"Hey Flo, I'm in the mood for a lemon meringue pie with my coffee today...!"

 

Back in the day, about half a decade or so ago (give or take a deep depression about the West's Denial about Islam or two), I was posting comments on Jihad Watch as "LemonLime".

Over the years, I had many different nicknames there (this name-changing due in large part to my getting banned by Robert Spencer for being...  too anti-Islam -- and, joined at the hip with that, criticizing the Counter-Jihad too much for their dereliction of duty apropos of what one would think was their primary obligation, to wake up the West to the problem of Islam; the actual problem, not some whittled-down fantasy version of it after surgically detaching enough of its monstrous tentacles so it can fit into one's tidy box to make one feel better about the growing, horrific train wreck that is unfolding in this 21st century).

Hold on, I need a swig of coffee.

Okay, back to my post.

Below I quote one example of what I was writing, and one can sample many more by consulting this Google page.

LemonLime says Jan 30, 2014 at 5:36 pm

Have we in “quovadis2014” a Jihadica expert? Might as well be. The notion that just because Muslim Group X is being attacked by Muslim Group Y, that automatically means Muslim Group X is moderate, is not only a silly formula, it would be downright reckless endangerment of our safety were it to influence our policy vis-a-vis Muslims. Oh wait, it already is influencing our policy vis-a-vis Muslims — which is why we’re in the disastrous pickle we’re in now, with no end in sight to the morosophs (“learned fools”) who advise and steer our ship of fools of state, the U.S.S. Titanic Redux, in and around tips of icebergs our gaggle of captains and their ensigns think are harmless flotsam and jetsam. 

Please, in this tiny, beleaguered outpost of Canaries in a Coalmine, candles flickering in the wind, We few, we happy few, we band of brothers in the Counter-Jihad, let us come up with something different than the mainstream, rather than the SOSO of the TMOE meme that is killing us (Same Old Same Old of the Tiny Minority of Extremists). 

Note: the "quovadis2014" character I was responding to had just prior deposited this turd:

quovadis2014 says Jan 30, 2014 at 9:34 am 

“For months now numerous people have claimed that if we didn’t aid the Syrian “moderates,” they would have nowhere to turn but to the “extremists.” We aided them, although not as much as some people would have liked (including Barack Obama and John Kerry), and they turned to the “extremists” anyway.” The FSA we didn’t fund militarily ended up being attacked by Al-Qu’eda (ISIS). The FSA a did NOT “turn to” or join ISIS. The mere fact that the FSA and ISIS are fighting it out to the death in Syria is evidence that it’s moderates vs extremists.

"Waiter, my coffee is clear and my bottled water is muddy..."

I've written a lot of favorable stuff about Stephen Coughlin, an eminent warrior-of-ideas in one important battle space of the Counter-Jihad -- namely, the strategy of subversion Muslims are pursuing against us in the long-term.

In the spirit of quality control, one must regrettably point out weak spots in Coughlin's analysis. This I did in an essay on my erstwhile blog, The Hesperado, way back in the early summer of 2016:

The Name Game

“Barista-terrorista, I'd like a juicy plum on a silver platter along with my decaf frappaccino, please...”

It was August 20 of last year (2018) when I finally decided -- after the catastrophic shipping accident of my beleaguered battleship, the H.M.S. Hesperado (which ran aground after more than a decade of rough sailing off the treacherous shallows of the Two Mainstreams, while its captain went down with the ship, mulling a pair of ball-bearings in his hand) -- to “re-enter through the side door” -- i.e., to re-start an anti-Islam blog, here on this parcel of lagoon sand, as far away from my shipwreck as possible.

As I recouped and resettled here, I wasn't at first quite sure how to proceed. I had a vague sense that I didn't want to embroil myself in the kind of deep analysis and meticulous documentation that characterized the old blog, but other than that, I wasn't clear on what I was doing here, exactly, other than exorcizing the same old demons that have haunted me since my first rude shock in the months after 911 (which I alluded to briefly in a recent Daily Decaf shot, Conservatives for Islam).  I have realized that perhaps my true métier in this regard is not so much the primary problem (P1 = Islam), nor even the secondary problem (P2 = the problem of the Western mainstream dealing ineptly with P1), but rather the tertiary problem (P3 = the problem of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream dealing ineptly with both P1 and P2): the problem of the problem of the problem.
 
