re: #1035 McSpiff

No it makes sense to me. Honestly I prefer this statement to a pure denouncement though. I suspect their may be some overlap in ideology between the two. A totally hypothetical example is that both support public healthcare (Hamas claims charity work remember).

If they had simply denounced everything and anything hamas states they support, their opponents can now saw “aha! you lied! you have this in common!”

With the statement made by park51, the support of public healthcare is now viewed within the context of their ideology, not Hamas’s. So now its just another plank in the platform of a group that supports charity. Not nearly as “incriminating”.

Again, hypothetical example but I think it shows perhaps why this angle was chosen.

Anyone who has read my posts over the last month or so knows two things: I am completely and utterly against the lies, propaganda, chicanery, and demagoguery inherent in the campaign to stop this mosque.

And I still reserve the right to question funding and unknown backers of the same mosque.

One of these things is not like the other.

The fact that the full-throated baying of the “anti-jihadist” hounds extends far beyond Manhattan to include any mosque being built anywhere in the United States tells me everything I need to know about the Poison Dwarf and his Harpy.

The fact that I don’t know with whom someone involved in the Manhattan mosque project may or may not be in bed, financially or otherwise, tells me merely that I don’t know that.

One is a frontal assault on the First Amendment; the other is a case for possible suspicion and clarification. That I do not necessarily believe that everything they say in English matches with what they say in Arabic does not mean I’m suddenly an anti-constitutionalist.

I hope that makes my position clear.