whilst doing so -- with amazing alacrity Robert Spencer leaps into a thread already at that point moribundly archived to console Kinana, practically palpably petting him on the hair of his head and saying "There, there, my little child..."  Then, dismissing me as a "clown" he promises he will ban me "ASAP" -- once his plane touches the tarmac.

 

Then, since that time (approximately a day ago), after he complained that he doesn't have enough time to do productive things and that I am somehow to blame for his lack of time, Kinana proceeds to concoct monstrously obsessive posts (like this one) supposedly documenting how maniacal and inimical to Jihad Watch I am.  My ripostes may be found here, and one I particularly like, here.  After quoting his complaint about a previous comment of mine in which I took him to task for mischaracterizing tendentiously (one of dozens of things he has mischaracterized about me) my participation in a project with him and two others to construct an anti-Islam manual --

"If you want to continue this pointless discussion, I suggest you do it on your blog. I'm not interested, and Jihadwatch doesn't need this."

-- I responded:

I'm not the one continuing this madness. I thought you didn't have time, and that you needed to do something productive with the time you have. Why don't you start doing that and leave me alone.

Let's hope to Allah he does; though I fear we are dealing with someone unstable who will not listen to reason.

"Moderate" Egyptian President Morsi releases Islamic terrorists from prison to walk the streets free

From a recent report from Reuters (relayed by Jihad Watch):

Egypt’s President Mohamed Mursi has freed a group of Islamists jailed for militancy during Hosni Mubarak’s era, a step seen as a gesture to hardliners who supported his presidential bid. 

 And who were these "Islamists" freed by the newly elected, "democratic" President of Egypt?  

Those released in recent days include members of Al Gama'a Al Islamiya, jailed during the group's armed insurrection against the state in the 1990s, and Islamic Jihad, the movement behind the 1981 assassination of president Anwar Sadat.

Hm.... Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, eh?

Surely 1997 isn't so long ago, is it? I know our collective memory is short, and we've already put 911 long behind us, but surely we can close our eyes, concentrate, and try to go back a mere 15 years. That was the year of the massacre of tourists in Luxor, Egypt, by Muslims who happened to have been members of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.

From a BBC retrospective published in 2002 on that massacre:  

On 17 November 1997, 58 tourists were murdered in Luxor, Egypt. 

... The attack took place at the Temple of Queen Hatshepsut, one of Egypt's best known tourist sites. There was only one armed guard at the temple. No resistance was met by the six young gunmen as they unleashed a hail of bullets [using machine-guns, I might add].  

The tourists had little chance of escape. Four Japanese honeymoon couples, 36 Swiss and three generations of a British family from Yorkshire including a five year old girl, were among the victims.

The BBC report adds:  

The exiled militants responsible for the massacre were leading members of Egypt's largest Islamist group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya.  

And here's another report of the Luxor massacre:  

Badawy Ahmed Salem, 33, a cab driver, said the gunmen fired at tourists on every level of the temple. "Then they started getting out knives and stabbing people," he said. "They were pulling tourists like sheep on the floor and slaughtering them. We were up to our knees in blood. Even those who did not die will be dead psychologically."

Police exchanged fire with the gunmen, killing one at the scene while the rest fled in a commandeered bus. Over the course of the next several hours, police killed five more gunmen when they sought refuge in nearby desert, authorities said.  

The attack was the most lethal incident of violence in Egypt since Islamic fundamentalists launched their campaign to topple the secular, military-backed government of President Hosni Mubarak in 1991.

Also, the report added:

 About 25 people, 16 of them foreigners, were wounded in the attack. Many of the injured were evacuated by air ambulance to Cairo.

I.e., the Muslim mass-murderers that day were intent on killing far more than the eventual death toll of 58.

Afterword:

While various MSM reports at the time and in retrospect claim that the Islamic terrorist group Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya soon thereafter "reformed" itself and "renounced violence", this is egregiously misleading: What actually happened was that Mubarak cracked down on them so hard (including exile, indefinite imprisonment, and doubtlessly horrible torture in prison), that they pretended to renounce violence, and hunkered down to wait for the day, the day which would surely come -- Inshallah! -- when the True Believers would topple this un-Islamic tyrant Mubarak and bring back true Islam!

And lo and behold, that has come to pass with the recent revolution and the Arab Spring; and with the blessing, no less, of the President of the United States, the majority of clueless Republicans, and the vast majority of even more benighted Democrats -- along with, of course, nearly the entire news media of the West, not to mention probably most Ordinary People throughout the West into whose thick skulls one would try to knock some sense, to little avail.

