More musings on the logic of conspiracy theory

In a previous posting here (The Logic of Conspiracy Theory), I started the meandering ball rolling of this thought experiment; one which may involve several more installments in the months ahead.

I have a rather long and detailed posting in the works which I'm not yet ready to publish; but for now, I'll note one feature or facet of this logic, occasioned by a recent tragic loss for the still embryonic (if not larval) Anti-Islam Movement: the violent death of Philip Haney.

Haney was according to official reports found beside his car shot to death in the chest, his gun nearby, his car apparently parked on a country road out in farm country in California not far west of Sacramento (he lived in the San Francisco area), with the local coroner prematurely (and irresponsibly) speculating that it was "self-inflicted". Diana West has a good posting on this, where she shows graphically how this premature speculation by the coroner has morphed into a parroted echo-meme throughout the MSM-sphere.

A tweet has been retweetingly circulating the Twitterverse which calls suspicion on the official report (Diana West also includes this in her posting), apparently written by Jan Markell, head of the Olive Tree Ministries:



(By the way, this particular tweet is nowhere to be found on Jan Merkell's Twitter page.  We see a tweet by her on Feb. 21 -- the day before the above tweet -- and then no tweets until today, Feb. 25, of which there are four; none of them about Haney.)

I've written about Philip Haney a few times before on my previous blog, The Hesperado -- most notably in this essay (in which I link to most of the others):

"It's a kind of a psychosis..."

At any rate, my musing today runs something like this:  Let's say the official report's conclusion -- that Haney's mortal gunshot was "self-inflicted" -- is part of a cover-up of his assassination.  Okay, let's pursue this thread with questions.  Who assassinated Haney?  Obviously not a crazed loner or some criminals, for the Amador County Sheriff's department wouldn't be covering that up by lying about the cause of death. So now in our thought process we're embarking into the broad and vague territory of the Dastardly Cabal theory.  Now, if this Dastardly Cabal is powerful and has a lot of money and capabilities to get dastardly things done, why wouldn't they have fabricated a more  plausible suicide?  For example, why didn't they fabricate a back story with plenty of preceding indications that he was remorseful or depressed about something, or manufactured a sordid affair with a prostitute, or gambling debts, or any number of classic motives for suicide? Then, on top of that, why didn't they fabricate a scenario such as one where, for example, Haney is found at home alone with a gun in his hand (or tumbled onto the floor), perhaps with a half-drunk bottle of gin next to him -- or any number of other more plausible tableaux of suicide?  Would the conspiracy theorist try to argue, in response to this line of questioning, that the Dastardly Cabal was not capable of such fabrications?

That then moves us into the curious twilight of our exploration of conspiracy theory logic (which I probed to some extent in my above-linked previous posting), where we have a Dastardly Cabal/Swamp/Deep State that has apparently limited powers, leading to further questions: How limited are they?  Why are they so limited?  If one is to take seriously a sinister scenario to the Haney death, one must address these questions in good faith and rationally, not shirk them off, in order to dispel the appearance or implication of a kind of variant on the No True Scotsman Fallacy -- namely, that every time the facts indicate an odd limitation in the powers of the Conspiracy, we impute that to what we assume must be their limitation, without bothering to explain the How and Why of those limitations; as though the supposed (question-begging) facts of the Conspiracy readily palpate the actual contours of the Conspiracy.

It seems reasonable to assume that, if this were an assassination by some kind of Conspiracy that has at least the power and influence to compel an official County Sheriff's office to cover it up by fabricating a story about suicide -- and by extension has the ability to keep the real story under wraps so that others in the news media and/or in the government don't initiate any further investigations (let alone ask probing questions about it) -- it was a hasty, almost sloppy job, since it leaves questions open and looks somewhat suspicious.  This then directly indicates that whoever killed Haney had to do it quickly; they were forced by some circumstances or events to suddenly do it -- raising the reasonable follow-up question: What could those circumstances or events have possibly been, such that a Dastardly Cabal couldn't wait a while and take its time to get its ducks in a row in order to pull off a far more plausible, and less suspicious "suicide"...?

