[EnochPowellWasRight]

"(That argument would in any case be moot in liberal, Western democracy.) "

No, it wouldn't.

" But continue to pretend they don't exist or don't matter."

They don't matter. Their position is far too weak both politically and textually.


"The existence of fake moderates is no reason to ignore and undermine real moderate (or otherwise anti-Islamist) Muslims. "

There may be moderate Muslims, but there is NO moderate Islam. That's the point.

"I continue to be amazed that many freepers instead choose to legitimize and endorse the Islamist claim that theirs is the only legitimate and possible version of Islam."

Ignoring this fact is dangerous and avoids the problem. Just look at the example Mohammad set for his followers. THAT should tell you what Islam is.

[Stultis]

They don't matter. Their position is far too weak both politically and textually.

You could have said the same thing, at some point, about Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, not to mention thousands and thousands of other Soviet/Communist dissidents (most nameless) during the Cold War. Does that mean we shouldn't have made every effort then to legitimize and build them up? So why do you counsel the exact opposite strategy: lumping dissidents with our enemy, pretending they don't exist, and thereby making it easier for our enemy to marginalize and intimidate his own "fifth column"?