Every Which Way But Anti-Muslim

Re: A report on Jihad Watch of an imam in a mosque during his sermon vociferating for violent jihad and brandishing a gun (i.e., a normal day in Islam), a Jihad Watch reader comments:

"Shouting and yelling and roaring and screaming immoderately, it's how we see crowds are being managed and directed in those parts. Gesturing, posturing, play-acting. Fake spontaneity guided along. "Allahu-Akbar" left, right and centre. The Grand Gesture to impress impressionable minds. Mr Ordinary in the beginning who to his embarrassment discovers himself standing out from the crowd is a moment of brief entertainment." 

That Jihad Watch reader is superimposing Western sensibilities on Muslim psychology/sociology. He has not a shred of evidence upon which to base his superimposition; except, perhaps, a dash of wishful thinking, and the force of suppressed subliminal dread and anxiety, lest the thought that Muslims actually are, en masse and individually (if one can even speak of "individuality" when speaking of Muslims), inherently and thoroughly and uniquely fanatical.

I've noticed this particular meme creep its way into the Counter-Jihad, as a way perhaps to cope with the horror, the full catastrophe that is Muslims and their Islam -- the meme, I mean, of positing that most Muslims, when they are not "ignorant of their own Islam", are more or less passive victims of the strong-arming psychosocial pressures from a tiny minority of fanatical rabble-rousers and imams.

There is not a shred of evidence for such a meme -- there is only anxious wishful thinking + the impulsive reflex to trigger the unreflective axiom in one's mind that "Hey, Muslims are human, too; so they can't possibly be as massively and uniquely fanatical, hateful and murderous as they seem -- at least not one billion of them spread out all over the world...! It can't be!" And so, one anxiously infers, it therefore isn't.

It's just one more way for those who've timidly ventured their big toe into the Counter-Jihad to eat their cake of avoiding the condemnation of Muslims (beyond an ethically tolerable minimum, that is, short of the dreaded All word) as they still have their cake of patting their no-nonsense selves on the Anti-Islam back.

Every which way but anti-Muslim.

In fact, the opposite meme is a more grimly reasonable and persuasive inference to make, given the mountains and mountains of indicative data we rest on here, on July 30, 2012, atop Mt. Jihad Watch (are JW readers really actually reading all this grotesquely horrific shit day in and day out? or are they somehow screening out or softening its full terrible impact with perhaps a residue of the PC MC filter in their minds? one wonders...), along with the oceans of dots crashing their criss-crossing waves against this mountain's lower slopes; a million dots that positively scream for connection by anyone with half a brain.

Dy-No-Mite!

An interesting recent news story reports that a couple of ancient statues dating back to the Hittite Empire (approximately the 2nd millennium B.C.) of life-sized lions were discovered in Turkey. Aside from other interesting details to the story, what caught my Hesperado eye was this part: 

The story of the discovery of the massive lions began in 2001...

The Karakiz lion was found dynamited in two, likely in the mistaken belief that it contained hidden treasure. 

["likely" means you don't know, you're just guessing this must be the motive -- I mean in a country full of Muslims, there couldn't possibly be another motive for destroying the artifacts of another culture, right...?]

"There's this belief that monuments like this contain treasure," said Summers, explaining that the dynamiting of monuments is a problem in Turkey. "It makes the Turkish newspapers every month or so." 

The second lion, found to the northeast of the village, had also been split in two. As a result of this destruction both lion sculptures, which originally were paired with another, now mainly have one lion intact. The danger of new looting loomed over the researchers while they went about their work. 

In the summer of 2008 evidence of "fresh treasure hunting" was found at the ancient quarry along with damage to a drum-shaped rock that, in antiquity, was in the process of being carved. 

Let's see...  Take the Islamic doctrine of jahiliyyah (i.e., the destructive contempt for any other culture that preceded the glorious revelation given to Mohammed); mix it with the actual destruction, using dynamite, by Muslims (with Saudi and Pakistan engineers helping out, by the way) of ancient Buddhist Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan in 2001; add a dash of revivalist Muslims in the Maldives smashing statues in their National Museum in February of this year; throw in another pinch of a glimpse into the breadth and depth of the problem of Muslims vandalizing the cultural artifacts of other cultures; leaven in this story of general Islamic destruction of cultural artifiacts with Muslims in Mali putting it into practice; sift in the fact that six years ago, the two top Islamic scholars of the Sunni world based in Egypt, Ali Gomaa and Sheikh Qaradawi, issued fatwas against statues calling them haram (forbidden) "as long as they symbolise living entities such as human beings and animals" leading some in Egypt to genuinely worry that the ancient Egyptian artifacts -- including temples pyramids and the Sphinx -- could be blown up in terror attacks following these fatwas; blend in a half cup of the fact that the recent "Arab Spring" in Egypt has freed up pent-up Islamic calls to destroy the pre-Islamic Egyptian heritage of ancient archeology; and, finally, spoon in the fact that Turkey is predominantly Muslim and has been becoming increasingly Islamic in the last decade thanks to a concerted process there by Prime Minister Erdogan and others to undo the decades of secularization laid down by modern Turkey's founder, Ataturk...

