Muslim Brotherhood: The Jews and Hindus attacked Mumbai, not Islamic jihadists

I do not get it. I really do not. I just do not know what it is that Islam has on these people. I have no idea. A murdering spree by Islamic Jihadis and now this moron with the balls to say that it was a concerted effort by Jews and Hindus. Again Islam and Muslims get another free ride. Just blame the others the evil Hindus and the evil Jews. Why not.

Fix Typepad!

Mosques are plenty, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce. The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral.
- Mark Twain

When I, a thoughtful and unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question every Mohammedan is insane, not in all things, but in religious matters. I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove anything to a lunatic — for that is a part of his insanity and the evidence of it.
- Mark Twain

The usual excuses are already on parade on various sites and forums: "extremism is the issue regardless of Muslim, Christian, Hindu" or any number of moral equivalence arguments along with a healthy dose of attempted revisionism regarding islam's origins.

Just another peaceful face of Islam

I wonder if any of the attackers came from Minneapolis?

What Mark Twain said (thanks to feralcat9 above).

Yeah feralcat9,

good for posting that. You know it is amazing what great humans throughout the ages have said about Islam from poets to politicians, nothing very nice at all but the truth about Islam which is ugly. It seems now there are those who do speak the truth are summarily branded as haters against Islam and the MSM and the leaders have become people living in some fairy tale with blinders. Indian leaders still sucking from the bottle. Better not hurt the feelings of Mohammedans.

The usual excuses are already on parade on various sites and forums: "extremism is the issue regardless of Muslim, Christian, Hindu" or any number of moral equivalence arguments along with a healthy dose of attempted revisionism regarding islam's origins.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott

Actually, extremism is, indeed, the real issue.... i.e. the extreme stupidity of people who are unable and unwilling to grasp the obvious fact that these terrorists are doing nothing more than following the tenets of Islam!

Razdan,

Good point, an "extreme" unconsciousness in the face of such evil. Professional ostrich impersonators.

Those were some great Twain quotes. Does anyone know where they came from? I would love to use them in some of my discussions with people, but I need to be able to verify them. Thanks.

From the 'Truth is stranger than Fiction' or the 'Stuff you can't make up' files.

Both Mossad and Abhinav Bharat deserve lifetime achievement awards for getting Mohammedans from Pakistan to send a ship from Karachi to Mumbai, drop a rubber dingy off the Gateway of India, activate sleepers in 10 locations in the city to go on a rampage, and then get the ship that dropped the dingy intercepted before it could get to Pakistan.

All in a day's work.

Savsiv, hang in there. I've had a little bit better luck with TypePad today; only two tries for each posting!

However, it still doesn't "remember me" throughout the day, as TypeKey did.

Extremism? No this is not about extremism, it is about Islam pure and simple. There are a lot of versus of the quarn which direct the Islamist to violence, after all, the upstart of islam was the raiding of caravans and small communities. This is purposely done by keeping the poeple ignorant. A great deal of effort is expended to keep the citizens of islam in line with the theaching of hate. The west needs to understand what it is that they are confronting, but as the old saying goes, "Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever."

Notice how schizoid these people are, they pull some trash then claim the vicitms did it themselves. Sounds like common street punks who blame the victim for his death cause he gave him a dirty look or took too long to give him the money.

The Ikhwanists are at it again--running interference for the holy warriors of "struggle in the way of Allah." This is a transparent attempt to raise a smokescreen, absolve Muslims generally of blame, and to sow discord among "the enemies of Allah"--the 4/5ths of Humanity who are kuffar. Pathetic.

I've talked to a fair amount of self-styled "moderate" Muslims, and this kind of thinking is very commonplace.

I think the RSS will fall under the same criticism that some cast at Vlams Belang: that it is a racist, xenophobic movement. Considering the seeming alternatives, I don't have a problem with that, though in practice it might mean abandoning Christians in the south. Anyone have a better practical idea than supporting RSS?

It is unbelieveable to have thess morons trying to cover up their islmaists traces of murder and mayhem, yeah blame the victim, seems to be mode of appratus for islamists.

feralcat--

Those quotes from Mark Twain -- especially the second of the two -- what a Thanksgiving Day treat.

