If a talking head talks to himself on C-Span, does anyone hear a debate?

Does anyone other than Saddam watch See-Spam?

But when will that be?

I think we must resign ourselves to both Muslim evasions of head-to-head debate and Old Media kowtowing to them about it. If there is hope for candor and honesty about this subject, it lies in the Blogosphere, and in the willingness of ordinary persons to educate themselves from primary Islamic sources, given just a little nudge.

Spencer comments on Akbar Ahmed's response:

"A mujahid who happened to see this interview would not be convinced to lay down his arms. And on that score, by Dr. Ahmed's own admission above, he has failed."

And there is a deeper, more troubling problem that Professor Ahmed must confront. Not only will mujahid not lay down their arms, there are Islamic apologists who disingenuously argue long the same lines as Professor Ahmed, and these folks are sympathic with the aims, the perceived 'grievances', and the 'cause' of the mujahid; they only disagree, publicly at least, about the means the jihadists use. They perceive the mujahid to belong to the ummah, the community of believers, and, hence, view them as brothers in Islam. One cannot engage in this debate, from a non-Muslim perspective, without removing clouds of suspicion given the context. Infidels need and deserve a few proclamations from Muslim scholars and leaders who claim they are on our side. Will Professor Ahmed denounce the global jihad, the imams in Saudi Arabia, in Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, Indonesia, all over the Muslim world, who advocate 'fighting in the way of Allah' against Infidels who 'persecute' Muslims. Will Professor Ahmad declare Sharia law, the Caliphate as illegitimate political and moral goals, and thereby oppose major Muslim organizations around the world, including Muslim Student Associations in Canada and the United States, and the Muslim Coucil of Britain? Will Professor Ahmed denounce the scholars at Al Anzar who advocate the killing of unrepentant homosexuals, jihad against non-believers, jihad against Israel, jihad in Europe?

And if he does not, does he neglect to do these things because he is afraid that Muslims will become violent if people speak in such ways, or is there a part of him that considers the views of the jihadists and their sympathizers, his brothers and sisters in the ummah, as a mere moral nuissance among brethern, not worth a fight?

Actually, I think the larger issue here is journalistic ethics . . . if such a thing exists . . . is why the freak would C-Span do such a thing in the first place. It seems to be a way to sandbag someone. I wouldn't think it would be fair for Robert to critique a Jihadi's rants without some sort of rebutting. This is clearly a sand bagged attack, it stinks, and I'm calling C-Span on this issue. Is the Islamic point of view so "brittle" that it alone can rebut?? What an unfair joke. C-Span, dhimmitude, who would have thunk it.

Perhaps C-Span and other major networks fear the wrath of Muslim reaction to a real debate in which Islam is honestly on trial. Hence Paula Zahn drops Spencer. Hence C-Span tries to water down the impact of anything Spencer might say by a pre-refutation (which involves straw men, misrepresentation, and dialectical dishonesty, at least on C-Span's part). Spencer is being 'disrespectful', you know, and that might make a bad situation worse, or so these folks think. The ludicrous argument, "Muslims are just like Christians and Jews but don't make them angry or they will become enflamed, and maybe get violent." is getting very, very old. You don't need to be the sharpest knife on the shelf to see it for what it is: absurd.

I'm not sure what is going on at C-Span. I suspect that C-Span founder Brian Lamb, who at one time seemed to strive for fairness and balance in political matters, is, in the late part of his career, allowing himself to express his own bias, or he is not in the driver's seat anymore. Did he seem hostile/skeptical/biased to Mr. Spencer before or after the filming the interview in remarks that were not aired? I have noticed that in the call-in shows many more anti-Bush than pro-Bush callers are on the air. Since the callers are screened before they come on, I can only assume the screeners are allowed more of their own discretion and not made to adhere to a fairness doctrine. I don't watch C-Span that much any more, but will watch this weekend.

C-SPAN contact info here...

C-SPAN Producers & Management

The right war, at the right time, waged by the right man. Thank you.

Very Respectfully;

People are frightened by what Spencer says. His message is a powerful one, a scary one, and one that many suspect might be true, and deeply long for to be false.

So they try to cling to a fig leaf, they seek to grab onto a shred of hope.

That's why the media doesn't grant him the airtime that he should be getting.

I don't know all the specifics, but it seems, it just seems that the whole purpose of C-SPAN was to discredit what Spencer has been saying.

Maybe I'm wrong.

The media of recent years has a fear of the truth. Their reports are biased and misleading. The reporters seem to be either blind to the truth or scared of being fired. I think too many reporters try to be political anaylists or pschiatrists. They fail.
Try to find one reporter pointing out the directives Muslims are taught from the Qur'an. Find one reporter reporting on what is being taught in Mosques world wide. Find one reporter who exposes the cruel treatment imposed in Muslim prisons. Reporters doing this type of reporting are seldom seen and soon disappear from existence. They make one or two reports and you never see them again.

Now we have reporters debating themselves. What a hoot!! Shows all that practice in front of a mirror is paying off.

Maybe we could put on our own program. We would show a film clip of any Muslim wacko asking a question. Then we could have our representive give the reply. (the Muslim wacko could not keep interrupting and whinning as they do in real interviews). We could proceed to do the "interview" one point/question at a time. The viewer sees both the question and the reply. The viewer could see a vastly different interview than is normally seen.

I watched Robert's interview a few nights ago. They gave him precious little time and the interview was short. The subject matter is so important and the coverage so scant I wondered to myself just what was the interviewer afraid of hearing.

In our taped interview, we could easily do a 30 minute program. We could even have emails flashed on the screen as is the rage today. The emails would, no doubt, have some wacko comments which would be easily refuted and the lies and hatred of the Muslims exposed.

C-Span gives the term "one on one interview" a new meaning.