And now, after our fruitcake has fnished baking, would we so glibly assume -- as do those Turkish spokesmen quoted in that article we cited at the top -- that the destruction, of the two Hittite lions in Turkey, using dynamite and other means, along with all the other "vandalism" of other artifacts which the article indicates seems to be quite an ongoing problem for Turkish archeologists, is merely due to "looters" doing their dirty work merely for the universal human sin of greed?  

Or could another motive be afoot here?  You know, that very widespread motive of pathological fanaticism which nearly the entire West with its collective head in the sand persists in ignoring: the Islamic motive -- to, among many other pernicious things, efface all traces of the interesting glory of past epochs and other cultures which flourished blithely without Mohammed and his deranged Koran.

Interlude #6

Perez Prado and his Orchestra

"Que Rico El Mambo"

Starring:

Resortes

 Rita Montaner

 Nini Marshall 

 Amalia Aguilar 

The itsy-bitsy minority of extremists

 

Climbed up the water spout 

Down came the rain 

And washed the minority of extremists out 

Out came the sun 

And dried up all the rain 

And the itsy-bitsy minority of extremists 

Climbed up the spout again. 

If only it stuck in the craw as unreadily as it trips off the tongue. 

At any rate, an interesting datum uncovered by the great David Littman helps to refute that titular dogmatic mantra which our mainstream media and politicians and academics routinely spoonfeed us. 

In one of his many reports presented boldly just within the ambit of smelly teeth of the lion's maw, the United Nations, back in February of 2004, Littman adverted to:  

... the declaration adopted at the 18th meeting of foreign ministers of the OIC held in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) on 13-16 March 1989, which "had proclaimed, in unambiguous terms, the apostasy of Salman Rushdie".  

The OIC, of course, is not the Mohammedan version of the OC, but is rather the the Organization of International Cooperation -- the international body of all Muslims countries on Earth, represented by both the political and the religious leaders of every one of those countries. There is no way even a sophistical Muslim or Leftist could possibly spin the OIC as representing anything other than the solid majority of Muslims around the world. 

Littman continues:  

Indeed, the 44 foreign ministers present at that meeting did promulgate a ban on [Salman Rushdie's book] The Satanic Verses, but they did not comment on the fatwa that sentenced its author and publishers to death. However, they did pronounce Salman Rushdie to be an apostate. 

They did this one month after Iran's Grand Ayatollah pronounced the death sentence which immediately became world news. Obviously, the OIC was making a pointed show of official support for that fatwa (if cleverly fit with plausible deniability). 

And, as Littman points out what we should all know by now:  

...the traditional interpretation of shari'a law requires that the punishment (hadd) for an apostate (ridda) should be death – one of the three cases where a Muslim's blood may be legally shed... 

Where Littman erred, unfortunately, was in his conclusion: 

...we maintain that it is the OIC that should declare the fatwa contrary to all the human rights norms which UN Member States have ratified. 

If Littman meant this rhetorically, as a way merely to shine a light on the reason why the world should condemn Islam and all Islamic nations as roundly and doggedly as they condemned Apartheid South Africa, then his conclusion is fine. But one senses a lurking Wildersianism there, somehow; an expectation that Muslims can, and will, really change to comport themselves to our principles of justice. 

Really, we should know by now, that any stern rebuke of Muslims that reserves its teeth in the expectation that Muslims should be given the chance to reform serves pretty much the function of a briefly adverse splash of water on the spider which will temporarily shrink out of sight, only to return when conditions are propitious again -- as they will continue to be for the aggrandisement of Islamic infiltration into the West, as long as the West persists in the pleasant delusion that oil and water can mix.

