"I'll have one espresso, please..."

Concerning a picture of Muslim activist Linda Sarsour raising her index finger, various CJM Civilians over at Jihad Watch speculate on how this has been for years now a pledge of allegiance to  an ISIS.

Then one of the Civilians -- Jihad Watch veteran commenter (and member of the "Rabbit Pack", one "PRCS") -- noted that Muslims were doing this before ISIS existed (as demonstrated by a photo montage he linked of Chechen Muslim jihadists doing the one-finger salute (supposedly) in the 1990s.

Indeed, the significance of a finger as a recognition of Allah's tawheed apparently goes back to Sahih Hadiths

Of course, it didn't occur to these various CJM Civilians that the extra-ISIS usage of the Finger of Tawheed is perfect kitman cover for Muslims pretending to distance themselves from the ultimate motives and tactics of ISIS.  As a form of taqiyya (deceit for the advancement of Islam), kitman specifically means "telling some of the truth but not all of the truth".

Thus Muslims like Linda Sarsour can proudly display their index finger, and then if someone insinuates they are telegraphing their support of ISIS, she can shoot back that they are being "Islamophobic" and/or "racist".  Such Muslims can simultaneously enjoy a public display of support for Islamic terror and a public disavowal of same (hence, stealth jihad) -- plus for good measure, another chance to point the finger at the supposedly rising tide of anti-Muslim "bigotry" over which the majority of Westerners continue to wring their hands.

"A triple espresso for the triple agent..."

On the "The Heroic Tamer El-Noury" -- a Muslim who has worked for the FBI for years as a double agent, helping them to foil Al Qaeda plots and nab key terrorists -- Hugh Fitzgerald, our reliably quintessential asymptote, writes:

But his heroism does not mean we need to accept El-Noury’s benign view of Islam. Hero he certainly is, but that has not made him a reliable guide when it comes to what Islam inculcates.

And, a little later in his report, when discussing how El-Noury otherwise -- when he's not valiantly hunting down the Tiny Minority of Extremists, doggedly insists that Islam is Peace and that Most Muslims Just Wanna Have a Sandwich -- Hugh adds:

But a different, and a better view, is that when El-Noury  misleads himself, and us, about Islam, we should not let his impressive work as an undercover agent cause us to silently accept his view of Islam.

Then Hugh concludes:

Our duty is to correct his misrepresentation of the faith. 

No, Hugh. Our duty is to stop trusting any Muslims.  Period.  When an intelligent veteran of the Counter-Jihad like Hugh Fitzgerald lets himself get fooled by an El-Noury, we can see why the deeper Stealth Jihad, using not double, but triple agents (the "Moderate Muslims" of the broader Western Mainstream, the "Secular Muslims" of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Leadership, and the "decent Muslims" of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Civilians), will likely succeed in destroying Western Civilization.

"I'll have a Kurdish coffee -- hold the whey..."

As I've noted before, the Counter-Jihad Maintream tends to romanticize certain classes of Muslims -- such as the Persian People, the Arab-Sprung Egyptian Democrats, and the valiantly Westernized Kurds.

This week, the latter crotchet was indulged by none other than the Poet Laureate of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, Hugh Fitzgerald -- and he wasn't content to indulge his Kurdophilia once, but in three separate essays in the span of one week.

Not only was Hugh writing in glowing terms about a people who are overwhelmingly devout Sunni Muslims -- if that isn't odd enough for an eminent writer of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Leadership -- he proceeded in these essays to expatiate upon a global policy using outlier Muslim groups (such as the Kurds, the Baluchis, the Azeris and others) as pawns -- heroic, valiant, praiseworthy pawns, to be sure -- in a Realpolitik strategy that sounds like Henry Kissinger and Daniel Pipes combined.

Sure, it's a Realpolitik that is grounded in a relatively healthy hostility to main Islamic actors on the world stage -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey -- but it hasn't accounted for the wild card: the millions of Muslims who have flooded the West, an incursion likely continue for decades to come, to the tune of many more millions of Muslims inside the West.  I might be supportive of Hugh's grand plan to use outlier Muslim groups with traditional grievances against the more powerful Muslims around them; but only after we have deported the millions of Muslims from the West.  For, what Hugh's grand plan is counting on is an escalation of the perennial internecine violence among Muslims -- which is fine and dandy as long this internecine violence doesn't spill over into the West, which it surely will as long as there are Muslims here and as long as the West continues its hostility to Islamocriticism (which it surely will as long as the Counter-Jihad continues to cultivate a diffidence -- if not an outright disdain for -- a rational prejudice against all Muslims).