Cul-de-sacs in the Counter-Jihad

As I've said many times, the Counter-Jihad's main role is to wake up the broader sleepwalking West lip-deep in De Nile.  The main form of that role is as a war of ideas. And crucial to that role is the need for the Counter-Jihad to have all the complex, interlocking facts at its fingertips.

One area among many of this complex problem is the area of Islam's founding holy texts, the Koran and Hadiths. Over the years on my former blog, The Hesperado, I've had occasion to quote various Hadiths that are particularly damning; but I tried to link them to websites that nobody could impugn as suspect or prejudicial. I finally found, years ago, a site would fit that bill: the "Center for Muslim Jewish Engagement" or CMJE for short, based at the University of South California, and "partnered" with the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (i.e., self-hating, or incredibly naive, Jews).

So, over the years, I would quote and link the Bukhari hadith (for example) using that CMJE site proving that Bukhari recorded that Mohammed's wife Aisha was age 6 when he married her and age 9 when he raped her (for that is the only way an old guy like Muhammad at the time -- over 50 -- could have sex with a 9-year-old girl).

The only problem was, a few months after I linked those claims, I would check the links, and they would be dead. So then it would take me about an hour of looking around on that CMJE website amongst its Bukhari hadith section to find the right link (no longer where it was before) and restore it. I.e., the CMJE website would change its parameters such that previous links would no longer work. The first 2 or 3 times this happened, I figured it was just a computer error. But when this kept happening for years -- right up to the recent present -- I can only conclude that Muslim website is deliberately changing their urls to make it difficult for other bloggers to document the horrible nature of Islam as demonsrated in the Hadiths.

At least three of my old Hesperado articles cited the Bukhari hadith about Mohammed raping Aisha -- and the link in all three of those articles is now dead.

Other old Hesperado postings used the Bukhari hadith about Mohammed's imperative to Muslims to kill those who leave Islam:

Muhammad says, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

-- Sahih al-Bukhari, 9.84.57

The reader if he clicks on that link will find a "Page not found" error message.  That link goes to the CMJE website and used to work; but no longer.

Coincidence? 

Did you remember our Anniversary, dear...?

See my recent posting as a brief background on why I'm here linking (below) to my latest posting from beyond the grave, as it were, on my otherwise dead blog, The Hesperado.

Another year down the pike...

"Io sono Roma"

Io sono Roma.  "I am Rome".

This could -- yea, should -- become a new rallying cry for the West, along the lines of the recently famous Je Suis Charlie after the Charlie Hebdo attacks; but hopefully not so quickly dissolved in incoherence and losing sociopolitical traction so quickly.

What does it mean?  The "Rome" referred to is the object of Islam's conquest, and it doesn't merely signify the capital of Italy, seat of the Vatican, home of the cappuccino in sidewalk cafes, memories of Marcello Mastroianni and Sofia Loren...  No, in the perspective of Islam, "Rome" is the entire West.

Certainly, the concrete city of Rome (and its Italian environs) was prey to Islamic Jihad back when Muslims were able to muster frank warfare against the West; most devastatingly perhaps back in the 9th century; 846 A.D. to be exact.  Back in 2006, the relatively Islamo-savvy Italian Catholic journalist Sandro Magister penned a review of Andrew Bostom's compendium of the history of Islamic Jihad, The Legacy of Jihad, in which he succinctly describes what happened then:

It happened that in April of 846, the Muslim Arabs, who arrived with a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, reached Rome, invaded it, sacked it and took away all the gold and silver it contained from the basilica of St. Peter.

And it wasn't an occasional attack. By the year 827 the Arabs had conquered Sicily, which they held for two and a half centuries. Rome was seriously under close threat. In 847, the year after the assault, the new Pope, Leo IV, began construction of walls around the entire Vatican area, 12 meters high and equipped with 44 towers. He completed them in six years. They are the Leonine Walls of which large tracts remain. But very few today know that they were erected to defend Peter's home from Muslim jihad. And among those who know many are silent out of modesty. "Not walls but bridges" is the slogan that is in fashion today.

