Simplify, simplify, simplify
Basic rule of logic: if an assumption leads to contradictions, don't keep trying to add little exceptions and quibbles to dig out of the contradictions. Just remove the assumption.

Okay, so we have some definite contradictions.

(1) We have the DC government helping to save lives after a monsoon in Pakistan, which is an enemy nation. Pakistan has been funding and sheltering Sheikh Osama for a long time. That makes Pakistan an enemy of the American nation. And yet the Army commanded from DC has been building dams and schools in Pakistan, and now the Marines rescue people from a flood. Simultaneously, the government in DC is tearing down dams and irrigation systems in the remote nation of America, causing new droughts and floods.

(2) The government in DC approves of the Saudi project to build a triumphal Cordoba mosque on the site of the Twin Towers. The sole purpose of this mosque is to shout "We have conquered you, infidels! Bow down and submit, kaffirs!" A Mohammedan leader named Imam Hussein Obama strongly approves of the victory monument:

“I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” in remarks prepared for the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast.

But he continued: “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.”

= = =

Now both of these phenomena are contradictory and mind-boggling if you assume that the government in DC is on the side of America. They become simple and ordinary (and lots of other phenomena also become obvious and normal) if you assume that the government in DC is on the side of Sheikh Osama.

Note especially the nice normal everydayness of "the annual White House iftar, the sunset meal breaking the day’s fast." The media don't need to define the verminous Arab word iftar, nor do they bother to specify that the fast has something to do with the primitive idolatrous Mohammedan "holiday" called Ramadan. When you have an official established religion, with the head of state also serving as the chief Imam, these things are just default and natural, no explanations are needed. Like Queen Elizabeth taking part in a communion ceremony. You wouldn't need to define communion, nor would you have to specify that it's an Anglican style of communion, you'd just expect the readers to know.

See how easy it is when you make the proper assumption?

= = = = =

More on iftar: You can learn a lot about culture by noticing which words are default or unmarked and which are unusual. All the media are treating iftar as a default commonality that needs no explanation or emphasis. I've never heard the word before, and I assume the vast majority of Americans haven't either. Since the media seem to be comfortably familiar with this term, we can conclude that the media are far more familiar with Mohammedan culture than with Christian culture. We already know from decades of experience that our media are violently and murderously anti-Christian; we know that they share the attitudes of Mohammedans on this subject. Up till now I've assumed the media and government were simply allied with Allah because their Party formed that alliance in 1968. Now I'm wondering if this assumption also needs to be simplified.

Are the media loyal jihadis?
  ¶ 6:04 PM