The other night I appeared on Libertarian Politics Live, and you can find audio of the interview here. The segment was supposed to have been a debate between me and Dinesh D'Souza over some of his contentions about Islam in his new book -- principally the idea that American immorality fuels jihad, and that that jihad can presumably be ended if we clean up our act. D'Souza, however, couldn't make it, and so I did the show by myself.
I very much hope that I will get an opportunity to debate D'Souza in the near future, and in this interview we did discuss a few of the points he tries to make. So even in his absence you may find it interesting.
Not having read his book, I am unsure as to how Mr. D'Souza connected the dots between American morals and Islam. Having said that, I recently saw an Assyrian website, showing some of the actions taken by their Muslim neighbors, Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite. The dead and bloody babies were awful,as was the photo of the Assyrian man, with masked men (all good Muslims) behind him, waiting to make a deep cut in the green line that they had drawn on his throat. I wonder if Mr. D'Souza has heard of the Islamic religious instructions on how to have sex successfully with a 6 month old baby girl or how to religiously dispose of a sheep after one has had sex with it. How about the 'temporary' (prostitution) marriages practiced throughout the Muslim world, often with little 12 year old girls, who are handed over by their parents for such arrangements. Yes, American culture has problems, as parents can attest to as they raise children in the 21 century. But, we still have a long way to go down to match the depravity of most Muslim countries.
This chap Dinesh D'souza sounds like he is from India. Specifically from Goa or thereabouts. Had he been a Hindu, there is a better chance that he would have known that jihad is on for a long, long time, and is not the result of the so-called "American immorality".
Excellent clip content-wise, bad recording quality-wise. Please Mr. Spencer, do keep us updated whenever you make an appearance where it is possible to listen to your speeches. They are good and articulate and really do cement your expertise in this field.
I'd also add that your interviewers were extremely obnoxious with their political jibba jabba, and I think you'll silently agree with that :-)
You have them running scared, Robert. :)
How does Dinesh explain the other 1,338 years between the time Jihad started and the West's putative immorality started?
(My arithmetic assumes that the onset of the West's slide into squalor was about 1962, and we know Jihad to have started in 624.)
Also, if we're so disgusting why are they all clamoring to move here? Oh, the ones who move here worship the moderate brand of Islam, the sacred texts of which have never been found even though their brand is the vast majority Islam brand, and so being moderates they can be tolerant of our immorality and even try to upgrade us to their high standards of behavior.
... Islamic religious instructions on how to have sex successfully with a 6 month old baby girl...
I take this to be a typo made in reference to Mo's marriage to his 6 yr old bride Aisha.
Also, the Holy Prophet only masturbated on her during those precious first few years, and did not have sex with her in the Clintonian sense of the word until she blossomed into a full-blown woman on her 9th birthday.
Please, let's get Moslems the respect they deserve.
One could make an argument that many Americans' arms-length attitude to Islam is the result of Islamic immorality, particularly re freedom of conscience. Many Muslims do not understand that the principles of freedom in American society are based upon the proposition that all individuals have the unlimited right to reason and to express thoughts and opinions based on reason.
Freedom does not mean licence (physical violence, incitement, un-self-restrained behaviors, etc.)-it means the unlimited right to reason in expressions of belief, in expressions of opinion, and the abandonment of force (by anyone)over the mind of others in matters of belief, thought and opinion. All arguments based on reason are without limits in a free society. However, unlimited freedom requires self-restraint of behavior by all individuals in a free society.
All personal liberty is based in freedom of mind-thought and behavioral self-restraint. Freedom is a mind-spiritual thing. Licence that is either practiced by non-Muslim Americans that do not understand freedom or by Muslims who do not understand freedom are equally immoral and both are a threat to freedom.
All societies must control the sexual instinct to one degree or other because of the instinct's power to create chaos without the use of reason. Extremist Muslim controls re sex and sexual license are really flip-sides of the same coin since both abandon reason to ideology. The use of reason is the foundation of sexual freedom too. The unlimited use of mind-reason is freedom from rigid controls or no controls (license).
Arjun
He's a conservative author, and a close associate of Bill Bennett. Too bad that in his disdain of Liberals, he's chosen to take up cudgels on what seems to him like religious conservatives, albeit of another religion. In his books, he has made disparaging comments about US Blacks, and is generally looked at as a divisive person. Good that one doesn't run into much of him in the media.
