Weaponizing the Passenger Plane


Pages: 1 2

The TSA emerged out of this environment as another reflexive denial of the problem and applied the same solution. Broad range security procedures that applied to everyone, but this time they were overseen by people who would not have been accepted to work in any police force in the country. This was the age of the mall cop set up as the first line of national defense with the power to steal, grope and single out passengers for the most trivial of reasons. The one thing that the mall cops of the TSA were not allowed to do was profile terrorists.

Strip searching children was fine, alienating Muslims was not. Children after all were not likely to become offended and blow up buildings. Muslims were and the entire purpose of the TSA was to apply broad range security procedures that did not single out or offend Muslims.

Like most mall cops, the real purpose of the TSA was to provide the perception of security, rather than the reality. The TSA was never really meant to stop an actual terrorist and it never has. All it could hope to do was discourage them. Its real goals however were to restore confidence in air travel and reshape public attitudes to make flyers easier to manage.

The latter seems to miss the point of the crisis, but it actually is the point. Leaders who don’t know how to cope with a crisis respond by limiting the freedom of action of those under them. Generals, CEO’s or directors all follow the same pattern of ensuring compliance in subordinates to make the system more manageable and remove as many possible sources of chaos from the system.

Islamic terrorism has shut down the decision making process of the modern Western state by attacking its core assumptions about the future being one of open borders, multicultural populations and international consensus. Instead rapid air travel is a threat, multicultural cities are becoming No Go Zones and the future is heading toward a clash of civilizations.

The assumptions on which they built their vision of the future are crumbling under them creating the kind of situation where good leaders reevaluate and admit their mistakes while bad leaders try to keep pushing forward in the hopes that this is only a temporary problem. A passing phase that can be resolved by reaching out to the Muslim world, encouraging their reforms and stabilizing their conflicts. Any remaining tensions would be dealt with the time honored methods of liberals, fighting discrimination and promoting positive role models, while covering up the mess by giving law enforcement broad powers over everyone.

A single major successful terrorist attack that gets by the TSA will result in major cosmetic changes for the agency, but no substantial ones. And the lack of meaningful debate over the nature of the problem that it exists to solve means that we are stuck in a debate between broad range security measures and hard line libertarians, both of whom deny that there even is a war on terror. The one thing to come out of a debate between Eric Holder and Ron Paul is that neither believes that Islamic terrorism is a problem, which means that neither of them has anything to say about a solution.

The jet plane brought the world closer within reach, without considering the consequences of what that growing proximity would mean.The airline hijackings, mass migration and deployment of hijacked aircraft to cause mass destruction all shifted the balance of power over global transportation away from the builder societies of the free world and toward the destroyer societies of the Muslim world.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Pages: 1 2

  • Star_Tripper

    The secret to stopping hijackings was figured out by the passengers on United 93 and has stopped all the other hijack attempts since then. The Israeli experts on airport security have a term for the long security lines at US airports: kill zones. TSA should be abolished.

  • TL Winslow

    All along the solution has been Muslim Ideological Profiling (MIP), like Israel uses. When when when?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Unfortunately it's under attack by leftists even in Israel.

      • trickyblain

        Must be that whole "violates the Constitution" thing.

        • SKIP

          No, it's that violates and may "outrage" muslim thing

        • ziontruth

          Trickyblain & Co.: Suicide Pacts 'R' Us.

  • mrbean

    Why bother toget by the TSA. There are hundreds and hundreds of Russian shoulder held rocket launchers missing in Libya with a ample supply heat seeking high explosive rockets. Libya will soon be ruled by Islamists who hate the west and most of these launchers are already in their hands. Any terrorist can launch a rocket from 500 to 1000 yards away at night to shoot down any plane taking off or landing at almost any airport in the world – and the chances of stopping him are slim at best.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Yes. But the real threat became not just taking down an airplane, but using the plane as a guided missile.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Muslim terrorists had viewed planes in terms of the passengers and hijacked planes to take people hostage.