So who was crazy? Was it David Hume? John Wesley? John Quincy Adams? Alexis de Tocqueville? Mark Twain? Winston Churchill? Or every intelligent Westerner who ever bothered to comment on Islam, over the past thousand years? Were they the crazy ones?

And are the un-crazy ones, the truth-tellers about Islam, Bush and Blair and Rice who keep telling us what a wonderful thing Islam is, not to mention those who, out of a want of intelligence and a desire to avoid, at all costs, any conflict between Islam and All the Rest (a conflict which is mandated by Islam, and which will become open warfare whenever and wherever Muslims think they can prevail; in the meantime, Jihad proceeds largely through means other than either qitaal (combat) or terrorism, the un-crazy ones? And is John Esposito, is Karen Armstrong, is Prof. Peterson of Brigham Young or Stephen Hockman QC -- are these the people who have it all right?

Which group would you like to see your name associated with? John Esposito and Karen Armstrong, or John Quincy Adams and Winston Churchill. Take your time before answering.

I have been watching the updates on the situation...The Indians have captured several terrorists...All appear to be Pakistinis....and Muslim...

Is anyone surprised?...nope..

We have already made our choice.

Feralcat-Thanks for those wonderful quotes from Mark Twain about Islam. Wouldn't it be nice to have straight talk from our leaders about Islam today.

However people are beginning to take notice and note that there is something about Islam. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh recently and he noted that the MSM is failing to mention that the Somali pirates are Muslim.So you have Muslims attacking ships. Muslims invading India and attacking hotels, hospitals, cinemas, train stations, shooting unarmed civilians and tossing grenades.Muslims attacking school children in Russian. Muslims flying planes into buildings in the US.Muslims attacking trains in Spain and England. Muslims involved in virtually all religious violence on Earth on one or both sides. People are noticing and people are getting tired of it.No one really believes Islam is a "religion of peace". Islams dirty laundry and ugly face are there for the whole world to see.

India has traced all the terrorists to Pakistan which means this attack rises to the level of an act of war by nuclear armed Pakistan on its nuclear armed neighbor India.We may actually be seeing the beginning of WW3.

So it would appear that Amaresh Misra, knows something no one else does.

He knows, because he has rock solid proof, that Massad and the people and forces who killed Gandhi
are responsible. And they 'demolished the Babari Mosque', as well.

Gandhi is dead...Way yesterday. The people who killed him (one, though he may have had back-up), are all dead or too old to move.

Well Gandhi did have enemies, but who would destroy a peaceful mosque of a peaceful people, of a peaceful religion?...

All Mohammadans ever did in India was spread the peace of Allah through out the land. That's all they want for India, Israel and the rest of the world as well.

All kufrs are entitled to Allah's peace and you are going to get it even if it kills you...

Ain't Islam just too sweet??

Those were some great Twain quotes. Does anyone know where they came from? I would love to use them in some of my discussions with people, but I need to be able to verify them. Thanks.

Tjhawk, the first quote is from Twain's The Innocents Abroad, published in 1869 (mine is the Collins edition). It's the opening sentences of Chapter 32.

I suspect the other one will turn out to be from the same book: I am still hunting it down.

WSW (wrestling with Typekeypadthing that KEEPS FORGETTING WHO I AM)

Hugh wrote: So who was crazy? Was it David Hume? John Wesley? John Quincy Adams? Alexis de Tocqueville? Mark Twain? Winston Churchill?

A few more to your list

Chesterton writing more than a century ago:

There is in Islam a paradox, which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. . . . A void is made in the heart of Islam, which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude if lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets.

--------------------------
Victor Hugo, in "Les Orientales", writes: "The Turks came this way. Everything is ruin and mourning.

-------------------------

Count Keyserling (1880-1946 CE) account of his travels in Islamic countries in "The Travel Diary of a Philosopher"

“Islam is a religion,” he wrote, “of absolute surrender and submissiveness to God - but to a God of a certain character - a War-Lord who is entitled to do with us as he will and who bids us stand ever in line of battle against the foe…

feralcat

I'd be wary of using the Twain quote about insanity, because it is part of a larger argument which does not appear to me to be entirely useful in our present predicament.

Here's the longer quote. I found it by some judicious googling. To my shame and regret I didn't record in which of his books it is to be found.

"Very well, the man who disputes none of them we concede to be entitled to 
go at large. But that is concession enough.