Bob Spencer: Listening to your interview left me with the impression that you believe moderate Moslems exist. I say this by your words "cilizational challenge that Jihadist Moslems present" (or something close to that).
If you do accept the notion of moderate Moslems, how do you reconcile their moderation with these core beliefs?
For exmaple, how can a person be a moderate and also accept 33:21's endoresment of many evils (theft, murder, antisemitism, slavery, pedophilia, extortion, and so on) and idealize those examples?
Or, to take another example, how can a person be a moderate and also believe in Allah's commandment to eliminate all other religions by dhimmitude and even murder if necessary?
Or the endorsement of lying? Or the endorsement of dozens of other immoderate concepts?
610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
Islam is a perpetual motion machine that has always expanded and darkened the world with its immoderation.
There are no Moslems who are normal persons; every Moslem is a threat to non-Moslems, however indirect.
There are no moderate Moslems because by Islam's very definition there can't be. There must not be.
Sorry, Alarmed Pig Farmer, I did not make a typo. The late, disgusting Khomenei, of Iran, 'father' of the revolution, issued some fatwas before his long- overdue death. I have seen them referenced on this site before. With the rulings, were some instructions on how a female baby, as young as either 6 months or 9 months (who's really counting in the weird world of Islam?) could be used sexually by a man and still be "OK" with Allah. Incredibly cruel, sick etc etc...and I don't know how many Muslim men partake of this religiously approved act. Hopefully, very few. Still, millions of people were inspired by his words, including the nut-case that is now president of Iran.
Oh, I think someone in here referred to the practice of "thighing" whereby a man may, er, masturbate on a baby girl but not have sex with the babe, at least not in the Clintonian sense of the word.
Is there any documentation around this? I'd like to find an English copy of AK's fatwa, and also any historical material, even going all the way back to the Sunnah.
Mother Ecclesiastica-
The issue is partly re negro-slavery (abolished 1865), but it's more than that. Most Americans can't trace their ancestry back before 1890 in America and many fled some place of tyranny, and that is even more of a reason they are strong advocates for civil rights for all Americans. We are a new nation and truly a nation of immigrants and most people want to welcome new legal immigrants to America. Muslims use the rejection of intolerance and racism in America to manipulate and deceive, to pretend they are abused immigrants, but meanwhile practice intolerance and racism in Saudi Arabia, Darfur, etc.
Many non-Muslims in America are alarmed that many Muslims appear to want to bring to America the kind of intolerance that we fled in the old world. People are alarmed by that-very much so.
Folks are also alarmed that this religion permits deception. Muslims will say that deception is only permitted under certain circumstances, but that misses the point: deception is permitted in Islam. I find that the most loathsome aspect of this belief-system. Ultimately, people will become very cold to Muslims because of the deception. Muslims pull too many stunts. People are turned-off by that, as well as their intolerance and pretenses to victimization.
Mother Ecclesiastica-
Folks like Robert (e.g) are typical of many Americans. His people fled Turkey to get away from Muslim-style crap. Americans don't want that here, and also feel cold bagels re Muslim deception and stunts.
arjun.sevak writes:
"This chap Dinesh D'souza sounds like he is from India. Specifically from Goa or thereabouts. Had he been a Hindu, there is a better chance that he would have known that jihad is on for a long, long time, and is not the result of the so-called "American immorality"."
As you've no doubt guessed, based on his surname,
he is Roman Catholic. The National Review is still
largely clueless about Islam, with only a few
(Andrew McCarthy a prominent exception) getting
the problem, largely because they are sympathetic
to religious conservativism.
I find it irritating that the NR types are still in
denial, and that "culture warrior" D'Souza appears
sympathetic to the enemies of civilization. We still
have a tough row to hoe.
Probably your best interview ever, Mr. Spencer. How many people gonna hear it? Is this a big radio station or just a regional one?
In any case, I can't follow you on the 'reformation' theory, Mr. Spencer. You of all people would know that is out of the question.
There is no Muhammedan anywhere who would question or actually go against the 'perfect religion' and the 'immutable Koran'- that's all set in stone. And without the claim of world domination and the subjugation of unbelievers, without the promise of booty and great 'slaughter in the land' -, without terror, what's left?
Five prayers a day?
That will not convince anyone, especially not any believing Muslim.