    “Muslim terrorists” is an oxymoron. It's also a false PC multicultural misconception that allows for extremely stupid blunders in judgment to be made, such as the so-called “war on terror,” which is a war declared against an un-Islamic manifestation.

    Hence, GWB in his infinite wisdom declared war on an un-Islamic manifestation, and that war inevitably turned into the two biggest strategic blunders ever in American history, as thousands of patriotic American troops were either killed or maimed and trillions of taxpayer dollars were needlessly wasted all for nothing. Why? Because GWB's ludicrous “war on terror” was founded on false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam of the same sort this extremely ill informed writer constantly heaps on his readers every day.

    The reality is Muslims never ever perpetrate terrorism, as that would be blasphemous and therefore a capital offense in Islam. Instead, Muslims fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and which in stark contrast to terrorism, can be both violent and non-violent. While terrorism, on the other hand, which isn't a manifestation of Islamic civilization, as its name implies and in stark contrast to jihad is always only violent and can be perpetrated for any number of political causes.

    Indeed, jihad or holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme, is a holy obligatory duty incumbent upon every Muslim on the planet with no exceptions, and it has been ongoing perpetually ever since Muhammad first walked the planet some almost 1400 years ago.

    Meanwhile, terrorism, which predates jihad by several centuries, usually last until the terrorists are either killed or captured, and then their cause celebre usually dies right along with the terrorists. Indeed, Timothy McVeigh's cause celebre died right along with him and it had nothing whatsoever to do with making Islam supreme.

    They would not become obvious until the settlers had given birth to second and third generations which became  demographic and domestic terrorist threats.

    Thus, per the false doctrines of PC multiculturalism, this writer is again making another major strategic blunder. Indeed, he sees Muslim immigrants to the West, i.e., settlers, as mere potential domestic terrorist threats. Hence, the doubling of the size, scope, and power of the federal government and the usurping of our heretofore constitutionally protected rights and freedoms that took place courtesy of GWB, and that have put us on the fast track to becoming the next Greece, are all perfectly justified to protect the homeland from that tiny minority of extremists that are trying to hijack the so-called Religion of Peace™ and at the same time perpetrate so-called terrorist attacks in the process.

    However, I hate to rain on this writer's extremely naïve parade, but the irrefutable truth is all those Muslim immigrants (or what he calls settlers) to the West are in reality non-violent stealth jihadists migrating to the West not to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic law) for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme. Of course, since he is blinded to the hilt by PC multiculturalism and as a result always conflates jihad with terrorism, since by design non-violent stealth jihad isn't violent, he doesn't see it as being terrorism, and if it isn't construed as being terrorism, then there is no reason for it to be opposed.

    –continued below

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Nothing you've written has anything to do with my article.

      Muslim terrorists is a specific description. Much like Muslim rapists or Communist mass murderers.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Nothing you've written has anything to do with my article.

        Muslim terrorists is a specific description.

        Much like Muslim rapists or Communist mass murderers.

        Actually Muslim terrorists, much like Muslim terrorism, is a false PC multicultural myth. As terrorism in Islam is blasphemy and a capital offense, since terrorism is not an Islamic manifestation. Indeed, when Muslims condemn and denounce terrorism, they are in fact being genuine.

        However, Jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme is not only a manifestation of Islam, it is the sixth and most important pillar of Islam. As the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty for every Muslim on earth to fight jihad in the cause of Allah. Hence, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS ON EARTH are jihadists. A tiny minority of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of them are non-violent stealth jihadists, and the few that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM must be executed.

        In addition, jihad can be violent, such as the 9/11 violent jihad attacks, and non-violent, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme. As a matter of fact, non-violent stealth jihad relative to violent jihad is employed against the un-Islamic world astronomically far more prevalently and therefore constitutes an exponentially far greater threat to the continued peace, prosperity, freedom, and security of the West relative to violent jihad.

