Huma Abedin under guard after Muslim threatens her

"Can anyone square the MB connections of her family with their celebration of her marriage to an infidel? My best guess is that Wiener secretly converted to Islam."

Well, according to our learned JW librarian, dumbledoresarmy, Muslims aren't that clever -- so it couldn't possibly be that the Muslim Brotherhood values infiltration of high places in the nerve center of the West (how much closer to the omphalos of the cosmos can you get than having the trusted ear of the Secretary of State under an ultra-Islamophiliac Administration of the U.S.A.?) as part of their grand, and perfectly mainstream Islamic, plan to destroy us, piece by piece, in order to fulfill their perennial desideratum of global jihad -- a desideratum for whose sake relatively minor sacrifices can be made, such as hiding in plain sight without a veil, and a sham marriage to some Weiner without balls.

No, Muslims can't be that clever; so we needn't worry overmuch. Thus, good questions, Corn.

Indeed, her marrying a non-Muslim, particularly a Jew, would probably enrage the majority of Muslim males. Some percentage of the enraged would be willing to threaten her, and some percentage of those would be willing to carry out Islam's death sentence on her for marrying a non-Muslim.

Other than that, Robert's hypothesis is also credible, namely, that the issuer of the threat is a propaganda jihadist who was trying to smear counter-jihadists.

Perhaps both were motives in this case.

You could be right....but devout Muslims are extremely reluctant to disregard their own theological imperatives...even in the service of Jihad. Lying is of course an acceptable practice, but the ban on Muslim women marrying infidel men is set in concrete. Disregarding it for tactical advantage has its own desultory repercussions. The last thing the MB wants to do is legitimize such a "treasonous" practice through a high-profile marriage such as Wiener/Abedin. After all, Huma could have married a good Muslim without jeopardizing her proximity to Clinton.

My opinion is that Abedin is much more likely to be a tool of Saudi intelligence than the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brother has its own agenda, but is not able to dictate to Muslim governments or organizations except covertly. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a contributor to almost every Islamic and Islamist cause, and could easily suppress most Sharia-based protests at the obvious marriage of a Muslima to a Jew.

If everything had gone according to plan, Wiener would be chairman of a House committee involving foreign affairs or intelligence by now. This, in conjunction with Abedin's position with Clinton as Secretary of State, would give Saudi intelligence almost full access to US foreign policy secrets, and possibly many military secrets. Wiener turned out to be even dumber than they gave him credit for, and blew the plan.

Likely, the Muslim who threatened Abedin was simply too dumb to follow the news carefully, and thought he was helping to enforce Sharia law through death threats. Ordinarily, this is a valuable service to Muslim enclaves, but in this case did not quite fit the plan.

I doubt that Abedin is terribly influential in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood for the reason that the Muslim Brotherhood is already fully supported by this administration, from the top down. Why waste an invaluable intelligence source trying to get a government to do what it wants to do anyway?

"After all, Huma could have married a good Muslim without jeopardizing her proximity to Clinton. "

You're forgetting that Weiner himself is a useful asset to be influencing. As RonaldB points out, "If everything had gone according to plan, Wiener would be chairman of a House committee involving foreign affairs or intelligence by now." Huma and her handlers couldn't have foreseen Weiner's self-destructive personal problems back when she positioned herself to snag him.

However, RonaldB goes on to make a simplistic conjecture:

"I doubt that Abedin is terribly influential in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood for the reason that the Muslim Brotherhood is already fully supported by this administration, from the top down. Why waste an invaluable intelligence source trying to get a government to do what it wants to do anyway?"

It's not that simple. In order to infiltrate an enemy as formidable and sophisticated as the U.S.A. with an eye to toppling it, for God's sake, you need all your ducks in a row, and there is no such thing as a superfluous asset. The more the merrier for the Religion of No Fun.

RonaldB,

I'm not aware of any evidence indicating Wiener was slated for an 'international relations' or 'intelligence' committee position (though it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility he might have eventually landed one).

Huma Abedin could very well be an agent of influence for the Saudis as you suggest, or the MB, or another Islamic entity. But if we're fair-minded (something our opponents on the Left are incapable of), we also must at least acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that she fell in love with Wiener (there's no accounting for taste) and married him based upon the dictates of her conscience.

The question remains, at least in my mind:

Why would a religiously devout Muslim family countenance their daughter/sister's marriage to an infidel. There could only be one of three answers...

1) Wiener secretly converted to Islam

2) Lemon/Lime is correct; their acquiescence was based upon sinister motives

3) They're more open-minded than anyone expected

And why do I suspect it ain't #3.

It was ABC news that emblazoned the "greatest mass murder in US history" line. Yahoo just picked up on it. Yahoo is not a news service; it's much like Jihad Watch in one regard at least: it's a clearing-house of other news services.

In a sane world, not only would Bachmann be joined by most of her colleagues -- on both sides of the aisles -- but Weiner himself would be immediately and thoroughly investigated for collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and/or other Islamic entities.

Lemonlime,

Thanks for scoping out Robert's position.