Islam must be destroyed. It can be destroyed. It is a house of cards and ridicule on a grand scale will shake a great number of them up and possibly out of their oppressive belief-system. If they start questioning their perverted ideology there is hope that they might come to reason.
Anyhow, I'm watching Zvi Levy and Condi on CNN at the moment, more later.
http://www.sheikyermami.com/
Mother,
You are definitely on to something. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton want Americans to feel guilty about racism and slavery but some of us can see through that and don't have any patience for the constant apologizing that goes on to shut them up. Those two losers couldn't care less about the well being of their constituents. They use them to keep themselves in power, just like slave owners did back before the Civil War. Americans, however, are fed a steady diet of propaganda about how we are supposed to feel guilty about it. It does color the atmosphere and most college students will offer a quick and humble apology, but they do that about Islam too. Those of us who were actually taught how to think can see through it. But it does permeate our society.
Frank, I like what you said about Islamic immorality. You are dead on.
Mr.Spencer & Mr.Fitzgerald
I sent u an email about Orkut the social networking site & didn't receive ur reply for more than a day
Orkut is an online social networking site but also on orkut,there are
"communities" which are forums on a particular topic
e.g. "faith freedom int'l" community etc
on these communities we talk about anything and there are also
anti-Islam communities like the one I mentioned & also "Jihad Watch"
community.
It will help spread the truth about Islam if u & Mr.Hugh join it.
I have already convince lots of my friends abt anti-Islam successfully &
you can do that too.
There r almost 40 million orkut users.
So u can see how many ppl there r to be enlightened.
contact me if u want an invitation to join Orkut.
Regards
sheik yer'mami-
I am not saying this to provoke argument, but when you say things like "Islam must be destroyed", it hurts all of us looking to, as Robert puts it, raise awareness, to the jihadist agenda, because it hurts credibility. I think Virgil Goode, though I agree with most of what he said, did a disservice to all of us by saying something like all muslim immigration should be stopped (Robert needs to coach him). If a major part of defeating the jihadist agenda and preserving western values is getting the moderate muslims on our side and able to speak out. When you, or others say what you said is not the way to do that, it will only alienate. There has been progress made in this area in Denmark, see the article "After the Danish Cartoon Controversy" at http://www.meforum.org/article/1437 where information about Naser Khader and his group The Democratic Muslim Network can be found, among other very encouraging information. Per this article- "The Danes understand that the Muslim community is not a monolithic bloc but encompasses different religious traditions, ethnic backgrounds, and political opinions. The crisis has taught the Danes to distinguish between Muslims who believe their faith is compatible with a secular democracy and seek integration and those who promote Shari‘a (Islamic law) and shun Danish society." Wouldn't that be the first step in America towards eliminating the cancer? To divide them and encourage the good ones to speak out? Obviously the non-muslims need to be educated on sharia law and what the threat is, and the American public seems to be completely clueless, my friends and relatives included. Look, if islam left tomorrow, I am fine with it, but I believe it unrealistic to expect it to be eliminated entirely. I welcome debate on this.
Thighing is defined by Islamic scholar Khomeini in "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990 as follows:
"Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."
Ayatollah Khomeini:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he
should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and
damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her
life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives.
The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom,
Iran, 1990
Book Title Page/ Cover
Inside Cover of Book
Excerpt: Page [1] | Page [2]
[Mohammad (founder of Islam) The Pedophile]
Actually this sounds more like a diversionary tactic to me.
Insofar as logic is concerned he may as well tell us that the dish ran away with the spoon and THAT is the story of MLK...
Either he is a Muslim trying his hand at taqiyya or he's on crack!
"The Rational One" (right...)
Were I Mr. Spencer (which I am not), the only message you would get from me is a cease & desist letter to disband your Jihad Watch group, since it can quite safely be assumed that you are one of the undesirable anti-Islam ramblers whose only contribution is to discredit the entire movement agains jihadists in a major way with your stupidity.
JBArsimon:
the unfortunate truth is that Islam teaches first-degree murder. That is the underlying objective of islam's teachings and it is in fact not rare for imams to tell Muslims at Friday service that killing "unbelievers" is a duty of theirs.
You do not realize that by Islamic standards those who commit murder of the "unbelievers" are deemed the "good" ones; those who refuse, question, or hesitate to do this are deemed the "bad" ones.