"We cannot go any further 
than that; for we know that in all matters of mere opinion that same man 
is insane--just as insane as we are; just as insane as Shakespeare was. 


"We know exactly where to put our finger upon his insanity: it is where 
his opinion differs from ours. 

That is a simple rule, and easy to remember.

"When I, a thoughtful and 
unblessed Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any 
question every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious 
matters.

{so far so good: but look what comes next - complete moral/ intellectual equivalency}

"When a thoughtful and unblessed Mohammedan examines the 
Westminster Catechism, he knows that beyond any question I am spiritually 
insane.

"I cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can 
prove anything to a lunatic--for that is a part of his insanity and the 
evidence of it.

"He cannot prove to me that I am insane, for my mind has 
the same defect that afflicts his.

"All Democrats are insane, but not one 
of them knows it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it.

"All the 
Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive 
it.

"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are 
insane. When I look around me, I am often troubled to see how many 
people are mad. To mention only a few."

However, when Twain looked at facts on the ground he saw plainly the objective difference between Mohammedanism and western society, that is, the difference between the results of Mohammedan beliefs and the results of Western beliefs.

Here's the longer version of feralcat's un-PC quote from 'The Innocents Abroad', as Twain observes the 'valley of Lebanon' in the early 19th century:

"(Moslems) never invent anything, never learn anything. Mosques are plenty, churches are plenty {this *was* Lebanon, after all - dda}, graveyards are plenty, but morals and whiskey are scarce".

And it continues:
“The Koran does not permit Mohammedans to drink. Their natural instincts do not permit them to be moral. They say the Sultan has eight hundred wives. This almost amounts to bigamy.”


Btw: this Amaresh Misra is not simply a BS peddler, he is a rather skilled agit prop. It seems obvious that he works for the Ikhwan.

There is a method in the madness.

From http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080074373

we note that at least one of the arrested terrorists is from pakistan

[The General Officer Commanding of Army's operations at Hotel Oberoi-Trident has told NDTV that the terrorists appear to be from Pakistan.

He has said that one terrorist arrested on Thursday is from Faridkot in Pakistan.

"The terrorists tried to pretend that they were from Hyderabad," said Army GOC to NDTV.

"Intercepts show terrorists speaking in Punjabi," he added]

So, much for conspiracy theories....

So Hindu militants are responsible for attacks on western tourists and jews??? What an idiot is this Amaresh Misra. That morron might have a Hindu name but he is certainly not a Hindu but a dhimmi

I guess I should make myself quite clear.

I would not actually sanction "Death by Donkey".

Nor is it the savagery I speak of. It's not unusual to find radicals of all kinds using the maiming and death of children to impress upon their fellow men that they mean business. This is not a practice the US would engage because we have, on the whole, morals that prevent such horrendous acts. This is just one act of savagery that those lacking what we call morals are capable of. They choose to see it as "strength." We know better.

War is won by making the other guy die for his country, or belief. No quarter. War is savage. People running at you, firing weapons, intent on your death. One must be able to match that savagery, and any other the enemy shows on the battlefield in order to survive.

remember Lord haw Haw? Famous figure in WWII. Do a search and see what end he met at the hands of the British for being a propagandist on behalf of the Germans.

There is only one punishment for a traitor. This is, of course, my most humble and worthless opinion.

Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.

Oh...and Typepad sucks...

Fix Typepad!

Posted by: savsiv at November 27, 2008 12:36 PM

I couldn't have said it better.

As for this guy, I have read on Islam Watch someone complaining that Western media isn't sufficiently covering the threat to India.

Except for CNN, he was right. Even Fox used it as a segue to talk about the latest threat to NYC. However, that doesn't explain India's own behavior over the last seven-plus years. India has refused aid to the West and now they look askance when Western news organizations ignore India? They don't want help and they won't give help. What are we supposed to do?

Alaskan,
It (typepad) does indeed!

So THAT'S where this bullspit is coming from!!!

So THAT'S where this bullspit is coming from!!!

Mumbai is under attack...Hundreds of people are dead. For the first time no one is blaming Muslim organizations.
..................

Wha? Is that why the "Deccan Mujahideen" are taking credit for these attacks? Will anyone believe these vicious absurdities?

more:

And the first casualty in the terrorist attack was Karkare! He is dead--gone--the firing by terrorists began from Nariman House--which is the only building in Mumbai inhabited by Jews.
.................

