Audio of the D'Souza/Spencer debate

It was funny how Dinesh took a personal attack when he was debating you. Dinesh couldn't debate you on merits of the case itself.

Lores got it. I think she is "one of us". As far as D'souza is concerned, well give the chap some time. He is at the stage where I was some years ago. He is going to have the shock of his life when finally, for him, everything falls into place. He will be petrified when the reality hits him. I know, I was. Trouble is, now there is very little time left for us. That is one luxury that we do not have.

D'Souza responds in the Washington Post (Sunday, January 28, 2007)..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601624.html

He claims:

"The thrust of the radical Muslim critique of America is that Islam is under attack from the global forces of atheism and immorality -- and that the United States is leading that attack."

This is just flat false. Muslims use any excuse to explain their behavor. Of course muslims use the so called "American Immorality" but they also use our support of Israel and becuase we are a majority Christian country. They claim we don't have a Islamic state and there is another excuse. If we were a christian theocratic state they would still attack us becuase we were not practicing the true Islam. They are offended if christians fix churches in muslim lands. They are offended when Christians carry bibles in their lands. Hell they are offended when we give them help after a earthquake becuase some of the people might be Christian. What the hell is this man talking about?

D'Souza is just like the left. He is trying to appease muslims by using one of THEIR EXCUSES for attacking us. He is just flat wrong.

He goes on...

"In a 2003 statement, bin Laden said that to him, the World Trade Center resembled the idols that the prophet Muhammad removed from Mecca. In other words, bin Laden believes that the United States represents the pagan depravity that Muslims have a duty to resist."

Now this is really pushing the bounds the human mind! What pagan depravity is bin Laden talking about Dinish? Is it "girls gone wild" or is it the fact we don't practice Islam? Also perhaps we should not build cubic buildings either becuase god knows Islam will attack it becuase of its "pagan nature". Silly I know.........but were does this appeasing end.

"The liberal "solution" to Islamic fundamentalism is itself a source of Islamic hostility to America."

There we go! Thats why muslims take slaves in the horn of africa, attack India, attack Thailand, cause 90% of the wars on earth today and its all becuase of some "Liberal solution". Last time I looked the head of Iran was praising the Democrates as "wise men". So how does this jive with D'Souza silly arguments? So far the liberal solution has been to do nothing! How the hell does that offend anybody.

"The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book. But if a book says things that are obviously untrue and can be disproved, then it is not dangerous -- it is merely fiction and should be ignored. A book is dangerous only if it exposes something in the culture that some people are eager to keep hidden."

Bull...it is stupid to blame any American (no matter how silly they are) for 1350 years of jihadi warfare. You would rather appease fictional traditional muslims then get to the root of the problem. You would rather attack our fellow American (no matter how silly they are) then OUR ENEMY!

"It is that the far left seems to hate Bush nearly as much as it hates bin Laden. Bin Laden may want sharia, or Islamic law, in Baghdad, they reason, but Bush wants sharia in Boston. Indeed, leftists routinely portray Bush's war on terrorism as a battle of competing fundamentalisms, Islamic vs. Christian."

Thanks for helping their argument Dinish! Worst yet you do not see the fact that you are doing the same...

"When I began writing my new book, this concern was largely theoretical, because the left was outside the corridors of power. Now I fear that the extreme cultural left is whispering into the ears of the Democratic Congress. Cut off the funding. Block the increase in troops. Shut down Guantanamo Bay. Lose the war on terrorism -- and blame Bush." "Pointing this out is what makes me dangerous."

Well....that says it all...His is new name is "Mr. Danger!"

This website has always remained a very sobering reflection of what Islam has wrought throughout the world. I know many of you have visited this site on occasions, but for me it defines how people like Dinesh D'Sousa are so deeply flawed in their narrow thinking when it comes to Islam Vs. the West or the decadent left for that matter.

For those of you who may visit this site for the first time, be sure to tab all the way down it.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Posted by: Mackie at January 29, 2007 10:09 AM

This site is on my daily schedule. You can really find great info there.