Self-Serve Counter-Jihad

A rather startlingly substantive example of how Civilians of the Counter-Jihad (Mainstream) report more (alarmingly) useful information than does the Leadership.

Robert Spencer represents the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream. A better example of this unofficial position he enjoys than the name-dropping list of Counter-Jihad Mainstream celebrities (Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Gavin McInnes, Mark Steyn, Steve Bannon, Mkichelle Malkin -- of course Baron Bodissey, Debbie Schlussel, Diana West, and Frank Gaffney won't be submitting any, any time soon... and why have we not seen Andrew Bostom's name?), writing encomiums for his new book, would be hard to find.  On his flagship website, Jihad Watch, he reported a story recently:

Former Vogue model spent years in Muslim billionaire’s harem as his “pleasure wife”

Spencer then goes on very briefly to explain how in Shia Islam, functional prostitution is permitted under a category of holy “temporary marriage” and that “[s]ome Sunnis practice this also” (I've read it is not any less widespread among Sunni Muslims, so I'm not sure why Spencer is being so tepid here).

So that's it. The sum of the story -- as presented by the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Leadership -- is of a fat old Saudi Muslim billionaire seducing a naive, young, beautiful American girl to join his harem, and appended to that, how mainstream Islamic doctrine permits sex slaves slash prostitution.

Leave it to one of the many Civilians who left 79 comments to supply the deeper, more alarming purport of this story (the remaining commenters merely -- typically, for Jihad Watch comments -- indulged superficial emotion).  They may be read in these four comments by a "Jack Diamond":

Comment #1

Comment #2

Comment #3

Comment #4
 
But how many readers are going to even read the comments closely, much less plow through to find a diamond in the rough...?

"I'll have a triple jihadaccino -- but make it secular, please..."

In a recent notice on Jihad Watch in which Robert Spencer is touting his book and congratulating himself for owning the term "Islamophobe" in the context of juggling three things -- ridiculing that propaganda term; affecting to be one of the bestest, bravest, toughest Counter-Jihadists in the West; and virtue-signalling by distancing himself from the obviously white supremacist Richard Spencer -- he writes:

I want a society in which women, Jews, Christians, gays, secular liberals, and secular Muslims can live freely and without fear of being brutalized, victimized, or denied basic rights. 

For those who don't know that Spencer for years has been subtly & deftly tap-dancing around his stance on the issue -- and that years ago, he got into lengthy arguments with Civilians in Jihad Watch comments (when Jihad Watch readers actually had the cojones to dare to disagree with their Fearless Leader) because they were dismayed by how Spencer, at the time, insisted that he is "not anti-Islam" and "not anti-Muslim" -- his casual listing of "secular Muslims" as though that were a viable demographic out there will not surprise (see my two essays on this -- ...damned if you do... and ...damned if you don't...).

I wonder how many Jihad Watch readers this time around caught Spencer's Mohammedan Slip...?  Let's take a look, shall we...?

Well, I just reviewed the 39 comments.  Good Lord, it's worse than I thought.  36 of those 39 completely ignore Robert Spencer's "secular Muslims" -- while the remaining three actually praise him for it.

And, of course, of the Jihad Watch regulars there -- including "gravenimage" who makes it a regular volunteer duty of hers to point out where commenters are right or wrong about many different points in the comments fields of probably most of the Jihad Watch articles over the years -- not one of them takes these brown-nosers (let alone, heaven forbid, the Grand Poobah himself) to task.

"Coffee black -- with cream..."

Jihad Watch the other day reported an undercover operation, so to speak, conducted by a mainstream UK TV station, whereby they sent a white Englishwoman out into a Muslim neighborhood to learn what it's like to be a Muslim.  In order to facilitate the cover, they tinted her skin brown and added a prosthetic to make her nose look bigger (and of course added a hijab head covering).