I think we should all acknowledge that Huma is either expecting or recently gave birth to a child from this supposedly "sham" marriage.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here folks...but I AM trying to exhibit something we'd never see from the Islamo-Left, and that is fair-mindedness. Huma Abedin may or may not be an enemy agent of influence. I'm with Bachman; she should be investigated....but while speculation here and elsewhere in the blogosphere is fair-game, there shouldn't be an automatic presumption of guilt.

danny wrote:

"As a matter of fact there are not hundred but thousands of Jonathan Pollard type Jews in America trying to influence our government and politicians and it is them, who need to be investigated and locked up just like Jonathan Pollard."

Our government? Sorry "danny", but I'm not convinced.

Hi danny! I AM BACK!!!!!!!! WOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!
JW and RS are anti islam and not anti muslims. two different things. Agent of the Mossad?! let's get real here, i think the Mossad have a lot more options available to them than having RS spread hate twoard muslims if you catch my drift. you do have a point about 99% of muslims living a peaceful life. that said the other 1% are poised to killing us and they need to be stopped. muslims do not want to have anything to do with Israel... I agree with you if they do not want to have anything to do with them. however that does not give them carte blanch to destroy israel and the israelis. in fact if muslims just took a minute and see what a country of 7 million people have achieved, it could be a wake up call for them. then again those joooos!!!!!! they control everything. I have to haded it to you!! what muslim country are you from by the way? perhaps may be we can start there. Jonathan Polard jews...... it seems t me that your are more anti semite than Robert is. obviously you have a hard on for those dirty jews! am I correct? I am not familiar with any American politicitions have any ties to Kahane group. do you know any of them by any chance?
Danny: I just got back from Iran the day before yesterday. you know the country whose president has openly pledges to wipe israel off of the map? I am wonderng do you think he is anti semite like Robert is? after all he wants a whole country wiped out. BTW, I brought back a real cool picture of hand crafted Moses for my girl friend. Danny: i do have to agree with you that those jooos go to extrem to get their agendas goimg forward. since I am iranian my girl friend whos jewish, deep in my heart, I know she is going out with me to provide Mossad information on how and what muslim men do in bed. those bastards!!! never trust a Jew danny!!!!!!!

Stash,

You should read more about her before indulging in abstract theories.

Hey Miriam! Glad you're back! I was starting to get a little worried that some of your old "friends" over there might want you to stick around for awhile...

Huma Abedin under guard after Muslim threatens her

As you can see from the screenshot above, Yahoo headlined this story "Bachmann's accusations lead to threat against Huma Abedin"
......................................

What crap. That implies that the threat came from some Republican or Tea Party member or other "Islamophobe"—*not* a fellow Muslim.

More:

An individual, described as a Muslim man, made the unspecified threat after Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) last week claimed Abedin’s family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and asked for a probe to see if she is helping the Islamist organization.
......................................

Abedin's family *does* have strong links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now, this does not automatically mean that Abedin herself is a supporter—but she has never condemned the Muslim Brotherhood, which is deeply concerning. And she will not condemn them now, when called to, which is even more troubling.

Calling for a probe in this situation is perfectly reasonable.

Ronald B wrote:

My opinion is that Abedin is much more likely to be a tool of Saudi intelligence than the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brother has its own agenda, but is not able to dictate to Muslim governments or organizations except covertly.
......................................

Ronald, I'm afraid that certainly isn't true any more. No one could have missed the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate elected to the presidency of the Arab world's most populous country.

More:

Likely, the Muslim who threatened Abedin was simply too dumb to follow the news carefully, and thought he was helping to enforce Sharia law through death threats. Ordinarily, this is a valuable service to Muslim enclaves, but in this case did not quite fit the plan.
......................................

I think you may well be right here. It is another "Slow Jihad/Fast Jihad" dust-up. Huma Abedin is certainly one of the poster girls of "slow Jihad".

More:

I doubt that Abedin is terribly influential in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood for the reason that the Muslim Brotherhood is already fully supported by this administration, from the top down. Why waste an invaluable intelligence source trying to get a government to do what it wants to do anyway?
......................................

Well, could be. On the other hand, Abedin may have been somewhat influential on welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood's government with open arms in the first place.

Not that Barack Obama, a born Muslim who described the Adnan as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset” would have been all that resistant, in any case.

I think this is one of the main problems, in fact—we now have multiple Islamic elements in the administration, including at the very top.

Actually, LL, it was 14...a female victim was pregnant at the time, a tiny, "little" detail that the Leftist media chooses to ignore to this day.

It makes me sick.

DMD

"danny" wrote:

It is a well known fact that the Jihad Watch is an anti-Islamic and Robert Spencer a racist and an agent of Zionist Mossad spreading hate against Muslims and inciting people of the west that may lead to wholesale violence against the Muslim.
............................

Claiming that pointing out the terrible violence of Islam is the same as a call to violence against Muslims is a grotesque canard.

Do you yourself have any problems with Jihad violence?

More:

Just because Muslims don't want anything to do with Israel, does not mean I am going to brand them all terrorist.
............................

Nor is anyone here. This is a false argument.