Unfortunately they seem to be far behind with the body count. Anyway, one or thousands is the same in principle.

Nice job Robert.

After that beating I doubt he'll ever agree to debate you again. That was great.

Also, as a first time poster let me say that I appreciate all that you have done, both in your books and on this website. Keep up the good work.

Listening to the audio as I post.

Dinesh blames America, not Osama. It's just like the imams who blame women for getting raped. "If they were wearing the hijab, and not tempting the men, they would not be raped." No, Dinesh, it's not the victim's fault.

Dinesh's argument is basically that if America acted in conformity with sharia law, the muslims would still hate us with a passion and be religiously required to murder us... but they'd hate us less than they currently do, and would focus on beating the "near enemies" instead of far-off America.

What difference is there between Dinesh and Osama? Anyone? Anyone?

I love linking that site (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
to those who equate "Christian terrorists" and "radical christians" to those who kill for the religion of peace.

If Dinesh is saying that the 'traditional muslims' are being driven to side with 'radical muslims' because of West's moral decadence, then why aren't traditional Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Chinese, Shintoists driven to radicalization because of West's decadence?

That is an argument that holds no water. I am appalled that this guy should be given this much coverage. What he says is rubbish.

Lores got it. I think she is "one of us". Posted by: arjun.sevak [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2007 09:52 AM

I don't think she got it. It may take some time for her to absorb before she will understand.

Look at the appeasing policy in Thailand for example, it only has sent their terror spiraling.

One day I was walking in a Muslim area in Bangkok and passed a child with its father.
The kid snared at me: " F**k you", the father didn't do anything to correct his son. They didn't and don't know me. I was just looking American or British for him, that was the reason.

I don't agree with the broad-stroked anger at D'Souza. Can't you say, "yes, Islam has this or that grievance ever-ready for use" but also say, "Some grievances are felt more acutely and reflect issues that are in truth weakening the west's ability to respond to Islam"?

D'Souza: "I also argue that the policies that U.S. 'progressives' promote around the world -- including abortion rights, contraception for teenagers and gay rights -- are viewed as an assault on traditional values by many cultures, and have contributed to the blowback of Islamic rage." Saying this is not true (or should not be said) is much like saying the following: it is wrong (or should not be said) that Islam is ideologically prone to violence.

Does anyone know where we can get this as an mp3 file? Please, oh please?

from DD's WaPo article:

"The second reason can be gleaned from the common theme in the reviews: that mine is a dangerous book. But if a book says things that are obviously untrue and can be disproved, then it is not dangerous -- it is merely fiction and should be ignored. A book is dangerous only if it exposes something in the culture that some people are eager to keep hidden."

No, idiot. The reason your book is dangerous is that it presents an erroneous analysis of the enemy's motivations and, therefore, of their objectives. Without the proper understanding of their motives & objectives, it is axiomatic that we cannot formulate the corrrect response to their threat. I wonder if he would concede that if his analysis is wrong, his book is indeed dangerous to the West, or at best a distraction we can ill afford.

Posted by: s_sgt7 at January 29, 2007 10:52 AM

You seem to be in very good spirits today, Great!

One day I helped a neighbor, a lady who is married with a Muslim, though she seems not to serious about it, translating and explaining some business letters as she works for an international company in management position and her husband works for the govt.

I asked her if she would have a choice and could change anything she liked what would that be.
Without thinking she replied: "More warmth and love within my family"

Now, where does the quran, hadiths sunnahs etc. teach about love?

In fact, she hit the point. In Islam it's all about jihad and discrimination.

Does anyone know where we can get this as an mp3 file? Please, oh please?

Posted by: Kay at January 29, 2007 10:49 AM

KAY, if you email me (at lores@loreslive.com), I can email you a link to download the mp3 of the audio.