I note that only two of the Jihad Watch comments even advert to this aspect of the story, which not only was headlined in the Jihad Watch report, but is also arguably the #1 reason why the PC MC-dominated West continues to placate Muslims, rather than condemn them for their Islam.

While those two Civilians in the Counter-Jihad at least noticed this most important factor, they seemed unduly surprised by it, as though it's not massively dominant throughout the West.

Similarly, a long-time Jihad Watch regular, "Angemon" (whom I dub the "Energizer Bunny" of the Counter-Jihad and member of the "Rabbit Pack" of Jihad Watch regulars) many moons ago seemed strangely incognizant of this factor, and added that to his long list of reasons to pester me in Jihad Watch comments incessantly for months if not years.

Thus, a typical complain I lodged there (under the nickname "voegelinian") two years ago:

“As for l’Andele, a few friends and I created it in 2014 after we saw that many of our fellow countrymen had to answer for their freedom of speech in the courts, on fallacious charges, often as a result of complaints from so-called “anti-racist” associations that are largely subsidized and politicized.”

This is like the 500 fucking thousandth example over the years of how the PC MC mainstream racializes the problem of Islam — and still Angemon doesn’t get it, and pesters me for calling attention to it. And then his friends here have the gall to chide me, instead of him for his egregious lacuna with regard to this massive, and important aspect of the Problem of the Problem (the problem, that is, of Western myopia to the problem of Islam, and resistance if not hostility to those who are calling attention to that problem)..

And I added:

And here’s the 499,000th example I came across recently — in the words of Sam Harris during his recent conversation with Muslim“Reformer” Maajid Nawaz at the Kennedy Forum at Harvard University. The context of Sam Harris’s words at this point was his complaint about the problem of what he calls “pseudo-liberalism” (by which he means what others casually call “liberalism” or “political correctness” – or what I mean by “PC MC”) — and how, as he rightly notes, we can criticize Christianity all day long, but –
“…the moment you try to shine a light on the problem of… Islamism…the full armamentarium of political correctness and… cries of racism just hits you full in the face…”
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI9QwEKqrso
But I guess on this point, Angemon knows better than Sam Harris, eh?

The reader can go to that thread (beginning here) to see how Angemon responded, in multiple, lengthy hit-pieces against me; and how another of the Rabbit Pack, "gravenimage", did nothing to assist me.

That wasn't the only time Angemon showed a strange incomprehension for the problem of the mainstream racialization of Islam.  As I wrote in another Jihad Watch thread a few months later that year:

[quoting the article at that time] “several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

And Angemon asks me where I get my notion that the PC MC mainstream West racializes the issue of the problem of Islam. Um, duh, from countless stories like this reported at Jihad Watch over the years.

Again, the reader can go to that thread to see how Angemon spun his maddening sophistry in response.

Finally (for now), perhaps the most direct example of Angemon's odd inability to grasp this point occurred a month later that same year:

Quoting me —

“2) Muslims are perceived to be a Brown People”

— Angemon typed:

“Maybe by you. Not by regular people.”

I don’t know what Angemon means by “regular people”. If he means the majority of Westerners, the he is woefully ignorant of the mass sociopolitical, cultural, psychological phenomenon of PC MC, which precisely racializes the problem of Islam the way I described.

Again -- if the reader has the stomach to tolerate it -- read the thread to see how Angemon uses sophistry to .... to do what, exactly?  And again, none of the other Jihad Watch regulars ever bothered to give me a helping hand, or to explain to Angemon how he was full of shit.

P.S.: I haven't seen Angemon in Jihad Watch comments for many months now; perhaps, since I've been gone from Jihad Watch comments since late 2015, he lost interest in what was evidently more important to him than the problem of Islam and the problem of the West persisting in its myopia to the problem of Islam -- namely, the problem that seemed to have consumed most of his energy: the problem of Hesperado.

"I'll have a cup of regular coffee -- and hold the caffeine."

