A broader thought on my previous post.

Is the reality that a person can only be either pro-Muslim or anti-Muslim without anything inbetween?  Little Green Footballs, this past week, has made various posts about some European groups that may be anti-Islamization, but may also be (and from the evidence presented are) neo-Nazis.  The Yaffer flap only illustrated that more.  But LGF also has a solid record on pointing out and shouting down pro-Islamization groups as well as those people willfully blind to Islamofascism.  In other words, Johnson is certainly no friend of CAIR or Jimmy Carter.  But neither is he a racist.

The us or them mentality is a fundamentally unprincipled stand.  To claim inviting Griffin was due to starting a debate is as absurd as claiming the same for inviting Ahmadinejad.  There is no debate here anymore - it's done, it's been settled.  Both of these men hold views any rational person would dismiss out of hand.  Period.

At some point, the thoughtful person has to realize that some apparent fellow travelers are, in reality, no different from one's enemies.  Trading a Crescent Moon for a Swastika makes no damned sense.  You're not making a trade of ideas; rather, you're merely switching out one symbol for another while retaining the meaning.

Pointing out the actual beliefs of someone who claims to be your friend is not being PC.  It's being honest with yourself.  Moreover, it's standing up for your own beliefs.

An aside:  The ties between Islamism and Nazism need to be, I suppose, continually pointed out.  There's a reason it's called Islamofascism after all.  It's why, for instance, both Storm Front and Hamas are equally our enemies even though they would likely, when we are finished off, go after each other.

Posted by: Jason at 02:22 AM in Conservoluted | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.