"Multiculturalism has failed"

 Many moons ago, a commenter at Gates of Vienna, one "Armance", commenting on the remarks made in February of 2011 by British Prime Minister David Cameron to the effect that "multiculturalism has failed", may have hit the nail -- or at least a nail -- on the head (or at least a head):

What they mean by ["multiculturalism has failed"] is that "the majority is guilty for not doing enough to integrate and accept the ethnic, religious and racial minorities. Please, can I have more money for inclusion and integration governmental projects, at the expense of the European taxpayers? Thanks."

I.e., there are two ways to regard something as a "failure":

1) the underlying intentions and goals are good, but the execution has failed

2) the execution has not failed -- it simply exemplifies the rotten substance that permeates the project (which should be scrapped altogether).

Now, when I intimate that multiculturalism should be scrapped altogether, I only refer to the Ism that has developed over the past half century, not necessarily to the wider, more amorphous Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman virtue of universalism, of which that Ism is a derivation and deformation. There are many in the anti-Islam movement, as well as many "conservatives" who may or may not be in the anti-Islam movement (if only because they don't say where they stand on that issue or have not fully clarified whether their opposition to various "Islamist" things reflects an opposition to Islam itself, or just to some "extremist" truncation leaving the main trunk of Islam un-condemned), who seem to express an ethnographic/cultural purism that is unrealistic. I do not necessarily oppose the efforts of any given Western region to maintain some type of system of management whereby it has the right to pursue limits on immigration and limits on the demographic aggrandizement of any given foreign ethnic people within its borders; however, when such a project would be pursued in too artificial a manner, it would begin to resemble the very Socialism and tyranny these Western conservatives otherwise oppose. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that any democracy has the right to set limits on immigration, and if those immigrating are mostly non-white non-Westerners, such limits should not be prejudicially labeled as "bigoted" or "racist".

Additionally, we should discriminate clearly between two classes of non-Western immigrants: Muslim and non-Muslim. The latter should be given preference, even if there will be imposed certain limits, as suggested above. The former, however, should be considered a unique class, and immigration should not only be halted, but those who are already within the West should be deported. The reasons for this have been discussed here and elsewhere in great detail. In a nutshell, it is based on the fact that the Islam which Muslims follow is much more than a mere religion: it is a detailed and fanatical blueprint for sedition -- necessarily integrating ultra-violence -- against any political order that does not submit to Allah and to the laws of Allah as set forth by Mohammed. 

It is the Ism of Multiculturalism which has forced upon the West a rigid axiom by which the above clear discrimination is not only avoided, but often positively penalized, usually through the ostracization of career and political suicide, sometimes through more formal methods of criminal prosecution based on various forms of "hate speech". This is so mainly because of the obvious racial complexion in the ethnography of Muslims -- which is no accident, but reflects the historical fact that Islam spread mostly through non-Western, non-white regions in its fanatically intolerant and savage imperialist expansion. Indeed, under the Ism of Multiculturalism, of all groups perceived as "ethnic", it is Muslims who, in the last decade after 911 -- by virtue of the accident that they are largely non-white non-Westerners combined with the willful malevolence of their violent fanaticism -- have become the most preferred non-Western people of all.

Time and time again, I have seen politicians and analysts lament that Muslims are not "assimilating" -- this lament clearly couched in terms of continuing to promote the persistantly failing project of assimilation (though one can always point to the seemingly Westernized stealth Muslims as "proof" of the assimilation whose failure to succeed is otherwise bemoaned).

Where that project continues to show signs of failure, is where the rubber meets the road that divides the anti-Islam observer from the PC MC multiculturalist:

The former will recognize that Muslims are solely to blame for that failure, because their super-culture, Islam, has deformed them to a point where success (on a scale sufficient for our safety needs) is impossible -- and where most, if not all, apparent signs of success are in fact stealth jihadism by slick Muslims pretending to be Westernized.

The latter -- the PC MC multiculturalists -- will continue to scratch their heads and wonder why so many Muslims are failing to assimilate, and will tend to locate sources of that failure in our Western system, in poverty, in our Western tendencies toward bigotry of the Other, perhaps timidly stepping their toes into the waters of possibly considering that a "tiny minority" of Muslim "extremists" and other Muslims recently "radicalized" may also be making matters worse -- but never ever considering that Islam itself and its poisonous hold on the hearts and minds of Muslims is the sole cause of this failure.

I tells ya, I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.  (Beginning...!? saith the joshing demurrer.)

If you can't bitterly contort your lips into something resembling a wry, and infinitely jaded smile just this side of a painful grimace; you have to cry.

