What is the source of Islamic aggression's success? The greater the disconnect from reality the more reluctant people are to confront it. If a trained professional is doing something in the West any man feels on some level free to observe and kibitz. He is liable to admire the work of the surgeon or house painter and point out "I think you missed spot." The professional will probably just laugh and say buzz off or even thanks or possibly say they charge to train an apprentice, but they will rarely become hostile. The maniac ranting on the corner and demanding submission to their vision of a Supreme Being will only get a tight smile and an encouraging "Nice shoes." This is largely based in fear but there is more to it. In New York City 8 million people manage to live and work in close proximity with people they do not particularly like. The only way to do this is to not point out everyone's mistakes. In fact the most polite attitude is to not really care to much about the errors and problems of strangers. If people want help they ask. Big liberal government may gain support because it is seen as an impersonal shield that provides services without demanding the scrutiny and social interaction that comes with helpful neighbors or local entrepreneurs. The sincere busybody looking for old ladies crossing the street so they can grab their elbows is considered an intrusive pest.
The second problem, to turn whiskey's misogyny around, is that to many in the West have exhausted themselves in pointless cultural battles over gender and other issues. They all know that bickering over the insecurities of men and women and the roles of law and property and objective reality is as pointless now as a spat over whether the toilet seat should be up or down and whether the Captain's beard indicates he is secretly asking to be identified with the homosexual pirate tradition of the 17th century, when the toilet is in a 2nd class cabin and the Captain's name is Edward Smith. There is an iceberg ahead of the Titanic.
That was a to damn cute by half use of the passive voice to propose a Baruch Goldstein assault while attempting to lay it off as a hypothetical. Doing so puts the blog and everyone connected with it at risk. If you want to sincerely discuss possible responses that threatened groups or small dysfunctional groups made up of people like Baruch Goldstein of Tim McVeigh acting in the name of a larger community, that rejects them, then the way you worded this was exactly the wrong way to do it. The difference between the Judeo-Christian, or Buddhist or Hindu etc, communities and the Ummah is that the Islamists are not shamed and repudiated by the majority of their community in their internal conversations. For the other groups the extremists are a rejected and vilified fringe. The two are not equivalent and by acting as if they were or should be you weaken the case for those opposed to the terrorists. We are fighting not only against something but for something.