        In fact, unless something drastic happens, the Islamic world can never hope to defeat the West via violent jihad alone because the West is simply far too advanced, powerful, and rich relative to the Islamic world. However, via non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, the Islamic world can conquer the West.

        As a matter of fact, it is happening already throughout the world including in Europe, America, and Canada, and unless we make a course correction, what we saw happen in Cote D'Ivoire last year, and what we see currently happening in Nigeria today, will be happening throughout the West in the future as well.

        Indeed, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, which always has a tendency to conflate and morally equate all civilizations, cultures, and societies together as all being equal and the same, jihad is also always conflated and morally equated with terrorism as also being equal and the same, even though jihad constitutes both violent and non-violent means, while terrorism, as its name implies, is always only violent. Therefore, this mistake in perception – resulting from the false ideology of PC multiculturalism – enables non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, to manifest itself completely below the radar and totally unopposed throughout the West today.

        –continued below

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Muslim terrorists are a myth? Do you moonlight as Eric Holder?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Muslim terrorists are a myth?

            It's irrefutable.

            Do you moonlight as Eric Holder?

            Obviously if I did, Islam would already be outlawed and mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage would already be banned and reversed. Not only that but at least five special prosecutors would be conducting investigations right now, one for Eric Holder, one for Harry Reid, one for Nancy Pelosi, and two for Barack Obama.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        In fact, because non-violent stealth jihad by design isn't violent, it isn't construed as being terrorism, and if it isn't construed as being terrorism, then it isn't opposed and is allowed to manifest itself without resistance thanks to the false ideology of PC multiculturalism. Therefore, non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make supreme, today openly occurs throughout the West without resistance, even though non-violent stealth jihad relative to violent jihad constitutes an exponentially far greater threat to the continued peace, prosperity, freedom, and security of the West relative to violent jihad.

        As a matter of fact, the West today is totally transfixed only on preventing violent jihad, while at the same time it is totally oblivious of non-violent stealth jihad, which it totally ignores altogether even though it constitutes an exponentially far greater threat, and the reason behind this predicament is because the West always conflates and morally equates jihad and terrorism as being equal and the same per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, even though jihad and terrorism are two separate and mutually exclusive manifestations altogether, with jihad being a manifestation of Islamic civilization only, and terrorism being a manifestation of the un-Islamic world only.

        In fact, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is both violent and non-violent, while terrorism, as its name implies is always only violent. Jihad is always only in the cause of Allah, while terrorism can be for any number of causes. Jihad also primarily targets non-Muslim unbelievers, either civilian non-combatants as in the Madrid Train Bombings, or military combatants, as in US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, terrorism, on the other hand, indiscriminately targets primarily civilian non-combatants. Jihad is fought by mainstream orthodox Muslims only and terrorism is always perpetrated by extremists only. Jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme has been ongoing perpetually for the past almost 1400 years, whereas the cause that motivates terrorism usually dies out along with the terrorists.

        Hence, the West must stop conflating and morally equating jihad and terrorism as being equal and the same, because in reality they are two very separate and mutually exclusive manifestations altogether, and also because this mistake in perception resulting from the false ideology of PC multiculturalism enables the most prevalent forms of jihad, the non-violent stealth varieties of jihad, to be employed against the West completely below the radar of scrutiny and without resistance.

        Therefore, the moral of the story is to stop using false PC multicultural terms like Muslim terrorists because they are not terrorists, instead they are either violent or non-violent jihadists fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. Hence, if an act of violence is in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme and the perpetrator is a Muslim, then it isn't a terrorist act, instead it is a violent jihad attack.

        Indeed, if the 9/11 terrorist attacks were called what they really were, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks instead, morons like the good Rev. Wright and Ron Paul couldn't claim that 9/11 was America's chickens coming home to roost. They also couldn't claim that Muslims attack us because of our foreign policy either. Since jihad is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and comprises any means at their disposal both violent and non-violent and covert and non-covert.