In a recent Jihad Watch notice about a Muslim in Boston, Daoud Wright, found guilty of a plot to behead Pam Geller, Robert Spencer writes:

Why did Daoud Wright want to behead Pamela Geller? For the Sharia crime of drawing Muhammad. And in response, instead of standing for the freedom of speech, Western political analysts, including “conservatives” such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham, condemned Pamela Geller for “provoking” Muslims. Those people have no idea what’s at stake, or how seriously the freedom of speech is being challenged today.

Conspicuously absent from that paragraph is the name of Donald Trump -- surely as important, if not an even more significant "conservative" to stand on the wrong side of the Garland attack (not only because Trump went on to become President of the United States, but also because he has been one of the few of an already minuscule number of conservatives to show signs -- albeit ambiguously deviating lately -- of being on the right side of the problem of Islam).

Spencer's omission is even odder, considering how back in January he made no bones about Trump's error:

I am no fan of Trump. After he denounced our free-speech event in Garland, Texas, last May, which was attacked by Islamic jihadists, it is not at all clear that Donald Trump understands the jihad imperative or the war against free speech, or is at all equipped to counter them. When violent jihadis commit murder to prevent people from drawing Muhammad, to desist voluntarily from drawing Muhammad is to reward violent intimidation, and encourage more. When Trump said, “They can’t do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody?,” he was revealing that he did not grasp that essential point, and was willing to acquiesce to Sharia restrictions on the freedom of speech.

"I'll have a triple espresso -- oh, and use fundamental coffee, please, thanks..."

Today on Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer proudly features himself arm in arm with Steve Bannon, one of those conservatives with a no-nonsense swagger that triggers in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (both Leadership and Civilians) a free pass to use retrograde rhetoric on the problem of Islam.

Bannon, reports Spencer,

...said in 2016 that I was “one of the top two or three experts in the world on this great war…against fundamental Islam.”

To which we, outside the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, ask:

As opposed to non-fundamental Islam...?

You won't find that question in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream.  Which is why I have dim hopes that the Counter-Jihad in general (passively pushed and pulled by the tide of its Mainstream, whose influence remains unquestioned by a hapless Civilian body) will be able to do its primary job -- to wake up its surrounding Western Mainstream before Muslims succeed in destroying our civilization.

And if we few outliers in the Counter-Jihad have to explain to its Mainstream why the rhetoric of qualifiers and dysphemisms is crucially important to avoid when discussing the problem of Islam (and of all Muslims), that just goes to show how infirm & illiterate its Mainstream is.

Lapsus contra-jihadensis

Jihad Watch headline:

"Virginia man gets two years prison for lying to FBI about friend’s ties to the Islamic State"

Robert Spencer then writes:

Michael Queen appears to be a convert to Islam, as he says: “I’m never going to throw a Muslim underneath the bus to try to do the right thing,”

That is not a reasonable supposition, since there are millions of non-Muslim Westerners who are sufficiently deformed by PC MC so as to lead them to the reflex spasm of virtue-signalling which this Michael Queen fellow exhibits.

And not all of them are "Leftists" as Spencer has many times implied.   Indeed, that's the problem with PC MC: the Leftist worldview wouldn't enjoy the sociopolitical traction it commands were it not for the non-Leftist majority in the West being deformed by PC MC.

Allow me to vent...

As I sip my Venti...

My vent is not new, but harks back to 2014, when after (to toot my own horn) I supplied an interesting post chock-full of interesting facts and insights, one of the "Rabbit Pack" (one "dumbledoresarmy" from Australia) had to chime in to chide me.  Good times, good times...

(Note: my nickname at that time was "voegelinian".)

voegelinian says November 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Queen Rania [of Jordan] could well become the Muslim Princess Di — with her looks, charisma and her international human rights activities over the years (look over her Wikipedia bio, detailing a long list of ostensibly impressive deeds (deftly interwoven with the subtly and distractingly colorful chatoyance of Muslim concerns (e.g., “Queen Rania stated that she is not opposed to women choosing to wear the Islamic veil hijab by their own volition as long as it is not compulsory….”), accolades and honors) — if she had a good Jewish publicist and agent perhaps (I hear Ari Gold is available and taking on new clients). At first glance, I assumed she must be the princess-daughter of Queen Noor, another blonde babe (who looked like actress Lindsay Wagner); but now I learn that, of course, the new ruler of Jordan since King Hussein died of cancer in 1999 must be a male heir, and thus Queen Rania is an unrelated female (though, on second thought, given the Islamic penchant for inbreeding, I suppose it’s not unlikely that these Beverly Dunebillies could be marrying a second cousin or two).