Lores got it. I think she is "one of us". Posted by: arjun.sevak [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 29, 2007 09:52 AM

I don't think she got it. It may take some time for her to absorb before she will understand.

ARNIE:

Do I get that the reason they hate us is that we are "infidels"? Do I get that my parents had to leave Egypt because they feared being killed because of their Christian faith? Do I get that my uncle was minutes away from being strangled because he "looked Jewish"? Do I get that political correctness is killing us and will turn us into the next dying Europe unless we change?

I encourage you to listen to take a closer look at my blog posts and my other radio shows.

Lores posted:
"Do I get that the reason they hate us is that we are "infidels"? Do I get that my parents had to leave Egypt because they feared being killed because of their Christian faith? Do I get that my uncle was minutes away from being strangled because he "looked Jewish"? Do I get that political correctness is killing us and will turn us into the next dying Europe unless we change?"

I don't doubt that you get it. Your sharing of your personal story helped make Robert's point. Thanks for having him on your show.

I have been following the debate between Mr. D'souza and Robert Spencer the last week. I was pleased to hear the two together finally. This is truly a discussion that should be held at a national level. We are certainly at a crossroads as far as our future is concerned. We must confront those that wish to destroy us. Appeasement of the radical segments of Islam or even the "Moderate" segment, as Mr. D'souza proposes, is not an option. From all I understand about the RoP, it is going to require a definitive military victory to secure our future. Unfortunately, I also believe that this is going to be a recurring struggle till the end of times. The weapons may change, but the ideology behind the struggle will remain the same. This is truly a fight were we can learn from the past since it has been fought before.

Ishwar posted:
"If Dinesh is saying that the 'traditional muslims' are being driven to side with 'radical muslims' because of West's moral decadence, then why aren't traditional Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Chinese, Shintoists driven to radicalization because of West's decadence?

That is an argument that holds no water. I am appalled that this guy should be given this much coverage. What he says is rubbish."

This, in my opinion is the most "to the point" point that can be made. Listening last night I heard Robert bring this up. I just don't think it was brought up forcefully enough. It got lost in the many points Robert made in that part of the segment he was allowed to speak.

This is just my opinion, now, and you can take it or leave it. When you have a limited amount of time, and need to get a message across, you choose maybe 3 or 4 most salient points and hammer them home. The evening talk radio audience is not the same audience you'd have at some conservative think-tanky place. You've got some lady finishing up the dinner dishes, or some trucker going down the highway with his radio on. They are absorbed in their lives.

I understand it was a debate, and you have an opponent to contend with. Often the the dialogue will "goeth where it listeth" - you don't have complete control. But I would ask Robert to remember the primary goal is getting the word out, and defeating D'Souza is only a secondary goal.

(I hope I haven't come across as too presumptuous here.)

anybody got a link(if there is one) to the text of the debate?

Lores Rizkalla

I just want to say thank you for getting this debate underway.

link:

http://media.livedigital.com/audio/3c/39/3c391786706f0f5b5aded1c8162c3657.mp3

for stuff like this, get wireshark, sniff port 80, then right-click and "follow tcp/ip stream". You'll see the conversation with the webserver.

Also,

While I disagree completely with D'Souza's naive notions of how to combat the jihadis, I do think his point about the cultural left emboldening them is valid, and perhaps it's a blessing in disguise..

Perhaps the moonbats and OBL actually saved our bacon due to their own incompetence?

Imagine if the jihadi's had left us in our blissful ignorance until they had all armed themselves to the teeth..

In some parallel universe, The US is faced with a europe full of Islamic armament factories and all the countries of the middle east are legitimate military powers..

--Bill

What a catfight. I felt sorry for Lores. I was impressed with both Dinesh and Robert's passion for the subject, and I must say I've never seen Robert drop the gloves before -- he's been the coolest debater I've ever watched. Take a cold shower boys, and have it out over a cup of tea another day...regardless of the tactical difference you guys are largely on the same side.