* * * * *

Similarly, the Mohammedans had on their Jihad Bucket List the conquest of the 'eastern Rome' -- Constantinople, which they did eventually succeed in despoiling, in 1453, about two centuries before Islam's star began to wane, at least geopolitically, as the West began by the 17th century to outstrip Islam and the rest of the world on a stupendous arc of progress that increased exponentially with each passing century, and continues to this day.  But those twin spiritual and political capitals of Europe in the Middle Ages were but specific (albeit glittering) loci of the general target in the eyes of Islam: the West, to be followed by the Rest (of the world).

And if we fast-forward to the hot present, we saw the report from January of this year, where a Muslim cleric delivered a sermon at the Al-Aqsa mosque -- the second most holy site for mainstream Islam outside of Mecca -- in which he vowed that:

“We Will Soon Establish the Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem and Conquer Rome”

I've written only in passing about this now and then on my previous blog, The Hesperado, over its 11-year tenure.  Here are some sample quotes:

From The Decline and Fall of Western Education, written in March of 2014:

Muslims are far worse, and are a species distinct from the barbarian. Classical barbarians, though of course uncouth and knocking over furniture left and right like bulls in a china shop, eventually had the good sense to recognize that the Roman Empire they were repeatedly invading through incursions and inroads represented a way of life and culture superior to theirs and they effectively converted to Rome, rather than sought its destruction—coinciding, give or take a century,  with the epochal Christianization of the Roman Empire and its translation (translatio Imperii) into the “Holy Roman Empire” (pace Voltaire’s glibly supercilious aphorism)—graduating into that historical advancement on, and sublimation of, Graeco-Roman civilization called Christendom.

From Tourism and Terrorism, written in April of 2013:

I don't know if Henri Pirenne's book Mohammed and Charlemagne goes further to imply that this Islamic catastrophe represents the missing key to explain what historians have been scratching their heads and hypothesizing over for centuries -- namely the reason why Rome fell and the "Dark Ages" began.  Indeed, one could conjecture that, but for the appearance of the malignant metastasis of Mohammedanism on the world stage at that stage, the Roman Empire never really "fell" per se; it rather transmogrified, from one butterfly to another, so to speak -- from the classic imperial form into the Christian form of the Holy Roman Empire.  For a good three centuries beginning approximately in the third century A.D., this in fact was happening, and the thriving Mediterranean culture continued to flourish, now under the aegis of a new monotheistic theocracy -- until, in the middle of the 7th century, Arabs stormed out of the desert in an expansionist ferocity that would make ancient Roman colonialism and before that Alexandrian imperialism pale by comparison.

From The Conquest of Constantinople: A Jihad Planned in Prayer for Centuries, written in November of 2007: 

Mohammed himself dreamed of the conquest of “Rome”—which in his milieu meant foremost the Eastern Empire—as chronicled by the first Muslim biographer of Mohammed, Ibn Ishaq (died circa 773 A.D.): According to the tale, Mohammed during the Battle of the Trench rolled up his sleeves and jumped in to help his men dig the trench they needed to defend their position. As he was digging into the rocky earth, his spade (or whatever comparable tool they had in 7th-century Arabia) struck a rock and a bright spark shot out, illuminating the trench in the dark of night. Then he struck again and a second spark was ignited, and then a third. Mohammed was supposed to have taken this for a sign:

Did you really see that. . .? The first [spark] means that God has opened up to me the Yaman [i.e., Arabia]; the second Syria and the west; and the third the east.

While the third spark indicated the lands to the East (the Persian Empire and the kingdoms of India), the second spark’s signification—“Syria and the west”—would embrace not only the remainder of the Middle East to the west of Arabia, not only Africa and Spain (and, hopefully, the West proper—i.e., Europe), but also the greatest Empire during that era: Byzantium.

Notable and authorative Islamic exegetes of the Koran—including Ibn Kathir and Ibn Juzayy of the 14th century, and As-Sawi of the 13th century—, interpreted Koran 9:29 to be contextually referring to Mohammed’s religious imperative to expand Islam by military attacks on “Rome”.

Koran 9:29 states:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

The aforementioned exegetes wrote:

[Koran 9:29] was revealed when the Messenger of Allah was commanded to fight the Byzantines. When it was sent down, the Messenger of Allah prepared for the expedition to Tabuk [a Byzantine trading outpost in the northwestern part of the Arabian peninsula].