One can surmise that, like father like son, the King of Jordan, Abdullah II ibn al-Hussein (who took over in 1999 when his father died), likes white looking blonde babes. His father not only married a blonde American beauty, Elizabeth “Lisa” Najeeb Halaby (born 1951 in Wash. D.C.), who went on to become the aforementioned Queen Noor in consort with her hubby habibi King Hussein, he had also married Muna al-Hussein — an Englishwoman formerly known as Antoinette Avril Gardiner (and the mother of his son the present King of Jordan, husband of Queen Rania). And while Queen Noor was a blonde American babe, she too was the progeny of Idiot White Western Females marrying Muslim men — specifically, she was the daughter of Najeeb Halaby, a Syrian born in Dallas, Texas in 1915 (!!!) whose Syrian Christian father (so Wikipedia tells us) emigrated to Texas in 1891 — and Doris Carlquist (Swedish descent — i.e., no doubt a blonde babe; divorced her in 1977). Her father Najeeb wasn’t just any old Syrian habeeb — he grew up to be an aviator, airline executive, and government official. He served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Truman administration, before being appointed by John F. Kennedy to head the Federal Aviation Administration; then following that he had a successful private-sector career, serving as CEO of Pan American World Airways from 1969 to 1972 (and more distinguished and lucrative stuff after that, including advising Saudi business ventures, etc.).

Aside from the gossip-magazine detail of this typically Arabic male penchant for the blonde babe that we see in the royal history (and, of course, of the disturbing penchant some white Western females evidently seem to have for the swarthy Arab male, blithely airheadedly, recklessly — yea traitorously — unaware (at best!) of the ghastly problems of their Islamic culture), there remains the Six Million Dollar Question: How did it come about that a Syrian Christian immigrant to the U.S. spawned a Muslim queen of Jordan (who, as Jihad Watch archives attest, has promoted Islamic evil in her own way — i.e., she has merely been a good mainstream Muslim)? A clue to the answer may be had in the Wikipedia bio of her father, Najeeb Halaby: Halaby’s paternal grandfather was Elias Halaby, provincial treasurer or magistrate in Ottoman Syria, who also came to the U.S. in 1891.

I.e., Najeeb’s grandfather was a Dhimmi.

dumbledoresarmy says November 20, 2014 at 7:41 pm

Mate. You seem to be assuming that any identifying-as-non-Muslim person from a Muslim country – even if they plainly identify as a Christian – IS a Muslim and must be treated as such. Dhimmi or dhimmified, yes, some of them are; but a dhimmi is still NOT A MUSLIM. A dhimmi is someone whose forebears, for generations, endured HELL – centuries of grinding oppression and abuse – rather than take that final soul-destroying step into the Void and say the Shahada. A western non-Muslim woman who marries a Syrian Christian or a Lebanese Christian will get married in a *church* not a mosque and her kids will be baptised in a *church*. They will go to Sunday School, if the family is practising, *not* a madrasa. That ain’t Islam and you can’t tell me that it is. And dhimmitude is a problem, yes, but I don’t see it as an incurable diseas or unbreakable curse. It *can* be shaken off. It can be rejected; as Fr Gabriel Naddaf is showing us right now, in Israel. If someone’s faith is in the Biblical God rather than in the monster allah, then that someone can – if other non-dhimmi Christians know what they are doing – be DE-dhimmified. (That, presumably, alas, didn’t happen in the case of Elias Halaby; which is tragic). Of course, since *you* don’t believe that the Biblical God, the YHWH of the TaNaKh, is anything other than some sort of comforting illusion or delusion and not capable of or interested in doing *anything* in the here-and-now with actual people’s lives, you assume that exorcism and spiritual deliverance don’t happen and can’t happen. The likes of Mark Durie, who have much more experience in these matters than you do, know that it *can*. I assume you would prefer that every last Christian in the middle east be ignored and abandoned to be sadistically mass murdered down to the last man, woman and infant by Muslims, than that they be given refuge in the Western or wider non-Muslim world? You view these threatened-with-genocide people as nothing but “plague dogs”?? Read Mark Durie’s The Third Choice – and the other book “Liberty to the Captives” – and learn something.

voegelinian says November 20, 2014 at 11:45 pm

Two words: Stockholm Syndrome.

voegelinian says November 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm

God this dumbledoresarmy pisses me off. How dare she elaborate obtusely on the premise of an utter lack of comprehension for the problem of dhimmitude, after all these years she’s spent digesting Jihad Watch.

