...about Obama's ISIS speech and the brethren's reaction, which was outraged that it didn't contain enough hatred, especially of Muslims, because come on, they can't talk smack about blacks, they can't talk smack about gays or Hispanics, you gotta give them something or it's, like, persecution.
UPDATE. Adding to the anti-Muslim ooga-booga at National Review is Theodore Dalrymple, who asks, "why there should be proportionally more jihadis from Britain than, say, from France" in ISIS, and "why they should be more brutal." Considering that ISIS is overwhelming native-based, this is a ridiculous line of inquiry (not made less so by Dalrymple's admission that "the premises of the questions themselves are somewhat speculative") unless your goal is to try and tar a whole people with the actions of some weirdos, and this is what Dalrymple is up to: The Muslims in Britain, apparently, aren't performing as well economically as the Sikhs or the Hindus, and so the Brit Muslim male is a "failure," and his "resentment is all the stronger because of the additional element of personal responsibility for that failure, actual or anticipated," leading to his savagery.
Dalrymple does offer an alternative environmental cause for those who prefer their Muslim-bashing with a chaser of kids-today yak: "contemporary British culture... is the crudest, most aggressive, and most lacking in refinement of any of the Western cultures," says Dalrymple, and the Brit jihadis are basically lager louts gone tea-total for Allah, which goes to show how "partially British" they are. Wouldn't it be easier to just blame the malign influence of Henrik Ibsen?