And:

Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.

Furthermore, an entire chapter of the Koran, Sura 30, is devoted to “the Byzantines” (as Robert Spencer, in his series on Blogging the Qur’an, has aptly translated the Arabic title, Ar-Rum, explaining that it “literally means ‘The Romans,’ but refers to the forces of the Eastern Roman Empire, commonly known today as the Byzantine Empire.”). This chapter, unsurprisingly, is saturated with supremacist military overtones in the context of how the true Believers (Muslims) must fight the Unbelievers (non-Muslims), reading more like a medieval history of Mongol conquests than any spiritual manual.

And the last word (for now), from The A-Word, revisited, written in April of 2016: 

As long as the Counter-Jihad doesn’t address the Problem of Muslims in General, and articulate an analytical argument defending the proposition that all Muslims are the problem -- rather than constantly shirking this on the defensive and thereby playing by the rules of the PC MC Mainstream paradigm (and this is not counting the many Counter-Jihadists who themselves either directly or indirectly defend innumerable Muslims whom we are supposed to conclude are "not extremists" or "not Wahhabis" or "not Salafis" etc.) -- this bickering will continue interminably; while Rome burns around us and the Mohammedans take over the West, step by step, decade upon decade, until this 21st century will be our last in which to live free.

* * * * *

Siamo Romani ("We are Romans") -- whether we survive past this 21st century or not.

Virtue-burping again...

Robert Spencer has been double-virtue-signalling again.

In a recent Jihad Watch report on a female Catholic airhead --

Catholic who proclaims “I’m Christian and I LOVE the Qur’an” says Catholics have “Islamophobia problem” 

--  Robert wrote about the airhead, Jordan Denari Duffner, a student activist at Georgetown University, that “in all her writings, including the article below, she completely ignores the reality of jihad violence and the violent exhortations in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and continuously writes as if Muslims were victims of widespread discrimination and harassment in the U.S., which they are not and should not be...”

The phrase I bolded is the part that makes this double-virtue-signalling; the other half is, of course, Robert's normatively bold-sounding counter-jihad stuff.  The first half is virtue-signalling to our PC MC Masters: "Please don't think I'm a bigot for criticizing Islam!"  The second half is virtue-signalling to the Counter-Jihad Choir: "See how robustly opposed to Islamic Jihad I am...?"

As our old friend The Big W put it in the comments thread:

thebigW says 
Feb 17, 2020 at 11:58 am 

actually Robert Spencer is wrong here. We actually SHOULD discriminate against Muslims in the West, unless you can show how we can protect our societies from Muslims following their Islam WITHOUT discriminating against Muslims.

One may also note how Robert here either cleverly or obtusely conflates "harassment" with "discrimination", lumping them together.  I would agree that we in the West should not go around harassing Muslims, and I generally oppose vigilantism.  But that's a separate matter from various policies we should be pursuing that would effectively be discriminating against Muslims (such as, for example, various forms of surveillance of Muslims which various Western governments have found it necessary to do, realizing, if only semi-consciously -- since their politically correct multi-culturalism (PC MC) prevents them from appraising the situation rationally -- that in order to protect their societies from terrorism they have to closely monitor Muslims and Muslim communities whence pullulate terror plots).

Robert's second burp was in his editorial remarks about Jordan Denari Duffner's article, which he wrote “is full of the usual nonsense, chiefly the familiar conflation of criticizing Islamic teaching or opposing jihad violence with failing to respect or esteem Muslims as human beings.” 

Why is Robert penning such imprecisely treacly sentiments as "failing to respect or esteem Muslims as human beings"....?  What does that actually mean...?  If, for example, a person affirms and defends Nazism -- and compounds that sin by attacking those who condemn Nazism -- would Robert "respect" or "esteem" that person?  Or would he reasonably withhold respect and esteem from that person, only to turn around and try to torturously distinguish that respect and esteem he is withholding from that Nazi apologist from a “respect and esteem as human beings”... he would apparently be according that same Nazi apologist?  And what exactly does that distinction mean, and what does it entail?  These are all questions which Robert is blithely ignoring as instead he tosses a virtue-signalling bone to our PC MC Masters:  "Look, see?  I respect and esteem Muslims as human beings! Please don't ostracize me as a racist bigot!"  Meanwhile, Robert pretends he doesn't care what the PC MC Mainstream thinks about him.