There is no doubt that all too many Muslims are virulently antisemitic, though–nor that Islam itself is genocidal in its approach to Jews.

More:

How many American politicians and neo-con Jews have ties to Israeli (Jewish) terrorist organization like Kahane group?
............................

What crap. There have been almost 20,000 Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11. Do you have any problem with these atrocities? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

David Dowse wrote:

Actually, LL, it was 14...a female victim was pregnant at the time, a tiny, "little" detail that the Leftist media chooses to ignore to this day.

It makes me sick.
.....................................

Thanks for mentioning that, David. That's always a point I make, as well. The terrible toll was even higher than is usually acknowledged.

David,

That's right, thanks for reminding me of that grim, terrible detail.

Cornelius,

You need to read up more on Huma.

Walid Shoebat has done a lot of digging, not just recently, but going back a long time.

There is a "Muslim Sisterhood" which is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood comprised of various influential Muslim women. Of the 63 leaders around the world of this group, Huma's mother, Saleha, is one of them. Another leading "Sister" -- and thus close colleague of Huma's mother -- is the wife of the current Egyptian President, who himself is Muslim Brotherhood. And Morsi's wife isn't just knitting quilts for the "Sisterhood" -- she along with her husband are members of the MB's Guidance Bureau.

Shoebat adds:

"Huma’s brother—Hassan Abedin—has also collaborated with an al-Qaeda godfather Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world."

He also notes:

"All signs point to Huma using a technique championed by Qaradawi himself. It’s called Muruna and it allows Muslims to go to extreme lengths to deceive and convince non-Muslims they pose no threat. One such act permitted by Muruna would be for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man if it furthered the cause of Islam."

http://www.shoebat.com/2012/06/24/how-is-huma-abedin-connected-to-egypts-new-president/

There is much more at Shoebat's website, and in pieces he has contributed on this at Frontpage. It just has to be looked for, and read.

An interview with him about this at Frontpage:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/the-dark-muslim-brotherhood-world-of-huma-abedin-2/

And as Andy McCarthy has pointed out over at NRO:

"Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.” It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood."

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/310198

I have seen such similar dirt and maggots uncovered when we turn over Muslim rocks too many times before over the years, with all permutations of "false moderates". No: The rule of thumb for Muslims -- unlike with any other group on Earth -- is to presume guilt until there is proof of innocence. Anything else is a foolhardy risking of our lives and the lives of our loved ones and fellow citizens, just so we can feel good about ourselves ethically, because the holdover of the PC MC kool-ade hasn't quite been flushed out of our system yet.

GI

you remarked, above, "It is another "Slow Jihad/Fast Jihad" dust-up. Huma Abedin is certainly one of the poster girls of "slow Jihad"."

That was my instant response to the article.

'Fast Jihad' vs 'Slow Jihad'.

One can't rule out other possibilities, of course, but that's as good an explanation as any.

Hesperado/ LemonLime

why, pray, are you now claiming that I think 'most Muslims aren't clever'?

I quote, from your dripping-with-sarcasm remark above (and it isn't the first time you have taken this particular swipe at me)

"Well, according to our learned JW librarian, dumbledoresarmy, Muslims aren't that clever --"..

Chapter and verse, mate. Chapter and verse.

Where, precisely, and for what reason, do you believe that this is my ironclad position on the intellectual capacity of 'Muslims'?

Surely it has not occurred to you that - coming from a devoutly Christian background - I may be operating on the basis of a distinction between what might be called 'cunning', and...**wisdom**?

To borrow from l.iterature: in thinking about Muslims vs non-Muslims I am thinking about the difference between a Lord Voldemort, and a Dumbledore or a Hermione. Voldemort is extremely clever, and very powerful and manipulative and in the short term is very successful (though, be it noted, he has plenty of stupid thugs amongst his followers); but precisely because of the kind of person he is, and the goals he has, and the worldview he has, he is tripped up by all the things that he left *out* of his calculations (because he simply could not or would not see them in the first place).

Mao and Stalin and Hitler were clever schemers and manipulators, too. But would any Biblical prophet have called them 'wise'? NO.

Many Muslims, obviously, have plenty of cunning (though do you deny that there *are* also not a few, as the news stories show over and over again, who *are* definitely not the sharpest knives in the drawer, even considered in terms of criminal cunning?).

Islam commits a person to a fundamental lie. So long as the person is in thrall to the lie, how can they possibly have a completely accurate grasp of reality? And if they do not have an accurate grasp of reality, if they are in the habit of lying to themselves and others and, worse, of doing what Harry Frankfurter calls 'bullshitting', how effective, in the long run, are they going to be? Do lies and bullshit, especially when practised lifelong, rot the brain? - or do they not?

Is the cosmos the way Islam says it is - or is it not?

If it is not, if there are realities within it and also acting from beyond it that Muslims cannot see and do not acknowledge, then Muslims are going to collide head-on with it, over and over. Little things will trip them up. They are going to be, in the long run, less effective than people who are operating in accord with the deepest reality of things.

