The CJM vs. the AIM

Many times over the years -- both on my old blog, The Hesperado, and this newer (no longer brand spanking) blog -- I've had occasion to mention my coinage, the "Counter-Jihad Mainstream" (CJM). In one of the first essays I link here, I put it this way:

I realized that I need a term to denote a Counter-Jihad whose leadership consistently promotes a soft approach to the problem of Muslims while promoting a hard line against Islam, and whose civilian members follow along more or less like sheep (sometimes turning to wolves to attack those who dare to criticize the methodology or analysis of one of their Exalted Leaders). 

(I go on to note in that particular essay that even the hard line against Islam pursued by the Counter-Jihad Mainstream (CJM) is often compromised by the implicit logic of various locutions of rhetoric.)

I don't intend to go through a long explanation of the whole phenomenon today, just to note the most recent sign & symptom of it I noticed from the pen of Robert Spencer, the éminence grise of the Counter-Jihad, on that flagship of the CJM, Jihad Watch.  This morning, before I had my second sip of my first cup of coffee, I saw this headline on there:

WaPo: US “taking custody of two British men accused of involvement in Islamic State killings of American hostages”

After an acerbically cheeky introduction -- “British men.” Bowler hats, no doubt. Jolly good, but they may miss being able to tuck into a plate of bangers and mash. Are they gutted at this development, or chuffed at getting out of Syria? -- Robert then gets into the heart of the serious matter at hand:

...these men may have grown up in Britain, but living in a garage doesn’t make you an automobile. As Islamic State jihadis, they joined an entity that declared itself superior to and above all national allegiances, and deserving the allegiance of all Muslims worldwide, superseding and overriding their national identity.

This is quintessential CJM rhetoric.  Let's massage Robert's rhetoric with the more robust principles of the AIM (i.e., the Anti-Islam Movement that, unfortunately, does not yet exist) to bring their differences into relief:

CJM: ...these men may have grown up in Britain, but living in a garage doesn’t make you an automobile. 

AIM: ...nor does being born in a garage make you an automobile (even if your parents had also been born in that garage).

CJM:  As Islamic State jihadis, they joined an entity that declared itself superior to and above all national allegiances, and deserving the allegiance of all Muslims worldwide, superseding and overriding their national identity.

AIM:  As Muslims and as continuing to remain Muslims, they (i.e., any Muslims whatsoever) belong to and support an entity (Islam) that declares itself superior to and above all national allegiances, and deserving the allegiance of all Muslims worldwide, superseding and overriding their national identity -- an entity, moreover, with a game plan to destroy us eventually, both physically (by killing as many of us as it takes combined with terrorizing the rest of us and thus dislocating our collective psyche), and culturally, through a strategy combining terrorism and stealth deceit."

Why won't we ever see Robert Spencer (or his followers) ever put it this way?