The Afterparty

In my previous posting, a cheeky satire of the Oscars, I hadn't fully sounded out the Best Cop Muslim ("Best Mo"); and now that I have, I see that the paradox I (and our new friend, The Big W) had spotted wasn't quite as absurdly perfect:

As I (we) put it there:

QUOTE

Leave it to our old friend "The Big W" to notice the glaringly clever -- in the sense of hiding in plain sight -- paradox at the heart of the Jihad Watch headline:

thebigW says 

Feb 13, 2020 at 3:20 pm 

“UK: Former member of al-Qaeda says there is “no such thing as a rehabilitated jihadist” 

 LOL this Muslim by sayin’ this is contradicting his own statement!!! HAHAHAHAHA. I.-freakin’-e., this Aimen Dean feller is pretendin’ to be a rehabilitated jihadist himself and tryin’ to prove it by sounding REAL tough against jihadists. The joke is on anyone who believes he ain’t doin’ taqiyya. 

UNQUOTE

Had this been all there was to Aimen Dean's spycrafting derring-do, it would have reflected a naivety on the part of the Westerners remarkably astonishing -- which is saying a lot!  I.e., Aimen Dean would have been broadcasting openly that, since by his own logic, a jihadist cannot be rehabilitated, then he as a "former" jihadist is, therefore, still a jihadist right under your very own noses!!!

But the paradox wasn't quite that exquisite once I read through the article at the Jihad Watch source, The Telegraph.  Essentially, Aimen Dean massages the paradox through kitman -- that subcategory of Islamic taqiyya whereby the Mohammedan deceiver tells half the truth, but not the whole truth.  And wouldn't you know it, it looks like our old friend The Big W spotted that too!

First, The Big W deposits a couple of choice quotes from Aimen Dean (from that same article in The Telegraph):

“I know deradicalisation doesn’t work” 

and

“I don’t believe in deradicalisation”

These two quotes constitute one horn of the kitman paradox.

The second horn is illustrated by another quote by Aimen Dean which The Big W put in:

“The only way [a jihadist] can demonstrate that they’ve renounced violent extremism is if they have sung like a canary and provided damaging intelligence on the networks that recruited them.”

The Big W challenged his fellow Jihad Watch readers to spot the kitman in that quote; and of course, no other reader showed any sign of recognition or appreciation at all for what he offered.  Here's what The Big W wrote:

By the way can any o’ ya spot the taqiyya kitman in that quote? Yep, it’s the “renounced violent extremism ” part, ’cause a violent jihadist can easily “renounce” “violent extremism” by the fact that in his ISLAMIC MIND, jihad ain’t “extremism”.

Precisely, The Big W!  And we may illuminate this further by pointing out that the previous quotes above, constituting the first horn of the paradox, were Aimen Dean telling the truth about himself. He was telling his Western Dupes:

I was never deradicalized, because there is no such thing as deradicalization!

The second quote, in its kitman combination of truth and lie, describes further his own strategy of deceit:  He is, again, effectively telegraphing to his Western Dupes:

Sure, I am 'demonstrating' that I have 'renounced' violent extremism -- insofar as what I was doing (and continue to do) as a jihadist is not 'extremism' (though it does indeed countenance if not involve violence) -- and you are too naive and stupidly in denial to see through my semi-transparent disingenuousness; for which naivety and stupidity I thank Allah five times every day, since it is doing its part to reinforce the gullible tendency of the still militarily superior Kuffar to do nothing about the growing demographic presence of Muslims in their midst...!

It's not quite as exquisite as the initial paradox I thought it was, but it's certainly damn close. And the more exquisite it is, the more breathtaking is the naivety of any Westerners who refrain from condemning him as a jihadist pretending to be reformed.

Postscript:

A glimpse into the Better Cop style stealth jihad of Aimen Dean I stumbled across, from a BBC report in 2016:

The programme explores the current battle for control in some British mosques, speaking to British Deobandi Muslims pushing back against the infiltration of Pakistani religious politics in British life.