The very worst sort of calumny. The Chabad house was stormed by Muslim terrorists--and Misra is blaming the *victims of the attack* for the violence.

more:

We owe this much to Karkare and the brave ATS men who had shown the courage to arrest Praggya Singh, Raj Kumar Purohit, the army officer and several others.
.................

Good God. This is like Hitler using the burning of the Reichstag to go after Jews and liberals. They are trying to use the murder of a man and his colleagues they themselves killed to further their cause.

This is an example of the Muslim Brotherhood using "the big lie" in as blatant a manner as is conceivable. Just shocking.

"So Hindu militants are responsible for attacks on western tourists and jews???" -- rammer at November 27, 2008 7:20 PM

You've almost got it. Actually, it's "Hindu militants under the influence of Jewish conspiricists are responsible for attacks on western tourists, Hindus and Jews. AND (the cherry on top) the Muslims are the innocent victims."

Now why would ANYONE believe such obvious nonsense?

BECAUSE... it ISN'T obvious if you are in shock. That is where the terror attacks come in. They induce a state of shock, a vacuum of thought, into which the evil ones download their lies. First hit the reset button (creat mayhem and confusion), download viral trojan horse (be the first to get your message out, and it will most likely be absorbed). Then keep repeating until a sufficient number of hosts are infected, rendering them easy pray for the final attack.

Islam (not all it's Muslim slave victims) contains vast amounts of bad programing designed to select for the worst antisocial behavior. Those portions are evil and must be eliminated. But, until they do that themselves, we must be honest in identifying the problem and be utterly dedicated to it's eradication.

For information, from a Jewish perspective, on what the problem is and it's solution, >A>please see here.

"This is an example of the Muslim Brotherhood using "the big lie" in as blatant a manner as is conceivable. Just shocking."

What's so "shocking?" That's what they said about 9/11. That's what they say about all the trouble they cause. I can see you being shocked back in 2001, but not now.

We can't deal with this from a state of shock. We have to be coldly rational, and very brave. If they know that we are on to them, their "bravery" will be shown for the treacherous cowardace it is. But we need a lot of people to be on board, and the "leaders" we have are NOT up to the task. G-d help us!

Finally, a timely Thanksgiving message from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, "REMEMBER CHANUKAH!"

Because the few righteous can and will defeat the many wicked.

But you've got to want it.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

From the Times of India:

[Meltem Muezzinoglu, and her husband, Seyfi, both Turks], however, found themselves in a hostage situation, along with a group of foreigners. That night, they shared a room with three foreigners - all women. Two machine-gun-wielding terrorists stood guard over them the whole night.
All the hostages were asked to reveal their religion. When the Muezzinoglus said they were Muslims, their captors told them that they would not be harmed. The other three Caucasian women were removed from the room next day, and the terrorists informed the Muezzinoglus that they had been shot.
Arpaciouglu kept in touch with his friends all through the hostage crisis, up until the time they were released the next day.

It follows that the terrorists are a group of Mossad operatives and Hindu fanatics — Q.E.D.!

The Chabad House is by no means "the only building inhabited by Jews". One of my friends here is from the Mumbai Jewish community and I know at least his mother's house has Jews living in it. I suspect other Jews' houses do as well.

I have had an epiphany.

Looking back I am surprised (and a little ashamed) that it has taken so long.

Our Jihadi enemy is murderous and brutal, but he is not unintelligent and he is not incapable of the most detailed planning.

To analyze the Mumbai operation from a military perspective and through Jihadi eyes one must acknowledge certain realities. Among these “realities” are:

1.The Jihadi force can only inflict very limited and minimal physical damage to Mumbai and India as a whole, due to the small size of the attacking force. This means that the major objective and effect of the operation is one of “terror” – intended to inflict psychological damage rather than major physical destruction.

2.The planning for this “terror” operation would be faulty and incomplete sufficient resources are not devoted to shifting the “blame” for this operation to the targeted enemy. Done correctly, vast numbers of ignorant Muslims (future Jihadis) can be easily convinced that the Joooz did it.

From a military standpoint, one must admire the deviousness and complete elegance of the plan. Small operation, huge psychological impact on the enemy, while achieving a modest boost in fervor and esprit amongst the Jihadis.

Look for more of this in the future – spread the word amongst the Kuffar.