Hence my new blog name -- “The Daily Decaf ” -- where the “decaf” denotes the insipid inadequacy of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, tending to serve up a watery, decaffeinated swill in place of the strong coffee we should be waking up to.

One of the main ways the Counter-Jihad Mainstream does this is by its seemingly studied avoidance of taking the bulls by the horn of the problem of Islam -- as the following problematic complex:

The problem of mainstream Islam (Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam) and, by logical extension (especially given the related problem of taqiyya & stealth jihad), the problem of all Muslims.

Not only will you never see the problem framed this way by anyone in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream, you will routinely see various subtle ways of wriggling out of this or even ways of subverting it.

(Of course, we haven't yet nailed down what exactly the problem of Islam is; that's another kettle of fish (or bucket of eels) for another day, which I got into recently here on the Daily Decaf, in my posting titled More thoughts for a rainy day and coffee: "The Counter-Jihad is grinding its gears...")

Anyway, speak of the devil, we have a recent juicy plum in this regard from the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream Leadership, Sir Robert Spencer:

I don’t generally use the word “Islamist” myself, as it is too often used in order to establish some artificial distance between aggressive, violent, imperialist and supremacist political Islam and a supposedly benign ordinary Islam. But in every other respect, Said Shoaib and Hamed Abdel-Samad say in this important interview things that I have said for years: that Western politicians who make pronouncements about Islam are naive and ignorant, that charges of “Islamophobia” are used in order to mask an insidious agenda, and that Islamic supremacists and jihadis aim to destroy Western civilization, as the Muslim Brotherhood stated in a captured internal document. Are Said Shoaib and Hamed Abdel-Samad “ignorant Islamophobes”? Are they “racist bigots”? Or do they speak unwelcome truths that are no less true for being unwelcome?

Spencer's deployment here of the Big Print Giveth, Small Print Taketh Away tactic is breathtaking in its audacity (or is it obtuseness?).  In the very same sentence, he is virtue-signalling first to the Counter-Jihad Mainstream how robustly tough he is by refusing to use the dysphemism “Islamist”-- and in the very same breath he deftly virtue-signals to the broader Western Mainstream (which the Counter-Jihad Mainstream is supposed to be opposing in this specific battlefield (viz., the problem of Islam) of the War of Ideas) by defining his alternative to that dysphemism as just another Allahdamned dysphemism, “political Islam”!  Did Spencer honestly think the reader would be fooled by that crop of preceding adjectives -- “...aggressive, violent, imperialist and supremacist political Islam...” -- into thinking he wasn't in fact just substituting one dysphemism for another?

Hold on, Mr. Daily Decaf -- my readers may object -- how do you know Spencer meant it this way?  A fair question, and one I can easily dispatch using Spencer's own words in previous writings of his.

For example, as I discussed in a recent Daily Decaf posting, Spencer wrote this:

There are indeed Muslims who are “driven by an ideology” and other Muslims who “practise their own religion in their own way with their own family and their own friends,” that is, Muslims who are bringing Sharia to the UK and advancing the cause of political Islam, and those who are not. 

Or how about this:

Sisi’s regime isn’t perfect. Muslims are still brutalizing Christians in Egypt, and the government has done little to protect this despised and defenseless minority. At the same time, Sisi is a bulwark against political Islam in the Middle East. With Turkey rapidly re-Islamizing and the Islamic State still in the picture, that is important. So after the Obama administration’s unwavering support of the Muslim Brotherhood, this is most welcome.

 Or this one, (titled with breathtaking chutzpah (or obtuseness?), Why We Don’t Need Words Like ‘Islamist’ -- previously discussed by moi in an old essay of mine here on the Daily Decaf), where Spencer deployed pretty much the same Ol' Switcheroo as we noted at the start above:

Several factors make the question more complicated: one is that many analysts use the term “Islamist” to mean an adherent of the tenets of political Islam. And certainly, as Raymond points out in his piece here, some term is needed for such people: for example, a follower of Mubarak in Egypt would likely be a Muslim but not an “Islamist”: i.e., not a proponent of Sharia rule. But because of the baggage that is attached to the word “Islamist,” and the misleading way it is used in order to deny or downplay the violence, hatred, and supremacism that is in core Islamic texts and teachings, I generally use “Islamic supremacist” instead for the adherents of Sharia and political Islam.