As one campaigner says, this is 'the battle for the soul of Islam' and the 'silent majority' must speak out - but can moderate Muslims build the institutional power they need to really enforce change?

CONTRIBUTORS INCLUDE:

Aimen Dean - former member of Al Qaeda and former MI5 operative
Raffaello Pantucci - Director in International Security Studies, RUSI
Mufti Mohammed Amin Pandor
Toaha Qureshi MBE - Trustee of Aalimi Majlise Tahaffuze Khatme Nubuwwat (Stockwell, London)
Aamer Anwar - human rights lawyer
Producers: Richard Fenton-Smith & Sajid Iqbal
Researcher: Holly Topham.

And the "Best Cop" award goes to...

 
Roger Moore and Liv Ullmann trying not to look judgemental at the Injun whom Brando used as a virtual-signalling stunt at the 1973 Oscars.

It's a little late for an Oscars satire, and still early for April Fool's -- but what the hey!

The applause from the audience of A-to-D-list celebrities dies down along with the brief musical introduction as Morgan Freeman and Mila Kunis walk out to present the Oscar statuette to the Muslim of 2019 who has pulled off the deepest scam of taqiyya.

"Not a Bad Cop," Morgan intones at the mic, "not a Good Cop -- not even a Better Cop. Tonight's Oscar nomination is for the category of Best Cop."

Mila Kunis leans forward to add:

"In this category, the Academy is pleased to announce the following nominees:  Zuhdi Jasser..."

The cameras zoom in on Zuhdi sitting in the audience with his unveiled wife and his close friend Frank Gaffney and his wife.

"Asra Nomani..." Morgan speaks into the mic, pronouncing the name impeccably.

Asra puts her hand to her mouth, unable to repress her excitement as her friends on either side, Iranian-American actress Shohreh Aghdashloo and ex-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali squeeze her hand and shoulder in encouragement.

"Tarek Fatah..." says Mila, taking her turn to continue listing every other nominee.

Tarek looks pleased as punch next to his unveiled wife and daughter, as his friend Ezra Levant gives him a thumb up.

"Mohammed Tawhidi," says Morgan, "-- otherwise known as the 'Imam of Peace'..."

Mohammed sits up straight in his tux, trying not to look overeager, as his well-wishers Dave Rubin and Cenk Uygur clap supportively nearby and -- damn! the camera just barely missed getting a shot of the face of the ever elusive Hugh Fitzgerald on his left!

"Aimen Dean," Mila speaks the last name on the list of nominees, and as the applause dies down -- since Morgan has graciously handed the announcement of the winner over to her -- she rips ceremoniously into the envelope.

"And the winner in the category of 'Best Cop Muslim of 2019' is...    AIMEN DEAN!!!"

* * * * *

My readers may be wondering: Who the hell is Aimen Dean...?  I'd never heard of him until today, when I saw a Jihad Watch report -- a report not really on him, but relaying what he said about jihadists (with of course not a hint of suspicion from Robert Spencer in his editorializing remarks but rather conveying a distinct impression of appreciation for this Muslim helping out the Counter-Jihad).  The headline ran:

“UK: Former member of al-Qaeda says there is “no such thing as a rehabilitated jihadist”

My first thought on seeing that headline was to have the reasonable reaction of what I call "rational prejudice".  Oh great, I thought, yet another Muslim pundit in the West pretending to be oh-so tough on the Radicalized Islamist Extremist Wahhabist Salafists (With Sprinkles On Top). I.e., yet another Better Cop Muslim to join the ranks of Maajid Nawaz, Zuhdi Jasser, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fatah, Mohammed Tawheed ("the Imam of Peace"), Shireen Qudosi, and probably many others I haven't heard of (yet).  Indeed, in researching today's posting, I just reacquainted myself with one Better Cop I'd forgotten about for years, about whom I wrote over a decade ago: Naser Khader, a Muslim "reformer" in Denmark. A few more essays I've written more generally on this phenomenon over the years may be found here.