The MSM didn't need this asshat - watching the (national) news this evening (Thursday) and the retired military expert/talking head (can't remember what service or rank) went out of his way to identify the terrorists as "poor", "dis-enfranchised", "from the North West", "Kashmir area", "militant", twisting himself like a pretzel to keep from saying either "Muslim" or "Islam" He looked VERY uncomfortable and obviously had been given some direction about avoiding certain words. After he was done, one would think the terrorists were farmers looking for higher milk prices.

Davey, I don't think there was any planning wrt the PR. This is what Islamists do. They always blame the Jews. If the PR were planned, the attacks would not have targeted Americans, Brits, and Israelis, and if they did they still wouldn't have let the Muslims go, since they were tourists. It was tactful in that it got the world's attention in a way that the Bangalore bombings last summer didn't, because the Westerners were victims and because of the ongoing-ness of the hostage situation. One thing that has surprised me about the media's coverage is its self-centeredness. Last winter I was working on a project that dealt with how different news sources presented the same story, which was a bus crash in Egypt. Google News and most of the American sources had headlines to the effect of "17 killed in Egyptian bus crash," but the Italian sources all had headlines to the effect of "2 Italians killed in Egyptian bus crash." The American media is reacting to this the way the Italian media reacted to the bus crash story. I think that part of it is because this way they can avoid the Israeli angle, the Israeli hostages, and the fact that Israelis were sought out, because if they present that then they're not being good dhimmis because the story will have "Islam" all over it, which it does anyway. Every time I read a headline, even those dealing with minor events, I try to see how they're hiding the Islam angle, and most of the time they are. I know I'm not the only one. I think most Europeans do that these days, but not Americans.

Can somone suggets to this retard that the 9/11 attacks were clearly more complex?...oh, I forgot. according to these "special needs" people mossad did that one as well. {they'll probably say mossad killed the easter bunny next.}

Roxane,
However people are beginning to take notice and note that there is something about Islam. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh recently and he noted that the MSM is failing to mention that the Somali pirates are Muslim.So you have Muslims attacking ships. Muslims invading India and attacking hotels, hospitals, cinemas, train stations, shooting unarmed civilians and tossing grenades.Muslims attacking school children in Russian. Muslims flying planes into buildings in the US.Muslims attacking trains in Spain and England. Muslims involved in virtually all religious violence on Earth on one or both sides. People are noticing and people are getting tired of it.No one really believes Islam is a "religion of peace". Islams dirty laundry and ugly face are there for the whole world to see.

That was the apt comment of whats happening "ISLAM" is the problem and only a lunatic can believe ISLAM is religion of peace. Amresh Mishra is a lunatic, he can be sent to afganistan taliban country with one way ticket.

The point I am trying to make is that in any major terrorist action, if the “Muslim as victim” angle is overlooked or just left to happenstance after the fact, the Jihadis are apt to miss a MAJOR additional benefit from the operation. They have planned for this “Muslim as victim” effect sporadically in the past, most notably in the last Israeli – Lebanon conflict and perhaps also at Haditha.

We always seem to be shocked when Muslims play the victim - yet it is usually very effective, since our own news media aids and abets our enemy every time. Our own news media as a force multiplier for the enemy, what a wonderful world we live in! Looking back at recent history, it is surprising that Jihadis have not used this tactic more often.

Again, the point is that this “Muslim as victim” is a very effective tactic that the enemy has occasionally used. Our enemy is becoming more sophisticated in his attacks, so one should expect him to PLAN to use those tactics that are effective, more frequently.

If you are shocked at your enemy’s behavior, you do not yet know him.

Davegreybeard,

"1.The Jihadi force can only inflict very limited and minimal physical damage to Mumbai and India as a whole, due to the small size of the attacking force. This means that the major objective and effect of the operation is one of “terror” – intended to inflict psychological damage rather than major physical destruction."

Google "Andrew Bostom" and "razzia"

Re the Mark Twain quotes:

The one about insanity is from his attack on Christian Science, called 'Christian Science' chapter 5, from 1907:-

Let us consider that we are all partially insane. It will explain us to
each other, it will unriddle many riddles, it will make clear and simple
many things which are involved in haunting and harassing difficulties and
obscurities now.