Neither Dinesh nor Robert are idiots, they both have some very important contributions. I don't think Robert's analysis can negate Dinesh's points about the complicity of the cultural left (I would have added the POLITICAL left to this equation) to enabling the jihad.

At the same time Dinesh's arguments cannot negate Robert's excellent analysis of how Islamists, both of the slow jihad and fast jihad varieties, are motivated by ideas central to the Islamic faith...regardless of the political left we have, and would have, Jihad, and it is foolhardy (as Robert points out) to start diverting the blame to westerners.

It is also foolhardy for Dinesh to try to silence or marginalize voices like Robert's -- he is one of the few westerners who have managed to nail down, more or less exactly, the Islam - terrorism connection. Dinesh has managed to articulate very well ways in which the Islamists have been enabled, emboldened, and perhaps even equipped for this Jihad by the left, but he cannot argue that they have CAUSED the jihad.

Just as it is important (as Dinesh points out) not to marginalize forces and people in muslim societies who can prove to be allies, it is also important -- arguably even more important -- not to marginalize those in our own society who ought to be in solidarity against the islamist threat (and the social/political left OUGHT to be allies). Shovelling blame into their camp is not a good way to do so.

So while Dinesh claims Robert is preventing the driving of an important wedge in the Islamic world, I argue what Dinesh is also busy driving a very harmful wedge between allies in the fight against the Jihadists.

That a wedge must be driven in Dar Al-Islam is clear, but it is perhaps not the business of the West to do so. The moderates must rise, and we must ensure that they do so in a way that it not foolhardy. Yes, Dinesh, our dupes on the left must stop enabling the jihadists, but perhaps the solution is not to further alienate the left, but to help them see how much THEIR OWN values are threatened by the Islamists -- bring them into the anti-jihad camp. Your book won't do this.

These guys talked over each other so much neither could make much headway but I'd like to finish one of Robert's points, that sort of got lost in the fray. Dinesh picked up that robert's comments were to the effect that he was suggesting we give in to the Islamists and have a bit of Sharia in the west. He denied that he supported the institution of Sharia, miscasting Robert's point.

But Robert was pointing out that Dinesh is asking conservatives to "voluntarily take on some of part of these [sharia] provisions that are part of the ... Islamist agenda". I think Dinesh missed this point: By asking Robert to stop criticizing Mohammed he was essentially asking for a voluntary acceptance of an element of Sharia law that is universally regarded as intolerable in the west. Such a provision would fit right into the Dhimmi Watch pages. I think Dinesh may be in denial about the "slow jihad" agenda -- he's too busy worrying about suicide bombings.

Robert abandoned this point before finishing it and went on to speak about the consequences: if Mohammed and Islam itself can't be criticized we hobble our ability to deal with the central foundation for Jihad ... to our peril. Well said.

If you like debates, check out my latest update, in cooperation with members of the 910group.com:

Multimedia Update: A World Civilization or a Clash of Civilizations?

COMMENTS ON THE D'SOUZA V. ROBERT SPENCER DEBATE 01-28-2007 BY BLOGNAME: REPORT

I think immorality can be a smaller contributor or "justification" for a reaction of Jihad from radical Muslims, but it is in no way the base element or motive. Even if there is immorality it is not any Muslim's right nor anyone else's to judge by violence. This is proof that Islam itself is corrupt because it cannot help any society, but rather it is destructive in nature. Every Islamic country on the face of the earth is and has been a disaster for it's own society.

Regarding exposing what the radicals are doing, D'Souza says "it's driving all the 'traditional' Muslims into the radical camp" then that is the Muslim's choice and it's further proof that what Islam teaches should be exposed and Muslims held accountable for what is being taught.

D'Souza definitely uses exaggerations, a basic sign of a lack of truth in the first place.

D'Souza repeatedly won't give Robert Spencer the freedom to speak freely, again, another sign that D'Souza is more concerned with dominating the debate rather than even playing-field dialog.

