Dhimmitude is a two-way street.

Most of the suspects [in the planned Aug. 16 airliner bombings] are second or third generation British citizens of Pakistani descent whose families hailed from war-torn Kashmir. U.S. officials believe the 29 members were divided into multiple cells and planned to break into small groups to board the nine planes.^[1]

Would it be fair to conclude that Britain made a huge mistake in allowing so many Muslims to enter the country?

These very young British Muslims with no other home than Britain have turned against Britain. Twenty-nine by the present count. The pathetic Mr. Stewart-Whyte is apparent the sole white Briton to sign on to this murderous plot, so maybe that makes it 28 foreign-origin Muslims involved.

The occasional Muslim who slips a mental cog doesn't condemn an entire community, but given the large numbers of young Muslims involved in this current abomination, the second-generation Muslims involved in the London transit attacks, and the sorry record of Muslim attacks around the world since 2001, isn't it madness not to consider Muslims a different and dangerous breed of cat?

Where are the second-generation Sikhs, Hindus, Jamaicans, and Chinese in Britain carrying out terror attacks and demonstrating in the streets proclaiming "Sikhs will dominate!"? It is unnecessary even to supply an answer to this question.

Q. What is it about Muslims that draws them to such awful violence?

A. Their religion.

Does any sane person doubt this?

We do not say that the entire British community is "condemned." We do say that we must forthrightly deal with the issue of a new legal presumption.

Normally, we commonly wrap ourselves around the axle in requiring special, rock-solid justification for cutting any dear citizen out of the fold for an official purpose. That is the right and proper approach -- for dealing with people whom. in crafting this approach, we implicitly assume are "us" and unjustly excluded from the benefits of the community of "us."

However, given (a) the scale of Muslim-inspired violence, intimidation, and dissembling and (b) the profound peculiarity, ignorance, anti-intellectualism, illiberalism, separatism, and hatred of the infidel that are inherent in Islam, a new approach is necessary to the problem that Islam poses for the modern world.

What is necessary is for the West, and any country in which there is a Muslim community, to establish the presumption that invidious legal distinctions made between Muslims^[3] and citizens of the host country are justified. The burden of proof that the distinction is unjustified should be on the proponent of the issue of justification and . . . be well nigh insuperable.

Non-Muslim nations are within their rights to treat Muslims in their midst in the same way that Muslims have treated and do treat infidels in their midst when they are the dominant group.

Dhimmitude is a two-way street.

Christians and Jews have been driven from their ancestral homes all over the Middle East by vicious Muslim conduct.^[4] Discrimination by the West should be instituted to achieve the same, no, an accelerated migration of Muslims from the West to their religious homelands.

Anything less is national suicide.

Notes
^[1] "Thwarting the Airline Plot: Inside the Investigation." By Brian Bennett and Douglas Waller, Time, 8/14/06 <-- Best of the Web Today, Wall Street Journal Online, 8/11/06.
^[2] "Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute." ~ Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, principal deputy of Osama bin Laden. Source.
^[3] "We are a blood-drinking people . . . ." Source
^[4] "At the age of thirteen I[, a Christian girl in Lebanon,] dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night waiting to be slaughtered and by the age of 20 I had buried most of my friends who were killed by Muslims." Source