"Persisting with selective memory, fuzzy logic and contrived debates is what sustains global terrorism."
Really? Now, I would have guessed that al-Baghdadi and al-Zawahiri are motivated less by "selective memory, fuzzy logic and contrived debates" and more by Islamic Supremacist ideology. But what Mr. Amin says must be true, since it was published in a KMT funny paper.
Adnan R. Amin, words cannot express the anguish I feel over my PC WrongThink. Rest assured I shall spend the next several months wracked with grief, spending long sleepless nights tossing and turning in nightmares of guilt.
How dare I condemn as "terrorists" men who send death squads into nightclubs to gun down scores of civilians? Should men who rape infidel women purchased in slave markets really be considered "terrorists"?
Well, I used to think so. But thanks to Adnan R. Amin, I have come to see the error of my ways. Praise be to Adnan R. Amin!
And so I do make this solemn vow: Never again shall this lowly First Worlder hurt the all-important feelings of men I once referred to as terrorists by calling them "terrorists".
Nope. From now on I shall only use the Obama-approved term for brave warriors of the Religion Of Peace™: namely, "widows-and-orphans".
(Mommy, why did the nice bearded "widow-and-orphan" otherize those men on the fence spikes?)
UPDATE (November 22, 2015): I was awfully harsh on Adnan R. Amin in writing this post last night. But I think my reaction was entirely justified.
What Adnan R. Amin is attempting to do is destroy the very valuable civilizational norm that prohibits sending death squads to massacre civilians. That's not really terrorism, says Adnan R. Amin, it's...well, he doesn't say. Legitimate resistance, perhaps?
But once people begin excusing Muslims deliberately targeting and massacring Infidel civilians, others will follow their lead and excuse terrorist massacres of Muslim civilians.
And we'll wind up with more Anders Breiviks.
UPDATE (November 23, 2015): The mind boggles:
All we hear of ISIS is puritanical & punitive; is there nothing celebratory & joyous? Or is query naive?
There's been a certain amount of hyperbole on this blog of late regarding refugees from Syria. This has been somewhat unavoidable, given the fact that virtually every day over the past week some monstrous new outrage has been perpetrated by Muslim radicals somewhere across the globe.
So it must be said that, of course, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But it must also be admitted that Western nations will not merely be accepting "widows and orphans." It is therefore inevitable that there will be some finite number of terrorists mingled within the cohort of refugees that are granted asylum. So the question is: How can we estimate this number?
As can be seen, 13% of Syrian refugees have a favorable or partly favorable view of ISIS. If America accepts 10,000 Syrian refugees, 1,300 of them will view the terrorist group favorably to some extent. I contend that, at the very least, such views will not be conducive to good citizenship among these thirteen hundred people.
(Obviously, the situation faced by Germany is far worse, which can expect 104,000 of 800,000 Syrian refugees to have somewhat favorable views of ISIS.)
However, only 4% of Syrian refugees view ISIS with full approval, so America can expect to receive only 400 hardcore ISIS supporters. (While Germany faces the nightmarish prospect of receiving 32,000 ISIS partisans concentrated within a far smaller geographical area -- a veritable small invasion force, should it ever be so motivated.)
But most likely, support for ISIS will not translate into action for the vast majority of even hardcore supporters, so only a small fraction of America's 400 (or Germany's 32,000) can be expected to turn to terrorism.
I'm tempted to put that fraction at 1%, but that would simply be a wild guess.
POSTSCRIPT: The above analysis makes a number of assumptions:
1) There are no ISIS infiltrators mingled in with genuine refugees. I believe there will most certainly be a few, but I have no basis whatsoever for estimating their number.
2) The refugees have zero support for other terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or al-Nusra. It is clearly nonsensical to suppose so, but the poll did not ask refugees whether they supported other terrorist groups, and more importantly, the refugees were not asked about their support for ALL terrorist groups in general.
Given that al-Qaeda & al-Nusra is said to be more popular that ISIS among Syrian refugees, I think it reasonable to add 25% to the final numbers (425 hardcore terrorist supporters in the U.S., and 40,000 in Germany).
(If I was hyping the numbers I suppose I could double them, but it must be remembered that a large number of ISIS supporters will most likely view al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups favorably as well. Due to the considerable overlap, the stated additional 25% seems more reasonable.)
3) Governments are completely ineffective in screening against ISIS supporters. An indeterminate number will no doubt be weeded out, should members of the bureaucracy be inclined to do so.
However, I'm left with a disquieting thought: In some PC quarters, firebrands and holders of extreme views are thought to represent a more "authentic" (and therefore, more desirable) type of Islam. And so I ask: Is it possible that portions of the bureaucracy might in fact positively select IN FAVOR of individuals predisposed to conducting terrorist acts against their newly adopted countries?
POSTSCRIPT: I know nothing about the provenance of these photos, and some skepticism is in order. But even assuming the worst (ie: that they're faked or exaggerated), the larger point that terrorists wish to gain entry into America still nonetheless holds true.
Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan. [emphasis added]
Fifty-three percent of U.S. adults in the survey, conducted in the days immediately following the attacks [by Muslim death squads in Paris], say the nation should not continue a program to resettle up to 10,000 Syrian refugees. Just 28 percent would keep the program with the screening process as it now exists, while 11 percent said they would favor a limited program to accept only Syrian Christians while excluding Muslims...