M Scott Peck, witnessing exorcisms, concluded that the demonic was limited by its inability to comprehend genuine charity or love, and by its inability to comprehend that anyone would be prepared to pursue truth - objective, scientific truth - at all costs. Real love and real science were beyond its ability to imagine or understand. if that is so of the demonic, then why should it be any less true of evil humans? And if a person's curiosity, imagination, empathy and creativity are stunted - as they *are*, by Islam - then surely that will affect their dealing with the world at large. They may be immensely cunning. They may be someone who, if born into a non-Muslim family, might have done great things in science, or art, or politics. They may elaborate all kinds of clever plots and plans and even pull some of them off. But there will be 'wild cards' that they simply cannot and will not see.

And I do not think that any of this can be construed or summed up as: "Dumbledore's Army thinks that most Muslims aren't clever".

Don't worry, Anderson Cooper will find a way to dismiss all the facts about this seditious and very dangerous family of muslim supremacists/jihadists and will declare that these 'moderate' muslims are the victims of 'right-wing conspiracies'. As for John McCain's little diatribe last week on the floor of the Senate---he makes me sick to my stomach. It's time for that man to either catch up with the realities of islam or retire.

I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh on this; the Republican 'establishment' is as complicit as the left when it comes to giving the enemies of America a free pass to destroy our country. There are so few real leaders in our government that I fear we are doomed. Political correctness is all any of them care about with the exception of Bachman and a few others, all of whom are being ruthlessly castigated and demonized as we speak, for the crime of doing their jobs.

Friend,

I'm inclined to believe that Huma Abedin does not have America's best interests at heart. I wouldn't at all be surprised if she is an actual agent of influence. But you can't choose your relatives....and her family's ties do not comprise incontrovertible truth by a long-shot that she's an enemy (though it certainly doesn't help!).

I'm suspicious of her. I'm glad Bachman has made an issue of her. But I also refuse to express certitudes about something that I don't yet have sufficient information about.

Meanwhile, I thought Stash made a very valid point. Huma may or may not not be organizationally connected to Islamic entities....but even if she isn't, there is every possibility that she is quietly pursuing her personal and political/religious loyalties by running interference for Islam every and any chance she can.

What has Mr Robert Spencer ever printed that wasn't the truth?

"How many American politicians and neo-con Jews have ties to Israeli (Jewish) terrorist organization like Kahane group?"

Hmmmm, I remember Meier Kahane was assassinated by an Egyptian Muslim named El Sayyid Nosair in America in 1990...he was acquitted....in 1993 he was convicted for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing...

Meier Kahane knew how Muslims operate and he stood up for the protection of his people...the Muslims didn't like it and they killed him..

You wrote, bizarrely: It is a well known fact that the Jihad Watch is an anti-Islamic and Robert Spencer a racist and an agent of Zionist Mossad spreading hate against Muslims ........

So, it's a fact, is it. OK, now that we have the accusation, let's have the evidence!

Meanwhile, JW continues to state the facts about Islam's anti-Jewish, misogynistic, anti-infidel, pro-violent jihad agenda. And all of it using evidence from core texts of Islam, like Al Qur'an, for instance.

What's so anti-Islamic about quoting the facts word for word as they appear in Al Qur'an, danny boy?

You're a clown!

dumble, you wrote

"There are two equal and opposite dangers for us today.

One is to underestimate the enemy.

The other is to *overestimate* the enemy.

Sometimes I wonder whether-even as you accuse the rest of us of *underestimating* the opponent - you yourself are falling into the opposite error, that of seeing the enemy as virtually omnipotent and omniscient."

And I responded that the risks are too high to be doubting as you are.

Rush said that? He's been practically AWOL on the issue of Muslims, and was an active supporter of the Dubai Ports deal.

As Debbie Schlussel pointed out, the problem w/ Bachmann is that while she raised the issues about Huma Abedin, she ignored similar behavior from Bush of cozying up to Muslim lobbyists when he was in power - particularly Suhail Khan, Nasser Beydoun and others. And that's what creates a credibility gap. If Bachmann didn't question Republicans when they were guilty of the same outrages, then aside from the feeding frenzy that the GOP is having w/ her, she fails to duck hypocrisy charges when anybody would ask her why she didn't question the pandering to Muslims activities by the GOP while her party was running things.

Problem is that unlike during the Cold War, when Republicans were easily well grounded on how to deal w/ the Soviets as opposed to the Democrats, there is no such sure line here. Enough of the GOP has been contaminated w/ Muslim PAC influence, and indeed, in several races, one might find the (D) candidate to actually be cleaner. The thing to do is investigate one's own candidate thoroughly and then vote according to whoever is most opposed to Muslim influence, regardless of whether or not s/he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

I fail to see how you get from that passage of mine (about underestimation versus overestimation) which you cited, to the conclusion that 'dumbledoresarmy thinks that most Muslims aren't clever'; which sweeping assertion - WHICH IS FALSE - you have repeated in two comments thread thus far, and will probably be slamming me with for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I fail to see how my insistence - following simply from my subscribing to classical Christian theology - that Muslims (being human, i.e. mortal, fallible and contingent creatures, limited like all of us by time and space and chance, and being in addition evil or influenced by evil and therefore being afflicted with at least a few significant 'blind spots' ) are neither omniscient nor omnipotent equates to an assertion that they're not 'clever'.