      • SKIP

        Muslim=terrorists and should be dealt with as such.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          PC multiculturalism is like cancer, once it invades a society, it is almost impossible to eradicate. Apparently, you are one of the happy customers (really victims) of Mr. Greenfield's work.

    • ziontruth

      "The reality is Muslims never ever perpetrate terrorism, as that would be blasphemous and therefore a capital offense in Islam. Instead, Muslims fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme…"

      All true. However, I believe Daniel Greenfield wrote his article from his point of view, not from the Muslims' one.

      Sorry, ObamaYoMama, but I don't think Greenfield deserves your ire unless he has suggested there's a peaceful kind of Islam the majority adhere to—now that is a PC myth truly worthy of lambasting. Calling violent jihad terrorism is nothing more than expressing things from our (the recipients') point of view.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        All true. However, I believe Daniel Greenfield wrote his article from his point of view, not from the Muslims' one.

        And his point of view is severely tainted by the false ideology of PC multiculturalism that defines his worldview and unfortunately also pervades our society today. Hence, every time he writes an article from that incorrect PC multicultural perspective, he reenforces that false PC multicultural ideology upon his readers and our society, which then helps to enable non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, to be able to manifest itself throughout the West completely unopposed and without resistance. Since if it is non-violent, which by design non-violent stealth jihad is, then it isn't construed as being terrorism, and if it isn't construed as being terrorism, then it isn't opposed or resisted, thanks again to the false ideology of PC multiculturalism in which Mr. Greenfield reenforces on a daily basis upon his readers over and over again and day after day ad nauseum.

        If you want to agree with that insanity and with continuing to allow for mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, which is also non-violent stealth jihad, then that is your prerogative, but please excuse me if I happen to disagree with him.

        Sorry, ObamaYoMama, but I don't think Greenfield deserves your ire unless he has suggested there's a peaceful kind of Islam the majority adhere to—now that is a PC myth truly worthy of lambasting. Calling violent jihad terrorism is nothing more than expressing things from our (the recipients') point of view.

        It's not “the recipient's” point of view. It's strict PC adherence to the dictates of PC multiculturalism.

        Indeed, Mr. Greenfield by implication does imply that there is a peaceful kind of Islam. If he didn't imply it, he would be campaigning to stop non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, instead of denying his PC multicultural blindness and at the same time the fact that he constantly reenforces the false ideology of PC multiculturalism on here on a daily basis.

        Indeed, according to Mr. Greenfield, Muslim immigrants living in America are not stealth jihadists living here for the purpose of non-violent stealth jihad, instead they are mere potential “domestic terrorist threats.”

        In addition, he wouldn't repeatedly and also absurdly decry America's withdrawal from Iraq, and the reason he does it is obviously because he doesn't understand that all Muslims, including all Iraqi Muslims and all Afghani Muslims, are our eternal enemies and the eternal enemies of all non-Muslim unbelievers in the world per the dictates of Islam.

        In other words, he doesn't understand that both fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were incredibly counterproductive since in effect we were building up what in fact are our eternal and perpetual enemies.

        Indeed, both insane fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are analogous to rebuilding Hitler's Third Reich and lifting up the Nazis again after WWII. Yet, he has wrote several articles to condemn the premature pullout of Iraq. When he should be writing articles to explain why both silly fantasy based nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were incredibly counterproductive.

        In fact, it is those same exact kinds of false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam that Mr. Greenfield proliferates and reenforces on here on a daily basis that has not only led to the two greatest strategic blunders ever in American history in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also that has led to the largest unnecessary increase in the size, scope, and power of the federal government ever in American history and that has blessed us with an out of control national debt and a US that is on the fast track to becoming the next Greece.

        • ziontruth

          "Since if it is non-violent, which by design non-violent stealth jihad is, then it isn't construed as being terrorism, and if it isn't construed as being terrorism, then it isn't opposed or resisted, thanks again to the false ideology of PC multiculturalism…"

          So you're saying an imperialistic attack (which Islamic immigration is) must sport the label "terrorism" in order to be resisted? Talk about wetting your own gunpowder.