No Robert; it's not as complicated as you'd like to make it. What complicates it is your attempts to tie yourself into analytical knots trying to have your cake and eat it too -- i.e. your simultaneous attempts to seem robustly opposed to Islam on a unicycle whilst juggling the plates of adroitly avoiding a forthright condemnation of Islam straight no chaser, the whole kit & kaboodle, no ifs, ands, or Goddamned buts.

Capisce?

Conservatives for Islam

So much I could post about this (and so much I have -- for example -- on my old blog, The Hesperado). For now, I'll leave the reader with just one short sentence typed by a conservative professor of philosophy, Fritz Wagner, himself a lifelong student of my favorite philosopher esteemed by many conservatives, Eric Voegelin (though Voegelin himself tended to stay aloof from such lowly political labels as "conservative" or "liberal").

This was on the Eric Voegelin forum Wagner (I believe) created back in the day (early 1990s?), on October 26, 2001, a mere four weeks after 911:

"In any event, with the help of Maryam Sharief and Peter von Sivers, I have tried to learn something about Islam and what we are dealing with when we talk about "Islam". As Richard Geldard put it: "Islam is not the problem."

(That "Maryam Sharief," by the way, was (maybe still is?) a hallowed member of the Eric Voegelin society who after 911 was busy posting stuff showing how wonderful Islam is; and when she wrote a posting at that time lauding Voegelin for his searing critiques of his own West, that was the straw that broke this camel's back (pun intended), and I responded with a comment (restraining myself heroically, as I recall) noting how Voegelin, among many other Western intellectuals, found no problem submitting his own West to searing criticism, while the number of Muslim intellectuals we could find who do the same to their Islamic civilization we couldn't even count on the left hand of a Muslim thief (I put it in a far more genteel way). Well, once I submitted that posting, it wasn't long before the Conservative Forum administrator, Prof. Fritz Wagner, banned me from the forum, after giving me a tongue-lashing for being so impertinent as to dare to address their Brown Pet in such an uncivil fashion.)

After typing that atrocity ("Islam is not the problem"), Wagner goes on to tell readers that they may find his further expatiation on the matter at a link to an essay he wrote, virtue-signallingly entitled, "The Other".  The reader can read all about it on an old Hesperado essay I wrote back in 2012. Among other aggrieving things I note there, is the appalling fact that Wagner apparently learned nothing 10 years after he wrote that essay, and actually affirmed it on the 10th anniversary of 911.

Double-virtue-signalling strikes again

The Yellow Vest Movement of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which has been criticised for exhibiting far-right sympathies on the page, is staging a protest at Belfast City Hall on January 19.

Organisers of one of two ‘yellow vest’ protest planned for Belfast this month say they are “at war with Islam not Muslims” following condemnation of comments on their social media page.

So reported a recent Jihad Watch article.

The broader Western Mainstream can see through this specious distinction; yet the Counter-Jihad Mainstream continues anxiously to affirm it by, among other things, making statements like the otherwise anti-Islam ‘Yellow Vest’ movement, tantamount to a double-virtue signalling (signalling their robust Counter-Jihad bonafides to the Counter-Jihad, whilst currying favor with the broader Western Mainstream by, in effect, saying, “See? We're not racists...!”)

Dipping into the comments thread to see what the Readership had to say (as opposed to the Leadership), I was pleasantly surprised to see at least a few comments by different people expressing disdain at the distinction:

Sharon Monaco says Jan 21, 2019 at 12:08 pm Muslims are people who practice Islam.

Peter35 says Jan 21, 2019 at 3:01 pm Surely anyone with an understanding of the situation would say “we are at war with both islam and moslems”, since they are the one and same.

dan christensen says Jan 21, 2019 at 3:03 pm “As I keep saying we are at war with Islam not Muslims.” How can you be at war with islam and not muslims? There is no islam without muslims – and no muslims without islam.

Troybeam says Jan 21, 2019 at 4:16 pm How can you be at war with Islam without Muslims, one and the same…wake up Ireland.