D'Souza says "the Old Testament has violence" ------- I make this point over and over to people. God instructed a small group of people AT THAT TIME in history to conquer a geographical area, whereas the Koran instructs CURRENT DAY FOLLOWERS to conquer by way of force and violence. A huge difference. What an error for D'Souza to try and fabricate an analogy here.

D'Souza says "Robert your not letting me speak" gee, that's what D'Souza was doing over and over during the interview, interrupting, being loud, name calling. D'Souza had seeded so many different "points" in the discussion, how can anyone respond? Did he ever stay on the same sub-topic for over 30 seconds? D'Souza constantly interrupts. D'Souza's ducking and weaving makes the debate unnecessarily confusing to follow.

D'Souza accused Robert Spencer of an "epileptic fit." Wow, D'Souza needs to be heavily moderated, monitored and controlled in ANY debate. I'd be interested in seeing the debate word count between D'Souza and Robert Spencer, D'Souza must have spoke at a rate of twice that of what Robert got in. My Gosh. With respect to D'Souza words, I've never heard anyone make so many FALSE ACCUSATIONS in a debate other than an Islamist.

D'Souza's plan is dhimmiology.

Suicide bomber strikes in Israel for the first time in 9 months

We will not see peace, stability, or less terrorism until we see worldwide Islamic leaders, corresponding to the authority they hold, police their own, correct their own, and actually, as a contrast, preach against Militant Islam.

Dinesh D'Souza can be contacted by e-mail directly at the following address: dineshjdsouza@aol.com

Dinesh is sand in the eyes ala Akbar Ahmed. I still don't understand why Benrad Lewis is gospel and it should disarm any criticism just by saying, "thats according to Benard Lewis." I think Robert should have pushed him further on what a "traditional muslims" is. Why can't we foucus on the problems with the koran, hadith, and sira? Those being the infailable words of Allah and his prophet.

Mr. D'Souza,

So those Iraqi Christians, those Egyptian Christians, those Turkish Christians, those SE Asian Christians, etc. are so morally corrupt that they are merely getting what they deserve at the hands of their Muslim persecutors and murderers?

And if a non-Muslim questions why this violence is occuring, well that just drives the traditional Muslims into the hands of the radicals.

I see what a difficult position those poor traditional Muslims might be put into -- heaven forbid (sacr).

Has Mr. D'Souza ever described any particular interaction he has had with a "traditional" moslem, where this "traditional" moslem has publicly allied himself with D'Souza, against some "radical" moslem, based upon muslim theology and texts?

Arnie

My wife is Thai and she has one friend that is Buddhist, but is marrying s muslim from Malaysia with three wives. What a sad life she will live. She wont hear it. Everybody has tried to talk her out of it, but she won't listen. He is mean and controling, he wont even let her go to the resturant that she owns. She plans to convert and move to Malaysia. My wife wife thought i was a little dramatic when i said she might as well kill her self now. She will be a breeder with three co wives.

I think Robert won this debate on substance, but lost it on style. D'Souza makes a valid point (weak responses to lesser jihad encouraged the Islamists to attack again).

Robert could have found common ground with D'Souza (i.e. a forceful response to terrorist acts is required) and pushed the debate toward a question of how to engage with influential Muslims to enable them to abandon the theology of lesser jihad.

Such an approach by Robert would have been more constructive. D'Souza would have been less combative, and more willing to recognize the rotten theology at the core of this war.

Ernie,

I didn't think a slugger like you needed to be reminded that you don't always have to hit a homerun to help your side win.

Getting hit by a wild pitch also helps in the right situation.

Robert isn't out for personal stats (not so sure about D'Souza). Robert wants his team to win.

And "Let's play two today."