According to Islamic teachings per the Kuran, Hadiths, and Sura slaughter of the "unbelievers" is a command directly from al-lah itself thus this teaching may not be questioned, refused, or omitted from Islamic teachings. Killing the "unbelievers", global warfare, deception and other stratagems of warfare against the "unbelievers" are part and parcel of Islam and they are not going to be changed or reduced in an way on account of our objections to these things.
For Muslims to rate as "good" in your eyes would require them to reject much of Islam's essential doctrines. Muslims really do believe what they have been taught: killing non-Muslims leads to heaven. They usually believe that this is the natural order of things and that YOU are the one who has a problem.
Maybe you will one day realize that the world does not and never has revolved around a unanimously approved of "good" ethic whereby the sanctity of human life is upheld.
On the one hand, some Muslims may very well respect human life; this is so not because of Islamic doctrines it is true in spite of Islamic doctrines.
And this illustrates why Islam needs to be removed from human affairs as quickly as humanly possible. Our survival as a species may well hinge on our being able to protect lie itself. With Islam influencing human affairs on the scale it now does, that just won't be possible.
Loler
FIrstly I have neither started nor have I joined the jihad watch community
secondly I didn't insult u
thirdly u insulted me & thus you have proved the main point of anti-islam movement....Islam spreads hatred & yes even stupidity
Correction: My first posting here referred to the article about the Chicago lawyer who likened HAMAS to Martin Luther King and ONLY this lawyer.
I intended to imply that THIS lawyer sounded to me like he was on crack. (Whatever the heck his problem is, he is clearly looney tunes!). I was NOT referring to our excellent Mr. Spencer who I have the kindest regards for.
When I cut to this comment column I hadn't realized I was in the wrong section.
Apologies to all who read my first post here--there could be misunderstanding as to who I was talking about.
Sincere apologies again.
P.
This guy sounds like he is on crack or is trying his hand at taqiyya.
Either way he and his big mouth are to be strenuously avoided.
Isabellathecrusader-
Thank you, dear.
pythagoras-
Thanks for the response. Unless I am missing something, the muslims you refer to are "fundamentalists" in that they follow line and verse of the Koran and everything an imam might say. Here, where muslims are pretty well assimilated, not like Europe, I don't see large populations of these fundamentalist radicals forming, though the danger of moderates being radicalized certainly bothers me, and that's where I believe the education comes in. The anti-jihad cause needs volumes of PR and awareness to fight the PC crowd and the likes of CAIR. Where I agree with your 'the world does not and never has revolved around a unanimously approved of "good" ethic whereby the sanctity of human life is upheld', I see the majority of the muslims immigrants here embracing what we offer. I was at a stoplight in Brooklyn the other day and watched a Hasidic Jew cross the street steps ahead of a muslim (in their garb, so I guess a muslim) and looked at that as a symbol of what our great country is composed of. Do you really think that the great majority of muslims here believe in killing the unbelievers?
JBarsimson, islam as it now stands needs to be reformed or destroyed. those reformers within islam are far and few inbetween, and the smart muslims just leave islam, as life can be very short as an islamic reformer.
Mother makes some good points in this thread.
Frankly, the entire "race card" issue holds no water with me at all -- not since the OJ trial.
And like most "white people" in the United States (and I do take offense to being codified as something so vague when I have a very rich heritage), none of my own ancestors were slave holders during the entire lifespan of the USA, and probably never before that. To the contrary: like most Australians in fact, with a tip of the hat to Mother Ecclesiastica, those of us "white folk" that happen to be of Irish and/or Italian heritage, were running from oppression, rape, brutality, taxation and starvation and indentured servitude which was practically as bad as slavery itself, when they got off the boats in New York harbor.
The murdering, raping and robbing were equal to the same done to any other peoples, black or otherwise. The Irish (of which the predominance of Australia are descended from, if I'm not entire ly mistaken) knew this too well. And it was also mainly "white folk" that got drawn straight off the boats and into the American Civil War -- to fight (and most likely die) on both sides.
Nope -- the whole "race card" strategy is a load of crap, and all of us would be most wise to laugh at purveyors of it and the lawyers that intend to manifest that lie for the propagandists from CAIR and other Islamic groups, American or otherwise. It's a damn disgrace when so many Americans, the vast majority as far as I can tell, try to get along, their are still bastards like Jesse Jackson out there spreading lies in order to fill their own coffers and their beds.