Those of us who are not in the asylum, and not demonstrably due there,
are nevertheless no doubt insane in one or two particulars--I think we
must admit this; but I think that we are otherwise healthy-minded. I
think that when we all see one thing alike, it is evidence that as
regards that one thing, our minds are perfectly sound. Now there are
really several things which we do all see alike; things which we all
accept, and about which we do not dispute. For instance, we who are
outside of the asylum all agree that water seeks its level; that the sun
gives light and heat; that fire consumes; that fog is damp; that 6 times
6 are thirty-six; that 2 from 10 leave eight; that 8 and 7 are fifteen.
These are perhaps the only things we are agreed about; but although they
are so few, they are of inestimable value, because they make an
infallible standard of sanity. Whosoever accepts them we know to be
substantially sane; sufficiently sane; in the working essentials, sane.
Whoever disputes a single one of them we know to be wholly insane, and
qualified for the asylum.

Very well, the man who disputes none of them we concede to be entitled to
go at large--but that is concession enough; we cannot go any further than
that; for we know that in all matters of mere opinion that same man is
insane--just as insane as we are; just as insane as Shakespeare was, just
as insane as the Pope is. We know exactly where to put our finger upon
his insanity; it is where his opinion differs from ours.

That is a simple rule, and easy to remember. When I, a thoughtful and
unbiased Presbyterian, examine the Koran, I know that beyond any question
every Mohammedan is insane; not in all things, but in religious matters.
When a thoughtful and unbiased Mohammedan examines the Westminster
Catechism, he knows that beyond any question I am spiritually insane. I
cannot prove to him that he is insane, because you never can prove
anything to a lunatic--for that is a part of his insanity and the
evidence of it. He cannot prove to me that I am insane, for my mind has
the same defect that afflicts his. All democrats are insane, but not one
of them knows it; none but the republicans and mugwumps know it. All the
republicans are insane, but only the democrats and mugwumps can perceive
it. The rule is perfect; in all matters of opinion our adversaries are
insane. When I look around me I am often troubled to see how many people
are mad. To mention only a few:

The Atheist, The Shakers,
The Infidel, The Millerites,
The Agnostic, The Mormons,
The Baptist, The Laurence Oliphant
The Methodist, Harrisites,
The Catholic, and the other The Grand Lama's people,
115 Christian sects, the The Monarchists,
Presbyterian excepted, The Imperialists,
The 72 Mohammedan sects, The Democrats,
The Buddhist, The Republicans (but not
The Blavatsky-Buddhist, the Mugwumps),
The Nationalist, The Mind-Curists,
The Confucian, The Faith-Curists,
The Spiritualist, The Mental Scientists,
The 2,000 East Indian The Allopaths,
sects, The Homeopaths,
The Peculiar People, The Electropaths,
The Swedenborgians,

The--but there's no end to the list; there are millions of them! And all
insane; each in his own way; insane as to his pet fad or opinion, but
otherwise sane and rational.

This should move us to be charitable toward one another's lunacies.

Yonason wrote:

"This is an example of the Muslim Brotherhood using "the big lie" in as blatant a manner as is conceivable. Just shocking."
...

What's so "shocking?" That's what they said about 9/11. That's what they say about all the trouble they cause. I can see you being shocked back in 2001, but not now.

We can't deal with this from a state of shock. We have to be coldly rational, and very brave. If they know that we are on to them, their "bravery" will be shown for the treacherous cowardace it is. But we need a lot of people to be on board, and the "leaders" we have are NOT up to the task. G-d help us!
...............

Yonason, you mistake me. I mentioned this ugly crap from the Muslim Brotherhood to a couple of friends, and they were almost dismissive of its importance, because so many Jihadists back "wacky" conspiracy theories. What I was emphasizing was that this is a deliberate calumny, a blaming of the victims of Jihad violence for their own deaths.

We *should* find this shocking--in that we should never consider this acceptable. I did *not mean* that we that we should approach the reality of Jihad from a state of open-mouthed shock. I think it is possible to be both outraged and rational about the threat.

"I think it is possible to be both outraged and rational about the threat."

OK. Thanks for the clarification. But I still disagree that "shocking" is the appropriate term. Outrage, certainly, but not "shock," ...unless one says one is shocked by the persistent utter lack of understanding by the West of the profound threat of Islam itself. That is something that so baffles me that every time I think about it I am more shocked/amazed than I am outraged, though I am that as well.