          I think I get where you're coming from, but I prefer to strike at the roots rather than the symptoms: If PC-MC makes things so boneheaded, then PC-MC is the problem and PC-MC must be fought. Hence, the idea I constantly put forth, of the State As Its Nation's Castle; whereby Islam is proscribed and its adherents deported, along with their Marxist allies, simply for being an internationalistic ideology ipso facto opposed to the nation-state.

          "If he didn't imply it, he would be campaigning to stop non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West…"

          Maybe the article is just too focussed (on the violent kind of jihad) for it. But I think your charge here is false. This is from Greenfield's article: "Muslim enclaves in America and Europe made it easier for terrorists entering the United States to operate and for the rise of native born Muslim terrorists."

          Doesn't sound like support of PC-MC to me.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            So you're saying an imperialistic attack (which Islamic immigration is) must sport the label "terrorism" in order to be resisted? Talk about wetting your own gunpowder.

            No, not at all. Read my posts and subsequent replies please much more carefully. I'm totally against calling jihad terrorism, as jihad and terrorism are two very separate and mutually exclusive manifestation altogether.

            In fact, because the West automatically conflates jihad as being terrorism, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, which conflates all civilizations, cultures, and societies together as all being equal and the same and also conflates jihad and terrorism together as also being equal and the same, non-violent stealth jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, is able to occur today throughout the West totally unopposed, uncontested, and without resistance.

            You see today, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and can be both violent and non-violent, is always conflated and morally equated with being terrorism, which isn't even an Islamic manifestation and as its name implies is always only violent. Hence, because by design non-violent stealth jihad isn't violent, it isn't construed as being terrorism, which as its name implies is always only violent, and because it isn't construed as being terrorism, it isn't therefore opposed.

            Indeed, when the West, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, conflates and morally equates jihad as being terrorism, it enables non-violent stealth jihad to manifest throughout the West completely unopposed. Therefore, I'm 100 percent against calling violent jihad terrorism because it reinforces the false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions that inadvertently enables non-violent stealth jihad to occur throughout the West without resistance.

            Now, of course, the violent tactics of violent jihadists and terrorists are virtually identical, but if the violent acts were perpetrated by Muslims in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme, then it was violent jihad as opposed to terrorism, and if the violent acts, on the other hand, were perpetrated by non-Muslims and motivated by any other causes other than Allah, then the violent acts constitutes terrorism as opposed to violent jihad.

            In addition, jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, can also constitute non-violent means as well, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme. As a matter of fact, non-violent stealth jihad relative to violent jihad is employed by the Islamic world against the West astronomically far more prevalently and in fact constitutes an exponentially far greater threat to the continued peace, prosperity, freedom, and security of the West relative to violent jihad. Yet, thanks to PC multiculturalism, it manifest today throughout the West completely unopposed.

            Indeed, one of the reasons people so easily buy into the false PC multicultural myth that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists, is because violent jihad attacks for the most part are few and far between. Thus, if a Muslim living in the West appears to be non-violent for all intents and purposes, per the dictates of PC multiculturalism, that Muslim is automatically assumed to be a so-called “moderate Muslim.” However, the reality is that Muslim is really a non-violent stealth jihadists instead, as all Muslims are forbidden, per the dictates of Islam, from living outside the Dar al Islam unless it is in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme.

            As a matter of fact, the sixth and most important pillar of Islam makes it an obligatory duty for every Muslim on earth to fight jihad in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme. No exceptions. Therefore, ALL MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX MUSLIMS ON EARTH are jihadists. A tiny minority of them are violent jihadists, while the vast overwhelming majority of them are non-violent stealth jihadists, and the few that are not jihadists are not Muslims at all, but instead blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM must be executed.

            In fact, most non-violent stealth jihadists believe that rogue mega violent jihad attacks, such as 9/11, are exceedingly counterproductive and very harmful because they invite wars against Muslims and also because they attract unwanted scrutiny, attention, and focus on Islam.