Don't be fooled.
their = there -- hate when I do that.
Robert Spencer - you have the patience of a saint.
I've spent some time learning about the Koran and also Mr Spencer's point of view.
This interview revealed a disturbing ignorance of Spencer's point. It was also troubling to recognize that at the end - they still did not get it.
This began to fill me with panic - to understand that the majority of people have no clue! What panicked me most was to know that even another terrorist attack would not even change minds, but would not even inspire curiosity and investigation.
America is immoral ? I think we're too moral for Islam. No, if I were President, and a bunch of immoral idiots crashed into the Towers for the sake of a so called, "Allah", I would've returned the favor a hundred-fold, by dropping a 350mega ton A-Bomb !
I'm still sure, we're eventually going to have too !
Do you really think that the great majority of muslims here believe in killing the unbelievers?
I'd estimate that about, oh, about 99% of Moslems 14 yrs or older do. Otherwise they're apostates, cuz that's what the Koran and Sunnah command them to exactly that. And good Moslems are pressured by their ideology to saw off the apostate's head with a knife.
The remaining 1% would be mental their retards.
2:216 * 4:74 * 9:111 * 8:12 * 4:96 * 56:22 * 38:51 * 55:56 * 55:76 * 56:22 * 8:74 * 9:2 *
With every new Moslem in this country, we become a little bit less free, and our revered Constitution a little smaller.
This chap Dinesh D'souza sounds like he is from India. Specifically from Goa or thereabouts. Had he been a Hindu, there is a better chance that he would have known that jihad is on for a long, long time, and is not the result of the so-called "American immorality".
Posted by: arjun.sevak
Not that Americans don't have the right to be "immoral" in their own land if they so choose.. Even though Mr. D'Souza is *wrong* in his reasoning.. even IF the MoFoes were to rationalize our "immorality" as their reason to attack us... they'd still be in the wrong.
Second.. I, like the poster above, wouldn't mind visiting some "immoral retribution" on these MoFoes.
Fighting them with noble restraint is useless and only serves to cost our Men's lives.
The MoFoes must be taught that we value OUR lives vastly higher than theirs. Let that be reflected in the body counts.
I held my nose and listened to another hour of right wing spinmeisters radio, because they had Spencer on. It wasn't so bad, though a few moments were a bit hard to sit through.
Excellent interview Robert; articulate and informative, as usual. I appreciate your response to the attempt to pin you down on the political spectrum...I hope your interviewers "got it", and I hope many of your fans "get it": unless the left, right, center and dingbats like me with no particular political affiliation realise that this issue transcends political provincialism, and is more important than whose socioeconomic ideology is represented in office, we're in trouble.
This is a matter of survival for the west, and must not be dove-tailed into someone's political agenda. Bravo! Though you made many good points, sidestepping this attempt to bring you onside was my favourite part of the show.
To the one other question for which you didn't offer an answer I thought the one host (sorry, I didn't keep track of who was who on the show) actually had an insightful answer: Why doesn't the "social libertarian" demographic "get it" with the threat of Islamism? Because for them the reaction against the "Christian right" is far more important and overwhelms all other issues. Supporting the "slow jihad" in the name of human rights and tolerance is seen as a good way of sticking it to the right, or to the babbling Christian fundamentalists.
Hopefully those of the political far right, and a few babbling Christian fundamentalists, who hope to pull the plug on jihad, will take this to heart.
This also explains the reluctance of the social engineers on the left, who should see Islamism as a threat to all they've tried to build over the last 80 years (but don't). As with political schisms, our social, religious and ideological schisms in the west can be our downfall. United we stand ... etc.
So, everyone (who hates liberals on this site), go hug a liberal, sit down with them over some darjeeling or else a beer (if they're union) and do some straight talk about common values and the Islamist threat. Don't expect a fast capitulation; there are layers of disinformation to peel away. And forget about political/economic/theological squabbles in this context; these you'll always have and that fight is for another day. (If you happen to hate conservatives, change the labels above appropriately. Do me a favour though -- don't sing Kumbaya, it's been overdone.)
Hey if I can listen to an hour of libertarian conservative radio, you can pull it off, and besides ... it's your patriotic duty.
"It's time to knock it off with this silly self hate crap."
Would that it were that easy.
