I've been a bit busy with tests and essays that seem to never end. However I needed to write something on a particular news item.
The headline I have presented is the logical consequence of arguments presented by Michelle Malkin and Little Green Footballs. Malkin stated the following:
The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.Malkin is making an argument from analogy in the following manner:
(p1) Object A has Properties P, Q, R and so on
(p2) Objects B also has properties P, Q, R, and so on
(p3) Objects B has property X
(c1) Therefore Object A probably also has Property X.
(p1) Persons in the west are wearing a headdress, which has a number of distinct properties like colour, distinct patterns, scarf-looking, wrapped around the head etc.
(p2) The Keffiyeh is an Arabic headdress that also contains those exact properties.
(p3) The Keffiyeh also has a property that symbolises murderous jihad and terrorism.
(c1) Therefore People in the west who wear Keffiyehs are also probably symbolising murderous jihad and terrorism.
The consequence of the argument is that anyone in the west who wears a Keffiyeh (or a shemagh as it is also known) is symbolising Jihad. Australian and British soldiers wear this shemagh as a practical tool (I'm sure American soldiers and others have as well). It keeps the dust out of your face when you are inserted by armoured vehicles or helicopter (combined with goggles and glasses too). It also acts as a form of camouflage when you have the right colour (see below). Not that I like shemaghs as a practical tool. From my personal experience I reckon they screw with your peripheral vision if you aren't wearing them tight and right. Which is bad if you had an opposition who make flanking tactical maneuvers, enfilade fire, and certain ambush set-ups.
Here are some pictures of diggers wearing green shemaghs, which Malkin would define as "ignorant Jihadist-Supporters" according to her argument (who also paradoxically support America at the same time):
Malkin could counter-argue that she was taking aim at a particular white coloured shemagh with the particular Palestinian pattern. However she also talks about red-scarves so she can't be talking about the property of colour. She has universalized the concept. I've seen white shemaghs worn by multiple soldiers while I was in the Army. So she can't back down and say the colour is different (when the white shemagh gets dirty it actually looks somewhat deceptively ok).
Malkin could also argue she was talking about leftists, fashionistas, students, or others, who are wearing the scarf. However, the property still stands. She has made the argument from the scarf, and its properties, to the person wearing it. Not the other way around. Malkin is implying that wearing a Keffiyeh is a sufficient and necessary condition for symbolising Jihadism and terrorism. It isn't a sufficient condition as a person can wear a Keffiyeh and still be against Jihadism and terrorism. It isn't a necessary condition as Jihadism and terrorism can be "symbolised" in a variety of ways without a Keffiyeh (whatever the ambiguous, and subjective, language of "symbolism" means). Therefore, wearing a keffiyeh is neither a sufficient, nor a necessary, condition for symbolising Jihadism.
Finishing up, Malkin's argument adds more smoke to an already deceptive playing field in which the real crafty types would make sure not to bring attention to themselves. I'm sure Intelligence agencies don't sit around and use shemaghs as a conditional indicator of terrorist behaviour. Malkin may raise a counter-argument stating the issue is symbolism and culture war. However, western societies have a habit of amalgamating other cultures into its own. If it is a culture war then blending with cultures should be seen as a Sun Tzu-like strength. Contesting the strength of cultural blending comes off as dogmatic as some middle eastern cultures who'd never amalgamate the bikini into their culture.