Further Reading:

Healthy Multiculturalism and Unhealthy Multiculturalism

More years of mountainous growth

I don't remember when I wrote the following words.  I remember writing them as a comment in the comments field of some Jihad Watch article or other.  It doesn't really matter which, or when.  Ah, now I see, as I scroll down and re-read it: I wrote it back in February of this year.  And the "mountain" I refer to harks back to an essay I wrote in 2010 called "Mt. Jihad Watch" -- in which I likened Jihad Watch to a growing mountain of data about the deadly horrors of Islam as it metastasizes in its revival in our time.  

At any rate, I could have written these words at any given month in the past six or seven years.  It wearies, it maddens, it aggrieves that after all these years, so many in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is) still don't seem to get the full catastrophe (to paraphrase Zorba the Greek) of the problem.

Anywho.  Here are those words:

Until I see a person writing or hear a person saying that they support total deportation of all Muslims from the West -- while they are otherwise obviously not shy or tongue-tied at all about regularly expressing many other sundry thoughts on the matter -- it is entirely reasonable for me to assume they oppose total deportation of all Muslims from the West.

And that position which I think should be supported I also think rationally flows from this ever-growing mountain of alarming, grotesque, ghoulish, deadly data upon which our comments rest near this week's peak of Mt. Jihad Watch which, unfortunately and grimly, continues to mount ever higher because of fresh oozing and spurts of the evil lava of the Islam Muslims around the world continue to enable and aid and abet -- when they are not with demonic fervor putting it into bloody practice.

Indeed, we're not just talking about a growing mountain to help lead one to a conclusion which over-the-counter Counter-Jihadists for the most part continue to fail to arrive at, even as otherwise they schizophrenically demonstrate their "livid" reactions and their "stunned" dismay at every new outrageous atrocity perpetrated by the Muslims du jour; we are talking about a metastasizing mountain. Its peak upon which we stand this week, with the years of hardened, multifarious evil documented below us, is getting so high, we are running out of air, and out of time.

And as we already see yesterday and today, the peak is still mounting ever higher above our heads, with fresh stories about ever more Muslims here, there and anywhere around the world (and within the West) demonstrating their propensity in their many-splendored diversity for deadly sedition and fanatical supremacism. The crest of the peak, which we can still see, for we stand near it now on February 24, 2012, will soon -- again, as it always does -- extend too high to see, as Muslims continue to supply us with ever more data; and just as surely as they will, so too will Jihad Watchers continue to be "livid" and "outraged" and "stunned" and otherwise dismayed and shaking their fists -- meanwhile refusing even to consider the only reasonable option pertinently related to the nature of the problem: extricating the entire population of Muslims from the West. 

It's not that it can't be done, technically, or pragmatically, or perfectly legally (given that Muslims follow an ideology of deadly sedition that has already mass-murdered Americans and Westerners on our soil, with every reason to suppose further plots -- worse and more horrific plots -- are being planned now). It's that Second Person Plural (Y'all here at Jihad Watch and elsewhere in the anti-Islam movement), and Third Person Plural (Them Liberals Out There) don't want to -- with both these pluralities painfully ironic bedfellows in this one agreement.

I'm sure what you're doing in your offline life is productive; but productive of what -- the half-assed measures of "limiting" immigration to only Muslims about whom we already know they are "extremist", and only monitoring Muslims and mosques about whom we already know they are "extremist", etc.? Such measures are pertinent for individuals and groups about whom our Western virtue of innocent until proven guilty reasonably applies; but not for a group that we have, again, a burgeoning mountain of data to indicate represent a metastasizing, internationally networking, deadly fanatical intent to commit mass violence anywhere at random in places and at times we will not often be able to predict -- a mass-murderous intent based upon a 1,400-year-old and still going strong (indeed, getting worse) doctrine of sedition.

Now, if we could winnow out the dangerous "extremists" from the masses of supposedly harmless non-"extremists" when considering the total population of All Muslims, then half-assed measures would be reasonable. But since we can't, they aren't.

Further Reading:

See what Jihad Watchers Eric Allen Bell, the H.M.S. Wellington, gravenimage and dumbledoresarmy (et al.) have to say about moi with regard to sentiments more or less the same as above, in this comments thread from 2012 at Jihad Watch.  See particularly the last three comments -- by me, response by dumbledoresarmy, then final word from me; but also scroll through searching for all my comments (under my moniker at the time, "LemonLime"). 

And for an exhaustive treatment of this problem, see:

My problem with Jihad Watchers

Interlude #5

Not only unsquare, but unhalal, too:

Dave Brubeck's experiment in 7/4 time, Unsquare Dance (1961).