DiSouza's argument is flawed in the fact that modern day Jiahdists like BinLaden and Khomeni and the madman in Iran directly relate themselves to the linear heritage of Jiahd against non-Muslims going back to Mo himself. It has little relationship to the Leftist leaning Western societies today except as an excuse to continue the jiahd and the historical war that will only end when Islam triumphs over all mankind. This seems to be the jist of the Koran.
It wreaks with division of the Muslim and the non-Muslim and the terrible tribulation coming to the unbelievers. Most of the duty of carrying out this tribulation rests with true Muslims. This is the idealogy that attracts the Jiahdists based firmly in religious grounds and not a political reaction to Western liberalism.

Unfortunately for Robert the phone line was very muffled and it was difficult to hear him. DiSouza was much easier to hear. I also think there was too much talking over one another and Lores needed to be a stronger moderator.

She seems to be a very nice lady but she is a terrible radio host.

The main problem with the show, though, was the sound. Robert's phone line was not nearly as good. Additionally, it seemed like Robert could not hear the host or the knucklehead very well.

Robert, of course, wonderful-A+
The Host, D-
The Knucklehead was a knucklehead.

American soldier

Look at the bright side - at least this new wannabe convert and her hubby are moving to Malaysia, and not making life miserable for Buddhists in Thailand. That's a major plus

"If Dinesh is saying that the 'traditional muslims' are being driven to side with 'radical muslims' because of West's moral decadence, then why aren't traditional Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Chinese, Shintoists driven to radicalization because of West's decadence?

Not only that, but many of these traditions you mention have fairly ascetic moralities also, yet have been attacked by Muslims in the past or will probably be so in the future.

Just as it is important (as Dinesh points out) not to marginalize forces and people in muslim societies who can prove to be allies, it is also important -- arguably even more important -- not to marginalize those in our own society who ought to be in solidarity against the islamist threat (and the social/political left OUGHT to be allies). Shovelling blame into their camp is not a good way to do so.

I'm losing faith that this is true. It seems to me that the political left is as hopeless as the Muslims. The left has lost touch with the mainstream of Western thought. They chant slogans denouncing Western civilization at every chance. I had truly thought that the last Western "civil war" was the war between liberal democracy and totalitarianism, but maybe it wasn't. It's obvious that we can't keep letting Muslims into the West, yet there is a segment of the West (not coterminous with the Left, but definitely having a greater part of the Left than the Right) that is 100% dedicated to bringing more of these zealots into our midst.

I guess what I'm saying is maybe the West has to go through another civil war in order to then get on with the war against Islam. I don't know, but I do know that possibility exists and with the rancor on both sides of the political spectrum, it doesn't seem to be out of the question.

To both Arnie and henry

I am disappointed at the attacks on the hostess. From her personal story, where she mentioned how her father fled Egypt when threatened by his Muslim friends, it should be obvious that she doesn't need any of us to teach her how horrible Muslims are, since she experienced it firsthand. But by attacking one of the few public figures (okay, I'll concede that she isn't well known, and I hadn't heard of her before Robert publicized this) who have Robert on and give our side a fair hearing, one risks alienating others who may be coming to the same conclusions that we have.

Besides, given that Conservatives are normally quite patient and willing to give the other person a chance to make his/her point, I was somewhat disappointed with both Dinesh and Robert cutting in before the other could complete a sentence. In that aspect, it's normally the job of the hostess to force the transfer of the baton, but in this case, either speaker had barely spoken a few seconds before being interrupted. I will say that I'm completely disillusioned with Dinesh, particularly for explicitly stating that even if it is true, one should not state facts about Islam, as well as his characterization of the history sources of Robert as polymic.

It is disappointing that the CPAC debate looks like being rigged in advance.

I made a few images from the data at Religion of Peace .com

http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/TROP5.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/tropdundis.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/TROP011307.jpg

http://home.comcast.net/~vincep312/TROP2.jpg

Thanks Robert for taking Dinish on. Keep up the good work. Thanks also to Lores for hosting.

Good God, they nearly killed each other. I was hoping Robert would coolly cut Dinesh's argument to pieces but the phone line was so bad and he too was very wound up. So I'd say it was a stalemate. Sadly none of them had the upper hand. I hope it goes better at the CPAC debate.