Savvy Kafir says Jan 21, 2019 at 5:07 pm They’re “at war with Islam, not Muslims.” Really? If they don’t realize it already (and my guess is, they do), at some point, these people will understand that they are very much at war with Muslims, because many Muslims are waging war on them & their society, in one way or another. It’s not some disembodied form of Islam that’s making those white British children unsafe. It’s Muslims, practicing their religion in the same ways their beloved prophet did. It’s not the “holy” texts of Islam that are stamping out free speech in Britain & the rest of the civilized world. It’s Muslims, practicing their religion the way they’re supposed to — aided by PC idiots on the political left.

[Savvy Kafir goes on to articulate the long-term threat, but not clearly in my estimation; the dystopic future seems vague in Savvy Kafir's description, almost as though the future destruction of the West will occur by osmosis and almost magically after Muslims grow in population -- rather than concretely by Muslims doing violence against us (when, in some distant future, they will have the numbers to make it work)]

Michael Copeland says Jan 22, 2019 at 12:12 am Muslims are INSTRUCTED that they are and have to be our enemy. “…between us and you enmity and hatred forever” Koran 60:4. We inhabitants of Dar al Harb are their “harbi”, enemies. “Kill them wherever you find them” is their standing instruction.

[And leave it to our old friend, Big W, to zero in succinctly on the main problem:]

thebigW says Jan 21, 2019 at 10:08 pm lol the only people who say we’re against Islam AND all Muslims (because they’re against us) are just anonymous guys and gals posting comments on the Internet, not the ones selling books, traveling around making speeches, appearing on shows, doing debates on YouTube, forming organizations. Maybe someday all THOSE people will have the guts to say what a few guys and gals say online, and hopefully that day will be some time before Muslims destroy our society, would that be askin’ too much? LOLOLOL

More thoughts on a rainy day with coffee: "The Counter-Jihad is grinding its gears..."

This is the 4th part of my series (if such a grand name can be given to a few ruminant postings); see part 3 for links to the first two parts.

My part 3 is useful on its own, but I realized that I didn't really answer my main question there:

Why are the gears of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream grinding at all? 

The short answer: because most of the Leadership and Readership who constitute the Counter-Jihad Mainstream still have residues of Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism in their heads (though they would probably deny it).

And how does this Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism (PC MC) in their heads exert itself? Chiefly -- for our purposes here -- by causing the Counter-Jihadist to fret anxiously about "tarring all Muslims with one brush".  As long as the Counter-Jihadists fret about this logical consequence of their knowledge & rhetoric about the horrific catastrophe of Islam, they will be jamming the gears of their information machine with incoherence.

Further Reading:

A good old essay of mine I posted on The Hesperado many moons ago (October of 2016) that speaks to these issues:

The Two Mainstreams Continue to Talk Past Each Other

Further thoughts for a rainy day and coffee: "The Counter-Jihad is grinding its gears..."

This is the third in a series of installments about this topic. In my previous (second) posting, the reader may find a link to the first.

Today's rainy thoughts focus on why the Counter-Jihad Mainstream's gears are grinding at all. Why isn't the Counter Jihad (or, as I'd rather call it -- if it existed -- the Anti-Islam Movement) instead engaging efficiently its cogs & wheels so that the machine of communication may work to do its job -- waking up fellow Westerners to the problem of Islam (the actual problem, not the problem whittled down to the manageable size we would like it to be)?

On the other hand, looked at from another angle, one could say that the gears (of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream) are rather efficient and productive, in that they daily grind out an insipidly decaffeinated swill that pulls its punches with regard to Islam and Muslims.

Six and one-half dozen of the other.  The daily decaf churned out by the Counter-Jihad Mainstream pulls its punches by routinely and incoherently implying there are Two Islams (e.g., the artificial division between a "political Islam" and regular harmless Islam, which we see occasionally peddled by two Counter-Jihad luminaries -- Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Robert Spencer). And it pulls its punches by anxiously avoiding the Camels in the Room -- Muslims. 

Of course, these two decaffeinating deficiencies of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream are connected at the hip, since the anxious need to avoid suspecting all Muslims through a rational prejudice against all of them finds some emotional release through splitting Islam into (at least) two pieces, with the bad piece denoted various ways -- "political Islam" or "radical Islam" or "Islamism" or better yet, "Islamist extremism". The bad Islam then becomes the problem, obviously signalling that the "other" Islam is not bad and, hence, not a problem.  This good Islam then functions as the worldview of all those nice, decent Muslims who are implied to exist (lest we succumb to our natural evil white Western bigotry & racism).