On closer inspection, I realized this Aimen Dean fellow is a tad more remarkable than merely another Better Cop.  For years, he's been touted as a kind of daring "double agent" who grew up jihadin' with Al Qaeda only to flamboyantly jump ship and join Scotland Yard's MI5 and MI6.  As the BBC put it dramatically (punning on the famous John Le Carré novel) in a headline 5 years ago:

The spy who came in from al-Qaeda

The BBC got it 2/3 right.  We (who have our heads screwed on straight) may reasonably suppose that Aimen Dean is not a "double agent" but rather, one better: a triple agent -- defined as such precisely and exquisitely as an agent pretending to be a double agent.  For, Islam is the only religion which inculcates a complex and prevailing sense of espionage as part of its religious mission in life: unless a Muslim is on the front lines of the Jihad of the Sword, where no mask of deceit is any longer necessary, and as long as the Muslim is surrounded by enemies more powerful than Islam at the moment, he or she -- particularly when sojourning on hijrah in the Dar-al-Harb -- remains a spy.  For the vast majority of Muslims in the West, their espionage is relatively simple: simply live your relatively normal lives (whether hijabbed or unhijabbed), shopping, going to school, going to work, playing softball, having sandwiches, pretending that your religion does not call you to hate the Others around you in terms of a hatred scripted by your holy texts with an eye to the eventual conquest of these miserable lands of these hated Others.  Meanwhile, for those Muslims getting involved more deeply in taqiyya-dawa propaganda & activism, the sophistication of their espionage increases.  For Aimen Dean, the sophistication seems to have attained an apogee.

Leave it to our old friend "The Big W" to notice the glaringly clever -- in the sense of hiding in plain sight -- paradox at the heart of the Jihad Watch headline:

thebigW says 

Feb 13, 2020 at 3:20 pm 

“UK: Former member of al-Qaeda says there is “no such thing as a rehabilitated jihadist” 

 LOL this Muslim by sayin’ this is contradicting his own statement!!! HAHAHAHAHA. I.-freakin’-e., this Aimen Dean feller is pretendin’ to be a rehabilitated jihadist himself and tryin’ to prove it by sounding REAL tough against jihadists. The joke is on anyone who believes he ain’t doin’ taqiyya. 

Indeed, Big W!  And I'd comfortably wager my entire bank account on the bet that many in the Counter-Jihad would be among those who would remain unacceptably ambivalent (at best) about this Mohammedan triple agent, if not (at worst) lavish spasms of praise on him for being the "rare Muslim" who is "doing the right thing".

Not that one needs to research Aimen Dean at all, since our rational prejudice against all Muslims suffices to damn him; but here are a couple of juicy nuggets I uncovered in less than 10 minutes of Googling:

If someone asks me what is the thing that really I learned from my experience, the most valuable thing, the most valuable thing is that at the core of it there is no war between Islam and the West. There is actually a civil war within Islam that is sucking the West into it.

I am still a devout Muslim but I have to be as critical of my own faith in order to diagnose what the problem is.

This was taken from a fawning interview with Aimen Dean at that Conservative bastion, the Henry Jackson Society.  Incidentally, one of the interviewers has the suspicious name of Nikita Malik, "Director of the Centre on Radicalisation & Terrorism" at the Henry Jackson Society "with a focus on youth deradicalisation", who has averred "I specialise in countering extremism..." Allah spare us!  Meanwhile, a Vogue puff piece on her unwittingly describes her form of Mohammedan espionage well: 

Nikita Malik, director of the Centre on Radicalisation & Terrorism at The Henry Jackson Society in London, works to mould society’s conversation around terror in the UK.  

I'll bet she "works to mould" the conversation! Carefully "moulding" it to sanitize maintream Islam and the vast majority of Muslims, of course, as does one of her partners-in-stealth-jihad, Maajid Nawaz. I could not find definitive proof Nikita is a Muslim; but more and more it seems, it doesn't really matter, as the ambit of Islam's cultic atmosphere tends to poison even ex-Muslims and non-Muslims who hail from Muslim cultures, being effectively dhimmis, helping to aid and abet their Muslim Masters.

A coffee break from the problems.

I'm sick of Islam (the problem).

I'm sick of the West not dealing with Islam (the problem of the problem).

I'm sick of the "Counter-Jihad" failing to deal adequately with the previous two problems (the problem... of the problem... of the problem).