Good parry, Dumbles.

Would you mind elaborating on your last sentence ? True Muslim what ?

Welcome, LL.

Welcome, GI.

LemonLime wrote, replying to Dumbledore's Army:

dumble, you wrote

"There are two equal and opposite dangers for us today.

One is to underestimate the enemy.

The other is to *overestimate* the enemy.

Sometimes I wonder whether-even as you accuse the rest of us of *underestimating* the opponent - you yourself are falling into the opposite error, that of seeing the enemy as virtually omnipotent and omniscient."

And I responded that the risks are too high to be doubting as you are.
..........................................

LemonLime, the great danger with *overestimating* an enemy is in believing that you are doomed to lose, and so give up the fight.

Even here on Jihad Watch we see that periodically, where some otherwise solid Anti-Jihadist will essentially throw in the towel and declare that we have already lost.

*That* is the danger of overestimating your enemy.

And further, it is profoundly depressing to see you continue your habit of going after your own allies—in this case, the stalwart Dumbledore's Army.

That you consistently spend more time criticizing other Anti-Jihadists rather than focus on our common foe is itself terribly dispiriting—when not just irksome.

dumble,

You may agree that Muslims can be clever, but apparently you also believe that one can "overestimate" that cleverness. Again, my view on this is that since neither side has absolute certitude on this and the related issue of a) which Muslims are harmless and b) how many harmless Muslims there are, we should err on the side of caution and assume the worst. It's just that simple. I don't know why you're complicating it and trying to sidestep where you stand. I'm clear where I stand: We should assume the worst, assume all Muslims (which = any given Muslim) are guilty until proven innocent, and assume that "guilt" in this regard primarily refers to their danger to our lives in one capacity or another (they don't all have to be lighting a fuse or wielding an axe to be deadly, obviously).

Only after we go through this elementary logical process and come the logical conclusion can we begin to formulate consistent and coherent action and policy which will optimally protect our lives and our fellow citizens' lives and all our property.

gravenimage,

"LemonLime, the great danger with *overestimating* an enemy is in believing that you are doomed to lose, and so give up the fight."

That's one problem with overestimating the enemy -- but that wasn't my position about which dumble posted her demurrer in that other thread which I quoted. If you go to the following link and read the last three comments -- from me, then dumble, then my response which is the last comment on that very long thread of 91 comments (it would also further clarify the issue to read several of my preceding comments there), you'll see that I wasn't "overestimating" in that sense at all.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/eric-allen-bell-tells-the-islamic-center-of-murfreesboro-why-he-no-longer-supports-their-mega-mosque.html#comments

I never do. I consistently have been advocating that we generate what might be called a "thinking force" of shared, agreed core principles, in our little part of the long process of trying to slowly turn our society around from its orientation on this issue -- one core principle being that based on a complex and cogent argument resting on a mountain of data and oceans of dots which anyone with half a brain can connect, it would be suicidally reckless for us to continue to reinforce the notion that any Muslims are not deadly to us (see my immediately previous comment to dumble for more clarification on this).

I don't care if I'm talking to the Queen, I will call a spade a spade on this point wherever I see it, and I think it's a misplaced anxiety to worry so about unanimity in the Counter-Jihad that we can't have reasoned internal arguments. Any movement -- including sociopolitical movements (indeed any group of humans) -- benefits from internal debate. Internal debate is healthy to a movement, and too much concern for unanimity and uniformity is unhealthy. Of course, there's a balance to be struck, and no movement is perfect. However, it strikes me that your concern (which I have run into many times over the years from others in the Counter-Jihad) gets this particular problem of unity backwards: For any sociopolitical movement based on a cause (like the Counter-Jihad), there are two phases:

1) the process of coming to some agreement about a platform

2) the relatively unanimous agreement and actions that flow from that agreement.

Sometimes it seems to me that the concern for unanimity and the anxiety about internal dissension reverses 1 and 2, putting the cart before the horse: Before we even all agree on what our position is vis-a-vis Islam & Muslims, we must maintain unanimity at all cost and stop wrangling...! But I maintain that during phase 1, internal disagreement is not only healthy, it is productive and will lead to a sound phase 2. It is at phase 2 where the movement's members should stop disagreeing (or form their own splinter groups -- a development that is unfortunate and should be avoided if possible). I just don't want us to prematurely decide -- without really having come to a rational decision but just by de facto passivity which just lets decisions hold sway and float to the top without a real consensus having been sought -- on a position that reinforces the unverifiable (not to mention potentially terribly reckless) meme that "many Muslims are harmless".

Cyborg,

I don't know if you read my comment above about Walid Shoebat's research on Huma. One thing in particular he points out is acutely relevant to your comment:

"All signs point to Huma using a technique championed by Qaradawi himself. It’s called Muruna and it allows Muslims to go to extreme lengths to deceive and convince non-Muslims they pose no threat. One such act permitted by Muruna would be for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man if it furthered the cause of Islam."

http://www.shoebat.com/2012/06/24/how-is-huma-abedin-connected-to-egypts-new-president/

Great. Another fucking Arabic word we have to learn, "Muruna", from the Dar-al-Horrors.