It would be easier to "knock it off" with the generally accepted sentiment now that tobacco is bad for you and go back to the days when men and women smoked everywhere with cavalier and dapper insouciance & pleasure -- in the living room, the bedroom, the nightclubs, the greasy diner, the subway, on buses, in cabs, anywhere you please on the sidewalk, on TV shows, on stage with a martini also in hand (tip of the hat to Dean Martin), on the job, in Congressional hearings, in the Oval Office (FDR with stylish cigarette holder gripped like The Penguin by his teeth); etc.
Imagine the change in society that would be necessary to go back to those good old days: process how difficult that would be for our society to do that. Now imagine a change ten times, a hundred times more formidable: that's how difficult it would be to steer the U.S.S. PC Multiculturalism around in its ponderous course onward to Progress.
Mother Ecclesiastica:
Another thing that I thought of during Robert's interview was that Cair, like Jesse Jackson etc, are successfull shakedown artists because of another difference between US and Australia/British law: That if someone (like Cair) takes a business to court and loses, the business still has to pay for its own court costs. In the British/Australian system the loser pays for both.
Maybe there are pros and cons to both systems, but for putting a stop to such shakedown artistry, the British system is better.
Archimedes2, it is ironic that you are throwing around political epithets left, right and centre, and all the while avowing your a-political nature. Especially ironic considering that what you call "right wing spinmeisters" openly call themselves Libertarian.
Robert has very valid reasons - which he explained - for refraining from getting into political labelling. Why can't you follow his example?
ZenaWarriorPrincess-
"islam as it now stands needs to be reformed or destroyed" is my point.
Mother Ecclesiastica-
You are correct that we all speak for ourselves. My mistake was assuming "us" was collectively all of the anti-jihad people and that "we" had the same opinion. My opinion may be different than all of the commenters here and I will refrain from referring to "us". As far as doubting me, I don't know what you mean.
DebV-
As I may have posted before, last year I read "While Europe Slept" and was of the same opinion as you, and yes, continued immigration does make me concerned. The more I thought about it, I changed my opinion somewhat. I think we will never remove all of the muslims from America and the world, so why even focus on that point. I very much agree with the strategy proposed by John Lewis in his “No Substitute for Victory” article, linked through this and other websites, see http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp if you are interested. Note that Japan and the Japanese people still exist.
Robert
I just got off listening to this presentation. This is by far your best ever and most comprehensive radio appearance to date. Your hosts were great - covering all the ground that they did, and addressing not just the terrorism and the war in Iraq aspects, but also related issues, such as the demographic Jihad in Europe, the Minneapolis Somali cabdrivers, CAIR, Keith Ellison's swearing in, the principle of Abrogation, et al. Maybe Dinesh did us all a service by not surfacing - chicken zuccini that he is.
As a Right wing Libertarian myself (I too believe in ideology being on a back burner, but don't mind stating what I am), I was glad to see this addressed there - I've of late been losing hope in the Libertarians, given that so many of them, as Eric pointed out, seem to be in the anti-war camp. What's worse, is that given that they are generally for open borders, their success in the GOP, to the extent it occurs, would risk seeing even the Rio Grande disappear. I was therefore glad to hear Dondero state that he supports banning Islamic immigration, as well as supporting the war. His suggestion to move all troops into Kurdistan wasn't outrageous, although unless it makes a point of annexing Kurdish enclaves in Iran and Syria, it would be worthless. However, I'm glad to see that there are some Libertarians who are practical and aware about what the implications of Shariah would be.
I look forward to you re-appearing on that show, if only to debate Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza is a close associate of Bill Bennett - has the latter ever had you on his show lately?
Only criticism - I thought that the segway into McVeigh's Mid-Eastern links was a distraction, and more likely to convince others that these guys are into conspiracy theories.
Robert -
ESPECIALLY due to the unpredictable nature of that forum ...
(NICELY done)
Ayatollah Khomeini:
A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he
should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and
damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her
life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives.
The man will not be eligible to marry the girls sister.
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom,
Iran, 1990
Book Title Page/ Cover
Inside Cover of Book
Excerpt: Page [1] | Page [2]
[Mohammad (founder of Islam) The Pedophile]
Thx, Patriot.