"We only serve coffee beans here..."

A Jihad Watch Civilian poses the following reasonable thought process concerning the seemingly baffling nature of the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock:

It's clear from multiple studies that people become less violent as they pass a certain age, and violent urges tend to either diminish or just are not acted out when people get into middle age and beyond. There are personality traits linked to criminal behaviour, this is established, and the force of these “negative” traits weaken with age. Most violent offenders are relatively young…and more are male. Testosterone is thought to be one component as well, and it decreases with age. I can cite multiple references to support these conclusions; they aren’t merely my conclusions, but the consensus.

Now, these are general truths, and apply to most people. I realize this might not apply to Stephen Paddock as a person. He might have some kind of dysfunction. He might have testosterone increasing with age due to glandular problems. Highly unlikely! But possible. That in itself would manifest in other aggressive behaviours though Any kind of chemical change, be it substance abuse or malfunction bodily systems, would manifest in signs and behaviours. No one noticed anything odd about him. Still. He might be a total outlier. I might be wrong.

However, just examining the facts we do know I have to observe that for a man in his sixties to do something on this scale, especially with no former indications, something is very, very odd. It just does not fit. Very strange indeed. It flies in the face of all predictable data.

I would say that something happened to change the course of his life. Something unforeseen, and fairly recent...

If the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM) had better lines of communication amongst their Leadership (i.e., in this case, if Robert Spencer hadn't burned his bridges with Debbie Schlussel years ago), they could compare data and do their principal job in the CJM of informing the growing nucleus of people who are not being well informed by the mainstream on this most exigent issue.  In a recent posting, Schlussel reported the following:

Neighbors say Paddock and his girlfriend were “gone” for six months, last year. Where did they go? With whom did they meet? You can’t rule out that maybe they met with jihadists or learned about the precepts of Islam during that trip. I’ll bet you the FBI has no idea where Paddock and his consort were for those six months, just as they still don’t know where the San Bernardino terorists, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, were for 20 to 30 minutes between their terrorist attacks and their trip to the 72 virgins in December 2015.

Whatever happened to the Lady of the Double AA?

On Jihad Watch today, Hugh Fitzgerald resurrects that old bugbear of Jihad Watch, Mustafa Akyol (who, being a Good Cop Muslim, is easy to attack -- unlike a Maajid Nawaz or a Zuhdi Jasser -- by Counter-Jihad Mainstreamers like Hugh).

I fondly recall voluminous Jihad Watch comments threads where a "friend" of Robert Spencer elaborated at great length defending Mustafa Akyol along with his patron, the sinister Fethullah Gulen.  That friend called herself "Morgaan Sinclair" (and, of course, claimed it is her real name).  She proceeded to devolve in subsequent comments fields so outrageously, she was apparently banned -- as was I, for understandably lashing back at her after too many of her flagrant defenses of Muslims (including among other things, her vilification of Serbians defending themselves against Islamic jihad) in tissues of maddening logic.

Here's one example of many of Morgaan Sinclair's shenanigans.  Scroll down, and pop some popcorn to go along with your coffee.  (Note: my handle back then was "remote control".)

So Hugh in the article linked above in my first paragraph is shining a harshly skeptical light on Mustafa Akyol's claims to be a Muslim "Reformer".  Why is Mustafa Akyol any more suspect than any of the others in the long list of supposed Great Brown Hopes (i.e., Muslim Reformers) paraded before Jihad Watch readers recently by Robert Spencer's colleague, Christine Williams?

More importantly, why is this kind of question not asked on Jihad Watch by the Leadership and by the Civilians?  Why is it only left to me on some obscure nook and/or cranny of the Internet to raise it?