I think to be on the safe side, we should assume any given Muslim would do anything to advance the cause of Islam -- thus rendering us incapable of trusting any given Muslim no matter what he or she says or does. Thus imagine the scenario: a WMD is about to be detonated which could mass-murder thousands of us; a Muslim who may or may not be involved and be a key component in the success of the attack pleads with intelligence personnel, and in the process he curses Mohammed, drinks alcohol, eats pork, burns a Koran -- and whatever else can be thought of. It would be a horribly grave mistake to trust that Muslim and let him have any opportunity to deploy his possible role in the terrorist plot. But it's the kind of mistake -- analogously, with more or less horrific consequences -- that can easily be made if we keep reinforcing the hard-wired mantra the entire West has cultivated about giving Muslims the same benefit of the doubt we believe, rightly, we should accord just about any other group of humans on Earth. Nor should my imaginative scenario (which could easily become all too real) be exploited in order to contrast its relatively stark situational simplicity with more complex and multifarious (and subtle) interactions we Westerners have with various Muslims; as though we can't and/or shouldn't (the PC MC spastic reflex often confuses ethical obligation with pragmatic (im)possibility) treat any given, and every, Muslim as equally potentially deadly, regardless of the likely fact that any given, albeit indeterminable, number of them are indeed harmless.

One actual example of my scenario comes to mind (I'm sure there have occurred hundreds more in varying degrees more or less like it), when back in 2010, a Muslim doctor was trusted as a regular informant by our CIA operatives in Afghanistan -- until one day he exploited their trust in him by suicide-bombing their compound, in his ghoulishly and grotesquely twisted (i.e., perfectly normal Islamically) fanaticism blowing himself to bloody shreds in order to mass-murder his "enemy", successfully killing eight people -- seven of them trained CIA operatives...!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/asia/05cia.html?_r=1

When I talk about suicidally reckless stupidity on our side, I'm talking literally. The potential for horrific consequences far, far worse than that Kabul atrocity noted above is too high a risk for us to continue making ourselves feel ethically warm and fuzzy by avoiding any reasonable generalization and prejudice against all Muslims. Yes, the horror! I actually typed the thought crime "generalization and prejudice against all Muslims"...!

LL:

"...as happened several times last year during a time when another JW commenter repeatedly and stubbornly persisted in misreading me -- and effectively slandering me with grave charges..."
_______________

LL, this is just silly. How do you know, without question, that someone is "misreading" you? To prove this would be just as difficult as proving that someone "misheard" you, over the phone.

And, "effectively" slandering you?

One can't, "effectively" slander someone. Slander is either slander, or it is not.

Perhaps (with regard to both points above) certain individuals just simply have difficulties understanding your style of writing and expression.
____________________________________

Chill, my friend - we're on the same side. Let's not alienate one another just as we're getting into the thick of the fight. We need each other, whether you buy into that sentiment or not. We DO need each other - and not AT EACH OTHER'S throats.

Best Regards,

David

David,

The dictionary defines misread as, among other things, "misinterpret". It doesn't mean literally optically not seeing words on a page. One can determine that someone else is misreading one's argument just as surely as one can determine that they are misinterpreting it. Of course, it's a matter of presenting a (hopefully) persuasive argument demonstrating the misreading -- which I did, as I said above, repeatedly and patiently; and which that JW reader (or misreader) just as repeatedly ignored, as he ignored my main argument and constructed a straw man of my position that effectively slandered me by implying (if not baldly claming) that I advocate the brutely simple position that "All Muslims are not human". (I don't understand why you quibble about the locution "effectively slandered": effectively just means -- again, according to the dictionary -- "for all practical purposes".)

Secondly, your comment to me a) assumes I am mistaken in my interpretation of that JW reader's repeated attacks on me (i.e., that I misread him); and/or b) you give him a free pass to attack me, but admonish me for defending myself. So apparently if a JW reader takes the time and trouble to repeatedly attack LemonLime, that's fine and dandy; but when LemonLime points out the attack and its unfairness, LemonLime is somehow the one guilty of "alienating" him and being "at his throat"...

“Westerner”:

Firstly, I was merely attempting to encourage you – since you seemed distressed, intellectually (I don’t know, for sure). This thread went way off the rails 30 comments ago, so I guess we can just keep hammering away here, and I will respond to each of your points and omissions as a courtesy (and in interest), since you took the time to write to me.

To conclude the point suggested in my first sentence:

It is (and has been, over the years) clear that you are a very gifted and hard-thinking individual. That is to be appreciated by us all, and it is the truth that I have read hundreds of your posts over the last 5 years and have enjoyed each of them! It doesn’t (and didn’t) matter whether I agree(d) with you or not – the sublimity of the arguments has been enough to entertain this old man. Hence, the “at each other’s throats” comment. It wasn’t meant even half-way figuratively – rather, as a general admonition to all of us – not specifically you!