I analyzed this dynamic of the Counter-Jihad Mainstream at length in various essays on my old blog, The Hesperado, in terms of a "paradigm shift".

A Leftist atheist submits a Muslim to a remarkable interrogation

The reader will have to take my word that this person I will quote at length below is a "Leftist" and an atheist. He's a chatter at Paltalk, an admin in the room "Uncensored Religion Debate", and goes by the nickname "nontheist primate" (a clear indication of his atheist beliefs). He has been participating in that chat room (as have I) for years and years.

As a Leftist and atheist, it has been unsurprising to me that nontheist primate has tended to spend most of his time picking at Christianity, meanwhile whitewashing Islam.  I did once or twice notice him saying disparaging things about Islam, but on occasions that seemed to me few and far between.

This is why it is all the more remarkable how he interrogated a Muslima of the room -- one "Kid DJ", a female American convert to Islam and another admin of the room as well. For what seemed to be a good two hours, nontheist primate held Kid DJ's feet to the fire and would not let go as he continued to insist, and persist, in getting her to stop tap-dancing and simply answer his questions.  The particular issue at the center of their tête-à-tête was the Islamic teaching, through their Bukhari hadiths, that Muhammad married Aisha when she was age 6 and consummated that marriage (i.e., raped her) when she was age 9. The Muslima in the chat room, Kid DJ, apparently was trying to argue that many Muslims believe Aisha was much older when Mohammed married her -- to which nontheist primate asked her for evidence of this claim, and Kid DJ proceeded to tap-dance around his simple request for what seemed to be hours, never providing evidence for her claim. Meanwhile the evidence for the opposing claim is found in the most authoritative compilation of hadiths, by Bukhari -- volume 5, book 58, number 236):

"...he [Mohammed] married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic; meaning "consummated"] that marriage when she was nine years old.

Here follows all the relevant quotes from nontheist primate in that exchange. I don't have the text of Kid DJ because I was ignoring her (making her text not visible to me). But one doesn't need to see her text to clearly see what she was doing, as it becomes evident from nontheist primate's text.

[Notes: "Tia" = Kid DJ; the reader will notice our old friend "The Big W" makes an appearance twice, to add important points along the way; and the "malik" referenced by nontheist primate is one of the great Muslim commentators who founded one of the 4 Schools of Islamic law]

nontheist-primate [10:49 PM]
so do you have the malik writings about her age?
nontheist-primate [10:50 PM]
why would it take a while to research if you are so sure it's there?
nontheist-primate [10:50 PM]
that makes no sense
nontheist-primate [10:51 PM]
why would finding first millenium scholars who think Aisha was postpubescent be hard? could it be because it's not the correct view? could it be those closest to her and the religion back then DID NOT THINK THAT?
nontheist-primate [10:51 PM] that's entirely my point. when it is found, it's famous. so if it's hard to find, why would that be?
nontheist-primate [10:52 PM] Tia - you made the claim though that malik DID speak to her age
nontheist-primate [10:52 PM] yes, yes it is what you said I asked you did malik speak to aisha's age and you said yes.
nontheist-primate [10:53 PM] Yes, yes it is. You did say yes after I asked you if malik spoke to aisha's age. it was typed. no mishearing
nontheist-primate [10:53 PM] ok so you have one guy that doesn't accept the entire hadiths... but does he speak to Aisha's age?
nontheist-primate [10:55 PM] no it seems like deception on yours. I spoke only of first millenia scholars. I spoke of only original muslims yeah it's interesting to expose deception in you Tia. I was not talking about any youtube video. I insistently persisted on ONLY ancient men. Scholars from mohammed's time
nontheist-primate [10:56 PM] he was who I was asking you about
nontheist-primate [10:56 PM] a first millenium scholar?
nontheist-primate [10:57 PM] you're misrepresenting me and telling me that I'm misunderstanding.
nontheist-primate [10:57 PM] I'm surprised you're doing this to be honest too.
nontheist-primate [10:58 PM] it's not a misunderstanding. I asked a simple question based on a line of questions and YOU are deceptively answering about a DIFFERENT PERSON thinking it's who I was talking about.
nontheist-primate [10:58 PM] You deceptively answered yes when I asked you about that. now you're changing your stance because you have no evideence[SIC]. denying a hadith is not speaking to age. so that's just a failed argument.
nontheist-primate [10:59 PM] I expeced [SIC] more from you, Tia.
nontheist-primate [10:59 PM] this is sad.
nontheist-primate [11:00 PM] I was very clear with my line of questioning. I ONLY spoke of first century people
nontheist-primate [11:00 PM] you answered my question about a CURRENT person. that's deceptive.
nontheist-primate [11:00 PM] so YOU misunderstood.
nontheist-primate [11:00 PM] I have all the text. I read it again. You are the one who is answering questions incorrectly and misleading.
nontheist-primate [11:00 PM] I don't have a misunderstanding.
nontheist-primate [11:01 PM] you do.
nontheist-primate [11:01 PM] so you have no first millenium scholar
nontheist-primate [11:01 PM] that's how you misled me.
nontheist-primate [11:02 PM] you misled me by changing the person. my question was during a line of questions. Anybody who is honest would know I was speaking of a first century scholar. your position has no weight. anybody defending islam usually is deceptive.
nontheist-primate [11:03 PM] I ONLY mentioned early scholars. bottom line is you have nothing to show aisha wasn't a little girl.
nontheist-primate [11:03 PM] no there isn't. there's no evidence that shows she's older. you just literally said that.
nontheist-primate [11:04 PM] I've already explained how that's a failed argument.