            Indeed, the leading proponents of violent jihad in the world, AQ, has been waging a violent and non-violent jihad against the leading proponents of non-violent stealth jihad in the world, the Saudis and the Gulf State Emirs, for years beginning around 1989.

            –continued below

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Maybe the article is just too focussed (on the violent kind of jihad) for it. But I think your charge here is false. This is from Greenfield's article: "Muslim enclaves in America and Europe made it easier for terrorists entering the United States to operate and for the rise of native born Muslim terrorists."

            Doesn't sound like support of PC-MC to me.

            Apparently, your reading comprehension skills sucks to high heaven and I can't help that. Indeed, there is no such thing as Muslim terrorists entering the US or native born Muslim terrorists, since jihad and terrorism are two very separate and mutually exclusive manifestations altogether that per the dictates of PC multiculturalism are always conflated and morally equated together as being equal and the same. You and Mr. Greenfield are two very good examples of how PC multiculturalism is like cancer. Indeed, once it infects a society, it is practically impossible to eradicate. Lord help us!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Indeed, in country after country and anywhere and everywhere mass Muslim immigration is occurring today in the world, just like clockwork the vast overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants flat out refuse to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim only enclaves that in time eventually morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside.

    As a matter of fact, the government of France just a few years ago counted 758 Muslim no-go zones in France alone. Indeed, Europe today is populated with over a thousand Muslim no-go zones already, and each one of them acts like tiny sovereign Islamic statelets inside the states in which they reside, because Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    Hence, when GWB doubled the size, scope, and power of the federal government, while at the same time usurping our formerly heretofore constitutionally protected rights and freedoms, ostensibly to protect the homeland from so-called terrorist attacks, but in reality to create the false sense of security necessary to continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, which caused our budget deficits to inevitably skyrocket out of control in 2008 the instant the economy headed south, it was another major strategic blunder similar to GWB's idiotic “war on terror,” which was a war declared on what isn't even an Islamic manifestation.

    Thus, if this writer wasn't blinded by the same PC multiculturalism that blinds GWB, he would advocate outlawing Islam and banning and reversing mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP instead. As zero Muslim stealth jihadists living in America as a fifth column would not only virtually eliminate the possibility of violent jihad attacks inside the homeland in very quick fashion, but at the same time it would also completely eliminate the by far greater threat to the peace, prosperity, freedom, and national security of the West emanating from non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad primarily via mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest.

    In addition, we could also roll back all the needless, ludicrous, senseless, and unnecessary expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government and at the same time get our financial house back in order and our usurped rights and freedoms restored.

    Indeed, unless something major happens, because the West relative to the Islamic world is so far advanced, the Islamic world can never hope to conquer the West via violent jihad or what this writer ignorantly conflates as being terrorism. However, via non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, primarily via mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme, the Islamic world can conquer the West. Indeed, it is already happening throughout Europe, America, and Canada today thanks to PC multiculturalism and writers like this one that reinforce those false PC multicultural misconceptions every day.

  • kevinh

    Your anger and frustration (at the "oxymoron" term) seems to have been wasted on a friend. The author points out the blindness that you accuse him of not pointing out.

    Kev

    • Daniel Greenfield

      ObamaYoMamma only seems to comment only as a vehicle for writing its own articles in the comments. Which is fine, the more people contributing to this subject the better, unfortunately he/she/it is also driven to attack everyone else in order to promote his/her own work.

  • Irandissident

    The first time I heard someone threatening to use civilian airliners as weapons, it was Iran's Hashemi Rafsanjani , who arrogantly declared that the IRI could fill airliners with explosives and destroy American ships.

    The IRI was the first to openly threaten to do this and no one knows whether the one shot down in the Persian Gulf in 1988 by the Americans was on this mission or not.

  • http://frontpagemag.com Francisco Bravo

    All Muslims must be vanquished from the west as our ancestors did it (it took 800 years to expelled the Moors or Turks from Spain ) etc..They must or we will die.