6:70 10:4 14:16; 22:19; 37:67; 40:72; 44:46; 47:15 55:44 56:42 56:54 56:93 78:25 88:5
Only criticism - I thought that the segway into McVeigh's Mid-Eastern links was a distraction, and more likely to convince others that these guys are into conspiracy theories.
To me, these "others" need to think. Conspiracies do exist; that's why the feds have felony statutes to prosecute for criminal conspiracies.
The term conspiracy theory has become a dismissive that carries a nearly 100% dismissal rate. It seems to have been born just after the Warren Commission Report; how ironic is that?
That the FBI conspired to terminate any investigation of the Jihad war terror link to Murrah cannot be denied. It's plain fact.
Why? Perhaps visions of 1973 and the price of oil. Or maybe an exagerrated fear of how American's would react to this nation's most preferred type of legal immigrant. We seemed to behave pretty well after our 2nd and 3rd Murrahs, those being the Towers and the Pentagon.
Here's a conspiracy theory: Our permanent government, which apprarently by rule must always be under the management of a Yale alumnus, conspires against our JudeoChristian values and wants to replace those with a Bennetton quilt, for better or for worse.
I am not saying this to provoke argument, but when you say things like "Islam must be destroyed", it hurts all of us looking to, as Robert puts it, raise awareness, to the jihadist agenda, because it hurts credibility.
Islam sez that our way of life (free speeech, sex equality of the sexes, laws against kiddie sex, no slavery, etc.) must be destroyed.
So, if we can't speak openly and they can, who's gonna win the argument? If one side can punch and the other side can't even duck, who's gonna win the fist fight?
For the answer, turn on CNN or NBC and take a gander at the score card.
I have been told that the trouble is with america is that Americans only think the problem with Islam is only in the Middle East...
I have been told that the American news doesnt tell its people of the non-stop Muslim violence in most countries,, some worse than others.. And like Mohammad did, where their numbers are yet small, their hatred for us is kept fairly under raps, once their numbers rise to become a force they become a force, just as the Quran orders them to do...
It is about time that Americans got on the net and read up what is going on out there.. your media is left and only tells half a story or twists what it has to suit what they want...
Alarmed Pig Farmer -
regarding sharia and the issue of sexual contact with infants . . .
MEMRI.org provides a link to a televised interview in which a Bahraini Women's Rights activist, Ghada Jamshir tenaciously challenges the Sharia permitting such activity.
As a matter of fact, this excellent music video by Stuck MoJo called OPEN SEASON uses that very segment in the music video remix (thanks to Stop CAIR) very effectively.
Thx, hero.
Looks like the Moslem journalist who interviewed the Bahraini women's rights activist Ghada Jamshir can't stomach his own ideology (read the last line):
Ghada Jamshir: Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari'a authorize mut'ah according to the following classification: "Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs." They have: "Pleasure from sexual touching." "pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts." "Pleasure from a little girl." Do you know what "pleasure from a little girl" means? It means that they derive sexual pleasure from a girl aged two, three, or four.
Interviewer: Let's not go into details...
That's what Islam, and Islam's supporters in the West's media and academies are all about: not going into details. Esposito, O'Reilly, Armstrong, Russert, Sulzberger... these and thousand more are all too eager to not go into details.
That the FBI conspired to terminate any investigation of the Jihad war terror link to Murrah cannot be denied. It's plain fact.
It is not "plain fact" that the FBI conspired to terminate any investigation of the Jihad war terror link to Murrah. The fact in this context is only that the FBI did not pursue that lead. Your word "conspired" adds your interpretation of the motives of the FBI, for which we have no information.
t is not "plain fact" that the FBI conspired to terminate any investigation of the Jihad war terror link to Murrah. The fact in this context is only that the FBI did not pursue that lead. Your word "conspired" adds your interpretation of the motives of the FBI, for which we have no information..
I don't give a rat's ass what their motives were. And, I know it's hip to be cool and to sniff at "conspiracy theories" but sometimes responsibility trumps hipness, and that darned reality thing must be put to consideration, however unpopular.
Plainly and factually.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *33:21 *
The FBI had several credible witnesses, including an OK City Councilman and staff, who saw a Middle Eastern man flee with McVeigh. Plain fact that the FBI does not deny.
The FBI mandated that all OK law enforcement seek a pickup truck of a certain description with at least one man of Middle Eastern descent in it, and then suddenly rescinded that order many hours later. Plain fact that the FBI does not deny.