thebig_W [11:04 PM] Kid DJ wouldn't even know about Aisha if it weren't for the Sunna she pretends to reject

nontheist-primate [11:04 PM] reasonable people don't accept islam.
nontheist-primate [11:05 PM] tia, please stop lying. [11:05 PM] please
nontheist-primate the fact that you have nothing but failed arguments and lies is just disgusting.
nontheist-primate [11:06 PM] you can post the evidence of your deception. have fun with that.
nontheist-primate [11:06 PM] I'm making an effort to figure out why you're misrepresenting me. and my questions.
nontheist-primate [11:06 PM] you were honest until tonight.
nontheist-primate [11:07 PM] but until tonight I didn't question you on mohammed's pedophilia.
nontheist-primate [11:07 PM] Tia - I have already read it.
nontheist-primate [11:07 PM] the point is that you have no reason to think aisha wasn't a little girl.

thebig_W [11:07 PM] now nontheist knows about the principle of "A Muslim is Moderate until they are questioned with follow-up questions”

nontheist-primate [11:21 PM] ok, that's it. Game over. You're done Tia.
nontheist-primate [11:21 PM] bye bye.
nontheist-primate [11:22 PM]] : pity that Tia was exposed as a liar tonight.

The real reason behind ISIS, Part 4

⸺A coffee shop sign on the Israeli-Al Qaeda border, circa 2014


[In Part 3, the reader may find links to Parts 1 and 2]

A recent headline at Jihad Watch:

Pompeo: “We’ve taken down 99 percent” of the Islamic State caliphate

Followed by these editorial remarks by Robert Spencer:

This is a momentous statement. When Barack Obama left office, the Islamic State caliphate looked as if it was here to stay, and was following the precedent of the Palestine Liberation Organization in moving from being considered a jihad terror group to being respectable. But now it is almost all gone, although the Islamic State still commands the allegiance of many Muslims worldwide, and has called for lone wolf jihad attacks in Western countries.

Here's yet another example of many where Spencer is thinking more or less like the mainstream about the problem of Islam and Islamic terrorism.  The years-long battle against ISIS (like the decades-long battle against Al Qaeda) has been one grand episode of Whack-a-Mo, where the Mo or Moes in question are touted as Big Fish whose defeat is supposed to mean that we are “winning the war on terrorism”.

As I wrote on my now defunct blog, The Hesperado, in October of 2017:

A recent headline on Jihad Watch, building on a Breitbart report:
 
“With collapse of the Islamic State, Europe and U.S. flooded with thousands of jihadis”
 
Has anyone in the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (never mind the broader Western Mainstream, blind as a bat to the problem of Islam) considered that this was the strategy of ISIS all along?

The reader should consult that old Hesperado posting of mine (which I link again for the readers too lazy to lift their little finger to scroll up a few lines), as it fleshed out in considerable detail the argument I've been presenting in these 4 parts.