But now onto the “misreading”, “misinterpreting” and curiously, “mishearing” part of the discourse (that you conveniently avoided) in your most-recent reply:
_____________________________________________________

David,

"The dictionary defines misread as, among other things, "misinterpret". It doesn't mean literally optically not seeing words on a page. One can determine that someone else is misreading one's argument just as surely as one can determine that they are misinterpreting it. Of course, it's a matter of presenting a (hopefully) persuasive argument demonstrating the misreading -- which I did, as I said above, repeatedly and patiently; and which that JW reader (or misreader) just as repeatedly ignored, as he ignored my main argument and constructed a straw man of my position that effectively slandered me by implying (if not baldly claming) that I advocate the brutely simple position that "All Muslims are not human". (I don't understand why you quibble about the locution "effectively slandered": effectively just means -- again, according to the dictionary -- "for all practical purposes".)
Secondly, your comment to me a) assumes I am mistaken in my interpretation of that JW reader's repeated attacks on me (i.e., that I misread him); and/or b) you give him a free pass to attack me, but admonish me for defending myself. So apparently if a JW reader takes the time and trouble to repeatedly attack LemonLime, that's fine and dandy; but when LemonLime points out the attack and its unfairness, LemonLime is somehow the one guilty of "alienating" him and being ‘at his throat’...”
________________________________________________

LL – I’m pretty sure I understand reading and how, in fact, many individuals OPTICALLY – physically and literally – misread those letters and that syntax and grammar (I work with “learning impaired” children twice per week). I misread all the time, myself, but it’s because my eyes are going out. Put simply, there is a great difference between misreading and misinterpretation. I have ESL students each day that “read” exceedingly well, yet have, sadly, very low comprehension. Conversely, I have others who don’t “read” so hot, but score highly on the TOEFL Reading Comprehension section, yet can barely speak English on a functional level. Again – proving “misreading” and/or “misinterpretation” is very difficult.

What I also said was that proving “misreading” (optically or otherwise) is akin to proving, “mishearing”. This is a basic notion of Law and Evidence and hearsay applications and the pseudo-science of Acoustics, if nothing else, and is comparable to “mis-seeing” something, in an evidentiary sense. It’s hard to prove affirmatively (and nearly impossible in the negative – that is, to prove someone did not mishear something) because everybody – literally – hears, sees, reads and reports things substantially differently from anyone and everyone else. By logic, then, all interpretations must be, to a certain extent, different, and in this sense, there could be no such thing as a misinterpretation let alone a consensus, except in perhaps the most basic of scenarios: (“Yes! There were two planes that crashed into the Towers!”). “When?” (“I don’t know! It was around 9 or 10.”) ___________________________________________________________

You wrote: “Secondly, your comment to me a) assumes I am mistaken in my interpretation of that JW reader's repeated attacks on me (i.e., that I misread him); and/or b) you give him a free pass to attack me, but admonish me for defending myself.”

No, no, no. I never assumed anything or that you were mistaken and/or misread “him” – just that someone may have had a hard time understanding and “reading” your prose and deciphering the style. That’s all. I’m not interested in positing assumptions (or parrying accusations)about other people’s psychology and supposed interpretations of yet other persons’ interpretations – just their writing - ‘cause that’s really all we have to go on, here, and obviously, I can’t read the writing to which you refer anonymously. As for admonishment: Yes, I used that word, but I’ve sinned a lot, too.

And a free pass? Crap, LL – I wish I had ANYTHING free to give, passes or otherwise!

Finally – as for slander, I refer you to West Law or Black’s for the various incarnations and present adjudication of slander allegations and how there is no distinction between “practically” slandering someone and NOT slandering them. One can’t “effectively” slander someone! Slander is not and cannot be pragmatic in the same sense as other criminal acts (“I stole the loaf of bread because my Mother was starving and now you’re slandering me by telling everyone I did it.”). Slander involves words and their publication - their provable intent of malice, and interpretation. Slander can be very difficult to litigate for the Plaintiff(s).

Oh – and all Muslims ARE human, LL, and if someone has accurately and provably quoted you as saying the contrary, then he was right in his criticism but not slanderous in his comments (because slander does not apply to groups of people). If someone has NOT accurately and provably quoted you then the point is moot and whoever it was that wrote it was disingenuous, spiteful, and should be ignored, at least in this particular regard.

We’ll leave all that for another argument and consumption of bandwidth, however, my friend.

Best Regards,

David

"And, by the way, in pointing that out, I am certainly not taking a 'she'll be right' approach, or suggesting that our response should *rely* on the enemy's making mistakes, having bad luck, etc, in any given situation. "

What's the point then of admonishing me for "overestimating" the danger of Muslims? If the human limitations of Muslims are effectively irrelevant to our calculations of how to defend our societies from them -- if not positively reckless -- then that means there is no such thing as "overestimating" Muslims.