McVeigh was known by many credible to have been consorting with an Arab Moslem who had been placed under suspcision for his apparent ties with the PLO. Plain fact that the FBI does not deny.
Credible witnesses have sworn that the slumlord, Anwar Abdul, brought in several Iraqui Army veterans of Operation Desert Storm, who did little or no apparent work at Abdul's, and who disappeared after the successful terror attack on Murrah. Plain fact that the FBI does not deny.
An associate of Abdul, one Abraham al-Hussaini, was identified by witnesses as John Doe 2, the Middle Eastern man seen in the pickup, fled the country after the terror bombing. His likeness was broadcast on nat'l TV, many witnesses came forth and identified him as John Doe 2. Over the course of a few days, al-Hussaini had not returned to his aprtment. He left for Jordan to tend to a "family emergency" and was detained in O'Hare Airport, and released. He was then detained by British Police in Heathrow, where they found wiring, a soldering iron, and other equipment that could be used to trigger a chemical bomb. Upon contacting the FBI and CIA, who declined to have him detained and returned to American soil, al-Hussaini was released a second time that day. Plain fact that neither the FBI nor the British Police deny.
I could go on for several dozen paragraphs, but to what effect? You can lead a horse to water, but...
Given that the FBI has never explained any of these, it would be unreasonable not to infer a conspiracy on their part. Hell, high up government agencies quash stuff all the time. We know this from thousands of examples.
Ironically, it's the FBI who prosecutes people for conspiracies (RICO, etc.), so we know that conspiracies do indeed exist.
For example, here in Jihadwatch we read about conspiracies on an almost daily basis. Conspiracies put together my Moslems. Moslems just like Anwar Abdul, Abraham al-Hussaini, and those six Iraqui soliders within 2 miles of Murrah, who the FBI is forced to acknowledge because of its own actions about them (aborted) and all the credible witnesses attesting to them (thwarted).
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *33:21 *
http://www.askshow.com/blog.php?id=93
Bravo, Bravo Bravo Robert this is a must listen for everyone.
Alarmed Pig Farmer, I agree that the FBI were (and continue to be) tragically remiss in ignoring the tangled web of leads amassed by Jayna Davis. But we simply don't know why.
And secondly, the blame for this shameful dismissiveness of Jayna Davis cannot all be laid on the shoulders of the FBI, but also President Clinton and even more so, President Bush, because as the years go along, it becomes less excusable to ignore the investigative labors of Ms. Davis.
I thought the interview was quite good (with the possible exception of the Oklahoma City bombing and the alleged Iraq connection).
Just a few other points, though. First, about the Bavarian corporal and the religion of Christianity, I came across an analysis of one of the corporal's speeches -- the author of the speech analysis attempted to explain why Germans were so enamoured with said Dictator and it was that the corporal used (frequently) biblical references (whilst pounding the podium -- "blot und b?" -- alliterative linkages) and sounded just like a Lutheran minister -- something all Germans could relate to. Anyway, it was this rhetorical flare (loosely biblically based, along with said Dictator calling himself a prophet, etc., which captivated audiences.) Also, I've heard it said (this from CNN arabic translators that they're all really, really impressed with the rhetorical skill of Osama -- it's his uncanny ability to reference the koran -- according to the jihadists, it's "inspiring." I think this rhetorical flare of these hate-mongers (with the ability to link with a religion -- whether Lutheran or Islam -- is interesting.
Another quibble, Robert -- when noting that you did not wish to pin yourself to any one side of the political spectrum, and stressed instead the need for comprehensive inclusiveness -- did you mean to include the ultra-right? (you didn't explicitly exclude them).
Also, to JBarnsimson who wrote: "Virgil Goode, though I agree with most of what he said, did a disservice to all of us by saying something like all muslim immigration should be stopped." Please attend to what Virgil Goode actually said (not what someone says on, say, CNN or the BBC). Virgil Goode said that he wanted to stop all illegal immigration. That's ALL ILLEGAL immigration should be stopped.
I don't think it's people like Virgil Goode or Spencer or Pipes or any other mainstream conservative which "does a disservice to us all" -- rather, it's ultra-right wing supporters, such as that in the UK (the neo-nazis) of the BNP, the Le Pen's of France. They're mostly in Europe and they support fascism -- little brown shirts. They are the ones who cause problems.