Summing up American views of Obama's Syrian refugee relocation plan:
"Children of pigs and apes! I'm just a harmless widow, with nowhere else to turn. I solemnly promise not to slaughter you the way my late, beloved husband did during the heroic Charlie Hebdo attacks. By Mohammed's beard, I swear it!"
"Apparently [Republicans] are scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America. At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates. Now they are scared of 3-year-old orphans. That doesn't seem so tough to me." [Emphasis added]
Said the big, tough guy who imprisons makers of crappy YouTube videos.†
But Barack Obama did say something I found myself agreeing with:
"We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic," Obama said. "We don't make good decisions if it's based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks."
There, you're absolutely right. No reasonable person could disagree with tha--- OH FUCK!!!!! DID THAT NICE YOUNG TSARNAEV REFUGEE-BOY JUST BLOW THAT MAN'S FUCKING LEG OFF?!?
Why, yes. Yes, he did.
Your transparent guilt-trip only works when people stop caring about their loved ones, Barry.
Let me know when that happens.
† And who's protected by a large Secret Service detail. And who pisses his pants when answering questions from Fox News...
UPDATE (November 22, 2015): Legally, the Tsarnaev family were permitted to remain in the U.S. not because they were refugees but because they claimed political asylum.
The ultimate point still holds: They were granted residency for humanitarian reasons, and repaid America's kindness by butchering Americans.
The Paris attacks came on the first day of the Muslim lunar month of Safar, which coincides with the anniversary of the Prophet Mohammed’s first successful “ghazva” (raid) against the “infidel” at Safwan in 623 AD.
In Abu Kamal, U.S. planes dropped leaflets before the attack[on 300 fuel trucks], warning people [combatants and non-combatants alike]...to leave before the assault began. After waiting for an hour, the U.S. planes struck.
As a result of Obama's traitorous heads up, ISIS saved 184 of 300 fuel trucks that were lined up in rows. That's 184 trucks that can continue to ship oil and generate income for the most virulently evil organization of our time...
No wonder ISIS sends Muslim death squads to attack the West: They think they can attack with impunity because we're being led by a GODDAMN-FUCKING-PUSSY.
And, given the inept prosecution of the war by this cretinous incompetent, one cannot say they're mistaken.
The man's unfit for office.
The tell-all memoirs of this president's subordinates are going to be brutal.
UPDATE (November 17, 2015): A few more observations about Obama's farcical prosecution of the war against ISIS:
I keep saying this, but after they destroyed Palmyra, I watched them on TV parade up and down the desert trail in their black-flag jeeps
† This part doesn't quite work, because (unlike the other "quotes") no one's ever said it.
But the curious thing is that President Barack Obama has never spoken against the practice of sexual slavery by ISIS. Which is odd, since he spoke very animatedly about the right of French Muslim women to wear the hijab, and was elected in 2012 partly on the basis of his opposition to some sort of "War Against Women".
So if I understand Obama correctly, prohibition of the hijab is akin to a dreadful crime against humanity...but selling Yazidi and Christian women in slave markets is a trifle not worth speaking of.
In a reference to the Syrian refugee crisis, [Barack Obama] said “society has not passed this exam with good grades.” [Emphasis added]
Speak for yourself, Mr. President. The Syrian Civil War has been going on for 4 1/2 years now, and all the history books will show that YOU sat with your finger up your ass doing next to nothing about it.
UPDATE #2: Victims of one of the Muslim death squads:
The Foreigner has always maintained that website (or Facebook page) owners have the absolute right to treat comments as leniently or as strictly as they see fit.
Now in general, I see no earthly reason why the average site owner would allow their site to be hijacked by 80,000 anti-democratic messages from the Chinese Communist Party apparatus. But in this case, Tsai's decision to leave their anti-democratic screeds online is no doubt the correct one.
After all, it reminds Taiwanese voters who their enemies are.
Ma said nothing in response [to Xi's contention that China's missiles were not targeted against Taiwan]. He did not point out the obvious: Taiwan is the only nation in sight in the direction and range of China’s nearly 1,600 short-range missiles along its coast across the Taiwan Strait.
If, as Xi claims, the missiles are not aimed at Taiwan, what are they aimed at? Xi cannot possibly be suggesting that the missiles are targeting bluefin tuna off the coast of Pingtung County or humpback dolphins of the coast of Changhua County, can he?
Over the past 10-15 years, other observers have noticed the similarity between Taiwan's KMT and cargo cultists -- particularly as the KMT touted economic relations with China as a panacea for curing all of Taiwan's woes.
After nearly 8 years with Ma in the presidency, voters don't believe Chinese manna's going to fall from heaven anymore, so the KMT's cargo cult has morphed from the economic to the political realm.
Got a tough election coming up?
The correct response isn't to fight a tough campaign or even prepare to retrench in the face of potentially-large losses at the polls.
No, the correct response is to go crawling to Beijing for a contentless photo-op with China's Communist dictator.
'Cause remember those 500,000 people who marched last year against closer trade relations with China? Well, when they see Ma shaking hands with Xi, they're gonna have a complete change of heart and demand MOAR ONE CHINA.
Now personally, I would be inclined to vote against the KMT for pulling a stunt like this to influence the outcome of an election only 2 months away. (Recall how bitterly the KMT bitched and moaned for 4 years about "sympathy votes" after an assassination attempt prior to the presidential election of 2004. Now however, the party seems positively smug about DELIBERATELY manufacturing a "November Surprise".)
But that's just me. I very much want to see how Taiwanese voters react.