If, by way of analogy, a scare goes out that some of the meats in stores throughout an entire region of a country are toxic, and a few people have already died from eating meats they purchased, then all of the meats are interdicted and taken off the shelves -- even though everyone knows that likely many if not most of the meats are harmless. This is done because -- and only because -- there is no way reliably to distinguish the harmless meats from the deadly meats. The reasonable and prudent action of treating all the meats as equally deadly -- even though everyone knows that likely many if not most of the meats are harmless -- means that, pragmatically, one is acting as though one is assuming that ALL OF THE MEATS ARE EQUALLY DEADLY.

All talk of whether or not "all" the meats are equally deadly, and how they may or may not differ in a variety of ways is, during that emergency when people are dying and any given person may die if he buys and eats the meat, is purely abstract Scholasticism (which may be theoretically interesting from a speculative anthropological view while one has the leisure to indulge it) that, again, is not only pragmatically irrelevant to the actual emergency, but is positively reckless to the extent that it could influence policy.

All analogies have flaws (analogiae claudicant), and so too does mine: Our situation with Muslims is actually far, far worse than my hypothetical toxic meats scenario.

How many times must I hammer away at this. Probably until a million of us in various places get mass-murdered.

David,

"Put simply, there is a great difference between misreading and misinterpretation."

There can be, in a specialized context. But ordinary people use the term "you misread ne" to mean "you misinterpreted what I had written"; and the dictionary backs me up. One doesn't move beyond the dictionary unless one has an extraordinary reason to do so.

David,

After you tried to argue that misread does not mean misinterpret, you went on to apply the same problem to misinterpret as you do to your specialized definition of misread:

What I also said was that proving “misreading” (optically or otherwise) is akin to proving, “mishearing”. This is a basic notion of Law and Evidence and hearsay applications and the pseudo-science of Acoustics, if nothing else, and is comparable to “mis-seeing” something, in an evidentiary sense. It’s hard to prove affirmatively (and nearly impossible in the negative – that is, to prove someone did not mishear something) because everybody – literally – hears, sees, reads and reports things substantially differently from anyone and everyone else. By logic, then, all interpretations must be, to a certain extent, different, and in this sense, there could be no such thing as a misinterpretation let alone a consensus, except in perhaps the most basic of scenarios: (“Yes! There were two planes that crashed into the Towers!”). “When?” (“I don’t know! It was around 9 or 10.”)

Your example about the plane crash is not an interpretation: it's a description of a claim of perception of facts. (An interpretation in that context would be, for example, "Hey, about those plane crashes -- I think it was a plot by Bush to blame the Muslims so that he can opportunistically go to war against Iraq and steal their oil!")

Interpretations are not facts, nor are they claims of perception of facts; they are logical/linguistic constructs that -- with more or less sophistication -- try to give sense to the facts perceived. Also, interpretations are not limited to construing sense out of facts perceived (if by "facts" we are limiting ourselves to external objects), but also include construing sense out of statements -- whether they be claims, other interpretations, or logical arguments.

This leads me to my point about misread again: Conventionally, to misread any text (whether it's a sentence, a paragraph, or a long complex argument set forth in writing) is to misconstrue the sense intended by the writer. I never said that the determination of this is a hard science, capable of infallible certitude. Neither is it, however, hopelessly mired in a skeptical suspension of all ability to render a judgement about how the reader misread one's writing (or someone else's writing). People do this all the time -- in the pop culture world of op-ed articles, movie critic reviews, art criticism, etc., as well as in the world of politics (insofar as politics is transacted through the written medium, as it used to be far more than it is now, perhaps); not to mention the burgeoning world of discussion forums and comments threads throughout the Internet; and, of course, in the world of Academe (largely in the Liberal Arts -- sociology, philosophy, language, linguistics, theology, comparative religions, political science, etc.).

In my case, I posted two long comments many moons ago that were relatively dense, which to the casual observer implied that I had written that I believe "All Muslims are not human". When that was pressed -- by Marisol by banning me -- and then was parroted by others as though it were a fact -- I then claimed they had misread/misibnterpreted me; and I soon thereafter constructed an argument to defend that claim. During that time, and repeatedly later on, that JW reader who shall not be named, not only repeated the misreading, but he constructed an elaborate pseudo-argument (i.e., a straw man) that tried to bolster that misreading, in the context, he himself said, of advocating that I be banned again, since it was his opinion that I am bad for Jihad Watch's reputation should any outside readers see my horribly extremist comments. And all along, I patiently and repeatedly counter-argued his straw man; to no apparent avail.

"After you tried to argue that misread does not mean misinterpret, you went on to apply the same problem to misinterpret as you do to your specialized definition of misread."
________

I'm gonna keep this short, because you insist that there is only one aspect. I didn't try to argue that misreading doesn't mean misinterpretation - simply that one can never be sure about such things, because proof is hard to come by.

and..."let alone a consensus, except in perhaps the most basic of scenarios: (“Yes! There were two planes that crashed into the Towers!”). “When?” (“I don’t know! It was around 9 or 10.”)"

You didn't read my words closely enough - but anyway, I've grown tired of your insistence that someone can be proven -from afar - to have misread or misinterpreted you. Try doing that argument the next time someone mishears you over the phone at the bank, or in court, when litigating.

Cya.