If all caffeine became lethally toxic, would you only avoid "extremist" ("pious") espressos...?

Am I right, or am I right...?

So let's examine a recent Robert Spencer editorial remark, expounding on a recent threat by Turkey's Interior Minister to send captured ISIS combatants back to "their" countries (i.e., to the Western country where they had sojourned prior to leaving to join ISIS):

The captured Islamic State jihadis don’t believe that European states are their countries at all. They consider themselves to be citizens of the worldwide Islamic umma. When back in Europe, many of them are likely to continue their jihad there.

Leave it to our old friend "The Big W" to zero in on the problem with Spencer's observation:

Ain’t this likely true of ALL Muslims? What’s the risk of NOT assuming this, and WHY fer Crissakes wouldja not assume it…..???

This is Big W's characteristically blunt way of wondering why Spencer is implying that this problem of returning ISIS Muslims is somehow different from the problem that any and all Muslims, anywhere in the West, pose.

It's a good question, and the Counter-Jihad Mainstream not only has no answer, they routinely flinch from facing the question, and if someone raises it too persistently, they tend to attack that person (as they have moi for years on various forums, including Jihad Watch comments).

P.S.: 

Big W only got two responses. One guy ("CogitoErgoSum") didn't seem to object to Big W, but his pointless defense of Robert Spencer in that context indicates he didn't get Big W's point. The other, from our old Rabbit Pack member, "gravenimage", ostensibly agreed with Big W, but with one glaring flaw:

gravenimage says 
Nov 4, 2019 at 5:19 pm 

True, thebigW. No pious Muslim considers any Infidel nations to be their countries. They are just places to use as bases from which to wage Jihad. 

Can the reader spot the flaw? A gold star for anyone spotting "pious".  Why would gravenimage delimit the problem from plain old "Muslim" to a "pious Muslim"?  Evidently because she's too timid to abandon all qualifiers insulating her from the dreaded A word.  It's doubly ironic when Big W himself not only pointedly referred to "all" Muslims, but emphasized it in ALL CAPS.  So gravenimage is peculiarly dense, or is adjusting the problem on purpose, in her role as hall monitor/crossing guard for the Counter-Jihad.  The only problem with this delimitation of the problem to "pious Muslims" is that, on the macro level, we can't  tell the difference sufficiently between "pious" Muslims and "non-pious" Muslims.

P.P.S: 

About a year ago, Spencer articulated the same thing, concerning a story about an ISIS fighter who wanted to "return" to Australia, but the Australian government stripped his citizenship and deported him:

All free nations should do this as a matter of course, but the suicidal British and others have instead welcomed them back.

They joined an entity that has repeatedly declared that it is at war with their home countries. That should have been taken as a renunciation of citizenship.

Again, what's the difference between this ISIS jihadist and any old Muslim?  I note that even back then, Big W lodged essentially the same retort:

What’s the difference between ISIS and Islam? Yeah they are different, Islam can fool people (or make us fool ourselves) into thinking it’s not a condition for deporting.

And of course, no other Jihad Watchers said it (and none commented substantively, other than one regular, "Mark Swan", whose response implicitly contained essentially the same delimitation gravenimage provided:

Mark Swan says
Dec 30, 2018 at 10:11 am

“Islamic State is opposed to Australia, their interests, values, democratic beliefs, rights and liberties” Islamic State is just “go by the book” Islam.

And, characteristically, Big W's rejoinder is right on the money, and fills in the blank Mark Swan either obtusely, or purposefully, left missing:

thebigW says
Dec 31, 2018 at 1:46 pm

Yeah and if you see any Muslims who don’t seem to be “go by the book” it’s only because they’re pretending to be different from ISIS.

Post-Post-Postscript:

Notice how in another, related context, Spencer suddenly pulls his punches:

“The court heard Kocoglu had renounced Islamic State, had no prior offences and had not re-offended in the past five years and was not a threat to the Australian community.”
A great deal is riding on Kocoglu’s being honest about this. Australian citizens can only hope that he is.

Notice Spencer is not using the robust language he used in the case of ISIS-joining Muslims returning to a Western nation and the prospect of their deportation and/or stripped citizenship, as we examined above in the main body of today's posting, and in the P.S. and the P..P.S.